Quote
bitusa2012

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.

Sure, it wasn't well put. I tried to explain it better further down. I'm sure Darryl is nice guy but he didn't add much to the band. Not his fault though, in fact he is too good for rock and roll. With Charlie gone the whole rythm section is gone. Keith, Ron and Sir Michael must adapt to that. Which, actually can be a good thing. Sort of an injection, they can't just trust the old ways. I do not expect everyone to understand what I'm talking about here and I might be wrong. But maybe someone catches the logic. Who knows?

Quote
Stoneage

Quote
bitusa2012

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.

Sure, it wasn't well put. I tried to explain it better further down. I'm sure Darryl is nice guy but he didn't add much to the band. Not his fault though, in fact he is too good for rock and roll. With Charlie gone the whole rythm section is gone. Keith, Ron and Sir Michael must adapt to that. Which, actually can be a good thing. Sort of an injection, they can't just trust the old ways. I do not expect everyone to understand what I'm talking about here and I might be wrong. But maybe someone catches the logic. Who knows?

Too good for rock and roll? How about incapable of playing meaningful rock and roll bass? It requires some sensitive emotion, of which he has none while playing rock and roll. Bill could make an electric bass sound like a 1950s standup live. So Charlie wasn't too good? Only a decent rock and roller? I can see where Jordan might give them a kick in the pants. I'll be curious to hear what his drums sound like in the studio.

I saw a video years ago talking about how they were in the studio recording LIB and got the call saying Brian died. Supposedly everyone was silently in shock and Mick said firmly "it goes on." That's what is happening. I would have previously opposed touring without Charlie in principal but I am rolling with it. New album later this year. It goes on.

Quote
Shawn20
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.

Exactly. Well said Shawn!!!!

No, Charlie is my man (and Bill). He is the number one Stones drummer. Period. What I mean is that the fact that the band has to adapt to new circumstances, instead of leaning in on the old ways, might lead to something new. Which c-a-n be a good thing for an ageing band. I mean no disrespect to any member of the band. Living or dead.

Quote
Shott
I saw a video years ago talking about how they were in the studio recording LIB and got the call saying Brian died. Supposedly everyone was silently in shock and Mick said firmly "it goes on." That's what is happening. I would have previously opposed touring without Charlie in principal but I am rolling with it. New album later this year. It goes on.

A little different. Brian was already replaced by the time he died.

Quote
NashvilleBlues

Quote
Shott
I saw a video years ago talking about how they were in the studio recording LIB and got the call saying Brian died. Supposedly everyone was silently in shock and Mick said firmly "it goes on." That's what is happening. I would have previously opposed touring without Charlie in principal but I am rolling with it. New album later this year. It goes on.

A little different. Brian was already replaced by the time he died.

He might have been referring to the Hyde Park Concert.

Bjornulf and others - sure they can continue as a threesome - but it"s not the Rolling Stones.

Five Rolling Stones was greater than the sum of its parts.

Four was less than four fifths of the whole.

And now there are three and a lot of back-ups.

Many are happy with that. Some aren't.

I won't see them - but if it had been a few final farewell gigs for Charlie in their Sixtieth year , then would have.

I'd be happier of they finished the album - Charlie's last hoorah we hope.

The three could keep busy live without playing as Three Stones and ensemble.

Certainly Ronnie is never lost for ideas.

^ If they say its the Rolling Stones its the Rolling Stones. No one really cares whether you go or not and whether you would be happier if they did an album rather than tour. Go vote with your money, others have.

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.

Bjornulf

Quote
daspyknows
^ If they say its the Rolling Stones its the Rolling Stones. No one really cares whether you go or not and whether you would be happier if they did an album rather than tour. Go vote with your money, others have.

Why such impatience and obvious annoyance at what is a perfectly valid comment by the other commentator immediately above? I happen to agree with him. In fact the entire enterprise is slowly and sadly becoming a joke. Before long we will end up with Mick Jagger and a bunch of backing musicians. Maye even, Heaven preserve us, some kind of technical experience with an old video of the original band supplemented by live musicians on stage. A la Elvis a few years ago.

Good luck to you if you are happy to go see any aggregation of individuals performing as The Rolling Stones. I sincerely hope you enjoy every second. But there are some of us for whom that will not work. To be candid I would rather play their albums at home than see a patched up Rolling Stones going through the motions on stage somewhere. Maybe that is my loss. Maybe it is not. But as someone who has supported the band all my life. Who has attended almost 50 concerts all over the globe, and who has every one of their albums as well a more bootlegs than I care to count, I am entitled to my opinion as is Four Stone Walls. And we are entitled to post it here. Our opinions are not more valid than yours. They are equally valid. Last time I looked this site was run on democratic lines, with mutual respect for all.

Enjoy the gigs!

Don't understand all the negativity. Sure the current day stones are not what they were in the 60s and 70s. Sure those years were their best. My younger years were also my best. But that don't mean today isn't beautiful. I'm grateful to chuck, Darryl and Steve for helping to keep the ball rolling and I'm looking forward to see the band this summer.

Quote
Whale
Don't understand all the negativity. Sure the current day stones are not what they were in the 60s and 70s. Sure those years were their best. My younger years were also my best. But that don't mean today isn't beautiful. I'm grateful to chuck, Darryl and Steve for helping to keep the ball rolling and I'm looking forward to see the band this summer.

