Funny to think about, no matter what we think of the Stones should stop rolling or not, no one seems to worry about that we are celebreting next year their 60th Anniversary. In 2012, when they were celebrating the 50th Anniversary and the 12th of July, 1962, even Jagger wasn't so so sure about when the counting started, and even then he seemed to point out Charlie being essential for them to be the 'same band':

"We are slightly cheating. Because it's not the same band, you know. Still the same name. It's only Keith and myself that are the same people, I think. I've tried to find out when Charlie's first gig was, and none of us can really remember and no one really knows."

Keith also has pointed out that "Charlie really made us'.

I guess we are now in a similar stage as in those pre-Charlie days (that we don't seem to have a problem about calling them as The Rolling Stones). The same name, but a different band. So let them roll... slightly cheating or not... If we forget all the purism and all that, and think purely in terms of music, I am actually looking forward hearing how they sound with a new drummer. In a theory, the rhythm section is more 'equal' or 'even' now when the legend and the heartbeat of classical Stones sound is gone. On a paper, the tandem of Jones and Jordan looks good, and who knows, and if even Jones might play more relaxed now, since not being anymore the only odd man out (I think it has never been easy to play with these cultural icons; the shoes are so big). Different band yeah, but still good. Well, that's what my mind says, but not probably what my heart does...

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2021-09-08 17:55 by Doxa.

Quote
Papo
Who's to decide other than the band themselves?
And what's all this talk about "knowing when to stop"? I don't get it.
Oscar Peterson played on after he had had a serious stroke. Many bands carried on after losing one or more members of the band. Who are we to judge?

Our band lost a member in 1998. A few days later we played a gig. Some people could not understand how we could do that. But we felt it was the right thing to do. We lost another member, our great guitar player, in 2018, after our second guitar player (his brother!) had to quit a few years earlier in 2014 because of MS.
It's not the same anymore, but nonetheless, we find some comfort in performing. We we play, we can feel the presence of those who are not with us anymore. It hurts, but it also gives comfort. Why quit doing what you love?

Mick, Ronnie and Keith along with the band are still capable of playing great shows, I think. And if they feel it's the right thing to do, they should. If not, they shouldn't. But it's not up to us to decide or judge.

If you think they should quit, maybe you should quit - going to their shows. I don't, and won't quit and hope that they carry on, somehow.
PS:
It would give me comfort to attend just one more show.

I think you have summed it up perfectly as it's all about choices and everyone has a choice on if they want to participate and join in the festivities or not . Pretty simple . I hope we get an accurate count on seats sold in each tour stop and that will be reveling as to how the fans/public vote with there wallets or not including all of the other things going on world wide .

Quote
Hairball
As several have mentioned, been wondering if Mick would carry on w/ a backing band as "The Rolling Stones" if Keith and Ronnie were no longer part of the band for whatever reason....
Chuck Leavell, Darryl Jones, Karl Denson, S.Jordan, and a couple of session guitar players....since they will continue without Charlie despite what Keith and Mick have said in the past about it not being truly the Stones,
would fans be willing to accept this new version without Keith and Ronnie? Surely many would, even paying outragous prices to see them, but some are having trouble wrapping their heads around the Stones without Charlie.
They carried on without Brian...then carried on without Mick Taylor...then carried on without Bill (not to everyone's liking), and now sadly without Charlie...would Mick continue forward without Keith and Ronnie?

I think you have answered your own question and I think he surely would .

Quote
Hairball
As several have mentioned, been wondering if Mick would carry on w/ a backing band as "The Rolling Stones" if Keith and Ronnie were no longer part of the band for whatever reason....
Chuck Leavell, Darryl Jones, Karl Denson, S.Jordan, and a couple of session guitar players....since they will continue without Charlie despite what Keith and Mick have said in the past about it not being truly the Stones,
would fans be willing to accept this new version without Keith and Ronnie? Surely many would, even paying outragous prices to see them, but some are having trouble wrapping their heads around the Stones without Charlie.
They carried on without Brian...then carried on without Mick Taylor...then carried on without Bill (not to everyone's liking), and now sadly without Charlie...would Mick continue forward without Keith and Ronnie?

