Tell Me :  Talk
Talk about your favorite band. 

Previous page Next page First page IORR home

For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.

Goto Page: Previous1234567Next
Current Page: 3 of 7
Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Posted by: runrudolph ()
Date: July 27, 2018 22:39

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.

No, they would have stopped at that point.
Jeroen

Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Posted by: TeddyB1018 ()
Date: July 27, 2018 23:07

Well, Charlie would suggest Jim Keltner, but to me, Charlie’s playing is irreplaceable.

Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Posted by: 35love ()
Date: July 27, 2018 23:24

No.

Edit: maybe.

I really can’t say.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-07-27 23:56 by 35love.

Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Posted by: retired_dog ()
Date: July 28, 2018 01:17

Quote
His Majesty
Yes, why not.

It hasn't really been The Rolling Stones since Brian left. tongue sticking out smiley

Don't confuse younger people here who believe that the Stones more or less took off when Ronnie joined the band and regard everything that happened before more or less as their "formative years"...

Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Posted by: black n blue ()
Date: July 28, 2018 01:51

They should, enough touring. Go home and chill out

Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Posted by: georgelicks ()
Date: July 28, 2018 02:01

When was the last solo tour for Mick, Keith or Ronnie?
1988 and 1993, 25-30 years ago. That was before the internet era, decades ago.

Right now Mick can play 10-15 solo gigs anywere during this fall, he has 10-12 months off, but he won't do it, just like the last 25-30 years. Why?

Because he is old, plays safe, and won't do any work outside the Stones legacy net, a solo guest spot here and there every 2-3 years, a couple of new songs or guest apearence here and there maybe, but nothing on full scale anymore.

They are too old to care, when one of them is out, the rest is done too, its not 1993 anymore, that was 25 years ago and the band was still "young" back then, early 50s for most of them, its too late now.

Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Posted by: rollmops ()
Date: July 28, 2018 02:53

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

Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Posted by: Markdog ()
Date: July 28, 2018 03:33

I don't know about Charlie but if Mick retired the band could easily carry on with Axl Rose.

Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Posted by: buttons67 ()
Date: July 28, 2018 03:48

i remember around the late 80,s or early 90,s there was a rumour that jagger would be replaced by terrance trent darby.

and i believed it.

i was mightily horrified at the thought.

Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Posted by: GasLightStreet ()
Date: July 28, 2018 04:58

No.

They wouldn't sound the same and the songs, even at this end stage of their career, wouldn't work like they do.

Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Posted by: Stoneage ()
Date: July 28, 2018 05:09

I don't necessarily think they should "go on" at all. Charlie has a distinctive sound which can't be replaced of course. Like Bill had. When Bill left they were only 0.8xRolling Stones. If Charlie leaves they will be down to 0.6. If one of the guitarists leave however I think they will benefit from it. A spark, some new energy. Get back some of what is lacking in vitality on stage today. But that will never happen of course...

Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Posted by: StonedAsia ()
Date: July 28, 2018 07:33

No, once Charles Robert Watts retires, the Stones retire. Who would fill his shoes? Steve Jordan probably and I like Steve but I just don't think he could ever take Charlie's place....and IF that ever happened, I would never go see them again. Charlie is the heart of the band and he's main engine. Nah, no Charlie therefore no Stones.

Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Posted by: keithsman ()
Date: July 28, 2018 10:20

I suppose realistically speaking with the age of the band now , when one of them gets sick ( because none of them will retire unless it's because of a health issue ) they will call it a day as a live touring act, but will still do solo work and the Stones machine will always bring them together now and then for releases etc.

Hypothetically speaking had Charlie not wanted to reunite in 2012 , yeah sure they would have replaced him with Steve Jordan or someone with similar playing abilities..
I honestly don't think Mick is a particularly sentimental man, and if the chance of making mega bucks is on the table, as it was and has been since 2012 for very few shows, Mick will take the money and tour. It would be reluctantly that they may have toured without Charlie and hopefully with Charlie's blessing, but yes i firmly believe this band is a business deal to Mick these days, well since 81', this is the only way Mick can earn that kind of money, he needs brand Stones, as do the rest of the band to continue the lifestyle they enjoy. It's nothing personal it's just good business "and they like it like it yes they do".

Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Posted by: Dan ()
Date: July 28, 2018 10:33

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.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner.

And now that I think about it I told one of my (now deceased) friends in 1994 I just saw the Rolling Stones and he said it's not the Rolling Stones without Bill Wyman. And it seems there were quite a few stadiums with lots of empty seats that tour.

And it's not the Rolling Stones without Charlie Watts but that doesn't necessarily mean the rest of the members wouldn't try to cash in anyway.

Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Posted by: Dan ()
Date: July 28, 2018 10:36

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.

Hanoi Rocks, Led Zeppelin, The Who and possibly R.E.M. didn't survive the loss of a drummer. But these were still real bands, not guys getting together to play 50 year old songs 15 times a year.

Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Posted by: thkbeercan ()
Date: July 28, 2018 17:47

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?")

Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Posted by: MisterDDDD ()
Date: July 28, 2018 18:03

Quote
thkbeercan
Those 3 are the Holy Trinity and without all three, The Rolling Stones do not exist.

thumbs up
Very true.
Much as I love Ronnie, if for some reason he decided he was done, he could be replaced and it would still, in my mind, be The Rolling Stones.
Whether it be with Taylor or Beck or some other phenomenal guitarist, the band could continue on perhaps even with a new spark.

If any one of any of the Holy Trinity retires, no more Rolling Stones regardless.

Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Posted by: Stoneage ()
Date: July 28, 2018 18:25

Sure, but if you look at it from a strict performance-on-stage perspective I think Charlie and Ron are the two most habile live performers now. Keith is the weak chain now and Sir Michael has his recurrent voice problems.
But surely, they wouldn't go on without Sir Michael or Keith anyway. An most probably not without Charlie either. Even if they all continue I think we are talking about a period of maximum one to two years more of touring.

Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Posted by: angee ()
Date: July 28, 2018 19:00

No.
Rollmops has it here, according to Charlie's own words.
He won't stop until Mick says the band is done.

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

Charlie cares about the band, though not so much about rock 'n roll.

I found my friend's reaction charming, at her first Rolling Stones concert, Amsterdam, 2017.
She had a clear sense of each of the four member's identity, his persona and appeal.
IMO, the band will not go on if any of them leave, not at this point.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Love is strong..."

Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Posted by: buttons67 ()
Date: July 28, 2018 19:40

i just dont think the stones can survive another staff change.

in the beginning we had 5 official original rolling stones members, it was that simple.

then it got a bit more complicated, it became 4 original members with an official rolling stone replacement.

then we added in backing musicians who were non official stones members.

then bill left and we had a replacement who also is non official member but not a backing musician.

i think if ronnie left we could survive with taylor taking his place but only because he had ronnies job first, anyone else replacing ronnie just wouldnt work, and likewise, mick, keith or charlie leaving would finish the band.


i wouldnt want to the stones to end up with cast members who all have a different rank or status within the band, original members, replacement but official stones members, replacement but non official status, backing musician status etc, its all too complicated.

Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Posted by: schillid ()
Date: July 28, 2018 19:47

Yes the other Stones should go on...

on MediCare

Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Posted by: More Hot Rocks ()
Date: July 28, 2018 20:00

I never understood the word retire when you are musician.

Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Date: July 28, 2018 21:49

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!

Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Posted by: Hairball ()
Date: July 28, 2018 21:59

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!

Reminds me of this scene from Animal House. smiling smiley

"Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!"

Bluto's Speech from Animal House




________________
Keep on rolling.......

Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Posted by: retired_dog ()
Date: July 28, 2018 22:20

Quote
More Hot Rocks
I never understood the word retire when you are musician.

How true! Artists never "retire". They do what they do as long as their health allows it. And "retire" from what? 365 days a year working? In case of the Stones, up until 60 days a year "working" is the closer truth. In that sense, the Stones have already "retired" many many years ago. They just get together for a short period of time every year to have some fun and, last but not least, collect some serious cash for merits they earned 4-5 decades ago.

Even if, for sad reasons, they can't operate as "The Rolling Stones" anymore, the remaining members won't stop playing music, most likely even in public from time to time, as long as they can and as long as people want to see them, in what form remains to be seen - collectively or solo. But whatever they'll do, it will be good and won't disappoint people. Just don't expect 1969 to 1981 era live Stones...



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2018-07-28 22:21 by retired_dog.

Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Posted by: HouseBoyKnows ()
Date: July 28, 2018 22:35

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.

Interesting comparison, but let's also throw in another group from the same era WHO lost their drummer and carried on. Then lost their bassist and carried on.

So it's been done. But, now with the members in their 70's, I think they would not carry on as the Rolling Stones without Charlie. . . . and I still miss Bill.

Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Posted by: Dan ()
Date: July 28, 2018 23:20

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?")


But one of the principas (or his heirs) can absolutely license out his share of the name to the other.

I have seen how touring licenses work with other entities with partial lineups where a non participating member still retains shares of the corporation.

Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Posted by: 24FPS ()
Date: July 29, 2018 03:42

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........

Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Posted by: Gazza ()
Date: July 29, 2018 04:58

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?

Theyre in their mid 70s. What would be the bloody point of continuing? If it were to happen, then just accept its been a good run and let it go.

Its not happening anyway. They're already semi retired anyway. The band member who retires first will be the one who gets sick or leaves in a box.

Re: Do you think the Stones should go on if Charlie retires
Posted by: Hairball ()
Date: July 29, 2018 05:08

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........

Valid opinion, but not sure if Keith would be willing to carry on without Charlie or any of the others. Mick on the other hand might be willing to continue as the "Stones" without Charlie or Keith or Ronnie.
As long as he has one of them there it would close enough, and many in attendance wouldn't care. For the casual fan, Mick being the front man is the most recognizable, and most take a piss break during Keith's set anyways.

________________
Keep on rolling.......

Goto Page: Previous1234567Next
Current Page: 3 of 7


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 441
Record Number of Users: 184 on May 17, 2018 22:46
Record Number of Guests: 3948 on December 7, 2015 15:07

Previous page Next page First page IORR home