Bill Wyman turns 70 in October.

Charlie turns 65

Mick & Keith turn 63 this summer

how many tours are left in them 1 maybe 2 at the most. Maybe none? Unless they find the aging gene the era of the big stadium shows is near the end.

Maybe they will wind up playing in places where it all started, clubs and small halls. It is what it is. It is extremely difficult to maintain a schedule like that at that age. They all have a lot of wear and tear on their bodys. That is the difference. Just look at their faces. Keith looks like a wreck.

I hope they continue to make music and tour, we all love them and idolize them so enjoy it now baby.

why did you mention bill, hes not in the band anymore.

He is still a Stone and you never know...

Death and serious illness will catch up with them....

hes NOT "still a Stone"

you dont think that the fact that the guy is scared shitless of flying wouldnt be a factor?

Unless its in the UK, forget Bill

Health is a more significant factor than age. Two of the band have had life threatening illnesses prior to this tour. Fortunately, one of them seems to have the all-clear. I wish I was so confident about the long term prognosis for the other one. I also think Keith's arthritis will be a major factor sooner rather than later

Hope I'm wrong.

As far as size of venues are concerned, I dont think it'll ever go back to playing small venues exclusively, I dont think their egos would allow it.

x



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-08 01:38 by Beelyboy.

age already has caught up to them - they can't play for more than two hours.

Well Mick will live to 100 - his med check up charts and tests probably look like a 20 yr olds. If Keith and Ronnie are starting to not control their guitar playing to well that's a bad sign. Charlie? Could go either way. So far so good on this tour. Sounds like he's drumming up a storm. Keith and Ronnie are the ones to watch IMO....

x



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-08 01:38 by Beelyboy.

Have you taken a closer look at Mick too?

x



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-08 01:38 by Beelyboy.

Bill may be "retired" but he will always be a Stone whether he is rolling or not.

He was there for EVERYTHING. Everything stands the 60's, 70's, & 80's.

They will ulitmately turn into a great bit-more-laid-back R&B band - their roots, but always have some Mick/edge on any performance (even if they live another 20 years!) . . . .they will be our generation's - Muddy Waters, BB King, John Lee Hooker. . .etc. Yet they will ALWAYS be about true rock, unique, the STONES, plain & simple.

Mick at 80 w/ a harmonica being lean & trim. . .rockin' out - of course! Sorry Elvis - Mick's the KING

You gotta move. . . .you gotta move

Mick's face may look his age but any dude that can move like that for 2 hours straight at 62.5 yrs. old has got to be in tip top shape (plus his Dad is still alive and his Mom died a couple years ago in her 80's that's some good genes)

x



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-08 01:37 by Beelyboy.

Agreed, but the man has a lot of wear and tear too.

Beelyboy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> mick's dad is passed


I think you'll need to tell Mick about that, mate as he's still under the impression Joe is alive.

When did Mick's dad die? He's in "Being Mick" which was only about a year ago now. Still to make it to 60 with both parents, not bad. Yeah Sicilian, he does a have a lot of wear and tear but still man, great cardo system. He's gotta stick around to watch those 20+ kids grow up....

Beelyboy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jesus r u proctologists or rock fans?


you can be both

As far as Im aware, you can also be a rock fan and be aware of mortality and the ageing process.

I think I'm being realistic. If you dont think one band member having throat cancer and another having to quit both drinking and smoking because hes at the serious risk of irreperable damage to his liver and has been warned that he was on the verge of contracting emphysema which could kill him in a year is a significant issue regarding the band's long term future, I dont know what is.

Its remarkable that all four of these guys are still intact as a band and in a few cases, that some of them are not only still around, but still able to play. Look at any other act you care to name (even bands that have split up) and you'll find very few that have four members still alive in their 60's/late 50s

Sadly, it wont always be that way. Time to face up to that.

MicksBrain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When did Mick's dad die? He's in "Being Mick"
> which was only about a year ago now. Still to make
> it to 60 with both parents, not bad. Yeah
> Sicilian, he does a have a lot of wear and tear
> but still man, great cardo system. He's gotta
> stick around to watch those 20+ kids grow up....


Joe Jagger is still alive (he was also at Buckingham Palace with Mick in December 2003 when Mick got his knighthood). Mick's mum died 6 years ago ("Being Mick" was actually broadcast in November 2001)

Maybe beely is thinking of Keith. Bert died 6 years or so ago, but his mum Doris is still alive.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-03-06 06:06 by Gazza.

x



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-08 01:54 by Beelyboy.

6 years? Wow, doesn't seem that long but yeah, thinking back it could be. I thought his dad was still here or Rolling Stone Mag would have had a half page on it since Jann seens to be a good friend of Jaggers and gives all thing Stones a lot of ink in his magazine. If I had to bet I'd say Keith goes first, he just looks SO bad (but you never know)

x



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-08 01:54 by Beelyboy.

x



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-08 01:54 by Beelyboy.

The Sicilian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Bill Wyman turns 70 in October.
>
> Charlie turns 65
>
> Mick & Keith turn 63 this summer
>
Don't think you're quite correct there. If I'm not mistaken, Jagger/Richard were born in 1941, Wyman/Watts in 1941, and Wood in 1948. That wouldn't make Bill nearly 70. Also, I think Mick's birthday is in the summer, Keith's in December. Don't know about Charlie/Bill/Ronnie, the birthday month I mean.

But they're getting on up there, that's for sure.

Bill Wyman was born at 11.25pm, on 24th October 1936. So, yes he will be 70 this year.

nikkibong Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> age already has caught up to them - they can't
> play for more than two hours.

Just ridicilous. 95% of the people on this board wouldnt
keep up with the Stones tempo on stage (if not 98%).
On the other hand, this id the first tour with pause.
So some core of truth is in Nikki´s statement.
Still; not many 62-63 year olds in this world would keep
of with them.

turd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bill Wyman was born at 11.25pm, on 24th October
> 1936. So, yes he will be 70 this year.

Good God that's VERY precise. Well, I'm happy to take your word for it, I obviously stand to be corrected. I blame it on the book in that case, cos' that was where I got the idea that 2 were born in '41 and 2 in '43. It was probably one of these unauthorised biographies that (surprise surprise) are riddled with inaccuracies.

Quoted from the book itself - 'Stone Alone', if Bill doesn't know when he was born, then nobody does.
It's quite a good read, he's the only Stone to have done a biog and the only one probably who cares about details and accuracy - so although I wouldn't say it's unbiased, it gives a good insight into the main events.

Ron & Charlie were born 1st & 2nd June donnow which one when;
but Rockman shares berfaday with one of ' em.