Saturday, 23 February 2013
Bill Wyman wanted proper Rolling Stones reunion
Bill Wyman was ''disappointed'' with his role in the Rolling Stones' 50th anniversary.
The group's former bassist accompanied the band on two tracks, 'Honky Tonk Women' and 'It's Only Rock 'n' Roll (But I Like It)' , at their commemorative London shows last November, and while he enjoyed the brief stint, he admits he thought his return would be on a much bigger scale.
He told The Times newspaper: ''It was fun in a way...
''In December 2011 Keith Richards called and said, 'Come on mate, why don't you have a jam with us?' Then they asked if I'd be interested in getting involved in the band for special occasions.
''I thought I would get quite heavily involved, so when they said they only wanted me to do two songs I was a bit disappointed.
''I only had one rehearsal and no sound-check so I just winged it. It was great, but I didn't want to go to America for two songs. I think they understood. Well, Charlie Watts did!''
The 76-year-old rocker - who quit the group in 1996 - also admitted he used to get ''bored to death'' when on the road with the 'Brown Sugar' hitmakers.
He said: ''You have two days of flying in a plane to the town, getting off at the airport, limousines, the hotel, you've got kids on the landing so you can't leave your room, and you sit around watching TV because that's all there is to do. I used to take photos of the rooms.
''You do the gig and for two hours on stage it's fantastic, but then you go back to the hotel and you're bored to death. You come down in the morning and the whole thing happens all over again.''
[www.tv3.ie]

I think he's omitting one tiny detail of his life on the road. (ie shagging zillions of groupies).

I was also disappointed, that Bill played only 2 songs with The Rolling Stones. I thought he would share the stage for 1 hour or longer with them. Also Mick T. in 1 song was also too short. It would have been so great, when all living Rolling Stones members would have done some songs together.


PS: Bill quit in 1992 NOT 1996.

I agree that Bill should have been on stage MUCH longer - if not for the entire shows! And Taylor should have been there longer as well.



BTW: I hope in Bill's new book he expands on what went down in Toronto during the 1977 drug troubles!

If the Rolling Stones are going to play more shows in 2013 and they want Mick Taylor and Bill Wyman to join, the 1 or 2 songs deal may become more difficult to achieve. I hope they all "get along" and find an arrangment that will satisfy everybody. Mick T. and Bill joining is a BIG plus for a show.
Rock and roll,
Mops

Bill and Mick should have played the entire show.

I agree with him. They would have added to the experience, the sound as they are
The Rolling Stones.

As long as Bill and Mick's health were up to it they should have played the entire show.

I was hoping for more.

I'd love to see Keith, Ronnie, Mick, Mick, Charlie and Bill for the entire show.

I think this is not only about 2012 gigs, if you understand... I think he maybe wants to rejoin band and be full member again!

This is what Bill gets for only playing bass on approximately 41% of Stones songs. Leaving the rest up to poor Keith, Ron, Mick, and Plummer amongst others...for shame Bill

Well, he quit of free Will in the 90's. And he doesn't want to join a full tour.
Bill is not the one to dictate the conditions, I think.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-02-23 17:19 by Thommie.

Is it any wonder Bill was always my favorite Stone? And Taylor my second favorite? Quitting this bunch of losers rates high in my book, I think.

Screw the stage. He's needed in the studio.

Quote
GRNRBITW
Is it any wonder Bill was always my favorite Stone? And Taylor my second favorite? Quitting this bunch of losers rates high in my book, I think.

Then you must DESPISE Leavell and I couldn't blame you

Why the HELL would they not want Bill to play the whole show if he was willing?

I'm all for the idea of more Bill and Mick T. Hope the powers to be are listening.

Yeah, that was a little disappointing - I was hoping those guys would at least come back for the encore. But, it was nice to see - I actually never thought we'd see them together on stage again.

Quote
Roll73
I think he's omitting one tiny detail of his life on the road. (ie shagging zillions of groupies).

Yeah that must have been REALLY dull. I do take his point about confinement issue, but it was not like they were staying in standard double hotel rooms once the 70s began. They were all in blood plush suites me thinks, plently of space to be comfortable. I guess in these days they did not have the same array of mobile recreational media to provide diversions, e.g. iPads, overflowing movie channels, etc.

Cheers,
SonicD

Probably explains why Bill didn't hang around for the final bow.

Bill's only ever been interested in money...more songs -> more money!

Quote
gotdablouse
Bill's only ever been interested in money...more songs -> more money!

Hardly surprising, and I don't blame him, considering that he grew up in an impoversihed London borough to an impoversihed family during the 1930s/40s. Bill's parents didn't leave him much of a legacy and I'm sure that part of his interest in money is to do with leaving a legacy to his kids.

I agree that the talk of money is a bit tasteless at times, but that sort of upbringing leaves its mark on people. My grandfather, also a 30s era child, is the same in that he frets/fusses about his financial legacy because his parents didn't have one. If you were poor in 30s Britain you were poor. So in a way I can't blame Bill for being concerned about money.

