No

if they did ,it wouldn't be the Stones

Charlie IS the Stones...but if he didn't want to tour and enough bucks were dangled in front of Mick and Keith I'm sure they'd be calling Kenney Jones in a heartbeat.

Never say never.

I can remember way back when the idea of The Who without Moon was unthinkable...impossible...insanity!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-03-26 07:51 by loog droog.

Keith has made public comments more than once in the last 20 odd years that 'it's Charlie's band,' so in just guessing I would think Keith would not want to tour without Charlie period. Mick? Who knows? Comes down to who wins that arguement I would think.

no way

Both Keith and Mick have toured with other drummers, but as The Stones? No, can't see that happening.

[www.reverbnation.com]

No Charlie = No Stones.

If Charlie would leave they could to a Jagger-Richards-Wood tour, but I would never attend a "Stones" tour nowadays without Charlie Watts on drums.A new drummer after 46 years does not make sense.

No, they'd never tour as the Stones without Charlie.
Keith's totally devoted to the only white drommer who swings - Charlie.
And Mick once said: If one of the original members passed away, that would be the end of the Stones. (To the BJ fan club: He said this more than 30 years after VJ was drowned by his carpenter.)
Whan Charlie had cancer, and for a while things looked really bad, Mick and Keith sat together at Mick's "French shed" (his castle near Tours). They were terrified. Just the thought of losing Charlie was paralysing.
According to Keith, he said: So, what now?! If there's just the two of us... Are we gonna tour like the Everly Brothers?

So, the answer is definitely NO! Charlie can't be replaced, and even if it was possible, Keith would never agree to such a solution.

yeah i hear max weinberg son is open to offers when he is not filling in for his fathers gig with the e-street band

by the way what is up with max blowing off his day job (the boss) so he can go play with conan .its supposed to be the other way around when bruce isnt on the road then max can play elsewhere . where is the loyalty ?

Probably has a contract, and it provides steadier employment.

I think that if Charlie were to leave, or pass away, that The Rolling Stones would cease to exist, but that Mick, Keith and perhaps Ronnie would still do occasional big bucks live appearances with hired help and famous friends.

I'd be devastated...can't imaging they'd ever do it.

Quote
His Majesty
I think that if Charlie were to leave, or pass away, that The Rolling Stones would cease to exist, .

Right. Just as The Who--as a creative unit-- ceased to exist after 1978.

I know the cult/myth of Charlie dictates otherwise, but if that were true then some of their best recordings that didn't include him--like the one this site is named after--would stand out like sore thumbs.

I maintain that if the money is big enough, Mick and Keef would forget all their "We ain't tourin' without Charlie" stuff [maybe modified to "He wants us to keep rockin'"] and hit the road.

And 99% of the paying public wouldn't really care.

The only member you can't replace in their minds is Mick. And since "The Doors" now tour without Morrison, maybe that's not even true anymore.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-03-26 15:24 by loog droog.

Despite Jagger and Richards' non-committal stance in that interview a couple of years ago, I doubt they would ever tour without Charlie - and I also doubt that Charlie will ever retire as long as he is in good health.

The Who isnt a good comparison because the band were still in their early 30's when Moon died. The Stones dont have THAT much time left realistically, so they're not going to tamper with things much at this stage.

The Stones are long past the stage where they're going to split because of differences between the band members. At this stage, it'll happen if Mick, Keith or Charlie dies or is incapacitated to the extent where they can't play. NONE of the four band members will - in my opinion - choose to retire of their own free will and be remembered as the one who broke up the band. The Stones simply don't know HOW to wind this up - they're in uncharted territory as far as bands go. The decision will eventually be forced on them the hard way.

I read an interview with Shirley Watts about ten years ago which says more about Charlie's mindset than any off the cuff remark he's ever made about retirement. She said he would 'never retire', simply because he'd "never want to let Mick and Keith down".



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-03-26 15:42 by Gazza.

