Tell Me :
Talk
What do you think of Saint Of Me?
To me, Bridges produced three of the greatest Stones songs ever. Thief, Saint, and Control.
Led Zeppelin is definitely a band that knew their blues, and they showed in just about every number as well.
Not to be confused with a rock band, imo.
----------------------------------------------------
[www.facebook.com]
Listen to Little Queenie from the B-stage in 1997 and say that again
----------------------------------------------------
[www.facebook.com]
There is a huge difference between the studio take and the live versions of this song, though.
The studio version is indeed contrived and lame. Live, the song cooks!
----------------------------------------------------
[www.facebook.com]
I wouldn't consider Little Queenie a warhorse, Dandelion P.
Sorry, my bad. I misunderstood your post.
----------------------------------------------------
[www.facebook.com]
I partly agree. Have a listen to 19th Nervous Breakdown original version vs. '97-'98 live versions. On the original Charlie plays a cool sort of in between shuffle/straight beat that often modern drummers struggle to get. Charlie himself too, as it seems, as the '97 live version is played in a straight beat which we are very familliar with. It doesn't suit the song, and it doesn't feel right. Not to me, anyway.
Charlie has stated that he never listensto Stones recordings. He should do, I think, because he has laid down so many cool drum-parts, beats, grooves etc. that would've deserved taking it to the stage.
That beeing said, when Charlie/the Stones swings, grooves, roll or whatever you would like to call it, there's nothing like it.
Micks performances on SNL with both FF and that other band whose name I cant' remember, were cool, and the bands played very well, but it's still a little too flat. Way better than the Stones at their worst, maybe even better than Stones on average, but no where near the Stones when firing on all cylinders and hitting it home.
With the Stones you get all nuances from sucking to the greatest.... you know.
[www.reverbnation.com]
Male too!
----------------------------------------------------
[www.facebook.com]
78 though 85. No rock either
I don't think of it at all.
Agree.
It certainly does.
Agree with you. If music were able to go into the body-or decidedly-into my balls (...for example: SRV=`Pride And Joy`
) - than it's my music.
[youtu.be]
Music is just so damn subjective.
Of course it is. My personal opinion of tracks like "Saint Of Me" and "Out Of Control" is that they are pretty good mainstream rock tracks. However, I did not become fans of the Rolling Stones because they were a pretty good rock band, I became a fan because they were special. I don't think these post-Wyman tracks add anything in particular to their legacy. Doesn't mean I hate them, just that they are utterly ordinary rock songs.
I view each song as an experience. Either I enjoy the experience or not. Of course, some experiences are more enjoyable than others, and vice versa. I don't trouble myself whether a song "swings", "rocks", or "rolls", etc.. It's how it makes me feel at the moment. This may surprise you but I have never liked Brown Sugar and Honkey Tonk Woman. I really don't like IORR. Not even the way the Foo Fighters did it the other night. Just don't like the song no matter how it is played. Also, my favorite all time Stones album is "Satanic", so go figure.
+2
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Swing/Rock with no roll
Posted by:
MightyStonesStillRollin50
()
Date: May 23, 2012 06:29
Quote
71Tele
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
71Tele
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
Like with any genre of music, there are good bands and lousy bands. Isn't Zeppelin a rock band? I can certainly hear the blues influence with them. What about Prog Rock? Jazz is a huge proponent of that style.Quote
71Tele
Rock is boring. It is devoid of all blues, jazz r&b influences. The reason rock bands suck when they try to play Stones songs is that they don't get that the Stones are not "rock". Charlie Watts has never listened to rock music, and his drumming is not polluted by its influences. That says it all.
Agree. I like The Who, for example. But I'm not generally a fan of rock. The larger point is that the Stones are often (wrongly, in my view) compared to "rock" bands when the similarity is only superficial. I might add that the Stones are at their weakest for me when they attempt pure rock music, such as "Out Of Control", "Rock and a Hard Place", etc.
Stones at their weakest, Out Of Control, in the same sentence?
In my opinion Out Of Control is one of the greatest Stones songs ever. I would love to see them do more like it. It is powerful live.
Great. In my opinion it's contrived and wretched.
