Mick's headset mic. It made me very angry when I saw it live. It's gone now so this issue has been resolved.

Quote
TheGreek
That would be my ultimate to have all three living guitarist in the band for the whole concert and just trade licks and weave their magic together !!!

Indeed what a dream that is, one I share with you. I just wish they would have given it a whirl, even for one show while Taylor was guesting. A lost opportunity to make some truly exciting music and test the limits of a three guitar Stones lineup. My belief is that Ronnie is the one that would have had the hardest time with it at that time. He is so used to established parts and only having Keith to play off I think he would have been uncomfortable. And Taylor somewhat because he was getting used to the playing with Ronnie and delegated to such a lead role. But of course this will never happen again and we'll just have to be satisfied with what we got, which was more than I ever expected.

Quote
ThankGod

Cock IS a term of endearment in England whether you choose to believe it or not. Cock and cocker have been used for many many years. This postcard is from the mid 1950s.
Cock is regularly used in the North of England in place of words like mate, love, pal, dear, duck, ducky etc. Now mainly heard from the lips of the older generation. My Grandmother regularly called us all cock and it was in no way offensive.
Its very amusing that some people cant open their minds to the fact that some words have very different meanings in different parts of the world. You are hearing only what you want to hear.

"id love a fag cock"

1) Cock may have been a term of endearment in Britain during the 1950s, but it certainly isn't today.
2) Whether or not the idiom survives up north is irrelevant, since Keith Richards is from London.

Bottom line, he wasn't joking around with Brian when he said that (if he did in fact use the term).

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
ThankGod

Cock IS a term of endearment in England whether you choose to believe it or not. Cock and cocker have been used for many many years. This postcard is from the mid 1950s.
Cock is regularly used in the North of England in place of words like mate, love, pal, dear, duck, ducky etc. Now mainly heard from the lips of the older generation. My Grandmother regularly called us all cock and it was in no way offensive.
Its very amusing that some people cant open their minds to the fact that some words have very different meanings in different parts of the world. You are hearing only what you want to hear.

"id love a fag cock"

1) Cock may have been a term of endearment in Britain during the 1950s, but it certainly isn't today.
2) Whether or not the idiom survives up north is irrelevant, since Keith Richards is from London.

Bottom line, he wasn't joking around with Brian when he said that (if he did in fact use the term).

Then again, you don't say «cats» in London either, do you?

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
ThankGod

Cock IS a term of endearment in England whether you choose to believe it or not. Cock and cocker have been used for many many years. This postcard is from the mid 1950s.
Cock is regularly used in the North of England in place of words like mate, love, pal, dear, duck, ducky etc. Now mainly heard from the lips of the older generation. My Grandmother regularly called us all cock and it was in no way offensive.
Its very amusing that some people cant open their minds to the fact that some words have very different meanings in different parts of the world. You are hearing only what you want to hear.

"id love a fag cock"

1) Cock may have been a term of endearment in Britain during the 1950s, but it certainly isn't today.
2) Whether or not the idiom survives up north is irrelevant, since Keith Richards is from London.

Bottom line, he wasn't joking around with Brian when he said that (if he did in fact use the term).

Then again, you don't say «cats» in London either, do you?

Well, I do, can't speak for others...

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
ThankGod

Cock IS a term of endearment in England whether you choose to believe it or not. Cock and cocker have been used for many many years. This postcard is from the mid 1950s.
Cock is regularly used in the North of England in place of words like mate, love, pal, dear, duck, ducky etc. Now mainly heard from the lips of the older generation. My Grandmother regularly called us all cock and it was in no way offensive.
Its very amusing that some people cant open their minds to the fact that some words have very different meanings in different parts of the world. You are hearing only what you want to hear.

"id love a fag cock"

1) Cock may have been a term of endearment in Britain during the 1950s, but it certainly isn't today.
2) Whether or not the idiom survives up north is irrelevant, since Keith Richards is from London.

Bottom line, he wasn't joking around with Brian when he said that (if he did in fact use the term).

