Does anyone know why the Stones seemingly decided not to tour in 2010?

I know this may be old ground, but what were the reasons for this decision?

Cheers,

Maybe they decided they are not fit enough. Or maybe they were refused health insurance. Who knows? Reasons may be many.

Maybe, but I thought it was a little odd as there appeared to be faily strong rumours saying the Stones would roll in 2010.

Then suddendly it was all off..

Let's just blame Ron Wood for it

__________________________

i think it just would be too long to go on tour for three years till 2012.

That's right.They probably want to market the next tour as the 50th anniversary tour, probably the final one

keith can't play no mo'

Both "stoneswashed77" and "stones_serb" hit the key. Off course the 50th Anniversary is the one big thing the band can get major global attention once again. And .... it just happens to coincide with the 2012 London Olympics ???!!!??? (We all know that the they are a London band). So starting in 2010 didn't make sence right from the beginning of the first rumors. Rumors are usually "wishful" thinking of some and, especially in the case of the Stones, in 99% of the cases never true.

Planning the tour as the 50th anniversarry makes sense to me. But I strongly doubt that it would have anything to do with the olympics. The tour itself has obviously absolutely nothing to do with the Olypmic games and how could anyone think that such a huge bussiness affair as a Rolling Stoners tour would be planned according to a slight possibility that during the 2-year tour they might (most likely not) perform 2 songs at the opening ceremony? They could do that without a tour obviously. Especially now, when each year they get really older, it is funny to think that they wait with the tour for some...Olympic games.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-23 17:20 by Happy24.

I think its quite funny that people assume the decision to have the Stones perform at the Olympics would primarily be one they'd decide themselves.

They'd have to be invited first and there's absolutely nothing to suggest at present they will be other than unsubstantiated gossip and wishful thinking.

The significance of the band being likely to be on the road in 2012 has far more to do with it being their 50th anniversary than the fact that the Olympics are taking place. Their press agent, Bernard Doherty, even alluded to them making plans for their 50th anniversary in the statement he issued last September quashing press reports that Charlie was quitting the band.

The comment that they wouldnt tour for 3 successive years from 2010 - 2012 is probably correct, but its not necessarily the case that even though they had tentative plans to tour in late 2010, they had intended to spend that length of time (2 years) on the road. Its just as possible that they might have done a shorter tour, then taken a year or more off before starting another tour in 2012 and into 2013.

To answer the original question, there could be a lot of reasons. None were given. We can only speculate, but my own opinion was that a combination of some (or all) of the following issues - health problems, insurance issues, the economy and being unlikely to have a new record available in time - probably led to the band making the decision that it was best to leave it until such a time when conditions were more favourable.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-22 15:56 by Gazza.

"keith can't play no mo'"

Ahhh, that old chestnut!

Well said Gaz.

Happy24 and Gazza. In October 2008 (within two months after London was chosen to host the 2012 Olympics) Mick Jagger stated in a press release, that he might consider a contribution "with friends" to the 2012 Olympics. I thought you would know Mick by now. Off course it all fits! And anothing thing. When Mick was interviewed about the Stones contribution to the Super Bowl final, he clearly said that they would never come together just for the sake of a three songs contribution to a football final, but as it nicely coincided with their tour, they did.
The London Olympics perfectly fits into what the Stones (Mick?) had in mind. Off course I agree with Gazza that health/insurance are keys issues, but economy .... I doubt it. Doherty's statement came 11 months after Mick's and so in that context is much less relevant except for just being a confirmation of what was already in the picture a year earlier.

Quote
Gazza
To answer the original question, there could be a lot of reasons. None were given. We can only speculate

Thank you Gazza. That's the only correct answer to the original question.

-------------------
Keep On Rolling

I think it has more to do with the economy. The Stones have, in recent years, gone for high priced tickets in very large venues. If everyone's tightening their belts, that might have an impact on ticket sales or the price they can demand.

I don't think it was the only reason but it surely is one of the major reasons.

I wonder how much it had to do with Ron? He's been in a bad way many times before and they've toured.

Quote
StonesTod
keith can't play no mo'

we don't usually agree - but i think you nailed it here....

Quote
T&A

Quote
StonesTod
keith can't play no mo'

we don't usually agree - but i think you nailed it here....

StonesTod is your alter ego correct?

Quote
The Greek

Quote
T&A

Quote
StonesTod
keith can't play no mo'

we don't usually agree - but i think you nailed it here....

StonesTod is your alter ego correct?

no...i believe it's the other way around....

Quote
T&A

Quote
The Greek

Quote
T&A

Quote
StonesTod
keith can't play no mo'

we don't usually agree - but i think you nailed it here....

