I love The Stones and they are absolutely my favorite band but The Beatles and their music won't fade into oblivion ever, unless everything else does too.

Quote

Re: Charlie Watts pulls out of US tour after undergoing emergency surgery
Posted by: Thommie ()
Date: August 13, 2021 14:05

Quote
bv
Quote
Stoneage
To be fair: They are not 75 percent Stones without Charlie. 60 percent rather.

- 25% with Brian Jones left in 1969
- 25% with Mick Taylor left in 1974
- 25% with Bill Wyman left in 1993
- 25% with Charlie not able to tour now

I don't agree on these mathematics. The Rolling Stones are a synergy of Mick, Keith, Ronnie, Charlie, the very important supporting musicians on stage, their highly skilled crew, and their fans. They are still 100% The Rolling Stones, even if they may not tour with Brian, Mick T, Bill and Charlie.


I can live with a short tour, already announced with tickets sold, without Charlie in this situation. Who knows what impact a one more cancelled/postponed tour will have for the future in terms of insurances and so on?

But isn't the correct mathematics?:
- 20% with Brian Jones left in 1969
- 20% with Mick Taylor left in 1974
- 20% with Bill Wyman left in 1993
- 25% with Charlie not able to tour now

Mick T is not really missing. He is not a historical Stone. Besides, Ronnie Wood is perfect as a member of the Rolling Stones.

Ian Stewart is missing; how much % ?
Bobby Keys is missing as well.

The Rolling Stones were a band of six - 6 - members including Ian Stewart. With Brian Jones out in 1969 they were down to four out of six. Then Bill left 1993, so then they are technically just 50% of the original lineup.

They are not getting any younger year by year. Postponing another year would probably mean the shows in USA this year would have been lost. It isn't like they can do these shows in 5-10 years time, so I think it is a better solution to have a stand-in on drums than for the rest of the band to stay at home for another year.

Bjornulf

Quote
Aquamarine

Quote
TheBluesHadaBaby

Quote
Justin
...logistically how will that work?

Is Charlie supposed to jump on mid-tour with no rehearsal at all? ...Charlie will have no one to rehearse with....

It's a romantic idea that Charlie swoops in mid-tour to take over but logistically it just can't happen. He's either there from the beginning (right now) for rehearsals or he'll have to wait and catch the next train....

I'm not talking about him "taking over." If it's just the encore, that's TWO warhorses he's played live 1000 times with those guys. He practices in England watching and listening to the tour performances of the two songs as they've been performed in the tour shows he's not at. On travelling to the U.S. and meeting up with the band, yes it'll be difficult to work in three or four secret rehearsals mid-tour, but again these are rehearsals of TWO songs, not of a concert. It'd not be impossible, and it'd be worth it, to everybody.

Would the two warhorses come off perfectly the first night they do this? Maybe not. Maybe people will be out of sync a couple of times. But NOBODY WOULD CARE about that.

They'd only care that that's Charlie Watts, the fourth Rolling Stone, up there behind the drum kit.

You want Charlie, recently recovered from surgery, to be traveling all over the country so that he can sit in on two songs? That makes no sense for anyone, least of all Charlie.

Nobody would care? I think Charlie might care.

Quote
Georges

Quote

Re: Charlie Watts pulls out of US tour after undergoing emergency surgery
Posted by: Thommie ()
Date: August 13, 2021 14:05

Quote
bv
Quote
Stoneage
To be fair: They are not 75 percent Stones without Charlie. 60 percent rather.

- 25% with Brian Jones left in 1969
- 25% with Mick Taylor left in 1974
- 25% with Bill Wyman left in 1993
- 25% with Charlie not able to tour now

I don't agree on these mathematics. The Rolling Stones are a synergy of Mick, Keith, Ronnie, Charlie, the very important supporting musicians on stage, their highly skilled crew, and their fans. They are still 100% The Rolling Stones, even if they may not tour with Brian, Mick T, Bill and Charlie.


I can live with a short tour, already announced with tickets sold, without Charlie in this situation. Who knows what impact a one more cancelled/postponed tour will have for the future in terms of insurances and so on?

