Tell Me :
Talk
Perfect Yes that's what The Stones is all about.
Great…another patriarchy.
This one should have a token woman or two.
~"Love is Strong"~
Yes, I know their age.
Some do create in their late seventies - Dylan, N Young
I am 64.Nobody needs me and nobody feeds me. But it's alright. In fact it's a gas.
It was an aside to you personally.
And very good on you for not closing or merging this thread.
Eddy
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-03-23 22:44 by Four Stone Walls.
Do you even understand the meaning of patriarchy? How is that possible if we allow women?
I would in the alternative, suggest something that could include both women and men, an oligarchy, but I think a but of additional oligarchs running around wouldn't be beneficial.
And Doxa, you are of course invited. I know you enjoy writing...and we'll need a scribe for the meetings.
If there is no any binding agreement or lawful regulation that prevents it, and obviously it isn't: To some of the mentionned musicians belongs the decision to call the resulting band for this continuation by the name of the Rolling Stones. Not to us, the fans.
To us - and, above all, to posterity - belongs the right to acknowledge such decisions or alternatively to disrepute those. But nothing more than that. So your explanation falls short.
Probably there exist provisions that will not allow any combination of musicians in the future to go on as the Rolling Stones.
(Personally I am fine with the three well-known persons to continue as the Rolling Stones. Myself I have got a ticket for "ståplats fremre" in Stockholm. With the supposed largely unchanged setlists, one concert is the preferred number of concerts for me. I am pretty certain that I will be much pleased by that, like last time five years ago, also then with one concert only, and I do not want to make any complaints.)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-03-23 23:42 by Witness.
Dylan and N.Young are solo artists. Not a band.That's the all point.
which band "create" something new after 60yold or so?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-03-23 23:41 by AntoineParis.
Most bands don't last that long. Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers were doing it until Tom's untimely passing. Elvis Costello & The Imposters are still creating new music. Nick Cave and The Bad Seeds. Bruce Springsteen & The "E" Street Band. U2. AC/DC, It doesn't really matter. Ronnie's been pretty active. They have worked hard their whole lives, it's up to them to decide how they want to spend their time.
i propose a meritocracy
The Who. And like the *Stones, there are only two original members left.
Somehow though the Who were able to complete a new album while the *Stones have not for whatever reason.
No matter though, glad the *Stones are here to celebrate their 60th anniversary with some upcoming live shows, though still sad Charlie is not with them.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Well that'll get rid of some of the dead wood at least!
But has my role as "Chair" in question...so no, that won't work.
Probably under another name agreeing with himself
He or she hit the wrong key. Hilarious.
They haven't been the 'core' since Bill left. And he was there before Charlie.
Yeah, I guess. However, the 'core' during my time of fandom has been Mick, Keith, Ronnie and Charlie. When Bill performed during his final show as a member, I was only a six-year-old.
Top comments from you both. Excellent points made with lucidity and clarity.
Personally I hope my views are always expressed with civility and respect. I love The Stones. and I respect every single Stones fan on earth. I may not agree with every other fan, but I absolutely respect their right to love the band in THEIR way. It would be a bloody boring world if everyone agreed with everyone else. Passionate and respectful debate and discussion is, and always will be, an important element in the lifeblood of The Stones.
When The Stones first emerged they generated all kinds of debate, discussion, argument and condemnation. Parents and The Establishment hated them. And, I always suspected, really feared them too. They represented a sea change in how subjects such as relationships, sex, politics, belief systems and individual philosophy were represented. Now, sixty years later the band is still generating debate, discussion, passion and argument.The subject matter is, of course, very different now. The band are no longer agents of challenge and change. They are part of the very establishment they once threatened so wonderfully. But they sure can stimulate members of their fan base.
More power to them. and to everyone who loves them, supports them, challenges them, and is frustrated by them. It keeps us all alive, vibrant and engaged.
Ok Four Stones Walls whatever you say Mich
Like I'm going to argue with Bjornulf. Okay, I will. New guy on bass since 1994. I remember the intros on the Voodoo Lounge Tour. Mick would introduce Bill, and then say, "Here's not here?" as a joke. Other than that, thank you Bjornulf. Can't wait for El Mocambo!
