|
|
| Some Guy |
?? |
|
|
| steel driving hammer |
Brian.
Next.
Thanks. |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
steel driving hammer wrote:
Brian.
Why?
he'd already left during an album where he'd barely played on and a stage in his career when he'd been a passenger for two years.
They followed his departure with Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers and Exile On Main Street.
They seemed to cope with it OK as far as I can see. |
|
|
| Dan |
Bill Wyman. |
|
|
| steel driving hammer |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
They seemed to cope with it OK as far as I can see.
Yeah, they turned out alright.
But would of loved to have seen Brian sober up and contribute to those following albums!
He would of added a different flavor than Taylor.
A flavor that I can almost taste.
Yeah Taylor was great, but like Keith, it's only simple chords, that I luuuuve.
Think Brian would of been not as Twangy as Ronnie maybe too?
Stones You Bastard |
|
|
| Zack |
Taylor. The band reeled. |
|
|
| Fiji Joe |
Dimensions they never had before or since...that's what Mick T gave them...Musically, Brian brought very little and it was clear that that whatever he could bring wasn't going to make them the greatest band in the world...even if he lived and was sober |
|
|
| Gazza |
The Stones had already peaked when Taylor left, His departure and any creative decline werent as inextricably linked as many seem to claim IMHO.
The dynamic of the band is based on Mick & Keith's songwriting. If the quality of those songs are in decline, its not really THAT important which extra musicians are playing on them. They were effectively a one guitar band during the making of Beggars Banquet and for much of Let It Bleed and they were still able to create brilliant songs.
Creatively, I dont think they were ever consistently as strong after they left England in the early 70's and were less of a 'team'. Keith's long-term heroin addiction didnt help matters either. |
|
|
| Fiji Joe |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
The Stones had already peaked when Taylor left, His departure and any creative decline werent as inextricably linked as many seem to claim IMHO.
The dynamic of the band is based on Mick & Keith's songwriting. If the quality of those songs are in decline, its not really THAT important which extra musicians are playing on them. They were effectively a one guitar band during the making of Beggars Banquet and for much of Let It Bleed and they were still able to create brilliant songs.
Creatively, I dont think they were ever consistently as strong after they left England in the early 70's and were less of a 'team'. Keith's long-term heroin addiction didnt help matters either.
That said...Mick T's guitar playing allowed their music to express moods that they couldn't with Brian, Keith or Ronnie...I think you underestimate just how much Mick T was changing the mood of some of their music with his guitar...He was more than just a session musician IMO...he was one of the best rock guitarist of his time and a perfect fit musically...sure, Jagger Richards wrote the songs, but you've heard the demos...many of those songs are nothing like what they started out as...you're right about the songwriting and its decline...and their peak of creativity...certainly Mick T couldn't do it by himself...but I think all those pieces fit perfectly in the early 70s...that's why the music from that era is so special |
|
|
| Zack |
quote:
Fiji Joe wrote:
That said...Mick T's guitar playing allowed their music to express moods that they couldn't with Brian, Keith or Ronnie...I think you underestimate just how much Mick T was changing the mood of some of their music with his guitar...He was more than just a session musician IMO...he was one of the best rock guitarist of his time and a perfect fit musically...sure, Jagger Richards wrote the songs, but you've heard the demos...many of those songs are nothing like what they started out as...you're right about the songwriting and its decline...and their peak of creativity...certainly Mick T couldn't do it by himself...but I think all those pieces fit perfectly in the early 70s...that's why the music from that era is so special
Amen. |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
Fiji Joe wrote:
That said...Mick T's guitar playing allowed their music to express moods that they couldn't with Brian, Keith or Ronnie...I think you underestimate just how much Mick T was changing the mood of some of their music with his guitar...He was more than just a session musician IMO...he was one of the best rock guitarist of his time and a perfect fit musically...sure, Jagger Richards wrote the songs, but you've heard the demos...many of those songs are nothing like what they started out as...you're right about the songwriting and its decline...and their peak of creativity...certainly Mick T couldn't do it by himself...but I think all those pieces fit perfectly in the early 70s...that's why the music from that era is so special
Its certainly a big part of it, I'd agree (I'd never diminish Taylor's playing skills or his contribution to the band) but you know the old saying - you can't polish a turd! |
|
|
| Joey |
quote:
Some Guy wrote:
??
