MAKE DARRYL JONES A FULL STONE!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-11-10 08:29 by bv.

ok..but not if it cuts into my share of the profits

no-way.....bill wyman is the true stone...the real deal...the 1 who helped give the stones their sound! he's the full stone..

Too late. They should've done it in '93 when he replaced Bill Wyman

the band is still touring, bill wyman left in 1993, let go hot sturf

Why?

NO !

Why ???????????

No way. He's not British. It wouldn't be right.

x



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-06 00:36 by Beelyboy.

not british, what does that matter?

guy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> not british, what does that matter?


Because it's The Rolling Stones. You know, from England?....

A full stone?? You're kidding, right?

I don't think Darryl wants to be a full Stone. It's not a title that he's eagerly waiting for. He doesn't/hasn't helped write any songs on any albums--and I think he understands and pleasantly accepts that he's won't be a Stone.

i heard Joey Spampinato of NRBQ is playing bass for them next tour anyway.

Totally disagree with the thought and idea.

The fact that Darryl isn't British or wasn't there the first thirty years are not what its about. The reason he's not a Stone is because the Stones no longer exist as a full-time ongoing band. The turning point was when Mick went solo.

1984 saw the band gather in Mexico City in January to shoot two music videos, Mick and Bill shot Video Rewind over the summer, and the band had several business meetings (one of which gave rise to the infamous Charlie-punched-Mick-and-he-almost-fell-out-the-window urban legend), but the majority of the year was fulfilling Mick and Walter Yetnikoff's desire to launch Mick as a solo star who could outsell the Stones. Musician magazine reported in April 1986 that the big talk at CBS' convention in December 1985 wasn't the newly delivered Dirty Work, it was the fact that Mick had asked Steve Vai to go on tour with him in 1986.

As we all know, Mick's solo career didn't go as planned, but it sure looked bad when just days after shooting the One Hit video, Mick issues a press release announcing the Stones were "on hiatus" to allow him to record his second solo album, perform a solo world tour, and make a movie with Bowie. The Winos were a direct result of this. Bill Wyman stated that the on-again, off-again nature of the band was a major factor in his decision to bow out (he finished up the Urban Jungle tour only to be told there would be another hiatus while Mick and Keith resumed their solo careers).

Its true The Stones were very active from 1993-1999, but then another lengthy hiatus followed. Two albums in six years followed by a three-year lay off and only one album in the four years of active touring since really don't make the Stones much of an ongoing band at this point. They are a touring act who make new music when forced. They would rather package live albums and compilations in place of recording a new album every couple of years like they did when the band was their primary concern. Its not a question of waning creativity. Since the Steel Wheels comeback, we've seen Mick go solo three times and it looks like more solo work is on the horizon for both Glimmers.

Sure, I'm grateful they do get back together and give so many of us an opportunity to see them live, but I would be happier if their creative energies were channeled into a band making new music to tour behind. In the existing climate, why would they view their bass player of the past thirteen years as anything other than a hired hand? All the tours in the world do not disguise the fact that the Stones, as a creative force, are not Mick's preferred vehicle of expression. They are merely the way he has maintained his phenomenal success and stature. If he could cast the band aside and achieve the same degree of success, he would. He certainly hasn't stopped trying.

lettingitbleed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No way. He's not British. It wouldn't be right.

Yeah, not even from London-area...

Darryl a Stone? No way! Ronnie had to wait 20 years or more to become a full Stone.
Between 1975 and 94 or 97 (I'm not sure) he got a salary like any side musician.

rocky, nice report....also jagger is older and has been doing it for so long i'm sure he loves calling all the shots...and not just being part of a group. not having to have keith or charlie give a opinion..just him.
at 61+ i'm sure they love to get together but they don't NEED TO BE! they did it and now lets have fun..and make a few $$$$$$$$....
but darryl is not a stone and could never be..doesn't have the history with them...unlike ronnie, darryl is not a mate or vital member of the band..

Nice post, Rocky Dijon.

Even though having a bass player is more crucial to the Stones than having a keyboard player, an argument could be made that if they were to make any of the sidemen full memebers, that Chuck plays a more crucial role in today's Rolling Stones, who are primarily a touring band. Chuck is the musical director of the Stones on stage and determines with Mick what the band is going to play. Darryl does not seem to be involved in the band beyond playing his instrument, though on their studio recordings since 1993, Darryl plays a far more important role than Chuck.

guy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MAKE DARRYL JONES A FULL STONE!
Never ! what a stupid idea! throw him out! no swing , no rock`nroll , no magical basslines , i don`y know why they gave him this job

django Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Darryl a Stone? No way! Ronnie had to wait 20
> years or more to become a full Stone.
> Between 1975 and 94 or 97 (I'm not sure) he got a
> salary like any side musician.


yeah but even though woody was not paid as a full stone he was a stone anyway, he was on album covers , he was at press confs, at the shows he was introduced
when the stones were introduced not with the side people, oh and btw i vote NO
on making darryl a stone, i mean cmon lets not turn the stones into kiss with all the lineup changes, its bad enough already



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-11-10 01:53 by melillo.

Well, Chuck took over Ian Stewart's spot in the band as 'road manager' and musical director. So he can't become a full Stone, because Ian wasn't (at least not in the end).
Darryl took over from Bill. His creative input on the band's studio work is probably larger than Chuck's. But Chuck is the musical director while on tour. And if Chuck can't be on the cover of the next album, then why should Darryl? Maybe the groupies should decide if they prefer him over Bill ;-)

Basically, it's more a question of why someone cannot be a Rolling Stone than why someone can.

benon Wrote:
----- i
> don`y know why they gave him this job


I quote from Wikipedia:
"Darryl Jones (born December 11, 1961) is an American bassist,
highly regarded in both jazz and rock music.

Born in Chicago, Illinois, he joined Miles Davis's band in the early 1980s,
and since then has recorded with Herbie Hancock, Sting, Peter Gabriel,
and Joan Armatrading.

Jones has played with the Rolling Stones since Bill Wyman's
departure in 1991 [SIC]. He is not, however, an official band member.
He has his own Signature Lakland model bass guitar."
[en.wikipedia.org]

Well; its gotta be because he is a Sagittarian like Keef & Bobby...

nope ...he dont play with feel, no personality in his playing, and his not british, to late in the day now anyway.

NO WAY! 'Nuff said.


If you make Darryl why not Chuck (GAG)?

Michael Cohl is closer to be a Rolling Stone.

yeah man pretty soon the stones legacy is going to be tarnished with all these lineup changes if it hasnt already, wyman , taylor , jones, wood, i mean cmon
enough already, btw by jones i meant brian not darryl

anbody have an idea as to how much Daryl would make in a year touring with the Stones?

Okay, my post was a joke. "Who needs another Rolling Stone?" was all I wanted so say ...



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2006-11-10 00:15 by linnerz.