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

Re: Stones v. Who

In a message dated 3/30/2004 6:47:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
TigerPurr1@xxxxxxx writes:
Whether Mick is a visionary depends on how you define it.  The structure of 
today's tours from country to rock to the three tenors all came from 
the Stones made.  They were the first to bring their own sound system on 
have a tour sponsor, etc...  Mick doesn't see rock and roll's main purpose as 
saving the world, but several Stones songs have expressed political and 
social issues.  When it comes to touring though, the Stones run a tight ship 
deliver the goods.  The Who haven't always done that.

Wow Debby, it looks like we have an expert on this subject.  The times that 
I've seen the Stones live I have to say that they sounded very professional and 

I remember when Undercover came out (my wife bought it for me when we were 
dating, so it brings me back to late '83) they asked Mick if they were going to 
be a more socially conscious band and he said that they were.

I always pictured Keith to be for "the Band" like Roger is for the band in 
the Who. Keith really enjoys doing it it seems.  That comes across when he 
plays. Charlie is such a clock. What a groove he has. They have the two guitars and 
all the riffs and that bassy bass.  Very catchy to audiences.  And you can 
dance to them.  The Stones take their jobs serious like good businessmen do.  
There is a plan and a goal and an execution.

The Who is chaotic. Threatening. Very real.  Pete picks subjects that no one 
else seems to want to touch, but ones that are very important to *humanity*.  

His scope isn't on the events on the news, it is on the events in the history 
books. A person can care about others and be socially conscious, but a person 
with vision can see things the way they will be in the future.  Pete has a 
larger scope than any person in rock that I know of. He also doesn't limit 
himself by taking sides in the stinking perpetual battle between being liberal or 
conservative. Both have good points as well as bad.  Pete seems to understand 

The Stones are refined and calculating. The Who are sloppy and real. The 
stones have the giant catalogue of hits and a successful formula. The Who is like 
a sloppy hot rod with a lot of horsepower that just may blow up. A hot rod is 
built to perform when floored, but it idles like shit.

Jon in Mi.