regarding the possibility of a Stones tour without Charlie, Keith has said that he, Mick and Charlie are the "irreducible core"..

at the very end of the band's long career--doing any kind of tour without Charlie Watts is very unlikely. yes lots of other bands have continued with one or two of the original members
I believe the Rolling Stones are an exception to this.

agreed

Mick, Keith, Charlie and Ronnie makes the core. Nobody can be spared Imo.

JumpingKentFlash

thats certainly how it SHOULD be at this stage, Kent. Hopefully thats how it WILL be as well.

I think it is like that regardless of what Keith says.

JumpingKentFlash

I agree.

Respectfully disagree, I have a feeling that Keith,Mick and Ronnie would continue on without Charlie. It would not be the 'same' Rolling Stones just like it isn't the same Rolling Stones without Brian, Mick T, Bill and even Ian.

What else would these guys do? They love the road, love the adulation.

Tom

Quote
JumpingKentFlash
Mick, Keith, Charlie and Ronnie makes the core. Nobody can be spared Imo.

I doubt it. If Cohl offers the Stones 50 million for a US tour with the only condition that Wood should be replaced for whatever reason, Jagger will accept it no doubt. Jagger is really only in it for the money.

Mathijs

Keith said ronnie could be replaced in 2002 or 03

If Charlie couldn't soldier on any longer I think that THAT would be all the convincing the others would need to call it a day. Lets face it, they're at that age where no one would blame them to start taking it easy and enjoy the fruits of their labor in the remaining years of their lives,,,,and it's not like they're gonna break any new musical ground or become a better "live" unit. As musical artists I think they left their mark years ago. If they were 20 years younger, however, it would be a completely different situation.

When Charlie was undergoing chemotherapy and no one knew if he had the strength to drum again or if he could be insured for another world tour, Mick and Keith continued writing and building the tracks that became A BIGGER BANG. The fact that Charlie was able to come aboard later and replace Mick's drumming or programmed drum tracks doesn't change the fact that they were prepared to replace him. They said as much during interviews when the album was released. The same situation for Woody during the BRIDGES sessions and in the build-up for the LICKS tour. The essential core to legally call themselves the Stones must be Mick and Keith or they wouldn't have wasted their time writing and recording for several months before they knew whether Charlie could join them.
Keith's "irreducible core" is just another example of Keith giving good sound byte. He's done it for years.

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
JumpingKentFlash
Mick, Keith, Charlie and Ronnie makes the core. Nobody can be spared Imo.

I doubt it. If Cohl offers the Stones 50 million for a US tour with the only condition that Wood should be replaced for whatever reason, Jagger will accept it no doubt. Jagger is really only in it for the money.

Mathijs

Complete Bollocks!!!

Quote
donnywas

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
JumpingKentFlash
Mick, Keith, Charlie and Ronnie makes the core. Nobody can be spared Imo.

I doubt it. If Cohl offers the Stones 50 million for a US tour with the only condition that Wood should be replaced for whatever reason, Jagger will accept it no doubt. Jagger is really only in it for the money.

Mathijs

Complete Bollocks!!!

Sure? Jagger has tried to get rid of both Wood and Wyman before, when it wasn't as lucrative. And Jagger did tour Australia and Japan with a god-awful band before.

Read Bill German's book -it's truly all about the money since '89.

91210 anyone?

Mathijs



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-09-04 15:51 by Mathijs.

Would Mick and Keith tour without Charlie and call themselves the Rolling Stones? Sure

Would I go?
Sure

Would I like the show?
Sure

Would I like the idea?
No way

Mick is the only one that needs a "large scale" Rolling Stones band for a creative outlet. Charlie has his jazz thing going on which I'd wager he'd be very happy doing from here on out. Keith could "get his fix" anytime he wanted to by guesting on various recordings and live performances of other artists if he didn't want to pursue a solo project. Ronnie has his art to go along with other musical projects that he could become involved in if he wanted. I think that they'd all be satisfied creating and performing on a smaller scale.

I don't think Mick would be satisfied doing smaller projects here and there like I think the others would.

Mick has many smaller projects. His film business for example. I get the idea that he is always busy with something.

From reading the Bill German book I also got the idea that it is just purely the money for Jagger. Very dissapointing...

Cheers,
Wuudy

Quote
Elmo Lewis
Would Mick and Keith tour without Charlie and call themselves the Rolling Stones? Sure

Would I go?
Sure

Would I like the show?
Sure

Would I like the idea?
No way

1 = No
2 = No because of 1
3 = certainly not

They can called them the "glimmer twins" but the name "rolling stones doesn't own to Mick or Keith.

I fully agree with the original post. For me the core are those three. Woody is very important and fits in like nobody else would, but I think even at this stage of their carreer he is replacable. But I am somehow sure that that is not gonna happen.

