For what its worth..........


gimmekeef wrote on Nov 4^th, 2010 at 1:54pm:

Stones plot album, tour in '11 By WENN.COM The Rolling Stones (WENN.COM file photo) Keith Richards has confirmed the Rolling Stones are preparing to head back to the studio to record a new album, which will be followed by a 2011 tour. The veteran rockers have stepped away from the spotlight since they completed their 144-date A Bigger Bang trek in 2007, which remains the highest grossing concert tour of all time, while their album of the same name was released in 2005. Rumours of a Rolling Stones resurgence have been rife in recent months, and guitarist Richards has now confirmed the musicians will start recording sessions next month. He tells BBC 6 Music, "Everybody's ready to go out there again. Who said it should stop, and who said when? Only we will know when it comes to an end, with a crashing halt... After these many years working together, we have a lot of unfinished stuff to work on that we had to leave off the last album. "And knowing Mick, as I do, he's a very prolific writer. I have ideas (too) and we'll put them together in December or January. We're looking forward to working."

yer quoting yerself?

should i join the fan club?
should i fix myself a drink?
should i twist one? two?
should i fire up the palomino?
should i re-finance?
should i look for a good divorce attorney?
should i buy stock in tarps?

mojoman wrote on Nov 4^th, 2010 at 2:04pm:

yer quoting yerself? should i join the fan club? should i fix myself a drink? should i twist one? two? should i fire up the palomino? should i re-finance? should i look for a good divorce attorney? should i buy stock in tarps?

lol..yeah I screwed up when I tried to update my original post..........be the first time I have ever been quoted trust me on that!

[[[TINGLE TINGLE]]]]}

In Holland it was on the news this evening. Keith has said for the BBC that next year a new tour will begin. Nothing about a new album.

gimmekeef wrote on Nov 4^th, 2010 at 2:06pm:

mojoman wrote on Nov 4th, 2010 at 2:04pm: yer quoting yerself? should i join the fan club? should i fix myself a drink? should i twist one? two? should i fire up the palomino? should i re-finance? should i look for a good divorce attorney? should i buy stock in tarps? lol..yeah I screwed up when I tried to update my original post..........be the first time I have ever been quoted trust me on that!

Best GK ever. :interestingstuffronnie

Yes he did say it on the BBC.  Heard it with me own ears!  

I Just Soiled Meself !!!!!! :


" While Richards expects the Rolling Stones to tour in 2011, he says that the group may hit the studio before that. "After these many years working together, we have a lot of unfinished stuff to work on that we had to leave off the last album," says Richards. "And knowing Mick, as I do, he's a very prolific writer. And I have ideas, and we'll put them together in December or January, something like that... We're looking forward to working."


Joey all GIDDY !!!!!!!!!!!!!   :


http://www.billboard.com/#/news/keith-richards-rolling-stones-ready-to-tour-1004125439.story?tag=hpfeed

http://creative.ak.fbcdn.net/v41818/flyers/78/14/1287687239142395987_1_3f6b9cf3.jpg

This is The Best News today Is it True

Listening to the interview, did anyone else think it didnt sound definite, but probable.

eh!

paul wrote on Nov 5^th, 2010 at 3:38am:

Listening to the interview, did anyone else think it didnt sound definite, but probable.

Haven't heard it, but I do think this is the first time he actually gave a time frame of when they will start working, so it's very good to hear.

Maybe now that the Republicans are in charge they have more faith in ticket sales?  :aimama

Very strange, I really expected a whole more response on this topic, because I'm sure it's gonna happen. The whole pattern is the same as it has been for years. All kinds of activity by the Stones themselves, all kind of rumors, and BANG, a pressconference around april 2011 and it starts all over again. Who wants to bet?? It seems impossible, but I don't want to bet it will be their last tour.

Don't make tour plans yet:
No plans for Rolling Stones tour, says official spokesman
Despite Keith Richards telling BBC 6Music that 'everybody's ready to go', the Rolling Stones press spokesman says there are no concrete plans in place to tour or release a new album

Tim Jonze
guardian.co.uk, Friday 5 November 2010 15.27 GMT

A spokesman for the Rolling Stones has denied rumours that the band are due to tour in 2011.

The rumours were sparked after Keith Richards told BBC 6Music that "everybody's ready to go out there again".

