Since we had a best album poll in the Ronnie era, I'm wondering how many people prefer which guitarist in which era, I always got the impression Mick Taylor is prefered over Ronnie, also there's the 60's Brian era, which some of us oldtimers prefer, let's see how this poll goes.

I prefer the period with Keith meself.  :booze

Gazza wrote on Nov 25^th, 2009 at 6:34am:

I prefer the period with Keith meself.  :booze

I corrected that Gazza, it was kind of hard to come up with a way of wording this, Brian was more then a guitarist, he played every other instrument, but everybody's got the idea what I mean.

Do you really think this is going to be close? If it's not MT by a mile. I'll eat my super deluxe version of ya ya's....Ok I don't have one,but the thought is there. :smoking

sweetcharmedlife wrote on Nov 25^th, 2009 at 9:10am:

Do you really think this is going to be close? If it's not MT by a mile. I'll eat my super deluxe version of ya ya's....Ok I don't have one,but the thought is there. :smoking

It looks like MT is going win by a mile after all, 7 votes already.

Mick Taylor Period.

Mick T.
but.. BTW is your Birthday FG? You're as a fairy.
http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk220/southerngirl49/SHADOW%20FAIRIES/moonfairy.jpg
              Happy Birthday Factory Girl :)

If the issue is solely regarding ‘guitar playing’, then it has to be Taylor all the way. He was a wonderful guitarist and added another dimension to the groups live performances. Personally, I feel that he underachieved in the studio, but live, well, all one needs to do is listen to a soundboard ’72 show or Brussels, ’73.

This is a difficult one: in many ways I prefer the Brian-era for the singles and imagery, but performance-wise, it is hard to argue against Taylor.

Mick Taylor is the best guitarist.   But this poll is for era, and I'm an old timer who prefers the Brian era.

Brian was a versatile musician, who added a great deal to the Stone's songs of his era.  And, he was a pretty good slide guitarist.  Damn good on the harmonica as well.

My second favorite era would be the Mick Taylor era.

I don't know that I consider myself an old timer since I wasn't even a year old when Brian died.  I voted for Brian.  Without his innovations and playing slide and blues the way he did the Stones may not have survived early 60's popmania.  

:smilemick :wow

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwu0MQrk_ec

this guy....and this is just a glimpse.

AngieBlue wrote on Nov 25^th, 2009 at 3:13pm:

I don't know that I consider myself an old timer since I wasn't even a year old when Brian died.  I voted for Brian.  Without his innovations and playing slide and blues the way he did the Stones may not have survived early 60's popmania.

Well said. I was sixteen when Brian died. Brian's musical innovations were one of several significant factors that resulted in the Stone's pulling ahead of The Beatles.

Heart Of Stone wrote on Nov 25^th, 2009 at 6:48am:

Gazza wrote on Nov 25th, 2009 at 6:34am: I prefer the period with Keith meself.  :booze I corrected that Gazza, it was kind of hard to come up with a way of wording this, Brian was more then a guitarist, he played every other instrument, but everybody's got the idea what I mean.

Nah, I'm teasing. What I meant was I prefer the whole thing. 1963 to now.

I voted Taylor, but I dont necessarily agree that it was bringing Taylor into the band that elevated them to a new level of brilliance (it certainly helped, of course). If anything, it was bringing in Jimmy Miller as producer. The 'golden era' for me starts with the first single they cut with Miller ('Jumpin' Jack Flash') and runs through to Exile - Miller's only work after that was Goats Head Soup but there was an element of creative burn out (comparitively speaking) on the part of both Miller and the Stones themselves.

Miller brought the best out of Mick and Keith as songwriters. That started a year before Taylor joined the band and started to decline two years before he left. I think his importance to the band's greatness on record at that time is maybe slightly overexaggerated by many - the real key was the quality of the songs that Mick & Keith were writing (it certainly helped that they were genuinely friends, living close to each other and regular collaborators back then - unlike now when they dont even live on the same continent and probably barely see or hear from each other more than a couple of times a year during Stones 'downtime'. The affects of that kind of relationship on their output is evident). I also think maybe that their greatness pre-1969 is perhaps a little underrated by modern day fans - even though thats undeniably the period where they made their greatest cultural impact.

As a LIVE act, their peak period was the Taylor era - no argument there. From 1969 to 1973 they were absolutely unstoppable.

uncleson wrote on Nov 25^th, 2009 at 1:33pm:

Mick Taylor is the best guitarist.   But this poll is for era, and I'm an old timer who prefers the Brian era. Brian was a versatile musician, who added a great deal to the Stone's songs of his era.  And, he was a pretty good slide guitarist.  Damn good on the harmonica as well. My second favorite era would be the Mick Taylor era.

