Jump to content
Guest Tom Green

Who Will Be The First Rolling Stone To Die?

Recommended Posts

Billy Wyman is 85 this year.

Charlie Watts 80.

Keith Richards 78.

Mick Jagger 78.

 

How the f*** are they all still alive?!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ulitzer95 said:

Billy Wyman is 85 this year.

Charlie Watts 80.

Keith Richards 78.

Mick Jagger 78.

 

How the f*** are they all still alive?!

 

Motorhead style dominos to come, imo.

 

The DL will pick one of Keith or Jagger in 2023 when they are 80 (probably Keith) only to see the other die, knowing sods law too.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ulitzer95 said:

Billy Wyman is 85 this year.

Charlie Watts 80.

Keith Richards 78.

Mick Jagger 78.

 

How the f*** are they all still alive?!

I think at least one will go within the next few years and I expect to see their names increasingly pop up in deadpooling. 

But I agree it's amazing they are all still standing especially with some of the excesses  I imagine some of them indulged in!

A lot more fortunate than the beatles who lost two members before the age of 60.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Gooseberry Crumble said:

I think at least one will go within the next few years and I expect to see their names increasingly pop up in deadpooling. 

But I agree it's amazing they are all still standing especially with some of the excesses  I imagine some of them indulged in!

A lot more fortunate than the beatles who lost two members before the age of 60.

 

imo 1940s music stars is going to be the next big source of deadpool picks alongside aging footballers. Survival wise, I have a similar view of Grace Slick, who is somehow 81 these days despite her well documented vices. It's like that recent Scorsese film The Irishman says - sometimes those who assume they'll live fast get old and arthritic!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only one who believes many of the stories/the degree to which many of these people abused alcohol and drugs in their “glory years” at the top of the industry is heavily exaggerated in rock star romanticism?

 

Proper long term drug abusers can’t function and they get turfed out of bands e.g. Steven Adler of Guns N Roses.

 

I’m not saying Richards and Jagger etc. didn’t heavily indulge on occasion. I’m saying the record labels, biographers and the mainstream media have quite probably exaggerated the extent of it, particularly in retrospect, because it sells.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ulitzer95 said:

Am I the only one who believes many of the stories/the degree to which many of these people abused alcohol and drugs in their “glory years” at the top of the industry is heavily exaggerated in rock star romanticism?

 

Proper long term drug abusers can’t function and they get turfed out of bands e.g. Steven Adler of Guns N Roses.

 

I’m not saying Richards and Jagger etc. didn’t heavily indulge on occasion. I’m saying the record labels, biographers and the mainstream media have quite probably exaggerated the extent of it, particularly in retrospect, because it sells.

 

You've heard the story of Keith Richards drinking from a Jack Daniels bottle during an interview, going to the loo, and the journalist discovering the Jack Daniels bottle was actually full of iced tea then? :D

 

All part of the PR legend. 

 

(There are exceptions but you tend to find they have massive support groups who stepped in to prep them up long enough to release an album/single/whatever before they relapsed again.)

 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Gooseberry Crumble said:

I think at least one will go within the next few years and I expect to see their names increasingly pop up in deadpooling. 

But I agree it's amazing they are all still standing especially with some of the excesses  I imagine some of them indulged in!

A lot more fortunate than the beatles who lost two members before the age of 60.

Although it has to be said the Beatles only lost one of their number naturally (assuming we are talking about the classic line up). John may still be with us if he hadn't been shot. Also it's very possible that Paul and/or Ringo outlive all the Stones as both appear to be relatively healthy. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ulitzer95 said:

Billy Wyman is 85 this year.

Charlie Watts 80.

Keith Richards 78.

Mick Jagger 78.

 

How the f*** are they all still alive?!

I would add Ronnie Wood (74)...he spoke in April about his fight against the second tumour...unless i missed the fact that you only refer to original band members (Ronnie joined in 1975...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Sideik said:

I would add Ronnie Wood (74)...he spoke in April about his fight against the second tumour...unless i missed the fact that you only refer to original band members (Ronnie joined in 1975...)


Perfectly aware of the existence of Ronnie Wood and concerns of his health. I was listing surviving members of the original band. Wood joined in the 70s.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ulitzer95 said:

Perfectly aware of the existence of Ronnie Wood and concerns of his health. I was listing surviving members of the original band. Wood joined in the 70s.

 

Yeah, Ronnie's the new boy.  :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, msc said:

 

You've heard the story of Keith Richards drinking from a Jack Daniels bottle during an interview, going to the loo, and the journalist discovering the Jack Daniels bottle was actually full of iced tea then? :D

 

All part of the PR legend. 

 

(There are exceptions but you tend to find they have massive support groups who stepped in to prep them up long enough to release an album/single/whatever before they relapsed again.)

 

 

 

 

Aye, I shared that story hereabouts a few times starting many years ago - friend of a friend as it was (and it came from someone linked to Kings Reach Tower back in the day when the NME was headquartered there), I'd believe that, frankly. Also worth noting that drug abuse is widely misunderstood. Many of the die young casualties bought the wrong stuff from the wrong people. Richards was already a wealthy individual with a lot of corporate money riding on his success when he became a smackhead. The point being the corporate connections ensured he got pharmaceutical grade gear when he was on tour so he tended not to shoot up impurities. In that regard he's something of touchstone for medical arguments, especially those that - rightly - point out the hypocrisy of criminalizing the cult favourite Class A stuff when the massively lethal options of alcohol and tobacco are widely available.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, maryportfuncity said:

 

 

Aye, I shared that story hereabouts a few times starting many years ago - friend of a friend as it was (and it came from someone linked to Kings Reach Tower back in the day when the NME was headquartered there), I'd believe that, frankly. Also worth noting that drug abuse is widely misunderstood. Many of the die young casualties bought the wrong stuff from the wrong people. Richards was already a wealthy individual with a lot of corporate money riding on his success when he became a smackhead. The point being the corporate connections ensured he got pharmaceutical grade gear when he was on tour so he tended not to shoot up impurities. In that regard he's something of touchstone for medical arguments, especially those that - rightly - point out the hypocrisy of criminalizing the cult favourite Class A stuff when the massively lethal options of alcohol and tobacco are widely available.  


