In my opinion, Charlie simply said "i don't wanna go, i can't do it anymore"
So after this US leg, they are going to do some shows in Europe (mostly festivals) and UK with Jordan and it's gonna be done for ever.
History will remember that the last 25 shows or so were without Charlie.
There is no mysterious things, Charlie quits and they decided to continue for a few months.

Quote
ablett
The Stones are not going to continue with any replacement at this stage in their career.....

exactly

Everything is conjecture, but I’m sure Charlie had a medical procedure. And I’m pretty confidentKeith and Mick asked him if he wanted to postpone the tour and he said no. I think he is winding down from live shows.He may know Mick and Keith want to continue indefinitely You might see him again at select shows in England , but that’s about it.Mick and Keith are nearly billionaires.They could take the hit of postponing the tour. And for their 6Oth tour could easily finds a promoter



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-08-08 16:16 by Taylor1.

Old men keep going to the golf course when one of their foursome decides he can't do it anymore.

Quote
AntoineParis
In my opinion, Charlie simply said "i don't wanna go, i can't do it anymore"
So after this US leg, they are going to do some shows in Europe (mostly festivals) and UK with Jordan and it's gonna be done for ever.
History will remember that the last 25 shows or so were without Charlie.
There is no mysterious things, Charlie quits and they decided to continue for a few months.

How can we have an opinion about something we don't know?

Hopefully all goes well.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-08-09 01:12 by padre69.

...hate ta tell ya but thats dumb ... and in bad taste ...



ROCKMAN

Quote
bitusa2012

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.

No, I have not stopped reading. What you have said is not drivel at all. You make some fair points.

Why did I stop? Perhaps I should have clarified that that the irritating comments were hollered loudly, intrusively, and repeatedly throughout the entire event. They were not said at conversational volume just a few times. They went on and on and on. Then again, maybe I'm simply getting old, grumpy and intolerant. Maybe I'm simply too tired to undertake the physical demands of travelling, queueing, standing, getting pushed, pulled and prodded, that are an inevitable part of concert going now.

Yup, that is probably it. And the rather static set-lists don't appeal quite as strongly as they once did, or incentivise me as much.

Quote
NashvilleBlues
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.

My apologies. I did not mean to come across as a snob. I would hate to be anything of the sort. And certainly my being a fan of The Stones is very much about their music.No snobbery at all involved.

And you are correct of course. SFM is played relatively regularly. But it sure as heck was unfamiliar to a lot of people round where I was standing the last time I heard it played live, a number of whom thought it was Jumpin' Jack Flash being played at the wrong tempo. And that is despite Mick actually introducing it by name!!!

The point I was trying to make - obviously very poorly - was that I would love, just once, to experience a concert made up significantly of Stones tracks I have loved for many many years and have never heard played live, either in person or on record. As a result any time lots of people abandon their seats when a less familiar - to them - tracks is played, I think the possibility of hearing any of these comparative rarities recedes further and further.

Unfortunately I think this entire situation is all rather irrelevant now anyway. Time has caught up with both the band, and many of their fans. And even the physical phenomenon that is Mick Jagger cannot keep going indefinitely. Especially as, not alone Charlie, but to an extent, both Keith and Ronnie, are not as robust as they once were.

Quote
Rockman
...hate ta tell ya but thats dumb ... and in bad taste ...

Took it down. Didn’t mean to offend. Just a tongue in cheek of the worst case scenario.

they would definitely not continue without charlie … unless there was any money to make.

Quote
GerardHennessy

Quote
NashvilleBlues
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.

My apologies. I did not mean to come across as a snob. I would hate to be anything of the sort. And certainly my being a fan of The Stones is very much about their music.No snobbery at all involved.

And you are correct of course. SFM is played relatively regularly. But it sure as heck was unfamiliar to a lot of people round where I was standing the last time I heard it played live, a number of whom thought it was Jumpin' Jack Flash being played at the wrong tempo. And that is despite Mick actually introducing it by name!!!

The point I was trying to make - obviously very poorly - was that I would love, just once, to experience a concert made up significantly of Stones tracks I have loved for many many years and have never heard played live, either in person or on record. As a result any time lots of people abandon their seats when a less familiar - to them - tracks is played, I think the possibility of hearing any of these comparative rarities recedes further and further.

Unfortunately I think this entire situation is all rather irrelevant now anyway. Time has caught up with both the band, and many of their fans. And even the physical phenomenon that is Mick Jagger cannot keep going indefinitely. Especially as, not alone Charlie, but to an extent, both Keith and Ronnie, are not as robust as they once were.

Thanks for your kind and thoughtful reply. I believe we’re on the same page. Sorry for calling you a snob.

The question is If Charlie Watts had to retire would the Stones continue? We may be seeing the answer.

Personally I don't expect Charlie to play again unless he really wants to.

Quote
daspyknows
The question is If Charlie Watts had to retire would the Stones continue? We may be seeing the answer.

