Mick Taylor isn't anyone, he's a someone. Clearly I'm a Taylor fan...don't call me a Taylorite....and you aren't. That's cool! I just love these smiley faces!!

Quote
Bellajane
Mick Taylor isn't anyone, he's a someone. Clearly I'm a Taylor fan...don't call me a Taylorite....and you aren't. That's cool! I just love these smiley faces!!

A someone who wasn't really a Rolling Stone, just like Ronnie.

Now you're being just plain silly!

Quote
Bellajane
Now you're being just plain silly!

Here are two real Rolling Stones being silly.

Lord have mercy! Now that's something to sing about.><

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
Bellajane
Mick Taylor isn't anyone, he's a someone. Clearly I'm a Taylor fan...don't call me a Taylorite....and you aren't. That's cool! I just love these smiley faces!!

A someone who wasn't really a Rolling Stone, just like Ronnie.

First, of course, draw a distinction between being an original Rolling Stone and a real Rolling Stone.

Then the question arises, His Majesty, if I may: To be a real Rolling Stone, is that a biological or a musical question?

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Bellajane
Well,to me, the Stones are talented,versatile artists with a huge body of work. They've been around for 50 years (and counting)! They could be sexy, raunchy, tender, drug-fueled, and philosophical with a touch of sadness like in this song. So I believe, in part, Time Waits for No One is representative of them. There's really so much material to choose from. Wonder what each band member would say if asked this question...or have they already answered it?

That would be interesting, indeed, although I think Keith has answered JJF earlier.

And Jagger has called "Satisfaction" as their "signature song", which I suppose is rather close to what is asked here.

- Doxa

A real Rolling Stone is an original Rolling Stone.

Quote
His Majesty
A real Rolling Stone is an original Rolling Stone.

That is, you consider the question to be a biological one. And as we touched on the more or less covering parallel in another thread: The real Pink Floyd vanished when Syd Barrett made an early exit.

Quote
Witness

Quote
His Majesty
A real Rolling Stone is an original Rolling Stone.

That is, you consider the question to be a biological one. And as we touched on the more or less covering parallel in another thread: The real Pink Floyd vanished when Syd Barrett made an early exit.

No, it's not the same because they had only been going for about a year or so as a professional, signed, recording and touring act. Also his replacement was a personal friend and joined and played with Syd still as a member.

Had that happened after 7 or so years of success and defining music, then yes, that would have marked the end of the real Pink Floyd.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
Witness

Quote
His Majesty
A real Rolling Stone is an original Rolling Stone.

That is, you consider the question to be a biological one. And as we touched on the more or less covering parallel in another thread: The real Pink Floyd vanished when Syd Barrett made an early exit.

No, it's not the same because they had only been going for about a year or so as a professional, signed, recording and touring act. Also his replacement was a personal friend and joined and played with Syd still as a member.

Had that happened after 7 or so years of success and defining music, then yes, that would have marked the end of the real Pink Floyd.

However, the original Pink Floyd had made one defining album. Even the album that both you and I prefer most out of all theirs. A couple of singles as well that we both consider highly.

Syd Barrett's replacement being a personal friend and having joined when Barrett still was a member, does not prevent the continuing band from having lost its dominant musical personality, if one is thinking along those lines. Which is at least part of your approach in this issue about the Stones.

Edit. One moment's lapse of concentration made me miss a "t" in Syd Barrett's name. Another: A misprint



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-22 17:55 by Witness.

A stone or a Floyd being replaced after 1 album is different than a stone or a Floyd being replaced after 7 or so years.

That Gilmour and Syd were friends is important, that Gilmour helped Syd with his solo albums is as well. There's connection and history there.

For lots of reasons, Pink Floyd is a bad comparison.

Dick Taylor re-joining the stones in 1969 replacing Brian would complicate things though. I wonder if he was considered.

I agree that there are some differences as to number of albums. But those are not differences of kind, only of degree. Differences of degree do not make this use of your criteria such a selfevident matter beyond discussion. Friendship then between joining and retreating band member does make some connection, but does not at all abolish the loss of defining member, the argument you press on.

So the comparison, if not ideal, is more relevant than most hypothetical comparisons.

One might wonder if you would find the following name more suitable for the Stones after 1969, in agreement possibly with extreme taylorites: Mick Taylor and the Rolling Stones?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-22 00:26 by Witness.

Taylor joining The Beatles in 1969 replacing George is the best hypothetical comparison.

Taylor would not be a real Beatle just as he wasn't a real Rolling Stone. It's really quite simple.

The adequate question is not whether Mick Taylor was a real Rolling Stone. Instead it was whether he contributed to the band in a way that for the Stones meant a further development along a course which the band already had started on. Broadly, that was exactly what he did. That he in addition vastly enhanced the band's possiblities in that direction would not be an objection, but rather confirm the contention that the Rolling Stones continued to be the real Rolling Stones also after Brian Jones.

Mick Taylor as a substitute in the Beatles for George Harrison seems to me a farfetched hypothetical comparison to what actually happened within the Rolling Stones.

Arguing for or against any "real" - be it "member", "band", "fan", etc. - is waste of words... Altogether the word "real" in these kind of uses is an unnecessary metaphysical term very much tight to one's own contingent idiosyncaries of what to value and what not... Better to do without.

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa
Arguing for or against any "real" - be it "member", "band", "fan", etc. - is waste of words... Altogether the word "real" in these kind of uses is an unnecessary metaphysical term very much tight to one's own contingent idiosyncaries of what to value and what not... Better to do without.

