Quote
Taylor1

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
ribbelchips
With all background singers, horns and keyboards, it sounds ok, but when you filter that and only would listen to Keith, Ronnie, Mick and the rhythym section.. half of the songs would fall apart. And to me, that's embarrasing. But hey, it's only my personal opinion...

Your ears must be more «finely-tuned» than mine. Because this is not falling apart for me. Not at all.





[www.youtube.com]

For nearly 80 year old men it is great. But it is very simple , uninventive playing. It is a great song, but it was done in 1965. It has no difficult or complex solos or music to play. No impovisation. It is the epitome of an oldies act

All Stones songs have simple playing. The secret is within how they play it. Uninventive? Do you regard the Stones an inventive band?

For me the band never was «groundbreaking». However, the sound and the racket they made out of their songs was unique.

And let's not forget what was claimed here: «When you filter that and only would listen to Keith, Ronnie, Mick and the rhythym section, half of the songs would fall apart».

I've commented many time down the years that, for me, it's not the songs or the material that most attracts me to this band ...


It's just the unique and glorious noise they make.

...and to my old ears, they're still making it

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Taylor1

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
ribbelchips
With all background singers, horns and keyboards, it sounds ok, but when you filter that and only would listen to Keith, Ronnie, Mick and the rhythym section.. half of the songs would fall apart. And to me, that's embarrasing. But hey, it's only my personal opinion...

Your ears must be more «finely-tuned» than mine. Because this is not falling apart for me. Not at all.




video: [youtu.be]

For nearly 80 year old men it is great. But it is very simple , uninventive playing. It is a great song, but it was done in 1965. It has no difficult or complex solos or music to play. No impovisation. It is the epitome of an oldies act

All Stones songs have simple playing. The secret is within how they play it. Uninventive? Do you regard the Stones an inventive band?

For me the band never was «groundbreaking». However, the sound and the racket they made out of their songs was unique.

And let's not forget what was claimed here: «When you filter that and only would listen to Keith, Ronnie, Mick and the rhythym section, half of the songs would fall apart».

They at one time wrote and played much more complicated music than Play With Fire, like Moonlight Mile , Rocks Off,here is a performance which is much more difficult and complex to play[video]https://youtu.be/N_drGmqmd-0



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2022-08-18 18:26 by Taylor1.

It's time for this thread to stop rolling. Who needs it?

Let it roll.

Still a great show. No, it's not the Stones of 50 years ago. But it's also say not Brian Wilson who walks out with a walker and sits behind a piano and you really can't tell what he's doing if anything. And I'm not knocking Brian Wilson, if he wants to do it and the ticket buying public wants it (of which I am one, I went and loved the aspect of the show; no it wasn't the Beach Boys of the 60's or even early 70's), by all means, do it. But just suggesting the differences in where they're at compared to others. They still have some runway left imo.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
It's probably not a popular opinion, but I think all these old acts should stop. It's embarrassing watching them get wheeled out; not able to sing anymore.

Well PR2000, THAT is axactly the "problem" with the Stones ...
I don't know if you were in Berlin, but I can assure you that Mick was singing really good (to say the least) on Fool to Cry, not the easiest song. Mick's voice is not the same as decades ago (but who's voice is, even when you're not a singer, after 6 decades). And then there are Keith's still great opening riffs on classics like JJF, SFM, SMU, etc., etc. I recently watched a short, recently recorded clip in which Keith was kind of freewheeling on his guitar, clearly looking for yet another possibly great riff. I'm sure he'll manage to find one.
And Ronnie? No worries, as Rockman would say.

Yes, some oldies' voices have gone. Robert Plant, for instance, will destroy his voice completely when he will try some of those amazing Led Zeppelin songs. Axel Rose, so much younger (he did quite well as replacement in AC/DC !), is slowly on the way down. Lindsey Buckingham is still doing well, though. My voice (who cares?) f*cked up at 74
So it all depends



I'm a GHOST living in a ghost town

georgie48 Ya should gargle before
each performance whether in bed or on stage ......huhuhhuhaaaa



ROCKMAN

Quote
georgie48

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
It's probably not a popular opinion, but I think all these old acts should stop. It's embarrassing watching them get wheeled out; not able to sing anymore.

