There's nothing "PC" (I hate that @#$%& term) about wishing that Keith would stop smoking.


Ronnie had half a lung hacked out of his body for Chrissake. Wouldn't it be nice to have the Stones around another 10-15 years, even if they're retired for the majority of that time?

My Dad is the same age as Keith and he keeps trying to quit and then backsliding, and the effects of a lifetime of smoking are starting to become apparent, so it's a personal thing for me.

Quote
Rocky Dijon

Quote
keithsman
Was this posted by a clueless angry frustrated drunk, or just a clueless angry frustrated man.

Don't know a thing about lem outside of this place. Don't even know if he's an inverted Mel or Lemuel. Does he often sound frustrated and sometimes even angry? Yes, he often does. Is he clueless? No, he's usually painfully honest. I don't agree with everything he's ever said, but largely he's our perfect tough love regular who tells it like it is even when we don't want to hear it.

I think what you are saying is he is your favorite most angry Keith basher , it's considered cool to bash Keith,, it suits the vibe here, not so much Mick or Ronnie though, i can only assume it's because they drink less than Keith these days.
Judging by that we should totally disregard everything Keith achieved while taking heroin coke or alcohol, from Gimme Shelter right through Sticky Fingers, Exile, Tattoo You and beyond, bang goes your Rolling Stones dude, you're left with Prancercise aerobics and ballet Rock, give me a break.

Honest question ? What is man suffering from if he has been prolific at writing all of his life but in the last 14 years he has come up with very little, and is also working on an album for 3 years that's just getting started , could that man be suffering from writers block ? Answer = no no don't be ridiculous that's just bashing.

I think Lem's post is interesting.....there are victims that go unnoticed when someone abuses drugs or drink....the band certainly suffered in its output over the last 30 years from something...if not completely from drugs ( a relationship gone sour certainly had a lot to do with it)...drugs were a big part of their creative genius in the 1970's....but maybe in hindsight a bigger than noticed contributor to their decline......maybe when Mick writes his book....we'll know more.

‘maybe when Mick writes his book....we'll know more.’

No way. Oh I wish, but I do not think so.

I also like Lem, he explained to me patiently Las Vegas air and singers one time, he’s been around, but Dijon’s description is perfect.

What is ‘Keith bashing’ is it writing something complimentary or mentioning him likable, but then adding a knife twist. I think it’s the sly passive aggressive posts I sometimes see that seem more hurtful to me.

I love Keith Richards. I support him on keep on keeping on. I suspect his gorgeous wife/ life partner does her best to keep him happy and healthy as well.

Quote
Rip This
I think Lem's post is interesting.....there are victims that go unnoticed when someone abuses drugs or drink....the band certainly suffered in its output over the last 30 years from something...if not completely from drugs ( a relationship gone sour certainly had a lot to do with it)...drugs were a big part of their creative genius in the 1970's....but maybe in hindsight a bigger than noticed contributor to their decline......maybe when Mick writes his book....we'll know more.

I don't think all heavy drinkers are bad people necessarily, usually it can start out as a way of covering up for nerves or shyness, that's very much why i started drinking.
Am i right in thinking Keith has never been linked to being violent towards his wife and children or bullied women because he was drunk, i don't think Keith is that kind of guy.
Ronnie himself has said many times that Keith is a very moral person, very human, maybe drink catches up with everyone eventually, and from what Ronnie said recently it was catching up with Keith, but good for Ronnie, Keith and many others out there that stop rather than go on abusing themselves and others.
Surely this is a positive from Keith, and we all get to hear him play better as a result.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-12-15 20:35 by keithsman.

Quote
keithsman
I think what you are saying is he is your favorite most angry Keith basher , it's considered cool to bash Keith,, it suits the vibe here, not so much Mick or Ronnie though, i can only assume it's because they drink less than Keith these days.
Judging by that we should totally disregard everything Keith achieved while taking heroin coke or alcohol, from Gimme Shelter right through Sticky Fingers, Exile, Tattoo You and beyond, bang goes your Rolling Stones dude, you're left with Prancercise aerobics and ballet Rock, give me a break.

Honest question ? What is man suffering from if he has been prolific at writing all of his life but in the last 14 years he has come up with very little, and is also working on an album for 3 years that's just getting started , could that man be suffering from writers block ? Answer = no no don't be ridiculous that's just bashing.

