Quote
wanderingspirit66

Quote
Doxa
And if speculate more of Jagger's position, I think he is such a professional that he don't consider these kind of 'personal' or 'nostalgic' matters over the actual working of the band. I mean, for Jagger - to be able to concentrate 100% to make his show work - the less he has worries about how the band works, the better. Even though he would love to have Wyman - or Taylor - there all the time, I don't think he would ever get this nostalgic feeling go over his will to to keep the band as 'safe and sure' in backing him up. The way I read Jagger, he has bigger schemes than 'personal relations' in his mind (how could he even stand Richards, if he wouldn't?); a modern Stones is Jagger's masterpiece in minimizing all the risky factors it might have - as it did traditionally, long time ago, have (we nostalgic romantics would say rejecting the "danger" elements out). And that dedication and attitude has kept the Stones as a trademark strong concert draw for decades now.

So my 'educated guess' is that what deep down happened between Wyman and the Stones was simply that Wyman's nostalgic thoughts of happy 'get together' simply clashed with Jagger's determinated way to lead the band, and keep it on a 'right' track. Jagger simply didn't share the 'romantical' view Wyman seemed to have about this 50th Anniversary. Jagger surely knows how to play the nostalgia card, but not that way. In a way, I actually admire Jagger's determinate professionalism.

- Doxa

I don't think this has that much to do with determinate (read ruthless) professionalism. Jagger did accept that 50 years was all about being nostalgic and romanticizing the anniversary was just a part of the process. IMO, it is the only reason Jagger even went through the process - not because he was nostalgic, certainly not because he wanted to work with Richards - but more because one is supposed to be nostalgic after 50 years. The Rolling Stones were always supposed to last 50 years and more. It is also precisely why Jagger included Wyman and Taylor at all. Including them to any extent was actually quite a sweet thing to do and also extend the romantic myth.
You can't have people walking and out of organizations as they please. What happens to the ones who came later and the ones that replaced them - leave them out hanging and then they step in when ordered to do so? Or slight them by letting them know that they aren’t really part of the “best” version of the band?

You think “he is such a professional that he don't consider these kind of 'personal' or 'nostalgic' matters over the actual working of the band”.

I actually believe the complete opposite, Jagger's dedication to the Stones is so great that he considers these personal and nostalgic matters to be an intrinsic component to the actual workings of the band. It is also why he often works outside the band. It is also why in 50 years you'd be hard pressed to find anything grossly negative that Jagger has said regarding the Stones or a fellow Stone. The Stones may be Brian's baby but they have certainly been Jagger's to raise and Jagger's burden to carry.

In regards to the Stones and its members, Jagger's decisions hardly smack of deterministic professionalism. Au contraire, his decisions seem laden with sensitivity to both current and past members of the band, more aligned with someone thoughtfully managing the process of pleasing as many people as possible that are associated with the Stones (including a host of disapproving and disingenuous fans who think they can do better). Jagger, the front man has not had the luxury to choose between arrangements that are safe and sure versus those that are dangerous and risky; Jagger the front man has had to worry more about whether his backing band can even function every day or not.

What I admire more is that has the IQ and EQ to manage a host of diplomatically bankrupt boozards, junkies, curmudgeons that surround him, often musically incompetent and yet he steers the band and have it reach these improbable milestones - even perform Glastonbury and Hyde Park.

There was a funny blurb in the New Yorker when Jagger turned 70 - see below
[www.newyorker.com]
Hertzberg, too, had attended one of the Stones’ concerts that week, and, leaving the Garden, he ran into a friend. The friend, Hertzberg wrote, was one of those people who are obsessed with ranking things: “Over the years, he has informed me at various times that Mao Tse-tung is the No. 1 politician, Le Monde is the No. 1 newspaper, and the Siamese cat is the No. 1 urban pet.” “I’ve decided that Mick Jagger is No. 1,” he told Hertzberg.
“You mean he’s the best rock singer in the world? Of course he is,” I said.
“No,” he said. “I mean that he’s No. 1 over all. I mean that if I were to make a list ranking all the people in the world, all four billion of them, his name would be the first on the list. In the field of human beings, Mick Jagger is No. 1.”

Quote
Doxa

Quote
owlbynite

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
There is a conspiracy everywhere, if you'll look hard enough, Doxa.

