The Beatles vs. The Stones

“The Beatles were hard men too. Brian Epstein cleaned them up for mass consumption, but they were anything but sissies. They were from Liverpool, which is like Hamburg or Norfolk, Virginia; a hard, sea-faring town, all these dockers and sailors around all the time who would beat the piss out of you if you so much as winked at them. Ringo is from the Dingle, which is like the f***ing Bronx.

The Rolling Stones were the mummys boys they were all college students from the outskirts of London. They went to starve in London, but it was by choice, to give themselves some sort of aura of disrespectability. I did like the Stones, but they were never anywhere near the Beatles not for humour, not for originality, not for songs, not for presentation. All they had was Mick Jagger dancing about. Fair enough, the Stones made great records, but they were always s**t on stage, whereas the Beatles were the gear.”

— Lemmy Kilmister

3 tanker om “The Beatles vs. The Stones”

  1. Man kan vel ikke helt med rimelighed sige Stones er kedelige på en scene.. respekt for en mands ret til en mening, men den er lovlig firkantet 🙂

Skriv et svar