Tell Me :
Talk
[www.dailyrecord.co.uk]
Nothing new here.
Chriseganstar
Satisfied since 1976
As I said before it came out... I dont understand why it is/was required, except to make money, more money. Does Keith really need more money?? How much money does anyone really need? come on man........ especially if it adversely affects the band in any way. I dont know if it does, or not. I didnt get it, I didnt buy it, I have not even looked at it yet. Maybe someday I will pick it up for $2.99 from the close out bin to add to my collection of 40-50 Stones books, but from what has been said/heard, there is no much new there..... heard it all before.
Who knows if they will tour again. I am just delighted that Iwas on board when they had their hey day, it was/is awesome memories.
The Stones will never tour without Jagger, Richards, or Watts.
If they toured without Richards it'd be like Huey Lewis and the News touring without Huey Lewis.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-02-09 13:40 by EddieByword.
As far as we know, there are three shareholders in the Rolling Stones business (Promogroup BV
and all its subsidiairies in Amsterdam): Mick, Keith and Charlie. I would think a contract
for a new tour would have to be signed by all three shareholders.
But that is for the legal aspects. Commercially, morally (and I might add, artistically)
there is absolutely no point to tour under the name Rolling Stones if Keith is not joining.
Whereas I loved it and thought he was perfectly entitled to write it.
If Mick really wanted to tour he wouldn't turn down tens of millions in a fit of pique. Maybe he feels the Stones can't manage a full tour anymore.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-02-09 14:27 by EddieByword.
That's exactly the question: How much money could he possibly make out of that book and would it really matter to him, who's fortune is rated at some 220 mn quid? I wouldn't think he was ever in need of that money. If so, question remains which devil rode him to write it at all?
Sure ! Jagger "shines" .
Reminds me that Christiana Aguilera 'song :
<< Ain't no other man can stand up next to you
Ain't no other man on the planet does what you do
You got soul,you got class ,you got style
I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .
If so, then be it as it may. I would, in that case, definitely like to see the Stones with another guitar instead of KR. Would that be possible and feasible?
Yeah ,you're right, dead-flowers .
many people got so upset with the book that was introduced/presented as THE book of the year .What a joke ...
I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .
Next to the Sicilians comments this is the smartest comment I have heard today!
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
stones not to tour
Posted by:
masha
()
Date: February 9, 2011 11:36
daily record today states that the stones will not tour next year .
insiders say the pair are no longer on speaking terms.
insiders say the pair are no longer on speaking terms.
Re: stones not to tour
Posted by:
chriseganstar
()
Date: February 9, 2011 11:43
Quote
masha
daily record today states that the stones will not tour next year .
insiders say the pair are no longer on speaking terms.
[www.dailyrecord.co.uk]
Nothing new here.
Chriseganstar
Satisfied since 1976
Re: stones not to tour
Posted by:
AngieBlue
()
Date: February 9, 2011 11:46
oh please -
One would think they would at least come up with a new reason why the Twins weren't talking to each. Do they charge extra for new rumors or something?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-02-09 11:48 by AngieBlue.
One would think they would at least come up with a new reason why the Twins weren't talking to each. Do they charge extra for new rumors or something?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-02-09 11:48 by AngieBlue.
Re: stones not to tour
Posted by:
dead.flowers
()
Date: February 9, 2011 12:13
"Writing" this stupid LIFE book is really the most unneeded and idiotic thing one could possibly do. It's so dingy and embarrassing. Unbelievable that a man must grow 67 years old to act so foolishly. LIFE is an invidious book and the most infuriating happening in Stones' history I recall. I just don't want to imagine the book would finally become cause for the end of the band.
Edit:-
Rolling Stones tour in doubt following willy fallout between Mick n Keef
Feb 9 2011
MICK Jagger is set to scupper plans for a Rolling Stones tour this year after Keith Richards ridiculed the size of the frontman's "todger".
Insiders close to the tour say the pair are no longer on speaking terms after a newspaper interview with Richards quoted passages of his autobiography, including how he referred to Jagger, 67, as "that bitch Brenda" and called him "unbearable".
In another passage, he wrote: "Marianne Faithfull had no fun with his tiny todger. I know he's got an enormous pair of balls - but it doesn't quite fill the gap."
