Tell Me :
Talk
Two points.
1. I mentioned "Miss You" because it is not just an "ordinary song" but a song that really extended the musical vocabulary of the Stones - there was no a song like that in their catalog yet - and with its artistic and economic success (it was a huge hit), it was really one of those times that the band actually and convincingly 're-invented' itself.
2. Also I mentioned the song because it does give "depth" to the album. It is an extraordinary song in the context of SOME GIRLS as is, say, "Sympathy For The Devil" in BEGGARS BANQUET by inviting the listener to something they have never hear - and never will hear - again.
Nothing personal or subjective, just stating facts.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-28 16:46 by Doxa.
I agree. There are great live versions of it, but the groove they had in the original, it just can't be repeated.
- Doxa
As far as I am concerned Ron Wood and Mick Taylor each made one very good solo album (Wood fans may disagree, but his records went steadily downhill after IGMOATD). The fact that Wood has had a more prolific solo career is not evidence that he was better in the Stones than Taylor.
Both IGMOATD and Now Look are excellent albums. Both with some splendid work from Taylor as well.
Listen to this studio version, it comes after some time (1.07). Less boring than the version on SF, though it even could have been done much better:
Now Look? Bleh.
Look,neither I doubt there might be some great versions as well with or without Eric Clapton...nor do I disklike especially the fantastic ´72/´73 performances.
It´s just the term "rather boring" which makes me wonder,because to me it´s the ultimate one,simple like that.
Me too.
Well, actually the Taylor-Wood-debates are forbidden here officially, to be true. They have a quite bad track history... our moderator has been surprisingly liberal lately... (I think the reason is that the 'debates' have been largely civilized and no heated, name-calling arguments have been seen. It is the the latter reason why BV has had a quite strong policy in this matter.)
- Doxa
A Taylor standard in the 90s!
Bullocks, man, no rest allowed! Perhaps some quarrels with Behroez might have gone too far, but who cares... You've done a great contribution here, so keep up the good work!
- Doxa
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Mick Taylor
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: January 28, 2010 16:44
Quote
kleermaker
As for Miss you: just an ordinary song, nothing special at all. Compare it for instance to Angie (also some sort of miss you as for its meaning). Btw: Angie live 1973 is preferable to the studio version imo. But that concerns so much other stuff, like Brown sugar for instance. On SF rather boring, live thrilling when MT was still on stage.
Two points.
1. I mentioned "Miss You" because it is not just an "ordinary song" but a song that really extended the musical vocabulary of the Stones - there was no a song like that in their catalog yet - and with its artistic and economic success (it was a huge hit), it was really one of those times that the band actually and convincingly 're-invented' itself.
2. Also I mentioned the song because it does give "depth" to the album. It is an extraordinary song in the context of SOME GIRLS as is, say, "Sympathy For The Devil" in BEGGARS BANQUET by inviting the listener to something they have never hear - and never will hear - again.
Nothing personal or subjective, just stating facts.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-28 16:46 by Doxa.
Re: Mick Taylor
Posted by:
stones_serb
()
Date: January 28, 2010 16:49
Quote
DoxaQuote
kleermaker
As for Miss you: just an ordinary song, nothing special at all. Compare it for instance to Angie (also some sort of miss you as for its meaning). Btw: Angie live 1973 is preferable to the studio version imo. But that concerns so much other stuff, like Brown sugar for instance. On SF rather boring, live thrilling when MT was still on stage.
Two points.
1. I mentioned "Miss You" because it is not just an "ordinary song" but a song that really extended the musical vocabulary of the Stones - there was no a song like that in their catalog yet - and with its artistic and economic success (it was a huge hit), it was really one of those times that the band actually and convincingly 're-invented' itself.
2. Also I mentioned the song because it does give "depth" to the album. It is an extraordinary song in the context of SOME GIRLS as is, say, "Sympathy For The Devil" in BEGGARS BANQUET by inviting the listener to something they have never hear - and never will hear - again.
Nothing personal or subjective, just stating facts.
- Doxa
Re: Mick Taylor
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: January 28, 2010 16:50
Quote
DandelionPowderman
<like Brown sugar for instance. On SF rather boring, live thrilling when MT was still on stage.>
Nothing, I repeat, NOTHING beats the studio version, imo. Not even a guitar solo that blocks the fantastic sax solo.
I agree. There are great live versions of it, but the groove they had in the original, it just can't be repeated.
