FUCK!!! Charlie Watts quits The Stones

[Mr Walker]

EXCLUSIVE: Charlie Watts Quits The Rolling Stones | undercover.com.au, Music, News, Entertainment (http://undercover.com.au/News-Story.aspx?id=9154_EXCLUSIVE:_Charlie_Watts_Quits_ The_Rolling_Stones)

EXCLUSIVE: Charlie Watts Quits The Rolling Stones

by Paul Cashmere - September 2 2009
photo by Ros O'Gorman

Undercover has learned that Charlie Watts has quit The Rolling Stones.

A source within the Stones inner-circle says, “Charlie Watts has quit the band. He will never record or tour with the band again”.

The news does not come as a surprise. It was common knowledge that Keith Richards had to talk Charlie into contributing to the A Bigger Bang tour but this time it seems there is no calling Charlie back to active duty.

“The Stones are looking to Keith's Expensive Winos drummer Charlie Drayton to fill the void in all future Stones' callings,” our source says.

With Mick Jagger planning more Stones activity next year, the departure of Charlie will be a huge blow to the band. Charlie was the backbone of the band.

The 68-year old drummer simply doesn't want to do it anymore.

Charlie joined the Rolling Stones in January, 1963. He didn’t expect it would last. In fact, he kept his day job for several months until the band started to feel like a career.

Charlie’s decision to quit the band comes a three years short of the Stones 50th anniversary.

The Stones A Bigger Bang tour ran from August 2005 to August 2007. It was the highest tour of all-time.

[Mr Walker]

Oops... wait a second... not so fast...

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Rolling Stones drummer Charlie Watts has not quit the band, a spokeswoman said on Wednesday, denying a news report from Australia.

The report, from the normally credible online outlet Undercover (http://www.undercover.com.au), stirred up a worldwide panic among fans, since Watts' departure would likely mean the end of the venerable group.

"Contrary to a fabricated story that ran this morning on a small music web site in Australia, drummer Charlie Watts has not left The Rolling Stones," spokeswoman Fran Curtis said in an emailed statement.

The Undercover report, attributed to "a source within the Stones inner-circle says," said Watts will never record or tour with the band again. It said the Stones were looking to replace him with New York session drummer Charlie Drayton, who has played on solo projects with Stones guitarist Keith Richards.

The Rolling Stones, which Watts joined in 1963 after a stint in the advertising world, have not released a new album since 2005's poor-selling "A Bigger Bang." Their last tour ended in London in August 2007. Future plans are unknown.

Watts, 68, does not contribute to the songwriting, but his spare, jazz-influenced drumming style is considered key to the band's success. He is closely involved in the design of the band's stage sets and merchandising, and gets the loudest cheers when the four members are introduced in concert.

He was diagnosed with throat cancer in 2004, but it went into remission, and the band embarked on a three-year world tour the following year. During the 1980s, the famously clean-living drummer fought a drug addiction at a time when the band had essentially broken up.

Watts has traditionally been the most reluctant to tour, since he hates to leave his wife and Arabian horses at the couple's horse-breeding farm in Devonshire. The media-shy grandfather generally avoids the spotlight, and seems disdainful of the rock 'n' roll lifestyle.

"Worked five years, and 20 years hangin' around," he glumly told a TV reporter while on tour during the 1980s.

Watts' eccentricities are part of the band's legend, such as tales that he owns a huge vintage-car collection but not a driver license, and allows horses to wander through the house. He also has a darker side, once punching Mick Jagger almost unconscious after the singer referred to him as "my drummer."

[kwame k]

Fuck! I was freaking out there until I read the last post. No Charlie, No Stones, IMHO.

[Mr Walker]

No Charlie, No Stones, IMHO.

From what I understand, Keith always felt the same way.

[indeedido]

At 68 it wouldn't have surprised me, but I agree no Charlie no Stones.

[Va Beach VH Fan]

Yawn.....

