If anyone can’t continue, it’s over. Done. History.

Quote
lem motlow

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.

I recall your descriptions of Keith from the shows you attended in 1975 where you described his playing, presence and moves in more than a neutral manner

I guess we've all been there...

Charlie won't retire.

Quote
Hairball

Quote
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.

Please not these "Keith the romantic pirate vs. Mick the sharp cold businessman"-stereotypes again that only serve Jane Rose by proving that her decades-long myth-creating is still quite successful. Be assured that when it comes to Stones money, Keith is every bit a businessman like Mick.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-07-30 19:34 by retired_dog.

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Hairball

Quote
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.

Please not these "Keith the romantic pirate vs. Mick the sharp cold businessman"-stereotypes again that only serve Jane Rose by proving that her decades-long myth-creating is still quite successful. Be assured that when it comes to Stones money, Keith is every bit a businessman like Mick.

Perhaps true, but that wasn't the point and you misinterpreted the entire post which had nothing to do with "Keith as romantic pirate vs. Mick the sharp cold businessman".
The simple point was I don't think Keith would have it in him to carry on at this late point, while Mick might still be gung ho due to his "youthful exuberance".

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

Actually, reading between the lines in Prince Rupert's book, I got the impression that their former Business Manager thought that Keith was Mick's equal when it came to understanding money matters.
Its just that he's too lazy to get involved to the extent that Mick does.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
lem motlow

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.

I recall your descriptions of Keith from the shows you attended in 1975 where you described his playing, presence and moves in more than a neutral manner

I guess we've all been there...

I won’t confirm or deny a couple of floppy hats may have appeared in my wardrobe in the summer of 75. there is also a possibility of a couple extra pair of sunglasses and a vest or two as well as a way of smoking a cigarette hands free at times.
Seriously though,I think some of the other fan boards may still be living in circa 2002 and when they come here they find,as you can see by some of these recent posts IORR is a little more,shall we say grown up in their attitudes toward the band members.

Quote
Hairball

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Hairball

Quote
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.

Please not these "Keith the romantic pirate vs. Mick the sharp cold businessman"-stereotypes again that only serve Jane Rose by proving that her decades-long myth-creating is still quite successful. Be assured that when it comes to Stones money, Keith is every bit a businessman like Mick.

Perhaps true, but that wasn't the point and you misinterpreted the entire post which had nothing to do with "Keith as romantic pirate vs. Mick the sharp cold businessman".
The simple point was I don't think Keith would have it in him to carry on at this late point, while Mick might still be gung ho due to his "youthful exuberance".

OK, that's quite a different spin than I tought it had. But anyway, who thought that Keith had another solo album in him before Crosseyed Heart actually appeared? Or that he was able to return to a form not like old, but at least to be able to perform like he did in recent years? My take is that these guys never failed to surprise us, for the better or sometimes even the worse.

Please Charlie will never retire he plays the drums for Keith and mick until nature takes it course. No Charlie no stones pleass

Quote
Hairball

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Hairball

Quote
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.

Please not these "Keith the romantic pirate vs. Mick the sharp cold businessman"-stereotypes again that only serve Jane Rose by proving that her decades-long myth-creating is still quite successful. Be assured that when it comes to Stones money, Keith is every bit a businessman like Mick.

Perhaps true, but that wasn't the point and you misinterpreted the entire post which had nothing to do with "Keith as romantic pirate vs. Mick the sharp cold businessman".
The simple point was I don't think Keith would have it in him to carry on at this late point, while Mick might still be gung ho due to his "youthful exuberance".

On the contrary, i see Keith as a man who loves his music and involves himself in many events with other musicians over the years, sure Mick whips himself up into great shape to sing the Warhorses for the big money but i'm not so sure his heart is really into this music anymore.
Keith would be making solo albums and touring with the Wino's and a host of other musicians had Mick decided to call it a day years ago.
Lets look at some facts, Keith made a very convincing album (Crosseyed Heart) when the Stones appeared to be finished, i'm sure he intended to tour behind it when he started to make it, Mick on the other hand can't really be bothered to spend enough time in the studio to make a solo album of his own, it could be said he can't be bothered to finish this Stones album for what ever reason. I could be wrong but i'm guessing Mick is holding this album up not Keith or the others.
Also a guitarist can continue to play well into his 80's but someone like Mick could get a dodgy hip joint, back pain or just plain lose his voice and that's it, performing over, end of.
No Hairball me old mate, you might be slightly off the mark here, i think Mick is very fortunate to still be able to do this, it's highly unlikely he or Charlie will be able to pull it off for much longer and i suspect Mick knows this too, hence only 14 shows a year. As for Keith and Ronnie they could be playing like this for another 10 years health permitting.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-07-31 00:43 by keithsman.

