Just a few questions:

1. Is Keith still able to play up to a reasonable standard?

2. Is his (and all the rest of 'em's) health up to playing a series of dates in one place, much less a tour?

3. Can Mick hold out for a whole show?

4. Would you accept a show in which Keith's playing was limited (or Blondie behind the curtain) and/or Mick moved much less? At the expected HIGH ticket prices?

5. Wyman at 77? Really?

6. Would it be better for them not to embarass themselves and tarnish their legacy? Is it too late for that?

Feel free to answer or add your own questions.

You can of course add more questions but what's the point at the time? Do we really need all answers now?

Just wait and see. First of all we get a hint when/if the new album is finished.

And for the tour we have to wait until 2013.
But we can't take anything for granted. I have to admit that almost every time I surf in to IORR I'm scared of what kind of news that I will meet.

1. No.
2. No.
3. No.
4. No.
5. Apparently.
6. Yes, and yes.

Mathijs

My answers, same as Mathijs

same as Matthijs here

Yep. Matthijs.

1. Is Keith still able to play up to a reasonable standard?

No.


2. Is his (and all the rest of 'em's) health up to playing a series of dates in one place, much less a tour?

No. Remove some factors and it becomes a yes. But that is pointless too.


3. Can Mick hold out for a whole show?

Depends. Do you mean singing or huh-ing it through a show? Maybe.


4. Would you accept a show in which Keith's playing was limited (or Blondie behind the curtain) and/or Mick moved much less? At the expected HIGH ticket prices?

Hell no.


5. Wyman at 77? Really?

Is that his age now? Then yes, if it is his age, then yes, he's 77. Not sure what else the question is supposed to mean.


6. Would it be better for them not to embarass themselves and tarnish their legacy? Is it too late for that?

Yes and yes. They could stop it though and just focus on the vaults.

I really think Mick Jagger is in fine shape and would not have any problem with a tour.

He could outperform people a third of his age, I believe.


Its clear Taylor and Wyman are going to be involved, though, with an album, maybe some shows...

that to me is the happiest outcome..I wish Keith the best.

these questions really dont matter..The Stones will do whatever the Stones are gonna do AND we'll eat it up.(and I'll be at the front of the line if possible...)

Quote
duke richardson
I really think Mick Jagger is in fine shape and would not have any problem with a tour.

He could outperform people a third of his age, I believe.


Its clear Taylor and Wyman are going to be involved, though, with an album, maybe some shows...

that to me is the happiest outcome..I wish Keith the best.

I hope you're right about Wyman and Taylor, but Taylor's name has been conspiculously absent from any of these statements. They have only talked about Wyman.

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
6. Would it be better for them not to embarass themselves and tarnish their legacy? Is it too late for that?

Yes and yes. They could stop it though and just focus on the vaults.

I suppose this will happen regardless, but maybe not. I'm all for it.

#1 - Yes. Keith can play up to a "reasonable standard"...Little Red Rooster was really tasteful and soulful. I don't know that he could wow Stones fans with Stones songs at a Stones show though. Maybe he could!

1. Is Keith still able to play up to a reasonable standard?
Close enough for rock and roll

2. Is his (and all the rest of 'em's) health up to playing a series of dates in one place, much less a tour?
One place probably, tour probably not

3. Can Mick hold out for a whole show?
If he doesn't run all over the stage

4. Would you accept a show in which Keith's playing was limited (or Blondie behind the curtain) and/or Mick moved much less? At the expected HIGH ticket prices?
No blondie ...they don't need the money...


5. Wyman at 77? Really?
Sure he just stands still anyway


6. Would it be better for them not to embarass themselves and tarnish their legacy? Is it too late for that?

IF they stop putting on stadium shows and go to smaller venues.

Marv Peck

Y'all remember that rubber legged boy

1 - No
2 - Uhh
3 - Yes
4 - No.
5 - Yes
6 - No(1*)

(1*) I don't think they will do a world tour ...............they will probably do a one Night (Day) gig and invite them "all" (2*) to back them up.
(2*) Paul McCartney, Eric Clapton, Pete Townshend, well I could name 1000............

