I am a little surprised that they have chosen to continue now that Charlie has passed away. Of course they should do whatever is best for the remaining members.
Given that they have chosen to continue I would much prefer them to be working on the new album rather than touring. These guys are not going to be around much longer and a new album of original material is important for their legacy.
Time to wrap up the new album Mick, Keith and Ronnie.
.

Quote
Four Stone Walls
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.

They didn't choose Steve because he is Mr Convenient or because of business reasons. They choose him because he knows how to play with Keith!

And don't forget - it was Charlie who wanted Darryl as a replacement for Bill...a choice by Mr. swinging himself.

Don't get me wrong. I really miss Charlie and it was sad for me to hear the new Sound. Especially the first show I've been to was very hard. But retiring now doesn't make Charlie alive again. If they enjoy playing and people still want to see them (and they do if you look how well these high priced tickets sell) just let them do this. If you personally can't deal with it anymore then nobody forces you to go. It's their choice to Tour and your choice to go!

Even long after Mick, Keith and Ron have died, the Stones will still be touring: Bernard Fowler as singer, Steve Jordan on drums, Blondie Chaplin on guitar, Daryl Jones on bass and Chuck Leavell on piano.

Well!!! ...some guitar weavin' that'll be ....



ROCKMAN

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.

Queen is still playing large crowds without Freddie.

Quote
Koen

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.

Queen is still playing large crowds without Freddie.

Yes. But they waited 15 years to go out on tour again. And now there is a whole new generation of Queen fans. Some who never got a chance to see the original. They take everything they can get, with many older fans hating the fact that they are touring with Lambert. If Mick dies, Keith would have to go out on tour the next year, as he can't really wait around. Don't think that would work in the Stones case. But then again, no one ever thought Axl Rose could replace Brian Johnson in AC/DC, who replaced Bon Scott. Exceptions apply, I guess. But in general. The singer is the hardest person to replace.

If it makes people happy, whats the harm? I will admit its odd to see the quintessental English rock and roll band with an American drummer, American bass player, American keyboard player, American sax player, and two American backup singers..

Quote
roryfaninva
If it makes people happy, whats the harm? I will admit its odd to see the quintessental English rock and roll band with an American drummer, American bass player, American keyboard player, American sax player, and two American backup singers..

yeah, but that only comes across as odd for those of us who know...aparently, there are many people in the US (casual or younger fans) who think the Stones are originally a band from the US xD I mean did they ever hear any of the guys talking lol xD

Quote
roryfaninva
If it makes people happy, whats the harm? I will admit its odd to see the quintessental English rock and roll band with an American drummer, American bass player, American keyboard player, American sax player, and two American backup singers..

Well, considering that their biggest influence is american music it's not really that odd.

Quote
astmalia
Even long after Mick, Keith and Ron have died, the Stones will still be touring: Bernard Fowler as singer, Steve Jordan on drums, Blondie Chaplin on guitar, Daryl Jones on bass and Chuck Leavell on piano.

Yes, long after Mick, Keith, and Ronnie are gone - five sidemen who are already retirement age will somehow be allowed to legally call themselves The Rolling Stones. And one of them hasn't worked with the band in nearly 15 years. God, I love posts like this.

Charlie wasn't there at the beginning, he will not be here when all ends.
I can live with that.

Quote
roryfaninva
If it makes people happy, whats the harm? I will admit its odd to see the quintessental English rock and roll band with an American drummer, American bass player, American keyboard player, American sax player, and two American backup singers..

They are not band members, though.

Quote
PatrickS77

Quote
Koen

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.

Queen is still playing large crowds without Freddie.

Yes. But they waited 15 years to go out on tour again. And now there is a whole new generation of Queen fans. Some who never got a chance to see the original. They take everything they can get, with many older fans hating the fact that they are touring with Lambert. If Mick dies, Keith would have to go out on tour the next year, as he can't really wait around. Don't think that would work in the Stones case. But then again, no one ever thought Axl Rose could replace Brian Johnson in AC/DC, who replaced Bon Scott. Exceptions apply, I guess. But in general. The singer is the hardest person to replace.

Don’t forget about Syd Barrett leaving Pink Floyd.

I would attend any Jagger / Richards show even with a band of chimpanzees around them.
And they'd have the right to held "The Rolling Stones" name.IMHO.
Of course I loved Charlie too... and MT, BW, etc....

