Jack White is one of the most explosive original writers, producers and performers to come along iLoretta Lynn or Wandan a long time. Sure he is steeped in the Blues; so there is that slight recognition factor, that makes some say "oh I've heard this before'. But IMO this is a plus; one of bis assets - that he is rooted in R&B. Like Aquamarine said: his newer shows are insane. (I do think when a guitarist/ frontman has started out playing the drums it makes for a real strong etxra push).
Since others raised topic of "It Might Get Loud", I don't see JW 'exosed' in any way. Sure, he is one, two generations younger than the other two, but...He held his own, and showed appropriate humility. It is the Edge who really came off looking kind of lame.

The idea of JW producing the Stones I think is not a good one. It's simply not realistic and true. The age difference is too big. There is a difference between Loretta Lynn or Wanda Jackson and the Stones, the Stones are a working band, and know how to produce themselves. To bring on JW will always come off as a bit too desperate IMO.

Quote
RoyalPurpleStones

Quote
24FPS
I would say it shouldn't be too hard to dethrone them at this point, but that just shows how lame the competition is. At this point if the Stones were on one side of the street and Jack White was playing on the other, I'd go to the Jack White concert. But there doesn't seem to be a dynamic, hard charging rock and roll group out there now, mostly just bored looking college guys in flannel shirts without that Cobain junkie cool.

But would you spend more time on a Jack White chat forum? Assuming one exists.

No...but I'll be going to the show in August!

Quote
RomanCandle

Quote
ROPS
'The Greatest Rock N Roll Band IIn The World'???
From 69 to 73 yeah,nowdays not even in the top ten,at this time just a nostalgia trip.....

the Stones are BORING.

Boring setlists
Boring performances
They didn't release any good album since Goats Head Soup

They're not creative AT ALL. So why would you call them "The Greatest Rock N Roll Band In The World"?

Just wondering how it's possible that you're even posting on a board dedicated to a band you've found so insufferable in the last 40 years.

What the hell does that say about you?

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
RomanCandle

Quote
ROPS
'The Greatest Rock N Roll Band IIn The World'???
From 69 to 73 yeah,nowdays not even in the top ten,at this time just a nostalgia trip.....

the Stones are BORING.

Boring setlists
Boring performances
They didn't release any good album since Goats Head Soup

They're not creative AT ALL. So why would you call them "The Greatest Rock N Roll Band In The World"?

Just wondering how it's possible that you're even posting on a board dedicated to a band you've found so insufferable in the last 40 years.

What the hell does that say about you?

I think he is just trying to light our candles!

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
RoyalPurpleStones

Quote
24FPS
I would say it shouldn't be too hard to dethrone them at this point, but that just shows how lame the competition is. At this point if the Stones were on one side of the street and Jack White was playing on the other, I'd go to the Jack White concert. But there doesn't seem to be a dynamic, hard charging rock and roll group out there now, mostly just bored looking college guys in flannel shirts without that Cobain junkie cool.

But would you spend more time on a Jack White chat forum? Assuming one exists.

No...but I'll be going to the show in August!

Which one, treacle? I've got some lined up then, too! Minds will be blown.

Quote
Aquamarine

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
RoyalPurpleStones

Quote
24FPS
I would say it shouldn't be too hard to dethrone them at this point, but that just shows how lame the competition is. At this point if the Stones were on one side of the street and Jack White was playing on the other, I'd go to the Jack White concert. But there doesn't seem to be a dynamic, hard charging rock and roll group out there now, mostly just bored looking college guys in flannel shirts without that Cobain junkie cool.

But would you spend more time on a Jack White chat forum? Assuming one exists.

No...but I'll be going to the show in August!

Which one, treacle? I've got some lined up then, too! Minds will be blown.

Burnaby, Deer Lake! I think it's the 28th.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Aquamarine

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
RoyalPurpleStones

Quote
24FPS
I would say it shouldn't be too hard to dethrone them at this point, but that just shows how lame the competition is. At this point if the Stones were on one side of the street and Jack White was playing on the other, I'd go to the Jack White concert. But there doesn't seem to be a dynamic, hard charging rock and roll group out there now, mostly just bored looking college guys in flannel shirts without that Cobain junkie cool.

