Quote
24FPS
Hmmmm. Jumping on Bill regarding underage females. I believe Jagger/Richard wrote Stray Cat Blues about a 13-year-old girl. I mean it's not a capital crime.

I like Palace Revolution's comparison of Chuck to Stu. Perfect. After Bill walked away the Stones ran out of luck when it came to memorable musicians. Distinctive sound. You can tell when it's Nicky, or Stu playing boogie woogie, or Billy doing disco. You can pick out Brian on slide or Mick Taylor soaring upward. But now it's all about getting those Greatest Hits pumped out for the rubes with deep pockets. The less discerning general public. The kind that don't care it's nowhere near Bobby Keys blasting out his solo on Brown Sugar. Or Bill surrounding the band in funk on Miss You.

Want to hear Wyman in a different venue? Pick up the 'Drinkin' TNT 'N' Smokin' Dynamite' CD/DVD set. Muddy Waters personally requested Bill back him up at his Montreaux gig in 1974. Once opening act Buddy Guy & Junior Wells found out, they insisted Wyman, Dallas Taylor-drums, and Terry Taylor-guitar, back them up too. The result is stunning.

Nope. «I can see that you're 15 years old» is what they wrote. Then Jagger took the joke further on the live renditions, and lowered the character's age to 13.

I believe Bill first met Mandy when she was 13. Sex didn't rear its ugly head until she turned 14.
In Mandy's ghost written book there are plenty of positives and negatives about Bill's character ..the latter inevitably is emphasised in the objective of selling more copies. Never has there been any suggestion that Mandy or her family (or the Courts) would take any retrospective legal action against Bill. He made sure her education continued and kept her well out of the way of the drug scene.

Bill's son, from what I remember only started dating Mandy's Mother some while after Bill and Mandy got together. Eventually their relationship broke down also.

From what I know, I don't think, other than the Mandy episode that any women in Bill's life have spilled the beans to the tabloids or spoke negatively, which says something.

Quote
jlowe
I believe Bill first met Mandy when she was 13. Sex didn't rear its ugly head until she turned 14.
In Mandy's ghost written book there are plenty of positives and negatives about Bill's character ..the latter inevitably is emphasised in the objective of selling more copies. Never has there been any suggestion that Mandy or her family (or the Courts) would take any retrospective legal action against Bill. He made sure her education continued and kept her well out of the way of the drug scene.

Bill's son, from what I remember only started dating Mandy's Mother some while after Bill and Mandy got together. Eventually their relationship broke down also.

From what I know, I don't think, other than the Mandy episode that any women in Bill's life have spilled the beans to the tabloids or spoke negatively, which says something.

He was with his Swedish girlfriend Astrid Lundstrom from 1967 to 1983; during which time they tried unsuccessfully to have a child. She made some negative comments about the interactions between the Stones.

I am not exercised by Bill's affairs. He was THE bassist of RS. Darryl may be much better technically but Bill fitted perfectly with the unimitable "sloppy" sound.

Quote
hopkins
"the most discerning, very sensitive musician...the top bass player for me..."
KR

"If I had my way, Mick Taylor was still in the band".

MJ around 2010.



What to believe? I sometimes wonder what Keith's or Jagger's thoughts about Wyman and Taylor and the Stones current sound (from 1991, or even '75 and onwards) really are. It differs from day to day I guess.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-03-12 14:39 by TheflyingDutchman.

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
hopkins
"the most discerning, very sensitive musician...the top bass player for me..."
KR

"If I had my way, Mick Taylor was still in the band".

MJ around 2010.



What to believe? I sometimes wonder what Keith's or Jagger's thoughts about Wyman and Taylor and the Stones current sound (from 1991, or even '75 and onwards) really are. It differs from day to day I guess.

Does it? I've never read that Mick and Keith wanted any of them to leave the band. On the contrary, they've always said that they wish they had stayed.

However, when you have an album or a tour to sell, you will excel the current incarnation of the band to the greatest heights, of course. Anything else would be stupid

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
hopkins
"the most discerning, very sensitive musician...the top bass player for me..."
KR

"If I had my way, Mick Taylor was still in the band".

