Yes, he was a member of the band between '69 and '74...
But was he ever really a member in the sense that being a Stone was part of his identity?
Did the other guys view him as a "Stone" while he was in the band--in say the way that Brian or Ronnie are just Stones, that they are one of the guys?

I just watch interviews with Mick and his personality/persona etc doesn't really seem to fit...He doesn't seem like he was ever 100% in the band mentally the way say Ronnie is, or how being a Stone was part of Brian Jones' identity.

I mean like, to Keith, being a Rolling Stone--that's part of who he is, his core self--what else is he? Or Mick (Jagger)--what else is he? Ronnie too, yeah he had a career before the Stones--but he's Ronnie Wood, Rolling Stone, since 1975....

Looking back, was Mick Taylor ever really a Stone, or simply their lead guitarist for a few years?

Don't you think that is the same thing for Ronnie ?

Anyway does it really matter ?

Yes he was.  Unlike Ronnie he joined as a full member, not a hired hand at first.

Mick Taylor had a career and identity outside the Stones before joining, just as Ronnie Wood did. Lets face it, when an esteemed bluesman like John Mayall hires you at the age of 18 to replace Eric Clapton, then thats a pretty decent pedigree.

I dont get the persona/identity thing. By that yardstick, Charlie Watts is and always has been as far removed from the image of a Rolling Stone as its possible to be. He celebrates his 50th wedding anniversary in October this year. Cant get much more un-rock n roll than that!

IMO, The Rolling Stones would not be relevant if it weren't for Mick Taylor.

85% of their great music has Taylor playing on it.

85% is the Official percentage according to the book...Playing the Percentages...A Guide from Bingo

Gazza wrote on May 31^st, 2014 at 6:16am:

Yes he was.  Unlike Ronnie he joined as a full member, not a hired hand at first. Mick Taylor had a career and identity outside the Stones before joining, just as Ronnie Wood did. Lets face it, when an esteemed bluesman like John Mayall hires you at the age of 18 to replace Eric Clapton, then thats a pretty decent pedigree. I dont get the persona/identity thing. By that yardstick, Charlie Watts is and always has been as far removed from the image of a Rolling Stone as its possible to be. He celebrates his 50th wedding anniversary in October this year. Cant get much more un-rock n roll than that!

Excellent points Gazza...I think folks tend to forget both Taylor's resume and the fact that Ronnie was the Daryl Jones of his time for 15 years (or was it 18 years?) until he became a Stone on paper (insert a "written in Stone" joke here). Charlie is the backbone, heartbeat and human part of the Stones...never in the headlines of scandal sheets...I have only seen him in papers when he is eying another Arabian Horse to buy...he far more a musician than a "stone"...and like Keith said...No Charlie means no Stones!

I don't think he was ever a Stone, because he couldn't stand being as skinny as Jagger and Richards. Look at him. He's so fat, he makes Ronnie Wood look younger by comparison!

These fat people. Who will carry them to the toilet when they get old?

Yes he was, he replaced Brian Jones who died in 1969 until he quit in 74. MICK J asked him to take a 6 month break instead of quitting, but Mick T quit anyway, and that defiant act caused MICK J to carry a grudge until the band needed him to add to some new tracks to some old Exile songs that they were resurrecting from the vaults a few years ago. So at that point MICK J decided it was water under the bridge and his contributions to the music was important enough to ask him back. Since then he is on tour a "special guest" and I hope he is cashing in on all the money he lost from the time he quit the band, but he isn't an official member again.

Stonesbabe?

MrPleasant wrote on May 31^st, 2014 at 10:52am:

I don't think he was ever a Stone, because he couldn't stand being as skinny as Jagger and Richards. Look at him. He's so fat, he makes Ronnie Wood look younger by comparison! These fat people. Who will carry them to the toilet when they get old?

Mick T is not fat, he is like most men who have some meat on their bones. Also he likes to wear his clothes baggy which makes him look larger than he actually is.  Ronnie and MICK are way too skinny and Mick T looks heavy by comparison. But line him up with a regular group of guys and he would look normal! At the meet and greet with Ronnie I hugged him and my arm went completely around his waist, he was skin and bones. In comparison, when I hugged Mick T, he was solid, strong and manly. I would feel happier wrapping my legs around Mick T more than a man who has a 25 inch waist.

Bitch wrote on May 31^st, 2014 at 11:03am:

In comparison, when I hugged Mick T, he was solid, strong and manly. I would feel happier wrapping my legs around Mick T more than a man who has a 25 inch waist.

