Quote
Cooltoplady

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

Bobby? We all miss Bobby. But Karl hasn't missed a beat. It hasn't effected the band at all. Karl has brought some life into the horn section.

Yes I brought up the interview quote because I know it isn't fair to Karl to even say that but I guess I was sentimental about Bobby because I remember how he stood out to me even back when they still had the bigger horn section with trombone and so on

I'm also sentimental about Lisa Fischer but I got into the things she did lately so that's good



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-10-08 19:46 by Nikkei.

Quote
Cooltoplady

Quote
DandelionPowderman


That's an easy one! No

In my case,yes.

Each to their own. I miss them all

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Cooltoplady

Quote
DandelionPowderman


That's an easy one! No

In my case,yes.

Each to their own. I miss them all

Wet eyes ... it must be the sign of deep appreciation and humble greatfulness ...
knowing and being part of this great band longer than anyone, who's (alive) part of my life (not mentioning my 97 years old Japanese mother-in-law).

Consider Marianne Faithfull. She had a big influence on their songwriting and style at a critical period.

Meredith Hunter

Brian. His departure drove home the fact that the Glimmer Twins were the Rolling Stones. If he'd stayed engaged musically the original Rolling Stones would have taken it to a whole other level. Bill's departure drove the final nail in the coffin.

I think Bill Wyman, definitely the one I miss the most.

MT.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

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.

Mick is not in "the real core"?

I'm sorry. I should have inserted the real INSTRUMENTAL core of the Stones. Obviously Mick Jagger has become increasingly more important as a musician over the years. He's a crappy bass player, though, so I guess it ain't that easy. The Brian spot, or the 'wing' guitar, has always been a wild card, and three different players of wildly different talents have filled it. One can't imagine the early blues, and on into psychedelia without Brian. Or the harder rock era without Mick T., and the funkier times without Ron Wood.

From a musical standpoint it has to be Bill for me.

His timing and choice of notes was a huge part of a unique groove with Keith and Charlie ... It wasn't lost when he left , but it was compromised.

Brian's influence diminished greatly after the first couple of years, despite his undoubted accomplishments as a musician.

As for MT , in the wider scheme of things, as "the other guitar player", he was just a different topping on the Pizza from Brian or Ronnie ...and we each have our favourite flavours.

Quote
bleedingman
Brian. If he'd stayed engaged musically the original Rolling Stones would have taken it to a whole other level.

I don't agree. I think his musical ideas were very much rooted in their times = the 60's. While, between 68-72 Mick and Keef basically invented a form of rock that's still relevant today.

Therefore I don't think Brian's ideas would have been taken to another level, they would have clashed with what Mick and Keef wanted to do during the "modern" era (starting with JJF).

Imho the logical consequence is Brian would have split from the band he created and become a cult (= a bit overrated?) musical figure working with the cult artist du jour (Nico, Nick Drake, Robert Wyatt etc etc?) and selling a marginal amount of records.

Imho the logical consequence is Brian would have split from the band he created and become a cult (= a bit overrated?) musical figure working with the cult artist du jour (Nico, Nick Drake, Robert Wyatt etc etc?) and selling a marginal amount of records.[/quote]

God knows what he would have done. He wasn't a standout guitarist, which is what the scene was calling for in the late 60s, early 70s. He wasn't a songwriter. He wasn't a singer. For him to be successful would have required a maturity and discipline I'm not sure he was ready for. Which is a shame. He had unique, ethereal talents that were unlike anyone else. Maybe he just wasn't meant to live beyond the 60s.

Quote
dcba

Quote
bleedingman
Brian. If he'd stayed engaged musically the original Rolling Stones would have taken it to a whole other level.

I don't agree. I think his musical ideas were very much rooted in their times = the 60's. While, between 68-72 Mick and Keef basically invented a form of rock that's still relevant today.

Therefore I don't think Brian's ideas would have been taken to another level, they would have clashed with what Mick and Keef wanted to do during the "modern" era (starting with JJF).

Imho the logical consequence is Brian would have split from the band he created and become a cult (= a bit overrated?) musical figure working with the cult artist du jour (Nico, Nick Drake, Robert Wyatt etc etc?) and selling a marginal amount of records.

Brian said he was quite fond of JJF. Unfortunately he was arrested yet again and his decline was exacerbated. In the NME Awards clip, he seemed very enthusiastic. (Stones at 4:11). Alas, we'll never know.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-10-09 20:23 by bleedingman.

