Tell Me :
Talk
It is no longer the Rolling Stones if Charlie is gone. Hopefully Mick and Keith would be wise enough to call it the end of the Stones and not try to drag it on just for the record books.
I also feel the same way about Ronnie. If he was gone - no Stones.
Now if Mick was gone, Keith and Charlie could easily replace him with Steven Tyler.
Kidding of course.
They could replace Ronnie with Eric Clapton?! Or maybe The Edge. Or Angus Young.
It would not work.
It makes sense when a band has members quit or die of drug overdoses to keep going, but when they start dying of natural causes it's time to call it quits.
I agree on your assesment of Charlie's playing, he is a very underrated drummer because of his simple style, but I have rarely heard a drummer play like him. (Even doing Stones covers) He follows Keith. Most guitarist follow the drummer.
Yeah, that's the kind of respect Keith deserves. Classy...
Sorry if my opinion offends you ,but I can no longer blindly defend Keith (as I did for decades) when he come's out with statements like that. I couldn't even finish that caustic book . Why is he so full of bile for just about everyone he's ever crossed paths with. Only Stu and (admittedly) Charlie came out unscathed.No, I'm not remotely "Classy" I'll live with it.
To paraphrase - "I want my old Keith back"
sc uk
HA HA HA.... I totally believe he said it, and not only do I believe he said it, I believe he meant it, and I believe the Stones would've gone on a tour (if they felt like it).
As much as I agree there really is no Rolling Stones as we know it, without Keith Richards in the mix someplace, this statement of his should (I know it won't, but it SHOULD), be a wake up call for all the faithful hanging on Keith's previous quotes of "No Stones" without him Jagger or Watts. And, a thousand other bits of nonsense...
He will always be the Human Riff to me, but he is part Human Weathervane as well for quite a few years now. The guy never stops babbling and its whatever suits him at the moment.
If it was ten, twenty years ago I could see them going on without Charlie. At this late stage of the Rolling Stones I can't see them going on without Charlie unless they had dates booked and something happened to him at the last minute. It's sunset for the Rolling Stones and they better get something going quick before something happens to one of them. Mick is the one I see going on long after the Stones, probably forming his own band with some young lions.
Well fine then, I will blindly defend him. Now I offer this suggestion, go kill yourself.
Better than Ringo?
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Keith: Stones would tour without Charlie??
Posted by:
chippy
()
Date: September 13, 2005 02:59
i saw 2 who shows already,,, minus the greatest bass player ever in rock & they were incredible ,,,i hope they tour again ,, but for some weird reason i dont think the stones can pull it off without charlie
Re: Keith: Stones would tour without Charlie??
Posted by:
bianca
()
Date: September 13, 2005 03:04
God bless Charlie, but not one person on this board would have a clue if he were playing or if he wasn't.
The singer is essential, for obvious reasons, and without Keith they aren't the Stones, but that is it.
If it happens that Mick and Keith are the last two standing, of course they will tour, and we will all be enthralled.
The singer is essential, for obvious reasons, and without Keith they aren't the Stones, but that is it.
If it happens that Mick and Keith are the last two standing, of course they will tour, and we will all be enthralled.
Re: Keith: Stones would tour without Charlie??
Posted by:
Markdog
()
Date: September 13, 2005 03:38
It is no longer the Rolling Stones if Charlie is gone. Hopefully Mick and Keith would be wise enough to call it the end of the Stones and not try to drag it on just for the record books.
I also feel the same way about Ronnie. If he was gone - no Stones.
Now if Mick was gone, Keith and Charlie could easily replace him with Steven Tyler.
Kidding of course.
Re: Keith: Stones would tour without Charlie??
Posted by:
poor immigrant
()
Date: September 13, 2005 03:49
I think Ronnie is replaceable. Charlie is not. There is a certain way he plays that cannot be imitated very easily. The way he skips the Hi-Hat when he hits the snare in a straight beat? I've seen the guys in the WINOS do it, but not with the same feel. Most drummers have far too heavy of a backbeat to play Stones tunes properly. That's why covers of Stones tunes often rock, but never roll.
