Tell Me :
Talk
Oh boy. Mick spells it out right there. Dick Taylor, Ian Stewart and Tony Chapman were 'nobody'. He remembers...or then he doesn't - but he remembers. So even Mick is in on the revisionist history with Keith.
The Revisionist Twins.
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?!
The anniversary year "window" begins on July 12, 2012 and runs through July 11, 2013. My guess is, that all they intended to accomplish will be accomplished during that window. The economy is not recovering as quickly as some have anticipated. A little bump in the road is all. Now, if we get to 2013 and we are still hearing the same old "song and dance" then maybe it truly is over. At least the touring days, that is.
Ask hbwriter, who seems to have gone dark after teasing us with his hints of supposed insider knowledge.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-19 06:47 by 71Tele.
This is the gigantically important quote from Rocky. The admission of how it
works.
But what you need to remember is that the much more important reverse corollary
also holds:
"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 NOT to post the news online, EVEN THOUGH THEY HINTED YOU SHOULD,
EVEN THOUGH YOU YOURSELF ARE SKEPTICAL, you no longer get any scoops because
you're now cut off."
(Laughably, Gazza has now stated that since some of his leaks have proven
true, that all of them were obviously sincere. That's not in keeping with
the laws of logic, and he knows it. Believe me, I appreciate the fact that
he brings more semi-solid news to us than probably anybody, but I can't
believe that, upon reflection, he would sincerely claim that he has never
been used for other purposes.)
That how disinfo works. That's how the Stones organization works, and has
since 1994 online, and since forever with the media. 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. The only thing that has
ever been in its favor has been these authorized leaks.
The Stones may still do some shows, but the odds against are growing longer,
except for probably a club show in London on or about July 12, 2012, which they
need for the ending of the documentary. Small venue, blues standards, Taylor,
Wyman, maybe some other special guests, patterned generally on the White House
and Apollo shows.
As for the album, it will be a goody. 50 unreleased and new things, 3CDs.
Its basically already in the can, that's what Mick has mostly been working on
for the last few years. How many new things are on it depends solely on the
success of upcoming sessions, which will probably also include Taylor and
Wyman.
The only way we will get anything like a tour is if there is an unbelievable
resurgence in Keith and the band as a result of the upcoming recording sessions
and anniversary show, and if the market conditions for such a tour are
favorable next year. So its not completely out of the question, but it is
getting close to that.
(Before you start yelling, YES, all of the preceding has been fan fiction
by SupaRevy, who readily admits he has no special predictive powers.)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-19 07:57 by superrevvy.
So what you're saying is...there never has been a done deal. All these years.
Like, you know, Wow.
Well, it's nothing new, of course. All but one of us knew that all along.
yes........................
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).
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.
But FatherTed, do you really think they'd just up and fire Ronnie even if he's got loose lips?
Sorry,
But I think that's nonsense.
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 .
If they've any sense they'll knock all the running about into touch and come up with a small, intimate, stage set up.
[In a perfect world they'd go out at this stage in their career just for the "fans" ...as that blues band of 1963 [62 ? ;^) ].
I'd also love them to record a blues album.
Another ten or Twelve "Back of My Hand"s would suite me just fine ;^)
None of that will happen though. shame ]
And I can't believe your optimism. I base my thoughts on what I heard from Keith in the past couple of years and these observations fuel my doubts that "Keith will be able to play perfectly well for the purpose".
I'd love to be proven wrong, but until this day comes, I label statements like "Keith will be able to play perfectly well for the purpose" as WISHFUL THINKING.
Hi Teddy,
some time ago we talked about a possible Keef solo album keith ...do you think it's still possible?
"Yep. He's also back in the studio working in his own stuff. Playing well.(...) I believe Darryl, Ronnie and Charlie have all made contributions to Keith's new work, alng with Steve Jordan and Pierre. So not just the Winos.
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:
stoned in washington dc
()
Date: March 19, 2012 04:40
this is retarded.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: March 19, 2012 05:07
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)."
