other than the visual

---

!#$@@$#!

proofraed by OwEn the c@t.



Nobody remembers their first download, but everyone remembers their 1st LP.

. . .well. . .there is also the first syllable in their name. . .NON?

---

_____________________________________

I reject your reality and substitute my own!

I was just introduced to them today. What a coincidence!

I thought exactly the same thing. I told my roommie those thoughts and she gave me a "tsk!"

Talent? Definitely questionable.

Looks? Well, you might say.

I guess that's all that's required today. Kind of like updated Spice Girls.

---

I sit on a man’s back, choking him and making
him carry me, and yet assure myself and others
that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his
lot by all possible means — except by getting off
his back. - Leo Tolstoy, novelist and Philosopher
(1828-1910)

makes ya wonder how the record companies hope to survive.

.........
oh yea ...........

---

!#$@@$#!

proofraed by OwEn the c@t.



Nobody remembers their first download, but everyone remembers their 1st LP.

Oh, I thought you were talking about something like "Hello Kitty."

I gather these babes don't have the indie cred of Death Cab for Cutie.

---

And we should consider every day lost on which we have not danced at least once.
—Friedrich Nietzsche
Western Massachusetts

I believe they plan on living off lawsuit settlements for the next 5 to 10 years.

. . .not everyone can be "talented" . . .just isn't possible. . .there is room for everybody. . .

Besides they don't pretend to be more than what they are. . .

"Don't hate the playa'. . .hate the game. . ."

NON?

---

_____________________________________

I reject your reality and substitute my own!

Blooz,

That is just too hip of a post for me to understand at all!! What in the hell does that mean?

nah, I'll hate the playa and the game.

but I'm sorry to observe, that after the last week in the land of Univison, the Latin music market suffers the same ills.

when it comes to pop, I miss Dusty Springfield. The arrangements may seem dated, but the voice, talent and expression is hard to dismiss.

---

!#$@@$#!

proofraed by OwEn the c@t.



Nobody remembers their first download, but everyone remembers their 1st LP.

. . .many performers/acts were dismissed in their early days. . .Not saying that they will evolve into something more. . .just sayin'

. . .but later became more respected. . .


True in the art world too. . .


There is enough hate in the world as it is. . .

the only thing I really hate. . .is the way this thong. . .uhm rides up. . .

---

_____________________________________

I reject your reality and substitute my own!

no - there's not enough hate in the world.
that's just some right wing propaganda

---

!#$@@$#!

proofraed by OwEn the c@t.



Nobody remembers their first download, but everyone remembers their 1st LP.

I hate to break it to you but that is a HUGE record and is generating enormous profits for the label that they're on. It's not that the labels produce acts like this, it's that they don't produce enough acts like this.

PS I'd rather hear this record a hundred times in a row than ever be subjected to that awful noise called the rolling stones. You want poorly performed crap, there ya go.

---

The Pussy Cat Dolls have been around for about 12 years in the underground/burlesque/whathaveyou LA scene and created a following for a while. This is kind of like how Paul Reubens created "Pee Wee Herman" as comedy club player in LA and then it moved out the underground and into the mainstream after a few years.

Sometimes the mainstream likes it but doesn't necessarily get all the insider references or sometimes it just doesn't catch on.

I pretty much tend to ignore the Pussy Cat Dolls...

they suck

Guitarman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I hate to break it to you but that is a HUGE record and is generating enormous profits for the
> label that they're on. It's not that the labels produce acts like this, it's that they don't
> produce enough acts like this.

And that does not mean that sales numbers and profit for the record company equal excellence, creativity, or art. This stuff is dreck, the worst kind of crap, and a perfect example of everything that is wrong with the record business all rolled up in one nice tight turd.

This is a perfect example of exactly why the major record labels will continue to lose sales, and continue to ask "why?"

This just demonstrates the difference between music the business, and music the art form. The business is about sales. The art form is about expressing passion and feeling, making a statement, reaching out to people and moving their hearts and minds, and communicating with them. It isn't about showing your tits, shaking your ass, shooting off fireworks, midgets on stage, acting like a "gangster", or being "cool". Those are just low tactics stooped to by those who do not have actual talent.

Great artists of the past such as Hendrix and Joplin probably would not even get a chance to do their thing today, because they wouldn't look the part or fit the niche demographic.

