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: Previous12
Current Page: 2 of 2
Re: The Stones fought hard to keep Bill, but just let Mick T. go
Posted by: dcba ()
Date: January 21, 2020 16:14

Quote
jlowe

So he 'transferred' to Jack Bruce!
Unbelievable really, in hindsight.

Not that unbelievable if MT considered the JBBand as a more suitable vehicule for his musical ideas. The prospect of creating long songs with complex structure certainly appealed to him.

Re: The Stones fought hard to keep Bill, but just let Mick T. go
Posted by: blivet ()
Date: January 21, 2020 17:18

Quote
keefriff99
Quote
jbwelda
The Rolling Stones lost a lot when they lost Bill Wyman. He was one of the foundation stones they all depended on. Those were his bass notes. He was part of the stage personality, the anti-personality actually. And from what I have heard, he smoked weed non-stop, like any good bass player should.

jb
I thought Bill was the straight one in the band.

Now I certainly don't consider weed much of a vice and couldn't care less if he had, but it doesn't jibe with what I've heard about Bill over the years.

I may be misremembering, but I believe that in Stone Alone he says that at one point he was smoking a tremendous amount of marijuana, and in her comments Astrid says the same, that it was a huge problem.

Re: The Stones fought hard to keep Bill, but just let Mick T. go
Posted by: keefriff99 ()
Date: January 21, 2020 17:19

Quote
blivet
Quote
keefriff99
Quote
jbwelda
The Rolling Stones lost a lot when they lost Bill Wyman. He was one of the foundation stones they all depended on. Those were his bass notes. He was part of the stage personality, the anti-personality actually. And from what I have heard, he smoked weed non-stop, like any good bass player should.

jb
I thought Bill was the straight one in the band.

Now I certainly don't consider weed much of a vice and couldn't care less if he had, but it doesn't jibe with what I've heard about Bill over the years.

I may be misremembering, but I believe that in Stone Alone he says that at one point he was smoking a tremendous amount of marijuana, and in her comments Astrid says the same, that it was a huge problem.
Interesting! Thanks.

Re: The Stones fought hard to keep Bill, but just let Mick T. go
Posted by: Rocky Dijon ()
Date: January 21, 2020 18:26

1972, but it didn't last long. Bill says he has a compulsive personality and had to give it up. He also noted it was a period where he got along best with Mick and Keith.

Re: The Stones fought hard to keep Bill, but just let Mick T. go
Posted by: jbwelda ()
Date: January 21, 2020 20:39

I was under the distinct impression it was a long term thing with Mr Wyman, lasting up until the current time. That's what I was told by the bartender at Sticky Fingers back in 2007 anyhow and that's an unimpeachable source for sure! ;-)

One has to realize you don't always read the strict truth in books. Best to ask the bartender.

One thing I was amazed at there was them having Bills first bass guitar: home made from a plank of wood.

Back to the pipe

jb

Re: The Stones fought hard to keep Bill, but just let Mick T. go
Posted by: jbwelda ()
Date: January 21, 2020 20:49




jb

Re: The Stones fought hard to keep Bill, but just let Mick T. go
Date: January 21, 2020 22:52

Quote
dcba
Quote
jlowe

So he 'transferred' to Jack Bruce!
Unbelievable really, in hindsight.

Not that unbelievable if MT considered the JBBand as a more suitable vehicule for his musical ideas. The prospect of creating long songs with complex structure certainly appealed to him.

However the guitar solos he played with the JB band were not very different from the stuff played with the Stones. He proved to know his chords though, a bit more complex than in Stones music. Had Taylor practised a bit more in those days, he could have become a very good Prog/ Jazz Rock player. A waste of talent in hindsight.

Re: The Stones fought hard to keep Bill, but just let Mick T. go
Posted by: 24FPS ()
Date: January 22, 2020 09:22

Quote
keefriff99
Quote
blivet
Quote
keefriff99
Quote
jbwelda
The Rolling Stones lost a lot when they lost Bill Wyman. He was one of the foundation stones they all depended on. Those were his bass notes. He was part of the stage personality, the anti-personality actually. And from what I have heard, he smoked weed non-stop, like any good bass player should.

jb
I thought Bill was the straight one in the band.

