I tend to approach the question from a purely chronological / date angle - effectively breaking the 51 years into three periods of roughly 17 years but allowing some leeway for relevant artistic milestones. My current thinking is that everything up to and including Still Life or what is covered in Crossfire Hurricane is the early period. Everything from post 1982 tour up to and including the release of Bridges to Babylon is the mid period. Everything from 1997 onwards is the late period.

Are there any different ways of looking at this question out there?

A possibility :
Early : 1963-1969
Mid : 1970-1999
Late : 2002-2012

But easier with four periods :
Stones Mark I : 1963-1969 (Brian Jones)
Stones Mark II : 1969-1974 (Mick Taylor)
Stones Mark III : 1975-1993 (Ronnie Wood)
Stones Mark IV : 1994-2013 (4 Stones)

Brian
Mick T.
Ronnie

That's how I would split it up.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-14 23:02 by Koen.

I am classifying it in uneven time blocks, but I am also speaking as one who came in with the Tattoo You era Stones, so I tend to regard everything after that as their later period. Perhaps I am grouping it in creative terms. At any rate:

Early: 1963 - 1968

Mid: 1969 - 1982

Late: 1983 -

Good question.
Obviously the guitarist change was always a massive change, but didn't quite act as a milestone for an era change. The band was usually able to absorb the shock.
I'd say as far as musicians go the loss of Wyman has been the most traumatic.
from 63-68 the early years; including psychedelia.
from 69-82 the Big 5 years, the advent of the rockn roll tour; glam & punk
from 83-97 the Ron Wood years, WW III, and the bass player switch; last of the real albums
from 98-2013 the Big Hits band. I'd say the biggest change came after "Bridges to Babylon" because up to then, no matter what, they had still remained an active band that puts out new material, and takes it on the road. Works new material into stage show.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
I'd say as far as musicians go the loss of Wyman has been the most traumatic.

If I were going to play amateur psychoanalyst I would say that Bill was the last impediment to the Rolling Stones' becoming 100% Mick and Keith's band (and from there becoming largely Mick's band).

Charlie is fairly indifferent to what goes on in the Stones musically, in the sense that he was never that wild about rock and roll in the first place and the band was just a good gig. Ronnie is a fan whose dream came true.

Although he was obviously not the primary creative force behind the Stones, Bill did have definite musical ideas of his own, and played bass the way he thought it should be played, not the way Mick and Keith wanted him to. With him gone, you've had no one actually challenging the primary creative team for a couple of decades.

1962-1968 BJ era
1969-1974 MT era
1975-1986 RW era
1989-2007 Vegas era
2012&counting Grrrr era

It's impossible to put into 3 eras. The Brian Years are one subset. Mick Taylor is another. The Ron Wood to Bill leaving is one more, and everything after is stage work because the band as a recording unit basically ground to a halt and they became a very good nostalgia band.
So...63-68. 69-74. 75-1993. 1994 and counting. The last one is the longest, but the least interesting.

I tend to define them like this:

63-67 The early years
68-72 The golden years
73-82 The Still life years
83-88 The break up years
89-90 Vegas I
94-99 Vegas II
02-07 Vegas III
12-13 Vegas IV



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-15 01:55 by Stoneage.

Actually, I change my mind. There are only two periods, without and with Chuck Leavall.

1962-1982 When the Stones were cool.
1983-1997 The midlife crisis years
2000-present The cash-in.

But seriously...I'd go with Stonehearted's breakdown.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-15 04:15 by andrewt.

You can also go by labels/ music companies :

-Decca Records years (basically 60's)

-Rolling Stones Records years (1971-1991)

-Virgin Records years (1993-2006)

-Universal Music years (2008-2012)

In a way perhaps the early would be way shorter, the mid incredibly longer due to maturity and changes in sounds, not so much band members, and the late - although years wise covering a long time, LP wise close to nothing... so...

Early - 1963-1967 (obviously the beginning of the blues based rock'n'roll that would happen in...)
Mid - 1968-1983 (clearly the era of the mature songwriting, genre/styles experimentation/changes and the "sound" of the Stones evolving)
Late - 1986-2013 (a whopping total of 5 studio albums... mostly about the money)

1989 and beyond has to be the same era.
Their principle activity became touring, the albums were below the standards they had previously set and were few and far between, and they started playing warhorses at every show: start me up, satisfaction, jjf, etc.

doesn't make sense to split those years up into different eras.

i tend to think of it as:
62-68, learning, experimenting, refining
69-78/81, band was in its prime as a touring and recording band
82-now the long denouement

or (jokingly, but the parallels are uncanny...)

