Tell Me :
Talk
That's pretty funny. Maybe someone will start a facebook petition for Mick Jagger to sit down and let MT sing lead on Angie, Tumbling Dice, Wild Horses, and HTW,
I was thinking maybe MT could sit in on drums for a couple of songs too, just to show charlie how it's done.
.....
IORR EDITOR comment:
Please do not reprint/republish complete articles, as that is both a copyright violation and against the IORR policy. Thanks!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-11 12:54 by bv.
Gilmore is a skilled writer and he knows that to push Mick too much would have endangered the magazine's cozy relationship with Jagger. Besides that, I am sure that the terms of the interview were layed out carefully before he sat down with any of them...ie, I'll talk about Keith and the book but only to this point.
Indeed.
No, I wouldn't go that far, Rip This. I think it's a very good article, and Gilmore is too fine a writer to allow that to happen. But, Jagger and Richards are skilled at the game and both employ managers who would make sure the interview terms are laid out before they enter the room. It doesn't mean though that Gilmore doesn't still try to get something new and if you read between the lines, he does attempt to get both men to really comment on their relationship. He has a bit more luck with Keith because, well, it's Keith, but Mick will never go there.
In any case, I think it's the best portrait we've gotten in a long while as to where things are at between our two heroes.
Jan Wenner is besotted always has been. Since the beginning his magazine has been at Mick's beck and call and the Stones in general. The dude left his wife for a young guy so figure the rest out
It will probably turn out the way you describe. No one will be foolish enough to sign such a large tour guarantee for the Stones again. But we can still be surprised. Ticket sales might pick up and support more of the higher prices. When the Stones perform in England these will be three mass crowd venues like the stadiums and tix for these are already sold out. The Stones can leave on a very good note that cancels out what happened in America
No one knows what is in the AEG contract. It could be that the guaranteed payment to the Stones is based on how ticket sales go
Probably the same agreement they had in place for this 10/26/2012 article in 2012 since the contents is basically the same : [www.rollingstone.com] - I'm not sure why everyone is so enthralled with this latest article in RS, nothing new, it goes on and on (boring even to someone who's been reading everything I can lay my eyes on about the Stones over the past 30 years) about stuff that's already been covered and there is zero discussion of future plans, unlike in the October article.
well he sure as hell ain't the drummer!
I figured it out: he's gay. I do not care to speculate what you think that has to do with publishing a magazine.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Taken From The Japan Times...U.S. fan revolt threatens Stones tour
Posted by:
sonomastone
()
Date: May 11, 2013 00:37
Quote
RoughJusticeOnYaQuote
71Tele
Damn, I thought this was going to be about our "Taylor should play more" revolt.
...Personally, I think he should SING more.
About time somebody gives Jagger a run for his money.
I won't be satisfied, nor will I shut up about it, until Taylor actualy has been given what he deserves - the lead vocals to ALL the songs he wrote for the Stones and/or has contributed to, in any sort of way, past ànd present.
That's pretty funny. Maybe someone will start a facebook petition for Mick Jagger to sit down and let MT sing lead on Angie, Tumbling Dice, Wild Horses, and HTW,
I was thinking maybe MT could sit in on drums for a couple of songs too, just to show charlie how it's done.
Don"t want talk about Rolling Stone magazine, just want see theirs face
Posted by:
JJackFl
()
Date: May 11, 2013 03:16
.....
IORR EDITOR comment:
Please do not reprint/republish complete articles, as that is both a copyright violation and against the IORR policy. Thanks!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-11 12:54 by bv.
Re: Don"t want talk about Rolling Stone magazine, just want see theirs face
Posted by:
slew
()
Date: May 11, 2013 03:20
I will say one thing some of the old rockers the Stones look like they should still be playing RNR
Re: Don"t want talk about Rolling Stone magazine, just want see theirs face
Posted by:
Kirk
()
Date: May 11, 2013 11:50
...Keith Richards, the band's rhythm guitarist,.....
I stopped reading at this point...
I stopped reading at this point...
Re: Rolling Stone magazine - Stones on the cover + report inside
Posted by:
Rip This
()
Date: May 11, 2013 15:04
I still think the Terry Richardson cover sucks and I also think the author doesn't go far enough....far enough would have been Jagger threatening to end the interview or walking out.
