Tell Me :  Talk
Talk about your favorite band. 

Previous page Next page First page IORR home

For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.

Goto Page: Previous12345678910Next
Current Page: 7 of 10
Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by: CaptainCorella ()
Date: March 13, 2018 02:17

Quote
Rocky Dijon
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.


Rupert Murdoch and Jerry Hall.

--
Captain Corella
50+ Years a Fan

Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by: 35love ()
Date: March 13, 2018 02:21

Can we ever talk about Bill Wyman as a musician with the Stones
without raking him over the coals personal life in the 80’s?
God. He’s hammered down now for 30 some years with wife and 3 girls
is that satisfactory moral redemption? Don’t answer please.

I wanted to add I have a few a Bill’s books one tidbit (paraphrased)
After Bill left, when the RS went out again (or sometime fairly close after)
Bill said Charlie phoned him up and said:
I just wanted to tell you I was playing, turned to tell you something,
and you weren’t there. You weren’t there when I looked.

So, you know, hasn't been easy for any of us, including poor Darryl,
who I hope is blocked from this site. xxoo

Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by: Rocky Dijon ()
Date: March 13, 2018 02:26

Captain Corella, that made me laugh hard.

35love, it's something that will always follow Bill as much as his Casanova reputation or collection of groupie photos. It might be different if it was a one-off. Without Mandy, we might be paying more attention to the current Mrs. Wyman who was 17 when they first started a relationship. That said, when someone calls Mandy a child, I think it's valid to discuss the whole situation from age, gender, and within show business. It might be ugly, but Bill isn't the only one. I don't see it particularly different than Keith's drug use or Mick's womanizing. Flaws are as exaggerated as everything else for those who are larger than life.

Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by: CaptainCorella ()
Date: March 13, 2018 02:43

Quote
Rocky Dijon
Captain Corella, that made me laugh hard.

Happy to have helped.

On the substance, it's always a moral dilemma to judge people from former times by the values of today.

If I accused a currently famous person "X" of being a Slave Owner we'd all be shocked. But how many of the arguably great people who signed the USA Declaration of Independence kept slaves? Most I am led to believe.

--
Captain Corella
50+ Years a Fan

Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by: 35love ()
Date: March 13, 2018 02:49

Quote
Rocky Dijon
Captain Corella, that made me laugh hard.

35love, it's something that will always follow Bill as much as his Casanova reputation or collection of groupie photos. It might be different if it was a one-off. Without Mandy, we might be paying more attention to the current Mrs. Wyman who was 17 when they first started a relationship. That said, when someone calls Mandy a child, I think it's valid to discuss the whole situation from age, gender, and within show business. It might be ugly, but Bill isn't the only one. I don't see it particularly different than Keith's drug use or Mick's womanizing. Flaws are as exaggerated as everything else for those who are larger than life.

See, I don’t think of it/ associate it with Bill. It doesn’t overshadow who Bill is to me/ I have read up on Mandy/ consensual/ she’s okay/
It was a thousand years ago, and I really don’t have data or care about the rest/
I do not consider him predatory. Enough from me.

Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by: Rocky Dijon ()
Date: March 13, 2018 02:59

For what it's worth, I don't think of him as predatory, either. Giving a girl quaaludes and messing with her when she's unconscious is predatory. Bill did something illegal/immoral which was "acceptable" in his world. As for the good Captain's remark about judging the past from contemporary standards, I don't see this that way at all. It was a situation that was common in show business a century ago and still is today. Just because it's not polite to discuss it outside of certain circles doesn't make it any less of an issue.

Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by: 35love ()
Date: March 13, 2018 03:14

Quote
Rocky Dijon
For what it's worth, I don't think of him as predatory, either. Giving a girl quaaludes and messing with her when she's unconscious is predatory. Bill did something illegal/immoral which was "acceptable" in his world. As for the good Captain's remark about judging the past from contemporary standards, I don't see this that way at all. It was a situation that was common in show business a century ago and still is today. Just because it's not polite to discuss it outside of certain circles doesn't make it any less of an issue.

