This borders on blasphemy: For Keith Richards, “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Heartsclub Band” is one of the most overrated albums of all time. And not only that. For the guitarist, the record is even a “heap of dirt”.
Richards, who actually wanted to talk to “Esquire” some time ago about his solo record “Crosseyed Heart,” which was released at the time, then also neatly adjusted the legendary image of the Beatles. For the 71-year-old, the Stones have withstood the challenges of time much better than the Fab Four:
“The Beatles sounded great when they were the Beatles. But their music actually had no roots. I think they just went overboard with everything. And why not? If you were the Beatles in the ’60s, you just had to exaggerate it. You had to forget what you really wanted.”
Keith Richards: Dirt? The Rolling Stones can do that too!
Richards continued his scolding, taking on perhaps the Beatles’ most famous album with a dose of sarcasm: “Then you do ‘Sgt. Pepper’s…’. A lot of people think it’s a brilliant record, but to me it’s just a bunch of crap, like ‘Satanic Majesties…’ by the Rolling Stones. If they could do shit like that, then it wasn’t a problem for us.”
An article from the RS archives
Rolling Stones vs. The Beatles
But there was another topic that was burning under the nails. Beatles vs Stones. A topic that has been discussed for decades among fans of both, but of course also among fans of just one of the two mega-bands. Which of the two bands is better?
Over the decades, quotes from musicians from the groups have been circulated again and again. Incidentally, they have had friendly relationships with each other since the early 1960s – they didn’t really see each other as competitors. In the noughties, Jagger is said to have said: “Yes, we were number two. But the best number two of all time.” Now Paul McCartney has recently fueled the discussion again. In conversation with the probing Howard Stern a few days ago, the 77-year-old said: “The Beatles were better than the Stones.”
ANTONIA HILLE GETTY IMAGES
In an interview with “Apple Music”, Mick Jagger was asked by Zane Lowe to comment on this comparison. Lowe begins the question by accusing Howard Stern of a suggestive method because he said, “Come on, Paul, the Beatles were better than the Stones.”
But Mick Jagger is also a professional and initially tries not to answer Lowe’s question at all. McCartney is a “sweatheart” and there is “absolutely no competition.”
“The Rolling Stones shaped the touring business, the Beatles didn’t”
But Lowe doesn’t let up either. Then Jagger makes an explanation that is clever because it avoids the question of competition; In this respect he also describes himself as a “politician”. “The difference is this: The Stones have been a great live band for many decades, and in completely different arenas than those in which the Beatles played. The Beatles never do an arena tour.” For example, not in Madison Square Garden, with an “adequate sound system.”
The Beatles broke up at a time when the touring business was really getting going – “all of that only started at the end of the 1960s.”
Mick Jagger describes the 1969 tour as the first that deserved the name for the Stones: “real sound, your own sound systems, your own stage, your own stage surface.” In America she went to hockey and basketball arenas. Something the Beatles wouldn’t have experienced.