MICK Jagger has blasted Paul McCartney’s claim that The Beatles were bigger than The Rolling Stones.
Macca suggested the Fab Four were slicker singers and that the Stones copied their style in the ’60s.
But Sir Mick pointed to his band’s huge stadium success.
He added: “There’s obviously no competition.
“He (Paul) is a sweetheart. I’m a politician.
“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).”
Sir Paul, 77, recently told DJ Howard Stern’s radio show: “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.”
Sir Paul stressed there was mutual respect and he’s still close to Mick, 76, Keith, 76, Ronnie Wood, 72, and Charlie Watts, 78.
Hitting back, Sir Mick told Zane Lowe’s Apple Music show: “They (The Beatles) did that (Shea) stadium gig (1965). 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.”
MOST READ IN SHOWBIZ
The Stones recently released Living In A Ghost Town — their first original song since Doom And Gloom and One More Shot were included on 2012 album, Grrr!
The group played in last week’s One World: Together At Home gig.
Sir Paul also performed, singing Lady Madonna while in lockdown.
- GOT a story? RING The Sun on 0207 782 4104 or WHATSAPP on 07423720250 or EMAIL exclusive@the-sun.co.uk