Well PR2000, THAT is axactly the "problem" with the Stones ...
I don't know if you were in Berlin, but I can assure you that Mick was singing really good (to say the least) on Fool to Cry, not the easiest song. Mick's voice is not the same as decades ago (but who's voice is, even when you're not a singer, after 6 decades). And then there are Keith's still great opening riffs on classics like JJF, SFM, SMU, etc., etc. I recently watched a short, recently recorded clip in which Keith was kind of freewheeling on his guitar, clearly looking for yet another possibly great riff. I'm sure he'll manage to find one.
And Ronnie? No worries, as Rockman would say.

Yes, some oldies' voices have gone. Robert Plant, for instance, will destroy his voice completely when he will try some of those amazing Led Zeppelin songs. Axel Rose, so much younger (he did quite well as replacement in AC/DC !), is slowly on the way down. Lindsey Buckingham is still doing well, though. My voice (who cares?) f*cked up at 74
So it all depends

Maybe I should clarify what I mean by the word 'rolling' in OP's question. I believe the Stones could easily keep rolling, stay totally relevant, and go out on top. I just posted in the thread about 'Little Rain' - a superb cover; a great idea for an album. This is what the Stones at 80 could do with great style.
It is the forced stadium rock, which is just ludicrous. These are 80 year olds. Have our expectations become so low? Do we need this so bad? They are barely playing.
I don't want to name other names/acts because it feels mean. But on positive note, IMO Axl Rose actually sounds better nowadays.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
georgie48

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
It's probably not a popular opinion, but I think all these old acts should stop. It's embarrassing watching them get wheeled out; not able to sing anymore.

Well PR2000, THAT is axactly the "problem" with the Stones ...
I don't know if you were in Berlin, but I can assure you that Mick was singing really good (to say the least) on Fool to Cry, not the easiest song. Mick's voice is not the same as decades ago (but who's voice is, even when you're not a singer, after 6 decades). And then there are Keith's still great opening riffs on classics like JJF, SFM, SMU, etc., etc. I recently watched a short, recently recorded clip in which Keith was kind of freewheeling on his guitar, clearly looking for yet another possibly great riff. I'm sure he'll manage to find one.
And Ronnie? No worries, as Rockman would say.

Yes, some oldies' voices have gone. Robert Plant, for instance, will destroy his voice completely when he will try some of those amazing Led Zeppelin songs. Axel Rose, so much younger (he did quite well as replacement in AC/DC !), is slowly on the way down. Lindsey Buckingham is still doing well, though. My voice (who cares?) f*cked up at 74
So it all depends

Maybe I should clarify what I mean by the word 'rolling' in OP's question. I believe the Stones could easily keep rolling, stay totally relevant, and go out on top. I just posted in the thread about 'Little Rain' - a superb cover; a great idea for an album. This is what the Stones at 80 could do with great style.
It is the forced stadium rock, which is just ludicrous. These are 80 year olds. Have our expectations become so low? Do we need this so bad? They are barely playing.
I don't want to name other names/acts because it feels mean. But on positive note, IMO Axl Rose actually sounds better nowadays.

I just saw Red Hot Chili Peppers a few weeks ago & those guys are definitely on top of their game. Only stadium show I'm going to this year. Thought about Def Lep/Motley Crue but it was too damn expensive. RHCP have been changing about half the set every night & slowly pulling more songs out of the catalog. They've even been doing up to 5 songs a night from the new record. Cool light show too & fantastic sound.

The RHCP ?
No joke
Playing 1h30 and let s go home ?
No thanx

Quote
24FPS

Quote
Paddy
This could be wrong so take it as I am:

The band announced Steve as the Drummer for the summer 2021 tour with Charlie being part of that decision, Charlie then passed away and Jordan is now behind the kit and part of The Rolling Stones.

If Charlie had passed before the decision was made would the Stones have called it a day?

Probably not. They knew Steve, especially Keith. Charlie knew Steve. They all knew him. They wouldn't have to go through excruciating auditions. It would have sailed either way.

Yeah that’s my guess also. It would have sailed anyways.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Paddy
This could be wrong so take it as I am:

The band announced Steve as the Drummer for the summer 2021 tour with Charlie being part of that decision, Charlie then passed away and Jordan is now behind the kit and part of The Rolling Stones.

