If the economy was good - if the housing ripoffs hadn't ruined it - we'd be going to shows this year.

The recession hasn't stopped U2 and Paul McCartney from touring.

Who the f**k are those bands? I'm only aware of one stadium act in the known universe.

Quote
Send It To me
Who the f**k are those bands? I'm only aware of one stadium act in the known universe.

Thank you for an enjoyable conversation. Later.

As Keith would say - loyalty, baby.

Quote
Send It To me
If the economy was good - if the housing ripoffs hadn't ruined it - we'd be going to shows this year.

I think we'd be seeing the stones later this year if Keith hadn't decided to become a celebrated author.

This could turn ugly.....

Let's face it . .the Stones are too old to be touring.

Wow, that didn't take long!

The US economy, anyhow, WOULD be good by now if we'd elected a president who'd ever done anything other than run his mouth. Oops, now I've gone and done it... :-)

yes I blame the GOP

if the economy is the reason why the Stones haven't toured, then i think that is pretty pathetic on their part. as pointed out, U2 and McCartney and other big names are on the road. what's the deal? is there only one road crew that is capable of putting together a huge show like U2 is doing and that is the reason? or is it really all about money? if so, that is lame. go on a theatre tour. no fireworks. no frills. but if you're waiting for the economy to improve so you can rape our wallets again by putting on an extravagant show that is NOT NEEDED then i say shame on you, Rolling Stones. you're not young anymore. you have nothing left to prove. just because you're "the rolling stones" doesn't give you carte blanche to exploit your fans by putting on a lacklustre show with pretty fireworks and exploding dragons. show us that you can actually play. if you can't, then no thanks. i'd rather spend my money somewhere else.

Quote
ineedadrink
if the economy is the reason why the Stones haven't toured, then i think that is pretty pathetic on their part. as pointed out, U2 and McCartney and other big names are on the road. what's the deal? is there only one road crew that is capable of putting together a huge show like U2 is doing and that is the reason? or is it really all about money? if so, that is lame. go on a theatre tour. no fireworks. no frills. but if you're waiting for the economy to improve so you can rape our wallets again by putting on an extravagant show that is NOT NEEDED then i say shame on you, Rolling Stones. you're not young anymore. you have nothing left to prove. just because you're "the rolling stones" doesn't give you carte blanche to exploit your fans by putting on a lacklustre show with pretty fireworks and exploding dragons. show us that you can actually play. if you can't, then no thanks. i'd rather spend my money somewhere else.

nice rant...however to your point on the other tours, I don't think the economy paid the major role in this case.

Quote
ineedadrink
if the economy is the reason why the Stones haven't toured, then i think that is pretty pathetic on their part. as pointed out, U2 and McCartney and other big names are on the road. what's the deal? is there only one road crew that is capable of putting together a huge show like U2 is doing and that is the reason? or is it really all about money? if so, that is lame. go on a theatre tour. no fireworks. no frills. but if you're waiting for the economy to improve so you can rape our wallets again by putting on an extravagant show that is NOT NEEDED then i say shame on you, Rolling Stones. you're not young anymore. you have nothing left to prove. just because you're "the rolling stones" doesn't give you carte blanche to exploit your fans by putting on a lacklustre show with pretty fireworks and exploding dragons. show us that you can actually play. if you can't, then no thanks. i'd rather spend my money somewhere else.

It's more a matter of what the market can bear. U2 indeed employs many of the same crew as other huge tours including the Stones but that could of course be overcome IF the (world) market could handle two megatours at a whack like the Stones and Floyd in the '90s. You'll notice since then these huge tours (AC/DC, Stones, U2) haven't overlapped. Macca doesn't count because he seems to be perpetually doing big events and, in the USA anyway, is promoted by AEG who is Livenation's (AC/DC, Stones, U2) primary (and only) competitor.

that makes sense, R. thanks for clearing that up!

I'm starting to really believe that Keith has caused the fracture that will not be repaired, not even for the millions that weigh in the balance. Even money won't mend the band this time. His need to put down his band mate because of petty jealousies will be why we may never see the Stones perform again. Very sad, and yet I understand Mick's stand on this completely. Maybe he is not willing to pretend that he's over it, and that the remarks meant nothing. I think Keith has pushed it way too far this time.

BV Posted on his Twitter 23hrs ago that "Everybody is waiting for Mick."

[twitter.com]

(forgiveness please if this has already been posted)

Niall

its not the economy u2 touring as well as many others prove that, they are waiting for the 50th and or mick to come around which ever comes first

I wonder how McCartney makes his game plan of a small number of large shows work? Would something like that work for the STones?

Quote
Shawn20
I wonder how McCartney makes his game plan of a small number of large shows work? Would something like that work for the STones?

the stones are in it for the money... no "small" anything

excellent point shawn i have often wondered that myself, only thing i could think of is he is doing it for fun more than money

Quote
hoopsmccann
BV Posted on his Twitter 23hrs ago that "Everybody is waiting for Mick."

[twitter.com]

(forgiveness please if this has already been posted)

Niall

Interesting that his tweet prior to that was "The tour is coming closer" -- dated August 1st, 2010.

If Mick read the manuscript beforehand, why would he be upset now, when he gave his approval?
Maybe he didn't expect all the attention to the one quote.

I think it's something else that stopping them, not sure what.

::continuing the seemingly endless speculation:: Looks to me like a few things held them up,
and now they're waiting until 2012.

oh come on, don't be silly

Without the economic decline in the UK during the 50s and 60s those guys who became the Stones would have been able to find normal jobs… The whole pop/rock explosion in the 60s is connected to economical decline (same goes for punk in the 70s)

I don't think it can honestly be said that Mick gave his " approval" on Keith's manuscript. I find that very hard to believe.

Quote
slewan
oh come on, don't be silly

Without the economic decline in the UK during the 50s and 60s those guys who became the Stones would have been able to find normal jobs… The whole pop/rock explosion in the 60s is connected to economical decline (same goes for punk in the 70s)

Yeah, but most Stones fans these days are not 20 years old anymore, and they look after their money a lot more than the average 20 year-old.

A lot of us would go, even travel to a Stones show right now, but I think the majority of ticket buyers (for a Stones show) would think more about whether or not they can fit this in their entertainment budget.

The economy is a nice place to start. I don't hear or see a fire burning in them to record or tour. If rhetoric do If Jagger will be 69. Keith is not aging gracefully. Time is not on gtheir side.

ROCKMAN

yes mitch, the reason why the stones haven't toured Europe or South America or Asia is because of Obama. riiiiiiight.

Quote
ineedadrink
yes mitch, the reason why the stones haven't toured Europe or South America or Asia is because of Obama. riiiiiiight.

Don't waste your time on him ineeda. There's no arguing with a retard. I mean a republican. I mean there's no arguing with stupid.

They're all one in the same anyways.