Then again, you don't say «cats» in London either, do you?

Well, I do, can't speak for others...

You've been listening to the Stones too much

Quote
TheGreek
That would be my ultimate to have all three living guitarist in the band for the whole concert !!!

The ivitation of Taylor in 2012-14 was all about punishing and humiliating him night after night for leaving the band in the 70s. In 2015 they seem to have lost interest in humiliating him, the pleasure they derived in humiliating him paled obviously and they decided to drop him for once and forever.

Hmm... I guess the initial Barbra Streisend style ticket prices for 50 AND COUNTING must be one of those moments I was not particularly satisfied for their action, but since that is only an issue of money, it doesn't really matter...

But I guess the only thing that really "got me ballistic" was Keith's LIFE. It was a kind of shocking to realize how damn much he was lost in his image, to see the size of ego and smallness of his mind, and to realize how little loyalty any longer he had for The Stones, treating his most important 'partner in crime' so small-mindedly. For me the book was a kind of 'the end' of The Rolling Stones - not because of how Jagger would react, but because of Keith leaving the impression 'couldn't care less any longer' - it's only his own legacy he seems to care.

It looks like that my impression of Keith actually calling it quits was rather near reality - he seemingly was seriously thinking that of retirement at the time (before Jordan, as he claims, urged him to work again). Now looking LIFE seems to a testament of those times, Keith's personal psychological discourse to get over the past (and probably of The Rolling Stones, that is, Mick). Yesterdays' papers today, which is good. So I'm okay with LIFE these days, even though I think I lost a lot of respect for the man thanks to it.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-02 15:54 by Doxa.

"Dirty Work". After hearing "One Hit" I expected the album to be great, which turned out to be a very embarrassing experience. The first time I put the album on, I stopped after listening to "Hold Back".
And Mick with "Let's Work", I first heard it on MTV at the house of a friend and I begged him to switch channels.

I'm sure there have been more embarrassing moments, but these were two particular low-points.

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
ThankGod

Cock IS a term of endearment in England whether you choose to believe it or not. Cock and cocker have been used for many many years. This postcard is from the mid 1950s.
Cock is regularly used in the North of England in place of words like mate, love, pal, dear, duck, ducky etc. Now mainly heard from the lips of the older generation. My Grandmother regularly called us all cock and it was in no way offensive.
Its very amusing that some people cant open their minds to the fact that some words have very different meanings in different parts of the world. You are hearing only what you want to hear.

"id love a fag cock"

1) Cock may have been a term of endearment in Britain during the 1950s, but it certainly isn't today.
2) Whether or not the idiom survives up north is irrelevant, since Keith Richards is from London.

Bottom line, he wasn't joking around with Brian when he said that (if he did in fact use the term).

The bottom line is that cock is still in use today all over the UK as a term of endearment. My entire family is from London and the older generation do still use this term. It is mainly heard in the North, but is also a countrywide term still in use today and everyday. I even heard the DJ on the morning show say it today.

Of course Keith wasn't joking around with Brian, they were firing him! Why do you think he was joking around? Is this what you think endearment means?

Besides, this was taken from an interview 26 years ago. Theres a lot of words and phrases that were in use then but not today. And do you really believe Keith was providing a word for word quotation of the dialogue that occurred on the day they fired Brian?

Keiths use of the word cock here is wholly innocent, and it is astounding that people can not understand this

Quote
swimtothemoon
Well I understand the private shows where somone drops a load of cash to book the stones at their bash and have total control of who attends. However, what does bother me are the surprise club shows, such as the Fonda, where the bulk of the tickets go to the movie/pop stars, models, the elite and those politically connected. Many of the above just attending the show only to be seen - then leaving after the first few songs. This seems a slap in the face to the true fan who is willing to fly half way around the world for such an opportunity. To put it mildly, this makes absolutely no sense to me.

Agreed. To play Sticky Fingers in its entirety only once was bad enough, but having the 'once' restricted to a tiny celebrity audience was just - contemptible.

