The best thing they could do: end up, like they begun: making an album each year. Till one of them dies - hopefully not less then 20 years till that point. I'm - and was always - more excited because of records then the tour.

Ok ablett you're right, and i can't wait the tour to begin. Still there is that last call in all our heads and we know that the run-around Mick will slow down, eventuelly. How much chords did Keith play during his 2 song break in Europe? He barely did any riff on Slipping away. Let's be honest they were exhausted and they gave and still give a lot. .... But at the end we have to see Europe will be second best. Except that the crowds might stir them up for one of those nights on stage.

ablett Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What a morbid bunch you lot are!!!!
> From reading these posts the boys are on there
> last legs and waiting to die!
> get outta here.
> Listen to the playing on the new tracks, if there
> was any doubt they couldn't make the tour due to
> health then they wouldn't go... who'd insure
> them???
> Macca aint stopping so why oh why the stones?
> Baffles the hell outta me!


hardly morbid. Realistic I'd say.

They're obviously physically up to touring in 2005 (as you rightly say, who would insure them otherwise?) , but a group of musicians in their 60's all of whom have had health problems doesnt augur well for their ability to do the same thing in 5 or 10 years time. At the age the band are at now, if even one of them (with the possible exception of Ronnie) isnt physically up to touring, then thats it finished. Thats going to eventually happen. On the law of averages, to presume they're all in the peak of their physical condition and should be able to tour into their 70's is extremely optimistic. Two of the band have had life threatening illnesses in the last year and a half.

what has their ability to play on studio songs in 2005 got to do with anything?

Whats McCartney got to do with it either? There hasnt been any issues with HIS health that I'm aware of

i post in here because ive been a fan of the worlds greatest rock and roll band since i saw them on "thank your lucky stars" a british TV show around 1962/3. my dad saw them and quipped "this lot wont last five minutes"
the next ten years saw the best music of all time in my humble opinion,and the stones were right at the top with bob dylan and the beatles.
i dont need lessons from people who werent even born when the band were at their best.i will go and see them this time around in case it really is the last time,but the great songs have all been written i think.why dont they get rid of the cast of thousands and play in smaller venues with mick concentrating on the singing.
i love the music not watching an old man prance around.where is the cut off point ? 70 ? 75 ? like i say its ludicrous.and sorry for any offence to those people for whom the worlds dearest band can do no wrong !
cheers
Bill



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-07-26 12:44 by billy318124.

well said billy.. i first saw thw stones on the arther haines show 1964 ..now i wonder how many of you saw that...my gran bless her heart nearly had a fit, when she saw jagger..she started shouting at the tv..i never forget that moment..from then on i was hooked..and its been a great jouney.god bless them rolling stones.

Macca ain't a band, and he can do whatever he wants, change the musicians, go to Vegas for a couple of years, liker Tom Jones or Celine Dion, who really cares ?

If the Stones stop touring, I'd be happy to have a new album from time to time.

Of course, they are NOT that old, but we have great memories of a charistmatic Mick walking, jumping and running on stage, and I wish they won't end up like Pink Floyd, static in front of turning lights...

I'm very confident in this new tour, though, because I think that they wouldn't have done it if they weren't able to do it properly and keep their status of Greatest RnR band in the World.

Still, I think it may be the last one.

[doctorstonesblog.blogspot.com]

i've seen references in this post to health problems of some of the stones. charlie had that horrible cancer scare a few years ago, but has keith had health problems (besides that injury from the tumbe he took off the ladder years ago)?

drew

I know about Charlie...what is the second life threatening illness? If you mean the emphesema scare for Ronnie, as an MD it does not ring true to my ears. That is a very slowly progressive disease and if Ron's prognosis were truely a year, he would be moving slowly at this stage only with oxygen. Now I have no doubt that he has been told that if he does not quit smoking, emphesema WILL eventually get to him.

"Most worries never happen". That is one of my my favorite sayings.

Lance Armstrong had cancer. It did not keep him from winning Tour de France the other day. Charlie Watts had cancer. It does not keep him from doing what he likes the most. To play the drums.

1989 - 1994 - 1997 - 2002 - 2005 ...

Do you see a pattern here? For me this looks like 5 world tours in 16 years. I.e. one major tour every 3 years. So unless somethink is happening, they should do another tour in 2008 or so.

I think Stones fans must be very lucky. The band is touring every 3 years or so. They release new material. They do solo shows and guest apperances. They take care of their health. Even Ronnie is working hard on his problem with king alcohol. They are nice to their fans. They have no plans of moving to Las Vegas as far as I know.

By the way, Bill Wyman is seven years older than Mick and Keith, and he is this year doing his most extensive solo tour ever. One year after he announced he would take a rest from touring (again). I have lost track of how many shows Bill will play just in Norway. May be 5. May be more. The Stones are made of something special. Including Bill. Unfortunately not Brian. They will go on forever. Call it my hope. Or call it the faith. We are just lucky fans to have our favorite band still around. Simple as that.





