If you could pay £100.00 for a Stones show with Jones or £150.00 to see a Stones show with Bill Wyman on bass were would your money go?

This may tell something to Mick & Keith or maybe not

I know were my money would go.

I know some on this site have only seen Jones.

If Bill never plays again with the boys thats a big los for them.

Sad Sad Sad

At this point in their lives, it shouldn't be about the money.
It should be about what Mick/Keith & Bill want to do.

Daryll is a fine player, but that's the problem, he is too fine a player, his sound is very much that of a session player, not a band member.

Wyman has a fairly unique feel and style of playing, Daryll sounds like loads of other hired bassists.

Fair or not, and I don't think the Stones realized it, is that Bill's bass playing style is as much a part of the Stones 'sound' as Charlie's hesitating beat and Keith's riffs. And Brian's loosey goosey rhythm was part of it too. ('Off The Hook'). Start Me Up is not Start Me Up without Bill's bubbling bass line following Keith. Can you imagine if Keith had gone to prison for his 70s Canadian Adventure, or Fordyce, Arkansas, and Mick had to replace him? Or Charlie's heroin addiction in the 80s put him on the shelf? How do you replace that sound, one so idiosyncratic to the players who created it? Keith Moon was never replaced, sorry. Led Zeppelin also had the right idea.

In Bill's case, his bass was not so important that the band couldn't carry on, at least live, but it has made a world of difference in the studio, where subtlety counts. To be fair to Darryl Jones, he is a hired hand. He has not added anything to the sound of the Stones, ala Mick Taylor, or other past sidemen greats. Maybe he doesn't feel comfortable trying to impose his own style in that setting. Maybe they just tell him what to play, which they tried to do, with no luck, with Bill Wyman. Bill has an ease with the members of the band that no one else living can. Darryl is not a member of the group in that sense. And yes, I would pay a little more to see Bill.

I thought this thread was about paying to see the other Jones, BRIAN, and I thought, are you daft or stupid? Sorry that my brain doesn't even register Darryl as integral to the Stones.

I know what you mean Its not as if you sit back with your eyes closed and see Jones playing.Yet you can see Bill & Charlie smiling at each other

Quote
Highwire.uk
If you could pay £100.00 for a Stones show with Jones or £150.00 to see a Stones show with Bill Wyman on bass were would your money go?

This may tell something to Mick & Keith or maybe not

Why would it - did they force Wyman out or something?

I'd definitely pay the extra money to see Bill. Bill adds something. Jones just fills a void.

"You'll be studying history and you'll be down the gym. And I'll be down the pub, probably playing pool and drinking."

I think there is 'reality bites' kind of things involved if we Bill could some way to take his post back (that is now occupied by some hired hand- what was his name?). Namely, even if we actually would have Bill there - and pay more for that - one should not expect something musically difference-making at all, but only to enjoy the authenticity of having one "original Rolling Stone" there again. Namely, it's over 20 years now when Bill has last time even played with Charlie and Keith, and he is - what? - 75 years old or something. We should not expect too much from that classical rhythm section - that the old 'magic' is there again. I would love to see (not perhaps so much 'hear') it - but solely for nostalgia reasons. (I made this remark since I see some people almost thinking that Wyman would make everything 'click' again.)

There is also one and not small obstacle what stands in the way of "bringing old members" back, and that is most to do with the egos. When Wyman was on the band, he was taken for granted because he has been there from the beginning - there was nothing "special" in him (especially Mick nad Keith thought so). But now - if he comes back - there is. Now the value of his presence would be much more than it was then when his presence was taken for granted. This would mean that he would have a kind of special status, a minor "starness", and I think this would be a situation that Mick (or perhpas even Keith) would not be so interest to allow to happen since they have proven they can do without him. Why to share the spotlight now? The Stones are a four-piece-band now.

I think the 'best' that can happen is to have Bill with them as a "very special guest" for a few numbers in some special gig. The same I think goes with Mick Taylor.

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-16 23:30 by Doxa.

To continue a bit - I wonder does Mick Jagger actually care a shit about musically who plays the bass? I am sure Charlie and Keith miss Bill and they truely approciate him as a player, but I'm quite convinced Jagger does not. I think the pro-like, side-man status Jones fits very well to Jagger's Vegas-concept of the band: the less there are profilic 'Rolling Stones', the better it is for him (and less share-holders to share the profits).