Lem went from idolizing Keith, as I did for much of my life, to seeing him as flawed. Is he tougher on him than I am? Yeah, it's his opinion. Why did I speak up? It's not because "he's my favorite Keith basher." Keith is a public figure. While I understand on iorr, people will defend Keith just like they'll defend Mick, they both come under attack because they're public figures. Lem isn't.

I tried to be diplomatic by saying Lem is painfully honest. He is abrasive, but he doesn't state falsehoods. The conclusions he reaches are just his opinions, but the rest is factual. You don't have to like him. I don't think lem is looking for people to like him. I understand you wanting to defend Keith, but do it without crossing the line into what nearly anyone would consider a personal attack.

Asking if Lem is "a cluesless frustrated angry drunk or just a clueless frustrated angry man?" would almost certainly violate rules of conduct just about anywhere. Consider posting "are you a clueless furstrated angry drunk?" after Bjornulf posts something you don't agree with and you'll see why it's below the belt. Yes, I get you were using his words against him, but Keith is a public figure. Argue without turning it into a war.

As for the rest, if you're really interested...no, I think Keith is very talented. I love his Stones work and his solo work. Even a throwaway song like "One More Shot" has great music and groove and that is all Keith. There is tremendous joy in listening to the man play and having other musicians lock in with him. As for Mick, I roll my eyes at prancercize and aerobics remarks because its crap to me. I like Mick. The Stones were more than Jagger-Richards until the last three decades (and certainly after VOODOO LOUNGE) when it really is just Jagger and Richards. I wouldn't be a fan if I didn't like both of them and think both of them were amazing at what they do.

Do I like everything? No. I'll never like most of SHE'S THE BOSS. I'll never like "Let's Work." I'll never like all of GODDESS IN THE DOORWAY or most of SUPERHEAVY. I'll never want to live in the same universe as "Charmed Life." That said, I love "Just Another Night," most of PRIMITIVE COOL, all of WANDERING SPIRIT, a few tracks on GODDESS, a couple songs on ALFIE, one track on SUPERHEAVY. Mick's last two songs are just interesting failures to me. Ronne and Charlie's participation is curious, but means little because they've become sidemen without Keith.

Does Mick have writer's block? No. Did I think Keith had writer's block? Yes. Was I wrong? Yes. Am I frustrated at the lack of progress with the album? Yes. Do I think tons of studio tracks by the Stones and Mick solo will eventually see the light of day? Yes.

Quote
Rocky Dijon

Quote
keithsman
I think what you are saying is he is your favorite most angry Keith basher , it's considered cool to bash Keith,, it suits the vibe here, not so much Mick or Ronnie though, i can only assume it's because they drink less than Keith these days.
Judging by that we should totally disregard everything Keith achieved while taking heroin coke or alcohol, from Gimme Shelter right through Sticky Fingers, Exile, Tattoo You and beyond, bang goes your Rolling Stones dude, you're left with Prancercise aerobics and ballet Rock, give me a break.

Honest question ? What is man suffering from if he has been prolific at writing all of his life but in the last 14 years he has come up with very little, and is also working on an album for 3 years that's just getting started , could that man be suffering from writers block ? Answer = no no don't be ridiculous that's just bashing.

Lem went from idolizing Keith, as I did for much of my life, to seeing him as flawed. Is he tougher on him than I am? Yeah, it's his opinion. Why did I speak up? It's not because "he's my favorite Keith basher." Keith is a public figure. While I understand on iorr, people will defend Keith just like they'll defend Mick, they both come under attack because they're public figures. Lem isn't.

I tried to be diplomatic by saying Lem is painfully honest. He is abrasive, but he doesn't state falsehoods. The conclusions he reaches are just his opinions, but the rest is factual. You don't have to like him. I don't think lem is looking for people to like him. I understand you wanting to defend Keith, but do it without crossing the line into what nearly anyone would consider a personal attack.

Asking if Lem is "a cluesless frustrated angry drunk or just a clueless frustrated angry man?" would almost certainly violate rules of conduct just about anywhere. Consider posting "are you a clueless furstrated angry drunk?" after Bjornulf posts something you don't agree with and you'll see why it's below the belt. Yes, I get you were using his words against him, but Keith is a public figure. Argue without turning it into a war.

