smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | rob@splitsville.com |
| Subject | =?US-ASCII?B?UkU6IFJlOiBTdG9uZXMgdG8gdG91ciAuLi4=?= |
| Date | Thu, 12 May 2005 12:11:50 -0400 |
[Part 1 text/plain US-ASCII (2.9 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
"Timing and long hair is what made them famous.
Keith's drug problems, Mick's libido, Brian's Death, and nostalgia are what has kept them famous."
I ain't buying that for a second. In fact, the statement is beyond ludicrous.
Any band around that long is going to have its share of tabloid foolishness, and Mick certainly invited/created LOTS of it, but their impact and music makes them one of the most important acts in the history of rock.
And yeah, the old fart still (still!!) has his annoying, Britney-esque moments, but Mick, to steal a line from Keith, 'as a performer can work a huge stadium or a table better than anyone in the world'.
What is timing, anyway? If Lennon had been born in 1930 instead of '40, he probably would have been in the British service in 1958, he's not a contemporary of Paul's, they don't meet, there are no Beatles and that's that. So I guess timing and long hair made the Beatles famous, too.
Rob
www.splitsville.com
>----- ------- Original Message ------- -----
>From: :audities@smoe.org
>To: audities@smoe.org
>Sent: Thu, 12 May 2005 11:46:23
>
> Yes...Hootie was a very lucky man...as were his
>Blowfish.
> ...but the Stones were waaaay luckier.
> Timing and long hair is what made them famous.
> Keith's drug problems, Mick's libido, Brian's
>Death, and nostalgia are
>what has kept them famous.
> It ain't about the music...it's about some
>people's need to recapture
>their youth...and a very viable business that keeps
>hundreds...maybe
>thousands of people employed.
>
> bob
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Bennett"
><mrhonorama@ameritech.net>
> To: <audities@smoe.org>
> Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 11:31 AM
> Subject: Re: Stones to tour ...
>
>
> >I think Hootie and the Blowfish were the world's
>
> > luckiest bar band. Like a lot of Auditeers,
>the
> > Stones don't rank as highly with me as other
>bands
> > from their era, but I would not deny their
>greatness.
> > If you're going to state that they apparently
>are not
> > a great band, you might want to provide further
>
> > support for your position than saying some
>unnamed
> > band does a better version of "Honky Tonk
>Woman". And
> > I'm not sure what that proves -- I could
>probably find
> > a lot of artists who do better versions of
>individual
> > tunes by Bob Dylan, for example, but I'm not
>sure what
> > that proves other than someone else did a bang
>up job
> > on a great tune.
> >
> > Mike Bennett
> > --- bob <segarini@rogers.com> wrote:
> >> Never said Mick and Keef didn't write some
>good
> >> tunes, (there are a few in
> >> your list), but I can send you an Mp3 of
>another
> >> band doing "Honky Tonk
> >> Women" that blows the doors off the Stones
> >> version...in fact, I can send you
> >> lots of examples. The Stones are The World's
> >> Luckiest Bar Band...just like
> >> U2 are The World's Luckiest Irishmen.
> >>
> >> bob
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.