Tell Me :
Talk
I'm glad that I'm not the only one who thinks and feels this way.
Let's assume that I'm a beginner in Stonesland, as Mathijs said (though it sounds a bit strange in my ears after having listened to the Stones consciously for about forty years). But pmk251 is undoubtedly one of the most erudite members on this board as for the music and as for the history of the Rolling Stones. And one of the finest writers too.
Because of the fact that Taylor in his Stones-period had not only something but even much to 'say', provided that you listen carefully and musically, he certainly would have something to say about the SG-songs as well. Something very interesting and unexpected, I guess, because he also did that on all other Stones-songs he played.
Fortunately it's not Roll over Mozart
I think I could, but that would be very off topic, Amsterdamned. Perhaps something apt for a new topic.
Vienna - Best Magazine (not my translation): "Mick Taylor, more and more brilliant, embroider through the riffs, while Watts is always so simply efficacious."
London - Melody Maker: "Never a guitar out of tune, as used to happen, or a hiatus between numbers, the roles are now perfectly balanced, particularly between Keith Richard on rhythm guitar and Mick Taylor, who finally seems like a member of the Rolling Stones and whose solo work infectious that he as ideal, has become something to look for."
London - New Musical Express: "Mick Taylor, who more than any of the Stones is currently hitting his stride in these concerts, plays peerless guitar lines throughout, paces the riff and then Jagger moves in for the kill. ... By now a pattern appears to have been worked out building around a thoroughly competent rhythm section complete with effective horns and keyboards, Mick Taylor standing out on lead, Keith Richard reticently strumming rhythm phrases...."
Newcastle - City Hall, Newcastle-on-Tyne: "The musical excellence of the performance was due to no small part to the emergence of lead guitarist Mick Taylor--the man who replaced Brian Jones four years ago--as a real force in the group."
Birmingham - At the Odeon: "But the Stones are not all Jagger as it is fashionable to assert. The twin guitar power of Keith Richard and Mick Taylor is a priceless asset--Richard cuttingly aggressive and Taylor smoothly inventive."
Yes, and that's about as strong a compliment as one can make.
I have listened to the entire tour sequentially. I find him endlessly inventive and exciting.
That's more than I thought, and I didn't knew these. I read through most newsclips on Colson's STP site and there I noticed the lack of acknowledgement for Taylor.
Mathijs
I find the '73 tour typical for Taylor. When the band was on fire Taylor just was truly fantastic. When the band wasn't on fire (which was the case on most German shows for example), Taylor could be very tiring and overplaying. Taylor really needs a good band to excel, and he is not one to drive a band.
Mathijs
Some of those quotes do support the supposed myth that Taylor mostly solo'd/played lead lines.
Whether it's a melodic line during verses or out right soloing obviously for some listeners it gives an over all effect of constant soloing.
The direct and conscious influence of classical music on the stones is minimal.
The first classical influence is the one regarding harmonies . There are rarely some weird chord combinations (actually as late as the blue notes of the Blues a change occured in music), harmonies (starting by chosing major or minor) support the overall feeling of the song. Brian's recorder lines in Ruby Tuesday - he said so - or Lady Jane in general are very "classical".
Oh dear, here we go...
Brian probably didn't play the harpsichord on Lady Jane(Brian himself said Jack Nitzsche handled the ballads) and that instrument was in use before the classical period.
The harpsichord is a musical instrument and can be used in any context.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-27 13:52 by His Majesty.
Could or probably JN was playing harpischord on Lady Jane, but nevertheless harpischod orinally is from around 1500 to 1800 (some early versions around 100 years earlier) used for baroque and renaissance music, fx Bach:
No more need to comment any more.
What we know is Ronnie is great on this song, which I do not think is Taylor-like. In fact, I don't find any Stones songs Taylor-like.
Much like Brian before him, he fleshed out and textured Jagger/Richards songs, usually in a very interesting and appropriate way.
Taylor was a fine lead guitarist -- great with the Stones when he wasn't doing that silly hammer thing or soloing over the vocals, but at the time, I never heard him mentioned as one of the top two or three guitarists. Frankly, I think he should've been, but I would not like to hear him on SG.
Exactly, those are before the classical period.
By referring to the influence of classical music on the Stones' music I didn't think of the 'classical' music instuments that they used, but of the music itself.
You use the narrow concept "wienerclassical", I use the braod concept spanning from 1500 to 1900.
Your curiosity needn't get the better of you. As pmk indicated, he plays a solo during Beast of Burden during the KC 1981 show. It's a lovely swinging piece that captures Charlie cool beat in a manner that is a world away from what the weavers do. You can also get a sense of how Taylor handles this sort of thing in Rubies and Diamonds on the Two Hot for Snakes, Taylor's live album with Carla Olsen.
As for "Taylor-like" SG songs: were Rocks Off, Rip This Joint, ADTL, etc. not "Taylor-like"? If you mean that Taylor would make SG sound less like the Rolling Faces, well I'd have to agree and wish he had played on it for just that reason.
