At the end of which tour or album would have been an optimal time for the Stones to retire, if they had done so?

1981/tattoo you..........ok, the can 'o worms is open for all to partake

I'd say when Ian Stewart died in December 1985.

yes, after 81/82. at least they shouldve stopped making albums after undercover, nothing but crap ever since.

I believe they were at their zenith with the Steel Wheels/Urban Jungle tour.

well despite my many misgivings about what they stand for these days, I'm glad they're still around. Without any question.

But if pushed to say so - after the BTB tour would have seen them bow out on top with their reputation intact as the commercialism and greed (whilst its long been there) didnt really overtake the music for me until 1998/99, and the nostalgia angle was less prevalent than it is now

That said, I loved the Licks tour. I think they raised the bar to a new level with the innovation of the varied setlists and 3 types of show concept. It overrode the concerns that they were touring behind a greatest hits record. So, it would certainly have been a shame to have missed that one.

Plus, I really like "A Bigger Bang"...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-02-03 01:53 by Gazza.

After the Conclusion of SteelWheels/Urban jungle tour would have been a good time they actually played better in 89 than in 81/82

Gazza makes a very valid point on the Licks tour. No other band, before, pulled off such a masterful tour of stadiums, arenas and clubs, nor are we likely to ever see it again.

Pedro99 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> After the Conclusion of SteelWheels/Urban jungle
> tour would have been a good time they actually
> played better in 89 than in 81/82
matt clifford fan?

What? Do you people REALLy wish that they would have quit some years ago? So their albums and concerts may not be as hot as 25 years ago, but being a fan of the Beatles and Led Zep also, I'm thankful for any music or concert that the Stones perform. They still beat the shit out of most any other band playing today and they're in their 60's!!!!! At least they still make great new music. Chuck Berry still plays but hasn't written anything in 45 years! ( My ding-a-ling only BARELY counts, haha)

I love the Stones as much as anyone, but at some point I fear they will embarrass themselves. They are not a group of old bluesmen on Beale street.

DrPete Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What? Do you people REALLy wish that they would
> have quit some years ago? So their albums and
> concerts may not be as hot as 25 years ago, but
> being a fan of the Beatles and Led Zep also, I'm
> thankful for any music or concert that the Stones
> perform. They still beat the shit out of most any
> other band playing today and they're in their
> 60's!!!!!

I answered the question IF they had retired earlier.
I saw them for the first time in 1990. And I've been to every tour after, and they are amazing.
And I completely agree to the licks tour comment by Gazza. Not only the settings and the setlist, but also the playing. The Stockholm shows I saw in 2003 was the best I've seen them do. Of course I'm VERY happy to see them keeping on keeping on.

I think the LICKS tour would've been good to go out with. Great tour with lots of rarities, a celebration of the greatest band ever. Instead, they had to cash in one last time and leave a bad taste in alot of true fans mouths. Corporate greed taken to its furthest. Boring, uninspired clock-punching. The Juliard press conference was the first time I'd ever watched them and thought, "they look old and bored and tired. They've run their course." Sad

Most of you people are jokes they should keep going as long as there enjoying it they are no where near embaesing themselves they still put on better concerts then anyony else in the world why do you think there still the #1 concert ticket world wide because there ain't no one near as good as them past present or future.

DrPete Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What? Do you people REALLy wish that they would
> have quit some years ago?

DrPete...in hindsight, No.....but after Tatoo you/'81 tour i lost interest in the Stones as a studio band.....at that time i was more into the Ramones, The Replacements, The Sex Pistols, etc......of course, The Stones are always #1 in my book.....but i remember at that time how "un-vital" they had become in the studio....and the 7-8 year live "hibernation period" didn't help matters....then the live shows became to "slick" for my taste.....course i always put their prime work on top of the heap...after all, they are the Heavyweight champs of Rock'N'Roll....and there were all of those great live bootlegged documents of their past to keep me going

Leonard, I agree in the sense that those bands did make new and vital music. I'm a HUGE fan of every band you named!! And I still would prefer a live show with just the band, Bobby Keys, and Stu ( I guess Ian Mac. since he's still alive). I do still find their new material very exciting, especially ABB which I've played more than SW, VL, and Babylan combined.

DrPete Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Leonard, I agree in the sense that those bands did
> make new and vital music. I'm a HUGE fan of every
> band you named!! And I still would prefer a live
> show with just the band, Bobby Keys, and Stu ( I
> guess Ian Mac. since he's still alive). I do still
> find their new material very exciting, especially
> ABB which I've played more than SW, VL, and
> Babylan combined.


Doc.....when Voodoo Lounge came out in '94, then i got re-interested in the Stones studio work......went to a Voodoo show....then Babylon set me back in the interest dept.....now the explosion of the "Bang" did it again for me as well.....saw my first Stones show since the Voodoo tour.....the Stones remind me of Muhammed Ali.....kept coming back to win the title even though his skills had eroded........amazing!!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-02-03 02:31 by Leonard Keringer.

Glad to have you back in the fold Leonard!!!!

