They could tour again if they could stop thinking that they need to mount a giant stage show for giant stadiums. I wish Mick cared as much about their musical legacy as he does about grossing more $$$ than all other bands out on tour, but I don't think he does.

Your idea of playing a series of Vegas shows does sort of work on two levels--
1. The payday would be substantial
2. Mick already has a ridiculous collection of sparkly jackets

I'd go for that.  :smile

50/50 I'd bet too. I'd also wager that Charlie is the biggest question mark of all. A run of one-offs maybe. A full blown out stadium tour/arena tour? I have my doubts.


Riffy

Well, if they don't do another tour, what does the -very near- future hold for the Stones?

Will they just let the years go by like that and fade into non-existence? Hold a press conference one day to tell us they quit? I just can't see this band doing that. It doesn't matter how old they are - keep in mind that for the last 10 years we've always had this conversation about how they're really old now, and way older than the previous time, and they'll be X years old by the end of the tour and so on. Yet they always come back.

Now, even in my optimistic mind, I kind of think that when they get around to make this next tour, it might very well be the last one indeed. Unless they suddenly decide to do club gigs, which of course would be fantastic although not that likely...  But I'm sure there's at least another big tour left for the Stones.

Paranoid Android wrote on Jul 28^th, 2009 at 9:12pm:


While I did say 'play for themselves' (ie play the music they want to play instead of feeling they have to pander to corporate blow-ins by playing hardly anything else but songs that EVERYONE has had ample chance to hear by now), I dont recall saying 'let the people come to them' and I do think that playing residencies in Las Vegas would be the final nail in their coffin in terms of credibility. If they're going to concentrate primarily on 'residencies' then do it in places like New York or London.

I feel something the same as what SV says above. They dont have to do mega tours to justify their continued existence. They did one which finished two years ago, and look at whats happened since - two years of absolutely nothing. If they're serious about still being a BAND instead of some corporate behemoth, then they could scale it back and go out on the road for a month at a time maybe three times a year and play 40-50 shows a year. Hardly a demanding pace. It doesnt have to be tied to the 'promotion' of a new release when you do that (a more honest way of doing it, as they dont promote new releases anyway - everyone knows that another stadium runaround will basically be "Licks Part Three Sponsored by insert name of corporate giant we've whored ourselves to this time" more than 'The (insert name of new album) Tour.

Whether they should go on the road again is another issue. Retirement isnt really seen as an option and never has been, but from what I can see I doubt Keith & Ronnie still have it in them physically to cope with another long tour, and I would be surprised if Charlie wants to. The lack of activity or rumour in the last couple of years suggests to me they're not even that certain themselves where to go next. If anywhere.

I'd personally like to see them tour again although from a purely musical perspective I'm not sure that they should (obviously its their right to play as long as they bloody well want and even if I have reservations about it, I know I'll go to a few shows. I'm a lifer. It's in the blood.). I enjoyed every one of the 13 shows I saw on the last tour - even though it was quite obvious that it wasnt as interesting a tour as before and that the performance levels of the two guitarists are becoming increasingly erratic. Making the shows more interesting is their choice alone - but age and physical deterioration aren't going to eradicate the latter issue - whilst part of me wants to see the band perform until they (or I) drop, another part of me doesnt want them to embark on one tour too many and descend into a travesty. We're not there yet, but for that reason I don't share the enthusiasm that some have in looking forward to a 50th anniversary tour in 2012. These days, wanting another tour from a band you've followed all your life is as much an admission that it's an excuse for an extension to your youth plus an excuse to renew acquaintances as anything else. I'm as guilty as anyone on that count. Musically, I'm more interested in seeing them open their vaults and do it well than I am in another tour of football stadiums where I have to spend a week's wages to look at a video screen and where I get misled, conned and treated with utter disdain by rs.con and Cohl.

So surely shorter stretches of touring is more suitable for everyone. Everyone who's had a chance to see the Stones has done so in the last decade and with soaring ticket prices and the world economy having gone tits up, their sheer over-familiarity in recent years is going to eventually have a knock on affect on how marketable a tour will be unless they're very careful not to be too ambitious about it. Its really time for them to stop the juggernaut and scale down if they're still serious about continuing as a functioning band. They've done the mega tour thing to death and better than anyone else - there's got to be more important things than trying to outgross U2.

