Rolling Stones - Exile on Main St. box set with unreleased songs (Part 2)

[tkl7]

Originally Posted by rstamberg

He said that recently?

In 2006. They haven't been touring since, so there's no reason why he would be talking about them in the recent past.

[wiseblood]

Originally Posted by ajax25

Doesn't cd universe have it for $87.98??

yes. i just pre-ordered and with 2nd day air via UPS i got the package for under $100 (99.98...close enough, right?)

[marcb]

Originally Posted by Gazza63

A Stones ticket pre- No Security was (with a few exceptions) generally on the same level as most other major acts.

My memory is that the Stones always pushed the envelope on ticket pricing. I can remember tickets for their '81 show at JFK Stadium being $16 -- when virtually every other major act was charging $10 or less.

[Jack]

Originally Posted by Gazza63

Bill is not 'still' a member of the band. He didnt sign the Virgin deal in 1991 and officially quit in January 1993. Wood only actually became a full partner when Wyman quit and he effectively replaced him. He was a salaried employee prior to that.

Bill will never tour with them for various reasons, one of which is the fact that he wont fly, and has hardly done so since 1990. Thats why he rarely plays gigs anywhere outside of Northern Europe. Even on his final Stones tour in Europe in summer 1990 he insisted on being driven to gigs all over the continent instead of flying to them.

Bill has no real interest in the Stones' music anymore and has moved on. It takes a lot of balls to walk away from that kind of money, and fair play to the guy for doing so if his heart was no longer in it. Wouldnt surprise me if they invited him as a guest for a show or two, but there's no real chance of him touring with them.

Saw him in Albany, NY a few years ago. Kind of dull.

[wiseblood]

Originally Posted by Gazza63

Considering their extortionate ticket prices, absolutely.

A Stones ticket pre- No Security was (with a few exceptions) generally on the same level as most other major acts. The 'Bridges to Babylon' tour of 97-98 had an average ticket price in the US of $65. The '99 No Security tour (which took place indoors and which had far less overheads) averaged $110. The average price on their last tour was almost $170 - in the US it was higher.

The last tour grossed $550 million in ticket sales alone over about 147 shows. Their total ticket sales in the US in their career is something like $1.75 billion. The nearest 4 acts to that (U2, Springsteen, Celine Dion and Madonna) are all just over or just under $1 billion.

Absolutely.

The 1999 No Security tour pushed the ticket industry to the next level with pricing. I remember the tickets that were being sold near the stage here in the US were going for $250-300. That was in 1999 and FACE VALUE.

Everyone else caught up when they saw that people would shell out money for tickets. It's really disgusting and I hate going to concerts now not only because of the high prices, but that coupled with "limited availability" due to Ticketmaster owning and operating their own resale outlet really F's things up big time.

I would love to see the Stones come down off their current pricing structure, but it ain't gonna happen. No way, even in their current 40% effort/60% "entertain" type shows they put together.

I'm tired of hearing "Bitch" with that miserable arrangement Chuck Leavell put together. When did he last listen to "Sticky Fingers"? Get back to the basics dude.

[Sully]

Originally Posted by Gazza63

Bill is not 'still' a member of the band. He didnt sign the Virgin deal in 1991 and officially quit in January 1993.

I was just looking on the internet but can't seem to find it. See if you can find Bill Wyman's press release. In it I believe Bill states he is quitting recording and touring as a member of the Rolling Stones. I don't recall him stating he is quitting the band. I makes no financial sense for Bill to quit being a member of the Rolling Stones (unless he was subsequently offered a severence package to cut all ties).

[Mike D'Aversa]

Originally Posted by Sully

I was just looking on the internet but can't seem to find it. See if you can find Bill Wyman's press release. In it I believe Bill states he is quitting recording and touring as a member of the Rolling Stones. I don't recall him stating he is quitting the band. I makes no financial sense for Bill to quit being a member of the Rolling Stones (unless he was subsequently offered a severence package to cut all ties).

If you don't tour or record with your band, in what way are you still a member?

[Sean Murdock]

Originally Posted by Sully

It makes no financial sense for Bill to quit being a member of the Rolling Stones (unless he was subsequently offered a severence package to cut all ties).

It similarly doesn't make any financial sense for Mick and Keith to agree to let Bill sit at home while they tour, and collecting a slice of their income.

[surfingelectrode]

Originally Posted by hutlock

Well, I'd been looking forward to this Super Deluxe thing for months and now that the prices and tracklistings have come out, I gotta say I'm gonna have to pass -- just cancelled my pre-order. I'll do what many above are doing -- buy the 2CD, LP (if reviews say it sounds decent, otherwise pass) and the DVD when it shows up later. I'm usually a sucker for big box things, especially with the Stones, but this is just a waste for what they're charging. I'm really disappointed.

