They toured in 1971.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
They toured in 1971.

The single and album wasn't out yet even though they played three new unreleased songs. Not exactly a tour for the new material.

1969 Honky Tonk Women was out before the winter tour and they played three unreleased songs from the upcoming album. Also not exactly a tour for the new album. 1969 was more so a tour for BEGGARS than BLEED.

Quote
GasLightStreet
The Stones have released albums without tours. 1967 - even though it was a very late release they did not tour for it in early 1968; 1968, 1971, 1974, 1980, 1983 and 1986.

40 years later they do it again. So far, anyway. They might be lining up dates in the US for all we know.

If they're actually done touring so be it and good for them to say enough. If they decide to do some shows, great! They days of saying such tripe as "we've just scratched the surface" when they're playing 14 or a few more shows a year are apparently over.

It had to stop at some point soon. It's soon, now, it appears. We're fortunate, as fans, that they never piled on the 'farewell tour' garbage like others. Nothing wrong with simply stopping.

It would have been really interesting had they toured Undercover in 1983-1984 (and played a lot of cuts from it). The band would have been tight from '82, with staging/lighting taking another step forward. Keith at age 40 playing near peak. And to date we've only gotten 3 songs from the record live (Undercover, She Was Hot, and Wanna Hold You); imagine them playing Too Much Blood, The Pain of Love, Too Tough...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2026-01-16 23:54 by Send It To me.

Would have been phenomenal.

Quote
Send It To me

Quote
GasLightStreet
The Stones have released albums without tours. 1967 - even though it was a very late release they did not tour for it in early 1968; 1968, 1971, 1974, 1980, 1983 and 1986.

40 years later they do it again. So far, anyway. They might be lining up dates in the US for all we know.

If they're actually done touring so be it and good for them to say enough. If they decide to do some shows, great! They days of saying such tripe as "we've just scratched the surface" when they're playing 14 or a few more shows a year are apparently over.

It had to stop at some point soon. It's soon, now, it appears. We're fortunate, as fans, that they never piled on the 'farewell tour' garbage like others. Nothing wrong with simply stopping.

It would have been really interesting had they toured Undercover in 1983-1984 (and played a lot of cuts from it). The band would have been tight from '82, with staging/lighting taking another step forward. Keith at age 40 playing near peak. And to date we've only gotten 3 songs from the record live (Undercover, She Was Hot, and Wanna Hold You); imagine them playing Too Much Blood, The Pain of Love, Too Tough...

Nice.

Yes. It would've been "other", in comparison to what happened. And perhaps what happened would've happened anyway.

They could've played Undercover Of The Night, She Was Hot, Tie You Up, Keith obviously with Wanna Hold You, and All The Way Down amongst the set list from 1978 and 1981 with the few HOT ROCKS tunes. That's what they were doing then.

Kind of strange considering the ongoing deal with ABKCO with Under My Thumb and LSTNT as well as Jumpin' Jack Flash, Satisfaction, Let It Bleed, YCAGWYW, Honkey Tonk Women and Brown Sugar with the live album and the movie yet they were performing those songs. The U songs would've fit in perfectly amongst the SOME GIRLS, EMOTIONAL RESCUE and TATTOO YOU songs.

Perhaps they would've done Summer Romance.

Look at their history for playing slow songs, it's usually ballads like Wild Horses, Fool To Cry, Angie and lesser known but possibly more poignant, Memory Motel and Worried About You.

For whatever reason Almost Hear You Sigh, Out Of Tears and...well, did they ever play Laugh I Almost Died live?

I don't recall ever reading about that.

None of those have survived their tours.

They were singles.

Eh, they can't play them all.

Just weird that they ignore most of the post-1981 songs.

Woo hoo - uOTN, She Was Hot and Wanna Hold you; One Hit and Harlem Shuffle; Mixed Emotions, Rock..., Almost Hear You Sigh, Sad Sad Sad, Slipping Away and Terrifying and... yawwwwwnnnnnn.

Quote
Send It To me

Quote
GasLightStreet
The Stones have released albums without tours. 1967 - even though it was a very late release they did not tour for it in early 1968; 1968, 1971, 1974, 1980, 1983 and 1986.

40 years later they do it again. So far, anyway. They might be lining up dates in the US for all we know.

If they're actually done touring so be it and good for them to say enough. If they decide to do some shows, great! They days of saying such tripe as "we've just scratched the surface" when they're playing 14 or a few more shows a year are apparently over.

It had to stop at some point soon. It's soon, now, it appears. We're fortunate, as fans, that they never piled on the 'farewell tour' garbage like others. Nothing wrong with simply stopping.

It would have been really interesting had they toured Undercover in 1983-1984 (and played a lot of cuts from it). The band would have been tight from '82, with staging/lighting taking another step forward. Keith at age 40 playing near peak. And to date we've only gotten 3 songs from the record live (Undercover, She Was Hot, and Wanna Hold You); imagine them playing Too Much Blood, The Pain of Love, Too Tough...

Not sure Too Much Blood would work live, but it might have been interesting.
But The Pain of Love and Feel On Baby would be great.