Isee it like Gazza. I am totally happy they are still around. I like it just the way it is. Keeps us busy.
We can all be proud they are withstanding it all: death, divorce, disco, drugs etc. Of course I think I shouyld be the one scripting the storyline and come up with the perfect ending, but hiw boring would that be?

"...no longer shall you trudge 'cross my peaceful mind."

ChelseaDrugstore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Isee it like Gazza. I am totally happy they are
> still around. I like it just the way it is. Keeps
> us busy.
> We can all be proud they are withstanding it all:
> death, divorce, disco, drugs etc. Of course I
> think I shouyld be the one scripting the storyline
> and come up with the perfect ending, but hiw
> boring would that be?
>
> Three Princes of Peace: JFK, RFK and MLK.
> Three Princes of Peace: John Lennon, Bob Marley
> and Marvin Gaye


i'm curious to hear your Stones perfect ending Chelseadrugstore.....from reading your writings on Classical music, i really want to hear it



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-02-03 02:37 by Leonard Keringer.

Chelsea, didn't Marvin Gaye have a violent streak and smack his woman and family around when doing coke? Peaceful, indeed!

DrPete Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Chelsea, didn't Marvin Gaye have a violent streak
> and smack his woman and family around when doing
> coke? Peaceful, indeed!


guess it ran in the family...i.e. Marvin's homicidal dad

Supposedly a coked out Marvin tried to attack dad and got his comeuppance!!

DrPete Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Supposedly a coked out Marvin tried to attack dad
> and got his comeuppance!!


which reminds me to never confuse the artist with the real person

DrPete Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Supposedly a coked out Marvin tried to attack dad
> and got his comeuppance!!


Indeed. He "heard it through the carbine"....

If you would like them to stop at there top then it could be '73 or '81.
BUT, then people would say, "yeah the stones rocked back in the days but could they have pulled of shows like U2 are putting out now????"

I think it is very difficult to say what there top was. You could say in '73, you could say in '82, you could say in '90, you could say in '99 and you could say in '03 or '06. It is to difficult to judge what year would be the best historican speaking. If it was '73 then everybody would say they were awesome in there time BUT could they withstood the time and still be releveant in '78 or '81 or even '94. Then again you could say theb same if they stopped in '82 or maybe '90 or even '95 and '99 and '03.

IMHO they topped themselves when they "came back" in '89 and then in '94 and '97. Maybe not musicly but performance wise they sure did. Then in '02 they topped themselves with there tour concept of a three different type of concerts. Unheard of in the music business!!!!!

So in conclusion, they have always topped themselves on every tour. On one tour it has been music wise and on the other tour it has been performance wise or in attendence.

Maybe there top in music was a lot of years ago but i'm a hell of a lot thankfull that they are still around because other wise i would not have seen them live and i think that goes for thousands, maybe millions of people!!!!

Cheers,
Wuudy

Retire and do what? WHat is Jimmy Page doing? How about Pete Townshend or Daltry? Jeff BecK? There's a long list. I'm sure soemone will name a bucnh of stuff each of these guys has done lately- and they are all GREAT don't get me wrong. But who teh heck under 40 knows who they are?

Back to the question.

After Some Girls and 78 the STones were back on top.

1981- last Great studio album- sorry ABB is not all that good no matter how much we all want it to be.

1989- really a big comeback tour after missing the every-3yr tour.

Licks Tours- Great Show.

JUst when you think they can't out-do themselfs they pull off soemthing great.

I'm still hoping for a miricle- Keep Ronnie but bring back Bill and MT to join the band and do a WE REALLY MEAN IT THIS IS THE LAST TIME TOUR- there is nothing else left to do. AND Empty the vaults with a monster mega CD: Live 72/73,live 78 Unreleased studio stuff, you name it.

Then -its over.

don't give me that ole one two, one two three four

Well, Doctor Pete, this is a quote from a Livealbum by James Brown. I could be putting it up there because I want to draw attention to the lies it propagates. Or I could be worshipping at the altar.
Are you are real Doctor?


"...no longer shall you trudge 'cross my peaceful mind."

They was close to break up in 86, when Mick did his solo records and turned up at the live aid consert and made a well rehersed show with Tina Turner and Hall and Oats. Stones was invited to perform but Mick refused.Keith an Ron entered the stage 15 minutes after Mick and made a bad show with Bob Dylan in front of a billion TV wiewers. But anyway something god happened, they understand that it was important to work with other musicans. And Live Aid was where they got the idea to call the next album Dirty Work. So 1986 was the year they was near the end.

stein Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They was close to break up in 86, when Mick did
> his solo records and turned up at the live aid
> consert and made a well rehersed show with Tina
> Turner and Hall and Oats. Stones was invited to
> perform but Mick refused.Keith an Ron entered the
> stage 15 minutes after Mick and made a bad show
> with Bob Dylan in front of a billion TV wiewers.
> But anyway something god happened, they understand
> that it was important to work with other musicans.
> And Live Aid was where they got the idea to call
> the next album Dirty Work. So 1986 was the year
> they was near the end.


Great point and I believe it was out of this era that they transitioned into a new season in their career--one which has defined concert performances of many who followed.