I love the entire body of work put out by this band, even the mid-80's material.

In my opinion, they've never put out anything not worthy of their name and reputation.

All that being said, what the F__K happened for those four years between '68 and '72???!!!! The hand of God must have been involved.

Two very, very good songwriters suddenly became Beethoven and Mozart collaborating. And then it went away. They became very, very good songwriters again.

So mysterious...

Having lived through that period you have to take numerous things into account:

#1 The Beatles were around - there was ALWAYS a friendly competition going on but, as friendly as it was, THAT was always a big deal - no matter what anyone says. With the Beatles putting out brilliant work like SGT. PEPPERS, MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR (US Album, not UK EP), WHITE ALBUM, ABBEY ROAD it kind of keep everyone else on their toes.(also, at this time, Bob Dylan was laying low in Woodstock- another small factor)

#2 Brian Jones was falling apart, it was sink or swim for the other 4. Sometimes negative stuff motivates people to get their own acts together and do great work.

#3 All the involvement with the courts (drug charges) probably was somewhat of a kick in the ass, a feeling this could all be gone tomorrow while we sit in jail cells for basically nothing

#4 The lackluster response to SATANIC MAJESTY'S probably freaked them out a bit

#5 Band member change seems to always produce their best work for some reason. Mick Taylor/Brian Jones change gave us BLEED/SF/EXILE. Mick Taylor/Ron Wood change gave us BLACK AND BLUE (which could have been a VERY strong album if CHERRY OH BABY was taken off and the Leftovers put on TATTOO YOU were included) and SOME GIRLS of course.I think they have a very strong "prove yourself" thing in them. Something they always seem to need to do whenever there's change - even, to some degree, VOODOO LOUNGE with Bill Wyman leaving.

#6 The late 60's/early 70's were a very fruitful time for Rock music, film, and art in general. Look at Hendrix, Zeppelin, Doors, Cream, a lot of the bands at MONTEREY POP and WOODSTOCK. The big corporate machine was not working yet putting too much/the wrong pressure on artists to tour a lot and produce formula work...

#7 Sometimes, things just happen. There's magical moments and then they're gone. A million different little things coming together at the right time caused them to happen but you can never recreate these things to make it all happen the same way again

MicksBrain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> #2 Brian Jones was falling apart, it was sink or
swim for the other 4.

an unfortunate turn of phrase!

Adrian-L Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MicksBrain Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > #2 Brian Jones was falling apart, it was sink
> or
> swim for the other 4.
>
> an unfortunate turn of phrase!

You're right, I'm a bit burned out, just noticed that...sorry (make it or break it might have been a bit better) - need some coffee (or Something...)

MicksBrain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> #2 Brian Jones was falling apart, it was sink or
> swim for the other 4. Sometimes negative stuff
> motivates people to get their own acts together
> and do great work.


I have to disagree with this. The statement implies that Brian Jones held back the Stones from being a truly great band and that the band was not great before 1968-69. I don't understand how fans can dismiss the 1962-67 period, a time when the Stones erupted onto the rock scene and helped start a musical/cultural revolution. They took on the Beatles head on and became the first bad boys of rock. The Stones became the world's greatest rock n' roll band by riding on the wave of all those #1 hits from the 1962-1967 era. Albums such as Out of Our Heads, Aftermath, and Now! were groundbreaking and helped define the 60's era as much as any other album. As much as I admire the Stones' work from 1968-1972, I do think it recieves way too much attention and recognition. The 1962-'67 period was just as magical and great, and its puzzling that such few fans see it this way.

Neptune,

I agree to an extent,the early stuff with Brian "contributing" was what made the Stones what they were. but as you get into 1967 & 68, and all those years
of trying to keep up with Keith and the drug intake, Brian was not the same!!!
It's documented all over the place from many different sources he was MIA!!
Keith was doing ALL the guitar work in studio and the Stones knew they needed
to tour again and they knew Brian couldn't cut it live, the R&R Circus proved
that. They also figured out they needed a "guitarist" after watching Eric
Clapton, Peter Green, Jimi Hendrix, etc. They couldn't have been luckier when
Mick Taylor quit J. Mayall's Bluesbreakers and fell in their lap!!!

