If Charlie quits (and he already said it in the Press Conference in NYC)
it´s finally over and the Stones should stop touring either.

It´s the saddest thing I heard in years, but I finally have to deal with
the fact that it will all be over in December.

To answer my own question: I couldn´t bear a Stones show without Mr. Watts
on drums. It´s over then.

I´m sad.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-04-15 20:57 by TooTough.

The question is : would The Stones tour without Charlie ? Are The Stones, The Stones without Charlie ? No. They already lost Bill.

I'd go to see them but the truth is that it wouldn't be The Stones show any more but Mick and Keith show.Still it is better than nothing.

phd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The question is : would The Stones tour without
> Charlie ? Are The Stones, The Stones without
> Charlie ? No. They already lost Bill.


Right, phd, but I remember discussions here, when people said M+K
a r e the Stones and t h a t would be enough for them.

To me the remaining 4 are the nucleus,it can´t be smaller than that.

mercy: maybe the essential question is whether you'd go to a Stones concert if they were on a tour that isn't a *world* tour.
if we're going to take an uncredited story so literally, at least let's take it literally! :E

~*COURAGE!*~
it's the Rolling Stones!


"What do you want - what?!"
- Keith

Rolling Stones without Charlie, would be like
Keith without a guitar,
or a sailboat without sea,
or a beautiful woman, with a chopped-off head. etc

Oh, for CHRIST'S SAKE! Just where in the article is it stated that Charlie is QUITTING the band and ceasing live performances with them? It's not over and I don't believe, despite how sporadic things in the future may be, that the Rolling Stones party will ever be fully over 'till one of them dies.

dont even want 2 tink bout it ,but 2nites lookin like a bender

Big Al Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh, for CHRIST'S SAKE! Just where in the article
> is it stated that Charlie is QUITTING the band and
> ceasing live performances with them? It's not over
> and I don't believe, despite how sporadic things
> in the future may be, that the Rolling Stones
> party will ever be fully over 'till one of them
> dies.


Look at the relevant post.

damned straight i would. maybe they'd finally get themselves a decent rock'n'roll drummer.

HELLO NO!!!!!!!!

StonesTod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> damned straight i would. maybe they'd finally get
> themselves a decent rock'n'roll drummer.


Is this a wind up? If it is it's in very bad taste. Hail Charlie, the Wembley Whammer!

>> Look at the relevant post. <<

Jagger50, i believe Big Al did read the article by Nui Te Koha, if that's what you mean by "the relevant post".
do you see something in the article that says Charlie (or anyone else) is quitting the band, or quitting touring?
the one i read said someone unnamed says Charlie says he won't do any more *world* tours - which isn't the same as quitting the band, far from it.
if you mean some other "relevant post", could you post a link? thanks ...


"What do you want - what?!"
- Keith

TooTough Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If Charlie quits (and he already said it in the
> Press Conference in NYC)

Can I get a quote?

I would like confirmation as well. But the thought puts shivers through me. But we know how slow RS.Com is.

listen - if you didn't already know this was CW's last tour, you're just not paying attention....

>> Can I get a quote? <<

Reptile, Charlie's exact word at the press conference last May was: "yes."
(the question was whether this would be the last tour. Mick then laughed and said something like "Charlie always says that"
and went on to make what i personally take as the official statement: they are not thinking of this as the last tour,
because who knows.)

it's amazing how vulnerable people are feeling over "news" from an unnamed source repeated in a newspaper story.
hail hail Rolling Stones.


"What do you want - what?!"
- Keith

This is getting kind of funny. I wonder how many people will fall for it.

well, I dont know. It could be true. lets face the facts. But, to repeat my answer to the question of the post, Its not the stones with out Mr. Watts. theres no way I would see them wiht out him. but I seriously doubt theyd tour without him anyways, so its a moot point.

Moot is one of the conclusions on the jump to conclusions mat.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-04-15 22:59 by ryanpow.

ryanpow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> well, I dont know. It could be true. lets face the
> facts.

It "could" have been true for the last 20 years.

StonesTod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> damned straight i would. maybe they'd finally get
> themselves a decent rock'n'roll drummer.


Too Tough is claiming that it'll be all over in December. The article in question doesn’t state that. It reports that Charlie will not be quitting The Rolling Stones and WILL continue to perform with them, just not on such a global scale anymore. Too many people are getting their knickers in a twist about something that was always inevitable. It's not the end, there’s just going to be some changes, major ones maybe, but that’s all.

Big Al Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> StonesTod Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > damned straight i would. maybe they'd finally
> get
> > themselves a decent rock'n'roll drummer.
>
>
> Too Tough is claiming that it'll be all over in
> December. The article in question doesn&#8217;t state
> that. It reports that Charlie will not be quitting
> The Rolling Stones and WILL continue to perform
> with them, just not on such a global scale
> anymore. Too many people are getting their
> knickers in a twist about something that was
> always inevitable. It's not the end, there&#8217;s just
> going to be some changes, major ones maybe, but
> that&#8217;s all.

It doesn't REPORT, it CLAIMS.

Reptile Wrote:
> It doesn't REPORT, it CLAIMS.

Fair enough. That’s my mistake. Though, I think the point I was trying to makes was fairly clear. Let's wait 'till there’s an official announcement. However, if it's only the end of big world tours, maybe we won't even get one.

Reptile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ryanpow Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > well, I dont know. It could be true. lets face
> the
> > facts.
>
> It "could" have been true for the last 20 years.

yes, thats absolutley right. They could have easilly called it quits that long ago, but they kept going. However, you have to admit that as time goes on, it only gets more and more likely? sorry, Im not trying to be a "downer" but, its just reality.

Well, those "mistakes" are what slowly leads rumour's like this to turn into the truth.. some reporter comes on here, and I bet you every newspaper in the world will have a big "THE STONES QUIT"-header somewhere in it.. it will say the Stones are quitting, Charlie's leaving the band, and half the world will say "FINALLY those old geezers are retiring". And then, two years later, when they start a new tour, everyone calls them scumbags for saying it was their last tour.

I have no doubts the rest of the band will go on, by the by - Keith himself said they would last year. But, as for Charlie- it's no news at all that this is it for him, at least as far as being a member of the tour ensemble....

Reptile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, those "mistakes" are what slowly leads
> rumour's like this to turn into the truth.. some
> reporter comes on here, and I bet you every
> newspaper in the world will have a big "THE STONES
> QUIT"-header somewhere in it.. it will say the
> Stones are quitting, Charlie's leaving the band,
> and half the world will say "FINALLY those old
> geezers are retiring". And then, two years later,
> when they start a new tour, everyone calls them
> scumbags for saying it was their last tour.

Yeah, who knows, you could be right. Im just saying, regardless of rumors or innuendo, just going by the simple laws of time and nature. the older peple get, the less likely it is that they will go on doing what they do. it becomes more and more a possilbility.

but right now theyre rocking, and thats all that matters.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-04-15 23:25 by ryanpow.

Stones without Charlie? No way. I'm not packing a fudge tunnel locomotive train in my gold-plated trouserpants but I love the man

The Stones without Charlie is like having a cupcake without a cup, you know? I mean, the cake is pretty nice and all, but you specifically ASKED for CUPcake. And the cup has really cool decorations like nice pink and flowers and bears and little pigs and a little sun in the top and really nice clouds and you know. That's actually why you asked for the damn cupcake in the first place. That's what makes it different from other cupcakes. Heck, you ain't paying 100 quid for the cake without the nice cup. And you could put it in another cup, but it would just be like any other cupcake.

jeez, reptile - rock'n'roll/cupcake analogies are a dime-a-dozen....