Tell Me :
Talk
Yeah it was geared towards the US market (Lorne Michaels of Saturday Night Live produced it, I think, didnt he?) and came out in March 1990 after being originally shown in late 1989.
Yet of course, the documentary actually did acknowledge the fact that the band existed prior to 1964, rendering the title a bit redundant!
Can you please explain why i would get rid of Charlie?
Can you please explain why you don't want actual members of the Rolling Stones, who were involved in most of the group's most compelling music - to play in the Rolling Stones, and why you prefer a ringer playing bass in the Rolling Stones to the bassist of the Rolling Stones?
It´s just my opinion, I want Mick, Keith (if he plays well enough), Charlie & Ronnie. That´s the band for me, Wyman could be interesting but Taylor wouldn´t be it since i never liked his playing at all, i prefer Ronnie 10 times out of 10 compared with Taylor.
Personally it's very difficult for me to imagine any Stones fan who would not be excited or at least intrigued by the line up that made Exile On Main Street and Sticky Fingers playing together again. But there you go.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-16 22:50 by 71Tele.
As i said, never liked Taylors way of playing and i don´t like that les paul sound, Ronnies way of playing and his stratsound is a very important part of the band for me.
Take a look at 6:00 and front and keep Ben, Ronnie, Bill, Charlie, Mick and add Keith, Mick and Bobby and you will have a perfect 2013 setup. Skip everything else.
Yes, you said that.
Sounds wrong, but it's correct. "Pushed back" means to schedule or arrange to do something at a later time.
Damn! that is incredibly rough. I've never heard Mick Taylor sound like that. Bring back Mick Taylor for 2013 and have him playing this over top of Keith's 'Promised Land' performance, and it'll be a really short show.
[www.non-filters.com]
Cheers.
I concur. I write for a living and it has always annoyed the heck out of me, too!
Nothing tops:
I'm a cold Italian Pizza, I could use a lemon squeezer...
Stephen Sondheim eat your heart out...
Cheers,
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-17 08:23 by memphiscats.
Consider it in this context: It was the next potato to peel but we threw it to the back of the bin. Kind of goes along with "put it on the back burner". Let it simmer for later.
Sounds reasonable, Marko, but didn't they have enough time in the past to prepare everything? I mean, even as early as 2007 they were aware that 2012 was "only" 5 years away, not 10 or 100.
Don't know for sure what hbwriter knows - but seems to me that Jagger is up for this. He's got energy at the moment and is enthusiastic about performing. Could speculate that delay reflects some concern on keith's recent appearances. if that's what hbwriter means by looking at the actions. but momentum is building.
Tis Keith who said it.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
straycatuk
()
Date: March 16, 2012 20:40
They brought out 25x5 documentary in 1989, 27 years after their 1st gig. I think they like to keep it flexible !
The USA didn't get the Stones 'till 1964,so it depends on your point of view I suppose.
sc uk
The USA didn't get the Stones 'till 1964,so it depends on your point of view I suppose.
sc uk
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: March 16, 2012 20:48
Quote
straycatuk
They brought out 25x5 documentary in 1989, 27 years after their 1st gig. I think they like to keep it flexible !
The USA didn't get the Stones 'till 1964,so it depends on your point of view I suppose.
sc uk
Yeah it was geared towards the US market (Lorne Michaels of Saturday Night Live produced it, I think, didnt he?) and came out in March 1990 after being originally shown in late 1989.
Yet of course, the documentary actually did acknowledge the fact that the band existed prior to 1964, rendering the title a bit redundant!
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
noughties
()
Date: March 16, 2012 20:57
Qoute:
"be intrigued, be very intrigued..."
- well, we`re all waiting for hbwriter now.
"be intrigued, be very intrigued..."
- well, we`re all waiting for hbwriter now.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
alimente
()
Date: March 16, 2012 21:40
Quote
noughties
Qoute:
"be intrigued, be very intrigued..."
- well, we`re all waiting for hbwriter now.[/quote
Is it a matter of hours or days, weeks, even months until we hear something from hbwriter?
I'd like to go to sleep now, but if it's a matter of hours, I'll stay awake!
