Quote
MileHigh
Sometimes the humour is so bad that it's good and it hurts.

I think we should strive for better humour, and stop the hurting.

Quote
Justin
If Keith can't play "at all"...how is then that they will perform later in the year? If Keith really is as incapacitated as everyone claims...they wouldn't have ANY shows lined up before or after the Olympics...or ever. Doesn't really add up.

They don't have to play a single show. They just have to keep hope alive long enough to get through the fall and the DVD release. Then they will say something else and on and on we go.

Olympics, festivals, club shows? The event and venue does not matter. It is the opportunity to instill hope that is being promoted now.

...
In a few weeks it will be nearly 5 years since Keith Richards has performed with the Stones or done any other significant live playing. In the last five years there has been much talk about another solo album. Instead he worked on the book. OK, fine. But he had a co-author and he is a musician. So why is he the only one not actively playing?


Yeah, he has to prove he can still play.[/quote]

Think about this...
Keith Richards has done two Winos solo albums. With just a hand full of new songs he could have gone on the road last year after Life was released and promoted his solo work, played new Wino tunes, etc. Did he? No

He could have played the Iridium like Mick Taylor. Did he? No.

Quote
rogue
It is the opportunity to instill hope that is being promoted now.

Seems to me they're promoting the book, and in a very under-stated manner by Stones standards. Mick stating he didn't think the band was stage-ready for the Olympics does not instill hope.

Quote
TeddyB1018
Keith never thought that was it. He doesn't think that now. Where do you get this stuff?

His logic is sound, whether you agree with it or not, or even if it is true or not.

It is a very lucid argument.

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
flilflam

Quote
Mathijs
So, it's basically what some of us have said when they 'rehearsed' in London. Jagger just told the rest he wouldn't do anything with the Stones. 'Not stage ready' means Richards is not up to it: Wood, Watts and Wyman all have showed they are in good form in the last months, Richards has shown he just lost the ability to play anything at all.

Mathijs

As usual, you are reading way too much into a few comments the Stones made a few weeks ago. They may simply not wanted to do it. You have concluded, based on little or no evidence, that Keith is brain dead and can no longer play the guitar.

Well, his two live appearances in the last couple of months actually showed just that ...

Anyway, anyone who's ever been in a band knows: when you are the Stones, you don't need to rehearse tracks like Brown Sugar, SMU, JJF, IORR and a dozen more. After playing these live for say 50 years it's like riding a bicycle or swimming: once you learn you will never forget. And the Stones played these tracks hundreds and hundreds of times.

Yes, if you want to play an 20-track set, and yes want you want to perform a good show, you need 4 to 6 weeks of rehearsing. But we're not talking about that.

Mathijs

Which particular recent performances are you thinking of ? I guess one is the impromptu appearance with Elvis Costello at the Chuck Berry thing ? The other is what, perhaps that thing with Johnny Depp a few months back, or that memorial show for Hubert Sumlin ?

I would kind of agree that in varying degrees these performances are all on the weak side, none have really done anything but serve to fuel further suspicion that the man's skills are genuinely on the wane. I only hope they're not truly representative of what he's good for THESE DAYS, and that one way or the other, he still does have what it takes when it matters - and there will be a gig or two to come.

But .... if not .... then hey, was it ever fun while it lasted !!

[ I want to shout, but I can hardly speak ]

Seems to me
the band is relaxed and professional enough to do what they like to do - when the time is right

Seems also to me
a lot of you are too concerned and getting your rocks off in analyzing each and every detail of anything - instead of enjoying the magic that was and is around, whatever might come.

We don´t know - nobody knows and no one is close enough to know what this band decides to do next!!!!! Professional and not predictable they are.....that´s why they are sucessfull and we love it........

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
TeddyB1018
Keith never thought that was it. He doesn't think that now. Where do you get this stuff?

His logic is sound, whether you agree with it or not, or even if it is true or not.

It is a very lucid argument.

Why is it lucid to attribute thoughts to Keith that he has never expressed and that he does not possess? The argument is entirely circumstantial at best, that Keith's behavior has demonstrated that he expected the Stones to retire after 2007. I can tell you first hand that Keith's entire interest professionally is to get the Stones on stage. In fact, he keeps his individual activity to a minimum because for some reason he thinks that's important toward that end. Perhaps he thinks he can't complain about Mick's activities if he's out there too. Also, Keith's low profile after 2007 is directly tied to Patti's illness, not his own.

No reason to over-analyze every single news item and comment from band members. And no reason to be upset at all times. You have the Sun, the Moon and the Stones.

Bjornulf

Stones "not feeling ready", while Macca said yes... that says it all.