- Doxa
Re: Mick Taylor
Posted by:
MCDDTLC
()
Date: January 28, 2010 18:10
Posted by: KeithNacho ()
Date: January 28, 2010 09:41
Taylors solo works!!!!!!!!!! The only great thing thas this man has made is with the RS. Ron Wood solo carreer is much better tahn Taylor's, Richard's and jagger's together. I agree he is not so sopphisticated as Taylor, very little technique, no shreder, (but RS music do not need guitar virtuoso heroes)
Keith - can't agree with your end statement!! because I've seen the Stones
with and without a "virtuoso" on guitar and they were MUCH better {LIVE}
WITH!!!! IMO
MLC
Date: January 28, 2010 09:41
Taylors solo works!!!!!!!!!! The only great thing thas this man has made is with the RS. Ron Wood solo carreer is much better tahn Taylor's, Richard's and jagger's together. I agree he is not so sopphisticated as Taylor, very little technique, no shreder, (but RS music do not need guitar virtuoso heroes)
Keith - can't agree with your end statement!! because I've seen the Stones
with and without a "virtuoso" on guitar and they were MUCH better {LIVE}
WITH!!!! IMO
MLC
Re: Mick Taylor
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: January 28, 2010 18:14
Quote
MCDDTLC
Posted by: KeithNacho ()
Date: January 28, 2010 09:41
Taylors solo works!!!!!!!!!! The only great thing thas this man has made is with the RS. Ron Wood solo carreer is much better tahn Taylor's, Richard's and jagger's together. I agree he is not so sopphisticated as Taylor, very little technique, no shreder, (but RS music do not need guitar virtuoso heroes)
Keith - can't agree with your end statement!! because I've seen the Stones
with and without a "virtuoso" on guitar and they were MUCH better {LIVE}
WITH!!!! IMO
MLC
As far as I am concerned Ron Wood and Mick Taylor each made one very good solo album (Wood fans may disagree, but his records went steadily downhill after IGMOATD). The fact that Wood has had a more prolific solo career is not evidence that he was better in the Stones than Taylor.
Re: Mick Taylor
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 28, 2010 20:47
Quote
71TeleQuote
MCDDTLC
Posted by: KeithNacho ()
Date: January 28, 2010 09:41
Taylors solo works!!!!!!!!!! The only great thing thas this man has made is with the RS. Ron Wood solo carreer is much better tahn Taylor's, Richard's and jagger's together. I agree he is not so sopphisticated as Taylor, very little technique, no shreder, (but RS music do not need guitar virtuoso heroes)
Keith - can't agree with your end statement!! because I've seen the Stones
with and without a "virtuoso" on guitar and they were MUCH better {LIVE}
WITH!!!! IMO
MLC
As far as I am concerned Ron Wood and Mick Taylor each made one very good solo album (Wood fans may disagree, but his records went steadily downhill after IGMOATD). The fact that Wood has had a more prolific solo career is not evidence that he was better in the Stones than Taylor.
Both IGMOATD and Now Look are excellent albums. Both with some splendid work from Taylor as well.
Re: Mick Taylor
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: January 29, 2010 05:11
Quote
shortfatfannyQuote
kleermaker
Btw: Angie live 1973 is preferable to the studio version imo. But that concerns so much other stuff, like Brown sugar for instance. On SF rather boring, live thrilling when MT was still on stage.
Brown Sugar on SF rather boring ? Think you might have this opinion pretty exclusive ,....,tastes are different,proven once more again here.
Listen to this studio version, it comes after some time (1.07). Less boring than the version on SF, though it even could have been done much better:
Re: Mick Taylor
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: January 29, 2010 06:07
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
71TeleQuote
MCDDTLC
Posted by: KeithNacho ()
Date: January 28, 2010 09:41
Taylors solo works!!!!!!!!!! The only great thing thas this man has made is with the RS. Ron Wood solo carreer is much better tahn Taylor's, Richard's and jagger's together. I agree he is not so sopphisticated as Taylor, very little technique, no shreder, (but RS music do not need guitar virtuoso heroes)
Keith - can't agree with your end statement!! because I've seen the Stones
with and without a "virtuoso" on guitar and they were MUCH better {LIVE}
WITH!!!! IMO
MLC
As far as I am concerned Ron Wood and Mick Taylor each made one very good solo album (Wood fans may disagree, but his records went steadily downhill after IGMOATD). The fact that Wood has had a more prolific solo career is not evidence that he was better in the Stones than Taylor.
