Tell Me :
Talk
What we're witnessing all around is people retreating to a sort of mental bunker
Hope you will enjoy the 60th anniversary shows it will be even more better !
HMN
Right?? Definitely mo' better, perhaps even the bestest.
Can't wait!
I sure would. You prefer them being old and rotting at home or on a lawn chair?
The first time I saw BB King, he was 89, and sat on a chair the entire show, but it was fantastic! Just the mere presence of him, I was in awe!
...Or he could have just stayed home and watch the tele, as you seem to have preferred.
+ 1
i have eyes and ears and they tell me that keith was overall (thought not in every aspect) playing better then he had been since the zip code tour in the first half of this tour
in the second half frankly he wasn't much worse then he has been since 2017
and those last two shows were pretty bad for him
ronnie just had serious cancer and started a bit rough but got better and tired a bit at the end which is understandable
so as far as i can figure 6 great shows 6 ok shows and 2 bad shows
doesn't seem they need to quit just pace themselves better and know there limits
I don't think anyone said that the "main problem" is only 17 songs, but it's one of many problems. There's also the lack of focus, the deteriorating energy and stamina (even Mick looked exhausted at times),
and the general downward spiral seemingly from one show to the next. And it all culminated in a rather weak show by most standards - a soft whimper vs. a bigger bang so to speak.
Still, none of that is enough to demand they call it quits, but they should probably avoid "long" tours of 14 shows, and keep it down to a small handful here and there.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
ok to be honest i didn't see any in person this is just my impression from watching and listening to recordings of every show
multiple times
in my opinion
the best
charlotte
pittburgh
Nashville
la 1 & 2
las vegas
the ok (but with great moments)
st. Louis
minneapolis
tampa
dallas
atlanta
detroit
the bad (but still with great moments)
austin
hollywood fl
my conclusion good tour not time to quit
but i accept that my opinions gathered from recording some of them not exactly great quality are pretty pale in comparision to those who were actually there
oh and according to those who were at kraft's
private shindig that show was pretty good too
so maybe its 7 good shows
That could so easily be fixed by retiring the over long, over wrought and over played MISS YOU, SFTD and YCAWYW - three songs that actually take up half an hour, and substitute in Crazy Mama, Under my Thumb, Angie, Wild Horses and, I don't know, The Last Time. 3 LONG songs out, makes a std setlist of 16 (from the NORMAL 19) - ADD in 5 short songs to the std 16 and budda bing, a 21 song setlist thats over 2 hours long just and adds 4 new warhorses ... Under my Thumb, The Last Time, Wild Horses and Angie - tracks EVERYStones fan (well, MOST!) would love to hear every show and rotates in an "oddity" - in this instance Crazy Mama that they can shuffle with Not Fade Away or Ride 'em on Down, or Get off my Cloud or She Was Hot or...you get the drift... Also removes Keith from having to play SFTD solos....
Yet they persist in playing 3 songs for a total 30 minutes. Yes, fans like SFTD, YCAGWYW and Miss You. But we also like Angie, The Last Time, Wild Horses and Under my Thumb!
Just an example of how they COULD freshen up the setlist, take out the difficult solos for Keith, increase the overall number of songs performed to 21 (STILL 20 on an off-night!) and still play "warhorses" that we all know/love.
Even Satisfaction could be shortened a bit...
Rod
If stamina/concentration really was the problem of the core group of the remaining three at the last shows of No Filter 2021, I'm afraid substituting 3 long ones with 5 short ones would not solve it.
There's a difference. BB King wasn't part of a band.
Whereas The Rolling Stones are a band. However they're becoming less of a band where it's Mick and Keith as the original founding members remaining.
I get it that they carried on without Brian Jones and Bill Wyman. However now Charlie is gone.
It seems kind of ridiculous that they're carrying on with the band name as a way to sell tickets which helps the promoters.
