Yes it makes sense and I for one won't be sorry to see the "Mega Tours" go away... topic's been beaten to death but the Stones got into music for their love for it and we're fans because of the music, not for these circus shows...who have kept them interested...financially, especially since 1989.

Problem is they'd need to rethink the way they tour and it's going to be harder for them to make mega bucks, not that they need them, but they a "decrease" is always hard to cope with.

Now we'll see if they still really like the music !

LadyJane wrote on Sep 4^th, 2009 at 6:50am:


Yeah. I think (or I'd like to think!) it's probably more a reflection that he's simply no longer interested in paying lip service to the egofest that is Jagger & Cohl's obsession with outgrossing every previous tour because not only is it utterly soulless and pointless but it also takes up far too long a chunk out of his life in order to achieve it.

The man is 68 years old, is devoted to his wife, is fabulously wealthy and hasn't needed to work for decades, has always disliked being away from home for long periods and had a serious brush with death just five years ago. He enjoys playing with the Stones, but no one can really blame him if he wanted to pack it in - and it's perfectly reasonable if he wants to make a few compromises by insisting on downscaling at this stage of his life.

Well if Charlie is willing to tour,but on a smaller scale. You know Keith isn't that concerned with setting gross dollar tour records and Ronnie just happy to be in the band. Maybe it bodes well for a reasonably priced smaller venue tour. Most likely however with the same old warhorses. BEcause one thing Charlie isn't going to do is try and tell Mick what to play. Take the good with the bad. Maybe if they can just play what they well, we canm get by with a less than die hard friendly set.

I think the reality is the huge tours are gone and cant see them risking a biggerr Whatever to outdo the U2 Claw.Charlie would have none of it anyway. So if its a few one offs in tighter areas then we will need to head to:

London/Paris/Germany
New York
LA
Philly
Boston
Chicago

And the thought there would be anything remotely resembling reasonable tickets is a wing and a prayer at best.

sweetcharmedlife wrote on Sep 4^th, 2009 at 10:51am:



Not if you're playing arenas and doing 15 shows per tour leg instead of 30-40.

Thats what they averaged last time ($167 to be exact) and they generally had little problem filling most arenas. It was the tickets at $450 for so-so seats far from the stage in stadiums that were the problem.

The average ticket price at places in primary markets like MSG were probably close to double what they were in the likes of oh, lets throw a name out there, erm..Omaha. Each venue was price-structured depending on the likely ticket demand for that area and they had no problem selling out a couple of MSG shows in January 2006 just four months after playing one night there followed by a gig at Giants Stadium two nights later.

Selling out four or five shows at the same venue at those prices isnt going to happen, but the trend on the last tour in main markets has been to play maybe one or two shows (LA, NY, Chicago, London etc) and then come back a few months later when the ticket buyer has been able to 'recover' sufficiently to buy tickets again in similar quantities.

Additionally, by the time they go on the road in 2010, it'll probably have been four years since they last set foot on an Amercan concert stage. They oversaturated the market in 2005-2006 but thats a long enough break for the market to recover.

Yes it makes sense, that's for the business side, but I wonder what kind of shape they're going to be going forward though, especially Keith and his deformed hands and Ronnie and his "problems"...

gimmekeef wrote on Sep 4^th, 2009 at 10:29am:

Gazza wrote on Sep 4^th, 2009 at 10:12am:



Maybe Charlie can get cranky again and insist on reasonable prices.  He'd probably be told in unison to hit the road.

latest from undercover :

http://undercover.com.au/News-Story.aspx?id=9173_Charlie_Watts_Confirms_He_Is_St...

Charlie Watts Confirms He Is Still With The Stones

by Paul Cashmere - September 5 2009
photo by Ros O'Gorman

The good news for Rolling Stones fans is that Charlie Watts has announced on a UK radio interview that he has not left the band.

Undercover inadvertently sent shockwaves through the Stones community this week when we published a story saying that Charlie had left the band after being advised by a source close to a member of the band.

Within a matter of hours, a publicist for the Stones was shooting down the story although sceptics still insisted that where there is smoke there is fire.

Val King of Spinearth did the most thorough research into the story, connecting with Stones rep Bernard Doherty who says he confronted Charlie about it. “We literally laughed our arses off for two good minutes,” he told King.

Doherty also said Mick Jagger rang him from the Bahamas and jokingly asked why no-one had told him Charlie had left the band.

Charlie, always a man of few words, had just two words to say when he was asked about it on the BBC today. “Not true,” was his reply.

The Undercover story could have quickly been dismissed if it was a fabrication but there seemed to be enough legs in our story to make the Stones themselves jump into action.

So when will we hear new music from the Stones or see them on tour again? That may be for a very long time according to Doherty’s comments to Val King. “I can tell you that Charlie isn't going anywhere. They have the 50th anniversary coming up, are working on the next CD, and planning tours," he said.

The Stones 50th anniversary with Charlie in the band will be in January 2013. That is a lot of planning for an anniversary still more than 3 years away.

