Tell Me :
Talk
May is a great time for a tour announcement!
I remember 1981 it was later, in the summer. Could it have been July, or as late as August?
I have no recollection of exactly when 1989 was, but wasn't it also in the spring?
Nice post. I'll add my two cents of specualtion and say if the Stones were to be playing SNL, why would they rehearse for six days, then stop? Why wouldn't they keep fine-tuning till the dress rehearsal? What's another week and a bit for them, really? it doesn't make sense. My optimism is starting to waver on the Stones showing up on SNL.
Interesting. When and where did these sessions take place, exactly? Are any details known?
I think them's may be fightin' words.
I wouldn't say it was 'over', but it would be a disappointment, a missed opportunity, and a bit of a head scratcher.
No it can't be, because we love speculations
well then can it be re-retitled? "stones tour pushed forward again into 2012?"
He achieved a denial from the Stones when he wrote that Charlie quit the band, too...
believe it or not that was a DIFFERENT aussie reporter with a long track
history of being wrong. the "charlie" reporter at least works for
very minor media.
the herald sun guy works for murdock
anyway, i found it. here's the denial by the unnamed Stones spokesperson:
"There are no concrete plans for the Rolling Stones to tour. The same applies to
rumours that they are going into the studio soon to record a new album."
Hmmm. Time to resurrect this rumor too i think. 20 big free concerts
(coupled perhaps with 20 EXPENSIVE arena shows)?
20 cities off the top of my head, and would make more sense in 2012
Rio
Buenos Aires
Mexico City
New York
L.A.
Chicago
Toronto
Austin
London
Tokyo
Mumbai
Paris
Rome
Amsterdam
Vancouver
San Francisco
Dublin
Berlin
Madrid
Hong Kong
and hell, just to make it a better rumor, make it 25 cities and 25 EXPENSIVE
arena shows. 50 shows!
you wanted some credit too for the SNL stones announcement thread, but that is
gonna be an idea with many many co-creators (none of whom unfortuantely is me)
but the idea of a BUNCH, specifically 50, unreleased tracks emerging soon is all
mine. stated it over 2 years ago and have reiterated it periodically ever since.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-10 16:06 by superrevvy.
If your ego needs validation from an internet message board then so be it. I never claimed the idea of new vault tracks was my idea alone. It just happened to dawn on me as I was writing that the common public perception of the band is that they have not been doing anything together or as a band since the end of ABB in 2007. You and many others have offered evidence that the Stones are still a functioning rock band. They just have not been playing live for a while.
As to your SNL comment... whatever. You're a waste of my time.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-10 16:22 by rogue.
Not when you have 182 stupid games to play. Three strikes and your out is only for that moment so... the Stones have struck out lots of times. By defualt they somehow keep coming back, even though they've done nothing. Perhaps it's the monkeys behind the wheels.
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:
TimeIs
()
Date: May 9, 2012 07:30
Grison wrote: "Another point is also that all major events and upcoming tours of the Rolling Stones have been announced in NYC since 1975."
Except 1981, which was announced in Philadelphia (JFK Stadium).
Another interesting point: 1975, 1994, 2002 and 2005 were all annouced in May - but those tours started later the same year.
Except 1981, which was announced in Philadelphia (JFK Stadium).
Another interesting point: 1975, 1994, 2002 and 2005 were all annouced in May - but those tours started later the same year.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
runrudolph
()
Date: May 9, 2012 12:21
There will be made some special, little, hints at a small tour for 2013 i guess, on May 19.
Jeroen
Jeroen
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: May 9, 2012 17:33
Quote
TimeIs
Grison wrote: "Another point is also that all major events and upcoming tours of the Rolling Stones have been announced in NYC since 1975."
Except 1981, which was announced in Philadelphia (JFK Stadium).
Another interesting point: 1975, 1994, 2002 and 2005 were all annouced in May - but those tours started later the same year.
May is a great time for a tour announcement!
I remember 1981 it was later, in the summer. Could it have been July, or as late as August?
I have no recollection of exactly when 1989 was, but wasn't it also in the spring?
