Tell Me :
Talk
This is the funny thing with Mick. When he decides to work he is very diligent. But he seems to prefer not to work for most of the time. I think the whole idea of working for one or two years and then taking three or four years off is unwise from an artistic point of view. It may suit Mick but has probably been counterproductive for the bands artistic development through the last three decades.
If he didn't tour as the RS because of rights ownership issues, then he would tour as Mick Jagger, playing RS material, same as in his previous solo tours. Time will tell
thats my point, though, Bliss.
Since the Stones 'got back together' in the late 80s and patched up their differences, Mick hasn't done a single tour despite the fact that he's put out three solo albums in that time. The Webster Hall show in '93 was the only time since 1988 that he's played solo for more than about 20 minutes...and that was only about an hour!
He's had ample opportunities in the last 20 years to make a name for himself as a solo performer and hasnt bothered doing so. He's hardly going to start now. Prior to the Whitehouse gig a few weeks ago, he'd spent no more than about 20 minutes in total onstage since August 2007. For someone who is in many people's eyes the greatest live performer of our generation and who 'loves to perform', he's somewhat reluctant to test the water outside of the Stones touring bubble very often.
I don't know, but he elevated both bands the other night. He would upgrade just about any band. He's the best frontman ever. And he can still run with the "young dogs". He's the lead dog!
Yes, true. But the question is, would Keith ever sanction a RS tour without him, and my guess is no. I saw Mick's solo tour and as you know, half of it was RS material. To me, in some ways the show was better than a RS show, because everything went according to plan - no one was drunk, stoned or clowning around. The material sounded just like the studio albums. But the public didn't agree - they want the real RS, not the RS consisting of MJ and assorted musicians.. But if one of them died, and all that was available was Mick plus another guitarist, the fans and public might be desperate enough to accept this lineup as the current RS, and a tour might very well be successful. And I also think Mick would be happy to do this. As I said, time will tell.
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
Did Simon Phillips and Joey Satriani manage to sound the Stones's studio albums???
No. Not even close!
[www.reverbnation.com]
Keith seemed to think that it would be fine to continue without Charlie not too long ago.
Do you really think so? Christ...
Richards: "Watts Death Wouldn't Have Stopped The Stones"
iorr
I doubt it, personally. In 1988 Mick was still only 44-45 years old, with a lot of years as an entertainer and performer ahead of him. He still felt the urge to perform and tour (and to record, as he had contractual obligations to do so).
At almost 69 years of age, that hunger simply isn't there anymore. As performing musicians, Mick (as is the case with each member of the Stones) is in semi-retirement mode at least. It takes a pretty big carrot to tempt them to work together (ie massive financial guarantees) and Mick is aware that not only is he nowhere as big a commercial attraction as a solo act, but he's not suddenly going to become one in his 70's. He's also unlikely to be enthusiastic about adapting to downsizing.
The reasons for each of them doing so may differ slightly, but in my opinion once the Rolling Stones cease as a touring entity, whilst they may make the occasional live or guest appearance, you will never see either Mick Jagger or Keith Richards tour again in any form.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-23 15:58 by Gazza.
No way. If he can't play, that's it for the Stones. It wouldn't be the Rolling Stones without him.
However, your question raises a good point - IF he can't play for medical reasons, then the likelihood of a tour diminishes to zero and the 50th anniversary celebration would need to take another form. Which I'd admit without the Stones playing their music, would be fairly pointless although I won't rule out them either celebrating privately and/or putting out some kind of thank you present (although the recent wave of books, bootlegs and DVDs could be considered to the 50th "present" to the fans). We shall see.
now that quip deserves a solid 'round of applause!
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Would Keith ever "okay" a tour without him?
Posted by:
Fan Since 1964
()
Date: May 23, 2012 00:19
Even if he would "ok" a tour without him, we, the fans wouldn't
Been Stoned since 1964 and still am!
Been Stoned since 1964 and still am!
Re: Would Keith ever "okay" a tour without him?
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: May 23, 2012 00:46
Quote
Gazza
And musically, he HAS been 'sitting around' for pretty much most of the last five years
This is the funny thing with Mick. When he decides to work he is very diligent. But he seems to prefer not to work for most of the time. I think the whole idea of working for one or two years and then taking three or four years off is unwise from an artistic point of view. It may suit Mick but has probably been counterproductive for the bands artistic development through the last three decades.
