Tell Me :
Talk
Or when they need an infusion of cash.
You just hit the nail on the head. It's not a matter of who would retire and what would happen. It's a matter of them being contractually obligated to execute on the agreement they have. This tour has been postponed once already and the backers are dealing with some very big dollars. One would think theres a clause concerning illness but everybody is concerned about losing money if they did not proceed.
I would be just as concerned about getting Ill from Covid-19. They kick off their tour in one of the hottest of hotspots in the United States!
He did.
“After all the fans’ suffering caused by Covid, I really do not want the many RS fans who have been holding tickets for this tour to be disappointed by another postponement or cancellation. I have therefore asked my great friend Steve Jordan to stand in for me.”
You’re talking recovery from an operation here. And a replacement pending that recovery.
Retirement, and an official announcement of, is an entirely different situation.
The Mickey Dicks
The Rickety Dicks
Well, I'd say they are giving it a test run right now...
As for recording, considering their prolific recording activities since ABB (
) and the fact that there have been other drummers on certain songs already earlier it doesn't seem a relevant question anyway in this respect.
Even if you said 50% I would doubt it, but that is just ridiculous. I wonder what the actual point of your statement is if not just general contempt for the Stones audience
The odds that Charlie actually said or wrote those words are tiny. Those are the words of the p.r. people. At most, Charlie nodded that it was ok for them to put that “statement” out in the media for the ticket buyers.
I think that most folks in the audience want to have a good time and hear the hits. Only the die hards in front will see everyone on the stage. Has nothing to do with general contempt for the audience. See also the posts by @doitywoik and @GerardHennessy above.
Happy Saturday
Very thoughtful.
How I hatefully, and childishly, immaturely had to VERRY slowly sidle up to Any of this for ranting Years. I was a snob in 72 wondering why these little kids were at msg.
Gosh how I am still sure that the natural creativity and personalities and a Lot of ability is there but honestly they're very far apart except for cashing in on the stadium stuff and u didn't resent that after only a few Decades but I'm drawing the same line regarding Charlie as most of the crazy dedicated to the point of encyclopedia nerdiness of someone in love with a stupid rock and roll band. It's hard to be this groovy.
During the last Stones visit to Buffalo in 2015, I purchased last minute tickets that were released hours before the show for $100 each. People sitting next to me paid $325. It was a section in the lower bowl just in front of the side ramp (on the left side facing the stage) but I could not see Charlie or Chuck (but that didn't bother me) unless you got a peek at the video screens. It was actually a fantastic view minus Charlie. It was not the first time I had a limited obstructed view (Toronto front row at the SkyDome being the other), but I enjoy seeing Charlie and for me I missed seeing him in the big picture. In the end I would probably agree that for most fans just hearing the songs and seeing Mick, Keith, and Ronnie out front are sufficient, but a majority of fans did see Charlie so people take it for granted because he has ALWAYS been there.
Makes me sad too. But I’m sad that YOU decided to forgo listening to The Stones in concert because of what other people thought/said. I think that’s silly. YOUR pleasure in seeing them live should be seeing THEM live, not in taking in what those around you are saying. Odd.
Have you stopped reading, because most of what I’d written is drivel?
Odd that OTHERS’ musings on The Stones stopped you from seeing them.
Rod
Well I am definitely sad that you're sad that he's sad.
Maybe he don't wanna be stuck banging around Idiots.
Sad to say. Sad sad sad sucks .
That's why they do War Horses.
Sad
Talking about retirement, not the current situation.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: If Charlie Watts had to retire would the Stones continue?
Posted by:
Taylor1
()
Date: August 6, 2021 21:04
Keith and Mick don’t collaborate in creating new music in any meaningful way anymore.They don’t write songs together and have put out one studio album of new material in 23 years.The only time they collaborate is when they play live
Re: If Charlie Watts had to retire would the Stones continue?