I think the reason for this is partly that the Rolling Stones were around when it was still just Rock N' Roll, not "ROCK" music, where the beat is so heavy and sludgy (see Led Zep, Cream, etc...). I like that stuff too, don't get me wrong, but the Stones have their own unique rhythmic feel. Long live Charlie.
I think the reason for this is partly that the Rolling Stones were around when it was still just Rock N' Roll, not "ROCK" music, where the beat is so heavy and sludgy (see Led Zep, Cream, etc...). I like that stuff too, don't get me wrong, but the Stones have their own unique rhythmic feel. Long live Charlie.
Re: Keith: Stones would tour without Charlie??
Posted by:
Markdog
()
Date: September 13, 2005 04:00
They could replace Ronnie with Eric Clapton?! Or maybe The Edge. Or Angus Young.
It would not work.
It makes sense when a band has members quit or die of drug overdoses to keep going, but when they start dying of natural causes it's time to call it quits.
I agree on your assesment of Charlie's playing, he is a very underrated drummer because of his simple style, but I have rarely heard a drummer play like him. (Even doing Stones covers) He follows Keith. Most guitarist follow the drummer.
Re: Keith: Stones would tour without Charlie??
Posted by:
bigbang
()
Date: September 13, 2005 05:27
I would not consider it the Stones with Mick, Keith or Charlie. It would really sadden me to see something like that go down. Would probably be the first show/CD I ever miss since I've been a fan.
Re: Keith: Stones would tour without Charlie??
Posted by:
john r
()
Date: September 13, 2005 05:35
I would be less of a fan w/out Ron. He's been there over 30 years. I would be angry about Charlie. And yes, I recognize his drumming straight off - it's very distinctive. Look what a difference Bill's departure made (I am serious) - they are great, but it's different, & a piece of the distinctive foundation is gone.
Re: Keith: Stones would tour without Charlie??
Posted by:
Theif in the Night
()
Date: September 13, 2005 07:40
I doubt very seriously that Richards said this.
Re: Keith: Stones would tour without Charlie??
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: September 13, 2005 09:18
What if Charlie was to break an arm 2 days before the last show of the tour. Would the "stones" cancel and loose millions or throw in a substute and play on anyway?
Re: Keith: Stones would tour without Charlie??
Posted by:
Milo Yammbag
()
Date: September 13, 2005 10:13
At this point, no Charlie....no more Stones. Regarding the Who, they should call themselves "The Two"
Milo, NYC
I was drinking again
Milo, NYC
I was drinking again
Re: Keith: Stones would tour without Charlie??
Posted by:
shedooby
()
Date: September 13, 2005 10:20
BOBM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They toured without Brian and they toured without
> Bill. What difference would it make without
> Charlie? As long as it's Mick and Keith it's the
> Stones. Without both of them it's not even close.
> Mick and Keith could put together a great band
> like McCartney did and play all their songs to
> sound just like they recorded them.
What difference without Charlie....? His sound is a major part of the stones sound, yes, much more than Bill's playing was IMHO, unthinkable the stones without him.
-------------------------------------------------------
> They toured without Brian and they toured without
> Bill. What difference would it make without
> Charlie? As long as it's Mick and Keith it's the
> Stones. Without both of them it's not even close.
> Mick and Keith could put together a great band
> like McCartney did and play all their songs to
> sound just like they recorded them.
What difference without Charlie....? His sound is a major part of the stones sound, yes, much more than Bill's playing was IMHO, unthinkable the stones without him.
Re: Keith: Stones would tour without Charlie??
Posted by:
gaigai
()
Date: September 13, 2005 10:54
Would be sad. Like Queen. Only half of the originals are in the band, and still call themselves Queen. Why? Brian May said it: the promoters told them, they wont organize a tour for a no-name band, the have to call themselves Queen. They HAD TO!!! Rock and Roll is a business, no freedom in it anymore. So, Mick and Keith easily could'nt do anything else, if charlie died.
Re: Keith: Stones would tour without Charlie??
Posted by:
Smalltowns
()
Date: September 13, 2005 14:17
goin on and call themselves The Glimmer Twins would be a good solution i think...
Re: Keith: Stones would tour without Charlie??
Posted by:
uhbuhgullayew
()
Date: May 23, 2012 15:26
Quote
Gazza
that Charlie is irreplacable? He's said it in scores of interviews in the last decade, Bob!
