| February 11th, 2005 06:08 AM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
LOL. Thanks for your valuable insight, as always.
I didnt mean it it sound like I was pissed at Ian, personally. I find the dude quite personable. You sure it's the same person you were discussing this with re: "40 Licks" though, because Ian has only been registered here for a year.
Enjoyed the Cd, Jimmy. Hopefully, I'll get that Oakland '89 thing out to you asap!
Gazza:
Yes, it was me Gazza. I think Cardinal took our posts wrong. I realize what you're saying. I have been here for three years now. Usually you're memory is truly impeccable. I have been here since well before Licks ever came about. You folks have a top-notch board here.
Fang:
Back to you Fang (if I may address you as such). Where do you go for long periods of time? Ok yes. I respect your opinions as well as Gazzas and you guys have been right before. I certainly hope they do not wait till June. I don't understand that? Aren't they supposed to be rehearsing in June according to Blondie and Daryl Jones according to when Stones Doug talked to them in early January? How can they possibly have a tour this year with recording not starting till June?
By the way I think you once told me you're an Audio Engineer. I think you have your own band do you not?
Curious.
Ian |
| February 11th, 2005 06:31 AM |
|
|
| F505 |
Why these endless and useless speculations? Just wait and see. |
| February 11th, 2005 06:47 AM |
|
|
| Gazza |
>Gazza:
Yes, it was me Gazza. I think Cardinal took our posts wrong. I realize what you're saying. I have been here for three years now. Usually you're memory is truly impeccable. I have been here since well before Licks ever came about. You folks have a top-notch board here.
you've only been registered since Feb' 04, hence my doubt. I guess you used a different screen name previously or else, as Jimmy indicated, it was over at G**land!
[Edited by Gazza] |
| February 11th, 2005 07:01 AM |
|
|
| egon |
quote:
Some Guy wrote:
my sources tell me this will be their best release ever.
.... since the sympathy remixes |
| February 11th, 2005 07:05 AM |
|
|
| F505 |
quote:
egon wrote:
.... since the sympathy remixes
 |
| February 11th, 2005 12:44 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
Gazza ofcourse you're right about Don Was's quote. Call that a brain fart on my behalf! November it was. That just underscores the point really. Two and half months ago the producer says they are not really close. Ian he did say that by the way. At that point Charlie was just showing up in France and Ronnie had yet to lay down any of his parts. For that matter there has been no studio time with Daryl,Bernard,Lisa,or Chuck! Does not sound like they are close to getting it done yet.
The last time the Stones really put an album in the can on the rush was back in 1989. Steel Wheels was put together starting in January of '89 and was released in September. 8 months! That was considered a rush job for the Stones,and bear in mind that they were all anxious to make the big come back that they all doubted could be done! Remember Keith's quote to Pattie from back then,"I'll be back in two days or two weeks." At that time they were all very hungry to cash in on the biggest payday of their careers. Since 1989 they have toured in '94-'95 (Voodoo),'97-'98(Bridges),'99(No Security),and ofcourse,'02-'03(Licks). They have made hundreds of millions of dollars since 1989 and set attendance records all over the world. They have nothing to prove and have the luxury to set their own pace.
The album will be done when the albums done. No sooner or later,but Ian you are not listening to people that have been fans for years longer than you and know a little something about their history. Do you think that they are going to change their recording habits just because you wish it? Some here do have "inside" info and if there were anything to tell they would spill the beans. Nobody,repeat nobody,has heard anything! Not a single peep. No sightings in the studio. No band rehearsals. No nothing! Other than Mick at the Goldan Globes there has been no new Stones news in months. It will happen on Stones' time though. Not Ian's time. Get it? Got it? Good!
Riffhard |
| February 11th, 2005 01:31 PM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
>Gazza:
Yes, it was me Gazza. I think Cardinal took our posts wrong. I realize what you're saying. I have been here for three years now. Usually you're memory is truly impeccable. I have been here since well before Licks ever came about. You folks have a top-notch board here.
you've only been registered since Feb' 04, hence my doubt. I guess you used a different screen name previously or else, as Jimmy indicated, it was over at G**land!
[Edited by Gazza]
LOL Gasland! You know how I feel about Gasland. I don't know how that happened. I debated with Cardinal about how many new tracks 40 Licks was to have. This board is where I found out about the Blimp before they did it and everything.
Ian
|
| February 13th, 2005 06:23 AM |
|
|
| JaggerLips |
FOR THE LOVE OF MICK JAGGER! JUST READ EVERYONE'S POSTS TO THIS THREAD.
