Quote
DandelionPowderman


I'm not sure if they sold that many tickets.

If this refers to ticket demand at O2 (and the multiply nested quotes make it hard for me to tell) then it's wrong.

The demand for tickets for the O2 events was unbelievably vast and gigantic. That's irrespective of the involvement of Messrs Wyman and Taylor.

Wyman in the last 20 years always said that touring was boring. He has been always cold and "far" from the band. So at the end i believe it was better like that.

He said he wasl ooking forward to touring the US but was told it was only for two songs on each night. That's why he didnt join them this time.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Rollin92
He has said for years that he wasn't interested in a full tour, don't forget he is 77 now!

He did, as Gazza rightly pointed out, want a bigger role in the 50th anniversary celebrations in their home town. As a gigging musician, as many others on here will back me up, 2 songs and your just getting into the groove. To have a 'warm up' essentially as his spotlight, just like Taylor, is a bit of a piss take considering that both were hugely influential to the bands sound.

Wyman's complaints imo were justified, not really much involvement 2 songs. Not much of a recognition that he was one of the founders.

Yeah, but the band needed to rehearse for about six weeks for those few shows as they hadnt worked together for over five years.

Would he have been prepared to commit to all that just for a couple of shows?

Probably if he was asked to join them again.

...dunno so much about a bigger roll ... but thinkin' back to
those Exile sessions maybe some English tea and custard woulda lured him for sure



ROCKMAN

I think the way Bill saw it they'd managed to insult him once more and he'll be damned before he'll ever give them that opportunity again. Bill I believe, was always a little slower on the uptake and probably nicer than Mick and Keith were, and probably thought that after all the time that had passed they'd have forgiven him for quitting, and would treat him decently for the reunion. Didn't happen though and they screwed him again by giving him that miniscule role.

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Rollin92
He has said for years that he wasn't interested in a full tour, don't forget he is 77 now!

He did, as Gazza rightly pointed out, want a bigger role in the 50th anniversary celebrations in their home town. As a gigging musician, as many others on here will back me up, 2 songs and your just getting into the groove. To have a 'warm up' essentially as his spotlight, just like Taylor, is a bit of a piss take considering that both were hugely influential to the bands sound.

Wyman's complaints imo were justified, not really much involvement 2 songs. Not much of a recognition that he was one of the founders.

Yeah, but the band needed to rehearse for about six weeks for those few shows as they hadnt worked together for over five years.

Would he have been prepared to commit to all that just for a couple of shows?

Probably if he was asked to join them again.

At 77 and being content with his own life outside that bubble and with the music he plays, he has zero interest in doing so.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-16 00:52 by Gazza.

I agree, I doubt he would have even considered it.

<<they screwed him again by giving him that miniscule role>>

He got one more song than Mick Taylor--besides, Darryl Jones is their regular touring bass player.

If Bill wanted a bigger role, he could have accepted the offers they made to be their bass player for the VL tour, the B2B tour, the Licks tour, and very likely even ABB--as Bill admitted in a radio interview in the mid-2000s. Every time before a tour, Mick and Keith would leave the door open for Bill and ask him if he wanted a job for 2 years--and they would ask him first before signing Darryl on.

They never wanted Bill to leave, they tried to talk him out of it, and they've asked him back to be their regular bass player several times since. And he's always turned them down.

Bill has only himself to blame, and if he's bitter about anything it's that The Rolling Stones didn't turn out to be the "family" he always wanted them to be. If you notice in old interviews, like from the 1970s, he talks of the band as being, to paraphrase, "like family; we get together every few years, talk of old times, and never have any problems".

If Bill were to point his metal detector on himself he would find several bullets lodged where he repeatedly shot himself in the foot.

Now they truly are like a real family; f-d up, dysfunctional and unable to communicate.

Quote
James Kirk
I've seen a couple of interviews conducted over the last year or so that seem to indicate that Bill Wyman would have been open to touring with the Stones if he was offered a more substantial role...It seems to me he wanted to take over full time duty on bass rather than accept the small role Mick Taylor has played thus far on tour.

Any thoughts?

- Stones are no longer creative, active band - they are greatest hits nostalgia jukebox that does few shows every now and then, - nothing more - and since they can play the old songs without Bill and the fact that they are no longer creative and musicial force - question becomes " who cares"

Quote
24FPS
Now they truly are like a real family; f-d up, dysfunctional and unable to communicate.

Thy've always been like that, tis part of the charm.

Quote
seitan

Quote
James Kirk
I've seen a couple of interviews conducted over the last year or so that seem to indicate that Bill Wyman would have been open to touring with the Stones if he was offered a more substantial role...It seems to me he wanted to take over full time duty on bass rather than accept the small role Mick Taylor has played thus far on tour.

Any thoughts?

