The following comes on star tribune review of the Stones concert in Xcel Energy Center Saint Paul, MN ....

""The Stones may not rank as rock's greatest artists; they've never shown the growth and range of Bob Dylan, Neil Young, Bruce Springsteen, David Bowie and Prince, to name a few""


.......I´m speechless!!!....


Here is his email or contact
Jon Bream is at 612-673-1719 or popmusic@startribune.com.

So what. As the old wise man once said, opinions are like @#$%&, everybodies got one.

I never thought of Prince as a rocker. He sure is skillful in the music biz, but I wouldn't exactly put him in the rock'n'roll department.

theyre certainly one of the greatest artists of all time, but I'd agree they havent shown the growth and range of some of the artists he's listed.

Why do people get so indignant about what some journalist thinks? What are you suggesting we do? Give him abusive phone calls or spam his mailbox? Who bloody cares?

This time we can't even blame the dude in the White House. I suppose so anyway.....

Let the success The Stones are having teach him.

I ain't stupid, I'm just guitarded.

A very crap article and very incorrect.The Stones and DYLAN are equal on growth and range.To mention Springsteen,Bowie,Prince and Young and to compare them to the boys surely demonstrates his ignorance or maybe he was just having a laugh.

he must be an beatles(s) fan !!!

-----------------------------------------------------
Oh, give me the beat, boys, and free my soul
I wanna get lost in your rock and roll and drift away

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL I bet you're right Telek!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No chit. They can't EVER leave The Stones alone. Alway's have to find SOMETHING wrong with them.

I ain't stupid, I'm just guitarded.

Show me the oriental, reggae, african, skah, disco, funk and gospel songs Springsteen and Young have released in addition to songs in their own style?

Throughout their career, the stones has presented a broad range of music:

Paint It Black
You Don't Have to Mean It
Continental Drift
Shattered
Miss you
Hot Stuff
Shine A Light

...and many more in addition to their rock songs, pop songs and ballads.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-09-08 15:44 by DandelionPowderman.

My note to this knucklehead:

Umm, you gotta be kidding me.

Bowie - Can't think of a song of his that resonates in the last, say, 20 years.

Neil Young - one word, Greendale (or whatever the name of that monstrosity was)

Prince - booed off the stage OPENING for the Stones. Walked out of his show last year at MSG/BORING show.

Dylan.- saw him at the Beacon/NYC a few moths ago. At least I THINK I saw him as I had not idea what song he was singing as EVERY one sounded exactly the same.

Springsteen - three words - his last C (sucks) - trying to sound like Dylan USED TO sound.

Stones -
1. Best performers of all time and best rock and roll band of all time.
2. Latest record - RAVE reviews
3. other recent releases - you folks keep forgetting they are competing against themselves. So what you are all saying is that after the baseball player, Tony Gywnn, batted .394 in 1994 he should have retired, because he would NEVER achieve that again. And he never did. Oh but he did hit well over 300 the seven ensuing years, including .372 and .364.

fxc1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My note to this knucklehead:
>
> Umm, you gotta be kidding me.
>
> Bowie - Can't think of a song of his that
> resonates in the last, say, 20 years.
>
> Neil Young - one word, Greendale (or whatever the
> name of that monstrosity was)
>
> Prince - booed off the stage OPENING for the
> Stones. Walked out of his show last year at
> MSG/BORING show.
>
> Dylan.- saw him at the Beacon/NYC a few moths ago.
> At least I THINK I saw him as I had not idea what
> song he was singing as EVERY one sounded exactly
> the same.
>
> Springsteen - three words - his last C (sucks) -
> trying to sound like Dylan USED TO sound.
>

Those artsts can't help that they are named in a negative stones article. So you don't have to bash them with all false things.

Bowies albums since Black Tie White Noise are all at least very creative records. And besides 'hours...' very very good.

I never liked Neil Young, so I won't comment on him.

Bob Dylan is still a splendid live act. Always with an amazing band.

Prince is (alongside Michael Jackson) the greatest live performer I have ever seen. If his show bored you, than you certainly weren't in the right place. And the boo-ing off stage is a very very old story. Who cares? It tells something about the stonesfans, not Prince. Why 'opening' in huge letters? It was early in his career. Last year his tour grossed the most. There was a time the stones was an opening act.

Springsteens latest album is the 2nd best album of 2005, so far (ABB is #1). He never sounded like Dylan. He sounds like he is influenced by Dylan. A big difference.

DandelionPowderman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Show me the oriental, reggae, african, skah,
> disco, funk and gospel songs Springsteen and Young
> have released in addition to songs in their own
> style?

'Growth and range' are about more than just making a couple of songs on each album which show a nod to other styles of music.

The Stones have flirted with many styles fleetingly (and often brilliantly!) without actually releasing more than a few songs in each genre. Young has actually gone further and released several entire albums of differing styles of music. A lot of his fans will prefer the hard rocking stuff he does with Crazy Horse, others prefer the acoustic albums, and many like the country styled ones. At his best, he's mastered all three as well as embracing other styles of music to to varying degrees of success.

To compare Springsteen to Dylan as some do above is nonsensical. His entire writing style has changed enormously over the last 30 years, which in itself shows 'growth and range'. Every half decent artist is influenced by Dylan, the Stones included. The only time Bruce ever attempted to write like Dylan was on his first album when by his own admission he sounded like someone who "had been stuck in a room listening to Subterranean Homseick Blues' for too long")

as BowieStone says, its pointless turning it into an excuse to bash other acts (all of them huge Stones fans, incidentally) for appearing in an article through no fault of their own.

