Tell Me :
Talk
oh, that's right.
i despise keith hernandez....
I'm sure MT could learn the handful of decent songs they produced while he was away easily enough.
I belong to the minority who think they have made rather interesting material also during this "many a long year". But even among hardcore fans there has mainly been either indifference or reluctance towards new songs for ages. "Those songs were not at all good enough", the persistent claim has been. I find a parallell to when a glass is said to be half empty instead of half full. Formulated in the extreme, to some the songs are even said to be in analogy with a glass not half empty, but empty. Besides, part of the indifference and reluctance have also sprung out of conservatism on the part of the customers. Had new songs and albums over the years instead been met with a certain interest, not without critique, but a constructive one, the band could have been motivated to more frequent issues and perhaps also to work more on each song and album. Accordingly, what the band has played live, is first and foremost the songs they have understood that the majority of fans want. The socalled warhorse phenomenen is and has for a long time been active. Instead we could have had songs played live that not necessarily are dangerous in the old manner, but might and may have been all the more challenging in a more up to date sense, either to the world or towards ourselves.
And some blame the band for not having been an active creative force for decades, only a nostalgia act. I rather blame the customers. And most of all, I blame the hardcore fans who have not understood that they could have evaluated songs according to the half full glass analogy, instead of the half empty or even empty analogy. Maybe as a fruit, songmaking over time might have gained, too, and songs could become even better anew. We have all got as we deserve or, rather, much more than that.
[It is outside my interest to comment on the subject for this thread.]
HEAR HEAR SPOT ON
? That's absurd! First I have heard that. No way that was a serious consideration...and Who the F is Terrence??!?
so where are these jagger haters you spoke of? i find the whole thread puzzling,
doesn't loathing count anymore?
Chuck Leavell's Rolling Stones without Mick Jagger are still Chuck Leavell's Rolling Stones
Yeah, I agree. I dont like Micks solo recordings. The same goes for Wyman or Mick Taylor - Mick Jagger's solo albums are awful - but The Rolling Stones need him, He's a great front man, lyricist and manager for the band, In terms of money, Mick's been holding things together for years and that's truly important for the survival of the band. There's no hatred.There are no Stones without Mick J or Keith R or Charlie W -and I would surely miss Ronnie too...and I do miss Wyman.
Mick Jagger needs the Stones just as much as vice versa.
Rubbish !!! Absolute crap and rubbish !!!
Without Keith Richards - jagger wouldnt have good songs to sing, he needs Keith's songwriting, you can listen to Micks awful Superheavy album - and hear that there's not one song worth hearing. It would never be the Stones with Micks songs - it would sound like crap. And Without Charlie - the band would never sound like The Stones. Keef, Ronnie and Charlie need Mick to count the Stones money and jump around on stage in neon colour yellow pants pointing his fingers in the air. But Mick needs Charlie and Keith and Ronnie for musicial reasons, Mick needs Keith's songs.
Rubbish !!! Absolute crap and rubbish !!!
Without Keith Richards - jagger wouldnt have good songs to sing, he needs Keith's songwriting, you can listen to Micks awful Superheavy album - and hear that there's not one song worth hearing. It would never be the Stones with Micks songs - it would sound like crap. And Without Charlie - the band would never sound like The Stones. Keef, Ronnie and Charlie need Mick to count the Stones money and jump around on stage in neon colour yellow pants pointing his fingers in the air. But Mick needs Charlie and Keith and Ronnie for musicial reasons, Mick needs Keith's songs.[/quote]
The topic was put forth in real time, not back when they wrote most of their masterpieces together. If you want to go back to the beginning and take any
of them out of the band and wonder whether it would survive and flourish, I
would (arguably) agree that you couldn't take Keith out of the equation and expect similar results.
But.. as the musing was posed..can the same be said about today's Rolling Stones?
I accurately stated that this close to the end, they likely ouldn't put forth the effort, but back the decision up a decade or two, and ANY of them, BUT Mick Jagger
could have been competently and successfully replaced.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
mr_dja
()
Date: June 20, 2013 15:25
Thanks Majesty. I hadn't heard it before and maybe I was expecting JUST Keith and heard to much of Mick... I'm going to try and listen on better headphones later...
