I know there have been many statements made regarding the Stones retiring because they aren't what they used to be. I say, So What! When I see the videos at their concerts and there is a huge throng of people pumping their fists, singing along, and having a hell of a good time, why stop? If the Stones are willing to keep playing and people continue paying to see them perform, there is no sense in retiring. There are way too many great bands that have their guitars gathering dust hung up on a wall. Maybe the songs are played at a slower tempo these days, but at least they are still being played. If you like the Stones of old, play your vinyls and cd's, otherwise, let the band keep on rocking!

Nobody is stopping them. If the current sound and configuration do it for ya, then more power to you. They are obviously bringing joy to an awful lot of people for an awful lot of money. Some people feel that they've jumped the shark, and they personally no longer have a need to hear them or see them live. For them the tank is empty. No one I've read wants them handcuffed and taken away from the stage for impersonating the Rolling Stones. Some fans are simply expressing their own heartfelt opinions. Long live the Rolling Stones.

Who said they would? I doubt they even debate the matter among themselves.

They are still good, they should not quit besides who can stand another Mick Jagger solo career?

They shouldn't. I see a whole lot of shows every year. Always have. Since '71 they've rocked harder than almost every other. Guns came close for a while there (actually, Alex's band is excellent too), but I cannot think of any other who does it better. They're more fun too. Others are often quite good; they are simply in a different league. That's my opinion.

I hate the thread that uses the straw man argument.

Please point out who's said they should hang it up.

Many years ago I watched a TV interview with Clapton & he was asked when are you going to retire? His answer, I'm not a carpenter or tradesman who says when a musician retires from rock n roll? As Keith says when you drop on stage

Why should they??

Thei're musicians and even if they are white, they can play their music as long as they can.

Lional Hampton did it until (very) old age ... or just check out Charles Aznavour: he just played a gig in Berlin, some days ago, celebrating his 90. birthday! ><

If the Stones CAN play, Lord above, Sweet Buddha hear my pray: let them play, let them play, let them play!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-01 02:37 by waterrats.

I doubt many really think they need to stop. A lot of fans have seen them at their prime however and the present band doesn't move them anymore. Totally understandable for a band as longlasting as the Stones. Personally I saw them 5 times and never paid much more than $100.00 a ticket. I'll be damned if I'll now pay 6 times that to see a lesser band.

Quote
treaclefingers
I hate the thread that uses the straw man argument.

Please point out who's said they should hang it up.

You must not hate it too much - you read it! Anyway, for the longest time as a follower of this fine board, MANY posters have whined and complained that the Stones need to call it a day, that they are just a shadow of their glory days. I respect that opinion, as I am not the final word on who thinks what. My point is nothing more than my perspective on the trash talking I have seen on here over the years. I am just taking the opposing side - as long as the music keeps playing, I will take all we can get!

All of us die hards that have been to so many shows are just jaded and hard
to please. With that said, however, at times the sound is so soft and tempo
so slow it is hard to listen to . Keith, in particular, has declined more than
any other player still alive from his generation.

I'm not quite ready to accept a world in which I can't critique last night's Stones concert.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-01 05:51 by andrewt.

Quote
Brstonesfan
All of us die hards that have been to so many shows are just jaded and hard
to please. With that said, however, at times the sound is so soft and tempo
so slow it is hard to listen to . Keith, in particular, has declined more than
any other player still alive from his generation.

Past a certain point, performers should quit what they're doing and do something else. That point is either when what they are doing seems really inappropriate for their age, eg, 65 year old Jack Nicholson as 35 year old Helen Hunt's love interest in As Good As It Gets, or when they are simply no longer delivering the performance people are paying for.

Some of the RS's repertoire does seem inappropriate to men their age, eg, Street Fighting Man. But for now they are still delivering the goods as performers.

Well, Street Fighting Man is a song about all the unrest going on in the 60s--particularly the protests by students in Paris, Rome, and other European cities--and the Stones were contemporaries of these protesters. Jagger attended a Vietnam protest outside the American Embassy in London, which was comparatively tame compared to those going on elsewhere. So who more appropriate to sing about it (which, as the song notes, is all they could do at the time, too)?


Edited to note that obviously the major Vietnam protests were occurring in the US, but there were protests over all sorts of other political, economic, and cultural issues in Europe, too. The band was asked why they didn't make their position on these issues more explicit, and Keith said they took it for granted that people knew the Stones were on the protesters' side.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-01 11:22 by Aquamarine.

They'll hang it up... after the Oz tour, a bunch of gigs in South America in 2015, followed by a farewell 20 shows residency at the 02.

2015 = it'll be the 50th ann. of their emblematic song "Satisfaction" so it'll be fitting to end each show with this song.
What a nice closure...

after we're done with them

Quote
Aquamarine
So who more appropriate to sing about it (which, as the song notes, is all they could do at the time, too)?

LOL. The current line-up are now geriatric tax exile mega-millionaires, one of whom is a Knight of the Realm. I don't think we'll ever see them protesting the Establishment.

I tell you why the Stones doe not need to give it up. They still sound so good!

I honestly believe that a lot of this is down to the new revitalized Ronnie Wood. He is in the form of his life and I think that has rubbed off on the rest of the band.

Quote
UnionHall

Quote
treaclefingers
I hate the thread that uses the straw man argument.

