Tell Me :
Talk
The 50th anniversary year runs from July 12, 2012 through July 11, 2013 despite the fact that their 51st year begins on July 12, 2012. Looks like they are going to cover all bases. The first gig on July 12, Wyman's anniversary, Charlie's anniversary, etc. Makes sense. Lots of lovely things to come.
That´s what you basically read into it...
I have to say, that's a fair point Gumboot - I am nearly at a loss to speculate, but perhaps he has gotten worse if anything? It's not as if Blondie wasn't there playing his parts last time. Or maybe it was assumed he would've improved from several months ago, with steady practice everyday, and he hasn't?
Anyway, let's see what happens. Let's just be happy, if they come on the road again - I would be very happy, but must be something decent and that's probably what Jagger comment is all about. He will not go on stage for some terrible. It would be a bad end going on stage and sound terrible, then rather not.
Justin, we are all mates and in this together. I am but a humble servant. I sensed this some time ago. Was just trying to brace all of us for the possibility that we may have to wait until 2013 for any actual touring. The good news is that we are going to get a documentary, and most likely a new album. The prospect of Bill Wyman re-joining the band gives me goosebumps all over. Of course, there is no true "done deal" until they actually hit the stage.
I don't mean to sound 'jaded' and it certainly is quite a bit more info than we've received of late, but on the downside:
1. No tour this year for sure (if even Keith says so)
2. Possibly a tour next year (not really a tour, just a few 'centres' so Keith doesn't have to travel).
3. Nothing remotely definitive as to whether Wyman would be there.
4. Nothing at all from Mick (maybe more in the RS issue?)...that would actually make everything far more plausible.
5. Keith appears to be 'ill' in some form or another...not sure that will improve with age, depending on what it is.
I'm just not so positive with this news. It gives them lots of time to prepare, but also sets the stage for nothing happening depending on circumstances.
I agree with that statement. Keith doesn't appear to be ready yet to rock and roll for a 2 hour show. I hope he will in 2013.
Rock and roll,
Mops
hey mofo...it's a done deal!
Your being overly positive...why didn't they do this 'advanced hype' your referring to, at any point in last 5 years because according to you the '50th Anniversary' wouldn't be exciting enough? Are we talking about the Beach Boys here, or the Rolling Stones?
There will be no 'crop' of new younger fans buying ANY kind of Rolling Stones album, 'Some Girls - style' to build a tour with...it's just not in the cards.
This has everything to do either with Keith's health or declining abilities and is very sad news imho.
Can I quote you on that?
Interesting but I'm not sure how that will work out. They may be going off the old plan. I don't see either 1) the Stones rehearsing for one month to do a handful of shows in LA in NY then taking a break and picking it up next year nor 2) doing a handful of shows in NY and LA without any rehearsal...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-14 22:02 by Justin.
Your point 1 is the most to get excited about IMO, as it is 'very near' and they would be able to have the most control over. A lot of this board (not everyone for sure), wanted the vaults (which we've been getting) and/or a new album (which we may actually get).
That would be extremely positive.
Packed with unseen footage?? Hopefully more from the 1967 Warshaw concert that was filmed, and...... the NME Pollwinners 1968 complete Stones performance? That will be a treat. no matter the quality.
Yeah, I remember seeing them in 2005 before the brain injury. Keith really belw apart the opening of Brown Sugar one night and we all collectively cringed. Not a big deal but still...The rest of the show seemed OK but he was wasted and Ronnie was hammered like in 1981. Shattered was awful that night because Ronnie played on top of everyone in the wrong key.
Others have cited the night the band played one song and Keith played another.
Then after the surgery, and probably a minor stroke, I saw him look confused on the gliding b-stage. I've written about this before but I swear Mick helped Keith from walking right off the damn thing at Churchill Downs. He had moments of brillance, of course. His solo on Sympathy that night was great but what I saw up close was scary. All of this does not surprise me given the procedures they had to do, the ever present hat he now wears-it is not just because of balding-and the drugs he must take to avoid more accidents.
