Tell Me :
Talk
And it's true that a giant astroid MAY arrive someday.
Yes, if you are willing to wait until next Halloween?
And the Toronto Maple Leafs MAY one day win the Stanley Cup again! Go Leafs!
So a troll is someone that has an opinion that differs from the majority?
The facts are the facts, the Stones really didn't realize how important their 50th anniversary was until the fans (and probably the promoters) made them aware of how significant it was. We (as fans) do have an influence, and will continue to have an influence. As long as there is interest the Stones will keep rolling. When the fans stop caring, then it's over, Mick has even said as much, recently.
Beatles vs Stones is still very much alive in the minds of many. Just google Beatles vs Rolling Stones. Like I said, it's the legacy battle that the two camps themselves won't admit to, it just wouldn't be "English".
If you think there isn't competition among bands then you are naive. You think the pious Bono didn't set out to smash the Stones tour gross mark? Think again!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-01-31 21:43 by GumbootCloggeroo.
Mick would definitely downplay it, it's what an English gentlemen does.
That the Stones Super Bowl half time show wasn't as good as McCartney's. Unless one is so blindly biased it doesn't matter, which makes someone a 'true' fan.
The Beatles are hardly a forgotten band, but if the Stones continue to stay in the news (by touring and making new music over the next few years) then they (The Beatles) could fall further in the Stones rear view mirror. Of course, the Sons of the Beatles is my dream, but they could ultimately play a role in restoring the Beatles to the #1 position. As I have said, the Sons of the Beatles is a no-brainer, however, they remain a long shot simply because of closed minded thinking - kind of like what we saw with the Stones and their 50th anniversary celebration. They had to be convinced to do it.
There is never a need to thank a meglomaniac. YOU are the reason the Stones didn't sleep through their 50th anniversary year?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Where's some buttuh for mah popcorn, this is gettin' ridiculously hilarious!
I don't think who performed better at a halftime show at a Super Bowl is going to have any influence on rock historians who sit down in about ten years and declare the Stones the greatest of all time. Do you?
It is sad that so many so called Stones fans (like you) suffer from such low self esteem that you feel you have no influence over the band as fans. Have a little more faith in yourself, GasLight.
Even the naysayers (like yourself) had a role in motivating them. No doubt Keith was motivated to raise his game by all the negative comments about his playing right here on this site, and others like it. So give yourself a little pat on the back. As individuals we all played a small role in this, but collectively, we (the fans) had a substantial influence on them continuing. We always have.
I wouldn't waste one minute of my time on this site if I didn't believe they were tuned in here. I have said that repeatedly. This site is far more than a discussion forum, it's a direct link to the Rolling Stones. Now, that doesn't mean that each and every one of our wishes will be granted - although most of mine have, just that our voices are being heard. And that is all we can ask for.
A better question would be to ask if he could accept being be recognized as the greatest rock 'n roll band of all time, or would he rather have that mythical title belong to the Beatles.
The Stones have been playing "catch-up" for a half century, but they are finally about to get their due. It doesn't matter what rock historians think today, the only thing that matters is the final outcome. Just ask the Denver Broncos and the Seattle Seahawks how meaningful it turned out to be for them that they were both leading with less than a minute to go recently in their NFL playoff games. They will be watching the Super Bowl rather than playing in it - big difference. The Stones are not done yet. There is still time for one final drive. A very important drive. At least one last great album may be necessary to claim the mythical title of, 'Greatest Rock 'N Roll Band Of All Time'.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-02-01 04:22 by JumpinJackOLantern.
DAMN!
I didn't realize I wasn't wasting my time on this site. I could have saved all that abuse heaped on me by my wife constantly saying, "QUIT WASTING ALL THAT TIME ON THAT DAMN SITE"...my response could have been, "BUT MICK NEEDS MY OPINION!"
What do you think I have been telling my wife all these months?
I have convinced her that I am the re-incarnation of Jimmy Miller and that the Stones are lost without me!
It really does speak to the greatness of the Beatles as much as it does to the greatness of the Stones. How a band could exist for only a decade or so and cast that long of a shadow is astonishing. Great marketing team, and a great band of course. Maybe we should just call it a "toss up" and leave it at that?
Now there I think you're probably right - but the idea that everything you or I as individuals post goes straight from our keyboards to Mick's in-tray is ludicrous. And as for the legacy war,in years to come it will be just as important as the question of whether Bach, Beethoven or Mozart was the greatest composer of all time - simply irrelevant.
Music is not a sport, no matter how many names you claim that under and all the times you insist on making it that way. The Stones aren't and haven't been playing "catch-up" to anyone. There's nothing to "catch-up" to. One final drive for the Stones? The Stones actually need one last great album to be necessary to claim a mythical title? Really? ONE MORE ALBUM? They don't have enough out or...what, what for, to prop up the Big Four as well as a couple of others to be that much better since everyone but you knows they won't make something that good?
