Quote
Doxa
No one is going to say to Keith that "Retire, man. You can not do it anymore" but himself. All the rest of us are just his ass-kissers, or we love him way too much to say the truth.

We than should start saying the truth (someone is listening out there as recent events has prooven), i've been saying this allready for a long time, if more of us will start to accept the reality and speak it out maybe than Keith will do the right thing, accept his lot and retires, whilest giving the remaining Stones his blessings and let's see what great things can happen if Taylor (God willing) becomes better, why not??

If a guitarplayer who thrills me says that he does not play anymore I am a bit upset. Maybe Keith has not got a choice, maybe the state of his hands is too bad, he seems to enjoy himself, and that is fine.

Quote
georgeV
I am a huge fan but do not see what all the excitement is over a re-release of a 38 year old classic? If the ten new songs were that good, they would have been on the original release. And, if the band put half as much energy promoting a tour or new CD as they do the Exile re-release or Shine A Light movie, they would not have had half-empty stadiums when they came back to the US in 2006.

You don't seem to get that the excitement has much to do with the quality of the products - the Stones at their best. The Shine A Light movie and recent new albums have not been anywhere in the same league, quality-wise. We are getting ten "new" songs from the classic era. Why not be excited?

Gazza,

You seem to be the authority in your own mind and no one else may submit an opinion or comment.

I do not know the band personally but I have read arthritis is the reason. Just like I haven't seen the great Pyramids but I am certain they are there in Egypt. His playing and physical features of his hands all point to this condition.

He played on one song for Sheryl Crow. can he do a 2 hour show?

You can be in the cynical group that he would tour for $$$ but I think for the fans. prove my 'laughable' comment wrong if you can.

I have read your posts before and you like to belittle your fellow stones fans and iorr members with your wit. Why? Doesn't everyone have a right to an opinion?

jjflash73

Quote
behroez

Quote
Doxa
No one is going to say to Keith that "Retire, man. You can not do it anymore" but himself. All the rest of us are just his ass-kissers, or we love him way too much to say the truth.

We than should start saying the truth (someone is listening out there as recent events has prooven), i've been saying this allready for a long time, if more of us will start to accept the reality and speak it out maybe than Keith will do the right thing, accept his lot and retires, whilest giving the remaining Stones his blessings and let's see what great things can happen if Taylor (God willing) becomes better, why not??

No Keith, No Stones. I am sure everyone involved knows that by now.

- Doxa

Quote
Gazza
He's actually played on Sheryl Crow's upcoming album.

Yes he did. But what did he play? A reggea riff! Which is actually quite simple to play, and why only a reggea riff? I can only think of one conclusion; because he can't play anything more complicated than a reggae riff anymore. Just think of it, the great riffmaster is playing a tune on your record, don't you expect him to play a good solid rock riff? If you wanted reggae you wouldn't invite the riffmaster of the greatest rock & roll band on earth, would you, you would invite a well known reggae artist, not the riffmaster..!!! The signs are as clear as water.

Quote
Doxa
No Keith, No Stones. I am sure everyone involved knows that by now.

- Doxa

That's because of your mindset, change it, think outside of the little box and feel the fresh air of the future removing the cobwebs of fossilised dogmas. Try it, you will be surprised at what is possible.

its one thing to think outside the box. but no way is there a Rolling Stones without Keith, Charlie, or Jagger.

Quote
behroez

Quote
Doxa
No Keith, No Stones. I am sure everyone involved knows that by now.

- Doxa

That's because of your mindset, change it, think outside of the little box and feel the fresh air of the future removing the cobwebs of fossilised dogmas. Try it, you will be surprised at what is possible.

If hope you will readjust yor mindset if you think that Keith's conntribution is a matter of "little box" in the history of The Rolling Stones. If I change my mindset in this sense I will forget The Rolling Stones. To take Keith out of The Stones is like taking God out of religion.

- Doxa

Quote
duke richardson
its one thing to think outside the box. but no way is there a Rolling Stones without Keith, Charlie, or Jagger.

Jagger, Charlie, Wood and Taylor sounds very much Rolling Stones to me (more than 100 yrs, yes a century of shared Stones history by these four guys).

Quote
Doxa
If hope you will readjust yor mindset if you think that Keith's conntribution is a matter of "little box" in the history of The Rolling Stones.
- Doxa

Sure, but THAT Keith is no more. We've been through this argument before, and you'll know what i'll say...look at Pink Floyd.

