"The funny thing is the Stones got the reputation for being the hard men, and the Beatles got the reputation of being like smarmy, you know, but it was the other way around in fact. The Stones were just dressing up. You know, the Beatles were from Liverpool man, you know, it was a pretty tough place. "
That was largely the doing of their manager Andrew Loog Oldham. Oldham also suggested to John Baldwin that he should change his name to John Paul Jones. Good decision.
My old man was Stones all the way, it's all we ever heard in the house he hated The Beatles so I just went with it too. Later in life I decided to take a deep dive into The Beatles, all I'd heard to that point was the early stuff pop stuff. What really tipped it for me was the White Album, closely followed by Revolver, just mind blowing records. So yeah, I'm Beatles now but will always love the Stones too.
Yea. I'm the same, my dad would play the jingly jangly early stuff. Then when I was older 17-18 my cousin gave me a tape with a day in the life... my god, still to this day remember staring up at the ceiling stoned listening to the most haunting voice painting the most psychedelic words and images. Powerfull stuff.
@@jeffhunterjeffries3685nobody cares about the stones records after the 70s. Beatles albums are still popular and among the greatest albums ever. Beatles are the best band for me but I also love the stones.
@@armondtanz I had a similar experience, I bought Sgt. Pepper tape back in Highschool simply because I liked the song Lucy in the Sky but didn't know anything else on it. When A Day in the Life came on at the end I distinctly remember the hair on the back of my neck standing up. It was like an other worldly experience. My understanding of music changed that day.
I'm from Liverpool. When he says it was a tough place, he's not kidding The saying in the sixties was that if you wanted to survive in the 'pool you had three options: be good at humour, good at music or good with your fists I chose the 1st two
I used to see Lemmy in music venues around Camden Town in the 80s. He was always at the bar, but would always watch the bands. Noticed him in Dingwalls one night at a Garage punk gig. He must have seen thousands of bands in his lifetime.
Dont Forget about the Beatles in Hamburg for 2 years if ya want to talk about rough areas. Beatles ground their teeth and honed their Stage act and Playing Chops in Hamburg Germany.
Understatement. Few people experienced what the very young Beatles did. Few n Know about it. Love the Stones too. The Stones at the same age as the Beatles in Hamburg would have high taled it outta there. An extremely tough existence for a few years.
@ what is your beef with popular music? Creating a melodic song is no easy task; the Beatles were masters of melody. I like the Stones but their body of work is light years behind the Fab Four.
@@davidhollyfield5148 The Beatles could rock, yet rarely. Their peers in the British Invasion -- Stones, Who, Kinks, Yardbirds, Animals -- rocked harder, earlier, and longer.
I wish Lemmy had taken better care of himself. I met him two times in my life. Once in Houston he dropped by Rudyard's Pub. This was in 81 or 82. Then I met him again in maybe 1995 at Jack's Sugar Shack when they were off Hollywood Blvd and Vine. He was a very cool, laid back guy. Except for his appearance you would never know his place in music history.
I'm a huge fan of both actually, and each band had its merits but it must be said (emotions aside) the Beatles' creativity and songcraft was on an Astronomical level....They were the Mozart and Beethoven of Popular Music...
@@markhooper7070 Me neither. "Abbey Road" and "Exile on Main St." are my all time favorite albums. It doesn`t get better than the Beatles and the Stones for me. I feel sorry for those who feel they have to pick and choose when you can have both. I`ve seen Paul McCartney and the Rolling Stones live, and they were amazing. I`m also into "Aftermath" and "Revolver". It`s impossible for me to say that one was better than the other..
Same here. I like both The Beatles and The Rolling Stones, best bands from the British Invasion. But The Beatles are the band where I have the most favorite songs and I love all four members. The Rolling Stones are cool too, my favorite member is Mick Jagger. I like his vocals and his moves, I even dance like him to songs like *Don't Fade Away* and *I'm Alright* .
@@lisettegarcia7013 I hear you. I LOVE the Beatles, and i love each member. Mick and Keith are my two favorite Stones members as they are the songwriters and creative force of the Stones.
True. And Lemmy is correct about the Stones. They grew up in relative comfort in the London suburbs, compared to the Beatles. Keith Richards was in the choir of a prominent church.
@@gladlawson61 I'm not sure that's a comparison. Does using the word "both" make something a comparison? Anyway, the point is that if the Beatles's formula for good music didn't overlap much at all with the Stones's formula for good music, ... except, perhaps, for one album: Let It Be. I'm a huge fan of both groups, and if you ask me which I like better, it will depend on what day it is.
Absolutely comparable . They both started in the same era, their roots in music are almost identical , they were part of the British invasion , they both started in the same clubs, they both had two guitar players ....the list goes on . And yes music can be subjective.
I don't know if there'd be enough material for a feature-length doc, but I for one would gladly kick in to help fund a film interviewing people who had first-hand experiences seeing the Beatles at the Cavern. So much has been written about them, and I've read so much about them, that what I really treasure now are the anecdotes about brief interactions/conversations/moments between the band members and the people who came to see them. Whenever I hear moments like those, I feel like we're getting a true sense of the character and humanity of the lads. Enjoying your channel--just subscribed. YNWA
He is right, The stones all grew up in middle class and well off families. Went to good schools etc. Only Keith Richards and Bill Wyman grew up poor. It kinda funny watching old footage of mick acting like this bad boy rebel when he grew up well off and went to a good college lol. The Beatles grew up in liverpool in poor areas, ringo came from the worst background and was actually in a gang growing up and witnessed stabbings and he partook in gang fights as he said himself. John is the only one that grew up quite middle class but even he was a little rough around the edges and was a rebel and was known to be a fighter in his younger days. The beatles were the true rock and rollers, Brian Epstein cleaned them up and marketed them well lol. Before the suits and moptops they were in leather jeans and jackets. Andrew Oldham did the opposite with the stones and made them more grittier and dirty. I think thats why john kinda envied that, i think he regretted the beatles changing up their image which is why he put down a lot of the beatles work and called pauls songs granny music ete etc but the music they made was groundbreaking and revolutionary and in my opinion they were way better than the stones
Personal background is one thing, but rock&roll is also defined by its connection to the blues. Both Beatles and Stones worked with the genre, but the Stones' music was more deeply aligned with the blues while the Beatles remained closer to their skiffle roots. The Stones' attitude was also closer to what would become punk, regardless of their upbringing. Not arguing that this attitude and the two bands' public images belied the social backgrounds the members actually came from, of course, that's an interesting point.
@@richat1691 The Beatles were actually a pop-rock band. The Rolling Stones were a blues-rock band. Brian Jones wanted to form a blues band, it wasn't until Andrew Loog Oldham came along and they became a blues-rock band with a gritty bad boy image, opposite to The Beatles' cool good boy image. Legend saids Andrew locked Mick and Keith in a room saying they wouldn't come out until they wrote a song, since Oldham assigned them to be the second songwriting duo after John and Paul. Brian Epstein knew about The Beatles from newspapers and magazines while he was running a record store for his family and someone came in asking for the record called "My Bonnie". He went down to the Cavern Club, saw them perform and was amazed by their music style to where he wanted to be their manager *(Despite having no experience.)* . John and Paul were already writing their own songs so that was no problem. There were no changes to the band except their image, bowing after performances, what not to do on stage like swear, smoke, eat, drink, & play-fight, and replacing Pete Best with Ringo since he was more experienced on the drums.
In the sixties I never bought a Beatles' record. Not because I disliked them, but because it seemed like a waste of money. Turn on the radio and there's probably a Beatles song being played. And if there isn't just wait ten minutes and there will be one.
