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?

Without Charlie no Stones.

But he won't retire unless he or any other member of the band has to - unlike his dry remarks... he has as much fun performing live with the others as the rest of the band.

No.

No Charlie - no Stones.

And by the way: No Ronnie - no Stones, too.

I am firmly of the opinion that the band could not withstand another change in core line up. I have been for 20 years. It simply wouldn't be the same band. It was tough enough when Bill left.

They will go on till they drop.
And indeed..No Charlie..No stones
Jeroen

NO !

They are The Rolling Stones, not AC/DC.

No!! without Charlie there' no soul left in this band.

Nope.

One of these Four throwing the towel into the ring, one way or the other: that will (should!) be a wrap.

They will rock till they drop, or at least until ONE of them does ! If that happens to be Charlie, then ... that'll be it. Having said that, it would apply equally to any of the others too ! Mick, Keith, Charlie, Ronnie ... THEY collectively are the Rolling Stones. Not three out of the four, four out of the four !!

[ I want to shout, but I can hardly speak ]

I dont see the Stones continuing without Charlie.

Without Ronnie, not likely either, but not entirely unthinkable maybe. Its not like they're going to make 5 or 6 more albums anyway. I wouldnt rule out, say, one record with perhaps 3 or 4 known guitarists who help them out as friends (should that need arise), not band members. For instance that contemplated Blue & Lonesome Pt 2 album, with Eric Clapton, Mick Taylor and who knows else on it?
But then again, not likely I dont think.

As for performing, a big no without Charlie or Ronnie.

They could go on, but I would stop going to their shows

No. I'd be very disappointed in Mick and Keith if they did.

In my humble opinion, no. Charlie is the heart of The Rolling Stones.

Why should the Stones stop rolling if Charlie leaves.

Believe me i still can't get over that Bill left the band
and the STONES would not be the same without Charlie.

I love Bill & Charlie.. The Stones are not the same band as they were
since Mick Taylor left...But I still love them.

But if the others are young enough and want and can still play
many older and newer fans will want to enjoy them either way.

Lets hope to good health to Charlie, Mick, Keith and Woodie.
And Bill and Mick Taylor.

In a recent interview Charlie appeared to be saying it was alright for Mick and Keith to go on without him. I hope they don't. When it's over it's over. I think these short tours have made it possible to keep touring a while longer.

Sc uk

NO

Stuff like Mick and Keith did together in New York after the Twin Towers disaster, is okay off course. And playing Stones songs, fine. We would all go and see them, right? Indeed, no "AC/DC" with Axl or previous "Guns and Roses" with only Axl. But don't worry, Charlie doesn't just stop on his own.

No - to put my two cents in.

I cannot imagine the RS without ANY of the four remaining "original" (I know that Ronnie joint the RS only in 1975) Stones. If one of them "rolls over dead" (Title of a book by Stanley Booth - 1994) that would be the end of the band. The same goes in case one of them should decide to retire.

No Charlie = No Stones, but a great alternative to keep moving forward would be Mick & Keith doing an acoustic album of new songs. I think that'd be pretty cool

"Well my heavy throbbers itchin' just to lay a solid rhythm down"

No.
If any one of the four retires, it's over.

I don't think they would even consider the notion of continuing then unless they were mid-tour and had obligations, but even then, unlikely.

If anything happens mid tour..they will just cancel everything.
Hope they will and can keep going for some more years.

I don't think Keith in particular would want to go on without Charlie.
I'd imagine if Charlie does go it would be a partly semi-retirement as I don't see him giving up his beloved jazz in clubs.

No way imo. The same should apply to Mick, Keith and Ronnie.

Yes, same with Ronnie. They've recorded tracks without them. They've even played live without them. At the core, at this stage you need Mick and Keith together. Charlie and Ronnie add authenticity, but it would just be Mick and Keith carrying on that mattered for the home stretch of their career.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
Yes, same with Ronnie. They've recorded tracks without them. They've even played live without them. At the core, at this stage you need Mick and Keith together. Charlie and Ronnie add authenticity, but it would just be Mick and Keith carrying on that mattered for the home stretch of their career.

I agree with that. But the question was "should", not "could". Of course, they COULD go on with just Mick and Keith. If they SHOULD do it, well...for me, it would not be the Stones, but there would still be enough ticket buyers, that's for sure.

The band would be a joke and a pathetic one at that.it becomes like the Temptations where you just use the name for cash.
Even if they lost Ronnie at this point it’s probably best to just move on.its close to a cover band already.

Point is (imo): should they stop playing as "The Rolling Stones" -
obviously nobody can ask of them to retire... stop playing music (individually and/or together).

Mick & Keith, f.i., can continue as an accoustic duo, billed as "The Glimmer Twins"...

video: [www.youtube.com]

NO.

Yes, why not.

It hasn't really been The Rolling Stones since Brian left.

Mick and Keith need about 9 or 10 million a show to put up with each other as it is.without the Stones you would never see them in the same time zone

please no, i dont want the stones to carry on and end up like status quo or the version of queen where george michael joined when freddy died. And other bands have taken it to extreme with no original members.

stones have already had enough line up changes, but still have 3 core members from the early days. They coudnt possibly have another drummer that would be accepted as a full stones member. Possibly they could survive ronnie leaving but only if mick taylor rejoined, that apart if ronnie or charlie did leave than the band would need to stop, and for good. no going back.