I threw it out there, now react.


Plexi

um, but they didn't bow to it . . .

p.s. the smoking ban sucks!

p.p.s. is it just me, or does ronnie not quite seem like ronnie without a cigarette? i love that opening number of brown sugar on four flicks twickenham where our hero is just engulfed in a crowd of cigarette smoke . . .



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-09-03 05:00 by nikki bong.

Yes,no,maybe.

"It's just some friends of mine and they're busting down the door"

Keith may not have lit up before his set on the final night, but I saw him smoking at the side of the drums a couple of times - so he was still breaking the ban.

Did the Stones 'kiss ass'?

No, not really. It was a nice little stunt (and that's all it was) the first time round, but would've looked silly if repeated imo. As Beast stated, Keith was having a crafty puff out of eye sight (well, for most!) and for me, thats more like it. It's more human and he's not playing the fool that way.

Please...

Did not the O2 management get in some kind of trouble for "allowing" them to smoke onstage?

I suppose it would not be ass-kissing if you make a choice to keep someone else out of trouble.

No of course they didn't!

Keith smoked on all three nights. For the first two nights, this was very obvious as he was playing up to it at the start of his set. And ronnie was smoking wasn't he, at least on the first night.

So that is in no way kissing ass and / or bowing down to a smoking ban.

_____________________________________________________

What's your favourite flavour?...........Cherry Red!!

If it's like it is in the States, the fine goes to the establishment, not the ones who are breaking the law. That being said, I heard the fine was 2500 pounds. I don't care who you are but trying to hide that from the man is in no way kissing ass. I'd be worried about you if you didn't.

No - Keith's actions on stage at the start of his sets on Thursday and Sunday made the ban look ridiculous and gave the audience a laugh and the next day's tabloids a funny story.

what i read is that the smoker is fined 50 GBP per smoke; the venue is fined 2500 GBP if they don't try to make the smoker stop.
after the first show, the newspapers quoted some authority as saying the fines would be applicable
"unless Keith Richards can demonstrate that lighting up is part of his performance" - which he sure proceeded to do. :E



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-09-03 15:03 by with sssoul.

no

timbernardis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I threw it out there, now react.
>
>
> Plexi


No. But the fuss over Keith lighting up a cig on stage shows how absurd it is. And I don't smoke.

Keith could afford his own £50 fine and offer to pay the O2's £2500 fine without even feeling it hit his wallet. So if he chose not to smoke, it certainly wasn't in fear of a fixed penalty notice or even a sense of duty to the O2.

Was it kissing ass? Who's ass? Why would Keith want to kiss Greenwich council's ass?

Keith did what Keith does. He still smoked - mostly out of view - and even had a puff or two in front of the cameras. And here's the thing - they were plastered all over the papers the next day. A very astute move resulting in lots of free publicity.

So were they kissing ass or participating in a clever publicity move? I think the latter.

I am not sure if 'kissing ass' is allowed on stage at the O2 either....Perhaps someone could check with Greenwich council?!

I want to spice this up a little, so I will "throw out" another one.

If the Stones were going to be the Stones (of old??), shouldn't Keith and Ronnie just have kept smoking as they normally do right out in front of people during the show instead of "hiding" back around the amps.

Shouldn't they have flaunted it on the 23rd and 26th as they did on the first night? What was going to happen, the authorities try to arrest them and haul them off stage, the O2 cancel the shows and lose a lot of money (if not from tickets, then from food and souvenirs) and be in the middle of a storm of controversy?

Controversy has only benefitted the Stones in the past, why stop now?

It was fun, but it could have been much more fun had they continued to smoke openly!


Plexi

I don't understand the fuzz
but
Keith lit up and smoked a fag in front of the audience on August 23rd just at the usual spot before starting his set.
And I have a picture to prove it.
Michael

timbernardis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I want to spice this up a little, so I will "throw
> out" another one.
>
> If the Stones were going to be the Stones (of
> old??), shouldn't Keith and Ronnie just have kept
> smoking as they normally do right out in front of
> people during the show instead of "hiding" back
> around the amps.
>
> Shouldn't they have flaunted it on the 23rd and
> 26th as they did on the first night? What was
> going to happen, the authorities try to arrest
> them and haul them off stage, the O2 cancel the
> shows and lose a lot of money (if not from
> tickets, then from food and souvenirs) and be in
> the middle of a storm of controversy?
>
> Controversy has only benefitted the Stones in the
> past, why stop now?
>
> It was fun, but it could have been much more fun
> had they continued to smoke openly!
>
>
> Plexi

And did they shoot smack and doin' freebase, lines
or smoking the pot in front of the audience?

