Paul McCartney: The Rolling Stones are little more than ‘a blues cover band’

Paul McCartney

Paul McCartney has a lengthy interview with The New Yorker – you can read the piece here. I went into it looking for good quotes to excerpt, but it’s not a straight interview like that. It’s about The Beatles and their last acts as a band, there’s new information about the hundreds of hours of footage they have of the Beatles working on what would eventually be the Let It Be album (their final album). Let It Be is being reissued, that’s why we’re getting this. There are comments from Ringo Starr, and old (sad) comments from the late George Harrison and John Lennon. If you’re a Beatles fan or a McCartney fan, it’s a very enjoyable read. Here’s a section which is getting a lot of attention this week:

Even classical mavens were impressed. Leonard Bernstein went on television to analyze the structure of “Good Day Sunshine.” Ned Rorem, writing in The New York Review of Books, compared a “minute harmonic shift” in “Here, There and Everywhere” to Monteverdi’s madrigal “A un giro sol,” and a deft key change in “Michelle” to a moment in Poulenc.

McCartney waves away such high-flown talk, but he isn’t above suggesting that the Beatles worked from a broader range of musical languages than their peers—not least the Rolling Stones. “I’m not sure I should say it, but they’re a blues cover band, that’s sort of what the Stones are,” he told me. “I think our net was cast a bit wider than theirs.”

[From The New Yorker]

Still competitive after all these years, isn’t he? I mean, I enjoy it. But then I’m a fan of both bands. I would say that the Rolling Stones were always more of a blues/rock band, and their sound was much more consistent, which is a good thing and a bad thing. The Beatles took more chances, musically, and they were the zeitgeist. Whereas the Stones were and are just a great band. The Stones’ catalog is nothing to be sniffed at either, and give credit where it’s due, the Stones figured out a way to still be a band (a touring band at that) for what? More than fifty years!

The Rolling Stones performing at The  Principality Stadium, Cardiff, Wales on 15th June 2018.  Ronnie Wood - guitar; Mick Jagger - vocals; Charlie Watts - drums; Keith Richards - guitar.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

Related stories

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

210 Responses to “Paul McCartney: The Rolling Stones are little more than ‘a blues cover band’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. paranormalgirl says:

    I always feel so alone in not caring for the Beatles.

    • DC Gal says:

      You aren’t alone, I just said the same thing down thread. They are wholesome and kind of annoying, and the more they are praised, the more I doubledown on not really liking them (which isn’t fair, but whatever!)

    • Zapp Brannigan says:

      I think the Beatles are very overrated. I know someone who loves them and raves about how great they are and I always have to grin and bare it, as he couldn’t cope with the idea of someone not liking their music and would try to argue me into agreeing they are great. Reader they are not great.

      • Wiglet Watcher says:

        Here’s why they’re not overrated…
        The range of genres. They have vast differences in sounds. Even if you don’t like the style of song it does have structure and was original.
        They are all talented musicians they really don’t get recognition for that outside of Beatles fame. George Harrison is still regarded as one of the best guitarists of all time.
        The lyrics of course too.

        To say the Beatles are overrated is to only consider this or that song with headlines and reviews. Which is skin deep.

        I’m not a Fan of their songs, but they are above and beyond for many musicians or people that have studied music.

      • Zapp Brannigan says:

        That is a cracking impersonation of my friend, well done.

      • TeamAwesome says:

        Speaking as a music professor, there is someone to think every creator of any kind of music is overrated, including Bach. You can separate craft from your appreciation of that craft, but only if you want to. I will also say that the Beatles owe a lot to George Martin, but what they handed him to work with was pretty great on it’s own.

      • H says:

        Some of the Beatles stuff is great (The White Album). Some of it bloody brilliant, Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band, and some of it just not so amazing.

        Same can be said for The Rolling Stones, The Doors, and Led Zeppelin. You don’t have to be a Beatles fan to appreciate that musically they jumped ahead how music was made in the 60s.

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      You’re not, I like some of their early stuff but prefer the Stones.

    • Becks1 says:

      I like some of the Beatles’ songs better than others, I have never listened to a whole Beatles album though -and overall I think they’re overrated ,but I don’t like to tell people that because they just assume I’m stupid and don’t know what I’m talking about because “if you ‘get’ music, you would understand why the Beatles are the greatest ever.” (I’ve had people say that to me.)

      I just think the Stones have a different energy and vibe and its very hard to compare. I’d rather listen to Sympathy for the Devil than almost any Beatles song any day of the week.

      • BeanieBean says:

        Gotta say, I’m feeling kinda out of sorts right now, with all these ‘I never liked the Beatles’ comments. Having said that, what do I choose to go back to & listen to again and again? My Sticky Fingers, Let it Bleed, Goats Head Soup albums. Still love the Beatles, they’re part of my childhood & my memories, but I listen to the Stones more.

      • Jane says:

        Ditto!!

    • BayTampaBay says:

      @paranormalgirl – I never “got” them either but I am too young to remember the Beatles at their height. When I think of the Beatles, I think of Paul McCartney & Wings and George Harrison & The Traveling Wilburys.

      I am a Rolling Stone fan all the way for all time.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Bay the funny thing is that my mom was around for the beatles at their height, maybe a smidge young – she was a teenager in the 60s – and she LOVED the beatles at the time but can’t really stand them now. She says its b/c she’s been listening to the same songs for 60 years and she’s so tired of them, lol. She also hates Mamas and the Papas for the same reason.

        but she still likes the Stones and the Doors and Cream.

    • Driver8 says:

      Always been a Stones and Who girl myself. Beatles, eh.

      • BeanieBean says:

        Currently on a Kinks kick. I go through phases where I listen to nothing but the Stones, then nothing but The Who, now it’s the Kinks. For some reason, I don’t go back to my Beatles albums, although I have every album they released, collectively & individually. I was one of those millions watching Ed Sullivan when the Beatles first played in the States.

    • Finny says:

      Not alone. I never liked them. Never understood the cult and craze about them the same with the obsession with any artists or performers. I always got/get shocked looks when I say that they are not my cup of tea. Great if you are a fan, but I’m not. So what. It’s not the end of the world.

    • Thirtynine says:

      No, I could never see the attraction either. Not musically nor in terms of charisma or appeal. I didn’t mind some of George Harrison’s solo work, but both Lennon and McCartney leave me cold. But I love the Stones.

      • BeanieBean says:

        Oh, but they were so cute! So cute on the Ed Sullivan Show! Those haircuts, those matching skinny suits! Those ‘Beatle boots’! Those smiles! Even George smiled!

      • paranormalgirl says:

        I love George Harrison. “All Things Must Pass” is brilliant. Genius.

      • terra says:

        @paranormalgirl: Scrolled through, looking for this! All Things Must Pass is one of my favorite records of all-time . . . and I couldn’t care less about “The Beatles.”

    • Case says:

      I think the Beatles are treated as they are because of how highly influential they were/are. To me it’s not so much about their individual songs as it is their overall contribution to the musical landscape. I definitely understand people liking the sound/entertainment level/energy of the Stones over the Beatles, but I think the Stones had less of an impact on the music sphere overall. In terms of songwriting and fan culture, the Beatles totally changed the game.