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
andrewt
()
Date: May 9, 2012 17:55
Quote
Rocky Dijon
One could alternatively argue that following the BIGGER BANG tour wrap-up in 2007 that Mick had had enough of the band. After a couple decades of watching performances suffer from Keith and Ronnie's dependencies and being frustrated with Keith's drunken remarks to the media (one should note that the tiny todger crack was also said verbatim in an interview Keith gave just as A BIGGER BANG was released) making Mick personally and the band professionally look like a joke, Mick decided to focus his energies outside the band.
There was a renewed effort to concentrate on his film & television production ventures and since 2008, he had been working hard on realizing Dave Stewart's international super group concept. SuperHeavy represented Mick's last great chance to establish himself outside the band. THE VERY BEST OF MICK JAGGER had stiffed in 2007 and with it the planned reissues of Mick's remastered solo catalog vanished without a trace. Thoughts of playing a few live gigs to support SHINE A LIGHT in 2008 were scuppered by Ronnie's condition. The decision to sign with UMG a deal based on exploiting the back catalog rather than continuing to present the band as a going concern recording new CD's and touring was significant.
The handling of the UMG bonus discs was also telling. Mick has been in complete control. Keith was humiliated by Mick bringing in Mick Taylor without his knowledge for "Plundered My Soul." An action that placed Don Was uncomfortably in the middle of the former Glimmer Twins. Keith's role was reduced to a virtual sideman on both projects with Charlie contributing more and involved to a greater extent. It appears Keith's biggest contribution to the projects was to give interviews. His guitar overdubs were extremely minimal. He did not have a production role as Mick and Don Was worked together on both projects exclusively.
SuperHeavy represented something forward-thinking unlike the looking back at the Stones catalog. The second the album tanked in the US, Mick (the constant capitalist) turned his back on the project. No second video was shot. No live appearances happened. As it was several members of the band appeared understandably irked at the amount of focus given Mick in interviews. Judging by media coverage one would have thought the album was Mick Jagger and Friends rather than the balanced effort that went into the songwriting. SuperHeavy's lack of commercial viability in the market that matters most to Jagger meant turning attention back to the Stones if he is to have a Last Act in music short of celebrity duets like "T.H.E." / "Go Home" or having songs written about him for audiences that know him only as an icon and do not listen to his work.
So how to revive the Stones? Obviously anniversary book/film/CD set do not require live performances or new material, but they would help maximize sales. The December rehearsal can be seen as Mick having a look in after a couple days to see how consistently a sober Keith can play. The Apollo gig was obviously meant with scrutiny by more than just fans. You can bet Jane Rose posting Keith's rehearsal was not for the benefit of naysayers on a message board. Mick's reaction to Ronnie leaking plans of the May rehearsals can be viewed as fear that if the Stones (read: Keith) did not make the grade, all bets were off. My own bet is on a Stones appearance for SNL. Mick's announcement as host/performer were timed to see if the band can back him or not. If they can't, Mick will play Stones songs solo. This is an anniversary move. If they are solid, the band will play. It's all down to how well a sober Keith can keep it together.
That's my take on 2007-2012 and how it looks for 2013.
Nice post. I'll add my two cents of specualtion and say if the Stones were to be playing SNL, why would they rehearse for six days, then stop? Why wouldn't they keep fine-tuning till the dress rehearsal? What's another week and a bit for them, really? it doesn't make sense. My optimism is starting to waver on the Stones showing up on SNL.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
GumbootCloggeroo
()
Date: May 9, 2012 18:00
My guess is The Stones will be involved in a pre-taped sketch.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
Big Al
()
Date: May 9, 2012 19:10
Quote
TeddyB1018
With Licks everyone knew they were going to record in Paris but not everyone knew they recorded ten songs with Danny Saber previous to that.
Interesting. When and where did these sessions take place, exactly? Are any details known?
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
jamesfdouglas
()
Date: May 9, 2012 20:43
Rocky D, your post is very well thought-out and articulate. You've taken four paragraphs outlining, step-by-step, Mick's actions which cleary show his lack of taste and desire to work with Keith since walking off the stage in 2007.