This time, it looks simple: Bill was disappointed that he didn't get a bigger role - and perhaps he didn't get the time required for his travel plans/arrangement.

They didn't HAVE to invite him, but they did.

What's hypocritical by saying having Bill back was fantastic? Man, that's a weird statement!

While you're lurking in conspiracy-land, I prefer sticking to the reality. The Stones is not a war zone, it's a pensionnaire entourage. This just isn't a crime novel. If a guest can't adapt to how it is, that's sad - but not necessarily anyone's fault...

A-ha, since I'm not seeing everything according to the Holy Doctrine of The Rolling Stones where Mick and Keith Can Do No Wrong, and where me a mortal fan is only supposed to praise everything these Gods do, and be eternally happy if any bone is thrown to me by them, I am "lurking in conspiracy-land". Besides, everytime someone is claiming to be have a privileged access to "reality" - and thereby seeing the rivalling views as non-rational - we are drifting to dangerous waters.

That True Believier Attitude is so beatifully expressed in your point that "They didn't HAVE to invite him, but they did". Yes, praise them - those altruistic saints were just so nice to that old bugger and to us stupid fans to do a gesture like that. No, they didn't "have to" do that, but they just had so big hearts. Hallelujah! Nor didn't they had to ask so much guarantee money they asked for their gigs, but those sweethearts did in the solely for the joy of us having a chance to see them. Hallelujah!

But my initial point in my post was that Wyman still had a little 'nostalgic' picture of the band - if I recall right he had some three decades history eith them - which didn't match with the reality any longer. That's the way I interpret his bitternesss. Of course, for you True Believers, he is just a "bitter" man an sich (not to forget his systematic bullshit with which he makes such heretic claims of composing the riff of "Jumpin' Jack Flash"), so no need to even try to understand any reasons for his bitterness.

- Doxa

...Holy Doctrine of the Rolling Stones.....

A bit heavy rhetorics I admit...

I had so much fun in writing that, and it wasn't meant to be offensive or anything, but just over-exaggarated caricature picture of the funny position I take some fans here to have. I hope Dandie sees through it...

- Doxa

Quote
Stoneage
What I mean is that it wasn't out of kindness Bill and Mick T were invited; a 50 year jubilee without them wouldn't have been credible.
And, furthermore, the inclusion of the two made it possible to charge those exorbitant ticket prices.

Quote
Stoneage
What I mean is that it wasn't out of kindness Bill and Mick T were invited; a 50 year jubilee without them wouldn't have been credible.
And, furthermore, the inclusion of the two made it possible to charge those exorbitant ticket prices.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Stoneage
What I mean is that it wasn't out of kindness Bill and Mick T were invited; a 50 year jubilee without them wouldn't have been credible.
And, furthermore, the inclusion of the two made it possible to charge those exorbitant ticket prices.

They could have toured without them and charged the same.

Of course it would have been credible. It was more righteously to include them, though.

Quote
KatieGirl
The peeople beside and behind me didn't know who Mick Taylor was, and I know both groups had been to more concerts than I had. It felt kind of weird having to tell them when they asked me.

Quote
24FPS
the average Rolling Stones sucker fan

Quote
Rolling Hansie

Quote
24FPS
the average Rolling Stones sucker fan

Oh, how I would love to have a definition of that

Quote
24FPS

Quote
Rolling Hansie

Quote
24FPS
the average Rolling Stones sucker fan

Oh, how I would love to have a definition of that

Rolling Stones sucker fan: Someone who paid more than $150 to any show on the current tour. Someone who thought Mick Taylor would play at least 3-4 songs at each stop. Someone who thought the band would be as good as they've been in the past. Someone who went to more than one show, expecting a setlist that differed by more than one of two 'rarities'. Someone who thought an $85 'Lottery' ticket couldn't be the absolute worst seats in the house, almost totally obstructed, and not even offered for sale before the concert. (Of which I was one).

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
24FPS

Quote
Rolling Hansie

Quote
24FPS
the average Rolling Stones sucker fan

Oh, how I would love to have a definition of that

Rolling Stones sucker fan: Someone who paid more than $150 to any show on the current tour. Someone who thought Mick Taylor would play at least 3-4 songs at each stop. Someone who thought the band would be as good as they've been in the past. Someone who went to more than one show, expecting a setlist that differed by more than one of two 'rarities'. Someone who thought an $85 'Lottery' ticket couldn't be the absolute worst seats in the house, almost totally obstructed, and not even offered for sale before the concert. (Of which I was one).

