[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Who's got Stones
> 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
> 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