For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
lem motlowQuote
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.
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.
Quote
retired_dogQuote
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.
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.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
lem motlowQuote
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...
Quote
HairballQuote
retired_dogQuote
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.
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".
Quote
HairballQuote
retired_dogQuote
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
.
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.