Tell Me :
Talk
but this sentence does
I think the point is that Keith and Ronnie just don't rock anymore. The Foos
certainly rocked very hard on SNL and in precisely the way the Stones were
once famous for. No virtuosos, just synergy.
If the Stones could still do that, I'd still be there for them, even if I myself
admittedly have gone a bit pop in my old age.
(Keith can't even be trusted with the opening of YCAGWYW anymore. Mick has to
guide it with his acoustic guitar)
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-12-07 17:44 by superrevvy.
All opinion based I suppose.
Keith played Rambler as good as ever...inconceivable that you don't think that rocked but so be it.
I was embarrassed for Mick on SNL...he's terrified of being irrelevant so he makes miscalculations of his own limitations and we end up getting that mess.
...I have to doubt you're still playing the Superheavy CD...
Scale
does "ever" include 1969, 1972, 1973 and 1975?
and 86
I may be old, I may be very smart, but emotionally I'm a child.
When Mick walked away from SH, so did I (after throwing a pretty good tantrum)
I was saying to one of my girlfriends just the other day, Reba darlin, fcuk! am
I lucky to have found Rihanna as my major musical love, because otherwise I'd still
be hung up on either SH, Jagger, or the Stones.
Actually, even Mick was starting to fade from my heart until I figured out he's
ripped off everyone for 30 mill with these 5 shows. Now I'm in love with him
all over again. Bastard!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-12-07 18:09 by superrevvy.
Say what? Mick was fantastic on SNL.
So many typos.
Yes, you gotta love those Ropping Stones--roping on the ranch at Stone Creek, that is....
Or better yet, roping the stones....
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-12-08 07:13 by stonesnow.
Crap...I must've seen the edit...I never saw any fantastic.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Are these shows simply about the pay per view?
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: December 7, 2012 17:33
Quote
superrevvy
Mick didnt look silly at all fronting the Foos. .
but this sentence does
Re: Are these shows simply about the pay per view?
Posted by:
superrevvy
()
Date: December 7, 2012 17:36
Mick didnt move on because these Stones paydays were still there. Very soon,
if not on Dec 16, he will be able to do as good a payday for himself with other
people as he could do with any more Stones shows.
so although I for one desperately wanted him to move on in May 2011, Mick
read the landscape better, and knew he had to bleed the Stones fans at least
one more time before they would set him free.
if not on Dec 16, he will be able to do as good a payday for himself with other
people as he could do with any more Stones shows.
so although I for one desperately wanted him to move on in May 2011, Mick
read the landscape better, and knew he had to bleed the Stones fans at least
one more time before they would set him free.
Re: Are these shows simply about the pay per view?
Posted by:
superrevvy
()
Date: December 7, 2012 17:40
Quote
MunichhiltonQuote
superrevvy
Mick didnt look silly at all fronting the Foos. Even with this current bunch,
he's still amazing. Its just that Keith and Ronnie are no match for him
anymore.
Why because they prefer rock to pop?
I think the point is that Keith and Ronnie just don't rock anymore. The Foos
certainly rocked very hard on SNL and in precisely the way the Stones were
once famous for. No virtuosos, just synergy.
If the Stones could still do that, I'd still be there for them, even if I myself
admittedly have gone a bit pop in my old age.
(Keith can't even be trusted with the opening of YCAGWYW anymore. Mick has to
guide it with his acoustic guitar)
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-12-07 17:44 by superrevvy.
Re: Are these shows simply about the pay per view?
Posted by:
cn854
()
Date: December 7, 2012 17:46
I just want to know how much MT gets on the PPV take...........he should get it all.
Re: Are these shows simply about the pay per view?
Posted by:
Munichhilton
()
Date: December 7, 2012 17:48
Quote
superrevvyQuote
MunichhiltonQuote
superrevvy
Mick didnt look silly at all fronting the Foos. Even with this current bunch,
he's still amazing. Its just that Keith and Ronnie are no match for him
anymore.
Why because they prefer rock to pop?
I think the point is that Keith and Ronnie just don't rock anymore. The Foos
certainly rocked very hard on SNL and in precisely the way the Stones were
once famous for. No virtuosos, just synergy.
If the Stones could still do that, I'd still be there for them, even if I myself
admittedly have gone a bit pop in my old age.
All opinion based I suppose.
Keith played Rambler as good as ever...inconceivable that you don't think that rocked but so be it.
I was embarrassed for Mick on SNL...he's terrified of being irrelevant so he makes miscalculations of his own limitations and we end up getting that mess.