If Charlie had passed before the decision was made would the Stones have called it a day?

The issue you seem to have is about the "when" the "decision" was made.

Here's a hint: it wasn't about Charlie or Steve.

Maybe don’t respond to things if you don’t understand them fully.
My wondering (not issue) was.....the ship was ready to sail and and with a new crew member (Jordan) who’s presence on the crew was agreed to by the crew member he was replacing (Watts). Charlie died before the ship set sail. I wondered if the ship would have set sail if the new crew member (Jordan) had not already been agreed upon by the older crew member (Watts)

As 24FPS pointed out, in his opinion it sets sail still. I’d agree with him.

Sadly, yes

Here's an excerpt from a Rolling Stone magazine interview/article from 2013 previously unpublished, but was then published on Aug 25, 2021 - the day after Charlie passed away: Charlie - RIP

From RS writer Mikal Gilmore:

"Keith Richards tells me, more than once, that Watts is essentially the reason that he still plays with Mick Jagger, and the reason the Rolling Stones endure so well and renew so effectively.
Jagger, too, has said he can’t imagine the band continuing without Watts. The Rolling Stones could survive the loss of guitarists Brian Jones and Mick Taylor, and the departure of bassist Bill Wyman. They can withstand
years of a world’s distance apart from one another. But they can’t imagine truly being the Rolling Stones without Charlie Watts. Watts is similar-minded: “They are the only people I want to play rock & roll with.”'

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

Quote
crholmstrom

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
georgie48

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
It's probably not a popular opinion, but I think all these old acts should stop. It's embarrassing watching them get wheeled out; not able to sing anymore.

Well PR2000, THAT is axactly the "problem" with the Stones ...
I don't know if you were in Berlin, but I can assure you that Mick was singing really good (to say the least) on Fool to Cry, not the easiest song. Mick's voice is not the same as decades ago (but who's voice is, even when you're not a singer, after 6 decades). And then there are Keith's still great opening riffs on classics like JJF, SFM, SMU, etc., etc. I recently watched a short, recently recorded clip in which Keith was kind of freewheeling on his guitar, clearly looking for yet another possibly great riff. I'm sure he'll manage to find one.
And Ronnie? No worries, as Rockman would say.

Yes, some oldies' voices have gone. Robert Plant, for instance, will destroy his voice completely when he will try some of those amazing Led Zeppelin songs. Axel Rose, so much younger (he did quite well as replacement in AC/DC !), is slowly on the way down. Lindsey Buckingham is still doing well, though. My voice (who cares?) f*cked up at 74
So it all depends

Maybe I should clarify what I mean by the word 'rolling' in OP's question. I believe the Stones could easily keep rolling, stay totally relevant, and go out on top. I just posted in the thread about 'Little Rain' - a superb cover; a great idea for an album. This is what the Stones at 80 could do with great style.
It is the forced stadium rock, which is just ludicrous. These are 80 year olds. Have our expectations become so low? Do we need this so bad? They are barely playing.
I don't want to name other names/acts because it feels mean. But on positive note, IMO Axl Rose actually sounds better nowadays.

I just saw Red Hot Chili Peppers a few weeks ago & those guys are definitely on top of their game. Only stadium show I'm going to this year. Thought about Def Lep/Motley Crue but it was too damn expensive. RHCP have been changing about half the set every night & slowly pulling more songs out of the catalog. They've even been doing up to 5 songs a night from the new record. Cool light show too & fantastic sound.

RHCP played an excellent show in Nashville last week. Only 2 songs before 1999 was my only complaint. The Strokes were very solid, too. Live rock will live on after The Stones stop rolling (they don’t need to stop, if you ask me).

Quote
Hairball
Here's an excerpt from a Rolling Stone magazine interview/article from 2013 previously unpublished, but was then published on Aug 25, 2021 - the day after Charlie passed away: Charlie - RIP

From RS writer Mikal Gilmore:

"Keith Richards tells me, more than once, that Watts is essentially the reason that he still plays with Mick Jagger, and the reason the Rolling Stones endure so well and renew so effectively.
Jagger, too, has said he can’t imagine the band continuing without Watts. The Rolling Stones could survive the loss of guitarists Brian Jones and Mick Taylor, and the departure of bassist Bill Wyman. They can withstand
years of a world’s distance apart from one another. But they can’t imagine truly being the Rolling Stones without Charlie Watts. Watts is similar-minded: “They are the only people I want to play rock & roll with.”'

