Re: How much do the Stones miss Bill Wyman?
Date: November 4, 2005 20:19
stickyfingers101 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Umm...Reptile, in regards to your statement: "He
> was, together with Charlie, the most important
> part of the muscial aspect of the band, while Mick
> and Keith did the show part."
>
> wouldn't you think that writing about 500 songs
> would make Jagger/Richards the "most important
> musical aspect of the band"???
>
> not knocking Bill....but there's a LOT more to
> Mick/Keef than just the "show" part of the band,
> man....come on...read the songwriting credits on
> basically EVERY song...
>
> you CAN replace Bill (as the Stones have clearly
> proven)...it may not be the same, or as good, but
> he IS replaceable...3 albums and 4 tours proves
> this in my mind....just my opinion.....
>
> you CANNOT replace Mick or Keith....
>
> IMHO...
>
>
>
>
>
Yes, but I meant the performing aspect. Those songs wouldn't have been half as historical and sometimes legendary without Charlie or Bill, although it may seem that way nowadays. And as for the replacing part- if you ask me, the Stones' sound has drastically changed after Bill left and Darryl joined. It suprises me most that they have gone for an obvious and typical jazz-musician in a hardrock band. Bass isn't called bass just for the hell of it. It provides the base for a track, and when the whole base changes, the band can still play the same, but it sounds completely different. Listen to the difference between the sound of Dirty Work and Steel Wheels. There is very little. Then Voodoo Lounge. COMPLETELY different sound from Steel Wheels. Regardless of my opinion of Darryl, I think the band's sound has drastically changed, and they're trying to fix it by turning up other instruments like the guitars and drums? Nonsense.