Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-25 20:00 by JJackFl.

If accurate - Whoopee!

Interesting article. It does beg the question, though - if they were playing and getting along so well, why no SNL appearance?

JJackFl, you might want to revise your subject...June 2012...not 07..I think that is causing people to not check in on this thread when really EVERYONE should.

It doesn't seem like Mick and Keith are having issues. I don't see the whole "Mick/SNL" powertrip really part of anything--if anything, I'm debunking it. It just seems to me that they have no idea how to go about performing if there is no tour to be had. They want to do some performances but it seems they're still finding their footing on how to go about it. It seems we're getting close to seeing them perform--even as soon as this year. Good to hear.

Quote
gimmelittledrink
Interesting article. It does beg the question, though - if they were playing and getting along so well, why no SNL appearance?

That's a valid point to raise. It's interesting to see no quotes from Mick in the article.

Maybe when Mick agreed to do SNL FF and Arcade Fire were already locked in to back him up?

Maybe Mick and Keith realized that a full Stones performance would mislead audiences to think that they were ready to roll out a tour when they're really months away?

Maybe Keith just didn't want to do SNL? I can see Mick want to do SNL but Keith shrugging it off and saying "Eh, no thanks"

If I was a senior citizen and worth somewhere between $75,000,000 and $400,000,000 I don't think I would care if one of my business partners wanted to do a few things on the side. If anything, it could make us all stronger for a bigger project down the road.

Thank you very much JJackFI for your job!

What an interesting article. When I started to read each passage just seemed to give better and better Stones news, and made me feel like living in a Rolling Stones fantasy world. Many things sound even too good to take literally true. The band being tight as ever, lots of material from 64-66 never seen the light of day before, Richards "fine", an "all cool", Mick and Keith getting along so well etc.

But then comes the reflecion..

First of all, ROLLING STONE magazine seemingly is the official medium for Rolling Stones PR machine to give news, stories, and clues of the future. It has been the case for some time now. This article verifies and collects together many things that has been suggested and reported from different sources, especiially concerning the New York/New Jersey reahearsals, Now it is given a 'full' report what was going on, and what for.

Secondly, the tone of article is inerstingly so different than last time when Keith's health was mentioned as a possible obstacle sanding in a way for a tour some time ago. This article mentions that and seems to indicate that there is no problem any longer. There seems to be an intersting dialog there. Is this article based more on Keith's "sources" as the former on Mick's?

Thirdly, the article has only two named sources - the documentary director, and Keith Richards. Well, we all know what to think of Keith's sentences, but I need to say that Morgen did lost some reliability to my ears. Well, we can see from his documentary if the band really is as tight as ever as he claims, and if it will contain truely some unseen footage from, say, 64-66. But at the moment, I wouldn't buy an used car from him. Or maye he was just pleasing the bosses, and joining teh club of yes-men.

But great to hear that Richards is practising and according to his own words doing fine and getting along with Jagger. That seems to be a sort of message the article makes.

This article promises quite a rosey (Jane Rosian?) future. Let's see what actually happens. And like mentioned - let's see when Jagger publicly opens his mouth (the point Taylor made in the last paragraph revails the nature of teh game - whose word really matters).

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-25 20:20 by Doxa.

Doxa,

TeddyB and other people that might know have always said Keith was fine and playing well. Most of the speculation about his health and poor playing has come from this board.

It's not really a reversal of anything when the main sources never said he was unable to tour.

Great news. I, for one, am happy Darryl is still in the picture after reading posts on here that he had been cut loose. Thanx.

So it's all PR and BS then, doxa?

Like you, I'll wait and see - although I suspect we're betting on different outcomes.

Quote
Green Lady
So it's all PR and BS then, doxa?

Like you, I'll wait and see - although I suspect we're betting on different outcomes.

Of course, it's not all PR and BS - not even very much - but when it goes to infos - and to a band - like this, it is quite hard thing to try to seperate that from the real news/reality/facts. Of course, one can believe every sentence. Do you believe every word made in that article?

But anyway, that documentary will revail quite a lot of what is claimed in the article (of band's tightness, Keith's condition, unseen footages, etc.). A lot is "promised". I suppose that happens prior the first public performance of the Stones.

- Doxa

Quote
KeefintheNight82
Doxa,

TeddyB and other people that might know have always said Keith was fine and playing well. Most of the speculation about his health and poor playing has come from this board.

Well, the very magazine that is discussed here actually started the "rumour" that K. Richards's condition might be the reason preventing a future Stones happenings. It's not us.

But what goes to positive reports I don't question them being reliable, but I happen also to know the aura of this particular man, and the effect to the poeple who get close to him, that they surely will not report anything negative concerning his doings. I never expect any sources claiming things like that ("aah, Keith doesn't have it any longer, is struggling, etc.".