The Stones probably had no interest in playing some bulls**t Olympics ceremony, and getting themselves tight for something like that. They seem to like to do shows their own way, whereas McCartney likes to get some attention at any old multi-artist event. I think only obsessives could honestly think Mickey Jaguar was having a dig at his mate.

Besides, I reckon half of K.R.'s problem is complacency - that he can get away with playing any old garbage over the top of any given song. I mean, that's what it sounds like when I hear Live Licks etc, as opposed to a lack of ability. With some practice and focus, if he can muster it, I'm sure he'd still be just fine, if the arthritis isn't in fact too severe... But who are we to know anything about that anyway, let's just see what happens next time he plays a proper gig that "normal" people can attend.

Quote
bv
No reason to over-analyze every single news item and comment from band members. And no reason to be upset at all times. You have the Sun, the Moon and the Stones.

The sun ? Well certainly not here we don't. Have you been here in UK recently, lets say the last 3 months ? Rain rain rain, clouds, more clouds, and more rain !

The moon ? Yep, that's still out and about there somewhere, I'm sure of it !

The Stones ? We still have them ? Hardly so. With all due respect, I'd say what we currently have is lots of memories of them, that's about as far as it goes !

A show or two would be nice. In their own time (as the saying goes) ........ ! We live in hope ....

[ I want to shout, but I can hardly speak ]

Quote
Eleanor Rigby
you call that magic ? I call that a complete f**k up !!!

something i wouldn't be paying $500 a ticket for !

I know very few bands who would be able to start "Brown Sugar" completely wrong as they did in Utrecht and manage to fix it and finish it without restarting the song. Mind you, I only paid €50 so maybe it doesn't count . Mistakes are part of the Stones - sometimes they fall flat and sometimes it is just brilliant. It makes seeing the same show numerous times interesting. I love Bowie, for instance, but one show on each tour was ok for me.

However, if I like Keith's attitude "I know I'm making mistakes, but hey, I'm having fun", some shows after his accident you got the impression it was more "I know I'm making mistakes, but I try hard and cannot do better", with the rest of the band watching him very closely - which was sad.

Not blaming him at all, it was probably a difficult time for him, and it took a lot of guts to come back on stage so quickly after his operation.

Quote
TeddyB1018

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
TeddyB1018
Keith never thought that was it. He doesn't think that now. Where do you get this stuff?

His logic is sound, whether you agree with it or not, or even if it is true or not.

It is a very lucid argument.

Why is it lucid to attribute thoughts to Keith that he has never expressed and that he does not possess? The argument is entirely circumstantial at best, that Keith's behavior has demonstrated that he expected the Stones to retire after 2007. I can tell you first hand that Keith's entire interest professionally is to get the Stones on stage. In fact, he keeps his individual activity to a minimum because for some reason he thinks that's important toward that end. Perhaps he thinks he can't complain about Mick's activities if he's out there too. Also, Keith's low profile after 2007 is directly tied to Patti's illness, not his own.

Not doubting your first hand account Teddy.

However, Keith's profile has hardly been 'low' since 2007. It's just that he hasn't played much at all, and when he has it's been horrible. That, and slagging Jagger in his book hardly seems the actions of a man 'just trying to get the band on the road'. I think there are many actions he could have taken that would have been better to that end.

Again, we don't know anything for sure, but my point was the previous posters argument was logical. If anything, I think KR has done some stupid things recently, regrets it, and is just backpedalling. Keeping his professional activity to a minimum to get the band going sounds like a big excuse.

Quote
paulywaul

Quote
bv
No reason to over-analyze every single news item and comment from band members. And no reason to be upset at all times. You have the Sun, the Moon and the Stones.

The sun ? Well certainly not here we don't. Have you been here in UK recently, lets say the last 3 months ? Rain rain rain, clouds, more clouds, and more rain !

The moon ? Yep, that's still out and about there somewhere, I'm sure of it !

The Stones ? We still have them ? Hardly so. With all due respect, I'd say what we currently have is lots of memories of them, that's about as far as it goes !

A show or two would be nice. In their own time (as the saying goes) ........ ! We live in hope ....

would you please stop being upset at all times already!!! bv is getting sick of it! ...or something.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
TeddyB1018

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
TeddyB1018
Keith never thought that was it. He doesn't think that now. Where do you get this stuff?

His logic is sound, whether you agree with it or not, or even if it is true or not.

It is a very lucid argument.

