sammy hagar has a show over here in the states where he travels around to different places and talks to rockers and does a couple of songs with them.
i was never a big sammy fan but it's a great show and he's a pretty likeable dude,he's gone to talk with zz top during a soundcheck,john mellencamp covered in paint in his art studio and mick fleetwoods restaurant in hawaii. he did a cancer benefit at the fillmore with john mayer,melissa etheridge and believe it or not,james hetfield all on stage together.

at the end of the last couple of shows he's ended it with a list of about 5 questions.the first one was "beatles or stones"-

billy gibbons-stones
mick fleetwood-stones

i'm looking forward to him asking his guests this one in the upcoming episodes,it's still a relevant question in rock and roll to this day.i've got a feeling the stones have more credibility among rock musicians than the beatles do and if he talked to more pop stars[which he won't] you'd here"beatles"alot more.

And 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 f***ing 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 s**t on stage, whereas the Beatles were the gear.

I remember one gig the Beatles had at the Cavern, It was just after they got Brian Epstein as their manager. Everyone in Liverpool knew that Epstein was gay, and some kid in the audience screamed, 'John Lennon's a f***ing queer!' And John--who never wore his glasses on stage--put his guitar down and went into the crowd, shouting, 'Who said that?' So this kid says, 'I f***ing did.' John went after him and BAM, gave him the Liverpool kiss, sticking the nut on him--twice! And the kid went down in a mass of blood, snot and teeth. Then John got back on the stage.

-- Ian "Lemmy" Kilmister, White Line Fever

lemmy's opinion isn't a really solid one because he hated the stones and always did.why,i have no idea but you can see the venom in his writing-"the stones were"momma's boys " a bunch of college guys" and "shit onstage".not sure what they ever did to him but i like musicians who are fans of both bands and giving their opinions here in 2017.

anyway,i don't think lemmy will be appearing on sammys road trip unless he does a tour of boneyards.

Quote
stonehearted
And 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 f***ing 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 s**t on stage, whereas the Beatles were the gear.

I remember one gig the Beatles had at the Cavern, It was just after they got Brian Epstein as their manager. Everyone in Liverpool knew that Epstein was gay, and some kid in the audience screamed, 'John Lennon's a f***ing queer!' And John--who never wore his glasses on stage--put his guitar down and went into the crowd, shouting, 'Who said that?' So this kid says, 'I f***ing did.' John went after him and BAM, gave him the Liverpool kiss, sticking the nut on him--twice! And the kid went down in a mass of blood, snot and teeth. Then John got back on the stage.

-- Ian "Lemmy" Kilmister, White Line Fever

Lemmy never had much nice to say about the Stones. He was a Beatles fanatic through and through.

You would think the guy who founded Motorhead would be more of a Stones guy, but nope.

Quote
keefriff99
You would think the guy who founded Motorhead would be more of a Stones guy, but nope.

In the mid-1960s Lemmy was a mop top whose band of the time the Rockin' Vickers had a hit with a cover of the Kinks' Dandy as well as an early version of the Pete Townshend song It's Alright (later recorded by the Who as The Kids Are Alright).



It's Alright: [www.youtube.com]
Dandy: [www.youtube.com]

Quote
lem motlow
lemmy's opinion isn't a really solid one because he hated the stones and always did.why,i have no idea but you can see the venom in his writing-"the stones were"momma's boys " a bunch of college guys" and "shit onstage".not sure what they ever did to him but i like musicians who are fans of both bands and giving their opinions here in 2017.

anyway,i don't think lemmy will be appearing on sammys road trip unless he does a tour of boneyards.

Oh, I see, if you're dead your opinions no longer count. That means when Mick Jagger and Keith Richards die, nothing they ever said or did will ever matter, because they won't be alive and giving their opinions in twenty-whatever. Okay, got it.

Well, then, maybe Mr. Sammy can ask Ozzie Osbourne what he thinks -- unless it's only the opinions of U.S. musicians that count.

Ozzie Osbourne Beatles cover: [www.youtube.com]

Quote
lem motlow
lemmy's opinion isn't a really solid one because he hated the stones and always did.why,i have no idea but you can see the venom in his writing-"the stones were"momma's boys " a bunch of college guys" and "shit onstage".not sure what they ever did to him but i like musicians who are fans of both bands and giving their opinions here in 2017.

anyway,i don't think lemmy will be appearing on sammys road trip unless he does a tour of boneyards.

