Quote
His Majesty

Quote
Erik_Snow


You might read a few books, instead of just reading this board, then.
"Life" is a good start.

Life is the worst place to start.

Not when it comes to Ian Stewart
(allthough Ian is not prominent in Keith's book....Bill Wyman's "Stone Alone" has more stories about Stu)

Quote
ineedadrink
if mick and keith showed up, it would have turned into a rolling stones reunion gig taking the spotlight away from the reason why the event was happening.

..and that would have been a bad thing for what reason? It was obviously OK to do it in '86.

Much more publicity for Stu's memory had that happened. Which wouldnt be a bad thing as half the people who attend Stones concerts are probably oblivious to his entire existence.

I really cant believe there are Stones fans who are suggesting that it was for the best that there wasn't a full band reunion at a tribute gig for an ex-band member who was loved and respected by all of them.

Its been 32 years since the Stones performed as a band at a public event which wasnt directly connected to or part of one of their megatours - yet people still make excuses for them avoiding performing together. And it was in London, its not as if it was somewhere remote for them to get to.

What better excuse could there have been for them to play together - even for a couple of songs? Mick can fly 6,000 miles to sing for five minutes at a Solomon Burke tribute but he cant put in a cameo for Ian Stewart? (Well, it was only in front of 500 people and not a TV audience of 500 million so I suppose there can't be much in the way of motivation). Keith can fly to London to sign books, but cant strap on a guitar and strum a couple of chords for one song to respect someone who he insists in his autobiography was the guy he 'worked for' and who brought the band together?

If they had medical or family reasons - then fair enough - but otherwise, this has diva behaviour written all over it, unfortunately.

Not to take away in any way from what looked to be a wonderful night for everyone who was there and from the musicians who DID attend (and I wish now I'd gone!), but from a Stones perspective it was a great opportunity wasted and reflects badly on both Mick and Keith.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
ineedadrink
if mick and keith showed up, it would have turned into a rolling stones reunion gig taking the spotlight away from the reason why the event was happening.

..and that would have been a bad thing for what reason? It was obviously OK to do it in '86.

bad thing? good thing? i don't know! but maybe that was the rationale mick and keith used to not show up at this gig. to not hog all of the spotlight. we have no idea. they haven't issued press releases or twitter posts explaining themselves. we can only guess.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
ineedadrink
if mick and keith showed up, it would have turned into a rolling stones reunion gig taking the spotlight away from the reason why the event was happening.

..and that would have been a bad thing for what reason? It was obviously OK to do it in '86.

Much more publicity for Stu's memory had that happened. Which wouldnt be a bad thing as half the people who attend Stones concerts are probably oblivious to his entire existence.

I really cant believe there are Stones fans who are suggesting that it was for the best that there wasn't a full band reunion at a tribute gig for an ex-band member who was loved and respected by all of them.

Its been 32 years since the Stones performed as a band at a public event which wasnt directly connected to or part of one of their megatours - yet people still make excuses for them avoiding performing together. And it was in London, its not as if it was somewhere remote for them to get to.

What better excuse could there have been for them to play together - even for a couple of songs? Mick can fly 6,000 miles to sing for five minutes at a Solomon Burke tribute but he cant put in a cameo for Ian Stewart? (Well, it was only in front of 500 people and not a TV audience of 500 million so I suppose there can't be much in the way of motivation). Keith can fly to London to sign books, but cant strap on a guitar and strum a couple of chords for one song to respect someone who he insists in his autobiography was the guy he 'worked for' and who brought the band together?

If they had medical or family reasons - then fair enough - but otherwise, this has diva behaviour written all over it, unfortunately.

Not to take away in any way from what looked to be a wonderful night for everyone who was there and from the musicians who DID attend (and I wish now I'd gone!), but from a Stones perspective it was a great opportunity wasted and reflects badly on both Mick and Keith.

Well said Gazza!! I'm glad someone agrees with me. See you at the next Tom Waits gig lol

I fail to see why they should've turned up. They already did a tribute gig for Stu, so why on earth would they do another one, just because Ben Waters decides to make a tribute gig. What if Right Said Fred played the Half Moon and called it a tribute gig for Stu, and Ronnie would guest on guitar? Should every other Stone turn up there too? Look, it might be that they can't stand each other. It might be that they couldn't be arsed to fly to London. It could even be that they didn't wanna play with Mick Taylor again. Whatever their reason is, it's all right with me. Why? Well why should they feel the need to cave in to peer pressure? Mick T, Ron, Charlie and Bill did it. Just because they're playing in the same room doesn't mean that Mick and Keith should grab the nearest guitar and microphone to play the same place.