I know that Jagger tried to hard to keep Bill in the band, but I think that was not because of Bill's idiosyncratic skills but of his profilic status as a band member. Imagewise losing him might change the winning receipt, the 'authentic' nature of Mick's selling product. But since The Stones survived so well without him, I don't think Jagger even considers the idea of asking nor even taking Bill back again. As far as I understood Mick and Bill are personally in good terms since Bill's departure - like Charlie and Bill - but I guess both of them - Mick and Bill - are such old hacks that they know the nature of the game and the business. Perhaps not being businesswise involved anymore is a way to better personal relationship? I believe when Bill says they he is "friends" with all of them.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-16 23:29 by Doxa.

Quote
24FPS
In Bill's case, his bass was not so important that the band couldn't carry on, at least live, but it has made a world of difference in the studio, where subtlety counts.

I think it's the reverse, that his sound is missed more live. There are very many studio tracks he doesn't play during his time in the band, at least in the 70s and 80s.

Oh wait, you're talking about Daryl Jones.

If Wyman had replaced Jones. People would be ripping Wyman apart.

Quote
Doxa
The Stones are a four-piece-band now.

- Doxa

For real fans the Stones actually ceased to exist in autumn 1974, for extremely real fans they ceased to exist in summer 1969.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Doxa
The Stones are a four-piece-band now.

- Doxa

For real fans the Stones actually ceased to exist in autumn 1974, for extremely real fans they ceased to exist in summer 1969.

Hehe yer funny mr!

The last time Bill played with Mick was at Bob Geldofs 50th birthday party
August 2003.
Must be great to be rich.

See below London Evening Standard

"In the early hours, Mick Jagger, Bill Wyman, Gary Kemp, Roger Taylor and Bob got on stage and played Miss You, Like A Rolling Stone and Route 66," says Nay. "Everyone had an amazing time, and I must say it was one of my best."

Quote
Doxa
I think there is 'reality bites' kind of things involved if we Bill could some way to take his post back (that is now occupied by some hired hand- what was his name?). Namely, even if we actually would have Bill there - and pay more for that - one should not expect something musically difference-making at all, but only to enjoy the authenticity of having one "original Rolling Stone" there again. Namely, it's over 20 years now when Bill has last time even played with Charlie and Keith, and he is - what? - 75 years old or something. We should not expect too much from that classical rhythm section - that the old 'magic' is there again. I would love to see (not perhaps so much 'hear') it - but solely for nostalgia reasons. (I made this remark since I see some people almost thinking that Wyman would make everything 'click' again.)

There is also one and not small obstacle what stands in the way of "bringing old members" back, and that is most to do with the egos. When Wyman was on the band, he was taken for granted because he has been there from the beginning - there was nothing "special" in him (especially Mick nad Keith thought so). But now - if he comes back - there is. Now the value of his presence would be much more than it was then when his presence was taken for granted. This would mean that he would have a kind of special status, a minor "starness", and I think this would be a situation that Mick (or perhpas even Keith) would not be so interest to allow to happen since they have proven they can do without him. Why to share the spotlight now? The Stones are a four-piece-band now.

I think the 'best' that can happen is to have Bill with them as a "very special guest" for a few numbers in some special gig. The same I think goes with Mick Taylor.

- Doxa

great post,,, and I dont believe mick or keith would beg bill to come back,, but if they were to tour, and a call came from bill wanting to go,, the past would be water under the bridge and the trip would be on,,

but its all upto bill,,

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Doxa
The Stones are a four-piece-band now.

- Doxa

For real fans the Stones actually ceased to exist in autumn 1974, for extremely real fans they ceased to exist in summer 1969.

What my old ears hear?... Those listed are nothing but what I call gloryhunter pseudo-fans... It's been cheap commercial boy band hype since that bloody Andrew fellow got involved, they screwed up Georgio Gomelsky, and dared to kick - bastards! - Stu out, not to mention Mick and Keith starting write that horrible cheap pop music crap! The real Rolling Stones hasn't existed ever since, for god sake!

- Doxa

Quote
Highwire.uk
The last time Bill played with Mick was at Bob Geldofs 50th birthday party
August 2003.
Must be great to be rich.

See below London Evening Standard

"In the early hours, Mick Jagger, Bill Wyman, Gary Kemp, Roger Taylor and Bob got on stage and played Miss You, Like A Rolling Stone and Route 66," says Nay. "Everyone had an amazing time, and I must say it was one of my best."