Why is it lucid to attribute thoughts to Keith that he has never expressed and that he does not possess? The argument is entirely circumstantial at best, that Keith's behavior has demonstrated that he expected the Stones to retire after 2007. I can tell you first hand that Keith's entire interest professionally is to get the Stones on stage. In fact, he keeps his individual activity to a minimum because for some reason he thinks that's important toward that end. Perhaps he thinks he can't complain about Mick's activities if he's out there too. Also, Keith's low profile after 2007 is directly tied to Patti's illness, not his own.

Not doubting your first hand account Teddy.

However, Keith's profile has hardly been 'low' since 2007. It's just that he hasn't played much at all, and when he has it's been horrible. That, and slagging Jagger in his book hardly seems the actions of a man 'just trying to get the band on the road'. I think there are many actions he could have taken that would have been better to that end.

Again, we don't know anything for sure, but my point was the previous posters argument was logical. If anything, I think KR has done some stupid things recently, regrets it, and is just backpedalling. Keeping his professional activity to a minimum to get the band going sounds like a big excuse.

this is the new philosophy...it's not practice but inactivity that makes perfect. if you practice your craft too much you're going to go in reverse. tomorrow all activity will cease....sometimes satan comes as a man of peace...or something...

Needless to say, all this speculation and over-analysis is useless and will change nothing. What will be will be, but what is sure that Keith Richards will be slagged off on here from the first note he next plays with the Stones, whether it's good, bad or plain indifferent. As for why he hasn't played with the Winos, at the Iridium or wherever, he's under no obligation to deliver anything and what he does or doesn't do is his own business. Some would say he's already given satisfaction to last more than a lifetime.

Quote
Beast
Some would say he's already given satisfaction to last more than a lifetime.

this stuff carries over into the next life, then? cool...

Stones Tod - you invariably make me laugh!

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
TeddyB1018

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
TeddyB1018
Keith never thought that was it. He doesn't think that now. Where do you get this stuff?

His logic is sound, whether you agree with it or not, or even if it is true or not.

It is a very lucid argument.

Why is it lucid to attribute thoughts to Keith that he has never expressed and that he does not possess? The argument is entirely circumstantial at best, that Keith's behavior has demonstrated that he expected the Stones to retire after 2007. I can tell you first hand that Keith's entire interest professionally is to get the Stones on stage. In fact, he keeps his individual activity to a minimum because for some reason he thinks that's important toward that end. Perhaps he thinks he can't complain about Mick's activities if he's out there too. Also, Keith's low profile after 2007 is directly tied to Patti's illness, not his own.

Not doubting your first hand account Teddy.

However, Keith's profile has hardly been 'low' since 2007. It's just that he hasn't played much at all, and when he has it's been horrible. That, and slagging Jagger in his book hardly seems the actions of a man 'just trying to get the band on the road'. I think there are many actions he could have taken that would have been better to that end.

Again, we don't know anything for sure, but my point was the previous posters argument was logical. If anything, I think KR has done some stupid things recently, regrets it, and is just backpedalling. Keeping his professional activity to a minimum to get the band going sounds like a big excuse.

this is the new philosophy...it's not practice but inactivity that makes perfect. ...

We should be in for one helluva comeback show in that case! I guess Blondie's back to full time on the tamborine.

Quote
mitchflorida1
Didn't Jagger once say he would hate to be 40 years old and be still singing "Satisfaction"? Well, maybe at age 65 that is how he finally feels.

There are different variations. In 1970, when he was 27, Jagger said he couldn't see himself doing this when he was 30. In 1975, when he was 32, he said he couldn't see himself still singing Satisfaction when he was 45. He's 69 in a few days, and as we all know, has contradicted himself many times by now over the years. Here's a good bunch of various Stones quotes:

[www.timeisonourside.com]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-07-14 17:34 by Long John Stoner.

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
paulywaul

Quote
bv
No reason to over-analyze every single news item and comment from band members. And no reason to be upset at all times. You have the Sun, the Moon and the Stones.

The sun ? Well certainly not here we don't. Have you been here in UK recently, lets say the last 3 months ? Rain rain rain, clouds, more clouds, and more rain !

The moon ? Yep, that's still out and about there somewhere, I'm sure of it !

The Stones ? We still have them ? Hardly so. With all due respect, I'd say what we currently have is lots of memories of them, that's about as far as it goes !

A show or two would be nice. In their own time (as the saying goes) ........ ! We live in hope ....

would you please stop being upset at all times already!!! bv is getting sick of it! ...or something.

OK OK, I'll stop being upset. Jeez, can't I even bitch about the bloody weather ? EVERYONE in the UK bitches about the weather. Why would you wish to deny me my god given right ?