- Stones are no longer creative, active band - they are greatest hits nostalgia jukebox that does few shows every now and then, - nothing more - and since they can play the old songs without Bill and the fact that they are no longer creative and musicial force - question becomes " who cares"

Who cares? In the end, people like me who are absolutely aware of the current state of the band but still dream that one day, they will be able to shift the focus a bit more to the music for one last time.

Quote
seitan

Quote
James Kirk
I've seen a couple of interviews conducted over the last year or so that seem to indicate that Bill Wyman would have been open to touring with the Stones if he was offered a more substantial role...It seems to me he wanted to take over full time duty on bass rather than accept the small role Mick Taylor has played thus far on tour.

Any thoughts?

- Stones are no longer creative, active band - they are greatest hits nostalgia jukebox that does few shows every now and then, - nothing more - and since they can play the old songs without Bill and the fact that they are no longer creative and musicial force - question becomes " who cares"

This, sadly, is the truth. There's no real reason to bring back Bill because they don't care about artistic heights anymore. They've got enough past accomplishments in their backpack to glide off of until they retire. Bill's participation in the Ian Stewart tribute, and word that he would rejoin the band for a couple shows, got our hopes up that something substantial was happening. But we know now that those days are gone for good. They've even managed to tamp down Mick Taylor's involvement to the point where it's hard to get excited about it.

That Australian 60 Minutes Interview was so glib and cynical. Nothing uncomfortable, nothing revealed. Peddle the myth. Interviewers know if they get too personal they won't get access. I have finally accepted the inevitable. The Hyde Park DVD was the first Stones concert product I didn't buy. They're going to have it on Showtime in the States some time soon, so I'll see it, but at least I'll be able to fast forward to the very few highlights, Emotional Rescue and Mick Taylor on Midnight Rambler.

I have a feeling we've seen the last of the 4 Flicks/Bigger Bang type box set. Since they're just playing the same set list over and over and over, there's no variety to justify doing it. And no, I'm not buying a product just to hear 'Glastonbury Girl'. Everything that is called The Rolling Stones now, is about getting people to pay big bucks to see them play a fixed Vegas set list every night. They have finally become the antithesis of their very being, boring entertainers. They are now the Dean Martin of their generation. Hell, they don't even play the blues anymore. What's next? Medleys?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-16 18:30 by 24FPS.

What's next? The Keef Richards celebrity roast!

Quote
24FPS
What's next? Medleys?

At this point, I wouldn't mind medleys. I would rather listen to a seven minutes long medley of Brown Sugar, JJ Flash and Satisfaction than to listen to the same seven minutes boring verisons of the songs we all heard before.
That way they could save time perhaps playing some less boring songs...

Quote
Rockman
...dunno so much about a bigger roll ... but thinkin' back to
those Exile sessions maybe some English tea and custard woulda lured him for sure

...and piccalilly...

I don't understand why the Stones get blamed for "treating Bill badly". Bill quit. Ages ago. Since then, whenever asked about the Stones, he went on and on about how he wrote Jumping Jack Flash, wasn't paid enough, slept with more girls than Jagger, that the Stones are not innovative anymore and that he always saw right through Keith and Mick's devious games. I like the way he plays bass, but let's face it, the guy is an unsupportive, whining old bore. And he never showed much shame of his leering dirty old man's attitude either. Even when he's right about some of his critisisms, how would that earn him the rights to play an entire concert with the Stones? How would that work?
He quit. So he doesn't have any rights on anything. They just offered him a nice change to play along with a few songs. I mean, how many bands would have done that? Both the Stones as Darryl Jones have been graceful enough to let this happen. And what does Wyman do? Complain that two songs wasn't enough. What did he expect?

1. I don't think Bill would have wanted to join [or re-join] the band for any extended period of activity.

2, In view of 1, it wouldn't have been worthwhile embarking on all the additional rehearsals to reintegrate Bill for a whole set of material.

If he'd seriously wanted to get fully back on board, I'm sure it could have happened.
But he didn't.

Quote
matxil
I don't understand why the Stones get blamed for "treating Bill badly". Bill quit. Ages ago. Since then, whenever asked about the Stones, he went on and on about how he wrote Jumping Jack Flash, wasn't paid enough, slept with more girls than Jagger, that the Stones are not innovative anymore and that he always saw right through Keith and Mick's devious games. I like the way he plays bass, but let's face it, the guy is an unsupportive, whining old bore. And he never showed much shame of his leering dirty old man's attitude either. Even when he's right about some of his critisisms, how would that earn him the rights to play an entire concert with the Stones? How would that work?
He quit. So he doesn't have any rights on anything. They just offered him a nice change to play along with a few songs. I mean, how many bands would have done that? Both the Stones as Darryl Jones have been graceful enough to let this happen. And what does Wyman do? Complain that two songs wasn't enough. What did he expect?

You may not call it charming, but Bill's honesty was one of the more refreshing things about the band, especially as they've become more and more guarded. We don't know if he wanted to play an entire concert. But isn't it stupid not to get together the greatest lineup of the band, Watts/Wyman/Taylor/Jagger/Richards, when it's right there in the wings, panting to get on? Just a few songs. But no, it didn't fit into Mick Jagger's plan, whatever the hell that was. For some reason his plans tend to leave the hardcore fans frustrated.

