Tell Me :
Talk
i agree but I think Keith is (heart and) soul, mick is the head, and Charlie is the Skeletal structure.
Where does that leave Ronnie?
I wouldn't underestimate Keith Richards even if he's just standing there, desperately trying to form a chord. He's the one that people relate to. After all it is the Glimmer Twins. Some twerps may go wee when he croaks out Happy, but Mick Jagger solo wasn't much of a draw either.
Ronnie Wood is a big fcking deal.drunk,high,fresh out of rehab,it didn’t matter.he showed up and played.
He wrote some really good songs and sometimes didn’t get credit,took an amazing amount of shit from the diva twins and never complained.he always did what was best for the band.
He didn’t quit without warning and show up later weighing 250 pounds and whining about song credits.cashing that check for co-writing its only rock and roll would’ve been nice but again,never complained.
Dude is a trooper and we’re lucky to have him.
Hi Hairball,
do you remember hoe "popular" Mick was doing his solo tour? USA and Europe were cancelled! Japan, well it doesn't count, because the Stones had never played there to start with and Japanese buy anything! They even paid $100.000 to invite that Olympic Games full fatched cheater Ben Johnson or female student sweat in a bottle. The real Stones fans didn't like Mick's solo adventure then and I think not in the future either. Certainly not as "The Rolling Stones". Maybe "Mick Jagger's Rock and Roll Circus" would attract people. But not at a level like the recent No Filter Tour or the Zip Code tour.
Hi georgie, this is all absolutely true. But just to clarify I did say for the casual fan/general public. Being the front man, Mick is the most recognizable, and because of that he might be able to pull off such a farce. But of course most real fans know that Keith is the real deal and the leader of the band, and without him it could never be legitimate. While Mick would lose some of the diehard base if he chose to carry on without Keith, he might still be able to get away with it as far as casual fans are concerned - as long as he doesn't play any of his horrible solo material!
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
"the hands" then? As in, always 'hands on'.
i just put it out there because i though it would be an interesting discussion (which it has been). don't think useless is fair especially when compared to some of the other stuff that gets put up. its a good question. the man is pushing 80 years old & has a lot of other interests. personally, i think i would be offended if the band continued without him, mick or keith & called it the stones. ronnie is a fine guitar player & seems to be on the straight & narrow now but i think he could be replaced. it would be different for sure but maybe interesting. what "useful" topics have you put up lately?
I think the days of taking a piss break when Keith sings are long gone, never noticed it at the shows i have attended and there are some shows like in Wembley Arena where the crowd surged forward out of their seats, including security members when Keith sang The Nearness Of You to rapturous applause, although i admit he didn't get such a great cheer after his songs in the UK this time round.
Ronnie and Charlie live in England and are seen as one of ours, Keith on the other hand mostly lives in the States and Turks and Caicos, this might have something to do with his popularity in the UK, but having said that i have not noticed a toilet break with Keith singing at any of the Uk shows through the years since 1990, and certainly not in Paris or many other shows in Europe. Keith seems to be loved all over the world and gets incredible respect when he does his set in most Country's.
Sorry but also disagree with Mick being the reason people go to see the Stones, or that Mick could continue as the Stones without Keith, it's Mick and Keith most people see as the Stones world wide, without Keith i think maybe half the tickets will be sold , or the tickets would need to be half the price, casual fan or not Mick and Keith are the Stones, we are talking copyrite here
Also Hairball with all due respect, it's Ronnie and Charlie that are not so important to the casual fan, if you look at The Who, it's just Roger and Pete now, that's all that's needed for the casual fan for the band to continue very successfully, you can't really put Keith in the same bracket as Ronnie or Charlie, sorry mate but your post has missed the mark a bit
And Ringo Starr on drums if Cholie decides to live on his pension plan!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-07-29 19:42 by dcba.
If Mick retired it would be an excellent opportunity for the band to find someone who can actually sing.
yeah the "Keith pee break" seems to be a fantasy purported by Stones "fans" with massive prostate problems right?
Yeah i know what you mean lol, but the point i am making is legally Mick would struggle to tour as the Stones without Keith.
We are talking brand here, i know Keith's an old man now and doesn't move much but he can still pull off the slower ballads better than ever, and he did play great guitar again this year.