As for the Stones, whatever "!! They will, they won't, they can, they can't ... I'm gettin' pretty sick of it myself. Qui sera sera. END OF !!

[ I want to shout, but I can hardly speak ]

Quote
Beast
Needless to say, all this speculation and over-analysis is useless and will change nothing. What will be will be, but what is sure that Keith Richards will be slagged off on here from the first note he next plays with the Stones, whether it's good, bad or plain indifferent. As for why he hasn't played with the Winos, at the Iridium or wherever, he's under no obligation to deliver anything and what he does or doesn't do is his own business. Some would say he's already given satisfaction to last more than a lifetime.

<<< but what is sure that Keith Richards will be slagged off on here from the first note he next plays with the Stones >>>

Reckon so ? Nah, he'll slay 'em !! Have faith !!

They're up to something. Heaven knows WHAT exactly (), but they're up to something. We'll see .........

[ I want to shout, but I can hardly speak ]

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
TeddyB1018

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
TeddyB1018
Keith never thought that was it. He doesn't think that now. Where do you get this stuff?

His logic is sound, whether you agree with it or not, or even if it is true or not.

It is a very lucid argument.

Why is it lucid to attribute thoughts to Keith that he has never expressed and that he does not possess? The argument is entirely circumstantial at best, that Keith's behavior has demonstrated that he expected the Stones to retire after 2007. I can tell you first hand that Keith's entire interest professionally is to get the Stones on stage. In fact, he keeps his individual activity to a minimum because for some reason he thinks that's important toward that end. Perhaps he thinks he can't complain about Mick's activities if he's out there too. Also, Keith's low profile after 2007 is directly tied to Patti's illness, not his own.

Not doubting your first hand account Teddy.

However, Keith's profile has hardly been 'low' since 2007. It's just that he hasn't played much at all, and when he has it's been horrible. That, and slagging Jagger in his book hardly seems the actions of a man 'just trying to get the band on the road'. I think there are many actions he could have taken that would have been better to that end.

Again, we don't know anything for sure, but my point was the previous posters argument was logical. If anything, I think KR has done some stupid things recently, regrets it, and is just backpedalling. Keeping his professional activity to a minimum to get the band going sounds like a big excuse.

this is the new philosophy...it's not practice but inactivity that makes perfect. ...

We should be in for one helluva comeback show in that case! I guess Blondie's back to full time on the tamborine.

that would be excellent. the lack of tambourine on jumpin jack flash on the last tour made it all but unlistenable. some bands need more cow-bell, but this band is special. we're talking back-to-basic stones here. gonna be the best stones ever.

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
TeddyB1018

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
TeddyB1018
Keith never thought that was it. He doesn't think that now. Where do you get this stuff?

His logic is sound, whether you agree with it or not, or even if it is true or not.

It is a very lucid argument.

Why is it lucid to attribute thoughts to Keith that he has never expressed and that he does not possess? The argument is entirely circumstantial at best, that Keith's behavior has demonstrated that he expected the Stones to retire after 2007. I can tell you first hand that Keith's entire interest professionally is to get the Stones on stage. In fact, he keeps his individual activity to a minimum because for some reason he thinks that's important toward that end. Perhaps he thinks he can't complain about Mick's activities if he's out there too. Also, Keith's low profile after 2007 is directly tied to Patti's illness, not his own.

Not doubting your first hand account Teddy.

However, Keith's profile has hardly been 'low' since 2007. It's just that he hasn't played much at all, and when he has it's been horrible. That, and slagging Jagger in his book hardly seems the actions of a man 'just trying to get the band on the road'. I think there are many actions he could have taken that would have been better to that end.

Again, we don't know anything for sure, but my point was the previous posters argument was logical. If anything, I think KR has done some stupid things recently, regrets it, and is just backpedalling. Keeping his professional activity to a minimum to get the band going sounds like a big excuse.

this is the new philosophy...it's not practice but inactivity that makes perfect. ...

We should be in for one helluva comeback show in that case! I guess Blondie's back to full time on the tamborine.

that would be excellent. the lack of tambourine on jumpin jack flash on the last tour made it all but unlistenable. some bands need more cow-bell, but this band is special. we're talking back-to-basic stones here. gonna be the best stones ever.

Could also've used some marimba.

Quote
Long John Stoner

Quote
mitchflorida1
Didn't Jagger once say he would hate to be 40 years old and be still singing "Satisfaction"? Well, maybe at age 65 that is how he finally feels.

