What's your favorite era of the Stones?

The Brian Jones era (1962-1969)?
The Mick Taylor era (1969-1974)?
The Ronnie Wood era (1975-1993)?
The Chuck Leavell/Don Was/Darryl Jones era (1993-present)?

IMO, all those eras of the Stones' history are very unique and showcase that the Stones are and always have been WAY more than just Mick Jagger and Keith Richards, despite what those two would have you believe. Consider that songs like Lady Jane and Time Waits for No One haven't been played live since those most responsible for the sound of said songs left the band. Everyone thinks that the Rolling Stones = Mick and Keith and thus it's been the same band but IMO there are so many unsung and forgotten (by mainstream listeners/media) players like Brian, like Billy Preston, like Bobby Keys, Nicky Hopkins, Sugar Blue, Ry Cooder, etc.

I know the core of the band (Mick/Keith/Charlie) has been the same since 1962 but in many ways it feels like those eras were different bands. I mean the Stones never again truly captured the brutal, raw, clever, experimental honesty of the Brian Jones years, or the majestic epic rock of the Taylor years. With Ronnie they recaptured some of that experimental, willing to try anything spirit but it didn't last long and outside of a few gems the Stones have IMO been sort of bland since 1989 or so.

DIRTY WORK...oh, never mind...I thought you said "error"

Well, I'm a Brian fan, and a huge fan of EVERYTHING '64, '65, '66....so, I love the Brian era. Everything seemed new and exciting. :) I do love Exile and Sticky so I love the Mick T. years as well.

every era has it's own ups and downs for me... :whydontcha

but if i really have to choose, i'd say  from 1968 till 1978
IMHO The Rolling Stones at the very top of their game!

I enjoy all the music!  No disrespect to Ronnie, but I really like the Mick Taylor era.  

Are we picking guitarists or eras here?

I like '69-'72.

StickyStones wrote on Jun 27^th, 2011 at 10:16pm:

What's your favorite era of the Stones? The Brian Jones era (1962-1969)? The Mick Taylor era (1969-1974)? The Ronnie Wood era (1975-1993)? The Chuck Leavell/Don Was/Darryl Jones era (1993-present)?

The Jimmy Miller era. 1968-73.

The change of band personnel was less important than the fact that they had a great producer who brought out the best in Mick and Keith.

It doesnt fit neatly into the 'Jones' or 'Taylor' era because they did JJF, Child of the Moon, Beggars Banquet and half of Let It Bleed before Taylor joined the band - and they also made IORR with Taylor after breaking with Miller.

The Stones peaked at that time primarily because their two songwriters were at their best (and it was a time when they were genuinely a 'team', which theyve rarely been since) and because they had a great producer. Taylor's contribution was excellent, but it was far from the main factor. Miller's contribution on GHS was less significant because of his own problems at the time - I doubt its a coincidence that its a few notches down from the ones that preceded it in quality

I also have a sentimental fondness for the 1977-83 period. (Especially Some Girls). You could, I suppose, call that the 'Chris Kimsey era'.

The early Stone era &Exile.. then Some Girls.. end.

I'm with Gazza, here: the 1968-1973 Jimmy Miller era is my favourite, too.

Personally, I like all 'era's' and have a definite soft-spot for the 2003-07 years as it was on these tours that I first saw the Stones live.

The Charlie Watts era!  :loloncemore

(Apologies to whomever I stole that from.)   :scary

To me anything between 1967-1983.

To me, anything from 1962 - 2020, you bastard.

Ha! ;D

It's one period of time for me. One path; one journey. 62-Present.

'66 to '81 -- they were good even when they were bad.

steel driving hammer wrote on Jun 28^th, 2011 at 9:56am:

To me, anything from 1962 - 2020, you bastard.

this bastard is sweating behind buss window,yes i´m a school boy,listening black and blue outtakes!

The Brian Jones & Mick Taylor era.('64 to '74, which is just 10 years)

i too will go with brian jones through mick taylor as my favorite rolling stones period. brian was just a brilliant muscian, period. innovative as well as extremely talented..yet so tormented. mick taylor is a beautiful lead guitar player and not as lazy as ronnie.  :smilemick

i agree with Gazza, as to wjat era I like and why I like it... i do however really love Some girls and alot of what made ER and Tattoo. Definitely a big fan of what Millers production brought out... it's funny how much good production and final mastering do to music, and most people don't know or care... talent goes a long way, but many talented folks are destroyed by bad producers and mastering...

