That's interesting , because Lemmy is a huge Beatles fan , and claimed he used to see them play in Hamburg all the time. It's possible , I would NEVER dispute Lemmy (Who's a very nice guy , BTW.), but he has told stories , like witnessing the Allied intervention of Germany , in 1945 , when he would have still been an infant . That said , he's always marvelled at how tuff The Beatles were , at least , back when. When I was in Jr. High , High School , before I got into Rockabilly and Garage in earnest , The Beatles and Stones were running neck and neck , for me . Later , The Stones took hold. I guess , because they seemed a LOT more influential on the stuff I like , now , than The Beatles - Who are , of course , totally influential , most people have heard the bulk of their back catalogue over and over, whereas , The Stones , and Elvis , too , for that matter , have a shitload of great songs that only the most hardened geeks , like myself , even know. A Stones tribute band has about 25 songs they can get away with playing , but , if a Beatles tribute band wants to focus on one era , OR go across the board , it's still P.C. MY EARLIEST MEMORIES OF THE BEATLES GO BACK TO 1968. I'm sure I heard The Rolling Stones , then , too , but , was'nt conscious of them until the early 70's.
I like some Pop all right , but , generally , I go in for a grittier sound. The Stones even had some great Pop songs , too , but , you'd have to be a pretty big fan to know more than a few of them .
Dana V. Hatch said:
Lemmy pointed out that the story is the Beatles were goody goody and the Stones were tough but the opposite was true, Beatles tough determined working class lads, the Stones pampered upper middle class prats. Still I prefer the Stones' overt sex drugs and rock and roll stance over the Beatles' subtler subversion but I love both bands like my own food.
