ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board
A Bigger Bang Tour 2007

Art Wood tribute gig
York House, Twickenham, London - 25 March 2007
© Adrian-L; thanks a lot!
[ ROCKSOFF.ORG ] [ IORR NEWS ] [ SETLISTS 1962-2006 ] [ FORO EN ESPAÑOL ] [ BIT TORRENT TRACKER ] [ BIT TORRENT HELP ] [ BIRTHDAY'S LIST ] [ MICK JAGGER ] [ KEITHFUCIUS ] [ CHARLIE WATTS ] [ RONNIE WOOD ] [ BRIAN JONES ] [ MICK TAYLOR ] [ BILL WYMAN ] [ IAN "STU" STEWART ] [ NICKY HOPKINS ] [ MERRY CLAYTON ] [ IAN 'MAC' McLAGAN ] [ LINKS ] [ PHOTOS ] [ JIMI HENDRIX ] [ TEMPLE ] [GUESTBOOK ] [ ADMIN ]
CHAT ROOM aka The Fun HOUSE Rest rooms last days
ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board
Register | Update Profile | F.A.Q. | Admin Control Panel

Topic: If they WOULD have packed it in . . . ! Return to archive
15th March 2007 10:28 PM
White House Lawn I'm glad they DIDN'T split early on, mind you, but if they WOULD have, what would have been a good time?

I'd say after TATTOO YOU--we would have gotten the '81 tour (which was still good times) but we WOULDN'T have missed out on any truly classic albums (even though I really like UNDERCOVER, B2B and ABB).
15th March 2007 10:37 PM
glencar After Dirty Work...
15th March 2007 11:16 PM
Sir Stonesalot I'm with you Glenny. If we didn't have anything after DW, I wouldn't have really minded. I'm not really ga-ga about any of the post DW era. I like a few of the VL songs, and SOM & OOC offa B2B...the rest is pretty forgetable, IMO. And even the stuff I like isn't "desert island" material.
15th March 2007 11:31 PM
glencar Of course, if they had ended in 1986, I would have only seen them one time, the tour opener in 1981 JFK in Philly.
16th March 2007 12:14 AM
pdog
quote:
glencar wrote:
Of course, if they had ended in 1986, I would have only seen them one time, the tour opener in 1981 JFK in Philly.



me too...
16th March 2007 01:41 AM
White House Lawn Now that you mention it, ending with DIRTY WORK might have been nice--the final Stones' track would have been Stu's hidden piano ditty . . . !
16th March 2007 01:43 AM
Spru Never. Thankfully. Or I would never have seen them live like I did in '03 & '05, and they have delivered some solid material since the 80s.
[Edited by Spru]
16th March 2007 02:20 AM
IanBillen I disagree. Voodoo was a great album and tour. ABB is a great album.

Secondly: The Stones transcended the modern mege-concert experience with Steel Wheels and have built upon that ever since changing the modern day super Rock Concert. They became, and are known as the pioneers of the later era stadium shows. They since Steel Wheels are recognized as the fore runners of the big touring acts.

So Steel Wheels kicked off the new rock touring platform,

and we have had good Stones Albums since then to boot in my opinion. Voodoo and ABB and B2B. I can't argue with those albums. Still got it and still doing it, better than the rest.

We have had a whole third and now fourth quarter of our band in good spirit, out-put, and performance.

To quit after TY 81 or 86 DW would have eliminated several great chapters in the Stones career that would of never came.

Simply: They would not be seen as they are now, as truly pushing a rock band to the next level and beyond.

Ian



[Edited by IanBillen]
16th March 2007 02:53 AM
Zack This is a bullshit thread. WHL you are bucking for troll.
16th March 2007 03:16 AM
White House Lawn Dude, I've been posting on this board for YEARS--not a lot, but I check in almost every fucking day.

I had a different screename pre-2004 (I don't even remember what it was), but I was also here for years before that. Unless you've changed YOUR name, I've been here longer than YOU!

So in other words . . . eat my shorts! LOL
[Edited by White House Lawn]
16th March 2007 03:21 AM
pdog
quote:
IanBillen wrote:


Simply: They would not be seen as they are now, as truly pushing a rock band to the next level and beyond.




Flogging a dead horse and milking the fan base for cash...
16th March 2007 07:47 AM
Zack
quote:
White House Lawn wrote:
Dude, I've been posting on this board for YEARS--not a lot, but I check in almost every fucking day.

I had a different screename pre-2004 (I don't even remember what it was), but I was also here for years before that. Unless you've changed YOUR name, I've been here longer than YOU!