I NEVER listened to AM radio much at all. When The Beatles cam on the scene I wanted NOTHING to do with 45 releases. I wanted a whole album of their music. And that's where my music buying was formed... with LPs, and not the latest singles being played on AM Radio.
Yeah! Dartford is the poshest part of London. I've heard they had the jacks in their backyards since the 1950s, and got running water in the mid-50s. Very Posh.
Dartford in the 1960s was a relatively prosperous Kent town. Liverpool was already in steep decline, with much higher unemployment and still full of bombsites.
My Dad’s band (The Roadrunners) were on the bill at that Beatles gig. What a funny thought that Lemmy might have watched them play down the Cavern all those decades ago.
@@kellygrudzinski184 makes more sense, given that he had already been scouting around live gigs down south and only went up there because of one. Sounds like he would have been going to gigs from 14 or so, because he mentions the pre-Beatles star at the beginning.
I know one thing, that Keith Richard couldn't play the guitar parts on " and your bird can sing " This song really shows what a great guitarist George Harrison was
@@dearbrad1996 And George couldn't play the solo on Sympathy. Or the parts on Gimme Shelter. So what? Totally different players. I LOVE the Stones unissued version of Please Please Me (1994), the slow building ache, just Keith on guitar and vocal.
@johnryan3913 I mentioned and your bird because it is difficult to play. But I agree so what I am a huge fan of Keef not so much Harrison but you have to give credit where its due. Didn't Mick Taylor do the solo on sympathy? The guitar on Gimme is not complex but it is so original and branded as stones and I think one of the best intros ever
@dearbrad1996 I better understand your position now. Keith played the solo on the studio Sympathy, from Beggars Banquet ('68) and before Taylor joined. It has that taut, tactile feel, behind the beat swagger. I agree about Harrison's greatness. You can hear George and Ron Wood playing together on "Far East Man" from Wood's first solo album "Ive Got My Own Album To Do", which is really exquisite imo. 🐦
Lemmy's from Stoke and during Potters Fortnight you could buy the Stoke Evening Sentinel all along the North Wales coast. Not much Welsh spoken till you get to Anglesey (or inland).
@Lightw81 Lemmy moved to Benllech , Ynys Môn ( Anglesey) around the age of 10 , this would've been in the mid 1950's - at the time many parts of Wales were still thoroughly Welsh speaking. Linguistically, Benllech of the 1950's was _completely_ different to today, back in the day, its inhabitants would pretty much _all_ have been Welsh speaking. It would have been the language used socially by the vast majority. By default, he would've picked it up.
Yeah it's a shame because he passed like a week apart from Bowie his passing was kind of swept under the rug in the publics consciousness. Didn't get his due. Absolute class personified in his own way.
@@michelleneeds4165 Well heavier stuff was never the most popular genre. Most people really have no idea who he is. That’s ok though, people that like metal and harder rock probably prefer it that way.
Beatles and Stones is like comparing Michael Jordan to Denis Rodman. They are both amazing, both contemporaries, and both brought something new to the game. But come on, let’s be real here!
Back in my day you had a choice, the saccharin music of the Beatles or the thunder of the Stones. Everyone had their preferences. I personally was a Stones fan. The Beatles wanted to hold your hand, the Stones had sympathy for the devil. Polar opposite to me.
I like Lemmy. I'm also a huge Rolling Stones fan. When Lemmy passed, my wishful thinking was that Keith thought, "Another one bites the dust." Hey Lemmy. Keith, Brian, and Ronnie were/are all multi-instrumentalists. Jagger-Richards is also a prolific songwriting team with a large catalog. Lemmy was entitled to his opinion but as far as "playing dress up" goes he was sadly mistaken. Six decades plus as a working band they've been doing something right.
John and George were for sure anti-establishment. 'Sir' Paul however is certainly establishment. But I guess that was the magic dynamic of the Beatles, that they had the real rockers and they also had the commercial pop energy.
Paul was never the establishment when he joined the Beatles. Everybody has got a knighthood today. They would have knighted John and George had they lived.
The Beatles have no band to compare them to. The Rolling Stones, who happened to be around at the same time, tried to ride the coattails of The Beatles’ success. However, the Stones are not particularly good at writing music, and their repertoire is quite limited. In fact, you can see that Paul McCartney, performing solo, achieves sold-out concerts all over the world, which highlights his talent in comparison to The Rolling Stones.
First time I heard the Stones was their 12 X 5 album in October, 1964. I liked Around & around, Time is On my Side and It's All over Now. But I was a Beatle fan, through and through.
It's supposed to be Rock & Roll, and The Beatles had none of the Stones' danger. There was nothing sultry about The Beatles. They weren't capable of creating the atmosphere of a Gimme Shelter.
If you disagree, its because you ignore the facts. Just listen to the beatles at the star club and then watch they playing live at the Washington coliseum. After all that, try to keep thinking like that and fail miserably
I’ve always preferred the stones, but no hate to the Beatles, they’re the Beatles for a reason. It’s just my own personal taste in music that makes me prefer the stones.
In his autobiography, Lemmy remembers Lennon head-butting a rude member of The Cavern crowd before getting back on stage and carrying on playing. I remember, as a kid in the 80's, begging my parents to visit Liverpool to see Beatle sites and Beatle City. It was great but when we got to The Cavern, I realised it wasn't the actual Cavern and lost interest in it immediately.
Who did he say? I assume The Stones - as he was inducting them!? Ha ha......small detail. We shall let the Townshends forced opinion and crown the stones with that small win. Throw a dog a bone eh?
@ I just remember She loves you yea yea and Yellow Submarine. I am a rocker and not into their music. Great writers and performers, just not for me. Many people like them and that’s great.
When Rolling Sones and Beatles coexisted, the latter were better. The Stones only reached the level of the Beatles (and even surpassed them in some ways) after the latter broke up, when Mick Taylor joined the band. In any case, they are two great bands with different styles.
This. The Beatles overall discography is probably unmatched by anyone in terms of sheer creativity but The Stones run of albums from Beggars (and maybe a few tracks on ‘Goats’) to Exile is ALSO pretty stellar.
That was kind of interesting though hard to understand in parts what he was saying. Going back, rewinding for a couple seconds each time I could usually make it out though.
The Beatles were the best band. Period. They were great at rock and roll, pop, grunge, punk, new wave and everything else they tried or pioneered. The Stones were a great rock, blues and pop band.
@@TylerDonald-b2x Yer Blues is grunge. Helter Skelter is punk. I Am The Walrus and a few others are new wave. Come Together is blues and soul. Let it Be is gospel. Got To Get You Into My Life is R n b and soul. Don’t Pass Me By and Mother Nature’s Son are country. Tens of Thousands of Jazz, R n B, Soul, Blues, Country, Rock n Roll, Punk, New Wave and other artists have recorded Beatles songs, far more than any other music entity. Keith Richards-who fanatically studied the Beatles music (the inspiration of some huge Stones’ classics)-named the Beatles as one of his 4 favorite bands, he named no other contemporaries or rock bands. Get a clue, pal.