These sordid details you write at times, I can’t tell if you are making references and it’s unpleasant sometimes. It’s not talked about now because
there is no evidence, a different era, drunken men tales? 30.years.ago
(If you’re referring to bravado ‘100 women in 15 minutes’ or whatever was said years ago in some quote)
And Bill was the shite. He was a rock star. In the 1970’s.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-03-13 03:20 by 35love.

Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by: Leonioid ()
Date: March 13, 2018 03:18

Quote
Rocky Dijon
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.

I was a fan before Wyman quit the band... he quit and then I waited to see what would happen next. I waited, watched and listened... I never said anyone was better than anyone else... I trusted Jagger to decide what is best for the band... and then I decided if wanted to keep being a fan.

I did the same back when I was big time Van Halen fan. I trusted EVH when he brought in new guys... and in that case he blew it. He ruined the band. I no longer liked the sound. I stopped being a fan AND I sure as hell didn't keep going to Van Halen web sites and whining and whining and whining about I WISH IT WAS LIKE THE OLD DAYS!! ... NOPE... I moved the fk on.

I trust Jagger to decide what is best for the band when picking replacements for quitters, people who die and those who no longer are a good fit... and then I decide if I want to keep being a fan. After the Wyman change I bought the CDs and went to the shows... I liked it... it was fun... and I kept being fan KNOWING it is never going to BE LIKE THE OLD DAYS... those quitters and people who died are never coming back.

When a band changes, listen to the music, watch the show... if you like it, then stick around... if you don't, then hit the fkg road. But that is not what happens around here. Here ex-fans stick around and endlessly complain about how bad sad and sterile the band sounds and they endlessly whine about how much they wish it was like the old days... as if all that complaining is going to do one tiny bit of good. It wont.

Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by: Rocky Dijon ()
Date: March 13, 2018 03:57

Still very much a fan, Leonioid. Greatly looking forward to the new album even though I haven't loved an album in 21 years (and even then complain about it not being Darryl on most of the tunes). Still enjoy watching performances from the band. It's worth it for when the old magic is there. That said, being a fan doesn't mean (to me) that I can't judge something as not as good as it was or not as good as it could be. I'm sorry that upsets you. I really did not intend for you to feel me expressing my opinion suggested yours was wrong. To me, they're equally valid opinions of passionate fans. I don't see expressing my opinion as whining or complaining, but obviously you do and it's hurtful to you.

For that matter, I'm sorry what I thought was an interesting discussion about celebrities and what is and isn't morally acceptable (since it colors much of their lyrics) upset 35love who is a good and sweet person I value around here.

So perhaps I will follow Leonioid's advice and say if I think my heroes have feet of clay, I should "hit the @#$%& road." There have been several times I've asked Bjornulf (another nice guy who is always positive about the band) to deactivate my account because I know my passion for the band is too great to stay away forever. That said, when people you've liked for a long time are that upset with your opinions, it's probably time to find that discipline.

For what it's worth, I'm glad you enjoy everything as much as you do. You're not alone. Far from it.

Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by: 35love ()
Date: March 13, 2018 04:05

What?! Wait what happened? C’mon Rocky Dijon, you know I stink at communicating
Please you can’t leave, if you are having fun, you can’t go.
You are a regular here we would miss you and your elegant prose.

#NoStopping Rocky Dijon



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-03-13 04:06 by 35love.

Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by: Rocky Dijon ()
Date: March 13, 2018 04:14

What I mean is, stopping winding up friends when I didn't mean to do so. When you post something and people enjoy it or debate it, it's great. When people you feel you've known for years find it distasteful, you feel rotten. I ended up feeling like Leonioid felt like I was bullying him. I don't want that. In both your case and his, it means I need to back off, take a break, and re-think what I share. Provocative is great if it leads to conversation. I'm thrilled when someone like Doxa likes what I wrote and adds to it or someone like Gazza calls me the biggest bastard here. That's an honor. Not so thrilled when friends are provoked by what I write in a negative way. Leonioid made some valid points. It's like spitting in the wind.

Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by: Leonioid ()
Date: March 13, 2018 04:21

Quote
Rocky Dijon
Still very much a fan, Leonioid. Greatly looking forward to the new album even though I haven't loved an album in 21 years (and even then complain about it not being Darryl on most of the tunes). Still enjoy watching performances from the band. It's worth it for when the old magic is there. That said, being a fan doesn't mean (to me) that I can't judge something as not as good as it was or not as good as it could be. I'm sorry that upsets you. I really did not intend for you to feel me expressing my opinion suggested yours was wrong. To me, they're equally valid opinions of passionate fans. I don't see expressing my opinion as whining or complaining, but obviously you do and it's hurtful to you.

For that matter, I'm sorry what I thought was an interesting discussion about celebrities and what is and isn't morally acceptable (since it colors much of their lyrics) upset 35love who is a good and sweet person I value around here.

So perhaps I will follow Leonioid's advice and say if I think my heroes have feet of clay, I should "hit the @#$%& road." There have been several times I've asked Bjornulf (another nice guy who is always positive about the band) to deactivate my account because I know my passion for the band is too great to stay away forever. That said, when people you've liked for a long time are that upset with your opinions, it's probably time to find that discipline.

For what it's worth, I'm glad you enjoy everything as much as you do. You're not alone. Far from it.

You know odds are you are not going to like the new album... if you have not liked any in the last 21 years...

Me? I think Darryl is fine player... I think the song Doom and Gloom kicks ass! I loved B2B (still love it) and Voodoo lounge... I thought BB had a bunch of good songs on it. I have seen them in bunches on the recent tours and they still have the magic. I love the LIVE at Fonda Theater... I still love it all.


There are not many things I have liked (and have not disappointed me) than The Stones. I tend to judge very harshly and and I have hit the road on many bands... people... things... locations... but somehow The Stones still make me think they are the bees knees.

Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by: rbp ()
Date: March 13, 2018 04:30

Bill has a far better feel for rock'n'roll than Darryl will ever have. Darryl was an uninspired replacement choice. The Stones were still a great rock band when Bill was with them. They have slowly morphed into a show band since Bill left.
The Stones were a way better band with Bill than they are today.

Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by: Rocky Dijon ()
Date: March 13, 2018 04:44

Quote
Leonioid
You know odds are you are not going to like the new album... if you have not liked any in the last 21 years...

Me? I think Darryl is fine player... I think the song Doom and Gloom kicks ass! I loved B2B (still love it) and Voodoo lounge... I thought BB had a bunch of good songs on it. I have seen them in bunches on the recent tours and they still have the magic. I love the LIVE at Fonda Theater... I still love it all.


There are not many things I have liked (and have not disappointed me) than The Stones. I tend to judge very harshly and and I have hit the road on many bands... people... things... locations... but somehow The Stones still make me think they are the bees knees.

21 years ago was BRIDGES. I think VOODOO LOUNGE and BRIDGES (alongside WANDERING SPIRIT and MAIN OFFENDER and SLIDE ON THIS and THE CHARLIE WATTS/JIM KELTNER PROJECT) are terrific albums. I nitpick. I do the same with BEGGARS, LET IT BLEED, STICKY FINGERS, and EXILE. I'm allowed. It's in my contract. What isn't allowed is that I go on so much I piss people off.

I'm glad you get off on them today as much as you do. I adore "Just Your Fool." I find "Ride 'em on Down" dull and pedestrian. I'm equally divided on CROSSEYED HEART. Really like some songs, but overall I'm underwhelmed. I go back when it was new and see my posts show I was knocked out. I heard an early version from Drake and thought it was amazing. What happened? Why did my view alter while others still think it's Keith's best solo LP and I think it's easily the least of the three. I'm probably the only person who thinks MAIN OFFENDER is his best. What happened doesn't matter. My changing opinion or nitpicking about albums I love is just what I feel.

That said, you're right. I've said it all before. Why say it again? My Obsession? Yeah, but like critics who don't want another Stones LP, what do I have to say that's worth rehashing? In any event, I said enough controversial things that if someone wants, they can probably convince Dirty Harry to ask me if I feel lucky. I do very much. It's a great site and a great band. I've learned a lot here and had a great deal of fun. That said, I'm not making millions happy or putting millions in my bank account by being here. My old friend Revvy once advised me to move on as well. He wasn't wrong. He's a loon, but he's passionate and sometimes very right. He has good advice some of the time, too. If I could get him back here, I would. The place could use a shot of salvation from the good Reverend.

Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by: Leonioid ()
Date: March 13, 2018 04:54

smileys with beerdrinking smileycool smiley

Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by: 35love ()
Date: March 13, 2018 05:26

Oh boy, I knew I shoulda stayed off this thread.

I’m sorry Rocky D., I said earlier ‘sometimes’ when only 2x I’ve cringed at something you’ve written. I’m sure you’ve cringed at my crush on Mick.
1x was a Mick and Matt Clifford graphic description and I thought hey, Matt’s married, y’know, and ew (LOL) and okay, yeah, a 9 yr old being drugged
that description of abuse always upsets me, and I thought if you are alluding to someone, be careful.
That’s all. I’ve never reported anyone here or whatever. I consider us friends.
Capice?
ETA I also stand by what I wrote about unfair we can’t discuss Wyman without that old sad story being brought up/ irrelevant.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2018-03-13 05:29 by 35love.

Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad?smiling smiley Your thoughts!
Posted by: GasLightStreet ()
Date: March 13, 2018 05:37

Quote
Doxa
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.

9th July - 6th August: St. Kildare, Ireland, Sandymount Studios (RW’s house).
Producers: Don Was & The Glimmer Twins. Sound engineer: Don Smith.
First recordings for the upcoming album Voodoo Lounge.

early - 29th September: St. Kildare, Ireland, Sandymount Studios (RW’s house).
Producers: Don Was & The Glimmer Twins. Sound engineer: Don Smith.
Recordings for the upcoming album Voodoo Lounge.
Additional musicians: Darryl Jones (bass), Doug Wimbish (bass), Pino
Palladino (bass), Chuck Leavell (keyb)

[www.nzentgraf.de]

Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by: Rocky Dijon ()
Date: March 13, 2018 05:43

You were fine, 35love, however, some of what you just said...my picking on Matt Clifford, is just that. My teasing about him and Mick is not intended to be serious. I have never heard anything. I did snicker back in 1989 or 1990 when he was interviewed and talked about after a gig, they sometimes go to dinner or watch a movie together because it sounded so comfy and domestic, but I've never heard a rumor. That was just my wicked humor. Honest.

As for the nine year old, I used it as an example only. No rumors of anyone whatsoever (Stones or otherwise). I brought up "Sweet Little Rock 'n' Roller" because some people don't see it as innocent (like Rod making her "nineteen"). The other reference to a young child was to draw a difference between something so horrific contrasted with a rock star and a teenage fan. I just reacted to the use of the word "child." Sorry if I made you think otherwise. Even with the worst of the stories out there that I referenced, no one was that young and the worst of them were legal relationships with parental consent (that includes Mandy). Not good, sure, but not heinous.

I really didn't want to rehash it, but I thought it was important to straighten that out.

Now, can I go back to making fun of Matt shaking maracas in HAVANA MOON?

Gaslight, Doxa meant the dog was the original choice to replace Bill. It was just silliness.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-03-13 05:44 by Rocky Dijon.

Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad?smiling smiley Your thoughts!
Date: March 13, 2018 08:47

Quote
GasLightStreet
Quote
Doxa
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.

9th July - 6th August: St. Kildare, Ireland, Sandymount Studios (RW’s house).
Producers: Don Was & The Glimmer Twins. Sound engineer: Don Smith.
First recordings for the upcoming album Voodoo Lounge.

early - 29th September: St. Kildare, Ireland, Sandymount Studios (RW’s house).
Producers: Don Was & The Glimmer Twins. Sound engineer: Don Smith.
Recordings for the upcoming album Voodoo Lounge.
Additional musicians: Darryl Jones (bass), Doug Wimbish (bass), Pino
Palladino (bass), Chuck Leavell (keyb)

[www.nzentgraf.de]

The dog wasn't credited? smiling smiley

Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by: Stoneage ()
Date: March 13, 2018 09:54

Rocky Dijon: I don't get the drama. There is room for more than one view here. I, for instance, think that Tattoo You was the last really good RS album...and they haven't kicked me out yet! So just keep on posting.

Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by: Svartmer ()
Date: March 13, 2018 09:59

Quote
Redhotcarpet
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.

No, I´m not going for the "phony" stage act (interesting that so many on this forum knows that Keith´s interaction with Darryl is just a fake).I also have the nerve to say that I believe they sound better live with Darryl.

I think the reason for Keith´s annoyance with Bill was more of the principle that "no one quits the Stones".

Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by: Redhotcarpet ()
Date: March 13, 2018 10:56

Sorry about the harsh tone Svartmer. Well maybe the interaction generally is real. Who knows.

Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Date: March 13, 2018 11:06

Quote
Redhotcarpet
Sorry about the harsh tone Svartmer. Well maybe the interaction generally is real. Who knows.

thumbs up

Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by: Svartmer ()
Date: March 13, 2018 11:19

Quote
Redhotcarpet
Sorry about the harsh tone Svartmer. Well maybe the interaction generally is real. Who knows.

Yes, of course we can only speculate about that smiling smiley

But I still like to see some kind of communication on stage, even if it´s not always spontaneous.

Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad?smiling smiley Your thoughts!
Posted by: ouroux58 ()
Date: March 13, 2018 11:45

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Quote
GasLightStreet
Quote
Doxa
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.

9th July - 6th August: St. Kildare, Ireland, Sandymount Studios (RW’s house).
Producers: Don Was & The Glimmer Twins. Sound engineer: Don Smith.
First recordings for the upcoming album Voodoo Lounge.

early - 29th September: St. Kildare, Ireland, Sandymount Studios (RW’s house).
Producers: Don Was & The Glimmer Twins. Sound engineer: Don Smith.
Recordings for the upcoming album Voodoo Lounge.
Additional musicians: Darryl Jones (bass), Doug Wimbish (bass), Pino
Palladino (bass), Chuck Leavell (keyb)

[www.nzentgraf.de]

The dog wasn't credited? smiling smiley

The dog bit Doug and Pino's ass, that's the reason why Darryl got the job! confused smiley

Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Date: March 13, 2018 11:48

Quote
Leonioid
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.

First off, IMHO of course you qualify to post here. I didn't know that that was even on the table. But so does everyone else. I've been with Bjornulf since the 90's; I have spent a lifetime with the Stones. and I;m not even going to go into a shouting match about who is a bigger fan. That is just silly. We here; we're hardcore Stones fans; we're talking.
This thread does ask the question on "your thoughts on the band with or w/o Wyman". And a lot of these replies are open musings; people trying to clear their thoughts on how they think of this band who occupied such a big place in their life. Preferring the Stones with Wyman,does not equate 'enjoying saying negative things about the band'. DJ is a great bass player, no doubt. But he has been cast in a thankless position. He hasn't been hired to create; he is not even a band member. He was brought on as an able hired gun to re-create what Bill wrote in the years before. So, yes - I personally wish the Stones had stayed a creative force. Just my opinion, and if it doesn't jibe with yours does not make it negative.

Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by: matxil ()
Date: March 13, 2018 12:37

It's interesting how people tend to call other people's opinion "whining" when they don't agree with them, and then go on whining about that themselves.

From a musical point of view, at least it's interesting to have a band like the Stones, which has made music with different members, so one can compare them and weigh in the positives and negatives. They have had three entirely different guitar players, and two rather different bass players. They also have two different "leaders", who have always been there but in varying levels of mutual agreement.
Nothing wrong with trying to pinpoint the exact moment in time (February 1, 1962, 9:45? 3 October 1968 at 15.00? July 5th, 1978, Paris, 2:23 am?) when the conglomeration of current players and level of understanding between Mick and Keith was at its zenith. Of course, we will never agree, which is why this forum will last forever.

Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Date: March 13, 2018 12:52

Quote
matxil
It's interesting how people tend to call other people's opinion "whining" when they don't agree with them, and then go on whining about that themselves.

