Darryl does not lead the band or is not allowed to lead the band as a proper bass player should. His does not define choruses of section changes as well as Bill did and it is one of the causes of many of the train wrecks The Stones are making a habit of.

Quote
DoomandGloom
Darryl does not lead the band or is not allowed to lead the band as a proper bass player should. His does not define choruses of section changes as well as Bill did and it is one of the causes of many of the train wrecks The Stones are making a habit of.

Hmmm, who else is responsible for these "wrecks"?

Quote
uhbuhgullayew

Quote
DoomandGloom
Darryl does not lead the band or is not allowed to lead the band as a proper bass player should. His does not define choruses of section changes as well as Bill did and it is one of the causes of many of the train wrecks The Stones are making a habit of.

Hmmm, who else is responsible for these "wrecks"?

71tele...but he would never admit it

Quote
uhbuhgullayew

Quote
DoomandGloom
Darryl does not lead the band or is not allowed to lead the band as a proper bass player should. His does not define choruses of section changes as well as Bill did and it is one of the causes of many of the train wrecks The Stones are making a habit of.

Hmmm, who else is responsible for these "wrecks"?

None...I think we can agree this is all completely Darryl's fault.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
uhbuhgullayew

Quote
DoomandGloom
Darryl does not lead the band or is not allowed to lead the band as a proper bass player should. His does not define choruses of section changes as well as Bill did and it is one of the causes of many of the train wrecks The Stones are making a habit of.

Hmmm, who else is responsible for these "wrecks"?

None...I think we can agree this is all completely Darryl's fault.

Nope there are other reasons but it's a great bassists responsibility to make those mistakes impossible or less probable. He does not make the impact Bill did as Bill was very definite about sections sometimes using long swipes like Enthwistle (Whoop, Whoop). I heard a clip of Keith and Ron with Willie Weeks, where's that guy???? Clapton and Neil Young for instance change sidemen from time to time to keep things fresh, Stones are likely too lazy but at the very least Chuck should be featured on grand piano, he's out of his element as keyboard tech geek and he's much too fine a pianist to be wasted in the mud. Considering Chuck's knowledge of the material he should be allowed to do what few can do on a real piano.

For all his supposed musicianship, and playing that lowly music, rock & roll, in relation to jazz, Darryl should be playing rings around what Bill accomplished. But he doesn't. Even his high points you think, "Oh, that's not so bad." Bill Wyman is one of a handful of bass players that I listen to throughout a song to see what they create as the song progresses. I have felt a lot of emotion in Bill's playing, and felt nothing memorably emotional in Darryl's.

Darryl's a hired hand. He sold out to the big money of the Stones. I don't see him being hired to play on big time jazz albums when he's not touring with the Stones. Bill was always underrated. His legacy has only increased with each passing year. Darryl's just there. He could be replaced by another competent bass player and you really couldn't tell the difference. Big deal that Charlie chose him. Charlie doesn't give a crap about rock and roll.

I have said before that I do not have the vocabulary to talk about bass playing. I cannot begin to describe Wyman's (or other's) style. I have watched and listened to him in and out of the Stones. It seems to me that he sits back, listens to what is being played and decides what a song needs and plays accordingly. And his decisions and taste are nearly impeccable. He is not a bass player I listen to distinct from a song. He is integral to the song. Is that vague enough?

Quote
24FPS
Darryl's a hired hand. He sold out to the big money of the Stones.

That's kind of a silly thing to say. Hired hand yes, but sold out? Because he can make a decent living now? Besides, The Stones weren't the first high profile gig he took, he was touring with Sting in the 80's and with Madonna in 1990. Why does the Stones gig make him a sell-out?

Quote
NoCode0680

Quote
24FPS
Darryl's a hired hand. He sold out to the big money of the Stones.

That's kind of a silly thing to say. Hired hand yes, but sold out? Because he can make a decent living now? Besides, The Stones weren't the first high profile gig he took, he was touring with Sting in the 80's and with Madonna in 1990. Why does the Stones gig make him a sell-out?