Only megalomaniacs have that view point about music, as some competition. By all means, though, start a thread about the Stones playing their last Super Bowl or whatever, Sons Of The Stones Vs Sons Of The Beatles in the Disney Bowl.
i told them to get rid of that ridiculous out of control cage on the NS tour and - lo and behold! in fairness, i didn't ask for any personal attention for the suggestion.
It's a thankless job,
Sometimes I wonder if you are from this planet. Just about everything involving males is a competition. Especially in the "savage" business of rock 'n roll. And just look how heated things get around here. I suggest you start by googling, The Beatles vs The Rolling Stones. There are some great books and articles you should read that will get you caught up. I suggest a book about the history of NW Rock called, "Sonic Boom". Do you guys have band competitions in New Orleans? We had a thing up here in the sixties called, 'The Battle of the Bands'. Recently, (I think in California) Beatles and Stones cover bands had a competition to settle who the "greatest of all time" truly is. Of course it was all in good fun. Think Ryder Cup. It's the same with the Beatles and the Stones. Just ask Arnold Palmer, Gary Player, Jack Nicklaus, and Lee Trevino (who are the best of friends) if they don't want to "beat each others brains out" when they get together to play even a casual round of golf together. There is nothing evil about competition as long as there is a strong emphasis on sportsmanship. Sport or rock 'n roll should never be taken too seriously.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-02-01 19:19 by JumpinJackOLantern.
That whole Beatles Stones thing has long been tired and I did all the reading up on it way long ago and knew it was bullshit then. The last time the Stones felt "challenged", to put it mildly, seems to have been in the late 1970s - at least that's how it kind of came across if one was to take it seriously. Obviously it bothered Mick more than anyone else yet they still did what they did and whatever. As far as 'competition' the Stones have been way behind the curve in being "modern", if that is a view of being "competetive" with current music trends. There's a reason Keith has always wanted to stay true to playing rock'n'roll instead of going off into club music or sampling. It's Mick who invents it all - and then makes the Stones be that way.
A good song is a good song, regardless of the currentness of its trendiness or moderness or any whateverness. And they have made boring songs belong in the trendy part and they end up being... boring trendy songs.
However, you obviously didn't get what I said, about how music is not a comptetion, specifically commercial music - and then you say sport or rock'n'roll should never be taken too seriously - yet you continually take it too serious. Magnificent. And you wonder what planet I'm from.
I try not to take anything too seriously, even life, and especially myself. None of us are really that important in the grand scheme of things. Except for the Stones, of course! Just kidding.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
JumpinJackOLantern
()
Date: January 31, 2013 20:18
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
I have a feeling that if a giant asteroid were heading for earth and we had only 1 hour left to live, JumpinJackOLantern would be spending that time desperately trying to come to some kind of conclusion in his Beatles vs. Stones "battle", perhaps calling every rock historian for their final opinion, rather than, say, being with family and friends in the final hour. Am I right, JumpinWatchmenStonesRollinCrow?
And it's true that a giant astroid MAY arrive someday.
Re: Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
JumpinJackOLantern
()
Date: January 31, 2013 20:19
Quote
T&AQuote
JumpinJackOLanternQuote
Stoneage
Are there any real indications on a 2013 tour? Or a new record? All I hear is silence and the usual yakity-yak...
All I hear is Doom and Gloom. Seriously, we should all know the routine inside and out by now. Expect a new album to be recorded in the first part of the year and more shows during the second part. And hope for a surprise performance in the first part of the year. I would be happy with just a new album, but I know we will get both. It's business as usual, we wait, watch, listen, and try and keep ourselves entertained in the meantime. All shall come to pass, just as the 50th anniversary shows came to pass. The Stones will roll on as long as they possibly can.
could i have your autograph?
Yes, if you are willing to wait until next Halloween?
Re: Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
JumpinJackOLantern
()
Date: January 31, 2013 20:55
Quote
JumpinJackOLanternQuote
GumbootCloggeroo
I have a feeling that if a giant asteroid were heading for earth and we had only 1 hour left to live, JumpinJackOLantern would be spending that time desperately trying to come to some kind of conclusion in his Beatles vs. Stones "battle", perhaps calling every rock historian for their final opinion, rather than, say, being with family and friends in the final hour. Am I right, JumpinWatchmenStonesRollinCrow?
And it's true that a giant astroid MAY arrive someday.
And the Toronto Maple Leafs MAY one day win the Stanley Cup again! Go Leafs!