From a musical point of view, at least it's interesting to have a band like the Stones, which has made music with different members, so one can compare them and weigh in the positives and negatives. They have had three entirely different guitar players, and two rather different bass players. They also have two different "leaders", who have always been there but in varying levels of mutual agreement.
Nothing wrong with trying to pinpoint the exact moment in time (February 1, 1962, 9:45? 3 October 1968 at 15.00? July 5th, 1978, Paris, 2:23 am?) when the conglomeration of current players and level of understanding between Mick and Keith was at its zenith. Of course, we will never agree, which is why this forum will last forever.

Can being positive and enthusiastic ever qualify as whining? smiling smiley



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-03-13 12:52 by DandelionPowderman.

Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by: matxil ()
Date: March 13, 2018 13:01

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Quote
matxil
It's interesting how people tend to call other people's opinion "whining" when they don't agree with them, and then go on whining about that themselves.

From a musical point of view, at least it's interesting to have a band like the Stones, which has made music with different members, so one can compare them and weigh in the positives and negatives. They have had three entirely different guitar players, and two rather different bass players. They also have two different "leaders", who have always been there but in varying levels of mutual agreement.
Nothing wrong with trying to pinpoint the exact moment in time (February 1, 1962, 9:45? 3 October 1968 at 15.00? July 5th, 1978, Paris, 2:23 am?) when the conglomeration of current players and level of understanding between Mick and Keith was at its zenith. Of course, we will never agree, which is why this forum will last forever.

Can being positive and enthusiastic ever qualify as whining? smiling smiley

No. But complaining about people with negative opinions definitely can be qualitified as whining. Going on and on about how this forum should be only for people who unconditionally like everything the Stones do and not for people who don't agree with that, can be whining.
But of course, now that I have dedicated two posts to someone who whines about people whining, one could excuse me of whining about whiners who whine about whiners. I prefer talking about Wyman or the Winos. There's a emoticon of a wineglass missing on this forum.

Back to the music.

Personally, to be honest, the bass is about the last thing I listen to in a band, but I know I should pay more attention to it. There are certain bass lines in Stones songs which I did notice (obviously Miss You, also Start Me Up, Satisfaction, a few others (there's a great video of When The Whip Comes Down -live where Bill is all over the place)), and yes, I like the way Bill Wyman played. However, I don't have much problem with Daryl Jones, because I don't think it's on him that the Stones have become a streamlined stadium band with a mediocre studio output.

Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Date: March 13, 2018 13:12

Quote
matxil
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Quote
matxil
It's interesting how people tend to call other people's opinion "whining" when they don't agree with them, and then go on whining about that themselves.

From a musical point of view, at least it's interesting to have a band like the Stones, which has made music with different members, so one can compare them and weigh in the positives and negatives. They have had three entirely different guitar players, and two rather different bass players. They also have two different "leaders", who have always been there but in varying levels of mutual agreement.
Nothing wrong with trying to pinpoint the exact moment in time (February 1, 1962, 9:45? 3 October 1968 at 15.00? July 5th, 1978, Paris, 2:23 am?) when the conglomeration of current players and level of understanding between Mick and Keith was at its zenith. Of course, we will never agree, which is why this forum will last forever.

Can being positive and enthusiastic ever qualify as whining? smiling smiley

No. But complaining about people with negative opinions definitely can be qualitified as whining. Going on and on about how this forum should be only for people who unconditionally like everything the Stones do and not for people who don't agree with that, can be whining.
But of course, now that I have dedicated two posts to someone who whines about people whining, one could accuse me of whining about whiners who whine about whiners. I prefer talking about Wyman or the Winos. There's a emoticon of a wineglass missing on this forum.

Back to the music.

Personally, to be honest, the bass is about the last thing I listen to in a band, but I know I should pay more attention to it. There are certain bass lines in Stones songs which I did notice (obviously Miss You, also Start Me Up, Satisfaction, a few others (there's a great video of When The Whip Comes Down -live where Bill is all over the place)), and yes, I like the way Bill Wyman played. However, I don't have much problem with Daryl Jones, because I don't think it's on him that the Stones have become a streamlined stadium band with a mediocre studio output.

grinning smiley

Goto Page: Previous12345678910Next
Current Page: 7 of 10


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 264
Record Number of Users: 184 on May 17, 2018 22:46
Record Number of Guests: 3948 on December 7, 2015 15:07

Previous page Next page First page IORR home