But what is very much in contrast with positive reports is the actual output we have seen from the man lately. That evidence - all we have - does not give much hope for the rosey future.

Let's say, I am a pure empiricist in this sense: I only trust my own eyes and ears when judging things like that. At the moment we can "believe" whatever we will; I want to have real evidence, from the base I can make my own judgments.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-25 21:24 by Doxa.

Quote
Send It To me
Great news. I, for one, am happy Darryl is still in the picture after reading posts on here that he had been cut loose. Thanx.

Where did anyone suggest that?

I think they just mean that he was taken off retainer.

If this article is to be believed, Keith's 'health' is just a euphemism for his ability to play. That's good news, in a way. There's no question this article presents Keith's view of the world. What I don't like is how gushing the whole thing is. The 'joyful vibe' description implies the writer was present when that obviously wasn't the case. Also, it makes it sound like the SNL backup bands were selected a long time ago.

I wonder what Keith is going to do to get in "touring shape"? I wish him well and I hope whatever he does work.
Rock and roll,
Mops

Quote
rollmops
I wonder what Keith is going to do to get in "touring shape"? I wish him well and I hope whatever he does work.
Rock and roll,
Mops

He'll probably increase his drinking

Yes, my oh my, yes.

Thanks for posting this bit of excellent and seemingly reliable news.
I hate having to buy the magazine nowadays.

Great news!

Thanks for the copy of the RS article, JJF. So they jumped on my idea last year to do multiple shows in fewer cities?
Good to see that someone reads IORR after all! So what do we have then:

1. Commercial flogging (books, documentaries etc)
2. A one off commemorative gig in 2012 with Bill and Mick T (in London maybe?)
3. A down sized tour in 2013 (without Bill or Mick T)

Not bad, all in all...

Mick reached out to the Foo Fighters before the rehearsals. I don't think the Stones appearing was ever a serious consideration. It would seem apparent that the get together was for purposes of filming and has little to do with the Stones appearing live unless, as Keith would have it, the experience was promising. My personal opinion is that they will perform live, but financial and scheduling logistics are very different than having the members commit for three years.

Quote
Gazza
Where did anyone suggest that?

Depends on how you read it, but while talking about the rehearsals, the article says that Don Was filled in on bass, as Darryl "had left earlier in the week", which might imply that he was there for the first part. Or might just mean he left before rehearsals even started. But I think that's where he got it.

Quote
carlorossi

Quote
Gazza
Where did anyone suggest that?

Depends on how you read it, but while talking about the rehearsals, the article says that Don Was filled in on bass, as Darryl "had left earlier in the week", which might imply that he was there for the first part. Or might just mean he left before rehearsals even started. But I think that's where he got it.

Hardly an implication that he'd been let go. More that he had other commitments - especially as the Stones session was put together at short notice.

Some of the over-analysis and twisting of info on here is akin to reading contactmusic at times.

RollingStone Magazine, June 7, 2012: "one live concert to mark their 50th anniversary."

RevvyStoned Magazine, April 9, 2012: [i1102.photobucket.com]

Considering that Rolling Stone went "corporate" in the mid Seventies, I don't give too much creedence to the article. I think the whole thing was spun up in a quid pro quo meeting of the Marketing departments of both organizations. Rolling Stone wants to increase circulation so the article was just a sertup for a future feature article about the film. Rolling Stones Inc. wants to maximize the awareness and profit potential of the upcoming film so you get the teaser article. Rolling Stones Inc. take out a very expensive full-page add in Rolling Stone to promote the film and Rolling Stone cashes the fat check.

So between the two organizations you are seeing the spin machine in action and some mutual back-scratching.

Behind the scenes the band is probably rehearsing and all that but I doubt there is as much "magic" as the article wants you to believe.

The general consensus arounsd here is that Keith was and is the weak link and he has played pretty pitifully in some recent appearances. Jeff Beck with a wig looks like a firecracker compared to Keith.

Persnally I was not really wowed with Mick's SNL performances. In both songs he missed his cues and you figure that they rehearsed thoses songs about 15-20 times together. I didn't feel comfortable with Mick being backed up by a tight band. Imagine what it would be like with him backed up by a band in a stupor.

I am just not feeling it. I would prefer if they did just a few concerts in major cities and finised it all off in London and then retired. I think finally we are at the point when we can say this will be the last time.

MileHigh

hate to say i told ya so but....i told ya so,get ready.

No inside scoop here, just one guys opinion:

1) None of that stuff gets mentioned w/o Mick's approval
2) Mick has played with various blooters overe the last few years. Mick T is no blooter, so allowing him back should not be an issue
3) If Mick T was not part of the plan, there is no way he would be quoted
4) Frankie predicts (as other here have)- multi shows/ limted locations w/ Bill and Mick T = last time, no foolin'

don't give me that ole one two, one two three four

They were extremely tight ......

ROCKMAN