Paul McCartney: Rolling Stones are a "blues cover band"

[True Dough]

Shots fired! Shots fired!

There's always been a rivalry between the English megabands. Former Beatle Paul McCartney added some more fuel to the fire on on Monday when he said this to the New Yorker:

“I’m not sure I should say it, but they’re a blues cover band, that’s sort of what the Stones are,” he told me. “I think our net was cast a bit wider than theirs.”


Who's side are you taking in this, DUers? The Stones or the Beatles?


https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/10/18/paul-mccartney-doesnt-really-want-to-stop-the-show

[Anon-C]

1. But don't play games with my affection!

[dchill]

2. That's bullshit, Paul - and you know it.

[Beakybird]

3. A very rare instance of Paul McCartney being an ass.

Stones were original. Cover band? Come on!!

[hlthe2b]

4. Well, he also said he "loved the Rolling Stones," so there is that.

I'm not certain he meant "cover band" in the demeaning way it comes across in the US context. I think he was saying "blues-cover" band as in a band that plays more blues, rather than a "cover band" of other blues performers.

That said, I love the Stones. I loved the Beatles. I also admit that the Rolling Stones do have more blues influence. That's a lot of what I love about them.

So??? A bit like Paul stating the John Lennon was the leading impetus for the Beatle's break-up. Well, I always assumed that was the case.

As they say, "nothing new under the sun..."

[OAITW r.2.0]

5. Stones were a great cover band!

Beatles, not so much. Mostly their own stuff.

[blm]

6. Tilting towards Beatles re originality.

I think Stones would agree they emulated American blues artists and are proud of it.

[LakeArenal]

7. It's his opinion. I love the Beatles Music. Think the Stones are Amazing entertainers

Apples and oranges.

Mac is more pop now than rock anyway.

[dem4decades]

8. First he goes after John, now the Stones? Sir Paul is on a roll.

[unblock]

9. Getting curmudgeonly in his old age lol

[underpants]

12. I was going to say that he really seems to be letting it all out

I hope he’s okay.

[pandr32]

10. Stones all the way--still rocking 5 hr gigs to sold out crowds

RIP Charlie.

[House of Roberts]

11. Chris Rock once said 'Prince won', meaning he beat Michael Jackson.

I'd say the Stones still being a touring act today with the most original band members intact, (RIP Charlie and Brian, of course), that the Stones won easily.

[milestogo]

35. Meaning he lived longer while addicted to drugs?

Winning!

[House of Roberts]

36. Both were still alive.

Chris Rock was referring to an interview of Jackson by Ed Bradley.

[unblock]

13. I like billy joel's view:

"It was this big thing back then, were you a Beatles guy or a stones guy. I don't know I liked 'em both!"

And so do I.

They had different goals. I don't disagree with macca, although he phrased it snarkily. The stones were always about their distinctive blues/rock blend and they were very, very good at it. They did not routinely venture far afield from it, but they weren't repetitive even if they stayed within a comparatively narrow range of genres.

The Beatles made a conscious effort to not be repetitive, at least after their first few albums. No one before or since covered as much ground as they did, playing in many different styles and with different instrumentation and yet retaining that distinctive Beatles feel.



So what? Both were great.

And one thing that you have to give the stones credit for, they've kept it going a hell of a lot longer than the Beatles did.

[Clash City Rocker]

14. That's not news, and I don't see it as an insult

The Stones introduced a ton of white people to the blues, which was a very good thing. The Beatles went in a different direction, which was great, but they splintered sooner. Both bands changed the world. Why worry about ranking them?

For the record, some of their early blues stuff is among my favorites.

[babylonsister]

25. There's a documentary of Keith Richards on Netflix.

I think it's great. I was more of a Beatles fan, but found out the blues made Keith and The Stones tick.

[jcgoldie]

15. hmmm

Just a couple days ago he pinned the beatles breakup on john... seems like Sir Paul is turning a little bit grouchy old man.

[Demobrat]

16. Grew up loving them both.

The Beatles may have been more experimental, but the Stones sure seemed to be having more fun.

Maybe that’s why the Beatles ended up hating each other and the Stones stayed together.

[JenniferJuniper]

17. Someone once asked Dave Davies of the Kinks:

Beatles or Stones?

Answer: Small Faces!

Dave for the win.

[Pinback]

20. Hell yeah!

“I feel inclined to blow my mind,
Get hung up, feed the ducks with a bun.”

[Deuxcents]

18. McCartney should stfu

And let it be

[skylucy]

19. I like the Rolling Stones, but I gotta stick with Paul. After all, my name IS "skylucy".

But while we are on the subject of rock music, can we all agree that Eric Clapton has always been an asshole?

[jcgoldie]

23. he seemed reformed for awhile there...

Has quite obviously regressed. At least in the 70s could blame the substances and the booze... now it just seems to be his thing... what a jackoff.

[cate94]

21. Bullshit

They didn’t compete. They didn’t release new material at the same time, why? They were equally popular for different reasons. Both great bands.

