I see one sollution to Charlie's quitting (IF he quitts, that is)....
Get Bill Wyman back!! Then, the reciepe would be (almost) intact!

Erik_Snow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I see one sollution to Charlie's quitting (IF he
> quitts, that is)....
> Get Bill Wyman back!! Then, the reciepe would be
> (almost) intact!


nope, not good enough for me

Rock'NRollAngel Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes you would!

under the circumstances of your proposal before your edit;
i most certainly would...
angel time is angel time after all.

i'm a bit the scribe too, heeyah and thereyah...
money gets short and they want ink scratches in their ad vehicles,
uh, journalistic endeavors...
some cool projects & assignments along the way...
papers, mags...other stuff...

saw your posts in what to do with the 5 weeks the stones have off...
u are so scary... we Must talk
;-)

the answer is no no no no no, and anyone who says yes was never a stones fan to begin with

I don't believe you. You're a LIAR.....(OT: Play @#$%&' LOUD!)

I would go to see them as long as Mick and Keith were on stage. They are enough to keep it going. I would also go to see Keith with a solo band, but I doubt very much I would spend much money to see Mick live as a solo act.

"make up your mind, 'cause I gotta go"

Easy Answer: YES.

Do I think they would tour as "The Rolling Stones" without him ? Hmmm... if the price was right, probably.

Actually, what they could just as easily do is like a "Cream Reunion" type tour... 20 or 30 cities WITHOUT the entourage, without the massive stage, without all the hangers-on... and Charlie might actually do one of those.

"It's just that demon life has got me in it's sway..."

I would go.

JumpingKentFlash

Yes, but they shouldn't call it The Rolling Stones anymore. Maybe The Glimmer Twins or Doxa's choice The Chuck Leavell Orchestra featuring Mick Jagger with special guest Keith Richards.

The Glimmer Twins: that's the perfect name

Y not...sounds like fun to me!!!

Baboon Bro Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes; but I wouldnt call what I saw "the Stones".

Since you´ve not seen the Stones yet, for your first time...well, what do you mean?

BornOnTheBayou Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Easy Answer: YES.
>
> Do I think they would tour as "The Rolling Stones"
> without him ? Hmmm... if the price was right,
> probably.

My words exactly. I most definitely wouldn't spend a billion dollars to see this act but I'd be glad to see them. And, in my opinion, they would never be the Stones without Charlie. Just a band with members from THE band. I just hope they don't hire some 20-year-old bloke to replace Charlie. That would be just wrong. No matter if it's called the Stones or the Ol' Bricks, it'll have to be done in style.

Erik_Snow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I see one sollution to Charlie's quitting (IF he
> quitts, that is)....
> Get Bill Wyman back!! Then, the reciepe would be
> (almost) intact!


personally, I would lay good odds on Bill being a shit drummer

andy js Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> absolutely not
>
> i wouldn't want them to carry on. all things must
> end at some point and Charlie hanging up his
> sticks is as good a time as any


thats exactly how I see it. Anyone who would want the band to continue past that stage is IMO simply desperate to flog a dead horse and unable to deal with the fact that the band cant go on forever



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-04-22 04:49 by Gazza.

I think Mick has said he would not continue to tour (as the Stones) without Charlie.

If they jumped the white cliffs of dover - I would consider

It's so depressing that we're talking about this. I know it's important, but can we maybe try and think about more positive things?

yes, as long as Mick is there, Ill go.

Slick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> yes, as long as Mick is there, Ill go.

I wouldn't go without Keith. No way.

There's no reason to discuss this now...wait until something like a Stones tour without Charlie is actually announced!

Plus, I can imagine very well that at least some people who now say "never!" will be tempted to go and see them when reports are coming in that the music is actually great and the setlist more adventurous than on any recent Stones tours.

Hell, I cannot imagine the Stones without Charlie, but at the same time I must admit that I loved Mick and Keiths performance at the September 11 benefit show, so I might be curious enough to see them when Mick and Keith go on the road.