I would rather they tour to tour instead of doing a final tour. I'm not buying a ticket to say goodbye.

A final tour is too emotionally upsetting for someone on the lunatic fringe like myself. I don't want the words FINAL and ROLLING STONES in the same sentence......

Does anyone else here feel like I do?

Steel Wheels wrote on Dec 9^th, 2011 at 7:51pm:

Like gazza and others have said. They will not announce it as a farewell tour. Some promoters may want them too to help sell a few extra tickets. But for all intents and purposes,it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that this will likely be their last major tour.

Whether it's announced or not, it's pretty much understood that this
would be the final time; our last hurrah with our beloved Band.  
I choke up typing it; but will feel so blessed if and when shows are announced.

I can't think of a better opening song than Sympathy!
Any of you naysayers see Shine a Light??  

As some of you are a bit older than me and some of you have a better sense of recall than me...wondering...

Has any band ( Other than THE BAND...which was more of a final show) ever had a tour labeled as a FAREWELL TOUR?
It seems like burning your bridges to me...I can't imagine the backlash the press would give the Stones if they had a Farewell Tour and then decide to play some
more a few years later for whatever reason...

B.B. King, The Eagles, The Who, Cher, Sinatra, and a host of others have all said they were going on final tours.  Mick stated in the 90's he thinks it's a tacky move to announce a farewell tour and that he'd never do it.  He said for some it might be their final Stones tour as the fan may get hit by a bus on their way home.

I think they will never stop.

Bitch wrote on Dec 10^th, 2011 at 4:43am:


Those guys do it because theyre a lot less wealthy than the Stones and also because its easier if you're a solo act.

A band who have barely been in the same room together for four and a half years (well, until this week) isnt a 'touring band' no matter how much any of us wants to dress it up to the contrary. Neither Mick or Keith have spent more than 20 minutes in total on a stage since August 2007.

Never formally splitting up and always keeping the door open for future possibilities isnt the same as 'keeping going'.

Steel Wheels wrote on Dec 9^th, 2011 at 7:51pm:


I can empathise with that. Each tour I've been to, at the final show I've attended (and I was at the tour finales in 1990, 1995 and 2007) I've always got that 'this might be it!' lump in the throat at the end...KNOWING its the last show youre going to see is another thing, though. I'd still go, however, simply because in the last few years I've found it easier to accept that there's not much mileage left in them. At this stage, though my attitude is that any more shows are a bonus, and I don't feel 'deprived' if it were to end, which is the way I would have felt before the last tour.  Thats not to say I wont find the experience unpleasant when it comes. Far from it.

They get asked the 'last tour' questions at the start of every tour they've done for the last 40-45 years.

My own hunch is that while I dont expect them to formally confirm it as a 'farewell tour', I'd expect Jagger to more or less hint at it as such with some evasive 'well, we're not getting older - so who knows?' type quote.

They wont do another major tour after the next one. I think they're very conscious of the '50th anniversary' thing and there's a lot of symbolism and prestige in that achievement, but they're also more than aware that there are other factors which would indicate that they're on the home straight as a performing band - age and an acceptance that there are physical limitations on being able to perform at the level they would like to for much longer, the fact that taking years off between tours isn't practical for performers who hope to be gigging into their 70's, the sense and knowledge that they've really nothing left to prove, a (hopeful) acceptance that if they're going to feel the need to get competitive with U2 and attempt to outgross them that it's a battle they wont win as age and numbers aren't on their side anymore, and just as significantly, the fact that with the western world's economies being pretty much fucked for the forseeable future, there's only so much money that most people have to see a show that pretty much everyone who has wanted to will have seen by now.

Seriously, can you imagine all of us after the final bows??!!!
I really cannot.

I have broken down in tears at the end of every show I've seen since No Security.
And those of you that know me, can attest to how emotional I am.

I feel sorry for whomever has to sit near me SHOULD it happen.
GotToRollMe, Martha and SV............prepare yourselves.

And Pdog, I'll never forget our MSG moment in Jan 06. Ever.

LJ.

Gazza wrote on Dec 10^th, 2011 at 1:45pm:


I can empathise with that. Each tour I've been to, at the final show I've attended (and I was at the tour finales in 1990, 1995 and 2007) I've always got that 'this might be it!' lump in the throat at the end...KNOWING its the last show youre going to see is another thing, though. I'd still go, however, simply because in the last few years I've found it easier to accept that there's not much mileage left in them. At this stage, though my attitude is that any more shows are a bonus, and I don't feel 'deprived' if it were to end, which is the way I would have felt before the last tour.  Thats not to say I wont find the experience unpleasant when it comes. Far from it.