The Who still tour with their band name even though it's just the founding members of Roger Daltrey and Pete Townshend remaining.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-12-03 01:23 by MrForeverMusicFan.
The Stones stage set up at the beginning included "rusty metal stools" were they sat while playing. per Bill Wyman
Zotz, are you named after the candy? I love that candy. I bought a five pound bag a few months ago and already ate them all. So good
Wasn't looking too good, but I was feeling real well.
Hey folks
I just don´t get it - people, who ever they are, thinking they are in charge of deciding when it´s time for Mick, Keith, Ronnie and the band to call it a day??!!??
Who the hell do you think you are?
What "rules" are you talking about?
Did you ever spend a thought that what made the Stones great was them being reluctant to any of these expectations?
Sorry, I don´t GET IT!!!
And I´m looking forward to Europe 22!
Agree on all counts .... just not sure what that had to do w/ quoting me.
For one thing, that was 2002.
Is that when the "repeatedly" bit was?
Keith's statement has been pointed out elsewhere but I get if you haven't seen it.
Another thing is... it was 2002.
There's a thing called "context".
Not my bad if you didn't read what was spoken of back this summer regarding Charlie's health and Steve Jordan. Or that when Brian Jones died or Stu died or when Bill resigned/quit...
You going to take what Charlie said and turn it into your own drama deal? As what, another hard core Stones fan that says 'Without Charlie, no Stones!' and whatever bullshit fake news else?
Is that just your opinion? Because opinions can be wrong.
As yours is.
At this point... what does it matter? They're older than black paint. Collectively they're past peak Galapagos times. Yet they continue on. You and whoever else that doesn't like it - don't look, don't listen, don't pay attention, do buy albums, don't buy tickets, don't read and or comment on fan forums.
No one is forcing you to. No one is asking you to. The Stones don't care what you think.
You need to sign your name out permanently and sign back up with an accurate name since you clearly don't comprehend your current one.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Is it time for the Stones to stop rolling?
Posted by:
Nikkei
()
Date: December 1, 2021 18:47
Quote
Stoneage
I still don't get it: Keith has obvious problems with intros and solos, the guitar section is often disconnected and sometimes Keith has to sit down to nail the chords - and still people talk about playing "only" 17 songs is the main problem. And you don't have to have been to one or more shows to notice it. A cell phone stream is all you need to understand that. Surely, even a super fan have eyes and ears?
What we're witnessing all around is people retreating to a sort of mental bunker
Re: Is it time for the Stones to stop rolling?
Posted by:
Honestman
()
Date: December 1, 2021 18:59
Quote
MisterDDDDQuote
HonestmanQuote
Hendrik
... I really wonder if for all people who think the Stones should stop if they have seen the Stones in 2021....
Hendrik Mulder
The thing here is not to ask if people have seen the Stones in 2021, but whether if people have seen the Stones before 2021 !
I won't be surprised that if they will keep on playin' sitting on chairs, there will be some people to claim it was great.
Cause it likely would be.
The first question was the correct one of course.
Everyone has seen them prior. If you saw them in 2021 and walked away saying they should hang it up, you weren't at any of the shows I attended.
Have no doubt that even amongst the most rabid "cheerleader" type fans (hand proudly up), if they ever reached a stage where the over-all quality had noticeably and embarrassingly deteriorated, we would be amongst the most vocal that they should hang it up.
Hope you will enjoy the 60th anniversary shows it will be even more better !
HMN
Re: Is it time for the Stones to stop rolling?
Posted by:
MisterDDDD
()
Date: December 1, 2021 19:15
Quote
Honestman
Hope you will enjoy the 60th anniversary shows it will be even more better !
Right?? Definitely mo' better, perhaps even the bestest.
Can't wait!
Re: Is it time for the Stones to stop rolling?
Posted by:
LeonidP
()
Date: December 1, 2021 19:15
Quote
MartinBQuote
georgemcdonnell314
Why would they stop?
