Quote
melillo
only when you admit that post stones era taylor is a flop, and thats being kind

it's not very kind, actually. the post tattoo you-era has been quite floppish on the whole, though. i'll meet you halfway...that's better than no way...there must be someway...oh, nevermind....

lets just follow the yellowbrick road, peace brother and keep rockin

goodbye yellow brick road....i should have stayed on the farm...shoulda listened to my old man.....

<<Wood didn't make Stones songs coming from the Taylor area better to be polite>>

I think there's a few 'Taylor era' songs they generally performed better on the first 2-3 tours with Woody on board. There's a few songs as well they never been able to top after '73. However, I wouldn't give Woody single credit - or blaming him - for that. It's not as simple imo.

<<After '74 it was all mediocrity.as far as guitarparts are concerned>>

I disagree with that. I think there's plenty examples of the opposite from the years before and after Taylor. I think what Brian & Keith brought to the table in 65-67[Under the assumption the Paris stuff is representativeof these 3 years] and Keith & Ronnie in 75-81 is as exciting as the 69-73 stuff. In a different way, of course.

Kieth has spoken

Quote
melillo
yeah but thats not why he left, he left to form a supergroup with jack bruce, that to put it lightly, flopped

Barn Owl says:

As solo artists, the likes of Jimmy Page, Brian May, Steve Hacket, Steve Howe etc. haven't set the world alight either.

...so what is your point?

talked to mick tonight ..the answer is NO..he says to get a life and talk about something new...

Quote
stoned in washington dc
talked to mick tonight ..the answer is NO..he says to get a life and talk about something new...

Finally... thank you

Quote
Barn Owl

Quote
melillo
yeah but thats not why he left, he left to form a supergroup with jack bruce, that to put it lightly, flopped

Barn Owl says:

As solo artists, the likes of Jimmy Page, Brian May, Steve Hacket, Steve Howe etc. haven't set the world alight either.

...so what is your point?

ever hear of eric clapton or sting, and those others you mention are way more popular than mick taylor, so i think my point is well made

Is Mick Taylor a possibility?


NO.

Quote
melillo

Quote
Barn Owl

Quote
melillo
yeah but thats not why he left, he left to form a supergroup with jack bruce, that to put it lightly, flopped

Barn Owl says:

As solo artists, the likes of Jimmy Page, Brian May, Steve Hacket, Steve Howe etc. haven't set the world alight either.

...so what is your point?

ever hear of eric clapton or sting, and those others you mention are way more popular than mick taylor, so i think my point is well made

So why have both Keith Richards and Mick Jagger, despite the support of massive publicity machines, sold pathetically as solo artists?

...are you suggesting that neither of these two are up to it?

ok but as bad as mick and keith were as solo acts they still dwarfed mick taylor as far as his solo records

Quote
stoned in washington dc
talked to mick tonight ..the answer is NO..he says to get a life and talk about something new...

Yeah, Suuuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeee!!
melillo, Keith has GREAT critical and public reviews for his records and shows.

Quote
melillo
ok but as bad as mick and keith were as solo acts they still dwarfed mick taylor as far as his solo records

However, just like Taylor, Jagger and Richards are deemed by their record-buying public to be mere BAND MEMBERS; so much to the point, that even their well established, larger-than-life personalities cannot produce solo sales that register anything beyond a tiny fraction of those that the Rolling Stones brand (even at their worst) can muster.

Pete Townshend and Robbie Robertson are others who have had exactly the same problem.

However, unlike the Stings, Rod Stewarts and Paul Wellers of this world, they weren't afforded the opportunity to have a dominating presence in their band's appearance and output.

My point being that as a BAND MEMBER, Mick Taylor's contibutions (like anyone else's) can, on no account, be measured by the sales of his solo records.

Quote
scottkeef

Quote
stoned in washington dc
talked to mick tonight ..the answer is NO..he says to get a life and talk about something new...

Yeah, Suuuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeee!!
melillo, Keith has GREAT critical and public reviews for his records and shows.

...and PATHETIC sales!

Granted he didnt book huge venues but both tours played to very good ticket sales(cant say the same for Mick though!)

Quote
scottkeef

Quote
stoned in washington dc
talked to mick tonight ..the answer is NO..he says to get a life and talk about something new...

Yeah, Suuuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeee!!
melillo, Keith has GREAT critical and public reviews for his records and shows.

right, thats why i said he dwarfed taylor, what are you talking about besides making my point for me

Quote
Beast
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Dream on!

Yes. Dreaming is part of life and makes it exciting............