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Why are they touring without Charlie?
Posted by:
angee
()
Date: March 23, 2022 21:34
You know what? Hearing the reaction of a brand new fan after the Las Vegas show last November was heart-warming. This band, without Charlie, overwhelmed the young woman I met in the airport. She and her mom had seen the show the night before.
She said, that the music infiltrated her whole body and mind, that the concert was more than a band playing music, it was an "experience," a life-changing one.
~"Love is Strong"~
She said, that the music infiltrated her whole body and mind, that the concert was more than a band playing music, it was an "experience," a life-changing one.
~"Love is Strong"~
Re: Why are they touring without Charlie?
Posted by:
More Hot Rocks
()
Date: March 23, 2022 21:44
Quote
angee
You know what? Hearing the reaction of a brand new fan after the Las Vegas show last November was heart-warming. This band, without Charlie, overwhelmed the young woman I met in the airport. She and her mom had seen the show the night before.
She said, that the music infiltrated her whole body and mind, that the concert was more than a band playing music, it was an "experience," a life-changing one.
Perfect Yes that's what The Stones is all about.
Re: Why are they touring without Charlie?
Posted by:
SomeTorontoGirl
()
Date: March 23, 2022 21:47
Quote
DoxaQuote
treaclefingersQuote
Rocky Dijon
There isn't supposed to be dogmatic discussions for an ecumenical council to determine what a true Stones fan believes.
I'm thinking this is a good idea and how we overlooked it in the past is beyond me.
I nominate myself as chair, and Rocky, as you came up with this idea, you can be vice-chair.
First meeting is April 1st, 10:00 am GMT.
The council is not a worth of shit, nor I will not accept any its authority, if I'm not in.
- Doxa
Great…another patriarchy.
Re: Why are they touring without Charlie?
Posted by:
angee
()
Date: March 23, 2022 21:59
Quote
SomeTorontoGirlQuote
DoxaQuote
treaclefingersQuote
Rocky Dijon
There isn't supposed to be dogmatic discussions for an ecumenical council to determine what a true Stones fan believes.
I'm thinking this is a good idea and how we overlooked it in the past is beyond me.
I nominate myself as chair, and Rocky, as you came up with this idea, you can be vice-chair.
First meeting is April 1st, 10:00 am GMT.
The council is not a worth of shit, nor I will not accept any its authority, if I'm not in.
- Doxa
Great…another patriarchy.
This one should have a token woman or two.
~"Love is Strong"~
Re: Why are they touring without Charlie?
Posted by:
Four Stone Walls
()
Date: March 23, 2022 22:10
Quote
bvQuote
Four Stone Walls
It cannot be denied that they have not been an active creative band for a long long time now. Pity.
I wish they would create.
Atb,
Eddy
Do you know their age?
Do people create a lot in their late 70's?
How old are you?
Also, this is a thread about touring, not about making new albums.
Please stay on topic.
Yes, I know their age.
Some do create in their late seventies - Dylan, N Young
I am 64.Nobody needs me and nobody feeds me. But it's alright. In fact it's a gas.
It was an aside to you personally.
And very good on you for not closing or merging this thread.
Eddy
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-03-23 22:44 by Four Stone Walls.
Re: Why are they touring without Charlie?
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: March 23, 2022 22:16
Quote
angeeQuote
SomeTorontoGirlQuote
DoxaQuote
treaclefingersQuote
Rocky Dijon
There isn't supposed to be dogmatic discussions for an ecumenical council to determine what a true Stones fan believes.
I'm thinking this is a good idea and how we overlooked it in the past is beyond me.
I nominate myself as chair, and Rocky, as you came up with this idea, you can be vice-chair.
First meeting is April 1st, 10:00 am GMT.
The council is not a worth of shit, nor I will not accept any its authority, if I'm not in.
- Doxa
Great…another patriarchy.
This one should have a token woman or two.
