Tell Me :
Talk
Good word.
But I need more information than that. For example; I've read somewhere that Jack's ego got in the way. Another source tells me that the group didn't got along.
Who has more info than a word? lol
Well I don't think that was really Taylor's definitive answer about why he left the Stones. He's had many different, often vague, answers to that question over the years. Besides, the music business and hard drugs went hand in hand in those days. If Taylor had wanted to escape smack, he probably would have had to left the business altogether.
As far as the reason that the Jack Bruce thing didn't work out, I've heard the tour described as "a miserable heroin festival".....
These are worth a watch,MTs playing is great
Mick Taylor was a little bored with the Stones. He couldn't be challenged enough there. If you listen to the songs of the Jack Bruce Band, you can hear different kinds of scales and phrases in the guitar solos. As a guitarplayer I can tell you that's very different than the Stones songs. More towards fusion. And that was a new thing for Mick T.
Turd,
I'll come back on this - but just to say that Jack's stuff was NOT Prog-Rock. He'd done three solo albums since Cream (actually 4 if you include a Jazz collaboration called Things We Like). But the three others were released 1969, 1971(2?) and 1974. His stuff was all done with Pete Brown, Cream's main lyricist.
It's all pretty eclectic and an acquired taste - it follows its own path - and i think it would have existed as it does in the absence of the 'prog rock' movement/trend. Bruce and Brown weren't trend followers - I think they reather lead. It was what made Cream so interesting and different.
Anyway I'll come back to you on what I consider the mainstream Prog-Rock 'bandwagon' to be - while i consider Bruce/Brown to be travelling in their own quiet backwater.
Rock 'n' roll musicians that got caught by the prog and fusion craze often got boring. Some of them managed to use their prog influences really well, though. Like Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple.
I also happen to dig Jack Bruce's '74 solo album. It actually has a lot of bluesy feel to it. But I certainly agree that Mick Taylor didn't play anything interesting at all. Regardless of his cleverness on guitar, he did best when he was allowed to crank it out on stuff like Stray Cat Blues, Sympathy for the Devil and Midnight Rambler...
I love 71Tele's phrase, "the stink of fusion". Brilliant. Though the Jack Bruce Band was not Prog-Rock in the classical sense (no pun intended), the scales and song structures were certainly a bastard, bluesy marriage of wannabe Fusion and plodding Prog. As 71Tele wrote...it was music for musicians...and for those that thought they had outgrown Rock and Roll and sought a more (pseudo)intellectualized approach to the sound of electric guitars and drums and bass. Whatever one might want to call it, the music the Jack Bruce Band with Mick Taylor made was so ponderously self-important, masturbatory and humourless that it simply (and mercifully) sank under its own pretensions.
Ok ok ok, very clear all. Let's just say Mick T. was really bored playing with the Stones and wanted to play something else. And that something was with Jack Bruce. Ok, not exactly hard-driving like the Stones, but still different. I think that Mick didn't played 100%! If you listen to the tracks (and also the youtube videos), you can see Mick playing really soft and safe. That's sad and makes it dull.
Well, Jeff Beck moved to the fusion side of the spectrum and released some of the most vibrant music of the time. Blow By Blow and Wired are considered masterpieces in many circles. Dare I say it? Jeff is running circles around many of his contemporaries these days.
John McLaughlin was one of the originators of Jazz Fusion which really came in to being around the mid to late 60's. The Mahavishnu Orchestra released some really, really powerful music. The stuff he's done since is just crazy good. LDS (with Santana), Shekti, Electric Guitarist and his work with Al DiMeola and Paco Deluca magnifico!.
Outgrown... Hum? Maybe, maybe not. Extended their range? Absolutely! The Rolling Stones adapted and extended their range during the day's of Disco. Some Girls was their take on the Disco era and resulted in one of their best LP's. I don't think many would disagree with the fact Some Girls was and is a great album.
Listening to the two Old Grey Whistle Test clips there are classic Mick Taylor figures and fills all over the place. That's the case even with the constraints imposed by playing Bruce's music. Nope, definitely not something one would expect Taylor to be involved with but it does prove his versatility as a player. Really nice tone coming out of that 355 too.
Of course, I'm only giving my opinion here and I know Jazz Fusion is not to every one's liking.
