Quote
DandelionPowderman
He probably meant that the swing/rockabilly/walking bass/wobble-timed Bill-sound was gone when he left.

Quote
1962
I agree with Dylan, but it's not that big problem.
Bill Wyman gave a special swing to the Stones' sound, and it was part of the Stones magic.
Darryl is an absolute professional musician he can play anything they want so this is very comfortable for them especially on these modern era tours.
And yes he tends to play a bit funky and that's a bit different from the original concept.
But most people don't care.

Quote
24FPS

Quote
1962
I agree with Dylan, but it's not that big problem.
Bill Wyman gave a special swing to the Stones' sound, and it was part of the Stones magic.
Darryl is an absolute professional musician he can play anything they want so this is very comfortable for them especially on these modern era tours.
And yes he tends to play a bit funky and that's a bit different from the original concept.
But most people don't care.

That's so true. But this is a forum for hard core fans, and many of them do have ears sensitive to the bass. I don't care if Darryl plays funky, I just want the bass to be a memorable part of the over all sound, instead of just background noodling that doesn't engage the listener. And yes, it makes not much of a difference if you're listening to it live. But those DVDs we've been treated to the last few years show how great Bill really was. And likewise, the DVDs of post-Wyman concerts show how meaningless the bass has become in the Stones' rhythm section.

Quote
Hairball

Quote
24FPS

Quote
1962
I agree with Dylan, but it's not that big problem.
Bill Wyman gave a special swing to the Stones' sound, and it was part of the Stones magic.
Darryl is an absolute professional musician he can play anything they want so this is very comfortable for them especially on these modern era tours.
And yes he tends to play a bit funky and that's a bit different from the original concept.
But most people don't care.

That's so true. But this is a forum for hard core fans, and many of them do have ears sensitive to the bass. I don't care if Darryl plays funky, I just want the bass to be a memorable part of the over all sound, instead of just background noodling that doesn't engage the listener. And yes, it makes not much of a difference if you're listening to it live. But those DVDs we've been treated to the last few years show how great Bill really was. And likewise, the DVDs of post-Wyman concerts show how meaningless the bass has become in the Stones' rhythm section.

Hmmm 24FPS...I seem to recall you taking issue with a comment I recently made saying Darryl's bass playing was adequate (or sufficient) as if I was making a disparaging remark about him - I wasn't.
Yet here you are saying "Darryl just appears to be someone the end stage Stones are comfortable with". You also say Darryl's bass playing could be "anybody" and that it's "meaningless".

Not trying to pick a fight, just wondering where you really stand. One moment you seemed to stand in his defense, and now you're throwing him in the gutter.
I say he's adequate (or sufficient), and you say he could be anybody and is meaningless?

Quote
24FPS

Quote
Hairball

Quote
24FPS

Quote
1962
I agree with Dylan, but it's not that big problem.
Bill Wyman gave a special swing to the Stones' sound, and it was part of the Stones magic.
Darryl is an absolute professional musician he can play anything they want so this is very comfortable for them especially on these modern era tours.
And yes he tends to play a bit funky and that's a bit different from the original concept.
But most people don't care.

That's so true. But this is a forum for hard core fans, and many of them do have ears sensitive to the bass. I don't care if Darryl plays funky, I just want the bass to be a memorable part of the over all sound, instead of just background noodling that doesn't engage the listener. And yes, it makes not much of a difference if you're listening to it live. But those DVDs we've been treated to the last few years show how great Bill really was. And likewise, the DVDs of post-Wyman concerts show how meaningless the bass has become in the Stones' rhythm section.

Hmmm 24FPS...I seem to recall you taking issue with a comment I recently made saying Darryl's bass playing was adequate (or sufficient) as if I was making a disparaging remark about him - I wasn't.
Yet here you are saying "Darryl just appears to be someone the end stage Stones are comfortable with". You also say Darryl's bass playing could be "anybody" and that it's "meaningless".

Not trying to pick a fight, just wondering where you really stand. One moment you seemed to stand in his defense, and now you're throwing him in the gutter.
I say he's adequate (or sufficient), and you say he could be anybody and is meaningless?

I don't understand the conflict you're saying I have. I've never cared for Darryl's playing with the Stones, although to be totally fair he did okay on Voodoo Lounge. After that he melted into nothingness, a non-entity within a band of distinct players.

Where I really stand is that the Stones were, and I guess still are for lack of competitors, the greatest rock and roll band in the world. It's no coincidence that two of my favorite bands, the Beatles and the Stones, have exemplary bass players. Darryl Jones is not in their class. Maybe he can read music, maybe he can play with Miles Davis, but he's not distinctive. Within the first few notes of hearing 'Plundered My Soul' in the summer of 2010, I knew that was Bill on bass and that he was influencing, and improving the sound of the Stones.

