JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Doxa Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Svartmer Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > This may cause some irritation among some
> of
> > > you,
> > > > but I think their live sound improved
> > > > significantly when mr Jones got the job.
> > >
> > >
> > > It doesn't annoy me at all. They don't have
> the
> > > special swing after Wyman left, but they have
> > so
> > > much more instead now that they have Jones.
> >
> >
> > That's true. Let's hope that the three last of
> > those not very sophisticated but 'swinging'
> > players (two guitarists plus drummer) to be
> > subsituted soon with technically more advanced
> > players so we can 'have much more'. What about
> > those players from Jagger's solo tours
> >
> > - Doxa
>
>
> When I say "So much more" I mean "Something that
> Wyman didn't have". Obviously you both gain and
> lose when you switch members.

Listen to the groove in this song...

too fat

Svartmer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Doxa Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Svartmer Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > This may cause some irritation among some
> > of
> > > > you,
> > > > > but I think their live sound improved
> > > > > significantly when mr Jones got the job.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It doesn't annoy me at all. They don't have
> > the
> > > > special swing after Wyman left, but they
> have
> > > so
> > > > much more instead now that they have Jones.
> > >
> > >
> > > That's true. Let's hope that the three last
> of
> > > those not very sophisticated but 'swinging'
> > > players (two guitarists plus drummer) to be
> > > subsituted soon with technically more
> advanced
> > > players so we can 'have much more'. What
> about
> > > those players from Jagger's solo tours
> > >
> > > - Doxa
> >
> >
> > When I say "So much more" I mean "Something
> that
> > Wyman didn't have". Obviously you both gain and
> > lose when you switch members.
>
> Listen to the groove in this song...
>




perfect example of darryl's souless hanging on the root, no puntuation or groove, or crescendos when charlie is making them and they are so apparent; thanks for posting...he's a stiff. clueless darryl.

there's much about darryl's presence i admire, but i've always felt the lack of a deeply rooted roller and rocker in that position...not just misty-eyed for the genius of bill wyman particularly...but that too, to some extent...chemistry is chemistry...
bill never even looked at mick or keith when he was performing...i loved that...
he stood his own grand ground, an innovator and originator...maybe half a look at charlie now and then, they were one thing together...
i'm not suggesting that could have been absolutely duplicated...
but an appreciation for it aesthetically would have helped. a lot.

and points others have made on this thread are interesting to me as well...
about how abb was produced etc...

...about glims really not allowing others 'full membership'
for taylor as a full contributor, tho he built so much of their legacy to this day;
nor does Ron, who came INTO the group already an established superstar with two different historic bands, get to write or sing a song much...
(the clip someone posted of wh from the old days with ron, keith and mick all singing up front together on two mikes was really cool)...

so there are other factors we know about how the glims work, or don't work occasionally, together with each other, never mind anyone else...

anyway, yes, the rhythm section is key to any band, i'd agree...and darryl is far from a slouch...
that slapping thing was disgraceful, but i can see how some would think it liberating a bit...and dig darryl putting in his personality a bit...
'going to church' he called it...
'stupid, clueless and disrespectul' i call it.

i guess, aside of things darryl can't help...like his age and generation, and natural proclivity toward jazz, and being talented with virtusoso chops in his own genre, (when he plays for personal pleasure or expression, aside from the stones gig i imagine)

i mean i see him; i appreciate him; but in truth what bugs me about him most, aside from the natural lack of swinging roll, or melodic approach to punctuation...
is how proud he was, upon entering the band, to talk of how he was not interested in bill's style...i mean he was offhandedly pointed about it...
...it's not just 'bill' or bill's style, in question, it's a rock and rolling approach, at least that is what i'm trying, ungracously, to get at.

maybe he was trying to assert his own cred with his jazz community, i dunno...
i can't psychoanazlye that, and i'm not sure. i'm sure to "real" musicians, this was a step down for 'an oldies band', and a huge step up in terms of visibility, regular work in a dicey biz...and also working for a top legendary act.

now i know he may have meant he didn't want to "copy" per se...note for note, bit for bit, part for part...
but he showed no musican's respect for bill's legacy, or the bands!!!
rooted so deeply in 99% of the material he would be replicating, over and over and over again...("the value of repition" is something mick has talked about);

nor any apparent knowledge or respect for the legacy of stand up bass in a lot of boogie and blues and where all that stuff comes from...i don't think he listened to larry williams records, and that kind of stuff...not a nod or a word, or an intellectual interest in bill's riffage or approach...
to the point sometimes where i used to think, dang, just give the guy the tablature and make him read the parts...then he could expand from there, ONCE HE GOT THERE...which, in some ways, he never did...

