Just seen this on another thread, about trying hard to keep Bill but not MT.

Mick n Keith were ready to replace Charlie if need be for A BIGGER BANG tour

Anyway the Charlie thing is some thing I have not seen talked/written about before

Would Steve Jordan(Keith), Simon Phillips(Mick) or Kenny Jones(Ronnie) drummers have been considered or would they be bold as brass and nick Ringo's son Zak from the Who? Hell Ringo himself but he is older than Sir Charlie!



see below: from the Joker and Rocky Dijon

Some of the passive-aggressive behavior is their personality and some of it is because the band is a business and they don't view it the way fans do. They were ready to replace Charlie if need be for A BIGGER BANG album and tour. Dylan mentioned at the time that his longtime drummer George Recile might have to tour with The Stones.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-01-25 21:18 by bv.

Replacing Charlie was never a consideration. If he didn't want to tour any more ( or wasn't able to for some reason) that would have been the end of the band.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2020-01-20 23:10 by TornAndFried.

Source?

Rocky Dijon quotes Bob Dylan ! as speaking about this

I emailed (former road manager) Alan Dunn and asked him. His reply was "rubbish."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-01-20 21:42 by TornAndFried.

This is purely conjecture. I could just as well say Charlie is ready to replace Mick and Keith with horses ANY DAY NOW

Quote
TornAndFried
I emailed former road manager Alan Dunn and asked. His reply was "rubbish."

Rubbish indeed. But it was rubbish from Keith.

Keith said they were doing demos in a state of nervous suspension until Charlie came in and said "It really goes like this"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-01-20 20:52 by Nikkei.

Quote
Koen
Source?

bobdylan.com Q&A with Bill Flanagan 3/22/2017

"What does a drummer coming into your band need to know? What should he avoid?

BD: No one comes into my band. I like the drummer I have now, he is one of the best around, but if he ever left me for some reason, like to join The Rolling Stones or something, I’d have to replace him."

I was told George had a clause regarding this during at least some of his years with Dylan. And yes, as Dandie indicates somewhere Keith said something about maybe having to take George back since Bob had him on permanent loan from Keith and had screwed up Keith's sessions in 2000 and 2001 when he was first working on what would eventually become CROSSEYED HEART.

That aside, if Alan Dunn calls it "rubbish," I see no reason to doubt him.

I too recall reading more than once that if Charlie were ever to quit the band, that would be the end. Not sure about someone sitting in for him on shows on an emergency basis, but the message I got was pretty clear: No Charlie, No Stones.

jb

We'd never seen Crosseyed Heart if it wasn't for Steve Jordan. Who's George?

The title of this thread is highly misleading.

[www.georgegreceli.com]

Longtime Dylan drummer. Played with Keith in 2000 and 2001 on "You Win Again" and "Still a Fool." George's drum sound at the Studio L sessions is nearly identical with Steve Jordan or Charley Drayton on Keith's first two solo albums. These sessions were produced by Rob Fraboni and the band were also used on a number of demos for songs that eventually featured on CROSSEYED HEART.

And yes, without Steve Jordan badgering Keith for four years, CROSSEYED HEART never would have happened.


This response is to Nikkei.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-01-20 21:24 by Rocky Dijon.

I saw an interview with Keith - a few years ago - he said, if anything ever happened to him, Mick or Charlie, that would be it - over...............

One of the major reason's we still have the Rolling Stones is because Keith loves to play with Charlie (also hence the Charlie guitar picks) - No Charlie = No Rolling Stones. End of conversation....IMHO :-)

No Ronnie on the other hand is a different story...

Cheers
Richard - In Another Land

Sorry, guys. When I look back on 2004 and see Mick and Keith soldiering on with writing and demoing A BIGGER BANG; I never once think if Charlie didn't pull through they would have told Virgin Records, "I'm sorry we can't deliver an album after all" and they would have told Michael Cohl, "I'm sorry, but the huge world tour you put together is off."

