Drummer Charlie Watts likely to miss Rolling Stones' tour

Get better Charlie san!!!!

Burning BushToday  07:17 am JST

He suffered a serious side effect but it's being covered up.

zichiToday  05:59 pm JST

Maybe his throat cancer has returned?

I know, why don't we stop all the doom and gloom negative speculation, and see how Charlie progresses?

I'm sure he's getting better medical care than any of us are in Japan right now.

Love the Stones but time to call it a day. No Charlie, no Stones.

KentarogaijinToday  07:20 am JST

He suffered a serious side effect but it's being covered up.

Thanks House..

Thank God house was always wrong the first time.

tokyo_joeToday  09:17 am JST

Love the Stones but time to call it a day. No Charlie, no Stones.

Wholeheartedly agree.

Learn from AC/DC's mistake; Angus nearly destroyed the band he loved when he lost Brian (who has more than proved his worth), Phil and Cliff. And thinking Axl Rose would be a good replacement? Serious head in hands moment. But back in the fold- Back up and running. its not as if the likes of The Stones (or Acca Dacca) need the money.

Got to stick with the original lineup (apologies Bon), or its just falls into parody.

Even the Beatles knew they needed Ringo far more than he needed them.

Get well soon, Charlie, you legend.

Commodore PerryToday  02:39 pm JST

Even the Beatles knew they needed Ringo far more than he needed them.

Not so sure about this.

The Beatles were still able to record without Ringo, replacing him with studio musicians, or even The Beatles' best drummer, Paul McCartney.

I was thinking more about his peacekeeping duties, rather than his drumming. When he quit during the 'White album' sessions, I think the others shelved their differences and begged him to come back. I don't think their would have been the 'White album' without him.

Pretty much the same as Charlie, being the most placid member of the Stones, rather than a John Bonham or Keith Moon, probably makes him the most important. I seem to remember Jimmy Miller had to play some drums on 'Tumblin' dice' when Charlie struggled, but Charlie's touch was always more jazz-like than rock which, for me, helped make the Stones' 60's output that little bit special and different from the rest; kind of like Ringo on 'A day in the life'.

I was supposed to see the Stones for the third time in Cleveland last year but it was cancelled and not rescheduled. Charlie's too important, couldn't they wait until he gets better? It's a 15 date US tour. They can finish up that new studio album they've been working on, or release even more of those 2CD/1DVD live sets that they've been putting out the yinyang in a Grateful Dead-ish sort of way.

I read once that he never liked touring as it took him away from his wife.

There’s something about this on his Wikipedia page, too.

zichiToday  05:59 pm JST

Charlie Watts has always been a jazz drummer in a rock band and learnt his music from listening to Jazz.

Married for 57 years is quite something.

Maybe his throat cancer has returned?

Many rock drummers even today have learned from jazz. Phil Collins has even done a jazz CD, and even Neil Peart of RUSH have experienced with jazz. At some later RUSH shows during his drum solos the screens would show Fred Astaire and all that jazz and then you'd hear that 3-note piano 'finale' (da! da-da!, HORN BLAST!) and then Neil would strike that gong!

And when Mick Jagger made his solo albums and Keith did so with the X-pensive Winos, and Ron made a solo album too, there was the Charlie Watts Orchestra playing jazz, big band, swing stuff. Jazz has always influenced rock, esp. in drumming techniques.

And married for 57 years. Keef has been married for nearly 40. Ron and esp. Mick just can't seem to settle down for good, can they?

Same thing with Led Zeppelin. When they lost John bonham . And called it quits. Are neal peart of rush they were the driving force of these two great bands

0rei0Today  04:53 pm JST

I was thinking more about his peacekeeping duties, rather than his drumming. When he quit during the 'White album' sessions, I think the others shelved their differences and begged him to come back. I don't think their would have been the 'White album' without him.

Good point--ever read Here, There, and Everywhere? Excellent insights.

Pretty much the same as Charlie, being the most placid member of the Stones, rather than a John Bonham or Keith Moon, probably makes him the most important. I seem to remember Jimmy Miller had to play some drums on 'Tumblin' dice' when Charlie struggled, but Charlie's touch was always more jazz-like than rock which, for me, helped make the Stones' 60's output that little bit special and different from the rest; kind of like Ringo on 'A day in the life'.

Yeah, makes sense. Hope to see one last hurrah at least.

0rei0Today  11:29 am JST

 And thinking Axl Rose would be a good replacement?

True.

Even the Beatles knew they needed Ringo far more than he needed them.

Not so sure about this.

The Beatles were still able to record without Ringo, replacing him with studio musicians, or even The Beatles' best drummer, Paul McCartney.