What do you think of Saint Of Me?
Re: Swing/Rock with no roll
Posted by:
MightyStonesStillRollin50
()
Date: May 23, 2012 06:32
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
71Tele
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
71Tele
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
Like with any genre of music, there are good bands and lousy bands. Isn't Zeppelin a rock band? I can certainly hear the blues influence with them. What about Prog Rock? Jazz is a huge proponent of that style.Quote
71Tele
Rock is boring. It is devoid of all blues, jazz r&b influences. The reason rock bands suck when they try to play Stones songs is that they don't get that the Stones are not "rock". Charlie Watts has never listened to rock music, and his drumming is not polluted by its influences. That says it all.
Agree. I like The Who, for example. But I'm not generally a fan of rock. The larger point is that the Stones are often (wrongly, in my view) compared to "rock" bands when the similarity is only superficial. I might add that the Stones are at their weakest for me when they attempt pure rock music, such as "Out Of Control", "Rock and a Hard Place", etc.
Stones at their weakest, Out Of Control, in the same sentence?
In my opinion Out Of Control is one of the greatest Stones songs ever. I would love to see them do more like it. It is powerful live.
Great. In my opinion it's contrived and wretched.
What do you think of Saint Of Me?
To me, Bridges produced three of the greatest Stones songs ever. Thief, Saint, and Control.
Re: Swing/Rock with no roll
Posted by:
TheDailyBuzzherd
()
Date: May 23, 2012 06:34
"Saint" and "Control" are good.
But ... doesn't one feel more than a little uneasy that "Control"
has too many Temps moments in it? As in, "Papa Was a Rollin' Stone"?
But ... doesn't one feel more than a little uneasy that "Control"
has too many Temps moments in it? As in, "Papa Was a Rollin' Stone"?
Re: Swing/Rock with no roll
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: May 23, 2012 10:17
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
Like with any genre of music, there are good bands and lousy bands. Isn't Zeppelin a rock band? I can certainly hear the blues influence with them. What about Prog Rock? Jazz is a huge proponent of that style.Quote
71Tele
Rock is boring. It is devoid of all blues, jazz r&b influences. The reason rock bands suck when they try to play Stones songs is that they don't get that the Stones are not "rock". Charlie Watts has never listened to rock music, and his drumming is not polluted by its influences. That says it all.
Led Zeppelin is definitely a band that knew their blues, and they showed in just about every number as well.
Not to be confused with a rock band, imo.
----------------------------------------------------
[www.facebook.com]
Re: Swing/Rock with no roll
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: May 23, 2012 10:17
Quote
Stoneage
Rock with no roll = The Rolling Stones warhorses since 1989.
Listen to Little Queenie from the B-stage in 1997 and say that again
----------------------------------------------------
[www.facebook.com]
Re: Swing/Rock with no roll
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: May 23, 2012 10:20
Quote
71Tele
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
71Tele
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
Like with any genre of music, there are good bands and lousy bands. Isn't Zeppelin a rock band? I can certainly hear the blues influence with them. What about Prog Rock? Jazz is a huge proponent of that style.Quote
71Tele
Rock is boring. It is devoid of all blues, jazz r&b influences. The reason rock bands suck when they try to play Stones songs is that they don't get that the Stones are not "rock". Charlie Watts has never listened to rock music, and his drumming is not polluted by its influences. That says it all.
Agree. I like The Who, for example. But I'm not generally a fan of rock. The larger point is that the Stones are often (wrongly, in my view) compared to "rock" bands when the similarity is only superficial. I might add that the Stones are at their weakest for me when they attempt pure rock music, such as "Out Of Control", "Rock and a Hard Place", etc.
Stones at their weakest, Out Of Control, in the same sentence?
In my opinion Out Of Control is one of the greatest Stones songs ever. I would love to see them do more like it. It is powerful live.
Great. In my opinion it's contrived and wretched.
There is a huge difference between the studio take and the live versions of this song, though.
The studio version is indeed contrived and lame. Live, the song cooks!