In the interview, Richards admitted: "Well, I did say he had enormous balls. I'm sure he's had worse thrown at him by women. I mean, Jerry Hall pretty much decimated him anyway."
Richards, 66, was forced to apologise five years ago after making similar comments in an interview.
The source added: "Mick read Keith's book before publication and didn't have any great problems with it.
"It was the fact that it was all dredged up in the interview afterwards that really upset him. Many believe this is the real reason why talks relating to the tour have broken down."
(c) dailyrecord.co.uk
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-02-09 12:17 by dead.flowers.
Edit:-
Rolling Stones tour in doubt following willy fallout between Mick n Keef
Feb 9 2011
MICK Jagger is set to scupper plans for a Rolling Stones tour this year after Keith Richards ridiculed the size of the frontman's "todger".
Insiders close to the tour say the pair are no longer on speaking terms after a newspaper interview with Richards quoted passages of his autobiography, including how he referred to Jagger, 67, as "that bitch Brenda" and called him "unbearable".
In another passage, he wrote: "Marianne Faithfull had no fun with his tiny todger. I know he's got an enormous pair of balls - but it doesn't quite fill the gap."
In the interview, Richards admitted: "Well, I did say he had enormous balls. I'm sure he's had worse thrown at him by women. I mean, Jerry Hall pretty much decimated him anyway."
Richards, 66, was forced to apologise five years ago after making similar comments in an interview.
The source added: "Mick read Keith's book before publication and didn't have any great problems with it.
"It was the fact that it was all dredged up in the interview afterwards that really upset him. Many believe this is the real reason why talks relating to the tour have broken down."
(c) dailyrecord.co.uk
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-02-09 12:17 by dead.flowers.
Re: stones not to tour
Posted by:
andrea66
()
Date: February 9, 2011 12:25
I red keith's book, i liked it, it seemed honest and written in a nice style .
but regarding mick i noticed there is always a lot of not hidden envy; even when he says nice things about him he seems envious to me. it is not easy, mick is maybe the greatest frontman ever and also in terms of women, one of the greatest women collector in r'n'r' history, and this is really difficult to handle for keith. now i don't know if keith's book is the true reason why they are not going to tour this year or if there are other reasons but I believe that some pages of the book didn't help to set up a new tour
but regarding mick i noticed there is always a lot of not hidden envy; even when he says nice things about him he seems envious to me. it is not easy, mick is maybe the greatest frontman ever and also in terms of women, one of the greatest women collector in r'n'r' history, and this is really difficult to handle for keith. now i don't know if keith's book is the true reason why they are not going to tour this year or if there are other reasons but I believe that some pages of the book didn't help to set up a new tour
Re: stones not to tour
Posted by:
EddieByword
()
Date: February 9, 2011 12:25
I reckon we'll all know on March 9th. If they both turn out for the Ian Stewart show (Who they both apparently loved) put on by Ben Waters at the Ambassadors club then all is well....if they don't both turn out you'll know it's over.......my best guess at the moment.for what it's worth, Eddie
Re: stones not to tour
Posted by:
andrea66
()
Date: February 9, 2011 12:29
Quote
dead.flowers
"Writing" this stupid LIFE book is really the most unneeded and idiotic thing one could possibly do. It's so dingy and embarrassing. Unbelievable that a man must grow 67 years old to act so foolishly. LIFE is an invidious book and the most infuriating happening in Stones' history I recall. I just don't want to imagine the book would finally become cause for the end of the band.
well dead.flowes, i am happy to see that you used the same word i used, when you talk about "invidious book". it is nice to see that there is a common feeling , and i think we are not the only ones
Re: stones not to tour
Posted by:
Max'sKansasCity
()
Date: February 9, 2011 12:32
I agree. I am still scratching my head about that book.Quote
dead.flowers
"Writing" this stupid LIFE book is really the most unneeded and.........
As I said before it came out... I dont understand why it is/was required, except to make money, more money. Does Keith really need more money?? How much money does anyone really need? come on man........ especially if it adversely affects the band in any way. I dont know if it does, or not. I didnt get it, I didnt buy it, I have not even looked at it yet. Maybe someday I will pick it up for $2.99 from the close out bin to add to my collection of 40-50 Stones books, but from what has been said/heard, there is no much new there..... heard it all before.
