Tell Me :
Talk
OK so...... what was the previous time(s)? If he's alluding to it was better than the last two Bang tour shows he's possibly right. But Ronnie has always been positive, even to the point of it being fiction. I think the dude has it in his DNA to believe.
Well, we have these statements:
Keith: It was a very back-to-basics sort of session. There was a lot of jamming. On the third day, Mick turned up, which was a real joy. Because I set it up really as a magnet, you know.
Mick: We played a lot of blues and outtakes of Some Girls and things like that. It went very well.
Ron: It was great, keeping our chops together, that's what we love. We're all happy - we were happy before Christmas. It's getting better each time.
Where did they say no tour?
Yeah, Teddy, do you have more news?
I think what Mathijs is really saying though, and I agree, "what if everything we've ever been told in our lives, up to this point, isn't true?".
You really can't argue with that kind of logic.
I did the same, no photos yet.
I would also suggest reading the gossip columns even if it's a one sentence blurb.
Here are the links for NYC's newspapers that have reported on The Stones in the past
[www.nydailynews.com]
[www.nypost.com]
Apologies if this has been posted before...
[www.dnainfo.com]
Rolling Stones 50th Anniversary Celebrated With SoHo Photo Exhibit Updated 2 hrs ago
May 2, 2012 7:49am | By Della Hasselle, DNAinfo Reporter/Producer
Read more: [www.dnainfo.com]
SOHO — Gered Mankowitz was only 18 years old when he got his first big break as a portrait photographer, shooting a new hit band known as the Rolling Stones in his small England studio.
It was 1965, and the Stones were starting to make waves with their new album, "Out of Our Heads."
They could feel something big was going to happen — it was only months before the U.K. release of the single, "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction" — and Mankowitz had a tingly, excited sensation that this band was about to make history.
"They were on the verge of exploding on both sides of the Atlantic," Mankowitz said. "They were big enough to be the most important band for me to have anything to do with, but I felt like we were on the edge of something much, much bigger."
Now, 47 years later, Mankowitz is one of seven photographers chosen to be a part of "Rolling Stones: Celebrating 50 Years," an exhibit that celebrates the extraordinary life of Mick Jagger, Keith Richards and the other members of the Rolling Stones from the beginning of their union as a band in 1972 to today.
"We're all bloody good photographers, and we've all caught a part of history," he said of the exhibit, which is open to the public starting Friday at The Morrison Hotel Gallery in SoHo.
"It's an extraordinary range of photographs."
The exhibit is important, Mankowitz says, because of the nature of the photographs, which get up close and personal with the Stones. Images of the band in their formative years, on tour, drinking whiskey and performing in front of screaming crowds, show through the years how they transformed with changes in rock 'n' roll.
For Markowitz, the mission was all about illuminating their personalities as they were developing in the beginning — letting that bit of punk peek through in a portrait setting, back when it was against the norm in 1965.
"For me, from the very first moment I saw them on television, they seemed to be naughty, to be rebellious, and to be cheeky. They were unlike the Beatles, who were posey and accepted, and wore suits and ties and your grandma liked them," he said.
"The Stones were rough and ready and weren't shiny and were gritty, and your grandma hated them. I wanted that to show."
For Ethan Russell, a photographer hired for the Rolling Stones American Tour in 1969, the mission was to keep the band members as authentic as possible.
In one shot, Keith Richards is seen sitting by an anti-drug sign. In another, he is looking very out of it, leaning against a wall and obviously not posing for the camera.
"Since the photographs weren't mediated, art directed or manipulated, the viewer gets to really be there.... like I was," Russell said.
"There's a lot in this, both happenstance and perhaps on purpose. And so we have these pictures, and so we have history — a win-win for everyone."
To get his shots, Russell said he would often stand for hours, poised for the perfect moment to shoot his subjects. The way he shot, he explained, allowed other people to see the humanity of the band, rather than just the superstars they had become in the public eye.
"From my point of view, it really was what it was," Russell said. "It was neither bigger nor smaller. You get the person, not the performer."
Other photographers, like Lynn Goldsmith, were so much a part of the action that they sometimes felt themselves getting very caught up in it.