Please point out who's said they should hang it up.

You must not hate it too much - you read it! Anyway, for the longest time as a follower of this fine board, MANY posters have whined and complained that the Stones need to call it a day, that they are just a shadow of their glory days. I respect that opinion, as I am not the final word on who thinks what. My point is nothing more than my perspective on the trash talking I have seen on here over the years. I am just taking the opposing side - as long as the music keeps playing, I will take all we can get!

I kept an open mind...your straw man argument has now moved to MANY posters on this board. Very weak.

Quote
UnionHall

Quote
treaclefingers
I hate the thread that uses the straw man argument.

Please point out who's said they should hang it up.

You must not hate it too much - you read it! Anyway, for the longest time as a follower of this fine board, MANY posters have whined and complained that the Stones need to call it a day, that they are just a shadow of their glory days. I respect that opinion, as I am not the final word on who thinks what. My point is nothing more than my perspective on the trash talking I have seen on here over the years. I am just taking the opposing side - as long as the music keeps playing, I will take all we can get!

Please, quote one poster who has said that.............. ......I've read "revamp the setlist" but I can't remember one post on this board that ever said quit.

treaclefingers and EddieByword: if you do a search for the phrase "hang it up", you will find plenty of examples. I could do you a big post full of quotes, but why should I do all the work?

I do notice that the "hang it up" posts sort of tailed off a bit after December 2012.

Quote
Green Lady
treaclefingers and EddieByword: if you do a search for the phrase "hang it up", you will find plenty of examples. I could do you a big post full of quotes, but why should I do all the work?

I do notice that the "hang it up" posts sort of tailed off a bit after December 2012.

This is a ridiculous excuse for a thread GL and you know it.

Quote
Green Lady
treaclefingers and EddieByword: if you do a search for the phrase "hang it up", you will find plenty of examples. I could do you a big post full of quotes, but why should I do all the work?

I do notice that the "hang it up" posts sort of tailed off a bit after December 2012.

I honestly couldn't see one.....for the Stones, a "hang it up" for Keith, ie. Keith should leave the Stones....then

The Who,
Neil Young
Paul McCartney
Chuck Berry with a warning the Stones should 'hang it up' before reaching Chuck's poor state - sic...........

I've no doubt there are some in there somewhere that I've missed (as you say - a few years ago) but it's hardly a topical demand as Union hall implies......nah, this thread is an attempt at literary alchemy -- making a discussion out of nothing -- wait a minute, there's a discussion so he's been successful....hat's off.....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-01 18:36 by EddieByword.

Quote
Bliss

Quote
Aquamarine
So who more appropriate to sing about it (which, as the song notes, is all they could do at the time, too)?

LOL. The current line-up are now geriatric tax exile mega-millionaires, one of whom is a Knight of the Realm. I don't think we'll ever see them protesting the Establishment.

The song is obviously about a very specific point in time, when they WEREN'T geriatric tax exile multi-millionaires. Again, who better to sing about that time than people who participated in it?

The answer to the original question

Quote
Bliss
Past a certain point, performers should quit what they're doing and do something else. That point is either when what they are doing seems really inappropriate for their age

amended to add - ...or changed circumstances.

Le sigh.

Writers have made entire careers out of revisiting the past in the present (say hi to Marcel Proust)--not everybody enjoys it, of course, but there's nothing inappropriate about it. Nobody's pretending those are their current circumstances, though occasionally a madeline can make them feel that way.

When the expenses outway the income...it's time to stop...it's that simple.

When the fan interest is less than what it takes to perform...than you stop.

Until then...Keep Rocking!

Pecman

Two performers the Stones idolized--Muddy Waters and Howlin' Wolf--practically performed until the moment of their death.

While seeing Muddy in 1979 wasn't like seeing him in 1959, it was still a significant event. Ditto Howlin' Wolf, even as we was consigned to a chair onstage.

The Stones' creative juices have certainly waned, but they can still cut it up live. As we allowed their idols, I say let 'em go.

People expect a higher level of entertainment and musical acumen from the Stones than they did from Muddy and Wolf in their sunset years. (Especially at these prices). I saw Muddy open for Eric Clapton in the late 70s and I really didn't know much about him at that point. He performed on a stool. The second he went into I'm A Man I knew exactly who it was.

The Stones, collectively, can't cut it anymore. Not at the high level of warhorse rocking they're still trying to pull off. Keith sputters out about 80% of the famous opening notes of a song and then hands it off to Ronnie for the heavy lifting. (Although Keith can still manage a credible JJF, and, ironically, he is singing better).

It's not that some fans want them to go away. They'd just like to see them do something better than drive Tumblin' Honky Devil into the ground, night after night. Although I'm not sure what that 'better' would be, at this point. If Keith's arthritic nodes don't allow dexterity on electric, it's not like he would be fluid on acoustic. I guess I should accept the fact that what they are doing now is exactly what they CAN do. Even if they decided to do a slew of rarities every night, there's no guarantee they could deliver those songs any better than the limited level the warhorses are being played at lately.

This is it. It isn't going to get any better. I saw John Lee Hooker right before he passed. His band played for a half hour and you kept waiting for John to show up. He finally did, sat down, and went how-how-how over a boogie for about 20 minutes and that was it. Nobody is going to accept seeing the Stones that way.