Re: Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
Rokyfan
()
Date: January 31, 2013 21:12
I think people call you a troll because they cannot believe that you seriously believe the things you write . . . like about how YOU are contributing to whatever will happen with the Stones in 2013.
The most likely outcome has been outlined here. Jagger is listening to offers. If they result in anything, it will be a few more of what we saw in 2012, at similar prices. There is not going to be a new album of new songs and no actual tour. Prices for the gigs will be about what they were last year. Just my opinion, but it seems the most likely outcome.
As far as Beatles vs. Stones ???? Are you kidding ???? The last time that was seriously discussed by anyone was before the BEatles broke up. All that you write in that regard is in your own mind, and nowhere else. Both groups have their place in rock history. There is no race, no competition.
The most likely outcome has been outlined here. Jagger is listening to offers. If they result in anything, it will be a few more of what we saw in 2012, at similar prices. There is not going to be a new album of new songs and no actual tour. Prices for the gigs will be about what they were last year. Just my opinion, but it seems the most likely outcome.
As far as Beatles vs. Stones ???? Are you kidding ???? The last time that was seriously discussed by anyone was before the BEatles broke up. All that you write in that regard is in your own mind, and nowhere else. Both groups have their place in rock history. There is no race, no competition.
Re: Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
JumpinJackOLantern
()
Date: January 31, 2013 21:31
Quote
Rokyfan
I think people call you a troll because they cannot believe that you seriously believe the things you write . . . like about how YOU are contributing to whatever will happen with the Stones in 2013.
The most likely outcome has been outlined here. Jagger is listening to offers. If they result in anything, it will be a few more of what we saw in 2012, at similar prices. There is not going to be a new album of new songs and no actual tour. Prices for the gigs will be about what they were last year. Just my opinion, but it seems the most likely outcome.
As far as Beatles vs. Stones ???? Are you kidding ???? The last time that was seriously discussed by anyone was before the BEatles broke up. All that you write in that regard is in your own mind, and nowhere else. Both groups have their place in rock history. There is no race, no competition.
So a troll is someone that has an opinion that differs from the majority?
The facts are the facts, the Stones really didn't realize how important their 50th anniversary was until the fans (and probably the promoters) made them aware of how significant it was. We (as fans) do have an influence, and will continue to have an influence. As long as there is interest the Stones will keep rolling. When the fans stop caring, then it's over, Mick has even said as much, recently.
Beatles vs Stones is still very much alive in the minds of many. Just google Beatles vs Rolling Stones. Like I said, it's the legacy battle that the two camps themselves won't admit to, it just wouldn't be "English".
If you think there isn't competition among bands then you are naive. You think the pious Bono didn't set out to smash the Stones tour gross mark? Think again!
Re: Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
drbryant
()
Date: January 31, 2013 21:36
Quote
JumpinJackOLantern
One last great album should seal the deal, but I wouldn't count the Beatles out. They could counter with the 'Sons of the Beatles' which would put the focus back on their fathers.
Re: Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
GumbootCloggeroo
()
Date: January 31, 2013 21:39
If Mick Jagger was holding a press conference and a journalist asked the question "What are your thoughts on the current race between you and The Beatles and whether or not one final album from you will surpass The Beatles in this race?" do you, JumpinJackOLantern, think that Mick would respond to that question in a serious manner or do you think he would think the journalist was stupid and just ignore it?
Re: Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
GumbootCloggeroo
()
Date: January 31, 2013 21:42
Right, because The Beatles are a forgotten band. Hardly anyone ever listens to them anymore. Leave it up to their sons to remind us of what a great band The Beatles were!Quote
JumpinJackOLantern
One last great album should seal the deal, but I wouldn't count the Beatles out. They could counter with the 'Sons of the Beatles' which would put the focus back on their fathers.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-01-31 21:43 by GumbootCloggeroo.
Re: Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
JumpinJackOLantern
()
Date: January 31, 2013 21:52
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
If Mick Jagger was holding a press conference and a journalist asked the question "What are your thoughts on the current race between you and The Beatles and whether or not one final album from you will surpass The Beatles in this race?" do you, JumpinJackOLantern, think that Mick would respond to that question in a serious manner or do you think he would think the journalist was stupid and just ignore it?
Mick would definitely downplay it, it's what an English gentlemen does.
Re: Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: January 31, 2013 22:10
Quote
JumpinJackOLanternQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
JumpinJackOLanternQuote
GasLightStreet
Recent review of Super Bowl halftime acts brings up the Stones. Mighty50TrollOLantern will have to swallow this one:
The Rolling Stones (2006, Detroit).
