paulywaul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Sicilian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > > Bill Wyman turns 70 in October.
> >
> > Charlie turns 65
> >
> > Mick & Keith turn 63 this summer
> >
> Don't think you're quite correct there. If I'm not
> mistaken, Jagger/Richard were born in 1941,




Jagger and Richards were both born in 1943 (Mick: July 26 and Keith Dec. 18) so both are turnin 63 this year.

birthdays :

Wyman 24.10.36
Watts 1.6.41
Jagger 26.7.43
Richards 18.12.43
Wood 1.6.47

beely - you're cracking me up with laughter at the apologies to Mick's dad..lol

x



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-08 01:53 by Beelyboy.

If you are so concerned about genetics and living then fyi both Mick and Keith's parents live/lived to experience 90+ years old age so they are not really bad genetics. Of course age will catch up like with everyone, but Bo Diddley and many others who are way older are still playing. The only difference is the Stones are 4 people so they need all 4 to stay healthy vs. solo artists are only one person plus a band they can change.

Bjornulf

Well there is a difference between hard living: Heavy Drinking, Hard Drugs, Smoking etc...

I'm gonna assume the Jagger/Richards parents did not lead the same lifestyle that their boys did. Their lifestyle can take a toll on the vital organs and outside appearance in the long run.

If you think Keith looks like he's ready to model underwear on a billboard, then I stand corrected.

I think age is catching up but that is not a bad thing. As they grow older they are changing maybe not for good or bad. Enjoy!

For once I´m glad to correct ya Gazza ('n' not the other way 'round);
Charlie was born June 2; Ron June 1.

The entire idea they will end up "a little laid back" and more bluesy in small venues to present us with their skills is completely out of the question.

The very notion of "they" nowadays is formed by their commercial presence both for themselves and everyone that earns his or her bread in their company.

This image is formed by hugeness and spectacle (which is for a great deal what I like about them, by the way) and NOT by musical intimacy or skill. The latter is something that won't come back by having them play the Olympias of the world every Saturday night.

If for some reason or another the Stones can't pull a stadiumtour anymore (the odd arena is to keep the impression of periodic exclusivity, and is apart from that equally large) e.g. when they reach their seventies and/or deteriorate physically, the live Stones are over. Not only as we know them, but completely. A retirement dedicated to music, and playing for honour, is not their game, not as a unity.

The only two exceptions/alternatives in this case would be:
1) To drastically cut the number of performances so that an incidental massive appearance would still be possible, guaranteeing a massive income in total, earned by tickets and/or exploitation of the extravananza in multimedia.
2) To turn the notion of a "club" show into a "show by request" or otherwise guaranteeing a massive income per head of the audiance, earned by tickets and/or expoitation of the gig in multimedia.

Otherwise, "they" will be over as a live act, but:
- Keith will appear for music's and honour's sake at other people's shows, filling in Chuck Berry licks in appropriate songs;
- Ronnie will tour British clubs with friends, trying to focus on his music, with nice successes;
- Charlie will help him out on occasion, and otherwise be civilised in manners;
- Mick will control the RS inheritance, do the odd soundtrack, and do one or two more albums, working with people that are valuable to be seen with and can inform him regarding the state of the art.

It will be Mick in my opinion, who will be responsible for this non-acceptance of another Stones than the profitable Stones, and I think he will be right. They'd get on eachothers nerves in clubs, because if they only did it for the music, they'd actually have to tell eachother how they felt about their musical skills. This wouldn't go down well I'm afraid. Now it seems Mick doesn't do that, as he realises the Stones are made by those blokes and he needs them for the show.

That may sound harsh but it's the way it is I think.

Baboon Bro Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For once I´m glad to correct ya Gazza ('n' not the
> other way 'round);
> Charlie was born June 2; Ron June 1.


oops..a lil typo on my part..thanks for the correction. At least I didnt cock up Ronnie's birthday!

Father Time is undefeated....

ShaTurd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Father Time is undefeated....


but, nothing lasts forever.... :-)

One of these days we hardcore fans will have to deal with the fact that one of the remaining founding members has died, and that the Stones will roll no more. But not *&^%$#@ today, so put on some Stones and rock out, baby!

Well, nobody knows what will happen but BB King is still great at 80 although his voice of course has weakened considerably. If the Stones stay in shape the question is if they will be able to get away from those record-breaking tours. But performing for two hours at their age is amazing (particularly for Jagger who has to do the singing AND the running around).

I tell ya what´s gonna happen:
They all (all of us here too except
Drbryant & Reptile) gonna die before 2060.
They will play till they drop.

Well, Ok... Neither Lorenz, Rutger nor Jumpin' Kent will
throw in their towels before 2060... After some even more thinkin'...
If I'm healthy I might go hand get a nice handshake
with folks like Gazza & Elmo while the 2050s turn ´60s...
So let´s say we all - with mentioned exceptions - are gone
by 2069. Most of us probably as soon as around the 2040s.

that'd be cool, although can you imagine the level of setlist whingeing/caring by the 2040's....

Holy macaroni; we dont want to hear that...
But by then I´m sure they´re back to groovy
and brave setlists... But then all will be
whinin' over that no major hits ("that w-was c-c-called
'warhorses' back at the turn of the century... ') are aired.

Mick has been on a macrobiotic diet for years. He doesn't eat anything without rice added. Plus he runs five to fifteen miles a day. He puts on a full Rocky type boxer coat with hood and all and runs unnoticed.

mike

Mick is a physical marvel. I'm 27, and I've been in awe of his athleticism since I got into the band.

Of course, I love his voice and his songwriting above his frontman abilities, but it's undeniable that he's the greatest live performer ever, not only for the performances themselves, but for the amount of time that he has been kicking ass!

I don't think Mick was ever a heavy drug-user. He's mostly been in control for his entire career. He let loose, but he's always been focused and committed.

As far as Keith...who knows how much abuse he really inflicts on himself these days? A lot of people feel it's an act, but he drinks and smokes hard. It's clearly taken its toll, but I think he does some things to counteract that (eating right, yoga, even exercise).

His genetics are top-notch (as are Mick's). I'd be dead in a couple of years if I ever tried to do a fraction of what Keith did in his heyday.