Quote
Green Lady

Quote
swimtothemoon
Well I understand the private shows where somone drops a load of cash to book the stones at their bash and have total control of who attends. However, what does bother me are the surprise club shows, such as the Fonda, where the bulk of the tickets go to the movie/pop stars, models, the elite and those politically connected. Many of the above just attending the show only to be seen - then leaving after the first few songs. This seems a slap in the face to the true fan who is willing to fly half way around the world for such an opportunity. To put it mildly, this makes absolutely no sense to me.

Agreed. To play Sticky Fingers in its entirety only once was bad enough, but having the 'once' restricted to a tiny celebrity audience was just - contemptible.

Although it was somewhat mitigated by the SF Live release, I agree with what you both are saying about the Fonda show. Mostly because the tour was hyped as a Sticky Fingers one and it was actually the main reason I was motivated to see another show this year!

Much less concerned about them playing a private show for whomever they want, it didn't really effect the tour, there were no expectations associated with it and surely it made some people very happy and possibly raised some money for a good cause. If they would have played SF in it's entirely at the Belly Up I might feel a bit differently. lol

I don't care for Whoopie Goldberg opening Voodoo Lounge ppv and the Clintons on Beacon Theater DVD

I'm a flaming liberal and I agree with you 100%. Anytime the Stones brush up against US politics, it makes me uncomfortable. Whoopi had no business being there at all, what's her Stones connection? Although I do enjoy the Stones performance that night and the DVD.

Quote
mnewman505
I'm a flaming liberal and I agree with you 100%. Anytime the Stones brush up against US politics, it makes me uncomfortable. Whoopi had no business being there at all, what's her Stones connection? Although I do enjoy the Stones performance that night and the DVD.

Pretty sure her 1986 Jumping Jack Flash film is one connection and she is obviously a big fan of the Stones. She was pretty hot property back in the Voodoo Lounge era, who cares if she introduced the band? Was it really that bad?

Quote
mnewman505
Whoopi had no business being there at all, what's her Stones connection?

She used to be a gas, gas, gas . . .



As far as I remember (I was there on the first night) the Clintons weren't at SAL because of politics per se, but because of the Clinton Foundation. I'm not sure if everything is political (like the Foundation) but if everything is, then it doesn't matter who the Stones work with because . . . everything's already political.

* 80's albums
* MJ solo stuff
* Use (or lack there of) of Taylor & Wyman (once) during 12-14
* Lack of imagination re: set lists
* Chuck & too much back up musician involvement - just too much when not needed
* Not releasing more back catalog/live shows, especially from "Golden era"
* Not doing more club shows while touring.
* Not paying Taylor/treatment of him in general despite 12-14 "gift"
* Embarrassing guest performers - Swift, Aguilera, any other effort to stay current w/ "todays" artists. The blues guys, etc., sure. The pop crap - no!!!

Quote
SuperC
* 80's albums
* MJ solo stuff
* Use (or lack there of) of Taylor & Wyman (once) during 12-14
* Lack of imagination re: set lists
* Chuck & too much back up musician involvement - just too much when not needed
* Not releasing more back catalog/live shows, especially from "Golden era"
* Not doing more club shows while touring.
* Not paying Taylor/treatment of him in general despite 12-14 "gift"
* Embarrassing guest performers - Swift, Aguilera, any other effort to stay current w/ "todays" artists. The blues guys, etc., sure. The pop crap - no!!!

* Keith's make-up, hair dye in SAL
* Ronnie's periodic poor playing
* Keith's periodic poor playing
* Turning Midnight Rambler in to a crowd participation event
* Dirty Work cover

Quote
HMS

Quote
TheGreek
That would be my ultimate to have all three living guitarist in the band for the whole concert !!!

The ivitation of Taylor in 2012-14 was all about punishing and humiliating him night after night for leaving the band in the 70s. In 2015 they seem to have lost interest in humiliating him, the pleasure they derived in humiliating him paled obviously and they decided to drop him for once and forever.

HMS, do you have a prescription of absurdity? Because what you said is absurdity at its best. Holy crap what a twisted invention in your mind.

