The LA Times "pop music critic," while arguing the relevance of arguably the oldest/greatest rock-n-roll band ever, opened his review with the following unintentionally hilarious sentence:
"The Rolling Stones surrendered their "world's greatest rock 'n' roll band" title long ago to U2, but on their current tour the ageless musicians are in position for the first time in years to prove they are still a relevant unit."
Huh?
The Stones surrendered their world's greatest rock 'n' roll band title to U2?
When was that? 1985?
And what did U2 do with it, surrender it to Oasis?
Seriously, he's making that claim with a straight face? And in a sentence in which he questions whether the Stones are still "relevant?"
Don't they have editors at the LA Times? Editors who know what irony means?
Look, I got nothing against U2. I got nothing against geezer rock, either. But I do know 2 things:
1. The Stones are not "relevant."
2. Neither is U2.
Unless you work in advertising, that is, in which case you got to admire the U2 PR machine.
Apparently they got the LA Times in their pocket.
No comments:
Post a Comment