Tell Me :
Talk
You said it, they are in a class of their own. Always have been, always will be. And they're the old guard now. Neither member wants to be the first to quit and let the others down. They'll be a few good years left and then some. Then again, how many groups have also had the iconic status/financial incentive to keep at it so long? I can only name one...
It's frightfully one-sided. He is starting to remind of Evelyn in "Play Misty For Me"! I told him it's over between us but he just won't let go!
There is a formula that could see them stretch this remarkable run to 55 years. Maybe even 60 years? Staying alive and relatively healthy of course is the number one ingredient. They will also need to maintain their desire to continue to work together - to work at all. That is going to become much tougher as the years go by. Mick and Charlie have so many other interests. The touring days are definitely winding down. I could see them getting together occasionally and banging out a few new blues or country tunes and doing an occasional club show. It's not beyond the realm of possibility but all things considered it is hard to fathom at present. Let's see how the next year or so goes before we look any further down the road.
i present to you: golden earring. the defense rests.
Keep On Rolling
Oh, that was an excellent movie. I especially like the part when he has to leave the radio station to go and save his girlfriend, so he puts a tape of an old show on the reel-to-reel and the tape says "Thank you for joining me for the next four hours of music and verse" or some shit like that, but the reel of tape is little, like maybe a 15-minute reel of tape! No way that tiny little tape is going to play for four hours! One of biggest flubs in movie history, right up there with the blind guy wearing a wrist watch in The Ten Commandments.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-22 15:21 by tatters.
I believe there was a picture of the building in New Jersey.
That was exciting, as buildings in New Jersey go...
It isn't a watch, but it's more of a mammoth flub that people actually believe those 10 things come from god and that god exists.
* His Majesty, Prince Jones smiled as he moved among the crowd *
Hear, hear
WRONG. You are wrong. Not ONE official word has been issued about ANYTHING. You're taking speculation from Keith Richards, who has a history of saying this kind of stuff, and using it as fact. If he said "I like weed" then what you're saying is he plans to grow a ganja plantation. You have entered Done Deal Land. It's best you get out of Done Deal Land.
That wasn't "venom". Wow. You still have the same ol' thin skin.
Clean up on aisle 7.
Yes, that is correct, it is possible that the Stones may do something. That's officially unofficial as far as anyone here officially knows.
Ahhh, the Phantom Tollbooth strikes again!
Yes, and whatever that something is, it's officially "hush-hush," to quote KR's words from the RS article.
There wouldn't be something officially on the way if you didn't have something to be officially "hush-hush" about.
Just officially sayin'...
As was made official officially earlier this year or late last year - whenever it was - The Rolling Stones as a business and a "band" are no longer tied to or committed to/with Michael Cohl.
Thank you, I hadn't heard. That means they're officially free to be officially set to record and tour.
...nothin'. That's what you are "just sayin'", one of the most ignorant things anyone can say.
What Keith said is official alright - officially said by Keith Richards. That's as far as that goes. How you are making a 10 course meal out of a can of soup broth is beyond anyone here.
Wait.
What?
Ol' Stoneswatch Crowman is at it again, er, one of 'em anyway.
Not necessarily. I admit the Stones have not made it officially official, but only that they are convening for something (discussion of new album/tour plans) that is officially "hush-hush." Furthermore, however, it is officially official that the Stones will not be retiring this year or in 2013. So if there are no plans to be made for new projects ahead, why bother convening for "possible" plans to be made for new projects ahead?
And why bother changing the title of a thread that will only have to be changed back to its original title once said title soon becomes officially verified? Too much [dirty] work for this poster!
You are officially correct, er, right.
You are right, if they so choose to do so, which at this point, they have officially not and therefor are officially free and officially set to not do a goddamn thing.
This quote is from page 3
Now count how many pages you filled by writing nonsences about how perfetly spot-on is the title. Then try to tell me again that this thread is not about you and that it is about anything to do with The Rolling Stones.
