• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Did Bill Wyman Do The Right Thing?

#61
Jim Dep said:
I never expected a book called "LIFE" by KR would be a technical book for musicians. I think it's a good proportional representation of a very chaotic life.

I'm surprised he spent as much time as he did talking about the impact of the open G tuning.
Click to expand...

I agree. He does talk about his approach to songwriting and his admiration for American music. It would probably be a dull read if he just went over how each song and album was recorded. As you point out, the book is called "Life". I am reading it at a leisurely pace; I am up to 1971 when they have just decided to become tax exiles and are shipping off to France to record "Exile..."

One interesting tidbit was that Phil Spector played bass on "Play With Fire".
 
#62
I read Bill Wyman's interview in Bass Player and he makes it very clear he has no regrets leaving The Rolling Stones. I've seen an interview with Keith Richards and he thanked Wyman for leaving. I've heard Mick talk about it also and he did not seem heartbroken. Everybody moved on and the Stones are still out there. What I find silly is all the 'never have been, never will be' people on this forum saying the Stones are too old to tour anymore.....what a bunch of BS ! Playing is what these Pros. have known all their lives, it is what they do....God Bless Them ! I hope I make it to 70, and if I do I sure won't listen to some younger musicians telling me when it's time to hang it up. Long Live The Rolling Stones !
 
#64
Blues Bass Man said:
I read Bill Wyman's interview in Bass Player and he makes it very clear he has no regrets leaving The Rolling Stones. I've seen an interview with Keith Richards and he thanked Wyman for leaving. I've heard Mick talk about it also and he did not seem heartbroken. Everybody moved on and the Stones are still out there. What I find silly is all the 'never have been, never will be' people on this forum saying the Stones are too old to tour anymore.....what a bunch of BS ! Playing is what these Pros. have known all their lives, it is what they do....God Bless Them ! I hope I make it to 70, and if I do I sure won't listen to some younger musicians telling me when it's time to hang it up. Long Live The Rolling Stones !
Click to expand...

For me, it's not a matter of being too old to tour. Obviously, they are old and they are touring. What it comes down to for me (and this is only my opinion) is a matter of musical relevance. I don't think the Stones have been musically relevant or creative in a long time so I stopped listening to the new stuff. What's obvious to me, though, is that their newer material is weak compared to their best stuff (1965-1975) and if they went on tour and ONLY played material from 1990 onward, I believe that concert goers wouldn't be too happy with that.

I suspect Wyman probably had similar feelings along with a desire to do something different and that's perfectly fine. It's worked out for him so far.
 
#65
dhagler said:
I am a huge Sting fan and I agree with you. But unfortunately, I must also add that he has become more pretentious with time. His last albums have been vanity projects: the "lute" album, the "winter" album...

Still, hearing him play Police songs on the tour--in ways I had never heard before--was a tribute to his musicianship.
Click to expand...

I'm a Sting fan too, and I do agree he can be pretentious. I also would love to see him do Police songs live.:bassist:
 
#67
BulbousMoses said:
For me, it's not a matter of being too old to tour. Obviously, they are old and they are touring. What it comes down to for me (and this is only my opinion) is a matter of musical relevance. I don't think the Stones have been musically relevant or creative in a long time so I stopped listening to the new stuff. What's obvious to me, though, is that their newer material is weak compared to their best stuff (1967-1975) and if they went on tour and ONLY played material from 1990 onward, I believe that concert goers wouldn't be too happy with that.

I suspect Wyman probably had similar feelings along with a desire to do something different and that's perfectly fine. It's worked out for him so far.
Click to expand...

I agree with the relevance point. If their career started in 1990, I don't think we'd be talking about them.

The early -mid 60's Stones stuff is a major part my childhood soundtrack, so I can't underestimate how powerful that is.

What I get from the book, when you look at their songwriting routine from the early days compared to the last 20 years, it's no wonder to me why the early stuff was so good in contrast.

Regarding Bill Wyman, ( and tons of others) I don't think never means NEVER. :)

I hope.
 
#68
UKiRN.png
 
#70
BulbousMoses said:
I wanted to throw the question out there. I was reading about Bill Wyman's decision to quit the Rolling Stones and I wonder if, in hindsight, it was the right thing to do. He stands by his decision and seems quite happy with it in interviews I've read. What do you guys think? Good decision or not?
Click to expand...

I am sure he still makes money when a record, CD, or song is downloaded from I Tunes or wherever so yeah he made the right move. He wanted to have a simpler life. he was the king of simple but masterful bass lines a great player maybe no Chris Squire or Paul McCartney or Jaco but he didn't need to be. He could have if he wanted to but he was very tasteful and ya know sometimes less is more. A very very underrated player always overlooked when great bassist are mentioned.
Btw he is still laughing all the way to the bank and doesn't have to deal w the heavy touring either. I always heard he was a great guy too. I don't know him but anyone chime in lemme know your thoughts and info that would be cool.
 
#72
relevance shmelevance. try writing the vast amount of classic hit songs the stones have had. those songs are still in our consciousness and are played daily on the radio. so what if their new stuff doesn't sell so well? they've still got a track record that any of you would give your right nut to have.
 
#73
JimmyM said:
relevance shmelevance. try writing the vast amount of classic hit songs the stones have had. those songs are still in our consciousness and are played daily on the radio. so what if their new stuff doesn't sell so well? they've still got a track record that any of you would give your right nut to have.
Click to expand...

Very true but as I said, my last post was just my opinion. Does musical relevance matter? Not to them (or any other sucessful long running act perhaps) but to me as a listener, it does. I love "classic" Stones...the newer stuff...meh..not so much. But that goes for alot of other bands as well. I'm not just picking on the Rolling Stones for the sake of it. But as you say, all of us here would give our right nut (and perhaps even the left one as well) to have what they have.
 
#74
Bill Wyman had enough and HAS enough. You can bet that he isn't just scraping by. We should all aspire to such a comfy retirement, with people coming around knocking every day asking for your opinion on this and that. Knowing when to leave is the mark of a true showman. Examples abound of entertainers and athletes that stayed on too long and just ended up being pitiful shadows of their former selves.
 
#75
Edward G. said:
Bill Wyman had enough and HAS enough. You can bet that he isn't just scraping by. We should all aspire to such a comfy retirement, with people coming around knocking every day asking for your opinion on this and that. Knowing when to leave is the mark of a true showman. Examples abound of entertainers and athletes that stayed on too long and just ended up being pitiful shadows of their former selves.
Click to expand...

Do you think that the Stones are at that "pitiful shadow" point? They still sell out when they tour so I would say not, based on that. But they've definitely become a greatest hits act.
 
#76
The Stones can still rock, for sure, but there has been a growing freakshow quality creeping into it for me since the late 90s. If they can make it stick, more power to them. I mean, Mick keeps making babies with young women, so who am I to criticize?
 
#78
Edward G. said:
The Stones can still rock, for sure, but there has been a growing freakshow quality creeping into it for me since the late 90s. If they can make it stick, more power to them. I mean, Mick keeps making babies with young women, so who am I to criticize?
Click to expand...

Well said. As for Wyman, he alludes to that fact in several interviews that he wasn't given his due by Jagger and Richards throughout his time with the Stones. I'm sure he'd just had enough of that and probably wanted to try some new stuff musically and knew that he'd never get that off the ground if he stayed in the band.

I'm with you on the freakshow quality of their recent appearances..not that that has anything to do with their music but it's a bit unsettling to see the Skeletor twins looking every bit the part now..:)
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back