Bjornulf

Finally some sence instead of pending doom and gloom.......

kahoosier Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I know about Charlie...what is the second life
> threatening illness? If you mean the emphesema
> scare for Ronnie, as an MD it does not ring true
> to my ears. That is a very slowly progressive
> disease and if Ron's prognosis were truely a year,
> he would be moving slowly at this stage only with
> oxygen. Now I have no doubt that he has been told
> that if he does not quit smoking, emphesema WILL
> eventually get to him.


Thats what he was indeed told. I think he was told he had early stages of emphysema or that he could be dead in a year if he didnt sort himself out. Cant recall exactly but the quotes were by himself in a newspaper interview about 18 months ago, so I guess theres some validity in them

Obviously he's taken steps to help himself. Add the fact that his liver must also be in a hell of state (wasnt he advised to clean up before the last tour or face the risk of not making it THROUGH the tour?) and thats two potentially pretty serious illnesses - thankfully two that he can do something about with a lifestyle change and that, touch wood (no pun intended), he seems to be managing at present



Drew - Charlie's cancer scare was this time last year, not a few years ago. Keith's main problem is arthritis, which many people believe has affected some aspects of his playing. I shudder to think what his insides must be like, however. Obviously hes physically capable of still doing what he does as I'm sure these guys all get physical check ups before a tour for insurance purposes, but his lifestyle will take its toll eventually. I dont buy into this "keith is indestructable" crap for a second. Unfortunately IMO, he's started to believe it over the years as he's been told it enough times and feels like he has an image to live up to.


Bjornulf...I'm not implying that Charlie isnt healthy again (although hes over 30 years older than Lance Armstrong so its not QUITE the same thing!). Nothing would get him out on the road if he wasnt up to it. My point is that in the last couple of years a lot of people have had to waken up to the fact that these guys arent always going to be around, are getting older and eventually wont be fit to play year in year out in the way we've takenfor granted over the last few decades. To have all four members of the band active and in reasonable health at this stage in their careers is a blessing and pretty unique. On the law of averages it wont last forever but we're luckier than fans of other bands to have had our favourite band last so long.

Just read all these posts, it makes me sad to think about it. I love the Stones, have been into them for 11 years now, and also I'm a big McCartney fan. This last week has been great - the new stones tracks last friday and today I heard Macca's new single, also great IMO. It just made me realise how lucky i am / we are that they are still going.

They are my two favourite acts, and there is nothing like the excitement that I feel when hearing a brand new song, or buying a new album, or looking forward to a new tour. I love so many other bands, but just nowhere near as much as the stones and macca. For as long as i can remember I have always had them in my life, always the thought of 'what's next ? whens the next album or tour ?' and to think that anytime soon this excitement may be gone is a really lousy thing to happen. I have no other bands on that level, everything else is second best, and who likes to settle for second best? As some of you have said, we are blessed with this music. We should make the most of it. I am going to be paying a fortune later this year to see McCartney in Miami and the Stones in San Fran and maybe Vegas. I know i can't really afford it, but, then I think, how many more tours are there gonna be, how many opportunities. I honestly count myself lucky that I can still go and see them live.

As for the dilemma of what the stones do beyond 2006, it's a tough one.
Health will dictate what happens. I know it seems obvious to scale down the tours and venue sizes, but the problem then is if they just stick to arenas and theatres, they no longer have that mass-appeal of going to see the stones at a big stadium spectacular. Ask all your friends that are casual stones fans where they would choose to see them. I'm sure they would choose a stadium, with the spectacle of lights and pyrotechnics, over a small sweaty club any day.
By doing this they become like the eagles, bob dylan, bruce springsteen, just another big rock name.

I think there appeal can only increase based on the fact that people are continuously amazed at their longevity. Just imagine they do a tour in 2012, maybe unlikely, or even 2007 - 45 or 50 years since they formed?! The draw would be huge, many people going just to say they were there, just to see them one last time, because what if it really is the last time? (sorry about the pun). There are unique in their longevity and this is something that sells them.
We are truly lucky to still have them here, and we should appreciate each new show or album that we see and hear.



_____________________________________________________

What's your favourite flavour?...........Cherry Red!!

A tour 50 years after their creation ?
This makes me think of the Buena Vista Social Club. I have a lot of respect for them, and for the old days bluesmen who were the Stones' models in the early days.

Fact is that the Stones were influenced by blues, but they've always been a rock band. They are the oldest rock band in the world, and still one of the very best, if not the best. They are special, the ultimate survivors, and we would like them to go on forever, but this isn't possible.