MLC

I think the obvious BJ contributions are great - RUBY TUESDAY, PAINT IT BLACK, LADY JANE, earlier blues work....all the Ed Sullivan shows are with Brian (except the 69 one that has a horrible vocal mix on it) and that's one great DVD to watch.I'm just saying that the guy was getting high too much and not keeping it together. They were worried about Visa problems cause of the drug stuff plus, it's no secret, Mick wanted more of the spot light and "3's a crowd" (on his cloud) when you're going for that. They kinda pushed him out and he kinda let them. Also, IMO, BETWEEN THE BUTTONS/FLOWERS aren't great albums mainly because of the HORRIBLE mix/production. They were in a slump and BEGGARS BANQUET pulled them out of it. 1968 - 1972 getting too much attention? Come on, name the filler songs on BB/LIB/SF/EOMS. Not one on BB - closest would be FACTORY GIRL or DEAR DOCTOR but those are still great songs.On LIB? YOU GOT THE SILVER? Still good, Jagger lead vocal (bootleg) is great. SF? NONE. EOMS, I don't know, it works as a solid piece of music. A Great period - don't forget to throw in Ya-Ya's on top of it. I think you slightly miss understood what I was getting at.... Keith takes over,you can see it in the SYMPATHY FOR THE DEVIL film by Goddard.When ever it's only 4 Stones it's a strong album (ABB - for example) Just one brain's opinion....

I think the obvious BJ contributions are great - RUBY TUESDAY, PAINT IT BLACK, LADY JANE, earlier blues work....all the Ed Sullivan shows are with Brian (except the 69 one that has a horrible vocal mix on it) and that's one great DVD to watch.I'm just saying that the guy was getting high too much and not keeping it together. They were worried about Visa problems cause of the drug stuff plus, it's no secret, Mick wanted more of the spot light and "3's a crowd" (on his cloud) when you're going for that. They kinda pushed him out and he kinda let them. Also, IMO, BETWEEN THE BUTTONS/FLOWERS aren't great albums mainly because of the HORRIBLE mix/production. They were in a slump and BEGGARS BANQUET pulled them out of it. 1968 - 1972 getting too much attention? Come on, name the filler songs on BB/LIB/SF/EOMS. Not one on BB - closest would be FACTORY GIRL or DEAR DOCTOR but those are still great songs.On LIB? YOU GOT THE SILVER? Still good, Jagger lead vocal (bootleg) is great. SF? NONE. EOMS, I don't know, it works as a solid piece of music. A Great period - don't forget to throw in Ya-Ya's on top of it. I think you slightly miss understood what I was getting at.... Keith takes over,you can see it in the SYMPATHY FOR THE DEVIL film by Goddard.When ever it's only 4 Stones it's a strong album (ABB - for example) Just one brain's opinion....

The Stones were great in the early years. But they had to change. There is no early 60's band that continued into the 70s without a major change (the Who etc.)
Brian was in no shape to make a substantial contribution to whatever the new direction was. Mick and Keith moved on and the results surpassed what they had done before.
This is not to dismiss the great earlier work or Brian's contributions, but I think 95% of fans are going to rate the Stones higher during their BB to IORR phase.

Mick Talyor and Jimmy Miller were a big influcence obviousley.

Send It To me Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I love the entire body of work put out by this
> band, even the mid-80's material.
>
> In my opinion, they've never put out anything not
> worthy of their name and reputation.
>
> All that being said, what the F__K happened for
> those four years between '68 and '72???!!!! The
> hand of God must have been involved.
>
> Two very, very good songwriters suddenly became
> Beethoven and Mozart collaborating. And then it
> went away. They became very, very good
> songwriters again.
>
> So mysterious...
_____________________________________________

Are you shure about this "Send It To me"

"The hand of God must have been involved"

I think it was someone else his hand

__________________________

Couple other factors: in an artist's life they say there is a kind of peak period. When the lessons learned bear fruit, yet have not turned jaded yet. The artist is young and starry-eyed enough to have wonder himself, but wise enough to tell it like it is.
But IMO a HUGE positive influence in those very years was Jimmy Miller. It's no coincidence that he was the producer for the very 4 albums of the Golden Era.

