michrud Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> GUYS!!! They are NOT quitting! Rolling Stones for
> ever!! They can't stop.

Well I guess it would be better to stop now, than say in 3-4-5 years time. Perhaps they won't be able to deliver then. Then they wouldn't go out with a bang, but sadly just fade away. I hope this won't happen.

svendborg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> michrud Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > GUYS!!! They are NOT quitting! Rolling Stones
> for
> > ever!! They can't stop.
>
> Well I guess it would be better to stop now, than
> say in 3-4-5 years time. Perhaps they won't be
> able to deliver then. Then they wouldn't go out
> with a bang, but sadly just fade away. I hope this
> won't happen.

Agree! They'll just humiliate themselves!

Who can seriously imagine The Stones saying Monday morning : Thanks for all, we now quit. Non-sense. Let them come back on earth after 2 harrasing years travelling all around the globe. Don't ask more than before.

phd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Who can seriously imagine The Stones saying Monday
> morning : Thanks for all, we now quit. Non-sense.
> Let them come back on earth after 2 harrasing
> years travelling all around the globe. Don't ask
> more than before.

Well really don't expect them to tell monday morning.

That was an image. What I deeply meant is who could imagine Mick and Keith living without The Stones. And Charlie : he looks so happy behind his drums looking after Mick or Keith. They know that what they are doing now is unique.
Their roots are R&B.

The reason is clear why there has been no official confirmation of this being their last world tour. It's because those of us attending on Sunday could command a king's ransom starting from 5,000 dollars and up for our tickets. There is no way that Jagger and Cohl are going to let someone make more money off them than they make off us.

Wait for Monday/Tuesday. There will be all sorts of confirmations that they are finished touring.

This is about the 100th thread on this topic. I think we all know that this is probably the last large scale world tour of this type -- the reality of their ages virtually dictates it. But that doesn't mean they stop touring.

I don't care if they need canes to get on stage, you could put four barstools out on a small stage, and they could friggn sit there for an entire set of acoustic blues and ballads (Prodigal Son, You Gotta Move, You Got the Silver, Love in Vain, Angie, Wild Horses, etc.) and I would fly halfway around the world to see em.

There have been speculations about Stones stopping since early sixties.... so no big news.... there will always be speculations.....

In one year or two they will back - it is their life, like Keith has said: I will continue playing unitl I drop.

bumbum Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> In one year or two they will back - it is their
> life, like Keith has said: I will continue playing
> unitl I drop.

Off course he says that...all part of his legend ;-)

Well, they can´t stop before Chuck Berry, can they?

Svartmer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, they can´t stop before Chuck Berry, can
> they?

Sure they can...it's a different kind of ballgame they're doing. Don't want to see a 81 year old Mick Jagger trying to be what he used to be.

svendborg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Svartmer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Well, they can´t stop before Chuck Berry, can
> > they?
>
> Sure they can...it's a different kind of ballgame
> they're doing. Don't want to see a 81 year old
> Mick Jagger trying to be what he used to be.

I know, just joking

they're going out with a big bang. self explanatory.

*********************************
And the queen is bravely shouting,
"What the hell is going on?"

Svartmer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I know, just joking

Yeah :-)
But I'm going to a see Chuck in november, don't expect anything, but will see the godfather of rock'n'roll before it's too late :-)

I don't understand why they continue to tour anyway. Why not just do a residency at let's say Royal Albert Hall for like 2-4 weeks and let the fans come to them? This way we get Wyman back who hated the plane travel.

oh no,not this again!!!!!!!!!!!after seeing them in brno it was great but i had to see them one more time so,off we went to hamburg wow they were on FIRE!!!!!i was 3 meters from the small stage right in front they all looked me in the eyes and smiled,last time oh no i dont think so not after that

mikey C Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> oh no,not this again!!!!!!!!!!!after seeing them
> in brno it was great but i had to see them one
> more time so,off we went to hamburg wow they were
> on FIRE!!!!!i was 3 meters from the small stage
> right in front they all looked me in the eyes and
> smiled,last time oh no i dont think so not after
> that

