http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/rolling-stones-plan-london-jam-session-20111109


hopefully Mick will join em

Dooesn't Keith usually go to Jamaica during the cold months ?

It's about time.

far out!

With the utmost respect, this sums it up for me:

http://www.passionatehomemaking.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/woman-in-prayer.jpg

Starbuck will be unable to top this as post of the year.

Well, just THREE of them are getting together - saying that, thats not an unusual thing to do in the early stages of any band project (awaits Contact Music's 'spin' on the story which will be along the lines that they're making a record without Mick.....  :forfucksake )

The good sign is that there's an intent to work together. THAT wouldnt happen if there wasn't a plan that something will happen in 2012. Clearly they're aware of the risk of being too rusty when they do.

Nice little insight by Keith on how he and Mick went through the Some Girls outtakes - and a very promising sign of things to come from Don Was.... as long as Mick doesnt start putting 2012 vocals on 1968 outtakes....

Gazza wrote on Nov 9^th, 2011 at 11:45am:

Well, just THREE of them are getting together - saying that, thats not an unusual thing to do in the early stages of any band project (awaits Contact Music's 'spin' on the story which will be along the lines that they're making a record without Mick.....  :forfucksake ) The good sign is that there's an intent to work together. THAT wouldnt happen if there wasn't a plan that something will happen in 2012. Clearly they're aware of the risk of being too rusty when they do. Nice little insight by Keith on how he and Mick went through the Some Girls outtakes - and a very promising sign of things to come from Don Was.... as long as Mick doesnt start putting 2012 vocals on 1968 outtakes....

It's raining cold hard facts up in here. :wtf2

its over is just revo sti spelled backwards.

The Some Girls and Exile ­reissues might only be the beginning: Was wants to tackle Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed or Sticky Fingers soon. "There's so much material," he says. "If they never went in the studio again, you could have a new Stones album every year for the next 50 years, and it would all be good."

So, get on with it already.

Nellcote wrote on Nov 9^th, 2011 at 1:39pm:

The Some Girls and Exile ­reissues might only be the beginning: Was wants to tackle Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed or Sticky Fingers soon. "There's so much material," he says. "If they never went in the studio again, you could have a new Stones album every year for the next 50 years, and it would all be good." So, get on with it already.

Hendrix is a good exemple !

Gazza wrote on Nov 9^th, 2011 at 11:45am:

Well, just THREE of them are getting together - saying that, thats not an unusual thing to do in the early stages of any band project (awaits Contact Music's 'spin' on the story which will be along the lines that they're making a record without Mick.....  :forfucksake ) The good sign is that there's an intent to work together. THAT wouldnt happen if there wasn't a plan that something will happen in 2012. Clearly they're aware of the risk of being too rusty when they do. Nice little insight by Keith on how he and Mick went through the Some Girls outtakes - and a very promising sign of things to come from Don Was.... as long as Mick doesnt start putting 2012 vocals on 1968 outtakes....

_______________________________


Well.. not to start the age old debate again, however I'd say there is now definitely a plan to record. It is ridiculously too early to simply be wanting to start to rehearse some stuff for a possible tour or some live shows next year. As well ... if they were only wanting to jam a bit, they really wouldn't need to rent a studio to do such. As well, you can bet the bottom dollar these jam sessions will ALL be recorded with D. Was there... so I know hes hoping/ or already knows it is to go down one way or another. Sounds quite promising for some new material.

As well ... people bitch about Don Was constantly and how they wish they would find someone eles. Well first let's look at what the guy has been able to carry them through. Voodoo, Stripped, the temperate/disagreements of Bridges to Babylon, Licks singles, a back to basics album recorded primarily at Mr. Jagger's house. All the studio albums are high quality ... and ............ with the request of The Stones and the record company he has walked them through the new Exile project and this Some Girls re-release.

. . . . .Now he wants to do the whole set including Let It Bleed, Beggars, and Sticky fingers in due time.


Really, how can you bitch? ...



Ian

Gazza wrote on Nov 9^th, 2011 at 11:45am:

Well, just THREE of them are getting together - saying that, thats not an unusual thing to do in the early stages of any band project (awaits Contact Music's 'spin' on the story which will be along the lines that they're making a record without Mick.....  :forfucksake ) The good sign is that there's an intent to work together. THAT wouldnt happen if there wasn't a plan that something will happen in 2012. Clearly they're aware of the risk of being too rusty when they do. Nice little insight by Keith on how he and Mick went through the Some Girls outtakes - and a very promising sign of things to come from Don Was.... as long as Mick doesnt start putting 2012 vocals on 1968 outtakes....

_______________________________________



Incidentally and with respect, (and not to attempt to put words in your mouth), but I gotta say, I am "assuming" here ..but I "think" you like Don Was producing the Stones Mr. Gazza. ..(the only reason I mention you is because as I understand it you never really give your opinion on him that I can recall). Are you satisfied with the actual studio work with them (though it hasn't been steady) and what is your take on him? <simply curious>


Ian

This is always welcome news!  Charlie Watts and his guitar friends will jam a bit to get ready for the arrival of his lead singer.

This is the part I liked the most

The Some Girls and Exile ­reissues might only be the beginning: Was wants to tackle Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed or Sticky Fingers soon. "There's so much material," he says. "If they never went in the studio again, you could have a new Stones album every year for the next 50 years, and it would all be good."

"If they never went in the studio again, you could have a new Stones album every year for the next 50 years, and it would all be good."
It also wouldn't sell worth a damn.

lets all jerk off at once.  :aimama :perverted :kissmyass. together is better than not together. Oh by the way the official jerk off is 11/13/11 at 11:36 PM. EST. But there may be a delay. In which it will be moved to 11/14/11 at 1:48 AM EST.  :Youmakeagrownmancrylikejoey

sweetcharmedlife wrote on Nov 9^th, 2011 at 4:51pm:

" It also wouldn't sell worth a damn.

What does anymore?

That article is the most positive news we've had on the future of the band yet!

Makes my unpacking process much happier...can dream of a Stones album and tour!

Edith Grove wrote on Nov 9^th, 2011 at 10:36am:

Dooesn't Keith usually go to Jamaica during the cold months ?

Turks & caicos..or wherever the hell it is he goes these days. But he's usually in or around London at this time of the year. Last year he was there for his book signing plus the Stones' band meeting soon afterwards.

Ian Billen wrote on Nov 9^th, 2011 at 2:58pm:

Gazza wrote on Nov 9th, 2011 at 11:45am: Well, just THREE of them are getting together - saying that, thats not an unusual thing to do in the early stages of any band project (awaits Contact Music's 'spin' on the story which will be along the lines that they're making a record without Mick.....  :forfucksake ) The good sign is that there's an intent to work together. THAT wouldnt happen if there wasn't a plan that something will happen in 2012. Clearly they're aware of the risk of being too rusty when they do. Nice little insight by Keith on how he and Mick went through the Some Girls outtakes - and a very promising sign of things to come from Don Was.... as long as Mick doesnt start putting 2012 vocals on 1968 outtakes.... _______________________________________ Incidentally and with respect, (and not to attempt to put words in your mouth), but I gotta say, I am "assuming" here ..but I "think" you like Don Was producing the Stones Mr. Gazza. ..(the only reason I mention you is because as I understand it you never really give your opinion on him that I can recall). Are you satisfied with the actual studio work with them (though it hasn't been steady) and what is your take on him? <simply curious> Ian

I've no opinion on him one way or the other, Ian. Its not something I've really given much thought about. They know what they're looking for far better than we do.

There's no guarantee that any producer can make a good record with any act. People throw names around like confetti. Jack White, Rick Rubin, etc. They may indeed help make a great record. They may, in turn, just as easily end up making an awful one. You just dont know. The bottom line is whether the songs are good enough. I dont really care who produces them.

I'm thinking what song the opener will be.

Warhorse?

Well, Ian got them thinking about Satisfaction . . .

Voodoo Chile in Wonderland wrote on Nov 9^th, 2011 at 4:00pm:

This is the part I liked the most The Some Girls and Exile ­reissues might only be the beginning: Was wants to tackle Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed or Sticky Fingers soon. "There's so much material," he says. "If they never went in the studio again, you could have a new Stones album every year for the next 50 years, and it would all be good."

When Tattoo You came out, an older friend told me this, almost word for word... I really couldn't imagine so much recorded and unreleased music at the time, but now I have learned, just hoe much there is...

steel driving hammer wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 7:08am:

I'm thinking what song the opener will be. Warhorse?

maybe a new song!!! recycled riffs with new lrics and a beat... I would suggest Mich use "get the juices flowing" as a template lyric to get him started on writing a song.

TomL wrote on Nov 9^th, 2011 at 4:58pm:

lets all jerk off at once.  :aimama :perverted :kissmyass. together is better than not together. Oh by the way the official jerk off is 11/13/11 at 11:36 PM. EST. But there may be a delay. In which it will be moved to 11/14/11 at 1:48 AM EST.  :Youmakeagrownmancrylikejoey

I masturbate so much, you pretty much can be assured, we are doing it at the same time any time you do it...

Sympathy for the opener?

I just came across this:

http://www.nme.com/news/the-rolling-stones/60304

Pdog wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 7:41am:

steel driving hammer wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 7:08am: I'm thinking what song the opener will be. Warhorse? maybe a new song!!! recycled riffs with new lrics and a beat... I would suggest Mich use "get the juices flowing" as a template lyric to get him started on writing a song.

Yeah maybe a new song that's been left in the can or Blondie Champlin have given them.

Stones got what they need, they just need to stop having too much fun w/ all that $ n' get back to work.

It's gonna be interesting.

Times running out and I don't think Keith can play much, hence Blondie's guitar might be turned up more.

They should open with Plundered My Soul.

http://youtu.be/ZO6g3PewKCk

 no idea how credible this source is, also says AC/DC is doing a stadium tour next summer with a show at Wembley.


http://rockerparis.blogspot.com/2011/11/rolling-stones-to-play-stade-de-france.html

Just after Keith Richards confirmed yesterday night that the band are planning to rehearse in a London studio later this month but more likely without Mick Jagger.

I've just been told that The Rolling Stones are planning to play @ Stade de France in Paris in Sept 2012.
Remember where you saw it first.

So I was up in my room, when I suddenly thought I should peek at what's going up in the world. I ran downstairs, mounted my scooter, turned on my computer and was pretty happy to find out that Mick Jagger and the Rollin' Stones are getting back together! This made me 'howl at the moon', and it even aroused asthmatic breathing behind me. That's when I decided that I, like Prince, should be named after an unpronouncable symbol.

I think that Amy Winehouse should be the opening number.

my sources tell me they are meeting to rehearse Emotional Rescue.

Some Guy wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 1:49pm:

They should open with Plundered My Soul. http://youtu.be/ZO6g3PewKCk

I agree. :keithpunky

Plundered My Soul is the song I want them to open with. If they don't open with it, I want it on the B stage.

Steel Wheels wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 2:58pm:

Plundered My Soul is the song I want them to open with. If they don't open with it, I want it on the B stage.

You will get Start Me up...and like it!

gimmekeef wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 3:19pm:

Steel Wheels wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 2:58pm: Plundered My Soul is the song I want them to open with. If they don't open with it, I want it on the B stage. You will get Start Me up...and like it!

You make a grown man cry....and shit liquid. :will-ya

gimmekeef wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 3:19pm:

Steel Wheels wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 2:58pm: Plundered My Soul is the song I want them to open with. If they don't open with it, I want it on the B stage. You will get Start Me up...and like it!

that made me laugh; adding years to my life.

Steel Wheels wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 2:58pm:

Plundered My Soul is the song I want them to open with. If they don't open with it, I want it on the B stage.

Great choice.

Am I the only one who would like them to ditch the b-stage as its become a bit of a wasted opportunity in terms of song choices , half the crowd have their back to it making it a buzz-killer and the sound tends to be shit for 15 minutes?

It was great when they used to use it to play stuff like Little Red Rooster, Dead Flowers, Midnight Rambler, Little Queenie etc, but its a bit silly to fill it full of songs like Honky Tonk Women and Start Me Up.

If the Stones think the audience can only get excited having them 10 feet in front of them if they play a warhorse, then its pretty sad.

Its a part of the show thats been done to death IMO - there's no real element of surprise to it anymore musically.

Gazza wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 4:10pm:

Steel Wheels wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 2:58pm: Plundered My Soul is the song I want them to open with. If they don't open with it, I want it on the B stage. Great choice. Am I the only one who would like them to ditch the b-stage as its become a bit of a wasted opportunity in terms of song choices , half the crowd have their back to it making it a buzz-killer and the sound tends to be shit for 15 minutes? It was great when they used to use it to play stuff like Little Red Rooster, Dead Flowers, Midnight Rambler, Little Queenie etc, but its a bit silly to fill it full of songs like Honky Tonk Women and Start Me Up.

I agree and disagree...I think it is wasted in a stadium...but very effective and alot of fun for an arena...Heck...I wish they had a stage set up like Prince had/has on his Welcome2America "tour".

He uses 75% of the floor space and uses it well...and EVERYBODY has a great seat!!!

And yes...those are bistro tables w/ cocktail service during the show...that's what $500.00 gets you...otherwise you paid $20-105.00 for the rest of the house.


http://www.drfunkenberry.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/taylor.jpg

Tingle tingle tingle.

A very exciting development from our heros.

As for openers, I have said it before and I will say it again.

If they do not open with Sympathy, they will have blown the rock & roll opportunity of all time.

You want a rocker, that people know and that will charge them up, that captures the essence of the band, in all their naughty goodness.  You want a song that is visually striking, with fire and red Gibsons and devils and shit.

An opener should stick with you.
Remember how well Not Fade Away worked in 1994 -- it just built up into a frenzy.
Imagine what they could do with Sympathy.

Open letter to the Stones -- Sympathy for the opener.
Satan says so...

nankerphelge wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 4:59pm:

Tingle tingle tingle. A very exciting development from our heros. As for openers, I have said it before and I will say it again. If they do not open with Sympathy, they will have blown the rock & roll opportunity of all time. You want a rocker, that people know and that will charge them up, that captures the essence of the band, in all their naughty goodness.  You want a song that is visually striking, with fire and red Gibsons and devils and shit. An opener should stick with you. Remember how well Not Fade Away worked in 1994 -- it just built up into a frenzy. Imagine what they could do with Sympathy. Open letter to the Stones -- Sympathy for the opener. Satan says so...

you make a good case, I had video and audio dreams of this, and it was amazing... lights and drums and frenzy... someone even pee'd themselves!

Hopefully they won't play Sympathy at all if they do it at all like they did on the last tour.

But it looks like they might have toyed with the idea last tour.

http://www.iorr.org/tour05/toronto.htm

I'm firmly in the Doubter's Corner on this one.  I just don't see it happening.  

Paranoid Android wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 4:57pm:

I agree and disagree...I think it is wasted in a stadium...but very effective and alot of fun for an arena...Heck...I wish they had a stage set up like Prince had/has on his Welcome2America "tour". He uses 75% of the floor space and uses it well...and EVERYBODY has a great seat!!! And yes...those are bistro tables w/ cocktail service during the show...that's what $500.00 gets you...otherwise you paid $20-105.00 for the rest of the house. http://www.drfunkenberry.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/taylor.jpg

Yeah, that was a similar set up to the 02 shows he played (one of which some of us attended) when the Stones were in town the same week. I think the pricey tickets were around £250 - but the vast majority were £31.21 (about $50) and every seat was a really good one. Not easy to do in a 20,000 capacity arena.

Gazza wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 4:10pm:

Steel Wheels wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 2:58pm: Plundered My Soul is the song I want them to open with. If they don't open with it, I want it on the B stage. Great choice. Am I the only one who would like them to ditch the b-stage as its become a bit of a wasted opportunity in terms of song choices , half the crowd have their back to it making it a buzz-killer and the sound tends to be shit for 15 minutes? It was great when they used to use it to play stuff like Little Red Rooster, Dead Flowers, Midnight Rambler, Little Queenie etc, but its a bit silly to fill it full of songs like Honky Tonk Women and Start Me Up. If the Stones think the audience can only get excited having them 10 feet in front of them if they play a warhorse, then its pretty sad. Its a part of the show thats been done to death IMO - there's no real element of surprise to it anymore musically.

I agree 100% time to move on.....hopefully we don't have to worry about stadiums at all but if so my hunch is they will slap some red tongues onto a version of U2's claw stage......

I'm getting dizzy just thinking about them in concert again. I need a tour right now. I also want some classic covers - Chuck Berry comes to mind.

"Hopefully they won't play Sympathy at all "

A mind is a terrible thing to waste

nankerphelge wrote on Nov 11^th, 2011 at 6:00pm:

"Hopefully they won't play Sympathy at all " A mind is a terrible thing to waste

Those are my sentiments for SMU...not a good song to play for what may well be your last tour...

"If you start me up
If you start me up I'll never stop
Never stop, never stop, never stop"

my vote's in for Sympathy as an opener also--those congas get the bootie shakin, and then, yeah, those 'woo-woo's"

The Stones official twitter just changed its name to RollingStones50...
It's so fucking on next year!!!

I'm already dreaming of the stage, lighting etc...

But will it be bigger than the Bigger Bang?

Well if the Stones are playing in 2011 as the thread title says, we only have 7 weeks left till the end of the year, so it's impossible. Next year IS possible but you would think we would start to hear leaks from the venues and such. IMO there will be no major tour but some special dates to celebrate the 50 year Anniversary date, a TV special or somthing symbolic in the UK but not a grand scale tour. They would already have to plan the dates for that even a year in advance for the stadiums and arenas. I hope they do tour, but time is running out this year for sure.

They'll play in 11, not tour.

7 weeks and counting. Lets see if they will!

Bitch wrote on Nov 12^th, 2011 at 11:59am:

7 weeks and counting. Lets see if they will!

Keith, Ronnie and Charlie are going to play together. Not a show, just getting together in a rehearsal space. Keith was quoted as saying he knows Jagger will show up too. This is  just to feel the band out, jam and see if things good to go...

Lets hope Keef, Charlie & Woody get together and start practicing they dont need MICK for that.  MICK can save his voice until they are serious ready to call MICK, get him back and let him run the show. It could work, but MICK has to feel that he is calling the shots.

Keith Richards Inviting Bill Wyman and Mick Taylor to Rolling Stones Jam Sessions, Looks Back at 'Some Girls,' Heroin Addiction


When Keith Richards calls Spinner on a rainy Wednesday evening, he's in a jovial mood. The Rolling Stones are about to release a deluxe edition of their 1978 classic album 'Some Girls' on Nov. 21 and Keef recently revealed that he'll be jamming with bandmates Ronnie Wood and Charlie Watts in London, just to dust off their chops. The big question is still whether or not Mick Jagger will join them for a tour next year in honor of their 50th anniversary -- and if Richards has his way, the band will be out there, possibly with more than just the current lineup. In this candid interview, the rock legend speaks -- in his trademark warm, raspy way -- about the band's future, his memories of recording 'Some Girls,' his well-publicized heroin addiction, his 1977 arrest in Toronto for drug trafficking, the inspiration for 'Beast of Burden' and his award-winning memoir, 'Life.'

When do you start those jam sessions with Ronnie and Charlie?

The idea is to go in December. I said, "Jesus Christ, we haven't played together for a couple of years. We better get our chops together." So it basically is just like that, it's just a jam.

Are you planning on playing Stones songs or maybe just some blues jams?

Playing anything. I can't tell you. I'm not Nostradamus, my friend. I ain't telling you anything about that because I know nothing except we're just going to play.

Any sign of Mick coming?

Of course. I mean, everybody's welcome. I was going to ask Bill Wyman to come by too. And Mick Taylor. The whole lot. They're all Stones, you know? Why not?

So, with the 'Some Girls' reissue, how involved were you in digging through the archives?

Well, pretty much the same as Mick. We went with what we could find. It took us a while to actually find the master tapes, but after that it was pretty easy. 'Claudine,' I wished, and I think all of us did at the time, that that should have been on the original album, but there was some legal difficulties and stuff. But otherwise, she was a perfect 'Some Girl.' [Ed. note: The song deals with actress Claudine Longet, who was charged with fatally shooting her boyfriend and sentenced to 30 days in jail]

What memories of the recording sessions does this bring back? In your book, you talked about sleeping in the studio at some point and getting woken up by a police band who were also recording there.

Yeah, I did. But that was nothing really. I woke up with the police band playing [laughs]. I crept out as quietly as possible.

They were long sessions, some of them. I mean, we wouldn't start until midnight. It was just Paris. Everybody would have dinner first and then wind their way to the studio around midnight so then you would go on until whenever. For all I know, the sun was always up when I went out [laughs].

And you decided to do it as a live-band recording with minimal overdubs.

Yeah, it was a deliberate idea of Mick and I to strip the band back down to basics. And also, it was the first full album that I was doing with Ronnie, so we were all feeling our way in that respect. We were just getting into each other's way of playing on this stuff. To me, I remember it as a load of fun, but I'm sure some other people might have other ideas [laughs].

Was there natural connection between you and Ronnie?

Yeah, it was. That was one of the joys of it. Every session we'd go to, every day -- and we were there a long time -- Ronnie and I realized we were finding a way to play together. As Ronnie calls it, the ancient form of weaving. You don't know which guitar is doing what. And that's the joy of playing with two guitars or three, the interaction. I remember it as a fun album to make.

Even in spite of your trial for heroin trafficking in Toronto?

Oh, man, yeah. I mean, I think that's what actually made it more fun. Once I was in the studio, I could forget all the several indictments that were hanging over my head [laughs]. Just send them away. That's what music can do, I guess. At the same time, I was never particularly concerned about the outcome of any of these things. I just felt that the people wouldn't put me in jail, you know? [Laughs]

Did that add to urgency of the songs? A good portion of the album is fast and tense.

Yeah, I was thinking about it when I was listening to it the last few weeks. There might have been a sort of "better get this in before they put you in" [laughs]. There's nothing like the possibility of going to jail to really get you going.

