John Lennon On The Stones And Mick Jagger

[Jeff]

I can't speak for you all but this is the first time I've ever heard
this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-b3fRisu50&feature=related

[hislop]

I've always known somewhat John's attitude to The Rolling Stones

I roll a stoney
Well you can imitate everyone you know
Yes you can imitate everyone you know
I told you so

I've seen photos of them together with that look on John's face.

[hislop]

On 12/08/2012 1:28 PM, Jeff wrote:

Here's more of the interview the clip is from:

Excerpt from The Rolling Stone Interview: John Lennon, January 7, 1971


Rolling Stone: What was it ike in the early days in London?
John: When we came down, we were treated like real provincials by the
Londoners. We were in fact, provincials.
Rolling Stone: What was it like, say, running around London, in the
discotheques, with the Stones, and everything?
John: That was a great period. We were like kings of the jungle then,
and we were very close to the Stones. I don't know how close the others
were but I spent a Lot of time with Brian and Mick. I admire them, you
know. I dug them the first thime I saw them in whatever that place is
they came from, Richmond. I spent a lot of time with them, and it was
great. We all used to just go around London in cars and meet each other
and talk about music with the Animals and Eric and all that. It was
really a good time, that was the best period, fame-wise. We didn't get
mobbed so much. It was like a men's smoking club, just a very good scene.
Rolling stone : What was Brian Jonesr like?
John: Well, he was different over the years as he disintegrated. He
ended up the kind of guy that you dread when he would come on the phone,
because you knew it was trouble. He was really in a lot of pain. In
the early days, he was all right, because he was young and confident.
He was one of them guys that disintegrated in front of you. He wasn't
sort of brilliant or anything, he was just a nice guy.
Rolling Stone: When he died?
John : By then I didn't feel anything. I just thought another victim
of the drug scene.
Rolling Stone: What do you think of the Stones today?
John: I think it's a lot of hype. I like "Honky Tonk Woman" but I
think Mick's a joke, with all that fag dancing, I always did. I enjoy
it, I'll probably go and see his films and all, like everybody else, but
really, I think it's a joke.
Rolling Stone: Do you see him much now?
John: No, I never do see him. We saw bit of each other around when
Allen was first coming in-I think Mick got jealous. I was always very
respectful about Mick and the Stones, but he said a lot of sort of tarty
things about the Beatles, which I am hurt by, because you know, I can
knock the Beatles, but don't let Mick Jagger knock them. I would like
to just list what we did and what the Stones did two months after on
every fuckin' album. Every fuckin' thing we did, Mick does exactly the
same-he imitates us. And I would like one of you fuckin' underground
people to point it out, you know Satanic Majesties is Pepper, "We Love
You," it's the most fuckin' bullshit, that's "All You Need Is Love."
I resent the implication that the Stones are like revolutionaries and
that the Beatles weren't. If the Stones were or are, the Beatles really
were too. But they are not in the same class, music-wise or power-wise,
never were. I never said anything, I always admired them, because I
like their funky music and I like their style. I like rock and roll and
the direction they took after they got over trying to imitate us, you
know, but he's even going to do Apple now. He's going to do the same thing.
He's obviously so upset by how big the Beatles are compared with him; he
never got over it. Now he's in his old age, and he is beginning to
knock us, you know, and he keeps knocking. I resent it, because even
his second fuckin' record we wrote it for him. Mick said "Peace made
money." We didn't make any money from Peace. You know.

[Nil]

On 11 Aug 2012, Jeff <yourimag...@yahoo.com> wrote in
rec.music.beatles:

> I can't speak for you all but this is the first time I've ever heard
> this.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-b3fRisu50&feature=related

The whole interview can be heard here:

http://blog.wfmu.org/freeform/2006/12/john_lennons_19.html

It's also available at the iTunes Store as a free podcast.

[Fattuchus]

I recall reading this in the original interview.

IMO John and Mick were really friends; John sometimes shot off his
mouth.

