Tell Me :
Talk
About MT "never really a Rolling Stone": Nonsense.
He´s on Short And Curlies. That´s close
One of the, if not The, most swinging Stones song.
But DP, If You Can't Rock Me doesn't swing, however much you may like it. When IORR was released a friend of mine kept on playing S&C just because it swung so much. He wasn't really a Stones music fan, though he certainly did like it. If You Can't rocks, whereas S&C rolls, to say it in Keith's musical language.
Those are other reasons for the decline, I agree. But Ronnie's adoption of the "Keith's sidekick" role harmed the overall musical quality of the band over the long term, imo. Now, there are those for whom that doesn't matter, and it's all about "attitude", etc., as the many pro-Ronnie posts clearly indicate.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-09-30 01:11 by 71Tele.
In the LONG run the band was doomed to lose some of its musical qualities or its muse. What does this have to do with Ronnie. The Stones had, as pointed out earlier by Mathijs and others, a creative peak with Mr. Wood aboard (Pathe Marconi anyone?).
Lots of people on this board consider a decline to be spotted from Dirty Work and on. At that time, Ronnie had been playing with the Stones for 11 years - almost as long as Jones and Taylor combined...
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-09-29 19:03 by DandelionPowderman.
Pathe Marconi was a nice run, but in no way do I consider it a "peak". The problem I have had with Ronnie for many years is very simple: His playing has not been very consistent or very good, particularly live. He often lacks focus and fluidity. he hacks away at his guitar rather than playing well-thought out or well-executed parts. At times he has been nearly incoherent onstage. At other times he has been upstaged and drowned out through no fault of his own. These are legitimate, specific musical criticisms and observations, not "bashing". As a vocalist and songwriter he is mediocre at best. Same with his "art". Workmanlike and pedestrian. That's just my musical and artistic judgment based on over 30 years of listening and observing. It's ok if you don't agree, but these are fair criticisms based on my love for the band, and my feeling that the band is weaker with him than it was before (with a couple of notable early exceptions). I just do not think his musicianship is up to the standard that had been set by the Rolling Stones (and frankly, I think some of the actual Rolling Stones feel the same way, if you look carefully at their comments). Since my main interest in the group is musical, this is my opinion. That's it. Sorry some of you don't like me saying so.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-09-29 19:15 by 71Tele.
I have said many times that I think Wood was great on Some Girls. Hey Negrita is ok. Dirty Work is a piece of crap. The other songs you mentioned do not rate being listed in the first tier of Stones material from any era. You Got Me Rocking is disposable.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-09-30 01:16 by 71Tele.
What feels like a real Rolling Stone is what sounds like a real Rolling Stone. The records are there as proof.
They do? I'd have thought most people regardless of what their favourite era was would agree that the greatest thing' about the Stones was Mick and Keith's ability to write GREAT songs.
You're making it sound as if any 'era' of the band's career (Jones/Taylor/Wood) is defined solely by who the other guitarist was. Without great songs to begin with, its irrelevant as to how great a musician any of them are or were.
The Stones were a great band when Brian Jones was a member. They were a great band when Mick Taylor was a member and they continued to be a great band when Ronnie Wood replaced him.
If they were great it was because of great material. If they declined, it was also largely due to the relative quality of the material.
There's a continuity there, and the magic is not largely reliant on a few transient individual musicians.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-09-30 04:15 by Gazza.
They were a great band as long as they were writing great songs. That's it. And Gazza said it with his usual great economy and clarity. That the live band stuttered and staggered quite a bit after 1989 especially is still a reality though. Those great songs were played much less consistently. And the individual band members' contribution to that lack of consistency is a legitimate cause for discussion and debate.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Brian Jones V Mick Taylor
Posted by:
KeithNacho
()
Date: September 29, 2010 14:02
Attitude. BJ & RW have it; MT don't.
Brilliant guitar player during the gold era of the RS, but he was just a sessionist; after RS, he has nothing interesting, as much MT's CD that i get, much strong is my opinion.
But i must admitt that his guitar skills are marvellous, and that those records (SF + EOMS + GHS + IORR) were the best
Brilliant guitar player during the gold era of the RS, but he was just a sessionist; after RS, he has nothing interesting, as much MT's CD that i get, much strong is my opinion.
