Tell Me :
Talk
talk about obnoxious
Hey Captain Serious, did you even read those liner notes in Jump Back? A bit strange.
HUH. With exception to ONE year without a studio LP, what about 1964-1974? 11 years of releasing albums if you include GYYYO.
You did not get it! I said once you are successful. The Stones did the first bigger break after the 1982 shows and as somebody already wrote if Jagger would have had a successful Solocareer he would have never gone back to the Stones. But in the 80ies Michael Jackson just stole everyone the show.
James this is an interesting timeline. Looking at the 5 year span (1984-1988), they only released 1 album. Were they under contract this whole time? I would have thought that a record company would demand more output then this regardless how famous the signed artist is. They are obviously in the business of making money.
i just want you to talk about obnoxious. geez. of course it matters.
Didn't they record 20 songs in Paris in 2002 as well?
----------------------------------------------------
[www.facebook.com]
Didn't they release an 'unplugged' album or something with a video?
Justin, it's on me.
____________________________________________________________________
New Track - Indoor Sunshine
[www.thepowergoats.com]
It is not Stones, but still their music separately - if you like it or not.
The last five year - they have been in retirement age.
If you want to see them on a 50'th anniversary tour like Beach Boys - I would rather be without. Seeing Beach Boys this year on tour is a disaster, older men staying on stage barely being able to sing and play, then rather stop as it was in 2005-2007, while it was somehow decent (there were some ups and downs, but still fairly good).
What in the hell are you talking about?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-10 01:15 by Justin.
he's talking about the beach boys.
I think he may need a massage as well.
No you didn't. You said "after you have a certain legacy in success and stardom", which he Stones already had plenty of. Jagger would not have had a successful solo career either. In case you haven't figured it out, the gereral music digging public doesn't care for Mick Jagger the solo artist.
Jacko was Jacko. The 80s would not have mattered for the Stones with exception to Tattoo You and the tours, since the Stones already had made it. Besides, it was The Police, Madonna, U2, Prince and...Whacko's time. Maybe a few others.
My point is - Stones don't do the same stupidity.
If you can't play decent, then don't.
does the same principle apply to posting?
Justin doesn't like the extension of Charlie's quip being used to loosely explain their (recent) history with a heavy wink and a nod.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Are The Stones still motivated to roll
Posted by:
Grison
()
Date: August 9, 2012 13:40
Some of the statements are really obnoxious. No band is together all the time after you have a certain legacy in success and stardom. It would be simply stupid to release an album every year as the ideas won't come that quick anyway. It does not matter how often they reunited only for the next tour and what lack of presence was in between. It matters only the days when they are on stage.
If they will do some performances I would be happy to join in if they don't I will remember every sequence of the time span the Rolling Stones spend with me.
If they will do some performances I would be happy to join in if they don't I will remember every sequence of the time span the Rolling Stones spend with me.
Re: Are The Stones still motivated to roll
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: August 9, 2012 14:17
Quote
Grison
I will remember every sequence of the time span the Rolling Stones spend with me.
talk about obnoxious
Re: Are The Stones still motivated to roll
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: August 9, 2012 15:50
Quote
Justin
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Oh and Jump Back in 1993, which they must've worked incredibly hard on! They even got their own facts wrong in that little quasi-interview for each song on one of 'em.
What an incredibly relevant point.
Hey Captain Serious, did you even read those liner notes in Jump Back? A bit strange.
Re: Are The Stones still motivated to roll
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: August 9, 2012 15:54
Quote
Grison
It would be simply stupid to release an album every year as the ideas won't come that quick anyway.
HUH. With exception to ONE year without a studio LP, what about 1964-1974? 11 years of releasing albums if you include GYYYO.
Re: Are The Stones still motivated to roll
Posted by:
Grison
()
Date: August 9, 2012 16:13
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Quote
Grison
It would be simply stupid to release an album every year as the ideas won't come that quick anyway.
HUH. With exception to ONE year without a studio LP, what about 1964-1974? 11 years of releasing albums if you include GYYYO.
You did not get it! I said once you are successful. The Stones did the first bigger break after the 1982 shows and as somebody already wrote if Jagger would have had a successful Solocareer he would have never gone back to the Stones. But in the 80ies Michael Jackson just stole everyone the show.
