>Jagger said in 1969, "I liked the way the Beatles did that with 'Hey Jude'. The orchestra was not just to cover everything up—it was something extra. We may do something like that on the next album."
>John replied with "I hate women so goddamn much I going to go home later and beat my wife."
>>130023421Cut to the overbearing church choir on Let It Bleed
>>130023607Yes
The Beatles huh? I'll have to check 'em out.
>>130023421>>130023467Completely agree with this interesting factoid about 60s One Direction. Have you seen the wallpaper btw?
>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-farin' 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's from the Dingle, which is like the fucking Bronx. The Rolling Stones were the mummy's 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 shit on stage, whereas the Beatles were the gear.
Every time I go back and listen to the Stones (which is rarer and rarer), I like them a little bit less. I now think they just had a couple fluke good songs on Sticky Fingers and Exile, and even they were basically because of Mick Taylor. Imagine if every one of their songs was as good as Sway, then maybe they might deserve the praise they get.
>>13002845060s Stones>70s Stones
>>130023421you can' always get what you want?
>>130023421
I want to fuck Mick Jagger
