For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
Stoneage
To be fair: They are not 75 percent Stones without Charlie. 60 percent rather.
Quote
rollmops
With Steve stepping in for Charlie it is reassuring. Steve has proven to be an essential musical relationship to Keith; in fact few years ago(2015) Jordan convinced Richards to work on his solo career again. I try to have a positive view on the situation, and I hope that musically something great happen. Get well Charlie and comeback soon!
Rockandroll,
Mops
Quote
bv
I understand there are lots of emotions regarding the replacement of Charlie on the coming tour. What I do NOT understand, is why some people want to enforce their own choices and opinions on others.
If you do not like to see the Stones live without Charlie, then fine. But why do you expect others to have the very same opinion?
I have a pragmatic view of life. When I bought Sticky Fingers, and became a Stones fan in 1971, the Stones had already replaced one of their founding members - Brian Jones. I bet some stopped being Rolling Stones fans already back then, when they brought in Mick Taylor to replace Brian Jones, back in 1969. If The Rolling Stones had followed the rules made by some fanatics, they should have terminated the band in 1969.
So I went to see The Rolling Stones live in 1973, with a not really Rolling Stones guitarist Mick Taylor. I loved them, even if he was the new guy.
Then Mick Taylor quit, so I guess some did not want to follow the "new" band with Ronnie Wood. If I had been following that road, the show back in 1973 would have been my ONLY Stones show, and I would have done something else in my life.
I did still love The Rolling Stones, so I started IORR in 1980, and I went to see them on tour in 1982 and 1989 and 1990.
Then Bill Wyman left, and Darryl Jones replaced him. The Stones could have ended the band in 1990, but they love to play so they kept going. I saw them on tour in 1994 and 1995 and on every tour after that. They are still The Rolling Stones for me.
Some people stopped following The Rolling Stones when Brian Jones was not with them anymore. The same goes for when Mick Taylor quit, or when Bill Wyman quit.
Still, many do still love the band for what they do and what they are, and what they play and how they do it.
If you do not like the fact that The Rolling Stones are touring without Charlie, then I do understand that. But please do not enforce your own personal emotions on others, like me. I want to see the 75% Stones, how they are performing. I am still looking for more great music. May be I love it, may be I hate it, I don't know. I loved them with Mick Taylor. I loved them with Ronnie Wood. I loved them even if Bill left. If they bring great emotions to me - as a person - with a replacement drummer, then I do not understand why others, with other opinions, may rule out my choice of watching them play live.
The Rolling Stones are not like religion, where there is a book saying exactly what to do and what to play and who to be on stage and so on. They do their best, both to enjoy themselves, and of course to maintain the business model.
If you are upset with Charlie recommending a replacement drummer, then I assume you are upset with new versions of old albums, new color vinyl, new mixes of old songs, Stripped recordings, everything should be like it was. That is called conservative. Put them in a can and preserve them. Don't ever change a thing.
I do respect the fact that some do not want to see or listen to The Rolling Stones without Charlie Watts on drums. Still, I want to see them, how they will perform, how they will sound, and if they are still able to make my heart beat faster, and if I will still walk out of the shows with a smile on my face. Nobody will ever be able to take away that from me.
Then for sure I wish Charlie Watts all the best, a quick healing, so that he may join the tour later on this year, or at least be back for the 60th anniversary shows next year. I do still love the Stones, that is for sure.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Stoneage
To be fair: They are not 75 percent Stones without Charlie. 60 percent rather.
When did 3 out of 4 not become 75 percent?
Quote
StoneageQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Stoneage
To be fair: They are not 75 percent Stones without Charlie. 60 percent rather.
When did 3 out of 4 not become 75 percent?
I count 3 out of 5. They were 5 to begin with: Mick, Keith, Ron, Charlie, Bill. Now those 5 have become 3. Without Bill they were 4 out of 5. Without Charlie 3 out of 5.
Quote
bv
I understand there are lots of emotions regarding the replacement of Charlie on the coming tour. What I do NOT understand, is why some people want to enforce their own choices and opinions on others.
If you do not like to see the Stones live without Charlie, then fine. But why do you expect others to have the very same opinion?
I have a pragmatic view of life. When I bought Sticky Fingers, and became a Stones fan in 1971, the Stones had already replaced one of their founding members - Brian Jones. I bet some stopped being Rolling Stones fans already back then, when they brought in Mick Taylor to replace Brian Jones, back in 1969. If The Rolling Stones had followed the rules made by some fanatics, they should have terminated the band in 1969.
So I went to see The Rolling Stones live in 1973, with a not really Rolling Stones guitarist Mick Taylor. I loved them, even if he was the new guy.
Then Mick Taylor quit, so I guess some did not want to follow the "new" band with Ronnie Wood. If I had been following that road, the show back in 1973 would have been my ONLY Stones show, and I would have done something else in my life.
I did still love The Rolling Stones, so I started IORR in 1980, and I went to see them on tour in 1982 and 1989 and 1990.