... however it's jarring when you immediately post "so, how to revive the Stones? Maybe this or that or an SNL appearance"...
very ironic indeed.
My guess - The Stones ARE ALREADY DONE at this point. Mick won't be joined by any other Stone on SNL - or at any other stage - again.
[thepowergoats.com]
... however it's jarring when you immediately post "so, how to revive the Stones? Maybe this or that or an SNL appearance"...
very ironic indeed.
My guess - The Stones ARE ALREADY DONE at this point. Mick won't be joined by any other Stone on SNL - or at any other stage - again.
[thepowergoats.com]
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: May 9, 2012 20:48
Quote
jamesfdouglas
Rocky D, your post is very well thought-out and articulate. You've taken four paragraphs outlining, step-by-step, Mick's actions which cleary show his lack of taste and desire to work with Keith since walking off the stage in 2007.
... however it's jarring when you immediately post "so, how to revive the Stones? Maybe this or that or an SNL appearance"...
very ironic indeed.
My guess - The Stones ARE ALREADY DONE at this point. Mick won't be joined by any other Stone on SNL - or at any other stage - again.
I think them's may be fightin' words.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
sweetcharmedlife
()
Date: May 9, 2012 20:57
Well if he really does play on SNL without the Stones. Then....Yeah,it's over.Quote
treaclefingersQuote
jamesfdouglas
Rocky D, your post is very well thought-out and articulate. You've taken four paragraphs outlining, step-by-step, Mick's actions which cleary show his lack of taste and desire to work with Keith since walking off the stage in 2007.
... however it's jarring when you immediately post "so, how to revive the Stones? Maybe this or that or an SNL appearance"...
very ironic indeed.
My guess - The Stones ARE ALREADY DONE at this point. Mick won't be joined by any other Stone on SNL - or at any other stage - again.
I think them's may be fightin' words.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
angee
()
Date: May 9, 2012 22:14
Why? I don't get that.
~"Love is Strong"~
~"Love is Strong"~
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
GumbootCloggeroo
()
Date: May 9, 2012 22:23
Mick didn't play with The Stones at the White House. It wasn't over after that. Why is SNL any different? Keith didn't play at the Sumlin tribute with Mick. Why wasn't it over after that? Is there a three strikes and you're out rule in effect?Quote
sweetcharmedlife
Well if he really does play on SNL without the Stones. Then....Yeah,it's over.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
sweetcharmedlife
()
Date: May 9, 2012 22:26
He didn't spend a week rehearsng with the band before the White House gig. Plus that was a blues tribute show with an all star lineup. Going on SNL with another band after rehearsing with the rest of the band,shows that Mick has no interest in touring with them.Quote
GumbootCloggerooMick didn't play with The Stones at the White House. It wasn't over after that. Why is SNL any different? Keith didn't play at the Sumlin tribute with Mick. Why wasn't it over after that? Is there a three strikes and you're out rule in effect?Quote
sweetcharmedlife
Well if he really does play on SNL without the Stones. Then....Yeah,it's over.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: May 9, 2012 22:49
Quote
sweetcharmedlifeHe didn't spend a week rehearsng with the band before the White House gig. Plus that was a blues tribute show with an all star lineup. Going on SNL with another band after rehearsing with the rest of the band,shows that Mick has no interest in touring with them.Quote
GumbootCloggerooMick didn't play with The Stones at the White House. It wasn't over after that. Why is SNL any different? Keith didn't play at the Sumlin tribute with Mick. Why wasn't it over after that? Is there a three strikes and you're out rule in effect?Quote
sweetcharmedlife
Well if he really does play on SNL without the Stones. Then....Yeah,it's over.
I wouldn't say it was 'over', but it would be a disappointment, a missed opportunity, and a bit of a head scratcher.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
sweetcharmedlife
()
Date: May 9, 2012 23:45
Right. It ain't over until it's over. But,it would be very strange.Not sure why they're going through all this mystery anyway. Just tell us if th Stones are playing or not.Quote
treaclefingersQuote
sweetcharmedlifeHe didn't spend a week rehearsng with the band before the White House gig. Plus that was a blues tribute show with an all star lineup. Going on SNL with another band after rehearsing with the rest of the band,shows that Mick has no interest in touring with them.Quote
GumbootCloggerooMick didn't play with The Stones at the White House. It wasn't over after that. Why is SNL any different? Keith didn't play at the Sumlin tribute with Mick. Why wasn't it over after that? Is there a three strikes and you're out rule in effect?Quote
sweetcharmedlife
Well if he really does play on SNL without the Stones. Then....Yeah,it's over.