But isn't the correct mathematics?:
- 20% with Brian Jones left in 1969
- 20% with Mick Taylor left in 1974
- 20% with Bill Wyman left in 1993
- 25% with Charlie not able to tour now

Mick T is not really missing. He is not a historical Stone. Besides, Ronnie Wood is perfect as a member of the Rolling Stones.

Ian Stewart is missing; how much % ?
Bobby Keys is missing as well.

Mick Taylor not a historical Stone? Really. They only did 3 oftheir 4 best albums with him . Many people consider that band the best liveversion. He was in the band that created the template for all subsequent live shows. Ron Wood is no more perfect than Taylor was and no less. Read up on what the other members think of him



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-08-13 18:13 by Taylor1.

Maybe Charlie can turn up for two numbers and they can get him to play IORR and YCAGWYW.

Quote
bv
The Rolling Stones were a band of six - 6 - members including Ian Stewart. With Brian Jones out in 1969 they were down to four out of six. Then Bill left 1993, so then they are technically just 50% of the original lineup.

They are not getting any younger year by year. Postponing another year would probably mean the shows in USA this year would have been lost. It isn't like they can do these shows in 5-10 years time, so I think it is a better solution to have a stand-in on drums than for the rest of the band to stay at home for another year.

This makes sense to me, I am now back on the fence.

Quote
bv
The Rolling Stones were a band of six - 6 - members including Ian Stewart. With Brian Jones out in 1969 they were down to four out of six. Then Bill left 1993, so then they are technically just 50% of the original lineup.

They are not getting any younger year by year. Postponing another year would probably mean the shows in USA this year would have been lost. It isn't like they can do these shows in 5-10 years time, so I think it is a better solution to have a stand-in on drums than for the rest of the band to stay at home for another year.

June 1962 Line-up: Brian Jones, Dick Taylor, Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, Tony Chapman & Ian Stewart.

Quote
MKjan

Quote
bv
The Rolling Stones were a band of six - 6 - members including Ian Stewart. With Brian Jones out in 1969 they were down to four out of six. Then Bill left 1993, so then they are technically just 50% of the original lineup.

They are not getting any younger year by year. Postponing another year would probably mean the shows in USA this year would have been lost. It isn't like they can do these shows in 5-10 years time, so I think it is a better solution to have a stand-in on drums than for the rest of the band to stay at home for another year.

This makes sense to me, I am now back on the fence.

I guess it's the best of a bad situation. AND, YCAGWYW.

All this talk and speculation about Charlie sitting in for a couple of songs, e.g. for encore. I’m assuming some of it stems from our shared memory of Mick Taylor’s role during the 50 Years & Counting/14 On Fire tours, his limited and brief appearances to the stage.

Personally I don’t think it will happen as Charlie’s case is related to a health issue, which is a different situation. Maybe a one-off appearance if any on the very last date of the US tour to assure the general public of his return to the group. Also to hold out hope for their next year’s activities, i.e. the 60th anniversary.

Quote
RisingStone
All this talk and speculation about Charlie sitting in for a couple of songs, e.g. for encore. I’m assuming some of it stems from our shared memory of Mick Taylor’s role during the 50 Years & Counting/14 On Fire tours, his limited and brief appearances to the stage.

Personally I don’t think it will happen as Charlie’s case is related to a health issue, which is a different situation. Maybe a one-off appearance if any on the very last date of the US tour to assure the general public of his return to the group. Also to hold out hope for their next year’s activities, i.e. the 60th anniversary.

Still think streaming him in to one of the screens could be a good option

If the doctor's order is rest it means rest I guess. Preparing for major concerts, making travel plans and travel in to the States is probably not included in the concept of rest.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-08-13 22:13 by Stoneage.

Quote
MisterDDDD

Quote
RisingStone
All this talk and speculation about Charlie sitting in for a couple of songs, e.g. for encore. I’m assuming some of it stems from our shared memory of Mick Taylor’s role during the 50 Years & Counting/14 On Fire tours, his limited and brief appearances to the stage.