Motorhead covered Jumpin' Jack Flash and Sympathy for the Devil. He didn't HATE the Stones; he simply liked the Beatles much more.

Lemmy on The Beatles: "They were monstrous, they were perfect. Everybody thinks the Stones were the hard-men and the Beatles were the sissies -but it's really the opposite. The Beatles were from Liverpool and the Stones were from the London suburbs and going to art school, so it wasn't that way at all. The Beatles were, I always thought, the best band in the world."

________

"The Beatles had an influence on everybody. They changed the way you looked at things. You have to realize what an incredible explosion the Beatles were. You really had to be there but I will try to tell you. They were the first band to not have a lead singer in the band. They were the first band to write their own songs in Britain because we always just covered American songs before that. Everybody was singing at the same time and the harmonies were great. The Beatles really turned the whole thing on its head. Daily papers in England used to have an entire page of the paper dedicated to what the Beatles had done the day before. When George died the guards at Buckingham Palace played a medley of George’s songs during the changing of the guard; that sort of thing never happens.

***
I'm just a Bad Boy Boogie



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-24 23:09 by powerage78.

Quote
lem motlow
sammy hagar has a show over here in the states where he travels around to different places and talks to rockers and does a couple of songs with them.
i was never a big sammy fan but it's a great show and he's a pretty likeable dude,he's gone to talk with zz top during a soundcheck,john mellencamp covered in paint in his art studio and mick fleetwoods restaurant in hawaii. he did a cancer benefit at the fillmore with john mayer,melissa etheridge and believe it or not,james hetfield all on stage together.

at the end of the last couple of shows he's ended it with a list of about 5 questions.the first one was "beatles or stones"-

billy gibbons-stones
mick fleetwood-stones

i'm looking forward to him asking his guests this one in the upcoming episodes,it's still a relevant question in rock and roll to this day.i've got a feeling the stones have more credibility among rock musicians than the beatles do and if he talked to more pop stars[which he won't] you'd here"beatles"alot more.

No surprise to me. The Stones simply were betetr

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
lem motlow
lemmy's opinion isn't a really solid one because he hated the stones and always did.why,i have no idea but you can see the venom in his writing-"the stones were"momma's boys " a bunch of college guys" and "shit onstage".not sure what they ever did to him but i like musicians who are fans of both bands and giving their opinions here in 2017.

anyway,i don't think lemmy will be appearing on sammys road trip unless he does a tour of boneyards.

Oh, I see, if you're dead your opinions no longer count. That means when Mick Jagger and Keith Richards die, nothing they ever said or did will ever matter, because they won't be alive and giving their opinions in twenty-whatever. Okay, got it.

Well, then, maybe Mr. Sammy can ask Ozzie Osbourne what he thinks -- unless it's only the opinions of U.S. musicians that count.

Ozzie Osbourne Beatles cover: [www.youtube.com]

i'm pretty sure mick fleetwood is english.i didn't say lemmy's opinion didn't matter i just meant he wasn't on the show and didn;t answer the question in 2017 but we'll put him as a solid "beatles" as well as ozzy.
i liked lemmy but alot of his reputation was built on being a hard living rocker,the harsh words for the stones probably came as a way of seperating himself from being a keith wannabe.saying the stones weren't good live is a bit odd.i can't wait for sammy to ask this question to more musicians,so far it's flying in the face of the opinion held by many that the stones were always a second place act to the mighty beatles.

Quote
lem motlow

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
lem motlow
lemmy's opinion isn't a really solid one because he hated the stones and always did.why,i have no idea but you can see the venom in his writing-"the stones were"momma's boys " a bunch of college guys" and "shit onstage".not sure what they ever did to him but i like musicians who are fans of both bands and giving their opinions here in 2017.

anyway,i don't think lemmy will be appearing on sammys road trip unless he does a tour of boneyards.

Oh, I see, if you're dead your opinions no longer count. That means when Mick Jagger and Keith Richards die, nothing they ever said or did will ever matter, because they won't be alive and giving their opinions in twenty-whatever. Okay, got it.