Both IGMOATD and Now Look are excellent albums. Both with some splendid work from Taylor as well.
Now Look? Bleh.
Re: Mick Taylor
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: January 29, 2010 06:07
Hi Paul,
Just sent you an email.
Greetings from Holland
Just sent you an email.
Greetings from Holland
Re: Mick Taylor
Posted by:
shortfatfanny
()
Date: January 29, 2010 09:12
Quote
kleermakerQuote
shortfatfannyQuote
kleermaker
Btw: Angie live 1973 is preferable to the studio version imo. But that concerns so much other stuff, like Brown sugar for instance. On SF rather boring, live thrilling when MT was still on stage.
Brown Sugar on SF rather boring ? Think you might have this opinion pretty exclusive ,....,tastes are different,proven once more again here.
Listen to this studio version, it comes after some time (1.07). Less boring than the version on SF, though it even could have been done much better:
Look,neither I doubt there might be some great versions as well with or without Eric Clapton...nor do I disklike especially the fantastic ´72/´73 performances.
It´s just the term "rather boring" which makes me wonder,because to me it´s the ultimate one,simple like that.
Re: Mick Taylor
Posted by:
Monkeytonkman
()
Date: January 29, 2010 11:41
Way-hey!!
Nice to see more moaning on here as usual, lovely way to start the day!!
Off this weekend to see Mick Taylor, playing the rock n blues Festival in Skeggy! Can't @#$%& wait. lots of awesome bands. although Taylor will probably be playing the blues stage, I'll be located for the most part at the Rock stage: Nazareth, Wishbone Ash, Tygers of Pan Tang, Praying Mantis lots of good stuff!!!
Anyhoo, just incase there's anyone else from here going, say hello! might be wearing a Keith for President T-shirt, If not long hair leather jacket (won't be many of them there!) hahahaaaa
Keep on rockin!!!
Nice to see more moaning on here as usual, lovely way to start the day!!
Off this weekend to see Mick Taylor, playing the rock n blues Festival in Skeggy! Can't @#$%& wait. lots of awesome bands. although Taylor will probably be playing the blues stage, I'll be located for the most part at the Rock stage: Nazareth, Wishbone Ash, Tygers of Pan Tang, Praying Mantis lots of good stuff!!!
Anyhoo, just incase there's anyone else from here going, say hello! might be wearing a Keith for President T-shirt, If not long hair leather jacket (won't be many of them there!) hahahaaaa
Keep on rockin!!!
Re: Mick Taylor
Posted by:
slew
()
Date: January 29, 2010 14:43
Concerning Brown Sugar the studio version is my favorite. I will give all of you Taylorite this one Brown Sugar live with Ronnie always leaves me dis-satisfied. I'm not huge fan of it live to start with but Ronnie has never done this one true justice.
Two interesting questions for Taylorists
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: January 29, 2010 16:26
Since UrbanSteel has launched a campaign to promote Ron Wood (which seemed necessary), there's been a lot of discussion about several subjects concerning of course Wood's capacity as a guitar player, his 'saving' of the Stones after MT's departure, the 'decline' of the Stones as a (songwriting, studio and live) band, the role of the Glimmers, the significance of Taylor during 'his' era, the worth of weaving, interplay and soloing etc. etc. This all certainly has produced sometimes interesting analyses and comments (though some can't stand any form of criticism of the Stones).
One of the major accusations of the Woodyists towards the Taylorists is that they're not worth being called fans of 'the greatest rock 'n roll band of the world' and another that the Taylorists are only living in the past and dislike anything the Stones have produced since Taylor went away.
So my two questions to the Taylorists are:
1. Do you anyway like or even love any album the Stones have made after IORR or, if not any whole album, maybe apart songs? If so please name the album(s) and/or the songs.
2. Do you anyway like or even love any live performance of the Stones with Ron Wood and if so, please name the show (tour, year, whatever).
So the Woodyists don't have to answer these questions because those answers are already known. To them these are rhetorical questions. Of course they are allowed to reply as well (who am I to say they're not!). It would be especially interesting to hear from them what they dislike concerning the Stones albums, songs, live performances after the Taylor-era rather than what they love.