My granddad was an alcoholic and fell onto a coffee table and they did the same burr hole routine on him. This was the 1980's. He was not really the same. The burr hole saves their life but the damage is already done by then.
Well stated, James Kirk. We should be celebrating. Going to be a great year or so ahead. I would be perfectly happy with just one final farewell concert in 2013. That would be frosting on the cake. A new documentary and album has really got me "jazzed"!
Thanks for sharing that personal info...not good news at all.
Interesting perspective there. I was at the Churchill show but I didn't notice him almost falling off the b stage. What I did notice that night, though, was how listless and lost he seemed at times. Stalking around the stage in that long coat and a baseball cap, he just seemed out of it.
This remark clearly shows that all the talk about Richards health is an excuse to save face. If there are problems now, they will remain or intensify in the coming year.
I personally think there will be no major tour in 2013(I predicted no 2012 tour too) As for Richards - he has been talking about touring for the last 2 years and now it's going to happen in 2013(and with Bill Wyman who fears to fly). BS!
I was thinking the exact same thing!
They are headed into the studio next month. Let's take this one step at a time. Like I told Mickscarey a long time ago, there is no true "done deal" until the deal is done!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-14 22:44 by stonescrow.
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:
bam
()
Date: March 14, 2012 21:25
sjs12. You're missing something. Go back and look at the threads re the Apollo. Keith played very nice slide acoustic guitar, but sadly wasn't much playing the electric guitar.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
mtaylor
()
Date: March 14, 2012 21:25
Playing a couple of songs at a tribute consert isn't the same as playing 2 hours conserts 2-3 times a week for a year, where he somehow needs to be the main contributor.Quote
sjs12
Am I missing something? What was wrong with Keith's performances at the tribute gigs? I've only seen spoonful but that seemed quite good to me.
I wonder if Keith's "health issues" are actually reference to him maybe failing a drugs test?
Then again, maybe there's something else going on. Arthiritis might be the reason but that's unlikley to get better, unless he gets an operation (perhaps he's got it in his back or knees or something).
It's all just speculation but I hope there's nothin horribly wrong with him. Perhpas he's just been lazing around for a few years, not keeping in shape, and just needs to do a bit of exercise? That's probably true of me too!
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013- Keith's health a concern
Posted by:
stonescrow
()
Date: March 14, 2012 21:25
Quote
Munichhilton
Yay.
A 51st anniversary!
The 50th anniversary year runs from July 12, 2012 through July 11, 2013 despite the fact that their 51st year begins on July 12, 2012. Looks like they are going to cover all bases. The first gig on July 12, Wyman's anniversary, Charlie's anniversary, etc. Makes sense. Lots of lovely things to come.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
shortfatfanny
()
Date: March 14, 2012 21:27
Quote
proudmary
"At last month’s blues concert at the White House, Jagger said it was no easy task to pull a Stones tour together. “You can’t just walk up there and do it,” he told Rolling Stone. "If you’re playing a football tournament, you’ve got to practice. I feel very confident. I don’t want to sound cocky, but it’s just part of what you do. If you prepare, then you can be cocky.”
[latimesblogs.latimes.com]
So, he basically says it's Richards who isn't prepared.
That´s what you basically read into it...
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
theimposter
()
Date: March 14, 2012 21:36
I won't hold my breath for a 2013 tour. It sounds like they have a lot of product lined up this year, and keeping the public's anticipation going that they're still and will continue to be a viable band probably makes that product a better sell. For all we know they may have no plans for a tour and this could be pure - or at least partial - marketing.
That does concern me about Keith though. I'd rather keep my fingers crossed is well and healthy more than I do he'll strap on a guitar and get around the world again. And yes, he can technically get well in a year, but he can also deteriorate quite a bit in a year, as evidenced in 06 to 07.