Most of your question was already answered in the 80s, generally Stones fans see the Stones as Mick and Keith.
Ronnie, Bill and Charlie don't come into the equation to most paying customers, and we have already seen in the past there isn't the huge media and fan interest in Mick without Keith, so there you have it.
Other than a few die hard iorr posters the Stones are Mick and Keith, without those two together the big money and interest just isn't there.
Sorry to say, but as much as we all know how unique Charlie was, Stones sales on tickets will not diminish in his absence. If anything ticket sales will increase because Charlie's passing makes the Stones mortal beings, the realisation that this could really be the last time will increase the liklihood of people going to see them.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-09-08 17:42 by Rocktiludrop.

Not much to discuss, really. They never took that decision so now fate takes that decision for them. That is what is happening right now.
Anyway, it doesn't matter. Their great body of work is half a generation behind them.

After processing the news of Charlie's death, I think the Stones should roll on as long as they damn well feel like it. And clearly they will.

Personally, the last stop for me was Miami 2019 and I have gotten off the train.
All my love's in vain...

Quote
TheGreek

Quote
Hairball
As several have mentioned, been wondering if Mick would carry on w/ a backing band as "The Rolling Stones" if Keith and Ronnie were no longer part of the band for whatever reason....
Chuck Leavell, Darryl Jones, Karl Denson, S.Jordan, and a couple of session guitar players....since they will continue without Charlie despite what Keith and Mick have said in the past about it not being truly the Stones,
would fans be willing to accept this new version without Keith and Ronnie? Surely many would, even paying outragous prices to see them, but some are having trouble wrapping their heads around the Stones without Charlie.
They carried on without Brian...then carried on without Mick Taylor...then carried on without Bill (not to everyone's liking), and now sadly without Charlie...would Mick continue forward without Keith and Ronnie?

I think you have answered your own question and I think he surely would .

Not so sure which is why I've been wondering and why I asked, but I suppose he could based on the money to be made from the brand name.
And not sure if it would be the right thing to do, but who are we to say?

Quote
Rocktiludrop
Most of your question was already answered in the 80s, generally Stones fans see the Stones as Mick and Keith.

The '80s? Well here we are in 40 years later in the 2020's, and times and minds have changed. When Keith and Mick have both said in the past it wouldn't be the true Stones without Charlie and/or they can't imagine the Stones without Charlie, yet here they are about to embark on a mini-tour of the US as The Rolling Stones, proof enough that people change their minds. Given Keith's diminishing skills in the last decade or so, seems Mick would be able to carry the torch on his own (w/studio musicians/side men) as The Rolling Stones. If Ronnie was still on board that would be a plus for some, but the fact is if Brian, Mick Taylor. Bill, and Charlie are replaceable, seems anyone is. Mick could change the name of the band to the singular - The Rolling Stone - maybe people would feel more comfortable with that, and a good chance he could still sell massive amounts of tickets.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-09-08 19:59 by Hairball.

Of course people change their minds, and either of the Glimmers past statements could have been interpreted to mean they wouldn't have existed still without Charlie.
If were taking band members statements on who could or couldn't be replaced in the band for it to keep going to heart,
Charlie's much more recent answer of "Mick or Keith" is the only correct one.

Seems obvious enough.

Quote
Irix

Quote
Hairball

...would Mick continue forward without Keith and Ronnie?

Probably - as shown in the 6 Videos above: [iorr.org] .

Ladies and Gentlemen...The Rolling Stone.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

the astonishing thing for me is not the thought that Mick would probably go on playing with a backing band by the name of the rolling stones but the fact that, judging from what's the overall feel of this thread over Charlie's death, fans are pretty much ready to like and accept that

I believe that at the first "ehm what..?" I would probably read a prompt: who are we to say something upon it from many fans here webmaster included



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2021-09-08 21:09 by maumau.

Quote
Rocktiludrop

Quote
Hairball
As several have mentioned, been wondering if Mick would carry on w/ a backing band as "The Rolling Stones" if Keith and Ronnie were no longer part of the band for whatever reason....
Chuck Leavell, Darryl Jones, Karl Denson, S.Jordan, and a couple of session guitar players....since they will continue without Charlie despite what Keith and Mick have said in the past about it not being truly the Stones,
would fans be willing to accept this new version without Keith and Ronnie? Surely many would, even paying outragous prices to see them, but some are having trouble wrapping their heads around the Stones without Charlie.
They carried on without Brian...then carried on without Mick Taylor...then carried on without Bill (not to everyone's liking), and now sadly without Charlie...would Mick continue forward without Keith and Ronnie?

