Quote
Midnight Toker
the more i think about it, i am OK if they call it quits and bow out gracefully.

Well, to bow out gracefully - they passed that possibility a long ago... If they they now 'disappear' because they couldn't tour even though they tried hard to do that that will not leave a graceful end at all. I guess in order to keep their faces they need to do the 'one more' tour to show that they still can do it... Or will they give every year from now on an announcement that they will not tour this year?....

- Doxa

well as far as I can remember when they did the last O2 gig it was said that was the last big world tour, they did not say it was their last tour so as I see it they will tour on a much smaller scale, this will suit them as they are getting older. Now as far as 2010 this would normally be the times scale to start touring being a 3 year gap since last playing, this is what they normally do. But are they being clever here and leaving it another year to come back with all the fans not having seen them for at least 4 years , 5 years in america They will proberbly make more money and fill up more venues so really it's a good move, lets all think positive and hope they tour next year on the run up to their 50 years.

Quote
bv
The reason why the Stones does not announce any shows or tours until last minute is simply because then they can change their plans without having to cancel anything. How can you cancel a tour that never got announced?

If someone have too many alcohol units per day or get the head injured by falling from a coconut tree or fall from a ladder or have problems with the voice or another major tour is on or a sponsor want them to tour another year or many other reasons then they might choose to change their plans. At any time.

Some people seem to think I am publishing some sort of 100% correct rumours at all times. Well a rumour is always a rumour and a plan is always a plan - until you change plans. The Stones have the great privilege of being able to change their plans at all times, unlike artists who tour non-stop because they are broke or because that is the only life they have.

Classical cryptic analogies by the moderator once again!

But I think noone here really doubts about the credibilty of your infos; quite contrary: some people don't beleive anything - see some posts in this thread - until it is proven by you!

What goes for the 'privileged' status the Stones have, I think that is one of the reasons why the band has not come up with anything really memorable for some 20 years. The reason to do music does come not from 'inside' or some any 'muse' but is just an option to do things once in while if they feel like (or Cohl gives good enough numbers, etc.). I think a musician like Bob Dylan is not doing new albums and some 100 gigs a year for a living but surely because it is "the only life he has" - and being an artist or a performer/musician I don't think there is nothing non-admirable in it - quite contrarily - he does it because it is what he is. Meanwhile, good fish-luck to Keith Richards in Connecticut!

- Doxa

Why do people think they need to quit because they're too old? BB King and Chuck Berry are 83. That means The Stones have plenty more time. Also, don't believe people like them are capable of retirement, they thrive on what they do. Retirement = Death.

Quote
drbryant
Paul McCartney set up his 2009 concerts very quickly. The drawbacks are that he goes with a very simple stage set up (no elaborate props, no b-stage), and he plays basically the same numbers that he's been playing for the past few years.

Yes, but even in Hamburg, where it all began for him, he took up to 170 € for
seats near the stage. All in all there was no run on the tickets. You could easily get tickets on showday.

That can´t be the aim for us to scale down the venue and pay even more than for
McC, but that´s what would happen if the Stones played arenas in Germany.

Btw, Stonesdoug mentioned on his site that he phoned
Fran Curtis for a confirmation, but no answer yet.

Relax,aren't U2 touring most of this year?Another year off will do 'em good,write a good album etc

Quote
frankotero
Why do people think they need to quit because they're too old? BB King and Chuck Berry are 83. .

Most people quit what they do for a living because they're at an age where its the done thing, because their work no longer inspires them or because they have enough money to enable them to retire and enjoy the fruits of their labour. The Stones fit into all three categories.

Quote
frankotero
That means The Stones have plenty more time.

How does it? Are the Stones in exactly the same financial and physical condition as those two?

for every musician who is still active in their 80s, there are hundreds more who aren't and who won't be.

Stll no other news source picking up this story that I can see. This is a bit strange, I'm really wondering how 'official ' this is. But on the other hand there is no 'official ' denial either from the stones camp, hmmm

I think its a ronnie thing IMO, how he goes is how the stones 2010 is gonna go

Nothing on their web site, but they are always last to put news!