I'm not sure I understand the question.

Is it supposed to imply that they should stop playing live music altogether?

Or is it to say they could go on, but not under the Rolling Stones moniker?

I think the real question should be: who are we to even discuss what three grown men should do with their careers after six decades doing what they do? How does it have in any possible way to do with their "integrity"?

Maybe Rod Stewart replaces Mick in the future !!!!!!!!

Bye
Fernando

Quote
Spodlumt
Wow. Thanks for the schooling! I will now think like all of you. Learned the error of my ways. Will no longer offer a differing viewpoint. The group is the way to go. Critical thinking is very bad.

well, rudeness is at least. Maybe if you weren't jumping up and down screaming people would take you seriously...dial back the shrill.

Quote
Fernandobsas
Maybe Rod Stewart replaces Mick in the future !!!!!!!!

Bye
Fernando

Mick Hucknall replaced Rod Stewart in The Faces, so maybe he will step in for Mick.

Quote
steadyrollinman

Quote
Fernandobsas
Maybe Rod Stewart replaces Mick in the future !!!!!!!!

Bye
Fernando

Mick Hucknall replaced Rod Stewart in The Faces, so maybe he will step in for Mick.

Well, at least his name is Mick!

Apocryphal Keith answer...

"Urh urh urh! It's like the old story "why does a dog lick his balls? Because he CAN!"
Why do we keep touring? Because Mick Ron and I still CAN. End of story! See you in Europe! Urh urh urh!"

Quote
Rocky Dijon

Quote
astmalia
Even long after Mick, Keith and Ron have died, the Stones will still be touring: Bernard Fowler as singer, Steve Jordan on drums, Blondie Chaplin on guitar, Daryl Jones on bass and Chuck Leavell on piano.

Yes, long after Mick, Keith, and Ronnie are gone - five sidemen who are already retirement age will somehow be allowed to legally call themselves The Rolling Stones. And one of them hasn't worked with the band in nearly 15 years. God, I love posts like this.

So do I. And I think it might even happen. 'The music of The Rolling Stones featuring original backing singer Bernard Fowler...' Can't you just see the billboards outside a football stadium near you....!!! After all if Elvis can go out on tour thanks to the miracle of technology, and sing from beyond the grave with a live band, I'm sure someone can cobble together a kind of virtual-reality version of The Stones with a backing band of live musicians.

The Rolling Stones corporation is such a massive money-making enterprise now that The Suits will look for every way possible to keep the taps flowing and the cash cascading into a bank account somewhere in the Cayman Islands...

Meanwhile thousands of people who were not yet born when the last band member died are rockin' out to Jumpin' Jack Flash, Start Me Up and Satisfaction...

Quote
rbp
I am a little surprised that they have chosen to continue now that Charlie has passed away. Of course they should do whatever is best for the remaining members.
Given that they have chosen to continue I would much prefer them to be working on the new album rather than touring. These guys are not going to be around much longer and a new album of original material is important for their legacy.
Time to wrap up the new album Mick, Keith and Ronnie.
.

Their legacy is set in Stone. Pun intended. I would rather see then live a few more times then one more studio album I would listen to once. Unless its on par with the best ones, no one will care 5 years from now.

Quote
GerardHennessy

Quote
Rocky Dijon

Quote
astmalia
Even long after Mick, Keith and Ron have died, the Stones will still be touring: Bernard Fowler as singer, Steve Jordan on drums, Blondie Chaplin on guitar, Daryl Jones on bass and Chuck Leavell on piano.

Yes, long after Mick, Keith, and Ronnie are gone - five sidemen who are already retirement age will somehow be allowed to legally call themselves The Rolling Stones. And one of them hasn't worked with the band in nearly 15 years. God, I love posts like this.

So do I. And I think it might even happen. 'The music of The Rolling Stones featuring original backing singer Bernard Fowler...' Can't you just see the billboards outside a football stadium near you....!!! After all if Elvis can go out on tour thanks to the miracle of technology, and sing from beyond the grave with a live band, I'm sure someone can cobble together a kind of virtual-reality version of The Stones with a backing band of live musicians.

The Rolling Stones corporation is such a massive money-making enterprise now that The Suits will look for every way possible to keep the taps flowing and the cash cascading into a bank account somewhere in the Cayman Islands...