Peace,
Mr DJA
Peace,
Mr DJA
Re: The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: June 20, 2013 17:06
The Rolling Stones, especially Jagger, are masters in blowing up things, in not using the possibilities available. This tour we see that phenomenon again, causing all kinds of theories and speculation. All because of personal egos and interests. That's the fate of this band and why it will never be remembered as great as the Beatles.
Of course no Rolling Stones without Jagger or Richards. Watts and certainly Wood are replaceable. But who cares, the Stones have had their best times very long ago. The Stones do exist as a corportation, but they are are a thing of the past. They're history, living legends and symbols of a great past. They're nostalgia in flesh. That's why they're still attractive, because musically they don't produre anything interesting since many a long long year.
But well, we have the Mickckicks, they're Jagger's most loyal guard: the feminine MJ Guard. Blessed they are.
Of course no Rolling Stones without Jagger or Richards. Watts and certainly Wood are replaceable. But who cares, the Stones have had their best times very long ago. The Stones do exist as a corportation, but they are are a thing of the past. They're history, living legends and symbols of a great past. They're nostalgia in flesh. That's why they're still attractive, because musically they don't produre anything interesting since many a long long year.
But well, we have the Mickckicks, they're Jagger's most loyal guard: the feminine MJ Guard. Blessed they are.
Re: The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: June 20, 2013 17:15
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
StonesTodQuote
sonomastone
Jagger haters? I don't think I've met anyone on this board who is a Jagger hater.
There are no stones without Mick J or Keith R. Surely any Stones fan realizes that.
i despise mick jagger
I thought you loathed him?
oh, that's right.
i despise keith hernandez....
Re: The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
wanderingspirit66
()
Date: June 20, 2013 18:57
Quote
kleermaker
The Rolling Stones, especially Jagger, are masters in blowing up things, in not using the possibilities available. This tour we see that phenomenon again, causing all kinds of theories and speculation. All because of personal egos and interests. That's the fate of this band and why it will never be remembered as great as the Beatles.
Of course no Rolling Stones without Jagger or Richards. Watts and certainly Wood are replaceable. But who cares, the Stones have had their best times very long ago. The Stones do exist as a corportation, but they are are a thing of the past. They're history, living legends and symbols of a great past. They're nostalgia in flesh.
Re: The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
blivet
()
Date: June 20, 2013 19:05
Quote
Thrylan
Honestly, I think the same of Charlie at this point. For that matter, even Ronnie. Even if you switched back to MT, how would you handle the 35 year "Ronnie Period?"
I'm sure MT could learn the handful of decent songs they produced while he was away easily enough.
Re: The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
stonesrule
()
Date: June 20, 2013 19:18
Kleermaker,you seem too intelligent to have made so questionable points in your above post.
Should I start thinking of the Stones as Picasso or Van Gogh and just a part of history? I believe when it comes to gigs we need to live in the moment. Was it good....great? Did I waste my time or enjoy a memorable performance?
Re chicks being the "MJ's most loyal guard," I have not noticed this at a range of concerts.
I run into very cool guys, male fools and no more than 25-30 percent women. When the Stones played Staples I got MANY calls from male friends. 2 female friends, who know the Stones music and have seen them in the past, were more interested in getting a backstage pass than a ticket for out front.
Should I start thinking of the Stones as Picasso or Van Gogh and just a part of history? I believe when it comes to gigs we need to live in the moment. Was it good....great? Did I waste my time or enjoy a memorable performance?
Re chicks being the "MJ's most loyal guard," I have not noticed this at a range of concerts.
I run into very cool guys, male fools and no more than 25-30 percent women. When the Stones played Staples I got MANY calls from male friends. 2 female friends, who know the Stones music and have seen them in the past, were more interested in getting a backstage pass than a ticket for out front.
Re: The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
Rollin' Stoner
()
Date: June 20, 2013 19:20
Bob Dylan without Robert Zimmerman
Re: The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: June 20, 2013 19:56
Quote
kleermaker
............................................The Stones do exist as a corportation, but they are are a thing of the past. They're history, living legends and symbols of a great past. They're nostalgia in flesh. That's why they're still attractive, because musically they don't produre anything interesting since many a long long year.
But well, we have the Mickckicks, they're Jagger's most loyal guard: the feminine MJ Guard. Blessed they are.
