Tell Me :
Talk
Well said. I believe some, my self included, feels as though much of the danger and toughness has become pretentiousness and self awareness (perhaps at the expense of the Stones.)
On the positive, I think his role in 'holding it together' in the late 70's is often underestimated.
yeah, but that's got nothing to do with hate or wanting him out of the band. what a strange topic. maybe it's a reaction to the MT guys talking about "Mick Taylor and the Rolilng Stones", I don't know.
Reinforcing the point that none of the four remaining 'Stones'are expendable .... Ronnie is the newest if you will, and many have a distaste for him, AND MT would be the most logical replacement. All that said....I can't see it.....37 out of 50 is an insurmountable majority at this point, even for MT.
or this
i despise mick jagger
By the way there was a "Biff @#$%& Trio" thread here in 2009 [www.iorr.org] that I just found and since it's closed, I'd like to comment on the fact that "Biff @#$%& Trio" is not offensive at all, well at least not in the sense that it's an apology of @#$%&, since the verb "biff" means "punch", so "Punch @#$%& Trio"!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-20 14:34 by gotdablouse.
Well, the bootlegs with the outtakes were promising, though.
I thought you loathed him?
It sounds like a mix of both Keith and Mick, but with Keith being slightly more prominant.
Keith is singing more like he does during the shouting bit on You Got The Silver.
The low "Murder" sounds very Keith to me.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
stonesrule
()
Date: June 20, 2013 07:43
Lotta, lotta talk about Mick Taylor (I think he's great and the ponderous thread about him is a mess).
No one else in the world could pull off Midnight Rambler like Jagger does...with or without Mick T.
Seems like the Jagger haters here would prefer The Stones without him.
No one else in the world could pull off Midnight Rambler like Jagger does...with or without Mick T.
Seems like the Jagger haters here would prefer The Stones without him.
Re: The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
Thrylan
()
Date: June 20, 2013 08:00
Well.....Keith's solo stuff IS much easier to listen to....
No, they need Mick, as a member, not as a dictator.
No, they need Mick, as a member, not as a dictator.
Re: The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
sonomastone
()
Date: June 20, 2013 08:04
Jagger haters? I don't think I've met anyone on this board who is a Jagger hater.
There are no stones without Mick J or Keith R. Surely any Stones fan realizes that.
There are no stones without Mick J or Keith R. Surely any Stones fan realizes that.
Re: The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
RollingFreak
()
Date: June 20, 2013 08:10
The Rolling Stones without Mick Jagger is not the Rolling Stones. Just like there isn't a Rolling Stones without Keith Richards. Everyone else, for lack of a better term, is unfortunately replaceable. You can't do it without the two big guys though. And honestly, Jagger has been the one thats kept the thing afloat and as mainstream as they've been these last few decades. Mick Jagger is probably the most important person in terms of why the Stones are still here and selling out arenas 50 years later. As much of a prick he is in regards to other matters like tickets and such, the guy is a god and one of the most important people in rock and roll.
You can't have or want The Rolling Stones without Mick Jagger.
You can't have or want The Rolling Stones without Mick Jagger.
Re: The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
GravityBoy
()
Date: June 20, 2013 08:30
The Rolling Stones are Mick's lips.
No lips no Stones.
No lips no Stones.
Re: The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
Thrylan
()
Date: June 20, 2013 08:33
Honestly, I think the same of Charlie at this point. For that matter, even Ronnie. Even if you switched back to MT, how would you handle the 35 year "Ronnie Period?"
Re: The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: June 20, 2013 08:34
Nobody here hates Jagger. I'm pretty sure everyone acknowledges that there wouldn't be a Rolling Stones without him. And if it was it would never be as good.
Best frontman ever, most unique voice ever. Daring, arrogant, dangerous, decadent, rough, tough, androgyne, masculine, sensitive and provocative. Nobody matches that. Enough said.
Best frontman ever, most unique voice ever. Daring, arrogant, dangerous, decadent, rough, tough, androgyne, masculine, sensitive and provocative. Nobody matches that. Enough said.
Re: The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
stonehearted
()
Date: June 20, 2013 08:37
The Rolling Stones without Mick Jagger? Why, that's Keith's mid-show mini-set, isn't it?
