• Dani Roperto

Paul McCartney: "The Beatles were better than the Stones." Is that really so? (english)

Actualizado: 8 de dic de 2020

According to an article in the argentine "Pagina 12" newspaper, Paul said in a radio interview to Howard Stern, that both he and Keith Richards agreed that The Beatles were a better band than The Rolling Stones. Let's see if this is really the case, at least from the point of view of the valuation of their officially released studio albums. The released albums and the scores of each band are detailed below.

Both bands had a very good performance until the twelfth album. Then the Beatles dissolved and the Rolling continued, to this day, with an irregular performance that alternates between good and very good jobs.

If we consider the average of their entire discography we can affirm that, indeed, The Beatles (4.49 / 5.00) are a better band than The Rolling Stones (4.07 / 5.00).

What if we only consider the first 12 albums of the Rolling Stones (1964-1973), and compare them to the 12 albums that the Beatles released (1963-1970)?

The overall average of the first 12 albums of each band (both quite contemporary with each other) shows a technical tie, with a difference of one hundredth in favor of The Beatles. We propose that each reader draw their own conclusions based on the presented data. We leave this debate open ...

To learn more about the graphics and the rating system, we invite you to browse the rest of the MOC | Music On Charts and/or read the Frequently Asked Questions.

5 vistas0 comentarios
  • Facebook - Círculo Negro
  • Instagram - Negro Círculo
  • Twitter - Círculo Negro