But would you spend more time on a Jack White chat forum? Assuming one exists.

No...but I'll be going to the show in August!

Which one, treacle? I've got some lined up then, too! Minds will be blown.

Burnaby, Deer Lake! I think it's the 28th.

Ah, was very tempted but won't be at that one--between us we should have most of August covered, though.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
RomanCandle

Quote
ROPS
'The Greatest Rock N Roll Band IIn The World'???
From 69 to 73 yeah,nowdays not even in the top ten,at this time just a nostalgia trip.....

the Stones are BORING.

Boring setlists
Boring performances
They didn't release any good album since Goats Head Soup

They're not creative AT ALL. So why would you call them "The Greatest Rock N Roll Band In The World"?

Just wondering how it's possible that you're even posting on a board dedicated to a band you've found so insufferable in the last 40 years.

I didn't say "insufferable", I said BORING.
In the last 40 years, they wrote some great songs, but please, don't tell me that they are still "The Greatest Rock N'Roll Band In The World" : most of their recent songs are tasteless.


"Just wondering how it's possible that you're even posting on a board dedicated to a band you've found so insufferable in the last 40 years."

So if you like the Stones but think their last decent album ("ALBUM" not "SONG"!) is Goats Head Soup, you're not allowed to post on this board? Nice



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-19 18:45 by RomanCandle.

Quote
RomanCandle

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
RomanCandle

Quote
ROPS
'The Greatest Rock N Roll Band IIn The World'???
From 69 to 73 yeah,nowdays not even in the top ten,at this time just a nostalgia trip.....

the Stones are BORING.

Boring setlists
Boring performances
They didn't release any good album since Goats Head Soup

They're not creative AT ALL. So why would you call them "The Greatest Rock N Roll Band In The World"?

Just wondering how it's possible that you're even posting on a board dedicated to a band you've found so insufferable in the last 40 years.

I didn't say "insufferable", I said BORING.
In the last 40 years, they wrote some great songs, but please, don't tell me that they are still "The Greatest Rock N'Roll Band In The World" : most of their recent songs are tasteless.


"Just wondering how it's possible that you're even posting on a board dedicated to a band you've found so insufferable in the last 40 years."

So if you like the Stones but think their last decent album ("ALBUM" not "SONG"!) is Goats Head Soup, you're not allowed to post on this board? Nice

I hear where you are coming from. They may (arguably) not be the current greatest rock'n roll band in the world, but what they are (arguably) is The Greatest Rock 'N Roll Band Of All Time that still puts on The Greatest Show On Earth. How is that for a compromise?

Quote
RomanCandle

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
RomanCandle

Quote
ROPS
'The Greatest Rock N Roll Band IIn The World'???
From 69 to 73 yeah,nowdays not even in the top ten,at this time just a nostalgia trip.....

the Stones are BORING.

Boring setlists
Boring performances
They didn't release any good album since Goats Head Soup

They're not creative AT ALL. So why would you call them "The Greatest Rock N Roll Band In The World"?

Just wondering how it's possible that you're even posting on a board dedicated to a band you've found so insufferable in the last 40 years.

I didn't say "insufferable", I said BORING.
In the last 40 years, they wrote some great songs, but please, don't tell me that they are still "The Greatest Rock N'Roll Band In The World" : most of their recent songs are tasteless.


"Just wondering how it's possible that you're even posting on a board dedicated to a band you've found so insufferable in the last 40 years."

So if you like the Stones but think their last decent album ("ALBUM" not "SONG"!) is Goats Head Soup, you're not allowed to post on this board? Nice

Sorry but you've misinterpreted my meaning...not that you can't post, or even shouldn't post...but why you would bother if your interest level is so low for their output in the last 40 years.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
RomanCandle

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
RomanCandle

Quote
ROPS
'The Greatest Rock N Roll Band IIn The World'???
From 69 to 73 yeah,nowdays not even in the top ten,at this time just a nostalgia trip.....

the Stones are BORING.

