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.