Lukester Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> StonesTod Wrote:
> Poor Tod - you know... they say the memory is
> the SECOND thing to go.
>
> > i know....eyesight deserted me years ago....
>
>
>
> was she talking about eyesight?

i can't imagine what else she could have been referring to....

As long as 81 year old diabetic BB King and 80 year old Chuck Berry keep touring, the Stones are still young performers out there touring. They just need to have better planned tours that don't put them outdoors in freezing weather.

....and Jerry Lee Lewis and Willy Nelson are still touring. They are up there in years.

sweet neo con Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Slightly on topic: hello CindyC

Hello there! R U in for tonight?

sweet neo con Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Slightly off topic: We in the USA pay $160-$450
> US dollars per ticket to see the Stones. Is this
> comparable to other countries? Do they pay the
> equivalent in Puerto Rico, Austria, Portugal,
> Denmark and every other place around the globe?



Yes, When they toured in mexico tickets were around 300 dollars not pesos..When the stones toured india, i believe they lowered the prodution cost so they could lower the ticket price...


Unless the stones drop the $450.00 price for a ticket.. I just dont see people paying for them year after year, i think they learned their lesson this time around, Dodger Stadium, Seattle, Oakland and a few good examples.

CindyC wrote: "Hello there! R U in for tonight?"
************************

hmmmm...........RU?

You mean the Beacon show? Is it tonight? To be honest I'm confused with all the cancelling...i think i saw something that said Nov. 17. Don't know what to believe.

No..won't be at the Beacon tonight.

sweet neo con Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
i think i saw something that said Nov. 17. Don't
> know what to believe.


Well hear me now and believe me later - the show will be tonight, it has to be, or, or..... or i'll be a very sad girl.

Thanks, jagger50 and BBro!

You dudes can choose who ya like
BUT this cats stickin' with the Stones.......


Blenders Barbershop Quartet, Norfolk Virginia....


Rolling Stones Beacon Theatre NYC - 29th October 2006 - Photo by Beast



ROCKMAN

It's not that I'll like them to stop. I would just like to see them grow old gracefully: Do a few more great albums and do shorter exclusive tours. Then it would be a nice and great end to the greatest r'n'r band ever!

Growing old gracefully is an oxymoron. You grow old how nature and selection dictate, and if you have any say in how far something droops, then by all means have your say.

The Stones are here to stay, and then can do whatever the f_uck they want. They've got the chops, and that's what matters.

Hey Rockman, is that Mutton Chop Murray on the far right? That guy still owes me money from the time I gave him a ride to the Norfolk Greyhound depot. Where is he now?

Jumpin'JackFrash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Growing old gracefully is an oxymoron.

exactly. pete townsend told them whatever you do, don't try to grow old gracefully, it wouldn't suit you.

They should stick to that plan, even if Peter is changing his tune as of late.

I hope they tour until they physically drop dead on stage. That's the way a real rock band ends.

No Lukester its .......Jim Eads (Tenor)



ROCKMAN

Yes. They should wrap it up so we could all spend our money on cheap beer on holiday in Tenerife or Florida. Much better indeed.

Bjornulf

oh Jim Eads.....I hear he's good!!

old....and in the way??.......no..... just old ...and tired.....and sick of it........and BS like the crap on this board....let them die...thats what they want.....really .......you don't think so?.....really?......then you are pathetic....... harsh but true----LET THEM GO FOR GOD'S SAKE!!!!! YOU ARE ALL SCARING THE !@#$#%^&& OUT OF ME -----THEY ARE @$# YEARS OLD!!!!!---imagine your great-grandfather on stage playing satisfaction---GROSS!!!!!.......lets bve happy we had them this long.......but of course you won't ----LET THE ATTACKS BEGIN!!!!

they're absolutely not too old.......it's already been repeated here.......they need to re-adjust their touring schedule to work best for them (health wise) at this stage in their lives...........somebody said it earlier.....they bit off more than they could chew...............when they're healthy on a good night.........we all know they're untouchable



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-11-02 01:53 by Leonard Keringer.

lazy-slob wrote :

(A) "I'm sorry to write this. The Stones are as usual rolling, but this tour have been an endless stream of cancelled and rescheduled shows. It's seriously beginning to show that they are getting too old physically for this."