Well maybe they want to stop while they're still on fire, as you put it.
They've done great for the past 3 or 4 weeks, but everyone seems to have forgotten all the bad reviews for the first month of the tour.
Don't want them to go out there in 2 or 3 years time getting bad reviews all over and playing for half empty stadiums. Mind you someday that'll happen and then they won't be the greatest band, but a parody of what they were.

hope this is not true, but if it is then maybe the vaults will open soon

melillo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> hope this is not true, but if it is then maybe the
> vaults will open soon


Hopefully, it's long overdue :-)

and when is keith going to release that raggae record he's been working on for 25 years?it's like cbs with dylan finally get the good bootlegs out with the best quality.i have a stones show from 1973 europe brillant so much out there.like the raggge version of start me up its 10 minutes long real cool.

touring is in their blood,no wonder after 2 years on the road they play so well
more tours to come. START saving up and get your yas yas out.Long live the
STONES.KISH.

If they really stop touring it's the end of a great era.
I often critize they setlist, but they have done hundreds of great shows since 1989, not to speak of the time before.
If the rumours are true, it's really sad, I just saw a tv programme about Sinatra's last performance in Fukuoka, the band and the crew were not told it was the last time, but everybody knew, the Stones should quit touring before it ends that way.

Hanns Rainsch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If they really stop touring it's the end of a
> great era.
> I often critize they setlist, but they have done
> hundreds of great shows since 1989, not to speak
> of the time before.
> If the rumours are true, it's really sad, I just
> saw a tv programme about Sinatra's last
> performance in Fukuoka, the band and the crew were
> not told it was the last time, but everybody knew,
> the Stones should quit touring before it ends that
> way.

Absolutely. I would love them to continue for a long while, but I'm afraid they will decline and harm their legacy, that's why I really want them to pack it in soon.

Heres my two cents. Nothing Earth shattering here, but heres what I think.
Its not much of a stretch to assume this might be it, but from what ive heard which is "Someone from the band says therye gunna stop, because their old" im not convinced of it yet. Thats really vauge. anyone can tell you that already.

I think it could possibly be a situation like after undercover (without the fighting) where Keith wants to tour again and Mick doesn't.

ryanpow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I think it could possibly be a situation like
> after undercover (without the fighting) where
> Keith wants to tour again and Mick doesn't.

Well it's Mick that has to do all the workouts etc. to keep in shape, so who knows :-)

Article from the Telegraph - case for the defence, case for the prosecution - be sure and add your comments!


[www.telegraph.co.uk]

Rolling Stones: Should the Stones jack it in?
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 23/08/2007Page 1 of 3



After more than 40 years, the wrinkly rockers are still at it. Two Telegraph writers debate whether it's time to stop

YES says Lesley Thomas:

You've got to hand it to them – a combined age of 253 and still able to jump around stages like McFly. The trouble is, we’ve been handing it to the Rolling Stones – this award for being able to tour around the world with sellout shows – for about 20 years now.


The Rolling Stones are the oldest swingers in town
There are a thousand polite ways to put this, but the trouble with the Stones is that they are so old. They are so old that even jokes about them being old are old. They haven’t been called the Strolling Bones for about 10 years.

It’s important to fight the tyranny of youth in our culture, but for the Stones it may be counterproductive. Couldn’t someone younger fight it? Someone merely pushing 50? Prince, perhaps, or even Bono.

I saw the Stones on stage on Tuesday night and I speak as a fan (Mum used to play their records) when I say that I hope this is their last tour. If they want to be remembered as the greatest rock band of all time – and this is difficult to dispute – they need to hang up their drainpipes now.

Their songs have stood time’s test. Jagger can still dance. Charlie Watts still artfully keeps time. Wood’s and Richards’s solos are still jaw-dropping. Yet, in 2007, what impresses most about them is that they are still going.

The Kooks, a supporting act on Tuesday and stars of the indie scene, are young enough to be their grandchildren. The audience, bless them, a sea of grey heads in those “lick” T-shirts, wouldn’t know a Kook if one tried to help them cross the road.