Re: Would Keith ever "okay" a tour without him?
Posted by:
Bliss
()
Date: May 23, 2012 00:49
Quote
GazzaQuote
BlissQuote
GazzaQuote
BlissQuote
GazzaQuote
Bliss
If Keith died, I think Mick's solo career as the RS would take off full throttle. But until then, no Keith, no RS.
His solo career would 'take off full throttle' ?
In his 70's?
He would pack as much in the time remaining to him as he possibly could.
What's been keeping in from 'packing' in so much musical activity into his solo career for the last five years, then?
Mick has not been sitting around for the last 5 years. What I meant was, I think he would tour as the RS.
He doesn't own the rights to do so.
And musically, he HAS been 'sitting around' for pretty much most of the last five years.
If he didn't tour as the RS because of rights ownership issues, then he would tour as Mick Jagger, playing RS material, same as in his previous solo tours. Time will tell
Re: Would Keith ever "okay" a tour without him?
Posted by:
lem motlow
()
Date: May 23, 2012 00:58
i was listening to howard stern today and he was interviewing greg allman.
he asked him if he ever wanted to just stay solo instead of playing with the allman bros band and he said"i have a solo band,derek trucks has his own thing and warren haynes has a band but theres just something about playing with the allman brother band that just isnt the same as anything else"
stern said-"yeah,i saw the foo fighters with mick jagger on snl and they did a great job but i kept thinking,this is great but it just isnt the stones up there"
everybody calm the f/ck down-the stones will make a record,they will do some shows and it will be "the stones up there" keith,charlie,mick and ronnie.and if we're lucky maybe even a couple more old stones.
tour without keith,good lord have you guys lost your freakin minds?
he asked him if he ever wanted to just stay solo instead of playing with the allman bros band and he said"i have a solo band,derek trucks has his own thing and warren haynes has a band but theres just something about playing with the allman brother band that just isnt the same as anything else"
stern said-"yeah,i saw the foo fighters with mick jagger on snl and they did a great job but i kept thinking,this is great but it just isnt the stones up there"
everybody calm the f/ck down-the stones will make a record,they will do some shows and it will be "the stones up there" keith,charlie,mick and ronnie.and if we're lucky maybe even a couple more old stones.
tour without keith,good lord have you guys lost your freakin minds?
Re: Would Keith ever "okay" a tour without him?
Posted by:
Justin
()
Date: May 23, 2012 01:02
The way it looked to me all these years is that Mick needs the solo work to even out the Stones work. Instead of a solo album this year...we get the Mick/SNL extravaganza. It was all about him....no Stones...and was it because of Keith's book? Maybe partly. He would've done it anyway with the same lineup.
Re: Would Keith ever "okay" a tour without him?
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: May 23, 2012 01:31
stern said-
"yeah,i saw the foo fighters with mick jagger on snl and they did a great job but i kept thinking,this is great but it just isnt the stones up there"
........... Yep Howard's on thee trail
ROCKMAN
"yeah,i saw the foo fighters with mick jagger on snl and they did a great job but i kept thinking,this is great but it just isnt the stones up there"
........... Yep Howard's on thee trail
ROCKMAN
Re: Would Keith ever "okay" a tour without him?
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: May 23, 2012 01:40
Quote
BlissQuote
GazzaQuote
BlissQuote
GazzaQuote
BlissQuote
GazzaQuote
Bliss
If Keith died, I think Mick's solo career as the RS would take off full throttle. But until then, no Keith, no RS.
His solo career would 'take off full throttle' ?
In his 70's?
He would pack as much in the time remaining to him as he possibly could.
What's been keeping in from 'packing' in so much musical activity into his solo career for the last five years, then?
Mick has not been sitting around for the last 5 years. What I meant was, I think he would tour as the RS.
He doesn't own the rights to do so.
And musically, he HAS been 'sitting around' for pretty much most of the last five years.
If he didn't tour as the RS because of rights ownership issues, then he would tour as Mick Jagger, playing RS material, same as in his previous solo tours. Time will tell
thats my point, though, Bliss.
