Quote
stonescrow

Quote
71Tele
The people in their fanbase for whom this seems to occupy every waking thought on a daily basis.

Exactly. This isn't 1975. The constant "will-they-or-won't-they" speculation/wishful thinking/tea leaf reading is just not as interesting as it was 30 years ago (or even ten). This isn't the same Rolling Stones. They cannot be wound up and made to dance for us at our whim, or just because some of us want it so badly. Roughly speaking, they can't make the same noise.

You know, I was extremely angry at John Lennon when he said of the Beatles in 1971 (referring to the Let It Be sessions): "here we are with our trousers off, we can't play together anymore, please leave us alone". But now I kind of get what he meant. Jesus, are we going to require Keith's fingers to actually fall off? Leave it alone, folks.

The problem is that it is the Stones that continue fanning the fires. If they had just come out and said we are done, leave us alone, I doubt if very many of us would be discussing this subject of "will they/won't they". It was Mick Jagger who told Larry King back in May that he was looking forward to touring again, although stopped short of saying when. Recently it has been Keith and Ronnie saying they are ready to once again rock 'n' roll. Nobody is pointing a gun to these guys heads and demanding that they tour.

Well how many bands have said that they're done and stuck to it? How many farewell tours have The Who done. You can't just say your done and that's it. Yeah they keep saying they'll play again. Truth is they don't know.Their not fanning the flames. Just responding to questions asked of them.

There is gonna come a time when we as fans are going to have to get used to the idea that there won't be a functioning Rolling Stones rock group around to entertain us. As a fan, I feel very fortunate to have seen some great shows and acquired some great music which has provided me many, many hours of joy and served as a soundtrack for my life ("We learned more from a three minute record than we ever learned in school"-to quote Springsteen from No Surrender). We as fans are very fortunate that the Rolling Stones have given so much of themselves, and remarkably- given their much publicized tour grosses,have demonstrated continued staying power as a concert attraction. If (and from my estimation, a big if) , given their current age, they are physically and mentally able to handle the rigors of another concert tour, then I wish them much success. If not, I have many hours of recorded music/video and fond memories to sustain me...

Quote
colonial

Quote
stonescrow

Quote
71Tele
The people in their fanbase for whom this seems to occupy every waking thought on a daily basis.

Exactly. This isn't 1975. The constant "will-they-or-won't-they" speculation/wishful thinking/tea leaf reading is just not as interesting as it was 30 years ago (or even ten). This isn't the same Rolling Stones. They cannot be wound up and made to dance for us at our whim, or just because some of us want it so badly. Roughly speaking, they can't make the same noise.

You know, I was extremely angry at John Lennon when he said of the Beatles in 1971 (referring to the Let It Be sessions): "here we are with our trousers off, we can't play together anymore, please leave us alone". But now I kind of get what he meant. Jesus, are we going to require Keith's fingers to actually fall off? Leave it alone, folks.

The problem is that it is the Stones that continue fanning the fires. If they had just come out and said we are done, leave us alone, I doubt if very many of us would be discussing this subject of "will they/won't they". It was Mick Jagger who told Larry King back in May that he was looking forward to touring again, although stopped short of saying when. Recently it has been Keith and Ronnie saying they are ready to once again rock 'n' roll. Nobody is pointing a gun to these guys heads and demanding that they tour.

stonescrow..I don't think Mick or any of the other Stones could actually bring themselves around to saying the Band is finishing..it would be to emotional for them.. and thats understandable.

It certainly would be tough on Keith. I think Charlie privately would like to call it a day. I don't think it would bother Ronnie all that much, and sometimes I think Mick would like it to end so he can devote more time to his other interests. That being said they still have this date with destiny (the 50th year and 50th anniversary year) directly ahead so at least we can enjoy them for a little while longer. By the way, are you going to celebrate the 50th year of the Stones being a band tomorrow night or are you going to wait until the 50th anniversary to celebrate? Anyway, Happy New Year's mate.

Quote
Sighunt
There is gonna come a time when we as fans are going to have to get used to the idea that there won't be a functioning Rolling Stones rock group around to entertain us. ...

i think many of us got used to that idea about 25 years ago....

Quote
71Tele

Quote
colonial

Quote
stonescrow

Quote
71Tele
The people in their fanbase for whom this seems to occupy every waking thought on a daily basis.

