For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
micawber
Oh one of micksfucks (in mind, just in mind). Misread your nick, sorry, micksfixchicks. Still the same addiction after all those years? Come on, that's ridiculous. Time to get in touch with reality...
Quote
micawber
You don't know anything about my hours, sorry.
Quote
The Joker
Nobody sees the practical point, here?
It will be 1,000 time more difficult to sneak in that performance than to get a ticket for a Licks club gig
Can you imagine there are even scalpers for that market?
Quote
Glam Descendant
Reporter: "Beatles or Stones?"
Obama: "Stones"
Quote
jpasc95
Will some of you be watching Mick's performance on the 21st of February and do some of you refuse to watch it because the band is not together ?
If I could, I would but I live in France so no chance...
Quote
mickschix
The responses here are so incoherent that I'm guessing that some have resorted to name-calling...can't really t ell, it seems to be written in a foreign language...yawn...
Quote
mickschix
Very funny, Eddie!!
and you know it's an inability because....?Quote
proudmary
I do not know, probably the two performances separately from each other was an accident. But the reluctance and even inability to be together on one stage speaks for itself.
Quote
proudmary
This competition - Mick plays the blues here, Keith plays the blues out there - is so out of place! They are not a horses at the races.
Btw, it is hard to miss - a lot more people protesting Jagger appearence without Richards at the White House than Richards without Mick in Apollo.
I wonder, why is so?
I do not know, probably the two performances separately from each other was an accident. But the reluctance and even inability to be together on one stage speaks for itself.
Quote
GumbootCloggerooand you know it's an inability because....?Quote
proudmary
I do not know, probably the two performances separately from each other was an accident. But the reluctance and even inability to be together on one stage speaks for itself.
maybe they aren't on stage together at these events because they're saving it for a ROLLING STONES concert? you know, they ARE in a band together. They're allowed to do other things separately. They've been doing that for decades and decades.
Quote
mickschix
No, EDDIE, I'm not familiar with it but now I'll be sure to check it out because I laughed out loud!! So appropriate for the stuff that goes on here!! You can't take it seriously, really. This is supposed to be fun!
Quote
DoxaQuote
proudmary
This competition - Mick plays the blues here, Keith plays the blues out there - is so out of place! They are not a horses at the races.
Btw, it is hard to miss - a lot more people protesting Jagger appearence without Richards at the White House than Richards without Mick in Apollo.
I wonder, why is so?
I do not know, probably the two performances separately from each other was an accident. But the reluctance and even inability to be together on one stage speaks for itself.
Could it be that the old men splitted the duties? Probaly both gigs were known quite a long in advance, and they decided: "you go there, and I go here, okay?". It could be that Beck and Clapton made some similar decision (or they refused from the other gig.)
Like I said in that other thread, I find odd this strange demand that Mick and Keith should always perform together. Like having one is not good enough. It is the individuals there, not The Rolling Stones performing in neither of these occasions.
- Doxa
I think your Proudmary. Their is logical reason tehy both couldn't play together at one or both of the events. They started teh Rolling Stones as a blues band. What better way to celebrate their 50th than playing 2 different blues tributes together?Quote
proudmaryQuote
DoxaQuote
proudmary
This competition - Mick plays the blues here, Keith plays the blues out there - is so out of place! They are not a horses at the races.
Btw, it is hard to miss - a lot more people protesting Jagger appearence without Richards at the White House than Richards without Mick in Apollo.
I wonder, why is so?
I do not know, probably the two performances separately from each other was an accident. But the reluctance and even inability to be together on one stage speaks for itself.
Could it be that the old men splitted the duties? Probaly both gigs were known quite a long in advance, and they decided: "you go there, and I go here, okay?". It could be that Beck and Clapton made some similar decision (or they refused from the other gig.)
Like I said in that other thread, I find odd this strange demand that Mick and Keith should always perform together. Like having one is not good enough. It is the individuals there, not The Rolling Stones performing in neither of these occasions.
- Doxa
Perhaps the proximity of these concerts and the fact that both are a dedication to the blues leads me to these thoughts.
Okay, maybe I'm getting sentimental - but I would be happy to see them together at Apollo.
Why not, they've had gangata rappers their before haven't they? Keith is amodel citizen compared to some of the people that have been through there.Quote
Rocky Dijon
I guess the obvious thought would be that while Mick would be welcome at the Hubert Sumlin memorial show, Keith might not be welcome at the White House.