Tell Me :
Talk
I MEAN WHAT lmao STANDS FOR
JEROEN
ROTFLMFAO
Take it to the complaints thread stonehearted...we don't need your kind of negativity on the Daryl Jones is he or isn't he thread.
I'd complain, but who'd listen?
Tony Chapman never played one single gig with the Stones (He rehearsed once maybe twice at the most) nor did Geoff Bradford (rehearsed only), Also at Rehearsals were Andy Wren & Brian Knight... but you forgot Collin Goldin who did played bass with the band for at least 8 shows & Dick Taylor who played with the band till Sept/Oct. 1962. also Paul Jones actually replaced Jagger at one show in 62. side note: Micky Waller replaced Charlie in March 1964 for one gig (the 15th).
Mick Avory never played a gig with them, either. Only a couple of rehearsals.
You are correct...I meant Avory, I wrote Chapman by error(DUH!!),, Tony Chapman played at least 10 shows with the band including the very first gig (July 12th 1962). Avory only rehearsed once maybe twice. I interviewed both of them a couple of times many years back.. Sorry for the very dumb mistake
The precedent of Ian Stewart speaks loudly here. It was clear from the start that band membership was not guaranteed anyone, no matter how big their contributions.
Perhaps you are right but I think it was a stupid precedent. I loved Stu, always thought he should have been a full fledged member. He friggin' co-founded the band with Brian, they should have told ALO to piss off. In fact it goes against the artistic credibility and bad boys with a vision portrait that some people here paint of them that they didn't do just that. These guys were early sell outs to the establishment.
This
I agree.
she was killer on cowbell for that htw intro.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Daryl Jones is he a Rolling Stone or Not?
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: March 5, 2014 19:50
Yes it was! Made me laugh out loud.
Re: Daryl Jones is he a Rolling Stone or Not?
Posted by:
runrudolph
()
Date: March 5, 2014 19:55
Quote
corriecasQuote
GazzaQuote
corriecasQuote
GazzaQuote
corriecas
I really like Darryll, as a person and a musician, but no, he does not have the looks to be a Stone.
what does this even mean? It may have been relevant in 1963 when they dumped Ian Stewart as they were trying to appeal to 13-year old girls, but who on earth seriously thinks a bunch of wizened septuagenerians are going to be preoccupied with what a band member 'looks' like.
You may think what you want, but i dont give a flying @#$%& for your opinion. I heard from a friend from a brother from a cousin that jagger does not find him suitable to be a stone.
Jeroen
LMAO....well thats it settled then.
Yeah, hes not 'suitable' for the same reasons that he wasnt suitable several pages ago.
$$$$$$$
Untwist your knickers....
lmao, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN.............
I MEAN WHAT lmao STANDS FOR
JEROEN
Re: Daryl Jones is he a Rolling Stone or Not?
Posted by:
Rokyfan
()
Date: March 5, 2014 20:07
sorry . . . .
lmao = laughing my ass off (not my ass, the guy who wrote it)
lmao = laughing my ass off (not my ass, the guy who wrote it)
Re: Daryl Jones is he a Rolling Stone or Not?
Posted by:
runrudolph
()
Date: March 5, 2014 21:02
Quote
Rokyfan
sorry . . . .
lmao = laughing my ass off (not my ass, the guy who wrote it)
Re: Daryl Jones is he a Rolling Stone or Not?
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: March 7, 2014 00:43
Quote
corriecasQuote
Rokyfan
sorry . . . .
lmao = laughing my ass off (not my ass, the guy who wrote it)
ROTFLMFAO
Re: Daryl Jones is he a Rolling Stone or Not?
Posted by:
stonehearted
()
Date: March 7, 2014 04:47
By the way, exactly how does one laugh one's ass off? I understand the rolling on the floor part and even the pissing myself laughing bit as well. But wouldn't you be laughing your head off, since laughter flows through the mouth? If you were laughing through your ass, you'd be farting. Or at least a case of the runs. Laughing your ass off--now that's funny shit!
Re: Daryl Jones is he a Rolling Stone or Not?
