Quote
GumbootCloggeroo

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Mick knew the 50th was coming five years ago in 2007.

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?

Mick leaves no stone unturned. He is always looking ahead and plotting the next move. Probably would make one helluva a chess player.

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Mick knew the 50th was coming five years ago in 2007.

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?

Mick leaves no stone unturned. He is always looking ahead and plotting the next move. Probably would make one helluva a chess player.

He probably learned it at LSE ;o)

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
stonesnow

Quote
muenke

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo

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."

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"?

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.

Yes, and I thank you for posting it. You probably shouldn't have used the word official but I think most of us understood what you were trying to say and that you were using the word "loosely". There are a few (maybe more than a few) on this forum that take things way too literal at times. It's just part of doing business here. Don't become discouraged. Keep posting. This has been a great discussion. Almost "orgasmic" for drama queens such as myself. Keep up the good work!

One Love, Gold Rings On Ya

Thanks, MightyStonesStillRollin50. Discouraged? Not at all. I enjoy the lively discussion and debate--and yes, even the bouts of repartee. I wasn't using the word official loosely, so much as enthusiastically--this is, after all, the first such news since ABB that they are convening to at least discuss plans for an album and tour.

But as to the matter of the "possible" tour of 2012 being delayed, as someone mentioned above: How is that court case involving Michael Cohl progressing? Has it reached an outcome? He's been their tour promoter since Steel Wheels, and there's big million$ to be had over who takes that role for any subsequent tour(s). Supposedly, Stones tour plans have had to be suspended until this court case is resolved.

Perhaps this is the "real" reason for the recent years of inactivity, just as Charlie Watts' problems were the real reason for the Stones not touring for that long stretch in the 80s--the sort of thing one doesn't find out about until years later.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-20 23:57 by stonesnow.

Quote
StonesTod

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?

oh, good to know that it works! Keep up the good work everyone!!!

Good thing I always wear a life jacket. The waves of negativity would have swallowed me up by now! In a way I am going to miss all the speculation when it ends.

Quote
stonesnow

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
stonesnow

Quote
muenke

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo

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."

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"?

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.

Yes, and I thank you for posting it. You probably shouldn't have used the word official but I think most of us understood what you were trying to say and that you were using the word "loosely". There are a few (maybe more than a few) on this forum that take things way too literal at times. It's just part of doing business here. Don't become discouraged. Keep posting. This has been a great discussion. Almost "orgasmic" for drama queens such as myself. Keep up the good work!

One Love, Gold Rings On Ya

Thanks, MightyStonesStillRollin50. Discouraged? Not at all. I enjoy the lively discussion and debate--and yes, even the bouts of repartee. I wasn't using the word official loosely, so much as enthusiastically--this is, after all, the first such news since ABB that they are convening to at least discuss plans for an album and tour.

But as to the matter of the "possible" tour of 2012 being delayed, as someone mentioned above: How is that court case involving Michael Cohl progressing? Has it reached an outcome? He's been their tour promoter since Steel Wheels, and there's big million$ to be had over who takes that role for any subsequent tour(s). Supposedly, Stones tour plans have had to be suspended until this court case is resolved.

Perhaps this is the "real" reason for the recent years of inactivity, just as Charlie Watts' problems were the real reason for the Stones not touring for that long stretch in the 80s--the sort of thing one doesn't find out about until years later.

I can't speak to the court case, but I think they knew all along (since the end of AB that they would be inactive for a long time. To try and "sandwich" a tour between 2007 and 2012 would have probably not been in their best interests, interest wise and financial wise. Mick believes that "absence makes the heart grow fonder". There is just no way that they were going to miss doing something for their 50th anniversary year. Since it officially begins on July 12, 2012 and runs through July 11, 2013 they have plenty of time to accomplish all they have planned for us. Who knows, maybe they carry it beyond July of 2013? September of 2013 is the 50th anniversary of their first tour. Going to be an interesting and exciting year.

I love it when you talk to yourself

Keith has said the same thing ever since the great reunion of 1989. I'm not putting much stock in it. Keith (and others in his camp) always say the band sounds great. it's a long way from now till then.

Wonder if Bill and Mick T will be at the London meeting?

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
stonesnow

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
stonesnow

Quote
muenke

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo

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."

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"?

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.

Yes, and I thank you for posting it. You probably shouldn't have used the word official but I think most of us understood what you were trying to say and that you were using the word "loosely". There are a few (maybe more than a few) on this forum that take things way too literal at times. It's just part of doing business here. Don't become discouraged. Keep posting. This has been a great discussion. Almost "orgasmic" for drama queens such as myself. Keep up the good work!

