Before the Rolling Stones announced tour dates, and before the news hit that Charlie Watts would undergo a medical procedure and not go on the tour, I assumed the Stones were through touring.
The drummer just turned 80. The 78 year old singer had heart surgery. One guitarist survived another bout with cancer and the other guitarist has been clinically dead since 1981.
And, we are in the middle of a pandemic.
Though I had no intention of buying a ticket, I was still thrilled when the Stones announced their dates. It filled me with hope.
Today, not so much.
Steve Jordan is not Charlie Watts. Jordan does have a distinct sound; so distinct it can potentially change the band's entire sound. Jordan is a fine producer and his drumming on Keith Richards' solo gem, "Talk Is Cheap" plays a huge part in making that record as fine as it is.
But it's not just about Steve Jordan.
It's really about not seeing, hearing or feeling Charlie Watts.
And, we are in the middle of a pandemic.
I know this will never happen no matter how many times I write it, say it, or scream it. The Rolling Stones need to unplug, both literally and figuratively. Give the road crew a severance package. Give Don Was a Norse funeral. Set up in a studio with some acoustic guitars and a harmonica, and create music just like they did 50 plus years ago.
This tour is mistake for a number of reasons. This band started to fatigue both physically and creatively years ago. They should go out with some class, not packing'em in nuts to butts during a pandemic without the heart and soul of their band.
22 comments:
Well said Sal.
Like old boxers climbing into the ring one too many times ...
Sad / strange / I don't know what.
Hello all…no, please remain seated,
Boy oh boy. I am really shaking my head over this decision. At this point, if I was in the mood to hear live Stones music I’d be better off going to hear a local tribute band and save about 4 pounds of cash (ed. note: the unit of weight, not the currency).
I’m a Stones lifer but, honestly, my patience was stretched thin years ago when I read Keith’s bio (ed. note: the writer has unrealistic expectations of his musical heroes) due to his lack of generosity to his creative partner. But, a money grab like this by the greatest rock ‘n roll yadda yadda is not just unseemly, it’s cringe worthy (ed note: the writer has clearly never prematurely spent a metric shit-ton of advance money before fulfilling his side of the bargain).
Remember years back when the Stones added Love Train by the O’Jays to their setlist? Well, the O’Jays also have a great song called For the Love of Money. Maybe Mick and Keith could do a trolling for the ages and add it to their new setlist. Or better yet…remember the old SNL bit about Elvis’s jacket where his glittery coat was onstage while his music played over a loudspeaker? The Stones could do a variation. Come see Mick’s stage outfit and, as an added bonus, Mick is still in it (ed. note: lame, I know, but I was over ruled).
I thought Chuck Leavell had more integrity.
Best…RichD
no charlie. no good.
The Rolling Stones are a brand, not a band. And that brand has all sorts of contracts to fulfill especially since the tour was postponed. The only way this tour would be postponed (again) or cancelled is if Mick and/or Keith were not able to perform.
As for the point Sal and others have made; all valid. Going to see the Stones now is not to experience life changing rock n roll. It's now like going to an amusement park; an overpriced joy ride.
Two words - Led Zeppelin.
Randy
Sigh. I bought tickets (it seems like 2 years ago) because one of my best friends has never seen them, and with the lucky dip option the tickets were only $24 ($41 including fees). It seems a bit unseemly now.
Makes you wonder what they would do if Ricahrds was unable to tour?!? Call back Harvey Mandel? I mean, if they are willing to tour without Watts, then my guess is all but Jagger would be deemed sacrosanct. I saw them with Taylor, and then with Woods - but always with Charlie and Wyman. Glad to say I would not see them now (and, IMHO) they lost a lot when Taylor left the band).
The show must go on, this time anyway, since tickets have been sold and hundreds of people on the crew are depending on it for their livelihood. (See the Who post-Entwistle.)
But without Charlie, it's not the Stones. If he can't play going forward, they should hang it up.
Nope.
Oh, and NO Jazz Fest has until Aug 9 to cancel the festival or they owe artists 50% of the contract even if its canceled after that date.
It would be interesting to hear what Mick, Keith and Charlie have to really say about this situation beyond what the contracts and lawyers are dictating.
Maybe Mick Taylor can be added to the line up to try to make it up to the fans.
Captain Al
Amen. Nothing to add. I love the Stones but the stadium tour of the same 18 songs was old long before Charlie had to opt out. They shouldn't do this. Period.
I'm in total agreement with your post. I've been saying that for years.
I am loath to shift gears from the bigger picture, but I need to say that what The Who have done since the death of Moon and Entwistle is much different to me. The Who were barely 15 years old when Keith died and Rog & Pete were not yet in their 60s when John died. Carrying on with Zak, probably the closest you'll get to Keith since he was a student of Moon, and Pino Palladino, hardly The Ox, but a terrific player nonetheless, brought out some amazing live performances in the last 20 years. Setlists changing, deep cuts, new songs. The Who tries! The Who deliverred.
The Stones have done little of worth since "Steel Wheels." YEAH, I know, "A Bigger Bang," blah blah. The "blues" album, blah blah. That blues album sounded more like a Cinderella album from the 80's than "Rolling Stones Now." They blew it. They are blowing it now.
Not sure if this belongs in the same thread but I was a little disturbed that days after Dusty Hill of ZZ Top died (days after he just performed with them) that the band returned to the state with his replacement.
