Re: Not fading away

["Scott Schrade" <schrade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> But here we see the value of experience and knowledge. 

< gasp! >  How *dare* you indirectly call me inexperienced & unknowledgeable.  ;-)
OK, I 'll be honest.  I respect the Stones.  I see their brilliance.  I really do.

My anti-Stones rant was obviously based on jealousy.  I'm jealous that they're so
much more popular than The Who.  I'm jealous that they seem to have handled
their career (and legacy - yes, legacy, Jeff - I said the "L" word) much better than
The Who did.

I'm jealous that the ratio of Stones to Who songs on Classic Rock radio is 8 to 1.  
I'm jealous that many friends I respect seem to garner so much enjoyment from the 
music of the Stones while I, like Jeff, am left bored.

This jealousy breeds my anger.  However, I can be comforted in the fact that, even
with all their career/legacy deficiencies, I know for a fact, deep down, that The Who
are the better of the two bands.  < deep breath >  I'm calm now.

> 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.

I admit it.  The Stones music is deeper & more meaningful than my anti-Stones rant
implied.  I know it.  However, I still firmly believe that their music comes no where
near the intellect & richness acheived by Mr. Townshend & The Who.  

Face it - the Stones just have too many songs about love, love gone bad, sex, sex gone 
bad, etc.  Their handful of insightful, deeper-meaning songs cannot overcome the pon-
derous amount of tunes with feeble-minded, base subject matter.  I'm not gonna wade
through all that shit to find a few nuggets of gold.

And don't tell me that Rock & Roll is *only* about sex & love, girls & boys, etc.  I
demand something greater; something deeper; something more thoughtful than subject
matter like seeing a hot chick in a bar & getting a case of blue-balls.    

> Only from the inexperienced will you hear the cry that experience doesn't matter, be-
> cause they haven't bothered to put in the time and effort yet they want a level playing 
> field. 

I listen to music I *enjoy.*  Isn't that what music's for?  I'm not gonna listen to a bunch of
crap that doesn't get me off just so I can have a more well-rounded knowledge of what's
out there.  Besides, I hear plenty of Stones as it is.  Two of my closest friends are big
Stones fans.  I hear quite a bit of Stones music; and not just the songs played on the radio,
either.

> Children think this way, not adults. 

December's children?  Ha!  Ya' like that one, Mark?  BTW, I own that Stones album.
I also own the "Undercover of the Night" 12-inch, too (!).  So there!  

> 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. 

Listen here, buddy-boy, I own a few thousand records & nearly a thousand CD's.  My
music knowledge is much more well-rounded than most's.  Don't accuse me of having
tunnelvision.  Like I said, I listen to what I enjoy, not what I *think* I'm *supposed*
to enjoy.

> Then, too, SO many bands have been influenced by The Stones...the most obvious 
> ones being the New York Dolls, Black Crowes and Aerosmith

More daft music I'm not into.  You forgot to mention Guns & Roses, too.  Blech!

> So if you like any of those bands, you can thank Jagger and company.

I *don't* like any of those bands.  So, perhaps I should *blame* Jagger & company
instead, yes?

> You can dislike Stones music if you want, but you shouldn't just toss them aside as 
> irrelevent. 

As far as *my* music collection is concerned, they're *very* irrelevant.  

But I respect them.  I really do, Mark.  Honestly.  I don't *like* them.  But I respect 
them.


- SCHRADE in Akron