Tell Me :
Talk
Sure, and if the 2013 would not work, then...what year did Ronnie join? They have plenty of time to rehearse for their 50th anniversary...
It's spelled, 'm-u-s-tard'.
Not once, did anyone ever speak up during the last few years and correct anyone on this board saying that the anniversary was in 2013 and NOT in 2012. Not one. EVERYONE was expecting 2012. Hell, the band themselves are even going forward with some original plans for commemorating their 50th: the new book and the new documentary---so don't tell me that even they are abandoning the idea. 2012 was the year engraved into our heads, forever printed on books, t-shirts and posters---branded in rock and roll history....established in 1962.
Just because Keith desperately needed something to validate their delay for a new tour and now everyone wants to re-write history? Give me a break.
Bulls**t to the highest degree, sorry. It's not a matter of mathematics, it's a matter of how they deliberately misuse mathematics and how you follow them.
It depends on when the band was formed as "Rolling Stones", not when Charlie joined them. With the same strange logic that counts the history since Charlie (=an actual member of the band) joined, one could also count the years since when another actual member of the band joined, and that's Ron Wood. Was it in 1975 when he performed with them as a "guest player" (still being in The Faces at the time) during the Tour Of The Americas, or 1976, when he was officially introduced as a band member (although as a hired gun, paid on a wage) or even decades later, when it was decided to give him Bill's share as a "true" member of the corporation?
There you have it. Mathematics? Gimme a break.
Exactly. I cant believe I'm actually reading Stones fans claiming the band was formed in 1963 - when they played about 50 shows as the Rolling Stones in 1962, recorded demos in 1962,have ALWAYS said it was 1962 and have until a few days ago consistently said their 50th anniversary would be in 2012. All based on a nonsensical comment by a band member who is already pretty notorious for rewriting the band's history to suit himself.
Now, in the wake of all these revelations, any chance we could all take out a class action lawsuit to enable thousands of us to get refunds under the Trades Descriptions Act on officially endorsed merchandise we bought years which showed THIS logo?
Good call Gazza, you nailed it.
Mick's interview(2011)
" When is the next Rolling Stones mega-tour? I don’t know really. There isn’t one so far. But there might be anything, anything can happen. It is the 50th anniversary next year. Everyone kept asking what was the date of our first ever performance, no one was giving the answer, so I decided I may as well bloody well find out myself.
‘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)."
I wouldn't take Keith's words on this subject to literal. Mick himself has even hinted that Charlie's joining the band could also be considered as the true birthday of the Rolling Stones, however, he/they obviously recognize that the official 50th birthday is on July 12, 2012. The new book has been authorized for release on July 12, 2012. That isn't a coincidence as we all know. I don't know what all the fuss is about. The 50th anniversary year begins on July 12, 2012 and runs through July 11, 2013 despite the fact that their 51st year begins on July 12, 2012. By beginning on July 12, 2012 and running into 2013 they can cover a number of 50th anniversaries. Bill Wyman's in December of 2012, Charlie's in January, and the release of their first single in June of 2013. Whatever they were going to do in 2012 was going to spill over into 2013 anyway. I kind of liked that Keith used the word conception to describe the period between April of '62 and Charlie joining the band in January of 1963, but that doesn't change anything as far as the official recognized birthday, which has been, and forever more will be, July 12, 1962
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-19 01:30 by stonescrow.
Confirms what I have said in my previous post that it depends on when the band was formed as "Rolling Stones", not when Charlie joined them.
True. The Green Bay Packers were the Green Bay Packers long before Bart Starr, Brett Favre, and Aaron Rogers came along. July 12, 2012 is the official 50th birthday of the Rolling Stones.
.......... so does this mean all the belt buckles are gonna have ta be redone???
ROCKMAN
I've already made the appropriate changes on my shirt! I'll devote next weekend to correcting my posters.
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
There will be plenty of "lovely things" this year. Next year also. If I had to choose I would take a new album over a tour. We get the book, the documentary, and maybe even a new album for Christmas or sometime early in the New Year. I don't really want to see any form of tour without a new album first. In fact, I would be satisfied with just one final farewell concert that would include Bill Wyman and Mick Taylor. Of course a live broadcast would be cool followed by a DVD.