Mick Taylor
Frig Yeah !!!!!!
|
|
|
| PartyDoll MEG |
We can hash over this one more time or a thousand more times..
Mick was the better musician
Brian got the group together
They are both gone |
|
|
| Joey |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
The Stones had already peaked when Taylor left, His departure and any creative decline werent as inextricably linked as many seem to claim IMHO.
The dynamic of the band is based on Mick & Keith's songwriting. If the quality of those songs are in decline, its not really THAT important which extra musicians are playing on them. They were effectively a one guitar band during the making of Beggars Banquet and for much of Let It Bleed and they were still able to create brilliant songs.
Creatively, I dont think they were ever consistently as strong after they left England in the early 70's and were less of a 'team'. Keith's long-term heroin addiction didnt help matters either.
Gazza .........................
In my nearly forty - one years of postin' I have never seen you write so powerfully .
You are on FIRE !!!!!!
" Hit Me Ronnie !!!! "
J. ' Lo ' kins ! ™ |
|
|
| MikeyC613 |
Brian was "cooler". He had the Stones image, the Stones lifestyle, he dressed cool, he felt more like a Stone, because he was, he started the frickin' band. I think people saying Brian was the bigger blow are hoping that somehow Brian could have cleaned up his act and been ready to step up with songs to help Mick and Keith from carrying the load.
The problem with the band was that they weren't willing to evolve with Mick T. as far as granting songwriting credits whenever they accepted his ideas. If they had continued to do so, we could have had some more songs that would have been interesting. But I agree with Gazza, when the punks came out, they challenged Mick and Keith, and those two stepped up and made Some Girls. It always comes down to who's writing the songs, and if they are good songs. That being said, I think Mick was the bigger blow, even though he exhibited much of the same drugged-out qualities as Brian by the time he quit the band. |
|
|
| GhostofBrianJones |
I think all three Stones, Brian, Mick Taylor and Bill Wyman were a great loss
to the Stones. Mick Taylor and Brian each had their own style. Bill was an
excellent bass player. Ronnie is good but not as good as Mick Taylor and
Brian. The sole songwriters were MJ and KR and no one else has been able
to write with them at any time. I enjoyed all three being in the band. They
all had something great to contribute. |
|
|
| the good |
The contributions of both have always been wildly over stated. Brian contributed almost nothing to the the Stones finest era (68-72), Taylor came in after the renaissance began (so the idea that he was fundamental to it defies any conception of causality), and the Stones had another great period (78-81) after he left.
The axis of Jones/Taylor/Parsons defenders has become unbearable and must be defeated. It is a great propaganda effort aimed at undermining Mick and Keith. You cannot watch a single video on you tube without reading some idiot's comment about how they would be nothing without Jones, that Taylor made them a great band,that he wrote honky tonk women, etc, etc, etc, and that Parsons was the genius that created Exile, not Keith. All of this is utter nonsense and is easily refuted, and yet the axis of evil continues to spread its lies and propaganda.
Most of this propoganda is created by the rejected losers who never really fit in with their band, who could have written songs if only others had let them, and who need somebody to blame for their own failures. Its just too bad that not everyone can be a glimmer twin.
[Edited by the good]
[Edited by the good]
[Edited by the good]
[Edited by the good] |
|
|
| TampabayStone |
quote:
MikeyC613 wrote:
Brian was "cooler". He had the Stones image, the Stones lifestyle, he dressed cool, he felt more like a Stone, because he was, he started the frickin' band. I think people saying Brian was the bigger blow are hoping that somehow Brian could have cleaned up his act and been ready to step up with songs to help Mick and Keith from carrying the load.
The problem with the band was that they weren't willing to evolve with Mick T. as far as granting songwriting credits whenever they accepted his ideas. If they had continued to do so, we could have had some more songs that would have been interesting. But I agree with Gazza, when the punks came out, they challenged Mick and Keith, and those two stepped up and made Some Girls. It always comes down to who's writing the songs, and if they are good songs. That being said, I think Mick was the bigger blow, even though he exhibited much of the same drugged-out qualities as Brian by the time he quit the band.
