|
|
| Staffan |
Well, this is my first post in this interesting thread..
I, being a huge Taylor fan, think this is even better than my wet, stonesy dreams!!!
Somehow, I think it's to good to be true. Especially to rehearse 5 (or more?) COMPLETE albums, in a few weeks. Also, rehearse maybe 40 other songs... with all that personnel that they have. We'll see in SEPTEMBER!!! |
|
|
| Boomhauer |
The Stones will never bow out. It's gonna end when it should, and that will be NEVER.
Keep recording and touring, and we will be happy. STONES FOREVER!!!
BTW, Soldati, you're saying that they will indeed have a new single coming out? That would be cool. I need to hear something new. |
|
|
| riverrat |
The last Stones album will be named..
"Last Rights"
Nostradumbass |
|
|
| sammy davis jr. |
Actually I think the Stones need to do a last album. Be real folks- the quality gets worse every time around. Do you really want to hear a 70 year old Mick singing about god knows what? Getting Taylor and Wyman involved in a last record, along with Wood of course, is a great idea....then ride off into the sunset before they become a complete embarrassment. |
|
|
| Mr T |
sammy davis - maybe its not as much fun as the seventies - but Bridges to Babylon is a great record - incredibly overrated & almost makes me wonder why people love Tattoo You so much |
|
|
| BILL PERKS |
YOU GUYS ARE COMPLETE FOOLS.THERE IS NO WAY THE STONES WILL COUNT ON TAYLOR TO DO ANYTHING.HE VERY WELL MAY END UP GUEST APPEARING ON A SHOW OR TWO,BUT THINK LOGICALLY ABOUT ALL OF IT.UNLESS TAYLOR IS GONNA HOLE UP IN TORONTO TO REHEARSE HIS MATERIAL,THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY OF HIM BEING COUNTED ON IN ANY WAY.HE'S UNRELIABLE,THIS TRAIT HAS GONE ON WITH HIM INTO THE MID 90'S AT HIS SOLO SHOWS.KEITH WOULD NEVER ASK WOODY TO NOT DO A SHOW BECAUSE HE WAS'NT THERE FOR THE ORIGINAL.I EXPECT SOME OF THE YOUNGER FANS TO FALL FOR THIS SHIT,BUT CORE FOLLOWERS KNOW THE BAND DOES NOT OPERATE THIS WAY.AND BY THE WAY,CHUCK WILL BE PLAYING AT EVERY SHOW THE BAND DOES,THEY RELY ON HIM TO HANDLE CUES AND ARRANGEMENTS,AND WOULD WANT PIANO PRESENT.AS FOR WHAT WILL HAPPEN DOWN THE ROAD,TAKE IT AS IT COMES.I HEAR BRIAN WILL BE UNEARTHED WHEN THEY DO 2000 MAN TO MAKE MISS U HAPPY! |
|
|
| 2000monkey |
1. Title-Warhorses. This is obviously a joke. The very term implies the band/songs are worn out and haggard and have been through some endless hell. With all the insults the band will get for touring in the first place this is what hyper image savy Jagger wants to call and album? Doubt it.
2. Don't Know When To Stop. Kind of neat how it follows How Can I Stop from B2B. HAHA, very funny.
3. Wyman/Tayler. They would have great marquee value, no doubt, but if Wood weren't capable I doubt he'd be going at all. Again I don't think Jagger wants to embarass himself doing lame shows with weak musicians who have to miss dates to stop and rest or something. Warhorses indeed. |
|
|
| Staffan |
To call an album Warhorses is a very stupid thing... I agree with the last post. It can't be true.
That would be to make a bad joke at their own expense. |
|
|
| stonedinaustralia |
well i suppose it depends on yer dictionary - according to mine war horses is given two definitions
one is the obvious - "horses used in war"... the other is "veteran soldier or politician"... so not entirely inappropriate
i don't think the term is necessarily pejorative...
and anyway , staffan, i don't believe the stones are so precious about themselves that they wouldn't make a joke at their own expense
[Edited by stonedinaustralia] |
|
|
| bez85 |
like i said before..total b.s. keith rocks got his thumb in the pie..he's livin' life on an alibi |
|
|
| Mr T |
Warhorses is a great title. I absolutiy love it. I mean, come on - so they poke a little fun at themselves. GOOD. It's not like the band never got a laugh out of still being together for so long. In the 70's they talked about how they were rock veterans. Almost 10 years ago (during the Voodoo Lounge era) Charlie Watts made the comment that he was amazed the band lasted more than 6 months. Would you rather a completely straight faced title for the best of like THE ROLLING STONES: A RETROSPECTIVE??? Personally, that's what I would be more inclined to expect - but if this WarHorses thing is true - that would make a much better title.