In response to Gazza. I'd agree The Stones are not at the same financial level, not sure about physical level. I think Chuck is in excellent condition, and I'm pretty sure Mick will be equally fit at 83. Both have been into calestenics since a young age. The other guys I'm not sure of, then again who is? I should have been more clear in my statement that I believe people like The Stones won't stop because of their egos and necessity for attention. At least Mick anyway. Ultimately I'd like to see The Stones push it out to the end. In the event they don't I will be able to live with it. After all they don't owe me anything.

The Stones are the laziest (or at least the most unwilling) of the rock fraternity, with very little sense of occasion.
Keith particularly, now does just seem to be happy to rest on his laurels (and why not).
Charlie is the only guy in the band willing and able to go and tread the boards these days, with no heirs or graces.
Nothing left to prove, enough money in the bank and zero motivation are the key reasons I should think.
Clearly they need another album in the can first and maybe (dare I say) a different 2nd guitarist would actually do them good.

Trouble is they aint got that much longer to hang around and make up their collective minds...

Pity the album name 'Slow Rollers' has already been taken.

Quote
turd
The Stones are the laziest (or at least the most unwilling) of the rock fraternity, with very little sense of occasion.
Keith particularly, now does just seem to be happy to rest on his laurels (and why not).
Charlie is the only guy in the band willing and able to go and tread the boards these days, with no heirs or graces.
Nothing left to prove, enough money in the bank and zero motivation are the key reasons I should think.
Clearly they need another album in the can first and maybe (dare I say) a different 2nd guitarist would actually do them good.

Trouble is they aint got that much longer to hang around and make up their collective minds...

Pity the album name 'Slow Rollers' has already been taken.

<<< with very little sense of occasion >>>

Yes I'd agree with that, there's just something about the way they carry on that gives you the distinct feeling that they just don't have a sense of occasion. Don't know why that is, but it's a distinct vibe they give off.

Frank - an essential difference between the likes of Chuck/BB King and the Stones is that the first two acts work on a regular basis, each year and every year.

The Stones effectively cease to exist for years at a time.

I would imagine that by now Chuck and BB are comfortably enough to have been able to retire years ago. They still presumably work because they feel motivated to do so.

I don't see the same motivation with the Stones anymore. The impression I get is that they're at a stage where they don't really have a point in continuing because (in the case of all 4 band members) their hearts aren't really in it anymore and there's clearly no drive to do anything new, but they can't really find a way of bringing it to an end. There hasn't even been any solo activity by Mick or Keith since the last tour ended.

I cant agree with the 'push it out to the end' angle because I'd personally rather they didnt do anything half-arsed and I dont want them to get to the stage where they're performing for the sake of reaching some milestone whilst at the same time becoming a lauughing stock (and no, I dont feel they're at that stage yet) - but I'm with you on the last bit. If they don't tour again, I'll live with it and as a fan we've got a lot of mileage out of them.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-05 14:48 by Gazza.

Touring in 2011/2012 will make more sense to me because of their 50 th anniversary .Especially with the European & US economic crisis .
But I find it weird the Stones announce there will be NO tour ?

Quote

The Rolling Stones tonight announced they had no plans to tour this year.

Announced ? To who ? When ? Where ? Who spoke ?

May someone make a phone call to Ben Todd ?



I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .

Quote
frankotero
Why do people think they need to quit because they're too old? BB King and Chuck Berry are 83. That means The Stones have plenty more time. Also, don't believe people like them are capable of retirement, they thrive on what they do. Retirement = Death.

BB and Chuck decide whether to play or not. They hire a band and go onstage.
The Stones are four, so it´s more difficult to go on the road with all
those logistics and stuff.

Quote
Ket
Stll no other news source picking up this story that I can see. This is a bit strange, I'm really wondering how 'official ' this is. But on the other hand there is no 'official ' denial either from the stones camp, hmmm

The latter bit is quite telling. They're usually quick to issue a statement if something has been erroneously attributed to them.

