For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
BowieStoneQuote
James KirkQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
BowieStoneQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
BowieStone
Why is it always Jaggers fault? If the stones was the only thing he did, the stones would be more than a nostalgia band. But the man has a lot of interests.
I think Keith is the most happy. He hasn't written a complete song in, what, 20 years?
He has just completed an album with new songs + he wrote OMS in 2012.
He wrote (half of) OMS in 1987 or 1988. Mick wrote the other half in 2012.
The album with new songs: probably his riffs made into songs by Steve Jordan (?).
Keith can't write a song on his own (anymore).
BowieStone, what planet do you live on? Obviously not the one Jagger lives on, which is the one where the set lists rely on nothing past 1981 even with his outside interests, which are nothing more than a drop of piss. The Stones are Jagger's biggest opportunity yet it's strictly a nostalgia band.
Jagger's quip a decade ago was then. He hasn't said anything like that since. He's fine with it being a Stones jukebox.
OMS was not written in 1988.
EXACTLY! There is barely anything in the setlist post 1981. That's too bad because they have produced some quality music since then. Perhaps not Sticky Fingers quality, but better than what was on the radio when they released new records.
I have no idea how you're interpreting my post.
Did I say they play a lot post '81?
But to answer that... On the last tour there was D&G, OOC, Can't be seen, YGMR on most shows. That's 4 out of 19.
But anyway... For Mick The Stones is not an outlet anymore to be creative. He prefers other things/people. Concerning the stones, he probably just loves performing with the combination of the financial aspect of it all.
Quote
BowieStoneQuote
James KirkQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
BowieStoneQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
BowieStone
Why is it always Jaggers fault? If the stones was the only thing he did, the stones would be more than a nostalgia band. But the man has a lot of interests.
I think Keith is the most happy. He hasn't written a complete song in, what, 20 years?
He has just completed an album with new songs + he wrote OMS in 2012.
He wrote (half of) OMS in 1987 or 1988. Mick wrote the other half in 2012.
The album with new songs: probably his riffs made into songs by Steve Jordan (?).
Keith can't write a song on his own (anymore).
BowieStone, what planet do you live on? Obviously not the one Jagger lives on, which is the one where the set lists rely on nothing past 1981 even with his outside interests, which are nothing more than a drop of piss. The Stones are Jagger's biggest opportunity yet it's strictly a nostalgia band.
Jagger's quip a decade ago was then. He hasn't said anything like that since. He's fine with it being a Stones jukebox.
EXACTLY! There is barely anything in the setlist post 1981. That's too bad because they have produced some quality music since then. Perhaps not Sticky Fingers quality, but better than what was on the radio when they released new records.
I have no idea how you're interpreting my post.
Did I say they play a lot post '81?
But to answer that... On the last tour there was D&G, OOC, Can't be seen, YGMR on most shows. That's 4 out of 19.
But anyway... For Mick The Stones is not an outlet anymore to be creative. He prefers other things/people. Concerning the stones, he probably just loves performing with the combination of the financial aspect of it all.
Quote
stupidguy2
I think it's funny considering how Mick and John used to trash Macca's pop sensibilities throughout the 70s...
And it's Macca who is opening himself up to challenging opportunities. You can say he's the old guy trying to stay hip or whatever, but Macca tore it up with Nirvana on SNL, he tore it up with Grohl in the studio, and he's obviously enjoying himself. Macca loves to perform and he loves to write. When John was trying to figure out what he wanted to do, Paul was like, 'Screw this' and formed Wings, because while I'm sure he loves the money and fame, bottom line is he loves being a musician, period.
When Mick attempts to be relevant and 'hip', he enlists Rob Thomas and Dave Stewart.
It's ironic because I've always believed that the Stones' greatest strength was their ability to move with the times..they were relevant and 'hip' throughout the 70s in a way that Wings, or the Who and Kinks for that matter, were not.
And something happened after Undercover, or maybe it was after TY, I can't quite pin-point it, but they got bored, or lazy or just their grip on the pulse of NOW...