The RS writers name caught my eye!

Yep ... he's the brother of Gary Gilmore



ROCKMAN

Quote
Taylor1
They have put out one studio album of new song, which was one of their worst with univentive musicand a few mediocre singles in a 24 years.They have basically stopped creating great inventive music.For a quarter of a century they’ve been a live act .Why should they stop now

Lay off whatever you're consuming.

Quote
bitusa2012

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Taylor1
They have put out one studio album of new song, which was one of their worst with univentive musicand a few mediocre singles in a 24 years.They have basically stopped creating great inventive music.For a quarter of a century they’ve been a live act .Why should they stop now

OFFS please clarify what you said. That's not even brilliant gibberish. I can do much better when I've had a bottle of rum - and I edit myself to not post when that happens.

Taylor1 is absolutely correct when he stated that they’ve released 1 album of new, original material in 24 years. Nearly a quarter of a century. He’s wrong about it being no good though. There’s plenty to love in it for me!

So they HAVE basically become a live act.

It’s not gibberish if you read it, or understand what he’s trying to state.

Oh. That is correct. It's not gibberish in context. And I do think they've become The Beach Boys. But Doom And Gloom and LIAGT? A reach, I know, but not dead yet regardless.

Very close, though. Especially without anything new LP wise since September of 2005. To this day, not what I thought would become of The Rolling Stones.

Quote
ribbelchips
With all background singers, horns and keyboards, it sounds ok, but when you filter that and only would listen to Keith, Ronnie, Mick and the rhythym section.. half of the songs would fall apart. And to me, that's embarrasing. But hey, it's only my personal opinion...

An extremely poor and even terrible personal opinion.

What you're meaning is they couldn't cut it without the backing support.

You're wrong.

However, you're speaking out of context.

They've done it before, plenty of times, and they could do it again.

Quote
Rockman
Yep ... he's the brother of Gary Gilmore

I remembered the name from The Executioners Song. I knew he wrote a book about his brother. I didn’t know he was a journalist... Gary was creative also. What’s a tale....

Quote
Rockman
georgie48 Ya should gargle before
each performance whether in bed or on stage ......huhuhhuhaaaa

Damn, you should have told me before ...
But it's still not too late

I'm a GHOST living in a ghost town

Quote
Hairball
Here's an excerpt from a Rolling Stone magazine interview/article from 2013 previously unpublished, but was then published on Aug 25, 2021 - the day after Charlie passed away: Charlie - RIP

From RS writer Mikal Gilmore:

"Keith Richards tells me, more than once, that Watts is essentially the reason that he still plays with Mick Jagger, and the reason the Rolling Stones endure so well and renew so effectively.
Jagger, too, has said he can’t imagine the band continuing without Watts. The Rolling Stones could survive the loss of guitarists Brian Jones and Mick Taylor, and the departure of bassist Bill Wyman. They can withstand
years of a world’s distance apart from one another. But they can’t imagine truly being the Rolling Stones without Charlie Watts. Watts is similar-minded: “They are the only people I want to play rock & roll with.”'

No, they couldn't imagine going on without Charlie - until the unthinkable happened and they actually had to make that decision in real life, not in their imaginations. And
while the new setup with Steve Jordan isn't what they would have imagined, now that it's a reality they find they can live with it after all.

I do wonder whether they would have continued if there hadn't been that in-between stage where Steve took over, with Charlie's approval, as a temporary measure until Charlie could return. If Charlie had died before that happened, I think the idea of carrying on with a new drummer would have been much harder to accept, both for them and their fans, though it might still have happened.

