Tell Me :
Talk
Wasn't Keith -of all people - who suggested the Stones could go on without Charlie?
He was using Chuck's more formal name...
Nope. He didnt - and I know you like Keith bashing but that's rather pointless.
You can´t replace Keith in the Stones - it would be an insult to call the band the rolling stones without the songwriter - Mick Jagger cannot turn the rolling stones into a stones cover band and imagine to get away with it.
Without Keith - the Rolling Stones would be Stones cover band - that would be an insult to the legacy of the band.
there is a warehouse somewhere full of unsold Mick Jagger solo work that he would be happy to pass off on you if that is the case.
you could start here (unless of course you've already consumed all of this):
[www.dailymotion.com]
Have we forgotten BLONDIE?
Mick at his egomaniacal best. Keith's solo output was easier to digest
Mick can chew gum and sing.
Just one of a number of dodgey style choices here.
I wonder what hair products he was using, his hair has such body.
Thing is, this is more together, powerful and dare I say stonesy than the stones themselves are now.
YOU GOT A POINT THERE!!!!
Talk is cheap is great and has stood the test of time. I'd put any song in it up against anything the stones have recorded since
Are you willing to put some money on this?
Lets set a date and the circumstance, set the odds and thne we canstart wagering.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: If Ronnie or even Keith was not available....
Posted by:
WindyHorses
()
Date: May 17, 2013 00:10
Quote
Braincapers
No Keith = no show.
Re: If Ronnie or even Keith was not available....
Posted by:
SweetThing
()
Date: May 17, 2013 00:11
Quote
seitanQuote
bigfrankie
too sick (or whatever) to perform at one of the remaining shows, what would happen?
1) Cancel the show stating the real reason
2) Cancel the show with a phony reason
3) MT would fill-in
...Without Charlie, Mick, Keith or Ronnie - there is no Stones. It would be an insult to the fans. Mick Taylor is good guitarist in his era songs but he cannot replace Keith - NEVER !! ..or even Ronnie on the Ronnie era songs, and and lets get this straight - Taylor is not even a member of The Stones anymore. The band had plenty of great recordings after he left - you Taylorites are nuts.
Wasn't Keith -of all people - who suggested the Stones could go on without Charlie?
Re: If Ronnie or even Keith was not available....
Posted by:
Munichhilton
()
Date: May 17, 2013 00:19
Quote
SweetThingQuote
seitanQuote
bigfrankie
too sick (or whatever) to perform at one of the remaining shows, what would happen?
1) Cancel the show stating the real reason
2) Cancel the show with a phony reason
3) MT would fill-in
...Without Charlie, Mick, Keith or Ronnie - there is no Stones. It would be an insult to the fans. Mick Taylor is good guitarist in his era songs but he cannot replace Keith - NEVER !! ..or even Ronnie on the Ronnie era songs, and and lets get this straight - Taylor is not even a member of The Stones anymore. The band had plenty of great recordings after he left - you Taylorites are nuts.
Wasn't Keith -of all people - who suggested the Stones could go on without Charlie?
He was using Chuck's more formal name...
Re: If Ronnie or even Keith was not available....
Posted by:
seitan
()
Date: May 17, 2013 01:23
Quote
SweetThingQuote
seitanQuote
bigfrankie
too sick (or whatever) to perform at one of the remaining shows, what would happen?
1) Cancel the show stating the real reason
2) Cancel the show with a phony reason
3) MT would fill-in
...Without Charlie, Mick, Keith or Ronnie - there is no Stones. It would be an insult to the fans. Mick Taylor is good guitarist in his era songs but he cannot replace Keith - NEVER !! ..or even Ronnie on the Ronnie era songs, and and lets get this straight - Taylor is not even a member of The Stones anymore. The band had plenty of great recordings after he left - you Taylorites are nuts.
Wasn't Keith -of all people - who suggested the Stones could go on without Charlie?
Nope. He didnt - and I know you like Keith bashing but that's rather pointless.
You can´t replace Keith in the Stones - it would be an insult to call the band the rolling stones without the songwriter - Mick Jagger cannot turn the rolling stones into a stones cover band and imagine to get away with it.
Without Keith - the Rolling Stones would be Stones cover band - that would be an insult to the legacy of the band.
Re: If Ronnie or even Keith was not available....
Posted by:
rusty
()
Date: May 17, 2013 06:26
The only one who can't be replaced is Mick.
After 'LIFE' I don't care anymore if Keith is in the band or not.
After 'LIFE' I don't care anymore if Keith is in the band or not.
Re: If Ronnie or even Keith was not available....
Posted by:
sonomastone
()
Date: May 17, 2013 06:35
Quote
rusty
The only one who can't be replaced is Mick.
After 'LIFE' I don't care anymore if Keith is in the band or not.
there is a warehouse somewhere full of unsold Mick Jagger solo work that he would be happy to pass off on you if that is the case.
you could start here (unless of course you've already consumed all of this):
[www.dailymotion.com]
Re: If Ronnie or even Keith was not available....