@@HEADLINEZOO wow it’s pretty clear you don’t even listen to any of these genres of music. Like a lot of Beatles fans, your tastes are narrow , often only encompassing the Beatles discography pretty much. Yer Blues was a take on the electric blues scene at the time, like the yard birds. You could call it blues rock, rock and roll, blues, but it certainly has nothing to do with grunge. Grunge isn’t just angst lyric and loud guitars. Grunge is a hybrid of punk, pop, and metal, often minor key. It’s based on power chords. It certainly doesn’t have a 12 bar blues progression, 7th chords, and chuck berry licks. Helter skelter is punk? Are you kidding me? Punk is a spirit more than anything. If you want to define it musically, it’s simple, stripped down, power chords, up tempo, machine gun drumming, sneering. Helter skelter is just a loud rock and roll song. Porto-punk would be stooges “search and destroy”. Compare that to helter skelter; nothing in common. I am the walrus is psychedelic rock. Let it be is just a r and b song like ray charles. Just because you reference religion doesn’t make it a gospel song. “Shine a light” by the stones is a gospel song because it uses 7th chords, gospel choir, organ (or keyboard sounding like an organ), not to mention the beat. Come together , again is chuck berry slowed down. It has nothing to do with blues. Beatles weren’t influenced by blues music. They were in essence a rock and roll band that branched out to psychedelia and pop. The Beatles were never cutting edge. They were like David Bowie in the sense that they would often sample cutting edge music at the time , like psychedelia or folk rock, and put their twist on it. But they were never innovative like the stooges were or Lou reed. Beatles are still a great band. Innovated and broad they weren’t. They stuck to rock and roll. Playing an acoustic guitar doesn’t make it “country” likewise referring to god doesn’t make it “gospel”. The stones were more broad mainly through the influence of the blues. Blues is a brother of country and black gospel. The stones did a novelty disco song with “miss you” just like the Beatles would do a novelty country song like “what goes on” which is actually a country song musically (not mother natures son). It’s important not to overrate these historical bands and give them credit when it doesn’t make any sense.
@ I’ve heard it all. The number of bands and solo artists spanning hundreds of musical genres that have covered the Beatles songs and been influenced by them speaks for itself and irks you. Even The Rolling Stones, per their members, were heavily influenced by the Beatles. Get over it.
@ I highly doubt you listen to much music besides the Beatles or dad rock. Hearing 20 seconds of smells like teen spirit or holiday in the sun doesn’t mean you listened to grunge and punk let alone understand it. I don’t think you understand music in general. you’re the one with the ulterior motive. Anything less than Beatles=God is an insult and blasphemy according to you . I prefer the truth. As a musician that has studied popular music history, I know the truth. Just because you covered a song, or reference your buddy in an interview like Keith does with the Beatles, doesn’t mean you were influenced by them. The stones clearly were not influenced by the Beatles outside of mimicking the trends the Beatles were following during the 60s. Blues is a very different kind of music, different spirit, different aesthetics, different musical pallets, than chuck berry style rock and roll and pop which is what the Beatles were into.
@@scottythetrex5197 I was there from ‘79 to ‘84,lived in Joyce Green hospital. As you left the place the Temple Hill estate was right across the road. First girl I dated there lived across the road from Keef’s dad. I was also advised to use the cinder track to get into town.Many older people clearly remember both Mick and Keef around town. I understand it’s become a lot rougher since I left.
@ which stories do you mean? Joyce Green hospital was originally a fever hospital built near the Thames. Last time I saw,driving over the bridge from Essex, it had been torn down. Local people told me to use the cinder track when I balked at the hill,but I doubt it comes up on google maps as’the cinder track’- which ends up very close to the Welcome factory where they made Valium. Why would I lie to you ?
I have often heard that the Stones were more street, more dangerous and the Beatles were more wholesome and posh. Later I learned that it was the other way around just as Lemmy says. The Beatles were working class guys who only had music to better themselves whereas some of the Stones went to the London School of Economics before they made it in music.
@@SalamiKing7 There is the podcast of course on all platforms - that's got 40 mins in. Patreon subscribers can see video versions of the audio podcast AND get the full interview rushes.
You can also buy individual things on Patreon. Sorry, we don't charge much, but we're completely unfunded! www.patreon.com/posts/lemmy-extended-113102306?Link&
As a man who lives in the south east but has family from Liverpool. Dartford like most Medway towns has become a bit rougher but when the Stones grew up it was the classic middle class leafy South East suburb. Nothing like a post war Liverpool which was poorer and tougher than anyone now could imagine. 😂
If The Stones came out now, they would hands down be the best band out there by a country mile. But compared to The Beatles, well, there is no comparison. It's like comparing Shakespeare with Stephen King.
The Stones we're the Hells Angels favorite band. The Angels never asked the Beatles to play for them. That ends the debate on who we're the hard men and who we're playing dress up.
The Hells Angels sent a group to London and they shacked up at Apple - till the Beatles chucked 'em out. The Stones had them on salary, the Beatles had the cahones to evict them. Arguments never end, my friend. They just develop.
"I Am The Walrus" had an allusion to Eric Burdon. (He used to crack eggs over a woman's stomach while having sex with her, hence "I am the eggman," supposedly)
The myth of The Rolling Stones excess has always baffled me. Given the very long and active lives they've had, they clearly were never hard drinking drug users. People who mess their bodies up that bad when they're young don't live to still be active in their 70s. It was always just a show.
I’m more Stones than Beatles. That said, I love The Beatles. I have so many happy memories with both of these Band’s songs blaring. They are different… of course…BUT… here is what they have in common: they are both, fundamentally, “Rollers” more than “Rockers”…. Meaning, The “roll” of “Rock n Roll” is what gets the ladies shaking and bouncing and (let’s be honest) hot, wet, and ready. Love the Rock, but the Roll is where it’s at. Both of these bands had it in spades. If you claim The Beatles were the Ace of Spades, I won’t argue, but don’t forget The Joker (Stones).
Pack of smokes and a Comb in his shirt pocket. That could be my dad sitting there. The Memorabilia was interesting looking back, I had a SS skull ring (the only jewelry I have ever owned and wore once), and tons of Hakenkreuz's in my room on Model Airplanes, the whole Nazi fashion show was accepted as just that in the late 70's, fashion, and then in the 80's the Sun started rising again with shirts and kamikaze bandanas. I don't remember anyone making a fuss about either. But I am in N America, a long way away from the scarred cities of Europe and the Far East.
i'm into more of the genres that motorhead belongs to than the stones, and even so i wouldn't be foolish enough in a million years to suggest that motorhead had anywhere near the cultural or musical impact of the stones.
I agree. Three killer songs, maybe even two of the classics (not bad at all) and the Beatles did have top songs throughout an LP. Tho “some girls” is prob their best album top to bottom. No filler. Just a great album. Not my fav songs by them, but I love that era and that album. Tattoo You is too tho that’s more a compilation
The same goes for the Stones since the middle of the 70's. It's always the old songs that ignite the crowds. They involve session musicians to make the newer output seem versatile and sound fuller, they run a big, expensive circus but their music is pretty much the same blues-based 3 chord structure and actually significantly worse than decades ago because people at their age are long past their creative peak.
I take it this sort of offended you...but he's right. The Stones were an art school group who went through the exact process he accurately describes. I still like the Stones, though.
Pretty much. When you've heard one Motorhead song you've listened to them all not counting their cover versions. Funny that Lemmy was a hypocrite for covering Sympathy for the Devil.
The Beatles are like drinking the best wine at a 5 star restaurant while The Stones is like picking up the prettiest girl at the premier bar in your hometown.
The Beatles are my #1, all my rock 'n' roll tastes over the years are enthused over in their shadow. Love the Rolling Stones too, of course, Lemmy's right, the Beatles were working class kids except for possibly McCartney, while the Stones were middle class, not much higher than them but still a little more comfortable growing up which in weird way makes it a little easier to be rebellious. Beatles were still rebellious in image and art too of course but just a wee bit more nuanced than the Stones.
