Poll of the Day > Jagger and McCartney feuding about who was better Stones or Beatles

(+) Yeah! (+)

Nothing like 2 old geezers reliving their past. McCartney said the Stones are a blues cover band to which Jagger responded: "But Jagger went on to point out "the real big difference between these two bands. One band is unbelievably luckily still playing in stadiums, and then the other band doesnt exist.

I guess that's all they have at their age.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/music/2021/10/16/mick-jagger-hits-back-mccartneys-dissing-rolling-stones/8488267002/

---

Considering how many black acts and other bands the Beatles stole their sound from - err, sorry, were influenced by - I'm not sure McCartney really has much of a leg to stand on there.
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Considering how many black acts and other bands the Beatles stole their sound from - err, sorry, were influenced by - I'm not sure McCartney really has much of a leg to stand on there.

thats hardly a unique trait for The Beatles

by their own admission The Rolling Stones never would have formed if Muddy Waters hadnt paved the way for them

most art is derivative and interpretive

---

Mead posted...

thats hardly a unique trait for The Beatles

by their own admission The Rolling Stones never would have formed if Muddy Waters hadnt paved the way for them

Yeah, but that's sort of the entire point. McCartney is making a bit of a dismissive comment that applies equally to himself.

I'm not saying it's bad to be derivative. I'm saying it's bad to criticize other people for being derivative if you yourself are derivative.
---

he wants money

---

Stones >>>

---

VioletMassacre posted...

Half of The Beatles are dead, is Jagger aware of this?

that never stopped Lynyrd Skynyrd

---

likehelly posted...

that never stopped Lynyrd Skynyrd

at one point that band was touring with around a hundred or so band members lol

I think maybe one might have been an original member, maybe not even that

---

VioletMassacre posted...

Half of The Beatles are dead, is Jagger aware of this?

Three former members of the Rolling Stones are also dead, along with two others who are just no longer part of the band.

And the Beatles self-destructed years before one of them died, so it's not as if the death itself is what prevented the band from continuing to tour and produce content.
---

big brain PO calling the Beatles derivative is hilarious

---

Stones >>>>>>>>

---

Gonna have to go with The Rolling Stones.

Im by no means a pop music person but most of the songs by the Beatles that I used to hear at my old job kind of annoyed me.

---

I'm far more of a Beatles head and consider their catalogue (although smaller) to have far more variety. I think it's hilarious that Paul called the Stones a Blues cover band.

The Stones are still massively talented, but they're a lot more boring for me.

---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Considering how many black acts and other bands the Beatles stole their sound from - err, sorry, were influenced by - I'm not sure McCartney really has much of a leg to stand on there.

He's probably rationalizing it through the Beatles definitely starting as a blues cover band, but expanding greatly from there. Still, it's a very smarmy insult and you're right on the criticism.

---

almost all of the beatles songs are good, and most of those are great.
---

Paul McCartney is one of the most talented musicians alive

---

Mead posted...

Paul McCartney is one of the most talented musicians alive

He's also a massive **** so let's not fellate the man

---

DirtBasedSoap posted...

big brain PO calling the Beatles derivative is hilarious

They were popularizers, not innovators. They derived their sound from their influences just like most other bands. They were generally fairly open about where their influences came from - it was really only their fans that treated them more like transcendent musical geniuses than as a band standing on the shoulders of others (like most bands are).

While there were certainly elements of their sound that felt more original (especially later in their career), it was mostly because they were finding new influences and finding ways to synthesize the sounds and styles together. And they were popular enough to become an influence on countless bands that followed them, but in that, they weren't that different from countless performers that came before them. If anything, the real key to their success might simply be the fact that they came of age at a time when mass-media made distribution and access possible on such a major scale. The world had far more access to their music than it did countless black musicians performing in run-down clubs. Elvis kind of benefited from the same advantage (and he was one of the strong influences on the Beatles early on as well).

In other words, they're not all that different from the Rolling Stones. Which is why that sort of criticism kind of rings hollow - he's literally pointing out something he's essentially equally guilty of. Which just kind of feels like starting to buy into your own hype later in life. Maybe Paul's forgotten the reality of his past in favor of the legend.

But honestly, the Beatles will always be seen as being qualitatively different because they self-destructed at the height of their success rather than slowing withering and fading away like so many other performers and groups. It's the same reason why the "27 Club" holds such fascination for a lot of people, why we tend to revere dead martyrs more than living people. It's easier to worship a memory than a person. It's easier to judge someone based on only their successes and not their later failures (just ask George Lucas about Star Wars).
---

I see this thread and I want it painted black.

---

Well I mean a Beatle could never beat a stone in a fight, though the stone is an inanimate object so it can't really hurt the Beatle without someone else putting force behind it.

So I say it's clearly a draw.

I respect both but am not really into either. I like a handful of songs by both so I'll say it's a draw for me

---