Goldsmith shot tons of photographs of the band backstage, including those showing Keith Richards preparing to dive into a crowd of screaming fans, and another of him leaving a stage filled with shoes, as the audience wildly gestures at him.
In one anecdote, she talks about how she nearly got separated from the band on tour in 1978, when Keith Richards had to rescue her from a security guard who was trying to detain her. She nearly missed the limo — and also the shot that ended up being the cover of Rolling Stone Magazine in 1978.
"Keith Richards is my hero," she said simply about her experiences with the band.
Other photographers included in the exhibit are Terry O'Neill, who shot some of the first photographs of the band together in 1963, Ken Regan, who was with them for nearly 30 years, and Henry Diltz.
Diltz, who hung out with Keith Richards when he shot a tour of the band, "The New Barbarians," featuring Richards on guitar in 1979, was taken by the glamour of the rock star lifestyle that band members of the Rolling Stones led.
"We barn-stormed the country in a private luxury jet and stayed in luxurious hotels in major cities," Regan said. "I enjoyed three weeks of amazing music and a window on an amazing lifestyle."
Regardless of individual experiences, however, photographers agree that the exhibit will not only be popular with music photograph collectors, but it will also provide an important glimpse into one of the most important periods in modern music history.
"We will see a wonderful, vivid picture history of a band that we all know now, but may not remember from the 1960s," Mankowitz said. "It's magical and extraordinary."
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-02 17:07 by wanderingspirit66.
There is a Rolling Stones 50th Anniversary related photo exhibit which is open to the public starting Friday May 4th at The Morrison Hotel Gallery in SoHo.
[www.dnainfo.com]
The London one? Keith confirmed it. Gazza said it happened. Didn't know there was still any doubt about that one.
Sorry Gazza. It was reported by someone that the jam was fimed for use in the documentary.
Because it's the 50th? Because NYC can be a crazy place? Because they rely on Ronnie to tell us everything anyway?
Because they want the secrecy!!
Any pictures from the London session? We have pictures of basically every fart Jagger, Richards and Wood have laid for the last 5 years. We know all of the 160 girl friends Wood has had over the years by name. When Jagger's hair looks funny due to bad weather he is on the front page -and when the entire band with Bill Wyman rehearses in Chelsea (not really the north of Sweden) they get in and out of the studio unnoticed?
Mathijs
Which shows they have great musical taste! lol Unfortunately some of Keith's kids, including Marlon are fans, so I've no doubt someone from Keith circle will attend. I would bet a hefty sum that you are correct Stoneage and that none of the Rolling Stones will attend.
I mean someone's got to carry the banner of Rock musical taste, who else but them? I am however slightly confused that Keith has not picked up on the greatness of Led Zepplin and in particular John Paul Jones' wonderful contributions to that act. peace
Frankly, it's now CTV!!
Sonic Temple? I enjoyed that album. Has some kickin' tunes on it.
No, darlin' - it's Masonic Temple:
[en.wikipedia.org])
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: The stones are in NYC
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: May 2, 2012 16:08
Quote
TimeIs
Three Stones talked about the December 2011 jam in February and March of this year:
Keith: It was a very back-to-basics sort of session. There was a lot of jamming. On the third day, Mick turned up, which was a real joy. Because I set it up really as a magnet, you know.
Mick: We played a lot of blues and outtakes of Some Girls and things like that. It went very well.
Ron: It was great, keeping our chops together, that's what we love. We're all happy - we were happy before Christmas. It's getting better each time.
OK so...... what was the previous time(s)? If he's alluding to it was better than the last two Bang tour shows he's possibly right. But Ronnie has always been positive, even to the point of it being fiction. I think the dude has it in his DNA to believe.
Re: The stones are in NYC
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: May 2, 2012 16:14
Quote
MathijsQuote
GazzaQuote
MathijsQuote
GazzaQuote
MathijsQuote
Green LadyQuote
MathijsQuote
71TeleQuote
Max'sKansasCity
For fun... they should offer/sell a "fly on the wall" studio web cam, and turn it on from time to time, giving fans a look in, if/when they get a cool jam going..... I know, I know.... they wont... but they should.... for me at least. It doesnt have to be on all time.... just when they get rolling along like my Stones can and do.
at the risk of replying to a post of yours...didn't they film the London jam? Hopefully we will get just such a perspective as you wish.