Then Bill Wyman left, and Darryl Jones replaced him. The Stones could have ended the band in 1990, but they love to play so they kept going. I saw them on tour in 1994 and 1995 and on every tour after that. They are still The Rolling Stones for me.
Some people stopped following The Rolling Stones when Brian Jones was not with them anymore. The same goes for when Mick Taylor quit, or when Bill Wyman quit.
Still, many do still love the band for what they do and what they are, and what they play and how they do it.
If you do not like the fact that The Rolling Stones are touring without Charlie, then I do understand that. But please do not enforce your own personal emotions on others, like me. I want to see the 75% Stones, how they are performing. I am still looking for more great music. May be I love it, may be I hate it, I don't know. I loved them with Mick Taylor. I loved them with Ronnie Wood. I loved them even if Bill left. If they bring great emotions to me - as a person - with a replacement drummer, then I do not understand why others, with other opinions, may rule out my choice of watching them play live.
The Rolling Stones are not like religion, where there is a book saying exactly what to do and what to play and who to be on stage and so on. They do their best, both to enjoy themselves, and of course to maintain the business model.
If you are upset with Charlie recommending a replacement drummer, then I assume you are upset with new versions of old albums, new color vinyl, new mixes of old songs, Stripped recordings, everything should be like it was. That is called conservative. Put them in a can and preserve them. Don't ever change a thing.
I do respect the fact that some do not want to see or listen to The Rolling Stones without Charlie Watts on drums. Still, I want to see them, how they will perform, how they will sound, and if they are still able to make my heart beat faster, and if I will still walk out of the shows with a smile on my face. Nobody will ever be able to take away that from me.
Then for sure I wish Charlie Watts all the best, a quick healing, so that he may join the tour later on this year, or at least be back for the 60th anniversary shows next year. I do still love the Stones, that is for sure.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
StoneageQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Stoneage
To be fair: They are not 75 percent Stones without Charlie. 60 percent rather.
When did 3 out of 4 not become 75 percent?
I count 3 out of 5. They were 5 to begin with: Mick, Keith, Ron, Charlie, Bill. Now those 5 have become 3. Without Bill they were 4 out of 5. Without Charlie 3 out of 5.
To begin with? Bill quit in 1993. Since then they've been 4 members.
Quote
bv
If you do not like to see the Stones live without Charlie, then fine.
Quote
StoneageQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
StoneageQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Stoneage
To be fair: They are not 75 percent Stones without Charlie. 60 percent rather.
When did 3 out of 4 not become 75 percent?
I count 3 out of 5. They were 5 to begin with: Mick, Keith, Ron, Charlie, Bill. Now those 5 have become 3. Without Bill they were 4 out of 5. Without Charlie 3 out of 5.
To begin with? Bill quit in 1993. Since then they've been 4 members.
Okay, sure there are different ways of counting. I count the Stones as a 5-piece-band with, now, three real Stones members on stage. It may be totally wrong but that is the way I look at it.
Quote
bv
I understand there are lots of emotions regarding the replacement of Charlie on the coming tour. What I do NOT understand, is why some people want to enforce their own choices and opinions on others.
If you do not like to see the Stones live without Charlie, then fine. But why do you expect others to have the very same opinion?
I have a pragmatic view of life. When I bought Sticky Fingers, and became a Stones fan in 1971, the Stones had already replaced one of their founding members - Brian Jones. I bet some stopped being Rolling Stones fans already back then, when they brought in Mick Taylor to replace Brian Jones, back in 1969. If The Rolling Stones had followed the rules made by some fanatics, they should have terminated the band in 1969.
So I went to see The Rolling Stones live in 1973, with a not really Rolling Stones guitarist Mick Taylor. I loved them, even if he was the new guy.
Then Mick Taylor quit, so I guess some did not want to follow the "new" band with Ronnie Wood. If I had been following that road, the show back in 1973 would have been my ONLY Stones show, and I would have done something else in my life.
I did still love The Rolling Stones, so I started IORR in 1980, and I went to see them on tour in 1982 and 1989 and 1990.
Then Bill Wyman left, and Darryl Jones replaced him. The Stones could have ended the band in 1990, but they love to play so they kept going. I saw them on tour in 1994 and 1995 and on every tour after that. They are still The Rolling Stones for me.
Some people stopped following The Rolling Stones when Brian Jones was not with them anymore. The same goes for when Mick Taylor quit, or when Bill Wyman quit.
Still, many do still love the band for what they do and what they are, and what they play and how they do it.
If you do not like the fact that The Rolling Stones are touring without Charlie, then I do understand that. But please do not enforce your own personal emotions on others, like me. I want to see the 75% Stones, how they are performing. I am still looking for more great music. May be I love it, may be I hate it, I don't know. I loved them with Mick Taylor. I loved them with Ronnie Wood. I loved them even if Bill left. If they bring great emotions to me - as a person - with a replacement drummer, then I do not understand why others, with other opinions, may rule out my choice of watching them play live.
