Sir Paul McCartney called the Rolling Stones a “blues cover band”.
The Beatles legend has made no secret of the fact that he thinks the ‘Let it Be’ hitmakers were better than the ‘Honky Tonk Women’ group, and he has now insisted they have more range than the blues-oriented band.
In an interview with The New Yorker, he said, “I’m not sure I should say this, but they’re a blues cover band, that’s kind of what the Stones are.
“I think our net was cast a bit wider than theirs.”
Macca, 79, previously insisted he was a big fan of the ‘Paint it Black’ rockers, but still thought his own band was better.
He said: “The Stones are a fantastic band, I go see them every time they come out because they’re a great band and Mick can really do it, the vocals and the moves and everything, Keith, Ronnie and Charlie, they’re awesome, I love them. Their stuff is rooted in the blues, when they write stuff it’s blues-related, so we had a little more influence. Keith once said: ” You’re lucky, you have four singers in your band, we have one. “I love the Stones but I’m with you, the Beatles were better.”
And Stones frontman Sir Mick Jagger, 78, later responded to comments from his peers and stressed his band were still ‘lucky’ to perform in stadiums – unlike the Beatles, who disbanded in 1970.
Jagger said: “There is obviously no competition. There [Paul] is a lover. I am a politician. The big difference, however, is that the Rolling Stones are a great concert band in other decades and other areas whereas the Beatles never even toured an arena. They broke up before the touring business started for real. The Beatles did this [Shea] concert at the stadium in 1965.
“But the Stones kept going. We started playing stadiums in the 1970s and we still do them today. That’s the real big difference between those two bands. Fortunately, one band still plays in stadiums and the other does not exist.”