I think alot of it might be Keith. Keith doesn't seem to care about new music, or artists or anything current. He's not inspired or driven to create. You can bet Mick is envying Macca working with Kanye and Ri...no matter what some of you think of these two, they are two of the more interesting artists today. And don't with the I-can't-believe-you-said-'artist'-in-the-same-breath-as-Kanye or some other smart-ass, smug dismissal about how there are no real artists anymore or some such nonsense. Macca and Mick both listen to what's going on in music, and always have. One just knows how to join the party, while the other seems stuck in his confort zone (ie..Stewart)
It didn't used to be like that, and I think that's why some of us are massively disappointed. The Stones used to be The Shit. with no peers.
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
stupidguy2
I think it's funny considering how Mick and John used to trash Macca's pop sensibilities throughout the 70s...
And it's Macca who is opening himself up to challenging opportunities. You can say he's the old guy trying to stay hip or whatever, but Macca tore it up with Nirvana on SNL, he tore it up with Grohl in the studio, and he's obviously enjoying himself. Macca loves to perform and he loves to write. When John was trying to figure out what he wanted to do, Paul was like, 'Screw this' and formed Wings, because while I'm sure he loves the money and fame, bottom line is he loves being a musician, period.
When Mick attempts to be relevant and 'hip', he enlists Rob Thomas and Dave Stewart.
It's ironic because I've always believed that the Stones' greatest strength was their ability to move with the times..they were relevant and 'hip' throughout the 70s in a way that Wings, or the Who and Kinks for that matter, were not.
And something happened after Undercover, or maybe it was after TY, I can't quite pin-point it, but they got bored, or lazy or just their grip on the pulse of NOW...
I think alot of it might be Keith. Keith doesn't seem to care about new music, or artists or anything current. He's not inspired or driven to create. You can bet Mick is envying Macca working with Kanye and Ri...no matter what some of you think of these two, they are two of the more interesting artists today. And don't with the I-can't-believe-you-said-'artist'-in-the-same-breath-as-Kanye or some other smart-ass, smug dismissal about how there are no real artists anymore or some such nonsense. Macca and Mick both listen to what's going on in music, and always have. One just knows how to join the party, while the other seems stuck in his confort zone (ie..Stewart)
It didn't used to be like that, and I think that's why some of us are massively disappointed. The Stones used to be The Shit. with no peers.
Don't forget MJ did that tune with WILL.I.AM and J Lo last year (or the year before?), which happened to be a horrible song. And while Superheavy had Stewart it also had Damien Marley and Joss Stone.
He's also done SNL with Grohl, and may I say never sounded better.
I think your criticism is a little off target, the only thing that MJ isn't doing is bringing that new stuff into the Stones any more, he gave that up.
Keith is never on board with it, and the few times he is successful, Anybody Seen My Baby, Streets Of Love, he gets castigated.
He's content leaving sleeping dogs lie, doing his movies, occasional solo project.
I don't think we have a right to insist a band that has been, and still is so good at what they do, to keep evolving with the times.
I'd like to hear new material, but I don't think they need Kanye's help, gifted as he is.
Quote
GasLightStreet
Alright, fine. The Stones are nothing more than a nostalgia act and Jagger loves the money.
I'd say the biggest change in music was the birth and growth of hip hop. People here hate it, but hip hop is HUGE, much bigger than punk, disco, and grunge.Quote
GasLightStreet
The Stones certainly don't need the talentlessness of Kanye to help them stick with the times. The problem with 'the times' is three of the biggest changes in music happened in the 1970s and the 1990s with punk, disco and 'grunge' and the Stones seemingly responded by doing some of two of the three but only to a point.
Quote
BoognishI'd say the biggest change in music was the birth and growth of hip hop. People here hate it, but hip hop is HUGE, much bigger than punk, disco, and grunge.Quote
GasLightStreet
The Stones certainly don't need the talentlessness of Kanye to help them stick with the times. The problem with 'the times' is three of the biggest changes in music happened in the 1970s and the 1990s with punk, disco and 'grunge' and the Stones seemingly responded by doing some of two of the three but only to a point.
Quote
stupidguy2Quote
BoognishI'd say the biggest change in music was the birth and growth of hip hop. People here hate it, but hip hop is HUGE, much bigger than punk, disco, and grunge.Quote
GasLightStreet
The Stones certainly don't need the talentlessness of Kanye to help them stick with the times. The problem with 'the times' is three of the biggest changes in music happened in the 1970s and the 1990s with punk, disco and 'grunge' and the Stones seemingly responded by doing some of two of the three but only to a point.