Eschewing the medley approach, the Stones managed to squeeze only three songs into their performance. One, “Rough Justice,” was a new song from a new album that no one much cared about. Thus, a third of the show was wasted. “Start Me Up,” as great a concert opener as exists in the Stones catalog, kicked off the show; the well-worn “(I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction” was the uninteresting choice for a closer. In the eternal The Beatles vs. the Stones debate, McCartney was the clear winner in these back-to-back Super Bowls.
[www.nola.com]
I am a huge fan of both bands, but some Beatles fan's opinion on a couple of Super Bowl halftime performances won't have much influence on the final outcome. Rock historians will have the final say, and that is still about ten years away.
Regardless, you can't handle the truth and refuse to acknowledge it. Whatever the "final outcome is"? What final outcome?
So what is the truth that I can't handle? Please enlighten me.
That the Stones Super Bowl half time show wasn't as good as McCartney's. Unless one is so blindly biased it doesn't matter, which makes someone a 'true' fan.
Re: Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
JumpinJackOLantern
()
Date: January 31, 2013 22:12
Quote
GumbootCloggerooRight, because The Beatles are a forgotten band. Hardly anyone ever listens to them anymore. Leave it up to their sons to remind us of what a great band The Beatles were!Quote
JumpinJackOLantern
One last great album should seal the deal, but I wouldn't count the Beatles out. They could counter with the 'Sons of the Beatles' which would put the focus back on their fathers.
The Beatles are hardly a forgotten band, but if the Stones continue to stay in the news (by touring and making new music over the next few years) then they (The Beatles) could fall further in the Stones rear view mirror. Of course, the Sons of the Beatles is my dream, but they could ultimately play a role in restoring the Beatles to the #1 position. As I have said, the Sons of the Beatles is a no-brainer, however, they remain a long shot simply because of closed minded thinking - kind of like what we saw with the Stones and their 50th anniversary celebration. They had to be convinced to do it.
Re: Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: January 31, 2013 22:14
Quote
JumpinJackOLantern
If it hadn't been for fans like me the Stones would have slept through their 50th anniversary year. You should be thanking me for my efforts, instead you hurl insults. At least show a little respect for those that are older and wiser than you, kid.
There is never a need to thank a meglomaniac. YOU are the reason the Stones didn't sleep through their 50th anniversary year?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Where's some buttuh for mah popcorn, this is gettin' ridiculously hilarious!
Re: Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
JumpinJackOLantern
()
Date: January 31, 2013 22:19
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
JumpinJackOLanternQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
JumpinJackOLanternQuote
GasLightStreet
Recent review of Super Bowl halftime acts brings up the Stones. Mighty50TrollOLantern will have to swallow this one:
The Rolling Stones (2006, Detroit).
Eschewing the medley approach, the Stones managed to squeeze only three songs into their performance. One, “Rough Justice,” was a new song from a new album that no one much cared about. Thus, a third of the show was wasted. “Start Me Up,” as great a concert opener as exists in the Stones catalog, kicked off the show; the well-worn “(I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction” was the uninteresting choice for a closer. In the eternal The Beatles vs. the Stones debate, McCartney was the clear winner in these back-to-back Super Bowls.
[www.nola.com]
I am a huge fan of both bands, but some Beatles fan's opinion on a couple of Super Bowl halftime performances won't have much influence on the final outcome. Rock historians will have the final say, and that is still about ten years away.
Regardless, you can't handle the truth and refuse to acknowledge it. Whatever the "final outcome is"? What final outcome?
So what is the truth that I can't handle? Please enlighten me.
That the Stones Super Bowl half time show wasn't as good as McCartney's. Unless one is so blindly biased it doesn't matter, which makes someone a 'true' fan.
I don't think who performed better at a halftime show at a Super Bowl is going to have any influence on rock historians who sit down in about ten years and declare the Stones the greatest of all time. Do you?
Re: Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
JumpinJackOLantern
()
Date: January 31, 2013 22:22
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
JumpinJackOLantern
If it hadn't been for fans like me the Stones would have slept through their 50th anniversary year. You should be thanking me for my efforts, instead you hurl insults. At least show a little respect for those that are older and wiser than you, kid.
There is never a need to thank a meglomaniac. YOU are the reason the Stones didn't sleep through their 50th anniversary year?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Where's some buttuh for mah popcorn, this is gettin' ridiculously hilarious!
It is sad that so many so called Stones fans (like you) suffer from such low self esteem that you feel you have no influence over the band as fans. Have a little more faith in yourself, GasLight.
Re: Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
slew
()
Date: February 1, 2013 01:27
Paulywaul - I do agree with you about not being accessible to younger people. The prices were atrocious I'll give you that. I'm not saying the WHO show was bad either and I hope you have a good time.
If we get more Stones shows this year I hope there are more shows at less money because they are missing an opportunity with a different audience.
If we get more Stones shows this year I hope there are more shows at less money because they are missing an opportunity with a different audience.