Watching Jagger fill the stage with his trademark arm-waving, jiggling his bony little bottom, you can see he takes his health and fitness seriously. His body and posture speak of macrobiotic diets, armies of personal trainers, ginseng, goji berries and whatever it is that keeps his hair so ludicrously abundant. Jagger, I believe, is some kind of human anomaly and really could keep going until he pops his cowboy boots.

But what about the others? Poor old Keith Richards – or Jack Sparrow’s dad as younger people know him and a man we instinctively love just for managing still to be alive – shuffled on to the stage looking like a hunched old man going to a fancy-dress party. As Keith Richards. His hair dyed and backcombed to within an inch of its life, his eyes so small only his signature black guyliner gave a clue to their existence.

Jo Wood, Ronnie’s wife, could be seen backstage with a rail of clean tops for Ronnie to change into between numbers. I’m sure it had nothing to do with Jagger’s legendary tightfistedness that this wasn’t a salaried person’s role: when you get to 60 – Ronnie is the baby of the band – only the missus knows exactly how you like your cropped tops and ripped T-shirts to be pressed.

Watts looked quite the rebel with his undyed hair and sixtysomething dress code. When my daughter asked me what I got up to on Tuesday night, I told her I’d been to see a band from the olden days that granny used to like.

Being the oldest swingers in town is already the Stones’ legacy for two generations of rock fans. If they go for a hat trick, they will be remembered for little else.



NO says Andrew Perry:

One thing's certain: the Stones are old enough to defend their corner. Mick Jagger, 64, and Keith Richards, 63, have been fielding accusations that they're too superannuated to rock and roll ever since I can remember.

I was born on the day Get Off of My Cloud went to number one, and fell for their charms circa 1981's Tattoo You. By that time, the most earth-shattering entries in their song-book had all been written.

Since then, their work has essentially been to broadcast that repertoire globally from the live stage. Having missed their early days at the Crawdaddy club and their Hyde Park gig in 1969, I feel fortunate at least to have witnessed them in action in later years - most recently, two days ago, in the comparatively bijou setting of the O2 Arena.

On a purely business level, the Stones' continued existence is simple to justify: their tours make more money than anybody else's.

The "creative" case against the Stones is generally made by people who haven't seen them perform for years, if at all. It is unlikely any paying customer can have left Greenwich dissatisfied on Tuesday. Even at £150 a ticket, the Stones are terrific value. In the flesh, their music is impossible to resist.

Jagger is the master of the stadium, but, at the O2, freed of his usual atheletic duties - sprinting along 100-yard runways and so on - he proved what a peerless and committed vocalist he is. Often stigmatised for the studied indifference of his youth, he palpably put everything into his singing.

During Rocks Off - the song from 1972's Exile on Main Street that pretty much epitomises that insouciance - it dawned on me just how good he is: appearing effortless, channelling all the attitude and sexuality and freedom that the Stones embody, and yet hardly ever hitting a bum note. Musically, physically, he's in fabulous shape.

Lately, there have been ructions, most acutely after Richards barrelled on stage plastered in Helsinki, and Jagger had to rescue him from falling into the crowd. But the tension between Jagger's poise and Richards's abandonment creates the band's energy and in-fighting means there are things to fight for.

The weary accusation that the Stones are merely going through the motions is ludicrous. Tuesday's set included Can't You Hear Me Knockin', replete with an extended exploration of its jazzy coda, as well as the most urgent version of Satisfaction that this writer has ever heard. Their music is still risky, edgy, very much a living organism.

During Tumbling Dice, Richards - the fans' favourite, who received a standing ovation for lighting up a cigarette (he probably didn't even know about the smoking ban) - delivered a solo possibly from another song, or maybe another galaxy. It sounded amazing. He's still way out there.

Their recent disagreements may have thrown their future into question, but, in the here and now, the Stones remain simply unbeatable.

One thing's for certain: the Rolling Stones are old enough to defend their own corner. Mick Jagger (64) and Keith Richards (63) have been fielding accusations that they're too superannuated to rock & roll ever since I can remember.

