Charlie Watts
-
@mn5 agree to disagree
Not sure on what basis but if you say so.
If anything the Stones would not be the Stones without Mick or Keith but then again everyone is potentially replaceable. Best example I can think of is Brian Johnson taking over from Bon Scott in AC/DC.
I still saw Deep Purple live in 2006 even though my favourite member left years before then.
-
Charlie Watts: the calm, brilliant eye of the Rolling Stones’ rock’n’roll storm
Unruffled amid excess, personality clashes and musical disputes, the Rolling Stones’ exceptional drummer used technique to deepen the meaning and power of their songs
-
Shit way to start the day learning of Charlie's passing. I knew he'd had to pull out of the Stones upcoming tour but had no idea he was seriously ill
I'm guessing they will continue with their never ending Classic Gold money making tours but it won't be the Stones without Charlie.
Yeah it will. They’ve functioned without Brian Jones, Bill Wyman and Mick Taylor for fucken ages. Watts was no more important than any of them.
Some bands crash and burn when a member dies ( Zep and the Doors come to mind ) but many others flourish and keep on going.
Keith Richards after Bill Wyman told the Stones he was leaving. "It's not a problem. It's not like Charlie quit."
They will have a younger understudy who will have copied his style. Charlie had a cancer a couple of decades ago so they will have done gigs without before and prepared a bit for this.
But this a massive moment for the Stones. Charlie was an absolute rock for them on stage, off stage and in the recording studio. Thoughts with the rest of the band and his friends and family.
-
Shit way to start the day learning of Charlie's passing. I knew he'd had to pull out of the Stones upcoming tour but had no idea he was seriously ill
I'm guessing they will continue with their never ending Classic Gold money making tours but it won't be the Stones without Charlie.
Yeah it will. They’ve functioned without Brian Jones, Bill Wyman and Mick Taylor for fucken ages. Watts was no more important than any of them.
Some bands crash and burn when a member dies ( Zep and the Doors come to mind ) but many others flourish and keep on going.
Keith Richards after Bill Wyman told the Stones he was leaving. "It's not a problem. It's not like Charlie quit."
They will have a younger understudy who will have copied his style. Charlie had a cancer a couple of decades ago so they will have done gigs without before and prepared a bit for this.
But this a massive moment for the Stones. Charlie was an absolute rock for them on stage, off stage and in the recording studio. Thoughts with the rest of the band and his friends and family.
Well if you read anything Richards says about other musos it’s usually pretty harsh ( he’s had a go at Zep, Sabbath, Metallica and Hip Hop in general ) and he comes across as a really bitter fluffybunny, for him to say that doesn’t surprise me given he was probably pissed off that Wyman had had enough, I read something saying he had to quit for his own sanity cos if he had to play the riff for “I can’t get no satisfaction” one more time he’d be ready to kill someone ( I’d rate Wyman and Watts pretty equally in terms of their standings in the echelon of rock )
Watts gets massive kudos for longevity but to imply he’s an irreplaceable genius is absolutely ridiculous. Any bog standard session drummer could play for the Stones and no one would be the wiser.
-
Shit way to start the day learning of Charlie's passing. I knew he'd had to pull out of the Stones upcoming tour but had no idea he was seriously ill
I'm guessing they will continue with their never ending Classic Gold money making tours but it won't be the Stones without Charlie.
Yeah it will. They’ve functioned without Brian Jones, Bill Wyman and Mick Taylor for fucken ages. Watts was no more important than any of them.
Some bands crash and burn when a member dies ( Zep and the Doors come to mind ) but many others flourish and keep on going.
Keith Richards after Bill Wyman told the Stones he was leaving. "It's not a problem. It's not like Charlie quit."
They will have a younger understudy who will have copied his style. Charlie had a cancer a couple of decades ago so they will have done gigs without before and prepared a bit for this.
But this a massive moment for the Stones. Charlie was an absolute rock for them on stage, off stage and in the recording studio. Thoughts with the rest of the band and his friends and family.
Well if you read anything Richards says about other musos it’s usually pretty harsh ( he’s had a go at Zep, Sabbath, Metallica and Hip Hop in general ) and he comes across as a really bitter fluffybunny, for him to say that doesn’t surprise me given he was probably pissed off that Wyman had had enough, I read something saying he had to quit for his own sanity cos if he had to play the riff for “I can’t get no satisfaction” one more time he’d be ready to kill someone ( I’d rate Wyman and Watts pretty equally in terms of their standings in the echelon of rock )
Watts gets massive kudos for longevity but to imply he’s an irreplaceable genius is absolutely ridiculous. Any bog standard session drummer could play for the Stones and no one would be the wiser.
Not many other drummers could claim that Keith Friggin Richards told them to lay off the drugs.
Or that they don't like rock music but drum for the Stones.
Nah not bog standard, that was a very tight rhythm unit. -
@mn5 Always good to hear your point of view mate, but I'll take Keith's on this one. From memory in his book, he was pretty clear that Watts was the only drummer in London that they wanted for the Stones.
Perhaps more for the writing / recording as opposed to the live playing - honestly can't remember. Richard's book wasn't that memorable honestly.
-
@majorrage said in RIP 2021:
@mn5 Always good to hear your point of view mate, but I'll take Keith's on this one. From memory in his book, he was pretty clear that Watts was the only drummer in London that they wanted for the Stones.
