Would Charlie stop a tour in 2007, where they go back
and play the cancelled gigs etc.??

No

I don't understand this at all. When Bill left in '93, it was after waiting m,onths for him to sign or not sign a contract w/ the Stones' then-new label Virgin, which debuted with Voodoo Lounge (& '71-91 reissues). Thus Mick,Keith, Charlie, & Ron must have signed something, I assume? And post '93 Charlie's solo album's - "Long Ago & Far Away" ('96), "CW/Jim Keltner Project" ('00), & "Watts At Scotts" ('04) - have been issued on Virgin. What is the contract for 2007, a tour contract or new contract w/ Virgin? (as I understand the 'current' one is or has run out with AB.
I do apologize if I missed a news item or thread about this. But imo all 4 Stones are essential at this stage. This doesn't mean the "Rolling Stones" would not tour without him or without Ron. But to me it would not be the Stones, & they should be called Mick Jagger & Keith Richards & Friends or something. Recall that in 1977, when Keith was facing a long prison sentence, Mick said, (I pararpharase C. Flippo) "Whall, I mean I wanna tour, and like if Charlie wants to tour, and Woody wants to tour, I mean if they want to the band would tour. Not if Keith goes away for a few months, but if its like a really long time, years and years..." And recall also facing (after several drug busts) visa restictions in '73, Creem magazine and others reported Ron Wood might 'fill in' for Keith on tour - while Taylor was still a Stone. So while I would hope they would not go out w/out Charlie under the RS name, it seems plausable they'd go on anyways. But imo The Who aint the Who, and Page & Plant aint Led Zep, even when they're good. The Stones ain't Wings after all.

So does, for example, Keith's contract go on in 2006?

"But imo all 4 Stones are essential at this stage. This doesn't mean the "Rolling Stones" would not tour without him or without Ron. But to me it would not be the Stones, & they should be called Mick Jagger & Keith Richards & Friends or something."

Any boycotting fans would be offset by not having to split the pie as many ways. I have no doubt my mind that Mick and Keith would tour together as the Stones if Charlie decided not to tour with them.

I agree Dan, and I might attend, especially if a new album were recorded - but to me it's like the Beatles withour Ringo, the Who w/out Moon, Led Zep w/out Bonham. When Jefferson Airplane lost Jack Casady & Jorma Kaukonon, who were essential but not the 'front line' or primary songwriters, it became the rather less important Jefferson Starship. And tho I'm not a huge Led Zep fan, I do appreciate their reluctance to go out as L.Z., even when Page & Plant do lots of LZ material in various contexts.

I would go see them with another drummer. The Stones should live on, even if it were 4 completely different guys!!

Charlie will rally to the call for Europe 2007.
BV is quietly confident about the 'Stones' doing a short tour of Europe next year.
Suspect that if it does go ahead the final curtain will be pulled down at Wembley Stadium in September 2007.

That might be the "Special Occasion" Charlie refers to I think.
Leaving with a last show at Wembley (London) in 2007 after some shows from Europe 2006 they have to fetch in. It might be plausible that MJ, KR & RW continue with the 3 of them, but it wouldn't be the same.

jim keltner, come on down!

Hey, dudes, relax.

really

Britney Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They won't stop next year. But they probably won't
> last another 45 years. (Some people claim they
> might be getting too old, and I can't imagine Mick
> doing Satisfaction when he's 102)


could you imagine him doing it when he was 62?