Hope--I am not the only one. Their first Album was Awesome. songs like Honest, I do, Can I get a wittness, Heart of Stone, tell me, Empty heart, confession the blues, Rooster, Cry to me, if you need me---and on and on... I love these.
1967? well, "satanic" wasnt my Taste, except "Rainbow and 2000 man) B.B, L.i.B., sticky, just good! maybe, "aftermath from 1966 was my fav.! after 1989 they were the best LIVE-Band. Not in 1975-1978!! "Exile" is stil overrated. A bigger Bang" underrated! I saw them live 1965--2006 ! just heard they work on a "BLUES"-album!
God Bless the Rolling stones

Some days I do. Sure. I would call it 1963-1967.

me too!!

I love every era!

Their first albums are truly great and their single-output in the early years is simply fantastic. TSMR was just an experiment, but still has its moments of greatness.

Exile is overrated indeed just like ABB is underrated, I never understood the reasons why.

From time to time I am so in the mood for early Stones that I stick to these recordings for weeks, these songs are just timeless and many many classic recordings were made during that period.

12x5 was my first Stones album. I played it like crazy. Then came Out of Our Heads which I played like crazy. Aftermath was something else. Still a fave to this day. The Rolling Stones Now was my most favorite and listened to Stones album for ages. To moi, it is what the Stones, as a rhythm and blues band, was supposed to be and sound like. I played it when I was happy, sad, needed to space out, partied, and so on. Between the Buttons is also an old fave, though, some songs on it are rather dated.

Re the comment(s) about Exile, whether its over-rated or right at the top is a story for another thread. IMHO, it is one of their best for a particular era of the Stones. It, like The Rolling Stones Now, was the Stones album I played the most for years.

This era is second on my list.

First come 1968 - 1973 and then first 5 years

__________________________

Well, I couldn't live without 62-67, 68-72 and 78-81. But if I had to decide I would go with 68-72...

Is there anybody here who prefer the Rolling Stones 64-67 ERA?

Yep! That's my absolute favorite-era with Stones...

My Stones Record-Collection 1967 were 'Out of Our Heads' US, Aftermath UK, Beetween the Buttons UK, Around and Around (German Decca) and 4 or 5 singles and that's about it....These discs are completely worn out...

2 1 2 0

On record without a doubt , incredible singles and like everyone else my copy of Aftermath worn out.Saw them live in 1965 & 1966 in Glasgow.
Happy days................

1963 to 1966 raw music was made by the stones cannot be beaten, sooooo good,later music got better but much more polished,EXILE IS RAW,love the album, bigger bang was good too but there were health issue with charlie so difficult album to make.YEAAAA LOOKING FORWARD TO NEW ALBUM COMING OUT IN 2016, ROCKING & BLUESY TOO.

Dirty Work goes first....

From there....every fan has his preferences....

One of my favorite

If 64-67 better than 68-72, 78-81. Or?

Listening to - She Said Yeah, the wild approach, dirty singing, wild guitar

That is by far my favorite period in their long career! I first saw them in '65 when I was 13, they were producing one great single after another every three months for years!

I'll have to say yes, although I love all eras - for different reasons.

It's a yes from me too. This was their most productive period by a long way, putting out a new album every few months and a new single one after the other.

64-67 was very much the Brian Jones era when his brilliant and versatile musicianship was a big part of the band's sound. After about 67, when his habits took their toll and Anita left him for Keith, he took a nosedive as we know and became a very marginal figure, contributing very little to the band.

Something fundamentally changed after the Redlands Drugs bust. Their career was actually in decline after that (as the establishment wanted) and they could easily have disappeared into oblivion. But thankfully they suddenly hit back with JJF going to No1 in most countries followed by the acclaimed 68-72 period of 4 classic albums and tours.

I feel that their early career is rather unfairly neglected , especially in terms of what they choose to play live. Is it difficult to play? Surely not! I loved the versions of Not Fade Away and It's All Over Now played throughout Voodoo Lounge. The early stuff was, after all, what propelled them to fame in the the 1st place and 68-72 would not have hsppened without it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-04-10 16:09 by grzegorz67.

