Re: Had the Stones retired earlier, when would that have been?
Date: February 3, 2006 03:01
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