In 2013, Mick Jagger and Keith Richards will both turn 70. Charlie will be 72. In fact Bill Wyman might even get out of bed for that anniversary. He will be 77 by then.

For the record, Wyman resigned the Rolling Stones in January 1991. He fulfilled the recording of just one more song, ‘Sex Drive’ for the Flashpoint album. Bill’s departure was continually denied until December 1992 when the Stones reactivated.

http://spinearth.tv/report/preposterous-charlie-and-mick-laugh-their-arses-off

This is the story that just won't go away. An article on Undercover.com hit the wires on Tuesday with claims that a Rolling Stones insider leaked the news that Charlie Watts, Stones drummer for over 37 years, had quit the band.Fans around the world were shocked and were bracing for a possible break up of the band altogether.

Despite an official statement by Fran Curtis, the head of Rolling Stones' North American public relations, that Charlie had not left the band, speculation and rumors are still flying all over cyberspace. But instead of maintaining the suspense, we're trying to figure things out just as much as anyone.

First of all, this fire has been fueled by a number of factors, starting with the author of the original article and CEO of Undercover Media, Paul Cashmere, who insists his source is "100% correct" and "time will show that my story was accurate." Bloggers and Twitters are speculating as well, wondering why Charlie Watts hasn't dispelled the rumor himself.

I spoke with "The Man", Bernard Doherty, in London yesterday afternoon to try to get to the bottom of it all. Doherty is the O.G. of PR in Europe and has been the main press liaison for the Stones for over 23 years. His company, LD Communications, boasts an A+ List roster of "whos who" in music; as well as handling PR for just about every major show in the last three decades (Live Aid, Concert for Dianna - you name it - he was behind it).

Doherty was adamant that Charlie Watts is not leaving the band. When I told him that Paul Cashmere was backing his source, he replied laughingly, "Well, of course he is! This is the best publicity he could have ask for, both for his website and himself. Sounds like something drummed up in a pub in Australia. 'Yeah, let's say Charlie Watts is quitting the Stones!'... It's absolutely NOT true and was a fabricated story to elicit just this kind of response. And it worked. Here we are talking about this for ten minutes. Like SPIN or I have nothing better to do. Ridiculous waste of time for both of us."

I pointed out that many fans and other media were wondering why Charlie had not issued a personal statement and the fact that no one from the band had spoken out on the subject either. Doherty said,
"Look, as soon as the story hit, I waited until a respectable 9 a.m. to walk the short distance from LD Comm. to Charlie's flat (although he is an early riser). I rang the bell and he answered. I won't tell you his exact words, because they contain some expletives, but we literally laughed our arses off for a good two minutes. So, obviously he is finding humor in the notion that he would quit the band. We discussed issuing an official statement, and that truly should have been the end of it. Short of marching him up on a stage in front of cameras, which we will not do, the official statement should suffice."

Doherty went on to say, "Perhaps the world hasn't heard from the band, but Mick (Jagger) called me yesterday from the West Indies and very jokingly asked why no one told him Charlie had quit. Again, we just had a great laugh over it! How preposterous that this rumor; started by someone for publicity and does not know what he's talking about (Cashmere) has been blown so out of proportion."

I asked him if there were any plans to have Charlie Watts issue a personal statement, to which Doherty replied, "Not at this time, I don't believe. A statement was issued by Fran Curtis (PR firm of Rogers & Cowan - NYC). Everyone knows who Fran is, and that should truly suffice to set everyone's mind at ease. She would be the one to decide if that were to happen, but I can tell you that Charlie isn't going anywhere. They have the 50th anniversary coming up, are working on the next CD, and planning tours."

Fran Curtis is out of the office for Labor Day Weekend and could not be reached for comment. But we think the case is closed here. Finally!

Deathgod wrote on Sep 4^th, 2009 at 11:24pm:



More poor research aimed at giving their story credibility.

The first Stones activity without Bill was the 'High Wire' video shoot in March 1991 - because it took place in New York and Bill by this time wasn't flying anywhere.

He hadn't formally left the band after that although he'd privately announced to them his intention to do so  - his lack of commitment was pretty much sealed when he refused to sign the new recording contract made with Virgin in November 1991. When asked about it, Charlie said "I think it's something along the lines of he wants to leave, but we won't let him. It's like The Mafia - you can't leave". Mick said in an interview in December 1992 (after attending a Keith solo gig) that it was looking like Bill was going to leave, and his departure was made official on 6 January 1993.  

It wasn't announced to coincide with new Stones activity, which is what they appear to be hinting re: Charlie's 'departure'. In January 1993, Mick, Keith & Ronnie were all in the middle of promoting solo projects. The Stones didn't get together to work on their next album until July 1993. At that point, they hadnt even brought a replacement bassist on board. Darryl Jones didn't start playing with them until September 1993.

left shoe shuffle wrote on Sep 5^th, 2009 at 8:35am:



Problem is that I dont think any factual inaccuracies were included in that article with the best of intentions.