For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
proudmary
Mick's interview(2011)‘The first ever performance we did was in July at the Marquee Club in London and it was billed as Mick Jagger and the Rolling Stones. It was just me and Keith, Brian (Jones) and a backing band. No one else – no Charlie (Watts), he wasn’t even there. I remember it exactly. I was 19 years old...
...But if someone said to me, you are completely wrong Mick, Charlie played at the Marquee gig, here’s a picture – well maybe I was wrong. I don’t remember it like that but maybe he was there. But you see, then, that picture might have come from the October gig in the Marquee and who’s to know? And so the point is that somewhere around there, there was a band called the Rolling Stones but the actual first gig in July was not with Charlie or Bill (Wyman)."
Quote
71TeleQuote
WeLoveToPlayTheBluesQuote
treaclefingersQuote
TooToughQuote
flilflam
The 50th anniversary is 2013, not 2012. Didn't you read the article carefully? Charlie joined in 1963, and 1963 plus 50 equals 2013. What is your problem, other than your difficulty with mathematics?
Everyone who agrees with their new theory of "starting 1963" is an idiot.
All you have to say to close the point is 39 licks. They themselves pointed to 1962 as the starting point forever.
Charlie's 50th is 1963 and I have no problem with them using that date as the 50th anniversary of the first complete lineup...but yes, this is revisionist history.
Um. If the first "complete" lineup was with Charlie then what were the lineups before? Inceptional lineups? Quasi-lineups? The Rollin' Stones lineups or pre-The Rolling Stones lineups? Dick Taylor and Tony Chapman were what, chump members? What about Stu? Maybe the real start of the band should be when he got booted out officially. Those gigs didn't mean anything then. They were inceptional gigs. Gigs that were live rehearsals. As opposed to taped rehearsals I guess.
Bill joined the band a month before Charlie. So why does the date for Charlie outweigh Billy Wyman...ohhhhh that's right, Charlie is on the cover of Rarities but Bill isn't. Somehow the Stones revised their history themselves to magically, or digitally, exclude him from a 1978 band photo.
So...the 1962 Stones don't exist...it was just the inception, whatever the hell that means, according to Keith.
And why does anyone take him serious? I know he's just being funny but it's not funny at all. It's just stupid.
It
doesn't
matter
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBluesQuote
71TeleQuote
WeLoveToPlayTheBluesQuote
treaclefingersQuote
TooToughQuote
flilflam
The 50th anniversary is 2013, not 2012. Didn't you read the article carefully? Charlie joined in 1963, and 1963 plus 50 equals 2013. What is your problem, other than your difficulty with mathematics?
Everyone who agrees with their new theory of "starting 1963" is an idiot.
All you have to say to close the point is 39 licks. They themselves pointed to 1962 as the starting point forever.
Charlie's 50th is 1963 and I have no problem with them using that date as the 50th anniversary of the first complete lineup...but yes, this is revisionist history.
Um. If the first "complete" lineup was with Charlie then what were the lineups before? Inceptional lineups? Quasi-lineups? The Rollin' Stones lineups or pre-The Rolling Stones lineups? Dick Taylor and Tony Chapman were what, chump members? What about Stu? Maybe the real start of the band should be when he got booted out officially. Those gigs didn't mean anything then. They were inceptional gigs. Gigs that were live rehearsals. As opposed to taped rehearsals I guess.
Bill joined the band a month before Charlie. So why does the date for Charlie outweigh Billy Wyman...ohhhhh that's right, Charlie is on the cover of Rarities but Bill isn't. Somehow the Stones revised their history themselves to magically, or digitally, exclude him from a 1978 band photo.
So...the 1962 Stones don't exist...it was just the inception, whatever the hell that means, according to Keith.
And why does anyone take him serious? I know he's just being funny but it's not funny at all. It's just stupid.
It
doesn't
matter
But
....
but
....
but
it's
a
sticky...
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
WeLoveToPlayTheBluesQuote
71TeleQuote
WeLoveToPlayTheBluesQuote
treaclefingersQuote
TooToughQuote
flilflam
The 50th anniversary is 2013, not 2012. Didn't you read the article carefully? Charlie joined in 1963, and 1963 plus 50 equals 2013. What is your problem, other than your difficulty with mathematics?
Everyone who agrees with their new theory of "starting 1963" is an idiot.
All you have to say to close the point is 39 licks. They themselves pointed to 1962 as the starting point forever.
Charlie's 50th is 1963 and I have no problem with them using that date as the 50th anniversary of the first complete lineup...but yes, this is revisionist history.
Um. If the first "complete" lineup was with Charlie then what were the lineups before? Inceptional lineups? Quasi-lineups? The Rollin' Stones lineups or pre-The Rolling Stones lineups? Dick Taylor and Tony Chapman were what, chump members? What about Stu? Maybe the real start of the band should be when he got booted out officially. Those gigs didn't mean anything then. They were inceptional gigs. Gigs that were live rehearsals. As opposed to taped rehearsals I guess.
