Quote
illyad1960
Not a good look for the Stones. 80+ yo musicians off the road for 2 years now. Can no longer afford to be off the road. Not enough time left on their clock. I am hoping for an American tour in the fall. I find it hard to believe the Stones release a new LP and won't tour the worlds largest market to promote it

Seriously? They can afford to do whatever they want. They have made enough money that their money will make enough money to do whatever they want. The album can be a final vanity project and as long as it breaks even it will have no effect. YOU want a North American tour, they do not seem to. They are saying they will tour when good and ready if that date comes. Until then it really seems Keith is more content to hang with his family and do his thing. Maybe you should have gone to more shows when you had the chance. I think may of us feel that way including those who hit most of the shows.

No matter the no tour, if The Rolling Stones are done as a live band, which I don't think they are, there are plenty of hits comps yet alone a ton of albums...

REWIND is a fantastic starting place: expand past it.

Make your own deluxe REWIND.

Or whatever other comp since.

The biggest issue is The Rolling Stones have continued.

Time to face up, regardless of a new album in 2026, that they will end.

It was eventual: their age would determine stopping. It's not some secret.

Imagine if they had all died at some point yet Lynrd Sknrd.

Keith, apparently, said no, to 2026.

Why would he say yes to 2027 at approaching 83 years old?

They've done way more than bringing rock'n'roll into maturity - they established the entire business for live entertainment.

If it's over, and if it isn't in 2026 it will be sooner than 'Oh, I feel better now', The Rolling Stones have given and delivered the most of any band in history - and no one else will ever do similar.

I doubt they care about that. Only fans do. Mick and Keith? It's always been a continuation of, solo projects aside, of what they do, and regardless of they.
quality of an album and the hype of a tour, it is whatever.

They move on way easier than fans.

HINT.

Mick joked about "boxed sets of stuff" during the VOODOO sessions.

Never has anything come out.

The Rolling Stones don't care the way fans do. It just is.

They will end not the way fans want them to.

Is 2024 the end of the live performances of The Rolling Stones?

So far.

They were too old in 1981.

It's really not important - it's inevitable.

They roll, they don't roll. They did.... for a very long time.

The prospect of a new album is already very good news at their age.

I don't think the Rolling Stones are touring only for the money.
I think they are basicaly touring because they LIKE it, and even as artists they just NEED it to.

I am clueless about their future of touring, at over 80's age such announce are sounding like end of the story, but I guess that they will do their best to find solution to be back playing live on a stage.

Quote
ds1984
I don't think the Rolling Stones are touring only for the money.
I think they are basicaly touring because they LIKE it, and even as artists they just NEED it to.

I am clueless about their future of touring, at over 80's age such announce are sounding like end of the story, but I guess that they will do their best to find solution to be back playing live on a stage.

Yes! Important point.

Quote
ds1984
I don't think the Rolling Stones are touring only for the money.
I think they are basicaly touring because they LIKE it, and even as artists they just NEED it to.

I am clueless about their future of touring, at over 80's age such announce are sounding like end of the story, but I guess that they will do their best to find solution to be back playing live on a stage.

The obvious solution would be to do the occasional concert every now and then. My guess is that they'll keep on doing that as long as they can. Preferably not in stadiums but in a more intimate setting. Since they live in different continents (as far as I know), some travelling might still be involved.

Double post



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2025-12-21 18:03 by hockenheim95.

Quote
matxil

Quote
ds1984
I don't think the Rolling Stones are touring only for the money.
I think they are basicaly touring because they LIKE it, and even as artists they just NEED it to.

I am clueless about their future of touring, at over 80's age such announce are sounding like end of the story, but I guess that they will do their best to find solution to be back playing live on a stage.

The obvious solution would be to do the occasional concert every now and then. My guess is that they'll keep on doing that as long as they can. Preferably not in stadiums but in a more intimate setting. Since they live in different continents (as far as I know), some travelling might still be involved.

That is not an obvious solution. The Rolling Stones are a professional band and want to deliver a profesional show. Weeks of rehearsals are necessary to bring them together and still the first shows are often described as rusty. Shows later in the tour are from a musical point of view better than the first ones.

I don't see them doing all this effort for one show.

So, after cancelling two tours in two years the next step would be "be back playing live on stage"? At 83 years of age? What is the logics behind such an assessment?

Rehearsal-time aside, I do not think time is on their side - no pun intended - for ‘occasional’ performances. I, like everyone, holds on to the faintest of hopes that there can be a ‘live’ future, but it is going to be tough.

Quote
ds1984
I don't think the Rolling Stones are touring only for the money.
I think they are basicaly touring because they LIKE it, and even as artists they just NEED it to.

