Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

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.

It's clear to me now that your only interest is in seeing just how many times someone can "quote" a single message, and I want you to know that I absolutely refuse to play your sick and twisted little game.

Quote
stonesnow

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...

It's simply not accurate, not that you care about accuracy or anything...

Quote
tatters

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.

Why you ungrateful little SOB! I have poured my heart and soul into trying to educate knuckleheads like you on how the Stones operate! Done everything in my power to "will" the Stones back in the arena! And this is what I get in return? I have never in all of my life been so disrespected! Shame on you, tatters!

Quote
71Tele

Quote
stonesnow

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...

It's simply not accurate, not that you care about accuracy or anything...

I prefer the term enthusiastic.

Quote
tatters

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

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.

It's clear to me now that your only interest is in seeing just how many times someone can "quote" a single message, and I want you to know that I absolutely refuse to play your sick and twisted little game.

You are so so wrong, but that is OK. It just didn't work out between us, tatters. We can now go our own separate ways. I harbor no ill feelings, but we really need to cease all communication. I wish you the best.

One Love, Gold Rings On Ya, mate.

Quote
stonesnow

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.

Thanks, mate.

Stonesdoug posted the same article on Shidoobee. The threadtitle there is "Band to meet in July".

Keep On Rolling

Quote
stonesnow

Quote
71Tele

Quote
stonesnow

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...

It's simply not accurate, not that you care about accuracy or anything...

I prefer the term enthusiastic.

Sorry, a thing is either true or isn't. None of your enthusiasm - admirable as it is - can make a thing different than what it is. There is no official tour or album news whatsoever, only talk about another meeting to discuss a possible tour and possible album.

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
tatters

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

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.

It's clear to me now that your only interest is in seeing just how many times someone can "quote" a single message, and I want you to know that I absolutely refuse to play your sick and twisted little game.

You are so so wrong, but that is OK. It just didn't work out between us, tatters. We can now go our own separate ways. I harbor no ill feelings, but we really need to cease all communication. I wish you the best.

One Love, Gold Rings On Ya, mate.

I will communicate with whomever I please. In the highly unlikely event that you do someday post something worth responding to, I will respond to it.

Quote
Rolling Hansie
Stonesdoug posted the same article on Shidoobee. The threadtitle there is "Band to meet in July".

what are they calling it on rocks off and other key stones sites? we should add them all up and then divide by the number of sites and we'll have the best title.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-21 14:30 by StonesTod.

Quote
kowalski
"We're going to talk about that in July and see. I mean, I'd love to get some tracks down and see what songs we've got. And that goes along with part of getting the band back together and getting things moving. So I'd love to cut some tracks, yeah."

Didn't they have this same meeting last December? If memory serves, it didn't end well.

the title of this thread needs to be changed, it is utter rubbish.

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Rolling Hansie
Stonesdoug posted the same article on Shidoobee. The threadtitle there is "Band to meet in July".

what are they calling it on rocks off and other key stones sites? we should add them all up and then divide by the number of sites and we'll have the best title.

such an average response from you ST.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
stonesnow

Quote
71Tele

Quote
stonesnow

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...

It's simply not accurate, not that you care about accuracy or anything...

I prefer the term enthusiastic.

Sorry, a thing is either true or isn't. None of your enthusiasm - admirable as it is - can make a thing different than what it is. There is no official tour or album news whatsoever, only talk about another meeting to discuss a possible tour and possible album.

Ah, but it shall be. As we know, Stones reps were quick to quash Glastonbury/retirement rumors, emphasizing that the band has no plans of retiring in 2013, which leaves plenty of time for at least another album and tour, the process of which begins with meeting/talks in July. They are officially set to record and tour--the intent is there. Mick has done his solo [Superheavy] project for the time being, now it's Stones time...

Quote
Eleanor Rigby
the title of this thread needs to be changed, it is utter rubbish.

Instead, how about just allowing the thread to lapse gracefully?

stonesnow, what will you do if The Stones have their meeting and decide to go their separate ways? Will you THEN change the title of this thread or will you still be adamant that they are officially set to record and tour?

Quote
stonesnow

Quote
Eleanor Rigby
the title of this thread needs to be changed, it is utter rubbish.

Instead, how about just allowing the thread to lapse gracefully?

Change the title. It's deliberately misleading. Don't be a douchbag.

____________________________________________________________________

New Track - Indoor Sunshine
[www.thepowergoats.com]

Quote
jamesfdouglas

Quote
stonesnow

Quote
Eleanor Rigby
the title of this thread needs to be changed, it is utter rubbish.

Instead, how about just allowing the thread to lapse gracefully?

Change the title. It's deliberately misleading. Don't be a douchbag.

Sorry, douche--er, I mean, dude--but it's already too late for that. This thread has already had it's peak and the subject matter has been discussed ad nauseum.

Like Dylan sang in You're A Big Girl Now: "What's the sense of changing horses in midstream?"

Does this qualify as the most frustrating thread on IORR of all time?

stonesnow, why are you so damn stubborn?

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
Does this qualify as the most frustrating thread on IORR of all time?

stonesnow, why are you so damn stubborn?

Perhaps because repartee happens to be one of my favorite pastimes--it makes the working day go by that much faster.

Quote
stonesnow

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
Does this qualify as the most frustrating thread on IORR of all time?

stonesnow, why are you so damn stubborn?