That does concern me about Keith though. I'd rather keep my fingers crossed is well and healthy more than I do he'll strap on a guitar and get around the world again. And yes, he can technically get well in a year, but he can also deteriorate quite a bit in a year, as evidenced in 06 to 07.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
SweetThing
()
Date: March 14, 2012 21:38
Quote
GumbootCloggerooI would imagine that when the Stones got together to jam it was evident then that Keith wasn't in shape to tour. I doubt that he was kicking ass that day but then pulled a 180 and sucked at the tribute performances.Quote
SweetThing
Keith's performances are probably part of the reason at least for the tour idea to be shut down. It would be a train wreck. The Sumlin and Chuck Berry shows make this clear.
I have to say, that's a fair point Gumboot - I am nearly at a loss to speculate, but perhaps he has gotten worse if anything? It's not as if Blondie wasn't there playing his parts last time. Or maybe it was assumed he would've improved from several months ago, with steady practice everyday, and he hasn't?
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
straycatuk
()
Date: March 14, 2012 21:40
All Keith's done is mouth off for months/years about "getting the boys back on the road" etc. etc.
He seemed terrified of been asked to play when he promoted his " Lies" er, sorry "Life" book in 2010 claiming to be very rusty. He seems to have done nothing to have improved the situation in the intervening 18 months.
If he has, it hasn't worked and another year won't help unfortunately. VERY SAD.
sc uk
He seemed terrified of been asked to play when he promoted his " Lies" er, sorry "Life" book in 2010 claiming to be very rusty. He seems to have done nothing to have improved the situation in the intervening 18 months.
If he has, it hasn't worked and another year won't help unfortunately. VERY SAD.
sc uk
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
mtaylor
()
Date: March 14, 2012 21:41
And was made over 3 years. In 2006 they probably played in some 65-70 cities.Quote
EddieBywordQuote
mtaylor5 continents in 1/2 year seems to be quite much, when the news state: "Stones insiders say that one reason for the delay is Richards' health, which has raised questions about his ability to make it through a worldwide tour." and will be expensive and difficult if the tour requires special stage etc.Quote
Mr JimmyQuote
EddieByword
Here's my prediction.....
2012 - record new album - and do all the other stuff.......docs, more outtakes, open supermarkets...
Autumn 2012 - rehearse - play some of it plus it live in a few small clubs to warm up..
2013 - 50 cities worldwide........extra multiple shows in some
Kick off...MSG - Jan 2013 - (I've thought that likely for awhile)
Short US tour........
South America, Australia, Japan etc........break
Europe - summer 2013..........break
Another short US tour in the late autumn
Maybe a return to London just before xmas to finish off.........
The Fat lady sings
All the above with Mick Taylor, Bill Wyman and other guests included as and when needed.......
I hope you are right!!
My guees would be "simple stage setup arena conserts" in bigger cities like NY, LA, Chicago, SF and then similar in some bigger cities in Europe like London, Paris, Frankfurt, Barcelona.
Only a guess of course but my guess is... 50 cities with more shows than usual in some......I think I've got my stats right in saying A Bigger Bang was 117 cities.......so if I have got that right it would be less than half the travelling...............
Anyway, let's see what happens. Let's just be happy, if they come on the road again - I would be very happy, but must be something decent and that's probably what Jagger comment is all about. He will not go on stage for some terrible. It would be a bad end going on stage and sound terrible, then rather not.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
stonescrow
()
Date: March 14, 2012 21:41
Quote
Justin
Cue stonescrow's "I told you so" thread in 3...2...1....
Justin, we are all mates and in this together. I am but a humble servant. I sensed this some time ago. Was just trying to brace all of us for the possibility that we may have to wait until 2013 for any actual touring. The good news is that we are going to get a documentary, and most likely a new album. The prospect of Bill Wyman re-joining the band gives me goosebumps all over. Of course, there is no true "done deal" until they actually hit the stage.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013- Keith's health a concern
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: March 14, 2012 21:43
Quote
MunichhiltonQuote
proudmary
Rolling Stone has learned after separate interviews with Mick Jagger and Keith Richards.
I see Mick has not much to say
He's pretty quiet on this one for a frontman isn't he?
