Quote
RaahenTiikeri
do you really think 1995-2014 (only 19 years)makes a difference with those guys?
Mick&Keith will be only 70 years old...ronnie something about 67...and Charlie is ...charlie.
No,probably in their 80´s they possibly slow their speed....i mean possibly
There is still 10 years+ 1 year from Bigger Bang to today....and it takes same time they are 80.
I can´t understand nobody who does not understand their unique in aging.

What the @#$%& are you talking about? No they are not unique, they are what they are. They age like everyone else. Time Waits for No One. Read that again. They are good musicians, not gods.

To quote Kanye, the end is near.

I can't see charlie doing it at 80. We might get a last tour in 2/3 years depending on how 2014 turns out.

I can see them doing show until 2020 - 2022 or something like that, maybe a little shorter concerts in the future, one hour or so, it's totally possible, if there will be no serious health issues.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Koschi
Yesterday on austrian radio they talked to the children who sang with roger waters on his The Wall concert in Vienna.

They said they would sing with the stones next year...

well this is straight from the children's mouths.

Done Deal!

Does this mean they'll be adding Dandelion to the set list?

How is it that an actual single, Dandelion, never ever gets played?

I mean NEVER!

John and Paul wrote too much of it?

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Koschi
Yesterday on austrian radio they talked to the children who sang with roger waters on his The Wall concert in Vienna.

They said they would sing with the stones next year...

well this is straight from the children's mouths.

Done Deal!

Does this mean they'll be adding Dandelion to the set list?

How is it that an actual single, Dandelion, never ever gets played?

I mean NEVER!

John and Paul wrote too much of it?

...and on that note, they've even played I Wanna Be Your Man in concert!

Quote
treaclefingers


...and on that note, they've even played I Wanna Be Your Man in concert!

A real highlight for sure, though, I wish they'd have performed Come On, as well. I know they kinda jammed it for a few bars during one of the U.S. shows, but a proper performance was warranted in my opinion.

Quote
Rokyfan
[

What the @#$%& are you talking about? No they are not unique, they are what they are. They age like everyone else. Time Waits for No One. Read that again. They are good musicians, not gods.

To quote Kanye, the end is near.

-does they?Do we speak same band?

Ok..Charlie maybe looks like 70 yeasrs old.
Keith looks f*cking bad.But he has looked that for years...
Ronnie looks like 49 years old as waitin for the time when he is a real grown man.
And Mick...does he have physich of 35 old man or only 30 old man.

Example Mick,it´s almost imbossibility that he does not have any serious joint-or muscular problem after those sporting years.
Look professional athletes who stop at 35....they are bad condition...(knees,elbows,joints.).And Mick is 70 with hours of trainin daily.

And there is guy in same band who used heroin over 8 years,50% of heroin addicts normaly die after 4,5 year using(if i remeber correct)

And there is charlie who survived cancer.
And is´t there two wife who did same thing.

After their lifetime habit....it would be too much fortune....somekind of magic is there in air around them.

Quote
RaahenTiikeri

Quote
Rokyfan
[

What the @#$%& are you talking about? No they are not unique, they are what they are. They age like everyone else. Time Waits for No One. Read that again. They are good musicians, not gods.

To quote Kanye, the end is near.

-does they?Do we speak same band?

Ok..Charlie maybe looks like 70 yeasrs old.
Keith looks f*cking bad.But he has looked that for years...
Ronnie looks like 49 years old as waitin for the time when he is a real grown man.
And Mick...does he have physich of 35 old man or only 30 old man.

Example Mick,it´s almost imbossibility that he does not have any serious joint-or muscular problem after those sporting years.
Look professional athletes who stop at 35....they are bad condition...(knees,elbows,joints.).And Mick is 70 with hours of trainin daily.

And there is guy in same band who used heroin over 8 years,50% of heroin addicts normaly die after 4,5 year using(if i remeber correct)

And there is charlie who survived cancer.
And is´t there two wife who did same thing.

After their lifetime habit....it would be too much fortune....somekind of magic is there in air around them.

I do not know if you have seen them ever in concert and watched them leaving the stage. The first time I realized that they are really worn out and fatique was in 2003 after the fabolous concert at the cirkus in Stockholm. One saw Mick aging 20 years in 2 hours. On the previous 50 & Counting Tour they moved and acted differently and saved their energy for the 2,5 hour shows. However they still need a rest of 3 days to recover. I know also mountaineers that age and other people doint great sports but as said we all get older and we all have our pains also Mick, Keith, Charlie and Ronnie. They just might have the better physicians and doctors around. But heaven doesn't wait for them either.

Anyway this is not the topic. The topic is rumoured shows and again my tealeaves tell me nothing

I'm not yet totally convinced that Keith isn't a Goblin.

..and I think they live for about 200 years

If a promotor stumps up the 3/4 million required to get them onstage, they'll play. Does anyone know if 50 and Counting was profitable (the US shows I mean , not Glastonbury or HP)?

