Lord Sinclair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To all those making violent threats I would just
> like to say that these will be reported and you
> should also be reminded that your IP addresses
> have been logged by this site.
>
> To everyone else I say the following. I have
> never claimed my opinion to be anything more than
> my opinion. I have not, will not disclose any
> "inside" source I may or may not have. Nor will I
> make personal violent threats against anyone here
> or elsewhere on the internet or in person.
>
> I shall let the authorities do their jobs and
> sleep well a night knowing that those who have
> threatened me with physical violence will soon
> know the dispair of incarceration.


LS, I don't see any violent threats in any of these posts?

If someone were to write for instance, 'I am going to stick a pick axe through your spinal column' then THAT would be a threat.

However, I can only see that others have 'threatened' to simply highlight your opinion should it ultimately prove to be wrong!

Still, it is an interesting subject, though not really enhancing the fun of being a Stones-fan. Of course we all want the boys to carry on as a band and many of us are longing for new material or a new tour because everything new breaths life into our fanhood.

It is an interesting thought to take Micks point of view and think about which goals he tries to achieve and what risks and possibilities play a role in his perception. I think that is what Lord So-and-so is trying to do in his post.

I, for one, do not really like to speculate about the thoughts that are going on in Micks mind. The only logical thought I can come up with is that even Mick will understand that "The Rolling Stones" as a trade mark is far more interesting than "Mick Jagger". So no matter how much risks Mick will see in playing together with Keith, Charlie and Ron, the bare fact that he can reach a much bigger audience for his artistic creations under the name of The Stones than as a solo artist, will be enough to continue the band.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-15 12:37 by marcovandereijk.

> even Mick will understand that "The Rolling
> Stones" as a trade mark is far more interesting
> than "Mick Jagger".

100% accurate, mick has understood this ever since '89.

It took him from '86 until '89 to realize and except this. So any speculation in this direction is a waste of time.

By the way, After putting "put me in the trash" on the very best album, there is more proof of mick loosing it. :-P

Lord Sinclair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I ommitted Keith's book because Keith is not writing it. He simply signed a contract to allow
> someone else the RIGHT to put his name and image on it and sell it as the authorized version of
> events. There is no real creativity involved in it for Keith.

In my opinion it was the same with the album "A bigger bang" - most of the songs were clearly written by Mick Jagger. But he allowed the "Jagger/Richards" label for every song because he knew Jagger/Records means Stones and any Rolling Stones record sells better than a Mick Jagger one. Plus they had another excuse to cash in on another Stones greatest hits tour which is by FAR more rewarding than a solo tour (ha! "Bigger Bang tour" with only 2 or 3 songs from the album played per night, just ridiculous).

It was the same with some of the songs that Elvis Presley "wrote" - they just told the authors: do you want them recorded by Elvis or will you deny him co-authorship? It happened before when Alan Freed was "co-author" of many songs he never wrote.

No real creativity involved. Neither by Keith nor Elvis nor Alan Freed.

F.U.C. the Captain Wrote:

>
> In my opinion it was the same with the album "A
> bigger bang" - most of the songs were clearly
> written by Mick Jagger.

Well, that's a strong opinion. Based on what?

Mick and Keith have said a lot in interviews about the songwriting proces during ABB and although one could argue there are some Mick songs and some Keith songs, most of them come across as a joint venture to me.

mrD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > even Mick will understand that "The Rolling
> > Stones" as a trade mark is far more interesting
> > than "Mick Jagger".
>
> 100% accurate, mick has understood this ever since
> '89.
>
> It took him from '86 until '89 to realize and
> except this. So any speculation in this direction
> is a waste of time.
>

i don´t think, that Mick has ever thought, that "Mick Jagger" could be more interesting than the "Rolling Stones". I doubt, that this was something, that he wanted to achieve by making solo-records. Why should he? Why should he compete with himself? He is 50% of the Rolling Stones, so why should he want to become more interesting as a solo-artist? That doesn´t make sense to me.

I would assume, that a musician just wants to work with other people from time to time, I can understand, that it can get boring if you work with the same 4 people for 40 years.
The others also make solo-records and no one asks 100 questions, why they do so, or what could be the deeper reason behind it.

