If Charlie should have leaved the Stones -93, like Bill he would have been replaced.... with Zak Starr maybe...or Ringo himself...

2 1 2 0

Quote
Olly

Quote
LeonidP

It's not a viewpoint. You just brought it up because ... I guess you were bored.

Nobody holds the view that Watts is irreplaceable?

The unanimous view is that he is replaceable?

Amazing.

I do.
Charlie is irreplaceable.
Listen to Start Me Up. No other drummer plays like that.
He is impossible to copy. Yes, there are probably hundreds of better drummers than Charlie, but no one just like him. Charlie is unique, just like Mick and Keith.

I thought "everyone" knew that the real secret of The Rolling Stones, is the musical partnership of Keith Richards and Charlie Watts. Isn't that the unanimous view, no? If people don't recognize that, that is what I find amazing.

Jagger said once something like that

"Each Rolling Stone be replaced, including me, except Charlie"

Jim Keltner and Ringo are just two of many drummers that could have probably replaced Charlie at one time. But his style and method of drumming are pretty unique and there is no question it would have changed the sound of the band.

Besides I think Charlie serves other social roles in the Stones and grounds them in a way that is necessary for the others to function as a band.

Of course if and when Charlie (or any of the other three) decides to hang it up, that will certainly be the end of the Stones.

Other bass players considered than Darryl when replacing Bill?

What about Willy Weeks or John Paul Jones?

Quote
The Joker
Jagger said once something like that

"Each Rolling Stone be replaced, including me, except Charlie"

Oh yes, Mick loves to make funny comments in interviews. He can be very witty if he wants to.

Quote
HMS
CloudCat:"i think the real question is did bill take his amplifier when he left?"

Of course he did. That´s why he is still able to make music. The Stones were very lucky to find Darryl Jones, who also owned an amplifier (a birthday present from Miles Davis), so the Stones were able to continue without Bill.

wow! little-known footnote, and thanks, goodness, that miles davis gave darryl jones that amp

turn up the stones!

This is a fantastic question Olly, so i will answer it before reading other peoples comments as they sometimes influence my gut reaction.

To me its obvious, of course they would of carried on without Charlie.
Nothing gets in the way of Mick and his money.

But a greater question arises from what i just said.

Are the Stones still Touring 70+ years of age because for instance, if Keith had said last year or the year before that he did not want to tour.
He would have the Stress and humiliation of Mick then saying that he would replace Keith in order to continue touring.
So its possible keith or Charlie continue to tour through fear of being replaced.
I also think this is what was behind bringing Mick Taylor into the fold on 50th tour.
Had Ronnie fallen off the wagon Taylor could of replaced him.
Also had Keith fallen ill Ronnie could have taken over Keith's roll, and Taylor could have replaced Ronnie's roll.
People on here will jump down my throat now, but its very possible that Keith had excepted the Stones were over when he started recording his solo album.
Keith got road fit and in shape as the tour progressed but i found it a bit sad watching Keith struggle and he hardly moved on stage 2012' to early 2013.

Thank god Keith got it all back in the end and as he became more fluent and mobile, it became more of a joy to watch them. Just saying

Charlie was replaced by Jimmy Miller on YCAGWTW and was Ronnie playing drums on Sleep Tonight?

Personally I think Charlie Watts is irreplaceable and if he ever had been substituted the sound of the Rolling Stones would've changed for better or worse....He'd certainly have been missed just like Bill Wyman.

Let's face it things haven't been the same since a certain Mr Brian Jones left....That's another discussion been going on since 1969....

Thanks for the interesting perspectives.

I've amended the title of discussion to make it clear that I'm hypothesising about Watts leaving in 1993, instead of Wyman.

I agree with those who have said that the departure of any of the Stones now would spell the end.

Of course things were different in 1993 in terms of finances, age, relationships, etc.

.....

Olly.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Olly
That Watts is a more accomplished musician than Wyman?

Seeing that they play different instruments that has zero relevance to the subject.

I fail to see how it has zero relevance; it's possible to assess quality across different disciplines.

.....

Olly.

Quote
Olly

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Olly
That Watts is a more accomplished musician than Wyman?

Seeing that they play different instruments that has zero relevance to the subject.

I fail to see how it has zero relevance; it's possible to assess quality across different disciplines.

I defend Watts as much as I can, but that does have nothing to do with this thread. Watts is more versatile, playing rock/blues, jazz, even experimental. Wyman plays rock/blues and dance.

Matter of fact is, if you ask any 30-something to 50-something on the streets "Watts or Wyman?", they might ask you do fill them in on what you're talking about...Now, "Watts or Jagger?" or "Wyman or Jagger?", then you'll get answers!

