if Bill Wyman had not quit the stones
if Charlie had quit the stones


Who should have replaced him?


MICK AVORY????????????????????

No one, Charlie is irreplaceable.

Ringo

If Charlie had left the Stones instead of Bill in the early 90s they of course had hired another drummer just like they hired Darryl. Charlie can be replaced, Ronnie can be replaced, Keith... no he cant. Mick of course can never be replaced. No Stones without Mick, like no smoke without fire.

But Charlie... yes he can be replaced by some copycat. THE WHO even replaced Keith Moon (hard to believe).

Probably Steve Jordan.
Keith worked with him and they swung great.

No Charlie Watts and the Stones simply put do not roll !

A talented drummer can easily copy Watts and they would roll like they used to.

Quote
HMS
If Charlie had left the Stones instead of Bill in the early 90s they of course had hired another drummer just like they hired Darryl. Charlie can be replaced, Ronnie can be replaced, Keith... no he cant. Mick of course can never be replaced. No Stones without Mick, like no smoke without fire.

But Charlie... yes he can be replaced by some copycat. THE WHO even replaced Keith Moon (hard to believe).

If you think like that even Keith could be replaced by some copycat. But you cannot replace his face/persona. The only one that cannot be replaced is Jagger. Ive heard zillions of RS coverbands, great Keiths, Charlies, Bills, Brians, Taylors, even Woods. Enough copycats out there. But Ive never heard anybody sing like Jagger. You cannot steal his vocal cords.

Quote
latebloomer
No one, Charlie is irreplaceable.

You're right, I totally agree.
No Stones without Charlie...

Why should Charlie be irreplaceable?
They replaced Brian, MT and Bill... so it shouldnt be a big problem to find a drummer who can play Watts-style.

Of course they would have replaced him. Steve Jordan and Jim Keltner are obvious choices, though I don't think that Keltner would do it.

Charlie isn't that good as a drummer (anymore). Don't get me wrong, I love the guy and I don't want any other drummer in the Stones, but he is easily replaceable. I think the reason why he is so popular amongst the fans is because of his personality and not because of his drumming. Charlie is a mix out of the quite Gentleman drummer and the loyal dog. That's what people love at him. Me too. But his drumming....I don't know. Since the early 90s his playing is subpar IMO. I can't hear any swing or groove anymore. He plays more static and robotic than ever unfortunately. Maybe that comes with age, I dunno. I even have a hard time to watch him playing. It looks uncomfortable and forced.

No Charlie, no Stones. Period. Nobody can copy Charlie Watts.

Quote
Koen
No Charlie, no Stones. Period. Nobody can copy Charlie Watts.

It makes no difference. he would of been replaced.

Maybe Woody would have brought in Kenney Jones, another simple but solid and tasteful drummer...

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

It is very hard to imagine the Stones without Charlie Watts, but I do not believe that Jagger or Richards would have retired just because Charlie Watts left the band. They might have asked Jim Keltner.

There was some silly rumours in the mid to late 80s about Terence Trent D'arby replacing Mick.

Quote
geordiestone
There was some silly rumours in the mid to late 80s about Terence Trent D'arby replacing Mick.

As long as they are not planning to replace somebody with Anohni.

They would have replaced Charlie as easily as they replaces Wyman. I have always thought Charlie is the weak link. They might have improved with the right person.

Everybody is 'replaceable.'
Steve Jordan or Kenny Jones comes to mind. Depending on when it happened. Right now they would probably just hire some young session man.
If something happened to Keith, Jagger would have kept them together -- Woods and Taylor as guitarists?
I actually think that even Jagger was replaceable, had he left to go solo for good in the '80s. Keith, Ronnie and Charlie would have found another singer and continued on, not playing stadiums that's for sure, but still playing and recording. Although if Mick had left Charlie might have retired, too.
Just as long as the guitar players ....

Fun to speculate, but kind of disrespectful too, I guess. Never mind.

To all of the people participating in the thread who either aren't musicians or haven't been in a band before:

Being in a band is many times (if not most of the time) not simply a case of having the correct musical ability. Most people around here have heard the phrase "being a good hang" tossed around. In addition to those to specific examples, there are also MANY intangibles which are added into the equation.

