Tell Me :
Talk
You don't need "insider" knowledge to understand what has been going on the last five years. Only death or serious illness to one of the band members would have stopped some form of 50th anniversary celebration that would include live performances and a new album.
I will tell you what is ridiculous, and that is the notion that some form of tour for the 50th anniversary year was never seriously considered since ABB. I will go one step further and say it was "a given" (In the minds of the band members) short of death or serious illness or injury to one of them that there would be some form of tour during the 50th anniversary year (July 12, 2012 through July 11, 2013) way back at the end of ABB. Having said that, I agree that there is no such thing as a "done deal" until the deed is done. Only in sixteen months (when all of this is in our rear view mirror) will we be able to consider saying "done deal".
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-19 19:58 by stonescrow.
I think it's probable unless it is deemed to interfere with the Stones. Because it's probable that the Stones will do some recording and perform a series of concerts in the next twelve months, just as was floated to the press.
?
No.
"Richards and Jagger are even talking about studio sessions, starting as early as next month. "I've got plenty in the locker here, but it's not on tape," Richards said. "We'll just get the boys back together again then and maybe cut a side."
the sessions that Keef did with Steve are on tape?!
can I guess...switzerland?
Sorry Mariannerl, I was in a silly mood and your name sounded austrian.
Yes. But does it matter? Funny thread here...
Just think of how prepared they'll be though, if they decide to push it back to 2014 or 2015!?!
Great point! The older, the better, just like good wine!
They'll certainly be well-rested.
If they wait that long it would probably be tour of "rest homes" by then too.
These 70-year old men are simply not going to be traveling the world playing gynormous football stadiums like in the glory days - if you consider those the glory days, which I don't. For the reasons you mentioned and a dozen others, the days of "touring" are over.
It didn't bother them on the last tour, touring without playing much of anything from the new record. They practically ignored it.
So a new record has no relevance to them touring or doing whatever it is they might do.
Hey Stonescrow, you did read all of what Superrevvy said, right? Oh wait, did I just ask that? Obviously you didn't.
I've never understood why the Stones can't tour like all other bands do.
Likewise.
I've also never understood why a band who we're told (ad nauseam) love performing so much have never even made a single public performance of any kind outside the confines of a mega tour since 1979.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-20 03:40 by Gazza.
Yep, it just doesn't/didn't happen.
We get Mick and Keith together for the 2001 "911" benefit concert for two songs. We get Mick, Keith, Ronnie (and Mick Taylor) for the RR HOF..in 1988 (was it?). That's about it. The full group? Never.
Uh huh. And which decade are you referring to?
backstreetboy, how much time do you suppose they need to break the news to Darryl?
I hadn't considered that I must admit...
Yo. It's because they haven't felt like performing/playing/etc. All this tripe about their 'love for the music' is just that, tripe.
Nope.
Good for you.
What was it he did exactly on Jimmy Fallon that...made him right?
Really, the book is fantastic to have in the bathroom.
A small number of people saw those shows. No one will ever know what they all thought about it. Any of it. What a stupid point.
The Stones need time? You are making me laugh. Well, really, all of this made me laugh. Is there a backstreetboy2?
I have to admit I scraped myself when I fell on the floor laffing whilst reading that observation.
Who do they need to break the news to about Taylor being in?
Added note: The Stones version is based on a FXfilter that turns any image into
a needlework/tapestry pattern. My version is based on jewelry.
Both needlework and jewelry are found in the arts/crafts section of your
local library. The Dewey Decimal for needlework is 746.44 and for jewelry
739.27. a difference of 0.7%. Which means that I was 99.3% right! Which
means that I picked the exact library shelf where it was hiding!
Also, lest we forget, there was this poster for the 50th that I published here
back in Sept of 2011. Notice that it does not contain the word tour. Just
shows and special events and souvenirs. Notice how low-key it is. Notice how
drawn-out the dates are. Notice also that, just like Keith, I made Charlie
of central importance...
Y'see, Brussels and Ft. Worth and the White House and the Sumlin thing have
all already been part of the 50th celebrations. 5 months down, 16 months to
go. Are we having fun yet?
Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-20 10:03 by superrevvy.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013- Keith's health a concern
Posted by:
stonescrow
()
Date: March 19, 2012 19:32
Quote
71Tele
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
stonescrow
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Quote
71Tele
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
TooTough
Quote
flilflam
The 50th anniversary is 2013, not 2012. Didn't you read the article carefully? Charlie joined in 1963, and 1963 plus 50 equals 2013. What is your problem, other than your difficulty with mathematics?
Everyone who agrees with their new theory of "starting 1963" is an idiot.
All you have to say to close the point is 39 licks. They themselves pointed to 1962 as the starting point forever.
Charlie's 50th is 1963 and I have no problem with them using that date as the 50th anniversary of the first complete lineup...but yes, this is revisionist history.
Um. If the first "complete" lineup was with Charlie then what were the lineups before? Inceptional lineups? Quasi-lineups? The Rollin' Stones lineups or pre-The Rolling Stones lineups? Dick Taylor and Tony Chapman were what, chump members? What about Stu? Maybe the real start of the band should be when he got booted out officially. Those gigs didn't mean anything then. They were inceptional gigs. Gigs that were live rehearsals. As opposed to taped rehearsals I guess.
Bill joined the band a month before Charlie. So why does the date for Charlie outweigh Billy Wyman...ohhhhh that's right, Charlie is on the cover of Rarities but Bill isn't. Somehow the Stones revised their history themselves to magically, or digitally, exclude him from a 1978 band photo.
So...the 1962 Stones don't exist...it was just the inception, whatever the hell that means, according to Keith.
And why does anyone take him serious? I know he's just being funny but it's not funny at all. It's just stupid.
It
doesn't
matter
But
....
but
....
but
it's
a
sticky...
yes, a sticky mess.
It's really no mystery. Why tour without an album to tour on? If you are going to go out in a blaze of glory you do it full throttle, not half ass. That is what is really going on here. Also probably hoping for some improvement in the economy before plunging in.
You're totally right...but I think we all intently understand that they had 5 years to prepare for this, so WHAT THE @#$%& HAPPENED?!
Ask hbwriter, who seems to have gone dark after teasing us with his hints of supposed insider knowledge.
You don't need "insider" knowledge to understand what has been going on the last five years. Only death or serious illness to one of the band members would have stopped some form of 50th anniversary celebration that would include live performances and a new album.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
stonescrow
()
Date: March 19, 2012 19:50
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Quote
superrevvy
The notion that at any time since a Bigger Bang a tour has been seriously considered is ridiculous. Every single solid piece of evidence has pointed against it.
So what you're saying is...there never has been a done deal. All these years.
Like, you know, Wow.
Well, it's nothing new, of course. All but one of us knew that all along.
I will tell you what is ridiculous, and that is the notion that some form of tour for the 50th anniversary year was never seriously considered since ABB. I will go one step further and say it was "a given" (In the minds of the band members) short of death or serious illness or injury to one of them that there would be some form of tour during the 50th anniversary year (July 12, 2012 through July 11, 2013) way back at the end of ABB. Having said that, I agree that there is no such thing as a "done deal" until the deed is done. Only in sixteen months (when all of this is in our rear view mirror) will we be able to consider saying "done deal".
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-19 19:58 by stonescrow.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
TeddyB1018
()
Date: March 19, 2012 19:52
Quote
KRiffhard
Quote
TeddyB1018
Keith's line was funny. Unlike this thread, which is ridiculous.
Hi Teddy,
some time ago we talked about a possible Keef solo album keith ...do you think it's still possible?
"Yep. He's also back in the studio working in his own stuff. Playing well.(...) I believe Darryl, Ronnie and Charlie have all made contributions to Keith's new work, alng with Steve Jordan and Pierre. So not just the Winos.
I think it's probable unless it is deemed to interfere with the Stones. Because it's probable that the Stones will do some recording and perform a series of concerts in the next twelve months, just as was floated to the press.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
mariannerl
()
Date: March 19, 2012 21:15
Quote
windmelody
Mariannerl comes from Austria.
?
No.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
KRiffhard
()
Date: March 19, 2012 22:26
Quote
TeddyB1018
Quote
KRiffhard
Quote
TeddyB1018
Keith's line was funny. Unlike this thread, which is ridiculous.
Hi Teddy,
some time ago we talked about a possible Keef solo album keith ...do you think it's still possible?
"Yep. He's also back in the studio working in his own stuff. Playing well.(...) I believe Darryl, Ronnie and Charlie have all made contributions to Keith's new work, alng with Steve Jordan and Pierre. So not just the Winos.
