ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board

StickyStones

Rocks Off Regular

Offline

Rocks Off Rules You Bastards

Posts: 301
Gender: male

Should the Stones have quit after Bill left?
Jun 6^th, 2011 at 5:09am

I've never really been a huge fan of any of The Stones work after Bill quit. Some of the material is good, some great, but overall it's hit and miss. Something was lost in their sound when he quit and I don't think Darryl, as good as he may be, clicks anywhere near as well with them as Bill did. Bill may not have been the greatest bassist of all time, but he knew how to take an average track and turn it into something awesome with his bass lines. When they lost Bill, they lost a key ingredient in what made the Stones sound what it was. A part of me feels they probably should've quit after he left.

When he quit, they had released Steel Wheels, a great comeback album which towed a fine balance between staying true to their roots while embracing the musical sounds of the late '80s, and they had just come off their hugely successful and well received Steel Wheels/Urban Jungle tour. Their legacy was intact, they had reached a new peak. They were still in their prime performing wise, and while on one hand it's nice to have them around and together and (hopefully) touring next year, if they had quit in 1993 or so, their reputation as a live act and band would've been frozen in time at that late '80s comeback peak--Not a bad legacy to leave.

If they continue, their legacy might be tarnished as a bunch of geezers who don't really like each other and who milked the Stones name for all the money it's worth until they croaked, and who went from having raw, wild, awesome shows to half hearted, poor shows with elderly men singing about Brown Sugar, and Keith visibly losing his sheen as one of the greatest rhythm guitarists ever. I don't want that to be the Stones' legacy. A part of me doesn't really want to watch their powers decline before my eyes.

Since '89, we've gotten some decent tours, but Keith's playing has gotten increasingly worse the last several go arounds; A Bigger Bang was a kind of generic and half hearted album to me (maybe I need to listen to it again, I dunno), and like I said--ever since Bil left, their sound as a band has been changed somehow. I can't place it. Maybe it's Don Was' production that gives them a different feel, but they've lost their signature Stonesy-ness somehow.

Like I said, there's one part of me which feels they should've quit after Bill resigned, and there's another part that's happy they're still around, so I'm not totally bashing the post 1989 Stones...It's just the post 1989 Stones and the pre 1989 Stones feel like two different bands sometimes.

Voodoo Lounge was a fun album, as was Bridges to Babylon and I'm glad we got them--So I guess that's the best part of them sticking around after he quit. Maybe it's not so much Bill quitting as it was hiring Darryl to replace him, or bringing Don Was on board. I'm not sure exactly what it is, but ever since he left it's been different. Not horrible, not terrible, just different, in a strange way.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jun 6^th, 2011 at 8:28am by Unholy Trinity »

IP Logged

Honky Tonk Man Rocks Off Regular Offline Rocks Off Rules You Bastards Posts: 2,272 London Gender:	Re: Should the Stones have quit after Bill left? Reply #1 - Jun 6^th, 2011 at 5:58am Should they have quit after Bill left? Absolutely not. I wouldn't have got to see them live if they had!
Back to top	IP Logged

Some Guy Rocks Off Regular Offline Posts: 16,085 Atlanta Gender:	Re: Should the Stones have quit after Bill left? Reply #2 - Jun 6^th, 2011 at 6:25am Bill got more ass than a toilet seat.
Back to top	IP Logged

StickyStones

Rocks Off Regular

Offline

Rocks Off Rules You Bastards

Posts: 301
Gender: male

Re: Should the Stones have quit after Bill left?
Reply #3 - Jun 6^th, 2011 at 6:28am

Honky Tonk Man wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 5:58am:

Should they have quit after Bill left? Absolutely not. I wouldn't have got to see them live if they had! Don't suck my cock

Same here, I saw them in '02 at Giant's Stadium (and nearly got killed by a psychopath on the subway on the way home but that's a different story all together!) and like I said--it is nice to have them around still, but at the same time...It just feels like the post '89 band is a different band than the pre '89 band.

It's like a marriage where a divorced couple gets back together after a bitter break up because they're better off financially together than apart. Yeah, they're still together for all intents and purposes, and there's some good to that, but none of the fire, none of the romance, none of the passion that made them what they were is there. It's just a sterile sort of acceptance. And that's the way the Stones post '89 feels. The shows are sterile compared to their '70s and early '80s acts.

