>...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.
...the Beatles were hard men too. Brian Epstein cleaned them up for mass consumption...
Once again Lemmy is completely correct
Has he ever been wrong?
((Epstein))
Absolutely true
Reminder that Mick Jagger coild have a been a really good economist
Lemmy has never been wrong.
>Stones
>shit on stage compared to the Beatles
This is only another display of the posturing aspect of heavy metal. Despite trying to be cool raw wild music, it's actually pretty well put together. The kind of music that Beatles played was similar. But Stones had a far more sloppy, raw, and wild feel to them live. Lemmy, like a lot of metal guys is from a small place. These guys don't have anything inherently tough to them except the labor they did that inherently made them that way. They are often detached from the realities of an existence they didn't come from (harsh urban conditions) and why people choose to subject themselves to it. He also conveniently forgets that Richards and Jagger come from sea based towns, too on the outskirts of London.
Metalfags are the most delusional people out there and this only further proves that.
>stoke
>small place
>stoke
>not a shithole
Not any more than where Beatles or Stones grew up.
The Stones were public schoolboys, I highly doubt their upbringing was rough, whereas Liverpool was an even bigger shithole post-war than it is now, although John was apparently somewhat more middle class than the rest of them
RARE
A
R
E
Coming in
by that logic, black sabbath were tough as nails
I love all parties mentioned but I know nothing of England at this time except that most of the UK as a whole in the city was industrial, violent and grey
Bermingham was awful from all accounts I’ve heard
They probably were. Weren't they from Aston?
he was quite literally Jewish, no one is impressed by your Wikipedia skills
I mean Tony lost his fingertips on a freaky machinery accident and Ozzy is from fucking Birmingham.
John went to college ffs idk what you even mean by public school boys. Not to mention I have no idea what getting an education necessarily has to do with this. Composer Gyorgi Ligeti managed to stay in school mostly and get a degree despite having a brother that died in a concentration camp and parents that got sent to Asuchwitz in WW2 . most postWW2 classical guys saw some shit but managed to still get an education despite being in worse situations than any of these guys.
Otherwise McCartney's mother was a nurse who made good money doing so. They were always in suburbs (Speke and then later in that Beatles house place.) Same with George cuz that's where they met.
That does make me wonder where the "metalheads are middle class kids who haven't actually been through tough shit" narrative comes from because it's not really true. Sure there are tryhards like the second wave black metal guys, but guys like Sabbath or even Corey Taylor from Slipknot of all bands have been through some legit hardships.
well most 70s British metal bands grew up in postwar shithole industrial cities
Dont know how it was then but when I lived in Liverpool Speke was fucking rough. I understand that youre trying to defend a band you like but its fairly common knowledge that the stones (at least Jagger) are posh boys
Ozzy was the village idiot. He used to drag a pet shoe around with him. Literally just a shoe on a string.
as in a string other than the shoestring? Absolute madman.
Exactly. Someone should lock him up.
Ozzy was the OG madman
>Ozzy was the village idiot. He used to drag a pet shoe around with him. Literally just a shoe on a string.
Imagine if this were the weirdest thing you saw kids doing these days.
Except The Stones were shit on stage compared to The Beatles in their prime. All of the Stones' energy and "sloppiness" was pretentious affected bullshit. The Beatles didn't give a shit, they played hard whether they were playing in a shitty club or in front of thousands of people.
My favorite example showing the true nature of these bands is with their covers of Chuck Berry's Talking About You. The Stones opted for their trendy 2cool4school bluesy affectation while The Beatles removed all bullshit from the equation and played harder and faster than anyone else at that time.
youtube.com
youtube.com
Tony was a local gang leader in his youth
and was a hard as hell guy
Lita Ford can tell you
interesting comparison, user. thanks for that
Not to be THAT user, and maybe this belongs on Sup Forums but this pic makes me think twice about my admiration for Lemmy, and this is coming from a life long Motorheadbanger. (He's right about The Beatles though, 100%)
But Motorhead WEREN'T a "Heavy Metal" band! They were ROCK AND ROLL, and their first album was actually PUNK!
Stoke gave us great punk bands like Discharge, and G.B.H.
The sad news is Birmingham gave the world Led Zepplin. The good news is that Birmingham gave the world Black Sabbath, and Judas Priest. (Bromwich is close enough to Birmingham, so don bother getting technical)
>Birmingham gave the world Led Zepplin
they were a london band
Led Zeppelin aren't from Birmingham, they're from London, kind of just adds to the formless torrent of shit London has produced.