Come on, ABB is just about 75% Mick and 25% Keith, except RJ, TPIE and Infamy ALL the other songs are 100% Mick compositions with a couple of Keith bits here and there.
B2B was a balanced album, about 50-50, but with ABB we got 13-14 Mick solo songs with Keith on guitar. Just like 3 of the new songs on 40 Licks.

oldkr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------
> However, it is clear to me that this situation is
> no longer as important for Mick as it once was
> ----------------
>
> was that thought concerning mick before or after
> his shady side dealings to set up his own solo
> career with the stones contracts a mere
> afterthought?
>
> OLDKR



.....well thank goodness there is no longer any mystery about which camp you fall into...........

georgelicks Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Come on, ABB is just about 75% Mick and 25% Keith,
> except RJ, TPIE and Infamy ALL the other songs are
> 100% Mick compositions with a couple of Keith bits
> here and there.
> B2B was a balanced album, about 50-50, but with
> ABB we got 13-14 Mick solo songs with Keith on
> guitar. Just like 3 of the new songs on 40 Licks.


Balance is one thing (and I don't agree on these numbers) but I think ABB carried anther statement that things were comming to an end. I believe that one of the plans was to only release a standard size album (not a double) to save the rest to another release. This was changed for some reason.

>
> i don´t think, that Mick has ever thought, that
> "Mick Jagger" could be more interesting than the
> "Rolling Stones". I doubt, that this was
> something, that he wanted to achieve by making
> solo-records. Why should he? Why should he compete
> with himself? He is 50% of the Rolling Stones, so
> why should he want to become more interesting as a
> solo-artist? That doesn´t make sense to me.


If I remember correctly, he openly tried to do what many front runners of popular bands did before him those day's (eg michael jackson). To spin of the solo career even more successful the the popular band they came from.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the '81 tour was advertised at some shows as "mick jagger and the rolling stones"

Although back then it made sense to me mick tried this, because people claim keith is loosing it now. But he's not even have way gone now (if any) as he was back in the early '80's.

> I would assume, that a musician just wants to work
> with other people from time to time, I can
> understand, that it can get boring if you work
> with the same 4 people for 40 years.
> The others also make solo-records and no one asks
> 100 questions, why they do so, or what could be
> the deeper reason behind it.

Yes, that what he said after it failed. But a very valid argument on it's own.

-------------------------------------------------------
> "The shows post palm tree were just sad and
> scary"
>
>
Most of the Fall 2006 shows were good except Chicago. It was quite a few of the Summer 2007 shows where there seemed to be a somewhat obvious problem.

lord sinclair is clearly having a few issues!

OLDKR

Lord Sinclair your thoughts and comments are as pompous as your user name.You are trying to talk with some authority and standing and it fails miserably.It's your opinion you are trying to share.Unfortunately you lack tack or sensitivity in your posting.Thats probably why you annnoyed some posters on this board.Your a nobody who is trying to communicate with as someone in a position of knowledge and insight.You fail miserably,and then behave like some spoilt wimp when people take offense.Hey do one......

mrD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>>
> Correct me if I'm wrong but the '81 tour was
> advertised at some shows as "mick jagger and the
> rolling stones"
>

Well, actually their first concert ever (Marquee 12.7.62) ) was advertised with that title! (see Bill Wyman's ROLLING WITH THE STONES. p. 37). I guess Brian Jones was not amused...

I think through their career, especially in the 70's, you have seen that title occasionally. I remember reading (from Bockris book perhaps) Keith Richards tearing apart posters with that title. Was it American Tour 1972 or 1975? I have Melody Maker from 1973 and their forecoming concert is advertised with the name "Mick Jagger and The Rolling Stones".

- Doxa

So many of you have an axe to grind. Are you a Rolling Stone, OldKR?

Why so foolish and mean? I write about a topic, get threatened, defend myself, and then have the famous OldKR on my case about having issues. Is this really meaningful to you?

OK, time for the truth?

Lord Sinclair is a username chosen from the old british TV show the Persuaders. Not one single person is Lord Sinclair. The posts have been written by a group of students in America. It's gotten hard to have a rational discussion here so we've agreed to give up the game.

Our high point was perhaps our attempt under the Lord Sinclair name to mount a boycott of Shidoobee over a year ago. Not much happened, of course, but the boycott got some attention on other boards.

This experiment started when we were studying internet chat rooms in a communications class. We all shared in the general creation of the name and decided to pass the login info around to see what could happen. This has gone on for a long time and with the Stones off the road things just are not as interesting anymore. Plus, we've all graduated and have jobs to go to.

