Tell Me :  Talk
Talk about your favorite band. 

Previous page Next page First page IORR home

For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.

Goto Page: Previous123456Next
Current Page: 3 of 6
Re: The Rolling Stone who's stony broke
Posted by: drbryant ()
Date: September 14, 2009 05:36

It's sad that he doesn't have the money to at least resolve his royalty case, but I see a 60-year old who flies around the world, making a living playing his guitar. There are worse things in life.

Re: The Rolling Stone who's stony broke
Date: September 14, 2009 06:31

People who say article is malarkey are clueless. I mean the fact is Mick taylor is broke. Do you think if he wasn't he'd book a tour of the US playing tiny halls 35 out of 40 nights.. pretty much night after night after night? You don't book that kind of schedule unless you really need the money and cant afford hotels and travel expenses..Do you think he'd agreed to participate in the Experience Hendrix sharing the bill with 30 other people if he didn't need the paycheck?

The schedule that leaked for Europe (rescheduled) was incredibly harsh too and even after he had to cancel the US tour.. maybe it was a fake schedule but the original US schedule is there for all to see.

Fact is Jagger and Richards are PURE 100% CRAP.. they could play ONE SINGLE SHOW and give Taylor the profit and it would take care of him for life.. given that Taylor contributed mightily to the songs they play night after night (warhorses) its the least they could do.. Do they have to? No. But they should and the fact they dont reflects really poor onthem

Again, as I said earlier about Pete Best; compare the situation.. the Beatles hooked up Pete Best with a cool million when they released Anthology Vol 1 and Pete Best wasn't even in the band for any of the songs that made them huge! Meanwhile the Stones disgracefully won't even pay Taylor any royalties on most of the material that he performed on in the studio versions which made their name as the worlds greatest rock and roll band!

Re: The Rolling Stone who's stony broke
Posted by: Bliss ()
Date: September 14, 2009 06:48

Very thoughtful and intelligent post there, 72Stones.

Looking at that picture of Mick Taylor, it reminds me of Brian at the end. Mick and Keith have always been ruthless about jettisoning people they perceive as having no further value. I could write a long,long list...Andrew, Brian, Gram, Bobby Keys in the 70s, to name a few. Once they're done, it's as if they never existed to them.

I agree with you that first and foremost Mick needs to pull himself out of that hole he's in, beginning with his health.

Re: The Rolling Stone who's stony broke
Posted by: MickTaylorfan1 ()
Date: September 14, 2009 07:18

I agree with that he needs to shape up but unfortunatelly I have own experiences of crawling up from such holes and I wonder if he has the strength to do so sad smiley

Re: The Rolling Stone who's stony broke
Posted by: Glam Descendant ()
Date: September 14, 2009 07:32

>he gave me the impression of a man who fell from a great distance and is still attempting to recover from the fall

But he didn't fall, he jumped.

(Not that I'm unsympathetic to his plight mind you; he really should have more carefully considered Mick's 6-months-off offer though.)

Re: The Rolling Stone who's stony broke
Posted by: From4tilLate ()
Date: September 14, 2009 08:45

People slag Mick T, calling him a fool for leaving the Stones. He was no fool. He was incredibly courageous. As he said, had he not left them he would be dead now. He did the right and noble thing and I applaud him for it. More people should. There are more important things in life than playing guitar for the Rolling Stones, and Mick Taylor was wise enough to recognize that and walk away... alive!

Tommy

Re: The Rolling Stone who's stony broke
Posted by: whitem8 ()
Date: September 14, 2009 08:59