and in some ways...maybe like you, i am used to seeing his powerful presence and stance and grace on stage...and there's natural affection...
i was listening hard on voodoo and thought his recording debut with them went really well...so i'm not here to just shit on his contributions...
personally, i wish he had a more respectful take on exactly what was happening with charlie and bill...yes that was it's own thing...but many players understand that general approach intuitively, and it could make for some wickedly demanding and propulsive rock...
seems like darryl pedals...hangs on the root...does a little riffage...
i think he's paid to stay out of the way, and keep things rooted...
i expect more from a bass player in a rock and roll band.
and the proof is in the pudding; when they are rocking the joint, they are really rocking the joint and darryl's right there, in his way, and i'm not gonna argue with that too much...and i'm grateful they are still rolling, and i never got a vote so what can i say?
i do think it's one more chink in their relative relevance in it's way sometimes tho.
no disrepect intended toward him personally...and certainly, none toward anyone here.

i also hearken back to mick's light hearted front of saying something close to 'it's not like playing bass for the rolling stones is the hardest job in the world haha' or some such shit...
i understand he was protecting the franchise, but it seemed like the holy magician had turned a whiter shade of pale.
not such a noble knight that day.
mick's a sensation. no doubt about it...
so, never mind darryl, i don't know if mick's a member of the Stones anymore, when they are not touring, frankly.

i'm calling darryl clueless; i expect to catch some resesentment...
listen to ya-ya's and get over it...or listen to say, the first 27 or so years of the what the Stones did to the world of music.

if you hear a contemporary stones show, half that good, or half as good as l&g, it ain't because the bass player was creating that vibe.

i'd love to see them seriously shake up the personnel after whatever tour committments they may yield to in Europe is over...

i understand it's difficult; they've been around so long...many new fans are very young and all they've ever seen live from the stones, or heard from a "contemporary" studio album is darryl, so it may be hard for them to see things in perspective...and easy for them to throw stones at the older fans who might have seen a lot of bill shows...thinking us crusty and misty-eyed...
to those, just drop everything in their catalog prior to darryl's entrance...

understandable for people to have loyalty and affection for darryl...now is now and all that...
he's not a stone. he plays stones songs...very professional hire.
ho hum.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-21 02:37 by Beelyboy.

Darryl Jones is not a member of the Stones.

Duh, no shit!

Darryl's not a member, neither him nor Chuck ever will be. They're well-compensated sidemen of long standing. I can't imagine them complaining about their present status either.

Beelyboy calls Darryl Jones clueless. The Stones auditioned a lot of bass players in order to replace Bill and they, or at least Charlie, decided Darryl was the best. So if Darryl is clueless, that goes for the band too, right?

Svartmer:
That version of "Live With Me" is simply fantastic. The groove and everything is perfect. Taken from one of the absolute best Stones shows I've ever heard (It's from "Stripped TV Special".

JumpingKentFlash

Svartmer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Beelyboy calls Darryl Jones clueless. The Stones
> auditioned a lot of bass players in order to
> replace Bill and they, or at least Charlie,
> decided Darryl was the best. So if Darryl is
> clueless, that goes for the band too, right?

right; about a lot of things, and a lot of the time.
or a band with that kind of innate talent wouldn't have put out so much drivel and uninspired stuff into the wind, in many ways making themselves irrelevant to the culture except as cash cows.
keith had a clue; but didn't power it through.

also, in all fairness, if you would like to quote part of my post, it would be interesting to hear opinions or refutations or agreements on some of the thoughts put there. ty.





Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-21 11:18 by Beelyboy.

Oh, I suspect that Daryl knows that in 20 or 30 years, after the inevitable happens, he will be able to continue touring under the Rolling Stones banner and keep the brand alive. (Please note that I'm not being 100% serious.)

Meanwhile, he seems willing to suffer the small indignities, I would not be surprised to learn that he may be required to pay $100 for Fan Club membership every year, just like the rest of us.

We all know Big 'D' aint a full stone so whats the big deal? Bill was fantastic but he's in his 70's now and hates flying. Darryl has meant that the Stones can continue Rolling.....

But why is this a continuing debate for anyone? I think it's a question of semantics, partly.

Consider: Bobby Keyes has been with the band forever. He's "Not A Stone" . But he is a member of the Rolling Stones band. It's more or less the same thing with DJ. It's not such a big deal.

Darryl's playing has no character. It's professional and does a job. Technically excellent, yes, but what's that got to do with R&R/R&B

When I first heard Voodoo Lounge I was gobsmacked at how dull and predictable his playing was.

Wyman is not a great technician. But he's got the groove. He can play very simply but then build up emphasis. eg rather simple songs like YCAGWYW and Let It Loose, he gets totally in the swing adding depth and emphasis in all the right places. Darryl just stays on the level.

His answer is to play solos, or clever slapping....... 'Hey look at me, I'm a really good bass player!' But imo they don't add anything to the song. The opposite. Bill added to songs cos of his instintive feel and building/ developing structures and tones within a song. He had colour and depth etc, etc

They never wanted to replace Wyman, for financial reasons. They chose someone who could do a job and keep them on the road. It obviously suits them to keep the same guy on stage. He's proficient, knows the songs and the audience like some sense of continuity. But if Bill came back the audience would know they were seeing and hearing The Genuine Article - meaning The Rolling Stones.

