>"Can rock and roll better"
You must be joking.
>"rainbow hugging' Give me a break. Your stereotyping is laughable".
No. Given the statement you made about Bruce Springsteen rocking better than the Stones, YOU'RE laughable.
I know Springsteen. I hope to see him live next year. Just to try him on. But I've seen his DVDs with performances where he's supposed to be "at his best". He still doesn't come alongside the Stones rock-wise. Heck, even the lousy performance the Stones did in Seattle 81 is better.
Better live band in every sense of the word. - No @#$%& way. I belive you actually are joking.
Better at playing - Maybe, but that's not the point of rock.
better at improvising - Maybe. But still that has nothing to do with the meaning of rock n roll. You might as well say that Europe was a great live band.
can rock and roll better - You're not worth the price of a Stones ticket.
more consistent - Here I agree. But they're not the only ones.
more interesting shows - With songs like Born In The USA and badlands??? Come on. You silly joker.
Much longer shows - Probably. But did Springsteen ever reach Stones anno 1969?? Short shows can be good too it seems.
better value for money - With those songs???
more unpredictable setlists - Maybe. But his songs sound like Chuck Leavell's beard looks. CHEESY (With exceptions of course). So he could play whatever and I'd still not like his songs so much.
better at connecting with an audience on an emotional level - So's Julio Iglesias and Jose Carreras. Still @#$%& boring.
Having an audience that knows the material and not just a few hits - So you're having a go at the fanbase now??? How could that be the Stones' fault that their audience doesn't know their songs???
JumpingKentFlash