Personally I don’t think it will happen as Charlie’s case is related to a health issue, which is a different situation. Maybe a one-off appearance if any on the very last date of the US tour to assure the general public of his return to the group. Also to hold out hope for their next year’s activities, i.e. the 60th anniversary.

Still think streaming him in to one of the screens could be a good option

the unforgettable charlie ycagwyw air drum for the benefit streamed event! love the man, get well soon

Quote
MKjan

Quote
bv
The Rolling Stones were a band of six - 6 - members including Ian Stewart. With Brian Jones out in 1969 they were down to four out of six. Then Bill left 1993, so then they are technically just 50% of the original lineup.

They are not getting any younger year by year. Postponing another year would probably mean the shows in USA this year would have been lost. It isn't like they can do these shows in 5-10 years time, so I think it is a better solution to have a stand-in on drums than for the rest of the band to stay at home for another year.

This makes sense to me, I am now back on the fence.

Does anyone have an issue with the fact that they announced the tour, then the presale, then the general sale, sold tickets, then announced Charlie's sitting out? If they knew about this prior to selling tickets, shouldn't they have let their fans know?

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
MKjan

Quote
bv
The Rolling Stones were a band of six - 6 - members including Ian Stewart. With Brian Jones out in 1969 they were down to four out of six. Then Bill left 1993, so then they are technically just 50% of the original lineup.

They are not getting any younger year by year. Postponing another year would probably mean the shows in USA this year would have been lost. It isn't like they can do these shows in 5-10 years time, so I think it is a better solution to have a stand-in on drums than for the rest of the band to stay at home for another year.

This makes sense to me, I am now back on the fence.

I guess it's the best of a bad situation. AND, YCAGWYW.

Yes, they told us 1n 1969, didn't they----so true.

Quote
bv
The Rolling Stones were a band of six - 6 - members including Ian Stewart. With Brian Jones out in 1969 they were down to four out of six. Then Bill left 1993, so then they are technically just 50% of the original lineup.

They are not getting any younger year by year. Postponing another year would probably mean the shows in USA this year would have been lost. It isn't like they can do these shows in 5-10 years time, so I think it is a better solution to have a stand-in on drums than for the rest of the band to stay at home for another year.

Thank you, BV. That is a good breakdown/perspective. I've really been struggling with whether or not I would/should get a refund for the show I have a ticket for on this tour. A couple days ago I was ready to sit it out, now I'm thinking I'll regret not seeing Mick, Keith and Ronnie on this tour...even if this does prove to be my last Stones show.

Quote
Chester

Quote
Bastion
No one is‘forcing’ their opinion on anyone.

Ironically stated in a manner that is enforcing what opinions people are allowed to have.

This

I see.

Quote
floodonthepage

Quote
bv
The Rolling Stones were a band of six - 6 - members including Ian Stewart. With Brian Jones out in 1969 they were down to four out of six. Then Bill left 1993, so then they are technically just 50% of the original lineup.

They are not getting any younger year by year. Postponing another year would probably mean the shows in USA this year would have been lost. It isn't like they can do these shows in 5-10 years time, so I think it is a better solution to have a stand-in on drums than for the rest of the band to stay at home for another year.

Thank you, BV. That is a good breakdown/perspective. I've really been struggling with whether or not I would/should get a refund for the show I have a ticket for on this tour. A couple days ago I was ready to sit it out, now I'm thinking I'll regret not seeing Mick, Keith and Ronnie on this tour...even if this does prove to be my last Stones show.

I'm struggling with this decision too.

Quote
steffialicia

Quote
floodonthepage

Quote
bv
The Rolling Stones were a band of six - 6 - members including Ian Stewart. With Brian Jones out in 1969 they were down to four out of six. Then Bill left 1993, so then they are technically just 50% of the original lineup.

They are not getting any younger year by year. Postponing another year would probably mean the shows in USA this year would have been lost. It isn't like they can do these shows in 5-10 years time, so I think it is a better solution to have a stand-in on drums than for the rest of the band to stay at home for another year.

Thank you, BV. That is a good breakdown/perspective. I've really been struggling with whether or not I would/should get a refund for the show I have a ticket for on this tour. A couple days ago I was ready to sit it out, now I'm thinking I'll regret not seeing Mick, Keith and Ronnie on this tour...even if this does prove to be my last Stones show.

