Tell Me :  Talk
Talk about your favorite band. 

Previous page Next page First page IORR home

For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.

Goto Page: 12Next
Current Page: 1 of 2
is it really 2 years on
Posted by: wee bobby lennox ()
Date: August 26, 2009 19:36

from the stones last activity, and still no anouncement.

cant believe its been that long, great memories.

Re: is it really 2 years on
Posted by: Gazza ()
Date: August 26, 2009 20:48

It is.

Re: is it really 2 years on
Posted by: Elmo Lewis ()
Date: August 26, 2009 21:22

All over now?

Re: is it really 2 years on
Posted by: skipstone ()
Date: August 26, 2009 21:56

No, it's not, not even close! You're deluding yourself. It's only been a little while. What's the hurry?

Re: is it really 2 years on
Posted by: TooTough ()
Date: August 26, 2009 22:02

Aug 26th 2007, the end of a great week in London with 2 great friends.

If it was their last activity...we were there.

Re: is it really 2 years on
Posted by: izzyanderson ()
Date: August 26, 2009 22:07

to quote David Gilmour (or maybe it was Roger Waters) after their performance at Live 8, asked whether or not they will play more shows together: "We're not talking...but we're not NOT talking".



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-08-26 22:08 by @#$%&.

Re: is it really 2 years on
Posted by: Adrian-L ()
Date: August 26, 2009 23:18

Time, does indeed, fly.

Re: is it really 2 years on
Posted by: NICOS ()
Date: August 26, 2009 23:45

Even with out fun

__________________________

Re: is it really 2 years on
Posted by: tatters ()
Date: August 27, 2009 00:48

Quote
wee bobby lennox
from the stones last activity, and still no anouncement.

cant believe its been that long, great memories.


Two years. So what. There was no activity from 83 to 86. There was none from 86 to 89. There was none from 90 to 94. There was none from 95 to 97. There was none from 99 to 02. There was none from 03 to 05. And there has been none from 07 to 09.

You guys are all acting like they've been gone for 15 years or something. Just like Pete Townshend's "Walter".

Re: is it really 2 years on
Posted by: T&A ()
Date: August 27, 2009 00:57

but they're really old now...that's the diff....

Re: is it really 2 years on
Posted by: tatters ()
Date: August 27, 2009 01:06

Quote
T&A
but they're really old now...that's the diff....


Really old people don't think to themselves "Shit! I'm really old! Time to get busy!"

Re: is it really 2 years on
Posted by: T&A ()
Date: August 27, 2009 01:10

Quote
tatters
Quote
T&A
but they're really old now...that's the diff....


Really old people don't think to themselves "Shit! I'm really old! Time to get busy!"

i know - that's where we come in and can help....

Re: is it really 2 years on
Posted by: Gazza ()
Date: August 27, 2009 02:18

Quote
tatters
Quote
wee bobby lennox
from the stones last activity, and still no anouncement.

cant believe its been that long, great memories.


Two years. So what. There was no activity from 83 to 86. There was none from 86 to 89. There was none from 90 to 94. There was none from 95 to 97. There was none from 99 to 02. There was none from 03 to 05. And there has been none from 07 to 09.

You guys are all acting like they've been gone for 15 years or something. Just like Pete Townshend's "Walter".

Not quite true. They at least previously kept busy with other projects in between.

In the 2 years since the 02 shows...not a thing from any of 'em.

Re: is it really 2 years on
Posted by: SomeTorontoGirl ()
Date: August 27, 2009 02:44

Two years?!?!?! Bunch of malingering duffers!

Perhaps with sssoul has some Candles of Reunion that she can light? Or will we have to resort to the cattle prod?

Re: is it really 2 years on
Posted by: sweetcharmedlife ()
Date: August 27, 2009 03:07

It's more like 2 years off....not on....Thread title is misleading.winking smiley

"It's just some friends of mine and they're busting down the door"

Re: is it really 2 years on
Posted by: BluzDude ()
Date: August 27, 2009 04:09

Quote
Gazza
[Not quite true. They at least previously kept busy with other projects in between.

In the 2 years since the 02 shows...not a thing from any of 'em.

Maybe because they are older and richer (except Ronnie) side projects may not mean as much to them...who knows

...BTW Gazza, thanks for the earplug tip regarding Dead Weather (another thread).

Re: is it really 2 years on
Posted by: tatters ()
Date: August 27, 2009 05:21

Quote
BluzDude
Maybe because they are older and richer (except Ronnie) side projects may not mean as much to them...who knows


They're not inclined to spend time and effort on solo projects that no one is going to hear. Keith's last album peaked at #99. What's the point?

Re: is it really 2 years on
Posted by: StonesTod ()
Date: August 27, 2009 05:25

Quote
tatters
Quote
BluzDude
Maybe because they are older and richer (except Ronnie) side projects may not mean as much to them...who knows


They're not inclined to spend time and effort on solo projects that no one is going to hear. Keith's last album peaked at #99. What's the point?

main offender? it'd have been so cool if it had peaked at 999

Re: is it really 2 years on
Posted by: Big Al ()
Date: August 27, 2009 12:36

It may be only two years, but Jagger is now 67, Keith 66 and Ronnie back on the booze. Not good omens, at all. I think they'll tour, but, still...