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
JumpinJeppeFlash
()
Date: March 16, 2012 21:59
Quote
71TeleQuote
JumpinJeppeFlashQuote
71TeleQuote
tomcat2006
Woody can play all the lead and rhythm parts with his eyes closed. Which they often are. God bless 'im!
Get Mick T and Wyman on board, Blondie hidden away, and the tour can happen.
If he can't be depended on for whatever reason, Keith will just have to take a lower-profile so that it's not too noticeable (to Joe Punter) that's all.
I agree with the second part of your first sentence.
Get Mick T. and Wyman and Blondie can go back to doing whatever it is he did - no guitar.
But it won't be a "tour" in the traditional sense. Those days are over.
I don´t want Wyman or Taylor to join, it´s not Stones for me. We wont get that 89-90 sound again (even if Wyman would join) anyway that i love because Keith can´t play as well as he did on the 89-90 tour.
So, Jagger, Richards, Watts, Wyman, Taylor, Wood would "not be the Stones" for you? By your logic you would probably love it if they got rid of Charlie too.
Can you please explain why i would get rid of Charlie?
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: March 16, 2012 22:21
Quote
JumpinJeppeFlashQuote
71TeleQuote
JumpinJeppeFlashQuote
71TeleQuote
tomcat2006
Woody can play all the lead and rhythm parts with his eyes closed. Which they often are. God bless 'im!
Get Mick T and Wyman on board, Blondie hidden away, and the tour can happen.
If he can't be depended on for whatever reason, Keith will just have to take a lower-profile so that it's not too noticeable (to Joe Punter) that's all.
I agree with the second part of your first sentence.
Get Mick T. and Wyman and Blondie can go back to doing whatever it is he did - no guitar.
But it won't be a "tour" in the traditional sense. Those days are over.
I don´t want Wyman or Taylor to join, it´s not Stones for me. We wont get that 89-90 sound again (even if Wyman would join) anyway that i love because Keith can´t play as well as he did on the 89-90 tour.
So, Jagger, Richards, Watts, Wyman, Taylor, Wood would "not be the Stones" for you? By your logic you would probably love it if they got rid of Charlie too.
Can you please explain why i would get rid of Charlie
Can you please explain why you don't want actual members of the Rolling Stones, who were involved in most of the group's most compelling music - to play in the Rolling Stones, and why you prefer a ringer playing bass in the Rolling Stones to the bassist of the Rolling Stones?
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
JumpinJeppeFlash
()
Date: March 16, 2012 22:27
Quote
71TeleQuote
JumpinJeppeFlashQuote
71TeleQuote
JumpinJeppeFlashQuote
71TeleQuote
tomcat2006
Woody can play all the lead and rhythm parts with his eyes closed. Which they often are. God bless 'im!
Get Mick T and Wyman on board, Blondie hidden away, and the tour can happen.
If he can't be depended on for whatever reason, Keith will just have to take a lower-profile so that it's not too noticeable (to Joe Punter) that's all.
I agree with the second part of your first sentence.
Get Mick T. and Wyman and Blondie can go back to doing whatever it is he did - no guitar.
But it won't be a "tour" in the traditional sense. Those days are over.
I don´t want Wyman or Taylor to join, it´s not Stones for me. We wont get that 89-90 sound again (even if Wyman would join) anyway that i love because Keith can´t play as well as he did on the 89-90 tour.
So, Jagger, Richards, Watts, Wyman, Taylor, Wood would "not be the Stones" for you? By your logic you would probably love it if they got rid of Charlie too.
Can you please explain why i would get rid of Charlie
Can you please explain why you don't want actual members of the Rolling Stones, who were involved in most of the group's most compelling music - to play in the Rolling Stones, and why you prefer a ringer playing bass in the Rolling Stones to the bassist of the Rolling Stones?
