I was watching the Stones / Eddie Vedder - Pearl Jam clip of them doing WILD HORSES in Pittsburg on that MYTUBE or whatever it's called site and the backstage part where Charlie meets Eddie Vedder.....Man, Charlie just looks SO fragile and old. I know he's been playing really well on this tour but that cancer situation just changes everything. I agree with Gazza on the Greatest Hits set lists and things like that. Going to cities they haven't hit before (maybe that's even why they did that very small show in China - it was Now or Never). The signs of the end are there. If Charlie can be talked into continuing this tour past the end of 2006 it might give The Band some more time but the guys gonna be 65 and it feels like the beginning of end to me. Wow, It's actually very sad...... I'm buying into this report, it makes sense - put the pieces together. WHEN THE MUSIC'S OVER, TURN OUT THE LIGHT.....

Gazza's ruminations, as ever, make a great deal of sense.

Consequently, I am still of the firm belief that the Bigger Bang tour should have been performed in arenas as a first stage through which the Stones could have began the process of engaging in a general de-mything, de-scaling and re-focussing of their approach to live shows, and in a manner similar to that by which Bob Dylan began to prepare for his later years.

However, their failure to engage in this process of evolvement makes the transition from an over-sized, over-priced, over-hyped stadium act, into that of a compact, flexible and travel-light combo (ala Dylan), become very difficult to accomplish.

It will not be easy.

drbryant Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Everyone should just CHILL about what Charlie
> might or might not have said. If you watch 25X5,
> he says that at the end of every tour he quits the
> band, because he doesn't like living out of
> suitcases and doesn't like being away from his
> wife and daughter. The quote in the Uptown
> Edition program is "I came off the road in 1972
> and said no fu**ing more!". So Charlie's been
> quitting the band for 35 years, give or take a
> year.


uh,. yeah but he didnt go on the 1989 tour at the age of 64 and following radiotherapy for throat cancer

Significant difference!

I think they should fold the band if Charlie quits, but they've already indicated they probably won't. I think if Charlie quits after this tour (and it seems 50/50 either way that he will) they'll get another drummer like Kenny Jones or Jim Keltner and go on. I don't think they should, but I think they will. Only six years until the 50th anniversary tour and the end of the band. See you all at the 50th anniversary tour in 2012!

ohnonotyouagain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Only six years until the
> 50th anniversary tour

a pipedream IMO

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ohnonotyouagain Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Only six years until the
> > 50th anniversary tour
>
> a pipedream IMO

Why? They already said they'd go on without Charlie, do you think if they lost Ronnie they would stop? Jagger will be fine for another six years unless there's a freak accident like he gets crushed by his wallet or something. I think Keith can hold out another six years; let's face it, all he has to do is stand there and pose, be "Keith Richards" and occasionally play some simple rhythm stuff or a Chuck Berry lick or two.

I'm not saying I would approve if the Stones were just Mick and Keith and Keith was barely playing, I'm just saying I think they'd do it in a heartbeat.

I don't think Watts dislikes the Stones music or their rock songs.He said a few months back that he would consider another studio album.He was pretty pro-ABB.

ohnonotyouagain Wrote:
> Why? They already said they'd go on without
> Charlie,

whether they would is another thing. (theyve also said at various times that they woudnt). The Stones are at a stage in their career thats unique from that faced by any other rock band, ie still recording and touring at a pensionable age and after a career together thats of an unprecedented length. Its as if they dont know how to end it naturally (and dont want to) but realise that what WILL end it is their own mortality or physical inability to do what theyve been doing.

do you think if they lost Ronnie they
> would stop? Jagger will be fine for another six
> years unless there's a freak accident like he gets
> crushed by his wallet or something. I think Keith
> can hold out another six years; let's face it, all
> he has to do is stand there and pose, be "Keith
> Richards" and occasionally play some simple rhythm
> stuff or a Chuck Berry lick or two.

Six years is a long time frame when youre in your 60's, there are four of you and all of the bandmembers have had health problems in recent years which could affect their ability to do this for much longer (in addition to Ronnie and Charlie's health issues, add Mick's throat problems at the end of the last tour and Keith's ongoing arthritis as well as the fact that his lifestyle will catch up on him sooner rather than later to the equation)

I just think that on the law of averages the way things have gone in the last couple of years, the likeilihood of this band all being both around and in a state to tour in 2012 is a tall order.