They get asked the 'last tour' questions at the start of every tour they've done for the last 40-45 years.

My own hunch is that while I dont expect them to formally confirm it as a 'farewell tour', I'd expect Jagger to more or less hint at it as such with some evasive 'well, we're not getting older - so who knows?' type quote.

They wont do another major tour after the next one. I think they're very conscious of the '50th anniversary' thing and there's a lot of symbolism and prestige in that achievement, but they're also more than aware that there are other factors which would indicate that they're on the home straight as a performing band - age and an acceptance that there are physical limitations on being able to perform at the level they would like to for much longer, the fact that taking years off between tours isn't practical for performers who hope to be gigging into their 70's, the sense and knowledge that they've really nothing left to prove, a (hopeful) acceptance that if they're going to feel the need to get competitive with U2 and attempt to outgross them that it's a battle they wont win as age and numbers aren't on their side anymore, and just as significantly, the fact that with the western world's economies being pretty much fucked for the forseeable future, there's only so much money that most people have to see a show that pretty much everyone who has wanted to will have seen by now.


______________________________________


Although many see me as "enthusiastic" and perceive me as the guy to always keep the faith in them around here I gotta say I agree that this will be their last full scale tour.  Age, health, certainly play the role here. I am not saying, that "if" they are still able they will not perform again or do shows... I'm simply agreeing that this will be their final full on major tour.

I mean, ya just can't be in your seventies and going out there sweating, performing, singing etc. non-stop all around the globe for a year or more...

It would be far too taxing and in a sense, actually risky for them to attempt.

Think of working next to a 70 year old... in a physical sense. Or think of working out, concentrating in a class, or whatever... they just can't do those things like they did even at the age of 60. They get dehydrated quite easily, they can't do those things.

Sure 70 year olds can talk, walk, laugh, enjoy the day and even very mildly exercise but it's tough work in a show even if they slow it down out there.. and remember this is out in the elements no less. Have you ever saw a 70 year old sweat? They really just can't get worked up enough to do that. Younger people can but no 70 year old folk exert themselves to the point of working up a good sweat. They simply can't... and their bodies don't work the same to get to that point at this age. If they do... they will have to go sit down somewhere and/or they get ran down instantly, or some how ill from it.   

The Stones are the most durable rock band that has ever graced the planet... even Stones critics would have to give them that. They are actually incredible.. defying logic and father time and have for so long now BUT lets remember.. they are "human". They can only go so far.  


Ian -

Shouldnt they be jamming soon?......For sure before Christmas?.....maybe a surprise club gig for keef's birthday?.....(just dreaming i know)

A tour can be done differently than in the past considering their ages. Several shows I've seen the where band does 2 or 3 shorter sets with a 20 or 30 minute break in betwen sets. Nobody in the crowd objected and it didnt break up the momentum. They could do it in a sequence, the early years, etc. considering its a 50 anniversary tour they have so much material to draw from.  In between they could show movie clips to keep the fans occupied. They could also talk more, giving a little background info on the different songs and I would enjoy hearing any little stories behind the songs. It would be entertaining and not as taxing on the band physically. It may be tougher for them to belt out 22 songs in a row now, but by pacing themselves this way it could work. Nobody at this point expects the same shows as we saw in the past. Being innovative is one of the Stones strong points so they can tour with a different style, thinking outside the box.

gimmekeef wrote on Dec 11^th, 2011 at 8:27am:



you could use some Ian Billen about now!

Ian Billen wrote on Dec 11^th, 2011 at 7:12pm:



Than Springsteen? Utter rubbish.

And Jagger HAS toned his stage performance down from 1989 onwards. Prior to that he was invariably breathless as he spent more time running around than singing. As a result, he's technically be able to SING better since then, even if some people prefer the 'rawer' style that preceded it. Being more restrained and able to pace himself as he's got older has enabled him to last into his 60's as a top performer.

There's absolutely no reason why he shouldnt be able to do that even more when he's approaching 70. There's more to being a great entertainer (which he is) than simply running around wiggling his arse.

You're also overlooking the fact that actually performing and playing an instrument for three hours IS pretty taxing, even if you're not running all over the place.