I just think he's a lazy musician in relation to his work with the Stones. Either he can't, or doesn't care enough to put his own stamp on the music. This is a band of idiosyncratic players. Except for Taylor they were not especially technical giants. But they all had a feel. All right, maybe he's not a sell out for the Stones. Maybe he's just a sell out in general. It's not because he's black. In fact it's confounding that a black bass player can't come in and give a little swing to the Stones rhythm section. But he doesn't. Sonny Rollins came in and added to the sound and walked away with 'Waiting On A Friend'.

Maybe sell out isn't a good term. But he's not a great artist either as a part of the most incredible rhythm section in rock, or even a top tier member of the great Stones sidemen. It's akin to replacing Keith Moon with Kenney Jones; it had to be done but it wasn't done right.

Quote
24FPS

Quote
NoCode0680

Quote
24FPS
Darryl's a hired hand. He sold out to the big money of the Stones.

That's kind of a silly thing to say. Hired hand yes, but sold out? Because he can make a decent living now? Besides, The Stones weren't the first high profile gig he took, he was touring with Sting in the 80's and with Madonna in 1990. Why does the Stones gig make him a sell-out?

I just think he's a lazy musician in relation to his work with the Stones. Either he can't, or doesn't care enough to put his own stamp on the music. This is a band of idiosyncratic players. Except for Taylor they were not especially technical giants. But they all had a feel. All right, maybe he's not a sell out for the Stones. Maybe he's just a sell out in general. It's not because he's black. In fact it's confounding that a black bass player can't come in and give a little swing to the Stones rhythm section. But he doesn't. Sonny Rollins came in and added to the sound and walked away with 'Waiting On A Friend'.

Maybe sell out isn't a good term. But he's not a great artist either as a part of the most incredible rhythm section in rock, or even a top tier member of the great Stones sidemen. It's akin to replacing Keith Moon with Kenney Jones; it had to be done but it wasn't done right.

Could be, and I don't know if this is true or not, that they don't want him to put his own stamp on the music. He's a sideman on salary, I don't imagine his creative input is highly valued. Plus, one of the perils of working with The Stones is any creativity you might add, is going to be credited to Jagger/Richards. Seems like there isn't a whole lot of incentive.

I think the problem is that unlike Bill who was a founding member, Darryl isn't emotionally invested in The Stones. He's not even that emotionally invested in Rock music. I read an interview with him earlier where he talked about meeting Keith for the first time, and how he wasn't really interested in playing Rock music until around then. He put it around the time of Talk Is Cheap, so around '88. That means it wasn't until he was in his late 20's that he even became interested in the genre. Which seems very odd to me. But it also makes me think he's not emotionally invested in the genre at all. In the same interview he also talked about how Talk Is Cheap changed his perception of what Rock music could be. Now, it's a fine solo album, but it didn't break any ground. Either Darryl was kissing up to his boss or he's really confused about rock music.

Either way, he's a great bass player. I don't know if he's lazy, being held back, is over/under qualified, or just not grasping rock and roll. But the rest of the band are hardly leading by example. It's not like they go out every night and put their own stamp on their music, and it's THEIR music. There's not much room in the arrangements to dick around. For the most part each song will sound like it did the night before. The arrangements seem pretty concrete for the most part. And some of them are pretty uninspired and seem to be just good enough to be recognizable. CYHMK for example from ABB tour sounded like some Muzak version with all the soul and grit removed, a shadow of the original, and I don't think Darryl is to blame for that. He's working in their system. I think if they wanted Darryl to do something else, they'd tell him to do it or get somebody else. He plays the way they want, or else I doubt he'd be on stage. I don't think a session musician is holding The Rolling Stones hostage.

Quote
24FPS
Bill was always underrated.

Darryl agrees with you. Sorry I can't give a source, but back when he was still relatively new to the Stones I read an interview with him in which he said that in order to prepare for his new gig he listened to the band's catalog closely and said that in his opinion Wyman was a very underrated bass player.