JumpingKentFlash

Quote
ineedadrink

Quote
Gazza

Quote
ineedadrink
if mick and keith showed up, it would have turned into a rolling stones reunion gig taking the spotlight away from the reason why the event was happening.

..and that would have been a bad thing for what reason? It was obviously OK to do it in '86.

bad thing? good thing? i don't know! but maybe that was the rationale mick and keith used to not show up at this gig. to not hog all of the spotlight. we have no idea. they haven't issued press releases or twitter posts explaining themselves. we can only guess.

The Stones are bigger than 'Mick and Keith'. The two of them wouldn't have hogged 'all of the spotlight'. Good publicity for themselves,the band, the event and Stu's memory is far better than it being ignored or low-key.

It's an absolute no-brainer.

Agree with Gazza 100%

Agree with Gazza 85,17 %

Quote
Gazza

Quote
ineedadrink

Quote
Gazza

Quote
ineedadrink
if mick and keith showed up, it would have turned into a rolling stones reunion gig taking the spotlight away from the reason why the event was happening.

..and that would have been a bad thing for what reason? It was obviously OK to do it in '86.

bad thing? good thing? i don't know! but maybe that was the rationale mick and keith used to not show up at this gig. to not hog all of the spotlight. we have no idea. they haven't issued press releases or twitter posts explaining themselves. we can only guess.

The Stones are bigger than 'Mick and Keith'. The two of them wouldn't have hogged 'all of the spotlight'. Good publicity for themselves,the band, the event and Stu's memory is far better than it being ignored or low-key.

It's an absolute no-brainer.

Agree 100%. But if I had said that...

Quote
Gazza

What better excuse could there have been for them to play together - even for a couple of songs? Mick can fly 6,000 miles to sing for five minutes at a Solomon Burke tribute but he cant put in a cameo for Ian Stewart? (Well, it was only in front of 500 people and not a TV audience of 500 million so I suppose there can't be much in the way of motivation). Keith can fly to London to sign books, but cant strap on a guitar and strum a couple of chords for one song to respect someone who he insists in his autobiography was the guy he 'worked for' and who brought the band together?

So if Ben Waters would do a Ian Steward tribute tour you expect them all to play at every gig in honor of Stu? Or if there would be more Stu tribute shows in the next decade are they all obligated to show up every time in honor of Stu?

I think it's tremendous that they all played on the record, something they weren't obligated to do, and i thought it was great to see four of them at the show which I didn't expect but I don't think that they must do it because someone had a great a idea for a record and show.

Cheers,
Wuudy

Quote
Wuudy

Quote
Gazza

What better excuse could there have been for them to play together - even for a couple of songs? Mick can fly 6,000 miles to sing for five minutes at a Solomon Burke tribute but he cant put in a cameo for Ian Stewart? (Well, it was only in front of 500 people and not a TV audience of 500 million so I suppose there can't be much in the way of motivation). Keith can fly to London to sign books, but cant strap on a guitar and strum a couple of chords for one song to respect someone who he insists in his autobiography was the guy he 'worked for' and who brought the band together?

So if Ben Waters would do a Ian Steward tribute tour you expect them all to play at every gig in honor of Stu? Or if there would be more Stu tribute shows in the next decade are they all obligated to show up every time in honor of Stu?

I think it's tremendous that they all played on the record, something they weren't obligated to do, and i thought it was great to see four of them at the show which I didn't expect but I don't think that they must do it because someone had a great a idea for a record and show.

I didnt say they 'must' do it or should feel 'obligated' to do anything. However, I think it reflects badly on both of them.

Nor would I expect some form of commitment to a tour - thats a ridiculous analogy as everyone involved has their own personal commitments and it was never an issue.

However, there was always going to be Stones involvement in this gig from day one as Charlie was on board right away. It wasnt as if this was being organised independent of any band members and they all just decided to come along. The event was announced weeks ago and I would imagine that Bill, Ronnie and Mick T committed to it a while back. Mick and Keith both have homes and family in and around London. How difficult could it really have been for both of them to find time in their 'busy' schedules to have turned up at a single gig there for a song or two?

Do you prefer it that this band effectively cease to exist outside of the confines of a multi-million dollar grossing world tour every 3 or 4 years and pass up the occasional (and in this case, perfect) chance to play together for a few minutes every once in a blue moon?

I dont know about the rest of you but at this stage in their careers there arent going to be very many more opportunities for the Stones to share a stage together. Dont see whats wrong with a fan wishing they'd make the most of what is a pretty obvious opportunity to do so and feeling they really should have done it.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-03-11 23:26 by Gazza.

I honestly suspect that if they aren't paid a gazillion dollars for the gig, Mick and Keith believe they are selling the band short if they perform together.