62-67 before keith and anita hooked up
68-78 while keith and anita were together
78- after keith and anita split

i didn't double check when they first got together, i think it was 68...

I would say:
Early 62-70
middle 71-88
late 89-present day

There is no way you could ever call 1982 the Stones early period.

Early for me is 1963-65

Mid is 1966-67

Late is 1968-81

It's rather silly anyway to discuss the Stones career in terms of periods (and definitely anyway in terms of decades), and especially within the context of their post 1981/82 shows and singles/albums, because the emphasis shifted after TATTOO YOU and the American and European tours of the early eighties. Everything the Stones had done in the way of exceptional music and concerts on a highly creative/artistic level, had been achieved by 81/82, and many would even argue it may have been even earlier, say 72/73 even. Even the Stones themselves recognise this - that is why CROSSFIRE HURRICAINE - finshes at the dawn of the eighties.

Pretty much all the things the Stones have done post the 81/82 period, in a sense is them being able to comfortably live off the back of their amazing legacy. The quality of their album releases have pretty much been fairly average at best, when they've actually found the time to record,that is, and that has partly been forgiven, simply because of who they are, and the iconic nature of their history. The concerts have at best been good, not great. The Stones haven't really existed as a living and breathing band in terms of the way they were in the sixties/seventies, anyway. Post 81/82 era Stones should be known as the AFTERMATH.

Maybe it's easier to use 1968 as a one cutoff point for first era, and everything else after that a second era. That was the year of last full album recorded with the original lineup.

Also, that album happened to be 'Beggar's Banquet,' which really started a new direction for the Stones.

1. 62-64 - R'n'B early years
2. 65-68 - The swinging 60s era
3. 69-80 - The greatest rock'n'roll band in the world era
4. 81-99 - The stadium era
5. 2000- - The Vegas era

In fact it's quite easy:

1963 - 1973: the great period: from rise to greatness
1974 - 2013: the aftermath: from greatness to fall

Quote
kleermaker
In fact it's quite easy:

1963 - 1973: the great period: from rise to greatness
1974 - 2013: the aftermath: from greatness to fall

1974 - 2013 Or as the Americans might say, from Spring to Fall!

Quote
24FPS
It's impossible to put into 3 eras. The Brian Years are one subset. Mick Taylor is another. The Ron Wood to Bill leaving is one more, and everything after is stage work because the band as a recording unit basically ground to a halt and they became a very good nostalgia band.
So...63-68. 69-74. 75-1993. 1994 and counting. The last one is the longest, but the least interesting.

i'd agree with all that except the last being least interesting..

there's something very interesting in a band who didn't have to go tour, but reckoned reputation against all the possible and probable pitfalls and did it anyway..

plus included Mick Taylor.

The Classic Rolling Stones Years: 1962-1984 (from the Marquee to Undercover)

The problematical 80's years: 1985-1989 (weak solo efforts)

The Mega Tours Years (Vegas Era) 1989-2013 (with some good albums and some really great songs)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-15 19:15 by 1962.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-28 17:27 by camper88.

Quote
kleermaker
In fact it's quite easy:

1963 - 1973: the great period: from rise to greatness
1974 - 2013: the aftermath: from greatness to fall

Yes, kleermaker, essentially you hit the nail on the head. I don't really know a more convenient way of defining where the Stones were at, although the 74-81 period certainly had its moments, alongside a fair few less inspiring ones.

Jones, Taylor, Wood

Quote
camper88
1662-67: Experimental
1968-73: Classical
1974-81: Revisionist
1982-12: Baroque/ rococo

note: almost perfectly overlaps with the proponents of Guitaristist classification system, where BJ belongs to the Experimental period, Taylor to the Classsical, and Wood to the Revisionist and Baroque/ Rococo.

Have any recordings surfaced from the 1662-67 experimental period? I believe this to be the true holy grail for collectors.

Quote
MingSubu
Jones, Taylor, Wood

That's a good simple way to do it, except I'd add another Jones at the end.

Quote
ryanpow

Quote
MingSubu
Jones, Taylor, Wood

That's a good simple way to do it, except I'd add another Jones at the end.

Jones, where's Jones?, Taylor, Wood.

How about: Stewart, Hopkins, Preston, Mc Clagan, Clifford, Levall.