My point is that Keith didnt have a "bad" solo act (as reviews and ticket sales for his Winos shows attest). THATS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

Some reviews hailed Talk Is Cheap as the best Stones album since Tattoo You or whatever.

I could play the solo to CYHMK better than Mick Taylor. Nobody's talked to me about having me join the Stones.

That's why Taylor will never play with them again.

The possibility is what ever Mick Jagger wants it to be. To me what is sad is the MT should be remembered right up there with Page, Clapton and Hendrix, instead nobody outside of true Stones fans knows who he is.

I would day the chances are:

Guest appearance for one or two songs = 50%
Guest appearance for a short tour = 10%
Full-scale tour= 1%

I really on't know. I'm just a fan I would love to see it. I think Ronnie is great too. It has nothing to do wih that.

don't give me that ole one two, one two three four

I don't know where anyone gets ideas about percentages of chances. There is nothing logical to base any of it on except pure Mick Taylor raging fan fanaticism. Which is all it is. Nothing about it is realistic.

However, Mick T was a much better soloist than Page ever was. But you ask any casual radio listener who played the solo in Heartbreaker or, well, there really aren't that many songs on the radio with Mick T solos in them now are there? But they'll be able to tell you who Jimmy Page is. Mick T will never get that kind of recognition.

Quote
stoned in washington dc
talked to mick tonight ..the answer is NO..he says to get a life and talk about something new...

Which Mick do you mean ?

I thought we were talking about the mick from fleetwood mac

Quote
skipstone
Some reviews hailed Talk Is Cheap as the best Stones album since Tattoo You or whatever.

I could play the solo to CYHMK better than Mick Taylor. Nobody's talked to me about having me join the Stones.

That's why Taylor will never play with them again.

Barn Owl writes:

Talk Is Cheap was an excellent album but with ridiculously poor sales; hence, the thrust of my argument.

You COULD NOT play the solo to CYHMK better than MT, so stop being silly.

On the other hand, my friend, Snowy Owl, could probably play it better than Ronnie!

Quote
Barn Owl

Quote
skipstone
Some reviews hailed Talk Is Cheap as the best Stones album since Tattoo You or whatever.

I could play the solo to CYHMK better than Mick Taylor. Nobody's talked to me about having me join the Stones.

That's why Taylor will never play with them again.

Barn Owl writes:

Talk Is Cheap was an excellent album but with ridiculously poor sales; hence, the thrust of my argument.

Talk is cheap was a gold album and went to #24, not ridiculous at all and guessing it sold three times as many as all Taylor albums combined.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-12-22 01:09 by Ket.

Hello Ket or skipstone, or whatever you're calling yourself.

Hang on a minute...

Keith had been at the forefront of rock n' roll for over twenty years and yet his career-defining album cannot even make it into the top twenty despite massive blanket marketing.

...and you are actually comparing it to the sales of a guitarist who waits FIVE years before even bothering to launch his own solo recording career, with practically zero publicity.

If it's easy targets that you're after, then how about comparing Keith's lofty position (and sales!) with those of Honest Ron.

...you know where to find me.

Quote
skipstone
However, Mick T was a much better soloist than Page ever was. But you ask any casual radio listener who played the solo in Heartbreaker or, well, there really aren't that many songs on the radio with Mick T solos in them now are there? But they'll be able to tell you who Jimmy Page is. Mick T will never get that kind of recognition.

More likely they'd say, "Jimmy Page" and that it's one of their favorite Led Zep songs.

Getting back to the Heartbreaker under discussion, I recall Richards once claimed the solos from that era were cut up and pasted and that he may have done the Heartbreaker solo. Seems unlikely.

Ol' dude of the Barn Owl - I said REVIEWS, not SALES!

And actually, I CAN play the solo as good if not better than Mick T. In a 3 piece band at that. SON! Set out on 'em Amos!

However just about anyone could play it better than Ronnie.

I can't help it that Ronnie is as ignorant as he is while Keith has had the wherewithal to make sure someone takes care of his ass. Besides, I think everyone already knows all of that part anyway.

Quote
skipstone
Ol' dude of the Barn Owl - I said REVIEWS, not SALES!

And actually, I CAN play the solo as good if not better than Mick T. In a 3 piece band at that. SON! Set out on 'em Amos!

However just about anyone could play it better than Ronnie.

I can't help it that Ronnie is as ignorant as he is while Keith has had the wherewithal to make sure someone takes care of his ass. Besides, I think everyone already knows all of that part anyway.

I'm not going to disagree with you on this one, as you sound VERY confident!

...in which case, I stand back in admiration!