And also this, I believe....
But on record, there have been more than a few tracks without Bill Wyman back in the Bill Wyman era, a couple without Charlie, and even some without Keith, but it's very difficult to have a Rolling Stones without the lead voice of the band, just as The Doors found out that there was no such thing without Jim Morrison.
In this era, some bands replace lead singers, but in certain bands lead singers cannot be replaced.
But what has Mick Taylor got to do with this (purely hypothetical) scenario?
And also this, I believe....
But on record, there have been more than a few tracks without Bill Wyman back in the Bill Wyman era, a couple without Charlie, and even some without Keith, but it's very difficult to have a Rolling Stones without the lead voice of the band, just as The Doors found out that there was no such thing without Jim Morrison.
In this era, some bands replace lead singers, but in certain bands lead singers cannot be replaced.
But what has Mick Taylor got to do with this (purely hypothetical) scenario?
Re: The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
Thrylan
()
Date: June 20, 2013 08:41
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Nobody here hates Jagger. I'm pretty sure everyone acknowledges that there wouldn't be a Rolling Stones without him. And if it was it would never be as good.
Best frontman ever, most unique voice ever. Daring, arrogant, dangerous, decadent, rough, tough, androgyne, masculine, sensitive and provocative. Nobody matches that. Enough said.
Well said. I believe some, my self included, feels as though much of the danger and toughness has become pretentiousness and self awareness (perhaps at the expense of the Stones.)
On the positive, I think his role in 'holding it together' in the late 70's is often underestimated.
Re: The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
sonomastone
()
Date: June 20, 2013 08:47
Quote
ThrylanQuote
DandelionPowderman
Nobody here hates Jagger. I'm pretty sure everyone acknowledges that there wouldn't be a Rolling Stones without him. And if it was it would never be as good.
Best frontman ever, most unique voice ever. Daring, arrogant, dangerous, decadent, rough, tough, androgyne, masculine, sensitive and provocative. Nobody matches that. Enough said.
Well said. I believe some, my self included, feels as though much of the danger and toughness has become pretentiousness and self awareness (perhaps at the expense of the Stones.)
On the positive, I think his role in 'holding it together' in the late 70's is often underestimated.
yeah, but that's got nothing to do with hate or wanting him out of the band. what a strange topic. maybe it's a reaction to the MT guys talking about "Mick Taylor and the Rolilng Stones", I don't know.
Re: The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
Thrylan
()
Date: June 20, 2013 08:47
Quote
stonehearted
The Rolling Stones without Mick Jagger? Why, that's Keith's mid-show mini-set, isn't it?
And also this, I believe....
But on record, there have been more than a few tracks without Bill Wyman back in the Bill Wyman era, a couple without Charlie, and even some without Keith, but it's very difficult to have a Rolling Stones without the lead voice of the band, just as The Doors found out that there was no such thing without Jim Morrison.
In this era, some bands replace lead singers, but in certain bands lead singers cannot be replaced.
But what has Mick Taylor got to do with this (purely hypothetical) scenario?
Reinforcing the point that none of the four remaining 'Stones'are expendable .... Ronnie is the newest if you will, and many have a distaste for him, AND MT would be the most logical replacement. All that said....I can't see it.....37 out of 50 is an insurmountable majority at this point, even for MT.
Re: The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
Thrylan
()
Date: June 20, 2013 08:50
I don't or would never want him out.....but a lot of Michael Jordan's teammates would tell you he was an a$$hole, and didn't enjoy his company off the court.
Yes....strange topic, indeed.
Yes....strange topic, indeed.
Re: The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
desertblues68
()
Date: June 20, 2013 08:57
No chance. It would not work.
Re: The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: June 20, 2013 11:28
Jagger is ace!
Re: The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
Silver Dagger
()
Date: June 20, 2013 11:30
No Mick - No Rolling Stones.
No Keith - No Rolling Stones.
No Charlie - No Rolling Stones.
Simples.
No Keith - No Rolling Stones.
No Charlie - No Rolling Stones.
Simples.
Re: The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
sonomastone
()
Date: June 20, 2013 11:38
Quote
stonehearted
The Rolling Stones without Mick Jagger? Why, that's Keith's mid-show mini-set, isn't it?
