[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Stones v. Who
In a message dated 4/1/2004 6:37:32 PM Eastern Standard Time,
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?
Why sure. What she did for Pete was tell that he warned her about the
terrible things that are on the Internet and instructed her in ways to protect her
kids. Her statements were among the strongest in favor of Pete's character
(Aside from Blacky Lawless from WASP) during his darkest hours last year.
>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
Did you see me there or something? Yeah, I could see him barely but I did
notice he had on a Philadephia Eagles jersey too.
>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
seriously. Pete is much more open to sharing his personal thoughts with the
world, the Stones are sarcastic, very reserved with their personal thoughts.
don't think either public image protrayed by either group means one is less
sincere about the issues in their songs.
Well, this is good to hear from a Stones fan. One thing's for sure, they
aren't dumb. I wonder if this is part of the reason for the difference in the
success formulas for the two bands? I mean, Pete puts things out there in a sort
of honest way and he hides nothing. I know he is a big brain to boot, but
sometimes people just want to have a good time and not dig up the sources of
their problems. I personally like to do this because I'm a person that is very
interested in knowing two things: My purpose and My destiny.
But ... people like to escape this by rock and roll and The Stones are the
world's greatest rock and roll band. So, in a sense they have to wear that
mask. Everyone is having a good time. It makes me wonder what goes through their
minds when the music is off. Why I guess, planning another tour or album?
<<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
See above paragraph.
>I wish you would have wandered down to Ford Field an year and
a half ago.
Yeah, me too. Then maybe I'd know what the hell I'm talking about. I really
wanted to see that one and I can't remember why I missed it. Maybe I was broke?
Oh yeah, I bought the entire Encore series! Would you like to know what Pete
says during ea. of the TKAA soliloquies? ;-)
>>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
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
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
experience. You might like the last tour's Street Fighting Man too.
Dang, you're a pretty good salesman. I like *all* those songs. Maybe the
reason I'm not into the Stones is because I haven't seen them in so long. Hmmm.
>Although the Who made my favorite album, the Stones are closer to my heart.
Awwww. And let me guess which album that might be...
>probably just a little north of Jon in MI
I live right near the Palace. Are you my neighbor!?
Italic Jon in Mi.