That charge was really serious. Did you think at any point that this might have been the end for the Stones?

It could go either way, let's put it like that. I was prepared for one or the other, but I just had faith in the people out there. I might be dopey, but I was right.

And then you wrote a song about it, 'Before They Make Me Run.'

It came fairly easily. Once I got through the work in the bars and the stuff, it probably took me a week. I would sort of do a verse a day, slowly add to it. But I wasn't conscious of it being particularly autobiographical. I just thought it was an interesting story. But sometimes what's close to you, you don't see.

And it became an important track for you. You were there for five days working on it.

Yeah, my engineer nearly died. He got a medal for that one.

During these sessions, you were able to do some great work while using heroin.

Yeah, this was my last record on that stuff. It was an experiment that went on too long. But I was almost on the tail end of it when we were cutting this album. Although I've never felt ... it's kind of like when they talk about Charlie Parker and that saxophone players would go on the stuff because that's what they thought made Charlie Parker so great. It doesn't [make you] play any better. It just gives you a different point of view on things. And the biggest point of view is to get the hell out of here [laughs].

A lot of the songs were very inspired by New York. How much of that was your doing?

Mine and a lot of Mick's too. We were both living in the city for quite a while in '76 and '75, and hey, you know what the city's like -- it rubs off on you. We just happened to record it in Paris but I think we carried New York to Paris.

And the disco era came in with 'Miss You.'

Well, at the time, it was the disco beat. To me, it was like the twist or something. It was a variation on rhythm and blues grooves, and I really didn't think one way or the other about it. Mick was hitting the clubs a lot then so he was very much into that beat, the four on the floor and we just thought we'd give it a try. It wasn't like "Let's make a disco record." We don't arrive at decision in that way. It's "Hey, I heard this groove. Let's check this out." It just sort of happened.

Just like how you guys got into reggae.

Yeah, very much the same way. You fall into it. Suddenly you've got the feel for it and you want to know how it's done and you check it out. It's like Second Line, New Orleans music, straight rock 'n' roll: Every different beat is fodder [laughs].

What else about your life in New York do you feel got into this album?

You know, I've lived in New York quite a lot. I'm sort of an honorary member. I love the city, especially the Village. I record a lot down there, so I'm in and out of that joint all the time. I love the energy of New York. I'm recording with Steve Jordan, we're doing some Winos thing, [aka X-Pensive Winos, Keith's side project] just by ourselves. It's an interesting experiment.

What can you reveal about the project?

It's reminiscent of Winos but at the same time, it's 20 years on. How can you describe music? But there's some damn good stuff coming out. Steve and I are having a lot of fun and some great guys have been dropping by. Aaron Neville came by and did stuff, Ivan Neville came by.

Any chance you'll get Tom Waits to repay you for your work on his new album, 'Bad as Me'?

Oh, Tom, that was a great session. Did that in one afternoon down in Chinatown. I love working with Tom. You never know what he's going to hit you with. There is that element of "Come on, surprise me" between the two of us.

To get back to 'Some Girls,' I've read that you wrote 'Beast of Burden' as kind of a way to talk about the struggles you had with drugs in the '70s, as sort of an apology to Mick. Is that accurate?

Only to a point, because a lot of the song was written by Mick. I said, "This is called 'Beast of Burden'" and I gave him the first verse. That's the way we often work. "The song goes like this. Hey Mick, take it away." And he we would do amazing things with it. I mean, the impetus was from that stuff. but then I wanted Mick to get his input in. That's the beauty of songwriting.

Do you have a favorite track on the album?

Wow, man. That's rough, always when it comes to favorites. 'Beast of Burden' is probably the one that will come straight to mind. It has a great sound and I thought the band was playing really good. And the other thing I noticed about listening back to 'Some Girls' is how incredible Billy Wyman's bass playing is. Maybe it's because of the remixing and you hear it more but I was astounded by Bill's bass. I loved it. I miss the old sod.

When was the last time you spent time together?

I saw him last year I think, somewhere in London, briefly. We're in touch now and again. He sends me notes. Hey, maybe we'll still get together, you know?

How about Ronnie? Do you guys spend a lot of time together still?

Oh yeah, sure. My basic thing is that he, Charlie and I are going to work together. Just go in and see if we can warm our chops up. And of course everyone else is welcome. Mick Taylor's welcome. I don't see why everybody who was a Stone shouldn't be involved.

So what do you want to achieve with the 50th anniversary?

I want to pull it off. That, at the moment, is my task.

It must be somewhat of a logistical nightmare.

Well, we'll find out. I usually find that logistical nightmares can always be overcome if everyone wants to get together.

Ronnie's had his battles with sobriety, but I've read that you also quit drinking in support of him. Is that true?

As far as I know, he's been off of the stuff for about a year.

Is it true that you're off too?

I don't want to talk about it. I don't consider myself an alcoholic. I have a drink when I want to and that's it. I don't really think about it. It's other people that think about it, so I don't really want to talk about it.

You just won a Mailer Award for 'Life.' What was that like?

Oh, yes, I was with President Clinton. A great double act.

What's your relationship with him like?

We only meet infrequently. I happened to meet him down in the islands, Parrot Cay, because he had rented a house next door so I went by. We have a great time. Bill is all right. He plays sax, you know, and he's a pretty regular guy for being President.

Are you surprised at all the accolades for the book?

Yeah, that was astounding. I had no idea this book was going to such proportions. I figured there'd be some interest, obviously, but it's been astounding, yes. It's been award after award. I'm working the red carpets like a motherf---er.

Now that you're a best-selling offer, can we expect more writing from you?

I don't know. I might write one called 'Death.' [Laughs]






http://www.spinner.com/2011/11/17/keith-richards-rolling-stones-some-girls-interview/

I think I just wet myself. :smilemick  :nooslajaleisk

:keithpunky

Q: Does anyone remember the real story of Claudine? She shot her much younger boyfriend in the head in bed ~ or something like that ~ but where was it, Canada? I need a history lesson for this one, I can barely recall the news story. And did the Stones have any connection to Claudine ~ did they know her or was this song a social commentary?  Gazzapedia? Any Stones historian?  

From our old friend wikipedia:

"Longet was arrested and charged with fatally shooting her boyfriend, Olympic skier Vladimir "Spider" Sabich, at his Aspen, Colorado, home on 21 March 1976. At trial, Longet said the gun discharged accidentally as Sabich was showing her how it worked. Williams publicly supported Longet throughout the trial, even escorting her to and from the courthouse.

The Aspen police made two procedural errors that aided Longet's defense: Without warrants, they took a blood sample from her and confiscated her diary. According to prosecutors, the sample showed the presence of cocaine in her blood, and her diary reportedly contradicted her claim that her relationship with Sabich had not soured. In addition, the gun was mishandled by non-weapons experts. As they were unable to cite any of the disallowed material, prosecutors did use the autopsy report to suggest that when Sabich was struck he was bent over, facing away, and at least 1.80 m (6 ft) from Longet, which would be inconsistent with the position and relative distance of someone demonstrating the operation of a firearm.

The jury convicted her of a lesser charge — misdemeanor criminal negligence — and sentenced her to pay a small fine and spend 30 days in jail.[13] The judge allowed Longet to choose the days to be served, believing that this arrangement would allow her to spend the most time with her children. She chose to serve most of her sentence on weekends. (Critical reaction to the verdict and sentencing was exacerbated when she subsequently vacationed with her defense attorney, Ron Austin, who was married at the time; Longet and Austin later married and still live in Aspen.) After the criminal trial, the Sabich family initiated civil proceedings to sue Longet. The case was eventually resolved out of court, with the proviso that Longet never tell or write about her story."

Gazza wrote on Nov 17^th, 2011 at 3:56pm:

Keith Richards Inviting Bill Wyman and Mick Taylor to Rolling Stones Jam Sessions, Looks Back at 'Some Girls,' Heroin Addiction When Keith Richards calls Spinner on a rainy Wednesday evening, he's in a jovial mood. The Rolling Stones are about to release a deluxe edition of their 1978 classic album 'Some Girls' on Nov. 21 and Keef recently revealed that he'll be jamming with bandmates Ronnie Wood and Charlie Watts in London, just to dust off their chops. The big question is still whether or not Mick Jagger will join them for a tour next year in honor of their 50th anniversary -- and if Richards has his way, the band will be out there, possibly with more than just the current lineup. In this candid interview, the rock legend speaks -- in his trademark warm, raspy way -- about the band's future, his memories of recording 'Some Girls,' his well-publicized heroin addiction, his 1977 arrest in Toronto for drug trafficking, the inspiration for 'Beast of Burden' and his award-winning memoir, 'Life.' When do you start those jam sessions with Ronnie and Charlie? The idea is to go in December. I said, "Jesus Christ, we haven't played together for a couple of years. We better get our chops together." So it basically is just like that, it's just a jam. Are you planning on playing Stones songs or maybe just some blues jams? Playing anything. I can't tell you. I'm not Nostradamus, my friend. I ain't telling you anything about that because I know nothing except we're just going to play. Any sign of Mick coming? Of course. I mean, everybody's welcome. I was going to ask Bill Wyman to come by too. And Mick Taylor. The whole lot. They're all Stones, you know? Why not? So, with the 'Some Girls' reissue, how involved were you in digging through the archives? Well, pretty much the same as Mick. We went with what we could find. It took us a while to actually find the master tapes, but after that it was pretty easy. 'Claudine,' I wished, and I think all of us did at the time, that that should have been on the original album, but there was some legal difficulties and stuff. But otherwise, she was a perfect 'Some Girl.' [Ed. note: The song deals with actress Claudine Longet, who was charged with fatally shooting her boyfriend and sentenced to 30 days in jail] What memories of the recording sessions does this bring back? In your book, you talked about sleeping in the studio at some point and getting woken up by a police band who were also recording there. Yeah, I did. But that was nothing really. I woke up with the police band playing [laughs]. I crept out as quietly as possible. They were long sessions, some of them. I mean, we wouldn't start until midnight. It was just Paris. Everybody would have dinner first and then wind their way to the studio around midnight so then you would go on until whenever. For all I know, the sun was always up when I went out [laughs]. And you decided to do it as a live-band recording with minimal overdubs. Yeah, it was a deliberate idea of Mick and I to strip the band back down to basics. And also, it was the first full album that I was doing with Ronnie, so we were all feeling our way in that respect. We were just getting into each other's way of playing on this stuff. To me, I remember it as a load of fun, but I'm sure some other people might have other ideas [laughs]. Was there natural connection between you and Ronnie? Yeah, it was. That was one of the joys of it. Every session we'd go to, every day -- and we were there a long time -- Ronnie and I realized we were finding a way to play together. As Ronnie calls it, the ancient form of weaving. You don't know which guitar is doing what. And that's the joy of playing with two guitars or three, the interaction. I remember it as a fun album to make. Even in spite of your trial for heroin trafficking in Toronto? Oh, man, yeah. I mean, I think that's what actually made it more fun. Once I was in the studio, I could forget all the several indictments that were hanging over my head [laughs]. Just send them away. That's what music can do, I guess. At the same time, I was never particularly concerned about the outcome of any of these things. I just felt that the people wouldn't put me in jail, you know? [Laughs] Did that add to urgency of the songs? A good portion of the album is fast and tense. Yeah, I was thinking about it when I was listening to it the last few weeks. There might have been a sort of "better get this in before they put you in" [laughs]. There's nothing like the possibility of going to jail to really get you going. That charge was really serious. Did you think at any point that this might have been the end for the Stones? It could go either way, let's put it like that. I was prepared for one or the other, but I just had faith in the people out there. I might be dopey, but I was right. And then you wrote a song about it, 'Before They Make Me Run.' It came fairly easily. Once I got through the work in the bars and the stuff, it probably took me a week. I would sort of do a verse a day, slowly add to it. But I wasn't conscious of it being particularly autobiographical. I just thought it was an interesting story. But sometimes what's close to you, you don't see. And it became an important track for you. You were there for five days working on it. Yeah, my engineer nearly died. He got a medal for that one. During these sessions, you were able to do some great work while using heroin. Yeah, this was my last record on that stuff. It was an experiment that went on too long. But I was almost on the tail end of it when we were cutting this album. Although I've never felt ... it's kind of like when they talk about Charlie Parker and that saxophone players would go on the stuff because that's what they thought made Charlie Parker so great. It doesn't [make you] play any better. It just gives you a different point of view on things. And the biggest point of view is to get the hell out of here [laughs]. A lot of the songs were very inspired by New York. How much of that was your doing? Mine and a lot of Mick's too. We were both living in the city for quite a while in '76 and '75, and hey, you know what the city's like -- it rubs off on you. We just happened to record it in Paris but I think we carried New York to Paris. And the disco era came in with 'Miss You.' Well, at the time, it was the disco beat. To me, it was like the twist or something. It was a variation on rhythm and blues grooves, and I really didn't think one way or the other about it. Mick was hitting the clubs a lot then so he was very much into that beat, the four on the floor and we just thought we'd give it a try. It wasn't like "Let's make a disco record." We don't arrive at decision in that way. It's "Hey, I heard this groove. Let's check this out." It just sort of happened. Just like how you guys got into reggae. Yeah, very much the same way. You fall into it. Suddenly you've got the feel for it and you want to know how it's done and you check it out. It's like Second Line, New Orleans music, straight rock 'n' roll: Every different beat is fodder [laughs]. What else about your life in New York do you feel got into this album? You know, I've lived in New York quite a lot. I'm sort of an honorary member. I love the city, especially the Village. I record a lot down there, so I'm in and out of that joint all the time. I love the energy of New York. I'm recording with Steve Jordan, we're doing some Winos thing, [aka X-Pensive Winos, Keith's side project] just by ourselves. It's an interesting experiment. What can you reveal about the project? It's reminiscent of Winos but at the same time, it's 20 years on. How can you describe music? But there's some damn good stuff coming out. Steve and I are having a lot of fun and some great guys have been dropping by. Aaron Neville came by and did stuff, Ivan Neville came by. Any chance you'll get Tom Waits to repay you for your work on his new album, 'Bad as Me'? Oh, Tom, that was a great session. Did that in one afternoon down in Chinatown. I love working with Tom. You never know what he's going to hit you with. There is that element of "Come on, surprise me" between the two of us. To get back to 'Some Girls,' I've read that you wrote 'Beast of Burden' as kind of a way to talk about the struggles you had with drugs in the '70s, as sort of an apology to Mick. Is that accurate? Only to a point, because a lot of the song was written by Mick. I said, "This is called 'Beast of Burden'" and I gave him the first verse. That's the way we often work. "The song goes like this. Hey Mick, take it away." And he we would do amazing things with it. I mean, the impetus was from that stuff. but then I wanted Mick to get his input in. That's the beauty of songwriting. Do you have a favorite track on the album? Wow, man. That's rough, always when it comes to favorites. 'Beast of Burden' is probably the one that will come straight to mind. It has a great sound and I thought the band was playing really good. And the other thing I noticed about listening back to 'Some Girls' is how incredible Billy Wyman's bass playing is. Maybe it's because of the remixing and you hear it more but I was astounded by Bill's bass. I loved it. I miss the old sod. When was the last time you spent time together? I saw him last year I think, somewhere in London, briefly. We're in touch now and again. He sends me notes. Hey, maybe we'll still get together, you know? How about Ronnie? Do you guys spend a lot of time together still? Oh yeah, sure. My basic thing is that he, Charlie and I are going to work together. Just go in and see if we can warm our chops up. And of course everyone else is welcome. Mick Taylor's welcome. I don't see why everybody who was a Stone shouldn't be involved. So what do you want to achieve with the 50th anniversary? I want to pull it off. That, at the moment, is my task. It must be somewhat of a logistical nightmare. Well, we'll find out. I usually find that logistical nightmares can always be overcome if everyone wants to get together. Ronnie's had his battles with sobriety, but I've read that you also quit drinking in support of him. Is that true? As far as I know, he's been off of the stuff for about a year. Is it true that you're off too? I don't want to talk about it. I don't consider myself an alcoholic. I have a drink when I want to and that's it. I don't really think about it. It's other people that think about it, so I don't really want to talk about it. You just won a Mailer Award for 'Life.' What was that like? Oh, yes, I was with President Clinton. A great double act. What's your relationship with him like? We only meet infrequently. I happened to meet him down in the islands, Parrot Cay, because he had rented a house next door so I went by. We have a great time. Bill is all right. He plays sax, you know, and he's a pretty regular guy for being President. Are you surprised at all the accolades for the book? Yeah, that was astounding. I had no idea this book was going to such proportions. I figured there'd be some interest, obviously, but it's been astounding, yes. It's been award after award. I'm working the red carpets like a motherf---er. Now that you're a best-selling offer, can we expect more writing from you? I don't know. I might write one called 'Death.' [Laughs] http://www.spinner.com/2011/11/17/keith-richards-rolling-stones-some-girls-interview/

____________________________________



Are they "officially invited" and asked to participate or is Keith simply talkin possibilities and runnin at the mouth as he does from time to time? Hmmmmm?

Either way, they have to have something big planned, or have a big idea studio wise. Why rent a studio out and throw out the notion of the thought of inviting everyone if they simply want to jam? I do not buy it for a minute. It has been twenty years since Bill Wyman played with The Stones and like thirty five years since Taylor has played with them (unless your counting his little Exile stay with them).

All the sudden Keith wants to rent a studio out and invite everyone to play together to.... "jam" ..... and in order to supposedly get their chops down for a tour that might not happen and if it does isn't probably until next fall... That is a hell of a lot of rehearsal time......

I am not buying it for a second. Something major is planned already studio wise, and/or will come out of these sessions studio wise.



Ian

Extremely interesting, me thinks. He mentions Wyman and Taylor twice in the interview and he sounds really warm about it too. I'm now 90% sure they're preparing some really big stuff for the 50 year anniversary, and all that 'just a jam session', well...  :nooslajaleisk

Favorite quote:

- Now that you're a best-selling offer, can we expect more writing from you?

I don't know. I might write one called 'Death.' [Laughs]

;D

Presumably the audio typist at spinner had some hearing difficulties. By 'offer', I'm sure they meant 'author'....  8-)

I can already see Taylor coming out on stage when they play Time Waits For No One...

It's going to be the biggest touring party on the planet, Ronnie.

Keith has mentioned a few times that Bill's playing has impressed him and now he is saying he misses him......I would love to hear Bill playing with the boys again anything else sounds weird to me now. HE wove in perfectly

I don't know if anything will come of it, but I pretty definitively see a change in Keith's post-Fiji attitude. I think he had a brush with death that was uncomfortably close even for Keith Richards. Add to that the mining of his past that he had to undertake for "Life," and you have a guy who's arriving at a certain peace.

He talks about Wyman very warmly here. He said, in the "Exile"-reissue coverage, that if he'd had his way, Mick Taylor would still be in the band. There's no more "You don't leave this band except in a box"-kind of bluster. Now, "they're all Rolling Stones"!

The squabbling with Mick that resulted from the "Life" publication was, in a way, retroactive. It was sparked by Keith revisiting his headspace circa 1985. It's not how he feels now—hence all the pr smooches he's sending Mick's way lately.

The guy's pushing 70, and he's finally growing up :)

He said...I was going to invite Wyman and Taylor....not....I invited them.....so again it's all a Keef spin until somehting happens ..or it doesn't.

in the video for Brussels KR talks about how hot the band is....why wouldn't he want access to those players again?

Bitch wrote on Nov 12^th, 2011 at 11:13pm:

Lets hope Keef, Charlie & Woody get together and start practicing they dont need MICK for that.  MICK can save his voice until they are serious ready to call MICK, get him back and let him run the show. It could work, but MICK has to feel that he is calling the shots.

at this point, they need Mick, he may be the best guitar player in the band...
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

steel driving hammer wrote on Nov 18^th, 2011 at 8:08am:

I can already see Taylor coming out on stage when they play Time Waits For No One... It's going to be the biggest touring party on the planet, Ronnie.

Taylor is a mess, his playing of recent has been bad, his drinking is heavy as well as his weight and this makes for very poor health... Taylor would be nice, but remember, he has declined more than Keith has...

Thanks SoulPlunderer!

Nice post Mel!

Lots of good posting here, and so the excitement builds towards the 50 year mark!

Yay!  Something to look forward to!

i saw Mick t. a couple years ago and his playing was fantastic.  Very next night he "got sick" and cancelled the remaining dates!!  Guy does seem to have issues...

Keith is working the PR machine big-time.  I think he's attempting to show Mick he can handle some of the "responsibility" of getting something going for the 50th.  It's never too late.  this is gonna be great

luxury wrote on Nov 19^th, 2011 at 5:46am:

i saw Mick t. a couple years ago and his playing was fantastic.  Very next night he "got sick" and cancelled the remaining dates!!  Guy does seem to have issues... Keith is working the PR machine big-time.  I think he's attempting to show Mick he can handle some of the "responsibility" of getting something going for the 50th.  It's never too late.  this is gonna be great

let's hope this could be good for mich t. as well as us fans... it would be special, but it could also be pathetic, if they trot him out and it's awkward b/c he's not taking care of himself... This is a really great oppurtunity for healing on so many levels, and the band to really shine.
I have to wonder, if they can get Wyman back to tour, and I nkow it's a stretch... would they go Steel Wheels part two for him, and ditch the jets for trains... they could easily, since they all need days off, especially Jaggers, who can't do back to backs anymore. DJ on bass has been ok, but we all know Bill has some depth and style that no one can duplicate. Especially if they record... Being able to really listen over the years of the catalog, I can hear how much he mattered... When he left, that bottom end just didn't ever have that punch and deepness he can bring... Let's go Amtrak or whatever trains are called!!!

dadrob wrote on Nov 18^th, 2011 at 2:55pm:

in the video for Brussels KR talks about how hot the band is....why wouldn't he want access to those players again?

Because that was almost 40 years ago and their is no guarantee they can sound like that again.

