Mick Jagger explains why The Beatles were untouchable: “There isn’t a real comparison”
Sitting at the epicentre of the British invasion alongside his bandmates in The Roling Stones, Mick Jagger was friendly with most of the groups that emerged from the dingy clubs of his native land and took the world by storm. This position has afforded him valuable knowledge.
While The Rolling Stones put a deep blues-infused, traditionalist spin on the nascent rock genre, inspired by Chuck Berry, Muddy Waters, and other pioneers from across the pond, their Liverpudlian counterparts, The Beatles, pushed the form into untapped realms. John Lennon and his group may have started out in this vein in their early years, aided significantly by progenitor Little Richard during their formative period in Hamburg, but as the decade wore on, they shed the cloak of musical standards and embraced true ingenuity.
The Fab Four always had kindred spirits in The Rolling Stones. Sure, their sounds followed wildly different paths in the latter half of the 1960s, and they hailed from two distinct areas of England, but musically and philosophically, they always understood and respected each other’s efforts, not to mention their shared love of partying.
Given both outfits’ intertwined stories and significance in making rock one of the world’s most popular forms, Jagger has commented on the work of the Beatles on many occasions. He provides first-hand knowledge of what made his peers such a game-changing force. Known to be somewhat outspoken, he’s also outlined their pitfalls, claiming they were never a great live band. “They certainly were not a great live band,” Jagger said. “Maybe they were in the days of The Cavern when they were coming up as a club band. I’m sure they were hilariously funny and all that. But as far as the modern day world, they were not a great performing band. But do they deserve the fantastic reputation? They were The Beatles.”
Despite their friendship, there was always a rivalry between The Rolling Stones and The Beatles, each camp vying for commercial and critical dominance in a sporting-like manner. It was the classic rock era, after all, and every group had that arrogant edge; it was this confidence that fueled their big dreams and gave them the drive to turn their aspirations into reality.
Jagger’s comment on live performance does carry some substance, though, given that The Beatles chose to quit playing live partially because the era’s technology could not keep up with their ever-expanding sound. However, those who watched both bands perform in their prime have varied opinions. Late Motörhead frontman Lemmy was one such observer. He asserted that the Rolling Stones were “always shit on stage” and that The Beatles “were the gear”. He even claimed he watched the Stones perform in Hyde Park in 1969 and said they were awful and entirely out of tune.
Despite firmly believing that The Beatles weren’t up to it on stage, Jagger has no doubt about their untouchable status. Speaking to Rolling Stone in 1995, he clearly outlined the extent of the Fab Four’s fame and argued that this universal celebration made it impossible for anyone to seriously hope to compete with them. Even Michael Jackson’s stardom, he said, paled in comparison.
He explained: “The Beatles were so big that it’s hard for people not alive at the time to realise just how big they were. There isn’t a real comparison with anyone now. I suppose Michael Jackson at one point, but it still doesn’t quite seem the same. They were so big that to be competitive with them was impossible.”
Jagger is correct in his assumption: there is simply no comparison to The Beatles. They remain the best-selling music act of all time, with 600 million units shipped worldwide—a number that continues to grow. They have maintained their status with resonant songs and an influential back catalogue, transcending changing times. Although Led Zeppelin would commercially surpass the ailing Fab Four towards the end of their career, no one can top The Beatles’ game-changing legacy.