But i must admitt that his guitar skills are marvellous, and that those records (SF + EOMS + GHS + IORR) were the best
Re: Brian Jones V Mick Taylor
Posted by:
jjflash73
()
Date: September 29, 2010 15:45
Without Brian there would of never been a MT in the Stones, or a Stones to begin with. It was his band.
Better question is if Ronnie hadn't joined the Stones where would he be now?
Better question is if Ronnie hadn't joined the Stones where would he be now?
Re: Brian Jones V Mick Taylor
Posted by:
Rutger
()
Date: September 29, 2010 15:59
Taylor was a brilliant lead guitarist, but Jones was more important to the band in lots of ways. He's the original Stone and IMO was always the best partner for Keith.
Re: Brian Jones V Mick Taylor
Posted by:
courtfieldroad
()
Date: September 29, 2010 15:59
Comparing the different "eras" is like comparing apples and oranges, it all comes down to personal taste anyway. The Taylor era is only their "golden" era if you prefer it to the Jones era music etc. There's no right or wrong.
The Stones were evolving with the times in the Taylor era, just as they were in the Jones era. You weren't going to get Exile-style music back in 1965 because no one was making music like that at the time, making the exercise of comparing the two eras even more futile.
But in terms of most meaningful contribution to the sound, image, dynamics of the Stones I'd still give to Brian Jones.
The Stones were evolving with the times in the Taylor era, just as they were in the Jones era. You weren't going to get Exile-style music back in 1965 because no one was making music like that at the time, making the exercise of comparing the two eras even more futile.
But in terms of most meaningful contribution to the sound, image, dynamics of the Stones I'd still give to Brian Jones.
Re: Brian Jones V Mick Taylor
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: September 29, 2010 16:23
Quote
carlostones10
Brian was the first Rolling Stone. MT never really was a Rolling Stone. So, the answer is easy. Brian!
About MT "never really a Rolling Stone": Nonsense.
Re: Brian Jones V Mick Taylor
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 29, 2010 16:23
Quote
AmsterdamnedQuote
His MajestyQuote
71TeleQuote
His MajestyQuote
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.
He´s on Short And Curlies. That´s close
Re: Brian Jones V Mick Taylor
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: September 29, 2010 16:27
Jones era/Taylor era: An embarrassment of riches. They are as different as night and day, and I don't need to pick one over the other. As for the next era, in my opinion the standard went down after a couple of records. But no use in taking on The Ronnie Fan Club anymore here.
Re: Brian Jones V Mick Taylor
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: September 29, 2010 16:45
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
AmsterdamnedQuote
His MajestyQuote
71TeleQuote
His MajestyQuote
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.
He´s on Short And Curlies. That´s close
One of the, if not The, most swinging Stones song.
Re: Brian Jones V Mick Taylor
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 29, 2010 17:01
Short And Curlies? IMO, a classic throwaway. If You Can´t Rock Me, however, is one of the most swinging songs ever. I guess there is something for everyone on IORR the album 
Re: Brian Jones V Mick Taylor
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: September 29, 2010 17:10
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Short And Curlies? IMO, a classic throwaway. If You Can´t Rock Me, however, is one of the most swinging songs ever. I guess there is something for everyone on IORR the album
But DP, If You Can't Rock Me doesn't swing, however much you may like it. When IORR was released a friend of mine kept on playing S&C just because it swung so much. He wasn't really a Stones music fan, though he certainly did like it. If You Can't rocks, whereas S&C rolls, to say it in Keith's musical language.
Re: Brian Jones V Mick Taylor
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 29, 2010 17:12
I don´t think even Keith agrees to that
It´s good that S&C makes you roll, at least
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-09-29 17:12 by DandelionPowderman.
It´s good that S&C makes you roll, at least
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-09-29 17:12 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: Brian Jones V Mick Taylor
Posted by:
ablett
()
Date: September 29, 2010 17:48
"As for the next era, in my opinion the standard went down after a couple of records. But no use in taking on The Ronnie Fan Club anymore here."
Its hardly owt to do with RW surely. More to do with the song writing, running outta steam, ego etc. etc.....
Its hardly owt to do with RW surely. More to do with the song writing, running outta steam, ego etc. etc.....
Re: Brian Jones V Mick Taylor
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: September 29, 2010 18:40
Quote
ablett
"As for the next era, in my opinion the standard went down after a couple of records. But no use in taking on The Ronnie Fan Club anymore here."