It will be fun though......................

__________________________

Wyman was born on October 24 1936 therefore will be 76 on October 24 2012.Not 77.

Quote
riccardo99
Wyman was born on October 24 1936 therefore will be 76 on October 24 2012.Not 77.

We're just rounding here. In actuallity for arguments sake he's 180.

Just a few questions:

1. Is Keith still able to play up to a reasonable standard?

I have my doubts, but we could be judging the man based on his undoubted rustiness more than his actual health (which is a guessing game). Hopefully if he remains active in 2012 and plays occasionally, we'll get a better insight.

2. Is his (and all the rest of 'em's) health up to playing a series of dates in one place, much less a tour?

We don't know what their health is like. Or what it'll be like when they decide to do shows in the future. Lack of conditioning and practice is probably more of an issue at this point.

3. Can Mick hold out for a whole show?

Yes. Far too much fuss made out of a bit of breathlessness at the White House gig from a man who hasnt been singing in public for a long time and who probably hasnt rehearsed much. I'm sure thats something that can be ironed out with a bit of practice. He's out of shape as a performer - thats all from what I could see. To read some comments, you'd be forgiven for thinking he had angina.

4. Would you accept a show in which Keith's playing was limited (or Blondie behind the curtain) and/or Mick moved much less? At the expected HIGH ticket prices?

I dont plan to pay high ticket prices anyway. Mick's movement or lack of it means nothing to me - I dont go to a show to see him dance, I go to hear him sing and he can perform just as well without running around. Better in fact, as it means hes less likely to tire himself out. Keith has played less with each of the last couple of tours. I dont expect that to be reversed. If its got to the stage where he may as well not be there, though - then I'm not really sure I'd want to remember the Stones like that.

5. Wyman at 77? Really?

Other than possible cameos, I don't think it'll happen.


6. Would it be better for them not to embarass themselves and tarnish their legacy? Is it too late for that?

Its probably already tarnished a bit by continuing long past their best era and by becoming a nostalgia act. Not to the extent yet where its 'embarrassing', though. The risk factor for that is increased with each passing year - especially with each year they remain inactive.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-17 01:20 by Gazza.

I'd love to see them again but if they don't tour or if I cannot attend that's cool . I've got a lot of great memories of the excitement of a new single or Lp release . The anticipation leading up to a concert . The stress of getting tickets ( younger fans never got to experience standing in line for hours or chasing downs brokers or newspaper ads ) . Standing outside of Sir Morgans Cove in 1981 and wishing I were inside . What a great ride it's been and I'm truly thankful for all the great music and drama that the Stones have provided .><



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-17 01:28 by boston2006.

1. No. Hasn't been for quite a long time. Even before the head injury.
2. Keith, no. The others, yes, probably.
3. Sure. But he would benefit from moving around less.
4. Yes. Already have. Mick would in fact benefit from moving less.
5. No worries for him. He can still play the bass. And, from what I heard, has quit smoking.
6. That is already history.

1. Reasonable standard for rock and roll (it's only) - Yep

2. Yes they can design a less strenuous show. The instrument amps and PA's are doing most of the work anyway (except maybe Charlie and Mick).

3. Mick? Hell yes he can.

4. No. I've always hated players "behind the curtain". Bad form and so tacky.

5. Bill's up for it, he's in good form. Although I doubt he will be included to the extent some expect.

6. No their legacy is still building. They will surprise us all with some more magic before the fat lady sings.


peace

No offense, but this comes across as real ignorant...There is absolutely no logical reason for The Rolling Stones to cease doing what they have always done best, and what they clearly still love to do, that is make real cool music...I'm really quite surprised by how clueless some of the posters on this MB seem to be...I mean it's as tho you've never seen a good performance by a musician over the age of 60 or 70 or even 80 for that matter...