THis is a news story, so whenever one is written the artist slants it towards its ultimate purpose. It actually is a very interesting read, and does indeed paint a picture of getting the shaft. And is a sobering read about his addiction, and the struggle he persevered back towards the light. It is interesting though reading the article and feeling the sadness, but also thinking about history and what else was happening in Taylor's life. He left and stayed very active with some high profile playing, notably Dylan. And I am sure he was struggling through addiction during that time, as was Dylan. But also playing very incredible music that was clearly bringing him joy.
I have written before, I love the Stones music, but have very little allusion to how they are as honorable men. It is pitiful they are not considering their fellow compatriot that stood shoulder to shoulder with them as they redefined themselves as a top notch rock band. Mick, Keith, Charlie, and Brian all revered their blues heroes and lamented the fact they didn't get their due. And at times can be extremely generous to some with one off monumental gifts. However, to treat Taylor so pitifully is a slap in the face. It is disgusting and quite disturbing-- and SAD!
I have run into Taylor a few times seeing him live in Detroit. He was partying hard, but also clearly having a great time and playing some incredibly inspiring music. I like the part in the article about Taylor not necessarily liking the group thing, and you can hear it in his voice and see it in his playing, he likes to be his own man and loves sharing his music.
Thanks so much for that article, it was very thought provoking and really had me thinking quite a while.

Re: The Rolling Stone who's stony broke
Posted by: Come On ()
Date: September 14, 2009 09:01

I think it's pretty cool to be able to be a former Stone and stony broke...that's rock'n'roll..

2 1 2 0

Re: The Rolling Stone who's stony broke
Posted by: Lightnin' ()
Date: September 14, 2009 14:38

Quote
Bliss
>>BG subsequently stabbed Mick T in the back by selling his story to the Daily Mail - and the newspaper altered it to make it as sensational as possible. Mick T is now considering legal action because of the slanderous nature of the article

How do you know this? The article was published in the last day or so. Were Mick's quotes inaccurate? The photo showed his living circumstances and anyone can see he is living modestly, but is not derelict. It's possible that the comments about the interior of Mick's house and the unpaid bills are untrue. If Mick has the money to sue the Daily Mail for libel, then he must have the means to sue the Stones for royalty payments.

The quotes were actually made up completely. Mick T would not even consider granting the Daily Mail an interview. There are a couple of topics included that Mick did talk about over 10 years ago (like not receiving royalties) but all his comments got twisted and taken out of context by either Bob Graham or whoever did the final editing.
A lot of the stuff in this Daily Mail piece is total fabrication. You would think some fact checking would be appropriate before publication. If a reporter doesn't even get Taylor's age right then how accurate can their description of his life story or inner feelings ever be ? The whole write up is wrong on so many different levels.

When a person in the public eye has trouble with the papparazzi and the trash they print, you have to weigh up the damage that's done to their name/reputation against the costs involved with sueing the newspaper for libel. In certain cases the tabloid's lies can affect interpersonal relationships, for instance with relatives, associates or old bandmates, so that has to be taken into account also. Taylor's fans must have noticed how he has always been reticent when journalists try to provoke him into saying something bad about the Stones. This is why it's very upsetting for him to see what's happened now.

Re: The Rolling Stone who's stony broke
Posted by: Lightnin' ()
Date: September 14, 2009 15:18

Retired Dog, Taylor has always stated that the argument used by the Stones i.c. that from '81 they did not have to split the royalty income with him anymore because he was not part of the new agreement with the distributor/licensee they just signed with, would just NOT hold up in court.
But, as already indicated, it would have cost Taylor dearly to get a judge to review the case. He was also hoping for many years that it would be possible to get things straightened out by talking to Mick J and Keith directly. (Mick J promised him once he would take action to reinstate Taylor's royalties. Keith has admitted to him in private: I know we owe you).

In other words: Taylor seems to have a pretty good legal insight indeed, even though he has never been in law school. The Stones never offered to buy him out and throughout his career Taylor has always had to go on the road or do sessionwork to make ends meet.

Re: The Rolling Stone who's stony broke
Posted by: sonyzzz ()
Date: September 14, 2009 16:19

I wonder how Charlie feels about this? Would it break these guys to give
Mick Taylor a million and call it water under the bridge. Very,Very sad.

Re: The Rolling Stone who's stony broke
Posted by: dougie ()
Date: September 14, 2009 16:49

If you believe the article, Taylor said he would argue with them a lot. That does not help his case. And, he did seem to throw a lot of mud at both Keith and Mick also. What do you expect?

