Here is a positive spin on Wyman,

Bill Wyman has plenty to say and he should continue to speak his mind when asked. The man was in the band for the entire 60's, 70's, & 80's and his opinion counts. He left of his own will so I don't see any reason to for him to be vindictive towards the band.

Gripes yes, we all have them. I think he tries to point out in his interview on March 10, that one reason the band continues on is because he thinks that they have no other interests in life other than family and the Stones.

Now I can relate that to people who continue to work at factories 30+ years. These people have no hobbies or extra-curricular activities. All they know is the job and family and if they quit one their life is over.

As far as the songwriting belonging to only Mick and Keith, well thats the way it they wanted it. Bands have rules too. And ego's. One thing I was not aware of was that noone else in the band receives royalities from the songs but Mick and Keith. That seems selfish. But he obviously agreed and remained in the group but he does regret not making that an issue in the beginning.

Bill is not under a gag order, he can speak his mind.

Sicilian great point, Bill gave 30 years to the band so he has the right to express his opinion whether we agree with him or disagree.


"No dope smoking no beer sold after 12 o'clock"

And what hobbies does Bill have? Skydiving and parasailing?

Well he writes books, he owns a restaurant, he has real estate investments, he dabbles in archaeology, and he has a small band that he hooks up with called the Rhythm Kings.

Does that fill the criteria?

Bill seems to have a lot more time on his hands. I guess it backs up his claim to being monogamous for the last 10+ years.

Oh, yes Bill. Keep on saying things which are exposing you as a liar or- atleast- as a jealous guy... I remember a statement of yours, a year ago: "The Stones didn't create good music in the last 25-30 years, there were playing only hard rock" (?!) or so ... Oh yeah... And why the hell was you remaining "seated" in the band all these years ?? Only for the money, i guess. And what about your sooo positive and enthousiastic older opinion for Steel Wheels album?? Oh, yes... I suppose you was afraid of Keith's anger. Poor, oppressed boy...


I'm sure he gets jealous. The reason is THEIR prestige and HIS egoism, IMO. Bill probably thought he was unreplaced. The facts are proving the opposite (bad for his selfishness, good for the Stones). Only a bunch of nostalgic naggers, who usualy are moaning for everything, consider him as "unreplaced". Since 1993 the Stones did great tours attracting 18.3 million of people (and still counting). The Stones have created two albums (VL, B2 by far better than DW and SW and a third one, the best since 1981.

And what the hell was he doing all these years as musician? The answers are:
(a) Nothing
(b) statements against the Stones
(c) boring jobs with an old fashioned band named "Rythm Kings". Any refreshing element? Of course not. Any success? Of course not.

Bill as artist and musician is almost nothing today while the Stones is still the most attractive and popular live act in the world. So, when Bill says these pathetic things, he seems as if a football player, member of a team from Malta, says that Barcelona should quit...

Don't kid yourself everyone does something for the money, we don't live in free society. All people have expenses and lifestyles to maintain.

And...since no one else is allowed to write songs or collect royalities on them what exactly is Bill, Charlie, Ron or anyone else supposed to do but contribute their part.

Its pretty clear that Mick has the biggest ego in the band. I never saw Bill running to mic for interviews or even pretending to be the front man. He was well aware of his place and he was very humble doing it.

You miss the point again, he does not need to trump the Stones. His is a Stone and will always be a Stone. He has "been there done that." Bill Wyman has been there for the genesis, Brian Jones era, ALL The HITs, Mick Taylor, Ron Wood, the Stones at their peak, Altamont, the great 69, 72, and 75 tours etc...

In case you never noticed if he is "replaced" how come at the end of a show Daryl Jones does not participate in first bow?????? Because that is reserved for members of the Rolling Stones.

I enjoy your opinion but don't slander this man's legacy and contributions to the success of the Rolling Stones. He has earned the right to speak his opinion of the band that he was apart of for 3 decades.

Sicilian-while I won't argue much about Mick's ego, don't you find it funny that he is not part of the band introductions? You would think he'd want his minute in the spotlight at each show.

"I enjoy your opinion but don't slander this man's legacy and contributions to the success of the Rolling Stones. He has earned the right to speak his opinion of the band that he was apart of for 3 decades."

Sicilian, as you can see i slander nothing. IMO only Bill slanders himself saying inconsistent things. Of course anyone has the right to speak his opinion. Bill has this right too. And i have the right to construe his motivations when he is talking about the Stones.


"Its pretty clear that Mick has the biggest ego in the band"

I guess you 're right. But the big egoist Mick and the egoist Keith do not answer to the continuous negative comments of Bill. Why? Because their egoism it's another kind of selfishness: the egoism of two successful rock stars. Nowadays Bill is not successful. He has legacy and history but these elements are only past. So his egoism is just envy. Sorry to say that, but i believe it. I'm sure that what makes his anger bigger is the fact that Mick and Keith are ignoring him!

remember how bill used to say never to a stones tour since he left, and now
he is saying maybe, money talks baby and he misses it

Marbles,

It has nothing to do with his ego, it is an etiquette thing. The lead singer of a band does not need an introduction.

