Re: Who's got Stones

["Schrade, Scott" <sschrade@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Dude, you've got to get over this Stones envy thing.  

I know, I know.  I need help.

> I have no idea why anyone still cares about the Stones. 

Seems like most of my friends still dig 'em hard.  Keith Richards is
like a counter-culture god to them.  And one of my gay friends is really
into Mick!!  

> Have they had a decent song since Start Me Up?  

I think radio programmers decides what's decent.

> And, did I mention that they suck live? 

They don't suck.  They're good musicians & they put on their show.  They
give the audience what it wants & more.  More than The Who gives their
audience.  I mean, The Who have passion & a certain fierceness, but the
staleness of their concert set-lists is starting to stink, IMO.

> >  I just bought the new Uncut magazine with Pete on the cover,
>
> I'll keep my eyes open.  

It's great.  Fabulous, long interview with Pete (and a short interview
with Roger).  I'll try to post some extracts soon.

> Next time your Stones friend tries to give you shit, just do an 
> impression of Mick "singing" Shattered.

And have them fight back by singing a lame Who song in my face?  No way.
All bands have lame songs.  If I really want to strike hard against
them I'll usually bring up the lack of intelligence & depth in Stones
music as compared to the grandeur & complexity of The Who.


- SCHRADE in Akron

The Council For Secular Humanism
http://www.secularhumanism.org/