Do you even understand the meaning of patriarchy? How is that possible if we allow women?
I would in the alternative, suggest something that could include both women and men, an oligarchy, but I think a but of additional oligarchs running around wouldn't be beneficial.
And Doxa, you are of course invited. I know you enjoy writing...and we'll need a scribe for the meetings.
Re: Why are they touring without Charlie?
Posted by:
SomeTorontoGirl
()
Date: March 23, 2022 22:50
[Gasp!] You…you allow women?!?! So…this isn’t your fort?
Oh man, I hope y’all know I’m teasing, or I’m gonna get flamed! [Smooch!]
Oh man, I hope y’all know I’m teasing, or I’m gonna get flamed! [Smooch!]
Re: Why are they touring without Charlie?
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: March 23, 2022 23:40
Quote
Four Stone WallsQuote
bv
Most people who complain have never seen the Stones live without Charlie.
I don't care about those who complain.
Go and see a Stones show with Steve Jordan on drums. For real. Live. Not youtube.
Then tell me what you think.
If you don't like it, then fine. Enjoy your past memories.
Meanwhile, half a million fans will still enjoy every new tour.
I am not complaining. Please be clear on that.
I am explaining.
Mick + Keith + Ronnie + two session musicians do not a band called The Rolling Stones make.
If there is no any binding agreement or lawful regulation that prevents it, and obviously it isn't: To some of the mentionned musicians belongs the decision to call the resulting band for this continuation by the name of the Rolling Stones. Not to us, the fans.
To us - and, above all, to posterity - belongs the right to acknowledge such decisions or alternatively to disrepute those. But nothing more than that. So your explanation falls short.
Probably there exist provisions that will not allow any combination of musicians in the future to go on as the Rolling Stones.
(Personally I am fine with the three well-known persons to continue as the Rolling Stones. Myself I have got a ticket for "ståplats fremre" in Stockholm. With the supposed largely unchanged setlists, one concert is the preferred number of concerts for me. I am pretty certain that I will be much pleased by that, like last time five years ago, also then with one concert only, and I do not want to make any complaints.)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-03-23 23:42 by Witness.
Re: Why are they touring without Charlie?
Posted by:
AntoineParis
()
Date: March 23, 2022 23:40
Quote
Four Stone WallsQuote
bvQuote
Four Stone Walls
It cannot be denied that they have not been an active creative band for a long long time now. Pity.
I wish they would create.
Atb,
Eddy
Do you know their age?
Do people create a lot in their late 70's?
How old are you?
Also, this is a thread about touring, not about making new albums.
Please stay on topic.
Yes, I know their age.
Some do create in their late seventies - Dylan, N Young
Eddy
Dylan and N.Young are solo artists. Not a band.That's the all point.
which band "create" something new after 60yold or so?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-03-23 23:41 by AntoineParis.
Re: Why are they touring without Charlie?
Posted by:
MisterDDDD
()
Date: March 23, 2022 23:53
I get people, especially those that didn't catch them live last year, going on about "It's not The Rolling Stones now", or trying to attach a ridiculous asterisk to their name.
Thats all good and well, but of course we know that's really more based on emotion, than fact. I get that too.. tough loss for all of us with Charlie. But, thankfully we didn't also lose The Rolling Stones.
They are who decide obviously, and they have.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-03-23 23:54 by MisterDDDD.
Thats all good and well, but of course we know that's really more based on emotion, than fact. I get that too.. tough loss for all of us with Charlie. But, thankfully we didn't also lose The Rolling Stones.
They are who decide obviously, and they have.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-03-23 23:54 by MisterDDDD.
Re: Why are they touring without Charlie?
Posted by:
Honestman
()
Date: March 24, 2022 00:46
Sixty Years, it's 6 time better than the Beatles, got my point Paul ?
From my side,since the death of Charlie, I got no more shivers.
Saw them first time in 1982 and last time in 2017 in Paris, I recall that I'd already thought at the time it will probably be the last time because I didn't want to see them ending like the late Chuck Berry or some kind of clone of themselves.