MJ around 2010.



What to believe? I sometimes wonder what Keith's or Jagger's thoughts about Wyman and Taylor and the Stones current sound (from 1991, or even '75 and onwards) really are. It differs from day to day I guess.

Does it? I've never read that Mick and Keith wanted any of them to leave the band. On the contrary, they've always said that they wish they had stayed.

However, when you have an album or a tour to sell, you will excel the current incarnation of the band to the greatest heights, of course. Anything else would be stupid

That's correct, neither Jagger nor Richards, or Charlie will ever reveal their personal thoughts, that would be stupid indeed, "trashes the current setting", to quote Mick Jagger.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-03-12 15:11 by TheflyingDutchman.

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
hopkins
"the most discerning, very sensitive musician...the top bass player for me..."
KR

"If I had my way, Mick Taylor was still in the band".

MJ around 2010.



What to believe? I sometimes wonder what Keith's or Jagger's thoughts about Wyman and Taylor and the Stones current sound (from 1991, or even '75 and onwards) really are. It differs from day to day I guess.

Does it? I've never read that Mick and Keith wanted any of them to leave the band. On the contrary, they've always said that they wish they had stayed.

However, when you have an album or a tour to sell, you will excel the current incarnation of the band to the greatest heights, of course. Anything else would be stupid

That's correct, neither Jagger nor Richards, or Charlie will ever reveal their personal thoughts, that would be stupid indeed, "trashes the current setting", to quote Mick Jagger.

Keep in mind that Mick had an album (The Brussels Affair) to sell when he said that

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
hopkins
"the most discerning, very sensitive musician...the top bass player for me..."
KR

"If I had my way, Mick Taylor was still in the band".

MJ around 2010.



What to believe? I sometimes wonder what Keith's or Jagger's thoughts about Wyman and Taylor and the Stones current sound (from 1991, or even '75 and onwards) really are. It differs from day to day I guess.

Does it? I've never read that Mick and Keith wanted any of them to leave the band. On the contrary, they've always said that they wish they had stayed.

However, when you have an album or a tour to sell, you will excel the current incarnation of the band to the greatest heights, of course. Anything else would be stupid

That's correct, neither Jagger nor Richards, or Charlie will ever reveal their personal thoughts, that would be stupid indeed, "trashes the current setting", to quote Mick Jagger.

Keep in mind that Mick had an album (The Brussels Affair) to sell when he said that

That Brusssels bootleg release was in 2012 or so I believe?

Jagger's statement came much earlier, in '95. I don't think he a had to promote Brussels'73 in any way.

Mick Jagger stopped just short of an enormous self-made hole when telling Rolling Stone about Taylor in 1995: "He was a very fluent, melodic player, which we never had, and we don't have now... Some people think that's the best version of the band that existed." Asked if he agree with those people, Jagger replied: "I obviously can't say if I think Mick Taylor was the best, because it sort of trashes the period the band is in now."

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
hopkins
"the most discerning, very sensitive musician...the top bass player for me..."
KR

"If I had my way, Mick Taylor was still in the band".

MJ around 2010.



What to believe? I sometimes wonder what Keith's or Jagger's thoughts about Wyman and Taylor and the Stones current sound (from 1991, or even '75 and onwards) really are. It differs from day to day I guess.

Does it? I've never read that Mick and Keith wanted any of them to leave the band. On the contrary, they've always said that they wish they had stayed.

However, when you have an album or a tour to sell, you will excel the current incarnation of the band to the greatest heights, of course. Anything else would be stupid

That's correct, neither Jagger nor Richards, or Charlie will ever reveal their personal thoughts, that would be stupid indeed, "trashes the current setting", to quote Mick Jagger.

Keep in mind that Mick had an album (The Brussels Affair) to sell when he said that

That Brusssels bootleg release was in 2012 or so I believe?

Jagger's statement came much earlier, in '95. I don't think he a had to promote Brussels'73 in any way.