If the price drops to around $70 or less for this thing, I might get back in, but otherwise, forget it.

I agree.

[reb]

Originally Posted by Mike D'Aversa

If you don't tour or record with your band, in what way are you still a member?

Just being this side of the grass I guess and collecting the royalties.

[Sully]

Originally Posted by Mike D'Aversa

If you don't tour or record with your band, in what way are you still a member?

I know it sounds silly but a member who no longer tours and records. If Bill truly quit the Rolling Stones, he would not have any say in matters concerning recordings and tour related projects (videos) from 1971-1991 (I am not sure how the Stones manage their 1960's stuff owned by ABKCO). After he is gone, Bill's estate would have no claim of Bill's near 30 year involvement as a member of the Rolling Stones (other than standard royalty issues). I'm sure a lawer can express this better than I can.

Originally Posted by Sean Murdock

It similarly doesn't make any financial sense for Mick and Keith to agree to let Bill sit at home while they tour, and collecting a slice of their income.

True. I don't think Bill would get a dime from post 1991 tours or albums of new material. As far as I know, RS Records (and related post 60's business) was started and owned by Mick, Keith, Bill and Charlie. I can't imagine why Bill would walk away from that ownership just because he no longer wants to tour and record with the Stones anymore.

[sheperdfan]

When Bill decided to leave the band, he was supposedly "bought out". I don't know what it specifically encompassed for him to have been bought out. He was tired of the Mick & Keith show. This came to me from somebody I know who used to work with a record label that did some work with Bill on his Rhythm Kings material.

[Driver 8]

Originally Posted by Mike D'Aversa

If you don't tour or record with your band, in what way are you still a member?

You can be a "retired member," the way Bill Berry is in R.E.M. Buck has actually said, "Bill is still a member of the band, he just doesn't tour or record with us."

On the subject of Taylor rejoining the Stones in any capacity - it will never happen.

[rstamberg]

Originally Posted by Mike D'Aversa

If you don't tour or record with your band, in what way are you still a member?

In a legal way.

Although something tells me Bill Wyman "settled" with the Stones and that's probably why Ronnie finally received a (small, no doubt) cut in 1992.

[rstamberg]

Originally Posted by tkl7

In 2006. They haven't been touring since, so there's no reason why he would be talking about them in the recent past.

So, Bill Wyman only talks about the Stones when they're touring?

[Gazza63]

Originally Posted by Sully

I was just looking on the internet but can't seem to find it. See if you can find Bill Wyman's press release. In it I believe Bill states he is quitting recording and touring as a member of the Rolling Stones. I don't recall him stating he is quitting the band. I makes no financial sense for Bill to quit being a member of the Rolling Stones (unless he was subsequently offered a severence package to cut all ties).

Take a look at the cover of 'Rarities'.

A photo from 1980 in which Bill has been airbrushed out.

That says it all.

he left the band in Jan 1993 and didnt sign the new Virgin contract, so he's no longer a band member.

I'd imagine he got a tidy sum on leaving though and/or still benefits from royalties on the back catalogue, though.


here's some interview around that time : (www.timeisonourside.com)

January 6, 1993: Bill Wyman officially announces he is quitting the Rolling Stones in a British TV
interview.


Bill Wyman (January 1993): Goodbye
I really don't want to do it anymore. I have many special memories. It's been wonderful. But I thought the last two tours with them were the best we have ever done, so I was quite happy to stop after that.

When I joined this band, we thought we would last two or three years with a bit of luck and come out with a few shillings in our pockets. Now, here I am 30 years later, and I haven't done any of the other important things in life.


Keith Richards (2003): Bill leaving
It was a huge surprise when he actually said, I'm going to leave the group. Nobody says that - that's a kind of Spinal Tap line - but I eventually had to accept it. I didn't let him off the hook for ages about it, because we've got this unit and whatever it is we do somehow seems to work well. The idea of taking a slice out of something that only has five elements in it in the first place is difficult. You can't do anything about people dying, but apart from that... Also Bill was my rhythm section. As far as I was concerned he and Charlie were joined at the hip, musically. He had an affinity with Charlie Watts that was quite amazing, and good rhythm sections don't come around that often.

[ponkine]

Originally Posted by Driver 8

You can be a "retired member," the way Bill Berry is in R.E.M. Buck has actually said, "Bill is still a member of the band, he just doesn't tour or record with us."

