Quote
MisterDDDD

Quote
TheGreek

Quote
stonesstein

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
wonderboy
Get used to it. This is how it's going to end. There won't be a last show and a final bow. One of the remaining three will be unable to carry on and it will be over.

RE: "One of remaining 3 not able to carry on"

If it's Mick, I vote they get either Steven Tyler or Britney Spears to replace him (she's already done Satisfaction to much acclaim).

If it's Keith, I vote Joe Perry or Johnny Depp (keep the pirate thing going).

If it's Ronnie...well let's face it they can't do it without Ronnie, you got me there.

Treacle, from where I sat in Jacksonville in 2019, they've already done shows without Keith (or without ALL of Keith)! They can always reach back for Mick Taylor ......

Does anyone else remember Keith's words from 1993 (or so) when Darryl got the gig to the effect of "We'll miss Bill, but if Charlie ever goes, that's the Rolling Stones."

I certainly haven't forgotten that comment at all . So integrity and business don't mix ? (dumb question and I feel naive writting that as well )

Perhaps the weakest and lamest of reasons to be criticizing having someone sit in for Charlie on this leg.

The context, after Bill quit, is crystal clear.
He's obviously referring to Charlie leaving the band for good.

Which, by ALL accounts, is not this.

Well I think it is interesting that if it were Mick, there is no way there would be a show. Not possible.

On the other hand, I think it's plausible for any of the other 3, even Keith, to not be onstage and they could pull it off (I saw Seattle 2019, he was rather irrelevant to the program).

The crazy thing is that Mick as a solo artist couldn't pull in the audience, yet you could substitute any of the other 3 (yes, it would sound different, and is not ideal...but still) and have a concert that people would argue is the Stones.

I find that fascinating.

Quote
TheBluesHadaBaby

Quote
Nikkei
You wanna bet how long it takes us to come up with a bogus theory you just came up with?

"a bogus theory (I) came up with"?
You seem confused on a key element of such theories. They are wrong ideas advanced by people who believe them to be true.

I'm anticipating when some such crazy or very gullible people might be claiming this.

So you hold yourself to be not gullible, but you still brought it up in the first place. Now it's out there. You suggested to set up a "betting pool" so what I'm confused about is whether you won or lost that bet?

Quote
treaclefingers

Well I think it is interesting that if it were Mick, there is no way there would be a show. Not possible.

On the other hand, I think it's plausible for any of the other 3, even Keith, to not be onstage and they could pull it off (I saw Seattle 2019, he was rather irrelevant to the program).

The crazy thing is that Mick as a solo artist couldn't pull in the audience, yet you could substitute any of the other 3 (yes, it would sound different, and is not ideal...but still) and have a concert that people would argue is the Stones.

I find that fascinating.

Was referring to those using Keith's comment of of context, so not disagreeing with you here.

Quote
MisterDDDD

Quote
treaclefingers

Well I think it is interesting that if it were Mick, there is no way there would be a show. Not possible.

On the other hand, I think it's plausible for any of the other 3, even Keith, to not be onstage and they could pull it off (I saw Seattle 2019, he was rather irrelevant to the program).

The crazy thing is that Mick as a solo artist couldn't pull in the audience, yet you could substitute any of the other 3 (yes, it would sound different, and is not ideal...but still) and have a concert that people would argue is the Stones.

I find that fascinating.

Was referring to those using Keith's comment of of context, so not disagreeing with you here.

Your point was logical, and I wasn't trying to challenge what you were saying either.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-08-18 04:43 by treaclefingers.

Quote
LSTNT
I'm hoping when Mick, Keith and Ronnie take the final bow they put a picture of Charlie on the video screens.

LOL that is what will most likely happen. Good call.

All the LED screen talk reminded me of another thought I don't think I've seen here yet.

At every show, maybe during the band introductions, I fully expect for Charlie to be projected onto the screens in a brief but live (complete with the usual annoying but minor dialogue delays) video chat with the boys and Steve, and a brief hello-how-are-you to the crowds. Hopefully he'll be able to see us like we see him, so he'll see what he's missing.