[books.google.com]

Quote
More Hot Rocks
If Wyman had replaced Jones. People would be ripping Wyman apart.

Not.

I'd love to see a show with Bill's subtle bass playing that was so important to the original sound of the Stones. That said Bill has moved on and I do not think we he would do it. If they had a real farewell gig in London or something maybe but a tour. it will never happen.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Doxa
The Stones are a four-piece-band now.

- Doxa

For real fans the Stones actually ceased to exist in autumn 1974, for extremely real fans they ceased to exist in summer 1969.

The real fans turned their back on them the moment they changed their name to The Rolling Stones

'I think it's the reverse, that his sound is missed more live. There are very many studio tracks he doesn't play during his time in the band, at least in the 70s and 80s.' - cc

But Bill is on most of the major tracks, and those tracks he didn't play in the studio he handles as good or better than whoever played on them originally. Maybe the one he couldn't quite grasp was the samba on Sympathy For the Devil, but they didn't play it that way in concert anyway.

Quote
Highwire.uk
If you could pay £100.00 for a Stones show with Jones or £150.00 to see a Stones show with Bill Wyman on bass were would your money go?

This may tell something to Mick & Keith or maybe not

I know were my money would go.

I know some on this site have only seen Jones.

If Bill never plays again with the boys thats a big los for them.

Sad Sad Sad

My limit is $500.00 to see Bill back with the band! So listen up DW!

Quote
slew
I'd love to see a show with Bill's subtle bass playing that was so important to the original sound of the Stones. That said Bill has moved on and I do not think we he would do it. If they had a real farewell gig in London or something maybe but a tour. it will never happen.

Just having him and Mick Taylor back for one final show would be more than enough to satisfy me as long as it is recorded and goes to DVD!

Quote
24FPS
'I think it's the reverse, that his sound is missed more live. There are very many studio tracks he doesn't play during his time in the band, at least in the 70s and 80s.' - cc

But Bill is on most of the major tracks, and those tracks he didn't play in the studio he handles as good or better than whoever played on them originally. Maybe the one he couldn't quite grasp was the samba on Sympathy For the Devil, but they didn't play it that way in concert anyway.

are you sure? weren't you finding out on an earlier thread just how many studio tracks bill doesn't play on?

Play With Fire. (Which doesn't have Charlie or Brian either).
Jumping Jack Flash. (Bill plays organ)
Street Fighting Man, though Beggar's Banquet doesn't have credits.
Tumbling Dice. (which I think Bill disputes his non-involvement.
Happy (which is Keith and Jimmy Miller and Bobby Keys).
It's Only Rock and Roll.
Shattered.
Emotional Rescue.

Those are the Singles, all A-Sides except Play With Fire, that it's pretty clear Bill doesn't play bass on. Sympathy For the Devil was not a single in 1968. On three of those selections Charlie doesn't play either, and splits his chair with Jimmy Miller on Tumbling Dice. That leaves a hell of a lot of major Singles and key album cuts, including Rocks Off, Bitch (not a B-side in the USA), and Under My Thumb. There really aren't a lot of key songs Bill was not a part of in one way or another, giving major contributions to songs like Paint It Black, Under My Thumb, and Jumping Jack Flash. Maybe some of those tracks Bill wasn't on could have benefited from his talents.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-18 20:15 by 24FPS.

I'm not at all dogging on bill... I'm just following up your claim that it's been easier to replace him on stage than in the studio. I think it's the reverse. Put negatively, this is partly because he was often, or sometimes, absent from the studio (we can slice this any number of ways, but the fact remains) from 1963-1989, particularly in the '70s. Put positively, he played every show from 1963(?)-1990, and so replacing him there was a bigger change.

If Mick and Bill are still mates they must talk about bill playing with the stones again over and over and even laugh about us disscusing it here.

just imagine them both sitting on a sofa reading this now, they must be having a good old chuckle



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-18 12:37 by keefyboy.

Other songs without Bill on bass (from [www.timeisonourside.com]):

Dancing With Mr. D
Coming Down Again
Heartbreaker
Silver Train
Winter
Can You Hear The Music
If You Can't Rock Me
Time Waits For No One
If You Really Wanna Be My Friend
Fingerprint File
Crazy Mama
I'm Going Down
Soul Survivor
All Down The Line
Just Wanna See His Face
Turd On The Run
Torn And Frayed
Casino Boogie
Rip This Joint

Gosh, the list is long!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-18 12:46 by DandelionPowderman.

Don't forget Live With Me.