CBII
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Mick Taylor vs The Jack Bruce Band
Posted by:
DiamondDog7
()
Date: November 13, 2009 00:00
Mick Taylor had a role in the Jack Bruce Band in 1975. Unfortunately this band didn't survive. The music was ok and the musicians were good.
Does anyone know why the Jack Bruce Band split up in 1975? How was the relationship between Mick Taylor and Jack Bruce?
Does anyone know why the Jack Bruce Band split up in 1975? How was the relationship between Mick Taylor and Jack Bruce?
Re: Mick Taylor vs The Jack Bruce Band
Posted by:
6853
()
Date: November 13, 2009 00:56
not better that ok? must be ...Quote
DiamondDog7
Mick Taylor had a role in the Jack Bruce Band in 1975. Unfortunately this band didn't survive. The music was ok and the musicians were good.
Does anyone know why the Jack Bruce Band split up in 1975? How was the relationship between Mick Taylor and Jack Bruce?
Re: Mick Taylor vs The Jack Bruce Band
Posted by:
Who's Driving Your Plane?
()
Date: November 13, 2009 01:23
Heroin
Re: Mick Taylor vs The Jack Bruce Band
Posted by:
DiamondDog7
()
Date: November 13, 2009 01:36
Quote
Who's Driving Your Plane?
Heroin
Good word.
But I need more information than that. For example; I've read somewhere that Jack's ego got in the way. Another source tells me that the group didn't got along.
Who has more info than a word? lol
Re: Mick Taylor vs The Jack Bruce Band
Posted by:
Glam Descendant
()
Date: November 13, 2009 03:46
An aside: I just realized that both Taylor and Bruce played w/The Golden Palominos (though not on the same albums AFAIK).
Re: Mick Taylor vs The Jack Bruce Band
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: November 13, 2009 10:42
Drugs, egos and a big, big mess...
Re: Mick Taylor vs The Jack Bruce Band
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: November 13, 2009 12:08
The story is (confirmed by Bruce, Taylor and other musicians like Bobby Keys) that they had a kilo of heroin on board their tourbus and just where out of it for three months.
If you post this story on Taylor's wikipedia page it gets removed by relatives of Taylor.
Mathijs
If you post this story on Taylor's wikipedia page it gets removed by relatives of Taylor.
Mathijs
Re: Mick Taylor vs The Jack Bruce Band
Posted by:
Tseverin
()
Date: November 13, 2009 15:41
Makes a bit of a nonsense of MT's claim that he had to leave the Stones as the smack was killing him then...
Re: Mick Taylor vs The Jack Bruce Band
Posted by:
Tumblin_Dice_07
()
Date: November 13, 2009 16:56
Quote
Tseverin
Makes a bit of a nonsense of MT's claim that he had to leave the Stones as the smack was killing him then...
Well I don't think that was really Taylor's definitive answer about why he left the Stones. He's had many different, often vague, answers to that question over the years. Besides, the music business and hard drugs went hand in hand in those days. If Taylor had wanted to escape smack, he probably would have had to left the business altogether.
As far as the reason that the Jack Bruce thing didn't work out, I've heard the tour described as "a miserable heroin festival".....
Re: Mick Taylor vs The Jack Bruce Band
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: November 14, 2009 00:04
Quote
Tumblin_Dice_07Quote
Tseverin
If Taylor had wanted to escape smack, he probably would have had to left the business altogether.
which he basically did from 75 to 81 and 84 to 90....
Mathijs
Re: Mick Taylor vs The Jack Bruce Band
Posted by:
still ill
()
Date: November 14, 2009 00:13
These are worth a watch,MTs playing is great
Re: Mick Taylor vs The Jack Bruce Band
Posted by:
Four Stone Walls
()
Date: November 14, 2009 00:23
I saw them and they were good and tight. Had always liked Bruce from his solo albums. Ofcourse, I'd laways loved Taylor.
But Bruce was the frontman - and Taylor did not have the freedom he had within the Stones. My memory of the gig is that Taylor played well - but in predefined slots and largely the guitar parts that had been done by others on the albums.
Apparently he (Taylor) really dug Bruce's music - as did the rest of the band - and it must have been more challenging and a refreshing change from the confines of (mainly) 'R&B' stuff. But ironically MT had more freedom of expression within the more 'limited' Stones format.
