rolling stones are shit and your review is formatted quite terribly for me to read, but it's better than the other ones.

no pos/neg from me this time

meh, jones. surely you can do better than pick on a single obvious mistake as a response. or not because you're incapable of a good argument.

also, i'm sure you didn't mean it when you said you didn't know of any brian johnson, assuming you're at least somewhat familiar with AC/DC.This Message Edited On 07.26.07

Review is okay. Just work on the things that SOP pointed out. Also...

Okay, yes, Mick Jagger and Keith Richards are ugly. I would prefer if
we could all avoid comments about that in the comment section, as 1.
it isn't even funny anymore and 2. it's irrelevant. Thank you.

Mick Jagger is ugly as sin.

btw, that riff that is "the greatest electric guitar riff in history" from "Satisfaction" is a horn, bro. Much better review that what you've been cranking out as of late, though.

The review is better than your past ones, but please don't format it like that again. It makes it look unattractive, and will drive readers away from reading it.

Definitely your best review yet, read it all. Nice work. Love the Stones, theyre still as good live as they are recorded. Im convinced Keith Richards is immortal and will never die

I had no problem with your review, it was definetly your best one yet. However its comments like this

"And anyone who likes the Doors better than the Stones is out of their mind."
and...this

"eh, the album, like sgt. peppers and electric ladyland, deserved "big words." black sabbath, nirvana, the doors etc. dont."

that you really don't want to make. It outright insults some peoples taste in music. Plus, theres a million arguments you could make that the Doors are overall better than the Stones, but thats another topic for another day.

@FriendofTheDevil70<
Very true your comment

@hyperboleking
good review in general, interesting and very detailsThis Message Edited On 07.26.07

meh, jones. surely you can do better than pick on a single obvious mistake as a response. or not because you're incapable of a good argument.

bron-- idk if that was sarcasm or not, but essentially, i do think it is pathetic that his response was to point out that i got someones last name wrong in a comment that i made at about 5 o clock in the morning. the fact is that HE got it wrong that "brian was the leader" or whatever nonsense he said.

Mick Jagger is ugly as sin.

LOL the dude has so many illegitimate children by hot women it's not funny.

Brian was the leader.
He named the band he decided what they should do and until Andrew became manager he was the boss of almost everything. Not to mention he was the founder of the band...
This was all before 1967 mind you when Brian was the actual internal leader before Keith and Mick started to exile him.This Message Edited On 07.26.07

it was sarcasm, and idk man you said they were one of your favorite 60's bands and you made an error identifying Brian Jones. You also said Brian being the leader was arguable. He did pretty much found th band, anyway.

The only reason I could think of his that he is a Brian Jones fan. But... I highly doubt that. Their best pre-Aftermath album is 12X5 for sure.

"Satisfaction" is the most overrated, boring song I ever wasted my time on.

so what if he founded the band? what even defines a "leader" of a band? keith and mick always did the songwriting. what do bands do again? oh yeah, they write songs and perform them on record and on stage.

and as for the person who said the riff was a "horn,"... uh.... no.

bron-- it was late at night in a freaking comment. i had a problem identifying him? c'mon man, you can't see how someone can make in an error that late in someones last name? i was tired. even if i didn't know who he was, couldn't i have googled "brian rolling stones" and found out in ten seconds (remember that jac was the one who started talking about "brian"). i knew who he was, i mistyped his last name.

well, you know, typos happen.

regardless, its very lol-worthy.