The fragmentation of the music business and radio market into narrow compartments is the worst thing for creativity of all. It prevents true visionary artists from combining styles to form new crossover styles, the way Hendrix did in his day. That is sad.


> PS I'd rather hear this record a hundred times in a row than ever be subjected to that awful noise
> called the rolling stones. You want poorly performed crap, there ya go.

In forty years I am just so sure that music fans will be listening to and buying concert tickets for the PussyCat Dolls. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

Music is very subjective and personal, and each person has their own taste, or lack of it. But true artistry, integrity, passion, creativity and excellence will outlive the artist. And calculated, overhyped, overproduced style with no substance will be pinched off and flushed before next concert season rolls around.

In a few months this flash in the pan will be gone, and be replaced by another johnny one-note "performer" who looks the part, but has no heart. And then a few months later the cycle will be repeated. So what. Crap is still crap.

If you want to appeal to the musical tastes and artistic discernment of a thirteen year-old, that is fine. You might be able to generate lots of "numbers" and move lots of units. So does the NYC sewage system, but that doesn't mean it isn't @#$%&. That doesn't make it excellent, it doesn't make it art, and it probably shouldn't even be considered music. But, "to each his own sewage" as Pete Townshend once said.


Of course, as always, YMMV.

hwystar

Your parents said the same thing about the Stones and a hundred bands that no one remembers the name of anymore.

you bring up Hendrix and Joplin. We have different artists today who will be remembered for a long time. How long have you people been saying that rap sucks and how long has it been around at this point.

Sorry guys, I'd rather hear a well produced well performed act than that incredible garbage I heard at the Super Bowl the other day, or even than that boring crap the Cream were dishing out and even listen to Paul McCartney just sound like an old fart on the grammys.

---

LOL jimmy,
I have been hip for so long it is hard for you younger upstarts to keep up with me.
Too bad.

---

And we should consider every day lost on which we have not danced at least once.
—Friedrich Nietzsche
Western Massachusetts

Guitarman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your parents said the same thing about the Stones and a hundred bands that no one remembers the name
> of anymore.

You want to place any bets on if people will be paying $125-250 a seat to see the PussyCat Dolls in forty years? I'll take that bet, any day.


> you bring up Hendrix and Joplin. We have different artists today who will be remembered for a long
> time.

Name one.

Hendrix changed the whole sound of music. Before him, guitar music was like the Kingston Trio and stuff, relatively speaking. People stood at the mic and sang a song like Kate Smith singing the national anthem. Hendrix lit it on fire. He was musically creative, and a great showman, to boot.

I don't see anyone being the catalyst for that kind of a change today, where you could so obviously delineate such as before Hendrix, and after Hendrix.

I would bet that true artists, who actually created something, like Hendrix, will still be being appreciated long after any performer you can name from today is forgotten.


> How long have you people been saying that rap sucks and how long has it been around at this
> point.
>
> Sorry guys, I'd rather hear a well produced well performed act than that incredible garbage I heard
> at the Super Bowl the other day, or even than that boring crap the Cream were dishing out and even
> listen to Paul McCartney just sound like an old fart on the grammys.

There have been some great old blues artists who still tramped the stage in their sixties and seventies, but no one says they sounded or looked like they did when they were younger. But there are a few who were great artists, none the less.

And no amount of production will make a great artist into a poser, and no amount of production, staging, lighting, special effects, etc. will make a poser into a great artist. Maybe you just can't tell the difference between posers and true artists, Guitarman.

You can't polish a turd, GMan. No matter how much lipstick you put on a pig, it is still a pig. And no matter how much production, glitz and glam you slap on an "all style and no substance" act, it is still just an act. Someone with no real musical talent or creativity trying to act like they have it.

Just because you may understand the music business doesn't mean you know anything about music.


hwystar



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2006 12:13AM by hwystar.

You keep on bringing up ticket sales as being more important than record sales. Exactly why? They're both sales. They're both the results of marketing. If you go by ticket sales, then Madonna is the greatest artist ever, That's right, the top grossing artist in '05 was Madonna. Go back a few years and you get N'Sync and Brittany Spears. So is that the yardstick you wish to use? Because if it is, well then I guess Madonna is a hell of a lot more talented than the rolling stones.

Just because you may understand the music business doesn't mean you know anything about music.