Its hardly owt to do with RW surely. More to do with the song writing, running outta steam, ego etc. etc.....
Those are other reasons for the decline, I agree. But Ronnie's adoption of the "Keith's sidekick" role harmed the overall musical quality of the band over the long term, imo. Now, there are those for whom that doesn't matter, and it's all about "attitude", etc., as the many pro-Ronnie posts clearly indicate.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-09-30 01:11 by 71Tele.
Re: Brian Jones V Mick Taylor
Posted by:
ablett
()
Date: September 29, 2010 18:47
But doesn't this always end up some ridiculous RW bashing?
Haven't almost all the band turned into a caricature? Surely the lack of any really great songs is far more important than any one member effecting the output?
Some Girls was a great album cause the Stones had a purpose and worked at it. Look at Wondering Spirit. If the pressure is on then the stones can produce (solo or as a group). It just not down to one musician.....
IMO if Ronnie was actually used far more in the creative process (which has got to be down to a Glimmer Twin ego problem) then better quality albums would have been produced....
Haven't almost all the band turned into a caricature? Surely the lack of any really great songs is far more important than any one member effecting the output?
Some Girls was a great album cause the Stones had a purpose and worked at it. Look at Wondering Spirit. If the pressure is on then the stones can produce (solo or as a group). It just not down to one musician.....
IMO if Ronnie was actually used far more in the creative process (which has got to be down to a Glimmer Twin ego problem) then better quality albums would have been produced....
Re: Brian Jones V Mick Taylor
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 29, 2010 19:02
Quote
71TeleQuote
ablett
"As for the next era, in my opinion the standard went down after a couple of records. But no use in taking on The Ronnie Fan Club anymore here."
Its hardly owt to do with RW surely. More to do with the song writing, running outta steam, ego etc. etc.....
Those are other reasons for the decline, I agree. But Ronnie's adoption of the "Keith's sidekick" roll harmed the overall musical quality of the band over the long term, imo. Now, there are those for whom that doesn't matter, and it's all about "attitude", etc., as the many pro-Ronnie posts clearly indicate.
In the LONG run the band was doomed to lose some of its musical qualities or its muse. What does this have to do with Ronnie. The Stones had, as pointed out earlier by Mathijs and others, a creative peak with Mr. Wood aboard (Pathe Marconi anyone?).
Lots of people on this board consider a decline to be spotted from Dirty Work and on. At that time, Ronnie had been playing with the Stones for 11 years - almost as long as Jones and Taylor combined...
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-09-29 19:03 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: Brian Jones V Mick Taylor
Posted by:
ablett
()
Date: September 29, 2010 19:08
Good point. You can also say that after DW the Stones really weren't a working unit in the traditional band scense?
Re: Brian Jones V Mick Taylor
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 29, 2010 19:10
That´s true. And a far more important reason than who they´re second guitar player was, imo.
Re: Brian Jones V Mick Taylor
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: September 29, 2010 19:13
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
71TeleQuote
ablett
"As for the next era, in my opinion the standard went down after a couple of records. But no use in taking on The Ronnie Fan Club anymore here."
Its hardly owt to do with RW surely. More to do with the song writing, running outta steam, ego etc. etc.....
Those are other reasons for the decline, I agree. But Ronnie's adoption of the "Keith's sidekick" roll harmed the overall musical quality of the band over the long term, imo. Now, there are those for whom that doesn't matter, and it's all about "attitude", etc., as the many pro-Ronnie posts clearly indicate.
In the LONG run the band was doomed to lose some of its musical qualities or its muse. What does this have to do with Ronnie. With Ronnie, as pointed out earlier by Mathijs and others, the band had a creative peak with Mr. Wood aboard (Pathe Marconi anyone?).
Lots of people on this board consider a decline to be spotted from Dirty Work and on. At that time, Ronnie had been playing with the Stones for 11 years - almost as long as Jones and Taylor combined...