I wouldn't say it was 'over', but it would be a disappointment, a missed opportunity, and a bit of a head scratcher.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
TeddyB1018
()
Date: May 10, 2012 03:36
Of course it's not "over" if Mick plays SNL without the Stones. It may be lame but it's not over. He and Keith have had varying degrees of distaste re playing with one another for years. Barring death, the Stones will perform again.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-10 06:32 by TeddyB1018.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-10 06:32 by TeddyB1018.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: May 10, 2012 05:17
Can this post be closed, until like May 18th?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-10 05:18 by 24FPS.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-10 05:18 by 24FPS.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
Grison
()
Date: May 10, 2012 11:14
Quote
24FPS
Can this post be closed, until like May 18th?
No it can't be, because we love speculations
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
superrevvy
()
Date: May 10, 2012 11:22
Quote
GrisonQuote
24FPS
Can this post be closed, until like May 18th?
No it can't be, because we love speculations
well then can it be re-retitled? "stones tour pushed forward again into 2012?"
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: May 10, 2012 12:39
There you have it with those linguistic contrarities again. "Pushed back" to 2013 and "pushed forward " to 2012! Back into the future!
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
superrevvy
()
Date: May 10, 2012 15:23
there was that story about the supposed 20 free "hyde parks" that
would constitute the upcoming tour. that story is easy to find on the net.
the story was by an aussie reporter for murdoch's paper in melbourne,
the herald sun, and i know this reporter is famous for breaking huge
stories (that are almost always incorrect, but somehow he keeps his job,
and so do his editors. hmmm.)
anyway, the story gained enough traction that the stones had to issue a
denial. i've looked hard now for the original denial story and can't seem
to find it. anybody have a link? or at least the name of the Stones
spokesperson who made the denial?
would constitute the upcoming tour. that story is easy to find on the net.
the story was by an aussie reporter for murdoch's paper in melbourne,
the herald sun, and i know this reporter is famous for breaking huge
stories (that are almost always incorrect, but somehow he keeps his job,
and so do his editors. hmmm.)
anyway, the story gained enough traction that the stones had to issue a
denial. i've looked hard now for the original denial story and can't seem
to find it. anybody have a link? or at least the name of the Stones
spokesperson who made the denial?
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: May 10, 2012 15:31
Quote
superrevvy
there was that story about the supposed 20 free "hyde parks" that
would constitute the upcoming tour. that story is easy to find on the net.
the story was by an aussie reporter for murdoch's paper in melbourne,
the herald sun, and i know this reporter is famous for breaking huge
stories (that are almost always incorrect, but somehow he keeps his job,
and so do his editors. hmmm.)
anyway, the story gained enough traction that the stones had to issue a
denial. i've looked hard now for the original denial story and can't seem
to find it. anybody have a link? or at least the name of the Stones
spokesperson who made the denial?
He achieved a denial from the Stones when he wrote that Charlie quit the band, too...
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
superrevvy
()
Date: May 10, 2012 15:41
Quote
DandelionPowderman
He achieved a denial from the Stones when he wrote that Charlie quit the band, too...
believe it or not that was a DIFFERENT aussie reporter with a long track
history of being wrong. the "charlie" reporter at least works for
very minor media.
the herald sun guy works for murdock
anyway, i found it. here's the denial by the unnamed Stones spokesperson:
"There are no concrete plans for the Rolling Stones to tour. The same applies to
rumours that they are going into the studio soon to record a new album."
Hmmm. Time to resurrect this rumor too i think. 20 big free concerts
(coupled perhaps with 20 EXPENSIVE arena shows)?
20 cities off the top of my head, and would make more sense in 2012
Rio
Buenos Aires
Mexico City
New York
L.A.