In all honesty, I'm not even sure that I'd want to see it. In theory, a 50th anniversary sounds wonderful. The practical side of it sounds somewhat less appealing.

>
> I'm not saying I would approve if the Stones were
> just Mick and Keith and Keith was barely playing,
> I'm just saying I think they'd do it in a
> heartbeat.


I dont, personally. And I honestly dont think Mick would lower himself to tour as "The Rolling Stones" if it was just himself, a Keith that was barely functioning and a bevy of hired hands.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-04-16 04:42 by Gazza.

> Let's say: we got lucky; because a man 64 years
> old, with cancer, who never liked RnR music and
> RnR life style ... stayed in this band for 43
> years!!

Charlie Watts
The man who provides the subtle groove behind arguably the world's most influential rock band.

The highway is for gamblers, better use your sense.
Strike another match, go start anew.

without charlie there is no rolling stones.
that there was a vital one after taylor is a miracle on top of miracles.
bill's exodus was a major major loss that is still not generally accepted;

the bass and drums in a band like the stones is so much of it...
i think there's a reason why charlie always seems to get the biggest
crowd love tour after tour decade after decade...when he's introduced...

yeh there might be a good cut or two that someone else played drums on...
amongst all their many dozens...

drummers who have the distinctive focus and power and looseness and tightness
of charlie are rare...

jesus...basically what we have here is a strip show; mick's quite entertaining and brilliant at lots of stuff...his whole body reflecting the drums, from his trunk and legs to his fingertips playing on the ending fills...into the empty air...
this is deep shit...in it's way...charlie puts a little fill or emphases on almost every phrase...he stops the hat for a quick 1/8 note to leave space for that holy snare...he kicks it in the ass every line; every phrase every song; and he's playing great... win win situation... the hell with the stadium shit; good for him...

HE knows that playing with bill is it's own thing. he knows it.

as far as the future, who knows for any one of us at any time...
i really liked the posts that looked on this as a postive development...
and talked about transitioning ala dylan... (tho dylan still tours his ass off...touring is touring tho...unless they do series of shows in certain towns over a period of time...ala springsteen in nyc and clapton at the hall...touring is touring tho; on the run; on the go; living out of your luggage re: of how many assistants...
regardless of whether it's twenty tractor trailers of bullshit rigging or one with amps and a few guitars....)

win-win; charlie is so great... loose goosey tight and taut...

behind the legendary status are a bunch of guys who really put out the biggest bang of all for so many many years...

mixed emotions reading all the health reports from this thread...
sad of course...but then again...still so vital...
if they end it they should end it... put out a great focused studio album if they really need to in their souls...we'd hear that for sure...

lester bangs commented that after elvis died we'd never ever be the same, as united as a people, all of us, ever again...that things would be different...
and they were...

i've gotten so use to always knowing, practically my entire life, that the stones were up to something fascinating...can't imagine the impact of the true end of the band...but feeling a little weird tonite with alla this.

the length, breadth, width and height of what the stones did, and are still to some extent doing...is an amazing gift...

go on to other projects if they need to... but the rolling stones cannot lose one more of the original remaining 3 and EVER really be the rolling stones again...

they will metamorphosize as players, writers, entertainers; ala dylan and hag and willie...(still on the bus boyz)... or fritter away...

meanwhile we have a new album...rj and lmds kill me...a great tour in 2003 and this time around too...

wow...good for charlie...the band needs some kind of shake up anyway...
(not losing charlie altogether, but adjusting around each other)
and in another way...this is scary and kinda sad...
really sad; charlie rocked my entire world again and again; and still does...
i have ya-ya's in the car stereo now...good jbl system...holy shit.

dare i suggest a focused, rehearsed tv performance with alla the alumni...
those still above ground. lots of creative ways for them to just knock us out again and again with televised concerts from charlies effin house if they want...or streamed live in great audio...they will roll on somehow in some form...
but no charlie in the stones is not an interesting band to me...
this is phenomenon of personality, chemistry and magic...
every major real band is... it can run with spare parts...
for awhile. don't we know.
but it ain't the same machine.

If it's true, good for him, knowing when to call it quits is smart.
Let them end in peace, nothing let to proove.

I pity the Stones that go on without him, I will not be watching or taking a part in it.......Charlie can NOT be replaced IMO!

exsquezzze me - charly needed a leak
ya - me too

Just wanna make sure I get my point of view stated.
Charly 's gonna bop till he drops

Charly - if you stop fighting it - you're gonna lose
If you stop it - the rest of your band will...