EDIT: He's also irreplaceable due to the fact that he punched Mick in the 80s to establish dominance of the band. I like to think that afterwards he turned and glared Keith down as a warning...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-08-10 02:31 by BeforeTheyMakeMeRun.

Quote
Olly
If not, what is the thought process?


That Watts is a more accomplished musician than Wyman?

That drums are intrinsically more important to the Stones' sound than bass?

That it would be impossible to mimic or improve Watts' sound?


If it had been Watts who departed in 1993 instead of Wyman, I'm confident the Stones would have continued.


Your thoughts, please.

Yes, I agree with you Ollie. The Stones would have indeed continued without Watts. And, yes, yet another huge chunk of the Stones identity - part of the magic that made them great musically, beyond the songs and image and hits that would've existed even without that really special sound - would have happened without Watts even midway through their golden period..but much to loss of us hardcore fans.

Having said that, drawing the comparison between Watts and Wyman that you have...well, I agree Watts is/was *more* important than Wyman, and I will admit, amazing as it is to me to realize now, when Wyman was with them, I did not really appreciate his contribution...but I have since seen the light. Wyman was critical as well.

Above is simply my opinion, but it should be noted Keith himself, crossed what I would have thought was his own line of sacrilege when he stated a couple of years ago, that the Stones would go one without Watts. A throw back to his old "honesty" perhaps. But should that happen, or had it happened, the Stones would once again be distancing themselves from their greatness as a band...

Easier to find a bass player than a drummer of Watts caliber in my opinion

Mike


[www.flickr.com]

I think yes, but its impossible to tell. Why is Bill really any different than Charlie? In that they are both originals and both not Keith or Mick. Charlie leaving would probably affect ticket sales as much as Bill leaving, so 20 years ago I think its very possible they would have continued. With any band you think "well surely they couldn't continue after [insert person's name] leaves" and then sure enough most bands do, including the Stones. Bruce Springsteen and Clarence Clemons with the E Street Band comes to mind, yet they rolled on, rightly or wrongly.

At this point, I'm sure they wouldn't continue with just Mick and Keith as the originals, but back then I'm sure they would have.

What Wyman did in the Stones was more subtle, Charlie admitted that recently. The real core of the group musically was Wyman/Watts/Richards. They had to replace Wyman, and as Keith said recently, they didn't ask him to leave. If Charlie had left in '93, and that is the question here, I think the Stones would have continued without him. All it would have took was the big money waved in their face, Voodoo Lounge kind of money. Now if Wyman and Watts had left at the same time, game over.

As it was I think the band was sensitive to Wyman leaving, as a sign that it was time to pack it in. Wyman was painfully right about one thing, the golden age was over and all they'd do is repeat themselves. Up until about 2002, Charlie was still 'Charlie'. Since then it's been a slow decline in power. It's ironic, now that Charlie is not as necessary to the sound, he is irreplaceable as a personality now. It's too late in the game to replace him. But 1993, sure.

Quote
mtaylor
Other bass players considered than Darryl when replacing Bill?

What about Willy Weeks or John Paul Jones?

...and Flea?! Amazing bass player!

Quote
Olly

Quote
LeonidP

...No one is thinking about it. Or really cares.

As far as I am aware, you are not the spokesperson for members of this community.

No, just felt you unnecessarily started a 'who is more important?' thread, to stir up trouble, it seems to me. Sorry if I was mistaken ...

Quote
Come On
If Charlie should have leaved the Stones -93, like Bill he would have been replaced.... with Zak Starr maybe...or Ringo himself...

That's terrifying...Don't ever say that! Just imagine...He'd probably request two osngs before Keith's set, two after Keith's set, and one or two before the encore...Ronnie does his little catwalk/jumping bit during band intros...Just imagine Ringo!

MICK: "And on the drums, Mister Ringo Sta--"
RINGO: "WHAT'S MY NAME?!?!"
MICK: *Laughs it off* "And on guitars and now vocals, Mister---"
RINGO: "WHAT"S MY NAME??!!"
MICK: *Stares in disbelief*

Imagine that going on until they cut Ringo's mic off.

In all fairness, he is a very good drummer, just probably not for the Stones...

Charlie is an essential Stone. If Mick is the Rock, and keith is the Roll, Charlie is the "-n-" that makes "Rock-n-Roll"

Quote
BeforeTheyMakeMeRun

Quote
Come On
If Charlie should have leaved the Stones -93, like Bill he would have been replaced.... with Zak Starr maybe...or Ringo himself...