Re: Rolling Stone magazine - Stones on the cover + report inside
Posted by:
latebloomer
()
Date: May 11, 2013 15:26
Quote
Rip This
I still think the Terry Richardson cover sucks and I also think the author doesn't go far enough....far enough would have been Jagger threatening to end the interview or walking out.
Gilmore is a skilled writer and he knows that to push Mick too much would have endangered the magazine's cozy relationship with Jagger. Besides that, I am sure that the terms of the interview were layed out carefully before he sat down with any of them...ie, I'll talk about Keith and the book but only to this point.
Re: Rolling Stone magazine - Stones on the cover + report inside
Posted by:
Rip This
()
Date: May 11, 2013 18:28
you mean that Jagger uses Rolling Stone/Wenner as his own personal PR machine when he needs to get his message across??...well then the article is just more BS then...isn't it?
Re: Rolling Stone magazine - Stones on the cover + report inside
Posted by:
sonomastone
()
Date: May 11, 2013 18:43
Quote
Rip This
you mean that Jagger uses Rolling Stone/Wenner as his own personal PR machine when he needs to get his message across??...well then the article is just more BS then...isn't it?
Indeed.
Re: Rolling Stone magazine - Stones on the cover + report inside
Posted by:
latebloomer
()
Date: May 11, 2013 18:51
Quote
Rip This
you mean that Jagger uses Rolling Stone/Wenner as his own personal PR machine when he needs to get his message across??...well then the article is just more BS then...isn't it?
No, I wouldn't go that far, Rip This. I think it's a very good article, and Gilmore is too fine a writer to allow that to happen. But, Jagger and Richards are skilled at the game and both employ managers who would make sure the interview terms are laid out before they enter the room. It doesn't mean though that Gilmore doesn't still try to get something new and if you read between the lines, he does attempt to get both men to really comment on their relationship. He has a bit more luck with Keith because, well, it's Keith, but Mick will never go there.
In any case, I think it's the best portrait we've gotten in a long while as to where things are at between our two heroes.
Re: Rolling Stone magazine - Stones on the cover + report inside
Posted by:
triceratops
()
Date: May 11, 2013 21:14
Quote
Rip This
you mean that Jagger uses Rolling Stone/Wenner as his own personal PR machine when he needs to get his message across??...well then the article is just more BS then...isn't it?
Jan Wenner is besotted always has been. Since the beginning his magazine has been at Mick's beck and call and the Stones in general. The dude left his wife for a young guy so figure the rest out
Re: Rolling Stone magazine - Stones on the cover + report inside
Posted by:
stonesrule
()
Date: May 11, 2013 21:48
While it is true that Wenner is "besotted" and is not someone I especially admire,
Mikal Gilmore is no one's servant. He takes writing seriously and has integrity as well as talent. I used to know him, haven't seen him in years but I respect the piece he wrote.
Mikal Gilmore is no one's servant. He takes writing seriously and has integrity as well as talent. I used to know him, haven't seen him in years but I respect the piece he wrote.
Re: Taken From The Japan Times...U.S. fan revolt threatens Stones tour
Posted by:
triceratops
()
Date: May 11, 2013 22:56
Quote
Long John StonerQuote
trainarollin
Why would the band have to take a paycut? So, if the buildings are half-full, the band does not care. The schmucks offered them an amount that is really hard to cover. AEG took this on as bragging rights and can probably be written off on their taxes as a loss.
I'd have to think the band WOULD care, especially Jagger. If this is indeed the last tour, no one wants the embarrassment of playing half filled shows. In the end, if the venues are full, they can still point to the fact they sold the place out, or at least nearly filled it as 70 something rockers. As it is, when this tour ends, right or wrong, there's going to be an awful lot said about how the Stones have overstayed their welcome and should have quit while they were ahead. This board frankly isn't a good measuring stick of whether the tour was successful or the band did good shows. Hard core fans predominantly occupy these spaces, and will shout down the detractors. At this early juncture, it's hard to see why the Stones would ever do another tour again. Maybe a few shows here and there, but their touring days have got to be numbered after this.
It will probably turn out the way you describe. No one will be foolish enough to sign such a large tour guarantee for the Stones again. But we can still be surprised. Ticket sales might pick up and support more of the higher prices. When the Stones perform in England these will be three mass crowd venues like the stadiums and tix for these are already sold out. The Stones can leave on a very good note that cancels out what happened in America
No one knows what is in the AEG contract. It could be that the guaranteed payment to the Stones is based on how ticket sales go
Re: Rolling Stone magazine - Stones on the cover + report inside
Posted by:
gotdablouse
()
Date: May 12, 2013 01:34
Quote
latebloomerQuote
Rip This
I still think the Terry Richardson cover sucks and I also think the author doesn't go far enough....far enough would have been Jagger threatening to end the interview or walking out.