So in other words . . . eat my shorts! LOL
[Edited by White House Lawn]



You were here before late '02? And you don't remember your previous name. Rrrrrright. Don't start threads speculating on shit like when the Stones should have broken up or what songs are "sissified" and you'll have no problem with me. I think they have made some great music since the comeback of 89, and it will suck if the Stones break up or pack it in . . . ever.
16th March 2007 10:15 AM
Saint Sway for my own selfish reasons I am thrilled that they kept it together after Dirty Work. 50 something shows thrilled!!

but ... if they had folded I think their legacy as the coolest band ever would of been a lock.

hold on... I know WE all think their the coolest. BUT.... outside of Stones boards most people now think of them as aging, uncool, greedy nostaglia/corporate rock act. That have put out a recent string of crap records and suck live.

had they folded in 86. The legacy would of been on the emphasis of them as rebellious crazies that were the ultimate rock and roll band.

when people refer to them now as the ultimate rock band - they are referring from '62 - '82

not trying to start a riot or get flamed here.... just throwing this out there... I've heard many people say that they wish Mick had O'd after Some Girls just so his image would remain as the rebellious rock Mick and not the Sir Mick he is now
16th March 2007 10:19 AM
jb They "packed" it in a long time ago.....the studio work, to any discerning fan, has been dreadful. I can't believe the bar is so low that some of you think ABB is a great album!!! I guess I'm glad they carried on for selfish reasons as the tours have been fun....unfortunately their creative juices dried up many years ago and most of the stuff released has been truly disappointing with a few exceptions.
16th March 2007 10:25 AM
White House Lawn ""You were here before late '02? And you don't remember your previous name. Rrrrrright. Don't start threads speculating on shit like when the Stones should have broken up or what songs are "sissified" and you'll have no problem with me."

I said the following:

"I'm glad they DIDN'T split early on, mind you, but if they WOULD have, what would have been a good time?"

That seems fairly positive compared to most of the threads that I've read on this board SINCE THE LAST FUCKING CENTURY (whether you believe it or not, ya big school marm)!

:P



[Edited by White House Lawn]
16th March 2007 10:32 AM
Saint Sway I am relatively new here.
16th March 2007 10:34 AM
_Boomy_
quote:
Saint Sway wrote:
I've heard many people say that they wish Mick had O'd after Some Girls just so his image would remain as the rebellious rock Mick and not the Sir Mick he is now




Shows what kind of people they are. Wishing death upon someone for legacy's sake.

Real good people they are.
18th March 2007 01:04 AM
IanBillen Up to 50% of this boards comment, threads, and written conversation is on The Rolling Stones Now. No punn intended.

Doesn't that say enough about how you should be grateful they have stayed around to put on shows you all have went to see, albums you all have either bought or a least eargerly listened to?

There is so much more to talk about. So much more to entertain. So much more we all have eagerly looked forward to.

It isn't like they are in the sense of Muhammad Ali still trying to put on the gloves or something. They are a musical act. Fuck look at Willie Nelson. Nobody slaggs him and he is still around.

As you can see it isn't agreed upon they should of quit. Instead it is a a pondrey, a thought, or in some cases as this thread, even an arguement.

The mere fact they are still doing it, and at this level, and at this age gives us loads of debate, thoughts, opinions, and insight not only on themselves but other acts as well.

Isn't that enough of a reason to at least appreciate it all in some way? My guess is even the most head strong person would have to atleast agree on that. They certainly don't need the money, they positively don't need the fame, they do because they still want it.

It is still them, in the flesh, being The Rolling Stones. Not writing books for a living, not being Billy Joel and switching to classical, not being Rod Stewart and doing an album of remakes, and not being Aerosmith....thank God.

They are, because they can.... and nobody eles has had that opportunity, capability, and for this matter the ABILITY. That solidifies it all.


Ian


[Edited by IanBillen]
18th March 2007 01:14 AM
glencar Occasionally, when I've travelled for shows, I've talked to people next to me on the palne & when I mention I'm going to a Stones show they'll say something like, "Oh? They're still together? I saw them in 1972 & they were fantastic!" It's a bit humiliating, quite frankly.
18th March 2007 01:15 AM
glencar
quote:
_Boomy_ wrote:



Shows what kind of people they are. Wishing death upon someone for legacy's sake.

Real good people they are.

Yes, people can be scumbags. I still enjoy going to see them & I'm likely to see them this summer if things work out schedule-wise.
Search for information in the wet page, the archives and this board:

PicoSearch
The Rolling Stones World Tour 2005 Rolling Stones Bigger Bang Tour 2005 2006 Rolling Stones Forum - Rolling Stones Message Board - Mick Jagger - Keith Richards - Brian Jones - Charlie Watts - Ian Stewart - Stu - Bill Wyman - Mick Taylor - Ronnie Wood - Ron Wood - Rolling Stones 2005 Tour - Farewell Tour - Rolling Stones: Onstage World Tour A Bigger Bang US Tour

NEW: SEARCH ZONE:
Search for goods, you'll find the impossible collector's item!!!
Enter artist an start searching using "Power Search" (RECOMMENDED)