I don't mean to sound 'jaded' and it certainly is quite a bit more info than we've received of late, but on the downside:
1. No tour this year for sure (if even Keith says so)
2. Possibly a tour next year (not really a tour, just a few 'centres' so Keith doesn't have to travel).
3. Nothing remotely definitive as to whether Wyman would be there.
4. Nothing at all from Mick (maybe more in the RS issue?)...that would actually make everything far more plausible.
5. Keith appears to be 'ill' in some form or another...not sure that will improve with age, depending on what it is.
I'm just not so positive with this news. It gives them lots of time to prepare, but also sets the stage for nothing happening depending on circumstances.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
The Sicilian
()
Date: March 14, 2012 21:45
An excerpt from Jim Farber of the NY Daily News today:
Instead Keith Richards told the magazine that 2013 is the more likely target date. “Bascially, we’re just not ready,” he said. “I have a feeling [2013\] is more realistic.”
The magazine quotes insiders as saying one reason for the delay is Richards’ health, which they speculate isn’t up to the considerable rigors of a world tour.
Still, those limitations may have a happy result for New Yorker. The magazine quotes a concert business source as saying that the band may play multi-night runs in New York and Los Angeles arenas sometime this year.
Richards says the band won’t be idle in the meantime. They began rehearsing together in December for the first time since the end of their 2007 “Bigger Bang” tour, and Richards told the magazine that they’ll be rehearsing to record some new music as early as April.
Read more: [www.nydailynews.com]
Instead Keith Richards told the magazine that 2013 is the more likely target date. “Bascially, we’re just not ready,” he said. “I have a feeling [2013\] is more realistic.”
The magazine quotes insiders as saying one reason for the delay is Richards’ health, which they speculate isn’t up to the considerable rigors of a world tour.
Still, those limitations may have a happy result for New Yorker. The magazine quotes a concert business source as saying that the band may play multi-night runs in New York and Los Angeles arenas sometime this year.
Richards says the band won’t be idle in the meantime. They began rehearsing together in December for the first time since the end of their 2007 “Bigger Bang” tour, and Richards told the magazine that they’ll be rehearsing to record some new music as early as April.
Read more: [www.nydailynews.com]
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
rollmops
()
Date: March 14, 2012 21:49
Quote
proudmary
"At last month’s blues concert at the White House, Jagger said it was no easy task to pull a Stones tour together. “You can’t just walk up there and do it,” he told Rolling Stone. "If you’re playing a football tournament, you’ve got to practice. I feel very confident. I don’t want to sound cocky, but it’s just part of what you do. If you prepare, then you can be cocky.”
[latimesblogs.latimes.com]
So, he basically says it's Richards who isn't prepared.
I agree with that statement. Keith doesn't appear to be ready yet to rock and roll for a 2 hour show. I hope he will in 2013.
Rock and roll,
Mops
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013- Keith's health a concern
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: March 14, 2012 21:52
Quote
The GR
Now ban these ridiculous 2012 tour threads ans ALL tour threads till at least October
hey mofo...it's a done deal!
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
GumbootCloggeroo
()
Date: March 14, 2012 21:54
"The magazine quotes a concert business source as saying that the band may play multi-night runs in New York and Los Angeles arenas sometime this year."
Where is that quote? Unless it's in the full article, I do not see it. The RS article says they might do multi-night runs in cities but nowhere does it say that it will occur this year.
"They began rehearsing together in December for the first time since the end of their 2007 “Bigger Bang” tour,"
Getting together and jamming is totally different than a rehearsal. It wasn't the beginning of serious rehearsal sessions.
Where is that quote? Unless it's in the full article, I do not see it. The RS article says they might do multi-night runs in cities but nowhere does it say that it will occur this year.
"They began rehearsing together in December for the first time since the end of their 2007 “Bigger Bang” tour,"
Getting together and jamming is totally different than a rehearsal. It wasn't the beginning of serious rehearsal sessions.
delete
Posted by:
GilbertsGirl
()
Date: March 14, 2012 21:59
delete
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-01-31 10:30 by GilbertsGirl.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-01-31 10:30 by GilbertsGirl.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: March 14, 2012 22:00
Quote
hot stuff
I really think it has a lot more to do with money then Keith's health..
