No No No its called:

The Rolling Stones featuring Mick Jagger

Watch out for a new virus, called the 2012-tour virus!
If you start a new tread about tour/can-they-perform etc.
The virus will turn both the Caps Locks on, AND your web cam on.
And you will be on the screens at Times Square and all airplanes.

TE
Oslo

I thought they had agreed contractually around when Wyman left that they wouldn't call it The Rolling Stones unless Jagger, Richards, and Watts were on board.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-08-14 09:56 by ab.

Quote
ab
I thought they had agreed contractually around when Wyman left that they wouldn't call it The Rolling Stones unless Jagger, Richards, and Watts were on board.

In that case some of the songs on Rolling Stones albums aren't actually by The Rolling Stones...

Quote
thabo

Quote
Rolling Hansie
From Wikipedia:
Caps lock is a key on many computer keyboards. Pressing it sets an input mode in which typed letters are uppercase by default. The keyboard remains in caps lock mode until the key is pressed again

More info on [en.wikipedia.org]

I sure hope this has answered your question.

Thanks i was allready wondering what all those buttons are meant for, still haven't found the place to put the paper in this damn modern typewriters

LOL (see, I've got one of those caps keys too!)

Nobody who's seen and heard Dick Taylor with the Pretty Things will doubt that he's a brilliant player - but one who chose to go his own way from the Rollin' Stones nearly fifty years ago and seems quite happy with his present band, thank you very much. Would be interesting to hear him as a guest, but if the return of Mick Taylor is a remote possibility, the return of Dick Taylor is so remote it's out of sight.

Quote
Green Lady
Nobody who's seen and heard Dick Taylor with the Pretty Things will doubt that he's a brilliant player - but one who chose to go his own way from the Rollin' Stones nearly fifty years ago and seems quite happy with his present band, thank you very much. Would be interesting to hear him as a guest, but if the return of Mick Taylor is a remote possibility, the return of Dick Taylor is so remote it's out of sight.

Maybe he (Dick) could be a "guest guitarist" for a tour, as Ronnie was in 1975?

I certainly wouldn't like to see The Pretty Things split.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-08-14 11:15 by Sleepy City.

Quote
ab
I thought they had agreed contractually around when Wyman left that they wouldn't call it The Rolling Stones unless Jagger, Richards, and Watts were on board.

Yes but I allready explained how it is possible to get around those older contracts (that are now becoming a strangling of the Stones), and i qoute;

[[ Ofcourse he can call it the Rolling Stones as long as it has some historical members in it (like the Faces do). And with Jagger, Ronnie, the two Taylors, Charlie and hopefully for that occasion even Bill (and without Keef being there Bill will probarly love to jump in). Only problem is the contracts between the Glimmers, but that can be passed over by first officialy split up after november 2012 (they need to keep the 50 yrs idea) that will render those contracts finished and than rejoining (but without incapable Keith) a few months later for that final album and tour or concert. Only Keith could make it a court case that this "new" Rolling Stones are not allowed to play his compositions (similair to the Pink Floyd vs Roger Waters court case that Roger won). But with a new album and old hits not written by Keith like Time Is on My Side, Harlem Shuffle, It's All Over Now, Like a Rolling Stone etc and well known songs like Everybody Needs Somebody, Just My Imagination, Love In Vain etc but most importantly the new songs, that wont be a problem. ]]

End qoute

Then get Jimmy Page, get rid of Blondie Chaplin and Lisa Fischer and maximum one sax (brass) player. Focus on music and not on posing.

Quote
mtaylor
get rid of Lisa Fischer

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

Quote
Rolling Hansie

Quote
mtaylor
get rid of Lisa Fischer

ahhahaahahaha, exactly

Again too point out that without Keith it still is the Stones since he wasn't that pivotal to the Stones sound or image in the first 2 years anyway (Brain and Mick were), those very years that actuaaly made THE Rolling Stones read this.

Dick Taylor in an interview mid 1999

BRAIN CAME A BIT MORE WITH READY-MADE REPORTOIRE OF LICKS. BUT KEITH AND I WERE CERTAINLY SORT OF LEARNING AT THE SAME TIME, IN A WAY.

Look without Keith there is no Rolling Stones end of discussion.

Quote
Rickster
without Keith there is no Rolling Stones end of discussion.

I totally agree, but I highly doubt that this is the end of the discussion LOL

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

Quote
thabo
(Brain and Mick were)

BRAIN CAME

Actually it was Brian.

