Quote
NICOS
Because Charlie said it, go touring without me........

Well said.

Also, death is part of life. If you wife has passed you might still want to do certain things without her but with her in your mind.

A friend of mine and his young daughter are going to see the Stones for the first time this Summer in Liverpool. They are incredibly excited. It is people like this and countless others who have never seen the band live before (and they come in droves for every new tour) that makes new tours so worthwhile.

The European tour will be packed to the rafters this Summer and it won't be because of older fans. It will be an amazing sight.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2022-03-21 11:22 by petewasbristol.

Quote
petewasbristol
A friend of mine and his young daughter are going to see the Stones for the first time this Summer in Liverpool. They are incredibly excited. It is people like this and countless others who have never seen the band live before (and they come in droves for every new tour) that makes new tours so worthwhile.

The European tour will be packed to the rafters this Summer and it won't be because of older fans. It will be an amazing sight.

so true! I mean I've only really been into them myself since 2017 (and was lucky enough to see them twice already), but I have 3 online friends who have never seen them before and now are absolutely stoked that they still have the chance to, one of them will even be flying over from the US to see them at Hyde Park because they couldn't make it to the US tour last year...there definitely are WAY more reasons for them to continue than to stop...

Also Keith said in that Rolling Stone magazine interview last week that he doesn't see any reason for them not to continue

Why not? And "No Charlie, no Stones" is stupid anyway. Since when does one guy make or break a band? Unless it's the singer, usually everyone is replaceable.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-03-21 13:59 by PatrickS77.

Quote
PatrickS77
Why not? And "No Charlie, no Stones" is stupid anyway. Since when does one guy make or break a band? Unless it's the singer, usually everyone is replaceable.

well...in the case of Charlie this might be true, but if Mick didn't wanna go on or couldn't go on, this would definitely be the end then because there is no one else like Mick...nobody could ever replace him...nobody would come to see "the Stones" without Mick...and neither without Keith...also I don't think Mick would wanna go on without Keith...at this point, Mick and Keith are the Stones...

also you beat me in editing and adding the part with the singer^^ cause well it's true...no Mick,no Stones show...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-03-21 14:04 by ronniewoody91.

Quote
ronniewoody91

Quote
PatrickS77
Why not? And "No Charlie, no Stones" is stupid anyway. Since when does one guy make or break a band? Unless it's the singer, usually everyone is replaceable.

well...in the case of Charlie this might be true, but if Mick didn't wanna go on or couldn't go on, this would definitely be the end then because there is no one else like Mick...nobody could ever replace him...nobody would come to see "the Stones" without Mick...and neither without Keith...also I don't think Mick would wanna go on without Keith...at this point, Mick and Keith are the Stones...

also you beat me in editing and adding the part with the singer^^ cause well it's true...no Mick,no Stones show...

Sorry for the edit. ;-) And yes, you're right. Should Keith go before Mick, I don't think Mick would carry on as the Rolling Stones, even though, I guess it would be possible. Even though that's a slight possibility.

Quote
PatrickS77

Quote
ronniewoody91

Quote
PatrickS77
Why not? And "No Charlie, no Stones" is stupid anyway. Since when does one guy make or break a band? Unless it's the singer, usually everyone is replaceable.

well...in the case of Charlie this might be true, but if Mick didn't wanna go on or couldn't go on, this would definitely be the end then because there is no one else like Mick...nobody could ever replace him...nobody would come to see "the Stones" without Mick...and neither without Keith...also I don't think Mick would wanna go on without Keith...at this point, Mick and Keith are the Stones...

also you beat me in editing and adding the part with the singer^^ cause well it's true...no Mick,no Stones show...

Sorry for the edit. ;-) And yes, you're right. Should Keith go before Mick, I don't think Mick would carry on as the Rolling Stones, even though, I guess it would be possible. Even though that's a slight possibility.

Tbh I cannot imagine it at all...if both Charlie and Keith were gone there would be no point and I doubt Mick would wanna continue the Stones cause he's been in this with Keith from the very beginning...tbh I cannot even see Mick touring at all in this casr (with what, Super Heavy?! lol, ridiculous)...on the other hand, I could very well see Keith play a handful of small club shows with the Winos like he did at the Beacon recently...

