In your opinion, whose departure impacted the band the most?

Brian Jones

Mick Taylor

Bill Wyman

If you could rewind the clock, which member would you rather was still in the Stones?

For me, they lost their pop sensibilities when Brian departed, and turned into a more traditional blues/country/rock band. I think with Brian's continued influence they would have followed a more interesting/creative path and wouldn't have ended up the corporate family friendly rock band that they are today.

That's personal. The departure of Mick Taylor because of his great melodic approach, and Bill Wyman because of his great Bass sound. If it wasn't for Brian Jones, the Rolling Stones would probably never have excisted. So in a way he was the biggest loss from a historical point of view.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-10-06 16:22 by TheflyingDutchman.

It's typical that Stu is left out of the 'departure list', again.

Brian Jones was important until 1967, on "Beggar's Banquet" he already did not have an important role anymore. Mick Taylor provided some highlights of their career, but Ronnie Wood brought in some humoristic and energetic elements. Bill Wyman was obviously sick of being in the band, he often said that he disliked songs like "Start me up". So I believe that the departures were part of a natural process.
Bono put it quite well when he said that problem with the Stones is that Mick's and Keith's relationship did not endure. They wrote some songs since 1989, but as an album like "Bridges to Babylon" shows, they hardly worked together.

Quote
paulspendel
It's typical that Stu is left out of the 'departure list', again.

That's because he never wanted to play minor chords. All Joking aside, Stu's Honky Tonk piano contribution fitted their music very well.

Quote
WorriedAboutYou

If you could rewind the clock, which member would you rather was still in the Stones?

Brian for being an multi-instrumentalist.

Bill. They lost their swing and roll when he left.

Well Bob Dylan said it's not really the Rolling Stones without Bill

Ian or Bill. I think Darryl is fantastic though so maybe Ian. I don’t like his replacement as much as Bills...

Bill. I think he quietly regrets leaving and I think the rest of the band still hold it against him for leaving.

Bill.
Not only for his bass skills, but the way he helped shape the bands personality.

The live shows have been their bread & butter for decades, and Brian wasn't around long enough for most of us to get a chance to miss his live playing and presence.

Quote
Munichhilton
Ian or Bill. I think Darryl is fantastic though so maybe Ian. I don’t like his replacement as much as Bills...

??? Ian's replacement? Nicky Hopkins? Ian must have loved his input any time. Or do you mean Chuck? Well, he's not really Ian's replacement, I would say, he's part of the Rolling Stones G3 and G4.

Brian's departure changed the band the most. But certainly not in a negative way. Both Mick Taylor and Ronnie Wood each gave the band a special colour and I love them both. Losing Bill 30 years down the road didn't change any colour so much, but much more a part of the band's originality.

Quote
Rollin92
Bill. I think he quietly regrets leaving

I'll bet he does, especially when his wife and daughters see photos of the other Stones' wives and kids living the life.

If he had their incomes, he wouldn't be selling his beloved collection. He'd be putting it in his own museum, and then getting some giant tax write-off for the whole thing.

When they replaced Brian they basically became a new band, as Mick Taylor once commented. That process had begun even before Brian left.
When they replaced Taylor with Wood it was good for the image, camaraderie and having somebody who would support Keith. But artistically they took a step backward.
Losing Bill hurt their live sound, but he left at the right time, imo.
My feeling is they could have 'replaced' Taylor by bringing in various guitarists every few years to challenge themselves and bring new ideas and methods into the band.

Ian Stewart and Bill Wyman, no contest. They have decent replacements for neither.

jb

I'm not trying to be sarcastic but I would say nobody.

I think Ronnie is born to be a Rolling Stone though, he needs to be in this band and the band needs him to lighten up the mood every now and then
I can't really imagine Brian being a disciplined touring musician had he survived the 60s..

Bill. Obviously losing the others meant a significant change, and not always for the better, but when Bill left the band changed in a fundamental way.