I pretty much totally agree with this. :)

Brian

Gotta dissagree with you Gazza, but only slightly.
While its true that Jimmy Miller was instrumental to that era's greatness, he came along right when the Jagger/Richard writing team was really evolving and becoming a thing all its own and Keith was becoming more confident as a musician.
They were growing as songwriters and musicians and whoever the hell produces the Stones, it always comes down to Mick and Keef and quality of their work.
MT brought pretty notes, but he also brought his own brand of bluesy riffing, but something original and not derivative of standard blues scaling.
Like the slide in Soul Survivor - he plays through the whole song and throws in these little flourishes that reel you in even after almost 40 years…. or in Shine a Light, where the guitar is subtly gospel during the verses and then just tears into a scorching solo in the break …..or in Winter, the way MT follows and seems to answer Jagger’s singing, like he’s feeling Mick’s gentle and romantic mood….priceless.
And those pretty notes added a certain elegance to the Stones music, which meshed beautifully with the ragged edges, and he had a technical virtuosity that was rooted in a soulfulness and rhythm, which is why he complimented Keith.
That two-guitar attack of Taylor/Richards is a big part of what makes Exile so distinct and definitive because while MT could fly over the songs with his simultaneously sharp-edged and delicate fingering, Keef was freed to just do what he does better than anybody: which is lay down a solid and relentless groove as a rhythm machine. And it was pure magic.
Can anyone hear Moonlight Mile without MT? or All Down the Line…..?
Jimmy Miller recorded the Stones, made the right choices in the booth, played great drums and turned the right knobs...he  captured the magic, and that is not to be diminished - but its MT who was part of that magic and who Stones fans still respond to so nostalgically.

The choice between 1 and 2 was very, very, very hard - but over in a moment.  Sorry.

Had 2 been another contender, it would have been easier.

What does it say about life when insubstantial things are the best?  When origin cannot stay?

Yet, would 2 have adapted to change in 1977 any better than 1 did in 1968?

texile wrote on Nov 25^th, 2009 at 8:15pm:

Gotta dissagree with you Gazza, but only slightly. While its true that Jimmy Miller was instrumental to that era's greatness, he came along right when the Jagger/Richard writing team was really evolving and becoming a thing all its own and Keith was becoming more confident as a musician. They were growing as songwriters and musicians and whoever the hell produces the Stones, it always comes down to Mick and Keef and quality of their work. MT brought pretty notes, but he also brought his own brand of bluesy riffing, but something original and not derivative of standard blues scaling. Like the slide in Soul Survivor - he plays through the whole song and throws in these little flourishes that reel you in even after almost 40 years…. or in Shine a Light, where the guitar is subtly gospel during the verses and then just tears into a scorching solo in the break …..or in Winter, the way MT follows and seems to answer Jagger’s singing, like he’s feeling Mick’s gentle and romantic mood….priceless. And those pretty notes added a certain elegance to the Stones music, which meshed beautifully with the ragged edges, and he had a technical virtuosity that was rooted in a soulfulness and rhythm, which is why he complimented Keith. That two-guitar attack of Taylor/Richards is a big part of what makes Exile so distinct and definitive because while MT could fly over the songs with his simultaneously sharp-edged and delicate fingering, Keef was freed to just do what he does better than anybody: which is lay down a solid and relentless groove as a rhythm machine. And it was pure magic. Can anyone hear Moonlight Mile without MT? or All Down the Line…..? Jimmy Miller recorded the Stones, made the right choices in the booth, played great drums and turned the right knobs...he  captured the magic, and that is not to be diminished - but its MT who was part of that magic and who Stones fans still respond to so nostalgically.

The ironic and sad thing about the last comment is that most 'Stones fans' would hardly know Mick Taylor if he walked past them on the street. Thats a sign of not only how badly his own career post 1974 has been managed, but of the revisionism within the Stones organisation in recent years.

I'm not for a second trying to nullify Mick T's musicianship or contribition. He was a major part of the band's sound in that era (and was a huge reason as to why from 1969-73 they were the greatest live band in the world). The songs would still have been there had he not been in the band, though - they would have just largely sounded a bit different. Maybe better, maybe worse - but certainly different. Without Mick and Keith writing them, they wouldnt have been there to begin with. I dont think its a coincidence that the Stones by the end of 1967 sounded like a bit of a spent force, riding on the coat tails of the Summer of Love with Satanic Majesties and then within months had hit a zenith with Jumpin Jack Flash and Beggars Banquet. Neither do I think its a coincidence that when Miller's creativity began to wane, the quality of their work dipped at the same time.

Taylor was in the band from June 1969 - December 1974. The Stones high point as a recording band runs from May 1968 to 1972. The two periods certainly overlap, but my point was they dont fit in together as exactly as some like to believe. Of the four great, timeless albums from that period from 1968 to 1972, Taylor is on two and a half of them. They also made two albums with him which dont fall into that category IMO, so they'd hit their creative stride before he joined (and admittedly helped add to it and develop their sound) and had deteriorated while he was still in the band.

I just think that there's a bit more to the argument as to why the Stones were so great for that 1968-72 and maybe declined somewhat afterwards, and the importance of circumstances Mick and Keith found themselves in plus the effectiveness (or otherwise) of the producer they employed were factors which were every bit if not more important than their choice of lead guitarist - great though he undoubtedly was.

Poor Ronnie! he only getting 4 votes.

Heart Of Stone wrote on Nov 26^th, 2009 at 2:23pm:

Poor Ronnie! he only getting 4 votes.