[MichMan]

22. Not a fan of the Stones at all, but the Beatles did a lot of covers too.

Motown, Chuck Berry, and other R & B music in their early years

Money thats what I want

Roll over Beethoven

Twist & Shout

Please Mr Postman

You've really got a hold on me

[dweller]

24. 2 sentences in a rather long New Yorker article

is not going to put me in a battlecamp … I grew up to the rich tapestry of various musical influences that have lasted, well, all my life and I am blessed by and for it.
Great article with several NY’er cartoons to boot … so I’ll leave one here that encompasses the whole argument, and puts it into perspective …

“hey, got your message. Just wanted to let you know you spelled ‘desperately’ wrong.”

✌🏻

[electric_blue68]

26. I'll pick The 'Oo over both of these bands...

😉

The Beatles though are in a class of their own because they totally over turned pop/rock music!

And as someone (don't remember who) some years later said - they helped a lot of the younger USA'rs of the time out of the (rightly reacted) JFK assassination blues!

I was a Beatles teenybopper at the start, and became a serious fan. Liked the Stones, though I was quite more in the Beatles camp.

Then my cousin introduced me to The Who with
"The Who Sell Out" in ?summer of definitely '67. Saw them 3xs in '68 even before Tommy.
Then came Tommy. Wow. Saw them at the Filmore East
in Oct '69 for Tommy. Unbelievable atmospheric fantastic show! In the long "My Generation" instrumental break we even heard some melody of Naked Eye way before it ever put down record! Totally cemented my fanship!
Saw them 16 more times over the decades including the incredible Who's Next Tour- 2xs! BBE, WGFA, BO'R, and the then mysterious (because it wasn't on the original WN vinyl ~ "Pure and Easy"! Possibly (if I had to make a hierarchy choice vs a ultra favorite pantheon) my favorite rock song ever, and I've heard a hell of a lot (and still do!).

I did get to see The Stones once bc the lighting company that my dad worked for supplied them with very bright lights for their tour - the one with the flower petals stage. I give one of my best friends the great seats she was a superfan of the Stones, and me and my sis sat up two levels but right at left stage side.

And one of my best friend's dad got us tix to see
The Beatles at Shea Stadium in '65 and '66.
The funny thing that Steve Van Zant said - that in '66 that you could hear them by some odd sonic quirk if you were near the first base line which we were !
In '65 we couldn't hear a thing! 😂

What also was cool was that The (Young) Rascals opened for one of the shows we saw. A favorite NYC area band!

[TexasBushwhacker]

27. Well that was unnecessary n/t

[Xoan]

28. Paul has always been a bit of a wanker.

[Myrddin]

29. A bit of context, from the article

The remark was a reference to The Beatles' broader repertoire of styles. I'm pretty sure it was not a derogatory critique about The Stones.

"What was striking about the Beatles was the inventiveness of their melodies and chord progressions. Every month, it seemed, they became more distinct from everyone else. The development from album to album—from three-chord teen-age love songs to intricate ballads to the tape loops and synthesizers of their psychedelic moment—both caught the Zeitgeist and created it. And they had a sense of style to match: the suits, the boots, the haircuts all became era-defining. Even classical mavens were impressed. Leonard Bernstein went on television to analyze the structure of “Good Day Sunshine.” Ned Rorem, writing in The New York Review of Books, compared a “minute harmonic shift” in “Here, There and Everywhere” to Monteverdi’s madrigal “A un giro sol,” and a deft key change in “Michelle” to a moment in Poulenc.

"McCartney waves away such high-flown talk, but he isn’t above suggesting that the Beatles worked from a broader range of musical languages than their peers—not least the Rolling Stones. “I’m not sure I should say it, but they’re a blues cover band, that’s sort of what the Stones are,” he told me. “I think our net was cast a bit wider than theirs.”

[betsuni]

30. Didn't both bands start out that way?

I don't care for either the Stones or Beatles, but I love the Stones' version of Down Home Girl.

[calimary]

31. Hee hee hee! Reminds me of this radio contest where listeners were asked to vote:

Should it be KFWBeatles or KFWBeach Boys?

If memory serves, The Beach Boys got more votes.

As for this question, can’t decide. Loved ‘em both from the beginning. Hugely! For different reasons.

[Paladin]

32. Fuck off, Sir Paul. (nt)

[BluesRunTheGame]

33. Beatles would've been REALLY great but one of their members held them back.

[rurallib]

34. Who cares? I still enjoy both. And Happy Birthday to Paul Simon

Just damned glad I was able to appreciate such music as it came out.

[True Dough]

37. For the Beatles fans in this thread...

Something you may want to watch:

Link to tweet

[Tikki]

38. I agree with McCartney on this...

Some of the Rolling Stones early releases were imaginative.


Rolling Stones song:

Tikki

[denbot]

39. It is sort of a true statement, both bands are great but the Beatles were more innovative.

Shots fired indeed..

[Skittles]

40. come on, Paul is joshing