Quote
NoCode0680

Quote
24FPS

Quote
NoCode0680

Quote
24FPS
Darryl's a hired hand. He sold out to the big money of the Stones.

That's kind of a silly thing to say. Hired hand yes, but sold out? Because he can make a decent living now? Besides, The Stones weren't the first high profile gig he took, he was touring with Sting in the 80's and with Madonna in 1990. Why does the Stones gig make him a sell-out?

I just think he's a lazy musician in relation to his work with the Stones. Either he can't, or doesn't care enough to put his own stamp on the music. This is a band of idiosyncratic players. Except for Taylor they were not especially technical giants. But they all had a feel. All right, maybe he's not a sell out for the Stones. Maybe he's just a sell out in general. It's not because he's black. In fact it's confounding that a black bass player can't come in and give a little swing to the Stones rhythm section. But he doesn't. Sonny Rollins came in and added to the sound and walked away with 'Waiting On A Friend'.

Maybe sell out isn't a good term. But he's not a great artist either as a part of the most incredible rhythm section in rock, or even a top tier member of the great Stones sidemen. It's akin to replacing Keith Moon with Kenney Jones; it had to be done but it wasn't done right.

Could be, and I don't know if this is true or not, that they don't want him to put his own stamp on the music. He's a sideman on salary, I don't imagine his creative input is highly valued. Plus, one of the perils of working with The Stones is any creativity you might add, is going to be credited to Jagger/Richards. Seems like there isn't a whole lot of incentive.

I think the problem is that unlike Bill who was a founding member, Darryl isn't emotionally invested in The Stones. He's not even that emotionally invested in Rock music. I read an interview with him earlier where he talked about meeting Keith for the first time, and how he wasn't really interested in playing Rock music until around then. He put it around the time of Talk Is Cheap, so around '88. That means it wasn't until he was in his late 20's that he even became interested in the genre. Which seems very odd to me. But it also makes me think he's not emotionally invested in the genre at all. In the same interview he also talked about how Talk Is Cheap changed his perception of what Rock music could be. Now, it's a fine solo album, but it didn't break any ground. Either Darryl was kissing up to his boss or he's really confused about rock music.

Either way, he's a great bass player. I don't know if he's lazy, being held back, is over/under qualified, or just not grasping rock and roll. But the rest of the band are hardly leading by example. It's not like they go out every night and put their own stamp on their music, and it's THEIR music. There's not much room in the arrangements to dick around. For the most part each song will sound like it did the night before. The arrangements seem pretty concrete for the most part. And some of them are pretty uninspired and seem to be just good enough to be recognizable. CYHMK for example from ABB tour sounded like some Muzak version with all the soul and grit removed, a shadow of the original, and I don't think Darryl is to blame for that. He's working in their system. I think if they wanted Darryl to do something else, they'd tell him to do it or get somebody else. He plays the way they want, or else I doubt he'd be on stage. I don't think a session musician is holding The Rolling Stones hostage.

Nice assessment. I think another problem is that on some songs Bill Wyman's bass part is quite distinct and as much a part of the song as any of Keith's riffs. I guess it's frustrating to not hear Darryl play the songs the way Bill did, or top it with his own input. Where you're expecting those bubbly notes that Bill put in the song, Darryl replaces it with nothing. If Keith were replaced, you'd expect the replacement to play his parts. You see the sidemen that McCartney surrounds him with and they at least play the parts the other Beatles put there originally.

I'm still waiting for the aural proof that Darryl is a great bass player. It's going on 20 years and I certainly haven't heard him lift the Rolling Stones to any great musical heights.

Quote
24FPS

Quote
NoCode0680

Quote
24FPS

Quote
NoCode0680

Quote
24FPS
Darryl's a hired hand. He sold out to the big money of the Stones.

That's kind of a silly thing to say. Hired hand yes, but sold out? Because he can make a decent living now? Besides, The Stones weren't the first high profile gig he took, he was touring with Sting in the 80's and with Madonna in 1990. Why does the Stones gig make him a sell-out?

