but he's been busy off and on.


Lilly hammer on Gimme Shelter
[www.twitvid.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-17 11:20 by Toru A.

Quote
Toru A
but he's been busy off and on.

Best tv series ever!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-17 10:41 by DandelionPowderman.

They already turned down Nils.

Just when they thought he was in, they pull him back out.

No; not a good idea

Quote
stonescrow
Steven loves the Stones. Why not? I think he would make a great addition to the band.

Why? Even if Keith ain't up to par - which remains to be seen - They've already been using Blondie as a backup guitarist. If Ronnie stays sober, he (and even Jagger) can do more of the heavy lifting if Keith needs to lay back and play less. And the notion of making Stevie an official member of the band? It would never happen for many reasons other than talent. He doesn't look like a Stone. The Stones do take that seriously. You have to have that skinny-ugly image that Keith and Ronnie have. Also, as Keith commented about selecting Ronnie in the wake of the great guitarists hunt of '75, he's not British. "We had to own up that we're an English band. An American guitarist just wouldn't do." Why have they never offered D. Jones official "band member status." Maybe for similar reasons even though they've used him ever since Wyman left. Ian Stewart was integral to their sound but was also denied official status because he didn't look like a Stone. But that was probably more to do with Andrew Loog Oldham than Mick and Keith. At any rate they're never going to add another official guitarist to the band...even if Keith and Ron both can't play anymore. They'll have Blondie and maybe Waddy W. standing in the shadows while Ron and Keef grimace and pose.

Quote
MKjan

Quote
stonescrow

Quote
Rockman
Ditch Ronnie, and only have van Zandt and Keith as guitarplayers. Change Jagger with Tom Waits and Lou Reed, and change Darryl with Lemmy, and there you have it. Bet Charlie Watts would be pleased

........and have Springsteen yelling the backup vocals....

Might as well just turn Bruce's mic off altogether. It's painful (truly uncomfortable) watching him grunting and straining to get the words out. I still admire his passion. He really and truly is giving it his all. Everything about his performance is to be admired except for his voice.

Imagine how painful it is for Bruce, been trying to pass one for years now.

I didn't have the balls to say what you have said here, but it does appear exactly as you described. If it's painful for us you can imagine what it must be for him.

Quote
Beast
Have you overdone the booze tonight, stonescrow?

Just the normal amount.

Quote
The Wick
I love Springsteen and Van Zandt but this is a shocking suggestion.

Well, I keep hearing that Keith needs support these days. Why not someone that loves the Stones. And who doesn't love Stevie? He is one cool dude.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
stonescrow
Steven loves the Stones. Why not? I think he would make a great addition to the band.

You need treatment. Seriously.

Treatment is overrated. At least for me it has been.

Quote
Toru A
but he's been busy off and on.


Lilly hammer on Gimme Shelter
[www.twitvid.com]

Looks like Chris Berman of ESPN.

Quote
stonesdan60

Quote
stonescrow
Steven loves the Stones. Why not? I think he would make a great addition to the band.

Why? Even if Keith ain't up to par - which remains to be seen - They've already been using Blondie as a backup guitarist. If Ronnie stays sober, he (and even Jagger) can do more of the heavy lifting if Keith needs to lay back and play less. And the notion of making Stevie an official member of the band? It would never happen for many reasons other than talent. He doesn't look like a Stone. The Stones do take that seriously. You have to have that skinny-ugly image that Keith and Ronnie have. Also, as Keith commented about selecting Ronnie in the wake of the great guitarists hunt of '75, he's not British. "We had to own up that we're an English band. An American guitarist just wouldn't do." Why have they never offered D. Jones official "band member status." Maybe for similar reasons even though they've used him ever since Wyman left. Ian Stewart was integral to their sound but was also denied official status because he didn't look like a Stone. But that was probably more to do with Andrew Loog Oldham than Mick and Keith. At any rate they're never going to add another official guitarist to the band...even if Keith and Ron both can't play anymore. They'll have Blondie and maybe Waddy W. standing in the shadows while Ron and Keef grimace and pose.