Count how many pages have you writen and how much INFORMATION did you provide to anybody. That is the reason why you just annoy everybody. Just like anyone else who has absolutely nothing to say and fills pages and pages, making this forum a big mess.
I admit, you didn't fill those pages alone, there is one more troubled mind, who has absolutely nothing to say about The Rolling Stones or anything related and uses this otherwise lovely forum as a blog to share anything that pops up in his brain.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-22 19:18 by Happy24.
it's not my fault...it all started with a stunted childhood....
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Stones officially set to record and tour
Posted by:
Tate
()
Date: June 22, 2012 05:06
Yes, Pinetop went on until he was very, very old, and many others have as well, but how many GROUPS have done that? We might see Keith singing a tune 20 years from now, or Mick or any artist, but how many groups play into their 70's and 80's? Perhaps a few vocal groups, but I think the Stones are in a class of their own if they keep it up in some form, playing drums and guitars, much longer than they have so far.
Re: Stones officially set to record and tour
Posted by:
stonesnow
()
Date: June 22, 2012 05:27
Quote
Tate
Yes, Pinetop went on until he was very, very old, and many others have as well, but how many GROUPS have done that? We might see Keith singing a tune 20 years from now, or Mick or any artist, but how many groups play into their 70's and 80's? Perhaps a few vocal groups, but I think the Stones are in a class of their own if they keep it up in some form, playing drums and guitars, much longer than they have so far.
You said it, they are in a class of their own. Always have been, always will be. And they're the old guard now. Neither member wants to be the first to quit and let the others down. They'll be a few good years left and then some. Then again, how many groups have also had the iconic status/financial incentive to keep at it so long? I can only name one...
Re: Stones officially set to record and tour
Posted by:
MightyStonesStillRollin50
()
Date: June 22, 2012 06:31
Quote
treaclefingers
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
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.
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 ABthat 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.
It's frightfully one-sided. He is starting to remind of Evelyn in "Play Misty For Me"! I told him it's over between us but he just won't let go!
Re: Stones officially set to record and tour
Posted by:
MightyStonesStillRollin50
()
Date: June 22, 2012 07:36
Quote
stonesnow
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.
There is a formula that could see them stretch this remarkable run to 55 years. Maybe even 60 years? Staying alive and relatively healthy of course is the number one ingredient. They will also need to maintain their desire to continue to work together - to work at all. That is going to become much tougher as the years go by. Mick and Charlie have so many other interests. The touring days are definitely winding down. I could see them getting together occasionally and banging out a few new blues or country tunes and doing an occasional club show. It's not beyond the realm of possibility but all things considered it is hard to fathom at present. Let's see how the next year or so goes before we look any further down the road.
Re: Stones officially set to record and tour
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: June 22, 2012 14:30
Quote
Tate
I think the Stones are in a class of their own if they keep it up in some form, playing drums and guitars, much longer than they have so far.
i present to you: golden earring. the defense rests.
Re: Stones officially set to record and tour
Posted by:
Rolling Hansie
()
Date: June 22, 2012 14:35
Quote
StonesTod
Quote
Tate
I think the Stones are in a class of their own if they keep it up in some form, playing drums and guitars, much longer than they have so far.
i present to you: golden earring. the defense rests.
Keep On Rolling
Re: Stones officially set to record and tour
Posted by:
tatters
()
Date: June 22, 2012 15:11
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
treaclefingers
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
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.
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
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.
It's frightfully one-sided. He is starting to remind of Evelyn in "Play Misty For Me"! I told him it's over between us but he just won't let go!
Oh, that was an excellent movie. I especially like the part when he has to leave the radio station to go and save his girlfriend, so he puts a tape of an old show on the reel-to-reel and the tape says "Thank you for joining me for the next four hours of music and verse" or some shit like that, but the reel of tape is little, like maybe a 15-minute reel of tape! No way that tiny little tape is going to play for four hours! One of biggest flubs in movie history, right up there with the blind guy wearing a wrist watch in The Ten Commandments.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-22 15:21 by tatters.