Most of your question was already answered in the 80s, generally Stones fans see the Stones as Mick and Keith.
Ronnie, Bill and Charlie don't come into the equation to most paying customers, and we have already seen in the past there isn't the huge media and fan interest in Mick without Keith, so there you have it.
Other than a few die hard iorr posters the Stones are Mick and Keith, without those two together the big money and interest just isn't there.
Sorry to say, but as much as we all know how unique Charlie was, Stones sales on tickets will not diminish in his absence. If anything ticket sales will increase because Charlie's passing makes the Stones mortal beings, the realisation that this could really be the last time will increase the liklihood of people going to see them.

Strongly disagree 100%

Quote
maumau
the astonishing thing for me is not the thought that Mick would probably go on playing with a backing band by the name of the rolling stones but the fact that, judging from what's the overall feel of this thread over Charlie's death, fans are pretty much ready to like and accept that

I believe that at the first "ehm what..?" I would probably read a prompt: who are we to say something upon it from many fans here webmaster included

Honestly can't think of or find one post that either states, or leads me to believe, that fans would accept just Mick with any backing band as The Rolling Stones.
Lots of posts stating that Mick would carry on like that, which is absurd, but fans wanting to disrespect Mick, for any reason real or imagined is a lot of fans fave thing. Oddly.

Other than your "overall feel", any substantiating posts?

Die hard Stones fan since 1964, and it gets down to this:

They have every right to do what they want to do at this point. However, I really cannot see Mick and ten session musicians going out in the future and billing themselves as the Rolling Stones.

I have seen them ten times since 1975, and I'm thankful for every single song I got to hear live.

I'm going to pay attention to the set lists and how they sound over those first several shows. If it is basically the exact same songs (I mean, how many times do you need to hear "Miss You?") as the last few tours, I might skip the Atlanta concert.

My youngest son has never seen them, though, so.....might get the fever about two weeks before showtime! Wonder if "affordable" seats will suddenly become available via Stubhub, etc.?

Quote
Hairball

Quote
TheGreek

Quote
Hairball
As several have mentioned, been wondering if Mick would carry on w/ a backing band as "The Rolling Stones" if Keith and Ronnie were no longer part of the band for whatever reason....
Chuck Leavell, Darryl Jones, Karl Denson, S.Jordan, and a couple of session guitar players....since they will continue without Charlie despite what Keith and Mick have said in the past about it not being truly the Stones,
would fans be willing to accept this new version without Keith and Ronnie? Surely many would, even paying outragous prices to see them, but some are having trouble wrapping their heads around the Stones without Charlie.
They carried on without Brian...then carried on without Mick Taylor...then carried on without Bill (not to everyone's liking), and now sadly without Charlie...would Mick continue forward without Keith and Ronnie?

I think you have answered your own question and I think he surely would .

Not so sure which is why I've been wondering and why I asked, but I suppose he could based on the money to be made from the brand name.
And not sure if it would be the right thing to do, but who are we to say?

Quote
Rocktiludrop
Most of your question was already answered in the 80s, generally Stones fans see the Stones as Mick and Keith.

The '80s? Well here we are in 40 years later in the 2020's, and times and minds have changed. When Keith and Mick have both said in the past it wouldn't be the true Stones without Charlie and/or they can't imagine the Stones without Charlie, yet here they are about to embark on a mini-tour of the US as The Rolling Stones, proof enough that people change their minds. Given Keith's diminishing skills in the last decade or so, seems Mick would be able to carry the torch on his own (w/studio musicians/side men) as The Rolling Stones. If Ronnie was still on board that would be a plus for some, but the fact is if Brian, Mick Taylor. Bill, and Charlie are replaceable, seems anyone is. Mick could change the name of the band to the singular - The Rolling Stone - maybe people would feel more comfortable with that, and a good chance he could still sell massive amounts of tickets.