...I have to doubt you're still playing the Superheavy CD...
Re: Are these shows simply about the pay per view?
Posted by:
Munichhilton
()
Date: December 7, 2012 17:48
Quote
cn854
I just want to know how much MT gets on the PPV take...........he should get it all.
Scale
Re: Are these shows simply about the pay per view?
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: December 7, 2012 17:59
Quote
Munichhilton
Keith played Rambler as good as ever...
does "ever" include 1969, 1972, 1973 and 1975?
Re: Are these shows simply about the pay per view?
Posted by:
Munichhilton
()
Date: December 7, 2012 18:02
Quote
StonesTodQuote
Munichhilton
Keith played Rambler as good as ever...
does "ever" include 1969, 1972, 1973 and 1975?
and 86
Re: Are these shows simply about the pay per view?
Posted by:
superrevvy
()
Date: December 7, 2012 18:08
Quote
Munichhilton
...I have to doubt you're still playing the Superheavy CD...
I may be old, I may be very smart, but emotionally I'm a child.
When Mick walked away from SH, so did I (after throwing a pretty good tantrum)
I was saying to one of my girlfriends just the other day, Reba darlin, fcuk! am
I lucky to have found Rihanna as my major musical love, because otherwise I'd still
be hung up on either SH, Jagger, or the Stones.
Actually, even Mick was starting to fade from my heart until I figured out he's
ripped off everyone for 30 mill with these 5 shows. Now I'm in love with him
all over again. Bastard!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-12-07 18:09 by superrevvy.
Re: Are these shows simply about the pay per view?
Posted by:
andrewt
()
Date: December 7, 2012 18:40
This thread is awesome!
Re: Are these shows simply about the pay per view?
Posted by:
hbwriter
()
Date: December 7, 2012 19:02
Quote
andrewt
This thread is awesome!
Re: Are these shows simply about the pay per view?
Posted by:
uhbuhgullayew
()
Date: December 7, 2012 22:02
Quote
MunichhiltonQuote
superrevvyQuote
MunichhiltonQuote
superrevvy
Mick didnt look silly at all fronting the Foos. Even with this current bunch,
he's still amazing. Its just that Keith and Ronnie are no match for him
anymore.
Why because they prefer rock to pop?
I think the point is that Keith and Ronnie just don't rock anymore. The Foos
certainly rocked very hard on SNL and in precisely the way the Stones were
once famous for. No virtuosos, just synergy.
If the Stones could still do that, I'd still be there for them, even if I myself
admittedly have gone a bit pop in my old age.
All opinion based I suppose.
Keith played Rambler as good as ever...inconceivable that you don't think that rocked but so be it.
I was embarrassed for Mick on SNL...he's terrified of being irrelevant so he makes miscalculations of his own limitations and we end up getting that mess.
...I have to doubt you're still playing the Superheavy CD...
Say what? Mick was fantastic on SNL.
Re: Are these shows simply about the pay per view?
Posted by:
bam
()
Date: December 7, 2012 22:24
Not just about the pay per view. Also about proving to themselves they could do it. Also about proving to the insurance companies and promoters that thet could do it.
And also about advertising for the 2013 tour -- if they proved they could do it.
And also about advertising for the 2013 tour -- if they proved they could do it.
Re: Are these shows simply about the pay per view?
Posted by:
slew
()
Date: December 8, 2012 04:17
Look it this thread has become ridiculous:
1. Most people (me included) could give a rats ass what Mick Jagger does if he is not with the Ropping Stones. His solo projects habe all fallen flat even the ones that have some merit. The promotion that has gone into his solo projects has most liely lost money. Mick is not Mick without the band and he can't stand it. Don't get me wrong I love the guy but hestayed too long to have an effective solo career.
2. Keith and Ronnie along with Mick kicked ass at the 02 shows. Keith was shockigly good and Ronnie has been good since he has been sober.
3. The ONLY BIG PAYDAY that Mick Jagger will ever haveis if Keith Richards is standing to his left, Ron Wood to his right and Charlie Watts behind him. Otherwise he is a very average rock star as I've stated before the Rolling Stones and the individuals in the Rolling Stones are only really great whe they are together. Mick needs Keith and Keith needs Mick period.
1. Most people (me included) could give a rats ass what Mick Jagger does if he is not with the Ropping Stones. His solo projects habe all fallen flat even the ones that have some merit. The promotion that has gone into his solo projects has most liely lost money. Mick is not Mick without the band and he can't stand it. Don't get me wrong I love the guy but hestayed too long to have an effective solo career.