Quote
exhpart
If a promotor stumps up the 3/4 million required to get them onstage, they'll play. Does anyone know if 50 and Counting was profitable (the US shows I mean , not Glastonbury or HP)?

Sure for the Stones and their Management. Not so sure about AEG Live. I am pretty sure that promoters ask them to scale down their demands.

Quote
Grison

Quote
exhpart
If a promotor stumps up the 3/4 million required to get them onstage, they'll play. Does anyone know if 50 and Counting was profitable (the US shows I mean , not Glastonbury or HP)?

Sure for the Stones and their Management. Not so sure about AEG Live. I am pretty sure that promoters ask them to scale down their demands.

There was a thread on this sometime ago...the summer. I believe it was profitable for all concerned. I don't know if AEG made the profit that they wanted or expected, but they didn't lose money. I don't know if the PPV on the other hand ended up being profitable.

Quote
Grison

Quote
RaahenTiikeri

Quote
Rokyfan
[

What the @#$%& are you talking about? No they are not unique, they are what they are. They age like everyone else. Time Waits for No One. Read that again. They are good musicians, not gods.

To quote Kanye, the end is near.

-does they?Do we speak same band?

Ok..Charlie maybe looks like 70 yeasrs old.
Keith looks f*cking bad.But he has looked that for years...
Ronnie looks like 49 years old as waitin for the time when he is a real grown man.
And Mick...does he have physich of 35 old man or only 30 old man.

Example Mick,it´s almost imbossibility that he does not have any serious joint-or muscular problem after those sporting years.
Look professional athletes who stop at 35....they are bad condition...(knees,elbows,joints.).And Mick is 70 with hours of trainin daily.

And there is guy in same band who used heroin over 8 years,50% of heroin addicts normaly die after 4,5 year using(if i remeber correct)

And there is charlie who survived cancer.
And is´t there two wife who did same thing.

After their lifetime habit....it would be too much fortune....somekind of magic is there in air around them.

I do not know if you have seen them ever in concert and watched them leaving the stage. The first time I realized that they are really worn out and fatique was in 2003 after the fabolous concert at the cirkus in Stockholm. One saw Mick aging 20 years in 2 hours. On the previous 50 & Counting Tour they moved and acted differently and saved their energy for the 2,5 hour shows. However they still need a rest of 3 days to recover. I know also mountaineers that age and other people doint great sports but as said we all get older and we all have our pains also Mick, Keith, Charlie and Ronnie. They just might have the better physicians and doctors around. But heaven doesn't wait for them either.

Anyway this is not the topic. The topic is rumoured shows and again my tealeaves tell me nothing

Given all that . . . I think what is keeping them offstage at this point is not health but the financial issues.

I'm not sure it's financial issues as in "problems".

Sure, finance is a huge and defining part of it, but I reckon it's just a case of the overall planning and organisation taking time as it always does.

We have to remember that "50 & Counting" was a smaller scale tour than previous world wide adventures,in part perhaps because they couldn't be sure how well it would work out... or whether they did still have the energy andappetite for it.

In the end it worked out pretty well and everybody got a good pass mark in the exam !

On that basis I reckon they've decided to carry on while they can...but you don't plan and confirm a Stones tour itinery over night ...or even in a couple of months.

Just my two cents

I think the problem is this . . . Mick dislikes the prospect of touring with keith so much that he requires a large sum in order to do it. What is going on now is seeing if the demand is there for the payday Mick requires. Yeah, they could plan an itenerary overnight once they decide to do it, if they will do it at a price that promoters will pay. That's what they are trying to work out.

Quote

I do not know if you have seen them ever in concert and watched them leaving the stage. The first time I realized that they are really worn out and fatique was in 2003 after the fabolous concert at the cirkus in Stockholm. One saw Mick aging 20 years in 2 hours. On the previous 50 & Counting Tour they moved and acted differently and saved their energy for the 2,5 hour shows

-i think younger bands ages too 20 years in 2 hours....Yes,i have seen them.Helsinki 2007.If i remember right...mick ran the catwalk end to end in last minutes of the gig.Thats about 70+70 meter...im sure every 30 old man could not run those meter while singing.Even without singing.

Quote

I know also mountaineers that age and other people doint great sports but as said we all get older and we all have our pains also Mick

-did those mountaineers all the drugs and booze and cigarettes what mick did?

----------
I dont think stones are gods....but somethin miracle there is in their healthy.

Hi all

I couldn´t attend the "50 & Counting" Tour. So, sorry but, I still dream about see them on stage again. I´d like to cash my dream some day.

Quote
Jon Lasaa
Hi all

I couldn´t attend the "50 & Counting" Tour. So, sorry but, I still dream about see them on stage again. I´d like to cash my dream some day.

better do it before they slip away!

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Jon Lasaa
Hi all

I couldn´t attend the "50 & Counting" Tour. So, sorry but, I still dream about see them on stage again. I´d like to cash my dream some day.

better do it before they slip away!

