It seems to me these are going to be special shows with special guests in November.  Since we know Bill is afraid to fly is it possible we see Wyman at the London shows & Taylor at the New York shows (Perhaps Taylor at both of them)?

If so, this begs the question-If you could only see one of the shows (either London or New York) which would you prefer:

1) London - The Stones reunited with Wyman

:nooslajaleisk

or

2) New York - The Stones reunited with Taylor

:wow

London.

New York will be more expensive and much further away. Simple as that!

Who their guests are makes no real difference to me. It would be nice, but its not a big deal.

Personally speaking, I find it pretty hilarious that Wyman went largely unnoticed and ignored until years after he left yet now he seems to have been transformed by many into the most important cog in the quest to return to the band back to their former greatness, next only to Taylor.

I dont think either of them will be able to wave that magic wand, to be honest.

Brooklyn...For the same reasons Gazza says London.

Free place to stay in NY and I could fly back the next morning in time for class ( depending on dates)

since I can't do either... I would choose London, to se the city, hang with people who talk funny, show of my circumcized penis!!! oh, and see The Stones!!!

Gazza wrote on Aug 30^th, 2012 at 5:15pm:

I dont think either of them will be able to wave that magic wand, to be honest.

The header boy today has more chances  :spooky

London If I could "swing it"
That would be the Best!

London!!!!! :wtf2

It's good to be here, it's good to be anywhere.

(said by a famous guitarist) :interestingstuffronnie

London

So...I would be having a summit of one????

:tongui :tongui :tongui

Paranoid Android wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 6:20pm:

So...I would be having a summit of one???? :tongui :tongui :tongui

I'll gladly pout across the street!

[quote author=Gazza link=1346362784/0#1 date=1346364953]London.

New York will be more expensive and much further away. Simple as that!

Who their guests are makes no real difference to me. It would be nice, but its not a big deal.

Personally speaking, I find it pretty hilarious that Wyman went largely unnoticed and ignored until years after he left yet now he seems to have been transformed by many into the most important cog in the quest to return to the band back to their former greatness, next only to Taylor.

I dont think either of them will be able to wave that magic wand, to be honest.


/quote]


____________________________________________


I completely agree. While Bill was seen as just "Bill" when he was there nobody talked about how good a bassist he was (and he was very good... totally fitting).  Now everyone is screaming he needs to come back in order for The Stones to be great once more... where were all this attitude from folks when Bill was there? Bill Wyman was not ignored, but his skill and sound were not mentioned as much as the others or a whole lot... most of the time his skills were mentioned when Charlie was in the equation. For a persistent back-beat... nobody beat The Stones when it came to a drums and bass combo back in the day. Zeppelin and The Who were truly great... with how those bands style goes...but as far as a more straight up, lock-in groove, nobody was better then Wyman and Watts (and their style swung a little which made you wanna move your body in one way or another to it).


With that said, no dis-credit to Daryl Jones. He's quite good and he .."mildly".. changed a certain aspect of the Stones sound. It is as being part of the back drop of The Stones sound... I will admit... now it is not as bompy and thumpy as Bill but it is a fuller richer sound. Take the bassline in Jumpin Jack Flash versus the bass line in Love is Strong. Both songs have critical, and very good bass lines. Jumpin Jack seems performed better.. but Love is Strong has a deeper, richer sound. It is more an updated Rolling Stones sound... it works. Bill was great for what he did and many kina passed over him when he was around.


Both are quite good bassists. Bill was more "skilled" and versatile but Daryl has a bigger, fuller sound...  Bills bass was more fitting for back then....and right now Daryl added a more updated spin to the under layer of their sound. Still The Stones sound did not really change per se with Daryl .... it's just is a little variation of a aspect of their sound (which also sounds good ... just a little different) which changed. On a few songs the difference is so small and the two sound so similar we often forget (such as I Go Wild... it basically sounds a lot like Bill). Charlie made the right choice in selecting Daryl in being as Bill was leaving. He can fill in for Bill juuuuuuust enough on the older stuff .... but he also brings a little more of an updated tone and sound with his own style with some of their newer stuff after Bill left.


Interesting.



Ian

I can't go to either.  But, if I could, I would go to London, of course.

People talking with a cute accent.  Cars driving on the left side of the road.  And, those potato crisps with vinegar.  (I can't find them here!  They have potato chips with salt and vinegar, but somehow they are not the same.)