Mick T and Bill will not come back to tour with them that's a dream forget it. As far as Ronnie they have stuck with him for years and he always seems to screw up its his own fault if they choose to tour without him he's had plenty of chances to stay clean and he always messes up sorry to say so if they tour without him I'm ok it. But I do hope he gets clean and he can tour.

Quote
DeliveranceStraightwayHoliness
I don't think Ron Wood will be replaced. He might be turned down even lower than in '99 but I think he will be there.
Why could they not get insurance with Wood?

Addicted's posts on this thread - especially the second one - explain how it works pretty eloquently.

[www.iorr.org]

"Should everyone else's lives and careers be put on hold because one man seems hellbent on drinking himself into oblivion?"

Gazza.


I say you have summed things up perfectly and I couldn't agree more

The whole issue of medicals and insurance is a bit confusing. Would the Promoters not book them without insurance, or could the band take a chance and go out on the road without cover? I know they (Mick) probably would not want to do that. Setting aside the Ronnie Wood thing for a moment. If - heaven forbid - Keiths medical investigation showed his head injury still represented a medical risk, could the band just say f**k it and do the tour anyway.

I mean, how do real old timers like Chuck and BB get insurance for their tours?

Quote
Rickster
Mick T and Bill will not come back to tour with them that's a dream forget it. As far as Ronnie they have stuck with him for years and he always seems to screw up its his own fault if they choose to tour without him he's had plenty of chances to stay clean and he always messes up sorry to say so if they tour without him I'm ok it. But I do hope he gets clean and he can tour.

Bill is 73 and won't fly so he's not coming back. The Stones have a perfectly good bass player anyway. But the idea of having MT fill in for Ronnie, an idea that I at one time considered preposterous, now seems considerably less preposterous than it used to. I admit that it wouldn't make much difference in terms of ticket sales. Only hardcore fans would be excited about it. I'd be curious to hear what it would sound like. It might be great. It certainly would be interesting and different.

I think they like it when Ronnie screws up, ha ha. Gets lots of press. Reminds people they're still around. Rock'N'Roll never dies! It just gets drunk or sick or hurt or swollen as well as older and older and older.

Although I'm sure it does not help record sales.

And you believe the Coconut story do you Gazza??

Lets say for a moment he did fall from a tree chasing a coconut. I think it is a pretty fair guess that he was feeling no pain before he tried to climb the tree which probabaly led to him falling...Is that not a case of Keef's lifestyle interfering with the band playing??......

Also based on Keef's playing struggles on recnt tours, which are only getting more erratic, I would say he has also become a liability which I am sure is exasperated by his continuing use of intoxicants so should he told to cleanup or be replaced??

I feel Woody has earned a little respect and should be given a little leeway in getting his act straightened out and feel it would not be the Stones without him...

Other obviously still want to treat him like a salaried employee, after 34 years of service and despite he being a full member of the band, and dump him by the roadside.

We just differ in our opinions...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-20 17:16 by oldschool.

I didnt say I believed it. What I do know is that he had an accident while drunk and several shows got cancelled or postponed. Keith's accident happened mid tour however - he had already been cleared to play and was cleared again after he recuperated. The problem was deemed to be temporary, and was determined by people who are medically qualified to do so. Hypothetically, being told 6-9 months before a tour start that you're in no fit state to tour at any time in the future because your liver or lungs are in an advanced state of collapse is a different matter.

Being able to play to a high level is another argument entirely. I havent criticised Keith or Ronnie's playing in this thread because its not relevant. If anything, I would say that Keith's anti-seizure medication that he started taking after his accident would be affecting his co-ordination in the short term, hence some erratic playing on the last tour (on some shows I saw he was fine). I also dont ignore Ronnie's contribution to the band and the fact that he's bailed them out many times.

However, in this case, its simply not that relevant as it doesnt address the important issue which is that if Ronnie doesnt have medical clearance, he CANT tour. Its got nothing to do with whether the Stones are morally right or wrong to tour without him or whether or not WE want him to be there.

Quote
letitloose
The whole issue of medicals and insurance is a bit confusing. Would the Promoters not book them without insurance, or could the band take a chance and go out on the road without cover? I know they (Mick) probably would not want to do that. Setting aside the Ronnie Wood thing for a moment. If - heaven forbid - Keiths medical investigation showed his head injury still represented a medical risk, could the band just say f**k it and do the tour anyway.

I mean, how do real old timers like Chuck and BB get insurance for their tours?

The issue is to do with compensation if shows get cancelled due to health problems. Factor in things like tour sponsorship etc, and youre talking about tens of millions of dollars being put up in guarantees for these tours before they start. If someone is putting that amount of money on the table, they're going to want to be sure that the risk of the person they're sponsoring not dropping dead or having a serious illness half way through is relatively small. That risk is magnified when the artist gets older and if their health is questionable. Its also magnified when its four people being insured, and not just one. If the Stones go on tour without medical insurance and things go tits-up, then THEY take the financial hit when it does.

Something like a Chuck Berry or BB King tour isn't the same because the amount of money being talked about isnt comparable.

Gazza, maybe you can address my previous post. What do you mean they CAN'T tour without insurance?

Edit: Oh you just did!

Cheers



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-20 17:39 by letitloose.

Just did. LOL.

They COULD but it would be extremely unwise to do so with the amount of money involved.

Put it this way. If you were going to the highlands for a weekend in a hotel, you might not bother taking out insurance for your trip. If you were going on a round the world trip for 6 months, involving lots of flights and hotels etc, you'd be a fool not to.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-20 18:12 by Gazza.