Meanwhile thousands of people who were not yet born when the last band member died are rockin' out to Jumpin' Jack Flash, Start Me Up and Satisfaction...

That could easily happen in the Metaverse, where fans will be able to buy RS NFTs with their cryptocurrency of choice.

Quote
NashvilleBlues

Quote
PatrickS77

Quote
Koen

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.

Queen is still playing large crowds without Freddie.

Yes. But they waited 15 years to go out on tour again. And now there is a whole new generation of Queen fans. Some who never got a chance to see the original. They take everything they can get, with many older fans hating the fact that they are touring with Lambert. If Mick dies, Keith would have to go out on tour the next year, as he can't really wait around. Don't think that would work in the Stones case. But then again, no one ever thought Axl Rose could replace Brian Johnson in AC/DC, who replaced Bon Scott. Exceptions apply, I guess. But in general. The singer is the hardest person to replace.

Don’t forget about Syd Barrett leaving Pink Floyd.

And Journey playing to the some of the biggest crowds of their career using a karaoke replacement of their sing or John Mayer replacing Jerry Garcia in Dead and Company.

Quote
NashvilleBlues
Don’t forget about Syd Barrett leaving Pink Floyd.

And Roger Waters...

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.

So Steve can be an injection of new blood. And be Steve. But Darryl was just wrong? Darryl can’t be an injection of new blood? And be Darryl?

Odd reasoning in my opinion.

Rod

Quote
RisingStone

Quote
NashvilleBlues
Don’t forget about Syd Barrett leaving Pink Floyd.

And Roger Waters...

And Brian Wilson...

Quote
astmalia
Even long after Mick, Keith and Ron have died, the Stones will still be touring: Bernard Fowler as singer, Steve Jordan on drums, Blondie Chaplin on guitar, Daryl Jones on bass and Chuck Leavell on piano.

Blondie and Waddy

Bands do not "owe" anything to anyone.
They do what they like, fans are customers.
If you don't like what they do, then find something else to do.
They do not call me or you to decide on what to do next.
They tour because they love to play live.
Also they are paid well, most of us like to have an income.

Some fans want to make some sort of "public divorce" from the current band.
They want to explain to everyone why they do not follow the band live anymore.
It is like having the same wife or husband for 20, 30, or 50-60 years.
Then you need to make some sort of public statement, like a divorce, to split.

You do not have post any "I split" message if you don't like "Stones live ex. Charlie".
It is fine. I understand. You miss Charlie.
Still, if you never went to a show without Charlie, how can you tell?

I followed the US tour last year.
The first stadium show in St Louis was sad, because it was the first without Charlie.
Still, I would not have missed it.
The rest of the tour was unforgettable.
I dream about each and every city and show all the time.
No regrets. I will see them again this year.

If you want to split, then fine. I understand.
Still, you will miss some great, great shows.
Mick and Keith are still the core of the Stones.
I will follow them as long as I can.

Bjornulf

Quote
bv
Bands do not "owe" anything to anyone.
They do what they like, fans are customers.
If you don't like what they do, then find something else to do.
They do not call me or you to decide on what to do next.
They tour because they love to play live.
Also they are paid well, most of us like to have an income.

Some fans want to make some sort of "public divorce" from the current band.
They want to explain to everyone why they do not follow the band live anymore.
It is like having the same wife or husband for 20, 30, or 50-60 years.
Then you need to make some sort of public statement, like a divorce, to split.

You do not have post any "I split" message if you don't like "Stones live ex. Charlie".
It is fine. I understand. You miss Charlie.
Still, if you never went to a show without Charlie, how can you tell?

I followed the US tour last year.
The first stadium show in St Louis was sad, because it was the first without Charlie.
Still, I would not have missed it.
The rest of the tour was unforgettable.
I dream about each and every city and show all the time.
No regrets. I will see them again this year.

If you want to split, then fine. I understand.
Still, you will miss some great, great shows.
Mick and Keith are still the core of the Stones.
I will follow them as long as I can.

Well put. Well reasoned. Enjoy the little break before your next run of shows, BV. Me, in Perth, am hanging out for RAH or an equivalent “smaller” show. If one is announced and I can score tickets, the wife and I will be there.

Rod