Would their Music sounds like today? Many many names rumoured 74/75 to replace mick Taylor. Jeff Beck, Eric Clapton, Alvin Lee, harvey mandel and also Peter green.only to name a few.maybe more "BLUES" and less "Rockers"
What do you think?

No Woody bashing threats in this message board here!

i think they would have broke up... no one out from your list could have get between jagger/richards like ronnie...woodie is very easy to get along with and both jagger and richards liked him.. woodie also works well with others with big ego's.. so ronnie is the only one back in the day..the best fit...and still is!
they are more like brothers with jagger, richards and wood.

If Clapton had agreed, I think the Stones would have been even more "bluesy" throughout the 80's and 90's than they have been.

Simple, you wouldn't have got Some Girls and the resulting success and the Stones would have dissapeared up their own arse like the Who!

you wouldnt have gotten some girls?...nonsense...the reason you got some girls was because the punk movement at the time gave the stones a swift kick in the arse...they were threatened and they delivered the goods....

Yeah I can just see Clapton knocking out 'Lies'......
Wood gave the band a new direction, raw, punky like the sixties. Endless giutar solo's circa 77/78 would have left the band high and dry.....

dont think they wouldve picked clapton...he's too big a name to play second fiddle to anyone...and i dont think woody gave them the so-called "new direction"(but he gave them his wild-eyed spirit)...i think johnny rotten and joe strummer etc etc challenged them to find a punkier direction



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2005-10-03 19:25 by Leonard Keringer.

75' was before punk. Keith wanted someone he could work with to help create the sound he was missing. Dual interweaving guitars with unique guitars parts that together were hard to tell a part was what he wanted and got with Ronnie. By this time it was obvious that virtuosos were in a lot of bands. What Keith and Ronnie did at the biginning took a lot of work to make it sound like it did, knowing when to trade of rhythm and riff with each other. No two guitarists I can think of did it like like they did. But I have heard alot of virtuosos over the years.

They would be on their 10th guitarist by now if not for Ronnie.

simple answer - we wouldnt be having this discussion because they would have broke up a couple of decades ago - for the reasons that Hot Stuff states above

Woody was the glue which held the band together during some dark periods in their history. For all the bitching about his supposed shortcomings as a musician, he at least deserves some credit for keeping those two big egotists together!

Even Bill Wyman metioned, that Ron made it fun / good going to the studio again.... he lifted up the spirit..... and he was very much an inspiration during the SG sessions because of Keith's absence (drug problem / case in Toronto)...

At least Ron should get some recognition for the late 70'ies / early 80'ies period...

Peter Green? He was deep in his battle with schizophrenia by 1975.

i think howie mandel would have been a great choice. He does a great impersonation of a baby.

Keith's ego never would have let them pick Clapton. He had a hard time with being the second best technical guitarist in the band with the lesser known Taylor, never mind a legend like Clapton.

I don`t Stones would exist today without Ron, so for all of you that don`t like Ron it`s time to thank him.

I think Nils Lofgren would have been the perfect pick. His sound and style has Stones written all over it. His guitar work would have fit perfectly.

just my 2 cents

Wayne Perkins would have joined the band, they would've been bluesier sounding, and probably would have been a little more consistant in the mid-to-late '70's. But then again, I agree that they probably would have broken up in the long run as well (most likely by the early '80's).