Are we sure there ever was a jam? I haven't read, seen or heard even one statement about an actual jam -not by any of the Stones, not by Bill Wyman, not by any personel whom would have been present. The rehearsal space still is unknown, which is really rare, there's not a picture, nothing.
The jam to me sounds much more like a business meeting, with Jagger informing the others he isn't going to tour or record a new record.
Mathijs
This is the Daily Mail article from March that started the theory that the December jam was set up solely for the purpose of providing footage for an upcoming documentary;
[www.dailymail.co.uk]
followed by discussion in the sticky Stones Tour thread:
[www.iorr.org]
The Daily Mail clearly has its own spin on things, but can anyone identify the alleged location of the jam in the first paragraph?
"in a tall, red-brick building off the King’s Road in London, four old rockers sat aimlessly in a recording studio...."
Exactly what I mean: the source is the Daily Mail: a gossip paper known for avoiding printing facts. And even the Daily Mail doesn't mention anything about the Stones making any music. They where waiting 'aimlessly', and Jagger left after 'the camera's stopped rolling'. For what? interviews? Just some pictures for the 50 years book or documentary?
I just don't believe there really where any jam sessions at all.
Mathijs
Thats your problem, then. I had it confirmed by 3 sources when it actually happened (December 6-8, in a studio in Chelsea), and Jagger himself mentioned it in an interview afterwards, even mentioning rehearsing some 'Some Girls' era songs. The article mentions a 'session' - only YOU have twisted this into a photo session.
The Daily Mail carefully-cherrypicked take on things is irrelevant. Its not as if they sat in a studio 'aimlessly' for 3 days. Their target readership isnt interested in whether they were 'making music' or not. That wasn't the point of the article.
I did not twist it in to a photo session, it was a question I posed. What remarks do you have by bandmembers? The only one I know of is the one you just mentioned by Jagger. There's been no statement by Wood, Watts or Wyman that they actually played together that I know off, except for a brief session by Ben Waters, Wood and Watts.
Thing is, it would be a first in 30 years or more that they would actually play without the standard group of people around them, like techs etc. And I just don't believe that.
Mathijs
It basically follows on from Keith's interview a few weeks earlier that he was getting the band together to get the feel of playing together again. In case anyone hadnt noticed, they're a bit out of practice!
Ben Waters was there when they played together. Why on earth would he be there if no music was being played? As for the remark about technicians - how do you know they werent there? How do you disprove a negative? Whether it was 'staged' for a documentary or not, I dont know and don't care - but they DID 'play' together. Thats the point. Jagger wasnt available to begin with as he had a prior commitment in Paris. Why do you need a statement of verification from the entire band when Jagger himself even admitted it several weeks later?
Anyway - here's a quote from Keith which backs up what I said. Hope that helps.
[entertainment.stv.tv]
It just doesn't add up! So let's just say they had a band meeting discussing the future of the Stones. Richards states beforehand he will get the band together, but doesn't speak of any rehearsals afterwords. And to add -much if what Richards states the last couple of years hasn't made any sense. Then Jagger mentions afterwords it was all nice and whatever. Of course he would say that, what else has he said the last 20 years!
There has been no word from Wyman, who'd surely would state something if he'd played with them. 'it was nice', 'I hated it', what ever. No word! Same for Watts and Wood: not a single word. Why was Ben Waters there? I don't know. Invited by Watts to kill the time waiting for Jagger?
The only thing we know is that after the supposed sessions it was suddenly announced officially that there would be no tour this year, and no album. So Jagger jams with the band for an hour, long enough and sufficient enough to decide there will be no tour. It doesn't sound plausible to me.
Mathijs
Well, we have these statements:
Keith: It was a very back-to-basics sort of session. There was a lot of jamming. On the third day, Mick turned up, which was a real joy. Because I set it up really as a magnet, you know.
Mick: We played a lot of blues and outtakes of Some Girls and things like that. It went very well.
Ron: It was great, keeping our chops together, that's what we love. We're all happy - we were happy before Christmas. It's getting better each time.