I used to say that the Stones would go on until one day Mick and Keith are sitting on stool playing Carnegie Hall for $1,000/ticket.

I was only off by a little, as they are still touring as a band and tix are already > $1,000 at times!

I still think if they are the last two standing Mick and Keith will perform. Chuck Berry was performing up close to the end.

Righty-o keithsman, but again let me clarify.

Of course Keith would continue to work in one form or another, but doubtful he would be willing to carry on with THE ROLLING STONES without Charlie.
On the other hand, Mick might be willing to do so as THE ROLLING STONES without Charlie, Keith, or Ronnie - how many years he'd be able to is beside the point.

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

Quote
Hairball
Righty-o keithsman, but again let me clarify.

Of course Keith would continue to work in one form or another, but doubtful he would be willing to carry on with THE ROLLING STONES without Charlie.
On the other hand, Mick might be willing to do so as THE ROLLING STONES without Charlie, Keith, or Ronnie - how many years he'd be able to is beside the point.

Bottom line to everything they could do/should do is that both Mick and Keith know very well that everything they do solo could not hold a candle compared to the success of their band. Given the fact they're both well-off financially and getting older and rustier it remains to be seen if they could be bothered at all to do anything that deserves the "new projects"-tag, apart from singular surprise public or guest appearances.

Quote
HalfNanker
I used to say that the Stones would go on until one day Mick and Keith are sitting on stool playing Carnegie Hall for $1,000/ticket.

I was only off by a little, as they are still touring as a band and tix are already > $1,000 at times!

I still think if they are the last two standing Mick and Keith will perform. Chuck Berry was performing up close to the end.

They're not remotely like Chuck Berry. And God help us if they were satisfied with 'performing' at the level Chuck did in his last few years.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2018-07-31 03:18 by Gazza.

Quote
jlowe
Actually, reading between the lines in Prince Rupert's book, I got the impression that their former Business Manager thought that Keith was Mick's equal when it came to understanding money matters.
Its just that he's too lazy to get involved to the extent that Mick does.

The same impression is gleaned from Walter Yetnikoff's book where he portrays Keith just as cutthroat in business meetings as Mick and notes that Keith would turn off the stoned or drunken routine seemingly at will during meetings and suddenly turn coherent and very, very sharp when it came to money.

Quote
keithsman
On the contrary, i see Keith as a man who loves his music and involves himself in many events with other musicians over the years, sure Mick whips himself up into great shape to sing the Warhorses for the big money but i'm not so sure his heart is really into this music anymore.
Keith would be making solo albums and touring with the Wino's and a host of other musicians had Mick decided to call it a day years ago.
Lets look at some facts, Keith made a very convincing album (Crosseyed Heart) when the Stones appeared to be finished, i'm sure he intended to tour behind it when he started to make it, Mick on the other hand can't really be bothered to spend enough time in the studio to make a solo album of his own, it could be said he can't be bothered to finish this Stones album for what ever reason. I could be wrong but i'm guessing Mick is holding this album up not Keith or the others.