Charlie will confirm he's doing better. Tell us he hates not being there playing, but will stress what good hands the shows are in with Steve. And so forth, all in the course of conversing with the official representative of the 50,000 of us, Mick. During which we'll witness that, yes, it is Charlie live and not a pre-recorded vid. That he can hear us, and experience a little crowd noise from us.

Maybe three minutes, and done. Nothing fancy.

What will be the point? We'll see Charlie! He'll see us! He'll get to feel a little vicarious involvement in the night. Everybody will feel better, will be the point.

It also reassures everybody that Charlie is recovering... we see it for ourselves... and signals that yes he is still a Rolling Stone and will return to touring soon.


About the time differences, yes I know Charlie is a man who likes his set hours and routines, including bedtime. And that 10 PM in, say, Dallas, is 4 AM in England. So the little live video appearances will be an inconvenience for him roughly once every four days. But I think he'll be happy to do them anyway. They'll be for him, too. He's going to feel antsy being home while for the first time in his life the rest of the Rolling Stones are on tour without him. The little live video drop-ins will let him feel more connected to it.

And if he recovers well enough, who knows, he may wind up doing only half a tour of these wee hours video calls before he actually starts turning up at concerts... maybe about Vegas, or Dallas, or Tampa... and even drumming on a couple of songs per show. (See that wild speculation a page or two back).

****
I'm down in Virginia
with your Cousin Lou



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2021-08-18 07:32 by TheBluesHadaBaby.

If Charlie opts to quit after the US tour... no 2022 tour(s) - unless contracts are signed.

Quote
treaclefingers
Well I think it is interesting that if it were Mick, there is no way there would be a show. Not possible.

On the other hand, I think it's plausible for any of the other 3, even Keith, to not be onstage and they could pull it off (I saw Seattle 2019, he was rather irrelevant to the program).

The crazy thing is that Mick as a solo artist couldn't pull in the audience, yet you could substitute any of the other 3 (yes, it would sound different, and is not ideal...but still) and have a concert that people would argue is the Stones.

I find that fascinating.

In 2014, Tokyo #1 was like that.
Although I wasn’t there, it was reported that Keith was totally off from beginning to end due to poor health condition. He was apparently in bad shape, which was reflected in the play, bum note here, flub there. And he wasn’t animated almost at all during the show. In short, Keith didn’t make his presence felt that night. Mick, on the other hand, gave everything, and then some, to make up for his comrade in predicament — one of those “Mick as a physical phenomenon, a force of nature” moments.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-08-18 07:10 by RisingStone.

Keith has done his fair share of heavy lifting when Mick had been sick and/or substandard - the *Vegas '16 show aka the Sick Mick show is a fine example of just that.
Keith played a three song set instead of his usual two, while he and everyone else covered for and embellished Mick's vocals throughout the entire show which abruptly ended after a short 18 song setlist.
The show probably should have never happened as it seemed forced and was just a few days after the show that was canceled, yet somehow they decided to forge ahead, also playing the private Kraft show a few days later.

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

Quote
RisingStone

Quote
MisterDDDD
Well I think it is interesting that if it were Mick, there is no way there would be a show. Not possible.

On the other hand, I think it's plausible for any of the other 3, even Keith, to not be onstage and they could pull it off (I saw Seattle 2019, he was rather irrelevant to the program).

The crazy thing is that Mick as a solo artist couldn't pull in the audience, yet you could substitute any of the other 3 (yes, it would sound different, and is not ideal...but still) and have a concert that people would argue is the Stones.

I find that fascinating.

In 2014, Tokyo #1 was like that.
Although I wasn’t there, it was reported that Keith was totally off from beginning to end due to poor health condition. He was apparently in bad shape, which was reflected in the play, bum note here, flub there. And he wasn’t animated almost at all during the show. In short, Keith didn’t make his presence felt that night. Mick, on the other hand, gave everything, and then some, to make up for his comrade in predicament — one of those “Mick as a physical phenomenon, a force of nature” moments.