Unfortunately from the Stones perspective - and in my eyes, that means Jagger & Cohl as Keith has basically abdicated responsibility in recent years as a songwriter and onstage musical director and settled for an easy ride - I'm not so sure that there is.

" I ask you that...IS IT FAIR TO ASK FOR / EXPECT ANOTHER TOUR???  "



!!!!!

PartyDoll MEG wrote on Jul 29^th, 2009 at 9:35am:



In fairness, Van doesnt charge extortionate prices for the most part. He certainly did for the 'Astral Weeks' shows he did when he performed with two different bands, but when he does his 'regular' shows over here at least, his prices are somewhat 'normal'. He does seem to be getting the arm in a bit more in recent years in some markets than he used to though, I'd agree.

The Stones, however, have more money than God. They were worth a collective $1 billion at a 2008 estimate (ie, Sunday Times Rich List). I can totally understand it if they wanted to retire - 47 years is a long time to have a musical career - but failing that, I cant fathom the logic in someone with that degree of wealth ONLY agreeing to go on the road if they can be guaranteed to generate an amount of revenue that would match the annual GNP of half the countries in Africa.

It doesn't make the argument that they do it primarily for a love of the music a particularly strong one. That said, it's not just about the money either, as they can't possibly get to the stage where they'll ever spend any of it even if they live to be 300. If anything, it's more a combination of ego and being at a stage in their lives where they don't really know what else to do. After all, they're in somewhat uncharted waters for a rock band in terms of longevity.

I have heard that it all comes down to Chaz. Charlie has made it very clear that he has little interest in ever touring again. I heard this from a very reliable source, and it makes sense to me. I'm with Gazza here. The mega-stadium-Jagger/Cohl-ego-stroke tours are played out completely. I have zero interest in seeing another Giants Stadium show. That said, I would go in a second if they announced one, but give me a 24 show at The Beacon in NY, and then another 24 shows at Royal Albert Hall. Screw LA. Let those Cali types fly East. The Stones are a NYC/London band after all.


Riffy

Saint Sway wrote on Jul 29^th, 2009 at 10:43am:

Reading all the posts on this thread, it's obvious the fans want more of The Stones and I have said this before, quoting KEEF from the Julliard 05 Press Conference, 'the band will continue to tour until one of us drops dead' (heaven forbid) OK they all enjoy performing live, its a huge rush, and their inflated egos enjoy the attention. Nothing but death will stop them, they just havent figured out what to do next. I heard opening Yankee Stadium's first concert was a possibility. Macca beat them to the punch opening Citi Field (Shea Stadium) so maybe that idea isnt exciting enough now. Michael Jackson had a good idea with selling out 50 shows at the O2 Dome in London. Too bad he was overdosed and comatose. Poor guy. THe idea behind it was let the fans travel to them instead of them traveling all over the world! Selling out 50 shows in NY or Vegas wouldnt be a problem either, and they can save money on travel expenses increasing their profit margin! It's less wear and tear on the body so Charlie might like the idea. Even 25 shows in selected large markets would be a good idea!  

I got no expectations

Bitch wrote on Jul 29^th, 2009 at 12:48pm:



It will be if they keep charging people $450 upwards for a half decent ticket.

Time was when the Stones could sell out a string of stadium and/or arena shows in places like New York, London or LA.  They cant really do too many now unless (as was the case on the last tour) they 'stagger' the shows several months apart to allow the ticket buyer time to recover and buy tickets a second time.

Michael Jackson's 50 shows were intended to be spread out from July 2009 to March 2010. Tickets were for the most part a quite reasonable £75. Additionally, he hadnt toured for over a decade. The Stones dont have the same mystique as theyve toured regularly in that time. Prince is hardly in the same league as a concert draw as the Stones or Jacko yet pretty much managed to sell out his 21 02 shows in 2007 - he did so due to good promotion, the shows taking place over a period of two months - plus the fact that the tickets were only £31.21.

No act currently active could sell out 50 arena shows at one venue even at the price Michael Jackson was charging anywhere in the world - even if they werent playing anywhere else. The only acts who could do so would be a reunited Led Zeppelin or ABBA (and the latter probably couldnt in the US)- and in the case of both of those acts, its primarily because not only do they sell far more records than the Stones but because they havent toured in three decades and there are a couple of generations of potential fans who have never seen them.