Yep i'll go along with that, personally if i got to take a pee it's going to be through Miss You or YCAGWYW. Each to their own i guess.
mine would be during Emotional Rescue if they insist on playing that again
I fully agree what you say about those pee breaks. Shocking. My first concert in the USA was in 1994 (3rd Giants Stadium show, 1st ring left side (front part) from the stage facing it) and there were two shocks I had to deal with. First, chairs on the field/ground ... and people actually sat down during quiet songs
. Amazing! Second shock was seeing people leave "en masse" when Keith started doing his thing, again 
... amazing! I had never seen anything like that before in Europe. I admire the Swedish girl standing right behind me in Havana in 2016. She told me that (after waiting more than 12 hours outdoor, she didn't want to miss one second of the concert and simply peed in her pants .. or whatever.
Well, I got used to all those different life styles, haha. Booked quite some front of stage seats since ... but during any show, never sat down for a second. Amazingly, never even had to pee in my pants.
Changed life styles: it's like watching all those people staring at/playing with their mobile phones and tablets ... well, I occasionally join them. I don't like generation gaps
Back to the subject: Charlie will never let Mick and Keith down, neither will Ronnie. But whenever something unexpected will occur, we'll have to take things as they come and see what any of the others decide to do. On the basis of that I will make my choice(s). Long live the Rolling Stones
Yeah agree, that and Worried About You, that falsetto voice does me, straight to the bathroom
Edit. Although love Micks falsetto on the original album tracks.
Go easy on em vert,you feel a little bit embarrassed for the Keithettes but they are just fans.we can laugh at them sitting there with their skull rings and waving a cigarette around just like the man himself but we were all young fanatics at one time,it’s good to have heroes.
Though It is amazing how pathetic Keith gets sometimes and how much they will ignore it .i could let the constant posing slide but when he took the Yves St Laurent deal and ended up wearing the same jacket onstage as Justin Bieber I could not stop laughing.you just can’t jump the shark worse than that.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: July 29, 2018 05:47
Quote
yeababyyea
No!! without Charlie there' no soul left in this band.
i agree but I think Keith is (heart and) soul, mick is the head, and Charlie is the Skeletal structure.
Where does that leave Ronnie?
Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: July 29, 2018 06:24
Quote
HairballQuote
24FPS
They will carry on as long as suckers, I mean fans, are willing to pay them the buckets of cash they can get for pumping out the same 18 tunes over and over. As long as Mick and Keith are standing up there giving an approximation of the Stones from a long time ago, people will come. They would survive Charlie leaving. Fans wouldn't like it, and the rhythm section would sound even worse, but those people aren't paying that close attention anyway. Hell, I heard them in 2013 in L.A., not knowing who Mick Taylor was. As long as Mick and Keith stand there and give some nostalgic kick that takes people back........
Valid opinion, but not sure if Keith would be willing to carry on without Charlie or any of the others. Mick on the other hand might be willing to continue as the "Stones" without Charlie or Keith or Ronnie.
As long as he has one of them there it would close enough, and many in attendance wouldn't care. For the casual fan, Mick being the front man is the most recognizable, and most take a piss break during Keith's set anyways.
I wouldn't underestimate Keith Richards even if he's just standing there, desperately trying to form a chord. He's the one that people relate to. After all it is the Glimmer Twins. Some twerps may go wee when he croaks out Happy, but Mick Jagger solo wasn't much of a draw either.
Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: July 29, 2018 09:01
Quote
retired_dogQuote
His Majesty
Yes, why not.
It hasn't really been The Rolling Stones since Brian left.
Don't confuse younger people here who believe that the Stones more or less took off when Ronnie joined the band and regard everything that happened before more or less as their "formative years"...
Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Posted by:
lem motlow
()
Date: July 29, 2018 09:38
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
yeababyyea
No!! without Charlie there' no soul left in this band.
i agree but I think Keith is (heart and) soul, mick is the head, and Charlie is the Skeletal structure.
Where does that leave Ronnie?
Ronnie Wood is a big fcking deal.drunk,high,fresh out of rehab,it didn’t matter.he showed up and played.
He wrote some really good songs and sometimes didn’t get credit,took an amazing amount of shit from the diva twins and never complained.he always did what was best for the band.
He didn’t quit without warning and show up later weighing 250 pounds and whining about song credits.cashing that check for co-writing its only rock and roll would’ve been nice but again,never complained.
Dude is a trooper and we’re lucky to have him.
Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Posted by:
georgie48
()
Date: July 29, 2018 10:06
Quote
HairballQuote
24FPS
They will carry on as long as suckers, I mean fans, are willing to pay them the buckets of cash they can get for pumping out the same 18 tunes over and over. As long as Mick and Keith are standing up there giving an approximation of the Stones from a long time ago, people will come. They would survive Charlie leaving. Fans wouldn't like it, and the rhythm section would sound even worse, but those people aren't paying that close attention anyway. Hell, I heard them in 2013 in L.A., not knowing who Mick Taylor was. As long as Mick and Keith stand there and give some nostalgic kick that takes people back........
Valid opinion, but not sure if Keith would be willing to carry on without Charlie or any of the others. Mick on the other hand might be willing to continue as the "Stones" without Charlie or Keith or Ronnie.
As long as he has one of them there it would close enough, and many in attendance wouldn't care. For the casual fan, Mick being the front man is the most recognizable, and most take a piss break during Keith's set anyways.
Hi Hairball,
do you remember hoe "popular" Mick was doing his solo tour? USA and Europe were cancelled! Japan, well it doesn't count, because the Stones had never played there to start with and Japanese buy anything! They even paid $100.000 to invite that Olympic Games full fatched cheater Ben Johnson or female student sweat in a bottle. The real Stones fans didn't like Mick's solo adventure then and I think not in the future either. Certainly not as "The Rolling Stones". Maybe "Mick Jagger's Rock and Roll Circus" would attract people. But not at a level like the recent No Filter Tour or the Zip Code tour.
Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: July 29, 2018 10:28
Quote
georgie48Quote
HairballQuote
24FPS
They will carry on as long as suckers, I mean fans, are willing to pay them the buckets of cash they can get for pumping out the same 18 tunes over and over. As long as Mick and Keith are standing up there giving an approximation of the Stones from a long time ago, people will come. They would survive Charlie leaving. Fans wouldn't like it, and the rhythm section would sound even worse, but those people aren't paying that close attention anyway. Hell, I heard them in 2013 in L.A., not knowing who Mick Taylor was. As long as Mick and Keith stand there and give some nostalgic kick that takes people back........
Valid opinion, but not sure if Keith would be willing to carry on without Charlie or any of the others. Mick on the other hand might be willing to continue as the "Stones" without Charlie or Keith or Ronnie.
As long as he has one of them there it would close enough, and many in attendance wouldn't care. For the casual fan, Mick being the front man is the most recognizable, and most take a piss break during Keith's set anyways.
Hi Hairball,
do you remember hoe "popular" Mick was doing his solo tour? USA and Europe were cancelled! Japan, well it doesn't count, because the Stones had never played there to start with and Japanese buy anything! They even paid $100.000 to invite that Olympic Games full fatched cheater Ben Johnson or female student sweat in a bottle. The real Stones fans didn't like Mick's solo adventure then and I think not in the future either. Certainly not as "The Rolling Stones". Maybe "Mick Jagger's Rock and Roll Circus" would attract people. But not at a level like the recent No Filter Tour or the Zip Code tour.
Hi georgie, this is all absolutely true. But just to clarify I did say for the casual fan/general public. Being the front man, Mick is the most recognizable, and because of that he might be able to pull off such a farce. But of course most real fans know that Keith is the real deal and the leader of the band, and without him it could never be legitimate. While Mick would lose some of the diehard base if he chose to carry on without Keith, he might still be able to get away with it as far as casual fans are concerned - as long as he doesn't play any of his horrible solo material!
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Posted by:
PalaisRoyale
()
Date: July 29, 2018 16:23
The Stones are in the twilight of their careers. If one of them leaves or can no longer play it's finished. I find people's expectations is to grind them into a pulp. Enjoy what they still provide as once they stop there will be no more shows to look forward to.
Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: July 29, 2018 16:29
Quote
lem motlowQuote
treaclefingersQuote
yeababyyea
No!! without Charlie there' no soul left in this band.
i agree but I think Keith is (heart and) soul, mick is the head, and Charlie is the Skeletal structure.
Where does that leave Ronnie?
Ronnie Wood is a big fcking deal.drunk,high,fresh out of rehab,it didn’t matter.he showed up and played.
He wrote some really good songs and sometimes didn’t get credit,took an amazing amount of shit from the diva twins and never complained.he always did what was best for the band.
He didn’t quit without warning and show up later weighing 250 pounds and whining about song credits.cashing that check for co-writing its only rock and roll would’ve been nice but again,never complained.