So, here we are.

Never mind the bollocks,Lord Sinclair!
I've enjoyed your suggestions very much.It reminded me Hercule Poirot by its nice logics.Sadly,some postings on this board happen to be dispirited and dumb,but yours are real interesting,keep on, please.I agree with you,but Rolling Stones is just a brand like Disneyland or McDonalds.It's not so easy to quit,even if one wants to.People pay for the brand.There are people who are not
RSfans,but still they just go to their gigs for to tell about it later and so on-it means money.
Ok,Keith is not engine,but 2 leaders won't exist together.Keith has his charm and image,people buy it,so let him fall from palms and on stage and be lazy as long as he wants to.
I am a big fan of RS and solo Mick equally.But ,mostly,people think different.Actually,Mick won't be able to make such big gigs alone,4 famous people will gather crop many times bigger than one.
I think,Stones will be rolling forever!

If what Lord Sinclair wrote above is true, well, this reminds me of the scene in the Wizard of Oz where one of the characters peeks behind the curtain and discovers that Oz is just a pathetic old man trying to pass himself off as something that he isn't.

The internet is full of mischievous types.

I'm gonna bury my nose in a book.

a class to study chat rooms? boycotting shidobbe? what a collosal waste of time.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-16 22:36 by ryanpow.

By the way, I guess I also should 'fess up.

Monkeylad is a user name selected to represent the inhabitants of the planet Uranus. No one individual is Monkeylad. Monkeylad's posts have been written by the millions of sentient beings who populate Uranus.

Our mission, now abandoned, was to lure the Rolling Stones to perform on Uranus.

We see now what silly gits we are.

Our apologies to all Earthlings, with particular heartfelt apologies to Chuck Leavell.

It was not a class on Chat Rooms. It was an Internet Communications class. We had been discussing the role of chat rooms, forums, and message boards as a form of communication. The professor felt a username could be the alter ego of a member and thus live-out a life or persona online that the person wished for in real life. Many of us disagreed with the this theory and felt it was just a way of socializing much like people do when they go to concerts and bars and have conversations that last a moment or two.

So we got the idea to create a username on a forum a few of us read anyway and could monitor without too much trouble. At times we became bored and tried to stir up a controversy. At other times we let the experiment lag. In all we attmepted to see if anyone could discern an actual style of personality to the username.

What we did not expect was the anger that is often present and the way people feel so free to say what they really believe.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-16 23:07 by Lord Sinclair.

Monkeylad - LOL!

Lord Sinclair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
and thus live-out a life or persona
> online that the person wished for in real life.


What, to be a pompous, self righteous pri$ck?

This is absolutely fascinating. I really hope you're just a guy with multiple personality disorder because if you're telling the truth, it opens up a fair amount of questions:

Was the claim of involving the authorities when people disagreed with the lot of you all part of the experiment?

Do we (the unwitting participants) receive compensation for our involvement?

How does your professor feel about a class action suit against your University for conducting a controlled experiment using deception, slander, and admitted boycotting of a prominent EZBoard site for alleged educational purposes with no thought of the financial impact to those who ran the board?

Gee, I much preferred it when you were just another Stones fan with strong opinions but sadly lacking in thick skin. That could have changed with time and you might have learned to fit into BV's great little community. This revelation really changes things. I wonder if the whistle-blower among you knew what he was doing?

Sounds like Lord Sinclair is moving on!What a load of bollocks.How desperately sad you must be for entertainment.Whats next joining the local church and pissing of church goers with anti christ messages?Hey you really do need to get a life.

At least Rockman figured it out. Who's laughing now.

Your various IP addresses have been reported to the proper authorities.

I'm taking my toys and going inside now. See if I care!

Stargroover. I don't need a life any more than those who throw around threats of humiliation and violence on the internet.

You are what you read.

Rocky Dijon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your various IP addresses have been reported to
> the proper authorities.
>
> I'm taking my toys and going inside now. See if I
> care!


Ha Ha Ha Lol!

Lord Sinclair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Stargroover. I don't need a life any more than
> those who throw around threats of humiliation and
> violence on the internet.
>
> You are what you read.


Still don't see any threats of violence?

I suggest you use a dictionary and look up the words humiliation and violence .I think you have gone against IORR policy by logging on as a single messanger when infact you claim to be a multitude of persons.You also seem to be waging a campaign against genuine fans.