Quote
TooTough
So it´s out now: Concerning the touring, it´s over. Keith´s (bad) shape
is the reason to postpone a tour instead of using the ´50´ as a chance to
sell tickets when the media attention is the highest. The public will
celebrate their 50th THIS year. But the Stones will say: No, it´s next year?
Haha.

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?


We have no proof that Keith is very sick. He could be better than he has ever been. What we may have is another Keith Basher (and there are many of you here), who secretly wish that Keith cannot continue to function as the most important Stone in the Stones. This negative reasoning has always baffled me. Remember, Keith and Mick write all the songs. If there are no new songs, then there is no Rolling Stones. If there are no Stones, then there will be no 50th anniversary tour.

Can someone else weigh in and help me with this? If my reasoning is faulty, say so.

Keith isn´t very sick. but of course keith has health problems. It´s just you look the guy.

But I think Keith can work and play in some concerts (some concerts not a big big tour around the world), he can back to the studios, too.... he can work, but of course he has physycal limitations.

Flilflam, you make sense but I agree with others that this is the end. Keith might be able to tour but this is certainly the end. Keef Riffhand is the reason the Stoves are my favorite band. He is also the only Stone who has not produced any substantial musical output since ABB. Watching The River Flow was alright but most of the licks were the same bends we have heard repeated on the ABB tour. His playing has deteriorated and he is not invincible anymore.

IMHO, they need to announce this as their last tour. This also brings up a good question... How many years can a band be 'together' without producing! ABB in 2005.. Its been 7 years and they haven't produced an album. Maybe its more like 42 years of music, 50 years since Charlie joined, and 51 years since the Stones were formed...

I think we just need to listen carefully to the new CD, when it is released. We can then decide if Keith has it or not. I am hopeful it is as good as ABB, because I actually enjoy ABB. I hope it is very different from their seventies work, and reflects the musical ideas of this age.

Here is another point. I got the impression that Keith and Mick were working on the new CD at the same time this interview was conducted. It seems far-fetched that Keith could be involved in such a cerebral activity if he were so afflicted with arthritis and severe mental problems from brain damage. Once again, we have no proof that he is not healthy. I get the impression sometimes that some of us here want him to fail. This does not make sense if one truly wants a new world tour. Keith writes the songs and is the soul of the Stones.

yeah but something tells me keith will somehow pass his physical if you get my drift

Quote
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.

they started in 62 case closed

As there T shirt says established since 1962,
now its 1963,they have had a change of mind me thinks,
I think mick dont want to do any shows, probably to much hassle.

I don't care what the T shirts say. If Charlie joined the group in 1963 as he said he did, then the fiftieth anniversary is 2013.

1963 + 50 years=2013

Case closed.

Quote
flilflam

Quote
TooTough
So it´s out now: Concerning the touring, it´s over. Keith´s (bad) shape
is the reason to postpone a tour instead of using the ´50´ as a chance to
sell tickets when the media attention is the highest. The public will
celebrate their 50th THIS year. But the Stones will say: No, it´s next year?
Haha.

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?


We have no proof that Keith is very sick. He could be better than he has ever been. What we may have is another Keith Basher (and there are many of you here), who secretly wish that Keith cannot continue to function as the most important Stone in the Stones. This negative reasoning has always baffled me. Remember, Keith and Mick write all the songs. If there are no new songs, then there is no Rolling Stones. If there are no Stones, then there will be no 50th anniversary tour.

Can someone else weigh in and help me with this? If my reasoning is faulty, say so.

Huh. Look at this, something that's been out for years by The Rolling Stones:



Of course, they can celebrate '50 years' of being a name - like with the book this year - but they've done nothing as a "band" since the end of August 2007. Not exactly 50 years. But then with the Stones we all know the details are not exactly...important.

Quote
flilflam
I think we just need to listen carefully to the new CD, when it is released. We can then decide if Keith has it or not. I am hopeful it is as good as ABB, because I actually enjoy ABB. I hope it is very different from their seventies work, and reflects the musical ideas of this age.

Did you not listen to the Exile extra disc? He really did a number on the one that sounds like Paint It Black.

Quote
flilflam
I don't care what the T shirts say. If Charlie joined the group in 1963 as he said he did, then the fiftieth anniversary is 2013.

1963 + 50 years=2013

Case closed.

They already existed as a band before Charlie joined.

No matter what babble they say now to justify saying next year is 50th, the Rolling Stones were formed in 1962.

Quote
flilflam
I don't care what the T shirts say. If Charlie joined the group in 1963 as he said he did, then the fiftieth anniversary is 2013.

1963 + 50 years=2013

Case closed.

Nope. Except only for your convenience and for Charlie's position in the band.

Fact is it's not true since it's 1962, although not exactly a calender year before Charlie's joining the band. If they hadn't gotten together as The Rollin' Stones in 1962 then Charlie would not have joined them. And since your idea of what The Rolling Stones is is strictly the actions of Mick and Keith, well, then why are you having a difficult time with 1962? Are you a yes man? Reads like it.

Im sticking with 1962
if anyone else and the stones say 63 thats there problem not mine

Quote
flilflam

Quote
TooTough
So it´s out now: Concerning the touring, it´s over. Keith´s (bad) shape
is the reason to postpone a tour instead of using the ´50´ as a chance to
sell tickets when the media attention is the highest. The public will
celebrate their 50th THIS year. But the Stones will say: No, it´s next year?
Haha.

