Tell Me :
Talk
+ two.
Im sorry but he wasnt cool in 1989 or after except for some brief moments. He could play a good guitar from time to time like in 1989 1992 or 1997 but when he left the Anita/smack phase in 1980 he lost the image. Not over night though. 1989 with the bandana and the painted pants, kicks and all that was not cool.
I think you are confusing autobiographies with biographies here.
Go on and read Steven Tyler's autobio, then
Very good!
Yep!
Terrible!
LOL!
And now.. A picture of Dreamer from 1997...
He still can
I suspect this is an area where board members have to agree to disagree
The point I was trying to make was that even at his worst, Keith could sometimes produce some wonderful things - and that's kind of cool !
We are on a first name basis here
Anyway, would love for you to set us all straight about this band (and the man)...
Broke up in 86/87. Imposters ever since.
Dear Mr. Joe,
could you make it easier for us and just tell us which years Mick, Keith, Brian, Bill and Charlie were cool and not cool, and which Rolling Stones books are good or not? Then we won't have to guess or - worse - risk your thinking we don't have a clue.
When you're done, just click the "Preview" button underneath your message, no need to use that pesky "post message" button, it's overrated.
What are you talking about?
No kidding.
the rolling stones arent a "corporation" any more than any other band,they do the exact same shit.
they sell records,concert tickets,t-shirts and other crap with their logo on it.also they allow their songs to be used for advertising,just like the who,the beatles,the eagles,bob dylan and a hundred other bands.
its the stones however who have a section of their fanbase who seem to want to show the other fans how clever they are with-"well you see,you guys dont get it,its not a band anymore,its all corporate dude.i know this stuff..i was in the business[being the one who changed the mcdonalds sign to the daily burger special is usually "being in advertising"]
we see this same post a few times a month-in this rolling stones "corporation" apparently they sat down[in a boardroom of course] and decided"hey i know what we'll do,lets pretend we're fighting-i'll insult everything about you and you do the same." we'll stop hanging out unless we're working and not see each other for sometimes a couple of years at a stretch.lets stop writing songs together too-just to make it more believable.that way when we put out 5 records in 30 years everyone will buy into this fake fight big time"
" it will give us headlines around the world!! or at least a small paragraph in page 7 of mojo"
yep,they've fooled us all...
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: The Keith Richards image
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: April 8, 2014 14:01
<I thought "life" was an excellent book, one of the few rock-n-roll autobiographies where the subject spent more time talking about music than sexual conquests or lifestyles of the rich and famous.>
Finally, some reason - thanks!
Finally, some reason - thanks!
Re: The Keith Richards image
Posted by:
latebloomer
()
Date: April 8, 2014 14:10
Quote
DandelionPowderman
<I thought "life" was an excellent book, one of the few rock-n-roll autobiographies where the subject spent more time talking about music than sexual conquests or lifestyles of the rich and famous.>
Finally, some reason - thanks!
+ two.
Re: The Keith Richards image
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: April 8, 2014 14:27
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Just a little reminder. This is Keith in 1989 - both cool and on top of his game:
Im sorry but he wasnt cool in 1989 or after except for some brief moments. He could play a good guitar from time to time like in 1989 1992 or 1997 but when he left the Anita/smack phase in 1980 he lost the image. Not over night though. 1989 with the bandana and the painted pants, kicks and all that was not cool.
Re: The Keith Richards image
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: April 8, 2014 14:32
Yes it was
And there's a huge difference between his playing in 1989 and in 1997.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-08 14:32 by DandelionPowderman.
And there's a huge difference between his playing in 1989 and in 1997.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-08 14:32 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: The Keith Richards image
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: April 8, 2014 14:32
Quote
DandelionPowderman
<I thought "life" was an excellent book, one of the few rock-n-roll autobiographies where the subject spent more time talking about music than sexual conquests or lifestyles of the rich and famous.>
Finally, some reason - thanks!
I think you are confusing autobiographies with biographies here.
Re: The Keith Richards image
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: April 8, 2014 14:35
Quote
StoneageQuote
DandelionPowderman
<I thought "life" was an excellent book, one of the few rock-n-roll autobiographies where the subject spent more time talking about music than sexual conquests or lifestyles of the rich and famous.>
Finally, some reason - thanks!
I think you are confusing autobiographies with biographies here.
