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]

If that's true, then they are no better than the Who touring without John Entwistle. Somehow, though, I don't believe it --- Keith has said in the past that the Stones agreed to be finished if anything would happen to either him, Mick or Charlie. I guess it's a different story if something would happen to Woody !!

THE PROBLEM IS FOR KEITH AND MICK..what would they do? keith and mick would want to play something to the day they die...it may not be what we want...for me i still wish bill come back..ha

That would be a bad choice. No way.

Charlie talks about that subject in new 'Rolling Stone" magazine. Very interesting, insightful interview.

I'd bet Mick & Keith would bill themselves as "The Glimmer Twins", if they had to tour without Charlie....God forbid it, though!

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!

no, no, no...Stones without Charlie? they would tour without him? As The Rolling Stones? no, no, no...surely not? after all the 'we don't go anywhere without the engine'..., and "Mick, me, and Charlie, that's the irreducible core"...
what about that...just talk?

Hey, Ronnie could play drums......

Well, I can see Mick and Keith (or Ronnie) perform after Charlie dies, but not as the Rolling Stones. They can't do another world tour or anything like that. Just gigs with them and some invited friends... playing blues and rock 'n roll. Beeing guests on other artists albums... etc.

The Rolling Stones without Charlie Watts. Now that would be a crime against humanity. I could more than imagine Keith and Mick recording or touring without Charlie, but not under the name of the Rolling Stones.

I am wondering in what context Keith said this, the news report is just too skimpy, and really needs follow up...to me this is a major statement by Keith...
also, I haven't seen the new Rolling Stone mag, are they featured on the cover, big story, interviews, etc?
wtf.

redrum Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Charlie talks about that subject in new 'Rolling
> Stone" magazine. Very interesting, insightful
> interview.
>
> I'd bet Mick & Keith would bill themselves as
> "The Glimmer Twins", if they had to tour without
> Charlie....God forbid it, though!


That would be a good idea (God forbid it ever happens though). Since there are only 2 members of the Who left, they just hired a random drummer and bassist, and it seemed to work well for them at places like Live8

What is the origin of the name "Glimmer Twins"? I've always liked that. I kept meaning to find out who started that, but never did. Anyone know the story? It seems to have started around '76ish. Is that right?

Thanks!

Wasn't looking too good, but I was feeling real well.

I agree with RockR. It would be like the Who without John or Moonie. Could not be the same band without Charlie and I would have trouble supporting the idea of a Wattsless Stones. I think it would be/should be the end of the Stones. Lets' hope it does not happen for a long time. The guys are playing well right now and for this we should be thankful.

Does anyone remember that story I read somewhere about how one night in a hotel Mick was drunk and called up Charlie and said something like "I want my drummer", and Charlie stormed into his room, punched him, and said "Don't ever call me your f ing drummer".


I always liked that story.

Wasn't looking too good, but I was feeling real well.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-05-08 20:26 by CindyC.

I think he called him his "little drummer boy" and Charlie went and clocked him one. I told that story to a guy at work last week. Great story.

I recall when Bill left Keith said they couldn't screw w/ the lineup any more & be the RS. I'm sorry, but I don't see the Who (however strong the shows may be) as a functioning band, not without any new album in 23 years, and especially w/out Entwistle. I know the brand name (be it "The Who" or the RS) sells more than "Townshend & Daltry" & maybe the RS would have gone on w/out Charlie (I hope not, & hope there are no more personnel changes & no RS tours w/ just MJ & KR). It's worth recalling that Ron Wood was first reported to be replacing Keith, in '73 after some bust or other, & in '77 Mick told R Stone mag something like 'If Keith goes away for like a really long time, I would still want to play, and if Charlie and Ronnie' (would he bother mentioning Bill?) 'want to, the Rolling Stones will play. If it's for a few months we will wait' It's probably in the Chet Flippo book.

Rolling Stones cease to be when Charlie, Mick or Keith pass away.
That's the only way it can be for sure!
God forbid something happening to any of them (that goes for Ronnie too)
Charlie, Mick and Keith are the only survivors from the original platoon
that went into the djungle!

Noone would be able to take their place!

Let's enjoy as long as they're here!

Been Stoned since 1964 and still am!

Hi Cindy C.

I recall seeing an interview back in the 80's with Keith about the Glimmer origin. He said it started when he and Mick took a cruise to South America in late 68. In his slurring, half sentence voice, he was mentioning how alot of the older crowd on board weren't please that a couple Rolling Stones were on board. He heard one lady saying, " These Rolling Stones...what's it all about... give us a glimmer." I'm not at home so I can't check my CD's to see which album first mentioned the Glimmer Twins.

The incident where Charlie KO'ed Mick happened in Paris. It was in the news during the Steel Wheels tour and some reported that it was a fairly recent incident then, but I read it happened during the Undercover recording sessions in early 83. Keith was saying that he and Mick were out drinking and that it doesn't take much to get Mick drunk. Mick went to Charlie's room and was asking for his drummer. He said Charlie got out of bed, got dressed, went up to Mick and punched him in the face. Keith said Mick went flying across the room. Charlie then said I'm not your drummer, you're my singer!

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.

so much for all Keith's nonsense over the years about "as long as I've got Charlie watts behind me" and "for me, Charlie IS the Stones". Must be great for Charlie, after all he's been through, to see that keith now finds him dispensable after all.

What a shameful thing to say.

I have to agree Gazza. Did he really say that?

I think Keith is being very disrespectful there.... his comments are Sad Sad Sad.

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.

you're right on both accounts cindy c

Keith interview Guitar World November 2005.

GW: If the day ever came...God forbid...that Charlie couldn't make it, would the Stones go on?

Keith: That's a good 'un. Probably not. As you say, God forbid. But at the same time, Mick and I kinda got over that hurdle this time, and said, "Well, we could still make records..."

ROCKMAN

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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.


I have also noticed that in the last 10 years Keith has really been doing a lot of negative talk about other artists. Maybe he's always been like that and it just wasn't printed, I don't know, but in the interviews I used to read, he wasn't really slagging people off they way he does now. I kind of liked him for that, it always made him seem kind of humble.

I remember him saying something about the Black Crowes a few years back which bummed me out, then there's the whole Elton John bit, then the Mick thing, I know there's been others, but I can't think of them right now. For some reason Keith's opinion matters to me, as I'm sure it does to a lot of guys in bands that were influenced by him. I would think that if I was in the Black Crowes and I heard Keith didn't like me, I would be so upset! Then again, maybe it's just because I'm a girl and you know how we are! (JK)

Wasn't looking too good, but I was feeling real well.

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.

When did te tour without Bill?

I think the first Bill-less tour was Voodoo Lounge. They didn't tour without him when he was in the band though if that's what you mean.


Wasn't looking too good, but I was feeling real well.

I'd definitely be pissed off if I was Charlie. Keith has done so much bad mouthing of Jagger and Mick has always taken the high road, even though Mick is now 90% of the creative force of the band. The least Keith could do is have an "all for one" attitude about the only drummer who could ever swing like Charlie does. I know people were suprised and saddened by the Who deciding to go on, and I think Keith is setting out the feelers to see what people would think about a Watts-less Stones. Most people probably wouldn've even care. Alot of people referred to Mick and Keith at the NY 9/11 show as "the rolling stones." I had to correct them anytime I heard that. Charlie rules. No Charlie, no Stones.