So its not like driving a car where insurance is a pre-requisite. I run a business that gave up insuring against debt because the premiums were getting outlandish and the level of cover was being reduced to the point where the balance tipped in favour of not bothering. It simply wasn't worth it. My competitors are all in the same boat. That was my question. Could they do it without cover.

By the way, if Ronnie is not there, it would not surprize me if Charlie says "enoughs enough" and the whole thing goes tits up.

does anyone really think keith is gonna let mick kick woody out? they are brothers and it wont happen imo

Quote
melillo
does anyone really think keith is gonna let mick kick woody out? they are brothers and it wont happen imo

Mick cant kick anyone out. He's a board member, not the bandowner.

If any decision on that or any significant level gets made, its because theyve decided it as a band.

For example, the UK tour in '98 was postponed for tax reasons because 2 of the band members (Woody and Charlie) voted to do so. Mick voted in favour of doing the tour. Keith abstained as he wasnt liable for the tax hit as he's a US resident.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-20 18:15 by Gazza.

.....I hope RW gets it together...I hope he is able to defeat his demons or at least learn to control them.....I can't however see how RW in his present condition and in light of recent activity be seen as being good for business.

ok i feel better about it now, thats reasonable, i just thought mick was able to do that for some reason

Gazza, I'm starting to realise one way the Stones won't be able to tour at some point regardless of age and will - it's just what you said - the insurance. They're going to un-health themselves out of playing! They wouldn't accept doing something small - it wouldn't pay.

Imagine that.

Keith: Well I can't get insured to get these boys back out on the road because I'm too toxic ah heeehhhhggggggghhhhh.

Mick: Surely you can clean up for this one. I mean, it's $50 million dollar show, man.

Keith: Talk to my, ah hehhhhhh, liars, errrr lawyers and doctors.

Quote
melillo
ok i feel better about it now, thats reasonable, i just thought mick was able to do that for some reason

The press like to portray it as 'Mick wants this' or 'Mick demands that' because he's the most prominent band member, but while he might be the main mover and shaker in the band, he has no more 'power' than Keith or Charlie.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-20 18:40 by Gazza.

Quote
melillo
does anyone really think keith is gonna let mick kick woody out? they are brothers and it wont happen imo

Its not about sentimentality. In a free world, Keith always has the option to save Ronnies ass by taking over the entire financial risk in case Ronnie doesnt get insurance.

Do you think Keith would do that for his "brother"?

Quote
melillo
does anyone really think keith is gonna let mick kick woody out? they are brothers and it wont happen imo

They are not brothers, they are co-workers, and, as in any business, everyone looks out for themselves first. If Ronnie prevents Keith from being able to make money, Ronnie will be out. It's not personal. It's just business.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-20 18:54 by tatters.

@#$%& this shit!!

A tour without wood would never work.. It would be a really funny joke.. humour on a high level!
He has played with the stones for over 35 years.. comon that cant work,, themselves must get it..

Im prety shiure that wood will go back to rehab and then the boys will tour again.. and after the tour Ron can drink how much he want... so please no tour without wood!!!

"@#$%& this shit!!"

Oh I LOVE it! HA HA!

@#$%& is almost in numerical order. It jumps the 6 for some reason. Why is that? Because ^ would look more odd?

"Charlie is the soul of the band but Woody is the conscience"

well the band's in a comatose state then...

"The press like to portray it as 'Mick wants this' or 'Mick demands that' because he's the most prominent band member, but while he might be the main mover and shaker in the band, he has no more 'power' than Keith or Charlie."

So true cos if Mj had carte blanche Woody would have been kicked off in 82 (during the tour or after, I don't know)

They could easily roll on without Woody. And I would hope they bring in a guitarist that helps push Keith to up his playing on stage. I got the chance to watch 4 Stones concert films on the tube this week. Somewhere after 78 Keith stopped really playing and began more posing. In 81 Ronnie was clowning more than playing. Looking at 72, Keith really played rhythm guitar and Taylor really solo'd...both came to play. They miss that live.

all this stories is all bullshieet

Maybe the remaining beatles can get together again and tour as the Beatles. 50% of the original cast

Quote
Gazza

Quote
squando
Everything Gazza said.

For speculations sake who do you think they'd get to replace him Gazza? A already known name or a D Jones type setup?

Man I hope this twit finally gets his sh*t together. He's behaved like a child most of his life and really needs to grow the hell up.

He wouldnt be formally replaced. They'd just bring someone in as a salaried employee. The Stones arent going to give up a slice of the pie for anyone.

No idea who they could/would replace him with, but I'm sure there would be plenty of applicants.

If you were to inist on an answer, though - Jeff Beck.

He even has the right haircut.

"He even has the right haircut."


Priceless! LOL!

With that haircut in mind, I would bet that many people would not even know anything or one has changed if you put Jeff Beck on stage with the Stones, except when Beck plays.

I like Ron and wish him well. If he cannot sober up, Taylor would be great as long as he is allowed to play. Keith should stick to rhythm. They would sound great!

Bill coming back would be a great idea too.

If Taylor does not get back in, Jeff Beck would be awesome. Just think of that incredible catalog of Stones songs competently played.

Sorry, no - no Mick Taylor and no Jeff Beck. Beck would be even worse than Taylor. But no, neither one will be on stage with the Stones if they do indeed tour. The Mick Taylor thing is a wish that has been wished to death.

Now if it would just die.

this topic comes up before every tour since at least 1999. its getting as old as the age of 'wished Ronnie replacements'.

none of us are in this band and really don't know whats going on inside. we can only speculate based on past events

however, imho Ronnie will play on the next tour.