Pdog wrote on Nov 19^th, 2011 at 7:06am:

I have to wonder, if they can get Wyman back to tour, and I nkow it's a stretch... would they go Steel Wheels part two for him, and ditch the jets for trains... they could easily, since they all need days off, especially Jaggers, who can't do back to backs anymore. DJ on bass has been ok, but we all know Bill has some depth and style that no one can duplicate. Especially if they record... Being able to really listen over the years of the catalog, I can hear how much he mattered... When he left, that bottom end just didn't ever have that punch and deepness he can bring... Let's go Amtrak or whatever trains are called!!!

Thats simply more hassle than its worth for the whole band. Bill included.

Its also not going to make any significant difference in ticket sales.

Two decades on and in his mid 70s, Bill just isnt going to become suddenly interested on trekking around the world with the Stones again.

Although this isn't exactly late breaking news but now the thought is actually getting "serious":

INCREDIBLY ... Bill Wyman is actually seriously thinking about touring with The Stones again as has been the talk!!!! As well, they are contemplating the notion as well. Mick Taylor is also in serious considerations...


Keith wants a full scale tour and is wanting to write with Mick for new material to go along with it . More-over with material he has been saving/working on was/is for a possible Winos tour.

**Realistically... where on earth would a Winos release, and full recording fit in?? I mean.. it's getting awful late for a Winos thing because ya can't have that released right before a major Stones doing next year. It would be pretty counter-productive. Besdies... once they all get together, I doubt they will break to go onto other side projects. It is getting toward the end of the year and there are time constraints... they all know that. Again... my guess is they are going to make an album or release "something" brand new studio wise in one way or another for this ordeal. The notion everyone always seems to have about them having no interest in writing and recording together anymore is bullocks. In fact, that is very much an option on the table right now.


From Rolling Stone Magazine today:

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/stones-near-decision-on-50th-anniversary-shows-20111123


Ian

WORK IT OUT DHARLINS'

GiVing Thanks

Sorry If this has already been posted.

Stones Near Decision on 50th Anniversary Shows
Tour could be the biggest of all time – but do Mick and Keith want to do it?
Comment 8
By Patrick Doyle
November 23, 2011 11:30 AM ET
http://assets.rollingstone.com/assets/images/story/stones-near-decision-on-50th-anniversary-shows-20111123/1000x306/main.jpg
Keith Richards and Mick Jagger perform during the 'A Bigger Bang' world tour.

Dave Hogan/Getty Images

Mick Jagger and Keith Richards will meet in December to decide how the Rolling Stones will celebrate next year's 50th anniversary, according to a top tour-industry source. "I don't see why in the world the Stones can't put together some kind of show next year," says Richards. "I'd almost count on it. It doesn't have to be the whole spectacle bullshit again, but we've got to find our own way through this."

"It is quite amazing when you think about it," Jagger adds. "Anything's possible."

A top source tells Rolling Stone that AEG Live, Live Nation and veteran Stones promoter Michael Cohl have already reached out about acquiring the band's anniversary tour, which has the potential to be the biggest of all time. "It would be a total home run," says the source.

The rock world is paying attention: "The Stones are iconic figures in Western society," says Sting. "I hope they'll stop bickering. I'd like to see them doing what they do." Adds Joe Perry, "I would love to see them just go and do arenas and have it be as stripped-down as possible, the way they did on the Exile tour – where they had the horn section and Ian Stewart playing keyboards. As close as they could get to that would be great."

Following a band meeting in September at the Stones' London office, Richards, guitarist Ronnie Wood and drummer Charlie Watts were set to convene in November to jam in London. "I would suggest a lot of blues in the beginning," says Richards. "That's where the band's roots are. We'll start playing some Jimmy Reed stuff and some Muddy Waters stuff and then things will blossom from there. It might bore Mick to death – and that's the idea. We're just going to go, and you start from Day One. You've got the drums and a couple of guitars and you start hammering away.

"Mick is welcome," Richards adds. "I'm sure he'll turn up."

Richards' nasty, gossip-packed 2010 memoir, Life, painted an unrelentingly negative portrait of Jagger and his contributions to the Stones – straining the duo's relationship. "I think there's a healing process waiting to take place," Wood says. "I think it's happening now as we speak, but it has to be resolved. Something has to be resolved there. They have to come to terms with going on a working basis, which Charlie and I will help make happen. Wish me luck."

"That old healing process," says Stones saxophone player Bobby Keys with a laugh. "Boy, that is an ongoing process. But last time I was onstage with them, there was no blood lost. They always seem to work it out." Adds longtime friend Peter Wolf, "If one looks at the history of great collaborations, Gilbert and Sullivan didn't always have a good time at it, either. But once they choose to get together to work, that is usually the great healer."

Richards says he's up for another massive world stadium and arena run like 2005's Bigger Bang tour, but isn't sure Jagger wants to make such a large commitment. "I don't know about that," Richards says. "I don't think Mick would. We'd like to be ready to be able to do it if the idea starts to happen. I'd even invite Bill Wyman and Mick Taylor back in. Why not? It's 50 years. Everyone deserves a party."

Adds Jagger, "That'd be very complete if it all happened." Taylor and Wyman have both worked with the Stones recently: Taylor, who left the band in 1974 to pursue a solo career, contributed new guitar work on last year's Exile on Main St. box set, and Wyman, who departed in 1992, plays bass on a cover of Bob Dylan's "Watching the River Flow" that the band recorded for a 2011 tribute album to late keyboard player Ian Stewart. "I've been reading about the possibilities in the press, but Keith hasn't turned his lips in my direction yet," says Wyman. "Let's see what transpires over the next few weeks, and I can then make a serious decision. I've got my chops together, and I know that my mate Charlie has – so let's see if it ever happens."

One option some insiders floated has the band camping out for multinight runs in major cities. "I think the idea of doing multiple shows in certain cities – New York, L.A., maybe Chicago, maybe Atlanta – would be wonderful," says longtime keyboardist Chuck Leavell. Bobby Keys agrees: "In my fantasy of Rolling Stones gigs, I would like to see a gig that's centralized in one place: Let the people come to us instead of making all that traveling. That's always the main thing that bothers me about going on the road. It didn't used to, but hell, now we're all in our late sixties and shit, and it's just kind of a pain in the ass."

For its 40th anniversary in 2002, the band launched the massive Licks Tour, playing stadiums, arenas and small venues (sometimes all in the same city) and releasing a career retrospective with new songs. But this time around, there is no sign of new material. "I'm not writing for them right now," says Richards, who has been working on a solo project "reminiscent of early Chess records." "I'm cutting my own stuff with [producer and drummer] Steve Jordan," he says. "There's no point in writing for the Stones until I know that Mick Jagger's in. He could have every song I've ever written. They're all for him. If he doesn't like them – or if he poo-poos them – I take them somewhere else." Adds Wood, "I think we have so much back catalog that we would go out without new material, but then again one of the boys might go, 'No, I wouldn't dream of going out unless we have new material. I don't mind, really.'"

The band last played live together in August 2007 at London's O2 Arena, wrapping the two-year, $558 million Bigger Bang tour. "We were riding the top of the wave," says Wood. "I didn't want it to end." Since then, the Stones have been unusually busy: Jagger released an album with reggae-soul supergroup SuperHeavy; Richards published the bestselling Life; Watts toured with his longtime jazz group; and Wood released a solo album, exhibited paintings and hosted a U.K. classic-rock radio show. In between, the group went back into the studio to add new parts to outtakes included with the stellar Exile and Some Girls reissues.

For Jagger, probably the least-nostalgic Stone, the looming anniversary has him reflecting on just how far the band has come. "It's a very different group than the one that played 50 years ago," he says. "When I think about it, one part of me goes, 'We're slightly cheating,' because it's not the same band – still the same name, but it's only Keith and myself that are the same people, I think. I've tried to find out when Charlie's first gig was [but can't]. But it's an amazing achievement. It's fantastic and I'm very proud of it."

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/stones-near-decision-on-50th-anniversary-shows-20111123#ixzz1eZn3VRSM
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/stones-near-decision-on-50th-anniversary-shows-20111123?utm_source=dailynewsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter

I'm beginning to think the idea of Taylor and Wyman making at least select appearances next year is not so crazy. It's been mentioned by Keith more than once now, and even Mick seems to entertain it.

Mel Belli wrote on Nov 27^th, 2011 at 2:57pm:

I'm beginning to think the idea of Taylor and Wyman making at least select appearances next year is not so crazy. It's been mentioned by Keith more than once now, and even Mick seems to entertain it.

Well with Taylor set to write his own book soon. Not so sure how welcome he'd be after all.

sweetcharmedlife wrote on Nov 27^th, 2011 at 3:11pm:

Mel Belli wrote on Nov 27th, 2011 at 2:57pm: I'm beginning to think the idea of Taylor and Wyman making at least select appearances next year is not so crazy. It's been mentioned by Keith more than once now, and even Mick seems to entertain it. Well with Taylor set to write his own book soon. Not so sure how welcome he'd be after all.

If he writes books at the same pace that he releases studio albums ...

Gazza wrote on Nov 19^th, 2011 at 2:53pm:

Pdog wrote on Nov 19th, 2011 at 7:06am:  I have to wonder, if they can get Wyman back to tour, and I nkow it's a stretch... would they go Steel Wheels part two for him, and ditch the jets for trains... they could easily, since they all need days off, especially Jaggers, who can't do back to backs anymore. DJ on bass has been ok, but we all know Bill has some depth and style that no one can duplicate. Especially if they record... Being able to really listen over the years of the catalog, I can hear how much he mattered... When he left, that bottom end just didn't ever have that punch and deepness he can bring... Let's go Amtrak or whatever trains are called!!! Thats simply more hassle than its worth for the whole band. Bill included. Its also not going to make any significant difference in ticket sales. Two decades on and in his mid 70s, Bill just isnt going to become suddenly interested on trekking around the world with the Stones again.

_______________________________________________________

If this were five weeks ago I'd totally agree with you. However... if these reports of Wyman being some how on board and Wyman's and Keith/Micks comments on how they would entertain thinking about it and Wyman INCREDIBLY saying in so many words... all they have to do is ask... I gotta say, him recording, or playing in concert with The Rolling Stones is not so far off. The thought and odds of him on a wold tour is still minimal in my mind as well. Still... something could very well be in the making.. wow

>>>> Could it be that is why Keith and The Stones chose London to get together?? Do they have Bill in mind as a possibility?? It isn't a total stretch and it is something I never thought would be seriously considered by Wyman again... which it seems is..

Very much waiting to see what is up -


Ian

Mel Belli wrote on Nov 27^th, 2011 at 2:57pm:

I'm beginning to think the idea of Taylor and Wyman making at least select appearances next year is not so crazy. It's been mentioned by Keith more than once now, and even Mick seems to entertain it.

I agree. 50 years is incredible and I'm sure they'd want to do SOMETHING very special, especially since it will probably be the last time. I'd guess  they do a filmed performance with all the past Stones (if they're up for it) making an appearance as well as bunch of people they've played with and their influences who are still living. I see something very similar to what the Rock n' Roll hall of fame did in MSG.

Holden wrote on Nov 28^th, 2011 at 11:10am:

[ see something very similar to what the Rock n' Roll hall of fame did in MSG.

You might be onto something.

I think there will be a "tour" of some sort, but there will be some kind of extravaganza—a 10-night stand, with an assortment of special guests, etc.—that anchors the whole thing.

nankerphelge wrote on Nov 11^th, 2011 at 6:00pm:

"Hopefully they won't play Sympathy at all " A mind is a terrible thing to waste

So is a setlist slot for a once great song.

Pdog wrote on Nov 19^th, 2011 at 7:06am:

luxury wrote on Nov 19th, 2011 at 5:46am: i saw Mick t. a couple years ago and his playing was fantastic.  Very next night he "got sick" and cancelled the remaining dates!!  Guy does seem to have issues... Keith is working the PR machine big-time.  I think he's attempting to show Mick he can handle some of the "responsibility" of getting something going for the 50th.  It's never too late.  this is gonna be great let's hope this could be good for mich t. as well as us fans... it would be special, but it could also be pathetic, if they trot him out and it's awkward b/c he's not taking care of himself... This is a really great oppurtunity for healing on so many levels, and the band to really shine. I have to wonder, if they can get Wyman back to tour, and I nkow it's a stretch... would they go Steel Wheels part two for him, and ditch the jets for trains... they could easily, since they all need days off, especially Jaggers, who can't do back to backs anymore. DJ on bass has been ok, but we all know Bill has some depth and style that no one can duplicate. Especially if they record... Being able to really listen over the years of the catalog, I can hear how much he mattered... When he left, that bottom end just didn't ever have that punch and deepness he can bring... Let's go Amtrak or whatever trains are called!!!

___________________________________



Agreed.

**Is it possible, due to Wyman's reluctance to fly, will it be Wyman in Europe and Taylor in The States? .. .. .. hmmm? ..There's a plausible thought for the extravaganza that just may have them both in the cards that some how works.. .. ?


Still I wonder, does Wyman truly have a fear of flying and is this truly one of the real reasons why he stopped with the Stones? Possibly, he spun things a tad in order to not slight the band if they chose to continue without him, which they did.. Did he really ever say this or did anyone in their camp say that? Just curious. Sadly, I never really knew of his reasoning until the board here made light of this. Until rocks Off I always thought he had wanted to quit for a while, even up to ten years earlier simply because he wasn't up for all the hoopla every time and he didn't want to be in the Stones rolling machine anymore is all that I ever knew?


Ian

Its not rumour. Wyman has said it, as has the whole band.

On his final European tour, he was driven everywhere.

Apart from one brief visit to the US in 2001, he hasnt flown since. All of his concerts take place in northern Europe.

It wasnt the ONLY reason - his marriage issues plus the fact that he'd had enough were significant too (he'd been talking about quitting back in 1982)

I think a few people are taking these off the cuff comments by Keith too literally.

"So is a setlist slot for a once great song."

You could make the same exact argument for nearly any of the warhorses
Once great song, c'mon?
The song is still great!
Sure the Stones don't "play it like they used to" - but they hardly play any songs like they used to.
Doesn't mean it isn't a good song, and as a starter, which was my main point, it could be HUGE.
Seriously...did you go to the '94 show and see Not Fade Away as an opener?
It was amazingly good.

Okay, you got a bug up yer ass about Sympathy -- what would you suggest as an opener?
Brown Sugar, again?
Start Me Up, again?
Satisfaction, again?
Honky Tonk Women, again?

Gazza wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2011 at 9:29am:

Its not rumour. Wyman has said it, as has the whole band. On his final European tour, he was driven everywhere. Apart from one brief visit to the US in 2001, he hasnt flown since. All of his concerts take place in northern Europe. It wasnt the ONLY reason - his marriage issues plus the fact that he'd had enough were significant too (he'd been talking about quitting back in 1982) I think a few people are taking these off the cuff comments by Keith too literally.

______________________________


Thanks for confirming Gazza. I knew he didn't fly and chose to drive everywhere over there when he is on tour but I didn't know if it was for certain.

I would take those comments from Keith with a huge grain of salt... however... Bill Wymans reply is what truly made me think something could be in the cards... for at least a few gigs or something. He actually said hed seriously think about it and that Charlie and him would click again if it all happened just as easily as before. Then he went on to basically say... all Keith gotta do is ask... well in a sense and to a point he was saying that anyway..


Ian

A Conversation with Bill Wyman

Mike Ragogna: Hello Bill, how are you?

Bill Wyman: I'm fine, thank you. I've got a day off of my tour, so I've got a day off so you've got a chance to talk to me.

MR: You've got a day off but they still put you to work.

BW: Oh yeah! I had a photo session this morning and I did another interview earlier. Yeah, a day off is not a day off, but I don't mind that, I'm kind of a workaholic.

MR: I definitely want to get to The Rolling Stones, but first, let's talk about the Rhythm Kings. What was the inspiration for putting that type of entourage together and to play that brand of music?

BW: Just to do music in a completely different way. I just kind of got fed up with stadiums and losing contact with the audience, and the way music was going. I thought, I love archeology, why don't I do an archeological dig into music, and just find a whole bunch of stuff from the past that people have forgotten or have never heard and just do anything. So, I got some musicians together and friends, and we just got into the studio for three days every month and cut eight songs. Then a month later, we would cut nine songs in the three days, then a month after that, we would do seven and so on. We ended up with about sixty tracks at the end of the year and they're all fantastic. They cover everything up from the '20s to the '70s. We had stuff from J.J. Cale, stuff from Fats Waller, we had Ethel Waters from the '20s, Ray Charles, Creedence Clearwater...you name it. It was just a whole mixture of stuff--rockabilly, blues, jazz, soul, gospel, spirituals--and I didn't know what to do with them. They were all great, and we always cut things in three takes, and if we don't get it in three, we just dump the song and move on to the next one. A lot of them are "take one," and a lot of them are either "take one" or "take three." I started to look around for a record company and everybody loved the stuff and have been playing it in the car back and forth to the studios, but they would pass on it because they didn't know how to put it out there and exploit it.

I got a bit disheartened, but that kind of happened with the Stones as well. We cut our first tracks in March of '63 and the record companies turned them down because they weren't commercial. So, I was hitting the same problems, and finally, a German company came ahead and signed us, then it took off like crazy. Everybody seemed to love the stuff, because there was a lot of variety there and great music, and great musicians. It was great, and then the record company says, "What about touring?" And I thought, "Oh no!" (laughs) I just wanted to make records and stay at home. So, we decided to do a few gigs as a tester, so we put out tickets for a show in Hamburg, Germany, and it sold out instantly, so we had to put a second show in that night. We did a run in Amsterdam, and that sold out, so we had to put a second show in there, and then we did one in London. I had Peter Frampton with me then and Gary Brooker of Procol Harum. The band I've got now--Georgie Fame, Albert Lee and we have Martin Taylor who's a great Jazz guitarist. It was just great fun, and I thought we might as well do this. People seem to like it, they want to come and watch us and we are getting great ovations ten minutes after the show's ended.

So, we started to do a tour of Europe every spring for three or four weeks--Europe, Scandinavia, sometimes out into Eastern Europe with Poland, Hungary, Prague, Latvia, and Lithuania. Then in the Autumn, we decided to do six weeks in England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, and that's what we've been doing. It's wonderful. We get called back every year and we sell out everywhere and it's just fantastic. There's no pressure on us, we just go out there and do it for the love. There isn't a lot of money in there either, it's a nine, ten-piece band playing small gigs. That's not what we're doing it for though, we're doing it to play great music, we love to play together and just enjoy it.

MR: Then you guys must be having fun on the road.

BW: Oh yeah, you'll see that. Everybody says that. When you read the reviews, they will say there is great camaraderie on the stage, everybody seems to be having fun and enjoying themselves. Everybody seems to be leaving space for everyone, everybody admires everybody else's touches and techniques and performances. Without sounding too corny, it really is like a family.

MR: I imagine your extended family jumps on stage when they're in the area to have some fun with the gang.

BW: Yeah, jazz guitarist Martin Taylor, who's fantastic, is going to come in Scotland. He played with Stephane Grappelli for years. He's been the top jazz guitarist in England for almost twenty years now. Then we've got Dennis Locorriere from Dr. Hook who's going to meet us in Brighton on a show and come on stage. We're playing Gilford tomorrow, and Gary Brooker is going to come on stage with us because he lives there. We've got Mary Wilson of course who's doing a great job as our guest this year. It's very nice but the main thing is if you go into the studio, you can have all kinds of people come in. You can't always get them to perform with you. Mark Knopfler and Eric Clapton, people like that can't do it, but you can ask them to come do that in the studio and play on the album.

MR: Who's on the road with you now?

BW: The band I'm out on tour with is the band we started with, except we had Peter Frampton and Gary Brooker in it then. We've got a different piano player now, we've got Bob Dylan's favorite British piano player, Geraint Watkins--he's fantastic; Georgie Fame's on organ, Albert Lee's on guitar, Terry Taylor's on guitar, two horn players--Frank Mead, and Nick Payn. They also play harp and other instruments. Frank Mead is a wonderful Chicago blues harp player, and Nick plays harp in a different way, more of a country flavor. I have a beautiful black girl singer named Beverley Skeete who does all of our ballads and everything. I'm on bass and I've got a fantastic drummer who Roger Waters uses all of the time when he's not working for me. It's a great band and we're great friends.

MR: Do you have any stories about the recording or creative processes of your five albums as Rhythm Kings?

BW: I will give you an example when we got Beverley Skeete in after the first couple of sessions. She's been a backing vocalist for just about everybody in the business for years. She's a black girl and she's usually one of two or three. She's worked with Dusty Springfield, she's worked with Jamiroquai, she's worked with Chaka Khan, and she's on all of the Eurovision song contests. She educates and teaches all of the young artists that come through. She's worked with the Eurythmics and Annie Lennox, and so on and so on. I said, "I want you to do the Stone's song 'Melody,' I want you to sing it with Georgie Fame." We had the track done, so she came and Georgie and her went into the booth to do the vocal. We usually have a guide vocal...somebody puts it down really rough while we do the track. We don't layer or anything, we just do it live. They just go into the booth and they sing it, and I say, "Fantastic, that's it, we've got it." They say, "Can we do it again?" I say, "Didn't you like it?" They said, "We really liked it a lot, that's why we want to do it again. We're just having so much fun. We want to sing it a few more times." Of course, they sang it twice more and we got a much better take, actually. That's what I'm talking about--let's do it because we like it. That's hard to find in musicians these days, it doesn't happen anymore.

MR: Bill, why did you leave The Rolling Stones? Was it because you were tired of the arenas, all that, and you just wanted to reclaim your life?

BW: Yeah, and I was tired of traveling the world as well. I wanted more time at home, I wanted to get married again and start a family, which I did. I got married in '93. If I had still been in the Stones, I wouldn't have gotten married because the Stones were still working then. I got married and I've got three beautiful teenage daughters and it couldn't be nicer. We've been married 18 years now, and I do all of my work from home. I've written seven books in the last ten years, I do all kinds of events. I do photo exhibitions running all over the world. I've got a big one running in London at the moment, which is getting great reviews. I do charities, I've got a very famous restaurant here, I do archeology and work with museums. My life is full and wonderful.

