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?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-13 17:24 by James Kirk.

He would have done a few shows only. At least, that's they way I understood him.

off course he would ve...

its doubtful he'll be asked again ..he basically told them to piss off, after the last attempt..

He would only tour if he got to do an infomercial for his metal detectors during an intermission.

I still don't really know why they didn't
offer Bill and for that matter Mick more time
playing.

I do agree that if Bill wanted to play and was WILLING to tour
then why not offer him a fulltime roll!

They still have to pay for their room, flights, food and the time.
Why not just use them?

It must be hard to get into playing and getting in your groove and then having to leave.

So if Bill would fly and go on tour then why not use him..

Still doesn't make any sense to have Mick play on 1 or 2 tracks and Bill on 2 tracks..

Quote
DandelionPowderman
He would have done a few shows only. At least, that's they way I understood him.

I once presented the same line of thinking as to Mick Taylor's limited role.

It was when I asked myself if there might exist an outright honourable and creditable reason behind such a decision in his case. I found that it possibly could. To open up for a fulltime presence for those two during only a few concerts, before they had shown in reality that they would continue to work with the band longer than for those few concerts, would be to lessen the relative importance of all future concerts. It would have meant to undermine the band and its existence. What motive, in case, could be more honourable than that?

If that line of thinking could hold true, we still don't know.

Edit: Correction of a stupid spelling error.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-13 21:33 by Witness.

Quote
Witness

Quote
DandelionPowderman
He would have done a few shows only. At least, that's they way I understood him.

I once presented the same line of thinking as to Mick Taylor's limited role.

It was when I asked myself if their might exist an outright honourable and creditable reason behind such a decision in his case. I found that it possibly could. To open up for a fulltime presence for those two during only a few concerts, before they had shown in reality that they would continue to work with the band longer than for those few concerts, would be to lessen the relative importance of all future concerts. It would have meant to undermine the band and its existence. What motive, in case, could be more honourable than that?

If that line of thinking could hold true, we still don't know.

"The band must survive"... Seems to be key to their longevity.. Insightful post by Witness.

I would love to see Bill on the entire tour.

To have Taylor and Wyman play full-time you have to pay them full-time. Jagger ain't gonna spend the dough....

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?

no - he wanted more of a role in the London 2012 shows. Not the same as a full tour.

I dont see how anyone still thinks its possible or realistic to get Wyman to commit to a full tour when its common knowledge that the man wont get on a plane.

He's also not really interested, musically.

He did mention in several interviews that he would have been open to at least playing the Stones shows in NY/NJ last December, but it wasn't worth his time to play just two songs per show in the United States.

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.

Wyman is bitter, very bitter since 1993. Even before hand. He would of been a negative force on the tour.

Quote
James Kirk
He did mention in several interviews that he would have been open to at least playing the Stones shows in NY/NJ last December, but it wasn't worth his time to play just two songs per show in the United States.

That's true, but he wasn't talking about more touring at all.

I agree that he probably wanted a bigger role in the London shows. God knows why they couldn't pull that off. Such dickishness.

Quote
24FPS
I agree that he probably wanted a bigger role in the London shows. God knows why they couldn't pull that off. Such dickishness.

It will be interesting to see what role if any he will participate in the upcoming Asian tour.

He will be digging lost treasures in the ruins of Angkor.

Nope.

Yes of course. He said it himself.

Quote
hot stuff
I still don't really know why they didn't
offer Bill and for that matter Mick more time
playing.

I do agree that if Bill wanted to play and was WILLING to tour
then why not offer him a fulltime roll!

They still have to pay for their room, flights, food and the time.
Why not just use them?

It must be hard to get into playing and getting in your groove and then having to leave.

So if Bill would fly and go on tour then why not use him..

Still doesn't make any sense to have Mick play on 1 or 2 tracks and Bill on 2 tracks..

Well, it's pretty simple: Forget terms and phrases like "old friendship", "sentimentality" or "for old time's sake" - this tour's tickets are extremely expensive, so the Stones are firing on all cylinders to sell them.

Mick Taylor and Bill were used as "teasers" to sell tickets, nothing more, nothing less. There are no artistic reasons for inviting them, it was a pure calculated business move.

Why they did not play more? Well,they are not allowed to get "too important", to gain a position that allows them to demand more than the core band is willing to give. So for one or two songs their participation is ok, but not more.

Wyman realized that his role was to play the useful idiot. That explains his bitterness.

Quote
Redhotcarpet
Yes of course. He said it himself.

No, he was talking about the handfull of gigs they had booked.

