Re: The Who Mailing List Digest V4 #290

[Alan McKendree <amck@eden.com>]

>From: KHanc1965@aol.com
>
>>...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...
>still have the ability to be creative and make new
>music together as a band,

OK, maybe they do.  Beyond listening to the new radio releases, it doesn't
matter to me.  Did you see any of the 60 or so Quad shows of the past 18
months?  Within the structure of the piece, there was plenty of creativity.

> unlike The Who who, I dare say, will never again
>make new, worthwhile music as a band

Apparently you've missed or chosen to ignore the early rumors that they may
well do that very thing.  Even if they don't, again, it doesn't matter to
me.  As long as they get on stage I'd rather see them do songs from the
catalogue than see a Stones show, with or without new music.  (Believe it
or not, this doesn't mean I would not (and have not) enjoyed Stones shows.)

>	Who are the "clearly superior alternatives" to the music that they have
>produced throughout their over 30 year career?

There's only one I would care to name and if you have to ask you're reading
the wrong list.

[long discussion of James Sethian's post snipped]

I'll leave it to Mr. Sethian to defend his post (or not) as he chooses.


Alan

"The Rolling Stones are the Microsoft of rock." --James Sethian