Re: The stones are in NYC
Posted by:
Cocaine Eyes
()
Date: May 2, 2012 16:22
Many thanks to Gazza (Rocks Off) for this good news! 
Re: The stones are in NYC
Posted by:
eismann
()
Date: May 2, 2012 16:25
They said: no tour, yes. But did they say : no show?
Well well, better keep my bookings for Hyde Park. Hope they are having fun in NYC!
the greatest rock and roll band in the world - definitely
Well well, better keep my bookings for Hyde Park. Hope they are having fun in NYC!
the greatest rock and roll band in the world - definitely
Re: The stones are in NYC
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: May 2, 2012 16:26
Quote
eismann
They said: no tour, yes. But did they say : no show?
Well well, better keep my bookings for Hyde Park. Hope they are having fun in NYC!
Where did they say no tour?
Re: The stones are in NYC
Posted by:
Elmo Lewis
()
Date: May 2, 2012 16:29
Best news was that Keith was playing well.
Re: The stones are in NYC
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: May 2, 2012 16:34
Quote
Elmo Lewis
Best news was that Keith was playing well.
Yeah, Teddy, do you have more news?
Re: The stones are in NYC
Posted by:
Sam Spade
()
Date: May 2, 2012 16:35
Thanks for the news Gazza.
Since NYC is the media capital, we should get a pic of one of them out and about in the Big Apple.
Since NYC is the media capital, we should get a pic of one of them out and about in the Big Apple.
Re: The stones are in NYC
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: May 2, 2012 16:49
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
MathijsQuote
GazzaQuote
MathijsQuote
GazzaQuote
MathijsQuote
Green LadyQuote
MathijsQuote
71TeleQuote
Max'sKansasCity
For fun... they should offer/sell a "fly on the wall" studio web cam, and turn it on from time to time, giving fans a look in, if/when they get a cool jam going..... I know, I know.... they wont... but they should.... for me at least. It doesnt have to be on all time.... just when they get rolling along like my Stones can and do.
at the risk of replying to a post of yours...didn't they film the London jam? Hopefully we will get just such a perspective as you wish.
Are we sure there ever was a jam? I haven't read, seen or heard even one statement about an actual jam -not by any of the Stones, not by Bill Wyman, not by any personel whom would have been present. The rehearsal space still is unknown, which is really rare, there's not a picture, nothing.
The jam to me sounds much more like a business meeting, with Jagger informing the others he isn't going to tour or record a new record.
Mathijs
This is the Daily Mail article from March that started the theory that the December jam was set up solely for the purpose of providing footage for an upcoming documentary;
[www.dailymail.co.uk]
followed by discussion in the sticky Stones Tour thread:
[www.iorr.org]
The Daily Mail clearly has its own spin on things, but can anyone identify the alleged location of the jam in the first paragraph?
"in a tall, red-brick building off the King’s Road in London, four old rockers sat aimlessly in a recording studio...."
Exactly what I mean: the source is the Daily Mail: a gossip paper known for avoiding printing facts. And even the Daily Mail doesn't mention anything about the Stones making any music. They where waiting 'aimlessly', and Jagger left after 'the camera's stopped rolling'. For what? interviews? Just some pictures for the 50 years book or documentary?
I just don't believe there really where any jam sessions at all.
Mathijs
Thats your problem, then. I had it confirmed by 3 sources when it actually happened (December 6-8, in a studio in Chelsea), and Jagger himself mentioned it in an interview afterwards, even mentioning rehearsing some 'Some Girls' era songs. The article mentions a 'session' - only YOU have twisted this into a photo session.
The Daily Mail carefully-cherrypicked take on things is irrelevant. Its not as if they sat in a studio 'aimlessly' for 3 days. Their target readership isnt interested in whether they were 'making music' or not. That wasn't the point of the article.
I did not twist it in to a photo session, it was a question I posed. What remarks do you have by bandmembers? The only one I know of is the one you just mentioned by Jagger. There's been no statement by Wood, Watts or Wyman that they actually played together that I know off, except for a brief session by Ben Waters, Wood and Watts.
Thing is, it would be a first in 30 years or more that they would actually play without the standard group of people around them, like techs etc. And I just don't believe that.