Pathe Marconi was a nice run, but in no way do I consider it a "peak". The problem I have had with Ronnie for many years is very simple: His playing has not been very consistent or very good, particularly live. He often lacks focus and fluidity. he hacks away at his guitar rather than playing well-thought out or well-executed parts. At times he has been nearly incoherent onstage. At other times he has been upstaged and drowned out through no fault of his own. These are legitimate, specific musical criticisms and observations, not "bashing". As a vocalist and songwriter he is mediocre at best. Same with his "art". Workmanlike and pedestrian. That's just my musical and artistic judgment based on over 30 years of listening and observing. It's ok if you don't agree, but these are fair criticisms based on my love for the band, and my feeling that the band is weaker with him than it was before (with a couple of notable early exceptions). I just do not think his musicianship is up to the standard that had been set by the Rolling Stones (and frankly, I think some of the actual Rolling Stones feel the same way, if you look carefully at their comments). Since my main interest in the group is musical, this is my opinion. That's it. Sorry some of you don't like me saying so.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-09-29 19:15 by 71Tele.
Re: Brian Jones V Mick Taylor
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 29, 2010 19:29
I can´t discuss your personal aquired taste in music, Tele. That is yours to keep.
However, if you can point out what it is that make songs like Hey Negrita, Beast Of Burden, Down In The Hole, Neighbors, Twenty Flight Rock (live), She Was Hot, Dirty Work, Terrifying, You Got Me Rocking, Already Over Me and Look What The Cat Dragged In so much worse with Wood on board, I would be interested in hearing it.
I like most of those songs, btw - and all of them have good guitar tracks from Ronnie Wood all over them.
AND: The Pathe Marconi boots show a band at its peak, imo. Musically, sonically and as songwriters. And they´re swinging like never before (judging from similar earlier studio boots).
However, if you can point out what it is that make songs like Hey Negrita, Beast Of Burden, Down In The Hole, Neighbors, Twenty Flight Rock (live), She Was Hot, Dirty Work, Terrifying, You Got Me Rocking, Already Over Me and Look What The Cat Dragged In so much worse with Wood on board, I would be interested in hearing it.
I like most of those songs, btw - and all of them have good guitar tracks from Ronnie Wood all over them.
AND: The Pathe Marconi boots show a band at its peak, imo. Musically, sonically and as songwriters. And they´re swinging like never before (judging from similar earlier studio boots).
Re: Brian Jones V Mick Taylor
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: September 29, 2010 20:49
Remembering the Taylor era when it happened, he always seemed rather awkward in the band. The band was always a visual art piece. Bill already had the Buster Keaton stoneface down, and there was something malevolent to read into his strangely pale face. Bill was a good counterweight to the 'prettiness' of Brian, Mick, and Keith. Mick Taylor seemed lost, and it didn't help that his name was Mick and people had to determine which Mick was being written about. It wasn't until the Guy Peellaert IORR cover that we thought of Mick T as being rumpled and corrupted by his Rolling Stones existence. Then he left.
It took forever for people to realize Taylor's musical contribution, which was enormous across their greatest live period and his facility in an era when a higher level of guitar playing was necessary. Brian Jones, on the other hand, is mixed into the cement of the foundation of the band. No Jones, no Stones. Two fantastic eras, two fantastic musicians.
It took forever for people to realize Taylor's musical contribution, which was enormous across their greatest live period and his facility in an era when a higher level of guitar playing was necessary. Brian Jones, on the other hand, is mixed into the cement of the foundation of the band. No Jones, no Stones. Two fantastic eras, two fantastic musicians.
Re: Brian Jones V Mick Taylor
Posted by:
Green Lady
()
Date: September 29, 2010 22:17
It's much easier to make the Taylor/Wood comparison because by the time RW joined the band there were a lot of MT-era songs in the live set that stayed there, and that he had to learn and play. But that isn't the point of this thread. We've been there and had that discussion.
There was another era that has to be taken into account - while Brian was still officially part of the band but wasn't contributing very much to their new music. During that time many new songs got written and their sound and style changed a lot, and one of the reasons for recruiting a new guitarist was that Brian either couldn't or didn't want to learn the new stuff for a tour (even if he had been healthy and permitted to enter the USA). So for the 1969 tour almost all the Brian-era hits disappeared from the setlist to be replaced by newer material and Chuck Berry / blues covers that MT knew already or was happy to learn. Many of them didn't resurface live until the 1990s, and by then the Stones were no longer able to recreate the original sound of those songs - or didn't want to.