I've read other interviews where John indicated he was actually
jealous of the Stones. John was always a rebel and anti
establishment. When the Beatles started out they were in leather
jackets, smoked, cursed on stage, etc. John liked that image.

When the Beatles teamed up with Brian Epstein, Brian convinced them
that if they wanted to make it big and have broad appeal, they would
have to wear suits, clean up their image, etc. John went along
because he wanted to be very famous, but in
later years he regretted it. He thought they had "sold out."

John was jealous of the Rolling Stones because they became famous by
presenting themselves as the alternative to the Beatles' clean image.
The Stones emphasized their rebellious image. I read an interview
where John said something like, "I was in the
wrong band."

[Jeff]

On Aug 12, 11:22 am, Nil <redno...@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote:
> On 11 Aug 2012, Jeff <yourimageunre...@yahoo.com> wrote in

Thanks, Nil

[Jeff]

On Aug 12, 12:12 pm, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 11, 11:28 pm, Jeff <yourimageunre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I can't speak for you all but this is the first time I've ever heard
> > this.
>
> >  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-b3fRisu50&feature=related
>
> I recall reading this in the original interview.
>
> IMO John and Mick were really friends; John sometimes shot off his
> mouth.
>
> I've read other interviews where John indicated he was actually
> jealous of the Stones. John was always a rebel and anti
> establishment.   When the Beatles started out they were in leather
> jackets, smoked, cursed on stage, etc.  John liked that image.

Picture John at age 70 in a leather jacket.

:-)

[Jeff]

So, "I dig a Pony" is about the Stones imitating the Beatles,
or what is it about?

[ermitano]

i agree with john in some aspects.
the rolling stones lost their path when they started to doing the
psychedelic thing, recording Satanic Majestic LP, but then they
realized that only rock & roll was always their thing, that's what
basically lennon saying.. but of course, he's adding other stuff and
very passionate, as usual

[M C hammered]

When John said he was in the wrong band its cuzza the Beatles, who
Yoke nebba hearda. It was'nt until Yoke lettim into the Plastic Ono
Band, that John was finely in the rite band. Suppotin a REAL
musucian....the firkin YOKE!

Also Elephants Memry was a band that woulda been rite fer John. But
not the Beatles fer Chrissake's....justa buncha goddang BUGG'S.

nuff said

[M C hammered]

On Aug 12, 9:07 pm, Dennis M <denni...@dennism3.invalid> wrote:
> In article
> <9e2ee25a-fd86-417e-bdad-d8b755525...@i6g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,

>
>  Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > John was jealous of the Rolling Stones because they became famous by
> > presenting themselves as the alternative to the Beatles' clean image.
> > The Stones emphasized their rebellious image.
>

> John was rebellious but he and the other Beatles were also optimistic.
> That's why their music stands the test of time better than the Stones'
> pessimistic and derivative blues music.

>
> > I read an interview where John said something like, "I was in the wrong
> > band."
>

> I wouldn't be surprised if he said that during the breakup or shortly
> thereafter. I doubt he would have said that during the Dakota days.

The Dakota Day's was the happiest o John's life...bakin vread an
raisin Sean. Cuzza da Yole tollim he din't hafta make no more o that
goddanged music...wish afta all, music was HER specialty as anyone who
has a heard "We're all Watta" know's.

Amen (thats Rich pipin up again)

Nuff said

[hislop]

> realized that only rock& roll was always their thing, that's what

> basically lennon saying.. but of course, he's adding other stuff and
> very passionate, as usual

The trouble I have is that I like Satanic Majesties and I don't like
them much after that.
I thought he meant they were copying The Beatles. Weren't the 60s
terrible, all those groups copying The Beatles?

[Jeff]

Not all the groups that copied the Beatles were terrible.
Badfinger was pretty good.

[hislop]

I was being facetious.

For me:
facetious: adjective, treating serious issues with deliberately
inappropriate humour; flippant.

Not sure if the issue was serious, maybe that was why I was being facetious.