Gilmore is a skilled writer and he knows that to push Mick too much would have endangered the magazine's cozy relationship with Jagger. Besides that, I am sure that the terms of the interview were layed out carefully before he sat down with any of them...ie, I'll talk about Keith and the book but only to this point.
Probably the same agreement they had in place for this 10/26/2012 article in 2012 since the contents is basically the same : [www.rollingstone.com] - I'm not sure why everyone is so enthralled with this latest article in RS, nothing new, it goes on and on (boring even to someone who's been reading everything I can lay my eyes on about the Stones over the past 30 years) about stuff that's already been covered and there is zero discussion of future plans, unlike in the October article.
Re: Rolling Stone magazine - Stones on the cover + report inside
Posted by:
trainarollin
()
Date: May 12, 2013 04:58
Not a very good photo. Wondering if they only gave Terry 3 minutes of camera time to execute the shot. A photographer can plan all he wants in his/her mind to end up with a handlers tap on the shoulder after 7 frames taken to "wrap it up" while they pretend to be talking to someone important on their cell phone.
Re: Rolling Stone magazine - Stones on the cover + report inside
Posted by:
trainarollin
()
Date: May 12, 2013 05:23
If I was in the artist shoes, I would use the promoter logic that fans would have a knee-jerk reaction and not care about the price because the dates were quickly approaching. Snooze or loose. Fans finally wised up and hopefully this will in the long run stop promoters from offering silly guarantees to heritage acts.
Re: Rolling Stone Cover Story: The Rolling Stones 2013
Posted by:
memphiscats
()
Date: May 12, 2013 08:59
Geez Al, don't you know Mick sold his soul to the devil long ago ...I thought that was Stones 101.Quote
Big Al
Nice bit of airbrushing on the photographs. What's with Jagger's clear, wrinkle-free face?
Re: Don"t want talk about Rolling Stone magazine, just want see theirs face
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: May 13, 2013 04:17
Quote
Kirk
...Keith Richards, the band's rhythm guitarist,.....
I stopped reading at this point...
well he sure as hell ain't the drummer!
Re: Rolling Stone magazine - Stones on the cover + report inside
Posted by:
ZantiMisfit
()
Date: May 13, 2013 05:50
Seventy don't look like it used to--I'll say that for sure!
When I was a kid, when you you hit 40 you looked and dressed like you were an old man or woman--and you were considered one. Glad times have changed in THAT regard. Life doesn't end at 30 anymore. Or 39...or 69!
When I was a kid, when you you hit 40 you looked and dressed like you were an old man or woman--and you were considered one. Glad times have changed in THAT regard. Life doesn't end at 30 anymore. Or 39...or 69!
Re: Rolling Stone magazine - Stones on the cover + report inside
Posted by:
Glam Descendant
()
Date: May 13, 2013 06:29
Quote
triceratopsQuote
Rip This
you mean that Jagger uses Rolling Stone/Wenner as his own personal PR machine when he needs to get his message across??...well then the article is just more BS then...isn't it?
Jan Wenner is besotted always has been. Since the beginning his magazine has been at Mick's beck and call and the Stones in general. The dude left his wife for a young guy so figure the rest out
I figured it out: he's gay. I do not care to speculate what you think that has to do with publishing a magazine.
Re: Rolling Stone magazine - Stones on the cover + report inside
Posted by:
trainarollin
()
Date: May 13, 2013 08:54
Looks like an over-flashed cellphone picture. My opinion is that while his crew was getting the umbrella stobes in a better position, he was told to "wrap it up".
Re: Rolling Stone magazine - Stones on the cover + report inside
Posted by:
dead.flowers
()
Date: May 13, 2013 13:07
At one point, I ask Jagger if he worries that there's an incongruity between the band's lucrative success and its early renegade image. "Well, I don't know," he says. "I don't really want to go . . . that's like an endless, sort of commerce versus art, rebelliousness and, um. . . ." Richards doesn't dismiss the subject out of hand, but it also doesn't seem to nag at him very much, either. "From my point of view," he says, "it's like this: We say we want to put a Stones tour together and people come to us with proposals. And these proposals are all basically the same. We actually did push down the prices a little bit. We took the lower offer, in other words. But, um, it's the price of the market. I don't really know. I don't have much to do with it other than I would like people to get in, to be able to afford to get in, without sort of starving their babies and all. And that's about it."