I'm struggling with this decision too.

Yeah. I have people saying "just go enjoy it for what it is" and yet I have this feeling that I'm not doing the right thing. I thought I could "sleep on it" but yet, still struggling.

Quote
roller99

Quote
MKjan

Quote
bv
The Rolling Stones were a band of six - 6 - members including Ian Stewart. With Brian Jones out in 1969 they were down to four out of six. Then Bill left 1993, so then they are technically just 50% of the original lineup.

They are not getting any younger year by year. Postponing another year would probably mean the shows in USA this year would have been lost. It isn't like they can do these shows in 5-10 years time, so I think it is a better solution to have a stand-in on drums than for the rest of the band to stay at home for another year.

This makes sense to me, I am now back on the fence.

Does anyone have an issue with the fact that they announced the tour, then the presale, then the general sale, sold tickets, then announced Charlie's sitting out? If they knew about this prior to selling tickets, shouldn't they have let their fans know?

IF it all went down that way, perhaps.


plexi

This US tour, if it even happens... could absolutely be THE LAST tour in the United States.

Time is pinching hard. Mick saying that the new album, if it happens, obviously, will be THE LAST ALBUM.

Mick alone has pretty much given us a hint.

Keith wants to die on stage... come on. That ain't gonna happen with The Rolling Stones.

Quote
GasLightStreet
This US tour, if it even happens... could absolutely be THE LAST tour in the United States.

Time is pinching hard. Mick saying that the new album, if it happens, obviously, will be THE LAST ALBUM.

Mick alone has pretty much given us a hint.

Keith wants to die on stage... come on. That ain't gonna happen with The Rolling Stones.

It could if someone put their hand in his heart. It could be suicide right on stage. Would that satisfy you...Skippy?

Quote
roller99

Does anyone have an issue with the fact that they announced the tour, then the presale, then the general sale, sold tickets, then announced Charlie's sitting out? If they knew about this prior to selling tickets, shouldn't they have let their fans know?

No.
Considering they signed contracts and then announced this tour on Feb 6th, 2020.
Then sold literally hundreds of thousands of tickets for it.

The band at that time was clearly able to fulfill the legal obligations, which by all accounts didn't go away with the pandemic and the postponement.
I think they did the right thing for legal issues, and by the fans.
As Bjornulf pointed out, otherwise this tour would have been "lost" not postponed.

As far as the timeline surrounding Charlie's condition, I have no problems with them rescheduling it and announcing the new dates when and how they did.

Regardless of whether they thought, or knew, he couldn't make it.
Signing a replacement earlier than the announcement doesn't prove to me that Charlie wasn't trying to still make the tour as he stated.

Perhaps others saw the writing on the wall, or perhaps the signing of Jordan was on contingency.
Point being, we don't know. Rightfully so imo, as they don't owe anyone info or updates on their private medical issues.

This has Charlie's blessing, with the assurance that he will be back "before the end of the year".
Given all that, I have no problem with any of it, and am very grateful he's ok, and also very grateful to see The Rolling Stones live this year.

Quote
floodonthepage

Quote
steffialicia

Quote
floodonthepage

Quote
bv
The Rolling Stones were a band of six - 6 - members including Ian Stewart. With Brian Jones out in 1969 they were down to four out of six. Then Bill left 1993, so then they are technically just 50% of the original lineup.

They are not getting any younger year by year. Postponing another year would probably mean the shows in USA this year would have been lost. It isn't like they can do these shows in 5-10 years time, so I think it is a better solution to have a stand-in on drums than for the rest of the band to stay at home for another year.

Thank you, BV. That is a good breakdown/perspective. I've really been struggling with whether or not I would/should get a refund for the show I have a ticket for on this tour. A couple days ago I was ready to sit it out, now I'm thinking I'll regret not seeing Mick, Keith and Ronnie on this tour...even if this does prove to be my last Stones show.

I'm struggling with this decision too.