Since the Stones 'got back together' in the late 80s and patched up their differences, Mick hasn't done a single tour despite the fact that he's put out three solo albums in that time. The Webster Hall show in '93 was the only time since 1988 that he's played solo for more than about 20 minutes...and that was only about an hour!
He's had ample opportunities in the last 20 years to make a name for himself as a solo performer and hasnt bothered doing so. He's hardly going to start now. Prior to the Whitehouse gig a few weeks ago, he'd spent no more than about 20 minutes in total onstage since August 2007. For someone who is in many people's eyes the greatest live performer of our generation and who 'loves to perform', he's somewhat reluctant to test the water outside of the Stones touring bubble very often.
Re: Would Keith ever "okay" a tour without him?
Posted by:
MightyStonesStillRollin50
()
Date: May 23, 2012 03:26
Quote
Green Lady
Just as a matter of interest, has anybody asked Arcade Fire or the Foo Fighters how they feel about their new career as Mick Jagger's backup bands? I think they might have an opinion on the subject....
I don't know, but he elevated both bands the other night. He would upgrade just about any band. He's the best frontman ever. And he can still run with the "young dogs". He's the lead dog!
Re: Would Keith ever "okay" a tour without him?
Posted by:
angee
()
Date: May 23, 2012 04:12
Good stuff Lem, I agree, hope so!
~"Love is Strong"~
~"Love is Strong"~
Re: Would Keith ever "okay" a tour without him?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: May 23, 2012 10:30
Quote
lem motlow
i was listening to howard stern today and he was interviewing greg allman.
he asked him if he ever wanted to just stay solo instead of playing with the allman bros band and he said"i have a solo band,derek trucks has his own thing and warren haynes has a band but theres just something about playing with the allman brother band that just isnt the same as anything else"
stern said-"yeah,i saw the foo fighters with mick jagger on snl and they did a great job but i kept thinking,this is great but it just isnt the stones up there"
everybody calm the f/ck down-the stones will make a record,they will do some shows and it will be "the stones up there" keith,charlie,mick and ronnie.and if we're lucky maybe even a couple more old stones.
tour without keith,good lord have you guys lost your freakin minds?
Re: Would Keith ever "okay" a tour without him?
Posted by:
Bliss
()
Date: May 23, 2012 10:30
Quote
GazzaQuote
BlissQuote
GazzaQuote
BlissQuote
GazzaQuote
BlissQuote
GazzaQuote
Bliss
If Keith died, I think Mick's solo career as the RS would take off full throttle. But until then, no Keith, no RS.
His solo career would 'take off full throttle' ?
In his 70's?
He would pack as much in the time remaining to him as he possibly could.
What's been keeping in from 'packing' in so much musical activity into his solo career for the last five years, then?
Mick has not been sitting around for the last 5 years. What I meant was, I think he would tour as the RS.
He doesn't own the rights to do so.
And musically, he HAS been 'sitting around' for pretty much most of the last five years.
If he didn't tour as the RS because of rights ownership issues, then he would tour as Mick Jagger, playing RS material, same as in his previous solo tours. Time will tell
thats my point, though, Bliss.
Since the Stones 'got back together' in the late 80s and patched up their differences, Mick hasn't done a single tour despite the fact that he's put out three solo albums in that time. The Webster Hall show in '93 was the only time since 1988 that he's played solo for more than about 20 minutes...and that was only about an hour!
He's had ample opportunities in the last 20 years to make a name for himself as a solo performer and hasnt bothered doing so. He's hardly going to start now. Prior to the Whitehouse gig a few weeks ago, he'd spent no more than about 20 minutes in total onstage since August 2007. For someone who is in many people's eyes the greatest live performer of our generation and who 'loves to perform', he's somewhat reluctant to test the water outside of the Stones touring bubble very often.
Yes, true. But the question is, would Keith ever sanction a RS tour without him, and my guess is no. I saw Mick's solo tour and as you know, half of it was RS material. To me, in some ways the show was better than a RS show, because everything went according to plan - no one was drunk, stoned or clowning around. The material sounded just like the studio albums. But the public didn't agree - they want the real RS, not the RS consisting of MJ and assorted musicians.. But if one of them died, and all that was available was Mick plus another guitarist, the fans and public might be desperate enough to accept this lineup as the current RS, and a tour might very well be successful. And I also think Mick would be happy to do this. As I said, time will tell.