StonesTod is your alter ego correct?

no...i believe it's the other way around....

very good . so how are you on this fine monday morning ? the sun is shining the birds are chirping and the world is ok ?

Really think the Stones are going to go for the Fifty Years thing?

I had a bizarre thought the other day - they record their last show of the next tour, which ends up being their last tour once the DVD comes out, called The Last Time, because that "says it all" and of course the set list of the DVD is all the warhorses including a placid Sympathy For The Devil and with You Got Me Rocking being the newest track, leaving Stones fans in a permanent bitch for eternity...

Quote
The Greek

Quote
T&A

Quote
The Greek

Quote
T&A

Quote
StonesTod
keith can't play no mo'

we don't usually agree - but i think you nailed it here....

StonesTod is your alter ego correct?

no...i believe it's the other way around....

very good . so how are you on this fine monday morning ? the sun is shining the birds are chirping and the world is ok ?

i've been fired, my dog died, the wife left me for the milkman and my cd player won't play the even-numbered songs...so the chirping birds are kinda pissing me off right now, to be frank....

You shouldn't be writing country songs on here T&A, someone might see that and steal it.

Quote
skipstone
You shouldn't be writing country songs on here T&A, someone might see that and steal it.

well, they'd be stealing stolen material, which is illegal in most of the blue states...

Quote
T&A

Quote
The Greek

Quote
T&A

Quote
The Greek

Quote
T&A

Quote
StonesTod
keith can't play no mo'

we don't usually agree - but i think you nailed it here....

StonesTod is your alter ego correct?

no...i believe it's the other way around....

very good . so how are you on this fine monday morning ? the sun is shining the birds are chirping and the world is ok ?

i've been fired, my dog died, the wife left me for the milkman and my cd player won't play the even-numbered songs...so the chirping birds are kinda pissing me off right now, to be frank....

what i find helpful is getting a fresh breathe of air if you know what i mean probably a wake and bake.works wonders

Quote
T&A

Quote
skipstone
You shouldn't be writing country songs on here T&A, someone might see that and steal it.

well, they'd be stealing stolen material, which is illegal in most of the blue states...

Double stole? Damn.

Who's is it?

Rumor has it: 2011-2012 Tour......

Quote
georgie48
Happy24 and Gazza. In October 2008 (within two months after London was chosen to host the 2012 Olympics) Mick Jagger stated in a press release, that he might consider a contribution "with friends" to the 2012 Olympics. I thought you would know Mick by now. Off course it all fits! And anothing thing. When Mick was interviewed about the Stones contribution to the Super Bowl final, he clearly said that they would never come together just for the sake of a three songs contribution to a football final, but as it nicely coincided with their tour, they did.
The London Olympics perfectly fits into what the Stones (Mick?) had in mind. Off course I agree with Gazza that health/insurance are keys issues, but economy .... I doubt it. Doherty's statement came 11 months after Mick's and so in that context is much less relevant except for just being a confirmation of what was already in the picture a year earlier.

London was actually chosen to be the host of the Olympics as long ago as 6th July 2005 - the day before the Al Qu'eida terrorist attack on the city. If he said something two months after the announcement, then that would have been around the time the Bigger Bang tour started. A long time to plan ahead for 2012. At that time, they hadnt even planned to be still on the ABB tour in 2007.

I didnt say they wouldn't do it. I said that it wasnt up to them to play it. They'd have to be invited.
'
A contribution with friends' isnt the same as saying the Stones would play it. If Mick wanted the Stones to play it and the rest of the band didnt, then he's simply outvoted. Do I think there's a chance they'd perform at some event associated with the 2012 Olympics? Yes. Do I think they WILL? Probably not, but I wouldn't put money on it either way.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-22 18:44 by Gazza.

Quote
sjs12
I think it has more to do with the economy. The Stones have, in recent years, gone for high priced tickets in very large venues. If everyone's tightening their belts, that might have an impact on ticket sales or the price they can demand. .

True. It's a bit of a blow to their egoes to admit that their demands would have to be less excessive.

Quote
sjs12
I don't think it was the only reason but it surely is one of the major reasons.

I wonder how much it had to do with Ron? He's been in a bad way many times before and they've toured.

He wasn't 62 years of age then, though.

1. Ronnie has big problems with booze and without Jo by his side looking after him everything is a mess.

2. Bad situation regarding the world economics.

3. Our heros are not 40 anymore, not 50 or 60 either, they are approaching 70!!!

I think it's just because they can't be bothered.



And why should they?

its funny how the main reason they may not be touring is because of woody, but yet woody is rumored to be doing a solo tour and or a faces tour in 2010, makes no sense