      • Laura-Lee says:

        I agree completely. They changed the game, set a new standard, and explored sonically. But honestly? If there’s a competing night of cover bands for Beatles or Stones? I’m going to the Stones cover band. More fun!

      • paranormalgirl says:

        Oh, I agree with their immense contribution to music. I just don’t care for most of their catalog. It’s not my taste. I go for stuff like the Stones, the Who, the Kinks, early punk, staff now like the Afghan Whigs and Mark Lanegan. And yes, many many bands I like have gotten inspiration from the Beatles (hell, some of my faves including my friend Greg Dulli were in the Backbeat Band) and that’s great. Other than a few songs, I wouldn’t choose to attend a Beatles listening party, though.

    • Chaine says:

      Same, it’s just “oldies” music to me? They were basically the In Sync of their day, it’s like if fifty years from now Justin Timberlake claims to be some musical pioneer and better than Backstreet Boys. Anyway, both the Beatles and the Stones covered and ripped off and “gentrified” from early black rocknroll and r&b so I’m not sure why Paul thinks there’s any difference between them on that count, other than that the Stones are still selling out stadiums while he’s sitting on his self-erected throne pontificating.

      • Emma says:

        Exactly, the Beatles ripped off Black American music and repackaged it as cheesy white boys for the masses.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        Led Zepplin also ripped off Black American musicians and sold it to white audiences. I think all 3 bands are guilty of the same thing.

      • Beach Dreams says:

        Thank you. I rolled my eyes reading that quote, because the Beatles and every other white act back then cheerfully copied black musicians and acted like they were the innovators.

      • BeanieBean says:

        Oh, Emma, that’s the Stones, too! African-American Blues is what the Stones ‘borrowed’ from.

      • stagaroni says:

        The Beatles were the “In Sync” of their day? That’s like comparing apples and horsesh!t.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Emma – Elvis did the same thing as the Beatles. Elvis ripped off Black American music and repackaged it for “white” radio.

        Eric Clapton did the same thing but he admitted it, gave creative credit where it was due and paid money to the Robert Johnson Estate.

      • A says:

        All of them–Elvis, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, and esPECIALLY Led Zeppelin ripped off big time from African American artists and African American music.

        I’d loved Whole Lotta Love by Led Zeppelin for years and years. Then I found out what they’d done is really just make a sh-tty version of Muddy Waters’ You Need Love. What really gets me is that they took that song, and made it WORSE. HOW. It’s such a great song! How do you make it BAD? It takes a special kind of not being great at your craft to accomplish that.

        Another one that comes to mind is The Beatles and You Really Got A Hold On Me, which was written by Smokey Robinson and performed by The Miracles. Granted, I think The Miracles argued that The Beatles did a better job of it, but I honestly don’t see it. I like The Miracles’ version better.

    • HeatherC says:

      I have no skin in this game. I don’t really care for either band or their later forms (such as Wings). But I love the bitchy comments, who doesn’t love an old rivalry played out again? 😈

      • BeanieBean says:

        ;-) Yeah, I need to cut myself off because I’m supposed to be working from home. I cannot believe all the non-Beatle fans on CB! I thought y’all were my people!

    • ThatsNotOkay says:

      Ask Quincy Jones what he thinks of the Beatles. He was there and knew all of them and their music well. (Long story short, he doesn’t think much of them.)

    • SophieJara says:

      I wasn’t sure which way this thread would go, but I feel seen. I never really understood either? My Dad grew up in the 70s, but he *loves* 60s music and the Beatles are his favorite. I’m not like opposed? But I don’t really get it. It’s so sing-songy, it sounds like kids music to me compared to the blues and blues rock I’ve heard from the same era.

      • nina says:

        Thank you. You put your finger right on how their music sounds. Sing-songy is a good term for it. You can’t find a person from later generations who like their music, me included. Their music hurts your ears. Sorry Beatles fans but their music is like cringy to listen to.
        Also Paul McCartney has not been relevant since the Beatles era. At least the geriatric Stones still play to sold out stadiums.

      • Lola says:

        Listen to “Mother” by John Lennon and tell me it’s sing-songy kid’s music… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xGvlbDOmmI

      • BeanieBean says:

        Come Together is not sing-songy. Neither is Helter Skelter. Norwegian Wood. A Day in the Life? Def. not sing-songy. Eh, I could go on. (Why did I come back to this thread? Why do I torture myself?)

      • Anne Call says:

        Rubber Soul is one of the greatest albums ever. Meet the Beatles changed the direction of rock and roll. White Album was a perfect sound track to the tumult of the late 60’s. I think lots of people commenting know the songs from elevator music like renditions and the popularity of some of their “pop” songs. You had to be there to understand what a revolution in music the Beatles ushered in and how much they personified the changing world of the 1960’s. Stones were right behind them and I love them both.

      • A says:

        @BeanieBean, I dunno what your definition of “sing-songy” is, but…literally all of the songs you listed by The Beatles would qualify. Especially Come Together and Norwegian Woods. Imo, they’re the most sing-songy of the lot.

      • Betsy says:

        @nina – oh, nina. You sound like the hippies back in the 1960s – “don’t trust anyone over 30.”

    • Rose says:

      I would feel absolutely indifferent but every time someone admits it there has to be the one stan who flips and has to give us a college lecture on how amazing and innovative they were and why everyone should love the beatles, and that’s what shifts it to full on hatred.

    • Esmerelda says:

      You’re not alone, but yeah, I say it in public and it sounds like heresy.
      I don’t like their singing voices, that’s it for me. And I like my pop music to be easy, and my classical or jazz music to be complex, no fusion needed – but that’s just personal taste.

    • SpankyB says:

      I’ll take the Stones blues over the Beatles top-40-pop any day.

      I will say I love Aerosmith’s cover of Come Together. That’s the best the Beatles will ever be.

      • paranormalgirl says:

        Come Together, Hellter Skelter… those are good songs. There is no getting around it. The few tunes II DO like tends toward their “harder” and “edgier” stuff.

    • Dude says:

      I actively dislike the Beatles, and think PM sounds like a big old jerk

    • Here4tea says:

      I know what you mean. I’ve tried but I just cannot get into the Beatles. I like the Stones’ early output although I know it’s a rip-off of Robert Johnson, Howlin’ Wolf et al. “Let it Bleed”is my most listened-to album on iTunes. Apart from that, I regard The Rolling Stones as an extremely successful corporate entity.

    • BrainFog 💉💉😷 says:

      @paranormal you are so not alone. I care for neither band, and know nobody who does.

    • scotchydeez says:

      You are not alone in not caring, I also love the lack of acknowledgement for the the fact that their early stuff that made them famous was taken from AA blues and soul artists so get out of here with that shade, ha.

    • AlpineWitch says:

      I feel more alone than you as I never liked the Beatles or the Rolling Stones.