I belong to the minority who think they have made rather interesting material also during this "many a long year". But even among hardcore fans there has mainly been either indifference or reluctance towards new songs for ages. "Those songs were not at all good enough", the persistent claim has been. I find a parallell to when a glass is said to be half empty instead of half full. Formulated in the extreme, to some the songs are even said to be in analogy with a glass not half empty, but empty. Besides, part of the indifference and reluctance have also sprung out of conservatism on the part of the customers. Had new songs and albums over the years instead been met with a certain interest, not without critique, but a constructive one, the band could have been motivated to more frequent issues and perhaps also to work more on each song and album. Accordingly, what the band has played live, is first and foremost the songs they have understood that the majority of fans want. The socalled warhorse phenomenen is and has for a long time been active. Instead we could have had songs played live that not necessarily are dangerous in the old manner, but might and may have been all the more challenging in a more up to date sense, either to the world or towards ourselves.
And some blame the band for not having been an active creative force for decades, only a nostalgia act. I rather blame the customers. And most of all, I blame the hardcore fans who have not understood that they could have evaluated songs according to the half full glass analogy, instead of the half empty or even empty analogy. Maybe as a fruit, songmaking over time might have gained, too, and songs could become even better anew. We have all got as we deserve or, rather, much more than that.
[It is outside my interest to comment on the subject for this thread.]
Re: The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
Delta
()
Date: June 20, 2013 20:01
No Mick no STONES. It is that simple. He is not the greatest singer BUT there is no greater frontman.
Re: The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
bv
()
Date: June 20, 2013 20:05
Try running a marathon withou legs!
Bjornulf
Bjornulf
Re: The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
James Kirk
()
Date: June 20, 2013 20:06
Correct me if I'm wrong, but werent there rumors of the Stones replacing Jagger with either Terrence Trent Darby, Roger Daltrey or Rod Stewart around the Dirty Work era?
Re: The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
bestfour
()
Date: June 20, 2013 20:06
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Nobody here hates Jagger. I'm pretty sure everyone acknowledges that there wouldn't be a Rolling Stones without him. And if it was it would never be as good.
Best frontman ever, most unique voice ever. Daring, arrogant, dangerous, decadent, rough, tough, androgyne, masculine, sensitive and provocative. Nobody matches that. Enough said.
HEAR HEAR SPOT ON
Re: The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
lettingitbleed
()
Date: June 20, 2013 20:13
Quote
James Kirk
Correct me if I'm wrong, but werent there rumors of the Stones replacing Jagger with either Terrence Trent Darby, Roger Daltrey or Rod Stewart around the Dirty Work era?
? That's absurd! First I have heard that. No way that was a serious consideration...and Who the F is Terrence??!?
Re: The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
wanderingspirit66
()
Date: June 20, 2013 21:01
Quote
kleermaker
they're still attractive, because musically they don't produre anything interesting since many a long long year.
Re: The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
wanderingspirit66
()
Date: June 20, 2013 21:02
Quote
kleermaker
But well, we have the Mickckicks, they're Jagger's most loyal guard: the feminine MJ Guard. Blessed they are.
Re: The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
MisterDDDD
()
Date: June 20, 2013 21:16
The Rolling Stones could survive and thrive without any member BUT Mick Jagger.
Truth.
If, gawd forbid, any of the other three would have passed or chose to leave a decade ago or better, the band would have likely continued and thrived.
They would have never been forgotten, and the replacement, depending on the person, would have had a tough act to follow, but I don't for a second believe that
The Rolling Stones would have ended.They would have continued and successfully so.
This close to the end though now, it's doubtful there would be any effort to keep it going if we lost one.
Truth.
If, gawd forbid, any of the other three would have passed or chose to leave a decade ago or better, the band would have likely continued and thrived.
They would have never been forgotten, and the replacement, depending on the person, would have had a tough act to follow, but I don't for a second believe that
The Rolling Stones would have ended.They would have continued and successfully so.
This close to the end though now, it's doubtful there would be any effort to keep it going if we lost one.
Re: The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
sonomastone
()
Date: June 20, 2013 22:32
Quote
stonesrule
Kleermaker,you seem too intelligent to have made so questionable points in your above post.
Should I start thinking of the Stones as Picasso or Van Gogh and just a part of history? I believe when it comes to gigs we need to live in the moment. Was it good....great? Did I waste my time or enjoy a memorable performance?
Re chicks being the "MJ's most loyal guard," I have not noticed this at a range of concerts.
