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: Previous12
Current Page: 2 of 2
Re: Keith
Posted by: Loudei ()
Date: January 8, 2010 19:12

Quote
crumbling_mice
It's unlikely the Stones will ever record anything worth listening to again anyway...the last serious music they made apart from Stripped was Tattoo You or even Some Girls.

I don't agree with you. People thought Bob Dylan was done after his MTV Unplugged bit in the early nineties, then he recorded Time Out Of Mind, a record that its up there with his best work. Whats the difference between Dylan's poor efforts and Time Out Of Mind?
1) The approach. He made a record for himself, trend proof and for all the right reasons. Detached from the music business.

2) Chemistry with the personel. Daniel Lanois is a wonderful producer, well he is an artist not a producer, one can conclude that his contributions on Dylans comeback albums are the reason its successes ( no shit, probably so) ... if The Stones make another album, this is a key element in denying crumblin's qoute above. The Stones need someone that can produce new Stones music, undiscovered territory within theirs souls, not a search of capturing pasts glories - Like Don Was trying to make another Exile with Voodoo Lounge. A producer that can bring back their hearts on tape. Mick please listen to me, you need to make a record for Stones not us.

3) They need to be friends and some king of brotherhood and set a steady course. With respect, admiration and yes some god damn nostalgia... good nostalgia helps bring back moral.

4) Like Keith always says - "find out who you are and be real about it". They can use their wisdom. THey have five generations in the bank.

5) Tell Michael Cohl to go and play with his Live Nations acts and F OFF!!!

Re: Keith
Posted by: skipstone ()
Date: January 8, 2010 19:43

What line up? The existing line up that's been with us basically since 1994? Nothing has changed. There is no tour that we know of, no one knows if they ever will tour again and no one knows if they will wait long enough to decide that it's possibly too late to do anything health wise, in whatever form that could be. And no one knows if they're not going to tour again.

Nobody nothing. Nothing about anything.

Re: Keith
Posted by: Elmo Lewis ()
Date: January 8, 2010 19:43

Stones without Keith? Isn't that like ice without water?

We all know he can't play like he used to, but WTF, I still love going to a Stones show.

Re: Keith
Posted by: StonesTod ()
Date: January 8, 2010 19:50

Quote
skipstone
What line up? The existing line up that's been with us basically since 1994? Nothing has changed. There is no tour that we know of, no one knows if they ever will tour again and no one knows if they will wait long enough to decide that it's possibly too late to do anything health wise, in whatever form that could be. And no one knows if they're not going to tour again.

Nobody nothing. Nothing about anything.

you're forgetting about BV. He knows all. My 2010 calendar will have all the tour dates and stuff and for a fee I can be bought into telling you them....

Re: Keith
Posted by: skipstone ()
Date: January 8, 2010 19:51

And like some people have pointed out, he may have gotten his meds under control. If he's still taking them. Maybe he doesn't need to anymore. Who knows? I don't.

He's made it clear that he sets his guitar down and stays away from it, only playing acoustic, when not touring or recording. So I wouldn't worry about him not picking up a guitar for the past 2 years or whatever. It is good to set things aside sometimes. It's not like he's going to forget or get any better. His development probably ceased after his reggae trip. Since then he's just been what he is, like everyone else is when they've mastered something. It just is what it is. Age, arthritis and whatever else is the adversities now, which are not such a big deal really. It's just living with it.

So as bad as he had gotten there is no telling what will happen. He's screwed up on every tour. It's not anything new. What is new is what he wasn't doing and how he was doing that!

Re: Keith
Posted by: DiamondDog7 ()
Date: January 9, 2010 01:29

Quote
Elmo Lewis
Stones without Keith? Isn't that like ice without water?

We all know he can't play like he used to, but WTF, I still love going to a Stones show.

Stones without Keith??? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard! There just CAN'T be Rolling Stones without Keith!! Whatever shape he is in.

The main core of the Stones are Mick, Keith and Charlie! If one quits or something, there isn't a Rolling Stones. I have my doubts with Ronnie. I don't know.

Re: Keith
Posted by: behroez ()
Date: January 9, 2010 02:01

Quote
DiamondDog7
Stones without Keith??? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard! There just CAN'T be Rolling Stones without Keith!! Whatever shape he is in.