Im sorry mate but im not understanding you, why on earth would Mick think he's better off touring without Keith when that clearly didn't work out in his prime of life in the mid 80s. Why at the age of 78 would Mick think that a good idea now, you seem to be confused.
Keith is alive and willing to tour with Mick as the Stones, Mick is not an idiot, he knows that's where his bread is buttered no matter how many bum notes the Riff Master hits.
Those are Keith's, songs, Keith's intros, Keith's signature sounds & rhythms, in what world is it better for Mick to replace his glimmer twin with a copy cat session musician when he has the real thing, Mick & Keith could carry on touring together for years to come if they wish.

Quote
MisterDDDD

Quote
maumau
the astonishing thing for me is not the thought that Mick would probably go on playing with a backing band by the name of the rolling stones but the fact that, judging from what's the overall feel of this thread over Charlie's death, fans are pretty much ready to like and accept that

I believe that at the first "ehm what..?" I would probably read a prompt: who are we to say something upon it from many fans here webmaster included

Honestly can't think of or find one post that either states, or leads me to believe, that fans would accept just Mick with any backing band as The Rolling Stones.
Lots of posts stating that Mick would carry on like that, which is absurd, but fans wanting to disrespect Mick, for any reason real or imagined is a lot of fans fave thing. Oddly.

Other than your "overall feel", any substantiating posts?

fair enough (also I am too sad to browse back here to find). I have no posts here to quote, just the feel that "the show must (or can't do nothing but) go on" no matter what that I gather from here and the other, older thread about the possible scenario of Charlie's retirement.
no big deal, maybe I'm just sour and a bit drunk, sorry



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2021-09-08 22:52 by maumau.

Quote
Rocktiludrop


Im sorry mate but im not understanding you, why on earth would Mick think he's better off touring without Keith when that clearly didn't work out in his prime of life in the mid 80s. Why at the age of 78 would Mick think that a good idea now, you seem to be confused.

Probably the thing is that we - except some die-hard Keith Richards fans who had not updated their shit - don't live anymore in the 80's.

Who is saying that Mick might think it would be better off touring without Keith? The issue is if Keith is not any longer able to do the task - like it is now with Charlie. Would Mick carry on or not under the name of The Rolling Stones with some other musicians? That was not the issue back in the 80's. Back then it was Jagger solo career being an alternative to the Stones, now it would be all there is left from the Stones. For a Stones fan, there would be not anything else if one would like to see and experience something live of 'The Rolling Stones', and salute the past (like it's been for ages now).

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2021-09-08 23:56 by Doxa.

Quote
Rocktiludrop

Quote
Hairball

Quote
TheGreek

Quote
Hairball
As several have mentioned, been wondering if Mick would carry on w/ a backing band as "The Rolling Stones" if Keith and Ronnie were no longer part of the band for whatever reason....
Chuck Leavell, Darryl Jones, Karl Denson, S.Jordan, and a couple of session guitar players....since they will continue without Charlie despite what Keith and Mick have said in the past about it not being truly the Stones,
would fans be willing to accept this new version without Keith and Ronnie? Surely many would, even paying outragous prices to see them, but some are having trouble wrapping their heads around the Stones without Charlie.
They carried on without Brian...then carried on without Mick Taylor...then carried on without Bill (not to everyone's liking), and now sadly without Charlie...would Mick continue forward without Keith and Ronnie?

I think you have answered your own question and I think he surely would .

Not so sure which is why I've been wondering and why I asked, but I suppose he could based on the money to be made from the brand name.
And not sure if it would be the right thing to do, but who are we to say?

Quote
Rocktiludrop
Most of your question was already answered in the 80s, generally Stones fans see the Stones as Mick and Keith.

The '80s? Well here we are in 40 years later in the 2020's, and times and minds have changed. When Keith and Mick have both said in the past it wouldn't be the true Stones without Charlie and/or they can't imagine the Stones without Charlie, yet here they are about to embark on a mini-tour of the US as The Rolling Stones, proof enough that people change their minds. Given Keith's diminishing skills in the last decade or so, seems Mick would be able to carry the torch on his own (w/studio musicians/side men) as The Rolling Stones. If Ronnie was still on board that would be a plus for some, but the fact is if Brian, Mick Taylor. Bill, and Charlie are replaceable, seems anyone is. Mick could change the name of the band to the singular - The Rolling Stone - maybe people would feel more comfortable with that, and a good chance he could still sell massive amounts of tickets.

