Re: Rolling Stones Gather No Who Fans

[Joseph <joseph9@home.com>]

Sam Knutson wrote:
> 
> As a long time WHO-freak, I have always had a serious
> dislike for the Stones - and I have sometimes (albeit rarely)
> idly wondered why. Beyond the fact that the Stones are a
> singles-based pop band, and represent much about rock
> and roll that I have always detested - there seemed no
> rational explanation. I found myself, as a WHO-fan, to be
> somewhat jealous of the usual hype surrounding the Stones
> whenever they did anything...and they certainly have a lot
> of fans. I guess it boils down to my somewhat subdued
> desire for those mindless Stones fans to come to the Light,
> and see the more intelligent direction that The Who was
> trying to take rock music, going back to the late 60's and
> early 70's. Unfortunately, I believe that The Who could
> not overcome with rock-art and intelligence the generally
> mindless and unwashed rock and roll masses that flock to
> Stones concerts. It just wasn't going to happen while Mick
> and Keith were writing one hit after another, at the same
> time Pete and the boys were exploring areas that most rock
> and roll angels fear to tread. Am I making any sense here? I
> am EXTREMELY dismayed by the current Stones hype,
> considering the geritol nature of the Stones these days, and
> in light of the current general media-disdain of The Who
> and Quadrophenia. Truly a Darn Shame, but consistant
> with the way it's been since about 1968.



	The Who have been my ALL-TIME favorite music group since 1979 when I
"discovered" them at the age of 15 when I went and saw "The Kids Are
Alright".
	But common here......there's NO need to bash the Rolling Stones here to
the degree that I've been reading of late.
	I know of the hype that Sam here has mentioned surrounding the Stones
lately (I've heard the beautifully classic "Angie" 5 times in the last
two days on the radio), VH-1 specials, ect, ect.
	As for the "geritol" nature of the Stones, I think they should be
commended for their high energy concert stage output, ESPECIALLY Mick
(almost as much as The Who!), and they show that one can still be
physically young as well as young at heart.
	Knowing that Mick is 54 and Roger Daltrey is 53 (in as great shape as
they're in) gives ME insight into the fact that 40 is something that I
don't have to dread someday when it comes, as long as I stay fit and am
young at heart as I've always been and as obviously members of both the
Rolling Stones and The Who are!


							Joseph Manfredi