Quote
TeddyB1018
The Stones will play by 2012. There will be a tour. No decisions will be taken as to what form or length the tour will be until closer to the date. They came very close to playing a few major cities with an Exile show last year. Unless there is someone literally unavailable, the 2007 show will not be the last.

Intriguing about the near-Exile show, Teddy. Can you shed any light on why it didn't happen?

It must be a very difficult decision for them to make.

On the one hand they are on the downslide, as all people who near 70 are. Worst case is they embarrass themselves; best case is they crank it up again and thrill lots of people and make tons of money and everyone tells them how great they are.

I think they should look at it like this: we might live to be 100, and at some point we just have to stop. We can't be doing this at 90, or surely 80. So the upsdie is another tour or two. The downside is a train wreck. A laughingstock, like Sinatra forgetting the words to My Way in the late 80's. Is it worth it?

There have been many posts of late wondering of the Stones future, whether they will release new material and/or will tour. I know that there are many people who visit this site who are still hopeful that the Stones have one more tour in them to give. I, for one, think the odds are against them, and if it means that they embarass the hell out of themselves (due to age and/or health reasons), I hope that they don't go back on the road. I want to remember the Rolling Stones in a positive light rather than as a joke...

The Stones as a creative force in the traditional sense finished after Undercover. Since then it has been something very different from all those other years. With regards to all the money and status you can gain in the music industry, The Stones are at the top of the heap and want to stay there. Look at their history from Steel Wheels onwards, everything is geared to that. Jagger's vision is obviously to make them an entertainment brand that is above everything else, including being above their notorious exploits of the 1960s and 1970s. If you think otherwise - watch the documentary "Being Mick". I love the Stones, but not the post-Wyman years. I don't really care either, because those 1960s and 1970s are a wealth of fascinating material. Most importantly, those years are an inspiration to me and countless others. Anything post Steel Wheels is an inspiration to no-one. Name one band that started after hearing VL or ABB. Right? But those albums weren't born from inspiration, so its no surprise they haven't inspired others. ... Bob Dylan and Neil Young are able to produce surprising and inspired work since the late 1980s. Look at their careers and you'll see they made strong deliberate decisions to do just that. Commitment. In someone like Neil Young's case, that commitment is all-consuming for them. The Stones however took a different path.

It's fair to say the Stones live within us, and there is something special about that. Most of us have seen them on stage, some of us a long long time ago. There is something special about them and their history. I just saw the frenzy in Argentina from the Biggest Bang DVD set and it was magic. It felt like 1966 all over again.

There is nobody left alive from World War I. Scary as it seems there will only be a handful of people left alive that fought in World War II in a few short years. I suppose in 20 years when I am in my 70s there will be no more Rolling Stones left alive, along with all of the music icons from the 1960s.

Post-40 time really does fly. If nothing happens with the Stones even doing a very limited number of performances by the end of 2012 then it will all be over.

There is a funny numbers game I play in my head. Think about teenagers trying to relate to the Rolling Stones today. Then when I go back to when I was a teenager in the mid Seventies, that would be like asking me then to try to relate to the music of the 1930s!!

I think it's over and I am fine with it. My most insane Stones concert experience was Buffalo 1978.

I think they'll tour around their 50th anniversary. The adoration of the crowds is like a drug. Ego and money are at stake, so it will happen for sure. History tells us that. But that band that created those great records is no more.

There is nobody left alive from World War I. Scary as it seems there will only be a handful of people left alive that fought in World War II in a few short years. I suppose in 20 years when I am in my 70s there will be no more Rolling Stones left alive, along with all of the music icons from the 1960s.


-Isnt there any veteran from WW I? -i think there's.There must be.Man who fought there could be born example in 1901.(there is tens of people alive who were born on 18xx)
Im from finland,we have maybe 40,000 man who fought in WW II(on average maybe 87old?).I think it takes over 20 years when last one of them falls.
I think there is at least 2 of 4 or 5 RS(incl.Ronnie)alive after 20 years.
Mick&Keith would be 87,not imbossible.And seemingly Keith is immortal.Ronnie would be "only" 83.That age is not unusual today,even with his habbits.