[Jeff]

Not a problem:

I was trying to think of one song that sounded like the
Beatles that was recorded in the 60's, but can't
remember the name of the song or group. So,
I just said Badfinger. I should have not responded
until I remember, but I'm hoping somebody will
jog my memory. There were a number of bands
though that did a poor job of imitating the Beatles.
"Needles and Pins' was one of them. Not that
bad but that good, IMO.

[Wilhelm Noeker]

hislop wrote:

> Excerpt from The Rolling Stone Interview: John Lennon, January 7, 1971

[...]

> He's obviously so upset by how big the Beatles are compared with him; he
> never got over it. Now he's in his old age, and he is beginning to knock
> us, you know, and he keeps knocking. I resent it, because even his
> second fuckin' record we wrote it for him. Mick said "Peace made money."
> We didn't make any money from Peace. You know.

Mick Jagger "in his old age", LOL. And that was said 40 years ago!

[Fattuchus]

ROTFLMAO!

[Gemini Jackson]

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 02:19:39 +1000, hislop <takecar...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Opinions vary, but the Stones had some work that the Beatles could
never have pulled off (and of course vice-versa). I place the Stones
era from Beggars Banquet to Exile as the most impressive consecutive 4
albums ever. And didn't John sing backup on 'We Love You'?

I've always wondered where the Beatles would have taken things had
they survived into the 70's, though lately I've begun to realize they
had done all they could do, and I think they realized that too, there
was no 2nd wind to be had.
-gj

[Gemini Jackson]

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 20:07:46 -0500, Dennis M
<denn...@dennism3.invalid> wrote:

>John was rebellious but he and the other Beatles were also optimistic.
>That's why their music stands the test of time better than the Stones'
>pessimistic and derivative blues music.

I think that Beatles music is more appealing to a broader audience
because it's safer. Most people start off young listening to the
Beatles and then get into the Stones as they get a bit older and
mature. I'd have no issues with my kids listening to any Beatles
album, but may decide to skip say, Sister Morphine, Star Star, Rocks
Off, etc. The Stones never set out to be 'cute', pretty, or clean.
They may have ridden the Beatles coattails early on but that's hardly
noticeable now. I'd say Sticky Fingers can hold it's own to any
Beatles album. That being said, it's not a contest, I like em both.
-gj

[hislop]

>>>>>> the early days, he was all right, because he was young and confident..

Here are some groups mistaken realistically or pretend as possibly The
Beatles during their time:
The Knickerbockers (for the single Lies)
The Bee Gees (only when they started in the UK, probably with 1941 New
York Mining Disaster)
Klaatu (during the 70s)

[hislop]

>>>>>> the early days, he was all right, because he was young and confident..

I just looked these up on Wikipedia after making the last post:

"New York Mining Disaster 1941" is a song by the British rock band Bee
Gees, written by Barry and Robin Gibb. It was the first Bee Gees song to
be released in the United States, and their first song to hit the charts
in the US[1] or UK.

At the time, rumours circulated that the Bee Gees were The Beatles
recording under a pseudonym (the Bee Gees' name was supposedly code for
"Beatles Group"), in part because the record referenced NEMS Enterprises
(Brian Epstein's management agency, which had just been joined by Bee
Gees' manager Robert Stigwood).
------------

Finally, The Knickerbockers had a Top 20 hit in early 1966 with "Lies."
Somewhat ironically, the song is most famous today for being blatantly
derivative of contemporary songs by The Beatles, due to Randell's lead
vocal sounding uncannily similar to John Lennon, as well as the vocal
whoops before the guitar solo and later in the song, which were very
reminiscent of Paul McCartney. Allmusic remarks that the song is "justly
regarded as the most accurate early-Beatles imitation." [1] Some
listeners, unaware of its true source, mistake it for being a "lost"
Beatles track.

-------------

The band is also remembered internationally for rumours that they were
actually The Beatles recording under a pseudonym. Klaatu themselves did
not start these rumours and always flatly denied them, and indeed no
Beatle was ever involved in the writing, recording or production of any
Klaatu material.

