Would you please get someone other than Bill Wyman to write about the Stones. His last three articles concerning the venerable band [Rock Etc., September 23; Hitsville, September 16; Hitsville, July 29] have said the same dull thing. Mick Jagger's a little whore for Budweiser, the band is dried up, an artistic desert. But he really blew his cool this time when he flat out said the Stones suck. I think any criticism of artists who've had a major impact on their industry, who represent a link or a cornerstone in the growth and evolution of rock in this case, has to be tempered by this fact. It seems that what Bill wants most is for the war-horses of rock to pack it in and go to pasture. If ticket sales are any indication, that isn't what the rest of the world wants. And regarding Mick's association with Budweiser. What's wrong with it? I wonder how Bill would answer if say Molson offered to subsidize him while he wrote that novel he swears is in him. His mug would be on every bus, bench, and billboard. I nearly laughed at the implication that rock stars have ethics and morals. Hell, what distinguishes them most is the glaring absence of these things. No, I think Bill should be permanently assigned to cover Liz Phair. That way perhaps we can get a little approbation out of him. He can write stuff like Ooh she even shits good, what a gal. Stay away from any HotHouse discussions on rap though, Billybob.
It's queer how someone could be in a stadium with 60,000 adoring fans and only hear that stupid little voice in his own head.