[Steve_Seattle]

The early Stones did a lot of covers on their first couple of albums, but after that almost everything they did was original material, including most of their hits. The Beatles also did a lot of covers early on. As for McCartney, I think most of his post-Beatles music was pap and crap - Silly Love Songs, Band on the Run, and so forth. John Lennon hated it.

[nickcarraway]

In the 70s they did two Temptations covers, and in the 80s they did a Bob & Earl cover.

[proust]

The Stones are currently touring, while Paul continues to talk about 60 years ago. 🤔

[MV=PY]

"As for McCartney, I think most of his post-Beatles music was pap and crap - Silly Love Songs, Band on the Run, and so forth. John Lennon hated it."

Together, they were an amazing team. I think they kept each other from recording lousy material.

IMHO, neither produced good stuff after the Beatles.

Thanks a lot, Ono. :(

[SpaceBar]

Agree with your comments about the early stones covers and Paul’s pap.

This petty infighting is distasteful.

[dfwgator]

The Stones first hit in England was a cover of Lennon and McCartney’s “I Want To Be Your Man”.

[Durus]

John Lennon wasn’t exactly the standard bearer of taste and discernment. As much as you dislike McCartney’s music after the Beatles, you have to admit it was better than anything Yoko One ever made, and Lennon never disparaged her garbage.

I still like the Stones better than the Beatles, but I’m not a standard bearer of taste either.

[Fightin Whitey]

I think most of his post-Beatles music was pap and crap - Silly Love Songs, Band on the Run, and so forth. John Lennon hated it.

True, all true. McCartney should have led off for the Archies.