# What Would Happen to the Stones if...



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

So I'm sitting here listening to the Stone's _Get Your Ya-Ya's Out_, thinking what an awesome recording this is and what an awesome band they used to be, and still can be under the right circumstances (See: Scorcese's _Shine a Light_ - Do *not* See: SARSfest), when I got to thinking about all the different Stones who have come and gone, and yet the band is still going strong.

Here's my question: How many more original Stones can go before the band is no longer the Stones?

For the purposes of this survey, Ronnie Wood is a jonny-come-lately and doesn't count.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

I thought I read Charlie's retiring, tho that could have been a rumour.

Mick and Keef will soldier on, and it will be the Rolling Stones.

Yuck. I prefer to remember them from around the era you referenced, up to Some Girls, with the occasional good song since but not imho any great albums (OK, I have a soft spot for Emotional Rescue end to end, please forgive my insanity (which it almost certainly is)). Certainly would never pay to see them, in concert or on film, now or any time in the past 20 years.


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

hollowbody said:


> For the purposes of this survey, Ronnie Wood is a jonny-come-lately and doesn't count.


Ronnie Wood has been a Rolling Stone for almost as long as I've been alive. I think omitting him is a bad call. I can't imagine they would continue as the Stones, if another member left the band.


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

Not a good call about Ronnie. He's been a full partner in the band since I am guessing 84 of 85. I JUST finished a biography of Keef and they talk about it in there. Keef and Ronnie are connected at the hip. Keef went and visited Ron at his house and never left for 3 months. 

As much a druggie Keef has been labeled it's amazing that he had a huge work ethic. He work hard and long on some projects. Often finishing up the album.


----------



## six-string (Oct 7, 2009)

Charlie Watts IS the Rolling Stones and has that in writing.
his contract states that no other principle drummer can perform either live or on recordings under the moniker, "The Rolling Stones".


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

I have seen the Stones at least 4 times and nobody gets more applause during introductions than Charlie Watts. People love him. He is probably the most basic time keeper I have ever witnessed, but that's his job in the band. And yes, Ronnie Wood has to be considered a member at this point.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

Well at least you didn't ask the same thing about GnR--as I've seen around somewhere.

It's a fair question though, as to which members of a band give the band that essential quality that it is still that band.

Some bands go too far.

For me, the Who stopped being the Who when Moon died.
And even moreso when Entwhistle died.

Zep stopped being Zep when Bonzo died.

As for the Stones?
I think you need Mick & Keith, I think you need Charlie, but even without Wyman it hasn't been the same.
And if you dumped Ronnie--you'd have to bring back Mick Taylor.


But it's been a long time since I cared about the Stones current music.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

Regarding Ronnie, yes, I realize how long his tenure has been, and how close he and Keef are in what Keef calls "the ancient art of weaving," but considering he was a replacement for a replacement, I opted to leave him out.


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

hollowbody said:


> Regarding Ronnie, yes, I realize how long his tenure has been, and how close he and Keef are in what Keef calls "the ancient art of weaving," but considering he was a replacement for a replacement, I opted to leave him out.


But there are no real rules as so many of the bands were destined to fall apart. A replacement for a replacement yes but Taylor's drug use was the issue ( I think he pulled a no show too ). Keith may have been high but he held it together fairly well (generally). I think that Ronnie's personality mixes well with the band as well as musically.


----------



## Jimmypaz (Sep 15, 2009)

Keith is on record saying that he will be a Stone as long as Charlie wants to carry on, but if Watts quits, that's it. 
Personally, I still miss Jonesy.


----------



## Gene Machine (Sep 22, 2007)

shoretyus said:


> Not a good call about Ronnie. He's been a full partner in the band since I am guessing 84 of 85.


more like 74/75.

Ronnie is great, his Faces stuff is great, and compliments Keef well. However, IMHO not much great new stuff came out of the stones since Tattoo You. The song Undercover is not bad. Everything since has been rehashed.

My favorite era is Mick Taylor, great git, great hard rockin band. I'm not a fan of Jones, although the songs are good pop songs.

again, YMMV.

G.


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

The first Stones record with Ronnie Wood was I believe, "Black and Blue". He joined in them in April of 75' as a temporary replacement for a tour.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I would have just said Charlie Watts, since his drumming style (and especially his hi-hat) is rather unique and is a signature of the Stones, but when I thought about it for a moment longer, I realized there were plenty of Stones tunes where drumming was simply not in the picture. For examples "Wild Horses" doesn't need Charlie the way that, say, "Get Off My Cloud" needs him.