To get the Stones the cash they want they need to build up a ton of
excitement...And just turning fifty won't do it..
1. Build up Press in 2012 with movie, etc...A ton of Stones news.
2. They need to record a NEW Some Girls type selling album to build a tour with..They
will need a ton of new younger fans to part with their money.
3. Then have everyone say we better go as Keith won't be around the next time..
Can't miss this tour...Could be the LAST TIME!
All this hype will generate into increase ticket sales.
Your being overly positive...why didn't they do this 'advanced hype' your referring to, at any point in last 5 years because according to you the '50th Anniversary' wouldn't be exciting enough? Are we talking about the Beach Boys here, or the Rolling Stones?
There will be no 'crop' of new younger fans buying ANY kind of Rolling Stones album, 'Some Girls - style' to build a tour with...it's just not in the cards.
This has everything to do either with Keith's health or declining abilities and is very sad news imho.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
James Kirk
()
Date: March 14, 2012 22:01
Isn't this the most significant news to come out of the Stones camp in a long time? There was never anything near offical word that there was going to be a Stones tour in 2012.
Lets look on the positive side
1/ The Stones are heading back into the studio next month for what is likely to be the new studio album that many of you thought would never happen.
2/ The Stones are planning future live dates. Sure we all wish it was this year, but there will be more live shows.
3/ Bill Wyman is likely back in the Rolling Stones...I for one don't rule out the
return of Mick Taylor.
Somebody tell me why I am not at all upset like some of you guys are. The Stones finally seem to be getting ready to roll again.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-14 22:02 by James Kirk.
Lets look on the positive side
1/ The Stones are heading back into the studio next month for what is likely to be the new studio album that many of you thought would never happen.
2/ The Stones are planning future live dates. Sure we all wish it was this year, but there will be more live shows.
3/ Bill Wyman is likely back in the Rolling Stones...I for one don't rule out the
return of Mick Taylor.
Somebody tell me why I am not at all upset like some of you guys are. The Stones finally seem to be getting ready to roll again.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-14 22:02 by James Kirk.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: March 14, 2012 22:01
Quote
TooToughQuote
GumbootCloggerooIf Gazza wants to say something, he can come here and say it himself.Quote
TooTough
Gazza´s post on RocksOff:
Re: the stones to play again(update: tour now in 2
Reply #303 - Today at 11:12am
yep.
In all serious... on a tour.
If I want to quote someone who always finds the right words (and who doesn´t
post here anymore for whatever reason) I can do so.
Can I quote you on that?
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
Justin
()
Date: March 14, 2012 22:02
Quote
The Sicilian
Still, those limitations may have a happy result for New Yorker. The magazine quotes a concert business source as saying that the band may play multi-night runs in New York and Los Angeles arenas sometime this year.
Interesting but I'm not sure how that will work out. They may be going off the old plan. I don't see either 1) the Stones rehearsing for one month to do a handful of shows in LA in NY then taking a break and picking it up next year nor 2) doing a handful of shows in NY and LA without any rehearsal...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-14 22:02 by Justin.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
rogue
()
Date: March 14, 2012 22:03
I knew that shrub had done its work long ago on Keith.
The tour being pushed back to 2013 is genius marketing because it is the carrot on the stick to get fans and newcomers to go to the movie, buy the dvd, the back catalogue, the other concert films, the other books, and the new recordings.
I once thought a small tour was possible. I don't anymore.
This will be a short victory lap around a few large cities with 3-5 shows over a week with guest players joining in. Probably a total of 15-20 real dates spread across Europe and North America but most likely just London, NYC and LA.
Now I know why Mick Taylor has been approached. Ronnie can play almost anything, Taylor brings memories and his own style/sound. Then add Wyman and Keith has a big safety net.
The London gathering was to test everyone.
Then the physicals and insurance bonds went out the window.