(and we must remember Mick&Keith genes;Doris and Joe both over 90's)

Quote
71Tele

Quote
TeddyB1018
The Stones will play by 2012. There will be a tour. No decisions will be taken as to what form or length the tour will be until closer to the date. They came very close to playing a few major cities with an Exile show last year. Unless there is someone literally unavailable, the 2007 show will not be the last.

Intriguing about the near-Exile show, Teddy. Can you shed any light on why it didn't happen?

Not really. Jagger was interested by the idea. Maybe it was too much work for just a few shows, as it was going to be just London, New York and Los Angeles to promote the re-release. Maybe it wasn't a good time for Keith because of Patti's health issues, which have been underrated at places like this as a reason for the inactivity of the past few years. On the other hand, they really did very little work together on the Exile tracks - it was basically all separate.

There was serious talk of a tour this year. I don't know what happened, but from everything I've heard, the idea of them not touring again has never even been considered, however poorly Mick and Keith get along (which has been happening for years). I would not be surprised if a tour wasn't just based around money as much as prestige. Mick might not be known as a keeper of his own legacy, but he is a narcissist. It could be based more around long runs in fewer cities.

You know, I agree that creatively the band hasn't been very adventurous since reforming in '89, but a live performing act is also valid. Sure, they're not as thrilling as they were in their prime, but it's a pretty great set of songs with rock music's best all-time frontman, a great drummer, and an iconic, if aging, guitarist/songwriter/colorful figure in Keith.

Quote
Sam Spade
If in fact (and I emphasize IF) the 02 show in 2007 was their final live performance, is it being implied with Bill and Marianne in attendance they perhaps were given advance notice it was the final show?

Not by me. That's not the way it works, is it? I'm sure no decision was taken in 2007 that 'we the Stones will never tour again'. But that they and those close were contemplating that it might never happen again, certainly on that scale, is very clear. And people wanted to be there on what might come in time to have been the final stage in that era.

Quote
stonescrow

Quote
bustedtrousers

Quote
stonescrow

Quote
EddieByword
I don't think they are finished but I don't see a major world tour coming as we're used to....maybe 9 months in 2012...starting in MSG January........36 (or so) major cities worldwide (Some multiple nights obviously), live broadcasts from the last city in each area (ie. the US, Europe, Asia etc) and then a massive free show wherever the last show is,,,hopefully Hyde Park in September..........a short, sharp, sweet full stop.

Agreed. Things will definitely have to be scaled back this time around.

The problem with scaling back though is money. Costs still have to be covered.

All tours are in the red for the first several weeks, sometimes even months, until the revenue being generated catches up and starts turning a profit. This would likely be hard for the Stones to do on a small scale tour, with less cities worldwide than they would normally do in a single leg. Even with multiple nights.

I know the last two decades have been done on upfront guarantees, so the Stones supposedly don't have to be concerned with anything. But that doesn't change the logistics. Their tours still take a while to start turning a profit, and someone has to work that out. With the money Mick and co. demand, even a guy like Michael Cohl probably couldn't make it work.

If they aren't willing to take a significant pay cut, a tour like the one Eddie lays out above would probably never work for them. And they certainly aren't going to do it "for the fans". They stopped that kind of thinking years ago.

You make some very good points. What would you think of a 50 stop tour spread out over a year with a couple breaks? Or do you think they are pretty much stuck doing a hundred shows or so as in previous tours to make a decent profit? I think they did 144 for ABB?

The short answer is, it's just not practical to start and stop a lot.

Another part of it is the start-up/wind-down costs. It costs money to start and stop a tour, and once you start it's not really practical to stop until it's over. Bands do take breaks, but they are generally built in to happen at key points. The biggest ones seems to be when they make the jump to another continent, but that is likely due to logistics itself. Japan may not be ready for them on Tuesday, after playing L.A. on Friday. Plus, hauling equipment and personnel across the ocean isn't like hauling it from Seattle to L.A.. There's the cost of freight, which I believe can involve import taxes, customs for the gear and personnel, the schedules of the venues they play in. This is all worked out ahead of time, but the specifics may explain why bands seem to take time off as they move through sections of the world.

Again, breaks do happen, and big groups seem to be able to work schedules more to their liking. But you don't really see any band do something like take 3 months off in the middle of touring America. Unless they've finished a significant leg, or made a pretty thorough go around, before coming back for B markets and the like.

