For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
Nikkei
We're about to find out how essential he really is
Quote
roryfaninva
Sigh. Actually I would have preferred a principled stand (from Keith anyways) saying we dont go without Charlie. Period. What happened to the "irreducible core"? But at the end of the day its big business.
Quote
jumpingjackflash5Quote
gotdablouse
Yeah, the whole "it'd down to the core 3 now", etc...but who's surprised, Keith's the ultimate marketing BS man and he told us himself told us 30+ years ago that "Talk is Cheap" !
Hopefully Charlie will be ok, I have ZERO faith in the public announcement that he is expected to make a full recovery though, they would say it regardless of the situation and the fact they're not saying what it is is not a very good sign, i.e. it's not a broken finger.
On a more minor note I was listening to "Hate it When You Leave" yesterday and was thinking how much I hated the drums, just thumping along aimlessly, zero swing. Hopefully Jordan will be able to copy Charlie better during the shows.
Yes, if it were something easy or simple they would say what it is.
Steve Jordan is for sure good drummer, but he is not Charlie Watts. It will sound differently. If it were posible to replace musicians like this, we can easily recreate Beatles, Doors, etc. Remember The Full Circle?
Quote
jumpingjackflash5Quote
Nikkei
We're about to find out how essential he really is
Very essential. The sound will be different.
Quote
RokyfanQuote
roryfaninva
Sigh. Actually I would have preferred a principled stand (from Keith anyways) saying we dont go without Charlie. Period. What happened to the "irreducible core"? But at the end of the day its big business.
I recall many quotes from Keith that without Charlie it would not be the Stones, that his drumming was essential to their sound. Obviously he had no choice here, contractually.
Quote
Roadster32Quote
jumpingjackflash5Quote
Nikkei
We're about to find out how essential he really is
Very essential. The sound will be different.
Different YES, but will it be worse?
I can't say. Never heard him on drums to a Stones song so far.
Quote
MisterDDDDQuote
dcba
Nobody noticed this yet :
the band now has an all-black rythmn section! I hope Darryl will welcome the arrival of Jordan accordingly and he'll "de-stiff" his bass playing.
C'mon Darryl let the groove infuse your playing!
Perhaps no one posted it yet.. but Many of us noticed.
Believe this must be why Darryl cancelled his commitment that he had on Aug 15th.
Some six weeks before opener, it sounds like there will be a lot of rehearsing.
Was a bit disappointed in Jordan's statement that he didn't mention Darryl.
"It is an absolute honour and a privilege to be Charlie's understudy and I am looking forward to rehearsing with Mick, Keith and Ronnie."
Quote
Rokyfan
All of these "statements" are written by PR people, not the person to whom they are attributed.
Quote
Roadster32
I can't say. Never heard him on drums to a Stones song so far.
Quote
floodonthepage
A couple things seem clear to me...
1. Charlie wants this, according to the RS article. It sounds like HE asked Steve to do this, which makes a different for me.
2. The fact that theses shows are going forward doesn't (for me) mean that Keith or anyone else still doesn't feel the "No Charlie, No Stones" phrase. It means that the pandemic/contracts/insurers have them "in a spot", a spot that includes the livelihood of many a crew member. Charlie and everyone in the band are helping those people in many ways by going forward, not the least of which financially.
Less clear to me is....
3. The door does seem open for Charlie to come back during the tour, if not later in this tour then down the road with whatever plans they have that we are not aware of...that said, those plans may not include anymore US dates, and with that in mind do I want my (possibly) last Stones show to be w/o Charlie or do I skip the tour...knowing that if I (and enough other people) do that it may in some fashion hurt the larger/extended Stones family (the crew, etc.). I work with someone now who worked on their crew for Licks, and I can imagine what it means to people like him that the "show goes on"....not to mention what if (pie in the sky) Charlie comes back mid-tour...to experience that would be outstanding.
Lastly and ultimately, I think if this truly were a "Charlie is out" scenario, as in done with touring or worse.....if he had passed...then the "No Charlie, No Stones" would take hold and the band would stop. I could be wrong about that (as was exampled by the Who with Entwistle which has been pointed out was likely a contractual jam as well) but I'd like to think I'm right about that.
Quote
WorriedAboutYouQuote
RokyfanQuote
roryfaninva
Sigh. Actually I would have preferred a principled stand (from Keith anyways) saying we dont go without Charlie. Period. What happened to the "irreducible core"? But at the end of the day its big business.
I recall many quotes from Keith that without Charlie it would not be the Stones, that his drumming was essential to their sound. Obviously he had no choice here, contractually.
I don't believe that Mick and Keith had zero choice about playing these shows. They're the Stones, they could easily have pulled out. KR is all talk, his faux camaraderie about no Charlie no Stones is great in interviews when he's in full KEEF mode and hamming it up, it sounds endearing and like real talk, but when there are millions on the table he's going to take them. I always knew Keith was full of total sh!t and this just proves it.
Quote
tookthatname
Bring on Jimmie Nicol
Quote
spoonful2
There was no "emergency surgery", I knew about this 9 days ago. Don't rule out him jumping back on the tour at some point, but don't be surprised if he doesn't.
Quote
spoonful2
There was no "emergency surgery", I knew about this 9 days ago. Don't rule out him jumping back on the tour at some point, but don't be surprised if he doesn't.
Quote
spoonful2Quote
floodonthepage
A couple things seem clear to me...
1. Charlie wants this, according to the RS article. It sounds like HE asked Steve to do this, which makes a different for me.
2. The fact that theses shows are going forward doesn't (for me) mean that Keith or anyone else still doesn't feel the "No Charlie, No Stones" phrase. It means that the pandemic/contracts/insurers have them "in a spot", a spot that includes the livelihood of many a crew member. Charlie and everyone in the band are helping those people in many ways by going forward, not the least of which financially.
Less clear to me is....
3. The door does seem open for Charlie to come back during the tour, if not later in this tour then down the road with whatever plans they have that we are not aware of...that said, those plans may not include anymore US dates, and with that in mind do I want my (possibly) last Stones show to be w/o Charlie or do I skip the tour...knowing that if I (and enough other people) do that it may in some fashion hurt the larger/extended Stones family (the crew, etc.). I work with someone now who worked on their crew for Licks, and I can imagine what it means to people like him that the "show goes on"....not to mention what if (pie in the sky) Charlie comes back mid-tour...to experience that would be outstanding.
Lastly and ultimately, I think if this truly were a "Charlie is out" scenario, as in done with touring or worse.....if he had passed...then the "No Charlie, No Stones" would take hold and the band would stop. I could be wrong about that (as was exampled by the Who with Entwistle which has been pointed out was likely a contractual jam as well) but I'd like to think I'm right about that.
Charlie did not ask Steve Jordan to play for him, that was Mick and Keith. He was the obvious choice anyway.