Posted by:
WindyHorses
()
Date: May 17, 2013 07:07
Quote
rusty
The only one who can't be replaced is Mick.
After 'LIFE' I don't care anymore if Keith is in the band or not.
Re: If Ronnie or even Keith was not available....
Posted by:
slew
()
Date: May 17, 2013 07:25
Come On - yes Ronnie is playing better than he has in a long while but The Stones are not the Stones if Keith is not there. I know he is not the player he used to be but he is surprising me as to how much better he is on this tour than on A Bigger Bang. The best thing they could do is bring Taylor ups for the whole show and have a three guitar attack. I just don't care to see the Stones without Keith.
Re: If Ronnie or even Keith was not available....
Posted by:
sonomastone
()
Date: May 17, 2013 07:29
we have a decent idea of what it would be like for mick to do stones songs without keith:
Re: If Ronnie or even Keith was not available....
Posted by:
slew
()
Date: May 17, 2013 07:57
Rusty - I can see why you could be a little upset with Keith but Keith HAS to be there as does Charlie and Woodie at this point. I was only joking when I said sack Ronnie above for Taylor. But Keith is a must.
Re: If Ronnie or even Keith was not available....
Posted by:
mtaylor
()
Date: May 17, 2013 08:55
Quote
GravityBoy
Chuck can do Keith's parts.
No doubt about it.
Have we forgotten BLONDIE?
Re: If Ronnie or even Keith was not available....
Posted by:
triceratops
()
Date: May 17, 2013 09:24
Quote
sonomastone
we have a decent idea of what it would be like for mick to do stones songs without keith:
Mick at his egomaniacal best. Keith's solo output was easier to digest
Re: If Ronnie or even Keith was not available....
Posted by:
GravityBoy
()
Date: May 17, 2013 09:29
Quote
triceratopsQuote
sonomastone
we have a decent idea of what it would be like for mick to do stones songs without keith:
Mick at his egomaniacal best. Keith's solo output was easier to digest
Mick can chew gum and sing.
Just one of a number of dodgey style choices here.
I wonder what hair products he was using, his hair has such body.
Re: If Ronnie or even Keith was not available....
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: May 17, 2013 10:15
Quote
triceratopsQuote
sonomastone
we have a decent idea of what it would be like for mick to do stones songs without keith:
Mick at his egomaniacal best. Keith's solo output was easier to digest
Thing is, this is more together, powerful and dare I say stonesy than the stones themselves are now.
Re: If Ronnie or even Keith was not available....
Posted by:
RawIguanaCologne
()
Date: May 17, 2013 13:33
Quote
His MajestyQuote
triceratopsQuote
sonomastone
we have a decent idea of what it would be like for mick to do stones songs without keith:
Mick at his egomaniacal best. Keith's solo output was easier to digest
Thing is, this is more together, powerful and dare I say stonesy than the stones themselves are now.
YOU GOT A POINT THERE!!!!
Re: If Ronnie or even Keith was not available....
Posted by:
slew
()
Date: May 19, 2013 02:11
THat band sucks totally polished
Re: If Ronnie or even Keith was not available....
Posted by:
Thrylan
()
Date: May 19, 2013 07:25
Talk is cheap is better than a compilation of ALL of Micks work......remember, we are celebrating 50 at 51, because Keith couldn't go
Re: If Ronnie or even Keith was not available....
Posted by:
sonomastone
()
Date: May 19, 2013 08:00
Quote
Thrylan
Talk is cheap is better than a compilation of ALL of Micks work......remember, we are celebrating 50 at 51, because Keith couldn't go
Talk is cheap is great and has stood the test of time. I'd put any song in it up against anything the stones have recorded since
Re: If Ronnie or even Keith was not available....
Posted by:
gimmerambler
()
Date: May 19, 2013 09:05
~ prediction ~
jeff beck will be the next guitarist in The Rolling Stones
jeff beck will be the next guitarist in The Rolling Stones
Re: If Ronnie or even Keith was not available....
Posted by:
Max'sKansasCity
()
Date: May 19, 2013 09:14
Quote
gimmerambler
~ prediction ~
jeff beck will be the next guitarist in The Rolling Stones
Are you willing to put some money on this?
Lets set a date and the circumstance, set the odds and thne we canstart wagering.
Re: If Ronnie or even Keith was not available....
Posted by:
TeddyB1018
()
Date: May 19, 2013 10:24
Ridiculous. Never.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
1962 , adamw3405 , adrianmfa2 , AntoineParis , einte , falo01 , filoca , gativubi , GJV , Hansel1976 , jumpingjackflash5 , MJAGGER123 , nbutton , Nellcote1971 , pjb , poti , Quique-stone , shawnriffhard1 , sister , spunky , StonedRambler , terukun , Testify , Tonstone , witterings
Guests:
1777
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10