It´s just my opinion, I want Mick, Keith (if he plays well enough), Charlie & Ronnie. That´s the band for me, Wyman could be interesting but Taylor wouldn´t be it since i never liked his playing at all, i prefer Ronnie 10 times out of 10 compared with Taylor.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
melillo
()
Date: March 16, 2012 22:41
looking more forward to the documentary to be honest, but hey it is still great news
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: March 16, 2012 22:48
Quote
JumpinJeppeFlashQuote
71TeleQuote
JumpinJeppeFlashQuote
71TeleQuote
JumpinJeppeFlashQuote
71TeleQuote
tomcat2006
Woody can play all the lead and rhythm parts with his eyes closed. Which they often are. God bless 'im!
Get Mick T and Wyman on board, Blondie hidden away, and the tour can happen.
If he can't be depended on for whatever reason, Keith will just have to take a lower-profile so that it's not too noticeable (to Joe Punter) that's all.
I agree with the second part of your first sentence.
Get Mick T. and Wyman and Blondie can go back to doing whatever it is he did - no guitar.
But it won't be a "tour" in the traditional sense. Those days are over.
I don´t want Wyman or Taylor to join, it´s not Stones for me. We wont get that 89-90 sound again (even if Wyman would join) anyway that i love because Keith can´t play as well as he did on the 89-90 tour.
So, Jagger, Richards, Watts, Wyman, Taylor, Wood would "not be the Stones" for you? By your logic you would probably love it if they got rid of Charlie too.
Can you please explain why i would get rid of Charlie
Can you please explain why you don't want actual members of the Rolling Stones, who were involved in most of the group's most compelling music - to play in the Rolling Stones, and why you prefer a ringer playing bass in the Rolling Stones to the bassist of the Rolling Stones?
It´s just my opinion, I want Mick, Keith (if he plays well enough), Charlie & Ronnie. That´s the band for me, Wyman could be interesting but Taylor wouldn´t be it since i never liked his playing at all, i prefer Ronnie 10 times out of 10 compared with Taylor.
Personally it's very difficult for me to imagine any Stones fan who would not be excited or at least intrigued by the line up that made Exile On Main Street and Sticky Fingers playing together again. But there you go.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-16 22:50 by 71Tele.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
JumpinJeppeFlash
()
Date: March 16, 2012 22:55
Quote
71TeleQuote
JumpinJeppeFlashQuote
71TeleQuote
JumpinJeppeFlashQuote
71TeleQuote
JumpinJeppeFlashQuote
71TeleQuote
tomcat2006
Woody can play all the lead and rhythm parts with his eyes closed. Which they often are. God bless 'im!
Get Mick T and Wyman on board, Blondie hidden away, and the tour can happen.
If he can't be depended on for whatever reason, Keith will just have to take a lower-profile so that it's not too noticeable (to Joe Punter) that's all.
I agree with the second part of your first sentence.
Get Mick T. and Wyman and Blondie can go back to doing whatever it is he did - no guitar.
But it won't be a "tour" in the traditional sense. Those days are over.
I don´t want Wyman or Taylor to join, it´s not Stones for me. We wont get that 89-90 sound again (even if Wyman would join) anyway that i love because Keith can´t play as well as he did on the 89-90 tour.
So, Jagger, Richards, Watts, Wyman, Taylor, Wood would "not be the Stones" for you? By your logic you would probably love it if they got rid of Charlie too.
Can you please explain why i would get rid of Charlie
Can you please explain why you don't want actual members of the Rolling Stones, who were involved in most of the group's most compelling music - to play in the Rolling Stones, and why you prefer a ringer playing bass in the Rolling Stones to the bassist of the Rolling Stones?
It´s just my opinion, I want Mick, Keith (if he plays well enough), Charlie & Ronnie. That´s the band for me, Wyman could be interesting but Taylor wouldn´t be it since i never liked his playing at all, i prefer Ronnie 10 times out of 10 compared with Taylor.
Personally it's very difficult for me to imagine any Stones fan who would not be excited or at least intrigued by the line up that made Exile On Main Street and Sticky Fingers playing together again. But there you go.