MR: And you also invented a metal detector.

BW: Yeah, when I did archeology. I noticed that lots of young people were doing it, but they couldn't do it because metal detectors are quite heavy, and they actually tire you out on your arms. I found that with my daughter, my oldest one, wanted to come to metal detecting because she was interested in finding fossils and things. After five minutes, she found a few Roman coins and said she couldn't do it anymore because her arm ached. I thought maybe somebody could make a lighter weight one, so I talked to a metal detector company. They built me a children's one, but it was 90 percent as good as an adult's. So, it wasn't a cheap and nasty version, but it was lightweight, it had simple controls, and it still worked fairly well. It did the business and it's sold very well. Kids come back and say that they have one of the detectors. England's full of stuff, you can go into a field and just find stuff. (laughs) It's not like America, the history goes back. You can just go back into a field and find Bronze Age stuff, and Iron Age stuff. It's a whole mixture of stuff.

MR: As you mentioned, you're an author as well as a photographer. Which do you find you focus more on, your music or your other adventures?

BW: Well, in recent years, I've been focusing on photography. I do a lot of nature photography and a lot of landscape stuff. A part of the celebrity stuff. I've been shooting photography since '65, there's a lot of the Stones obviously on tour or in airports or backstage and whatever. So, I've got a whole mixture of movie stars, and friends like that. I've been focusing on that, and I've had quite a lot of exhibitions around the world. The one I've got in London right now is doing great business, and I've got great reviews for it, so that's very nice. I'm taking some of my pictures and putting them six feet wide, it's fantastic.

MR: Are you still using film or is it all digital?

BW: It's all digital now because of my eyesight. I was still using a Nikkormat with long lenses until recent years, two or three years ago. I started to realize that I couldn't get the focus as well as I used to with my eyesight. So, I went on to digital, and I was getting film back and some of them weren't in focus.

MR: Do you find that what drives you creatively for photography or making music comes from the same place?

BW: Yeah, I just move from one thing to the other when I find something interesting. When the photo exhibition finishes, I might ease off on photography and move onto something different. Maybe onto another book, maybe an historical book or I might go back and do something more musical. I just let it happen as it happens, I've always got ideas on the back burner.

MR: Are you in a constant creative mode?

BW: I'm like that morning, noon and night. The only time I stop doing things is when I go to the toilet and eat.

MR: What about your children? Do they have that behavior too?

BW: (laughs) Oh no, they think I'm mad. They're great, and they're very talented kids. One is a great artist, another one is a singer and she's writing songs and ideas. They're seventeen, fifteen, and thirteen. The little one is doing acting school, and she's been doing auditions for Harry Potter movies and Roald Dahl plays.

MR: When you look back at the Rhythm Kings years, are they some of the more important one for you making music?

BW: Well, I love my thirty years with the Stones, and the years before that, I played with my little band in South London when I was learning. I loved it in the '80s when I formed a band called Willie & The Poor Boys, and we did a couple of albums for the M.S. charity; Ronnie Lane of The Faces died of it later but we did those. I had Charlie Watts on that, Ringo was on the video, and I had a whole bunch of artists and musicians that joined me on that one. If I get an idea, I just start moving on it. I'm writing the history of my house in the country, which I've had since 1968, and the house dates from 1480--it's before Henry the VIII. It's got a moat around it, it's like a little castle. I've written a history book on that. I know every person that's lived in my house since 1150 when there was a house on the grounds before my house. That's fascinating too, so I've been doing that. I know the history of every person that lived there, I know who they married, where they were christened, where they were buried, how many children they had, what the children did. A lot of it is historical; there's famous people that came to my house; Rudyard Kipling used to come to my house. Some of the prime ministers of England used to come to my house. Through the years, they were all knights, and sirs and lords that lived there. The big family, the Chamberlin family, lived there for 250 years; the Buckingham family lived there for 150 years. They were all knights. One was beheaded at the Tower Of London. In recent years, we've had the worst gangsters in London called The Kray Twins. They used to come to my house before I bought it. The guy who I bought it off was the godfather of the Krays. There's all kind of history there, that's an interesting book there too.

MR: There must be some fascinating stories you came across, not just about the famous people.

BW: Oh yeah, it's great. One of the guys was with The Gunpowder Plot when they tried to blow up the House of Parliament on the 5th of November in the 1600s. One of Guy Fawkes's collaborators ancestors lived in my house. There's lots more and there's no time to do it all.

MR: Looking back at Bill Wyman now and Bill Wyman then, what have been some of the biggest changes that have happened to you over the years?

BW: There's some amazing coincidental happenings in my life. I've had things happen to me that are unbelievable, you could not believe it. I don't know if I've got a lucky streak there somewhere, but there are things I could tell you that happened to me that you would not believe. I was nearly killed in the war when I was a kid coming back from school. The sirens went off at lunch time; me and this other little boy--I was six--we ran to the house where I was living with my grandmother in South London where my family were up North away from the bombing. I was living with my grandma through the war. As we got to the top of our street, there was a German fighter bomber roaring up the street towards us, about ten yards off of the top of the chimneys of the houses machine gunning, and we just ran sideways behind a little wall and he just went past us machine gunning. Then we ran to our houses and my grandmother was waiting and we ran down to the shelter in the garden and he came past again the other way, still machine gunning. Then we went in the shelter. After the "all clear" went and we came out, we were all out in the streets digging the bullets out of the houses. We used to collect things like that. There's amazing stories, and I've talked about them in my books.

MR: Obviously, the elephant in the room will always be The Rolling Stones. May I ask a couple of questions about that period?

BW: (laughs) Go on.

MR: How would you describe your period with the Stones?

BW: Fantastic, I loved every minute of it. When we started off, we all thought it was going to last maybe two, maybe three, and if we're dead lucky, four years tops. We used to sit and think, "How long do you think it's going to last," and suddenly, it was 30 years. I was going to do all of these other things--photography, archeology, write books, etc.--30 years went by, and I hadn't done any of it. The only thing I had done was a couple of solo records, which were so-so popular--not too bad, and not too good, and I did a movie score and some photography in an amateur way. All of the other things I wanted to do, I didn't have time for. I really didn't have time to do the solo albums either, I did them in-between Stones things in pieces, which was unsatisfactory. So, I thought it was time to move on and it's time to do all of the other stuff I wanted to do. That's why I left. I wanted to start a new life again, and it's been wonderful. The great thing is, I'm still great mates with the band. We still send each other Christmas presents, birthday presents. I got a present from the Stones, I've got two huge, bouquets of roses, which I've got as many roses as my years. I'm 75, I got 75 roses from them and I've got a big thing of champagne. That's what we do, we stay friends. I work on projects with them as well. I was involved very heavily in the Universal 45s single box set because I'm the only one that had all of the singles. So, I did the deal with them and Universal and I gave them scans of everything, so they knew exactly how to reproduce the singles.

MR: It must be lovely to still have that kind of relationship with the band.

BW: I'm very close with Charlie, and we've always been very close and we're great mates. I chatted to him before I went on tour, we're just trying to get together. I played with him a few months ago when we did the Ian Stewart tribute together. I played bass on three songs with the Stones separately, not at the same time. Then we did the show, two shows actually; Ronnie Wood was on it, Mick Taylor was on it, Charlie Watts was on it, and I was on it. It's good to do those things.

MR: Once a Rolling Stone, always a Rolling Stone.

BW: Well, that's the problem, because the taxi driver will say, "Hello Bill, when are the Stones touring again?" I would say, "I left twenty years ago." People still think of me as a part of the Stones.

MR: Bill, what advice would you have for new artists?

BW: Try to write some decent songs first. Practice, practice, practice. Listen to the people in the past that played the instrument you're playing and learn from them. That's the way I learned, that's the way Mick and Keith learned. Just copying lines and riffs and things, then you can do your own thing. Once you've gathered that info, you can do it your own way. That's the way I do it and that's the way I always suggest to young musicians. A lot of young musicians come to the show and start asking me about what bass guitar I use, and I just say to them to practice and try to write some decent songs.

MR: What bass are you playing these days?

BW: I've been using Steinbergers for the last twenty odd years with the Rhythm Kings up until this year. I've had a bass guitar made which is like a clone of the bass guitar I made in 1961, before I joined the Stones and didn't have money to build one, so I bought one. It was by pure accident, it was the first fretless bass ever made. That's what I'm using now, it's lightweight, small scale, and it's perfect for young kids to learn on.

MR: You've been really fantastic and thank you for taking sometime to chat.

BW: Thank you so much.

Bill Wyman's Rhythm Kings Collector's Edition Box Set:

Struttin' Our Stuff

Groovin'

Anyway The Wind Blows

Double Bill Volume 1

Double Bill Volume 2

Transcribed By Theo Shier

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-ragogna/moline-loves-paul-simon-p_b_1100883.html

Great read, thanks very much!

There is only one song to open the tour..one they have never opened with:
"The Last Time"......I don't know???...oh no

nankerphelge wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2011 at 11:13am:

"So is a setlist slot for a once great song." You could make the same exact argument for nearly any of the warhorses Once great song, c'mon? The song is still great! Sure the Stones don't "play it like they used to" - but they hardly play any songs like they used to.

Sympathy has been more brutally emasculated than most of their songs. It's now a showtune to bring the grandkids on stage to dance to.


Quote:

Doesn't mean it isn't a good song, and as a starter, which was my main point, it could be HUGE. Seriously...did you go to the '94 show and see Not Fade Away as an opener? It was amazingly good.

Great, they could do that again,


Quote:

Okay, you got a bug up yer ass about Sympathy -- what would you suggest as an opener? Brown Sugar, again? Start Me Up, again? Satisfaction, again? Honky Tonk Women, again?

The first 3 yes, anything fast really. Satisfaction should only be included if they can do it in 3:45 or under.

"Sympathy has been more brutally emasculated than most of their songs. It's now a showtune to bring the grandkids on stage to dance to. "

That's in the ears and eyes of the beholder.
Tumbling Dice, Honky Tonk Women, hell even Brown Sugar are all more "show-tunish" these days.
To say that Sympathy is more emasculated than others is more a matter of personal taste than musical fact.

And while Not Fade Away was a great opener, it was never the Classic that Sympathy was in the Stones catalog.
Sympathy is one of their most recognized songs ever, is certainly not a slow tempo song, and would set a very dark Stonesy mood similar to what Not Fade Away did in 94.

Yet you dismiss it as a show tune.
How do you call yourself a Stones fan?

nankerphelge wrote on Dec 7^th, 2011 at 12:21pm:

"Sympathy has been more brutally emasculated than most of their songs. It's now a showtune to bring the grandkids on stage to dance to. " That's in the ears and eyes of the beholder. Tumbling Dice, Honky Tonk Women, hell even Brown Sugar are all more "show-tunish" these days.

Sure


Quote:

To say that Sympathy is more emasculated than others is more a matter of personal taste than musical fact. What happened to the Who Killed The Kennedys line anyway or did I just fail to hear it the past few times? [quote] And while Not Fade Away was a great opener, it was never the Classic that Sympathy was in the Stones catalog. Sympathy is one of their most recognized songs ever, is certainly not a slow tempo song, and would set a very dark Stonesy mood similar to what Not Fade Away did in 94.

I really doubt the next tour will be anything close to dark in mood and few versions of Sympathy the last few tours have struck me that way. Shame, because the effects were great. Tighten it up a bit, or better yet, just bury it.


Quote:

Yet you dismiss it as a show tune. How do you call yourself a Stones fan?

Whatever, dude.

Well, it's on.

It is naive to think that the only reason for this "jam" is simply to have a good time and see what happens .. .. ..

I must say that there is reasoning behind this .."jam".. as they are putting it.

You don't rent out a studio together again with guitar techs... etc. etc. just to say hello, reacquaint, and have a good time because you haven't seen them in a long time.  If they simply wanted to socialize and play some music again so very badly what kept Bill and the rest from scheduling something for doing such over the last 20 odd years? Why not just throw a party at one of their mansions? Why not rent a hall... whatever.. but you don't get together with old band mates in a "studio" with guitar technicians unless there is a definite purpose involved.  It's that simple -

Call me optimistic, call it jumping the gun, call me enthusiastic or whatever... but to me, it's not even overly obvious... At this point  it's a "no brainer.." they are going to record new stuff. What more do they have to do in order to open doubters to that idea? .. give them a track listing?.. ..  


Ian

ijwthstd wrote on Dec 7^th, 2011 at 1:03pm:

nankerphelge wrote on Dec 7th, 2011 at 12:21pm: "Sympathy has been more brutally emasculated than most of their songs. It's now a showtune to bring the grandkids on stage to dance to. " That's in the ears and eyes of the beholder. Tumbling Dice, Honky Tonk Women, hell even Brown Sugar are all more "show-tunish" these days. Sure Quote: To say that Sympathy is more emasculated than others is more a matter of personal taste than musical fact. What happened to the Who Killed The Kennedys line anyway or did I just fail to hear it the past few times? [quote] And while Not Fade Away was a great opener, it was never the Classic that Sympathy was in the Stones catalog. Sympathy is one of their most recognized songs ever, is certainly not a slow tempo song, and would set a very dark Stonesy mood similar to what Not Fade Away did in 94. I really doubt the next tour will be anything close to dark in mood and few versions of Sympathy the last few tours have struck me that way. Shame, because the effects were great. Tighten it up a bit, or better yet, just bury it. [quote] Yet you dismiss it as a show tune. How do you call yourself a Stones fan?

Whatever, dude.



[/quote]
THE LAST GOOD SYMPATHY VERSION WAS 1989 ATLANTIC CITY..TIME TO RETIRE IT.

I would rather they tour to tour instead of doing a final tour. I'm not buying a ticket to say goodbye.

A final tour is too emotionally upsetting for someone on the lunatic fringe like myself. I don't want the words FINAL and ROLLING STONES in the same sentence......

Does anyone else here feel like I do?

Steel Wheels wrote on Dec 9^th, 2011 at 7:51pm:

I would rather they tour to tour instead of doing a final tour. I'm not buying a ticket to say goodbye. A final tour is too emotionally upsetting for someone on the lunatic fringe like myself. I don't want the words FINAL and ROLLING STONES in the same sentence...... Does anyone else here feel like I do?

I stated on here, my last Stones show was my last Stones show!!!
I farewelled them... but, Ive been a sucker and taken back people who broke my heart before... we shall see!

Steel Wheels wrote on Dec 9^th, 2011 at 7:51pm:

I would rather they tour to tour instead of doing a final tour. I'm not buying a ticket to say goodbye. A final tour is too emotionally upsetting for someone on the lunatic fringe like myself. I don't want the words FINAL and ROLLING STONES in the same sentence...... Does anyone else here feel like I do?

Like gazza and others have said. They will not announce it as a farewell tour. Some promoters may want them too to help sell a few extra tickets. But for all intents and purposes,it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that this will likely be their last major tour. :solongsucker

It will never be announced as a Farewell Tour or Goodbye Tour or the Last Tour.  KEEF has said this and I heard him say it when a reporter asked him if ABB was the last tour, and I quote THE BAND WILL KEEP GOING UNTIL ONE oF US DIES. So until we have a funeral, we still have a touring band. And KEEF went on to say how the black musicians such as SUMLIN and BUDDY GUY, CHUCK BERRY, etc tour into their 70/80s coz thats what they do and who they are, and these are the role models for The Stones. So it is NOT the final tour, not yet anyway. We can only hope for good health and longevity. Long live the Stones!

and

Sympathy is a great tune and deserves to be played often. Whoot Whoo!

Whether it's announced or not, it's pretty much understood that this
would be the final time; our last hurrah with our beloved Band.  :'(
I choke up typing it; but will feel so blessed if and when shows are announced.

I can't think of a better opening song than Sympathy!
Any of you naysayers see Shine a Light??  ::)

I remember thinking as I walked out of maple leaf gardens in Toronto after a show that I may never see these guys again.....that was July 1972....so who knows but if they tour i will be there...and everywhere!

As some of you are a bit older than me and some of you have a better sense of recall than me...wondering...

Has any band ( Other than THE BAND...which was more of a final show) ever had a tour labeled as a FAREWELL TOUR?
It seems like burning your bridges to me...I can't imagine the backlash the press would give the Stones if they had a Farewell Tour and then decide to play some
more a few years later for whatever reason...

The faux-farewells are all-too-common, especially for diva-types like Cher. The Eagles also spring to mind.

Relatedly, here's one of the most asinine pieces of music-writing I've ever read, by
Robyn Chelsea-Seifert:
http://www.examiner.com/music-news-in-san-francisco/farewell-concerts-bands-who-say-goodbye-and-then-don-t-leave

You will encounter the claim that the Stones have continually mounted "farewell tours" since 1971. I honestly have no freaking clue where she gets this idea, as the band has always explicitly rejected the notion...  

B.B. King, The Eagles, The Who, Cher, Sinatra, and a host of others have all said they were going on final tours.  Mick stated in the 90's he thinks it's a tacky move to announce a farewell tour and that he'd never do it.  He said for some it might be their final Stones tour as the fan may get hit by a bus on their way home.

I think they will never stop.

Paranoid Android wrote on Dec 10^th, 2011 at 9:54am:

As some of you are a bit older than me and some of you have a better sense of recall than me...wondering... Has any band ( Other than THE BAND...which was more of a final show) ever had a tour labeled as a FAREWELL TOUR? It seems like burning your bridges to me...I can't imagine the backlash the press would give the Stones if they had a Farewell Tour and then decide to play some more a few years later for whatever reason...

Aside from those mentioned above, Wham did it. Thankfully they stuck to it. Westlife (the biggest boy band in the British Isles) have just announced their farewell tour. Sadly its about 15 years too late.  Glenn Campbell is currently on a farewell tour - which he's doing as he's in the early stages of Alzheimer's disease (by all accounts, the shows have been better than I think people would have expected under those circumstances). Bowie of course announced 'this is the last show we'll ever do' from the stage at Hammersmith Odeon in 1973 when performing with the Spiders from Mars, and they never toured together again. I've lost count of how many times Prince has either announced the retirement of himself or his old songs.

The difference with the Stones 'coming back' is that they simply dont HAVE 'a few years' to take off and then change their minds!

Bitch wrote on Dec 10^th, 2011 at 4:43am:

It will never be announced as a Farewell Tour or Goodbye Tour or the Last Tour.  KEEF has said this and I heard him say it when a reporter asked him if ABB was the last tour, and I quote THE BAND WILL KEEP GOING UNTIL ONE oF US DIES. So until we have a funeral, we still have a touring band. And KEEF went on to say how the black musicians such as SUMLIN and BUDDY GUY, CHUCK BERRY, etc tour into their 70/80s coz thats what they do and who they are, and these are the role models for The Stones. So it is NOT the final tour, not yet anyway. We can only hope for good health and longevity. Long live the Stones!

Those guys do it because theyre a lot less wealthy than the Stones and also because its easier if you're a solo act.

A band who have barely been in the same room together for four and a half years (well, until this week) isnt a 'touring band' no matter how much any of us wants to dress it up to the contrary. Neither Mick or Keith have spent more than 20 minutes in total on a stage since August 2007.

Never formally splitting up and always keeping the door open for future possibilities isnt the same as 'keeping going'.

Gazza wrote on Dec 10^th, 2011 at 1:32pm:

Never formally splitting up and always keeping the door open for future possibilities isnt the same as 'keeping going'.

I don't disagree with that. But I still think the Stones are due credit for never branding a tour with the explicit intention of signaling to fans "This is your last chance to see us."

Steel Wheels wrote on Dec 9^th, 2011 at 7:51pm:

I would rather they tour to tour instead of doing a final tour. I'm not buying a ticket to say goodbye. A final tour is too emotionally upsetting for someone on the lunatic fringe like myself. I don't want the words FINAL and ROLLING STONES in the same sentence...... Does anyone else here feel like I do?

I can empathise with that. Each tour I've been to, at the final show I've attended (and I was at the tour finales in 1990, 1995 and 2007) I've always got that 'this might be it!' lump in the throat at the end...KNOWING its the last show youre going to see is another thing, though. I'd still go, however, simply because in the last few years I've found it easier to accept that there's not much mileage left in them. At this stage, though my attitude is that any more shows are a bonus, and I don't feel 'deprived' if it were to end, which is the way I would have felt before the last tour.  Thats not to say I wont find the experience unpleasant when it comes. Far from it.

They get asked the 'last tour' questions at the start of every tour they've done for the last 40-45 years.

My own hunch is that while I dont expect them to formally confirm it as a 'farewell tour', I'd expect Jagger to more or less hint at it as such with some evasive 'well, we're not getting older - so who knows?' type quote.

They wont do another major tour after the next one. I think they're very conscious of the '50th anniversary' thing and there's a lot of symbolism and prestige in that achievement, but they're also more than aware that there are other factors which would indicate that they're on the home straight as a performing band - age and an acceptance that there are physical limitations on being able to perform at the level they would like to for much longer, the fact that taking years off between tours isn't practical for performers who hope to be gigging into their 70's, the sense and knowledge that they've really nothing left to prove, a (hopeful) acceptance that if they're going to feel the need to get competitive with U2 and attempt to outgross them that it's a battle they wont win as age and numbers aren't on their side anymore, and just as significantly, the fact that with the western world's economies being pretty much fucked for the forseeable future, there's only so much money that most people have to see a show that pretty much everyone who has wanted to will have seen by now.

Mel Belli wrote on Dec 10^th, 2011 at 1:38pm:

Gazza wrote on Dec 10th, 2011 at 1:32pm: Never formally splitting up and always keeping the door open for future possibilities isnt the same as 'keeping going'. I don't disagree with that. But I still think the Stones are due credit for never branding a tour with the explicit intention of signaling to fans "This is your last chance to see us."

Absolutely. And I'd expect that trend to continue. Officially, anyway.

Seriously, can you imagine all of us after the final bows??!!!
I really cannot.