However a statement from the band's press office issued today says: "There are no concrete plans for the Rolling Stones to tour. The same applies to rumours that they are going into the studio soon to record a new album."

During the BBC interview, Richards had said: "Who said it should stop, and who said when? Only we will know when it comes to an end, with a crashing halt." He also added: "We're looking forward to working."

Earlier this week, Richards was quoted as saying: "After these many years working together, we have a lot of unfinished stuff to work on that we had to leave off the last album. Knowing Mick [Jagger], as I do, he's a very prolific writer. I have ideas [too] and we'll put them together in December or January." However, it has been stressed by the band's official spokesman that none of these plans are confirmed as yet.

The Rolling Stones will celebrate their 50th anniversary in 2012.

I was all-a-thrilled when i read it HERE...but i did hear the news today
on one of the SIRIUS channels...Spectrum...or LSUG...can't recall...it really
sounded official once I heard it on the airwaves...or rather  space frequencies...

Is it just me or has anyone noticed, in a lot of news articles the person they quote is always, A)A spokesman B) The neighbor C) A close friend...etc

Not in just RS articles, but in many articles...the quoted source seems to never have a name, thus it makes you wonder if they just invent these articles?

Bingo wrote on Nov 5^th, 2010 at 7:49pm:

Is it just me or has anyone noticed, in a lot of news articles the person they quote is always, A)A spokesman B) The neighbor C) A close friend...etc Not in just RS articles, but in many articles...the quoted source seems to never have a name, thus it makes you wonder if they just invent these articles?

It is just you...and everyone else

Bingo wrote on Nov 5^th, 2010 at 7:49pm:

Is it just me or has anyone noticed, in a lot of news articles the person they quote is always, A)A spokesman B) The neighbor C) A close friend...etc Not in just RS articles, but in many articles...the quoted source seems to never have a name, thus it makes you wonder if they just invent these articles?

Bingo!

I fear they will be roundly heckled in the press.

I am guessing they have got a load of unfinished/unworked numbers or bits and Don Was or whoever is producing is going to have to sift through it with them to see what got and what they can come up with.

Possibly this time isn't so much a "start fresh" (stemming from what either of the two brought in from the past odd months as usually happens before). Maybe, they are going to go back farther to dig up unfinished ideas they had together on some previous albums as well this time and put the best of the new things and older revamped/upworked stuff together to the album.

Only a concept (kinda like the way Tattoo You was proposed).

Ian

they are supposed to give us a deluxe version of some girls, and work on new/old stuff ad tour? I think Charlie is going to fix the economy and bring stabilty to the mid-east. I have big wishes and low expectations.

" I fear they will be roundly heckled in the press  "


<   ---- I fear poor ticket sales once again in the Detriot area !!!!


Me too Lil' Fella ( Little Fijkins  .... oh   , ...Little Fiji   ... Lil'    .... Little Fiji )

Bingo wrote on Nov 5^th, 2010 at 7:49pm:

Is it just me or has anyone noticed, in a lot of news articles the person they quote is always, A)A spokesman B) The neighbor C) A close friend...etc Not in just RS articles, but in many articles...the quoted source seems to never have a name, thus it makes you wonder if they just invent these articles?

In my experience that only happens in tabloid and gossip papers like TMZ, People, US weekly, etc..

Bingo wrote on Nov 5^th, 2010 at 7:49pm:

Is it just me or has anyone noticed, in a lot of news articles the person they quote is always, A)A spokesman B) The neighbor C) A close friend...etc Not in just RS articles, but in many articles...the quoted source seems to never have a name, thus it makes you wonder if they just invent these articles?

________________________________


Oh come on I know....

In addition, to these websites or papered outlets not ever mentioning the name ...further ...how is this person affiliated and/or what way are they an official representation of the band??

I have one:

Against much talk, a spokesperson for the band reports The Rolling Stones are proposing their next tour, now slated to start as early as January, 2011, are planning to host every other show completely free of charge. This proposal is said to be a grand gesture of gratification to the entertainment industry, and music fans alike. The source goes on to say "The Rolling Stones are very much involved and in support of their next experimental musical venture, which includes distributing tickets at most public libraries next year without base pricing or ticket fees"...

See now that isn't so hard now is it...

Don't get me wrong. There are some instances in which an actual spokesperson is named, and it is stated as such. One out of 20 times it just may be factual. Realistically speaking, more often than not many, many (most mathematically) media outlets that are stating such snippets are simply filling pages or looking to gain following...