Over-rated !!! [ Clap - Clap - Clap Clap Clap ]
Over-rated !!! [ Clap - Clap - Clap Clap Clap ]
Over-rated !!! [ Clap - Clap - Clap Clap Clap ]

[VanHalener]

Nearly 50 years. Too bad! That would have been a hell of a milestone no matter how you feel about the Rolling Stones.
I can live without a great deal of their work, but I take my hat off to them for a good long run and a bunch of their killer jams I really love.

[Mr Walker]

Latest news from Keith... nothing about Charlie...

Keith Richards on Recording With Jack White, New Rolling Stones LP : Rolling Stone : Rock and Roll Daily (http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2009/09/02/keith-richards-on-recording-with-jack-white-new-rolling-stones-lp/)

Keith Richards on Recording With Jack White, New Rolling Stones LP

9/2/09, 1:40 pm EST

If Keith Richards has his way, the Rolling Stones will start working on a new record next year. “I’m trying to gather the boys together,” he tells Rolling Stone. “One way or another, I’ll get them back in line.” In the meantime, the guitarist recently recorded songs with Jack White. “I enjoy working with Jack,” Richards says. “We’ve done a couple of tracks.”

Might White produce the Stones record? “I couldn’t fuel that rumor any more than to say Jack and I are in touch,” says Richards. Meanwhile, Mick Jagger and Richards are sorting through outtakes from 1972’s Exile on Main Street for a forthcoming deluxe edition of the LP. “There’s new songs on there, stuff we’ve forgotten about,” Richards says. “Mick and I were looking at each other like, ‘Ah, did we do that?’ ”

Finally, Keith is still working on his long-awaited autobiography. “I’m working on it with James Fox,” he says. “I’m trying to remember things, which is very difficult.”

[Va Beach VH Fan]

Nearly 50 years. Too bad! That would have been a hell of a milestone no matter how you feel about the Rolling Stones.
I can live without a great deal of their work, but I take my hat off to them for a good long run and a bunch of their killer jams I really love.

Of course, give 'em a nice golf clap for longevity....

I just have never seen how, musically, they're automatically vaunted onto the Stratosphere of Rock and Roll....

That's like the people who want a certain player in the Hall of Fame because he lasted so long....

[VanHalener]

Of course, give 'em a nice golf clap for longevity....

I just have never seen how, musically, they're automatically vaunted onto the Stratosphere of Rock and Roll....

That's like the people who want a certain player in the Hall of Fame because he lasted so long....


I can dig what you're saying. Personally, the Stones don't make my top ten list of favorite bands and if you don't make that list I could most likey live without it.

There was a long spell of overplaying The Stones in this area by a certain radio station who made sure every third song, it seemed, was The Stones. Made me sick of hearing anything by them for a while. The DJ would hang up on me when I would call in and ask, "Which one of you is queer for The Stones? Can you give it a rest already?"

[chefcraig]

Of course, give 'em a nice golf clap for longevity....

I just have never seen how, musically, they're automatically vaunted onto the Stratosphere of Rock and Roll....

That's like the people who want a certain player in the Hall of Fame because he lasted so long....

With you and I being so close in age, that commentary really comes as a surprise. No, I 'd never say that they are/were the greatest musicians in the world, but come on...it's a proven fact that sometimes the dumbest farmers can grow the biggest potatoes, and these guys sure as hell came up with a crap-load of good tunes. I'm not including some of those sappy, radio-play seeking singles, but roughly twenty or more classic songs.

Are they beyond their prime? Absolutely, and to tell you the truth I thought they should have called it a day when Bill Wyman split. There is nothing more sad than seeing someone play out the string in their twilight years, be they an actor, musician or athlete. Seeing Johnny Unitas in a San Diego Chargers uniform or Joe Namath barely able to walk wearing a Rams uni is beyond depressing. And watching a seemingly two hundred year old Lucille Ball attempting slapstick comedy in her final sitcom was downright painful to watch.

The point is that although these codgers are well beyond their glory days, I do not see how they could not be considered amongst the "Stratosphere of Rock and Roll". For a while there, these guys were huge, and we are talking upon a global scale. And the idea that they are no longer currently relevant musically to all but a group of die hards does not change this.

[Va Beach VH Fan]

Yeah, but even back in the '70's, I watched Ron and Keith up there with their incredibly mediocre guitar playing, and am just dumbfounded....

