Did Bill Wyman Do The Right Thing?

[SJLee]

This is an interesting interview with Bill. At 18:50 be begins talking about wanting to do other things aside from playing in the Stones.

 

[Axstar]

The more I think about this the more I think 'good for Bill', really. He says in that interview that he didn't think he would be playing in the Stones as long as he did.

I'm not a touring musician, and never have been. However it does come across as a committed, and very different, means of living your life. The remaining Stones can still do it with some degree of dignity, with the level of comfort that their fame and money can buy them. Youtube is full of videos of 'behind the music' with lesser rock musicians, and to be honest it is a fairly undignified way to end up; touring and rocking away in your late sixties or seventies. Hair dyed some horrible, unconvincing colour. A dress sense best left somewhere in the '70s, or gunning for some sort of sleazy '80s Pirate look. Bad plastic surgery (check out the guys from Kiss), and elderly waistlines squeezed into jeans designed for 15 year old girls. No good! I can't fault Bill for wanting to get out of all of that.

If nothing else it must be a bit weird for these old rock musicians. In general their best regarded work was created when they were in their twenties. Multiple decades later and that is the stuff that brings home the paychecks. Find me any classic rock band from the '60s or '70s who produced an album in the noughties or twenty-tens that truly went up against their classic albums, and is regarded as such by anybody beyond their own fanbase.

 

[dougjwray]

In Keith's very good autobiography, he says that Bill was asked to join because he owned an amp, but that once he heard Bill play with Charlie, he realized it was a good decision. After that, Bill appears in one other sentence in the book, where Keith acknowledges that Bill once helped him out by scoring for him. That's it.
(I believe I'm remembering this correctly... please set me straight if I'm wrong...)
It might be that Bill was never QUITE a full member of the gang... a "brother."

 

[JimmyM]

The more I think about this the more I think 'good for Bill', really. He says in that interview that he didn't think he would be playing in the Stones as long as he did.

I'm not a touring musician, and never have been. However it does come across as a committed, and very different, means of living your life. The remaining Stones can still do it with some degree of dignity, with the level of comfort that their fame and money can buy them. Youtube is full of videos of 'behind the music' with lesser rock musicians, and to be honest it is a fairly undignified way to end up; touring and rocking away in your late sixties or seventies. Hair dyed some horrible, unconvincing colour. A dress sense best left somewhere in the '70s, or gunning for some sort of sleazy '80s Pirate look. Bad plastic surgery (check out the guys from Kiss), and elderly waistlines squeezed into jeans designed for 15 year old girls. No good! I can't fault Bill for wanting to get out of all of that.

If nothing else it must be a bit weird for these old rock musicians. In general their best regarded work was created when they were in their twenties. Multiple decades later and that is the stuff that brings home the paychecks. Find me any classic rock band from the '60s or '70s who produced an album in the noughties or twenty-tens that truly went up against their classic albums, and is regarded as such by anybody beyond their own fanbase.

AC/DC.

 

[Axstar]

AC/DC.

Which album Chief?

 

[MrLenny1]

No. I would have stayed and given the money to worthy charities like Gene Simmons is doing.

 

[JimmyM]

Which album Chief?

Black Ice.

 

[rtslinger]

It isn't like he quit right before they made it big. He did well. He had enough. That makes it the right decision for him.

Meanwhile 20 years later Daryl Jones is till considered the "fill-in" guy.

I always thought Ron Wood should have taken over the bass spot.

I agree Ron Wood should have step into it.

 

[rtslinger]

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?

I think he made the right call, he was done with the road and he already had cemented his place in rock history.

 

[bassrique]

He had a long career. He left on top. He can enjoy life without the arenas, as that must get old after a few dacades. Yes, he did the right thing.

 

[consectaneus]

I'd say so for him. It sounds like his ego didn't need it, and I'm sure the grind gets tiring. He retired like anyone else from a job. I wonder what keeps Charlie Watts hanging in there. I remember he said he hates touring.

 

[BassGH]

Definitely.

He's made it perfectly clear that Mick and Keith didn't give him much credit for anything. From what I've gathered ... he wasn't happy with The Stones for quite a long time. Finally decided to call it quits. I doubt he'll ever revisit his old group anytime soon ... seems to be a bit of bad blood there (at least for him). Kudos to him for making the best of his situation. IMO ... one the most underrated bassists of a major act.

I concur- I really like his playing too, definitely underrated.