Is that he is the only one of the four who still behaves like a Rolling Stone is expected to behave (in the eyes of the media and non-informed public).

Doesn't your statement imply the problem is with the other members?

Sort of . I was thinking of what the other members problem with Ronnie would is.

The real problem with the Stones.... is Keith. (Sorry but true).

The thing with Ronnie is that he stays musically active. I have never heard of any band or musician who was not delighted when Ron participated in a live show or studio recording with them.

As for Keith, there's no point in speculating. Only HE knows if he's fit to play.

These days, Ronnie is the only real Rolling Stone. Musically active and always good for a scandal. God bless him.

Quote
Bimmelzerbott
These days, Ronnie is the only real Rolling Stone. Musically active and always good for a scandal. God bless him.

True

Quote
tomcat2006

Quote
Bimmelzerbott
These days, Ronnie is the only real Rolling Stone. Musically active and always good for a scandal. God bless him.

True

Second.

Quote
Bimmelzerbott
These days, Ronnie is the only real Rolling Stone. Musically active and always good for a scandal. God bless him.

He isn't always good for a scandal, he is just pathetic.

The problem is the Rolling Stones doing nothing as a band at the moment...

[www.reverbnation.com]

Ronnie is very pathetic!

In all Honesty I think Ronnie is having a hard time sitting around not doing much,booze is one way out so is young girls etc,etc,etc.If he got a call telling him the Stones are touring next month or whatever he would be a different man in no time.Going on a tour on his own is like a cure for it all,get off your arse or die,Keith had to make that decision as we all know years ago,trouble is now they are getting on a bit,Time is not on their side anymore.

Quote
Bimmelzerbott
These days, Ronnie is the only real Rolling Stone. Musically active and always good for a scandal. God bless him.

Guess Charlie was never a Stone then...

speaking of charlie, hey boy bring that jazz thing back to the states!!!!!!! always up for that

..is that he is an alcoholic

Ronnie has morphed into Brian. Drunk, violent, the subect of public scandals.

The only problem with Ronnie is that he doesn't behave like a Rolling Stone does these days. Rebellion and misbehaving was a part of the Stones in the 60' & 70's but nowadays we have to admit they have become gent's with a rock and roll soul in their bodies. All temperered by wisdom and the urge to tour every third year or so!

Been Stoned since 1964 and still am!

Quote
Bliss
Ronnie has morphed into Brian. Drunk, violent, the subect of public scandals.

lets hope death is not next

I still think that a Stones Tour withour Jo Wood babysitting Ronnie is a DISASTER waiting to happen...hope they buy a ton of insurance.

...is he STILL can't sing.

Quote
mickschix
I still think that a Stones Tour withour Jo Wood babysitting Ronnie is a DISASTER waiting to happen...hope they buy a ton of insurance.

babysitting? its more like not giving him a moments peace, she is always just there not giving the poor guy a break when on tour with him, enough already

....is he's a manchild

Quote
tomcat2006
The real problem with the Stones.... is Keith. (Sorry but true).

