It seems to be that most people think that the Stones were at their best from 69 - 73 (ish) and that Mick Taylor was the greatest thing since sliced bread for the Stones. So is it most peoples opinion that this was better that the Brian Jones era?

Most of the older fans would proberbly say that the early Stones was the best, personally i like both in different ways, when I went to the concerts in the seventies although Mick Taylor played brilliant Guitar he had no stage presence whatsoever, not like Ronnie has. i never saw Brian jones but wish I'd had the oppertunity now. In 65 we were on holiday (I think in Yarmouth) and the Stones were playing, i was 13 and my brother was 16, he went to see them but i just wasnt interested then, I'm kicking myself now.

I love the Taylor and Jones eras equally - for different reasons.

I just have to say I am sick to death of all the complaints about Taylor's alleged lack of "stage presence". The people who say this obviously care more about some fan magazine mentality version of the group's appearance than about actual music. Boy, I wish instead of those brilliant '69, '72, or '73 concerts we instead had someone running around the stage preening and lighting cigarettes. Beats brilliant playing any day, you bet! (Oh, and I'm really disappointed that Taylor didn't clench his face really tight and close his eyes when he was playing a note really high on the neck. Terrible).

Bill Wyman didn't jump around either, and no one complains about his lack of stage presence.

Quote
71Tele

Bill Wyman didn't jump around either, and no one complains about his lack of stage presence.

Bill did his jumping around in the bedroom with any chick who was willing.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-09-29 04:46 by His Majesty.

@71Tele

I'm agreed with your first point. One thing I want to add is that I'm tired of this endless stories about TAYLOR-WOOD and now JONES.
Everyone here, I think, enjoy the STONES, for all of us they are our passion.
I lived beside the STONES , listenin' to their music since more than 35 years and I still do.
Each guy of the Band; JONES, TAYLOR and WOOD are part of the thing.
Some of us like only the Brian JONES era, I know a few of them, some others the main ones claimed that TAYLOR era was the best one, and some others like the WOOD era for some other reasons.
There are also some people here who like all the eras so who cares ???
We on IORR are mostly 40-50-60 year's old, each of us , try to remain what he like the most. I could get a 60 year old IORRAN who don't listen to the STONES
after the Mick TAYLOR era. I could get a 50 year's old IORRAN who don't listen to the STONES after Tattoo You or Undercover ...
Some younger , like the STONES for some reason like us Old Timers don't get.
Sometimes I'm in a mood for listenin' to the whole 60's albums only and they're still pretty damn good.
Sometimes , I'm listenin' only to the 70's albums with TAYLOR,and also to my favorite bootlegs for which I'm never get tired ( the 69-71-72-73 live shows Where's the 70's one )
Sometimes I have my WOOD mood and i also enjoy it ( The 1981-1982-1989-1990-1994-1995 shows)
Where you miss the point I think writin' : (I quote you)

I just have to say I am sick to death of all the complaints about Taylor's alleged lack of "stage presence". The people who say this obviously care more about some fan magazine mentality version of the group's appearance than about actual music. Boy, I wish instead of those brilliant '69, '72, or '73 concerts we instead had someone running around the stage preening and lighting cigarettes. Beats brilliant playing any day, you bet! (Oh, and I'm really disappointed that Taylor didn't clench his face really tight and close his eyes when he was playing a note really high on the neck. Terrible).
Bill Wyman didn't jump around either, and no one complains about his lack of stage presence.

...is that people like me are bored of this never ending stories.
Yes we got the TAYLORITES point, he was the Virtuoso, but to be a Virtuoso only gather no moss! I mean , that the lack of presence is a thing that every fan notice on stage.
For Bill, we were used to, and it was certainly a matter of jokes, for Brian
it was his drugs abused and his own self-destructive character who drove him in this situation. Most people during the 60's,loved Brian, he was the guy, and now it's easy to say , that he had a lack of presence but at this time, I don't think people believed it.Most of us have known what really happened to him years later...
For Mick TAYLOR, the main trouble is not his lack of presence on stage , because he was so pretty damned good, that people didn't care of that, it's rather his lack of presence overall, in the papers, in the interviews, on the pictures.
He can't help it, but that's a fact, and probably the main thing with him.
His addiction to drugs has nothing to do with that, if he wanted to be in the headlines, he could have done it, but he was on his island.

And sorry folks for my bad english , it should have been better in my native language

HMN



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-09-29 05:12 by Honestman.

I'm sick to death of seeing Mick Taylor being called a virtuoso, he wasn't then and he isn't now!