Same things the Pink Floyd fans said when Syd Barrett wasn't capable anymore. But Floyd didn't listen to their fans (always wise), ditched him anyway and made Dark Side Of The Moon and The Wall. Than Roger Waters left and again the Floyd fans said Roger Waters IS Pink Floyd without him there wont be any Floyd, yet again Floyd didn't listen to their fans (fans are your worst advisors) went on without Waters and Floyd cracked the charts with A Momentary Lapse of Reason. Mind you, Syd Barrett and Roger Waters were more the face of and vital to Pink Floyd (not only the leaders and composers at their time but also the singers), than Keith is to the Stones. Changes always provide new fresh oppertunities even if it is for a final surprise act.

Re: Keith
Posted by: DiamondDog7 ()
Date: January 9, 2010 02:10

Quote
behroez
Quote
DiamondDog7
Stones without Keith??? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard! There just CAN'T be Rolling Stones without Keith!! Whatever shape he is in.

Same things the Pink Floyd fans said when Syd Barrett wasn't capable anymore. But Floyd didn't listen to their fans (always wise), ditched him anyway and made Dark Side Of The Moon and The Wall. Than Roger Waters left and again the Floyd fans said Roger Waters IS Pink Floyd without him there wont be any Floyd, yet again Floyd didn't listen to their fans (fans are your worst advisors) went on without Waters and Floyd cracked the charts with A Momentary Lapse of Reason. Mind you, Syd Barrett and Roger Waters were more the face of and vital to Pink Floyd (not only the leaders and composers at their time but also the singers), than Keith is to the Stones. Changes always provide new fresh oppertunities even if it is for a final surprise act.

I understand. But that would be ok when it happened in the 1960s or 1970s. But not now. They've already have a great history together and made so many records together. You just can't "ditch" Keith now and expect the Stones to record masterpieces NOW in their 60s??? If it do happens, that would be suprise and would be risk. But I really do think this would not work just because Keith IS really one of the souls and familiar faces of the Stones now. And it would be strange to ditch or replace him and to make a total new 'masterpiece' and to sell this as a new Rolling Stones. I don't know, man...

Re: Keith
Posted by: texas fan ()
Date: January 9, 2010 02:43

Quote
behroez
Quote
DiamondDog7
Stones without Keith??? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard! There just CAN'T be Rolling Stones without Keith!! Whatever shape he is in.

Same things the Pink Floyd fans said when Syd Barrett wasn't capable anymore. But Floyd didn't listen to their fans (always wise), ditched him anyway and made Dark Side Of The Moon and The Wall. Than Roger Waters left and again the Floyd fans said Roger Waters IS Pink Floyd without him there wont be any Floyd, yet again Floyd didn't listen to their fans (fans are your worst advisors) went on without Waters and Floyd cracked the charts with A Momentary Lapse of Reason. Mind you, Syd Barrett and Roger Waters were more the face of and vital to Pink Floyd (not only the leaders and composers at their time but also the singers), than Keith is to the Stones. Changes always provide new fresh oppertunities even if it is for a final surprise act.


What you say about Floyd and Barrett is true, but Floyd in 1968 is not comparable to the Stones in 2009, nor is Barrett comparable to Keith.

If you want Taylor and Jagger to start a band or something, fine, but it won't be the Rolling Stones, and you can forget about Mr. Watts participating in your evil fantasy.

I have to go wash my brain out with soap...

Re: Keith
Posted by: Back Of My Palm ()
Date: January 9, 2010 02:44





This is Keith

Re: Keith
Posted by: rollmops ()
Date: January 9, 2010 03:15

BACK OF MY PALM : I have that CD and I listen to it all the time. Keith did a cover of Pressure Drop but Toots picked up the Clapton's version of that song for the cd. Keith Richards is a Rolling Stone for ever.

Rock and Roll,
Mops

Re: Keith
Posted by: ghostryder13 ()
Date: January 9, 2010 09:28

there is no rolling stones without keith same goes for mick and charlie. replacing ronnie is a very big maybe. pink floyd were still very young when they replaced syd barrett

Re: Keith
Posted by: erikjjf ()
Date: January 9, 2010 10:09

Quote
rollmops
Keith did a cover of Pressure Drop but Toots picked up the Clapton's version of that song for the cd.

Keith's version of Pressure Drop is available on iTunes.

Goto Page: Previous12
Current Page: 2 of 2


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 1443
Record Number of Users: 206 on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests: 9627 on January 2, 2024 23:10

Previous page Next page First page IORR home