    • Another Anna says:

      You’re not alone. The Beatles were a boy band. Now they’re a boy band multiplied by nostalgia.

      Also this is kind a perfect encapsulation. Old white guy competes with another old white guy over who did a better job profiting off of Black musical innovation.

    • Jen says:

      This thread hurts my soul

    • Marie says:

      Of course you wouldn’t. That’s why you like this website!

    • Misskitten says:

      I agree with you 1000%. I find their early stuff to be annoyingly cutesy and their later stuff to be annoyingly silly and their lyrics (almost none of which i find compelling or particularly poetic) aside, i dont like their sound during ANY of their phases. And i couldnt agree more that every time someome claims that the Beatles are the greatest band of all time, i like them a little bit LESS. It doesnt help, knowing what a sawed-off sack of sh$t John Lennon was, between beating his first wife, and standing (or really, singing) by idly while Yoko Ono disrespected the living SH!T out of Chuck Berry (who the Beatles got their start covering) when, Lennon and Berry teamed up to do some of Berrys songs, and John invited Yoko to participate. At one point, for NO apparent reason, Yoko starts shrieking “AYE YAY YAY YAY YAY YAY” at the top of her lungs in the middle of a song. The look on Berrys face….. and John just stood there singing, playing guitar, completely acting like he didnt even see his wife disrespecting this legend. I was ambivalent about Yoko Ono until i saw this video. Afterwards i understood why so many people hated her (at least those who hated her for legitimate reasons). The video is on Youtube, if you havent seen it, you should check it out.
      Id take the Rolling Stones over the Beatles ANY day.

    • Imara219 says:

      You are not alone. The Beetles stole their sound from Black music yet get all the hype. They aren’t better than the people they stole the sound from, they were just the right shade, at the right time and right place.

    • goofpuff says:

      It was during an era where a lot of white musicians stole from black musicians and made it big. Not unlike today with the tiktok dancers.

    • SarahLee says:

      You are not alone. I liked Lennon and Harrison very much. Ringo is Ringo. Paul I have a love hate relationship with. All this rubbed off on my then 12 year old who, when a Beatles song came on the radio, said “All the good Beatles are dead.”

    • Betsy says:

      I like them, but I just like them. I don’t have any special sort of passion for them, nor do I think they’re such amazing musical geniuses.

      That said I think Paul is very funny here. What is this, a 60 year old feud?

    • Seb says:

      You’re not alone. Never got the adoration for the Beatles.

  2. GraceB says:

    Both are legendary, so I find it funny that Paul McCartney still feels the need to be competitive with them. As much as I like the Beatles, I find McCartney to be annoying. Somehow, at least to me, the Rolling Stones can still get up on stage and seem awesome but McCartney not so much. I’m not sure why I feel that way though.

    • Janey says:

      agreed, the man believes his own hype.

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      McCartney has always been up his own ass – he’s also v insecure. One of the reasons i love the Stones is that they just DGAF, they just get up on stage and do their thing.

      • LahdidahBaby says:

        Yes, I think you’re right, Digital Unicorn–and that is exactly why the Stones’ music has outlasted the Beatles’.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        ” that is exactly why the Stones’ music has outlasted the Beatles’.”

        I don’t think there is any evidence for this statement. The Beatles were streamed 1.7 BILLION times in 2019. They are both very successful bands.

    • Eleonor says:

      I am with you on this.
      I like both.
      BUT I find weird, to say the least, that Paul Mc Cartney still acts like he must prove something.

    • Beatlefan says:

      Are you out of your mind? Paul McCartney puts on a three hour show that never takes a break and rocks the sold out stadiums down.
      You all need to get ear cleanings or ct scans. The Beatles are not now, nor have they ever been over hyped or over rated. They are the gold standard.

  3. DC Gal says:

    I would rather listen to the Stones than the Beatles any day of the week. They have a sexy energy that I love and that the Beatles just don’t have. I think the Beatles are way overrated. Unpopular opinion for sure!

    • LaUnicaAngelina says:

      I too think The Beatles are overrated. I like a couple of their songs but it’s hard to grasp how they’re so revered. I love The Rolling Stones! I just love the energy they bring.

    • Lightpurple says:

      Same here. The Stones also seem to project a true love for the music they are playing and for one another. The Beatles were somehow more sterile and colder.

    • LahdidahBaby says:

      Yup, me too, exactly!

    • Wiglet Watcher says:

      Why people prefer Rolling Stones over Beatles is fine. Like how people prefer a fast pace game on their phone to reading a book. And it proves Paul’s point which is already agreed upon by the music industry.
      Rolling Stones are a garage band.
      The energy, the sound, the look. They wrote some great songs, but it was all influenced heavily from blues greats and the scene at the time.

      Is what it is. You don’t have to like Paul or the Beatles, but what he’s saying isn’t wrong.

      • BeanieBean says:

        Yes yes yes, a thousand times yes.

      • Another Anna says:

        But what he’s saying IS wrong. They both stole from Black artists. So if you’re going to knock the Stones for that, then the Beatles have to take that same hit. If the Stones are a blues cover band, the Beatles are a Motown cover band.

        They are both extremely successful bands beloved by their fans and important to musical history, but to talk about the Beatles’ greatness without including the context of how the industry they were in was heavily influenced by racism is a smoothed-out history. John Lennon himself said in 1975 that the Beatles got a lot of their sound from Black musicians. So no, McCartney is not right. He’s spouting PR, not facts.

      • AMA1977 says:

        The Beatles didn’t create their sound from whole cloth, either; as someone said upthread, all music is derivative. The Beatles did not appear in a vacuum and also borrowed HEAVILY from the blues and artists of color. Paul sounds like a whiny little brat here, getting his little digs in on his contemporaries who DGAF what he thinks or says.

        Music is a matter of taste; you can think that someone has “good” musical taste or “bad” musical taste, just like you can think their food is weird or that book is stupid. It’s your opinion; you are neither right nor wrong. We all have them. Some might think that all pop or modern music is a ridiculous waste of time. If you like the Beatles, go on liking them, secure in your superiority over those with different opinions.

  4. ItReallyIsYouNotMe says:

    Vintage snark is the best. Do you remember the footage of McCartney imitating Michael Jackson telling him that MJ was going to buy the rights to The Beatles’ songs (after McCartney had advised MJ as a friend that buying his own song rights was a good investment)? I think if you want a good snarkfest, showing up to Paul McCartney’s house with a couple of bottles of wine 🍷 is the way to go!

    • MissMarirose says:

      I do! He did a pretty good impression of MJ. You could tell, though, that McCartney was still pissed.

      • ItReallyIsYouNotMe says:

        I didn’t blame McCartney for being pissed. Buying your friend’s rights to his own music out from under him….that was so low that I wouldn’t talk to that “friend” anymore either.

    • Nope says:

      Actually that’s not true. MJ didn’t buy Paul’s music ‘out from under him’. ‘Paul and Yoko Ono were given two opportunities to buy the catalogue but Paul refused. That’s when the seller decided to give other buyers a chance. Michael Jackson was the highest bidder, so he got the catalogue. Paul McCartney has been misrepresenting what actually happened with that auction for decades, probably because he figured MJ was an easy target. Predictably everyone took him at his word and demonized MJ for it.