Oh boy. Mick spells it out right there. Dick Taylor, Ian Stewart and Tony Chapman were 'nobody'. He remembers...or then he doesn't - but he remembers. So even Mick is in on the revisionist history with Keith.
The Revisionist Twins.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013- Keith's health a concern
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: March 19, 2012 05:08
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
But
....
but
....
but
it's
a
sticky...
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013- Keith's health a concern
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: March 19, 2012 05:15
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...
yes, a sticky mess.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013- Keith's health a concern
Posted by:
stonescrow
()
Date: March 19, 2012 05:26
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.
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.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013- Keith's health a concern
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: March 19, 2012 05:28
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.
You're totally right...but I think we all intently understand that they had 5 years to prepare for this, so WHAT THE @#$%& HAPPENED?!
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
Sipuncula
()
Date: March 19, 2012 05:36
Due to my obligations these days, I'm worried I might won't be able to make a gig anyway unless the circumstances are ideal (a US east/west coast residency touring plan further decreases those odds).
I'm really hoping for some new studio material for that reason, but I'd be disappointed anyway if they didn't tour behind some new material.
I'm really hoping for some new studio material for that reason, but I'd be disappointed anyway if they didn't tour behind some new material.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013- Keith's health a concern
Posted by:
stonescrow
()
Date: March 19, 2012 05:44
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?!
The anniversary year "window" begins on July 12, 2012 and runs through July 11, 2013. My guess is, that all they intended to accomplish will be accomplished during that window. The economy is not recovering as quickly as some have anticipated. A little bump in the road is all. Now, if we get to 2013 and we are still hearing the same old "song and dance" then maybe it truly is over. At least the touring days, that is.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013- Keith's health a concern
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: March 19, 2012 06:46
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?!
Ask hbwriter, who seems to have gone dark after teasing us with his hints of supposed insider knowledge.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-19 06:47 by 71Tele.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
roundnround
()
Date: March 19, 2012 07:16
the real beginning of the rolling stones was when mick and keith met in the sandbox in 1947... therefore this is the 65th anniversary of the stones...
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: March 19, 2012 07:25
Did they ever play The Last Time with Mick Taylor live?
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
superrevvy
()
Date: March 19, 2012 07:41
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.
This is the gigantically important quote from Rocky. The admission of how it
works.
But what you need to remember is that the much more important reverse corollary
also holds:
"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 NOT to post the news online, EVEN THOUGH THEY HINTED YOU SHOULD,
EVEN THOUGH YOU YOURSELF ARE SKEPTICAL, you no longer get any scoops because
you're now cut off."
(Laughably, Gazza has now stated that since some of his leaks have proven
true, that all of them were obviously sincere. That's not in keeping with
the laws of logic, and he knows it. Believe me, I appreciate the fact that
he brings more semi-solid news to us than probably anybody, but I can't
believe that, upon reflection, he would sincerely claim that he has never
been used for other purposes.)
That how disinfo works. That's how the Stones organization works, and has
since 1994 online, and since forever with the media. 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. The only thing that has
ever been in its favor has been these authorized leaks.
The Stones may still do some shows, but the odds against are growing longer,
except for probably a club show in London on or about July 12, 2012, which they
need for the ending of the documentary. Small venue, blues standards, Taylor,
Wyman, maybe some other special guests, patterned generally on the White House
and Apollo shows.
As for the album, it will be a goody. 50 unreleased and new things, 3CDs.
Its basically already in the can, that's what Mick has mostly been working on
for the last few years. How many new things are on it depends solely on the
success of upcoming sessions, which will probably also include Taylor and
Wyman.
The only way we will get anything like a tour is if there is an unbelievable
resurgence in Keith and the band as a result of the upcoming recording sessions
and anniversary show, and if the market conditions for such a tour are
favorable next year. So its not completely out of the question, but it is
getting close to that.
(Before you start yelling, YES, all of the preceding has been fan fiction
by SupaRevy, who readily admits he has no special predictive powers.)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-19 07:57 by superrevvy.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: March 19, 2012 07:50
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.