I have broken down in tears at the end of every show I've seen since No Security.
And those of you that know me, can attest to how emotional I am.

I feel sorry for whomever has to sit near me SHOULD it happen.
GotToRollMe, Martha and SV............prepare yourselves.

And Pdog, I'll never forget our MSG moment in Jan 06. Ever.

LJ.

I'm emotional in general about this band....especially when the band and I are breathing the same air.

This band IS a current band. They have plenty of road in front of them. No traffic...they are in the lead position and there is no sign of them letting off the god damned throttle.

On a side note, the Shelby Cobra celebrates 50 years in 2012 too.

Gazza wrote on Dec 10^th, 2011 at 1:45pm:

[quote author=Steel Wheels link=1320856402/100#100 date=1323481906]I would rather they tour to tour instead of doing a final tour. I'm not buying a ticket to say goodbye. A final tour is too emotionally upsetting for someone on the lunatic fringe like myself. I don't want the words FINAL and ROLLING STONES in the same sentence...... Does anyone else here feel like I do?

I can empathise with that. Each tour I've been to, at the final show I've attended (and I was at the tour finales in 1990, 1995 and 2007) I've always got that 'this might be it!' lump in the throat at the end...KNOWING its the last show youre going to see is another thing, though. I'd still go, however, simply because in the last few years I've found it easier to accept that there's not much mileage left in them. At this stage, though my attitude is that any more shows are a bonus, and I don't feel 'deprived' if it were to end, which is the way I would have felt before the last tour.  Thats not to say I wont find the experience unpleasant when it comes. Far from it.

They get asked the 'last tour' questions at the start of every tour they've done for the last 40-45 years.

My own hunch is that while I dont expect them to formally confirm it as a 'farewell tour', I'd expect Jagger to more or less hint at it as such with some evasive 'well, we're not getting older - so who knows?' type quote.

They wont do another major tour after the next one. I think they're very conscious of the '50th anniversary' thing and there's a lot of symbolism and prestige in that achievement, but they're also more than aware that there are other factors which would indicate that they're on the home straight as a performing band - age and an acceptance that there are physical limitations on being able to perform at the level they would like to for much longer, the fact that taking years off between tours isn't practical for performers who hope to be gigging into their 70's, the sense and knowledge that they've really nothing left to prove, a (hopeful) acceptance that if they're going to feel the need to get competitive with U2 and attempt to outgross them that it's a battle they wont win as age and numbers aren't on their side anymore, and just as significantly, the fact that with the western world's economies being pretty much fucked for the forseeable future, there's only so much money that most people have to see a show that pretty much everyone who has wanted to will have seen by now.


______________________________________


Although many see me as "enthusiastic" and perceive me as the guy to always keep the faith in them around here I gotta say I agree that this will be their last full scale tour.  Age, health, certainly play the role here. I am not saying, that "if" they are still able they will not perform again or do shows... I'm simply agreeing that this will be their final full on major tour.

I mean, ya just can't be in your seventies and going out there sweating, performing, singing etc. non-stop all around the globe for a year or more...

It would be far too taxing and in a sense, actually risky for them to attempt.

Think of working next to a 70 year old... in a physical sense. Or think of working out, concentrating in a class, or whatever... they just can't do those things like they did even at the age of 60. They get dehydrated quite easily, they can't do those things.

Sure 70 year olds can talk, walk, laugh, enjoy the day and even very mildly exercise but it's tough work in a show even if they slow it down out there.. and remember this is out in the elements no less. Have you ever saw a 70 year old sweat? They really just can't get worked up enough to do that. Younger people can but no 70 year old folk exert themselves to the point of working up a good sweat. They simply can't... and their bodies don't work the same to get to that point at this age. If they do... they will have to go sit down somewhere and/or they get ran down instantly, or some how ill from it.   

The Stones are the most durable rock band that has ever graced the planet... even Stones critics would have to give them that. They are actually incredible.. defying logic and father time and have for so long now BUT lets remember.. they are "human". They can only go so far.  


Ian -

Ian Billen wrote on Dec 9^th, 2011 at 4:30pm:

Well, it's on. It is naive to think that the only reason for this "jam" is simply to have a good time and see what happens .. .. .. I must say that there is reasoning behind this .."jam".. as they are putting it. You don't rent out a studio together again with guitar techs... etc. etc. just to say hello, reacquaint, and have a good time because you haven't seen them in a long time.  If they simply wanted to socialize and play some music again so very badly what kept Bill and the rest from scheduling something for doing such over the last 20 odd years? Why not just throw a party at one of their mansions? Why not rent a hall... whatever.. but you don't get together with old band mates in a "studio" with guitar technicians unless there is a definite purpose involved.  It's that simple - Call me optimistic, call it jumping the gun, call me enthusiastic or whatever... but to me, it's not even overly obvious... At this point  it's a "no brainer.." they are going to record new stuff. What more do they have to do in order to open doubters to that idea? .. give them a track listing?.. ..   Ian

Well, Keith has said he hasnt seen the band for a very long time, and he hasnt been playing, so the 'getting together to play and see what happens' is quite reasonable. Its what proper bands do to keep their chops together. Its needed even more if you're considering working in the future with musicians you havent played with before or havent played with for many years too.

And it's merely a jam session we're talking about. Not a recording session. THAT is not speculation.

Shouldnt they be jamming soon?......For sure before Christmas?.....maybe a surprise club gig for keef's birthday?.....(just dreaming i know)

gimmekeef wrote on Dec 11^th, 2011 at 8:27am:

Shouldnt they be jamming soon

[smiley=lipsrsealed.gif]

A tour can be done differently than in the past considering their ages. Several shows I've seen the where band does 2 or 3 shorter sets with a 20 or 30 minute break in betwen sets. Nobody in the crowd objected and it didnt break up the momentum. They could do it in a sequence, the early years, etc. considering its a 50 anniversary tour they have so much material to draw from.  In between they could show movie clips to keep the fans occupied. They could also talk more, giving a little background info on the different songs and I would enjoy hearing any little stories behind the songs. It would be entertaining and not as taxing on the band physically. It may be tougher for them to belt out 22 songs in a row now, but by pacing themselves this way it could work. Nobody at this point expects the same shows as we saw in the past. Being innovative is one of the Stones strong points so they can tour with a different style, thinking outside the box.

McCartney's 69 and plays for three hours, with no breaks, and around 35-36 songs per night.

Springsteen's 62 (and his band are much the same age) and regularly performs for three hours or more.

Mick's 68, fitter than Macca is yet sings 16-17 songs per night. With a ten minute break halfway through. Never playing two nights in a row.

There's no reason on earth why a band shouldnt be able to play at least  two hours or around 22 songs per show.

There's no need for Mick or the whole band to run around extended catwalks at their age. If they have to take a mid-show break to pace things better and make the show longer, well and good. It would even give the audience more time to buy merchandise, so its a win-win for the band.  [smiley=smiley.gif]

Filling out time by talking more instead of playing? At those prices?  :wtf3  [smiley=laugh.gif]

gimmekeef wrote on Dec 11^th, 2011 at 8:27am:

Shouldnt they be jamming soon?......For sure before Christmas?.....maybe a surprise club gig for keef's birthday?.....(just dreaming i know)

you could use some Ian Billen about now!

Gazza wrote on Dec 11^th, 2011 at 8:46am:

McCartney's 69 and plays for three hours, with no breaks, and around 35-36 songs per night. Springsteen's 62 (and his band are much the same age) and regularly performs for three hours or more. Mick's 68, fitter than Macca is yet sings 16-17 songs per night. With a ten minute break halfway through. Never playing two nights in a row. There's no reason on earth why a band shouldnt be able to play at least  two hours or around 22 songs per show. There's no need for Mick or the whole band to run around extended catwalks at their age. If they have to take a mid-show break to pace things better and make the show longer, well and good. It would even give the audience more time to buy merchandise, so its a win-win for the band.  [smiley=smiley.gif] Filling out time by talking more instead of playing? At those prices?  :wtf3  [smiley=laugh.gif]

_______________________________


Mcartney and Jagger,  *(and even Springsteen) are night and day, literally, in the type of show they put on at a physical level. You can't compare the two. McCartney does not ...and can not... move, jump, run, wriggle, all over the friggin stage constantly. He stands or sits there and barley moves a step (now granted, a show at that age, is still impressive... he sings and plays his instruments all during which is taxing in itself and McCartney's three hour show consisting of 35-36 songs.. is "truly impressive".. I am surprised he can still pull that off and it's a marvel he does it...geesh... dudes basically 70 and he is putting on a strong three hour show..).

Jagger doesn't stop moving, prancing and dashing all around. (He won't want to so much lessen his athleticism as much as he will have to shorten the show a bit).

As far as Mick running about on extended catwalks etc. etc... well yeah... we would all certainly understand if he couldn't do that anymore... and there really is no absolute need. It could still be a really good show without those aspects...

But guess what... the guy is "Mick Jagger". It is a trademark and staple in his on-stage antics. He is going to do it as much as he possibly can at this age. He isn't going to refrain from it so long as he thinks he can get by with out it halting the show or wearing him out too much.


As far as Springsteen and McCartney go.... neither of them could handle the type of show Jagger puts on ... even for a night yesterday, or today. So comparing the two acts and speaking of how one act should be able to hang in like the other is unfair because one act is running full throttle and requires much more physical exertion.  The Stones show may be just a third shorter than either of those two....but come on man... Jagger's act requires 2-3 times the amount of energy...  

Thus, directly comparing show-time and how often they play while saying they should be basically even is unfair.


Ian

Ian Billen wrote on Dec 11^th, 2011 at 7:12pm:

Mcartney and Jagger,  *(and even Springsteen) are night and day, literally, in the type of show they put on at a physical level. You can't compare the two. McCartney does not ...and can not... move, jump, run, wriggle, all over the friggin stage constantly. He stands or sits there and barley moves a step (now granted, a show at that age, is still impressive... he sings and plays his instruments all during which is taxing in itself and McCartney's three hour show consisting of 35-36 songs.. is "truly impressive".. I am surprised he can still pull that off and it's a marvel he does it...geesh... dudes basically 70 and he is putting on a strong three hour show..). Jagger doesn't stop moving, prancing and dashing all around. (He won't want to so much lessen his athleticism as much as he will have to shorten the show a bit). As far as Mick running about on extended catwalks etc. etc... well yeah... we would all certainly understand if he couldn't do that anymore... and there really is no absolute need. It could still be a really good show without those aspects... But guess what... the guy is "Mick Jagger". It is a trademark and staple in his on-stage antics. He is going to do it as much as he possibly can at this age. He isn't going to refrain from it so long as he thinks he can get by with out it halting the show or wearing him out too much. As far as Springsteen and McCartney go.... neither of them could handle the type of show Jagger puts on ... even for a night yesterday, or today. So comparing the two acts and speaking of how one act should be able to hang in like the other is unfair because one act is running full throttle and requires much more physical exertion.  The Stones show may be just a third shorter than either of those two....but come on man... Jagger's act requires 2-3 times the amount of energy...   Thus, directly comparing show-time and how often they play while saying they should be basically even is unfair. Ian

Than Springsteen? Utter rubbish.

And Jagger HAS toned his stage performance down from 1989 onwards. Prior to that he was invariably breathless as he spent more time running around than singing. As a result, he's technically be able to SING better since then, even if some people prefer the 'rawer' style that preceded it. Being more restrained and able to pace himself as he's got older has enabled him to last into his 60's as a top performer.

There's absolutely no reason why he shouldnt be able to do that even more when he's approaching 70. There's more to being a great entertainer (which he is) than simply running around wiggling his arse.

You're also overlooking the fact that actually performing and playing an instrument for three hours IS pretty taxing, even if you're not running all over the place.

Gazza wrote on Dec 11^th, 2011 at 8:26pm:

Ian Billen wrote on Dec 11th, 2011 at 7:12pm: Mcartney and Jagger,  *(and even Springsteen) are night and day, literally, in the type of show they put on at a physical level. You can't compare the two. McCartney does not ...and can not... move, jump, run, wriggle, all over the friggin stage constantly. He stands or sits there and barley moves a step (now granted, a show at that age, is still impressive... he sings and plays his instruments all during which is taxing in itself and McCartney's three hour show consisting of 35-36 songs.. is "truly impressive".. I am surprised he can still pull that off and it's a marvel he does it...geesh... dudes basically 70 and he is putting on a strong three hour show..). Jagger doesn't stop moving, prancing and dashing all around. (He won't want to so much lessen his athleticism as much as he will have to shorten the show a bit). As far as Mick running about on extended catwalks etc. etc... well yeah... we would all certainly understand if he couldn't do that anymore... and there really is no absolute need. It could still be a really good show without those aspects... But guess what... the guy is "Mick Jagger". It is a trademark and staple in his on-stage antics. He is going to do it as much as he possibly can at this age. He isn't going to refrain from it so long as he thinks he can get by with out it halting the show or wearing him out too much. As far as Springsteen and McCartney go.... neither of them could handle the type of show Jagger puts on ... even for a night yesterday, or today. So comparing the two acts and speaking of how one act should be able to hang in like the other is unfair because one act is running full throttle and requires much more physical exertion.  The Stones show may be just a third shorter than either of those two....but come on man... Jagger's act requires 2-3 times the amount of energy...   Thus, directly comparing show-time and how often they play while saying they should be basically even is unfair. Ian Than Springsteen? Utter rubbish. _______________________________________ Springsteen still is, and always has been a great performer. He puts his whole soul in the show. As well... his show is physically demanding... but only to a certain degree. Still, Jagger's stage show as far as a workout, or on a physical level is still more taxing than Bruce's... and he is that much older of a gent than Bruce.   And Jagger HAS toned his stage performance down from 1989 onwards. Prior to that he was invariably breathless as he spent more time running around than singing. As a result, he's technically be able to SING better since then, even if some people prefer the 'rawer' style that preceded it. Being more restrained and able to pace himself as he's got older has enabled him to last into his 60's as a top performer. ___________________________________________ Yeah... Jagger has toned it down a bit over the past 15 years or more. However, the guy still has been certainly the most energetic front man going from even from that point onwards There's absolutely no reason why he shouldnt be able to do that even more when he's approaching 70. There's more to being a great entertainer (which he is) than simply running around wiggling his arse. __________________________________________ I agree. As well...Jagger "will" put on quite a physical show this time out I'm sure. I just can't see him doing that consistently at say 72-73.. this is why I see it as the last full scale tour. Jagger feels the need to show much athleticism in his stage show... and fans eat it up. You're also overlooking the fact that actually performing and playing an instrument for three hours IS pretty taxing, even if you're not running all over the place.

__________________________________________

Actually, I didn't mean for it to sound over-looked. Yes, "definitely"... just playing an instrument, and singing, even if you don't move around is still taxing physically for that long of a time period... not to mention the emotion and concentration involved besides simply the physical aspect of all of it. This is why for Bruce and Paul, I am still very impressed to say the least. Three long hours and 36 songs at any age is a feet for the most part. ..much less a 69 year old dude. I can't say how much I am surprised McCartney can still do this (and Bruce ...for the most part).


Ian

this thread has taken a nose dive.

Some Guy wrote on Dec 11^th, 2011 at 10:30pm:

this thread has taken a nose dive.

___________________________________________





I have willfully loved each and every one of you. Your incredible -



Ian -

Some Guy wrote on Dec 11^th, 2011 at 10:30pm:

this thread has taken a nose dive.

Yes, we're getting off the point somewhat.

Suffice to say, on the Stones front, the last month has been the most positive for a  long time, in terms of both celebrating the past AND having grounds for being optimistic for the future.

We got Macca'd and Springsteen'd all at once. A bit much.

It is. even for me!

I blame Bon Jovi.

Steel Wheels wrote on Dec 9^th, 2011 at 7:51pm:

I would rather they tour to tour instead of doing a final tour. I'm not buying a ticket to say goodbye. A final tour is too emotionally upsetting for someone on the lunatic fringe like myself. I don't want the words FINAL and ROLLING STONES in the same sentence...... Does anyone else here feel like I do?

I saw the last ever Ramones show, and knew that was it. The whole thing was very saddening, not like a usual concert.

Some Guy wrote on Dec 12^th, 2011 at 7:43am:

We got Macca'd and Springsteen'd all at once. A bit much.

It's better than getting Van Halen'd. :wtf1

Pdog wrote on Dec 9^th, 2011 at 8:13pm:

[quote author=Steel Wheels link=1320856402/100#100 date=1323481906]I would rather they tour to tour instead of doing a final tour. I'm not buying a ticket to say goodbye. A final tour is too emotionally upsetting for someone on the lunatic fringe like myself. I don't want the words FINAL and ROLLING STONES in the same sentence...... Does anyone else here feel like I do?

I completely understand. I'm convinced they will NOT announce it as a farewell tour, but IF they did, Iwould not go see them. I've been there for the whole 50 years and I would refuse to go to their funeral.

sweetcharmedlife wrote on Dec 12^th, 2011 at 1:13pm:

Some Guy wrote on Dec 12th, 2011 at 7:43am: We got Macca'd and Springsteen'd all at once. A bit much. It's better than getting Van Halen'd. :wtf1

I would prefer to be Halen'd than Macca'd, actually Lansburied

Ok.....I am assuming that there will be a tour.....so how do they announce it???...Done it by truck cargo deck, boat, train, car and blimp to name a few..whats left?.....Five jumbo elephants????(like there are small elephants..lol) (i,m counting Bill back in!)

Nellcote wrote on Dec 12^th, 2011 at 2:55pm:

sweetcharmedlife wrote on Dec 12th, 2011 at 1:13pm: Some Guy wrote on Dec 12th, 2011 at 7:43am: We got Macca'd and Springsteen'd all at once. A bit much. It's better than getting Van Halen'd. :wtf1 I would prefer to be Halen'd than Macca'd, actually Lansburied

At least we can agree on Springsteen Nellie. :willya

Like BB King, they will continue to play. I have 110% faith that is what they will do.  Time marches on, and so do the Rolling Stones.

gimmekeef wrote on Dec 12^th, 2011 at 3:42pm:

Ok.....I am assuming that there will be a tour.....so how do they announce it???...Done it by truck cargo deck, boat, train, car and blimp to name a few..whats left?.....Five jumbo elephants????(like there are small elephants..lol) (i,m counting Bill back in!)

From space. They've tried everything else.

Although, on the downside, if Bill wont fly, I cant envision him being keen to be blasted into the stratosphere in a rocket, so thats him out of contention.

Gazza wrote on Dec 12^th, 2011 at 4:30pm:

gimmekeef wrote on Dec 12th, 2011 at 3:42pm: Ok.....I am assuming that there will be a tour.....so how do they announce it???...Done it by truck cargo deck, boat, train, car and blimp to name a few..whats left?.....Five jumbo elephants????(like there are small elephants..lol) (i,m counting Bill back in!) From space. They've tried everything else. Although, on the downside, if Bill wont fly, I cant envision him being keen to be blasted into the stratosphere in a rocket, so thats him out of contention.

They haven't done aquatics yet, have they?

You saw the look of sheer discomfort on Charlie's face when he was about to be sick in that blimp, no doubt.

Knowing his luck, he'll get stung by a jellyfish or get eaten by a shark in front of the world's press.

Steel Wheels wrote on Dec 12^th, 2011 at 4:09pm:

Like BB King, they will continue to play. I have 110% faith that is what they will do.  Time marches on, and so do the Rolling Stones.

And thats exactly whats gonna happen. But how will they announce the tour? Here's an idea ~  It's going be a big Press Conference in London, going back to the original place where MICK & KEEF met at the train station, arriving on a train! That new statue should be in place by then!  That would be a grand entrance, wouldnt it?  

Gazza wrote on Dec 12^th, 2011 at 4:30pm:

gimmekeef wrote on Dec 12th, 2011 at 3:42pm: Ok.....I am assuming that there will be a tour.....so how do they announce it???...Done it by truck cargo deck, boat, train, car and blimp to name a few..whats left?.....Five jumbo elephants????(like there are small elephants..lol) (i,m counting Bill back in!) From space. They've tried everything else. Although, on the downside, if Bill wont fly, I cant envision him being keen to be blasted into the stratosphere in a rocket, so thats him out of contention.

Well space is really the last frontier. The new Space Shuttle launches the Stones for a lap round the world while they Skype back with the tour details?. then safely land back here in Atlanta in my back yard for a jam session???

Bitch wrote on Dec 12^th, 2011 at 9:44pm:

Steel Wheels wrote on Dec 12th, 2011 at 4:09pm: Like BB King, they will continue to play. I have 110% faith that is what they will do.  Time marches on, and so do the Rolling Stones. And thats exactly whats gonna happen. But how will they announce the tour? Here's an idea ~  It's going be a big Press Conference in London, going back to the original place where MICK & KEEF met at the train station, arriving on a train! That new statue should be in place by then!  That would be a grand entrance, wouldnt it?

There's a statue? Wasnt it going to be a plaque or did I miss something?

Theyve done the train station announcement before ('89) but considering the anniversary significance, a train station would be very nice indeed. Dartford isn't in London, though.

Or even arriving on a barge at Eel Pie Island
http://everhart.blogspot.com/2011/07/eel-pie-island-where-rolling-stones-who.html

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-AyymtINhA2Q/TjFFrmBG57I/AAAAAAAAH5Y/EsWOcbvwJFI/s1600/eelpieisland02.jpg

Bitch wrote on Dec 12^th, 2011 at 9:44pm:

Steel Wheels wrote on Dec 12th, 2011 at 4:09pm: Like BB King, they will continue to play. I have 110% faith that is what they will do.  Time marches on, and so do the Rolling Stones. And thats exactly whats gonna happen. But how will they announce the tour? Here's an idea ~  It's going be a big Press Conference in London, going back to the original place where MICK & KEEF met at the train station, arriving on a train! That new statue should be in place by then!  That would be a grand entrance, wouldnt it?

You may have a good idea here.

