Re: Come back Bill Wyman. We miss you....
Date: February 10, 2005 15:03
Sure the loss of Bill was a great one - but of course, of the three fundamental and distinctive elements that together are forming that unique sounding rythm and swing engine to "back up" their fromtman (Keith's guitar, Cha´s drums, Bill's bass), surely the loss of "Bill element" was easiest to replace and hide with pro musicianship - surely the majority of the people attending to the Stones shows don't feel or hear any difference whoever there might be on the bass. To the majority I suppose the lost of Bill was only a loss in an imagewise; the Stones were reduced to four member after his departure.
But for a hard core fan like me the breaking up the "straightest rhythm section in rock" was a question of life and death - and I seriously doubted that the Stones can survive that. Well, actually they did, but in some way the band hasn't been the same without Bill (well, I have to say, is not just the question of Bill; it has to do with the whole "professionalization" of their shows, decreasing the risky elements like Keith and Ronnie and their musical downhill, and all that co-incides with the increasing use of back up musicians). That unique tightness of the co-work of Keith, Charlie and Bill was created in the endless "sideshows" during the years, maybe in the clubs and ballrooms of England in the year one and two. And that's sort of chemistry of interaction the guys created together with a time and a chance - that there is no way one of those elements can be replaced in a day - maybe you can do that to the guys in frontline, the ones enrichening the sound - but no way you can do that people in the engine room.
The point of saying that Darryl is technically better musician ("Played with Miles Davis") than Bill does not mean a @#$%& thing in the context of the Stones - as we know the secret of the greatness and uniqueness of the Stones has nothing to do with technical excellence - its their unique and personal but simple minimilast touch and feel to their music that makes them oustanding (plus the fact that they always do it in the form of performing, to interact with audience, and make them MOVE!) - and the way those very distinctive elements hang together, breath together. I suppose it is very difficult mentally for some technically skilllfull and superior player like Darryl (or Mick Taylor) to sit on comfortably to that scheme - they need to reject a lot of their potentia to sit in (and please the bosses). In the case of Darryl that unfortunately sounds quite dramatically in the lack of any dynamics or "swing". (Taylor's case is different; he took his room beautifully, and his job was basically to enrichen the sound, not to ground it, as we know).
But like I said, the lost of Bill was easiest to hide (and ignore or marginalize the greatness of the musical and profilical loss) and the empty space left by him was remarkably easy to fill up with pro side musician ... but that's the kind of leading policy that shows that "nothing's really secret" as far as the musical core of the sound of the Rolling Stones is concerned - only that seems to be firm is that the yin-yang twins that are giving the faces to to the trademark "Rolling Stones "(through the tabloid-friendly world) are not to be replaced. Do you guys really think that they could not continue their business and enterprise without Ronnie Wood (no big loss anyway nowadays, at least in terms of musical contribution) or Charlie Watts? There's a lot of "better" players than those two in the world. Don't say that Charlie is unique. So was Bill. And so is Keef (to be honest, I suppose Jagger would anyday replace "his" twin bother and guitarist if that could have any possibility to do that.) Just look at the Who (or even worse, these recent tours of "Queen" or "Doors"...). The reason the Stones go on has nothing to do with their musical uniqueness or personal attachment. Nothing personal, it's just a business matter, but a f..king big business matter, mates.
But there is no reason to "blame" Mick and Keith for keep the machine going on while people are quitting.. What else they can do, and they can not decide on the behalf of the other people do they stay or go? (Expect Brian, maybe..) They do their best and try to continue keeping the losses as minimal as possible.. But the truth is that Mick and Keith are not the only thing that makes the Stones and their music so great and unique. Of course, the biggest and most important part surely, but still that does not mean everything. The product that all of us here are dying to see once again, that "Sinatra of rock" is not the "real thing" anymore, but very entertaining still...
No, I don't want Bill Wyman back nor Mick Taylor back; to me it sounds like asking Brian Jones back or Mick and Keith being 30 years younger - you can not turn back time.. But please, do leave or retire with a grace.. Like Keith once said the band is bigger than neither of them (Mick and Keith) are; it still holds on: the band, its history and legacy, is much greater and important than the product we have now wittnessed for a decade and a half.
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2005-02-10 15:11 by Rorty.