Rolling Stones in Rolling Stone: a beef witha crap mag

Mon Rominee · #1 09-09-2005, 12:32 PM

Ok, small potatoes, but really, after this many years, can't the Rolling Stones throw Darryl Jones a bone or two? They have a writeup in the new issue, and are on the cover, SANS Jones. I feel after all these years playing with them, he should be recognised as a full member of the band.

Just a thought. Then again, hired guns don't usually get their due press-wise, 'cept in trade rags, but really.

am I being picky? Probably. Sorry, go back to your lives...

Craig Garfinkel · #2 09-09-2005, 12:45 PM

A fairly reliable source hipped me to what Daryl made on the first tour alone. If true, I'm sure he has not much of a problem with this "dis".

**Blackbird** · #3 09-09-2005, 01:55 PM

I find the omission of Darryl Jones in Rolling Stone not as bad as the addition of Keith Richards to Darryl on the cover of BP.

**cheezewiz** · #4 09-09-2005, 02:37 PM

Yep..I agree Mon. DJ should be a regular member of the Stones, however, like another poster mentioned, Darryl is getting paid DAMN good (I believe I heard the figure) so I'm sure he's pleased either way.

**Thor** · #5 09-09-2005, 02:54 PM

I A N S T E W A R T

Need I say more?

nicoli · #6 09-09-2005, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackbird

I find the omission of Darryl Jones in Rolling Stone not as bad as the addition of Keith Richards to Darryl on the cover of BP.

In all fairness, Keith Richards did come up with and I believe even recorded a lot of the Stones basslines over the years. Darryl Jones was on the cover of the Canadian version of BP last month, not sure if it's different from the U.S. one or not.

It's a bit of a snub for him not to be in that article, but really I don't think too many non-bassists even realize he's on stage let alone that he's been with the band for several years. It's all about the original member (sans Wood I guess) image that the band is going for, and it certainly seems to be working thus far...

cowsgomoo · #7 09-10-2005, 04:14 AM

some of it is marketing... a very small percentage of people who go to a Rolling Stones concert or buy one of their new CD's or pick up Rolling Stone because they're in it would be interested in Darryl Jones.. regardless of his abilities, to them he's just 'not Bill Wyman'..

they've come to see Mick & Keef, Charlie and Ron (I think Ron's charisma and the fact he's been in the band nearly 30 years now makes him a 'real Stone' in the eyes of most people)

If I was in Mick's shoes i'd probably do the same thing.. the Stones have a certain image to maintain... a group of wrinkly & pale ancient skeletons with terrible hair... and Darryl's healthy, black, relatively-youthful image would be incongruous with that

and it's business... if you make someone a full member of the band you have to pay them more... and when you're a Rolling Stone we're talking lots of money... from Mick's point of view there'd be no reason to make Darryl a full member of the band.. it'd just mean paying him more money for what benefit?

oversoul · #8 09-10-2005, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackbird

I find the omission of Darryl Jones in Rolling Stone not as bad as the addition of Keith Richards to Darryl on the cover of BP.

He already had two solo covers on BP after that, in fact the last one was in the past august issue.

**Blackbird** · #9 09-10-2005, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oversoul

He already had two solo covers on BP after that, in fact the last one was in the past august issue.

Oops, goes to show how much BP I've read as of late.

It was mostly an attempt to get a good but derailed conversation back on track...some of you know what I mean.

cdef · #10 09-10-2005, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thor

I A N S T E W A R T

Need I say more?

Right - the Stones (also Andrew Loog Oldham) were image-conscious from the start, and Stewart didn't have the look, although he was an important musical factor with the band at the time. That was too bad, but it indicated the way rock music was taking as an industrial concern.

When Wyman quit I remember thinking they should've gotten Andy Fraser in. IMO he would have been perfect, but then when I read Charlie Watts had picked DJ, I went "Wow!"