Exactly. This isn't 1975. The constant "will-they-or-won't-they" speculation/wishful thinking/tea leaf reading is just not as interesting as it was 30 years ago (or even ten). This isn't the same Rolling Stones. They cannot be wound up and made to dance for us at our whim, or just because some of us want it so badly. Roughly speaking, they can't make the same noise.

You know, I was extremely angry at John Lennon when he said of the Beatles in 1971 (referring to the Let It Be sessions): "here we are with our trousers off, we can't play together anymore, please leave us alone". But now I kind of get what he meant. Jesus, are we going to require Keith's fingers to actually fall off? Leave it alone, folks.

The problem is that it is the Stones that continue fanning the fires. If they had just come out and said we are done, leave us alone, I doubt if very many of us would be discussing this subject of "will they/won't they". It was Mick Jagger who told Larry King back in May that he was looking forward to touring again, although stopped short of saying when. Recently it has been Keith and Ronnie saying they are ready to once again rock 'n' roll. Nobody is pointing a gun to these guys heads and demanding that they tour.

stonescrow..I don't think Mick or any of the other Stones could actually bring themselves around to saying the Band is finishing..it would be to emotional for them.. and thats understandable.

No reason they should say the band is finishing, formally. My main point is that we as fans should break our habit of expecting or feeling entitled to tours in the traditional sense. personally, I don't think the band itself knows what it wants to do.

Fair enough. I certainly wouldn't want them to continue if their hearts were no longer in it. I understand the feeling about not wanting to let go. Many of us grew up with these guys and it's almost as if they have become family to us. Our (my) generation is slowly fading away so the Stones continuing to roll is maybe our way of going back in time, to the days of our youth, to possibly happier times? Maybe the Stones still being around gives some of us hope that we still have some time left on this planet to be productive? Maybe it is a sense of pride that our generation produced the greatest music ever, at least we like to think so, and hey, "our" Rolling Stones are still kicking ass! Not sure exactly what I am trying to say here, just know it is going to be one sad day when they finally decide to call it quits.

Quote
Sighunt
There is gonna come a time when we as fans are going to have to get used to the idea that there won't be a functioning Rolling Stones rock group around to entertain us. As a fan, I feel very fortunate to have seen some great shows and acquired some great music which has provided me many, many hours of joy and served as a soundtrack for my life ("We learned more from a three minute record than we ever learned in school"-to quote Springsteen from No Surrender). We as fans are very fortunate that the Rolling Stones have given so much of themselves, and remarkably- given their much publicized tour grosses,have demonstrated continued staying power as a concert attraction. If (and from my estimation, a big if) , given their current age, they are physically and mentally able to handle the rigors of another concert tour, then I wish them much success. If not, I have many hours of recorded music/video and fond memories to sustain me...

Very well stated.

Who'll take Charlies place if he refused to tour? Ringo?

2 1 2 0

Quote
Beast

Quote
stonescrow

Beast,

Thanks for all the inside info. Just curious about your comments about the Stones leaking news like this to folks like yourself and Stonesdoug just to stir up excitement. You said they have done so in the past, Any chance you would be willing to share with us some of those experiences?

Sincerely,

Stonescrow

If you look again at my post, you'll see that all those words are Keno's - not mine!

Thanks. I am really starting to show my age!

Quote
71Tele

Quote
stones78
I know it's all about the money & their egos, but why do they want even more money? Aren't they like ridiculously rich multimillionaires? There's probably nothing in the world Mick Jagger can't buy, so why another tour with stratospheric prices? IF they tour it has to be with much lower ticket prices.

A very good question. At a certain point I believe it's not even about personal greed. The money is a way of measuring success. Mick doesn't want to do something "small" that would not add to the superlative previous accomplishments of the group, as measured in revenue and ticket sales. That's the mindset. I don't think he can imagine doing something not on the scale with what he perceives the "competition" doing (U2, etc.) It's just not about music anymore. If it was, they would do a month-long residency in a club, and it would be amazing.

Absolutely! My exact thoughts. I have been waiting for someone to shed some light on this alleged Rolling Stones "greed thing" for some time now and in my opinion you have "nailed it" for what it truly is. Behind that charming boyish grin is one competitive little Englishman! Great work!