I would let you call all 210lbs of my 6'1" self Mick, If that helps...
:smilemick :smilemick :;-) ;-) ;-)

Paranoid Android wrote on Jun 1^st, 2014 at 12:07am:

Bitch wrote on May 31st, 2014 at 11:03am: In comparison, when I hugged Mick T, he was solid, strong and manly. I would feel happier wrapping my legs around Mick T more than a man who has a 25 inch waist. I would let you call all 210lbs of my 6'1" self Mick, If that helps... :smilemick :smilemick :;-) ;-) ;-)

my point exactly!

Bingo wrote on May 31^st, 2014 at 8:07am:

IMO, The Rolling Stones would not be relevant if it weren't for Mick Taylor. 85% of their great music has Taylor playing on it. 85% is the Official percentage according to the book...Playing the Percentages...A Guide from Bingo

True, but can't the 85% be attributed to Jagger and Richards being at their peak with respect to songwriting and performing?  Yes.

I agree with Mount Pleasant.  Mick Taylor was too fat to ever truly be considered a Rolling Stone. 

sirmoonie wrote on Jun 1^st, 2014 at 1:10pm:

Bingo wrote on May 31st, 2014 at 8:07am: IMO, The Rolling Stones would not be relevant if it weren't for Mick Taylor. 85% of their great music has Taylor playing on it. 85% is the Official percentage according to the book...Playing the Percentages...A Guide from Bingo True, but can't the 85% be attributed to Jagger and Richards being at their peak with respect to songwriting and performing?  Yes. I agree with Mount Pleasant.  Mick Taylor was too fat to ever truly be considered a Rolling Stone.

Hmmm, I just re-checked my book of percentages. Funny, I have sirmoonie coming in at 93% for throwing a wrench in my statistics.

I'd like to further point out that the Stones got rid of Jones for being athsmatic (spastic), Ian Stu for being butt-ass ugly, so it only make sense they would ban Taylor for failure to be in professional shape.  What a slovenly porker.  He wears a fat suit to breakfast, lunch and dinner.  Pizza geek, with the double airplane seating assignment.  Chow boy.  He's large, single and ready to Pringle.  Put him in an orange jumpsuit, make him walk uphill and you'll think the goddam Sun is rising, I swear to Christ I ain't lying.

sirmoonie wrote on Jun 1^st, 2014 at 2:16pm:

I'd like to further point out that the Stones got rid of Jones for being athsmatic (spastic), Ian Stu for being butt-ass ugly, so it only make sense they would ban Taylor for failure to be in professional shape.  What a slovenly porker.  He wears a fat suit to breakfast, lunch and dinner.  Pizza geek, with the double airplane seating assignment.  Chow boy.  He's large, single and ready to Pringle.  Put him in an orange jumpsuit, make him walk uphill and you'll think the goddam Sun is rising, I swear to Christ I ain't lying.

http://ashmp.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/yay-i-love-stickers1.jpg

He's a blimp.  More chins that a Shanghai phonebook.  Puts gravy on his pancakes.  The whirlpool at his house has KFC buckets and chicken bones swirling around in the froth.  See Luke 7:34 ("The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’").

Bingo wrote on May 31^st, 2014 at 8:07am:

IMO, The Rolling Stones would not be relevant if it weren't for Mick Taylor. 85% of their great music has Taylor playing on it. 85% is the Official percentage according to the book...Playing the Percentages...A Guide from Bingo

There are lots of factors which made that period great. The main ones IMO were the fact that they had a fantastic producer and that Jagger and Richards were still a bonafide songwriting team at the peak of their talent.

They certainly peaked as a live band with Taylor in the band but when you look at their albums in that period - BB and most of Let It Bleed pre-date him joining the band, and GHS and IORR are a significant step down in quality from the Big Four that preceded it. And he's certainly not to blame for that any more than he's the reason why Exile and Sticky Fingers are so fantastic.

As far as 'relevance' goes - the Stones will until the end of time be mostly linked to the Sixties and the era that gave us The Beatles, Dylan and the like. Their most culturally significant songs mostly date from that decade.

sirmoonie wrote on Jun 1^st, 2014 at 3:45pm:

The whirlpool at his house has KFC buckets and chicken bones swirling around in the froth.

You're not right in the head. Although according to my book...That is 100% funny.

