With their upcoming shows in London (the first tomorrow) and the New York area, with the possibility of more not ruled out, it seems an opportune time to ask: Should the Rolling Stones
still attempt a tour in 2012, fifty years into their career? Artistically, probably not; their best songs and performances are well in their past. But is there something vaguely optimistic about the notion that somehow they not only lived long enough to still tour but have their faculties sufficient enough to at least perform on a tour? I suppose I have to think there is.
I've never seen the Stones live, and there's no way I will go see them for this latest effort (even if I could afford it). It's not that I dislike their songs; I was more of a Beatles fan, but I enjoy many of the tracks they put out, with Exile on Main Street
and greatest hits discs plus assorted other tracks in my collection; I just downloaded some of December's Children
last week as a matter of fact. (The opening of "Gimme Shelter" is undoubtedly the greatest beginning to any rock song ever, and the rest of the song is fantastic.) They absolutely deserve their spot in echelon of rock history.
If I could go back in time and see them in their heyday, I might consider doing that, but to see them now doesn't interest me. But do I begrudge any fans who want to go see their favorite band, presumably again, and quite possibly for the last time? Absolutely not. Had I seen the Stones back in that aforementioned heyday and had those fond memories I certainly can understand wanting to ride that nostalgia train one more time. And it's not like the band is oblivious to what they're providing nor that the fans are oblivious to why they're going.