I don't think the questions should be, "What did he expect"?, but should be, "How could the Stones blow such a once in a lifetime opportunity?"

Quote
24FPS

Quote
seitan

Quote
James Kirk
I've seen a couple of interviews conducted over the last year or so that seem to indicate that Bill Wyman would have been open to touring with the Stones if he was offered a more substantial role...It seems to me he wanted to take over full time duty on bass rather than accept the small role Mick Taylor has played thus far on tour.

Any thoughts?

- Stones are no longer creative, active band - they are greatest hits nostalgia jukebox that does few shows every now and then, - nothing more - and since they can play the old songs without Bill and the fact that they are no longer creative and musicial force - question becomes " who cares"

This, sadly, is the truth. There's no real reason to bring back Bill because they don't care about artistic heights anymore. They've got enough past accomplishments in their backpack to glide off of until they retire. Bill's participation in the Ian Stewart tribute, and word that he would rejoin the band for a couple shows, got our hopes up that something substantial was happening. But we know now that those days are gone for good. They've even managed to tamp down Mick Taylor's involvement to the point where it's hard to get excited about it.

That Australian 60 Minutes Interview was so glib and cynical. Nothing uncomfortable, nothing revealed. Peddle the myth. Interviewers know if they get too personal they won't get access. I have finally accepted the inevitable. The Hyde Park DVD was the first Stones concert product I didn't buy. They're going to have it on Showtime in the States some time soon, so I'll see it, but at least I'll be able to fast forward to the very few highlights, Emotional Rescue and Mick Taylor on Midnight Rambler.

I have a feeling we've seen the last of the 4 Flicks/Bigger Bang type box set. Since they're just playing the same set list over and over and over, there's no variety to justify doing it. And no, I'm not buying a product just to hear 'Glastonbury Girl'. Everything that is called The Rolling Stones now, is about getting people to pay big bucks to see them play a fixed Vegas set list every night. They have finally become the antithesis of their very being, boring entertainers. They are now the Dean Martin of their generation. Hell, they don't even play the blues anymore. What's next? Medleys?

Great analysis. Pretty much sums up what I meant with "current state of the band" in my post above.

And, yes, these "hopes that something SUBSTANTIAL" is going to happen...I remember them all to well in these past years, but...nada, nothing. Well, what actually happened was SOMETHING, but not anything SUBSTANTIAL.

Apart from the archive releases, of course. Years, if not decades, too late, but welcome nonetheless. Thanks, Mick, Keith, Charlie, Ronnie and whoever else who finally thought it was about time to open the vaults.

Quote
matxil
I don't understand why the Stones get blamed for "treating Bill badly". Bill quit. Ages ago. Since then, whenever asked about the Stones, he went on and on about how he wrote Jumping Jack Flash, wasn't paid enough, slept with more girls than Jagger, that the Stones are not innovative anymore and that he always saw right through Keith and Mick's devious games. I like the way he plays bass, but let's face it, the guy is an unsupportive, whining old bore. And he never showed much shame of his leering dirty old man's attitude either. Even when he's right about some of his critisisms, how would that earn him the rights to play an entire concert with the Stones? How would that work?
He quit. So he doesn't have any rights on anything. They just offered him a nice change to play along with a few songs. I mean, how many bands would have done that? Both the Stones as Darryl Jones have been graceful enough to let this happen. And what does Wyman do? Complain that two songs wasn't enough. What did he expect?

I agree.

...and piccalilly...




Awww yeah RoughJusticeOnYa good ole pickles .... does look
a little like something else but right now it's actually breakfast time for me...



ROCKMAN

Bill Wyman quit 20 years ago because he wanted more time with his family, and because he did not like the big tour with flying. Now they are going to Australia and you can not take the bus there. So I think the question is iorrelevant because:

1. Bill quit 20+ years ago
2. He doesn't like to fly
3. He don't like tours
4. He would tahre be at home with his family

But if they perform at the O2 Arena in London, no need for travel, except for a short train ride, sure he would love to have a central role in the band. Who would not like that?

Bjornulf

Well, he doesn't like to fly, so that kind of limits going on any kind of tour with them, even if they were to ask him.....which would be a cold day in hell at this point.....

Nope - he is too old for that. Bill is almost 80. He doesn't like the struggle anymore. He quit some 25 years ago - that was it. He realised that everything has its limits - fair enough to spend more time with his Family.

I would have loved, when Bill & Mick T have played the whole shows with the other 4.

Of course it would be great if Bill was there too. But it won't happen, regardless of his age. He has fear of flying, remember? And he's too old to fly drugged.

Great post, matxil!

Love to see Bill again but I much rather have him
play on any new record...

Sad but it won't happen....Can't believe he is 77..

I'm just happy they are all still alive and kicking!!