here
[www.dailymail.co.uk]


there's even a pix of him returning from the supermarket..

It was depressing until I got to the comments which put a nice perspective on things too easily overlooked. Last I read he claimed he had no regrets; hard to imagine but hey, he's alive!

Why can't they give him at least a couple of millions because he contributed nice music to the best period they had.

The picture shows that Mick Taylor does not look as bad as described in many of hte threads. If you compare him with Bobby Keyes nowadays they seem to have the same weight. Good to see that he is still alive and well. It is a shame that Mick Taylor was never invited to join the Stones on stage. In that case all three guitarists could have blended perfectly, each one showing his qualities.

interesting comment about them becoming a good "stadium act" - when did they first start playing stadiums?

>> when did they first start playing stadiums? <<

81 was the first tour that was primarily stadiums,
but they played some in 75 and 78 as well.

nice photo - he looks comfortable.

It goes to show you how pathetically disgusting the music industry is when a guy like this cannot get his due payday. Jagger and Richards should be ashamed of themselves. Go ahead, flame me...

Someone flashed a camera at MT coming home from buying his sausages - so they interviewed the local shopkeeper, the local taxi driver and got a quote from the landlord of a dodgy pub in London. They made some obvious assumptions about his lifestyle and wrote a story about the under-dog.
If I had a pound for every MT article that said the same old boring lines......

Mick Taylor is not interested in making money - he could easily cash in on his name by writing a tell all book. Or he could form the greatest Stones tribute band the world has ever seen or go do some session work.

Whatever else they say about the Stones and their millions - they do work for their money.

>It is a shame that Mick Taylor was never invited to join the Stones on stage


They did, in Kansas City in '81 and supposedly (this might garner some responses) in London 2003. The former transpired, the latter, for whatever reasons, did not. (I can attest though that I saw a stage setlist for the Astoria that had "Rock Me, Baby"but not "Honky Tonk Women"; when Taylor didn't show for the former, Keith broke into the latter on stage).

turd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Whatever else they say about the Stones and their
> millions - they do work for their money.


Yes, The Stones work but the money goes to Mick and Keith. Maybe somebody thinks it is cool to rob people's ideas, and laugh all the way to bank. And the question with Mick Taylor is about three to four songs - would mean nothing to Mick or Keith financially or careerwise, but perhaps quite much to Mick Taylor. Why they choose to do that? Are they really so greed, or is it sort of arrogant boss attitude, to show other people their 'place' in the organization?

- Doxa

Fair enough Doxa and I agree but perhaps there is residual bitterness that he left them high & dry the day before they were scheduled to begin recording a new album (no defense in the long run I agree but I'm just pointing it out).

I know this songwriting credit thing is very difficult to get your head round. But we don't actually know what MT claims that he wrote - which part of what song. You can't really expect a song writing credit for a guitar solo.
If he was such a talented song writer then where is the acclaimed solo album??

Slightlty off topic - but on 'Talk is cheap' - Steve Jordan gets half the song writing credit with Keith. That also seems bizarre to me as I can't imagine what 50% Steve Jordan actually wrote. BUt, it does at least prove that Keith will share song writing credit and is not greedy, as people think.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-01-30 12:06 by turd.

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> nice photo - he looks comfortable.


Hmm, IMO he doesn't look so good in this picture and that one shot of him goes along great with the "sad" story told in the intervieuw.

Cheers,
Wuudy

I never understand why MT hasn't really got out there and played?
He could easily tour the UK, Europe and States with a hot band and make a buck??
Lazy?

>BUt, it does at least prove that Keith will share song writing credit and is not greedy, as people think.


Hell they shared songwriting credits with two folks they never even met for "Anybody Seen My Baby" just to insure they wouldn't get sued!

Well, maybe MT should take Jagger/Richards to court over his alleged, over due, song writing credits. Mike Love and Brian Wilson are nearly always in court over who wrote what for the beach Boys - going back over 40 years........