I am clueless about their future of touring, at over 80's age such announce are sounding like end of the story, but I guess that they will do their best to find solution to be back playing live on a stage.

I don't really see touring / performing the same 60 year old songs year in year out as art, at least equal to creation of said songs. And face it, they have been semi-retired for almost 20 years now.

I say Keith may or may not pop up here and there (for someone who's mythology is an overwhelming urge to be onstage, he just hasn't done it much). Mick may do some Mick and friends shows but wouldn't be surprised if he gradually fades from view, much like other elderly public figure.

Lots of news articles blaming Keith's arthritis with some quotes from him, but his quotes merely say he can't do some things the way he used to but finds new ways and says something along the lines of "you never stop learning". I think the press is just grasping for straws there...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2025-12-21 18:36 by kovach.

As I stated earlier I do think Jagger will still be active with his home studio and pop out the odd single from time to time (besides managing the Stones' business). Wood will stay active too with his art and joining other musicians on stage. Maybe the three of them will meet up for the new album release also?

Apart from that I guess they will continue to drop re-releases and extra material from time to time.

Quote
kovach
Lots of news articles blaming Keith's arthritis with some quotes from him, but his quotes merely say he can't do some things the way he used to but finds new ways and says something along the lines of "you never stop learning". I think the press is just grasping for straws there...

The press are citing Keith's 2023 interview with Mark Savage of the BBC:

[www.bbc.com]

An official statement was issued on December 18 by the band's Public Relations rep, Bernard Doherty of LD Communications:

"The Stones had promoters presenting loads of ideas and dates to them for next summer in Europe," the band's rep Bernard Doherty told USA TODAY via email Dec. 18. "Nothing was confirmed but when they properly sat down to discuss the tour, Keith said he didn't think he could commit and wasn't keen on a big stadium tour for over four months at this time."

Though "it's hard for their fans," Doherty said, "The Stones will get back onstage when they're good and ready."

[www.usatoday.com]

Quote
Stoneage

So, after cancelling two tours in two years the next step would be "be back playing live on stage"? At 83 years of age? What is the logics behind such an assessment?

It's often said that old men have a second Spring. Since the Stones are (were?) something special, maybe they could have a third Spring? At least 'playing live on stage' could possible in some form if they're not touring anymore.

Thanks for the quotes, Johnny. Still I would consider such a scenario as highly unlikely.

Sure Irix, let's hope for that. But isn't the second spring after 50 rather than after 80?

Quote
Stoneage

But isn't the second spring after 50 rather than after 80?

That's why I wrote about a third Spring which could occur later.

i have a hypothetical scenario to throw out and would like it to be picked apart by those more knowledgeable about these things

i understand and accept that tours are probably over and this is just a hypothetical idea built on the very slim hope that something like this could happen before it's to late

let's say within the next year mick changes his mind about having to play stadiums and works out some kind of mutually agreed on plan with keith and ronnie for a tour of the east coast of the united states just theatres and similar sized venues maybe a dozen shows max

hour and half sets mostly war horses with a few of the new songs from the new album and one or two surprises but pretty much the same setlists between shows (even more so then recent stadium tours)

one or two shows a week with keith going home after each and the shows all being reasonably close enough to said home that he could get back without to much hassle

or three to four shows a week depending on where keith stands on this and how much rest time the others need between shows and how long they want this tour to last

very high ticket prices

would a tour like this be much easier and faster to put together then a normal stadium tour?

would it be cheaper to insure then a large stadium tour?

would rehearsals be shorter and easier for something like this then a stadium tour?

would they still be able to fill these theatres even with the high prices and and the shows being relatively close together?

provided that they are able to fill these theatres and when the costs of putting together and running the tour are considered could they turn a profit from something like this?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2025-12-21 20:17 by ProfessorWolf.

ProfessorWolf, I'd say you're spot on, but only if Mick would agree to a down scale of sorts. Will be interesting to see what happens. I think it would be near impossible to get tickets even for people willing to pay high prices.

...If Keith is supposed to stay at home then NY or NY area would be the only plausible solution. Then it would not be a tour but a resident area concert series...

I was thinking another 14 date tour but just a mix of arenas and stadiums on the eastern seaboard so Keith can still stay at home. Rehearse in CT and then they can commute to both stadiums and arenas between Boston and WDC. Stadium shows don't require any different preparation than arena shows. They just use off the shelf rental staging anyway.