Re: Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
JumpinJackOLantern
()
Date: February 1, 2013 02:24
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
JumpinJackOLanternQuote
Rokyfan
I think people call you a troll because they cannot believe that you seriously believe the things you write . . . like about how YOU are contributing to whatever will happen with the Stones in 2013.
The facts are the facts, the Stones really didn't realize how important their 50th anniversary was...
Right. That book just magically appeared. The fans' demand made Crossfire Hurricane magically appear. The fans demanded that the Stones stand in front of a mock up of the Marquee and get a picture taken because they decided to ignore the 50 years of having a band name and "being" a band.
Yet somehow there was no music release marking the 50th - and months - MONTHS - later another mindless greatest hits compilation comes out in a number of ways, some strictly to sucker anyone dumb enough to buy 5 CDs of the same songs again along with stupidly priced tickets to a hand full of shows that ignored back catalogue songs after 1981...
My my - what a trail of incredible influence you have had.
Even the naysayers (like yourself) had a role in motivating them. No doubt Keith was motivated to raise his game by all the negative comments about his playing right here on this site, and others like it. So give yourself a little pat on the back. As individuals we all played a small role in this, but collectively, we (the fans) had a substantial influence on them continuing. We always have.
Re: Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
JumpinJackOLantern
()
Date: February 1, 2013 02:39
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
JumpinJackOLanternQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
JumpinJackOLantern
If it hadn't been for fans like me the Stones would have slept through their 50th anniversary year. You should be thanking me for my efforts, instead you hurl insults. At least show a little respect for those that are older and wiser than you, kid.
There is never a need to thank a meglomaniac. YOU are the reason the Stones didn't sleep through their 50th anniversary year?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Where's some buttuh for mah popcorn, this is gettin' ridiculously hilarious!
It is sad that so many so called Stones fans (like you) suffer from such low self esteem that you feel you have no influence over the band as fans. Have a little more faith in yourself, GasLight.
DAMMIT. Ya got me. You are right. I have zero influence over the Stones. Or even on the Stones. I sure as hell had zero influence on the ticket prices of the 2012 shows. In fact, ALL of the shows. And seeing that I bought some albums a week or two after they came out, well, I had zero influence on their debut and highest chart placement (I know that is VERY important to you). I had zero influence on the sales of The Biggest Bang since someone found it for $5 and gave it to me.
Shall I go on? Or is that enough? That's enough.
HOWEVER, I have figured out I do have a tiny bit of influence over/on the Stones: when I play their music - and that is the best influence of all.
I wouldn't waste one minute of my time on this site if I didn't believe they were tuned in here. I have said that repeatedly. This site is far more than a discussion forum, it's a direct link to the Rolling Stones. Now, that doesn't mean that each and every one of our wishes will be granted - although most of mine have, just that our voices are being heard. And that is all we can ask for.
Re: Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
JumpinJackOLantern
()
Date: February 1, 2013 03:03
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
If Mick Jagger was holding a press conference and a journalist asked the question "What are your thoughts on the current race between you and The Beatles and whether or not one final album from you will surpass The Beatles in this race?" do you, JumpinJackOLantern, think that Mick would respond to that question in a serious manner or do you think he would think the journalist was stupid and just ignore it?
A better question would be to ask if he could accept being be recognized as the greatest rock 'n roll band of all time, or would he rather have that mythical title belong to the Beatles.
Re: Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
JumpinJackOLantern
()
Date: February 1, 2013 04:08
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
JumpinJackOLantern
I don't think who performed better at a halftime show at a Super Bowl is going to have any influence on rock historians who sit down in about ten years and declare the Stones the greatest of all time. Do you?
What's funny is you refuse to acknowledge that one little thing while railing on and on about future historians "declaring" the Stones the "greatest of all time" while ignoring what past and current "historians" know and think (who I'm guessing don't know anything or are just wrong in your eyes). It's not a competition, it doesn't matter, a general consensus is just that and in a few more years none of it will matter anyway so ya just need to get over yaself.
The Stones have been playing "catch-up" for a half century, but they are finally about to get their due. It doesn't matter what rock historians think today, the only thing that matters is the final outcome. Just ask the Denver Broncos and the Seattle Seahawks how meaningful it turned out to be for them that they were both leading with less than a minute to go recently in their NFL playoff games. They will be watching the Super Bowl rather than playing in it - big difference. The Stones are not done yet. There is still time for one final drive. A very important drive. At least one last great album may be necessary to claim the mythical title of, 'Greatest Rock 'N Roll Band Of All Time'.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-02-01 04:22 by JumpinJackOLantern.
