the who still rocks and if you have never seen them live, even without keith and John, Im sorry but you have no idea how good they are-kind of like PJ.
I used to be a take it or leave it guy when it came to the who, then I saw them live-WOW. Even with just Pete and Roger-WOW.
I never saw zep, but I am guessing they might be the only rock band that could give the who a run for the money.
Dont get me wrong, pj is the best rock band on the planet, since the who and zep, but they need to write and play for another ten years before they reach that status.
indeed.
however, pearl jam are all early 40s nowadays. just an FYI.
FYI Jeff (45) and Matt (45.5) are in their mid 40's. (Pushing 50 soon)
i was being kind.
i kinda thought matt and jeff were mid-40s, but honestly was unsure. i think? mike is the youngest, and even so, is still at least 40.
Amen. PJ was PART of a revolution in music. The Who WAS the revolution!
actually, the who were just as much a PART of a musical revolution. they weren't IT, not by a long shot. this is also not to discount their place in rock music history nor all they brought to rock. however, they are not *it*...and there were other bands during their exact same time period.....just as 'revolutionary.' so they are no 'bigger' in their place in rock music history than pearl jam is in their own time period. i just think the who and the bands from that same time.....were bigger and more important, simply b/c they came first. it is well known that the who were a HUGE musical influence for ed, so there is no denying their importance to pearl jam as a group. for me personally, i find pearl jam far more 'important'...but it really is silly to even compare. two totally different time periods in the history of rock. pearl jam was paying great honor and respect to a band who had a huge impact on rock music. there really is no point of comparision for both today. even comparing both in their heyday, still rather silly. and i would still say, they are fairly equal in their respective roles for their respective histories. time will tell.
*edit and i see now, their exact ages already posted. hmmmm, glad to know i am still at least younger than all the boys of pearl jam. and hey! since when is 45 'pushing 50'...? yikes! don't rush em! they've got at least 3-4 years before they're pushing it. haha. i am sure they will all still completely ROCK at 50+. just look at that, jeff and matt, the oldest members...and they tore it up!
Amen. PJ was PART of a revolution in music. The Who WAS the revolution!
You said it...
2000-10-28 San Bernardino
2003-06-02 Irvine
2003-10-26 Mountain View-Bridge School
2006-07-09 Los Angeles
2006-07-10 Los Angeles
2006-10-22 Mountain View- Bridge School
2008-07-19 UCLA-Who Rock Honors
2009-10-1 Los Angeles-2
2009-10-9 San Diego
Quote: "
i was being kind.
i kinda thought matt and jeff were mid-40s, but honestly was unsure. i think? mike is the youngest, and even so, is still at least 40."
I believe Stone is the youngest. He had his 40th birthday in Portland on the 2006 tour (July 20th). Stone is will be 42 on Sunday and Mike is 43. Just trivia though.
107 total First-Summerfest, Milwaukee '95 Most recent: 2018 Stadium shows: Seattle 2, Missoula, Fenway 1 and 2; 2022: Oakland 1 and 2
they were a PART as well, not the end-all be-all either. they both have their places in rock history. the who will probably always be deemed more 'important'...simply b/c their revolutionary period came earlier. however, they were far from alone in starting that revolution, and for me personally, certainly not the leaders of that musical revolution either. a truly important player, you bet, subjective opinions can't deny that.
I believe Stone is the youngest. He had his 40th birthday in Portland on the 2006 tour (July 20th). Stone is will be 42 on Sunday and Mike is 43. Just trivia though.
yes, i see that now...i had em all mixed up, but not too bad. definitely in their 40s...and still rockin'...and seemingly happier than ever! fantastic!
Comments
What bands should play tribute?
I vote for Kings Of Leon and My Morning Jacket.
my poor eyesight. thought you said mike.
Most recent: 2018 Stadium shows: Seattle 2, Missoula, Fenway 1 and 2; 2022: Oakland 1 and 2
I used to be a take it or leave it guy when it came to the who, then I saw them live-WOW. Even with just Pete and Roger-WOW.
I never saw zep, but I am guessing they might be the only rock band that could give the who a run for the money.
Dont get me wrong, pj is the best rock band on the planet, since the who and zep, but they need to write and play for another ten years before they reach that status.
actually, the who were just as much a PART of a musical revolution. they weren't IT, not by a long shot. this is also not to discount their place in rock music history nor all they brought to rock. however, they are not *it*...and there were other bands during their exact same time period.....just as 'revolutionary.' so they are no 'bigger' in their place in rock music history than pearl jam is in their own time period. i just think the who and the bands from that same time.....were bigger and more important, simply b/c they came first. it is well known that the who were a HUGE musical influence for ed, so there is no denying their importance to pearl jam as a group. for me personally, i find pearl jam far more 'important'...but it really is silly to even compare. two totally different time periods in the history of rock. pearl jam was paying great honor and respect to a band who had a huge impact on rock music. there really is no point of comparision for both today. even comparing both in their heyday, still rather silly. and i would still say, they are fairly equal in their respective roles for their respective histories. time will tell.
*edit and i see now, their exact ages already posted.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
You said it...
2003-06-02 Irvine
2003-10-26 Mountain View-Bridge School
2006-07-09 Los Angeles
2006-07-10 Los Angeles
2006-10-22 Mountain View- Bridge School
2008-07-19 UCLA-Who Rock Honors
2009-10-1 Los Angeles-2
2009-10-9 San Diego
i was being kind.
i kinda thought matt and jeff were mid-40s, but honestly was unsure. i think? mike is the youngest, and even so, is still at least 40."
I believe Stone is the youngest. He had his 40th birthday in Portland on the 2006 tour (July 20th). Stone is will be 42 on Sunday and Mike is 43. Just trivia though.
Most recent: 2018 Stadium shows: Seattle 2, Missoula, Fenway 1 and 2; 2022: Oakland 1 and 2
ahem.........
see above.:p
they were a PART as well, not the end-all be-all either. they both have their places in rock history. the who will probably always be deemed more 'important'...simply b/c their revolutionary period came earlier. however, they were far from alone in starting that revolution, and for me personally, certainly not the leaders of that musical revolution either. a truly important player, you bet, subjective opinions can't deny that.
yes, i see that now...i had em all mixed up, but not too bad.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow