Tell Me :
Talk
This is a special case. I normally hate three guitars (esp. in E-Street Band). In the case of the present-day Stones it could work quite nicely, given the difficulties with the guitarists these day. If Mick J. played too it would be four!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-19 17:37 by 71Tele.
You know there will be a skillful tambourine player needed on the next tour. This is the perfect job for Blondie - just leave him to it.
In addition, it would be wise to bring an excellent councillor on the road. For Ronnie it will be a matter of life and death to attend daily meetings - maybe it won't hurt for some of his bandmates to come along as well. The person that convinces Ronnie to stick with the espresso machine is going to be a key figure in the Stones organisation.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-19 17:36 by Lightnin'.
Well, Sadly enough it doesn't seem like Ronnie gives a shit about the Stones anymore, he's more into anything else these days. So it might be better if he was replaced by someone else but not just anyone but a guitarist who really can replace him, both musically and be an Stones icon like used to be!
Been Stoned since 1964 and still am!
Money should be no object when it comes to saving the Stones legacy - they can't very well do a farewell tour having to rely on a drunk wifebeater to play the lead guitar while Keith does what he can to keep the rhythm going despite the pain in his fingers ?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-19 17:55 by Lightnin'.
It PAINS ME to say it, but I think this is EXACTLY on the mark. Mick Taylor made the Stones better in two ways:
a) obviously his solos, but as important (and less talked about) is
b) how much better he made the rhythem section
AND NOT JUST KEITH! MT not only let Keith concentrate on just HAMMERING incredible rhythem, but it also let Keith concentrate on playing with Bill and Charlie. The three of them were so tight in those days. (Think Dance Little Sister)
So even if they brought back Mick Taylor by some Chirstmas miracle, it wouldn't bring back the Keith of the early 1970's or bring back Bill Wyman (and the non-elderly Bill Wyman at that).
"You'll be studying history and you'll be down the gym. And I'll be down the pub, probably playing pool and drinking."
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-19 19:51 by mickjagger1009.
Oh, let's say Lorena Bobbitt has you cornered w/ a sharp instrument, or Naomi Campbell is pissed off and hurling things at your head. How about the lady with a history of violence that kicked a male steward so severely on a BA flt that he was hospitalized, had permanent damage and out of work for months. Those are just a few that come right off the top. I'm sure there are others.
I can't see a problem with Taylor passing a medical test unless everyone that has had a viral infection is automatically disqualified.
Taylor is quite a big guy in terms of his height plus bone structure. He could lose some weight but it's just the way he's built and it's not stopping him from keeping pretty fit.
As long as you don't compare him with impish stick-thin looking rock stars, it's not an issue at all.
He is a complete bloody disaster, yeah I know so is ronnie in his current state but why replace one with another and please don't give me because he is still a great player crap because he is isn't, if the stones replace Ronnie they should at least bring in somebody who is competent and in good health.
Let´s not forget that we´re talking about the guitar player that carried the Stones on the last tour, while Keith obviously wasn´t in top form...
No - those examples are self defence - and justifiable.
Your original statement didnt imply that, but thanks for clarifying.
Amen...It's interesting to see how many folks here claim Taylor shouldn't be with them because his playing is not what it once was, as if Ronnie's playing is what it was in the heyday of The Faces.
LOL. I'll live without it.
All kidding aside, what you've said in both of these posts about Ronnie and the medical insurance is spot on and what some of us have been pointing out now for a few weeks. Unfortunately, a lot of people still cant see past that and think its as a simple as Ronnie going into some half arsed rehab treatment for a couple of weeks and then showing up for rehearsals and all will be well.
That mentality is simply delusional, totally impractical and absolutely naive.
These guys are all in their 60s and three of them have had SERIOUS and potentially life threatening health issues in the last five years. This is of huge significance considering the amount of money that needs to be put up front to finance a tour. They HAVE to been seen to be medically fit to undertake a tour and be unlikely to keel over halfway through it. Can anyone, hand on heart, be confident about Ronnie, in his present state, being ALIVE this time next year (let alone being a Rolling Stone) if he continues the way he's going?
There's only so many times you can give someone a last chance if he keeps messing up and, more importantly, doesnt seem to make much of an effort to sort his life out.
Your serve, Ronnie.
Considering three-quarters of the band have been there since before they made their first record with a total of 143 years service between them, I would hardly call it that ridiculous.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Latest on Ronnie (includes mention of Mick, Keith, Stones)
Posted by:
melillo
()
Date: December 19, 2009 17:15
yeah and all three of them dont add up to one
Re: Latest on Ronnie (includes mention of Mick, Keith, Stones)
Posted by:
From4tilLate
()
Date: December 19, 2009 17:17
Just my opinion, but three electric guitarists is almost ALWAYS one too many. It doesn't make everything fatter, just foggier and often thinner. Look at Bruce and the ESB now: too many guitarists making just a thin gray band of sound instead of a punchy jangle. The only reason 3 guitars worked in Lynyrd Skynyrd was because they rehearsed their parts with military precision (there was no improvising EVER in Lynyrd Skynyrd. Even the lead parts in "Freebird" were exactly the same every single night.)
Re: Latest on Ronnie (includes mention of Mick, Keith, Stones)
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: December 19, 2009 17:27
Quote
From4tilLate
Just my opinion, but three electric guitarists is almost ALWAYS one too many. It doesn't make everything fatter, just foggier and often thinner. Look at Bruce and the ESB now: too many guitarists making just a thin gray band of sound instead of a punchy jangle. The only reason 3 guitars worked in Lynyrd Skynyrd was because they rehearsed their parts with military precision (there was no improvising EVER in Lynyrd Skynyrd. Even the lead parts in "Freebird" were exactly the same every single night.)
This is a special case. I normally hate three guitars (esp. in E-Street Band). In the case of the present-day Stones it could work quite nicely, given the difficulties with the guitarists these day. If Mick J. played too it would be four!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-19 17:37 by 71Tele.
Re: Latest on Ronnie (includes mention of Mick, Keith, Stones)
Posted by:
mstmst
()
Date: December 19, 2009 17:29
Ronnie today = Brian Jones _ History tells us that if they want to play they'll do what they have to
Re: Latest on Ronnie (includes mention of Mick, Keith, Stones)
Posted by:
melillo
()
Date: December 19, 2009 17:30
its funny how the edge does more work alone than the stones do with up to four at a time , lol how the mighty have fallen
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-19 17:31 by melillo.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-19 17:31 by melillo.
Re: Latest on Ronnie (includes mention of Mick, Keith, Stones)
Posted by:
Lightnin'
()
Date: December 19, 2009 17:33
Quote
Edith Grove
Do not they already have a third guitarist ?
You know there will be a skillful tambourine player needed on the next tour. This is the perfect job for Blondie - just leave him to it.
In addition, it would be wise to bring an excellent councillor on the road. For Ronnie it will be a matter of life and death to attend daily meetings - maybe it won't hurt for some of his bandmates to come along as well. The person that convinces Ronnie to stick with the espresso machine is going to be a key figure in the Stones organisation.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-19 17:36 by Lightnin'.
Re: Latest on Ronnie (includes mention of Mick, Keith, Stones)
Posted by:
Fan Since 1964
()
Date: December 19, 2009 17:41
Quote
TooTough
Sadly enough that some people here don´t care about
Ronnie, they are just discussing the replacement. @#$%&!
And funny enough that businessman Mick doesn´t want to go on
with an alcoholic/misogynic musician. Well, at least I thought
both were and are characteristics of their lyrics and behaviour.
I strongly hope that this tabloid bullshit is false and that
Jagger gets it together with Ronnie. And - doesn´t Keith
have to do something? At least he is Ronnie´s "brother",
as he often told us.