I mean hell...I went to see Guns N' Roses in 2002 and 2006, and I've watched videos from their most recent tour last year. Axl Rose will be 50 next year--about the same age the Stones were when they went on the Voodoo Lounge tour--and he has tons more energy than Mick did in '94, as does GN'R as a whole compared to the Stones. Mick's regained his groove in recent years but in their tours from '89-99 he didn't have the ENERGY--It didn't seem like his heart was really in it.

Watching his recent performance at the Grammys really gave me hope in the man. He can move better than most guys half his age. He regained the fire that he lost in the 80s and 90s. He's the old Mick again. So it's not him.

Like I said, something changed around 1989 or around when they brought Don on board or when Bill left. I can't put my finger on it exactly but they've never been the same since. They don't really take risks musically anymore and the live act--On Keith's end, mostly--can get pretty boring.

I've never been a big fan of Ron Wood as many who've seen my threads know, but at this point, he's the only guy holding the band together live. He's only gotten better with time live and really holds Keith up. Mick is still a great performer. Charlie is the same old Charlie that he was years ago. Keith went from being a truly amazing, raw, creative guitarist to being a mere shadow of himself, and he's the main problem live. He can't really play, no where near to the extent that he could even in 1989.

I guess it's just sad to see Keith Richards--a man who was a verifiable guitar God and who wrote some of the greatest riffs of all time--decline so much. The guy is still a legend but he's coming off like a bitter old man, with his autobiography taking unneeded pot shots at Mick for stuff that happened forty years ago, creating a harmful feud.

Why did we have to know that Mick has a tiny todger? Does it really matter in 2011? And barely giving Brian any credit for his major role in the founding and some of the most important years of the band. He just comes off kind of, well, old and bitchy, a hard ass...He's not the shy, laid back fellow of those old '70s interviews. I mean he was always outspoken and blunt in his opinions but he never came off bitter or meanspirited.

Back to top

IP Logged

Some Guy Rocks Off Regular Offline Posts: 16,085 Atlanta Gender:	Re: Should the Stones have quit after Bill left? Reply #4 - Jun 6^th, 2011 at 6:55am great thread!
Back to top	IP Logged

Nellcote Rocks Off Regular Offline So, what's your point? Posts: 2,922 Funifuti	Re: Should the Stones have quit after Bill left? Reply #5 - Jun 6^th, 2011 at 6:55am No. Next question, please.
Back to top	"slide your body, girl, right across the floor..do the Southside Shuffle..."Southside Shuffle-Mighty J Geils Band IP Logged

Gazza

Unholy Trinity Admin

Offline

Rat Bastid "We piss
anywhere, man.."

Posts: 13,231
Belfast, UK
Gender: male

Re: Should the Stones have quit after Bill left?
Reply #6 - Jun 6^th, 2011 at 7:00am

Don Was isn't the problem. Nor is Darryl Jones. If the muse and the desire aren't there anymore, then it's not going to be miraculously resurrected by anyone else. Most artists only have a limited spell of creativity or hunger. The Stones are no different.

To me, the Stones are two bands. The one that ended when Ian Stewart died in 1985, and the one which has existed from 1989 on when Keith basically abdicated control to Mick and Cohl so he could keep the band together. (I'm discounting 1986-88 as effectively they ceased to exist during that period - even Bill German alludes to it in his book, saying that they split in all but name)

The Mk II version of the Stones has been on wind-down mode since early in the last decade. Marked by the decision to do a nostalgia tour (for the first time) in 2002. The ABB tour was basically a Licks Stadium Tour Part II - The Victory Lap. Creatively, they ceased caring a decade ago. Dont agree that they should have quit when Bill left because they still had some creative spark but the last tour showed that they were touring behind a record (which I maintain was a good one) which they clearly didnt believe in. Based on audio evidence, it was their weakest series of shows ever (apart from maybe '76) although I enjoyed the gigs I personally attended (on some nights, they were in fact excellent)

Saying that, whilst they could (and arguably should) have called it a day after the Licks tour, I'm very glad they didnt. Not so much from a musical perspective, but because there's a lot of good friends I would never have met had they packed it in in 2003. Its been a fun ride. I'm not quite ready to get off it yet.