I AM WRITING THIS IN CAPITALS TO MAKE A STRONGER POINT, THE STONES WILL RELEASE THE NEW ALBUM WHEN IT'S READY NOT BEFORE OR LATER. CHARLIE IS FINE SO I AM LEAD TO BELIEVE, MICK AND KEITH ARE FINE, RONNIE (HAS HE HIT THE CIGARETTES AND THE DRINK AGAIN?) IS OTHERWISE FINE. THESE PEOPLE AREN'T 25 YEARS OLD ANYMORE THEY HAVE A LOT MORE RESPONSIBILITIES OUTSIDE THE BAND LIKE FAMILY COMMITMENTS FOR INSTANCE. MICK'S THE DOTING FATHER AND I HATE TO SAY IT GRANDFATHER BUT HE'S 61 WHAT DO YOU EXPECT?
I AM HOPING JUNE OR JULY SOMETIME FOR THE RELEASE DATE FOR THE NEW ALBUM AND THE TOUR TO BE ANNOUNCED SHORTLY AFTER. I EXPECT THE TOUR TO BE A LITTLE LESS EXTENSIVE THAN THE LICKS TOUR WHICH WAS THE SECONG HIGHEST GROSSING TOUR EVER SECOND ONLY TO THEIR VOODOO LOUNGE TOUR.
WE WILL HAVE TO PLAY THE WAITING GAME. |
| February 13th, 2005 06:49 AM |
|
|
| glencar |
BTW IanBillen...I was at the rollingstones.com store & they're advertising a Tattoo You "Jagger cover" sticker. Did you ever admit your tomfoolery on that other thread, bubbeleh? |
| February 13th, 2005 10:26 AM |
|
|
| F505 |
quote:
JaggerLips wrote:
I AM WRITING THIS IN CAPITALS TO MAKE A STRONGER POINT
Aha, I know somebody who always wants to make a stronger point.
[Edited by F505] |
| February 13th, 2005 12:33 PM |
|
|
| BILL PERKS |
quote:
F505 wrote:
Aha, I know somebody who always wants to make a stronger point.
[Edited by F505]
F505-YOUR OBSESSION WITH ME IS FLATTERING-I LIKE YOUR AVATAR |
| February 13th, 2005 01:00 PM |
|
|
| F505 |
Yes I am a bit worried myself. |
| February 13th, 2005 03:33 PM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
quote:
glencar wrote:
BTW IanBillen...I was at the rollingstones.com store & they're advertising a Tattoo You "Jagger cover" sticker. Did you ever admit your tomfoolery on that other thread, bubbeleh?
The very reason I brought up the whole Mick Jagger cover thing was from what I seen on RS.com just as you did today if you remember.
The Jury is out for me. I did ask a fellow Stones Fan who is extremely educated on The Stones. He said it was Mick as well.
Ian |
| February 13th, 2005 04:24 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
I have a feeling the jury will always be out with you. My jury says that if the rs.com site acknowledges that it's Jagger on the cover, you should admit your mistake right away & move on. |
| February 13th, 2005 04:55 PM |
|
|
| BILL PERKS |
quote:
IanBillen wrote:
The very reason I brought up the whole Mick Jagger cover thing was from what I seen on RS.com just as you did today if you remember.
The Jury is out for me. I did ask a fellow Stones Fan who is extremely educated on The Stones. He said it was Mick as well.
Ian
IAN -YOU SEEM LIKE A KIND SOUL AND A WELL MEANING PERSON..PLEASE LISTEN TO THESE PEOPLE WHO ARE TRYING TO HELP YOU.THE LUNATICS ON THIS BOARD MAY NOT KNOW VERY MUCH,BUT THEY DO KNOW THE STONES..IT'S A GREAT PLACE TO LEARN...BY LISTENING |
| February 13th, 2005 05:05 PM |
|
|
| Gazza |
Don't you mean "by reading" ?  |
| February 13th, 2005 06:43 PM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
quote:
glencar wrote:
I have a feeling the jury will always be out with you. My jury says that if the rs.com site acknowledges that it's Jagger on the cover, you should admit your mistake right away & move on.
__________________________________________________________________________
Maybe I am mistaken. However, I did read years ago the Art designer said infact it was not Mick. I told fellow students at school and brought in the article to win a few dollar bets on this very topic (we were kids). This is the real reason I have been clinging to the idea.