So what if they are older and not able to play as well.
Not every venue is going to sound good. Keith can play out of tune if he wants.
We all miss Charlie but Steve has stepped up and done a pretty good job of it.
To all of you who think they should stop ask this.
Are you going to stop doing what you love to do?
Wasn't Chuck Berry still playing in his 80's?
Yes, Chuck Berry was playing in his 80s but it was sad. I saw him maybe 10 times, but I left my last Chuck's concerts in the half time break, almost in tears, it was unbearable. Do you want the Stones to end like this?
I sure would. You prefer them being old and rotting at home or on a lawn chair?
The first time I saw BB King, he was 89, and sat on a chair the entire show, but it was fantastic! Just the mere presence of him, I was in awe!
...Or he could have just stayed home and watch the tele, as you seem to have preferred.
Re: Is it time for the Stones to stop rolling?
Posted by:
daspyknows
()
Date: December 1, 2021 19:19
Quote
MisterDDDDQuote
HonestmanQuote
Hendrik
... I really wonder if for all people who think the Stones should stop if they have seen the Stones in 2021....
Hendrik Mulder
The thing here is not to ask if people have seen the Stones in 2021, but whether if people have seen the Stones before 2021 !
I won't be surprised that if they will keep on playin' sitting on chairs, there will be some people to claim it was great.
Cause it likely would be.
The first question was the correct one of course.
Everyone has seen them prior. If you saw them in 2021 and walked away saying they should hang it up, you weren't at any of the shows I attended.
Have no doubt that even amongst the most rabid "cheerleader" type fans (hand proudly up), if they ever reached a stage where the over-all quality had noticeably and embarrassingly deteriorated, we would be amongst the most vocal that they should hang it up.
+ 1
Re: Is it time for the Stones to stop rolling?
Posted by:
ProfessorWolf
()
Date: December 1, 2021 19:24
Quote
Stoneage
I still don't get it: Keith has obvious problems with intros and solos, the guitar section is often disconnected and sometimes Keith has to sit down to nail the chords - and still people talk about playing "only" 17 songs is the main problem. And you don't have to have been to one or more shows to notice it. A cell phone stream is all you need to understand that. Surely, even a super fan have eyes and ears?
i have eyes and ears and they tell me that keith was overall (thought not in every aspect) playing better then he had been since the zip code tour in the first half of this tour
in the second half frankly he wasn't much worse then he has been since 2017
and those last two shows were pretty bad for him
ronnie just had serious cancer and started a bit rough but got better and tired a bit at the end which is understandable
so as far as i can figure 6 great shows 6 ok shows and 2 bad shows
doesn't seem they need to quit just pace themselves better and know there limits
Re: Is it time for the Stones to stop rolling?
Posted by:
angee
()
Date: December 1, 2021 21:56
"so as far as i can figure 6 great shows 6 ok shows and 2 bad shows."
So Prof Wolf, which shows are which? First 6 great, second six okay and last two bad or what?
Which ones did you actually see in person?
~"Love is Strong"~
So Prof Wolf, which shows are which? First 6 great, second six okay and last two bad or what?
Which ones did you actually see in person?
~"Love is Strong"~
Re: Is it time for the Stones to stop rolling?
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: December 1, 2021 22:00
Quote
Stoneage
I still don't get it: Keith has obvious problems with intros and solos, the guitar section is often disconnected and sometimes Keith has to sit down to nail the chords - and still people talk about playing "only" 17 songs is the main problem. And you don't have to have been to one or more shows to notice it. A cell phone stream is all you need to understand that. Surely, even a super fan have eyes and ears?
I don't think anyone said that the "main problem" is only 17 songs, but it's one of many problems. There's also the lack of focus, the deteriorating energy and stamina (even Mick looked exhausted at times),
and the general downward spiral seemingly from one show to the next. And it all culminated in a rather weak show by most standards - a soft whimper vs. a bigger bang so to speak.
