The Beatles vs The Rolling Stones: Who Was Actually The Best?

by Stephen Roberts

Sir Paul McCartney vs Sir Mick Jagger

McCartney and Jagger The knights collide. Conveniently ignoring the fact they accepted knighthoods, between them, Messrs McCartney and Jagger have resided in the upper echelons of rock and roll for over a century. Aided in no small manner by their respective partners in crime, they co-wrote the best rock and roll to ever emerge from these fair Isles. Their music is timeless, their effect on popular culture is immeasurable and we should all be grateful that they're in our lives. Right, enough of that soppy nonsense. It's Jagger. Yep, I know you knew that already. He is THE perfect lead man. The posing peacock. The show-off. At once gobby and obnoxious, decadent and debonair, ugly but outrageously sexy. Rumour has it that he once impregnated a girl by pouting at her. On television. McCartney is undoubtedly the better musician, but it's still Jagger, eight days a week. Full-time score. The Beatles 1 - 3 The Rolling Stones.
Contributor
Contributor

Out of touch, out of date and out of work. With no other discernible skills of any real use to society, I thought I'd give this a bash. My main focuses are food, music, sport and anything remotely related to ISS Pro 98. I spend half of my life listening to records and the other half wondering whether it'd be possible to become John Cooper Clarke's mate. He, alongside Stephen Fry and Countdown's Rachel Riley, should run the country.