Re: Not fading away

["Mark R. Leaman" <bushchoked@xxxxxxxxx>]

You say when, & I'll release the doves.  ;-)

Scott:

Hey, do I look like Robert Plant to you?

But here we see the value of experience and knowledge. I have to agree with AEB that if you've heard these songs, whether you like them personally or not, you can't just write them off as meaningless ravings of drunken idiots. Only from the inexperienced will you hear the cry that experience doesn't matter, because they haven't bothered to put in the time and effort yet they want a level playing field. Children think this way, not adults. A kid with a pea shooter is not a soldier. A half wit with a calculator is not an accountant. A guy with a Casio is not Keith Emerson. A person with a box of Band-Aids is not a doctor. And so on. 

Knowing and understanding the music of The Stones, contemporaries of The Who by any measure one might care to use, is extremely valuable in gaining some perspective into what molded and shaped the Pete etc. This perspective can only be gained by experience and knowledge. It's easy enough to walk around with a "Who erection" and listen to nothing else, but it sure is a lonely place to be. Then, too, SO many bands have been influenced by The Stones...the most obvious ones being the New York Dolls, Black Crowes and Aerosmith (who are to The Stones what The Stones are to Chuck Berry). So if you like any of those bands, you can thank Jagger and company.

You can dislike Stones music if you want, but you shouldn't just toss them aside as irrelevent. They've only been irrelevent since 1974. This is what happens when a band goes on too long. Then again, look where The Who were in 1974.


If you love music, check us out on the 
                 web: www.secondgenerationscds.com

                             Cheers              ML
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site