An eventful weekend is coming up for the Rolling Stones: With “Living in a Ghost Town”, the band is releasing a new song, and Mick Jagger and Keith Richards also gave an interview in which they talk about the future and past of the Stones, about Corona Due to tour cancellations and Jagger’s heart surgery.
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.”
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.
Some are lucky, others no longer exist
Of course, says Jagger, the Beatles also performed on a large scale: “A great gig, I was there, at Shea Stadium (1965 in New York City, around 55,000 spectators). But the Stones carried on through the 1970s and to this day. That’s the real difference between the two bands. One band is indescribably lucky to still be able to perform in stadiums – and the other band no longer exists.”