A fictional Exile On Main Street like Velvet Goldmine would be better than the actual real thing. Were Taylor faces off with J&R musically and in other ways instead of just being the session man. He definitely sabotaged Sticky Fingers with disposable dud arrangements! The exiled within the exile 😂
Taylor is really only on four Stones albums, one of them a dud except for the Ron Wood song (IORR). Taylor is not a songwriter, period. Though he did play beautifully on Sticky and Goats in particular.
I think Elvis and Bob Dylan would argue that. I'm not a Elvis fan but he influenced The beatles and look at his stature in the world. Dylan is the greatest song writer I'm music history, which The Beatles yet again was influenced by.
@chalkandcheese1868 no way, I'm not a Elvis fan at all, but he has had more number 1s then anyone, everyone knows graceland that gets millions of visitors and how many million personate him. Beatles and Stone have said he influenced them. Not as writers obviously but as music entertainers. Dylan influenced them as writers.
@@stone4173 Massive influence obviously, but just not as much as the Beatles, it was a Beatles world post Beatlemania not an Elvis world, and they made Dylan go electric, and how many other acts can claim that one of their album COVERS is one of the biggest tourist attractions in London?
@@chalkandcheese1868 no the beatles didn't make Dylan go electric. it was The Animals and their version of house of the rising sun, which bob did earlier in acoustic. Sorry but you need to get facts right. Graceland gets way more attention then The beatles album cover.
Fine very creative Beatles were really a “Collaborative Effort” with George Martin. But they were certainly NOT the ONLY band of the 60’s. Actually I am suprised how many Beatles songs I Don’t really like much!!
No don’t care what anyone thinks but it’s true George Martin was a great help to what the Beatles created that’s all, as far as Any Group there are always going to be songs they do that people will like more or less that’s just a point of fact glad I could educate you!
The podcast has a question for you all: should we invite Paul McCartney onto the podcast? Des explains here: ua-cam.com/video/OOdX-BM8C4Q/v-deo.html
"The funny thing is the Stones got the reputation for being the hard men, and the Beatles got the reputation of being like smarmy, you know, but it was the other way around in fact. The Stones were just dressing up. You know, the Beatles were from Liverpool man, you know, it was a pretty tough place. "
Thanks tips. We all saw the same thing
Yes John and Paul were really tough LOL
That was largely the doing of their manager Andrew Loog Oldham. Oldham also suggested to John Baldwin that he should change his name to John Paul Jones. Good decision.
Well they’re all just musicians, not really that tough any way you look at it lol.
Too bad Keith was tougher than any Beat-off and Lennon could never hang with him.
My old man was Stones all the way, it's all we ever heard in the house he hated The Beatles so I just went with it too. Later in life I decided to take a deep dive into The Beatles, all I'd heard to that point was the early stuff pop stuff. What really tipped it for me was the White Album, closely followed by Revolver, just mind blowing records. So yeah, I'm Beatles now but will always love the Stones too.
Beatles kick the door in for England groups
The stones kept it going 2024
Yea. I'm the same, my dad would play the jingly jangly early stuff.
Then when I was older 17-18 my cousin gave me a tape with a day in the life... my god, still to this day remember staring up at the ceiling stoned listening to the most haunting voice painting the most psychedelic words and images.
Powerfull stuff.
@@jeffhunterjeffries3685nobody cares about the stones records after the 70s. Beatles albums are still popular and among the greatest albums ever. Beatles are the best band for me but I also love the stones.
@@armondtanz I had a similar experience, I bought Sgt. Pepper tape back in Highschool simply because I liked the song Lucy in the Sky but didn't know anything else on it. When A Day in the Life came on at the end I distinctly remember the hair on the back of my neck standing up. It was like an other worldly experience. My understanding of music changed that day.
I'm from Liverpool. When he says it was a tough place, he's not kidding
The saying in the sixties was that if you wanted to survive in the 'pool you had three options:
be good at
humour, good at music or good with your fists
I chose the 1st two
You really are a funny guy!” -Hendry to Tommy
Know one from liverpool calls it the pool
@@richat1691
I suppose it's not that common now
Wouldn't know really, I left Liverpool 50 years ago and only been back perhaps 4 times.
Aye, Liverpool is a shitehole
Humour clearly isn't your thing.
The world is worse off without Lem.
Its gay with out Lemmy
Fantastic bloke.
Those damn cigs, man. You can hear how labored his breathing is between every single thing he says.
@revwillyg6450 Yup
Just lost a mate to cancer. He smoked like a train.
Absofuckinlutely!🤘
I used to see Lemmy in music venues around Camden Town in the 80s. He was always at the bar, but would always watch the bands. Noticed him in Dingwalls one night at a Garage punk gig. He must have seen thousands of bands in his lifetime.
Lemmy was at the bar when I went 2 twisted sister at the old marquee back in 82
Dont Forget about the Beatles in Hamburg for 2 years if ya want to talk about rough areas. Beatles ground their teeth and honed their Stage act and Playing Chops in Hamburg Germany.
They sure DiD ! I
They were dangerous even though Epstein spruced them up.
Understatement. Few people experienced what the very young Beatles did. Few n
Know about it. Love the Stones too. The Stones at the same age as the Beatles in Hamburg would have high taled it outta there. An extremely tough existence for a few years.
"My brother's back at home with his Beatles and his stones"..Love that line.
Had to look it up before I went nuts. Moot the Hoople I was thinking Bowie for a while, close.
Listen to Pepper than Majesties.
All you need is love then We love you.
Rubber soul -flowers.
Satisfaction -day Tripper.
Yesterday -As tears go by.
@@streamofconsciousness5826Bowie actually wrote the song for Moot
@@SpeedNAngels431 they were his Badfinger (McCartney)
I didnt get it off with that Revolution stuff . Too many snags . What a drag !
The Beatles’ catalogue of music is unparalleled and simply the best.
The best pop misic catalogue, perhaps. However, The Rolling Stones are genuine rock & roll -- NO comparison between the two.
@ what is your beef with popular music? Creating a melodic song is no easy task; the Beatles were masters of melody.
I like the Stones but their body of work is light years behind the Fab Four.
@@MickDunne100 listen to Revolution, Helter-skelter or Hey Bulldog and say that The Beatles couldn't rock.
@@MickDunne100correct, no comparison. The Stones wrote maybe 3 good songs. The Beatles wrote 300 great songs.
@@davidhollyfield5148 The Beatles could rock, yet rarely. Their peers in the British Invasion -- Stones, Who, Kinks, Yardbirds, Animals -- rocked harder, earlier, and longer.
I wish Lemmy had taken better care of himself. I met him two times in my life. Once in Houston he dropped by Rudyard's Pub. This was in 81 or 82. Then I met him again in maybe 1995 at Jack's Sugar Shack when they were off Hollywood Blvd and Vine. He was a very cool, laid back guy. Except for his appearance you would never know his place in music history.
RIP , baddest mfr in rock n roll , cheeerz Lemmy , miss you terribly
Love them Both💥 Exile on Main Street💥Rubber Soul💥
@@johndozois9453 Correct answer
My two favs from each band. 🎉
Great choices
Revolver
I'm a huge fan of both actually, and each band had its merits but it must be said (emotions aside) the Beatles' creativity and songcraft was on an Astronomical level....They were the Mozart and Beethoven of Popular Music...
The Beatles or the Stones? I`ll have both. Fantastic groups, amazing music.