I was born on the day that Get Off Of My Cloud went to Number One, and only fell for their lascivious charms circa 1981's Tattoo You. By that time, undeniably, the most earth-shattering entries in their song-book had all been written.

Since then, their work has essentially been to share that repertoire, to broadcast it globally from the live stage. Having missed their early days at the Crawdaddy club, the Hyde Park gig in 1969, etc, I feel genuinely fortunate at least to have witnessed them in action in later years - most recently, two days ago, in the comparatively bijou environment of the O2 Arena.

On a purely business level, the Stones's continued existence is simple to justify: their tours make more money than anybody else's.

The "creative" case against the Stones is generally made by people who haven't seen them perform for years, if at all. It is virtually impossible that any paying customer can have left Greenwich dissatisfied on Tuesday. Even at £150 a ticket, the Stones are terrific value. Theirs is an unashamedly carnal music. In the flesh, it's impossible to resist.

Jagger is the undisputed master of stadium performance, but, at the O2, freed of his usual atheletic duties - sprinting along 100-yard runways, etc - he proved what a peerless and committed vocalist he is. Often stigmatized for the studied indifference of his youth, he palpably put everything into his singing.

During Rocks Off - the song from 1972's Exile on Main Street which pretty much epitomizes that insouciance - it dawned on me just how good he is: appearing nonchalant and effortless, channelling all the attitude and sexuality and freedom that the Stones embody, and yet hardly ever hitting a bum note. Musically, physically, sickeningly, he's in fabulous shape.

Lately, there have been ructions within the band, most acutely after Richards barrelled onstage plastered at a gig in Helsinki, and Jagger had to rescue him from falling into the crowd. The tension between Jagger's poise and Richards's abandonment is, of course, the band's core energy. In-fighting, then, is a good sign - it means there are still things to fight for.

The weary accusation that the Stones are going through the motions, grinding out the hits by rote, is preposterous. Tuesday's set included Can You Hear Me Knockin', replete with an extended exploration of its jazzy coda, as well as the most urgent version of Satisfaction that this writer has ever heard. Their music is still risky, edgy, very much a living organism.

During Tumblin' Dice, Richards - the fans' favourite, who received a standing ovation merely for lighting up a cigarette (he probably didn't even know about the smoking ban) - delivered a solo possibly from another song, maybe even another galaxy. It sounded amazing. He's still way out there.

Their recent disagreements may have thrown their future into question, but, in the here and now, the Stones remain simply unbeatable.

All I think is that after witnessing Tuesday's performance, I just cannot imagine THEM thinking that they haven't got any more left in them and they ought to quit. They're on shitkicking form. I don't know in what form we'll next see them after this, but see them somewhere or other I hope we'll do, indeed I THINK we'll do. The one firm guess I'm prepared to make is that I think we might have seen the last of "stadiums" ... but you never know.

Here is the Main Thread about the future.

why stop , they dont have to do it!
they are doing what a rocknroller is supposed to do , why stop?
the shows in hong kong in 2003 could have been their last shows , also the ones
in 1999 , someone thought 1990's were the last shows ever.
tell me , a loyal rockstar , i mean real ones quit? ,. NO!
Chuck Berry is doing it , BBKing does it as well , John Lee Hooker died playing , also Muddy Waters and Jimi Hendrix among many otehrs ; Jeff Beck has the same age , and doesnt stop , the same about eric clapton.
and about bands ; Led Zepp , John Bonham died , thats the reason , ACDC is about to make a new tour and here's an example of the guys who do that : Beatles , who would say they stopped touring when they had just some years playing , not even a decade , and then separed and that was a great band!
The stones must keep doing it , if they stop , it would be an offense to rocknroll!
they are playing fine , why the stupid , so stupid idea of stopping now!!??
please dont tell me theyre old , we all know that , but i told you the examples

wipeacdc@hotmail.com
never too old or young to rocknroll!!!!!!

Hi Folks, here in Australia I have just read the stunning and sad news that the Stones are gonna quit touring... say it ain't so!!!

[www.news.com.au]

P.s sorry folks, just noticed a thread discussing this very topic!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-08-24 04:34 by Sway65.