I'm sorry, Allen Toussaint who is possibly a lot older than the stones and mccartney sounded incredible. Herbie Hancock who is in his 60's sonded wonderful. So i'm not anti older artists.

Paul McCartney sounded like Lawrence Welk only out of breath. His band, which was very young, sounded great. It reminded me of seeing those old Big Bands with a leader who was so old he couldn't even stand up and the rest of the band was the top of the class from North Texas State. I like music that is in tune, and well done, and innovative. A lot of the production today is incredible. Just because you're too old to enjoy it, don't take your lack of understaning of it for it being no good.

Maddona has been arond now for around 25 years. LL Cool J is still around after 15 years. A large chunk of the hip hop audience is pushing 45 now. I think you just haven't been out in a while. Queen Latifah is singing jazz now. Alicia Keys and John Legend are going to be around for a very long time, and quite possibly so will Kanye West.

I forgot to mention Mary J Blige who just had her biggest record in years. She's been around for 14 years now. And Mariah Carey has been around now for 16 years.

---

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2006 12:31AM by Guitarman.

C'mon GMan,
Mariah has only been round for about 5 years now. Before that she was quite attractive.

Sounds like I'm lucky that I never heard of them.

spot on hwystar.

"You keep on bringing up ticket sales as being more important than record sales. Exactly why? They're both sales. "

uh, coz that's the way a great majority of musicians earn an actual living.

as far as careers that last. Madonna has certainly made it and with good reason. She's the original.
Most of those ProTools egomaniacal clowns won't make the 25 year mark.

oh, BTW, those clods the Stones, just played to a million and a half.
Mariah play to 1.5M live? I don't think so. Maybe in Central Park and if they handed out hot dogs. Mariah who is always good in rehearsal, has never been good live, not what I've heard.


on the good side ProTools/digi certainly has helped to keep Apple growing. So I buy all Kenyes disks. Even Christina Oblongata.

---

!#$@@$#!

proofraed by OwEn the c@t.



Nobody remembers their first download, but everyone remembers their 1st LP.

Just because a bunch of tin eared baby boomers are willing to shell out $134 a ticket for a stones show does not mean they sound good.. If that does, then it also means that millions of record sales and radio spins means that the pussy cat dolls are just as valid and good. Money is money.

---

I think if you were to check the demographics of any Stones show, you'd find a pretty good cross section of ages, ethnic groups and other "tin ears".

The Stones may not sound good every time, but at least they can play their own instruments and aren't so afraid to play live as to use an entire PT studio to do so.
They can cut many styles of music.

Mariah one.
MJB, perhaps 3.
Britney none.
Alicia and Kanye, 2 perhaps.
PCD - who f'in' cares?

The only band better equipped in this day, and I think probably the best band of players RnR has produced in a while, Los Lobos. I'd go see them when they're 70.

---

!#$@@$#!

proofraed by OwEn the c@t.



Nobody remembers their first download, but everyone remembers their 1st LP.

The Stones may not sound good every time, but at least they can play their own instruments and aren't so afraid to play live as to use an entire PT studio to do so.
They can cut many styles of music.




Play their own instruments? Well maybe hold them and bang on them and use their sound system and amps to make it all loud. Charlie watts can play. The associated side musicians can play. But from what I heard, Keith can't play his own songs in time or in key, much less try and play some other style. Ron Wood is just barely hanging in. And mick sounded winded and like he was just shouting with no attempt to actually sing.

Many styles? You mean they can play bebop and r&b and country and .......... they can't even play their own songs. Where do you get that from?

As far as using Pro Tools to sound better, ever notice how recent stones albums sound way better than they ever sound live in performance. Why do you suppose that is?

Finally, it's funny that Keith was on Puffy's case years ago regarding sampling, while the person sampled, Sting, actually went to puffy to remix one of his songs, Roxanne. But also think of the fact that the Stones themselves were trying, and the emphasis is on trying, to copy black blues and early r n b musicians themselves.

---

Just some notes:

LL Cool J has been around for 22 years.

The PCD's have always been a burlesque act. They just started "singing" last year. Their hit, "Don't Cha", was already a single floating around by former Outkast singer Tori Alamaze (add Big Bio & Andre from Outkast to that "going-to-be-around-awhile" list). They just bought the song, and re-recorded it.

I'll tell you one more thing. If Hendrix were alive today he'd be using every studio tool and toy at his disposal including Pro Tools and probably be jamming with every hip hop artist around.