I just think he's a lazy musician in relation to his work with the Stones. Either he can't, or doesn't care enough to put his own stamp on the music. This is a band of idiosyncratic players. Except for Taylor they were not especially technical giants. But they all had a feel. All right, maybe he's not a sell out for the Stones. Maybe he's just a sell out in general. It's not because he's black. In fact it's confounding that a black bass player can't come in and give a little swing to the Stones rhythm section. But he doesn't. Sonny Rollins came in and added to the sound and walked away with 'Waiting On A Friend'.

Maybe sell out isn't a good term. But he's not a great artist either as a part of the most incredible rhythm section in rock, or even a top tier member of the great Stones sidemen. It's akin to replacing Keith Moon with Kenney Jones; it had to be done but it wasn't done right.

Could be, and I don't know if this is true or not, that they don't want him to put his own stamp on the music. He's a sideman on salary, I don't imagine his creative input is highly valued. Plus, one of the perils of working with The Stones is any creativity you might add, is going to be credited to Jagger/Richards. Seems like there isn't a whole lot of incentive.

I think the problem is that unlike Bill who was a founding member, Darryl isn't emotionally invested in The Stones. He's not even that emotionally invested in Rock music. I read an interview with him earlier where he talked about meeting Keith for the first time, and how he wasn't really interested in playing Rock music until around then. He put it around the time of Talk Is Cheap, so around '88. That means it wasn't until he was in his late 20's that he even became interested in the genre. Which seems very odd to me. But it also makes me think he's not emotionally invested in the genre at all. In the same interview he also talked about how Talk Is Cheap changed his perception of what Rock music could be. Now, it's a fine solo album, but it didn't break any ground. Either Darryl was kissing up to his boss or he's really confused about rock music.

Either way, he's a great bass player. I don't know if he's lazy, being held back, is over/under qualified, or just not grasping rock and roll. But the rest of the band are hardly leading by example. It's not like they go out every night and put their own stamp on their music, and it's THEIR music. There's not much room in the arrangements to dick around. For the most part each song will sound like it did the night before. The arrangements seem pretty concrete for the most part. And some of them are pretty uninspired and seem to be just good enough to be recognizable. CYHMK for example from ABB tour sounded like some Muzak version with all the soul and grit removed, a shadow of the original, and I don't think Darryl is to blame for that. He's working in their system. I think if they wanted Darryl to do something else, they'd tell him to do it or get somebody else. He plays the way they want, or else I doubt he'd be on stage. I don't think a session musician is holding The Rolling Stones hostage.

Nice assessment. I think another problem is that on some songs Bill Wyman's bass part is quite distinct and as much a part of the song as any of Keith's riffs. I guess it's frustrating to not hear Darryl play the songs the way Bill did, or top it with his own input. Where you're expecting those bubbly notes that Bill put in the song, Darryl replaces it with nothing. If Keith were replaced, you'd expect the replacement to play his parts. You see the sidemen that McCartney surrounds him with and they at least play the parts the other Beatles put there originally.

I'm still waiting for the aural proof that Darryl is a great bass player. It's going on 20 years and I certainly haven't heard him lift the Rolling Stones to any great musical heights.

Lift?

He's a sideman. Hired hand. Nothing more.

I have said this before but Bob Dylan pointed it out in an interview in the late 90s (I think it was...). He said something like this: "They're a funkband now without Bill, aren't they?"
I think he's right. It has nothing to do with technical skills: Darryl's style is more funk/soul/R&B. Not rock and roll. Bill was always a rock and roll bass player. There is the difference.

Darryl IS putting his stamp on the Stones's music. Just listen to the pay per view-show, where the bass is surprisingly high in the mix.

However, the stamp is on-the-note-playing, fast runs in inappropriate places and an (by itself) impressive bass solo on Miss You.

These things are more than we would notice Bill do during a Stones-gig. It's a pity that what he does doesn't really suit the Stones's music that good.