And I guess the people attending weren't bothered. Much like those who will see the Stones Touring Band this Fall will care. As long as Keith bashes through Brown Sugar and Mick yelps through it all will be good
I guess the only consolation is that Charlie is expected to regain his health and hopefully participate in whatever the Stones have planned for their 60th next year.
I thought of Dusty Hill, too, but decided it was OK because they started the tour with him, he took what was apparently supposed to be a temporary medical break, and the temporary break turned permanent when he unexpectedly died; consequently, the team member temporarily filling in for him (long-time guitar tech for the band) will keep it up for the tour. I get that, but if they tour after this one without somehow adjusting something (the name?), it'll seem unseemly to me. But, on the other hand, it's not my decision and I'm not the creative one out there longing to play my music to fans, like Billy and Frank are. This last point is why I'm not too judgemental about the Stones, or any other artist who keeps going past their prime; I don't have the impulse they do to put their endeavors out there, so will not slag their efforts (even if they're just doing it for the dough; I'm a product of capitalist America, so I get that, too). Them showing up and sleepwalking thru 18 tunes would bore the shit outta me, but undoubtedly would thrill a lot of folks, including many who watched the last 18-song slog. I finally saw X a couple summers ago, and while I'd've loved for them to play stuff off Alphabetland (their recent return-to-form), I loved everything they did play because they stuck to those first four classic albums.
C in California
"...while I'd've loved for them to play stuff off Alphabetland (their recent return-to-form), I loved everything they did play because they stuck to those first four classic albums."
C-
It's all relative, no? "Alphabetland" was a great record. Would you have felt this eay on the "Hey Zeus" tour?
I understand the Stones basics--"Jumping Jack Flash," "Satisfaction," "Brown Sugar." Gotta do them. Even my boy Todd gave up resisting "Hello It's Me" years ago. But there are a lot of dinosaur acts out there, mixing it up, sounding great, and doing it all for a lot less money and arguably better than the Stones. I can't think of another act--artist/band--that has poisoned the well as much as the Stones. It just keeps getting worse.
Seen them live twice. First time 1965 (with Brian Jones) Second time 1972 (with Mick Taylor) I idolized the Rolling Stones back in the 60s-early 70s, but lost interest in them when Ron Wood was brought in. For me all the magic and class was gone after Wood joined. And I agree it's long past time they called it quits.
No, I wouldn't've been as happy seeing X tour behind Hey Zeus, and that was my point: I was happy to see X stick to their original, Billy Zoom-involved records when I saw them (tho I'd've liked to hear stuff off Alphabetland, since it's in line with those early records). I'm presuming that long-time Stones fans have seen them, so if the audience is all fresh faces wanting to see a legacy act do songs they've grown up on or discovered on their own, then let 'em. It wouldn't be my cuppa, clearly is not the cuppa for many posters here, but I could see folks who haven't seen them say, "Hey, I wannna see the Stones, and I wanna know every song they do!" Is it a shame that they're charging an arm and leg? Yes it is; I'm sure their traveling expenses don't justify the outlay. I haven't paid to see any mainstream act for decades because I can't justify the expense. But if the Stones want to go out and do their thing, and people want to pay to see it, I won't judge.
By the same token, I wouldn't pay anything to see, say, Billy Eilish, and for the same reason: The music doesn't interest me*, the cost interests me less. But yay for the folks who aren't restricted by my constraints.
* I love '68-'72 Stones and bits before and after, but couldn't hope that they could
perform what I love with the gifts they had in their prime.
C in California
Aw, CRAP.
I had considered the Atlanta date of this tour because:
a) I had a ticket to see them at JazzFest 2019 and yes, I was stoked; and yes, I was disappointed when they cancelled, but mostly so because I was sorry Mick was having health issues then
b) Life is short.
But yeah - with no Charlie, with high prices, with Covid, but perhaps most of all maybe - WITH ABOUT THE SAME DAMN SETLIST EVERY TOUR - I now have to pass.
Which pains me because, as I said, life is short. I regretted missing their Atlanta show 5-6 years ago when they played at Ga Tech, and I may be wistful about this one too after it's passed.
The Stones are a mega successful touring band and have stated on many occasions that they will continue be so while they're able. Charlie is eighty years old and needs time to recover, although reading between the lines I suspect this maybe the precursor to Charlie retiring. One can only imagine the financial commitments that has forced them to continue with this tour. Apart from anything else there are an army of people who are relying on this to go ahead so they can start earning again.
People will turn up in their ten's of thousands and go home happy.
We purists will complain about the stuff they didn't play, but so what, we're not the point of this.
They are the Rolling Stones! See em' while you can
I understand you Sal as we've argued about this for years. The last show I saw 2006(actually two within 48 hours at MSG)they really did nail it.... sitting in the third row also made me realize I would never see them again unless I could actually see their eyes up close. What I'm going to miss most about Charlie is he knew how to end a song as keith and wood would " weave" aimlessly.. if you watch them on YouTube and turn the speed up to 1.25 they do play faster. I don't think it's been playing live that bothers me...if they were Jazz musicians or old blues men I would love to see them ina club but that's not going to happen... I see the last venue on the tour holds a hundred fifty thousand. all the fools who worship The Dead with John Mayer fall into another idiotic category entirely as that band died when Jerry died.
Post a Comment