If Darryl was a great bass player, as many have asserted, we would be saying, "Oh yeah, Darryl's bass playing on INSERT NEWER STONES STONG is really good." Or, Darryl really took control of the melody and gave a nice pocket for Keith and Ronnie to work out of." But we don't. There's never been a thread that I know of extolling Darryl's bass playing for the Stones.

When I agree that Darryl is adequate for the Stones, you're damn straight I don't mean it as a compliment. There's probably a thousand bass players out there that could fill that roll, put down a thudding beat so the bottom doesn't fall out of the band. But my ears pick up the bass, and what it does. MCartney was a brilliant melodist, although he did get over busy at times. Bill gave the Stones music a spine, that was also listenable. Chuck used to be better, but he's just adequate now too. Do you thrill when you hear him do Nicky's part on She's A Rainbow? No, you think well, that was adequate. At least Chuck gets it near the original. I don't think Darryl gives a damn about Stones music. It's just a job.

Quote
Hairball

Quote
24FPS

Quote
Hairball

Quote
24FPS

Quote
1962
I agree with Dylan, but it's not that big problem.
Bill Wyman gave a special swing to the Stones' sound, and it was part of the Stones magic.
Darryl is an absolute professional musician he can play anything they want so this is very comfortable for them especially on these modern era tours.
And yes he tends to play a bit funky and that's a bit different from the original concept.
But most people don't care.

That's so true. But this is a forum for hard core fans, and many of them do have ears sensitive to the bass. I don't care if Darryl plays funky, I just want the bass to be a memorable part of the over all sound, instead of just background noodling that doesn't engage the listener. And yes, it makes not much of a difference if you're listening to it live. But those DVDs we've been treated to the last few years show how great Bill really was. And likewise, the DVDs of post-Wyman concerts show how meaningless the bass has become in the Stones' rhythm section.

Hmmm 24FPS...I seem to recall you taking issue with a comment I recently made saying Darryl's bass playing was adequate (or sufficient) as if I was making a disparaging remark about him - I wasn't.
Yet here you are saying "Darryl just appears to be someone the end stage Stones are comfortable with". You also say Darryl's bass playing could be "anybody" and that it's "meaningless".

Not trying to pick a fight, just wondering where you really stand. One moment you seemed to stand in his defense, and now you're throwing him in the gutter.
I say he's adequate (or sufficient), and you say he could be anybody and is meaningless?

I don't understand the conflict you're saying I have. I've never cared for Darryl's playing with the Stones, although to be totally fair he did okay on Voodoo Lounge. After that he melted into nothingness, a non-entity within a band of distinct players.

Where I really stand is that the Stones were, and I guess still are for lack of competitors, the greatest rock and roll band in the world. It's no coincidence that two of my favorite bands, the Beatles and the Stones, have exemplary bass players. Darryl Jones is not in their class. Maybe he can read music, maybe he can play with Miles Davis, but he's not distinctive. Within the first few notes of hearing 'Plundered My Soul' in the summer of 2010, I knew that was Bill on bass and that he was influencing, and improving the sound of the Stones.

If Darryl was a great bass player, as many have asserted, we would be saying, "Oh yeah, Darryl's bass playing on INSERT NEWER STONES STONG is really good." Or, Darryl really took control of the melody and gave a nice pocket for Keith and Ronnie to work out of." But we don't. There's never been a thread that I know of extolling Darryl's bass playing for the Stones.

When I agree that Darryl is adequate for the Stones, you're damn straight I don't mean it as a compliment. There's probably a thousand bass players out there that could fill that roll, put down a thudding beat so the bottom doesn't fall out of the band. But my ears pick up the bass, and what it does. MCartney was a brilliant melodist, although he did get over busy at times. Bill gave the Stones music a spine, that was also listenable. Chuck used to be better, but he's just adequate now too. Do you thrill when you hear him do Nicky's part on She's A Rainbow? No, you think well, that was adequate. At least Chuck gets it near the original. I don't think Darryl gives a damn about Stones music. It's just a job.

Alright, that's quite the explanation you've given - I think we may have our wires crossed.

When I originally called him 'adequate' it wasn't meant as an insult, nor was it intended as a compliment or giving him more praise than necessary.To clarify again what I meant by adequate regarding his playing with the Stones: he fills the role and does what's minimally necessary. Average and anonymous without any personal stamp. Generic. Not great. Not horrible. He's just there. I think we somewhat agree with all that.
I suppose my question as to where you stand had more to do with you singling me out for calling him adequate as if I was trashing him. At the time, it seemed you were criticizing my opinion and defending him as something much greater than adequate. But again, perhaps there was a misunderstanding and/or I misinterpreted your post.