He could be better than he has ever been. What we may have is another Keith Basher (and there are many of you here), who secretly wish that Keith cannot continue to function as the most important Stone in the Stones. This negative reasoning has always baffled me. Remember, Keith and Mick write all the songs.

Can someone else weigh in and help me with this? If my reasoning is faulty, say so.

OK, first of all they never wrote all the songs and lately they haven written many if any songs. They produce and record all songs that are labeled Jagger/Richards which means theyve written the majority of the material and/or made a deal with a co writer and/or they haven made a deal but used a riff, chord sequence, style, part of a song or idea by someone else in our close to the band. These are facts, not bashing. Same goes for Keiths function as musical leader of the band. He has not been leading the band for ages but I guess one could say that a song a production like Thief in the night was a statemeant. And a great one too. I hope Keith one day will have that same feel and rhythm he had in 1969, 1972 1975, 1976 or 1977. Or 1981.

Theres just one thing that intrigues me, i dont recall any of the
stones correcting the press or interviewers when asked what they had
planned in 2012 for there 50th last year or early this year.
I even remember jagger saying when promoting superheavy, when asked
what he be doing in 2012 for the stones 50th, that he might jump out
of a big cake in 2012 to celebrate.
In my mind the stones have had plenty of times to correct the press and
interviewers about the exact date of there 50th.
They wait to tell us a week or so ago that its jan 2013.
I find that very strange, something changed somewhere.

To those of you who believe in a new album and a tour: in all kindness, how do you imagine the album to sound if anything Keith Richards has been playing in public recently makes his playing on ABB sound virtuoso? How do you imagine a concert if Keith simply has to remember at least 15 songs? Is it a good idea to continue?

Quote
windmelody
To those of you who believe in a new album and a tour: in all kindness, how do you imagine the album to sound if anything Keith Richards has been playing in public recently makes his playing on ABB sound virtuoso? How do you imagine a concert if Keith simply has to remember at least 15 songs? Is it a good idea to continue?

He will at least be able to croon on two songs.

So essentially Licks 2002 was the conception tour and Licks 2003 was the anniversary tour.

They have to hurry and change their homepage layout.
They still believe they are 50 this year.

Quote
Sam Spade
So essentially Licks 2002 was the conception tour and Licks 2003 was the anniversary tour.

Yeah, that´s why 40 Licks got the 40 on the tongue in 2002:

I DON'T BELIEVE IT ! I've never noticed the 40 before !

sc uk


ps how about the 50th been 2025 then anniversary of Ronnie joining............. or officially 2026 - here we go again !

I never saw the 40 in the FL tongue either. How did I miss that? Anway: Why are people getting their knickers in a twist over this? Is it that hard to understand? They are celebrating the 50th, but not without Charlie hitting it too. It's not that big a deal. Just enjoy it. Christ. Some people.....

JumpingKentFlash

Good perception, Too Tough! Neither did I notice the 40 on the tongue. The crap that next year is the real 50 year mark is, of course, baloney. The serious matter here is the open rift between Keith and Mick. Keith's "book" may have been the straw that broke the camel's back.

Quote
flilflam
I don't care what the T shirts say. If Charlie joined the group in 1963 as he said he did, then the fiftieth anniversary is 2013.

1963 + 50 years=2013

Case closed.

The case is still open...

How do you account for 40 LICKS which celebrated the 40th anniversary, and was released in 2002?

edit: I see the issue has been already addressed by several posts above.
2012=50th anniversary...case closed!

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-18 20:00 by Hairball.

Pretty useless thread with all the bickering about 62 or 63, bottom line is that it doesn't matter, I'm glad I read it though as I had never noticed the 40 in the tongue either!

The story today says: "The quality of the guitarist's performances declined after he suffered a head injury on vacation in Fiji in April 2006, midway through the Bigger Bang tour," the magazine said.

So now it's 2012. Do they really expect anyone to believe that ill health now (6 years past the accident) will be that markedly better in 2013?

Either keith agreed to be the fall guy for a bellyache excuse...or things are worse than we know.

Hope it's the former.....

Quote
windmelody
To those of you who believe in a new album and a tour: in all kindness, how do you imagine the album to sound if anything Keith Richards has been playing in public recently makes his playing on ABB sound virtuoso? How do you imagine a concert if Keith simply has to remember at least 15 songs? Is it a good idea to continue?

Listen to Keith's rendition of Soul Survivor on Exile Remastered. I think his riffing is superb. It is better than the original, studio version from the seventies.

Quote
TooTough

Quote
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.

......So they're not ready and have fiddled the figures to give themselves some breathing space helped by the fact that Charlie didn't join 'til '63...........and ?...
But never fear, George Osbourne (British Chancellor) will be helping the Stones on the road on Wednesday as Mick it seems has been fiddling the figures elsewhere...(well not really...just some nifty tax avoidence footwork)......[www.dailymail.co.uk]

According to Wikipedia the Stones formed in April '62 but didn't play their first show until July..........[en.wikipedia.org] ....



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-18 23:07 by EddieByword.