I didn't want to bring this up again. People get to darn upset at it. Even if I was wrong it was not as big a deal as some made it. I mean when you have got folks saying "Oh My God. Am I actually reading what I am reading Here. This is incredible!" I think it is a bit over-blown.
Secondly, going over it and over it wasn't going to change any of our minds. Kinda like how Gazza and I dis-agree on the new albums progress thus far. We agree to dis-agree. In time we will probably find out.
Reguardless I cannot really see it as Mick. Also I wish I had some other official statements to rely on saying that it was Mick besides RS.com. It is a good site but has had falsifications before. However I do now realize there was much more to it than before. I used to think people who knew little about music or The Stones just figured that. Atleast now I have some credible people saying so as well.
Ian
[Edited by IanBillen]
[Edited by IanBillen] |
| February 13th, 2005 07:06 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
This person doesn't get too upset by your profound inability to see with your eyes. I laugh at it. Life's too short to get upset. Even at idjits that post in all caps. |
| February 13th, 2005 09:28 PM |
|
|
| BILL PERKS |
quote:
glencar wrote:
This person doesn't get too upset by your profound inability to see with your eyes. I laugh at it. Life's too short to get upset. Even at idjits that post in all caps.
YOUR AVATAR IS LAME |
| February 13th, 2005 09:40 PM |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
Reguardless I cannot really see it as Mick. Also I wish I had some other official statements to rely on saying that it was Mick besides RS.com. It is a good site but has had falsifications before. However I do now realize there was much more to it than before. I used to think people who knew little about music or The Stones just figured that. Atleast now I have some credible people saying so as well.
Ian
without wishing to harp on about it, didnt Izabella actually post a photo of Mick in that thread which was quite obviously taken from the same photo session as the one which produced the album cover? |
| February 13th, 2005 09:49 PM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
without wishing to harp on about it, didnt Izabella actually post a photo of Mick in that thread which was quite obviously taken from the same photo session as the one which produced the album cover?
Gazza:
I don't know if it was before or after. She never answered me when I asked her if this was done before or after Tattoo You.
Glencar:
Glencar, speaking of my eyes. Let's talk about mine, yours, and the common persons while we are at it. For me, I always saw a resemblence to Mick on the album cover. However, the picture, if it is Mick, is not a really a good representation of him at all. Show it to someone who has no idea of that album and ask them who it is. Most would not be able to figure it out. If you are saying it is all a matter of just looking at the picture itself to figure out it is none other than Mick Jagger on that album you are sadly mistaken.
Ian
|
| February 13th, 2005 09:59 PM |
|
|
| BILL PERKS |
WHEN I BOUGHT THE ALBUM I WAS 12. I DIDNT THINK IT WAS MICK EITHER..2 YEARS LATER MY FRIEND SAID IT WAS..HE SAID "WHO THE FUCK ELSE WOULD IT BE?".I BELIEVED HIM AND MOVED ON..ASK YOURSELF THE SAME QUESTION "WHO THE FUCK ELSE WOULD IT BE?" |
| February 14th, 2005 03:04 AM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
quote:
BILL PERKS wrote:
WHEN I BOUGHT THE ALBUM I WAS 12. I DIDNT THINK IT WAS MICK EITHER..2 YEARS LATER MY FRIEND SAID IT WAS..HE SAID "WHO THE FUCK ELSE WOULD IT BE?".I BELIEVED HIM AND MOVED ON..ASK YOURSELF THE SAME QUESTION "WHO THE FUCK ELSE WOULD IT BE?"
I already have. At first I was "woed" at the possibility of it actually being Mick. Actually it isn't that big of a deal to me actually anymore because nobody can find out for sure.
Ian |
| February 14th, 2005 12:03 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
Ian your problem is you are never willing to take any answers to any questions you pose. If it does not conform to your locked in mindset than you are not certain if it's true. Here's the deal the picture on Tattoo You is without question Mick fucking Jagger! I specificaly refered to an interview where he refered to the album. He stated that he was very happy that the cover art was done without him having to "get all those fucking lines on my face!" What the fuck is gonna take Ian?! I can only guess that you think everyone is lying to you or that we may not have the story right either. Well,I know the story! It's Mick! Get over it! The only person who does not positivly know that it's Mick is you. So don't say that nobody knows for sure. Everyone knows! You don't,but that's your own problem.