Re: Stones officially set to record and tour
Posted by:
chrism13
()
Date: June 22, 2012 15:49
Any pictures/clips from the NJ rehearsals?
Re: Stones officially set to record and tour
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: June 22, 2012 17:50
Quote
chrism13
Any pictures/clips from the NJ rehearsals?
I believe there was a picture of the building in New Jersey.
That was exciting, as buildings in New Jersey go...
Re: Stones officially set to record and tour
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: June 22, 2012 18:11
Quote
tatters
One of biggest flubs in movie history, right up there with the blind guy wearing a wrist watch in The Ten Commandments.
It isn't a watch, but it's more of a mammoth flub that people actually believe those 10 things come from god and that god exists.
* His Majesty, Prince Jones smiled as he moved among the crowd *
Re: Stones officially set to record and tour
Posted by:
WeLoveYou
()
Date: June 22, 2012 18:16
Quote
His Majesty
Quote
tatters
One of biggest flubs in movie history, right up there with the blind guy wearing a wrist watch in The Ten Commandments.
It isn't a watch, but it's more of a mammoth flub that people actually believe those 10 things come from god and that god exists.
Hear, hear
Re: Stones officially set to record and tour
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: June 22, 2012 18:30
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.
WRONG. You are wrong. Not ONE official word has been issued about ANYTHING. You're taking speculation from Keith Richards, who has a history of saying this kind of stuff, and using it as fact. If he said "I like weed" then what you're saying is he plans to grow a ganja plantation. You have entered Done Deal Land. It's best you get out of Done Deal Land.
Re: Stones officially set to record and tour
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: June 22, 2012 18:33
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
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...
I will probably never fully understand why some have so much venom for me. I do agree (said as much) that nothing is official until a press conference is called announcing their plans for the 50th anniversary year. What we have in the meantime is most likely a series of carefully scripted leaks to build suspense towards whatever plans they have in store for us. Keith also said recently that everything is meant to be murky. I think we can believe him on that. Having said that I have been convinced since the end of the last tour that they would do something for their 50th. I still believe that. 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?
That wasn't "venom". Wow. You still have the same ol' thin skin.
Clean up on aisle 7.
Re: Stones officially set to record and tour
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: June 22, 2012 18:35
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
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.
Yes, that is correct, it is possible that the Stones may do something. That's officially unofficial as far as anyone here officially knows.
Re: Stones officially set to record and tour
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: June 22, 2012 18:37
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
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.
I give up.
Ahhh, the Phantom Tollbooth strikes again!
Re: Stones officially set to record and tour
Posted by:
stonesnow
()
Date: June 22, 2012 18:37
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
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.
Yes, that is correct, it is possible that the Stones may do something. That's officially unofficial as far as anyone here officially knows.
Yes, and whatever that something is, it's officially "hush-hush," to quote KR's words from the RS article.
There wouldn't be something officially on the way if you didn't have something to be officially "hush-hush" about.
Just officially sayin'...
Re: Stones officially set to record and tour
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: June 22, 2012 18:42
Quote
stonesnow
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.
As was made official officially earlier this year or late last year - whenever it was - The Rolling Stones as a business and a "band" are no longer tied to or committed to/with Michael Cohl.
Re: Stones officially set to record and tour
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: June 22, 2012 18:45
So the original poster admits nothing is "official" but won't change the thread title because somehow all the signs (to him) point to something possibly being "official" in the future. Have I got that right?
Re: Stones officially set to record and tour
Posted by:
stonesnow
()
Date: June 22, 2012 18:51
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Quote
stonesnow
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.
As was made official officially earlier this year or late last year - whenever it was - The Rolling Stones as a business and a "band" are no longer tied to or committed to/with Michael Cohl.