Boring setlists
Boring performances
They didn't release any good album since Goats Head Soup

They're not creative AT ALL. So why would you call them "The Greatest Rock N Roll Band In The World"?

Just wondering how it's possible that you're even posting on a board dedicated to a band you've found so insufferable in the last 40 years.

I didn't say "insufferable", I said BORING.
In the last 40 years, they wrote some great songs, but please, don't tell me that they are still "The Greatest Rock N'Roll Band In The World" : most of their recent songs are tasteless.


"Just wondering how it's possible that you're even posting on a board dedicated to a band you've found so insufferable in the last 40 years."

So if you like the Stones but think their last decent album ("ALBUM" not "SONG"!) is Goats Head Soup, you're not allowed to post on this board? Nice

Sorry but you've misinterpreted my meaning...not that you can't post, or even shouldn't post...but why you would bother if your interest level is so low for their output in the last 40 years.

My limited experience here tells me that there are some here who were actually once fans of the band, but (by definition) no longer are. The definition of the word "fan" implies a certain amount of enthusiasm and devotion for said subject. When you have little or no enthusiasm or devotion for something chances are you are not a fan of it. Many here who think they are still fans are (in reality) really not by definition. Not judging this poster (only he/she truly know for sure) but a lack of enthusiasm is definitely a red flag.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
RomanCandle

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
RomanCandle

Quote
ROPS
'The Greatest Rock N Roll Band IIn The World'???
From 69 to 73 yeah,nowdays not even in the top ten,at this time just a nostalgia trip.....

the Stones are BORING.

Boring setlists
Boring performances
They didn't release any good album since Goats Head Soup

They're not creative AT ALL. So why would you call them "The Greatest Rock N Roll Band In The World"?

Just wondering how it's possible that you're even posting on a board dedicated to a band you've found so insufferable in the last 40 years.

I didn't say "insufferable", I said BORING.
In the last 40 years, they wrote some great songs, but please, don't tell me that they are still "The Greatest Rock N'Roll Band In The World" : most of their recent songs are tasteless.


"Just wondering how it's possible that you're even posting on a board dedicated to a band you've found so insufferable in the last 40 years."

So if you like the Stones but think their last decent album ("ALBUM" not "SONG"!) is Goats Head Soup, you're not allowed to post on this board? Nice

Sorry but you've misinterpreted my meaning...not that you can't post, or even shouldn't post...but why you would bother if your interest level is so low for their output in the last 40 years.

Because, even if complaining about those things won't change anything, I am truly disappointed by the Stones.
They have a HUGE discography, with MASTERPIECES like Beggars Banquet and Exile (the Stones are not Wagner but we're talking about rock music and as a rock band they were incredible) but on stage, they play the same boring songs all the time. (Are "Tumbling dice" and "Rocks off" the greatest songs of "Exile on Main Street"?)

Are they THAT lazy? Or they're just not able to play songs like Sweet Virginia or Ventilator Blues because they're too old?
Maybe Jagger thinks the crowd is too stupid to enjoy a show without knowing all the songs, or Keith forgot all the beautiful songs the Stones wrote in the past. He probably doesn't care anymore.

A song like "Doom and Gloom" is not bad, but many bands could write something like that. Of course if you compare this song with all the crap songs of "Undercover" it will sound good.

That shows a lack of respect to fans. They seem to think that they are soooooo great that fans should pay a lot of money (yes the tickets are still EXPENSIVE for a "rock band" that don't create anything new for artistic purposes) to see their show.

I don't know if they are the greatest rock band in the world, but I know that they are the most megalomaniac rock band in the world. (Not Ronnie and Charlie, I talk about Jagger/Richards.)

Oh, yes, Jagger still have a "great" sense of humor. He is sooooo nice to his fans. And look at Richards during his set, he is very touching! Who wants to see Jagger talk between songs to satisfy the crowd? He's not even able to perform without sounding like a robot. He is wasting his intelligence.