Now I certainly don't consider weed much of a vice and couldn't care less if he had, but it doesn't jibe with what I've heard about Bill over the years.

I may be misremembering, but I believe that in Stone Alone he says that at one point he was smoking a tremendous amount of marijuana, and in her comments Astrid says the same, that it was a huge problem.
Interesting! Thanks.

I guess when you look back at 'swallow anything given him' Brian, long time junkie Keith, god knows what Mick, Bill having a bit of a marijuana problem seems rather quaint.

Re: The Stones fought hard to keep Bill, but just let Mick T. go
Posted by: TheGreek ()
Date: January 22, 2020 13:34

I think about Bill Wyman as part of the bedrock foundation of the Stones , along with Charlie Watts and Keith making a fearsome groove machine . From when I was a kid the Stones music was always bass heavy and what a mean and funky groove it was . Just listen to any of the early albums from the 60's with Brian ,then throw in Keith's riffs and Charlie's drums and you get the "sound" Then Mick's vocals , and from Brian Jones , to Mick Taylor , right thru to Ronnie Wood . Don't get me wrong as I enjoy and appreciate Daryl's bass skills , it's just live he is not mixed the same booming way that Bill was and only in 1994 Voodoo Lounge tour was he allowed or took the liberty himself of really getting down and funky and improvising as much as he was able to within the context of the live material from the set list ,until he was told or asked to just play the recorded bass parts as is which is a shame as he showed a lot to me that first year on stage where I actually walked away impressed at the choice of him to replace Bill Wyman . I actually was concerned and alarmed that the Stones live "sound" would be changed in a negative way forever and was quite happy that wasn't the case . I mean it's not like Daryl didn't have the resume of accomplishments and pedigree to warrant his induction into the Stones orbit !

Re: The Stones fought hard to keep Bill, but just let Mick T. go
Posted by: 24FPS ()
Date: January 22, 2020 19:17

Quote
TheGreek
I think about Bill Wyman as part of the bedrock foundation of the Stones , along with Charlie Watts and Keith making a fearsome groove machine . From when I was a kid the Stones music was always bass heavy and what a mean and funky groove it was . Just listen to any of the early albums from the 60's with Brian ,then throw in Keith's riffs and Charlie's drums and you get the "sound" Then Mick's vocals , and from Brian Jones , to Mick Taylor , right thru to Ronnie Wood . Don't get me wrong as I enjoy and appreciate Daryl's bass skills , it's just live he is not mixed the same booming way that Bill was and only in 1994 Voodoo Lounge tour was he allowed or took the liberty himself of really getting down and funky and improvising as much as he was able to within the context of the live material from the set list ,until he was told or asked to just play the recorded bass parts as is which is a shame as he showed a lot to me that first year on stage where I actually walked away impressed at the choice of him to replace Bill Wyman . I actually was concerned and alarmed that the Stones live "sound" would be changed in a negative way forever and was quite happy that wasn't the case . I mean it's not like Daryl didn't have the resume of accomplishments and pedigree to warrant his induction into the Stones orbit !

That will forever be a mystery. I thought Darryl's best work with the Stones was on Voodoo Lounge. Love Is Strong, You Got Me Rocking. It wasn't anything new, but it was along the Wyman sound. I've never been able to hear the bass that much live. It's only when I get a CD/DVD at home that I can pick out how great Bill was.

I don't know what the group told him, but Darryl did not 'just play what's on the record'. I don't know what he's playing in relation to the actual song. I can't even think of a way to characterize what he does for the Stones music, because it's so vague. Bill, on stage, propelled the music. Darryl either lacks the confidence, rock and roll ability, but something isn't there, and hasn't been for most of his tenure as Bill's replacement.

To this day I can't pick out a single Stones cut, post Wyman, and say Darryl really put his stamp on this. He's not even funkier than Bill. I remember Bill at one point commented that he thought the Stones only kept him on so they'd have a bass player for the road. But he contributed so much more to their sound. I see Keith and Darryl interact on stage, smiling, and I'm confused. It's not like their playing something great, interlocking or anything. Keith and Bill rarely glanced at each other, and yet it was the greatest rhythm section rock has ever seen.