As for the rest, if you're really interested...no, I think Keith is very talented. I love his Stones work and his solo work. Even a throwaway song like "One More Shot" has great music and groove and that is all Keith. There is tremendous joy in listening to the man play and having other musicians lock in with him. As for Mick, I roll my eyes at prancercize and aerobics remarks because its crap to me. I like Mick. The Stones were more than Jagger-Richards until the last three decades (and certainly after VOODOO LOUNGE) when it really is just Jagger and Richards. I wouldn't be a fan if I didn't like both of them and think both of them were amazing at what they do.

Do I like everything? No. I'll never like most of SHE'S THE BOSS. I'll never like "Let's Work." I'll never like all of GODDESS IN THE DOORWAY or most of SUPERHEAVY. I'll never want to live in the same universe as "Charmed Life." That said, I love "Just Another Night," most of PRIMITIVE COOL, all of WANDERING SPIRIT, a few tracks on GODDESS, a couple songs on ALFIE, one track on SUPERHEAVY. Mick's last two songs are just interesting failures to me. Ronne and Charlie's participation is curious, but means little because they've become sidemen without Keith.

Does Mick have writer's block? No. Did I think Keith had writer's block? Yes. Was I wrong? Yes. Am I frustrated at the lack of progress with the album? Yes. Do I think tons of studio tracks by the Stones and Mick solo will eventually see the light of day? Yes.

I see so while you say my post in reaction to Lems post today was in violation of IORR rules, i am curious as to whether you condone this post from lem pointed at me a few weeks ago.

Re: Keith Richards solo album 'Crosseyed Heart' - out September 18, 2015
Posted by: lem motlow ()
Date: November 22, 2018 06:56

Don’t even worry about it retired dog,the guy is a weirdo with an unhealthy obsession with Keith.
He really thinks that because Mick and Keith have differences if he attacks Mick it makes him closer to Keith,it’s creepy as hell.i wouldn’t be surprised if he were caught lurking outside the Richards home some day by the police.
It’s pretty clear that Jagger can play straight up blues or rock and roll in his sleep and that his solo material is an attempt to go somewhere else.
The Jagger with the Red Devils project basically destroys anything Keith has ever done on his own, the guitar playing alone is so far beyond mr arthritis’s bungling that it’s comical.
But because Keith banged away on his open g and croaked out some mid tempo rockers and a couple of blues tunes on a solo album he’s now solely responsible for The Rolling Stones?
Good lord man seek help,it’s just getting sad.

Since you're asking me to read it and answer, no, I would say lem was equally out of line and making it personal.

I also think lem's opinion of The Red Devils vs. Keith is ridiculous, for the record.

Regarding your valid complaint above, I would suggest taking the high road. Talk to Bjornulf or ask lem to delete it since it understandably offended you. Carrying on a feud and giving the same back will likely only result in someone being banned. From where I stand, losing either of you would be a loss to the site. You're passionate about the band. You both contribute much that is good. In a perfect world, you'd learn to play nice with each other.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2018-12-15 18:07 by Rocky Dijon.

Quote
keefriff99
There's nothing "PC" (I hate that @#$%& term) about wishing that Keith would stop smoking.


Ronnie had half a lung hacked out of his body for Chrissake. Wouldn't it be nice to have the Stones around another 10-15 years, even if they're retired for the majority of that time?

My Dad is the same age as Keith and he keeps trying to quit and then backsliding, and the effects of a lifetime of smoking are starting to become apparent, so it's a personal thing for me.

Yes, you're right. But those two letters come in handy to deliver a thought, and most people get what I;m going for.

I had written a lot of words, and deleted them all. They made good sense, and argued my point well, I think. But ultimately I would be taking too many liberties with other people's lives, their fate and decisions. I'm going to pull out of this one; not because of anyone here. It's just none of my business.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
Since you're asking me to read it and answer, no, I would say lem was equally out of line and making it personal.

I also think lem's opinion of The Red Devils vs. Keith is ridiculous, for the record.

Regarding your valid complaint above, I would suggest taking the high road. Talk to Bjornulf or ask lem to delete it since it understandably offended you. Carrying on a feud and giving the same back will likely only result in someone being banned. From where I stand, losing either of you would be a loss to the site. You're passionate about the band. You both contribute much that is good. In a perfect world, you'd learn to play nice with each other.