Quote
Munichhilton
This is what Bill gets for only playing bass on approximately 41% of Stones songs. Leaving the rest up to poor Keith, Ron, Mick, and Plummer amongst others...for shame Bill

Still, if they apportioned 41% of the songs onstage to him, that would have been nicer...what would that be, 10-12 songs?

So wanted I

Quote
Rollin92

Quote
gotdablouse
Bill's only ever been interested in money...more songs -> more money!

Hardly surprising, and I don't blame him, considering that he grew up in an impoversihed London borough to an impoversihed family during the 1930s/40s. Bill's parents didn't leave him much of a legacy and I'm sure that part of his interest in money is to do with leaving a legacy to his kids.

I agree that the talk of money is a bit tasteless at times, but that sort of upbringing leaves its mark on people. My grandfather, also a 30s era child, is the same in that he frets/fusses about his financial legacy because his parents didn't have one. If you were poor in 30s Britain you were poor. So in a way I can't blame Bill for being concerned about money.

Yes I can see where he's coming from and he must be made worse by the fact he missed out on the VL/B2B/Licks/BB megabucks tours...

I remember reading that Bill was a rather unpleasant character swearing left and right...not to mention the womanizing and worse, the underage relationships...I must say it was moving to see him on stage in London on the 25th but at the end of the day he's not really needed and never was.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-02-23 23:34 by gotdablouse.

Quote
Lien
Saturday, 23 February 2013
Bill Wyman wanted proper Rolling Stones reunion
Bill Wyman was ''disappointed'' with his role in the Rolling Stones' 50th anniversary.
The group's former bassist accompanied the band on two tracks, 'Honky Tonk Women' and 'It's Only Rock 'n' Roll (But I Like It)' , at their commemorative London shows last November, and while he enjoyed the brief stint, he admits he thought his return would be on a much bigger scale.
He told The Times newspaper: ''It was fun in a way...
''In December 2011 Keith Richards called and said, 'Come on mate, why don't you have a jam with us?' Then they asked if I'd be interested in getting involved in the band for special occasions.
''I thought I would get quite heavily involved, so when they said they only wanted me to do two songs I was a bit disappointed.
''I only had one rehearsal and no sound-check so I just winged it. It was great, but I didn't want to go to America for two songs. I think they understood. Well, Charlie Watts did!''
The 76-year-old rocker - who quit the group in 1996 - also admitted he used to get ''bored to death'' when on the road with the 'Brown Sugar' hitmakers.
He said: ''You have two days of flying in a plane to the town, getting off at the airport, limousines, the hotel, you've got kids on the landing so you can't leave your room, and you sit around watching TV because that's all there is to do. I used to take photos of the rooms.
''You do the gig and for two hours on stage it's fantastic, but then you go back to the hotel and you're bored to death. You come down in the morning and the whole thing happens all over again.''
[www.tv3.ie]

Bill Wyman is probably the most boring guy in the world

I understand where he's coming from....I thought he'd play all night, not on just 2 songs...He could have done weaving bass lines with Daryl!!

Bill likes to moan. He always moaned. Whether it was about song writing credits or Keith overdubbing his bass playing, or the type of food available on tour, or the lateness of Keith and Ronnie to rehearsals. He did ok out of the Stones, basically from nothing to international stardom and elavtion to the greatest rock n roll band in the world. He availed himself of many hundreds (modest estimate) of young girls - yes let's not ignore the elephant in the room, Bill, like others in the Stones are Paedophiles, same goes for the majority of 60's and 70's rock bands. Anyway back to Bill, and made millions financially which allowed him to live the life style of a rock star and become sated in metal detecting glory!

He then decides that he's had enough, didn;t like the flying and long tours and quits. The Stones roll on and employ Darryl Jones for the remaining decades. Bill suddenly feels hard done by beciase they didn;t ask him to play a full show! He's having a giraffe. Be grateful Bill, they only wanted you for your amp anyway.

I am wondering if the sticking point was money. Maybe he wanted more to perform/tour with them then they were willing to pay him?

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
GRNRBITW
Is it any wonder Bill was always my favorite Stone? And Taylor my second favorite? Quitting this bunch of losers rates high in my book, I think.

Then you must DESPISE Leavell and I couldn't blame you

Chuck has tried to quit many times but that a-hole Jagger won't let him!

Quote
latebloomer
I am wondering if the sticking point was money. Maybe he wanted more to perform/tour with them then they were willing to pay him?

Possibly. Or that they couldn't come to agreement on the number of post-show women that would be alloted to him.

As many people have stated since the shows, they really missed a golden opportunity to reunite the '69-'74 lineup on stage. Everybody was there, but they brought the two "guests" out separately just to cock block us. To have them all on stage together (Ronnie included, I'm not suggesting he leave) would have been cool as hell. But at the same time I'm glad I got to see (on TV at least) those two guys play live with the Stones, as I've never seen it except for on DVDs and stuff.

I can see Bill being disappointed, but I also understand the other side, that nobody forced him (or Taylor) out of the band. It could have been cooler, but it was still pretty cool. I never thought I'd see it.