Remember what they did when Ronnie needed rehab before BRIDGES TO BABYLON? They brought in Waddy and cut most of the album without him and then when Ronnie was well enough, they let him replace some of Waddy's parts. Had Ronnie not been tour-ready, do you think they would have changed plans at the eleventh hour? Scrapped the album and world tour?

I think it's nice you believe in sentimentality. You probably believe it was Stu's band to the bitter end and they considered him a Rolling Stone even though there are albums where he played no piano at all. He was a sideman. A friend from the start who worked for them in an important capacity and was allowed to sit in when he and they thought it made sense. Fans respond to Keith's sentimental view of Stu. Look honestly at what he contributed after 1965 and you'll see it's precious little. He was surpassed by Nicky, Billy, Mac, and even Chuck as far as recording and touring.

Ronnie would have been gone if he couldn't cut it. No matter what they may say, I don't believe they would have walked away from A BIGGER BANG album-in-progress and the tour Cohl had packaged for them if Charlie couldn't make it.
Again, it's nice so many of you think so. I'm more cynical.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
Sorry, guys. When I look back on 2004 and see Mick and Keith soldiering on with writing and demoing A BIGGER BANG; I never once think if Charlie didn't pull through they would have told Virgin Records, "I'm sorry we can't deliver an album after all" and they would have told Michael Cohl, "I'm sorry, but the huge world tour you put together is off."

Remember what they did when Ronnie needed rehab before BRIDGES TO BABYLON? They brought in Waddy and cut most of the album without him and then when Ronnie was well enough, they let him replace some of Waddy's parts. Had Ronnie not been tour-ready, do you think they would have changed plans at the eleventh hour? Scrapped the album and world tour?

I think it's nice you believe in sentimentality. You probably believe it was Stu's band to the bitter end and they considered him a Rolling Stone even though there are albums where he played no piano at all. He was a sideman. A friend from the start who worked for them in an important capacity and was allowed to sit in when he and they thought it made sense. Fans respond to Keith's sentimental view of Stu. Look honestly at what he contributed after 1965 and you'll see it's precious little. He was surpassed by Nicky, Billy, Mac, and even Chuck as far as recording and touring.

Ronnie would have been gone if he couldn't cut it. No matter what they may say, I don't believe they would have walked away from A BIGGER BANG album-in-progress and the tour Cohl had packaged for them if Charlie couldn't make it.
Again, it's nice so many of you think so. I'm more cynical.

I tend to agree with this assessment. It's not cynical...it's just common sense based on what we know about the Stones an organization.

oh come on – even Bob Dylan is making jokes from time to time.
In that case all he wanted to say was that he himself didn't want to change his band but he had to do so if a band member was to accept another job, The Stones were just an example.

(by the way George Receli left Bob's band last fall)

I don't think it's at all cynical to say they would have carried on without Charlie. It's realistic and not a knock on Charlie.
No doubt he would want them to carry on.
...
Keith feels that Ian Stewart kept him humble. That's why he says that he still considers it Stewart's band. God knows Keith has a huge ego and many people inflating it, but Stewart's memory probably helps him from getting completely carried away.

ukcal, can you please re-word the title of the thread? This site is already mined by the conjugal idiots who "write" for alternative nation .net without us flagging stories for them.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-01-20 22:24 by Rocky Dijon.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
ukcal, can you please re-word the title of the thread? This site is already mined by the conjugal idiots who "write" for alternative nation .net without us flagging stories for them.

Alternative Nation is horrifying. I can't believe the outright false garbage those idiots crank out. The fact that their trash shows up prominently in searches is disturbing.

Quote
TornAndFried

Replacing Charlie was never a consideration. Never.

Maybe this rumor came from Charlie's throat cancer, diagnosed in 2004 ?

Let's put it this way, by 1989 and on if Mick, Keith or Charlie could no longer go on touring, they would have disbanded. No Charlie, no more Stones. This is in 2005 now speaking. Say this was in the 70's, I feel like they would have gotten someone else. Even Mick talked about going on without Keith after his drug bust in '77.

