Proposition:
The Most Consistentl/High Performing Stones Are Those Who Have Been the Least Dysfunctional

How's this for a proposition/theory: the most functional, consistent performers in the Stones (well, in, say, the last 15 years or so) are those who have had the least use of/issues/problems with (the ravages of) chemical dysfunction over the years.

Mick and Charlie -- they have done fairly well about keeping their noses away from all of the bodily abusive chemicals such as alcohol and various drugs.

However, the ravages of those chemicals and time have begun to show in fairly recent years on Keith and Woody, the two who have frequently and fearlessly abused themselves and who, consequently, have had the most inconsistent performances in recent years.

Ronnie has been the more consistent of the two and may have played his best in years on the Bang tour, but looking back a little further to the Voodoo tour and overall to date, can the same be said?

Keith the indestructible and all that ... well, say what u like about that and we all know how this has enhanced and glamourised his image, but has it done the same for his playing? Is Father Time finally beginning to catch up with him and Ronnie, and much moreso than their less-erstwhile and more "functional" bandmates?


The Plexiglass



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2009-04-08 13:58 by bv.

That's perfectly logical.

Quote
Wild Slivovitz
That's perfectly logical.

Of course it is, and Mick takes it even further by following a detailed physical regimen, but I don't know much about Charlie's food/exercise habits.

Amazing how they -especially Keith and Ronnie -could go through booze ans drugs during all these years.
Jagger may have "glorified drugs and drink" in the old times , but never experienced an overdose in real life. I 've heard so many times -from people who don't know 1/10 of the band story -that the Stones were junkies ans alcoholics !!
I am sure they expected them to die of an overdose like Morrison or Hendrix, been a victim of AIDS like Freddy Mercury or finished himself off like Kurt Cobain. Instead, Jagger is healthy, wealthy and laughing all the way to the bank.

Funny too how Charlie's addiction during the Dirty Works rehearsals (I am not mistaken ? ) don't fit with the character.



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

Amazing how they -especially Keith and Ronnie -could go through booze ans drugs during all these years.
Jagger may have "glorified drugs and drink" in the old times , but never experienced an overdose in real life. I 've heard so many times -from people who don't know 1/10 of the band story -that the Stones were junkies ans alcoholics !!
I am sure they expected them to die of an overdose like Morrison or Hendrix, been a victim of AIDS like Freddy Mercury or finished himself off like Kurt Cobain. Instead, Jagger is healthy, wealthy and laughing all the way to the bank.

Funny too how Charlie's addiction during the Dirty Works rehearsals (I am not mistaken ? ) don't fit with the character.


Interesting points ,,,
mick may have promoted the image, but did not MUCH indulge in the reality

and yes, what DOES Charlie eat, mabybe its in that lil green paperback bio book.

His 80s aberration was just a one time thing in reaction to one particular crisis/set of circumstances, not a lifestyle type thing, and that is a big diff

Also, in the end, HE listened to his wife, unlike some of the other Boys, which is why maybe they should be appropriately be called boys, but Charlie is a man amongst the boys, the most "stable."


p

harlie Boy of course!! Contrary to alot of opinions, I believe when there is no more Charlie there will be no more Rolling Stones.

Charlie is. Charlie and Bill together were. Mick may not have been a famous addict like Keith, but he had a serious coke habit in the seventies. Cook County hospital saw him twice thanks to it, No doubt he cleaned his act up earlier and more thoroughly, but he most certainly had his day for real, not just projecting an image. Think of how glassy those eyes were in many seventies moments. That said, Mick has been amazingly consistent at being amazing live since 89.

I also say amen to Wild Slivovitz' comment. Of course taking all these products does harm
to the performance. There is no doubt about that and no sensible person will deny it.
But sad as it is, I think some good things came out of the abuse as well. At least Keith'
incredible creativity in the late 60s early 70s seems to have some origin in those consience
enhancing goods.

Throughout their 47 years of existence, none of the Rolling Stones has performed more consistently at the highest level than the fellow behind the drum kit, the world's most unlikely rock star, the Wembley whammer, CHARLIE WATTS!

Nice 'Rolling Stones 101 For Beginers' thread.

I'd say Stu was the most consistent. 'Til he died.

This topic sounds like an employer's evaluation around bonus time.

I can almost see the manager on Flight of the Conchords having one of his little meetings with all of them.

Consistently high? Keith and Ronnie

Performing? Mick and Charlie

Cook County Hospital? What's this about? Please inform...

Charlie, Mick, Bill