Also, I imagine from the band, and their personnel's, point of view, breaks may be a hassle. A short one, and your probably keyed up, can't calm down, and would rather not even go home. A long one, and just as you get use to being off the road, you gotta head back out.

I'm no expert by any means, I'm just going by what I've read about the business over the years, but I don't think that would work for the Stones. And again, there likely wouldn't be enough money in it for them.

Of course, they could surprise us, and do it more for the legacy of the 50th anniversary than the money. Anything is possible you know.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-28 20:56 by bustedtrousers.

Quote
bolexman
The Stones as a creative force in the traditional sense finished after Undercover. Since then it has been something very different from all those other years. With regards to all the money and status you can gain in the music industry, The Stones are at the top of the heap and want to stay there. Look at their history from Steel Wheels onwards, everything is geared to that. Jagger's vision is obviously to make them an entertainment brand that is above everything else, including being above their notorious exploits of the 1960s and 1970s. If you think otherwise - watch the documentary "Being Mick". I love the Stones, but not the post-Wyman years. I don't really care either, because those 1960s and 1970s are a wealth of fascinating material. Most importantly, those years are an inspiration to me and countless others. Anything post Steel Wheels is an inspiration to no-one. Name one band that started after hearing VL or ABB. Right? But those albums weren't born from inspiration, so its no surprise they haven't inspired others. ... Bob Dylan and Neil Young are able to produce surprising and inspired work since the late 1980s. Look at their careers and you'll see they made strong deliberate decisions to do just that. Commitment. In someone like Neil Young's case, that commitment is all-consuming for them. The Stones however took a different path.

Very good observations. And I agree about Undercover being a turning point. But they were running on fumes even then. I don't think Mick and Keith worked on that album like they had before. Tattoo You was primarily bits and pieces from previous years that they fleshed out, and done mostly apart from each other. I think they did some pretty traditional sessions for Emotional Rescue, but it's not their finest moment (although I do like it).

I don't think they've really worked together as a band, like they used to, since Some Girls.

If they have no plans to tour, why aren't all the side musos out there doing their own thing? Or are they and I just know?

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Justin

Quote
71Tele
Look at the career of Elvis Costello, as a contrast. He is decades away from his peak fame and sales. He has nowhere the personal wealth of the Stones, yet he continues to make exactly the music he wants to make, pretty much whenever and with whomever he wants to make it, and he simply hopes he finds a big enough audience to be able to keep doing it. Tom Waits - same thing. Yet the Stones apparently think they can do nothing live or in the studio without a giant circus attached. Their records aren't selling anyway, why not just do whatever the fvck musically that they want? They have nothing to lose and immense personal and artistic satisfaction to gain. But they choose not to. That should tell us all we need to know.

I agree completley.

A small part of me thinks that Mick is way too proud to ever want to overhaul the way they put out new music. I think he thinks "We're the freakin' Rolling Stones and the formula still works dammit!" Sure he dabbles in a few styles here and there but it always goes back to the basic Stones "rocker" album. I'm not sure how many riffs are still left to be uncovered in Open G, Keith. Yet they just can't let go of those habits. yes, it's their their signature sound but I'm not sure they are aware on how to exactly allow the band to mature today.

I think it'd be hard for them to do whatever they wanted when the principle songwriters of the band are at two opposite ends of the spectrum: Keith likes straight rock and blues while Mick has moved on to Pop. Mick only writes "rock" songs" when he's in the Stones. Costello and Waits are still succeeding artistically because their roots are still there--they haven't strayed off or felt they've outgrown their musical boundaries. Mick seems like he's got nothing interesting to say anymore within the confines of the Rolling Stones.

You nailed it with the "something to say" part. They have nothing to say. Keith seems to want to keep up the appearance of wanting to play, he talks about it the same as he did 20 years ago. Why doesn't he just go and play? I agree that Mick seems to define himself in the "rock" pantheon, which makes it difficult for him to imagine just making music for music's sake - yet when he does just that he is at his best. Give Mick a guitar or harmonica and he's as natural a musician as anyone, yet when he does agree to pair things down, it's only as a gimmick, like when they did "Stripped" during the MTV Unplugged craze. Frankly the best Rolling Stones music I have seen and heard in the last decade has been unintentional. Things like the casual instrumental "Wild Horses" jam that was one of the Shine A Light DVD extras, or them doing Muddy's "I Can't Be Satisfied" with Mick leading the band on slide guitar. Imagine that as a whole show - or album. Some of us "bashers" wouldn't be bashing, including this one.