The fact is, he put himself in this position. He did very little with his talents for almost 35 years. Now he wants everyone to feel sorry for him (given doing the interview and the content).

Sure, it would be nice if they gave him some money- but that gets harder with what he says about our boys.I am sure Jagger does not like him saying he did not give him credit for writing songs. Pissing off Keith and Jagger will not help your case.

Though, talking about the lows of the band is in vogue with them all recently- mainly for money.

Re: The Rolling Stone who's stony broke
Posted by: CBII ()
Date: September 14, 2009 18:17

Quote
Lightnin'
Retired Dog, Taylor has always stated that the argument used by the Stones i.c. that from '81 they did not have to split the royalty income with him anymore because he was not part of the new agreement with the distributor/licensee they just signed with, would just NOT hold up in court.
But, as already indicated, it would have cost Taylor dearly to get a judge to review the case. He was also hoping for many years that it would be possible to get things straightened out by talking to Mick J and Keith directly. (Mick J promised him once he would take action to reinstate Taylor's royalties. Keith has admitted to him in private: I know we owe you).

In other words: Taylor seems to have a pretty good legal insight indeed, even though he has never been in law school. The Stones never offered to buy him out and throughout his career Taylor has always had to go on the road or do sessionwork to make ends meet.

Like I said before, WE don't know what the exact details of this situation really is. The Legal system is the place to find truth since that's where something like this will really be determined.

CBII

Re: The Rolling Stone who's stony broke
Posted by: Anonymous User ()
Date: September 14, 2009 18:26

none of this comes as a shock to me .we all know how stingy sir mick is,my question is did mick taylor sign away royalties and monies from the arrangment that he made with the glimmers in 81 from when tattoo you came out?if so then that might explain this issue .i do not condone this shabby stingy treatment of the stones lead guitarist from the golden era!

Re: The Rolling Stone who's stony broke
Posted by: liddas ()
Date: September 14, 2009 20:52

Quote
Lightnin'
Retired Dog, Taylor has always stated that the argument used by the Stones i.c. that from '81 they did not have to split the royalty income with him anymore because he was not part of the new agreement with the distributor/licensee they just signed with, would just NOT hold up in court.
But, as already indicated, it would have cost Taylor dearly to get a judge to review the case.

This is something I find hard to believe (I don't want to say it's BS, only that I don't get it!). I know that English lawyers are quite expensive (provided that the English courts were competent to decide the case). But fees would be a secondary aspect when you have the possibility of suing Mick Jagger and the Rolling Stones. I mean, who wouldn't want to do it for free? Or a success fee only? Tons and tons of publicity for the firm! Are they no Beatles fans among English lawyers?

C

Re: The Rolling Stone who's stony broke
Posted by: oldkr ()
Date: September 14, 2009 20:58

I think Mick n Keith barely remember him, it was all 35 years ago.

..but it might come flooding back: [www.guardian.co.uk]

OLDKR



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-09-14 21:00 by oldkr.

Re: The Rolling Stone who's stony broke
Posted by: scottkeef ()
Date: September 14, 2009 21:26

I make no secret of the fact I'm partial to the Taylor era of the Stones but I was(and still am) a huge Ronnie fan at the same time. Especially his solo work during the 70s. I personally think that MT pushed the band (especially Keith). Its a very small window in the bands history that he was there although one of the most productive. I dont know all the facts but I do think the guy has earned whatever he has coming.

Re: The Rolling Stone who's stony broke
Posted by: duke richardson ()
Date: September 14, 2009 21:29

I feel sorry for Mick Taylor. What did he do to deserve the cold shallow treatment from Jagger/Richards---contributed great playing, arranging, and songwriting to some of their finest albums, that's all.

it will always be a shame.

Re: The Rolling Stone who's stony broke
Posted by: retired_dog ()
Date: September 14, 2009 23:05

Quote
CBII
Like I said before, WE don't know what the exact details of this situation really is. The Legal system is the place to find truth since that's where something like this will really be determined.


