For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
I think you have summed it up perfectly as it's all about choices and everyone has a choice on if they want to participate and join in the festivities or not . Pretty simple . I hope we get an accurate count on seats sold in each tour stop and that will be reveling as to how the fans/public vote with there wallets or not including all of the other things going on world wide .Quote
Papo
Who's to decide other than the band themselves?
And what's all this talk about "knowing when to stop"? I don't get it.
Oscar Peterson played on after he had had a serious stroke. Many bands carried on after losing one or more members of the band. Who are we to judge?
Our band lost a member in 1998. A few days later we played a gig. Some people could not understand how we could do that. But we felt it was the right thing to do. We lost another member, our great guitar player, in 2018, after our second guitar player (his brother!) had to quit a few years earlier in 2014 because of MS.
It's not the same anymore, but nonetheless, we find some comfort in performing. We we play, we can feel the presence of those who are not with us anymore. It hurts, but it also gives comfort. Why quit doing what you love?
Mick, Ronnie and Keith along with the band are still capable of playing great shows, I think. And if they feel it's the right thing to do, they should. If not, they shouldn't. But it's not up to us to decide or judge.
If you think they should quit, maybe you should quit - going to their shows. I don't, and won't quit and hope that they carry on, somehow.
PS:
It would give me comfort to attend just one more show.
I think you have answered your own question and I think he surely would .Quote
Hairball
As several have mentioned, been wondering if Mick would carry on w/ a backing band as "The Rolling Stones" if Keith and Ronnie were no longer part of the band for whatever reason....
Chuck Leavell, Darryl Jones, Karl Denson, S.Jordan, and a couple of session guitar players....since they will continue without Charlie despite what Keith and Mick have said in the past about it not being truly the Stones,
would fans be willing to accept this new version without Keith and Ronnie? Surely many would, even paying outragous prices to see them, but some are having trouble wrapping their heads around the Stones without Charlie.
They carried on without Brian...then carried on without Mick Taylor...then carried on without Bill (not to everyone's liking), and now sadly without Charlie...would Mick continue forward without Keith and Ronnie?
Quote
Hairball
As several have mentioned, been wondering if Mick would carry on w/ a backing band as "The Rolling Stones" if Keith and Ronnie were no longer part of the band for whatever reason....
Chuck Leavell, Darryl Jones, Karl Denson, S.Jordan, and a couple of session guitar players....since they will continue without Charlie despite what Keith and Mick have said in the past about it not being truly the Stones,
would fans be willing to accept this new version without Keith and Ronnie? Surely many would, even paying outragous prices to see them, but some are having trouble wrapping their heads around the Stones without Charlie.
They carried on without Brian...then carried on without Mick Taylor...then carried on without Bill (not to everyone's liking), and now sadly without Charlie...would Mick continue forward without Keith and Ronnie?
Quote
TheGreekI think you have answered your own question and I think he surely would .Quote
Hairball
As several have mentioned, been wondering if Mick would carry on w/ a backing band as "The Rolling Stones" if Keith and Ronnie were no longer part of the band for whatever reason....
Chuck Leavell, Darryl Jones, Karl Denson, S.Jordan, and a couple of session guitar players....since they will continue without Charlie despite what Keith and Mick have said in the past about it not being truly the Stones,
would fans be willing to accept this new version without Keith and Ronnie? Surely many would, even paying outragous prices to see them, but some are having trouble wrapping their heads around the Stones without Charlie.
They carried on without Brian...then carried on without Mick Taylor...then carried on without Bill (not to everyone's liking), and now sadly without Charlie...would Mick continue forward without Keith and Ronnie?
Quote
Rocktiludrop
Most of your question was already answered in the 80s, generally Stones fans see the Stones as Mick and Keith.
Quote
IrixQuote
Hairball
...would Mick continue forward without Keith and Ronnie?
Probably - as shown in the 6 Videos above: [iorr.org] .
Strongly disagree 100%Quote
RocktiludropQuote
Hairball
As several have mentioned, been wondering if Mick would carry on w/ a backing band as "The Rolling Stones" if Keith and Ronnie were no longer part of the band for whatever reason....
