28th September 2006 10:15 PM |
|
|
the soul survivor |
Very hard to compare bands, but after seeing the Who (MSG 2) and the Stones (NJ), I was left with the following impression:
The Who were able to play at a very high level for virtually the entire show, with Pete showing no loss whatsoever due to age. Truly remarkable for a band that really hasn't been touring much. And the guts to play many new songs.
The Stones played a great set of songs, but they only really cooked on half a dozen or so (JJF, BS, SFD, JMI and a few more). While Mick is ageless like Pete, Keith is looking simply beat and he reallypicks and chooses his spots to shine. And, of course, virtually no ABB, and certainly not the better songs.
So. . . it's a bit sad.
The Soul Survivor |
28th September 2006 10:39 PM |
|
|
lonecrapshooter |
give me a break what's sad is you find it hard to compare them |
28th September 2006 11:43 PM |
|
|
glencar |
I saw the Who at Jones Beach & the Stones at Gillette. The Stones are always #1 with me. Yes, Keith is tired but Ronnie's playing his ass off, Mick's singing his ass off (!) and Charlie drumming his ass off(?). Plus the set list (thanks Mr. leavell!) is quite pleasing. Stones win, hands down. |
29th September 2006 08:30 AM |
|
|
Bitch |
Saw the Who in Philly, they kicked rock and roll ass, and I got bashed on this board for saying it was a concert at the caliber of a Stones show. I loved the Townsend/Daltry duet, and I wish MICK & KEEF would do a few duets, that would be sweet.
The STONES in NY kick Royal rock and roll ass, they love playing to the NY audience and always put on a stellar performance every time they play MSG!
|
|