Quote
behroez

Quote
duke richardson
its one thing to think outside the box. but no way is there a Rolling Stones without Keith, Charlie, or Jagger.

Jagger, Charlie, Wood and Taylor sounds very much Rolling Stones to me (more than 100 yrs, yes a century of shared Stones history by these four guys).

It could be for you but not for the rest of the universe. It is not solely the matter of music but the very image. Since the 80's Keith is as profilic public figure as Jagger is as far as the credibility of The Stones goes. If you don't believe me, ask Mick Jagger.

- Doxa

Quote
behroez

Quote
duke richardson
its one thing to think outside the box. but no way is there a Rolling Stones without Keith, Charlie, or Jagger.

Jagger, Charlie, Wood and Taylor sounds very much Rolling Stones to me (more than 100 yrs, yes a century of shared Stones history by these four guys).

you have constructed a scenario and you're sticking with it. that's fine. personally I'd love to see Taylor with the Stones, even for a few gigs, if not a tour. but I very much doubt it will happen. about a Stones with no Keith, there is no doubt--won't happen and it shouldn't. same with Charlie.

Quote
behroez

Quote
Doxa
If hope you will readjust yor mindset if you think that Keith's conntribution is a matter of "little box" in the history of The Rolling Stones.
- Doxa

Sure, but THAT Keith is no more. We've been through this argument before, and you'll know what i'll say...look at Pink Floyd.

There is no Keith Richards in Pink Floyd. And Pink Floyd is a bad analogy over-all. Better is The Beatles: try to think of The Beatles without Lennon-McCartney is to try to think of The Stones without Mick and Keith. The Floyd has not anything to compare to those two band engines. The Floyd works with different policy and strategy altogether.

The Stones doesn't exist without Keith's presence. There could be some tracks without him (and there are only very few in The whole Stones history), but in a long run, no way... Ask any of them, and they will tell you that.

- Doxa

hey - the glenn miller orchestra still tours - we're ALL expendable....

thats weird.

but when Clarice Starling was played by Julianne Moore, it was OK (not as good though) because Anthony Hopkins was still Lecter...

Quote
Doxa
try to think of The Beatles without Lennon-McCartney is to try to think of The Stones without Mick and Keith.

Yes i have thought about the Beatles, and i do have the opinion that when Lennon made things impossible, they should have continued with mcCartney, Harrison and Ringo, They should have kicked Lennon out and continued as the Beatles. Offcourse there would always be people than who would say the real Beatles were with Lennon, BUT..If they would have replaced Lennon and made good music without him the vast vast majority of people would have had no problems with it what so ever. Same thing for a Stones without Keith.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-05-17 22:16 by behroez.

Quote
behroez

Quote
Doxa
try to think of The Beatles without Lennon-McCartney is to try to think of The Stones without Mick and Keith.

Yes i have thought about the Beatles, and i do have the opinion that when Lennon made things impossible, they should have continued with mcCartney, Harrison and Ringo, They should have kicked Lennon out and continued as the Beatles. Offcourse there would always be people than who would say the real Beatles were with Lennon, BUT..If they would have replaced Lennon and made good music without him the vast vast majority of people would have had no problems with it what so ever. Same thing for a Stones without Keith.

Yeas, we all have imagination, but the point is: the very people that were there thought otherwise. I don't know how the big audience might have responded to the Lennon-free Beatles, but seemingly Paul, George and Ringo couldn't even think that scenario as possible. There are no Beatles without John Lennon in any sense of the word. That is a fact. And another fact is that there is no Rolling Stones without Keith Richards. It would take very much imagination to really think otherwise.

- Doxa

Quote
Cafaro
I thought the same thing. MJ and KR could have played the the Roots even

Great point. I think the Roots would be a fantastic backing band for them.

Quote
jjflash73
Gazza,
Ok, two out of three flew in. You get the idea though?

Yep. Its a start.

Quote
jjflash73
Otherwise I disagree with everything you say. This your opinion thats all.

And its also yours. With respect, you're passing off supposition about Keith's medical opinion as if its fact. All we're offering are opinions.

Quote
jjflash73
I see what happened and what they did. I ask for no more. You want commitments, jams, tour announcements...I don't know what else but you ain't happy.