  5. Case says:

    Ew. I personally find the output of the Beatles to be better-written and more timeless than The Rolling Stones (they’re covered endlessly by all different artists for a reason), but they’re also extremely talented. It makes him look so small and insecure to put them down in that way.

  6. MsIam says:

    Is Beatle Paul going all Katie Couric in his latter years? Burn it all down, Paul, lol.

  7. Zut Alors says:

    Ooh Sir Paul woke up and chose violence I see.

    • Meghan says:

      I don’t care for the Beatles or the Stones but even I was like “ooooh shots fired!”

      Yall all got zillions of dollars just let it rest.

  8. Lightpurple says:

    Paul McCartney has always been my least favorite Beatle and he continues to reinforce my view of him.

  9. BW says:

    I feel a rerelease of Let It Be is not necessary. Who is it even for? I love the Beatles and I’m not interested in it.

    I love the Beatles, but I also lived in England in the 1960s and remember when they became famous. They had such a different sound than all the other bands. And they wrote and performed their own music.

    I recommend a couple of documentaries “The Wrecking Crew” (about The Wrecking Crew) and “Muscle Shoals” (about the Swampers). A LOT of the hits being made in the USA in the 1960s and 70s were not by individual bands, but by a couple of sets of session musicians called The Wrecking Crew (in California) and The Swampers (in Alabama). Very famous “bands” are actually one of those two session groups. The Rolling Stones used The Swampers because they wanted the black musicians that made Aretha Franklin famous. The Stones didn’t know until they got to Alabama, that the Swampers were a bunch of old white guys.

    In comparison, the Beatles wrote their own songs, played their own instruments, and invented stadium rock shows because there were too many fans to fit in an auditorium. They’re music is in the past now, so I understand it’s not everyone’s taste, but they were game changers. The Beatles also wrote the Stones first hit.

    • Jaded says:

      The Wrecking Crew and Muscle Shoals Swampers were amazing. Carol Kaye was wayyyy ahead of her time on that team. As far as the Beatles are concerned, their writing was superlative and Lennon/McCartney worked best together. They were game-changers in that they went in new musical directions and broke new production ground (i.e. with George Martin) whereas the Stones mostly appropriated American blues, as did a ton of English bands in those days, then ventured into rock. Their wheelhouse has stayed pretty consistent over the years.

    • Becks1 says:

      So I understand all this and I appreciate the Beatles place in music history has a result, but I still think their actual music is overrated, looking back and comparing to other music from the same decade. I get why the Beatles are significant and I STILL prefer other music to theirs and I think most of their actual music is overrated.

      • BW says:

        To each, her own! It’s great that there are such a large variety of music available at the touch of a button now.

      • Becks1 says:

        @BW – honestly, that is how I feel. I don’t hate the Beatles, I love some of their songs, but overall I prefer the Stones, and then there are other bands that I like more (Fleetwood Mac is my all time favorite lol, even their British blues albums.) I feel the same way about music discussions that I sometimes feel about food discussions lol – do you like it? Then who cares what anyone else thinks. I know some people who are self-described “music people” who make fun of my Apple music playlists or “foodies” who judge my love of Panera and I’m like…..why? I like it and it makes me happy, you do you and I’ll do me, you know?

      • AMA1977 says:

        @Becks1, ugh, I feel that so much. I dated a guy for years who was an erstwhile songwriter and singer/lead guitar in his own band (and who thought he had WAY more talent than he actually did, but try telling that to 20 year-old me…) and he used to denigrate my musical taste all of the time. I remember being brought to tears once over his nasty takedown of Tori Amos (whom I still love, and who has more talent in her pinkie fingernail than he had in his whole rude body) and it made me feel SO stupid.

        One thing (of many!) I love about my husband is that he likes what he likes, and I like what I like, and there is overlap, but he doesn’t ever make me feel weird or bad if I like stuff that he doesn’t. People who act like their opinions are personality traits and/or there is something wrong with you if you don’t like what they do are exhausting.

    • TeamMeg says:

      It’s not just a release of “Let it Be” that Paul is promoting in this New Yorker interview, it’s the new Peter Jackson movie Get Back. Those of us who experienced the Beatles in real time will no doubt be the primary audience for that film. (I can’t wait!) As for the big debate on the band being overrated, well…you may have had to be there. I’m a huge Stones fan, too. But comparing the Beatles to InSync hahaha—no comparison.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      I learned about the Wrecking Crew just recently, and they were so amazing. Carol Kaye is so incredible.

    • Maida says:

      It’s not a re-release of “Let It Be,” it’s a film by Peter Jackson called “Get Back” that uses footage that’s never been seen before. And from the trailer, it looks as if it’s going to be quite different from the take that “Let It Be” gave on the Beatles at that point in time.

      I love the Beatles’ music but I’m also fine with people disliking them. Different strokes, etc.

    • BeanieBean says:

      I think a rerelease of Let it Be is mostly because they have the footage. It’s not their best album, but nobody was filming the recording of Sergeant Pepper’s (not to my knowledge, anyway).
      ETA: OK, I see it’s not specifically a rerelease of Let it Be, but the point stands–they had a lot of footage still to use.
      Also re: stadium shows. A friend of mine got to see them at the DC stadium when he was at Georgetown. He said they were fabulous & put on a heckuva show.

  10. Normades says:

    I am here for old man snark! And Sir Paul is right.
    Poo poo on all you saying the Beatles are overrated. They are the greatest band in rock n roll history!

    • Jegede says:

      Agreed.

      I will always hate Keith Richards, for slamming Prince as egotistical for monikering himself as a ‘fake royal.’🙄🙄

      The idiot was ignorant that Prince Rogers Nelson, was in fact his real name.

      • SophieJara says:

        Omg Jegede I did not know this! Prince is far more royal than any aristocrat Keith was thinking of.

      • Ann H says:

        I remember Keith took a stab at Elton John when Elton used the same music for using the same music for Goodbye Yellow Rose (Princess Diana) as he used for Goodbye Norma Jean. Keith called Elton out saying it was the dead blonde’s song”, or something like that. Even before Keith announced that, I was thinking the same thing, and I like Elton. Elton was so insulted, he never sang that song again. lol. Didn’t know he said that Royal stuff about Prince though.

    • Normades says:

      That said I do love Angie and Wild Horses.

    • Mama says:

      Totally agree. The Stones ARE great but they are very different. I don’t understand anyone who says they are overrated.

    • Jan90067 says:

      Move over on that couch!! AGREED/xs INFINITY!

      Beatles paved the way for other bands that came after. Their sound continued to evolve over time. Some of the world’s most lasting, iconic songs came out of the Lennon/McCartney pairing, songs that other singers adn bands still cover to this day, and will long after we’re/they’re all gone.