Who knows if they will tour again. I am just delighted that Iwas on board when they had their hey day, it was/is awesome memories.
Re: stones not to tour
Posted by:
EddieByword
()
Date: February 9, 2011 13:01
Supposing Mick wanted to tour without Keith.......... and Charlie, Ron et al said O.K. to that...maybe pick up Mick Taylor or someone to fill the gap...would they be allowed to tour as the Rolling Stones or could Keith block the use of the name if he wasn't invited..?
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-02-09 13:04 by EddieByword.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-02-09 13:04 by EddieByword.
Re: stones not to tour
Posted by:
akgameboy
()
Date: February 9, 2011 13:27
Quote
EddieByword
Supposing Mick wanted to tour without Keith.......... and Charlie, Ron et al said O.K. to that...maybe pick up Mick Taylor or someone to fill the gap...would they be allowed to tour as the Rolling Stones or could Keith block the use of the name if he wasn't invited..?
The Stones will never tour without Jagger, Richards, or Watts.
If they toured without Richards it'd be like Huey Lewis and the News touring without Huey Lewis.
Re: stones not to tour
Posted by:
EddieByword
()
Date: February 9, 2011 13:39
I know that is what Keith has said as well but what I'm asking (If anyone knows) is if there would be a legal restriction on doing so..ie. like the wrangle over the name Pink floyd which Roger Waters eventually had to relinquish........Quote
akgameboyQuote
EddieByword
Supposing Mick wanted to tour without Keith.......... and Charlie, Ron et al said O.K. to that...maybe pick up Mick Taylor or someone to fill the gap...would they be allowed to tour as the Rolling Stones or could Keith block the use of the name if he wasn't invited..?
The Stones will never tour without Jagger, Richards, or Watts.
If they toured without Richards it'd be like Huey Lewis and the News touring without Huey Lewis.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-02-09 13:40 by EddieByword.
Re: stones not to tour
Posted by:
marcovandereijk
()
Date: February 9, 2011 13:54
Quote
EddieByword
if there would be a legal restriction on doing so
As far as we know, there are three shareholders in the Rolling Stones business (Promogroup BV
and all its subsidiairies in Amsterdam): Mick, Keith and Charlie. I would think a contract
for a new tour would have to be signed by all three shareholders.
But that is for the legal aspects. Commercially, morally (and I might add, artistically)
there is absolutely no point to tour under the name Rolling Stones if Keith is not joining.
Re: stones not to tour
Posted by:
Braincapers
()
Date: February 9, 2011 14:05
Quote
Max'sKansasCityI agree. I am still scratching my head about that book.Quote
dead.flowers
"Writing" this stupid LIFE book is really the most unneeded and.........
Whereas I loved it and thought he was perfectly entitled to write it.
If Mick really wanted to tour he wouldn't turn down tens of millions in a fit of pique. Maybe he feels the Stones can't manage a full tour anymore.
Re: stones not to tour
Posted by:
EddieByword
()
Date: February 9, 2011 14:07
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>morally (and I might add, artistically),there is absolutely no point to tour under the name Rolling Stones if Keith is not joining <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<....I do think I agree with that but have admit to being slightly titilated by the idea of Mick Taylor and Ron working it....P.S. Thanks for the clarification on the legal side of thingsQuote
marcovandereijkQuote
EddieByword
if there would be a legal restriction on doing so
As far as we know, there are three shareholders in the Rolling Stones business (Promogroup BV
and all its subsidiairies in Amsterdam): Mick, Keith and Charlie. I would think a contract
for a new tour would have to be signed by all three shareholders.
But that is for the legal aspects. Commercially, morally (and I might add, artistically) there is absolutely no point to tour under the name Rolling Stones if Keith is not joining.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-02-09 14:27 by EddieByword.