Well, then, maybe Mr. Sammy can ask Ozzie Osbourne what he thinks -- unless it's only the opinions of U.S. musicians that count.

Ozzie Osbourne Beatles cover: [www.youtube.com]

i'm pretty sure mick fleetwood is english.i didn't say lemmy's opinion didn't matter i just meant he wasn't on the show and didn;t answer the question in 2017 but we'll put him as a solid "beatles" as well as ozzy.
i liked lemmy but alot of his reputation was built on being a hard living rocker,the harsh words for the stones probably came as a way of seperating himself from being a keith wannabe.saying the stones weren't good live is a bit odd.i can't wait for sammy to ask this question to more musicians,so far it's flying in the face of the opinion held by many that the stones were always a second place act to the mighty beatles.

Lemmy despised heroin, as his girlfriend OD'd and it traumatized him horribly. He once said that Keith chose the "wrong drug", and that he looked like he'd been dead for 20 years.

As someone who loves both Keith and Lemmy, I take no pleasure in saying that that's another one that Keith outlived.

I read an interview with Sammy a couple years ago. in the interview he really
attacked the stones. Seems Sammy opened for them in 81 or 78. Anyway he had nothing good to say about the stones and it really turned me off to the Sammy.
Maybe someone else read the same interview?

Quote
lem motlow
i'm pretty sure mick fleetwood is english.i didn't say lemmy's opinion didn't matter i just meant he wasn't on the show and didn;t answer the question in 2017 but we'll put him as a solid "beatles" as well as ozzy.
i liked lemmy but alot of his reputation was built on being a hard living rocker,the harsh words for the stones probably came as a way of seperating himself from being a keith wannabe.saying the stones weren't good live is a bit odd.i can't wait for sammy to ask this question to more musicians,so far it's flying in the face of the opinion held by many that the stones were always a second place act to the mighty beatles.

Oh, yes, you're right -- Mick Fleetwood is indeed English. Not surprising that he would prefer the Stones, since that early Peter Green era Mac was grounded in the blues.

But, really, Lemmy a "Keith wannabe"? At least with Lemmy, the "hard living" aspect was real and uncompromising right to the end -- Jack and Coke despite having diabetes, still doing speed at age 70 despite congestive heart failure and knowing it would kill him. Whereas with Keith it's mostly image -- the ever-present dangling cigarette, getting drunk just so he can stand being interviewed. Keith has become the Dean Martin of rock and roll.

But at least we agree that it's all "opinion" and doesn't really prove anything. It's just what cultural popular consciousness has decided over time. The Beatles had a more universal appeal, more age groups and so on -- you can become a Beatles fan at age 5 (especially because of the Yellow Submarine movie), whereas you are more likely to become a Stones fan at 15.

Plus the Beatles were more iconic. Most people can name all 4 Beatles -- how many Stones besides Mick Jagger can everyone else in 2017 name? It's all 4 Beatles or nothing, which is why they could never tour under that name after 1980. But Brian Jones dies, that's okay, just replace him and move on. The bass player quits? No problem, just get a hired hand to fill the sound. Proof that the Rolling Stones are more about being a brand an an image than something irreplaceable as 5 core members. The casual fan doesn't care who Brian Taylor was.

By the way, not that my opinion will ever matter, but for me it's never Beatles or Stones, but Beatles and Stones, like the old song goes...

Beatles And The Stones: [www.youtube.com]

Lemmy (RIP) is free to prefer Thee Beatles but I think the argument - at least the one offered above - he has is a bit childish; "hard men" vs. "sissies" - that is, what seems to bother him with the Stones is them being (a) "sissies" and/or (b) a kind of fake imagewise.

This juvenile way to argue - a real thing vs. a fake - reminds of what Dave Grohl said of Lemmy vs. Keith Richards:

"Fvck Keith Richards [ Keith Richards ], fvck all those dudes who survived the sixties. Flying around in private jets, living up their gunslinger reputation as they @#$%& supermodels in the most expensive hotel in Paris. It's like: you know what Lemmy [ Lemmy ] is doing? Lemmy is... probably drinking Jack'N'Cokes and writing another record!"

Not that they aren't right - but so what? It's only rock'n'roll... not some kind of real tv rock star competition who has personally most (non-musical) street credibility or authenticity or badassness or whatever...

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-25 00:09 by Doxa.

