Bill wasn't a songwriter or an absolutely vital force in the band....BUT:

I feel that he was part of the band's chemistry as a whole. He was certainly a great bassist. He was the "straight man" to the increasingly cartoonish personalities of Mick and Keith. He was a good, relatable counterpoint to their excesses, while not being as meek or easy going as Charlie. He was possibly the most honest and straight forward member, and while he didn't have much onstage charisma, his droll personality made him stand out in his own way.

I could accept the losses of Brian and Taylor, because each of those guys wrote themselves of the Stones story and it was still the core rhythm section of Bill and Charlie keeping "a solid rhythm down." But when Bill left something was lost. Besides the fact that they failed to properly and officially replace him, I feel Darryl Jones was a horrible session replacement and they became a fouresome rather than the five man band they were before.

Beyond that, after Bill's exit they went full throttle into being a Vegas-esque act and not long after came Blondie Chaplin and all that crap.

Anyone feel Bill's exit made the Stones a little less interesting?

Not at all...to be clear...I never really had an opinion one way or another.

I was fortunate enough to have seen him 4 times in concert with the Stones...

but honestly...I recall telling myself that he needed a good kick in the ass to get a bit more RnR into his stage MO...though his playing on the older stuff is par excellence...
no doubt about that...

i miss bill

BrianRollingJones wrote on Apr 20^th, 2017 at 3:47pm:

Bill wasn't a songwriter or an absolutely vital force in the band....BUT: I feel that he was part of the band's chemistry as a whole. He was certainly a great bassist. He was the "straight man" to the increasingly cartoonish personalities of Mick and Keith. He was a good, relatable counterpoint to their excesses, while not being as meek or easy going as Charlie. He was possibly the most honest and straight forward member, and while he didn't have much onstage charisma, his droll personality made him stand out in his own way. I could accept the losses of Brian and Taylor, because each of those guys wrote themselves of the Stones story and it was still the core rhythm section of Bill and Charlie keeping "a solid rhythm down." But when Bill left something was lost. Besides the fact that they failed to properly and officially replace him, I feel Darryl Jones was a horrible session replacement and they became a fouresome rather than the five man band they were before. Beyond that, after Bill's exit they went full throttle into being a Vegas-esque act and not long after came Blondie Chaplin and all that crap. Anyone feel Bill's exit made the Stones a little less interesting?

Did you ever figure out the issue with iorr.org?

Yes, Daryl was just a hired hand, great Bassist, it was more like a Band when Bill was in it instead of a corporation.

I love Darryl Jones and his playing, and Bill has said some vaguely snide things about him very quietly over the years, but his loss was only truly felt when he left. He was crucial to the sound and Bob Dylan said that the Stones aren't the Stones without him, they are a funk band. I don't necessarily agree, but I get what he is saying. He was vital to the sound.

Heart Of Stone wrote on Apr 21^st, 2017 at 9:04am:

Yes, Daryl was just a hired hand, great Bassist, it was more like a Band when Bill was in it instead of a corporation.

Bill didn't seem to mind cashing the checks.  :boring

Well, we're all on this  website, aren't we?  We must be a little interested, don't you think? 

P.S.  I don't write my eternal love notes to Micky anymore, because it freaks everybody out.  Plus, my boyfriend gets jealous!  But, I still love you Micky!

Does this mean love notes to Charlie wouldn't be appreciated either?  :(

These questions...

Nobody lost interest in the Stones after any of these guys left. They only get more important, more legendary. I remember camping out for tickets in the 90's and it was amazing the amount of fanatics who would sleep on concrete.

Charlie is not meek. That's just crazy talk. It's his band!

I lost some interest after ABB, but got it back on the 2015 tour.  So that's ten years of not caring about new Stones.  Good thing there was no new Stones for a decade.

Former Rolling Stones bassist Bill Wyman, 80, enjoys a rare public outing with wife Suzanne Accosta... one year after prostate cancer diagnosis

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-4434320/Bill-Wyman-wife-make-rare-outing-Chelsea.html#ixzz4f1nwDXgb

BrianRollingJones wrote on Apr 20^th, 2017 at 3:47pm:

Bill wasn't a songwriter or an absolutely vital force in the band....BUT: I feel that he was part of the band's chemistry as a whole. He was certainly a great bassist. He was the "straight man" to the increasingly cartoonish personalities of Mick and Keith. He was a good, relatable counterpoint to their excesses, while not being as meek or easy going as Charlie. He was possibly the most honest and straight forward member, and while he didn't have much onstage charisma, his droll personality made him stand out in his own way. I could accept the losses of Brian and Taylor, because each of those guys wrote themselves of the Stones story and it was still the core rhythm section of Bill and Charlie keeping "a solid rhythm down." But when Bill left something was lost. Besides the fact that they failed to properly and officially replace him, I feel Darryl Jones was a horrible session replacement and they became a fouresome rather than the five man band they were before. Beyond that, after Bill's exit they went full throttle into being a Vegas-esque act and not long after came Blondie Chaplin and all that crap. Anyone feel Bill's exit made the Stones a little less interesting?

I regained my interest in pretty girls with the kiddiyfiddler outta the way.