I see your point about the lack of one distinctive and definitie style of music post-80 (aside from hip hop)
But it doesn't have to be about a trend or what is 'hip', but something with some passion behind it. That's how you stay relevant. And they don't even do that. It can be a purely, back-to-basics blues record, stripped down with Mick on harmonica. We've had a few songs that try for that, but what about a whole album? Look at Johnny Cash. He never followed a 'trend', he just wrote and sang from the heart, from the gut. Plundered My Soul was that. But it was one thing. Why can't they go into the studio and just forget about having a hit, or sounding modern? I think some of us feel like they're phoning it in...
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
stupidguy2Quote
BoognishI'd say the biggest change in music was the birth and growth of hip hop. People here hate it, but hip hop is HUGE, much bigger than punk, disco, and grunge.Quote
GasLightStreet
The Stones certainly don't need the talentlessness of Kanye to help them stick with the times. The problem with 'the times' is three of the biggest changes in music happened in the 1970s and the 1990s with punk, disco and 'grunge' and the Stones seemingly responded by doing some of two of the three but only to a point.
I see your point about the lack of one distinctive and definitie style of music post-80 (aside from hip hop)
But it doesn't have to be about a trend or what is 'hip', but something with some passion behind it. That's how you stay relevant. And they don't even do that. It can be a purely, back-to-basics blues record, stripped down with Mick on harmonica. We've had a few songs that try for that, but what about a whole album? Look at Johnny Cash. He never followed a 'trend', he just wrote and sang from the heart, from the gut. Plundered My Soul was that. But it was one thing. Why can't they go into the studio and just forget about having a hit, or sounding modern? I think some of us feel like they're phoning it in...
Doom and Gloom was great. They still have it in them, but they don't write together and there is nothing to motivate them to do it. Regardless of how good it is, it won't sell in any numbers that would be meaningful.
The last thing they are totally successful at is their shows, so they've put the effort there.
Quote
James KirkQuote
treaclefingersQuote
stupidguy2Quote
BoognishI'd say the biggest change in music was the birth and growth of hip hop. People here hate it, but hip hop is HUGE, much bigger than punk, disco, and grunge.Quote
GasLightStreet
The Stones certainly don't need the talentlessness of Kanye to help them stick with the times. The problem with 'the times' is three of the biggest changes in music happened in the 1970s and the 1990s with punk, disco and 'grunge' and the Stones seemingly responded by doing some of two of the three but only to a point.
I see your point about the lack of one distinctive and definitie style of music post-80 (aside from hip hop)
But it doesn't have to be about a trend or what is 'hip', but something with some passion behind it. That's how you stay relevant. And they don't even do that. It can be a purely, back-to-basics blues record, stripped down with Mick on harmonica. We've had a few songs that try for that, but what about a whole album? Look at Johnny Cash. He never followed a 'trend', he just wrote and sang from the heart, from the gut. Plundered My Soul was that. But it was one thing. Why can't they go into the studio and just forget about having a hit, or sounding modern? I think some of us feel like they're phoning it in...
Doom and Gloom was great. They still have it in them, but they don't write together and there is nothing to motivate them to do it. Regardless of how good it is, it won't sell in any numbers that would be meaningful.
The last thing they are totally successful at is their shows, so they've put the effort there.
It's conjecture that they won't write together. There were many reports that they wrote most of ABB at Jagger's house together and called in Watts and Wood after the writing process was complete. Same for Steel Wheels and I think there was a lot of collaborating on Voodoo Lounge...So with the exception of B2B it seems there has been a fair amount of collaboration between Jagger and Richards on their modern albums.
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
James KirkQuote
treaclefingersQuote
stupidguy2Quote
BoognishI'd say the biggest change in music was the birth and growth of hip hop. People here hate it, but hip hop is HUGE, much bigger than punk, disco, and grunge.Quote
GasLightStreet
The Stones certainly don't need the talentlessness of Kanye to help them stick with the times. The problem with 'the times' is three of the biggest changes in music happened in the 1970s and the 1990s with punk, disco and 'grunge' and the Stones seemingly responded by doing some of two of the three but only to a point.
