Charmed Life Video (this is how Mick is using his political capital to grow?)....Keith writing to newspapers about bad reviews.....Las Vegas like setlists.....kids sing along on stage.....private shows to bankers....can we at least "pretend" to be cool? C'mon!

I think Senator Craig should've told the press that he actually needed toilet paper but would be too embarassed to exit the stall with his pants down.

lynn1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Charmed Life Video (this is how Mick is using his political capital to grow?)
>

Haven't seen it, so can't comment

> Keith writing to newspapers about bad reviews
>

And why not ? If his perception was that the review was grossly inaccurate and misleading to tens/hundreds of thousands of people, why the hell not ? He's an artist, he's in the business of reading (if he so wishes to) reviews about him/his band, he's no doubt read zillions and zillions of them in his 45 odd years of being a Rolling Stone. Something said in this particular one however obviously went "a step too far" in terms of (as he would see it) malicious criticism, and he's reacted to it. Good on him. Why should he be condemned for so doing ? He's kept quiet with respect to 45 years worth of reviews, now he sees fit to break his characteristic silence for the first time in four and a half decades and you condemn him for it ? Why ?

> Las Vegas like setlists
>

Actually no. Setlists that catered perfectly to the mix of people that made up the audiences attending shows in the various cities they chose to play. What would you have had them do ? A 20 song set of blues numbers ? Please ... put on your thinking cap. Out of 50,000 people in say Bucharest, Budapest, St Petersburg (to name but a few of the more obvious destinations), how long exactly do you think it would have been before 49,000 of them would have said "f*** this, we're outa here" if they'd have played a set consisting say of for example Back of My Hand, Little Red Rooster, I got the Blues ... etc etc ? The answer, in case you've STILL not put your thinking cap on, would be "not very bloody long" !!


> Kids sing along on stage
>

Inviting kids and grandkids onto the stage for perhaps 3-5 minutes of woo wooing on the definitive woo woo song on the LAST show of tour spanning two years and incororating 147 shows ... what exactly is the issue you have with this ? In a totally packed O2 arena I don't think there was a single person that wasn't sharing in the delight of that spectacle and in celebrating the fact that this greatest of bands was hugely enjoying itself and quite deservedly indulging itself a little bit in the final 20-30 minutes of a two year globetrot - ending on "home turf" back in London town. I would think there would have been some number of grandparents in that audience there, a lot of whose little hearts would've swollen with pride when they witnessed that, even moreso if they'd have had their own kids and grandkids with them at that show.

> Private shows to bankers
>

I take it you see fit to draw a salary yourself for whatever it is you do for a living; or are you SO desperately charitably inclined that in fact you don't ? If so, bully for you, but please don't impose your charitable inclinations upon others.

These guys are from the immediate "post war" generation. London had the living crap bombed out of it, there was rationing until the mid fifties, and their "backgrounds" are decidely working or lower middle class. In addition to that, they endured their share of downright poverty in their early years until they started eventually turning a buck. Hardly a surprise therefore that they learned to operate under the basic premise that a day's work merited a day's pay. OK, advance the clock 45 years and a day's pay is a very large cheque, but human nature being what it is ... if you've even been poor and you didn't particularly like it, you ain't gonna give up operating under that basic premise. You might have $500 million in the bank, but if you step out onto a stage you're STILL wanna get paid for it. Difficult to comprehend ? Nah, I don't think so !!

> Can we at least "pretend" to be cool? C'mon!
>

No pretence required. They ARE cool. You've obviously failed to recognise this, or else perhaps you judge "cool" by vastly different criteria to say myself - and probably a good many others too ?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-09-01 18:11 by paulywaul.

I think they should lose Blondie!

No offence, but they have Keith and Ronnie...and even Mick on guitar sometime.
Don't need another guitar. I know he does other stuff, but I for one wouldn't miss him.

Lee

lmatth8461 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think they should lose Blondie!
>
> No offence, but they have Keith and Ronnie...and
> even Mick on guitar sometime.
> Don't need another guitar. I know he does other
> stuff, but I for one wouldn't miss him.
>
> Lee

Yeah, good point. I quite often wonder what the Stones would sound like without his contribution. For that matter, I am further given to wondering what they would sound like with no backing vocals at all (hence no Bernard and Lisa) and no horns. I don't really think about it too often, because we've all kind of come to accept them in their present form. But it's only in circumstances such as say; seeing a really good Stones tribute band (such as the Rollin' Stoned) that's "just the five of them" that I sometimes think "I wonder what the REAL five would sound like these days if you stripped everything else away" ??