So, I enjoyed seeing MT with JB (and on a Whistle Test program which highlighted some songs from one of the shows). There is a live show officially available - Manchester. But it won't knock your socks off.
Worth getting some of Bruce's early solo works - his first, Songs for a Taylor(!)
- and the 1974 one which they featured a lot - Out of the Storm.
Yup, 1972's (?) Harmony Row is good too. but you have to like Pete Brown's lyrics
- and the tunes are are all rather 'wordy' - if you know what I mean.
But Bruce was the frontman - and Taylor did not have the freedom he had within the Stones. My memory of the gig is that Taylor played well - but in predefined slots and largely the guitar parts that had been done by others on the albums.
Apparently he (Taylor) really dug Bruce's music - as did the rest of the band - and it must have been more challenging and a refreshing change from the confines of (mainly) 'R&B' stuff. But ironically MT had more freedom of expression within the more 'limited' Stones format.
So, I enjoyed seeing MT with JB (and on a Whistle Test program which highlighted some songs from one of the shows). There is a live show officially available - Manchester. But it won't knock your socks off.
Worth getting some of Bruce's early solo works - his first, Songs for a Taylor(!)
- and the 1974 one which they featured a lot - Out of the Storm.
Yup, 1972's (?) Harmony Row is good too. but you have to like Pete Brown's lyrics
- and the tunes are are all rather 'wordy' - if you know what I mean.
Re: Mick Taylor vs The Jack Bruce Band
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: November 14, 2009 12:13
That Jack Bruce Band stuff in those clips (thanks!) sounds so typical mid-70's music to my ears - and I don't mean anything negative at all, just an observation. There were a lot of bands like that at the time (especially here in Finland, - i.e. Tasavallan Presidentti, Wigwam - before the punk movement). There are roots to blues and jazz, but the nature of it is 'progressive', or "musicians' music". A fine musician like Mick Taylor is in his element here.
But yeah, a band leader having an ego of Napoleon's, and a kilo of heroin on the bus, is not just the best combination to make a band to last... (but I don't know; where the things so different in the Stones camp at the time...
)
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-11-14 12:15 by Doxa.
But yeah, a band leader having an ego of Napoleon's, and a kilo of heroin on the bus, is not just the best combination to make a band to last... (but I don't know; where the things so different in the Stones camp at the time...
)- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-11-14 12:15 by Doxa.
Re: Mick Taylor vs The Jack Bruce Band
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: November 14, 2009 15:20
Sure, Taylor's playing is great (when wasn't it?), but this music is horrid. 70s prog rock. He left the Stones so he could do this?
Re: Mick Taylor vs The Jack Bruce Band
Posted by:
DiamondDog7
()
Date: November 14, 2009 17:57
Quote
71Tele
Sure, Taylor's playing is great (when wasn't it?), but this music is horrid. 70s prog rock. He left the Stones so he could do this?
Mick Taylor was a little bored with the Stones. He couldn't be challenged enough there. If you listen to the songs of the Jack Bruce Band, you can hear different kinds of scales and phrases in the guitar solos. As a guitarplayer I can tell you that's very different than the Stones songs. More towards fusion. And that was a new thing for Mick T.
Re: Mick Taylor vs The Jack Bruce Band
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: November 14, 2009 19:42
Yes, I know Taylor was bored in the Stones, and I'm a musician too, so I understand wanting to be more challenged. So he gets to play a couple of different scales (in fact, though, I found it odd he played some country scales over this stuff). My point was this music was indulgent drivel.
Re: Mick Taylor vs The Jack Bruce Band
Posted by:
Turd On The Run
()
Date: November 15, 2009 00:08
Typical mid-70's bloated, pretentious, self-indulgent, over-intellectualized prog-rock tripe...Bruce is so full of himself and absolutely unsympathetic in his over-gesticulating the piffle that stand for lyrics...Taylor doodling in the background...sounds only a self-absorbed musician could relate to...the audience sitting in their chairs and politely clapping at the end of each song as if they were watching freaking Lawrence Welk.
I loved Yes, and even enjoyed early ELP (Brain Salad Surgery anyone?)...but this? Mick Taylor really miscalculated...this is the type of music that spawned the desperate need for the Punk manifesto...calling the Sex Pistols!!!
I loved Yes, and even enjoyed early ELP (Brain Salad Surgery anyone?)...but this? Mick Taylor really miscalculated...this is the type of music that spawned the desperate need for the Punk manifesto...calling the Sex Pistols!!!
