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: 9 of 10
Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by: Redhotcarpet ()
Date: March 14, 2018 09:57

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
Quote
matxil

Haha..you found the wineglass!

Whoa, what has happened to this thread??!

But is it half full or half empty? winking smiley

Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by: Rockman ()
Date: March 14, 2018 10:24



ROCKMAN

Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by: Rockman ()
Date: March 14, 2018 10:40



ROCKMAN

Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by: matxil ()
Date: March 14, 2018 11:04

Quote
hopkins
[www.youtube.com]

whoo hoo Bill!!

You're right, great bass-lines.

Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by: Rockman ()
Date: March 14, 2018 11:07



ROCKMAN

Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by: Rockman ()
Date: March 14, 2018 12:00



ROCKMAN

Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by: CaptainCorella ()
Date: March 14, 2018 12:48

Quote
Rockman

How certain are you that that banana is more than 16 years old?

--
Captain Corella
50+ Years a Fan

Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Date: March 14, 2018 13:20

Quote
CaptainCorella
Quote
Rockman

How certain are you that that banana is more than 16 years old?

Back in the days of yore, before there was an Internet, and videos of the Stones were a rare find, for which I would climb mountains, I walked miles and miles through Paris at night into a tiny smoke filled cinema, where we all sat and watched Bill Wyman's clips doing "Monkey Grip" and "White Lightning" etc. I was so buzzed.

Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by: ycagwywpmd ()
Date: March 14, 2018 13:59

It would be so easy to come here and talk about BW the musician.
I could just say: loved Bill with the Stones, great bass player, loved the Stones since he left too, blah blah blah, might make me boring with no real depth of musical knowledge, but I know what I like.
Saw Bill few years back with Rythym Kings, small London venue, great evening. Biggest cheer of the evening, when they covered a Stones number, rather sad some of us thought, people seemed to be saying 'we're only here Bill because you used to be a Rolling Stone'
But after the show there was the usual murmurings of 'what about all that young girls stuff'. You see, lots of us can't just 'put things in boxes', after all, this thread title doesn't say 'and keep it to the music please' does it?

He broke the law with MS , she was below the legal age of consent.'consenual' by her? Come on, still illegal and grossly immoral because of huge age gap. And young girls are often consenual because they are being exploited. That's why, sadly, he still has to 'carry this stuff round with him', being a married family man now doesn't negate this shady, illegal part of his past.

I hung around stage doors from age of 12 onwards, 'poor parenting' you ask? They were terrified, just didn't know how to deal with what was hitting them in early 60's. I think mum's advice to her teenaged daughters 'you come home pregnant and you'll be out on the street, my girl' was pretty much the norm too. Now, I'm glad no one let me through the stage door, and I took mum's advice. I just passed my autograph book throu, still miffed that one time it didn't come back. Rather the book than........

Fwiw, I agree with everything you say RD, yeah, this is a music forum, but some of us find it hard to just keep 'everything in it's box', and I think it would be naive to do so. One reason I have held back from posting, I really don't want to cause offence to anyone, I promise., but to ignore what happened and just keep it all r&r is something I just cannot do.
And re reading the thread, I agree with comments, eg, 'these girls are vulnerable', and we should never forget that, music forum or not

Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by: 35love ()
Date: March 14, 2018 15:59

I see a LOT of generalizing in your post ycagwyw.

Are you speaking solely of Bill’s marriage to Mandy?
No way am I defending it, but from her, he waited and then married her at 18.
All the RS were there, her parents, whatever.

As for all the rest, you are generalizing about ‘all the young girls.’

Yes, it makes me vomit, predatory child sexual abuse.

I say, be very careful with whom you so loosely attach that with.

I’m out of Bill’s thread.

Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Date: March 14, 2018 16:07

Quote
35love
I see a LOT of generalizing in your post ycagwyw.

Are you speaking solely of Bill’s marriage to Mandy?
No way am I defending it, but from her, he waited and then married her at 18.
All the RS were there, her parents, whatever.

As for all the rest, you are generalizing about ‘all the young girls.’

Yes, it makes me vomit, predatory child sexual abuse.

I say, be very careful with whom you so loosely attach that with.

I’m out of Bill’s thread.

One year, supposedly (and that was not enough sad smiley )

Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by: ycagwywpmd ()
Date: March 14, 2018 16:59

Quote
35love
I see a LOT of generalizing in your post ycagwyw.

Are you speaking solely of Bill’s marriage to Mandy?
No way am I defending it, but from her, he waited and then married her at 18.
All the RS were there, her parents, whatever.

As for all the rest, you are generalizing about ‘all the young girls.’

Yes, it makes me vomit, predatory child sexual abuse.

I say, be very careful with whom you so loosely attach that with.

I’m out of Bill’s thread.

Who are we not to believe MS when she says it happened when she was 14 (age of consent 16?) I have tried not to generalise, more based my comments on what I have read over the years, from what I believed to be reliable sources. Who knows, now, what the truth is?

It makes me sad too.

As you say, time to move on.

Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by: Stoneage ()
Date: March 14, 2018 19:09

Yep, to exaggerate or speculate is one thing but to conceal or diminish isn't much better. I think facts are quite clear here. Not one hundred percent but pretty close. You don't even need Ockham's razor...

Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by: bleedingman ()
Date: March 14, 2018 19:33

I enjoyed Bill's book "Stone Alone" but upon re-reading it recently I found his constant boasting about all the girls he scored a tad nauseating. Here was a married man who was pushing 30 and had a baby son, blatantly cheating with much younger females every chance he got. He doesn't express the slightest bit of guilt either and ironically divorced his wife because of HER adultery. I'm sure the publishers encouraged him to include some depravity but it would have just been simpler if he said "I had a lot of sex when we were touring" and left it at that. Every time he started with "I had a pleasant surprise at the hotel..." I just skimmed through it. Hell of a bass player though.

Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by: Doxa ()
Date: March 14, 2018 19:40

I like that description by Bill's mother: "The trouble was he was never able to play at the right tempo, and was always messing around with the music". So there's the origin of the 'wobble'... Bill was born to be a Rolling Stone... grinning smiley

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-03-14 19:43 by Doxa.

Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by: ycagwywpmd ()
Date: March 14, 2018 22:03

Quote
Stoneage
Yep, to exaggerate or speculate is one thing but to conceal or diminish isn't much better. I think facts are quite clear here. Not one hundred percent but pretty close. You don't even need Ockham's razor...

Nicely put Stoneage (even though I had to look up the Ockham's razor thingy)

Life is short

Good to keep learning though

Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by: Rockman ()
Date: March 14, 2018 22:44



ROCKMAN

Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by: hopkins ()
Date: March 16, 2018 17:30

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.

__________________________
I read that from one of 35's posts;
Yikes, it took the heart right out of me for a few minutes.

___________________________
___________________________

"...I'm a monkey! I'm a monkey!
Monkey! monkey! monkey!"
M. Jagger & K. Richards



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-03-16 17:37 by hopkins.

Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by: Stoneage ()
Date: March 17, 2018 03:20

"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."

How sweet of Charlie. I'm sure that meant something to Bill.

Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by: jlowe ()
Date: March 17, 2018 14:12

Bill by Brian. .....'I feel very paternal towards Bill.
Poor, deluded Brian, even in those days.
(Bill was actually six years older than Bill and hundreds of years more wise)

Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by: 24FPS ()
Date: April 14, 2018 05:29

I just finished 'All The Songs'. He heaped lavish praise on Bill's playing on practically every song. He pretty much dismissed Darryl's parts. Of course he acknowledged what a jazz genius Darryl is, which doesn't do squat in the rock world.

Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by: hopkins ()
Date: April 15, 2018 04:49

Quote
TheflyingDutchman
Quote
24FPS
Quote
TheflyingDutchman
Quote
24FPS
Quote
TheflyingDutchman
Darryl's equalizer settings and timing might be a bit different, but he has the essential skills, just like Bill: backing it up, and don't walk in the way. If they asked Darryl to sound like Bill, he could do it with one finger in his nose. Dandelion Powderman's post of "Live with Me" (the LiB sound in this thread) is a perfect example. Having said that, I like most of Bill's playing with the Stones.

Interesting theory. So you're saying Darryl chooses to play meandering, emotionless bass that doesn't drive the music or contribute to its artistic presentation? Okay.

Some people say Ron Wood is horrible, others think he's a genius. In the end it's a matter of taste, or even nostalgia.

Below the first 45 seconds you hear Charlie Watts talking about Bill and Darryl:

Charlie on Bill/Darryl

Charlie didn't get Bill's playing until he had to go over parts with Darryl and suddenly Charlie understood how clever Bill was. I just don't think Charlie really gets rock music. My dad was a jazz drummer and he never did. Their ears are clouded, like mine are for most rap. It all sounds the same, not hip hop, but rap. I don't think Ronnie is a genius, like Mick Taylor was at his peak, or Brian all around, but he's quite good and there simply wouldn't be a modern day Stones without him. He was great on Blue & Lonesome. I think Charlie and Bill were just two work mates who got on well. Bill was the one who came from 50s rock and roll. He could make his electric guitar play like a 50s standup. Charlie was in his own world, following Keith. All that Charlie understood about Bill is, 'That the whole damn bottom of the band fell out when he would stop playing'.

I never understood that musical theory about "Charlie following Keith timing-wise". Anyway, one might question the different opinion about Bill"s playing between Keith and Charlie i.e. Bill's replacement, and how it affected the atmosphere in the band.

Keith on Bill, he gets a bit emotional:

Keith on Bill

I'm so glad you posted that link, ty.
Keith at his most honestly gracious; easy with showing tenderness;
I love this clip.
cruised back over this thread after not visiting it for awhile...
...for me, 24fps has nailed several times here with really cool insight.

___________________________
___________________________

"...I'm a monkey! I'm a monkey!
Monkey! monkey! monkey!"
M. Jagger & K. Richards

Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by: Dan ()
Date: April 15, 2018 06:58

The thing is they barely qualify as a real band since the mid-1980's.