Im sorry mate but im not understanding you, why on earth would Mick think he's better off touring without Keith when that clearly didn't work out in his prime of life in the mid 80s. Why at the age of 78 would Mick think that a good idea now, you seem to be confused.
Keith is alive and willing to tour with Mick as the Stones, Mick is not an idiot, he knows that's where his bread is buttered no matter how many bum notes the Riff Master hits.
Those are Keith's, songs, Keith's intros, Keith's signature sounds & rhythms, in what world is it better for Mick to replace his glimmer twin with a copy cat session musician when he has the real thing, Mick & Keith could carry on touring together for years to come if they wish.

Read again more carefully and slowly so you can better understand as you seem to be the one who is confused. I never said Mick would be "better off" -
I asked if it was a possibility for Mick, and with Charlie being replaced so abruptly seems it's really not too farfetched of an idea for Mick to continue on as "the Rolling Stones" with session/sidemen as his backing band.
I also said "not sure if it would be the right thing to do, but who are we to say?" along with him changing the band name to the Rolling Stone (singular) as to not offend anyone, but I never said Mick would be better off.
Hope your confusion has subsided now.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-09-09 00:08 by Hairball.

I don't think Mick would tour as the Rolling Stones without Keith.. this tour without Charlie now was already planned and then got derailed.. and Charlie wasn't really in the spotlight like Keith is when they're performing. Ronnie could probably be replaced, they could replace Ronnnie with Jeff Beck and the general public wouldn't even really notice. But Mick & Keith, that's the Rolling Stones, they can't continue without one of them.

Quote
Stoneage
Not much to discuss, really. They never took that decision so now fate takes that decision for them. That is what is happening right now.
Anyway, it doesn't matter. Their great body of work is half a generation behind them.

That's sort of how I feel. They could have bowed out gracefully, or done it up with a final appearance in London or some such thing. Mick and Keith could have continued with whatever projects they want and probbly made more interesting music. But now the band is over and fate will make even crueler cuts. Maybe there is a sort of dignity in that. I go back and forth on that.

the sad thing about the loss of charlie is bob dylan gave a perfect demonstration of what a future for them could have looked like with "shadow kingdom". take your time, work up the songs, either old blues numbers, new songs, warhorses, film over "so many" days, create a finished product and then sell tickets for a streaming release date. "shadow kingdom" was great. bob on guitar again, reworked songs. it would be somewhat different for the stones, they work live and would want an audience to work off of. but it would be better than these "1969" tours that, quite frankly, they are too old for. if they are gonna have SJ on drums it would be much better under those conditions than this risky tour. it's understandable there is no news. but there could also be no news to report.

Keith probably has it written up in the contracts and even his last will and testament that blocks Mick from touring as the Rolling Stones without him.

At least since the release of Bridges To Babylon, The Rolling Stones is not a band but a project.
We've been waiting for a new album since when? What are the Stones doing but touring and making as much money as possible? Besides "Blue & Lonesome" we've got re-releases and concert footage during the last decade, also intended to raise money.

Most people attending Stones concerts focus on Mick and Keith except us diehard fans. I assume that certainly 99% of the "normal" audience doesn't give a damn who's drumming behind Mick and Keith. And I guess the Stones know about that, hence will continue the project at least until their 60th anniversary next year. A final opportunity to make money on several ways (concerts, merch, records/DVDs, ...).

To me the Rolling Stones have always been a band of 5 members .

Quote
wonderboy
Keith probably has it written up in the contracts and even his last will and testament that blocks Mick from touring as the Rolling Stones without him.

He might even have included Charlie there...

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Rocktiludrop


Im sorry mate but im not understanding you, why on earth would Mick think he's better off touring without Keith when that clearly didn't work out in his prime of life in the mid 80s. Why at the age of 78 would Mick think that a good idea now, you seem to be confused.

Probably the thing is that we - except some die-hard Keith Richards fans who had not updated their shit - don't live anymore in the 80's.

