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.

And no it is not The Rolling Stones without Charlie... But if they got Bill Back
Posted by: SKILLS ()
Date: August 9, 2021 17:25

???.

I would offer him Stupid Money to distract from Charlies absence


I remember Charlie saying that if anything happened to Mick, he'd probably end up in the "Keith Richards All Stars"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-08-09 17:26 by SKILLS.

Re: And no it is not The Rolling Stones without Charlie... But if they got Bill Back
Posted by: Big Al ()
Date: August 9, 2021 17:28

Two problems: his age and reluctance to fly.

Re: And no it is not The Rolling Stones without Charlie... But if they got Bill Back
Posted by: Send It To me ()
Date: August 9, 2021 17:29

Not gonna happen, for a number of reasons

Re: And no it is not The Rolling Stones without Charlie... But if they got Bill Back
Posted by: SKILLS ()
Date: August 9, 2021 17:29

"Money Changes Everything" too Quote Cindy Lauper

Re: And no it is not The Rolling Stones without Charlie... But if they got Bill Back
Posted by: SKILLS ()
Date: August 9, 2021 17:43

Here is my Rationale, irregardless of the Flight, it is only 7 hours, (Xanax I understand can take care of that) after that he could be on a Bus.. How much would you want to see a Gig with Bill playing again, it's been a long time since London 91..

Re: And no it is not The Rolling Stones without Charlie... But if they got Bill Back
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: August 9, 2021 18:17

I wonder if Bill would take the principled stance, "No Charlie, No Bill!"?

Re: And no it is not The Rolling Stones without Charlie... But if they got Bill Back
Posted by: TheGreek ()
Date: August 9, 2021 19:31

Quote
treaclefingers
I wonder if Bill would take the principled stance, "No Charlie, No Bill!"?
Probably so

Re: And no it is not The Rolling Stones without Charlie... But if they got Bill Back
Posted by: SKILLS ()
Date: August 9, 2021 19:44

Okay, what if Ringo played a Gig, what if Paul subbed in for a few tracks in New York and you knew it was going to happen..

These Minstrels are The Pied Pipers of London Town, wherever they play I'll follow

Re: And no it is not The Rolling Stones without Charlie... But if they got Bill Back
Posted by: SKILLS ()
Date: August 9, 2021 19:47

They are Older than my Dad, by 5 Years, Perhaos it is the time for the Residency

Re: And no it is not The Rolling Stones without Charlie... But if they got Bill Back
Posted by: 24FPS ()
Date: August 9, 2021 22:23

Bill's not coming back. He'll be 85 in the fall. I think he's semi-retired now. No Rhythm Kings, no new album.

Re: And no it is not The Rolling Stones without Charlie... But if they got Bill Back
Posted by: Rollin92 ()
Date: August 9, 2021 23:30

Bill won’t be involved in any 60th anniversary shows - Jagger probably won’t ask him and he would probably say no anyway he is 86 next year

Re: And no it is not The Rolling Stones without Charlie... But if they got Bill Back
Posted by: Send It To me ()
Date: August 10, 2021 00:26

Bill, even if he was able to do it and wanted to do it (both doubtful), wouldn't sell enough tickets to move the dial.

Moreover, Daryl Jones, whom they are very happy and comfortable with, is probably a better player at this point, and probably is getting paid less than Bill would want.

Re: And no it is not The Rolling Stones without Charlie... But if they got Bill Back
Posted by: Rockman ()
Date: August 10, 2021 00:29

Just for preshow amusement they could get
Blondie back ta play hide and seek under the stage ...



ROCKMAN

Re: And no it is not The Rolling Stones without Charlie... But if they got Bill Back
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: August 10, 2021 00:31

Quote
Rockman
Just for preshow amusement they could get
Blondie back ta play hide and seek under the stage ...

I don't think Blondie would be interested...too hurt by being kept hidden last time.

Has a heart of glass apparently.

Re: And no it is not The Rolling Stones without Charlie... But if they got Bill Back
Posted by: S.T.P ()
Date: August 10, 2021 01:20

Can't seem to find any newer picture of Bill than this one from 2016:
[ultimateclassicrock.com]
He surely must have retired now.

Re: And no it is not The Rolling Stones without Charlie... But if they got Bill Back
Posted by: Taylor1 ()
Date: August 10, 2021 01:21

The time to have Bill play with them came and went on the 50 and Counting Tour.They should have offered him the opportunity to play full concerts on the English and European shows.And with Taylor he should have played the entire shows or most of the songs on the 2013 and 2014showsrather than trotting him out for one or two songs



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-08-10 01:22 by Taylor1.

Re: And no it is not The Rolling Stones without Charlie... But if they got Bill Back
Posted by: roryfaninva ()
Date: August 10, 2021 01:54

Yup- Bill didnt hide the fact he felt mislead and slighted by allowed to do only two songs with no rehearsal. Kinda like hanging an acoustic guitar on Mick Taylor for "Satisfaction". The Glimmer Twins dont always play nice....

Re: And no it is not The Rolling Stones without Charlie... But if they got Bill Back
Posted by: More Hot Rocks ()
Date: August 10, 2021 03:07

Look He left long time ago because he had enough. He even made some comment not liking Stones songs. The guy is 84. No stay home Bill.

