Many of the great bands who stopped touring early are remembered for their performances in their heyday . Because the stones have toured so long , some of the memories of them at their best are lost because it’s only the most recent stuff that is publicised . I’ve been wondering if no more tours is an opportunity to reestablish the stones of the 60s and 70s to remind people of what a great band they were and make sure that legacy is remembered



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2026-01-27 18:07 by bv.

i don't think it matters if they stop touring now or in ten years it'll do nothing to change how there legacy is viewed by future generations

there legacy ends in 1981

fifty years from now everything that came after that will just be a footnote in there history that reads

"and they continued touring and recording new music until 202? the end"

i'm not dissmissing what they've done since but there's a reason they barely perform anything past 1981 and that most books about them compress the last 45 years of there history into one chapter or how documentaries basically ignore everything after that or skim thru it in three minutes

and i say this as someone who love and enjoys what they've done in these years more then most fans and wishes it was more respected and liked then it is

but there legacy is the 60's and 70's not them in there 60's and 70's

all the drama and controversies and fights about whether this or that album is or tour is good or bad disappears when there dead

then the press will be filled with stories of how great they were full of lots of details about there history in the 60's and 70's and little to nothing past that

the narrative about them will change

all the warts will get smoothed over and the fans they gather after will have a much rosier understanding and view of there history then we do



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2026-01-27 15:49 by ProfessorWolf.

I pretty much agree with ProfessorWolf, though I do think their longevity as a touring unit could potentially add to the perceived legacy once it's definitely over. Studio-wise, yeah, Tattoo You and Start Me Up - their last 'global hit' - is where it ends. I do think the 1960's will be seen as the definitive and most enduringly interesting decade in the band's history: Brian Jones; Satisfaction, and the decade culminating with Gimme Shelter and Altamont.

Quote
EJM

reestablish the stones of the 60s and 70s to remind people of what a great band they were

"The Times They Are a-Changin" - maybe some parts of the Stones won't be remembered so much, e.g. due to their ambiguous lyrics which could be then considered as inappropriate. Or maybe some behaviours that could later be seen as inappropriate.

Quote
Irix

Quote
EJM

reestablish the stones of the 60s and 70s to remind people of what a great band they were

"The Times They Are a-Changin" - maybe some parts of the Stones won't be remembered so much, e.g. due to their ambiguous lyrics which could be then considered as inappropriate. Or maybe behaviours that could later be seen as inappropriate.

Not to go down this potential rabbit hole, but I feel the Stones have - thankfully - managed to escape too much negativity. The self-censorship they inflicted upon themselves by omitting Brown Sugar from present-day live performances is, perhaps, a sign of how they, or the wider Stones organisation, like to stay wary of any potential bad light.

Quote
Big Al

the wider Stones organisation, like to stay wary of any potential bad light

Yes, they did/do some self-censorship, e.g. by omitting song lyrics at live performances (e.g. SFTD or SG). But their entire history is known, which doesn't mean that everything will always be praised by others.

I (and many other people I talk to who were not experiencing the 70s) actually prefer the post-89 Stones. They have gotten far more professional performers with age.

Quote
StonedRambler
I (and many other people I talk to who were not experiencing the 70s) actually prefer the post-89 Stones. They have gotten far more professional performers with age.

I guess that’s right but perhaps there isn’t the tight rope dangerousness about them that you see in the “ladies and gentlemen” era

How the future sees the culture of the present or the recent past is impossible to predict. We have no inkling of what future changes and events may bring to the cultures of the past. WE imagine Elvis, The Beatles, Dylan and the Stones and their songs will be remembered for ever, but they may turn into historical oddities once any humans who saw them when they were alive are gone.
For example, JS Bach, one of our time's most famous and enduring composers, was all but forgotten for several centuries, eclipsed by his children, who are largely now forgotten.
One thing I know is that the Stones' greatest songs are DARK - heavy. When I saw them last in 2022 at Hyde Park, once twilight then darkness came with MIss You, the rest of the run of big hitters was heavy, and the audience was totally under its dark spell in a way it just hadnt been in the first, daylight half of the concert. I dunno, mmahbe darkness lasts longer than light....