Good comments. Would you be OK with a guest appearance or two? I would.

Yeah great idea. Maybe if their lucky get Huey Lewis to sing lead also.... They can even top ABB that way.

Quote
SweetThing
Yeah great idea. Maybe if their lucky get Huey Lewis to sing lead also.... They can even top ABB that way.

Nothing wrong with a band evolving. I kind of wish rock bands would operate more like professional sports franchises. Keep the brand name with different players carrying the torch forward. The sons of the Beatles (my idea) is a good example of what I would like to see more of. Just because something has been done a certain way seemingly forever, doesn't mean it has to stay that way. I mean, what would be wrong with Johnny Depp being trained by Keith Richards to replace him at some point in the near future? Who could replace Mick? To bad he didn't make more male babies.

Quote
stonescrow
I kind of wish rock bands would operate more like professional sports franchises. Keep the brand name with different players carrying the torch forward. The sons of the Beatles (my idea) .

"Sons of" idea was already thought of...

Quote
loog droog

Quote
stonescrow
I kind of wish rock bands would operate more like professional sports franchises. Keep the brand name with different players carrying the torch forward. The sons of the Beatles (my idea) .

"Sons of" idea was already thought of...

Cool! Thanks for posting. I should have mentioned the circus. Lot's of acts passed on from generation to generation. Same in thoroughbred racing and NASCAR.

Quote
stonescrow

Quote
SweetThing
Yeah great idea. Maybe if their lucky get Huey Lewis to sing lead also.... They can even top ABB that way.

I mean, what would be wrong with Johnny Depp being trained by Keith Richards to replace him at some point in the near future?

something like this then?....

Quote
SweetThing

Quote
stonescrow

Quote
SweetThing
Yeah great idea. Maybe if their lucky get Huey Lewis to sing lead also.... They can even top ABB that way.

I mean, what would be wrong with Johnny Depp being trained by Keith Richards to replace him at some point in the near future?

something like this then?....

Yes! Exactly! Fantastic!

Quote
stonescrow

Quote
SweetThing
Yeah great idea. Maybe if their lucky get Huey Lewis to sing lead also.... They can even top ABB that way.

Nothing wrong with a band evolving. I kind of wish rock bands would operate more like professional sports franchises. Keep the brand name with different players carrying the torch forward. The sons of the Beatles (my idea) is a good example of what I would like to see more of. Just because something has been done a certain way seemingly forever, doesn't mean it has to stay that way. I mean, what would be wrong with Johnny Depp being trained by Keith Richards to replace him at some point in the near future? Who could replace Mick? To bad he didn't make more male babies.

You CANNOT compare a band to a sports team!! What makes a great band great? It's the unique artistic chemistry between certain members that creates a signature sound that no one else quite sounds like. Granted, the Stones have continued to sound very much like The Rolling Stones despite some lineup changes. Which serves only to demonstrate that perhaps the most essential elements are the three remaining original members. Mick's voice and stage performance are obvious trademarks. You would have a completely different sound without the unique groove created by Keith and Charlie. If you let a band "evolve" to the point where it's completely different people falling into the roles, you lose the very essence of what makes a band what they are. In sports teams, all that matters is if the team has players who can make the team win. That's all anybody cares about. But to suggest or imply that you could have an eternal Rolling Stones, Beatles, or any other unique band by continuing to bring in member's offspring, newer players as originals die off is simply ludicrous. Should Jakob Dylan change his name to Bob so we can have an ongoing Bob Dylan? Trying to be respectful, but I find this "sons of" notion simply ludicrous.

Quote
stonesdan60

Quote
stonescrow

Quote
SweetThing
Yeah great idea. Maybe if their lucky get Huey Lewis to sing lead also.... They can even top ABB that way.

