What is the leading alternative explanation of those who don't believe the 'Keith fell out a tree story."

I can see Mick and Keith taking all of 5 minutes to conclude no tour in 2010. Wait longer, band may be more fit, not so able in the present. Longer wait also means the whole 50 year whatever moment, and maybe the olympics...another moment that should not determine a tour...but might.

Quote
mtaylor
Yes, Dailymail (gossip) and NME.
But nothing on RollingStone, Billboard, BBC and other big news providers also other gossipnews providers.
Dailymail has been after Ronnie the last year, so they will probably keep the "the endless tory" rolling.
The article just mentions "a spokesman says" - who is that spokesman?
Sources say....
Would Stones cancel all activities just because Ronnie is in bad shape?
If they were top cancel, then there would be a much severe problem - not because of Ronnie, but because of either Mick, Keith or Charlie.
But then I doubt they would announce it in Dailymail.

They didnt 'announce' it in the Daily Mail. The Daily Mail just happened to be the first people to break the story. For all their faults in terms of sensationalising certain stories, they've actually a better track record from what I recall than the other newspapers in the UK for breaking 'proper' Stones news in their showbiz columns. Its not all 'gossip' . Jagger has enjoyed a good relationship with their main showbiz writer, Baz Bamigboye, going back decades.

The NME are every bit as credible a music news source as any of the agencies you've mentioned. Why does it have to be 'broken' by Billboard or the BBC? And why is it important that its not in other 'gossip' columns yet if youre dismissing THIS source as precisely that?

Be as selective as you want. The info came from the Stones press spokesperson. .

Can't get much more official than that - as far as I'm aware the band don't do their press releases themselves.

That's the official line. If things change and theyre bullshitting, so be it. At least with Keiths incident in 2006, they had valid reason to do so because they wanted to protect the man's privacy. The same PA representatives three months ago dismissed reports that Charlie had quit the band. Did you dismiss that announcement as well?



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-05 19:57 by Gazza.

Quote
duke richardson
>>Probably in some of the more salacious books for sure.<<

ah, this is intriguing. help, please? I'll search it out, but if anyone can cite book titles that have this episode, of Secret Service people supplying Keith with heroin, much appreciated

It's referred to in Victor Bockris' bio of Keith which I've just read

Fran Curtis has handled the Stones for ages. I talked to her briefly well in advance of the Voodoo Tour...

R: Fran, are the Stones going to open in DC? I'm not a journalist, I just want to book air fare in a timely fashion.

Fran: That sounds good to me.

R: So they ARE opening in DC on August 1?

Fran: Sounds good.

If she said it, you can take it to the bank.

Well if there's any truth in this I think BV would have known that by now
and surely he would have put it up on the NEWS her at IORR.

Can't think of any more reliable source than BV.
So as long as it's not up on the news board then I'm not nervous!

Been Stoned since 1964 and still am!

IMO what it all hangs on is their age. RW has already got some
nails in his coffin. Another year off and more birthdays. They
are not supermen or Peter Pan. I was at 02 Arena for the last
shows. Even then I felt that was it. Just how long can they go on for.

If it would be a very official statement the sources should be shown and I could imagine that they should make it clear also at least on rollingstones.com

it officially said "No plans to tour AT THE MOMENT" .Riggle room there if ever I heard it.
They should spent time crafting a decent album with someone like Jack White producing...........but I'm not sure if they could be bothered to make decent music anymore .The last few albums have been made to have a tour name IMHO.By 2007 they were playing 1 ABB number per show.

sc uk

If Stones made an official statement last night like mentioned in Daily Mail, why has nobody else referred to the statement than DailyMail and NME? Are Stones of so little interest anymore? Could be people care less according to the the news interest from all other media?
By now, some 24 hours later, it should have caught some interest!!

Last updated at 10:17 PM on 04th January 2010

The Rolling Stones tonight announced they had no plans to tour this year.
The superstars took the extremely rare step of issuing an official statement after intense speculation in the music business they were planning another global jaunt, which had been pencilled in to be announced in April.
The statement read: ‘Following recent UK media speculation, The Rolling Stones would like to make it clear, there are no plans at the moment for the band to tour in 2010.’

And read carefully, it says at the moment. That doesn't mean, they are not going to tour in 2010.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-05 20:29 by mtaylor.