Thank you, I hadn't heard. That means they're officially free to be officially set to record and tour.
Re: Stones officially set to record and tour
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: June 22, 2012 18:55
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
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.
Yes, that is correct, it is possible that the Stones may do something. That's officially unofficial as far as anyone here officially knows.
Yes, and whatever that something is, it's officially "hush-hush," to quote KR's words from the RS article.
There wouldn't be something officially on the way if you didn't have something to be officially "hush-hush" about.
Just officially sayin'...
...nothin'. That's what you are "just sayin'", one of the most ignorant things anyone can say.
What Keith said is official alright - officially said by Keith Richards. That's as far as that goes. How you are making a 10 course meal out of a can of soup broth is beyond anyone here.
Re: Stones officially set to record and tour
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: June 22, 2012 18:56
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
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.
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
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.
Wait.
What?
Ol' Stoneswatch Crowman is at it again, er, one of 'em anyway.
Re: Stones officially set to record and tour
Posted by:
stonesnow
()
Date: June 22, 2012 18:58
Quote
71Tele
So the original poster admits nothing is "official" but won't change the thread title because somehow all the signs (to him) point to something possibly being "official" in the future. Have I got that right?
Not necessarily. I admit the Stones have not made it officially official, but only that they are convening for something (discussion of new album/tour plans) that is officially "hush-hush." Furthermore, however, it is officially official that the Stones will not be retiring this year or in 2013. So if there are no plans to be made for new projects ahead, why bother convening for "possible" plans to be made for new projects ahead?
And why bother changing the title of a thread that will only have to be changed back to its original title once said title soon becomes officially verified? Too much [dirty] work for this poster!
Re: Stones officially set to record and tour
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: June 22, 2012 19:01
Quote
71Tele
So the original poster admits nothing is "official" but won't change the thread title because somehow all the signs (to him) point to something possibly being "official" in the future. Have I got that right?
You are officially correct, er, right.
Re: Stones officially set to record and tour
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: June 22, 2012 19:02
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Quote
stonesnow
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.
As was made official officially earlier this year or late last year - whenever it was - The Rolling Stones as a business and a "band" are no longer tied to or committed to/with Michael Cohl.
Thank you, I hadn't heard. That means they're officially free to be officially set to record and tour.
You are right, if they so choose to do so, which at this point, they have officially not and therefor are officially free and officially set to not do a goddamn thing.
Re: Stones officially set to record and tour
Posted by:
Happy24
()
Date: June 22, 2012 19:13
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
Happy24
You did it stonesnow - by posting an article with nothing groundbreaking and giving it a fals title, you have a thread officialy about yourself now...Jeeez, where do all those characters keep comming from?
I haven't said a word about myself. I'm just replying to those who address me by moniker. Nothing more. I think it irks a few people that I've only been posting here for 3 weeks.
This quote is from page 3
Now count how many pages you filled by writing nonsences about how perfetly spot-on is the title. Then try to tell me again that this thread is not about you and that it is about anything to do with The Rolling Stones.
Count how many pages have you writen and how much INFORMATION did you provide to anybody. That is the reason why you just annoy everybody. Just like anyone else who has absolutely nothing to say and fills pages and pages, making this forum a big mess.
I admit, you didn't fill those pages alone, there is one more troubled mind, who has absolutely nothing to say about The Rolling Stones or anything related and uses this otherwise lovely forum as a blog to share anything that pops up in his brain.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-22 19:18 by Happy24.
Re: Stones officially set to record and tour
Posted by:
mtaylor
()
Date: June 22, 2012 19:15
mmmmQuote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
treaclefingers
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
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.
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
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.
It's frightfully one-sided. He is starting to remind of Evelyn in "Play Misty For Me"! I told him it's over between us but he just won't let go!