-------------

I hear lots of Beatle impersonations and influences listening to 60s
music, along with Rolling Stones ones. Sky Saxon of The Seeds was
obsessed with Mick Jagger.

[Home Guard Chris]

Jeff wrote:
> "Needles and Pins' was one of them. Not that
> bad but that good, IMO.

You mean this, by The Searchers?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypv1lZlW1WY

A bit harsh to say that they were copying The Beatles, given that they
were a fellow Merseybeat band rather than from the other side of the
world trying to make a quick buck. They played the Cavern and Hamburg,
too. But, yes, the jangly lead guitar and vocal harmonies are
reminiscent of The Beatles.

Incidentally, I had no idea until just now that Sonny Bono co-wrote that
song.

--
http://www.thehomeguard.info/music.html
^ My band - feedback always welcome ^

[Jeff]

Thank you. You found it. It's "Lies" by the Knickerbockers. I
just could not remember it the past couple of days. I knew
someone had the answer. Was that the only song they released
that sounded like the Beatles? Or were there others that just
weren't hits?

[hislop]

>>>>>>>> John: Well, he was different over the years as he disintegrated.. He

>>>>>>>> ended up the kind of guy that you dread when he would come on the phone,

>>>>>>>> because you knew it was trouble. He was really in a lot of pain.. In

>>>>>>>> the early days, he was all right, because he was young and confident..
>>>>>>>> He was one of them guys that disintegrated in front of you. He wasn't
>>>>>>>> sort of brilliant or anything, he was just a nice guy.
>>>>>>>> Rolling Stone: When he died?
>>>>>>>> John : By then I didn't feel anything. I just thought another victim
>>>>>>>> of the drug scene.
>>>>>>>> Rolling Stone: What do you think of the Stones today?
>>>>>>>> John: I think it's a lot of hype. I like "Honky Tonk Woman" but I
>>>>>>>> think Mick's a joke, with all that fag dancing, I always did. I enjoy
>>>>>>>> it, I'll probably go and see his films and all, like everybody else, but
>>>>>>>> really, I think it's a joke.
>>>>>>>> Rolling Stone: Do you see him much now?
>>>>>>>> John: No, I never do see him. We saw bit of each other around when
>>>>>>>> Allen was first coming in-I think Mick got jealous. I was always very
>>>>>>>> respectful about Mick and the Stones, but he said a lot of sort of tarty
>>>>>>>> things about the Beatles, which I am hurt by, because you know, I can
>>>>>>>> knock the Beatles, but don't let Mick Jagger knock them. I would like
>>>>>>>> to just list what we did and what the Stones did two months after on
>>>>>>>> every fuckin' album. Every fuckin' thing we did, Mick does exactly the
>>>>>>>> same-he imitates us. And I would like one of you fuckin' underground
>>>>>>>> people to point it out, you know Satanic Majesties is Pepper, "We Love

>>>>>>>> You," it's the most fuckin' bullshit, that's "All You Need Is Love.."

They had a major follow up which is also on Nuggets, my entire
Knickerbockers collection, if you don't include what is probably a cover
on the soundtrack of Out of Sight (1966). That follow up is pretty good
too.
I've got obscure songs on mp3 with very obvious attempts to sound like
John or Paul.
Linda Ronstadt did a fairly decent cover of Lies in about 1982.

[Jeff]

On Aug 14, 10:10 am, Home Guard Chris

<contac...@theSPAMTRAPhomeguard.info> wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
> > "Needles and Pins' was one of them. Not that
> > bad but that good, IMO.
>
> You mean this, by The Searchers?:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypv1lZlW1WY
>
> A bit harsh to say that they were copying The Beatles, given that they
> were a fellow Merseybeat band rather than from the other side of the
> world trying to make a quick buck. They played the Cavern and Hamburg,
> too. But, yes, the jangly lead guitar and vocal harmonies are
> reminiscent of The Beatles.
>
> Incidentally, I had no idea until just now that Sonny Bono co-wrote that
> song.
>

> --http://www.thehomeguard.info/music.html

>   ^ My band - feedback always welcome ^

I shouldn't have said they were copying the Beatles.
It was like it was a poor imitation they were doing
of some band....never could make up my mind
who it was.

