I have to scoff at everything I'm hearing and reading about how "horrible" the Stones sounded at the Super Bowl. I even heard a coupla talking jackasses on ESPN say it was the worst half-time show ever, and that the Stones embarrassed themselves. Normally, I don't give a rat's ass what people think or say about the Stones, but that one really pisses me off.

Therefore, I'm here to give a big F#*K YOU to all the clueless media clowns who think the show sucked. I saw it on TV, of course, and thought they sounded terrific. And now that I've listened to the mp3 that liddas provided -- thanks liddas! -- I think they sounded every bit as good as they're able to sound these days. They were crisp, edgy, tight and clear, both Keith and Woody were extremely focused, and Charlie freaking NAILED it. They were clearly fired up for this appearance, and it showed.

I imagine the criticism is coming from baby-boomer jackasses who normally wouldn't know the Stones from Guns n Roses or the Goo Goo Dolls. These are people who probably think they're experts on the band because somewhere in their otherwise pathetic record collection is a Stones album from the 70s ... which they haven't listened to since 1983, and who think the Stones should sound in concert just as they do on the album. I guarantee at least half of these fools don't know which one is Keith and which one is Woody, and certainly 99% of them don't have the slightest idea who Darryl or Chuck are. Yet they feel entitled to criticize the greatest band of all time after seeing them for probably the first time in their lives and hearing them for only 12 minutes. These fools make me sick.

Anyway, that's my rant. I feel better now.



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

Couldn't have said it better myself, excellant rant. The referance to sounding like the album is bang on. Don't people get it?

I believe we are in the middle of a very quick type of historical revisionism here. It was obvious how great the Stones were, but if enough people say they were horrible enough times, someone will begin to believe it. I'll tell what was horrible was the vocal gymanstics of Neville and Franklin. My stars, why do they have to do that? They both have wonderful voices....too bad they chose not to use them.

Guess what I thought about Macca last year or Timberlake.....I thought oh my god horrible, just horrible because I don't like them and their music.
Thats exactly what other people think about the Stones and their music!
Dig it man!

Bluespeyer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have to scoff at everything I'm hearing and
> reading about how "horrible" the Stones sounded at
> the Super Bowl. I even heard a coupla talking
> jackasses on ESPN say it was the worst half-time
> show ever, and that the Stones embarrassed
> themselves. Normally, I don't give a rat's ass
> what people think or say about the Stones, but
> that one really pisses me off.
>
> Therefore, I'm here to give a big F#*K YOU to all
> the clueless media clowns who think the show
> sucked. I saw it on TV, of course, and thought
> they sounded terrific. And now that I've listened
> to the mp3 that liddas provided -- thanks liddas!
> -- I think they sounded every bit as good as
> they're able to sound these days. They were crisp,
> edgy, tight and clear, both Keith and Woody were
> extremely focused, and Charlie freaking NAILED it.
> They were clearly fired up for this appearance,
> and it showed.
>
> I imagine the criticism is coming from baby-boomer
> jackasses who normally wouldn't know the Stones
> from Guns n Roses or the Goo Goo Dolls. These are
> people who probably think they're experts on the
> band because somewhere in their otherwise pathetic
> record collection is a Stones album from the 70s
> ... which they haven't listened to since 1983, and
> who think the Stones should sound in concert just
> as they do on the album. I guarantee at least half
> of these fools don't know which one is Keith and
> which one is Woody, and certainly 99% of them
> don't have the slightest idea who Darryl or Chuck
> are. Yet they feel entitled to criticize the
> greatest band of all time after seeing them for
> probably the first time in their lives and hearing
> them for only 12 minutes. These fools make me
> sick.
>
> Anyway, that's my rant. I feel better now.



You've just become a favourite person of mine Bluespeyer. That's the way to do it. Stupid clowns without a clue should get 3 hits on their neck with a piece of Babylonian Danish.

JumpingKentFlash

Well said Tom baby. I haven't seen it yet but it sounded great to me via mp3s.
You sound like I did when you thought a dingo had nicked all of my Stones boots.

:0)

kyle m

Have you ever lent somebody $20 and never seen them again? It was probably worth it.

But what good is ranting on a message board? Maybe if enough bashers actually got responses from those who liked it, it would make them at least have to argue their case. But we seem to have given up on that one long ago.