Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
mudbone

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
mudbone

Quote
Turner68

Quote
Koen

Quote
LieB

Quote
mudbone
DJ is always a fraction too 'late' where as Bill was right in the pocket. Keeping keith and mick on their toes..make no mistake

I think Bill said himself (in the Crossfire Hurricane movie) that he's actually a fraction early on the beat, which together with Charlie and Keith creates a bit of a ”wobble” which he thinks is part of the Stones magic.

Interestingly, in Satisfaction, he is actually a bit later than the main riff. Very cool to listen to.

indeed, it's one of my favorite parts.

In fact he's playing a completely different line wich is just as groovy as keith's. He start's with the low E and indeed delays a bit to keith's first two notes. I wouldn't call it a delay but just a different rythm.

The two lines combined is arguably the best piece of music ever. Bill's got 50 % dipps on that..just saying.

I can think of so much more riffs where Bill plays his OWN riff and mixed with keith's it becomes MAGIC

In fact...Bill's a Riffmaster too

DJ sounds 'dumbed down'because he is following keith in a way..Bill never did that..he Added and weaved and messed with the rythm. And in music..as Keith often states..that becomes 'to the power of'

You don't need brilliant shit from one player. Just cool shit from two and when it works it can't be beaten.

That's why he was a star...in the stones!

No, he played a millisecond later - all the time. That's the wobble!

yeah yeah...fraction later or earlier..like I said he messed with the rythm. But that's not even my point...although it is what creates the 'wobble'.

But also, he ADDED his own riffs, mixing them with keefs, to create a whole nother beast. like...two different riffs/patterns..often with different timing, even melody...that become one unique powerful thing. The second guitar player was always replaceble for the stones. BW really was not..

Bill and keith..in a way.. had the same tension mick and keith have.

Like...Fck you mr rock and roll...mr cool! I'm not too impressed so suck on this for a while. In music you need tension...well rock and roll anyway. just my honest opinion

He actually had different roles, depending on the guitar players he played with.

With Keith and Ronnie, he got more space to to exactly what you're talking about here. Listen to songs like When The Whip Comes Down from 1981. It's marvellous.

With a fixed lead/rhythm arrangement, like Taylor and Keith did, he had less space to be as adventurous. He was more loose when Brian was in the band.

It's all about the band's sound, and where he finds room to do his thing, at the same time as he can be able to lock the rhythm down with Charlie.

Quite fascinating, really. Bill is a great bass player.

But he is often too low in the mix, especially on the studio work.

Quote
kleermaker

But he is often too low in the mix, especially on the studio work.

I sorta agree. He often has a very bassy bass sound, whether it's caused by the mixing or his bass. It's a bit too boomy with no definition. It doesn't stick out a lot, but if you listen to it, it is often quite audible.

Another bass player who was often criminally low in the mix is John Paul Jones, thanks to Jimmy Page's mixing I suppose.

Wyman quit the band two decades ago. They were nice enough to invite him onstage and to tour with the band in the same manner Mick Taylor did. I don't see what his issue is or why they were "mean" to him.

Quote
James Kirk
Wyman quit the band two decades ago. They were nice enough to invite him onstage and to tour with the band in the same manner Mick Taylor did. I don't see what his issue is or why they were "mean" to him.

Yes it's all a bit overblown but according to Bill, he truly wanted to play more songs than they offered him and the ones they offered him were not the ones he wanted to play. I think if they had offered him fewer songs, but the ones he wanted to play, he would have agreed to do so. It's the combination of both refusals that kind of stings a bit.

It sure would have been cool to have both Bill AND Taylor up there for a couple songs. But hey the results would have probably been so good they could never get the cat back into the bag.

It's weird if he really wanted to play Miss You instead of IORR and HTW...

Quote
LieB

Quote
kleermaker

But he is often too low in the mix, especially on the studio work.

I sorta agree. He often has a very bassy bass sound, whether it's caused by the mixing or his bass. It's a bit too boomy with no definition. It doesn't stick out a lot, but if you listen to it, it is often quite audible.

Hah. That's what I like about it. If you listen to any old Chess blues records you'll see exactly where Wyman is coming from. Typical rock bass is boring. As for being low in the mix, you'll notice that's true on all the old Stones records, except when Keith plays bass!

Quote
71Tele

Quote
LieB

Quote
kleermaker

But he is often too low in the mix, especially on the studio work.

I sorta agree. He often has a very bassy bass sound, whether it's caused by the mixing or his bass. It's a bit too boomy with no definition. It doesn't stick out a lot, but if you listen to it, it is often quite audible.

