Rolling Stones warm up gig

[dadagoboi]

Thanks for the edit, Dave.  That clip is from "Charlie is My Darling" which is being rereleased in its entirety.

[patman]

good clip...tight band...

Still like Darryl Jones better...but then maybe that's why I'm an aging mediocre bassist playing in a geezer band in Cincinnati...and probably will die one. I think Darryl (and Chuck on piano) add musical knowledge and depth that they never had in the "old days".  This is just my opinion. Darryl plays real good time. I wish I played that well.  So be it.

[Dave W]

Darryl Jones is an excellent player, I just don't think his style fits what the Stones are about. Or used to be about.

[uwe]

Jones can play circles around Wyman technically. And he has good, pushing forward groove where Wyman lagged behind. And that is precisely the issue, the Stones we never driven by the rhythm section, but by Charlie and Keith, Wyman was somewhere out there playing his forlorn lines. Which had all the charm. Now they have a bassist pulsing the band along and, so that Jones doesn't overshadow, they mix him Bill Wyman'esque deep which doesn't fit his forward playing style at all IMHO. The bass on the newer Stones album is mixed to be inconspicious, but the way it is played demands attention (with Wyman, you had to "look for" his bass runs and focus on them to notice what hes was doing). The Stones sound more conventional. smoother, fuller and, consequently, less idiosyncratic for it.

But then Wyman chose to leave. And could be back in a heartbeat I suppose. It's not like he couldn't afford fear of flying treatment and the way the Stones travel as rock royalty is probably not the "endless stream of magazines and cigarettes" Paul Simon once wrote about.

[patman]

I listened to "Stripped" a live album from somewhere in the Netherlands, on the way into work.  Uwe's insightful analysis is spot on.  What I never understood was why they never let Darryl and Chuck become  musically integral parts of the band, and never let the band "morph" into something newer and better (different), rather than just playing the same old hits with a killer session bassist and pianist.

[dadagoboi]

...What I never understood was why they never let Darryl and Chuck become  musically integral parts of the band, and never let the band "morph" into something newer and better (different), rather than just playing the same old hits with a killer session bassist and pianist.

Maybe because their average age is around 68 1/2 and they're doing exactly what they want.  Which is pretty much what they've done their entire careers.     

[nofi]

chuck owns a tree farm in georgia and tours with the stones when needed. a sweet set up, imo

[Dave W]

Maybe because their average age is around 68 1/2 and they're doing exactly what they want.  Which is pretty much what they've done their entire careers.     

^ ^ ^ This.

No reason why they couldn't, it's just not what they do.

.... The bass on the newer Stones album is mixed to be inconspicious, but the way it is played demands attention (with Wyman, you had to "look for" his bass runs and focus on them to notice what hes was doing). The Stones sound more conventional. smoother, fuller and, consequently, less idiosyncratic for it.
...

I never had look for Wyman's bass runs. Maybe I hear it differently than you do. Agreed that with Jones the sound is more conventional; too conventional to me. YMMV.

[Big_Stu]

I listened to "Stripped" a live album from somewhere in the Netherlands, on the way into work.

I'd read that most of it was from a Tokyo gig; and some London - is that wrong? Not that it matters, "Stripped" is by far my fave live album of theirs, I can't remember the number of times I looped "Not Fade Away" when I first heard it.

Fully agree with all Dave W's thoughts on Darryl & Chuck - well - it's clearer than just typing "+1".

[gweimer]

And that is precisely the issue, the Stones we never driven by the rhythm section, but by Charlie and Keith, Wyman was somewhere out there playing his forlorn lines.

At last, someone I can agree with!  I've never been big on Wyman, but I do like the Mick Taylor years best of all.  And everyone's apparent perennial favorite, "Sympathy For The Devil" grates my ears in a most unpleasant way.  I'll listen to just about anything before that.

[Dave W]

.... And everyone's apparent perennial favorite, "Sympathy For The Devil" grates my ears in a most unpleasant way.  I'll listen to just about anything before that.

Keith played bass on that track. It's certainly not my favorite, it would be near the bottom of my list of early Stones songs.

[dadagoboi]

the Stones we never driven by the rhythm section, but by Charlie and Keith, Wyman was somewhere out there playing his forlorn lines.

Really?
</param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nYYTLJ8YHi4?version=3&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

[dadagoboi]

More forlorn Wyman

[uwe]

Really. He's forlorn and not driving on both tracks. And behind the beat on Under my Thumb. But that's not a criticism (I could have said "playing introvertly to himself" rather than "forlorn" if the term irks you), it's part of why the Stones sounded the way they do.All credit to Wyman for contributing to that.

If you want to hear a driving bass then listen to Glover's intro on Smoke on the Water. Or this here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asGnvndoeKI&feature=related

That is just not how Wyman would or even could play, he doesn't pulse, he plays along (nicely, I like the guy's playing). He has other strengths (choice of where to play and where not to play). The most driving bass line he has done is possibly on Live with Me though that might have been someone else, it's a little edgy and hypheractive so it might have been Keith.

[Big_Stu]

That is just not how Wyman would or even could play

I would dearly love to know your source for that sweeping statement.