The first part is mostly a sign of the times. The Stones' raison d'etre for much of the media these days is as tabloid fodder. A tour that was only at the 'rumoured' stage being shelved isn't really that big a media story. Had they actually announced a tour and then scrapped it, that would have been a different matter.

Quote
Gazza
Frank - an essential difference between the likes of Chuck/BB King and the Stones is that the first two acts work on a regular basis, each year and every year.

The Stones effectively cease to exist for years at a time.

I would imagine that by now Chuck and BB are comfortably enough to have been able to retire years ago. They still presumably work because they feel motivated to do so.

I don't see the same motivation with the Stones anymore. The impression I get is that they're at a stage where they don't really have a point in continuing because (in the case of all 4 band members) their hearts aren't really in it anymore and there's clearly no drive to do anything new, but they can't really find a way of bringing it to an end. There hasn't even been any solo activity by Mick or Keith since the last tour ended.

I cant agree with the 'push it out to the end' angle because I'd personally rather they didnt do anything half-arsed and I dont want them to get to the stage where they're performing for the sake of reaching some milestone whilst at the same time becoming a lauughing stock (and no, I dont feel they're at that stage yet) - but I'm with you on the last bit. If they don't tour again, I'll live with it and as a fan we've got a lot of mileage out of them.

<<< I don't see the same motivation with the Stones anymore. The impression I get is that they're at a stage where they don't really have a point in continuing because (in the case of all 4 band members) their hearts aren't really in it anymore and there's clearly no drive to do anything new, but they can't really find a way of bringing it to an end. >>>

And that's pretty much how I see it too. However, I can equally very well imagine that they're hugely tempted to invoke one last hurrah revolving around the impending 50th anniversary, 1962-2012. IF I was to give them the benefit of the doubt, I'd say that they're currently giving Ronnie time to sort himself out, and simultaneously giving themselves lots of time to work out exactly what they're going to do when the 50th rolls around, which lets face it .... it will do soon enough. That's what I'd LIKE to think anyway, not sure if I actually do !!

Quote
melillo
well it must be that they really dont want to go out without ronnie and are going to give him every chance to get himself right instead of just dumping him

Thinking about this, I wonder if they legally have to do this.....in today's day and age I imagine it must be far harder to just fire someone from a band without having exhausted every possible avenue first. If they didn't do this, could Ronnie not turn around and sue them for wrongful termination or something and take a good portion of all future proceeds and a goodly amount of royalties too? Just wondering.....

Quote
Bitches Brew
Nothing on their web site, but they are always last to put news!

A really good point. This beggars the question who has officially received the statement besides The Daily Mail? There have been quite a few celebrity website hackings of late - Van Morrison being the highest profile. Could this be another celebrity bluff?

paulywaul

Quote


And that's pretty much how I see it too. However, I can equally very well imagine that they're hugely tempted to invoke one last hurrah revolving around the impending 50th anniversary, 1962-2012. IF I was to give them the benefit of the doubt, I'd say that they're currently giving Ronnie time to sort himself out, and simultaneously giving themselves lots of time to work out exactly what they're going to do when the 50th rolls around, which lets face it .... it will do soon enough. That's what I'd LIKE to think anyway, not sure if I actually do !!

Oh, there'll be motivation with THAT ok, because of the significance of 50 years and the financial rewards/ego trip that goes along with it - but what I mean is that they don't strike me as a group of guys who are driven by the desire to make music and be in a band anymore. Creatively, they chose to tread water since they did their first nostalgia tour in 2002.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-05 22:10 by Gazza.

Quote
Silver Dagger

Quote
Bitches Brew
Nothing on their web site, but they are always last to put news!

A really good point. This beggars the question who has officially received the statement besides The Daily Mail? There have been quite a few celebrity website hackings of late - Van Morrison being the highest profile. Could this be another celebrity bluff?