Bill joined the band a month before Charlie. So why does the date for Charlie outweigh Billy Wyman...ohhhhh that's right, Charlie is on the cover of Rarities but Bill isn't. Somehow the Stones revised their history themselves to magically, or digitally, exclude him from a 1978 band photo.
So...the 1962 Stones don't exist...it was just the inception, whatever the hell that means, according to Keith.
And why does anyone take him serious? I know he's just being funny but it's not funny at all. It's just stupid.
It
doesn't
matter
But
....
but
....
but
it's
a
sticky...
yes, a sticky mess.
Quote
stonescrowQuote
treaclefingersQuote
WeLoveToPlayTheBluesQuote
71TeleQuote
WeLoveToPlayTheBluesQuote
treaclefingersQuote
TooToughQuote
flilflam
The 50th anniversary is 2013, not 2012. Didn't you read the article carefully? Charlie joined in 1963, and 1963 plus 50 equals 2013. What is your problem, other than your difficulty with mathematics?
Everyone who agrees with their new theory of "starting 1963" is an idiot.
All you have to say to close the point is 39 licks. They themselves pointed to 1962 as the starting point forever.
Charlie's 50th is 1963 and I have no problem with them using that date as the 50th anniversary of the first complete lineup...but yes, this is revisionist history.
Um. If the first "complete" lineup was with Charlie then what were the lineups before? Inceptional lineups? Quasi-lineups? The Rollin' Stones lineups or pre-The Rolling Stones lineups? Dick Taylor and Tony Chapman were what, chump members? What about Stu? Maybe the real start of the band should be when he got booted out officially. Those gigs didn't mean anything then. They were inceptional gigs. Gigs that were live rehearsals. As opposed to taped rehearsals I guess.
Bill joined the band a month before Charlie. So why does the date for Charlie outweigh Billy Wyman...ohhhhh that's right, Charlie is on the cover of Rarities but Bill isn't. Somehow the Stones revised their history themselves to magically, or digitally, exclude him from a 1978 band photo.
So...the 1962 Stones don't exist...it was just the inception, whatever the hell that means, according to Keith.
And why does anyone take him serious? I know he's just being funny but it's not funny at all. It's just stupid.
It
doesn't
matter
But
....
but
....
but
it's
a
sticky...
yes, a sticky mess.
It's really no mystery. Why tour without an album to tour on? If you are going to go out in a blaze of glory you do it full throttle, not half ass. That is what is really going on here. Also probably hoping for some improvement in the economy before plunging in.
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
stonescrowQuote
treaclefingersQuote
WeLoveToPlayTheBluesQuote
71TeleQuote
WeLoveToPlayTheBluesQuote
treaclefingersQuote
TooToughQuote
flilflam
The 50th anniversary is 2013, not 2012. Didn't you read the article carefully? Charlie joined in 1963, and 1963 plus 50 equals 2013. What is your problem, other than your difficulty with mathematics?
Everyone who agrees with their new theory of "starting 1963" is an idiot.
All you have to say to close the point is 39 licks. They themselves pointed to 1962 as the starting point forever.
Charlie's 50th is 1963 and I have no problem with them using that date as the 50th anniversary of the first complete lineup...but yes, this is revisionist history.
Um. If the first "complete" lineup was with Charlie then what were the lineups before? Inceptional lineups? Quasi-lineups? The Rollin' Stones lineups or pre-The Rolling Stones lineups? Dick Taylor and Tony Chapman were what, chump members? What about Stu? Maybe the real start of the band should be when he got booted out officially. Those gigs didn't mean anything then. They were inceptional gigs. Gigs that were live rehearsals. As opposed to taped rehearsals I guess.
Bill joined the band a month before Charlie. So why does the date for Charlie outweigh Billy Wyman...ohhhhh that's right, Charlie is on the cover of Rarities but Bill isn't. Somehow the Stones revised their history themselves to magically, or digitally, exclude him from a 1978 band photo.
So...the 1962 Stones don't exist...it was just the inception, whatever the hell that means, according to Keith.
And why does anyone take him serious? I know he's just being funny but it's not funny at all. It's just stupid.
It
doesn't
matter
But
....
but
....
but
it's
a
sticky...
yes, a sticky mess.
It's really no mystery. Why tour without an album to tour on? If you are going to go out in a blaze of glory you do it full throttle, not half ass. That is what is really going on here. Also probably hoping for some improvement in the economy before plunging in.
You're totally right...but I think we all intently understand that they had 5 years to prepare for this, so WHAT THE @#$%& HAPPENED?!
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
stonescrowQuote
treaclefingersQuote
WeLoveToPlayTheBluesQuote
71TeleQuote
WeLoveToPlayTheBluesQuote
treaclefingersQuote
TooToughQuote
flilflam
The 50th anniversary is 2013, not 2012. Didn't you read the article carefully? Charlie joined in 1963, and 1963 plus 50 equals 2013. What is your problem, other than your difficulty with mathematics?