Nothing wrong with a band evolving. I kind of wish rock bands would operate more like professional sports franchises. Keep the brand name with different players carrying the torch forward. The sons of the Beatles (my idea) is a good example of what I would like to see more of. Just because something has been done a certain way seemingly forever, doesn't mean it has to stay that way. I mean, what would be wrong with Johnny Depp being trained by Keith Richards to replace him at some point in the near future? Who could replace Mick? To bad he didn't make more male babies.

You CANNOT compare a band to a sports team!! What makes a great band great? It's the unique artistic chemistry between certain members that creates a signature sound that no one else quite sounds like. Granted, the Stones have continued to sound very much like The Rolling Stones despite some lineup changes. Which serves only to demonstrate that perhaps the most essential elements are the three remaining original members. Mick's voice and stage performance are obvious trademarks. You would have a completely different sound without the unique groove created by Keith and Charlie. If you let a band "evolve" to the point where it's completely different people falling into the roles, you lose the very essence of what makes a band what they are. In sports teams, all that matters is if the team has players who can make the team win. That's all anybody cares about. But to suggest or imply that you could have an eternal Rolling Stones, Beatles, or any other unique band by continuing to bring in member's offspring, newer players as originals die off is simply ludicrous. Should Jakob Dylan change his name to Bob so we can have an ongoing Bob Dylan? Trying to be respectful, but I find this "sons of" notion simply ludicrous.

No, I am sorry but you are just plain wrong. I went to see Beatlemania, it was actually better than The original Beatles, which had sort of played themselves out. Same thing, sort of, you can see the latter day Stones, 1990 onwards, have really just begun to peak. The only way they can top themselves now is to get some new players onto the field to take them to the next level. Done Deal... The Brand will live forever...

Quote
SweetThing

Quote
stonesdan60

Quote
stonescrow

Quote
SweetThing
Yeah great idea. Maybe if their lucky get Huey Lewis to sing lead also.... They can even top ABB that way.

Nothing wrong with a band evolving. I kind of wish rock bands would operate more like professional sports franchises. Keep the brand name with different players carrying the torch forward. The sons of the Beatles (my idea) is a good example of what I would like to see more of. Just because something has been done a certain way seemingly forever, doesn't mean it has to stay that way. I mean, what would be wrong with Johnny Depp being trained by Keith Richards to replace him at some point in the near future? Who could replace Mick? To bad he didn't make more male babies.

You CANNOT compare a band to a sports team!! What makes a great band great? It's the unique artistic chemistry between certain members that creates a signature sound that no one else quite sounds like. Granted, the Stones have continued to sound very much like The Rolling Stones despite some lineup changes. Which serves only to demonstrate that perhaps the most essential elements are the three remaining original members. Mick's voice and stage performance are obvious trademarks. You would have a completely different sound without the unique groove created by Keith and Charlie. If you let a band "evolve" to the point where it's completely different people falling into the roles, you lose the very essence of what makes a band what they are. In sports teams, all that matters is if the team has players who can make the team win. That's all anybody cares about. But to suggest or imply that you could have an eternal Rolling Stones, Beatles, or any other unique band by continuing to bring in member's offspring, newer players as originals die off is simply ludicrous. Should Jakob Dylan change his name to Bob so we can have an ongoing Bob Dylan? Trying to be respectful, but I find this "sons of" notion simply ludicrous.

No, I am sorry but you are just plain wrong. I went to see Beatlemania, it was actually better than The original Beatles, which had sort of played themselves out. Same thing, sort of, you can see the latter day Stones, 1990 onwards, have really just begun to peak. The only way they can top themselves now is to get some new players onto the field to take them to the next level. Done Deal... The Brand will live forever...