[Mr. Vengeance]

Keith has always said"As long as I've got Charlie". I can't see him doing a Stones tour without him, but it's nice to know this is bullshit.

[twonabomber]

Steve Jordan was the Wino's drummer...i think Drayton played bass.

[GreenBayLA]

Well this gets the award for roller coaster thread of the year, albeit a short ride. I wouldn't be too surprised to see Watts hang it up, but what if they got Ringo to replace him?! ;)

[Panamark]

If the Stones hooked up a Drum machine and Charlie just
sat still on his little Drummers stool, would any of us be none
the wiser ??

[Panamark]

Man 68... He's actually older than my Dad !
Surely the Stones wont keep going in their 70's ??

[GAR]

A source within the Stones inner-circle says, “Charlie Watts has quit the band. He will never record or tour with the band again”.

ho. lee. crap!

[Mr Walker]

Man 68... He's actually older than my Dad !
Surely the Stones wont keep going in their 70's ??

Les Paul played until he dropped dead at 94... why shouldn't the Stones keep going.

[VanHalener]

Les Paul played until he dropped dead at 94... why shouldn't the Stones keep going.

I can see Jagger up there on stage moving around and singing behind his walker at age 85:lookie:.

[chefcraig]

Steve Jordan was the Wino's drummer...i think Drayton played bass. Jordan and Drayton would switch instruments from time to time, much to Kieth's befuddlement.

[Anonymous]

Les Paul played until he dropped dead at 94... why shouldn't the Stones keep going.

John Lee Hooker too. Died on a tuesday or wednesday. The sunday before that he'd given a show, and was already scheduled for next saturday. Didn't make it, but hey...

Praise be Mr. J. L. H.... gave us some of the best blues ever.

Cheers! :bottle:

[Panamark]

Les Paul played until he dropped dead at 94... why shouldn't the Stones keep going.


Because Brian Jones, Bill Wyman and Charlie Watts are all gone...
So its gonna be like Kiss, except much older, Gene and Paul + (Insert whoever here)
Oops Keith and Mick + (Insert whoever here)

Les Paul was a clean livin man....
Aint no way Im reachin 94 ! lol.......

[Panamark]

Hey Im all for old Rockers to keep rockin, but when more than one
core member hangs it up.... well its not really the same anymore..
I have no doubt Mick and Keef could do another last tour...
(Man they must be sick of playing satisfaction by now !)

[Anonymous]

What, you mean they can't get no satisfaction from playing Satis...

My Gawd, what a lame joke! I can't believe I actually wrote that! Disregard this post, please.

Nothing to see here, please move along.

Cheers! :bottle:

[Terry]

Kind of hard to even care if this rumor is true one way or the other.

The band haven't put out anything that resembled a passable full-length album to me since Tattoo You. Finally got to see them on the Steel Wheels tour, and in spite of the huge production (without a doubt the biggest production I've ever seen at a rock concert) and playing nearly three hours, it wasn't particularly groundbreaking outside of the amount of revenue the tour made. More of a spectacle along the lines of, say, going to Disneyland.

The band just comes across as one that continues to tour simply because they can. They're in a position to just keep churning out stadium shows, playing the predictable hits and making a loot. Good for them. Honestly, they should have hung it up in 1989...or possibly even 1982. While they created what I consider some of the best music rock has ever offered back in the day, that was a quarter-century or more ago.

It's like, oh, thank god Watts didn't quit! Now they can reach their 50 year milestone!! Problem is that milestone is meaningless if they've spent the latter half of that time coasting to get to it. What will they do to mark that half-century of existing? Undertake another stadium tour. Boring.

[Kristy]

Steve Jordan was the Wino's drummer...i think Drayton played bass.

Jordan was also Keith's songwriting partner on both of his solo albums.

I always liked Charlie Watts playing style. No frills, no elaborate drum kits, no elongated drum solos, just a guy who kept time (and kept it well) for a millionaire junkie and his businessman sidekick. There is a saying that a band is as only as good as their drummer and that truly applied to Watts because the Stones would be nowhere near the juggernaut they are without him.