Not my quote (treaclefingers) you are responding to, but agreed with most of it.

"

Quote
treaclefingers

Well I think it is interesting that if it were Mick, there is no way there would be a show. Not possible.

On the other hand, I think it's plausible for any of the other 3, even Keith, to not be onstage and they could pull it off (I saw Seattle 2019, he was rather irrelevant to the program).

The crazy thing is that Mick as a solo artist couldn't pull in the audience, yet you could substitute any of the other 3 (yes, it would sound different, and is not ideal...but still) and have a concert that people would argue is the Stones.

I find that fascinating.

"

Quote
Nikkei

Quote
TheBluesHadaBaby

Quote
Nikkei
You wanna bet how long it takes us to come up with a bogus theory you just came up with?

"a bogus theory (I) came up with"?
You seem confused on a key element of such theories. They are wrong ideas advanced by people who believe them to be true.

I'm anticipating when some such crazy or very gullible people might be claiming this.

So you hold yourself to be not gullible, but you still brought it up in the first place. Now it's out there. You suggested to set up a "betting pool" so what I'm confused about is whether you won or lost that bet?

Let's see if I can sort out what offends you.

So, you suspect I made such a bet already, someplace else I guess, and here I am engineering my win in that bet, by starting such a myth?

No. The "betting pool" line is riffing on a joke somebody else made, What's the over/under on how many pages we're going to talk about the concert final bows the Stones will take? Which I thought was funny. No, I don't bet in betting pools, or otherwise, for money. So, wrong on that accusation, if that's what your post was about.

I wonder if you don't like something else but maybe don't know what that is. You were moved react against the post but before pinning down what to rebuff?

"...You still brought it up in the first place."
"Now it's out there."

I brought it up to ridicule such things and note I think I see this coming.

Maybe your concern is not my motivation, but is, specifically,
"Now it's out there."

Which, on consideration, may not be a bad point.

It was a throwaway realization, that such an absurd, Beatles-y urban myth is likely. We can erase it if you want. Both delete the posts. I'd have no objection to that.

Quote
Hairball
Keith has done his fair share of heavy lifting when Mick had been sick and/or substandard - the *Vegas '16 show aka the Sick Mick show is a fine example of just that.
Keith played a three song set instead of his usual two, while he and everyone else covered for and embellished Mick's vocals throughout the entire show which abruptly ended after a short 18 song setlist.
The show probably should have never happened as it seemed forced and was just a few days after the show that was canceled, yet somehow they decided to forge ahead, also playing the private Kraft show a few days later.

Ehhhh.... that's not even a blip on the radar compared to, oh, pick a year - 1972-1985.

Video calls now?

Video calls...they call it "Chat time with Charlie"....yeah....then Mick will sing us all a lullaby, and Keith will come out in his robe and slippers with a cup of warm milk...

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

Quote
MisterDDDD
Not my quote (treaclefingers) you are responding to, but agreed with most of it.

Err...sorry about that. My misquote.
I have amended my post accordingly.

Quote
Hairball
Video calls...they call it "Chat time with Charlie"....yeah....then Mick will sing us all a lullaby, and Keith will come out in his robe and slippers with a cup of warm milk...

Chat Time With Charlie... I like that. And I'd sign up for one... Charlie's a lovely man. The "suds" in the toast emoji in this case we'll call whipped cream on mugs of hot cocoa.


We'll see. I'm saying they ring him for us and he turns up live on the giant screens.

Wonder what's next. I mean, the hologram was already mentioned. So were body doubles.

This sounds like bingo. But hey, let's keep those ideas coming!






Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2021-08-18 16:13 by Topi.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
LSTNT
I'm hoping when Mick, Keith and Ronnie take the final bow they put a picture of Charlie on the video screens.