>this pic makes me think twice about my admiration for Lemmy
Some people collect and admire nazi paraphernalia. Get over it, queer, they're not cursed artifacts or something.
>Some people collect and admire nazi paraphernalia
Yep. They call those people Nazis
Wow, I didnt know the hitler stamps and books on 3rd reich iconography I inherited make me a nazi. Throw an iron cross into the mix and I'll start goose-stepping around town
Are people who collect serial killer paraphernalia serial killers?
Lemmy was more WW1 than WW2 memorabilia, the WW2 stuff is more attributed with Jeff Hanneman from Slayer.
on a side note, the Motorhead logo originally was supposed to have a swastika on its forehead, but it was of course, scrapped
Why else would you want them? What else is the appeal?
False equivalency.
Next.
any source right there, Lemmy?
Were you the roadie for both?
heh, Jimi Hendrix collected Nazi relics
>False equivalency.
it's the exact same question
you don't understand how false equivalency works
>False equivalency
How? It's a perfect equivalency.
>person who collects X paraphernalia is an X
>Why else would you want them? What else is the appeal?
They're curios, they're fashion statements, they're collectibles, conversation pieces, relics, and generally aesthetic.
>False equivalency.
How so? You're implying an interest in a subject makes one sympathetic if not kin.
the appeal is the appeal itself, people like to collect things, some people want the Mein Kampf not because they are neonazis, but because the book is rare and is a piece of history. Wars create a lof of history, some people with money like to rebuild WW2 tanks too, that doesnt make them nazis, sure, there are exceptions, but you are generalizing by saying that If X collects X then it makes them X
>you don't understand how false equivalency works
You should look it up
OK?
Not really. The goal of serial killer study is criminology.
>they're fashion statements,
Like "I'm a Nazi"
>>they're fashion statements,
>Like "I'm a Nazi"
lol, kids are such pussies these days. So ready to let their ignorance and limited experience place others into neat little authoritarian categories, so they can more readily dehumanize what they dont understand.
>Not really. The goal of serial killer study is criminology.
Just like the goal of studying nazi germany is history.
>the appeal is the appeal itself
...which is what? You seem to have trouble answering the question.
>some people want the Mein Kampf not because they are neonazis, but because the book is rare and is a piece of history
Goalpost shifting
>Wars create a lof of history,
People study wars objectively, looking at both sides. Do Nazi collectors also collect Alliance memorabilia?
They don't.
Bonham was from Redditch and then Dudley (look at the back of Led Zep IV).
Agree though it doesn't get much more London than The New Yardbirds.
But you actually don't know how false equivalency works you brainlet scum
Who said that the person collecting the serial killer paraphernalia was studying at all? Some people just collect serial killer shit.
you are making it very clear that you are just fishing for (You)'s at this point my dude.
Not an argument
History of what, for what purpose? Do they collect other eras of German history, or just the era that mimics their closet beliefs?
How so?
>Who said that the person collecting the serial killer paraphernalia was studying at all?
Every collector I've met and spoken too. How about you?
>Do Nazi collectors also collect Alliance memorabilia?
no because they're nazi memorabilia collectors you fucking retard
They formed in London, Plant's from West Bromwich too, definitely not a Brummy lot
Stop replying to me and see what happens then
>Goalpost shifting
Not him, but it's literally not. Nazi memorabilia is tangible history.
>Do Nazi collectors also collect Alliance memorabilia?
Yes? I literally have both.
>They don't.
Your opinion doesnt matter.
Mick and Kieth are from Dartford, you mong. It's nowhere near the sea and is pretty middle class still.
>
>Not an argument
> (You)
>History of what, for what purpose? Do they collect other eras of German history, or just the era that mimics their closet beliefs?
The history of nazi germany, because it's a chapter in history that interests them.
I collect books on human anatomy, pathology and medical journals, but I'm not a doctor and have no interest in becoming one.
Im starting to think that the nazis were right just because such a massive faggot is opposed to them.
Congrats, you made a nazi today.
Actually, when you consider what the swastika stands for today, they ARE cursed, you fucking little faggot! And when you wear a swastika, you're making a very powerful statement, and if you're not racist, you're going to have a LOT of explaining to do!
