The average SNL viewer wouldn't know Bill or MT if they were standing right in front of them.

rihanna fans have turned me on to this link which is streaming sat nite live right
now. presumably it will will also work two weeks from now.

[www.ilive.to]

wishful thinking leads me to believe that Keith and the rest of the boys will show up.

Quote
rogue
It would also kill the Stones off once and for all

Um...right.

If the Stones don't play on SNL it's hardly a big deal. To everyone here, I'm sure their world will be shattered (no pun intended) if they don't show up. Outside of this board...it will go by hardly unnoticed. "Did the Stones end up showing up last night?" No. "Oh ok. What's for lunch?" Remember: this is just a band...not a meeting of the United Nations.

Quote
Justin

Quote
rogue
It would also kill the Stones off once and for all

Um...right.

If the Stones don't play on SNL it's hardly a big deal. To everyone here, I'm sure their world will be shattered (no pun intended) if they don't show up. Outside of this board...it will go by hardly unnoticed. "Did the Stones end up showing up last night?" No. "Oh ok. What's for lunch?" Remember: this is just a band...not a meeting of the United Nations.

The United Nations General Assembly meets once a year, and it certainly causes more traffic jams, so you're right, it is a bigger deal - as well as a done deal.

I don't see why the Stones would perform. You don't think them performing under an episode entitled "Mick Jagger" as the musical guest wouldn't piss them off? This is the Stones we are talking about. I think if the Rolling Stones were to perform, the episode would have The Rolling Stones listed as the musical guest. Any other person listed would lead me to believe the rest won't show up.

Quote
RollingFreak
I think if the Rolling Stones were to perform, the episode would have The Rolling Stones listed as the musical guest.

Yeah, there wouldn't be much point in keeping it a secret.

Just got this txt from girlfriend. Given the power and reach of Fox and Murdoch,
Aussie cable TV can't be the only country this will be happening in. I think
the timing, versus Mick on SNL is interesting...

"Hey darl on may 21 at 10.30pm on austar they are having a week long special of The
Rolling Stones 50th anniversary.showing concerts,documentaries,etc.just thought u
mite want 2 no babe,xoxo"

[www.maxtv.com.au]---


Mick Jagger will test his comic chops later this month as host of the Saturday Night Live season finale.

The Rolling Stones frontman has been a musical guest twice before on the long-running US show, and the network said on Thursday he will perform musically on the May 19 finale. But he has never been host before, a job that usually requires participation in several comic skits.

The Rolling Stones mark their 50th anniversary as a band this year, but have yet to announce any activities to commemorate the occasion.

Jagger last year put out a disc as part of a group called SuperHeavy, which also included reggae singer Damian Marley and former Eurythmics founder Dave Stewart.

ROLLING STONES 50th ANNIVERSARY WEEK 
SPECIAL PROGRAMMING EVENT 
From Monday 21 May to Sunday 27 May 

This May, MAX celebrates the 50th anniversary of the Rolling Stones.  

The legendary rockers started playing together in London in May 1962, but their roots go back to 1950 when vocalist Mick Jagger and guitarist Keith Richards met in primary school.

Of course, they weren't rocking at the time, but after the two ran into each other a decade later and discovered they had a mutual interest in blues and American R&B, they decided to put a band together.

Beginning Monday 21 May, MAX presents a week of exclusive and rare Rolling Stones film, song and interview footage to honour the super-group’s 50th anniversary.  

Highlights of the week include Rolling Stones Live at the Max, Top 25 Rolling Stones Countdown with Chit Chat and the documentary film Stones in Exile.

Quote
superrevvy
this link which is streaming sat nite live

Thank you

-------------------
Keep On Rolling

Dont think the band will be present.
Just Jagger.
But maybe he will unveil some of the magic, we all are craving for......
jeroen

I doubt SNL waited till it was three weeks away to book the host of their final show

Quote
Cocaine Eyes

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Cocaine Eyes
The post from TeddyB is making me nervous. Think I'll just go to bed on the 19th expecting NOTHING of the Stones on SNL. Then, if I'm pleasantly surprised, good. But if I sit there watching SNL, waiting and anticipating and getting no Stones....I'll be shattered.

There's no way I'm giving up a good night's sleep for Mick and Macca, Mick and Timberlake, Mick and Joe Schmoe.

That Senor Cocaine, is not the Canadian spirit!

True! However, it's MADAME Cocaine, FYI. So I suppose Madame Cocaine will learn to accept Mick and Joe Schmoe. It's better than being shattered.....uh-huh.

My apologies Senorita! I think you will kick yourself though, if you don't stay up to watch, and read about it here the next day.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Cocaine Eyes

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Cocaine Eyes
The post from TeddyB is making me nervous. Think I'll just go to bed on the 19th expecting NOTHING of the Stones on SNL. Then, if I'm pleasantly surprised, good. But if I sit there watching SNL, waiting and anticipating and getting no Stones....I'll be shattered.

