Paul McCartney declares The Beatles are better than the Rolling Stones but says they 'admire each other'

By KEVIN KAYHART

 

Who do you got? Paul McCartney confessed he thinks The Beatles are a better band than the Rolling Stones during an interview on SiriusXM’s The Howard Stern Show on Tuesday

 

It has long been debated amongst rock 'n' roll fans since the 1960s: Who's the better band, The Beatles or the Rolling Stones?

 

Well Howard Stern broached the question once again, to none other than one-quarter of The Beatles, Paul McCartney, during SiriusXM’s The Howard Stern Show on Tuesday.

 

Stern let it be known he thought The Beatles are the better band, which prompted the legendary band's vocalist and bassist to laugh and add: 'You know Howard, you know you're going to persuade me to agree with that one.'

 

'I've always said it,' McCartney, 77, continued before heaping praise on the Start Me Up rockers.

 

Full Story: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-8220151/Paul-McCartney-declares-Beatles-better-Rolling-Stones-says-admire-other.html

Agreed; case closed !

Is this news?

Reading the full text conveys a very different picture of what PM said compared to the harshly worded headline. He's right though.

How childish.

Is he that desperate for publicity?

Nope

11 minutes ago, CMHomeboy78 said:

How childish.

Is he that desperate for publicity?

Have you read the article? It's obviously tongue in cheek......and he is one of the few people on the planet that doesn't need to promote himself.

The Beatles are first - and daylight is second - by a long way.  

If its Rock n roll, Stones win hands down.

 

But I'd agree that that the Beatles weren't that bad, a little tame perhaps and were the pioneers of 'Pop".

 

 

58 minutes ago, JetsetBkk said:

Is this news?

Well, at least its not Covid related, so I'd say yes.....

Stones by a mile!!!

My great great Grandad had some of their records, I think I heard them once on the radiogram or wireless

6 minutes ago, sungod said:

If its Rock n roll, Stones win hands down.

 

But I'd agree that that the Beatles weren't that bad, a little tame perhaps and were the pioneers of 'Pop".

 

 

For anybody old enough to remember, the Beatles personified the Mods, the Stones did a good imitation of the Rockers.

The Mods rode scooters, the Rockers rode Triumphs, BSAs, and Harleys.

Different strokes for different folks.

The greatest compliment is imitation. The Beatles songs have been covered by so many different artists, their music has transcended genres, even into classical interpretations. And their wonderful harmonies reverberate down through the ages, long after they ceased to exist as a band.

 

The Stones, or whats left of them, are still around and are still banging out the same old stuff and it's great. But the Stones were basically Mick Jagger with a reasonably good backing group. The Beatles were four very talented musicians with great harmony.

 

It was best summed up in the article itself by Paul.

 

'Keith [Richards] once said to me man you were lucky, you had four singers in your band. And he said we got one. So, there's a lot of differences.'

 

Amen to that.

 

Edited April 15, 20206 yr by Moonlover

1 hour ago, CMHomeboy78 said:

For anybody old enough to remember, the Beatles personified the Mods, the Stones did a good imitation of the Rockers.

The Mods rode scooters, the Rockers rode Triumphs, BSAs, and Harleys.

Different strokes for different folks.

Spot on.

That's the way it was when they first got started.

The idea that one group was "better" than the other is, as you say, childish.

They were different to begin with and continued to have their own distinctive style.

All better than what is "produced" today.

Neither as good as the Who.

9 minutes ago, Phuketshrew said:

Neither as good as the Who.

But surely that is purely subjective, Pete Townsend hits = 16

Paul McCartny = 119

Pete Townsend worth = £120 million.  Paul McCartney = 1.2 billion.

The Who were good, but in a different league to the Beatles, look at the evidence.

Beatles more creative with a willingness to experiment ..

Stones edgier and a better live act fronted by the incomparable Jagger .. 

Both have pressed countless unforgettable singles and truly classic albums and both are household names but by a short head it's the Stones for me .. 

Personally I like both.

I will listen to either dependent on my mood.

Paul or Mick? Paul looks like an old guy. ???? 

 

1 hour ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Paul or Mick? Paul looks like an old guy. ???? 

 

A more accurate photo:https://images.app.goo.gl/AVfWNJFfJXU1BiwA6

 

I envy their hair.

 

(Child of the 60's)

The 'us' v 'them' lark was manufactured by record labels years ago. Mick Jagger was a friend of John Lennon's and was a regular visitor to his NY apartment, & IIRC the stones appeared in the Beatles live performance of 'All you need is Love' that was televised worldwide via satellite link in or around 1967-8.

5 hours ago, CMHomeboy78 said:

How childish.

Is he that desperate for publicity?

Read the article, don't react to clickbait headlines.

4 hours ago, CMHomeboy78 said:

For anybody old enough to remember, the Beatles personified the Mods, the Stones did a good imitation of the Rockers.

The Mods rode scooters, the Rockers rode Triumphs, BSAs, and Harleys.

Different strokes for different folks.

Quite wrong. Neither the Beatles nor the Stones represented the mods or the rockers. They were both far above any such connections.

2 hours ago, Phuketshrew said:

Neither as good as the Who.

Live, yes. On record, nowhere near as good.

2 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

Personally I like both.

I will listen to either dependent on my mood.

Exactly. 

" 'Keith [Richards] once said to me man you were lucky, you had four singers in your band. And he said we got one.' "

 

Ringo? A singer? ????

 

 

I saw that recently, enjoy!

 

 

11 hours ago, CMHomeboy78 said:

For anybody old enough to remember, the Beatles personified the Mods, the Stones did a good imitation of the Rockers.

The Mods rode scooters, the Rockers rode Triumphs, BSAs, and Harleys.

Different strokes for different folks.

 

6 hours ago, sprq said:

Quite wrong. Neither the Beatles nor the Stones represented the mods or the rockers. They were both far above any such connections.

 

Yes, quite wrong!

 

To call the Beatles mods is hilarious. Nothing about them was remotely mod.