Posted by:
The Sicilian
()
Date: August 7, 2021 02:15
Quote
Taylor1
Keith and Mick don’t collaborate in creating new music in any meaningful way anymore.They don’t write songs together and have put out one studio album of new material in 23 years.The only time they collaborate is when they play live
Or when they need an infusion of cash.
Re: If Charlie Watts had to retire would the Stones continue?
Posted by:
CBII
()
Date: August 7, 2021 02:36
Quote
retired_dog
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.
You just hit the nail on the head. It's not a matter of who would retire and what would happen. It's a matter of them being contractually obligated to execute on the agreement they have. This tour has been postponed once already and the backers are dealing with some very big dollars. One would think theres a clause concerning illness but everybody is concerned about losing money if they did not proceed.
I would be just as concerned about getting Ill from Covid-19. They kick off their tour in one of the hottest of hotspots in the United States!
Re: If Charlie Watts had to retire would the Stones continue?
Posted by:
MingSubu
()
Date: August 7, 2021 02:57
I'd think Charlie would tell them to keep playing.
Re: If Charlie Watts had to retire would the Stones continue?
Posted by:
KingmanBarstow
()
Date: August 7, 2021 04:44
Nope.
Re: If Charlie Watts had to retire would the Stones continue?
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: August 7, 2021 04:47
Quote
MingSubu
I'd think Charlie would tell them to keep playing.
He did.
“After all the fans’ suffering caused by Covid, I really do not want the many RS fans who have been holding tickets for this tour to be disappointed by another postponement or cancellation. I have therefore asked my great friend Steve Jordan to stand in for me.”
Re: If Charlie Watts had to retire would the Stones continue?
Posted by:
KingmanBarstow
()
Date: August 7, 2021 04:51
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
MingSubu
I'd think Charlie would tell them to keep playing.
He did.
“After all the fans’ suffering caused by Covid, I really do not want the many RS fans who have been holding tickets for this tour to be disappointed by another postponement or cancellation. I have therefore asked my great friend Steve Jordan to stand in for me.”
You’re talking recovery from an operation here. And a replacement pending that recovery.
Retirement, and an official announcement of, is an entirely different situation.
Re: If Charlie Watts had to retire would the Stones continue?
Posted by:
StonedAsiaExile
()
Date: August 7, 2021 04:57
Quote
Elmo Lewis
Not as The Rolling Stones, maybe as The Mick-Dick (short for Richard) band or something.
The Mickey Dicks
The Rickety Dicks
Re: If Charlie Watts had to retire would the Stones continue?
Posted by:
doitywoik
()
Date: August 7, 2021 15:01
Quote
The Sicilian
If for some reason Charlie retired, illness, just tired, or whatever, do you think the Stones would continue to record and tour?
Well, I'd say they are giving it a test run right now...
As for recording, considering their prolific recording activities since ABB (
) and the fact that there have been other drummers on certain songs already earlier it doesn't seem a relevant question anyway in this respect.Re: If Charlie Watts had to retire would the Stones continue?
Posted by:
Koen
()
Date: August 7, 2021 15:20
I doubt if 95% of the audience will hear a difference.
Re: If Charlie Watts had to retire would the Stones continue?
Posted by:
Nikkei
()
Date: August 7, 2021 15:32
Quote
Koen
I doubt if 95% of the audience will hear a difference.
Even if you said 50% I would doubt it, but that is just ridiculous. I wonder what the actual point of your statement is if not just general contempt for the Stones audience
Re: If Charlie Watts had to retire would the Stones continue?
Posted by:
hopkins
()
Date: August 7, 2021 16:00
Charlie is the drummer
Re: If Charlie Watts had to retire would the Stones continue?