Hah. That's what I like about it. If you listen to any old Chess blues records you'll see exactly where Wyman is coming from. Typical rock bass is boring. As for being low in the mix, you'll notice that's true on all the old Stones records, except when Keith plays bass!

Hmm Keith doesn't play bass on Start Me Up does he?
That's actually another great example of Bill/Keith weaving.

Quote
LieB

Quote
kleermaker

But he is often too low in the mix, especially on the studio work.

I sorta agree. He often has a very bassy bass sound, whether it's caused by the mixing or his bass. It's a bit too boomy with no definition. It doesn't stick out a lot, but if you listen to it, it is often quite audible.

Another bass player who was often criminally low in the mix is John Paul Jones, thanks to Jimmy Page's mixing I suppose.

i had never thought about this too much before but when i found and listened to the bass track to gimme shelter i was blown away: [www.youtube.com]

obviously it's completely buried in the song's mix - but i don't know that the record should have been mixed any differently though.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
71Tele

Quote
LieB

Quote
kleermaker

But he is often too low in the mix, especially on the studio work.

I sorta agree. He often has a very bassy bass sound, whether it's caused by the mixing or his bass. It's a bit too boomy with no definition. It doesn't stick out a lot, but if you listen to it, it is often quite audible.

Hah. That's what I like about it. If you listen to any old Chess blues records you'll see exactly where Wyman is coming from. Typical rock bass is boring. As for being low in the mix, you'll notice that's true on all the old Stones records, except when Keith plays bass!

Hmm Keith doesn't play bass on Start Me Up does he?
That's actually another great example of Bill/Keith weaving.

There is no weaving on SMU. Only fixed rhythm/lead playing and a steady bass line.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
71Tele

Quote
LieB

Quote
kleermaker

But he is often too low in the mix, especially on the studio work.

I sorta agree. He often has a very bassy bass sound, whether it's caused by the mixing or his bass. It's a bit too boomy with no definition. It doesn't stick out a lot, but if you listen to it, it is often quite audible.

Hah. That's what I like about it. If you listen to any old Chess blues records you'll see exactly where Wyman is coming from. Typical rock bass is boring. As for being low in the mix, you'll notice that's true on all the old Stones records, except when Keith plays bass!

Hmm Keith doesn't play bass on Start Me Up does he?
That's actually another great example of Bill/Keith weaving.

Bill indeed plays a great bass on Start Me Up!

For my taste, the bass has always been mixed perfectly in all stones record.

What made it "muddy" in the earlier ones was the result of a deliberate artistic choice. The "wall of sound"! In keith's book there is a great account of how they pursued this-

For what matters, it's an equal nightmare to discern also the different guitar parts!

Furthermore Bill often used a fretless bass and flatwound strings.

But when not buried under layers of guitars and other assorted instruments, Bill's bass was very loud and clear.

I can't say that Keith's bass on Spend the night together of JJF receives a louder treatment than Bill's bass

Indeed the Chess sound must have been a great inspiration for Bill.

And it's amazing to imagine how in the early days he was able to transcribe all those CBerry etc. bass lines (which were equally muddy) with what I assume was not exactly an audiophile sound system!


C

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Turner68

Quote
71Tele

Quote
LieB

Quote
kleermaker

But he is often too low in the mix, especially on the studio work.

I sorta agree. He often has a very bassy bass sound, whether it's caused by the mixing or his bass. It's a bit too boomy with no definition. It doesn't stick out a lot, but if you listen to it, it is often quite audible.

Hah. That's what I like about it. If you listen to any old Chess blues records you'll see exactly where Wyman is coming from. Typical rock bass is boring. As for being low in the mix, you'll notice that's true on all the old Stones records, except when Keith plays bass!

Hmm Keith doesn't play bass on Start Me Up does he?
That's actually another great example of Bill/Keith weaving.

There is no weaving on SMU. Only fixed rhythm/lead playing and a steady bass line.

one man's weaving is another man's steady... or does weaving have a technical definition i'm not familiar with?

The "muddiness" (as has been pointed out) comes from flatwound strings and Bill's thumb picking technique. Not much different from McCartney's tone on the Hofner in the early days. The Chess and Chuck Berry records were mostly Willie Dixon playing an upright, which certainly is "muddy" compared to modern rock bass. The early 60s guys were going for that sound rather than the brighter, more defined sound that became popular later. I always loved the low rumble way down at the bottom on Stones records, but the notes were not always clearly defined. If you listen to the reissues of Ya Yas and Ladies & Gentlemen, what Bill did is all the more amazing. He is very, very dynamic and active, but with a "thuddy" tone. Some may prefer more conventional bass players, but not me. He's perfect for the Stones.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Turner68

Quote
71Tele

Quote
LieB

Quote
kleermaker

But he is often too low in the mix, especially on the studio work.

