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.

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.

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

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



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'.

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.

To me anything between 1967-1983.

Ha!

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

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

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...

the vegas years

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


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.

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



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

grt,
Albert
Holland