Mick has gone from being Brian "I want to break new ground. I'm going to make the greatest rock n' roll album ever!" Wilson, to being Mike "Don't f-uck with the formula!" Love.

Elvis Costello is doing all the things Keith and Mick talk about.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
TeddyB1018
The Stones will play by 2012. There will be a tour. No decisions will be taken as to what form or length the tour will be until closer to the date. They came very close to playing a few major cities with an Exile show last year. Unless there is someone literally unavailable, the 2007 show will not be the last.

Intriguing about the near-Exile show, Teddy. Can you shed any light on why it didn't happen?

I seem to recall Jagger alluding to it in one of the 'Exile' interviews a year or so ago (I think it was the one in UNCUT)

Quote
TeddyB1018
The Stones will play by 2012. There will be a tour. No decisions will be taken as to what form or length the tour will be until closer to the date. They came very close to playing a few major cities with an Exile show last year. Unless there is someone literally unavailable, the 2007 show will not be the last.

I think you'll be proven pretty much spot-on with that assessment.

If we don't hear anything in the next 2 months think we can kiss goodbye to any touring in 2011.



John Nicholls

Quote
ablett
I could name one who comes out with crap jokes most of the time?

go ahead

Quote
georgeV
Age, they are close to 70. The last show at O2 arena in London had the feel of a final bow. The kids on stage for Sympathy etc.

Afraid this is true.

"No Anchovies, Please"

Quote
stonescrow

Quote
mtaylor

Quote
stonescrow

Quote
mtaylor
Lack of creativity / production. Focus on other things than music.
Keith's "arthritis problems" on his index finger.
Mick not being able to act on stage like before => doesn't want to tour anymore. Mick's voice becomming weaker => doesn't want to tour anymore.

OK. Good enough reasons, but why hasn't he just come out and said he doesn't want to tour anymore? And why did he tell Larry King in May that he is looking forward to touring again?

Good question, but her's a comment from Charlie about Keith's arthritis problems:

"Band member Charlie Watts recently admitted that playing guitar for Keith had grown increasingly painful, and that Richards himself contemplated calling it quits during the last Stones tour. His wife finally convinced ”Keef” to seek treatment, and the swelling in his digits today, though not entirely gone, is noticeably less, and hopefully that will lead to far less discomfort than Richard’s suffered throughout the last tour."

I suffer from one of the various forms of arthritis and can no longer make a complete fist with my right hand. I don't play guitar but can easily imagine how difficult it must be for Keith. The good news is that there are some medicines out there that work well on some forms of arthritis.

I've got the same problem Keith has, Herberdeen's nodes. One thing I've noticed that makes the swelling go down and the pain stop - not touring anymore. I've essentially stopped playing guitar. 4 hour plus shows a night didn't help either. But some days, when the lack of weather means clear skies and high pressure the arthritis starts to ache a good bit. I can't even bend one of my thumbs half as much as the other. And it does hurt to grab something, like a pen, of all things, or make a fist.

But possibly even more significant - I've cut back on my intake of alcohol.

Did Charlie really say that? I thought that quote was still being considered not Charlie really saying that.

For all you college freshmen out there, this site will provide you with the best marketing class you will ever take this year.

All this buildup, tension, anxiety, doom, hope, doubt, all these moods are created by the Stones marketing machine. Step back and look at the big picture people. The answer is right in front of you.

In the music business things are cryptic, information is between the lines. Don't forget, the best marketing tool is no information and bits of information. By the time you have all the information you have been sold.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
At this stage, it's a bit like Keith answering questions about the Winos every time he talks to the press on his own. Reality is Keith hasn't publicly worked with the Winos in 18 years yet the press asks him about a solo tour or another album every chance and he plays along. The same about Stones albums or tours. It's not impossible, but I fully understand their lack of honesty to the press.

Imagine if Keith responded by saying "MAIN OFFENDER had crap sales, I'll never do another solo CD" or "I doubt a solo tour would be financially viable" or "It would be too physically challenging for me to tour as a front man at this point." The media would be ruthless.