Still, none of that is enough to demand they call it quits, but they should probably avoid "long" tours of 14 shows, and keep it down to a small handful here and there.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: Is it time for the Stones to stop rolling?
Posted by:
Nikkei
()
Date: December 1, 2021 22:16
Someone on Twitter pointed out how the Stones have a singer and two guitarists left while the Beatles have a drummer and a bass player
Re: Is it time for the Stones to stop rolling?
Posted by:
ds1984
()
Date: December 1, 2021 22:40
Is it time for the Stones fans to stop rolling?
Just my € 0.02
Just my € 0.02
Re: Is it time for the Stones to stop rolling?
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: December 2, 2021 05:06
Roll forever, live, but without me. It's the same show since 2002. Before that even if they were warhorses, they were played a little bit differently each tour. Brown Sugar in '72, sounded different in '75. And even more so in '78. Those little changes, owing to difference in band members, changing times, is almost twenty years in the rearview mirror. It's why, for me personally, I'm not drawn to the live shows anymore. I got to see Mick Taylor in 2013. It was the highlight of the show.
Much as I appreciate Steve Jordan, that's not a big enough draw for me to pull out half a G-note. It's not like the horn section stepped up a notch with Bobby Keys passing. It really is that people just want to be in their presence one last time. That's great. But let's not pretend it's for the music. They're just happy to get through numbers and deliver reasonable facsimiles of what they were. They are capable of pulling out a great single from time to time. There was a little of the old magic in Ghost Town. And especially on Blue and Lonesome. But the drummer who made that album special is sadly gone.
I hope they turn their attention to finishing their final album, and scouring the world for vault material. Still nothing from '76.
Much as I appreciate Steve Jordan, that's not a big enough draw for me to pull out half a G-note. It's not like the horn section stepped up a notch with Bobby Keys passing. It really is that people just want to be in their presence one last time. That's great. But let's not pretend it's for the music. They're just happy to get through numbers and deliver reasonable facsimiles of what they were. They are capable of pulling out a great single from time to time. There was a little of the old magic in Ghost Town. And especially on Blue and Lonesome. But the drummer who made that album special is sadly gone.
I hope they turn their attention to finishing their final album, and scouring the world for vault material. Still nothing from '76.
Re: Is it time for the Stones to stop rolling?
Posted by:
ProfessorWolf
()
Date: December 2, 2021 06:37
Quote
angee
"so as far as i can figure 6 great shows 6 ok shows and 2 bad shows."
So Prof Wolf, which shows are which? First 6 great, second six okay and last two bad or what?
Which ones did you actually see in person?
ok to be honest i didn't see any in person this is just my impression from watching and listening to recordings of every show
multiple times
in my opinion
the best
charlotte
pittburgh
Nashville
la 1 & 2
las vegas
the ok (but with great moments)
st. Louis
minneapolis
tampa
dallas
atlanta
detroit
the bad (but still with great moments)
austin
hollywood fl
my conclusion good tour not time to quit
but i accept that my opinions gathered from recording some of them not exactly great quality are pretty pale in comparision to those who were actually there
oh and according to those who were at kraft's
private shindig that show was pretty good too
so maybe its 7 good shows
Re: Is it time for the Stones to stop rolling?
Posted by:
bitusa2012
()
Date: December 2, 2021 09:44
Quote
SighuntQuote
TheGreek
So very typical Stones tour where they start out with 19 tunes in the set list and then one got picked off to 18 tunes and by tours end they whittled it down to 17 tunes !
I don't typically make it a habit to engage in these kinds of threads, but I will say that for the kind of money the Stones charge for their shows, I think it is an insult to the fans to get less than 20 songs at a concert.
And yes, I get the argument, we should be happy that these almost 80 year old men are out there performing for the masses, etc, etc, etc. If other fans are happy seeing the Stones perform 17 songs in wheelchairs (not an unlikely possibility should they continue to perform), be my guest, but I wont be laying down the bucks for that spectacle. I've got lots of CDs and videos of the Stones in their prime to keep me happy....