And also this, I believe....
or this
Re: The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
gotdablouse
()
Date: June 20, 2013 12:07
No Mick = "Biff @#$%& Trio" during the DW sessions...forgettable, at best!
Re: The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
wicked67
()
Date: June 20, 2013 12:28
never read anything more ridiculous! hahahahahahahah My God!!!!!!!!!!
Re: The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: June 20, 2013 14:20
Quote
sonomastone
Jagger haters? I don't think I've met anyone on this board who is a Jagger hater.
There are no stones without Mick J or Keith R. Surely any Stones fan realizes that.
i despise mick jagger
Re: The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
RawIguanaCologne
()
Date: June 20, 2013 14:25
Are you aware that in NO CASE of Keith @#$%& up (library, palm tree, 2207 drunk shows) NEVER EVER Jagger has said something bad about anyone in the band??
He is totally generous and I love him for "being Mick"!
He is totally generous and I love him for "being Mick"!
Re: The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
gotdablouse
()
Date: June 20, 2013 14:34
Quote
gotdablouse
No Mick = "Biff @#$%& Trio" during the DW sessions...forgettable, at best!
By the way there was a "Biff @#$%& Trio" thread here in 2009 [www.iorr.org] that I just found and since it's closed, I'd like to comment on the fact that "Biff @#$%& Trio" is not offensive at all, well at least not in the sense that it's an apology of @#$%&, since the verb "biff" means "punch", so "Punch @#$%& Trio"!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-20 14:34 by gotdablouse.
Re: The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: June 20, 2013 14:42
Quote
gotdablouse
No Mick = "Biff @#$%& Trio" during the DW sessions...forgettable, at best!
Well, the bootlegs with the outtakes were promising, though.Re: The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
svt22
()
Date: June 20, 2013 14:44
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
gotdablouse
No Mick = "Biff @#$%& Trio" during the DW sessions...forgettable, at best!
Re: The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
andrewt
()
Date: June 20, 2013 14:45
Jagger holding the whole thing together is the one thing I think everybody agrees on.
Re: The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: June 20, 2013 14:49
Biff @#$%& Trio:
Re: The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
gotdablouse
()
Date: June 20, 2013 15:05
Sounds to me like there's (a lot) more than a trio playing on this !
Re: The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: June 20, 2013 15:08
Chuck, Keith, Charlie (maybe Ronnie on drums) and the back up singers.
They need sidemen, too
They need sidemen, too
Re: The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
mr_dja
()
Date: June 20, 2013 15:14
Didn't want to copy/quote the video but can someone tell me if the video above that say's it's Gimme Shelter with Keith on vocals is actually Keith on vocals? It may be my ears, the early morning or this crappy headset that I've got here at the office but it just doesn't sound like him.
Peace,
Mr DJA
Peace,
Mr DJA
Re: The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: June 20, 2013 15:14
Quote
StonesTodQuote
sonomastone
Jagger haters? I don't think I've met anyone on this board who is a Jagger hater.
There are no stones without Mick J or Keith R. Surely any Stones fan realizes that.
i despise mick jagger
I thought you loathed him?
Re: The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: June 20, 2013 15:21
Quote
mr_dja
Didn't want to copy/quote the video but can someone tell me if the video above that say's it's Gimme Shelter with Keith on vocals is actually Keith on vocals? It may be my ears, the early morning or this crappy headset that I've got here at the office but it just doesn't sound like him.
Peace,
Mr DJA
It sounds like a mix of both Keith and Mick, but with Keith being slightly more prominant.
Keith is singing more like he does during the shouting bit on You Got The Silver.
The low "Murder" sounds very Keith to me.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
BlueTurns2Grey , crholmstrom , DandelionPowderman , DEmerson , dishevelmentblues , dkwalika , fdajef , fedecarp , HonkyTonkJan , Icetraders , J.J.Flash , JN99 , jsz1002 , jumpingjackflash5 , leteyer , maumau , michaj , Milan , More Hot Rocks , PaintitBlue , rastakeith , sonnystitt , StonedRambler , Stones726 , Topi , TumblinDice76 , TW2019 , vlaci66 , waterrats
Guests:
1108
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10