One of the major accusations of the Woodyists towards the Taylorists is that they're not worth being called fans of 'the greatest rock 'n roll band of the world' and another that the Taylorists are only living in the past and dislike anything the Stones have produced since Taylor went away.
So my two questions to the Taylorists are:
1. Do you anyway like or even love any album the Stones have made after IORR or, if not any whole album, maybe apart songs? If so please name the album(s) and/or the songs.
2. Do you anyway like or even love any live performance of the Stones with Ron Wood and if so, please name the show (tour, year, whatever).
So the Woodyists don't have to answer these questions because those answers are already known. To them these are rhetorical questions. Of course they are allowed to reply as well (who am I to say they're not!). It would be especially interesting to hear from them what they dislike concerning the Stones albums, songs, live performances after the Taylor-era rather than what they love.
Re: Two interesting questions for Taylorists
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 29, 2010 16:30
How many Taylor/Wood threads are we going to have?
Of course, Taylorites love albums with Wood, just like Woodsters love albums Taylor shines on.
Of course, Taylorites love albums with Wood, just like Woodsters love albums Taylor shines on.
Re: Two interesting questions for Taylorists
Posted by:
UrbanSteel
()
Date: January 29, 2010 16:31
X
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-08-06 21:31 by UrbanSteel.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-08-06 21:31 by UrbanSteel.
Re: Two interesting questions for Taylorists
Posted by:
slew
()
Date: January 29, 2010 16:34
Don't like:
Dirty Work
A Bigger Bang tour was not very good.
Dirty Work
A Bigger Bang tour was not very good.
Re: Two interesting questions for Taylorists
Posted by:
Amused
()
Date: January 29, 2010 16:37
the question was rather what you LIKE and not the other way, think it's this thread idea... staying positive... yeah.
I'll probably never understand people bashing 1978: the tour, the album, the Woodstock rehearsals and the session material...
I'll probably never understand people bashing 1978: the tour, the album, the Woodstock rehearsals and the session material...
Re: Mick Taylor
Posted by:
slew
()
Date: January 29, 2010 16:44
Edward Twining - There are aspects of the Stones with all three guitarists that I love about the Stones that is one of the things that makes them so interesting as a group and to me was always a true indicator that the Stones true talent lay in Mick Jagger and Keith Richards. They have sadly over the last 5-6 years declined I'm talking the glimmer twins here and its to be expected. They have gotten way too big, way too jaded and seem to have lost touch with their musical muse. Maybe the Rolling Stones were not meant to mature well like say Bob Dylan and write about mature subjects. I don't know but the last 5 years of the Stones has not been the best. Though I enjoyed the Licks tour I must say.
Mick does not seem to really write about much besides sex and women and when he does switch to politics he came up with Sweet Neo Con one of the most embarrassing moments in STones history. We as fans also expect so much from them and rightly so at 60-500 dollars a seat.
If they are to ever go and make a record again I'd love to see them do old blues, r&b and soul numbers. They really play those songs well even now. Their version of Ray Charles's Night Time was a highlight of the Bang tour.
Mick does not seem to really write about much besides sex and women and when he does switch to politics he came up with Sweet Neo Con one of the most embarrassing moments in STones history. We as fans also expect so much from them and rightly so at 60-500 dollars a seat.
If they are to ever go and make a record again I'd love to see them do old blues, r&b and soul numbers. They really play those songs well even now. Their version of Ray Charles's Night Time was a highlight of the Bang tour.
Re: Two interesting questions for Taylorists
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: January 29, 2010 17:04
Well, this was supposed to be a new topic, but seemingly something went wrong.
Re: Mick Taylor
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: January 29, 2010 17:16
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Wonder why...
Me too.
Re: Mick Taylor
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 29, 2010 17:28
Keermaker, you are a newbee at this forum. Let me tell you that lots of posters here have been banned for way less Mick Taylor vs Woody-threads than you've started.
A good advice when you're having strong opinions about past members of the Rolling Stones, or when you want to compare them with todays members - do it within a thread, don't start numerous threads which are just different twists within the same topic.
The safest way to stay here is of course to talk about Mick Taylor's greatness, without chopping Ronnie's head off in the same post
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-29 17:30 by DandelionPowderman.
A good advice when you're having strong opinions about past members of the Rolling Stones, or when you want to compare them with todays members - do it within a thread, don't start numerous threads which are just different twists within the same topic.