I swear - I won´t go if there will be any other hired @#$%&
to replace him.
Well, Sadly enough it doesn't seem like Ronnie gives a shit about the Stones anymore, he's more into anything else these days. So it might be better if he was replaced by someone else but not just anyone but a guitarist who really can replace him, both musically and be an Stones icon like used to be!
Been Stoned since 1964 and still am!
Re: Latest on Ronnie (includes mention of Mick, Keith, Stones)
Posted by:
Lightnin'
()
Date: December 19, 2009 17:54
Quote
windmelody
One will have to pay the three guitarists.
Money should be no object when it comes to saving the Stones legacy - they can't very well do a farewell tour having to rely on a drunk wifebeater to play the lead guitar while Keith does what he can to keep the rhythm going despite the pain in his fingers ?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-19 17:55 by Lightnin'.
Re: Latest on Ronnie (includes mention of Mick, Keith, Stones)
Posted by:
mickjagger1009
()
Date: December 19, 2009 18:43
Quote
From4tilLate
People who pine for Mick Taylor seem to not recognize that Mick T's playing was nothing without the iron fist of Keith chugging that unbelievable rhythm underneath him. Keith can't do that anymore. It wouldn't be '73 again. It would be a mess. Sacking Ronnie and bringing back Mick T wouldn't do a darn thing to slow the progress of Keith's arthritis. The past is the past.
It PAINS ME to say it, but I think this is EXACTLY on the mark. Mick Taylor made the Stones better in two ways:
a) obviously his solos, but as important (and less talked about) is
b) how much better he made the rhythem section
AND NOT JUST KEITH! MT not only let Keith concentrate on just HAMMERING incredible rhythem, but it also let Keith concentrate on playing with Bill and Charlie. The three of them were so tight in those days. (Think Dance Little Sister)
So even if they brought back Mick Taylor by some Chirstmas miracle, it wouldn't bring back the Keith of the early 1970's or bring back Bill Wyman (and the non-elderly Bill Wyman at that).
"You'll be studying history and you'll be down the gym. And I'll be down the pub, probably playing pool and drinking."
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-19 19:51 by mickjagger1009.
Re: Latest on Ronnie (includes mention of Mick, Keith, Stones)
Posted by:
Shawn20
()
Date: December 19, 2009 19:11
IT would be worth the effort to bring Taylor in and see how it would work in rehearsals. Only egos would get in the way.
Re: Latest on Ronnie (includes mention of Mick, Keith, Stones)
Posted by:
Telecaster_man
()
Date: December 19, 2009 19:26
Keep Ronnie,he´s a Stones member like Keith,Mick or Charlie
It hurts me to say ths but...Since Keith felt down from the coconut-tree nobody questioned his status as Rolling Stones member and we all know that his playing is worst than ever...
Taylor ísn´t the same that in 1970´s(forget him), his style wouldn´t fit the 2000´s Stones
Give Woody a chance!!!He´s the right one!!! ( Established 1975
)
---------------------------------------------
Shattered !!!
---------------------------------------------
It hurts me to say ths but...Since Keith felt down from the coconut-tree nobody questioned his status as Rolling Stones member and we all know that his playing is worst than ever...
Taylor ísn´t the same that in 1970´s(forget him), his style wouldn´t fit the 2000´s Stones
Give Woody a chance!!!He´s the right one!!! ( Established 1975
)---------------------------------------------
Shattered !!!
---------------------------------------------
Re: Latest on Ronnie (includes mention of Mick, Keith, Stones)
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: December 19, 2009 19:48
<< Taylor ísn´t the same that in 1970´s(forget him), his style wouldn´t fit the 2000´s Stones...Give Woody a chance!!!He´s the right one!!! >>
You mean another chance (and another, and another...). How many "chances" does one deserve? And you say Taylor's style doesn't fit the Stones? But Ronnie Wood playing Taylor's parts badly does? Sorry, but it's hard to not challenge statements like this.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-19 19:50 by 71Tele.