I run into very cool guys, male fools and no more than 25-30 percent women. When the Stones played Staples I got MANY calls from male friends. 2 female friends, who know the Stones music and have seen them in the past, were more interested in getting a backstage pass than a ticket for out front.
so where are these jagger haters you spoke of? i find the whole thread puzzling,
Re: The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
mickschix
()
Date: June 20, 2013 23:07
Thrylan, you made a great point when you mentioned that Mick is not credited enough for holding the Stones together in the late 70's, right after Keith's bust in Toronto..Mick not only was there for Keith with the legal support he needed( he brought in the big guns because Keith was on his way to jail for a LONG TIME...he not only possessed enough coke to supply Brazil, it was considered a trafficking offense! )but he was there as a FRIEND. Folks like to judge Mick very quickly, almost dismissing his real value to the band!
And James Kirk, that rumor about replacing Mick was started by Keith himself....and you wonder why 2 distinctive camps formed . There are those that remember it as it really happened, and then there's the rest of the " fans".
And James Kirk, that rumor about replacing Mick was started by Keith himself....and you wonder why 2 distinctive camps formed . There are those that remember it as it really happened, and then there's the rest of the " fans".
Re: The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: June 20, 2013 23:11
The Rolling Stones without MJ are... the New Barbarians with Charlie Watts!
Re: The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: June 20, 2013 23:12
Quote
sonomastoneQuote
stonesrule
Kleermaker,you seem too intelligent to have made so questionable points in your above post.
Should I start thinking of the Stones as Picasso or Van Gogh and just a part of history? I believe when it comes to gigs we need to live in the moment. Was it good....great? Did I waste my time or enjoy a memorable performance?
Re chicks being the "MJ's most loyal guard," I have not noticed this at a range of concerts.
I run into very cool guys, male fools and no more than 25-30 percent women. When the Stones played Staples I got MANY calls from male friends. 2 female friends, who know the Stones music and have seen them in the past, were more interested in getting a backstage pass than a ticket for out front.
so where are these jagger haters you spoke of? i find the whole thread puzzling,
doesn't loathing count anymore?
Re: The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: June 20, 2013 23:14
Quote
treaclefingers
The Rolling Stones without MJ are... the New Barbarians with Charlie Watts!
Chuck Leavell's Rolling Stones without Mick Jagger are still Chuck Leavell's Rolling Stones
Re: The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
Starr
()
Date: June 20, 2013 23:37
Defo no Stones without MJ...
Much as I luv Mick Taylor's contributions on albums and "live" in the late 60s and 1970s... I have to say that I was at 02 London last November and it was sad to hear MT was not a patch on what he was playing like in the 70s when he was just brilliant - I wish him the best and thank him for great input but he doesn't seem to play as well now... to be fair, he only played on the one track at 02 but it was honestly, to me, a little disappointing and certainly his playing was nowhere near as great as in the past for some reason...
having said that, we should not be complaining about anything, every concert is an absolute bonus and this is only a mild observation...
"till the next time..."
Star
Much as I luv Mick Taylor's contributions on albums and "live" in the late 60s and 1970s... I have to say that I was at 02 London last November and it was sad to hear MT was not a patch on what he was playing like in the 70s when he was just brilliant - I wish him the best and thank him for great input but he doesn't seem to play as well now... to be fair, he only played on the one track at 02 but it was honestly, to me, a little disappointing and certainly his playing was nowhere near as great as in the past for some reason...
having said that, we should not be complaining about anything, every concert is an absolute bonus and this is only a mild observation...
"till the next time..."
Star
Re: The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
seitan
()
Date: June 20, 2013 23:45
Quote
sonomastone
Jagger haters? I don't think I've met anyone on this board who is a Jagger hater.
There are no stones without Mick J or Keith R. Surely any Stones fan realizes that.
Yeah, I agree. I dont like Micks solo recordings. The same goes for Wyman or Mick Taylor - Mick Jagger's solo albums are awful - but The Rolling Stones need him, He's a great front man, lyricist and manager for the band, In terms of money, Mick's been holding things together for years and that's truly important for the survival of the band. There's no hatred.There are no Stones without Mick J or Keith R or Charlie W -and I would surely miss Ronnie too...and I do miss Wyman.