Mick Jagger stopped just short of an enormous self-made hole when telling Rolling Stone about Taylor in 1995: "He was a very fluent, melodic player, which we never had, and we don't have now... Some people think that's the best version of the band that existed." Asked if he agree with those people, Jagger replied: "I obviously can't say if I think Mick Taylor was the best, because it sort of trashes the period the band is in now."

He said the same, almost word for word in 2011

I thought you referred to that interview. I stand corrected.

Quote
GasLightStreet


Mid-June they had bassist auditions in Manhattan.

The late July/early August sessions for VL in Ireland did not have a bass player - Ronnie and Keith recorded bass.

Wrong. They had, but the dude didn't make the final tracks. But damn he looked cool in photos, a clear upgrade to Wyman:





- Doxa

Quote
Olly
It's unfortunate for Wyman's legacy that the beginning of the Stones' best era as a live act coincided with him leaving the band.

Would we have had those swaggering, uninhibited performances during 1994/5 with a motionless Wyman onstage?

Bill's departure seemed to release the Stones back to their roots.

A capable bassist, but Darryl Jones is a far better fit for the band.

So you have attended the 1969/1970, 1972/1973 US/European Tours.
Guess you did not. Well, I did.
So to me your statements are ... You know! Sorry.

Quote
Phil Good

Quote
Olly
It's unfortunate for Wyman's legacy that the beginning of the Stones' best era as a live act coincided with him leaving the band.

Would we have had those swaggering, uninhibited performances during 1994/5 with a motionless Wyman onstage?

Bill's departure seemed to release the Stones back to their roots.

A capable bassist, but Darryl Jones is a far better fit for the band.

So you have attended the 1969/1970, 1972/1973 US/European Tours.
Guess you did not. Well, I did.
So to me your statements are ... You know! Sorry.

OMG - Wyman might have stood still but he gave way more swing to the ensemble sound than Mr. Jones.

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

Wyman was one of them. Darryl is a sideman. That's reflected on stage. They were a tight band backing the best frontman in the business. Then it became two or three frontmen showboating who are backed by a crack professional group of sidemen. They're solid, but they're not the Stones as they were (mainly it's keyboards, horns, and a rhythm section). They re-thought how to approach performing. Every so often, they lock in and really play (like "Around and Around" a few years ago) and you're reminded they can do it, they just rarely do. That's the difference between then and now, though there are exceptions.

The only time Darryl was truly part of the band was the VOODOO LOUNGE album. Since then it could be Doug Wimbish and I couldn't tell. Sometimes it was. The disconnect between album and stage work started with the VOODOO LOUNGE tour. Since then all of the live albums are largely interchangeable. They're STEEL WHEELS / URBAN JUNGLE all over again with minor differences in setlist and players. In the studio, it stopped being a band after VOODOO LOUNGE. It became Mick or Keith working with Charlie and (very briefly) Ronnie so it can be branded as the Stones. That became Mick working with Keith and Charlie and (very briefly) Ronnie. An inevitable move reflecting the loss of chemistry and the difference in working habits. Keith can't easily function in that environment. Presumably Charlie and Ronnie don't wish to spend months in the studio with Keith as he hones a song like Steve Jordan will do. It's easier Mick's way. Cash your check and do the minimum. At 70 - 77 years old, who can blame them?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-03-12 19:54 by Rocky Dijon.

Blah blah blah fkg blah... the same old sht been posted on this board for 10-15+ years by people stuck in the past, hoping nothing ever changes, nobody leaves yadda yadda.... but the facts are life moves forward... things change.... sounds change and it is self serving to say anyone who enjoys the way the band sounds today must not care and appreciate how the Stones once sounded, in one era of their existence, a long long time ago.

People spouting that type of crap do so only to try to make them self feel superior when obviously they have other issues making them feel bad. Why else would they keep posting the same things over and over?

The same people, the usual suspects, posting the same crap over and over and over for 10-15+ years. Those people are no longer fans of the band today... they may have been fans for four albums 40 years ago but they no longer are.

These same people posting nothing but negative things about the band today... they do nothing but insult anyone who still likes the band today... they talk down to people who are excited the band will be rolling out on tour again... WTF? Why bash on people having fun?