Re: Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: February 1, 2013 04:29
Quote
JumpinJackOLanternQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
JumpinJackOLanternQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
JumpinJackOLantern
If it hadn't been for fans like me the Stones would have slept through their 50th anniversary year. You should be thanking me for my efforts, instead you hurl insults. At least show a little respect for those that are older and wiser than you, kid.
There is never a need to thank a meglomaniac. YOU are the reason the Stones didn't sleep through their 50th anniversary year?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Where's some buttuh for mah popcorn, this is gettin' ridiculously hilarious!
It is sad that so many so called Stones fans (like you) suffer from such low self esteem that you feel you have no influence over the band as fans. Have a little more faith in yourself, GasLight.
DAMMIT. Ya got me. You are right. I have zero influence over the Stones. Or even on the Stones. I sure as hell had zero influence on the ticket prices of the 2012 shows. In fact, ALL of the shows. And seeing that I bought some albums a week or two after they came out, well, I had zero influence on their debut and highest chart placement (I know that is VERY important to you). I had zero influence on the sales of The Biggest Bang since someone found it for $5 and gave it to me.
Shall I go on? Or is that enough? That's enough.
HOWEVER, I have figured out I do have a tiny bit of influence over/on the Stones: when I play their music - and that is the best influence of all.
I wouldn't waste one minute of my time on this site if I didn't believe they were tuned in here. I have said that repeatedly. This site is far more than a discussion forum, it's a direct link to the Rolling Stones. Now, that doesn't mean that each and every one of our wishes will be granted - although most of mine have, just that our voices are being heard. And that is all we can ask for.
DAMN!
I didn't realize I wasn't wasting my time on this site. I could have saved all that abuse heaped on me by my wife constantly saying, "QUIT WASTING ALL THAT TIME ON THAT DAMN SITE"...my response could have been, "BUT MICK NEEDS MY OPINION!"
Re: Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
JumpinJackOLantern
()
Date: February 1, 2013 04:51
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
JumpinJackOLanternQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
JumpinJackOLanternQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
JumpinJackOLantern
If it hadn't been for fans like me the Stones would have slept through their 50th anniversary year. You should be thanking me for my efforts, instead you hurl insults. At least show a little respect for those that are older and wiser than you, kid.
There is never a need to thank a meglomaniac. YOU are the reason the Stones didn't sleep through their 50th anniversary year?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Where's some buttuh for mah popcorn, this is gettin' ridiculously hilarious!
It is sad that so many so called Stones fans (like you) suffer from such low self esteem that you feel you have no influence over the band as fans. Have a little more faith in yourself, GasLight.
DAMMIT. Ya got me. You are right. I have zero influence over the Stones. Or even on the Stones. I sure as hell had zero influence on the ticket prices of the 2012 shows. In fact, ALL of the shows. And seeing that I bought some albums a week or two after they came out, well, I had zero influence on their debut and highest chart placement (I know that is VERY important to you). I had zero influence on the sales of The Biggest Bang since someone found it for $5 and gave it to me.
Shall I go on? Or is that enough? That's enough.
HOWEVER, I have figured out I do have a tiny bit of influence over/on the Stones: when I play their music - and that is the best influence of all.
I wouldn't waste one minute of my time on this site if I didn't believe they were tuned in here. I have said that repeatedly. This site is far more than a discussion forum, it's a direct link to the Rolling Stones. Now, that doesn't mean that each and every one of our wishes will be granted - although most of mine have, just that our voices are being heard. And that is all we can ask for.
DAMN!
I didn't realize I wasn't wasting my time on this site. I could have saved all that abuse heaped on me by my wife constantly saying, "QUIT WASTING ALL THAT TIME ON THAT DAMN SITE"...my response could have been, "BUT MICK NEEDS MY OPINION!"
What do you think I have been telling my wife all these months?
I have convinced her that I am the re-incarnation of Jimmy Miller and that the Stones are lost without me!
Re: Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
JumpinJackOLantern
()
Date: February 1, 2013 05:16
Quote
Come On
If they will past The Beatles it's bloody 'bout time...
It really does speak to the greatness of the Beatles as much as it does to the greatness of the Stones. How a band could exist for only a decade or so and cast that long of a shadow is astonishing. Great marketing team, and a great band of course. Maybe we should just call it a "toss up" and leave it at that?
Re: Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
Green Lady
()
Date: February 1, 2013 09:11
Quote
JumpinJackOLantern
Even the naysayers (like yourself) had a role in motivating them. No doubt Keith was motivated to raise his game by all the negative comments about his playing right here on this site, and others like it. So give yourself a little pat on the back. As individuals we all played a small role in this, but collectively, we (the fans) had a substantial influence on them continuing. We always have.