The safest way to stay here is of course to talk about Mick Taylor's greatness, without chopping Ronnie's head off in the same post
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-29 17:30 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: Mick Taylor
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: January 29, 2010 18:30
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Keermaker, you are a newbee at this forum. Let me tell you that lots of posters here have been banned for way less Mick Taylor vs Woody-threads than you've started.
A good advice when you're having strong opinions about past members of the Rolling Stones, or when you want to compare them with todays members - do it within a thread, don't start numerous threads which are just different twists within the same topic.
The safest way to stay here is of course to talk about Mick Taylor's greatness, without chopping Ronnie's head off in the same post
Well, actually the Taylor-Wood-debates are forbidden here officially, to be true. They have a quite bad track history... our moderator has been surprisingly liberal lately... (I think the reason is that the 'debates' have been largely civilized and no heated, name-calling arguments have been seen. It is the the latter reason why BV has had a quite strong policy in this matter.)
- Doxa
Re: Mick Taylor
Posted by:
MARSBAR
()
Date: January 29, 2010 18:47
Wishbone Ash!!!!!!great band!!!!loved them I have "ARGUS" Lp(1972)really good tracks.Quote
Monkeytonkman
Way-hey!!
Nice to see more moaning on here as usual, lovely way to start the day!!
Off this weekend to see Mick Taylor, playing the rock n blues Festival in Skeggy! Can't @#$%& wait. lots of awesome bands. although Taylor will probably be playing the blues stage, I'll be located for the most part at the Rock stage: Nazareth, Wishbone Ash, Tygers of Pan Tang, Praying Mantis lots of good stuff!!!
Anyhoo, just incase there's anyone else from here going, say hello! might be wearing a Keith for President T-shirt, If not long hair leather jacket (won't be many of them there!) hahahaaaa
Keep on rockin!!!
Re: Mick Taylor
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: January 29, 2010 18:59
In fact I've never chopped Ron's head off, neither have I offended others. Okay, there was some quarreling with behroez, but only shortly and no big deal. We're great friend again, actually. Behroez, please confirm!!!
To get back to the topic: my questions were neutral. And they had little or nothing to do with Ron Wood or Mick Taylor.
Sometimes discussions are heated and sharp, but normally they also cool off spontaneously. But I guess I'll better be away for a while. I've written too many posts anyway, these last days.
So see ya!
To get back to the topic: my questions were neutral. And they had little or nothing to do with Ron Wood or Mick Taylor.
Sometimes discussions are heated and sharp, but normally they also cool off spontaneously. But I guess I'll better be away for a while. I've written too many posts anyway, these last days.
So see ya!
Re: Mick Taylor
Posted by:
Deluxtone
()
Date: January 29, 2010 18:59
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Wonder why...
A Taylor standard in the 90s!
Re: Mick Taylor
Posted by:
liddas
()
Date: January 29, 2010 19:28
Ah, Mick Taylor!!!
Life is strange.
When discussing with non stones fans, that by definition are not familiar with the 70-73 live recordings of the stones, I spend hours to explain why MT deserves his seat in the pantheon of great r'n'r guitarist of all time.
When discussing with stones fans, I tend to somehow diminish MTs merits because I have my balls full of the trite argument that all that has MT is great while the rest is listenable at the best.
It makes me laugh when I read that Wood had no impact on the stones music and band. That he is the poor hired yes man that doese what he is told to do. Do you have ears?
MT was huge, but Wood was just as great. Well, not true. Deep down he was (is) better.
C
Life is strange.
When discussing with non stones fans, that by definition are not familiar with the 70-73 live recordings of the stones, I spend hours to explain why MT deserves his seat in the pantheon of great r'n'r guitarist of all time.
When discussing with stones fans, I tend to somehow diminish MTs merits because I have my balls full of the trite argument that all that has MT is great while the rest is listenable at the best.
It makes me laugh when I read that Wood had no impact on the stones music and band. That he is the poor hired yes man that doese what he is told to do. Do you have ears?
MT was huge, but Wood was just as great. Well, not true. Deep down he was (is) better.
C
Re: Mick Taylor
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: January 29, 2010 19:32
Quote
kleermaker
In fact I've never chopped Ron's head off, neither have I offended others. Okay, there was some quarreling with behroez, but only shortly and no big deal. We're great friend again, actually. Behroez, please confirm!!!
To get back to the topic: my questions were neutral. And they had little or nothing to do with Ron Wood or Mick Taylor.