I resented David Bowie for not turning up for Mick Ronson's tribute at the Hammersmith Odeon. He said that he wanted to remember him privately. Fair enough except that he had previously turned up Freddie Mercury's tribute which was at Wembley stadium and on national telly.

Perhaps they should have done the tribute at the Grammies.

Quote
Braincapers
I resented David Bowie for not turning up for Mick Ronson's tribute at the Hammersmith Odeon. He said that he wanted to remember him privately. Fair enough except that he had previously turned up Freddie Mercury's tribute which was at Wembley stadium and on national telly.

Perhaps they should have done the tribute at the Grammies.

That reminds me of the Gram Parsons tribute shows in 2004 that Keith played at. The most conspicious and obvious absentee from those shows was Emmylou Harris. I always thought that a bit odd, even though she'd played at (and I think co-hosted) a TV tribute special to him five years earlier.

i feel very strongly that i don't care one way or the other

Quote
Gazza

Quote
ineedadrink

Quote
Gazza

Quote
ineedadrink
if mick and keith showed up, it would have turned into a rolling stones reunion gig taking the spotlight away from the reason why the event was happening.

..and that would have been a bad thing for what reason? It was obviously OK to do it in '86.

bad thing? good thing? i don't know! but maybe that was the rationale mick and keith used to not show up at this gig. to not hog all of the spotlight. we have no idea. they haven't issued press releases or twitter posts explaining themselves. we can only guess.

The Stones are bigger than 'Mick and Keith'. The two of them wouldn't have hogged 'all of the spotlight'. Good publicity for themselves,the band, the event and Stu's memory is far better than it being ignored or low-key.

It's an absolute no-brainer.

It's pitiful that you were so disillusioned that you skipped the gig. That's the sad part. You'd rather take some kind of political position on some IMB than go down there and jam your ass off. Says a lot about you.

"Your girlfriend's name is Boris?"

leonard cohen + rowan atkinson = charlie watts

Quote
Brue

Quote
Gazza

Quote
ineedadrink

Quote
Gazza

Quote
ineedadrink
if mick and keith showed up, it would have turned into a rolling stones reunion gig taking the spotlight away from the reason why the event was happening.

..and that would have been a bad thing for what reason? It was obviously OK to do it in '86.

bad thing? good thing? i don't know! but maybe that was the rationale mick and keith used to not show up at this gig. to not hog all of the spotlight. we have no idea. they haven't issued press releases or twitter posts explaining themselves. we can only guess.

The Stones are bigger than 'Mick and Keith'. The two of them wouldn't have hogged 'all of the spotlight'. Good publicity for themselves,the band, the event and Stu's memory is far better than it being ignored or low-key.

It's an absolute no-brainer.

It's pitiful that you were so disillusioned that you skipped the gig. That's the sad part. You'd rather take some kind of political position on some IMB than go down there and jam your ass off. Says a lot about you.

The gig was nowhere near me as I've already explained. A valid reason, not that I need one. And who the f**k are you again?

Quote
straycatuk
On balance I'm glad we didn't have the Glimmers there - It would have been about them, which wouldn't have been right IMHO.

Agreed. Having four of the six living Stones on stage provided a suitable tribute to Stu. Keeping the two most famous Stones out of the picture ensured that the tribute to Stu wouldn't get lost in the avalanche of media coverage that would surely have surrounded a full-blown "reunion".



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-03-12 01:58 by tatters.

Now that's a f*ckin band

Quote
windmelody
The Glimmers are really generous, they would never risk to steal the show from someone else.

Probably embarrassed to play with Mick Taylor after they cut off his money. I would be.

Quote
tatters

Quote
straycatuk
On balance I'm glad we didn't have the Glimmers there - It would have been about them, which wouldn't have been right IMHO.

Agreed. Having four of the six living Stones on stage provided a suitable tribute to Stu. Keeping the two most famous Stones out of the picture ensured that the tribute to Stu wouldn't be lost in the mass of publicity that would surely have surrounded a full-blown "reunion".

Well considering the show was for a chaity,raising a little extra dough and awareness would have been pretty good.

I am starting to like the guitar combo of Taylor and Wood.

My only other thought is that Bill has to stop playing that ridiculous bass, at least in public.

It was a great show. Would have been yet better if Mick or Keith was there.

I have to say my rating of Keef is slipping a lot, especially after LIFE and his worshipping-yet-non-appearance at Stu's gig.

My rating for Jagger (& Ronnie of late), however, is only going up.

Quote
sweetcharmedlife

Quote
tatters

Quote
straycatuk
On balance I'm glad we didn't have the Glimmers there - It would have been about them, which wouldn't have been right IMHO.