Personally I don't expect Charlie to play again unless he really wants to.

even if this whole Fall tour is jettisoned, I think Charlie would be back to do a few key dates in 2022, presuming he's able.

The Diamond Anniversary and done.

If there is anything beyond that it will be scattered one off shows with not necessarily all members of the band.

You know for non-hardcore Stones fans, Mick & Keith started the Stones, when most of us know it was Brian &.Stu.

The majority of the crowd are first timers there to see Mick & Keith.

I'm not saying I am or most of us are, but that's the reality of the situation. If they continue that way most won't care. Sadly the same could be said for Ronnie.

Personally I love the dynamic of Keith holding down the rhythm guitar, Ronnie's amazingly still improving lead guitar since he's gotten sober, the age defying Jagger, all held together by a jazz drummer who just shakes his head and grins at their antics. It will be different.

Every show I go to, I wonder if it'll be as good as the last. This may be the one that isn't but I'll reserve judgment until it occurs.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-08-09 16:43 by kovach.

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? I think it would be a very tough call.

Mick---no

Keith--yes

Ron----whatever Keith says

They already do.

The Rolling Stones without Charlie isn't The Rolling Stones. People can spend their entertainment dollars however they like but....
... just sayin

`



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-08-09 17:40 by SKILLS.

How about if Charlie wants to retire? He has certainly more than earned the right to do that if that's what he wanted. Drumming is a young man's game for the most part. He's pretty much in uncharted territory now in regards to rock drummers. Ringo is in the same age range & he's had another drummer with him live for many years.

The Rolling Stones are whomever Mick and Keith say are the Rolling Stones, exactly like the E Street Band and Bruce Springsteen.

Quote
crholmstrom
How about if Charlie wants to retire? He has certainly more than earned the right to do that if that's what he wanted. Drumming is a young man's game for the most part. He's pretty much in uncharted territory now in regards to rock drummers. Ringo is in the same age range & he's had another drummer with him live for many years.

I don’t mind an additional support drummer to be hired, like Ringo has done for many years, when and if Charlie gets back to the stage. Double drumming with Steve anyone?

Quote
daspyknows
The question is If Charlie Watts had to retire would the Stones continue? We may be seeing the answer.

Personally I don't expect Charlie to play again unless he really wants to.

Exactly!

I truly believe this is the test run because if anything has been proven over the last several years, it's

- Ron, Keith, and Mick probably intend to play as long as people are willing to show up

- There's a lot of money to be made for the Rolling Stones, by the Rolling Stones, playing live

Nothing against them doing it, as band lineups change all the time.

That being said I've enjoyed seeing the core lineup that they've had since I started seeing them in 2002.

At this point, I think I will allocate my entertainment money elsewhere, mainly Springsteen and Pearl Jam



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2021-08-09 19:32 by Dougratajczak87.

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

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? I think it would be a very tough call.

Mick---no

Keith--yes

Ron----whatever Keith says

They already do.

The question was asked in 2006. Peculiar is that Jordan was already brought up back then

Quote
Elmo Lewis
Steve Jordan?

Quote
humanriff77
Elmo hit the bullseye

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

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? I think it would be a very tough call.

Mick---no

Keith--yes

Ron----whatever Keith says

Reading between the lines we already have the answer to your question, the Stones are touring this year and next regardless of who joins Mick and Keith on stage.

Im really surprised that after all these years fans haven't worked out what makes Mick & Keith tick.
They are not sentimental people, to survive in this industry you have to be tough tough tough tough tough, those two are hard as nails and they have expressed many times the show must go on.

Keith has even said he wants to die on stage, who would begrudge Mick & Keith continuing if Ronnie or Charlie aren't well enough to tour, it's what they would want, Charlie loves Mick and Keith, he understands them, he has continued to play drums for them all these years, he only wants what's best for his friends, he's always known they are ruthless but he accepts them for what they are and as friends.

It's a bit like your partner, wife or whatever, they say to you if you died they would never try to find another man, they say that they would be OK on their own and you could never be replaced, but you know damn well if you did die they would probably replace you with another partner within a couple years. Well thats Mick and Keith regards members of the band.
I don't think it's horrible of them, they were put on this earth as performers, they make millions of fans happy, its selfish to deny them the pleasure of offering their God given talents to us all.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2021-08-09 20:13 by Rocktiludrop.

There is also a scenario to all this that works better, Steve Jordan isn't just a drummer, he's a producer, I'm kind of toying with the idea that this long awaited album needs finishing, would Steve Jordan be benificial in helping the Stones finish this album, we already know he works well with Keith creatively.
If Charlie returns why cant we have two drummers and Steve could help Charlie carry the load, for me this could work.

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!