I think I'd be up there in fantasyland ever thinking that I'd perhaps one day see/hear the "naked" Stones again, but boy ... would I like to ?

Now I think about it, wasn't it just the five of them at the press conference in NYC in 2005 ? I can't remember.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-09-01 17:02 by paulywaul.

>> wasn't it just the five of them at the press conference in NYC in 2005 ? <<

yep: the four of them plus Darryl



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-09-01 17:08 by with sssoul.

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >> wasn't it just the five of them at the press
> conference in NYC in 2005 ? <<
>
> yep: the four of them plus Darryl

You're right, just looked it up here on IORR (silly me - forgot about that), and apart from the fact that I didn't like then - and still don't particularly like now - "O No Not You Again" ... my recollection is that they sounded pretty damm OK on SMU and BS.

I go to 5 shows during the last tour and have a hell of a time at each one. Rock on!

paulywaul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> lynn1 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Charmed Life Video (this is how Mick is using
> his political capital to grow?)
> >
>
> Haven't seen it, so can't comment
>
> > Keith writing to newspapers about bad reviews
> >
>
> And why not ? If his perception was that the
> review was grossly inaccurate and misleading to
> tens/hundreds of thousands of people, why the hell
> not ? He's an artist, he's in the business of
> reading (if he so wishes to) reviews about him/his
> band, he's no doubt read zillions and zillions of
> them in his 45 odd years of being a Rolling Stone.
> Something said in this particular one however
> obviously went "a step too far" in terms of (as he
> would see it) malicious criticism, and he's
> reacted to it. Good on him. Why should he be
> condemned for so doing ? He's kept quiet with
> respect to 45 years worth of reviews, now he sees
> fit to break his characteristic silence for the
> first time in four and a half decades and you
> condemn him for it ? Why ?
>
> > Las Vegas like setlists
> >
>
> Actually no. Setlists that catered perfectly to
> the mix of people that made up the audiences
> attending shows in the various cities they chose
> to play. What would you have had them do ? A 20
> song set of blues numbers ? Please ... put on your
> thinking cap. Out of 50,000 people in say
> Bucharest, Budapest, St Petersburg (to name but a
> few of the more obvious destinations), how long
> exactly do you think it would have been before
> 49,000 of them would have said "f*** this, we're
> outa here" if they'd have played a set consisting
> say of for example Back of My Hand, Little Red
> Rooster, I got the Blues ... etc etc ? The answer,
> in case you've STILL not put your thinking cap on,
> would be "not very bloody long" !!
>
>
> > Kids sing along on stage
> >
>
> Inviting kids and grandkids onto the stage for
> perhaps 3-5 minutes of woo wooing on the
> definitive woo woo song on the LAST show of tour
> spanning two years and incororating 147 shows ...
> what exactly is the issue you have with this ? In
> a totally packed O2 arena I don't think there was
> a single person that wasn't sharing in the delight
> of that spectacle and in celebrating the fact that
> this greatest of bands was hugely enjoying itself
> and quite deservedly indulging itself a little bit
> in the final 20-30 minutes of a two year globetrot
> - ending on "home turf" back in London town. I
> would think there would have been some number of
> grandparents in that audience there, a lot of
> whose little hearts would've swollen with pride
> when they witnessed that, even moreso if they'd
> have had their own kids and grandkids with them at
> that show.
>
> > Private shows to bankers
> >
>
> I take it you see fit to draw a salary yourself
> for whatever it is you do for a living; or are you
> SO desperately charitably inclined that in fact
> you don't ? If so, bully for you, but please don't
> impose your charitable inclinations upon others.
>
> These guys are from the immediate "post war"
> generation. London had the living crap bombed out
> of it, there was rationing until the mid fifties,
> and their "backgrounds" are decidely working or
> lower middle class. In addition to that, they
> endured their share of downright poverty in their
> early years until they started eventually turning
> a buck. Hardly a surprise therefore that they
> learned to operate under the basic premise that a
> day's work merited a day's pay. OK, advance the
> clock 45 years and a day's pay is a very large
> cheque, but human nature being what it is ... if
> you've even been poor and you didn't particularly
> like it, you ain't gonna give up operating under
> that basic premise. You might have $500 million in
> the bank, but if you step out onto a stage you're
> STILL wanna get paid for it. Difficult to
> comprehend ? Nah, I don't think so !!
>
> > Can we at least "pretend" to be cool? C'mon!
> >
>
> No pretence required. They ARE cool. You've
> obviously failed to recognise this, or else
> perhaps you judge "cool" by vastly different
> criteria to say myself - and probably a good many
> others too ?