Re: Would Keith ever "okay" a tour without him?
Posted by:
Rolling Hansie
()
Date: May 23, 2012 12:12
Quote
lem motlow
tour without keith,good lord have you guys lost your freakin minds?
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
Re: Would Keith ever "okay" a tour without him?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: May 23, 2012 12:14
Quote
BlissQuote
GazzaQuote
BlissQuote
GazzaQuote
BlissQuote
GazzaQuote
BlissQuote
GazzaQuote
Bliss
If Keith died, I think Mick's solo career as the RS would take off full throttle. But until then, no Keith, no RS.
His solo career would 'take off full throttle' ?
In his 70's?
He would pack as much in the time remaining to him as he possibly could.
What's been keeping in from 'packing' in so much musical activity into his solo career for the last five years, then?
Mick has not been sitting around for the last 5 years. What I meant was, I think he would tour as the RS.
He doesn't own the rights to do so.
And musically, he HAS been 'sitting around' for pretty much most of the last five years.
If he didn't tour as the RS because of rights ownership issues, then he would tour as Mick Jagger, playing RS material, same as in his previous solo tours. Time will tell
thats my point, though, Bliss.
Since the Stones 'got back together' in the late 80s and patched up their differences, Mick hasn't done a single tour despite the fact that he's put out three solo albums in that time. The Webster Hall show in '93 was the only time since 1988 that he's played solo for more than about 20 minutes...and that was only about an hour!
He's had ample opportunities in the last 20 years to make a name for himself as a solo performer and hasnt bothered doing so. He's hardly going to start now. Prior to the Whitehouse gig a few weeks ago, he'd spent no more than about 20 minutes in total onstage since August 2007. For someone who is in many people's eyes the greatest live performer of our generation and who 'loves to perform', he's somewhat reluctant to test the water outside of the Stones touring bubble very often.
Yes, true. But the question is, would Keith ever sanction a RS tour without him, and my guess is no. I saw Mick's solo tour and as you know, half of it was RS material. To me, in some ways the show was better than a RS show, because everything went according to plan - no one was drunk, stoned or clowning around. The material sounded just like the studio albums. But the public didn't agree - they want the real RS, not the RS consisting of MJ and assorted musicians.. But if one of them died, and all that was available was Mick plus another guitarist, the fans and public might be desperate enough to accept this lineup as the current RS, and a tour might very well be successful. And I also think Mick would be happy to do this. As I said, time will tell.
Did Simon Phillips and Joey Satriani manage to sound the Stones's studio albums???
Re: Would Keith ever "okay" a tour without him?
Posted by:
audun-eg
()
Date: May 23, 2012 12:47
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
BlissQuote
GazzaQuote
BlissQuote
GazzaQuote
BlissQuote
GazzaQuote
BlissQuote
GazzaQuote
Bliss
If Keith died, I think Mick's solo career as the RS would take off full throttle. But until then, no Keith, no RS.
His solo career would 'take off full throttle' ?
In his 70's?
He would pack as much in the time remaining to him as he possibly could.
What's been keeping in from 'packing' in so much musical activity into his solo career for the last five years, then?
Mick has not been sitting around for the last 5 years. What I meant was, I think he would tour as the RS.
He doesn't own the rights to do so.
And musically, he HAS been 'sitting around' for pretty much most of the last five years.
If he didn't tour as the RS because of rights ownership issues, then he would tour as Mick Jagger, playing RS material, same as in his previous solo tours. Time will tell
thats my point, though, Bliss.
Since the Stones 'got back together' in the late 80s and patched up their differences, Mick hasn't done a single tour despite the fact that he's put out three solo albums in that time. The Webster Hall show in '93 was the only time since 1988 that he's played solo for more than about 20 minutes...and that was only about an hour!
He's had ample opportunities in the last 20 years to make a name for himself as a solo performer and hasnt bothered doing so. He's hardly going to start now. Prior to the Whitehouse gig a few weeks ago, he'd spent no more than about 20 minutes in total onstage since August 2007. For someone who is in many people's eyes the greatest live performer of our generation and who 'loves to perform', he's somewhat reluctant to test the water outside of the Stones touring bubble very often.