Quote
ronniewoody91

Quote
PatrickS77

Quote
ronniewoody91

Quote
PatrickS77
Why not? And "No Charlie, no Stones" is stupid anyway. Since when does one guy make or break a band? Unless it's the singer, usually everyone is replaceable.

well...in the case of Charlie this might be true, but if Mick didn't wanna go on or couldn't go on, this would definitely be the end then because there is no one else like Mick...nobody could ever replace him...nobody would come to see "the Stones" without Mick...and neither without Keith...also I don't think Mick would wanna go on without Keith...at this point, Mick and Keith are the Stones...

also you beat me in editing and adding the part with the singer^^ cause well it's true...no Mick,no Stones show...

Sorry for the edit. ;-) And yes, you're right. Should Keith go before Mick, I don't think Mick would carry on as the Rolling Stones, even though, I guess it would be possible. Even though that's a slight possibility.

Tbh I cannot imagine it at all...if both Charlie and Keith were gone there would be no point and I doubt Mick would wanna continue the Stones cause he's been in this with Keith from the very beginning...tbh I cannot even see Mick touring at all in this casr (with what, Super Heavy?! lol, ridiculous)...on the other hand, I could very well see Keith play a handful of small club shows with the Winos like he did at the Beacon recently...

Yeah. Like I said, slight possibility. I don't think it will happen. But how would Mick tour otherwise, if he still would want to go on tour?

Quote
PatrickS77

Quote
ronniewoody91

Quote
PatrickS77

Quote
ronniewoody91

Quote
PatrickS77
Why not? And "No Charlie, no Stones" is stupid anyway. Since when does one guy make or break a band? Unless it's the singer, usually everyone is replaceable.

well...in the case of Charlie this might be true, but if Mick didn't wanna go on or couldn't go on, this would definitely be the end then because there is no one else like Mick...nobody could ever replace him...nobody would come to see "the Stones" without Mick...and neither without Keith...also I don't think Mick would wanna go on without Keith...at this point, Mick and Keith are the Stones...

also you beat me in editing and adding the part with the singer^^ cause well it's true...no Mick,no Stones show...

Sorry for the edit. ;-) And yes, you're right. Should Keith go before Mick, I don't think Mick would carry on as the Rolling Stones, even though, I guess it would be possible. Even though that's a slight possibility.

Tbh I cannot imagine it at all...if both Charlie and Keith were gone there would be no point and I doubt Mick would wanna continue the Stones cause he's been in this with Keith from the very beginning...tbh I cannot even see Mick touring at all in this casr (with what, Super Heavy?! lol, ridiculous)...on the other hand, I could very well see Keith play a handful of small club shows with the Winos like he did at the Beacon recently...

Yeah. Like I said, slight possibility. I don't think it will happen. But how would Mick tour otherwise, if he still would want to go on tour?

Mick will take on Keith's role in the New Barbarians with Ronnie, I mean his guitar play is quite good these days

Quote
ronniewoody91

Quote
PatrickS77

Quote
ronniewoody91

Quote
PatrickS77

Quote
ronniewoody91

Quote
PatrickS77
Why not? And "No Charlie, no Stones" is stupid anyway. Since when does one guy make or break a band? Unless it's the singer, usually everyone is replaceable.

well...in the case of Charlie this might be true, but if Mick didn't wanna go on or couldn't go on, this would definitely be the end then because there is no one else like Mick...nobody could ever replace him...nobody would come to see "the Stones" without Mick...and neither without Keith...also I don't think Mick would wanna go on without Keith...at this point, Mick and Keith are the Stones...

also you beat me in editing and adding the part with the singer^^ cause well it's true...no Mick,no Stones show...

Sorry for the edit. ;-) And yes, you're right. Should Keith go before Mick, I don't think Mick would carry on as the Rolling Stones, even though, I guess it would be possible. Even though that's a slight possibility.

Tbh I cannot imagine it at all...if both Charlie and Keith were gone there would be no point and I doubt Mick would wanna continue the Stones cause he's been in this with Keith from the very beginning...tbh I cannot even see Mick touring at all in this casr (with what, Super Heavy?! lol, ridiculous)...on the other hand, I could very well see Keith play a handful of small club shows with the Winos like he did at the Beacon recently...

Yeah. Like I said, slight possibility. I don't think it will happen. But how would Mick tour otherwise, if he still would want to go on tour?

Mick will take on Keith's role in the New Barbarians with Ronnie, I mean his guitar play is quite good these days

Oh, the Newest Barbarians. Good to know he has options.

They are obviously doing it because they feel like it and because it felt right to do it in the fall, and it worked. And because the demand is still there.