As i said, never liked Taylors way of playing and i don´t like that les paul sound, Ronnies way of playing and his stratsound is a very important part of the band for me.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
mtaylor
()
Date: March 16, 2012 23:01
Take a look at 6:00 and front and keep Ben, Ronnie, Bill, Charlie, Mick and add Keith, Mick and Bobby and you will have a perfect 2013 setup. Skip everything else.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: March 16, 2012 23:22
Quote
JumpinJeppeFlashQuote
71TeleQuote
JumpinJeppeFlashQuote
71TeleQuote
JumpinJeppeFlashQuote
71TeleQuote
JumpinJeppeFlashQuote
71TeleQuote
tomcat2006
Woody can play all the lead and rhythm parts with his eyes closed. Which they often are. God bless 'im!
Get Mick T and Wyman on board, Blondie hidden away, and the tour can happen.
If he can't be depended on for whatever reason, Keith will just have to take a lower-profile so that it's not too noticeable (to Joe Punter) that's all.
I agree with the second part of your first sentence.
Get Mick T. and Wyman and Blondie can go back to doing whatever it is he did - no guitar.
But it won't be a "tour" in the traditional sense. Those days are over.
I don´t want Wyman or Taylor to join, it´s not Stones for me. We wont get that 89-90 sound again (even if Wyman would join) anyway that i love because Keith can´t play as well as he did on the 89-90 tour.
So, Jagger, Richards, Watts, Wyman, Taylor, Wood would "not be the Stones" for you? By your logic you would probably love it if they got rid of Charlie too.
Can you please explain why i would get rid of Charlie
Can you please explain why you don't want actual members of the Rolling Stones, who were involved in most of the group's most compelling music - to play in the Rolling Stones, and why you prefer a ringer playing bass in the Rolling Stones to the bassist of the Rolling Stones?
It´s just my opinion, I want Mick, Keith (if he plays well enough), Charlie & Ronnie. That´s the band for me, Wyman could be interesting but Taylor wouldn´t be it since i never liked his playing at all, i prefer Ronnie 10 times out of 10 compared with Taylor.
Personally it's very difficult for me to imagine any Stones fan who would not be excited or at least intrigued by the line up that made Exile On Main Street and Sticky Fingers playing together again. But there you go.
As i said, never liked Taylors way of playing and i don´t like that les paul sound, Ronnies way of playing and his stratsound is a very important part of the band for me.
Yes, you said that.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
lynn1
()
Date: March 17, 2012 02:06
Everyone is out of their mind.....the amount of ridiculous intensity exhibited with made up speculative ideas based on no facts is just silly. Documentary, maybe album, maybe tour....end of story. Sounds like something to look forward too, no? Jeez, "cool out!"
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: March 17, 2012 02:28
Sorry to ask but is it correct to say (as in the header) "Stones tour pushed back to 2013". Sounds a bit backwards to me...
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
Jah Paul
()
Date: March 17, 2012 02:49
Quote
Stoneage
Sorry to ask but is it correct to say (as in the header) "Stones tour pushed back to 2013". Sounds a bit backwards to me...
Sounds wrong, but it's correct. "Pushed back" means to schedule or arrange to do something at a later time.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: March 17, 2012 03:01
Thanks for your answer, Jah Paul!
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
nonfilter
()
Date: March 17, 2012 03:45
Quote
mtaylor
Taylor ready:
Damn! that is incredibly rough. I've never heard Mick Taylor sound like that. Bring back Mick Taylor for 2013 and have him playing this over top of Keith's 'Promised Land' performance, and it'll be a really short show.
[www.non-filters.com]
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
memphiscats
()
Date: March 17, 2012 04:07
Thank you for pointing this out - that term "pushed back" has annoyed me for years...it's actually "moved forward."Quote
Jah PaulQuote
Stoneage
Sorry to ask but is it correct to say (as in the header) "Stones tour pushed back to 2013". Sounds a bit backwards to me...
Sounds wrong, but it's correct. "Pushed back" means to schedule or arrange to do something at a later time.
Cheers.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
gmanp
()
Date: March 17, 2012 05:13
Maybe "pushed up" would work 
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
Jah Paul
()
Date: March 17, 2012 05:44
Quote
memphiscatsThank you for pointing this out - that term "pushed back" has annoyed me for years...it's actually "moved forward."Quote
Jah PaulQuote
Stoneage
Sorry to ask but is it correct to say (as in the header) "Stones tour pushed back to 2013". Sounds a bit backwards to me...