Go on and read Steven Tyler's autobio, then
Re: The Keith Richards image
Posted by:
Dreamer
()
Date: April 8, 2014 14:37
Quote
lem motlowQuote
Stoneage
I have always had the notion that Keith was the one wanting to keep the band together while Mick was looking for opportunities to make it on his own. And that that was the source for the animosity and separation.
alot of people "have that notion"-because keith told them for years that was the case every chance he had.
its not the army-if jagger wanted to leave he wouldve just left.anyone who thinks mick couldnt find better guitar players to recreate the stones music than ron wood and keith richards is living in a fantasy world.
he kept the band sounding good in spite of them by covering it up with horns,keyboards and back-up singers.
could you imagine those two carrying a stadium show with just their guitars?
the stones are jaggers baby-he plans the tours,works out the logistics,works out the bands fee,and with charlie helps design the bands stages with the production company and even approves the style and design of the t-shirts.
he never said he was leaving the stones and never planned to,there are plenty of interviews of him over the years saying that the only reason he did solo records was because he had songs that wouldnt work with the stones.
thats why its such a cheap shot to go after jaggers solo stuff-he did it with one hand tied behind his back.he put everything he knew aside[the stones stuff]and went in a complete other direction. the one time he even made it close to stonesy we got wandering spirit.
maybe if mick jagger wouldve acted like a fool and said he was gonna stab keith for the new barbarians tour and accuse him of "trying to leave the stones to go solo" the fans wouldve thought he was the hardcore heart and soul of the band.
Very good!
Re: The Keith Richards image
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: April 8, 2014 14:47
He's still out there rocking, he is 70! Who would have believed this three years ago? Credit where credit's due as well, imo.
Re: The Keith Richards image
Posted by:
nightskyman
()
Date: April 8, 2014 16:09
Quote
DandelionPowderman
He's still out there rocking, he is 70! Who would have believed this three years ago? Credit where credit's due as well, imo.
Yep!
Re: The Keith Richards image
Posted by:
rogerriffin
()
Date: April 8, 2014 16:26
this was not too bad...
Re: The Keith Richards image
Posted by:
EJM
()
Date: April 8, 2014 16:38
The truth is, Keith could always unexpectedly pull stuff out of the bag even in his worst periods -just for some years it was pretty infrequently ! it's all part of stones concerts. If you happen to be there when keith is "on" it's still splendid .
Re: The Keith Richards image
Posted by:
Dreamer
()
Date: April 8, 2014 16:39
Quote
rogerriffin
this was not too bad...
Terrible!
Re: The Keith Richards image
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: April 8, 2014 17:22
Quote
DreamerQuote
rogerriffin
this was not too bad...
Terrible!
LOL!
And now.. A picture of Dreamer from 1997...
Re: The Keith Richards image
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: April 8, 2014 17:25
Quote
EJM
The truth is, Keith could always unexpectedly pull stuff out of the bag even in his worst periods -just for some years it was pretty infrequently ! it's all part of stones concerts. If you happen to be there when keith is "on" it's still splendid .
He still can
Re: The Keith Richards image
Posted by:
vertigojoe
()
Date: April 8, 2014 18:05
Dear Mr Powderman,
I know you're on here all the time and probably think of yourself as a bit of an expert but if you think he was still cool in 89 and that Life is a great book then you really don't have a clue about the band and the man. Sorry.
I know you're on here all the time and probably think of yourself as a bit of an expert but if you think he was still cool in 89 and that Life is a great book then you really don't have a clue about the band and the man. Sorry.
Re: The Keith Richards image
Posted by:
EJM
()
Date: April 8, 2014 18:09
Quote
vertigojoe
Dear Mr Powderman,
I know you're on here all the time and probably think of yourself as a bit of an expert but if you think he was still cool in 89 and that Life is a great book then you really don't have a clue about the band and the man. Sorry.
I suspect this is an area where board members have to agree to disagree
The point I was trying to make was that even at his worst, Keith could sometimes produce some wonderful things - and that's kind of cool !
Re: The Keith Richards image
Posted by:
mgguy
()
Date: April 8, 2014 18:11
WOW
no place like a Rolling Stones fan club.
no place like a Rolling Stones fan club.
Re: The Keith Richards image
Posted by:
2000 LYFH
()
Date: April 8, 2014 18:12
Quote
vertigojoe
Dear Mr Powderman,
I know you're on here all the time and probably think of yourself as a bit of an expert but if you think he was still cool in 89 and that Life is a great book then you really don't have a clue about the band and the man. Sorry.
We are on a first name basis here
Anyway, would love for you to set us all straight about this band (and the man)...Re: The Keith Richards image
Posted by:
vertigojoe
()
Date: April 8, 2014 18:20
Quote
2000 LYFHQuote
vertigojoe
Dear Mr Powderman,
I know you're on here all the time and probably think of yourself as a bit of an expert but if you think he was still cool in 89 and that Life is a great book then you really don't have a clue about the band and the man. Sorry.
We are on a first name basis here
Broke up in 86/87. Imposters ever since.
Re: The Keith Richards image
Posted by:
EJM
()
Date: April 8, 2014 18:22
Please fight nicely or this interesting thread will be closed !
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-08 18:23 by EJM.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-08 18:23 by EJM.