Perhaps because repartee happens to be one of my favorite pastimes--it makes the working day go by that much faster.

I'd hate to be your boss. Your productivity must be abysmal.

this thread has now jumped the shark

Quote
71Tele

Quote
stonesnow

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
Does this qualify as the most frustrating thread on IORR of all time?

stonesnow, why are you so damn stubborn?

Perhaps because repartee happens to be one of my favorite pastimes--it makes the working day go by that much faster.

I'd hate to be your boss. Your productivity must be abysmal.

But in fact, I'm self-employed and therefore self-motivated.

Quote
lettingitbleed
this thread has now jumped the shark

Agreed. We should therefore just let it lapse.

By the way, the term "jumped the shark" did so such a long time ago that the shark in question is now bones on the way to sea salt.

Quote
tatters

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
tatters

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

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.

It's clear to me now that your only interest is in seeing just how many times someone can "quote" a single message, and I want you to know that I absolutely refuse to play your sick and twisted little game.

You are so so wrong, but that is OK. It just didn't work out between us, tatters. We can now go our own separate ways. I harbor no ill feelings, but we really need to cease all communication. I wish you the best.

One Love, Gold Rings On Ya, mate.

I will communicate with whomever I please. In the highly unlikely event that you do someday post something worth responding to, I will respond to it.

Have you ever NOT responded to one of my posts? Have a good life.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Rolling Hansie
Stonesdoug posted the same article on Shidoobee. The threadtitle there is "Band to meet in July".

what are they calling it on rocks off and other key stones sites? we should add them all up and then divide by the number of sites and we'll have the best title.

such an average response from you ST.

Yeah, I am disappointed Cheers anyway

Keep On Rolling

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
tatters

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
tatters

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

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.

It's clear to me now that your only interest is in seeing just how many times someone can "quote" a single message, and I want you to know that I absolutely refuse to play your sick and twisted little game.

You are so so wrong, but that is OK. It just didn't work out between us, tatters. We can now go our own separate ways. I harbor no ill feelings, but we really need to cease all communication. I wish you the best.

One Love, Gold Rings On Ya, mate.

I will communicate with whomever I please. In the highly unlikely event that you do someday post something worth responding to, I will respond to it.

Have you ever NOT responded to one of my posts? Have a good life.

I'm not sure. Perhaps I neglected to respond when you posted about having to "fight back tears" while watching James McCartney's "emotional" performance on the David Letterman Show?






Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-22 04:28 by tatters.

Quote
tatters

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
tatters

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
tatters

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

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.

It's clear to me now that your only interest is in seeing just how many times someone can "quote" a single message, and I want you to know that I absolutely refuse to play your sick and twisted little game.

You are so so wrong, but that is OK. It just didn't work out between us, tatters. We can now go our own separate ways. I harbor no ill feelings, but we really need to cease all communication. I wish you the best.

One Love, Gold Rings On Ya, mate.

I will communicate with whomever I please. In the highly unlikely event that you do someday post something worth responding to, I will respond to it.

Have you ever NOT responded to one of my posts? Have a good life.

I'm not sure. Perhaps I neglected to respond when you posted about having to "fight back tears" while watching James McCartney's emotional performance on the David Letterman Show. I really don't remember.

I'm fighting tears back right now...it's clear, you two are in love.

Quote
stonesnow

Quote
71Tele

Quote
stonesnow

Quote
71Tele

Quote
stonesnow

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...

It's simply not accurate, not that you care about accuracy or anything...

I prefer the term enthusiastic.

Sorry, a thing is either true or isn't. None of your enthusiasm - admirable as it is - can make a thing different than what it is. There is no official tour or album news whatsoever, only talk about another meeting to discuss a possible tour and possible album.

Ah, but it shall be. As we know, Stones reps were quick to quash Glastonbury/retirement rumors, emphasizing that the band has no plans of retiring in 2013, which leaves plenty of time for at least another album and tour, the process of which begins with meeting/talks in July. They are officially set to record and tour--the intent is there. Mick has done his solo [Superheavy] project for the time being, now it's Stones time...

and yet they are still not "officially" set to do anything except have another meeting, so your thread title is still misleading. Your projection of your wishful thinking into the future doesn't change that. Facts are stubborn things. Words have meanings, or what's the point?

Quote
71Tele
and yet they are still not "officially" set to do anything except have another meeting, so your thread title is still misleading. Your projection of your wishful thinking into the future doesn't change that. Facts are stubborn things. Words have meanings, or what's the point?

I thought we all agreed this thread would be allowed to fade--unless it was just I who agreed.

Anyway, Ronnie Wood has officially disclosed that he is to keep October/November free--the amount of time it would take to record an album. They'll discuss these plans at the July summit, after which they'll prepare the new material for the studio time later in the year.

We also officially know that there are no plans for the Stones to retire in 2013. The quashing of Glastonbury/2013 retirement gig rumors from Stones reps officially saw to that.

If there is any wishful thinking going on in this forum, it is the secret relief so many would have if the Stones would just call it a day here and now, because the mass projection of further aging onto the Stones would sully their memories of the glory days.

Pinetop Perkins was still playing and performing live until he passed recently--and he was 96! The Stones come from that same Blues tradition of longevity, and you, dear senephobes, would likely be surprised at how far off the finish line really is.