Nonsense. The Stones are as highly regarded as anyone by many "historians". At that level of accomplishment, it's all a matter of taste. The Stones have been, arguably, the most influential band of all time. And they are certainly the greatest. Dylan and The Beatles are brilliant, but I'd put Dylan far ahead of the Beatles when it comes to influence and accomplishment. In my book, calling it quits after a decade just doesn't compare with peers who kept at it for another 40 years. Longevity is a key component to any artists legacy, and I fail to see how the unassailed brilliance of the first decade is in any way negatively effected by the less consistent brilliance of the next four.

Again, the 1973 Tour(s) (from January on) would have been a great goodbye tour, GHS a great last album. The L&G movie and Brussels Affair would have been absolute milestones in music history (like Gimme Shelter and Ya Ya's are).

I easily could miss all other stuff, IORR and B&B included.

Quote
Niklas

Quote
Harm
I would have missed quite a few concerts

Would you be better off them or did you enjoy them?

Serious question? Anyway, they were too good and young to quit in 1972.
After the 2012 gigs, they can quit.

To start, I would have a considerable amount of money in my bank.

Most of my favourite and most played records would not exist.

I've travelled to places that probably I would have never seen (unless they had a football team in the Euro cups).

I wouldn't be married with my lady.

I wouldn't be playing a guitar.

I would have a healthier liver.


C

Quote
liddas
To start, I would have a considerable amount of money in my bank.
C

I would have spent less money on the Stones, but I doubt it would be in my bank.
I'd probably go to New York on new year's eve in the BB King Blues club & Grill
(funny name...& Grill hahaha)

...And the '73 Tour?!?And GHS,Some girls and Tattoo?!?And the '78 US Tour?!?And El Mocambo shows?!?And...And...And...

No Start Me Up, no Beast Of Burden, no Down In The Hole, no Little T + A, no How Can I Stop? How sad...

1-Silver train
2-Hide your love
3-@#$%&
4-Coming down again
5-Time waits for no one
6-Till the next goodbye
7-Hey negrita
8-Melody
9-Hot stuff
10-When the whip comes down

1-Miss you
2-Beast of burden
3-Shattered
4-Respectable
5-Some girls
6-She's so cold
7-Down in the hole
8-All about you
9-Dance
10-Little T & A

1-Start me up
2-Hang fire
3-Slave
4-Waiting on a friend
5-Worried about you
6-She was hot
7-Feel on baby
8-Too much blood
9-All the way down
10-Sleep tonight

1-One hit to the body
2-Dirty work
3-Hearts for sale
4-Continental drift
5-Slipping away
6-The worst
7-Love is strong
8-Sparks will fly
9-Blinded by rainbows
10-The storm

1-Out of control
2-you got me rocking
3-Moon is up
4-Thru & Thru
5-How can I stop?
6-Saint of me
7-Already over me
8-Rough justice
9-It won't take long
10-She saw me coming
11-Rain fall down
12-Laugh,I nearly died

......And other five Masterpieces!!!

If they had retired in 1972 some of the best rock'n'roll tours ever would not have happened.

Well said, NedKelly! If you've been to Mount Everest (or made Exile), there's no way up, only down. But there are lots of other high mountains you can go to!

Quote
Big Al
If The Rolling Stones had decided to call it a day in the wake of Exile on Main Street, then I genuinely believe that they would now be held in much higher esteem by the musical historians and critics. They’d be mentioned in the same breath as Dylan and The Beatles – which they aren’t.

Agreed.

I think if the Stones had quit in 72, their legacy and their perceived greatness as a group would seem immeasurably more impressive, although i do think that that would perhaps have been a little early. The 'Goats Head Soup' - 'Tattoo You' albums are sprinkled with classic Stones songs, alongside more mediocre efforts, which over time the fans have come to love (almost perhaps) as much as their classic 60/early 70s material, so i do think that those years do add to the Stones legacy, just as much as it detracts a little when they seem a little less inspired. By most artists standards 'Goats Head Soup' would have been received rather favourably,i feel, Yet in the context of what came immediately before, it does tend to shine a little less brightly. That, and the other 70s albums do have much to offer on occasions, even if it is more intermittently than in that earlier period. Not also forgetting some of those memorable tours, especially in the 73 and 78 periods. My view is the Stones could perhaps have retired post 'Tattoo You' and their 81-82 tours. Post 82, there are barely any songs that are truly memorable to any degree.

They would have lost (at least) one generation of fans. Many people love the Stones because of songs like Start Me Up and Beast Of Burden. SG, ER and TY were huge successes with great, great sales.

