Posted on 10/12/2021 4:50:06 PM PDT by nickcarraway
In an interview with The New Yorker, the Beatles member called rival British rock band The Rolling Stones a “blues cover band.”
SNIP
“I’m not sure I should say it, but they’re a blues cover band, that’s sort of what the Stones are,” McCartney, 79, said. “I think our net was cast a bit wider than theirs.”
SNIP
“They are rooted in the blues. When they are writing stuff, it has to do with the blues,” McCartney said at the time. “We had a little more influences … There’s a lot of differences and I love the Stones, but I’m with you. The Beatles were better.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Maybe they could settle this with a fight using their walkers and canes
Magical Misery Tour Redux.
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.
In the 70s they did two Temptations covers, and in the 80s they did a Bob & Earl cover.
I liked the Beatles, but the Stones are, “I know it’s only Rock and roll but I like it.” The Stones don’t apologize to anyone.
Hey Paul, the Beatles fizzled 50 years ago while the stones are still at it. There’s a lot to be said about just having fun with what you’re doing.
The Stones are currently touring, while Paul continues to talk about 60 years ago. 🤔
The survivors of both groups are d@mn lucky to still be alive and with some ca$h sta$h to support themselves.
D@mn Lucky.
He said he loves the Stones. The Headline is a lie.
He did not “slam” them. He stated that he thought they were a Blues Band.
Anybody who starts a sentence with “I’m not sure I should say it”, shouldn’t say it.
I think the blues influence is why I always liked the Stones better.
I never did get this Beatles v Stones thing. They are just different kinds of music. I like both of them. The world is big enough for both of them.
I think they had a lot of country influence, as well as Soul and R&B.
Uh huh, and you just write silly love songs Paul.
My cloud. Get off of it.
Agreed, the title is rubbish. And I’ve always viewed the Stones as fundamentally a blues influenced band. Nothing controversial in that thought...it’s certainly not a slam. In fact, I think it’s a compliment.
I agree. Through the years when I’m asked “Rolling Stones or Beatles” my stock answer is that they’re both fabulously wealthy and still getting richer every day. Does it really matter who’s better? It’s a subjective thing anyways.
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. :(
The Stones are pretty average at blues covers but a great rock n roll band. They do the visceral rock thing better than the Beatles.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.