Yes, but precisely only 62-65. I don't like their turn into a pop band 66-67. Better they had released another Out of Our Heads.

Love each era and there are days that this is my favorite era.

Why do people keep cutting off 1968 from that era?

I really luv "December's Children" "Aftermath" & "Between the Buttons". I wish they would explore that era a little more in concert. Lot of really good songs in there.

Quote
His Majesty
Why do people keep cutting off 1968 from that era?

Because some of them (us) relate to major changes, even if there may be continuity involved through a break, in the band's musical development - how they (we) consider that development - as dividing line, whereas you seem to relate to shifts in the personnel of the band as major constituting principle (with the socalled "third man" idea that you formerly adhered to and probably still do).

And, by the way, some do not consider 1964 (1963) - 1967 as covering one, but two eras. Rather involving a gradual transition than a sudden break. All of which would mean that Brian Jones took part in two complete eras and the important start to the third as well.

Changes in key members is logical for defining stones eras, if we go by styles etc you could split Jones era in to at least 4 or 5 and that's just silly.

Kleermakers third man principle is a good one.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-04-10 18:09 by His Majesty.

I think it is enough with two eras up to and including 1967 (years referring to what was released). Letting R&B be expanded by soul during the first era. Maybe look upon OUT OF OUR HEADS as a transitional album. Consider the three albums started by AFTERMATH and many single A- and B-sides as sometimes mildly, sometimes almost wildly experimenting pop music.

One paradox by your own point of view, I remember, was to obtain LET IT BLEED as a transitional album.

The Brian era and the MT era are far better than the Ronnie era studio-wise (imo),
As for the first two era's, it's difficult to pick one over the other as each has positives as well as negatives, and thankfully there's so much variety to enjoy.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
Hairball
The Brian era and the MT era are far better than the Ronnie era studio-wise (imo),
As for the first two era's, it's difficult to pick one over the other as each has positives as well as negatives, and thankfully there's so much variety to enjoy.

I agree. Would love to here the negatives...

always difficult to compare era,s but i feel the 1963-68 era had something that was lost therafter when brian jones was no longer there.

the big 4 albums from 1969-72 are great no doubt and mick taylor dominates these to a large extent, and while its often regarded that taylor was a better guitarist than jones, what cant be forgotten is that brian jones was much more than just a guitar player, he had plenty that taylor didnt have and during his era the stones evolved, grew and changed so much that listening to one song from another felt like you were listening to a completely different band.

the 63-68 period threw up some cracking songs that were all different.

paint it black
citadel
cool calm collected
jigsaw puzzle
ruby tuesday
the singer not the song
have you seen your mother baby
no expectations
on with the show
she said yead
2120 south michigan avenue
lady jane
child of the moon
we love you
the last time
off the hook
i just wanna make love to you
stray cat blues
something happened to me yesterday


all great songs from a great era.

the 1970,s didnt quite have as much of a mix.

Quote
2000 LYFH

Quote
Hairball
The Brian era and the MT era are far better than the Ronnie era studio-wise (imo),
As for the first two era's, it's difficult to pick one over the other as each has positives as well as negatives, and thankfully there's so much variety to enjoy.

I agree. Would love to here the negatives...

Not extremely negative, but the album, where your name comes from!!

Accordingly there should be some earlier versions of the songs that are far better, "less produced".

Some of the Between the Buttons songs as well, the Stones pop period.

I love the 1963-1968 era.

A nice journey, in which Good Times, Bad Times and No Expectations make it full circle musically. Some interesting explorations going on along the way.

The Stones have been around so long that it may depend on your age and what stage you first became enthralled with them. I was only 5 when Satisfaction came out and I loved it. But being a teenager when Woody came on board kind of cemented things for me. Thus I'm partial to the Wood era, esp. 1975 - 1982. That being said, I'm still well aware that their absolute best albums were made in an earlier time...

Yep..those first years are my favorite. I wasn't born until '79, so I always thought it was because of Mick's youthful looks and Brian's presence...but it truly is the music....and not to say I don't love love love Ronnie.