I see your point about the lack of one distinctive and definitie style of music post-80 (aside from hip hop)
But it doesn't have to be about a trend or what is 'hip', but something with some passion behind it. That's how you stay relevant. And they don't even do that. It can be a purely, back-to-basics blues record, stripped down with Mick on harmonica. We've had a few songs that try for that, but what about a whole album? Look at Johnny Cash. He never followed a 'trend', he just wrote and sang from the heart, from the gut. Plundered My Soul was that. But it was one thing. Why can't they go into the studio and just forget about having a hit, or sounding modern? I think some of us feel like they're phoning it in...
Doom and Gloom was great. They still have it in them, but they don't write together and there is nothing to motivate them to do it. Regardless of how good it is, it won't sell in any numbers that would be meaningful.
The last thing they are totally successful at is their shows, so they've put the effort there.
It's conjecture that they won't write together. There were many reports that they wrote most of ABB at Jagger's house together and called in Watts and Wood after the writing process was complete. Same for Steel Wheels and I think there was a lot of collaborating on Voodoo Lounge...So with the exception of B2B it seems there has been a fair amount of collaboration between Jagger and Richards on their modern albums.
Your most recent example, if even true - because I'd say that is conjecture - is from 10 years ago, get serious.
The most recent example is D&G and OMS. Two solo written songs.
They couldn't get it together for their 50th.
I'm not saying it's not possible, I'm saying there is no incentive.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
treaclefingersQuote
James KirkQuote
treaclefingersQuote
stupidguy2Quote
BoognishI'd say the biggest change in music was the birth and growth of hip hop. People here hate it, but hip hop is HUGE, much bigger than punk, disco, and grunge.Quote
GasLightStreet
The Stones certainly don't need the talentlessness of Kanye to help them stick with the times. The problem with 'the times' is three of the biggest changes in music happened in the 1970s and the 1990s with punk, disco and 'grunge' and the Stones seemingly responded by doing some of two of the three but only to a point.
I see your point about the lack of one distinctive and definitie style of music post-80 (aside from hip hop)
But it doesn't have to be about a trend or what is 'hip', but something with some passion behind it. That's how you stay relevant. And they don't even do that. It can be a purely, back-to-basics blues record, stripped down with Mick on harmonica. We've had a few songs that try for that, but what about a whole album? Look at Johnny Cash. He never followed a 'trend', he just wrote and sang from the heart, from the gut. Plundered My Soul was that. But it was one thing. Why can't they go into the studio and just forget about having a hit, or sounding modern? I think some of us feel like they're phoning it in...
Doom and Gloom was great. They still have it in them, but they don't write together and there is nothing to motivate them to do it. Regardless of how good it is, it won't sell in any numbers that would be meaningful.
The last thing they are totally successful at is their shows, so they've put the effort there.
It's conjecture that they won't write together. There were many reports that they wrote most of ABB at Jagger's house together and called in Watts and Wood after the writing process was complete. Same for Steel Wheels and I think there was a lot of collaborating on Voodoo Lounge...So with the exception of B2B it seems there has been a fair amount of collaboration between Jagger and Richards on their modern albums.
Your most recent example, if even true - because I'd say that is conjecture - is from 10 years ago, get serious.
The most recent example is D&G and OMS. Two solo written songs.
They couldn't get it together for their 50th.
I'm not saying it's not possible, I'm saying there is no incentive.
True, but in fact a lot has happened after the planning of the 50th... They can be in the same room (check), they can play together (check), they can have a laugh together (check), they like eachother (well, that's a bit of a stretch...) Let's leave it there
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
treaclefingersQuote
James KirkQuote
treaclefingersQuote
stupidguy2Quote
BoognishI'd say the biggest change in music was the birth and growth of hip hop. People here hate it, but hip hop is HUGE, much bigger than punk, disco, and grunge.Quote
GasLightStreet
The Stones certainly don't need the talentlessness of Kanye to help them stick with the times. The problem with 'the times' is three of the biggest changes in music happened in the 1970s and the 1990s with punk, disco and 'grunge' and the Stones seemingly responded by doing some of two of the three but only to a point.
I see your point about the lack of one distinctive and definitie style of music post-80 (aside from hip hop)
But it doesn't have to be about a trend or what is 'hip', but something with some passion behind it. That's how you stay relevant. And they don't even do that. It can be a purely, back-to-basics blues record, stripped down with Mick on harmonica. We've had a few songs that try for that, but what about a whole album? Look at Johnny Cash. He never followed a 'trend', he just wrote and sang from the heart, from the gut. Plundered My Soul was that. But it was one thing. Why can't they go into the studio and just forget about having a hit, or sounding modern? I think some of us feel like they're phoning it in...