If Mick's heart wasn't in music any more, he wouldn't write as many songs as he does. When you look at their output in the 21st Century as a band or solo, Mick has been far more productive than Keith. Yes, I know the arguments of quality over quantity, but this isn't supposed to be subjective, it's factual.
I would agree had the Stones not recorded and toured in the 1990s, Keith would have kept going with the Winos. After BRIDGES TO BABYLON, it took over a dozen years to amass enough material for Keith to cut a single solo album. From that perspective, I don't agree Keith would have kept the Winos going strong the past twenty years.
You use the expression "let's look at some facts" but then make a subjective remark that CROSSEYED HEART is "convincing." You also state it was made when the Stones looked like they were finished. While the songs had their roots as far back as 1996 in some cases, Keith has said the album was cut between 2011 and 2014. Steve Jordan has said they started slow and then built up momentum over time. That means most of the album was cut between Stones tours. Steve Jordan has remarked that Keith was thinking of retirement during the period the Stones were dormant and Mick was finishing up old outtakes from his home studio.
Mick can't be bothered to make a solo album? We had SuperHeavy in 2011 and two solo tracks last year (not finding them "convincing" isn't factual). Mick has made reference to cutting tracks the Stones don't use on his own once the Stones album is done. Dave Stewart has talked about Mick releasing dozens of orphan songs on a cloud at some point. Mick has plenty of material with Dave and plenty of material with Matt. He's not hurting for material.
Finally, the suggestion Mick is the hold-up for the Stones album contradicts Keith's own statements that he didn't want to cut material that didn't fit his idea of the Stones. If Keith simply went along with the program, we would have a Stones album largely of Mick-originated material. Keith is pushing for his own half of the partnership. Since you're primarily a Keith fan, you should be grateful Don Was and Universal are likewise encouraging them to keep reworking the material and writing new material until they have a product of quality to get behind as an event release.
However, none of those facts suggest Mick isn't writing songs for the Stones or on his own, holding up the Stones album, or stopping Keith from turning out solo albums and short tours or even a few solo gigs every single year if he desired. Reality is Keith hasn't played a full solo set since he was 49 years old. That was 25 years ago. Time isn't on his side any more. There are connected folks here that believe Keith considered playing Winos shows to promote his album in 2015, but didn't think he could pull it off as a front man. Nothing wrong with acknowledging limitations. Believe it or not, I prefer Keith solo to Mick. I just try to stick to facts.

Well all i can say Rocky is that your facts are as Rocky as mine, very subjective, very one sided and optimistic at best. Touche
It's just the way we prefer to see things, Mick hasn't made a real solo album with decent material since Wandering Spirit when he was 49 years old, i mean come on both Mick and Keith have been lazy in that department but at least Keith made Crosseyed Heart, i believe he would have toured behind it but Keith's loyalty has always been towards the Stones, of course he is capable of playing some solo dates as a solo artist, he more than proves that every night the Stones play.

Quote
Hairball
Righty-o keithsman, but again let me clarify.

Of course Keith would continue to work in one form or another, but doubtful he would be willing to carry on with THE ROLLING STONES without Charlie.
On the other hand, Mick might be willing to do so as THE ROLLING STONES without Charlie, Keith, or Ronnie - how many years he'd be able to is beside the point.

Like i said in previous posts, Mick would not be able to tour as the Stones without Keith for legal reasons, its really not an option for him, but i hear what you are saying.

Crosseyed Heart is such a great album, and it's a shame he never played any of it live anywhere. But as much as I would have loved to see him tour, his appearance at the Apollo right after Crosseyed Hearts release was dismal at best so maybe it's a blessing in disguise he didn't tour - might have been embarrassing. I also remember he went on Jimmy Fallon and was hoping he'd maybe play something- even sitting in with the house band - but he flat out said "no, I'm rusty" and instead I think he just talked about his lemon trees along with some other inconsequential mumbo jumbo.

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

Quote
Hairball
Crosseyed Heart is such a great album, and it's a shame he never played any of it live anywhere. But as much as I would have loved to see him tour, his appearance at the Apollo right after Crosseyed Hearts release was dismal at best so maybe it's a blessing in disguise he didn't tour - might have been embarrassing. I also remember he went on Jimmy Fallon and was hoping he'd maybe play something- even sitting in with the house band - but he flat out said "no, I'm rusty" and instead I think he just talked about his lemon trees along with some other inconsequential mumbo jumbo.

Yes that was very disappointing from Keith, he didn't play one track from CH anywhere. I couldn't believe it after all the BS he comes out with, but he could possibly do a good job of those tracks now, certainly he's not rusty now.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
Finally, the suggestion Mick is the hold-up for the Stones album contradicts Keith's own statements that he didn't want to cut material that didn't fit his idea of the Stones. If Keith simply went along with the program, we would have a Stones album largely of Mick-originated material. Keith is pushing for his own half of the partnership. Since you're primarily a Keith fan, you should be grateful Don Was and Universal are likewise encouraging them to keep reworking the material and writing new material until they have a product of quality to get behind as an event release.
.