That could so easily be fixed by retiring the over long, over wrought and over played MISS YOU, SFTD and YCAWYW - three songs that actually take up half an hour, and substitute in Crazy Mama, Under my Thumb, Angie, Wild Horses and, I don't know, The Last Time. 3 LONG songs out, makes a std setlist of 16 (from the NORMAL 19) - ADD in 5 short songs to the std 16 and budda bing, a 21 song setlist thats over 2 hours long just and adds 4 new warhorses ... Under my Thumb, The Last Time, Wild Horses and Angie - tracks EVERYStones fan (well, MOST!) would love to hear every show and rotates in an "oddity" - in this instance Crazy Mama that they can shuffle with Not Fade Away or Ride 'em on Down, or Get off my Cloud or She Was Hot or...you get the drift... Also removes Keith from having to play SFTD solos....
Yet they persist in playing 3 songs for a total 30 minutes. Yes, fans like SFTD, YCAGWYW and Miss You. But we also like Angie, The Last Time, Wild Horses and Under my Thumb!
Just an example of how they COULD freshen up the setlist, take out the difficult solos for Keith, increase the overall number of songs performed to 21 (STILL 20 on an off-night!) and still play "warhorses" that we all know/love.
Even Satisfaction could be shortened a bit...
Rod
Re: Is it time for the Stones to stop rolling?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: December 2, 2021 12:22
From Darryl's Facebook:
Re: Is it time for the Stones to stop rolling?
Posted by:
retired_dog
()
Date: December 2, 2021 12:56
Quote
bitusa2012Quote
SighuntQuote
TheGreek
So very typical Stones tour where they start out with 19 tunes in the set list and then one got picked off to 18 tunes and by tours end they whittled it down to 17 tunes !
I don't typically make it a habit to engage in these kinds of threads, but I will say that for the kind of money the Stones charge for their shows, I think it is an insult to the fans to get less than 20 songs at a concert.
And yes, I get the argument, we should be happy that these almost 80 year old men are out there performing for the masses, etc, etc, etc. If other fans are happy seeing the Stones perform 17 songs in wheelchairs (not an unlikely possibility should they continue to perform), be my guest, but I wont be laying down the bucks for that spectacle. I've got lots of CDs and videos of the Stones in their prime to keep me happy....
That could so easily be fixed by retiring the over long, over wrought and over played MISS YOU, SFTD and YCAWYW - three songs that actually take up half an hour, and substitute in Crazy Mama, Under my Thumb, Angie, Wild Horses and, I don't know, The Last Time. 3 LONG songs out, makes a std setlist of 16 (from the NORMAL 19) - ADD in 5 short songs to the std 16 and budda bing, a 21 song setlist thats over 2 hours long just and adds 4 new warhorses ... Under my Thumb, The Last Time, Wild Horses and Angie - tracks EVERYStones fan (well, MOST!) would love to hear every show and rotates in an "oddity" - in this instance Crazy Mama that they can shuffle with Not Fade Away or Ride 'em on Down, or Get off my Cloud or She Was Hot or...you get the drift... Also removes Keith from having to play SFTD solos....
Yet they persist in playing 3 songs for a total 30 minutes. Yes, fans like SFTD, YCAGWYW and Miss You. But we also like Angie, The Last Time, Wild Horses and Under my Thumb!
Just an example of how they COULD freshen up the setlist, take out the difficult solos for Keith, increase the overall number of songs performed to 21 (STILL 20 on an off-night!) and still play "warhorses" that we all know/love.
Even Satisfaction could be shortened a bit...
If stamina/concentration really was the problem of the core group of the remaining three at the last shows of No Filter 2021, I'm afraid substituting 3 long ones with 5 short ones would not solve it.
Re: Is it time for the Stones to stop rolling?