Now add to the fact that, in the case being discussed here, the Stones are not only a band but they're also "a brand". You've now just added in a bunch MORE intangibles into the equation.

The question "If Charlie had quit the Stones in the early 90's, who would have replaced him?" is actually a two part question, and the first answer would not be answered with a drummer's name. The drummer is the secondary issue. The primary issue/answer would be answered with the names "Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, Bill Wyman (since this whole exercise is assuming Bill had stayed) and (depending on whether he was given a vote) Ronnie Wood". If those 3-4 guys had decided that they could (and wanted to) continue without Charlie, THEN and only then would it be possible to start to answer the question with a drummer's name.

As I try to wrap my head around what I see as the 1st question, I can come up with reasons that all 3-4 of the primary Stones would have voted both for and against replacing Charlie. Ultimately my final thought comes in closer to the "they wouldn't have replaced him, it would have brought about the end of the Stones" as opposed to, "they would have called 'Steve Jordan' (or anyone else) and rolled on". I could be wrong...

Peace,
Mr DJA

Quote
wonderboy
Everybody is 'replaceable.'
Steve Jordan or Kenny Jones comes to mind. Depending on when it happened. Right now they would probably just hire some young session man.
If something happened to Keith, Jagger would have kept them together -- Woods and Taylor as guitarists?
I actually think that even Jagger was replaceable, had he left to go solo for good in the '80s. Keith, Ronnie and Charlie would have found another singer and continued on, not playing stadiums that's for sure, but still playing and recording. Although if Mick had left Charlie might have retired, too.
Just as long as the guitar players ....

Fun to speculate, but kind of disrespectful too, I guess. Never mind.

What about Wood and Taylors?

Quote
GasLightStreet

What about Wood and Taylors?

Or Richard or Richards!
...

How often do successful bands disband when a member leaves or dies? Not very often, I imagine. Zeppelin did, the Beatles split when Lennon lost interest. If Clapton is in your band and he leaves then you're done. Did Faces try to replace Ronnie and Rod?

Zeppelin lost a drummer once...only once

Quote
wonderboy

Quote
GasLightStreet

What about Wood and Taylors?

Or Richard or Richards!

That was Keith's own doing, not people who don't know how to spell Wood.

no one would or could 'replace' Charlie..

Quote
Koen
No Charlie, no Stones. Period. Nobody can copy Charlie Watts.

You can same exactly the same about Brian Jones and Bill Wyman. And yet, they were replaced.

Quote
franzk

Quote
Koen
No Charlie, no Stones. Period. Nobody can copy Charlie Watts.

You can same exactly the same about Brian Jones and Bill Wyman. And yet, they were replaced.

and it resulted in a different band in both cases, which everybody was happy with.

a very different scenario, imagining what Mick and Keith would have done if Charlie had retired, like Bill.

most likely they would have thought about a replacement...

auditioned a few drummers..

and then said f it, no Charlie, no Stones.

Charlie is as necessary to their music as Jagger's vocals and Keith's guitar.

In the early 90s when the money starts to get real BIG, they would never called it quits only just because Charlie leaving the band. "No Charlie, no Stones" vs "No Stones, no big money".

Why should it be impossible to copy Watt´s way of playing? It isnt that difficult for a skilled drummer, I think.

Quote
duke richardson
no one would or could 'replace' Charlie..

Which planet are you on?
They could replace Bill, though it was hard to accept.
Charlie could have been replaced without trouble.

I agree, as one poster stated, that Charlie's popularity are more because of his personality and because he is the odd man out in the group. He is a loyal person with a good sense of humor.

He was and is the perfect drummer for the band because that's what we are used to. Had he been replaced, it would have been the same scenario as with Bill: Some would accept it, others would not.

Even Ronnie could be replaced.

It's been the Jagger & Richards Show for decades.

Nah.

just wouldn't happen. The irreducible core, as Keith called it.

Arguable though, since they kept on after Brian, Mick T, and Bill...