For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
TheBlockbuster
If Charlie had left the Stones in the 70s or 80s I think they would've definitely continued with a new drummer, maybe even in the 90s. But now it's so late into their careers... What's the point? Charlie is a big part of that unique Stones sound, it would be pointless to hire a new drummer at this point.
Quote
His Majesty
Yes, why not.
It hasn't really been The Rolling Stones since Brian left.
Quote
Ladykiller
Yes - they went on without Bill Wyman, they can do it also without Charlie.
Mick Jagger & Keith Richards must be in the band, if one of the Glimmer Twins is out, the Rolling Stones are history.
Quote
SomeGuy
The issue reminds me of a little known band who lost their drummer in 1980, not twelve years into their highly succesful -even by Stones standards- career, bandmembers in their early to mid 30s, and they called it quits immediately and even canceled their then imminent American tour. I sure hope that Mick and Keith, in their mid 70s, will be as sensible in case Charlie were to retire.
Which is not to say they shouldnt feel free to continue their respective solo careers.
I also do miss Bill's playing, but it doesnt mean I cant enjoy the more 'recent' work the Stones did.
Quote
thkbeercan
Those 3 are the Holy Trinity and without all three, The Rolling Stones do not exist.
Quote
rollmops
I don't believe the band would keep going without Charlie. I don't know why but Charlie feels that he has to agree when Mick makes the call. Charlie doesn't play for himself but for the commitment he believes he has with the band. Charlie's dedication to the rolling stones is very peculiar because he seems to not care at all although he obviously does.
Rockandroll,
Mops
Quote
HopeYouGuessMyName
You know what...The Yankees went on when Babe Ruth retired.
Apple Computer went on after Steve Jobs passed away.
Democratic Party went on after Hillary Clinton was beaten in 2016.
America went on when the South succeeded, but not without a fight.
Roseanne will go on without Roseanne (kinda)
Earth went on after a meteor wipe out virtually everything.
So... maybe the Rolling Stones will go on too!
Quote
More Hot Rocks
I never understood the word retire when you are musician.
Quote
SomeGuy
The issue reminds me of a little known band who lost their drummer in 1980, not twelve years into their highly succesful -even by Stones standards- career, bandmembers in their early to mid 30s, and they called it quits immediately and even canceled their then imminent American tour. I sure hope that Mick and Keith, in their mid 70s, will be as sensible in case Charlie were to retire.
Which is not to say they shouldnt feel free to continue their respective solo careers.
I also do miss Bill's playing, but it doesnt mean I cant enjoy the more 'recent' work the Stones did.
Quote
thkbeercan
As fans we all have opinions about the band as artists and musicians. I, for one, would not want to see "The Rolling Stones" without Charlie.
However, the band members obviously see themselves additionally as owners and shareholders in a financial empire known as "The Rolling Stones". Otherwise they never would have signed contracts to that effect.
It was on this very website, I believe, that I read that the bottom-line, current legal status of the band is that:
1) All four are equal members of the band, but
2) All (and only) the three original members are required to sign documents relative to the existence of the band as a unit.
This means that the originals can perform as The Rolling Stones without Ronnie.
Mick may be head of a 'corporation', but neither he, Keith nor Charlie (either separately or in pair with one of the others) can perform or operate as "The Rolling Stones". Those 3 are the Holy Trinity and without all three, The Rolling Stones do not exist.
("Have I got that right, Sonny?")
Quote
crholmstrom
Of the 3 original members, I think Charlie is the most likely to decide its time to retire. He's a bit older than the rest & while he still always plays well I could see him decide to hang it up. That being said, do you think the Stones should continue if that were to happen? I for 1 would say that should be the end of it. I can't imagine the Stones with another drummer. What does everyone else think?
Quote
24FPS
They will carry on as long as suckers, I mean fans, are willing to pay them the buckets of cash they can get for pumping out the same 18 tunes over and over. As long as Mick and Keith are standing up there giving an approximation of the Stones from a long time ago, people will come. They would survive Charlie leaving. Fans wouldn't like it, and the rhythm section would sound even worse, but those people aren't paying that close attention anyway. Hell, I heard them in 2013 in L.A., not knowing who Mick Taylor was. As long as Mick and Keith stand there and give some nostalgic kick that takes people back........