Totally agree. Couldn't live without both in the world 🙏
@@markhooper7070 Me neither. "Abbey Road" and "Exile on Main St." are my all time favorite albums. It doesn`t get better than the Beatles and the Stones for me. I feel sorry for those who feel they have to pick and choose when you can have both. I`ve seen Paul McCartney and the Rolling Stones live, and they were amazing. I`m also into "Aftermath" and "Revolver". It`s impossible for me to say that one was better than the other..
Same here. I like both The Beatles and The Rolling Stones, best bands from the British Invasion. But The Beatles are the band where I have the most favorite songs and I love all four members.
The Rolling Stones are cool too, my favorite member is Mick Jagger. I like his vocals and his moves, I even dance like him to songs like *Don't Fade Away* and *I'm Alright* .
@@lisettegarcia7013 I hear you. I LOVE the Beatles, and i love each member. Mick and Keith are my two favorite Stones members as they are the songwriters and creative force of the Stones.
@ exactly!
The beatles and the stones were completely different bands and both excellent in what they did, their is no comparison just preference.
True. And Lemmy is correct about the Stones. They grew up in relative comfort in the London suburbs, compared to the Beatles. Keith Richards was in the choir of a prominent church.
I hate that comment. Both completely different. There's no comparison. But you compared them by saying both are excellent.
@@gladlawson61 I'm not sure that's a comparison. Does using the word "both" make something a comparison? Anyway, the point is that if the Beatles's formula for good music didn't overlap much at all with the Stones's formula for good music, ... except, perhaps, for one album: Let It Be. I'm a huge fan of both groups, and if you ask me which I like better, it will depend on what day it is.
Absolutely comparable . They both started in the same era, their roots in music are almost identical , they were part of the British invasion , they both started in the same clubs, they both had two guitar players ....the list goes on . And yes music can be subjective.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with what they became. Lemmy himself grew up in Berslem Stoke on Kent .... not exactly Appalachia.
I don't know if there'd be enough material for a feature-length doc, but I for one would gladly kick in to help fund a film interviewing people who had first-hand experiences seeing the Beatles at the Cavern. So much has been written about them, and I've read so much about them, that what I really treasure now are the anecdotes about brief interactions/conversations/moments between the band members and the people who came to see them. Whenever I hear moments like those, I feel like we're getting a true sense of the character and humanity of the lads. Enjoying your channel--just subscribed. YNWA
Thanks - we've got a few Cavern/Hamburg stories coming. We've got some excellent new interviews coming up in 2025.
Whatever Lemmy says you can believe 💯. It doesn’t mean you should like one band over the other.
Glad I saw this - that’s the straightest I’ve seen Lemmy.
Really? In most of the interviews I’ve seen of him he seems pretty lucid.
He is right, The stones all grew up in middle class and well off families. Went to good schools etc. Only Keith Richards and Bill Wyman grew up poor. It kinda funny watching old footage of mick acting like this bad boy rebel when he grew up well off and went to a good college lol. The Beatles grew up in liverpool in poor areas, ringo came from the worst background and was actually in a gang growing up and witnessed stabbings and he partook in gang fights as he said himself. John is the only one that grew up quite middle class but even he was a little rough around the edges and was a rebel and was known to be a fighter in his younger days. The beatles were the true rock and rollers, Brian Epstein cleaned them up and marketed them well lol. Before the suits and moptops they were in leather jeans and jackets. Andrew Oldham did the opposite with the stones and made them more grittier and dirty. I think thats why john kinda envied that, i think he regretted the beatles changing up their image which is why he put down a lot of the beatles work and called pauls songs granny music ete etc but the music they made was groundbreaking and revolutionary and in my opinion they were way better than the stones
Image is everything. Beatles=pop band. Stones =rock band.
Personal background is one thing, but rock&roll is also defined by its connection to the blues. Both Beatles and Stones worked with the genre, but the Stones' music was more deeply aligned with the blues while the Beatles remained closer to their skiffle roots. The Stones' attitude was also closer to what would become punk, regardless of their upbringing. Not arguing that this attitude and the two bands' public images belied the social backgrounds the members actually came from, of course, that's an interesting point.
You can be born hard, and raised in a gentle area. Nature/nurture.
The TV Industry played right into the "Bad Boy" image here in America. But I knew it was image, and I wasn't impressed with that game.
@@richat1691 The Beatles were actually a pop-rock band. The Rolling Stones were a blues-rock band. Brian Jones wanted to form a blues band, it wasn't until Andrew Loog Oldham came along and they became a blues-rock band with a gritty bad boy image, opposite to The Beatles' cool good boy image. Legend saids Andrew locked Mick and Keith in a room saying they wouldn't come out until they wrote a song, since Oldham assigned them to be the second songwriting duo after John and Paul.
Brian Epstein knew about The Beatles from newspapers and magazines while he was running a record store for his family and someone came in asking for the record called "My Bonnie". He went down to the Cavern Club, saw them perform and was amazed by their music style to where he wanted to be their manager *(Despite having no experience.)* . John and Paul were already writing their own songs so that was no problem. There were no changes to the band except their image, bowing after performances, what not to do on stage like swear, smoke, eat, drink, & play-fight, and replacing Pete Best with Ringo since he was more experienced on the drums.
In the sixties I never bought a Beatles' record. Not because I disliked them, but because it seemed like a waste of money. Turn on the radio and there's probably a Beatles song being played. And if there isn't just wait ten minutes and there will be one.
I NEVER listened to AM radio much at all. When The Beatles cam on the scene I wanted NOTHING to do with 45 releases. I wanted a whole album of their music. And that's where my music buying was formed... with LPs, and not the latest singles being played on AM Radio.
"The Stones were always playing dress up!"
Says the guy in all leather wearing a cowboy hat! 😂😂
That went right over your head clearly..he ain't talking about the clothes they had on
It was a metaphor. He meant that the Stones were acting as "bad boys" to appear authentic, when in fact they were a bunch of art school kids.
You just miss the point don't you? What a dork!
@@Stechamppn Clearly? In usual logic, dress up usually refers to clothes. Perhaps he meant ham sandwiches. 🤷♀️
@stephendavis4809 nothing about what he said told me he was talking about the clothes...so sorry mate...maybe u don't understand the lingo
We miss you Lemmy ❤
Yeah! Dartford is the poshest part of London. I've heard they had the jacks in their backyards since the 1950s, and got running water in the mid-50s. Very Posh.
It isn't in London
hahah yes, someeven had indoor toilets
Dartford in the 1960s was a relatively prosperous Kent town. Liverpool was already in steep decline, with much higher unemployment and still full of bombsites.
Jagger was studying at the London School of Economics at the time
Pretty cool that he has an Epiphone in the background.
It's mine, but he played and signed it:)
@WithoutTheBeatles class!
The Beatles last appearance in The Cavern was on the 3 August 1963 - Lemmy would have been 16.
He would've been 17 going on 18 born Dec 24th 1945
My Dad’s band (The Roadrunners) were on the bill at that Beatles gig. What a funny thought that Lemmy might have watched them play down the Cavern all those decades ago.
@@kellygrudzinski184 makes more sense, given that he had already been scouting around live gigs down south and only went up there because of one. Sounds like he would have been going to gigs from 14 or so, because he mentions the pre-Beatles star at the beginning.
He was road crewing in his early teens, like when he roadied for Jimi Hendrix around late teens
He also saw Buddy Holly
I know one thing, that Keith Richard couldn't play the guitar parts on " and your bird can sing "
This song really shows what a great guitarist George Harrison was
@@dearbrad1996 And George couldn't play the solo on Sympathy. Or the parts on Gimme Shelter. So what? Totally different players. I LOVE the Stones unissued version of Please Please Me (1994), the slow building ache, just Keith on guitar and vocal.
