I'm obviously by my username a big Jones fan, and I also really like Ronnie...

My feeling is that when Brian left the band, the band lost this guy who had a sense of color for songs for one, and also lost a "two guitars, one sound" feel. Their early recordings, before Brian lost interest in the guitar, are two guys trading parts, two similar styles. The solos, when they occur, are simple but effective. There was a certain darkness during the entirety of the Brian era because while Brian wasn't a songwriter, he brought with him due to his psyche a darkness to the band which colors their songs. A certain spookiness, and at the same time, a delicate sense of melody.

Take a song like Ruby Tuesday or Sittin' on a Fence. Both songs are very delicate and nuanced. They aren't complex by any means, but they're simple and pretty and yet very evocative. Brian's delicate lead guitar part on the latter song speaks of the latter mandolin work by Jimmy Page to create a very Elizabethan feel (as does his dulcimer on Lady Jane); on the former song, his piano and recorder combine to create a very sensitive ballad.

Or just take all the very dark songs the band as a whole recorded in his time: Mother's Little Helper, Midnight Rambler, Paint it Black, Play with Fire, Citadel, Have You Seen Your Mother Baby, 2000 Light Years from Home. Even upbeat songs like Dandelion have a bittersweet sort of feeling underlying the upbeat poppiness of the melodies. When the band explored the blues in the '63-69 era, it always came off very Delta, very spooky - Parachute Woman is fucking sexy. Midnight Rambler is dark and haunting.

Even besides their darkness, they were just a snarkier, "punkier" group with Brian. Songs like Stupid Girl, Yesterday's Papers, Out of Time, Under My Thumb all hold a very bitter snarkiness to them - all bitter lyrics by Mick set to very melodic music, a lot of which was enhanced by Brian's esoteric instrumentalism and Keith's very subtle guitar work. Brian's instrumentalism, and Keith's subtle leads create a nice tapestry of sound, which works perfectly around Mick's simple but direct lyricism.

After Brian declines and leaves, you don't really get that sort of texture again. They became more of a rock band.

While Mick Taylor was an amazing guitarist, I never felt that big solos or the lead/rhythm division fit what the Stones were all about. The Stones to me are at heart a garage band, and Mick never fit that either in terms of personality or style. You went from Brian, who was one of the most stylish cats in Britain, with an articulate, outspoken, yet sensitive and delicate personality to match his elaborate clothes - to Taylor who just struck me as both quiet and rather dull.

I was reading a very early interview with Mick Taylor from 1969 and it just seems even he never realized himself as one of "them". He was talking about maybe doing a solo thing in the future that early, and talking all about how he'd be able to write songs for them and be the lead guitarist and such - and this to me seemed like a bit egotistical for a guy who JUST joined a well established band.

He just...You take Mick Jagger - posh, vain, eloquent, so many things
Keith - shy, nice, down to Earth, sharp
Bill - droll but honest
Charlie - the every man

And you stick a guy into there who has the charisma of a wet noodle, no danger about him, who doesn't move around on stage and just throws leads over every single song - and yet who even from the beginning has big ideas about being a leader of a band he didn't form.

Don't get me wrong - I like songs during his tenure, but they're songs that are lead by Keith: Happy, Dance Little Sister, things like that. Exile is the best album from this period and it's mainly a Keith record. Keith had a sense of minimalism which Brian shared. Taylor never seemed to grasp the idea that less is more, and to me, "less is more" is the brilliance of the Stones.

With Ronnie, they returned to that approach and Some Girls was a solid return to forum. Ronnie is a funny cat, nice, personable, and he's part of the band, in the same way that Brian was before he burned himself out. With Mick, I've always felt Mick Taylor was never part of the Stones; it always seemed like "The Rolling Stones featuring Mick Taylor."

Anyone else kinda with me? It doesn't mean the material sucks or anything, it's just, I don't think he really added much that Keith didn't lay a solid foundation for. And I feel they abandoned the blues with Mick and became a more one dimensional rock band during his years. In the age of arena rock, he's what they needed I suppose but I always felt like he was a budget Clapton.

