Quote
chop
Bill screwed up in 1993. At that time it didn't seem like such a dumb move...I mean what other band lasted that long at that time...and he was the oldest member. Was it that silly to assume the stones would only last another 4-5 years max anyway? I would've never guessed they would have so many big money tours post 1989-1990. If he did it all over again he likely stays through 2003 or so and then quits. But after a 20 year absence you can't just re appear and make demands...bill can be a bit too lordly at times. He chided the stones for not giving him support when the whole mandy thing was blowing up in the media...well gosh bill maybe it's because none of them wanted to go near that scandal with a 50 ft pole...for good reason

It was likely Keith that asked Bill back for the reunion shows. I doubt Mick cared much at this stage, but Keith has said things ("I lost my rhythm section when he left") that indicated he was the catalyst of Bills guest spots

What did Keith gain when Mick T left?

Quote
uhbuhgullayew

Quote
chop
Bill screwed up in 1993. At that time it didn't seem like such a dumb move...I mean what other band lasted that long at that time...and he was the oldest member. Was it that silly to assume the stones would only last another 4-5 years max anyway? I would've never guessed they would have so many big money tours post 1989-1990. If he did it all over again he likely stays through 2003 or so and then quits. But after a 20 year absence you can't just re appear and make demands...bill can be a bit too lordly at times. He chided the stones for not giving him support when the whole mandy thing was blowing up in the media...well gosh bill maybe it's because none of them wanted to go near that scandal with a 50 ft pole...for good reason

It was likely Keith that asked Bill back for the reunion shows. I doubt Mick cared much at this stage, but Keith has said things ("I lost my rhythm section when he left") that indicated he was the catalyst of Bills guest spots

What did Keith gain when Mick T left?

A poser.

Bill Wyman could only help them at this point. Just heard 'Doom & Gloom'. Absolutely no bass presence. They are a different, better band with Bill. You can't always hear it as well in a live setting, because it's subtle, but Bill is often the first sound by ears go to on an old Stones cut.

Quote
chop
It was likely Keith that asked Bill back for the reunion shows. I doubt Mick cared much at this stage, but Keith has said things ("I lost my rhythm section when he left") that indicated he was the catalyst of Bills guest spots

I've noticed that Keith has gone out of his way in interviews over the years to compliment Bill's playing, or make good natured jokes featuring him -- Bill's "prodigious bladder" being responsible for the gas station urination bust, the women on IORR's cover resembling Bill Wyman in drag, that kind of thing.

Quote
chop
Bill screwed up in 1993. At that time it didn't seem like such a dumb move...I mean what other band lasted that long at that time...and he was the oldest member. Was it that silly to assume the stones would only last another 4-5 years max anyway? I would've never guessed they would have so many big money tours post 1989-1990. If he did it all over again he likely stays through 2003 or so and then quits. But after a 20 year absence you can't just re appear and make demands...bill can be a bit too lordly at times. He chided the stones for not giving him support when the whole mandy thing was blowing up in the media...well gosh bill maybe it's because none of them wanted to go near that scandal with a 50 ft pole...for good reason

It was likely Keith that asked Bill back for the reunion shows. I doubt Mick cared much at this stage, but Keith has said things ("I lost my rhythm section when he left") that indicated he was the catalyst of Bills guest spots

OK. So that's Keith who wants him there, Charlie who probably wants him there because they're pretty tight, and Ronnie who I believe would like him to be there based on what he has recently said about jamming with Bill again.

I guess we know who put the kibosh on Bill properly participating for 2012 and this year.

Quote
achilles77

Quote
chop
Bill screwed up in 1993. At that time it didn't seem like such a dumb move...I mean what other band lasted that long at that time...and he was the oldest member. Was it that silly to assume the stones would only last another 4-5 years max anyway? I would've never guessed they would have so many big money tours post 1989-1990. If he did it all over again he likely stays through 2003 or so and then quits. But after a 20 year absence you can't just re appear and make demands...bill can be a bit too lordly at times. He chided the stones for not giving him support when the whole mandy thing was blowing up in the media...well gosh bill maybe it's because none of them wanted to go near that scandal with a 50 ft pole...for good reason

It was likely Keith that asked Bill back for the reunion shows. I doubt Mick cared much at this stage, but Keith has said things ("I lost my rhythm section when he left") that indicated he was the catalyst of Bills guest spots

OK. So that's Keith who wants him there, Charlie who probably wants him there because they're pretty tight, and Ronnie who I believe would like him to be there based on what he has recently said about jamming with Bill again.

I guess we know who put the kibosh on Bill properly participating for 2012 and this year.

Well, since Mick didn't care - then it would have to be Chuck.

Quote
chop
after a 20 year absence you can't just re appear and make demands

Bill wasn't making demands, he was expressing disappointment over expectations--after all, in the beginning, he was also cramped together with them when riding in the van to their club gigs before they made it big, and he was one-fifth of what the band was able to achieve for all those years. And for all that, they don't even allow him a sound check for his guest appearance--this alone suggests a certain bitterness on the part of Mr. Jagger. They weren't welcoming back an old friend/wayward family member, whatever, they were begrudgingly acknowledging the presence of a former living member, as they likely would have done with Brian Jones as well, had he lived--and who might have received a similar perfunctory treatment at the hands of the head Stones.

Besides, it's not like The Stones have actually moved on musically in the past 20 years. They're still playing the exact same set list as they did on the Steel Wheels/Urban Jungle tours.

If you look at it philosophically, the Stones aren't like other groups in the songwriting department. They have had very few charted cover versions of their songs, let alone a smash hit. The Beatles, and Dylan, conversely, have made large fortunes from covers of their compositions.

It seems therefore that the essence of a Stones song is not the song itself, but the performance, in particular the performances of specific individuals. What is She's A Rainbow without Nicky Hopkins? Miss You without Bill Wyman? Ruby Tuesday without Brian Jones? Brown Sugar without Keith Richards? Honky Tonk Women without Charlie Watts? Emotional Rescue without Ron Wood? And this doesn't even bring up the subject of Mick Jagger.

My point is that the songwriting/publishing structure is unfair when it comes to the Stones. Nanker Phelge was unfair because it gave equal credit when equal credit was not called for after a certain time. But the Jagger/Richard partnership went too far in not compensating individuals for crucial elements to their songs. There are instances where Mick & Keiths contributions are practically 100%, as in Tears Go By. But where is Satisfaction without Bill's insistent bass line? Or Get Off My Cloud without Charlie's dynamite sticks drumming? And yet there was no way to get a bonus, or a piece of the action for those whose contribution either ARE the song, or a high percentage of it.

A recent example would be Rough Justice. After Mick's vocal, the crucial element is Ronnie's slide guitar work, and yet Keith gets 50% of the royalties, Ron Wood nothing. So, the question is not whether Bill's contribution would jeopardize the music (what's left of it), but really, why would he?