I Didn't Know It Was A Contest

 Ah, the quiet reserve and genteel spirit of the British. 

“I’m not sure I should say it, but they’re a blues cover band, that’s sort of what the Stones are.” These were the words Sir Paul McCartney chose to toss out in in a recent interview with the New Yorker. He concluded, “I think our net was cast a bit wider than theirs.”

So, Sir Paul, you couldn't just leave that alone some sixty years after the fact? Or in the midst of the grieving for the Rolling Stones' drummer, Charlie Watts? While it is true that the Rolling Stones began their career with a number of covers, including a number by that Liverpool duo Lennon and Sir Paul, in the past several decades they have managed to cobble together a fair number of hits of their own. The competition pretty much ended back in 1970 when the Beatles ceased to be. While Sir Paul continues to make statements like "There’s a lot of differences, and I love the Stones, but I’m with you. The Beatles were better,” on the Howard Stern Show, Sir Mick Jagger is content to laugh it off. "That’s so funny,” he said. “He’s a sweetheart. There’s obviously no competition.” Adding in another interview, “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.”

Sir Snap. 

If you were to ask me, whose opinion you obviously can't live without, I would say that it is simply a matter of apples and oranges. Way back in the olden days, you listened to the Beatles if you wanted to frighten your parents. You listened to the Stones if you wanted to give them a heart attack. I have seen Sir Paul perform live. It was quite a retrospective. I was once supposed to see the Rolling Stones play. Let's just say that one didn't turn out precisely the way I had hoped it might. Is the empirical data to be found in the recordings or in the live shows? Or is there something objective that might give us all a handle on who to stick on the top of the temple? Maybe the Who. Maybe Chuck Berry?

Or perhaps we should keep our frame of reference in mind: There was a time when this sort of debate raged on. The one in my house was waged not between the Beatles and the Stones, but the Beatles and the Monkees. My older brother was happy to listen to any argument I might have regarding the musicianship or Billboard chart appearances by the pre-fab four. It would still be another six years before I bought my first Rolling Stones album. By the late seventies, there wasn't a lot left to say. John was a stay-at-home dad. Paul was making records with Michael Jackson. Ringo was making Caveman. And George was seeking bliss. The Stones played on Saturday Night Live. The Beatles, infamously, did not. 

Interestingly, DEVO played showed up on Saturday Night live a week after Mick and the boys. They did their cover of Satisfaction. So DEVO is better than the Beatles and the Stones. 

Problem solved. You're welcome.