It all makes sense now. 15-20 shows across London, NYC, and LA could be done within 6 to 8 weeks with top notch doctors and support.
WOW. Reality just arrived. Nice touch to use Charlie as the real reason.
I wonder if Keith gave this interview via FAX machine?
The tour being pushed back to 2013 is genius marketing because it is the carrot on the stick to get fans and newcomers to go to the movie, buy the dvd, the back catalogue, the other concert films, the other books, and the new recordings.
I once thought a small tour was possible. I don't anymore.
This will be a short victory lap around a few large cities with 3-5 shows over a week with guest players joining in. Probably a total of 15-20 real dates spread across Europe and North America but most likely just London, NYC and LA.
Now I know why Mick Taylor has been approached. Ronnie can play almost anything, Taylor brings memories and his own style/sound. Then add Wyman and Keith has a big safety net.
The London gathering was to test everyone.
Then the physicals and insurance bonds went out the window.
It all makes sense now. 15-20 shows across London, NYC, and LA could be done within 6 to 8 weeks with top notch doctors and support.
WOW. Reality just arrived. Nice touch to use Charlie as the real reason.
I wonder if Keith gave this interview via FAX machine?
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
cowboytoast
()
Date: March 14, 2012 22:05
sadly...the "best" Keith we could hope for would be the one on the first leg of the Bigger Bang Tour...and that Keith wasn't so hot if we all remember...all candycoating aside...
since that operation...where they drilled into his skull and drained blood from his already wet brain...he almost acts like my grandfather who had a stroke...which he possibly did...but i'm no doctor...
anyway...he's wasted a lot of time goofing off with Johnny Depp and writing that book of rehashed stories...when he should've been working on music...
it's not his age...it's his brain...plus the smoking doesn't help..
Ian Hunter is nearly 73 and still blows it out everytime he plays...
since that operation...where they drilled into his skull and drained blood from his already wet brain...he almost acts like my grandfather who had a stroke...which he possibly did...but i'm no doctor...
anyway...he's wasted a lot of time goofing off with Johnny Depp and writing that book of rehashed stories...when he should've been working on music...
it's not his age...it's his brain...plus the smoking doesn't help..
Ian Hunter is nearly 73 and still blows it out everytime he plays...
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: March 14, 2012 22:07
Quote
James Kirk
Isn't this the most significant news to come out of the Stones camp in a long time? There was never anything near offical word that there was going to be a Stones tour in 2012.
Lets look on the positive side
1/ The Stones are heading back into the studio next month for what is likely to be the new studio album that many of you thought would never happen.
2/ The Stones are planning future live dates. Sure we all wish it was this year, but there will be more live shows.
3/ Bill Wyman is likely back in the Rolling Stones...I for one don't rule out the
return of Mick Taylor.
Somebody tell me why I am not at all upset like some of you guys are. The Stones finally seem to be getting ready to roll again.
Your point 1 is the most to get excited about IMO, as it is 'very near' and they would be able to have the most control over. A lot of this board (not everyone for sure), wanted the vaults (which we've been getting) and/or a new album (which we may actually get).
That would be extremely positive.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
thabo
()
Date: March 14, 2012 22:18
Quote
andrewt
In the meantime, fans will get their Stones fix from the upcoming documentary, out in the fall, which will trace the band's entire 50-year journey and is packed with unseen footage and unreleased music.
Packed with unseen footage?? Hopefully more from the 1967 Warshaw concert that was filmed, and...... the NME Pollwinners 1968 complete Stones performance? That will be a treat. no matter the quality.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
rogue
()
Date: March 14, 2012 22:23
Quote
cowboytoast
sadly...the "best" Keith we could hope for would be the one on the first leg of the Bigger Bang Tour...and that Keith wasn't so hot if we all remember...all candycoating aside...
since that operation...where they drilled into his skull and drained blood from his already wet brain...he almost acts like my grandfather who had a stroke...which he possibly did...but i'm no doctor...
anyway...he's wasted a lot of time goofing off with Johnny Depp and writing that book of rehashed stories...when he should've been working on music...
it's not his age...it's his brain...plus the smoking doesn't help..