Well,if they had finished in '72, I hope we wouldnt be waiting till now for L&G to be officially released.Also, you never know - maybe they would have had a "reunion" tour every three years!!

Quote
NedKelly
I've been on this board for a while, and there's a lot of talk about the "really bad", "way below standard", crappy albums The Stones have made since Exile. Except for the usually mentioned Some Girls.

SO here's a question or two:

1. Would you be better off without Goats head soup, It's only rock'n roll, Black and blue, Undercover, Emotional resque, Tatto you, Dirty work, Voodoo lounge, Bridges to Babylon, A bigger bang? Not to mention the live albums Love your live, Still life, Flashpoint, Stripped, No security, Live licks, Shine a light? Or the dvd's they have released from 72 and onwards?

It's quite unbelievable that all that music, all those albums get hazzled as much as they do here. There's so much good music on those albums, that I would have been more than happy to just have them and nothing else. Of course Sticky, Bleed, Exile, Beggars, Aftermath, Out of our heads and so on are good too, but to hazzle everything past 72 is beond me. I have had som much fun, so many great occations with these albums I could fill hundreds of pages describing them.

The Stones cataloge is simply amazing all the way from 1962 right up till current day. I'm looking forward to a new album soon. Keep'em coming Keith!

This is one fantastically insightful post and right on the money! Black and Blue and Stripped are my current personal favorites although that could change by sunrise tomorrow!

Quote
Ringo
Well said, NedKelly! If you've been to Mount Everest (or made Exile), there's no way up, only down. But there are lots of other high mountains you can go to!

Ringo, also well said, mate!

What if The Rolling Stones had quit in 1972?

I still would hang around on some Stones board talking about how great they where................

__________________________

Quote
NedKelly
I've been on this board for a while, and there's a lot of talk about the "really bad", "way below standard", crappy albums The Stones have made since Exile. Except for the usually mentioned Some Girls.

SO here's a question or two:

1. Would you be better off without Goats head soup, It's only rock'n roll, Black and blue, Undercover, Emotional resque, Tatto you, Dirty work, Voodoo lounge, Bridges to Babylon, A bigger bang? Not to mention the live albums Love your live, Still life, Flashpoint, Stripped, No security, Live licks, Shine a light? Or the dvd's they have released from 72 and onwards?

It's quite unbelievable that all that music, all those albums get hazzled as much as they do here. There's so much good music on those albums, that I would have been more than happy to just have them and nothing else. Of course Sticky, Bleed, Exile, Beggars, Aftermath, Out of our heads and so on are good too, but to hazzle everything past 72 is beond me. I have had som much fun, so many great occations with these albums I could fill hundreds of pages describing them.

The Stones cataloge is simply amazing all the way from 1962 right up till current day. I'm looking forward to a new album soon. Keep'em coming Keith!

Mick's rock, I'm roll.

Quote
mailexile67
The real answer should be:What if they had quit in 1983...

agreed

Quote
saulsurvivor
Longevity is a key component to any artists legacy

"nonsense" yourself, on this point!

Quote
swiss

Quote
mailexile67
The real answer should be:What if they had quit in 1983...

agreed

Then I would have said: Ten Years After (too late).

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
swiss

Quote
mailexile67
The real answer should be:What if they had quit in 1983...

agreed

Then I would have said: Ten Years After (too late).

Kleermaker, watch it.

If they had quit in 1972 we'd all be imagining the wonderful music they might have made if only they'd carried on ... and no real music could possibly come up to that standard!

But we might have had two or three excellent new bands / solo acts as the former Stones went their separate ways.

Quote
saulsurvivor
Nonsense. The Stones are as highly regarded as anyone by many "historians". At that level of accomplishment, it's all a matter of taste. The Stones have been, arguably, the most influential band of all time. And they are certainly the greatest. Dylan and The Beatles are brilliant, but I'd put Dylan far ahead of the Beatles when it comes to influence and accomplishment. In my book, calling it quits after a decade just doesn't compare with peers who kept at it for another 40 years. Longevity is a key component to any artists legacy, and I fail to see how the unassailed brilliance of the first decade is in any way negatively effected by the less consistent brilliance of the next four.

I'm with you! The Stone's achievements are immense, diverse and on-going. They are way more influential on modern musicians at every level than the Beatles. Above all they are a working band. They are true musicians who have let us see the good, the bad and the downright ugly.

A lot of people moan and groan about certain Stones albums,tours,can he play cant he play.One thing i know for sure we will miss them so much when they have gone.