Re: stones not to tour
Posted by:
KeithNacho
()
Date: February 9, 2011 14:24
I don't know if the band is going to tour; but i wonder why KR does'nt record and play live by himself (he says that he wants to play and tour)...........at the end LAZY PEOPLE
Re: stones not to tour
Posted by:
dead.flowers
()
Date: February 9, 2011 14:36
Quote
andrea66Quote
dead.flowers
"Writing" this stupid LIFE book is really the most unneeded and idiotic thing one could possibly do. It's so dingy and embarrassing. Unbelievable that a man must grow 67 years old to act so foolishly. LIFE is an invidious book and the most infuriating happening in Stones' history I recall. I just don't want to imagine the book would finally become cause for the end of the band.
well dead.flowes, i am happy to see that you used the same word i used, when you talk about "invidious book". it is nice to see that there is a common feeling , and i think we are not the only ones
Right, andrea66, actually I am not aware of what you had posted regarding this book, but it's nice to see I am "not the only one with mixed emotions" towards it.
Let's hope it'll all come out well with a view to the by so many of us hoped for Golden Jubilee and maybe Farewell Tour. cheers - dead.flowers
Re: stones not to tour
Posted by:
dead.flowers
()
Date: February 9, 2011 14:43
Quote
Max'sKansasCityI agree. I am still scratching my head about that book.Quote
dead.flowers
"Writing" this stupid LIFE book is really the most unneeded and.........
As I said before it came out... I dont understand why it is/was required, except to make money, more money. Does Keith really need more money?? How much money does anyone really need? come on man........ especially if it adversely affects the band in any way. I dont know if it does, or not. I didnt get it, I didnt buy it, I have not even looked at it yet. Maybe someday I will pick it up for $2.99 from the close out bin to add to my collection of 40-50 Stones books, but from what has been said/heard, there is no much new there..... heard it all before.
Who knows if they will tour again. I am just delighted that Iwas on board when they had their hey day, it was/is awesome memories.
That's exactly the question: How much money could he possibly make out of that book and would it really matter to him, who's fortune is rated at some 220 mn quid? I wouldn't think he was ever in need of that money. If so, question remains which devil rode him to write it at all?
Re: stones not to tour
Posted by:
pgarof
()
Date: February 9, 2011 17:08
[www.nme.com]
Rumours about The Rolling Stones touring in 2011 have been swirling around for a while now and, according to today’s tabs, things got as far as venues being named for an autumn jaunt.
However, according to one "source" quoted in a newspaper, negotiations have been "difficult" and that "the prospect of touring in 2011 is looking bleaker and bleaker".
The paper also claims that the main reason for this is because Mick Jagger and Keith Richards are no longer on speaking terms, apparently due to the comments Richards made about the size of Mick Jagger's manhood in his recent autobiography, Life. Given that The Rolling Stones' last tour grossed £344 million, we’re sure eventually they’ll kiss and make up (Daily Mirror).
Rumours about The Rolling Stones touring in 2011 have been swirling around for a while now and, according to today’s tabs, things got as far as venues being named for an autumn jaunt.
However, according to one "source" quoted in a newspaper, negotiations have been "difficult" and that "the prospect of touring in 2011 is looking bleaker and bleaker".
The paper also claims that the main reason for this is because Mick Jagger and Keith Richards are no longer on speaking terms, apparently due to the comments Richards made about the size of Mick Jagger's manhood in his recent autobiography, Life. Given that The Rolling Stones' last tour grossed £344 million, we’re sure eventually they’ll kiss and make up (Daily Mirror).
Re: stones not to tour
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: February 9, 2011 17:11
there are enlargement facilities that are widely available. a simple procedure, an amendment on the next printing of life and we're back in biz, i say.
Re: stones not to tour
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: February 9, 2011 17:28
Alas, the thread title says it all. Done deal.
Re: stones not to tour
Posted by:
ManuelStones
()
Date: February 9, 2011 18:28
Mick's "shining armor" is thicker than we think.
Neither the book nor any interview is gonna break it.
Neither the book nor any interview is gonna break it.
Re: stones not to tour
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: February 9, 2011 18:36
Moot point for this year.
And if Keith really wanted to play music he'd get the Winos back together since the Stones are not rolling anywhere. Maybe he really doesn't want to play music anymore. Maybe his fingers hurt. Maybe he's had enough but won't admit it publicly. Maybe it's none of our business. Maybe it doesn't matter anymore. Maybe he wants to have a different life now. Maybe this maybe that. It doesn't matter because it doesn't.
