[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Who's got Stones

----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott Schrade"

> I don't know.  I mean, the Stones aren't as raw, mean, & angry as The
> Who; I know that.  But the Stones aren't exactly going through the

Dude, you've got to get over this Stones envy thing.  As a live band, they
flat out suck.  It's all production and packaging.  Mick can't sing.
Keith's OK, but has this image because, I don't know, because he puts a
cigarette in his guitar strings?  Please.  Everyone else?  Who cares?
They're a boy band.  A bad-boy band.  Oh, and Mick can't sing...at all.

> They know how to put on a decent, exciting show.  Not my cup of tea
> musically, but a decent show nonetheless.  I can see that.

Sure.  So do the Backstreet Boys.

> And like my Stones friend says - say what you want, but those guys are
> a hard-working, dedicated band.  We Who fans pick at little morsels of
> new music tossed to us every eight years while the Stones give their fans
> full-length new albums every three or four years.  So-the-fuck-what if the
> albums aren't spectacular.  They're there.  They exist as pieces of music.
> As pieces of art.

Art?  Well, they are music.  And, if I've got to choose between quality and
quantity, I choose quality.  The music means something to Pete.  He's not a
hit machine.  Like I said, the Stones have made some catchy records.  A lot
of them.  That's nice.  I'll probably pick up 40 Licks at some point.

> Plus, their constant & inventive touring.  Makes The Who look like a club
> band.  I won't go into live set-lists again.

They've made a lot more records.  They have a lot more songs to choose from.
I like a lot of them, but they don't exactly blow me away.  Again, it's a
matter of quality and depth over quantity and superficiality.  They can vary
the show because one song is much like the next.  Do I really care if they
play Miss You or Undercover?  Their set is a sequence of hits.  The Who's is
a series of about three build-ups to climaxes that leave you spent.  You
can't get emotionally invested in the Rolling Stones.

> I love The Who.  But I get jealous 'cause they seem so *little* compared
> to the Stones.  And the kicker is that it wasn't always that way.  The Who
> used to be as big & mighty as the Stones.  Plus, they had that depth to
> go along with it.  That truth.  That intelligence.

I have no idea why anyone still cares about the Stones.  Have they had a
decent song since Start Me Up?  And, did I mention that they suck live?  I
don't think I've heard one decent sounding live recording from their entire
career.  Midnight Rambler from Hot Rocks is OK, I suppose.

> Then, it's like Pete took a pit-stop that lasted six years & the band
> wasn't able to catch up to the new leaders.  (Yeah sure, it's not a race,
> blah blah blah....)

Yeah, that was a pity, but I value the stuff Pete's done on his own as much
as some of The Who's music.  And Roger's done some pretty good stuff, too.
Again, these are guys who care about their music and for whom it means
something.  I'll take that over a whole load of hit singles any day.

> Mood swing:  I just bought the new Uncut magazine with Pete on the cover,
> plus the lengthy Pete interview, & the cool-looking ROOTS OF TOMMY
> CD.  Yeah, Mama!!

I'll keep my eyes open.  I got the Who issue and it's great fun to thumb
through.  I'm not usually one who reads all the articles, interviews, etc.,
but this is a nice, concise look at the band's career.

> The Stones can't stop me from getting my Who-groove on!!  Fuckin'
> wimps.

Next time your Stones friend tries to give you shit, just do an impression
of Mick "singing" Shattered.  If I were a fan, I'd be embarrassed.

Jim M