There's no way I'm giving up a good night's sleep for Mick and Macca, Mick and Timberlake, Mick and Joe Schmoe.

That Senor Cocaine, is not the Canadian spirit!

True! However, it's MADAME Cocaine, FYI. So I suppose Madame Cocaine will learn to accept Mick and Joe Schmoe. It's better than being shattered.....uh-huh.

My apologies Senorita! I think you will kick yourself though, if you don't stay up to watch, and read about it here the next day.

You're right - if I miss something/anything, I'd freak right out. I'll be watching.

Quote
angee
Doxa, could you say more on this?: "but in the long run the cost of that instant success was an image lost to the band, and especially to himself."
How did Keith's book affect the band's image, especially, and his own?
I don't necessarily disagree, just want to know your thoughts in detail.

Since this doesn't directly to the topic of this thread, I reply to you in small size..

Well, what I have perceived or tried to 'sense the air', the negative effect can be seen in two contexts.

The first is the hardcore fanbase of the Stones - people like us here at IORR. It is amazing how much the attitude and atmosphere has changed here. Keith has always been almost beyond criticism. Even though people noticed his musical decline during the last decade or so, it was forgiven... "it is Keith, man...". Even Keith's harsh words against Jagger was usually "understood" and not taken too seriously.. "It is Keith, man..." It is actually quite hard to find any "Keith bashing" here at tall; it was beyond reasonable discourse.

But the book changed it quite drastically. What was once funny, turned out to be ugly. The systemic form of non-fact based story-telling, the repeated, childish blade-talk, belittlening the other band members, and especially Jagger('s) so harshly, changed the whole idea of the man, and his role in the whole picture. He crossed some line, and people too their adoring glasses off. Suddenly he was the target of the most criticism. I think the the existence of "Keith apologists" verifies the fact very clearly. Before LIFE there was no any reason such apologists to exist at all.

The second is the public opinion. Keith's book got a lot of publicity, because he talked things people hungry for a scandal want to hear: drugs, drugs, drugs, bashing Jagger, bashing Jagger, bashing Jagger.... as a result of that stupid tiny todger remark he made him and the Stones ridiculous (which of course, is the tip of the ice berg). But the childish remark gave people a right to induce that "yeah, that's how stupid they really are". Sixtysomethings speaking of each other's dicks in public. Keith put himself there next to Ozzy Osbourne as a laughing stock. The Stones, yeah, surely are 'bad boys' but they always had in their 'bad reputation' a bit of dignity. Okay, Keith has his history of stupid remarks, but now instead of occasional drunken interview, there were no excuses, since it was based supposedly on a "serious" reflection (namely that what writing books is all about). With the book he really hurt the band. He sold the band to quick personal profits. I include all those prizes he got from the book also to the latter.

I am also awere that for some folks the book was a positive surprise of how intelligent, smart, insightful and articulate Keith Richards is. But that surprise is based on people thinking that he actually is such a brainless junkie his public image represents him to be (plus all those idiot 'snorting dad's ashes', comments). Keith seemingly sees this a sort of achievement. But he could have had charm those people of his wit without the nasty tabloid stuff as well. Pyrrhos's win, in any case.

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-06 20:27 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
angee
Doxa, could you say more on this?: "but in the long run the cost of that instant success was an image lost to the band, and especially to himself."
How did Keith's book affect the band's image, especially, and his own?
I don't necessarily disagree, just want to know your thoughts in detail.

Since this doesn't directly to the topic of this thread, I reply to you in small size..

Well, what I have perceived or tried to 'sense the air', the negative effect can be seen in two contexts.

The first is the hardcore fanbase of the Stones - people like us here at IORR. It is amazing how much the attitude and atmosphere has changed here. Keith has always been almost beyond criticism. Even though people noticed his musical decline during the last decade or so, it was forgiven... "it is Keith, man...". Even Keith's harsh words against Jagger was usually "understood" and not taken too seriously.. "It is Keith, man..." It is actually quite hard to find any "Keith bashing" here at tall; it was beyond reasonable discourse.

But the book changed it quite drastically. What was once funny, turned out to be ugly. The systemic form of non-fact based story-telling, the repeated, childish blade-talk, belittlening the other band members, and especially Jagger('s) so harshly, changed the whole idea of the man, and his role in the whole picture. He crossed some line, and people too their adoring glasses off. Suddenly he was the target of the most criticism. I think the the existence of "Keith apologists" verifies the fact very clearly. Before LIFE there was no any reason such apologists to exist at all.

