• New Sponsor: ShipNerd, Ship Your Gear with Us... for less! Click Here.

McCartney: 'The Stones were a blues cover band'

PRW

Member
Messages
2,254
"I think our net was cast a bit wider than theirs."

One excerpt that Rolling Stone pulled out to spotlight from about a 10,000-word (if not more) interview with Macca in The New Yorker.

Breaking out the Orville Redenbacher ... :munch
 

PRW

Member
Messages
2,254
My facebook feed is filled with stories about "such and such artist said something bad about such and such other artist." It usually smells like clickbait to me.
No he actually said it, but as noted it was in the middle of a 10,000-word, if not longer, profile of Macca in that noted music magazine The New Yorker. Here's the link to the story. It's actually very good, and the interviewer was apparently not very deferential, he actually asked Macca why he doesn't transpose his songs into lower keys when playing live ... those who've heard him recently know he's struggling ... and he basically said "I can't be bothered."

 

PatrickE_FenderADV

Silver Supporting Member
Messages
28,313
Long live the blues… the Stones are still plugging’ away today and the Beatles were over and done 50 years ago! So Sir Paul, what does that say?!? :dunno

:stir

(I am not a Stones fan boy… far from it. I was a super Beatle fan in ‘79/80 when I first starting getting into music in middle school)
 

NashSG

Member
Messages
3,736
It's not exactly a secret, first 3-4 Stones singles were covers and there is an often told story of their manager Andrew Loog Oldham locking Mick and Keith in a kitchen to 'not come out until they had a song'. As the story goes they came out with "As Tears Go By" which they did not initially release but started them writing tunes.

Read any Stones book or see a documentary and this is usually told.

And yeah...it is s a total clickbait line but that is the world we live in now. It's a neat fact if you hadn't heard it before.
 

PRW

Member
Messages
2,254
My personal take on the quote ... I think it's simplistic on Paul's part, and probably a deliberate dig on Paul's part (and Jagger actually responded; it's in the Rolling Stone link) reflecting at least in his eyes a continued competition between the two groups although one of them doesn't exist anymore. But IMO it's accurate to say that there always has been a whole lot more blues in the cauldron containing the Stones' particular witches' brew than there was in the cauldron containing the Beatles' particular witches' brew.
 

SteveO

Member
Messages
16,819
Long live the blues… the Stones are still plugging’ away today and the Beatles were over and done 50 years ago! So Sir Paul, what does that say?!? :dunno

:stir

(I am not a Stones fan boy… far from it. I was a super Beatle fan in ‘79/80 when I first starting getting into music in middle school)
The Rolling Stones have sold around 240 million records, The Beatles are around 600 million-and they disbanded fifty years ago.
 

Jollyb

Silver Supporting Member
Messages
1,985
Long live the blues… the Stones are still plugging’ away today and the Beatles were over and done 50 years ago! So Sir Paul, what does that say?!? :dunno

:stir

(I am not a Stones fan boy… far from it. I was a super Beatle fan in ‘79/80 when I first starting getting into music in middle school)
But.........Sir McCartney is a Billioniare. No one in the Stones is halfway way there :dunno
 

BeeBaa

Member
Messages
1,368
Mick Jagger, stunned and saddened by McCartney’s mild, factually accurate observation, slumps in his chair, head in hands. Internet guitarists race to their keyboards to defend the early Stones. Mick, redeemed, pumps his fist and smiles warmly.
 

iluvfender

Silver Supporting Member
Messages
865
The Stones made Americans aware of the blues and resurrected/gave well deserved recognition to the careers of many of the originals. Muddy,Wolf, John Lee, Jimmy Reed etc…The Beatles gave people something to be excited about after the JFK assassination and were trendy and wrote some damn good songs as did the Stones
 

rollyfoster

Silver Supporting Member
Messages
17,064
It’s not really a secret that Beatles music is cerebral and Stones music comes from the gut. Keith Richards wouldn’t argue that they’re a blues band at heart. The last record they put out was blues covers and it’s ****ing awesome.

That’s where that dividing line Beatles or Stones argument comes from. One is way more focused on melody and harmony, the other is rhythm and attitude.
 






Trending Topics

Top Bottom