How do you know that, HOS? I thought the results were hidden until the final vote... :-/

Sioux wrote on Nov 26^th, 2009 at 8:06pm:

Heart Of Stone wrote on Nov 26th, 2009 at 2:23pm: Poor Ronnie! he only getting 4 votes. How do you know that, HOS? I thought the results were hidden until the final vote... :-/

Oh, I meant so far.

Time to show the poll results.  I believe everybody's committed their sins.

"I know I've dreamed you
A sin and a lie..."

Everybody want to close this poll?

If you think that you can close it, how you want Heart.
But why so soon?
People dont vote?

Lantern_High wrote on Nov 28^th, 2009 at 10:21am:

If you think that you can close it, how you want Heart. But why so soon? People dont vote?

Ok, I'll keep it open, I'm just going by the post before me, time to show the poll results.

Heart Of Stone wrote on Nov 28^th, 2009 at 10:30am:

Ok, I'll keep it open, I'm just going by the post before me, time to show the poll results.

Well, I'm quite curious.

I just voted! How many votes are in?  

sweetcharmedlife wrote on Nov 25^th, 2009 at 9:10am:

Do you really think this is going to be close? If it's not MT by a mile. I'll eat my super deluxe version of ya ya's....Ok I don't have one,but the thought is there. :smoking

i agree!

---

Can I vote once each for Brian and MT?  I feel so cheap, now.

Gazza wrote on Nov 26^th, 2009 at 7:19am:

[quote author=texile link=1259152235/0#16 date=1259201759] The ironic and sad thing about the last comment is that most 'Stones fans' would hardly know Mick Taylor if he walked past them on the street. Thats a sign of not only how badly his own career post 1974 has been managed, but of the revisionism within the Stones organisation in recent years.

Can't argue with that, but that may be why i tend to be defensive about MT - he is the least known Stone....and i think that 'revisionism' has alot to do with fans appreciating the musical distinction of that era.
Even the historically reviled (by critics and fans of the time) albums like GHS and IORR have a certain charm, elegance and softness about them that is much more appreciated now.
And being a musician, i tend to underestimate the value of producers, but Miller was definately part of that era's greatness and i didn't mean to diminish that - i know they do more than turn knobs etc....
but MT is always the underdog in the Stones discussion simply because of his post-Stones status and maybe his own quiet persona...(I remember wondering how that blond guy was in the album jacket of Hot Rocks - he didn't 'fit' and i didn't even know who he was at the time.)
To me, giving him props with the Stones is like heralding an unheralded David to the Stones' Goliath epic.
And YCAGWYW live has never been the same since 1973.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adhj-LCQfMo

will this finally put to bed the mick t vs ronnie question?

yes I Think so, with Mick T. at 66 & Ronnie at 21 votes.

Thats true.  But Brian should really have a few more votes.

As Andrew said, hed like to vote once for Brian and once for MT.  Thats kind of how I feel, though I voted for Brian.

And I voted for RONNIE because he is with the Stones now and I live in the present, not the past. RONNIE can still thrill me now while the other 2 just cant.
but
They are ALL good!

I absolutely love Brian Jones, and you can't replace the instrumental sound that he brought to many, many great records.  But I discovered him second while growing up in the 1970s, and heard a lot of MT first.  That and MT's lyrical sound - as persuasive in its narrower way as Brian's contributions were - is what clinches it for me.  

They're both irreplaceable.  And Woody's detractors should ponder what the band would have sounded like with other guitarists historically likely to join.  Woods is far from decisively to blame for any "decline" in later Stones.  (Songwriting?  No more than MT.)

BTW, there should be a Woody smiley or two put up in fairness.

andrews27 wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2009 at 9:49am:

I absolutely love Brian Jones, and you can't replace the instrumental sound that he brought to many, many great records.  But I discovered him second while growing up in the 1970s, and heard a lot of MT first.  That and MT's lyrical sound - as persuasive in its narrower way as Brian's contributions were - is what clinches it for me.   They're both irreplaceable.  And Woody's detractors should ponder what the band would have sounded like with other guitarists historically likely to join.  Woods is far from decisively to blame for any "decline" in later Stones.  (Songwriting?  No more than MT.) BTW, there should be a Woody smiley or two put up in fairness.

good points....
I voted for MT because that's my personal musical preference overall - the melody, versatility etc....

but i can't imagine Some Girls without Ronnie, or Under My Thumb withour Brian/
Each one is ireplaceable because each era is so distinctive and separate from the others.

Brian was creative and could play any instrument instinctively, a true musician....MT was MT and Ronnie was more loose, funky and punky....which fit that Some Grils-TY period, the period when i got hooked and which defined them for me initially......
the others came later for me....
so although we all have our preferences, they were all so characteristic of their time.

very well said, texile!

so far.
Brian-46- 27%
Mick T.-100-58.8%
Ronnie-24-14.1%

Poll closed.
Brian-48 Votes 26.8%
Mick T.-106 votes 59.2%
Ronnie-25 Votes 13.9%
Mick of course is the winner, Ronnie is the least.