[p081.ezboard.com]

By NUI TE KOHA
15Apr06

Stones tour shock -
Rolling Stones drummer Charlie Watts is to quit the global touring circuit in December.

Stones sources said Watts, 64, agreed to play a 2005-06 world tour on the condition frontman Mick Jagger and guitarist Keith Richards promised it was the last time.
"Charlie did not want to tour the latest album," a Stones insider said.

"Keith begged him to do it. It took a lot of negotiation. Charlie agreed if Keith promised he would not ask him to do another world tour."

Sources stressed Watts was not quitting the Stones, nor would he stop live performances.

But he had made it clear he planned to stop globe-hopping when the latest Stones tour, A Bigger Bang, wrapped in Hawaii in December.

Sources said Watts's health and family forced his decision. The drummer was treated for throat cancer last year. He underwent a minor operation and had six weeks of radiotherapy.

Jagger said the treatment left Watts feeling sapped of energy.

After his health scare, Watts has relished more time with wife Shirley and daughter Seraphina.

Last week, Watts's plan was corroborated by an LA music store owner and friend of Richards. And rock expert Glenn A. Baker said he spoke to Jagger during the 1994 Voodoo Lounge tour about Watts's future.

"One of the things Mick said to me, and he was very serious about this, is the Stones will end when Charlie quits," Baker said yesterday.

"Mick said the Stones would survive the loss of anybody, including Jagger himself, but it couldn't survive the loss of Charlie."

So this really is the last tour.

So what does this mean? As the article indicates that Charlie ISN'T quitting the Stones or live performances altogether, does this mean that they'll knuckle down and become more of a studio band again and do the odd live show or what?

The Stones have been primarily a live band for a long time now. Can they change?

I don't see this as a bad thing at all!
If Charlie said that he wouldn't do anymore long world tours but won't quit the stones then it just means that there won't be any more tours like they used to do but we would get let's say a couple of concerts in one city.

I think it is a good thing. They have problems keeping there level up for one and a half year and that is totally normal if you are sixty years old. So now we would get some shows in London or let's say New York and then a couple of months nothing and then some more shows (hopefully not in Vegas!!!).

Cheers,
Wuudy

True. It could be a good thing. It's no great surprise really. He's not Superman.

I'm with Wuddy. Obvsiously the day will come, but this isn't the end of the Stones.

....and besides I think Charlie has mumbled a lot of times about quitting during the years.
I know this is more serious, but still........

I must say that I would be much more pleased if it was Michael Cohl, who said that this was his last tour.

This is just one report, by a music writer whose stories have been questioned in the past (try a Google search), and relying on a blind quote from a "Stones insider." It may well be true, but I'll wait to hear it from a more official source before I believe it....

I'm surprised he did this tour, to be honest. I can't imagine The Stones will tour again after this. Why?

"I stepped off the plane at the end of 1972 , and said "No @#$%& more""

>> It may well be true, but I'll wait to hear it from a more official source before I believe it ... <<

various "sources" have been saying since about last may that this would be the last *world* tour -
which sounds reasonable, nondisastrous, etc (especially when you bear in mind that technically the Stones' first world tour was Voodoo Lounge).
but in any case i too need a little more than this before i take it too literally.


"What do you want - what?!"
- Keith

I remember an interview with Stevie Nicks talking about Fleetwood Mac and she said "I will never be the one to break this band up". I think Charlie feels the same about the Stones....but who knows. They aint getting any younger

Reality check: everything comes to an end.

Playing drums for two hours is physically exhausting. The guy is 64 years old. He just survived a fight with cancer.

We were lucky to have him around for this album and tour.

No one wants to imagine a Rolling Stones without Charlie. If Mick and Keith decide to tour without him someday, I hope they have the decency to shorten the name to "The Stones" so at least people will be aware that they are missing a part of the legacy.

Can they do it without Charlie? Some of their best known songs have other guys filling in for him: Jimmy Miller on You Can't Always Get What You Want and Happy.

Kenney Jones on the song this site is named after.

Should they tour without Charlie? Whole other question.

Everything has a beginning and a end...they should not tour wwithout Charlie...it will be like Queen+Paul Rogers, patetic.

SeNdEr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...it will be like
> Queen+Paul Rogers, patetic.


Or like the headless woman.

I remember at the beginning of the ABB tour in Boston, Mick said tours after this one would be less lengthy. He thought they'd include about 20 shows, but he didn't say how these might be spread out.

i think that this may be the last HUGE tour, with three types of shows, stadiums, arenas etc...

from now on, they will most likely do smaller things, like a show here and there, and smaller low key tours.

they wont become a studio band because Jagger and Cohl know thats not where the money is.

where is Gazza to straighten this out??! the man of insight and reason is needed

I don't see it as dramatically, really. I think it would have been more or less the same if Charlie had quit instead of Bill in 1993. That's the case of the public image. But as far as Mick and Keith are concerned, the whole thing probably only makes sense when they turn round and see Charlie on the drums. They would probably continue if Ronnie left (which he'll never do, of course): an interviewer said he got the impression Jagger felt Ronnie was pretty much hired hand.

rocksoffKR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> where is Gazza to straighten this out??! the man
> of insight and reason is needed





how the hell am I supposed to know what Charlie, Mick and Cohl's plans are? LOL

For what its worth, Ive thought from the start of this tour it would be their last big tour. The size and scale of it, plus the fact theyre playing so many countries and the type of greatest hits show that theyre presenting enforces that even further.