SPOT ON!!!!! And don't be sorry.
Look at Madonna (Madonna???, yes, Madonna), she's 50 or so now isn't she? Yet she is still cracking the charts and collecting fresh young fans to her league. What did the Stones do when they were 50? Yes they still top the charts with every studio album in some European countries, but they hardly attrack young fans. I mean look at this site! All old folks dreaming about their youth and how good the (Stones) music was......back than (there is a name for it). So what does Madonna do that the Stones didn't? Well, she is capable of RE-INVENTING herself. And if you think of it, everytime the Stones re-invented themselves they surprised everyone and made a classic (the R&B cover time, the Barock & roll Aftermath thing, the psychedelic thing, Beggars and the early 70's and than again with Some girls), but it sort of stopped after the beginning 80's, they still make fantastic albums but it's not surprising anymore and thus haven't become classics. And the problem in it is Keith, it really is, there is this beautifull clip of Rain come Down on the threat of the worst ever performance (ironically because it is bloody good), what is striking is to see the brilliant bass solo of Darryll and the funky guitar riff by Mick Jagger NOT Keith! It is Mick that is still open for re-inventing the Stones, as he had proofed with Harlem Shuffle (the last great Stones hit) and before that with Undercover, but it's Keith that wants to continue doing this riff thing. And ofcourse Keith was the riff master but how much riff can you do 40 yrs on without becoming predictable? Let alone Keith's arthritis. And don't you think that Ron Wood's Hey Negrita is one of the best Stones riffs anyway of the last 35 yrs? Why do the Stones listen to their crumpy old fans and try to re-enact the early 70's? (most songs from the ABB tour were from Taylor's time), those old folks will never be satisfied anyway even if you manage to transpport them back to Brusseles 1973, they will still find something to complain about. If Madonna would have listened to her fans she would still be doing a kind of Like a Vigin thing jumping around with that ridiculiuos early 80's hairstyle, and that brilliant Justify My Love which is so different to Like a Virgin would never had seen the light of day. So what did she do? She got herself new producers and new songwriters telling them to forget what she did before and come with something new and surprising, and she did. Why do the Stones not learn from their colleages? Do what she did re-invent yourself get new people into the composing, new producers and do what Pink Floyd did, drop your main man that can't function anymore and go on with a total new line-up. The only blocker is Keith! The rebel Jagger re-invented himself as sir Jagger the unstoppable health freak and master performer, entertainer, but Keith is still pretending to be mr D.....????? Come on. Don't you think there would more come out of Wood and Taylor working together than today's fossilised Keith and Taylor? Wood has really written some good songs for his solo albums didn't that petition for some fine Taylor bluesy solo's, Mick's voice and Darryl's funky bass more to the forground and a good producer to orchestrate it all into something less rock but more funky with Leavell's organ, Keys copper and Fowler's etcback-up vocals? I would think so.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-23 23:08 by behroez.

>>Why do the Stones not learn from their colleages? Do what she did re-invent yourself get new people into the composing, new producers

Many people would say that this has been the problem, Mick trying to stay 'current' instead of sticking to what the Stones traditionally do best. The fact that Mick's solo efforts hve been dismissed reflects that; also the fact that the concerts are filled with warhorses 30+ years old shows that the public values the original Stones material more than anything else they have done in the last 20 years.

I firmly believe that if they just focused on doing authentic blues, with no moderm arrangements or technology, and no horns or back-up singers, they could create someting of lasting value, even at this late date.

The real problem with Ronnie is the Ugg boots .... ditch 'em and get some Italian shoes ....



ROCKMAN

Quote
Bliss

Many people would say that this has been the problem, Mick trying to stay 'current' instead of sticking to what the Stones traditionally do best. The fact that Mick's solo efforts hve been dismissed reflects that; also the fact that the concerts are filled with warhorses 30+ years old shows that the public values the original Stones material more than anything else they have done in the last 20 years.

I firmly believe that if they just focused on doing authentic blues, with no moderm arrangements or technology, and no horns or back-up singers, they could create someting of lasting value, even at this late date.

I beg to differ, firstly on this very site all the comments about Jaggers Wandering Spirit was that it was a better album than what the Stones produced with the Richard compositions at the time. Secondly you underestimate the power of brand names (Stones). And thirdly Jagger did not surrender to new songwriters and producers (as Madonna did) but came with his own compositions and directives for the producer (and it is very hard to stay original in writing and producing after having done so for 30 yrs, having established a sorten engraved pattern of approach if you like). And lastly yes ofcourse the people are 30 plus if you haven't come with anything really surprising after beginning 80's. That's the whole point.

behroez, a very interesting argument, but not convincing to me. Let's go much more further back in the past. Do you know the name W.A. Mozart? I bet you do. He didn't have to re-invent himself to attract still today a mass public, even though classical music is such a class-bound and 'elitist' form of music (I mean the public of course, not the music itself). I have attended the great Mozart operas and the Requiem and believe me, it's still stunning music. It blows you emotionally of your feet. For example, my wife didn't know Mozart's music at all and she was not familiar with classical music either. Until we went to one of his great operas. She was totally shocked, in a positive way. She found it simply sensational. That music is more than 200 years old but is still as fresh as a new born baby. So the Stones need to do what they are good at. Not trying to be trendy like Madonna, to attract a younger public that will vanish in the air after a short period of time.