Quote
Green Lady

Quote
Hairball
Here's an excerpt from a Rolling Stone magazine interview/article from 2013 previously unpublished, but was then published on Aug 25, 2021 - the day after Charlie passed away: Charlie - RIP

From RS writer Mikal Gilmore:

"Keith Richards tells me, more than once, that Watts is essentially the reason that he still plays with Mick Jagger, and the reason the Rolling Stones endure so well and renew so effectively.
Jagger, too, has said he can’t imagine the band continuing without Watts. The Rolling Stones could survive the loss of guitarists Brian Jones and Mick Taylor, and the departure of bassist Bill Wyman. They can withstand
years of a world’s distance apart from one another. But they can’t imagine truly being the Rolling Stones without Charlie Watts. Watts is similar-minded: “They are the only people I want to play rock & roll with.”'

No, they couldn't imagine going on without Charlie - until the unthinkable happened and they actually had to make that decision in real life, not in their imaginations. And
while the new setup with Steve Jordan isn't what they would have imagined, now that it's a reality they find they can live with it after all.

I do wonder whether they would have continued if there hadn't been that in-between stage where Steve took over, with Charlie's approval, as a temporary measure until Charlie could return. If Charlie had died before that happened, I think the idea of carrying on with a new drummer would have been much harder to accept, both for them and their fans, though it might still have happened.

Don't you think, Green Lady, that there really is something very, very mysterious or weird (if you like) about our Rolling Stones.
All those so called coincidences?

1. Charlie played drums in the Ealing Jazz Club while Brian was playing in front of him well before the former joined the band.
2. Tony Chapman introduced Bill Wyman and left himself to be replaced by ... Charlie.
3. Ian was "kicked out", but continued to play a major role "behind" the scene.
4. Brian "left" the band and Ian sort of "introduced" Mick Taylor (didn't Ronnie always say he was going to play with the Stoned?). He also played a major role in introducting Chuck Leavell, or?
5. 5+ years later Ronnie, yes, joined the band.
6. Bill left the band and Charlie sort of choose Daryl Jones to replace Bill ... and ... almost 30 years later Charlie "choose" Steve Jordan to take his place (Charlie knew very well what was going on with himself. Like Paul McCartney said: "I knew that Charlie was ill for a long time, but I didn't know he was that ill".

Now place your own self in that picture. Like all of us, somehow we all got hooked up with those Rolling Stones, right?

Is life a coincidence or isn't it? Is there this red line in the 60 years existence of the Rolling Stones or is it all coincidence?



I'm a GHOST living in a ghost town

Quote
tupelo68
The RHCP ?
No joke
Playing 1h30 and let s go home ?
No thanx

Fair enough, I was a bit disappointed in the set length but RHCP have never done long shows. It was an intense 90 minutes though. They did have 2 good openers also although I personally don't care for The Strokes. Thundercat was awesome. There's something magical with the Flea & John Frusciante interplay & Chad is an excellent drummer. Also, Anthony is actually singing more these days with excellent backing vocals from John. John blew me away on guitar. For me I'd put him almost on a Jeff Beck level. It's good to have him back.

Quote
NashvilleBlues

Quote
crholmstrom

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
georgie48

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
It's probably not a popular opinion, but I think all these old acts should stop. It's embarrassing watching them get wheeled out; not able to sing anymore.

Well PR2000, THAT is axactly the "problem" with the Stones ...
I don't know if you were in Berlin, but I can assure you that Mick was singing really good (to say the least) on Fool to Cry, not the easiest song. Mick's voice is not the same as decades ago (but who's voice is, even when you're not a singer, after 6 decades). And then there are Keith's still great opening riffs on classics like JJF, SFM, SMU, etc., etc. I recently watched a short, recently recorded clip in which Keith was kind of freewheeling on his guitar, clearly looking for yet another possibly great riff. I'm sure he'll manage to find one.
And Ronnie? No worries, as Rockman would say.

Yes, some oldies' voices have gone. Robert Plant, for instance, will destroy his voice completely when he will try some of those amazing Led Zeppelin songs. Axel Rose, so much younger (he did quite well as replacement in AC/DC !), is slowly on the way down. Lindsey Buckingham is still doing well, though. My voice (who cares?) f*cked up at 74
So it all depends

Maybe I should clarify what I mean by the word 'rolling' in OP's question. I believe the Stones could easily keep rolling, stay totally relevant, and go out on top. I just posted in the thread about 'Little Rain' - a superb cover; a great idea for an album. This is what the Stones at 80 could do with great style.
It is the forced stadium rock, which is just ludicrous. These are 80 year olds. Have our expectations become so low? Do we need this so bad? They are barely playing.
I don't want to name other names/acts because it feels mean. But on positive note, IMO Axl Rose actually sounds better nowadays.