paulywaul i'm sure you are a great fan but you sound like you work in the stones pr dept. all your refutations to the original post are an apologists' most rote typical answers. get real. we're talking about the stones here. they defined cool. your long explanations about bombed out london and people walking out because they don't get 95% warhorses from 30 years ago are unnecessary. do ya really think people would walk out if the stones played newer or less played out material? you're totally wrong imo. totally. seen the stones many times and nobody ever walked out of a show no matter what the stones played. and playing a private show for bankers when you're already pulling in $500 million for 2 years work is crass shit. they coulda at least made them pay and played for charity. the stones are flirting with a lot of very uncool shit. my opinion.

>> the stones are flirting with a lot of very uncool shit. my opinion. <<

and there have been folks saying that since at least 1963.
my opinion: let go of their ears - they're the Rolling Stones. :E

the stones must never stop

Life's just a cocktail party on the street

Until someone drops dead they will continue. Rock on !!!!!!!!!!!

Beauforde Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> paulywaul i'm sure you are a great fan but you
> sound like you work in the stones pr dept. all
> your refutations to the original post are an
> apologists' most rote typical answers. get real.
> we're talking about the stones here. they defined
> cool. your long explanations about bombed out
> london and people walking out because they don't
> get 95% warhorses from 30 years ago are
> unnecessary. do ya really think people would walk
> out if the stones played newer or less played out
> material? you're totally wrong imo. totally. seen
> the stones many times and nobody ever walked out
> of a show no matter what the stones played. and
> playing a private show for bankers when you're
> already pulling in $500 million for 2 years work
> is crass shit. they coulda at least made them pay
> and played for charity. the stones are flirting
> with a lot of very uncool shit. my opinion.

<<< get real. we're talking about the stones here. they defined cool >>>

Correct, but I note you're using the past tense. What was cool in 1968 when the menacing tone of JJF emerged in sight and sound isn't quite the same as what's cool today - nearly forty years later. What in my opinion is pretty cool today about the Stones is that they're STILL here and STILL playing their hearts out for us !!

<<< do ya really think people would walk out if the stones played newer or less played out material ? >>>

I don't know if they'd "walk out" necessarily, they might just stand there and look at each other and go "what the f***'s this ???". I just think that as long as the Stones are addressing themselves to a 40,000 to 50,000 sized crowd in a relatively newish or hitherto untapped market, the "safe" setlist is what we're gonna get. There's nothing "Vegas" like about the kind of setlists we got this year, to the contrary - there was something highly natural and predictable about them, given WHERE they were playing and the kind of audiences they were playing to. This band are victims of their own success, think about it. They pull a crowd of 40,000 or 50,000 people. They then quite probably conclude that it's the larger proportion that they've got to gear the setlist to, not the smaller. Sad to say, and it annoys me as much as anyone, but I think that we who dream of a 20 song setlist consisting of bluesy obscurities and other great album tracks rarely if ever played live and who would be OVERJOYED to get a setlist consisting of such things - we probably ARE the smaller proportion of the average stadium audience. So although I don't necessarily "like" what they do time and time again, I do recognise WHY it is they do it !!

Don't misunderstand me, I'd DIE and go to heaven if they'd one day say "we're steppin' out again, only this time there's no Chuck, Lisa, Blondie, Bernard, Bobby, Tim, Michael etc, there's just us and Daryl and we're playing stuff we've never played". Possibility of it happening ? Hmmm ... NOT great I'd say, although I'll wish for it till the day I - or they - die !!