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

That's a brilliant legal strategy, thabo. I hope you are an attorney by profession because if not, the world of law is really missing out on one of the finest legal minds of the ages.

Who says Keith cannot play anymore. Keith is and always be to me the riff master. I would not go to see a concert if Keith were not playing.

Quote
Sleepy City

Quote
ab
I thought they had agreed contractually around when Wyman left that they wouldn't call it The Rolling Stones unless Jagger, Richards, and Watts were on board.

In that case some of the songs on Rolling Stones albums aren't actually by The Rolling Stones...

That's correct. You Can't Always Get What You Want (no Watts), You Got the Silver (no Jagger), Moonlight Mile (no Richards), Stop Breaking Down (no Richards), Happy (no Watts), and Saint of Me (no Richards), to name a few, do not include Jagger, Richards or Watts. But my understanding is that they won't tour as the Rolling Stones without all three in the band.

Quote
thabo

Quote
ab
I thought they had agreed contractually around when Wyman left that they wouldn't call it The Rolling Stones unless Jagger, Richards, and Watts were on board.

Yes but I allready explained how it is possible to get around those older contracts (that are now becoming a strangling of the Stones), and i qoute;

[[ Ofcourse he can call it the Rolling Stones as long as it has some historical members in it (like the Faces do). And with Jagger, Ronnie, the two Taylors, Charlie and hopefully for that occasion even Bill (and without Keef being there Bill will probarly love to jump in). Only problem is the contracts between the Glimmers, but that can be passed over by first officialy split up after november 2012 (they need to keep the 50 yrs idea) that will render those contracts finished and than rejoining (but without incapable Keith) a few months later for that final album and tour or concert. Only Keith could make it a court case that this "new" Rolling Stones are not allowed to play his compositions (similair to the Pink Floyd vs Roger Waters court case that Roger won). But with a new album and old hits not written by Keith like Time Is on My Side, Harlem Shuffle, It's All Over Now, Like a Rolling Stone etc and well known songs like Everybody Needs Somebody, Just My Imagination, Love In Vain etc but most importantly the new songs, that wont be a problem. ]]

End qoute

How did Roger Waters win when he sued the remaining members of Pink Floyd? My recollection is that he lost that case rather badly.

Waters resigned from Pink Floyd in 1985 and then tried to assert that, without him, the remaining members had no right to continue. The British courts determined that he had no business stopping the remaining members, and they went on to make two studio albums and do two lucrative megatours after his departure. Waters, however, he did get some royalties when the post-Waters Floyd played his songs in their live sets.

Quote
Max'sKansasCity
WHAT IS MORE ANNOYING?
ALL CAPS POSTS OR LAME PREDICTIONS ABOUT WHAT THE STONES WONT DO?!!!

Hmm...kind of a toss-up, or if you prefer: KIND OF A TOSS-UP!!!!!!!

Are you asking 71 Tele to stand his ground "like Crockett at the Alamo?"

Keith Richards with all of his faults is what the Rolling Stones were all about if he is done the band is done and I'd say the same about Mick Jagger and Charlie. Those three CAN NOT be replaced!!!! Stop these non-sensical threads!! Dick Taylor???? PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!

Keith could always dance and play a tambourine.

Quote
Max'sKansasCity

Quote
TooTough
I think it´s time to close this website.

that is easy for you...just stop coming here...

AND AS FAR AS THE ORIGINAL POSTER
I DO NOT WANT TO GO SEE A ROLLING STONES CONCERT WITHOUT KEITH RICHARDS PLAYING , IF HE CAN NO LONGER PLAY, THEN SO BE IT.... AND I THANK THEM FOR THE MEMORIES....... BUT I THINK ANYONE SELLING KEITH RICHRDS SHORT IS MAKING A MISTAKE, AND ANYONE TALKING SH!T ABOUT THE STONES AND MAKING LAME PREDICTIONS ABOUT HOW THEY WONT DO THIS, WONT DO THAT OR WONT DO THE OTHER SHOULD BE BANNED FROM EVER ATTENDING ANY POSSIBLE FUTURE STONES CONCERTS. PERIOD.

AGREED!!!!!!!!!!!

well as far as Keith Richards I believe he will always be the Riff Master. And I will have to disagree with getting rid of Lisa Fischer.

Quote
J@yk3s
I will have to disagree with getting rid of Lisa Fischer.

I agree totally, she's fantastic!