Stone me, Macca. That’s too much
I was quite surprised to read an interview with Paul McCartney in which he described the Rolling Stones as a “blues cover band”. Throwing that kind of shade does seem a bit out of character for the Beatles frontman, doesn’t it?
When asked about the other most popular bands of his era, the 79-year-old told The New Yorker magazine that the Beatles back catalogue had a broader range compared to that of bands such as the Stones.
He said: “I’m not sure I should say it, but they’re a blues cover band, that’s sort of what the Stones are. I think our net was cast a bit wider than theirs.”
It’s not the first time the rocker has stirred up a bit of rivalry, but what interested me was the measured response from Mick Jagger, who always seems to take a very measured approach to criticism. After McCartney previously said The Beatles were better than the Rolling Stones, Jagger simply said, “There’s obviously no competition” and went on to outline why the two bands can’t really be compared. Not only did Jagger and co really take off in the 70s when electric sound systems made touring easier, but they have continued to travel the world, which The Beatles stopped doing in the late ‘60s.
The spat between music fans about who is better reminds me of the constant debate in the tennis world as to who is the “GOAT” – greatest of all time. It really is impossible to compare across eras because the world has changed so much. Why not just support and highlight the clear successes of everyone involved, rather than trying to label someone as “better” or “superior”?
They are different bands, with different sounds and different audiences – but
both still icons in their own right.