Thank's Rocky, i know you and i come up on different sides of the coin but we always have respect for each other.
I also hope neither of us get banned, there is enough room for all here, but that was going too far and i tried to get it deleted but to no avail.

Palace2000
“But ultimately I would be taking too many liberties with other people's lives, their fate and decisions. I'm going to pull out of this one; not because of anyone here. It's just none of my business.”

Amen.

what we accutually got from this RS interview is that Ronnie has absolutely no say in the band!!
He is handed the setlists and he has to play that stuff



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-12-15 21:01 by slewan.

Quote
lem motlow

Quote
Rip This
.....uhm...more interesting was Ronnie Woods revelation about Keith being nasty when drunk....that was a view inside the inner sanctum....RW stepping out there....

The cluelessness of the majority of Rolling Stones fans never ceases to amaze me.
You watched Keith get drunk,chain smoke cigarettes and vent every bit of his frustration,air out every piece of dirty laundry and attack his writing partners music,his manhood,his lifestyle and everything about him for 30 years but no one realized he was an angry drunk?
To anyone who has ever been around an addict or three this was textbook- the lashing out at close friends, the denial.
It was sad to watch -“Mick has rhino skin,we’re brothers,brothers fight.”- no bro,the guy can’t fvckng stand you.fans can search YouTube and see Jaggers cutting responses-“I have my own brother who I’m very close to” “Keith only attacks me in the media when he’s drunk”
To all the Keithettes who think Mr Badass was putting Peter Pan in his place,hope you enjoyed the 4 Stones albums you got in 30 years.big win there,right?

Ok so lets calm down and put this all in perspective.

What you appear to be saying is that because Keith drinks and chain smokes, he has said all these nasty things about Mick in interviews over the years.
So there is no justification in any of Keith's comments, no reason for him to become frustrated.
Also you think that because Keith has aired his frustration we only got 4 crap albums in 30 years, and this is all Keith's fault too.
If this is all true and as you say, Mick hates Keith, why would they continue to tour together year after year, why would they be attempting to make a new album together.
I know you think i'm clueless but i don't think things are as black and white as that, Keith has had addiction problems from the get go, but he is very loyal to Mick, i'm sure he loves him actually.
Nothing is as cut and dry as you make it out to be, yes Keith should not have got drunk and said those things, but it's cause and effect, i think the frustration in him comes out in that way.
At the end of the day i agree with what you are saying but its very one sided to blame one person for the breakdown in a relationship and that it all went wrong because someone said things they shouldn't have while drunk.
I feel your pain man, because of Keith saying these things we got a watered down half hearted Rolling Stones that just went along for the money.
But to be honest the cracks were showing when Keith was completely on his game, and hardly ever bad mouthed Mick, he was ready to roll when he came off dope and we got in my opinion some of their greatest tour's in 78' & 81' 82' after that nothing until 89' now i'm sure Keith didn't bad mouth Mick publicly until Mick was given a solo deal along with the Stones record deal, its more to do with what went on between Mick & Keith during and throughout 81' to 84' that set the seed for this sub standard Stones we ended up with.

Ronnie used to be the clown that almost everyone would laugh at and make fun of because of his drunkenness and sloppy playing.
But he's risen above, and has earned much respect since his sobriety. His playing is generally better, and he's consistently performing live with other artists while not with the Stones.
A shame he doesn't have more say in the band whether it's for setlists or in the studio. Along with Charlie, he seems to be way more level headed than Keith or Mick.
He even had the balls to publicly disagree with Mick about the current setlists, wanting to play more from Blue and Lonesome during shows vs. Mick only wanting to play one tune per show from it.
Selling copies of his colorful comic bookish setlists notwithstanding, he's gained my full respect!

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

My opinion is that drugs and above all alcohol can have a positive effect when you are young, but over the years it becomes more and more a problem and not only from a physical point of view. Many guitarists have had difficult periods of their career because of alcohol. If playing is what you most love to do, the moment comes when you realize that what you play is no longer what you would like to play. It was the same for Ronnie and for all the artists who arrived at some point in his life. Keith now realized this and I'm happy with his decision. It's nice to hear Ronnie play sober and so will Keith, I'm sure.