So, yeah, you may not need Jagger, but you need the whisky-soaked guitar of Keef, and you need the Watts hi-hat and snare, or else it isn't the Stones.


----------



## mrmatt1972 (Apr 3, 2008)

I'm just starting to listen to the Stones. For whatever reason I just stayed away from them when I was growing up - they did their 1st "Final Farewell" tour when I was in High School. Regardless, I've come to see that I'm missing out. The first album I've gotten so far is Exhile on Main St. Which should be next? Which should I stay away from.


----------



## gtone (Nov 1, 2009)

mrmatt1972 said:


> I'm just starting to listen to the Stones. For whatever reason I just stayed away from them when I was growing up - they did their 1st "Final Farewell" tour when I was in High School. Regardless, I've come to see that I'm missing out. The first album I've gotten so far is Exhile on Main St. Which should be next? Which should I stay away from.


Try "Sticky Fingers" - I think you'll dig it.


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

mrmatt1972 said:


> I'm just starting to listen to the Stones. For whatever reason I just stayed away from them when I was growing up - they did their 1st "Final Farewell" tour when I was in High School. Regardless, I've come to see that I'm missing out. The first album I've gotten so far is Exhile on Main St. Which should be next? Which should I stay away from.


Required Stones Listening:

Beggar's Banquet
Let It Bleed 
Sticky Fingers
Exhile On Main Street
Goats Head Soup
It's Only Rock and Roll
Some Girls 
Tattoo You

OK Stones Records:

Undercover Of The Night
Black And Blue (I actually like this record quite a bit)
A Bigger Bang (half cheesy shit, half great Stones )
Hot Rocks (if you like the early stuff, it's great. but the "London Pop" sound grates with me after a bit)

Avoid :

Almost everything after 83"
Emotional Rescue (the title track is disco Stones at their best, but the rest sucks.....bad)

Shawn:smile:


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

i just love that nearly half the participants chose the last option, far outstripping every other choice. kjdr


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

hollowbody said:


> For the purposes of this survey, Ronnie Wood is a jonny-come-lately and doesn't count.



...huh?


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

Gene Machine said:


> My favorite era is Mick Taylor, great git, great hard rockin band. I'm not a fan of Jones, although the songs are good pop songs.


This is also my favorite Stones Era. Ronnie/Keef do a great job of integrating one another's sound and playing style, but sometimes I like to hear a guitarist grab it and go for it. For instance, the solos on _Sway_.



Rugburn said:


> Required Stones Listening:
> 
> Beggar's Banquet
> Let It Bleed
> ...


I would also add Voodoo Lounge to this, as an example of later-day Stones showing they still have it. I think this album is great and has some really cool tracks on it.

Stripped is also cool, but that's not a studio album per se, but gives you a look at some Stones songs in a new light.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

david henman said:


> ...huh?


I intentionally left him off because Ronnie isn't an original member, and by the time he joined, the very best of the Stones albums had already been recorded.

While their live work may or may not be better these days, the fact is that when you think of classic Stones tracks, Ronnie isn't on most of them.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

hollowbody said:


> I intentionally left him off because Ronnie isn't an original member, and by the time he joined, the very best of the Stones albums had already been recorded.
> While their live work may or may not be better these days, the fact is that when you think of classic Stones tracks, Ronnie isn't on most of them.


...true, but i always believed wood was a stone, long before he actually became one.

-dh


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Based on the survey results so far, nobody seems to care either way


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

deleted...dumb post on my part


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

Now look here folks, don't speak of wankers until you've been a wanker of the Stones' magnitude, then you will know what constitutes a wanker.

No other band has lived through every incarnation of pop and rock status and stardom and lived to tell the tale. Most bands collapse under the weight of their own fallibility. Not so the Stones. 

The Stones will live as long as there is one still drawing breath. When the last is put it the cold unforgiving earth, only then will they cease to be. All other thought is folly and sacrilegious. No matter the official declaration of the end of the band, they will be spoken of with reverence beyond this and many subsequent generations.

Many other Stones need status, not least of all Ian Stewart. Others weren't standing on the pier when the ship sailed, others left before the ship was even built, and others were merely passengers. All have touched, tasted, and seen greatness and yet fallen short of its blessings.

What would happen to the Stones? Nothing. The Stones are past, present, and future. The Stones Live!

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

hollowbody said:


> I would also add Voodoo Lounge to this, as an example of later-day Stones showing they still have it. I think this album is great and has some really cool tracks on it.