Hey, what's that?
I've repeatedly seen similar statements by Keith. Looks like he's trying hard to spoil the good mood among their die-hard fans and wellwishers.
Keith, if you really don't know, and if you don't have much to do with those millions at all: Just gimme a shout, I'll let you know my bank a/c number at once.
Seriously, it appears that he's taking us all for crackbrained, or, is there something wrong with the boy himself?
PS: The "starving their babies" part is simply utterly distasteful.
EDIT: syntax
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-13 13:09 by dead.flowers.
Hey, what's that?
I've repeatedly seen similar statements by Keith. Looks like he's trying hard to spoil the good mood among their die-hard fans and wellwishers.
Keith, if you really don't know, and if you don't have much to do with those millions at all: Just gimme a shout, I'll let you know my bank a/c number at once.
Seriously, it appears that he's taking us all for crackbrained, or, is there something wrong with the boy himself?
PS: The "starving their babies" part is simply utterly distasteful.
EDIT: syntax
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-13 13:09 by dead.flowers.
Re: Rolling Stone magazine - Stones on the cover + report inside
Posted by:
dead.flowers
()
Date: May 13, 2013 14:26
Thanks for posting, Bluesstone,
I am not yet through the whole article. But, I would say, best read about the band since long.
dead.flowers
I am not yet through the whole article. But, I would say, best read about the band since long.
dead.flowers
Quote
Bluesstone
Hey folks,
this was just published as the RS's covers story on Facebook and it's the best report on the Stones I have read in a long long time:
[www.rollingstone.com]
Re: Rolling Stone magazine - Stones on the cover + report inside
Posted by:
LieB
()
Date: May 13, 2013 21:11
I do think much of the article confirms a lot of the speculation here on IORR, which is a bit scary.
Re: Rolling Stone magazine - Stones on the cover + report inside
Posted by:
JumpinJackOLantern
()
Date: May 14, 2013 01:57
Nice to see the Stones back on the cover of Rolling Stone, but why the writer doesn't ask the band whether they are going to record a new album at some point is inexcusable. He should be demoted!
Re: Rolling Stone magazine - Stones on the cover + report inside
Posted by:
BILLPERKS
()
Date: May 22, 2013 23:54
MIKAL GILMORE WROTE THE BEST BOOK TOU'LL EVER READ..
"SHOT IN THE HEART"
CANT RECOMMEND IT ENOUGH.
"SHOT IN THE HEART"
CANT RECOMMEND IT ENOUGH.
Re: Rolling Stone magazine - Stones on the cover + report inside
Posted by:
ZantiMisfit
()
Date: May 23, 2013 01:48
As some men age--in this case Charlie--why do their waists get higher and higher? It's like the torso gradually just vanishes and there's your belt under your armpits and then your head.
The Feud That Nearly Broke The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
BeautifulBuzz
()
Date: June 23, 2013 01:08
'Yeah, we had a bit of a doo-dah': Mick Jagger and Keith Richards on the feud that nearly broke the Rolling Stones
It was the row that nearly split them. But now Mick says he’s glad Keith’s apologised for calling him ‘bitchy Brenda’. And so is Keith. Just in time – they’ve got Glastonbury on Saturday…
[www.dailymail.co.uk]
It was the row that nearly split them. But now Mick says he’s glad Keith’s apologised for calling him ‘bitchy Brenda’. And so is Keith. Just in time – they’ve got Glastonbury on Saturday…
[www.dailymail.co.uk]
Re: The Feud That Nearly Broke The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: June 23, 2013 01:12
...virtually a straight cut--paste of the recent Rolling Stone interview
ROCKMAN
ROCKMAN
Re: The Feud That Nearly Broke The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
sonomastone
()
Date: June 23, 2013 01:17
Yeah... I don't see anything new.
They know how to get the headlines written about them.
They know how to get the headlines written about them.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
a bigger nut , daspyknows , dhinkle555 , gaizoku , highgatehillbilly , mariano , rogerriffin , rstoned
Guests:
1644
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10