I have been listening to MTs work without the Stones lately. His soloing and fills are wonderful. In general, as good as it was when he played with the Stones. The thing that I would think he needs in a STRONG band behind him. He needs a strong rythm section playing behind hin so he can really shine. I went back and listened to his live work with the Stones and it seems like he played off of KR alot.

Thoughts.....and please no MT vs Woody vs. Jimmy Page vs. Stevie Ray vs my aunt Rosalie debates.

Oh go one! I much rather a 'debate' on Aunt Rosalie!!!!

Yes...Mick T. is one of the greats...he's doing some shows in Scandinavia with Wentus Blues Band (starting 12 Nov 05 in Levi, Finland).

Aunt Rosalie is better on slide though you have to admit! you can't argue with that/no debate!

Mick T was the icing to the Stones cake......now he's only a twinkie

MT's slide solo on Love in Vain at Oakland (LiveR Than You'll Ever Be) 1969 is legendary. At the end of the tune, Mick says, "Oh, got right carried away with it!"

I prefer Ronnie as the second Stones guitarist, but Mick Taylor is brilliant.

I've seen MT performing with Bob Dylan on his "Infidels" Tour 1984. He was fat and his playing was lousy, easily beaten by His Bobness himself!
Stay cool people, Mick Taylor is absolutely overrated! The only worthy input to the Stones is his solo on "Love In Vain" on Ya-Ya's, the rest is ok (the period he was with the band) but nothing special and definitely nothing of an influence to Stones music.
Listen to Ron Wood playing on the Faces 1973 live album "Coast To Coast" and imagine he joined the Stones in 1969 - the solo on "Love In Vain" 69 would have been saved by UNESCO now!
It's my own opinion - as I posted many times before - you might argue about it, ok, but all you Mick Taylor enthusiasts should keep in mind is that he didn't play/release anything worth to mention since he left the Stones....


Truth is stranger than fiction

stoned greetings
G. The Cock

MT wasn't particularly overweight in '84 - wasn't really until the mid-90's that he started really gaining weight. None of that ultimately matters, however - the man can still wield as a good an axe as anyone in the biz.

No problem with his overweight, IF he would play remarkable, what he doesn't, in my opinion.


Truth is stranger than fiction

stoned greetings
G. The Cock

maybe he could join the re-united B.T.O (bachman-turner-overweight)

or e.l.o. ( eat lots orchestra)

hand clapping and rolling on floor laughing - you got it men!!!!

Truth is stranger than fiction

stoned greetings
G. The Cock

G. the Cock is the right name 4 U

Your lame comments on Taylor are not worthy of a response - MLC

Not sure what someone's weight has to do with their ability to play an instrument well....

I've never heard anyone review a BB King concert by dismissing him as just being an fat old b***ard

Right on, Gazza!! His weight is irrelevant to whether he plays well or badly, so leave it out. Comments like that don't add any weight (!) to arguments against him - instead, they detract from them. Do any of you who make derogatory comments about his weight know that it's because he overeats, underexercises pr whatever? How do you know he doesn't have some medical condition or has to take some medication that adds a few pounds? I'm not saying that either is true - I have no idea - but overeating is not the only cause of excess pounds. So unless you know the reasons, don't make instant assumptions that might be wrong or you might have to eat your words (and then you'll end up being really OBESE). I don't suppose I'll have to wait long for any smartass retorts.

I simply wanted to know what people thought about MT needing a strong backing band behind him.........not how much he weighs. I mean, I don't want to make out with him........i just want to listen to him.

I don't think he "was" over-rated.

BTW: My aunt Rosalie plays a mean wodden spoon on my forehead.

For the most part MT has surrounded himself with very capable musicians...Max Middleton, for instance, who is considered among the best in the world on keyboard (his resume is impeccable). When you go to see MT, you cannot have expectations of seeing a Stones-like concert - MT is more in the mold of a jazz musician who uses a handful of songs as frameworks for improvisation. If you don't appreciate and enjoy that kind of "bag" you're likely to be disappointed. His chops have not not diminished one iota over the years - in fact, I would argue they have only gotten better with age.