Back to top

IP Logged

Mel Belli Rocks Off Regular Offline Rocks Off Rules You Bastards Posts: 1,298	Re: Should the Stones have quit after Bill left? Reply #7 - Jun 6^th, 2011 at 9:55am They were hit-and-miss before Bill left. But for my (ahem) money, there's been enough quality on record and on stage to justify staying in business, if not "together."
Back to top	fka Sandrew (a proud Rocks Off member since November 2001)&&&&"The Rolling Stones don't want any money ... so I'll keep it." - Melvin Belli, "Gimme Shelter"&&&&"We act so greedy, makes me sick sick sick."&&&& IP Logged

gimmekeef

Rocks Off Regular

Offline

Posts: 5,759
Ontario Canada
Gender: male

Re: Should the Stones have quit after Bill left?
Reply #8 - Jun 6^th, 2011 at 10:49am

course not....if they had this Board wouldnt exist and we would not have all been able to meet and share our fun and gripes!....Everyone has their own feelings about when/if they should quit etc based on personal experience. My own Stones experience started in 63 when I first heard Not Fade Away....then built in intensity until June 15th 1972 when I finalyl saw them live on a hot Saturday in Toronto ( 2 shows that day!)..it's been gradually diminishing since those shows but still would never have wanted to miss any of it warts and all.....

Back to top

"Runnin Like A Cat In A Thunderstorm"

IP Logged

steel driving hammer Ex Member	Re: Should the Stones have quit after Bill left? Reply #9 - Jun 6^th, 2011 at 11:15am Nellcote wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 6:55am: No. Next question, please.
Back to top	IP Logged

sweetcharmedlife Rocks Off Regular Offline Do the horrendous to that if you can Posts: 11,943 San Mateo Gender:	Re: Should the Stones have quit after Bill left? Reply #10 - Jun 6^th, 2011 at 11:59am Nellcote wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 6:55am: No. Next question, please. What he said.
Back to top	I'll shoot it to you straight and look you in the eye So gimme just a minute and I'll tell you why IP Logged

Gazza

Unholy Trinity Admin

Offline

Rat Bastid "We piss
anywhere, man.."

Posts: 13,231
Belfast, UK
Gender: male

Re: Should the Stones have quit after Bill left?
Reply #11 - Jun 6^th, 2011 at 12:08pm

Mel Belli wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 9:55am:

They were hit-and-miss before Bill left.

But for my (ahem) money, there's been enough quality on record and on stage to justify staying in business, if not "together."

Yep.

The Mk II version of the Stones that I described above is still a better band on record and on stage than most bands on the planet.

They just dont do either often enough to convince me that their hearts are really in it to the same degree that they were a couple of decades ago.

Whicj, in all honesty, is pretty understandable.

Back to top

IP Logged

DiamondsDisease

Rocks Off Regular

Offline

I accept you, as I am.

Posts: 24
Holland
Gender: male

Re: Should the Stones have quit after Bill left?
Reply #12 - Jun 6^th, 2011 at 12:13pm

No freaking way, just because we would have missed one of the most interesting records the Stones ever made, called......Bridges to Babylon.
I just love that record! I know a lot of people would love to see Mick and Keith been locked up in the kitchen again and make an old fashion record. I have a feeling they really tried very hard themselves to do that and the result was..A Bigger Bang. I won't denie there are some great songs on it, but I can't listen to it as a one piece thing. With Bridges to Babylon I can...easily still after 14 years I love this record. Ok a lot of people will say it's 2 solo records by Mick and Keith. But if this is the result I'm more than fine with it. Mick showed his version of the Rolling Stones and Keith showed his version too. And both version are probably miles away from eachother but that's what makes this record so interesting. To me it's a record that had guts... I mean I still remember very well I heard Anybody seen My Baby the very first time. I thought what the fuck is this?? Is this Let's Work part 2?? But the song realy grew on me and I still love hearing it. Might as Well Get Juiced, blues meets techno. Wow yeah interesting! You can love it, you can hate it, but the song had the spirit why the Stones got famous from the beginning. Guts!
So the more Mick and Keith hate eachother, the more hope there is for Bridges to Babylon part 2! Bring it on, I can't wait to hear it!

Back to top

I don't like openings, unless shaved well.

IP Logged

mojoman Rocks Off Regular Offline HMERLS Posts: 6,593 joyzee Gender:	Re: Should the Stones have quit after Bill left? Reply #13 - Jun 6^th, 2011 at 1:06pm I MISS BILL....................BUT THE SHOW MUST GO ON!!!
Back to top	IP Logged

patioaintdry Rocks Off Regular Offline the pools in but the patio ain't dry Posts: 144 Gender:	Re: Should the Stones have quit after Bill left? Reply #14 - Jun 6^th, 2011 at 7:10pm Dont post often here, but I'm shocked the thread has gotten this far without mentioning . . . L-e-a-v-e-l-l.
Back to top	IP Logged

stonedinaustralia

Rocks Off Regular

Offline

wake up crackers or we
all through!!