I think Too Much Blood would have worked in 1989/90. A missed opportunity, imo.

All the rockers from Undercover + Feel On Baby would have been great, too.

In the residency thread it’s said it’s coming in May. Should not we start hearing something in the way of a teasing campaign soon??

Rod

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I think Too Much Blood would have worked in 1989/90. A missed opportunity, imo.

All the rockers from Undercover + Feel On Baby would have been great, too.

Yeah, Too Much Blood in ‘89 would have been great with that big horn section. I wonder if they’ve ever rehearsed it.

Quote
bitusa2012

In the residency thread it’s said it’s coming in May. Should not we start hearing something in the way of a teasing campaign soon??

No. Looks like the Stones wanna introduce their new album live. But they need to explore feasible & profitable options first - [iorr.org] .

Quote
Send It To me

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I think Too Much Blood would have worked in 1989/90. A missed opportunity, imo.

All the rockers from Undercover + Feel On Baby would have been great, too.

Yeah, Too Much Blood in ‘89 would have been great with that big horn section. I wonder if they’ve ever rehearsed it.

Watching various videos of Bitch from 1989 and hearing Bobby wonking on the sax and the Uptown Horns blaring it would've been fantastic with Too Much Blood.

Live it wouldn't be much different than Terrifying was played. It's not going to sound like the album.

Still hoping for this track to be on the new album.

They just launched a new newsletter, at least in german.
Maybe because they are about go announce something....

In 1989 I worked at the Ritz Carlton in Naples Florida where the stones stayed during their Florida shows.

Not only did I sit and chat with Keith and Patty on the beach but I got to watch them rehearse in one of the conference rooms. I took care of the beverages for their rehearsals.

8 times they rehearsed Terrifying and 4 times Almost Hear You Sigh.

It is one of the most vivid memories I have working there.

Priceless memory. Better than any show.

quote=GasLightStreet]

Quote
Send It To me

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I think Too Much Blood would have worked in 1989/90. A missed opportunity, imo.

All the rockers from Undercover + Feel On Baby would have been great, too.

Yeah, Too Much Blood in ‘89 would have been great with that big horn section. I wonder if they’ve ever rehearsed it.

Watching various videos of Bitch from 1989 and hearing Bobby wonking on the sax and the Uptown Horns blaring it would've been fantastic with Too Much Blood.

Live it wouldn't be much different than Terrifying was played. It's not going to sound like the album.

Still hoping for this track to be on the new album.



[/quote]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2026-01-18 02:57 by georgemcdonnell314.

Whatever they do is what they do. Speculation, sales and streaming success... pointless.

It's all interesting, fun, maybe, but they're clearly at the end of their career.

And, as many speculated, me included, that HACKNEY DIAMONDS would be their last album even though they said they had more, well, ok. We were all wrong.

So what.

Is this 2026 album their last? Given the decision to not tour, regardless of what reasons, it kind of really seems like it.

They've always been pragmatic. Perhaps in the 1980s it didn't matter because they got it back together after a few solo albums regardless and have more than less been on the road ever since late 2012.

What they did from 1990 to 1995, then 1997 to 2008 was clearly an epoch, peaking from 1997 through 2004. Since then, getting on to 21 years - three new albums, various reissues and 'from the vault' live releases kept them in mind up through from 2005-08 to 2012-2024.

Pretty damn good for not being a creative band in regard to, generally, new music: the legacy was already cemented, they generally ignored it and carried on when they did. Years without doing much or anything as the Stones included. Obviously some of our expectations are directly because of their continuance.

Blame it on the Stones - they've earned it.

It will be over soon enough. The new album this year and whatever they do live may be the finale. Of course, they won't say that, they'll just stop and hopefully enjoy what few years they have left. The mythology of dying on stage was no different than the newest album being their greatest - a couple or few years go by and, oh my, they didn't actually mean it. The set lists reflect it.

1963-2026? Sure. Why not. Against the critics odds they're ageing out. If they manage to go another year or two, ok. That's looking unlikely. So what.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Is this 2026 album their last?

Probably not. They could do something like Blue & Lonesome II, mixed with some Zydeco and similar / other fitting music styles.

Quote
shattered1978
They just launched a new newsletter, at least in german.
Maybe because they are about go announce something....

Source?

Quote
Irix

Quote
GasLightStreet

Is this 2026 album their last?

Probably not. They could do something like Blue & Lonesome II, mixed with some Zydeco and similar / other fitting music styles.

...plenty of tracks in the can....and why not new ones during the next years...!!!

Quote
jp.M

...plenty of tracks in the can....

Mick: "Three good tracks, five OK, three mediocre. And to be perfectly honest I thought that was where we were heading." and: "I think some of the tracks are good, but most of them are not as good as they should be." - [iorr.org] .

Quote
Koen

Quote
shattered1978
They just launched a new newsletter, at least in german.
Maybe because they are about go announce something....

Source?

Me. I got a mail from "The Rolling Stones • rock@email.universal-music.de" announcing the new, german newsletter.
In the confirmation mail it says:

"Wir halten dich hier ab sofort über neue Releases, Gewinnspiele, Aktionen und News rund um die Stones auf dem Laufenden. Schön, dass du dabei bist!

