Rolling Stones

They really need to hang it up. They were already a joke without Bill Wyman, but now, without Charlie? Call it a career guys, you are making fools of yourselves.
 
I have to disagree with you Gary, I say all the power to them, they still pack their venues, people still want to see and hear their music of all ages . And they have new music coming out again. MCartney still going strong without Ringo, George and John. Why? because they can..
 
Norm, in my opinion, they have always sounded awful without BIll, no matter who was trying to fill his shoes. I can't even imagine how bad they will be without Charlie, who was another singular talent and so important to not just the sound but the feel of the band. And I haven't heard anything they have put out in at least 30 years that was worth a second listen.

Big dfference here is that McCartney and Starr didn't try to continue as The Beatles - they went and did their own things, because it would have been a facsimile without all four of them. When John Bonham died so did Led Zeppelin - they knew Bonzo was irreplaceable and did the honorable thing.

I've lost so much respect for the Stones for not knowing when enough is enough.
 
You are entitled to your opinion, I like the Stones, Take a look at Bon Jovi, he's still going without Ritchie Sambora. I don't feel the need to give up a band if they lose some members. I think sometimes, maybe we get set in our ways, we are used to seeing something a certain way and we just can't see it in another . Nothing wrong with that eithier, its personal choice..
 
I have an alternate view. While I have always acknowledged what the Stones brought to Rock. Have enjoyed many of their songs. I’ve never been a fan. Never bought an album. Same with Zeppelin. What can I say. I’m an outlier.
 
Session 5 said:
You are entitled to your opinion, I like the Stones, Take a look at Bon Jovi, he's still going without Ritchie Sambora. I don't feel the need to give up a band if they lose some members. I think sometimes, maybe we get set in our ways, we are used to seeing something a certain way and we just can't see it in another . Nothing wrong with that eithier, its personal choice..
Click to expand...

I think the issue I have is not in the seeing but in the hearing. TBH, for me personally the Stones were never really that good after Mick Taylor left, but the core of the band was there, which included Wyman and Watts. My ears, not my eyes, told me it wasn't working without both of those guys and so I stopped paying attention.

As far as Bon Jovi, I don't think the sound of the band suffered without Sambora - he's just not that identifiable or vituosic a player - but the songwriting certainly did. He was too important to creating those huge hits, maybe moreso than Bon Jovi himself.

Either way, let's be honest here. Both the Stones and Bon Jovi, along with a long list of others, exist on the nostalgia circuit. Only extreme die hards care about any of their newer releases and the vast majority just want to hear the "hits" and pretent they are young again for a night. These guys are clearly not part of the future of rock music, no matter how big their contributions in the past.
 
The Rolling Stones' Keith Richards has confirmed the band will continue to make more albums until they "drop", and admitted there is "plenty more stuff left over" from their recent number one 'Hackney Diamonds'
 
I'll give my own alternate take on the Stones: as a long time fan of them, it's impossible to deny the quality of the music has dropped since probably at least Some Girls. Fact is, the Golden Age was Beggar's Banquet until Some Girls, with Mick Taylor being the biggest factor in that span despite not being on Beggar's Banquet and leaving following It's Only Rock N Roll.

The Stones had shifted into their degenerate and raunchy attitude right before Brian Jones's death, almost deliberately wanting to be the counter-Beatles and everything they represented. They had all but shaken their blues roots and steamed ahead into a down and dirty rock n roll band with a hardening edge to their sound. Even when Mick Taylor left, they kept that ball rolling with Ronnie Wood for Black and Blue and Some Girls but the cracks in that sound were starting even then. Chalk it up to Keith's sobriety from Heroin and ongoing charges for possession or even Mick Jagger's desire to be more Hollywood and his want to dabble into solo work: something had shifted heavily by the time of Emotional Rescue. With Tattoo You, that was the last grasp of a decent Stones album until Voodoo Lounge because the band was in turmoil, nearly broken up and Bill Wyman had exited right after Steel Wheels ( who was a massive loss)


But all that being said, the Stones in my opinion elevated themselves from being just rock icons into the rarest example of a rock institution. What they represent these days is longevity and an idea that somewhere, somehow: Rock N Roll can never really die. It might get stale, it might get stagnate but eventually it'll always come around and it'll keep going on infinitely. That is basically a description of The Stones themselves and they're career. Some of their music released in the last 20 years has actually been really good, such as "Don't Stop", "Doom and Gloom" "Rough Justice" "Angry". But are they spitting out hits left and right? No, but they are indeed 60 years in, so that gives them something of a pass or at least consideration.