Posted by:
doitywoik
()
Date: August 7, 2021 16:02
Judging from the last shows I attendend, 95% of the audience come to the show primarily to see Mick Jagger (and to hear Satisfaction), and (most of) the rest additionally to see whether Keith can still stand more or less upright. Who else is on the stage possibly doesn't matter much to many in the audience. Just like it's only a few afficionados who would complain about the never-changing setlist. Most of the audience doesn't care as long as they play Satisfaction and perhaps some other warhorses of their liking. They might even replace Ronnie without most of the audience caring too much. For most of the audience, it seems to me, it's Mick in his vitality and Keith in his wastedness who matter.
As for studio recordings, there are certainly enough studio drummers around who can imitate Charlie's style of drumming well enough, for those who care. I doubt it would change the overall style of the music or the playing. When Bill quit and Darryl came in there was also talk about "fresh impulses" and the like, which never seem to have materialized (apart from an unimaginative and dispensable bass solo in Miss You).
What is of more concern to me is that it is kept under wraps (at least for now) what exactly the surgical procedure was that Charlie had to undergo.
As for studio recordings, there are certainly enough studio drummers around who can imitate Charlie's style of drumming well enough, for those who care. I doubt it would change the overall style of the music or the playing. When Bill quit and Darryl came in there was also talk about "fresh impulses" and the like, which never seem to have materialized (apart from an unimaginative and dispensable bass solo in Miss You).
What is of more concern to me is that it is kept under wraps (at least for now) what exactly the surgical procedure was that Charlie had to undergo.
Re: If Charlie Watts had to retire would the Stones continue?
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: August 7, 2021 16:04
No, I don't think they will continue. They will finish the postponed tour without Charlie. Due to obligations. Then it will be over.
Re: If Charlie Watts had to retire would the Stones continue?
Posted by:
georgemcdonnell314
()
Date: August 7, 2021 16:14
I think you are correct here and if they plan a tour in 2022 it will have to include Charlie.
Quote
Stoneage
No, I don't think they will continue. They will finish the postponed tour without Charlie. Due to obligations. Then it will be over.
Re: If Charlie Watts had to retire would the Stones continue?
Posted by:
bam
()
Date: August 7, 2021 16:20
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
MingSubu
I'd think Charlie would tell them to keep playing.
He did.
“After all the fans’ suffering caused by Covid, I really do not want the many RS fans who have been holding tickets for this tour to be disappointed by another postponement or cancellation. I have therefore asked my great friend Steve Jordan to stand in for me.”
The odds that Charlie actually said or wrote those words are tiny. Those are the words of the p.r. people. At most, Charlie nodded that it was ok for them to put that “statement” out in the media for the ticket buyers.
Re: If Charlie Watts had to retire would the Stones continue?
Posted by:
GerardHennessy
()
Date: August 7, 2021 16:42
This is such a sad thread as we debate between ourselves whether most audience members know or care about who is on stage, and who the drummer is?
Sadly I must agree with those who say that most audience members neither know or care. These casual fans are concerned only about hearing the 4-5 Stones songs they actually know, and whether they get to see Mick and Keith or not. Upsetting as that is for those of us who genuinely love The Stones, it is, nevertheless, true.
For the last number of tours I have not attended any of the concerts. Why? There are a number of reasons, which are, in no particular order, the largely unchanging set list, the inane conversations around me about the title of the song being played at that moment, and the almost total lack of interest in hearing anything other than warhorses. Such disrespect for the band is shown by the large exodus to the beer stand whenever a 'rarity' such as The Last Time, Let's Spend The Night Together, Harlem Shuffle or Street Fighting Man is played. Incredibly that is a fact.
The final straw for me was having to endure a mind-numbingly banal conversation beside me about what band Keith played in before he joined The Stones 'in 1980-something' I appreciate these kinds of situations do not occur at every concert, but they do illustrate the huge gap in awareness and interest that exists between true fans, and casual concert-goers. For the vast majority of the latter it is all about participating in a fun event. The music is simply a back drop to all of that, and matters no more, or no less, than whatever tracks are sung at a karaoke sing-along in your local pub.
