Joan Jett? She rocks, and kind of looks like Ronnie.

Quote
drbryant
Joan Jett? She rocks, and kind of looks like Ronnie.

thats funny .you made me smile with that one .i love rock and roll put another dime in the jukebox baby



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-21 18:50 by The Greek.

Sacking Ronnie after 35 years of loyalty to this band for whatever personal issues he's having now (which we only know from tabloids, by the way) without offering some help first would be very very unfair, to say the least.

But being optimistic, I don't see it happening...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-21 19:28 by milio77.

Loyalty does not equal making money.

And that is all it's about if it is indeed anything. Loyalty amounts to zilch. The Stones are all about money. If there is something that will hinder - which makes really no sense at all considering the Bang tour - that then I'm sure it will be dealt with.

Quote
skipstone
Loyalty does not equal making money.

And that is all it's about if it is indeed anything. Loyalty amounts to zilch. The Stones are all about money. If there is something that will hinder - which makes really no sense at all considering the Bang tour - that then I'm sure it will be dealt with.

They have been loyal - since 1981 when they could have fired him. I don't think when you give someone a quarter century of "2nd chances" and they continue to blow it you can be accused of not having loyalty.

Perhaps its to do with Ronnie hanging in there rather than walking out?

John Frusciante has left Red Hot Chili Peppers

1)Waddy Wachtel
2)Jeff Beck
3)Blondie Chaplin

Quote
71Tele

Quote
skipstone
Loyalty does not equal making money.

And that is all it's about if it is indeed anything. Loyalty amounts to zilch. The Stones are all about money. If there is something that will hinder - which makes really no sense at all considering the Bang tour - that then I'm sure it will be dealt with.

They have been loyal - since 1981 when they could have fired him. I don't think when you give someone a quarter century of "2nd chances" and they continue to blow it you can be accused of not having loyalty.

With Brian the issue was he had become totally dysfunctional missing recording sessions, shows and barely playing at some of the shows he did show up at, so in his case the sacking is somewhat understandable..But as far as I know Ronnie has never missed a show due to his habits has he??

His playing can be criticized on some of the recent tours but IMHO he has carried Keef on many nights so you would think he would be cut some slack..But after reading these mega threads on the subject I am convinced it is now about the money and loyalty is out the window.

So after reading all the threads here is my theory on why Ronnie might get sacked.... Mick probably realizes the band can function with one subpar guitar player but it would be a disaster for them to tour again with both Ronnie and Keef playing subpar. We all know Keef ain't going no where so Ronnie would be the odd man out in this case.

If nothing else Mick is a shrewd business man so if the band is going to tour again Ronnie will have to get his sheet together or Mick is going to look for someone who is very talented who can carry the load for a dysfunctional Keef on stage.....

Personally, if they are going to sack Ronnie his replacement would have to be somebody really special for me to go see the Stones on the next tour if there is one. While I doubt it would happen, if a Jeff Beck, Clapton or even Mick Taylor were to stand in for Ronnie I would buy a ticket out of curiosity sake but if they get a no name guitar player, or even someone like the talented Joe Satriani, I would not spend the big $$$ for a ticket.....

If they tour without Ronnie, the word being that Woody got sacked out of the band due to his erratic behavior by Mick and Keith, that's bad. If they tour and we are told that the insurance issue is the reason and Ron agreed and doesn't counter attack I think the 2010Tour will go down different but without drama.
Rock and Roll,
Mops



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-21 21:38 by rollmops.

I can not imagine a Stones-upcoming tour without ronnie°

under the boardwalk---down by the sea

Quote
Gimme Shelter
John Frusciante has left Red Hot Chili Peppers

That sucks! That sucks worse than this whole routine with Ronnie. Frusciante ain't playin with the Stones if that's what you're speculating. He'd be so bored he'd have to go back on smack.

what a crappy monday with all this doom and gloom about ronnie .you know if there is kharma .well thats all that im gonna say

Quote
The Greek
what a crappy monday with all this doom and gloom about ronnie .you know if there is kharma .well thats all that im gonna say

hey!! why the long face? there's always tomorrow: crappy tuesday

Quote
T&A

Quote
The Greek
what a crappy monday with all this doom and gloom about ronnie .you know if there is kharma .well thats all that im gonna say

hey!! why the long face? there's always tomorrow: crappy tuesday

what's up man .nails for breakfast today ?