It makes sense that he actually don't seem too interested in the money. He is past his best years, but it's true that if he only wanted to, he could get out and play with much bigger acts than he has lately. I think it all has a lot to do with what kind of person he is.

Still, I think it's the terrible, the credit issue, if he indeed contributed significantly to more than three songs...

After Taylor left the stones live sound like the greatest garage band in those
stadiums playing their body or work from the taylor era. LOL

He is writing his autobiography, reported a couple of years ago.

Three dudes that grew on the same branch...

Swedish actor Rolf Lassgård... Taylor...
And finally my ol' Platoon Officer

The last dude actually plays a smokin' guitar,
not too far away from Taylor/Santana... He has a semi-famous band...

Pics from left/right/downwards: [www.dailymail.co.uk] , [www.wallander-web.de] , [www.andolin.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-01-30 13:58 by Baboon Bro.

Is it legally possible to change a song from Jagger/Richards to Jagger/Taylor and give MT retrospective royalties? Could it happen in theory?

They interviewed the grocery store owner,and he said that MT bought the whole store and that he was going to retire from the grocery biz and head off to Disney World with the proceeds.


And,oh yeah,Bobby Keys is fat too.So comparing MT with him doesn't make me think that MT isn't fat.

There are certain facts we can't deny:
Grass is green
The sky is blue
We have to pay taxes
Cat poop stinks
Mick Taylor is fat

Pleased to meet you......

This thread is taking a childish turn...again

Maybe MT is just a happy and contented lazy old sod.

[I can certainly identify with that. ;^) ]

Concerning "Undeniable facts"

MT is fat. Undeniable. Relevant?

Mick Jagger is greedy. Quite relevant.

I don't see the "sadness" in that article. In seems like he's living a nice life in a friendly environment. I wouldn't say he's that overweight either.

Four Stone Walls Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Concerning "Undeniable facts"
>
> MT is fat. Undeniable. Relevant?
>
> Mick Jagger is greedy. Quite relevant.


I go to work every night.I get paid for going to work.Therefore,I am greedy,too.Wanting to get paid for what you do isn't greed,it life.Exept it.

Pleased to meet you......

This simply confirms that you write unadulterated crap.

You second statement does not follow from your first.

Try looking up the word "greed" in a dictionary. And compare it with the word "need".

Wuudy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> with sssoul Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > nice photo - he looks comfortable.
>
>
> Hmm, IMO he doesn't look so good in this picture
> and that one shot of him goes along great with the
> "sad" story told in the intervieuw.

'
what makes you say he 'doesnt look so good', Wuudy? because they chose to use a pic taken when he was blinking? he looks perfectly healthy for a man of 58 to me. And probably healthier than either Keith or Woody looked at the same age.

Agree with everything turd says above. The absence of any current quotes from Mick T himself, plus some of the unsubstantiated remarks (he lives in a 'rundown cottage'...proof, please?) makes this a non-story in true Daily Mail fashion.

Suing the Stones would take more money than Mr. Taylor likely has and there is no guarantee a court would rule in his favor. It is one thing for fans to listen to Time Waits For No One, Winter, Moonlight Mile etc. and say Mick Taylor deserves a songwriting credit, it is considerably harder to prove legally that he was not playing melodies that were written by Jagger or Richards unless tapes exist showing the tracks started as his. I don't believe this is the case. Unless I am mistaken, Mick Taylor helped shape and transform tracks for the band he was in at the time. While it would be honorable for Jagger and Richards to acknowledge that contribution, it is not something that is legally required. Therein lies Mr. Taylor's reason for leaving the group and therein lies the reason it is not worthwhile to sue. For every victory like the recent Procul Harum lawsuit, there is a situation like Johnnie Johnson where the court decides too much time has elapsed to contest credits and royalties. I am not denigrating Mr. Taylor's contribution or defending Jagger and Richards' actions, just being practical. It is, for better or worse, a music business.