The Rolling Stones: Their Formative Years | Under Review 1962-1966 | Amplified 

Yes I think the brian jones era and then mick Taylor era up until about 1973 were the golden years.. they became a bit of a parody of themselves in later years

Indeed. They used to include melodious songs such as "Backstreet Girl" and "Sitting On A Fence" to finely balance out the rockers on their albums. ( "Backstreet Girl", for example, had a.beautiful French accordion on it). That kind of sentiment and melody disappeared after Brian left, and the difference was apparent as time went on.

@@chrisfreeman9960 The band was being taken over by the record-corporate / Jagger-Richards machine & Brian was sidelined

Not really. Exile has much jazz/ gospel/folk color, and they stretched out to reggae, funk, new wave, disco, etc.

@@steveconn Exile is not an album I warmed to so don't know about that, maybe I should give it another go. Re the later reggae, funk, disco: some of it worked but most of it grated. Not sure if Brian would've steered into such genres

@@TimLondonGuitarist Disco, I don' t know. But world music for sure. He started some projects short before his death.

Yeah Mr Drag, one great music camp. You are so right in your analysis.

@@mathstar4176 👍

The greatest music camp was Village People

Beatles also completely reinvented pop music production, due in part to their producer and huge financial resources but also due to John & Paul's creativity

@@TimLondonGuitarist That's Literally Camp 😁

Especially the energy he puts into performance in his twilight years. Anyone remember Val Doonican ? In later years he used to 'perform' in an armchair. I remember him from his early silly songs like Paddy McGinty's goat...

Amen!

Really disgusting.

Idaho Mike 👍🤔

Anti-Fife prejudice. Unforgiveable.

Yea mate he was always in the mix he still played piano and was with them on the tours around the uk. And a dear friend of the band i donr see why people try to wright him out of stones history but most good booke on 60's music in the uk and us and stones history have him in them kinda sad cheers

I always thought that they had that sound, too. Jagger's snarling vocals over songs like Time is on My Side with those very effects from banjos /guitars made them more RnB ( in its purest embryonic state) made them more relatable to the USA audience.

I don't know about that because the Beatles were far more interesting than the Stones.

@@michaelharrington75 Michael, it's ok for us to disagree, that's one of the great things about music, everyone has there own preferences. Rock on brother🤘

@@michaelharrington75 You can't compare the two. Stones were blues based. That competition was artificially created to get even more fan interest.

@@Cissy2cute There are many ways they can be compared other than the style of music they played. Things like songwriting ability, song construction, musical talent within the group, and other things like that. The Beatles were way ahead of the Stones as songwriters early on. I personally believe Brian Jones was responsible for keeping the Stones interesting in the early years. His ability to pick up any instrument and add something unique to their songs set them apart from other bands. But the Beatles had 3 guys who could do that, and a producer to make sure anything they could think of could become reality. The Beatles were pioneering the art of recording, and techniques in the studio. The Beatles changed the whole concept of what an album was. An album went from being a collection of songs with a presentable cover to an album being an entire piece of artwork. The Stones, like everyone else just followed the Beatles lead. It is like comparing apples and oranges because the Beatles were so far ahead of the Stones in about every category.

Mancodeath - You are wrong. The stones were middle-class choir boys. Your logic is based upon silly myth making, like Your bull horn salute. Your premise is simply not true. You are probably an American or a southern middle-class English type?

So how long did it take for you to run out and buy your first album?

@@rhondacrosswhite8048 took several years, I was a little boy and we didn't have a record player (boo hoo!)

I’m sorry about that for real. My parents had this massive Magnavox hi-Fi that could rattle the windows. If I wanted to really aggravate my mom, I put on Hendrix’ Rainbow Bridge. That would send her next door for coffee with the neighbour.

@@rhondacrosswhite8048 so Hendrix turned your mother into a caffeine junkie. That's the 60s

Your mother was quite right, especially about Saville.

No jones no stones

Mick and Kieth were bad enough for the whole group lol

Wyman had more action than any of the others.

@@garyhighley9022 Brian was. Mick was a puss. Keith just went through the heroin addiction, but never was a "bad boy"

Charlie was on heroin.

​@@jamespollock11 That was in the 80's

Murder?

@@nataliehayes3128 It wasn't murder. Brian Jones would have shown signs of a struggle. Plus verdict was death by misadventure. I don't adhere to conspiracy theories, plus people like that suffer from proportionality bias.

@@Paul_G73 I definitely agree

He confessed to murder on his death bed. Listening to him talking about Brian Jones on a doco feels a bit odd.

