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

Re: Posts re Stones

At 0:53 -0800 11/24/97, The Who Mailing List Digest wrote:
>Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 02:27:03 -0500 (EST)
>From: KHanc1965@aol.com
>		In response to Alan Mackendree, my intention was not to
>descend into a
>pointless and ridiculous Who v. Stones discussion.  However, I would add that
>any innovation in NEW music (not live performance) to come from the
>collection of musicians known as The Who will come from but one, Pete

Rather than quibble, I will agree that you're probably right.  John is
creating wonderful new music but it will almost certainly never see the
light of The Who.

> However, I do think it is quite hypocritical to posit that The Who are
>somehow superior to and less motivated by profit than The Rolling Stones when
>both bands have based their recent huge tours  on music and reputations made
>twenty to thirty years ago.

"superior to" and "less motivated by profit than" are completely different
things.  I would never derogate anyone simply for making a profit (e.g., I
have said that the world would be a better place if every commercial on TV
had a Who soundtrack).  Here's my quote, for easy reference:  "both the
Stones and Microsoft produce products which are lapped up adoringly by
lemming-like millions who ignore clearly superior alternatives."  My
astonishment (not objection)  is by no means that The Who. The Stones,
Microsoft, and Apple market themselves, but that so lopsidedly many prefer
the inferior option in each market.


"The Rolling Stones are the Microsoft of rock." --James Sethian