He's not lazy, he's just doing what he's told to do + a little bit more. It's evident that Mick asked him to play more during this tour.

Surely it must be some kind of record for a bass player to be in a band for twenty years and still not be considered an official member?
He's been with the band for a longer period than Brian Jones and Mick Taylor put together.

Quote
Stoneage
Surely it must be some kind of record for a bass player to be in a band for twenty years and still not be considered an official member?
He's been with the band for a longer period than Brian Jones and Mick Taylor put together.

Aerosmith's keyboard player/backing vocalist comes to mind here. He must have been with them since the 70s. He's not being introduced to often during shows, either

Bon Jovi's original bass player must have left them about 20 years ago. He was never officially replaced . Do they sound better ?..............no still s**t !!!!!!!!!!!!><


sc uk

Darryl is well educated, academic jazz player...and Bill Wyman was a punk rock n roll player...Rolling Stones are rock n roll band ...so why on earth they decided to have this jazz guy ? - It's like.. having Eddie Van Halen replace Keith, - sorry -it wouldnt be the same

Quote
seitan
Darryl is well educated, academic jazz player...and Bill Wyman was a punk rock n roll player...Rolling Stones are rock n roll band ...so why on earth they decided to have this jazz guy ? - It's like.. having Eddie Van Halen replace Keith, - sorry -it wouldnt be the same

Bill was never a "punk" player. he was just a bass player. Nothing more. And it was Charle that picked him. i bet that there is not one peron here that has the balls enough to Charlie to his face their feelings on D Jones.

Quote
More Hot Rocks
i bet that there is not one person here that has the balls enough to Charlie to his face their feelings on D Jones.

you should change your bet to two persons. i already told charlie this. he just sorta shrugged his shoulders in that way he has.

Quote
T&A

Quote
More Hot Rocks
i bet that there is not one person here that has the balls enough to Charlie to his face their feelings on D Jones.

you should change your bet to two persons. i already told charlie this. he just sorta shrugged his shoulders in that way he has.

yeah....right.....and I'm the Pope.

Quote
More Hot Rocks

Quote
seitan
Darryl is well educated, academic jazz player...and Bill Wyman was a punk rock n roll player...Rolling Stones are rock n roll band ...so why on earth they decided to have this jazz guy ? - It's like.. having Eddie Van Halen replace Keith, - sorry -it wouldnt be the same

Bill was never a "punk" player. he was just a bass player. Nothing more.

That's not quite right. I don't think of him as necessarily punk. I do think of him as a musician. He took piano lessons starting at the age of 10 for a few years. He had different musical influences, being slightly older than the other Stones. He also went mad for rock and roll, and was exposed to the music before the others, on American Armed Forces Radio while he was stationed in Germany in the RAF. He was playing professionally in The Cliftons (1961) before the nascent Stones ever stepped on stage. He brought rock influences to the Stones that the others derided, before they picked up on them down the line.

Because of his odd look, in relation to the pretty boys of the Stones, he was always pushed to the background. He may have retreated on stage later, but he was right up front, holding the neck of his bass upright while he grinned and chewed gum in working class defiance.

You don't often think of the bass line in classic rock songs. But I do with Bill. He gives real counter force to Satisfaction. His bombing lines on 19th Nervous Breakdown. Listen to him get under Rocks Off and make it shuffle. A very melodic player. He is as important to Start Me Up as any musician on the track. Okay, maybe he was just a bass player. A hell of a bass player. And the best one the Stones, just a rock group, ever had.

Bill's playing on Brussels is all you need to know.. He is a pioneer and a force to be reckoned with... Darryl's just not that good. In 20 years he should have made an impact and place for himself.

Quote
DoomandGloom
Bill's playing on Brussels is all you need to know.. He is a pioneer and a force to be reckoned with... Darryl's just not that good. In 20 years he should have made an impact and place for himself.

Gimme Shelter is a revelation on Brussels.

