For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.

Quote
71Tele
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
Eleanor Rigby
..well it's certainly not "official" !!!
It never is until Mick says, "enough"! He is really taking us to the limit this time around. I know exactly what he is doing but it still is driving me crazy! I thought I would hold up better!
Try harder.
Quote
theimposter
Rolling Stone magazine has become no more reliable when it comes to posting Stones news than the Daily Mail or the Sun. Poorly reported journalism and gossip. This is just as nebulous as it ever was. The Rolling Stones are not a functioning band - they are a brand and an organization largely run by Mick Jagger and he will have the final say on anything "official". That said, sure, I hope this happens - but my hopes for it are no brighter than they were prior to RS.com posting this "news".
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
Jah Paul
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
Jah Paul
Since it's all official now, shouldn't this be a Sticky thread?
No!!!
Why not? According to the thread title, it's "official."
Are you telling me it's not official?
Not at all. I stand by the title of the thread. When they convene in London, they won't be gathering simply to pore over accountancy spreadsheets. I just think threads should be allowed to lapse and not hang around forever.
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
This is the best line of the entire article:
"We played everything, really," says Richards.
At least he didn't say "literally". Goddamn does that man ever find new ways to create new myths.
Quote
stonesnow
But I wasn't looking for an argument in the first place.
Quote
Happy24
Quote
stonesnow
But I wasn't looking for an argument in the first place.
Good, because this is a Being Hit On The Head lesson
They can be, but the problem is you're still confusing what Keith said as confirmation that there will be an album and tour. Nowhere in that article did he state that. Keith is an official member of the band, yes. But based on the journalist's words in that article and based on Keith's quotations, there is no official news that they are recording and touring again and yet you're claiming that there is. Why can't you understand that you're wrong?Quote
stonesnow
And since when is an actual member of the Stones not a reliable source?
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
They can be, but the problem is you're still confusing what Keith said as confirmation that there will be an album and tour. Nowhere in that article did he state that. Keith is an official member of the band, yes. But based on the journalist's words in that article and based on Keith's quotations, there is no official news that they are recording and touring again and yet you're claiming that there is. Why can't you understand that you're wrong?Quote
stonesnow
And since when is an actual member of the Stones not a reliable source?
Quote
Happy24
Sorry to interrupt the usual meaningless vomits by MightyStonesStillRollin50, I would like to touch the original subject of this thread and say, that the article says there will be a meeting, where the possibilities of recording and touring will be discussed. I can't really see how that makes the "Stones officialy set to record and tour," so I think it will be at least appropriate to change the title of the thread, which is misleading, which is why I (and I am sure many others) bothtered to open it only to realize, that it was just another place for thewatchmen / stonescrow / Mighty...whatever...
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Sure, I have had my moments of doubt, but who wouldn't hanging around here for any length of time listening to so much negativity on a daily basis?
Quote
Grison
There are too many self acclaimed Stones Insiders spreading to many gossip news just to keep the steel wheels turning.
As Happy24 wrote it's already in hypothetical and nothing more.