No, I hold my stance. Something like Beatlemania may be a very impressive and entertaining recreation of Beatles music. I don't want to see impersonators. The Beatles are history. I'll listen to their albums. Neither do I want to see Stones impersonators or even highly skilled players who may not look like them but mimic them well. I'd rather stay home and listen to the old albums when there is no longer a Rolling Stones extant. Music is art. Art is the work of individuals, or specific individuals creating something unique together. You don't treat art like a "brand name." There was only one Van Gogh, one Rembrandt, one Bob Dylan. There is only one Mick Jagger, Keith Richards or Charlie Watts. Fill their shoes with others and keep the brand name? It saddens me that someone would even consider that plausible. If Mark Twain has surviving descendants, should they write more books about Tom and Huck under the name Mark Twain? It's almost blasphempous. Beatlemania may be impressive but it's not The Beatles. I don't care to see a Stonesmania if the time comes.

This guay may fit is Bruce's band, but i don't want him on the RS. If KR and RW need supporting guitar players, is better not to perform ever more.
I can't still belive Blondie Chaplin plays KR's guitar parts behind the main scene.
If this is true i give up my Rs's fanship

Quote
KeithNacho
This guay may fit is Bruce's band, but i don't want him on the RS. If KR and RW need supporting guitar players, is better not to perform ever more.
I can't still belive Blondie Chaplin plays KR's guitar parts behind the main scene.
If this is true i give up my Rs's fanship

True. If the actual Rolling Stones can't play anymore, then it's time for the band and the "brand name" to retire. I also do not believe that what Keith appears to be playing is actually Blondie. You can watch his hands on the screens at a concert and most people - especially people like me who play guitar - could tell if it doesn't match what you hear. Blondie could not let Keith fake it because Keith improvises a lot. Blondie wouldn't know what Keith is about to play and the discrepancy between what's seen and what's heard would be obvious. Blondie sometimes plays guitar in full view of everyone so I can't buy that he actually playing what we think Keith is playing.

Do you beleive that KR wants someone to play what is supposed to be played by him? Why is so low RW on the mix then? It should be easier to make RW play louder

Quote
stonesdan60

Quote
stonescrow

Quote
SweetThing
Yeah great idea. Maybe if their lucky get Huey Lewis to sing lead also.... They can even top ABB that way.

Nothing wrong with a band evolving. I kind of wish rock bands would operate more like professional sports franchises. Keep the brand name with different players carrying the torch forward. The sons of the Beatles (my idea) is a good example of what I would like to see more of. Just because something has been done a certain way seemingly forever, doesn't mean it has to stay that way. I mean, what would be wrong with Johnny Depp being trained by Keith Richards to replace him at some point in the near future? Who could replace Mick? To bad he didn't make more male babies.

You CANNOT compare a band to a sports team!! What makes a great band great? It's the unique artistic chemistry between certain members that creates a signature sound that no one else quite sounds like. Granted, the Stones have continued to sound very much like The Rolling Stones despite some lineup changes. Which serves only to demonstrate that perhaps the most essential elements are the three remaining original members. Mick's voice and stage performance are obvious trademarks. You would have a completely different sound without the unique groove created by Keith and Charlie. If you let a band "evolve" to the point where it's completely different people falling into the roles, you lose the very essence of what makes a band what they are. In sports teams, all that matters is if the team has players who can make the team win. That's all anybody cares about. But to suggest or imply that you could have an eternal Rolling Stones, Beatles, or any other unique band by continuing to bring in member's offspring, newer players as originals die off is simply ludicrous. Should Jakob Dylan change his name to Bob so we can have an ongoing Bob Dylan? Trying to be respectful, but I find this "sons of" notion simply ludicrous.