Years ago my wife and I went to see The Cult at the HOB. Previously I'd seen them there two times and it was loud proper. This time it was bizarrely low volume. That's easy enough to deal with in terms of standing wherever to achieve the desired amount of volume. But even that may not be enough if you can't get to the right space. Which I thought we'd done.

Just 10 feet behind us was a gaggle of girls, with their backs to the band, taking selfies etc, probably posting whatever about 'look what we're doing'. They may as well've been at Disneyland.

It was annoying that, for a majority of a song, I could hear them better than the The Cult. I later found out the reason for the low volume was the HOB and not The Cult's sound crew. Some weird limit. I talked to a few people about it and they'd caught shows there around the same time and said the same thing about how lame the sound was.

I've not gone back to the HOB for any shows since 2007 (with one exception, Colin Hay, who my wife loved and asked to go see, and it was a solo acoustic show and it was excellent!!!) and fortunately The Cult have stopped playing there.

In 2017, two nights before my wife died, I went to see U2, with a best friend in her place (she told me a couple months before she fell off the cliff of health, no matter her state, that I have to go, that I'd need the mental break, and, of course, she was correct), at the Superdome and it was amazing - everyone paid attention. Participated in the show. U2 were on fire. It was fantastic.

In 2019 at the Stones show in New Orleans, my girlfriend (and her two kids) didn't pay much attention to the show, they were talking about whatever, on their phones, etc. Remember when Mick said 'cherry red' in YCAGWYW and the entire stage was flooded in red light, which was a fantastic moment - it was, what, 3 seconds long? SHE MISSED IT! She started squealing about it after hearing the crowd react, I laughed, shook my head at her and then said - such a typical thing now - 'You can see it on YouTube'.

At the U2 show in 2017, standing in line to get a beer, I overheard a woman griping to a friend about how she could've just stayed home and watched the show on YouTube. Her friend argued with her, saying that nothing beats seeing a band live.

Which made me wonder, Why the hell are you here? Perhaps she's one of those that is torn between the convenience of social media technology and the concert experience that is not possible from home no matter what one does, that there's something about how the kick drum can rattle your sternum, the video content and lights and, of course, the human aspect of mistakes or little tributes thrown in.

It's become obvious for a lot of people that the amount of money spent on a ticket, yet alone anything else at a show, just doesn't have the same gravitas that it did in the, well, basically pre-smartphone, I guess.

I certainly understand the frustration. It's work to have a good time sometimes because of surrounding people being the way they are. Just as with anything else, like athletes, or people leaving a job - when it stops being fun, it's time to stop.

It's not the end of the world to not see a band/artist live. I was looking forward to seeing the Stones at Jazz Fest (yet alone going the last Sunday) knowing the grind it requires. People I know that were interested in going grumbled about how it will be too many people - which is funny since it was to be a limited amount, probably 50,000 people or so, hardly crowded - and also didn't like the price - and they opted to pass. I explained the reality of it to some of them, that it won't be as crowded as they think, what's a little more money to see a band that will never come back to New Orleans again? and they changed their minds and wanted to go.

As much as I like whatever bands/artists, I will not drive for hours to go see them. It doesn't mean that much to me. I can go to New Orleans, Baton Rouge or Biloxi, all within an hour drive, to see whoever. Some people will drive to Houston or St Louis or Tampa to see whoever. They enjoy that. I could see Tampa being the most fun, making it a weekend or whatever since it's not too too far away, but I can't because of dogs etc.

For some people the Stones with Steve Jordan aren't Stones enough and that's it, it's over, and they're choosing to not see the Stones with what will likely their last North American tour. Eh, whatever.

There's no trophy for being the greatest fan in the world. It's just a show. The audience culture of live shows has changed incredibly, for some, to the point of it not being any fun to go anymore.

That's a damn solid reason to stop going.

Quote
Rocktiludrop
There is also a scenario to all this that works better, Steve Jordan isn't just a drummer, he's a producer, I'm kind of toying with the idea that this long awaited album needs finishing, would Steve Jordan be benificial in helping the Stones finish this album, we already know he works well with Keith creatively.
If Charlie returns why cant we have two drummers and Steve could help Charlie carry the load, for me this could work.

See my post up on this page.

IMO, just from following Charlie from afar, he wouldn't be comfortable sharing his drumming with another drummer while playing with The Rolling Stones.

~"Love is Strong"~

Quote
angee
IMO, just from following Charlie from afar, he wouldn't be comfortable sharing his drumming with another drummer while playing with The Rolling Stones.

Probably he has never done that with the Stones.
He certainly did on the ARMS 1983 shows, though, with Kenney Jones.

Quote
RisingStone

Quote
angee
IMO, just from following Charlie from afar, he wouldn't be comfortable sharing his drumming with another drummer while playing with The Rolling Stones.

Probably he has never done that with the Stones.
He certainly did on the ARMS 1983 shows, though, with Kenney Jones.

Wasn’t there another drummer (percussionist) with Charlie at Hyde Park 1969?