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

Re: Stones are older than who



----- Original Message -----
From: <Pilam76@aol.com>
To: <thewho@igtc.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2002 7:37 PM
Subject: Stones are older than who


> You know I was thinking..On the oldies station here we hear the
stones,doors,
> and beatles but on classic rock station they play the who...And on the man
> show they have a band and all the guys are at least 70-80..Really old with
> grey hair..And adam corrolla(the host) said in refererincin(did i spell
that
> right?) them "ladies and gents, the rolling stones.."isnt it nice the who
> isnt thought of as an oldies band???
>
> -scott
>



    That IS cool!  Of course they're chronically the same age, but that
Keith Richards from the Rolling Stones looks FAR older than his 58 years of
age SIMPLY because he's the end result of DECADES of self-abuse on his body,
and he's been blessed to have survived it all, but it still shows all of the
wear and tear he's been through, WHEREAS the Who (especially Roger Daltrey)
look younger than their chronological age, PLUS The Who's WILD reputation
both onstage and off, AND their still current stage persona of high
energized performances definitely separates their overal image from that of
their contemporaries!





Joseph Manfredi