Quote
treaclefingers
I think there'll be an impact but pretty minor. Just the hardcore fans like us. COVID will be a far bigger impact.

Quote
slewan

Quote
treaclefingers
I think there'll be an impact but pretty minor. Just the hardcore fans like us. COVID will be a far bigger impact.

right. Most of the people haven't heard the news yet.

Quote
kv2915
I don't think so at all. I just saw a bunch of venues in Nashville are now requiring vax or negative tests for entry as well as Bonnaroo festival and other artists. If the Stones do that, some may return tix.

Quote
Dan
Covid is the negative impact.

Otherwise stuff like this *increases* sales and the urgency to see them while anyone is left.

Quote
24FPS
I don't know if ticket sales are as brisk as they wanted anyway. I'm constantly bombarded on Facebook with ads to buy for the L.A. concert. In the past it would have sold out, and a second concert, or third added. Maybe the excitement of seeing the Stones has finally ebbed. Plus Charlie, probably a minor anti-inducement, and Covid the larger element in killing the buzz.

Quote
tatters

Quote
Dan
Covid is the negative impact.

Otherwise stuff like this *increases* sales and the urgency to see them while anyone is left.

Seems counterintuitive, but perversely enough, when The Who announced they would tour without John Entwistle in 2002, ticket sales actually increased. Fans were curious to hear what a Who gig would sound like with someone other than The Ox playing bass. Also, there was a sense that The Who's 2002 shows would be their last, that once they'd fulfilled their contractual obligations for that year, they would call it a day, which of course, turned out not to be the case at all.

I realize it's not exactly the same situation with the Stones, since there is still the possibility of Charlie returning at some point, and some fans, choosing to wait for that eventuality, will decide to sit this one out.

Quote
24FPS
I don't know if ticket sales are as brisk as they wanted anyway. I'm constantly bombarded on Facebook with ads to buy for the L.A. concert. In the past it would have sold out, and a second concert, or third added. Maybe the excitement of seeing the Stones has finally ebbed. Plus Charlie, probably a minor anti-inducement, and Covid the larger element in killing the buzz.

Quote
jon12345

Quote
kv2915
I don't think so at all. I just saw a bunch of venues in Nashville are now requiring vax or negative tests for entry as well as Bonnaroo festival and other artists. If the Stones do that, some may return tix.

I'm very likely returning my Tampa tickets because they aren't requiring vax, tests or masks.

Quote
TheBluesHadaBaby

Quote
GlimmerGirl24
Steve Jordan signed on in early July

and was Keith's choice.

No idea how long Charlie has been ill,

but it does appear the illness was discovered prior to July.

Charlie is expected to recover, but it's unlikely he'll join the tour later on.

Thanks GlimmerGirl.

Hope you get Cherry Oh Baby!

Ok, so it sounds very much like the band knew Charlie wouldn't be playing this tour even before they decided to pull the trigger and proceed with it.

And they separated the two big announcements in this manner, in the reverse sequence of when the information was known internally because, well "Three-Quarters Of The Rolling Stones To Tour This Fall" is actually two pieces of news that step on each other rather awkwardly delivered all at once.

They couldn't do the announcements in their actual order because to announce "Charlie Watts can't tour for several months" would be to signal the band is, or was, looking at touring in that time period. And it'd set off this whole raucous argument among fans about can or should the Stones tour without him, just ahead of the announcement of the tour. They opted to announce the tour into less choppy waters.

But they reserved a way to deny they've known for a month Charlie wouldn't be touring, with the out that, it wasn't 100% certain he wouldn't be on a Fall tour until just days ago. He might have recovered with miraculous speed. Or he could always just have disobeyed his doctors' orders and gone anyway.

If so, that was the purpose behind the the wording of the message that went out under Charlie's name. That he had only just then, immediately before that announcement, decided that he really must obey his doctors' orders and not tour. Implied is that his decision to accept his need for convalescence was brand new.

What do others think... is that how Rolling Stones Inc. managed it?

I actually think I don't blame them much if that is how it happened.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
TheBluesHadaBaby

Quote
GlimmerGirl24
Steve Jordan signed on in early July

and was Keith's choice.

No idea how long Charlie has been ill,

but it does appear the illness was discovered prior to July.

Charlie is expected to recover, but it's unlikely he'll join the tour later on.