Believe me, after 200 years nobody will know the name or music of Madonna, but many people will still listen to The Rolling Stones from the early years on until ... Taylor left.

Adrian calls Ronnie a " manchild". BINGO! I AGREE! If he were a real grown-up man he would not require Jo to watch over him but as it is, he's like a 3 year old....always into something he should be avoiding!!

Quote
kleermaker
Not trying to be trendy like Madonna, to attract a younger public that will vanish in the air after a short period of time.

Good argumenting, but you miss something; The Stones have always been trendy (except during their initiall R&B cover time). After their blitzkrieg of 1962 to 1964 Andrew sort of forced Jagger and Richard to write their own songs as it was befitting for the new TREND set by Cartney and Lennon for groups to do so. Than they started writing those poppy barock and roll songs (Aftermath) because that was becoming the TREND (no more R&B covers because that was not trendy anymore). In 1967 the love and psychedelic thing became trendy (We Love You was a big nr 1 hit in Holland wasnt it?). But allready at the end of 67 that wasn't trendy anymore, and the new trend became, as a reaction against the psychedelic experiment, accoustic rock, and so as good trendfollowers the Stones came with Beggars. But than Led Zepelin came along and lo! and behold also the Stones turned into a semi-hardrock band. Than it was glitter time, And reggea (Black and Blue). Than the disco (Miss You, Start Me Up, Undercover of the Night) and punk (Shattered, She's So Cold, She's Hot, for christ sake Jagger make up your mind, hot or cold). And there it stopped. Keith was fed up with being trendy and since than no young fans joined (some ofcourse do because of their old stuff, but not new ones because of the current album or hitsingle). Interrestingly, there is a threat about the first time people heard the Stones and indeed the newest fan is from the Undercover time and to him ofcourse Unercover is still his favorite album. But where are the fans from Steel Wheels onwards? Mind you i love the stuff they have done Voodoo Lounge etc but it had not the same effect as Some Girls had where new young people joined the ranks of Stones fans and made it till today the best sold Stones studio album ever. You Kleermaker encountered them during this guitar rock TREND of the early 70's, and that's the Stones for you, others the R&B cover time is the Stones for them, but where are the fans to whom the post Undercover music is the Stones for them?

Your argument about Mozart is a nice one, but classical music doesn't carry the limitations that modern popmusic has. For example a popsong needs to have a fixed rhythm to be able to dance on, it has a couplet, refrein,couplet, refrein, solo, refrein, couplet and a last finnishing refrein. Classical music doesn't have that fixed boundary, and really Mozart has very verying styles from heavy Don Giovanni to light hearted Elvira Madigan from piano Concerto nr.21. So being allready in such a fixed matrix as popmusic is, it actually requires to be .......trendy!



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-24 00:35 by behroez.

behroez, I think we are exchanching some nice arguments now. But I tell you that Mozart's music also carried the limitations that classical music had in those days, even more than popmusic does in our time. In fact, every form of every art does. And that's something good: 'In der beschraenkung zeigt sich der Meister'.

Your examples of "heavy Don Giovanni" and "light hearted Elvira Madigan from piano concerto nr. 21" can easily be transmitted to the music of the Stones. From 'heavy' rock 'n roll (Satisfaction, JJ flash etc) to sensitive Love in vain and YCAGWYW to threatning Gimme shelter and so on. In that sense there's no "fixed matrix" for the eclectic music of the Stones. Within a certain artistic framework, just like Mozart (sonata form) the Stones can shine and surpass all others. Of course they did develop their music, just like Mozart did. But many 'young Mozart' works are still very loved, and so is and will be the early music of the Stones.

As for Some girs, believe me, when I heard it for the first time I was very enthousiastic about it. But after having listened to it many times it began to bore me and nowadays I never listen to it anymore. That has nothing to do with nostalgia or something like that. I've bought every studio album the Stones have made and they are all more or less good from GHS on. And they will remain and stand the test of time. Because despite the trendyness you mention: punk etc. one still can find that great Stonessound on all of them, even on Some girls, Dirty work etc. But the most 'trendy' songs are also the weakest ones. Do you care about Miss you, Hey negrita, Start me up, Shattered and so on? I don't. I'm afraid they will not stand the test of time.