The result is that there's not many songs where we've got a straight comparison of BJ / MT (or even BJ / RW) as guitarists. And in any case, comparing them in that way alone is to do Brian Jones a great injustice - he was very much more to the band than just a guitarist, and Mick Taylor never exactly "replaced" him - the shape of the band changed to deal with a Brian-shaped hole that has never really been filled, and to allow instead for new songs and the presence of a brilliant new guitar player - a great new asset but not a substitute for what had been lost. The reshaped band worked incredibly well for a time, but gradually the Stones started to sound more and more like your standard 1970s blues-rock band with an outstanding lead guitarist - instead of the wonderfully diverse outfit they had been in the 60s. And although that sound has changed again since then, it hasn't been such a radical change as the one between 1967 and 1969.
So there's really no standard by which they can be fairly compared - and I for one don't see why we need to. Which you love probably depends on when you first heard them and what your other musical tastes are. I was a 60s teenager, I love the blues and folk and pop and music-hall and even classical influences that turn up alongside the rock & roll in their early work, and apart from the Stones I've never been that much into "classic rock". So if I had to choose at gunpoint, it would be the early stuff.
(but put that gun away - I love Exile too!)
There was another era that has to be taken into account - while Brian was still officially part of the band but wasn't contributing very much to their new music. During that time many new songs got written and their sound and style changed a lot, and one of the reasons for recruiting a new guitarist was that Brian either couldn't or didn't want to learn the new stuff for a tour (even if he had been healthy and permitted to enter the USA). So for the 1969 tour almost all the Brian-era hits disappeared from the setlist to be replaced by newer material and Chuck Berry / blues covers that MT knew already or was happy to learn. Many of them didn't resurface live until the 1990s, and by then the Stones were no longer able to recreate the original sound of those songs - or didn't want to.
The result is that there's not many songs where we've got a straight comparison of BJ / MT (or even BJ / RW) as guitarists. And in any case, comparing them in that way alone is to do Brian Jones a great injustice - he was very much more to the band than just a guitarist, and Mick Taylor never exactly "replaced" him - the shape of the band changed to deal with a Brian-shaped hole that has never really been filled, and to allow instead for new songs and the presence of a brilliant new guitar player - a great new asset but not a substitute for what had been lost. The reshaped band worked incredibly well for a time, but gradually the Stones started to sound more and more like your standard 1970s blues-rock band with an outstanding lead guitarist - instead of the wonderfully diverse outfit they had been in the 60s. And although that sound has changed again since then, it hasn't been such a radical change as the one between 1967 and 1969.
So there's really no standard by which they can be fairly compared - and I for one don't see why we need to. Which you love probably depends on when you first heard them and what your other musical tastes are. I was a 60s teenager, I love the blues and folk and pop and music-hall and even classical influences that turn up alongside the rock & roll in their early work, and apart from the Stones I've never been that much into "classic rock". So if I had to choose at gunpoint, it would be the early stuff.
(but put that gun away - I love Exile too!)
Re: Brian Jones V Mick Taylor
Posted by:
doubledoor
()
Date: September 30, 2010 00:49
Since I love them both, I will give nod to Brian because there are more songs with him to enjoy.
Re: Brian Jones V Mick Taylor
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: September 30, 2010 01:14
Quote
DandelionPowderman
I can´t discuss your personal aquired taste in music, Tele. That is yours to keep.
However, if you can point out what it is that make songs like Hey Negrita, Beast Of Burden, Down In The Hole, Neighbors, Twenty Flight Rock (live), She Was Hot, Dirty Work, Terrifying, You Got Me Rocking, Already Over Me and Look What The Cat Dragged In so much worse with Wood on board, I would be interested in hearing it.
I like most of those songs, btw - and all of them have good guitar tracks from Ronnie Wood all over them.
AND: The Pathe Marconi boots show a band at its peak, imo. Musically, sonically and as songwriters. And they´re swinging like never before (judging from similar earlier studio boots).
I have said many times that I think Wood was great on Some Girls. Hey Negrita is ok. Dirty Work is a piece of crap. The other songs you mentioned do not rate being listed in the first tier of Stones material from any era. You Got Me Rocking is disposable.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-09-30 01:16 by 71Tele.
Re: Brian Jones V Mick Taylor
Posted by:
carlostones10
()
Date: September 30, 2010 02:29
Nonsense is think MT was a true Rolling Stone. He was (and he is) an amazing guitar player and he had a wonderful work with the Stones. But I never saw MT like a real Rolling Stone. MT never feel like a Rolling Stone.Quote
71TeleQuote
carlostones10
Brian was the first Rolling Stone. MT never really was a Rolling Stone. So, the answer is easy. Brian!