Mathijs
It basically follows on from Keith's interview a few weeks earlier that he was getting the band together to get the feel of playing together again. In case anyone hadnt noticed, they're a bit out of practice!
Ben Waters was there when they played together. Why on earth would he be there if no music was being played? As for the remark about technicians - how do you know they werent there? How do you disprove a negative? Whether it was 'staged' for a documentary or not, I dont know and don't care - but they DID 'play' together. Thats the point. Jagger wasnt available to begin with as he had a prior commitment in Paris. Why do you need a statement of verification from the entire band when Jagger himself even admitted it several weeks later?
Anyway - here's a quote from Keith which backs up what I said. Hope that helps.
[entertainment.stv.tv]
It just doesn't add up! So let's just say they had a band meeting discussing the future of the Stones. Richards states beforehand he will get the band together, but doesn't speak of any rehearsals afterwords. And to add -much if what Richards states the last couple of years hasn't made any sense. Then Jagger mentions afterwords it was all nice and whatever. Of course he would say that, what else has he said the last 20 years!
There has been no word from Wyman, who'd surely would state something if he'd played with them. 'it was nice', 'I hated it', what ever. No word! Same for Watts and Wood: not a single word. Why was Ben Waters there? I don't know. Invited by Watts to kill the time waiting for Jagger?
The only thing we know is that after the supposed sessions it was suddenly announced officially that there would be no tour this year, and no album. So Jagger jams with the band for an hour, long enough and sufficient enough to decide there will be no tour. It doesn't sound plausible to me.
Mathijs
Well, we have these statements:
Keith: It was a very back-to-basics sort of session. There was a lot of jamming. On the third day, Mick turned up, which was a real joy. Because I set it up really as a magnet, you know.
Mick: We played a lot of blues and outtakes of Some Girls and things like that. It went very well.
Ron: It was great, keeping our chops together, that's what we love. We're all happy - we were happy before Christmas. It's getting better each time.
I think what Mathijs is really saying though, and I agree, "what if everything we've ever been told in our lives, up to this point, isn't true?".
You really can't argue with that kind of logic.
Re: The stones are in NYC
Posted by:
Cocaine Eyes
()
Date: May 2, 2012 16:49
I just googled all of the NYC newpapers and there's nothing out new, today. Waiting patiently on the floor.............
Re: The stones are in NYC
Posted by:
Sam Spade
()
Date: May 2, 2012 17:01
Quote
Cocaine Eyes
I just googled all of the NYC newpapers and there's nothing out new, today. Waiting patiently on the floor.............
I did the same, no photos yet.
I would also suggest reading the gossip columns even if it's a one sentence blurb.
Here are the links for NYC's newspapers that have reported on The Stones in the past
[www.nydailynews.com]
[www.nypost.com]
Re: The stones are in NYC
Posted by:
wanderingspirit66
()
Date: May 2, 2012 17:02
Quote
Cocaine Eyes
I just googled all of the NYC newpapers and there's nothing out new, today. Waiting patiently on the floor.............
Apologies if this has been posted before...
[www.dnainfo.com]
Rolling Stones 50th Anniversary Celebrated With SoHo Photo Exhibit Updated 2 hrs ago
May 2, 2012 7:49am | By Della Hasselle, DNAinfo Reporter/Producer
Read more: [www.dnainfo.com]
SOHO — Gered Mankowitz was only 18 years old when he got his first big break as a portrait photographer, shooting a new hit band known as the Rolling Stones in his small England studio.
It was 1965, and the Stones were starting to make waves with their new album, "Out of Our Heads."
They could feel something big was going to happen — it was only months before the U.K. release of the single, "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction" — and Mankowitz had a tingly, excited sensation that this band was about to make history.
"They were on the verge of exploding on both sides of the Atlantic," Mankowitz said. "They were big enough to be the most important band for me to have anything to do with, but I felt like we were on the edge of something much, much bigger."
Now, 47 years later, Mankowitz is one of seven photographers chosen to be a part of "Rolling Stones: Celebrating 50 Years," an exhibit that celebrates the extraordinary life of Mick Jagger, Keith Richards and the other members of the Rolling Stones from the beginning of their union as a band in 1972 to today.