- Doxa

I did not start to argue along those lines out of my own choice. But I commented on the point of view that the Rolling Stones after Brian Jones are not the real Rolling Stones. It emerges in many discussions. If you have a better line of arguing than the one I sought, please feel free to present it.

Quote
Witness
The adequate question is not whether Mick Taylor was a real Rolling Stone. Instead it was whether he contributed to the band in a way that for the Stones meant a further development along a course which the band already had started on. Broadly, that was exactly what he did. That he in addition vastly enhanced the band's possiblities in that direction would not be an objection, but rather confirm the contention that the Rolling Stones continued to be the real Rolling Stones also after Brian Jones.

No, simply because without Brian Jones particular idiosyncratic ways which was a defining part of The Rolling Stones it ceases to be that without him.

Quote
His Majesty
A real Rolling Stone is an original Rolling Stone.

Like Dick Taylor, who was such an original Stone that he was even in Little Boy Blue and The Blue Boys.

If you ask Mick and Keith, Bill Wyman wasn't a real Rolling Stone, ever, especially not back in the early days.

And if you read Phelge's Stones, Brian wanted to replace Bill almost immediately, even considering for a moment to become the bass player himself.

Charlie likes him, though. So that's got to count for something.

one song that clearly show what the stones were all about

Please, dgodkin, we're no archaeologists, and our band are still alive.

It would be so nice if you could change the thread title from past to present tense, using the "edit post" buton under your original post.

And then let's see ...

what the stones are all about

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
His Majesty
A real Rolling Stone is an original Rolling Stone.

Like Dick Taylor, who was such an original Stone that he was even in Little Boy Blue and The Blue Boys.

If you ask Mick and Keith, Bill Wyman wasn't a real Rolling Stone, ever, especially not back in the early days.

And if you read Phelge's Stones, Brian wanted to replace Bill almost immediately, even considering for a moment to become the bass player himself.

Charlie likes him, though. So that's got to count for something.

I think he means after the Stones became a professional band, got a recording contract and deveoped their own sound

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
His Majesty
A real Rolling Stone is an original Rolling Stone.

Like Dick Taylor, who was such an original Stone that he was even in Little Boy Blue and The Blue Boys.

If you ask Mick and Keith, Bill Wyman wasn't a real Rolling Stone, ever, especially not back in the early days.

And if you read Phelge's Stones, Brian wanted to replace Bill almost immediately, even considering for a moment to become the bass player himself.

Charlie likes him, though. So that's got to count for something.

I think he means after the Stones became a professional band, got a recording contract and deveoped their own sound

So that means that Stu never counted?

Tumbling Dice !

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
Witness
The adequate question is not whether Mick Taylor was a real Rolling Stone. Instead it was whether he contributed to the band in a way that for the Stones meant a further development along a course which the band already had started on. Broadly, that was exactly what he did. That he in addition vastly enhanced the band's possiblities in that direction would not be an objection, but rather confirm the contention that the Rolling Stones continued to be the real Rolling Stones also after Brian Jones.

No, simply because without Brian Jones particular idiosyncratic ways which was a defining part of The Rolling Stones it ceases to be that without him.

They were to you.

To me they were dominated by all that belonged to the band. And the twists and turns of the band’s development during his time in the band, some to his dismay , were, again to me, greater than the changes during the ’68 – ’72 period when he had his exit, as a consequence of his leaving. That exit besides was gradual in its effects rather than momentary. So his impact was not one fully prevailing in all aspects all the time up to a point and then having a clear break.

To this witness the continuity is more emphatic than the break. Of course, others can experience it otherwise.


(Now concentration about work.)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-22 11:54 by Witness.

Quote
Witness

Quote
Doxa
Arguing for or against any "real" - be it "member", "band", "fan", etc. - is waste of words... Altogether the word "real" in these kind of uses is an unnecessary metaphysical term very much tight to one's own contingent idiosyncaries of what to value and what not... Better to do without.

- Doxa

I did not start to argue along those lines out of my own choice. But I commented on the point of view that the Rolling Stones after Brian Jones are not the real Rolling Stones. It emerges in many discussions. If you have a better line of arguing than the one I sought, please feel free to present it.

Haha... but no no, I do my best to not take a part at all for those kind of debates (even though I might have had in my weakest moments - during my deepest anti-Vegas propaganda angst - said something to the effect that it is no "real" Stones any longer...) But I don't know how serious His Majesty is here - I sense a bit of provacation from his side (but I don't mind; there are not too many Jones era purists here, or keeping that angle alive... and he, like Taylorites, has a point!)

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-22 11:59 by Doxa.

Exchange the word "real" with "original", and this debate will be history

It would be one of these 7 songs, depends on which day: Brown Sugar, JJF, Satisfaction, Midnight Rambler, Gimme Shelter, Tumbling Dice, HTW. On most days, just like today, I would say Brown Sugar.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-22 13:55 by Happy24.

Quote
stonehearted

So that means that Stu never counted?

Stu didn't leave, but accepted an alternative role. He was still able to play when he wanted and have some influence or say in things.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Exchange the word "real" with "original", and this debate will be history

They are interlinked. There is no debate, i'm just humouring those that think there is.

Let's hope Witness also finds the humour in it

This declared no-debating humouring is very eagerly exercised. One might wonder why. I might be wrong, but it seems someone might have a self-understanding of being an undebatable defining authority. Another possibly identify with it.

No, I have never found humour in such an attitude. I will continue to have respect for what there is of sheer knowledge. I abstain from expressing my view on that other attitude.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-22 18:27 by Witness.