Re: The Keith Richards image
Posted by:
sonomastone
()
Date: April 8, 2014 18:23
Quote
vertigojoe
Dear Mr Powderman,
I know you're on here all the time and probably think of yourself as a bit of an expert but if you think he was still cool in 89 and that Life is a great book then you really don't have a clue about the band and the man. Sorry.
Dear Mr. Joe,
could you make it easier for us and just tell us which years Mick, Keith, Brian, Bill and Charlie were cool and not cool, and which Rolling Stones books are good or not? Then we won't have to guess or - worse - risk your thinking we don't have a clue.
When you're done, just click the "Preview" button underneath your message, no need to use that pesky "post message" button, it's overrated.
Re: The Keith Richards image
Posted by:
vertigojoe
()
Date: April 8, 2014 18:23
I love the Stones as much as anyone. Which is why I hate to see them dragging their name through the dirt.
Re: The Keith Richards image
Posted by:
moonlightaffair
()
Date: April 8, 2014 18:33
Charlie has always been cool.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-08 18:50 by moonlightaffair.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-08 18:50 by moonlightaffair.
Re: The Keith Richards image
Posted by:
MartinB
()
Date: April 8, 2014 18:35
Imposters or not, I have not yet heard anybody else who can (at least occasionally) play the way they do.
Re: The Keith Richards image
Posted by:
runaway
()
Date: April 8, 2014 18:46
Quote
vertigojoe
I love the Stones as much as anyone. Which is why I hate to see them dragging their name through the dirt.
What are you talking about?
Re: The Keith Richards image
Posted by:
negol
()
Date: April 8, 2014 21:30
'
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-09 02:09 by negol.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-09 02:09 by negol.
Re: The Keith Richards image
Posted by:
Dreamer
()
Date: April 8, 2014 23:14
He and/or his image became "not cool" on an average basis when his outfit started to look as ridiculous as he started talking; that more or less happened at the same time. With some exceptions of course once in a while in various places, stages, settings and interviews (like touring is something else in behaviour as he does in a studio).
And constantly criticising MJ for practically everything is image wise and KR wise already close to a pathological habit but for Keith instead of Mick having a fashion contract is sort of a betrayal to his former 'image' and what it (and he) stood for. I know he can't look the same as in 1969 or 1979 but he can dress more tasteful. Especially the on stage colours don't make him look rock and roll at all.
And constantly criticising MJ for practically everything is image wise and KR wise already close to a pathological habit but for Keith instead of Mick having a fashion contract is sort of a betrayal to his former 'image' and what it (and he) stood for. I know he can't look the same as in 1969 or 1979 but he can dress more tasteful. Especially the on stage colours don't make him look rock and roll at all.
Re: The Keith Richards image
Posted by:
Aquamarine
()
Date: April 8, 2014 23:16
Quote
mgguy
WOW
no place like a Rolling Stones fan club.
No kidding.
Re: The Keith Richards image
Posted by:
EJM
()
Date: April 9, 2014 00:44
If he'd just get rid if that wretched blue jacket ......
Re: The Keith Richards image
Posted by:
lem motlow
()
Date: April 9, 2014 01:30
Quote
sonomastone
it's amazing how seriously people take the mick/keith thing when to anyone who knows anything about marketing, their "feud" is clearly a PR strategy more than anything else.
what is the one sure fire thing that will get rolling stones headlines around the world? another mick/keith fight.
their feud has kept the band in the news for the past 20 years. it's a PR strategy. the rolling stones are a corporation in the business of making a profit.
i thought "life" was an excellent book, one of the few rock-n-roll autobiographies where the subject spent more time talking about music than sexual conquests or lifestyles of the rich and famous.
the rolling stones arent a "corporation" any more than any other band,they do the exact same shit.
they sell records,concert tickets,t-shirts and other crap with their logo on it.also they allow their songs to be used for advertising,just like the who,the beatles,the eagles,bob dylan and a hundred other bands.
its the stones however who have a section of their fanbase who seem to want to show the other fans how clever they are with-"well you see,you guys dont get it,its not a band anymore,its all corporate dude.i know this stuff..i was in the business[being the one who changed the mcdonalds sign to the daily burger special is usually "being in advertising"]
we see this same post a few times a month-in this rolling stones "corporation" apparently they sat down[in a boardroom of course] and decided"hey i know what we'll do,lets pretend we're fighting-i'll insult everything about you and you do the same." we'll stop hanging out unless we're working and not see each other for sometimes a couple of years at a stretch.lets stop writing songs together too-just to make it more believable.that way when we put out 5 records in 30 years everyone will buy into this fake fight big time"
" it will give us headlines around the world!! or at least a small paragraph in page 7 of mojo"
yep,they've fooled us all...
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
AGhostTown , Boett , ChrisL , crholmstrom , cyclist , Dan , EddieByword , Idorh , jahisnotdead , keefmick , Quique-stone , resotele , spidey39 , spunky , stonesrick , Tate , tiffanyblu , UGK56 , willprefecture
Guests:
2178
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10