Mick (March 6, 1977):

"Would we tour without Keith if he was in jail for a long time? Yeah, I should say so... Obviously we wouldn't if Keith was only in jail for a month or two months, but if he was in jail for a long period of time, I suppose we'd have to... We can't wait 5 years. In 5 years, we won't be touring at all. Not much anyway, just a few lounges."



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2020-01-20 23:14 by JordyLicks96.

Maybe for touring reason if they
had have been backed right into
a corner because of Charlies cancer …

But honestly couldnt see Keith agreeing to it ….



ROCKMAN

Quote
JordyLicks96
Let's put it this way, by 1989 and on if Mick, Keith or Charlie could no longer go on touring, they would have disbanded. No Charlie, no more Stones. This is in 2005 now speaking. Say this was in the 70's, I feel like they would have gotten someone else. Even Mick talked about going on without Keith after his drug bust in '77.

Mick (March 6, 1977):

"Would we tour without Keith if he was in jail for a long time? Yeah, I should say so... Obviously we wouldn't if Keith was only in jail for a month or two months, but if he was in jail for a long period of time, I suppose we'd have to... We can't wait 5 years. In 5 years, we won't be touring at all. Not much anyway, just a few lounges."

Maybe Mick would have done a solo tour in 1978 if Keith was in jail after his drug bust? Who's to say if Charlie, Ronnie and Bill would have even wanted to go on without him and it's possible Keith would have objected to this arrangement as well. And I doubt there would be as much interest from the fans either. I, for one, would have no interest in a Keith-less or Charlie-less "Stones" show.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2020-01-21 00:16 by TornAndFried.

Quote
TornAndFried

Quote
JordyLicks96
Let's put it this way, by 1989 and on if Mick, Keith or Charlie could no longer go on touring, they would have disbanded. No Charlie, no more Stones. This is in 2005 now speaking. Say this was in the 70's, I feel like they would have gotten someone else. Even Mick talked about going on without Keith after his drug bust in '77.

Mick (March 6, 1977):

"Would we tour without Keith if he was in jail for a long time? Yeah, I should say so... Obviously we wouldn't if Keith was only in jail for a month or two months, but if he was in jail for a long period of time, I suppose we'd have to... We can't wait 5 years. In 5 years, we won't be touring at all. Not much anyway, just a few lounges."

Maybe Mick would have done a solo tour in 1978 if Keith was in jail after his drug bust? Who's to say if Charlie, Ronnie and Bill would have even wanted to go on without him, and I doubt their would be anywhere near as much interest from the fans too. I wouldn't have been interested in a Keith-less "Stones" show.

It's interesting to think about. Mick, Keith and Charlie are what have kept this band going. They're national treasures. Replacing any of them at any time would have made the group worse and never the same again.

I tend to lean towards the cynic's view. That is if Charlie hadn't come good and gone out again for ABB (when massive world tour and album were being lined up) the business side of the Stones would have replaced him. If however he pulled out in 2008 then that would have been THE END. Fortunately for us he still wants to keep busy hence the jazz band tour when all was quiet with the Stones. And long may he continue!

Can not see, for shows, The Rolling Stones happening without Charlie Watts.

I really, really doubt the Stones will continue without Charlie and even 10-15 years ago, same thing. Having said that, there are some caveats - if the band got together and said let's do an album and a tour, and they completed the album and booked a tour and then a few weeks before the tour started, Charlie changed his mind, I think they maybe would have considered touring (like previous post says -the business side)..with Steve and then called it quits. But even 10-15 years ago, if they had a meeting and said let's do an album and tour and Charlie said - I'm done, well, that would have been the end of it - certainly just my 2 cents. It kind of comes down to what stage (pre-album/pretour etc..) we're talking about I think..



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2020-01-21 00:14 by Lynd8.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
BD: No one comes into my band. I like the drummer I have now, he is one of the best around, but if he ever left me for some reason, like to join The Rolling Stones or something, I’d have to replace him."

Haha