Good comments. The Beatles were unique. More than just a band. Turned the world upside down, preached love, but in the end had little for one another. Had John and George lived I think they would have eventually gotten back together in their 50's. An argument can be made that is was inevitable they would split based on the amount of time they spent together for over a decade. Regardless, their sudden and premature ending was mourned by millions. It was a tremendous loss. There has been a yearning for some form of Beatles revival for decades. And a sense of unfinished business. Having sons that look so much like their fathers (and with each of them having displayed at least some degree of musical potential) has been just enough in the minds of many Beatles fans to keep the dream alive for some form of Beatles revival. They wouldn't necessarily have to call themselves the Beatles. I have suggested: The Beatles: Act II. Not saying all rock bands should consider grooming their offspring as replacements, but there is definitely a feeling of unfinished business attached to the Beatles. It isn't something that needs to happen, but it sure would be nice if it did from time to time. Especially when you are talking about iconic bands like the Beatles or the Stones.

Quote
SweetThing

Quote
stonesdan60

Quote
stonescrow

Quote
SweetThing
Yeah great idea. Maybe if their lucky get Huey Lewis to sing lead also.... They can even top ABB that way.

Nothing wrong with a band evolving. I kind of wish rock bands would operate more like professional sports franchises. Keep the brand name with different players carrying the torch forward. The sons of the Beatles (my idea) is a good example of what I would like to see more of. Just because something has been done a certain way seemingly forever, doesn't mean it has to stay that way. I mean, what would be wrong with Johnny Depp being trained by Keith Richards to replace him at some point in the near future? Who could replace Mick? To bad he didn't make more male babies.

You CANNOT compare a band to a sports team!! What makes a great band great? It's the unique artistic chemistry between certain members that creates a signature sound that no one else quite sounds like. Granted, the Stones have continued to sound very much like The Rolling Stones despite some lineup changes. Which serves only to demonstrate that perhaps the most essential elements are the three remaining original members. Mick's voice and stage performance are obvious trademarks. You would have a completely different sound without the unique groove created by Keith and Charlie. If you let a band "evolve" to the point where it's completely different people falling into the roles, you lose the very essence of what makes a band what they are. In sports teams, all that matters is if the team has players who can make the team win. That's all anybody cares about. But to suggest or imply that you could have an eternal Rolling Stones, Beatles, or any other unique band by continuing to bring in member's offspring, newer players as originals die off is simply ludicrous. Should Jakob Dylan change his name to Bob so we can have an ongoing Bob Dylan? Trying to be respectful, but I find this "sons of" notion simply ludicrous.

No, I am sorry but you are just plain wrong. I went to see Beatlemania, it was actually better than The original Beatles, which had sort of played themselves out. Same thing, sort of, you can see the latter day Stones, 1990 onwards, have really just begun to peak. The only way they can top themselves now is to get some new players onto the field to take them to the next level. Done Deal... The Brand will live forever...

I think it can work, but Mick needs to go make some more male babies that look just like him. He should have had a dozen kids with Bianca! You would think at least one could Move Like Jagger!

Quote
stonescrow

Quote
stonesdan60

Quote
stonescrow

Quote
SweetThing
Yeah great idea. Maybe if their lucky get Huey Lewis to sing lead also.... They can even top ABB that way.

Nothing wrong with a band evolving. I kind of wish rock bands would operate more like professional sports franchises. Keep the brand name with different players carrying the torch forward. The sons of the Beatles (my idea) is a good example of what I would like to see more of. Just because something has been done a certain way seemingly forever, doesn't mean it has to stay that way. I mean, what would be wrong with Johnny Depp being trained by Keith Richards to replace him at some point in the near future? Who could replace Mick? To bad he didn't make more male babies.

You CANNOT compare a band to a sports team!! What makes a great band great? It's the unique artistic chemistry between certain members that creates a signature sound that no one else quite sounds like. Granted, the Stones have continued to sound very much like The Rolling Stones despite some lineup changes. Which serves only to demonstrate that perhaps the most essential elements are the three remaining original members. Mick's voice and stage performance are obvious trademarks. You would have a completely different sound without the unique groove created by Keith and Charlie. If you let a band "evolve" to the point where it's completely different people falling into the roles, you lose the very essence of what makes a band what they are. In sports teams, all that matters is if the team has players who can make the team win. That's all anybody cares about. But to suggest or imply that you could have an eternal Rolling Stones, Beatles, or any other unique band by continuing to bring in member's offspring, newer players as originals die off is simply ludicrous. Should Jakob Dylan change his name to Bob so we can have an ongoing Bob Dylan? Trying to be respectful, but I find this "sons of" notion simply ludicrous.