[Mr. Vengeance]

Chuck Berry continues to play and tour a little bit. He mostly plays some bar in St. Louis, I believe. As cranky and old bastard as he is. I caught him about 5 years ago at Casino Rama. Pretty good.

I think the Stones have had some good albums since Tattoo You, by the way. Undercover, Voodoo Lounge and Bigger Bang all had a lot of good stuff on them.

I mean, Stones albums are like blowjobs...even if they're mediocre, they're still pretty good.

[Terry]

Chuck Berry continues to play and tour a little bit. He mostly plays some bar in St. Louis, I believe. As cranky and old bastard as he is. I caught him about 5 years ago at Casino Rama. Pretty good.

I think the Stones have had some good albums since Tattoo You, by the way. Undercover, Voodoo Lounge and Bigger Bang all had a lot of good stuff on them.

I mean, Stones albums are like blowjobs...even if they're mediocre, they're still pretty good.

They've managed to come up with a few decent tracks for each subsequent-Tattoo You release, but each album also had more and more filler.

I suppose it's just the excellence of their work up until about 1980 that makes the last few decades somewhat disheartening; I'd never deny their greatness back in the day. What they've evolved into isn't a band that generates much enthusiasm from me as a listener anymore.

[Panamark]

Tattoo you was their last hurrah in my opinion too..
Having trouble recalling any real hits since "Start me up"
Wasnt there one where they realized they had actually
plaguerized it (A KD Lang song ??) constant cravings?
and had to give her/him/it songwriting credits..
Cant even remember what the song was called, just
that they ripped it off ...

The Stones classics are like the Beatles classics, nothing
goes close. But fook me, they are the masters of milking it..
No doubt....

[Sucker of Satan's Penis]

After that Maharishi madness I coulda had 'em for a song, but I was too busy gambling on the camel races back in 68 and kinda regret it.

[twonabomber]

Wasnt there one where they realized they had actually
plaguerized it (A KD Lang song ??) constant cravings?
and had to give her/him/it songwriting credits..
Cant even remember what the song was called, just
that they ripped it off ...


it's Anybody Seen My Baby.

they rip themselves off, too. Voodoo Lounge's Love Is Strong sounds a lot like Keith's solo track Wicked As It Seems.

[Satan]

There's only one guy other than Charlie Watts who is qualified to play drums for the Rolling Stones. Because he actually did, and on some of their best songs. And that would be Jimmy Miller, the band's producer during the Mick Taylor era.

But seeing as he's been here in Hell for several years now, he's no longer available. Steve Jordan (or Charley Drayton for that matter) are decent enough drummers, but that wouldn't be the Stones. It would be the X-pensive Winos, featuring Mick Jagger.

And Keith is on record as saying that if Mick or Charlie ever left the Stones, it would be OVER.

[Mr. Vengeance]

Tattoo you was their last hurrah in my opinion too..
Having trouble recalling any real hits since "Start me up"
Wasnt there one where they realized they had actually
plaguerized it (A KD Lang song ??) constant cravings?
and had to give her/him/it songwriting credits..
Cant even remember what the song was called, just
that they ripped it off ...

The Stones classics are like the Beatles classics, nothing
goes close. But fook me, they are the masters of milking it..
No doubt....

They've had songs that got airplay, but in terms of charting, not a lot. The nature of music has changed a lot since Tattoo You. Back then, ROCK MUSIC actually made up the charts. Now it's all hip hop, R&B bullshit. Undercover, Harlem Shuffle, She Was Hot, One Hit to the Body, Love is Strong and some others all got some decent airplay though.

[Panamark]

Thanks Mr V, I can also recall "just another night" getting some air...
Maybe we can add to your list. One Hit and Undercover are the only ones I would
consider outside their safezone, not bad tracks, but nothing like "Its only Rock'n'roll"
or "Colours"
From that list one hit to the body was a good track....
But pales in comparison to the earlier stuff..
Best stones song I heard since Tatto you was
Keef's " Shouldnt take it so hard" that was cool.....