Shirley Watts said in an interview in 1999 that despite all the talk from Charlie wanting a quiet life as he gets older, at the end of the day he'd never quit for the simple reason that he would never let Mick and Keith down. He doesnt want to be the guy who says "no more" and effectively ends the band's career.
Keith's done a good job shooting his mouth off in recent interviews..first of all embarrassing Mick and now insulting Charlie. Maybe he should avoid talking to the press for a few months if publicity-seeking tripe like this is all its going to generate.
Re: Keith: Stones would tour without Charlie??
Posted by:
tatters
()
Date: May 23, 2012 17:17
I think you have to just keep going until the wheels fall off. All of the wheels.
Re: Keith: Stones would tour without Charlie??
Posted by:
andrewt
()
Date: May 23, 2012 17:30
That interview is from '04, no? If I remember the original interview correctly I think it had something to do with the fact that the contracts were already signed and there was no turning back.
Re: Keith: Stones would tour without Charlie??
Posted by:
straycatuk
()
Date: May 23, 2012 18:14
I think Keith needs to shut his mouth for a while.He may find that he's the one they carry on without !
Charlie has a unique sound which various world class drummers could not replicate .He's also by far, the coolest Stone.
Wembley Whammer indeed. KR - "I hear the rock,but where's the roll?" - It's Charlie Keith.
sc uk
Charlie has a unique sound which various world class drummers could not replicate .He's also by far, the coolest Stone.
Wembley Whammer indeed. KR - "I hear the rock,but where's the roll?" - It's Charlie Keith.
sc uk
Re: Keith: Stones would tour without Charlie??
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: May 23, 2012 18:17
Quote
straycatuk
I think Keith needs to shut his mouth for a while.He may find that he's the one they carry on without !
Charlie has a unique sound which various world class drummers could not replicate .He's also by far, the coolest Stone.
Wembley Whammer indeed. KR - "I hear the rock,but where's the roll?" - It's Charlie Keith.
sc uk
Yeah, that's the kind of respect Keith deserves. Classy...
Re: Keith: Stones would tour without Charlie??
Posted by:
hoopsmccann
()
Date: May 23, 2012 18:18
Before this thread goes any further!
Richards says, "You know, I've got to say, probably we would (have toured anyway). We would go on."
Everyone please take note of the brackets! "(have toured anyway)" in the ONLY quote from Richards in the article. Meaning the journalist took a liberty to fill in what & twist what Keith said & make sh*t up. Journalists do this quite a lot.Read the quote again, without what's in the brakets and it makes more sense.
I love the news, don't you?.. it's so full of "facts"
Richards says, "You know, I've got to say, probably we would (have toured anyway). We would go on."
Everyone please take note of the brackets! "(have toured anyway)" in the ONLY quote from Richards in the article. Meaning the journalist took a liberty to fill in what & twist what Keith said & make sh*t up. Journalists do this quite a lot.Read the quote again, without what's in the brakets and it makes more sense.
I love the news, don't you?.. it's so full of "facts"
Re: Keith: Stones would tour without Charlie??
Posted by:
filstan
()
Date: May 23, 2012 19:25
This is complete BS. Another provocative thread with fill in the blanks from whomever wrote this back in when 2005? This has become so lame around here lately.
Re: Keith: Stones would tour without Charlie??
Posted by:
straycatuk
()
Date: May 23, 2012 19:38
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
straycatuk
I think Keith needs to shut his mouth for a while.He may find that he's the one they carry on without !
Charlie has a unique sound which various world class drummers could not replicate .He's also by far, the coolest Stone.
Wembley Whammer indeed. KR - "I hear the rock,but where's the roll?" - It's Charlie Keith.
sc uk
Yeah, that's the kind of respect Keith deserves. Classy...
Sorry if my opinion offends you ,but I can no longer blindly defend Keith (as I did for decades) when he come's out with statements like that. I couldn't even finish that caustic book . Why is he so full of bile for just about everyone he's ever crossed paths with. Only Stu and (admittedly) Charlie came out unscathed.No, I'm not remotely "Classy" I'll live with it.
To paraphrase - "I want my old Keith back"
sc uk
Re: Keith: Stones would tour without Charlie??
