A new birthay is approaching Mick. Time waits for no one. Not even Mick, although he seems to be a modern Peter Pan.

Time goes by and our beloved Stones are running out of time....

The big 70 is close Mick and Keith!!

If you have any bullet left, you better use it NOW

Mick & Keith did leave us an Amazing Legacy (1963-1981) and some nice stuff ever since. Mick & Keith, as well Charlie, Bill and Ronnie, have every right to do (or not do) what they want.

Who knows, a new album and/or a new tour is coming up. But IMO they already did pay their dues. OK, ofcourse it will be great when they have any "bullets' left.. For example, it would be really great if they are going to 're-discover' the blues, r&b, c&w, and give it one amazing shot....

But to be honest....The Rolling Stones did quit after their European Tour of 1982.

Quote
keefbajaga
But to be honest....The Rolling Stones did quit after their European Tour of 1982.

Yeah, they quit being sloppy.

Quote
Sipincula
Yeah, they quit being sloppy.

Languages are tricky and challenging, your sentence reminds me the Sybil, the ambiguous ancient oracle.
A roman soldier, who was preparing to go to war, went to the Sybil to have his fortune read, and she answered: “Ibis redibis non morieris in bello”.

Depending on where you place a pause or a comma, the meaning changes:

“Ibis, redibis, non morieris in bello” means “You´ll go, you’ll come back, you´ll not die in war”
“Ibis, redibis non, morieris in bello” means “You’ll go, you’ll not come back, you’ll die in war”
So I don’t understand if your phrase means “They quit being the Rolling Stones because they began to be sloppy” or (more likely) “They quit being sloppy junkies and they began to play more professionally”?

Quote
zumabitch
So I don’t understand if your phrase means “They quit being the Rolling Stones because they began to be sloppy” or (more likely) “They quit being sloppy junkies and they began to play more professionally”?

No pause or comma intended, so it's the latter, of course! I don't necessarily believe that what I stated above is the absolute truth, but it's an appropriate response.

They could not have gone on playing as sloppy as in 1981/82. Most concerts from 89-99 were much better than in 81/82.

Better???????
more professional anyway, but they lost the feeling and guts, and became a Las Vegas act, playing for the Big Money...
Dont get me wrong.
Love the band, since 1973. But... well.
I guess you know what i mean.
byeee
jeroen

Quote
windmelody
They could not have gone on playing as sloppy as in 1981/82. Most concerts from 89-99 were much better than in 81/82.

I agree, though I also think that in 1975-1978 were often even more sloppy (check out Knebworth '76!). At least Mick sounded in control during 1981-1982.

I was born on Jagger 40th birthday.

Quote
Sipincula
No pause or comma intended, so it's the latter, of course! I don't necessarily believe that what I stated above is the absolute truth, but it's an appropriate response.

Sipincula,

Even if English is not my native language I knew that the more plausible interpretation was the more linear and literal “after 1982 … they quit being sloppy” = they stopped with the sloppiness and became more professional (probably because they slowed down with the bohemian lifesyle, booze and drugs).

I apologize if I overanalyzed your phrase; in some Latin languages they call it “counting the pubic hair one by one”. I was picky because the general fans’ tendency is to consider that after 1982 they began to decline in their live performances. I´m not a radical, and tend to look for the shades of grey; it’s true that in the 90’s they avoided some embarrassing figures or disasters that may have happened here and there in their 81/82 tour, but as many here say, in terms of attitude and feel the 80’s tour sounds as a lot of fun. But let me be “picky” for the last time: by “they quit being sloppy” you don’t mean since the beginning, right? Because I guess that everybody will agree that in the 60’s and early 70’s they were damn tight …