Sometimes discussions are heated and sharp, but normally they also cool off spontaneously. But I guess I'll better be away for a while. I've written too many posts anyway, these last days.
So see ya!
Bullocks, man, no rest allowed! Perhaps some quarrels with Behroez might have gone too far, but who cares... You've done a great contribution here, so keep up the good work!
- Doxa
Re: Mick Taylor
Posted by:
Edward Twining
()
Date: January 29, 2010 20:49
I think the problem is when you reach such enormous highs and you are so very rightly regarded by many to be the 'greatest rock 'n' roll band in the world', it is a great deal further to fall, which is pretty much what has happened with the Stones, although realistically it has been a good thirty odd years since they truly deserved that title. Without meaning to sound too negative, slew, it has also been a good thirty odd years since Mick and Keith lost the consistency of their songwriting/arranging muse, not the last 5 or 6 years as you inferred. However, you are essentially right, the Stones have never really matured significantly in their subject matter - they have never really sang about more mature, intimate or political subjects, certainly not to any great degree, and the sex and drugs and rock 'n' roll subject matter does tend to seem a little insincere once the realisation comes that the Stones are now of pensionable age. Keith has to a point matured within the type of ballads he has been singing in more recent times, even if overall he still lacks the muse which was so evident in much of the music of his youth.
I think the gulf between the quality of the guitar playing of Mick Taylor and Ronnie Wood is immense, although i think it's fair to say Ronnie was far more impressive when he was in the Faces and didn't have to play a secondary role to Keith. In many ways he has forfeited his own musical journey in joining the Stones, and to a degree i feel for him. Those early tours with the Stones didn't show him off truly in the best light because he was pretty much filling in the Mick Taylor role, as the arrangements were still very much Mick Taylor era based. Taylor's forte isn't shared by Ronnie, although i thought he actually did an admirable job, despite the fact of Mick being a very hard act to follow. It was only really on the 78 and the succeeding 81-82 tours that he could be a little more himself and come into his own, and the Ronnie and Keith method of 'weaving' really came into its own, although i'm tempted to be a little suspectful to the true value of such terms.
I have never really believed Ronnie was the right man for the job of replacing Taylor in purely musical terms, but maybe his temperament had a soothing effect especially within the relationship of Mick and Keith. Musically, he's done very little of any real significance, unlike his predecessors Brian Jones and Mick Taylor, but really neither have the Stones been especially impressive. But as i've said previously, post 1989 i think it's unfair to use him as the scapegoat when the other members of the group have been equally lacking.
I think the gulf between the quality of the guitar playing of Mick Taylor and Ronnie Wood is immense, although i think it's fair to say Ronnie was far more impressive when he was in the Faces and didn't have to play a secondary role to Keith. In many ways he has forfeited his own musical journey in joining the Stones, and to a degree i feel for him. Those early tours with the Stones didn't show him off truly in the best light because he was pretty much filling in the Mick Taylor role, as the arrangements were still very much Mick Taylor era based. Taylor's forte isn't shared by Ronnie, although i thought he actually did an admirable job, despite the fact of Mick being a very hard act to follow. It was only really on the 78 and the succeeding 81-82 tours that he could be a little more himself and come into his own, and the Ronnie and Keith method of 'weaving' really came into its own, although i'm tempted to be a little suspectful to the true value of such terms.
I have never really believed Ronnie was the right man for the job of replacing Taylor in purely musical terms, but maybe his temperament had a soothing effect especially within the relationship of Mick and Keith. Musically, he's done very little of any real significance, unlike his predecessors Brian Jones and Mick Taylor, but really neither have the Stones been especially impressive. But as i've said previously, post 1989 i think it's unfair to use him as the scapegoat when the other members of the group have been equally lacking.
Re: Mick Taylor
Posted by:
MCDDTLC
()
Date: January 29, 2010 20:54
Very eliquent explaination Edward!! Nice to read some educated comments that
are spot on!!
MLC
are spot on!!
MLC
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Chris85 , cmc , daspyknows , DiegoGlimmerStones , dnewton99 , donvis , doubledoor , Ellipooh , FeelslikeaGhost , jumpingjackflash5 , kidquick185 , kstones79 , mariano , Martin90 , MisterDDDD , More Hot Rocks , perkmo , RisingStone , shawnriffhard1 , terukun , The Sicilian , varilla , willprefecture
Guests:
2368
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10