---

Guitarman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You keep on bringing up ticket sales as being more important than record sales. Exactly why? They're both sales.

I never said ticket sales are more important than record sales. I never said sales was more important than anything, matter of fact. The whole emphasis on sales over creativity is a symptom of the disease that is the music business.


> They're both the results of marketing. If you go by ticket sales, then Madonna is the
> greatest artist ever, That's right, the top grossing artist in '05 was Madonna. Go back a few
> years and you get N'Sync and Brittany Spears. So is that the yardstick you wish to use? Because if
> it is, well then I guess Madonna is a hell of a lot more talented than the rolling stones.

I have never liked Madonna's music, personally. And no matter how many records or concert tickets she sells, I doubt if that is going to change. I refuse to have my personal tastes dictated to me by the media or by the record business. That is why they are my personal tastes, and not some record labels, or yours.

I don't judge music by what sells, I judge it by what I like, and what I want to hear. And I want to hear music that is played with passion, stuff that moves me, stuff that reaches out and grabs me, that has intensity, and integrity. Not stuff that puts me to sleep.

Madge has never been known for the excellence or artistry of her music. I admire her business acumen, and consider her the first true media @#$%&. I think her greatest ability is the way she has been able to turn minimal talent into maximum financial return. She has paved the way for those such as Courtney Love (who put her to shame at the max return for even more minimal talent/media @#$%& category) and Jessica Simpson, et al.

Saying that Madonna is musically talented or a great musical artist is like saying that Bill Gates is the best coder ever, or that Windoze is a great OS. What a joke. I admire Bill Gates for being a shrewd businessman, period. And Madonna is like him, she is a barracuda among the tuna when it comes to business. I still can't stand her music and never will. Musically, it is all style and no substance, IMO. It does not move me, and it does not reach me. And that is fine. Besides, I don't fit her target demographic.

I have taste and I know what I like. If you judge music based on what sells, tickets or records either one, then you don't have taste. That is exactly my point. And I still say you don't know a poser from real talent.

The problem is that you appear to be judging music based on what sells, based on what gets on eMpTV, based on what the "cool" kids are listening to, and then you are quick to jump on the bandwagon, to be "like" others, to fit in. I judge it based on what _I_ like, not what someone else thinks I should listen to, based on my standards for the art of music. Not based on sales, profit, number sold, or proliferation in the media.

And N'Sync and Britney Spears are horrible, BTW. Nice examples.

The music business is filled with bean counters and producers who judge musical artists based on what they think will sell, bottom line profit projections, and demographic figures. Most of them have no musical taste or ability whatsoever. They are the problem. They are not interested in cultivating the career of truly talented artists, or educating the audience. All they are interested in is taking advantage of a situation, and making short term profit. That is why the music business is so messed up. It is filled with and dominated by pimps and @#$%&.

The music business is filled with "music" that is created for the sole reason of making money. And it will never rival music that is created by truly creative artists for the love of music. I guess you don't understand the difference.


>
>> Just because you may understand the music business doesn't mean you know anything about music.
>

> I'm sorry, Allen Toussaint who is possibly a lot older than the stones and mccartney sounded
> incredible. Herbie Hancock who is in his 60's sonded wonderful. So i'm not anti older artists.
>
> Paul McCartney sounded like Lawrence Welk only out of breath. His band, which was very young, sounded
> great. It reminded me of seeing those old Big Bands with a leader who was so old he couldn't
> even stand up and the rest of the band was the top of the class from North Texas State. I like music
> that is in tune, and well done, and innovative. A lot of the production today is incredible. Just
> because you're too old to enjoy it, don't take your lack of understaning of it for it being no
> good.

Guess what? Personally, I don't listen to music that was out when I was in high school, or stuff from when I was growing up, my musically formative years. I like to hear things that are brand new, stuff that isn't even on the radio yet, it is so new. That is all I like to listen to. And I am not hearing much that sounds like the future. But I am always listening for it.

Most of what comes out is stuff that rehashes what has been done before, over and over.

New music, ideally, should build on what has been, so that by using some of the existing framework it can be understood and related to by the listeners, but it should also move forward strongly with vision into uncharted territory, forging a new path, establishing that new vision, creating a new sound, one that has not been heard before.