I'll have you know that I got 85's and got upgraded 5 minutes before show time and was in row 12 beside the stage. Mick would wave at me every time he pranced passed.

I'm not even joking.

Quote
24FPS

Quote
Rolling Hansie

Quote
24FPS
the average Rolling Stones sucker fan

Oh, how I would love to have a definition of that

Rolling Stones sucker fan: Someone who paid more than $150 to any show on the current tour. Someone who thought Mick Taylor would play at least 3-4 songs at each stop. Someone who thought the band would be as good as they've been in the past. Someone who went to more than one show, expecting a setlist that differed by more than one of two 'rarities'. Someone who thought an $85 'Lottery' ticket couldn't be the absolute worst seats in the house, almost totally obstructed, and not even offered for sale before the concert. (Of which I was one).

Quote
Rolling Hansie

Quote
24FPS

Quote
Rolling Hansie

Quote
24FPS
the average Rolling Stones sucker fan

Oh, how I would love to have a definition of that

Rolling Stones sucker fan: Someone who paid more than $150 to any show on the current tour. Someone who thought Mick Taylor would play at least 3-4 songs at each stop. Someone who thought the band would be as good as they've been in the past. Someone who went to more than one show, expecting a setlist that differed by more than one of two 'rarities'. Someone who thought an $85 'Lottery' ticket couldn't be the absolute worst seats in the house, almost totally obstructed, and not even offered for sale before the concert. (Of which I was one).

Yes, count me in for that one. But I don't fit into the other things you mention. Do I still qualify ?

Quote
treaclefingers
I'm not even joking.

Quote
Rolling Hansie

Quote
treaclefingers
I'm not even joking.

Now this is serious stuff. What's wrong ? Nothing bad I hope

Quote
treaclefingers
even though I said "I'm not even joking", I was in fact, even joking at that point.

Quote
Rolling Hansie

Quote
treaclefingers
even though I said "I'm not even joking", I was in fact, even joking at that point.

Good news, thanks. Unless you are joking now of course.

Quote
treaclefingers
I've forgotten the question.

Quote
Rolling Hansie

Quote
24FPS

Quote
Rolling Hansie

Quote
24FPS
the average Rolling Stones sucker fan

Oh, how I would love to have a definition of that

Rolling Stones sucker fan: Someone who paid more than $150 to any show on the current tour. Someone who thought Mick Taylor would play at least 3-4 songs at each stop. Someone who thought the band would be as good as they've been in the past. Someone who went to more than one show, expecting a setlist that differed by more than one of two 'rarities'. Someone who thought an $85 'Lottery' ticket couldn't be the absolute worst seats in the house, almost totally obstructed, and not even offered for sale before the concert. (Of which I was one).

Yes, count me in for that one. But I don't fit into the other things you mention. Do I still qualify ?

Quote
Aquamarine
They were accused of price-gouging on the '69 tour, and every tour thereafter. With the Stones, it is what it is. Of course I wish they would make concert tickets more affordable for people, but by the same token, if someone paid more than $150 (even a lot more) and felt s/he'd got his/her money's worth, then that someone isn't a sucker. Value is relative.

Quote
24FPS

Quote
Aquamarine
They were accused of price-gouging on the '69 tour, and every tour thereafter. With the Stones, it is what it is. Of course I wish they would make concert tickets more affordable for people, but by the same token, if someone paid more than $150 (even a lot more) and felt s/he'd got his/her money's worth, then that someone isn't a sucker. Value is relative.

There's a big difference between accused of gouging for $5.00 for a top ducat in '69, and 130 times that for 2013. The highest I paid was $225 in 1999 for No Security. I'd never seen them in an arena, and I'd never seen them close-up. They were on fire musically, having been on the road for most of 3 years. That was expensive, but worth it for value.

A Bigger Bang at Dodger Stadium in 2006 was expensive, but I got floor seats and saw them close up. But it was more of a show than a musical experience. Still, a good value.

I agree that value is relative. It's just my 2-cent opinion. To my ears, and I've been going to Stones concerts since 1978, they jumped the shark on this last tour. One too many times of going to the same well.