Posted by:
LeonidP
()
Date: December 2, 2021 16:03
I'm all for lesser songs ... 90 mins is ideal! 120 mins max! I never cared for the 3 hour shows much ('81 I did, but that was my first time).
Re: Is it time for the Stones to stop rolling?
Posted by:
Four Stone Walls
()
Date: December 2, 2021 20:48
Look, they did that tour for Charlie.
Good.
But there is no band called the Rolling Stones any more.
There's singer/dancer etc and there are two guitarist.
That's not our band. Never was.
So, one new album, a few 60th shows, assuming that Keith is up to it, and then call it a day while retaining their dignity and credibility- and our respect and gratitude.
Good.
But there is no band called the Rolling Stones any more.
There's singer/dancer etc and there are two guitarist.
That's not our band. Never was.
So, one new album, a few 60th shows, assuming that Keith is up to it, and then call it a day while retaining their dignity and credibility- and our respect and gratitude.
Re: Is it time for the Stones to stop rolling?
Posted by:
MrForeverMusicFan
()
Date: December 3, 2021 01:22
Quote
LeonidPQuote
MartinBQuote
georgemcdonnell314
Why would they stop?
So what if they are older and not able to play as well.
Not every venue is going to sound good. Keith can play out of tune if he wants.
We all miss Charlie but Steve has stepped up and done a pretty good job of it.
To all of you who think they should stop ask this.
Are you going to stop doing what you love to do?
Wasn't Chuck Berry still playing in his 80's?
Yes, Chuck Berry was playing in his 80s but it was sad. I saw him maybe 10 times, but I left my last Chuck's concerts in the half time break, almost in tears, it was unbearable. Do you want the Stones to end like this?
I sure would. You prefer them being old and rotting at home or on a lawn chair?
The first time I saw BB King, he was 89, and sat on a chair the entire show, but it was fantastic! Just the mere presence of him, I was in awe!
...Or he could have just stayed home and watch the tele, as you seem to have preferred.
There's a difference. BB King wasn't part of a band.
Whereas The Rolling Stones are a band. However they're becoming less of a band where it's Mick and Keith as the original founding members remaining.
I get it that they carried on without Brian Jones and Bill Wyman. However now Charlie is gone.
It seems kind of ridiculous that they're carrying on with the band name as a way to sell tickets which helps the promoters.
The Who still tour with their band name even though it's just the founding members of Roger Daltrey and Pete Townshend remaining.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-12-03 01:23 by MrForeverMusicFan.
Re: Is it time for the Stones to stop rolling?
Posted by:
Natlanta
()
Date: December 3, 2021 01:53
who counts the songs?
Re: Is it time for the Stones to stop rolling?
Posted by:
Taylor1
()
Date: December 3, 2021 02:24
Why? No one is forcing anyone to see them .They still put on a great show.They are never going to play with the speed and the explosive musicianship they did in 1972.But the music is still great..They should play as long as they want to.
Re: Is it time for the Stones to stop rolling?
Posted by:
duke richardson
()
Date: December 3, 2021 03:44
they love their time onstage, with each other. They don’t do anything unless they 100% want to do it. They’ve now got a drummer who knows how to play with them in a way that makes them happy even though their great drummer and friend has died.
Lots for the Stones to consider, though: it’s a matter of not doing harm to the 60 years of a band, by going on more tours that don’t really make sense. Sure they will be well paid .. still I think they have the weight of their history on them every time, and they’ll want to protect that.
Lots for the Stones to consider, though: it’s a matter of not doing harm to the 60 years of a band, by going on more tours that don’t really make sense. Sure they will be well paid .. still I think they have the weight of their history on them every time, and they’ll want to protect that.
Re: Is it time for the Stones to stop rolling?
Posted by:
Zotz
()
Date: December 3, 2021 04:09
Quote
HonestmanQuote
Hendrik
... I really wonder if for all people who think the Stones should stop if they have seen the Stones in 2021....