And if Keith really wanted to play music he'd get the Winos back together since the Stones are not rolling anywhere. Maybe he really doesn't want to play music anymore. Maybe his fingers hurt. Maybe he's had enough but won't admit it publicly. Maybe it's none of our business. Maybe it doesn't matter anymore. Maybe he wants to have a different life now. Maybe this maybe that. It doesn't matter because it doesn't.
Re: stones not to tour
Posted by:
SwayStones
()
Date: February 9, 2011 19:23
Quote
ManuelStones
Mick's "shining armor" is thicker than we think.
Neither the book nor any interview is gonna break it.
Sure ! Jagger "shines" .
Reminds me that Christiana Aguilera 'song :
<< Ain't no other man can stand up next to you
Ain't no other man on the planet does what you do
You got soul,you got class ,you got style
I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .
Re: stones not to tour
Posted by:
James Kirk
()
Date: February 9, 2011 19:28
Why would anyone believe any of this story?
The Stones will record and tour again next year for their 50th anniversary because that is when they will be able to make the most amount of money. After all these years one doesn't need to enlist Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson to figure out their motives.
The Stones will record and tour again next year for their 50th anniversary because that is when they will be able to make the most amount of money. After all these years one doesn't need to enlist Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson to figure out their motives.
Re: stones not to tour
Posted by:
dead.flowers
()
Date: February 9, 2011 19:30
Quote
skipstone
Moot point for this year.
And if Keith really wanted to play music he'd get the Winos back together since the Stones are not rolling anywhere. Maybe he really doesn't want to play music anymore. Maybe his fingers hurt. Maybe he's had enough but won't admit it publicly. Maybe it's none of our business. Maybe it doesn't matter anymore. Maybe he wants to have a different life now. Maybe this maybe that. It doesn't matter because it doesn't.
If so, then be it as it may. I would, in that case, definitely like to see the Stones with another guitar instead of KR. Would that be possible and feasible?
Re: stones not to tour
Posted by:
angee
()
Date: February 9, 2011 19:31
This seems another rehashed rumor.
Re: stones not to tour
Posted by:
hot stuff
()
Date: February 9, 2011 19:38
I AGREE.. They will tour again...Its the same old story...This could be the last tour???Make everyone think
they won't tour ever again because Jagger is pissed at Keith..
Build up the excitement and make everyone think they are done...Then they release a great album
and the hype builds for their 50th party tour....
Then we are all back in line to buy our tickets...Again.
they won't tour ever again because Jagger is pissed at Keith..
Build up the excitement and make everyone think they are done...Then they release a great album
and the hype builds for their 50th party tour....
Then we are all back in line to buy our tickets...Again.
Re: stones not to tour
Posted by:
SwayStones
()
Date: February 9, 2011 22:22
Quote
dead.flowers
"Writing" this stupid LIFE book is really the most unneeded and idiotic thing one could possibly do. It's so dingy and embarrassing. Unbelievable that a man must grow 67 years old to act so foolishly. LIFE is an invidious book and the most infuriating happening in Stones' history I recall. I just don't want to imagine the book would finally become cause for the end of the band.
Yeah ,you're right, dead-flowers .
many people got so upset with the book that was introduced/presented as THE book of the year .What a joke ...
I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .
Re: stones not to tour
Posted by:
melillo
()
Date: February 9, 2011 23:40
I dont know about this one being a silly rumor i think mick could possibly be getting tired of the keith stuff , there really is nothing going on tour wise or recording wise and it has been since 2007, what could they possibly be waiting for other than the 50th which could have easily been done by starting the tour this year and going on to 2012
Re: stones not to tour
Posted by:
stonescrow
()
Date: February 10, 2011 00:03
Quote
hot stuff
I AGREE.. They will tour again...Its the same old story...This could be the last tour???Make everyone think
they won't tour ever again because Jagger is pissed at Keith..
Build up the excitement and make everyone think they are done...Then they release a great album
and the hype builds for their 50th party tour....
Then we are all back in line to buy our tickets...Again.
Next to the Sicilians comments this is the smartest comment I have heard today!
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Asgard60 , bakersfield , edwinholland , Erhard51 , falo01 , hj3009 , hockenheim95 , JivinSisterFanny , Joce , petewasbristol , pjb , StonedRambler , stonemac , wolundamo , woodyrichards
Guests:
1662
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10