I think it's probable unless it is deemed to interfere with the Stones. Because it's probable that the Stones will do some recording and perform a series of concerts in the next twelve months, just as was floated to the press.
"Richards and Jagger are even talking about studio sessions, starting as early as next month. "I've got plenty in the locker here, but it's not on tape," Richards said. "We'll just get the boys back together again then and maybe cut a side."
the sessions that Keef did with Steve are on tape?!
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: March 19, 2012 22:38
Quote
mariannerl
Quote
windmelody
Mariannerl comes from Austria.
?
No.
can I guess...switzerland?
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
windmelody
()
Date: March 19, 2012 22:55
Quote
mariannerl
Quote
windmelody
Mariannerl comes from Austria.
?
No.
Sorry Mariannerl, I was in a silly mood and your name sounded austrian.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
mariannerl
()
Date: March 19, 2012 22:56
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
mariannerl
Quote
windmelody
Mariannerl comes from Austria.
?
No.
can I guess...switzerland?
Yes. But does it matter? Funny thread here...
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
mariannerl
()
Date: March 19, 2012 23:00
ok boys (or girls?) 
Back to (what?)... ah "Stones Tour pushed back to 2013"
Back to (what?)... ah "Stones Tour pushed back to 2013"
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
windmelody
()
Date: March 19, 2012 23:20
Boy, Switzerland is beautiful, on with the show!
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: March 20, 2012 00:43
Quote
mariannerl
ok boys (or girls?)
Back to (what?)... ah "Stones Tour pushed back to 2013"
Just think of how prepared they'll be though, if they decide to push it back to 2014 or 2015!?!
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
alimente
()
Date: March 20, 2012 01:06
Quote
treaclefingers
Just think of how prepared they'll be though, if they decide to push it back to 2014 or 2015!?!
Great point! The older, the better, just like good wine!
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
tatters
()
Date: March 20, 2012 01:06
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
mariannerl
ok boys (or girls?)
Back to (what?)... ah "Stones Tour pushed back to 2013"
Just think of how prepared they'll be though, if they decide to push it back to 2014 or 2015!?!
They'll certainly be well-rested.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
big4
()
Date: March 20, 2012 01:19
Quote
tatters
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
mariannerl
ok boys (or girls?)
Back to (what?)... ah "Stones Tour pushed back to 2013"
Just think of how prepared they'll be though, if they decide to push it back to 2014 or 2015!?!
They'll certainly be well-rested.
If they wait that long it would probably be tour of "rest homes" by then too.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
rollmops
()
Date: March 20, 2012 02:00
Is the "band camping out for mutli-night runs in arenas, similar to Prince's recent stands in New York and Los Angeles(RollingStoneMag. page19&22)" really considered because Keith Richards' health issues or because it is less expensive for however is going to produce the expected but not signed yet tour? Tour travelling in 2012 isn't has tough as it was in 1969. The "camping" stuff put the burden of most of us the fans unless you live near the "camping".
Rock and Roll,
Mops
Rock and Roll,
Mops
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: March 20, 2012 03:24
Quote
rollmops
Is the "band camping out for mutli-night runs in arenas, similar to Prince's recent stands in New York and Los Angeles(RollingStoneMag. page19&22)" really considered because Keith Richards' health issues or because it is less expensive for however is going to produce the expected but not signed yet tour? Tour travelling in 2012 isn't has tough as it was in 1969. The "camping" stuff put the burden of most of us the fans unless you live near the "camping".
Rock and Roll,
Mops
These 70-year old men are simply not going to be traveling the world playing gynormous football stadiums like in the glory days - if you consider those the glory days, which I don't. For the reasons you mentioned and a dozen others, the days of "touring" are over.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013- Keith's health a concern
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: March 20, 2012 03:33
Quote
stonescrow
It's really no mystery. Why tour without an album to tour on? If you are going to go out in a blaze of glory you do it full throttle, not half ass. That is what is really going on here. Also probably hoping for some improvement in the economy before plunging in.
It didn't bother them on the last tour, touring without playing much of anything from the new record. They practically ignored it.
So a new record has no relevance to them touring or doing whatever it is they might do.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: March 20, 2012 03:34
Quote
stonescrow
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Quote
superrevvy
The notion that at any time since a Bigger Bang a tour has been seriously considered is ridiculous. Every single solid piece of evidence has pointed against it.