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: March 7, 2014 15:57
Quote
stonehearted
By the way, exactly how does one laugh one's ass off? I understand the rolling on the floor part and even the pissing myself laughing bit as well. But wouldn't you be laughing your head off, since laughter flows through the mouth? If you were laughing through your ass, you'd be farting. Or at least a case of the runs. Laughing your ass off--now that's funny shit!
Take it to the complaints thread stonehearted...we don't need your kind of negativity on the Daryl Jones is he or isn't he thread.
Re: Daryl Jones is he a Rolling Stone or Not?
Posted by:
PhillyFAN
()
Date: March 7, 2014 17:07
Outside of financial reasons, I wonder if Darryl ever wanted to be a 'Rolling Stone". It's a job playing bass for the greatest r&r band. I sure he does not cry about not being in publicity photos, merchandise, etc. the Stones really like him and his bass playing, in addition to trusting him with their music. I am sure Darryl knows a great deal of personal and inside information about the band that he has never spoken about in interviews or publicly. Another matter of trust. He was hired to play bass and does a great job doing just that!
Re: Daryl Jones is he a Rolling Stone or Not?
Posted by:
DoomandGloom
()
Date: March 7, 2014 17:16
pssst. I'll tell you guys a secret.... There won't be additional band members because they have already exceeded the realm of possibility by getting back on tour... It is not sad but a triumph, still we are nearing the end here kids..
Re: Daryl Jones is he a Rolling Stone or Not?
Posted by:
stonehearted
()
Date: March 7, 2014 17:19
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
stonehearted
By the way, exactly how does one laugh one's ass off? I understand the rolling on the floor part and even the pissing myself laughing bit as well. But wouldn't you be laughing your head off, since laughter flows through the mouth? If you were laughing through your ass, you'd be farting. Or at least a case of the runs. Laughing your ass off--now that's funny shit!
Take it to the complaints thread stonehearted...we don't need your kind of negativity on the Daryl Jones is he or isn't he thread.
I'd complain, but who'd listen?
Re: Daryl Jones is he a Rolling Stone or Not?
Posted by:
harald2002
()
Date: March 7, 2014 17:20
For me ? he is! I LOVE DARYL:
Re: Daryl Jones is he a Rolling Stone or Not?
Posted by:
PhillyFAN
()
Date: March 7, 2014 17:20
Thanks Doom and Gloom, I forgot to mention that. I really believe this is their last go round as much as I hate to imagine them not being around. (Sigh)
Re: Daryl Jones is he a Rolling Stone or Not?
Posted by:
Ladykiller
()
Date: March 8, 2014 01:59
Daryl Jones is in the same way a Rolling Stone like Chuck Leavell or Bobby Keys.
Re: Daryl Jones is he a Rolling Stone or Not?
Posted by:
rollmops
()
Date: March 8, 2014 02:43
No he isn't but he is good enough that he can play with them which is for a musician what matters. Anyway,if you had too many rolling stones that would make them less special. Right now there are only 4 and the Rolling Stones play their shows with a gang of great players.
Rock and roll,
Mops
Rock and roll,
Mops
Re: Daryl Jones is he a Rolling Stone or Not?
Posted by:
diverseharmonics
()
Date: March 9, 2014 06:22
...There are but FIVE Rolling Stones.....Geoff Bradford, Mick Avory, Tony Chapman, Carlo Little, and Ricky Fenson.....accept NO substitutes!!Quote
rollmops
No he isn't but he is good enough that he can play with them which is for a musician what matters. Anyway,if you had too many rolling stones that would make them less special. Right now there are only 4 and the Rolling Stones play their shows with a gang of great players.
Rock and roll,
Mops
Re: Daryl Jones is he a Rolling Stone or Not?
Posted by:
VideoJames
()
Date: December 11, 2015 20:46
Quote
diverseharmonics...There are but FIVE Rolling Stones.....Geoff Bradford, Mick Avory, Tony Chapman, Carlo Little, and Ricky Fenson.....accept NO substitutes!!Quote
rollmops
No he isn't but he is good enough that he can play with them which is for a musician what matters. Anyway,if you had too many rolling stones that would make them less special. Right now there are only 4 and the Rolling Stones play their shows with a gang of great players.