This year, the main questions were:

-Will Richards be able to play during the next show? (as if it was normal for a band like the Stones to mess up a lot of songs)
-Why are the setlists boring?
-Why don't they bring Taylor for more songs?

Of course we can talk about "how touching was the complicity between the Stones", about the crowd, about the distance between MT and MJ...

We can also say "wow, more than 70 years old and still great" but is it truly an argument?

I don't care if my post sounds boring but again: I really think that for Mick Taylor, this tour is the Ultimate Humiliation.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-19 22:26 by RomanCandle.

Quote
RomanCandle

Because, even if complaining about those things won't change anything, I am truly disappointed by the Stones.
They have a HUGE discography, with MASTERPIECES like Beggars Banquet and Exile (the Stones are not Wagner but we're talking about rock music and as a rock band they were incredible) but on stage, they play the same boring songs all the time. (Are "Tumbling dice" and "Rocks off" the greatest songs of "Exile on Main Street"?)

Are they THAT lazy? Or they're just not able to play songs like Sweet Virginia or Ventilator Blues because they're too old?
Maybe Jagger thinks the crowd is too stupid to enjoy a show without knowing all the songs, or Keith forgot all the beautiful songs the Stones wrote in the past. He probably doesn't care anymore.

A song like "Doom and Gloom" is not bad, but many bands could write something like that. Of course if you compare this song with all the crap songs of "Undercover" it will sound good.

That shows a lack of respect to fans. They seem to think that they are soooooo great that fans should pay a lot of money (yes the tickets are still EXPENSIVE for a "rock band" that don't create anything new for artistic purposes) to see their show.

I don't know if they are the greatest rock band in the world, but I know that they are the most megalomaniac rock band in the world. (Not Ronnie and Charlie, I talk about Jagger/Richards.)

Oh, yes, Jagger still have a "great" sense of humor. He is sooooo nice to his fans. And look at Richards during his set, he is very touching! Who wants to see Jagger talk between songs to satisfy the crowd? He's not even able to perform without sounding like a robot. He is wasting his intelligence.

This year, the main questions were:

-Will Richards be able to play during the next show? (as if it was normal for a band like the Stones to mess up a lot of songs)
-Why are the setlists boring?
-Why don't they bring Taylor for more songs?

Of course we can talk about "how touching was the complicity between the Stones", about the crowd, about the distance between MT and MJ...

We can also say "wow, more than 70 years old and still great" but is it truly an argument?

I don't care if my post sounds boring but again: I really think that for Mick Taylor, this tour is the Ultimate Humiliation.

OK, I see you're still quite passionate, so we'll call you a fan. But honestly after 40 years of continued disappointment, I'd say it was time to move on. They are totally frustrating you and you can't do anything about it, so why bother putting yourself through that?

I've got my complaints, lack of MT on tour, dearth of new material, but on balance I think the shows are excellent, we've gotten a ton of new (archived) material over the last few years, and after 50 plus years and all but Ronnie being over 70....I mean, you can ask for more but is that even remotely realistic?

They aren't going to suddenly switch gears...it's working well for them as is, and not enough people want the changes you're asking for.

So relax and enjoy if you can, or find a band that doesn't frustrate you...and cheers!

Quote
24FPS

Quote
DoomandGloom

Quote
Thrylan

Quote
RoyalPurpleStones

Quote
Thrylan
Jack White, Jack White, Jack White.......... I like him, he's creative, kind of, and he's pretty ordinary. I don't get all the love here.....I don't think he's our production answer, as was stated in another thread. Befuddling....

I don't know. Seems many think he is the answer. I say give the kid a shot.

How about Doyle Bramhall II? He would push them, I think Jack would try to remake Exile.

All the money in the world can't make Jack White the influential artists he thinks he is. Yes there's been some good low-fi stuff from him but he's done. White has tried to pose with every classic rock star but when he stood beside Jimmy Page and The Edge holding a guitar, well let's just say the emperor is wearing no clothes.