Despite my feelings of protectiveness towards The Stones and my outrage at the low levels of musical knowledge amongst casual concert goers, I believe, as I should, that those who are indifferent to the history and musical richness of The Stones' back-catalogue have every right to go to concerts, shout all night for Satisfaction, and confuse Ronnie with Keith.I amthe one who is out of step. Therefore I should, and have, counted myself out.
And that makes me sad!
Sadly I must agree with those who say that most audience members neither know or care. These casual fans are concerned only about hearing the 4-5 Stones songs they actually know, and whether they get to see Mick and Keith or not. Upsetting as that is for those of us who genuinely love The Stones, it is, nevertheless, true.
For the last number of tours I have not attended any of the concerts. Why? There are a number of reasons, which are, in no particular order, the largely unchanging set list, the inane conversations around me about the title of the song being played at that moment, and the almost total lack of interest in hearing anything other than warhorses. Such disrespect for the band is shown by the large exodus to the beer stand whenever a 'rarity' such as The Last Time, Let's Spend The Night Together, Harlem Shuffle or Street Fighting Man is played. Incredibly that is a fact.
The final straw for me was having to endure a mind-numbingly banal conversation beside me about what band Keith played in before he joined The Stones 'in 1980-something' I appreciate these kinds of situations do not occur at every concert, but they do illustrate the huge gap in awareness and interest that exists between true fans, and casual concert-goers. For the vast majority of the latter it is all about participating in a fun event. The music is simply a back drop to all of that, and matters no more, or no less, than whatever tracks are sung at a karaoke sing-along in your local pub.
Despite my feelings of protectiveness towards The Stones and my outrage at the low levels of musical knowledge amongst casual concert goers, I believe, as I should, that those who are indifferent to the history and musical richness of The Stones' back-catalogue have every right to go to concerts, shout all night for Satisfaction, and confuse Ronnie with Keith.I amthe one who is out of step. Therefore I should, and have, counted myself out.
And that makes me sad!
Re: If Charlie Watts had to retire would the Stones continue?
Posted by:
More Hot Rocks
()
Date: August 7, 2021 16:57
Totally agreeQuote
Koen
I doubt if 95% of the audience will hear a difference.
Re: If Charlie Watts had to retire would the Stones continue?
Posted by:
Koen
()
Date: August 7, 2021 17:03
Quote
NikkeiQuote
Koen
I doubt if 95% of the audience will hear a difference.
Even if you said 50% I would doubt it, but that is just ridiculous. I wonder what the actual point of your statement is if not just general contempt for the Stones audience
I think that most folks in the audience want to have a good time and hear the hits. Only the die hards in front will see everyone on the stage. Has nothing to do with general contempt for the audience. See also the posts by @doitywoik and @GerardHennessy above.
Happy Saturday
Re: If Charlie Watts had to retire would the Stones continue?
Posted by:
KRiffhard
()
Date: August 7, 2021 17:11
Quote
The SicilianQuote
Taylor1
Keith and Mick don’t collaborate in creating new music in any meaningful way anymore.They don’t write songs together and have put out one studio album of new material in 23 years.The only time they collaborate is when they play live
Or when they need an infusion of cash.
Re: If Charlie Watts had to retire would the Stones continue?
Posted by:
schillid
()
Date: August 7, 2021 17:17
No one except Charlie can hit an imaginary upwards snare on the upbeat
Re: If Charlie Watts had to retire would the Stones continue?
Posted by:
NashvilleBlues
()
Date: August 7, 2021 17:17
Sorry if this has been discussed here before, but does anyone know if they have a contract yet for the 60th anniversary tour?
Re: If Charlie Watts had to retire would the Stones continue?
Posted by:
hopkins
()
Date: August 7, 2021 17:21
Quote
GerardHennessy
This is such a sad thread as we debate between ourselves whether most audience members know or care about who is on stage, and who the drummer is?