Bill. It's a rhythm based band. So a change in the core rhythm section is bound to have the biggest impact.

Bill.

Bill.

In terms of live on stage - Bobby for me is the most missed!! Karl/Tim just ain't got it on those dirty 70's tracks like Bobby did! Bitch/Knocking etc just miss so much without Bobby as he owns those song IMHO.

RIP Big guy!

Cheers
Richard - In Another Land

The majority is right. It's Bill. The other's replacements all kept the core intact while adding something new. More or less. When Bill left he took half of the rhythm section with him.
Never to be replaced. Luckily he left rather late, around 1993. When all (well, almost) was said and done, really.

Quote
schillid
Meredith Hunter

Ignorant stupid remark

Quote
Stoneage
The majority is right. It's Bill. The other's replacements all kept the core intact while adding something new. More or less. When Bill left he took half of the rhythm section with him.
Never to be replaced. Luckily he left rather late, around 1993. When all (well, almost) was said and done, really.

That's sort of the dilemma...yes he's missed LIVE in concert, but most of the songs they've recorded since then have sucked, and doubtful Bill could have done anything much to change or save them.
Would his bass have really made a difference on Streets of Love, Sweet Neocon, or Infamy to make them better than the crap they are? Maybe a little bit, but nothing that could salvage them from the trash heap imo.
And LIVE, they already went in the "Vegas" direction...his brief appearance in 2012 showed he didn't change/add much to what they'd already become. Sad he only played on two songs, but his heart wasn't in it anyways.
I know he's way better than Darryl as Rolling Stone, but by the time he left that true definition of "Rolling Stones" was already a thing of the past. In contrast, the effect of Mick Taylors departure was much more drastic.
Going from the greatest live rock and roll band in the world at their peak, to a ramshackle band without much direction; including an inferior guitar player in Ronnie whose main focus was on partying wildly than contributing musically...well the way I see it, the negative affect was quite pronounced no matter how you look at it.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-10-12 02:17 by Hairball.

Brian Jones’ departure didn’t have a negative impact. His dismissal coincided with Jagger and Richards’ peak of artistic creativity. In the months subsequent to his untimely demise, they finished recording Let it Bleed and embarked on a very successful U.S. tour. They’d entered a new chapter of creativity and relevance. If anything, one could argue that Taylor’s departure was more immediately negative. I don’t know the full backstory - who really does? - but his resignation must’ve caused a headache, for certain. So, it wasn’t negative in the long term, but it must’ve been a frustrating turn of events.

Mick Taylor!

Quote
steenhorst
Mick Taylor!

In the short term, most definitely.

hmmm.. Bill ‘quietly regrets leaving’ ? I’d bet he has zero regrets. He wanted to quit earlier than he did.. he was almost ready to join Stephen Still’s band..
now he can do whatever and he certainly does.

Stu actually never departured and was a part of the band till the end. I would say that the WWIII between Keith and Mick caused the most negative affectivity on the band.

Quote
Taylor1
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.

?????

Let It Bleed. I rest my case.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-10-13 22:54 by ryanpow.

Quote
24FPS

Quote
DandelionPowderman

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.

Mick is not in "the real core"?

I'm sorry. I should have inserted the real INSTRUMENTAL core of the Stones. Obviously Mick Jagger has become increasingly more important as a musician over the years. He's a crappy bass player, though, so I guess it ain't that easy. The Brian spot, or the 'wing' guitar, has always been a wild card, and three different players of wildly different talents have filled it. One can't imagine the early blues, and on into psychedelia without Brian. Or the harder rock era without Mick T., and the funkier times without Ron Wood.

Mick is the real instrumental core in my opinion. Keep in mind that lots of what they play is his vision. Besides that, you can not imagine the Stones without his harp. It might not sound in every song but just like Bobby Keys sax, it's just prominent.

Quote
Mariuna
I would say that the WWIII between Keith and Mick caused the most negative affectivity on the band

You have a point there, Mariuana. It gave us Dirty Work and kept them seven years off the stage.

the war between mick and keith did prevent them from touring for 7 years and produced dirtywork but in the long run it benefited the band as they did get their act together and reinvented the new era which most call the vegas era.

I'd pick Stu. I don't think Keith was bsing when he wrote that it was (in a sense) Stu's band. His departure was at the very end of the time the Stones were a working rock band. After he left, it became the Vegas era.

While correlation doesn't prove causation, he seems to have been an essential part of the glue that held the band together. His musical contributions were not as central as the others. But it hasn't been the same since.