[Mr. Vengeance]

Here's a list of Stones singles and where they charted in the UK and U.S. As you can see, the last 20 years have been pretty lean for them, especially in the U.S.

Fucking teeny boppers and their shitty music.

The Rolling Stones: Complete Singles Chart Entries [US & UK, 1963-2006] (http://www.beatzenith.com/the_rolling_stones/rsingleslist.htm)

[The Elfoid_TFS]

What puzzles me is why exactly do people expect The Rolling Stones to put out an all time classic album ever again? The Stones at their best is predictable, reliable, just like AC/DC. When they went adrift in the mid 70s (and until the late 1980s when things began to return to form to an extent) it was breaking that formula which was the problem. I'd say they returned to it with A Bigger Bang at least with a modern but simple production, minimal outside players, greater involvement from Mick and Keith on the same album (it tended to alternate for the previous two decades), and less Ronnie Wood than usual. That aside, the album was basic, ordinary, predictable Stones with only a few little changes...quite why people seem happy to see AC/DC keep pumping out the same record but not The Rolling Stones I don't know. I can only assume that it's so long since they were that kind of band, who can be relied on to keep on sounding like themselves with little other influences, no one realises that's one of the best things about their early albums.

Oh, and despite Live Licks really not being remotely special (the Keith heavy mix, stupid track listing, and hideous editing among other things being key flaws), Shine A Light should restore anyone's faith in the band. Exciting set list, fantastic mix, incredible playing, the best quality audio on any Stones record ever...and I'm counting studio records there. The energy's just very high. And it does surprise you too, because some of the songs they play are pretty obscure. The Stones' backing band is subdued enough not to dominate as it does on some albums, but still adds to the sound. I'd strongly recommend anyone even vaguely into the Stones to check it out because it appears a lot of you have so little faith in the band now that you probably just hear new studio albums....both the album and DVD of Shine are worthy.

[chefcraig]

Shine A Light is a professionally filmed and recorded approximation of the Rolling Stones, one that has little if any basis in history. It is like a hazy lensed portrait of an aging film star, covering up the blemishes to the point of absurdity. And throwing in a pair of Keith Richards sung tunes hardly is digging into obscure territory, with a set list built otherwise on warhorses beaten to death on previous tours.

The truth is, this "band" became an all-encompassing corporation sometime in the early eighties, and has been soldiering on ever since by using a reputation garnered in the late sixties and early seventies. At that time (well before Ron Wood even entered the picture), the Stones were an excitingly dangerous, unpredictable live group, guilty of excess and in some cases defining it for generations to follow. Find a copy of the magnificent Live'R Than You'll Ever Be bootleg from 1969 for proof. Raw, non-overdubbed, smokin' music throughout. In fact, it was this boot that forced Decca Records to release Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out! in the first place, and the "official" release is lame in comparison.

While I'd agree that A Bigger Bang was a step in the right direction, it was waaay too long and padded out for the digital age with filler. It's as if the band over-extended themselves, going for quantity rather than quality. And it features the same problem that has plagued every Stones album since Undercover in 1983: It is an unfocused, seemingly haphazardly compiled collection of tunes, rather than a coherent album. Considering that the band has only managed to put out 5 albums since Undercover (a period of 26 years), how could a lack of focus even be a problem?

[Satan]

And it features the same problem that has plagued every Stones album since Undercover in 1983: It is an unfocused, seemingly haphazardly compiled collection of tunes, rather than a coherent album.

The irony that Tattoo You, which actually WAS a haphazardly compiled collection of tunes - recorded from 1970 to 1980, no less - seemed like more of a coherent album than Undercover, is a most unholy irony, isn't it?

[chefcraig]

The irony that Tattoo You, which actually WAS a haphazardly compiled collection of tunes - recorded from 1970 to 1980, no less - seemed like more of a coherent album than Undercover, is a most unholy irony, isn't it?

No kidding, ain't that a kick in the head?

[Mr. Vengeance]

The irony that Tattoo You, which actually WAS a haphazardly compiled collection of tunes - recorded from 1970 to 1980, no less - seemed like more of a coherent album than Undercover, is a most unholy irony, isn't it?