But seriously - either their gonna get bashed by all the reviewers as being old as dirt anyway - or they might as well put a cool spin on it. If their gonna be referred to as old men - shouldn't they at least be referred to as War Horses - 'veteran soldier' as stonedinaustralia says? Sounds a lot better to me than some band trying to grow old with grace like Elton John - or still trying to be cool for the pop crowd like Aerosmith(Oh Yeah! Ultimate Aerosmith hits - gimme a fuckin break - worst compiation title ever)
the more I think about it - the more I think this just may be the best Stones title ever. OK, that's going a little far - Exile on Main St. is definitly better for one. But still, you realize if the title for the Best Of ISN'T WarHorses, there's a 90% chance it will include the word "Satisfaction" in it? |
|
|
| Boomhauer |
Speaking of the Aerosmith GH's, you think that the Rolling Stones GH's will do as good in sales as Aerosmith(I think #4 on the charts)? I mean, even "The WHo: The Ultimate Collection" (I think somewhere at #50) has done fairly well.
The only thing is that Aerosmith still attracts a lot of teenagers. I don't know really know why. The Stones are much better and have many more memorable songs than Aerosmith will ever have.
|
|
|
| sandrew |
Someone earlier in this thread pointed out something I hadn't noticed before: the ridiculous yin-yang pairing of the titles "Warhorses" and "Peace Offerings." That's clearly a joke.
Also, Soldati's original info said that Ronnie and Bill were culling the material for the B-side box set. I'm sorry, but I don't think it would be left soley to them. I'm pretty sure Mick doesn't think too highly of Bill Wyman as the Stones' unofficial nostalgia impresario. (Although someone needs to tend the band's legacy and history; no one else is, and I get the feeling Mick doesn't mind neglecting it.)
I'm also a little bit skeptical about the single title "Don't Know How to Stop." My guess is that someone is poking fun at how the Stones mindlessly keep touring.
Friends, I think our collective leg is being pulled...
[Edited by sandrew] |
|
|
| Mr T |
Boomhauer,
It'll do better. I have high hopes for this box set. You know when the last Aerosmith compilation was released? Last November, although by their old label & had nothing to do with the band, but they are obviously now more concerned with record sales in pop packaging - and Best Ofs are usually sure things as far as sales (come on - THREE BEST OF'S IN 8 YEARS - Big Ones, Young Lust & Oh Yeah)
its been a long while since the Stones had a best of. Hardcore fans will buy it just for the huge improvement in sound quality - and half assed fans will buy it for the same reason half assed fans bought the Aerosmith Best Of. Plus if the new Stones single goes anywhere (the new Aerosmith song 'Girls Of Summer' has failed miserably & is a total piece of shit) - that's one big advantage - all it needs is decent promotion.
sandrew,
your right. War Horses *could* be legit - but Peace Offerings is just BS - something some dude on the net thought would be a cool idea & tried to pass it off as fact - I guess hoping that if word got circulated around enuff with positive response that it would eventually happen by some means of the band seeing it. |
|
|
| Mr T |
oops - I fogot one thing -Aerosmith & the Who's best ofs were 2 discs. If the Stones set is 3 it'll be harder to sell - how many songs do you think they could fit on 2 cds? Ya know what would sell - if they sold a 2 disc best of of all hits - and the a "bonus" CD single with the nes song and the other as its b-side. So 2 CD's for like $20 - $25 & a bonus disc - not a bad deal, huh? But 3 CD sets won't move as fast |
|
|
| sandrew |
Mr. T - Yep, "Warhorses" could be the real thing. I wouldn't mind that, but the single title - "Don't Know How to Stop" - is clearly a summons for late-night jokes. |
|
|
| 2000monkey |
Warhorse- Merriam Webster definition:
1: a horse used in war : CHARGER
2 : a person with long experience in a field; especially : a veteran soldier or public person (as a politician)
3 : something (as a work of art or musical composition) that has become overly familiar or hackneyed due to much repetition in the standard repertoire
Yes, the Stones have a great sense of humor. And the title of their hits anthology may very well be humorous. But I'm betting they will have more taste and creativity than to call their own best recordings overly familiar and hackneyed. |
|
|
| Joey |
IORR NEWS confirmed months ago that Mick Taylor is going to be involved in this 2002/2003 tour . It is just a matter of how strongly the fans speak out about the joy everyone feels about Mick Taylor's return to the Stones .
Don't think for a second Mick Jagger is not reading these message boards ......He is a very very smart man who is sensate to everything all around him . Plus , the stakes have never ever been higher , what with The WHO now at the top of their game and Pete Townshend playing guitar better than Jimi Hendix ever did . Clapton is still a stronger guitar player than the Petey , but anything can happen .
Wait until those four MSG gigs in August .