I've enjoyed Darryl Jones' interviews, the man has a head on his shoulders, and he is respectful about Wyman's legacy in the band. He's a consummate pro who's now got about the most prestigious bass gig in rock as is, and I'd guess he's relieved not to have to worry about publicity shots and the like. More power to him. Whether he's "good" for the "Stones"... well, I'll try to catch them on this new tour. Last saw them in '72.

**Thor** · #11 09-12-2005, 08:43 AM

You got it.

Ron Wood was part of the mod London sixties rocker clique,
and as such had the cred to be chosen as replacement for
Mick Taylor who replaced Brian Jones. Ron was also known
for his art work, and had executed a number of paintings of
the Stones, their g/fs and hangers on. So he was in like Flint.

Charlie was always in the habit playing other projects when
the Stones weren't working, which was most of the time,
and has always been an avid collector of jazz and blues.
He gets out and plays out a lot, so the fact that he spotted
DJ doesn't surprise me.

I like DJ a lot, but to me, the Stones aren't the Stones
without Wyman. I don't consider the core of the band
to be Jagger/Richards. I always thought it was Wyman and
Watts.

Wyman was offered huge money some years back to tour with them again iirc 30 million, which he declined. He had had
enough Jagger to last a lifetime, it seems.

His book, 'A Stone Alone' is an interesting autobiography,
and well worth your time. It certainly is a different viewpoint
from the more sanitized 'Rock'n'Roll Gods, Almost Dead'.

Dirty little secrets ...

realdeal · #12 09-12-2005, 10:26 PM

Besides leaving DJ off the cover of the magazine, I noticed in a clip from their current tour that the Stones took their final bow onstage without him as well.
I guess that means that he's relegated to "back-up" musician status, like the singers, horns, and keys!
Yet- I saw DJ on the "Bridges" tour, and he totally was in the mix with the band, including their stripped-down version as a quintet playing "Carol", etc.
Actually, having seen the Stones live with Wyman, DJ is a whole lot more active on stage- staying static was one of Wyman's traits, of course.
I guess at first, Daryll was sort of relegated to re-creating the bass lines that had been done before, but especially with their new material, I agree--- He should be a fully vested
"Stone"! I doubt if money is an issue with the Stones, and no doubt Daryll is VERY happy with his share.
I'll also add that for the players who aren't familiar with DJ before his high-profile gig, his stuff with Miles Davis among other recordings, is really worth listening to!
In fact,when it was announced that he was chosen to replace Bill Wyman, I had trouble understanding their choice and his- He seemed way "overqualified" so to speak.
I've read DJ's thoughts on playing with the Stones, and he has some great things to say about it, and about being a bassist in general.
Quite a cool dude, and a GREAT player.

MJ5150 · #13 09-13-2005, 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mon Rominee

am I being picky? Probably.

Yeah, you are. Dude is getting paid, and I have not heard DJ complain about it. I would almost think it generates more interest that he is not mentioned. Alot of people who hit up a RS show probably ask "Who is that bass player?".

-Mike

JimmyM · #14 09-13-2005, 12:12 AM

Fact---Darryl Jones is a hired gun who has been playing with the Stones for about 7-8 years. He's a great bassist, but doesn't really bring anything to the table that a number of great bassists couldn't do.

Fact---Ron Wood is not a hired gun. Well, he is, sort of, but he proved himself as a full member of the band by helping them write songs, teaching Mick how to play guitar, and pretty much turning them around from a band who was full of negative energy to an energetic band who rediscovered how to have fun. He also does no other projects except for an occasional guest spot on someone's album, while Darryl fills his non-Stones time with a full plate of sessions and gigs.

How come nobody complains that Chuck Leavell isn't a full member of the band, even though he's been the keyboardist ever since Ian Stewart died? And as for Ian Stewart, according to what I've seen, he had his hands full as their road manager and just played with them for fun. But people think it's outrageous that Darryl isn't considered a full member. I don't get it. He's highly paid, he's world-renowned, and he's having fun. Don't feel too sorry for Darryl.

