Why do the Rolling Stones keep going?

I was quoting what I read in one of the above articles, likely the one dated 1989.

And to answer the OP…

Strangely enough I was discussing this at the weekend.
I have no cite but my friend said that he read a recent interview with Jagger in which Jagger said he loves touring.
It’s almost like a way of life for him and Keef and they enjoy it, so why not?

Why not indeed?

And rereading it, I now realize the article was referencing the tax rate in '65, when the Stones hit it big in America. :smack:

Higher rate in 1989 was 40%

The reason they went to France in the early 70’s was to avoid the highly punitive tax rates, circa 75%

I can’t quite work out what the tax rates were in the sixties as the table is not straightforward and it’s late, but it’s in here somewhere.
Tax Rates

I can’t believe I’m posting about tax rates…shame on me :o

Ah - sorry, took so long looking up tables I hadn’t realised you’d worked out the rates yourself and posted about it.

I read a music mag {might have been Q} interview with Jon Lord of Deep Purple a while back, where the interviwer asked him somewhat scathingly about when they were going to call it quits. His reply was basically, “Look, I’m a 60 year old man. I’ve been a multi-millionaire since 1972. I could have retired thirty years ago. I’ve been happily married for nearly that long - I don’t tour for money or chicks; I do it because I love getting up on stage and playing. I’ve done it since I was 15, and I’ll stop doing it when I no longer enjoy it”. I suspect the same holds true for the Stones.


That’s just wrong!
Keeding, keeding…you know I keed. :wink:

“We’ll let you know when we keel over”
–Keith Richards

Ironically, Jon Lord retired in 2002. I heard it was due to tendonitis, but I couldn’t find a cite for that reason.


I love the Rolling Stones, but I do wish they’d realize that the way to age gracefully in Rock and Roll is to go acoustic (a la Clapton). It would be great to see them do a smaller-venue tour featuring acoustic versions of their music. And I’m confident a live acoustic CD would be a big seller for them.

Clapton is still doing electric tours of big arenas.

Would he be doing that had he not revived his career with the acoustic phase?

I still say acoustic is the way to go, as an artistic choice. There’s something ridiculous about a 60-something-year-old rocking out on stage, whereas acoustic performances have a dignity befitting someone of that age.

Besides which, it would be an opportunity for the Stones could get back to their blues roots.

Of course, acoustic shows are not as lucrative as stadium concerts, so as long as the Stones are able to sell out those stadiums, I doubt they’ll take my humble advice.

I’m not enough of a Clapton expert to be sure, but did he have a real acoustic phase or just the one Unplugged album?