<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Blogcritics: Comments on Stones shocker...</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/</link>
<description>A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously.</description>
<language>en</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2005 by the authors</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Tue, 9 Sep 2003 12:23:37 EDT</lastBuildDate>
<docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss</docs>
<generator>Blogcritics.org custom software</generator>

<item>
<title>Comment by JR</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/09/08/115334.php#comment-17903</link>
<description>If the Stones could be as good in THEIR 60&#039;s-80&#039;s as they were in THE 60&#039;s-80&#039;s, we&#039;d have some great music to look forward to.</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">17903@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 9 Sep 2003 12:23:37 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by TDavid</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/09/08/115334.php#comment-17813</link>
<description>&quot;Shocker?&quot; Really?

The Stones were awesome from the 60&#039;-80&#039;s. Can&#039;t say I can even name one song from them since. A lot of bands were part of that late 80&#039;s early 90&#039;s exodus. At least as far as the quality of their material goes.

I wouldn&#039;t want to hear new stuff from them if I saw them live today, I&#039;d want to hear the classics. How old is Mick these days? He&#039;s got to be closing in on his sixties ... y/n?</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">17813@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 8 Sep 2003 20:36:44 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>