Heart Of Stone wrote on Jun 28^th, 2011 at 12:16pm:

The Brian Jones & Mick Taylor era.('64 to '74, which is just 10 years)

The Brian-era begins in 1962 and their first two releases were in 1963

the vegas years

Creation to present.
Next question.

Honky Tonk Man wrote on Jun 28^th, 2011 at 1:31pm:

Heart Of Stone wrote on Jun 28th, 2011 at 12:16pm: The Brian Jones & Mick Taylor era.('64 to '74, which is just 10 years) The Brian-era begins in 1962 and their first two releases were in 1963

You're correct, but in North America, including Canada, we never heard of the Stones till then, in '64, it was the Beatles that brought over all those other British bands.

Sioux wrote on Jun 27^th, 2011 at 11:34pm:

Well, I'm a Brian fan, and a huge fan of EVERYTHING '64, '65, '66....so, I love the Brian era. Everything seemed new and exciting. :) I do love Exile and Sticky so I love the Mick T. years as well.

Exactly how I feel.

uncleson wrote on Jun 28^th, 2011 at 2:07pm:

Sioux wrote on Jun 27th, 2011 at 11:34pm: Well, I'm a Brian fan, and a huge fan of EVERYTHING '64, '65, '66....so, I love the Brian era. Everything seemed new and exciting. :) I do love Exile and Sticky so I love the Mick T. years as well. Exactly how I feel.

For me the same! Specially the early 60's. Love The BBC sessions and the Chess Sessions.

grt,
Albert
Holland

I'm gonna have to say the Brian Jones era. Rock & Roll Circus is my single most favorite thing that the Stones have ever done, and it's this era I love the way they looked the most. I love the pics of them at this young age, and the expressive sound, and their attitude. MICK was so hot with his long dark hair & full pouty lips. KEEF looked awesome too, and Brian looked totally sweet, Charlie and Bill too.  I love that era, it's classic, the beginning of it all, the base from where the greatest Rock & Roll band in the world was launched, the original band members.  

albert wrote on Jun 28^th, 2011 at 2:18pm:

uncleson wrote on Jun 28th, 2011 at 2:07pm: Sioux wrote on Jun 27th, 2011 at 11:34pm: Well, I'm a Brian fan, and a huge fan of EVERYTHING '64, '65, '66....so, I love the Brian era. Everything seemed new and exciting. :) I do love Exile and Sticky so I love the Mick T. years as well. Exactly how I feel. For me the same! Specially the early 60's. Love The BBC sessions and the Chess Sessions. grt, Albert Holland

Yes, Albert, I agree! ;D 8-)

Bitch wrote on Jun 28^th, 2011 at 10:12pm:

I'm gonna have to say the Brian Jones era. Rock & Roll Circus is my single most favorite thing that the Stones have ever done, and it's this era I love the way they looked the most. I love the pics of them at this young age, and the expressive sound, and their attitude. MICK was so hot with his long dark hair & full pouty lips. KEEF looked awesome too, and Brian looked totally sweet, Charlie and Bill too.  I love that era, it's classic, the beginning of it all, the base from where the greatest Rock & Roll band in the world was launched, the original band members.

Very nicely put, Bitch. :) Thanks for your post!! ;D 8-)

Heart Of Stone wrote on Jun 28^th, 2011 at 1:55pm:

You're correct, but in North America, including Canada, we never heard of the Stones till then, in '64, it was the Beatles that brought over all those other British bands.

That makes no sense. So you are saying that the Stones only mattered once they hit North America? I think Lou Reed and The Velvet Underground were cool., but they barely registered - anywhere. You have to look at things in hindsight. You may have not heard of them before we in the UK did, but they were there. Their discography begins in 1963.

Since I didn't know they existed until '78, the obvious thing would be from then to now.

Musically speaking from '63 to '73.  There is so much to learn from.  Blues, reggae, the '60's pop sound, etc. etc.  That time period is an amazing music education.  As a kid going back to that era I learned rhythms I didn't know, about instruments I'd never heard of, creation of sound, other musicians that played with the band or the band was covering.....the list goes on.