Paranoid Android wrote on Apr 9^th, 2017 at 8:29pm:


Yeah, I think both are true. It's clear that even as early as 1969, Taylor had big ambitions for the band - bigger ambitions than they had for him. Perhaps he had a bigger ego than he let on or perhaps he was misled, but he talks in interviews as early as July or August 1969 about leading the direction of the band, and having a big role in their sound. I mean, the guy was a hireling at that point and here he is talking about taking the group in a direction as if he's the leader...I think he had big ambitions and the Stones weren't interested in pursuing them. I know people like Taylor because he was a shy nice guy but I think he kind of used the Stones, and they used him. He used them to get famous and build a name for himself, and then left when he thought the Stones were on their way out - and they used him for his soloing and to enhance their live show. I don't think that he was ever truly a "Stone" in the way Brian or Ronnie were. I think it was partly ego and partly naivete - this 20 year old kid thought he'd struck gold and would take his band "to the next level" and make his mark...And rode the pony until the ride was no longer exciting or until he realized that they were never going to go "his way"

No.

Gazza wrote on Apr 11^th, 2017 at 9:47am:


Charlie Watts didn't wank all over every song.

Guitar fit good, still does.  Not used properly during reunion shows - should have done a block of Taylor-associated tunes in mid-show.

Heart Of Stone wrote on Apr 12^th, 2017 at 7:33am:


He damned sure did back in December '62 when he showed up with them fancy amps. 

andrews27 wrote on Apr 11^th, 2017 at 10:25pm:


This. One of the biggest wasted opportunities of their touring career.  Dragging the guy out every night to play electric on one song and an inaudible acoustic on another, neither of which featured him on the original? And then leaving him backstage while playing a set based largely on music from the era he was in the band?

Idiotic and petty. Not to mention Jagger and Richards' conflicting reasons for discontinuing his involvement.

Gazza wrote on Apr 12^th, 2017 at 10:39am:

I'm guessing the original poster was referring to Taylor's live playing, where I think he did overplay quite a bit.

Just take, as an example, "Dead Flowers" from the '72 STP tour. It's a finely nuanced country song on record, and live Taylor solos literally all through the song. Why?

'Sticky Fingers' through 'IORR' are all note-perfect albums (says me) and Taylor is unimpeachable. But I put that down to Jagger and Richards having absolute control in the studio. There was nothing on any of those albums that the Stones couldn't or wouldn't have come up with without Taylor's input. They were just on a creative roll in that era, and a brilliantly experimental one at that. For tracks like "Can't You Here Me Knocking", "Winter", "Time Waits For No One" - they could have brought in any number of hot shot guitarists for those solos (including Taylor); his and that style was highly fashionable in those days and they used him for that (as a very young, callow and probably naive "lead" guitarist).

Oddly enough, for all the kudos for Taylor's work on it, 'Exile' doesn't feature many of his trademark solos. Only "Let It Loose" comes to mind just now. It was live that he really shined (or, uhm, overplayed ).

riffkeither wrote on Apr 12^th, 2017 at 2:55pm:


They're so stuck on their goddamned setlist formula (derived from the 1981 tour) that a cohesive block of Taylor was beyond their thinking.  Opportunity wasted, because a better formula variant will never again be available.  How hard was it to assemble a good mini-set of Taylor songs?  They only would have had to dredge up one they weren't already playing.  Even playing rhythm on Bitch would have fit.

I have to agree that their setlist is way too formulaic. They really do play the same songs over and over, ad nauseum. I love their music and sure, they're a fantastic live band, but I wouldn't buy tickets to more than one concert per tour. They need to mix up that setlist a little more. And I'm not just saying this because I hate You Can't Always Get What You Want either.

riffkeither wrote on Apr 13^th, 2017 at 2:34pm:



For instance, here's a 20-song set plot, 3 slots fewer than at the O2 in 2012:

1)      Standard 4-man band
2)      Standard 4-man band
3)      Standard 4-man band
4)      Standard 4-man band
5)      Standard 4-man band
6)      Standard 4-man band (Ballad slot)
7)      Band with Mick Taylor 1 (Possibly Bitch)
8)      Band with Mick Taylor 2 (Possibly All Down the Line)
9)      Band with Mick Taylor 3 (You Pick One Here)
10)      Band with Mick Taylor 4 (Possibly CYHMK)
11)      Band with Mick Taylor 5 (Possibly Midnight Rambler)
12)      Band with Mick Taylor 6 (Probably Honky Tonk Women)
13)      Keith 1
14)      Keith 2
15)      Standard 4-man band
16)      Standard 4-man band
17)      Standard 4-man band
18)      Standard 4-man band (Probably Brown Sugar)

19)      Band with Mick Taylor encore (Probably YCAGWYW)
20)      Standard 4-man band encore (Probably Satisfaction)

5 minutes to type, lifetime of pleasure.