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
And that version was recorded...when, in the 1980s? What are you sniffing?
No, ha ha. Just Keith and conveniently Flillyflam. It's worse than adding new vocals to 40 or 30 some year old recordings...
You're taking the piss here, arent you? Please tell me this is a joke.
It's the same 1971 session, with a guide vocal.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-19 04:20 by Gazza.
Unfortunately, I think fliflam was serious.
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
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:
Happy24
()
Date: March 18, 2012 21:23
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.
Sure, and if the 2013 would not work, then...what year did Ronnie join? They have plenty of time to rehearse for their 50th anniversary...
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: March 18, 2012 21:25
Quote
His MajestyQuote
flilflam
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.
Please stop intentionally being a fucktard!
It's spelled, 'm-u-s-tard'.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013- Keith's health a concern
Posted by:
Justin
()
Date: March 18, 2012 21:30
Quote
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.
Not once, did anyone ever speak up during the last few years and correct anyone on this board saying that the anniversary was in 2013 and NOT in 2012. Not one. EVERYONE was expecting 2012. Hell, the band themselves are even going forward with some original plans for commemorating their 50th: the new book and the new documentary---so don't tell me that even they are abandoning the idea. 2012 was the year engraved into our heads, forever printed on books, t-shirts and posters---branded in rock and roll history....established in 1962.
Just because Keith desperately needed something to validate their delay for a new tour and now everyone wants to re-write history? Give me a break.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
terry
()
Date: March 18, 2012 21:44
I agree with the above comments from justin, spot on.
62 it is, i would imagine by the end of this year it
change to 2014,for 50yrs
The feeling i get is that they dont want to tour anymore,
there just hanging it out, giving us the impression that
they will do some shows.
Making out that they are still together as a
working unit.
62 it is, i would imagine by the end of this year it
change to 2014,for 50yrs
The feeling i get is that they dont want to tour anymore,
there just hanging it out, giving us the impression that
they will do some shows.
Making out that they are still together as a
working unit.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013- Keith's health a concern
Posted by:
alimente
()
Date: March 18, 2012 22:26
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?
Bulls**t to the highest degree, sorry. It's not a matter of mathematics, it's a matter of how they deliberately misuse mathematics and how you follow them.
It depends on when the band was formed as "Rolling Stones", not when Charlie joined them. With the same strange logic that counts the history since Charlie (=an actual member of the band) joined, one could also count the years since when another actual member of the band joined, and that's Ron Wood. Was it in 1975 when he performed with them as a "guest player" (still being in The Faces at the time) during the Tour Of The Americas, or 1976, when he was officially introduced as a band member (although as a hired gun, paid on a wage) or even decades later, when it was decided to give him Bill's share as a "true" member of the corporation?
There you have it. Mathematics? Gimme a break.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: March 18, 2012 22:31
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
His MajestyQuote
flilflam
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.
Please stop intentionally being a fucktard!
It's spelled, 'm-u-s-tard'.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013- Keith's health a concern
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: March 18, 2012 22:36
Quote
JustinQuote
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.
Not once, did anyone ever speak up during the last few years and correct anyone on this board saying that the anniversary was in 2013 and NOT in 2012. Not one. EVERYONE was expecting 2012. Hell, the band themselves are even going forward with some original plans for commemorating their 50th: the new book and the new documentary---so don't tell me that even they are abandoning the idea. 2012 was the year engraved into our heads, forever printed on books, t-shirts and posters---branded in rock and roll history....established in 1962.
Just because Keith desperately needed something to validate their delay for a new tour and now everyone wants to re-write history? Give me a break.
Exactly. I cant believe I'm actually reading Stones fans claiming the band was formed in 1963 - when they played about 50 shows as the Rolling Stones in 1962, recorded demos in 1962,have ALWAYS said it was 1962 and have until a few days ago consistently said their 50th anniversary would be in 2012. All based on a nonsensical comment by a band member who is already pretty notorious for rewriting the band's history to suit himself.
Now, in the wake of all these revelations, any chance we could all take out a class action lawsuit to enable thousands of us to get refunds under the Trades Descriptions Act on officially endorsed merchandise we bought years which showed THIS logo?