<<< playing a private show for bankers when you're already pulling in $500 million for 2 years work is crass shit >>>

I'd have to disagree with you there. They'll never operate under any other premise, that's what I think. "It's taken us a good while to get here, but we've got this earning potential, so lets capitalise on it". My own opinion is that this is pretty much how they think; they simply ain't afraid to charge for their services. I don't think it's "uncool" at all. I think some folk might find it "disagreeable", but it ain't what I would call uncool. It's quite understandable.

I often think that we (their fans and their audience) have in recent years adopted a somewhat misplaced sense of sentimentality about them, us, and the way we all relate to each other. We perhaps look at them in ways that we'd love them to look back at us in, but they just don't. We'd love to think they OWE us something for 40 years of slavish devotion as fans, buying their records and seeing their shows etc. I've concluded that this is a seriously misplaced sentiment; they don't feel they owe us anything more in fact than to continue to tour within the various constraints that the "nature of a tour" and the "scale of a tour" impose. When - if ever - they decide to "scale down" and stop addressing themselves to a couple of million fans here and there through the medium of the stadium, thereby possibly ridding themselves of some of those constraints - THEN and perhaps ONLY THEN will we get a 2 hr set of obscurities performed with no back up singers/horns, and all for $25.

LONG LIVE THAT DAY - HUH ?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-09-02 01:51 by paulywaul.

Paulywall,
You can't include Bobby in that list of pinkslips.He's been around since 69'.

Don't understand why people define The Stones by the abnorm instead of by the norm. In other words they can have one thousand public shows and one private show and people define them as a band that caters to bankers. Silly.

How many times have they had kids singing along on stage? At about .01 percent of all their shows? Yet people get extremely peeved about it as if they have suddenly turned into Barney The Dinosaur.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-09-01 20:03 by FrankM.

The kid's on stage ,Ihave to admit that's pretty lame ,sounds like something PAUL MCCA would do.........

Chris Fountain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think Senator Craig should've told the press
> that he actually needed toilet paper but would be
> too embarassed to exit the stall with his pants
> down.

perhaps.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-09-02 01:45 by ryanpow.

paulywaul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>they don't feel they owe us anything more in fact than
> to continue to tour within the various constraints
> that the "nature of a tour" and the "scale of a
> tour" impose. When - if ever - they decide to
> "scale down" and stop addressing themselves to a
> couple of million fans here and there through the
> medium of the stadium, thereby possibly ridding
> themselves of some of those constraints - THEN and
> perhaps ONLY THEN will we get a 2 hr set of
> obscurities performed with no back up
> singers/horns, and all for $25.
>
> LONG LIVE THAT DAY - HUH ?

why is it that whenever anyone mentions the fact that the stones setlists have become really stale and predictable someone goes to the other extreme and mentions a set of blues obscurities with no backups for $25? from one extreme to the other. ridiculous. isn't there a middle ground? is it too much to expect a concert with a balance of new material old material and some challenging off-center stuff? noone would be bummed. everyone gets to see the stones do what they do best. and noone walks out. c'mon man!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-09-01 21:11 by Beauforde.

I was thinking the other day: it's been a while since a was actually proud to be Stones fan, proud to to play some new Stones release to my friends really loud. B2B, I guess. I just watched Jagger's new video and was totally embarassed. My God, hard times, hard times. Like I said, I'm gonna listen to Wandering Spirit now, just to remember how good Jagger once was...

tjkeef Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The kid's on stage ,Ihave to admit that's pretty
> lame ,sounds like something PAUL MCCA would
> do.........


They were doing that quite regularly in 1999 when leah Wood guested on 'Thief on the night' and then they had a couple of keith's kids (Theo and Alexandra) sing back up vocals on one song on the final tour show in Cologne...on 'Sympathy' in fact. Lizzie Jagger joined them a few times too, as I recall.

Its nothing new, so the fuss about it surprises me. Is it because some of them were...gasp.... grandchildren?



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2007-09-02 01:21 by Gazza.

Beauforde, may I ask how old you are?