Doom and Gloom was great. They still have it in them, but they don't write together and there is nothing to motivate them to do it. Regardless of how good it is, it won't sell in any numbers that would be meaningful.
The last thing they are totally successful at is their shows, so they've put the effort there.
It's conjecture that they won't write together. There were many reports that they wrote most of ABB at Jagger's house together and called in Watts and Wood after the writing process was complete. Same for Steel Wheels and I think there was a lot of collaborating on Voodoo Lounge...So with the exception of B2B it seems there has been a fair amount of collaboration between Jagger and Richards on their modern albums.
Your most recent example, if even true - because I'd say that is conjecture - is from 10 years ago, get serious.
The most recent example is D&G and OMS. Two solo written songs.
They couldn't get it together for their 50th.
I'm not saying it's not possible, I'm saying there is no incentive.
True, but in fact a lot has happened after the planning of the 50th... They can be in the same room (check), they can play together (check), they can have a laugh together (check), they like eachother (well, that's a bit of a stretch...) Let's leave it there
Even if they did like each other, they don't need each other to write songs anymore (OK, maybe Keith does) so what is the incentive?
Can't be money, because there is none.
Creative outlet? They can do it solo, or with others.
Legacy? Impossible to match what's already been done.
It should speak volumes that the biggest effort seems to be in digging up and 'freshening' the old material through deluxe releases.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
treaclefingersQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
treaclefingersQuote
James KirkQuote
treaclefingersQuote
stupidguy2Quote
BoognishI'd say the biggest change in music was the birth and growth of hip hop. People here hate it, but hip hop is HUGE, much bigger than punk, disco, and grunge.Quote
GasLightStreet
The Stones certainly don't need the talentlessness of Kanye to help them stick with the times. The problem with 'the times' is three of the biggest changes in music happened in the 1970s and the 1990s with punk, disco and 'grunge' and the Stones seemingly responded by doing some of two of the three but only to a point.
I see your point about the lack of one distinctive and definitie style of music post-80 (aside from hip hop)
But it doesn't have to be about a trend or what is 'hip', but something with some passion behind it. That's how you stay relevant. And they don't even do that. It can be a purely, back-to-basics blues record, stripped down with Mick on harmonica. We've had a few songs that try for that, but what about a whole album? Look at Johnny Cash. He never followed a 'trend', he just wrote and sang from the heart, from the gut. Plundered My Soul was that. But it was one thing. Why can't they go into the studio and just forget about having a hit, or sounding modern? I think some of us feel like they're phoning it in...
Doom and Gloom was great. They still have it in them, but they don't write together and there is nothing to motivate them to do it. Regardless of how good it is, it won't sell in any numbers that would be meaningful.
The last thing they are totally successful at is their shows, so they've put the effort there.
It's conjecture that they won't write together. There were many reports that they wrote most of ABB at Jagger's house together and called in Watts and Wood after the writing process was complete. Same for Steel Wheels and I think there was a lot of collaborating on Voodoo Lounge...So with the exception of B2B it seems there has been a fair amount of collaboration between Jagger and Richards on their modern albums.
Your most recent example, if even true - because I'd say that is conjecture - is from 10 years ago, get serious.
The most recent example is D&G and OMS. Two solo written songs.
They couldn't get it together for their 50th.
I'm not saying it's not possible, I'm saying there is no incentive.
True, but in fact a lot has happened after the planning of the 50th... They can be in the same room (check), they can play together (check), they can have a laugh together (check), they like eachother (well, that's a bit of a stretch...) Let's leave it there
Even if they did like each other, they don't need each other to write songs anymore (OK, maybe Keith does) so what is the incentive?
Can't be money, because there is none.
Creative outlet? They can do it solo, or with others.
Legacy? Impossible to match what's already been done.
It should speak volumes that the biggest effort seems to be in digging up and 'freshening' the old material through deluxe releases.
Fruitful, constructive criticism from your long lost brother in arms?
Quote
stonehearted
<<Live and Let Live>>
Or maybe, better still... Live And Let Die! Haaaaa!