I sorta agree. He often has a very bassy bass sound, whether it's caused by the mixing or his bass. It's a bit too boomy with no definition. It doesn't stick out a lot, but if you listen to it, it is often quite audible.

Hah. That's what I like about it. If you listen to any old Chess blues records you'll see exactly where Wyman is coming from. Typical rock bass is boring. As for being low in the mix, you'll notice that's true on all the old Stones records, except when Keith plays bass!

Hmm Keith doesn't play bass on Start Me Up does he?
That's actually another great example of Bill/Keith weaving.

There is no weaving on SMU. Only fixed rhythm/lead playing and a steady bass line.

one man's weaving is another man's steady... or does weaving have a technical definition i'm not familiar with?

You can´t just say that something is weaving. The musical definition is (simple explanation) that the instruments weave into eachother, and sort of finish eachother´s lines.

That doesn´t happen on SMU, although you hear active instrumentation going on at different times.

Beast Of Burden, Down In The Hole and Let Me Go (Still Life) are classic examples of weaving.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-06-26 21:38 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Turner68

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Turner68

Quote
71Tele

Quote
LieB

Quote
kleermaker

But he is often too low in the mix, especially on the studio work.

I sorta agree. He often has a very bassy bass sound, whether it's caused by the mixing or his bass. It's a bit too boomy with no definition. It doesn't stick out a lot, but if you listen to it, it is often quite audible.

Hah. That's what I like about it. If you listen to any old Chess blues records you'll see exactly where Wyman is coming from. Typical rock bass is boring. As for being low in the mix, you'll notice that's true on all the old Stones records, except when Keith plays bass!

Hmm Keith doesn't play bass on Start Me Up does he?
That's actually another great example of Bill/Keith weaving.

There is no weaving on SMU. Only fixed rhythm/lead playing and a steady bass line.

one man's weaving is another man's steady... or does weaving have a technical definition i'm not familiar with?

You can´t just say that something is weaving. The musical definition is (simple explanation) that the instruments weave into eachother, and sort of finish eachother´s lines.

That doesn´t happen on SMU, although you hear active instrumentation going on at different times.

Beast Of Burden, Down In The Hole and Let Me Go (Still Life) are classic examples of weaving.

amazing. i'd always thought it meant a seamless interchange between the playing of rhythm and lead parts, where one instrument will play rhythm and then switch to something melodic, while another does the reverse, etc. someone should probably explain the meaning of weaving to keith, it sounds like he has been using the term the wrong way according to you.

No he hasn´t, and Wyman doesn´t switch into melodic playing on SMU after Keith has played his melodic part. Far from it.

Both players can play melodic, or both can be playing rhythm. The key is the interchange. That doesn´t happen on SMU, but it does on Down In The Hole.

The keyword is equality.

Darryl is a noodler, one of those 70s and 80s jazz guys that play all over the place and never arrives, like the Seinfeld wraparound music. Bill was engaged in rock and roll and pushed the Stones forward on songs like Rocks Off. If Darryl was really that interesting wouldn't we be finding him on other people's records and marveling at his virtuosity?

Bill was steeped in early rock and roll from the jump, and absorbed other styles, like blues, R&B, and even psychedelia and disco. Darryl is a jazzer who happened to cross over to rock and roll at some point. I don't think it's in his bones, and is just one more kind of music he plays to have a high paying gig. That's why he can play for Madonna. Bill, on the other hand, was requested by Muddy Waters to back him on tour, without Charlie.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Dreamer

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
sweet neo con
Remember the first tour with DJ...Mick would always introduce him as having played with Miles Davis & Madonna.

Hard to mention those two in the same breath with a straight face (for me) but I guess Mick respected Madonna on some level. I recall Sir Mick and Sir Elton discussing her in Being Mick.

He respects her both as his groupie and as a musician obviously.

Hmm probably as a performer...not necessarily on stage.

I think Mick likes her music as well..

That's new to me. He doesn't listen to it at home.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Turner68

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Turner68

Quote
71Tele

Quote
LieB

Quote
kleermaker

But he is often too low in the mix, especially on the studio work.

I sorta agree. He often has a very bassy bass sound, whether it's caused by the mixing or his bass. It's a bit too boomy with no definition. It doesn't stick out a lot, but if you listen to it, it is often quite audible.