Re: The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: June 20, 2013 23:50
Quote
seitanQuote
sonomastone
Jagger haters? I don't think I've met anyone on this board who is a Jagger hater.
There are no stones without Mick J or Keith R. Surely any Stones fan realizes that.
Yeah, I agree. I dont like Micks solo recordings. The same goes for Wyman or Mick Taylor - Mick Jagger's solo albums are awful - but The Rolling Stones need him, He's a great front man, lyricist and manager for the band, In terms of money, Mick's been holding things together for years and that's truly important for the survival of the band. There's no hatred.There are no Stones without Mick J or Keith R or Charlie W -and I would surely miss Ronnie too...and I do miss Wyman.
Mick Jagger needs the Stones just as much as vice versa.
Re: The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
TeddyB1018
()
Date: June 20, 2013 23:55
The definitive frontman. Great singer. Smart. Very musical. Wrote great lyrics in their heyday. Slightly embarrassed since the 70's that he made his fortune in a déclassé fashion, which is one contributing factor to an inevitable artistic decline of the group, but only one, and understandable considering how weird it is to be Mick. Killing it on this tour, which is great to see.
Re: The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
mickschix
()
Date: June 21, 2013 00:08
What exactly does that MEAN...in a classless fashion?? And what exactly is that? He made his money in music, through his film company, in investments certainly....what is wrong with that?
Re: The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
seitan
()
Date: June 21, 2013 00:49
Quote
MisterDDDD
The Rolling Stones could survive and thrive without any member BUT Mick Jagger.
Truth.
If, gawd forbid, any of the other three would have passed or chose to leave a decade ago or better, the band would have likely continued and thrived.
They would have never been forgotten, and the replacement, depending on the person, would have had a tough act to follow, but I don't for a second believe that
The Rolling Stones would have ended.They would have continued and successfully so.
This close to the end though now, it's doubtful there would be any effort to keep it going if we lost one.
Rubbish !!! Absolute crap and rubbish !!!
Without Keith Richards - jagger wouldnt have good songs to sing, he needs Keith's songwriting, you can listen to Micks awful Superheavy album - and hear that there's not one song worth hearing. It would never be the Stones with Micks songs - it would sound like crap. And Without Charlie - the band would never sound like The Stones. Keef, Ronnie and Charlie need Mick to count the Stones money and jump around on stage in neon colour yellow pants pointing his fingers in the air. But Mick needs Charlie and Keith and Ronnie for musicial reasons, Mick needs Keith's songs.
Re: The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: June 21, 2013 00:50
The Rolling Stones, especially Jagger, are masters in blowing up things
Friggin' gang of musical terrorists if ya ask me .... KABOOOM!!!!!!!!!!
ROCKMAN
Friggin' gang of musical terrorists if ya ask me .... KABOOOM!!!!!!!!!!
ROCKMAN
Re: The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
MisterDDDD
()
Date: June 21, 2013 01:07
Quote
seitan
it going if we lost one.
Rubbish !!! Absolute crap and rubbish !!!
Without Keith Richards - jagger wouldnt have good songs to sing, he needs Keith's songwriting, you can listen to Micks awful Superheavy album - and hear that there's not one song worth hearing. It would never be the Stones with Micks songs - it would sound like crap. And Without Charlie - the band would never sound like The Stones. Keef, Ronnie and Charlie need Mick to count the Stones money and jump around on stage in neon colour yellow pants pointing his fingers in the air. But Mick needs Charlie and Keith and Ronnie for musicial reasons, Mick needs Keith's songs.[/quote]
The topic was put forth in real time, not back when they wrote most of their masterpieces together. If you want to go back to the beginning and take any
of them out of the band and wonder whether it would survive and flourish, I
would (arguably) agree that you couldn't take Keith out of the equation and expect similar results.
But.. as the musing was posed..can the same be said about today's Rolling Stones?
I accurately stated that this close to the end, they likely ouldn't put forth the effort, but back the decision up a decade or two, and ANY of them, BUT Mick Jagger
could have been competently and successfully replaced.
Re: The Rolling Stones Without Mick Jagger
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: June 21, 2013 01:10
No Stones without Keith.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Andrew , crholmstrom , daniel t , franzk , keithglimmer , MrEcho , P@py , poti , rastakeith , roryg , Sir Mick , spiderman , spidey39 , spunky , StonyRoad , Topi , woodyrichards
Guests:
2009
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10