I never said I wasnt 'happy'. Try reading what I said again. Yes, there are plenty of 'positives' about the whole thing. Its great to have something worth getting excited about again aftersuch a long drought, and the Exile reissue is wonderful I certainly didnt want or expect a tour announcement or a 'commitment' - where did I say that? I just found it a bit odd that they found themselves in an environment where every other musician but themselves were playing Rolling Stones songs. The whole Fallon week was enjoyable, but it could have been a bit more special. That's all.

I'm calling it as I see it. It's called opinion. If you cant deal with someone else's challenging your own, then thats up to you. You're putting words in my mouth that I didn't say. The Stones dont owe me another note of music. However, a few days of interviews every few years by three of the band doesn't make them an active unit. What have they done as a band since August 2007? Attend three or four movie premieres in early 2008 and then 3/4 of them do a few days of promotion for another reissue/movie premiere two years later. None of that involved playing a single note of music.

Quote
jjflash73
Aside from the Stones, the Beatles have went back and re released albums and I didnt see the remaining guys get together and tour, play or even do a week of promo?

The Beatles split up in 1970. If your comparison about the state of the Stones (a supposedly active band) is to compare them with a band whose 3 surviving members helped promote an archives project (and yes, they did promote it) built around a demo recording with a dead guy, then its a pretty weak argument.

Quote
jjflash73
Finally, Keith doesn't have to tell you wwhy he hasn't played in 3 years. Why do you feel entitled to know and feel it is letdown?

Where did I say I did? You're putting words in my mouth again. A guy who hasnt played in 3 years isnt exactly a working musician. Simple as that. How can you seriously argue that he is?

Quote
jjflash73
I am surprised at your comments. Sorry, no insults meant by my post but I dodnt get it man.

jjflash73

Quote
jjflash73
,

You seem to be the authority in your own mind and no one else may submit an opinion or comment.

I do not know the band personally but I have read arthritis is the reason. Just like I haven't seen the great Pyramids but I am certain they are there in Egypt. His playing and physical features of his hands all point to this condition.

He played on one song for Sheryl Crow. can he do a 2 hour show?

You can be in the cynical group that he would tour for $$$ but I think for the fans. prove my 'laughable' comment wrong if you can.

I have read your posts before and you like to belittle your fellow stones fans and iorr members with your wit. Why? Doesn't everyone have a right to an opinion?

jjflash73

For a guy who says 'no insults meant' you unfortunately contradicted yourself in your very next post before I'd even replied to you. Speaks volumes that you're criticising me for being an 'authority in my own mind' (something I've never claimed to be) and the irony in saying I dont allow anyone else to have an opinion is obviously lost on you.

Do me a favour and stop putting words in my mouth to twist your own argument, OK? - because its really f***ing annoying.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-05-17 23:33 by Gazza.

Quote
behroez

Quote
Doxa
try to think of The Beatles without Lennon-McCartney is to try to think of The Stones without Mick and Keith.

Yes i have thought about the Beatles, and i do have the opinion that when Lennon made things impossible, they should have continued with mcCartney, Harrison and Ringo, They should have kicked Lennon out and continued as the Beatles. Offcourse there would always be people than who would say the real Beatles were with Lennon, BUT..If they would have replaced Lennon and made good music without him the vast vast majority of people would have had no problems with it what so ever. Same thing for a Stones without Keith.

behroez...no John Lennon in the Beatles..no Keith Richards in The Stones..then ya went on to say..the vast majority of people would have had no problems with it what so ever...I wouldnt be to sure about that mate..?

Gazza,

The no insult comment was for the first post, then one of your next posts insulted my intelligence and opinion and had an air of arrogance. I didn't ask you for your opinion now did I? Or to debate me? Just go away.

Your comments-
Working musician? WTF does that mean? You make your wn rules even for the Stones - LMAO

jjflash73



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-05-18 00:03 by jjflash73.

Quote
behroez

Quote
duke richardson
its one thing to think outside the box. but no way is there a Rolling Stones without Keith, Charlie, or Jagger.

Jagger, Charlie, Wood and Taylor sounds very much Rolling Stones to me (more than 100 yrs, yes a century of shared Stones history by these four guys).

Why not just Jagger,Charlie and some hired hands that are at their peak, I mean why just exclude Keith if your just going for ability. Face it Keith, Ronnie AND Taylor are nowhere near what they used to be.