There are different variations. In 1970, when he was 27, Jagger said he couldn't see himself doing this when he was 30. In 1975, when he was 32, he said he couldn't see himself still singing Satisfaction when he was 45. He's 69 in a few days, and as we all know, has contradicted himself many times by now over the years. Here's a good bunch of various Stones quotes:

[www.timeisonourside.com]

So, right, technically Mick wasn't singing Satisfaction at 40. So he did live up to his statement. Then he changed it when he realised the thing was going to go longer. But he wasn't singing Satisfaction at 45 either. So both times he was right.

Someone should have pinned Jagger down and got him to say what specifically will make the Stones "stage ready" in his mind before they can do any kind of a show, much less the Olympics.

Many here keep mentioning Richards' age as the reason why he likely can't play well anymore but the Blues is littered with 60, 70, 80 sometimes even 90 year old players. He fancies himself a blues player and has always mentioned how old Mississippi Fred McDowell was and HE was still playing in his dotage. Well kids, Fred died at age 68, not all that old really, but old enough for Keith to mention him until well, this year. Because Keith turns 69 later this year. If it isn't age then, what is it? It's the elephant in the room, his health, and the absolute abuse he has put his body through over the decades. Whether it's falling out of a tree, resulting in brain surgery, sticking needles in his arm since the 60's, running God knows what up his nose for decades, drinking oceans of booze, or things we'd rather not think about, no amount rehearsals can reverse THAT, and I would imagine that's the root cause for not being "stage ready".

Quote
Long John Stoner
Someone should have pinned Jagger down and got him to say what specifically will make the Stones "stage ready" in his mind before they can do any kind of a show, much less the Olympics.

Many here keep mentioning Richards' age as the reason why he likely can't play well anymore but the Blues is littered with 60, 70, 80 sometimes even 90 year old players. He fancies himself a blues player and has always mentioned how old Mississippi Fred McDowell was and HE was still playing in his dotage. Well kids, Fred died at age 68, not all that old really, but old enough for Keith to mention him until well, this year. Because Keith turns 69 later this year. If it isn't age then, what is it? It's the elephant in the room, his health, and the absolute abuse he has put his body through over the decades. Whether it's falling out of a tree, resulting in brain surgery, sticking needles in his arm since the 60's, running God knows what up his nose for decades, drinking oceans of booze, or things we'd rather not think about, no amount rehearsals can reverse THAT, and I would imagine that's the root cause for not being "stage ready".

I wonder if he'd be up for another blood switchout?

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
Long John Stoner

Quote
mitchflorida1
Didn't Jagger once say he would hate to be 40 years old and be still singing "Satisfaction"? Well, maybe at age 65 that is how he finally feels.

There are different variations. In 1970, when he was 27, Jagger said he couldn't see himself doing this when he was 30. In 1975, when he was 32, he said he couldn't see himself still singing Satisfaction when he was 45. He's 69 in a few days, and as we all know, has contradicted himself many times by now over the years. Here's a good bunch of various Stones quotes:

[www.timeisonourside.com]

So, right, technically Mick wasn't singing Satisfaction at 40. So he did live up to his statement. Then he changed it when he realised the thing was going to go longer. But he wasn't singing Satisfaction at 45 either. So both times he was right.

He's right simply because they weren't touring when he was 40???? THAT'S really parsing things. I think it's fairly clear he meant something different when he said those things, that either as a singer or as a band they would have moved on from songs like Satisfaction the older they got. To still be doing that song would mean they were stuck in a rut. It was a foolish, youthful thing to say then, but on the other hand, there was no road map to show how rock bands were to evolve as they got older. Back then, they all thought rock was a rebellion for younger people only, and had no idea you could carry that attitude into your 30's, 40's and even longer if it was done right.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Long John Stoner
Someone should have pinned Jagger down and got him to say what specifically will make the Stones "stage ready" in his mind before they can do any kind of a show, much less the Olympics.

Many here keep mentioning Richards' age as the reason why he likely can't play well anymore but the Blues is littered with 60, 70, 80 sometimes even 90 year old players. He fancies himself a blues player and has always mentioned how old Mississippi Fred McDowell was and HE was still playing in his dotage. Well kids, Fred died at age 68, not all that old really, but old enough for Keith to mention him until well, this year. Because Keith turns 69 later this year. If it isn't age then, what is it? It's the elephant in the room, his health, and the absolute abuse he has put his body through over the decades. Whether it's falling out of a tree, resulting in brain surgery, sticking needles in his arm since the 60's, running God knows what up his nose for decades, drinking oceans of booze, or things we'd rather not think about, no amount rehearsals can reverse THAT, and I would imagine that's the root cause for not being "stage ready".

I wonder if he'd be up for another blood switchout?

HAH. Where's Sanchez when you need him? That might be his only hope.