"...no longer shall you trudge 'cross my peaceful mind."

Yeah, Jimmy Miller kicked ass, no doubt about that - he had the Golden Ear....



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2006-08-23 00:25 by MicksBrain.

Mick Taylor is what happened to The Stones 68 - 72. In my opinion GHS is and always will be a brilliant album.

x



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-06 07:17 by Beelyboy.

Beely, I get lost in your words like a little kid does in a giant hot fudge sundae, seriously man, it's like free form jazz, you need to write a book. We should put our heads together, knock out a kick ass screenplay, then take that 20 mill and buy an island right next to Johnny "Jack Sparrow" Depp's new Island - we can drive him crazy by asking him never ending trivia questions about EDWARD SCISSORHANDS until he flips out and abandones his island......then we'll have 2 islands.....

I agree with most of what MickBrains said with a few exceptions (and additions)

First, when we talk about the Big 4, plus Ya Yas, we shouldn't forget HTW & JJF AS "SINGLES". 68-73 (tour) was w/o a doubt the greatest Period for the Greatest R&R Band of all-time.

Adding MT had very little to do with 68-72, studio-wise. BB has no MT, LIB, very little. And Keef plays the best solo on SF (Bitch) which is also the most fluid solo of his career. MT has great parts too.

MT made a HUGE differnce "live". MT biggest influence in the studio resulted in GHS and IORR. Great albums but a drop. The drop after 72/73 is linked to two factors 1) Keefs drug fog. And made-up for by MT. 2) interests in solo stuff (which was THE BIg factor in the post 81 decline)

Black & Blue was a low-point.

How on earth The Stones delivred Some Girls is a miricle- SOME GIRLS was the hand of GOD.

don't give me that ole one two, one two three four



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-08-23 05:23 by bigfrankie.

x



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-06 07:14 by Beelyboy.

Hey Beelyboy- don't get me wrong. I am one of the biggest MT fans alive... no foolin. If they brought him back I would go to EVERY show but........

I thought the main point of teh thread was "song writing". Maybe I understated him 68-72 but I'll stick with "MT biggest influence in the studio resulted in GHS and IORR". I just don't think he was writing a whole lot prior to that in comparison to Mick & Keef. His main contrinution 68-72 was playing not writing.

don't give me that ole one two, one two three four

HEILOOBAAS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mick Taylor is what happened to The Stones 68 -
> 72.

He didn't join until the summer of 69.

x



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-06 07:11 by Beelyboy.

MicksBrain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Having lived through that period you have to take
> numerous things into account:
>
> #1 The Beatles were around - there was ALWAYS a
> friendly competition going on but, as friendly as
> it was, THAT was always a big deal - no matter
> what anyone says. With the Beatles putting out
> brilliant work like SGT. PEPPERS, MAGICAL MYSTERY
> TOUR (US Album, not UK EP), WHITE ALBUM, ABBEY
> ROAD it kind of keep everyone else on their
> toes.(also, at this time, Bob Dylan was laying low
> in Woodstock- another small factor)
>
> #2 Brian Jones was falling apart, it was sink or
> swim for the other 4. Sometimes negative stuff
> motivates people to get their own acts together
> and do great work.
>
> #3 All the involvement with the courts (drug
> charges) probably was somewhat of a kick in the
> ass, a feeling this could all be gone tomorrow
> while we sit in jail cells for basically nothing
>
> #4 The lackluster response to SATANIC MAJESTY'S
> probably freaked them out a bit
>
> #5 Band member change seems to always produce
> their best work for some reason. Mick Taylor/Brian
> Jones change gave us BLEED/SF/EXILE. Mick
> Taylor/Ron Wood change gave us BLACK AND BLUE
> (which could have been a VERY strong album if
> CHERRY OH BABY was taken off and the Leftovers put
> on TATTOO YOU were included) and SOME GIRLS of
> course.I think they have a very strong "prove
> yourself" thing in them. Something they always
> seem to need to do whenever there's change - even,
> to some degree, VOODOO LOUNGE with Bill Wyman
> leaving.
>
> #6 The late 60's/early 70's were a very fruitful
> time for Rock music, film, and art in general.
> Look at Hendrix, Zeppelin, Doors, Cream, a lot of
> the bands at MONTEREY POP and WOODSTOCK. The big
> corporate machine was not working yet putting too
> much/the wrong pressure on artists to tour a lot
> and produce formula work...
>
> #7 Sometimes, things just happen. There's magical
> moments and then they're gone. A million different
> little things coming together at the right time
> caused them to happen but you can never recreate
> these things to make it all happen the same way
> again