If you die (knockin' on wood for a long long life) please leave '*em thr power to do

what they have to do.
Keith would grieve 'bout you in songs we would listen to..
oh hell - I don't want you to go, - go on for ever.
Let me go - instead.

Lets not talk stupid if Charlie left that would be a huge loss Mick Taylor was a small loss that was replaced with someone alot better.

Quite Right - Lets not talk stupid^^

Charlie ain't left the band

anyone else get yerself some moaning whiners wine

Rickster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lets not talk stupid if Charlie left that would be
> a huge loss Mick Taylor was a small loss that was
> replaced with someone alot better.


yeah, please...let's not talk stupid...

Beelyboy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rickster Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Lets not talk stupid if Charlie left that would
> be
> > a huge loss Mick Taylor was a small loss that
> was
> > replaced with someone alot better.
>
>
> yeah, please...let's not talk stupid...

If we wouldn't talk stupid this whole damn topic wouldn't have been here in the first place.

that's a stupid thing to say

Beelyboy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> that's a stupid thing to say

No. DON'T YOU SEE THROUGH THIS STUPID TICKET-SALES BOOSTER BY MICK? It's so @#$%& obvious, they've always been intentionally leaking "rumours" like this.

dang; i DID think maybe barney saw the slow sales in NZ & hit the press with something/anything...

hey, let's roll on...why not replace charlie with macca's drummer?
that's right:
the whaling stones

Gazza, your post is objective and is an optimistic and fair leave with grace for The Stones ( including Charlie ). Hope you are right. But who knows with the guys. How will they feel after a year of touring. Get rid of all this or still rage to play.

if true this could be the best news for the band just because, even for smaller tours, "they (should) dramatically change the way they work".

That is Mick and Michael have to change perspective about their market and find a way to make money without the big numbers that big tours in big venues guarantee.

so maybe charlie with this move will force the band to shake things up in every sense (also creatively)
or quit
yes, that is the risk, but I wish they'll run it because after this tour they're going nowhere if they dont change things

You see it coming more in the slow sales of tickets than in the poor american sales of ABB

" Charlie will force the band to shake thing up in every sense " Good point. Back to roots as ABB is a step.
" Slow sales of Tickets" : true and sad. But true for some countries only. Major markets. Yes, Germany ( € 200) , holland and UK ( £ 150 ).
" MrCohl" I am sure he is a creative and clever businessmann. It's time for Mick, Keith and Charlie to get rid of him. With a nice $ transfer.

So, Who is NUI TE KOHA?

>> Who is NUI TE KOHA? <<

judging from what comes up when you google it: a New-Zealand-based journalist.


"What do you want - what?!"
- Keith

Happy Easter everyone!!! Just my two cents:

1) No Charlie, no Stones.
2) He said No more world tours. So what? There still will be room for tours like the 1978 American tour, which has been pretty good, innit? My hope on that is that they will not stick to North America, but will schedule european tours, alternatively.

"got to be worked on
don't have no bark nor bite..."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-04-16 17:38 by Wild Slivovitz.

I am not alarmed by this " revelation" becaue I've felt that Charlie has earned a long rest from tourng and I don't believe that this signals the end of the Rolling Stones. It will mean no more touring Japan, China, Australia and New Zealand and maybe even South America but they will no doubt organize Mini-tours in the USA and Canada and England and maybe even Paris and Amsterdam. Why do you think that they did a FREE concert in South America and why did they HAVE TO PLAY CHINA!? They knew then that it was the farewell to far away places. Living on the East Coast of America is NOT a bad place to be because they will no doubt still play Boston, New York and Philly, perhaps Montreal. Charlie has endured alot and has sacrificed his own comfort and health for a very long time; I tip my hat to him and thank him for 43 years and I hope I get the opportunity to thank him in person one day.

Wild Slivovitz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 2) He said "No more world tours"

Where did he do that?

"Keith begged him to do it. It took a lot of negotiation. Charlie agreed if Keith promised he would not ask him to do another world tour."

"got to be worked on
don't have no bark nor bite..."

Wild Slivovitz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Keith begged him to do it. It took a lot of
> negotiation. Charlie agreed if Keith promised he
> would not ask him to do another world tour."

And where did THAT come from?