For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
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
Quote
AquamarineQuote
TheBluesHadaBabyQuote
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.
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 himQuote
GeorgesQuote
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.
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.
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.
Quote
MKjanQuote
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
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.
Quote
MisterDDDDQuote
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
Quote
MKjanQuote
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
treaclefingersQuote
MKjanQuote
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.
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.
Quote
ChesterQuote
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
Quote
floodonthepageQuote
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
steffialiciaQuote
floodonthepageQuote
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
roller99Quote
MKjanQuote
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
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.
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?
Quote
floodonthepageQuote
steffialiciaQuote
floodonthepageQuote
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
MisterDDDDQuote
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
Quote
roller99Quote
MKjanQuote
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
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.
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.
Quote
MisterDDDD
This has Charlie's blessing, with the assurance that he will be back "before the end of the year".
Quote
timbernardisQuote
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.
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
bye bye johnnyQuote
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.