Charlie Watts - RIP (1 Viewer)

[Winston T. Boogie]

They should have called it Quits Years ago. THE BEATLES quit in 1970, and they are more Popular and have Better songs, albums, and #1 Hits in only 7 years !! The Rolling Stones always Copied THE BEATLES.

Well, that's a bit harsh. The Stones did country, blues, and R&B style rock and roll. The Beatles did very little of that so I would not say they copied them. The Beatles sort of defined pop music and were tremendous songwriters in that vein. Maybe you could say that one psychedelic record the Stones did was an attempt to do something Beatles-like but other than that I don't think they went in that direction at all.

I would not really compare their catalogs, I just sort of appreciate they both exist.

 

[Tony Bensley]

They should have called it Quits Years ago. THE BEATLES quit in 1970, and they are more Popular and have Better songs, albums, and #1 Hits in only 7 years !! The Rolling Stones always Copied THE BEATLES.

I love both groups, but The Stones did do pretty well (!!!) post 1970. Also so many groups have existed and do exist, why should The Beatles decision to call it quits as a group have caused The Rolling Stones, or any other group to automatically follow suit? Your statement that they should have quit doesn't make any inherent sense.

Also, while it's true that The Stones often followed suit in trying something The Beatles had previously done with success (And usually rather succeeded themselves!), their musical styles were so different that to say they always copied The Beatles is rather simplistic, at best.

Of course, Charlie Watts's rock steady back beat was the engine that made The Rolling Stones roll!

CHEERS!

 

[Angelo Colombus]

Watched last night Rolling Stones Rock and Roll Circus and there is a scene where Mick Jagger is talking to John Lennon which was very interesting. You do see Charlie Watts introducing one of the guests Marianne Faithfull.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I love the way Watts’ drumming was always exactly what the song needed. He doesn’t get the credit for being as good as he was because he wasn’t flashy like some of his peers, but his timing was perfect and there was never a wrong choice.

I love a song like “I Am Waiting” - no one is showing off but everyone is in service of the song and for me that’s what makes it a favorite no matter how many times I hear it.

 

[disctrip]

They should have called it Quits Years ago. THE BEATLES quit in 1970, and they are more Popular and have Better songs, albums, and #1 Hits in only 7 years !! The Rolling Stones always Copied THE BEATLES.

Disagree. The Beatles wrote a lot of "filler" on their albums. The Stones did not copy them...Thank God.

 

[Scott Voth]

RIP Charlie. I would have thought Charlie would have been the last to go since he lived a pretty much clean normal life unlike his bandmates.

 

[TravisR]

I love the way Watts’ drumming was always exactly what the song needed. He doesn’t get the credit for being as good as he was because he wasn’t flashy like some of his peers...

I prefer his style of drumming (and the groups of that era in general) because they aren't "showing off" their virtuoso skills in the way that a lot of rock bands of the 1970s would.

 

[RICK BOND]

Disagree. The Beatles wrote a lot of "filler" on their albums. The Stones did not copy them...Thank God.

Filler ? Like what ? Wild Honey Pie, Why Don't We Do it in the Road ?, Revolution 9. The BEATLES Studio albums are all Great ! With the Greatest album covers of all time. the rolling stones are Not in THE BEATLES league, and Never will be. ....... Thank God ???

 

[disctrip]

Filler ? Like what ? Wild Honey Pie, Why Don't We Do it in the Road ?, Revolution 9. The BEATLES Studio albums are all Great ! With the Greatest album covers of all time. the rolling stones are Not in THE BEATLES league, and Never will be. ....... Thank God ???

You can't debate with Beatles people. They are like gods.....Baloney, they are an overrated group.

 

[disctrip]

The Stones were always better than the Beatles. They sang Rock 'N' Roll. Oh well, we all have our likes.

 

[TravisR]

nevermind

 

[ChristopherG]

They should have called it Quits Years ago. THE BEATLES quit in 1970, and they are more Popular and have Better songs, albums, and #1 Hits in only 7 years !! The Rolling Stones always Copied THE BEATLES.

The point of this thread was to honor a rock and roll legend - not to discuss the merits of the Beatles vs. the Stones. Your opinion is noted and as they say everyone has one.....

For the record I am and will always be on team Beatles.

 

[BobO'Link]

I love the way Watts’ drumming was always exactly what the song needed. He doesn’t get the credit for being as good as he was because he wasn’t flashy like some of his peers, but his timing was perfect and there was never a wrong choice.

Much like Ringo Starr - another under appreciated drummer.

Disagree. The Beatles wrote a lot of "filler" on their albums. The Stones did not copy them...Thank God.

The Stones had just as many "filler" songs as did The Beatles.

I like both groups but tend to favor The Beatles. The Stones have just as many good songs, just not as many #1 songs. That's because they tended to be less "pop" than the early Beatles when most of those #1s were on the charts.

 

[RICK BOND]

The Stones were always better than the Beatles. They sang Rock 'N' Roll. Oh well, we all have our likes.

And what did THE BEATLES sing Elevator Music ? Or maybe it was Easy Listening ?

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

And what did THE BEATLES sing Elevator Music ? Or maybe it was Easy Listening ? View attachment 110319

I like both bands and not having to choose but to me The Beatles were more pop and The Stones more of a rock band. Each could dip into pop or rock or whatever moved them but I think they were quite different.

The Stones had an attitude and seemed more dangerous while The Beatles seemed like nice boys you would bring over to the house. At least this was how they each sold themselves.

I guess if you want to give The Beatles some sort of edge it would be in the songwriting area because they wrote a bunch of songs that were pretty unique standards whereas with The Stones they basically were riffing off of blues, country, and R&B more directly. That said I can't imagine the popular music songbook without songs from both of these bands. I think it is kind of nutty to knock either band as I think it is hard to say either one was not fantastic.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

David Bowie told a great story about first seeing The Stones. He is invited to the show The Stones were opening for I think some visiting American artist and they walk out on stage and the first thing that happens is some guy yells at them "Cut your hair!" and Mick without missing a beat just sneered back "Wot, and look like you?"

This began David Bowie's love of Mick Jagger.

 

[disctrip]

Much like Ringo Starr - another under appreciated drummer.

The Stones had just as many "filler" songs as did The Beatles.

I like both groups but tend to favor The Beatles. The Stones have just as many good songs, just not as many #1 songs. That's because they tended to be less "pop" than the early Beatles when most of those #1s were on the charts.

And let's not forget , if it was not for the teenage girls, they may have not gotten so many # 1's

 

[Dennis Nicholls]

 

[Mikael Soderholm]

I love the way Watts’ drumming was always exactly what the song needed. He doesn’t get the credit for being as good as he was because he wasn’t flashy like some of his peers, but his timing was perfect and there was never a wrong choice.

I love a song like “I Am Waiting” - no one is showing off but everyone is in service of the song and for me that’s what makes it a favorite no matter how many times I hear it.

He got it from Keith, who knew he was the motor of the Stones. (just watch the Shine A Light movie)
If you got Keith's appreciation, you're good. Charlie was good.
'nuff said.