Honestman: I certainly will agree that the Taylor/Wood thing has gotten old, and especially that we now have a Taylor/Jones thread. I love all three lineups to some extent. Jones and Taylor cannot be compared as guitarists (there is no comparison), but Jones contributed something just as important and equally great - his creativity and virtuosity with different instruments during the Stones' "pop" phase. Taylor was the right person for the job when they went back to a blues-based style, and when they returned to live performance. Wood was great on Some Girls, and to a lesser extent the next two albums, then I would say his playing and importance declined with the band's recording standards and Mick & Keith's songwriting. My personal opinion is that if Ron Wood never played another note with them after 1981 it would have not made one iota of difference to the group's legacy. I saw too many Stones shows after 1981 where he was simply a nonentity, drowned out by Keith and superfluous. Any second guitarist could have been on the stage. We can debate this point, but it's the comments about how he "looks like" a Stone and how well he "fits in" (imagewise) that get me to respond because I think these observations are shallow. And frankly, the many shows I have seen where he was simply out of it do not support the argument that Wood has some kind of great stage presence. I think a drunk wielding a guitar in one of popular music's preeminent all-time acts is frankly embarrassing. Would I rather see someone playing great and "standing there like a statue?" You bet I would!

Quote
His Majesty
I'm sick to death of seeing Mick Taylor being called a virtuoso, he wasn't then and he isn't now!

No, just a great, emotional, lyrical guitarist who helped elevated the work of the Rolling Stones to its finest level on record and onstage. I don't care if he was a "virtuoso" or not. And for the sake of this discussion, I don't care what he did before or after. And I don't care about his drug, confidence, or stage presence problems. We have the records and the films, and we are damn lucky to have them. For five or so years, the songs of Jagger/Richards, and the playing of Mick Taylor fit like hand and glove.

Quote
71Tele
No, just a great, emotional, lyrical guitarist who helped elevated the work of the Rolling Stones to its finest level on record and onstage.

Mick Taylor doesn't play on The Rolling Stones, Aftermath or Beggars Banquet! ><



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-09-29 05:50 by His Majesty.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
71Tele
No, just a great, emotional, lyrical guitarist who helped elevated the work of the Rolling Stones to its finest level on record and onstage.

Mick Taylor doesn't play on The Rolling Stones, Aftermath or Beggars Banquet! ><

Is this a new revelation, Sherlock?

Quote
71Tele

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
71Tele
No, just a great, emotional, lyrical guitarist who helped elevated the work of the Rolling Stones to its finest level on record and onstage.

Mick Taylor doesn't play on The Rolling Stones, Aftermath or Beggars Banquet! ><

Is this a new revelation, Sherlock?

Dear Watson, you said he ''helped elevated the work of the Rolling Stones to its finest level on record...'', but some of their finest records don't feature him.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-09-29 05:57 by His Majesty.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
71Tele

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
71Tele
No, just a great, emotional, lyrical guitarist who helped elevated the work of the Rolling Stones to its finest level on record and onstage.

Mick Taylor doesn't play on The Rolling Stones, Aftermath or Beggars Banquet! ><

Is this a new revelation, Sherlock?

Dear Watson, you said he ''helped elevated the work of the Rolling Stones to its finest level on record...'', but some of their best doesn't feature him.

Yes, and you said "some of their best work doesn't feature him". I never said he is on ALL their best work, so I don't get your point. There is a general consensus that BB through Exile was their finest period, and he is on all but one of those records, and made stellar contributions to the live versions of the songs of the one he was not on (I submit Ya Yas as Exhibit One). Of course you can disagree that this was their finest period, but that's another matter.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-09-29 06:01 by 71Tele.

Quote
71Tele
I never said he is on ALL their best work, so I don't get your point.

''finest level on record...''.

Pretty much says that anything before or after MT wasn't as good which is utter nonsense.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
71Tele
I never said he is on ALL their best work, so I don't get your point.

''finest level on record...''.

Pretty much says that anything before or after MT wasn't as good which is utter nonsense.

Well, certainly after (Some Girls excepted), but you are splitting hairs. They were great, then they reached a peak roughly 68-73 when they got even better. This is not just my opinion, but it's not important you agree with me on that...My larger point is that so much of the enthusiasm for Mr. Wood these, yea, last three decades has very little to do with music, and everything to do with perceived image, likeability, and the idea that the version of the band with Wood is more "fun". I prefer when the Stones were powerful musical artists at the height of their game to the perceived "fun" and sometimes very sloppy (from a guitar point of view) band they became on the 90s.