Quote
alimente

Quote
hot stuff
I still don't really know why they didn't
offer Bill and for that matter Mick more time
playing.

I do agree that if Bill wanted to play and was WILLING to tour
then why not offer him a fulltime roll!

They still have to pay for their room, flights, food and the time.
Why not just use them?

It must be hard to get into playing and getting in your groove and then having to leave.

So if Bill would fly and go on tour then why not use him..

Still doesn't make any sense to have Mick play on 1 or 2 tracks and Bill on 2 tracks..

Well, it's pretty simple: Forget terms and phrases like "old friendship", "sentimentality" or "for old time's sake" - this tour's tickets are extremely expensive, so the Stones are firing on all cylinders to sell them.

Mick Taylor and Bill were used as "teasers" to sell tickets, nothing more, nothing less. There are no artistic reasons for inviting them, it was a pure calculated business move.

Why they did not play more? Well,they are not allowed to get "too important", to gain a position that allows them to demand more than the core band is willing to give. So for one or two songs their participation is ok, but not more.

Wyman realized that his role was to play the useful idiot. That explains his bitterness.

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

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
alimente

Quote
hot stuff
I still don't really know why they didn't
offer Bill and for that matter Mick more time
playing.

I do agree that if Bill wanted to play and was WILLING to tour
then why not offer him a fulltime roll!

They still have to pay for their room, flights, food and the time.
Why not just use them?

It must be hard to get into playing and getting in your groove and then having to leave.

So if Bill would fly and go on tour then why not use him..

Still doesn't make any sense to have Mick play on 1 or 2 tracks and Bill on 2 tracks..

Well, it's pretty simple: Forget terms and phrases like "old friendship", "sentimentality" or "for old time's sake" - this tour's tickets are extremely expensive, so the Stones are firing on all cylinders to sell them.

Mick Taylor and Bill were used as "teasers" to sell tickets, nothing more, nothing less. There are no artistic reasons for inviting them, it was a pure calculated business move.

Why they did not play more? Well,they are not allowed to get "too important", to gain a position that allows them to demand more than the core band is willing to give. So for one or two songs their participation is ok, but not more.

Wyman realized that his role was to play the useful idiot. That explains his bitterness.

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

No they did not, but I believe there still was that kind of strategy behind it, as it was to add two new songs to the latest greatest hits collection to get those people interested who might not been too thrilled about having the same old one, same old one once again. Anyway, the strategy made me purchace a concert ticket (but not GRRRR... though).

- Doxa

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?

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
alimente

Quote
hot stuff
I still don't really know why they didn't
offer Bill and for that matter Mick more time
playing.

I do agree that if Bill wanted to play and was WILLING to tour
then why not offer him a fulltime roll!

They still have to pay for their room, flights, food and the time.
Why not just use them?

It must be hard to get into playing and getting in your groove and then having to leave.

So if Bill would fly and go on tour then why not use him..

Still doesn't make any sense to have Mick play on 1 or 2 tracks and Bill on 2 tracks..

Well, it's pretty simple: Forget terms and phrases like "old friendship", "sentimentality" or "for old time's sake" - this tour's tickets are extremely expensive, so the Stones are firing on all cylinders to sell them.

Mick Taylor and Bill were used as "teasers" to sell tickets, nothing more, nothing less. There are no artistic reasons for inviting them, it was a pure calculated business move.

Why they did not play more? Well,they are not allowed to get "too important", to gain a position that allows them to demand more than the core band is willing to give. So for one or two songs their participation is ok, but not more.

Wyman realized that his role was to play the useful idiot. That explains his bitterness.

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

they sold mine for starters!

I dont think they were used to sell tickets per se as the shows sold out pretty quick. Albeit largely thanks to ticket touts and brokers.

If anything, it helped shift a few of those tickets that were sitting unsold on viagogo and e-bay.

Doesn't matter anymore. It's all history now. Perks is 77 years old now and is starting to look like it. I don't think he will ever play with the band again.
Here is the bunkum of today: Time waits for no one...

Perhaps--if they let him front the band and sing, doing numbers only The Rhythm Kings would do.

Bill Wyman and His Rhythm Stones. I like that, and I would pay for a $3,000 VIP package just to witness it.

Quote
Stoneage
Doesn't matter anymore. It's all history now. Perks is 77 years old now and is starting to look like it. I don't think he will ever play with the band again.
Here is the bunkum of today: Time waits for no one...

He could have played Glastonbury with them as he was there the same weekend. He didnt. That speaks volumes. The ship has sailed.

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.

I agree and add... that the Stones musically played it safe with song selections used for both Mick and Bill.