Quote
RobertJohnson
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 ...

Terence Trent D'Arby and Roger Daltrey were even named as possible candidates...

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
RobertJohnson
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 ...

Terence Trent D'Arby and Roger Daltrey were even named as possible candidates...

Can't imagine that it could work ... in both respects. No one comes to my mind spontaneously who could replace Mick Jagger.

Mick could have been replaced in the early/mid 60s, maybe.
But after 1965... sheer impossible. No Stones without Mick´s voice and performance.

Quote
RobertJohnson

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
RobertJohnson
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 ...

Terence Trent D'Arby and Roger Daltrey were even named as possible candidates...

Can't imagine that it could work ... in both respects. No one comes to my mind spontaneously who could replace Mick Jagger.

Agreed! Although both Ronnie and Keith praised D'Arby's take on the Stones covers at the time.

I'm sure dropping those names was just a way to put the fire back under Jagger's bum. No way they could have been serious.

Quote
HMS
Mick could have been replaced in the early/mid 60s, maybe.
But after 1965... sheer impossible. No Stones without Mick´s voice and performance.

Maybe, but some bands did change their lead vocalist and carry on.

Manfred mann springs to mind, Deep purple.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
HMS
Mick could have been replaced in the early/mid 60s, maybe.
But after 1965... sheer impossible. No Stones without Mick´s voice and performance.

Maybe, but some bands did change their lead vocalist and carry on.

Manfred mann springs to mind, Deep purple.

Lynyrd Skynyrd: From Van Zant to Van Zant, but the latter Van Zant is as good as the late founder. The only original member is Gary Rossington, so far ...

When you've been together for as long as they have, I'm sure all of them thought of getting rid of each other at some point in time. Maybe it would have been possible in the early 90's for Charlie to be replaced, but it wouldn't have sounded like the Stones anymore. Luckily, he's still around and as long as he's able to tour, the band will tour. Everyone thinks that it's Mick, but I think it's more likely Charlie who will determine the future for the Stones. Stay healthy, Charlie!

Imo, the story will end when Mick or Keith can no longer perform. Them continuing without Charlie and/or Ronnie wouldn't be a hard sell, continuing without Charlie could be seen as a tribute to him...

The Rolling Stones carrying on with only Mick and Keith kinda brings the story full circle from that meeting at Dartford train station.

Quote
His Majesty
Imo, the story will end when Mick or Keith can no longer perform. Them continuing without Charlie and/or Ronnie wouldn't be a hard sell, continuing without Charlie could be seen as a tribute to him...

The Rolling Stones carrying on with only Mick and Keith kinda brings the story full circle from that meeting at Dartford train station.

No, don't see it HM...though I'm glad to see you, so to speak.

I don't think Mick or Keith would have it in them to carry on without Charlie, not at their ages. I could see a few one off's together, like a tribute concert to one of their peers or musical influences, but not a full fledged tour.

Could we visualise this when they're in their mid-70s?

Yes.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Could we visualise this when they're in their mid-70s?

In any case ...singing and strumming You Gotta Move and Prodigal Son

Quote
His Majesty

Manfred mann springs to mind

Do you like his album 'Nightingales and Bombers'?

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
His Majesty

Manfred mann springs to mind

Do you like his album 'Nightingales and Bombers'?

Never listened to it.

I like As Is from 1966 and Mighty Garvey from 1968.

The real question is, would Ronnie and Charlie continue without Mick and Keith?





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-08-11 18:51 by Turner68.

Quote
Turner68
The real question is, would Ronnie and Charlie continue without Mick and Keith?

I tried real hard, but cannot imagine Ronnie playing in Charlie´s Jazz Quartet

Quote
RobertJohnson

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Could we visualise this when they're in their mid-70s?

In any case ...singing and strumming You Gotta Move and Prodigal Son

My God they were so beautiful

Its poetry in motion

Who could argue that

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

Yes, he was. He was also behind the drum kit on 'Too Rude'.

.....

Olly.

Quote
Olly

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

Yes, he was. He was also behind the drum kit on 'Too Rude'.

Jordan on Too Rude.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Jordan on Too Rude.

With these four words you have made me appear a damnable fool.

Perhaps a once trusted source has failed me (see 'Probable line-up' and Wood quote):

[www.timeisonourside.com]

.....

Olly.

They'd need Watts to stick around...Daryl can only do so much

Quote
Olly

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Jordan on Too Rude.

With these four words you have made me appear a damnable fool.

