Quote
Stone601
Hope NO !!!

A 25-minute version of "Si si je suis un rockstar" with multiple MT solos, what's not to like?

Quote
HMS

Quote
LuxuryStones
the coverband they are these days.

Please stop calling them a "coverband" which of course they are NOT. Statements like these are offensive for both the Stones and their devotees. Reading such things I am hammering on my table, blushing with rage and anger. The Stones are not a coverband, they are still the Stones, today maybe even more than ever.

when you say today more than ever, is it because of chuck leavell? the bigger his role gets, the more they are the stones than ever before?

also, second (or third) question, i hope you don't mind me putting 2 questions (or 3) in a single post...

if they are more the stones now than ever, when were they least "stones"? some might argue that was during "their majesties request" but i'm interested in your take.

also, i'm quite sure Bill Perks would be offended.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
HMS

Quote
LuxuryStones
the coverband they are these days.

Please stop calling them a "coverband" which of course they are NOT. Statements like these are offensive for both the Stones and their devotees. Reading such things I am hammering on my table, blushing with rage and anger. The Stones are not a coverband, they are still the Stones, today maybe even more than ever.

when you say today more than ever, is it because of chuck leavell? the bigger his role gets, the more they are the stones than ever before?

also, second (or third) question, i hope you don't mind me putting 2 questions (or 3) in a single post...

if they are more the stones now than ever, when were they least "stones"? some might argue that was during "their majesties request" but i'm interested in your take.

also, i'm quite sure Bill Perks would be offended.

Real Stones fans are hammering more and more on the table, blushing with rage and anger over his influence....

Quote
dcba

Quote
Stone601
Hope NO !!!

A 25-minute version of "Si si je suis un rockstar" with multiple MT solos, what's not to like?

The greatest cover band of the Stones are .........WINOS....hahahaha !!!!

Nowadays they are more the Stones than ever - not because of Chuck of course. It´s simple: To put on a great show in their, let´s say, 30ies is quite normal for a rock band. But in their 70s it´s extraordinary. To be still able to perform like they have done during the last couple of years makes them more Stones than ever! It is amazing, they are better now than they were 20 years ago!

When were they "least" Stones? Probably during release of Steel Wheels and the tour that follows the album. The album was extremely weak, the shows were too bombastic, the music was to clean. Mick´s hairdo was most unfitting and the clothes they wore onstage were simply ridiculous, a very strange sight to see. I mean, Mick was looking like your average nine-to-fiver at that time. Keith´s and Ronnie´s costumes make me laugh out loud everytime I see some concert-footage of these days.

Oh, man, this would be something. They could do a tour of the U.S., doing nothing but playing at the Native American casinos, like a number of cover bands and still hangin' in there 60s/70s bands and performers are doing. ZZ Top, Frampton, Steve Miller all have done pool (as in swimming) shows this summer at one of the local Indian (yes, not a PC term) casinos. The group Yes and some others from back in the day are scheduled to do the same. How cool to play by the pool for a bunch of drunken attendees? And, BTW, y'all don't wanna be standing in that pool no matter how good looking that honey is. Think about why the pool reeks of the smell of clorine.

Quote
dmay
Oh, man, this would be something. They could do a tour of the U.S., doing nothing but playing at the Native American casinos, like a number of cover bands and still hangin' in there 60s/70s bands and performers are doing. ZZ Top, Frampton, Steve Miller all have done pool (as in swimming) shows this summer at one of the local Indian (yes, not a PC term) casinos. The group Yes and some others from back in the day are scheduled to do the same. How cool to play by the pool for a bunch of drunken attendees? And, BTW, y'all don't wanna be standing in that pool no matter how good looking that honey is. Think about why the pool reeks of the smell of clorine.

exactly what i was thinking!

Quote
HMS
Nowadays they are more the Stones than ever - not because of Chuck of course. It´s simple: To put on a great show in their, let´s say, 30ies is quite normal for a rock band. But in their 70s it´s extraordinary. To be still able to perform like they have done during the last couple of years makes them more Stones than ever! It is amazing, they are better now than they were 20 years ago!