Like some of you over the years I've collected numerous stuff, official & unofficial, they will be for ever in my memories, and I will still love their music, but some movies are better when you miss the end.
HMN
From my side,since the death of Charlie, I got no more shivers.
Saw them first time in 1982 and last time in 2017 in Paris, I recall that I'd already thought at the time it will probably be the last time because I didn't want to see them ending like the late Chuck Berry or some kind of clone of themselves.
Like some of you over the years I've collected numerous stuff, official & unofficial, they will be for ever in my memories, and I will still love their music, but some movies are better when you miss the end.
HMN
Re: Why are they touring without Charlie?
Posted by:
steadyrollinman
()
Date: March 24, 2022 00:56
Quote
AntoineParisQuote
Four Stone WallsQuote
bvQuote
Four Stone Walls
It cannot be denied that they have not been an active creative band for a long long time now. Pity.
I wish they would create.
Atb,
Eddy
Do you know their age?
Do people create a lot in their late 70's?
How old are you?
Also, this is a thread about touring, not about making new albums.
Please stay on topic.
Yes, I know their age.
Some do create in their late seventies - Dylan, N Young
Eddy
Dylan and N.Young are solo artists. Not a band.That's the all point.
which band "create" something new after 60yold or so?
Most bands don't last that long. Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers were doing it until Tom's untimely passing. Elvis Costello & The Imposters are still creating new music. Nick Cave and The Bad Seeds. Bruce Springsteen & The "E" Street Band. U2. AC/DC, It doesn't really matter. Ronnie's been pretty active. They have worked hard their whole lives, it's up to them to decide how they want to spend their time.
Re: Why are they touring without Charlie?
Posted by:
ProfessorWolf
()
Date: March 24, 2022 02:03
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
angeeQuote
SomeTorontoGirlQuote
DoxaQuote
treaclefingersQuote
Rocky Dijon
There isn't supposed to be dogmatic discussions for an ecumenical council to determine what a true Stones fan believes.
I'm thinking this is a good idea and how we overlooked it in the past is beyond me.
I nominate myself as chair, and Rocky, as you came up with this idea, you can be vice-chair.
First meeting is April 1st, 10:00 am GMT.
The council is not a worth of shit, nor I will not accept any its authority, if I'm not in.
- Doxa
Great…another patriarchy.
This one should have a token woman or two.
Do you even understand the meaning of patriarchy? How is that possible if we allow women?
I would in the alternative, suggest something that could include both women and men, an oligarchy, but I think a but of additional oligarchs running around wouldn't be beneficial.
And Doxa, you are of course invited. I know you enjoy writing...and we'll need a scribe for the meetings.
i propose a meritocracy
Re: Why are they touring without Charlie?
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: March 24, 2022 02:45
Quote
AntoineParisQuote
Four Stone WallsQuote
bvQuote
Four Stone Walls
It cannot be denied that they have not been an active creative band for a long long time now. Pity.
I wish they would create.
Atb,
Eddy
Do you know their age?
Do people create a lot in their late 70's?
How old are you?
Also, this is a thread about touring, not about making new albums.
Please stay on topic.
Yes, I know their age.
Some do create in their late seventies - Dylan, N Young
Eddy
Dylan and N.Young are solo artists. Not a band.That's the all point.
which band "create" something new after 60yold or so?
The Who. And like the *Stones, there are only two original members left.
Somehow though the Who were able to complete a new album while the *Stones have not for whatever reason.
No matter though, glad the *Stones are here to celebrate their 60th anniversary with some upcoming live shows, though still sad Charlie is not with them.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: Why are they touring without Charlie?
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: March 24, 2022 03:59
Quote
ProfessorWolfQuote
treaclefingersQuote
angeeQuote
SomeTorontoGirlQuote
DoxaQuote
treaclefingersQuote
Rocky Dijon
There isn't supposed to be dogmatic discussions for an ecumenical council to determine what a true Stones fan believes.
I'm thinking this is a good idea and how we overlooked it in the past is beyond me.