So what you're saying is...there never has been a done deal. All these years.
Like, you know, Wow.
Well, it's nothing new, of course. All but one of us knew that all along.
I will tell you what is ridiculous, and that is the notion that some form of tour for the 50th anniversary year was never seriously considered since ABB. I will go one step further and say it was "a given" (In the minds of the band members) short of death or serious illness or injury to one of them that there would be some form of tour during the 50th anniversary year (July 12, 2012 through July 11, 2013) way back at the end of ABB. Having said that, I agree that there is no such thing as a "done deal" until the deed is done. Only in sixteen months (when all of this is in our rear view mirror) will we be able to consider saying "done deal".
Hey Stonescrow, you did read all of what Superrevvy said, right? Oh wait, did I just ask that? Obviously you didn't.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: March 20, 2012 03:36
Quote
rollmops
Is the "band camping out for mutli-night runs in arenas, similar to Prince's recent stands in New York and Los Angeles(RollingStoneMag. page19&22)" really considered because Keith Richards' health issues or because it is less expensive for however is going to produce the expected but not signed yet tour? Tour travelling in 2012 isn't has tough as it was in 1969. The "camping" stuff put the burden of most of us the fans unless you live near the "camping".
Rock and Roll,
Mops
I've never understood why the Stones can't tour like all other bands do.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: March 20, 2012 03:40
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
I've never understood why the Stones can't tour like all other bands do.
Likewise.
I've also never understood why a band who we're told (ad nauseam) love performing so much have never even made a single public performance of any kind outside the confines of a mega tour since 1979.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-20 03:40 by Gazza.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
SweetThing
()
Date: March 20, 2012 04:06
Quote
Gazza
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
I've never understood why the Stones can't tour like all other bands do.
Likewise.
I've also never understood why a band who we're told (ad nauseam) love performing so much have never even made a single public performance of any kind outside the confines of a mega tour since 1979.
Yep, it just doesn't/didn't happen.
We get Mick and Keith together for the 2001 "911" benefit concert for two songs. We get Mick, Keith, Ronnie (and Mick Taylor) for the RR HOF..in 1988 (was it?). That's about it. The full group? Never.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
backstreetboy1
()
Date: March 20, 2012 04:08
the same reason there better than all the other bands,we love to play the blues.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: March 20, 2012 04:16
Quote
backstreetboy1
the same reason there better than all the other bands,we love to play the blues.
Uh huh. And which decade are you referring to?
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
backstreetboy1
()
Date: March 20, 2012 04:43
there are so many stupid posts on this thread i dont know where to begin,1st no one knows why there not touring,everyone is assuming its keith,i saw the last 3 east coast shows on bigger bang tour and keith was great,so people go to the shows(ones that did know what i mean)2nd,whoever said keith hasnt been right,hasnt seen him on jimmy fallon,has not read his book,and certainly did not atteend the beacon or atlantic city shows,3rd and most what know one is considering is,if bill is to rejoin the band,they need time to break the news to darryl,and work bill back intoi the mix,and if taylor joins in,even more so.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
SweetThing
()
Date: March 20, 2012 04:50
Quote
backstreetboy1
there are so many stupid posts on this thread i dont know where to begin,1st no one knows why there not touring,everyone is assuming its keith,i saw the last 3 east coast shows on bigger bang tour and keith was great,so people go to the shows(ones that did know what i mean)2nd,whoever said keith hasnt been right,hasnt seen him on jimmy fallon,has not read his book,and certainly did not atteend the beacon or atlantic city shows,3rd and most what know one is considering is,if bill is to rejoin the band,they need time to break the news to darryl,and work bill back intoi the mix,and if taylor joins in,even more so.
backstreetboy, how much time do you suppose they need to break the news to Darryl?
I hadn't considered that I must admit...
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: March 20, 2012 05:10
Quote
backstreetboy1
there are so many stupid posts on this thread i dont know where to begin,1st no one knows why there not touring,
Yo. It's because they haven't felt like performing/playing/etc. All this tripe about their 'love for the music' is just that, tripe.
Quote
backstreetboy1
everyone is assuming its keith,
Nope.