I know Charlie has hinted at a quieter life for years, but the Stones in 2006 are very different to what they were in 1999, 1976, 1972 or anything like that, so this time its certainly much more realistic

Their age and health is catching up with them to the point where in future tours that really IS going to be a problem. Two of the band have had life threatening illnesses in the last couple of years and whilst both of them seem to be doing well (they wouldnt be touring otherwise) the nature of those illnesses are such that you live in fear of them coming back. Keith's arthritis isnt going to get much better either.

Add that to the fact that the band are now out of contract (and I havent seen or heard any evidence to suggest theyre about to sign with anyone) and the lacklustre sales of their new record doesnt augur well for their long term prospects as a recording band.

If the Stones are to work again as a live act after 2006, its going to take a HUGE about turn in the way theyve operated thus far. They never play any shows that dont take place within the confines of a mega tour (since Hyde Park, the only non-tour shows have been El Mocambo '77, the CNIB shows in '79 and the Stu memorial gig in '86), so this talk of them playing "occasional shows" instead of touring doesnt really wash unless they dramatically change the way they work.
No doubt if they do decide to continue working after this year, Cohl and Jagger will come up with something. For all their ethical shortcomings, they always do.

Ive maintained for quite some time that the way forward is to end the massive tours that theyre doing now and if theyre going to continue to perform, to play a series of 'mini tours' on a rolling scale, similar to what Dylan has been doing for years but obviously at a less frentic pace (ie, maybe 3 tours a year, for about a month/5 weeks at a time/18 shows at a time, etc). Gives them plenty of time to rest, do other solo projects - plus theres less rehearsal time needed because they never have the problem (like they do now) of having to wait a couple of years between tours. A month away from home 3 times a year isnt THAT physically and emotionally demanding and maybe would be a more appealing scenario for them



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2006-04-16 03:04 by Gazza.

(excuse my english)
Let's say: we got lucky; because a man 64 years old, with cancer, who never liked RnR music and RnR life style ... stayed in this band for 43 years!!

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ive maintained for quite some time that the way
> forward is to end the massive tours that theyre
> doing now and if theyre going to continue to
> perform, to play a series of 'mini tours' on a
> rolling scale, similar to what Dylan has been
> doing for years but obviously at a less frentic
> pace (ie, maybe 3 tours a year, for about a
> month/5 weeks at a time/18 shows at a time, etc).

That's very good suggestion, that they should have tried years ago. It must be exhausting with these big tours. And not very productive for song-writing, new ideas, new attitudes etc. It's like having a stressing job. Your family life will suffer, and the "vacations" will be a repeating, sick scetch.
To pack the concerts together with their real life, should have been the way to do it decades ago.
Good post, Gazza.

ROADRUNNER Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> (excuse my english)
> Let's say: we got lucky; because a man 64 years
> old, with cancer, who never liked RnR music and
> RnR life style ... stayed in this band for 43
> years!!


youre damn right

Jagger & Watts have both mentioned the shorter tours.Last year Jagger said that he would have been fine with ten shows each in the U.S. & Europe plus a couple of others here and there.That scenario could lead to longer shows & different songs being played.I think that's the way to go at this point.

This sucks for those who are not living in high profile places on the States or in Europe. However the man's been doing this for a long, long time and better than many, many others so it's not like we won't have many memories. It's sad but I knew it was coming (that's why I spent the shitload amount of money to go see them in BA this year and I'm very happy I did), I'm glad that he'll still be a band member and maybe they'll start working on a new album not long after this tour is over since they won't have to tour for it for so long.

Still I hope this report is not true.

ROADRUNNER Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> (excuse my english)
> Let's say: we got lucky; because a man 64 years
> old, with cancer, who never liked RnR music and
> RnR life style ... stayed in this band for 43
> years!!

Best post on this thread, Roadrunner. (Apologies to Gazza, of course). I was having a similar discussion with a friend today. The Rolling Stones are truly a "perfect storm" of personalities and relationships to have withstood 40+ years of...everthing. God bless Charlie Watts and The Rolling Stones.

ROADRUNNER Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> (excuse my english)
> Let's say: we got lucky; because a man 64 years
> old, with cancer, who never liked RnR music and
> RnR life style ... stayed in this band for 43
> years!!

Couldn't be said more perfectly - nothing wrong with that English AT ALL!!

Everyone should just CHILL about what Charlie might or might not have said. If you watch 25X5, he says that at the end of every tour he quits the band, because he doesn't like living out of suitcases and doesn't like being away from his wife and daughter. The quote in the Uptown Edition program is "I came off the road in 1972 and said no fu**ing more!". So Charlie's been quitting the band for 35 years, give or take a year.