@johnryan3913 I mentioned and your bird because it is difficult to play. But I agree so what I am a huge fan of Keef not so much Harrison but you have to give credit where its due. Didn't Mick Taylor do the solo on sympathy? The guitar on Gimme is not complex but it is so original and branded as stones and I think one of the best intros ever
that aint what keith would even think of messn wiith apples and oranges man 2 different cats
@dearbrad1996 I better understand your position now. Keith played the solo on the studio Sympathy, from Beggars Banquet ('68) and before Taylor joined. It has that taut, tactile feel, behind the beat swagger. I agree about Harrison's greatness. You can hear George and Ron Wood playing together on "Far East Man" from Wood's first solo album "Ive Got My Own Album To Do", which is really exquisite imo. 🐦
Taylor wasn't in the Stones when they did Sympathy@@dearbrad1996
Note the he pronounced Llandudno correctly, this figures because due to his youth in north Wales, Lemmy learnt to speak Welsh.🏴
Lemmy's from Stoke and during Potters Fortnight you could buy the Stoke Evening Sentinel all along the North Wales coast. Not much Welsh spoken till you get to Anglesey (or inland).
@Lightw81 Lemmy moved to Benllech , Ynys Môn ( Anglesey) around the age of 10 , this would've been in the mid 1950's - at the time many parts of Wales were still thoroughly Welsh speaking. Linguistically, Benllech of the 1950's was _completely_ different to today, back in the day, its inhabitants would pretty much _all_ have been Welsh speaking. It would have been the language used socially by the vast majority.
By default, he would've picked it up.
@cymro6537 I didn't know that. Even in the 70s Anglesey was Welsh speaking in many places.
@@cymro6537this is correct he lived in Moelfre
I saw Billy Fury summertime Ramsgate pier around 1962!
Matinee show. Billy was great
SURE WAS.
I love me some Billy Fury. His brother used to drink around Liverpool before he died and would always be happy to chat about music.
Had a beer with him at the Rainbow Room a few years ago.
✌️😎🎸🎶🎵🎶🎵🎶
Yeah it's a shame because he passed like a week apart from Bowie his passing was kind of swept under the rug in the publics consciousness. Didn't get his due. Absolute class personified in his own way.
@@michelleneeds4165 Well heavier stuff was never the most popular genre. Most people really have no idea who he is. That’s ok though, people that like metal and harder rock probably prefer it that way.
Born in 45 so he was 35 when Ace of spades was released
Love em both. I was exposed to Beatles first and you never forget yer first…
My introduction to Pop Music was The Beatles, on the Ed Sullivan Show in 1964.
It’s Lemmy. My GOD. He was. He still is.
great memories here.
ua-cam.com/video/3UaYFOab57E/v-deo.htmlsi=w5ELToM3_RxdXcWX
Beatles and Stones is like comparing Michael Jordan to Denis Rodman. They are both amazing, both contemporaries, and both brought something new to the game. But come on, let’s be real here!
……do it Michael vs Kobe or Lebron; that might be closer..
No way. In terms of song-writing Stones don't come close.
Great memories of the Cavern before it Closed the original One
@@paultraynorbsc627 You used to go?
Back in my day you had a choice, the saccharin music of the Beatles or the thunder of the Stones. Everyone had their preferences. I personally was a Stones fan. The Beatles wanted to hold your hand, the Stones had sympathy for the devil. Polar opposite to me.
As an 8 year old in 1964, I preferred The Beatles. As a 14 year old in 1969, I preferred Led Zeppelin.
SPOT ON LEMMY true legend ❤
You're allowed to like both.
What I say about the ridiculous Metallica vs Megadeth thing
NO !! I had never loved Stones. Puppets that's all !!!
I like Lemmy. I'm also a huge Rolling Stones fan. When Lemmy passed, my wishful thinking was that Keith thought, "Another one bites the dust." Hey Lemmy. Keith, Brian, and Ronnie were/are all multi-instrumentalists. Jagger-Richards is also a prolific songwriting team with a large catalog. Lemmy was entitled to his opinion but as far as "playing dress up" goes he was sadly mistaken. Six decades plus as a working band they've been doing something right.
doesn't change the facts of what he said. stones are basically the first glam rock fakes
Great what he says, Lemmy knew what he was talking about
Lemmy was truly a legend. The Stones were Rockin' it long before him and still are , dressin'up or not. RIP Lemmy.❤
John and George were for sure anti-establishment. 'Sir' Paul however is certainly establishment. But I guess that was the magic dynamic of the Beatles, that they had the real rockers and they also had the commercial pop energy.
Paul was never the establishment when he joined the Beatles. Everybody has got a knighthood today. They would have knighted John and George had they lived.
Paul for what it's worth is a normal guy.
@@wmarkdyer In my opinion Paul McCartney is a living legend, and a musical genius.
The eff do you know? Paul was the more avant-garde and experimental earlier in the Beatles
@@mrjamesgrimes I hate it when people dismiss Paul as if he was a nobody..
The Beatles have no band to compare them to. The Rolling Stones, who happened to be around at the same time, tried to ride the coattails of The Beatles’ success. However, the Stones are not particularly good at writing music, and their repertoire is quite limited. In fact, you can see that Paul McCartney, performing solo, achieves sold-out concerts all over the world, which highlights his talent in comparison to The Rolling Stones.
First time I heard the Stones was their 12 X 5 album in October, 1964. I liked Around & around, Time is On my Side and It's All over Now. But I was a Beatle fan, through and through.
It's supposed to be Rock & Roll, and The Beatles had none of the Stones' danger. There was nothing sultry about The Beatles. They weren't capable of creating the atmosphere of a Gimme Shelter.
They left their danger Hamburg when they went with the suits.
Bahhhhhh
Just because it's Lemmy saying things, doesn't mean he's right. It's just his opinions. Think for yourselves....
@ Says the "Lemmy cult member"😎👍🏼
Thank you!
If you disagree, its because you ignore the facts. Just listen to the beatles at the star club and then watch they playing live at the Washington coliseum. After all that, try to keep thinking like that and fail miserably
I slways preferred The Who over both of them.
I’ve always preferred the stones, but no hate to the Beatles, they’re the Beatles for a reason. It’s just my own personal taste in music that makes me prefer the stones.
In his autobiography, Lemmy remembers Lennon head-butting a rude member of The Cavern crowd before getting back on stage and carrying on playing. I remember, as a kid in the 80's, begging my parents to visit Liverpool to see Beatle sites and Beatle City. It was great but when we got to The Cavern, I realised it wasn't the actual Cavern and lost interest in it immediately.
Been there, know the feeling. But still...
Ask Townshend (Stones RRHOF induction as to who was the better live band early on....
Who did he say? I assume The Stones - as he was inducting them!? Ha ha......small detail. We shall let the Townshends forced opinion and crown the stones with that small win. Throw a dog a bone eh?
Nice little interview.
Beatles were pop, Stones were rock and blues and had a great lead guitarist. I prefer Stones all day long!
@ I just remember She loves you yea yea and Yellow Submarine. I am a rocker and not into their music. Great writers and performers, just not for me. Many people like them and that’s great.
Birds, two birds and one stone. Lol
When Rolling Sones and Beatles coexisted, the latter were better. The Stones only reached the level of the Beatles (and even surpassed them in some ways) after the latter broke up, when Mick Taylor joined the band. In any case, they are two great bands with different styles.