Quote
Testify
My opinion is that drugs and above all alcohol can have a positive effect when you are young, but over the years it becomes more and more a problem and not only from a physical point of view. Many guitarists have had difficult periods of their career because of alcohol. If playing is what you most love to do, the moment comes when you realize that what you play is no longer what you would like to play. It was the same for Ronnie and for all the artists who arrived at some point in his life. Keith now realized this and I'm happy with his decision. It's nice to hear Ronnie play sober and so will Keith, I'm sure.

Yes and Keith played sober throughout this recent 2018 tour and the difference was heard straight away on tracks like SFTD, and the ancient art of weaving was even better, looking for Keith to build even further on that during the forthcoming 2019 tour.

….. you guys should audition for the remake of Fight Club … HHHHhaaaaaaaaa



ROCKMAN

Quote
More Hot Rocks

Quote
partnerincrime
keith didn't quit smoking weed. Paris 2 last year, he stood backstage while the others started playing Miss You and then he appeared before the middle eight smoking a great spliff!
ciao
m.

What a bunch of bull. he was on stage the whole time. Before the middle 8 hes on the side of Charlie drinks something and lights a cigarette. you can see it clearly in this vid. geeez

Yup the video doesn't lie

keith baby; say it for the insurance. we've got security and you're ex partner
is a Knight of the Square Tables, man. sure sure he's done with it folks.
normal as the day as long. they are calling him Normal Keith in Connecticut,
where the big insurance company is in Hartford. rock on baby; sure, easy on the you know what... sure sure...on the wagon...cut right down., just a smidge. on Holidays; his in-laws would ne upset if he didn't at least toast New Year's to them while really wrecked on everything else he won't even claim to be 'fed up' with...
or not...
i just love gossiping about people i don't know...

Quote
Rockman
….. you guys should audition for the remake of Fight Club … HHHHhaaaaaaaaa

In real life i'm an inoffensive polite considerate person, the Stones brings out the beast in me

Quote
hopkins
keith baby; say it for the insurance. we've got security and you're ex partner
is a Knight of the Square Tables, man. sure sure he's done with it folks.
normal as the day as long. they are calling him Normal Keith in Connecticut,
where the big insurance company is in Hartford. rock on baby; sure, easy on the you know what... sure sure...on the wagon...cut right down., just a smidge. on Holidays; his in-laws would ne upset if he didn't at least toast New Year's to them while really wrecked on everything else he won't even claim to be 'fed up' with...
or not...
i just love gossiping about people i don't know...

*LOL!

Quote
keefriff99
For Richards, this tour will be different for a more personal reason: He has stopped drinking, for the most part. “It’s been about a year now,” Richards says quietly. “I pulled the plug on it. I got fed up with it.” While he admits he still has “a glass of wine occasionally, and a beer,” it’s a major step for a guy whose hedonism is a key part of his legend. “It was time to quit,” Richards says. “Just like all the other stuff.” Was it an adjustment? “You can call it that, yeah,” he says with a laugh. “But I don’t notice any difference really – except for I don’t drink. I wasn’t feeling right. I’ve done it. I didn’t want that anymore.”

[www.rollingstone.com]

Very disappointed in this

Live and let live people. It’s a bit of wisdom I picked up somewhere.......

Quote
Rocky Dijon

Quote
keithsman
Was this posted by a clueless angry frustrated drunk, or just a clueless angry frustrated man.

Don't know a thing about lem outside of this place. Don't even know if he's an inverted Mel or Lemuel. Does he often sound frustrated and sometimes even angry? Yes, he often does. Is he clueless? No, he's usually painfully honest. I don't agree with everything he's ever said, but largely he's our perfect tough love regular who tells it like it is even when we don't want to hear it.

“An inverted Mel or Lemuel”-LOL! Rocky,put Lem Motlow in your search engine!
I know it comes off as rude sometimes but I made a decision long ago to just come out and say what I was thinking.its not easy,even I hate some of my posts but there is so much that just doesn’t ring true to me on the internet and I just can’t be fake.
I think of ten ways to water it down and make it nicer but in the end I just say what I have to say.
There’s actually very little emotion involved even though I can see someone reading it that way,I’m just getting my point across using as few words as possible.believe me ,Mr Vik reads this stuff.I’ve seen many posts disappear and each time I’ve thought “that’s fair, I probably took a step too far on that one”
One thing I will promise you,no matter how hard someone comes back at me I will never make a complaint toward them,ever.