Quote
The Greek
by the way what is up with max blowing off his day job (the boss) so he can go play with conan .its supposed to be the other way around when bruce isnt on the road then max can play elsewhere . where is the loyalty ?

As Edith Grove says, its steadier employment and he's been with Conan since the early 90s, at a time when Bruce had disbanded the ESB. Bruce doesnt tour with the ESB every time he goes on the road.

He hasnt left the ESB anyway. He'll continue to be a member of both bands. The problem arises in that Conan is taking over the Tonight Show - and the switch has now been put back to June 1st, a couple of days after Bruce's European tour starts. Usually he gets someone to fill in when he's on tour with Bruce, but on this occasion its such a high profile event for Conan, that he's needed in LA for the launch of the new look Tonight show. His son Jay will only be filling in for him on a 'very small number' of ESB shows, after which Max will return. My guess is it'll be the first couple of weeks of the European tour - they have a break between June 10 and 27, during which Bruce plays Bonnaroo, so I'd guess Max will play Bonnaroo and then the rest of the tour from Glastonbury (27th June) onwards.

On that note, I truly feel they will stop because of Keith's health overall - either his fingers or his head. They can't go on much longer with the wandering he does. Not that the fans really seem to care but I think Mick would start to get pissed about it.

Quote
windmelody
If Charlie would leave they could to a Jagger-Richards-Wood tour, but I would never attend a "Stones" tour nowadays without Charlie Watts on drums.A new drummer after 46 years does not make sense.

a new bass player after 32 years apparently made sense

Quote
loog droog
The only member you can't replace in their minds is Mick. And since "The Doors" now tour without Morrison, maybe that's not even true anymore.

fabulous doors show at the fillmore the other night, droog -

Quote
His Majesty
I think that if Charlie were to leave, or pass away, that The Rolling Stones would cease to exist, but that Mick, Keith and perhaps Ronnie would still do occasional big bucks live appearances with hired help and famous friends.

Ladies and Gentlemen: The Glimmer Twins and Friends!!!!!

If for some reason Charlie was not able to play with The Stones I think he would be replaced with a new drummer by the rest of the band IF a drummer was needed. Like the others, above, said, MANY bands have played on with a different drummer. Keep in mind that only the most fanatical fans post on this website and I would hazard to say that a LARGE number of people who attend shows, buy CDs or simply enjoy listening to the music of The Stones don't know Charlie Watts' name. Mick and Keith are the Stones. Everyone else can, and HAVE been replaced.

Quote
Duane in Houston
If for some reason Charlie was not able to play with The Stones I think he would be replaced with a new drummer by the rest of the band IF a drummer was needed. Like the others, above, said, MANY bands have played on with a different drummer. Keep in mind that only the most fanatical fans post on this website and I would hazard to say that a LARGE number of people who attend shows, buy CDs or simply enjoy listening to the music of The Stones don't know Charlie Watts' name. Mick and Keith are the Stones. Everyone else can, and HAVE been replaced.

what HE said

Here's my thoughts.
If for some reason Charlie couldn't or didn't want to go on the road again,
We'd be looking at the Rolling Stones without,
Brian or Bill or Charlie.

I suspect that Mick would probably consider it but
Keith would say no.

Marv Peck

Y'all remember that rubber legged boy

Yeah no problem........ as long as they skip all songs that contains a drum

__________________________

Adding a percussionist or two could happen upon Charlie's request.

It could happen.

No way...

Charlie is a different drummer.

If you'd asked me when he had his cancer scare, I would have said YES - most definitely.
Now, in the twilight of their careers, I would say NO.

I did wonder if in the absence of any other activity, Bill would ask him (his best mate?) along on his current tour, I suspect not however.

Have to think they might....for example the Grateful Dead.....ok they vow they will never tour under the name "Grateful Dead" again without Jerry. Ok so instead they are now about to embark on a tour without Jerry ( for the 3rd time) under the name "The Dead". So if they call themselves the "Stones" instead does it matter??? Some fans have NEVER attended a show since Jerry died.....others will be right there for the current tour. Who is right and who is wrong??????????????