This. The Beatles overall discography is probably unmatched by anyone in terms of sheer creativity but The Stones run of albums from Beggars (and maybe a few tracks on ‘Goats’) to Exile is ALSO pretty stellar.
That was kind of interesting though hard to understand in parts what he was saying. Going back, rewinding for a couple seconds each time I could usually make it out though.
The Beatles were the best band. Period. They were great at rock and roll, pop, grunge, punk, new wave and everything else they tried or pioneered. The Stones were a great rock, blues and pop band.
When did the Beatles ever do grunge, punk, or new wave? Lmfao. The Stones did straight country songs, gospel, and disco.
@@TylerDonald-b2x Yer Blues is grunge. Helter Skelter is punk. I Am The Walrus and a few others are new wave. Come Together is blues and soul. Let it Be is gospel. Got To Get You Into My Life is R n b and soul. Don’t Pass Me By and Mother Nature’s Son are country. Tens of Thousands of Jazz, R n B, Soul, Blues, Country, Rock n Roll, Punk, New Wave and other artists have recorded Beatles songs, far more than any other music entity. Keith Richards-who fanatically studied the Beatles music (the inspiration of some huge Stones’ classics)-named the Beatles as one of his 4 favorite bands, he named no other contemporaries or rock bands. Get a clue, pal.
@@HEADLINEZOO wow it’s pretty clear you don’t even listen to any of these genres of music. Like a lot of Beatles fans, your tastes are narrow , often only encompassing the Beatles discography pretty much.
Yer Blues was a take on the electric blues scene at the time, like the yard birds. You could call it blues rock, rock and roll, blues, but it certainly has nothing to do with grunge. Grunge isn’t just angst lyric and loud guitars. Grunge is a hybrid of punk, pop, and metal, often minor key. It’s based on power chords. It certainly doesn’t have a 12 bar blues progression, 7th chords, and chuck berry licks.
Helter skelter is punk? Are you kidding me? Punk is a spirit more than anything. If you want to define it musically, it’s simple, stripped down, power chords, up tempo, machine gun drumming, sneering. Helter skelter is just a loud rock and roll song. Porto-punk would be stooges “search and destroy”. Compare that to helter skelter; nothing in common.
I am the walrus is psychedelic rock. Let it be is just a r and b song like ray charles. Just because you reference religion doesn’t make it a gospel song. “Shine a light” by the stones is a gospel song because it uses 7th chords, gospel choir, organ (or keyboard sounding like an organ), not to mention the beat. Come together , again is chuck berry slowed down. It has nothing to do with blues.
Beatles weren’t influenced by blues music. They were in essence a rock and roll band that branched out to psychedelia and pop.
The Beatles were never cutting edge. They were like David Bowie in the sense that they would often sample cutting edge music at the time , like psychedelia or folk rock, and put their twist on it. But they were never innovative like the stooges were or Lou reed.
Beatles are still a great band. Innovated and broad they weren’t. They stuck to rock and roll. Playing an acoustic guitar doesn’t make it “country” likewise referring to god doesn’t make it “gospel”.
The stones were more broad mainly through the influence of the blues. Blues is a brother of country and black gospel. The stones did a novelty disco song with “miss you” just like the Beatles would do a novelty country song like “what goes on” which is actually a country song musically (not mother natures son).
It’s important not to overrate these historical bands and give them credit when it doesn’t make any sense.
@ I’ve heard it all. The number of bands and solo artists spanning hundreds of musical genres that have covered the Beatles songs and been influenced by them speaks for itself and irks you. Even The Rolling Stones, per their members, were heavily influenced by the Beatles. Get over it.
@ I highly doubt you listen to much music besides the Beatles or dad rock. Hearing 20 seconds of smells like teen spirit or holiday in the sun doesn’t mean you listened to grunge and punk let alone understand it. I don’t think you understand music in general.
you’re the one with the ulterior motive. Anything less than Beatles=God is an insult and blasphemy according to you . I prefer the truth. As a musician that has studied popular music history, I know the truth.
Just because you covered a song, or reference your buddy in an interview like Keith does with the Beatles, doesn’t mean you were influenced by them. The stones clearly were not influenced by the Beatles outside of mimicking the trends the Beatles were following during the 60s. Blues is a very different kind of music, different spirit, different aesthetics, different musical pallets, than chuck berry style rock and roll and pop which is what the Beatles were into.
Lol the Stones were from London/Dartford. Read Keith's autobiography. It was tough.
It wasn't THAT bad - I lived there,very close to where Keith had been and I'm still kicking.
@maxcuthbert100 Lol yeah I'm buying that.
@@scottythetrex5197 I was there from ‘79 to ‘84,lived in Joyce Green hospital. As you left the place the Temple Hill estate was right across the road. First girl I dated there lived across the road from Keef’s dad. I was also advised to use the cinder track to get into town.Many older people clearly remember both Mick and Keef around town. I understand it’s become a lot rougher since I left.
@maxcuthbert100 Lol anyone can pull up Google maps and make up a few stories. Nice try.
@ which stories do you mean? Joyce Green hospital was originally a fever hospital built near the Thames. Last time I saw,driving over the bridge from Essex, it had been torn down. Local people told me to use the cinder track when I balked at the hill,but I doubt it comes up on google maps as’the cinder track’- which ends up very close to the Welcome factory where they made Valium. Why would I lie to you ?
I have often heard that the Stones were more street, more dangerous and the Beatles were more wholesome and posh. Later I learned that it was the other way around just as Lemmy says. The Beatles were working class guys who only had music to better themselves whereas some of the Stones went to the London School of Economics before they made it in music.
Is it possible to see the full interview? I think I’ve seen every single Lemmy interview so a new one is so cool!!
@@SalamiKing7 There is the podcast of course on all platforms - that's got 40 mins in. Patreon subscribers can see video versions of the audio podcast AND get the full interview rushes.
You can also buy individual things on Patreon. Sorry, we don't charge much, but we're completely unfunded! www.patreon.com/posts/lemmy-extended-113102306?Link&
Bravo 🎩
excellent
The Stones have some great songs, but they can't touch The Beatles' catalogue.
"They were just playing dress up" - man wearing a civil war era hat.
This is a contest to see who can mumble the most. Jesus !!!
STRANGE place Llandudno in North Wales ! Afew TALENTED people came from there ...... and GROUNDED as well.
Lemmy clearly hasn't been to Dartford
😆 🤣 😂 😹 😆 🤣 Stones fans are so defensive of their darlings being second tier
As a man who lives in the south east but has family from Liverpool. Dartford like most Medway towns has become a bit rougher but when the Stones grew up it was the classic middle class leafy South East suburb. Nothing like a post war Liverpool which was poorer and tougher than anyone now could imagine. 😂
@@docsavage8640No I don't think it's just that, I think that people are going off on what Dartford is like now
Lucky for Dartford!?!
If The Stones came out now, they would hands down be the best band out there by a country mile. But compared to The Beatles, well, there is no comparison. It's like comparing Shakespeare with Stephen King.
More like Joyce and Proust.
"Did you feel the excitement in the air because of the Beatles?" Nah, I couldn't drink.
I love bands that can excite me "without being under the influence."
@@HardRockMaster7577 _whoosh_
The Yardbirds and The Who were the real bad boys.
Yep... Those are 4 great bands.
And The Animals.
@@michaelandrew4488 I forgot about them and the Kinks too .
The Beatles are The Benchmark for a Rock group. Everyone else comes after.
Beatles got blow by the stones
@ I like the early Stones but it’s not even close.
What? No captioning. May as well be listening to Ozzy.