It's not going to happen! They are waiting to be on tour for the 50th reunion that will have the last show free at Hyde Park in July, and yes Wyman and Taylor will be there. If you want to keep being hit in the head with a brick, keep typing away all your personal aspirations of a band that you really know nothing about!

Now,fluff up these pillows and leave down the stairs or out the window!

Quote
Who's Driving Your Plane?
It's not going to happen! They are waiting to be on tour for the 50th reunion that will have the last show free at Hyde Park in July, and yes Wyman and Taylor will be there. If you want to keep being hit in the head with a brick, keep typing away all your personal aspirations of a band that you really know nothing about!

Now,fluff up these pillows and leave down the stairs or out the window!

Who the hell is driving YOUR plane?

JumpingKentFlash

auto pilot? not instrument rated?

This is posted on Pollstar.com , today.

[www.pollstar.com]

So Pollstar mentions the other names to make it trustworthy:


"From public relations company Rogers & Cowan:

Following recent UK media speculation, The Rolling Stones would l
ike to make it clear, there are no plans at the moment for the band
to tour in 2010.”

Quote
mtaylor
If Stones made an official statement last night like mentioned in Daily Mail, why has nobody else referred to the statement than DailyMail and NME? Are Stones of so little interest anymore? Could be people care less according to the the news interest from all other media? .

The penny finally drops. A confirmation that a tour that was only rumoured isn't going to happen isn't that earth shaking. And you can now add Pollstar - a reputed tour listings website - to that list.

Quote
mtaylor
And read carefully, it says at the moment. That doesn't mean, they are not going to tour in 2010.

Didn't say they definitely wouldn't. Like I said earlier, "That's the official line. If things change and theyre bullshitting, so be it."

Do try and keep up.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-05 22:07 by Gazza.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
mtaylor
If Stones made an official statement last night like mentioned in Daily Mail, why has nobody else referred to the statement than DailyMail and NME? Are Stones of so little interest anymore? Could be people care less according to the the news interest from all other media? .

The penny finally drops. A confirmation that a tour that was only rumoured isn't going to happen isn't that earth shaking. And you can now add Pollstar - a reputed tour listings website - to that list.

Quote
mtaylor
And read carefully, it says at the moment. That doesn't mean, they are not going to tour in 2010.

Like I said earlier, "That's the official line. If things change and theyre bullshitting, so be it."

Do try and keep up.

You're so "fantastic" Gazza - you know it all and wants to put everybody down on this board. For the ones that don't agree with you and you get agressiv.
Still, read well, it says "at the moment".
Pollstar's conclusion is wrong, when saying no tour in 2010 - the pr company only says "at the moment" - that doesn't mean "No tour".

I don't 'know' shit but I'm able to understand basic English, which puts me at an advantage to yourself. If I was being aggressive, I'd have thought it would more obvious. You're frustrated about all this, so take it out on someone else. I'm giving you basic facts - you're ignoring them and making wild presumptions.

Totally agree - no plans to tour 'at the moment' doesn't mean 'no tour'. So I dont see what you're arguing about.

My only disagreement with what you're saying is that you're disputing the authenticity of the source of the press statements. These people are authorised by the Rolling Stones to make statements on their behalf. So if theyre issuing statements saying the Stones dont have plans to tour then that's the band's official position. We can only assume that to be the case until proven otherwise - like I said, 'if things change and they're bullshitting'...

If you want to disbelieve it all totally, then thats your right to do so, but I wouldnt hold your breath waiting on that big tour announcement.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-05 22:21 by Gazza.

X



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-08-08 20:01 by UrbanSteel.

in defense of gazza, he doesn't put me down when i disagree with him - like when i tell him LIND is a half-baked idea of a song with a terrible vocal from jagger. i'm right, of course....

Quote
T&A
in defense of gazza, he doesn't put me down when i disagree with him - like when i tell him LIND is a half-baked idea of a song with a terrible vocal from jagger. i'm right, of course....

You're full of shit and I'm gonna kick your ass for that.

Now THAT's 'aggressive'.....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-05 22:31 by Gazza.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
T&A
in defense of gazza, he doesn't put me down when i disagree with him - like when i tell him LIND is a half-baked idea of a song with a terrible vocal from jagger. i'm right, of course....