This is becoming so Van Halen-ish.....maybe Keith's son could play? or Brian's? or Mick's?

heard again on my local new york classic rock station today about the upcoming tour and album on Q IO4.3 just a few moments ago the tour is gonna happen and there was no mention of woody NOT being there, so thats a good sign, i guess the rumors havent made it to the new york market yet huh

Quote
T&A

Quote
The Greek
what a crappy monday with all this doom and gloom about ronnie .you know if there is kharma .well thats all that im gonna say

hey!! why the long face? there's always tomorrow: crappy tuesday

There's always crappy holidays after that. I don't care who plays with them, as long as they tour next year.

Let's lighten the mood. Rawhide. Song starts at 1:30. Midget guzzles a schooner of beer at 2:20. Good stuff.

Quote
oldschool
With Brian the issue was he had become totally dysfunctional missing recording sessions, shows and barely playing at some of the shows he did show up at, so in his case the sacking is somewhat understandable..But as far as I know Ronnie has never missed a show due to his habits has he??
.....

You're correct - he has never missed a show. Then again, in this day and age they're not playing ballrooms and theres more than just five of them, so if one of them is ill, theres no show.

Brian missed a small number of shows - but that was back around '64-65. He was fired in June 1969, at which point the Stones hadnt toured for two years.

Aside from the fact that his contributions in the studio at that point were negligible (an argument you could make about Ronnie because his contribution to ABB was minimal), a major factor in his dismissal was to do with the fact that due to his drug convictions, it would have made it highly unlikely that he would have got a visa to work in the US and the band had a tour planned there for late 1969.

Forty years later, the issue isn't that dissimilar. The band's ability to tour may be affected by one member's inability to get clearance to join them.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
oldschool
With Brian the issue was he had become totally dysfunctional missing recording sessions, shows and barely playing at some of the shows he did show up at, so in his case the sacking is somewhat understandable..But as far as I know Ronnie has never missed a show due to his habits has he??
.....

You're correct - he has never missed a show. Then again, in this day and age they're not playing ballrooms and theres more than just five of them, so if one of them is ill, theres no show.

Brian missed a small number of shows - but that was back around '64-65. He was fired in June 1969, at which point the Stones hadnt toured for two years.

Aside from the fact that his contributions in the studio at that point were negligible (an argument you could make about Ronnie because his contribution to ABB was minimal), a major factor in his dismissal was to do with the fact that due to his drug convictions, it would have made it highly unlikely that he would have got a visa to work in the US and the band had a tour planned there for late 1969.

Forty years later, the issue isn't that dissimilar. The band's ability to tour may be affected by one member's inability to get clearance to join them.

So you don't think his reliability had anything to do with his sacking? Based on all I have read I don't think I agree Gazza......

Yes - he was unreliable and it was a matter of time....but the straw that probably broke the camel's back and left the band with NO option was their decision to go back on the road.

Just like now.

I think we can all agree, tongue in cheek, that the Stones can afford to not go on the road ha ha.

Er, well, except maybe Ronnie.

Meant to post here I guess...

Can't the Rolling Stones
"promote" Blondie to the front of the stage?

I hope that Ronnie gets it together for the tour and my gut feeling is that he will.

I like some the suggestions (Crowes, Blondie etc) but if Ronnie doesn't make it I'd like Nils Lofgren. He could do the job and not expect too much limelight.

If he doesn't make it I suspect that a celeb like Clapton will be brought in. If you are going to change the line up then the thinking might be get somebody in who can sell a few extra tickets in a tough market.

Or Ronnie quits booze now or he won't tour .I suppose that what Jagger would tell him .Too much money in play to @#$%& it up.



I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .

the curious thing about the whole story is that a lot of people here don't consider ronnie like a real "stone" after 35 years of tours and some very good album (black and blue, some girls, tatto you, stripped, a bigger bang..) .
I find this underrating and low consideration very humiliating for ronnie, like if he was guilty to be part of the band after the classical masterpieces (beggar's, let it bleed, sticky and exile)..

As can be seen, that 'lot of people' you speak of also happens to include Mick, Keith & Charlie.

for every album draws a masterpiece of his time. There are of course ups and downs and personal preference ist another point.
Tattoo You is still a highlight for me in the 80ies and so many others.
Ronnie is part of the band and so far everything else is rumors on tabloids which journalists try to sell to the world.
Cheap gossip.
The only thing which may be true is that insurance liability and tourcosts is a problem but that's all.

we'll see Gazza,
maybe you are right regarding mick, keith and charlie, but until now there is no official statement about that.
I can tell you that for me ronnie is a stone since 1975 and the stones without ronnie would be a defeat.

Quote
andrea66
we'll see Gazza,
maybe you are right regarding mick, keith and charlie, but until now there is no official statement about that.
I can tell you that for me ronnie is a stone since 1975 and the stones without ronnie would be a defeat.

Agree 100%, just saying that for business purposes he's deemed to be less indispensible as far as the others are concerned.