Move Bill Wyman to Chicago...will that help?

November 18th – There’s ego and then there’s EGO.

In the entertainment industry one of the main driving forces is the projection of the self. It’s what gives the money-people sufficient confidence to invest the millions it takes to get an act launched these days; it’s unfortunate that most of this expenditure is self generating. Who would've thought that each and every band member had to have a personal assistant or a personal trainer…what does a personal trainer do exactly? I mean if, as a performer, they need someone constantly around telling them how wonderful they are and whether it would advisable to drink carrot juice or a cup of very weak Lapsang Souchong for breakfast then I’d suggest they’re in the wrong business, in fact I’d go so far as to suggest they’re unsafe to be let out on their own…oh, hang on, OK, I've spotted it…OK, got it.

I've had the dubious pleasure of working with a goodly number of fruit loops whilst being involved both on and back stage. I've had couples who've insisted the whole room be altered round to take advantage of the Feng Shui flowing through the gaff…nothing odd there? There is when it’s the first night of a four-month UK tour and you’re in one of the many, many one-night B&B’s you’ll all be staying in throughout the duration of said tour.

I've had actors refuse to come on stage because prior to performance they've realised the audience could (if they were a) interested enough and b) able to stand on tip-toe without spilling their drink) see said actor through the one patch of clear glass in a half solid-half frosted glass stalls bar door... And this will destroy the magic of the actor’s character.

I've had actors so determined to be last on stage, otherwise their performance will be ruined…ruined, darling, that although they start the whole gig and are set on stage prior to curtain-up, have held the show up for six minutes because one of the other actors, who wasn't on stage for the first ten minutes of the show, had gone back to the dressing room to collect a forgotten prop.

With these and many more tales besides it’s hardly surprising that talent gets short shrift from those who see theatre and performance as it really is; a job of work. Yes, it’s done right, yes, the high level of professionalism we all feel runs throughout the performance time, but it would help things along a great deal if those involved learnt the difference between being on stage and off.

I guess it has to be said, in fairness, that a lot of folk have a lot riding on each gig. The money and time invested, not to mention the work, often turns on a knife-edge of the fickle audience’s reception or the flick of critic’s pen and the show gets a panning; when they’ve invested several hundred thousand quid in what turns from the next best thing into a turkey in one fateful night is not a pleasant thing to experience. The thing is, and here I am using the benefit of hindsight and experience to make me seem perfect in every way (which, indeed, I am) I find it increasingly hard to believe that people who are supposed to be the best in business, and are feted as such by their incessant publicity, can’t spot a show that’s going to hit the skids even before the ink’s dry on the last page of what turns out to be a constantly changing script.

Is it that they ask the wrong people for rehearsal feedback…are afraid to ask in case they are told the truth…is it better to live in ignorance and a cloud of hope? In honesty all they have to do is ask the stage crew their opinion of how it’s going. They’ll get far more useful information than if they talk to the other actors (who are just glad to be in work and will do nothing to jeopardise that) or, even more so, the sycophants and publicity people who hover around said talent, complete with clipboard and inane grin, pandering to their paymaster’s every whim. How many of us, if we were in the position whereby we were dependent on another person being relaxed and happy so they could do their job and we could continue to receive our extravagant wage and perks, how many of us would be prepared to say, with, say, ten days to go to opening night;

Well, in honesty, you’re shit in this part. It does nothing for your present and will do even less for your future. For me, I’d walk and fight the contractual issues through my agent; that’s why he’s paid 10% of everything we earn.

Not gonna happen, is it? What the majority of us would do is ride out the storm after first night but, up ’til then we’d vacillate, procrastinate and if all else fails blame the project’s failure on the loss of those lucky pants that went missing after the dress R/X. These sorts of vanity issues cover all sorts of perceived trespass, real or imagined, on what’s considered by the talent to be their domain, their right; take band names for instance.

When The Chicago Transit Authority first began to get a reputation they were pounced on by none other than the City of Chicago. Now I don’t know about you but I’d be hard pressed to mistake a rock band for a city but legal action was indeed threatened (by the city) and so The Chicago Transit Authority became…Chicago…and apparently all egos were left intact.

The Canadian band, Death From Above (nope, me neither) got into a dispute with DFA (nope, nor them) the Canadian record label and had to add the date 1979 after the band’s name so as to placate the ire of DFA the recording giant (that’s their phrase not mine) and quell any mix-up in the minds of the public and, consequently, any lost sales accruing from that mix-up…? I’d just like to add that I've never heard of Death From Above 1979 or DFA Records either so a fat lot of good the name change did them…either of them….or me…whatever.

Verve is a jazz recording label in the States and so, when Richard Ashcroft formed his band, Verve the US label quickly slapped an injunction on them and threatened legal action. Mr. Ashcroft was quick to respond with a radical band name change and Verve became The Verve; hell, it seems, has no fury like a popular rights owner slighted.

So, given these idiotic spats I was not unsurprised to read that, on this day in 2002 the Rolling Stones bassist, Bill Wyman, sent a cease and desist letter to Bill Wyman, a journalist for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution saying the continued use by Mr. Bill Wyman (journalist) of his name, Mr. Bill Wyman (Rolling Stones bassist) violated Mr. Bill Wyman’s (Rolling Stones bassist) copyright of the name, Bill Wyman (my italics). Confused? You will be.

Thing is Mr. Bill Wyman (Rolling Stones bassist) was christened William George Perks and only took the name Bill Wyman legally when he was 28 (so that'll be in 1964) and then accused Mr. Bill Wyman (journalist) of having the audacity to use the name (Mr. Bill Wyman) that he (Mr. Bill Wyman - journalist) was christened with on his birth in 1961. So, Mr. Bill Wyman 1961 (real name) and Mr. Bill Wyman 1964 (made-up name)…chicken – egg? Now, I don’t know ’bout you but I-spy a precedent here; you?

I believe the threatened law suit fizzled out although I’d really like to think that Mr. Bill Wyman (journalist) told Mr. Bill Wyman (Rolling Stones bassist) to go fuck himself.

All I can say is look out Ms. Jane Wyman…and come to that, Albert Wyman, our paper-boy.