In that case they aren't much different than most other classic rock bands on the road today. You get the classic name and catalog if not the lineup that made them great.

Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by: hopkins ()
Date: April 15, 2018 08:21

well there is that. oops.

___________________________
___________________________

"...I'm a monkey! I'm a monkey!
Monkey! monkey! monkey!"
M. Jagger & K. Richards

Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: April 15, 2018 15:38

Quote
Rockman

that is an awesome pic of bill

Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by: 24FPS ()
Date: April 15, 2018 21:39

Quote
Dan
The thing is they barely qualify as a real band since the mid-1980's.

In that case they aren't much different than most other classic rock bands on the road today. You get the classic name and catalog if not the lineup that made them great.

That's probably the frustrating thing. We, at least hard core fans, have always expected more from the Stones than whatever gets on stage and calls itself Bon Jovi these days. They have from the start been about adult music. They were different from the Beatles in that way. That may be why I rarely listen to the Beatles these days, while still listening to the first 30 years of the Stones over and over. (Except for Blue & Lonesome, which was great). We really shouldn't expect more than a reasonable facsimile of the Greatest Hits as this point, which is what we get.

This current construction of the band pulls that off more for the most part. I have seen Brian Wilson a couple times over the past few years with a couple Beach Boys (David Marks, Al Jardine, Blondie Chapin) up front, back by a group of crack musicians and vocalists. It sounds great, until you put on a DVD with the original group. Having Carl still be in the vocal mix takes it to a whole, better level.

Much as I respect Chuck Leavell as a musician, he is not a Rolling Stone in that he is not good at all the genres the Stones have spanned across the golden years of their recording. The emotional depth is missing. And we know for all of Darryl's alleged bass playing cred, that he couldn't handle Jamie Muhoberac's bass part on 'Anybody Seen My Baby' in a live setting.

We know that the first 30 years of the band were a whole different story than the retro story afterward. They were a special band. Now they are a nostalgia band. Maybe the best. I hope there is more from the vault for the earlier band. It's not coming back, and I'm glad for everything it did. History will probably ignore their post-Wyman recordings for the most part. The phenomenal touring success will be part of the later years, which was already well in place before Wyman split.

Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad?smiling smiley Your thoughts!
Posted by: georgie48 ()
Date: April 16, 2018 14:49

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash
I miss him a lot. D. Jones is very good but the loss of Bill, as well as Stu was the end of the classic Stones sound - at least to my ears. They're still great, but it's not the same.

Everybody changes over years. Bill in the 60s, Bill in the 70s and so on. But I disagree that "the classic Stones sound" got lost. How about Blue and Lonesome?
Yip, no Brian Jones, no Stu, no Bill, but definitively Rolling Stones. They can do it still, any time they want. When I listen to their first 60s albums, off course there is a difference, but would we want "the simplicity" of their music then instead of something like Blue and Lonesome now? 20 years "old" young men developed into 70+ old "old" men. How about lucky us. We can just pick a record/CD anywhere from the early 60s to (so far) 2015 as we like. The choice is ours. Man, aren't we privileged?
smileys with beer

Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad?smiling smiley Your thoughts!
Posted by: Hairball ()
Date: April 16, 2018 19:33

Quote
georgie48
Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash
I miss him a lot. D. Jones is very good but the loss of Bill, as well as Stu was the end of the classic Stones sound - at least to my ears. They're still great, but it's not the same.

Everybody changes over years. Bill in the 60s, Bill in the 70s and so on. But I disagree that "the classic Stones sound" got lost. How about Blue and Lonesome?
Yip, no Brian Jones, no Stu, no Bill, but definitively Rolling Stones. They can do it still, any time they want. When I listen to their first 60s albums, off course there is a difference, but would we want "the simplicity" of their music then instead of something like Blue and Lonesome now? 20 years "old" young men developed into 70+ old "old" men. How about lucky us. We can just pick a record/CD anywhere from the early 60s to (so far) 2015 as we like. The choice is ours. Man, aren't we privileged?
smileys with beer

Blue and Lonesome being a covers album of old blues tunes was basically a one off situation (recorded in 2-3 days, etc.), and I believe HonkeyTonkFlash was referring specifically to live shows anyways.
If they could apply the B&L approach to a new set of original tunes that would be great, but the fact they've been working on the new album for eternity tells me that's not going to happen.
As for the rest of your post - yes we are lucky to have a catalogue that spans over half a century. thumbs up

--------------------------------
"Rip this joint, gonna save your soul..."

Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by: Rockman ()
Date: April 16, 2018 21:52

aren't we privileged?

Yes georgie48 .... we certainly are ....

ROCKMAN

Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad?smiling smiley Your thoughts!
Posted by: SweetThing ()
Date: April 16, 2018 22:29

Quote
The Sicilian
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.

Wrong on all four counts. You managed to make four incredibly bad statements in one post.

I call it the Menudo syndrome. you can't argue with "brand fans"

Goto Page: Previous12345678910Next
Current Page: 9 of 10


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 274
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