Re: The Stones fought hard to keep Bill, but just let Mick T. go
Posted by: Rocky Dijon ()
Date: January 22, 2020 19:52

VOODOO LOUNGE is the only album where Darryl really plays as part of the band.

On BRIDGES, you have Jeff Sarli (Flip the Switch, Too Tight, & How Can I Stop), Jamie Muhoberac (Anybody Seen My Baby), Blondie Chaplin (Low Down), Don Was (Already Over Me), Danny Saber (GunFace & Out of Control), Me'Shell Ndegeocello (Saint of Me), and Doug Wimbish (Juiced) which is ten tracks without Darryl.

On A BIGGER BANG, you have Mick (Back of My Hand, She Saw Me Coming, Dangerous Beauty, Sweet Neo Con, Look What the Cat Dragged In, & Under the Radar) and Keith (This Place is Empty & Infamy) which is eight tracks without Darryl.

Somehow as impressive as Mick is on BLUE AND LONESOME and how authentic the band sounds, they also never sound like The Rolling Stones. It's a very good blues album but it doesn't sound like the Stones playing the blues the way the Chess sessions did in 1964 or "Stop Breaking Down" on EXILE or "Black Limousine" or "Fancy Man Blues" or even "The Storm" hit you instantly that it was The Stones. It was closer to their sessions with B. B. King or Jimmy Rogers in that it sounds like something a college radio blues show would play and not the band returning to their roots. I think that's a matter of all of them losing their connection as a band and not solely Darryl.

Re: The Stones fought hard to keep Bill, but just let Mick T. go
Posted by: TheGreek ()
Date: January 22, 2020 19:59

Quote
24FPS
Quote
TheGreek
I think about Bill Wyman as part of the bedrock foundation of the Stones , along with Charlie Watts and Keith making a fearsome groove machine . From when I was a kid the Stones music was always bass heavy and what a mean and funky groove it was . Just listen to any of the early albums from the 60's with Brian ,then throw in Keith's riffs and Charlie's drums and you get the "sound" Then Mick's vocals , and from Brian Jones , to Mick Taylor , right thru to Ronnie Wood . Don't get me wrong as I enjoy and appreciate Daryl's bass skills , it's just live he is not mixed the same booming way that Bill was and only in 1994 Voodoo Lounge tour was he allowed or took the liberty himself of really getting down and funky and improvising as much as he was able to within the context of the live material from the set list ,until he was told or asked to just play the recorded bass parts as is which is a shame as he showed a lot to me that first year on stage where I actually walked away impressed at the choice of him to replace Bill Wyman . I actually was concerned and alarmed that the Stones live "sound" would be changed in a negative way forever and was quite happy that wasn't the case . I mean it's not like Daryl didn't have the resume of accomplishments and pedigree to warrant his induction into the Stones orbit !

That will forever be a mystery. I thought Darryl's best work with the Stones was on Voodoo Lounge. Love Is Strong, You Got Me Rocking. It wasn't anything new, but it was along the Wyman sound. I've never been able to hear the bass that much live. It's only when I get a CD/DVD at home that I can pick out how great Bill was.

I don't know what the group told him, but Darryl did not 'just play what's on the record'. I don't know what he's playing in relation to the actual song. I can't even think of a way to characterize what he does for the Stones music, because it's so vague. Bill, on stage, propelled the music. Darryl either lacks the confidence, rock and roll ability, but something isn't there, and hasn't been for most of his tenure as Bill's replacement.

To this day I can't pick out a single Stones cut, post Wyman, and say Darryl really put his stamp on this. He's not even funkier than Bill. I remember Bill at one point commented that he thought the Stones only kept him on so they'd have a bass player for the road. But he contributed so much more to their sound. I see Keith and Darryl interact on stage, smiling, and I'm confused. It's not like their playing something great, interlocking or anything. Keith and Bill rarely glanced at each other, and yet it was the greatest rhythm section rock has ever seen.
delete /mistake



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-01-22 20:10 by TheGreek.