"We're all bloody good photographers, and we've all caught a part of history," he said of the exhibit, which is open to the public starting Friday at The Morrison Hotel Gallery in SoHo.
"It's an extraordinary range of photographs."
The exhibit is important, Mankowitz says, because of the nature of the photographs, which get up close and personal with the Stones. Images of the band in their formative years, on tour, drinking whiskey and performing in front of screaming crowds, show through the years how they transformed with changes in rock 'n' roll.
For Markowitz, the mission was all about illuminating their personalities as they were developing in the beginning — letting that bit of punk peek through in a portrait setting, back when it was against the norm in 1965.
"For me, from the very first moment I saw them on television, they seemed to be naughty, to be rebellious, and to be cheeky. They were unlike the Beatles, who were posey and accepted, and wore suits and ties and your grandma liked them," he said.
"The Stones were rough and ready and weren't shiny and were gritty, and your grandma hated them. I wanted that to show."
For Ethan Russell, a photographer hired for the Rolling Stones American Tour in 1969, the mission was to keep the band members as authentic as possible.
In one shot, Keith Richards is seen sitting by an anti-drug sign. In another, he is looking very out of it, leaning against a wall and obviously not posing for the camera.
"Since the photographs weren't mediated, art directed or manipulated, the viewer gets to really be there.... like I was," Russell said.
"There's a lot in this, both happenstance and perhaps on purpose. And so we have these pictures, and so we have history — a win-win for everyone."
To get his shots, Russell said he would often stand for hours, poised for the perfect moment to shoot his subjects. The way he shot, he explained, allowed other people to see the humanity of the band, rather than just the superstars they had become in the public eye.
"From my point of view, it really was what it was," Russell said. "It was neither bigger nor smaller. You get the person, not the performer."
Other photographers, like Lynn Goldsmith, were so much a part of the action that they sometimes felt themselves getting very caught up in it.
Goldsmith shot tons of photographs of the band backstage, including those showing Keith Richards preparing to dive into a crowd of screaming fans, and another of him leaving a stage filled with shoes, as the audience wildly gestures at him.
In one anecdote, she talks about how she nearly got separated from the band on tour in 1978, when Keith Richards had to rescue her from a security guard who was trying to detain her. She nearly missed the limo — and also the shot that ended up being the cover of Rolling Stone Magazine in 1978.
"Keith Richards is my hero," she said simply about her experiences with the band.
Other photographers included in the exhibit are Terry O'Neill, who shot some of the first photographs of the band together in 1963, Ken Regan, who was with them for nearly 30 years, and Henry Diltz.
Diltz, who hung out with Keith Richards when he shot a tour of the band, "The New Barbarians," featuring Richards on guitar in 1979, was taken by the glamour of the rock star lifestyle that band members of the Rolling Stones led.
"We barn-stormed the country in a private luxury jet and stayed in luxurious hotels in major cities," Regan said. "I enjoyed three weeks of amazing music and a window on an amazing lifestyle."
Regardless of individual experiences, however, photographers agree that the exhibit will not only be popular with music photograph collectors, but it will also provide an important glimpse into one of the most important periods in modern music history.
"We will see a wonderful, vivid picture history of a band that we all know now, but may not remember from the 1960s," Mankowitz said. "It's magical and extraordinary."
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-02 17:07 by wanderingspirit66.
Re: The stones are in NYC
Posted by:
Cocaine Eyes
()
Date: May 2, 2012 17:12
Sorry, no link (I ripped through the googling like a crazy person!) but the closest I found which is now true was this:
On 26th April, Ronnie said 'We're heading into the studio next week'.
That's bang on!!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-02 17:27 by Cocaine Eyes.
On 26th April, Ronnie said 'We're heading into the studio next week'.
That's bang on!!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-02 17:27 by Cocaine Eyes.
Re: The stones are in NYC
Posted by:
wanderingspirit66
()
Date: May 2, 2012 17:22
Quote
3DTeafoe
On his Facebook page, Ethan Russell says he's on his way to NYC. I wonder if there is a connection. Just thinkin'...
(He has an exhibit opening at the Morrison Gallery on May 4th.)