LOL that is what will most likely happen. Good call.

Or Jordan will do the final bow with a Charlie t-shirt...

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
LSTNT
I'm hoping when Mick, Keith and Ronnie take the final bow they put a picture of Charlie on the video screens.

LOL that is what will most likely happen. Good call.

Or Jordan will do the final bow with a Charlie t-shirt...

To commemorate a former member ....

Quote
MisterDDDD

Quote
treaclefingers

Well I think it is interesting that if it were Mick, there is no way there would be a show. Not possible.

On the other hand, I think it's plausible for any of the other 3, even Keith, to not be onstage and they could pull it off (I saw Seattle 2019, he was rather irrelevant to the program).

The crazy thing is that Mick as a solo artist couldn't pull in the audience, yet you could substitute any of the other 3 (yes, it would sound different, and is not ideal...but still) and have a concert that people would argue is the Stones.

I find that fascinating.

Was referring to those using Keith's comment of of context, so not disagreeing with you here.

So is ones ( Keith's ) word not to be taken seriously or literally ? In regards to Charlie Watts ? If so what have the Stones / Twins morphed into ? Gene Simmons and Paul Stanley and the charade of Eric Singer dressed in Peter Criss costume and makeup and Ace Frehley has morphed into Tommy Thayer costume and makeup ? Minus the makeup of course ? I always held the Stones to the highest level of integrity and maybe it's just because of iron clad contracts during the Pandemic and there is to much $ on the line and at the end of the day I do understand it's a business no different from anyone of us having to earn a living but it still is hard to stomach, and for myself it does go back to Keith's words when Bill Wyman left . So how should I put that in proper context ? I am asking sincerely , not trolling or trying to start crap .

TheGreek: perhaps the proper context in that Keith quote is that he meant the Stones would be done if Charlie left the band for good. He wasn't talking about Charlie stepping aside temporarily because of a medical procedure.

Granted I don't have the 1993 Keith quote in front of me. (Does anybody?)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2021-08-18 14:30 by Topi.

Quote
TheBluesHadaBaby
All the LED screen talk reminded me of another thought I don't think I've seen here yet.

At every show, maybe during the band introductions, I fully expect for Charlie to be projected onto the screens in a brief but live (complete with the usual annoying but minor dialogue delays) video chat with the boys and Steve, and a brief hello-how-are-you to the crowds. Hopefully he'll be able to see us like we see him, so he'll see what he's missing.

Charlie will confirm he's doing better. Tell us he hates not being there playing, but will stress what good hands the shows are in with Steve. And so forth, all in the course of conversing with the official representative of the 50,000 of us, Mick. During which we'll witness that, yes, it is Charlie live and not a pre-recorded vid. That he can hear us, and experience a little crowd noise from us.

Maybe three minutes, and done. Nothing fancy.

What will be the point? We'll see Charlie! He'll see us! He'll get to feel a little vicarious involvement in the night. Everybody will feel better, will be the point.

It also reassures everybody that Charlie is recovering... we see it for ourselves... and signals that yes he is still a Rolling Stone and will return to touring soon.


About the time differences, yes I know Charlie is a man who likes his set hours and routines, including bedtime. And that 10 PM in, say, Dallas, is 4 AM in England. So the little live video appearances will be an inconvenience for him roughly once every four days. But I think he'll be happy to do them anyway. They'll be for him, too. He's going to feel antsy being home while for the first time in his life the rest of the Rolling Stones are on tour without him. The little live video drop-ins will let him feel more connected to it.

And if he recovers well enough, who knows, he may wind up doing only half a tour of these wee hours video calls before he actually starts turning up at concerts... maybe about Vegas, or Dallas, or Tampa... and even drumming on a couple of songs per show. (See that wild speculation a page or two back).

As satire, the post is quite good. But I think you might be serious.

Like Charlie would ever be a part of such a lame-ass idea, a video chat into a concert (or playing on a song or two or a hologram or anything else other than staying home in England).