Now there I think you're probably right - but the idea that everything you or I as individuals post goes straight from our keyboards to Mick's in-tray is ludicrous. And as for the legacy war,in years to come it will be just as important as the question of whether Bach, Beethoven or Mozart was the greatest composer of all time - simply irrelevant.
Re: Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: February 1, 2013 09:20
Who knows if they monitor this website or not? At least someone at their office does. For sure they nicked my idea a few years ago about just doing a couple of gigs in selected cities and doing a PPV of the last one instead of doing the usual big world tour. And they didn't even give me credit for it...
Re: Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: February 1, 2013 16:51
Quote
JumpinJackOLantern
The Stones have been playing "catch-up" for a half century, but they are finally about to get their due. It doesn't matter what rock historians think today, the only thing that matters is the final outcome. Just ask the Denver Broncos and the Seattle Seahawks how meaningful it turned out to be for them that they were both leading with less than a minute to go recently in their NFL playoff games. They will be watching the Super Bowl rather than playing in it - big difference. The Stones are not done yet. There is still time for one final drive. A very important drive. At least one last great album may be necessary to claim the mythical title of, 'Greatest Rock 'N Roll Band Of All Time'.
Music is not a sport, no matter how many names you claim that under and all the times you insist on making it that way. The Stones aren't and haven't been playing "catch-up" to anyone. There's nothing to "catch-up" to. One final drive for the Stones? The Stones actually need one last great album to be necessary to claim a mythical title? Really? ONE MORE ALBUM? They don't have enough out or...what, what for, to prop up the Big Four as well as a couple of others to be that much better since everyone but you knows they won't make something that good?
Only megalomaniacs have that view point about music, as some competition. By all means, though, start a thread about the Stones playing their last Super Bowl or whatever, Sons Of The Stones Vs Sons Of The Beatles in the Disney Bowl.
Re: Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
T&A
()
Date: February 1, 2013 16:55
Quote
Stoneage
Who knows if they monitor this website or not? At least someone at their office does. For sure they nicked my idea a few years ago about just doing a couple of gigs in selected cities and doing a PPV of the last one instead of doing the usual big world tour. And they didn't even give me credit for it...
i told them to get rid of that ridiculous out of control cage on the NS tour and - lo and behold! in fairness, i didn't ask for any personal attention for the suggestion.
Re: Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
JumpinJackOLantern
()
Date: February 1, 2013 18:43
Quote
Stoneage
Who knows if they monitor this website or not? At least someone at their office does. For sure they nicked my idea a few years ago about just doing a couple of gigs in selected cities and doing a PPV of the last one instead of doing the usual big world tour. And they didn't even give me credit for it...
It's a thankless job,
Re: Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
JumpinJackOLantern
()
Date: February 1, 2013 19:17
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
JumpinJackOLantern
The Stones have been playing "catch-up" for a half century, but they are finally about to get their due. It doesn't matter what rock historians think today, the only thing that matters is the final outcome. Just ask the Denver Broncos and the Seattle Seahawks how meaningful it turned out to be for them that they were both leading with less than a minute to go recently in their NFL playoff games. They will be watching the Super Bowl rather than playing in it - big difference. The Stones are not done yet. There is still time for one final drive. A very important drive. At least one last great album may be necessary to claim the mythical title of, 'Greatest Rock 'N Roll Band Of All Time'.
Music is not a sport, no matter how many names you claim that under and all the times you insist on making it that way. The Stones aren't and haven't been playing "catch-up" to anyone. There's nothing to "catch-up" to. One final drive for the Stones? The Stones actually need one last great album to be necessary to claim a mythical title? Really? ONE MORE ALBUM? They don't have enough out or...what, what for, to prop up the Big Four as well as a couple of others to be that much better since everyone but you knows they won't make something that good?
Only megalomaniacs have that view point about music, as some competition. By all means, though, start a thread about the Stones playing their last Super Bowl or whatever, Sons Of The Stones Vs Sons Of The Beatles in the Disney Bowl.
Sometimes I wonder if you are from this planet. Just about everything involving males is a competition. Especially in the "savage" business of rock 'n roll. And just look how heated things get around here. I suggest you start by googling, The Beatles vs The Rolling Stones. There are some great books and articles you should read that will get you caught up. I suggest a book about the history of NW Rock called, "Sonic Boom". Do you guys have band competitions in New Orleans? We had a thing up here in the sixties called, 'The Battle of the Bands'. Recently, (I think in California) Beatles and Stones cover bands had a competition to settle who the "greatest of all time" truly is. Of course it was all in good fun. Think Ryder Cup. It's the same with the Beatles and the Stones. Just ask Arnold Palmer, Gary Player, Jack Nicklaus, and Lee Trevino (who are the best of friends) if they don't want to "beat each others brains out" when they get together to play even a casual round of golf together. There is nothing evil about competition as long as there is a strong emphasis on sportsmanship. Sport or rock 'n roll should never be taken too seriously.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-02-01 19:19 by JumpinJackOLantern.