Legacy is "something that is a result of events in the past" (Cambridge Dictionary).

If you search for "legacy" on the IORR Tell Me search system, you will find many many theads about it.

Some say their legacy ended with Brain Jones in 1969. I don't agree. Some claim the exit of Bill Wyman after the 1990 tour was it. Not agree. And sure I miss Mick Taylor, but he quit, so we got Ronnie Wood, and more great albums and tours. Sure I miss Charlie Watts, but all is part of their history, life goes on. Charlie wanted them to keep on touring.

I have followed the Stones as a fan since 1971, and live since 1973. Their legacy has been continiously increasing, in a positive way, for me, year by year, album by album, tour by tour. Not at any point have they disappointed me. Not at any time have they acted in a bad way for me.

And please do not bring that crap about "Brown Sugar" into this discussion. I was in Nagoya Japan April 5, 2006, when Mick Jagger did a clear statement just before they did "Brown Sugar". This was the last show before they performed in China, where they had a list of songs not to be played.

I am not a fan of everything they do, but they are just human. Their songs, their shows, and their fans, that is their legacy.

Bjornulf

There have been fascinating elements in all the eras of the Stones’ development and I’ve loved the stones’ recent live performances (and would go and see them again at the drop of a hat if I could) but I just found it interesting to reflect on the different narratives around short lived and longer lived bands at this point when the stones might not tour again. Perhaps legacy was the wrong word ..

Quote
bv
Legacy is "something that is a result of events in the past" (Cambridge Dictionary).

If you search for "legacy" on the IORR Tell Me search system, you will find many many theads about it.

Some say their legacy ended with Brain Jones in 1969. I don't agree. Some claim the exit of Bill Wyman after the 1990 tour was it. Not agree. And sure I miss Mick Taylor, but he quit, so we got Ronnie Wood, and more great albums and tours. Sure I miss Charlie Watts, but all is part of their history, life goes on. Charlie wanted them to keep on touring.

I have followed the Stones as a fan since 1971, and live since 1973. Their legacy has been continiously increasing, in a positive way, for me, year by year, album by album, tour by tour. Not at any point have they disappointed me. Not at any time have they acted in a bad way for me.

And please do not bring that crap about "Brown Sugar" into this discussion. I was in Nagoya Japan April 5, 2006, when Mick Jagger did a clear statement just before they did "Brown Sugar". This was the last show before they performed in China, where they had a list of songs not to be played.

I am not a fan of everything they do, but they are just human. Their songs, their shows, and their fans, that is their legacy.

Very well said!

Their legacy will embrace their whole career. From the beginning to the end. When it comes to the catalog of songs though it will focus on the period between 1964 and 1981. Especially between 1968 to 1972.
A big part of their legacy is longevity though. In that way they have fans in many different age groups. Which is not that common when it comes to pop/rock music.

Quote
EJM
Many of the great bands who stopped touring early are remembered for their performances in their heyday . Because the stones have toured so long , some of the memories of them at their best are lost because it’s only the most recent stuff that is publicised . I’ve been wondering if no more tours is an opportunity to reestablish the stones of the 60s and 70s to remind people of what a great band they were and make sure that legacy is remembered

Considering that Hot Rocks is still one of their best selling records and that the most streamed songs are almost all from the 60s and 70s I don't think that the greatness of the band's output in those years needs to be remembered.

I believe that the problem is quite the opposite: it's their latest production that needs to be (re)discovered. The general consensus is that the only legacy that matters is what was done in the 60 and 70s while there is a lot of greatness also in the albums from Undercover onward.

The Stones are mostly responsible for this. I remain convinced that their shows form 89 up to today could have been a huge success even with less warhorses and more recent stuff in the set lists.

C

As much as the 70’s may have yielded fabulous tours and masterworks like Sticky Fingers and Exile on Main Street, for the person looking back retrospectively, I think they’ll primarily be though of as a ‘60’s act’ They are, after all, so tied to that decade.

Yeah, that's it really, Big Al. But as a 60s act second only to the Beatles. They beat the Beatles on longevity though. With 6 decades...