Ah, different ears. I heard Doyle Bramhall on the 2013 Eric Clapton Guitar DVD things he does every year. After a minute I fast forwarded to the next guitarist. Different ears again. I watched Jack White with Jimmy Page & The Edge and I felt bad for The Edge. I thought he was exposed as a special effects technician, more than a true bad ass guitarist like Page & White.

Different ears are what make some people say 'Keith is On Fire' on this tour, and others say, really? On Fire? Better than ever? Really?

True.....different ears. I agree that in 2013, Doyle seemed bored- but either would bring drive and energy.

I generally agree with your analysis, and appreciate your willingness to allow my differing opinion........to most disagreeing means you're stupid. I also enjoy knowing there are a few others who can love the Stones, AND admit that we are getting now is at times hard to swallow; It doesn't make me less of a fan, it makes me a realist.

Quote
Crazyhorse
Am I biased? Yes, maybe? How @#$%& fantastic is it to enjoy seeing the Stones play live? If you get the chance don't miss it.
Mick Jagger is performing with great strength & vigour. Superlatives for him run out. Keith, Charlie, Ronnie all smiles and playing wonderfully, if there is a bum note here or there - applaud it! And how refreshing is it to see teenagers and folks in there early twenties so enthuastic and sleeping out the night before to be FOS to see their favourite band?
We all have our favourite songs and critique album tracks and suggest what the Stones should play live...I'd love to hear Fingerprint File whilst Mick Taylor is performing with the Stones (unlikely absolutely I know), Memory Motel, etc.

Keith could play Wanna Hold You or Little T & A as much as I love to hear him do You Got The Silver or Can't Be Seen. If you have been a fan for many years & fortunate enough to see them live you will have heard Can't Be Seen many times on the Urban Jungle tour excetera excetera.

I'm just trying to say raise a glass to the Rolling Stones for their longevity, wonderful showmanship and best of all songs of heart and soul. And to all us fans we are the Salt of the Earth

Are you born yesterday? Do we need this thread?

Quote
RomanCandle
Because, even if complaining about those things won't change anything, I am truly disappointed by the Stones.
They have a HUGE discography, with MASTERPIECES like Beggars Banquet and Exile (the Stones are not Wagner but we're talking about rock music and as a rock band they were incredible) but on stage, they play the same boring songs all the time. (Are "Tumbling dice" and "Rocks off" the greatest songs of "Exile on Main Street"?)

Are they THAT lazy? Or they're just not able to play songs like Sweet Virginia or Ventilator Blues because they're too old?
Maybe Jagger thinks the crowd is too stupid to enjoy a show without knowing all the songs, or Keith forgot all the beautiful songs the Stones wrote in the past. He probably doesn't care anymore.

A song like "Doom and Gloom" is not bad, but many bands could write something like that. Of course if you compare this song with all the crap songs of "Undercover" it will sound good.

That shows a lack of respect to fans. They seem to think that they are soooooo great that fans should pay a lot of money (yes the tickets are still EXPENSIVE for a "rock band" that don't create anything new for artistic purposes) to see their show.

I don't know if they are the greatest rock band in the world, but I know that they are the most megalomaniac rock band in the world. (Not Ronnie and Charlie, I talk about Jagger/Richards.)

Oh, yes, Jagger still have a "great" sense of humor. He is sooooo nice to his fans. And look at Richards during his set, he is very touching! Who wants to see Jagger talk between songs to satisfy the crowd? He's not even able to perform without sounding like a robot. He is wasting his intelligence.

This year, the main questions were:

-Will Richards be able to play during the next show? (as if it was normal for a band like the Stones to mess up a lot of songs)
-Why are the setlists boring?
-Why don't they bring Taylor for more songs?

Of course we can talk about "how touching was the complicity between the Stones", about the crowd, about the distance between MT and MJ...

We can also say "wow, more than 70 years old and still great" but is it truly an argument?

I don't care if my post sounds boring but again: I really think that for Mick Taylor, this tour is the Ultimate Humiliation.

+1 on all of this.

