For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
stonehearted
They could never replace Keith Richards -- he is an original founding member, only one of two that remain.
They could, however, replace Charlie. He's been there almost since the beginning, but he wasn't an original founding member, just as Bill Wyman wasn't.
So long as Mick and Keith perform publicly together, it's still the Rolling Stones, and they could still call it that.
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Did Keith really strum a Emaj-chord instead of a B?
That's a pretty advanced mistake
Quote
yeababyyeaQuote
DandelionPowderman
Did Keith really strum a Emaj-chord instead of a B?
That's a pretty advanced mistake
Yes, as in E major meaning E. Don't know why I wrote E major instead of just E.
Quote
24FPSQuote
stonehearted
They could never replace Keith Richards -- he is an original founding member, only one of two that remain.
They could, however, replace Charlie. He's been there almost since the beginning, but he wasn't an original founding member, just as Bill Wyman wasn't.
So long as Mick and Keith perform publicly together, it's still the Rolling Stones, and they could still call it that.
That's ridiculous, saying Bill & Charlie aren't founding members. They weren't THE Rolling Stones until they cemented rock and roll's greatest rhythm section. The Beatles weren't the Beatles until they dumped Pete Best and got Ringo. As for the Who continuing after losing Keith, they shouldn't have. Kenny Jones was a listless replacement. It wasn't until they got Zak Starkey that they regained some of their former power. But once they lost Entwistle they really should have packed it in. They were embarrassing at the Super Bowl, and it's gone downhill since. Adding more people on stage hasn't helped.
Quote
deardoctorQuote
24FPSQuote
stonehearted
They could never replace Keith Richards -- he is an original founding member, only one of two that remain.
They could, however, replace Charlie. He's been there almost since the beginning, but he wasn't an original founding member, just as Bill Wyman wasn't.
So long as Mick and Keith perform publicly together, it's still the Rolling Stones, and they could still call it that.
That's ridiculous, saying Bill & Charlie aren't founding members. They weren't THE Rolling Stones until they cemented rock and roll's greatest rhythm section. The Beatles weren't the Beatles until they dumped Pete Best and got Ringo. As for the Who continuing after losing Keith, they shouldn't have. Kenny Jones was a listless replacement. It wasn't until they got Zak Starkey that they regained some of their former power. But once they lost Entwistle they really should have packed it in. They were embarrassing at the Super Bowl, and it's gone downhill since. Adding more people on stage hasn't helped.
imo:
right about stones and beatles.
terribly wrong about the who.
I´m so glad, they continuoed. I saw them in 2006 and 2016. Both times great, although I miss John very much. Better the two with zak than nothing
Quote
shortfatfannyQuote
deardoctorQuote
24FPSQuote
stonehearted
They could never replace Keith Richards -- he is an original founding member, only one of two that remain.
They could, however, replace Charlie. He's been there almost since the beginning, but he wasn't an original founding member, just as Bill Wyman wasn't.
So long as Mick and Keith perform publicly together, it's still the Rolling Stones, and they could still call it that.
That's ridiculous, saying Bill & Charlie aren't founding members. They weren't THE Rolling Stones until they cemented rock and roll's greatest rhythm section. The Beatles weren't the Beatles until they dumped Pete Best and got Ringo. As for the Who continuing after losing Keith, they shouldn't have. Kenny Jones was a listless replacement. It wasn't until they got Zak Starkey that they regained some of their former power. But once they lost Entwistle they really should have packed it in. They were embarrassing at the Super Bowl, and it's gone downhill since. Adding more people on stage hasn't helped.
imo:
right about stones and beatles.
terribly wrong about the who.
I´m so glad, they continuoed. I saw them in 2006 and 2016. Both times great, although I miss John very much. Better the two with zak than nothing
Agree,deardoctor...saw The Who 2016 and it was a great show !
Quote
beachbreak
Keith still rocks the house down.
Check this full length Hamburg video.
Sound and video is fantastic!
Use good headphones.
IORR even rocks super hard.
Hamburg