Bottom line: Stones fans are stuck with Darryl Jones - like it or not.

Quote
Hairball

Quote
24FPS

Quote
Hairball

Quote
24FPS

Quote
1962
I agree with Dylan, but it's not that big problem.
Bill Wyman gave a special swing to the Stones' sound, and it was part of the Stones magic.
Darryl is an absolute professional musician he can play anything they want so this is very comfortable for them especially on these modern era tours.
And yes he tends to play a bit funky and that's a bit different from the original concept.
But most people don't care.

That's so true. But this is a forum for hard core fans, and many of them do have ears sensitive to the bass. I don't care if Darryl plays funky, I just want the bass to be a memorable part of the over all sound, instead of just background noodling that doesn't engage the listener. And yes, it makes not much of a difference if you're listening to it live. But those DVDs we've been treated to the last few years show how great Bill really was. And likewise, the DVDs of post-Wyman concerts show how meaningless the bass has become in the Stones' rhythm section.

Hmmm 24FPS...I seem to recall you taking issue with a comment I recently made saying Darryl's bass playing was adequate (or sufficient) as if I was making a disparaging remark about him - I wasn't.
Yet here you are saying "Darryl just appears to be someone the end stage Stones are comfortable with". You also say Darryl's bass playing could be "anybody" and that it's "meaningless".

Not trying to pick a fight, just wondering where you really stand. One moment you seemed to stand in his defense, and now you're throwing him in the gutter.
I say he's adequate (or sufficient), and you say he could be anybody and is meaningless?

I don't understand the conflict you're saying I have. I've never cared for Darryl's playing with the Stones, although to be totally fair he did okay on Voodoo Lounge. After that he melted into nothingness, a non-entity within a band of distinct players.

Where I really stand is that the Stones were, and I guess still are for lack of competitors, the greatest rock and roll band in the world. It's no coincidence that two of my favorite bands, the Beatles and the Stones, have exemplary bass players. Darryl Jones is not in their class. Maybe he can read music, maybe he can play with Miles Davis, but he's not distinctive. Within the first few notes of hearing 'Plundered My Soul' in the summer of 2010, I knew that was Bill on bass and that he was influencing, and improving the sound of the Stones.

If Darryl was a great bass player, as many have asserted, we would be saying, "Oh yeah, Darryl's bass playing on INSERT NEWER STONES STONG is really good." Or, Darryl really took control of the melody and gave a nice pocket for Keith and Ronnie to work out of." But we don't. There's never been a thread that I know of extolling Darryl's bass playing for the Stones.

When I agree that Darryl is adequate for the Stones, you're damn straight I don't mean it as a compliment. There's probably a thousand bass players out there that could fill that roll, put down a thudding beat so the bottom doesn't fall out of the band. But my ears pick up the bass, and what it does. MCartney was a brilliant melodist, although he did get over busy at times. Bill gave the Stones music a spine, that was also listenable. Chuck used to be better, but he's just adequate now too. Do you thrill when you hear him do Nicky's part on She's A Rainbow? No, you think well, that was adequate. At least Chuck gets it near the original. I don't think Darryl gives a damn about Stones music. It's just a job.

Alright, that's quite the explanation you've given - I think we may have our wires crossed.

When I originally called him 'adequate' it wasn't meant as an insult, nor was it intended as a compliment or giving him more praise than necessary.To clarify again what I meant by adequate regarding his playing with the Stones: he fills the role and does what's minimally necessary. Average and anonymous without any personal stamp. Generic. Not great. Not horrible. He's just there. I think we somewhat agree with all that.
I suppose my question as to where you stand had more to do with you singling me out for calling him adequate as if I was trashing him. At the time, it seemed you were criticizing my opinion and defending him as something much greater than adequate. But again, perhaps there was a misunderstanding and/or I misinterpreted your post.

Bottom line: Stones fans are stuck with Darryl Jones - like it or not.

Quote
24FPS

Quote
Hairball

Quote
24FPS

Quote
Hairball

Quote
24FPS

Quote
1962
I agree with Dylan, but it's not that big problem.
Bill Wyman gave a special swing to the Stones' sound, and it was part of the Stones magic.
Darryl is an absolute professional musician he can play anything they want so this is very comfortable for them especially on these modern era tours.
And yes he tends to play a bit funky and that's a bit different from the original concept.
But most people don't care.