Frank thoroughgood said he done brian in .....on his death bed so Tom keylock says

They are still great

You know why you're lonely? Because you're closed minded and negative.

Brian had women left and right

The lucky man.... not!@@sherryboyd817

Yeah, I think whether your preference is more towards r&b and blues and more rock music then obviously the stones are that band, and at the end of the day for the most part it is all just subjective…but I think if something as subjective as this could actually be quantified other then by who sells more albums or has commericial success etc, well then as high up on the list above a lot of others if not all the stones would be, I don’t think anyone before or since has surpassed the Beatles. I don’t even just mean the way they revolutionized an entire industry and paved the way for bands like the stones to follow suit, but even just musically. I mean the stones were definitely at their core a rhythm and blues band and for the most part they didn’t conform to traditional norms, but even they had key moments in their development where they I won’t say copied, but tried to emulate what the beatles had just successfully done. There’s nothing wrong with that either and I’m not knocking the stones. I think even if they were to give an honest assessment of it, it was always and still is the beatles who are the greatest band of all time.

Stones are the best...forever!

Indeed

Stones are better than Beatles

Actually they were all equal . Each part complimented the other . Take one out and something was missing .

The Golden Stone made the band.

Definitely ❤

This is true as far as top 40 goes but at that time I sure didn't know who Howlin' Wolf, John Lee Hooker, or guys like Memphis Slim were. How 'bout you?

well spotted sir.

The opening riff is clearly influenced by Chuck Berry. It's a great song in my opinion.... not among their best but it's good. And the lyrics are brilliant 😎

It fit the times Perfectly . No one else had the 🎱🎱 to Comment on this aspect of Society

In many ways, Brian was his own worst enemy.

Brian's fault, wish these Brian lovers stop going on about him.

@@dindjarin7185he’s the reason the Stones exist!

Easy now Dunga

The most iconic riff in rock history.

I think Mick said that it's his favorite Keith's riff.... but anyway if not his best it's certainly one of his most iconic riffs

The song that knocked the beatles of charts and was a hit in 40 countries from 1965 to 1966.

@@dindjarin7185 it was maybe the most innovative for its time

@@TimLondonGuitarist People don't talk about it often , yet it is the song that had been recorded by many artists.

Queen were better than Beatles but certainly not better than Stones.

Well a hell of lot better dancer than Plant, Stewart, Daltrey, etc.,etc. A match for Presley...or Sinatra for that matter.

Whaddya mean 😂

@@jessewolf6806 those other's didn't really have dance music per say

@@jessewolf6806 Daltrey blew Mick out of the water.

@@Cissy2cute Nope Mick Jagger is still best performer of all time

Rubbish! You were around at that time as in 14/15/16

@@jamesfitzgerald6636 I worked for Marshall chess. I knew Brian personally. He couldn't even reach down and tie a shoe. 🤷

@@chriskroll4166bs! Even Bill says Brian was the Stones, and was not on drugs when he was leading. He was highly intelligent and could definitely tie a shoe

@@J..398 whatever you say Brian 🤪

@@chriskroll4166 it’s just the truth!

He admitted it in a interview. But great performer in music.

Been a fan since 1967. Brian was great when he was functioning he could play anything but you can’t say all the albums with Mick Taylor were anything less than amazing and Some Girls and Black and Blue with Ronnie are good too. They would have never survived the early 70s with Brian he wasn’t a flashy guitarist. His slide and multi talent was perfect for the sixties London sound but the needed someone like Taylor cause other bands had Page Clapton and Blackmore. It was the era of the lead guitar. Could you imagine Can’t You hear me Knocking without mick Taylor’s lead.

Music lover, what a cutting edge and inciteful way to look at it!! How braveee of you to say what we have all been thinking ! 😃 I would love to jot down of few other gems from you about Music before you shake up the industry ..... Furthermore I can't believe mick jagger himself hasn't blocked you for revealing how unsuccessful they were supposed to be after losing a member.

became boring after Taylor left.

@@johngore7744 Amen!

@@johngore7744 yeah great lead but only icing on keef’s cake, i.e., the RIFF

or The ANIMALS

Bollocks!

Stones were away better than these bands even Beatles.

Rubbish Frank.

It's not who's first it's about longevity , performance, not just a great singer. STONES ARE STILL SHINING & 🔥 AS EVER. PURE TALENTED BUNCH. 👅👅👅💨💨💨💨

Stones formed on 1962 Beatles got famous in 1963. Without Beatles think your talking rubbish Peter Hogan.

Marginal figures ??

what's that supposed to mean? (i'm geniuenly curious)