Dein The Rolling Stones Team"

Quote
shattered1978

Quote
Koen

Quote
shattered1978
They just launched a new newsletter, at least in german.
Maybe because they are about go announce something....

Source?

Me. I got a mail from "The Rolling Stones • rock@email.universal-music.de" announcing the new, german newsletter.
In the confirmation mail it says:

"Wir halten dich hier ab sofort über neue Releases, Gewinnspiele, Aktionen und News rund um die Stones auf dem Laufenden. Schön, dass du dabei bist!

Dein The Rolling Stones Team"

Are you sure this is not a scam? Sounds strange to be honest...where did you register for it?

Quote
Irix

Quote
jp.M

...plenty of tracks in the can....

Mick: "Three good tracks, five OK, three mediocre. And to be perfectly honest I thought that was where we were heading." and: "I think some of the tracks are good, but most of them are not as good as they should be." - [iorr.org] .

Tracks recorded for LET IT BLEED that were not included on the album:

Honky Tonk Women
I Don't Know Why
Downtown Suzie
I'm Going Down
Loving Cup
Shine A Light
Sister Morphine

Tracks recorded for STICKY FINGERS that were not included on the album:

Jiving Sister Fanny
All Down The Line
Shake Your Hips
So Devine
Sweet Virginia
I'm Not Signifying
Stop Breaking Down
Silver Train

There's four that we know of recorded for SOUP that were later released, two for B&B later released, a few recorded for SG as well as for ER that were released on TY.

They liked Lies enough to include it on SG. For some reason it seems a lot of people don't like Lies. Of course it's subjective to say what's better that they left off in its place.

Respectable is the most boring song on the album. But they liked it enough to include it on HONK, all editions of the ridiculous 2012 comp, JUMP BACK and the UK edition of REWIND. If there is another compilation coming out soon as it has been rumoured it will most likely be on it, too.

With Too Tough being the last song that was a new version of an older recording, everything from 1983 through 1997 was new of the sessions, no leftovers for the next album, even though Highwire was supposedly started during the STEEL WHEELS sessions as Hot Line and was a leftover that Mick had from his second solo album that was resurrected for the 2 contractual FLASHPOINT singles studio tracks - the other being their rip off of Sex Machine.

With those exceptions, nothing recorded for VOODOO was utilised for BRIDGES etc.

Keith took Just Because from the LICKS sessions, that they were considering for a single - which is insane since they couldn't even figure out an intro or a beat for it! - for Trouble for his third solo album and Cried Out was worked on a couple years later for Laugh I Almost Died.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2026-01-20 02:04 by GasLightStreet.

Quote
hockenheim95

Quote
shattered1978

Quote
Koen

Quote
shattered1978
They just launched a new newsletter, at least in german.
Maybe because they are about go announce something....

Source?

Me. I got a mail from "The Rolling Stones • rock@email.universal-music.de" announcing the new, german newsletter.
In the confirmation mail it says:

"Wir halten dich hier ab sofort über neue Releases, Gewinnspiele, Aktionen und News rund um die Stones auf dem Laufenden. Schön, dass du dabei bist!

Dein The Rolling Stones Team"

Are you sure this is not a scam? Sounds strange to be honest...where did you register for it?

[www.universal-music.de]

Quote
hockenheim95

Are you sure this is not a scam?

Universal Music Germany had for Hackney Diamonds also a German [Facebook.com] page and has a German RS website: [www.Rolling-Stones.de] - (incl. Newsletter).

Quote
GasLightStreet

Tracks recorded for LET IT BLEED that were not included on the album

Old stuff .... doesn't probably count as a new studio album.

Quote
Irix

Quote
GasLightStreet

Tracks recorded for LET IT BLEED that were not included on the album

Old stuff .... doesn't probably count as a new studio album.

Yet so many new albums had leftovers.

What counts as a new studio album?

For some people, newly released music.

That's it. Doesn't matter when it was recorded. TATTOO YOU, EXILE - perfect examples.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Irix

Quote
GasLightStreet

Tracks recorded for LET IT BLEED that were not included on the album

Old stuff .... doesn't probably count as a new studio album.

Yet so many new albums had leftovers.

What counts as a new studio album?

For some people, newly released music.

That's it. Doesn't matter when it was recorded. TATTOO YOU, EXILE - perfect examples.

For me, it is how the Stones choose to promote it. For example: Tattoo You was promoted as a 'new album' and I see it that way, too.

Quote
GasLightStreet

For some people, newly released music.

Ok, for the simple-minded .... as long as it was 'new' when it came out.

My view is quite simple. A new album is a new album no matter how many leftovers and outtakes from previous works are included. As far as the end result is good, that’s fine by me (Tatoo you initially felt like a rehash of the early 70s Stones records but I put that aside for now).

The problem is, they are often salvaged as fillers rather than for the quality when there is not enough material in the new recordings (e.g. Physical Graffiti by Led Zeppelin).

Hoping that HD was the "pop" album and the new one will be the "rock" album: more VL than B2B.