----------------------------------------------------
[www.facebook.com]
Re: Swing/Rock with no roll
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: May 23, 2012 10:47
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Quote
Stoneage
Rock with no roll = The Rolling Stones warhorses since 1989.
Listen to Little Queenie from the B-stage in 1997 and say that again
I wouldn't consider Little Queenie a warhorse, Dandelion P.
Re: Swing/Rock with no roll
Posted by:
Come On
()
Date: May 23, 2012 10:52
Keith's always swinging rockin and rollin...that's why Stones are what they is.....
I was driving home early Sunday morning through Bakersfield...
I was driving home early Sunday morning through Bakersfield...
Re: Swing/Rock with no roll
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: May 23, 2012 11:36
Quote
Stoneage
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Quote
Stoneage
Rock with no roll = The Rolling Stones warhorses since 1989.
Listen to Little Queenie from the B-stage in 1997 and say that again
I wouldn't consider Little Queenie a warhorse, Dandelion P.
Sorry, my bad. I misunderstood your post.
----------------------------------------------------
[www.facebook.com]
Re: Swing/Rock with no roll
Posted by:
audun-eg
()
Date: May 23, 2012 13:13
Quote
Nimrod
At some point, Charlie started playing the same straight forward beat on 90% of the set. The guitarists became more concerned with posing than playing. The backup singers/players roles became more prevelent and the song arrangements got watered down. Where is this "swing" at?
It's just annoying that Mick can do such a cool, rocking performance with Foo Fighters and people still pop up with the "it doesn't swing like the Stones" or "it rocks but has no roll" crap. If Keith hadn't said that "rock with no roll" stuff, so many of you wouldn't even know what to say or be able to come up with your own original thought. At it's heart, rock music is supposed to be an energy release that sweeps you up with it. Don't try to read too much more into it. If it rocks and it sounds good, then it doesn't have to be anything more than that. And as for "rock with no roll", when I listen to latter day Stones, they may roll...but I don't really hear any rock anymore. And between "rock" and "roll", I'll take the rock, thank you.
I love the Rolling Stones. They're my favorite band. But the blind worship is weird, and the idea that there aren't room for any other bands is stupid.
I partly agree. Have a listen to 19th Nervous Breakdown original version vs. '97-'98 live versions. On the original Charlie plays a cool sort of in between shuffle/straight beat that often modern drummers struggle to get. Charlie himself too, as it seems, as the '97 live version is played in a straight beat which we are very familliar with. It doesn't suit the song, and it doesn't feel right. Not to me, anyway.
Charlie has stated that he never listensto Stones recordings. He should do, I think, because he has laid down so many cool drum-parts, beats, grooves etc. that would've deserved taking it to the stage.
That beeing said, when Charlie/the Stones swings, grooves, roll or whatever you would like to call it, there's nothing like it.
Micks performances on SNL with both FF and that other band whose name I cant' remember, were cool, and the bands played very well, but it's still a little too flat. Way better than the Stones at their worst, maybe even better than Stones on average, but no where near the Stones when firing on all cylinders and hitting it home.
With the Stones you get all nuances from sucking to the greatest.... you know.
[www.reverbnation.com]
Re: Swing/Rock with no roll
Posted by:
rollmops
()
Date: May 23, 2012 13:20
I agree on the Keiths' theory that some bands rock but don't swing. Hard rock, heavy metal band, grunge etc.. most of the time play fast and hard but the rhythm section in those bands does mark tempos that makes somebody want to sway their asses. It is something else, it's based on hitting hard and being rhytmically agressive.
Rock and roll,
Mops
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-23 19:43 by rollmops.
Rock and roll,
Mops
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-23 19:43 by rollmops.
Re: Swing/Rock with no roll
Posted by:
Green Lady
()
Date: May 23, 2012 13:31
Of course I can't define it. But I know that rock'n'roll is usually music that makes me feel like dancing - and Rock isn't. Very much a female take on the whole business.
"Yeah, well, it's got a great beat and you can dance to it."
"Yeah, well, it's got a great beat and you can dance to it."
Re: Swing/Rock with no roll
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: May 23, 2012 13:34
Quote
Green Lady
Of course I can't define it. But I know that rock'n'roll is usually music that makes me feel like dancing - and Rock isn't. Very much a female take on the whole business.