I was going to say the exact same thing in reply to the guy who complained that the Stones faltered in the late 70's and returned to form in the 80's...

[Nitro Express]

Jordan was also Keith's songwriting partner on both of his solo albums.

I always liked Charlie Watts playing style. No frills, no elaborate drum kits, no elongated drum solos, just a guy who kept time (and kept it well) for a millionaire junkie and his businessman sidekick. There is a saying that a band is as only as good as their drummer and that truly applied to Watts because the Stones would be nowhere near the juggernaut they are without him.

Your spot on. Charlie would do some interesting fills here and there. I too liked his drumming style. The audience rarely pays attention to the drummer but if you are in the band on stage, you are pinned to him. The drummer is the keystone of the band. He keeps the order.

[Nitro Express]

I can remember a bunch of us in high school paying dearly for Tattoo You tickets saying we better see The Stones. This might be their last tour. LOL! That was almost 30 fucking years ago.

[The Elfoid_TFS]

2 interesting questions for you chefcraig: opinions of the solo work by all members of the Stones? I've heard a few of Keith's songs and been impressed, a few of Mick's and not been. But if you can direct me to any albums to go for, I will.....I know the Stones very, very well and I'm quite an expert on them but their solo careers I don't know much about, so I'd appreciate that.

Secondly, the four songs on "Forty Licks". Opinion? Given your big complain about the other albums is too much filler, if you'd put those 4 into an EP what would you think of them? I think "Keys To Your Love" is nothing special, but the other 3 are better than a lot of stuff that ended up on the last few albums.


Shine A Light is a professionally filmed and recorded approximation of the Rolling Stones, one that has little if any basis in history. It is like a hazy lensed portrait of an aging film star, covering up the blemishes to the point of absurdity.

I wasn't saying it was a perfect or accurate portrayal of their live set. Just a showcase that The Rolling Stones are capable of making their music sound incredible still, they just haven't written such good songs lately. Even if it had so many edits in it (as you seem to think it did) that it no longer holds the value of a "live" record, it's still The Rolling Stones sounding fantastic. That's why I compared it with studio records - I tend to see no reason to discount audio quality on a live album given how much mopping up gets done to them.


And throwing in a pair of Keith Richards sung tunes hardly is digging into obscure territory, with a set list built otherwise on warhorses beaten to death on previous tours.

I know you, and everyone else, hates my lists. But a list is in order here.
* "She Was Hot" - first time ever played on 2006 tour
* "Loving Cup" - since 1972, only played on the 2002-3 tour before the 2005-6 one
* "As Tears Go By" - first time ever played on 2005 tour
* "Far Aways Eyes" - never, ever a set list regular
* Just My Imagination" - never, ever a set list regular. Closest it came was being played at 1 in 3 of the 34 dates of the "No Security" tour
* "Champagne & Reefer" never been a song the band's done, since the old, old times
* "You've Got The Silver" only previously heard on the brief No Security Tour before2005
* "Connection" last heard in 1995, never been a concert staple
* "Little T&A" hadn't been in a Stones setlist since 1981. Keith had done it solo on tours in '88 and '92.
* "Shine A Light" hadn't been in set lists since 1998

Given the album's 24 songs, having a whole 10 of them being fairly unusual's not bad going given how many hits the band has.

A corporate beast though the band may be, I think the only guy who has changed in that way really is Mick. Ronnie's still the kid living the dream who seems genuinely enthusiastic at all times, Keith's...Keith, and Charlie's always been a bit distant from the rest and stuck around because it's suited him so far.


It was this boot that forced Decca Records to release Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out! in the first place, and the "official" release is lame in comparison.

Despite my incredibly high opinion of Shine A Light, which I think showcases a seasoned and professional band still at very nearly the top of their game, you're right that far more people need to check that bootleg out. It's incredible. The only reason people are disappointed in what The Rolling Stones are doing now is because their past was so much more ridiculously glorious. Kinda like how Michael Jackson "only" selling 12 million copies of Invincible was deemed a huge failure.


While I'd agree that A Bigger Bang was a step in the right direction, it was waaay too long and padded out for the digital age with filler. It's as if the band over-extended themselves, going for quantity rather than quality.

