Craptastic Chrome Horse Dipsomaniacs

The publicity machine, as if they needed it, of Les Rolling Stones creaks into gear for an album and tour, and we get the gushing press write-ups and mental calculations of their combined ages. Keith Richard's blood is a mere teenager, though, remember, and who knows what black market transplants he's had over the years? New liver, new kidneys? One can only speculate.

Anyway, the local Metro even ran a story about the opening night of the tour (they played "22 songs including Start Me Up and Shattered," apparently. Really? Did they play Sweet Black Angel and Sweet Virginia? Thought not), and I discussed it briefly with Purdy this morning.

Problem is, I don't believe a word of any of what I read about the Stones, because (a) they have never released a decent live album; and (b) they were utterly, abjectly, crap when I saw them myself; and (c) I have never seen a good live performance from them on telly or on film, either.

Given that the fossil record speaks so loudly of a crap band, I conclude, therefore, that they are indeed a crap band.

In a Radio Times article, the journalist even has the gall to trot out the "their best for 25 years" line, which we've seen again and again and again. In fact, I'm sure the Stones' press officer hands out xeroxed sheets with useful phrases like that, so the article practically writes itself.

25 years, incidentally, takes us back to 1980, though I suspicion the journalist meant to say "27 years," in order to land safely in Some Girls territory.

I hasten to add, I am not being age-ist in these comments. Their first live album proper, Get Your Ya Yas Out was craptastic, as was Love You Live from around 1977. As for that Hyde Park concert: also crap.