There is a Rolling Stones 50th Anniversary related photo exhibit which is open to the public starting Friday May 4th at The Morrison Hotel Gallery in SoHo.
[www.dnainfo.com]
Re: The stones are in NYC
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: May 2, 2012 17:28
Why all this secrecy? I understand it from a security point of view but this seems to go beyond that.
Re: The stones are in NYC
Posted by:
Cocaine Eyes
()
Date: May 2, 2012 17:29
There are too many coincidences here. Something's up......
Something's up......Re: The stones are in NYC
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: May 2, 2012 17:31
Quote
MathijsQuote
71TeleQuote
Max'sKansasCity
For fun... they should offer/sell a "fly on the wall" studio web cam, and turn it on from time to time, giving fans a look in, if/when they get a cool jam going..... I know, I know.... they wont... but they should.... for me at least. It doesnt have to be on all time.... just when they get rolling along like my Stones can and do.
at the risk of replying to a post of yours...didn't they film the London jam? Hopefully we will get just such a perspective as you wish.
Are we sure there ever was a jam? I haven't read, seen or heard even one statement about an actual jam -not by any of the Stones, not by Bill Wyman, not by any personel whom would have been present. The rehearsal space still is unknown, which is really rare, there's not a picture, nothing.
The jam to me sounds much more like a business meeting, with Jagger informing the others he isn't going to tour or record a new record.
Mathijs
The London one? Keith confirmed it. Gazza said it happened. Didn't know there was still any doubt about that one.
Re: The stones are in NYC
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: May 2, 2012 17:33
Quote
GazzaQuote
71TeleQuote
Max'sKansasCityQuote
71Tele
didn't they film the London jam?
does anybody know this?
I think this reported earlier by Gazza?
Not by me, it wasnt, Tele.
Sorry Gazza. It was reported by someone that the jam was fimed for use in the documentary.
Re: The stones are in NYC
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: May 2, 2012 17:38
Taylor has a gig in New York from the 9th. It is just too tantalizing to think he would be invited to any Stones session, but I'm hoping.
Re: The stones are in NYC
Posted by:
Cocaine Eyes
()
Date: May 2, 2012 17:38
Quote
Stoneage
Why all this secrecy? I understand it from a security point of view but this seems to go beyond that.
Because it's the 50th? Because NYC can be a crazy place? Because they rely on Ronnie to tell us everything anyway?
Because they want the secrecy!!Re: The stones are in NYC
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: May 2, 2012 18:08
Quote
Sam SpadeQuote
Cocaine Eyes
I just googled all of the NYC newpapers and there's nothing out new, today. Waiting patiently on the floor.............
I did the same, no photos yet.
I would also suggest reading the gossip columns even if it's a one sentence blurb.
Here are the links for NYC's newspapers that have reported on The Stones in the past
[www.nydailynews.com]
[www.nypost.com]
Any pictures from the London session? We have pictures of basically every fart Jagger, Richards and Wood have laid for the last 5 years. We know all of the 160 girl friends Wood has had over the years by name. When Jagger's hair looks funny due to bad weather he is on the front page -and when the entire band with Bill Wyman rehearses in Chelsea (not really the north of Sweden) they get in and out of the studio unnoticed?
Mathijs
Re: The stones are in NYC
Posted by:
Sam Spade
()
Date: May 2, 2012 18:21
Quote
MathijsQuote
Sam SpadeQuote
Cocaine Eyes
Any pictures from the London session? We have pictures of basically every fart Jagger, Richards and Wood have laid for the last 5 years.
Mathijs
No, no fart pix
Re: The stones are in NYC
Posted by:
Cocaine Eyes
()
Date: May 2, 2012 18:38
In Toronto, they used to advertise where they would be rehearsing. I recall (perhaps it was three tours ago?? I've lost track at this point) it was on the front page of all three big Toronto newspapers (The Star, The Sun, The Globe & Mail) that they'd be rehearsing at The Masonic Temple. Now it's called The Concert Hall.
Well, I drove down there like a crazed woman and sure enough, there were security guards all around the building. I asked one of the security people - Why are you here? - and he just shrugged his shoulders and said he was only doing his job. He didn't say for whom even though it had been on every newspaper in town!
So, who knows the method to their madness.
