I hope this isn't an ominous sign, especially with this rumor about Charlie. What worries me is that Mick and Wyman never do anything musically outside the Stones so what's going on that there is something they are working on again? I just assume it has to do with the Stones and unless it's some goodbye thing, why would they invite him? although I am probably just making something out of nothing and it could be some cricket thing or why not be positive, maybe they want him on an album? Here it is from Wyman's blog:

On Thursday, June 12, Bill ... chatted with Mick Jagger about a possible future project.

The Wick wrote on Jun 24^th, 2008 at 3:17am:

I hope this isn't an ominous sign, especially with this rumor about Charlie. What worries me is that Mick and Wyman never do anything musically outside the Stones so what's going on that there is something they are working on again? I just assume it has to do with the Stones and unless it's some goodbye thing, why would they invite him? although I am probably just making something out of nothing and it could be some cricket thing or why not be positive, maybe they want him on an album? Here it is from Wyman's blog: On Thursday, June 12, Bill ... chatted with Mick Jagger about a possible future project.

Fill me in please. What is the rumour about Charlie?

It's in the Leah Wood thread about health issues but the recent picture on that thread shows that he looks good and I doubt he'd be at some horse show if he was very ill. So it's great news I suppose that Jagger and Wyman were in touch. Let's hope it's something Stones related and something to do with Wyman playing with them in some way again, although not for the last time I hope.

What's the news about them playing together???

No news, just rumors and speculating. Again, a "future project" could meanan ything. Documentary, interview, video blog, new album, etc..And it was "possible future project."

The Wick wrote on Jun 24^th, 2008 at 3:17am:

On Thursday, June 12, Bill ... chatted with Mick Jagger about a possible future project.

The project is about not paying royalties to Mr. Perks  :wtf3

Bill writes sound tracks for movies doesnt he?. Maybe Mick is asking for his input on a new film sound track.

Is it possible The Stones are negotiating a record contract, and that being as their entire back catalog comes with them in the new contract in turn Mick wants Bill's input on the cash amount and the specifics of the deal because he is also to receive royalty's from the sales of their back catalog?

In essence, Wyman should still be "in" on that aspect on The bands business endeavors since it directly affects his pocket book and he was part of that back catalog as much as anyone.

Is this a possibility? This seems like a definite possibility to me but still I'm not positive. I'm not sure what it is he is speaking of...?


Ian

Knock me over with a feather! You could actually be onto something. Shiver me timbers!

This may well be the most cogent post ever from you Ian! That is very real possibility. I mean this post makes way more sense then the "Mick is not on the cover of TY" thread from a couple of years back.

Congrats! Even a broken clock is right twice a day! ;)



Riffy

they were goin over numbers to finally figure out with who "slept" with the most women
mick wanted to know if bill was responsible for the teenage pregnancies in gloucester massachusetts
mick told bill he could be on the cover of the next rarities disc
they were comparing erectile dysfunction medications
mick still was wondering why bill brought more soul to the band than the black guy that replaced him
mick was asking bill permission to cover in another land on his next solo record
mick wanted to learn bill's zen master stage presence
charlie asked mick to bring bill back in the band because he didnt want to be the oldest guy in the band anymore

Wyman has always described himself as the historian of the band. Mick might be planning to release some lost gems and wants Bill's input. I'd rather that than new stuff.

Or maybe Bill called Mick to ask if he could have his daughters old bicycle seats?

Riffhard wrote on Jun 24^th, 2008 at 10:42pm:

This may well be the most cogent post ever from you Ian! That is very real possibility. I mean this post makes way more sense then the "Mick is not on the cover of TY" thread from a couple of years back. Congrats! Even a broken clock is right twice a day! ;) Riffy

________________________

Well, Glencar and Riffhard you both have said a few things over the last few years that have turned out to be incorrect.

However, bringing up the past or including irrelevant topics from previous arguments only shows immaturity.

If you feel like you should compliment then by all means do so. However, lacing a compliment with an irrelevant jab from the past or a including an insult that is candy-coated is more-over the latter rather than the previous.

I was wrong and way out of touch on the "Tattoo You" thing. But guess what, I admit that and have no qualms about saying so or accepting it. Nor have I hid from the subject or got angry over the fact of it all. I wish I could say we all here have did the same when we are incorrect or mis-judge something, but the truth of the matter is that this is something I have not seen many board members do when they are in the same situation...