That is what Hendrix did, and that is why I admire him, and not Madonna. And that is why music lovers of discerning taste will always gravitate toward true creative artistry, rather than worshiping the cult of celebrity or at the altar of the almighty dollar.

I hear very few artists with any kind of artistic vision, or any kind of sound that is actually new. Most of the few relatively original artists I hear basically just combine old or existing sounds in new ways. That is valid, and all good and fine, but I want to hear something that I have never heard before, is that too much to ask?

That is why Bill Gates will never get it. He just doesn't have the vision for the future of a Steve Jobs, and he never will. And that is why the big record labels will never get it, either. If they could, they would write a computer program that would churn out the next generation of creative art in a minute.

Guess what? I am not interested in hearing music that is creatively driven by accountants or a musical vision that is hatched by some "producer" because they think that high school kids will buy it. That stuff always results in music that is inferior, that sounds like what is popular now, not what [i/will be[/i] popular in the future.

That is why the next artist with vision and a truly new sound will probably not come from some producer's million dollar studio, but from some garage down the block where some kids get together to play music. Yes, actually play actual instruments, sing, and write songs themselves.

That is why music keeps drawing kids toward it for year after year. That potential to make something out of nothing, to come from nowhere and actually go somewhere and do something, to escape the humdrum of daily existence. That potential is the true driving force of actual music. And I don't think you get that.

The driving force of the business is money, and that is exactly what is wrong with it. True artists play and sing and write because they are driven to do that, they cannot do anything else. It is not about the money. From what you say, I don't think you get that at all. From what you say, it gives me the impression that the money is what is important to you, not the music.


> Maddona has been arond now for around 25 years. LL Cool J is still around after 15 years. A large
> chunk of the hip hop audience is pushing 45 now. I think you just haven't been out in a while. Queen
> Latifah is singing jazz now. Alicia Keys and John Legend are going to be around for a very long
> time, and quite possibly so will Kanye West.
>
> I forgot to mention Mary J Blige who just had her biggest record in years. She's been around for 14
> years now. And Mariah Carey has been around now for 16 years.

That is fine if that is the kind of music you like. I have never heard one single song by Mariah Carey or Madonna that I ever wanted to hear again, personally. That is because it is my personal tastes and preferences and I will not be dictated to by the radio, by MTV, or by the music business when it comes to what I want to hear.


> Just because a bunch of tin eared baby boomers are willing to shell out $134 a ticket for a stones
> show does not mean they sound good.. If that does, then it also means that millions of record sales
> and radio spins means that the pussy cat dolls are just as valid and good. Money is money.

The Stones are still commercially successful now not because they are artistically creative now, but because they have decades of musical creativity behind them, that is their legacy and their body of work. They combined and integrated many styles of music into their own sound, and many people could relate to it. Many of those people still relate to it, mostly based on what the Stones did years ago. That doesn't mean that you have to get it.


>> The Stones may not sound good every time, but at least they can play their own instruments and
>> aren't so afraid to play live as to use an entire PT studio to do so. They can cut many styles of music.

> Play their own instruments? Well maybe hold them and bang on them and use their sound system and
> amps to make it all loud. Charlie watts can play. The associated side musicians can play. But from
> what I heard, Keith can't play his own songs in time or in key, much less try and play some other
> style. Ron Wood is just barely hanging in. And mick sounded winded and like he was just shouting
> with no attempt to actually sing.
>
> Many styles? You mean they can play bebop and r&b and country and .......... they can't even
> play their own songs. Where do you get that from?
>
> As far as using Pro Tools to sound better, ever notice how recent stones albums sound way better
> than they ever sound live in performance. Why do you suppose that is?

Keith Richards is one of the most influential guitarists of the last 50 years, whether you like what he does or not.

The Stones were never known for being polished, or sounding "nice" on stage or even on record. I don't think that is the sound they were going for. They were always known for their raw and unpolished sound, that is what they did, similar to the blues and R&B artists they admired and imitated. That is what they were striving for. Apparently you just don't get that, so fine. Personally, I do get it.

I have always placed a premium on passion and intensity in musical expression, over polish and technical prowess, personally, that is just what moves me.

If you want to know what I think about the Stones, what I thought about them when I first heard them when I was five years old, what I have thought about them over the years, and what I think about them now, then read this:

[forums.dealmac.com]


> Finally, it's funny that Keith was on Puffy's case years ago regarding sampling, while the person
> sampled, Sting, actually went to puffy to remix one of his songs, Roxanne. But also think of the
> fact that the Stones themselves were trying, and the emphasis is on trying, to copy black blues and
> early r n b musicians themselves.