Yeah. I have people saying "just go enjoy it for what it is" and yet I have this feeling that I'm not doing the right thing. I thought I could "sleep on it" but yet, still struggling.

You're not the only one............

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

Quote
MisterDDDD

Quote
RisingStone
All this talk and speculation about Charlie sitting in for a couple of songs, e.g. for encore. I’m assuming some of it stems from our shared memory of Mick Taylor’s role during the 50 Years & Counting/14 On Fire tours, his limited and brief appearances to the stage.

Personally I don’t think it will happen as Charlie’s case is related to a health issue, which is a different situation. Maybe a one-off appearance if any on the very last date of the US tour to assure the general public of his return to the group. Also to hold out hope for their next year’s activities, i.e. the 60th anniversary.

Still think streaming him in to one of the screens could be a good option

I'd like to have a look through his record collection sitting behind him.

Quote
roller99

Quote
MKjan

Quote
bv
The Rolling Stones were a band of six - 6 - members including Ian Stewart. With Brian Jones out in 1969 they were down to four out of six. Then Bill left 1993, so then they are technically just 50% of the original lineup.

They are not getting any younger year by year. Postponing another year would probably mean the shows in USA this year would have been lost. It isn't like they can do these shows in 5-10 years time, so I think it is a better solution to have a stand-in on drums than for the rest of the band to stay at home for another year.

This makes sense to me, I am now back on the fence.

Does anyone have an issue with the fact that they announced the tour, then the presale, then the general sale, sold tickets, then announced Charlie's sitting out? If they knew about this prior to selling tickets, shouldn't they have let their fans know?

No. This is a business. It was/is a brilliant business decision to "postpone" and not cancel...Ticketmaster made millions off of this delay....they got to invest/use all the ticket-money for 1 1/2 years...Stones probably worked something out to get a (big) cut of that.

anybody who "sat" on their ticket, rather than go for a refund, could've taken the refund, invested the $$$ and over 1 1/2 years, it would've paid for itself....

if the seat/pit was "too valuable" to give up, that's OK too...

But, in the end, it's YOUR money...YOU should be earning the interest & investing it etc....if your boss offers to pay you once per month or once per week....you take the latter.

same w/ the lottery....take it all in one lump sum, not over 20 years.

if you don't believe me, ask a Financial Advisor.

....back on topic: You buy a ticket for a band w/ 80-year-olds, you take a chance one of them might not make it....shoulda/coulda gotten a refund 1 1/2 years ago....and this is a business. The decision to tour w/o Charlie clearly demonstrates that.

good luck, Charlie!!

I don't think it was Ticketmaster who held all the ticket money during the postponement.

I mean, if you request a refund, Ticketmaster at least says they have to get the money back from the "event organizer" in order to refund you.

A letter from the President of Ticketmaster in April 2020:

[news.ticketmaster.com]

Quote


Our business practice is to send money to event organizers on a weekly basis as tickets are sold. For the 30,000 events that have already been postponed or canceled as a result of COVID-19, we have already sent more than $2 billion to event organizers, making it impossible to issue refunds to fans before recouping sales receipts from the organizers, as we’ve done in the past.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-08-14 14:27 by Topi.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Mick saying that the new album, if it happens, obviously, will be THE LAST ALBUM.

Mick alone has pretty much given us a hint.

Can you provide the quote where Mick says that, must have missed it.


plexi

Quote
MisterDDDD
This has Charlie's blessing, with the assurance that he will be back "before the end of the year".

While the widely quoted article from The Sun noted "later this year", Charlie's "official" statement makes no mention of that.

[twitter.com]

Quote
timbernardis

Quote
GasLightStreet

Mick saying that the new album, if it happens, obviously, will be THE LAST ALBUM.

Mick alone has pretty much given us a hint.

Can you provide the quote where Mick says that, must have missed it.

Question's been asked before - still waiting for an answer.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
bye bye johnny

Quote
GasLightStreet
Even though Mick has stated that this will be the last new Stones release, there's always another kind of TATTOO YOU with the leftovers.

Others have asked previously, and will ask again here. Where and when did Mick state that? Source/link please.

I read it in several places last year. Can't find where.

[iorr.org]