If you compare his vibrato to Ronnies playing what is the difference? Ronnie seems to be more into rythm, which I also like (Hey Negrita etc) but has he lost that over the years? More flow than rythm now?

Ronnies guitar work was a perfect mixture of rhythm and lead, particularly 75/76, which fits better to the sound of the band than Mick Taylors work. But he has lost (for the moment I hope) so much of his impressive, strong and vital play that it is difficult to compare his present guitar playing to the one of the last decades. There are only few exceptions like "Beast of Burden" during the opening night in Boston, August '05. Nice solo and brilliant interweaving with Keith.

Yeah, it seems like he had that chopping and thenm in 1981 that weaving interplay (Little T&A)

HaHa LA Forum, are you filling in OpenG's spot allready!! LOL

Yeah I like Taylors vibrato.

LA FORUM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah I like Taylors vibrato.


don't think Jagger does, though.

Original & eccentric issue-idea for a thread...

> don't think Jagger does, though.

I'm sure he does. Mick did a lot of songs with Mick Taylor
and without Keith. I think this was a big problem for Keith....

Sorry Adrian - but Jagger & Richards LOVE Taylor's playing!!!

Jagger came this close to putting a Live version of Angie from 1973 out on
one of the Stones releases a few years back.

And Keith said: Taylor melodic ideas "WOWED HIM".... when they played together.

MLC

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

So the 1851st repeat thread on this subject, I guess this is supposed to be a little protest in support for Open G.


Ok I will play, Mick Taylor is really a sad pathetic individual that had the honour and privilege to work with the greatest rock band in the world, yes! they were before they ever met Taylor. And this ungrateful idiot who thought he could do better going solo just packed up and left without any warning and left the band in a lurch. But luckily it worked out great for the stones, they picked up a class guitarist that added personality and a spark for the band and snapped them out of the boring 70's lead guitarist cliché band that they were becoming with records like Goats Head soup and especially It's only rock and roll("Time waits for no one" represents the Stones at their most boring, soulless, a truly horrible track!) But Mr Wood helped them regain their edge by helping with the very underrated Black and Blue album and the classic Some Girls, The Stones went on and continued to have huge commercial and critical acclaim for years afterwards. Contrast that to Mick Taylor's immediate dive into oblivion after he left the group, How long did it take him to get his first solo record finished ? 5 years? and what was the public reaction? It was a collective yawn!
The man cannot write any songs of substance, he has failed to attract all but a miniscule audience to his live shows (with good reason he has no stage presence whatsoever) and I would argue most of them are coming solely to hear him play stones songs.

He does not deserve pity, he got what he asked for, a chance to make his own music just because he became a failure is no reason to blame the Stones. And I really really hope the band does NOT ask him to return for a cheesy reunion gig. Go forward boys not backwards!

"Go forward boys not backwards!" If they only would Ket, if they only would! You only have to witness a live show to see that is not the case.

hey i've just read what you wrote ket you did the same open g did but changing the subject! i think bv was trying to say to not be offensive with people but just to say our opinion! But you did, not with ronnie but with taylor. This not makes a difference. And listen, i'm not a Taylor fan.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-01-26 19:04 by farawayeyes2.

I happen to be a fan of Brian, Mick T, and Ron. Each has very distinctive musical talents and personalities, and all have made significant contributions to the Stones (and to varying degrees outside the Stones as well). I don't think comparing them (as in better/worse, as opposed to contrasting styles etc) is useful, as their styles and (musical & otherwise) personalities are so disparate. Discussions sometimes feel like politcal campaigns in which one has to bash one of them in order to promote the importance of the other.

Yeah BV -

Ket is just as offensive as Open G with his slur's about a former
Rolling Stone. He should get the BOOT too!!!

MLV

Ket, I've read some of your treads before, and especially when it comes to your opinions about Taylor, I don't agree with you. That's not a problem. I mostly read this board, to discover more details about my favourite band. On the other hand, by reading some of your treads I get the fealing that your contribution to the Taylor matter etc. is often focused from a negative point of view. Maybe using strong words like:
"> Mick Taylor...a sad pathetic individual... ungrateful idiot..."
is part of your humour, but I really think this kind of words about a former member of the Stones is what BV doesn't whant on this site.

What I wrote was a reaction to the vibrato term which I accociated perhaps wrongly with the same posts that open G kept putting out endlessly. However I read the original post again and I admit I jumped to conclusions. I apologize for that.

I do think Taylor was an "ungrateful idiot" and I wrote the reasons why. Ungrateful in respect for leaving the band in the manner he did without warning.
and an idiot for leaving the greatest rock in the world to a life of obscurity.

I read the posting rules MCD and BV wrote the following:

>You may talk about and discuss any public person on IORR including Mick, Keith, Charlie and Ronnie. Of Course. That is the whole point of IORR. To talk about the Stones. A person is public when this person choose to be on stage with the Stones or in other ways makes his/her precence public. Clearly.

Campaigns are not accepted. This means it is acceptable to say you hate (or love) the drumming of Charlie one time and two times and may be even 10 times but to repeat such posts every day and every week is called campaigns and such posts are not accepted. Why? Because campaigns are not balanced talking. It is few people forcing their own opinions on many others. And a lot of people find that offending.<

I have never started a campaign, almost all my posts regarding Mick Taylor have been reply's to threads already started by one of the Taylorites and this was only after years of reading the same threads over and over.

But I have had enough and I quit, There will not be any more reply's to the Taylorites posts by me.

Peace

Ket

Thanks Ket! I'll carry on for you if you like.

...and after Taylor left, they made more money, and then more money, and then a lot more money, and then yet more money, and loads more money etc...giving a whole new meaning to the word "circus".

Their concerts are famous the world over for helping them, well, make even more money.

Well Ket - one last reply

Wonder if you would have the balls to stand-up for your principles and
quit a job, be it with the "greatest" what-ever if you thought you were
not being properly compensated for your efforts?? Probably not!

You would just "take it"!! Taylor didn't

MLC

Re Taylor's leaving, he had developed a heroin habit. And in Nick Kent's book "Dark Places" Kent reports Taylor telling him he (MT) would be getting one or two co-writing credits on the 'new' album (IORR) (As would Wood on the title track!). Kent then tells Taylor he's seen the sleeve and all titles are J/R. Taylor was upset, his bubble burst, but Kent implies he never confronted J/R directly. Instead he left weeks later.

John R. - Interesting - never heard that before - MLC

Was Mick Taylor Elizabeth Taylor's 4th husband? Was he before or after Richard Burton?

To parapharse the (not so) great poets in Styx: Domo Arigato, Mr. Vibrato!

open g WHERE ARE YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!