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013- Keith's health a concern
Posted by:
RSbestbandever
()
Date: March 18, 2012 22:54
Quote
GazzaQuote
JustinQuote
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.
Not once, did anyone ever speak up during the last few years and correct anyone on this board saying that the anniversary was in 2013 and NOT in 2012. Not one. EVERYONE was expecting 2012. Hell, the band themselves are even going forward with some original plans for commemorating their 50th: the new book and the new documentary---so don't tell me that even they are abandoning the idea. 2012 was the year engraved into our heads, forever printed on books, t-shirts and posters---branded in rock and roll history....established in 1962.
Just because Keith desperately needed something to validate their delay for a new tour and now everyone wants to re-write history? Give me a break.
Exactly. I cant believe I'm actually reading Stones fans claiming the band was formed in 1963 - when they played about 50 shows as the Rolling Stones in 1962, recorded demos in 1962,have ALWAYS said it was 1962 and have until a few days ago consistently said their 50th anniversary would be in 2012. All based on a nonsensical comment by a band member who is already pretty notorious for rewriting the band's history to suit himself.
Now, in the wake of all these revelations, any chance we could all take out a class action lawsuit to enable thousands of us to get refunds under the Trades Descriptions Act on officially endorsed merchandise we bought years which showed THIS logo?
Good call Gazza, you nailed it.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
proudmary
()
Date: March 18, 2012 23:30
Quote
terry
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.
Mick's interview(2011)
" When is the next Rolling Stones mega-tour? I don’t know really. There isn’t one so far. But there might be anything, anything can happen. It is the 50th anniversary next year. Everyone kept asking what was the date of our first ever performance, no one was giving the answer, so I decided I may as well bloody well find out myself.
‘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)."
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: March 19, 2012 00:00
Didnt Mick say something in the same interview (if its the Sunday Express one I read) that Nicky Hopkins played piano at the first gig? Absolute nonsense obviously, but still pretty funny.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013- Keith's health a concern
Posted by:
stonescrow
()
Date: March 19, 2012 00:00
Quote
JustinQuote
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.
Not once, did anyone ever speak up during the last few years and correct anyone on this board saying that the anniversary was in 2013 and NOT in 2012. Not one. EVERYONE was expecting 2012. Hell, the band themselves are even going forward with some original plans for commemorating their 50th: the new book and the new documentary---so don't tell me that even they are abandoning the idea. 2012 was the year engraved into our heads, forever printed on books, t-shirts and posters---branded in rock and roll history....established in 1962.
Just because Keith desperately needed something to validate their delay for a new tour and now everyone wants to re-write history? Give me a break.
I wouldn't take Keith's words on this subject to literal. Mick himself has even hinted that Charlie's joining the band could also be considered as the true birthday of the Rolling Stones, however, he/they obviously recognize that the official 50th birthday is on July 12, 2012. The new book has been authorized for release on July 12, 2012. That isn't a coincidence as we all know. I don't know what all the fuss is about. The 50th anniversary year begins on July 12, 2012 and runs through July 11, 2013 despite the fact that their 51st year begins on July 12, 2012. By beginning on July 12, 2012 and running into 2013 they can cover a number of 50th anniversaries. Bill Wyman's in December of 2012, Charlie's in January, and the release of their first single in June of 2013. Whatever they were going to do in 2012 was going to spill over into 2013 anyway. I kind of liked that Keith used the word conception to describe the period between April of '62 and Charlie joining the band in January of 1963, but that doesn't change anything as far as the official recognized birthday, which has been, and forever more will be, July 12, 1962
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-19 01:30 by stonescrow.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
alimente
()
Date: March 19, 2012 00:01
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...
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)."
Confirms what I have said in my previous post that it depends on when the band was formed as "Rolling Stones", not when Charlie joined them.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
stonescrow
()
Date: March 19, 2012 00:21
Quote
alimenteQuote
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...
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)."
Confirms what I have said in my previous post that it depends on when the band was formed as "Rolling Stones", not when Charlie joined them.