Chicago
Toronto
Austin
London
Tokyo
Mumbai
Paris
Rome
Amsterdam
Vancouver
San Francisco
Dublin
Berlin
Madrid
Hong Kong
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
rogue
()
Date: May 10, 2012 15:45
The smoke continues to build so where is the fire and when will it be put out?
2012 or 2013.
Could be they play SNL or some other show as purported in 2012 and then go back to the studio.
Unfortuantely, what is happening now fits with all previous tours for the past couple of decades. Announce in May, play in the fall in North America. Head to Europe in the spring/summer the following year and wrap up in England except for those times when multiple legs to Asia and South America were added.
It still seems a possibility though that this is all just the begninning and more is really coming later this year and next.
With the book, DVD, and other items we might just get a show soon to kick off a year of "festivities" and residency shows with the final shows in London.
Another thought has come up. Lisa and MT contributed to the Exile reissue and new updates. That was back in 2009/2010. Then the other re-issues and track came out. Could it be the Stones have been working together little by little over the past few years on a limited and minimal basis waiting to unleash even more vault tracks this year and next as they tour?
2012 or 2013.
Could be they play SNL or some other show as purported in 2012 and then go back to the studio.
Unfortuantely, what is happening now fits with all previous tours for the past couple of decades. Announce in May, play in the fall in North America. Head to Europe in the spring/summer the following year and wrap up in England except for those times when multiple legs to Asia and South America were added.
It still seems a possibility though that this is all just the begninning and more is really coming later this year and next.
With the book, DVD, and other items we might just get a show soon to kick off a year of "festivities" and residency shows with the final shows in London.
Another thought has come up. Lisa and MT contributed to the Exile reissue and new updates. That was back in 2009/2010. Then the other re-issues and track came out. Could it be the Stones have been working together little by little over the past few years on a limited and minimal basis waiting to unleash even more vault tracks this year and next as they tour?
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
superrevvy
()
Date: May 10, 2012 15:49
Quote
superrevvy
Hmmm. Time to resurrect this rumor too i think. 20 big free concerts
(coupled perhaps with 20 EXPENSIVE arena shows)?
20 cities off the top of my head, and would make more sense in 2012
and hell, just to make it a better rumor, make it 25 cities and 25 EXPENSIVE
arena shows. 50 shows!
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
superrevvy
()
Date: May 10, 2012 16:04
Quote
rogue
Could it be the Stones have been working together little by little over the past few years on a limited and minimal basis waiting to unleash even more vault tracks this year and next as they tour?
you wanted some credit too for the SNL stones announcement thread, but that is
gonna be an idea with many many co-creators (none of whom unfortuantely is me)
but the idea of a BUNCH, specifically 50, unreleased tracks emerging soon is all
mine. stated it over 2 years ago and have reiterated it periodically ever since.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-10 16:06 by superrevvy.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
rogue
()
Date: May 10, 2012 16:16
Quote
superrevvyQuote
rogue
Could it be the Stones have been working together little by little over the past few years on a limited and minimal basis waiting to unleash even more vault tracks this year and next as they tour?
you wanted some credit too for the SNL stones announcement thread, but that is
gonna be an idea with many many co-creators (none of whom unfortuantely is me)
but the idea of a BUNCH, specifically 50, unreleased tracks emerging soon is all
mine. stated it over 2 years ago and have reiterated it periodically ever since.
If your ego needs validation from an internet message board then so be it. I never claimed the idea of new vault tracks was my idea alone. It just happened to dawn on me as I was writing that the common public perception of the band is that they have not been doing anything together or as a band since the end of ABB in 2007. You and many others have offered evidence that the Stones are still a functioning rock band. They just have not been playing live for a while.
As to your SNL comment... whatever. You're a waste of my time.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-10 16:22 by rogue.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: May 10, 2012 17:50
Quote
GumbootCloggerooMick didn't play with The Stones at the White House. It wasn't over after that. Why is SNL any different? Keith didn't play at the Sumlin tribute with Mick. Why wasn't it over after that? Is there a three strikes and you're out rule in effect?Quote
sweetcharmedlife
Well if he really does play on SNL without the Stones. Then....Yeah,it's over.