Riffhard
[Edited by Riffhard] |
| February 14th, 2005 12:19 PM |
|
|
| Gazza |
>Gazza:
I don't know if it was before or after. She never answered me when I asked her if this was done before or after Tattoo You.
the pic is taken DURING the photo sessions for the TY album cover as is evident when you look at it. Go check it in the archives. |
| February 14th, 2005 12:28 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
See, who could get pissed at IanBillen? You must laugh. You must! |
| February 14th, 2005 09:04 PM |
|
|
| Soldatti |
Ian is a good guy. |
| February 15th, 2005 01:10 PM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
[quote]Riffhard wrote:
Ian your problem is you are never willing to take any answers to any questions you pose. If it does not conform to your locked in mindset than you are not certain if it's true. Here's the deal the picture on Tattoo You is without question Mick fucking Jagger! I specificaly refered to an interview where he refered to the album. He stated that he was very happy that the cover art was done without him having to "get all those fucking lines on my face!" What the fuck is gonna take Ian?! I can only guess that you think everyone is lying to you or that we may not have the story right either. Well,I know the story! It's Mick! Get over it! The only person who does not positivly know that it's Mick is you. So don't say that nobody knows for sure. Everyone knows! You don't,but that's your own problem.
Riffhard
__________________________________________________________________________
Riffhard,
If it would make you happy I will add lib here. I did not know the picture was taken for the Tattoo You sessions until Gazza just stated so. That is why I asked about it. If you say you saw the interview in which Mick states that himself in a serious manner I guess you all would be right then.
And as for all this sudden emotion.
A. Either you are in love with me?
B. You have severe anger issues and need medicated quickly
C. You are having a bad week
I hope it is the latter. Chill.
Ian |
| February 15th, 2005 03:24 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
quote:
IanBillen wrote:
Riffhard,
If it would make you happy I will add lib here. I did not know the picture was taken for the Tattoo You sessions until Gazza just stated so. That is why I asked about it. If you say you saw the interview in which Mick states that himself in a serious manner I guess you all would be right then.
And as for all this sudden emotion.
A. Either you are in love with me?
B. You have severe anger issues and need medicated quickly
C. You are having a bad week
I hope it is the latter. Chill.
Ian
LOL! Ian I'm not angry at you at all! I find your young enthusiasm quite refreshing in fact. It's just that this question has been answered every which way but loose and you still seem to want to cling to what you believed to be true. Many many on this board have been fans for a very long time,myself included,and when you start off by saying things likes."We may never know the truth" or things to that effect,you are essentialy saying that we are wrong about this topic. Sometimes you just have to have a little faith in what people here say. That's all I'm trying to say. Hell,I've loved this band since I was a preteen. I'm forty one now and the addiction only grows. It's worse than smack I tell ya!
Anyway the emotions that you perceived as anger were really exasperation in trying to convince you that it is Mick on the cover. No hard feelings bro! I ain't mad at all. However,I'm not in love with you either. I'm all man baby! I am not about the cock! Not that there's anything wrong with that.....LOL!
Riffhard |
| February 15th, 2005 04:13 PM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
[quote]Riffhard wrote:
LOL! Ian I'm not angry at you at all! I find your young enthusiasm quite refreshing in fact. It's just that this question has been answered every which way but loose and you still seem to want to cling to what you believed to be true. Many many on this board have been fans for a very long time,myself included,and when you start off by saying things likes."We may never know the truth" or things to that effect,you are essentialy saying that we are wrong about this topic. Sometimes you just have to have a little faith in what people here say. That's all I'm trying to say. Hell,I've loved this band since I was a preteen. I'm forty one now and the addiction only grows. It's worse than smack I tell ya!
Anyway the emotions that you perceived as anger were really exasperation in trying to convince you that it is Mick on the cover. No hard feelings bro! I ain't mad at all. However,I'm not in love with you either. I'm all man baby! I am not about the cock! Not that there's anything wrong with that.....LOL!
___________________________________________________________________
LOL. Good. Thought you were terribly angry. However, I already figured you were "all man" as well as I. I do believe it is more than not Mick now and I was mistaken (for years, I am still baffeled at that thought). And at times it may seem as if I do not take these posts here as credible or as serious sources. I do not think you neccessarily think this and I hope NOBODY thinks that. I come here to get the good input I recieve (a quality board it is). I have, learned some things on here and I read all posts that answer my questions.
Cheers
By the way, While we are speaking of it. Who is on the back of Tattoo You? It isn't really Keith is it? ...Ok that's a joke.
Ian
[Edited by IanBillen] |
CHAT
ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]