Chuck Leavell, Darryl Jones, Karl Denson, S.Jordan, and a couple of session guitar players....since they will continue without Charlie despite what Keith and Mick have said in the past about it not being truly the Stones,
would fans be willing to accept this new version without Keith and Ronnie? Surely many would, even paying outragous prices to see them, but some are having trouble wrapping their heads around the Stones without Charlie.
They carried on without Brian...then carried on without Mick Taylor...then carried on without Bill (not to everyone's liking), and now sadly without Charlie...would Mick continue forward without Keith and Ronnie?
Most of your question was already answered in the 80s, generally Stones fans see the Stones as Mick and Keith.
Ronnie, Bill and Charlie don't come into the equation to most paying customers, and we have already seen in the past there isn't the huge media and fan interest in Mick without Keith, so there you have it.
Other than a few die hard iorr posters the Stones are Mick and Keith, without those two together the big money and interest just isn't there.
Sorry to say, but as much as we all know how unique Charlie was, Stones sales on tickets will not diminish in his absence. If anything ticket sales will increase because Charlie's passing makes the Stones mortal beings, the realisation that this could really be the last time will increase the liklihood of people going to see them.
Quote
maumau
the astonishing thing for me is not the thought that Mick would probably go on playing with a backing band by the name of the rolling stones but the fact that, judging from what's the overall feel of this thread over Charlie's death, fans are pretty much ready to like and accept that
I believe that at the first "ehm what..?" I would probably read a prompt: who are we to say something upon it from many fans here webmaster included
Quote
HairballQuote
TheGreekI think you have answered your own question and I think he surely would .Quote
Hairball
As several have mentioned, been wondering if Mick would carry on w/ a backing band as "The Rolling Stones" if Keith and Ronnie were no longer part of the band for whatever reason....
Chuck Leavell, Darryl Jones, Karl Denson, S.Jordan, and a couple of session guitar players....since they will continue without Charlie despite what Keith and Mick have said in the past about it not being truly the Stones,
would fans be willing to accept this new version without Keith and Ronnie? Surely many would, even paying outragous prices to see them, but some are having trouble wrapping their heads around the Stones without Charlie.
They carried on without Brian...then carried on without Mick Taylor...then carried on without Bill (not to everyone's liking), and now sadly without Charlie...would Mick continue forward without Keith and Ronnie?
Not so sure which is why I've been wondering and why I asked, but I suppose he could based on the money to be made from the brand name.
And not sure if it would be the right thing to do, but who are we to say?Quote
Rocktiludrop
Most of your question was already answered in the 80s, generally Stones fans see the Stones as Mick and Keith.
The '80s? Well here we are in 40 years later in the 2020's, and times and minds have changed. When Keith and Mick have both said in the past it wouldn't be the true Stones without Charlie and/or they can't imagine the Stones without Charlie, yet here they are about to embark on a mini-tour of the US as The Rolling Stones, proof enough that people change their minds. Given Keith's diminishing skills in the last decade or so, seems Mick would be able to carry the torch on his own (w/studio musicians/side men) as The Rolling Stones. If Ronnie was still on board that would be a plus for some, but the fact is if Brian, Mick Taylor. Bill, and Charlie are replaceable, seems anyone is. Mick could change the name of the band to the singular - The Rolling Stone - maybe people would feel more comfortable with that, and a good chance he could still sell massive amounts of tickets.
Quote
MisterDDDDQuote
maumau
the astonishing thing for me is not the thought that Mick would probably go on playing with a backing band by the name of the rolling stones but the fact that, judging from what's the overall feel of this thread over Charlie's death, fans are pretty much ready to like and accept that
I believe that at the first "ehm what..?" I would probably read a prompt: who are we to say something upon it from many fans here webmaster included
Honestly can't think of or find one post that either states, or leads me to believe, that fans would accept just Mick with any backing band as The Rolling Stones.
Lots of posts stating that Mick would carry on like that, which is absurd, but fans wanting to disrespect Mick, for any reason real or imagined is a lot of fans fave thing. Oddly.
Other than your "overall feel", any substantiating posts?
Quote
Rocktiludrop
Im sorry mate but im not understanding you, why on earth would Mick think he's better off touring without Keith when that clearly didn't work out in his prime of life in the mid 80s. Why at the age of 78 would Mick think that a good idea now, you seem to be confused.