Sadly I must agree with those who say that most audience members neither know or care. These casual fans are concerned only about hearing the 4-5 Stones songs they actually know, and whether they get to see Mick and Keith or not. Upsetting as that is for those of us who genuinely love The Stones, it is, nevertheless, true.
For the last number of tours I have not attended any of the concerts. Why? There are a number of reasons, which are, in no particular order, the largely unchanging set list, the inane conversations around me about the title of the song being played at that moment, and the almost total lack of interest in hearing anything other than warhorses. Such disrespect for the band is shown by the large exodus to the beer stand whenever a 'rarity' such as The Last Time, Let's Spend The Night Together, Harlem Shuffle or Street Fighting Man is played. Incredibly that is a fact.
The final straw for me was having to endure a mind-numbingly banal conversation beside me about what band Keith played in before he joined The Stones 'in 1980-something' I appreciate these kinds of situations do not occur at every concert, but they do illustrate the huge gap in awareness and interest that exists between true fans, and casual concert-goers. For the vast majority of the latter it is all about participating in a fun event. The music is simply a back drop to all of that, and matters no more, or no less, than whatever tracks are sung at a karaoke sing-along in your local pub.
Despite my feelings of protectiveness towards The Stones and my outrage at the low levels of musical knowledge amongst casual concert goers, I believe, as I should, that those who are indifferent to the history and musical richness of The Stones' back-catalogue have every right to go to concerts, shout all night for Satisfaction, and confuse Ronnie with Keith.I amthe one who is out of step. Therefore I should, and have, counted myself out.
And that makes me sad!
Very thoughtful.
How I hatefully, and childishly, immaturely had to VERRY slowly sidle up to Any of this for ranting Years. I was a snob in 72 wondering why these little kids were at msg.
Gosh how I am still sure that the natural creativity and personalities and a Lot of ability is there but honestly they're very far apart except for cashing in on the stadium stuff and u didn't resent that after only a few Decades but I'm drawing the same line regarding Charlie as most of the crazy dedicated to the point of encyclopedia nerdiness of someone in love with a stupid rock and roll band. It's hard to be this groovy.
Re: If Charlie Watts had to retire would the Stones continue?
Posted by:
The Sicilian
()
Date: August 7, 2021 17:49
Quote
More Hot RocksTotally agreeQuote
Koen
I doubt if 95% of the audience will hear a difference.
During the last Stones visit to Buffalo in 2015, I purchased last minute tickets that were released hours before the show for $100 each. People sitting next to me paid $325. It was a section in the lower bowl just in front of the side ramp (on the left side facing the stage) but I could not see Charlie or Chuck (but that didn't bother me) unless you got a peek at the video screens. It was actually a fantastic view minus Charlie. It was not the first time I had a limited obstructed view (Toronto front row at the SkyDome being the other), but I enjoy seeing Charlie and for me I missed seeing him in the big picture. In the end I would probably agree that for most fans just hearing the songs and seeing Mick, Keith, and Ronnie out front are sufficient, but a majority of fans did see Charlie so people take it for granted because he has ALWAYS been there.
Re: If Charlie Watts had to retire would the Stones continue?
Posted by:
bitusa2012
()
Date: August 7, 2021 17:55
Quote
GerardHennessy
This is such a sad thread as we debate between ourselves whether most audience members know or care about who is on stage, and who the drummer is?
Sadly I must agree with those who say that most audience members neither know or care. These casual fans are concerned only about hearing the 4-5 Stones songs they actually know, and whether they get to see Mick and Keith or not. Upsetting as that is for those of us who genuinely love The Stones, it is, nevertheless, true.
For the last number of tours I have not attended any of the concerts. Why? There are a number of reasons, which are, in no particular order, the largely unchanging set list, the inane conversations around me about the title of the song being played at that moment, and the almost total lack of interest in hearing anything other than warhorses. Such disrespect for the band is shown by the large exodus to the beer stand whenever a 'rarity' such as The Last Time, Let's Spend The Night Together, Harlem Shuffle or Street Fighting Man is played. Incredibly that is a fact.