Sounds wrong, but it's correct. "Pushed back" means to schedule or arrange to do something at a later time.
Cheers.
I concur. I write for a living and it has always annoyed the heck out of me, too!
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
memphiscats
()
Date: March 17, 2012 08:07
I too - correct grammar sounds messed up sometimes...since it's the Stones might I say..."me too?Quote
Jah PaulQuote
memphiscatsThank you for pointing this out - that term "pushed back" has annoyed me for years...it's actually "moved forward."Quote
Jah PaulQuote
Stoneage
Sorry to ask but is it correct to say (as in the header) "Stones tour pushed back to 2013". Sounds a bit backwards to me...
Sounds wrong, but it's correct. "Pushed back" means to schedule or arrange to do something at a later time.
Cheers.
I concur. I write for a living and it has always annoyed the heck out of me, too!
Nothing tops:
I'm a cold Italian Pizza, I could use a lemon squeezer...
Stephen Sondheim eat your heart out...
Cheers,
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-17 08:23 by memphiscats.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
Sipuncula
()
Date: March 17, 2012 08:09
Quote
Jah Paul
I concur. I write for a living and it has always annoyed the heck out of me, too! smileys with beer
Consider it in this context: It was the next potato to peel but we threw it to the back of the bin. Kind of goes along with "put it on the back burner". Let it simmer for later.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
marko
()
Date: March 17, 2012 10:13
what i personally think,i think they simply want more time to get everything out in time,instead delaying releases.New album,document which probaply takes lot of time,booking arenas and stadiums,places takes one year job,and i personally don´t believe that we can see 5 shows per city,at the most.They also might do a tour,like Pink Floyd did in 1994.
so who knows?
keith does need some parctise,but i think his fingers wakes up in studio.
so who knows?
keith does need some parctise,but i think his fingers wakes up in studio.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
alimente
()
Date: March 17, 2012 10:23
Quote
marko
what i personally think,i think they simply want more time to get everything out in time,instead delaying releases.New album,document which probaply takes lot of time,booking arenas and stadiums,places takes one year job,and i personally don´t believe that we can see 5 shows per city,at the most.
Sounds reasonable, Marko, but didn't they have enough time in the past to prepare everything? I mean, even as early as 2007 they were aware that 2012 was "only" 5 years away, not 10 or 100.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
skullring72
()
Date: March 17, 2012 10:47
Quote
hbwriter
duly noted (seriously - i may surprise ya - stranger things have happened) my other MO here is this - don't always believe the crap they tell ya, you know? there's always more to the story, and it doesn't always come out - but i think it should and i hope it will - i'm doing my part, i promise - and I do feel a special connection to this board as many of us have shared lots of great exchanges together - so stay tuned
Don't know for sure what hbwriter knows - but seems to me that Jagger is up for this. He's got energy at the moment and is enthusiastic about performing. Could speculate that delay reflects some concern on keith's recent appearances. if that's what hbwriter means by looking at the actions. but momentum is building.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
rogue
()
Date: March 17, 2012 12:46
I don't know who said it or posted it but I always liked the following phrase:
"You got the sun. You got the moon. You got the Rolling Stones."
Therefore, do we really need to split hairs about how they play with times dates, and whatnot to market any new tour or material?
"You got the sun. You got the moon. You got the Rolling Stones."
Therefore, do we really need to split hairs about how they play with times dates, and whatnot to market any new tour or material?
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: March 17, 2012 12:51
"You got the sun. You got the moon. You got the Rolling Stones."
Sun and Moon were both Memphis record labels in the fifties ........
ROCKMAN
Sun and Moon were both Memphis record labels in the fifties ........
ROCKMAN
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: March 17, 2012 13:37
Quote
rogue
I don't know who said it or posted it but I always liked the following phrase:
"You got the sun. You got the moon. You got the Rolling Stones."
Therefore, do we really need to split hairs about how they play with times dates, and whatnot to market any new tour or material?
Tis Keith who said it.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Andrea82 , Britney , georgelicks , ghs73 , illyad1960 , Irix , keefgotsoul , Knellz , philrock90 , retired_dog , TumblinDice76
Guests:
1781
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10