Robbie Robinson ([email protected])
Sat, 18 Jul 1998 09:45:09 -0700
Re the Stones:
Yes, we should compare the today's Stones to the 70's Stones
because when they tour, it's their 70's music that is all they
play:p They haven't moved on in creativity in a long time. Go on
and compare 90's U2 with 80's U2 and you'll see a definate change
and creative growth.
Yes the Stones sound the same today because they stoped developing
musically about, oh, 15 years ago (or maybe more). Basically
their songs on their newer albums are paler versions of songs
they wrote when they were at their creative height. Their
tours are greatest hits tours now. I remember that they only
play the songs off their new album when they were out as singles.
Their tour promoter, who had also been U2's tour promoter,
said in Rolling Stone Magazine that they palyed what the fans
wanted to hear, which was the old hits and that's why the
tour was so sucessful. (He also was taking a sideswipe and
criticizing U2 for palying too many new songs in his opinion.
I think this was before the year end stats were released that
showed U2 sold more tickets in the USA than any tour
in 97 and was the years most sucessful world tour.)
I love the Stones and I first saw them play in 1974 when they
were still relatively young and on top of things musically.
They still sound the same now because they're good at playing
their old hits just like they sounded on the albums.
What more can I say? I use to have every album they put out
but in the 80's I more or less gave up on them putting out
anything really interesting again. I don't have the extra money
to buy CDs I won't listen to more than once.
The Stones are a nostalgia band now and there's nothing wrong
with that, it's just that they like to pretend that's not true
and sometimes the audience is blinded to that fact that it's a
"Greatest Hits of" tour by the huge stage show they put on.
I think Mick ol' boy is in denial of his age and the bands
The big difference between the Stones and U2 is the difference
between a band that is no longer really creative and growing
and one that is. I think that's all the difference in the world.
Yes, I love U2s older albums, but I honestly consider their
new albums greater. I think each album shows where the band was
in their development and interests at that time and was the very
best they could have created at that time. Each album is like a
snapshot of were the band is in it's creative growth at that moment.
It's more like watching somebody named U2 that I love grow over
the years. I can't love the being they were 15 years ago more
than I love them now. It would be like saying you loved your spouse
more as the person they were 15 years ago than you love them now
that they have matured and developed into a more complex person
with wider interests. Oh, I don't know, I don't think I'm expressing
myself a clearly as I'd like to right now.
It's complicated, besides listening to the music, I've read all
the material I've been able to find on both the Stones and U2
over the years. I've probably read every book printed in English
about both bands and I have 4 big binders of U2 news articles,
some from as early as 1979. I just feel that from what I've read,
heard and seen, U2 is a much more creative band with much more
potential for growth than The Rolling Stones ever were. I feel that
what was lucky for the Stones was that they were there at almost the
beginning of rock'n'roll when everything was still very new and wide
open. Alomst anything they did in the beginning was new, fresh and
creative because of that. Even when they were just doing their own
versions of old blues tunes, none of their listeners had ever heard
This is much too complicated and I have to go do something else now.
I'm just glad that U2 still don't sound like they did in the 80's.
That would be an insult to them.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Sat Jul 18 1998 - 09:51:04 PDT