1989 Who/ Stones comparison

[Sroundtable@xxxxxxx]

I realize many Who fans have never forgiven the band for the big band production of the 1989 Join Together tour, but why is it that the Rolling Stones have been able to continue to produce flashy shows w/horn sections and back-up singers, etc yet escape criticism and continue to attract throngs of fans to their concerts?  The Eagles also have re-united twice in the last 6 years for "greatest hits" tours with horns and session musicians and bongo and maracca players, and it seems they escape criticism for it.  I understand that the Who is held to a higher standard in this regard by both critics and fans because they carried the "music before money/ cutting edge" mantle for so long.  I also know, as we all do, that the 89 Tour was a HUGE mistake, and had they waited until 1996 to reunite for the Quad Tour, things would be different today.  HOWEVER... we can't change any of this, and I for one respect the Who for all their triumphs, failures, and mistakes.  We would all love to know what Pete, Roger, and John were thinking in 1989 for our own peaces of mind, but most of us are unlikely to ever get to ask the question (or have the balls to ask it if ever in a convo with Pete or Roger).  I don't want my favorite band to be perfect, or nice, or cute, or en vogue.  The joy is in the journey... ALL the ups and downs, the triumphs and tragedies.  I love the Who in part for their flaws and their manic history.  The Who is a band which has faced many of the same adversities that we have in our lives, and many of us identify with them because of this.  1989 is part of the Who's history and I accept it without embracing it.  LONG LIVE ROCK!!!!
mc