Snaggle Joe
|
|
|
| T&A |
Personally, I like the Warhorses title. Alternate or sub-title (as in Fazed Cookies):
"Overly Familiar and Hackneyed"
Has a certain "je ne sais quois" .... |
|
|
| Mr T |
I don't think anyone will actually research the term WarHorses & be disapponted to find the phrase "overly familiar and hackneyed". To me, the key word is CHARGER - The Stones are Rolling on & still kicking ass - with a title like "Don't Know How To Stop"(obviously reflecting the same type of message as Ozzy Osbourne's "It Gets Me Through") - which by the way I've come to accept as being a likely title - they could
like I said - for a title - your not getting any better than Warhorses. Either it'll be something completely dry like The Rolling Stones ANTHOLOGY - or better yet - ULTIMATE GREATEST HITS VOLUME 1(the term volume one or anything like that almost always makes it official that the band is just about done & trying to give a small glimmer of hope for their future) - or the even more expectable title featuring the 2 most common phrases(not related to drugs or sex) in any Rolling Stones related headline - which would be "Satisfaction" and "Moss"
so you tell me, what title is "overly familiar and hackneyed"? You may not like the title - but you gotta admit - they'd probably rather be called old(especially on their own terms) than pondscum. |
|
|
| Mr T |
T&A - that would actually be a cool title if they named it Big Hits(or Hot Rocks) Volume 3*: Moss & Warhorses(something along those lines.) best of both worlds really. not so much calling 'them' Warhorses - just kinda implying it with the asme style as the origional best ofs.
*(or Volume 1 & 2+ or something like that depeding on similarities of the tracklistings)
|
|
|
| T&A |
Since it's assumed the tour title will be reflectd in the album title (or vice-versa), I can't imagine they will have a generic (geriatric, yes, generic - no) title. "Hey Fans - it's the Stones on the World Anthology Tour!"
By the by, one piece of evidence that seems contrary to MT being along on the ride this year - he's booked for a gig in Germany with the Todd Sharpville band (cool CD he has with MT on one song, not to mention the raunchy artwork) on August 29. That would leave precious little time for him to be working with the Stones in prep for a 9/8 Orpheum gig.
Tod |
|
|
| Boomhauer |
So when in the hell does War Horses come out anyway? It should be before the tour, right? |
|
|
| Mr T |
last I heard October 1st |
|
|
| Staffan |
well.. you guys have made me change my mind! I begin (slowly) to like the title actually. What matters is the album sleeve!
They could make Charlie pose like on the Ya Ya cover, but not with a donkey but a WAR HORSE!!!!! Now that's something... |
|
|
| prism |
The War Horses rumor was started about a month ago by a guy called the Rev on the Undercover Mailing list, just to see how far it would go. He was making fun of the fact that the Stones in concert do too many old war horse hits and not enough obscure tunes. |
|
|
| Gazza |
"Warhorses" simply suggests a standard greatest hits package. If thats the title of the tour,it would imply merely a trotting (no pun intended) out of their singles and obvious hits.
I cant see how anyone would think the Stones wouldnt poke fun at themselves with a "disrespectful" album title. This is a band who themselves previously issued compilations titled "Sucking In the 70's" and "Time Waits For No One".
Hardly flattering titles.... |
|
|
| 2000monkey |
From what I've seen the name of this tour is Rolling Stones on the Road. As far as I can remember the names of all recent tours have been announced with all the accompanying graphics,ect when the tours themselves were announced,(B2B,Voodoo Lounge,ect). I'd be very surprised if Rolling Stones on the Road suddenly became Warhorses. Jagger, with his multitude of teeth and lips sometimes looks like a horse on stage and the jokes would never cease. They look like they were rode hard and put away wet. Time for the glue factory, Sparky, and more.
It's unlikely the Stones are calling themeselves, their tour or their album Warhorses. The term is in the commom vernacular as a negative and anyone as smart as Mick isn't going to make it that easy for his critics. Rolling Stones on the Road, while being totally unimaginative(which is a shame becuase recent Stones tours/albums all had great titles) at least affords the band their dignity. |
|
|
| Mr T |
actually they did state the tour name would be announced later with the album name - your right, it is called The Rolling Stones On The Road 2002-2003 for now, but they'll have an actual title later.
As for this Warhorses debate, it seems it boils down to 1 of 2 things:
1: if you think the boys are making it easier on critics to be criticized
or
2: if you think its just a way of giving them the shots themselves
face it, any review of the Stones has been extremely unorigional & dirivitive. Have you ever seen a headline that somebody didn't try to add the wrod 'Satisfaction' to? Do you think critics are still earning laughs for comparing their age to Moss?? - my guess is no. I think its more of a shot at the critics, if they could pull it off, to show that even when it comes to jokes at their expense, at least their coming up with something new & a little more creative.
and like Gazza said... "Sucking in the 70's"??? Like that wasn't leaving a shot wide open for critics who were less fond of Hot Stuff & Shattered?? Seems to me they had no problems dealing the shots for themselves on that one
|
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
This is so damn funny.
You guys are all yapping about this "Warhorses" thing like it's a done deal. It's an internet hoax. And obviously a good one.
If Warhorses is a good title or not is friggin' moot. That ain't gonna be the title. |
CHAT ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]