Tell Me :  Talk
Talk about your favorite band. 

Previous page Next page First page IORR home

For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.

Why they didn't do Live 8 in 2005.
Posted by: JumpingKentFlash ()
Date: October 21, 2006 14:36

I found this good article on why The Stones skipped the Live 8 event in the summer of 2005. I got it on Paul McCartney's website forum. Not sure if this was ever posted here before. It's a great read for sure.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Don't start Keith up on politics: Why the Stones missed Live8
By Louise Jury, Arts Correspondent
Published: 03 September 2005
When the Rolling Stones failed to appear in the Live8 concert line-up this summer, rumours abounded as to why the band had stayed away.

Some said Mick Jagger and Paul McCartney had a monumental clash of egos, each wanting the coveted headline slot. Others claimed that Geldof and Jagger had fallen out, but no one knew why.

The reason, it turns out, had less to do with superstar egos and more to do with Keith Richards' suspicion of politics.

In an interview broadcast last night, Richards, the Stones' guitarist, revealed that it was his own wariness over the politics of the headline-grabbing event that led to the Stones' absence from the event.

Indeed, Jagger and the Live8 organiser Bob Geldof had begged him to take part, Richards revealed on BBC2's Newsnight.

"I just thought the connection between Geldof and the Labour Party ... was just too tight; and I don't see debt reduction as being like - it's not going to feed the babies down there," he said from America where the band has just embarked on a year-long world tour of more than 100 concerts to promote a new album.

"I mean, who's this gratifying and where are the Africans? Where was their say? And I thought it was being stuck together too fast. I never had so much pressure in my life from so many knights of the realm."

Asked whether it was Jagger, who was made Sir Mick four years ago, and Geldof, who was given an honorary knighthood in 1986, who had tried to convince him to participate, Richards said: "Oh yeah, all the Sirs had a bash, believe me. Every one of them. I wondered who was pulling the strings, that's all. You know what I mean?"

Richards, 61, was also wary of the band's rare excursion into political lyrics when Jagger, 62, wrote "Sweet Neo-Con," a head-on attack on the American right which has been hailed as a highlight of the new album, A Bigger Bang, scheduled for release next week. But Richards had told Jagger he had no problems with its lyrics. "Personally, to me, I never think about politicians if I'm going to write a song. It's like a blank area to me. They all come and go, and I'm trying to write about more universal stuff. But if you feel like [it], then let's go," he said.

"I just didn't want it to become some peripheral distractions/political storm in a tea-cup sort of thing. But if you want to do it, let's go. I'm with you all the way."

He said he did not want the band to be seen as political, he added. "I just want to be seen as a good band and a great band ..."

Jagger insisted in the interview that social comment was very much part of what the Stones had always done - "though it's somewhat more hidden and this is a very open and direct song. But this is the different time we live in and I thought this was the best way to say it rather than hide it, cloaked in metaphors and subterfuge".

In conversations with all the band members, a picture emerged of a much happier, less tense atmosphere among them than had been common in the past. "Maybe Mick's a bit happier now he's been knighted," Ronnie Wood said.

Charlie Watts, 64, the band's drummer, has received treatment for throat cancer and this has raised questions over whether the current tour might be the band's last. Jagger said he did not know. "I can't even get past Christmas, to be honest."

But Richards indicated a willingness to go on. "The idea of retiring is like killing yourself. It's almost like hari kiri. I mean, no doubt, I intend to live to 100 and go down in history."

When the Rolling Stones failed to appear in the Live8 concert line-up this summer, rumours abounded as to why the band had stayed away.

JumpingKentFlash



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-10-21 14:56 by JumpingKentFlash.

Re: Why they didn't do Live 8 in 2005.
Posted by: erikjjf ()
Date: October 21, 2006 14:47

Why is the article posted twice?

Re: Why they didn't do Live 8 in 2005.
Posted by: JumpingKentFlash ()
Date: October 21, 2006 14:54

erikjjf Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why is the article posted twice?


I must've pressed the paste button twice. Sorry. I will edit it now...

JumpingKentFlash

Re: Why they didn't do Live 8 in 2005.
Posted by: marquess ()
Date: October 21, 2006 20:21

So it was KR that did not want to participate.

What a pity, it would have been great to see the guys steal the show from he other groups...!

Re: Why they didn't do Live 8 in 2005.
Posted by: Markdog ()
Date: October 21, 2006 23:13

Live 8, possible political ties but raises awareness of world hunger - NO

Entertain the Clintons and their political friends - YES


makes no sense to me.

Re: Why they didn't do Live 8 in 2005.
Posted by: oldkr ()
Date: October 21, 2006 23:20

didnt keith say something like how many trucks of wheat are gonna get there anyway -- then played careless ethiopeans on the basement rehearsal tapes.

Keith was right, nothing has been achieved I am glad they stayed away

OLDKR

Re: Why they didn't do Live 8 in 2005.
Posted by: windmelody ()
Date: October 21, 2006 23:27

Keith has some good arguments on his side. I am positively surprised how clear he sees things. I have good nothing against Geldof, but couldn`t it be that he tried to promote himself with live aid 2005? He likes talking to people in a moralist way, but I think that live aid 1985 was fantastic, 2005 had some good performances, but it was mostly about some stars promoting themselves, I agree with Keith Richards.
Well, well, entertaining the Clintons is a bit political, but playing at the Beacon theatre means for the stones: lots of fun and lots of money. That is what the stones love!