And because they got Charlie´s blessing and encouragement to do it!

video: [youtu.be]

Rolling Stones - "On With The Show"

Well, I won't be seeing this band on tour because I don't consider them the Rolling Stones anymore. To me, it is now a band with 3 members of the Rolling Stones playing with a bunch of other people, some of whom (like Jordan) are very talented. But it is not the Rolling Stones.

But that's just me, and I can understand why they choose to soldier on.

Drew

This new band has two members of the original Rolling Stones plus a guitarist who has played with them for 47 years and a bassist with them for 28 years. Yeah, they got a new drummer last year recommended by the original drummer. I saw them live a couple times in 2021 and they were really quite good. Definitely, worth taking a chance on if they come to your town.

HBK

Touring ...
but are they ROLLING ?

Actually I think the only difference between the current Rolling Stones and a Mick Jagger solo tour is the fact that Keith Richards is in it

Quote
NilsHolgersson
Actually I think the only difference between the current Rolling Stones and a Mick Jagger solo tour is the fact that Keith Richards is in it

Ronnie’s guitar playing is distinct but I know what you mean.

The loss of Charlie meant the loss of the distinct beat that is the Stones.

While Steve Jordan is a great player, sadly, nobody can replicate Charlie’s sound.

$$$$$$$$$$$ or in this case euros.

I have said enough myself recently on this.

I am of course with Spodium ( as we're many,many last August and autumn (fall).

Two things though:

Firstly : It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing.

That's why the real Stones' rhythm section is so essential. The loss of one was bad enough.

They could a taken more care on choosing anothere.

Secondly: Charlie only said they should go out on tour last year without him. AND he was expecting to recover ( we are led to believe).

And again - if they are planning to continue as if it's business as usual:

The n take the time to get a more suitable swinging drummer. Not Mr Convenient.

It is primarily about about business now. Which for Charlie it never was.

Quote
schwonek


If you wife has passed you might still want to do certain things without her but with her in your mind.

A dirty mind is a joy for lifetime.

Quote
NilsHolgersson
Actually I think the only difference between the current Rolling Stones and a Mick Jagger solo tour is the fact that Keith Richards is in it

AND RONNIE!

Here is my take on Bill and Charlie: Bill: Darryl was the wrong choice. He is not a rock and roll bassist. Bill was never replaced. Charlie: Although Charlie can't be replaced either Steve can actually be an injection to the band. New blood. Which is not a bad thing. Of course he can't be Charlie, but he can be Steve.

*Stones


May they keep on rolling...

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

Quote
Stoneage
Here is my take on Bill and Charlie: Bill: Darryl was the wrong choice. He is not a rock and roll bassist. Bill was never replaced. Charlie: Although Charlie can't be replaced either Steve can actually be an injection to the band. New blood. Which is not a bad thing. Of course he can't be Charlie, but he can be Steve.

Right.But Bill couldn't be Steve,although Darryl is not Charlie....

Yeah, I was asking for that one Fanny, wasn't I? I'm not going to try to rephrase myself either. Maybe one in a million would understand what I was trying to say?

Stoneage, are you saying Steve is a rock drummer so he can put new energy in?

I would add that Steve played with Keith for years, and although he didn't want to copy
Charlie exactly, from what I've read, he studied Charlie's recordings of many songs,
often in the company of Keith.

~"Love is Strong"~

Something like that, Angee. I don't think Darryl added anything (not his fault) but I think Jordan can add something. A new spark. Youth (comparatively).
Of course Charlie will always be the number one Stones' drummer. Unchallenged. It's not about that.

Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion. I initially thought they should hang it up - but if they would have, I would have missed three terrific shows in Nashville, Dallas and Atlanta. They were all top notch shows. For the Atlanta show I was reunited with a friend who last saw them with me in Orlando in 1981. There is nothing as exciting as hearing - "Ladies and Gentleman - The Rolling Stones." I'm thrilled they decided to carry on - their integrity is very much intact. If someone doesn't want to see them - that's cool. However, you're missing a terrific show. Looking forward to one more in Hyde Park this July.

The Stones soldier on because they were born to do it and are still able.

It's who they are.

I just don’t understand these posts. Musicians play music. That is what the Stones are at the core. All their heroes played into old age, and what kind of music lover are you if you don’t appreciate that? Please just stop listening to music if you want to, but I fear this is just ignorance and a lack of love for what they do and the joy they bring. I think they are more impressive now than when I saw them for the first time in 1990, so I am putting the money where my mouth is and doing a record breaking (for me) nine shows this year. I am soooo happy they are still going, and I will make it a priority in my life to see them as long as they keep playing! If you don’t like them, stay at home. But you’ll be missing out.