"Yeah, well, it's got a great beat and you can dance to it."
Male too!----------------------------------------------------
[www.facebook.com]
Re: Swing/Rock with no roll
Posted by:
More Hot Rocks
()
Date: May 23, 2012 15:44
Quote
Stoneage
Rock with no roll = The Rolling Stones warhorses since 1989.
78 though 85. No rock either
Re: Swing/Rock with no roll
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: May 23, 2012 16:22
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
71Tele
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
71Tele
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
Like with any genre of music, there are good bands and lousy bands. Isn't Zeppelin a rock band? I can certainly hear the blues influence with them. What about Prog Rock? Jazz is a huge proponent of that style.Quote
71Tele
Rock is boring. It is devoid of all blues, jazz r&b influences. The reason rock bands suck when they try to play Stones songs is that they don't get that the Stones are not "rock". Charlie Watts has never listened to rock music, and his drumming is not polluted by its influences. That says it all.
Agree. I like The Who, for example. But I'm not generally a fan of rock. The larger point is that the Stones are often (wrongly, in my view) compared to "rock" bands when the similarity is only superficial. I might add that the Stones are at their weakest for me when they attempt pure rock music, such as "Out Of Control", "Rock and a Hard Place", etc.
Stones at their weakest, Out Of Control, in the same sentence?
In my opinion Out Of Control is one of the greatest Stones songs ever. I would love to see them do more like it. It is powerful live.
Great. In my opinion it's contrived and wretched.
What do you think of Saint Of Me?
I don't think of it at all.
Re: Swing/Rock with no roll
Posted by:
BluzDude
()
Date: May 23, 2012 18:46
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Quote
71Tele
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
71Tele
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
Like with any genre of music, there are good bands and lousy bands. Isn't Zeppelin a rock band? I can certainly hear the blues influence with them. What about Prog Rock? Jazz is a huge proponent of that style.Quote
71Tele
Rock is boring. It is devoid of all blues, jazz r&b influences. The reason rock bands suck when they try to play Stones songs is that they don't get that the Stones are not "rock". Charlie Watts has never listened to rock music, and his drumming is not polluted by its influences. That says it all.
Agree. I like The Who, for example. But I'm not generally a fan of rock. The larger point is that the Stones are often (wrongly, in my view) compared to "rock" bands when the similarity is only superficial. I might add that the Stones are at their weakest for me when they attempt pure rock music, such as "Out Of Control", "Rock and a Hard Place", etc.
Stones at their weakest, Out Of Control, in the same sentence?
In my opinion Out Of Control is one of the greatest Stones songs ever. I would love to see them do more like it. It is powerful live.
Great. In my opinion it's contrived and wretched.
There is a huge difference between the studio take and the live versions of this song, though.
The studio version is indeed contrived and lame. Live, the song cooks!
Agree.
Re: Swing/Rock with no roll
Posted by:
TheDailyBuzzherd
()
Date: May 23, 2012 18:58
As someone relates above, part of the reason for this dirth of swing is routed
in lazy rhythm sections that merely keep time. Percussion is more than about time.
Throwing things off keeps things interesting, the offbeat. Wouldn't hurt to throw
some marching band percussion in once in awhile ... used to affect the roll in
the rock, not to replicate a march, mind you. Why not try more tympanis, bass
drums? Mix it up a bit. I liked Charlie's idea of using a garbage can on
"Moon Is Up". Listen to some of Tom Waits' things. You get the idea.
in lazy rhythm sections that merely keep time. Percussion is more than about time.
Throwing things off keeps things interesting, the offbeat. Wouldn't hurt to throw
some marching band percussion in once in awhile ... used to affect the roll in
the rock, not to replicate a march, mind you. Why not try more tympanis, bass
drums? Mix it up a bit. I liked Charlie's idea of using a garbage can on
"Moon Is Up". Listen to some of Tom Waits' things. You get the idea.
Re: Swing/Rock with no roll
Posted by:
mandrax1972
()
Date: May 23, 2012 18:58
ycagwyw swings on brussels 73
Re: Swing/Rock with no roll
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: May 23, 2012 18:59
Quote
mandrax1972
ycagwyw swings on brussels 73
It certainly does.