About MT "never really a Rolling Stone": Nonsense.
Re: Brian Jones V Mick Taylor
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: September 30, 2010 03:15
Quote
carlostones10Nonsense is think MT was a true Rolling Stone. He was (and he is) an amazing guitar player and he had a wonderful work with the Stones. But I never saw MT like a real Rolling Stone. MT never feel like a Rolling Stone.Quote
71TeleQuote
carlostones10
Brian was the first Rolling Stone. MT never really was a Rolling Stone. So, the answer is easy. Brian!
About MT "never really a Rolling Stone": Nonsense.
What feels like a real Rolling Stone is what sounds like a real Rolling Stone. The records are there as proof.
Re: Brian Jones V Mick Taylor
Posted by:
carlostones10
()
Date: September 30, 2010 04:05
Yes, he was in the pictures and he did amazing solos and riffs. But he wasn´t a Stone. He never really was. Ronnie is much more a Rolling Stone than Mick Taylor was.
But... If you think different. Well, each one think what want. It´s democratic.
But... If you think different. Well, each one think what want. It´s democratic.
Re: Brian Jones V Mick Taylor
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: September 30, 2010 04:11
Quote
pgarof
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.
They do? I'd have thought most people regardless of what their favourite era was would agree that the greatest thing' about the Stones was Mick and Keith's ability to write GREAT songs.
You're making it sound as if any 'era' of the band's career (Jones/Taylor/Wood) is defined solely by who the other guitarist was. Without great songs to begin with, its irrelevant as to how great a musician any of them are or were.
The Stones were a great band when Brian Jones was a member. They were a great band when Mick Taylor was a member and they continued to be a great band when Ronnie Wood replaced him.
If they were great it was because of great material. If they declined, it was also largely due to the relative quality of the material.
There's a continuity there, and the magic is not largely reliant on a few transient individual musicians.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-09-30 04:15 by Gazza.
Re: Brian Jones V Mick Taylor
Posted by:
stonescrow
()
Date: September 30, 2010 04:49
Quote
GazzaQuote
pgarof
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.
Gazza,
Stop stealing my thoughts! You are amazing man!
They do? I'd have thought most people regardless of what their favourite era was would agree that the greatest thing' about the Stones was Mick and Keith's ability to write GREAT songs.
You're making it sound as if any 'era' of the band's career (Jones/Taylor/Wood) is defined solely by who the other guitarist was. Without great songs to begin with, its irrelevant as to how great a musician any of them are or were.
The Stones were a great band when Brian Jones was a member. They were a great band when Mick Taylor was a member and they continued to be a great band when Ronnie Wood replaced him.
If they were great it was because of great material. If they declined, it was also largely due to the relative quality of the material.
There's a continuity there, and the magic is not largely reliant on a few transient individual musicians.
Re: Brian Jones V Mick Taylor
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: September 30, 2010 05:14
Quote
GazzaQuote
pgarof
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.
They do? I'd have thought most people regardless of what their favourite era was would agree that the greatest thing' about the Stones was Mick and Keith's ability to write GREAT songs.
You're making it sound as if any 'era' of the band's career (Jones/Taylor/Wood) is defined solely by who the other guitarist was. Without great songs to begin with, its irrelevant as to how great a musician any of them are or were.
The Stones were a great band when Brian Jones was a member. They were a great band when Mick Taylor was a member and they continued to be a great band when Ronnie Wood replaced him.
If they were great it was because of great material. If they declined, it was also largely due to the relative quality of the material.
There's a continuity there, and the magic is not largely reliant on a few transient individual musicians.
They were a great band as long as they were writing great songs. That's it. And Gazza said it with his usual great economy and clarity. That the live band stuttered and staggered quite a bit after 1989 especially is still a reality though. Those great songs were played much less consistently. And the individual band members' contribution to that lack of consistency is a legitimate cause for discussion and debate.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
5strings , ARB , gnillor , jumpingjackflash5 , marclaff , Martin90 , MichaelLassen , NedKellyBandit , O2 , PaintMonkeyManBlack , Rambler62 , rubyeveryday , steffialicia , StonedRambler , Stoneswolf , tangerinegaz , TheBluesHadaBaby
Guests:
2051
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10