Does your conclusion include Keith accidents, as results of their age? OK. So what about 1998? Then the Stones had:

- FOUR gigs postponed due to Mick's illness (Syracuse, Toronto, Quebec, Bilbao). Atleast four, maybe i forget something more.
- ONE gig postponed first until a new date due to Keith's injury, then until a second date due to Mick's illness, later canceled (Milan)
- SIX gigs postponed due to Keith's injury (Berlin, Munich, Gelsenkirchen, Zagreb, Barcelona, Manheim, )

BTW, in 1998 the Stones had too:

- FOUR canceled gigs due to slow ticket sales. One in Spain (Gijion), three in France (Lyon, Marseilles, Stade De France 1). Football World Cup took place in France, then. Then the Stones did only one (out four) gig in France. The situation in Germany 2006, despite the moaning, was clearly better,,,

- FOUR UK gigs postponed due to tax reasons (Edinburgh, 2 Wemblay, Sheffieled)

So, by your logic, now the Stones are a bit ...younger than 1998! I hope you take my point...

( "A Bigger Bang has been a triumph as usual..."

Yes. Once again, great performances, high level of energy, some songs "unusual" or played first time, enthousiastic crowds. And big audiences, of course. Hmmm...Despite the monotonous pesimistic nagging of MichnSteven (sorry MichnSteven...), who judges the success - as for attendance- of a tour that attracts millions of people by what? By three- four gigs, on the last american tour's leg in cities the Stones played recently 3-4 times... God...

(C) "But they have to look on the facts that they can't handle touring for a-year-and-a-half anymore."

Time waits for noone, indeed. But they can offer us great concerts in 2007 too. After this, who knows...As for 2007 i think they need just longer breaks between the concerts. One gig every 4 days, not two or three. More time, more breaths. And time enough for Mick to recover from his usual laryngitis until the next show...

bv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes. They should wrap it up so we could all spend
> our money on cheap beer on holiday in Tenerife or
> Florida. Much better indeed.

OH BV it is not like you to be cynical like the rest of us. You are the one who ususally keeps the faith and keeps the rest of us in line. I may bitch and moan, but I am spending my money on THREE stadium shows on the rest of the tour.
Thanks for the New York updates, and I hope you make it out here to join us laid back west coasters for a big(er bang) finish to the tour.

"It's just some friends of mine and they're busting down the door"

CindyC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If I had to chose between the Rolling Stones
> completely retiring from touring - or having them
> tour and possibly cancelling a few shows due to
> illness/fatigue - then I choose the latter.
> Hands down.


It's not a few shows, it's a lot of shows. They are indeed getting too old for this.

It is my hope that when you reach your sixties you will throw in the towel. If you want to stick by what you say, I hope you practice what you preach

it's_all_wrong Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CindyC Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If I had to chose between the Rolling Stones
> > completely retiring from touring - or having
> them
> > tour and possibly cancelling a few shows due to
> > illness/fatigue - then I choose the latter.
> > Hands down.
>
>
> It's not a few shows, it's a lot of shows. They
> are indeed getting too old for this.

When compared to all the shows they have done on this tour, the numeber missed is not that many, so tehy can be considered a few shows.

they have had bad luck(mostly keiths fall)micks voice problems could happen to anyone(he gives it his all every night).i do agree though,shorter tours make more sense it would give the band and our wallets a needed break.also mostly arena shows would help.

john scialfa

You know what...yeah, we all know.... they, and the rest of us, are getting old...tell us something we don't know! All the postponed shows are a drag - and I feel really bad for the fans in Hawaii.

However, the Stones still play everyone else off the stage. Their set was smokin' at Giant's stadium, and Midnight Rambler and Far Away Eyes were totally killer that night. The shows I saw in Baltimore and Hershey only one year ago were, again, among the best i've ever seen of ANYBODY!!

Bottom Line: I can't wait for the rescheduled AC show. Stones can rock and roll anytime they feel like it...they're still the best! you should be glad they're still around...once they're done - you'll miss 'em...

RUBBISH!!!!

They are still rocking hard, and putting a lot of heart and sould into their art.

Shit man BB King still tours and he is in his late 70's!


ROLL ON STONES!

.... you delivered a very strong message rockman with how you splashed out those two photos together,, good one

I think the Stones should only tour when it's summer, or at least fire Michael Cohl. They definitely can go on, but they are getting too old to be playing outside in winter weather, or to be doing so many shows in a row.