Vincent Vega Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 (edited) Rather than dragging out their career to what it is now--$600 cash grab shows with geriatric players--should The Rolling Stones have quit after, say, the 1990 tour? They would've had their integrity, a legacy as a great band and not a bunch of cash grabbers, they just would've left on a high note after one of the most successful comebacks in music history, with a hit comeback album and tour, while being only middle aged performers. Outside of being able to say "I've seen the Rolling Stones" on your end, and more money on their end, what pros are there in them continuing? It just kind of makes the whole thing tired and makes a mockery of their legacy.I mean you see them now old, white haired, playing show, then go and compare that to a show from 1972 or 1973 or even 1981...I just think they should've stopped at some point, probably when Bill Wyman quit. I mean since 1990 they've only put out three albums; three albums in 23 years is pretty much the same record as Axl....They're not offering much artistically or musically anymore and given their ticket prices, this current tour isn't a treat for the fans, it's simply to make a last big cash grab before retirement.I mean they're pretty much a billion dollar industry, they don't NEED to charge $600 a ticket. If you're doing music for music's sake, or music for the fans' sake, then it shouldn't be at a rich man's price, and I really think musicians should stop when it stops being about the music. That's not a last gasp of activity just for the fans, that's just cashing in and padding out their retirement funds. I hate to say this, but it just kinda makes all the shit that the punk rockers said about them years ago seem true. Edited April 15, 2013 by Vincent Vega Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Sabbath Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
classicrawker Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 (edited) They certainly were not the same band they were pre-1982 but I have seen every tour since 1975 and they still deliver a great show.As far as ticket prices are concerned I agree the $600 is obscene, and if I had not scored $85 mystery tickets I would not have gone this tour, but it is hard to argue the case when they sell out a show in Britain in less than 5 minutes...supply and demand mate........ Edited April 15, 2013 by classicrawker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Bond Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 They already have their legacy. It doesn't cease to exist because they keep touring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bacardimayne Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 Should've quit before 1980. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Vega Posted April 15, 2013 Author Share Posted April 15, 2013 Should've quit before 1980.I disagree. Pre '80 and you lose Emotional Rescue, Tattoo You, and Undercover--their last above average albums, IMO.I'd be fine with the '82 tour being their last, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axlslash Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 You know why they charge $600? Because people pay to see it. You know why people pay to see it? Because other than Bruce Springsteen, this is the most reliable and most high end product in live rock n' roll. Is it a cash grab? Yeah, just like any concert or album is an attempt to make money by being a professional musician. The Stones charge huge numbers because they draw huge numbers, and they draw huge numbers because they deserve it. Should they have quit? Fuck no! It's not like they're playing to half-empty American stadiums and still charging $100 a ticket like certain bands we know and love around these parts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zint Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 Let's see what you're doing when you're 70.Bless em for rolling on...I think stubborn refusal to do otherwise is pretty cool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MB. Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 Let's see what you're doing when you're 70.Bless em for rolling on...I think stubborn refusal to do otherwise is pretty cool.This. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T.wa.T Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 The Stones should continue on as long as they want. Their live shows still kick ass. They still make great music. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GivenToFly Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 Because other than Bruce Springsteen, this is the most reliable and most high end product in live rock n' roll.There's also Roger Waters, there's ACDC, at that level of quality it's hard to differentiate.And I agree, the fact that they can charge $600 is in itself a sign that they have no reason to stop.Also, Bridges and Bang are so much better than Undercover it's not even funny. Also better imo than Tattoo and Rescue, but that's debatable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powerage5 Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 Should've quit before 1980.I disagree. Pre '80 and you lose Emotional Rescue, Tattoo You, and Undercover--their last above average albums, IMO.I'd be fine with the '82 tour being their last, though.Emotional Rescue and Undercover suck.You know why they charge $600? Because people pay to see it. You know why people pay to see it? Because other than Bruce Springsteen, this is the most reliable and most high end product in live rock n' roll. Is it a cash grab? Yeah, just like any concert or album is an attempt to make money by being a professional musician. The Stones charge huge numbers because they draw huge numbers, and they draw huge numbers because they deserve it. Should they have quit? Fuck no! It's not like they're playing to half-empty American stadiums and still charging $100 a ticket like certain bands we know and love around these parts.This. The Brooklyn show last year was one of the best shows I've ever seen, much better than the show I saw on the Bigger Bang tour. No reason to stop if they're not worn out and there's demand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalsh327 Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 The thing is, Mick and Keith financially don't have to do it, Charlie doesn't want to do it, but they still do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
classicrawker Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 (edited) The thing is, Mick and Keith financially don't have to do it, Charlie doesn't want to do it, but they still do it. No so sure your right about Charlie...he hate the long tours but he seems to want to go back out after being off the road for a while.........at least according to Keef and Woody......... Edited April 16, 2013 by classicrawker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Len B'stard Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 (edited) They pretty much have quit though haven't they? Wheelin' your wrinkley arses out once every few years with a CDs worth of tinkering about followed by a quick tour, i mean its not like it was in their heyday mind you, which band ever is? Its been 8 years since their last tour, they pretty much are retired.People get on em cuz 'oh wrinkley rockers,Thats not very rock n roll!' But then how rock n roll is the concept of retiring and sitting at home evenings watching Coronation Street with a cup of tea and a Digestive, my only beef with them is ticket prices and hey, thats their perogative, why should they knock an earner cuz of me? Edited April 17, 2013 by sugaraylen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasted Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Didnt they a lot of money in the 90s touring. I think they said they didnt used to. Voodoo Lounge is pretty classic record. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Len B'stard Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 They only make records as an excuse for tour now when they'd like a few bob, thats the impression i get. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crash Diet Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 The thing is, Mick and Keith financially don't have to do it, Charlie doesn't want to do it, but they still do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 They already have their legacy. It doesn't cease to exist because they keep touring.You hit the nail on the head.If you don't like them now, don't go see them.But it is pretty arrogant of anybody to tell somebody else " Hey, you should retire. You have enough money, STOP doing what you love and go sit on a beach somewhere."Maybe the old guys still love going out and playing? More power to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
classicrawker Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 They already have their legacy. It doesn't cease to exist because they keep touring.You hit the nail on the head.If you don't like them now, don't go see them.But it is pretty arrogant of anybody to tell somebody else " Hey, you should retire. You have enough money, STOP doing what you love and go sit on a beach somewhere."Maybe the old guys still love going out and playing? More power to them.They sold out one of the British shows in less than 5 minutes so why would they want to retire? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasted Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 While jagger can do it theyll do it? They seem to take pride in being older and still doing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Val22 Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 No The Rolling Stones still make amazing music when they get around to doing it.If Keith had his way, they would make an album and tour and do it all over again, but Mick doesn't feel the same way. I guess he feels he's seen it all and done it all by now.They are and always will be one of the best rock bands in the world, so as long as they have fans and they continue to rock, then retiring shouldn't be a must for any musician. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TombRaider Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 (edited) Never been much of a fan, but it's hard to hate a band that's been around for so long and with such a faithful following. Now, I think they should've thrown in the towel a long time ago. But then again, I'm sure their fans are happy... especially the ones that can afford the tickets. Edited April 20, 2013 by TombRaider Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.