Good comments. The Beatles were unique. More than just a band. Turned the world upside down, preached love, but in the end had little for one another. Had John and George lived I think they would have eventually gotten back together in their 50's. An argument can be made that is was inevitable they would split based on the amount of time they spent together for over a decade. Regardless, their sudden and premature ending was mourned by millions. It was a tremendous loss. There has been a yearning for some form of Beatles revival for decades. And a sense of unfinished business. Having sons that look so much like their fathers (and with each of them having displayed at least some degree of musical potential) has been just enough in the minds of many Beatles fans to keep the dream alive for some form of Beatles revival. They wouldn't necessarily have to call themselves the Beatles. I have suggested: The Beatles: Act II. Not saying all rock bands should consider grooming their offspring as replacements, but there is definitely a feeling of unfinished business attached to the Beatles. It isn't something that needs to happen, but it sure would be nice if it did from time to time. Especially when you are talking about iconic bands like the Beatles or the Stones.

I think you're right. You're onto something. Not only is it the Sons of the Beatles, but science will soon allow us to clone the original Beatles. The Sons of the Beatles will just be a "place holder" of sorts. In time, their brains, the brains of the sons of the Beatles, can be implanted in the host bodies of their cloned fathers, that have been stored in whatever way technology allows. THEN, the sons of the Beatles consciousness can merge with the true Genetic predispositions and talents of the Fathers. With a bit of time put aside for practice and study, The BEATLES can then pick up where they left off, and reclaim their rightful place in history. Now you may ask, "How then, can the Stones keep up?" More on that later. DONE DEAL...

Quote
stonesdan60

Quote
SweetThing

Quote
stonesdan60

Quote
stonescrow

Quote
SweetThing
Yeah great idea. Maybe if their lucky get Huey Lewis to sing lead also.... They can even top ABB that way.

Nothing wrong with a band evolving. I kind of wish rock bands would operate more like professional sports franchises. Keep the brand name with different players carrying the torch forward. The sons of the Beatles (my idea) is a good example of what I would like to see more of. Just because something has been done a certain way seemingly forever, doesn't mean it has to stay that way. I mean, what would be wrong with Johnny Depp being trained by Keith Richards to replace him at some point in the near future? Who could replace Mick? To bad he didn't make more male babies.

You CANNOT compare a band to a sports team!! What makes a great band great? It's the unique artistic chemistry between certain members that creates a signature sound that no one else quite sounds like. Granted, the Stones have continued to sound very much like The Rolling Stones despite some lineup changes. Which serves only to demonstrate that perhaps the most essential elements are the three remaining original members. Mick's voice and stage performance are obvious trademarks. You would have a completely different sound without the unique groove created by Keith and Charlie. If you let a band "evolve" to the point where it's completely different people falling into the roles, you lose the very essence of what makes a band what they are. In sports teams, all that matters is if the team has players who can make the team win. That's all anybody cares about. But to suggest or imply that you could have an eternal Rolling Stones, Beatles, or any other unique band by continuing to bring in member's offspring, newer players as originals die off is simply ludicrous. Should Jakob Dylan change his name to Bob so we can have an ongoing Bob Dylan? Trying to be respectful, but I find this "sons of" notion simply ludicrous.

No, I am sorry but you are just plain wrong. I went to see Beatlemania, it was actually better than The original Beatles, which had sort of played themselves out. Same thing, sort of, you can see the latter day Stones, 1990 onwards, have really just begun to peak. The only way they can top themselves now is to get some new players onto the field to take them to the next level. Done Deal... The Brand will live forever...