Agreed. Having four of the six living Stones on stage provided a suitable tribute to Stu. Keeping the two most famous Stones out of the picture ensured that the tribute to Stu wouldn't get lost in the avalanche of media coverage that would surely have surrounded a full-blown "reunion".

Well considering the show was for a chaity,raising a little extra dough and awareness would have been pretty good.

Yeah, and as Gazza said, it would have raised awareness of Stu's very existence, something most casual Stones fans know nothing about. But I think, just trying to look at it from the glimmers point of view, they probably thought "let's not go and make a spectacle of ourselves. Let's just have it be a small thing with the focus where it should be, on Stu". And, like I said earlier in the thread, it's GOOD, sometimes, to be conspicuously absent. It adds to the mystique. Leaves everyone wanting more. Maybe they WILL give us more. Maybe we WILL get a chance to see all six of them on stage together. But they are going to make sure it's the most expensive concert ticket we ever buy in our lifetimes.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-03-12 02:09 by tatters.

Quote
tomcat2006
It was a great show. Would have been yet better if Mick or Keith was there.

I have to say my rating of Keef is slipping a lot, especially after LIFE and his worshipping-yet-non-appearance at Stu's gig.

My rating for Jagger (& Ronnie of late), however, is only going up.

Ronnie's re-birth of sorts - both personally and professionally - after he appeared to be heading one way down Oblivion Street a year or so ago has been pretty heart warming, hasnt it? Long may it continue.

Of course I had hoped for all the Stonesmembers!!!! But realistic - Only Charlie was on the poster. Let's say the other ones was a bonus! When I saw Mick Taylor and Ronnie outside the venue before the first show I was quite happy - and afterwars I heard that Bill was there as well. It was 2 good shows.(Liked the second one best - Little Q.)
And really nice to meet you also Riffbuk! (And all the other Stones-friends of course)

Per-Arne
Norway

Quote
Gazza

Quote
ineedadrink
if mick and keith showed up, it would have turned into a rolling stones reunion gig taking the spotlight away from the reason why the event was happening.

..and that would have been a bad thing for what reason? It was obviously OK to do it in '86.

Much more publicity for Stu's memory had that happened. Which wouldnt be a bad thing as half the people who attend Stones concerts are probably oblivious to his entire existence.

I really cant believe there are Stones fans who are suggesting that it was for the best that there wasn't a full band reunion at a tribute gig for an ex-band member who was loved and respected by all of them.

Its been 32 years since the Stones performed as a band at a public event which wasnt directly connected to or part of one of their megatours - yet people still make excuses for them avoiding performing together. And it was in London, its not as if it was somewhere remote for them to get to.

What better excuse could there have been for them to play together - even for a couple of songs? Mick can fly 6,000 miles to sing for five minutes at a Solomon Burke tribute but he cant put in a cameo for Ian Stewart? (Well, it was only in front of 500 people and not a TV audience of 500 million so I suppose there can't be much in the way of motivation). Keith can fly to London to sign books, but cant strap on a guitar and strum a couple of chords for one song to respect someone who he insists in his autobiography was the guy he 'worked for' and who brought the band together?

If they had medical or family reasons - then fair enough - but otherwise, this has diva behaviour written all over it, unfortunately.

Not to take away in any way from what looked to be a wonderful night for everyone who was there and from the musicians who DID attend (and I wish now I'd gone!), but from a Stones perspective it was a great opportunity wasted and reflects badly on both Mick and Keith.

Maybe they weren't invited...

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Brue

Quote
Gazza

Quote
ineedadrink

Quote
Gazza

Quote
ineedadrink
if mick and keith showed up, it would have turned into a rolling stones reunion gig taking the spotlight away from the reason why the event was happening.

..and that would have been a bad thing for what reason? It was obviously OK to do it in '86.

bad thing? good thing? i don't know! but maybe that was the rationale mick and keith used to not show up at this gig. to not hog all of the spotlight. we have no idea. they haven't issued press releases or twitter posts explaining themselves. we can only guess.

The Stones are bigger than 'Mick and Keith'. The two of them wouldn't have hogged 'all of the spotlight'. Good publicity for themselves,the band, the event and Stu's memory is far better than it being ignored or low-key.

It's an absolute no-brainer.

It's pitiful that you were so disillusioned that you skipped the gig. That's the sad part. You'd rather take some kind of political position on some IMB than go down there and jam your ass off. Says a lot about you.

The gig was nowhere near me as I've already explained. A valid reason, not that I need one. And who the f**k are you again?

I'm always up for busting crybabies. They're the most fun. It's the gift that keeps on giving.