Lose your dreams and you will lose your mind....

Quote
exhpart
If a promotor stumps up the 3/4 million required to get them onstage, they'll play. Does anyone know if 50 and Counting was profitable (the US shows I mean , not Glastonbury or HP)?

Considering they got about $80 million for their trouble for a couple of months work, I think its safe to say that they made a tidy profit.

Quote
Rokyfan
I think the problem is this . . . Mick dislikes the prospect of touring with keith so much that he requires a large sum in order to do it. What is going on now is seeing if the demand is there for the payday Mick requires. Yeah, they could plan an itenerary overnight once they decide to do it, if they will do it at a price that promoters will pay. That's what they are trying to work out.

Nah, Mick doesn't hate Keith THAT much. Besides, touring isn't what it used to be. It's not like Mick/Keith are sharing hotel rooms and bunks in tour buses. They don't have to see each other all that much even during tours.

Uh, yeah, they haven't been on buses and in the same hotel rooms since the 60's. Touring hasn't been what it used to be for a long long time. Not the point. I do think that Mick's distaste for Keith is partially what is driving up the price. That part is my opinion. That what is preventing plans for any more shows is the inability to reconcile the band's (Mick's) financial requirements with what people can pay seems indisputable. (Not to say it can't or won't be done, but it seems like it is a real struggle).

(bunks in tour buses ????)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-10-24 07:38 by Rokyfan.

Quote
exhpart
If a promotor stumps up the 3/4 million required to get them onstage, they'll play. Does anyone know if 50 and Counting was profitable (the US shows I mean , not Glastonbury or HP)?

Profitable for the promotor I mean

Quote
exhpart

Quote
exhpart
If a promotor stumps up the 3/4 million required to get them onstage, they'll play. Does anyone know if 50 and Counting was profitable (the US shows I mean , not Glastonbury or HP)?

Profitable for the promotor I mean

Im sure that AEG made a profit out of it. Whether it was as much as theyd hoped to make is another thing. The firesales and tarping to fill arenas certainly didnt hit the Stones' pockets, thats for sure.

Would they be willing to take a financial risk like that again? Time will tell. There didnt appear to be a host of promoters queuing up to throw silly money at the Stones for a Euro tour they were hoping to do around now, which is, in my opinion, the main reason why it didnt happen.

I think Branson and Dainty realised that the formula of guaranteeing the band $4.5 million or so per show was going to work on a tour where they were only playing two or three shows per continent and that the ticket distribution would be left unregulated allowing touts and brokers to buy them up and then take the financial hit if they couldnt re-sell them. Multiplied over 18-20 shows in one country the risk was far greater and it would be the promoters who would be left holding the baby.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-10-24 22:24 by Gazza.

I remember in the 90's two promoters going bankrupt after doing The Stones.

Quote
CousinC
I remember in the 90's two promoters going bankrupt after doing The Stones.

Really CousinC ? Which Promoters were they ? I saw the band 8 times in the 90s, spread across Urban Jungle, Voodoo Lounge & Bridges Tours. These were the last tours in which stadium ticket prices were reasonable (£25 - £30) before they flew right off the scale from Licks onwards.

I have no secret knowledge but I'm just guessing that Gazza is pretty spot on. This whole thing where people pin emotions to Mick and keith is exaggerated in it's importance and overplayed. Just reading what Keith has said vs the number of times MJ has rescued or forgiven him would seem to suggest the opposite of what most people say anyway; that it is really Keith Not Mick that has the bad feelings. I can't imagine tolerating a business partner, let alone a creative partner, through 50 years of excessive substance abuse without having true affection for him. But they are 70 year old men with lives and families of their own now at an age when most retire, living on separate continents. I doubt they are in each others daily thoughts, or even as often as they are in the thoughts of many people that post here regularly. I would guess from the looks they have on stage when they do it that they love the adulation far more than they dislike each other. Another guess is that after 5 decades of life at the top, of getting whatever they demand whenever they want , and being loved partially for that attitude, that it is more likely they are having troubles down scaling their expectations of constantly topping themselves. Or, as Gazza has said, and to paraphrase, basically the market is not there to meet their demands.

I think thats an exactly point to finish on, and that the group (ie Us, not the Stones) should probably move on.

Quote
kahoosier
...I would guess from the looks they have on stage when they do it that they love the adulation far more than they dislike each other. Another guess is that after 5 decades of life at the top, of getting whatever they demand whenever they want , and being loved partially for that attitude, that it is more likely they are having troubles down scaling their expectations of constantly topping themselves. Or, as Gazza has said, and to paraphrase, basically the market is not there to meet their demands.

Very well observed points



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-10-25 14:07 by Spud.

I don't understand all the difficulties for just the Stones to tour. All groups tour these days. Some are bigger and sell more tickets, some are smaller.
Is the fact that they want to be the most payed band a purpose of its own?