No, I hold my stance. Something like Beatlemania may be a very impressive and entertaining recreation of Beatles music. I don't want to see impersonators. The Beatles are history. I'll listen to their albums. Neither do I want to see Stones impersonators or even highly skilled players who may not look like them but mimic them well. I'd rather stay home and listen to the old albums when there is no longer a Rolling Stones extant. Music is art. Art is the work of individuals, or specific individuals creating something unique together. You don't treat art like a "brand name." There was only one Van Gogh, one Rembrandt, one Bob Dylan. There is only one Mick Jagger, Keith Richards or Charlie Watts. Fill their shoes with others and keep the brand name? It saddens me that someone would even consider that plausible. If Mark Twain has surviving descendants, should they write more books about Tom and Huck under the name Mark Twain? It's almost blasphempous. Beatlemania may be impressive but it's not The Beatles. I don't care to see a Stonesmania if the time comes.

When these dead artists are properly cloned, we can feed their consciousness through a genetic CGI projector - you will see holograms that will be REAL.... this means many NEW tours, NEW albums and songs, straight out towards infinity. DONE DEAL...

Quote
SweetThing

Quote
stonescrow

Quote
stonesdan60

Quote
stonescrow

Quote
SweetThing
Yeah great idea. Maybe if their lucky get Huey Lewis to sing lead also.... They can even top ABB that way.

Nothing wrong with a band evolving. I kind of wish rock bands would operate more like professional sports franchises. Keep the brand name with different players carrying the torch forward. The sons of the Beatles (my idea) is a good example of what I would like to see more of. Just because something has been done a certain way seemingly forever, doesn't mean it has to stay that way. I mean, what would be wrong with Johnny Depp being trained by Keith Richards to replace him at some point in the near future? Who could replace Mick? To bad he didn't make more male babies.

You CANNOT compare a band to a sports team!! What makes a great band great? It's the unique artistic chemistry between certain members that creates a signature sound that no one else quite sounds like. Granted, the Stones have continued to sound very much like The Rolling Stones despite some lineup changes. Which serves only to demonstrate that perhaps the most essential elements are the three remaining original members. Mick's voice and stage performance are obvious trademarks. You would have a completely different sound without the unique groove created by Keith and Charlie. If you let a band "evolve" to the point where it's completely different people falling into the roles, you lose the very essence of what makes a band what they are. In sports teams, all that matters is if the team has players who can make the team win. That's all anybody cares about. But to suggest or imply that you could have an eternal Rolling Stones, Beatles, or any other unique band by continuing to bring in member's offspring, newer players as originals die off is simply ludicrous. Should Jakob Dylan change his name to Bob so we can have an ongoing Bob Dylan? Trying to be respectful, but I find this "sons of" notion simply ludicrous.

Good comments. The Beatles were unique. More than just a band. Turned the world upside down, preached love, but in the end had little for one another. Had John and George lived I think they would have eventually gotten back together in their 50's. An argument can be made that is was inevitable they would split based on the amount of time they spent together for over a decade. Regardless, their sudden and premature ending was mourned by millions. It was a tremendous loss. There has been a yearning for some form of Beatles revival for decades. And a sense of unfinished business. Having sons that look so much like their fathers (and with each of them having displayed at least some degree of musical potential) has been just enough in the minds of many Beatles fans to keep the dream alive for some form of Beatles revival. They wouldn't necessarily have to call themselves the Beatles. I have suggested: The Beatles: Act II. Not saying all rock bands should consider grooming their offspring as replacements, but there is definitely a feeling of unfinished business attached to the Beatles. It isn't something that needs to happen, but it sure would be nice if it did from time to time. Especially when you are talking about iconic bands like the Beatles or the Stones.

