And that's all there really is to it.

I agree, but they are very close here

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2011-10-26 10:39 by JJFlash2010.

Really?

There almost was a Rolling Stones with Terence Trent D'arby in the 80's.







Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-10-26 10:52 by Send It To me.

Quote
Send It To me
There almost was a Rolling Stones with Terence Trent D'arby in the 80's.

Yeah, I remember a story in the papers about that. Bill was saying Darby was nailing the old Stones-classics...

There is no rolliong stones without Charlie Watts.
Stones are Charlie´s band, and mick is Charlie´s singer.

Quote
seitan
There is no rolliong stones without Charlie Watts.
Stones are Charlie´s band, and mick is Charlie´s singer.

YCAGWYW and Happy are good Stones-tunes w o Charlie, but of course I agree. No Charlie, no Stones.

There is no Rolling Stones without Mick Jagger

.......can't argue with that one ......



ROCKMAN

Mick and Charlie are irreplaceable.
Little T&A, it is Keith leading the band, but one knows that Mick is taking a break.

Jagger is irreplaceable, both from a musical and business kind of view (seventees). Imo he did his most serious acting when he got backed up by professional musicians, and prior to that from '63-'74, when the Stones still where a non-posing genuine bunch of musicians, a true R&R/Blues band.
Unless people like would-be "punk", "funk", "reggae" and tinned rock, he really should have gone solo after B&B. One can argue about the songwriting, nostalgia, ticket sales and Jagger's collaboration with Keith of course (maybe he should have payed him for his musical ideas), but Mick certainly deserved better musicians to back him up and compete with the spirit of time. This is shining through on Black and Blue already:
Perkins, Mandel and Preston did a great job too, and they whould have been competent to keep this up for years. Now I'am aware of the fact most (younger) Stones fans cannot imagine all that: The Stones where an established band, and a fart made the fans climb the curtains. Anyway, to me Jagger is one of the greatest frontmen ever, and the most professional artist the Stones ever had. The Rolling Stones and his fans owe him a lot and can be grateful he sat this through for all those years.

Amsterdamned, you have some good points here, but one has to say that Jagger is to insecure to work as a solo artist. He is permanently looking after trends that vanish rapidly. He recently said: "When you are a musician you have to listen to Rihanna and Beyoncé". That is rubbish. You have to listen to great music and you have to know what you are capable of.

Quote
Amsterdamned
Jagger is irreplaceable, both from a musical and business kind of view (seventees). Imo he did his most serious acting when he got backed up by professional musicians, and prior to that from '63-'74, when the Stones still where a non-posing genuine bunch of musicians, a true R&R/Blues band.
Unless people like would-be "punk", "funk", "reggae" and tinned rock, he really should have gone solo after B&B. One can argue about the songwriting, nostalgia, ticket sales and Jagger's collaboration with Keith of course (maybe he should have payed him for his musical ideas), but Mick certainly deserved better musicians to back him up and compete with the spirit of time. This is shining through on Black and Blue already:
Perkins, Mandel and Preston did a great job too, and they whould have been competent to keep this up for years. Now I'am aware of the fact most (younger) Stones fans cannot imagine all that: The Stones where an established band, and a fart made the fans climb the curtains. Anyway, to me Jagger is one of the greatest frontmen ever, and the most professional artist the Stones ever had. The Rolling Stones and his fans owe him a lot and can be grateful he sat this through for all those years.

Now THAT would have been sad. Imagine no Some Girls, my favorite Stones album!

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Amsterdamned
Jagger is irreplaceable, both from a musical and business kind of view (seventees). Imo he did his most serious acting when he got backed up by professional musicians, and prior to that from '63-'74, when the Stones still where a non-posing genuine bunch of musicians, a true R&R/Blues band.
Unless people like would-be "punk", "funk", "reggae" and tinned rock, he really should have gone solo after B&B. One can argue about the songwriting, nostalgia, ticket sales and Jagger's collaboration with Keith of course (maybe he should have payed him for his musical ideas), but Mick certainly deserved better musicians to back him up and compete with the spirit of time. This is shining through on Black and Blue already:
Perkins, Mandel and Preston did a great job too, and they whould have been competent to keep this up for years. Now I'am aware of the fact most (younger) Stones fans cannot imagine all that: The Stones where an established band, and a fart made the fans climb the curtains. Anyway, to me Jagger is one of the greatest frontmen ever, and the most professional artist the Stones ever had. The Rolling Stones and his fans owe him a lot and can be grateful he sat this through for all those years.

Now THAT would have been sad. Imagine no Some Girls, my favorite Stones album!

Each to their own of course. Either I would have sent you a chocolate bar, or asked Jagger to pay for the session players and Keith's ideas

There's no Rolling Stones witout any of the 4 members as of today!

Been Stoned since 1964 and still am!

duh.

I'll second loog droog...........duh..........



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-10-26 23:08 by 1cdog.

but what about:

there is no mick jagger without the rolling stones.

superheavy has proved that once and for all, yes?

not much of one anyway.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-10-26 15:31 by nocomment.

Quote
seitan
There is no rolliong stones without Charlie Watts.
Stones are Charlie´s band, and mick is Charlie´s singer.

Sounds good on paper.

Glad that's finally been established.

Before everyone starts piling on me, let me say I'm as big a Ron Wood fan as anyone. As a matter of fact I'm probably a bigger fan of his solo work than with the Stones BUT there would be a Stones after him, just like there was a Stones before him. The others I agree with and even tho he doesnt get a lot of respect from many I think Bill is much more missed musically than generally thought with all due respect to Daryll......

I shall go to a stones show if keith sing all the songs...

There is no doubledoor without me

Quote
Fan Since 1964
There's no Rolling Stones witout any of the 4 members as of today!

What about Brian?!

so wait a minute would there be no BEATLES without JOHN or no BEATLES without PAUL?

Quote
steffiestones
I shall go to a stones show if keith sing all the songs...

I shall go to the bathroom if keith sings all the songs...

Quote
melillo
so wait a minute would there be no BEATLES without JOHN or no BEATLES without PAUL?

Without John, I believe the band goes by the moniker, "Wings".

Duh!!!

Quote
Rockman

.......can't argue with that one ......

Exactly.

No kidding No Mick or Keith no Rolling Stones!