One of the benefits of social media and hyperconnectivity is that band members can claim their legacy if not the name. So once upon a time, leaving the band could kick you to the bottom tier in a heartbeat but many solo artists such as Roger Waters, Roger Hodgson, Ann Wilson etc are doing great business piggybacking their band's name without explicitly selling it.

Therefore Mick Jagger & Keith Richards of The Rolling Stones would be a highly valuable ticket should they ever decide to go that route. Maybe not stadiums but groups of 15 arena shows or festival headline sets here and there.

But it rarely matters to anyone anymore who is actually playing in any band.

Quote
Dan
One of the benefits of social media and hyperconnectivity is that band members can claim their legacy if not the name. So once upon a time, leaving the band could kick you to the bottom tier in a heartbeat but many solo artists such as Roger Waters, Roger Hodgson, Ann Wilson etc are doing great business piggybacking their band's name without explicitly selling it.

Therefore Mick Jagger & Keith Richards of The Rolling Stones would be a highly valuable ticket should they ever decide to go that route. Maybe not stadiums but groups of 15 arena shows or festival headline sets here and there.

But it rarely matters to anyone anymore who is actually playing in any band.

Very interesting option indeed! But in that case you could also either add Charlie Watts or Ronnie Wood if something happens to the Rolling Stones.
My daughter was always a big G&R fan, but she detested the Axl+ version. Lately, with Slash and that other guy, whose name slipped from me, she went to see them again. And looking at the impopularity of some of those "remainders", that is, real fans don't go and see them, I think it does matter.

Quote
Dan
One of the benefits of social media and hyperconnectivity is that band members can claim their legacy if not the name. So once upon a time, leaving the band could kick you to the bottom tier in a heartbeat but many solo artists such as Roger Waters, Roger Hodgson, Ann Wilson etc are doing great business piggybacking their band's name without explicitly selling it.

Therefore Mick Jagger & Keith Richards of The Rolling Stones would be a highly valuable ticket should they ever decide to go that route. Maybe not stadiums but groups of 15 arena shows or festival headline sets here and there.

But it rarely matters to anyone anymore who is actually playing in any band.

They wont go that route.they will just stop. Luckily
Jeroen

I don't think it will ever happen, but just in case, who cares?

Let's assume the Stones disbanded in 1984, and let's assume that Jagger, like Axel Rose some time ago, maintained the rights to the RS name, would his solo output be any worse or better if labelled Rolling Stones?

C

Quote
liddas
I don't think it will ever happen, but just in case, who cares?

Let's assume the Stones disbanded in 1984, and let's assume that Jagger, like Axel Rose some time ago, maintained the rights to the RS name, would his solo output be any worse or better if labelled Rolling Stones?

C

Millions care

The idea of one band member using the rights to a band name is complicated if other band members do the same. no way would jagger get away with doing this if the others quit. jagger is not the rolling stones, jagger, richards, watts and wood are the rolling stones.

For me The Stones are, and always have been Jagger, Keith and Charlie. As great as other members have been, they can leave, and as long as you have those three you still have The Stones.

Without one of them you don't........

Of course they would go on... they could keep rolling if Mick... Keith... Ronnie... Charlie... Blondie... Sasha... Iggy... or Rihanna left the band. The only critical member is Chuck Leavell. As long as Chuck is up there everyone else is replaceable. As long as Chuck is up there they can sell out 50,000 seat stadiums all over the world.

The thought of them continuing without Charlie doesn't seem realistic.
That said, I wouldn't put it past Mick to want to continue as "The Rolling Stones", but I doubt Keith would be willing to do so.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Chuck alone, with standees of everyone else, would be a huge success.

Chuck could hire other people and as long as they wear masks of the originals they would sell out 100,000 seat arenas

They could just play a recording of past shows as Chuck plays his parts live while
everyone else dances around wearing masks and they could go on forever... as long as Chuck is there

The Stones play because they make ALOT of money.period.

Any version other than what we have today would lack authenticity and would not bring in the big dollars.its a myth that the “casual fan” only care about seeing Mick and Keith.everybody knows who Ronnie and Charlie are,listen to the crowd roar when they are introduced at every show.

Without the big money they don’t play,seen any solo tours lately? The idea that Mick and Keith would be playing the local casino and county fair as some “formally of” tour is laughable.they can barely stand each other long enough to do stadiums for multimillions.

If anything happened to Charlie Mick would put out solo material here and there and Keith would probably Pack it in for the most part.they wouldn’t tour again.

As Ronnie said”Charlie is the engine,we don’t go anywhere without...the engine.

No, they shouldn't go on billed as "The Rolling Stones", but if the remaining members want to continue performing, of course they can.

When Keith or Charlie stops..and they go on.
Then i quit.
Jeroen

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.

But if Mick wants to tour with the Red Devils..i am there.

Same goes for the New Barbarians.
Everything is turning for gold for the Stones as they are right now though
Jeroen

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.

NO..KEEF WONT GIG WITHOUT THE BASHER
JEROEN

If last year's single is any barometer, if you have Mick, Ronnie, and Charlie you call it Mick solo.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
If last year's single is any barometer, if you have Mick, Ronnie, and Charlie you call it Mick solo.

Yrah and it is shite.
Jeroen

Quote
retired_dog

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.

If Charlie decided this year was enough and wanted to just play a few jazz gigs from now on and Mick and Keith wanted to play shows next year with a sideman on drums, I would be fine with it. I understand calling it something like "Mick Jagger & Keith Richards celebrate the Music of The Rolling Stones" rather than just saying now there are three members of the band and photos only show three of them. That doesn't seem workable.

In actual fact, if it was a decision like that, I suspect they would ask Charlie the maximum number of one-off shows he'd play each year instead. Six? Four? Jack up the prices further and be content with 4 to 6 shows each year or 2 shows. If something happened to Charlie or Ronnie sooner rather than later and they wanted to tour, I'm sure they would but I suspect they would use The Rolling Stones name for the tour rather than bill themselves as The Rolling Stones. At this late date carrying on with less than four "real" members is ridiculous.

Ronnie played great on the 3 gigs i attended this year but did not look to good imo.
Lets hope i can attend the buenos aires gig in maybe 3020

Jeroen

nope.
obviously they can do what they want and are still super poplular;
so they could stage some fantastic replacement thing conceivably;
def in the realm of commercial possibilities on a bigger scale than
any Mick, Keith or Ron solo tour; or even both K & R, as it has
been for offshoots long ago....

but nope; even without Bill; well, maybe it's more romance and personal
respect for the basic architecture and attitude and approach;
but just no.
as opinions go, that's my feeling and thinking.

They should take advantage of the "Charlie retires" opportunity to play with a better drummer, like Dave Lombardo.

I really miss Bill a lot.
Don't know how bassplayers felt when he left,
but for me as a drummer I can't imagine this great band without Charlie.

Impossible!

NO … besides Ringo just wont look right ….



ROCKMAN

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.

no Charlie , no Stones , it's that simple .

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.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2018-07-27 21:59 by TheBlockbuster.

For sake of argument, Charlie has retired and the band wants to continue. Who would it be? Someone already famous or known, or someone unknown. What age group?

Would the new guy be required to use a kit identical to Charlie, and play in his unique style (military grip, skip the hi-hat on the snare drum hit, etc.)

Skip the whole band-introduce portion and just have Mick say “keith’s Gonna sing now”.