Posts: 859

Re: Should the Stones have quit after Bill left?
Reply #15 - Jun 6^th, 2011 at 7:49pm

patioaintdry wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 7:10pm:

Dont post often here, but I'm shocked the thread has gotten this far without mentioning . . . L-e-a-v-e-l-l.

Yeah I thought Gazza was going to mention him when he said "when Keith basically abdicated control to Mick and Cohl" and so I'm not sure I agree with G. entirely. I agree he (Keith) abdicated control of the band but not so much to Mick. Rather Chuck Leavell was a mutually acceptable middle-man.

Whether or not they should have quit after Bill left is a moot point and whether or not the music subsequently produced is any good is a matter of taste however there's no denying the Stones' sound was fundamentally altered when Daryl Jones replaced Bill Not only the loss of Bill and his being replaced by a Miles Davis alimuni but hiring the Allman Brothers' keyboard player as musical director meant things were never going to be the same again.

Not that there's anything necessarily wrong with Miles Davis or the Allman Brothers .

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jun 6^th, 2011 at 7:50pm by stonedinaustralia »

"you can see it against the girl's crocheted dress"

IP Logged

Paranoid Android Rocks Off Regular Offline The Rocks Off Ladies Rule You Bastards!! Posts: 6,342 Chapel Hill, NC Gender:	Re: Should the Stones have quit after Bill left? Reply #16 - Jun 6^th, 2011 at 8:14pm And forget6 about the last 20 plus years and 20 plus shows? No effin way!!! Bill's departure was a sad moment...but it opened up a whole new chapter in the story of the Stones!!!
Back to top	IP Logged

lavendar Rocks Off Regular Offline Rocks Off Rules You Bastards Posts: 1,075 Buffalo,NY Gender:	Re: Should the Stones have quit after Bill left? Reply #17 - Jun 6^th, 2011 at 9:46pm Shit happens - Life doesn't stop-the Stones kept rollin.....
Back to top	IP Logged

Roostah

Rocks Off Regular

Offline

I've found my bastard
children !!

Posts: 168
Portland, Oregon
Gender: male

Re: Should the Stones have quit after Bill left?
Reply #18 - Jun 7^th, 2011 at 12:23am

stonedinaustralia wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 7:49pm:

patioaintdry wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 7:10pm:

Dont post often here, but I'm shocked the thread has gotten this far without mentioning . . . L-e-a-v-e-l-l.

Yeah I thought Gazza was going to mention him when he said "when Keith basically abdicated control to Mick and Cohl" and so I'm not sure I agree with G. entirely. I agree he (Keith) abdicated control of the band but not so much to Mick. Rather Chuck Leavell was a mutually acceptable middle-man.

Whether or not they should have quit after Bill left is a moot point and whether or not the music subsequently produced is any good is a matter of taste however there's no denying the Stones' sound was fundamentally altered when Daryl Jones replaced Bill Not only the loss of Bill and his being replaced by a Miles Davis alimuni but hiring the Allman Brothers' keyboard player as musical director meant things were never going to be the same again.

Not that there's anything necessarily wrong with Miles Davis or the Allman Brothers .

I understand that Chucky L may have provided some glue to the band, but, he causes me to vomit uncontrollably!
His influence has been responsible for the recent live set lists which in some cases were less than desirable.
i'm confident that he quashed some real treats that could have been included in the last few tours.
Chucky makes me PUKE!
I agree that he has altered the band in a negative way.
I would still attend a live show but not more than one.
Chucky this Bud's for you Kiss my undercover ass

Back to top

If you see my little red rooster won't you pleeze drive 'em home!!

IP Logged

leonid

Rocks Off Regular

Offline

Rocks Off Rules You Bastards

Posts: 534

Re: Should the Stones have quit after Bill left?
Reply #19 - Jun 7^th, 2011 at 2:45am

Roostah wrote on Jun 7^th, 2011 at 12:23am:

I understand that Chucky L may have provided some glue to the band, but, he causes me to vomit uncontrollably!
His influence has been responsible for the recent live set lists which in some cases were less than desirable.
i'm confident that he quashed some real treats that could have been included in the last few tours.
Chucky makes me PUKE!
I agree that he has altered the band in a negative way.
I would still attend a live show but not more than one.
Chucky this Bud's for you Kiss my undercover ass

I'm pretty sure Chuck Leavell is the one who suggested that the Stones play some real gems on the last few tours. If my memory is correct, he recommended to Mick a list of songs such as Sway, Hand Of Fate and Parachute Woman. Say what you will about Chuck, but he has got them to play some great songs that they probably never would have considered playing live on their past few tours.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jun 7^th, 2011 at 2:49am by leonid »

IP Logged

Gazza

Unholy Trinity Admin

Offline

Rat Bastid "We piss
anywhere, man.."