When were they "least" Stones? Probably during release of Steel Wheels and the tour that follows the album. The album was extremely weak, the shows were too bombastic, the music was to clean. Mick´s hairdo was most unfitting and the clothes they wore onstage were simply ridiculous, a very strange sight to see. I mean, Mick was looking like your average nine-to-fiver at that time. Keith´s and Ronnie´s costumes make me laugh out loud everytime I see some concert-footage of these days.

hmm i don't think you have seen what mick wore in 1981....

Quote
dcba

Quote
Stone601
Hope NO !!!

A 25-minute version of "Si si je suis un rockstar" with multiple MT solos, what's not to like?

so this would be the "bill section" of the set list, when ALO takes a break off stage. it would begin of course with ALO introducing the band, finally ending with "and on bass and now vocals... bill wyman!!!!"

i can hear the roar of the crowd now.

Quote
buttons67
cant see taylor and wyman forming a band, bills happy in his personal life now and is not young now.

might start my own rumours though, what about the one that ed sheerin is going to replace jagger as stones lead singer and the spice girls reforming and doing backing singers to the stones.

talking of rumours anyone remember the one that terrance trent derby was going to replace jagger in the stones, that had me very worried.

No, it's definitely going to be Harry Styles.

Quote
Green Lady

Quote
buttons67
cant see taylor and wyman forming a band, bills happy in his personal life now and is not young now.

might start my own rumours though, what about the one that ed sheerin is going to replace jagger as stones lead singer and the spice girls reforming and doing backing singers to the stones.

talking of rumours anyone remember the one that terrance trent derby was going to replace jagger in the stones, that had me very worried.

No, it's definitely going to be Harry Styles.

interesting. the wyman/taylor cover band could be a sort of "farm club" for stones replacements. styles could pay his dues and sharpen up his performance and then get promoted to the big show when he was ready and mick wanted to take his over-due sabbatical.

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
HMS

Quote
LuxuryStones
Taylor's and Bill's contribution to the Stones at the time had more impact on their sound than the coverband they are these days. But tell me, is there any source or reason that made you bring up this thread?

Please stop calling them a "coverband" which of course they are NOT. Statements like these are offensive for both the Stones and their devotees. Reading such things I am hammering on my table, blushing with rage and anger. The Stones are not a coverband, they are still the Stones, today maybe even more than ever.

HMS - Nearly every statement you make on this board is offensive to well adjusted Stones fans. Just so you know...

Quote
SweetThing

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
HMS

Quote
LuxuryStones
Taylor's and Bill's contribution to the Stones at the time had more impact on their sound than the coverband they are these days. But tell me, is there any source or reason that made you bring up this thread?

Please stop calling them a "coverband" which of course they are NOT. Statements like these are offensive for both the Stones and their devotees. Reading such things I am hammering on my table, blushing with rage and anger. The Stones are not a coverband, they are still the Stones, today maybe even more than ever.

HMS - Nearly every statement you make on this board is offensive to well adjusted Stones fans. Just so you know...

But would it not be a boring world if we were all the same.
I like HMS
He says it how he see's it.
But take him with a pinch of salt, he does not bare any malice, he has a heart..

Quote
SweetThing

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
HMS

Please stop calling them a "coverband" which of course they are NOT. Statements like these are offensive for both the Stones and their devotees. Reading such things I am hammering on my table, blushing with rage and anger. The Stones are not a coverband, they are still the Stones, today maybe even more than ever.

HMS - Nearly every statement you make on this board is offensive to well adjusted Stones fans. Just so you know...

I disagree: HMS makes a coherent and decidedly 'well adjusted' point. Like keefriffhards, I enjoy HMS' passion and memorable turn of phrase.

.....

Olly.

Quote
Olly

Quote
SweetThing

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
HMS

Please stop calling them a "coverband" which of course they are NOT. Statements like these are offensive for both the Stones and their devotees. Reading such things I am hammering on my table, blushing with rage and anger. The Stones are not a coverband, they are still the Stones, today maybe even more than ever.