Ian

gimmekeef wrote on Jun 25^th, 2008 at 7:22am:

Or maybe Bill called Mick to ask if he could have his daughters old bicycle seats?

What ??

http://i25.tinypic.com/o6fl.jpg

Ian Billen wrote on Jun 26^th, 2008 at 2:00am:

Riffhard wrote on Jun 24th, 2008 at 10:42pm: This may well be the most cogent post ever from you Ian! That is very real possibility. I mean this post makes way more sense then the "Mick is not on the cover of TY" thread from a couple of years back. Congrats! Even a broken clock is right twice a day! ;) Riffy ________________________ Well, Glencar and Riffhard you both have said a few things over the last few years that have turned out to be incorrect. However, bringing up the past or including irrelevant topics from previous arguments only shows immaturity. If you feel like you should compliment then by all means do so. However, lacing a compliment with an irrelevant jab from the past or a including an insult that is candy-coated is more-over the latter rather than the previous. I was wrong and way out of touch on the "Tattoo You" thing. But guess what, I admit that and have no qualms about saying so or accepting it. Nor have I hid from the subject or got angry over the fact of it all. I wish I could say we all here have did the same when we are incorrect or mis-judge something, but the truth of the matter is that this is something I have not seen many board members do when they are in the same situation... Ian

Bitch please! list any things I said that were incorrect. You da foo!

corgi37 wrote on Jun 25^th, 2008 at 5:33am:

Wyman has always described himself as the historian of the band. Mick might be planning to release some lost gems and wants Bill's input. I'd rather that than new stuff.

Either that or a group cemetery plot.

How did Mick not get on the cover of TY?  Is it one of those Magritte "Ceci n'est pas un pipe" things?

Ian Billen wrote on Jun 26^th, 2008 at 2:00am:

Riffhard wrote on Jun 24th, 2008 at 10:42pm: This may well be the most cogent post ever from you Ian! That is very real possibility. I mean this post makes way more sense then the "Mick is not on the cover of TY" thread from a couple of years back. Congrats! Even a broken clock is right twice a day! ;) Riffy ________________________ Well, Glencar and Riffhard you both have said a few things over the last few years that have turned out to be incorrect. However, bringing up the past or including irrelevant topics from previous arguments only shows immaturity. If you feel like you should compliment then by all means do so. However, lacing a compliment with an irrelevant jab from the past or a including an insult that is candy-coated is more-over the latter rather than the previous. I was wrong and way out of touch on the "Tattoo You" thing. But guess what, I admit that and have no qualms about saying so or accepting it. Nor have I hid from the subject or got angry over the fact of it all. I wish I could say we all here have did the same when we are incorrect or mis-judge something, but the truth of the matter is that this is something I have not seen many board members do when they are in the same situation... Ian

Ian there is a reason that people use this emoticon---> ;) It means that the poster, in this case myself, was just yanking your chain, pulling your leg, getting your goat, taking the piss, fucking with you.

Oh, and I have never once been wrong! That's a damndable dirty liberal lie!


Riffy

andrews27 wrote on Jun 26^th, 2008 at 9:59pm:

corgi37 wrote on Jun 25th, 2008 at 5:33am: Wyman has always described himself as the historian of the band. Mick might be planning to release some lost gems and wants Bill's input. I'd rather that than new stuff. Either that or a group cemetery plot. How did Mick not get on the cover of TY?  Is it one of those Magritte "Ceci n'est pas un pipe" things?

He's on the cover. Some oddball poster had a thread saying it wasn't Mick. He was wrongo, as usual!

wrote on Jun 26^th, 2008 at 9:23pm:

Ian Billen wrote on Jun 26th, 2008 at 2:00am: Riffhard wrote on Jun 24th, 2008 at 10:42pm: This may well be the most cogent post ever from you Ian! That is very real possibility. I mean this post makes way more sense then the "Mick is not on the cover of TY" thread from a couple of years back. Congrats! Even a broken clock is right twice a day! ;) Riffy ________________________ Well, Glencar and Riffhard you both have said a few things over the last few years that have turned out to be incorrect. However, bringing up the past or including irrelevant topics from previous arguments only shows immaturity. If you feel like you should compliment then by all means do so. However, lacing a compliment with an irrelevant jab from the past or a including an insult that is candy-coated is more-over the latter rather than the previous. I was wrong and way out of touch on the "Tattoo You" thing. But guess what, I admit that and have no qualms about saying so or accepting it. Nor have I hid from the subject or got angry over the fact of it all. I wish I could say we all here have did the same when we are incorrect or mis-judge something, but the truth of the matter is that this is something I have not seen many board members do when they are in the same situation... Ian Bitch please! list any things I said that were incorrect. You da foo!