Rock and roll,
Mops
Tony Chapman never played one single gig with the Stones (He rehearsed once maybe twice at the most) nor did Geoff Bradford (rehearsed only), Also at Rehearsals were Andy Wren & Brian Knight... but you forgot Collin Goldin who did played bass with the band for at least 8 shows & Dick Taylor who played with the band till Sept/Oct. 1962. also Paul Jones actually replaced Jagger at one show in 62. side note: Micky Waller replaced Charlie in March 1964 for one gig (the 15th).
Re: Daryl Jones is he a Rolling Stone or Not?
Posted by:
buttons67
()
Date: December 11, 2015 21:00
despite the many backing musicians and vocalists the stones have had for years ive maintained only 5 different positions within the band have ever existed.
jagger(still here)
richards(still here)
watts(still here)
jones(replaced by taylor, who was replaced by wood)
wyman(retired)
technically jones replaced wyman on bass and using my theory should be an official member just as wood and taylor were in the past.
but for some reason having jones as an official stone dosent sit comfortably with me.
maybe im getting worried that justin timberlake or lady gaga will be official stones in the future.
jagger(still here)
richards(still here)
watts(still here)
jones(replaced by taylor, who was replaced by wood)
wyman(retired)
technically jones replaced wyman on bass and using my theory should be an official member just as wood and taylor were in the past.
but for some reason having jones as an official stone dosent sit comfortably with me.
maybe im getting worried that justin timberlake or lady gaga will be official stones in the future.
Re: Daryl Jones is he a Rolling Stone or Not?
Posted by:
HMS
()
Date: December 11, 2015 21:07
If you aint british you can never ever become a regular member of the Rolling Stones.
Re: Daryl Jones is he a Rolling Stone or Not?
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: December 11, 2015 22:11
I think it's silly and shameful that Darryl isn't considered a Rolling Stone actually. The bass guitar is one of the most important instruments in creating the music the Stones play. I can somewhat see how the keyboards might be considered less necessary instrument on some songs anyway but with Chucks other important roles he should be a Stone too, imo.
There are obviously three way to look at this:
Business: No he's not a Stone because the key businessmen have never let him become one and obviously never will.
Image: No he's not a Stone because they have decided to stick with a proven formula of only including the 4 skinny English guys and capitalizing on the history and nostalgia of it all.
Music: Hell yes he's a Stone. Whether you like his contributions of not, the music wouldn't be happening without him playing on every live tune.
I've never been comfortable with the Stones relegating long time (and permanent) members as side men, a clear sign that the business and image aspects are more important than the music, imo. What other good bands do you know where the bass player isn't considered part of the band? It's all bs to me and I would have more respect for them if, after a key musician proved his mettle, they would make them official members. Darryl certainly deserves to be one, imo.
There is likely a loss of creative contribution involved too when key members are relegated as sidemen. It's not that I think Mick and Keith wouldn't dominate most of the creative decisions anyway, but I imagine the motivation to contribute your best stuff could be somewhat dampened by the sidemen relegation. We all know both Darryl and Chuck are excellent musicians, maybe the best in the band, is it coincidence we don't hear the best musical output from them and don't ever consider them as standouts? Is it coincidence that the best music came from the Stones when everyone (except Stu) was considered an equal partner in the band? It's hard to say but my feeling is that the Stones have done themselves a disservice by this approach. That their desire to have such personal limited ownership of the creations and the image and business have limited their ability to deliver the best product possible.
There are obviously three way to look at this:
Business: No he's not a Stone because the key businessmen have never let him become one and obviously never will.
Image: No he's not a Stone because they have decided to stick with a proven formula of only including the 4 skinny English guys and capitalizing on the history and nostalgia of it all.
Music: Hell yes he's a Stone. Whether you like his contributions of not, the music wouldn't be happening without him playing on every live tune.