The Stones, like most musicians when they are starting out, tried to copy and imitate the artists they admired, the music they loved and listened to. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. And the Stones loved American blues and R&B styles popularized by black artists.

The whole American music business was basically built on the concept of copying the artists who actually created the sounds, quite often primarily black performers, and repackaging and selling those sounds as copied by white artists who were more "marketable". What do you think that Elvis was the originator of Rock and Roll? Far from it. Rock was born of the cross pollenization of country, blues, jazz, gospel, etc. And those styles, with the exception of country, were primarily created and proliferated by black artists and performers. So why shouldn't the Stones play what they love, play what they admire, play what they want to pay homage to?

Personally, I am not a big fan of electronic sampling. But as a musician myself, I acknowledge that part of being a musician involves mentally sampling other artists. When you are learning to play, you imitate others as part of the learning process. This is what programs your mental computer. Then when and if you ever get to the creative phase yourself, your influences are always with you, and filter and shape your vision as an artist. That is just how it works.

But electronic sampling, I consider it cut and paste "word processor" music. It is fine if that is what you like, but it is not my cup of tea, personally. Although there are some who are actually creative in the way they use it, I basically consider most who employ sampling as using it as a crutch for lack of creative inspiration themselves. When there are no more artists left who actually create anything new, with any actual artistic vision, who will you sample then?

There are those who only imitate. And there are those who innovate. There is a difference between a truly creative artist and a poser. And there is a huge difference between "music" that is created solely for the purpose of making money, and music that results from true artistic vision.

The real question is, can you tell the difference? Or do you even care? We know that a large percentage of the music buying public can't tell the difference, or doesn't care. The question is, are you one who takes advantage of that fact to sell inferior product, or one who strives with integrity to create artistic content with real vision, to change that status quo for the better?


hwystar

If you believe that anyone is in the music business simply to make money (other than the business people) then you are really mistaken. This business is too difficult, too hard, too harsh and brutal to be in it unless you love making music. Producers are creative people, they are not bean counters. Yes they have to produce something that the bean counters want, otherwise they're working at micky dee's and playing around with a casio and garage band at home, but that's the truth of any business. The tug of war between the market place and the creative juices is what makes pop a vibrant, creative and sometimes lucrative business. Think of the artists that don't worry at all about selling. I mean I use Diamonda Galas's music to get even with my neighbors, but I have to wear ear plugs when I do it. She doesn't worry about selling. (by the way I got her CD from a friend working at WEA, i'd never buy that).

And I'm sorry,, Herbie Hancock is still evolving as a musician and an artist. I don't appreciate nor enjoy listening to someone struggling to play as much guitar as I could play easily when I was 14.

If you're going to be so snotty and picky about music, I hope you're listening to jazz and classical then. I mean when you talk about pop music, we're not talking about andres segovia and pavarotti here.

---

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2006 03:59PM by Guitarman.

If Hendrix were alive today, he would be using every tool. But he was way beyond RnR/pop before he passed.

I've done a number of shows with the Stones. They can play and play well. If they sucked at half time, oh well. Everyone has a bad night.

It didn't sound like they were gonna get thru rehearsal, but...
A few years back they opened the MTV VMAs. Every band after was running to catch up.
And a number of them made comment of same. Back when bands played live.

I'm sure they use all the tools they can on some of their studio work, though for me nothing sounds as good as Exile, in spite of the fact that Mick hates it. WTF does he know?

Man you thru Sting into this conversation? Feh! Putz maximus. He couldn't sing his way out of a Norteña band. Hasn't done anything worthwhile since his first solo and really the Police was the best he had to offer. Too bad the egos couldn't survive themselves.

P'did is a great businessman and that's all.

As hwystar said, yes the Stones are raucous and sloppy. That's who they have always been, except when chasing pop hits of Oldham and their label.
And they do have a body of work like nobody else in pop/RnR. Nobody!

They are amongst the most influential bands ever, along with Ringos group, Bob and Chuck.

But we digress.

PCD - crap or utter crap for the purposes of financial creation?

---

!#$@@$#!

proofraed by OwEn the c@t.



Nobody remembers their first download, but everyone remembers their 1st LP.