Smoking makes you stink and will kill you. Further, it will kill the people around you who have to breathe in your stinking cigs. I'd say the real kiss ass/sell outs are those who bought into the vampiric cig companies & started smoking in the first place. Did the Stones kiss ass? No. Are they weak for bowing down to huge evil corporations like the tobacco industry? Yep.

>> Keith lit up and smoked a fag in front of the audience on August 23rd
just at the usual spot before starting his set. <<

and he immediately threw it away saying "it's only cotton wool - i hate that sh1t" - an enchanting performance :E
but at other times he was smoking on (and just off) stage, for the benefit
of anyone who needs a rock star to live out their reckless wow-i'm-getting-fined fantasies for them.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-09-03 19:32 by with sssoul.

still, they did not do their normal (amount of) smoking that they do at any other show and yes, while smoking may be stupid and not good for you, they dont seem to share that view and while you may point out that they did a little smoking mostly out of sight (and just a bit in sight), they DID back down as from their normal routine of having a number of smokes out in the open whilst on stage.

Obvious to anyone who goes to a lot of Stones shows. It would seem they allowed themselves to be cowed by the authorities however you want to frame it, and this is definitely un-Stones.


Plexiglass

timbernardis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> still, they did not do their normal (amount of)
> smoking that they do at any other show and yes,
> while smoking may be stupid and not good for you,
> they dont seem to share that view and while you
> may point out that they did a little smoking
> mostly out of sight (and just a bit in sight),
> they DID back down as from their normal routine of
> having a number of smokes out in the open whilst
> on stage.
>
> Obvious to anyone who goes to a lot of Stones
> shows. It would seem they allowed themselves to
> be cowed by the authorities however you want to
> frame it, and this is definitely un-Stones.
>
>
> Plexiglass



Bollocks.

_____________________________________________________

What's your favourite flavour?...........Cherry Red!!

sigh: okay, so go up there & show 'em how it's done, timbernardis -
and they're still the Rolling Stones, and we're not :E

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> sigh: okay, so go up there & show 'em how it's
> done, timbernardis -
> and they're still the Rolling Stones, and we're
> not :E


I love you with sssoul.

Ok, so I don't really love you, I've never even met you. But you cut straight to the point, and you make some of the greatest comments here on IORR. If I ever get to meet you, I would probably love you.

_____________________________________________________

What's your favourite flavour?...........Cherry Red!!

[blush!] you're too kind, Mr Jimmy! :E [passing the popcorn]

timbernardis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Obvious to anyone who goes to a lot of Stones
> shows. It would seem they allowed themselves to
> be cowed by the authorities however you want to
> frame it, and this is definitely un-Stones.

LOL - are you serious? this is the band that brought us Let's Spend Some Time Together, the band that agreed to censor themselves on the superbowl, the band that changed starf*cker's name to 'star, star.'

being cowed by authorities? that's about as stonesy as can be!

I think it was kind of classy. Smoking, but not childishly getting the old rebel-image out again and in so doing turning the whole thing into more of a statement then a night of music.

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> sigh: okay, so go up there & show 'em how it's
> done, timbernardis -
> and they're still the Rolling Stones, and we're
> not :E

this isnt about me, sss



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-09-04 03:47 by timbernardis.

nikki bong Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> timbernardis Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > Obvious to anyone who goes to a lot of Stones
> > shows. It would seem they allowed themselves
> to
> > be cowed by the authorities however you want to
> > frame it, and this is definitely un-Stones.
>
> LOL - are you serious? this is the band that
> brought us Let's Spend Some Time Together, the
> band that agreed to censor themselves on the
> superbowl, the band that changed starf*cker's name
> to 'star, star.'
>
> being cowed by authorities? that's about as
> stonesy as can be!

Yes, in a factual sort of way, this is so. Not that they havent in fact defied the authorities in many other ways throughout their career, and this is also factual.

But maybe what I am really talking about here is IMAGE and BELIEF. In history, it is often more important what is believed to have happened than what actually did happen. It is what people believe that is crucial. The Stones have long recognized this -- image and the power of belief.

Hell, let's admit it, that is what sold a lot of us in the first place and still motivates us powerfully when it comes to the Stones. Image, stance, and attitude are just as powerful as the music, call it rebellion or whatever you like.

You KNOW that is true, especially in the case of the Stones. They have made a 45 year career of it. It definitely attracted me to them in the beginning.

Image is more powerful than truth (though in this case there is truth on both sides, as noted). If the Stones are to live up to their image (and part of their truth), they failed miserably.

Sorry I am not being as clear as The Plexiglass.


plexi

wow