One Love, Gold Rings On Ya

Thanks, MightyStonesStillRollin50. Discouraged? Not at all. I enjoy the lively discussion and debate--and yes, even the bouts of repartee. I wasn't using the word official loosely, so much as enthusiastically--this is, after all, the first such news since ABB that they are convening to at least discuss plans for an album and tour.

But as to the matter of the "possible" tour of 2012 being delayed, as someone mentioned above: How is that court case involving Michael Cohl progressing? Has it reached an outcome? He's been their tour promoter since Steel Wheels, and there's big million$ to be had over who takes that role for any subsequent tour(s). Supposedly, Stones tour plans have had to be suspended until this court case is resolved.

Perhaps this is the "real" reason for the recent years of inactivity, just as Charlie Watts' problems were the real reason for the Stones not touring for that long stretch in the 80s--the sort of thing one doesn't find out about until years later.

I can't speak to the court case, but I think they knew all along (since the end of AB that they would be inactive for a long time. To try and "sandwich" a tour between 2007 and 2012 would have probably not been in their best interests, interest wise and financial wise. Mick believes that "absence makes the heart grow fonder". There is just no way that they were going to miss doing something for their 50th anniversary year. Since it officially begins on July 12, 2012 and runs through July 11, 2013 they have plenty of time to accomplish all they have planned for us. Who knows, maybe they carry it beyond July of 2013? September of 2013 is the 50th anniversary of their first tour. Going to be an interesting and exciting year.

Yes, that makes sense, as "familiarity breeds contempt." During that stretch in the 90s when they were regularly active, by the time of Bridges To Babylon some in the media were referring to them as the "ubiquitous Rolling Stones."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-21 00:58 by stonesnow.

I still say if it wasn't for that meshugenah 'Shine A Light' movie they would have disappeared sooner and reappeared sooner. That project did nothing positive for the Stones.

Quote
tumblingdice
I love it when you talk to yourself

I prefer that he keep it verbal, and not get physical with himself.

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".

....except that Jann Wenners number is on both Keiths and Micks speed dial...

Quote
tumblingdice
I love it when you talk to yourself

I am not stonesnow!

Quote
klrkcr
Wonder if Bill and Mick T will be at the London meeting?

Let's hope so.

Quote
StonesTod

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.

not good enough! in this day and age of false rumors and speculation gone amok, we require visual and/or audio evidence. otherwise, it clearly didn't happen.

please redouble your reporting efforts and draw-in whatever resources are required.

He's a slacker StonesTod, you're wasting your breath.

Quote
stonesnow

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
stonesnow

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
stonesnow

Quote
muenke

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo

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."

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"?

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.

Yes, and I thank you for posting it. You probably shouldn't have used the word official but I think most of us understood what you were trying to say and that you were using the word "loosely". There are a few (maybe more than a few) on this forum that take things way too literal at times. It's just part of doing business here. Don't become discouraged. Keep posting. This has been a great discussion. Almost "orgasmic" for drama queens such as myself. Keep up the good work!

One Love, Gold Rings On Ya

Thanks, MightyStonesStillRollin50. Discouraged? Not at all. I enjoy the lively discussion and debate--and yes, even the bouts of repartee. I wasn't using the word official loosely, so much as enthusiastically--this is, after all, the first such news since ABB that they are convening to at least discuss plans for an album and tour.

But as to the matter of the "possible" tour of 2012 being delayed, as someone mentioned above: How is that court case involving Michael Cohl progressing? Has it reached an outcome? He's been their tour promoter since Steel Wheels, and there's big million$ to be had over who takes that role for any subsequent tour(s). Supposedly, Stones tour plans have had to be suspended until this court case is resolved.

Perhaps this is the "real" reason for the recent years of inactivity, just as Charlie Watts' problems were the real reason for the Stones not touring for that long stretch in the 80s--the sort of thing one doesn't find out about until years later.

I can't speak to the court case, but I think they knew all along (since the end of AB that they would be inactive for a long time. To try and "sandwich" a tour between 2007 and 2012 would have probably not been in their best interests, interest wise and financial wise. Mick believes that "absence makes the heart grow fonder". There is just no way that they were going to miss doing something for their 50th anniversary year. Since it officially begins on July 12, 2012 and runs through July 11, 2013 they have plenty of time to accomplish all they have planned for us. Who knows, maybe they carry it beyond July of 2013? September of 2013 is the 50th anniversary of their first tour. Going to be an interesting and exciting year.

Yes, that makes sense, as "familiarity breeds contempt." During that stretch in the 90s when they were regularly active, by the time of Bridges To Babylon some in the media were referring to them as the "ubiquitous Rolling Stones."