      Seeing Sir Paul was a bucket list item for me after my Leukemia remission. I was lucky enough to score front row seats when he played Dodger Stadium a couple of years ago. When he came to the front of the stage to do Blackbird, I yelled out, “Being here is top of my Bucket List!” And he called back, “Glad you’re here!”. Can’t tell you how that made my year! lol

      • MoonTheLoon says:

        Hey, I was at this show too! It’s been on my bucket list since I was 3. I was 38 at the time of the show. It was a fantastic show. So many memories and I never felt short changed, despite being in nosebleed.

      • Jan90067 says:

        It was SO awesome! A couple sitting a row behind and to the side of us were dressed in Sgt. Pepper costumes lol. I don’t know WHY we paid for *seats* as we were up standing, singing and dancing for most of it 😊

        Wasn’t the encore fantastic when Ringo and Joe Walsh came out??? Total Bucket List dream come true. It was the perfect summer night!

    • Gubbinal says:

      Absolutely for me. I was 13 when the Beatles broke big. There really was a cultural wave in which some of the most influential classical music professionals, professors of all ilk, and the general public below the age of 50 agreed that they were phenomenal.

      It’s a truism, I think, that people always and forever have a bit of their heart tied to the music they loved as adolescents.

      The albums of the Beatles always seemed like a collection of eclectic yet related short stories. They had a huge range of emotions: bitterness, nostalgia, excitement, caressing love, exclamatory love, etc. I remember the sounds of the cellos, the strings, the other instruments, and think that this is as close to narrative classical music as rock and roll ever got. And maybe it has become “your grandmother’s music” but your grandmother cherishes it long after the Stones just seemed like noisy guys.

  11. Environ says:

    I’ve worked back stage for PM 4 times, he literally says hello to everyone! No pretentious BS, easily one of the kindest people I’ve ever worked for and he is BELOVED by his crew. (Lorde and the Eagles tie for absolute WORST). One of my friends went on two world tours with them and at the end of each tour everyone got a Vespa one year and an expensive as fuck Leica camera the next, both with a little plaque with their name and a message and thank you for their hard work from Paul. He’s one of the good ones

    • Jegede says:

      Glad to hear it.👍👍👍

      For me Paul treating Julian Lennon with such kindness – after the sh!tiness his father & Yoko subjected him to😡😡 – will always make Macca a good ‘un.

    • april says:

      Good story! Glad he was so generous.

    • BRobertson says:

      Lorde? I’ve never heard anything but nice things about her

    • Duchess of Corolla says:

      Wow, that is amazing! I am glad to hear Sir Paul is the real deal.

      I like the Stones, but I will always be a Beatles fan most of all. To me, they are timeless. I love that my teen also adores them. To her, The Beatles are the precursor to so much of today’s music. They were the forerunners. And, their music is something we can share, which is lovely.

  12. Michael says:

    No way would I pick between the Beatles and The Stones because I do not have to. I love them both and I love to hear Here Comes the Sun in the morning and Jumping Jack Flash when it gets dark. I am happy they both exist

  13. mellie says:

    I don’t know why people feel like they have to love one band and hate the other. I’m an enormous Beatles fan, or I was until I saw the Rolling Stones live several years ago. That was such a great show that now I just love both bands. They each have their own diverse qualities, there is no reason to bash one or the other…each bands music is timeless. I’d rather listen to either band than some of the crap that’s out on the airwaves, there’s my old fogey lecture of the day.

    • Tigerlily says:

      I like both bands but they are apples and oranges. I am old enough to remember seeing the Beatles on Ed Sullivan and even though I was quite young they made an impression. Very different from Ed’s usual guests Eg Wayne Newton.

      • Jan90067 says:

        I was almost 6 yrs old…I remember how I BEGGED my mom to let me stay up late and watch (she didn’t want to because the next day was a school day, and she knew they’d be on last). She made me nap during the day, and I got to stay up and watch, clutching my “Meet the Beatles” album, sitting transfixed, singing along.

        I will NEVER forget that 😊

      • BeanieBean says:

        Jan: I remember thinking, why don’t those girls stop screaming! I can’t hear the Beatles!

    • Tiffany :) says:

      I agree, there’s no need to pick one or the other. They are both great, have many amazing songs, changed music and inspired generations, and borrowed heavily from Black American musicians.

  14. Wilma says:

    In that whole Beatles/Stones discussion other great bands like The Who and The Kinks get lost.

    • Driver8 says:

      Exactly. I’m a huge Who fan and love the Kinks just as much. I’ve always been obsessed with the Velvet Underground. I know they aren’t part of the British Invasion, but they came out at the same time.

      • Wilma says:

        I love the Velvet Underground! I guess these rivalries play out nice for the media (same with Oasis vs. Blur), but you lose so much of what a certain era of music was really about.

      • Digital Unicorn says:

        Let’s not forget Deep Purple, Pink Floyd, Jethro Tull, Genesis and Led Zepplin!!!

      • Merricat says:

        Velvet Underground for me, too.

      • TeamMeg says:

        +100 All great bands!

      • A says:

        @Wilma, I’m so glad you brought up Oasis vs. Blur. It reminds me of that Father Ted bit with Dougal hastily changing his answer bc the guy he was talking to got annoyed with him for what he said.

    • Thirtynine says:

      Yes! The Kinks!

    • LillyfromLillooet says:

      Roger Daltrey yessss.

      He was still hot in the 1980s and The Who did some of their best work then.

      Ray Davies was so freaking horrid to Chrissie Hynde I can’t with him. But yeah, The Kinks.

      It’s interesting that all three groups–The Stones, The Who and The Kinks–are considered 1960s bands, but as a teenager in the 1980s, I remember all of them making current, chart-topping hits with huge fan bases. None of them were considered oldies acts.

    • paranormalgirl says:

      Best. Show. Ever. The Who at Shea Stadium in 1982. I started my life in America at that show!

  15. Robot Dog says:

    I’ll take Queen over both of them, but Stones over Beatles.

    • A says:

      This is the only right answer in this thread.

      Queen or T.Rex over both of them for me pls.

      • Elle says:

        I have to agree!

        The Stones are like riding a horse.
        The Beatles are like riding a bicycle.
        And Queen is like being driven in a space chariot.

        LOL

  16. Sal says:

    Sergeant Pepper’s was one of the greatest rock albums of all time.

    Still, this reminds me of the story about Bob Dylan dismissing the Stones, saying that they never could have written Mr. Tambourine Man.

    When a reporter asked Mick Jagger about it, he responded that Bob Dylan could never sing Satisfaction.

  17. Betsy says:

    Yikes, as someone up thread said, he woke up and chose violence, didn’t he?

    The Beatles always seemed a little sweeter, a little dopier and nerdier and I like that energy sometimes. The Rolling Stones seemed a little more dangerous, a lot druggier and more rock and roll and I like that energy, too, sometimes. Like @Michael said, they’re different flavors and I appreciate them both at different times.

    Also, the Rolling Stone weren’t a “blues cover” band; they kept blues LEGENDS in the public eye after they had been forgotten by the wider public and introduced them to a wider audience for newer generations. We didn’t always have YouTube and so much music press.