The same would happen if they said "Why bother making another album, relations in the band are not conducive to making an album" or "Sales have fallen off in the past five years that it is now questionable whether a full album is worth the effort" or "We can't tour because we're concerned multiple health issues would get in the way" or "We only tour when the money is right and stadium sell-outs likely. That isn't a guarantee at this time."

No one tells the press the real truth. That's why there are publicists. Mick and Keith (even for all of Keith's posturing in character) are both true politicans. They know how to give soundbite answers and never tell anything while making viewers come away believing they've heard something informative and entertaining.

Rocky, the only thing I disagree with here is that I don't think Keith was actually concerned about sales of his solo albums and he still isn't (at least that's the perception I've had all along). He was certainly able to afford to do them himself as he is now, financially. Of course he wouldn't want to but when it gets down to it, if he wants to make new music...

...which, it seems lately, he doesn't. Not like he needs to though.

Quote
71Tele
We would not be talking or speculating about any of this if the Stones were artistically-driven; meaning they had an urgent curiosity and hunger not only to play - but to explore new avenues. It's what artists and musicians DO. They are set for life a hundred times over. I wish I had the the freedom from financial worries and making a living and had basically all the time I wanted to play music with my favorite people - and the renown and success to know that I would have an audience no matter what I wanted to do. I would almost kill for that opportunity. They clearly don't have this need, at least as a group.

Look at the career of Elvis Costello, as a contrast. He is decades away from his peak fame and sales. He has nowhere the personal wealth of the Stones, yet he continues to make exactly the music he wants to make, pretty much whenever and with whomever he wants to make it, and he simply hopes he finds a big enough audience to be able to keep doing it. Tom Waits - same thing. Yet the Stones apparently think they can do nothing live or in the studio without a giant circus attached. Their records aren't selling anyway, why not just do whatever the fvck musically that they want? They have nothing to lose and immense personal and artistic satisfaction to gain. But they choose not to. That should tell us all we need to know.

Because they aren't...artists? And haven't been for a long long time? Hee hee.

Quote
svendborg
We've discussed this since 2007, when will we stop it?
I think if they don't start a tour by late Summer, there will be no more tours, as I prodicted on the final night in 2007.

It will stop when people either stop asking, stop answering, stop posting the threads to begin with, stop reading them or stop visiting iorr.org.

Well, of course, some kind of official announcement might stop it too har har...

Quote
TeddyB1018
The Stones will play by 2012. There will be a tour. No decisions will be taken as to what form or length the tour will be until closer to the date. They came very close to playing a few major cities with an Exile show last year. Unless there is someone literally unavailable, the 2007 show will not be the last.

You sound oddly similar to someone else here.

Otherwise they wouldn't have anything to discuss on this forum.

Quote
stonescrow

Quote
svendborg
We've discussed this since 2007, when will we stop it?

When one of the three dies. Then the discussion is over.

Quote
skipstone

Quote
TeddyB1018
The Stones will play by 2012. There will be a tour. No decisions will be taken as to what form or length the tour will be until closer to the date. They came very close to playing a few major cities with an Exile show last year. Unless there is someone literally unavailable, the 2007 show will not be the last.

You sound oddly similar to someone else here.

Teddy knows what he's talking about, though.

Skipstone is right, well done.

I think it's over. The 2007 tour ended on a pretty high note - I've been watching the "BIGGEST BANG" blu-ray DVD (sort of condensed from the box set, Rio cut way down, etc) a lot lately and I just can't see them go through that whole WORLD WIDE grind again. They made it to 2011 still alive and (kind of) well, why risk having something really horrible happen - a death while on tour - (I always think about Keith's head injury) and the tour stops due to a very sad ending. 2007 was a good book end. They're close to 70, that's not 40, that's not even 50 - it's all the difference in the world. Think of what Jagger has to go through to get ready, the guy is like Superman, maybe he's just had enough..... Maybe, just maybe, Superman is putting his cape away, hanging it up.....

I dont think they'll do another tour of that LENGTH - but that doesnt mean that it's unlikely they'll tour at all.

If anything, the amount of lesser markets they played last time was like a farewell to many of those places.

Next time, I'd expect a shorter tour (maybe 80 shows) but mostly in 'A' markets, as it's a big ask for a promoter in a lesser market to come up with the high guarantee that the Stones ask for AND fill a stadium.

I'd be surprised if there are many shows outside of North America, Western Europe and Japan.