You're full of shit and I'm gonna kick your ass for that.

Now THAT's 'aggressive'.....

i'll just chalk this up to your disappointment about the stones...a few more carlsberg's and you'll feel fine....

Gazza, now you become even more agressiv, frustrated. Acting like that you should go to your site and insult people, not here.
It is not me being frustrated - it is you getting upset, because I don't fall down on my knee and accept what you are saying.
My english is fairly good and I can understand "not at the moment" as being "not at the moment".
That's a normal term in business language when things are uncertatin and you want to deny a rumour.
That happens quite often: - in football clubs denying sales of a football player, in a company denying things going bad, laying off people.
Even so, things quite often change right after, players being sold, companies going bankrupt - that you also know.
If Mick Jagger doesn't know if he has finance / insurance backing up for a tour, if he doesn't know if has a guitar player - then there is still a long way to go, and therefore "no tour at the moment". But could still be in 2010.

To be honest and in all seriousness, its a bit of relief. A Stones tour this year had trainwreck written all over it.

I'm disappointed for the people who were hoping to have seen them in 2010 (even mtaylor ) but maybe if they leave it a few months they'll be better prepared, musically and physically.

Quote
Gazza
To be honest and in all seriousness, its a bit of relief. A Stones tour this year had trainwreck written all over it.

I'm disappointed for the people who were hoping to have seen them in 2010 (even mtaylor ) but maybe if they leave it a few months they'll be better prepared, musically and physically.

i hear you...my thoughts exactly....sorry for those who were looking forward to it, but i won't be seeing the band anymore anyway...

mtaylor, "Who´s fighting in Watford?"

I mean "Who´s fighting and what for?"

To be honest, Gazza´s posts clear a lot up here, I´m happy that
he sticks around and explains certain things I can´t conclude.
Always a treat to read his posts and his fabulous syntax.

The only thing you shouldn´t do is telling him
that "Continental drift" is a bad song ><

Quote
mtaylor
Gazza, now you become even more agressiv, frustrated.

If I was aggressive I'd be telling you to f*** off. I havent done that as yet as far as I'm aware.

Quote
mtaylor
Acting like that you should go to your site and insult people, not here.
It is not me being frustrated - it is you getting upset, because I don't fall down on my knee and accept what you are saying.

I'm not upset in the slightest, chum. And dont tell me to go anywhere - who died and made YOU Pope?

Quote
mtaylor
My english is fairly good and I can understand "not at the moment" as being "not at the moment".
That's a normal term in business language when things are uncertatin and you want to deny a rumour.

Never denied otherwise. Is English really not your first language? If thats the case, my sincere apologies - I've always assumed you were from the US because your written English would appear that you were. Take that as a sort of compliment.

Quote
mtaylor
That happens quite often: - in football clubs denying sales of a football player, in a company denying things going bad, laying off people.
Even so, things quite often change right after, players being sold, companies going bankrupt - that you also know.
If Mick Jagger doesn't know if he has finance / insurance backing up for a tour, if he doesn't know if has a guitar player - then there is still a long way to go, and therefore "no tour at the moment". But could still be in 2010.

Again, you're just actually agreeing with me. They COULD tour in 2010. I've never said that they won't - for the simple reason that I don't know that to be the case (I don't THINK they will, but thats personal opinion). You're still missing my point though in that all I was doing was explaining why the person who made the press release was a reputable source, authorised by the band. Thats really the ONLY thing we're disagreeing about as far as I can see.

Now why dont we just agree to disagree on that and have a .



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-05 22:45 by Gazza.

Quote
T&A

Quote
Gazza
To be honest and in all seriousness, its a bit of relief. A Stones tour this year had trainwreck written all over it.

I'm disappointed for the people who were hoping to have seen them in 2010 (even mtaylor ) but maybe if they leave it a few months they'll be better prepared, musically and physically.

i hear you...my thoughts exactly....sorry for those who were looking forward to it, but i won't be seeing the band anymore anyway...

can't say it any better than that.

and that's the way it is...(RIP Walter)

In some ways this is like the Mid 80's for the stones. they are at a crossroads.

Quote
ryanpow
In some ways this is like the Mid 80's for the stones. they are at a crossroads.

Yeah, but then they were in their early/mid 40s.

..and Mick actually believed he had a future as a solo artist....