This is put really well! It is the case that they are where they are and it is what it is. Not treason to play these concerts without Charlie, but realistic.

Thanks GlimmerGirl.

Hope you get Cherry Oh Baby!

Ok, so it sounds very much like the band knew Charlie wouldn't be playing this tour even before they decided to pull the trigger and proceed with it.

And they separated the two big announcements in this manner, in the reverse sequence of when the information was known internally because, well "Three-Quarters Of The Rolling Stones To Tour This Fall" is actually two pieces of news that step on each other rather awkwardly delivered all at once.

They couldn't do the announcements in their actual order because to announce "Charlie Watts can't tour for several months" would be to signal the band is, or was, looking at touring in that time period. And it'd set off this whole raucous argument among fans about can or should the Stones tour without him, just ahead of the announcement of the tour. They opted to announce the tour into less choppy waters.

But they reserved a way to deny they've known for a month Charlie wouldn't be touring, with the out that, it wasn't 100% certain he wouldn't be on a Fall tour until just days ago. He might have recovered with miraculous speed. Or he could always just have disobeyed his doctors' orders and gone anyway.

If so, that was the purpose behind the the wording of the message that went out under Charlie's name. That he had only just then, immediately before that announcement, decided that he really must obey his doctors' orders and not tour. Implied is that his decision to accept his need for convalescence was brand new.

What do others think... is that how Rolling Stones Inc. managed it?

I actually think I don't blame them much if that is how it happened.

I think you explained very well the possible procedure here. Especially the idea of first telling that Charlie is out for a couple of months or so, and then announce a tour would have sounded pretty bad.

Another thing in GlimmerGirl24's post - thanks! - that contradicts with the official announcement is that it was actually Keith, not Charlie, who picked up Jordan. Honestly, I was a bit suspicious about it (being Charlie's choice) in the first place, since that doesn't sound the way the Stones operate or decide things. Yes, it looks good on a paper, making the loss of Charlie not sound so radical, like Charlie taking care of his own corner by offering a proper substitute. Like is not such a big deal.

But it is.

Just think of the Stones dynamics. It is not question who is not there, but who actually is there, that is, the one the rest are playing with. And the rest in the case of the Stones should read: Keith Richards. The heart of the Stones sound is the way the drummer and the main guitarist 'click'. No matter how past his prime Keith is - or Chuck Leavell-lead the 'modern' Stones are - there still exists that special connection between Keith and the drummer that affects the rest (if nothing else, for a band chemistry a happy, comfortable Keith is much better than not so happy Keith). I am pretty sure that like in the case of replacing Wyman they let the decision to Charlie because he was the one musically most linked to bass playing, they now naturally gave that task to Keith. They needed a man Keith feels naturally connected with. Probably there was not even discussion needed, since the choice was so naturally belonging to Keith's corner. And, of course, Steve was the most natural choice by him. (And we are pleased to read that Mick also is a "fan of Jordan", despite his criticism towards his playing with Winos back in the day... )

Well, wasn't it Charlie who initially recommended Jordan for the Winos project back in the 80's, so one can say he had a say there... But as far as the official announcement go, Charlie's contribution to it was (at most) something like being asked 'is this okay with you, Charlie?" after having showed the written part with the sentences attributed to him.

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa

Quote
TheBluesHadaBaby

Quote
GlimmerGirl24
Steve Jordan signed on in early July

and was Keith's choice.

No idea how long Charlie has been ill,

but it does appear the illness was discovered prior to July.

Charlie is expected to recover, but it's unlikely he'll join the tour later on.

Thanks GlimmerGirl.

Hope you get Cherry Oh Baby!

Ok, so it sounds very much like the band knew Charlie wouldn't be playing this tour even before they decided to pull the trigger and proceed with it.

And they separated the two big announcements in this manner, in the reverse sequence of when the information was known internally because, well "Three-Quarters Of The Rolling Stones To Tour This Fall" is actually two pieces of news that step on each other rather awkwardly delivered all at once.

They couldn't do the announcements in their actual order because to announce "Charlie Watts can't tour for several months" would be to signal the band is, or was, looking at touring in that time period. And it'd set off this whole raucous argument among fans about can or should the Stones tour without him, just ahead of the announcement of the tour. They opted to announce the tour into less choppy waters.