You mean another chance (and another, and another...). How many "chances" does one deserve? And you say Taylor's style doesn't fit the Stones? But Ronnie Wood playing Taylor's parts badly does? Sorry, but it's hard to not challenge statements like this.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-19 19:50 by 71Tele.
Re: Latest on Ronnie (includes mention of Mick, Keith, Stones)
Posted by:
atip
()
Date: December 19, 2009 19:52
Quote
GazzaQuote
atip
Hey, it's a known fact that Ronnie's a big-time drunk. Drunks are usually not very predictable nor responsible. If she still hooked up with him, then she's partly to blame. Yes, she's young and probably naive, so couldn't see past that a famous musician wanted her. Lastly, occasionally, and ONLY very rarely, knocking a woman around could be justified. I don't know if that's the case w/ this little tart.
Damn, I wish he'd get his act together. He's a talented guy.
Please feel free to fill us all in as to when its 'justified'....
Oh, let's say Lorena Bobbitt has you cornered w/ a sharp instrument, or Naomi Campbell is pissed off and hurling things at your head. How about the lady with a history of violence that kicked a male steward so severely on a BA flt that he was hospitalized, had permanent damage and out of work for months. Those are just a few that come right off the top. I'm sure there are others.
Re: Latest on Ronnie (includes mention of Mick, Keith, Stones)
Posted by:
Bliss
()
Date: December 19, 2009 19:57
Can someone please explain to me why Mick Taylor wouldn't pass a medical test?
Yes, he's had health problems lately; he had pleurisy, a respiratory infection from which he has thankfully recovered.
Yes, he's overweight. But he's not heavier than Bobby Keys, who must have passed the medical exam to tour with the stones.
Yes, he's had health problems lately; he had pleurisy, a respiratory infection from which he has thankfully recovered.
Yes, he's overweight. But he's not heavier than Bobby Keys, who must have passed the medical exam to tour with the stones.
Re: Latest on Ronnie (includes mention of Mick, Keith, Stones)
Posted by:
Lightnin'
()
Date: December 19, 2009 20:20
Quote
Bliss
Can someone please explain to me why Mick Taylor wouldn't pass a medical test?
Yes, he's had health problems lately; he had pleurisy, a respiratory infection from which he has thankfully recovered.
Yes, he's overweight. But he's not heavier than Bobby Keys, who must have passed the medical exam to tour with the stones.
I can't see a problem with Taylor passing a medical test unless everyone that has had a viral infection is automatically disqualified.
Taylor is quite a big guy in terms of his height plus bone structure. He could lose some weight but it's just the way he's built and it's not stopping him from keeping pretty fit.
As long as you don't compare him with impish stick-thin looking rock stars, it's not an issue at all.
Re: Latest on Ronnie (includes mention of Mick, Keith, Stones)
Posted by:
Ket
()
Date: December 19, 2009 20:33
Quote
Lightnin'Quote
Bliss
Can someone please explain to me why Mick Taylor wouldn't pass a medical test?
Yes, he's had health problems lately; he had pleurisy, a respiratory infection from which he has thankfully recovered.
Yes, he's overweight. But he's not heavier than Bobby Keys, who must have passed the medical exam to tour with the stones.
I can't see a problem with Taylor passing a medical test unless everyone that has had a viral infection is automatically disqualified.
Taylor is quite a big guy in terms of his height plus bone structure. He could lose some weight but it's just the way he's built and it's not stopping him from keeping pretty fit.
As long as you don't compare him with impish stick-thin looking rock stars, it's not an issue at all.
He is a complete bloody disaster, yeah I know so is ronnie in his current state but why replace one with another and please don't give me because he is still a great player crap because he is isn't, if the stones replace Ronnie they should at least bring in somebody who is competent and in good health.