Hah. That's what I like about it. If you listen to any old Chess blues records you'll see exactly where Wyman is coming from. Typical rock bass is boring. As for being low in the mix, you'll notice that's true on all the old Stones records, except when Keith plays bass!

Hmm Keith doesn't play bass on Start Me Up does he?
That's actually another great example of Bill/Keith weaving.

There is no weaving on SMU. Only fixed rhythm/lead playing and a steady bass line.

one man's weaving is another man's steady... or does weaving have a technical definition i'm not familiar with?

You can´t just say that something is weaving. The musical definition is (simple explanation) that the instruments weave into eachother, and sort of finish eachother´s lines.

That doesn´t happen on SMU, although you hear active instrumentation going on at different times.

Beast Of Burden, Down In The Hole and Let Me Go (Still Life) are classic examples of weaving.

amazing. i'd always thought it meant a seamless interchange between the playing of rhythm and lead parts, where one instrument will play rhythm and then switch to something melodic, while another does the reverse, etc. someone should probably explain the meaning of weaving to keith, it sounds like he has been using the term the wrong way according to you.

you should teach a university level course in sarcasm Turner!

Bill's creativity and ability to move a song is quite evident in this "instrumental" version of Goin' Home. An "unscripted" track, where (in my opinion) they all shine:

Quote
Turner68

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Turner68

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Turner68

Quote
71Tele

Quote
LieB

Quote
kleermaker

But he is often too low in the mix, especially on the studio work.

I sorta agree. He often has a very bassy bass sound, whether it's caused by the mixing or his bass. It's a bit too boomy with no definition. It doesn't stick out a lot, but if you listen to it, it is often quite audible.

Hah. That's what I like about it. If you listen to any old Chess blues records you'll see exactly where Wyman is coming from. Typical rock bass is boring. As for being low in the mix, you'll notice that's true on all the old Stones records, except when Keith plays bass!

Hmm Keith doesn't play bass on Start Me Up does he?
That's actually another great example of Bill/Keith weaving.

There is no weaving on SMU. Only fixed rhythm/lead playing and a steady bass line.

one man's weaving is another man's steady... or does weaving have a technical definition i'm not familiar with?

You can´t just say that something is weaving. The musical definition is (simple explanation) that the instruments weave into eachother, and sort of finish eachother´s lines.

That doesn´t happen on SMU, although you hear active instrumentation going on at different times.

Beast Of Burden, Down In The Hole and Let Me Go (Still Life) are classic examples of weaving.

amazing. i'd always thought it meant a seamless interchange between the playing of rhythm and lead parts, where one instrument will play rhythm and then switch to something melodic, while another does the reverse, etc. someone should probably explain the meaning of weaving to keith, it sounds like he has been using the term the wrong way according to you.

To add to the broad definition of weaving...to me it is also a sharing back and forth of which lines are standing out in the song. Like a woven cloth, the thread that is on top becomes the buried thread and then reappears, etc etc.

Of course this can be accomplished in the studio and the best records all have that element of different instruments becoming more prominent in the mix during the course of the tune. Bands that are able to accomplish this live demonstrate weaving to me. Not just by not playing and allowing the other to finish the lines and phrases but by using dynamics and trading the most audible phrases back and forth. Rhythm parts can be woven, lead parts can be woven and a combination of the two can be woven. And it's not just the guitars, when a weave of all the instruments happen live, it is truly a beautiful thing.

What NL said. Some of the most interesting weaving is rhythm playing, imo. Rhythm licks traded back and forth.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
What NL said. Some of the most interesting weaving is rhythm playing, imo. Rhythm licks traded back and forth.

i think it's become clear there is no technical definition of weaving. it's a term keith made up to describe his philosophy of how two guitars interact. mudbone and then i used it to describe bill and there was consternation at that but at the end of the day, when we talk about weaving, we are not talking about a specific term like pentatonic scales or arpeggios or harmonies where there are specific meanings. nor is it something like which tours brian was sick on or how many times can't be seen was played where there are established facts.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-06-27 21:55 by Turner68.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
DandelionPowderman
What NL said. Some of the most interesting weaving is rhythm playing, imo. Rhythm licks traded back and forth.

i think it's become clear there is no technical definition of weaving. it's a term keith made up to describe his philosophy of how two guitars interact. mudbone and then i used it to describe bill and there was consternation at that but at the end of the day, when we talk about weaving, we are not talking about a specific term like pentatonic scales or arpeggios or harmonies where there are specific meanings. nor is it something like which tours brian was sick on or how many times can't be seen was played where there are established facts.