However on the topic of going on without key personnel i.e Bill Wyman and Charlie? I personally don't like it, just as AC/DC has continued without Malcolm Young but, in fairness too, there are still key players left at the table that contributed to the music on a major level of importance. If it had become a deal like Lynyrd Skynyrd have become since the mid-2000s where you were down to one guy and now, NO original members? Then that's a whole lot different and a despicable cash grab in name-only. Foreigner is another band currently guilty of this
 
Clockworkmike said:
However on the topic of going on without key personnel i.e Bill Wyman and Charlie? I personally don't like it, just as AC/DC has continued without Malcolm Young but, in fairness too, there are still key players left at the table that contributed to the music on a major level of importance. If it had become a deal like Lynyrd Skynyrd have become since the mid-2000s where you were down to one guy and now, NO original members? Then that's a whole lot different and a despicable cash grab in name-only. Foreigner is another band currently guilty of this
Click to expand...
Rush would be an example. When Neil passed away, Rush died with him. It's a decision by Alex and Geddy I support 100%. It could never be Rush without Neil...... or had it been one of the other guys that had passed.
 
Long live the Stones, I believe they will be the longest playing band of all time. Lets face it for guys to be at their age Ronnie 76, Keith to be 80 in a few weeks and Mick at 80 and be still touring together is incredible 61 years! Still with 3 of the remaining members, counts. And still considered a band IMHO

Imagine before the death of Charlie they have toured and been together 60 years! unheard of. To be able to hold onto their base and still being able to gain ground, is incredible! Staying power is very very rare and these guys have done it, and still doing it.
 
Session 5 said:
Long live the Stones, I believe they will be the longest playing band of all time. Lets face it for guys to be at their age Ronnie 76, Keith to be 80 in a few weeks and Mick at 80 and be still touring together is incredible 61 years! Still with 3 of the remaining members, counts. And still considered a band IMHO

Imagine before the death of Charlie they have toured and been together 60 years! unheard of. To be able to hold onto their base and still being able to gain ground, is incredible! Staying power is very very rare and these guys have done it, and still doing it.
Click to expand...
I’m guessing they finally got their Satisfaction. :dood:
 
iblive said:
Rush would be an example. When Neil passed away, Rush died with him. It's a decision by Alex and Geddy I support 100%. It could never be Rush without Neil...... or had it been one of the other guys that had passed.
Click to expand...
Yeah and Geddy just recently mentioned the possibility of going forward without Neil. That is just wrong to me. Neil was the chief songwriter and helped make them what they are today. When it's someone THAT important or in cases like this as well, where you have a power trio with that length of time behind them together? Just fold the band out of respect. I say this towards ZZ Top as well.

In a band like The Stones? I guess as long as you have the Glimmer Twins and Ronnie, it's still the Stones at heart no matter what. Though it is a tad disrespectful to Charlie and his years of devotion. Kind of on the fence with this one despite still being a fan
 
Clockworkmike said:
Yeah and Geddy just recently mentioned the possibility of going forward without Neil. That is just wrong to me. Neil was the chief songwriter and helped make them what they are today. When it's someone THAT important or in cases like this as well, where you have a power trio with that length of time behind them together? Just fold the band out of respect. I say this towards ZZ Top as well.

In a band like The Stones? I guess as long as you have the Glimmer Twins and Ronnie, it's still the Stones at heart no matter what. Though it is a tad disrespectful to Charlie and his years of devotion. Kind of on the fence with this one despite still being a fan
Click to expand...
My Two cents.

Some band members can be replaced and the band continues on. Is it the same? Probably not…. But mostly it works. REO replaced Richrath. The WHO replaced both Moon and Entwhistle…. Although after John died, they probably should have hung it up. Thayer replaced Ace. It’s a long list.

But with Rush….. and I mean no disrespect to Alex or Geddy….. Those two are amazing guitar players. But without Neil, Rush is just another really good rock band. Sell a bunch of albums. Sell lots of concert tickets. But in my mind. Either one could have been replaced on instruments. Not sure how you’d find someone’s voice to replace Geddy. It is pretty distinctive. You just can’t replace Neil. Not just because he wrote most of the music, but what he did on percussion was not human. I’ve listened to a lot of Rock drummers and there’s a bunch that are incredible…. But I’ve yet to really catch someone that equals Neil. He didn’t just set the beat. He made music.
 
Clockworkmike said:
Yeah and Geddy just recently mentioned the possibility of going forward without Neil. That is just wrong to me. Neil was the chief songwriter and helped make them what they are today. When it's someone THAT important or in cases like this as well, where you have a power trio with that length of time behind them together? Just fold the band out of respect. I say this towards ZZ Top as well.

In a band like The Stones? I guess as long as you have the Glimmer Twins and Ronnie, it's still the Stones at heart no matter what. Though it is a tad disrespectful to Charlie and his years of devotion. Kind of on the fence with this one despite still being a fan
Click to expand...


Not disrespectful to Charlie at all.

As Richards now reveals, Watts personally anointed the band’s new drummer, Steve Jordan, to be his replacement in the event he could no longer perform
 
The thing I like about what Charlie did, was he thought of his other band members. The guys were his family, he probably new them better than his own immediate family. While he was ill, he was thinking of them as well, and its obvious he wanted the band to continue on without him.

What a selfless act, on his part. R.I.P Charlie Watts and thankyou for all those great moments in History!
 
The thought just came mind ...what if Zeppelin replaced Bonham, and carried on? Would that have been a good thing? What if AC/DC had just folded after Bon? Could the Doors have replaced Morrison? Nirvana Cobain?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top