Re: The Stones fought hard to keep Bill, but just let Mick T. go
Posted by: TheGreek ()
Date: January 22, 2020 20:06

Quote
Rocky Dijon
VOODOO LOUNGE is the only album where Darryl really plays as part of the band.

On BRIDGES, you have Jeff Sarli (Flip the Switch, Too Tight, & How Can I Stop), Jamie Muhoberac (Anybody Seen My Baby), Blondie Chaplin (Low Down), Don Was (Already Over Me), Danny Saber (GunFace & Out of Control), Me'Shell Ndegeocello (Saint of Me), and Doug Wimbish (Juiced) which is ten tracks without Darryl.

On A BIGGER BANG, you have Mick (Back of My Hand, She Saw Me Coming, Dangerous Beauty, Sweet Neo Con, Look What the Cat Dragged In, & Under the Radar) and Keith (This Place is Empty & Infamy) which is eight tracks without Darryl.

Somehow as impressive as Mick is on BLUE AND LONESOME and how authentic the band sounds, they also never sound like The Rolling Stones. It's a very good blues album but it doesn't sound like the Stones playing the blues the way the Chess sessions did in 1964 or "Stop Breaking Down" on EXILE or "Black Limousine" or "Fancy Man Blues" or even "The Storm" hit you instantly that it was The Stones. It was closer to their sessions with B. B. King or Jimmy Rogers in that it sounds like something a college radio blues show would play and not the band returning to their roots. I think that's a matter of all of them losing their connection as a band and not solely Darryl.
I really love Blues and Lonesome . Based on what you wrote I will go back and re listen to Blues and Lonesome to see if I can hear it this way you describe and also throw those other tracks on as well . In my memory I can almost get where you are coming from and even agree to a degree about Black Limousine and Fancy Man Blues . Stop Breaking Down is tougher for me to agree with as Mick Taylor is present and even front and center as well , so that is to a degree a different vibe . I like that you have challenged me in a most good way to listen with my ears and to pick up on the nuance of these blues tracks , to which I Thank You Very Kindly ! smiling smiley

Re: The Stones fought hard to keep Bill, but just let Mick T. go
Posted by: Rocky Dijon ()
Date: January 22, 2020 20:13

Well it's just one man's opinion and while we're at it, my opinions have been pilloried of late so take all of it with a grain of salt.

Re: The Stones fought hard to keep Bill, but just let Mick T. go
Posted by: jbwelda ()
Date: January 22, 2020 20:43

the band is operating now with a big hole in the bottom end. Darryl just doesn't cut it in my opinion. Its like a rock and roll band without a bass player. Apologies to Darryl and I realize he is very accomplished but something is either holding him back or he just isn't a rock bass player, and I find him totally unsuited for the band. He does have nice locks though so maybe that's the attraction

jb

Re: The Stones fought hard to keep Bill, but just let Mick T. go
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: January 22, 2020 22:07

Quote
Nikkei
The Stones of 1994 were not the Stones of 1974. If someone were to quit today, it wouldn't work anymore at all

this was my thought exactly. they were of a different mindset, themselves a generation older.

Re: The Stones fought hard to keep Bill, but just let Mick T. go
Posted by: Rockman ()
Date: January 23, 2020 00:18





ROCKMAN

Re: The Stones fought hard to keep Bill, but just let Mick T. go
Posted by: Roll73 ()
Date: January 23, 2020 16:36

Quote
DandelionPowderman

But they weren't too proud to beg, if Mick called Taylor?

They were too proud to offer him songwriting credits though! - that might have swung it for MT?

Re: The Stones fought hard to keep Bill, but just let Mick T. go
Date: January 23, 2020 16:51

Quote
Roll73
Quote
DandelionPowderman

But they weren't too proud to beg, if Mick called Taylor?

They were too proud to offer him songwriting credits though! - that might have swung it for MT?

Like Taylor said himself: ┬źNothing could be further from the truth┬╗ (when asked about whether he left because of not getting songwriting credits).


Re: The Stones fought hard to keep Bill, but just let Mick T. go
Posted by: Rocky Dijon ()
Date: January 23, 2020 17:17

That's what he said when he left. Didn't he later give interviews that contradict this point?