If you no longer like the band, and you have not liked any album since 1974 then why stick around on a website dedicated to the band? Why keep posting the same constantly negative things as if saying that sht is going to change a damned thing?


I am guessing you stick around to try to make yourself feel good about yourself (in the face of your other issues) as you imagine yourself to be so superior to any of the 40,000-80,000 who are going to be having a great time at the upcoming concerts.

You think because you (LIKE EVERYONE ELSE) can hear that the band sounds different today that you are better than others? OF COURSE THE BAND SOUNDS DIFFERENT THAN 1975!! Everyone can hear they sound different... but the difference does not totally ruin it for people looking to have a good time.


Bill, Stu, Bobby, Taylor and the others are not coming back and no amount of pointing out they are gone is going to bring them back. All your posts informing people that they are gone are not postworthy. We know they are gone.

If them being gone ruins the band for you (as you claim it does) then you should probably move on, stop claiming you are a fan of this band, you no longer are.

Heres my response:

Reflected on stage that Wyman was one of them? I think it´s quite the opposite. While Bill Wyman had no visible interaction with the rest of the band, Darryl and Keith have a great ongoing communication on stage.I saw them live two times with Wyman and he just stood there by himself looking completely indifferent.

Quote
Leonioid

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Wyman is anything but a quitter. I'd say that is exactly what he is not...

Uhm, did you miss the part where Wyman quit The Stones? If so, I have some news for you.

Wyman was a Stone, one of the five in the van in the lean days, touring up and down the country, he was in the band when they were nobody, he played all the classic tours and all the classic albums. 30 years in a band is handful, and pulling back from that just doesn't make anyone a quitter in my book.
Especially when they go on to form a new band, and stay on the road for another, what 15 years?
Maybe it is you who needs to put a sock in it. Look at the title of thread. People just answering a question.

Quote
Svartmer
Reflected on stage that Wyman was one of them? I think it´s quite the opposite. While Bill Wyman had no visible interaction with the rest of the band, Darryl and Keith have a great ongoing communication on stage.I saw them live two times with Wyman and he just stood there by himself looking completely indifferent.

But again, who cares if he stood still and didn't cavort with Keith? He interacted with his EARS and contributed to a unique sound that helped define the band's classic era.

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash

Quote
Svartmer
Reflected on stage that Wyman was one of them? I think it´s quite the opposite. While Bill Wyman had no visible interaction with the rest of the band, Darryl and Keith have a great ongoing communication on stage.I saw them live two times with Wyman and he just stood there by himself looking completely indifferent.

But again, who cares if he stood still and didn't cavort with Keith? He interacted with his EARS and contributed to a unique sound that helped define the band's classic era.

Yep, and when it comes to communication on stage; some is real, some is for the show, and some is only social interacting. Bill wasn't a showman in that respect though. He just stood there!

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash

Quote
Svartmer
Reflected on stage that Wyman was one of them? I think it´s quite the opposite. While Bill Wyman had no visible interaction with the rest of the band, Darryl and Keith have a great ongoing communication on stage.I saw them live two times with Wyman and he just stood there by himself looking completely indifferent.

But again, who cares if he stood still and didn't cavort with Keith? He interacted with his EARS and contributed to a unique sound that helped define the band's classic era.

That phony interaction between Keith and Darryl is as scripted as Keith chortling out, "I'm glad to be here. I'm glad to be anywhere." Bill didn't have to kiss Keith's ass. Bill had his job to do. He used to move around a little bit, he used to sing backup. They took that away from him and probably moved him to the side of Keith so they could emphasize the Brian/Mick/Keith look. They gave Bill no songwriting credit for his major part in Paint It Black and Jumping Jack Flash. So he stood there and didn't bob around like a jackass. Big deal. I think it's more fantastic you can look at him and not believe all that funk was coming out of an English stoneface. Darryl could do flips on a trampoline and it would be the same old tired bass.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
24FPS
Hmmmm. Jumping on Bill regarding underage females. I believe Jagger/Richard wrote Stray Cat Blues about a 13-year-old girl. I mean it's not a capital crime.