Yes, that's my opinion too. We could discuss this endlessly, but in the end, we don't know the facts or if the facts mentioned here are really true. At court, one can't tell just stories. A judge wants to see the contracts. If the contracts are not clear, he would hear witnesses to find out what was intended by the band members. It should be clear that Taylor can not claim royalities for Some Girls. But for the albums he played on he is owner of so-called neighboring rights as a performing artists and is legally entitled to royalities (unless he was paid a lump sum like a session musician). One does not lose these rights just because the distributor changes. But again - too many ifs, too many uncertainties about the actual contracts and agreements. We can only guess. When there is no legal obligation, they just don't need to pay him. If they are morally obliged to help him, is a matter of opinion.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-09-14 23:41 by retired_dog.

Re: The Rolling Stone who's stony broke
Posted by: MKjan ()
Date: September 14, 2009 23:38

I would love to see someone post a copy of the contract. MT must have a copy to share and support his statements. Of course as noted above, the court is the proper place.That he hasn't acted on this issue for so many years has me suspecting there may be good reason he hasn't been paid for some time, good enough for him to remain away from the court.

Re: The Rolling Stone who's stony broke
Posted by: boogie69 ()
Date: September 14, 2009 23:51

Quote

If you believe the article, Taylor said he would argue with them a lot. That does not help his case. And, he did seem to throw a lot of mud at both Keith and Mick also. What do you expect?

The fact is, he put himself in this position. He did very little with his talents for almost 35 years. Now he wants everyone to feel sorry for him (given doing the interview and the content).

Sure, it would be nice if they gave him some money- but that gets harder with what he says about our boys.I am sure Jagger does not like him saying he did not give him credit for writing songs. Pissing off Keith and Jagger will not help your case.

Though, talking about the lows of the band is in vogue with them all recently- mainly for money.

What he says about "our boys"? Are you f-ucking kidding me? Is he serious, does he really think what Mick T. has said justifies, or is a valid excuse, for Mick and Keith's behavior in any way? I suppose people like this who like their music so much think there is justification for all their bad behavior. It doesn't matter what Mick T. says, or how he has lived his life, if he is owed money by the Stones, again IF, then they should pay him, end of story. What he does with it afterwards, if he pisses it away or whatever, is not their problem. But if they legally owe him they should pay, and there is no justification not too. How would this guy feel if he quit a job and his boss refused to give him his last paycheck because of something he said, or how he lived his life? I can't believe what the sheep on this board come up with sometimes.

Besides, regardless of what he has said over the years, he has still shown unbelievable restraint in keeping his mouth shut. I'm sure there is plenty he could say about them, especially in a tell-all book, which he has yet to do, and which I think he should. AFTER he gets what he is owed.

Re: The Rolling Stone who's stony broke
Posted by: Rip This ()
Date: September 14, 2009 23:54

...just saying..if it's in The Guardian.....some of this is probably true.

Re: The Rolling Stone who's stony broke
Posted by: Turd On The Run ()
Date: September 14, 2009 23:57

Mick Taylor is one of the Great Lost Boys of Rock and Roll.

He is old enough to know that Rock and Roll is a cruel game. He left the Stones 35 years ago even though Jagger verily begged him to stay...going so far as to supposedly offer him a 6 month sabbatical. I don't see Mick Jagger presenting that option to anyone he doesn't deem absolutely essential to the Stones. Jagger knew his worth. All the Stones - except Keith - thought his departure was regrettable and damaging to the band's music. That has all been documented, is on the record, and is unassailable.

All I read for months (years) after he shockingly (for me) left was that he deemed the Stones' demise a fait accompli and that he wanted to 'go in a new direction' and that he would form a supergroup with Jack Bruce, and that a new record was on its way. (I saw him play with the short-lived Jack Bruce Group and it sucked - rote mid-1970's self-indulgent prog-blues...the kind of music The Sex Pistols made instantly obsolete one year later). Instead he became a wastrel and squandered his potent gifts, while the Stones added Ronnie (less musical brilliance, more verve and attitude), smelled the Zeitgeist, entered a new Golden Age (Some Girls, Tatoo You) and rumbled on, adding to their incomparable legacy.