By the way, did it ever occur to you to ask yourself why the great Ron Wood was not asked to do the overdubs on PMS so recently? After all, he's the one who is the official band member, "fits in" better, has a better haircut, isn't fat, didn't quit, kept the Stones together, is more "fun" etc, etc. I'm just wondering...



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-09-29 06:39 by 71Tele.

Quote
71Tele


You are splitting hairs. They were great, then they reached a peak roughly 68-73 when they got even better. This is not just my opinion, but it's not important you agree with me...

They produced their finest music throughout 1963 till... whenever you think it truly gets crap. Mick Taylor did not make the band better, just different.

There's moments of great inspiration throughout, moments where inspiration seems to have been busy elsewhere too, that goes for any of the line ups.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-09-29 07:06 by His Majesty.

Quote
71Tele


By the way, did it ever occur to you to ask yourself why the great Ron Wood was not asked to do the overdubs on PMS so recently? After all, he's the one who is the official band member, "fits in" better, has a better haircut, isn't fat, didn't quit, kept the Stones together, is more "fun" etc, etc. I'm just wondering...

PMS is horrible, a chopped up time machine frankenstein of a thing, so it doesn't matter who plays on it.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
71Tele


By the way, did it ever occur to you to ask yourself why the great Ron Wood was not asked to do the overdubs on PMS so recently? After all, he's the one who is the official band member, "fits in" better, has a better haircut, isn't fat, didn't quit, kept the Stones together, is more "fun" etc, etc. I'm just wondering...

PMS is horrible, a chopped up time machine frankenstein of a thing, so it doesn't matter who plays on it.

Be that as it may, it has better feel than anything they have released in at least their last five studio albums. And, of course, you evaded my question, which wasn't "what do you think of PMS", but "why do you think Wood was not asked to play on it"?

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
71Tele


You are splitting hairs. They were great, then they reached a peak roughly 68-73 when they got even better. This is not just my opinion, but it's not important you agree with me...

They produced their finest music throughout 1963 till... whenever you think it truly gets crap. Mick Taylor did not make the band better, just different.

There's moments of great inspiration throughout, moments where inspiration seems to have been busy elsewhere too, that goes for any of the line ups.

If what you are trying to say is that all periods of their music are equally good and have equal measures of inspiration and lack thereof, I think you are just plain wrong.

Quote
71Tele


Be that as it may, it has better feel than anything they have released in at least their last five studio albums. And, of course, you evaded my question, which wasn't "what do you think of PMS", but "why do you think Wood was not asked to play on it"?

I frankly don't care why he doesn't play on it. It's horrible!

Quote
71Tele


If what you are trying to say is that all periods of their music are equally good and have equal measures of inspiration and lack thereof, I think you are just plain wrong.

I am saying the so called (general consensus)peaks of the Taylor era aren't better than the peaks of Jones era, they are just different. For me the Taylor era lacks a certain spirit even if the guitar playing is ''better''.

I don't care for the long drawn out Wood era so you don't need to keep bringing him up when conversing with me.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
71Tele

Bill Wyman didn't jump around either, and no one complains about his lack of stage presence.

Bill did his jumping around in the bedroom with any chick who was willing.

Mick says Bill only took photographs of womens legs!

I'm an admitted Brian fan. Seeing footage of the 1964 NME show was what made me a fan back in 1988. He started the group, was a unique talent, was well spoken, and had charasmia on stage.

I like the Mick Taylor era he was a very good guitarist. He wasn't as interesting as Brian on stage but yes he was techincally their best guitarist. Still I think Brian was more inventive and listening to the Degree Of Murder soundtrack is much more arresting then anything I heard of Taylors. Still the Taylor era was good but I also put that down to how good Keith was in the early seventies. Even his singing was pretty spot on then.

Wood doesn't come close to either Jones or Taylor. He's fun to watch through 1982 or so and the music he played then was ok then too. Still as far as raw talent Brian and Mick blow him away. Of course but he also had the misfortune to be in the band (save for maybe three to four years) after their prime. Really after his prime too.

Brian just oooooozed sexual menace ..........