Re: And no it is not The Rolling Stones without Charlie... But if they got Bill Back
Posted by: jbwelda ()
Date: August 10, 2021 03:14

If they got Bill back, they would still need a drummer. So, typical solution in search of a problem.

jb

Re: And no it is not The Rolling Stones without Charlie... But if they got Bill Back
Posted by: Dan ()
Date: August 10, 2021 03:33

Quote
SKILLS
???.

I would offer him Stupid Money to distract from Charlies absence


I remember Charlie saying that if anything happened to Mick, he'd probably end up in the "Keith Richards All Stars"

Considering only 1% or less of the audience need to be "distracted" I would say probably not

Re: And no it is not The Rolling Stones without Charlie... But if they got Bill Back
Posted by: Taylor1 ()
Date: August 10, 2021 04:40

Quote
roryfaninva
Yup- Bill didnt hide the fact he felt mislead and slighted by allowed to do only two songs with no rehearsal. Kinda like hanging an acoustic guitar on Mick Taylor for "Satisfaction". The Glimmer Twins dont always play nice....
People who criticize Taylor’s playing on the tour don’t take into account he also had little if anytime to rehearse or warm up on stage with just one or two songs.Still he was great on some like Can’t You hear Me Knocking At Glastonbury



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-08-10 04:42 by Taylor1.

Re: And no it is not The Rolling Stones without Charlie... But if they got Bill Back
Date: August 10, 2021 05:22

I agree. They should have let Bill and Mick Taylor both join them at the same time and let them play together as they did in the golden era for their 50th anniversary.
They could have at least let them play together for a few songs from the golden era.

No way Bill would come back especially without Charlie playing along side him

Quote
Taylor1
The time to have Bill play with them came and went on the 50 and Counting Tour.They should have offered him the opportunity to play full concerts on the English and European shows.And with Taylor he should have played the entire shows or most of the songs on the 2013 and 2014showsrather than trotting him out for one or two songs

Re: And no it is not The Rolling Stones without Charlie... But if they got Bill Back
Posted by: PalaisRoyale ()
Date: August 10, 2021 06:38

It would be interesting to hear Wyman's take on the Charlie situation. He would probably elude to this being a watered down version of the stones.

Re: And no it is not The Rolling Stones without Charlie... But if they got Bill Back
Posted by: bitusa2012 ()
Date: August 10, 2021 06:57

Quote
SKILLS
???.

I would offer him Stupid Money to distract from Charlies absence


I remember Charlie saying that if anything happened to Mick, he'd probably end up in the "Keith Richards All Stars"

See Bill recently? Doubt he could stand for 2 hrs! Like me at my age!

Rod

Re: And no it is not The Rolling Stones without Charlie... But if they got Bill Back
Posted by: CaptainCorella ()
Date: August 10, 2021 07:03

Quote
roryfaninva
Yup- Bill didnt hide the fact he felt mislead and slighted by allowed to do only two songs with no rehearsal. Kinda like hanging an acoustic guitar on Mick Taylor for "Satisfaction". The Glimmer Twins dont always play nice....

This says it all.

--
Captain Corella
50+ Years a Fan

Re: And no it is not The Rolling Stones without Charlie... But if they got Bill Back
Posted by: StonedAsiaExile ()
Date: August 10, 2021 08:24

Quote
SKILLS
Here is my Rationale, irregardless of the Flight, it is only 7 hours, (Xanax I understand can take care of that) after that he could be on a Bus.. How much would you want to see a Gig with Bill playing again, it's been a long time since London 91..

Knock him out at the beginning of the flight and rouse him with a 'Hey, Bill, welcome to New York City!'

Re: And no it is not The Rolling Stones without Charlie... But if they got Bill Back
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: August 10, 2021 09:55

Quote
SKILLS
How much would you want to see a Gig with Bill playing again, it's been a long time since London 91..

Given that it's only a few years until Bill turns 91, I'd like to wait and then it'll be like, wow, Bill's 91 and the last time we saw him play with the Stones was in '91!

That would totally be worth it.

Re: And no it is not The Rolling Stones without Charlie... But if they got Bill Back
Posted by: 24FPS ()
Date: August 11, 2021 00:01

Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
SKILLS
How much would you want to see a Gig with Bill playing again, it's been a long time since London 91..

Given that it's only a few years until Bill turns 91, I'd like to wait and then it'll be like, wow, Bill's 91 and the last time we saw him play with the Stones was in '91!

That would totally be worth it.

Where did you see Bill play with the Stones in '91? There was no tour that year.

Re: And no it is not The Rolling Stones without Charlie... But if they got Bill Back
Posted by: Four Stone Walls ()
Date: August 11, 2021 00:15

Bill played at the Peter Green celebration last year so is not 'retired'.

I can't think that he would want to play without Charlie.

They should use him in the studio.

Blue and Lonesome would have been a whole lot better with him on bass
(Rhythm section on that album totally without character)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-08-11 11:19 by Four Stone Walls.

Re: And no it is not The Rolling Stones without Charlie... But if they got Bill Back
Posted by: NilsHolgersson ()
Date: August 11, 2021 00:24

Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
SKILLS
How much would you want to see a Gig with Bill playing again, it's been a long time since London 91..

Given that it's only a few years until Bill turns 91, I'd like to wait and then it'll be like, wow, Bill's 91 and the last time we saw him play with the Stones was in '91!

That would totally be worth it.

Clint Eastwood is 91






Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 431
Record Number of Users: 189 on August 24, 2021 20:10
Record Number of Guests: 6295 on November 30, 2021 14:09

Previous page Next page First page IORR home