The bottom line with the Stones is that, for all their ability to embrace other styles of music, they know what they do best and for the most part stick to it. And thats fine by me.

Well i wrote him an e-mail in which I asked what he his opinion was built upon!
A very kind e-mail and ended it with "Regards" politely asking him for an answer!

Been Stoned since 1964 and still am!

Don't bash Neil. Greendale was great. I saw/ heard him perform it solo & acoustic and he was amazing. Try listening to the acoustic version of Bandit, outstanding. From the same guy that did Ohio, Cinnamon Girl, and Cowgirl in the Sand, etc. He doesn't deserved to be bashed.

I think a key difference between the Stones and the other artists mentioned is that the Stones go with their warhorses on every tour, even in the theatre shows during Licks. Whereas Dylan, Springsteen, Young, and Prince will go into a tour and really showcase new material to the point of frustrating fans looking for greatest hits.

That's not a good or bad thing, that's just a choice. But can you imagine the response on this board if the first 80 minutes of the new show was all ABB? Young, Dylan, Springsteen, and Prince would do that kind of thing, not every tour but it wouldn't surprise people to hear that.

Greendale SUCKED big time/people were leaving the show in NYC in droves.

Dylan show at the Beacon SUCKED big time - I don;t care how great his band sounded. That means they sounded exactly great for evey song but every song sounded exactly alike. Bid deal. I don;t want to hear JJ Flash 21 straight times

Riffbuk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The following comes on star tribune review of the
> Stones concert in Xcel Energy Center Saint Paul,
> MN ....
>
> ""The Stones may not rank as rock's greatest
> artists; they've never shown the growth and range
> of Bob Dylan, Neil Young, Bruce Springsteen, David
> Bowie and Prince, to name a few""
>
>
> .......I´m speechless!!!....
>


Well I aint. He's right about that. Today that is. They used to be bigger than the names below.

Well, LA; maybe you´re right. Maybe Dylan & ol Neil & Bowie
& the Boss (not Prince for fooks sake) are bigger than the Stones.
But that´s gonna be changed now, right? ...But first they have to
take some more chances with the setlist...

LA Forum, Springsteen and Neil Young are bigger than The Stones? You've got to be kidding me! Where is this phenomenon taking place? On Mars? And BowieStone writes that on his last tour Prince "grossed the most" Did you mean compared to other 'Prince' tours? Because according to Billboard magazine The Stones hold that record right now, and, coming in behind them? It's them again.

I ain't stupid, I'm just guitarded.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-09-08 22:14 by RankOutsider.

"Growth" is boring and the antithesis of good rock n roll. No real reason to even attempt to make the comparison other than they are mostly a bunch of senior citizen critics darlings.

fxc1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Greendale SUCKED big time/people were leaving the
> show in NYC in droves.
>

NYC show wasn't solo acoustic Neil, the show I saw was. maybe I should've said that twice.

I wonder if he included Prince because he is from Minnesota?

Yeah, that would be the only good thing with that gay troll.

The GR said,

So what. As the old wise man once said, opinions are like @#$%&, everybodies got one.


Elmo adds, "and most of them stink."

RankOutsider Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> And BowieStone writes that on his last tour Prince
> "grossed the most" Did you mean compared to other
> 'Prince' tours? Because according to Billboard
> magazine The Stones hold that record right now,
> and, coming in behind them? It's them again.

Of all tours last year the most lucrative one was the tour Prince did.
Stones are still #1 & #2 of all time.

Baboon Bro Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, that would be the only good thing with that
> gay troll.


Gay troll= Prince. Is that what you are saying?

Dylan, Bruce, Neil and Prince (??!!) are "bigger than the Stones"... What a joke...

Yes, on their dreams. And on the dreams of LA FORUM, of course...


Dylan: Marvellous poetry and music, a great part of the rock history. But concerts are not his strong point. He is not charming on stage. Anable to fill a big venue since...realy, when?

Brucå: Yes, "boss" is always himself, good music, nothing more. As live act maybe the most popular but ONLY in the USA...

Neil: He realised horrible (not just mediocre) albums in the 1979-89 period. After 1989 decent stuff. Nothing more.

Prince: Oh, yes. Whan can you say...

Bob is one scale lower than the Stones. Bruce and Neil 10 scales...

I'll defend Prince (nobody else seems to do it). Prince once was way bigger than the stones. Purple Rain sold more than the largest selling stones record. His performance is breathtaking. He doesn't only play guitar, piano, drums, bass,... but he has an own unique style playing them. You can hear it's Prince playing.

His 80s output is a milestone in popular music history.

Calling him a gay troll is just a terrible way to ridicule him.
1. He is not gay
2. If he was, there is nothing wrong with gay people (I'm not gay btw... but who cares)
3. He's short indeed. But he got noticed.

His influence on music these days is enormous.
Just put Purple Rain, Dirty Mind, 1999 or Sign 'o' The Times (and others) in your cd-player and listen without prejudice. The man is a genius.

As much as I admire all the bands and artists named in the article, not even adding all them together , they are´nt as half as big as the Rolling Stones in anything. Time and History will say that



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-09-09 00:44 by Riffbuk.

stickydion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>> Dylan: Marvellous poetry and music, a great part
> of the rock history. But concerts are not his
> strong point. He is not charming on stage. Anable
> to fill a big venue since...realy, when?
>
>

Outrageous remarks. Dylan tours incessantly and is a master at putting on a rock show. Nobody does it better or more consistently. He doesn't fill big stadiums anymore partly due to his extreme exposure on the road. But, were he to tour like the Stones do, I have no doubt he could. He filled up stadiums and arenas in '78 like nobody's business. Charming? What the hell does that have to do with the price of eggs?