The Rolling Stones are not like religion, where there is a book saying exactly what to do and what to play and who to be on stage and so on. They do their best, both to enjoy themselves, and of course to maintain the business model.
If you are upset with Charlie recommending a replacement drummer, then I assume you are upset with new versions of old albums, new color vinyl, new mixes of old songs, Stripped recordings, everything should be like it was. That is called conservative. Put them in a can and preserve them. Don't ever change a thing.
I do respect the fact that some do not want to see or listen to The Rolling Stones without Charlie Watts on drums. Still, I want to see them, how they will perform, how they will sound, and if they are still able to make my heart beat faster, and if I will still walk out of the shows with a smile on my face. Nobody will ever be able to take away that from me.
Then for sure I wish Charlie Watts all the best, a quick healing, so that he may join the tour later on this year, or at least be back for the 60th anniversary shows next year. I do still love the Stones, that is for sure.
Quote
Stoneage
To be fair: They are not 75 percent Stones without Charlie. 60 percent rather.
Quote
NikkeiQuote
bv
If you do not like to see the Stones live without Charlie, then fine.
No that's precisely why it's not fine.
Quote
bvQuote
NikkeiQuote
bv
If you do not like to see the Stones live without Charlie, then fine.
No that's precisely why it's not fine.
It is like a marriage. If you don't like your wife anymore, for a reason, then it is fine. You are not forced to stay. Your wife may change over time. You may change over time. A divorce is fine, if you don't find the vibe anymore. The Rolling Stones have changed over the past 59 years, for sure. No wonder some may not want to follow them anymore. That is fine. With me.
I am surprised to see so many are upset and angry. Charlie needs to rest. Doctors orders. He can not tour now. So the rest of the band will entertain while he can't join them. We don't know how it will sound and look like. I love The Rolling Stones, and I am sure Mick, Keith and Ronnie will do their best, together with Steve Jordan and the rest of the supporting musicians. And who are to judge, before they have even hit the stage?
Quote
bvQuote
NikkeiQuote
bv
If you do not like to see the Stones live without Charlie, then fine.
No that's precisely why it's not fine.
It is like a marriage. If you don't like your wife anymore, for a reason, then it is fine. You are not forced to stay. Your wife may change over time. You may change over time. A divorce is fine, if you don't find the vibe anymore. The Rolling Stones have changed over the past 59 years, for sure. No wonder some may not want to follow them anymore. That is fine. With me.
I am surprised to see so many are upset and angry. Charlie needs to rest. Doctors orders. He can not tour now. So the rest of the band will entertain while he can't join them. We don't know how it will sound and look like. I love The Rolling Stones, and I am sure Mick, Keith and Ronnie will do their best, together with Steve Jordan and the rest of the supporting musicians. And who are to judge, before they have even hit the stage?
Quote
Nikkei
I'm not exactly upset, certainly not angry, I just think it's the wrong thing to do now, moving forward in spite of all the circumstances. In my view it's close to spelling out disaster. And I don't want the divorce as you put it. I see them attempting something wrong and unwise and would like them to reconsider. I haven't been married but I suppose before you just file for divorce you would sit down together and try to talk it out?
Quote
MisterDDDDQuote
Nikkei
I'm not exactly upset, certainly not angry, I just think it's the wrong thing to do now, moving forward in spite of all the circumstances. In my view it's close to spelling out disaster. And I don't want the divorce as you put it. I see them attempting something wrong and unwise and would like them to reconsider. I haven't been married but I suppose before you just file for divorce you would sit down together and try to talk it out?
When they made the final plans for this leg, the (covid) outlook was good.
Now.. things have changed some.. they will likely make adjustments (vax proof/test) but, as we've seen throughout the pandemic, things change.
They can't be expected, nor would it be wise, to change the plans weekly.
Basically, using the divorce analogy, we're in the counseling phase right now.
Quote
NikkeiQuote
bvQuote
NikkeiQuote
bv
If you do not like to see the Stones live without Charlie, then fine.
No that's precisely why it's not fine.
It is like a marriage. If you don't like your wife anymore, for a reason, then it is fine. You are not forced to stay. Your wife may change over time. You may change over time. A divorce is fine, if you don't find the vibe anymore. The Rolling Stones have changed over the past 59 years, for sure. No wonder some may not want to follow them anymore. That is fine. With me.
I am surprised to see so many are upset and angry. Charlie needs to rest. Doctors orders. He can not tour now. So the rest of the band will entertain while he can't join them. We don't know how it will sound and look like. I love The Rolling Stones, and I am sure Mick, Keith and Ronnie will do their best, together with Steve Jordan and the rest of the supporting musicians. And who are to judge, before they have even hit the stage?
I'm not exactly upset, certainly not angry, I just think it's the wrong thing to do now, moving forward in spite of all the circumstances. In my view it's close to spelling out disaster. And I don't want the divorce as you put it. I see them attempting something wrong and unwise and would like them to reconsider. I haven't been married but I suppose before you just file for divorce you would sit down together and try to talk it out?