Quote
backstreetboy1
i saw the last 3 east coast shows on bigger bang tour and keith was great,so people go to the shows(ones that did know what i mean)
Good for you.
Quote
backstreetboy1
2nd,whoever said keith hasnt been right,hasnt seen him on jimmy fallon,
What was it he did exactly on Jimmy Fallon that...made him right?
Quote
backstreetboy1
has not read his book,
Really, the book is fantastic to have in the bathroom.
Quote
backstreetboy1
and certainly did not atteend the beacon or atlantic city shows,
A small number of people saw those shows. No one will ever know what they all thought about it. Any of it. What a stupid point.
Quote
backstreetboy1
3rd and most what know one is considering is,if bill is to rejoin the band,they need time to break the news to darryl,and work bill back intoi the mix,and if taylor joins in,even more so.
The Stones need time? You are making me laugh. Well, really, all of this made me laugh. Is there a backstreetboy2?
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: March 20, 2012 06:29
Quote
SweetThing
Quote
backstreetboy1
there are so many stupid posts on this thread i dont know where to begin,1st no one knows why there not touring,everyone is assuming its keith,i saw the last 3 east coast shows on bigger bang tour and keith was great,so people go to the shows(ones that did know what i mean)2nd,whoever said keith hasnt been right,hasnt seen him on jimmy fallon,has not read his book,and certainly did not atteend the beacon or atlantic city shows,3rd and most what know one is considering is,if bill is to rejoin the band,they need time to break the news to darryl,and work bill back intoi the mix,and if taylor joins in,even more so.
backstreetboy, how much time do you suppose they need to break the news to Darryl?
I hadn't considered that I must admit...
I have to admit I scraped myself when I fell on the floor laffing whilst reading that observation.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: March 20, 2012 06:46
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
SweetThing
Quote
backstreetboy1
there are so many stupid posts on this thread i dont know where to begin,1st no one knows why there not touring,everyone is assuming its keith,i saw the last 3 east coast shows on bigger bang tour and keith was great,so people go to the shows(ones that did know what i mean)2nd,whoever said keith hasnt been right,hasnt seen him on jimmy fallon,has not read his book,and certainly did not atteend the beacon or atlantic city shows,3rd and most what know one is considering is,if bill is to rejoin the band,they need time to break the news to darryl,and work bill back intoi the mix,and if taylor joins in,even more so.
backstreetboy, how much time do you suppose they need to break the news to Darryl?
I hadn't considered that I must admit...
I have to admit I scraped myself when I fell on the floor laffing whilst
reading that observation.
Who do they need to break the news to about Taylor being in?
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
superrevvy
()
Date: March 20, 2012 09:18
Quote
superrevvy
The Stones may still do some shows, but the odds against are growing longer,
except for probably a club show in London on or about July 12, 2012, which they
need for the ending of the documentary. Small venue, blues standards, Taylor,
Wyman, maybe some other special guests, patterned generally on the White House
and Apollo shows.
(SupaRevy, who readily admits he has no special predictive powers.)
Added note: The Stones version is based on a FXfilter that turns any image into
a needlework/tapestry pattern. My version is based on jewelry.
Both needlework and jewelry are found in the arts/crafts section of your
local library. The Dewey Decimal for needlework is 746.44 and for jewelry
739.27. a difference of 0.7%. Which means that I was 99.3% right! Which
means that I picked the exact library shelf where it was hiding!
Also, lest we forget, there was this poster for the 50th that I published here
back in Sept of 2011. Notice that it does not contain the word tour. Just
shows and special events and souvenirs. Notice how low-key it is. Notice how
drawn-out the dates are. Notice also that, just like Keith, I made Charlie
of central importance...
Y'see, Brussels and Ft. Worth and the White House and the Sumlin thing have
all already been part of the 50th celebrations. 5 months down, 16 months to
go. Are we having fun yet?
Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-20 10:03 by superrevvy.
Re: Stones tour pushed back to 2013
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: March 20, 2012 14:46
"Backstreet's back - alright!"
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
chemicalreaction , DandelionPowderman , filoca , gimmerambler , Glammy , jaggamichl , laertisflash , Mabru , muenke , QDOGGY , resotele , rubytues , strettonbull , undertheradar , wildwildhorses , Witness
Guests:
168
Record Number of Users:
57
on May 23, 2013 00:40
Record Number of Guests:
234
on May 23, 2013 00:53