Re: Are The Stones still motivated to roll
Posted by:
Grison
()
Date: August 9, 2012 16:14
aaah uuuuuh you did not get the point, but nevertheless it does not any matter.Quote
StonesTod
Quote
Grison
I will remember every sequence of the time span the Rolling Stones spend with me.
talk about obnoxious
Re: Are The Stones still motivated to roll
Posted by:
2000 LYFH
()
Date: August 9, 2012 16:34
Quote
jamesfdouglas
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Quote
bv
I am impressed they have kept it rolling for 50 years
Then you are one out of a few that believe they have rolled for 50 years. As a name, yes. As a actual band, hell no.
As a band they lasted 45 years, with a LOT of time off in between those years.
1962-1983 - built their legacy; 21 years
1984 - zip
1985 - recorded an album (their worst) - 1 year
1986-1988 - zilch
1989-1990 - album, tour, live album, imax, etc - 1.5 years
1991-1993 - nada
1994-1995 - album (5 YEARS since their previous), tour, video releases, Vegas mode clearly locked in for good - 1.5 years
1996 - nothing
1997 - 1999 - album, tour, dvd, etc, etc, - 2 years
2000 - 2001 - f$%& all
2002 - 2003 - four new songs we waited 5 years for which at this point the fans have been conditioned to be disappointed and justifyably indifferent towards, and a tour, live album, 4-dvd set, etc, etc - 1 year
2004 - bupkis
2005-2007 - album, tour, ANOTHER 4-dvd set, a feature film, soundtrack, etc - 2 years
2008-2012 - the longest stretch of inactivity we've had from them, ever. 5 full calendar years, half of a decade.
So that's 30 years of work put into 45 years of time. The last five years do NOT count to me at all. To ask if they're motivated to roll... it's pretty clear that not are they motivated to roll, they're unable even to play one song on their 50th "Anniversary".
James this is an interesting timeline. Looking at the 5 year span (1984-1988), they only released 1 album. Were they under contract this whole time? I would have thought that a record company would demand more output then this regardless how famous the signed artist is. They are obviously in the business of making money.
Re: Are The Stones still motivated to roll
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: August 9, 2012 16:38
Quote
Grison
aaah uuuuuh you did not get the point, but nevertheless it does not any matter.Quote
StonesTod
Quote
Grison
I will remember every sequence of the time span the Rolling Stones spend with me.
talk about obnoxious
i just want you to talk about obnoxious. geez. of course it matters.
Re: Are The Stones still motivated to roll
Posted by:
Rocky Dijon
()
Date: August 9, 2012 16:50
Some corrections on the Timeline for what it's worth:
1984 - They filmed two music videos and Mick & Bill filmed links for Video Rewind
1986 - They filmed two music videos and played a club date in London
1991 - They recorded two new singles and filmed music videos for both of them
1993 - They spent most of the year writing and recording VOODOO LOUNGE
1996 - Mick & Keith separately wrote and recorded demos for BRIDGES TO BABYLON
2004 - Mick & Keith together wrote and recorded demos for A BIGGER BANG
2009-2011 - various TATTOO YOU-style sessions for the EXILE and SOME GIRLS Deluxe albums with new lyrics written and new vocals and instrumental overdubs recorded
1984 - They filmed two music videos and Mick & Bill filmed links for Video Rewind
1986 - They filmed two music videos and played a club date in London
1991 - They recorded two new singles and filmed music videos for both of them
1993 - They spent most of the year writing and recording VOODOO LOUNGE
1996 - Mick & Keith separately wrote and recorded demos for BRIDGES TO BABYLON
2004 - Mick & Keith together wrote and recorded demos for A BIGGER BANG
2009-2011 - various TATTOO YOU-style sessions for the EXILE and SOME GIRLS Deluxe albums with new lyrics written and new vocals and instrumental overdubs recorded
Re: Are The Stones still motivated to roll
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: August 9, 2012 17:24
Quote
Rocky Dijon
Some corrections on the Timeline for what it's worth:
1984 - They filmed two music videos and Mick & Bill filmed links for Video Rewind
1986 - They filmed two music videos and played a club date in London
1991 - They recorded two new singles and filmed music videos for both of them
1993 - They spent most of the year writing and recording VOODOO LOUNGE
1996 - Mick & Keith separately wrote and recorded demos for BRIDGES TO BABYLON
2004 - Mick & Keith together wrote and recorded demos for A BIGGER BANG
2009-2011 - various TATTOO YOU-style sessions for the EXILE and SOME GIRLS Deluxe albums with new lyrics written and new vocals and instrumental overdubs recorded
Didn't they record 20 songs in Paris in 2002 as well?