I'm guessing that maybe the Mail got an advance leak of the story. They have specifically stated three times in the article that its an official statement from the band, however. Sometimes newspapers won't be interested in a story because a 'rival' were given an exclusive.

Wouldnt read anything into it not being on rs.com. They exist primarily as a merchandising site. Their news coverage during a tour is crap, and between tours is practically non existent.

Quote
VoodooLounge13

Quote
melillo
well it must be that they really dont want to go out without ronnie and are going to give him every chance to get himself right instead of just dumping him

Thinking about this, I wonder if they legally have to do this.....in today's day and age I imagine it must be far harder to just fire someone from a band without having exhausted every possible avenue first. If they didn't do this, could Ronnie not turn around and sue them for wrongful termination or something and take a good portion of all future proceeds and a goodly amount of royalties too? Just wondering.....

Outvoted 3 to 1. Junior member. Not able to keep to upcoming recording dates due to another rehab stint and despite several warnings manages to scupper a multi million dollar tour due to inefficiency.

Dont think he'd have much of a case, to be honest. Especially if the other three band members cant undertake a tour because of his condition.

People get fired from bands all the time. Brian Wilson even got fired from the Beach Boys ..and er, the Stones have already managed to fire the guy who actually founded them 40 years ago.....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-05 15:18 by Gazza.

Quote
StonesTod
assuming the story is credible, i think the ronnie issue is a convenient excuse, as i don't even think he represents the biggest liability for this act...

i agree with you . i think jagger/cohl read the tea leaves with the global economy in a mess and they said not the right time to tour .

Well at least we can look forward to The Black Crowes hitting the road again later this year after Chris Robinson spends some time at home with his new baby girl!! Definitely looking forward to that!

Who does the band's UK publicity these days? Is it Laister Dickson / LD Publicity?

Quote
The Greek

Quote
StonesTod
assuming the story is credible, i think the ronnie issue is a convenient excuse, as i don't even think he represents the biggest liability for this act...

i agree with you . i think jagger/cohl read the tea leaves with the global economy in a mess and they said not the right time to tour .

I don't think so, if this story is true it definitely has something to do with the bad Ronnie publicity.

Quote
SwayStones
Touring in 2011/2012 will make more sense to me because of their 50 th anniversary .Especially with the European & US economic crisis .
But I find it weird the Stones announce there will be NO tour ?

Quote

The Rolling Stones tonight announced they had no plans to tour this year.

Announced ? To who ? When ? Where ? Who spoke ?

May someone make a phone call to Ben Todd ?

A few points I can agree to.
the 50th anniversary could be the right motivation, which Gazza was missing.
IMO it makes sense to announce there will be NO tour at this point because of all the negative media attention about Ronnie.
they made a similar statement when Charlie's story went over the top.
they put an end to the Q if Ronnie has been sacked.
looks like they've been sitting on the couch a bit too long.
they're buying more time to record an album and get Ron back on track.

...and I bet they originally had other plans, because the 2010 tour rumours didn't come from nowhere.

I don't agree that they dont have the <<< sense of occasion >>> .
quite the contrary - they are reading the signs of time, as in: nothing seems to fit together right now - so why push it?
plans seem to have changed but the'll probably be better prepared for '11 and '12.

>>Announced ? To who ? When ? Where ? Who spoke ?<<
yeah, I'd like to know that one aswell.

Quote
The Greek

Quote
StonesTod
assuming the story is credible, i think the ronnie issue is a convenient excuse, as i don't even think he represents the biggest liability for this act...

i agree with you . i think jagger/cohl read the tea leaves with the global economy in a mess and they said not the right time to tour .

A ten year old could have told them that the global economy has been in a mess for a couple of years now.

They had planned a tour and now, so it appears, they're not planning one. I dont think the economy is a significant issue all of a sudden.

Anyway, the economy is only an issue if they're still planning on bleeding their fans and promoters white with stupidly high guarantees and ticket prices. Plenty of other acts manage to tour quite successfully.