True. The Green Bay Packers were the Green Bay Packers long before Bart Starr, Brett Favre, and Aaron Rogers came along. July 12, 2012 is the official 50th birthday of the Rolling Stones.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: March 19, 2012 00:49
.......... so does this mean all the belt buckles are gonna have ta be redone???
ROCKMAN
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013- Keith's health a concern
Posted by:
Justin
()
Date: March 19, 2012 01:17
Quote
Gazza
Now, in the wake of all these revelations, any chance we could all take out a class action lawsuit to enable thousands of us to get refunds under the Trades Descriptions Act on officially endorsed merchandise we bought years which showed THIS logo?
I've already made the appropriate changes on my shirt! I'll devote next weekend to correcting my posters.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: March 19, 2012 02:03
Really surprised at how much discussion regarding 1962 or 1963. Who cares? It's not the reason for the tour delay anyway, so what does it matter? It didn't suddenly occur to them that Charlie joined in 1963, therefore they should resechedule everything they had carefully planned.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
melillo
()
Date: March 19, 2012 02:04
then why not this year they certainly have the time to get it together
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
Rolling Hansie
()
Date: March 19, 2012 02:22
From Wikipedia
The winter of 1962–1963 (also known as The Big Freeze of 1963) was one of the coldest winters on record in the United Kingdom
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
The winter of 1962–1963 (also known as The Big Freeze of 1963) was one of the coldest winters on record in the United Kingdom
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
Rolling Hansie
()
Date: March 19, 2012 02:25
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
Rolling Hansie
()
Date: March 19, 2012 02:27
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
Rolling Hansie
()
Date: March 19, 2012 02:28
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
stonescrow
()
Date: March 19, 2012 02:28
Quote
melillo
then why not this year they certainly have the time to get it together
There will be plenty of "lovely things" this year. Next year also. If I had to choose I would take a new album over a tour. We get the book, the documentary, and maybe even a new album for Christmas or sometime early in the New Year. I don't really want to see any form of tour without a new album first. In fact, I would be satisfied with just one final farewell concert that would include Bill Wyman and Mick Taylor. Of course a live broadcast would be cool followed by a DVD.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
Rolling Hansie
()
Date: March 19, 2012 02:29
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: March 19, 2012 03:11
I was born in '63, so in a way I'm kind of flattered that the Stones would change the year they were established to coincide with my birth.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: March 19, 2012 04:10
Quote
flilflamQuote
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.
And that version was recorded...when, in the 1980s? What are you sniffing?
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013- Keith's health a concern
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: March 19, 2012 04:13
Quote
JustinQuote
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.
Not once, did anyone ever speak up during the last few years and correct anyone on this board saying that the anniversary was in 2013 and NOT in 2012. Not one. EVERYONE was expecting 2012. Hell, the band themselves are even going forward with some original plans for commemorating their 50th: the new book and the new documentary---so don't tell me that even they are abandoning the idea. 2012 was the year engraved into our heads, forever printed on books, t-shirts and posters---branded in rock and roll history....established in 1962.
Just because Keith desperately needed something to validate their delay for a new tour and now everyone wants to re-write history? Give me a break.
No, ha ha. Just Keith and conveniently Flillyflam. It's worse than adding new vocals to 40 or 30 some year old recordings...
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: March 19, 2012 04:19
Quote
flilflamQuote
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.
You're taking the piss here, arent you? Please tell me this is a joke.
It's the same 1971 session, with a guide vocal.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-19 04:20 by Gazza.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: March 19, 2012 04:23
Quote
GazzaQuote
flilflamQuote
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.
You're taking the piss here, arent you? Please tell me this is a joke.
It's the same 1971 session, with a guide vocal.
Unfortunately, I think fliflam was serious.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013- Keith's health a concern
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: March 19, 2012 04:31
Quote
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.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013- Keith's health a concern
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: March 19, 2012 04:39
Quote
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
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
deardoctor , dishevelmentblues , downagain , DrPete , guyrachel , Handova , keithpinkmoon , makustone , MonkeyMan2000 , OttoH , perkmo , RaahenTiikeri , Rambler62 , rastakeith , roryg , Shawn20 , skorpio65 , Tonstone , Topi , Torsten , TW2019
Guests:
1723
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10