Why? Who is ever going to look into it? Who is actually going to confirm this? More to the point .... if the outlet is found to be "full of it" ....what is really going to be done about it? Especially for stating something so minimal... It is a short snippet and it's gone. If a really "credible" source such as Rolling Stone Magazine or MTV News states something it is has much weight. They have been misinformed here and again as well, but they, at least don't put out total BS simply to gain an audience... Why? because they have a reputation to protect and/or they would actually be worth suing if someone cared.


Ian

Ian Billen wrote on Nov 6^th, 2010 at 2:21pm:

Bingo wrote on Nov 5th, 2010 at 7:49pm: Is it just me or has anyone noticed, in a lot of news articles the person they quote is always, A)A spokesman B) The neighbor C) A close friend...etc Not in just RS articles, but in many articles...the quoted source seems to never have a name, thus it makes you wonder if they just invent these articles? ________________________________ Oh come on I know.... In addition, to these websites or papered outlets not ever mentioning the name ...further ...how is this person affiliated and/or what way are they an official representation of the band?? I have one: Against much talk, a spokesperson for the band reports The Rolling Stones are proposing their next tour, now slated to start as early as January, 2011, are planning to host every other show completely free of charge. This proposal is said to be a grand gesture of gratification to the entertainment industry, and music fans alike. The source goes on to say "The Rolling Stones are very much involved and in support of their next experimental musical venture, which includes distributing tickets at most public libraries next year without base pricing or ticket fees"... See now that isn't so hard now is it... Don't get me wrong. There are some instances in which an actual spokesperson is named, and it is stated as such. One out of 20 times it just may be factual. Realistically speaking, more often than not many, many (most mathematically) media outlets that are stating such snippets are simply filling pages or looking to gain following... Why? Who is ever going to look into it? Who is actually going to confirm this? More to the point .... if the outlet is found to be "full of it" ....what is really going to be done about it? Especially for stating something so minimal... It is a short snippet and it's gone. If a really "credible" source such as Rolling Stone Magazine or MTV News states something it is has much weight. They have been misinformed here and again as well, but they, at least don't put out total BS simply to gain an audience... Why? because they have a reputation to protect and/or they would actually be worth suing if someone cared. Ian

Ian, I thought you were the source...

Pdog wrote on Nov 6^th, 2010 at 6:52pm:

Ian Billen wrote on Nov 6th, 2010 at 2:21pm: Bingo wrote on Nov 5th, 2010 at 7:49pm: Is it just me or has anyone noticed, in a lot of news articles the person they quote is always, A)A spokesman B) The neighbor C) A close friend...etc Not in just RS articles, but in many articles...the quoted source seems to never have a name, thus it makes you wonder if they just invent these articles? ________________________________ Oh come on I know.... In addition, to these websites or papered outlets not ever mentioning the name ...further ...how is this person affiliated and/or what way are they an official representation of the band?? I have one: Against much talk, a spokesperson for the band reports The Rolling Stones are proposing their next tour, now slated to start as early as January, 2011, are planning to host every other show completely free of charge. This proposal is said to be a grand gesture of gratification to the entertainment industry, and music fans alike. The source goes on to say "The Rolling Stones are very much involved and in support of their next experimental musical venture, which includes distributing tickets at most public libraries next year without base pricing or ticket fees"... See now that isn't so hard now is it... Don't get me wrong. There are some instances in which an actual spokesperson is named, and it is stated as such. One out of 20 times it just may be factual. Realistically speaking, more often than not many, many (most mathematically) media outlets that are stating such snippets are simply filling pages or looking to gain following... Why? Who is ever going to look into it? Who is actually going to confirm this? More to the point .... if the outlet is found to be "full of it" ....what is really going to be done about it? Especially for stating something so minimal... It is a short snippet and it's gone. If a really "credible" source such as Rolling Stone Magazine or MTV News states something it is has much weight. They have been misinformed here and again as well, but they, at least don't put out total BS simply to gain an audience... Why? because they have a reputation to protect and/or they would actually be worth suing if someone cared. Ian Ian, I thought you were the source...

___________________________________



Which is my point exactly... unless you read the news at my personal website:
(  http://albumproduction.com   ) you know it is basically rubbish....


Ian