Exactly, and that is one of the major reasons why they don't tour more often. Fifty years in the music business requires a certain amount of strategy and pacing. It's like running a marathon.

Quote
24FPS
I still say if it wasn't for that meshugenah 'Shine A Light' movie they would have disappeared sooner and reappeared sooner. That project did nothing positive for the Stones.

Anytime you are featured in a major motion picture that is directed by arguably the best director of our time it is a positive, a big positive. It was a great performance.

Please change the misleading title of this thread.

If the ramblings of Keith Richards to Rolling Stone meant anything "official" we would have had seven tours in the last two years.

Quote
71Tele
Please change the misleading title of this thread.

If the ramblings of Keith Richards to Rolling Stone meant anything "official" we would have had seven tours in the last two years.

Instead we get two tours in seven years!

Quote
71Tele
Please change the misleading title of this thread.

If the ramblings of Keith Richards to Rolling Stone meant anything "official" we would have had seven tours in the last two years.

How could I, when it provides so many on this board with such disdainful pleasure in thinking that I'm wrong?

Besides, it won't be "misleading" for long...

I wonder if there's any way to flag threads containing MightyStonesStillRollin50 posts so I can avoid those altogether.

Quote
tatters
I wonder if there's any way to flag threads containing MightyStonesStillRollin50 posts so I can avoid those altogether.

I have a better solution. Just skip over them. His posts that is. See if that works.

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
stonesnow

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
stonesnow

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
stonesnow

Quote
muenke

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo

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."

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"?

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.

Yes, and I thank you for posting it. You probably shouldn't have used the word official but I think most of us understood what you were trying to say and that you were using the word "loosely". There are a few (maybe more than a few) on this forum that take things way too literal at times. It's just part of doing business here. Don't become discouraged. Keep posting. This has been a great discussion. Almost "orgasmic" for drama queens such as myself. Keep up the good work!

One Love, Gold Rings On Ya

Thanks, MightyStonesStillRollin50. Discouraged? Not at all. I enjoy the lively discussion and debate--and yes, even the bouts of repartee. I wasn't using the word official loosely, so much as enthusiastically--this is, after all, the first such news since ABB that they are convening to at least discuss plans for an album and tour.

But as to the matter of the "possible" tour of 2012 being delayed, as someone mentioned above: How is that court case involving Michael Cohl progressing? Has it reached an outcome? He's been their tour promoter since Steel Wheels, and there's big million$ to be had over who takes that role for any subsequent tour(s). Supposedly, Stones tour plans have had to be suspended until this court case is resolved.

Perhaps this is the "real" reason for the recent years of inactivity, just as Charlie Watts' problems were the real reason for the Stones not touring for that long stretch in the 80s--the sort of thing one doesn't find out about until years later.

I can't speak to the court case, but I think they knew all along (since the end of AB that they would be inactive for a long time. To try and "sandwich" a tour between 2007 and 2012 would have probably not been in their best interests, interest wise and financial wise. Mick believes that "absence makes the heart grow fonder". There is just no way that they were going to miss doing something for their 50th anniversary year. Since it officially begins on July 12, 2012 and runs through July 11, 2013 they have plenty of time to accomplish all they have planned for us. Who knows, maybe they carry it beyond July of 2013? September of 2013 is the 50th anniversary of their first tour. Going to be an interesting and exciting year.

Yes, that makes sense, as "familiarity breeds contempt." During that stretch in the 90s when they were regularly active, by the time of Bridges To Babylon some in the media were referring to them as the "ubiquitous Rolling Stones."

Exactly, and that is one of the major reasons why they don't tour more often. Fifty years in the music business requires a certain amount of strategy and pacing. It's like running a marathon.

I'd rather skip the whole thread than to have to navigate around a mass of stupidity like this.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-21 05:38 by tatters.

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
tatters
I wonder if there's any way to flag threads containing MightyStonesStillRollin50 posts so I can avoid those altogether.

I have a better solution. Just skip over them. His posts that is. See if that works.

Thought you were logged in under Stonesnow and refered to yourself in the 3rd person?

Quote
tatters

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
stonesnow

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
stonesnow

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
stonesnow

Quote
muenke

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo

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."

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"?

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.

Yes, and I thank you for posting it. You probably shouldn't have used the word official but I think most of us understood what you were trying to say and that you were using the word "loosely". There are a few (maybe more than a few) on this forum that take things way too literal at times. It's just part of doing business here. Don't become discouraged. Keep posting. This has been a great discussion. Almost "orgasmic" for drama queens such as myself. Keep up the good work!

