Mick Jagger has responded to Paul McCartney's recent claim that The Beatles were a better band than The Rolling Stones.

McCartney made the comment in an interview with Howard Stern earlier this month when he agreed with the radio host that The Beatles were superior.

"[The Stones] are rooted in the blues, "McCartney said. "When they are writing stuff, it has to do with the blues. We had a little more influences.There’s a lot of differences, and I love the Stones, but I’m with you. The Beatles were better."

However, in an interview with Zane Lowe on Apple Music on Friday, Jagger was asked what he made of the comment.

"That’s so funny," he said, laughing. "He’s a sweetheart. There’s obviously no competition.

The Rolling Stones

"The big difference, though - and sort of slightly seriously - 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 (such as) Madison Square Garden with a decent sound system. They broke up before that business started, the touring business for real."

"So that business started in 1969 and the Beatles never experienced that," the Rolling Stones front-man continued. "They did a great gig, and I was there, at Shea Stadium. They did that stadium gig.

"But the Stones went on, we started doing stadium gigs in the ’70s 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."

The Rolling Stones released Living in a Ghost Town, their first new song in eight years, on Friday. 

The Beatles playing their 1963 gigs at the Adelphi, Dublin (pic, Gael Linn).