Gazza wrote on Jun 1^st, 2014 at 5:09pm:

Bingo wrote on May 31st, 2014 at 8:07am: IMO, The Rolling Stones would not be relevant if it weren't for Mick Taylor. 85% of their great music has Taylor playing on it. 85% is the Official percentage according to the book...Playing the Percentages...A Guide from Bingo There are lots of factors which made that period great.

That's correct. My research team took all that into account. After crunching the numbers, we stand by our 85%.

The research team will gladly share our method with you. Please send 4 rt tix from NYC to Dublin. Four should cover it, we'll only send the heavy-hitters.


Sláinte

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2921/14301110416_5303657022_b.jpg

The issue at hand is not the quality of the music during the Taylor era (for me, it's my favorite).

I think the post was whether or not Taylor was a Stone.

Personally I think the rest of the band thought he was.

He was certainly allow to influence their sound from day one, there was no earning of mileage required.

From what I've read, Mick and Keef were gutted and gobsmacked when he split.

I don't think he was a hired gun.

MarshallG wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2014 at 7:05am:

The issue at hand is not the quality of the music during the Taylor era (for me, it's my favorite). I think the post was whether or not Taylor was a Stone. Personally I think the rest of the band thought he was. He was certainly allow to influence their sound from day one, there was no earning of mileage required. From what I've read, Mick and Keef were gutted and gobsmacked when he split. I don't think he was a hired gun.

That was purely my question.
I love the Taylor era. I think it and the Brian era are the only real essential periods of the Stones' history.
It's just, he just never seemed a natural fit to me. He had a shy, introverted personality, quiet and reserved (and according to Keith, this wasn't just in public--the guy was stoic even behind the scenes), a virtuoso player who seemed very dedicated to the guitar....

I mean contrast that with (as they were at the time):
Mick - flamboyant jet lagged party scene dance king.
Keith - At times barely coherent, no bullshit, spacey yet rather ruthless heroin junkie.
Bill - kept to himself but a total pussy hound and perve.
Charlie - Just Charlie.

I mean, as the lead guitarist, you expect that guy to be a big personality--think Jimmy Page or Jeff Beck or Slash or Joe Perry etc--the quiet, demure personality that Taylor had didn't really jive with who the Stones were from '69-'74, or what is associated with a lead guitarist.

Also, his musical approach seemed to be vastly different from the Stones'. Yes, both he and the Stones loved the blues, but this was a guy who loved soloing and fluid, melodic lead lines. The Stones were a glorified garage band in their sound--ragged guitar, choppy solos, etc.

It's like putting Jimmy Page and Chuck Berry together in a band.

While the guy was heavily influential on their sound especially in the early to mid '70s, it doesn't just add up that he ever really fit, musically or personality wise.

Yes, he was a Stone, in the sense that his playing dominated the band's sound while he was in, that he had a voice in the band and contributed and toured and did all the things a Stone does; he was part of the image, the sound and reality for five years.

But was he a Stone in spirit? I don't think so, hence why he quit. He couldn't keep up with the lifestyle of being a Rolling Stone, nor did he believe in the band's ability to survive past the mid '70s.

Nor could he likely carry the band the way Ronnie (who I feel is a much lesser player, and a poor replacement) did during the mid '80s troubles, had Taylor been in the band at that point.

Imagine if the Stones had started their recording and performing career with a drummer who had the style and persona of a Keith Moon or John Bonham.

Then, fifteen or twenty years into their career that drummer died and they replaced him with Charlie Watts, a man who wore suits all the time, was pretty much monosyllabic in public, who preferred jazz and swing to rock n roll and blues and who had been happily married since his early twenties without a whiff of scandal.

How do you think Stones fans would have reacted?

Quite simply, plenty of them wouldnt be talking about him in the revered way we do now because he's been there pretty much since the beginning, but they'd be having plenty of these 'he doesnt fit', 'he isnt really a Stone' type of conversations.

Similarly with Bill. A man who was several years older than the rest of the band and who was all but ignored by the public for 25 years until the seedier side of his private life become public knowledge in the mid 80s (the Wyman 'pussy hound' persona wasnt widely known until he chose to publicise it in the 80s). 

large single and ready to pringle- funny.

Just one important point.
It is not enough to be a guitar virtuoso, many are guitarist virtuoso, but in the case of Mick Taylor is his capacity to create an arrangement of the best pieces of the stones really is preponderant. If we listen to his creativity live during his years with the stones he does that pull up and give a greater dimension to their music, that's why It is exceptional and that's why in this he is a real rolling stones at same way as Brian Jones, whose creativity was also remarkable