Dude is a trooper and we’re lucky to have him.
"the hands" then? As in, always 'hands on'.
Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Posted by:
The Joker
()
Date: July 29, 2018 16:32
Sorry.
Depressing and useless thread despite numerous comments I respect.
Whatever has to happen, will happen.
Depressing and useless thread despite numerous comments I respect.
Whatever has to happen, will happen.
Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Posted by:
bertrichards
()
Date: July 29, 2018 17:26
No.Quote
crholmstrom
Of the 3 original members, I think Charlie is the most likely to decide its time to retire. He's a bit older than the rest & while he still always plays well I could see him decide to hang it up. That being said, do you think the Stones should continue if that were to happen?
Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Posted by:
vertigojoe
()
Date: July 29, 2018 18:45
They’d stop cos Mick’d be lonely without Charlie.
Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Posted by:
crholmstrom
()
Date: July 29, 2018 19:25
Quote
The Joker
Sorry.
Depressing and useless thread despite numerous comments I respect.
Whatever has to happen, will happen.
i just put it out there because i though it would be an interesting discussion (which it has been). don't think useless is fair especially when compared to some of the other stuff that gets put up. its a good question. the man is pushing 80 years old & has a lot of other interests. personally, i think i would be offended if the band continued without him, mick or keith & called it the stones. ronnie is a fine guitar player & seems to be on the straight & narrow now but i think he could be replaced. it would be different for sure but maybe interesting. what "useful" topics have you put up lately?
Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Posted by:
keithsman
()
Date: July 29, 2018 19:37
Quote
HairballQuote
24FPS
They will carry on as long as suckers, I mean fans, are willing to pay them the buckets of cash they can get for pumping out the same 18 tunes over and over. As long as Mick and Keith are standing up there giving an approximation of the Stones from a long time ago, people will come. They would survive Charlie leaving. Fans wouldn't like it, and the rhythm section would sound even worse, but those people aren't paying that close attention anyway. Hell, I heard them in 2013 in L.A., not knowing who Mick Taylor was. As long as Mick and Keith stand there and give some nostalgic kick that takes people back........
Valid opinion, but not sure if Keith would be willing to carry on without Charlie or any of the others. Mick on the other hand might be willing to continue as the "Stones" without Charlie or Keith or Ronnie.
As long as he has one of them there it would close enough, and many in attendance wouldn't care. For the casual fan, Mick being the front man is the most recognizable, and most take a piss break during Keith's set anyways.
I think the days of taking a piss break when Keith sings are long gone, never noticed it at the shows i have attended and there are some shows like in Wembley Arena where the crowd surged forward out of their seats, including security members when Keith sang The Nearness Of You to rapturous applause, although i admit he didn't get such a great cheer after his songs in the UK this time round.
Ronnie and Charlie live in England and are seen as one of ours, Keith on the other hand mostly lives in the States and Turks and Caicos, this might have something to do with his popularity in the UK, but having said that i have not noticed a toilet break with Keith singing at any of the Uk shows through the years since 1990, and certainly not in Paris or many other shows in Europe. Keith seems to be loved all over the world and gets incredible respect when he does his set in most Country's.
Sorry but also disagree with Mick being the reason people go to see the Stones, or that Mick could continue as the Stones without Keith, it's Mick and Keith most people see as the Stones world wide, without Keith i think maybe half the tickets will be sold , or the tickets would need to be half the price, casual fan or not Mick and Keith are the Stones, we are talking copyrite here
Also Hairball with all due respect, it's Ronnie and Charlie that are not so important to the casual fan, if you look at The Who, it's just Roger and Pete now, that's all that's needed for the casual fan for the band to continue very successfully, you can't really put Keith in the same bracket as Ronnie or Charlie, sorry mate but your post has missed the mark a bit
Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Posted by:
dcba
()
Date: July 29, 2018 19:42
Quote
Markdog
I don't know about Charlie but if Mick retired the band could easily carry on with Axl Rose.
And Ringo Starr on drums if Cholie decides to live on his pension plan!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-07-29 19:42 by dcba.
Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Posted by:
vertigojoe
()
Date: July 29, 2018 19:44
Keithsman you remind me of my younger self before the scales had fallen from my eyes re “Keef”. He’s not actually quite as cool as you think he is. Tough to take I know but you’ll lead a better life when you accept this.
Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Posted by:
keithsman
()
Date: July 29, 2018 19:44
Quote
dcbaQuote
Markdog
I don't know about Charlie but if Mick retired the band could easily carry on with Axl Rose.
And Ringo Starr on drums if Cholie decides to live on his pension plan!
If Mick retired it would be an excellent opportunity for the band to find someone who can actually sing.
Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Posted by:
dcba
()
Date: July 29, 2018 19:46
Quote
keithsman
i have not noticed a toilet break with Keith singing at any of the Uk shows through the years since 1990, and certainly not in Paris or many other shows in Europe. Keith seems to be loved all over the world and gets incredible respect when he does his set in most Country's.
yeah the "Keith pee break" seems to be a fantasy purported by Stones "fans" with massive prostate problems right?
Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Posted by:
keithsman
()
Date: July 29, 2018 19:47
Quote
vertigojoe
Keithsman you remind me of my younger self before the scales had fallen from my eyes re “Keef”. He’s not actually quite as cool as you think he is. Tough to take I know but you’ll lead a better life when you accept this.
Yeah i know what you mean lol, but the point i am making is legally Mick would struggle to tour as the Stones without Keith.
We are talking brand here, i know Keith's an old man now and doesn't move much but he can still pull off the slower ballads better than ever, and he did play great guitar again this year.
Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Posted by:
keithsman
()
Date: July 29, 2018 19:55
Quote
dcbaQuote
keithsman
i have not noticed a toilet break with Keith singing at any of the Uk shows through the years since 1990, and certainly not in Paris or many other shows in Europe. Keith seems to be loved all over the world and gets incredible respect when he does his set in most Country's.
yeah the "Keith pee break" seems to be a fantasy purported by Stones "fans" with massive prostate problems right?
Yep i'll go along with that, personally if i got to take a pee it's going to be through Miss You or YCAGWYW. Each to their own i guess.
Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: July 29, 2018 21:23
A pee break (or any type of break) during any portion of a Stones show is sacrilege imo, and not an option - especially these days with the expensive tickets and the short 19 song set list.
But it is not a myth that alot of people take the opportunity during Keith's set for a pee break and/or a beer run - especially casual fans who've never heard Slipping Away for example.
Obviously not a mass exodus, but many get antsy after Keith's first song, and use the opportunity as an intermission to do what they have to do. I imagine if Ronnie were given a solo spotlight, it would be even worse.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
But it is not a myth that alot of people take the opportunity during Keith's set for a pee break and/or a beer run - especially casual fans who've never heard Slipping Away for example.
Obviously not a mass exodus, but many get antsy after Keith's first song, and use the opportunity as an intermission to do what they have to do. I imagine if Ronnie were given a solo spotlight, it would be even worse.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Posted by:
crholmstrom
()
Date: July 29, 2018 22:19
Quote
keithsmanQuote
dcbaQuote
keithsman
i have not noticed a toilet break with Keith singing at any of the Uk shows through the years since 1990, and certainly not in Paris or many other shows in Europe. Keith seems to be loved all over the world and gets incredible respect when he does his set in most Country's.
yeah the "Keith pee break" seems to be a fantasy purported by Stones "fans" with massive prostate problems right?
Yep i'll go along with that, personally if i got to take a pee it's going to be through Miss You or YCAGWYW. Each to their own i guess.
mine would be during Emotional Rescue if they insist on playing that again
Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Posted by:
georgie48
()
Date: July 29, 2018 23:09
Quote
Hairball
A pee break (or any type of break) during any portion of a Stones show is sacrilege imo, and not an option - especially these days with the expensive tickets and the short 19 song set list.
But it is not a myth that alot of people take the opportunity during Keith's set for a pee break and/or a beer run - especially casual fans who've never heard Slipping Away for example.
Obviously not a mass exodus, but many get antsy after Keith's first song, and use the opportunity as an intermission to do what they have to do. I imagine if Ronnie were given a solo spotlight, it would be even worse.
I fully agree what you say about those pee breaks. Shocking. My first concert in the USA was in 1994 (3rd Giants Stadium show, 1st ring left side (front part) from the stage facing it) and there were two shocks I had to deal with. First, chairs on the field/ground ... and people actually sat down during quiet songs
. Amazing! Second shock was seeing people leave "en masse" when Keith started doing his thing, again ... amazing! I had never seen anything like that before in Europe. I admire the Swedish girl standing right behind me in Havana in 2016. She told me that (after waiting more than 12 hours outdoor, she didn't want to miss one second of the concert and simply peed in her pants .. or whatever.Well, I got used to all those different life styles, haha. Booked quite some front of stage seats since ... but during any show, never sat down for a second. Amazingly, never even had to pee in my pants.
