Re: The Who Mailing List Digest V4 #290

[KHanc1965@aol.com]

<<Alan Mackndree signs his post with the quote "The Rolling Stones are the
>Microsoft of Rock".  Is there a point to this statement?

>My interpretation of the statement is that both the Stones and Microsoft
>produce products which are lapped up adoringly by lemming-like millions who
>ignore clearly superior alternatives.   

Alan, I have to disagree with you here already.  The Stones are one of the
best at what they do - white boys playing rhythm and blues music.  That is
what they have always been.  I would agree that the last 15 years or so
hasn't been their best work, but it has still been mostly solid rhythm and
blues with their characteristic touch (Mick's vocal style, Keith's guitar
riffs).    At least they still have the ability to be creative and make new
music together as a band, unlike The Who who, I dare say, will never again
make new, worthwhile music as a band (this should instigate some interesting
posts!). In addition, they are a great live band - always tight and with
energy and charisma to spare.
	Who are the "clearly superior alternatives" to the music that they have
produced throughout their over 30 year career?  The truth is that the Stones
wrote and recorded some of the best rhythm and blues/rock 'n roll songs ever.
 There is a reason they have staying power.  Their songs are good.  You know
most of the bands you might consider to be "clearly superior alternatives"
spent alot of their time listening to and learning from Stones records.
	Also, if you would argue that their best work is in the past, is that any
reason to appreciate them now any less??  By this logic, we should have no
respect for any bands who have not always been able to live up to their past
work. This would of course include The Who.  By the way, I do believe that
the Stones have turned out some very good music over the ast twenty years.

>The Rolling Stones have *always* been about money first, second, and
>third. Go track through their records, starting with Miss You, and you'll
>see an interesting trend: always six months behind the latest craze,
>trying to jump on the bandwagon.  The Stones do disco (Miss You), the
>stones do punk (shattered), the stones do S&M (undercover), the stones do
>soul (just my imagination) the stones do anti-gulf-war music (can't
>remember the name of that one they released about missles and weapons),
>it just goes on and on and on.

This guy has obviously missed out on the 60's and 70's chapter of the History
of Rock 'n Roll.  Prior to Miss You, the Stones had been making music for at
least 15 years.  I doubt when Keith Richards was listening to and trying to
emulate the early bluesmen (Muddy Waters, Robert Johnson, Willie Dixon, etc.)
in the early 60's that his interest was all about money.  What a ridiculous
statement! 
Maybe this guy should take a serious listen to albums like Between the
Buttons, Beggars Banquet, Sticky Fingers, Exile on Main Street prior to
making such misinformed statements.

>   Their positioning is also brilliant; the Beatles are too clean - they
>position themselves as the "bad boys" - altamont is all their fault,
>and they position themselves as the "harbingers of the end of the 60's".

	This guy writes as if the Stones were constantly contemplating and
strategically planning their position in the history of rock 'n roll.  The
Stones were what they were and later historians/commentators decided how to
sum them up.  Does this guy actually believe that the Stones had a marketing
plan drawn up for their career and image since day one?  Well, for that
matter, then so did the Beatles (the clean ones) and the Who (the artsy
ones).  This is another absolutely ridiculous statement.

>They jump into anything that seems to have a spark of creativity, and crush
it >with mediocrity.

This statement belies such ignorance that I do not even think it is worth
responding to.

>   In short, the Rollings Stones are the Microsoft of rock. Why do you think
>they traded songs ("start me up")?

	As you might expect, I totally disagree with this summation and find
absolutely nothing persuasive in his rather ill-informed arguments.

Thanks for clearing up my question....

Kim