Re: Mick Taylor vs The Jack Bruce Band
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: November 15, 2009 00:22
The miscalculation of the Century, if you ask me...I really think he left because Keith was mean to him and it was an impossible situation personally...If the musical reasons were legit, he could have done solo albums, a la Bill, and gotten all that fusion crap out of his system. It's not like the Stones were working full time at that point. But the Jack Bruce Band? Awful, awful music. I would argue that Taylor's playing on the '73 tour is far more melodic and interesting than this stuff with Bruce.
Re: Mick Taylor vs The Jack Bruce Band
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: November 15, 2009 16:58
Saw them playing on pinkpop´75.
Taylor´s face was whiter than his white shirt,and it was a very sunny summer.
He was almost sleeping on stage,but still did a nice job..
Taylor´s face was whiter than his white shirt,and it was a very sunny summer.
He was almost sleeping on stage,but still did a nice job..
Re: Mick Taylor vs The Jack Bruce Band
Posted by:
Four Stone Walls
()
Date: November 16, 2009 00:55
Quote
Turd On The Run
Typical mid-70's bloated, pretentious, self-indulgent, over-intellectualized prog-rock tripe...Bruce is so full of himself and absolutely unsympathetic in his over-gesticulating the piffle that stand for lyrics...Taylor doodling in the background...sounds only a self-absorbed musician could relate to...the audience sitting in their chairs and politely clapping at the end of each song as if they were watching freaking Lawrence Welk.
I loved Yes, and even enjoyed early ELP (Brain Salad Surgery anyone?)...but this? Mick Taylor really miscalculated...this is the type of music that spawned the desperate need for the Punk manifesto...calling the Sex Pistols!!!
Turd,
I'll come back on this - but just to say that Jack's stuff was NOT Prog-Rock. He'd done three solo albums since Cream (actually 4 if you include a Jazz collaboration called Things We Like). But the three others were released 1969, 1971(2?) and 1974. His stuff was all done with Pete Brown, Cream's main lyricist.
It's all pretty eclectic and an acquired taste - it follows its own path - and i think it would have existed as it does in the absence of the 'prog rock' movement/trend. Bruce and Brown weren't trend followers - I think they reather lead. It was what made Cream so interesting and different.
Anyway I'll come back to you on what I consider the mainstream Prog-Rock 'bandwagon' to be - while i consider Bruce/Brown to be travelling in their own quiet backwater.
Re: Mick Taylor vs The Jack Bruce Band
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: November 16, 2009 01:16
It may not have been prog-rock technically, but it carries the stink of fusion, which was all the rage at the time. Many musicians had developed an attitude that rock or r&b was somehow something to be "outgrown". This is where Jeff Beck, John McLaughlin and all those other guitar-hero types were headed. Mick T. was seduced by this as well to some extent. Hasn't aged very well, in my view.
Re: Mick Taylor vs The Jack Bruce Band
Posted by:
LieB
()
Date: November 16, 2009 02:30
You have a point there. I'm a big fan of prog-rock personally, but the ones that I really appreciate are bands like Yes, Pink Floyd, Gentle Giant, Rush, etc. And they were bands that were basically prog-rock or art rock from the beginning (and they were also "top of the league"), and not old established musicians firmly rooted in an R & B tradition like Jack Bruce and Mick Taylor.Quote
71Tele
It may not have been prog-rock technically, but it carries the stink of fusion, which was all the rage at the time. Many musicians had developed an attitude that rock or r&b was somehow something to be "outgrown". This is where Jeff Beck, John McLaughlin and all those other guitar-hero types were headed. Mick T. was seduced by this as well to some extent. Hasn't aged very well, in my view.
Rock 'n' roll musicians that got caught by the prog and fusion craze often got boring. Some of them managed to use their prog influences really well, though. Like Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple.
I also happen to dig Jack Bruce's '74 solo album. It actually has a lot of bluesy feel to it. But I certainly agree that Mick Taylor didn't play anything interesting at all. Regardless of his cleverness on guitar, he did best when he was allowed to crank it out on stuff like Stray Cat Blues, Sympathy for the Devil and Midnight Rambler...