In what sense if any would they have had Taylor play on every song?

None.

They didn't "lose interest in humiliating him" in 2015 because they didn't humiliate him from 2012-2014. It was strictly for that part of the deal for the 50 years. They were clear about that.

It's the fans that have an issue with him not continuing on with the ZIP CODE tour, which he was never going to be a part of even though it would've made sense regarding STICKY FINGERS.

But then even that was pointless after all, wasn't it.

Nothing too much until Dirty Work. At that point I realised the creative spark really had gone and a new generation was fit to take over. Actually The Clash did just that with London Calling 6 years before but the Stones were still basically still cutting decent records then.

Chuck.

Quote
Turner68
Chuck.

Berry?

Quote
Doxa
Hmm... I guess the initial Barbra Streisend style ticket prices for 50 AND COUNTING must be one of those moments I was not particularly satisfied for their action, but since that is only an issue of money, it doesn't really matter...

But I guess the only thing that really "got me ballistic" was Keith's LIFE. It was a kind of shocking to realize how damn much he was lost in his image, to see the size of ego and smallness of his mind, and to realize how little loyalty any longer he had for The Stones, treating his most important 'partner in crime' so small-mindedly. For me the book was a kind of 'the end' of The Rolling Stones - not because of how Jagger would react, but because of Keith leaving the impression 'couldn't care less any longer' - it's only his own legacy he seems to care.

It looks like that my impression of Keith actually calling it quits was rather near reality - he seemingly was seriously thinking that of retirement at the time (before Jordan, as he claims, urged him to work again). Now looking LIFE seems to a testament of those times, Keith's personal psychological discourse to get over the past (and probably of The Rolling Stones, that is, Mick). Yesterdays' papers today, which is good. So I'm okay with LIFE these days, even though I think I lost a lot of respect for the man thanks to it.

- Doxa

In a roundabout way you've just described how, as one example, when the New England Patriots lost the one game they could've won to have "the perfect season" they just laughed afterwords.

It's not the players that have a problem it's the fans. Patriots fans turned into frantic crybabies after that. And what you described is another personification of that, which is, all this hoo ha shit about the Stones being TGRNRBITW, which was only a joke but somehow became some kind of ground zero for very serious Stones fans to beat their chests with, is that, like the NE Patriots players, they laugh.

In the Stones' case they laugh all the way to the bank more so than the Patriots players do - because they make more money. The legacy is not exactly something they probably worry about, they just put it up for sale because that's all it's worth to them.

And what the book (more so than ever) revealed about Keith is... he seems to have the maturity of an 18 year old when it comes to handling things like what other people do (or, even, what they've done in his mind ala Muddy painting the ceiling). I don't know if it's jealousy or something similar but his ranting about Mick is a bowl of sour grapes. Little Keith got his feelings hurt by someone flouting about. And he decided to write about it!!?? Because of how they came up as a band the only mentality that changed was when they finally figured out how to make money but inside they're both just rotten teenagers.

Actually whenever I get negative about the stones if I listen to them doing chuck berry I get excited all over again about them :-)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-03 23:29 by Turner68.

Ballistic ? well not ballistic but very frustrated when the Stones failed to take Undercover and Dirty work to the road, and more recently frustrated that Keith has not even so much as played one whole track live from Crosseyed Heart.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Doxa
Hmm... I guess the initial Barbra Streisend style ticket prices for 50 AND COUNTING must be one of those moments I was not particularly satisfied for their action, but since that is only an issue of money, it doesn't really matter...

But I guess the only thing that really "got me ballistic" was Keith's LIFE. It was a kind of shocking to realize how damn much he was lost in his image, to see the size of ego and smallness of his mind, and to realize how little loyalty any longer he had for The Stones, treating his most important 'partner in crime' so small-mindedly. For me the book was a kind of 'the end' of The Rolling Stones - not because of how Jagger would react, but because of Keith leaving the impression 'couldn't care less any longer' - it's only his own legacy he seems to care.