----------------------------------------------------
[www.facebook.com]
Re: Are The Stones still motivated to roll
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: August 9, 2012 18:11
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Quote
Rocky Dijon
Some corrections on the Timeline for what it's worth:
1984 - They filmed two music videos and Mick & Bill filmed links for Video Rewind
1986 - They filmed two music videos and played a club date in London
1991 - They recorded two new singles and filmed music videos for both of them
1993 - They spent most of the year writing and recording VOODOO LOUNGE
1996 - Mick & Keith separately wrote and recorded demos for BRIDGES TO BABYLON
2004 - Mick & Keith together wrote and recorded demos for A BIGGER BANG
2009-2011 - various TATTOO YOU-style sessions for the EXILE and SOME GIRLS Deluxe albums with new lyrics written and new vocals and instrumental overdubs recorded
Didn't they record 20 songs in Paris in 2002 as well?
Didn't they release an 'unplugged' album or something with a video?
Re: Are The Stones still motivated to roll
Posted by:
jamesfdouglas
()
Date: August 9, 2012 22:58
Quote
Justin
Charlie's joke was about them milling about and hanging around and the monotny of being in show business. He wasn't implying that their entire existence is to be broken apart like James' "timeline" implies.
While we're here, why doesn't someone tabulate all the hours they've spent on stage performing---surely that is the more ACCURATE number representing how long they've been a "working" band? Them traveling by plane or motorcade to the venue--doesn't count as them being a band. They're not performing music afterall!
Justin, it's on me.
____________________________________________________________________
New Track - Indoor Sunshine
[www.thepowergoats.com]
Re: Are The Stones still motivated to roll
Posted by:
mtaylor
()
Date: August 9, 2012 23:15
To be fair - you will have to include their solo work.Quote
2000 LYFH
Quote
jamesfdouglas
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Quote
bv
I am impressed they have kept it rolling for 50 years
Then you are one out of a few that believe they have rolled for 50 years. As a name, yes. As a actual band, hell no.
As a band they lasted 45 years, with a LOT of time off in between those years.
1962-1983 - built their legacy; 21 years
1984 - zip
1985 - recorded an album (their worst) - 1 year
1986-1988 - zilch
1989-1990 - album, tour, live album, imax, etc - 1.5 years
1991-1993 - nada
1994-1995 - album (5 YEARS since their previous), tour, video releases, Vegas mode clearly locked in for good - 1.5 years
1996 - nothing
1997 - 1999 - album, tour, dvd, etc, etc, - 2 years
2000 - 2001 - f$%& all
2002 - 2003 - four new songs we waited 5 years for which at this point the fans have been conditioned to be disappointed and justifyably indifferent towards, and a tour, live album, 4-dvd set, etc, etc - 1 year
2004 - bupkis
2005-2007 - album, tour, ANOTHER 4-dvd set, a feature film, soundtrack, etc - 2 years
2008-2012 - the longest stretch of inactivity we've had from them, ever. 5 full calendar years, half of a decade.
So that's 30 years of work put into 45 years of time. The last five years do NOT count to me at all. To ask if they're motivated to roll... it's pretty clear that not are they motivated to roll, they're unable even to play one song on their 50th "Anniversary".
James this is an interesting timeline. Looking at the 5 year span (1984-1988), they only released 1 album. Were they under contract this whole time? I would have thought that a record company would demand more output then this regardless how famous the signed artist is. They are obviously in the business of making money.
It is not Stones, but still their music separately - if you like it or not.
The last five year - they have been in retirement age.
If you want to see them on a 50'th anniversary tour like Beach Boys - I would rather be without. Seeing Beach Boys this year on tour is a disaster, older men staying on stage barely being able to sing and play, then rather stop as it was in 2005-2007, while it was somehow decent (there were some ups and downs, but still fairly good).
Re: Are The Stones still motivated to roll
Posted by:
Justin
()
Date: August 10, 2012 01:15
Quote
mtaylor
Seeing Beach Boys this year on tour is a disaster, older men staying on stage barely being able to sing and play,
What in the hell are you talking about?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-10 01:15 by Justin.