Maybe stadium shows in Toronto / NYC area or if there is any place new (as those are their own draw) in addition to arenas in Boston, Hartford, Albany. Maybe Carrier Dome or Buffalo arena. There are loads of arenas in NYC area so they can bounce between those. Expensive NYC arena tickets can also upsell the NJ stadium show and it will primarily be destination vacation anyway. You don't have to bill it as the last time (as I hate that) but we will know. Maybe a really good tour documentary too, not the QVC-ish garbage that was the box sets.

If he can be coaxed further out for a night or 2, Allegiant Stadium is a guaranteed slam dunk while other return markets might still be a hard sell.

The 2020 Far East / Australia tour that turned into a US stadium tour seemingly overnight kinda proves they aren't really locked in til right before it's announced. The last McCartney tour proved you can still book a random hodgepodge of venues based on availability at the last minute.

But to be honest, I think they really just don't wanna do it.

Toronto stadium / Eastern Canada like Halifax or Moncton again
Boston
Hartford maybe even Providence
MSG / UBS / Barclays / Prudential / Metlife / Nassau is still there I think
Phil x 2
WDC x 1 or 2
Syracuse or Buffalo



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2025-12-21 21:13 by Dan.

Bob Seger flew home straight after every gig because he wanted to be home when the kids woke up and get them off to school. It's probably not uncommon.

Keith could have done a similar thing instead of being locked up in a hotel suite. Why didn't he? Maybe because he already traveled with a bunch of Richardses? Or did he actually enjoy being away from home for 3-4 months?

An Eastern seaboard tour doesn't change the calculus, and certainly not the venue size, if Keith - ahem! - wants to spend even more time with the grandkids.

Quote
frankotero
ProfessorWolf, I'd say you're spot on, but only if Mick would agree to a down scale of sorts. Will be interesting to see what happens. I think it would be near impossible to get tickets even for people willing to pay high prices.

What 'scaling down' in the context of a band like the Stones really means? That they only would play to those chosen ones who are able to get the tickets (normally that can be handled with money, and believe me, the tickets are not going to be cheap, especially how more 'rare' the concert is). They actually did that back in 2013 - American arena tour (I called it back then "Barbra Streisand Tour") - but Jagger was said to not like it: the crowds were lame. And by contrast, he was into wild crowd of Glastonbury and then in last minute made sure that people with normal tickets could reach pretty close to the stage in Hyde Park (that made some people pretty angry who had invested for FOS tickets).

Since then, the Stones had been into stadium shows. People are older now, but I think they still probably calculate that if they get the same from 50 000 people with cheaper tickets than from 10 000 with higher prices they will take the first option. Just to get a better show with more enthusiastic audience. A kinda democratic thing - a stadium show allows more people to reach it.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2025-12-21 22:15 by Doxa.

If they went with a scaled down tour and wanted to reach real fans I suspect there's ways. But this hasn't happened in the past as far as I know. Would they be willing or want to do something like this? It's anyone's guess. I think there's an element of reaching so called new fans or people that haven't seen them also. And yeah the prices matter too. These guys are pioneers so I'm really curious how this will unfold.

The exact reason for Keith declining touring : is it touring itself being too tiring or him being physically unable to perform several gigs in a row ?

My thoughts:

1. I don’t think next U.S. tour happening prior to a U.K./Euro tour — assuming a ‘tour’ happens at all.
2. I don’t think a tour of some length will happen anywhere anyway.
3. I don’t think a group of small gigs, clubs, theatres etc. will happen, call it a tour or not. It’s not feasible.
4. My hunch is most likely a couple of one-off gigs in a big place, stadium or open field (including a park).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2025-12-22 00:05 by RisingStone.

Quote
ds1984
The exact reason for Keith declining touring : is it touring itself being too tiring or him being physically unable to perform several gigs in a row ?

From the official statement, "Keith said he didn't think he could commit and wasn't keen on a big stadium tour for over four months at this time."

No "exact reason" given, so anything else is pure speculation.

Quote
bye bye johnny

Quote
ds1984
The exact reason for Keith declining touring : is it touring itself being too tiring or him being physically unable to perform several gigs in a row ?

From the official statement, "Keith said he didn't think he could commit and wasn't keen on a big stadium tour for over four months at this time."

No "exact reason" given, so anything else is pure speculation.

I've followed this band for well over 50 years and this "official statement" delivering bad news is more clear and detailed than any other I can recall "them" making.

It's obvious who directed it. The more interesting questions are why the blame was squarely placed upon one of the living co-founders, and who the announcement was primarily crafted to reach?

And no, fans, it probably wasn't us.

A guy on a Shidoobee post on FB just made this comment:

"I have some news from inside the Stones camp but cannot share at this time, but I think people will be pleased when it is announced."