I know you don't just "leave" the Stones alive...

Prolly just a bunch switchblade talk.

They're not really a band until they get together and do something new or tour.  :whydontcha

ron who?

:boring

Ronnie joined a Faces cover band!

Sunny?
Is Ed Bradley still alive?

Band? What band?

Keith has made the comment about does he need to put out an ad for guitar player for hire a couple of times.  Once in print and once on Fallon's show.

The only one who knows the answer to if any one is 'in' is Mick.  When he's ready to do something then we'll know what form of the band we'll see.  

AngieBlue wrote on Jul 1^st, 2010 at 2:06pm:

Keith has made the comment about does he need to put out an ad for guitar player for hire a couple of times.  Once in print and once on Fallon's show.

I guess it sounds good when he does that. However, the last three tours have ended with gaps in performing activity of three years (1999-2002), two years (2003- 2005) and three years again (to date) (2007-10).

The Stones as a band have barely spent more than a couple of months in the studio since 1997 and in the last decade and a half Keith has been by some distance the most inactive band member in terms of both side projects and live appearances. He hasnt exactly been that prolific in terms of his share of the band's songwriting either.

He's had plenty of time on his hands in which he could have stayed active and his repeated suggestion that he's itching for some work doesn't really hold up when scrutinized beyond face value.  At 66, his chops aren't exactly going to improve if he's barely active for years at a time. In fact, it's a pretty telling and sad reflection that with all the hype surrounding the 'Exile' week he made two cameos at the various Fallon shows - and whilst the house band and several guest acts performed songs in his honour, he chose to merely chat with the host (entertaining though it was) and flat out declined to sit in on even one of the great songs that he co-wrote - because he hadn't played guitar in a long time.

steel driving hammer wrote on Jul 1^st, 2010 at 11:45am:

I know you don't just "leave" the Stones alive...

Er..you do. No band member has ever died while still a Stone. Unless you count Stu.

A band? From recent header this year we only have Ronnie Wood, Charlie Watts, Bill Wyman and Mick Taylor playing...

:aimama

did somebody piss in the coffee today?  Keith is on antiseizure meds maybe still and arthritis, probably hep c and 4 kids and grandkids and Mick has 7 kids how many grandkids and outside interests ...how you gonna feel when you are 66 or 67.  like bouncing around on a stage & in a poor economy?  not me..

How many times can everyone mull over rumors with nothing credible to  back it up. No Rolling Stone, nor anyone of the Stones reps, nor anyone from their official staff ever mentioned an ioda about Ronnie possibly not being in The Rolling Stones anymore....

Most of the folks who spoke of this are sources like The Sun, or some odd-ball websites...

Sure Ronnie is pretty unpredictable anymore and he has went through a divorce. He has relapse here and again but guess what ...how much of this is really any bit of a surprise? I'm sure The Stones weren't supportive of some of the decisions he's made in the past three years but none the less I'm sure they were not too shocked by all this either. I'm sure Ronnie is still very much a Rolling Stone based on the fact that nobody in their camp ever stated anything about Ronnie possibly not being in the group anymore. End of Story.

Ian

Tumbled wrote on Jul 1^st, 2010 at 9:53pm:

did somebody piss in the coffee today?  Keith is on antiseizure meds maybe still and arthritis, probably hep c and 4 kids and grandkids and Mick has 7 kids how many grandkids and outside interests ...how you gonna feel when you are 66 or 67.  like bouncing around on a stage & in a poor economy?  not me..

Wait: I thought he "cured" himself of hep c? :)

Tumbled wrote on Jul 1^st, 2010 at 9:53pm:

did somebody piss in the coffee today?  Keith is on antiseizure meds maybe still and arthritis, probably hep c and 4 kids and grandkids and Mick has 7 kids how many grandkids and outside interests ...how you gonna feel when you are 66 or 67.  like bouncing around on a stage & in a poor economy?  not me..

So? Who suggested the Stones owe us another note? Not Me. Still doesnt alter the fact that if they're still a band, time isnt exactly on their side and that for the sake of their musical ability, they need to keep relatively active.

Like myself, you dont know the intimate effects of Keith's medical condition I would imagine, so presuming he's so delicate he can't work is a bit presumptious. And if he WAS, why would he be itching to play (incidentally he was saying the same things a year ago. Nothing much has happened since)

And which of Mick's 'outside interests' has been occupying his time for the last 3 years? He's not exactly been churning out the movies or solo albums.