It looks like that my impression of Keith actually calling it quits was rather near reality - he seemingly was seriously thinking that of retirement at the time (before Jordan, as he claims, urged him to work again). Now looking LIFE seems to a testament of those times, Keith's personal psychological discourse to get over the past (and probably of The Rolling Stones, that is, Mick). Yesterdays' papers today, which is good. So I'm okay with LIFE these days, even though I think I lost a lot of respect for the man thanks to it.

- Doxa

In a roundabout way you've just described how, as one example, when the New England Patriots lost the one game they could've won to have "the perfect season" they just laughed afterwords.

It's not the players that have a problem it's the fans. Patriots fans turned into frantic crybabies after that. And what you described is another personification of that, which is, all this hoo ha shit about the Stones being TGRNRBITW, which was only a joke but somehow became some kind of ground zero for very serious Stones fans to beat their chests with, is that, like the NE Patriots players, they laugh.

In the Stones' case they laugh all the way to the bank more so than the Patriots players do - because they make more money. The legacy is not exactly something they probably worry about, they just put it up for sale because that's all it's worth to them.

And what the book (more so than ever) revealed about Keith is... he seems to have the maturity of an 18 year old when it comes to handling things like what other people do (or, even, what they've done in his mind ala Muddy painting the ceiling). I don't know if it's jealousy or something similar but his ranting about Mick is a bowl of sour grapes. Little Keith got his feelings hurt by someone flouting about. And he decided to write about it!!?? Because of how they came up as a band the only mentality that changed was when they finally figured out how to make money but inside they're both just rotten teenagers.

Indeed, I am surprised that anyone would be surprised to learn in this decade (i.e., Keith's book) that the Stones aren't pillars of maturity and kindness.

I'm not sure how what Keith said about Mick in Life is any different or worse than Mick claiming that he and Jerry Hall were never married. Indeed, while Life contained insults, denying to your family that there was ever a marriage is a different ball game altogether.

They've never pretended to be anything more than selfish, self-serving, and ego-centric. Why would we be surprised that they continue to act that way in their 60s and 70s when they have acted that way their whole life? Certainly our belief that they were "good people" or "tactful" or "kind" was never a part of why we liked their music...



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-04 01:16 by Turner68.

Quote
SuperC

Quote
SuperC
* 80's albums
* MJ solo stuff
* Use (or lack there of) of Taylor & Wyman (once) during 12-14
* Lack of imagination re: set lists
* Chuck & too much back up musician involvement - just too much when not needed
* Not releasing more back catalog/live shows, especially from "Golden era"
* Not doing more club shows while touring.
* Not paying Taylor/treatment of him in general despite 12-14 "gift"
* Embarrassing guest performers - Swift, Aguilera, any other effort to stay current w/ "todays" artists. The blues guys, etc., sure. The pop crap - no!!!

* Keith's make-up, hair dye in SAL
* Ronnie's periodic poor playing
* Keith's periodic poor playing
* Turning Midnight Rambler in to a crowd participation event
* Dirty Work cover

Keith's mustache.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

All of these concerns raise the obvious question:
Would you let your grandmother go with a Rolling Stone?

Would you let your grandmother go with a Rolling Stone?

I suspect there are a few grandma's on here that would steamroll their grandkkids if they tried to stop them.

Quote
Turner68
Indeed, I am surprised that anyone would be surprised to learn in this decade (i.e., Keith's book) that the Stones aren't pillars of maturity and kindness.

I'm not sure how what Keith said about Mick in Life is any different or worse than Mick claiming that he and Jerry Hall were never married. Indeed, while Life contained insults, denying to your family that there was ever a marriage is a different ball game altogether.

I agree. The whole "rock and roll bad boy" fun and games is one thing, but it seems as though Jagger actually perpetrated some kind of fraud on Jerry Hall. If I understand correctly, he led her to believe that their wedding ceremony was legally binding when it was not. A con game isn't something that can be written off as naughty behavior indulged in while caught up in the excitement of the moment. When I found out about that one I was pretty much done with being a "fan".