I think you're right. You're onto something. Not only is it the Sons of the Beatles, but science will soon allow us to clone the original Beatles. The Sons of the Beatles will just be a "place holder" of sorts. In time, their brains, the brains of the sons of the Beatles, can be implanted in the host bodies of their cloned fathers, that have been stored in whatever way technology allows. THEN, the sons of the Beatles consciousness can merge with the true Genetic predispositions and talents of the Fathers. With a bit of time put aside for practice and study, The BEATLES can then pick up where they left off, and reclaim their rightful place in history. Now you may ask, "How then, can the Stones keep up?" More on that later. DONE DEAL...

You are a genius! And what about the trillions of parallel universes where John and George are still alive and the Beatles are still going strong! Don't you just love modern physics!

Quote
SweetThing

Quote
stonesdan60

Quote
SweetThing

Quote
stonesdan60

Quote
stonescrow

Quote
SweetThing
Yeah great idea. Maybe if their lucky get Huey Lewis to sing lead also.... They can even top ABB that way.

Nothing wrong with a band evolving. I kind of wish rock bands would operate more like professional sports franchises. Keep the brand name with different players carrying the torch forward. The sons of the Beatles (my idea) is a good example of what I would like to see more of. Just because something has been done a certain way seemingly forever, doesn't mean it has to stay that way. I mean, what would be wrong with Johnny Depp being trained by Keith Richards to replace him at some point in the near future? Who could replace Mick? To bad he didn't make more male babies.

You CANNOT compare a band to a sports team!! What makes a great band great? It's the unique artistic chemistry between certain members that creates a signature sound that no one else quite sounds like. Granted, the Stones have continued to sound very much like The Rolling Stones despite some lineup changes. Which serves only to demonstrate that perhaps the most essential elements are the three remaining original members. Mick's voice and stage performance are obvious trademarks. You would have a completely different sound without the unique groove created by Keith and Charlie. If you let a band "evolve" to the point where it's completely different people falling into the roles, you lose the very essence of what makes a band what they are. In sports teams, all that matters is if the team has players who can make the team win. That's all anybody cares about. But to suggest or imply that you could have an eternal Rolling Stones, Beatles, or any other unique band by continuing to bring in member's offspring, newer players as originals die off is simply ludicrous. Should Jakob Dylan change his name to Bob so we can have an ongoing Bob Dylan? Trying to be respectful, but I find this "sons of" notion simply ludicrous.

No, I am sorry but you are just plain wrong. I went to see Beatlemania, it was actually better than The original Beatles, which had sort of played themselves out. Same thing, sort of, you can see the latter day Stones, 1990 onwards, have really just begun to peak. The only way they can top themselves now is to get some new players onto the field to take them to the next level. Done Deal... The Brand will live forever...

No, I hold my stance. Something like Beatlemania may be a very impressive and entertaining recreation of Beatles music. I don't want to see impersonators. The Beatles are history. I'll listen to their albums. Neither do I want to see Stones impersonators or even highly skilled players who may not look like them but mimic them well. I'd rather stay home and listen to the old albums when there is no longer a Rolling Stones extant. Music is art. Art is the work of individuals, or specific individuals creating something unique together. You don't treat art like a "brand name." There was only one Van Gogh, one Rembrandt, one Bob Dylan. There is only one Mick Jagger, Keith Richards or Charlie Watts. Fill their shoes with others and keep the brand name? It saddens me that someone would even consider that plausible. If Mark Twain has surviving descendants, should they write more books about Tom and Huck under the name Mark Twain? It's almost blasphempous. Beatlemania may be impressive but it's not The Beatles. I don't care to see a Stonesmania if the time comes.

When these dead artists are properly cloned, we can feed their consciousness through a genetic CGI projector - you will see holograms that will be REAL.... this means many NEW tours, NEW albums and songs, straight out towards infinity. DONE DEAL...

Yes, Yes, Yes! Your words bring joy throughout the universe!

Forget Van Zandt, here is Keith's replacement for the next tour:
She's already been practicing Satisfaction!