I've never been comfortable with the Stones relegating long time (and permanent) members as side men, a clear sign that the business and image aspects are more important than the music, imo. What other good bands do you know where the bass player isn't considered part of the band? It's all bs to me and I would have more respect for them if, after a key musician proved his mettle, they would make them official members. Darryl certainly deserves to be one, imo.
There is likely a loss of creative contribution involved too when key members are relegated as sidemen. It's not that I think Mick and Keith wouldn't dominate most of the creative decisions anyway, but I imagine the motivation to contribute your best stuff could be somewhat dampened by the sidemen relegation. We all know both Darryl and Chuck are excellent musicians, maybe the best in the band, is it coincidence we don't hear the best musical output from them and don't ever consider them as standouts? Is it coincidence that the best music came from the Stones when everyone (except Stu) was considered an equal partner in the band? It's hard to say but my feeling is that the Stones have done themselves a disservice by this approach. That their desire to have such personal limited ownership of the creations and the image and business have limited their ability to deliver the best product possible.
Re: Daryl Jones is he a Rolling Stone or Not?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: December 11, 2015 22:19
Quote
VideoJamesQuote
diverseharmonics...There are but FIVE Rolling Stones.....Geoff Bradford, Mick Avory, Tony Chapman, Carlo Little, and Ricky Fenson.....accept NO substitutes!!Quote
rollmops
No he isn't but he is good enough that he can play with them which is for a musician what matters. Anyway,if you had too many rolling stones that would make them less special. Right now there are only 4 and the Rolling Stones play their shows with a gang of great players.
Rock and roll,
Mops
Tony Chapman never played one single gig with the Stones (He rehearsed once maybe twice at the most) nor did Geoff Bradford (rehearsed only), Also at Rehearsals were Andy Wren & Brian Knight... but you forgot Collin Goldin who did played bass with the band for at least 8 shows & Dick Taylor who played with the band till Sept/Oct. 1962. also Paul Jones actually replaced Jagger at one show in 62. side note: Micky Waller replaced Charlie in March 1964 for one gig (the 15th).
Mick Avory never played a gig with them, either. Only a couple of rehearsals.
Re: Daryl Jones is he a Rolling Stone or Not?
Posted by:
VideoJames
()
Date: December 12, 2015 00:47
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
VideoJamesQuote
diverseharmonics...There are but FIVE Rolling Stones.....Geoff Bradford, Mick Avory, Tony Chapman, Carlo Little, and Ricky Fenson.....accept NO substitutes!!Quote
rollmops
No he isn't but he is good enough that he can play with them which is for a musician what matters. Anyway,if you had too many rolling stones that would make them less special. Right now there are only 4 and the Rolling Stones play their shows with a gang of great players.
Rock and roll,
Mops
Tony Chapman never played one single gig with the Stones (He rehearsed once maybe twice at the most) nor did Geoff Bradford (rehearsed only), Also at Rehearsals were Andy Wren & Brian Knight... but you forgot Collin Goldin who did played bass with the band for at least 8 shows & Dick Taylor who played with the band till Sept/Oct. 1962. also Paul Jones actually replaced Jagger at one show in 62. side note: Micky Waller replaced Charlie in March 1964 for one gig (the 15th).
Mick Avory never played a gig with them, either. Only a couple of rehearsals.
You are correct...I meant Avory, I wrote Chapman by error(DUH!!),, Tony Chapman played at least 10 shows with the band including the very first gig (July 12th 1962). Avory only rehearsed once maybe twice. I interviewed both of them a couple of times many years back.. Sorry for the very dumb mistake
Re: Daryl Jones is he a Rolling Stone or Not?
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: December 12, 2015 01:11
Not. I'm sure he's a nice guy though...
Re: Daryl Jones is he a Rolling Stone or Not?
Posted by:
eduardoacdc
()
Date: December 12, 2015 01:24
Yes.
Re: Daryl Jones is he a Rolling Stone or Not?
Posted by:
Turner68
()
Date: December 12, 2015 01:48
Quote
Naturalust
I think it's silly and shameful that Darryl isn't considered a Rolling Stone actually. The bass guitar is one of the most important instruments in creating the music the Stones play. I can somewhat see how the keyboards might be considered less necessary instrument on some songs anyway but with Chucks other important roles he should be a Stone too, imo.