Yes, true. But the question is, would Keith ever sanction a RS tour without him, and my guess is no. I saw Mick's solo tour and as you know, half of it was RS material. To me, in some ways the show was better than a RS show, because everything went according to plan - no one was drunk, stoned or clowning around. The material sounded just like the studio albums. But the public didn't agree - they want the real RS, not the RS consisting of MJ and assorted musicians.. But if one of them died, and all that was available was Mick plus another guitarist, the fans and public might be desperate enough to accept this lineup as the current RS, and a tour might very well be successful. And I also think Mick would be happy to do this. As I said, time will tell.
Did Simon Phillips and Joey Satriani manage to sound the Stones's studio albums???
No. Not even close!
[www.reverbnation.com]
Re: Would Keith ever "okay" a tour without him?
Posted by:
uhbuhgullayew
()
Date: May 23, 2012 15:00
Quote
lem motlow
i was listening to howard stern today and he was interviewing greg allman.
he asked him if he ever wanted to just stay solo instead of playing with the allman bros band and he said"i have a solo band,derek trucks has his own thing and warren haynes has a band but theres just something about playing with the allman brother band that just isnt the same as anything else"
stern said-"yeah,i saw the foo fighters with mick jagger on snl and they did a great job but i kept thinking,this is great but it just isnt the stones up there"
everybody calm the f/ck down-the stones will make a record,they will do some shows and it will be "the stones up there" keith,charlie,mick and ronnie.and if we're lucky maybe even a couple more old stones.
tour without keith,good lord have you guys lost your freakin minds?
Keith seemed to think that it would be fine to continue without Charlie not too long ago.
Re: Would Keith ever "okay" a tour without him?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: May 23, 2012 15:06
Quote
uhbuhgullayewQuote
lem motlow
i was listening to howard stern today and he was interviewing greg allman.
he asked him if he ever wanted to just stay solo instead of playing with the allman bros band and he said"i have a solo band,derek trucks has his own thing and warren haynes has a band but theres just something about playing with the allman brother band that just isnt the same as anything else"
stern said-"yeah,i saw the foo fighters with mick jagger on snl and they did a great job but i kept thinking,this is great but it just isnt the stones up there"
everybody calm the f/ck down-the stones will make a record,they will do some shows and it will be "the stones up there" keith,charlie,mick and ronnie.and if we're lucky maybe even a couple more old stones.
tour without keith,good lord have you guys lost your freakin minds?
Keith seemed to think that it would be fine to continue without Charlie not too long ago.
Do you really think so? Christ...
Re: Would Keith ever "okay" a tour without him?
Posted by:
uhbuhgullayew
()
Date: May 23, 2012 15:23
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
uhbuhgullayewQuote
lem motlow
i was listening to howard stern today and he was interviewing greg allman.
he asked him if he ever wanted to just stay solo instead of playing with the allman bros band and he said"i have a solo band,derek trucks has his own thing and warren haynes has a band but theres just something about playing with the allman brother band that just isnt the same as anything else"
stern said-"yeah,i saw the foo fighters with mick jagger on snl and they did a great job but i kept thinking,this is great but it just isnt the stones up there"
everybody calm the f/ck down-the stones will make a record,they will do some shows and it will be "the stones up there" keith,charlie,mick and ronnie.and if we're lucky maybe even a couple more old stones.
tour without keith,good lord have you guys lost your freakin minds?
Keith seemed to think that it would be fine to continue without Charlie not too long ago.
Do you really think so? Christ...
Richards: "Watts Death Wouldn't Have Stopped The Stones"
iorr
Re: Would Keith ever "okay" a tour without him?
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: May 23, 2012 15:54
Quote
BlissQuote
GazzaQuote
BlissQuote
GazzaQuote
BlissQuote
GazzaQuote
BlissQuote
GazzaQuote
Bliss
If Keith died, I think Mick's solo career as the RS would take off full throttle. But until then, no Keith, no RS.
His solo career would 'take off full throttle' ?
In his 70's?
He would pack as much in the time remaining to him as he possibly could.
