Re: Stones v. Who

[TigerPurr1@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 4/1/04 11:40:33 AM, TheWho-Digest-Owner@xxxxxxxx writes:

<< I think all I'm doing is pissing you off, which is not my intention. >>

Nah.  You're too gentlemanly to do that.  I was just interrogating you and 
trying to figure out where your thoughts were coming from. 

<<The above is oversimplifying my statement.You simply cannot compare the way 
Pete writes about these subjects to the way that Mick and Keith do. Pete 
lives his life in pursuit of the answer to these problems and does it on an 
extremely personal level, which he shares to the world with a bared soul.  He 
actually worries. Remember what Jerry Hall testified about him?>>

I'm a closet Mickette, I never listen to anything Jerry Hall says.  But I do 
remember that she did testify - do I get points for that?

<<When I hear Mick talk at the audience, he is more glib like an entertainer. 
 He is a showman doing his show for the delight of the fans, (although I'm 
sure it is more than that.)  However, when I hear Pete talk to the fans, I can 
sense a much deeper sincerity in his voice. Then some clown yells get on with 
it.>>

Mick and Pete have a much different sense of how they want to bring the music 
to the people.  I think you're confusing the football pants clad Jagger (or 
whatever outfit he's wearing so the guy at the very back row of the Silverdome 
knows it's Mick down there) stage presence as the guy who composes the songs.  
Jagger's lyrics can be very sarcastic and caustic.  I don't think the muse in 
Jagger that inspires any issue he writes about is any less sincere than 
Pete's muse.  However, the public Jagger does not have the sincerity of the public 
Pete.  That is a major difference between the two.

When Jagger is on stage - it's a role to him.  He takes on a role in 
interviews too.  The mask is on and sincerity is not quite how Jagger chooses to 
answer.  Keith and Charlie are the same in interviews - none are forthcoming.  
Keith mumbles - it's impossible to know what he's talking about.  Keith off stage, 
away from reporters, doesn't mumble.  

I think it would be mistake to think any of the Stones are glib about any of 
the serious issues their songs have been based on, that they don't pursue 
answers in their private life or that there are no social issues that they take 
seriously.  Pete is much more open to sharing his personal thoughts with the 
world, the Stones are sarcastic, very reserved with their personal thoughts.  I 
don't think either public image protrayed by either group means one is less 
sincere about the issues in their songs.

The Stones recording an album like Tommy probably would never happen.  
They've never been able to quite decide if they want to play blues, rock, country, 
reggae, funk, disco, etc...  For the Jagger/Richards writing team to string a 
half dozen songs about one issue into a story would probably take a miracle.  
Being pretty much the sole composer/lyrist for a band does give Pete a 
privilege and latitude he might not have otherwise as a writing team.

<<"*You'll* never make a saint of me!" People don't write songs to dead 
people. To talk to a living Jesus is what makes one a saint! God does have a sense 
of humor.  

Mick wrote a song for an effect.>>

Did he?  Or is it a more mature Mick moving away from Sympathy for the Devil 
where evil rules and accepting that maybe there is another team with influence 
too?

Let's not get into a discussion of Stones lyrics though.  I tend not to put 
much thought into them because so many are rather sexist and the closet 
feminist in me would be rather offended.  <ggg>  Mick though does draw a lot from 
literature, politics, religion, etc... in his lyrics and quite often the most 
obvious interpretation may be the least correct one.  I've learned that 
interpreting Mick's lyrics can be a daunting task and I leave the interpreting to 
people much better read than myself.

<<>Just curious, when was the last time you were at a Stones concert?

1981 :-/  But I've seen them on TV!>>

LOL  Have you played Ronnie on tv too?  

If '81 was the last time you saw the Stones live, I can see where your 
opinions come from.   I wish you would have wandered down to Ford Field an year and 
a half ago.  

If one is looking for a '72/73 performance, it's not going to happen - 
whether Taylor is on stage or not.  The Stones sound has moved on.  As had the Who 
sound.  Since I saw both bands in '02, a few weeks apart, the Stones songs I 
mention are all '02 arrangements.  I can't see comparing '71 Who or '78 Stones 
to either band today. 

