Paul McCartney and Mick Jagger revive the most lively controversy of recent decades: rather Beatles or Rolling Stones? So of course, it's for fun, of course, they are in bad faith, and of course, everyone knows that Kinks are unbeatable.
Nevertheless, the exchange between the two singers by interposed media is quite tasty. Ex-Beatles Paul McCartney started hostilities during an interview with Howard Stern: “The Stones have always been in the blues. When they write something, it has to be related to the blues. We had more and more varied influences. There are a lot of differences, and I love the Stones, but I admit: the Beatles were bigger. "
Longevity and plagiarism
Boom. And behind, Paul McCartney had skillfully, with a beautiful antiphrase, coupled with a very elegant preterition, relaunched the debate on the fact that the Rolling Stones would have copied the Beatles a lot during their careers.
It was in an interview with Zane Lowe on AppleMusic that the singer of the Rolling Stones replied: "Paul is really funny. He is adorable. There is obviously no competition between the two groups. The big difference nonetheless, if you take a step back, is that the Rolling Stones is a group of big concerts that has gone through decades and different eras, while the Beatles have never toured stadiums. They separated before all of this appeared. And Mick Jagger to tackle the short career on stage of the Beatles, compared to the extraordinary longevity of the Stones.
The two singers seem to have a lot of free time at the moment. The dialogue may therefore continue. And we won't miss a thing.
Culture
Coronavirus: Lady Gaga, Céline Dion, the Stones ... The most beautiful moments of the concert "One World: Together at Home"
Society
An auction offers celebrity items to help caregivers
- Beatles
- Controversy
- Rolling stones
- Music
- Paul mccartney
- Mick jagger
- Culture