Hmmm.... I've known 90 year old smokers and functioning alcoholics. Never met any 90 year old smackheads.

I take your point about the purity of the drug. I don't think that's the biggest factor. Those who died young from drugs tended to have a lethal cocktail mix in their system e.g. alcohol+cocaine+heroin (or often with barbiturates present – people don't realise how lethal they can be when mixed with recreational drugs).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, maryportfuncity said:

 

 

Aye, I shared that story hereabouts a few times starting many years ago - friend of a friend as it was (and it came from someone linked to Kings Reach Tower back in the day when the NME was headquartered there), I'd believe that, frankly. Also worth noting that drug abuse is widely misunderstood. Many of the die young casualties bought the wrong stuff from the wrong people. Richards was already a wealthy individual with a lot of corporate money riding on his success when he became a smackhead. The point being the corporate connections ensured he got pharmaceutical grade gear when he was on tour so he tended not to shoot up impurities. In that regard he's something of touchstone for medical arguments, especially those that - rightly - point out the hypocrisy of criminalizing the cult favourite Class A stuff when the massively lethal options of alcohol and tobacco are widely available.  

 

I knew I'd read it somewhere, you were probably the source! :D

 

Grace Slick also claims their LSD was bought off university connections made fresh so nothing in it. (Although in line with Ulitzer, everyone looks at Grace, and ignores the rising death rate among her younger bandmates from that era).

 

Also, yes, agreed. I take it you know the reasons booze/ciggies were available but weed and so on banned was due to heavy government lobbying. Not to ban dangerous drugs, but by the alcohol and smoking companies trying to get a rival successfully banned! I've often thought that legalising, say, weed and taxing it would de-stress a lot of areas of society all at once - criminal, medical, societal, etc. The biggest drugs killer worldwide tends to be the old "too many painkillers and a wee sip of something". And you can buy painkillers from nearly any shop in the UK, for around 50p a box!

 

The one name playing in my head is Ozzy of course, who was fired from Sabbath due to being unfunctioning at the time, cleaned up several times briefly to record before crashing into incoherence again (he puts it that anytime he suffered a bereavement or depression he self-medicates...), and has the well documented genuine arrests/hospital stays on his CV. I've been around alcoholics and regular drug users and even before his Parkinsons you could see the familiar traits in Osbourne.

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ulitzer95 said:


Hmmm.... I've known 90 year old smokers and functioning alcoholics. Never met any 90 year old smackheads.

I take your point about the purity of the drug. I don't think that's the biggest factor. Those who died young from drugs tended to have a lethal cocktail mix in their system e.g. alcohol+cocaine+heroin (or often with barbiturates present – people don't realise how lethal they can be when mixed with recreational drugs).

 

 

Aye but...

 

The odd 90 year old smoker or alchie is - indeed - odd. The death toll of "related" deaths linked to both legal drugs remains colossal and as other causes of death are slowly wrestled down it becomes more conspicuous. Dead poolers have done well out of alcohol and tobacco taking a toll well before 90 years (George Best being one case in point)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

June Brown appears that rarest of things- a nonagenarian chain smoker. Lawrence Ferlinghetti said he took small amounts of LSD and he lived to 101. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Deathrace said:

June Brown appears that rarest of things- a nonagenarian chain smoker. Lawrence Ferlinghetti said he took small amounts of LSD and he lived to 101. 

Entomologist Ernst Jünger and LSD discoverer Albert Hofmann both used to "experiment" with LSD, Hofmann thought that his product was some "miracle drug" and likely used it in his older years. Both lived to 102.

Tony Bennett had a cocaine overdose in 1979, he's still living and 95.

Author Jörn Donner lived to nearly 87 despite smoking around one to two (or more) packs of cigars every day for over 50-60 years, also had a bad alcohol problem, multiple cancers and was once shot. Finnish tv sports presenter Anssi Kukkonen had a very long and serious problem with alcohol and he's still alive at 87. Has survived five cancers this far.

 

Meanwhile, the longest-lived heroin user I've heard of (after Richards) is Eric Clapton. Seventy six years old

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, arghton said:

Entomologist Ernst Jünger and LSD discoverer Albert Hofmann both used to "experiment" with LSD, Hofmann thought that his product was some "miracle drug" and likely used it in his older years. Both lived to 102.

 

If you go to the front page's 2008 archive here, you'll see Hofmann had the best headline for a DL obit ever.

 

Also I am on record that the Albert Hofmann DL thread is one of the best on this forum:

 

 

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, arghton said:

Meanwhile, the longest-lived heroin user I've heard of (after Richards) is Eric Clapton. Seventy six years old


William Burroughs lasted to 83 and never got permanently clean. He was buried with a wrap of heroin in his pocket.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Charlie Watts first faller according to the BBC. Clive Myrie announces live.

  • Like 3
  • Sad 1
  • Shocked 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RIP Charlie. 

 

Irreplaceable but if the Stones want to continue maybe they could poach Ringo? 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this the start of a domino effect ?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Noooooooooo :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stones didn't have any top 30 hits in 1985. So there's that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

Your use of this forum is subject to our Terms of Use