Re: Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: February 1, 2013 20:32
Quote
JumpinJackOLantern
Sometimes I wonder if you are from this planet. Just about everything involving males is a competition. Especially in the "savage" business of rock 'n roll. And just look how heated things get around here. I suggest you start by googling, The Beatles vs The Rolling Stones. There are some great books and articles you should read that will get you caught up. I suggest a book about the history of NW Rock called, "Sonic Boom". Do you guys have band competitions in New Orleans? We had a thing up here in the sixties called, 'The Battle of the Bands'. Recently, (I think in California) Beatles and Stones cover bands had a competition to settle who the "greatest of all time" truly is. Of course it was all in good fun. Think Ryder Cup. It's the same with the Beatles and the Stones. Just ask Arnold Palmer, Gary Player, Jack Nicklaus, and Lee Trevino (who are the best of friends) if they don't want to "beat each others brains out" when they get together to play even a casual round of golf together. There is nothing evil about competition as long as there is a strong emphasis on sportsmanship. Sport or rock 'n roll should never be taken too seriously.
That whole Beatles Stones thing has long been tired and I did all the reading up on it way long ago and knew it was bullshit then. The last time the Stones felt "challenged", to put it mildly, seems to have been in the late 1970s - at least that's how it kind of came across if one was to take it seriously. Obviously it bothered Mick more than anyone else yet they still did what they did and whatever. As far as 'competition' the Stones have been way behind the curve in being "modern", if that is a view of being "competetive" with current music trends. There's a reason Keith has always wanted to stay true to playing rock'n'roll instead of going off into club music or sampling. It's Mick who invents it all - and then makes the Stones be that way.
A good song is a good song, regardless of the currentness of its trendiness or moderness or any whateverness. And they have made boring songs belong in the trendy part and they end up being... boring trendy songs.
However, you obviously didn't get what I said, about how music is not a comptetion, specifically commercial music - and then you say sport or rock'n'roll should never be taken too seriously - yet you continually take it too serious. Magnificent. And you wonder what planet I'm from.
Re: Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
JumpinJackOLantern
()
Date: February 1, 2013 22:54
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
JumpinJackOLantern
Sometimes I wonder if you are from this planet. Just about everything involving males is a competition. Especially in the "savage" business of rock 'n roll. And just look how heated things get around here. I suggest you start by googling, The Beatles vs The Rolling Stones. There are some great books and articles you should read that will get you caught up. I suggest a book about the history of NW Rock called, "Sonic Boom". Do you guys have band competitions in New Orleans? We had a thing up here in the sixties called, 'The Battle of the Bands'. Recently, (I think in California) Beatles and Stones cover bands had a competition to settle who the "greatest of all time" truly is. Of course it was all in good fun. Think Ryder Cup. It's the same with the Beatles and the Stones. Just ask Arnold Palmer, Gary Player, Jack Nicklaus, and Lee Trevino (who are the best of friends) if they don't want to "beat each others brains out" when they get together to play even a casual round of golf together. There is nothing evil about competition as long as there is a strong emphasis on sportsmanship. Sport or rock 'n roll should never be taken too seriously.
That whole Beatles Stones thing has long been tired and I did all the reading up on it way long ago and knew it was bullshit then. The last time the Stones felt "challenged", to put it mildly, seems to have been in the late 1970s - at least that's how it kind of came across if one was to take it seriously. Obviously it bothered Mick more than anyone else yet they still did what they did and whatever. As far as 'competition' the Stones have been way behind the curve in being "modern", if that is a view of being "competetive" with current music trends. There's a reason Keith has always wanted to stay true to playing rock'n'roll instead of going off into club music or sampling. It's Mick who invents it all - and then makes the Stones be that way.
A good song is a good song, regardless of the currentness of its trendiness or moderness or any whateverness. And they have made boring songs belong in the trendy part and they end up being... boring trendy songs.
However, you obviously didn't get what I said, about how music is not a comptetion, specifically commercial music - and then you say sport or rock'n'roll should never be taken too seriously - yet you continually take it too serious. Magnificent. And you wonder what planet I'm from.
I try not to take anything too seriously, even life, and especially myself. None of us are really that important in the grand scheme of things. Except for the Stones, of course! Just kidding.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
a bigger nut , Bashlets , britstones , bv , cowboytoast , crholmstrom , jimpietryga1 , letitloose6 , Markbot , Martin90 , mosthigh , perkmo , Pvk2 , Rickster , steffialicia , swimtothemoon , voodoodrew , Yankeeinthesouth
Guests:
2397
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10