On The Rolling Stones
One feature of Rock Is Dead - Long Live Rock that I took from other review sites was the way I tried to cover a band's entire discography as opposed to individual albums. The band pages all featured introductions to the artist(s) covered - short overviews of their work and my take on it. With The Rolling Stones, never one of my true favourites, I went for a laugh. Unfortunately, one of my readers, Raul R Gonzalez, didn't find it very funny and made his opinion known in a nasty e-mail. Luckily, "Frizz" came to my aid.
***
The Rolling Stones are ugly. Mick Jagger's mouth is bigger than his face. Charlie Watts looked like he was 60 when he was 20. Keith Richards should technically be dead with a face like that. Brian Jones is dead. Ron Wood looks like Keith Richards(!) Only Bill Wyman looks half-decent but he's not part of the band any more. Yet for some reason, the girls screamed back in the day when the Stones were the second biggest band in the world and they still scream today. Except the girls are now women with a husband and 3 children.
Reader Comments:
Raul R Gonzalez
you have got to be the dumbest critic in the history of music. the stones didn't copy the beatles, i never heard lennon sing a blus or paul. why? they beatles were a replica of the beach boys. The Stones on the other hand are attitude, soul, rawness, rock and roll. Not pop, Did you hear exile, let it bleed, bengar's? But with your ears or with your beatles loving ass. The stones didn't sing "help i need somebody" they sang "i can't get no satisfaction. And who's to say and artist should look good, if music was based on that then sync or the backstreet boys would be a great band. The beatles=nice, cute, neat POP (NOT ROCK) music, or the Stones, raw, drunk, bluesy, powerful, ROCKAND ROLL. tell me which one you prefer?
"Frizz"
Hey Raul guy who likes the Rolling Stones: The beatles=nice, cute, neat POP (NOT ROCK) music, or the Stones, raw, drunk, bluesy, powerful, ROCKAND ROLL. tell me which one you prefer? Can I ask you a question... have you listened to any Beatles albums past 64? Also, The Stones sang the same old songs until 1967! They didn't have a great album until 1968! The Beatles had 5, count them, 5 revoultionary albums by 1968. I spit on the Stones, wait I like the Stones, I spit on Raul Zach S.
The Rolling Stones are ugly. Mick Jagger's mouth is bigger than his face. Charlie Watts looked like he was 60 when he was 20. Keith Richards should technically be dead with a face like that. Brian Jones is dead. Ron Wood looks like Keith Richards(!) Only Bill Wyman looks half-decent but he's not part of the band any more. Yet for some reason, the girls screamed back in the day when the Stones were the second biggest band in the world and they still scream today. Except the girls are now women with a husband and 3 children.
Reader Comments:
Raul R Gonzalez
you have got to be the dumbest critic in the history of music. the stones didn't copy the beatles, i never heard lennon sing a blus or paul. why? they beatles were a replica of the beach boys. The Stones on the other hand are attitude, soul, rawness, rock and roll. Not pop, Did you hear exile, let it bleed, bengar's? But with your ears or with your beatles loving ass. The stones didn't sing "help i need somebody" they sang "i can't get no satisfaction. And who's to say and artist should look good, if music was based on that then sync or the backstreet boys would be a great band. The beatles=nice, cute, neat POP (NOT ROCK) music, or the Stones, raw, drunk, bluesy, powerful, ROCKAND ROLL. tell me which one you prefer?
"Frizz"
Hey Raul guy who likes the Rolling Stones: The beatles=nice, cute, neat POP (NOT ROCK) music, or the Stones, raw, drunk, bluesy, powerful, ROCKAND ROLL. tell me which one you prefer? Can I ask you a question... have you listened to any Beatles albums past 64? Also, The Stones sang the same old songs until 1967! They didn't have a great album until 1968! The Beatles had 5, count them, 5 revoultionary albums by 1968. I spit on the Stones, wait I like the Stones, I spit on Raul Zach S.
posted by M at
27.8.07
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home