Quote
Wuudy
From reading the Bill German book I also got the idea that it is just purely the money for Jagger. Very dissapointing...

This hasn't and doesn't stop him giving stellar performances though.

Quote
Wuudy
Mick has many smaller projects. His film business for example. I get the idea that he is always busy with something.

From reading the Bill German book I also got the idea that it is just purely the money for Jagger. Very dissapointing...

As a performer, though, Mick doesn't really have many options at this point in his career beyond The RS.

Quote
Happy24
I fully agree with the original post. For me the core are those three. Woody is very important and fits in like nobody else would, but I think even at this stage of their carreer he is replacable. But I am somehow sure that that is not gonna happen.

I'd always like to think that if Woody left they would look to me to fill the vacant slot. Nothing wrong with dreaming........

NickB

You can't always get what you want.....

www.myspace.com/thesonkings

the stones would tour without woody without hesitation...hell, they've almost done that more than once starting with the '81 tour....

StonesTod please stop raising my hopes only for them to be dashed cruelly upon the rocks of expectation.

NickB

You can't always get what you want.....

www.myspace.com/thesonkings

Jagger, Richards, Watts, Wood.

If one of those doesn´t turn up on stage - I won´t go!
Mark my words!

Quote
TooTough
Jagger, Richards, Watts, Wood.

If one of those doesn´t turn up on stage - I won´t go!
Mark my words!

you've prolly gone when some have turned up on stage but hardly played? it's a minor adjustment we're asking for here....

As much as I would hate to see the Rolling Stones come to an end I think it would be the right thing to do if in fact Charlie were to retire. IMO it was a huge blow when Bill left the band and although Darryl is more than capable on bass they've never quite had that same sound again. Now if they lost Charlie as well that old rhythm section as we know it would be totally gone, I don't think Keith could carry that trademark Stones sound by himself with a different drummer. I'm afraid that without Charlie's steady back beat they would end up being nothing but a glitzy Vegas act and that would be pathetic way to go out as far as I'm concerned.

Would I go see the band without Charlie? Well, I might catch a show locally but I certainly wouldn't follow them halfway around the world anymore like I have in the past.

Lose your dreams and you will lose your mind...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-09-04 22:36 by Thru and Thru.

Quote
aprilfool

Quote
Elmo Lewis
Would Mick and Keith tour without Charlie and call themselves the Rolling Stones? Sure

Would I go?
Sure

Would I like the show?
Sure

Would I like the idea?
No way

1 = No
2 = No because of 1
3 = certainly not

They can called them the "glimmer twins" but the name "rolling stones doesn't own to Mick or Keith.

I like the idea of MJ/KR calling themselves "The Glimmer Twins" more than I'd like them calling themselves "The Rolling Stones". I'd go either way.

Also, could they just call themselves "Rolling Stones" without the "The"?

"No Anchovies, Please"

"Keith has said that he, Mick and Charlie are the "irreducible core".."

I'm speaking from memory here, but Richards went even further with regard to the initial recordings of ABB, didn't he? Saying that he and Jagger (with the latter on drums) played all the instruments on the first ABB demos, and that they would continue to the bitter end even if the others were not around. Richards also referred to George Harrison who had told him that they (the Stones) were lucky to still have their band.

I found this statement rather moving, the words of someone who has found the format for his art. Moving also in the sense of the end of the RS being the same as the beginning, two 'little boys blue' shacked up together - despite obvious differences - playing their music.

Quote
parislocksmith
I found this statement rather moving, the words of someone who has found the format for his art. Moving also in the sense of
the end of the RS being the same as the beginning, two 'little boys blue'
shacked up together - despite obvious differences - playing their music.

I hate to think about them touring as a "Rolling Stones"-band with fake
musicians to earn money they can´t even spend anymore.

If either Ronnie or Charlie quits - a perfect ending for me would be Mick
and Keith taking the train from London to Dartford. And when the train stops
both leave the train, Mick gives back the Berry and Waters LPs to Keith. They
hug and say: "That was a great journey, my friend." And then both go seperate
ways.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-09-04 18:30 by TooTough.

I don't understand the "If Charlie is able to soldier on....." and, "No one knew if Charlie would have the strength to drum again after his chemo......",lines, as if he's some geriatric, one foot in the grave, past his sell by date, put him out to grass, decrepit old man - WHICH HE IS NOT.

What sort of strength do you think a drummer needs?
Drumming is about pace and technique, not about having the strength of Guy the gorilla.

In the last ten years, Watts has done more gigs than Jagger Richards and Wood put together, he's been more musically active than any of them and is still out there now playing, which proves he has the energy and motivation.

Where is Keith Richards? What's he done in the last couple of years? A couple of 'celebrity' walk ons ? The odd session?