If the band had quit in in '72 its place in popular musical history would have been secure. The reasons do not need to be explained. The band's impact (musical and otherwise) and charisma was considerable. But to me very little after '72 enhanced the band's legacy. Perhaps it is a matter of age and expectations. The band extended its popularity (re-invented itself) to a younger audience whose experience of the band was new and exciting. But to me time has not been kind to the band. By '72 the band had reached the extent of its muse. What came after was simply not interesting. There came a point in my life where I no longer connected with a mature band performing "She Was Hot" or She's So Cold" (or a decade later "Sparks Will Fly"). The sad truth is that this legendary band had very little to say. It pursued broad popularity and all the rewards therefrom by living off its Peter Pan image and producing an impersonal and forgettable body of work designed to be momentarily effective in a stadium. It was musical Darwinism. You got what worked (in a financial sense).

When the band hit the peak in '72 it had nowhere else to go. It had neither the talent nor the courage to pursue a personal vision. Most don't. Some (Lennon, Van, Neil Young) did. It takes courage to step back from the limelight and pursue what is important to you and not let the numbers define your success. That was never an issue with the Stones. The band pursued the numbers with relish.

I have said the '69 tour is my favorite. It has something to do with the vibe of that tour, of the band having something to prove, of the band not playing to the audience, but requiring the audience to come to the band. The legacy after that era is give them what they want. To many it was exciting, to many it was fun. But to me it was arrogant, pompous and shallow, only honest in the most disheartening way.

well the brilliance of their legacy; the essence and realization of their major contributions as premier fascinating stage performers and writers/artists would have been assured....

If they had gone down in a spectacular plane crash after their last show in 72 - their legend would have been off the charts - nothing they have done - or could have done since could have moved the needle.

The other contributing factor is that that was the last moment (past the last moment) where rock and roll was the center of the culture in a way that it never was after. So it was the moment where the stones were at the top of their game - and it was when people still believed that R&R mattered in their lives and the larger culture ...

I do like the shows and many of the songs since -
but the allure, the musical accomplishment, image and the legend that they represented to the world has never been bigger than it was at that moment in time.

Quote
pmk251
If the band had quit in in '72 its place in popular musical history would have been secure. The reasons do not need to be explained. The band's impact (musical and otherwise) and charisma was considerable. But to me very little after '72 enhanced the band's legacy. Perhaps it is a matter of age and expectations. The band extended its popularity (re-invented itself) to a younger audience whose experience of the band was new and exciting. But to me time has not been kind to the band. By '72 the band had reached the extent of its muse. What came after was simply not interesting. There came a point in my life where I no longer connected with a mature band performing "She Was Hot" or She's So Cold" (or a decade later "Sparks Will Fly"). The sad truth is that this legendary band had very little to say. It pursued broad popularity and all the rewards therefrom by living off its Peter Pan image and producing an impersonal and forgettable body of work designed to be momentarily effective in a stadium. It was musical Darwinism. You got what worked (in a financial sense).

When the band hit the peak in '72 it had nowhere else to go. It had neither the talent nor the courage to pursue a personal vision. Most don't. Some (Lennon, Van, Neil Young) did. It takes courage to step back from the limelight and pursue what is important to you and not let the numbers define your success. That was never an issue with the Stones. The band pursued the numbers with relish.

I have said the '69 tour is my favorite. It has something to do with the vibe of that tour, of the band having something to prove, of the band not playing to the audience, but requiring the audience to come to the band. The legacy after that era is give them what they want. To many it was exciting, to many it was fun. But to me it was arrogant, pompous and shallow, only honest in the most disheartening way.

Well, pmk, I have for a great deal the same feelings as you in this case. I can understand why the 69 tour is your favourite one, though to me that tour had also an aggressive and arrogant vibe in it, whereas the 1970 tour hasn't.

Anyway, I restate that the 1973 concerts/tours at least musically were more than worthwhile, the stage still very simple, the band still as upright as it could be. Of course, it was my first and best Stones concert, Taylor was playing the stars from the sky. They played the GHS-songs convincingly. No stadiums yet. The arrogance was there, but it was also there in 1969. Think of the famous Jagger quote about in which ways he was (dis)satisfied. So to me 1973 was the last great and important Stones year. Taylor's goodbye after IORR was logic and in a certain sense also predictable.

It's interesting to compare the US tours from 69 and 72 to their European counterparts from 70 and 73. The latter less energetic, but on the other hand musically more mature. Let's say that the US tours reflected American society and culture and the European tours the European atmosphere.

Brian 5 years, apart from his drugs problems, he disagreed about the Stones musical direction.
Same with Taylor.
Imagine Wood had acted the same way etc...
8 different guitarplayers...wow,that would have been an inspiring band.