But they reserved a way to deny they've known for a month Charlie wouldn't be touring, with the out that, it wasn't 100% certain he wouldn't be on a Fall tour until just days ago. He might have recovered with miraculous speed. Or he could always just have disobeyed his doctors' orders and gone anyway.

If so, that was the purpose behind the the wording of the message that went out under Charlie's name. That he had only just then, immediately before that announcement, decided that he really must obey his doctors' orders and not tour. Implied is that his decision to accept his need for convalescence was brand new.

What do others think... is that how Rolling Stones Inc. managed it?

I actually think I don't blame them much if that is how it happened.

I think you explained very well the possible procedure here. Especially the idea of first telling that Charlie is out for a couple of months or so, and then announce a tour would have sounded pretty bad.

Another thing in GlimmerGirl24's post - thanks! - that contradicts with the official announcement is that it was actually Keith, not Charlie, who picked up Jordan. Honestly, I was a bit suspicious about it (being Charlie's choice) in the first place, since that doesn't sound the way the Stones operate or decide things. Yes, it looks good on a paper, making the loss of Charlie not sound so radical, like Charlie taking care of his own corner by offering a proper substitute. Like is not such a big deal.

But it is.

Just think of the Stones dynamics. It is not question who is not there, but who actually is there, that is, the one the rest are playing with. And the rest in the case of the Stones should read: Keith Richards. The heart of the Stones sound is the way the drummer and the main guitarist 'click'. No matter how past his prime Keith is - or Chuck Leavell-lead the 'modern' Stones are - there still exists that special connection between Keith and the drummer that affects the rest (if nothing else, for a band chemistry a happy, comfortable Keith is much better than not so happy Keith). I am pretty sure that like in the case of replacing Wyman they let the decision to Charlie because he was the one musically most linked to bass playing, they now naturally gave that task to Keith. They needed a man Keith feels naturally connected with. Probably there was not even discussion needed, since the choice was so naturally belonging to Keith's corner. And, of course, Steve was the most natural choice by him. (And we are pleased to read that Mick also is a "fan of Jordan", despite his criticism towards his playing with Winos back in the day... )

Well, wasn't it Charlie who initially recommended Jordan for the Winos project back in the 80's, so one can say he had a say there... But as far as the official announcement go, Charlie's contribution to it was (at most) something like being asked 'is this okay with you, Charlie?" after having showed the written part with the sentences attributed to him.

- Doxa

Quote
dcba
Imo Jordan along with Fig saved the DW sessions, and he kept his mouth shut about the whole thing, so that was seen as a proff of loyalty by Keith.
Which led to beign hired for the Berry 60th gigs in 86.

Which led to sitting on the stool in 87 for TIC.

And now Jordan is getting ready for the biggest gig of his entire career.

Quote
TheGreek
A most fine mess at massive ticket prices for a diminished product . Hint - they should not tour , but you can't let the money get in the way of "Business" SHAME !

Quote
Hairball
Seems a bit devious and misleading to announce the rescheduled shows if they already had Steve Jordan signed on back in early July while knowing Charlie wouldn't be involved.

Quote
GlimmerGirl24
Charlie doesn't want to be the reason the Stones stop touring. It appears he'd rather it be Mick or Keith. So he'd probably be the first to encourage them to tour in the future if he decides to retire.

Steve Jordan signed on in early July and was Keith's choice. No idea how long Charlie has been ill, but it does appear the illness was discovered prior to July. Charlie is expected to recover, but it's unlikely he'll join the tour later on.

The band arrives this weekend to begin rehearsals. I'm hoping some of you in Boston are able to hear the rehearsals and report that Cherry Oh Baby is played.

Quote
maumau
being watching Ronnie's latest photos lately, asking myself if the time to say the show must stop has come for the band

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
maumau
being watching Ronnie's latest photos lately, asking myself if the time to say the show must stop has come for the band

I thought he looked healthy on the August 10 pics.

Quote
SomeTorontoGirl

Quote
Hairball
Seems a bit devious and misleading to announce the rescheduled shows if they already had Steve Jordan signed on back in early July while knowing Charlie wouldn't be involved.

..particularly since tickets bought after the recent tour dates were announced were (a) flogged with ‘dynamic pricing’ into the stratosphere and (b) aren’t refundable. I’m actually pretty peeved....