[www.thesun.co.uk]

Well....What does anyone think...tour in the works for real now? Hope so!

The Sun is not a credible news source for anything.

First of all, Mick and Keith aren't 66, they're 68.

[thepowergoats.com]

it's from 24 july 2010.

Quote
stonesdan60
[www.thesun.co.uk]

Well....What does anyone think...tour in the works for real now? Hope so!

Absolutely credible. Printed July 2010, says theyre touring in 2011.

Did you not get tickets? The shows were great!

Well it starts out with "The foursome...." so how credible could they be if they can't get the number of band members OR their ages correct? Next! peace.

Quote
Naturalust
Well it starts out with "The foursome...." so how credible could they be if they can't get the number of band members OR their ages correct? Next! peace.

The ages stated WERE correct - when the article was written.

And I believe the Stones are a four-piece, no?

Ha ha. I guess people don't really read, Gazza. And then they have the nerve to complain and say things that aren't true.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Naturalust
Well it starts out with "The foursome...." so how credible could they be if they can't get the number of band members OR their ages correct? Next! peace.

The ages stated WERE correct - when the article was written.

And I believe the Stones are a four-piece, no?

Only since January 1993. But then again Bill says people still think he's in the group.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Naturalust
Well it starts out with "The foursome...." so how credible could they be if they can't get the number of band members OR their ages correct? Next! peace.

The ages stated WERE correct - when the article was written.

And I believe the Stones are a four-piece, no?

geez when it was posted here so recently I assumed it was a recent article.

The Stone's a four piece? Not imho, when have they ever played as a four piece? Forget who they say is "iN' and not hired, have you ever seen them without at least a 5 piece instrument arrangement? That's what I consider a 5 piece band so maybe it's just in the semantics. peace.

"The band realise that age is creeping up on them. They want to bow out on top of their game, and not short-change their fans."

Apart from this being an old article, this quote should indicate how credible this is. Justin Timberlake singing Miss You anyone?

Quote
Gazza

Quote
stonesdan60
[www.thesun.co.uk]

Well....What does anyone think...tour in the works for real now? Hope so!

Absolutely credible. Printed July 2010, says theyre touring in 2011.

Did you not get tickets? The shows were great!

><

Quote
adotulipson
it's from 24 july 2010.

Oops! My bad! I failed to take note of the date. It popped up on FaceBook today so I thought it was new.....Nevermind.....

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Ha ha. I guess people don't really read, Gazza. And then they have the nerve to complain and say things that aren't true.

Don't know what is funny if an article is posted and we think it's new.........esspecially when it's start like this....maybe the poster should check the date first

ROCK veterans THE ROLLING STONES are set to finally bow out after 50 years in music — with a giant farewell tour.
The foursome will have a combined age of 268 when the world tour kicks off next year.

The band — formed way back in 1962 ......................................................................

__________________________

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Naturalust
Well it starts out with "The foursome...." so how credible could they be if they can't get the number of band members OR their ages correct? Next! peace.

The ages stated WERE correct - when the article was written.

And I believe the Stones are a four-piece, no?

geez when it was posted here so recently I assumed it was a recent article.

The Stone's a four piece? Not imho, when have they ever played as a four piece? Forget who they say is "iN' and not hired, have you ever seen them without at least a 5 piece instrument arrangement? That's what I consider a 5 piece band so maybe it's just in the semantics. peace.

No. Its in the contracts.

You could take that argument a bit further in that case and say they've never been a 5-piece either.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Naturalust
Well it starts out with "The foursome...." so how credible could they be if they can't get the number of band members OR their ages correct? Next! peace.

The ages stated WERE correct - when the article was written.

And I believe the Stones are a four-piece, no?

geez when it was posted here so recently I assumed it was a recent article.

The Stone's a four piece? Not imho, when have they ever played as a four piece? Forget who they say is "iN' and not hired, have you ever seen them without at least a 5 piece instrument arrangement? That's what I consider a 5 piece band so maybe it's just in the semantics. peace.