#2 Brian Jones was falling apart,it was sink or swim for the other 4. Your right Let it Bleed was a 4 man band not 5,Taylor had nothing to do with it,basically he played on country honk,WOW. same goes with Beggars another 4 man band effort,Brian played on Jig Saw Puzzle, Which was great slide work but only 1 song.

To me IORR as is similar to the MT 1979 solo album as a STones ablum could get.

IORR is a lot more Jagger/Taylor than anything else.


I agree with his signature on stuff like Shine a Light, for example, pull MT out and its nowhere near as good. We just have no way of knowing who "wrote" what. One thing we do know is, not getting song writing credit was a big factor casuing MT to leave- but I would think that was on IORR and to little lesser extent GHS..................

don't give me that ole one two, one two three four

livewithme Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Brian was in no shape to make a substantial
> contribution to whatever the new direction was.
> Mick and Keith moved on and the results surpassed
> what they had done before.


I don't agree with this. The Stones did not get any better after Brian was gone. Their style of music changed and that's about it. Their music became more guitar-driven with the arrival of Mick 'The Master of the 5 minute solo' Taylor and many people prefer that, but it does not mean the music was better. It's all a matter of personal taste, and I prefer the more eclectic, diverse sounds and styles of the Brian era.

neptune Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> livewithme Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Brian was in no shape to make a substantial
> > contribution to whatever the new direction was.
>
> > Mick and Keith moved on and the results
> surpassed
> > what they had done before.
>
>
> I don't agree with this. The Stones did not get
> any better after Brian was gone. Their style of
> music changed and that's about it. Their music
> became more guitar-driven with the arrival of Mick
> 'The Master of the 5 minute solo' Taylor and many
> people prefer that, but it does not mean the music
> was better. It's all a matter of personal taste,
> and I prefer the more eclectic, diverse sounds and
> styles of the Brian era.

Neptune i agree, Aftermath is still 1 of my favorite album's,and the list goes on with Brian. I like everthing they did with Brian!

I think both time periods were equally great and if you were to list all the great songs from each time period it would be about even, but comparing the two would be like comparing apples to oranges. 63-67 was mostly blues and catchy pop which I loved and 68-72 was a combo of hard rock, blues, country etc. which I also loved.

How can you compare "Under My Thumb" to "Gimme Shelter"? One is a pop song that would have had huge chart success if it were released as a single and one is an all time rock classic. The two lists would be equally great but much different types of songs.

It is clear who the winner was when the Stones changed their sound around 1968;
the fans. Not only did the Stones remain just as good but we got a different sound as well.

I assume most creative people have their "golden periods". During 68-72, Mick and Keith had e.g. both the experience and the right age (not too old). I wonder how especially Keith's drugs affected their work.

Agree completely.

The Rolling Stones have never come near their work in the 1968 - 1973 period. It's not just the loss of Mick Taylor, either. They became soft and flabby.

They've been resting on their laurels so long it's not funny anymore...