On the subject of Taylor rejoining the Stones in any capacity - it will never happen.

by the way, I do believe REM never fully recovered from Bill departure until Accelerate to present, but in the meantime REM was going downhill. Pretty amazing they recovered from it!

and for the Stones, I'd love a last album with Mick Taylor, Ron Wood and Keith Richards on guitars!

[Gazza63]

Originally Posted by Sully

I don't think Bill would get a dime from post 1991 tours or albums of new material. As far as I know, RS Records (and related post 60's business) was started and owned by Mick, Keith, Bill and Charlie. I can't imagine why Bill would walk away from that ownership just because he no longer wants to tour and record with the Stones anymore.

Theres no way the Stones are going to pay anyone for work they havent done. Its hard enough to get them to pay people properly for work they DID do. Ask Mick Taylor and Ian McLagan!

As for the comments about Bill saying they should hang it up, I wouldnt read too much into it. Every so often, Bill does an interview to promote some project of his. Naturally, the interviewer isnt that interested in the Rhythm Kings or his photography or his hobby of coin-collecting, so they'll invariably throw in a few questions about the Stones and how many girls he screwed. In true tabloid fashion, thats the stuff that gets printed (often out of context with a sensationalistic headline) in order to sell newspapers and the stuff he wanted to talk about gets relegated to the extent where it barely gets a mention at all.

Quotes along the lines of 'I dont listen to the Stones music anymore' invariably get distorted into stuff along the lines of 'I think they're crap and should retire' by the time theyve filtered through various copied and pasted sources.

[Sully]

Originally Posted by Gazza63

Take a look at the cover of 'Rarities'.

A photo from 1980 in which Bill has been airbrushed out.

That says it all.

he left the band in Jan 1993 and didnt sign the new Virgin contract, so he's no longer a band member.

I'd imagine he got a tidy sum on leaving though and/or still benefits from royalties on the back catalogue, though.


here's some interview around that time : (www.timeisonourside.com)

January 6, 1993: Bill Wyman officially announces he is quitting the Rolling Stones in a British TV
interview.


Bill Wyman (January 1993): Goodbye
I really don't want to do it anymore. I have many special memories. It's been wonderful. But I thought the last two tours with them were the best we have ever done, so I was quite happy to stop after that.

When I joined this band, we thought we would last two or three years with a bit of luck and come out with a few shillings in our pockets. Now, here I am 30 years later, and I haven't done any of the other important things in life.


Keith Richards (2003): Bill leaving
It was a huge surprise when he actually said, I'm going to leave the group. Nobody says that - that's a kind of Spinal Tap line - but I eventually had to accept it. I didn't let him off the hook for ages about it, because we've got this unit and whatever it is we do somehow seems to work well. The idea of taking a slice out of something that only has five elements in it in the first place is difficult. You can't do anything about people dying, but apart from that... Also Bill was my rhythm section. As far as I was concerned he and Charlie were joined at the hip, musically. He had an affinity with Charlie Watts that was quite amazing, and good rhythm sections don't come around that often.

I believe the photo is from 1978 (SG video shoot) and Bill's image was cut off (he was over to the right) not airbrushed out. Not sure what that says other than the cover features Mick, Keith, Charlie and Ron; the current recording and touring version of the Rolling Stones (I would have prefered the whole group shot myself).

Unless he was bought out, it makes no sense he is no longer a band member. Why would Bill walk away from his partial ownership? He worked 30 years to get to where he was in 1993 and I can't imagine he would give that away to Mick and Keith rather than his family. To me, Bill appears too smart for that. Whether or not he currently records or tours as a Stone should have no bearing on Bill's status as member of the Stones. See a few notes above on Bill Berry's similar status with REM.

[surfingelectrode]

Originally Posted by Sully

I believe the photo is from 1978 (SG video shoot) and Bill's image was cut off (he was over to the right) not airbrushed out. Not sure what that says other than the cover features Mick, Keith, Charlie and Ron; the current recording and touring version of the Rolling Stones (I would have prefered the whole group shot myself).

Unless he was bought out, it makes no sense he is no longer a band member. Why would Bill walk away from his partial ownership? He worked 30 years to get to where he was in 1993 and I can't imagine he would give that away to Mick and Keith rather than his family. Bill is too smart for that. Whether or not he currently records or tours as a Stone should have no bearing on Bill's status as member of the Stones. See a few notes above on Bill Berry's similar status with REM.

He was photoshopped out. Bill's bass cable is still there between Mick's guitar and the mic stand.