LadyJane wrote on Apr 15
th, 2011 at 7:51am:
There are many rumblings that "it's over".
More chatter than I have ever heard in all the years I've been a fan.
Are Mick and Keith at war over the "tiny todger" remark?
Is Keith unable to Tour because of his arthritis?
Do they just not want to be bothered?
I have always felt that they would never let the 50th Anniversary go by
without another Tour. Now I'm not so sure.
So I'd like to start a serious discussion here.
What does everyone think?
LJ.
'Todgergate' is certainly a sore point. As one contact told me at the end of last year, he didnt know if a tour in the near future was likely because 'its a bit like World War III at the minute'. However, its nothing that cant or wont be overcome by a promoter dangling a cheque in front of them for about $300 million.
The Great Unknown issue to me is Keith. For the man who's traditionally harped on down the years about living to perform, he's been pretty much retired since the last tour ended. A low-key 3-song guest appearance with the Crickets is (I think) his only live performance and he's hardly done any studio work. I really doubt that he's fallen out of love with music THAT much so it strikes me that its more of an 'enforced' lay off. Granted, we're aware that Patti's illness sidelined him as did a broken finger, but I doubt that those have been enough on their own to warrant nearly four years of almost total inactivity. I'd also seriously doubt that when the Stones left the stage on 26th August 2007 they intended to a) retire or b) be inactive for so long before working again. Taking years off in your mid 60s doesnt augur well for the quality of your performances whenever you choose to start things up again.
IF Keith is capable of performing again, I've little doubt that the Stones will tour in 2012. Too much significance around the anniversary and too many opportunities to be passed up. I DONT think they'll perform at the Olympics (thank God). From what I understand, the organisers are probably going to focus more on younger acts anyway.
I also dont think that a tour will be a long one. Going by the time off they need on a tour between shows (the last European tour had 30 shows and took them 12 weeks!) and their age, I seriously doubt they're going to want to spend a year or two on the road. It's also my own belief that the next tour (and it'll be their last - anyone who thinks there'll be another one after it is delusional) will pretty much be concentrated on 'A' markets - Bigger Bang was pretty much a farewell tour to all the lesser markets. I'd be surprised if they play more than about 80 shows and that there will be anything outside North America, Europe (by that I mean western Europe) and Japan (and even Japan must be a doubt after recent events). Maybe Australia.
Another major issue is how they're going to equate being the most expensive concert ticket in rock music with doing a tour in the middle of a world recession. This could also have been a major reason why they havent toured at all in recent years. This will be the first Stones tour since the economic crash and considering theyve toured so much in recent years with basically the same show - whilst NOT attracting new fans - its going to be a hard sell unless they absolutely blatantly bill it as a farewell tour. U2 managed to put on the most lucrative tour ever DESPITE the recession- but their business model was far superior to the often shambolic way the last Stones tour was promoted. - ie, top priced ticket $250, General admission tickets instead of all-seated, 10,000 tickets per venue priced $30., Field tickets for $55. Certainly a better way of attracting younger fans than the humiliating firesales that Cohl dreamed up to shift thousands of unsold seats in tarped off stadiums on the last American tour the Stones did. Thankfully, I don't think Cohl will be on board for the next tour.
In short (!), I think they'll tour - but they're going to have to learn a few lessons from the U2 tour and make some significant changes to their current M.O. to maintain the success levels of previous tours.
Unfortunately, I'm much less confident about their ability to perform at a consistent level for a prolonged period of time after what will be a five year lay off. Age, inactivity, ill-health and lifestyles are four factors whose combined signifance can't really be disregarded. Naturally, as a fan, I'd want to see them tour again - but the longer they choose to leave it, the less I think it's a good idea from the perspective of musical quality and what it will do to their reputation.