I presume that releasing a new album is simply an enormous risk. People obviously liked the blues album, and on the tours fans are satisfied with the greatest hits show. Now that the setlist moaners are not any more the Stones can play more or less the same, an on the second leg of the No Filter tour they hardly played any obscure songs, even not to the extent they had done it on the first leg.

I imagine it must be very hard for them to write relevant new songs. Sex topics do not really work for people over 70, you can hardly sing about you Age, and politics? Well, I don't know.

Look at Van Morrison who never wrote songs about controversial topics like the Stones did and still has a remarkable voice. He has also dried up quite a bit, even though it was always said in the past that he was supposed to have tons of unfinished great material in his archives. But as he mainly reworks already released songs or sings cover versions he apparently is also struggling to write (or re-write) relevant songs.

Why is it an enormous risk?

No one in their right mind expects another Sticky Fingers.

Are people going to walk out of shows because they played a couple of new songs or because they didn't play a certain warhorse?

Are they going to vow never to come back? The Stones are in their mid 70s. What difference could it possibly make at this point?

just catching up with this thread. its interesting, seems to presume Charlie will retire.

no evidence for that, on the contrary, more shows are planned. after that, is that what the question in this thread is referring to?

like BV says, they have the luxury of choosing a few shows to commit to, here and there, whenever they want to .

There is nothing to the "Charlie will retire" except speculation because he always claims to not enjoy touring. The whole thread is just speculation because there's nothing concrete to discuss now that the tour finished. It's a variation on "was that the last show?" or "will they do a 50 date U.S. tour behind a fabulously successful album that has hit singles?" thread. Nothing to it but speculation and the odd snarky remark.

Is the new album an enormous risk? No, the advance is small and even if it's a relative success, it doesn't approach what they can make playing greatest hits 14 times each year. The protracted recording schedule is reflective of where it falls on Mick and Keith's priorities combined with their producer and the record label being tougher on them to come up with material they will get behind. Mick and Keith not being a completely united front throughout this makes that argument easier, but it doesn't mean Don and Universal are on the same page as Keith either.

There was no presumption that Charlie is retiring. I put this up as a what if. There is some logic involved given Charlie's age etc. Who knows, maybe Chuck will retire.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
There is nothing to the "Charlie will retire" except speculation because he always claims to not enjoy touring. The whole thread is just speculation because there's nothing concrete to discuss now that the tour finished. It's a variation on "was that the last show?" or "will they do a 50 date U.S. tour behind a fabulously successful album that has hit singles?" thread. Nothing to it but speculation and the odd snarky remark.

Is the new album an enormous risk? No, the advance is small and even if it's a relative success, it doesn't approach what they can make playing greatest hits 14 times each year. The protracted recording schedule is reflective of where it falls on Mick and Keith's priorities combined with their producer and the record label being tougher on them to come up with material they will get behind. Mick and Keith not being a completely united front throughout this makes that argument easier, but it doesn't mean Don and Universal are on the same page as Keith either.

Hi, I like what you’ve been writing/ and agree (because you listed facts) further up about, something, probably Mick lol
Anyway, just a chime,
‘the record company’
what an old term
I just cannot see in 2018 a ‘record company’ saying
‘No we don’t think this is any good, Mick and Keith’
Who is gonna have the cajones to say that?
And if it’s Don Was
I hope he doesn’t say it
because who really can declare that??
Only Mick and Keith.

Back to the topic:

I DON’T KNOW.

Okay. Only Sheila E. I will only accept Sheila E
in lieu of Charlie
[en.m.wikipedia.org].

Quote
35love
Okay. Only Sheila E. I will only accept Sheila E
in lieu of Charlie
[en.m.wikipedia.org].

Nah...Paul McCartney would be an option.
He could fit his own schedule around The Stones none too demanding workload.
John Lennon once said 'Paul is the best drummer in The Beatles'.

You guys are gettin' silly now.

~"Love is Strong"~