Clear as crystal to me.
Dylans writing All along the Watchtower whilst the Beatles are writing "i wonna hold your hand"
@@craigappleton938 ua-cam.com/video/35n4DUPUU9E/v-deo.htmlsi=9aCfSTqizQemB7-G
And?😂 his melodies were always poor.
I'm sure Lemmy lived on Anglesey when he was a kid, and got his nickname by always asking 'can you len me a quid?'
The Stones we're the Hells Angels favorite band. The Angels never asked the Beatles to play for them. That ends the debate on who we're the hard men and who we're playing dress up.
The Hells Angels sent a group to London and they shacked up at Apple - till the Beatles chucked 'em out. The Stones had them on salary, the Beatles had the cahones to evict them. Arguments never end, my friend. They just develop.
ALL performers "play dressup", even Curt Cobain in a ratty sweater. It's a PERFORMANCE!
Happy Birthday, Lemmy!!
Lenny is Great, this is so cool ti hear home talk about the Stinew just playing originally but growing into their image
The Beatles were great, the Stones almost as good, but the Animals were the COOLEST.
"I Am The Walrus" had an allusion to Eric Burdon. (He used to crack eggs over a woman's stomach while having sex with her, hence "I am the eggman," supposedly)
😂
The Animals and The Kinks for me.
@@quincee3376lucky to see Kinks in 1983-tops maybe 4,000
That's right!....The Beatles were from the working class while the Stones were from the middle class.
The myth of The Rolling Stones excess has always baffled me. Given the very long and active lives they've had, they clearly were never hard drinking drug users. People who mess their bodies up that bad when they're young don't live to still be active in their 70s. It was always just a show.
I’m more Stones than Beatles. That said, I love The Beatles. I have so many happy memories with both of these Band’s songs blaring. They are different… of course…BUT… here is what they have in common: they are both, fundamentally, “Rollers” more than “Rockers”…. Meaning, The “roll” of “Rock n Roll” is what gets the ladies shaking and bouncing and (let’s be honest) hot, wet, and ready. Love the Rock, but the Roll is where it’s at. Both of these bands had it in spades. If you claim The Beatles were the Ace of Spades, I won’t argue, but don’t forget The Joker (Stones).
Pack of smokes and a Comb in his shirt pocket. That could be my dad sitting there.
The Memorabilia was interesting looking back, I had a SS skull ring (the only jewelry I have ever owned and wore once), and tons of Hakenkreuz's in my room on Model Airplanes, the whole Nazi fashion show was accepted as just that in the late 70's, fashion, and then in the 80's the Sun started rising again with shirts and kamikaze bandanas. I don't remember anyone making a fuss about either.
But I am in N America, a long way away from the scarred cities of Europe and the Far East.
i'm into more of the genres that motorhead belongs to than the stones, and even so i wouldn't be foolish enough in a million years to suggest that motorhead had anywhere near the cultural or musical impact of the stones.
The stones copied everything the Beatles did, I put on a stones LP and like maybe 3 songs, I put on a Beatles LP and love almost every song, every LP.
that means you have bad taste.
I agree. Three killer songs, maybe even two of the classics (not bad at all) and the Beatles did have top songs throughout an LP. Tho “some girls” is prob their best album top to bottom. No filler. Just a great album. Not my fav songs by them, but I love that era and that album. Tattoo You is too tho that’s more a compilation
Don't think you've listened to the Stones albums all the way through.
Where did the Stones copy the Beatles? Seriously, thematically or stylistically?
I can't imagine the beatles playing in Rhyl. Place is an absolute dive.
and Lemmys music is pretty much like chain restaurant tex mex, a few diffrrent forms of same ingredients and all tastes (sounds) the same
The same goes for the Stones since the middle of the 70's. It's always the old songs that ignite the crowds. They involve session musicians to make the newer output seem versatile and sound fuller, they run a big, expensive circus but their music is pretty much the same blues-based 3 chord structure and actually significantly worse than decades ago because people at their age are long past their creative peak.
I take it this sort of offended you...but he's right. The Stones were an art school group who went through the exact process he accurately describes. I still like the Stones, though.
Pretty much. When you've heard one Motorhead song you've listened to them all not counting their cover versions. Funny that Lemmy was a hypocrite for covering Sympathy for the Devil.
ua-cam.com/video/3UaYFOab57E/v-deo.htmlsi=w5ELToM3_RxdXcWX
The Beatles are like drinking the best wine at a 5 star restaurant while The Stones is like picking up the prettiest girl at the premier bar in your hometown.
Poetry!
What a meaningless statement
@@docsavage8640 sorry it didn't resonate with you.
Senseless statement..brooo
I take the girl.
The Beatles are my #1, all my rock 'n' roll tastes over the years are enthused over in their shadow. Love the Rolling Stones too, of course, Lemmy's right, the Beatles were working class kids except for possibly McCartney, while the Stones were middle class, not much higher than them but still a little more comfortable growing up which in weird way makes it a little easier to be rebellious. Beatles were still rebellious in image and art too of course but just a wee bit more nuanced than the Stones.
Beatles v Stones lives!
A fictional Exile On Main Street like Velvet Goldmine would be better than the actual real thing. Were Taylor faces off with J&R musically and in other ways instead of just being the session man. He definitely sabotaged Sticky Fingers with disposable dud arrangements! The exiled within the exile 😂
Taylor is really only on four Stones albums, one of them a dud except for the Ron Wood song (IORR). Taylor is not a songwriter, period. Though he did play beautifully on Sticky and Goats in particular.
There is no debate. It's absurd.
Sez the guy who always has to wear a hat.
miss lemmy heaps
Love them or hate them nothing compares to The Beatles as far as popularity or influence goes.
I think Elvis and Bob Dylan would argue that. I'm not a Elvis fan but he influenced The beatles and look at his stature in the world. Dylan is the greatest song writer I'm music history, which The Beatles yet again was influenced by.
@@stone4173 Elvis is the only one that can be compared to the Beatles, but even he was far behind in influence.
@chalkandcheese1868 no way, I'm not a Elvis fan at all, but he has had more number 1s then anyone, everyone knows graceland that gets millions of visitors and how many million personate him. Beatles and Stone have said he influenced them. Not as writers obviously but as music entertainers. Dylan influenced them as writers.
@@stone4173 Massive influence obviously, but just not as much as the Beatles, it was a Beatles world post Beatlemania not an Elvis world, and they made Dylan go electric, and how many other acts can claim that one of their album COVERS is one of the biggest tourist attractions in London?
@@chalkandcheese1868 no the beatles didn't make Dylan go electric. it was The Animals and their version of house of the rising sun, which bob did earlier in acoustic. Sorry but you need to get facts right. Graceland gets way more attention then The beatles album cover.
Lemmy you were good,the Stones were great.Both part of our history.
Im all years when Lemmy speaks or sings.
The greased rock and rol band
Always Motörhead !!!!
ua-cam.com/video/3UaYFOab57E/v-deo.htmlsi=w5ELToM3_RxdXcWX
I’m so sorry ment to be the greatest !!!
There is no debate...the stones where/are limited....The Beatles are infinite....
Fine very creative Beatles were really a “Collaborative Effort” with George Martin. But they were certainly NOT the ONLY band of the 60’s. Actually I am suprised how many Beatles songs I Don’t really like much!!
Good for you. Are we supposed to be impressed by your insight or something?
No don’t care what anyone thinks but it’s true George Martin was a great help to what the Beatles created that’s all, as far as Any Group there are always going to be songs they do that people will like more or less that’s just a point of fact glad I could educate you!