I keep hearing that Zeppelin tune Rock And Roll with mickscarey's infamous belch replacing the "Its been a long time, been a long time/Been a long lonely, lonely, lonely, lonely, lonely time" with "It's been a done deal, been done deal/Been a done done, done, done, done deal" instead...

Quote
stonescrow

Quote
71Tele

Quote
stones78
I know it's all about the money & their egos, but why do they want even more money? Aren't they like ridiculously rich multimillionaires? There's probably nothing in the world Mick Jagger can't buy, so why another tour with stratospheric prices? IF they tour it has to be with much lower ticket prices.

A very good question. At a certain point I believe it's not even about personal greed. The money is a way of measuring success. Mick doesn't want to do something "small" that would not add to the superlative previous accomplishments of the group, as measured in revenue and ticket sales. That's the mindset. I don't think he can imagine doing something not on the scale with what he perceives the "competition" doing (U2, etc.) It's just not about music anymore. If it was, they would do a month-long residency in a club, and it would be amazing.

Absolutely! My exact thoughts. I have been waiting for someone to shed some light on this alleged Rolling Stones "greed thing" for some time now and in my opinion you have "nailed it" for what it truly is. Behind that charming boyish grin is one competitive little Englishman! Great work!

Maybe true to a point, but at the risk of stating the bleeding obvious, they could sell even more tickets if they didnt price them as high as they do.

So, it would appear that 'tour grosses' mean more from a competitive standpoint than 'tickets sold'. They could conceivably make the same revenue as they do already if they chose to play bigger stadiums (as opposed to sometimes playing arenas or smaller stadiums)

Quote
stonescrow



Fair enough. I certainly wouldn't want them to continue if their hearts were no longer in it. I understand the feeling about not wanting to let go. Many of us grew up with these guys and it's almost as if they have become family to us. Our (my) generation is slowly fading away so the Stones continuing to roll is maybe our way of going back in time, to the days of our youth, to possibly happier times? Maybe the Stones still being around gives some of us hope that we still have some time left on this planet to be productive? Maybe it is a sense of pride that our generation produced the greatest music ever, at least we like to think so, and hey, "our" Rolling Stones are still kicking ass! Not sure exactly what I am trying to say here, just know it is going to be one sad day when they finally decide to call it quits.

stonescrow, you put this very well!

for me, I sort of lost that burning passion for them after Steel Wheels and the following tours.They still remain my favorite band but I wont die if I never see them again. I feel I was lucky to see them when they were freaks (78-82) and that is what I love about them.
I am quite happy to live with the Stones as they are now. I dont need another tour unless it's 2000 seaters but stadiums etc....no need for me to see that again. How many balloons and fire balls can you see during JJF?
Besides, I doubt they will ever sound as raunchy and raggedy as they did before 1990 and that is how I love them. Hyde Park 69? Love it!!

Like many have said here already, KRs playing will be limited, Ronnie isnt the solo machine he once was and I truly miss Bill;s bass.

Besides.......there are a ton of other great bands out there. The Stones will always be there as long as their music is in our hearts and souls!

Also....very well put stonescrow

Good lord Charlie, your wasting time on a Arabian Horse documentary???? Save your energy and get your arse our there and do what you do best. The years are passing by my man

it cant be over it just cant be, they will for sure do something within the next year or so IMO, smaller scale would be ideal for everyone involved

Quote
Come On
Who'll take Charlies place if he refused to tour? Ringo?

Ringo? Naw they need someone that can actually play the drums. How about Jim Keltner.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-01 17:42 by More Hot Rocks.

They don't tour without Charlie!

Quote
steffiestones
They don't tour without Charlie!

+1....Keith said that if ever him, Mick or Charlie go AWOL then it's over...............

No Charlie = No Stones. Simple as that.

Quote
EddieByword

Quote
steffiestones
They don't tour without Charlie!

+1....Keith said that if ever him, Mick or Charlie go AWOL then it's over...............

Yep. Up to around 2002-03 he certainly said that.

SINCE then, however, he's on record as saying the Stones COULD continue without him.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
EddieByword

Quote
steffiestones
They don't tour without Charlie!

+1....Keith said that if ever him, Mick or Charlie go AWOL then it's over...............

Yep. Up to around 2002-03 he certainly said that.