Changed life styles: it's like watching all those people staring at/playing with their mobile phones and tablets ... well, I occasionally join them. I don't like generation gaps
Back to the subject: Charlie will never let Mick and Keith down, neither will Ronnie. But whenever something unexpected will occur, we'll have to take things as they come and see what any of the others decide to do. On the basis of that I will make my choice(s). Long live the Rolling Stones
Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Posted by:
crholmstrom
()
Date: July 29, 2018 23:54
the keith pee break is nothing compared to the kinks "now dave is going to sing for you"....
Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Posted by:
keithsman
()
Date: July 30, 2018 00:58
Quote
crholmstromQuote
keithsmanQuote
dcbaQuote
keithsman
i have not noticed a toilet break with Keith singing at any of the Uk shows through the years since 1990, and certainly not in Paris or many other shows in Europe. Keith seems to be loved all over the world and gets incredible respect when he does his set in most Country's.
yeah the "Keith pee break" seems to be a fantasy purported by Stones "fans" with massive prostate problems right?
Yep i'll go along with that, personally if i got to take a pee it's going to be through Miss You or YCAGWYW. Each to their own i guess.
mine would be during Emotional Rescue if they insist on playing that again
Yeah agree, that and Worried About You, that falsetto voice does me, straight to the bathroom
Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Posted by:
keithsman
()
Date: July 30, 2018 01:02
Quote
keithsmanQuote
crholmstromQuote
keithsmanQuote
dcbaQuote
keithsman
i have not noticed a toilet break with Keith singing at any of the Uk shows through the years since 1990, and certainly not in Paris or many other shows in Europe. Keith seems to be loved all over the world and gets incredible respect when he does his set in most Country's.
yeah the "Keith pee break" seems to be a fantasy purported by Stones "fans" with massive prostate problems right?
Yep i'll go along with that, personally if i got to take a pee it's going to be through Miss You or YCAGWYW. Each to their own i guess.
mine would be during Emotional Rescue if they insist on playing that again
Yeah agree, that and Worried About You, that falsetto voice does me, straight to the bathroom
Edit. Although love Micks falsetto on the original album tracks.
Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Posted by:
CharlieGirl
()
Date: July 30, 2018 01:08
I think my user I.D. pretty much states MY opinion, but I'll reiterate by saying (like so many others here><), NO CHARLIE (or Ronnie), NO STONES! 
<), NO CHARLIE (or Ronnie), NO STONES! Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Posted by:
keithsman
()
Date: July 30, 2018 01:12
Actually as far a bathroom breaks go with Chucks and Micks song selection i tend to spend 80 percent of the show in the bathroom these days and just come out for Keith's set
Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: July 30, 2018 01:22
….heck that's a lotta shit your carrying around ….. hhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaa
ROCKMAN
ROCKMAN
Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Posted by:
Delta
()
Date: July 30, 2018 01:45
Let's just hope continued good health for the fellas.
Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Posted by:
lem motlow
()
Date: July 30, 2018 07:55
Quote
vertigojoe
Keithsman you remind me of my younger self before the scales had fallen from my eyes re “Keef”. He’s not actually quite as cool as you think he is. Tough to take I know but you’ll lead a better life when you accept this.
Go easy on em vert,you feel a little bit embarrassed for the Keithettes but they are just fans.we can laugh at them sitting there with their skull rings and waving a cigarette around just like the man himself but we were all young fanatics at one time,it’s good to have heroes.
Though It is amazing how pathetic Keith gets sometimes and how much they will ignore it .i could let the constant posing slide but when he took the Yves St Laurent deal and ended up wearing the same jacket onstage as Justin Bieber I could not stop laughing.you just can’t jump the shark worse than that.
This Thread has been closed
Online Users
a bigger nut , britstones , ChrisL , EddieByword , exilestones , irishjohnnie , JMoisica , jumpingjackflash5 , keefmick , letitloose6 , Mabru , makemeburnthecandle , Martin90 , MisterDDDD , MisterO , NashvilleBlues , philrock90 , Racca1962 , rastakeith , sandandglue , spunky , teleblaster , TooTight , TumblinDice76 , TW2019 , UGK56
Guests:
2127
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10