Re: Swing/Rock with no roll
Posted by:
AintNoStranger
()
Date: May 23, 2012 19:17
Quote
Koen
Rock music makes me tap my foot, with the roll it makes me move my hips.
Agree with you. If music were able to go into the body-or decidedly-into my balls (...for example: SRV=`Pride And Joy`
) - than it's my music. [youtu.be]Re: Swing/Rock with no roll
Posted by:
MightyStonesStillRollin50
()
Date: May 23, 2012 20:56
Quote
71Tele
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
71Tele
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
71Tele
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
Like with any genre of music, there are good bands and lousy bands. Isn't Zeppelin a rock band? I can certainly hear the blues influence with them. What about Prog Rock? Jazz is a huge proponent of that style.Quote
71Tele
Rock is boring. It is devoid of all blues, jazz r&b influences. The reason rock bands suck when they try to play Stones songs is that they don't get that the Stones are not "rock". Charlie Watts has never listened to rock music, and his drumming is not polluted by its influences. That says it all.
Agree. I like The Who, for example. But I'm not generally a fan of rock. The larger point is that the Stones are often (wrongly, in my view) compared to "rock" bands when the similarity is only superficial. I might add that the Stones are at their weakest for me when they attempt pure rock music, such as "Out Of Control", "Rock and a Hard Place", etc.
Stones at their weakest, Out Of Control, in the same sentence?
In my opinion Out Of Control is one of the greatest Stones songs ever. I would love to see them do more like it. It is powerful live.
Great. In my opinion it's contrived and wretched.
What do you think of Saint Of Me?
I don't think of it at all.
Music is just so damn subjective.
Re: Swing/Rock with no roll
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: May 23, 2012 21:16
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
71Tele
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
71Tele
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
71Tele
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
Like with any genre of music, there are good bands and lousy bands. Isn't Zeppelin a rock band? I can certainly hear the blues influence with them. What about Prog Rock? Jazz is a huge proponent of that style.Quote
71Tele
Rock is boring. It is devoid of all blues, jazz r&b influences. The reason rock bands suck when they try to play Stones songs is that they don't get that the Stones are not "rock". Charlie Watts has never listened to rock music, and his drumming is not polluted by its influences. That says it all.
Agree. I like The Who, for example. But I'm not generally a fan of rock. The larger point is that the Stones are often (wrongly, in my view) compared to "rock" bands when the similarity is only superficial. I might add that the Stones are at their weakest for me when they attempt pure rock music, such as "Out Of Control", "Rock and a Hard Place", etc.
Stones at their weakest, Out Of Control, in the same sentence?
In my opinion Out Of Control is one of the greatest Stones songs ever. I would love to see them do more like it. It is powerful live.
Great. In my opinion it's contrived and wretched.
What do you think of Saint Of Me?
I don't think of it at all.
Music is just so damn subjective.
Of course it is. My personal opinion of tracks like "Saint Of Me" and "Out Of Control" is that they are pretty good mainstream rock tracks. However, I did not become fans of the Rolling Stones because they were a pretty good rock band, I became a fan because they were special. I don't think these post-Wyman tracks add anything in particular to their legacy. Doesn't mean I hate them, just that they are utterly ordinary rock songs.
Re: Swing/Rock with no roll
Posted by:
MightyStonesStillRollin50
()
Date: May 23, 2012 21:35
Quote
71Tele
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
71Tele
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
71Tele
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
71Tele
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
Like with any genre of music, there are good bands and lousy bands. Isn't Zeppelin a rock band? I can certainly hear the blues influence with them. What about Prog Rock? Jazz is a huge proponent of that style.Quote
71Tele
Rock is boring. It is devoid of all blues, jazz r&b influences. The reason rock bands suck when they try to play Stones songs is that they don't get that the Stones are not "rock". Charlie Watts has never listened to rock music, and his drumming is not polluted by its influences. That says it all.