    And I still love The Beach Boys and the Monkeys, too (I’m Not Your Stepping Stone is a classic).

    • LightPurple says:

      The Stones continue to acknowledge the influence blues musicians had on them to this day. They continue to perform covers of old blues tunes, exploring ones they hadn’t previously performed. They would invite blues legends to perform with them in concert and would hire blues musicians as their opening acts. I saw Screaming Jay Hawkins perform because he was the opening act for the Stones at Madison Square Garden.

      • Deering24 says:

        I will always love the Stones because they helped Tina Turner get back on her feet after leaving Ike—and reignite her career by being their opening tour act. That said, there are some RS songs I like and some I don’t, just as there are Beatles’ songs I can take or leave.

  18. sunny says:

    Both are great. The Beatles are some of the best song writers and musically experimental. Their work really holds up and is magical. The Stones are a truly fantastic rock band. Different vibes and you can enjoy both. Wonder how PM is still so salty- both can be great.

  19. Amy Bee says:

    Both the Beatles and the Stones are overrated and who benefitted from black music. At least Jagger admits that he was influenced by black music.

    • Jaded says:

      The Stones certainly did but the Beatles really didn’t appropriate much of black music. I grew up with the Beatles, even saw them once, and they really did take their music in so many new and exciting directions, they were totally ground-breaking in their day and influenced many many other bands. Listen to Rubber Soul, it’s utterly brilliant.

  20. Mama says:

    People who say the Beatles are overrated often strike me as people who don’t know a lot about music. They are in no way overrated. Not one bit. What they did in music was incredible. No other band was doing what they did at the time. I know that sounds snooty but it is the truth as far as music goes. Not caring for music is far different than just saying a band is overrated.

    • Jaded says:

      +1000

    • Becks1 says:

      LOLOL I knew we were going to get one of these!

      • SofiasSideEye says:

        I’m shocked I had to go this far down the thread! Lol

      • A says:

        You can really make a bingo card out of the inevitable comments about The Beatles tbh. The only other artist who incurs as much controversy in musical opinion is Beyonce.

    • Wiglet Watcher says:

      Mama
      You said it the best!

    • Merricat says:

      You’re absolutely right. Work can be pivotal and important and amazing in and of itself without appealing to everyone’s taste. Taste is personal and subjective.

    • Rose says:

      I mean…I have two music degrees and think they are overrated. Apparently I don’t know much about music🤣

    • Blueskies says:

      Adding my +1000! I stopped trying to make the case for the Beatles long ago, it’s like defending a mountain, it’s not necessary. I’m pretty shocked that they’re aren’t more full-on Beatles fans here but in the end all art is subjective. To me, the Beatles aren’t overrated, that’s objectively impossible – but that is obviously going to be a subjective opinion, it doesn’t change anything about the band.

      I’m “only” 50, but grew up with the Beatles, the Rolling Stones and many of the UK and American 60s bands. The Beatles had the blueprint especially when they started writing their own songs, no one could see where they were going, they were always 40 miles up the road. The achieved many firsts. I also argue that John Lennon is what differentiated them further. And it wasn’t just the music, it was the interviews, the humour the very times they were creating in. It was all of a piece, so seismic and they did it all in seven years.

      Paul has always been ambitious and possessing a big ego, he seems a little adrift sometimes and just treading water. It would have been amazing for John to still be here and releasing music all this time. George, too, but I agree with another poster who said they (John and Paul) were best together, certainly for Paul. John was writing beautiful stuff before he died (Double Fantasy). I really love Wings and Paul’s early solo work, though.

      Really looking forward to the Let It Be film series!

  21. Jenny says:

    Wow. Lone Beatles fan here. I don’t listen to them everyday – but how can you not get lost in Blackbird? Their repertoire spans so many genres, it’s ok not to like ‘She love me’ but still enjoy their later works.

    Anyways. Shade thrown by old dogs is the best kind of shade. I’m sure the Stones had a laugh.

    • manda says:

      so funny how tastes are different! blackbird is a song I will turn off as soon as it starts, if given the opportunity

    • Blueskies says:

      The Stones would definitely laugh and Paul knows it, they’re all old muckers, lol. Keith has been openly derisive about the Beatles, too, it’s like throwing pebbles at marble either direction.

  22. Ann says:

    I don’t care for the Beatles or the Stones. They are both overrated. And “legendary” womanizer Mick just makes me want to puke, never understood what women saw in him apart from $$$.

  23. Ry says:

    See now I love the Beatkes. I also love what Lennon did on his own. There is an aura to their music and lyrics and even as a kid, I identified with it although it was technically before my time. The Stones? I grew to appreciate them years later. I find neither to be overrated as we’re all still talking about them. It’s not their fault they get played and recognized so much; it’s the demand for it that keeps them active even still.
    I’ll say this; on a personal level, I respect the Beatles more as people. The Rolling Stones behaved in seriously shady ways. I’m not just talking general rock-and-roll debauchery, it went above and beyond that.
    As always, to each their own. But if I were a mom in the 60s, 70s and had a daughter? Let’s just say I’d encourage her to get Beatles tickets faster than the Stones.
    Also…Paul is pretty honest and very funny. I don’t see this as being salty as much as he dgaf and speaks his mind like we all should. The shit that came out of Jaggers mouth isn’t exactly sugar, either.
    I notice this thread tends to go the way of whomever comments first and becomes redundant. If it began with an opposite view, bet it’d be an entirely different thread. Even here people knock themselves out trying to be amiable lol.

    • AG says:

      I agree with all your points. I still love the Beatles, and Lennon and McCartney together were genius. Genius! I like them separately too.
      And, I think you’re right about how the first to comment set the tone. I started reading and it was like, okay, here we go, time to pile on…

      • Ry says:

        You’re right.
        Aaand. Look at most of the comments below. It’s all about setting a tone. The average person is a follower. I never understood it

      • Thirtynine says:

        Maybe it isn’t about setting a tone as allowing those with an unpopular opinion to feel safe enough to express it openly.

  24. olliesmom says:

    I’ve always loved all of the Beatles solo stuff better than the Beatles. Especially Ringo Starr and George Harrison’s solo efforts. Both men just really blossomed as artists when they stepped out from under the shadow of Paul and John.

  25. manda says:

    I think they both have good songs I really like and they both have songs I can’t fricking stand to hear. I don’t really see why Paul needed to make a comment like that

  26. Nicki says:

    Lol. That’s kind of hilarious coming from the guy whose non-Beatles career consisted of the lightweight pop music of Wings.

  27. MissMarirose says:

    I mean, yeah, it’s great that the Stones have managed to stay together for 50 years, but to be fair, Lennon was murdered within 10 years of the Beatles’ breakup, so I’m not sure the comparison is warranted. He was irreplaceable in that band and his departure is what lead to the ending.

  28. Dee Kay says:

    I’m not going to read the comments above b/c I know there will be Beatles and Paul haters, which pains me to my core. I am just here to say that I loathed that New Yorker interview with Paul — not because it was negative or wrong on facts, but because I hate it when male music critics meet with Paul and miss the whole point of his music, which is 1) love, and 2) accept yourself and everyone else, and 3) be brilliant and wonderful. Paul is a towering genius and a messenger of the divine and I love him.

