Comments on: Darfur and Niger are collapsing; why isn’t Mick Jagger?

By: db

db — Thu, 01 Sep 2005 23:18:57 +0000

I agree with nb.

It really shouldn’t be such big news (and their tickets shouldn’t be so difficut to obtain).

By: nb

nb — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 17:01:17 +0000

word

By: Josh

Josh — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 17:00:47 +0000

nb knows how to stick the knife in, doesn’t she? I guess I’m not really that critical of the age thing, it’s more the media saturation thing, and the collective amnesia that occurs every time they go on tour again, as if we didn’t all have the same conversation two years ago. And I still don’t understand why this is such big news.

By: rb

rb — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 16:05:50 +0000

“Admittedly, the media should knock off being so fascinated with them and just let them be.”

right. because if there’s one thing the rolling stones want, it’s to be left alone to flourish away from the media spotlight.

national geographic this month is all about africa. interesting issue. while i’m reading it i keep thinking–”i wonder how josh would react to this.” or, “ooh, josh would HATE this.” or “is reading this magazine like taking a trip to the zoo?”

By: nb

nb — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 17:40:57 +0000

Okay, I feel the need to step in here, just in case Mick and the boys are reading this blog. Boys, keep on rocking. I know I risk sounding totally lame, but c’mon, why does music have to be so age-restrictive? Would you want Ingmar Bergman to stop making movies or Philip Roth to stop writing books because they hit their 60th birthday. Mick can still sing and dance and Keith can still wail. True their new music isn’t that good, but maybe they’ll have a couple good songs or two before they’re done. Admittedly, the media should knock off being so fascinated with them and just let them be. Maybe then they could focus on more than one epidemic in Africa, but I doubt it.