That's so true. But this is a forum for hard core fans, and many of them do have ears sensitive to the bass. I don't care if Darryl plays funky, I just want the bass to be a memorable part of the over all sound, instead of just background noodling that doesn't engage the listener. And yes, it makes not much of a difference if you're listening to it live. But those DVDs we've been treated to the last few years show how great Bill really was. And likewise, the DVDs of post-Wyman concerts show how meaningless the bass has become in the Stones' rhythm section.

Hmmm 24FPS...I seem to recall you taking issue with a comment I recently made saying Darryl's bass playing was adequate (or sufficient) as if I was making a disparaging remark about him - I wasn't.
Yet here you are saying "Darryl just appears to be someone the end stage Stones are comfortable with". You also say Darryl's bass playing could be "anybody" and that it's "meaningless".

Not trying to pick a fight, just wondering where you really stand. One moment you seemed to stand in his defense, and now you're throwing him in the gutter.
I say he's adequate (or sufficient), and you say he could be anybody and is meaningless?

I don't understand the conflict you're saying I have. I've never cared for Darryl's playing with the Stones, although to be totally fair he did okay on Voodoo Lounge. After that he melted into nothingness, a non-entity within a band of distinct players.

Where I really stand is that the Stones were, and I guess still are for lack of competitors, the greatest rock and roll band in the world. It's no coincidence that two of my favorite bands, the Beatles and the Stones, have exemplary bass players. Darryl Jones is not in their class. Maybe he can read music, maybe he can play with Miles Davis, but he's not distinctive. Within the first few notes of hearing 'Plundered My Soul' in the summer of 2010, I knew that was Bill on bass and that he was influencing, and improving the sound of the Stones.

If Darryl was a great bass player, as many have asserted, we would be saying, "Oh yeah, Darryl's bass playing on INSERT NEWER STONES STONG is really good." Or, Darryl really took control of the melody and gave a nice pocket for Keith and Ronnie to work out of." But we don't. There's never been a thread that I know of extolling Darryl's bass playing for the Stones.

When I agree that Darryl is adequate for the Stones, you're damn straight I don't mean it as a compliment. There's probably a thousand bass players out there that could fill that roll, put down a thudding beat so the bottom doesn't fall out of the band. But my ears pick up the bass, and what it does. MCartney was a brilliant melodist, although he did get over busy at times. Bill gave the Stones music a spine, that was also listenable. Chuck used to be better, but he's just adequate now too. Do you thrill when you hear him do Nicky's part on She's A Rainbow? No, you think well, that was adequate. At least Chuck gets it near the original. I don't think Darryl gives a damn about Stones music. It's just a job.

Alright, that's quite the explanation you've given - I think we may have our wires crossed.

When I originally called him 'adequate' it wasn't meant as an insult, nor was it intended as a compliment or giving him more praise than necessary.To clarify again what I meant by adequate regarding his playing with the Stones: he fills the role and does what's minimally necessary. Average and anonymous without any personal stamp. Generic. Not great. Not horrible. He's just there. I think we somewhat agree with all that.
I suppose my question as to where you stand had more to do with you singling me out for calling him adequate as if I was trashing him. At the time, it seemed you were criticizing my opinion and defending him as something much greater than adequate. But again, perhaps there was a misunderstanding and/or I misinterpreted your post.

Bottom line: Stones fans are stuck with Darryl Jones - like it or not.

I was never criticizing you personally. I only lash out at ideas. Black and white print does not allow for shading of nuance. I like to debate, sue me. Bill comes from the very guts of rock and roll, 1950s standup bass, translated onto a fretless, electric model, without losing the soul. Like Brian could enervate old blues solos without losing the guts. Or Keith expanding on a Chuck Berry line. Darryl is not from that world, and probably doesn't even understand it. He's a 70s jazz rocker who would have fit in with Herbie Hancock's Headhunters. Bill could have planted the rhythm for Gene Vincent's Blue Caps.

Cheers, Hairball.

Quote
24FPS

Quote
Hairball

Quote
24FPS

Quote
Hairball
Bill is missed and always will be, but Daryl is adequate and Charlie likes him.

The very definition of damning with faint praise.

If that's the way you interpret it, but it wasn't meant to be 'damning'.
He fills the role and seems to do it very well.

If the best adjective you can describe Darryl's bass playing with the Stones is adequate, I guess we should just give up and never expect excellence on the low end for the rest of the band's existence.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
He probably meant that the swing/rockabilly/walking bass/wobble-timed Bill-sound was gone when he left.

Quote
Rockman
What is this discussion about?

Yeah like really what is any discussion about .... ???????

Quote
KRiffhard
"I'm not saying they don't keep going, but they need Bill," he said. "Without him they're a funk band. They'll be the real Rolling Stones when they get Bill back." BD

You're right Bob.