There are obviously three way to look at this:
Business: No he's not a Stone because the key businessmen have never let him become one and obviously never will.
Image: No he's not a Stone because they have decided to stick with a proven formula of only including the 4 skinny English guys and capitalizing on the history and nostalgia of it all.
Music: Hell yes he's a Stone. Whether you like his contributions of not, the music wouldn't be happening without him playing on every live tune.
I've never been comfortable with the Stones relegating long time (and permanent) members as side men, a clear sign that the business and image aspects are more important than the music, imo. What other good bands do you know where the bass player isn't considered part of the band? It's all bs to me and I would have more respect for them if, after a key musician proved his mettle, they would make them official members. Darryl certainly deserves to be one, imo.
There is likely a loss of creative contribution involved too when key members are relegated as sidemen. It's not that I think Mick and Keith wouldn't dominate most of the creative decisions anyway, but I imagine the motivation to contribute your best stuff could be somewhat dampened by the sidemen relegation. We all know both Darryl and Chuck are excellent musicians, maybe the best in the band, is it coincidence we don't hear the best musical output from them and don't ever consider them as standouts? Is it coincidence that the best music came from the Stones when everyone (except Stu) was considered an equal partner in the band? It's hard to say but my feeling is that the Stones have done themselves a disservice by this approach. That their desire to have such personal limited ownership of the creations and the image and business have limited their ability to deliver the best product possible.
The precedent of Ian Stewart speaks loudly here. It was clear from the start that band membership was not guaranteed anyone, no matter how big their contributions.
Re: Daryl Jones is he a Rolling Stone or Not?
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: December 12, 2015 02:32
Quote
Turner68
The precedent of Ian Stewart speaks loudly here. It was clear from the start that band membership was not guaranteed anyone, no matter how big their contributions.
Perhaps you are right but I think it was a stupid precedent. I loved Stu, always thought he should have been a full fledged member. He friggin' co-founded the band with Brian, they should have told ALO to piss off. In fact it goes against the artistic credibility and bad boys with a vision portrait that some people here paint of them that they didn't do just that. These guys were early sell outs to the establishment.
Re: Daryl Jones is he a Rolling Stone or Not?
Posted by:
pepganzo
()
Date: December 12, 2015 14:52
Quote
Addicted
Not a Rolling Stone, but an extremely talented musician. And a very nice person.
This
Re: Daryl Jones is he a Rolling Stone or Not?
Posted by:
Sighunt
()
Date: December 12, 2015 15:37
No he is not. Membership in the Rolling Stones has been externally frozen for quite some time now. It is a very selective club-Look how long it took for the last guy to apply and become a member (and entitling him to the same benefits as the three core members). The requirements appear more rigorous than becoming a US citizen (a member of ISIS would arguably have an easier time becoming a US citizen than applying for membership in the Rolling Stones LOL!).
Re: Daryl Jones is he a Rolling Stone or Not?
Posted by:
The Joker
()
Date: December 12, 2015 17:43
Anita Pallenberg was considered somehow as being a Rolling Stone.
Re: Daryl Jones is he a Rolling Stone or Not?
Posted by:
Turner68
()
Date: December 12, 2015 17:50
Quote
NaturalustQuote
Turner68
The precedent of Ian Stewart speaks loudly here. It was clear from the start that band membership was not guaranteed anyone, no matter how big their contributions.
Perhaps you are right but I think it was a stupid precedent. I loved Stu, always thought he should have been a full fledged member. He friggin' co-founded the band with Brian, they should have told ALO to piss off. In fact it goes against the artistic credibility and bad boys with a vision portrait that some people here paint of them that they didn't do just that. These guys were early sell outs to the establishment.
I agree.
Re: Daryl Jones is he a Rolling Stone or Not?
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: December 12, 2015 17:53
Quote
The Joker
Anita Pallenberg was considered somehow as being a Rolling Stone.
she was killer on cowbell for that htw intro.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Guests:
1885
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10