Y'all need to get out more!!

We saw Ray Charles before he left us, pure genius, ever see Les Paul play?? Go see JLL some time, the "Killer" is another example, he's still one of the best...How about Jimmy McCracklin, did ya ever go to one of his concerts?? We went a few years ago, he was going on 90 and his "Kansas City" was one of the most memorable live music experiences I've ever had...So how or why anyone would ever question whether or not a Stones concert would be worthwhile is way beyond my comprehension...Have you ever seen the Stones, or if you have, have you ever been to any other show?










Anyway, I guess all the negativity here is a positive for folks like me who'll be seeking good seats if d when the anniversary tix go on sale...

Quote
dewlover
No offense, but this comes across as real ignorant...There is absolutely no logical reason for The Rolling Stones to cease doing what they have always done best, and what they clearly still love to do, that is make real cool music...I'm really quite surprised by how clueless some of the posters on this MB seem to be...I mean it's as tho you've never seen a good performance by a musician over the age of 60 or 70 or even 80 for that matter...

Y'all need to get out more!!

We saw Ray Charles before he left us, pure genius, ever see Les Paul play?? Go see JLL some time, the "Killer" is another example, he's still one of the best...How about Jimmy McCracklin, did ya ever go to one of his concerts?? We went a few years ago, he was going on 90 and his "Kansas City" was one of the most memorable live music experiences I've ever had...So how or why anyone would ever question whether or not a Stones concert would be worthwhile is way beyond my comprehension...Have you ever seen the Stones, or if you have, have you ever been to any other show?

None of those people have the issues Keith Richards has that I am aware of - nor do they charge obscene amounts of money like the Stones do for the same ol' show over and over. Gargantuan difference.

1. Is Keith still able to play up to a reasonable standard?
Yes. I believe with some practice, he would be around the same as he's been for years. Let Ronnie or Taylor take the brunt of the guitar. As long as Keith's up there playing the simple chords he'll be fine.

2. Is his (and all the rest of 'em's) health up to playing a series of dates in one place, much less a tour?
Keith is a wild card. At first I would say, hell no! The guy's looking like bones! But then again, he looks around the same as he has for a while and he still talks and moves around like he's still got it. You gotta love the guy and I think he'd still be good for it. Maybe make more time between each show so they can regain some strength. The rest are fine. I'm sure its not a problem, but boy its gotta be getting harder for Charlie!

3. Can Mick hold out for a whole show?
Yes, easily. Don't move around as much. Make the stage a bit smaller. He'd be fine. He reminds me of McCartney. Two guys that really never seem like they're gonna lose it.

4. Would you accept a show in which Keith's playing was limited (or Blondie behind the curtain) and/or Mick moved much less? At the expected HIGH ticket prices?
No. But really on the Keith part. If he can't do it, don't tour. Mick moving less is fine unless you mean him sitting in a chair for a duration of the show. At their prices, I wouldn't really accept less than what they've done in the past at those prices, and even that's pushing it.

5. Wyman at 77? Really?
Honestly, thats really getting up there. I don't know if he'd tour with them but he could definitely do some guest spots. I just think that amount of time and travel for him is a bit demanding of someone his age. Honestly, I'd love him to be there, but if the Stones were to tour and Wyman said "I give them my complete blessing and wish I could be there but can't", I'd feel just as good. Leaves me with the feeling that he was included and understandably declined but will be watching them with smiles. Leaves it on a happy note.

6. Would it be better for them not to embarrass themselves and tarnish their legacy? Is it too late for that?
Eh, I say go for broke at this point. I know what you mean by embarrass, and they haven't reached the level yet where they can only do sheds and amphitheaters circuits like Def Leppard or those bands that tour every summer. They are a band that is either still very much relevant because they are pretty much the equivalent of the Beatles at this point. Or they haven't been relevant for 20 years, at which point, why really stop now unless health prevents them. If they were to tour, I wouldn't think it any more embarrassing than they've been the last decade (and I mean that in a very kind way).