Totally agree. Weaving is a very vague idea, it's not a musical concept like f.i. counterpoint, harmony and the other things Turner mentioned. In fact it's quite meaningless. Well, making believe it is really something real is quite an achievement of Keith. One of his strong points for sure. I recall his remark: "making two guitars sound as one" and my comment on it: well, then you also can play just one guitar. Less complicated, same result.

Btw: I don't buy the theory that Bill couldn't play melodic lines when Taylor played lead (licks). On the contrary, he did many times actually.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-06-27 22:21 by kleermaker.

If you think there is weaving on SMU, fine...

It's no big deal.

Kleerie, you misunderstood. There was less space for Bill to maneuver in with the static fixed lead/rhythm arrangements. Not "no space".

regarding the plaque, this came out today although i don't know how much of the info is new:
[www.dailymail.co.uk]

Quote
Turner68
Here's the question I'm surprised isn't discussed more: should they have stopped when Bill quit?

There is a video available on Youtube somewhere where Jagger is asked about what they are going to do since it appears Bill Wyman has left the band. Sadly, Jagger responds that "Well, you know, it shouldn't be too hard to replace the base player in the Rolling Stones, and of course, we'll just get someone that is quite good"...or words to that effect.

In fairness I wouldn't expect The Stones to stop rolling because Bill left, and I certainly wouldn't expect Jagger to respond as a musicologist might to such a question, but he seemed quite sincere in what he said, not merely trapped into a politically correct answer for the general audience.

So, it might seem arrogant to type this out as an armchair fan/critic, but its my opinion The Glimmers (and Charlie - who is actually on record as saying he could never really "hear" Bill's playing) simply didn't "get" a key ingredient in what made their sound so great.

But some people noticed... Bob Dylan in particular, remarked upon it.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Turner68

Quote
DandelionPowderman
What NL said. Some of the most interesting weaving is rhythm playing, imo. Rhythm licks traded back and forth.

i think it's become clear there is no technical definition of weaving. it's a term keith made up to describe his philosophy of how two guitars interact. mudbone and then i used it to describe bill and there was consternation at that but at the end of the day, when we talk about weaving, we are not talking about a specific term like pentatonic scales or arpeggios or harmonies where there are specific meanings. nor is it something like which tours brian was sick on or how many times can't be seen was played where there are established facts.

Totally agree. Weaving is a very vague idea, it's not a musical concept like f.i. counterpoint, harmony and the other things Turner mentioned. In fact it's quite meaningless. Well, making believe it is really something real is quite an achievement of Keith. One of his strong points for sure. I recall his remark: "making two guitars sound as one" and my comment on it: well, then you also can play just one guitar. Less complicated, same result.

Btw: I don't buy the theory that Bill couldn't play melodic lines when Taylor played lead (licks). On the contrary, he did many times actually.

While weaving as a musical definition may be a bit vague to some, the idea expressed by it is far from meaningless. The process of intertwining parts and different parts of a song taking the lead is as old as Keith claims it is and weaving is as good a definition as any. It's much different that what you suggest kleerie that one guitar can play the whole part with the same result. I believe our ears and brains react very positively to a complex mix where we are becoming subconsciously and consciously "aware" of different parts as the song progresses. The very best ones are constantly taking your attention from the guitar to the vocal, to the other guitar and then the bass, then the keyboard fill.. all within the space of a couple of breaths. To me that's what the best part of weaving is.

There is also more easily definable weaving that happens between say two guitar players like Keith and Ronnie on Beast of Burden. Each has his own unique style ad phrasing but together they are painting a picture that neither could do alone.

There are many examples of weaving that happen when single guitarists play along with there own recordings. A great example is Pali Gap by Jimi Hendrix. Listen to how he blends the overdubs with the original tracks during the tune. You never quite know what you are listening to they blend so well, but at any given time there is one of them at the forefront. It took the weaving to make that beautiful piece, even Hendrix couldn't have done it with one pass.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
What NL said. Some of the most interesting weaving is rhythm playing, imo. Rhythm licks traded back and forth.

You mentioned a couple of ER tracks........IMO, 78'-80' period, SG and ER, epitomise weaving. SSC in another great example.

Quote
Thrylan

Quote
DandelionPowderman
What NL said. Some of the most interesting weaving is rhythm playing, imo. Rhythm licks traded back and forth.

You mentioned a couple of ER tracks........IMO, 78'-80' period, SG and ER, epitomise weaving. SSC in another great example.

Perfect example
That was a fantastic period...in your spare time check out a lil tune called Munich Hilton...