<<My favorite is Street fighting Man, "one more and we've got to go..." which 
I *wish*they would've jammed out three times as long.  Midnight Rambler they 
do that on, but what songs do they usually go off on nowadays? (My tone isn't 
sarcastic, I'm just askin)>>

I'm not the one to ask because I'm not a tourist.  But then, you're not 
either - so maybe we can muddle through my answer.  Even when we do go to an 
artist's concert where we aren't familiar with their material like we may be with 
the Who or the Stones, we aren't the typical tourist and what catches our attenti
on is not always the catchy choruses and woo hoo's.  Brown Sugar and Who Are 
You are songs that tourists love, we could probably fall asleep during that 
type of sing along crowd pleaser some nights - regardless of the band.

The songs that get the tourists going, the ones that the Stones drag out for 
them - are Jumping Jack Flash, Brown Sugar, Honky Tonk Women, Satisfaction 
(although it was cut back to a nice clean, precise, tight song this past tour), 
Tumbling Dice, Start Me Up, etc...  Not songs in my opinion that benefit from 
it - they lose their energy and potential for a fever pitch when three or more 
minutes of riling up the crowd is included.  They're much better and have a 
much more energetic punch when they're sweet, short and precise.  Mick though 
doesn't call me up and ask my opinion.  The songs I've just mentioned are not 
songs that wail - not like the Who ones you're thinking of.  It's a different 
type of rock - but you can still get that same rush of adrenaline, unless Mick 
has just spent three minutes getting the tourists to woo hoo.  And the Who 
aren't immune to that - they do the same thing on some songs.

The Stones though can give you the same rush that the Who does, although it 
does feel a little different - but it has the same intensity and result.  The 
Stones songs that give me that rush are Midnight Rambler, Stray Cat Blues and 
Can't You Hear Me Knocking.  You might be interested in listening to their 
Columbus or Cleveland October '02 shows.  I would put Monkey Man, Rip This Joint 
and Rocks Off in the same category.  For a very intense Midnight Rambler, 
you'll want to hear the Roseland 9/02 concert.  Although no boot can give you the 
live experience and a great recording of that show hasn't appeared.  Anyone 
close enough to the stage to look into Jagger's eyes during MR at Roseland 
thought they were looking into the strangler's eyes - which does intensify the 
experience.  You might like the last tour's Street Fighting Man too.  

<<I do know what songs the Who hit hard.  Every one of them ... then comes 
the 
big build up.  You simply cannot sit down at a Who show. At least I can't.>>

I can't sit down at a Who concert or a Stones concert.  Well okay, by the 
time I got to my 46th Stones concert at the Toronto SARS concert and spent two 
hours pressing my way through a tightly packed crowd of a half million people, I 
did manage to sit through AC/DC and one or two Stones songs.  But I was 
tired, my feetsies had been stepped on, I had a blister, beer sales stopped five 
minutes before I got a chance to order one and I was half a mile from the stage. 
 I think I can be forgiven.   

<<Absolutely.  I like both of them too but I like them for very different 
reasons. One more than the other. I love Coke because it goes so well with food.  
It tastes best over ice to "release the sweetness" unless  it is drunk (?) 
from a can, which must be very cooold.  To me, the Who is Coca Cola.>>

Stones are Sprite to me.  But the Who are close behind as Sierra Mist.  
Although the Who made my favorite album, the Stones are closer to my heart.

Anyway - I don't think we really disagree.  I know exactly what energy rush 
thingy you are talking about.  I also know if you had been at a handful of 
Stones concerts on the last tour - Staples '03, Aragon '02, Roseland '02, Columbus 
'02, Cleveland '02 or even Detroit '02 - you would have felt the energy thing 
you describe - although it's not exactly the same - the Stones' wailing 
energy is more sexual, while the Who's more intellectual.  If the last time you saw 
the Stones live was '81, I can see why you would find the energy wailing 
thingy missing - the Stones were not playing at their best that tour and were at 
best treading water.  

Debbie
Tiger - probably just a little north of Jon in MI









    

    

"And Staples Girls are so extraaaaaavagant...I just don't have that much 
driiiiivvvvvvel..."  - Alan, 2/12/03