I never saw people like Chuck Berry or Jerry Lee Lewis in their golden days, but going to see them nowadays is more a way of paying respect to their past and their role in the early days of Rock N Roll. Sometimes they're still good, sometimes they're really bad (no disrespect).

I don't want to see the Stones the way I saw Chuck Berry, and that's the only reason why I wish they will stop touring the day they think they can only be the shadow of what they used to be.
That day will come, but the later it will, the better it is.

[doctorstonesblog.blogspot.com]

I dont think the Stones act, or write like 20 somethings. Like many others, I have been expecting a couple more years for quite some time now. And after every major tour since '90 Ive assumed they'd scale back. In '72 they capped off a decade, & rock & roll itself had hit 17 years earlier, though gone thru so many changes & permutations it seemed like 50. The world had gone through so much since 55, or '63!! Who would have predicted the RS would still be together in 1980? Dealing w/ the band's mortality, after 43 years, is like dealing with our own.

Charlie will be the first to call it a day, and there's no way they'll continue as "The Rolling Stones" when Charlie cashes in his chips and heads for home. Mick will get into movie soundtracks and perhaps some acting on his own, and continue his general dabbling in the Manhattan / Hollywood scene. Keith and Ronnie will still make appearances either together or separate. After this tour, there will be nothing else from the boys on anything close to this scale. There probably will be one more retrospective, greatest hits, double-CD release after this album. And after that, of course, every year or so we'll see re-issues and compilations and never-before-released songs and remixes and such. Regardless how it all works out, I think only Mick and Keith will remain in the news. Keith will never stop until he keels over onstage, as he has said himself several times in the past. And really, is there a more poetic or appropriate way for ol' Keef to go? The man defies all logic that he's even still standing. Actually, it's amazing that the four of them are still at it after so long. But I think they really should just say this is the last tour and end the supense for all of us. They have absolutely nothing left to prove; their legacy was secured a long, long time ago.

When I met Keith and Don Was outside Ocean Way studios on June 28th, I talked to Don about the new album. I asked if any of the songs came from the 2002 Paris sessions and he said no, that they were all newly written songs. I then asked him if anything would come of those 2002 recordings and he sounded pretty confident when he said that those will come out.

I'm not quite sure what to make of that, but it seems that it's possible that they'll go back to those songs or actual recordings and have at least 1 more studio album after A Bigger Bang.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-07-27 01:18 by Halup.

That is encouraging. Around 10 years ago (either VL or Stripped was the story) Ice mentioned Jagger was also considering issuing unreleased material from the SG/ER era on a retrospective, after that new album. (I have the issue buried somewhere) but nothing else came of it.

john r Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That is encouraging. Around 10 years ago (either
> VL or Stripped was the story) Ice mentioned Jagger
> was also considering issuing unreleased material
> from the SG/ER era on a retrospective, after that
> new album. (I have the issue buried somewhere) but
> nothing else came of it.


Oh I think something came of those songs - I believe they were packaged as the infamous Memory Hotel album circa '99....that will probably see the light of day somewhere down the road....

Has Mick had any health problems?

Mick has had issues with his voice, which while not life threatening, could perhaps limit his ability to sing. He reportedly has been instructed by doctors to no longer perform 2 nights in a row.

Tellit like it is Debra!

Christ...........cant we just get through this tour firt..........

Has Mick had any health problems?

Yes one BIG problem.....he's always barred up!!!

ROCKMAN

I don't see any problems for them to keep going for years if they have longer brakes between the concerts and some new material that inspires them. It would only be good if Keith and Ron focused more on the playing than posing, even at stadiums. There are 80 year olds running marathon out there. I'm sure Mick can handle a two hours concert every third day eighteen years ahead,

C L O N E S ! ! !

My intelligence sources have assured me that the Stones cloned themslves a few years back and that the newer, younger Rolling Stones will roll out of the clinic just in time to replace the old worn out Rolling Stones. All of the legalities, rights and royalties issues are still being worked out.

how old is willie nelson ,,72,,,then the stones got 20 yrs left...

72..... stones are 62ish I make that 10 not 20...

Yes,finally some hope . But we will see how they make up in Europe after 5 or 6 months of touring all over the globe. But the age is something terrible... Does Charlie will want to perform another world tour after this one. As a fan I would like to, but as a human being I would not like to see the Stones performing on a wheel chair or underperforming . I can imagine them being on stage every year for 5 to 10 gigs. But as BV wrote, we have been very lucky. Remembering the schoolyards days, Beatles fans have not been as happy as us. Thanks RS

Thanks Sara! Someone needs to defend Mick!! Might as well be me, even though it's usually like holding up a red cape at a BULL!

You don't seem to understand. There will be a Stones world tour every three years, indefinitely... Some things will always be there, the sun, the moon, the stars and the Stones.