Oh, that was an excellent movie. I especially like the part when he has to leave the radio station to go and save his girlfriend, so he puts a tape of an old show on the reel-to-reel and the tape says "Thank you for joining me for the next four hours of music and verse" or some shit like that, but the reel of tape is little, like maybe a 15-minute reel of tape! No way that tiny little tape is going to play for four hours! One of biggest flubs in movie history, right up there with the blind guy wearing a wrist watch in The Ten Commandments.
Re: Stones officially set to record and tour
Posted by:
mtaylor
()
Date: June 22, 2012 19:15
mmmmQuote
mtaylor
mmmmQuote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
treaclefingers
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
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.
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
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.
It's frightfully one-sided. He is starting to remind of Evelyn in "Play Misty For Me"! I told him it's over between us but he just won't let go!
Oh, that was an excellent movie. I especially like the part when he has to leave the radio station to go and save his girlfriend, so he puts a tape of an old show on the reel-to-reel and the tape says "Thank you for joining me for the next four hours of music and verse" or some shit like that, but the reel of tape is little, like maybe a 15-minute reel of tape! No way that tiny little tape is going to play for four hours! One of biggest flubs in movie history, right up there with the blind guy wearing a wrist watch in The Ten Commandments.
Re: Stones officially set to record and tour
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: June 22, 2012 19:15
Quote
Happy24
That is the reason why you just annoy everybody. Just like anyone else who has absolutely nothing to say and fills pages and pages, making this forum a big mess.
it's not my fault...it all started with a stunted childhood....
Re: Stones officially set to record and tour
Posted by:
mtaylor
()
Date: June 22, 2012 19:16
mmmmQuote
mtaylor
mmmmQuote
mtaylor
mmmmQuote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
treaclefingers
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
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.
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
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.
It's frightfully one-sided. He is starting to remind of Evelyn in "Play Misty For Me"! I told him it's over between us but he just won't let go!
Oh, that was an excellent movie. I especially like the part when he has to leave the radio station to go and save his girlfriend, so he puts a tape of an old show on the reel-to-reel and the tape says "Thank you for joining me for the next four hours of music and verse" or some shit like that, but the reel of tape is little, like maybe a 15-minute reel of tape! No way that tiny little tape is going to play for four hours! One of biggest flubs in movie history, right up there with the blind guy wearing a wrist watch in The Ten Commandments.
Re: Stones officially set to record and tour
Posted by:
mtaylor
()
Date: June 22, 2012 19:16
mmmmQuote
mtaylor
mmmmQuote
mtaylor
mmmmQuote
mtaylor
mmmmQuote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
treaclefingers
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
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.
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
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.
It's frightfully one-sided. He is starting to remind of Evelyn in "Play Misty For Me"! I told him it's over between us but he just won't let go!
Oh, that was an excellent movie. I especially like the part when he has to leave the radio station to go and save his girlfriend, so he puts a tape of an old show on the reel-to-reel and the tape says "Thank you for joining me for the next four hours of music and verse" or some shit like that, but the reel of tape is little, like maybe a 15-minute reel of tape! No way that tiny little tape is going to play for four hours! One of biggest flubs in movie history, right up there with the blind guy wearing a wrist watch in The Ten Commandments.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Airwavesflow , Barnestormer , bv , CherokeeStone , crumbling_mice , DoomandGloom , duke richardson , efbdgd49gm53 , Fuman2 , gimmerambler , GravityBoy , GRNRBITW , gtrplyr , howlinrock , hummingbird , ijanne , JimmyShelter , joshbg2k , latebloomer , lazzzybones , mickjerome , mnewman505 , mr_dja , oma , palerider22 , Powerage5 , Quique-stone , RawIguanaCologne , rebelrebel , Redstone5 , reg thorpe , RODAXE , Ross , stoneskris , stonesmuziekfan , stonsik , straycatuk , superglen , teleblaster , TimeIs , TMONTANA , tony
Guests:
242
Record Number of Users:
65
on May 22, 2013 15:35
Record Number of Guests:
252
on May 22, 2013 01:43