Instead of cleaning up or pushing himself to do the compelling work he purportedly left the Stones to pursue, Talyor chose to play the sideman to Dylan (great), Bruce (shit) and eventually just fumble his musical genius away in small pubs and druggy grime.

How many times did he have a chance to get himself together? Who knows? Pride would indicate that he could have pulled himself up, reigned in his demons, lost weight, re-dedicated himself to his craft, and cultivated the genius God bestowed upon him. That alone might have forced to Stones to respect him and his legacy more deeply...and perhaps pressure them to remunerate him for his contributions in a fair manner. Instead he shambles from one small-time gig to the next - fat, uninspired and partly broken..ruefully stating that he left the Stones to save himself...but for this?

We all love him...we would give anything to see him onstage again with the Stones or Jack Bruce or Bob Dylan or whatever musician would inspire him to soar - fit, committed, searing our minds with fluid lightning. But that won't happen. The Jack Bruce option is long gone, Bob Dylan has a killer band, and the Stones are pitiless. They eat the weak and kill the injured (Ronnie being the one spectacular, almost inexplicable exception). And Taylor has played the deferent, broken ex-sideman role perfectly.

What a sad spectacle. The legalities may be argued ad infinitum, but until Taylor gets himself in front of a judge with a professional attorney at his side and states his case in an organized and cogent manner all the noise is just that...noise.

In a perfect world Mick Taylor would be known as one of the greatest, most fluid Guitar Gods in the Rock pantheon, his canon would be filled with unforgettable moments, and his music would still be growing and vital to this day. Instead we get this article...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-09-14 23:59 by Turd On The Run.

Re: The Rolling Stone who's stony broke
Posted by: Baboon Bro ()
Date: September 15, 2009 00:05

How many songs did he write?
For how many years did he play?
He chose for himself.
And he was no angel, he flew away on smack himself back in 74.

Hell, yeah, the loopholes is shameful. But ya always have a free will.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-09-15 01:08 by Baboon Bro.

Re: The Rolling Stone who's stony broke
Posted by: dougie ()
Date: September 15, 2009 00:41

Quote
boogie69
Quote

If you believe the article, Taylor said he would argue with them a lot. That does not help his case. And, he did seem to throw a lot of mud at both Keith and Mick also. What do you expect?

The fact is, he put himself in this position. He did very little with his talents for almost 35 years. Now he wants everyone to feel sorry for him (given doing the interview and the content).

Sure, it would be nice if they gave him some money- but that gets harder with what he says about our boys.I am sure Jagger does not like him saying he did not give him credit for writing songs. Pissing off Keith and Jagger will not help your case.

Though, talking about the lows of the band is in vogue with them all recently- mainly for money.

I think he has gotten what is owed. IF he did not, he should do something about it and quit whinning like some people are.

What he says about "our boys"? Are you f-ucking kidding me? Is he serious, does he really think what Mick T. has said justifies, or is a valid excuse, for Mick and Keith's behavior in any way? I suppose people like this who like their music so much think there is justification for all their bad behavior. It doesn't matter what Mick T. says, or how he has lived his life, if he is owed money by the Stones, again IF, then they should pay him, end of story. What he does with it afterwards, if he pisses it away or whatever, is not their problem. But if they legally owe him they should pay, and there is no justification not too. How would this guy feel if he quit a job and his boss refused to give him his last paycheck because of something he said, or how he lived his life? I can't believe what the sheep on this board come up with sometimes.

Besides, regardless of what he has said over the years, he has still shown unbelievable restraint in keeping his mouth shut. I'm sure there is plenty he could say about them, especially in a tell-all book, which he has yet to do, and which I think he should. AFTER he gets what he is owed.

You say he is owed something? I will wait til a REAL judge makes that decision. Until then, it is just a bunch of whinning and nothing else.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-09-15 00:46 by dougie.

Re: The Rolling Stone who's stony broke
Posted by: CBII ()
Date: September 15, 2009 00:49

Quote
Turd On The Run
Mick Taylor is one of the Great Lost Boys of Rock and Roll.