Quote
swimtothemoon
I read an interview with Sammy a couple years ago. in the interview he really
attacked the stones. Seems Sammy opened for them in 81 or 78. Anyway he had nothing good to say about the stones and it really turned me off to the Sammy.
Maybe someone else read the same interview?

as much as i love the stones they can be a bunch of complete divas.i saw an interview with lars from metallica and he said when he was backing up the stones they were standing around talking to the 3rd band on the bill [who's name escapes me ] waiting for the stones to come and meet them-a lady working for the stones told them"metallica has to stand on the left and the other band on the right"complete disrespect for a band who had sold who knows how many tickets to the show themselves,telling them where to stand-are you kidding me? but they were like"ok'..the stones came by and shook hands for about 10 seconds.

to be honest i always thought sammy was a bit of a douche but he seems really down to earth and actually pretty cool.i'm not suprised the stones rubbed him the wrong way for some reason,the respect is still there though.i wouldn't doubt that.

Nice to hear what some rock stars have to say about it, but the everyone has an opinion. *I'll go with Lemmy on this one.
But I think the general public's opinions carry some weight also, and are the reason why the Beatles will always stay at #1.

From Ultimate Classic Rock magazine - two writers take sides and give their spiel as to why one is better than the other.

The Beatles vs. the Rolling Stones – Classic Rock’s Greatest Debates

Final results:

Who's Better - the Beatles or the Rolling Stones? (Poll Closed)
The Beatles 67.08%
The Rolling Stones 32.92%


Probably every open public poll that's ever been given rates the Beatles at #1, and that's the cold hard truth of the matter for Stones fans who think otherwise.


*edit - I only take sides with Lemmy regarding his choice (Beatles), not any of the nonsensical semi-psychotic ramblings he's going on about regarding the Stones.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-25 00:37 by Hairball.

But that I need to add that the image thing - The Stones being seen somehow more 'cooler' than the Beatles - seems so often to bother 'Beatles people'. What Lemmy says there, and then comes up with a huge list of evidence proving how significiant and revolutionary the Beatles were compared to the Stones, echoes pretty much what even John Lennon said in his famous '70 ROLLING STONE interview (not to mention that both of these male heroes mentioned seem to be somehow annoyed or bothered by Jagger's dancing...).

Probably the Stones weren't so good and revolutionary and popular and significant and jesus-like (and invented the whole 60's by themselves like the Beatles did), but something they did right..

Probably Andrew Loog Oldham was a genious...

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-25 00:38 by Doxa.

Quote
Hairball
Nice to hear what some rock stars have to say about it, but the everyone has an opinion. *I'll go with Lemmy on this one.
But I think the general public's opinions carry some weight also, and are the reason why the Beatles will always stay at #1.

From Ultimate Classic Rock magazine - two writers take sides and give their spiel as to why one is better than the other.

The Beatles vs. the Rolling Stones – Classic Rock’s Greatest Debates

Final results:

Who's Better - the Beatles or the Rolling Stones? (Poll Closed)
The Beatles 67.08%
The Rolling Stones 32.92%


Probably every open public poll that's ever been given rates the Beatles at #1, and that's the cold hard truth of the matter for Stones fans who think otherwise.


*edit - I take sides with Lemmy only regarding his choice (Beatles), not any of the nonsensical semi-psychotic ramblings he's going on about.

but of course the beatles will win these polls,the average music fan out there is an idiot.why do you think madonna has sold more records than jimi hendrix and the Who combined?
it's about rock and roll credibility among the musicians themselves which is why sammys question is important-he's asking guys like billy gibbons and mick fleetwood not joe blow on the street.like i said,i can't wait to see more.

Here comes an odd vote for the Beatles:

When it comes to the Beatles vs. Stones debate, ex-Rolling Stone guitarist Mick Taylor has no trouble taking sides: “I sort of liked them, but was never passionate about the Stones,” Taylor told Mail Online’s Bob Graham on being asked to join the band in 1969. “In some ways I liked The Beatles more.”


Autch! ><

- Doxa

Quote
lem motlow

Quote
Hairball
Nice to hear what some rock stars have to say about it, but the everyone has an opinion. *I'll go with Lemmy on this one.
But I think the general public's opinions carry some weight also, and are the reason why the Beatles will always stay at #1.