Re: Mick Taylor vs The Jack Bruce Band
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: November 16, 2009 02:46
Agree with you LieB...I think bands like King Crimson, Floyd, Yes, etc. were great. Not my cup of tea, exactly, but great. My point was about rock musicians somehow becoming ashamed of playing "mere" rock. I experienced this myself when I was first starting to play in 74-75 and one ran into a lot of musicians during that period who thought the Stones were passe...I think Jazz died as a vital force when it ceased being popular music - dance music - and it became music for musicians. I know that's an incendiary statement but I think it has a large measure of truth nonetheless. Even the relatively low-quality work the Stones were doing at the time ages better than these Jack Bruce tracks. Instead of noodling behind Mick, Taylor was noodling behind Bruce. I really never got it. One of these days we'll have Taylor's version of this, I suppose.
Re: Mick Taylor vs The Jack Bruce Band
Posted by:
Turd On The Run
()
Date: November 16, 2009 05:22
Quote
Four Stone WallsQuote
Turd On The Run
Typical mid-70's bloated, pretentious, self-indulgent, over-intellectualized prog-rock tripe...Bruce is so full of himself and absolutely unsympathetic in his over-gesticulating the piffle that stand for lyrics...Taylor doodling in the background...sounds only a self-absorbed musician could relate to...the audience sitting in their chairs and politely clapping at the end of each song as if they were watching freaking Lawrence Welk.
I loved Yes, and even enjoyed early ELP (Brain Salad Surgery anyone?)...but this? Mick Taylor really miscalculated...this is the type of music that spawned the desperate need for the Punk manifesto...calling the Sex Pistols!!!
Turd,
I'll come back on this - but just to say that Jack's stuff was NOT Prog-Rock. He'd done three solo albums since Cream (actually 4 if you include a Jazz collaboration called Things We Like). But the three others were released 1969, 1971(2?) and 1974. His stuff was all done with Pete Brown, Cream's main lyricist.
It's all pretty eclectic and an acquired taste - it follows its own path - and i think it would have existed as it does in the absence of the 'prog rock' movement/trend. Bruce and Brown weren't trend followers - I think they reather lead. It was what made Cream so interesting and different.
Anyway I'll come back to you on what I consider the mainstream Prog-Rock 'bandwagon' to be - while i consider Bruce/Brown to be travelling in their own quiet backwater.
I love 71Tele's phrase, "the stink of fusion". Brilliant. Though the Jack Bruce Band was not Prog-Rock in the classical sense (no pun intended), the scales and song structures were certainly a bastard, bluesy marriage of wannabe Fusion and plodding Prog. As 71Tele wrote...it was music for musicians...and for those that thought they had outgrown Rock and Roll and sought a more (pseudo)intellectualized approach to the sound of electric guitars and drums and bass. Whatever one might want to call it, the music the Jack Bruce Band with Mick Taylor made was so ponderously self-important, masturbatory and humourless that it simply (and mercifully) sank under its own pretensions.
Re: Mick Taylor vs The Jack Bruce Band
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: November 16, 2009 11:59
<the music the Jack Bruce Band with Mick Taylor made was so ponderously self-important, masturbatory and humourless that it simply (and mercifully) sank under its own pretensions.>
Well said! And it was a drag. Boring!
Well said! And it was a drag. Boring!
Re: Mick Taylor vs The Jack Bruce Band
Posted by:
DiamondDog7
()
Date: November 16, 2009 13:03
Quote
DandelionPowderman
<the music the Jack Bruce Band with Mick Taylor made was so ponderously self-important, masturbatory and humourless that it simply (and mercifully) sank under its own pretensions.>
Well said! And it was a drag. Boring!
Ok ok ok, very clear all. Let's just say Mick T. was really bored playing with the Stones and wanted to play something else. And that something was with Jack Bruce. Ok, not exactly hard-driving like the Stones, but still different. I think that Mick didn't played 100%! If you listen to the tracks (and also the youtube videos), you can see Mick playing really soft and safe. That's sad and makes it dull.
Re: Mick Taylor vs The Jack Bruce Band
Posted by:
Mean.Mr.Mustard
()
Date: November 16, 2009 16:25
Booze problems.