It's now jinxed, but this thread should go 500, but someone will ruin it and I will be the only one posting in it. |
|
|
| TampabayStone |
quote:
the good wrote:
The contributions of both have always been wildly over- stated. Brain contributed almost nothing to the the Stones finest era (68-72), Taylor came in after the renaissance began (so the idea that he was funtamental to it defies any conception of causality), and the Stones had another great period (78-81) after he left.
The axis of Jones/Taylor/Parsons defenders has become unbearable and must be defeated. It is a great propoganda effort aimed at undermining Mick and Keith. You cannot watch a single video on you tube without reading some idiot's comment about how they would be nothing without Jones, that Taylor made them a great band,that he wrote honky tonk women, etc, etc, etc, and that Parsons was the genius that created Exile, not Keith. All of this is utter nonsense and is easily refuted, and yet the axis of evil continues to spread its lies and propoganda.
Most of this propoganda is created by the rejected losers who never really fit in with their band, who could have written songs if only others had let them, and who need somebody to blame for their own failures. Its just too bad that not everyone can be a glimmer twin.
friggin {[(CRACK)]}!
Mick's singing, Keefs b/u vocals & guitar, Micks awesome playing, Bill & Charles groovin' is what made Exile the greatest of all time! Plus, everyone else that contributed, in any way, to that album....
 |
|
|
| mojoman |
"Stu" |
|
|
| Jumacfly |
quote:
Dan wrote:
Bill Wyman.
+1
the groove is gone... |
|
|
| Joey |
quote:
Jumacfly wrote:
+1
the groove is gone...
Baby ?!
You know the question .......
Weedy ! |
|
|
| Nasty Habits |
Wyman's loss was the most fundamental, literally, that the band was ever hit with. Maybe not as a studio presence, but with Wyman's gone, the Stones' live sound became distinctly less funky and never recovered.
The three different guitar players represent distinct eras of the band, all with their own personality. It's impossible for me to imagine the 60s albums w/o Jones adding his own killer flair, the "classic era" w/o Taylor or the decline decades without Woody. How in the hell would Some Girls sound w/Taylor on it? Impossible to say - and I can't even imagine how cluttered '75 live recordings would be if he was on there as well soloing like mad - although maybe that would have shut up Preston's godawful synths.
|
|
|
| guitarman53 |
That's to hard for me to choose, Brian was the guy who played all those instruments who made The Stones records so great! & then Taylor was such a great lead guitarist, that those after '69 recordings couldn't have happen, his leads are so fantastic "Can't You Hear Me Knocking" "Time Waits For No One" & Brian playing all those different instruments on "Ruby Tuesday" & so on, it's to hard to make a choice. |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
mojoman wrote:
"Stu"
In some ways, the most missed of the lot. Keith's remark that he "was the glue that held us together" speaks volumes.
The end of that era preceded a new phase of the band's career which has seen them become more of a corporation and marketing venture than a band, with Cohl gradually succeeding Keith as Mick's main 'partner' when it comes to being the driving force of the entire organisation. |
|
|
| texile |
quote:
Nasty Habits wrote:
The three different guitar players represent distinct eras of the band, all with their own personality. It's impossible for me to imagine the 60s albums w/o Jones adding his own killer flair, the "classic era" w/o Taylor or the decline decades without Woody. How in the hell would Some Girls sound w/Taylor on it? Impossible to say - and I can't even imagine how cluttered '75 live recordings would be if he was on there as well soloing like mad - although maybe that would have shut up Preston's godawful synths.
exactly.
they each represented three different sounds.
but can you imagine taylor NOT on exile?
with his blues and melody?
and can you imagine brian ON exile?
with his flutes and marimbas?
|
|
|
| texile |
one of the most underrated things about taylor is that he could be just as dirty and funky when he wanted. |
|
|
| Kilroy |
quote:
Dan wrote:
Bill Wyman.
The Bass Man |
|
|
| Honky Tonk Man |
Neither.
If Brian hadn't of left, we wouldn't of had Exile and if Taylor hadn't of left, we wouldn't of had Ronnie.
History wouldn't have had it any other way. The Stones story is perfect as it is.
As others have stated however, Wyman is probably the greatest loss musicaly. Daryl isn't a Stone either.
[Edited by Honky Tonk Man] |
|
|
| Nellcote |
HTM nailed it. |
|