Gazza wrote on Dec 12^th, 2011 at 9:17am:

It is. even for me! I blame Bon Jovi.

funny

Bitch wrote on Dec 12^th, 2011 at 9:44pm:

Steel Wheels wrote on Dec 12th, 2011 at 4:09pm: Like BB King, they will continue to play. I have 110% faith that is what they will do.  Time marches on, and so do the Rolling Stones. And thats exactly whats gonna happen. But how will they announce the tour? Here's an idea ~  It's going be a big Press Conference in London, going back to the original place where MICK & KEEF met at the train station, arriving on a train! That new statue should be in place by then!  That would be a grand entrance, wouldnt it?

Here's an idea. How about they just show up on a stage somewhere and just start playing. That's their tour announcement. :wtf1

Like '75?

they will tweet it.

Some Guy wrote on Dec 13^th, 2011 at 11:14am:

they will tweet it.

Your probably right...Or they can do like Springsteen and NOT announce it at all. >:(

Gazza wrote on Dec 13^th, 2011 at 10:04am:

Like '75?

In the spring of 1975 they had a press conference for journalists and the media. After that they rode on the back of a flatbead truck on busy 5th Ave in NYC. I remember it was the first time RONNIE was in the band.  I have a pic of this.

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g69/TheSilverTongue/126b3c0d1.jpg

Some Guy wrote on Dec 13^th, 2011 at 11:14am:

they will tweet it.

There Twitter account is very busy, and is called Rolling Stones 50...

A live online jam, would be cool... I was pissed the last time they streamed it went black partway into songs... it was lame!!!

thanks for posting that pic Bitch!  I can remember listening to this on WNEW fm live, too young to get into the city by myself, and veeeery pissed off I wasnt older so I could be in the thick of it all. So close, yet so far....my story.

This was a brilliant strategy.  
As I recall, it was Charlie's idea.
Thanks for the photo & flashback.

Bitch wrote on Dec 14^th, 2011 at 12:55am:

Gazza wrote on Dec 13th, 2011 at 10:04am: Like '75? In the spring of 1975 they had a press conference for journalists and the media. After that they rode on the back of a flatbead truck on busy 5th Ave in NYC. I remember it was the first time RONNIE was in the band.  I have a pic of this. http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g69/TheSilverTongue/126b3c0d1.jpg

WOW! Did YOU take that picture, Bitch? (Hope I'm not too forward addressing you like that!) It's the best shot I've seen of the legendary '75 announcement.

Actually, I think they announced a press conference and then didn't show up...the press was inside waiting for them to arrive when they heard the commotion outside, and then had to hustle outside to get a glimpse of them.

FPM wrote on Dec 14^th, 2011 at 9:53am:

Bitch wrote on Dec 14th, 2011 at 12:55am: Gazza wrote on Dec 13th, 2011 at 10:04am: Like '75? In the spring of 1975 they had a press conference for journalists and the media. After that they rode on the back of a flatbead truck on busy 5th Ave in NYC. I remember it was the first time RONNIE was in the band.  I have a pic of this. http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g69/TheSilverTongue/126b3c0d1.jpg WOW! Did YOU take that picture, Bitch? (Hope I'm not too forward addressing you like that!) It's the best shot I've seen of the legendary '75 announcement. Actually, I think they announced a press conference and then didn't show up...the press was inside waiting for them to arrive when they heard the commotion outside, and then had to hustle outside to get a glimpse of them.

Actually my boyfriend (at the time) took that photograph and he was the one who found out about the Press Conference because he was a writer/photographer. The so called Press Conference wasnt open to the public so I really dont know if they dissed the reporters but that sounds like something they would of done at that time!

PS. You can call me Bitch, that my handle here on Rocks Off and I like it. And I'm NOT a Bitch, in fact I'm very friendly! BITCH is my all time favorite Stones tune. I love the opening riff, it makes me happy every single time I hear it!

SO?!? Has this jam session taken place yet???

Anyone with the scoop?!?

Paranoid Android wrote on Dec 17^th, 2011 at 9:53pm:

SO?!? Has this jam session taken place yet??? Anyone with the scoop?!?

__________________________________


Excellent question. However we can only speculate. Being as all band members (minus Mick Taylor... we "think"..) have been reported to be in London in the past ten days, where this ..."jam"..... was supposedly to take place in the said time frame, we are presuming it did/or is occurring right now.



-Ian

I'm gonna wing on over to London and jam with the Stones.

Paranoid Android wrote on Dec 17^th, 2011 at 9:53pm:

SO?!? Has this jam session taken place yet??? Anyone with the scoop?!?

My house on friday night...sadly i was the only one that showed up but it rocked anyway!

Some Guy wrote on Dec 18^th, 2011 at 7:42am:

I'm gonna wing on over to London and jam with the Stones.

____________________________


Hah !!!

..and who could ever forget Mr. Jeff Spicoli - (Fast Times at R. High)


Ian

Paranoid Android wrote on Dec 17^th, 2011 at 9:53pm:

SO?!? Has this jam session taken place yet??? Anyone with the scoop?!?

Ok..I think I can give you the info now. I was given this info on the day the session started, but wasnt allowed to post it.

However, as I've had the same info verified by two other people unconnected with the person who originally told me (and more info provided) - and neither of them told me NOT to post it - I think its fair enough to share it by now.

The Stones jammed in a rehearsal studio in London's Chelsea area from Tuesday 6th to Thursday 8th December.

Bill Wyman and Ben Waters were there for all three days. Mick Jagger joined the band on the last day. (He had a prior engagement in Paris earlier in the week - the Scorsese tribute event)

The band simply did some blues jams. It wasn't a recording session. By all accounts, things went well and it appears relations between Mick and Keith seem to be fine. Clearly, some olive branches were needed, but it certainly appears that World War III has been averted - again!

Despite speculation to the contrary on other sites, Mick Taylor wasn't there.

I'm personally not reading anything significant into the inclusion of Wyman and Waters (or the non-inclusion of Taylor) regarding 2012 because it really does appear it was a case of a few friends who were available having a jam session to keep their playing chops together. It could simply be that Leavell and Jones - who live in the US - werent available.

There is no concrete info regarding 2012 plans as yet. Everything I've heard suggests they'll tour, but where, when and for how long is merely speculation at this point.  Aside from understanding that a career-spanning DVD release is in the works for their 50th anniversary and probably a UMG-issued compilation, I'm unaware of any firm plans for new releases. As yet.

Thanks, Gaz.  [smiley=thumbup.gif]

flippin awesome news!!!
thanks for the confirm Big G!!!

Good news indeed! Pressconference including Bill in april 2012. Now wouldn't that be nice. I know, I know, including Bill is wishfull thinking, but after 50 years, everything is possible.

my dream version of this is that the band with Bill  Charlie Ron Mick Keith Bill and a british pianist (Ben will do)  with Mick Taylor as a feature will play two week or so at various important top the band's history type venue...London Chicago LA NYC Paris perhaps.......5000 seats or less. two horns Bobby and a trumpet.......

no Blondie n Lisa no Chuck no Daryll no Bernard.....OR let those folks open for the stones.

1 and a half set with a few blues numbers.

Gazza wrote on Dec 18^th, 2011 at 11:18am:

Paranoid Android wrote on Dec 17th, 2011 at 9:53pm: SO?!? Has this jam session taken place yet??? Anyone with the scoop?!? Ok..I think I can give you the info now. I was given this info on the day the session started, but wasnt allowed to post it. However, as I've had the same info verified by two other people unconnected with the person who originally told me (and more info provided) - and neither of them told me NOT to post it - I think its fair enough to share it by now. The Stones jammed in a rehearsal studio in London's Chelsea area from Tuesday 6th to Thursday 8th December. Bill Wyman and Ben Waters were there for all three days. Mick Jagger joined the band on the last day. (He had a prior engagement in Paris earlier in the week - the Scorsese tribute event) The band simply did some blues jams. It wasn't a recording session. By all accounts, things went well and it appears relations between Mick and Keith seem to be fine. Clearly, some olive branches were needed, but it certainly appears that World War III has been averted - again! Despite speculation to the contrary on other sites, Mick Taylor wasn't there. I'm personally not reading anything significant into the inclusion of Wyman and Waters (or the non-inclusion of Taylor) regarding 2012 because it really does appear it was a case of a few friends who were available having a jam session to keep their playing chops together. It could simply be that Leavell and Jones - who live in the US - werent available. There is no concrete info regarding 2012 plans as yet. Everything I've heard suggests they'll tour, but where, when and for how long is merely speculation at this point.  Aside from understanding that a career-spanning DVD release is in the works for their 50th anniversary and probably a UMG-issued compilation, I'm unaware of any firm plans for new releases. As yet.

Thanks for the info. If Mick Taylor had been there it would have been even more amazing but having Wyman playing with Mick and Keith again is enough for me. At the very most, I can see him doing a European leg but even that seems unlikely. Still, this is more than enough. I just wonder if Mick and Keith might be doing something more than token for Ian Stewart, but judging from past behavior, I doubt it.

Now we're talking!!

Gazza wrote on Dec 18^th, 2011 at 11:18am:

Paranoid Android wrote on Dec 17th, 2011 at 9:53pm: SO?!? Has this jam session taken place yet??? Anyone with the scoop?!? Ok..I think I can give you the info now. I was given this info on the day the session started, but wasnt allowed to post it. However, as I've had the same info verified by two other people unconnected with the person who originally told me (and more info provided) - and neither of them told me NOT to post it - I think its fair enough to share it by now. The Stones jammed in a rehearsal studio in London's Chelsea area from Tuesday 6th to Thursday 8th December. Bill Wyman and Ben Waters were there for all three days. Mick Jagger joined the band on the last day. (He had a prior engagement in Paris earlier in the week - the Scorsese tribute event) The band simply did some blues jams. It wasn't a recording session. By all accounts, things went well and it appears relations between Mick and Keith seem to be fine. Clearly, some olive branches were needed, but it certainly appears that World War III has been averted - again! Despite speculation to the contrary on other sites, Mick Taylor wasn't there. I'm personally not reading anything significant into the inclusion of Wyman and Waters (or the non-inclusion of Taylor) regarding 2012 because it really does appear it was a case of a few friends who were available having a jam session to keep their playing chops together. It could simply be that Leavell and Jones - who live in the US - werent available. There is no concrete info regarding 2012 plans as yet. Everything I've heard suggests they'll tour, but where, when and for how long is merely speculation at this point.  Aside from understanding that a career-spanning DVD release is in the works for their 50th anniversary and probably a UMG-issued compilation, I'm unaware of any firm plans for new releases. As yet.

WOW!!! Glad I asked!!!

:booze :booze :booze

Gazza wrote on Dec 18^th, 2011 at 11:18am:

Paranoid Android wrote on Dec 17th, 2011 at 9:53pm: SO?!? Has this jam session taken place yet??? Anyone with the scoop?!? Ok..I think I can give you the info now. I was given this info on the day the session started, but wasnt allowed to post it. However, as I've had the same info verified by two other people unconnected with the person who originally told me (and more info provided) - and neither of them told me NOT to post it - I think its fair enough to share it by now. The Stones jammed in a rehearsal studio in London's Chelsea area from Tuesday 6th to Thursday 8th December. Bill Wyman and Ben Waters were there for all three days. Mick Jagger joined the band on the last day. (He had a prior engagement in Paris earlier in the week - the Scorsese tribute event) The band simply did some blues jams. It wasn't a recording session. By all accounts, things went well and it appears relations between Mick and Keith seem to be fine. Clearly, some olive branches were needed, but it certainly appears that World War III has been averted - again! Despite speculation to the contrary on other sites, Mick Taylor wasn't there. I'm personally not reading anything significant into the inclusion of Wyman and Waters (or the non-inclusion of Taylor) regarding 2012 because it really does appear it was a case of a few friends who were available having a jam session to keep their playing chops together. It could simply be that Leavell and Jones - who live in the US - werent available. There is no concrete info regarding 2012 plans as yet. Everything I've heard suggests they'll tour, but where, when and for how long is merely speculation at this point.  Aside from understanding that a career-spanning DVD release is in the works for their 50th anniversary and probably a UMG-issued compilation, I'm unaware of any firm plans for new releases. As yet.

Gazza,you sure you dont work for MI5? You know how to keep some secrets. :whydontcha

My sources tell me they rehearsed Emotional Rescue.

Gazza wrote on Dec 18^th, 2011 at 11:18am:

Paranoid Android wrote on Dec 17th, 2011 at 9:53pm: SO?!? Has this jam session taken place yet??? Anyone with the scoop?!? Ok..I think I can give you the info now. I was given this info on the day the session started, but wasnt allowed to post it. However, as I've had the same info verified by two other people unconnected with the person who originally told me (and more info provided) - and neither of them told me NOT to post it - I think its fair enough to share it by now. The Stones jammed in a rehearsal studio in London's Chelsea area from Tuesday 6th to Thursday 8th December. Bill Wyman and Ben Waters were there for all three days. Mick Jagger joined the band on the last day. (He had a prior engagement in Paris earlier in the week - the Scorsese tribute event) The band simply did some blues jams. It wasn't a recording session. By all accounts, things went well and it appears relations between Mick and Keith seem to be fine. Clearly, some olive branches were needed, but it certainly appears that World War III has been averted - again! Despite speculation to the contrary on other sites, Mick Taylor wasn't there. I'm personally not reading anything significant into the inclusion of Wyman and Waters (or the non-inclusion of Taylor) regarding 2012 because it really does appear it was a case of a few friends who were available having a jam session to keep their playing chops together. It could simply be that Leavell and Jones - who live in the US - werent available. There is no concrete info regarding 2012 plans as yet. Everything I've heard suggests they'll tour, but where, when and for how long is merely speculation at this point.  Aside from understanding that a career-spanning DVD release is in the works for their 50th anniversary and probably a UMG-issued compilation, I'm unaware of any firm plans for new releases. As yet.

________________________________


Well done and bravo to your knowledge to the gathering, Mate. As well, I gotta respect your silence until a bit of time had passed (shows manners).

However I am a bit "let-down". As well, I simply can't see the point in renting a rehearsal studio for a three day jam with no real purpose behind it? Why didn't they just spend three days at one of their mansions if they wanted to play music together again that bad...?? I certainly believe what you said happened is true... however, I gotta say, I think it was meant for a specific direction... rather than them wanting to simply get re-acquainted.

I mean really, did they all bring a picnic basket or something? Still... the news is good Gazza and I know you are only relaying what your inside source told you and we thank you for the news.. .. .. As well, I appreciate your reluctance to not jump the gun and assume. Shows professionalism. Nice work mate -


Ian

Bitch's surburban railway station idea feels the sweet-iest so far   :paristhong   X

Ian Billen wrote on Dec 18^th, 2011 at 10:53pm:

However I am a bit "let-down". As well, I simply can't see the point in renting a rehearsal studio for a three day jam with no real purpose behind it? Why didn't they just spend three days at one of their mansions if they wanted to play music together again that bad...?? I certainly believe what you said happened is true... however, I gotta say, I think it was meant for a specific direction... rather than them wanting to simply get re-acquainted.

They've gotta walk before we make them run, Ian...

This time last year the chances of even THIS happening were not good.

http://www.WhatWouldKeithRichardsDo.net/

Gazza wrote on Dec 19^th, 2011 at 6:29am:

Ian Billen wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 10:53pm:  However I am a bit "let-down". As well, I simply can't see the point in renting a rehearsal studio for a three day jam with no real purpose behind it? Why didn't they just spend three days at one of their mansions if they wanted to play music together again that bad...?? I certainly believe what you said happened is true... however, I gotta say, I think it was meant for a specific direction... rather than them wanting to simply get re-acquainted. They've gotta walk before we make them run, Ian... This time last year the chances of even THIS happening were not good.

I think this brings in a bit more professionalism and less ego and/or home court advantage...a rehearsal studio v ex/ Mick's mansion in the country...being "musicians" and not "guests".

Too bad about Taylor's absence,  :'( :'(

WaiteringOnAFiend wrote on Dec 19^th, 2011 at 1:18am:

Bitch's surburban railway station idea feels the sweet-iest so far   :paristhong   X

Any truth that WaiteringOnAFiend ( great moniker, btw) is really Sir Mick trolling around RO??
And I agree w/ him...Bitch's idea RAWKS!!!
I think she deserves front row access to the event!!!

Wonder if any recording was done at all?.....imagine ending 2011 with a new jam bootleg?.....we can only dream!!!

gimmekeef wrote on Dec 19^th, 2011 at 12:39pm:

Wonder if any recording was done at all?.....imagine ending 2011 with a new jam bootleg?.....we can only dream!!!

Happy Birthday...and i believe that was covered in Gazza's statement...5th paragraph

______________________________________



Mick flew to London purposefully to be at this Jam session but only for a day, yet things are reported to have went as planned and just  fine. So then, if this is so, why didn't they wait until "after" his event in Paris to have the session. For this matter ...why didn't they do it in November as they had originally planned?


Mick sat in for a single day, and things went well... ? Has to be more to it...  


Ian

No truth in your (probably jokey) suggestion, Android. I'm just someone who (as a youngster and by luck) saw them rehearse one night in 1976 and have since found their music, dynamics and humour pleasurable to dip into and even muse on sometimes.
For instance, I wonder, during the visceral enjoyment of hearing 'No Spare Parts' (both versions) how much it is (partly) about Jerry Hall's amphetamine-trucker father, or Michael imagining himself as him.  
The special edition seems quite a 'Jerry thing' to me, and I wonder how it's felt for MPJ to re-investigate and dwell on and add to and tease the past as he has recently done.
:forfucksake
Gawd Love The Stains

Ian Billen wrote on Dec 19^th, 2011 at 8:58pm:

______________________________________ Mick flew to London purposefully to be at this Jam session but only for a day, yet things are reported to have went as planned and just  fine. So then, if this is so, why didn't they wait until "after" his event in Paris to have the session. For this matter ...why didn't they do it in November as they had originally planned? Mick sat in for a single day, and things went well... ? Has to be more to it...   Ian

A journalist paraphrased something Keith came off with and said that Keith, Charlie and Ronnie were going to get together later in November.

Maybe it didnt suit that many of them to have it on other dates and Keith was unaware of this at the time.  Things happen. Does it really matter that it was a few days AFTER November? Ronnie was in Australia until early December. Bill was on tour until December 2nd. Did you forget that? You dont need a singer to do a jam session. Mick, clearly, was unavailable for a while too.

"Mick sat in for a single day, and things went well... ? Has to be more to it...   "

What does that even MEAN?

I give up. Is it really necessary to do a Colombo on this?

sweetcharmedlife wrote on Dec 18^th, 2011 at 8:56pm:

Gazza wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 11:18am: Paranoid Android wrote on Dec 17th, 2011 at 9:53pm: SO?!? Has this jam session taken place yet??? Anyone with the scoop?!? Ok..I think I can give you the info now. I was given this info on the day the session started, but wasnt allowed to post it. However, as I've had the same info verified by two other people unconnected with the person who originally told me (and more info provided) - and neither of them told me NOT to post it - I think its fair enough to share it by now. The Stones jammed in a rehearsal studio in London's Chelsea area from Tuesday 6th to Thursday 8th December. Bill Wyman and Ben Waters were there for all three days. Mick Jagger joined the band on the last day. (He had a prior engagement in Paris earlier in the week - the Scorsese tribute event) The band simply did some blues jams. It wasn't a recording session. By all accounts, things went well and it appears relations between Mick and Keith seem to be fine. Clearly, some olive branches were needed, but it certainly appears that World War III has been averted - again! Despite speculation to the contrary on other sites, Mick Taylor wasn't there. I'm personally not reading anything significant into the inclusion of Wyman and Waters (or the non-inclusion of Taylor) regarding 2012 because it really does appear it was a case of a few friends who were available having a jam session to keep their playing chops together. It could simply be that Leavell and Jones - who live in the US - werent available. There is no concrete info regarding 2012 plans as yet. Everything I've heard suggests they'll tour, but where, when and for how long is merely speculation at this point.  Aside from understanding that a career-spanning DVD release is in the works for their 50th anniversary and probably a UMG-issued compilation, I'm unaware of any firm plans for new releases. As yet. Gazza,you sure you dont work for MI5? You know how to keep some secrets. :whydontcha

True!!  :blankfriggingstare1

Gazza wrote on Dec 20^th, 2011 at 7:38am:

Ian Billen wrote on Dec 19th, 2011 at 8:58pm: ______________________________________ Mick flew to London purposefully to be at this Jam session but only for a day, yet things are reported to have went as planned and just  fine. So then, if this is so, why didn't they wait until "after" his event in Paris to have the session. For this matter ...why didn't they do it in November as they had originally planned? Mick sat in for a single day, and things went well... ? Has to be more to it...   Ian A journalist paraphrased something Keith came off with and said that Keith, Charlie and Ronnie were going to get together later in November. Maybe it didnt suit that many of them to have it on other dates and Keith was unaware of this at the time.  Things happen. Does it really matter that it was a few days AFTER November? Ronnie was in Australia until early December. Bill was on tour until December 2nd. Did you forget that? You dont need a singer to do a jam session. Mick, clearly, was unavailable for a while too. "Mick sat in for a single day, and things went well... ? Has to be more to it...   " What does that even MEAN? I give up. Is it really necessary to do a Colombo on this?

Well your already a secret agent. Is it that hard to be a detective too? ;)

Gazza wrote on Dec 20^th, 2011 at 7:38am:

Ian Billen wrote on Dec 19th, 2011 at 8:58pm: ______________________________________ Mick flew to London purposefully to be at this Jam session but only for a day, yet things are reported to have went as planned and just  fine. So then, if this is so, why didn't they wait until "after" his event in Paris to have the session. For this matter ...why didn't they do it in November as they had originally planned? Mick sat in for a single day, and things went well... ? Has to be more to it...   Ian A journalist paraphrased something Keith came off with and said that Keith, Charlie and Ronnie were going to get together later in November. Maybe it didnt suit that many of them to have it on other dates and Keith was unaware of this at the time.  Things happen. Does it really matter that it was a few days AFTER November? Ronnie was in Australia until early December. Bill was on tour until December 2nd. Did you forget that? You dont need a singer to do a jam session. Mick, clearly, was unavailable for a while too. "Mick sat in for a single day, and things went well... ? Has to be more to it...   " What does that even MEAN? I give up. Is it really necessary to do a Colombo on this?

