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

[Litgo@aol.com]

Stacey, re:

>        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. 
[snip] 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.

IMHO --- The Stones are basically a Chuck Berry and Elmore James cover band.
They really never aspired to interpret styles or develop their own (yes, they
have a distinct sound, but it's a compilation of the various blues artists'
styles; Keef's signature, which I think he started in the early 70s -- I'm
not a 'stoneophile' -- is based on his prevalent use of open and alternate
tunings, not found in the Who, or in the earlier blues and rock artists). 

The Who, OTOH, started out as a cover band of similar material (more R&B
though), but quickly developed their own unique style. Whether this can be
attributed to more creativity in the arrangements/songwriting, etc., or to
the lack of prowess by the guitarist, the maniacal drum and lead bass, could
probably fill a dozen posts. 

Litgo