Yahoo reports it is a question which has split opinion over the past six decades amongst music fans – who is better, The Beatles, or The Rolling Stones?
While some like the bluesy, grittier sound of Mick Jagger’s Stones, many prefer The Beatles eclectic mix of melodic anthems.
Now driving members of either side have had their say, with Jagger responding to McCartney’s claims The Beatles were always one step ahead of their rivals.
Read more: Mick Jagger and Donald Sutherland blast Donald Trump and Boris Johnson for ‘lies’ and ‘ruining the world
Appearing on The Howard Stern Show, Sir Paul said: “I love the Stones but The Beatles were better.
“Their stuff is rooted in the blues. Whereas we had a lot more influences.
“Keith (Richards) once said to me, ‘You were lucky man. You had four singers in your band. We got one’.
“We started to notice that whatever we did the Stones sort of did it shortly thereafter.
“We went to America and had huge success, then the Stones went to America.
“We did Sergeant Pepper and the Stones did a psychedelic album. There was a lot of that.”
Speaking on Zane Lowe’s Apple Music show, Jagger pointed to his band’s huge success as a touring band, in comparison to The Beatles, who famously stopped touring in 1966 to focus on the recording side of things.
Jagger said: “The big difference, though, 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.
“They broke up before the touring business started for real…in around 1969.
“They did that [Shea] stadium gig. But the Stones went on.
“We started stadium gigs in the 1970s 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.”