He's not there, he's not playing, he doesn't want any applause at shows he's not at, nor does he want to step on the musicians who are playing, i.e. Jordan. He has too much class for any of these ideas.

Just my opinion.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Or Jordan will do the final bow with a Charlie t-shirt...

... in "whiteface" make-up?

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
LSTNT
I'm hoping when Mick, Keith and Ronnie take the final bow they put a picture of Charlie on the video screens.

LOL that is what will most likely happen. Good call.

Or Jordan will do the final bow with a Charlie t-shirt...

...with a "Charlie is my darling" t-shirt to make it even cheesier...

Quote
TheGreek
So is ones ( Keith's ) word not to be taken seriously or literally ? In regards to Charlie Watts ? If so what have the Stones / Twins morphed into ? Gene Simmons and Paul Stanley and the charade of Eric Singer dressed in Peter Criss costume and makeup and Ace Frehley has morphed into Tommy Thayer costume and makeup ? Minus the makeup of course ? I always held the Stones to the highest level of integrity and maybe it's just because of iron clad contracts during the Pandemic and there is to much $ on the line and at the end of the day I do understand it's a business no different from anyone of us having to earn a living but it still is hard to stomach, and for myself it does go back to Keith's words when Bill Wyman left . So how should I put that in proper context ? I am asking sincerely , not trolling or trying to start crap .

Not trolling or starting crap either, but the proper context is that Keith said this, as you point out, when Wyman left the band.
This wasn't said in regards to one of them having to sit out for a bit due to a medical procedure or illness.

If Charlie had announced his retirement, and the band/Keith decided to forge ahead with out him, the criticism would be valid. But that didn't happen.
So using Keith's words against him now, out of context, is weak criticism at best, and perpetuates a falsehood.
(also can't track down original quote..yet)

Quote
TheGreek

Quote
MisterDDDD

Quote
treaclefingers

Well I think it is interesting that if it were Mick, there is no way there would be a show. Not possible.

On the other hand, I think it's plausible for any of the other 3, even Keith, to not be onstage and they could pull it off (I saw Seattle 2019, he was rather irrelevant to the program).

The crazy thing is that Mick as a solo artist couldn't pull in the audience, yet you could substitute any of the other 3 (yes, it would sound different, and is not ideal...but still) and have a concert that people would argue is the Stones.

I find that fascinating.

Was referring to those using Keith's comment of of context, so not disagreeing with you here.

So is ones ( Keith's ) word not to be taken seriously or literally ? In regards to Charlie Watts ? If so what have the Stones / Twins morphed into ? Gene Simmons and Paul Stanley and the charade of Eric Singer dressed in Peter Criss costume and makeup and Ace Frehley has morphed into Tommy Thayer costume and makeup ? Minus the makeup of course ? I always held the Stones to the highest level of integrity and maybe it's just because of iron clad contracts during the Pandemic and there is to much $ on the line and at the end of the day I do understand it's a business no different from anyone of us having to earn a living but it still is hard to stomach, and for myself it does go back to Keith's words when Bill Wyman left . So how should I put that in proper context ? I am asking sincerely , not trolling or trying to start crap .

What you have are your feelings about it, and they are completely valid. The counterargument is the pragmatic argument, but that doesn't negate what Keith originally maintained or how a lot of us feel about it.

Quote
treaclefingers
Well I think it is interesting that if it were Mick, there is no way there would be a show. Not possible.

In the very strict sense of the words, even this wouldn’t be the case.

During the Keith set, Mick leaves the stage, completely off sight.
No one doubts they are “The Rolling Stones”

Quote
MisterDDDD

Quote
TheGreek
So is ones ( Keith's ) word not to be taken seriously or literally ? In regards to Charlie Watts ? If so what have the Stones / Twins morphed into ? Gene Simmons and Paul Stanley and the charade of Eric Singer dressed in Peter Criss costume and makeup and Ace Frehley has morphed into Tommy Thayer costume and makeup ? Minus the makeup of course ? I always held the Stones to the highest level of integrity and maybe it's just because of iron clad contracts during the Pandemic and there is to much $ on the line and at the end of the day I do understand it's a business no different from anyone of us having to earn a living but it still is hard to stomach, and for myself it does go back to Keith's words when Bill Wyman left . So how should I put that in proper context ? I am asking sincerely , not trolling or trying to start crap .