Gazza wrote on Jul 1^st, 2010 at 5:56pm:

steel driving hammer wrote on Jul 1st, 2010 at 11:45am: I know you don't just "leave" the Stones alive... Er..you do. No band member has ever died while still a Stone. Unless you count Stu.

Of course Stu needs to count! his departure imo spead up the decline and he is missed more than many realize.

Mel Belli wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2010 at 6:10am:

Tumbled wrote on Jul 1st, 2010 at 9:53pm: did somebody piss in the coffee today?  Keith is on antiseizure meds maybe still and arthritis, probably hep c and 4 kids and grandkids and Mick has 7 kids how many grandkids and outside interests ...how you gonna feel when you are 66 or 67.  like bouncing around on a stage & in a poor economy?  not me.. Wait: I thought he "cured" himself of hep c? :)

he has hep-c antibodies... but he does not have the actual virus... he is one of the lucky 20%er's.. the percentage of people infected with the virus whose immune systems are able to fight off the virus on its own... a blood test will show the antibodies but not the virus...

HEY KEITH ... MARY AND I (AND ABOUT 10 MILLION OTHER PEOPLE) NEED SOME OF YOUR ANTIBODIES...

lol

gimmekeef wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2010 at 8:57am:

Gazza wrote on Jul 1st, 2010 at 5:56pm: steel driving hammer wrote on Jul 1st, 2010 at 11:45am: I know you don't just "leave" the Stones alive... Er..you do. No band member has ever died while still a Stone. Unless you count Stu. Of course Stu needs to count! his departure imo spead up the decline and he is missed more than many realize.

Absolutely agree on that bit - although as far as being an official band member, he unfortunately wasnt...

Gazza wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2010 at 10:57am:

gimmekeef wrote on Jul 2nd, 2010 at 8:57am: Gazza wrote on Jul 1st, 2010 at 5:56pm: steel driving hammer wrote on Jul 1st, 2010 at 11:45am: I know you don't just "leave" the Stones alive... Er..you do. No band member has ever died while still a Stone. Unless you count Stu. Of course Stu needs to count! his departure imo spead up the decline and he is missed more than many realize. Absolutely agree on that bit - although as far as being an official band member, he unfortunately wasnt...

I have different definitions...he's in and always will be in my book.........

Gazza wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2010 at 10:57am:

gimmekeef wrote on Jul 2nd, 2010 at 8:57am: Gazza wrote on Jul 1st, 2010 at 5:56pm: steel driving hammer wrote on Jul 1st, 2010 at 11:45am: I know you don't just "leave" the Stones alive... Er..you do. No band member has ever died while still a Stone. Unless you count Stu. Of course Stu needs to count! his departure imo spead up the decline and he is missed more than many realize. Absolutely agree on that bit - although as far as being an official band member, he unfortunately wasnt...

Exactly how is "official band member" defined, as it pertains to the Stones?

I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but I'm thinking that Stu's high regard by the Glimmers, etc., probably had him on a payroll, and we know that he supported the Stones on stage and off, up until his death.

Even though you didn't see Stu on album covers, concert posters, etc., I believe the Stones considered him a band member.
Just my opinion. :smilestu

gimmekeef wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2010 at 11:09am:

Gazza wrote on Jul 2nd, 2010 at 10:57am: gimmekeef wrote on Jul 2nd, 2010 at 8:57am: Gazza wrote on Jul 1st, 2010 at 5:56pm: steel driving hammer wrote on Jul 1st, 2010 at 11:45am: I know you don't just "leave" the Stones alive... Er..you do. No band member has ever died while still a Stone. Unless you count Stu. Of course Stu needs to count! his departure imo spead up the decline and he is missed more than many realize. Absolutely agree on that bit - although as far as being an official band member, he unfortunately wasnt... I have different definitions...he's in and always will be in my book.........

I consider him a Stone and always have done. I dont make the executive decisions though, and no matter what way we like to romanticize his involvement and importance to the band, he ceased to be a band member in 1963.