Well, I drove down there like a crazed woman and sure enough, there were security guards all around the building. I asked one of the security people - Why are you here? - and he just shrugged his shoulders and said he was only doing his job. He didn't say for whom even though it had been on every newspaper in town!
So, who knows the method to their madness.
Re: The stones are in NYC
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: May 2, 2012 18:43
Quote
Stoneage
Don't think so. But maybe I'm wrong, UGRollme. As far as I know, none of the four are Springsteen fans.
Which shows they have great musical taste! lol Unfortunately some of Keith's kids, including Marlon are fans, so I've no doubt someone from Keith circle will attend. I would bet a hefty sum that you are correct Stoneage and that none of the Rolling Stones will attend.
I mean someone's got to carry the banner of Rock musical taste, who else but them? I am however slightly confused that Keith has not picked up on the greatness of Led Zepplin and in particular John Paul Jones' wonderful contributions to that act. peace
Re: The stones are in NYC
Posted by:
GumbootCloggeroo
()
Date: May 2, 2012 18:43
You have it backwards. It used to be The Concert Hall but now it's The Masonic Temple.Quote
Cocaine Eyes
In Toronto, they used to advertise where they would be rehearsing. I recall (perhaps it was three tours ago?? I've lost track at this point) it was on the front page of all three big Toronto newspapers (The Star, The Sun, The Globe & Mail) that they'd be rehearsing at The Masonic Temple. Now it's called The Concert Hall.
Re: The stones are in NYC
Posted by:
marquess
()
Date: May 2, 2012 18:53
No one is attending Mick Taylor gigs in NYC???
Re: The stones are in NYC
Posted by:
Cocaine Eyes
()
Date: May 2, 2012 18:56
Quote
GumbootCloggerooYou have it backwards. It used to be The Concert Hall but now it's The Masonic Temple.Quote
Cocaine Eyes
In Toronto, they used to advertise where they would be rehearsing. I recall (perhaps it was three tours ago?? I've lost track at this point) it was on the front page of all three big Toronto newspapers (The Star, The Sun, The Globe & Mail) that they'd be rehearsing at The Masonic Temple. Now it's called The Concert Hall.
Frankly, it's now CTV!!
Re: The stones are in NYC
Posted by:
ROPENI
()
Date: May 2, 2012 19:03
This jam will be used for the documentary being filmed for the 50th,as was the one in London in Dec, its just business,don't get your hopes up about a new record,or a full tour,maybe if anything a couple of shows here and there,and a PPV...
"No dope smoking no beer sold after 12 o'clock"
"No dope smoking no beer sold after 12 o'clock"
Re: The stones are in NYC
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: May 2, 2012 19:59
Quote
GumbootCloggerooYou have it backwards. It used to be The Concert Hall but now it's The Masonic Temple.Quote
Cocaine Eyes
In Toronto, they used to advertise where they would be rehearsing. I recall (perhaps it was three tours ago?? I've lost track at this point) it was on the front page of all three big Toronto newspapers (The Star, The Sun, The Globe & Mail) that they'd be rehearsing at The Masonic Temple. Now it's called The Concert Hall.
Sonic Temple? I enjoyed that album. Has some kickin' tunes on it.
Re: The stones are in NYC
Posted by:
Cocaine Eyes
()
Date: May 2, 2012 20:14
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBluesQuote
GumbootCloggerooYou have it backwards. It used to be The Concert Hall but now it's The Masonic Temple.Quote
Cocaine Eyes
In Toronto, they used to advertise where they would be rehearsing. I recall (perhaps it was three tours ago?? I've lost track at this point) it was on the front page of all three big Toronto newspapers (The Star, The Sun, The Globe & Mail) that they'd be rehearsing at The Masonic Temple. Now it's called The Concert Hall.
Sonic Temple? I enjoyed that album. Has some kickin' tunes on it.
No, darlin' - it's Masonic Temple:
[en.wikipedia.org])
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Andrea82 , bv , crholmstrom , cwalters , Dan , DiamondDog7 , dirkmcq , JamesBond , jp.M , kickit , llsbsk , mickjagger1009 , no stone unturned , retired_dog , snarf2014 , thecitadel
Guests:
1490
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10