Hendrik Mulder
The thing here is not to ask if people have seen the Stones in 2021, but whether if people have seen the Stones before 2021 !
[I won't be surprised that if they will keep on playin' sitting on chairs], there will be some people to claim it was great.
The Stones stage set up at the beginning included "rusty metal stools" were they sat while playing. per Bill Wyman
Re: Is it time for the Stones to stop rolling?
Posted by:
MrForeverMusicFan
()
Date: December 3, 2021 04:24
Back in late 2002, The Rolling Stones were interviewed on CBS 60 Minutes With Ed Bradley.
The Stones: Time Is On Their Side
One comment from Keith Richards described the band as part international concern and part mom-and-pop store.
"If I was to consider it all on paper, I mean, it's an international concern. But at the same time when you really break it down, it's still a mom-and-pop store. You know, we've got no shareholders, no stock orders. And basically, when it comes down to it, it's Mick and me, you know? And we're still fighting about who's mom and who's pop."
Again Keith has repeatedly said that without Watts there is no Stones.
I don't get the contradicting statements.
I admire the fact that Geddy Lee and Alex Lifeson have said without Neil Peart there is no RUSH. They've been honorable with that statement.
The Stones: Time Is On Their Side
One comment from Keith Richards described the band as part international concern and part mom-and-pop store.
"If I was to consider it all on paper, I mean, it's an international concern. But at the same time when you really break it down, it's still a mom-and-pop store. You know, we've got no shareholders, no stock orders. And basically, when it comes down to it, it's Mick and me, you know? And we're still fighting about who's mom and who's pop."
Again Keith has repeatedly said that without Watts there is no Stones.
I don't get the contradicting statements.
I admire the fact that Geddy Lee and Alex Lifeson have said without Neil Peart there is no RUSH. They've been honorable with that statement.
Re: Is it time for the Stones to stop rolling?
Posted by:
CindyC
()
Date: December 3, 2021 04:27
Quote
Zotz
set up at the beginning included "rusty metal stools" were they sat while playing. per Bill Wyman
Zotz, are you named after the candy? I love that candy. I bought a five pound bag a few months ago and already ate them all. So good
Wasn't looking too good, but I was feeling real well.
Re: Is it time for the Stones to stop rolling?
Posted by:
mjmjr
()
Date: December 3, 2021 04:28
Watch the Jumpin' Jack Flash from Pittsburgh
It was incredible.....they are not done
It was incredible.....they are not done
Re: Is it time for the Stones to stop rolling?
Posted by:
RawIguanaCologne
()
Date: December 3, 2021 04:57
Quote
LeonidP
I'm all for lesser songs ... 90 mins is ideal! 120 mins max! I never cared for the 3 hour shows much ('81 I did, but that was my first time).
Hey folks
I just don´t get it - people, who ever they are, thinking they are in charge of deciding when it´s time for Mick, Keith, Ronnie and the band to call it a day??!!??
Who the hell do you think you are?
What "rules" are you talking about?
Did you ever spend a thought that what made the Stones great was them being reluctant to any of these expectations?
Sorry, I don´t GET IT!!!
And I´m looking forward to Europe 22!
Re: Is it time for the Stones to stop rolling?
Posted by:
LeonidP
()
Date: December 3, 2021 05:02
Quote
RawIguanaCologneQuote
LeonidP
I'm all for lesser songs ... 90 mins is ideal! 120 mins max! I never cared for the 3 hour shows much ('81 I did, but that was my first time).
Hey folks
I just don´t get it - people, who ever they are, thinking they are in charge of deciding when it´s time for Mick, Keith, Ronnie and the band to call it a day??!!??
Who the hell do you think you are?
What "rules" are you talking about?
Did you ever spend a thought that what made the Stones great was them being reluctant to any of these expectations?
Sorry, I don´t GET IT!!!
And I´m looking forward to Europe 22!