He is old enough to know that Rock and Roll is a cruel game. He left the Stones 35 years ago even though Jagger verily begged him to stay...going so far as to supposedly offer him a 6 month sabbatical. I don't see Mick Jagger presenting that option to anyone he doesn't deem absolutely essential to the Stones. Jagger knew his worth. All the Stones - except Keith - thought his departure was regrettable and damaging to the band's music. That has all been documented, is on the record, and is unassailable.

All I read for months (years) after he shockingly (for me) left was that he deemed the Stones' demise a fait accompli and that he wanted to 'go in a new direction' and that he would form a supergroup with Jack Bruce, and that a new record was on its way. (I saw him play with the short-lived Jack Bruce Group and it sucked - rote mid-1970's self-indulgent prog-blues...the kind of music The Sex Pistols made instantly obsolete one year later). Instead he became a wastrel and squandered his potent gifts, while the Stones added Ronnie (less musical brilliance, more verve and attitude), smelled the Zeitgeist, entered a new Golden Age (Some Girls, Tatoo You) and rumbled on, adding to their incomparable legacy.

Instead of cleaning up or pushing himself to do the compelling work he purportedly left the Stones to pursue, Talyor chose to play the sideman to Dylan (great), Bruce (shit) and eventually just fumble his musical genius away in small pubs and druggy grime.

How many times did he have a chance to get himself together? Who knows? Pride would indicate that he could have pulled himself up, reigned in his demons, lost weight, re-dedicated himself to his craft, and cultivated the genius God bestowed upon him. That alone might have forced to Stones to respect him and his legacy more deeply...and perhaps pressure them to remunerate him for his contributions in a fair manner. Instead he shambles from one small-time gig to the next - fat, uninspired and partly broken..ruefully stating that he left the Stones to save himself...but for this?

We all love him...we would give anything to see him onstage again with the Stones or Jack Bruce or Bob Dylan or whatever musician would inspire him to soar - fit, committed, searing our minds with fluid lightning. But that won't happen. The Jack Bruce option is long gone, Bob Dylan has a killer band, and the Stones are pitiless. They eat the weak and kill the injured (Ronnie being the one spectacular, almost inexplicable exception). And Taylor has played the deferent, broken ex-sideman role perfectly.

What a sad spectacle. The legalities may be argued ad infinitum, but until Taylor gets himself in front of a judge with a professional attorney at his side and states his case in an organized and cogent manner all the noise is just that...noise.

In a perfect world Mick Taylor would be known as one of the greatest, most fluid Guitar Gods in the Rock pantheon, his canon would be filled with unforgettable moments, and his music would still be growing and vital to this day. Instead we get this article...

Now that's what I call commentary!

CBII

Re: The Rolling Stone who's stony broke
Posted by: Baboon Bro ()
Date: September 15, 2009 01:12

On the other hand.. A good day Taylor plays a gig'with i.e Wentus Bles Band..
And he is so much more into the Stones spirit a la Exile than the Stones will ever ever be again...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-09-15 01:12 by Baboon Bro.

Re: The Rolling Stone who's stony broke
Posted by: Beelyboy ()
Date: September 15, 2009 01:53

Quote
Turd On The Run
Mick Taylor is one of the Great Lost Boys of Rock and Roll.

He is old enough to know that Rock and Roll is a cruel game. He left the Stones 35 years ago even though Jagger verily begged him to stay...going so far as to supposedly offer him a 6 month sabbatical. I don't see Mick Jagger presenting that option to anyone he doesn't deem absolutely essential to the Stones. Jagger knew his worth. All the Stones - except Keith - thought his departure was regrettable and damaging to the band's music. That has all been documented, is on the record, and is unassailable.