HMS - Nearly every statement you make on this board is offensive to well adjusted Stones fans. Just so you know...

I disagree: HMS makes a coherent and decidedly 'well adjusted' point. Like keefriffhards, I enjoy HMS' passion and memorable turn of phrase.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-08-06 04:21 by SweetThing.

I once read that the Stones were asking Ronnie before Taylor. I thought the source was reliable. Well, I was wrong.

I also read that Mick Taylor and Keith Richards developed tensions in their relationship. Keith started to grumble about Taylors style. So he obviously wasn´t very happy with Taylor in the end. But he seems to be quite happy with Wood for 40 years now.

I admit to like Ronnie better, but that´s no crime. I never found decidedly offensive words for Taylor, i have only stated that his style wasn´t really fitting and that he is quite overrated. All his efforts after leaving the Stones totally failed, that´s fact. He turned into a forgotten has-been, this cannot be denied... Some peple here call Keith an "arthritic mummy", that´s what I call "offensive".

Never in a million years

Quote
pepganzo
Never in a million years

why not?

Null.

First of all, when you cover such copyrighted material and play it publicly, you are generating royalties for the original artists.

And since withheld back royalties is a sore spot for MT and the issue of not being given proper credit another issue for both MT and Wyman, well, there you have it.

Quote
stonehearted
Null.

First of all, when you cover such copyrighted material and play it publicly, you are generating royalties for the original artists.

And since withheld back royalties is a sore spot for MT and the issue of not being given proper credit another issue for both MT and Wyman, well, there you have it.

it would be ironic, wouldn't it?

Mick Taylor plays some Stones-songs during his concerts (CYHMK, You Gotta Move, JJF,No Expectations, maybe even a few more). So he already pays royalties, I think.

If he would not include this tunes, he probably would be playing in empty rooms. The few people who come to his concerts, come for above mentioned songs, I guess. His own stuff never generated any interest. He plays to tiny audiences in tiny venues, sometimes I wonder how can he pay his musicians and make a living of what he is doing. Sometimes I imagine him living in a tiny 2-room-flat with broken heating, driving a 27years old Toyota, drinking the cheapest wine he gets and running around with holes in his shoes. He is a tragic figure and maybe he curses the day he has left the Stones. But I think they would have dropped him anyway at some point of time. Nobody seems to get along with him, any attempt to form a new "supergroup" (Jack Bruce) failed. His stints with Alvin Lee and Bob Dylan were rather short. The Stones did not want him on the zipcode-tour. I wonder what´s wrong with this guy.

Quote
stonehearted

First of all, when you cover such copyrighted material and play it publicly, you are generating royalties for the original artists.

And since withheld back royalties is a sore spot for MT and the issue of not being given proper credit another issue for both MT and Wyman, well, there you have it.

I know quite a few people that play in coverbands (prof) and they never pay one penny for generated royalties. The owner/organizer of the venue/ club/event does (?) What's the difference between Mick Taylor or Bill Wyman and the average prof musician in this case?

Maybe I misinterpreted your message.

Is the dark side of the moon for you vissible? I suppose.

Put away such nonsens.
For me: You may dream all that you want, but don't write your dreams, tell it only to your : I don't know???? your wife, husband, children, boyfriend, girlfriend, but keep those stuppid things for you.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-08-07 15:55 by tioms.

Quote
HMS
Nowadays they are more the Stones than ever - not because of Chuck of course. It´s simple: To put on a great show in their, let´s say, 30ies is quite normal for a rock band. But in their 70s it´s extraordinary. To be still able to perform like they have done during the last couple of years makes them more Stones than ever! It is amazing, they are better now than they were 20 years ago!

When were they "least" Stones? Probably during release of Steel Wheels and the tour that follows the album. The album was extremely weak, the shows were too bombastic, the music was to clean. Mick´s hairdo was most unfitting and the clothes they wore onstage were simply ridiculous, a very strange sight to see. I mean, Mick was looking like your average nine-to-fiver at that time. Keith´s and Ronnie´s costumes make me laugh out loud everytime I see some concert-footage of these days.

