The recent discussion about Rory made me think about something I once heard about Steve Marriott being considered after MT left. Was this ever given ANY serious consideration. Of course he was a little dude even by Stone's standard but damn that boy could sing and play. He could have provided all the b/u vocals Jagger ever required on stage. I think he wouldnt have been that different from the Wood/Richards sound guitar wise (using Humble Pie's balls to the wall rock n roll and bluesy sound as reference) but of course he may have created a monster with Keith in the pharmacy department but still..do you think he could have accepted the sideman position??

I don't think it's a good move to hire a singer/guitarist that has a great distinctive voice when there is already a singer who is not giving his position up.

I think only Paul McCartny was not considered a replacement for Taylor by the press in 1974. And maybe that is not even true.

Mathijs

<<I once heard about Steve Marriott being considered after MT left. Was this ever given ANY serious consideration>>

Keith in a Crawdaddy interview from Spring '75 brought Steve Mariott into the
discussion on possible replacements

In Woody's book apparently Marriott was first choice.

I'll see if I can dig up a quote.

Steve was great but was too much his own man to join the Stones I think. He had his own hits going back ten years by then, and though he never matched it after he was coming off a golden decade in his career. I can't picture someone who is a lead singer himself really fitting especally Steve. He was an independent sort, had his own style. The Stones would only be a cool gig if you want to work within the framework of Mick and Keith calling all the shots. Frankly it's probably why Brian stopped caring and why Mick T. and Bill left too. It's not a democratic band after 1968 or so.

It's funny I was just thinking why would Steve Marriott (or Rory Gallagher) give up the singer/songwriter gig to be 'just' a guitarist. But then I thought it worked for Nils Lofgren.

Doing a Stones album and tour could have funded a Marriott solo album and upped his profile. Could the difference be that Nils is happy to be a sideman but Marriott may have wanted a singing/songwriting input?

Nils Lofgren has always struck me as having no ego...so you might be right.
Ronnie's a bit like that too I suspect.
Happy to be one of the pack and not interested in running at the front so long as he's enjoying himself.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-10 19:18 by Spud.

Has late Mick Ronson ever been considered? He did some great things with Ian Hunter.

Quote
Youngie
In Woody's book apparently Marriott was first choice.

I'll see if I can dig up a quote.

Yeah, but according to the same book Ronnie was first choice for guitarist for Led Zep too!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-10 19:15 by scottkeef.

Quote
jamesjagger
Has late Mick Ronson ever been considered? He did some great things with Ian Hunter.

He would have been great but in a Taylor way rather than a Wood way.

Ronson would have been a cool choice.

Dave Edmunds is another. But Woody was the correct choice.

Keeping Mick Taylor would have been an even better choice - for Mick Taylor anyway!

Quote
Carnaby
...Woody was the correct choice.

I agree with you, but playing Devil's advocate he was also a safe choice. maybe even the glue that kept the Stones together pouring oil on troubled waters. A different guitarist (Ronno for example) would have brought a diferent sound and a different chemistry (probably quite literally).

Quote
Braincapers

Quote
Carnaby
...Woody was the correct choice.

I agree with you, but playing Devil's advocate he was also a safe choice. maybe even the glue that kept the Stones together pouring oil on troubled waters. A different guitarist (Ronno for example) would have brought a diferent sound and a different chemistry (probably quite literally).

Yes, point well taken. But, I think that may have been part of the challenge. They needed to not change the chemistry the way Taylor did from what they had with Brian, but rather get back to the rough double rhythm thing they had with Brian. Woody brought that back the best he could, although nobody could bring back the Brian Jones Stones; talk about chemistry...

Quote
Youngie
Keeping Mick Taylor would have been an even better choice - for Mick Taylor anyway!

I am sure the Stones would have folded in '78. With Wood they where able to counter the punk attack, with Taylor they would have been stuck in the blues / glam rock period.

Mathijs

I dont think it would have made a difference which guitarist they had the Stones would NOT have folded in 78 without Woody (and this aint a slap to Ron- I was a huge fan BEFORE he joined). Thats like saying Mick,Keith.Charlie and Bill couldnt compete on their own. Its true with Taylor they would have been more blues/glam oriented but there were HUGELY sucessful glam and blues acts thru those same years. Punk for the most part was just aborbed into the mainstream by the early 80s anyway...at least any of the bands that gave The Stones competition.

everyone knows shuggie otis woody'd been the best choice....

or his twin brother shaboogie leeotis woody...;-)

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
Youngie
Keeping Mick Taylor would have been an even better choice - for Mick Taylor anyway!

I am sure the Stones would have folded in '78. With Wood they where able to counter the punk attack, with Taylor they would have been stuck in the blues / glam rock period.

Mathijs

"Stuck?" Garbage. Rock and blues are timeless. Any rock/blues player can play punk; punk is mainly a matter of image-building and a sidestep in rock, and money in the case of the Stones. Taylor just sticked to his roots - blues/rock, and he could have been a perfect match for the RS "punk-era" if he was still a Stones member.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-13 14:16 by Amsterdamned.

Yeah right................punk survived. It's all the rage..........

Please............

Quote
1cdog
Yeah right................punk survived. It's all the rage..........

Please............

It was just the period of punk then. Though I am not a punk rocker, I appreciated going back to the street level, crude though it may have been. In a way it is still around, Green Day and all that. Too, someone could argue that the Pistols changed the face of popular music almost to the degree of how Elvis changed the look, or then the Beatles. However, I am not the one to lead the charge, it is not that much of an issue or care with me.