The guys are legends. They'll do what they want and obviously not listen to us, as right they shouldn't. My two cents: celebrate the 50th anniversary. Go out with a bang. Play a series of 5 shows in the New York/NJ area (MSG or Giants Stadium), then end an amazing career with 5 shows in London where they all started. Maybe a series of shows in LA for West Coasters, but really one series is fine for the US. Everyone else in the world would have to travel for one show anyway, so why should the US get so lucky as both coasts. They don't even have to announce it as farewell shows. Just give the shows, the obvious aura of a farewell will surround them, but it doesn't look like you quit or couldn't do it anymore. It would just be sort of "These are the last shows for now. If we can do more we will, but we'll make these @#$%& great." Bring back Taylor, Wyman. All other previous Stones as guests. I would say maybe do some other guest spots, but then again it might be best to keep it exclusively Stones.

Anyway, there's my opinion. But do whatever you want guys. You earned it awhile ago. I'm young, and I saw you once. Was looking forward to it again, but I knew when I paid last time this might be my only shot. And they put on a show that rivaled with the best of the others I've seen. And just because I'm young doesn't mean I haven't seen some AMAZING shows.

Well, I am going to just agree with Mathijs!

Although I am reasonably sure they could pull something off I WOULD find good enough, I get the impression that's not what they have in mind -

Meaning, I think Jagger still wants to run around the stage, Keith still wants to pretend to play while Blondie remains behind the curtain, Mick Taylor will not be invited back, etc etc etc...

Sooo, for those reasons, I think it's all over... I will add that I would be thrilled to have a new album, preferably with Taylor and Wyman input, but imagining that won't happen either, another ABB or hopefully better is still doable.

Mathijs nailed it.

Mathijs is the winner! I sadly agree.

Quote
dewlover
...There is absolutely no logical reason for The Rolling Stones to cease doing what they have always done best, and what they clearly still love to do, that is make real cool music...

Could you be more precisely, please? No offence intended, but when have the Rolling Stones as such performed and/or recorded together (if the Exile overdubs do not count)? Where are they 'still' active as performers? How long is it since the last concert of the complete band (Jagger, Richards, Watts & Wood)?

If they did not feel capable of doing another mega tour (which I assume) they could still do a series of concerts, for instance in London, without too high costs, too much PR, but also without the risk of bad sales or a breakdown due to health issues. It should be no problem organizing them, and they could even profit from filming/recording them (provided they would perform some interesting songs). And you could alwaysinvite some guest musicians if you want to round out the sound.

The fact that they even do not manage to put this together is a clear evidence for me that age has taken its toll, and I am surprised how many people on this board simply deny it.

Time waits for no one...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-22 16:21 by saltoftheearth.

Quote
Mathijs
1. No.
2. No.
3. No.
4. No.
5. Apparently.
6. Yes, and yes.

Mathijs

nothing more to say!

Quote
Mathijs
1. No.
2. No.
3. No.
4. No.
5. Apparently.
6. Yes, and yes.

Mathijs

Ditto

I think it's taken some time to come to a consensus at to exactly what it is they do plan on doing for this 50th Anniversay window. Not the souvenir downloads, etc, but as a band. It appears that they did decide to at least try and dow a new album. That takes time. Bill Wyman showing up at the rehearsals threw in a new wrinkle or two. (We still don't know what he has agreed to do, if anything. His silence is encouraging.) Keith's sub-par condition probably showed that he needs time to come up to an acceptable speed. I think they are all committed now. Mick living in closer proximity to Keith is probably part of that. I think they will take the stage when they're damn good and ready, and that they will once again confound the critics and make their fans cry tears of joy.

My answers

1 = No
2 = No
3 = No
4 = No
5 = I don't get the question
I mean Bill is born in 1936 he's 76, he will be 77 next year if the question is
will he be able to play with them the answer is yes, if the question is will it be
a plus the answer is no.
6 = Yes and it's already too late

HMN