Apart from VL Darryl hasn't been that important in the studio, btw. They didn't use him much on BTB, and the sound improved! He gets a fair share of ABB but Mick, Keith and Ron are equally as capable. They can use him if he's there or not bother. They adopted the same approach to Wyman. But what makes SG, most of ER, virtually all of UC and particularly SW so special is the Wyman factor. The FIVE Stones in a studio effect.

I think if Wyman had been in on a few tracks on ABB you'd notice an immediate difference in groove - more genuinely 'Stonesy'. I think when he was in the band they could jam around a lot to find their natural 'feel'. You haer it on SW and especially on the out-takes. It's a sort of empathy - and it's how they developed their special sound.

Although some of their recorded material is ok since Wyman left I'm always thinking "Since when has a R&R band NOT had a bass player?"

How can they possibly call themselves a R&R band without an integral bass player?

It's a big contradiction in terms imo, and it's all about money.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-21 19:58 by Four Stone Walls.

I've been a Stones fan for about 31 years now, consider myself to be reasonably knowledgable about them, got many boots, go to the gigs etc etc. So this will probably sound dumb or maybe I'm missing something in this thread but can someone give me an explanation about what would change or what would it mean if Darryl were 'made a Stone'(sounds slightly Mafia-ish). I ask this seriously. Are we saying he'd appear in more photos? Would still be on the stage with the other 4 at the end of a show? Be paid more money? They ALL have 'Professional Musician'under Occupation on their passports, not 'Rolling Stone'. Can anyone crystalise what it would mean exactly? (I can maybe see this sending the thread off on a tangent with differing opinions).

And consider Ronnie. A full Stone? Well yes but still doesn't get much in the way of writing credits or a even lead singing role on a single track after all these years. In fact, for a 'full Stone' he doesn't get much of a batting average on 'A Bigger Bang' at all.

Perhaps Darryl's happy with his role. He's a younger man and he will continue after The Stones have ended. I'd guess to have Miles Davis, Sting and The Stones on your CV is fame enough.

"I'll be in my basement room with a needle and a spoon."

Well, I suppose there are two facets to being a Stone; social and musical.

Many never viewed Taylor as a Stone cos he didn't have the social 'image'.

As for 'musical' - someone who has been an integral part of the Stones' sound. Fewcan argue that Taylor wasn't crucial in blending with their sound and taking it to a new level.

Therefore Jones B, Wood, Taylor and Wyman all are Stones. And Stu really.

But I wouldn't include Jones D, cos any other could have played his part (eg Keith, Taylor Ronnie, Blondie and the other guy who plays on Bt. And he has no understanding of Berry-style stuff. It's not his scene at all. That's crucial.

Bobby Keyes - pretty integral - but you can live without a sax player, though not without a bassist or pianaist.

Unfortunately the most distinctive musical contributor to their sound since Wyman left is Chuck! A Stone? Yikes!

Four Stone Walls Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... plays on
> Bt...

Don't you hate when you type "B )" but it comes out as a smiley?

carson99 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I seem to recall some discussion here as to
> whether or not Darryl Jones is truly a member of
> the Rolling Stones or simply a guy they hired by
> the hour. After viewing the Stones' official
> Holiday Card for 2006, there can be little doubt.
> Check it out:
> [www.rollingstones.com]


there never was any doubt, he is not a stone and thats it, never at press confs, never on album covers, that says it all

It warms my heart to see the Stones family up there, all 9 of 'em, they are a family, and we are part of it too. When they are onstage, everybody putting energy into the show is "A Rolling Stone".

The original three feed off of our energy big time - they are nothing without the fans, which is why they love us, and eat us - and we love them.

There are four Rolling Stones, originals, and Bill Wyman is the forth one, not Ron Wood. Ron Wood was just right to come in when they were viewing themselves as a five piece. Woody started as a fan just like us (well if we could play guitar like that, and had $400m)

Now they are a four piece with Ron Wood, but really they are a 9 piece band when they hit the stage.

It's just a branding thing, they want to let the fans know it's the genuine article - the British Rock Band - here's the four faces you look for, here's the logo, here's the hits, tickets please, thank you kindly... next! Hello Darling, I don't believe we've met, oh you have a nice_______..., (9 months later)It's a boy! Let's tour!


Bill Wyman plays the weirdest basslines ever, very fluid, Darryl plays more simply - he holds down the fort with out trying to copy Bill's lines which is impossible & would sound like an imitation. Darryl plays the foundation.

Maybe Bill played that way because it was his outlet for originality in the songwriting machine of Mj/KR. I am floored by that Wyman style any time I try & play along with a line of his.

She Stood Just Like Bill Wyman, Now I Am Her Biggest Fan!

Gibson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> She Stood Just Like Bill Wyman, Now I Am Her
> Biggest Fan!

Great line from a great Smithereens song! I must agree, Wyman rules. Darryl is a good player but I miss ol' Bill.