Edith Grove wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2010 at 12:08pm:

Gazza wrote on Jul 2nd, 2010 at 10:57am: gimmekeef wrote on Jul 2nd, 2010 at 8:57am: Gazza wrote on Jul 1st, 2010 at 5:56pm: steel driving hammer wrote on Jul 1st, 2010 at 11:45am: I know you don't just "leave" the Stones alive... Er..you do. No band member has ever died while still a Stone. Unless you count Stu. Of course Stu needs to count! his departure imo spead up the decline and he is missed more than many realize. Absolutely agree on that bit - although as far as being an official band member, he unfortunately wasnt... Exactly how is "official band member" defined, as it pertains to the Stones? I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but I'm thinking that Stu's high regard by the Glimmers, etc., probably had him on a payroll, and we know that he supported the Stones on stage and off, up until his death. Even though you didn't see Stu on album covers, concert posters, etc., I believe the Stones considered him a band member. Just my opinion. :smilestu

Not party to signing band contracts, not a board member, not given a vote on band decisions, not given the same % as the other members. Four ways of evaluating whether someone is a 'band member' or not.

the fact that they kept him not only on the payroll but gave him more of an exalted status for the rest of his life obviously indicates a lot of love and loyalty (although there wasnt much loyalty shown to him in 1963) and he's the only real candidate for the "Sixth Stone" status, but that still didnt make him a band member in the true sense of the word as far as the rest of them were concerned.

Tumbled wrote on Jul 1^st, 2010 at 9:53pm:

did somebody piss in the coffee today?  Keith is on antiseizure meds maybe still and arthritis, probably hep c and 4 kids and grandkids and Mick has 7 kids how many grandkids and outside interests ...how you gonna feel when you are 66 or 67.  like bouncing around on a stage & in a poor economy?  not me..

Spot On Tumbled.  No way will they risk an outlay in such a serious recession.  Your other points are spot - on too.  Meantime I have my original Aftermath LP on the deck which cost me UK32/6 (USD2?) and am very happy.  Another tour with Wood would be embarrassing!

Sounds like he's in recovery to me.  That's the only thing that matters.  

Right Ginda and as it should be. life is for living not dying.  I don't want these guys to fuck up their health to rake it in one more time. I hope they live out their lives in whatever happiness they can find.
as am I.  I'm tired of hero worship anyway

Why do a whole tour? Just do a big gig in NYC & another in Hyde Park and then say goodbye.

No doubt they're all musing, tuning, stumbling, grumbling, humbling themselves, being saucy, sorting business, counting shillings, tidying their closets, pumping their peckers afresh, all in preparation for a (2011)-2012-(2013) Stoonzle Phenomenon.
It will be gor-geous.

XXXX  :smilestu

WaiteringOnAFiend wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2010 at 12:56am:

No doubt they're all musing, tuning, stumbling, grumbling, humbling themselves, being saucy, sorting business, counting shillings, tidying their closets, pumping their peckers afresh, all in preparation for a (2011)-2012-(2013) Stoonzle Phenomenon. It will be gor-geous. XXXX  :smilestu

Interestingly put . . .   :areyoufuckingserious

I'm amazed at how some on this board think Stu was an official member of the band

and Ronnie Wood isn't right now??


Lets try it again boys and girls:

1. No Ian Stewart wasn't an official member of the band The Rolling Stones (from 1963 and onward).

2. Yes Ronnie Wood was, and is... (finally in 1989 The Stones gave him all access besides just the title).

It's really not that hard to open your eyes to..

-nuff said.


Ian Billen

Ian Billen wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2010 at 3:13am:

I'm amazed at how some on this board think Stu was an official member of the band and Ronnie Wood isn't right now?? Lets try it again boys and girls: 1. No Ian Stewart wasn't an official member of the band The Rolling Stones (from 1963 and onward). 2. Yes Ronnie Wood was, and is... (finally in 1989 The Stones gave him all access besides just the title). It's really not that hard to open your eyes to.. -nuff said. Ian Billen

Ian after 45 plus years following this band I don't need a history lesson. I personally choose to consider Stu a member even though he never was. Can you handle that? As far as Ronnie well of course he is in and will be for some time and the thread only questioned his future status not the past. Why don't you stick to your incessant "are they" recording thread fantasies?

Gazza wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2010 at 5:21pm:

Edith Grove wrote on Jul 2nd, 2010 at 12:08pm: Gazza wrote on Jul 2nd, 2010 at 10:57am: gimmekeef wrote on Jul 2nd, 2010 at 8:57am: Gazza wrote on Jul 1st, 2010 at 5:56pm: steel driving hammer wrote on Jul 1st, 2010 at 11:45am: I know you don't just "leave" the Stones alive... Er..you do. No band member has ever died while still a Stone. Unless you count Stu. Of course Stu needs to count! his departure imo spead up the decline and he is missed more than many realize. Absolutely agree on that bit - although as far as being an official band member, he unfortunately wasnt... Exactly how is "official band member" defined, as it pertains to the Stones? I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but I'm thinking that Stu's high regard by the Glimmers, etc., probably had him on a payroll, and we know that he supported the Stones on stage and off, up until his death. Even though you didn't see Stu on album covers, concert posters, etc., I believe the Stones considered him a band member. Just my opinion. :smilestu Not party to signing band contracts, not a board member, not given a vote on band decisions, not given the same % as the other members. Four ways of evaluating whether someone is a 'band member' or not. the fact that they kept him not only on the payroll but gave him more of an exalted status for the rest of his life obviously indicates a lot of love and loyalty (although there wasnt much loyalty shown to him in 1963) and he's the only real candidate for the "Sixth Stone" status, but that still didnt make him a band member in the true sense of the word as far as the rest of them were concerned.

