I'm assuming you're a relatively new arrival to this site, harrybigstack, 'cause we've been having this conversation/debate for years. There are basically three camps when it comes to Woody -- those who love him, those who loath him, and those who don't care either way. But the one constant among all of us is that Woody's a Rolling Stone, regardless.

That said, I'm not a big fan of him these days, but his work in 75 was good, and his work in 78 was absolutely spectacular. I read earlier that you can't stand the 78 tour, but it's my all-time favorite, so I guess the bottom line is that there are two types of Stones fans: the ones who like them sloppy, raw and nasty -- i.e., the garage band that they really are -- and the ones who like them benign, sappy and a shell of their former selves. It appears that you're among the latter.





-- Keep on rollin'. Keep on. Keep on. Keep on. --

You are so wrong I like raw, I just like the songs to be recognizable and the guitars in tune. The Stones were raw with Taylor and Jones, but you could recognize the songs in 1978 and 1975 that was not true.

Fair enough, I guess. Simply a matter of preference, like debating who the hottest actress is. Although I'm not exactly sure what you mean by recognizable.


-- Keep on rollin'. Keep on. Keep on. Keep on. --

<I just like the songs to be recognizable>

This is bollocks. If there's one thing to say about the stones, it is that they (and their songs) are always recognizable. That goes for every tour.