Quote
More Hot Rocks

Quote
seitan
Darryl is well educated, academic jazz player...and Bill Wyman was a punk rock n roll player...Rolling Stones are rock n roll band ...so why on earth they decided to have this jazz guy ? - It's like.. having Eddie Van Halen replace Keith, - sorry -it wouldnt be the same

Bill was never a "punk" player. he was just a bass player. Nothing more. And it was Charle that picked him. i bet that there is not one peron here that has the balls enough to Charlie to his face their feelings on D Jones.

Does that even matter? Its two different things. Mick, Keith or Charlie should of course do exactly what they want to do and the chips will fall where they may. But this is a discussion board, and the chips fell not so well with the selection of Daryl in the opinion of many. Dylan picked up on this and commented on it. There are other notables that are on record as having appreciated what Bill Wyman brought to the table. Unfortunately I don't think Mick Keith or Charlie were among them. In fact, Charlie went on record that he really didn't/couldn't hear Wyman on stage. Make of that what you will. I suspect they all sort of know by now though, replacing Bill was not as big a nothing as they made it out to be at first.

Quote
SweetThing

Quote
More Hot Rocks

Quote
seitan
Darryl is well educated, academic jazz player...and Bill Wyman was a punk rock n roll player...Rolling Stones are rock n roll band ...so why on earth they decided to have this jazz guy ? - It's like.. having Eddie Van Halen replace Keith, - sorry -it wouldnt be the same

Bill was never a "punk" player. he was just a bass player. Nothing more. And it was Charle that picked him. i bet that there is not one peron here that has the balls enough to Charlie to his face their feelings on D Jones.

Does that even matter? Its two different things. Mick, Keith or Charlie should of course do exactly what they want to do and the chips will fall where they may. But this is a discussion board, and the chips fell not so well with the selection of Daryl in the opinion of many. Dylan picked up on this and commented on it. There are other notables that are on record as having appreciated what Bill Wyman brought to the table. Unfortunately I don't think Mick Keith or Charlie were among them. In fact, Charlie went on record that he really didn't/couldn't hear Wyman on stage. Make of that what you will. I suspect they all sort of know by now though, replacing Bill was not as big a nothing as they made it out to be at first.

Yeah well Enthwistle complained about Moon too!!!!! Bill controlled the band like a puppeteer and they didn't know it...

Worse..Although, Darryl is a great bass player..Hes just not the same bass player...Bills choice of notes and patterns comes from admiring players from the 40s and 50s. Darryl is a great technical player that has done a great job playing bass for The Stones. But he is just not Bill Wyman. Together, Charlie & Bill have a sound that can not be duplicated or outshined.

When making music it's all about what it sounds like when its all together....



SOUL

Quote
soulsurvivor1
Worse..Although, Darryl is a great bass player..Hes just not the same bass player...Bills choice of notes and patterns comes from admiring players from the 40s and 50s. Darryl is a great technical player that has done a great job playing bass for The Stones. But he is just not Bill Wyman. Together, Charlie & Bill have a sound that can not be duplicated or outshined.

When making music it's all about what it sounds like when its all together....



SOUL

I agree pretty fully with this assessment. Still, I don't get all the hatred for Darryl's playing on here. He's great, he's solid, even if he isn't as 'original' sounding as Bill. Personally, I love the way he plays "JJFlash", the way he leans heavy on that B note in the verse. Bottom line is that nobody could recreate that Charlie and Bill sound but Charlie and Bill. They were a one of a kind together. Face it folks, the Stones likely could not do better with a Wyman replacement than with Jones - the Stones are so idiosyncratic that no musician could perfectly recapture the sound of a member from one of the classic line-ups.

This may come across as a bit cynical but I think the choice of Darryl is just one of the many bad artistical decisions the band has made the last 30 years or so. The half a platoon of side musicians on stage: What have they added besides diluting the music? The choice of guest artists: Christina Augilera, Justin Timberlake and Lady Gaga - great choices? Not to talk about their albums... But hey, they made a lot of money. Maybe that is what it's all about?