Saw the show at SkyDome for the "Voodoo Lounge" tour. It was a good show for a big dumb venue, but other than "The Worst", I just can't get into the songs on that album. Another decent Stones song from what IMHO is an awful album, is "Thief in the Night" from "Bridges to Babylon". 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQh6c--I0jM

Shawn


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

Mooh said:


> Many other Stones need status, not least of all Ian Stewart. Others weren't standing on the pier when the ship sailed, others left before the ship was even built, and others were merely passengers. All have touched, tasted, and seen greatness and yet fallen short of its blessings.
> 
> What would happen to the Stones? Nothing. The Stones are past, present, and future. The Stones Live!
> 
> Peace, Mooh.


Nicky Hopkins and Bobby Keys too! I always felt Gram Parsons was an important "ingredient" in the classic Stones era. I mean, they wrote "Wild Horses" and let Gram release it first. His version is awesome BTW.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

Rugburn said:


> Nicky Hopkins and Bobby Keys too! I always felt Gram Parsons was an important "ingredient" in the classic Stones era. I mean, they wrote "Wild Horses" and let Gram release it first. His version is awesome BTW.


Indeed, naturally.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

Rugburn said:


> Nicky Hopkins and Bobby Keys too! I always felt Gram Parsons was an important "ingredient" in the classic Stones era. I mean, they wrote "Wild Horses" and let Gram release it first. His version is awesome BTW.


Very true, in addition to having a stellar cast of members, they've always had the good fortune of having a great group of supporting musicians around them.


----------



## Spikezone (Feb 2, 2006)

hollowbody said:


> So I'm sitting here listening to the Stone's _Get Your Ya-Ya's Out_, thinking what an awesome recording this is and what an awesome band they used to be, and still can be under the right circumstances (See: Scorcese's _Shine a Light_ - Do *not* See: SARSfest), when I got to thinking about all the different Stones who have come and gone, and yet the band is still going strong.
> 
> For the purposes of this survey, Ronnie Wood is a jonny-come-lately and doesn't count.


I think that 'Ya-Ya's' is the Stones' best album...at least if it's not their best, it IS my favourite one (the other would be, believe it or not, 'Their Satanic Majesties' Request'). I still think they put on a pretty good show, but it just doesn't seem the same without Bill Wyman (and, yeah, Ronnie still doesn't count as one of the Stones to me either).
-Mikey


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

Rugburn said:


> Nicky Hopkins and Bobby Keys too! I always felt Gram Parsons was an important "ingredient" in the classic Stones era. I mean, they wrote "Wild Horses" and let Gram release it first. His version is awesome BTW.


Bobby had some huge Heroin issues that I think got in the way.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

shoretyus said:


> Bobby had some huge Heroin issues that I think got in the way.


Gram wasn't exactly Mr. Straight-and-Narrow either. There was an awful lot of substance abuse going on in the Stones back in those days.


----------



## faracaster (Mar 9, 2006)

I would think they could survive a Ronnie departure (not that I would like to see that) but not any of the other three. 

While there are few Stones albums that I like (Mick Taylor era being the pinnacle....and not even all of those records), live they are just plain awful !!!!! I have seen them many times (usually because someone took me) beginning with the 71-72 tour where Stevie Wonder opened and they have always sucked. I mean not even by a little bit. So they best thing might be that they all quit and let Darryl Jones carry on. 9kkhhd


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

hollowbody said:


> Gram wasn't exactly Mr. Straight-and-Narrow either. There was an awful lot of substance abuse going on in the Stones back in those days.


It didn't help when everybody wanted to be a dealer to the stars either.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

I would also add that they are probably the ugliest bunch of dudes I have ever seen collected in one band.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

And yet, that never seemed to stop them from finding groupies. Lots and lots of groupies.


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

Drugs, Sex and Rock n' Roll. I guess they really had it all huh


----------



## jcayer (Mar 25, 2007)

rugburn said:


> ronnie wood has been a rolling stone for almost as long as i've been alive. I think omitting him is a bad call. I can't imagine they would continue as the stones, if another member left the band.


+1000000000000...


----------



## Merlin (Feb 23, 2009)

Weird thought of the day....how come no one has a done an album with jazz versions of Stones tunes?


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

Merlin said:


> Weird thought of the day....how come no one has a done an album with jazz versions of Stones tunes?


http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/article.php?id=19139

and now that I read it ,, Jimmy Smith did Satisfaction 

http://www.timries.com/mp3.html 

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P3-1655528921.html


----------