Quote
RomanCandle

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
RomanCandle

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
RomanCandle

Quote
ROPS
'The Greatest Rock N Roll Band IIn The World'???
From 69 to 73 yeah,nowdays not even in the top ten,at this time just a nostalgia trip.....

the Stones are BORING.

Boring setlists
Boring performances
They didn't release any good album since Goats Head Soup

They're not creative AT ALL. So why would you call them "The Greatest Rock N Roll Band In The World"?

Just wondering how it's possible that you're even posting on a board dedicated to a band you've found so insufferable in the last 40 years.

I didn't say "insufferable", I said BORING.
In the last 40 years, they wrote some great songs, but please, don't tell me that they are still "The Greatest Rock N'Roll Band In The World" : most of their recent songs are tasteless.


"Just wondering how it's possible that you're even posting on a board dedicated to a band you've found so insufferable in the last 40 years."

So if you like the Stones but think their last decent album ("ALBUM" not "SONG"!) is Goats Head Soup, you're not allowed to post on this board? Nice

Sorry but you've misinterpreted my meaning...not that you can't post, or even shouldn't post...but why you would bother if your interest level is so low for their output in the last 40 years.

Because, even if complaining about those things won't change anything, I am truly disappointed by the Stones.
They have a HUGE discography, with MASTERPIECES like Beggars Banquet and Exile (the Stones are not Wagner but we're talking about rock music and as a rock band they were incredible) but on stage, they play the same boring songs all the time. (Are "Tumbling dice" and "Rocks off" the greatest songs of "Exile on Main Street"?)

Are they THAT lazy? Or they're just not able to play songs like Sweet Virginia or Ventilator Blues because they're too old?
Maybe Jagger thinks the crowd is too stupid to enjoy a show without knowing all the songs, or Keith forgot all the beautiful songs the Stones wrote in the past. He probably doesn't care anymore.

A song like "Doom and Gloom" is not bad, but many bands could write something like that. Of course if you compare this song with all the crap songs of "Undercover" it will sound good.

That shows a lack of respect to fans. They seem to think that they are soooooo great that fans should pay a lot of money (yes the tickets are still EXPENSIVE for a "rock band" that don't create anything new for artistic purposes) to see their show.

I don't know if they are the greatest rock band in the world, but I know that they are the most megalomaniac rock band in the world. (Not Ronnie and Charlie, I talk about Jagger/Richards.)

Oh, yes, Jagger still have a "great" sense of humor. He is sooooo nice to his fans. And look at Richards during his set, he is very touching! Who wants to see Jagger talk between songs to satisfy the crowd? He's not even able to perform without sounding like a robot. He is wasting his intelligence.

This year, the main questions were:

-Will Richards be able to play during the next show? (as if it was normal for a band like the Stones to mess up a lot of songs)
-Why are the setlists boring?
-Why don't they bring Taylor for more songs?

Of course we can talk about "how touching was the complicity between the Stones", about the crowd, about the distance between MT and MJ...

We can also say "wow, more than 70 years old and still great" but is it truly an argument?

I don't care if my post sounds boring but again: I really think that for Mick Taylor, this tour is the Ultimate Humiliation.

Ultimate humiliation for Mick Taylor? More like the ultimate celebration OF Mick Taylor. He is given the spotlight on arguably the greatest song on the setlist (next to Out Of Control in my opinion)) to showcase his skills. He looks healthier than in years and has lost a considerable amount of weight. In short, he looks fantastic. Sure, many of us would like to see him re-instated as a full time member of the band, but let's not get greedy. It's a minor miracle that he is even up there at all. Hey, we went nearly 40 years in the wilderness without Mick Taylor. I am thrilled and extremely grateful that we have him back even if it's only for twenty minutes a show.

Quote
RoyalPurpleStones

Ultimate humiliation for Mick Taylor? More like the ultimate celebration OF Mick Taylor. He is given the spotlight on arguably the greatest song on the setlist (next to Out Of Control in my opinion)) to showcase his skills. He looks healthier than in years and has lost a considerable amount of weight. In short, he looks fantastic. Sure, many of us would like to see him re-instated as a full time member of the band, but let's not get greedy. It's a minor miracle that he is even up there at all. Hey, we went nearly 40 years in the wilderness without Mick Taylor. I am thrilled and extremely grateful that we have him back even if it's only for twenty minutes a show.