Perhaps a once trusted source has failed me (see 'Probable line-up' and Wood quote):

[www.timeisonourside.com]

I was in your shoes for a long time, until many sources corrected me. He is on Hold Back as well, if I'm not mistaken.

"If Brian Jones, Bill Wyman, Charlie Watts, and myself had never existed on the face of this earth, Mick and Keith would still have had a group that looked and sounded like the Rolling Stones."
(Ian Stewart, according to Stanley Booth - in: 'The True Adventures of The Rolling Stones')

Quote
RoughJusticeOnYa
"If Brian Jones, Bill Wyman, Charlie Watts, and myself had never existed on the face of this earth, Mick and Keith would still have had a group that looked and sounded like the Rolling Stones."
(Ian Stewart, according to Stanley Booth - in: 'The True Adventures of The Rolling Stones')

Only partially.

Probably would have ended up sounding like The Pretty Things and a load of other R&B influenced bands did in same time period... and met a similar fate.

They would have ended up sounding like THE ROLLING STONES. At the end it´s all Keith n Mick. Another drummer, bass player, guitarplayer would have only slightly affected the sound of the band. The songs would have been the same anyway, since they are all written by Jagger/Richards.

I dont know why some people constantly underrate Jagger/Richards as a creative working unit and overrate the contributions of soldiers like MT, Bill or Charlie. Ian Stewart is completely right. It´s Keith´s riffs and Mick´s trademark voice that are the essence of the Stones-sound, certainly not the way Charlie bangs his drums. And Bill Wyman isn´t even featured on a lot of Stones-tracks. To compare the Stones with losers like The Pretty Things is very offensive. A team like Jagger/Richards with their songwriting qualities and their personal charisma never had met the fate of the countless R n B-bands of the 60s. Most of them are all long gone and forgotten, because they simply weren´t talented enough to create a style of their own like Jagger/Richards did. Would you dare to say the Beatles would have ended up like countless anonymous Beat-bands without Ringo banging the drums?

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
RobertJohnson

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
RobertJohnson
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 ...

Terence Trent D'Arby and Roger Daltrey were even named as possible candidates...

Can't imagine that it could work ... in both respects. No one comes to my mind spontaneously who could replace Mick Jagger.

Agreed! Although both Ronnie and Keith praised D'Arby's take on the Stones covers at the time.

Right. The Stones could never have replaced Jagger with someONE else ..and still been *the* Rolling Stones. Impossible. But, if, during Jagger's initial solo outing, the rest had picked judiciously from their contemporaries and near-contemporaries, and co-written some new material, the Stones band with the right "guest" vocalists (plural),and put out an album, it might well have sold well enough at the time and provided a really interesting stand-alone work to their discography.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
RoughJusticeOnYa
"If Brian Jones, Bill Wyman, Charlie Watts, and myself had never existed on the face of this earth, Mick and Keith would still have had a group that looked and sounded like the Rolling Stones."
(Ian Stewart, according to Stanley Booth - in: 'The True Adventures of The Rolling Stones')

Only partially.

Probably would have ended up sounding like The Pretty Things and a load of other R&B influenced bands did in same time period... and met a similar fate.

I agree. Mick and Keith are unquestionably the primary creative force of the Rolling Stones, but that doesn't mean the other members contributed nothing at all. Ian was being modest as usual. Mick and Keith have both said they very much wanted his approval, so he clearly had a strong influence over the direction the band took.

Quote
HMS
They would have ended up sounding like THE ROLLING STONES. At the end it´s all Keith n Mick. Another drummer, bass player, guitarplayer would have only slightly affected the sound of the band. The songs would have been the same anyway, since they are all written by Jagger/Richards.

I dont know why some people constantly underrate Jagger/Richards as a creative working unit and overrate the contributions of soldiers like MT, Bill or Charlie. Ian Stewart is completely right. It´s Keith´s riffs and Mick´s trademark voice that are the essence of the Stones-sound, certainly not the way Charlie bangs his drums. And Bill Wyman isn´t even featured on a lot of Stones-tracks. To compare the Stones with losers like The Pretty Things is very offensive. A team like Jagger/Richards with their songwriting qualities and their personal charisma never had met the fate of the countless R n B-bands of the 60s. Most of them are all long gone and forgotten, because they simply weren´t talented enough to create a style of their own like Jagger/Richards did. Would you dare to say the Beatles would have ended up like countless anonymous Beat-bands without Ringo banging the drums?

Change one thing and all that follows changes.