Why is it they do that do you think? Given that Jagger's openly said the band make albums to promote tours - to provide them with new songs to play and get them crawling into the lower reaches of the singles charts (two trips into the UK top 20 in the 00s, and two in the 90s) to get people checking them out again. You'd think a short album would do, given they aren't trying to shift units and it'd be far more cost effective for their purpose. They gotta shift 2.5 million copies to break even, which is roughly what ABB did - 3.5 million sold Wikipedia's saying, I know mid-tour it was about the 2.4 mark so that sounds reasonable.

Side note, Exile is a longer album. Sure doesn't feel it though does it?

I think what ABB did right was it had Jagger/Richards songs again in the true sense of it. Nice added bonus being the Keith songs, but the ones with Mick's dominance stamped all over them are the main extra they could eliminate. That's the main flaw really - Keith writes a brand of old fashioned music that differs from the Stones but sits alongside it. Even when Mick hits the nail on the head, Mick Jagger music is distinctively more inclined to rip-off whatever's contemporary.

[twonabomber]

they played Imagination on the Tattoo You tour, it's in Let's Spend The Night Together and on Still Life. i haven't searched setlists from that tour but i find it hard to believe they only did it for the movie/live record.

coulda sworn i've seen 'em do Little T&A since '89 too, can't remember for sure though.

as for the solo stuff...a reviewer once said that Jagger "was up studio musician creek without a paddle" but i can't remember what disc he was referring to, maybe Primitive Cool. i don't mind Wandering Spirit. She's The Boss sounds very dated.

[chefcraig]

2 interesting questions for you chefcraig: opinions of the solo work by all members of the Stones? I've heard a few of Keith's songs and been impressed, a few of Mick's and not been. But if you can direct me to any albums to go for, I will.....I know the Stones very, very well and I'm quite an expert on them but their solo careers I don't know much about, so I'd appreciate that.

This is going to come out of left field, yet in my opinion, the most interesting solo albums from the Stones were the two early Bill Wyman releases (Monkey Grip and Stone Alone). By no means am I recommending that you purchase them, yet they are worth hearing. And his early eighties album Stuff is better than all of Jagger's solo albums, combined.


Secondly, the four songs on "Forty Licks". Opinion? Given your big complain about the other albums is too much filler, if you'd put those 4 into an EP what would you think of them? I think "Keys To Your Love" is nothing special, but the other 3 are better than a lot of stuff that ended up on the last few albums.

Those tracks truly deserved better than being dumped onto yet another compilation, and your idea of an EP would have been an outstanding concept. They simply didn't seem to flow with the hits, and don't forget that several of the tracks on 40 Licks were edited to make everything fit. By putting these songs out separately, the chopping wouldn't have been necessary. Taken on their own, these tunes would have been a perfect starting point for the next Stones record.


Given the album's 24 songs, having a whole 10 of them being fairly unusual's not bad going given how many hits the band has.

That's just it: I wore out the grooves of my vinyl playing those very songs, and they were played to death on the radio here in the States when they came out. So for me (and a great number of older fans) the tunes were anything but obscure.


A corporate beast though the band may be, I think the only guy who has changed in that way really is Mick. Ronnie's still the kid living the dream who seems genuinely enthusiastic at all times, Keith's...Keith, and Charlie's always been a bit distant from the rest and stuck around because it's suited him so far.

To tell you the truth, I believe that Mick's character has only become compounded over the years. There has always been a great degree of calculation in every move he makes, be it a song, fashion or following the money (which is a combination of the two). The role was forced upon him while Richards was in a fog for a good part of the seventies, and hasn't changed.



Why is it they do that do you think? Given that Jagger's openly said the band make albums to promote tours - to provide them with new songs to play and get them crawling into the lower reaches of the singles charts (two trips into the UK top 20 in the 00s, and two in the 90s) to get people checking them out again. You'd think a short album would do...

I dunno either, man. I agree, a shorter concept would be far superior to merely fleshing things out, or worse yet, diminishing the few sparks of creativity by diluting it.


Side note, Exile is a longer album. Sure doesn't feel it though does it?