Not when you have 182 stupid games to play. Three strikes and your out is only for that moment so... the Stones have struck out lots of times. By defualt they somehow keep coming back, even though they've done nothing. Perhaps it's the monkeys behind the wheels.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
andrewt
()
Date: May 10, 2012 20:29
I liked Rocky's post from before and while we're killing time with idle speculation, how about an alternate hypothesis of events. How about in this version, Mick is a better friend to Keith and a more loyal Stone than he'll ever let anyone know.
Let's say in this version, the passing of parents of both Mick & Keith, Ron's brothers, & Patti's cancer scare got Mick & Keith thinking it's time to sort out our affairs while we still have some control over the legacy we leave behind. In this version we wait patiently for Ronnie to pull it together and he does because he doesn't have the kind of financial security Keith does. Keith meanwhile, languishes about thinking "it will all come together" the way it always has, except this time it doesn't. Hell he's 68, right? Mick- knowing there is no way the Stones can put something new forward and gets hard to work one the one thing he always hated to do, looking back but he does it to keep the Stones looking active to deflect attention from his friend, Keith, so he can sort himself out. He puts out old DVDs, old bootlegs which will inevitably lead to comparisons with current performances, something he'd rather not contend with but he does it anyway. He doesn't have to, but he knows the promise of one more great show could be what rescues his buddy. So he waits. He agrees to play the White House hoping Keith is up to it. He isn't. He keeps getting asked about the 50th. He's run out of ways to stall. Finally he tells Keith Listen, you gotta say something about not doing shows this year because I just can't keep stalling any more. That's why he tells Woody "Why did you say that, we don't know anything" about the NYC session, because Keith just put it to rest and now it's been undone. He's not commanding silence from Woody just reminding him this is all a delicate operation. Which brings us to the SNL appearance, maybe the start of one last fling or another ingenious stall tactic to keep the Stones name hot in the press. In this scenario, if he plays with a band that ain't the Stones, it's not because he's a dick but because he's trying to take one for the team.
Let's say in this version, the passing of parents of both Mick & Keith, Ron's brothers, & Patti's cancer scare got Mick & Keith thinking it's time to sort out our affairs while we still have some control over the legacy we leave behind. In this version we wait patiently for Ronnie to pull it together and he does because he doesn't have the kind of financial security Keith does. Keith meanwhile, languishes about thinking "it will all come together" the way it always has, except this time it doesn't. Hell he's 68, right? Mick- knowing there is no way the Stones can put something new forward and gets hard to work one the one thing he always hated to do, looking back but he does it to keep the Stones looking active to deflect attention from his friend, Keith, so he can sort himself out. He puts out old DVDs, old bootlegs which will inevitably lead to comparisons with current performances, something he'd rather not contend with but he does it anyway. He doesn't have to, but he knows the promise of one more great show could be what rescues his buddy. So he waits. He agrees to play the White House hoping Keith is up to it. He isn't. He keeps getting asked about the 50th. He's run out of ways to stall. Finally he tells Keith Listen, you gotta say something about not doing shows this year because I just can't keep stalling any more. That's why he tells Woody "Why did you say that, we don't know anything" about the NYC session, because Keith just put it to rest and now it's been undone. He's not commanding silence from Woody just reminding him this is all a delicate operation. Which brings us to the SNL appearance, maybe the start of one last fling or another ingenious stall tactic to keep the Stones name hot in the press. In this scenario, if he plays with a band that ain't the Stones, it's not because he's a dick but because he's trying to take one for the team.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: May 10, 2012 20:37
The trouble with building up to much expectation is that it usually ends with disappointment. Whatever Mick comes up with: It would probably be better than nothing, wouldn't it? Keep it at that level...
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
dewlover
()
Date: May 10, 2012 22:17
"pre-taped sketch"
...erm, the show is called "Saturday Night LIVE"!!!
...and could someone please tell superrevvy that Fantasy Hour is over?
...erm, the show is called "Saturday Night LIVE"!!!
...and could someone please tell superrevvy that Fantasy Hour is over?
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.