Rock Action Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 IMO,The Stones stopped being a great band the minute Ron Wood walked in the door. I've tried to put it in a more diplomatic way. But- yup. That sums it up, musically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euro Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 ....and I never get sick of the Stones. I must agree with the Mick Taylor comments,though,just not to the same degree.I like all of their material,but it's no coincidence that my faves are from '68-'75. 1)Let it Bleed 2)Sticky Fingers 3)Exile on Main Street What a period! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Action Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 1)Let it Bleed 2)Sticky Fingers 3)Exile on Main Street What a period! That's as good as it gets! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ally Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 That's as good as it gets! Awsome period in the bands history. Mick Taylor and Keith really jelled. I don't hate Ron Wood.... but I don't think he challanged Keith musically. Brian Jones and Mick Taylor were musicians. Ron Wood was a drinking buddy. IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 Awsome period in the bands history. Mick Taylor and Keith really jelled. I don't hate Ron Wood.... but I don't think he challanged Keith musically. Brian Jones and Mick Taylor were musicians. Ron Wood was a drinking buddy. IMO Although I agree, I think the Stones peak actually started before Mick Taylor joined (i.e. Beggars Banquet) and ended before he left (Exile on Main St.) The writing partnership in this band has always been Jagger/Richards, and while this will never be 50/50 on any specific song, my feeling is the reason the late 60's and early 70's produced the best Stones albums was the enviroment they were working in. The whole period was a cultural revolution, which not only brought out the best in the Stones, but also (arguably) Led Zep, the Who, Hendrix and Cream, Traffic, Pink Floyd....and loads more besides. Mick Taylor was a better sparring partner on stage, but I don't think he contributed to the material. Brian Jones of course was a founder member ( I think they were 'his' band originally), but ditto, didn't really make much contribution to the songwriting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ally Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 Although I agree, I think the Stones peak actually started before Mick Taylor joined (i.e. Beggars Banquet) and ended before he left (Exile on Main St.) The writing partnership in this band has always been Jagger/Richards, and while this will never be 50/50 on any specific song, my feeling is the reason the late 60's and early 70's produced the best Stones albums was the enviroment they were working in. The whole period was a cultural revolution, which not only brought out the best in the Stones, but also (arguably) Led Zep, the Who, Hendrix and Cream, Traffic, Pink Floyd....and loads more besides. Mick Taylor was a better sparring partner on stage, but I don't think he contributed to the material. Brian Jones of course was a founder member ( I think they were 'his' band originally), but ditto, didn't really make much contribution to the songwriting. Your correct about the period and the writing , but Jones and Taylor IMO got the best out of Keith.and like most creative people Keith needed a push once in a while. I just don't think Ron Wood was good enough or creative enough to do that. Let's face it... Jeff Beck fired him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JethroTull Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 If you are talking about the 70's (especially 1970 -1975ish) I think the real question should be Zep vs. Jethro Tull!! Both bands were gigantic. Although Tull has remained active (including a 40 year anniversary tour for 2008), they haven't maintained the reputation like Zeppelin has. Tull and Zep were part of the second British invasion and were worthy of comparison. The Stones were part of the first British invasion and IMHO not as much fun to compare against the others. All three bands were gigantic in the early 70's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr E Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 Although I agree, I think the Stones peak actually started before Mick Taylor joined (i.e. Beggars Banquet) and ended before he left (Exile on Main St.) The writing partnership in this band has always been Jagger/Richards, and while this will never be 50/50 on any specific song, my feeling is the reason the late 60's and early 70's produced the best Stones albums was the enviroment they were working in. The whole period was a cultural revolution, which not only brought out the best in the Stones, but also (arguably) Led Zep, the Who, Hendrix and Cream, Traffic, Pink Floyd....and loads more besides. Mick Taylor was a better sparring partner on stage, but I don't think he contributed to the material. Brian Jones of course was a founder member ( I think they were 'his' band originally), but ditto, didn't really make much contribution to the songwriting. He contributed quite a lot to the writing he just never got the credit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redeyedrichard Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 Zeppelin all the way...but the Stones are great. BUT NOTHING COMPARES TO ZEP! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat71 Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 I don't think Goat's Head Soup or It's Only Rock and Roll get enough credit-brilliant stuff on both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ally Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 If you are talking about the 70's (especially 1970 -1975ish) I think the real question should be Zep vs. Jethro Tull!! Both bands were gigantic. Although Tull has remained active (including a 40 year anniversary tour for 2008), they haven't maintained the reputation like Zeppelin has. Tull and Zep were part of the second British invasion and were worthy of comparison. The Stones were part of the first British invasion and IMHO not as much fun to compare against the others. All three bands were gigantic in the early 70's. Tull were huge. And a great band. June 72 Vancouver.... Stones, Zeppelin. Tull all scheduled within a three week period. Zep and Tull cancelled because of the Stones Riot. Saw Tull one year prior. They were backed up by Yes. What a show. This type of thing just doesn't happen anymore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JethroTull Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 Tull were huge. And a great band. June 72 Vancouver.... Stones, Zeppelin. Tull all scheduled within a three week period. Zep and Tull cancelled because of the Stones Riot. Saw Tull one year prior. They were backed up by Yes. What a show. This type of thing just doesn't happen anymore Thanks for that!! I think in 40 years of touring Tull has cancelled only a handful of shows. "Yes", the concert lineups back then were awesome. I'm going to start a new topic to discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LedAndyZoSo Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 Led Zeppelin >> Rolling Stones why? simply cuz they WERE THE 70s and the stones wernt the 60s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.