KJung · #15 09-13-2005, 05:53 AM

As said above.... Daryl Jones is not in the Rolling Stones, he's a side man. That's probably a $10million dollar a year difference. The reason the Stones take their final bow without Daryl or the other great sidemen that play for them is that the Rolling Stones is a 4 piece band now, with added people for tours. I'm sure their lawyers, etc. would have a fit if they started including Daryl in group shots of the Stone's in magazines.... thereby implying that he is a member of the group.... and possibly due royalties, etc.

That's just the way it works, and I'm sure Daryl is VERY happy to be getting sideman pay with the Stones!

bigtexashonk · #16 09-13-2005, 07:03 AM

The Rolling Stones is a corporate entity every bit as much as General Motors or Microsoft. Mick and Keef are well aware of this and make sure people who don't know any better focus on just who the Stones are. Ian Stewart was forgotten almost from any wisp of success. Mick Taylor was instrumental in writing some classic Stones songs, but most of those songs only reflect "Jagger/Richards". It's just how the business side of the business works and is called "getting paid".

**Thor** · #17 09-13-2005, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimmyM

Fact---Darryl Jones is a hired gun who has been playing with the Stones for about 7-8 years. He's a great bassist, but doesn't really bring anything to the table that a number of great bassists couldn't do.

Fact---Ron Wood is not a hired gun. Well, he is, sort of, but he proved himself as a full member of the band by helping them write songs, teaching Mick how to play guitar, and pretty much turning them around from a band who was full of negative energy to an energetic band who rediscovered how to have fun. He also does no other projects except for an occasional guest spot on someone's album, while Darryl fills his non-Stones time with a full plate of sessions and gigs.

How come nobody complains that Chuck Leavell isn't a full member of the band, even though he's been the keyboardist ever since Ian Stewart died? And as for Ian Stewart, according to what I've seen, he had his hands full as their road manager and just played with them for fun. But people think it's outrageous that Darryl isn't considered a full member. I don't get it. He's highly paid, he's world-renowned, and he's having fun. Don't feel too sorry for Darryl.

I just wanted to clarify the statement in bold. Ian was very
much a member of the band at the beginning. When Andrew Loog Oldham came on the scene, he didn't care for the normal image that Stew had, and Stew was asked to 'step back' from the band.

He continued to work with them on the road tours and when touring with them provided supporting keyboards. He also
recorded studio tracks, but not as a 'member' of the Rolling Stones. He just didn't fit the scruffy, bad boy image of KR, or
have the teenybopper sex appeal of a Brian Jones or MJ. And
that image was everything in terms of their success. At least
in Oldham's opinion.

jacove · #18 09-13-2005, 08:48 AM

imoh,

just want to hear if you got any memories of the 1972 show....being a Stones fan, 1972, is a pretty magic year!...

**Thor** · #19 09-13-2005, 09:20 AM

I think I still have a bootleg vinyl of the Europe Tour back
then.

Sympathy, Stray Cat Blues, etc.

Love in Vain featured Mick Taylor in top Bluesbreakers
form. Good year for the Stones soundwise, they were hardly
ever better.

realdeal · #20 09-13-2005, 09:49 AM

[quote=KJung]
The reason the Stones take their final bow without Daryl or the other great sidemen that play for them is that the Rolling Stones is a 4 piece band now

QUOTE]

The only problem I see with that explanation-
(If that's the Stone's perception....)

Adding keys, horns, and bg vocals, even strings, are all additions to the Stone's music. BUT---
Not the bass guitar!
They could not perform live without someone laying down the bass lines. As basic as most of the bass parts are in the Stone's R'nR, they HAVE to be in the mix-We all know that here!!
So as their bassist, IMO he should be included as a member.

I can see that their organization is set-up financially, with profit-shares distributed to members, and how that effects the pay-out. Jagger is very involved in all their money matters, down to T-shirts, etc.

However, when it comes down to performing together and being a "Band", that aspect should be only "on paper", and DJ deserves to be included in all aspects as another "Stone"!