Re: is it really 2 years on
Posted by: marcovandereijk ()
Date: August 27, 2009 13:25

I've read somewhere that Keith is hardly touching his guitar anymore these days.
Maybe after more than 50 years he's shifted his interests a bit?
I would only enjoy a show, when Keith is enjoying himself. If he would prefer to do something else,
so be it.

Re: is it really 2 years on
Posted by: Stargroves ()
Date: August 27, 2009 13:36

We have to hope that Ronnie gets landed with a huge bill from his divorce and that the others are still sympathetic about baling him out financially with a tour.

Re: is it really 2 years on
Posted by: audun-eg ()
Date: August 27, 2009 13:42

Quote
marcovandereijk
I've read somewhere that Keith is hardly touching his guitar anymore these days.
Maybe after more than 50 years he's shifted his interests a bit?
I would only enjoy a show, when Keith is enjoying himself. If he would prefer to do something else,
so be it.

Would be great:




[www.reverbnation.com]

Re: is it really 2 years on
Posted by: RaahenTiikeri ()
Date: August 27, 2009 14:09

"t may be only two years, but Jagger is now 67, Keith 66 and Ronnie back on the booze. Not good omens, at all. I think they'll tour, but, still..."
-idont know about "jagger",but Mick Jagger is 66(born 1943).

And,they are NOT really old.Yes,they are not young anymore,but they are just passed retimrement age.Charlie passed retirement age 4 yrs ago,ronnie is 3 year from.....
They are in their sixties,but,they ARE,they look-,they live- better than normal 60+'s.

Maybe next tour is last stadion one with huge explosions and fireworks...but no one laughed "buena vista social club".I think stones has potential to write good songs,make mature albums etc for years.They are not youthidol...but still avant-guard in musicbusiness."no one did it as long"

Re: is it really 2 years on
Posted by: Doc ()
Date: August 27, 2009 16:10

Michael Jackson said ' This is it' and sadly didn't finish the project her initiated.

The Stones ended a tour properly in London in 2007.
Maybe one day we all will say 'This was it'
I agree with TooTough, it was a great way to end a tour, and a career, if it happens to be this.

The Stones gave us loads of great memories and great music. Whatever happens or doesen't happen next.
I wish they won't do the Tour too much, the one that would disapoint everyone. These people are living legends, it'd be sad to spoil their aura and credibility for a few (!) more dollars, pounds, euros or whatever.
As far as I'm concerned, rather no Stones than bad Stones.

[doctorstonesblog.blogspot.com]

Re: is it really 2 years on
Posted by: tatters ()
Date: August 27, 2009 16:35

Give it another two years. If they still haven't done anything by 2011, then maybe it'll be time for the "are they all done?" thread.

Re: is it really 2 years on
Posted by: Massimo68 ()
Date: August 27, 2009 17:10

Dudes are very old.

Re: is it really 2 years on
Posted by: Big Al ()
Date: August 27, 2009 17:18

Quote
RaahenTiikeri

And,they are NOT really old.Yes,they are not young anymore,but they are just passed retimrement age.Charlie passed retirement age 4 yrs ago,ronnie is 3 year from.....
They are in their sixties,but,they ARE,they look-,they live- better than normal 60+'s.

No, they are not too old to tour, but surely age is now more of a factor then ever before. We are not talking about Muddy Waters, Chuck Berry, Dylan, Young - solo acts - we are talking about a a band - a collective group. Keith has arthritis, Jagger struggles with his voice and Ronnie still thinks he's 18. Its only going to get tougher and the aforementioned problems I have just noted are all age related.

Like my original point: I do believe they will tour, but they seriously need to re-think the way they go about it. It needs to be shorter, or perhaps, more spaced out.

Re: is it really 2 years on
Posted by: Doc ()
Date: August 27, 2009 17:24

Age is nothing for somebody who isn't known for his presence on stage.
Mick Jagger is someone unique when moving on a stage, and if he becomes the shadow of the dancer and singer he used to be, better stay home.

Some acts can tour while being older because the visual impact of their live performance has always been minor. A physical act cannot tour too old.

Ben Harper performs seated since his beginning, he can tour forever. As John Lee Hooker, Jerry Lee Lewis, Charles Aznavour and many many more.
Angus Young, Mick Jagger, Bruce Dickinson, and Steven Tyler for example shouldn't.

[doctorstonesblog.blogspot.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-08-27 17:25 by Doc.

Re: is it really 2 years on
Posted by: skipstone ()
Date: August 27, 2009 17:54

Keith has said between tours and recording sessions at home he doesn't play his guitar much and when he does it's just his acoustic. Why should he? That means nothing. That's like saying Mick doesn't sing Stones songs in the shower between tours.

Re: is it really 2 years on
Posted by: T&A ()
Date: August 27, 2009 17:58

Quote
skipstone
Keith has said between tours and recording sessions at home he doesn't play his guitar much and when he does it's just his acoustic. Why should he?

he should only if he's interested in advancing his playing. i think the last time he came up with a new lick was during the johnson administration....

Goto Page: 12Next
Current Page: 1 of 2


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 593
Record Number of Users: 189 on August 24, 2021 20:10
Record Number of Guests: 6295 on November 30, 2021 14:09

Previous page Next page First page IORR home