Re: The Stones fought hard to keep Bill, but just let Mick T. go
Date: January 23, 2020 18:13

Quote
Rocky Dijon
That's what he said when he left. Didn't he later give interviews that contradict this point?

Yes, only to deny it later. Then he confirmed it again, denied it etc...

Re: The Stones fought hard to keep Bill, but just let Mick T. go
Posted by: Rocky Dijon ()
Date: January 23, 2020 18:33

Well, it got his name in the paper so people knew he was doing another pub crawl tour.

Re: The Stones fought hard to keep Bill, but just let Mick T. go
Posted by: 24FPS ()
Date: January 25, 2020 10:40

Quote
TheGreek
Quote
Rocky Dijon
VOODOO LOUNGE is the only album where Darryl really plays as part of the band.

On BRIDGES, you have Jeff Sarli (Flip the Switch, Too Tight, & How Can I Stop), Jamie Muhoberac (Anybody Seen My Baby), Blondie Chaplin (Low Down), Don Was (Already Over Me), Danny Saber (GunFace & Out of Control), Me'Shell Ndegeocello (Saint of Me), and Doug Wimbish (Juiced) which is ten tracks without Darryl.

On A BIGGER BANG, you have Mick (Back of My Hand, She Saw Me Coming, Dangerous Beauty, Sweet Neo Con, Look What the Cat Dragged In, & Under the Radar) and Keith (This Place is Empty & Infamy) which is eight tracks without Darryl.

Somehow as impressive as Mick is on BLUE AND LONESOME and how authentic the band sounds, they also never sound like The Rolling Stones. It's a very good blues album but it doesn't sound like the Stones playing the blues the way the Chess sessions did in 1964 or "Stop Breaking Down" on EXILE or "Black Limousine" or "Fancy Man Blues" or even "The Storm" hit you instantly that it was The Stones. It was closer to their sessions with B. B. King or Jimmy Rogers in that it sounds like something a college radio blues show would play and not the band returning to their roots. I think that's a matter of all of them losing their connection as a band and not solely Darryl.
I really love Blues and Lonesome . Based on what you wrote I will go back and re listen to Blues and Lonesome to see if I can hear it this way you describe and also throw those other tracks on as well . In my memory I can almost get where you are coming from and even agree to a degree about Black Limousine and Fancy Man Blues . Stop Breaking Down is tougher for me to agree with as Mick Taylor is present and even front and center as well , so that is to a degree a different vibe . I like that you have challenged me in a most good way to listen with my ears and to pick up on the nuance of these blues tracks , to which I Thank You Very Kindly ! smiling smiley

I really like Blue and Lonesome, too. Maybe it doesn't sound like the 1964 Stones, but Brian's dead, and Bill split. Blue and Lonesome is just as good as their initial efforts, but deeper. It's mostly a Mick, Ron & Charlie affair, with some great contributions by Clapton, who sounds better than he has in years. They sound really turned on playing what they love. It's my favorite post Wyman album. They're not trying to sound current, relevant, whatever.

Re: The Stones fought hard to keep Bill, but just let Mick T. go
Posted by: Spud ()
Date: January 25, 2020 13:39

Quote
24FPS
I really like Blue and Lonesome, too. Maybe it doesn't sound like the 1964 Stones, but Brian's dead, and Bill split. Blue and Lonesome is just as good as their initial efforts, but deeper. It's mostly a Mick, Ron & Charlie affair, with some great contributions by Clapton, who sounds better than he has in years. They sound really turned on playing what they love. It's my favorite post Wyman album. They're not trying to sound current, relevant, whatever.

No it's not the '64 Stones ...but time,age and weathering arguably give it a greater authenticity.

..and it was voted the Blues Album of the Year ....also getting a 10/10 review in Guitarist magazine...which isn't very common.

So it was appreciated and lauded in wider circles than these pages.

Goto Page: Previous12
Current Page: 2 of 2


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 264
Record Number of Users: 206 on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests: 6295 on November 30, 2021 14:09

Previous page Next page First page IORR home