ROCKMAN

Mick definitely needs and apology...from Keith.

I feel that Charlie certainly deserves an apology for not being offered a knighthood when Mick got his. Primarily for staying with the band through thick and thin and his wonderful nature - I think he deserves it.

Yeah they owe us an apology those roman stones.....What have they ever done for us..................................?

Quote
Bliss
Mick definitely needs and apology...from Keith.

+1

Quote
klrkcr
I feel that Charlie certainly deserves an apology for not being offered a knighthood when Mick got his. Primarily for staying with the band through thick and thin and his wonderful nature - I think he deserves it.

Thats some criteria for a knighthood, right there. Kinda puts the relatively insignificant achievements of Churchill, Montgomery and the like into perspective..

Jagger got a knighthood primarily because he put enough pressure on Blair's people to give him one. Charlie didnt. And Jagger is the ONLY rock star to get a knighthood for services to music. All the others have got one just as much for their charity work.

Quote
Gazza
Jagger got a knighthood primarily because he put enough pressure on Blair's people to give him one.

Wow! That's the first I've heard of this.

He almost certainly wouldnt have got it otherwise. When they're given to celebrities or entertainers its primarily as an acknowledgement of their charitable work as opposed to their musical achievement. Even in the movie 'Being Mick' he's all but crying on Prince Charles' shoulder about being overlooked. He wanted a gong badly enough and in the end he managed to get one. Its quite unusual to get a knighthood without having got a lesser 'honour' like an MBE, OBE etc previously. Blair's government dished out knighthoods and honours like sweets. It even got to the stage where if you donated enough money to the Labour party, they'd pretty much always knight you for it, rendering the status of the honour all but worthless (well, unless you count £1 million as 'worthless').

Not that I'm suggesting Mick did that, of course, but the honours system is largely dependent on recipients being nominated by the public, and some people have more of a facility to influence than others.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-01 15:26 by Gazza.

Yeah good point Gazza and I didnt mean to down grade any of the greats.Mick did seem to beg for it,so Ive read and in the end he got it.

Quote
Max'sKansasCity
Damn right it is.... NOT TO MENTION "UNDERCOVER OF THE NIGHT" and many many many many other great new songs...

It clearly says "not to mention" and then you mention it. Seems to be at severe odds.

Quote
Max'sKansasCity

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
stones78
Apologize for not writing not even one outstanding song since 1982.

I think Saint of Me is outstanding.

Damn right it is.... NOT TO MENTION "UNDERCOVER OF THE NIGHT" and many many many many other great new songs... and it is fuking redonkulous that this type of thing even needs to be said on a Rolling Stones message board.... wtf is up with all of the grumpy old women posting so much utter shitwittery here?

Agreed! The last 30 years have been 'uneven' for sure, when compared to the first 20, but there has been lots to be happy about. My biggest complaint is the lack of output, which to me seems more about M & K NOT sitting down and writing more songs.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Max'sKansasCity

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
stones78
Apologize for not writing not even one outstanding song since 1982.

I think Saint of Me is outstanding.

Damn right it is.... NOT TO MENTION "UNDERCOVER OF THE NIGHT" and many many many many other great new songs... and it is fuking redonkulous that this type of thing even needs to be said on a Rolling Stones message board.... wtf is up with all of the grumpy old women posting so much utter shitwittery here?

Agreed! The last 30 years have been 'uneven' for sure, when compared to the first 20, but there has been lots to be happy about. My biggest complaint is the lack of output, which to me seems more about M & K NOT sitting down and writing more songs.

I 100% agree with you on all of this...

Heck I own most Stones major releases and I could toss some songs from every album, while doubling up on the gems, but I would never hold myself as worthy to tell them (or anyone) which songs are worthy and which ones suck... who the fk is anyone to tell the doers, makers, creators of art which is best??

So I just treasure the gems, which more than make up for the throw away songs, and NO, I WILL NOT get into a time wasting discussion of which songs I think are throw aways.... why would I?... someone loves all some/all of them... and that is cool and worthy opinion of theirs, why would I insult someone for liking a song? why would anybody? It makes no sense.

If somebody like strawberry vanilla chocolate or apple brickle ice cream, why do I care what they like? as long as I get to eat what I want.

I think EVERY Rolling Stones album has had gems... and this interesting notion that "They have not a a good album since Exile" is just silly..... imuho anyway.

Quote
Max'sKansasCity
Heck I own most Stones major releases and I could toss some songs from every album, while doubling up on the gems, but I would never hold myself as worthy to tell them (or anyone) which songs are worthy and which ones suck... who the fk is anyone to tell the doers, makers, creators of art which is best??