____________________________

...aghhhh, this is just silly.

OK. Alright, to shed some light on who is always willing to point the finger and who does not

Speaking of Tatoo You, and opinions on albums.

Glencar, weren't you one of the people that was arguing so strongly against me in my opinion that The Rolling Stones were probably almost all finished in terms of recording a new album around the end of April 2005? Wern't YOU one of the people that said in late April, 2005  that I simply could not know what I was talking about???in the spring of 2005 (May to be exact) Mick Jagger was "specifically" asked how much was "almost" when he stated the album was "almost finished". He said it was "85% finished".

guess what....the only person I ribbed about it was Gazza. Why? Because he never throws anything in anyones face. And for ONCE I may of been more correct than most here (you were included).

Now, in hearing Micks exact response, with percentage given no less, I'd say 85% is "mostly complete".

Did I ever throw that in your face? It has been three years now and have I ever brought it up to you or anyone again? There were entire threads on this very issue in which several people here said that because to their knowledge The Stones were not spending much time in the same country, Charlies had cancer, and Ronnies was doing Rehab that I was totally nuts.

Well, as I said then....for them to be holding a press conference so near, and a tour to follow so soon the album  HAD to be almost finished at that point. Turns out ....my assumption was dead on.

Did I ever mention it to you, or any other person (besides a friendly jab to Gazza who is always cool and is almost ALWAYS right...so I just had to rib him in this instance)?

How many times have you razzed me about Tattoo You...among other things?    ....Need I say more?

Ian

"May have" not "may of"! And no, I never said they were done with new music. Read again.

wrote on Jun 26^th, 2008 at 11:18pm:

"May have" not "may of"! And no, I never said they were done with new music. Read again.

_________________________

We were not speaking about recording new material in general. We were speaking of the state of A Bigger Bang at that time and the debate was over if they had an album almost ready at that point (which, at the time we did not even know the name of this album).

My argument was they certainly must, and simply had to have an album almost finished based on the time-line they were on, their schedule coming up, and their personal comments. It all was in place in my eyes.

You, and many others, stated I was a loon for ever suggesting this notion and were hell bent against that idea. There were threads based on this debate alone.

As things turned out they were "85%" finished according to Mick right around the time of our very debate over this. Strangely concerning the situation at hand, Mick gave an exact percentage when he was pressured about it by a reporter at the press conference so there was not really any room for any more debate over it (let alone continuing to label and pass me off as an ass over my opinion on the matter before the fruition of it all).  

Now ....when did I throw that in anyones face? Did I even mention this to you or anyone besides one friendly Jabb to Gazza, who of all intent had some credible reasons for his analysis on the situation and was not simply there to argue with me and call me a fool ...as others were.  

Ian

Ian Billen wrote on Jun 27^th, 2008 at 7:48am:

wrote on Jun 26th, 2008 at 11:18pm: "May have" not "may of"! And no, I never said they were done with new music. Read again. _________________________ We were not speaking about recording new material in general. We were speaking of the state of A Bigger Bang at that time and the debate was over if they had an album almost ready at that point (which, at the time we did not even know the name of this album). My argument was they certainly must, and simply had to have an album almost finished based on the time-line they were on, their schedule coming up, and their personal comments. It all was in place in my eyes. You, and many others, stated I was a loon for ever suggesting this notion and were hell bent against that idea. There were threads based on this debate alone. As things turned out they were "85%" finished according to Mick right around the time of our very debate over this. Strangely concerning the situation at hand, Mick gave an exact percentage when he was pressured about it by a reporter at the press conference so there was not really any room for any more debate over it (let alone continuing to label and pass me off as an ass over my opinion on the matter before the fruition of it all).   Now ....when did I throw that in anyones face? Did I even mention this to you or anyone besides one friendly Jabb to Gazza, who of all intent had some credible reasons for his analysis on the situation and was not simply there to argue with me and call me a fool ...as others were.   Ian

Billen. I don't know what you just said as I'm kind of out the loop. But I agree with you 100%.

I'm sure you do!

Maybe they'll open a wig factory.

mojoman wrote on Jun 24^th, 2008 at 11:29pm:

mick still was wondering why bill brought more soul to the band than the black guy that replaced him

You nailed it on the hread bro, or to put it differentely how come Bill and his total lack of musical education was able to come up with such great bass playing and that whatshisname, oh yeah The Munch, rarely comes out of the background "mush".