From Ultimate Classic Rock magazine - two writers take sides and give their spiel as to why one is better than the other.

The Beatles vs. the Rolling Stones – Classic Rock’s Greatest Debates

Final results:

Who's Better - the Beatles or the Rolling Stones? (Poll Closed)
The Beatles 67.08%
The Rolling Stones 32.92%


Probably every open public poll that's ever been given rates the Beatles at #1, and that's the cold hard truth of the matter for Stones fans who think otherwise.


*edit - I take sides with Lemmy only regarding his choice (Beatles), not any of the nonsensical semi-psychotic ramblings he's going on about.

but of course the beatles will win these polls,the average music fan out there is an idiot.why do you think madonna has sold more records than jimi hendrix and the Who combined?
it's about rock and roll credibility among the musicians themselves which is why sammys question is important-he's asking guys like billy gibbons and mick fleetwood not joe blow on the street.like i said,i can't wait to see more.

Well I doubt there's many (or any) Madonna fans who read Ultimate Classic Rock so those who voted in the above poll have some rock and roll credibility.
They're the listeners and fans of classic rock - not idiotic joe blows as you claim (well maybe some of them are), but their voices matter and are valid.
Sammy Van Hagar is a decent and funny guy - I've seen a bit of his show and it's pretty good.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Can't wait to hear what Eric Clapton's view will be, as someone who knew and played with both. Then again, will Clapton want to sit down and jam with Hagar, when Clapton was never a big fan of Van Halen to begin with? When Eddie Van Halen sent him a blues tribute, where he records himself some of Clapton's work, Clapton said in an interview that he was flattered, but added that "He can't play!"

Clapton would probably just throw his head back and laugh loudly... then proceed to outline the merits of what each had to offer, and leave it at that.

However, it is a fact that Clapton preferred Beatles wives to Stones wives.

Don't know if this the same story stonehearted, but if memory serves it was some time back in the '80s that Van Halen and Brian May recorded some special guitar slinger instrumental and sent it to Clapton as a gift - he didn't like it as there was way too much 'noodling' type guitar hero soloing. I remember hearing it on the radio back then (think Joe Satriani meets Steve Vai), and could understand why Clapton wasn't into it.
Wonder if was ever made officially available...they could have titled it 'Snubbed by Clapton'!!!

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
lem motlow

Quote
swimtothemoon
I read an interview with Sammy a couple years ago. in the interview he really
attacked the stones. Seems Sammy opened for them in 81 or 78. Anyway he had nothing good to say about the stones and it really turned me off to the Sammy.
Maybe someone else read the same interview?

as much as i love the stones they can be a bunch of complete divas.i saw an interview with lars from metallica and he said when he was backing up the stones they were standing around talking to the 3rd band on the bill [who's name escapes me ] waiting for the stones to come and meet them-a lady working for the stones told them"metallica has to stand on the left and the other band on the right"complete disrespect for a band who had sold who knows how many tickets to the show themselves,telling them where to stand-are you kidding me? but they were like"ok'..the stones came by and shook hands for about 10 seconds.

to be honest i always thought sammy was a bit of a douche but he seems really down to earth and actually pretty cool.i'm not suprised the stones rubbed him the wrong way for some reason,the respect is still there though.i wouldn't doubt that.

Yes I agree with your Sammy assessment. Also, I'm sure he was not first nor the last opening band to be surprised at their reception upon meeting (or not meeting) the Stones.

Quote
stonehearted
Can't wait to hear what Eric Clapton's view will be, as someone who knew and played with both. Then again, will Clapton want to sit down and jam with Hagar, when Clapton was never a big fan of Van Halen to begin with? When Eddie Van Halen sent him a blues tribute, where he records himself some of Clapton's work, Clapton said in an interview that he was flattered, but added that "He can't play!"

Clapton would probably just throw his head back and laugh loudly... then proceed to outline the merits of what each had to offer, and leave it at that.

However, it is a fact that Clapton preferred Beatles wives to Stones wives.

Clapton said EVH CAN'T PLAY??

That's why we shouldn't take these goddamn people seriously aside from their ability to write and perform music.