I like Palace Revolution's comparison of Chuck to Stu. Perfect. After Bill walked away the Stones ran out of luck when it came to memorable musicians. Distinctive sound. You can tell when it's Nicky, or Stu playing boogie woogie, or Billy doing disco. You can pick out Brian on slide or Mick Taylor soaring upward. But now it's all about getting those Greatest Hits pumped out for the rubes with deep pockets. The less discerning general public. The kind that don't care it's nowhere near Bobby Keys blasting out his solo on Brown Sugar. Or Bill surrounding the band in funk on Miss You.

Want to hear Wyman in a different venue? Pick up the 'Drinkin' TNT 'N' Smokin' Dynamite' CD/DVD set. Muddy Waters personally requested Bill back him up at his Montreaux gig in 1974. Once opening act Buddy Guy & Junior Wells found out, they insisted Wyman, Dallas Taylor-drums, and Terry Taylor-guitar, back them up too. The result is stunning.

Nope. «I can see that you're 15 years old» is what they wrote. Then Jagger took the joke further on the live renditions, and lowered the character's age to 13.

You're right. I'm sorry. They were only intimating sex with an underage, illegal 15-year-old and not an underage, illegal 13-year old.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
Leonioid

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Wyman is anything but a quitter. I'd say that is exactly what he is not...

Uhm, did you miss the part where Wyman quit The Stones? If so, I have some news for you.

Wyman was a Stone, one of the five in the van in the lean days, touring up and down the country, he was in the band when they were nobody, he played all the classic tours and all the classic albums. 30 years in a band is handful, and pulling back from that just doesn't make anyone a quitter in my book.
Especially when they go on to form a new band, and stay on the road for another, what 15 years?
Maybe it is you who needs to put a sock in it. Look at the title of thread. People just answering a question.

If the name of this website was changed to "NO LONGER a fan of the Rolling Stones - A place to hate on The Stones" then I would certainly put a sock in it, move along and never post here. I would let all the people who thoroughly enjoy saying negative things about the band prattle on taking delight posting negative things about The Stones and and allow them to post all their crap in peace... but...

But as it is, this web site is still called-
The Rolling Stones Fan Club - Since 1980 - IORR.org
Welcome to Stonesland! This is the place for Rolling Stones fans from all over the world and I still qualify to post here.

I need to admit that I have not yet - and probably will never - come to terms with that a proper rock and roll band doesn't have a bass player as an official member (sorry The Doors). I do understand, and respect, that the last date to join in to this band has gone a long ago (for many reasons), but still when I look that four-piece band posing in pictures and all that, it feels a bit phoney. A bit like a boy-band posing, not any longer corresponding to the very sound of the band - like they could any moment stop smiling to the cameras and pick up their instruments and sound like a rock band in a full power. They can't pass that test. The Stones, nowadays, is such a strange and unique combination of (1) brand, (2) charismatic 'bigger than life' characters acting according to their iconic roles, and (3) music.

So musically the four-piece Rolling Stones since 1994 is a torso band. But a good band, together with all those necessary side-men, though!

So I guess I miss Bill Wyman... But that doesn't prevent me liking the new order - times and concepts change...

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-03-12 22:42 by Doxa.

Quote
Svartmer
Reflected on stage that Wyman was one of them? I think it´s quite the opposite. While Bill Wyman had no visible interaction with the rest of the band, Darryl and Keith have a great ongoing communication on stage.I saw them live two times with Wyman and he just stood there by himself looking completely indifferent.

So you go for the phony stage act then rather than the music? Wasnt it Keith who begged Bill to stay in the band.

For me things changed when Bill left. The Stones were as much about image for me as they were music. They were dangerous and amazing.. But nothing lasts forever !

Quote
Leonioid
Blah blah blah fkg blah...If them being gone ruins the band for you (as you claim it does) then you should probably move on, stop claiming you are a fan of this band, you no longer are.