That's terrifying...Don't ever say that! Just imagine...He'd probably request two osngs before Keith's set, two after Keith's set, and one or two before the encore...Ronnie does his little catwalk/jumping bit during band intros...Just imagine Ringo!

MICK: "And on the drums, Mister Ringo Sta--"
RINGO: "WHAT'S MY NAME?!?!"
MICK: *Laughs it off* "And on guitars and now vocals, Mister---"
RINGO: "WHAT"S MY NAME??!!"
MICK: *Stares in disbelief*

Imagine that going on until they cut Ringo's mic off.

In all fairness, he is a very good drummer, just probably not for the Stones...

Ringo just better be glad it was a Yellow submarine and not a Purple one.

What B said, no Charlie, no Stones.The Stones realize that.

Quote
Delta
What B said, no Charlie, no Stones.The Stones realize that.

Maybe yes, maybe no. Remember, there´s a lot of money in the game. In case Charlie would quit and the remaining three Stones still feel like playing ( and making big money ) they will replace him and continue. A few fans wouldn´t like it but the general audiences would not care about it.

The Who first lost Keith Moon and continued. Then they lost John Entwistle and continued. They still sell out large venues with only Roger and Pete remaining. With the Stones it would be the same. People come to hear the so called warhorses and to see Mick jagger perform. They dont care who´s drumming in the back.

Quote
HMS

Quote
Delta
What B said, no Charlie, no Stones.The Stones realize that.

Maybe yes, maybe no. Remember, there´s a lot of money in the game. In case Charlie would quit and the remaining three Stones still feel like playing ( and making big money ) they will replace him and continue. A few fans wouldn´t like it but the general audiences would not care about it.

i would care!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-08-11 00:20 by CloudCat.

Quote
Turner68
Charlie is an essential Stone. If Mick is the Rock, and keith is the Roll, Charlie is the "-n-" that makes "Rock-n-Roll"

Possibly the most accurate post in this thread.

Peace,
Mr DJA

I think Bill gave an interview around 1993 stating that he felt the Rolling Stones would carry on touring/recording (great title for a film of the recent shows) until one of the band (MJ/KR/CW/RW) died....

the idea that a band like the stones can replace a band member and still be the same on the basis that a soldier can be replaced is stupid.

the rolling stones formed and evolved into a 5 man band.

only 1 position in the band has ever had a replacement, and that is the brian jones position. wyman was never replaced officially, so he is a loss yet the band continued but they are not the same as pre 1993.

the stones survived the jones replacement and evolved into something different, they are not the same post brian jones as they were with him in the band and if jagger, richards or watts ever leaves they cannot ever be replaced, woods could though as his position in the band has already had the original replaced before him.

(Almost) Anybody can be replaced. Replaced in the sense they had "replaced" Bill. Another guy - Darryl - does his job quite well, but is no regular member.

The same can happen with Charlie or Ronnie. For the die hard fans they are iconic figures that cannot be replaced, but the casual listener (that´s the majority of the audiences today) wouldn´t care. To them it´s not important who´s banging the drums.

Mick, Keith and Ronnie would continue as Rolling Stones.
Mick, Keith and Charlie would continue as Rolling Stones.
Maybe even Mick and Keith would continue as Rolling Stones. Mick and Keith did Miss You and Salt Of The Earth at the concert for NYC. And guess what, to my own surprise I didn´t miss neither Ronnie nor Charlie.

Even Queen are touring from time to time without the original singer and are quite successful. Nobody has thought this could ever happen 20 years ago. As long as the money is good, the Stones wouldn´t care if some fans dont like it. Mick and Keith can fill stadiums by playing with hired musicians instead of Ronnie, Charlie, Bill or whoever. In the end people want to see Mick and Keith, the others - who are soldiers - dont count that much, except for die hard fans. Even the sound wouldn´t change drastically, take a look at The Who, they are still in the game without Entwistle/Moon and even with Roger´s crumbling voice. And they are still considered to be The Who.

If Ronnie, Bill and Charlie had died in a plane crash in 1993, the Rolling Stones would still exist, if only for the money, just like The Who.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-08-11 12:41 by HMS.

If I'm right there were some discussions in the eighties if the Stones would even continue without MJ. Keith was angry at MJ's solo capers ...

I'd be fairly confident that they would replace any member if it were necessary to secure the group's future. Unlike most of their contemporaries, they still have a majority of active original members. That carries a lot of weight as far as continuity with the past is concerned. At this late stage in their career, the resignation of one of the core team could be enough to bring the show to an end.