Quote
Ket

Quote
behroez

Quote
duke richardson
its one thing to think outside the box. but no way is there a Rolling Stones without Keith, Charlie, or Jagger.

Jagger, Charlie, Wood and Taylor sounds very much Rolling Stones to me (more than 100 yrs, yes a century of shared Stones history by these four guys).

Why not just Jagger,Charlie and some hired hands that are at their peak, I mean why just exclude Keith if your just going for ability. Face it Keith, Ronnie AND Taylor are nowhere near what they used to be.

Well, if that's the test, then Mick definitely needs to be let go, too. I'm not gonna be the one to point out that Charlie's lost a step, but someone else might...

Quote
jjflash73
Gazza,

The no insult comment was for the first post, then one of your next posts insulted my intelligence and opinion and had an air of arrogance. I didn't ask you for your opinion now did I? Or to debate me? Just go away.

You posted a comment on a public message board which by itself invites a reply. Maybe you should have clarified it by adding "dont respond if you dont agree". Who's acting like an 'authority in his own mind' here?

Quote
jjflash73

Your comments-
Working musician? WTF does that mean? You make your wn rules even for the Stones - LMAO

jjflash73

First you demand I 'go away'. Now you ask for a response. You cant even make your own mind up.

Surprisingly, it means a musician who works. I presume English is your first language.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-05-18 00:32 by Gazza.

Quote
Ket

Quote
behroez

Quote
duke richardson
its one thing to think outside the box. but no way is there a Rolling Stones without Keith, Charlie, or Jagger.

Jagger, Charlie, Wood and Taylor sounds very much Rolling Stones to me (more than 100 yrs, yes a century of shared Stones history by these four guys).

Why not just Jagger,Charlie and some hired hands that are at their peak, I mean why just exclude Keith if your just going for ability. Face it Keith, Ronnie AND Taylor are nowhere near what they used to be.

Ket..ket..Ket.?..?...what are you on.

Replacing Keith Richards in the Stones is not possible, we have to face the fact that there probably will not be a new album and a new tour, and that is no surprise after nearly fifty years. It is understandable that the Stones hesitate to say that, maybe they have to realize it themselves.

Quote
behroez

Quote
Gazza
He's actually played on Sheryl Crow's upcoming album.

Yes he did. But what did he play? A reggea riff! Which is actually quite simple to play, and why only a reggea riff? I can only think of one conclusion; because he can't play anything more complicated than a reggae riff anymore. Just think of it, the great riffmaster is playing a tune on your record, don't you expect him to play a good solid rock riff? If you wanted reggae you wouldn't invite the riffmaster of the greatest rock & roll band on earth, would you, you would invite a well known reggae artist, not the riffmaster..!!! The signs are as clear as water.

Nice review of a record you havent even heard the title of, let alone heard any music from.

The conclusion I can think of is that Sheryl is a friend of Keith's, wanted him to play on her record and thought it was good publicity for her to have him as a guest - the musical content is irrelevant, but hey, if thats what you want to believe, be my guest.

Quote
texas fan

Quote
Ket

Quote
behroez

Quote
duke richardson
its one thing to think outside the box. but no way is there a Rolling Stones without Keith, Charlie, or Jagger.

Jagger, Charlie, Wood and Taylor sounds very much Rolling Stones to me (more than 100 yrs, yes a century of shared Stones history by these four guys).

Why not just Jagger,Charlie and some hired hands that are at their peak, I mean why just exclude Keith if your just going for ability. Face it Keith, Ronnie AND Taylor are nowhere near what they used to be.

Well, if that's the test, then Mick definitely needs to be let go, too. I'm not gonna be the one to point out that Charlie's lost a step, but someone else might...

charlie himself will tell you that...

Quote
Gazza
(to jjflash73)
You posted a comment on a public message board which by itself invites a reply. Maybe you should have clarified it by adding "dont respond if you dont agree". Who's acting like an 'authority in his own mind' here?

Ha! Gazza...I love this response. Not specifically for jjflash73....but just as a general statement to all IORR post-ers
that don't understand public forums....differing opinions....fact/fiction....and who only choose to see
things thru their rose-colored glasses.


IORR............but I like it!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-05-18 01:27 by sweet neo con.