One Love, Gold Rings On Ya

Thanks, MightyStonesStillRollin50. Discouraged? Not at all. I enjoy the lively discussion and debate--and yes, even the bouts of repartee. I wasn't using the word official loosely, so much as enthusiastically--this is, after all, the first such news since ABB that they are convening to at least discuss plans for an album and tour.

But as to the matter of the "possible" tour of 2012 being delayed, as someone mentioned above: How is that court case involving Michael Cohl progressing? Has it reached an outcome? He's been their tour promoter since Steel Wheels, and there's big million$ to be had over who takes that role for any subsequent tour(s). Supposedly, Stones tour plans have had to be suspended until this court case is resolved.

Perhaps this is the "real" reason for the recent years of inactivity, just as Charlie Watts' problems were the real reason for the Stones not touring for that long stretch in the 80s--the sort of thing one doesn't find out about until years later.

I can't speak to the court case, but I think they knew all along (since the end of AB that they would be inactive for a long time. To try and "sandwich" a tour between 2007 and 2012 would have probably not been in their best interests, interest wise and financial wise. Mick believes that "absence makes the heart grow fonder". There is just no way that they were going to miss doing something for their 50th anniversary year. Since it officially begins on July 12, 2012 and runs through July 11, 2013 they have plenty of time to accomplish all they have planned for us. Who knows, maybe they carry it beyond July of 2013? September of 2013 is the 50th anniversary of their first tour. Going to be an interesting and exciting year.

Yes, that makes sense, as "familiarity breeds contempt." During that stretch in the 90s when they were regularly active, by the time of Bridges To Babylon some in the media were referring to them as the "ubiquitous Rolling Stones."

Exactly, and that is one of the major reasons why they don't tour more often. Fifty years in the music business requires a certain amount of strategy and pacing. It's like running a marathon.

I'd rather skip the whole thread than to have to navigate around a mass of stupidity like this.

On second thought I think maybe you should consider giving me a second chance. Go back and re-read all of my posts. I honestly think if you gave me a sincere second chance you could learn a great deal on how our favorite band operates.

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
tatters

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
stonesnow

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
stonesnow

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
stonesnow

Quote
muenke

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo

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."

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"?

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.

Yes, and I thank you for posting it. You probably shouldn't have used the word official but I think most of us understood what you were trying to say and that you were using the word "loosely". There are a few (maybe more than a few) on this forum that take things way too literal at times. It's just part of doing business here. Don't become discouraged. Keep posting. This has been a great discussion. Almost "orgasmic" for drama queens such as myself. Keep up the good work!

One Love, Gold Rings On Ya

Thanks, MightyStonesStillRollin50. Discouraged? Not at all. I enjoy the lively discussion and debate--and yes, even the bouts of repartee. I wasn't using the word official loosely, so much as enthusiastically--this is, after all, the first such news since ABB that they are convening to at least discuss plans for an album and tour.

But as to the matter of the "possible" tour of 2012 being delayed, as someone mentioned above: How is that court case involving Michael Cohl progressing? Has it reached an outcome? He's been their tour promoter since Steel Wheels, and there's big million$ to be had over who takes that role for any subsequent tour(s). Supposedly, Stones tour plans have had to be suspended until this court case is resolved.

Perhaps this is the "real" reason for the recent years of inactivity, just as Charlie Watts' problems were the real reason for the Stones not touring for that long stretch in the 80s--the sort of thing one doesn't find out about until years later.

I can't speak to the court case, but I think they knew all along (since the end of AB that they would be inactive for a long time. To try and "sandwich" a tour between 2007 and 2012 would have probably not been in their best interests, interest wise and financial wise. Mick believes that "absence makes the heart grow fonder". There is just no way that they were going to miss doing something for their 50th anniversary year. Since it officially begins on July 12, 2012 and runs through July 11, 2013 they have plenty of time to accomplish all they have planned for us. Who knows, maybe they carry it beyond July of 2013? September of 2013 is the 50th anniversary of their first tour. Going to be an interesting and exciting year.

Yes, that makes sense, as "familiarity breeds contempt." During that stretch in the 90s when they were regularly active, by the time of Bridges To Babylon some in the media were referring to them as the "ubiquitous Rolling Stones."

Exactly, and that is one of the major reasons why they don't tour more often. Fifty years in the music business requires a certain amount of strategy and pacing. It's like running a marathon.

I'd rather skip the whole thread than to have to navigate around a mass of stupidity like this.

On second thought I think maybe you should consider giving me a second chance. Go back and re-read all of my posts. I honestly think if you gave me a sincere second chance you could learn a great deal on how our favorite band operates.