All I read for months (years) after he shockingly (for me) left was that he deemed the Stones' demise a fait accompli and that he wanted to 'go in a new direction' and that he would form a supergroup with Jack Bruce, and that a new record was on its way. (I saw him play with the short-lived Jack Bruce Group and it sucked - rote mid-1970's self-indulgent prog-blues...the kind of music The Sex Pistols made instantly obsolete one year later). Instead he became a wastrel and squandered his potent gifts, while the Stones added Ronnie (less musical brilliance, more verve and attitude), smelled the Zeitgeist, entered a new Golden Age (Some Girls, Tatoo You) and rumbled on, adding to their incomparable legacy.

Instead of cleaning up or pushing himself to do the compelling work he purportedly left the Stones to pursue, Talyor chose to play the sideman to Dylan (great), Bruce (shit) and eventually just fumble his musical genius away in small pubs and druggy grime.

How many times did he have a chance to get himself together? Who knows? Pride would indicate that he could have pulled himself up, reigned in his demons, lost weight, re-dedicated himself to his craft, and cultivated the genius God bestowed upon him. That alone might have forced to Stones to respect him and his legacy more deeply...and perhaps pressure them to remunerate him for his contributions in a fair manner. Instead he shambles from one small-time gig to the next - fat, uninspired and partly broken..ruefully stating that he left the Stones to save himself...but for this?

We all love him...we would give anything to see him onstage again with the Stones or Jack Bruce or Bob Dylan or whatever musician would inspire him to soar - fit, committed, searing our minds with fluid lightning. But that won't happen. The Jack Bruce option is long gone, Bob Dylan has a killer band, and the Stones are pitiless. They eat the weak and kill the injured (Ronnie being the one spectacular, almost inexplicable exception). And Taylor has played the deferent, broken ex-sideman role perfectly.

What a sad spectacle. The legalities may be argued ad infinitum, but until Taylor gets himself in front of a judge with a professional attorney at his side and states his case in an organized and cogent manner all the noise is just that...noise.

In a perfect world Mick Taylor would be known as one of the greatest, most fluid Guitar Gods in the Rock pantheon, his canon would be filled with unforgettable moments, and his music would still be growing and vital to this day. Instead we get this article...

Mick Taylor, true 100% brilliant effective dynamite dynamic KILLER creative git man on ALL the BIGGEST hits and breakthru stylist totally synched and weaving hot with K...totally...awesome...outrageously 'right' 'country' and indescribable universes of rooted soul flaming out of that Gibson EVERY TIME...whooo. HEEDAMAN...all PRAISES and THANKS to this genius Rolling Stone...!!!!!

sad to see the avarice and greed and snooty selfishness and greed around a tender brilliantly contributive and original soulman of the WORLDS GREATEST ROCK AND ROLL BAND....that was the TAYLOR ERA band...and still is...as ronnie, who i love...still plays taylor's foundational parts creatively....

his music is TOALLY MEMORABLE for the AGES....TOPPERMOST!!
his music is 'growing and vital' EVERY time he straps on the instrument...!!
love you mick taylor!!!

Re: The Rolling Stone who's stony broke
Posted by: Carnaby ()
Date: September 15, 2009 01:57

As he points out himself, he didn't like the music, which is obvious if you ever listened to him ruin the Stones doing a live Chuck Berry song. He didn't fit, as, again, he points out. Good riddance.

Re: The Rolling Stone who's stony broke
Date: September 15, 2009 02:22

I don't understand what difference it makes to the case whether he has his shit together.. all these people complaining about his drug use: I don't see you complaining about Keith!

Lets separate apples and oranges here:

Did Mick T make a mistake in leaving the stones ? Almost surely
Has he wasted his musical genius away? Largely
Is he overweight? Yes
Did he do too many drugs? Yes

SO THE @#$%& WHAT??

He is still the guy who contributed all that stuff to the Stones vintage sound as in on the records when you play them! Thats worth something regardless of what he did with his life afterwards...

its as if people want to justify keith and mick treating him like garbage financially speaking because he doesn't have his shit together! So what? I don't have my shit together either but whats right is right and whats wrong is wrong.. end of story.

Goto Page: Previous123456Next
Current Page: 3 of 6


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 2198
Record Number of Users: 206 on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests: 9627 on January 2, 2024 23:10

Previous page Next page First page IORR home