___________________________________


Well I can appreciate your not reading into any of it and taking it for what it has been billed as. I guess it is just a bit hard to swallow for me. In this late in their career .. they all rent a rehearsal studio out and Jam with Bill Wyman.

Just seems odd. "ESPECIALLY" due to the fact that it basically had to be "squeezed" in. It isn't like every Stone was just sitting around in London anyway bored to tears. It was a planned thing for a few months now. Just seems odd, and quite out of the normal chain of their duties in this day and age.

That's why the whole idea and concept is a bit hard to swallow for me is what I'm sayin. I still think there is motive and was a purpose to it.


Ian

sweetcharmedlife wrote on Dec 20^th, 2011 at 9:32am:

Gazza wrote on Dec 20th, 2011 at 7:38am: Ian Billen wrote on Dec 19th, 2011 at 8:58pm: ______________________________________ Mick flew to London purposefully to be at this Jam session but only for a day, yet things are reported to have went as planned and just  fine. So then, if this is so, why didn't they wait until "after" his event in Paris to have the session. For this matter ...why didn't they do it in November as they had originally planned? Mick sat in for a single day, and things went well... ? Has to be more to it...   Ian A journalist paraphrased something Keith came off with and said that Keith, Charlie and Ronnie were going to get together later in November. Maybe it didnt suit that many of them to have it on other dates and Keith was unaware of this at the time.  Things happen. Does it really matter that it was a few days AFTER November? Ronnie was in Australia until early December. Bill was on tour until December 2nd. Did you forget that? You dont need a singer to do a jam session. Mick, clearly, was unavailable for a while too. "Mick sat in for a single day, and things went well... ? Has to be more to it...   " What does that even MEAN? I give up. Is it really necessary to do a Colombo on this? Well your already a secret agent. Is it that hard to be a detective too? ;)

I got a 007 watch and it's a one and only
It's got a I-Spy beeper that tells me when you're lonely
I got a Batmobile so I can reach ya' in a fast shake
When your world's in crisis of an impendin' heartbreak
Now don't you call James Bond or Secret Agent Man
Cause they can't do it, like I can

I'm a rocker, baby, I'm a rocker - every day
I'm a rocker, baby, I'm a rocker

If you're hanging from a cliff or you're tied to the tracks, girl
Columbo split and you can't find Kojak
True love is broken and your tears are fallin' faster
You're sufferin' from a pain in your heart or some other natural disaster ....

IAN,TRY AND TAKE IT AS IT COMES..IF THINGS MOVE FORWARD,REJOICE..DUDES ARE OLD AND NOTHING IS GUARANTEED.
IN THE MEANTIME, PUT ON SOME GIRLS LIVE DVD AS LOUD AS YOU CAN, AND REJOICE IN WHAT WAS.

BILL PERKS wrote on Dec 20^th, 2011 at 2:56pm:

IAN,TRY AND TAKE IT AS IT COMES..IF THINGS MOVE FORWARD,REJOICE..DUDES ARE OLD AND NOTHING IS GUARANTEED. IN THE MEANTIME, PUT ON SOME GIRLS LIVE DVD AS LOUD AS YOU CAN, AND REJOICE IN WHAT WAS.

Well said, Bill, I agree! Nothing in life is guaranteed except death and taxes, and taxes can be avoided. Luckily both MICK & KEEF's parents lived to ripe old ages so they inherited good genes and could live well into their 90's. That makes me smile. :) Always dreaded the thought of Before They Make Me Run.

Gazza wrote on Dec 13^th, 2011 at 7:18am:

Bitch wrote on Dec 12th, 2011 at 9:44pm: Steel Wheels wrote on Dec 12th, 2011 at 4:09pm: Like BB King, they will continue to play. I have 110% faith that is what they will do.  Time marches on, and so do the Rolling Stones. And thats exactly whats gonna happen. But how will they announce the tour? Here's an idea ~  It's going be a big Press Conference in London, going back to the original place where MICK & KEEF met at the train station, arriving on a train! That new statue should be in place by then!  That would be a grand entrance, wouldnt it?   There's a statue? Wasnt it going to be a plaque or did I miss something? Theyve done the train station announcement before ('89) but considering the anniversary significance, a train station would be very nice indeed. Dartford isn't in London, though.

Rolling Stones Examiner November 8, 2010 -
Mick Jagger and Keith Richards statues seek a home in Dartford, England
Dartford, Kent in England is famous for being the childhood hometown of singer Mick Jagger and guitarist Keith Richards of the Rolling Stones. An artist who has sculpted statues of Jagger and Richards now wants to place those statues at a historical Rolling Stones location in Dartford, but he is facing financial obstacles.

Anthony Hawken, the creator of the statues, tells Kent Online that he thinks the ideal place for the statues would be at the Dartford railway station, where Jagger and Richards reconnected as teenagers after the two future rock stars had lost touch with each other when both of their families moved to different neighborhoods.


"There seem to be lots of places in Dartford where a statue could go," Hawken says, "but I think the station would be the most fitting place … We do get quite a few tourists visiting Dartford to go to Wentworth School or the station, so I think we would be really keen to do something. There are a few options we're considering, and finance is always an issue, but it's certainly on our agenda."

Before they reach adolescent age, Jagger and Richards both lived near each other and attended Wentworth Primary School and Dartford Grammar School for Boys, but the two future rock stars knew each other then as passing acquaintances. They lost contact when Jagger’s family moved to Wilmington (a Dartford suburb) and Richards’ family moved to Temple Hill.

Jagger and Richards became close friends as teenagers, after meeting at the Dartford railway station, and the two future rock stars immediately bonded over music. At the railway station, Richards noticed that Jagger was holding American records that were hard to get at the time in the United Kingdom.

At the time, Jagger was a student at the London Scool of Economics, and Keith was attending Sidcup Art College. In his memoir "Life," Richards remembers that fateful meeting with Jagger: "Did we hit it off? You get a carriage with a guy that’s got ‘Rockin’ at the Hops’ by Chuck Berry on Chess Records, and ‘The Best of Muddy Waters’ also under his arm, you are gonna hit it off."

Richards also says in the book: Almost immediately after we met, he start to sing and I’d start to play, and ‘Hey, that ain’t bad.’ And it wasn’t difficult; we had nobody to impress except us and we weren’t looking to impress ourselves.’’

In July 2010, Jagger returned to the Dartford Grammar School to open a new extension to the school’s co-ed Mick Jagger Centre for performing arts.


The Mick Jagger Centre opened in 2000, and it hosts the Jagger-funded Red Rooster music program, which gives tuition and music instruments to 150 students. In a July 2010 interview with the BBC, Jagger commented on Dartford Grammar School: "It's part of your consciousness, you're brought up somewhere for this very formative part of your life.

Anthony Hakwen's statue sculpture of Mick Jagger and Keith Richards

Credits:


Anthony Hawken
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g69/TheSilverTongue/Jagger-Richards2-statues1.jpg
Train Station looks large enough for a Press Conference! http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g69/TheSilverTongue/Dartford_station_building.jpg

Thanks for digging that article out.

A nice effort. That story is a year old though. Has there been anything since to suggest that getting a site for this is anything more than a pipedream?

This is the last thing I could find on it (see the bottom of the article)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-15333771

Why have no pics surfaced of the band members in London? Has anything hit the tabloids there?   

Bitch wrote on Dec 26^th, 2011 at 9:19am:

Why have no pics surfaced of the band members in London?

Because they didn't announce it. Its not exactly something they tend to publicise.



Bitch wrote on Dec 26^th, 2011 at 9:19am:

Has anything hit the tabloids there?

Nope.

Thankfully, because you can bet most of it will be ill-informed bullshit.

Ticket prices for new tour will be so high.... glencar is nervous.

I knew we'd find something in common sooner or later...!

Will they get the Black Eyed Peas to open for them again? Wait, wait -- or Beiber? That is the big question here. Wyman Schmyman.

Seriously, though -- I'm hoping to see them in NY in 2012. Hoping a lot of people go there. Frig yes.

Boomy wrote on Dec 26^th, 2011 at 8:40pm:

Will they get the Black Eyed Peas to open for them again? Wait, wait -- or Beiber? That is the big question here. Wyman Schmyman. Seriously, though -- I'm hoping to see them in NY in 2012. Hoping a lot of people go there. Frig yes.

I personally hope if they do tour they get Guns N' Roses to open for them.

StickyStones wrote on Dec 28^th, 2011 at 4:54pm:

Boomy wrote on Dec 26th, 2011 at 8:40pm: Will they get the Black Eyed Peas to open for them again? Wait, wait -- or Beiber? That is the big question here. Wyman Schmyman. Seriously, though -- I'm hoping to see them in NY in 2012. Hoping a lot of people go there. Frig yes. I personally hope if they do tour they get Guns N' Roses to open for them.

Some Guy and I......a new Atlanta based supergroup have been signed to open...and you'll like it!!!!!!!!

gimmekeef wrote on Dec 28^th, 2011 at 5:00pm:

Some Guy and I......a new Atlanta based supergroup

Cheesy name for a "supergroup."  :nooslajaleisk

Edith Grove wrote on Dec 28^th, 2011 at 5:12pm:

gimmekeef wrote on Dec 28th, 2011 at 5:00pm: Some Guy and I......a new Atlanta based supergroup Cheesy name for a "supergroup."  :nooslajaleisk

Geez...like Traffic was such a neat name.......we been jammin man!

gimmekeef wrote on Dec 28^th, 2011 at 5:26pm:

Edith Grove wrote on Dec 28th, 2011 at 5:12pm: gimmekeef wrote on Dec 28th, 2011 at 5:00pm: Some Guy and I......a new Atlanta based supergroup Cheesy name for a "supergroup."  :nooslajaleisk Geez...like Traffic was such a neat name.......we been jammin man!

Super Some keef?

Keep that attitude up and you'll get SUPERHEAVY opening with Mick doing a "cameo" for one song...

Some Guy wrote on Dec 28^th, 2011 at 5:29pm:

gimmekeef wrote on Dec 28th, 2011 at 5:26pm: Edith Grove wrote on Dec 28th, 2011 at 5:12pm: gimmekeef wrote on Dec 28th, 2011 at 5:00pm: Some Guy and I......a new Atlanta based supergroup Cheesy name for a "supergroup."  :nooslajaleisk Geez...like Traffic was such a neat name.......we been jammin man! Super Some keef?

Two guys walk into a bar? :pullanolte :pullanolte

http://somethingelsereviews.com/2012/01/10/fans-already-lodging-complaints-even-before-rolling-stones-announce-50th-anniversary-tour/

Fans already lodging complaints, even before Rolling Stones announce 50th anniversary tour

Rallying around a cry for smaller venues, lower ticket prices and a revamped set list, a group calling itself the Rolling Stones Liberation Front has lodged a series of demands — even before the group announces plans for an expected 50th anniversary tour in 2012.

The protesters argue that “it is unacceptable to charge up to $350 for a single ticket,” saying “a band needing to charge $85-$100 for upper balcony seats is a band no longer in touch with their fan base.” The Rolling Stones Liberation Front suggests a ticket price of no more than $30 — including service charges.

Too, they argue that “the time has passed for gargantuan mega-arena spectaculars,” calling for a concert-length presentation similar to the B-stage set up in the middle of the venue at the end of 1994’s Voodoo Lounge Tour, which could provide a more intimate experience.

The group would also like to liberate the Rolling Stones from a setlist that, they say, hews to “the same 30 songs for every tour,” saying: “We refuse to sit through another airing of the played-out hits.” Among the favorites that these protesters would like to see offed: “(I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction,” “Brown Sugar,” “Honky Tonk Women,” “Start Me Up,” “Sympathy For The Devil.”

Other demands include the elimination of the horn section, backup singers and opening acts, as well. No word on the number of card-carrying affiliates of the new Rolling Stones Liberation Front, but members reportedly are “threatening non-violent, disruptive action” if their concerns are not addressed: “Now, it’s time The Rolling Stones give back or we will push back,” the group says in its mission statement. “Why give them more of our money and then settle for the usual? We won’t.”

Gimme Shelter wrote on Jan 10^th, 2012 at 7:45pm:

http://somethingelsereviews.com/2012/01/10/fans-already-lodging-complaints-even-before-rolling-stones-announce-50th-anniversary-tour/ Fans already lodging complaints, even before Rolling Stones announce 50th anniversary tour Rallying around a cry for smaller venues, lower ticket prices and a revamped set list, a group calling itself the Rolling Stones Liberation Front has lodged a series of demands — even before the group announces plans for an expected 50th anniversary tour in 2012. The protesters argue that “it is unacceptable to charge up to $350 for a single ticket,” saying “a band needing to charge $85-$100 for upper balcony seats is a band no longer in touch with their fan base.” The Rolling Stones Liberation Front suggests a ticket price of no more than $30 — including service charges. Too, they argue that “the time has passed for gargantuan mega-arena spectaculars,” calling for a concert-length presentation similar to the B-stage set up in the middle of the venue at the end of 1994’s Voodoo Lounge Tour, which could provide a more intimate experience. The group would also like to liberate the Rolling Stones from a setlist that, they say, hews to “the same 30 songs for every tour,” saying: “We refuse to sit through another airing of the played-out hits.” Among the favorites that these protesters would like to see offed: “(I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction,” “Brown Sugar,” “Honky Tonk Women,” “Start Me Up,” “Sympathy For The Devil.” Other demands include the elimination of the horn section, backup singers and opening acts, as well. No word on the number of card-carrying affiliates of the new Rolling Stones Liberation Front, but members reportedly are “threatening non-violent, disruptive action” if their concerns are not addressed: “Now, it’s time The Rolling Stones give back or we will push back,” the group says in its mission statement. “Why give them more of our money and then settle for the usual? We won’t.”

that is good stuff.

while all this sounds all too familia...and I agree with most of it...
it sounds like something out of The Onion.

The last line says a lot...but i don't
know many on this board, myself included,  who would walk the walk if it came right down to it.

Damn Is this anything like the 99%ers or 1%, You know the occupy A Stones Concert demonstrators?
Sorry but I'd be  happy to hear that they are going to play again, and the chance to see or hear them.............
Would be a dream come true for me...IMO!
Sure it would be nice if the tickets were less expensive, at small club settings. They played the exact songs I wanted to hear.  The lines to the bathrooms vanished when I had to go and the dumb ass that decided last time that this time  it would be uncool to call in a bomb threat. That way I could hear Keith's stuff....yeah But I be happy anyway, with what I got,
Get what you get and don't cause a Shit, You might just find you get what you need! IMO.
Now let the beating begin!

Gimme Shelter wrote on Jan 10^th, 2012 at 7:45pm:

http://somethingelsereviews.com/2012/01/10/fans-already-lodging-complaints-even-before-rolling-stones-announce-50th-anniversary-tour/ Fans already lodging complaints, even before Rolling Stones announce 50th anniversary tour Rallying around a cry for smaller venues, lower ticket prices and a revamped set list, a group calling itself the Rolling Stones Liberation Front has lodged a series of demands — even before the group announces plans for an expected 50th anniversary tour in 2012. The protesters argue that “it is unacceptable to charge up to $350 for a single ticket,” saying “a band needing to charge $85-$100 for upper balcony seats is a band no longer in touch with their fan base.” The Rolling Stones Liberation Front suggests a ticket price of no more than $30 — including service charges. Too, they argue that “the time has passed for gargantuan mega-arena spectaculars,” calling for a concert-length presentation similar to the B-stage set up in the middle of the venue at the end of 1994’s Voodoo Lounge Tour, which could provide a more intimate experience. The group would also like to liberate the Rolling Stones from a setlist that, they say, hews to “the same 30 songs for every tour,” saying: “We refuse to sit through another airing of the played-out hits.” Among the favorites that these protesters would like to see offed: “(I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction,” “Brown Sugar,” “Honky Tonk Women,” “Start Me Up,” “Sympathy For The Devil.” Other demands include the elimination of the horn section, backup singers and opening acts, as well. No word on the number of card-carrying affiliates of the new Rolling Stones Liberation Front, but members reportedly are “threatening non-violent, disruptive action” if their concerns are not addressed: “Now, it’s time The Rolling Stones give back or we will push back,” the group says in its mission statement. “Why give them more of our money and then settle for the usual? We won’t.”

it's gonna to be such good

OCCUPY ROCKS OFF

That noise you hear is Mick Jagger laughing his ass off,all the way across the pond.

I can't help thinking 'Life of Brian' when I read this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb_qHP7VaZE

' The only people we hate more than U2 are the fucking Beatles! '

Gimme Shelter wrote on Jan 10^th, 2012 at 7:45pm:

http://somethingelsereviews.com/2012/01/10/fans-already-lodging-complaints-even-before-rolling-stones-announce-50th-anniversary-tour/ Fans already lodging complaints, even before Rolling Stones announce 50th anniversary tour Rallying around a cry for smaller venues, lower ticket prices and a revamped set list, a group calling itself the Rolling Stones Liberation Front has lodged a series of demands — even before the group announces plans for an expected 50th anniversary tour in 2012. The protesters argue that “it is unacceptable to charge up to $350 for a single ticket,” saying “a band needing to charge $85-$100 for upper balcony seats is a band no longer in touch with their fan base.” The Rolling Stones Liberation Front suggests a ticket price of no more than $30 — including service charges. Too, they argue that “the time has passed for gargantuan mega-arena spectaculars,” calling for a concert-length presentation similar to the B-stage set up in the middle of the venue at the end of 1994’s Voodoo Lounge Tour, which could provide a more intimate experience. The group would also like to liberate the Rolling Stones from a setlist that, they say, hews to “the same 30 songs for every tour,” saying: “We refuse to sit through another airing of the played-out hits.” Among the favorites that these protesters would like to see offed: “(I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction,” “Brown Sugar,” “Honky Tonk Women,” “Start Me Up,” “Sympathy For The Devil.” Other demands include the elimination of the horn section, backup singers and opening acts, as well. No word on the number of card-carrying affiliates of the new Rolling Stones Liberation Front, but members reportedly are “threatening non-violent, disruptive action” if their concerns are not addressed: “Now, it’s time The Rolling Stones give back or we will push back,” the group says in its mission statement. “Why give them more of our money and then settle for the usual? We won’t.”

This would be a debate I would love to see Riffy and Brainbell hammer at each other over!!!

Paranoid Android wrote on Jan 11^th, 2012 at 8:52am:

OCCUPY ROCKS OFF

The only thing I'm going to occupy is Jon Landau's office. I NEED A FUCKING TOUR ANNOUNCEMENT. Sorry just had to get that out of my system. :scary

There's lots of competition for tour dollars this year.  

I have 5 g's stashed away for this year....its going on the tour or my scotch collection...hopefully both!..interviewed for a new job the other day and they said I might have to take a drug test....I asked what kind of drugs you need me to test!

If the Stones tour, I will be on cloud nine. I need to see this band on a fucking stage.

Steel Wheels wrote on Jan 12^th, 2012 at 3:47pm:

If the Stones tour, I will be on cloud nine. I need to see this band on a fucking stage.

:booze

Well even The Beach Boys are making an album of basically all new material (and if anyone is a pure nostalgia act it's these guys). I wonder if this will make The Stones take that into account in deciding to record new things or a new album for this year...

BTW ... it's been awful quiet for the past few weeks...  anyone know of what any of them are up to recently?


Ian

Ian Billen wrote on Jan 13^th, 2012 at 11:01pm:

Well even The Beach Boys are making an album of basically all new material (and if anyone is a pure nostalgia act it's these guys). I wonder if this will make The Stones take that into account in deciding to record new things or a new album for this year...

As if....

I hope the Stones get into a studio and make another record. I want to hear this band on stage, and I want to hear some new material while they are up there performing.

GIBSON | LIFESTYLE
Gibson Lifestyle News
Print Email this to a Friend RSS 2.0 Feed Digg! PostToDelicious StumbleUpon HyperLink
Ringo Advises Rolling Stones to Tour in 2012
Bryan Wawzenek
|
02.01.2012
http://www.gibson.com/Files/aaFeaturesImages2011/ringo-starr_2012.jpg

Ringo Starr is making the media rounds to promote his new album, Ringo 2012. In an interview with Spinner, the former Beatle spoke about performing live and that he would like to see The Rolling Stones back on the road.

“I hope they put it together and I hope they do a world tour,” he said. “We all should be out there. If we can play, we should be out there playing, and that's the deal. My new attitude is ‘as long as I can hold the sticks, I can play.’ And you may have noticed that in the last several years, I’m playing live more and more. I’m putting records out more and more. Let’s keep playing!

“That’s how it is. Our new hero is B.B. King. I say, ‘Look at B.B. King. He’s 86, but he’s still playing. He might be sitting down, but hey, I’m sitting down already’ [laughs]. I was talking to Billy Squier yesterday and I said, ‘Bill, just get out there and play. This is what we do.’

He then made a plea for the Stones to do a 50th anniversary tour.

“I only advise everybody to get out there and play and I hope The Rolling Stones pull it together and I hope Keith and Mick pull it together and stop squabbling and get out there and do it – says Ringo!”
http://www.gibson.com/en-us/Lifestyle/News/ringo-touring-advice-0201-2012/

Right on, Ringo! The coolest Beatle.

Steel Wheels wrote on Jan 12^th, 2012 at 3:47pm:

If the Stones tour, I will be on cloud nine. I need to see this band on a fucking stage.

I think you can reserve that cloud.

I have to be cryptic about this for obvious reasons, but a certain UK based Rocks Off member (not me) has within the last couple of days has had personal access to documentation which pretty much verifies that there will be a Rolling Stones tour in the coming months.