Many of the tours touted now as so great were not so well recieved at the time they were played.Nostalgia and a few well chosen bootlegs are the stuff of legends. So, when the Stones embarked on the TOTA's in 75 they were playing some new stuff, and a major review called it all loud noise and remarked that the well loved oldies, or as the reviewer saw it, the songs the audience had come to hear, were not well represented

A few tweaked King Biscuit Flower Hours packaed as Handsome Girls has completely enshrined the 78 tour, and yet you want to talk about set list variety; THERE WAS NONE. Yes it was bold to play so much new material, but it was do or die in one sense in that the band had been pretty much written off as has beens , and that was 30 years ago. One of that era's major photojournalism mags ( and I cannot remember if it was Life or Look) ran an article that stated in so many words it was not worth missing work or school for the show. Well as we are now finally made aware of by Keith, these guys do read and are acutely aware of the press. so from what they have read, THEY DID TRY IN THE PAST to be unpredictable and they were trounced by the professional press. And you cannot ask them to screw the press and look at the fans, because from the front of the stage the mega tours drawing 50,000 plus consistently date from the era that you have termed the safe Vegas era. What do you think feeds thier ego more, looking out at 50,000 dressed in Stones t-shirts and playing their greatest hits, or really trying to remember when they were cutting edge and new, and playing to 12oo screaming bleached blonds all trying to be Lulu clones?

When you Beauforde are ready to shave the crown of your head and take A VOW OF POVERTY, then start bitching about the bank show etc. Myself, as an MD that works the emergency rooms, I love the Holidays and the staffing crunch they create,because I can make ridiculous amounts of money staffing days that are in a backwards way often the least busy.I have never turned down a raise, or a bonus, have you Beauforde? Why should the Stones? They have spent decades always charging more than any one else, and doing what they please. When they pissed on a wall that was cool becauise they basically said "we don't give a @#$%& what you think." Well for me, the same applies for the bank gig, I think THAT IS REALLY COOL BECAUSE THEY REALLY DO NOT GIVE A @#$%& WHAT YOU OR I THINK. They are true to themseleves and no one else.They are now, they always have been, the ultimate capitalists, hasn't anyone been listening? "What can a poor boy do?"

As for the kids, I have been all over this tour with the Stones, and remember no other being such a family affair.At the third O2, Theo knelt in the catwalk staring adoringly at her father, entranced, and singing along with him as he rocked though his second number.In Saint Petersburg it was Keith that sang Little T&A to both of his girls with a look of pride that was just poignant. It bothered you the kids were on stage? May I ask then, at what point in your life did embracing and celebrating family become uncool?

And in the end, it does not matter because for me the Stones have again shown just how cool they are BY DOING EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT TO DO WHEN THEY WANT TO DO IT NO MATTER WHAT OTHERS SAY. And doing it in such style, they have just ended another tour that is phenomanally successful while a bunch of people who have never even sang Auld Lang Syne at the local pub at the stroke of New Years have advice abundant on how they could improve.

Last, let me say something about myself that gives it perspective for me. At age 50, I think I have finally figured out what maybe the Stones have known for a long time. The coolest @#$%& on Earth are those of us that have discoverd, it doesn't even really matter if your cool.

Beauforde Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> paulywaul Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >they don't feel they owe us anything more in fact
> than
> > to continue to tour within the various
> constraints
> > that the "nature of a tour" and the "scale of a
> > tour" impose. When - if ever - they decide to
> > "scale down" and stop addressing themselves to
> a
> > couple of million fans here and there through
> the
> > medium of the stadium, thereby possibly ridding
> > themselves of some of those constraints - THEN
> and
> > perhaps ONLY THEN will we get a 2 hr set of
> > obscurities performed with no back up
> > singers/horns, and all for $25.
> >
> > LONG LIVE THAT DAY - HUH ?
>
> why is it that whenever anyone mentions the fact
> that the stones setlists have become really stale
> and predictable someone goes to the other extreme
> and mentions a set of blues obscurities with no
> backups for $25? from one extreme to the other.
> ridiculous. isn't there a middle ground? is it too
> much to expect a concert with a balance of new
> material old material and some challenging
> off-center stuff? noone would be bummed. everyone
> gets to see the stones do what they do best. and
> noone walks out. c'mon man!

<<< why is it that whenever anyone mentions the fact that the stones setlists have become really stale and predictable >>>

Your words not mine. I attended 13 shows in total just on the Europe 2007 leg of the tour, these are the songs I heard them perform. The first part of the list represents the "variety" that they offered within the first part/half of the shows (that is to say up to the introductions and/or occasionally the B stage set).