I just saw Red Hot Chili Peppers a few weeks ago & those guys are definitely on top of their game. Only stadium show I'm going to this year. Thought about Def Lep/Motley Crue but it was too damn expensive. RHCP have been changing about half the set every night & slowly pulling more songs out of the catalog. They've even been doing up to 5 songs a night from the new record. Cool light show too & fantastic sound.

RHCP played an excellent show in Nashville last week. Only 2 songs before 1999 was my only complaint. The Strokes were very solid, too. Live rock will live on after The Stones stop rolling (they don’t need to stop, if you ask me).

@NashvilleBlues : there's an excellent tape (AUD #1) of the Nasville show here:

[www.rhcplivearchive.com]

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
bitusa2012

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Taylor1
They have put out one studio album of new song, which was one of their worst with univentive musicand a few mediocre singles in a 24 years.They have basically stopped creating great inventive music.For a quarter of a century they’ve been a live act .Why should they stop now

OFFS please clarify what you said. That's not even brilliant gibberish. I can do much better when I've had a bottle of rum - and I edit myself to not post when that happens.

Taylor1 is absolutely correct when he stated that they’ve released 1 album of new, original material in 24 years. Nearly a quarter of a century. He’s wrong about it being no good though. There’s plenty to love in it for me!

So they HAVE basically become a live act.

It’s not gibberish if you read it, or understand what he’s trying to state.

Oh. That is correct. It's not gibberish in context. And I do think they've become The Beach Boys. But Doom And Gloom and LIAGT? A reach, I know, but not dead yet regardless.

Very close, though. Especially without anything new LP wise since September of 2005. To this day, not what I thought would become of The Rolling Stones.

They won't become the Beach Boys until the New Barbarians leave the band to do their own thing.

Quote
Paddy

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Paddy
This could be wrong so take it as I am:

The band announced Steve as the Drummer for the summer 2021 tour with Charlie being part of that decision, Charlie then passed away and Jordan is now behind the kit and part of The Rolling Stones.

If Charlie had passed before the decision was made would the Stones have called it a day?

The issue you seem to have is about the "when" the "decision" was made.

Here's a hint: it wasn't about Charlie or Steve.

Maybe don’t respond to things if you don’t understand them fully.
My wondering (not issue) was.....the ship was ready to sail and and with a new crew member (Jordan) who’s presence on the crew was agreed to by the crew member he was replacing (Watts). Charlie died before the ship set sail. I wondered if the ship would have set sail if the new crew member (Jordan) had not already been agreed upon by the older crew member (Watts)

As 24FPS pointed out, in his opinion it sets sail still. I’d agree with him.

Maybe don't post things when you don't understand the issue fully at hand, which is beyond a band lineup changing prior to that tour.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Paddy

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Paddy
This could be wrong so take it as I am:

The band announced Steve as the Drummer for the summer 2021 tour with Charlie being part of that decision, Charlie then passed away and Jordan is now behind the kit and part of The Rolling Stones.

If Charlie had passed before the decision was made would the Stones have called it a day?

The issue you seem to have is about the "when" the "decision" was made.

Here's a hint: it wasn't about Charlie or Steve.

Maybe don’t respond to things if you don’t understand them fully.
My wondering (not issue) was.....the ship was ready to sail and and with a new crew member (Jordan) who’s presence on the crew was agreed to by the crew member he was replacing (Watts). Charlie died before the ship set sail. I wondered if the ship would have set sail if the new crew member (Jordan) had not already been agreed upon by the older crew member (Watts)

As 24FPS pointed out, in his opinion it sets sail still. I’d agree with him.

Maybe don't post things when you don't understand the issue fully at hand, which is beyond a band lineup changing prior to that tour.

Let it go. You got it wrong once, don’t get it wrong twice.

That decision should have been taken decades ago in that case. It's too late to stop now. They have already decided to roll as long as it's possible. All the way to the end.