Everyone who agrees with their new theory of "starting 1963" is an idiot.
All you have to say to close the point is 39 licks. They themselves pointed to 1962 as the starting point forever.
Charlie's 50th is 1963 and I have no problem with them using that date as the 50th anniversary of the first complete lineup...but yes, this is revisionist history.
Um. If the first "complete" lineup was with Charlie then what were the lineups before? Inceptional lineups? Quasi-lineups? The Rollin' Stones lineups or pre-The Rolling Stones lineups? Dick Taylor and Tony Chapman were what, chump members? What about Stu? Maybe the real start of the band should be when he got booted out officially. Those gigs didn't mean anything then. They were inceptional gigs. Gigs that were live rehearsals. As opposed to taped rehearsals I guess.
Bill joined the band a month before Charlie. So why does the date for Charlie outweigh Billy Wyman...ohhhhh that's right, Charlie is on the cover of Rarities but Bill isn't. Somehow the Stones revised their history themselves to magically, or digitally, exclude him from a 1978 band photo.
So...the 1962 Stones don't exist...it was just the inception, whatever the hell that means, according to Keith.
And why does anyone take him serious? I know he's just being funny but it's not funny at all. It's just stupid.
It
doesn't
matter
But
....
but
....
but
it's
a
sticky...
yes, a sticky mess.
It's really no mystery. Why tour without an album to tour on? If you are going to go out in a blaze of glory you do it full throttle, not half ass. That is what is really going on here. Also probably hoping for some improvement in the economy before plunging in.
You're totally right...but I think we all intently understand that they had 5 years to prepare for this, so WHAT THE @#$%& HAPPENED?!
Quote
Rocky Dijon
There's also the fact that if someone tells you privately that they heard from
an insider, family member, etc. tour dates or session dates being discussed and
then someone else tells you what they were privy to because of their job and you
proceed to post the news online for all to see just so you can be first, you no
longer get any scoops because you're now cut off.
Quote
superrevvy
The notion that at any time since a Bigger Bang a tour has been seriously considered is ridiculous. Every single solid piece of evidence has pointed against it.
Quote
stoned in washington dc
this is retarded.
Quote
superrevvyQuote
Rocky Dijon
There's also the fact that if someone tells you privately that they heard from
an insider, family member, etc. tour dates or session dates being discussed and
then someone else tells you what they were privy to because of their job and you
proceed to post the news online for all to see just so you can be first, you no
longer get any scoops because you're now cut off.
This is the gigantically important quote from Rocky. The admission of how it
works...
Quote
windmelody
Straycatuk, I think that Keith is bringing up Charlies's joining date because he regrets not touring this year. I do not believe in future Stones concerts but who knows.
Quote
Father TedQuote
superrevvyQuote
Rocky Dijon
There's also the fact that if someone tells you privately that they heard from
an insider, family member, etc. tour dates or session dates being discussed and
then someone else tells you what they were privy to because of their job and you
proceed to post the news online for all to see just so you can be first, you no
longer get any scoops because you're now cut off.
This is the gigantically important quote from Rocky. The admission of how it
works...
There is a duty of trust and confidence between and employer and employee. People who blab commercially-sensitive information simply can't be trusted and risk scuppering plans and wasting a lot of money. One of way of testing trustworthiness is to provide some credible but fake specific info to a person and see if that info ends up in public. People who leak info given in confidence will be cut loose (or just fed a stream of BS so they lose all credibility when none of their "hot insider info" turns out to be true).
Quote
SweetThingQuote
windmelody
Straycatuk, I think that Keith is bringing up Charlies's joining date because he regrets not touring this year. I do not believe in future Stones concerts but who knows.
Well, they all live in the UK, except Keith, and they all can still play, except Keith.
Of course they are all long in the tooth now, not just Keith.
Obviously, there is no "Rolling Stones" show as we know it, without Keith, and they risk a trainwreck at their advanced age, under the expectations of the Rolling Stones "brand".
But when things settle down, which at some point they will in a year or two, I would not be surprised at all to see combinations of Jagger, Watts, Wood, Taylor and Wyman, and possibly all together withOUT Keith Richards - at a few gigs or a limited few recordings.
That might be nice to hear or see.
It will NOT of course be marketed as "The Rolling Stones", but the brand will inevitably be referenced for some modest commercial gain.
Quote
Spud
Can't believe how far off folks fly at all kinds of tangents on the basis of a few snippets of information...be it true or false... to whatever degree.
I can see no resaon to think that they won't get it together a soon as circumstances allow.
Keith will be able to play perfectly well for the purpose .
Quote
71Tele
With everything we all know about Keith and his various utterances through the years, it simply amazes me that so many take his reference to 2013 "really" being the 50th so damn seriously, and are combing over every tea leaf and parsing what he said as if there is some greater meaning to it. There isn't! They are delaying any live shows until next year and Keith just tossed something off to make it sound better.
Quote
TeddyB1018
Keith's line was funny. Unlike this thread, which is ridiculous.