Re: Are The Stones still motivated to roll
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: August 10, 2012 01:30
Quote
Justin
Quote
mtaylor
Seeing Beach Boys this year on tour is a disaster, older men staying on stage barely being able to sing and play,
What in the hell are you talking about?
he's talking about the beach boys.
Re: Are The Stones still motivated to roll
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: August 10, 2012 01:32
Quote
jamesfdouglas
Quote
Justin
Charlie's joke was about them milling about and hanging around and the monotny of being in show business. He wasn't implying that their entire existence is to be broken apart like James' "timeline" implies.
While we're here, why doesn't someone tabulate all the hours they've spent on stage performing---surely that is the more ACCURATE number representing how long they've been a "working" band? Them traveling by plane or motorcade to the venue--doesn't count as them being a band. They're not performing music afterall!
Justin, it's on me.
I think he may need a massage as well.
Re: Are The Stones still motivated to roll
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: August 10, 2012 02:14
Quote
Grison
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Quote
Grison
It would be simply stupid to release an album every year as the ideas won't come that quick anyway.
HUH. With exception to ONE year without a studio LP, what about 1964-1974? 11 years of releasing albums if you include GYYYO.
You did not get it! I said once you are successful. The Stones did the first bigger break after the 1982 shows and as somebody already wrote if Jagger would have had a successful Solocareer he would have never gone back to the Stones. But in the 80ies Michael Jackson just stole everyone the show.
No you didn't. You said "after you have a certain legacy in success and stardom", which he Stones already had plenty of. Jagger would not have had a successful solo career either. In case you haven't figured it out, the gereral music digging public doesn't care for Mick Jagger the solo artist.
Jacko was Jacko. The 80s would not have mattered for the Stones with exception to Tattoo You and the tours, since the Stones already had made it. Besides, it was The Police, Madonna, U2, Prince and...Whacko's time. Maybe a few others.
Re: Are The Stones still motivated to roll
Posted by:
angee
()
Date: August 10, 2012 03:49
Justin, why so angry?
Good points in there though.
--the female fanboy...(fangirl extraordinaire)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Love is strong..."
byTeafoe
Good points in there though.
--the female fanboy...(fangirl extraordinaire)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Love is strong..."
byTeafoe
Re: Are The Stones still motivated to roll
Posted by:
mtaylor
()
Date: August 10, 2012 18:02
I saw them and it was terrible.Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
Justin
Quote
mtaylor
Seeing Beach Boys this year on tour is a disaster, older men staying on stage barely being able to sing and play,
What in the hell are you talking about?
he's talking about the beach boys.
My point is - Stones don't do the same stupidity.
If you can't play decent, then don't.
Re: Are The Stones still motivated to roll
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: August 10, 2012 18:04
Quote
mtaylor
I saw them and it was terrible.Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
Justin
Quote
mtaylor
Seeing Beach Boys this year on tour is a disaster, older men staying on stage barely being able to sing and play,
What in the hell are you talking about?
he's talking about the beach boys.
My point is - Stones don't do the same stupidity.
If you can't play decent, then don't.
does the same principle apply to posting?
Re: Are The Stones still motivated to roll
Posted by:
mtaylor
()
Date: August 10, 2012 18:10
Off course ;o)Quote
StonesTod
Quote
mtaylor
I saw them and it was terrible.Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
Justin
Quote
mtaylor
Seeing Beach Boys this year on tour is a disaster, older men staying on stage barely being able to sing and play,
What in the hell are you talking about?
he's talking about the beach boys.
My point is - Stones don't do the same stupidity.
If you can't play decent, then don't.
does the same principle apply to posting?
Re: Are The Stones still motivated to roll
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: August 10, 2012 20:37
Quote
angee
Justin, why so angry?
Good points in there though.
--the female fanboy...(fangirl extraordinaire)
Justin doesn't like the extension of Charlie's quip being used to loosely explain their (recent) history with a heavy wink and a nod.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
AJDuffer , alimente , angee , CanYouHearTheMusic , Dan , daspyknows , DirtyWorks , dougie , georgelicks , gripweed , Hairball , His Majesty , hot stuff , JeremyDylan , jstger6969 , MILKYWAY , Mixedreactions , RawIguanaCologne , ROPENI , roryg , Ross , rtjkyc0127 , TeddyB1018
Guests:
177
Record Number of Users:
57
on May 23, 2013 00:40
Record Number of Guests:
234
on May 23, 2013 00:53