<Especially between 1968 to 1972>

Their string of mega hits between 1965 and 1968 may be an even bigger part of their legacy.

Their legacy will be the longest lasting rock n roll band in the history.

Quote
DandelionPowderman


Their string of mega hits between 1965 and 1968 may be an even bigger part of their legacy.

Completely agree. I should’ve mentioned that in my previous post. Paint it, Black is their most streamed song on Spotify by a considerable margin. Throw in Satisfaction and the likes of Ruby Tuesday and Jumpin’ Jack Flash, and you pretty much have the greatest part of their legacy. Their 60’s singles, alone, put the Stones just behind the Beatles, in my view.

Legacy ? It really lies when one dives into the Stones music. There were 3 periods, I think. Each period being determined by the way Keith sounds and evolves creativity wise. That being said, their legacy is when they were more than music, but a way of living or seing the world. That’s the sixties. But their longevity maintains this with high standard. Anyway, they will be remembered as the rivals of the Beatles. In other words, if the Beatles are to be remembered, The Stones might be as well.

Post-1981 songs performed live without or post-new LP tour, from 1989-2024. Songs in bold on HONK performed in 2019 with HONK being recently released, of which the number of 1971-2016 songs performed live from the compilation varied, with 10 being the most:

Undercover Of The Night
She Was Hot
Wanna Hold You
One Hit...
Harlem Shuffle
Sad Sad Sad
Mixed Emotions
Rock And A Hard Place
Slipping Away
Love Is Strong
You Got Me Rocking
The Worst
Moon Is Up
Brand New Car
Thru And Thru
Saint Of Me
Out Of Control
You Don't Have To Mean It
Thief In The Night
Streets Of Love
Doom And Gloom
Ride 'Em On Down


Considering the bulk of the set list is 1964-1981, with song numbers for the 60s, 70s and 80-81 varying greatly in amounts per show, the one album they have not performed anything from post-2007, as far as I've seen, is A BIGGER BANG, as well as Don't Stop.

Some of those, like Harlem Shuffle, were performed once on two tours. Some were performed a couple times, Sad Sad Sad, during a tour. The most often performed are/were You Got Me Rocking and Out Of Control.

So, technically, they don't ignore post-1981, they kind of acknowledge it here and there. Essentially out of all of those, the most played, add You Got Me Rocking and Out Of Control to JUMP BACK and that sums it up the post-REWIND era.

In regard to 1964-1981 none of those will ever achieve the set list status of Start Me Up, their newest song from 1964-1981 to be performed live the most.

Which probably happens for all bands/artists.

Given the span of their career and the popularity of the 1964-1981 songs it's probably bordering on 'amazing' that they do play anything post-1981, even though there have been very few shows when they did not.

They probably could've done an entire tour "recently" without playing anything post-1981 and no one would've noticed - for which the 1981-82 tours is a perfect example- a couple more songs from the 60s or 70s, or 1980, were played instead.

Is it fitting that REWIND came out not quite 2 months past 20 years since their first album? Perhaps in hind site. It was a contract fulfillment. Considering the strangeness after that in regard to the amount of new albums, sans live, that came out they really slowed down and then crawled to a halt.

Perhaps their legacy will somehow be more remembered for the touring they did between 1989 and 2024 than the minuscule amount of albums they released.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2026-01-29 18:45 by GasLightStreet.

Quote
DandelionPowderman


Their string of mega hits between 1965 and 1968 may be an even bigger part of their legacy.

And 1969 doesn't count? Methinks that "Honky Tonk Women" was pretty mega, too!

Quote
DandelionPowderman


Their string of mega hits between 1965 and 1968 may be an even bigger part of their legacy.

Sure. I was in album mode when I wrote that. They had a string of good singles between 1965 and 1968.

Undercover is interesting in that way that it was kind of a new start for them. Trying to adapt to the music scene which had changed considerably since the late 60s. The thing is that after Undercover...nothing happened.
The band went for, more or less, a break for the rest of the decade. I think that is a pity. They could have built something on Undercover. The second coming never really worked out album wise. Maybe due to the long break?