So I just treasure the gems, which more than make up for the throw away songs, and NO, I WILL NOT get into a time wasting discussion of which songs I think are throw aways.... why would I?... someone loves all some/all of them... and that is cool and worthy opinion of theirs, why would I insult someone for liking a song? why would anybody? It makes no sense.

If somebody like strawberry vanilla chocolate or apple brickle ice cream, why do I care what they like? as long as I get to eat what I want.

So it's ok to think some songs are better but it's not ok to actually voice your opinions?

yawn.... do whatever you want.

Quote
Gazza
He almost certainly wouldnt have got it otherwise. When they're given to celebrities or entertainers its primarily as an acknowledgement of their charitable work as opposed to their musical achievement. Even in the movie 'Being Mick' he's all but crying on Prince Charles' shoulder about being overlooked. He wanted a gong badly enough and in the end he managed to get one. Its quite unusual to get a knighthood without having got a lesser 'honour' like an MBE, OBE etc previously. Blair's government dished out knighthoods and honours like sweets. It even got to the stage where if you donated enough money to the Labour party, they'd pretty much always knight you for it, rendering the status of the honour all but worthless (well, unless you count £1 million as 'worthless').

Not that I'm suggesting Mick did that, of course, but the honours system is largely dependent on recipients being nominated by the public, and some people have more of a facility to influence than others.

Makes me glad we threw the royalist bastards out in 1781...

Oh he should apologize for the 75 tour. What was he thinking because he sure as hell wasn't singing.

Quote
stones78

Quote
Max'sKansasCity
Heck I own most Stones major releases and I could toss some songs from every album, while doubling up on the gems, but I would never hold myself as worthy to tell them (or anyone) which songs are worthy and which ones suck... who the fk is anyone to tell the doers, makers, creators of art which is best??

So I just treasure the gems, which more than make up for the throw away songs, and NO, I WILL NOT get into a time wasting discussion of which songs I think are throw aways.... why would I?... someone loves all some/all of them... and that is cool and worthy opinion of theirs, why would I insult someone for liking a song? why would anybody? It makes no sense.

If somebody like strawberry vanilla chocolate or apple brickle ice cream, why do I care what they like? as long as I get to eat what I want.

So it's ok to think some songs are better but it's not ok to actually voice your opinions?

Of course it is...although someone wise once said, "opinions are like @#$%&, everyone has one".

Sweeping statements like "they haven't had a good album since Exile" really don't actually say anything and appear to be stated more to incite than anything else.

If you REALLY don't find anything interesting musically since 1972, why would you waste your time on board almost 40 years later?

Quote
colonial
Of all the unfair things said about The Rolling Stones..probably more so in there early days coming from the public..media and different organizations.I reckon after all these years The Rolling Stones at least deserve an apology of some sort..

The biggest apology and a public one at that..ought to come from so-called fans who continuously criticize The Rolling Stones.

Quote
colonial

Quote
colonial
Of all the unfair things said about The Rolling Stones..probably more so in there early days coming from the public..media and different organizations.I reckon after all these years The Rolling Stones at least deserve an apology of some sort..

The biggest apology and a public one at that..ought to come from so-called fans who continuously criticize The Rolling Stones.

Do we really have to go there again? To criticize with knowledge is to love. To accept everything from an artist while suspending one's critical faculties is merely being a cheerleader - not a fan.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Gazza
He almost certainly wouldnt have got it otherwise. When they're given to celebrities or entertainers its primarily as an acknowledgement of their charitable work as opposed to their musical achievement. Even in the movie 'Being Mick' he's all but crying on Prince Charles' shoulder about being overlooked. He wanted a gong badly enough and in the end he managed to get one. Its quite unusual to get a knighthood without having got a lesser 'honour' like an MBE, OBE etc previously. Blair's government dished out knighthoods and honours like sweets. It even got to the stage where if you donated enough money to the Labour party, they'd pretty much always knight you for it, rendering the status of the honour all but worthless (well, unless you count £1 million as 'worthless').

Not that I'm suggesting Mick did that, of course, but the honours system is largely dependent on recipients being nominated by the public, and some people have more of a facility to influence than others.

Makes me glad we threw the royalist bastards out in 1781...

Its the government thats responsible for the honours system, not the monarchy.

Quote
colonial

Quote
colonial
Of all the unfair things said about The Rolling Stones..probably more so in there early days coming from the public..media and different organizations.I reckon after all these years The Rolling Stones at least deserve an apology of some sort..