What's been keeping in from 'packing' in so much musical activity into his solo career for the last five years, then?
Mick has not been sitting around for the last 5 years. What I meant was, I think he would tour as the RS.
He doesn't own the rights to do so.
And musically, he HAS been 'sitting around' for pretty much most of the last five years.
If he didn't tour as the RS because of rights ownership issues, then he would tour as Mick Jagger, playing RS material, same as in his previous solo tours. Time will tell
thats my point, though, Bliss.
Since the Stones 'got back together' in the late 80s and patched up their differences, Mick hasn't done a single tour despite the fact that he's put out three solo albums in that time. The Webster Hall show in '93 was the only time since 1988 that he's played solo for more than about 20 minutes...and that was only about an hour!
He's had ample opportunities in the last 20 years to make a name for himself as a solo performer and hasnt bothered doing so. He's hardly going to start now. Prior to the Whitehouse gig a few weeks ago, he'd spent no more than about 20 minutes in total onstage since August 2007. For someone who is in many people's eyes the greatest live performer of our generation and who 'loves to perform', he's somewhat reluctant to test the water outside of the Stones touring bubble very often.
Yes, true. But the question is, would Keith ever sanction a RS tour without him, and my guess is no. I saw Mick's solo tour and as you know, half of it was RS material. To me, in some ways the show was better than a RS show, because everything went according to plan - no one was drunk, stoned or clowning around. The material sounded just like the studio albums. But the public didn't agree - they want the real RS, not the RS consisting of MJ and assorted musicians.. But if one of them died, and all that was available was Mick plus another guitarist, the fans and public might be desperate enough to accept this lineup as the current RS, and a tour might very well be successful. And I also think Mick would be happy to do this. As I said, time will tell.
I doubt it, personally. In 1988 Mick was still only 44-45 years old, with a lot of years as an entertainer and performer ahead of him. He still felt the urge to perform and tour (and to record, as he had contractual obligations to do so).
At almost 69 years of age, that hunger simply isn't there anymore. As performing musicians, Mick (as is the case with each member of the Stones) is in semi-retirement mode at least. It takes a pretty big carrot to tempt them to work together (ie massive financial guarantees) and Mick is aware that not only is he nowhere as big a commercial attraction as a solo act, but he's not suddenly going to become one in his 70's. He's also unlikely to be enthusiastic about adapting to downsizing.
The reasons for each of them doing so may differ slightly, but in my opinion once the Rolling Stones cease as a touring entity, whilst they may make the occasional live or guest appearance, you will never see either Mick Jagger or Keith Richards tour again in any form.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-23 15:58 by Gazza.
Re: Would Keith ever "okay" a tour without him?
Posted by:
Father Ted
()
Date: May 23, 2012 16:15
Quote
tomcat2006
1. So let's assume that Keef's a busted flush and can't play guitar any more.
2. Let's assume he's aware of this and knows all the others know it too.
3. And let's assume the others (perhaps with Mick T and Wyman back in the fold) are ready and able to go out on tour for the 50th anniversary.
My question is: Would Keef be big enough to give the band his blessing to go out on the road without him?
No way. If he can't play, that's it for the Stones. It wouldn't be the Rolling Stones without him.
However, your question raises a good point - IF he can't play for medical reasons, then the likelihood of a tour diminishes to zero and the 50th anniversary celebration would need to take another form. Which I'd admit without the Stones playing their music, would be fairly pointless although I won't rule out them either celebrating privately and/or putting out some kind of thank you present (although the recent wave of books, bootlegs and DVDs could be considered to the 50th "present" to the fans). We shall see.
Re: Would Keith ever "okay" a tour without him?
Posted by:
bluesinc.
()
Date: May 24, 2012 21:49
there are so many bands touring without keith, so i don´t think they asked him before...
Re: Would Keith ever "okay" a tour without him?
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: May 25, 2012 06:01
Quote
bluesinc.
there are so many bands touring without keith, so i don´t think they asked him before...
now that quip deserves a solid 'round of applause!
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Angie73 , bitusa2012 , Dan , DandelionPowderman , DiegoGlimmerStones , JessForte , joemusic1958 , midimannz , snorton , werner67976 , wolundamo
Guests:
1465
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10