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

No. Next question please.

Come to think of it...nevermind a next question.

The only reason I think Keith would say yes is because he has always been a staunch supporter of keeping the band rolling no matter what. Also this band and music is his life until he croaks.

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.

Not as The Rolling Stones, maybe as The Mick-Dick (short for Richard) band or something.

The Glimmer Twins

Why on earth would KR even cotemplate touring the Stones without Charlie. ridiculous. He always claims CW is the backbone of the Stones

NEXT please......

Because it is a senerio that the band may have to confront someday. We all know if Mick or Keith had to quit, the band ends. So that only leaves 3 possible outcomes:

1. The Charlie senerio

2. The entire band calls it quits

3. Ron Wood leaves (very unlikely)

Which is more likely to happen first?

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

Charlie is much more busy than Keith between tours - his passion is playing the drums - beit rock and roll or jazz.
How many solo albums has Charlie made??
How many for Keuth?

I cannot see a day that Charlie will retire.

The Sicilian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
>

I think it would be an easy one.

No.

And I would personally hope they wouldnt either, its too late in the game to draft in replacements.

nobody wants to admit the stones might continue to tour even without charlie...its as if by admitting it people think they are justifying it or worse yet making it possible... this is childish to the extreme

but if charlie decides he does not want to tour and mick, keith and ron still want to tour i'm not sure they won't...

if the show continued the same-with the exception of charlie- they might still call themselves the rolling stones....

i think its one of those issues that we can all write what we want but until it happens- and we're talking 2009 at this point since if charlie does/tours in 2007 and then says he does not want to do 2008 i would expect them to give him a year to change his mind..

i think its impossible to say what would happen in 2009 if keith, mick and ron wanted to tour- and their health permitted it- and charlie did not... it would depend on how keith, mick and ron felt .... would they feel it was as wrong to soldier on without charlie as a lot of people on this board seem to... and would people on this board feel the same way in 2009?

Keith has said...without me, Mick, and Charlie...there would be no Stones...

Pecman

Probably.

2 1 2 0

They could always get Ringo's kid to play for the Stones in between his other gigs....

I thought they would stop after Bill left.
I was wrong.
So I have no idea.
Hopefully Charlie will be on board for Europe 2007!
Keep on rockin...

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

I agree. If, for medical reasons or whatever, Charlie needed to retire....I don't think they would contune. But..I assume they would get together and come to a consensus about the band's future....I doubt that Charlie would want to be the sole reason for the band stopping. Basically they'd say "the Rolling Stones are not the Rolling Stones without Charlie....and due to Charlie's carpal tunnel syndrome...we have agreed as a band, that it's been a great ride....but it's over."

Re: mortal tragedy: Who knows...maybe they already have an agreement....whether it's Mick, Keith, Charlie or Ron....if a fatal tragedy occurs...that's it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-11-27 18:42 by sweet neo con.

alot of poeple on this thread are answering the wrong question

the question is "If Charlie Watts had to retire WOULD the Stones continue?"

NOT

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

the time Charlie had his troat cancer, I read an interview from Keith (or Mick)
and he say if one of the 3 (Jagger Watts Richards) leave, there will be no stones no more.......
If I good remember...


(if charlie leave)
Xpensive winos with Mick singing ???

simple....no way

The Stones without Charlie are not the Stones. So...

i don't quite get why the question is again picking on Charlie in particular, but:
last year some interviewer asked that, and Charlie said he reckoned they could/would carry on without him.
he added that he doesn't think they could continue without Mick and that he knows they couldn't continue without Keith.

the general feeling on this board/conventional "wisdom" is that every time the stones go out on tour they have to drag charlie kicking and screaming from his horses and arms of shirley..

If Watts quit, they could do a Jagger-Richards-Wood project, but there are no Stones without Charlie Watts.

>> the general feeling on this board/conventional "wisdom" ... <<

yeah, i am cognizant of that, Stoned in DC, but i'm not into it.
smile (i guess!): it might have been the same interviewer who asked Keith something that boiled down to
"which one of you is going to die first" and Keith told him to get stuffed - they'll all go off the edge of the Grand Canyon together.

The Sicilian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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


I have to disagree. Keith is the one that appreciate Charlie most I think. He knows his rythm depends on Charlie's swinging groove. No way Stones will continue without Charlie.

Regarding the thread title. So you think that Charlie being there from day 1 is not a Stone? Don't you mean would the other band members continue without Charlie.

If health reasons were to force a retirement, that would be another matter.

But I don't see anything else prompting a retirement from Charlie just yet.
He admits himself that, although he often finds the prospect enviting, when Keith asks him what he's going to do instead, he hasn't a clue.
I think that I might have an inkling of what sometimes goes on in Charlie's mind because I think I'm a bit like him in some respects. I never want to do ANYTHING... but once persuaded, I always enjoy it.
I reckon Charlie's like that. Which is why his threats of retirement have never amounted to a hill of beans.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-11-27 19:09 by Spud.

>> Charlie being there from day 1 <<

technically Charlie wasn't "there from day 1" - he was the last of the original Stones to join the band.
his first gig with them was january 1963. which (of course) has no (0) bearing on whether or not
the rest of the band would continue without him. but then, neither does anything else in this thread, so ...

so! ever ponder the quaint fact that by introducing them in reverse chronological order (according to when they joined)
Mick is also introducing his bandmates in reverse alphabetical order - or vice versa, as the case may be?
have some popcorn.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2006-11-27 23:37 by with sssoul.