Agree. I like The Who, for example. But I'm not generally a fan of rock. The larger point is that the Stones are often (wrongly, in my view) compared to "rock" bands when the similarity is only superficial. I might add that the Stones are at their weakest for me when they attempt pure rock music, such as "Out Of Control", "Rock and a Hard Place", etc.
Stones at their weakest, Out Of Control, in the same sentence?
In my opinion Out Of Control is one of the greatest Stones songs ever. I would love to see them do more like it. It is powerful live.
Great. In my opinion it's contrived and wretched.
What do you think of Saint Of Me?
I don't think of it at all.
Music is just so damn subjective.
Of course it is. My personal opinion of tracks like "Saint Of Me" and "Out Of Control" is that they are pretty good mainstream rock tracks. However, I did not become fans of the Rolling Stones because they were a pretty good rock band, I became a fan because they were special. I don't think these post-Wyman tracks add anything in particular to their legacy. Doesn't mean I hate them, just that they are utterly ordinary rock songs.
I view each song as an experience. Either I enjoy the experience or not. Of course, some experiences are more enjoyable than others, and vice versa. I don't trouble myself whether a song "swings", "rocks", or "rolls", etc.. It's how it makes me feel at the moment. This may surprise you but I have never liked Brown Sugar and Honkey Tonk Woman. I really don't like IORR. Not even the way the Foo Fighters did it the other night. Just don't like the song no matter how it is played. Also, my favorite all time Stones album is "Satanic", so go figure.
Re: Swing/Rock with no roll
Posted by:
Nimrod
()
Date: May 23, 2012 21:39
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
I view each song as an experience. Either I enjoy the experience or not. Of course, some experiences are more enjoyable than others, and vice versa. I don't trouble myself whether a song "swings", "rocks", or "rolls", etc.. It's how it makes me feel at the moment.
Re: Swing/Rock with no roll
Posted by:
BluzDude
()
Date: May 23, 2012 23:33
Quote
Nimrod
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
I view each song as an experience. Either I enjoy the experience or not. Of course, some experiences are more enjoyable than others, and vice versa. I don't trouble myself whether a song "swings", "rocks", or "rolls", etc.. It's how it makes me feel at the moment.
+2
Re: Swing/Rock with no roll
Posted by:
flilflam
()
Date: May 24, 2012 00:52
There is nothing more boring about a person analyzing a joke to death, and explaining why it is funny or is not funny. Dissecting the joke and over thinking the idea spoils the spontaneity of it and ruins the atmosphere.
Similarly, a rock song will either grab you and entice you further, or it will fail to please. I do not want any amateur scholar trying to explain why I love Stones music and why I should like or dislike another group's song. I like what I like and do not need to explain to myself or anyone else why this is so.
MightyStones, are your lectures available on both CD and audiotape?
Similarly, a rock song will either grab you and entice you further, or it will fail to please. I do not want any amateur scholar trying to explain why I love Stones music and why I should like or dislike another group's song. I like what I like and do not need to explain to myself or anyone else why this is so.
MightyStones, are your lectures available on both CD and audiotape?
Re: Swing/Rock with no roll
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: May 24, 2012 00:57
Of course, good music is good music, whatever genre it is, and not all good music has to swing. But it's perfectly acceptable to say WHY you like something as opposed to something else. I think the Stones are mistakenly categorized as "rock" when they really are not. That's the only point I was really making.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
AllAboutYours , Come On , desertblues68 , Doxa , duke richardson , elad , FRANCKY , geordiestone , GravityBoy , GRNRBITW , GuessWho , Hairball , HalfNanker , Harm , hockenheim95 , jackdog , JumpinJeppeFlash , kowalski , lem motlow , lettingitbleed , liddas , LSTNT , Lumpy , Manofwealthandtaste , maradona , mgshorr , MickyG , Natlanta , Naturalust , nightskyman , open-g , pft , RODAXE , Rosarita , Roscoe , S.T.P , sanQ , Send It To me , Shug , spidey39 , stoggin , Thrylan , vudicus , walkingthedog , watts fan , witterings
Guests:
116
Record Number of Users:
58
on May 22, 2013 21:28
Record Number of Guests:
81
on May 22, 2013 21:28