The second is the public opinion. Keith's book got a lot of publicity, because he talked things people hungry for a scandal want to hear: drugs, drugs, drugs, bashing Jagger, bashing Jagger, bashing Jagger.... as a result of that stupid tiny todger remark he made him and the Stones ridiculous (which of course, is the tip of the ice berg). But the childish remark gave people a right to induce that "yeah, that's how stupid they really are". Sixtysomethings speaking of each other's dicks in public. Keith put himself there next to Ozzy Osbourne as a laughing stock. The Stones, yeah, surely are 'bad boys' but they always had in their 'bad reputation' a bit of dignity. Okay, Keith has his history of stupid remarks, but now instead of occasional drunken interview, there were no excuses, since it was based supposedly on a "serious" reflection (namely that what writing books is all about). With the book he really hurt the band. He sold the band to quick personal profits. I include all those prizes he got from the book also to the latter.

I am also awere that for some folks the book was a positive surprise of how intelligent, smart, insightful and articulate Keith Richards is. But that surprise is based on people thinking that he actually is such a brainless junkie his public image represents him to be (plus all those idiot 'snorting dad's ashes', comments). Keith seemingly sees this a sort of achievement. But he could have had charm those people of his wit without the nasty tabloid stuff as well. Pyrrhos's win, in any case.

- Doxa

During the last decade, seemingly, lots of the fans grew up to be mature, up-tight, snobs that all of a sudden didn´t understand Keith´s jargon, his guitar playing or behaviour.

Drugs, rock´n´roll and "blade-talk" got out of fashion, and only the kind-hearted and prude gentelmen who behaved so nicely back in the period 1968-1974 were appreciated.

In ten years time, we will long for the bad boy again

Quote
DandelionPowderman
In ten years time, we will long for the bad boy again

you're joking right? what about chris brown and lil wayne and eminem and fifty cent
and snoop and a hundred others?

this video makes a funny and convincing case that rihanna is that bad boy you're
yearning for...

Quote
superrevvy
what about chris brown and lil wayne and eminem and fifty cent and snoop and a hundred others?

What about them ? ... They are not Keith

-------------------
Keep On Rolling

If the Stones do NOT perform ONE song all together on SNL, it will lay to rest tour plans, in my mind. An opportunity like this, to stir things up and hype the tour, comes along very infrequently. It could be called the " perfect storm"! Maybe the band is all together to see if Keith CAN play a tour...if by May 19 the determination is that Keith could not play a tour, most of us will be terribly let down. The writing will be on the wall and we'll have to get used to solo Mick tours ( NOT so bad, IMO), and Ronnie on the road with members of the Faces, and Charlie doing his jazz thing.
Most of you thought that Keith was just posing during the Simlin tribute show...from what I saw, it was sad...Clapton played brilliantly while Keith looked on. He DID play but honestly, I came away thinking he could never sustain a 2 hour show. I just don't want May 19 to come and I'll be all excited about a BIG announcement, waiting for Mick to introduce THE ROLLING STONES...watch Keith, Charlie, MIck T, Ronnie and Bill run on stage and kick into " All Down The Line!"...and find that it's 1AM and all I saw was a series of skits that Mick performed in, very well, I might add, but still....no Stones. Not even Mick performing solo....to call it a let down would be an understatement!!
It's gonna be a long 2 weeks!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-06 22:46 by mickschix.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

During the last decade, seemingly, lots of the fans grew up to be mature, up-tight, snobs that all of a sudden didn´t understand Keith´s jargon, his guitar playing or behaviour.

Oh yeah...,the 'problem' only lies in the so called fans and their biased, twisted perception, not in the holy man. Seemingly those "fans" don't deserve such a status, no matter if they had followed this band some 40/30/2O years.

But I salute the true believers!

- Doxa, a judas



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-06 22:55 by Doxa.

Quote
superrevvy

Quote
DandelionPowderman
In ten years time, we will long for the bad boy again

you're joking right? what about chris brown and lil wayne and eminem and fifty cent
and snoop and a hundred others?

this video makes a funny and convincing case that rihanna is that bad boy you're
yearning for...

Rihanna is bad? pfft. Business men go to strip clubs and do what she did. Politicians go to strip clubs and do what she did. Lobbyists do the same. Hell, name a profession and they do the same. And Chris Brown isn't a bad boy. He's a loser.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
In ten years time, we will long for the bad boy again

And then sixtyverymuchsomethings bashing the sizes of other's penises in public is thought to be cool?

- Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
During the last decade, seemingly, lots of the fans grew up to be mature, up-tight, snobs that all of a sudden didn´t understand Keith´s jargon, his guitar playing or behaviour.

Although I don't get that, you imply that there are a lot of Mick Jaggers out there...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-07 00:13 by WeLoveToPlayTheBlues.