The biggest apology and a public one at that..ought to come from so-called fans who continuously criticize The Rolling Stones.

Ok...we'll all book airtime on TV and radio for that 'public' apology.

I think its you who should be making apologies !



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-01 21:29 by Gazza.

Quote
71Tele

....... is merely being a cheerleader - not a fan.

I say... I say... ya say?... we need soooooome cheerleaders?... ya say?
we can do that....

Quote
treaclefingers
haven't had a good album since Exile" really don't actually say anything and appear to be stated more to incite than anything else.

If you REALLY don't find anything interesting musically since 1972, why would you waste your time on board almost 40 years later?

I dont get this logic, to be honest.

Everyone of us, as far as the Stones go, mostly discuss the band's past. Particularly the 70s. Less so its present or future (because one is non existent and the other is pure guesswork). Why does there have to be a cut off point where its acceptable to like their music? If its not ok to like the 60s and 70s stuff and think anything after that is bad - then presumably the same applies if you were to think anything over ten years old is rubbish.

The Stones havent made a record now for six years and havent worked together in four years. Its a bit hard to get enthusiastic for the present when its been all but non existent for going on half a decade.

As theres been nothing 'interesting musically' since 2005 (or 2007), how long do they have to remain inactive before all of us should leave because we're living in the past?

Colonial, your love and devotion of all things Stones in my experience knows no equal. So much so in fact that if any member of the band, figuratively or literally, served you up a steaming pile of shite, I'm of the mind you would eat it. With relish! Just so you know no insult is intended by this. My statement is meant to underscore that such blind fanaticism is rare in my experience...



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-01 21:41 by ChrisM.

He wouldnt put relish on it, Chris. He'd want it served pure.

Quote
Gazza
He wouldnt put relish on it, Chris. He'd want it served pure.

Ewwwww,their goes my lunch.

"It's just some friends of mine and they're busting down the door"

I thought he would have been cleared of this site.
jeroen

Quote
Gazza

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Gazza
He almost certainly wouldnt have got it otherwise. When they're given to celebrities or entertainers its primarily as an acknowledgement of their charitable work as opposed to their musical achievement. Even in the movie 'Being Mick' he's all but crying on Prince Charles' shoulder about being overlooked. He wanted a gong badly enough and in the end he managed to get one. Its quite unusual to get a knighthood without having got a lesser 'honour' like an MBE, OBE etc previously. Blair's government dished out knighthoods and honours like sweets. It even got to the stage where if you donated enough money to the Labour party, they'd pretty much always knight you for it, rendering the status of the honour all but worthless (well, unless you count £1 million as 'worthless').

Not that I'm suggesting Mick did that, of course, but the honours system is largely dependent on recipients being nominated by the public, and some people have more of a facility to influence than others.

Makes me glad we threw the royalist bastards out in 1781...

Its the government thats responsible for the honours system, not the monarchy.

Yes, but you need a Monarchy to have it in the first place, as you know. I am well aware that the royals can't even fart without the Government agreeing.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Gazza

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Gazza
He almost certainly wouldnt have got it otherwise. When they're given to celebrities or entertainers its primarily as an acknowledgement of their charitable work as opposed to their musical achievement. Even in the movie 'Being Mick' he's all but crying on Prince Charles' shoulder about being overlooked. He wanted a gong badly enough and in the end he managed to get one. Its quite unusual to get a knighthood without having got a lesser 'honour' like an MBE, OBE etc previously. Blair's government dished out knighthoods and honours like sweets. It even got to the stage where if you donated enough money to the Labour party, they'd pretty much always knight you for it, rendering the status of the honour all but worthless (well, unless you count £1 million as 'worthless').

Not that I'm suggesting Mick did that, of course, but the honours system is largely dependent on recipients being nominated by the public, and some people have more of a facility to influence than others.

Makes me glad we threw the royalist bastards out in 1781...

Its the government thats responsible for the honours system, not the monarchy.

Yes, but you need a Monarchy to have it in the first place, as you know. I am well aware that the royals can't even fart without the Government agreeing.

You dont really, actually. Quite a lot of nations without monarchies have a honours system which rewards their citizens for distinguished service to their country.

Mick Jagger's knighthood gives him no more rights or privileges than what I have.

Quote
Max'sKansasCity
If somebody like strawberry vanilla chocolate or apple brickle ice cream, why do I care what they like? as long as I get to eat what I want.

Good one Max. BTW, I guess this also goes for drinks. I like beer

-------------------
Keep On Rolling