Who is saying that Mick might think it would be better off touring without Keith? The issue is if Keith is not any longer able to do the task - like it is now with Charlie. Would Mick carry on or not under the name of The Rolling Stones with some other musicians? That was not the issue back in the 80's. Back then it was Jagger solo career being an alternative to the Stones, now it would be all there is left from the Stones. For a Stones fan, there would be not anything else if one would like to see and experience something live of 'The Rolling Stones', and salute the past (like it's been for ages now).

- Doxa

I don't think legally Mick or Keith can tour as The Rolling Stones without the other, hope this helps.

From the beginning of this discussion I have held the view that, in MY opinion, The Stones should bring things to a graceful conclusion. And that is all it was, ONE person's opinion. Nothing more.

Several people became very annoyed with me and I was accused of being both disrespectful and indecent for daring to suggest such a thing. There was a lot of stuff about my impertinence towards Mick and Keith as well as my thoughtlessness for saying any such thing with undue haste. Although I was merely giving my opinion after fifty-eight years of fandom, I thought it only right to apologise unreservedly for any upset I may have caused, unintended as it was.

However I have been saddened to see just how the discussion surrounding Charlie's death appears to have evolved over the past few weeks. There now seems to be an element of 'oh well its all very sad but the band will probably be better off with new blood anyway' There are even suggestions that The Stones only really need to have Mick and Keith, and basically, everyone else is disposable.

One other thought I have had. Whatever happens I hope fervently that the decision on whether to play on or call a halt is made by THE BAND. Not by some faceless business corporation, banking conglomerate or financial investors. For the past few years I have wondered just how much power and influence is wielded by faceless, but powerful people who are far removed from the band members themselves. Of course Mick and Keith particularly have considerable influence as founder members, but I would love to know just how much of the band and its activities is leveraged against future earning potential? Maybe none at all? Or maybe a horrifyingly sizeable amount?

These are just my individual thoughts good people. My heartfelt thoughts at this time are of gratitude to the band, and the musicians, past and present, living and dead, and with a very special thank-you to the irreplaceable Mr Charlie Watts. There are many multi-national business corporations, but only one Rolling Stones. God bless them!

yes, an opinion that should be given some room, especially in light of the sadness and surprise at the loss of charlie. saw somewhere on facebook late last night some idiot said something along the lines of "so what?! the loss of the drummer is no different than pearl jam losing a drummer." utterly offensive.

asking has the time arrived for a graceful conclusion is an outlook that respects the rolling stones and all that they have given to fans over these fifty nine years. keith had a son that passed away while on tour. they continued the tour. mick's father passed away, he did the show in phoenix. they have given us everything. i want, i want, i want; maybe we give them some room right now and let them arrive at what, if anything, comes next.

this tour seems forced upon them. maybe they do something in the future that's new. but if they do streaming would be better than doing a tour. have always felt that the new album is actually ready to go, it's just that they planned to play europe in '22 then release the album when they say good-bye. i can live with the decisions mick, keith and woody make. some promoter forcing bad decisions though is salt on the wound of losing charlie.

I’m not one to tell them what to do, but years ago I said that the new album should have a few covers. A Muddy song, a Berry song and then I Can’t Turn You Loose. Imagine they actually finish an album, with only 10 songs, 3 of which are covers. Imagine the album ending with ICTYL. They’d come full circle ending a last album with that one. And then imagine a single farewell show in London on July 12th 2022 also ending that show with ICTYL.

I mean Jesus Christ the planets could align if they really want them to, but it’d be perfect to end it like that. I can’t think of a better way really.

JumpingKentFlash

Quote
Naturalust
Well its good to see so many vintage posters back!

Hope you yourself will remain among them, Naturalust, still posting!

Quote
JumpingKentFlash
I’m not one to tell them what to do, but years ago I said that the new album should have a few covers. A Muddy song, a Berry song and then I Can’t Turn You Loose. Imagine they actually finish an album, with only 10 songs, 3 of which are covers. Imagine the album ending with ICTYL. They’d come full circle ending a last album with that one. And then imagine a single farewell show in London on July 12th 2022 also ending that show with ICTYL.

I mean Jesus Christ the planets could align if they really want them to, but it’d be perfect to end it like that. I can’t think of a better way really.

I've always hoped they would end it in London - I would, wouldn't I? The only way of ensuring that, would be a planned end. I don't think they will say it's the last time though. Both too keen on keeping their options open.