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
DandelionPowderman
During the last decade, seemingly, lots of the fans grew up to be mature, up-tight, snobs that all of a sudden didn´t understand Keith´s jargon, his guitar playing or behaviour.

Although I don't get that, you imply that there are a lot of Mick Jaggers out there...

><

- Doxa

You got me, Skipstone! LOL!

@ Rev: Of course I was joking, although it´s hard to get by the fact that the fans are maturing a bit

I thought last night's show was so funny, I was laughing out loud, which doesn't happen often with SNL. Esp the court room skit. Hopefully, the writers will come up with equally hilarious situations to put Mick in.

Possible scenario:

During Micks opening monologue, he fields a couple of questions from the audience.
Camera zero's in on an audience member, and it's Keith!

Keith: Have you read my book Life?
Mick has no comment and glares back menacingly, then says "next question please".

Camera zero's in on another audience member, and it's Ronnie!

Ronnie: Is it true about the todger?
Again, Mick has no comment and glares back menacingly, then says "next question please".

Camera zero's in on another audience member, and it's Charlie!

Charlie (with a disgusted look on his face): Let's Work?
And once again, Mick has no comment and glares back menacingly, then says "next question please".

Camera zero's in on another audience member, and it's Mick Taylor!

Mick T: Is it true your looking for another guitar player?
Mick: Your hired!

Camera zero's in on another audience member, and it's Bill Wyman!

Bill: Is it true your looking for a new bass player?
Mick: Your hired!


And after thunderous applause, the above mentioned "audience members" join Mick on stage for a 50th anniversary tour announcement,
followed by a ROCKING version of It's Only Rock and Roll, and then the debut of a brand new tune!

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Hairball- lets hope the writers read IORR

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Doxa

Quote
angee
Doxa, could you say more on this?: "but in the long run the cost of that instant success was an image lost to the band, and especially to himself."
How did Keith's book affect the band's image, especially, and his own?
I don't necessarily disagree, just want to know your thoughts in detail.

Since this doesn't directly to the topic of this thread, I reply to you in small size..

Well, what I have perceived or tried to 'sense the air', the negative effect can be seen in two contexts.

The first is the hardcore fanbase of the Stones - people like us here at IORR. It is amazing how much the attitude and atmosphere has changed here. Keith has always been almost beyond criticism. Even though people noticed his musical decline during the last decade or so, it was forgiven... "it is Keith, man...". Even Keith's harsh words against Jagger was usually "understood" and not taken too seriously.. "It is Keith, man..." It is actually quite hard to find any "Keith bashing" here at tall; it was beyond reasonable discourse.

But the book changed it quite drastically. What was once funny, turned out to be ugly. The systemic form of non-fact based story-telling, the repeated, childish blade-talk, belittlening the other band members, and especially Jagger('s) so harshly, changed the whole idea of the man, and his role in the whole picture. He crossed some line, and people too their adoring glasses off. Suddenly he was the target of the most criticism. I think the the existence of "Keith apologists" verifies the fact very clearly. Before LIFE there was no any reason such apologists to exist at all.

The second is the public opinion. Keith's book got a lot of publicity, because he talked things people hungry for a scandal want to hear: drugs, drugs, drugs, bashing Jagger, bashing Jagger, bashing Jagger.... as a result of that stupid tiny todger remark he made him and the Stones ridiculous (which of course, is the tip of the ice berg). But the childish remark gave people a right to induce that "yeah, that's how stupid they really are". Sixtysomethings speaking of each other's dicks in public. Keith put himself there next to Ozzy Osbourne as a laughing stock. The Stones, yeah, surely are 'bad boys' but they always had in their 'bad reputation' a bit of dignity. Okay, Keith has his history of stupid remarks, but now instead of occasional drunken interview, there were no excuses, since it was based supposedly on a "serious" reflection (namely that what writing books is all about). With the book he really hurt the band. He sold the band to quick personal profits. I include all those prizes he got from the book also to the latter.

I am also awere that for some folks the book was a positive surprise of how intelligent, smart, insightful and articulate Keith Richards is. But that surprise is based on people thinking that he actually is such a brainless junkie his public image represents him to be (plus all those idiot 'snorting dad's ashes', comments). Keith seemingly sees this a sort of achievement. But he could have had charm those people of his wit without the nasty tabloid stuff as well. Pyrrhos's win, in any case.

- Doxa

During the last decade, seemingly, lots of the fans grew up to be mature, up-tight, snobs that all of a sudden didn´t understand Keith´s jargon, his guitar playing or behaviour.

Drugs, rock´n´roll and "blade-talk" got out of fashion, and only the kind-hearted and prude gentelmen who behaved so nicely back in the period 1968-1974 were appreciated.

In ten years time, we will long for the bad boy again

I long for the bad boy now...what we have now is the buffoon...and that is where I'm having the problem. He's made the legacy a joke.