2. Keith and Ronnie along with Mick kicked ass at the 02 shows. Keith was shockigly good and Ronnie has been good since he has been sober.
3. The ONLY BIG PAYDAY that Mick Jagger will ever haveis if Keith Richards is standing to his left, Ron Wood to his right and Charlie Watts behind him. Otherwise he is a very average rock star as I've stated before the Rolling Stones and the individuals in the Rolling Stones are only really great whe they are together. Mick needs Keith and Keith needs Mick period.
Re: Are these shows simply about the pay per view?
Posted by:
uhbuhgullayew
()
Date: December 8, 2012 05:39
Quote
slew
Look it this thread has become ridiculous:
1. Most people (me included) could give a rats ass what Mick Jagger does if he is not with the Ropping Stones. His solo projects habe all fallen flat even the ones that have some merit. The promotion that has gone into his solo projects has most liely lost money. Mick is not Mick without the band and he can't stand it. Don't get me wrong I love the guy but hestayed too long to have an effective solo career.
2. Keith and Ronnie along with Mick kicked ass at the 02 shows. Keith was shockigly good and Ronnie has been good since he has been sober.
3. The ONLY BIG PAYDAY that Mick Jagger will ever haveis if Keith Richards is standing to his left, Ron Wood to his right and Charlie Watts behind him. Otherwise he is a very average rock star as I've stated before the Rolling Stones and the individuals in the Rolling Stones are only really great whe they are together. Mick needs Keith and Keith needs Mick period.
So many typos.
Re: Are these shows simply about the pay per view?
Posted by:
slew
()
Date: December 8, 2012 06:43
I need to proof read. I should not write when I am drunk!
Re: Are these shows simply about the pay per view?
Posted by:
stonesnow
()
Date: December 8, 2012 07:10
Quote
uhbuhgullayewQuote
slew
Look it this thread has become ridiculous:
1. Most people (me included) could give a rats ass what Mick Jagger does if he is not with the Ropping Stones. His solo projects habe all fallen flat even the ones that have some merit. The promotion that has gone into his solo projects has most liely lost money. Mick is not Mick without the band and he can't stand it. Don't get me wrong I love the guy but hestayed too long to have an effective solo career.
2. Keith and Ronnie along with Mick kicked ass at the 02 shows. Keith was shockigly good and Ronnie has been good since he has been sober.
3. The ONLY BIG PAYDAY that Mick Jagger will ever haveis if Keith Richards is standing to his left, Ron Wood to his right and Charlie Watts behind him. Otherwise he is a very average rock star as I've stated before the Rolling Stones and the individuals in the Rolling Stones are only really great whe they are together. Mick needs Keith and Keith needs Mick period.
So many typos.
Yes, you gotta love those Ropping Stones--roping on the ranch at Stone Creek, that is....
Or better yet, roping the stones....
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-12-08 07:13 by stonesnow.
Re: Are these shows simply about the pay per view?
Posted by:
Munichhilton
()
Date: December 8, 2012 07:56
Quote
uhbuhgullayewQuote
MunichhiltonQuote
superrevvyQuote
MunichhiltonQuote
superrevvy
Mick didnt look silly at all fronting the Foos. Even with this current bunch,
he's still amazing. Its just that Keith and Ronnie are no match for him
anymore.
Why because they prefer rock to pop?
I think the point is that Keith and Ronnie just don't rock anymore. The Foos
certainly rocked very hard on SNL and in precisely the way the Stones were
once famous for. No virtuosos, just synergy.
If the Stones could still do that, I'd still be there for them, even if I myself
admittedly have gone a bit pop in my old age.
All opinion based I suppose.
Keith played Rambler as good as ever...inconceivable that you don't think that rocked but so be it.
I was embarrassed for Mick on SNL...he's terrified of being irrelevant so he makes miscalculations of his own limitations and we end up getting that mess.
...I have to doubt you're still playing the Superheavy CD...
Say what? Mick was fantastic on SNL.
Crap...I must've seen the edit...I never saw any fantastic.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
ade , bauk77 , Dan , eduardoacdc , EJM , elmod , gotdablouse , Irix , jstones , juano , lincolnblues , midimannz , MingSubu , philrock90 , Rambler62 , rebelhipi , SecondSet , steffialicia , swimtothemoon , Taylor1 , terukun , tinnitus , WembleyWhammer , Witness , wolundamo
Guests:
1691
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10