I think you're probably on to something Cafaro, although he's played with some pretty talented folks. The missing ingredient in his solo career to me is that he's mostly avoided "rock". Obviously his tastes run a little more to the blues and jazz ends of the music spectrum. Other than his tour(s) with Dylan, haven't really heard him playing straight-ahead rock music, which would make my ears a little more receptive. I've gotten the impression from things he has said in the past that the style somewhat bores him.

Karl

If one actually listens to the stones boots and dylan boots one will find
brilliant melodic tonal passages of fluidy coming from that guy named taylor.

How one can only say taylor peaked with only LIV from 1969 is beyond my
total existence.the 72 tour was the best tour in rock and roll history with
taylor torching up the stages.

taylor's work on the 84 tour with dylan on Masters of War,Every Grain Of Sand,
Ballad of a thin man,Highway 61,etc are some of the best live versions ever
musically.dylans vocals were not that great but thats another story.

Cafaro,

My comments would echo T&As. Actually all the musicians he plays with are top notch. The bassist is damn good. And he often plays with Colin Allen on drums. The band is nearly always strong. You just have to enjoy blues, funk, jazz and a bit of imaginitive improvisation over all those genres - including rock. Infact it still is mainly rock but with strong flavours of the the other prime influences.

It's not that he CAN'T do straight rock - witness work with Stones and Highway 61 and others from Dylan's 1984 tour - but he chooses a more lyrical, melodious approach. And that after all is his strength and his genius

I don't think the rock ingredient is missing, it's just been blended and extended. Take Twisted Sister - one damn infectious funky groove - but the drums are still basically rock.

If I (or you) want straight forward 'rock' we need not look much further than KR and co.

OpenG - I don't debate MT's contributions to Dylan's '84 tour...but overall that was among the worst Dylan tours ever, IMO. It was a going-through-the-motions tour for him and the band. It's really ONLY interesting to listen to 2 decades later because of MT. A pretty-much "soul-less" tour.

Yes the fact that MT needs a strong backing band would make sense for any
soloist.Playing with Keith or Alvin Lee in 1981,taylor was able to utilize his
talents as a virtuso.

I love the boots I have of Taylors solo shows but his studio albums are so so. I think what is really lacking is good songs to play with. The songs on his solo albums I like the most are his covers. That is why he worked well with the Stones, because he had great songs to put his solos to work on.

Hound Dog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I love the boots I have of Taylors solo shows but
> his studio albums are so so. I think what is
> really lacking is good songs to play with. The
> songs on his solo albums I like the most are his
> covers. That is why he worked well with the
> Stones, because he had great songs to put his
> solos to work on.
>
> Gonna find my way to heaven, cause I did my time
> in hell


you nailed it Hound Dog.....end of conversation...M.T. was in the right place at the right time (with all due respect to his axe-slingin")

you may it sound like its a one way street - just to remind you all the stones BENEFITED from taylor because he brought the stones to new heights live when it was important to play music live going into 1970's .

<<<<It's my own opinion - as I posted many times before - you might argue about it, ok, but all you Mick Taylor enthusiasts should keep in mind is that he didn't play/release anything worth to mention since he left the Stones....<<<<<<
and Ron Wood sadly enough didn't play anything worth since he joined the Stones.

i'll decide if the conversation is over. it ain't. the songs are just the frameworks for his improvising - as a jazz player would have it. the strength of the songs, per se, is somewhat irrelevant in that case. Miles Davis used a lot of weak songs (e.g. Surrey With The Fringe On Top) to springboard some great solos....

imagine if keith and brian jones had to handle all the solos on tour and
competing with the other larger classic acts at that time - OUCH to my ears,

OpenG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> you may it sound like its a one way street - just
> to remind you all the stones BENEFITED from taylor
> because he brought the stones to new heights live
> when it was important to play music live going
> into 1970's .


other way around OpenG...Taylor benefited from the Stones greatness at the time.....his quote: "they brought out the best in me"

NOPE AS sir jagger says Taylor helped him sing better the melodies

Shit keith had to keep up with taylor to lay down the rhythm he never had to
work so hard in his life