  29. Jessica says:

    The first memory I have of the Beatles is playing “I Want To Hold Your Hand” in band and absolutely hating it because it seemed so lame to me. You don’t want to kiss her or hug her, just hold her hand? Really? And I refused to listen to any more of their music. My ex husband would NOT let me get away with that, and legit for the first few years we were together he didn’t listen to any other music whatsoever and continually lectured me about how the Beatles are the be all and end all of music. My current bf is also a fan but much less militant about it, and I still don’t really care too much about them. It’s like everyone is expected to be huge fans and anyone that isn’t is always wrong, no matter what.

  30. Ann says:

    I like both bands though I am not a fanatic about either. We saw Paul live about eight years ago, he was very energetic and good, but a bit dorky? Endearingly so, but still. They’re apples and oranges, no need to compete really but I guess he hasn’t let that go.

    As for the Stones still being a touring bad, yeah, that’s great I guess but at some point I think you’re too old to be up there playing sexy youthful rebellion sounding music? Maybe it’s just me. That said, I also saw Billy Joel and he was amazing, still sounded the same. But then, he didn’t dance around and wear tight pants, so it’s a bit different.

    Sir Paul seems nice, swipe at the Stones non withstanding.

  31. Dillesca says:

    I was obsessed with the Beatles as a teenager, and they are truly what awakened a love of music for me– so I am by no means impartial. I’m mildly entertained by the snark Macca shows here, but that’s it. Y’all saying it shows how small and insecure he is– the dude is 79 years old! Let him have some old man snark! Plus, the Stones and the Beatles were always competitive and playfully salty with one another.

    On another front, a re-release IS unnecessary, though I found the re-releases of other albums like Revolver, Rubber Soul and Sgt Pepper delightful– especially if you have the ability to listen on vinyl. Let It Be has great songs on it, of course, but the band broke up before it was fully produced– and Phil Spector finished production on it, making production decisions that not all Beatles agreed with. …Besides that, he literally killed Lana Clarkson, so boo Phil Spector.

  32. Mel says:

    Both bands are great, no need to be petty about either one at this stage of the game.

  33. Silent Star says:

    As a (not great but experienced) musician and song writer who has listened intently to the composition and playing of both Beatles and Stones songs, I have to say the Beatles’ repertoire is a lot more sophisticated. Paul’s sick burn is saying that the Stones’ repertoire has a clear Blues structure, whereas Beatles go far beyond that — which is true.

    I love both bands for different reasons, and both are brilliant with incredibly talented musicians. But it’s like the Pink Floyd vs. Led Zeppelin argument — apples to oranges (with PF being the Beatles and LZ being the Stones in this scenario).

    I do think there is a tendency for some composers to be snobbish against Blues-based rock bands because it’s derivative of the original Blues. And it’s a lot easier to compose riffs and melodies based on Blues structure than coming up with totally unique styles, as the Beatles often did. It’s also a lot easier for band members to learn new Blues based songs and follow each other and jam, because it has a set structure. That’s really hard to do with a lot of the Beatles’ music that is structurally unique and requires another level of musicianship.

    If you took away their superstardom and placed them in current times, the Stones would be a rock bar band, and the Beatles would be a hipster indie band. Hard to compare, although we all have different taste. Both have their place and produce incredible music.

    I think it’s hilarious that Paul is still bringing this up at age 80! 😆

  34. smee says:

    He’s completely right. RS is a blues cover band and they copied licks note for note from the originals.

  35. BeanieBean says:

    Oh, I remember that concert on the rooftop! Well, they did a couple of songs, Get Back being one. I remember seeing it on the news; it caused such a commotion! Look, up there! It’s the Beatles! I would fall all over myself if I happened across a Beatle on the street; alas, only two now, so my chances are slim. Just as well, I’d totally embarrass myself.

  36. Vanessa says:

    I wonder if those who think the Beatles only make light top-40 pop music have listened to any of their albums, beyond the very early releases. They have a depth and diversity to their sound that you may not get unless you listen to a wider range of their catalog. The Rolling Stones are great too, but there is really no comparison. Please don’t miss the soul in the Beatles music – George’s contributions are especially full of emotion “I Me Mine” from Let It Be is a great example and one of my favorites. A Day in the Life is an amazing piece of music and the entire White Album should not be missed.

  37. Nikki* says:

    The Beatles were AWESOME, but his comment was completely petty, unnecessary, classless, and rude.

  38. Lala11_7 says:

    Yea…my favorite Beatle is Sir George Martin their producer cause before he got on board…they were basic…I see Paul is brewing petty tea….he better hope my girl Yoko don’t decide to start brewing her OWN tea to let everyone know how petty & racist he was to her which is one of the reasons John said I’m out!

    I think what he said about the Stones is tacky AF considering they just lost Charlie…and the Stones EVOLVED musically as a band because they managed to stay together…and Paul can NEVA say that!

    I just thank GAWD for The Animals & The Who…Kinks…Cream…Led…heck I thank Gawd for Herman’s Hermits…cause their 🎶 brings me joy!

  39. Bren says:

    1. Queen
    2. Beatles
    3. Rolling Stones

    And no one can change my mind lol

  40. HudsonHoney says:

    Notice he waited for Charlie to die to say that.

  41. Mabs A'Mabbin says:

    The Beatles vs The Rolling Stones? Absurd. Clickbait. We’re a very musical family over here. Beatles and Stones are on playlists. But so are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds others. Bob Marley and the Whalers? The DOORS??? My husband continues to listen to Hendrix (and I continue to not be in the room during those riffs). He and Bob Dylan can stay on my husband’s playlists lol. Etta, Tina, Supremes, Aretha, Elvis, Ray Charles, Otis Redding, Temptations, Smokey, Marvin, The Who and Kinks, Stevie, Creedence, Zeppelin…. The Beatles contributed and changed the landscape as a band the same way Elvis was doing for a singular entity. The 50s and 60s were ripe for change and for exertion of young sensibilities and expression. The market was growing fast and anyone selling and/or buying 45s at that time played an integral part in spreading appreciation. It’s not an either/or. It’s not any one sound. It’s the tidal wave.

    • Wiglet Watcher says:

      Firstly, great playlist.
      Secondly… his statement wasn’t one band over the other. That’s what happened in the comments though.

      I thought it was old news The Rolling Stones were a garage band that we’re very heavily influenced by blues and also had a catalog of some original stuff. They’ve been referenced negatively, positively and indifferently as such.

      • Mabs A'Mabbin says:

        Yeah, I do get defensive when any band or musician has to survive comparisons lol. As evidenced by my playlist, and I’m sure millions of music lover’s lists, there’s enough room for everyone. I never know what I’m going to get when I shuffle… George Clinton, Alice in Chains, The Who, Shinedown, Dope Lemon….. This is a case of more is better!