Obviously, I can only respond for myself here. I don't think there's anything wrong with anyone preferring Darryl over Bill. Either way, it's an opinion. For most people, bass doesn't even register so they're indifferent. For me, I would be fighting to defend Darryl if subsequent albums (or at least recordings) featured him integrated to the sound the way VOODOO LOUNGE does. He's a full band member on that album by my ears. Afterwards, he's a sideman and relatively anonymous as far as sound is concerned. That's a shame. On BRIDGES, the best bass work is Jeff Sarli. There are other tracks with great bass playing, but it's not always Darryl. I felt several tracks on A BIGGER BANG were aiming for the tight sound of VOODOO LOUNGE, but again not enough Darryl to register for me as his signature contribution. Being honest, FORTY LICKS and GRRR didn't even register to my ears as far as bass playing, it was faceless. None of that is his fault. He's proven he has the chops and can do very good work with the band. The problem is he's not given the chance. In concert is a whole other arena (if you'll pardon the expression) and one with no connection to the studio recordings the road work was allegedly supporting. I am a harsh critic of latterday Stones in concert. There are pleasures every tour to be sure, but for me, they're individual moments and not whole shows. Just my opinion only. It doesn't make anyone else wrong. Well, okay Ian's wrong, but that's just because he agrees with me.

Quote
Doxa
Wrong. They had, but the dude didn't make the final tracks. But damn he looked cool in photos, a clear upgrade to Wyman:





- Doxa

They should have photoshopped him onto the cover of RARITIES.

I can’t spar, but 24FPS wrote
“I think it's more fantastic you can look at him and not believe all that funk was coming out of an English stoneface”

I get this feeling as he stood to the left of Charlie, the right side of himself
tuned in and took over- him standing there, that’s how he got the job done.
I don’t play an instrument, I can’t explain it well.

Anyway, I plead Buddhist in my answer:
It’s not good or bad.
It just is.
We have the masterpieces recorded tracks that have a component of bass that clicked it,
and we have 30 something years of world wide live regular RS shows.
You heard Charlie Watt say a few weeks back:
We are a playing band. We play. That’s who we are. (Present tense)

Quote
24FPS
You're right. I'm sorry. They were only intimating sex with an underage, illegal 15-year-old and not an underage, illegal 13-year old.

Well, much as I love Bard, the humor in the line isn't without real world application to their life and just about every 1960s pop band. Of course, there's a difference between Brian Jones, for example, and a teenage groupie and middle-aged Bill Wyman going round to a private club with Julian Temple where stage mothers bring their teenage daughters for a chance at being noticed for a modeling or singing career. That's illegal and immoral and has been part of show business for at least a century and is just as active today. At least it wasn't Roman Polanski territory so far as we know.

What about stars who take on teenage wards so they can avoid arrest? They have parental consent. Money changes hands and the law leaves them alone. Elvis, Jerry Lee, Jimmy Page, Steven Tyler, and Graham Chapman belong to that list. Is it immoral? Sure. Is it illegal? Maybe.

We all understand "I Saw Her Standing There" and "Little Queenie" and "Sweet Little Sixteen" and "Summer Romance" and "So Young." That's illegal, but the allure is acceptable in Western culture. Men are attracted to teenage girls who are full of hormones and sex appeal. It's wrong for coaches in schools, but understandable for rock stars or those who "just look." At the same time reverse the genders and there's a different reaction. Young boys who have sex with hot female teachers are lucky, while we're protective of young girls in the same situation. Nabokov and Sting make us uncomfortable. If "Don't Stand So Close to Me" was a backstage encounter at a concert, it wouldn't have the same forbidden fruit aspect. Joan Jett in a band called The Runaways was fine. Imagine if Jim Carroll had been more mainstream? We're not fine with predatory gay sex with underage teens.

Apart from double standards for gender or orientation, there's a difference between a man in his twenties with a teenage girl and a man in his twenties with a nine year old. Some people think "Sweet Little Rock 'n' Roller" is innocent and some think it's disturbing. Likewise, the teenage girl with the middle-aged man seems worse than with a guy 8-10 years older than her. All of it can be wrong or illegal. Teens aren't children regardless of the age of consent. Not in societies where teens having sex with other teens is acceptable. The challenge is if you call it all the same, you'll end up with injustice for perpetrators and victims alike.

It's been fun. Hopefully the post is allowed to stay.