Anyone who doesn't agree should watch Let's Spend the Night Together and see how Bill essentially holds everything together, arguably Keith was still a great guitar player at the time too. Now they need 5+ guys to do the same thing, sad, sad, sad !

gotdablouse wrote on Jun 27^th, 2008 at 5:19pm:

mojoman wrote on Jun 24th, 2008 at 11:29pm: mick still was wondering why bill brought more soul to the band than the black guy that replaced him You nailed it on the hread bro, or to put it differentely how come Bill and his total lack of musical education was able to come up with such great bass playing and that whatshisname, oh yeah The Munch, rarely comes out of the background "mush". Anyone who doesn't agree should watch Let's Spend the Night Together and see how Bill essentially holds everything together, arguably Keith was still a great guitar player at the time too. Now they need 5+ guys to do the same thing, sad, sad, sad ! _________________________________ Bill indeed had soul (though he did not look or act like it but the proof is in the pudding), and to boot was a credible songwriter. As was once said before, I think he had more influence on the writing process and the Stones songs coming together than some may give credit for on many albums and tracks. Now as for Daryl Jones, Daryl is a very good bassist with a good, thick sound. That is exactly what Daryl Jones is.... A good bassist that can play along with The Stones quite well now, and he has a nice thick, rich, fat sound. Bills bass sound was more .....hmmmm can we say "bompy" and "in place" in the mix where as Daryl's sound is a rich, thick wall covering the entire back ground behind the rest of the band. That is the best way I can decscibe the two's sound. Actually, in terms of a modern style...Daryl may be better suited for The Rolling Stones today as far as a more "updated" Rolling Stones sound goes. Compare She's so Cold vs. Love Is Strong. Each is typical of their individual style and sound and truthfully each is quite good, yet they are totally different in those two typical tracks from each. Neither is "better" per say, just different and each suites the time and direction of the band accordingly. Something to Ponder- Ian

Took me a while to figure out you had replied to my message and not missposted, is something wrong with my browser or is it your quotes ?

Anyway, yes that's pretty accurate, I'd push the comparison a bit further by saying that Darryl fills up the space, and to me annoyingly with that nondescript "fat" sound, while Bill is a melodic player with his "little hands that could" (to paraphrase someone here, MaxJugglar ?). I always thought that Keith and Ron were overrated as bass players, except maybe on Fingerpint File, although that might have been MicK Taylor playing, can't remember now.

gotdablouse wrote on Jun 27^th, 2008 at 6:30pm:

Took me a while to figure out you had replied to my message and not missposted, is something wrong with my browser or is it your quotes ? Anyway, yes that's pretty accurate, I'd push the comparison a bit further by saying that Darryl fills up the space, and to me annoyingly with that nondescript "fat" sound, while Bill is a melodic player with his "little hands that could" (to paraphrase someone here, MaxJugglar ?). I always thought that Keith and Ron were overrated as bass players, except maybe on Fingerpint File, although that might have been MicK Taylor playing, can't remember now.

____________________________


I don't know what it is but by replying with the quote button sometimes produces that result for me.

Maybe it is the YaBB (the open source code the message board uses as it's platform) not interacting correctly with the Mozilla Browser that is the Mac version (being as I was using a Mac at the time)? Still not sure on why that happens to my responses from time to time?

*Actually Mick is the underrated bassist of the group. He's a pretty good bassist when it comes to playing a "funk" arrangement. Just listen to "Sweet Neocon" and "Dangerous Beauty" from A Bigger Bang for a few examples. That is all Mick on Bass supposably.  Impressive for Mick isn't it!  Heck, that's a great sound for anyone. I am sure the production value (Don Was and Kirsh Sharma) had a lot to do with that sound but still, it is most impressive.

You describe Bills and Daryl's sound and playing style pretty well in your own way as well. Thank you.


Ian

Yes, Mick has a similar "little hands that could" playing as Bill in a way, maybe they were exchanging tips !

BTW, there's generally no need to quote the entire message if it's just above yours, just hit reply and type away!

gotdablouse wrote on Jun 27^th, 2008 at 5:19pm:

mojoman wrote on Jun 24th, 2008 at 11:29pm: mick still was wondering why bill brought more soul to the band than the black guy that replaced him You nailed it on the hread bro, or to put it differentely how come Bill and his total lack of musical education was able to come up with such great bass playing and that whatshisname, oh yeah The Munch, rarely comes out of the background "mush". Anyone who doesn't agree should watch Let's Spend the Night Together and see how Bill essentially holds everything together, arguably Keith was still a great guitar player at the time too. Now they need 5+ guys to do the same thing, sad, sad, sad !

