| September 13th, 2005 07:26 AM |
|
|
| Too Tough |
I bought the Rolling Stone cover story as soon as I saw it. One of the things that struck me (and many others apparently) was Keith's comments about going on without the current line-up. I expected him to sort of handle in by skirting the issue, but I'll give it to Keith, even though it took me for a bit of a loop, he took it head on. And now there's this new thing with Charlie.
I think we gotta respet it. Even though I can't conceive of a Stones without Mr. Watts (or who could possibly fill his spot), I think that Keith has learned, after Brian, Mick Taylor and of course Bill, not to say that the Stones can't go on without "this line-up" (whatever line-up that may be). Because when bands say that, they almost always, with EXTREMELY rare exception, end up eating their words.
Keith's comments are unsettling, though we clearly don't have to worry about Charlie's health (listen to his playing on Rough Justice-he's got the fire of 20-year old) and Ronnie has made his intentions clear about how he plans to keep on truckin' and rockin' and rollin' witht he Stones, Keith has enough respect to say "yeah, we'd have to evaluate the situation" (that's the basisc concept).
Look at Pete Townsend. Every Who tour since the eighties has been the "last tour". You can complain about Stones tickect prices (I don't blame ya), but their not selling tickets under false premises, e.i. this is the last time you'll every get to see us live, HURRY UP AND BUY A TICKET, NO MATTER WHAT THE PRICE! The "last Stones tour" has always been the assumtions and intimations of others (okay, a few times Mick intimated, but very indirectly and not since the seventies). Back to Townsend, I know I'm picking on him but he makes himself an easy target by all his talking out of the both sides of his mouth. So give it up to Keith for taking the subject heads-on and pulling no punches.
Should we expect anything less from Mr. Rock 'N Roll?? |
| September 13th, 2005 07:44 AM |
|
|
| FotiniD |
I'm not sure about the validity of Keith's comments on Charlie. I'll believe it when I see it printed on a whole article, to read the actual context, instead of three lines reproduced by contactmusic or whatever.
However, I can't even come to imagine how the Stones would continue without Charlie Watts. Brian Jones was asked to leave the band while he was still alive, and they were very early on in their career, so that was a whole different case. Mick Taylor never made it to *being* actually a Rolling Stone, in spite of his wonderful musical contribution. Bill Wyman is a whole different case too.
But, how can you ever replace Charlie in the Rolling Stones? Can you think of any other drummer who can fit in his shoes, musically, to start with? Anyone who can provide this distinctive beat that is giving the Stones sound this different edge? I don't think so.
And forget that, forget the music part. If you are Keith Richards and Mick Jagger, can you picture yourself going out on the road at age 60-something as the "Stones" without Watts behind you? Can you so easily forget the guy who was there from the very start and just roll on for the sake of, what, even more $$$? Pathetic.
Thank God, we can all have this as a purely theoretical discussion, but if they were to do something in the likes of that, I have to say I would think twice (and three times!) before buying another ticket or album or anything Stones related for that matter.
I do believe they wouldn't do it, and I want to believe that Keith's words were misinterpreted. |
| September 13th, 2005 09:43 AM |
|
|
| exile |
yeah tough one....
I mean around Voodoo, Bill left voluntarily. Bill didn't do much really anyway. great bass player but didn't move much. not his style.
Charlie in way seems like so much more a original member than bill was in a way. I know that sounds weird. but Bill never seemed like a stone to me. he seemed more like their travelling historian who played bass for them.
every time bill opened his mouth he sounded like a wanker in a way. not to be mean to him. watch 25X5 and see what I mean (every word bill says he comes off like a wanker)
Charlie on the other hand has always been very, classy, funny, completely disinterested in the rolling stones which is half the charm.
I love Mick and Keith and if Charlie left or died (which thank god did not happen (does a quick sign of the cross)) to be honest I bet I would still go see them or buy an album. But it wouldn't be the same. I can guarantee that.
God Bless Charlie Watts !
by the way I'm a little drunk, sorry if I ramble on (great Led zeppelin track)
|
| September 13th, 2005 09:51 AM |
|
|
| FotiniD |
quote:
exile wrote:
Charlie on the other hand has always been very, classy, funny, completely disinterested in the rolling stones which is half the charm.
I love Mick and Keith and if Charlie left or died (which thank god did not happen (does a quick sign of the cross)) to be honest I bet I would still go see them or buy an album. But it wouldn't be the same. I can guarantee that.
Agree with you on all you say about Charlie, but I still think (can't swear, you know how these things are) pretty surely I wouldn't be able to go to another gig without him there. It just wouldn't be the same.
As Ian pointed on the other related thread, what's next? That the Stones can be the Stones without Mick Jagger? This is just nonsense. I hope that if indeed Keith said all that (and in the context they seem to have been said) he comes back to his senses quick. He's no 15 year old and I can't explain the meaning in all of this. |
| September 13th, 2005 10:24 AM |
|
|
| exile |
quote:
FotiniD wrote:
Agree with you on all you say about Charlie, but I still think (can't swear, you know how these things are) pretty surely I wouldn't be able to go to another gig without him there. It just wouldn't be the same.
yeah I know....and i said it was a tough one for ME as well.Im STILL not sure
If it was just the Mick and keith show. ....yeh its a tough one. if they came rto town yes i probably would go.
Anyway (does another sign of the cross) thank god Charle is ok. i always liked charles comment on 25X5
"Charle Whats it like playing with the stones for 25 years" (this was old footage)
" Well its work innit .I mean what have we done today? Nothing! 20 years hangin' around 5 years playing"
classic Charle, all class.  |
| September 14th, 2005 12:58 AM |
|
|
| prism |
Keith does not want Charlie to feel he ended the Stones. If Charlie gets sick in the future Keith will want Charlie to know the Stones will carry on. |
| September 14th, 2005 06:07 AM |
|
|
| padre |
Without Charlie there is no ROLLING Stones. Without Charlie they're just Stones, he makes the band roll. |
| September 14th, 2005 11:26 AM |
|
|
| 69 Chevy |
During the introductions Charlie always gets the loudest applause! |
| September 14th, 2005 11:29 AM |
|
|
| Saint Sway |
quote:
padre wrote:
Without Charlie there is no ROLLING Stones. Without Charlie they're just Stones, he makes the band roll.
word.
they can carry on without him if they want. But dont dare call it The Rolling Stones if Charlie Watts isnt in the band. Sacrilige. |
| September 14th, 2005 11:55 AM |
|
|
| BILL PERKS |
WHEN CHARLIE'S GONE,I'M GONE...THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT.THEY CAN FORM JAGGER RICHARDS LEAVELL AND CLIFFORD.MATT CAN PLAY BASS & DRUMS ON HIS SYNTHESIZER. |
|