[www.youtube.com]
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
treaclefingersQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
treaclefingersQuote
James KirkQuote
treaclefingersQuote
stupidguy2Quote
BoognishI'd say the biggest change in music was the birth and growth of hip hop. People here hate it, but hip hop is HUGE, much bigger than punk, disco, and grunge.Quote
GasLightStreet
The Stones certainly don't need the talentlessness of Kanye to help them stick with the times. The problem with 'the times' is three of the biggest changes in music happened in the 1970s and the 1990s with punk, disco and 'grunge' and the Stones seemingly responded by doing some of two of the three but only to a point.
I see your point about the lack of one distinctive and definitie style of music post-80 (aside from hip hop)
But it doesn't have to be about a trend or what is 'hip', but something with some passion behind it. That's how you stay relevant. And they don't even do that. It can be a purely, back-to-basics blues record, stripped down with Mick on harmonica. We've had a few songs that try for that, but what about a whole album? Look at Johnny Cash. He never followed a 'trend', he just wrote and sang from the heart, from the gut. Plundered My Soul was that. But it was one thing. Why can't they go into the studio and just forget about having a hit, or sounding modern? I think some of us feel like they're phoning it in...
Doom and Gloom was great. They still have it in them, but they don't write together and there is nothing to motivate them to do it. Regardless of how good it is, it won't sell in any numbers that would be meaningful.
The last thing they are totally successful at is their shows, so they've put the effort there.
It's conjecture that they won't write together. There were many reports that they wrote most of ABB at Jagger's house together and called in Watts and Wood after the writing process was complete. Same for Steel Wheels and I think there was a lot of collaborating on Voodoo Lounge...So with the exception of B2B it seems there has been a fair amount of collaboration between Jagger and Richards on their modern albums.
Your most recent example, if even true - because I'd say that is conjecture - is from 10 years ago, get serious.
The most recent example is D&G and OMS. Two solo written songs.
They couldn't get it together for their 50th.
I'm not saying it's not possible, I'm saying there is no incentive.
True, but in fact a lot has happened after the planning of the 50th... They can be in the same room (check), they can play together (check), they can have a laugh together (check), they like eachother (well, that's a bit of a stretch...) Let's leave it there
Even if they did like each other, they don't need each other to write songs anymore (OK, maybe Keith does) so what is the incentive?
Can't be money, because there is none.
Creative outlet? They can do it solo, or with others.
Legacy? Impossible to match what's already been done.
It should speak volumes that the biggest effort seems to be in digging up and 'freshening' the old material through deluxe releases.
Fruitful, constructive criticism from your long lost brother in arms?
Didn't Mick get that already from Keef's book?
Quote
stupidguy2Quote
BoognishI'd say the biggest change in music was the birth and growth of hip hop. People here hate it, but hip hop is HUGE, much bigger than punk, disco, and grunge.Quote
GasLightStreet
The Stones certainly don't need the talentlessness of Kanye to help them stick with the times. The problem with 'the times' is three of the biggest changes in music happened in the 1970s and the 1990s with punk, disco and 'grunge' and the Stones seemingly responded by doing some of two of the three but only to a point.
I see your point about the lack of one distinctive and definitie style of music post-80 (aside from hip hop)
But it doesn't have to be about a trend or what is 'hip', but something with some passion behind it. That's how you stay relevant. And they don't even do that. It can be a purely, back-to-basics blues record, stripped down with Mick on harmonica. We've had a few songs that try for that, but what about a whole album? Look at Johnny Cash. He never followed a 'trend', he just wrote and sang from the heart, from the gut. Plundered My Soul was that. But it was one thing. Why can't they go into the studio and just forget about having a hit, or sounding modern? I think some of us feel like they're phoning it in...
For what it's worth, Paul has 21 Grammys and so does Kanye. I normally hate award shows but he's got my respect for his accomplishments. 124 awards in total. He's famous for his music, that's for sure. [en.wikipedia.org]Quote
OzHeavyThrobber
I don't know any K West songs and unlike McCartney the guy seems to be famous for this and that instead of music.
Quote
Rockman
Quote
BoognishFor what it's worth, Paul has 21 Grammys and so does Kanye. I normally hate award shows but he's got my respect for his accomplishments. 124 awards in total. He's famous for his music, that's for sure. [en.wikipedia.org]Quote
OzHeavyThrobber
I don't know any K West songs and unlike McCartney the guy seems to be famous for this and that instead of music.