Didn't they consider continuing without Charlie when he was diagnosed with cancer in 2004? At least in the studio, with Mick playing drums.

its all a question of timing, like when charlie left the band. if brian hadnt left and had continued the way he was in the mid 60,s but charlie left in the late 60,s then im sure the stones would have rolled on with ease having replaced him.

the stones have only ever really had one replacement in their history.

5 official members, one leaving then replaced, represents one position replaced and even though that position was replaced again 5 years later, it was only one position within the band, then bill left but officially wasnt replaced.

so the stones survived one position within the band being replaced, and in my opinion couldnt survive 2. so charlie cant be replaced now, keith and mick deffo never, but ronnie could using my theory.

To most non-fans, Mick Jagger is the Rolling Stones.

To the slightly more interested onlooker. Mick & Keith are the Rolling Stones.

To many "old school" fans, Mick, Keith & Charlie are all required for the band to be the Rolling Stones.

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).

I always agree with HMS, but not this time. Another CR? Not possible.