Quote
Taylor1
What’s more amazing, Tom Brady, Kraft’s old quarterback winning his 7th super bowl at44 or the Stones still rolling at nearly 60 years

Quote
mattleeuk

Quote
ProfessorWolf
just read through 14 pages and wow all i can say is what a bummer not the band the fans

Sadly it puts many that have opinions based on a first hand experience that would greatly enrich this thread from posting here... I know several people that attended the show on Monday that have posted on this forum before yet we have heard from just one. Sad, Sad, Sad.

Quote
jumpingjackflash5
It seems that if you don't want to close your ears and pretend everything is alright, you are now called hater here.

Well, everybody's choice, if you don't (wanna) hear the huge change in sound, metronome-like and loud, sound crashing drumming of Mr. Jordan, then what can be done about that.

I can only hope that either things will improve, or the Stones and people around them will have the courage not only to play this fall shows, but also reasonably decide about their future.

Until that, it's probably pointless to argue here further, since many members simply don't wanna be disturbed in their enjoyment and whoever will try to tell them where really is the problem and what can be done about it is called hater and negativity maker.

Many times in the past I defended the Stones here, for example when there was Keith bashing etc. Because despite some flaws and weaknesses, the essential elements of Stones' sound were untouched, and the overall character of the songs was preserved. Mr Jordan can technically go through the songs, drums professionally well, but his sound is unfortunately NOT compatible with the Stones, goes into different direction and is not some flaw, tempo change or variation, it is something that does not blend with the sound of the band that is (was) distinctive and unique.

Until this is resolved (somehow), it can generate the tension between those who can hear and admit it, and those who don't and want simply enjoy. That's the fact, and I'll try not to increase the tension further, in this thread I only wanted to explain what is going on and what can be done about it.

Quote
KSAM
Hey Stones Fans,
...

Quote
bv

if someone could compile a list of videos

Quote
jumpingjackflash5
Mr Jordan can technically go through the songs, drums professionally well, but his sound is unfortunately NOT compatible with the Stones, goes into different direction and is not some flaw, tempo change or variation, it is something that does not blend with the sound of the band that is (was) distinctive and unique.

Quote
1962
Mick and Keith both repeatedly stated how essential was Charlie for the band's unique sound and that no Rolling Stones without him.

I forgot when and where but that's sure.

and they know that for sure that the real swinging Rolling Stones minimum are Mick-Keith-Charlie. None of them is replacable.

so this is something else

the loss is enormous, fatal and irreparable

The Rolling Stones is over

Quote
matxil
It's really quite simple, and can be summarised in few rational steps.
- Mick, Keith and Ronnie want to keep on making music (what else can they do? Mick can play in movies, Ronnie can paint, but I doubt it gives them the same satisfaction).
- They could make solo-albums, and I for one wished Keith would have made more solo-work. Instead, they decided to continue together, which makes sense on many levels. It's what they've been doing most of their lives, their life-project, in a way.
- Obviously they would have continued with Charlie forever, it that were possible, but it isn't. When the Lord gets ready, you gotta move and time waits for no-one.
- So, obviously, they would be the first to agree, their sound is going to change. They're a rhythm band and inevitably a change of drummer will change their sound.
- Now, they could decide, since their sound will change, that they cannot be called "The Rolling Stones" anymore, but it would be a bit silly, wouldn't it, if suddenly they'd call themselves "Billy and the Blue Boys" or any other name?
- So, they go on under the same name with a drummer Keith was already happy with on his solo-work. I think also there, on purpose, he didn't chose for a "Charlie replacement" but for someone with a different style. "Hate It When You Leave" (a lovely ballad), is an example (at least for me) where Steve Jordan's style takes some getting used to. I learnt to appreciate it.
- That's the history of rock music: you go on and change things. They could have only played blues songs, or keep on imitating the Beatles, or stop after Brian Jones left. They chose differently. Some people will stop loving them, others will start loving them.
- Like any other band, you can like their output or not. Changes are good but not for everyone. It will bring them somewhere else, and it would be interesting to see where that is, without looking at what isn't there anymore.

Quote
Rockman
The White Stones would be fairer ....

Quote
1962

I understand that they want to continue playing music together.But they should change the name of the band from "The Rolling Stones" to "The Stones".
That would be fair.

Quote
Big Al

Quote
1962

I understand that they want to continue playing music together.But they should change the name of the band from "The Rolling Stones" to "The Stones".
That would be fair.

Why, exactly?

Quote
jumpingjackflash5
They also can choose a drummer that will be more compatible with their unique sound.

Quote
matxil
It's really quite simple, and can be summarised in few rational steps.
- Mick, Keith and Ronnie want to keep on making music (what else can they do? Mick can play in movies, Ronnie can paint, but I doubt it gives them the same satisfaction).
- They could make solo-albums, and I for one wished Keith would have made more solo-work. Instead, they decided to continue together, which makes sense on many levels. It's what they've been doing most of their lives, their life-project, in a way.
- Obviously they would have continued with Charlie forever, it that were possible, but it isn't. When the Lord gets ready, you gotta move and time waits for no-one.
- So, obviously, they would be the first to agree, their sound is going to change. They're a rhythm band and inevitably a change of drummer will change their sound.
- Now, they could decide, since their sound will change, that they cannot be called "The Rolling Stones" anymore, but it would be a bit silly, wouldn't it, if suddenly they'd call themselves "Billy and the Blue Boys" or any other name?
- So, they go on under the same name with a drummer Keith was already happy with on his solo-work. I think also there, on purpose, he didn't chose for a "Charlie replacement" but for someone with a different style. "Hate It When You Leave" (a lovely ballad), is an example (at least for me) where Steve Jordan's style takes some getting used to. I learnt to appreciate it.
- That's the history of rock music: you go on and change things. They could have only played blues songs, or keep on imitating the Beatles, or stop after Brian Jones left. They chose differently. Some people will stop loving them, others will start loving them.
- Like any other band, you can like their output or not. Changes are good but not for everyone. It will bring them somewhere else, and it would be interesting to see where that is, without looking at what isn't there anymore.

Quote
micawber

Quote
jumpingjackflash5
They also can choose a drummer that will be more compatible with their unique sound.

Or simply stop NOW. Can't believe it should be a matter of finance, business and contracts.

I give a sh*t for a possible new album and the 2022 jubilee and all that. They sadly missed the opportunity to finish in greatness as long as Charlie was alive. And now they ride the dead horse...

Never bought the story, that Charlie recommended Jordan. Typical marketing speech, that's it.

Enjoy - but without me.