I have read some of the other threads here about the new album, tour and about Ronnie Wood.

It worries me to read about the fact that it's Mick, Keith and Charlie who are completing the album. Ronnie seems to be offline right now. Which is sad because he has done a great job IMO oppsite to what other people thinks.

At the same time it seems like we are going to have an album made rather quickly and that can mean we are heading for Beggares Banquet Revisited album. Raw and without a lot of overdubs and studio techs. That is maybe the explanation why Ronnie isn't there all the time. He has already done his work and it might just be that good we hope for.

In the end I must say I think this is the last album (new recordings) and last tour the Stones will embark upon. In the future we will have releases of other stuff. Rarities and live recordings of songs that never hit the other albums.

Let's just enjoy the new one and the fortcoming tour with Ronnie on stage!

HJofSweden

"In the end I must say I think this is the last album (new recordings) and last tour the Stones will embark upon"

Why? people have been saying that for 30 plus years

"Why? people have been saying that for 30 plus years"

Well, people have been replying this also for a long time.

I'm sure this time will be definetly the last mammoth world tour the Stones will do, because their physical abilites won't be enough to handle another large scaled world tour. Especially Mick won't be able to do all the running, jumping etc. because already now he laments about back pains. Also have a look at Keith fingers. I just can't see him playing 100+ concerts with this handicap lets say in 2009. And I'm not too sure if Ronnie can resists alcohol forever.
Before the start of former tours people knew at least that the Stones could launch another tour if they wanted to. But now it's pretty obvious that another tour in lets say 2009/2010 would look just ridiculous. Even not at the age of 60 and slightly above they look really OLD.

I guess it's time to adapt to the thought of a Farewell tour although the Stones would never officially anounce a tour like that.
That's why I'm saving all my money to see them as much as possible in 2006.

Ket Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "In the end I must say I think this is the last
> album (new recordings) and last tour the Stones
> will embark upon"
>
> Why? people have been saying that for 30 plus
> years


uh. yeah, but they were younger then and had a reasonable level of creative inspiration

The fact that the average age of the band is 61, two members have had potentially life threatening illnesses in the last year, another has worsening arthritis which is hampering his guitar skills plus a serious alcohol consumption, added to the fact that this is their last album with Virgin and the gap between their last three albums (including the next one) will have been 5, 3 and 8 years respectively ,would indicate that the long-term recording and touring prospects for the Rolling Stones as a unit would be somewhat limited. By the time its time for another tour after this one, their average age will be around 65 and no doubt the health situation within the band will not have improved dramatically

There's the reasons for my pessimism. If you still feel optimistic after that, I'd love to read why, Ket!

I agree with gazza and thatswhatisay.They are pushing this to the limit now and let's face it they can't do it forever. Even the Stones will eventually fall victim to the ravages of time and it's really started already as illustrated above. As selfish fans we don't like to face reality but the time has come my friends. Let's hope this next tour and album are up to par and the boys don't look too ridiculous. Although I don't see any more full scale tours after this I see no reason for them not to continue recording and releasing previous material.

I think Gazza hit it on the head also. Time is the eneny. It reminds me of the time squandered in the 80's and all the material MJ & KR "wasted" on ego-stroking solo efforts.

FANSINCE1964 WROTE "It worries me to read about the fact that it's Mick, Keith and Charlie who are completing the album. Ronnie seems to be offline right now. Which is sad because he has done a great job IMO oppsite to what other people thinks"

The irony is that Ronnie is busier NOW than he has been for the past few years. He is sitting in everywhere, got his own little show running.....could it be a @#$%& YOU to the band ? If it's true that he is not really involved with the new album. I think Mick and Keith should have used his songwriting ability to the bands advantage. The man has written some pretty good songs in his lifetime....combine his stuff with Mick and Keith, it could have been....who knows ? I think that they inadvertantly they turned off Ronnies creativity when he shows up for work. Maybe the seeds lie in Ron's behavior or not.

If the show goes on this September, it will be done in a way that realistically works to the Bands advantage. They never set themselves up to look silly. I think you will see more than one song played with KR & RW on stools and I predict Keith will do "Sleep Tonight" from behind a piano.

Have faith friends, the show will go on until it must stop.

Milo, NYC
Don't Stop

I don't mind so much for long tours.

Ready to book for Las Vegas in ten years.

(You may insult me if you want)

If your prediction about Vegas comes true, I'll save my energy for insulting the Stones....

it dont take a brain surgeon to work out its the last studio album and world tour
and if they do embark on a tour to promote the album i think it be special shows
and not a long world tour

Well Mick and Keith have said that none of their blues heros have called it quits because of their age so why should they. People say they are too old because rock n roll has never been taken this far. I don't know if they would ever do it but I would not mind them doing small tours, similar to Dylan, where they can come on stage and do a more toned down show. Maybe similar to the Paradiso shows in Amsterdam. Try some more acoustic numbers where they don't have to run around the stage. They can still play some rockers but just tone down the show a little more rather than having this huge stage for Mick to run around on. This would also give them the chance to do some old numbers like Lady Jane, Mother's Little Helper or Backstreet Girl.

Gazza : this means you'll have to fly to Las Vegas to insult them from the front row.