I nominate myself as chair, and Rocky, as you came up with this idea, you can be vice-chair.
First meeting is April 1st, 10:00 am GMT.
The council is not a worth of shit, nor I will not accept any its authority, if I'm not in.
- Doxa
Great…another patriarchy.
This one should have a token woman or two.
Do you even understand the meaning of patriarchy? How is that possible if we allow women?
I would in the alternative, suggest something that could include both women and men, an oligarchy, but I think a but of additional oligarchs running around wouldn't be beneficial.
And Doxa, you are of course invited. I know you enjoy writing...and we'll need a scribe for the meetings.
i propose a meritocracy
Well that'll get rid of some of the dead wood at least!
But has my role as "Chair" in question...so no, that won't work.
Re: Why are they touring without Charlie?
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: March 24, 2022 05:41
Has the op responded since page 1?
Re: Why are they touring without Charlie?
Posted by:
Cooltoplady
()
Date: March 24, 2022 06:43
Quote
GasLightStreet
Has the op responded since page 1?
Probably under another name agreeing with himself
Re: Why are they touring without Charlie?
Posted by:
Big Al
()
Date: March 24, 2022 07:10
I think we’ve been incredibly fortunate, as fans, to have been able to witness the ‘core’ Rolling Stones for so long; and for so many shows’ over the past twenty years. There aren’t too many 60’s acts with an all-original line-up; that’s for certain. There are some, I am sure.
Personally, I’m okay with them touring without Charlie. It’s pretty simple: if you don’t like the concept; don’t go. I’m looking forward to Hyde Park.
Personally, I’m okay with them touring without Charlie. It’s pretty simple: if you don’t like the concept; don’t go. I’m looking forward to Hyde Park.
Re: Why are they touring without Charlie?
Posted by:
Paddy
()
Date: March 24, 2022 08:13
Why do they do anything.
It’s because that’s what they decide to do, after some decisions.
We are not privy to the decision making.
We don’t know what was decided before Charlie died.
Go or Don’t go. It’ll happen irrespective.
It’s because that’s what they decide to do, after some decisions.
We are not privy to the decision making.
We don’t know what was decided before Charlie died.
Go or Don’t go. It’ll happen irrespective.
Re: Why are they touring without Charlie?
Posted by:
Rokyfan
()
Date: March 24, 2022 09:56
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
daspyknowsQuote
CooltopladyQuote
Four Stone WallsQuote
bv
Most people who complain have never seen the Stones live without Charlie.
I don't care about those who complain.
Go and see a Stones show with Steve Jordan on drums. For real. Live. Not youtube.
Then tell me what you think.
If you don't like it, then fine. Enjoy your past memories.
Meanwhile, half a million fans will still enjoy every new tour.
I am not complaining. Please be clear on that.
I am explaining.
Mich + Keith + Ronnie + two session musicians do not a band called The Rolling Stones make.
You don’t even know who the singer is…….Very well said....
LOL.
He or she hit the wrong key. Hilarious.
Re: Why are they touring without Charlie?
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: March 24, 2022 10:43
Quote
Big Al
I think we’ve been incredibly fortunate, as fans, to have been able to witness the ‘core’ Rolling Stones for so long; and for so many shows’ over the past twenty years. There aren’t too many 60’s acts with an all-original line-up; that’s for certain. There are some, I am sure.
They haven't been the 'core' since Bill left. And he was there before Charlie.
Re: Why are they touring without Charlie?
Posted by:
Big Al
()
Date: March 24, 2022 11:25
Quote
24FPSQuote
Big Al
I think we’ve been incredibly fortunate, as fans, to have been able to witness the ‘core’ Rolling Stones for so long; and for so many shows’ over the past twenty years. There aren’t too many 60’s acts with an all-original line-up; that’s for certain. There are some, I am sure.
They haven't been the 'core' since Bill left. And he was there before Charlie.
Yeah, I guess. However, the 'core' during my time of fandom has been Mick, Keith, Ronnie and Charlie. When Bill performed during his final show as a member, I was only a six-year-old.