Re: Latest on Ronnie (includes mention of Mick, Keith, Stones)
Posted by:
bernardanderson
()
Date: December 19, 2009 20:35
Mick Taylor will NEVER rejoin the Stones. Music is about progression not regression. If Taylor came back there would be too much emphasis on trying to recreate the glory of the past. It won't work.
Re: Latest on Ronnie (includes mention of Mick, Keith, Stones)
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: December 19, 2009 21:12
<< Mick Taylor will NEVER rejoin the Stones. Music is about progression not regression. If Taylor came back there would be too much emphasis on trying to recreate the glory of the past. It won't work. >>
This is patently ridiculous...You may be right about Taylor never rejoining, but not for the reasons you mentioned. One can hardly describe the recorded music of the Stones or their stage shows since Steel Wheels as "progressive". And if playing the big hits in huge stadiums isn't trying to recreate the "glory of the past" I don't know what is.
And for all those here who keep saying that Taylor is in even worse shape than Ronnie, please provide some details, or SOME basis for your statements.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-19 21:20 by 71Tele.
This is patently ridiculous...You may be right about Taylor never rejoining, but not for the reasons you mentioned. One can hardly describe the recorded music of the Stones or their stage shows since Steel Wheels as "progressive". And if playing the big hits in huge stadiums isn't trying to recreate the "glory of the past" I don't know what is.
And for all those here who keep saying that Taylor is in even worse shape than Ronnie, please provide some details, or SOME basis for your statements.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-19 21:20 by 71Tele.
Re: Latest on Ronnie (includes mention of Mick, Keith, Stones)
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: December 19, 2009 21:53
Quote
71Tele
<< Taylor ísn´t the same that in 1970´s(forget him), his style wouldn´t fit the 2000´s Stones...Give Woody a chance!!!He´s the right one!!! >>
You mean another chance (and another, and another...). How many "chances" does one deserve? And you say Taylor's style doesn't fit the Stones? But Ronnie Wood playing Taylor's parts badly does? Sorry, but it's hard to not challenge statements like this.
Let´s not forget that we´re talking about the guitar player that carried the Stones on the last tour, while Keith obviously wasn´t in top form...
Re: Latest on Ronnie (includes mention of Mick, Keith, Stones)
Posted by:
bernardanderson
()
Date: December 19, 2009 21:56
i didn't necessarily mean progression in a musical sense. i was referring more to the psychological aspect of it.Quote
71Tele
This is patently ridiculous...You may be right about Taylor never rejoining, but not for the reasons you mentioned. One can hardly describe the recorded music of the Stones or their stage shows since Steel Wheels as "progressive". And if playing the big hits in huge stadiums isn't trying to recreate the "glory of the past" I don't know what is.
Re: Latest on Ronnie (includes mention of Mick, Keith, Stones)
Posted by:
Harlem Shuffler
()
Date: December 19, 2009 21:59
About this medical test; how is it that there are doubts about Ronnie because of his drinking but none about another member of the band who isn't exactly a stranger to alcohol?
Re: Latest on Ronnie (includes mention of Mick, Keith, Stones)
Posted by:
MKjan
()
Date: December 19, 2009 22:02
I would love to overhear recent MJ and KR conversations about Ronnie and if MT's name comes up.
Re: Latest on Ronnie (includes mention of Mick, Keith, Stones)
Posted by:
bernardanderson
()
Date: December 19, 2009 22:04
Do we even really know much about Ronnie's personal life other than what the gossip magazines and newspapers tell us? As if that's a reliable source.