This user gets it!
The only person that I know of in the later half of the 20th century who celebrated the swastika who WASN'T a nazi was a conceptual artist from Canada who went by the moniker of "Man/Woman". Do a google search on this person.
If you look on the back cover of Iron Fist, there is a swastika carved into the middle horn of the boar's head.
One must remember that after Germany lost WW2 they tried to eradicate ALL traces of naziism. In fact, the swastika cannot be displayed in any way, shape, or form, whatsoever. Unfortunately this has resulted in a movement that believes that The Holocaust never happened. Sometimes it is important to collect, and preserve such items like swastikas, nazi flags, SS and Gestapo uniforms, if only for the sole purpose to make sure that atrocities of this nature NEVER happen again!
dartford is a shithole m8
reddit's here everybody.
Hide your cursed artifacts or this holy paladin will smite you.
>Every collector I've met and spoken too. How about you?
lmao what are you talking about? If a person who collects the memorabilia of serial killers, a serial killer this does not make.
Therefore by the same token, somebody who collects Nazi memorabilia (possibly even in the case that they may gain value and sell for a much higher price in the future) is not inherently a fucking Nazi.
Right. Why would a Nazi collect Alliance memorabilia?
>Nazi memorabilia is tangible history.
With a tangible purpose. If your argument is "because muh history" then it would be a general overarching non-bias narrative, rather than just one singular side.
>Yes? I literally have both.
So you are a WWII collector, not a Nazi collector. Nice misdirection though
>Your opinion doesnt matter.
If that was true, you wouldn't be replying to me right now.
>because it's a chapter in history that interests them.
Why does it interest them?
You forgot to use the word "soyboy".
>If a person who collects the memorabilia of serial killers, a serial killer this does not make.
See We already covered this. Please read the thread before posting.
>Why does it interest them?
If you could find the wherewithal to ask them without calling them a nazi in the same breath, you might get a satisfactory answer.
Sorry you didn't seem to answer the question. Try again?
>With a tangible purpose.
Hurr because I say so.
Guess what? Your opinion isnt an argument.
>So you are a WWII collector, not a Nazi collector. Nice misdirection though
I would buy any nazi curio that tickled my fancy, maybe even over an allied one because of the rarity and taboo appeal. Just look at how you act like a victorian spinster shying away from a penis at the very thought of it.
>Your opinion
What? I never stated my opinion
>With a tangible purpose
>there's a tangible purpose to collecting nazi paraphernalia and that's because you're a nazi
>not an opinion
lol okay kid
I don't collect nazi memorabilia. You want me to speak on other people's behalf? How do you expect to get any kind of informed opinion that way?
Except you haven't, and this doesn't make any sense.
People are poking a giant hole in your argument here, and replying to old posts (where you're not even defending your point) isn't moving anything along.
Please re-assert what you think makes somebody who collects Nazi memorabilia inherently a Nazi or even a Nazi sympathiser.
Yes, but it doesn't really compare to the inner city ghettos of Liverpool or Birmingham
I am not saying they aren't. But relative to the rest of The Beatles (minus Ringo) they aren't any more/less.
>pretentious affectation
Not at all. That was what it meant to not give a shit. Not Beatles' clean ass image. Like The Beatles have had a reputation for not being that great live while Stones are considered so good that they managed to be among to grossing musicians even some years ago. And it's not because the stones played nice clean stuff.
>Chuck Berry cover
Have you listened to the original? The Beatles one sounds just like it while the Stones turned it into their own different yet organic sounding shtick.
Lemmy called them rock n roll, doesn't change the fact that their sound's closest to metal.
Not sea i meant water based town. Again, no more tough guy than where all the Beatles minus Ringo come from.
>become nazi cuz other person is so stupid
I get what you're trying to do, but it makes you look just as stupid as him.
based
>I get what you're trying to do, but it makes you look just as stupid as him.
What are you talking about? I was making a direct rebuttal of his claim that collecting nazi memorabilia makes you a nazi by illustrating that collecting medical texts doesn't make me a doctor.
Stewart was better looking than all of them.
you are right on this one, pretty cool, I wonder how it passed the censors, or if its deleted on another editions, pic related is from 2012 according to the website
Actually Mein Kampf is not rare, and is published regularly. Now, it's true, that it's not an easy book to find, but I'm sure if one did a google search, one could easily find a brand spanking new copy.