So what you're saying is...there never has been a done deal. All these years.
Like, you know, Wow.
Well, it's nothing new, of course. All but one of us knew that all along.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
mariannerl
()
Date: March 19, 2012 08:10
Is this Live Nation vs Michael Cohl case (about the right on promoting live concerts) closed?
If not, I don't think that there will be gigs under the trademark "Rolling Stones".
If not, I don't think that there will be gigs under the trademark "Rolling Stones".
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
TeddyB1018
()
Date: March 19, 2012 10:33
Keith's line was funny. Unlike this thread, which is ridiculous.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
windmelody
()
Date: March 19, 2012 11:49
Mariannerl comes from Austria.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
EddieByword
()
Date: March 19, 2012 12:02
Quote
stoned in washington dc
this is retarded.
yes........................
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
Father Ted
()
Date: March 19, 2012 12:46
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...
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).
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
The GR
()
Date: March 19, 2012 13:10
I seem to remember Status Quo having 2 20th Anniversaries, one in 1982 (1+9+8+2=20) and another about 87/88.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
straycatuk
()
Date: March 19, 2012 14:00
I think the 50 th celebrations are going to be rather stretched out. I thought they started with the archive releases - Brussels in NOV.2011 !
So what if they don't actually play live until 2013. It's all part of a 2 year celebration. I have no idea why Keith has to try to justify it by bringing up Charlie's joining date .
THE ROLLING STONES STARTED IN 1962 . FACT !
they are bringing out a "50" book on 12th July FFS
sc uk
So what if they don't actually play live until 2013. It's all part of a 2 year celebration. I have no idea why Keith has to try to justify it by bringing up Charlie's joining date .
THE ROLLING STONES STARTED IN 1962 . FACT !
they are bringing out a "50" book on 12th July FFS
sc uk
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
windmelody
()
Date: March 19, 2012 14:04
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.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
SweetThing
()
Date: March 19, 2012 15:12
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.
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.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: March 19, 2012 15:38
-
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-19 16:02 by DandelionPowderman.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-19 16:02 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: March 19, 2012 15:44
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).
But FatherTed, do you really think they'd just up and fire Ronnie even if he's got loose lips?
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
Spud
()
Date: March 19, 2012 16:58
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.
Sorry,
But I think that's nonsense.
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 .
If they've any sense they'll knock all the running about into touch and come up with a small, intimate, stage set up.
[In a perfect world they'd go out at this stage in their career just for the "fans" ...as that blues band of 1963 [62 ? ;^) ].
I'd also love them to record a blues album.
Another ten or Twelve "Back of My Hand"s would suite me just fine ;^)
None of that will happen though. shame ]
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
alimente
()
Date: March 19, 2012 17:23
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 .
And I can't believe your optimism. I base my thoughts on what I heard from Keith in the past couple of years and these observations fuel my doubts that "Keith will be able to play perfectly well for the purpose".
I'd love to be proven wrong, but until this day comes, I label statements like "Keith will be able to play perfectly well for the purpose" as WISHFUL THINKING.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
Spud
()
Date: March 19, 2012 17:26
I own up to wishful thinking .
Guilty as charged m'lud.
Guilty as charged m'lud.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: March 19, 2012 17:46
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.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: March 19, 2012 18:42
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.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
KRiffhard
()
Date: March 19, 2012 19:31
Quote
TeddyB1018
Keith's line was funny. Unlike this thread, which is ridiculous.
Hi Teddy,
some time ago we talked about a possible Keef solo album keith ...do you think it's still possible?
"Yep. He's also back in the studio working in his own stuff. Playing well.(...) I believe Darryl, Ronnie and Charlie have all made contributions to Keith's new work, alng with Steve Jordan and Pierre. So not just the Winos.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
ChrisL , emotionalbarbecue , fan989 , Harry , hot stuff , KeithNacho , MonkeyMan2000 , NashvilleBlues , Paddy , perkmo , philrock90 , Ralleyguy , spunky , Stonesfan2146 , zeppfloyd , ziggenpuss
Guests:
2057
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10