Posts: 13,231
Belfast, UK
Gender: male

Re: Should the Stones have quit after Bill left?
Reply #20 - Jun 7^th, 2011 at 6:13am

stonedinaustralia wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 7:49pm:

patioaintdry wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 7:10pm:

Dont post often here, but I'm shocked the thread has gotten this far without mentioning . . . L-e-a-v-e-l-l.

Yeah I thought Gazza was going to mention him when he said "when Keith basically abdicated control to Mick and Cohl" and so I'm not sure I agree with G. entirely. I agree he (Keith) abdicated control of the band but not so much to Mick. Rather Chuck Leavell was a mutually acceptable middle-man.

Thats because Leavell's influence in the band is pretty much a result of Keith's abdication of responsibility as musical director to begin with. In the end you have a version of the Rolling Stones where on a concert stage, Keith's role is of lesser importance to Mick and Chuck. Up to 1982, it would have been pretty much on the same level as Mick. Off stage, the band's MO has been pretty much run by Mick and Cohl post-1989, with Keith, again, in a lesser role.

I dont blame Chuck at all. He's a hired hand. I actually give him a lot of credit for trying to keep things fresh with good setlist ideas etc. If his increased importance in the band pisses people off, then the buck stops with the four band members themselves. The same applies with any other 'outsiders', be it Cohl, Was, etc.

Back to top

IP Logged

Gazza

Unholy Trinity Admin

Offline

Rat Bastid "We piss
anywhere, man.."

Posts: 13,231
Belfast, UK
Gender: male

Re: Should the Stones have quit after Bill left?
Reply #21 - Jun 7^th, 2011 at 6:19am

Roostah wrote on Jun 7^th, 2011 at 12:23am:

His influence has been responsible for the recent live set lists which in some cases were less than desirable.
i'm confident that he quashed some real treats that could have been included in the last few tours.

Not the case. He's on public record as saying that he pitches left-field ideas to Jagger all the time, and that Mick is rarely interested in taking chances anymore. Only one ballad per show, next to no non-warhorses from the Brian Jones era, stuff like that. Keith's excuse is that while he'd like to mix things up more, he's happy to defer the final say to Mick, as he's the one who has to sing 'em.

Blame the 'greatest performer in the world' for lack of challenging setlists, because it appears he doesnt have the confidence in keeping the attention of the sort of corporate blow-ins who make up a Stones audience in the 21st century.

If anything, if it wasnt for Leavell we'd have got next to nothing other than disc 2 of '40 Licks' on the last tour.

Back to top

IP Logged

stonedinaustralia

Rocks Off Regular

Offline

wake up crackers or we
all through!!

Posts: 859

Re: Should the Stones have quit after Bill left?
Reply #22 - Jun 7^th, 2011 at 7:50am

Gazza wrote on Jun 7^th, 2011 at 6:13am:

I dont blame Chuck at all. He's a hired hand. I actually give him a lot of credit for trying to keep things fresh with good setlist ideas etc. If his increased importance in the band pisses people off, then the buck stops with the four band members themselves. The same applies with any other 'outsiders', be it Cohl, Was, etc.

well i don't blame chuck either it's just the way things go and more power to him...if i was in his shoes i'd do the same thing too

you're right about where the buck stops (imho)

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jun 7^th, 2011 at 8:05am by stonedinaustralia »

"you can see it against the girl's crocheted dress"

IP Logged

DiamondsDisease Rocks Off Regular Offline I accept you, as I am. Posts: 24 Holland Gender:	Re: Should the Stones have quit after Bill left? Reply #23 - Jun 7^th, 2011 at 11:19am That's another reason Bridges to Babylon is such a great record. Chuck is not on it! Stones!!!!, go Chuckless!!
Back to top	I don't like openings, unless shaved well. IP Logged

Some Guy Rocks Off Regular Offline Posts: 16,085 Atlanta Gender:	Re: Should the Stones have quit after Bill left? Reply #24 - Jun 7^th, 2011 at 11:44am Bill should not have left.
Back to top	IP Logged