For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
With all due respect to Stu , he is the least important of any of them .He barely played on their albums.What he played was mostly inconsequential.Hopkins was the greater lossQuote
bobo
Bill = yes
Stu = yes
Brian = no
Mick T = not at all
Quote
Taylor1With all due respect to Stu , he is the least important of any of them .He barely played on their albums.What he played was mostly inconsequential.Hopkins was the greater lossQuote
bobo
Bill = yes
Stu = yes
Brian = no
Mick T = not at all
Quote
24FPS
Wyman, for the chemistry alone. The real core of the Stones is Keith, Charlie and Bill. You remove one leg from that three legged stool and it's not the same. Bill could improve a song, envelop the sound and give it form. Darryl has nothing personal about his playing. You could hear humor in Bill's playing, like the rubbery notes on She's So Cold. Darryl simply fills a hole.
People underestimate Bill as a musician. He could also play keyboards, and marimbas and steel drum. His sensitivity was a bit overwhelmed by Brian's, but it became more apparent once Brian was gone.
Name the songs he played on live? Name the songs he played on the albums? Maybe5percentof their songs from1963 to1982? And with few exceptions they are not memorable or crucial to the song like Nicky on Sympathy,She’s a Rainbow or Billy on Shine a Light.Agreat guy,early member and integral inner member.But his musical contributions are minor.Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Taylor1With all due respect to Stu , he is the least important of any of them .He barely played on their albums.What he played was mostly inconsequential.Hopkins was the greater lossQuote
bobo
Bill = yes
Stu = yes
Brian = no
Mick T = not at all
This is incorrect.
Quote
Taylor1
But his musical contributions are minor.
Quote
Virgin Priest
Since then, the Stones on stage seem to be an army squad after heavy losses with some young unexperiences replacements.
Priest
Quote
WorriedAboutYou
In your opinion, whose departure impacted the band the most?
If you could rewind the clock, which member would you rather was still in the Stones?
Quote
Munichhilton
Ian or Bill. I think Darryl is fantastic though so maybe Ian. I don’t like his replacement as much as Bills...
Quote
Taylor1Name the songs he played on live? Name the songs he played on the albums? Maybe5percentof their songs from1963 to1982? And with few exceptions they are not memorable or crucial to the song like Nicky on Sympathy,She’s a Rainbow or Billy on Shine a Light.Agreat guy,early member and integral inner member.But his musical contributions are minor.Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Taylor1With all due respect to Stu , he is the least important of any of them .He barely played on their albums.What he played was mostly inconsequential.Hopkins was the greater lossQuote
bobo
Bill = yes
Stu = yes
Brian = no
Mick T = not at all
This is incorrect.
Quote
WorriedAboutYou
Very interesting to read so many replies about Bill, not that I disagree, just that I expected more of a vote for Taylor.
The worst thing about Taylor leaving was his replacement, Wood just bought nothing (or wasn't allowed to) to the band sonically and his playing was compromised - not that I dislike Wood - he was a phenomenal player in the Faces but his style is completely different in the Stones, I really miss that sound and tone he had in the Faces. In the Stones it's difficult to hear him at all.
Quote
stone4ever
It's obvious whose departure effected the band the most, if you can't work that one out you can't work anything out.
Ronnie was, and is incapable of filling Taylors shoes, the thought that what might have been had Taylor been talked into staying never leaves, it's music's loss, because the Stones with Taylor are beyond comparison to any band, including one with dear old Ronnie.
They just complimented each other so well, Jagged wrote his best stuff with Taylor, Keith grew as a writer and player, the rhythm section was incredible, they were just the perfect band until Taylor left and who knows what heights they might have reached had he stayed.
Quote
georgie48
D*mn it DandelionPowderman ... (),
Just adding these four, not even by far the greatest, songs, covering a wide range of albums, and make me listen to them during 10/15 minutes, makes me once more aware what a magnificant band the Rolling Stones are. Timeless with Flight 505, nasty with Sweet Virginia, sneaky with Short & Curlies and caring with Let it Bleed ...
To me it's not about having left the band and leaving a worse band behind.
All, Brian, Ian, Mick T and Bill left behind this magical "bit" of contribution that made the band into this timesless juwel. Time changes, so do we and so does the band, but the magic is still there ... Living In A Ghost Town
Quote
Nikkei
I would say Bobby Keys but that would sort of trash the latest iteration as Mick once put it when asked about Ronnie
Quote
RedhotcarpetQuote
stone4ever
It's obvious whose departure effected the band the most, if you can't work that one out you can't work anything out.
Ronnie was, and is incapable of filling Taylors shoes, the thought of what might have been had Taylor been talked into staying never leaves, it's music's loss, because the Stones with Taylor are beyond comparison to any band, including one with dear old Ronnie.
They just complimented each other so well, Jagged wrote his best stuff with Taylor, Keith grew as a writer and player, the rhythm section was incredible, they were just the perfect band until Taylor left and who knows what heights they might have reached had he stayed.
Amen.
Quote
DandelionPowderman
That's an easy one! No