The final straw for me was having to endure a mind-numbingly banal conversation beside me about what band Keith played in before he joined The Stones 'in 1980-something' I appreciate these kinds of situations do not occur at every concert, but they do illustrate the huge gap in awareness and interest that exists between true fans, and casual concert-goers. For the vast majority of the latter it is all about participating in a fun event. The music is simply a back drop to all of that, and matters no more, or no less, than whatever tracks are sung at a karaoke sing-along in your local pub.
Despite my feelings of protectiveness towards The Stones and my outrage at the low levels of musical knowledge amongst casual concert goers, I believe, as I should, that those who are indifferent to the history and musical richness of The Stones' back-catalogue have every right to go to concerts, shout all night for Satisfaction, and confuse Ronnie with Keith.I amthe one who is out of step. Therefore I should, and have, counted myself out.
And that makes me sad!
Makes me sad too. But I’m sad that YOU decided to forgo listening to The Stones in concert because of what other people thought/said. I think that’s silly. YOUR pleasure in seeing them live should be seeing THEM live, not in taking in what those around you are saying. Odd.
Have you stopped reading, because most of what I’d written is drivel?
Odd that OTHERS’ musings on The Stones stopped you from seeing them.
Rod
Re: If Charlie Watts had to retire would the Stones continue?
Posted by:
NashvilleBlues
()
Date: August 7, 2021 18:13
From GH:
“…rarity' such as The Last Time, Let's Spend The Night Together, Harlem Shuffle or Street Fighting Man…”
I noticed the quotation marks, but SFM is about as rare live as Gimme Shelter. Funny, coming from such a self-proclaimed Stones snob.
“…rarity' such as The Last Time, Let's Spend The Night Together, Harlem Shuffle or Street Fighting Man…”
I noticed the quotation marks, but SFM is about as rare live as Gimme Shelter. Funny, coming from such a self-proclaimed Stones snob.
Re: If Charlie Watts had to retire would the Stones continue?
Posted by:
hopkins
()
Date: August 7, 2021 18:19
Quote
bitusa2012Quote
GerardHennessy
This is such a sad thread as we debate between ourselves whether most audience members know or care about who is on stage, and who the drummer is?
Sadly I must agree with those who say that most audience members neither know or care. These casual fans are concerned only about hearing the 4-5 Stones songs they actually know, and whether they get to see Mick and Keith or not. Upsetting as that is for those of us who genuinely love The Stones, it is, nevertheless, true.
For the last number of tours I have not attended any of the concerts. Why? There are a number of reasons, which are, in no particular order, the largely unchanging set list, the inane conversations around me about the title of the song being played at that moment, and the almost total lack of interest in hearing anything other than warhorses. Such disrespect for the band is shown by the large exodus to the beer stand whenever a 'rarity' such as The Last Time, Let's Spend The Night Together, Harlem Shuffle or Street Fighting Man is played. Incredibly that is a fact.
The final straw for me was having to endure a mind-numbingly banal conversation beside me about what band Keith played in before he joined The Stones 'in 1980-something' I appreciate these kinds of situations do not occur at every concert, but they do illustrate the huge gap in awareness and interest that exists between true fans, and casual concert-goers. For the vast majority of the latter it is all about participating in a fun event. The music is simply a back drop to all of that, and matters no more, or no less, than whatever tracks are sung at a karaoke sing-along in your local pub.
Despite my feelings of protectiveness towards The Stones and my outrage at the low levels of musical knowledge amongst casual concert goers, I believe, as I should, that those who are indifferent to the history and musical richness of The Stones' back-catalogue have every right to go to concerts, shout all night for Satisfaction, and confuse Ronnie with Keith.I amthe one who is out of step. Therefore I should, and have, counted myself out.