Gazza wrote on Feb 12^th, 2012 at 9:06am:

Steel Wheels wrote on Jan 12th, 2012 at 3:47pm: If the Stones tour, I will be on cloud nine. I need to see this band on a fucking stage. I think you can reserve that cloud. I have to be cryptic about this for obvious reasons, but a certain UK based Rocks Off member (not me) has within the last couple of days has had personal access to documentation which pretty much verifies that there will be a Rolling Stones tour in the coming months.

Post of the year....so far.....im so excited im typing this with...well you know the drill.....Thanks Gazza

This is great...........A little bird tells me tour this year is a good bet.
This bird seems to sing the right tune!
I'm saving my money for a tour. :areyoufuckingserious

gimmekeef wrote on Feb 12^th, 2012 at 9:16am:

Gazza wrote on Feb 12th, 2012 at 9:06am: Steel Wheels wrote on Jan 12th, 2012 at 3:47pm: If the Stones tour, I will be on cloud nine. I need to see this band on a fucking stage. I think you can reserve that cloud. I have to be cryptic about this for obvious reasons, but a certain UK based Rocks Off member (not me) has within the last couple of days has had personal access to documentation which pretty much verifies that there will be a Rolling Stones tour in the coming months. Post of the year....so far.....im so excited im typing this with...well you know the drill.....Thanks Gazza

"Rocks Off - Bringing You The News Before It Happens......"

GREAT NEWS.
CAN'T WAIT FOR IAN BILLEN'S OVERREACTION.

Gazza wrote on Feb 12^th, 2012 at 9:06am:

I have to be cryptic about this for obvious reasons

Gazza, can you please be cryptic about some of the details of this tour?  :smilemick

Edith Grove wrote on Feb 12^th, 2012 at 11:10am:

Gazza wrote on Feb 12th, 2012 at 9:06am: I have to be cryptic about this for obvious reasons Gazza, can you please be cryptic about some of the details of this tour?  :smilemick

Yes. I believe that they will be playing somewhere north of Mexico and south-west of Greenland later in 2012.

Gazza wrote on Feb 12^th, 2012 at 11:24am:

Edith Grove wrote on Feb 12th, 2012 at 11:10am: Gazza wrote on Feb 12th, 2012 at 9:06am: I have to be cryptic about this for obvious reasons Gazza, can you please be cryptic about some of the details of this tour?  :smilemick Yes. I believe that they will be playing somewhere north of Mexico and south-west of Greenland later in 2012.

North of Mexico?....They've been warned about Voodoo huh? :spooky

The Daily Express (and Ronnie) finally 'reveal' that the Stones jammed before Christmas...but then you all knew this already...


http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/303479/Roll-up-for-the-Stones-comeback

Here's cryptic for you:
senotS ot yalp ni 2102
sǝuoʇS oʇ ʎɐld uı ᄅƖ0ᄅ
ᄅƖ0ᄅ uı ʎɐld oʇ sǝuoʇS :blankfriggingstare1

Rolling Stones Concert Tour Dates for 2012 Surface On Dutch Website

A Dutch internet site known as ’Artiesten Nieuws’, which roughly translates as 'Artists News', has claimed that The Rolling Stones have ‘announced’ some dates as part of an up-and-coming concert tour, however, Stereoboard believes these dates to be fake.

UPDATE: Since we published this article, The Rolling Stones Official Twitter Account contacted us to confirm our suspicions. The post read: "The story on the Dutch website is untrue, and originates from a site that was duped into selling tickets for non-existant gigs."

The article claims that the website was tipped off by an ‘anonymous’ but ‘reliable’ large European company about the dates, which would see The Stones performing in London, Paris and Berlin among other cities, but there is no official source behind the dates and we believe the dates have been fabricated.

Artiesten Nieuws claims that The Rolling Stones will be performing at Arsenal Football Club’s Emirates Stadium on September 20th – right in the middle of the football season. It’s unlikely a premier league team would be using their expensive new stadium to host rock concerts mid-season – so we can pretty much rule that out. Zurich’s Letzigrund stadium is also said to be used – though FC Zurich and Grasshopper FC would most likely have something to say about that.

It’s still unknown whether the Rolling Stones will decide to venture out onto the road to celebrate 50 years since their first gig together, however, guitarist Ronnie Wood dropped the biggest hints so far this morning, saying that they were on the ‘verge’ of a decision and that a reunion would ‘be lovely, wouldn't it?’.

Stay with Stereoboard for more news on The Rolling Stones – we’ll be the first to alert you of any official announcements that come from the band.

http://www.stereoboard.com/content/view/170788/9

FPM wrote on Feb 21^st, 2012 at 11:19am:

Rolling Stones Concert Tour Dates for 2012 Surface On Dutch Website A Dutch internet site known as ’Artiesten Nieuws’, which roughly translates as 'Artists News', has claimed that The Rolling Stones have ‘announced’ some dates as part of an up-and-coming concert tour, however, Stereoboard believes these dates to be fake. UPDATE: Since we published this article, The Rolling Stones Official Twitter Account contacted us to confirm our suspicions. The post read: "The story on the Dutch website is untrue, and originates from a site that was duped into selling tickets for non-existant gigs." The article claims that the website was tipped off by an ‘anonymous’ but ‘reliable’ large European company about the dates, which would see The Stones performing in London, Paris and Berlin among other cities, but there is no official source behind the dates and we believe the dates have been fabricated. Artiesten Nieuws claims that The Rolling Stones will be performing at Arsenal Football Club’s Emirates Stadium on September 20th – right in the middle of the football season. It’s unlikely a premier league team would be using their expensive new stadium to host rock concerts mid-season – so we can pretty much rule that out. Zurich’s Letzigrund stadium is also said to be used – though FC Zurich and Grasshopper FC would most likely have something to say about that. It’s still unknown whether the Rolling Stones will decide to venture out onto the road to celebrate 50 years since their first gig together, however, guitarist Ronnie Wood dropped the biggest hints so far this morning, saying that they were on the ‘verge’ of a decision and that a reunion would ‘be lovely, wouldn't it?’. Stay with Stereoboard for more news on The Rolling Stones – we’ll be the first to alert you of any official announcements that come from the band. http://www.stereoboard.com/content/view/170788/9

Those 'dates' were 'leaked' weeks ago. Utter crap and one of what will probably be a few similarly false 'announcements' over the next few weeks as numerous scam artists and shysters attempt to hook in gullible fans with more money than sense.

The Stones will not be in Europe in late September/October - they couldnt get some of those stadiums for starters as they'll be in use and stadium tours of Europe at that time of year are a non-starter.

They'll be in the US around that time.

Today's Daily Express front page :

http://images.dailyexpress.co.uk/img/covers/257x330front/2012-02-21.jpg

Gazza wrote on Feb 21^st, 2012 at 1:19pm:

Today's Daily Express front page : http://images.dailyexpress.co.uk/img/covers/257x330front/2012-02-21.jpg

Oh no.Not a Hosepipe ban! :willya

sweetcharmedlife wrote on Feb 21^st, 2012 at 1:42pm:

Gazza wrote on Feb 21st, 2012 at 1:19pm: Today's Daily Express front page : http://images.dailyexpress.co.uk/img/covers/257x330front/2012-02-21.jpg Oh no.Not a Hosepipe ban! :willya

I'm personally more alarmed at the fact that L'Wren Scott now appears to be a band member.

Keith's arthritis must be worse than I feared!

I knew there were rumours of personnel changes for 2012 but this is really fucked up!

Gazza wrote on Feb 21^st, 2012 at 1:54pm:

sweetcharmedlife wrote on Feb 21st, 2012 at 1:42pm: Gazza wrote on Feb 21st, 2012 at 1:19pm: Today's Daily Express front page : http://images.dailyexpress.co.uk/img/covers/257x330front/2012-02-21.jpg Oh no.Not a Hosepipe ban! :willya I'm personally more alarmed at the fact that L'Wren Scott now appears to be a band member. Keith's arthritis must be worse than I feared! I knew there were rumours of personnel changes for 2012 but this is really fucked up!

Maybe she's playing Mick's hosepipe.That's what the whole story is!

sweetcharmedlife wrote on Feb 21^st, 2012 at 2:13pm:

Gazza wrote on Feb 21st, 2012 at 1:54pm: sweetcharmedlife wrote on Feb 21st, 2012 at 1:42pm: Gazza wrote on Feb 21st, 2012 at 1:19pm: Today's Daily Express front page : http://images.dailyexpress.co.uk/img/covers/257x330front/2012-02-21.jpg Oh no.Not a Hosepipe ban! :willya I'm personally more alarmed at the fact that L'Wren Scott now appears to be a band member. Keith's arthritis must be worse than I feared! I knew there were rumours of personnel changes for 2012 but this is really fucked up! Maybe she's playing Mick's hosepipe.That's what the whole story is!

;D Yeah right, on the white house lawn!

THANKS for the streaming link Gazza! YOU ROCK!!

Gazza wrote on Feb 21^st, 2012 at 1:54pm:

sweetcharmedlife wrote on Feb 21st, 2012 at 1:42pm: Gazza wrote on Feb 21st, 2012 at 1:19pm: Today's Daily Express front page : http://images.dailyexpress.co.uk/img/covers/257x330front/2012-02-21.jpg Oh no.Not a Hosepipe ban! :willya I'm personally more alarmed at the fact that L'Wren Scott now appears to be a band member. Keith's arthritis must be worse than I feared! I knew there were rumours of personnel changes for 2012 but this is really fucked up!

Rumours of personnel changes? If you really did hear rumours about them switching things up for this year could you say what? You seem to be a guy in the know, if so, do you ever see Bill and Mick Taylor sharing a stage with the Stones again?

StickyStones wrote on Feb 21^st, 2012 at 3:45pm:

Gazza wrote on Feb 21st, 2012 at 1:54pm: sweetcharmedlife wrote on Feb 21st, 2012 at 1:42pm: Gazza wrote on Feb 21st, 2012 at 1:19pm: Today's Daily Express front page : http://images.dailyexpress.co.uk/img/covers/257x330front/2012-02-21.jpg Oh no.Not a Hosepipe ban! :willya I'm personally more alarmed at the fact that L'Wren Scott now appears to be a band member. Keith's arthritis must be worse than I feared! I knew there were rumours of personnel changes for 2012 but this is really fucked up! Rumours of personnel changes? If you really did hear rumours about them switching things up for this year could you say what? You seem to be a guy in the know, if so, do you ever see Bill and Mick Taylor sharing a stage with the Stones again?

Umm,I'm pretty sure Gazza was joking SF1990. :-?

StickyStones wrote on Feb 21^st, 2012 at 3:45pm:

Gazza wrote on Feb 21st, 2012 at 1:54pm: sweetcharmedlife wrote on Feb 21st, 2012 at 1:42pm: Gazza wrote on Feb 21st, 2012 at 1:19pm: Today's Daily Express front page : http://images.dailyexpress.co.uk/img/covers/257x330front/2012-02-21.jpg Oh no.Not a Hosepipe ban! :willya I'm personally more alarmed at the fact that L'Wren Scott now appears to be a band member. Keith's arthritis must be worse than I feared! I knew there were rumours of personnel changes for 2012 but this is really fucked up! Rumours of personnel changes? If you really did hear rumours about them switching things up for this year could you say what? You seem to be a guy in the know, if so, do you ever see Bill and Mick Taylor sharing a stage with the Stones again?

Well, my comment was very tongue in cheek.

However, people have been talking for a while of Taylor and/or Wyman playing with the band on the next tour - based primarily on the fact that they've both had some degree of input into recent releases,  its the Stones' 50th anniversary, and will almost certainly be their final major tour. That's the 'rumours' I'm alluding to.

As I mentioned before, Wyman and Ben Taylor jammed with the Stones in December.  I don't necessarily read anything significant into that. I can't imagine Leavell NOT being the keyboard player on the next tour as he's the band's musical director. And Wyman doesn't fly.

For different reasons, I don't think its at all practical that either Wyman or Taylor will rejoin the band for a tour. Wouldn't rule out some cameos though - that's just my personal opinion, however.

Theres a better chance of me on tambourine ...than Taylor joining in for more than 2-3 shows..max

gimmekeef wrote on Feb 21^st, 2012 at 6:45pm:

Theres a better chance of me on tambourine ...than Taylor joining in for more than 2-3 shows..max

I'll take the under.

gimmekeef wrote on Feb 21^st, 2012 at 6:45pm:

Theres a better chance of me on tambourine ...than Taylor joining in for more than 2-3 shows..max

:smilemick

:paristhong

---

Tom.....poster of the year!

Steel Wheels wrote on Jan 12^th, 2012 at 3:24pm:

There's lots of competition for tour dollars this year.

..added to the fact that you'll be up against the usual dirty tricks when trying to get decent seats - or indeed, any seats...

(This is a UK story, but the problem is universal...)




22nd February 2012

Channel 4 Dispatches programme defeats injunction attempt from Viagogo

Channel 4 claims to reveal hidden practices used by live event promoters and a major ‘fan-to-fan' ticket exchange

Channel 4 Dispatches programme has defeated an injunction in the High Court today (Wednesday 22nd February) and can now reveal an important public interest investigation into how real fans are paying the price for hidden practices used by live event promoters and a major ‘fan-to-fan ticket exchange'.

Dispatches, which will air tomorrow night (Channel 4 on Thursday 23rd February 2012 at 9PM), went undercover inside one of the UK's biggest ticket reselling websites - Viagogo - and found that major promoters allocate hundreds or even thousands of tickets to be sold through their website at well above the face value.

Tickets for recent gigs and tours by Coldplay, Rihanna, Westlife, Take That, and V Festival have been allocated by the promoters in this way.

The application for an injunction was brought by Viagogo on the grounds of ‘breach of confidence' and it was dismissed on all counts at the High Court today.

A Channel 4 spokesperson says: "We are pleased that we can now broadcast in full a programme of important public interest. It is disappointing that having provided Viagogo with a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations uncovered by our investigation several weeks ago, they chose instead to seek an injunction which would have effectively stopped the broadcast of our programme."

‘The Great Ticket Scandal: Dispatches' - Channel 4 on Thursday 23rd February 2012 at 9pm



http://www.safeconcerts.com/news/2012/feb/6909-channel-4-dispatches-programme-defeats-viagogo-injunction.asp

do you think we will get a new album?

Some Guy wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 7:37am:

do you think we will get a new album?

Nope.

I expect there'll be a release of some kind to support the tour, but I've heard nothing to suggest the band have been working together or will work together on a new studio release.

Another compilation is more likely and is something that has been rumoured for some time.

A career-spanning documentary is in the works as well.

Thanks Gazza.

Thanks to Rocks Off for the connection with the white House..!!!
Also I cant ever stand to listen Miss you anymore.. but Jeff Back was great.
And is normally that Mick was in no total good shape.. he's almost 70.. if the fans become older also for  the band members it is.

I wrote in the wrong thread.. sorry, but  for my personal reasons I'm exausted.
I dont think that they will play anymore together.. this I feel.

Even though we know there may be even more abridgemnts to what has been the norm for their tours, do we expect at least a certain pattern as before?
USA to start, More USA, Asia Oz following year, Europe for the summer, maybe a USA return?
$Cha-ching$

Let's hope they play Atlantic City and don't cancel right....... Pdog?
Or the dumb ass that called in a bomb threat in C ville will decide to stay away, so I can hear Keith's set......!
Otherwise I'm ok........with them Cha chinging.IMO I'll pay if I can, and God's willing for me to be able to go!

Pdog wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 3:50pm:

Even though we know there may be even more abridgemnts to what has been the norm for their tours, do we expect at least a certain pattern as before? USA to start, More USA, Asia Oz following year, Europe for the summer, maybe a USA return? $Cha-ching$

From what I've been led to believe, North America in the later part of 2012 (ie, from September or thereabouts)  is pretty much nailed on.

I wouldnt be surprised if they did something in London preceding that to mark their 50th anniversary, though.

If they play Asia/Oz/Latin America I'd expect that to be early 2013 and then a proper Euro tour to finish things in summer 2013.

I would be amazed if this entire tour goes beyond that and if it consists of much more than 70-80 shows - but I'm just assuming.

Gazza wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 5:31pm:

Pdog wrote on Feb 23rd, 2012 at 3:50pm: Even though we know there may be even more abridgemnts to what has been the norm for their tours, do we expect at least a certain pattern as before? USA to start, More USA, Asia Oz following year, Europe for the summer, maybe a USA return? $Cha-ching$ From what I've been led to believe, North America in the later part of 2012 (ie, from September or thereabouts)  is pretty much nailed on. I wouldnt be surprised if they did something in London preceding that to mark their 50th anniversary, though. If they play Asia/Oz/Latin America I'd expect that to be early 2013 and then a proper Euro tour to finish things in summer 2013. I would be amazed if this entire tour goes beyond that and if it consists of much more than 70-80 shows - but I'm just assuming.

Thank you...I was going to say something about ass u me ing but...I got more respect for you.......and I love it here and thank you for your work here......

Jerry Hall says of the Rolling Stones: 'They're doing another world tour'
Carla Hay
Rolling Stones Examiner
http://www.examiner.com/rolling-stones-in-national/jerry-hall-says-of-the-rolling-stones-they-re-doing-another-world-tour

Mick Jagger's ex Jerry Hall (the mother of four of his children) has said on a German talk show that the Rolling Stones are doing another world tour. There has been much speculation that the Stones will celebrate their 50th anniversary in 2012 with a tour. Members of the band have said in recent interviews that the Stones have special plans for their 50th anniversary, but those plans have not been announced yet.

On February 21, 2012, Hall was a guest on the German talk show "Gottschalk." She talked about Andy Warhol and modeling for a good deal of the interview, but this is what she had to say about the Rolling Stones:

"They're amazing, this band. I'm very proud of their great history. Actually, they're playing tonight for Obama in the White House. And my son is there. My 14-year-old son [Gabriel] is there. He got to meet the president.

>> "They're amazing, this band. I'm very proud of their great history. Actually, they're playing tonight for Obama in the White House. <<


But the Stones did not play at the White House.  :forfucksake

Gazza wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 5:31pm:

Pdog wrote on Feb 23rd, 2012 at 3:50pm: Even though we know there may be even more abridgemnts to what has been the norm for their tours, do we expect at least a certain pattern as before? USA to start, More USA, Asia Oz following year, Europe for the summer, maybe a USA return? $Cha-ching$ From what I've been led to believe, North America in the later part of 2012 (ie, from September or thereabouts)  is pretty much nailed on. I wouldnt be surprised if they did something in London preceding that to mark their 50th anniversary, though. If they play Asia/Oz/Latin America I'd expect that to be early 2013 and then a proper Euro tour to finish things in summer 2013. I would be amazed if this entire tour goes beyond that and if it consists of much more than 70-80 shows - but I'm just assuming.

It would be beyond cool, if they did the usual, even rehearsing in Cananda, but instead of the total norm, went over to London and did a Theater show or half dozen...

Edith Grove wrote on Feb 25^th, 2012 at 10:55am:

>> "They're amazing, this band. I'm very proud of their great history. Actually, they're playing tonight for Obama in the White House. << But the Stones did not play at the White House.  :forfucksake

Probably lost in translation... Mick Did, he likes liberals! and he is into shaved things, not Bush's!!!

Pdog wrote on Feb 25^th, 2012 at 12:17pm:

Mick Did, he likes liberals! and he is into shaved things, not Bush's!!!

I'm thinking Mick was into bush when it was fashionable.  :blankfriggingstare1

Edith Grove wrote on Feb 25^th, 2012 at 12:25pm:

Pdog wrote on Feb 25th, 2012 at 12:17pm: Mick Did, he likes liberals! and he is into shaved things, not Bush's!!! I'm thinking Mick was into bush when it was fashionable.  :blankfriggingstare1

it may be making a comeback... been a long time since I saw hair, there!!!

Moy's post actually omitted the part where Jerry DID mention a Stones tour, namely ""They're going to do another world tour. They're amazing. With all that success for so many years, they started so young. The girls have always thrown themselves at them."

Regardless of her factual inaccuracy about the Stones playing at the White House, it's pretty safe to say that Jerry's a solid authority on the fact that the father of four of her children will be on the road for considerable stretches at a time in the coming months.

Just catching up with all the news. Gazza you are the king of all this information thanks for all you do and find out, dig up etc!

Got some thoughts / questions....

Tour announcement as per usual May / June time do we think?

Archive live release every 2 to 3 months based on previous statements made officially.

I like the idea of a documentary (lets hope its put together and compiled well!)

Cheers to all, see you on tour soon....kinda hoping to go to an NYC show.

glen759 wrote on Feb 26^th, 2012 at 2:35pm:

Just catching up with all the news. Gazza you are the king of all this information thanks for all you do and find out, dig up etc! Got some thoughts / questions.... Tour announcement as per usual May / June time do we think? Archive live release every 2 to 3 months based on previous statements made officially. I like the idea of a documentary (lets hope its put together and compiled well!) Cheers to all, see you on tour soon....kinda hoping to go to an NYC show.

I've heard as early as April for a tour announcement - but I honestly don't know if that's likely or not.  I'd imagine we've several more weeks to wait anyway. Doubt it'd be any later than May.

Gazza wrote on Feb 26^th, 2012 at 3:43pm:

glen759 wrote on Feb 26th, 2012 at 2:35pm: Just catching up with all the news. Gazza you are the king of all this information thanks for all you do and find out, dig up etc! Got some thoughts / questions.... Tour announcement as per usual May / June time do we think? Archive live release every 2 to 3 months based on previous statements made officially. I like the idea of a documentary (lets hope its put together and compiled well!) Cheers to all, see you on tour soon....kinda hoping to go to an NYC show. I've heard as early as April for a tour announcement - but I honestly don't know if that's likely or not.  I'd imagine we've several more weeks to wait anyway. Doubt it'd be any later than May.

Well you do have to factor in about three months for rehearsal. Based on what we've seen this week. :smilemick

Fact or bullcrap?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzOXgM9aQrE