Quote
RocktiludropQuote
HairballQuote
TheGreekI think you have answered your own question and I think he surely would .Quote
Hairball
As several have mentioned, been wondering if Mick would carry on w/ a backing band as "The Rolling Stones" if Keith and Ronnie were no longer part of the band for whatever reason....
Chuck Leavell, Darryl Jones, Karl Denson, S.Jordan, and a couple of session guitar players....since they will continue without Charlie despite what Keith and Mick have said in the past about it not being truly the Stones,
would fans be willing to accept this new version without Keith and Ronnie? Surely many would, even paying outragous prices to see them, but some are having trouble wrapping their heads around the Stones without Charlie.
They carried on without Brian...then carried on without Mick Taylor...then carried on without Bill (not to everyone's liking), and now sadly without Charlie...would Mick continue forward without Keith and Ronnie?
Not so sure which is why I've been wondering and why I asked, but I suppose he could based on the money to be made from the brand name.
And not sure if it would be the right thing to do, but who are we to say?Quote
Rocktiludrop
Most of your question was already answered in the 80s, generally Stones fans see the Stones as Mick and Keith.
The '80s? Well here we are in 40 years later in the 2020's, and times and minds have changed. When Keith and Mick have both said in the past it wouldn't be the true Stones without Charlie and/or they can't imagine the Stones without Charlie, yet here they are about to embark on a mini-tour of the US as The Rolling Stones, proof enough that people change their minds. Given Keith's diminishing skills in the last decade or so, seems Mick would be able to carry the torch on his own (w/studio musicians/side men) as The Rolling Stones. If Ronnie was still on board that would be a plus for some, but the fact is if Brian, Mick Taylor. Bill, and Charlie are replaceable, seems anyone is. Mick could change the name of the band to the singular - The Rolling Stone - maybe people would feel more comfortable with that, and a good chance he could still sell massive amounts of tickets.
Im sorry mate but im not understanding you, why on earth would Mick think he's better off touring without Keith when that clearly didn't work out in his prime of life in the mid 80s. Why at the age of 78 would Mick think that a good idea now, you seem to be confused.
Keith is alive and willing to tour with Mick as the Stones, Mick is not an idiot, he knows that's where his bread is buttered no matter how many bum notes the Riff Master hits.
Those are Keith's, songs, Keith's intros, Keith's signature sounds & rhythms, in what world is it better for Mick to replace his glimmer twin with a copy cat session musician when he has the real thing, Mick & Keith could carry on touring together for years to come if they wish.
Quote
Stoneage
Not much to discuss, really. They never took that decision so now fate takes that decision for them. That is what is happening right now.
Anyway, it doesn't matter. Their great body of work is half a generation behind them.
Quote
wonderboy
Keith probably has it written up in the contracts and even his last will and testament that blocks Mick from touring as the Rolling Stones without him.
Quote
DoxaQuote
Rocktiludrop
Im sorry mate but im not understanding you, why on earth would Mick think he's better off touring without Keith when that clearly didn't work out in his prime of life in the mid 80s. Why at the age of 78 would Mick think that a good idea now, you seem to be confused.
Probably the thing is that we - except some die-hard Keith Richards fans who had not updated their shit - don't live anymore in the 80's.
Who is saying that Mick might think it would be better off touring without Keith? The issue is if Keith is not any longer able to do the task - like it is now with Charlie. Would Mick carry on or not under the name of The Rolling Stones with some other musicians? That was not the issue back in the 80's. Back then it was Jagger solo career being an alternative to the Stones, now it would be all there is left from the Stones. For a Stones fan, there would be not anything else if one would like to see and experience something live of 'The Rolling Stones', and salute the past (like it's been for ages now).
- Doxa
Quote
Naturalust
Well its good to see so many vintage posters back!
Quote
JumpingKentFlash
I’m not one to tell them what to do, but years ago I said that the new album should have a few covers. A Muddy song, a Berry song and then I Can’t Turn You Loose. Imagine they actually finish an album, with only 10 songs, 3 of which are covers. Imagine the album ending with ICTYL. They’d come full circle ending a last album with that one. And then imagine a single farewell show in London on July 12th 2022 also ending that show with ICTYL.
I mean Jesus Christ the planets could align if they really want them to, but it’d be perfect to end it like that. I can’t think of a better way really.