Paul McCartney Dismisses Rolling Stones As A 'Blues Cover Band'

Every time we reach a new era in pop culture, there are usually a handful of artists that we can point to as dominating the new landscape. This is particularly true when it comes to music, as the biggest trends to take over the world often have at least two acts that rise above the rest.

And you can bet that once these titans emerge, their fans will eternally debate which one is better. Whether we're talking about Kendrick Lamar and Drake, Nirvana and Guns N' Roses, or Michael Jackson and Prince, the debates surrounding these competitors can sometimes find themselves outliving the artists themselves.

But before any of those, fans butted heads over whether the Beatles or the Rolling Stones were the true standard-bearers of the British Invasion. And as is often the case, this debate is one it seems the bands themselves can't help but play into.

On October 11, Beatles legend Paul McCartney sat down with _The New Yorker_ for an extensive interview.

Throughout his conversations with David Remnick, McCartney touched on the working process the Beatles had, who truly broke them up (John Lennon), and the directions his career has taken since they parted.

And as Remnick wrote, McCartney tended to show enough humility to dismiss some of the loftier talk about what the Beatles accomplished.

But at the same time, he doesn't let that get in the way of his band's old rivalry with the Rolling Stones.

Although the interview with The New Yorker hardly marks the first time he's asserted that the Beatles were the better band, this time he went into a little more detail as to why.

As he put it, "I’m not sure I should say it, but they’re a blues cover band, that’s sort of what the Stones are."

And while the "cover" aspect of this statement may allude to the band's frequent accusations of being light-fingered with the ideas of their blues forebears, McCartney largely seemed to suggest that the Stones rarely ventured too far from their blues-rock roots.

In his words, "I think our net was cast a bit wider than theirs."

While it's a little early to tell if any Rolling Stones members will see fit to respond to this statement, they haven't been quiet about similar claims in the past.

According to People, Mick Jagger saw a clear advantage that the Stones had over the Beatles during an appearance on Zane Lowe's Apple Music show alongside Keith Richards.

As he said, "One band is unbelievably luckily still playing in stadiums, and then the other band doesn't exist."

Half a century later, it seems the debate still continues.

h/t: The New Yorker