Quote
lem motlow

Quote
Rip This
.....uhm...more interesting was Ronnie Woods revelation about Keith being nasty when drunk....that was a view inside the inner sanctum....RW stepping out there....

The cluelessness of the majority of Rolling Stones fans never ceases to amaze me.
You watched Keith get drunk,chain smoke cigarettes and vent every bit of his frustration,air out every piece of dirty laundry and attack his writing partners music,his manhood,his lifestyle and everything about him for 30 years but no one realized he was an angry drunk?
To anyone who has ever been around an addict or three this was textbook- the lashing out at close friends, the denial.
It was sad to watch -“Mick has rhino skin,we’re brothers,brothers fight.”- no bro,the guy can’t fvckng stand you.fans can search YouTube and see Jaggers cutting responses-“I have my own brother who I’m very close to” “Keith only attacks me in the media when he’s drunk”
To all the Keithettes who think Mr Badass was putting Peter Pan in his place,hope you enjoyed the 4 Stones albums you got in 30 years.big win there,right?

Frustrated Beatles fans can easily be recognized on this site. The only thing they can do is to tease Rolling Stones fans with irrelevant remarks. Any real Stones fan is well aware that whatever is written by the media or even so-called biographies has a money making purpose. Going to Stones concerts is simply a sharing by both the band and the fans of the feeling of the the band's great music. Don't fans have the money to go to concerts they can still listen to the records. The individual members of The Rolling Stones are not more (and not less) than human beings having paid the price for simply being alive (like all of us). Some are lucky, some (or better: many) have gone through hell (didn't Keith sing about that?), but man, all in all real Rolling Stones fans are incredibly lucky "sons and daughters of b*tches". After more than 56 years they can still look forward to yet another new album full of surprises and yet another bunch of concerts they can (if affordable) look forward to go to. And that makes a lot of "others" very jealous. Too bad, too sad. But for many it is simply "It's only rock 'n' roll and we like it" as long as it lasts.

Quote
lem motlow


The cluelessness of the majority of Rolling Stones fans never ceases to amaze me.
You watched Keith get drunk,chain smoke cigarettes and vent every bit of his frustration,air out every piece of dirty laundry and attack his writing partners music,his manhood,his lifestyle and everything about him for 30 years but no one realized he was an angry drunk?
To anyone who has ever been around an addict or three this was textbook- the lashing out at close friends, the denial.
It was sad to watch -“Mick has rhino skin, we’re brothers,brothers fight.”- no bro,the guy can’t fvckng stand you.fans can search YouTube and see Jaggers cutting responses - “I have my own brother who I’m very close to” - “Keith only attacks me in the media when he’s drunk”
To all the Keithettes who think Mr Badass was putting Peter Pan in his place,hope you enjoyed the 4 Stones albums you got in 30 years. big win there,right?

...a bit harsh, but a lot of truth in this one.

Quote
slewan
what we accutually got from this RS interview is that Ronnie has absolutely no say in the band!!
He is handed the setlists and he has to play that stuff

I think you misunderstand the way they do it...

Chuck makes research on songs performed in the place historicly. Then he suggest a setlist core for Mick. Then Mick do a setlist with two blank songs named Keith-1 and Keith-2. Then the Keith songs are added.

Sure they talk about songs, before and after the performances, and during the rehearsals. Mick is not a dictator. But like Keith said some years ago - Mick has to sing the song, so he is in charge of the set list.

Of course all band members have a say on stuff the Stones do. It is not all about Mick and Keith. They do listen to advices, even from us.

Bjornulf

wait, he drinks?

this Saturday Night Live skit perfectly sums up the conversation on the last 2 pages.....

[www.youtube.com]

Quote
mjmjr

Quote
GasLightStreet
Play With Fire... was the LICKS tour over 30 years ago or is it site/city specific?

Prior to Hamburg....I believe Play With Fire hadn't been played since December of 1989

I'd much rather hear that than Wild Horses or Angie

It was early 1990 (January or February) in Tokyo. The previous time that they performed "Play With Fire" in concert before the 1 time in 2017.

They probably rehearsed it in 2002 but not in public.