Ian Hunter is nearly 73 and still blows it out everytime he plays...
Yeah, I remember seeing them in 2005 before the brain injury. Keith really belw apart the opening of Brown Sugar one night and we all collectively cringed. Not a big deal but still...The rest of the show seemed OK but he was wasted and Ronnie was hammered like in 1981. Shattered was awful that night because Ronnie played on top of everyone in the wrong key.
Others have cited the night the band played one song and Keith played another.
Then after the surgery, and probably a minor stroke, I saw him look confused on the gliding b-stage. I've written about this before but I swear Mick helped Keith from walking right off the damn thing at Churchill Downs. He had moments of brillance, of course. His solo on Sympathy that night was great but what I saw up close was scary. All of this does not surprise me given the procedures they had to do, the ever present hat he now wears-it is not just because of balding-and the drugs he must take to avoid more accidents.
My granddad was an alcoholic and fell onto a coffee table and they did the same burr hole routine on him. This was the 1980's. He was not really the same. The burr hole saves their life but the damage is already done by then.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
stonescrow
()
Date: March 14, 2012 22:28
Quote
James Kirk
Isn't this the most significant news to come out of the Stones camp in a long time? There was never anything near offical word that there was going to be a Stones tour in 2012.
Lets look on the positive side
1/ The Stones are heading back into the studio next month for what is likely to be the new studio album that many of you thought would never happen.
2/ The Stones are planning future live dates. Sure we all wish it was this year, but there will be more live shows.
3/ Bill Wyman is likely back in the Rolling Stones...I for one don't rule out the
return of Mick Taylor.
Somebody tell me why I am not at all upset like some of you guys are. The Stones finally seem to be getting ready to roll again.
Well stated, James Kirk. We should be celebrating. Going to be a great year or so ahead. I would be perfectly happy with just one final farewell concert in 2013. That would be frosting on the cake. A new documentary and album has really got me "jazzed"!
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: March 14, 2012 22:28
Quote
rogueQuote
cowboytoast
sadly...the "best" Keith we could hope for would be the one on the first leg of the Bigger Bang Tour...and that Keith wasn't so hot if we all remember...all candycoating aside...
since that operation...where they drilled into his skull and drained blood from his already wet brain...he almost acts like my grandfather who had a stroke...which he possibly did...but i'm no doctor...
anyway...he's wasted a lot of time goofing off with Johnny Depp and writing that book of rehashed stories...when he should've been working on music...
it's not his age...it's his brain...plus the smoking doesn't help..
Ian Hunter is nearly 73 and still blows it out everytime he plays...
Yeah, I remember seeing them in 2005 before the brain injury. Keith really belw apart the opening of Brown Sugar one night and we all collectively cringed. Not a big deal but still...The rest of the show seemed OK but he was wasted and Ronnie was hammered like in 1981. Shattered was awful that night because Ronnie played on top of everyone in the wrong key.
Others have cited the night the band played one song and Keith played another.
Then after the surgery, and probably a minor stroke, I saw him look confused on the gliding b-stage. I've written about this before but I swear Mick helped Keith from walking right off the damn thing at Churchill Downs. He had moments of brillance, of course. His solo on Sympathy that night was great but what I saw up close was scary. All of this does not surprise me given the procedures they had to do, the ever present hat he now wears-it is not just because of balding-and the drugs he must take to avoid more accidents.
My granddad was an alcoholic and fell onto a coffee table and they did the same burr hole routine on him. This was the 1980's. He was not really the same. The burr hole saves their life but the damage is already done by then.
Thanks for sharing that personal info...not good news at all.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
theimposter
()
Date: March 14, 2012 22:31
Quote
rogueQuote
cowboytoast
sadly...the "best" Keith we could hope for would be the one on the first leg of the Bigger Bang Tour...and that Keith wasn't so hot if we all remember...all candycoating aside...
since that operation...where they drilled into his skull and drained blood from his already wet brain...he almost acts like my grandfather who had a stroke...which he possibly did...but i'm no doctor...
anyway...he's wasted a lot of time goofing off with Johnny Depp and writing that book of rehashed stories...when he should've been working on music...
it's not his age...it's his brain...plus the smoking doesn't help..