It's all Charlie's fault. Maybe he got sick of being upstaged by a mere bass player. ... maybe he figured he could keep the drive alive on his own. Not to judge motives, but Charlie let Bill walk. If he had just put his foot down and said Bill....you ain't leaving....but then again one of the hardest and heartbreaking things to deal with in this world is a prodical son.

TenThousandMotels wrote on Jun 29^th, 2008 at 9:27am:

gotdablouse wrote on Jun 27th, 2008 at 5:19pm: mojoman wrote on Jun 24th, 2008 at 11:29pm: mick still was wondering why bill brought more soul to the band than the black guy that replaced him You nailed it on the hread bro, or to put it differentely how come Bill and his total lack of musical education was able to come up with such great bass playing and that whatshisname, oh yeah The Munch, rarely comes out of the background "mush". Anyone who doesn't agree should watch Let's Spend the Night Together and see how Bill essentially holds everything together, arguably Keith was still a great guitar player at the time too. Now they need 5+ guys to do the same thing, sad, sad, sad ! It's all Charlie's fault. Maybe he got sick of being upstaged by a mere bass player. ... maybe he figured he could keep the drive alive on his own. Not to judge motives, but Charlie let Bill walk. If he had just put his foot down and said Bill....you ain't leaving....but then again one of the hardest and heartbreaking things to deal with in this world is a prodical son.

_______________________________

"It's all Charlie's fault"? If Charlie would of just put his foot down Bill would of stayed?

Sir, lets not just put the blame on the closest dude to it all when he has no control of someones thought processes or feelings towards something.

So that was what 15 years and a hand full of tours and a couple albums ago. Do you think Bill would of just said, OK sure, tour after tour, year after year, city after city, night after night?

You can't force someone to do something that just isn't in their heart anymore. You have to let them do their thing. If they return, well great, if not, you cannot control their inner wants. Charlie knows that. This is why he simply let it go. Bill Wyman did not leave The Rolling Stones  on a whim. It was a heart felt decision.

Charlie understood all that. Keith was pissed. That's just Keith. Do you understand what I mean?


Ian

I think this was a bit of a joke, Ian can you stop quoting the ENTIRE MESSAGE you're replying to if it"s JUST ABOVE, adds no value, on the contrary, it makes the forums hard to read, thanks.

"You can't force someone to do something that just isn't in their heart anymore."

Bull shit. His heart was in it....thats where his heart is. Something else went wrong. Bill pines for the Stones everyday....just read his books, website and blogs. He CRAVES the Stones. That's his baby....his mother,...his father......I'll bet he cries everyday that he ain't "there".

Actually there was ONE problem, his fear of flying, this is an illness, can't do much about it. I wonder if he's taken the plane since, I know he drove to his band's concerts in Europe. He's a realy pussy, a plane carrying Mick and Keith CANNOT crash ! Heck even the Concord didn't crash on them, this is in reference to an about turn the Concord they were flying in had to do on their way from London to NYC once.

TenThousandMotels wrote on Jun 29^th, 2008 at 1:30pm:

"You can't force someone to do something that just isn't in their heart anymore." Bull shit. His heart was in it....thats where his heart is. Something else went wrong. Bill pines for the Stones everyday....just read his books, website and blogs. He CRAVES the Stones. That's his baby....his mother,...his father......I'll bet he cries everyday that he ain't "there".

____________________________

It "was" his baby. He will always be a Rolling Stone. He is just not active anymore with them.

He DID develop a true fear of flying but this was not the only reason he left the band. He does not "CRAVE" being back with The Stones. He has had many opportunities to play with them in Europe if he would of liked. Did he? Did he ever suggest this? He could of made plans and rehearsed or even recorded with them in Europe and did some shows if he made plans for it with The Stones. The Stones are a global thing. He knows that. Wyman did nothing. If he is yearning for a spot on stage again with The Stones as you say he would of surely made a move to it right while they were in his back yard on several occasions. Wyman would surely still have a spot with The Stones if he really wanted to do it. He has not moved an inch towards getting together again with The Stones in fifteen long years.... Doesn't this tell you something?

Ian