of course we'd all go and don't forget we'd all be getting the "no Charlie" discount, too....

T&A! Hey, the Stones touring without Charlie will give us something new to bitch about! We can finally let poor Ronnie rest.

let's face it, the bum has been draggin' our heroes down for years now. get a real drummer and let's get the show back on the road.

Hey! Is the guy from Captain and Tennile available to play drums?

it's Captain and Toenail...at least that's the way I used to outro them back in my DJ years....and, no I think that drummer od'd on sap many years ago....

I would not go

Potted Shrimp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would not go


Would you, could you on a train? Would you like it in the rain?

Potted Shrimp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would not go



If your girlfriend, Meg White took Charlie's place, would you go then? Would you?

I would cum.........ehh......come

N O---------bad enough they don't have bill...but for me, it would just be the mick and keef show...we need bill & charlie = the rolling stones!

Its funny, I remember back in '69 reading a review of the Stones in concert. The guy said that the Stones needed to get rid of Bill and Charlie, that they were "Holding the Stones back from having a modern sound". Could not help wondering how the guy could call himself a "critic." Wonder if the guy still has his job?

nope. no way. nein. negative. not a chance. absolutely not.

Yes you would!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2006-04-17 20:22 by Rock'NRollAngel.

T&A Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> of course we'd all go

Of course not, count me out, I´m hardcore as well as
the four remaining Stones are t h e core.

Anyone who would go hasn´t understood the Stones at all.
But that´s just my humble opinion.

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

dont

Would I go? Oh sure .... but I'd probably hate myself in the morning ....

What if Mick, Keith and Ronnie tour as just THE STONES.
Not the Rolling Stones, simlpy The Stones.

Your ticket stubb only says the Stones.


Then you are not actually seeing the Rolling Stones and they are not selling you the Rolling Stones BUT you get to hear high profile members of The Rolling Stones doing Rolling Stones music without disrespecting Charlie and the Rolling Stones. Charlie keeps them ROLLING.


If I can see M&K in any way I know I will, but just offically calling your self the Stones progresses the band without dissing the past.

I'm sure the Stones would be "Grateful" for the suggestion, Marv...

T&A Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm sure the Stones would be "Grateful" for the
> suggestion, Marv...


Ya know, I thought the Dead did this, but not paying any real attention to them since JGs death, for some reason I thought the toured as The Other Ones.

It works though, its a viable option.

I wouldn't go. Not if they would call themselfves the rolling stones

T&A Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm sure the Stones would be "Grateful" for the
> suggestion, Marv...


Also be sure to check out Floyd (Pink Floyd with just Waters and Gimour), Zeppelin (just Page and Plant), Fleetwood (Mick Fleetwood and Stevie Nicks), The Birds (The Yardbirds without Clapton, Beck, Page or Keith Relf) The Byrd (Roger McGuinn solo) and Oates (half of a bad 70/80s duo and also a delicious new breakfast cereal).

LOGIE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> At the time of his solo gig at Drury Lane last
> year, I can recall Ronnie saying that he'd like to
> do something along those same lines maybe five or
> six times a year, using various friends and
> colleagues.
>
> This could be a way forward for so many of the
> great musicians who will soon be finding
> themselves in more or less the same position as
> the Stones.

I liked that gig more than the two Chicago gigs this year

Harm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wouldn't go. Not if they would call themselfves
> the rolling stones


But would you go if they dropped the rolling and were only billed as The Stones?

RadioMarv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Harm Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I wouldn't go. Not if they would call
> themselfves
> > the rolling stones
>
>
> But would you go if they dropped the rolling and
> were only billed as The Stones?

Same thing.

Reptile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RadioMarv Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Harm Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I wouldn't go. Not if they would call
> > themselfves
> > > the rolling stones
> >
> >
> > But would you go if they dropped the rolling
> and
> > were only billed as The Stones?
>
> Same thing.

indeed same thing

Harm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Reptile Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > RadioMarv Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Harm Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>



Agreed it is KIND of the same thing, but it acknowledges that they are no longer the same without Chalie, therefore a somewhat different band with a somewhat different name.
> >
> > > -----
> > > > I wouldn't go. Not if they would call
> > > themselfves
> > > > the rolling stones
> > >
> > >
> > > But would you go if they dropped the rolling
> > and
> > > were only billed as The Stones?
> >
> > Same thing.
>
> indeed same thing

I'd still call them the Rolling Stones. I mean the ticket would say Stones, but I would just call 'em Rolling Stones..

ohnonotyouagain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> T&A Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I'm sure the Stones would be "Grateful" for the
> > suggestion, Marv...
>
>
> Also be sure to check out Floyd (Pink Floyd with
> just Waters and Gimour), Zeppelin (just Page and
> Plant), Fleetwood (Mick Fleetwood and Stevie
> Nicks), The Birds (The Yardbirds without Clapton,
> Beck, Page or Keith Relf) The Byrd (Roger McGuinn
> solo) and Oates (half of a bad 70/80s duo and also
> a delicious new breakfast cereal).


Pink Floyd and Fleetwood Mac are poor examples, as both bands seem to only need one or two member to keep going under the same names. The members change but their band names remain.
The Who seem to only need Pete and Roger to call themselves the Who.
Zepplin is a good point, however... I did buy my Page/Plant tix as soon as they went on sale and that was basicly the Led Zepplin show. The should call Jones up and tour as Led Zepplin... I would go for sure (and I don't even did on Zepplin much anymore)

So, since Page/Plant can do a Zepplin show...

would you go see the show if it were called a Jagger/Richards tour featuring the music of the Rolling Stones? Same logo, maybe a Ronnie guest spot here or there. M&K doing Stones tunes just like Page and Plant did Zep tunes.

Like I said, I am there no matter what, but I would be hurt if they continued to call themselves the Rolling Stones without Charlie. Anything else is far better and respectful to what they have done together. I like the idea of just being The Stones, but I like the idea of a Jagger/Richards tour almost as much.

Reptile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'd still call them the Rolling Stones. I mean the
> ticket would say Stones, but I would just call 'em
> Rolling Stones..


Sure, so would I... but it would still not officially be The ROLLING Stones.

Hell, I refer to them as The Stones more than the Rolling Stones anyhow.