This is a serious question. What if the Stones would have ended their career with 'Tattoo You' and the 1981 American tour and 1982 'Urban Jungle' European tour ? Would their legend be better preserved today ? Would they have TRULY gone out on top ? Think about it -- those last fading notes of "Waiting on a Friend" on 'Tattoo You' providing a touching farewell. I remember at the time, everyone REALLY DID think it was their last tour and last album. Considering the quality of the majority of what we've gotten since in new music, should it have been ?

in a perfect world, yes...however i'm glad they stuck around for voodoo lounge and a bigger bang...best wishes

the funny thing is that the 81/82 tour is regarded in hindsight as one of their great (maybe their last true "rock and roll" tour) tours - but at the time many, many of us thought it was a real dog of a tour. So, your question should be pondered in light of that....

RockR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> and the 1981 American tour and 1982 'Urban Jungle'
> European tour ?


I think you know it, but for the record: 1990 was called "Ürban Jungle".

....i never have seen them

-----------------------------------------------------
Oh, give me the beat, boys, and free my soul
I wanna get lost in your rock and roll and drift away

Then we'd all be posting on the message board for the Guess Who or ZZ Top or god knows who else right now. Seriously, I think sticking around has only added to their legacy. There have been some great songs and great shows since 1982. A whole new generation (or two) has discovered them since then.

agree 100%. So glad they kept on 'til now.

"got to be worked on
don't have no bark nor bite..."

1981 was their last true tour based on an album and as a working band, straight from the halycon days of their greatest era....I thought it was their greatest tour. Keith was still young enough to enjoy look upon as the preeminnent rock and roller.

Steel Wheels tour was based on an album, but they hadn't been a working band in years by that point.

1981 was really the end of one era and the beginning of another.

#......Go ahead....Bite the Big Apple....Don't mind the Maggots.....Uh Huh...#

"1981 was their last true tour based on an album and as a working band"

All of their tours after that except Licks and No Security were based on new albums.

I am glad they kept on going, they wrote lots of great material after 81 with great tours and everything else.

X



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-04-21 00:26 by Erik_Snow.

Quitting or checking out early can enhance your reputation. Lennon was elevated to god-like status following his murder. Who has a better reputation than Hendrix? The tough thing to do is stick around and keep producing new music and tours. The Stones should be congratulated for their efforts.

It did not happen, because 1981 and 82 was the first tour they made BIG money and touring while previous tours were supporting the album sales.
It showed them how to live on. 1985 they did not tour, because Mick thought(that's what I read) it would not be a good album to tour. And also the mood was a bit let's say not the best.

Shawn20 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Quitting or checking out early can enhance your
> reputation. Lennon was elevated to god-like
> status following his murder. Who has a better
> reputation than Hendrix?

True. As the saying goes, "death can be a very good career move."

lodge Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It did not happen, because 1981 and 82 was the
> first tour they made BIG money and touring while
> previous tours were supporting the album sales.
> It showed them how to live on. 1985 they did not
> tour, because Mick thought(that's what I read) it
> would not be a good album to tour. And also the
> mood was a bit let's say not the best.
>


Actually, Mick thought the band was in no shape to tour...and he was right - Charlie was hooked on smack at the time, among other band member issues. '82 could have easily been the end - '89 was a risk/gamble that paid off big-time.

Actually I feel just the opposite of one of the above posts. At the time of the tour I thought it was the hottest best thing to have hit the stage. It was the first tour I hit multiple shows. Now in retropsect, I listen to these boots the least.

IMO Jagger often croaks and sound breathless, Ernie Watts bleats like a sheep with tha sax all over the songs, the famous weave is just a mess of guitar white noise where you cannot really here who is playing what, and it all comes through with a trebly whine that grates my ears.

Anyhow, I feel as qualified as any old timer to have an opinion, and I just think it goes to re-affirm how personalized all of this can become.

I have a book printed in 1982 called "The Last Tour". I am not sure if it is still in print. It chronicles the the tour and it is full of the same sentiments that you guys have posted in this thread. Its a quick read and It is full of great pictures also.

If that happened what the hell would everyone have to complain and whine about?

X



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-04-21 00:25 by Erik_Snow.

in 81-82 the rolling stones still had an adrenalin filled looseness & urgency....which has dissapated over the course of time....damn mother nature



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-09-29 03:29 by Leonard Keringer.

I don't think 81/82 should have the been the last tour. A lot of people think the newer tours have been better. The album thing that was brought up...I don't think they've had a better album than Tattoo You since '81, but they've put out songs that have equalled some of the tracks on TY: songs like "Sad, Sad, Sad" or "Highwire" are very classic-sounding Stones songs.



"Your Lou'siana recipes have let me down, Your Lou'siana recipes have surely let me down"

There is no way they should have stopped.Yes,we wouldn't have some sub-par songs around but,there haven't been nearly as many as some people would say.Think of all the quality music that wouldn't exist,not to mention live versions of Sister Morphine,Monkey Man,Moonlight Mile etc.We would have been stuck with Rob Zombie and a bunch of real crappy music.Why should someone who delivers quality stop producing?

X



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-04-21 00:26 by Erik_Snow.

This is a good question, I do think their reputation would probably be greater among the general public, and there would have been a lot less slaggers, probably along the lines of Zeppelin but as a stones fan I would been crushed. I love Undercover and A Bigger Bang, Voodoo is decent and I think as far as touring goes they are better now then 81/82 . I saw them in 81 and I loved it (my first Stones concert) and in 89 I hated Steel wheels and did not think much of the 89 tour and I remember thinking maybe they should have called it quits before but I was wrong and every tour and album have been better since.

virgil Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have a book printed in 1982 called "The Last
> Tour". I am not sure if it is still in print. It
> chronicles the the tour and it is full of the same
> sentiments that you guys have posted in this
> thread. Its a quick read and It is full of great
> pictures also.

I have that book.....bought it just after the 81 tour. I still get a kick out of that title. I sure would have missed some great concerts in 89, 94, 97, 99,02, & 05 if they would have called it a day in 81.

I think you could also make that same argument about the 1972 tour. I am glad that they didn't stop in 1981. I've seen enough good shows on subsequent tours that even if the peak of their recording powers was a long, long time ago, on their night, they can wipe the floor with any other band in the world.

then and there it felt like that saw them just 3 times back in 1982 never forget those showsthe first show second of june charlie right i 15 teen in the back then shouting like a harrd rock kd should everybody tame in the back accept me oh man was wild no drugs alco back then goodb show then miss you ann the whole stadium wild have more memories onne more time oh babys

But to answer the question that the thread asks:

They'd all be broke.

They played with way more urgency and looseness???? Holy shit man I haven't seen this much urgency and looseness from a group of 60 year olds since my last episode with an undercooked hamburger.

They made great songs since 81 but their real great last tour was in 81/82. The spirit is gone.

stuie_mac Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They played with way more urgency and
> looseness???? Holy shit man I haven't seen this
> much urgency and looseness from a group of 60 year
> olds since my last episode with an undercooked
> hamburger.


YES!!! in 81-82...they had more energy...just like you may have 24 years ago.....understand?..its the law of nature....its all recorded..play some boot from 81...then...play some boot from this tour....of course they still have some of that energy...but listen closely....its not the same level now....doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure that out...best wishes



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-09-30 00:41 by Leonard Keringer.