Stickydion,

I don't think he is trying to elicit a response from them. He is merely answering questions and stating opinions.

Bill is "retired" he has nothing to prove. 30 years speaks for itself. That cannot be topped. What exactly is he envious about? I don't think Mick or Keith need to suck his d*ck to recognize him.

bill seems like a hard core guy.
(I just mean in general. thats not a joke refering to the above post)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-03-15 07:06 by ryanpow.

Oh no not you again Bill!

30 years of being a member of this great band.
Now so envious of them and their continuing success
around the world.

Bill please bowl out gracefully and keep your envy
to yourself. We all will feel a whole better then.

Been Stoned since 1964 and still am!

"Bill please bowl out gracefully and keep your envy
to yourself. "

Well, that could be said of Keith too. Besides they never acknowledge Bills contributions so if he's bitter I can understand why. And is it bitterness or just giving us another view of the band?

Sounds like all the jealousy and bitterness belongs to some of the posters here, ranting and raving about what they have read in a newspaper ? Bizarre.

>Bill as artist and musician is almost nothing today while the Stones is still >the most attractive and popular live act in the world.

Yes stickydion, but isn't it the same with either Mick's, Keith' or Ronnies solo career? Nobody can't do well without the Stones on their own!

Not to mention that it's not Bills intention to be "successful" as a musician outside the Stones. He just want to have fun playing with some great musians. And if you have ever seen the Rhythm Kings you will find out that it's very relaxed to see them in a small club having fun!

In defense of Wyman, at least he can admit to a bad marriage and mistakes in interviews, books and such.

When does Mick ever admit fault? All he has to do it put it in a song. How about Some Girls Album? Respectable ring a bell.

Remember only Mick or Keith can write songs so Wyman's outlets of expression were quite limited. But that is the arrangement this band has. Maybe they have an internal "rule" about speaking out against the band.

Can't label the man a winer if he is speaking his mind. Anyways YOU are listening now. So he does have an audience.

i've always admired Bill for putting up with the crap he had to for all those years and then getting out on his own terms. miss him in this band, but wouldn't any of us wish we could do the same if given the opportunity?

">Bill as artist and musician is almost nothing today while the Stones is still the most attractive and popular live act in the world.

> Yes stickydion, but isn't it the same with either Mick's, Keith' or Ronnies solo career? Nobody can't do well without the Stones on their own!"

rknuth, i don't blame Bill for his solo career. I consider Rythm Kings as a 105% boring band, but Bill has the right to do what he wants, of course. My point is obviously different. In the last years i see Bill denying himself with all these conflicting statements. I try to construe his motivations. Unfortunately, i can't find any other explanation: publicity and envy. "What exactly is he envious about?", asks Sicilian. I have already answered to this. Bill probably was expecting that the band's future would be different - short, or less successful - after his abandonment. (And the facts denyed his expectations). I guess this is the huge difference between Bill and Mick Taylor.


But, Rknuth and Sicilian, even without sharing my opinion about his envy you have to admit that Bill seems very confused in the last years. Saying and unsaying (i mention one-two examples). Why? If you don't accept my exaplanation, tell me your explanation.

stickydion, I thought I have given my explanation already:

> Yes stickydion, but isn't it the same with either Mick's, Keith' or Ronnies solo career? Nobody can't do well without the Stones on their own!"

And that he's doing it just for fun. I can accept if you think the RK are boring (where did you see them live?), but your statements were:

> (c) boring jobs with an old fashioned band named "Rythm Kings". Any refreshing element? Of course not. Any success? Of course not.

> Bill as artist and musician is almost nothing today while the Stones is still the most attractive and popular live act in the world


and that's IMHO somewhat different.

He has had his reason to quit. Same with Mick Taylor. If you talk to both of them (yes you can do that!) you will soon find out that both quit for nearly the same reasons. You either quit or you die or get an alcoholics in between Mick and Keith. Just simple. Seems that only Charlie might stand it but then you can think of his cancer.

rknuth, of course these were my statements, because this is my opinion about RK and Bill since 1993. Boring. But i'm not saying that to blame him. I'm saying that because IMO it explains his statements which are full of jealousy. That's my opinion.

Of course he has his reason to quit. And yes, probably Bill and Taylor have nearly the same reasons. But they have not the same behaviour after quiting. That's the big difference.

You ask me "where did you see them live?". You must be kidding. I hardly can hear a CD of their flat music. It helps me to sleep. And i can't go to a concert sleeping...


Probably