All the recent talk about the '78 tour prompted me to get out my vinyl version of Passiac '78. Bill Wyman's dancing basslines, in direct conterpoint to Keith and Ron are just terrific. The band swings and Bill gives you a different insturment to which you can shake your ass - should you choose to do so. It's easier to hear Bill on the Passaic recording as opposed to "Handsome Girls," I suppose because the latter was mixed so densly together for radio broadcast.

Today, Darryl lays down a "solid foundation" but rarely does he meld with the band.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again (just to stir the pot), the loss of Bill Wyman to the Rolling Stones was far and away more profound than the loss of Mick Taylor.

Let the slagging begin!!!

No reason for bashing here. I won't go across the bridge that the loss was more profound than the loss of Mick Taylor, but when you split the rythm group it could end in a desaster. Especially with the Stones as the chemistry was a special one.

As I said several times technical Darryl might be a good bass player (i.e. jazz, pop) and better than Bill but he does not fit with the Stones. With Bill on the bass the Stones had more groove and did swing. Bill and Charlie have been one unit and this one unit fits perfectly with Keith.

I would like to have Bill again on bass but I fear we won't see him again with the Stones as their seem to consist some difficulties among them.

__________________________________

Charlie is good tonight, ain't he?

sure Bill was great. he played so well with Charlie, for so long. and he knew how to "lay back and fatten up the sound". And he put up with way more than most musicians would have...but he sure had his fun too, didn't he..
I want to say that Darryl Jones is an excellent musician, and since he's who they've got, they can continue...and isn't that the best for all? Does anyone think Bill's coming back? Darryl and Charlie are fine together, to me...different than Bill but solid and swinging nonetheless.

I dont think Bill wants back and if he would Mick would be too gready to let him. Too Bad.

I have no illusions that Bill would come back. I simply much prefer him to Darryl. Darryl is a back up musician - not a Rolling Stone.

Bill Wyman is THE bass player of the Rolling Stones. He is THE man. No one can replace him. Though Darryl Jones is technically good, the Stones without Bill are like a hand with four fingers.

agree with Georges we miss him let he com back if he wants, but i am not sure

He hates flying and is several years older than the rest. He ain't coming back!

Im sorry guys but i gotta say it, cause its the truth. Bill is a pussy . you can talk forever about how he was afaird to fly and his f'd up personal life. But the fact is this. He was afaird about continuing cause people would think its a joke. and now the fact is that he;s bitter, old, and probley nailing some 14 year old bird. Dont get me wrong, I have a world of respect for him, Miss you, BS and others have incredabul bass lines. Another thing, he tried getting out, after TOA and before 81. and keith wouldnt have it. I know this sounds nasty and im gonna get lotta s**t for it. but its the truth.

BUt the honest truth is anyone who has left the stones, simply just coldnt handel the life of a stone. IE Brian jones: drugs just got to him MT: he was to jelous and Bitter. and Bill was just a pussy. (2 exceptions being that Keith hated both Matt clifford and Ian Mac)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-02-09 23:46 by whenthewhipcomesdown.

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.

Doxa, a nice post. It is an interesting point. What is really the core of the Stones? At what point do you basically say, “that’s it, they are not the same band anymore, I will not listen”.

When The Who lost Keith Moon, that was it for me. I had always been a big fan, but without Moon’s big drum sound I had no more interest. The idea of Led Zeppelin without Bonham was likewise impossible to consider. Suprising, to me at least, how much a drum sound contributes to a band’s music. I think I would feel the same way about Charlie. Without him, the Stones just would not be the same band. Dare I say it, I would have to consider giving-up on the Glimmer Twins.

I miss Wyman’s style also. But as you said, his loss is the easiest to hide.

karl

'Don’t forget, if you’re on your bike, wear white'

When the who lost Entwhistle I more or less gave up on them. Zak Starkey is a fabulous replacement for Moon. He plays in the same wild, unbridled style Moon used and even looks a bit like him. The loss of Entwhistle just took the p-ss out of the Who for me though. They replaced him (admittedly a near impossible task) with another technically proficient back up player

bring back DICK taylor on bass-- the original stones bassist!!!!

STONES JAM!! MICKEYS RULES!!! (burp) NADER IN 2016!!!!! GO GIANTS!!

Bill recently said he "wasn't a Stone anymore." I guess that nips any delusions we have, of his coming back. Besides, Keith gets pretty angry at those that quit. But, in all fairness, Bill gave the rest of the band plently of warning, years in fact.