sad too, that it was beased on his looks and not his abilty... somehow, he rose above it... many, many musicians would've not played with them, been bitter and thought emotionally and not looking at the oppurtunity to have steady work, or possibilty of... since at the time, he would have no way of knowing this job would last for his life... Stu was a good guy and a smart guy and he also never held any visible resentments about these choices and decisions... a sign of his great character.

Ian Billen wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2010 at 3:13am:

I'm amazed at how some on this board think Stu was an official member of the band and Ronnie Wood isn't right now?? Lets try it again boys and girls: 1. No Ian Stewart wasn't an official member of the band The Rolling Stones (from 1963 and onward). 2. Yes Ronnie Wood was, and is... (finally in 1989 The Stones gave him all access besides just the title). It's really not that hard to open your eyes to.. -nuff said. Ian Billen

Not quite correct. Ronnie is a band member in the sense that he gets equal status for touring and record releases etc (this was not the case until the early 90s because when he joined in 1976 he chose to take a salary instead of a percentage, presumably thinking like most people that the band wouldnt be around for decades to come) - but when it comes to the rights to the band name, royalties in the event of the death of any of the band members, its a different matter.

This all comes under the umbrella group Promogroup BV - the shareholder of Promogroup BV is a foundation called Stichting Administratiekantoor Herengracht Amsterdam. The only three chairmen of this foundation are Mick Jagger, Keith Richards and Charlie Watts.

There are various other sub-companies such as  Promotone, Promotour, Promopub, Promotone, Musidor etc - in which all four band members are CEO's - these companies deal with things like publishing (Promopub, although obviously most publishing goes to Mick and Keith), copyright issues (Musidor) etc.

Gazza wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2010 at 3:57pm:

Ian Billen wrote on Jul 3rd, 2010 at 3:13am: I'm amazed at how some on this board think Stu was an official member of the band and Ronnie Wood isn't right now?? Lets try it again boys and girls: 1. No Ian Stewart wasn't an official member of the band The Rolling Stones (from 1963 and onward). 2. Yes Ronnie Wood was, and is... (finally in 1989 The Stones gave him all access besides just the title). It's really not that hard to open your eyes to.. -nuff said. Ian Billen Not quite correct. Ronnie is a band member in the sense that he gets equal status for touring and record releases etc (this was not the case until the early 90s because when he joined in 1976 he chose to take a salary instead of a percentage, presumably thinking like most people that the band wouldnt be around for decades to come) - but when it comes to the rights to the band name, royalties in the event of the death of any of the band members, its a different matter. This all comes under the umbrella group Promogroup BV - the shareholder of Promogroup BV is a foundation called Stichting Administratiekantoor Herengracht Amsterdam. The only three chairmen of this foundation are Mick Jagger, Keith Richards and Charlie Watts. There are various other sub-companies such as  Promotone, Promotour, Promopub, Promotone, Musidor etc - in which all four band members are CEO's - these companies deal with things like publishing (Promopub, although obviously most publishing goes to Mick and Keith), copyright issues (Musidor) etc.

the business end of it, makes my rock n roll erection go away...

Quote:

the business end of it, makes my rock n roll erection go away...

maybe you could pump afresh....

maybe keith and mick could advise...

What I do know is that Ronnie is currently enjoying the Wimbledon final. He was actually caught on camera while having a sip of water. Unless he put some vodka in the bottle of course.

I know they'll all get together and call themselves The Rolling Stones again...

Yeah Ronnie is still in the band ~ but MICK did warn him to sober up. So if he follows MICK's orders he will remain with the band, but if Ronnie fvcks up, MICK will put the band ahead of Ronnie, any day of the week. There's no great loyalty there. So far Ronnie is managing to make a good impression of sobering up, but we all know how quickly and drastically that can change. So I would say the ultimatum has been given to Ronnie and yes, he chose to stay sober and keep his job!