[hislop]

The Searchers were peers.

[ermitano]

well, yes, but i take his comment as how the rolling stones were
copying the beatles with that LP they weren't doing their best music.
in that i agree with john. i prefer the rolling stones from exile on
main street.

[hislop]

the conventional view, why people like 90s groups I guess

[hislop]

I guess you preferred the 70s, all that waste of time in the 60s till
everyone got professional

[ermitano]

yeah, i'm so conventional that i love 90's groups

[Eric Ramon]

On Aug 14, 7:22 pm, hislop <takecarebew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I guess you preferred the 70s, all that waste of time in the 60s till
> everyone got professional

this is just musing....last night my wife and I watched an Alfred
Hitchcock movie called "Rich and Strange", from 1931 I believe.
Included in the movie was a short clip of the Folies Bergere. I think
we all have an idea of what that was like. That idea is something we
created in our heads. Seeing the real thing in a movie showed me that
the top of the line entertainment from 80 years ago was amateurish
compared to today. You can get local talent together now, work out
some routines and go on those dance shows and be better than the
Folies Bergere. The best dancers of today are way, way more advanced,
in sync, more acrobatic than the world-famous Folies Bergere.

We also know that world class athletes are far ahead of what could be
done then. Usain Bolt would finish about 8 meters ahead of Jesse
Owens, who'd be almost a second behind, and that's in the 100 meter
dash.

So its quite likely that today's musical talent is technically better
than it was in the past and is always getting better. I prefer the
music of the 60s. I like that style better. The Beatles' music was
about the best produced stuff that came out of that time. But compare
others. The production work of today is way better. Nicki Minaj's
material is clearly produced better than, say, the Hollies ever were.
Technically speaking, as I said.

So yeah, 1970s music probably *was* more professional than that of the
1960s.

I'm thinking of rock n roll, by the way. All of those Sinatra type
things were really well produced too.

[Gemini Jackson]

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 12:22:47 +1000, hislop <takecar...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>> I've always wondered where the Beatles would have taken things had
>> they survived into the 70's, though lately I've begun to realize they
>> had done all they could do, and I think they realized that too, there
>> was no 2nd wind to be had.
>> -gj
>
>I guess you preferred the 70s, all that waste of time in the 60s till
>everyone got professional

My favorite 'decade' is 65-75. The artistic era wasn't completely
squashed by the (as you put it) 'professional' era until around that
time IMO.
-gj

[M C hammered]

On Aug 15, 9:19 am, Gemini Jackson <geminijackso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 12:22:47 +1000, hislop <takecarebew...@gmail.com>

'75 was certainly a cut off point. The ole Yoke went into semi
retardment in 75, worn out from all the attention of fabs and media.
She instead decided to apply her business genius to cows and
artefacts...proving she the Yoke was equally gifted wherebba she
applied herself. Niw whilelaterly the YokeYoke discovered she wasthe
omnitakented, John Lennonwas (formerand bugg fer those whothat cant
ermemba) learned hefrom toi was goidthe at somthing...baking bread.

Nuff said

Amen

[Marcus]

On Aug 14, 11:53 pm, Eric Ramon <ramon.e...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> So its quite likely that today's musical talent is technically better
> than it was in the past and is always getting better. I prefer the
> music of the 60s. I like that style better. The Beatles' music was
> about the best produced stuff that came out of that time. But compare
> others. The production work of today is way better. Nicki Minaj's
> material is clearly produced better than, say, the Hollies ever were.
> Technically speaking, as I said.

The Hollies tended to sound like The Beatles. Songs like "Just One
Look", "On A Carousel", "Can't Let Go"