Ian Hunter is nearly 73 and still blows it out everytime he plays...
Yeah, I remember seeing them in 2005 before the brain injury. Keith really belw apart the opening of Brown Sugar one night and we all collectively cringed. Not a big deal but still...The rest of the show seemed OK but he was wasted and Ronnie was hammered like in 1981. Shattered was awful that night because Ronnie played on top of everyone in the wrong key.
Others have cited the night the band played one song and Keith played another.
Then after the surgery, and probably a minor stroke, I saw him look confused on the gliding b-stage. I've written about this before but I swear Mick helped Keith from walking right off the damn thing at Churchill Downs. He had moments of brillance, of course. His solo on Sympathy that night was great but what I saw up close was scary. All of this does not surprise me given the procedures they had to do, the ever present hat he now wears-it is not just because of balding-and the drugs he must take to avoid more accidents.
My granddad was an alcoholic and fell onto a coffee table and they did the same burr hole routine on him. This was the 1980's. He was not really the same. The burr hole saves their life but the damage is already done by then.
Interesting perspective there. I was at the Churchill show but I didn't notice him almost falling off the b stage. What I did notice that night, though, was how listless and lost he seemed at times. Stalking around the stage in that long coat and a baseball cap, he just seemed out of it.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
proudmary
()
Date: March 14, 2012 22:33
Quote
shortfatfannyQuote
proudmary
"At last month’s blues concert at the White House, Jagger said it was no easy task to pull a Stones tour together. “You can’t just walk up there and do it,” he told Rolling Stone. "If you’re playing a football tournament, you’ve got to practice. I feel very confident. I don’t want to sound cocky, but it’s just part of what you do. If you prepare, then you can be cocky.”
[latimesblogs.latimes.com]
So, he basically says it's Richards who isn't prepared.
That´s what you basically read into it...
This remark clearly shows that all the talk about Richards health is an excuse to save face. If there are problems now, they will remain or intensify in the coming year.
I personally think there will be no major tour in 2013(I predicted no 2012 tour too) As for Richards - he has been talking about touring for the last 2 years and now it's going to happen in 2013(and with Bill Wyman who fears to fly). BS!
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013- Keith's health a concern
Posted by:
brownsugar86
()
Date: March 14, 2012 22:34
Quote
Send It To me
I enjoyed the 39 Licks project in 2002.
I was thinking the exact same thing!Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
stonescrow
()
Date: March 14, 2012 22:39
Quote
proudmaryQuote
shortfatfannyQuote
proudmary
"At last month’s blues concert at the White House, Jagger said it was no easy task to pull a Stones tour together. “You can’t just walk up there and do it,” he told Rolling Stone. "If you’re playing a football tournament, you’ve got to practice. I feel very confident. I don’t want to sound cocky, but it’s just part of what you do. If you prepare, then you can be cocky.”
[latimesblogs.latimes.com]
So, he basically says it's Richards who isn't prepared.
That´s what you basically read into it...
This remark clearly shows that all the talk about Richards health is an excuse to save face. If there are problems now, they will remain or intensify in the coming year.
I personally think there will be no major tour in 2013(I predicted no 2012 tour too) As for Richards - he has been talking about touring for the last 2 years and now it's going to happen in 2013(and with Bill Wyman who fears to fly). BS!
They are headed into the studio next month. Let's take this one step at a time. Like I told Mickscarey a long time ago, there is no true "done deal" until the deal is done!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-14 22:44 by stonescrow.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
a bigger nut , artedm , bluecore , Broesel2404 , dishevelmentblues , keithglimmer , LiveAtHidepark , MadMetaphoricalMax , OttoH , PaintMonkeyManBlack , RobertJohnson , soundboard , Stoneswolf , straycatuk , TW2019 , vertigojoe
Guests:
1959
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10