Mick Jagger Responds to Paul McCartney's Claims the Beatles Were Better Than the Stones

"One band is unbelievably, luckily still playing in stadiums and then the other band doesn't exist"
Mick Jagger Responds to Paul McCartney's Claims the Beatles Were Better Than the Stones
Paul McCartney recently revived the great the Beatles versus the Rolling Stones debate, claiming the Fab Four were most definitely the better band. Now Mick Jagger has stepped up with his very own Stones defence.


Alongside the release of the new Stones single "Living in a Ghost Town" yesterday (April 23), Jagger was asked by Apple Music's Zane Lowe about McCartney's recent comments, where Macca reminded us "the Beatles were better" after listing off several points of Beatles superiority.

When Lowe asked the Stones singer what he thought about McCartney's claims, Jagger said, "That's so funny. He's a sweetheart. There's obviously no competition."

However, then Jagger dug his heels in, explaining: "The big difference, though, is and sort of slightly seriously, is that the Rolling Stones is a big concert band in other decades and other areas when the Beatles never even did an arena tour, Madison Square Garden with a decent sound system. They broke up before that business started, the touring business for real."

He continued: "So that business started in 1969 and the Beatles never experienced that. They did a great gig, and I was there, at Shea stadium. They did that stadium gig. But the Stones went on, we started doing stadium gigs in the '70s and [are] still doing them now. That's the real big difference between these two bands. One band is unbelievably, luckily still playing in stadiums and then the other band doesn't exist."

In other words — shots fired!

You can watch Jagger discuss it all over here, where you can also hear the Rolling Stones' newly shared single "Living in a Ghost Town."