Re: Why are they touring without Charlie?
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: March 24, 2022 11:43
It will be a change though. They will play the same old songs again but they will not sound exactly the same. However strange it may sound that can be exciting for the listener.
If they can't change in any other way replacing people will cause a change. Some might like it, some might not. Some will find it refreshing, some will find it just plain wrong and some will be indifferent.
If they can't change in any other way replacing people will cause a change. Some might like it, some might not. Some will find it refreshing, some will find it just plain wrong and some will be indifferent.
Re: Why are they touring without Charlie?
Posted by:
bv
()
Date: March 24, 2022 13:23
May be there is a new guy on bass (since 1995), and a new guy on drums (since 2021), and also a "new guy" on guitar, since 1975. So feel free to complain. But still, it is the same two guys who wrote all the great songs they play live, the same guy who master the riffs - Keith - and the same singer, the world's most fascinating singer, good old eternal Mick, with his voice as great as ever. They rock. And roll. Hard!
Bjornulf
Bjornulf
Re: Why are they touring without Charlie?
Posted by:
GerardHennessy
()
Date: March 24, 2022 13:48
Quote
drewmasterQuote
Rocky DijonQuote
GerardHennessy
What I find rather frustrating is that this site is overwhelmingly sycophantic in its views about the band. Fair enough. It is the absolute right of those who hold those views. But should anyone venture to express a more critical opinion, the wrath of the ages is visited upon us. We should all be afforded the same rights.
While undoubtedly true in many cases, it's also true that not everyone expresses their views in as balanced a fashion as you (for instance). When a post is emotional, it doesn't matter if it's pro or con, it's going to rankle people who disagree. Message boards, like email, are often confusing because you can't hear the writer's voice or know if they're writing in a second language. Nuances are missed and the reader's mood often colors their viewpoint.
The main thing is it's a message board for fans to interact. One viewpoint is boring. Discussion is good. The best posts educate or challenge to reconsider long-held opinions.
It doesn't matter if you think Brian was the only talent, Brian was murdered, Taylor was the only talent, Ronnie was a talent until he joined the band, they stopped being good in 1972, 1978, 1981; or that they stopped being the Stones when Bill left or Charlie passed away.
They're not 20 year old kids sharing a flat together trying to make it. They're old men who come back together to celebrate our collective past.
No one needs to buy new material, solo material, or see concerts. It's all a choice. Your Stones fan membership isn't cancelled because you don't like them much in 2022. And yes, I belong in the selfish camp that would happily have sacrificed all those years on the road if they gave us more Stones albums or even more solo albums. I love the music I own more than the memories of a concert.
Some agree, others prefer to celebrate the golden years onstage and head to the restroom when a new song or a Keith lead vocal comes around. It's all the same. There isn't supposed to be dogmatic discussions for an ecumenical council to determine what a true Stones fan believes.
Well said, both of you. I couldn't agree more. All of us on this board love the Rolling Stones, and we come here to discuss why and how we love this band, hopefully in a spirit of mutual respect and openness. To love the Rolling Stones is a very personal matter, and what makes the band special or meaningful to one fan is not necessarily what makes it special or meaningful to the next.
And what constitutes the "Rolling Stones" is going to vary from one fan to the next. I happen to draw the line at Charlie leaving, but that doesn't make me right (or wrong). Others are happy to call Mick + Keith + Ronnie + supporting musicians the "Rolling Stones". Good for them.
I wonder, though, where those fans would draw the line. Would calling Mick + Ronnie + supporting musicians the "Rolling Stones" still be appropriate in their minds, for example? If not, why not? Why should Charlie's departure not invalidate the band name, but Keith's departure would?
My point is, logic is not really the yardstick here. Emotion is. As it should be. It's only rock and roll, after all.
Cheers everyone!
Drew
Top comments from you both. Excellent points made with lucidity and clarity.
Personally I hope my views are always expressed with civility and respect. I love The Stones. and I respect every single Stones fan on earth. I may not agree with every other fan, but I absolutely respect their right to love the band in THEIR way. It would be a bloody boring world if everyone agreed with everyone else. Passionate and respectful debate and discussion is, and always will be, an important element in the lifeblood of The Stones.