Love In Vain
Let's Spend The Night Together
Rough Justice
All Down The Line
She Was Hot
Waiting On The Friend
She's So Cold
Bitch
Monkey Man
Let It Bleed
Get Off Of My Cloud
Rocks Off
Ain't Too Proud To Beg
Streets Of Love
Midnight Rambler
Respectable
You Got Me Rocking
Ruby Tuesday
Can't You Hear Me Knocking
It's All Over Now
You Can't Always Get What You Want
Sway
Night Time Is The Right Time
Happy
Live With Me
Dead Flowers
Beast Of Burden
Shine A Light

===============

Tumbling Dice
I'll Go Crazy
You Got The Silver
I Wanna Hold You
Miss You
It's Only Rock'n Roll
Satisfaction
Honky Tonk Women
Sympathy For The Devil
Paint It Black
Brown Sugar
Jumping Jack Flash

Not enough "middle ground" for you ? Come on, what are YOU expecting of them ?

Read all 13 pages of these posts.

Lynn1, the members of the Stones are grown men not fantasy dolls. In other words, who says "They must stop...etc.)?

If you don't like 'em as they are, that's life.

I agree with what Paulywaul, Gazza, Kahoosier and others have expressed. If that sounds like the PR dept, Beauforde, you either are a total cynic or have too much time on your hands.

I want might want the "old stones" or different songs but I am happy to receive what they offer in performance. NO band is perfect every night

By the way, think the jabbing at their families really stinks!

Sorry, these guys are human with actual feelings and emotions, but that's the way it is.

I havnet seen any footage of the family on stage but to me it sounds reminscient of the 81 tour when the band and crews wives/girlfriends got up on stage for Honkey tonk women. I think its pretty cool in LSTNT. its funny at the end when Ron woods dauther goes up to him. that type of thing is fine once in a while, just not every show and they know that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-09-02 01:41 by ryanpow.

Lynn1, is this a joke or are you feeling especially bitter about something? Do you have some personal issues you want to discuss?

Kahoosier, good to hear you on this thread, I remember you and friends before the Miami ABB gig ... over at Bayside Mall. By the way I saw them again at the Ft Lauderdale cocert in Feb. Two different concerts and feel. Thanks for your kindness and generosity that day in S. Florida on somewhat a strange Monday. Thank you for your receptiveness (pouring food and wine!!!) Hopefully, company and all cam make it down to Miami again!!! Perhaps for the Bruce and E.gig...this time on me!!!!!!

Chris Fountain

anyone else here with an unusually "wide stance"?

lynn1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Charmed Life Video (this is how Mick is using his
> political capital to grow?)....

This is Mick, not the Stones...



Keith writing to
> newspapers about bad reviews.....

This bothers you? Really?




Las Vegas like
> setlists.....

I enjoyed the setlist of every one of the 14 shows I attended. Never once thought I was in Vegas. Oh, except the show I saw in Vegas and it was a very solid show.



kids sing along on stage.....

I was there and thought it was a sweet moment. Are we supposed to pretend they are still in their 20's with no family? To complain about this is one of the silliest things to get upset about I've heard. True artists grow and change as the years go on. If these guys were acting as if they were in their 20's it would be much sadder than aging gracefully. See Kiss.



private
> shows to bankers....

Again, I'm guessing you didn't get in. So what if they do gigs like this. If I were to someone come into a ton of money I'd do my best to hire the band for my own show. I don't understand why people think they have to right to tell the Stones how and when they can earn money. Please.




can we at least "pretend" to
> be cool? C'mon!

I still think they are. Find me someone cooler than Keith Richards.

Rock on, guys. If it makes you happy, do it.

jomo297 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Find me someone cooler
> than Keith Richards.
>
>

bob dylan. no contest.

Paulywall, I'm not sure if these are potential concert songs; However, Summer Romance, Torn and Frayed, Complicated, Mothers Little helper, (although I hear clonazepam is more effective from an New England Jounal of Drugs analysis), Out of Time, and I'm the Toughest (Peter Tosh).... What Reggae has do to with this post ...