Perhaps more for the writing / recording as opposed to the live playing - honestly can't remember. Richard's book wasn't that memorable honestly.
Well just my opinion of course and obviously I have no idea how they felt about him as a person but to me from what I’ve seen Mick and Keef are the real stars, the rest are/were what was available at the time to serve a purpose, from that era drummers like Ginger Baker, John Bonham, Keith Moon, Ian Paice, Bill Ward etc were far more flashy and memorable.
I guess I just see Watts as being “right place, right time” and of course nothing I say will detract from the fact he was in one of the biggest groups of all time for nearly 60 years.
-
@nostrildamus said in RIP 2021:
Shit way to start the day learning of Charlie's passing. I knew he'd had to pull out of the Stones upcoming tour but had no idea he was seriously ill
I'm guessing they will continue with their never ending Classic Gold money making tours but it won't be the Stones without Charlie.
Yeah it will. They’ve functioned without Brian Jones, Bill Wyman and Mick Taylor for fucken ages. Watts was no more important than any of them.
Some bands crash and burn when a member dies ( Zep and the Doors come to mind ) but many others flourish and keep on going.
Keith Richards after Bill Wyman told the Stones he was leaving. "It's not a problem. It's not like Charlie quit."
They will have a younger understudy who will have copied his style. Charlie had a cancer a couple of decades ago so they will have done gigs without before and prepared a bit for this.
But this a massive moment for the Stones. Charlie was an absolute rock for them on stage, off stage and in the recording studio. Thoughts with the rest of the band and his friends and family.
Well if you read anything Richards says about other musos it’s usually pretty harsh ( he’s had a go at Zep, Sabbath, Metallica and Hip Hop in general ) and he comes across as a really bitter fluffybunny, for him to say that doesn’t surprise me given he was probably pissed off that Wyman had had enough, I read something saying he had to quit for his own sanity cos if he had to play the riff for “I can’t get no satisfaction” one more time he’d be ready to kill someone ( I’d rate Wyman and Watts pretty equally in terms of their standings in the echelon of rock )
Watts gets massive kudos for longevity but to imply he’s an irreplaceable genius is absolutely ridiculous. Any bog standard session drummer could play for the Stones and no one would be the wiser.
Not many other drummers could claim that Keith Friggin Richards told them to lay off the drugs.
Or that they don't like rock music but drum for the Stones.
Nah not bog standard, that was a very tight rhythm unit.Behind the scenes stuff, I’m referring to getting someone to drum for them live if their tour goes ahead.
-
-
Well just my opinion of course and obviously I have no idea how they felt about him as a person but to me from what I’ve seen Mick and Keef are the real stars, the rest are/were what was available at the time to serve a purpose, from that era drummers like Ginger Baker, John Bonham, Keith Moon, Ian Paice, Bill Ward etc were far more flashy and memorable.
There are flashy technical drummers and there are those who compose the drum parts to serve the song first and foremost and play perfectly for the song - and do it perfectly for years. They often don't need a huge drum kit and can sound simple and uncomplicated, but the drumming is often really, really difficult to play.
Charlie Watts was one of those, others are drummers like Steve Gadd, Ringo, D J Fontana, Jim Keltner etc.
-
@victor-meldrew said in RIP 2021:
Well just my opinion of course and obviously I have no idea how they felt about him as a person but to me from what I’ve seen Mick and Keef are the real stars, the rest are/were what was available at the time to serve a purpose, from that era drummers like Ginger Baker, John Bonham, Keith Moon, Ian Paice, Bill Ward etc were far more flashy and memorable.
There are flashy technical drummers and there are those who compose the drum parts to serve the song first and foremost and play perfectly for the song - and do it perfectly for years. They often don't need a huge drum kit and can sound simple and uncomplicated, but the drumming is often really, really difficult to play.
Charlie Watts was one of those, others are drummers like Steve Gadd, Ringo, D J Fontana, Jim Keltner etc.
You’re certainly not saying anything that’s untrue ( and the drummers I mentioned would be far to aggressive for the Stones so wouldn’t work ) but my initial point was he’s not irreplaceable just like the others who’ve left before him or passed away.
Anyway, RIP Charlie.
-
-
@victor-meldrew said in RIP 2021:
but my initial point was he’s not irreplaceable just like the others who’ve left before him or passed away.
The graveyard is full of indispensable drummers....
Bonham was a big guy but he didn’t take up that much space
-
@victor-meldrew said in RIP 2021:
but my initial point was he’s not irreplaceable just like the others who’ve left before him or passed away.
The graveyard is full of indispensable drummers....
Bonham was a big guy but he didn’t take up that much space
…..and I’m glad Zep retired when they did cos their close, inferior contemporaries Purple and Sabbath ( both of whom I love, Zep were just better that’s all ) churned out loads of albums when they were past their best.
-
@mn5 said in Charlie Watts:
Bonham was a big guy but he didn’t take up that much space
I thought Zepp had 2 drummers called Bonham - sounded like that at times...
-
@victor-meldrew said in Charlie Watts:
@mn5 said in Charlie Watts:
Bonham was a big guy but he didn’t take up that much space
I thought Zepp had 2 drummers called Bonham - sounded like that at times...
I put him in the overrated/underrated thread with Ian Paice from Deep Purple ( although I think Zep are a better band ).
I mean, he was an absolute powerhouse but to me he wasn’t that much ( if any ) better than some others.