Quote
Hairball
Don't know if this the same story stonehearted, but if memory serves it was some time back in the '80s that Van Halen and Brian May recorded some special guitar slinger instrumental and sent it to Clapton as a gift - he didn't like it as there was way too much 'noodling' type guitar hero soloing. I remember hearing it on the radio back then (think Joe Satriani meets Steve Vai), and could understand why Clapton wasn't into it.
Wonder if was ever made officially available...they could have titled it 'Snubbed by Clapton'!!!

Yes, that's the recording I was referring to. I'd forgotten the full details behind it -- I mainly remember Clapton's unflattering 3-word review.

Quote
keefriff99
Clapton said EVH CAN'T PLAY??

Yes -- I think Clapton meant as a blues player, which is not a style Van Halen is famous for.

Interestingly, here is what Eddie says about himself:

Funny thing is, all I have — I have from my left side, I have Wolfie on my left, and I have Al on drums in front of me, and that's it. I need drums, I need Al, otherwise I can't play.

Full interview: [www.esquire.com]

Quote
Hairball
Don't know if this the same story stonehearted, but if memory serves it was some time back in the '80s that Van Halen and Brian May recorded some special guitar slinger instrumental and sent it to Clapton as a gift - he didn't like it as there was way too much 'noodling' type guitar hero soloing. I remember hearing it on the radio back then (think Joe Satriani meets Steve Vai), and could understand why Clapton wasn't into it.
Wonder if was ever made officially available...they could have titled it 'Snubbed by Clapton'!!!

It was called Starfleet.

Quote
Doxa
Lemmy (RIP) is free to prefer Thee Beatles but I think the argument - at least the one offered above - he has is a bit childish; "hard men" vs. "sissies" - that is, what seems to bother him with the Stones is them being (a) "sissies" and/or (b) a kind of fake imagewise.

This juvenile way to argue - a real thing vs. a fake - reminds of what Dave Grohl said of Lemmy vs. Keith Richards:

"Fvck Keith Richards [ Keith Richards ], fvck all those dudes who survived the sixties. Flying around in private jets, living up their gunslinger reputation as they @#$%& supermodels in the most expensive hotel in Paris. It's like: you know what Lemmy [ Lemmy ] is doing? Lemmy is... probably drinking Jack'N'Cokes and writing another record!"

Not that they aren't right - but so what? It's only rock'n'roll... not some kind of real tv rock star competition who has personally most (non-musical) street credibility or authenticity or badassness or whatever...

- Doxa

Spot on!

Quote
Hairball
well I doubt there's many (or any) Madonna fans who read Ultimate Classic Rock so those who voted in the above poll have some rock and roll credibility.
They're the listeners and fans of classic rock - not idiotic joe blows as you claim (well maybe some of them are), but their voices matter and are valid.
Sammy Van Hagar is a decent and funny guy - I've seen a bit of his show and it's pretty good.

all rock and roll made before 1980 is considered "classic rock" these days so reading a magazine with that name doesn't mean much.i'm sure alot of these people were sitting around listening to foreigner,boston and kansas.but you're still missing the point-he's asking the question to musicians not fans.

that clapton thing is a little strange,i'm not ready to call bullshit on it because you never know but it seems out of charactor for eric clapton.i want to see someone source it,then i'll believe it.eric is a good man,i've never seen him bash another guitar player.
after hearing starfleet,which is brian may and eddie van halen doing some amazing stuff?,i'm not buying it.
van halen has always said eric was his hero growing up so that even makes it more bizzare.again,the beatles and stones thing is about asking other players.not the fans..stay tuned.

Quote
stonehearted
And 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 f***ing 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 s**t on stage, whereas the Beatles were the gear.

I remember one gig the Beatles had at the Cavern, It was just after they got Brian Epstein as their manager. Everyone in Liverpool knew that Epstein was gay, and some kid in the audience screamed, 'John Lennon's a f***ing queer!' And John--who never wore his glasses on stage--put his guitar down and went into the crowd, shouting, 'Who said that?' So this kid says, 'I f***ing did.' John went after him and BAM, gave him the Liverpool kiss, sticking the nut on him--twice! And the kid went down in a mass of blood, snot and teeth. Then John got back on the stage.

-- Ian "Lemmy" Kilmister, White Line Fever

dunno...i look at the band all decked out in matching in tight leather and I think that kid in the crowd might have been on to something. Not that there's anything wrong with it!