22-10-2016, 10:52
Well, McCartney is a whole different kettle of fish to the Rolling Stones. Admittedly there was that "Kisses on the Bottom" album a few years ago, but apart from that his albums have always contained new original songs - and, more important, songs that don't just rehash the same tried and true formula. I haven't particularly loved much of what McCartney has done since about 1977, but at least he presents a valid case for being considered a serious musician - unlike the Rollies, who even 30 years ago had already become basically a nostalgia act.
The Stones have the right to do what they want and record what they want. If people continue to pay to go and hear them play, why not. They just hold no interest for me, that's all.
The Stones have the right to do what they want and record what they want. If people continue to pay to go and hear them play, why not. They just hold no interest for me, that's all.