[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Strauss (and don't forget The Who)



Mick Noland, Re:

>Well, the Stones have chosen a different path--to do exactly what they have
>always done, in exactly the same way, for 30 years.  This way, they haven't
>ever confused any of their fans.  (Imagine being time-warped from 1964 to
>1993--wouldn't you have a doubt or two about whether PsychoD was really by
>the same Pete Townshend?)  Stones fans never had to grow and stretch with
>their fave artist.
>
>Obviously it works.  The Stones still sell out stadiums, they still get
>plenty of MTV time.  And it's cost-effective.  You only have to own one
>Stones album to know how they all sound.

        The Stones, of course, were not as imaginative and experimental as
The Who, but they were (and maybe still are) a good rock and roll band,
without any pretentions.  The Who's Tommy was very experimental because it
was pretentious for rock at the time;  It was more than music to jump up
and down to, there was a whole story and concept to contend with.  Someone
on this list said a long time ago, like, "The Who is a band for people who
think."  This is definitely true, but what is also great about The Who is,
that they made the greatest rock and roll to jump up and down to, plus
something for your head.  However, I can understand the criticisms
regarding The Stones, but I'm glad they didn't follow the same path as The
Who, for the sake of variety in rock and roll music in general.  Somehow, I
also think that The Stones' lack of progression suits them well. Perhaps
they have been doing what they have been doing so long, that any change
would be odd.  I think of The Stones in the same way I think of The
Ramones, whom I like very much;  Both bands have their signature style and
sound, and I wouldn't want them to change a thing.
                                                                        Stacey