Not trolling or starting crap either, but the proper context is that Keith said this, as you point out, when Wyman left the band.
This wasn't said in regards to one of them having to sit out for a bit due to a medical procedure or illness.

If Charlie had announced his retirement, and the band/Keith decided to forge ahead with out him, the criticism would be valid. But that didn't happen.
So using Keith's words against him now, out of context, is weak criticism at best, and perpetuates a falsehood.
(also can't track down original quote..yet)

No disrespect intended . To me it sounds like legalese from an Attorney . Stones tour and no Charlie behind the skins . I guess I will have to wait and see if this is temporary or permanent as I have my suspicions and Mr. Watts is 80 years young .

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
TheGreek

Quote
MisterDDDD

Quote
treaclefingers

Well I think it is interesting that if it were Mick, there is no way there would be a show. Not possible.

On the other hand, I think it's plausible for any of the other 3, even Keith, to not be onstage and they could pull it off (I saw Seattle 2019, he was rather irrelevant to the program).

The crazy thing is that Mick as a solo artist couldn't pull in the audience, yet you could substitute any of the other 3 (yes, it would sound different, and is not ideal...but still) and have a concert that people would argue is the Stones.

I find that fascinating.

Was referring to those using Keith's comment of of context, so not disagreeing with you here.

So is ones ( Keith's ) word not to be taken seriously or literally ? In regards to Charlie Watts ? If so what have the Stones / Twins morphed into ? Gene Simmons and Paul Stanley and the charade of Eric Singer dressed in Peter Criss costume and makeup and Ace Frehley has morphed into Tommy Thayer costume and makeup ? Minus the makeup of course ? I always held the Stones to the highest level of integrity and maybe it's just because of iron clad contracts during the Pandemic and there is to much $ on the line and at the end of the day I do understand it's a business no different from anyone of us having to earn a living but it still is hard to stomach, and for myself it does go back to Keith's words when Bill Wyman left . So how should I put that in proper context ? I am asking sincerely , not trolling or trying to start crap .

What you have are your feelings about it, and they are completely valid. The counterargument is the pragmatic argument, but that doesn't negate what Keith originally maintained or how a lot of us feel about it.

Also , when Mick feel ill due to his heart the tour was postponed until he was better and fit to carry on . So what is different now besides one is the front man / vocalist and the other keeps the beat on the drums ? What was the hurry during the Pandemic that the once already delayed tour be delayed yet again so that there mate would be ready and fit to go ? What am I missing besides the obvious $ . I am not going to say there is a sense of urgency for obvious reasons . I just don't get how Mick and Keith can do this !

Quote
TheGreek
'

Also , when Mick feel ill due to his heart the tour was postponed until he was better and fit to carry on . So what is different now besides one is the front man / vocalist and the other keeps the beat on the drums ? What was the hurry during the Pandemic that the once already delayed tour be delayed yet again so that there mate would be ready and fit to go ? What am I missing besides the obvious $ . I am not going to say there is a sense of urgency for obvious reasons . I just don't get how Mick and Keith can do this !

TheGreek, as GlimmerGirl24 pointed out, the contracts say that Charlie and Ronnie can be replaced. Mick and Keith can not. This is why they postponed due to Mick's health issue, but won't/can't postpone because of Charlie.

(I know, in 2017 the European tour was postponed due to Ronnie's cancer, but perhaps in that case it was easier to do so, as venues were available in the fall and all parties agreed)

Also, there's pretty much nowhere to postpone the US tour to at this point. They can't play stadiums in the wintertime. They had to do it it now.