SINCE then, however, he's on record as saying the Stones COULD continue without him.

O.K. fair enough....I haven't heard but accept that...Cheers, Eddie

Quote
Gazza

Quote
EddieByword

Quote
steffiestones
They don't tour without Charlie!

+1....Keith said that if ever him, Mick or Charlie go AWOL then it's over...............

Yep. Up to around 2002-03 he certainly said that.

SINCE then, however, he's on record as saying the Stones COULD continue without him.

i have no doubt at all they'd tour without charlie if given enough money.

If they can tour after dumping Brian why not go w/out CW?

Quote
clapton71
If they can tour after dumping Brian why not go w/out CW?

Cause Charlie is a hell of a Rock drummer.

Quote
teleblaster
No Charlie = No Stones. Simple as that.

Faces did it without Rod Stewart..that's way more remarkable.

2 1 2 0

Quote
clapton71
If they can tour after dumping Brian why not go w/out CW?

Why stop with Charlie?? The day may still come where we'll see "Mick Jagger and His Rolling Stones" (or whatever name he can legally use) -- Charlie will have retired, Keith's arthritis will become too much, and Woody...well, Woody just being Woody could certainly end his run with the band someday.

Then we'll have 1988 all over again...Mick with a young band playing all of your Rolling Stone favorites! Hey, it's only one original member and he's 70, but what difference does it make!

Just think...maybe then we'll finally get that club tour!

(Just for the record...god I hope this never happens.)

Then we'll have 1988 all over again...Mick with a young band playing all of your Rolling Stone favorites! Hey, it's only one original member and he's 70, but what difference does it make!<Jah Paul>


Only option imo.

Quote
angee

Quote
stonescrow



Fair enough. I certainly wouldn't want them to continue if their hearts were no longer in it. I understand the feeling about not wanting to let go. Many of us grew up with these guys and it's almost as if they have become family to us. Our (my) generation is slowly fading away so the Stones continuing to roll is maybe our way of going back in time, to the days of our youth, to possibly happier times? Maybe the Stones still being around gives some of us hope that we still have some time left on this planet to be productive? Maybe it is a sense of pride that our generation produced the greatest music ever, at least we like to think so, and hey, "our" Rolling Stones are still kicking ass! Not sure exactly what I am trying to say here, just know it is going to be one sad day when they finally decide to call it quits.

stonescrow, you put this very well!

angee,

Thanks for the kind words. Didn't realize I had it in me to be so sentimental.

Quote
Cafaro
for me, I sort of lost that burning passion for them after Steel Wheels and the following tours.They still remain my favorite band but I wont die if I never see them again. I feel I was lucky to see them when they were freaks (78-82) and that is what I love about them.
I am quite happy to live with the Stones as they are now. I dont need another tour unless it's 2000 seaters but stadiums etc....no need for me to see that again. How many balloons and fire balls can you see during JJF?
Besides, I doubt they will ever sound as raunchy and raggedy as they did before 1990 and that is how I love them. Hyde Park 69? Love it!!

Like many have said here already, KRs playing will be limited, Ronnie isnt the solo machine he once was and I truly miss Bill;s bass.

Besides.......there are a ton of other great bands out there. The Stones will always be there as long as their music is in our hearts and souls!

Also....very well put stonescrow

Cafaro,

Thanks, and also well said.

I really believe they are going to surprise us this time around. Keith is looking healthier than he has in years and they are motivated by the fact that they know this is probably it for them as a unit. I am expecting them to go out in style. Certainly they will scale things back this time around.

Quote
Jah Paul

Quote
clapton71
If they can tour after dumping Brian why not go w/out CW?

Why stop with Charlie?? The day may still come where we'll see "Mick Jagger and His Rolling Stones" (or whatever name he can legally use) -- Charlie will have retired, Keith's arthritis will become too much, and Woody...well, Woody just being Woody could certainly end his run with the band someday.

Then we'll have 1988 all over again...Mick with a young band playing all of your Rolling Stone favorites! Hey, it's only one original member and he's 70, but what difference does it make!

Just think...maybe then we'll finally get that club tour!

(Just for the record...god I hope this never happens.)

Yes, and how about re-naming the band: 'Last Stone Rolling'? Or maybe, 'Last Stone Still Rolling'?