And that makes me sad!
Makes me sad too. But I’m sad that YOU decided to forgo listening to The Stones in concert because of what other people thought/said. I think that’s silly. YOUR pleasure in seeing them live should be seeing THEM live, not in taking in what those around you are saying. Odd.
Have you stopped reading, because most of what I’d written is drivel?
Odd that OTHERS’ musings on The Stones stopped you from seeing them.
Well I am definitely sad that you're sad that he's sad.
Maybe he don't wanna be stuck banging around Idiots.
Sad to say. Sad sad sad sucks .
That's why they do War Horses.
Sad
Re: If Charlie Watts had to retire would the Stones continue?
Posted by:
JimmyTheSaint
()
Date: August 7, 2021 18:56
Would they? Doubtful.
Should they? No way.
By today's standards the Stones weren't even old in '90 when Bill decided he had had enough, and although their best albums were behind them you could make the case that they were still in the prime of their live performance era.
Nowadays, they are clearly past it on both fronts but that doesn't mean they can't provide a satisfying live performance for their fans wherever and whenever they turn up.
Given that this was an emergency situation with Charlie, and is a relatively short tour of previously postponed dates, I don't think it's a big deal that they found a substitute.
My view would change if Charlie was forced or elected to retire and the band attempted to soldier on with a permanent replacement. That goes double for Keith.
There would be no attempt without Mick, I think that is obvious.
Should they? No way.
By today's standards the Stones weren't even old in '90 when Bill decided he had had enough, and although their best albums were behind them you could make the case that they were still in the prime of their live performance era.
Nowadays, they are clearly past it on both fronts but that doesn't mean they can't provide a satisfying live performance for their fans wherever and whenever they turn up.
Given that this was an emergency situation with Charlie, and is a relatively short tour of previously postponed dates, I don't think it's a big deal that they found a substitute.
My view would change if Charlie was forced or elected to retire and the band attempted to soldier on with a permanent replacement. That goes double for Keith.
There would be no attempt without Mick, I think that is obvious.
Re: If Charlie Watts had to retire would the Stones continue?
Posted by:
RisingStone
()
Date: August 8, 2021 06:13
What’s wrong with casual fans? Most likely 90% of music listeners are casual fans. They were, they are and they will be. And it is them who have helped The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Beach Boys, The Who, Led Zeppelin etc. to rise to stardom, not a handful of diehards. If it were not for casual fans, these musicians could not have established their career and popularity as we know it, and consequently would not have produced as many works as we are enjoying today.
Diehards have better things to do than patronizing casual fans and grieving over their lack of knowledge. First of all...be there and enjoy the show! Revel in the warhorses! Analyze later if you want.
Oh and will the Stones continue if Charlie retires? Yes they will...for the time being.
Diehards have better things to do than patronizing casual fans and grieving over their lack of knowledge. First of all...be there and enjoy the show! Revel in the warhorses! Analyze later if you want.
Oh and will the Stones continue if Charlie retires? Yes they will...for the time being.
Re: If Charlie Watts had to retire would the Stones continue?
Posted by:
MingSubu
()
Date: August 8, 2021 09:13
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
MingSubu
I'd think Charlie would tell them to keep playing.
He did.
“After all the fans’ suffering caused by Covid, I really do not want the many RS fans who have been holding tickets for this tour to be disappointed by another postponement or cancellation. I have therefore asked my great friend Steve Jordan to stand in for me.”
Talking about retirement, not the current situation.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
BlueLands , CaptainAcid , Christiaan , DandelionPowderman , dedospegajosos , dnewton99 , fedecarp , GJV , gotdablouse , Harry , Kevinstones78 , Mirko , MonkeyMan2000 , NedKellyBandit , RaahenTiikeri , rastakeith , snarf2014 , spidey39 , steady , Topi
Guests:
1871
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10