Re: Latest on Ronnie (includes mention of Mick, Keith, Stones)
Posted by:
Rocky Dijon
()
Date: December 19, 2009 22:14
I wouldn't be shocked if the Stones toured without Ronnie, but I don't think it would be with Taylor. Mick Taylor might get an invite for a guest spot at a single show, but not to tour with them. I don't believe this because of his weight (a ridiculous comment since he isn't fatally obese and could easily be insured) or egos (these guys are all about setting aside egos for the payday). I believe he wouldn't be asked because career-wise he's washed up. Twenty years ago he would have still had a shot, but now he's been out of the limelight for too long. The Stones will either have a name or a sideman who works with names, they wouldn't settle for an ex-member who hasn't had "star" exposure in over twenty years and even then, his star was rapidly fading. I'm not knocking Mick Taylor. He had the talent to stay a sideman for class acts, he chose not to do so. His trade off cost him the chance to be seen as a viable candidate. I don't know this as an insider, this is just my take on the situation. I would think Steve Salas or Waddy Wachtel or Milton McDonald or Blondie Chaplin have a better chance of getting a phone call.
Re: Latest on Ronnie (includes mention of Mick, Keith, Stones)
Posted by:
Rocky Dijon
()
Date: December 19, 2009 22:30
Question for Addicted:
You've mentioned Nils Lofgren a few times. Is this just speculation/wishful thinking on your part or have you heard his name bandied about? Just curious as apart from his "Keith Don't Go" track, I never think of him as having a Stones connection.
You've mentioned Nils Lofgren a few times. Is this just speculation/wishful thinking on your part or have you heard his name bandied about? Just curious as apart from his "Keith Don't Go" track, I never think of him as having a Stones connection.
Re: Latest on Ronnie (includes mention of Mick, Keith, Stones)
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: December 19, 2009 22:33
Quote
atipQuote
GazzaQuote
atip
Hey, it's a known fact that Ronnie's a big-time drunk. Drunks are usually not very predictable nor responsible. If she still hooked up with him, then she's partly to blame. Yes, she's young and probably naive, so couldn't see past that a famous musician wanted her. Lastly, occasionally, and ONLY very rarely, knocking a woman around could be justified. I don't know if that's the case w/ this little tart.
Damn, I wish he'd get his act together. He's a talented guy.
Please feel free to fill us all in as to when its 'justified'....
Oh, let's say Lorena Bobbitt has you cornered w/ a sharp instrument, or Naomi Campbell is pissed off and hurling things at your head. How about the lady with a history of violence that kicked a male steward so severely on a BA flt that he was hospitalized, had permanent damage and out of work for months. Those are just a few that come right off the top. I'm sure there are others.
No - those examples are self defence - and justifiable.
Your original statement didnt imply that, but thanks for clarifying.
Re: Latest on Ronnie (includes mention of Mick, Keith, Stones)
Posted by:
soulsurvivor1
()
Date: December 19, 2009 22:45
Are You Insane...Ron Wood has not sounded or played better than Mick Taylor EVER!!
Ronnie Sounded Great When He Played With The Faces Back In The 70s...And Wityh The Stones In The Beginning...His Drinking Has Kept Him Average For The Last Thirty Years
Ronnie Sounded Great When He Played With The Faces Back In The 70s...And Wityh The Stones In The Beginning...His Drinking Has Kept Him Average For The Last Thirty Years
Re: Latest on Ronnie (includes mention of Mick, Keith, Stones)
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: December 19, 2009 23:00
Quote
soulsurvivor1
Are You Insane...Ron Wood has not sounded or played better than Mick Taylor EVER!!
Ronnie Sounded Great When He Played With The Faces Back In The 70s...And Wityh The Stones In The Beginning...His Drinking Has Kept Him Average For The Last Thirty Years
Amen...It's interesting to see how many folks here claim Taylor shouldn't be with them because his playing is not what it once was, as if Ronnie's playing is what it was in the heyday of The Faces.
Re: Latest on Ronnie (includes mention of Mick, Keith, Stones)
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: December 19, 2009 23:01
Quote
Addicted
It's not that Mick WANTS to replace Ronnie. But if he can't get his act together, he can't pass the medical tests he has to in order to get an insureance for the entire tour. If they're going to tour, and they ARE, they can't go on the road without the insureance. The promotors demand it. Even during the planning of a tour, they spend millions and have to pay guarantees to hotels and the company they rent the jet from. And the building of the stage, and the rented trucks. Then there are salaries for up to 350 people on the road. It's not a cheap little picknick they're planning!