YES! NOW YOU'VE GOT IT! See how what you just said is completely different than "Stones officially set to record and tour". Possibilities do not equal confirmation.Quote
stonesnow
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
They can be, but the problem is you're still confusing what Keith said as confirmation that there will be an album and tour. Nowhere in that article did he state that. Keith is an official member of the band, yes. But based on the journalist's words in that article and based on Keith's quotations, there is no official news that they are recording and touring again and yet you're claiming that there is. Why can't you understand that you're wrong?Quote
stonesnow
And since when is an actual member of the Stones not a reliable source?
Because I'm not. Such things as albums and tours begin with gathering to discuss such plans. If there were no such plans in the future, then why would they convene to discuss such topics? They're officially set to discuss the possibility of an album and a tour--you heard that from a band member. Once they have discussed it, they'll officially set about getting started on it. The process has officially begun, and Keith has officially informed Rolling Stone--and you heard it first from them, not me.
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
Possibilities do not equal confirmation.
Quote
tkl7
Quote
Gazza
Quote
theimposter
Rolling Stone magazine has become no more reliable when it comes to posting Stones news than the Daily Mail or the Sun. Poorly reported journalism and gossip. This is just as nebulous as it ever was. The Rolling Stones are not a functioning band - they are a brand and an organization largely run by Mick Jagger and he will have the final say on anything "official". That said, sure, I hope this happens - but my hopes for it are no brighter than they were prior to RS.com posting this "news".
I thought 'rs.com' referred to the band's official site.
Anyway, Rolling Stone magazine havent claimed to have posted anything official. They're simply doing their job - reporting a news story relating to the band with a quote from a band member.
The journalist in question is the same one who interviewed Keith late last year, when he stated that he was hoping to get the band together in a few weeks for a jam session. THAT took place, as we know. He appears to be in semi-regular contact with Keith as he's published first hand quotes from him a few times since.
There's no comparison to the likes of the Daily Mail or (to use the Glastonbury story) the Daily Mirror, who are simply posting distorted (or sometimes totally fictional) stories from unnamed 'sources' and putting their own 'spin' on them to confuse people who are gullible enough to take anything in print at face value.
Do we know that Gazza? AFAIK, the alleged Jam Session was not reported by every major media outlet, and no bootlegs have been put into circulation. Why have we not heard anything official?
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
Possibilities do not equal confirmation.
No, but possibilities lead to confirmation.
So you're jumping to conclusions and declaring it as official confirmation. Greaaaaat.Quote
stonesnow
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
Possibilities do not equal confirmation.
No, but possibilities lead to confirmation, and confirmation must begin somewhere, and this week it began with Rolling Stone magazine.
Quote
Happy24
Grison, those "insiders" do their spamming not to keep the steel wheels turning, they do it to desperately and sickly attract attention to themselves. But right now I am doing what I have just criticised - I am turning this thread towards tose sick creatures. I believe there is pretty much one, but whatever, this is exactly what he/she/it wants us to do, so let's leave it
Quote
Gazza
This has been done to death. I reported this story just after it happened, and the band have since confirmed it took place. Its been mentioned in several interviews since.

Quote
Doxa
When ROLLING STONE speaks, we better listen.. the magazine seems to their main unofficial information forum. Most of it is Jane Rose's client on fire, but there is also news-like stuff there. That the Stones will meet in next month in London. And most likely to discuss of their further performance-related plans. Keith's hints are typical Keef-like vague, and it is rather hard to distinguish the actual point from his fan and image-friendly wish-wish-talk. Seemingly some here take it it now as 'a deal done' that there will be a tour and a new studio album... Anyway, I am more skeptical here. This very sentence took my attention and made me wonder:
"Sources add that the band is still considering a tour in 2013."
To my ears this sounds a bit worring ... the tour or the nature of the performances is not really decided yet - June 2012 - but they are still considering it. (By the way: I have learned to trust quite a lot to ROLLING STONE's "sources", sometimes even more than to actual quotes.). This is to say that all of it still in the stage of planning (discussing "live performance possibilities"- nothing firm yet. I honestly thought that after their several meetings and reherseals the plans would be more concrete and firm by now. To me it looks like that they are very insecure of the whole thing. If anything, their old diesel seems to take quite a long time to run again...
- Doxa
Quote
Happy24
Quote
Doxa
it can be that all the previous meetings were done for the documentary or other "nice things" purposes, along with some warming up, and now they seriously start to thinking live performances.
The thing is that I don't believe that NOW they start to think about live performances. When the news that there won't be a 2012 tour, because the anniversary is actually 2013 (nonsence) broke out, most of us agreed and I still think so, that it all sounded like there was clearly an intention to tour in 2012 and it was changed at the very last moment for whatever reason and The Stones themselves were surprised by that and were looking desperately for some excuse. So I don't think they start to think about it now.
But what puzzles me most is really the obvoius insecurity you mentioned, since nobody in the world knows better than them what it takes to do a tour and how long it takes to plan it. From the little we know it looks like if they were lost in something they were doing for the first time, which is not true. So again, they know exactly what it takes and they and only they know what shape they are in. It seems it should be quite easy to put those two things together and the equation should have a simple solution. But it obviously doesn't. That's what puzzles me and can't see a satisfactory explanation. Not that I don't sleep at night because of it

Really? You mean he understands basic math and how to count?!? 20 years ago he probably had no idea when the 50th anniversary would be, right?Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Mick knew the 50th was coming five years ago in 2007.