Actually there are many WW2 history buffs who collect BOTH Alliance AND Nazi artifacts and memorabilia. You obviously are not a collector of anything but dust.
see for an explanation
How could somebody who got trips be so WRONG?
Thanks on proving my point about collectors.
See for an explanation
>You want me to speak on other people's behalf?
Go ahead. or just accept my argument as correct.
Not really.
The purpose to collect serial killer information is for a study in criminology.
Your ilk have yet to state any tangible reason to collect Nazi memorabilia.
"Because I like it!" is not a tangible reason btw
>Actually there are many WW2 history buffs who collect BOTH Alliance AND Nazi artifacts and memorabilia
Of course there is, but that's not who we are discussing, is it?
How is this relevant?
>thread on Motorhead, Beatles, and Stones
>some faggots take up half the posts arguing about nazi bullshit
God why does this shit always happen?
>Actually Mein Kampf is not rare, and is published regularly. Now, it's true, that it's not an easy book to find,
That's all part of it, the taboo value of books and items that are outright banned in certain places is unmistakable. And the reaction you get from displaying taboo things is rewarding to some, which is why the punk scene used to sport nazi stuff.
Neither of those things makes you a sympathetic to the origin of the cultural stigma.
Sup Forums doing its shit as usual
>inb4 le pol boogeyman meme
It's a thread about Lemmy's opinion. The discussion is centered around an aspect of his life that seems to affect how people perceive his opinions.
Well, before Black Sabbath became famous The Osbournes were living on a shoe string budget. What would you expect?
On the other hand, a shoe DOES make a good pet. They're already housebroken, street smart, and don't eat anything.
>The purpose to collect serial killer information is for a study in criminology.
The same argument could be made for collecting nazi memorabilia. It could easily be for studying the mentality of one of the most infamous regimes in recent history.
hello Ozzy
It is a religious symbol to Hindus, Jains and Buddhists. Of course a lot of them got the memo, but I've known south asians who have swastika jewellery and other items (I'm not talking about SS daggers or anything, I mean devotional artefacts) who are surprised when someone mentions it has other connotations.
Threadly reminder that leftists are abusive authoritarians that want to tell you what words and symbols mean personally to you. They also claim know what you're thinking, why you think it, and the deepest desires in your racist little heart.
Relevant to what, exactly?
You should see what happens when somebody starts a PUNK thread! Then it gets MUCH WORSE!
The Beatles had a reputation for being brilliant live before they got pushed into playing over-sized venues full of thousands of screaming children that amplification and monitoring wasn't up to dealing with. In the Anthology George and Paul talk about having to look at Ringo to work out where the beat was because they couldn't hear it.
Congratulations, you ruined this thread with your retarded politics.
inb4 "most of those bands are shit", I know they are, but they are all popular/successful. This shows that lots of pop, rock, metal and dance acts came from "rough" cities like Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow and Liverpool. There isn't necessarily a correlation between the environmnet and the music, but it definitely influenced some "scenes" at certain times of history. I'm especially thinking of Manchester in the 80s and 90s, and London during the 60s.
Authoritarian leftists are abusive authoritarians. I'm a leftie libertarian and I've been arguing in favour of the freedom to collect nazi memorabilia this whole time.
>One must remember that after Germany lost WW2 they tried to eradicate ALL traces of naziism. In fact, the swastika cannot be displayed in any way, shape, or form, whatsoever.
No, the display of swastikas and other Nazi-related symbols isn't totally outlawed in German. There's an exemption in the legislation for artistic, educational or research purposes.
Case in point:
euro-t-guide.com
I agree with your point although in fairness, we should remember that Londoners think that anywhere that isn't London or the Home Counties is a lethally dangerous post-apocalyptic hellscape. I suppose the Housemartins came from Hull so they aren't completely wrong.
It used to be the thing that most large cities had a music scene and arguably even a trademark sound, it just the scene comes to national prominence at different times on the back of one or more of its members having a bit of a breakthrough.
I'm not sure if that is still the case today though.
Stones music is still better. Frills and showmanship don't make a good artist, they make a good performer. Struggle and background don't make you any better musically.
I disagree.
I think user was just asking a question about why Lemmy was wearing a swastika.
If anybody ruined this thread with their politics, and their nazi baiting it would be
I'd believe John and George were tough guys, but definitely not Paul.