So true...it's the same with those people who keep bashing Ronnie just for not being Mick T, just cause they are old and lucky enough to have seen the Stones live with Mick T...or who still complain about Bill leaving cause they also are old and lucky enough to have seen the Stones live with Bill...Bill left the Stones when I was a baby, so of course I only ever could see them with Darryl...and there are some 20 year olds these days who sadly never had the chance so far to see the Stones with Charlie, so seeing them with Steve is the only option for them to still see them at all...thankfully I was fortunate enough to still see them with Charlie in 2017 and 2018 but Mick, Keith, and Ronnie are still all right there...so not seeing them this year just because Charlie sadly passed away, never was an option for me...I just wanna see the remaining members play and have fun while it lasts

What surprises me the most about this thread is that it on it's fourth #4 page and I can't believe this is an issue going forward and The Great Charlie Watts passed away last year and some of these comments really strike me the wrong way and it's like the proverbial fork in the road and the Stones i.e. The Glimmer Twins have made the choice and they choose to continue with Mr. Watts blessings . I mean what else do people want ?

Quote
Whale
Don't understand all the negativity. Sure the current day stones are not what they were in the 60s and 70s. Sure those years were their best. My younger years were also my best. But that don't mean today isn't beautiful. I'm grateful to chuck, Darryl and Steve for helping to keep the ball rolling and I'm looking forward to see the band this summer.

+1 , and I agree that Chuck , Darryl and Steve Jordan are doing a tremendous job in keeping this well oiled machine lubricated and rolling down the tracks and more power to them !

I first saw the Rolling Stones back in 1995, during the Voodoo Lounge tour. Even then, people were saying that band could not be called the Rolling Stones anymore. That they were a joke.

Different fans have a different perception of the band, but did they stop being the Rolling Stones when Brian Jones was dismissed and subsequently replaced by Mick Taylor? Things would have been completely different had Brian stayed, but he didn't and the band went on.

Ian Stewart, even though not an official member, was an important part of the band for two decades. After he passed away, Chuck Leavell took his place and has been playing with the guys for almost 40 years now.

After four decades, you could also make a point that Bobby Keys was irreplaceable. Still Karl Denson is there every night.

Bill Wyman was a part of the Rolling Stones for the first thirty years. Darryl Jones has been their bass player for the same amount of time now.

Sadly Charlie is not here anymore. We, as fans, will miss him and cherish the many wonderful moments we had while listening to him play, on records or on stage. But no fan's sorrow can be compared to that of the band members, who had been sharing their life with him for so many years.

Anyone is entitled to draw the line at some point and say, "Ok, I am not interested in this anymore". But if the Rolling Stones were to act on the fans' wishes, they would have ended a long time ago. And instead of SIXTY years of music we would probably have gotten SIX.

As for me, I'm just happy to be able to see them live one more time. They were the Rolling Stones to me back in 1995, even without Bill Wyman, and they still are now in 2022. And I hope the European concerts can change the lives of many kids that will be seeing the band for the first time, the same way it changed mine almost thirty years ago.

It has to be noted that a pattern evolves where when someone states he's not able or ready to just "move on" this always seems to elicit supposedly upbeat responses dealing with Charlie's passing in an overtly irreverent manner...

Quote
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.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-03-23 22:13 by Four Stone Walls.

Quote
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.

And as an aside Bjornulf,

Like you I became a fan in '71 and first saw them in '73.

Like you also, a die-hard fan ever since.

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

Quote
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.

Bjornulf

Quote
Four Stone Walls

Quote
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.

And as an aside Bjornulf,

Like you I became a fan in '71 and first saw them in '73.

Like you also, a die-hard fan ever since.

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

Well said my fellow Stones fan. I completely agree. And like you I also respect the views of those who disagree with my point of view. If anyone wants to go see a group of performers - most of whom are non-original members - calling themselves The Rolling Stones good luck to them. And if you and I don't want to see them because it somehow feels empty, then good luck to us too.

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.

I will always be a Rolling Stones fan. I have been so since 1964. I have seen them on three different continents over a 50 year period. I have every official recording they ever issued, and a whole library of recordings on bootlegs. I have dozens upon dozens of books and publications about the band, and an entire room full of videos and DVDs. This does not make my viewpoint more important than anyone else. It does not make me right and anyone else wrong. And it does not make me one iota more important that someone who became a fan yesterday. But it does give me the right to express an opinion. And also the right to criticise - with reason and respect - what the band now does. After all TRUE fandom will always be multi-faceted, it will always encompass different opinions, and it will always be based on a genuine love for the band themselves.

Often the most critical comment comes from a place of deep love and deep regard. It also comes because we CARE. And after all, passion will always be way more preferable to apathy...

Oh yes, and I would love if they became, for one final time, just a wee bit more creative...

Quote
Four Stone Walls

Quote
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…….

Quote
Cooltoplady

Quote
Four Stone Walls

Quote
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....

Quote
daspyknows

Quote
Cooltoplady

Quote
Four Stone Walls

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

People want change. The thing is that the replacement of Charlie will bring change. To the better or to the worse or just...change. It may sound cynical but it is a fact. They are a geriatric group, soon turning 80, other things will never change. Like the fact that they have done the same show for plus 30 years now. Sounding about the same. They will not sound the same now though. Because the rhythm section is replaced. You may like it or not. But it is change.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
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

Quote
Rocky Dijon

Quote
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

Ringo never, Pete Best forever!