ROCKMAN

Quote
71Tele
Honestman: I certainly will agree that the Taylor/Wood thing has gotten old, and especially that we now have a Taylor/Jones thread. I love all three lineups to some extent. Jones and Taylor cannot be compared as guitarists (there is no comparison), but Jones contributed something just as important and equally great - his creativity and virtuosity with different instruments during the Stones' "pop" phase. Taylor was the right person for the job when they went back to a blues-based style, and when they returned to live performance. Wood was great on Some Girls, and to a lesser extent the next two albums, then I would say his playing and importance declined with the band's recording standards and Mick & Keith's songwriting. My personal opinion is that if Ron Wood never played another note with them after 1981 it would have not made one iota of difference to the group's legacy. I saw too many Stones shows after 1981 where he was simply a nonentity, drowned out by Keith and superfluous. Any second guitarist could have been on the stage. We can debate this point, but it's the comments about how he "looks like" a Stone and how well he "fits in" (imagewise) that get me to respond because I think these observations are shallow. And frankly, the many shows I have seen where he was simply out of it do not support the argument that Wood has some kind of great stage presence. I think a drunk wielding a guitar in one of popular music's preeminent all-time acts is frankly embarrassing. Would I rather see someone playing great and "standing there like a statue?" You bet I would!

Any second guitarist could have played this solo?? IMO, you´re making this debate tabloid with such a statement. Yes, Keith did take over in various phases for Ronnie, but for different reasons. None of them has to do with Ronnie´s abilities as a guitar player. That´s why I find your statement unfair, Tele.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-09-29 11:38 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
71Tele


By the way, did it ever occur to you to ask yourself why the great Ron Wood was not asked to do the overdubs on PMS so recently? After all, he's the one who is the official band member, "fits in" better, has a better haircut, isn't fat, didn't quit, kept the Stones together, is more "fun" etc, etc. I'm just wondering...

PMS is horrible, a chopped up time machine frankenstein of a thing, so it doesn't matter who plays on it.

Be that as it may, it has better feel than anything they have released in at least their last five studio albums. And, of course, you evaded my question, which wasn't "what do you think of PMS", but "why do you think Wood was not asked to play on it"?

Why should Wood have been asked to play? It wouldn´t have been natural at all, imo. This is Exile, and Ron wasn´t in the band...

I´m glad Taylor got to do his licks on a number, though

I wasnt really trying to compere Taylor with wood on this thread, it was about Jones and Taylor. I love the Taylor era but Brian Jones brought an extra level with all the different instruments he could play, i thing jones has been overlooked by quite a few people who enjoy the stones.

Having said all that I still think Ya Ya's without Taylor wouldn't be anything near what it is. I think everything has to move on and the stones have done a great job in keeping themselves together as The Greatest Rock and roll band ( yes I know some of you think this label is overrated) moving on with Wood and now the backing band, although they can still do it as a five piece pub band in my oppinion.

I have to disagree about Taylor's supposed lack of stage presence with the Stones as I think he did have a stong stage presence. He didn't move much but everyone noticed (and still notices) that he had a certain aura about him. Plus his playing speaks volumes and had a very extrovert influence on the music especially live.

When performing for two hours, a musician also needs to perform, imo. Or else, it might get boring, no matter how fine your playing is.

Having said that, I have no trouble enjoying Taylor´s blistering work on stage, even though he was standing like a statue. Don´t know about that stage presence aura you talk about. For me, Taylor´s aura is solely within his music. On stage, he´s not moving.

Only that what is now, is what is.

I don't like to write about things I don't like (that's why I always appear to be so positive),
but if there is one thing I don't like, it's always these comparisons between the different
stages our favorite band went through. In the early 1970s the Stones were the band they
were at that time, with Bobby and Jim on horns, Nicky and Billy on keys, Keith and Taylor
on guitar, Charlie on drums and Bill on bass. I loved that band.
In the 60s they had Stu on keyboards and piano's, Brian on any instrument he could lay
his hands on. I loved that band.
From the middle of the 70s Ronald Wood joined, as many other new sidekicks. I love that band,
because that's the band that is. The band that gets me rocking every once in a while.

I always love the way certain members can't help them selves in dissing Woody. This is a thread about MT and BJ not RW!

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
71Tele

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
71Tele
No, just a great, emotional, lyrical guitarist who helped elevated the work of the Rolling Stones to its finest level on record and onstage.

Mick Taylor doesn't play on The Rolling Stones, Aftermath or Beggars Banquet! ><

Is this a new revelation, Sherlock?

Dear Watson, you said he ''helped elevated the work of the Rolling Stones to its finest level on record...'', but some of their finest records don't feature him.

On the other hand,he doesn't feature on their worst too.

Brian was the first Rolling Stone. MT never really was a Rolling Stone. So, the answer is easy. Brian!