This is bizarrely a very Sons Of The Beatles authoresque mentality. More Stones than ever? Better than they were 20 years ago? Lesser Stones when Bill Wyman was with them? Mick's hairdo was most unfitting - the closest unfitting hairdo he's ever had since 1973 so it's not like it hadn't happened before. Keith and Ronnie's costumes?

Sounds to me like the Stones amuse you, like they're some kind of clowns.

A rather large reason why people view them as their own Stones cover band is because of the truth: as far back as 2005, for one example, when they toured for their last album, which was new at the time, they ignored it more so than any previous new album and played old songs. Old Rolling Stones songs. They've been doing it ever since, hence them being a cover band of The Rolling Stones.

Quote
Turner68
has anyone heard rumors about this? it could be pretty amazing.

No and hell no it wouldn't be.

This is close to being as bad of an idea as the Sons Of The Beatles.

Quote
stonehearted
withheld back royalties is a sore spot for MT

Even if the Stones had given song credits to MT, the money would be peanuts. As far as I´m told he only contributed to a handfull of songs (and God only knows to what degree)... so this would not make him a rich man. And it´s clear J/R won´t give credit for jut a guitar solo or some vague ideas during a session. What´s the use of a great guitar solo, when you dont have a song to put it in? The songs are Jagger/Richards-babys in the end. So I dont think MT really earns credit for Stones-songs. His solo-work gives prove that his songwriting-talent is very limited. Maybe once in a while he came up with some songs and Jagger/Richards throw them in the garbage can, because they were not good enough to be recorded by the Stones. He was, maybe still is, a good guitarplayer, nothing more. The born sideman, no leader. And Jagger/Richard never really needed Taylor to create their all-time classics.

This lucky fellow once had the best job you can imagine in rock business. And than he quitted out of the blue, because he thought he would be better off on his own. History proves he was completely wrong. Poor soul, but after all he alone is to blame for his failure. Pride and self-esteem led to his downfall.

Quote
GasLightStreet
A rather large reason why people view them as their own Stones cover band is because of the truth: as far back as 2005, for one example, when they toured for their last album, which was new at the time, they ignored it more so than any previous new album and played old songs. Old Rolling Stones songs. They've been doing it ever since, hence them being a cover band of The Rolling Stones.

Cover bands are playing songs, that were written by others. The Stones play their own songs, no matter how old they may be. So they can NEVER be seen as a cover band. On the other hand it is of course a shame that they ignore their post-1981-work. This period offers enough great songs for a 2-hours-show with JJF at the beginning and Satisfaction at the end. But they decided to rely on audience-pleasing warhorses (like most bands do). We have to accept their decision or stay at home.

Quote
stonehearted
Null.

First of all, when you cover such copyrighted material and play it publicly, you are generating royalties for the original artists.

And since withheld back royalties is a sore spot for MT and the issue of not being given proper credit another issue for both MT and Wyman, well, there you have it.

Not really true. Copyrighted material is played publicly all the time without any royalty revenue changing hands. It's only when covered copyrighted material is published either in a released record, a movie, TV show, commercial or similar situation that royalties have to be paid to the copyright holder.

Quote
GasLightStreet
Sounds to me like the Stones amuse you, like they're some kind of clowns.

I have to admit, I found Keith and Ronnies 1989/90-costumes very amusing. In 1981/82 Mick was dressed up like a clown, in 1989/90 it was completely oppposite, Keith and Ronnie were almost clown-esque. Btw, they were never better dressed than in 2015.

Quote
HMS

Quote
GasLightStreet
Sounds to me like the Stones amuse you, like they're some kind of clowns.

I have to admit, I found Keith and Ronnies 1989/90-costumes very amusing. In 1981/82 Mick was dressed up like a clown, in 1989/90 it was completely oppposite, Keith and Ronnie were almost clown-esque. Btw, they were never better dressed than in 2015.

So you say they aren't a cover band because they're playing their own songs but you call what Keith and Ronnie wore costumes?