Who do you feel merits the title more, outside of actual membership?

My vote goes to Nicky. If they had had any sense they would've made him a full member.

Gazza wrote on Feb 24^th, 2018 at 1:05pm:


Amen to that. Since Stu died they have been less of a band and more a corporate and commercial behemoth trading on the reputation, goodwill and the brand of the band they once were.

If not the sixth stone then Stu is the ur - Stone - the primordial element without which there would have been no Stones (despite what the Brian Jones advocates may say) and in that case I 'd say the title of sixth Stone belongs to Anita, whose influence, for good or ill, informed the spirit of the band and set them apart from all others

Stu is the second Stone and Nicky could be the sixth or seventh but Nicky NEVER was a member and Stu was

I'm quoting myself from our Stu website here in Rocks Off

"Ian Stewart was the second Rolling Stone after Brian Jones and before all others. He was the first to respond Brian's ad in Jazz News; he joined Brian and Jeff Bradford. Then Mick Jagger met them at the Ealing R&B Club and joined their rehearsals, bringing his mates Keith Richards and Dick Taylor. Stu was the first person Keith met when he auditioned for the job.

Being the second, he is known as the sixth Rolling Stone."


However in my humble opinion, Nicky was by far the best side musician on both studio and live, better pianist that Stu, even for boogie-woogie

No # for Stu, he is or was a Stone!
So in Answer to Your Question Bobby Keys,Nicky, or imo uncle oz!

or uncle oz

[size=72][/size]STU

I mean in terms of contribution musically.
Stu seems to have restricted himself to playing piano on the boogie numbers or more traditional rock/blues songs, and his contribution seems to be more color than it is the foundation of a track, whereas Nicky (especially in the 1967-1969 period) is on every kind of song and the stuff he plays is an integral part of the number (IE the piano on She's A Rainbow, or on Sympathy, etc, both of which act as the cornerstone or main rhythm of the two songs).

I mean consider how much each guy played during the time both played with the band:

Between the Buttons, Nicky plays on 2 songs, Stu on 4.

Nicky plays on 9 out of 10 songs on TSMR, Stu doesn't play on that record.

Nicky plays on 7 out of the 10 tracks on Beggar's Banquet, Stu doesn't play on BB.

On Let it Bleed, Nicky plays on 4 tracks out of 9 to Stu's one track.

They play on an equal amount of songs on Sticky Fingers (2 each)

Nicky plays piano on 10 out of the 18 tracks on Exile and electric piano on additional three tracks; Stu only plays on 3 songs there.

Nicky plays on 5 out of 10 songs on GHS, Stu on only 2.

Nicky plays on 7 out of 10 tracks on IORR, Stu on 3.

Nicky plays on 3 songs on B&B, Stu plays on one song on percussion.

Nicky plays 4 tracks on Tattoo You, Stu on 3.

If 1968-1972 is considered the "golden era" of the Stones, Nicky was much more a part of that than Stu was.

Gazza wrote on Feb 25^th, 2018 at 6:58pm:


Yes but I'm not talking about longevity, I'm talking about contribution purely. For example, I think that very few would argue that Nicky's piano is the foundation of She's A Rainbow. There's a lot of other songs from that era that are like that. Similarly, you can point to how Jones' sitar makes Paint it Black or how Taylor's solo makes Sway stand out.

With Ronnie, while he was there longer you can't really point to these standout moments. With Stu these sort of moments are few and far between too. Yes, Stu was there longer, yes he was an official member, yes Mick and Keith have cited him as an influence as a person, a moral leader in a sense, but how much of that is revisionism?

I mean they all say they loved Stu right? But they went along just fine with ALO removing him from the band because he didn't look the part. When ALO and Allen Klein were gone, they could've reinstated Stu as a real member at any time they wanted, this would've enlarged Stu's bottom line, made his financial situation easier, and given him true influence in the band's musical direction, but they chose not to. Why not?

As far as his input, yeah 1968-1972 aren't the only eras but look at the entire period from 1967 to 1981 where Stu & Nicky both contributed to Stones' records. That's 14 years and in that 14 year period, Nicky did a lot more than Stu, and his moments standout a lot more than Stu's do. Stu isn't really on Dirty Work and not much on Undercover either after Nicky got sickly...So really outside of his role as the second Stone hired and his moral role or whatever....What did he add, especially compared to Nicky?