      • Wiglet Watcher says:

        You are my 90s playlist

  42. ChattyCath says:

    I like some Beatles songs but I’m a Stones gal since 1964

  43. Smalltowngirl says:

    I grew up with both beveuase my mom loves the Beatles and my dad was a Stones guy. I prefer my own era music but I listen to the Stones far more often than the Beatles. Now it could be nostalgia because I lost my dad young, but a lot of it is that the Stones are more to my personal taste.

  44. Mrs.Krabapple says:

    I love the Rolling Stones’ songs, but I cannot endure Mick Jagger’s singing. I don’t know what it is, but his singing affects me like nails on a blackboard. But I love the songs themselves and the musicianship.

  45. Dee says:

    From the guy who wrote, “Wonderful Christmastime.” Thanks for the earworm, Paul.

  46. Isabella says:

    Without John Lennon, we can see who Paul really is. Paul’s band, Wings, specialized in sappy love songs written by him. Perhaps Sir Paul should admit that when he’s dissing the Rolling Stones.

    Mick and Keith have an edge I’ve always liked and they created a great stage/touring band, which again, one would never say of Wings.

    • Ann H says:

      I grew up listening to The Beatles and Stones at a very young age. My first concert ever was in1964 at the age of 11 in Toronto. Went with my older cousin. I liked the Stones, but the Beatles more at that time. When Paul got together with Linda Ono and formed Wings, I just hated all those sappy little love songs, and started to get into the Stones more. I have seen the Stones 8 times and am hopping for one more time. Haven’t liked Paul for a long time, and after his little snippy comment, even less now.

  47. MarqueeMoon says:

    Thanks for saying it Paul.. Lol I feel alone in my complete lack of interest in The Rolling Stones
    I feel they are lucky that Mick Jagger was model good looking (an earlier Harry Styles) and Keith had great style and charisma, don’t underestimate in our society the power of being and remaining thin, many people have made a whole career from it.. Looking at you Goop, Victoria Beckham, Kate Moss etc

  48. Izzy says:

    I’ve always been meh about the Beatles. The Rolling Stones, on the other hand, I have loved since I was a kid and I thoroughly enjoyed their concert in 2019. They really rocked it.

  49. tamsin says:

    I like stuff from both bands, although some of Paul’s solo content is a bit yawn inducing. I don’t see why Sir Paul felt it necessary to make a comment like that. I have to smile whenever I see Mick Jagger news these days. I remember reading an interview with him many years ago, and he said that if he found himself still doing rock and roll over 40 he’d think about killing himself, or something like that.

  50. Fanciful says:

    The Stones made a fortune from cultural appropriation. Never seem to get called out for it. While cultural appropriation is all through modern music, theirs was x 1000

  51. jferber says:

    Of the Beatles, George and Ringo will forever be my favorites. I think they both took a back seat to the stars, and George especially was extremely talented. I recently watched A Hard Day’s Night on the Criterion Channel. God, they were so young.

  52. candy says:

    Really any rock band is a blues cover band, all the chords are the same. I still think the Beatles were unbelievably talented. They created so many songs, and so many of them are memorable. They’re not my favorite band, but they were great for what they were.

  53. A says:

    Meh. I’m well past the generation that came up with The Beatles. I’m glad for what they did for music, but I think there are far greater, far more unsung heroes who influenced the music we hear today than the Beatles. The Beatles, to me, were simply the ones who made it mainstream. Aside from that, their repertoire is, and always has been, just meh to me.

    I do like a few of their songs–I Saw Her Standing There Is Nice. Hey Jude is always a favourite. But outside of that? Nah. Not a lot that I personally find that interesting to listen to.

    I have liked the Rolling Stones a lot more than the Beatles, and it’s bc as someone said upthread, the Rolling Stones were always a little bit more edgier with their stuff, or so it seemed anyway.

    Now. If people want to listen to something truly sublime, and have a half hour or 45 minutes to spare, listen to Umm Kulthum. Kishore Kumar. Mohammad Rafi. Bhimsen Joshi. Fairuz. The Beatles are fine. But they represent such a small world for me, at the end of the day. If you want real influential musicians, who came onto the scene like a thunderclap and left it changed forever, there are so many others who’d spring to my mind first before The Beatles. And that’s my one music snob opinion to fulfill the quota I’m allowed for the day.

  54. Roslyn says:

    Though it is probably fair to say that the Beatles’ stuff was more sophisticated musically, I think it is also probably fair to say that that probably also had more to do with George Martin’s influence than anyone else. I’m not a Beatles expert though. I quite liked them until about Sergeant Pepper, but not after that and I don’t listen to them at all now. I don’t have any Beatles albums. You see, I like blues and rock and roll and country – music with a beat – so that is what I listened to then, and that’s what I listen to now. The Beatles’ music leaves me cold but the Stones’ music moves me. It’s the blues influence and that’s what I like and so do a lot of other people. The fact it’s not the most sophisticated form of music doesn’t diminish its quality. If I want to listen to classical music I’ll listen to classical music, but if I want to be moved I’ll listen to the Stones, or maybe Hank Williams.

    Go take a hike, Paul.

  55. GgRosey says:

    The Beatles are great but for I find the Stones more exciting. Both are legendary talents ❤️

  56. MJM says:

    Paul McCartney is a wonderful musician but really full of himself. No need to try to diminish another band like that. Also has he heard Quincy Jones’ opinion of his bass playing? Not everyone in the world thinks he’s God’s gift.

  57. Katebush says:

    Huge Beatles fan since I was 10, over the years have come to appreciate the Stones more and more but I dont believe you have to be a fan of one or the other you can like both.
    Also hate it when people say the Beatles are overrated because they have very little idea about how ground breaking they really were.

  58. Granger says:

    The Beatles aren’t one of my faves, but they were definitely not the N’Sync of the 60s! That makes me laugh.

    I finally saw the Stones around 18 years ago and they sucked. Mick Jagger was his charismatic self, but I actually entertained the thought that Keith Richards was dead and someone else was controlling his movements. He was so bad that they’d lowered the volume on his guitar and you could hardly hear his solos (few as there were). And Charlie Watts spent the whole show with an expresson on his face like he wanted the floor to open and swallow him and his drum kit. I was really disappointed, and I just can’t imagine they’re any better now, nearly 20 years older.

    I saw AC/DC the same year and was blown away. Now, THAT’s a band that knows how to have fun!

  59. Haylie says:

    Meh. Per Quincy Jones, The Beatles sucked at playing instruments and he would sneak in studio musicians to re-record their parts.

  60. MsGnomer says:

    Part of me loves that Paul could bring this “controversy” decades later when they are all pushing 80. It’s almost adorable.

    This little article reminds me of the time in late 1980s when Sting of the Police made some comment how British bands were all just little gangs or something like that. Tribal.

    I was at a reunion concert of the Monkees (dont ask, i went to make other people happy) and people there were in fist fights about if Mike Nemetz was a betrayer or not for not showing up for the tour. People get so wrapped up in this stuff.

    So at some level Paul knows exactly what he was instigating. Brilliant PR. ;)