Singles, albums, concerts, tours, TV shows, films, videos, antics, gossips, sex, drugs, rock ‘n’ roll and many, many more…their entire history is a legacy.

When it’s all over, people will recognize it that way.

Quote
RisingStone
Singles, albums, concerts, tours, TV shows, films, videos, antics, gossips, sex, drugs, rock ‘n’ roll and many, many more…their entire history is a legacy.

When it’s all over, people will recognize it that way.

For a while.

Elvis will be unknown soon. Frank. Hank. Jimi. It will all dwindle. There's nothing tactile about music that, like a concrete sculpture, will survive to be meaningful, if that's even a thing in ten or twenty years. Everything comes to an end.

Like the family dog that died, life moves on and, aside from the random pic or story, what's gone is gone. The Rolling Stones, AC/DC, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd - even The Beatles - all the important rock bands/artists will be forgotten quite soon.

Rightfully so. If the next few generations don't care then there's no point in talking about it to/with them.

For me the "legacy" extends to 1989 and the big return, after which time it's as previously mentioned...lots of touring and a few albums, the end.

As others have said, I too think there's plenty to love post 1989, but for the history books and the average music fan....it's lots of touring and a few albums.

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
DandelionPowderman


Their string of mega hits between 1965 and 1968 may be an even bigger part of their legacy.

And 1969 doesn't count? Methinks that "Honky Tonk Women" was pretty mega, too!

He mentioned 1968-1972.

Quote
GasLightStreet
Post-1981 songs performed live without or post-new LP tour, from 1989-2024. Songs in bold on HONK performed in 2019 with HONK being recently released, of which the number of 1971-2016 songs performed live from the compilation varied, with 10 being the most:

Undercover Of The Night
She Was Hot
Wanna Hold You
One Hit...
Harlem Shuffle
Sad Sad Sad
Mixed Emotions
Rock And A Hard Place
Slipping Away
You Got Me Rocking
The Worst
Thru And Thru
Out Of Control
You Don't Have To Mean It
Thief In The Night
Doom And Gloom
Ride 'Em On Down

Considering the bulk of the set list is 1964-1981, with song numbers for the 60s, 70s and 80-81 varying greatly in amounts per show, the one album they have not performed anything from post-2007, as far as I've seen, is A BIGGER BANG, as well as Don't Stop.

Some of those, like Harlem Shuffle, were performed once on two tours. Some were performed a couple times, Sad Sad Sad, during a tour. The most often performed are/were You Got Me Rocking and Out Of Control.

So, technically, they don't ignore post-1981, they kind of acknowledge it here and there. Essentially out of all of those, the most played, add You Got Me Rocking and Out Of Control to JUMP BACK and that sums it up the post-REWIND era.

In regard to 1964-1981 none of those will ever achieve the set list status of Start Me Up, their newest song from 1964-1981 to be performed live the most.

Which probably happens for all bands/artists.

Given the span of their career and the popularity of the 1964-1981 songs it's probably bordering on 'amazing' that they do play anything post-1981, even though there have been very few shows when they did not.

They probably could've done an entire tour "recently" without playing anything post-1981 and no one would've noticed - for which the 1981-82 tours is a perfect example- a couple more songs from the 60s or 70s, or 1980, were played instead.

Is it fitting that REWIND came out not quite 2 months past 20 years since their first album? Perhaps in hind site. It was a contract fulfillment. Considering the strangeness after that in regard to the amount of new albums, sans live, that came out they really slowed down and then crawled to a halt.

Perhaps their legacy will somehow be more remembered for the touring they did between 1989 and 2024 than the minuscule amount of albums they released.

You can add Streets of Love, Saint of Me, Brand New Car, Love is Strong and Moon Is Up to that list.

Re their live legacy, they may have got more "professional" 89 onwards, but it was the looseness, the rawness, the swing, combined with their presence, persona and actual look, of say 69 thro 82, that their "live" legacy was created.

Every tour looked different. Every tour sounded different.

Something was added. Something was taken away. There was edge. There was danger.

I sometimes cant tell the difference between one post 89 tour and another.

I'm not criticising the band, I'm just saying that their "live" rock n roll reputation and legacy was built off those 69-82 tours.