Hate to say it, but this, y'know, makes sense. Plus, the full-time-Stones-guitarist job is taken, for better or worse, after MT vacated it, and yet he's been welcomed by his replacement and they're all working together collegially when he's on-stage. They can't be expected to fire Ronnie or Keith so that MT can have his old job back, or make them play minor roles, so this seems like the best of all feasible scenarios. Better than no MT at all. I was beside myself with excitement when I heard he was going to play the first O2 show!

Who the @#$%&'s Jack White?

....the son of Mr & Mrs Gillis



ROCKMAN

For which may they be thanked in perpetuity.

perpetuity....geeeez Aqua I had ta look that one up ....


There are few actual perpetuities in existence



ROCKMAN

Quote
Rockman
perpetuity....geeeez Aqua I had ta look that one up ....


There are few actual perpetuities in existence

But death and taxes seem to be two of them. And the Stones.

Last night...it was Brad Paisley..tonight, who knows.

Quote
Aquamarine
They can't be expected to fire Ronnie or Keith so that MT can have his old job back, or make them play minor roles, so this seems like the best of all feasible scenarios. Better than no MT at all. I was beside myself with excitement when I heard he was going to play the first O2 show!

To be honest that would be a great idea. ><

Quote
RoyalPurpleStones
He is given the spotlight on arguably the greatest song on the setlist

Wow, that's so generous.

Quote
RoyalPurpleStones
I am thrilled and extremely grateful that we have him back even if it's only for twenty minutes a show.

Grateful? And why should we be grateful?
He plays on Midnight Rambler, great.

But let's face it, it's not "the ultimate celebration OF Mick Taylor", it's the ultimate celebration of Keith Richards. Taylor on MR is the highlight of the show but of course they won't let Keith Richards play a minor role and bring Taylor for more songs. It would be dangerous for the Diva Keith Richards.

Why Stones fans always want to be grateful?
I don't owe the Stones anything, thanks.

Er, Keith Richards is a rather important figure in the origin, development, identity, and popularity of the Rolling Stones over five decades, without whom there IS no Rolling Stones, period.

I feel like I personally owe the Stones decades of joy, but that's an individual thing. However much I spent on shows and records, they gave me more back in other ways, put it like that.

Quote
Aquamarine
Er, Keith Richards is a rather important figure in the origin, development, identity, and popularity of the Rolling Stones over five decades, without whom there IS no Rolling Stones, period.

I feel like I personally owe the Stones decades of joy, but that's an individual thing. However much I spent on shows and records, they gave me more back in other ways, put it like that.

So it's not about MUSIC, people want to see legends and that's all.

Quote
Aquamarine
Er, Keith Richards is a rather important figure in the origin, development, identity, and popularity of the Rolling Stones over five decades, without whom there IS no Rolling Stones, period.

I feel like I personally owe the Stones decades of joy, but that's an individual thing. However much I spent on shows and records, they gave me more back in other ways, put it like that.

Yes and people can say the same thing about Lady Gaga, Demi Lovato, Duran Duran or KISS.

Quote
RomanCandle

Quote
Aquamarine
Er, Keith Richards is a rather important figure in the origin, development, identity, and popularity of the Rolling Stones over five decades, without whom there IS no Rolling Stones, period.

I feel like I personally owe the Stones decades of joy, but that's an individual thing. However much I spent on shows and records, they gave me more back in other ways, put it like that.

Yes and people can say the same thing about Lady Gaga, Demi Lovato, Duran Duran or KISS.

Exactly. Music means different things to different people. Thank God.

Everything has its time. Rock and roll is soon to render the same faith as jazz or blues. A marginalized form of art music played for the very few.
If I turn on a radio station these days I hear very little rock and roll but, instead, very much computerized boy band- and hip hop music.