While, as Tuesdays tribute at Carnegie Hal proved irrevocably, they are completely irreplaceable, the Rolling Stones are irrevocably old and it appears that they will be sitting out their 50th anniversary, though they may be able to get it together for a 2013.

I would have, indeed I did, bet the rent that the Stones would tour in 2012 but it seems that the logistics got the better of them and a couple of days ago Keith announced no tour in 2012.

I saw the Stones once in 1980 but really started seeing em everything tour in the 1990s. And in 1980 they were awful and in the 1990s they were the greatest rock and roll band in the world. W'appen? I think a coupla things

1. The technology caught up with them -they sounded good in an arena.

2. They got better at their jobs.

3. For big rock and roll? Everybody else got worse.

So for 20 years, the Stones were a great live band (as a parentical (haha) comment, in his entire life Bob Dylan has never been better on stage than he was in the 1990s) and actually never stopped being a great live band.

But if they tore in 2013 for two years and then take another six year break, Jagger will be 77 years old in 2020, which will make this their last world tour..

Apparently, even that isn't happenning. Richard really did a number on himself when he fell out of a tree in 2006 and, according to Rolling Stone magazine, who have better connects than rock nyc, is too ill for a world tower. So they may do 10 nights at MSG, 10 nights in L.A. and 10 nights in London and let the world come to town. If that's the case why don't they just do 3 nights at Giants Stadium?

Honestly, if all the Stones were doing is London, I'd fly to London to see them.

In the meanwhile, a career spanning documentary is in the works.

Finally, Bill Wyman might be back on bass!