Ronnie and Mick at Drury Lane didn't exactly display inabilities in terms of performing....ok, it wasn't a major long show, but still.
I think they're old enough to decide for themselves I mean if it really turns out after a few shows that they aren't able to perform in any "decent" way, then they'll have to face the reality of not selling tickets in big numbers. I somehow cannot imagine that ( especially ) Mick isn't aware of this risk. I just cannot imagine Jagger putting himself in a situation where the Stones will be remembered as a band that should have stopped performing on stage. Some may claim this happened years ago, but look at the reviews from the Licks-tour. Even in this highly acclaimed - and critical forum
I simply hope that this next tour ( and perhaps the album ) will give us a few hints as to where they intend to go in the future. It could turn out to be a tour with much less dates. In smaller venues. As long as they can - they will. A "Las Vegas"-concept would of course a real nightmare, but can anyone really imagine that this will be the fate of the Stones ? I can't.
And btw, there're lots of artists out there much older than the Stones... and they still do great shows....
No need to worry. Too much. No nervous breakdowns. Happy Easter !!

I agree with Hound Dog,
I think that they will tour on a much smaller scale and maybe play areas where they will "sell". For example, I doubt they will play all 50 US states and the Far East but they will probably do it till they die. And if they need to sit on stools, that's ok with me. I mean we aren't going to get the 72-78 "dancing Jagger".I saw Muddy Waters back in 1978 and he sat on stool and sang very well and put on a hell of a show. I saw Bo Diddley when he was touring with Ronnie Wood and he was incredible. Maybe it will become more about the music and less about the show.

Maybe this tour we will see a slant towards playing smaller venues vs.arenas. Maybe it will be a progression back to 500-1500 seat type venues. I mean in 10 years, I'm not going to Madison Square Garden to stand up for 2 hours to see anyone! I ain't got the stamina! And frankly, I doubt they would sell out MSG in 5-7 years.

I think that the new record deal is something interesting to speculate about. Would they need another album to tour against if they did only small venues? What would that disc be comprised of?

Keith of course is completely straight

85 minutes (Ron's 3/13 show) is about the average length of a '72 show. The RS didnt hit the 2 hour limit til '75, partly in response to Zep's endless gigs (padded w/ 30 min Dazed & Confused, Moby Dick, etc). I agree they likely wont go out with a big stadium tour - I thought the last tour, with its mixed venues, was a portent for the future, the beginning of scaling back - like the arena No Security tour. Also, I dont think they wasted the 80s - 5 studio albums and a very strong debut (lp/tour) from Keith, plus Charlie's solo debut, the ARMS tour, Keith's Chuck Berry project, etc, a disappointing pair of solo discs from Mick - but if they didnt do projects outside the band they likely would have broken up 20 years ago after they left Atlantic. Also, is the new studio album the last with the current Virgin contract?

I disagree with a few of the posts here that the Stones are going to tour on a smaller scale next time around. I think it will be very similar to the last tour and I will be very surprised if they do fewer dates. There will be stadium shows and as I mentioned before they need something fresh and exciting to throw at the fans along with the golden oldies. A modest hit (just one that gets people talking) and suddenly not just diehard fans are talking about the band and their shows. I think the tour will sell large because many will feel that this is truly it and the last chance to see them.

Fully agree on that. Stones are borne for Stadiums.Even if Mick complains on his back, based on the shows I attended on last tour he is fit to run a marathon.
The Stones have always loved challlenges. This is a real one.And as always will make it.

I didn't mean that as of March '05 I think the '05-06 tours will be smaller. I thought that in '78, when they had dates at the Fox theatre, Capitol, etc, & in '81-'82, '89-'90, and every tour since then (recall the '95 euro dates, the return to msg in '98, the NS tour, the mix of clubs to stadiums last time) - each time it seemed they would soon scale back. I remember Undercover being the first album since Let it Bleed to miss # 1 in the US (the Police, Michael Jackson, Purple Rain, & others forgotton were big that era), I didnt think they could still do it at 40, 45, 50. The famous question to Mick, 'can you see yourself like Elvis, at 40, still singing Satisfaction...' But if still they continue to pull it off, it is by any standard astonishing. However, unless catastrophe at some point intervenes, it will eventually be scaled back, should they still want to play together. How long will Mick want to have to run a marathon and sing at roughly the same time? I dont see the Stones as born for stadiums - after hockey arenas in the 70s, thru 81, '89 was the first time I saw them in in a stadium. They adapted & mastered the format, but I've never liked it or paid to see anyone else (free is another matter) in a stadium.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-03-23 20:46 by john r.

Scaling back would be great. I think this upcoming tour will be similar to LICKS with arenas, stadiums, and theaters.

I think after the tour, they should refuse to release another boring live disc. They should instead focus on recording stuff that they like, and not worry about record sales etc. Let them age cool like the old blues legends.

They can then tour every 3 years, but in theaters only.
I think seeing a 75 year old Jagger and Richards sitting on stools in some small theater singing blues or something like Prodigal Son would be awesome.

The notion of them keeping up with the stage antics and theatrics of the latest Britney Spears tour needs to stop. They can pull it off one more time, but in 3 years it will look stupid no matter how you slice it.

I AM THe SOURCe1 AND YOU MUST ReAD THIS. THIS WILL Be LAST BIG TOUR, BUT NOT LAST TOUR. AS LONG AS BAND ReMAINS HeALTHY, SMALL TOURS WILL Be DONe AT
eXSPeNSIVe PRICeS. I AM THe SOURCe1 AND YOU HAVe ReAD THIS. I GO SLeePY NOW.

If the SOURCe is correct, I could deal with that.

I also think if it is the last major tour, they should say it at a Press Conference.

"Ladies and Gentlemen...this is our last tour!!!"


That would guarantee some sell-outs for sure.