should they? no. would they? probably.

Charlie's the man. No one else can.

My answer is no. But my word it doesn't count so.....

no way. it just would not be the same.

I think it would diminish the band but who would have thought that the Who would now just have 2 original members?

If Mick and Keith really wanted to tour or record as the Stones then I would have thought that auditions would take place for a new drummer.

Steve Jordan?

Elmo hit the bullseye

Remember I said this................

Justin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Although I think everything in their hearts would
> bleed "no more touring" if Charlie was gone,
> they'd still find a reason/excuse to keep touring.
> I, personally, would like if they stopped touring
> together if Charlie was gone. Exception of
> Ronnie, Mick and Keith are at their best when
> they're in the Stones. Ronnie has a very strong
> career as a solo artist and it'd be nice to see
> him strictly focus on his music full time.
>
> Mick and Keith's solo work would always suffer the
> stigma of fans comparing it to the Stones. They
> sorta have an excuse to record new songs and have
> the songs blaringly echo other Stones
> songs---because they're still the Roling Stones.
> When that title is gone, the eye of scrutiny
> becomes harsher.



"Ronnie has a very strong career as a solo artist" ??? What planet is this on.

They could replace Charlie by Simon Philips......
Mick did it solo with him in 1988.

Ed

stonesriff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Justin Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Although I think everything in their hearts
> would
> > bleed "no more touring" if Charlie was gone,
> > they'd still find a reason/excuse to keep
> touring.
> > I, personally, would like if they stopped
> touring
> > together if Charlie was gone. Exception of
> > Ronnie, Mick and Keith are at their best when
> > they're in the Stones. Ronnie has a very
> strong
> > career as a solo artist and it'd be nice to see
> > him strictly focus on his music full time.
> >
> > Mick and Keith's solo work would always suffer
> the
> > stigma of fans comparing it to the Stones.
> They
> > sorta have an excuse to record new songs and
> have
> > the songs blaringly echo other Stones
> > songs---because they're still the Roling Stones.
>
> > When that title is gone, the eye of scrutiny
> > becomes harsher.
>
>
>
> "Ronnie has a very strong career as a solo artist"
> ??? What planet is this on.


Ronnie was well accomplished before he even joined the Stones. And he has put out better solo albums than anyone in the Stones since he joined them. Look at a set list for one of his solo shows and tell me that is not a strong career of song writing.

x



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-05 05:59 by Beelyboy.

it woudnt be right for the stones to continue if any of the 4 official band members coudnt/woudnt go on, for whichever reason.

most of us dont want the stones ever to end, but we must face reality, they are going to end one day, whether that be now, or next year, 5 years or 10, they will end and i would rather they went out with a bit of dignity and called a halt rather than start getting replacements for charlie, then ronnie, then kieth and finally mick, then we have an entirely different band from what we have now.

personally once someone dies that will be it.

it would be a disgrace....Charlie IS the band live...w/o his steady backbeat, all their f-ups would be much more noticeable...and ugly.

The whole gang is a circus but I can't imagine them without Charlie, it's a lack of respect.

Charlie = the Stones (just like Bill Wyman was), but that's probably not a reason for Keith and Mick to stop.

If I good remember, Keith took Steve Jordan for his solo record on recommendation of Charlie Watts (Talk is cheap)

Black drummer is the only one alternative to charlie
but
Charlie don't stop!!!

This tread don't exist, just fans symptons of the end of stones tour

Should they. Absolutly not. Would they. More than likely. I remember seeing a qoute from Keith somewhere before this tour when Charlie got throat cancer. Somebody asked him if charlie was not able to tour would they? Keith said it would be tough but likely they would. Everybodylove charlie, but when you get right down to it. The Stones are mick and keith. Bottom line.

"It's just some friends of mine and they're busting down the door"

No Charlie = No Stones.

Having said that, if Mick and Keef wanted to, they could continue with a replacement. They would loose a ton of cred with real Stones Fans. For the general public (the ones that never heard of MT or even Brian) they could still do "shows".

IMHO, they are BARELY The Stones since Bill retired. The only one of teh four core guys they could replace would be Ronnie and that's only if it was with MT. And of couse under no curcumstances could Mick or Keef be replaced.

don't give me that ole one two, one two three four

Do you remember what you had to say back in the day 15 years ago?

The Rolling Stones without Charly Watts are not the Rolling Stones.
But surprises come slong, if you don't expect anything...

Without Mister Watts, they'd be the equivalent of the Mike Love Beach Boys.

Quote
dmay
Without Mister Watts, they'd be the equivalent of the Mike Love Beach Boys.

Not quite that bad...but agree that should be the end of it.

If I remember correctly, although the performance money is split four ways, legally Jagger, Richards and Watts together comprise the Rolling Stones for contractual purposes.
I suppose whatever documents were drawn up to stipulate this trio could be rewritten/changed. But that's what I read in this very website a while ago....

Well, what about touring as "The Stone Face Winos"?

I think we know the answer now, given they are going to perform a tour or leg of a tour with a replacement. If Mick or Keith needed emergency surgery and recuperation, it would be a cold day in Hell before the rest of the band played dates as the Rolling Stones without either of them (I think they'd carry on without Ronnie too). I don't think they should but they would.

Before this week I would have said no they wouldn’t continue. My answer now is yes

Would and should.

"If Charlie Watts had to retire would the Stones continue?"

I think we have the answer to that question.

Quote
rbk
"If Charlie Watts had to retire would the Stones continue?"

I think we have the answer to that question.

Yup good post. I thought the same thing.

With all due respect, but I think you all moralise this a bit too much. Friendship, camaderie, yes, ok, but in the cold light of business contracts they may have no other choice, not only for monetary reasons but also and in particular saving a chance to have a future even with Charlie at all.

You can only break contracts so often until you reach a point where nobody offers you contracts anymore at all.