Mean Mr.Mustard
Mean Mr.Mustard
Re: Mick Taylor vs The Jack Bruce Band
Posted by:
CBII
()
Date: November 16, 2009 17:10
Quote
71Tele
It may not have been prog-rock technically, but it carries the stink of fusion, which was all the rage at the time. Many musicians had developed an attitude that rock or r&b was somehow something to be "outgrown". This is where Jeff Beck, John McLaughlin and all those other guitar-hero types were headed. Mick T. was seduced by this as well to some extent. Hasn't aged very well, in my view.
Well, Jeff Beck moved to the fusion side of the spectrum and released some of the most vibrant music of the time. Blow By Blow and Wired are considered masterpieces in many circles. Dare I say it? Jeff is running circles around many of his contemporaries these days.
John McLaughlin was one of the originators of Jazz Fusion which really came in to being around the mid to late 60's. The Mahavishnu Orchestra released some really, really powerful music. The stuff he's done since is just crazy good. LDS (with Santana), Shekti, Electric Guitarist and his work with Al DiMeola and Paco Deluca magnifico!.
Outgrown... Hum? Maybe, maybe not. Extended their range? Absolutely! The Rolling Stones adapted and extended their range during the day's of Disco. Some Girls was their take on the Disco era and resulted in one of their best LP's. I don't think many would disagree with the fact Some Girls was and is a great album.
Listening to the two Old Grey Whistle Test clips there are classic Mick Taylor figures and fills all over the place. That's the case even with the constraints imposed by playing Bruce's music. Nope, definitely not something one would expect Taylor to be involved with but it does prove his versatility as a player. Really nice tone coming out of that 355 too.
Of course, I'm only giving my opinion here and I know Jazz Fusion is not to every one's liking.
CBII
Re: Mick Taylor vs The Jack Bruce Band
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: November 16, 2009 18:04
<Some Girls was their take on the Disco era and resulted in one of their best LP's>
It did, for sure. But Miss You was the only disco-ish thing on the album. Hot Stuff was disco-ish too, as Emotional Rescue was after SG. IMO, SG was more of a take on the punk era, with a very good disco-ish (or pop/funk) hit song + Beast Of Burden and Faraway Eyes, of course
It did, for sure. But Miss You was the only disco-ish thing on the album. Hot Stuff was disco-ish too, as Emotional Rescue was after SG. IMO, SG was more of a take on the punk era, with a very good disco-ish (or pop/funk) hit song + Beast Of Burden and Faraway Eyes, of course
Re: Mick Taylor vs The Jack Bruce Band
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: November 16, 2009 18:20
<<Well, Jeff Beck moved to the fusion side of the spectrum and released some of the most vibrant music of the time. Blow By Blow and Wired are considered masterpieces in many circles. Dare I say it? Jeff is running circles around many of his contemporaries these days.
John McLaughlin was one of the originators of Jazz Fusion which really came in to being around the mid to late 60's. The Mahavishnu Orchestra released some really, really powerful music. The stuff he's done since is just crazy good. LDS (with Santana), Shekti, Electric Guitarist and his work with Al DiMeola and Paco Deluca magnifico!.>>
If someone likes that sort of thing, all well and good - one person's "vibrant" and "powerful" is another person's "self-important" and "bloated". I stand by my point that based on these clips, Taylor's musical justification for leaving the Stones strains credulity. I think he was far more challenged within a Stones show - going from Angie to YCAGWYW to Dancing With Mr. D than he was playing this fusion or whatever we agree to call it.
John McLaughlin was one of the originators of Jazz Fusion which really came in to being around the mid to late 60's. The Mahavishnu Orchestra released some really, really powerful music. The stuff he's done since is just crazy good. LDS (with Santana), Shekti, Electric Guitarist and his work with Al DiMeola and Paco Deluca magnifico!.>>
If someone likes that sort of thing, all well and good - one person's "vibrant" and "powerful" is another person's "self-important" and "bloated". I stand by my point that based on these clips, Taylor's musical justification for leaving the Stones strains credulity. I think he was far more challenged within a Stones show - going from Angie to YCAGWYW to Dancing With Mr. D than he was playing this fusion or whatever we agree to call it.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
DandelionPowderman , daniel t , Doxa , EddieByword , eduardoacdc , EggersBand , gnillor , gtx8834 , harlem shuffle , hockenheim95 , hot stuff , jumpingjackflash5 , Marhsall , mgmiller , mr edward , RollingFreak , snoopy2 , sonnystitt , spunky , voodoodrew
Guests:
1462
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10