Re-read all of your posts? Including all thewatchman and stonescrow posts, too? Who the hell's got that kind of time? It would take me a couple of hours just to get through all your "farewell" threads.

Quote
tumblingdice

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
tatters
I wonder if there's any way to flag threads containing MightyStonesStillRollin50 posts so I can avoid those altogether.

I have a better solution. Just skip over them. His posts that is. See if that works.

Thought you were logged in under Stonesnow and refered to yourself in the 3rd person?

Stonesnow, are you there? Please tell these gentlemen we are not one in the same.

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
tumblingdice

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
tatters
I wonder if there's any way to flag threads containing MightyStonesStillRollin50 posts so I can avoid those altogether.

I have a better solution. Just skip over them. His posts that is. See if that works.

Thought you were logged in under Stonesnow and refered to yourself in the 3rd person?

Stonesnow, are you there? Please tell these gentlemen we are not one in the same.

You're obviously not the same person. Stonesnow is very knowledgeable. You, on the other hand, know only that the anniversary year begins on July 12, 2012, and ends on July 11, 2013, as you've reminded us at least 100 times already.

Quote
tatters

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
tatters

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
stonesnow

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
stonesnow

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
stonesnow

Quote
muenke

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo

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."

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"?

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.

Yes, and I thank you for posting it. You probably shouldn't have used the word official but I think most of us understood what you were trying to say and that you were using the word "loosely". There are a few (maybe more than a few) on this forum that take things way too literal at times. It's just part of doing business here. Don't become discouraged. Keep posting. This has been a great discussion. Almost "orgasmic" for drama queens such as myself. Keep up the good work!

One Love, Gold Rings On Ya

Thanks, MightyStonesStillRollin50. Discouraged? Not at all. I enjoy the lively discussion and debate--and yes, even the bouts of repartee. I wasn't using the word official loosely, so much as enthusiastically--this is, after all, the first such news since ABB that they are convening to at least discuss plans for an album and tour.

But as to the matter of the "possible" tour of 2012 being delayed, as someone mentioned above: How is that court case involving Michael Cohl progressing? Has it reached an outcome? He's been their tour promoter since Steel Wheels, and there's big million$ to be had over who takes that role for any subsequent tour(s). Supposedly, Stones tour plans have had to be suspended until this court case is resolved.

Perhaps this is the "real" reason for the recent years of inactivity, just as Charlie Watts' problems were the real reason for the Stones not touring for that long stretch in the 80s--the sort of thing one doesn't find out about until years later.

I can't speak to the court case, but I think they knew all along (since the end of AB that they would be inactive for a long time. To try and "sandwich" a tour between 2007 and 2012 would have probably not been in their best interests, interest wise and financial wise. Mick believes that "absence makes the heart grow fonder". There is just no way that they were going to miss doing something for their 50th anniversary year. Since it officially begins on July 12, 2012 and runs through July 11, 2013 they have plenty of time to accomplish all they have planned for us. Who knows, maybe they carry it beyond July of 2013? September of 2013 is the 50th anniversary of their first tour. Going to be an interesting and exciting year.

Yes, that makes sense, as "familiarity breeds contempt." During that stretch in the 90s when they were regularly active, by the time of Bridges To Babylon some in the media were referring to them as the "ubiquitous Rolling Stones."

Exactly, and that is one of the major reasons why they don't tour more often. Fifty years in the music business requires a certain amount of strategy and pacing. It's like running a marathon.

I'd rather skip the whole thread than to have to navigate around a mass of stupidity like this.

On second thought I think maybe you should consider giving me a second chance. Go back and re-read all of my posts. I honestly think if you gave me a sincere second chance you could learn a great deal on how our favorite band operates.

Re-read all of your posts? Including all thewatchman and stonescrow posts, too? Who the hell's got that kind of time? It would take me a couple of hours just to get through all your "farewell" threads.

Maybe take a little vacation from the speculation threads until we hear something official in the form of a press conference? The speculation will soon be over. If not next month then certainly no later than the first of the year.

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
tumblingdice

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
tatters
I wonder if there's any way to flag threads containing MightyStonesStillRollin50 posts so I can avoid those altogether.

I have a better solution. Just skip over them. His posts that is. See if that works.

Thought you were logged in under Stonesnow and refered to yourself in the 3rd person?

Stonesnow, are you there? Please tell these gentlemen we are not one in the same.

That's quite right. Only I can log in under Stonesnow, since I'm the one with the password. By the way, Tatters, thanks for the kind words.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-21 06:25 by stonesnow.