No. Its in the contracts.

You could take that argument a bit further in that case and say they've never been a 5-piece either.

With all due respect Gazza, contracts do not a band make. lol And I seem to recall plenty of 5 piece Stones when Brian Jones was in the band and Stu was not playing for one reason or another. After the horns/Billy Preston et al got added it was mostly a 7 or 8 piece outfit. But this is just the way we define it here in the Western USA. The definition being: How many musicians are playing (and singing) during any given song, or the great majority of the set. Guest appearances who stay for a whole set being the exception. Correct me if I'm wrong please. peace.

Dont think they played too often without Stu in the Brian Jones era - even if he was off'stage. They havent played as a 5 piece since then apart from maybe a couple of mini sets at tour announcement gigs such as '75 and 2005.

Either way, its a hell of a stretch to say a piece calling the Stones a four piece is wrong, suggesting that they're anything from a six piece to a 13-piece band.

They're a four piece in every way in the eyes of the public and legally.

Its a bit like saying Bob Dylan isnt a solo artist but is just a guy in a band because he records and performs with one.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-15 02:16 by Gazza.

I feel like I'm in "Groundhog Day" when I read some of these threads. Same thing over and over...

Quote
24FPS

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Naturalust
Well it starts out with "The foursome...." so how credible could they be if they can't get the number of band members OR their ages correct? Next! peace.

The ages stated WERE correct - when the article was written.

And I believe the Stones are a four-piece, no?

Only since January 1993. But then again Bill says people still think he's in the group.

Hence the use of the word 'are'....

Quote
NICOS

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Ha ha. I guess people don't really read, Gazza. And then they have the nerve to complain and say things that aren't true.

Don't know what is funny if an article is posted and we think it's new.........esspecially when it's start like this....maybe the poster should check the date first

ROCK veterans THE ROLLING STONES are set to finally bow out after 50 years in music — with a giant farewell tour.
The foursome will have a combined age of 268 when the world tour kicks off next year.

The band — formed way back in 1962 ......................................................................

That's what you get for just believing things because they're posted. Don't get mad with me that you didn't read when it was posted. It's right there. I saw it.

Quote
Gazza
Dont think they played too often without Stu in the Brian Jones era - even if he was off'stage.

They havent played as a 5 piece since then apart from maybe a couple of mini sets at tour announcement gigs such as '75 and 2005.

Either way, its a hell of a stretch to say a piece calling the Stones a four piece is wrong, suggesting that they're anything from a six piece to a 13-piece band.

They're a four piece in every way in the eyes of the public and legally.

Its a bit like saying Bob Dylan isnt a solo artist but is just a guy in a band because he records and performs with one.

Well whenever ALO said stu wasn't part of the band till they picked up more musicians, they were a 5 piece band, imho.

The Bob Dylan reference is different because it is his singular name. It would be like calling the Rolling Stones "Mick jagger-Keith Richards-Charlie Watts-etc". And yes Bob goes out with a 5 or 6 piece band everytime so just because his name is the draw, it doesn't re-define the band description.

I never really liked the fact that they establish themselves (MJ, KR, CW, RW) as part of the band when someone like D. Jones is touring and OBVIOUSLY a part of the band. In fact it kind of corresponds to the time their music became something less. When they were touring in the 70's with Bobby et al, I think I heard Keith make the differentiation that they "were a 7 piece band really" during the Legends interview maybe.

So yes I would say that in correct terms The Rolling Stones have indeed been a 5 to 13 piece band throughout their careers. It's just the logical way to define a band, got to include all the players in the band. Certainly at the Stones level of business this seemed necessary to folks like lawyers and financal gurus whom talked the core group into defining the Stones as something less than what they were in order to benefit the originators. It became too easy for them to "hire" contract musicians since they had become huge. Can you imagine them trying to pull that crap off in the beginning? I recall they had to pay Charlie more, or give him guarantees to get him to even play back then. lol

If it's about the business, your definition is solid. If it's about the music, I think my definition is essential. peace