Re: Why they didn't do Live 8 in 2005.
Date: October 21, 2006 23:38

Well at least Pink Floyd showed up...

Re: Why they didn't do Live 8 in 2005.
Posted by: Chav Watch ()
Date: October 21, 2006 23:41

Thank god they didn't. Live 8 was bloody awful.

Re: Why they didn't do Live 8 in 2005.
Posted by: melillo ()
Date: October 21, 2006 23:42

hey mick screwed keith at live aid so what goes around comes around

Re: Why they didn't do Live 8 in 2005.
Posted by: MicksBrain ()
Date: October 21, 2006 23:51

Keith seems to have no problem getting "Political" by running the Stones Empire through the Netherlands thus knocking his taxes down to 1.6% (sh*t, I'll take THAT !! ...since all our taxes - USA - go to nothing but war anyway) but he can't seem to do the math when it comes to helping the poorest of the poor, the weakest of the weak, the sickest of the sick who live on less than a Dollar a day - A DOLLAR, what Keith spends a second....Jagger just went WAY UP in my book (maybe that's why it's so easy for Keith to get into his Pirate role for that stupid Johnny Depp/Disney movie crap)

Hey Keith, when you pay 1.6% taxes on your earnings some poor working class "Salt of the Earth" in the UK has to make up for it and losses out on high quality Health Care (and other social programs) that taxes pay for - does THAT compute you selfish %&#@ ?

SIDE NOTE: I recall that period because they were finishing up ABB in LA at the time. ALL they had to do was jump on a non-stop BA or VIRGIN flight, book the entire First Class cabin so they could rehearse (3 WARHORSES/2 SURPRISES) and sleep. Land in England, chopper out to Hyde Park, do their show, fly back before In and Out Burger closes in LA at 1am, and be EVERYBODY's Little Hero's. Too much trouble I guess. Who were the spoiled prissy brats that couldn't make LIVE AID '85 ? Boy George, Rod Stewart, Michael Jackson, Prince (turned in a video but LIVE was too tough) - nice group to be in, all the 80's Prima Donna flakes.....

Doing ANYTHING for Africa is better than doing NOTHING (who knows how it's gonna shake out in the end? It's NOT political, it's givin' a little back for all one's gotten - like over paid Rock Stars for example - hats off to U2, Macca, and Pink Floyd..to name a few from that day) Someone above said Live 8 was horrible, SAY WHAT? Pink Floyd were great, Macca did a brilliant HELTER SKELTER, U2's set was fine, even MADONNA wasn't bad...get the DVD - GREEN DAY in Berlin,etc..alot of great stuff on there.....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-10-21 23:58 by MicksBrain.

Re: Why they didn't do Live 8 in 2005.
Posted by: Chav Watch ()
Date: October 21, 2006 23:53

On second thoughts perhaps they would have done it if A Bigger Bang was already in the shops. Or maybe such a world wide audience would have impacted on their own ticket sales. Who knows?

Re: Why they didn't do Live 8 in 2005.
Posted by: ROLLINGSTONE ()
Date: October 22, 2006 00:46

Macca, U2 et al were eclipsed by a huge white wall that day. Pink Floyd were the official headliners. (Macca's slots were warm up and sentimental closing acts). Mr Waters made it abundantly clear that a reformed Pink Floyd were not going to be a support act to Madonna,some Boy band or anyone else. Floyd provided the mystique for the day after 24 years in absentia. We get to see the Stones every couple of years so what's the odds? Maybe Keith didn't fancy sharing a bill with Elton after their 'Di'spat. Ask Mr.Cohl if you want an exact reason as to why the Stones didn't play. Would it have attracted more or less to The Bigger Bang gigs? Who knows? Does anyone know if they were even approached?
I'm happy just to see the guys play on their own turf(s).

"I'll be in my basement room with a needle and a spoon."

Re: Why they didn't do Live 8 in 2005.
Posted by: Gazza ()
Date: October 22, 2006 04:25

oldkr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> didnt keith say something like how many trucks of
> wheat are gonna get there anyway -- then played
> careless ethiopeans on the basement rehearsal
> tapes.
>
> Keith was right, nothing has been achieved I am
> glad they stayed away
>
> OLDKR


sure - but playing celebrity gloatfests and birthday parties for politicians is morally better?

Jagger was billed by the BBC as being scheduled to appear towards the end of the show. He was at a family wedding in Yorkshire that afternoon but for some unexplained reason didnt show.

Re: Why they didn't do Live 8 in 2005.
Date: October 22, 2006 04:52

they didn't play it because HUGE STARS like bob geldoff were sucking up all of the attention . . .

you can't catch me!



Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 284
Record Number of Users: 135 on May 20, 2015 22:23
Record Number of Guests: 3948 on December 7, 2015 15:07

Previous page Next page First page IORR home