I think it is because you had the option of playing a side at a time on the original release, so you'd never have to sift through the entire thing at one sitting.


I think what ABB did right was it had Jagger/Richards songs again in the true sense of it. Nice added bonus being the Keith songs, but the ones with Mick's dominance stamped all over them are the main extra they could eliminate. That's the main flaw really - Keith writes a brand of old fashioned music that differs from the Stones but sits alongside it. Even when Mick hits the nail on the head, Mick Jagger music is distinctively more inclined to rip-off whatever's contemporary.

The way Jagger incorporates whatever is hip at the moment has it's pros and cons. For instance, infusing disco rhythms into Stones songs definitely pissed off many fans back in the seventies, which is kinda funny when you realize how "4 on the floor, straight rock" those rhythms actually were. Sometimes it works, but these days it's becoming a far less common occurrence. And in places, it's pretty embarrassing. MTV used to have a show on in the afternoons, right after school let out. It was called Total Request Live, and was aimed at teenagers. Jagger appeared on it, promoting his last solo album, and boy, was it an uncomfortable thing to witness. Most of the audience was obviously befuddled, wondering who the old geezer in the suit was that was being treated reverentially by the host.

[Kristy]

Your spot on. Charlie would do some interesting fills here and there. I too liked his drumming style. The audience rarely pays attention to the drummer but if you are in the band on stage, you are pinned to him. The drummer is the keystone of the band. He keeps the order.

I always admired Charlie Watt's attitude. When asked a question he would simply reply with the standard "I play drums for Mick and Keith. Yep, pretty much what I do."

And now here's my top Watt's drumming favorites

1. Cherry Oh Baby (pretty much all he did on Black & Blue)
2. Ain't Too Proud To Beg
3. Almost Hear You Sigh (probably my all-time fav Stones tune)
4. Get Off Of My Cloud
5. Beast Of Burden
6. Can't You Hear Me Knocking?
7. Empty Heart
8. Gunface
9. If You Can't Rock Me
10. Loving Cup

[Mr. Vengeance]

If anyone wants to buy Stones solo albums, and hasn't heard them (how's that possible?) I'd suggest both of Keith's, "Talk is Cheap" and "Main Offender". Mick's Wandering Spirit is the best of his. I really recommend Ronnie Wood's "I've got my Own Album to Do" (might as well be a stones album with all the Stones making appearances) and "Gimme Some Neck". I have Bill's "Monkey Grip" but I wouldn't recommend it. I never cared for it.

[Kristy]

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61NYEZGZxCL._SL600_.jpg

My dad who was a huge Stones fan used to play that album. I quite like it, actually.

[Mr. Vengeance]

Here's a tune from Ronnie's Gimme Some Neck- Killer!

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4FWbut9rVY0&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4FWbut9rVY0&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[damngoodtimes]

the Keef songs have been the best things on the last few albums. the two from Voodoo Lounge (The Worst, Thru and Thru), might be my two favorite Stones songs since Tattoo You.

of the Mick stuff, I did like Saint of Me from Bridges and a few others

You Got Me Rocking was a modest hit and I still hear it on the classic rock radio. actually, that's probably the only track after TY that has made it into the classic rock rotation.

[damngoodtimes]

that, and you also hear Rock and a Hard Place from SW sometimes

[Kristy]

My all-time fav Keef song apart from 'Happy' is 'Sleep Tonight' off of Dirty Work. Odd, considering how deplorable that album was.

[FORD]

Woody's first two solo albums, recorded during his "transition" phase when he was playing with both the Faces and the Stones, were probably his best solo work. And because of the times, members of both bands are all over those albums.

Slide on This was a decent record as well. Gimme Some Neck is in desperate need of a remaster though. The CD sounds like a 10 year old cassette.

As for Mick's solo albums, you can't go wrong with Wandering Spirit. The others have their moments, but that's the only one I can actually listen to all the way through without skipping tracks.

And it's a crime that "Lonely at the Top" ended up on a half-assed Jagger solo album when the song had been around since 1977........

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6yPt_tseFTQ&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6yPt_tseFTQ&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>