When The Stones first emerged they generated all kinds of debate, discussion, argument and condemnation. Parents and The Establishment hated them. And, I always suspected, really feared them too. They represented a sea change in how subjects such as relationships, sex, politics, belief systems and individual philosophy were represented. Now, sixty years later the band is still generating debate, discussion, passion and argument.The subject matter is, of course, very different now. The band are no longer agents of challenge and change. They are part of the very establishment they once threatened so wonderfully. But they sure can stimulate members of their fan base.
More power to them. and to everyone who loves them, supports them, challenges them, and is frustrated by them. It keeps us all alive, vibrant and engaged.
Re: Why are they touring without Charlie?
Posted by:
Cooltoplady
()
Date: March 24, 2022 15:00
Quote
RokyfanQuote
treaclefingersQuote
daspyknowsQuote
CooltopladyQuote
Four Stone WallsQuote
bv
Most people who complain have never seen the Stones live without Charlie.
I don't care about those who complain.
Go and see a Stones show with Steve Jordan on drums. For real. Live. Not youtube.
Then tell me what you think.
If you don't like it, then fine. Enjoy your past memories.
Meanwhile, half a million fans will still enjoy every new tour.
I am not complaining. Please be clear on that.
I am explaining.
Mich + Keith + Ronnie + two session musicians do not a band called The Rolling Stones make.
You don’t even know who the singer is…….
LOL.
He or she hit the wrong key. Hilarious.
Ok Four Stones Walls whatever you say Mich
Re: Why are they touring without Charlie?
Posted by:
TheflyingDutchman
()
Date: March 24, 2022 20:27
Keith about Charlie's passing.
[www.youtube.com]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-03-24 20:28 by TheflyingDutchman.
[www.youtube.com]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-03-24 20:28 by TheflyingDutchman.
Re: Why are they touring without Charlie?
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: March 24, 2022 20:39
Quote
bv
May be there is a new guy on bass (since 1995), and a new guy on drums (since 2021), and also a "new guy" on guitar, since 1975. So feel free to complain. But still, it is the same two guys who wrote all the great songs they play live, the same guy who master the riffs - Keith - and the same singer, the world's most fascinating singer, good old eternal Mick, with his voice as great as ever. They rock. And roll. Hard!
Like I'm going to argue with Bjornulf. Okay, I will. New guy on bass since 1994. I remember the intros on the Voodoo Lounge Tour. Mick would introduce Bill, and then say, "Here's not here?" as a joke. Other than that, thank you Bjornulf. Can't wait for El Mocambo!
Re: Why are they touring without Charlie?
Posted by:
TheGreek
()
Date: March 24, 2022 20:43
So very true that emotions are in play here about our favorite group . So many different levels of debate in as far as this was sanctioned by Charlie Watts for Mick and Keith and Ronnie to continue on as The Rolling Stones . Now if we accept that or not it is still blessed by Charlie Watts himself and I think that carries significant weight .Quote
MisterDDDD
I get people, especially those that didn't catch them live last year, going on about "It's not The Rolling Stones now", or trying to attach a ridiculous asterisk to their name.
Thats all good and well, but of course we know that's really more based on emotion, than fact. I get that too.. tough loss for all of us with Charlie. But, thankfully we didn't also lose The Rolling Stones.
They are who decide obviously, and they have.
Re: Why are they touring without Charlie?
Posted by:
schillid
()
Date: March 24, 2022 21:29
Why are they touring without Charlie?
Because he died.
Because he died.
This Thread has been closed
Online Users
chrisvw , cyclist , DandelionPowderman , Domonkos , esqcjh , georgie48 , hot stuff , Joce , Justjon , mariano , MisterDDDD , NedKellyBandit , Paddy , philrock90 , StonyRoad , tommyturbo76 , TooTight , TumblinDice76 , UGK56 , waterrats
Guests:
1989
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10