Posted by:
SweetThing
()
Date: May 23, 2012 20:29
Quote
Dillard Richardson
Some news report I just read quoted Keith as saying they would've toured anyway if Charlie had died...
who did he say that to? What interview? this is 1st I've heard of this...
[www.contactmusic.com]
HA HA HA.... I totally believe he said it, and not only do I believe he said it, I believe he meant it, and I believe the Stones would've gone on a tour (if they felt like it).
As much as I agree there really is no Rolling Stones as we know it, without Keith Richards in the mix someplace, this statement of his should (I know it won't, but it SHOULD), be a wake up call for all the faithful hanging on Keith's previous quotes of "No Stones" without him Jagger or Watts. And, a thousand other bits of nonsense...
He will always be the Human Riff to me, but he is part Human Weathervane as well for quite a few years now. The guy never stops babbling and its whatever suits him at the moment.
Re: Keith: Stones would tour without Charlie??
Posted by:
MightyStonesStillRollin50
()
Date: May 23, 2012 20:31
Quote
tatters
It doesn't surprise me that they would go on without him. What surprises me is that in the Rolling Stone interview he gives them his blessing to do just that. The scary thing is, I think Mick would try to go on without Keith, too, and still try to call it the Rolling Stones, or even Mick Jagger and the Rolling Stones!
If it was ten, twenty years ago I could see them going on without Charlie. At this late stage of the Rolling Stones I can't see them going on without Charlie unless they had dates booked and something happened to him at the last minute. It's sunset for the Rolling Stones and they better get something going quick before something happens to one of them. Mick is the one I see going on long after the Stones, probably forming his own band with some young lions.
Re: Keith: Stones would tour without Charlie??
Posted by:
GADAWG
()
Date: May 23, 2012 20:32
Quote
straycatukQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
straycatuk
I think Keith needs to shut his mouth for a while.He may find that he's the one they carry on without !
Charlie has a unique sound which various world class drummers could not replicate .He's also by far, the coolest Stone.
Wembley Whammer indeed. KR - "I hear the rock,but where's the roll?" - It's Charlie Keith.
sc uk
Yeah, that's the kind of respect Keith deserves. Classy...
Sorry if my opinion offends you ,but I can no longer blindly defend Keith (as I did for decades) when he come's out with statements like that. I couldn't even finish that caustic book . Why is he so full of bile for just about everyone he's ever crossed paths with. Only Stu and (admittedly) Charlie came out unscathed.No, I'm not remotely "Classy" I'll live with it.
To paraphrase - "I want my old Keith back"
sc uk
Well fine then, I will blindly defend him. Now I offer this suggestion, go kill yourself.
Re: Keith: Stones would tour without Charlie??
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: May 23, 2012 21:33
It's all just babble talk.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-23 21:34 by His Majesty.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-23 21:34 by His Majesty.
Re: Keith: Stones would tour without Charlie??
Posted by:
deadegad
()
Date: May 23, 2012 21:37
Quote
ablett
Hey, Ronnie could play drums......
Better than Ringo?
Re: Keith: Stones would tour without Charlie??
Posted by:
Doc
()
Date: May 23, 2012 21:56
Weird piece of news...
A few years ago the same Keith said that the Stones could tour without Ronnie, but not without Charlie.
I do not have time to search for it, but it was somewhere between 97 and 2003 I think.
[doctorstonesblog.blogspot.com]
A few years ago the same Keith said that the Stones could tour without Ronnie, but not without Charlie.
I do not have time to search for it, but it was somewhere between 97 and 2003 I think.
[doctorstonesblog.blogspot.com]
Re: Keith: Stones would tour without Charlie??
Posted by:
GumbootCloggeroo
()
Date: May 23, 2012 22:04
How cute. This has turned, yet again, into a Ringo-bashing thread. Hooray!Quote
deadegadQuote
ablett
Hey, Ronnie could play drums......
Better than Ringo?
This Thread has been closed
Online Users
Angie73 , bitusa2012 , Dan , DandelionPowderman , DiegoGlimmerStones , joemusic1958 , mariano , RollingStoner , spunky , Tonstone , werner67976 , wolundamo
Guests:
1334
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10