From a technical standpoint Darryl is more than qualified, but since the beginning, the rhythm section has been the core of the band, and having one of its pillars be essentially a session player with no real creative input changes everything.

However well they did or didn't get along at any given moment, Bill was one of the few people left in the business who could address Mick and Keith as a peer. With him gone, there are fewer and fewer people around the Glimmers who aren't just along for the ride.

Thing is, when Bill left they were already done. Brian left them in the middle of their peak (Brian already fading though). The same goes for Taylor. They lost a lyric guitarist when Taylor left.
Which was never replaced. And Brian was more than just a musician. It was he who started the band...

My vote goes to Bill. He and Charlie were quite the formidable rhythm section that anchored the band. When I listen to live Stones during Bill's tenure, I hear an element of swing that I feel is missing since Darryl came on board.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2020-10-06 20:19 by Sighunt.

I do agree though that replacing Bill with Darryl was their worst trade ever. Ronnie adapted quickly to the new situation. And fitted in nicely. Darryl is like a random bassist to me.
They could have used him or 35 other bassists. He will never become an integral part of the Stones sound. I'm sure he's a nice guy though.

Quote
georgie48

Quote
Munichhilton
Ian or Bill. I think Darryl is fantastic though so maybe Ian. I don’t like his replacement as much as Bills...

??? Ian's replacement? Nicky Hopkins? Ian must have loved his input any time. Or do you mean Chuck? Well, he's not really Ian's replacement, I would say, he's part of the Rolling Stones G3 and G4.

Brian's departure changed the band the most. But certainly not in a negative way. Both Mick Taylor and Ronnie Wood each gave the band a special colour and I love them both. Losing Bill 30 years down the road didn't change any colour so much, but much more a part of the band's originality.

I see chuck as Ian’s replacement right in that ‘82 to ‘85 window. Nicky was just there to do what Ian couldn’t and he was faaantaaastic at it

I miss them all

I’m not sure how anyone could think Brian’s departure negatively affected the band when that resulted in what everyone calls the golden age or the creative peak!

That's true, Munich Hilton. As far as I know Brian's contribution was starting to fade already on the Beggars Banquet sessions (the beginning of the 68-72 golden era).
What they lost was the broader perspective though. Brian was a multi-instrumentalist and into world music. They lost that touch with Brian.

Quote
Munichhilton
I’m not sure how anyone could think Brian’s departure negatively affected the band when that resulted in what everyone calls the golden age or the creative peak!

Of which Brian also took part (2 out of 4 albums)

From what the rest of the band says Brian was not able to perform as well as expected.
The band has definitely not been the same since Mick Taylor left.
When Bill left the band pretty much started on their Vegas years.

Ian on the other hand seemed like the glue that held all of them together and I think the lost the biggest step when he left. The music does not have the same tempo and some of the songs like Miss You sound almost anthemic and drag on for way to long. I am not a fan of Chucks like I was of Ian Stewart.

Quote
Stoneage
That's true, Munich Hilton. As far as I know Brian's contribution was starting to fade already on the Beggars Banquet sessions (the beginning of the 68-72 golden era).
What they lost was the broader perspective though. Brian was a multi-instrumentalist and into world music. They lost that touch with Brian.

If I'm not mistaken, Brian is on more tracks on BB than that of Aftermath and BTB. And I have nothing to complain about regarding his playing on BB

The replacements of those significants band members has been handled rather well each time by the remaining Stones. Instead of missing the qualities of the musicians who left they took advantage of what the new guys had to offer; good survival skills.
Rockandroll,
Mops

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Stoneage
That's true, Munich Hilton. As far as I know Brian's contribution was starting to fade already on the Beggars Banquet sessions (the beginning of the 68-72 golden era).
What they lost was the broader perspective though. Brian was a multi-instrumentalist and into world music. They lost that touch with Brian.

If I'm not mistaken, Brian is on more tracks on BB than that of Aftermath and BTB. And I have nothing to complain about regarding his playing on BB

You're right, Dandy. I guess I was confusing the BB sessions with the LIB dito.