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
Go see a doctor. Do you feel like you have a close personal relationship with Mick Jagger? Yeah, go see a doctorQuote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
Eleanor Rigby
..well it's certainly not "official" !!!
It never is until Mick says, "enough"! He is really taking us to the limit this time around. I know exactly what he is doing but it still is driving me crazy! I thought I would hold up better!

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
stonesnow, do you know the definition of the word "official"?
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
You sure did, stonescrow!Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Well, I warned you a long time ago how this thing was going to go down.

Quote
stonesnow
Quote
muenke
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
So based on that definition of yours, shouldn't your subject heading be "Keith officially says that Stones are to discuss about whether or not they will record an album and Keith officially says that he'd like to play some concerts and they're considering going out on tour"?Quote
stonesnow
Quote
StonesTod
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
stonesnow, do you know the definition of the word "official"?
there's several unofficial definitions, you know....
Sure. Official: the difference between "rumor" (i.e., The Mirror UK) and "news" (i.e., the Rolling Stone article). News tells us something concrete from verifiable sources, as opposed to hearsay based on unnamed "sources."
There's nothing in that article that states that they are going to record an album and tour. It's not official. A press release is official. Keith saying "yes, we are recording, we have booked 3 months worth of studio time" is official.right, but come on, don“t blame him to be one of the first to read that article and make a thread out of it, which I basically welcome! the article is "good news" and, yes, it has no "official" tour- or record-announcment, but some good and "new" news!
True. This thread was inevitable. I was merely the first to post it.

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
MightyStonesStillRollin50, rumours and speculations and insider information and guessing games are all part of show business. Stop acting like what the Stones are doing is some brilliant scheme that only they are capable of
Quote
Gazza
Quote
tkl7
Quote
Gazza
Quote
theimposter
Rolling Stone magazine has become no more reliable when it comes to posting Stones news than the Daily Mail or the Sun. Poorly reported journalism and gossip. This is just as nebulous as it ever was. The Rolling Stones are not a functioning band - they are a brand and an organization largely run by Mick Jagger and he will have the final say on anything "official". That said, sure, I hope this happens - but my hopes for it are no brighter than they were prior to RS.com posting this "news".
I thought 'rs.com' referred to the band's official site.
Anyway, Rolling Stone magazine havent claimed to have posted anything official. They're simply doing their job - reporting a news story relating to the band with a quote from a band member.
The journalist in question is the same one who interviewed Keith late last year, when he stated that he was hoping to get the band together in a few weeks for a jam session. THAT took place, as we know. He appears to be in semi-regular contact with Keith as he's published first hand quotes from him a few times since.
There's no comparison to the likes of the Daily Mail or (to use the Glastonbury story) the Daily Mirror, who are simply posting distorted (or sometimes totally fictional) stories from unnamed 'sources' and putting their own 'spin' on them to confuse people who are gullible enough to take anything in print at face value.
Do we know that Gazza? AFAIK, the alleged Jam Session was not reported by every major media outlet, and no bootlegs have been put into circulation. Why have we not heard anything official?
You're kidding, right?
So the Stones first gig at the Marquee in 1962 didnt take place because theres no illicit recording of it?
This has been done to death. I reported this story just after it happened, and the band have since confirmed it took place. Its been mentioned in several interviews since. It wasnt 'reported' because it was done low-key. Not everything the Stones do is a media event. Do we have to rely more on the word of a tabloid for something to have taken place instead of the band themselves?