Agree on all counts .... just not sure what that had to do w/ quoting me.
Re: Is it time for the Stones to stop rolling?
Posted by:
RawIguanaCologne
()
Date: December 3, 2021 05:21
Quote
LeonidPQuote
RawIguanaCologneQuote
LeonidP
I'm all for lesser songs ... 90 mins is ideal! 120 mins max! I never cared for the 3 hour shows much ('81 I did, but that was my first time).
Hey folks
I just don´t get it - people, who ever they are, thinking they are in charge of deciding when it´s time for Mick, Keith, Ronnie and the band to call it a day??!!??
Who the hell do you think you are?
What "rules" are you talking about?
Did you ever spend a thought that what made the Stones great was them being reluctant to any of these expectations?
Sorry, I don´t GET IT!!!
And I´m looking forward to Europe 22!
Agree on all counts .... just not sure what that had to do w/ quoting me.[/quote
Hello - I´m terribly sorry, cause I quoted the wrong thing!
Excuse me please!
Re: Is it time for the Stones to stop rolling?
Posted by:
RawIguanaCologne
()
Date: December 3, 2021 05:22
QUOTE:
Look, they did that tour for Charlie.
Good.
But there is no band called the Rolling Stones any more.
There's singer/dancer etc and there are two guitarist.
That's not our band. Never was.
So, one new album, a few 60th shows, assuming that Keith is up to it, and then call it a day while retaining their dignity and credibility- and our respect and gratitude.
THAT´s the quote I was referring to!
Look, they did that tour for Charlie.
Good.
But there is no band called the Rolling Stones any more.
There's singer/dancer etc and there are two guitarist.
That's not our band. Never was.
So, one new album, a few 60th shows, assuming that Keith is up to it, and then call it a day while retaining their dignity and credibility- and our respect and gratitude.
THAT´s the quote I was referring to!
Re: Is it time for the Stones to stop rolling?
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: December 3, 2021 08:01
Quote
MrForeverMusicFan
Back in late 2002, The Rolling Stones were interviewed on CBS 60 Minutes With Ed Bradley.
The Stones: Time Is On Their Side
One comment from Keith Richards described the band as part international concern and part mom-and-pop store.
"If I was to consider it all on paper, I mean, it's an international concern. But at the same time when you really break it down, it's still a mom-and-pop store. You know, we've got no shareholders, no stock orders. And basically, when it comes down to it, it's Mick and me, you know? And we're still fighting about who's mom and who's pop."
Again Keith has repeatedly said that without Watts there is no Stones.
I don't get the contradicting statements.
For one thing, that was 2002.
Is that when the "repeatedly" bit was?
Keith's statement has been pointed out elsewhere but I get if you haven't seen it.
Another thing is... it was 2002.
There's a thing called "context".
Not my bad if you didn't read what was spoken of back this summer regarding Charlie's health and Steve Jordan. Or that when Brian Jones died or Stu died or when Bill resigned/quit...
You going to take what Charlie said and turn it into your own drama deal? As what, another hard core Stones fan that says 'Without Charlie, no Stones!' and whatever bullshit fake news else?
Is that just your opinion? Because opinions can be wrong.
As yours is.
At this point... what does it matter? They're older than black paint. Collectively they're past peak Galapagos times. Yet they continue on. You and whoever else that doesn't like it - don't look, don't listen, don't pay attention, do buy albums, don't buy tickets, don't read and or comment on fan forums.
No one is forcing you to. No one is asking you to. The Stones don't care what you think.
You need to sign your name out permanently and sign back up with an accurate name since you clearly don't comprehend your current one.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
5strings , Bashlets , ChrisL , cyclist , dishevelmentblues , frankotero , Hound Dog , Mabru , mickv , ohmercy61 , philrock90 , StonedRambler , straycatuk , terukun , TooTight , TransmaniaconMC , zowie
Guests:
1776
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10