And it works like this: The Stones get a fixed amount from Cohl, who buys all the shows and sells them to the local promotors. There are really big money at stake here, and even if they do want the best for Ronnie, and apreciate what he's done for the band, they can't keep him if he's the one reason why they can't get an insureance. It's not about bad will from the other Stones members. Not at all.
Quote
Addicted
It's not that Mick WANTS to replace Ronnie. But if he can't get his act together, he can't pass the medical tests he has to in order to get an insureance for the entire tour. If they're going to tour, and they ARE, they can't go on the road without the insureance. The promotors demand it. Even during the planning of a tour, they spend millions and have to pay guarantees to hotels and the company they rent the jet from. And the building of the stage, and the rented trucks. Then there are salaries for up to 350 people on the road. It's not a cheap little picknick they're planning!
And it works like this: The Stones get a fixed amount from Cohl, who buys all the shows and sells them to the local promotors. There are really big money at stake here, and even if they do want the best for Ronnie, and apreciate what he's done for the band, they can't keep him if he's the one reason why they can't get an insureance. It's not about bad will from the other Stones members. Not at all.
If Ron gets sacked, it's not because they want to, but because they have to... If he fails his medical test, they're left with no other choice but to replace him. It's all up to Ronnie now. I don't know if he can make it, but I do know he needs the money, and he's the only Stone for whom money is the real motivation. The others are so wealthy, no matter what they do, they'll not be able to spend everything during their lifetime.
The chemistry between Ronnie and Keith is not the problem. This band's existed despite bad chemistry between at least two members for decades, so that's not the problem at all.
Replacing Ronnie with Mick Taylor? Now, how many cancellations would that lead to. Does anyone seriously believe he'd pass the medical? And replacing one problem with an even bigger one is nothing a corporation, that's what the Stones is, would even consider. Beck, Lofgren, - could be. (But Gazza would be very disappointed if it interferes with Springsteen's plans...)
LOL. I'll live without it.
All kidding aside, what you've said in both of these posts about Ronnie and the medical insurance is spot on and what some of us have been pointing out now for a few weeks. Unfortunately, a lot of people still cant see past that and think its as a simple as Ronnie going into some half arsed rehab treatment for a couple of weeks and then showing up for rehearsals and all will be well.
That mentality is simply delusional, totally impractical and absolutely naive.
These guys are all in their 60s and three of them have had SERIOUS and potentially life threatening health issues in the last five years. This is of huge significance considering the amount of money that needs to be put up front to finance a tour. They HAVE to been seen to be medically fit to undertake a tour and be unlikely to keel over halfway through it. Can anyone, hand on heart, be confident about Ronnie, in his present state, being ALIVE this time next year (let alone being a Rolling Stone) if he continues the way he's going?
There's only so many times you can give someone a last chance if he keeps messing up and, more importantly, doesnt seem to make much of an effort to sort his life out.
Your serve, Ronnie.
Re: Latest on Ronnie (includes mention of Mick, Keith, Stones)
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: December 19, 2009 23:05
Quote
melillo
if they replace ronnie they may as well call themselves kiss with all these ridiculous lineup changes, i mean there comes a point where it starts to get silly and IMO the legacy would take a huge hit
Considering three-quarters of the band have been there since before they made their first record with a total of 143 years service between them, I would hardly call it that ridiculous.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Bjorn , desertblues68 , Doxa , falo01 , gibsonman , Heart for Stones , Hutchence , keefgotsoul , keithpinkmoon , niki , pjb , Purplevienna1 , Quique-stone , RaahenTiikeri , Sjouke , Slop , Stilllife09 , straycatuk , superglen , teleblaster , walkingthedog
Guests:
1004
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10