Jack Nitzsche is confirmed to play harpsichord on LJ.
Mathijs
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: How different would have Some Girls sounded with Mick Taylor?
Posted by:
microvibe
()
Date: February 26, 2010 23:11
some girls is fine the way it is.
Re: How different would have Some Girls sounded with Mick Taylor?
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: February 27, 2010 01:04
Quote
pmk251
This is a very interesting topic, one I have pondered many times in my day-dreams. Peoples' opinions tell you how they feel about Taylor and Wood's playing; and how they feel about the SG album. My random thoughts:
"Playing lead is different than soloing" is a spot on point.
I too believe that the often repeated phrase about Taylor's OTT playing is mostly a myth. Taylor's solos are overwhelmingly short and concise. He is a master at getting in and out as quickly as needed. But if allowed to play, he will play. He has something to say. I can point to plenty examples where Woody's playing WAY too much for me. I have said this before and will not dwell on it.
I think '73 was a personal crisis point for Taylor. He has said as much. He was trying to make his musical mark while working within the stricture of the band's music. He chose to leave, but that does not mean he was incapable of adapting to the band's sound. People tend to pigeon-hole his playing into a particular and very brief time frame. Indeed, songs he recorded in the early '70's were sufficient to be released in the early '80's. His gentle rhythm on Waiting On A Friend is modest enough playing fitted to a song.
SG is a fun record. I have enjoyed it. For some people it is a sacred cow, but for me it has not held up well over the years. Musically, it is fluff. Enjoyable, but fluff nonetheless. And on stage live a little bit of the SG sound goes a long way with me. I would LOVE to hear Taylor take a shot at those songs. He would bring an element of musical interest that I think the songs lack. I think the most intriguing example is what he plays "on the spot" during BOB from KC '81.
I'm glad that I'm not the only one who thinks and feels this way.
Let's assume that I'm a beginner in Stonesland, as Mathijs said (though it sounds a bit strange in my ears after having listened to the Stones consciously for about forty years). But pmk251 is undoubtedly one of the most erudite members on this board as for the music and as for the history of the Rolling Stones. And one of the finest writers too.
Because of the fact that Taylor in his Stones-period had not only something but even much to 'say', provided that you listen carefully and musically, he certainly would have something to say about the SG-songs as well. Something very interesting and unexpected, I guess, because he also did that on all other Stones-songs he played.
Re: How different would have Some Girls sounded with Mick Taylor?
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: February 27, 2010 01:07
Quote
Amsterdamned
Kleermaker,can you point out how classical music influenced the Stones?
Not Roll over Beethoven of course.Interesting subject.
Fortunately it's not Roll over Mozart
I think I could, but that would be very off topic, Amsterdamned. Perhaps something apt for a new topic.
Re: How different would have Some Girls sounded with Mick Taylor?
Posted by:
wild_horse_pete
()
Date: February 27, 2010 01:25
It would be a more bluess stated album, i don`t see Taylor can play that crunchy licks, like Wood can.
Mabey intresting but we will never know, i like the album as it is now.
Mabey intresting but we will never know, i like the album as it is now.
Re: How different would have Some Girls sounded with Mick Taylor?
Posted by:
dcba
()
Date: February 27, 2010 02:21
"Taylor's solos are overwhelmingly short and concise. He is a master at getting in and out as quickly as needed. But if allowed to play, he will play. He has something to say"
On the contrary, I find that toward the end (= 1973) MT relied on a FEW stylistic ideas that he rehashed until Jagger would tell him to shut up. In other words he would give you basically the same thing night after night.
I know SO many of you adore the 73 tour b ut listen to 15 shows in a row and there's
one thing that quickly becomes boring : it's MT's solos, spot-on, played flawlessly, but quite mechanical and a bit stiff.
Much like Jimmy Page he NEVER evolved he just played longer and longer solos (which are the antithesis of rock'n roll...). Hendrix would reinvent himself night after night...
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-27 02:26 by dcba.
On the contrary, I find that toward the end (= 1973) MT relied on a FEW stylistic ideas that he rehashed until Jagger would tell him to shut up. In other words he would give you basically the same thing night after night.
I know SO many of you adore the 73 tour b ut listen to 15 shows in a row and there's
one thing that quickly becomes boring : it's MT's solos, spot-on, played flawlessly, but quite mechanical and a bit stiff.
Much like Jimmy Page he NEVER evolved he just played longer and longer solos (which are the antithesis of rock'n roll...). Hendrix would reinvent himself night after night...
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-27 02:26 by dcba.
Re: How different would have Some Girls sounded with Mick Taylor?
Posted by:
Smokey
()
Date: February 27, 2010 05:42
Quote
ryanpowHere's a review of the 72 tour from the Village Voice in "Rolling With The Stones":Quote
Mathijs
You keep mentioning Taylor's star rising on stage. Of course he was a renowned world class lead guitarist, but it's actually quite interesting to see that he's almost never mentioned by press or fans who witnessed and described the show. Read the newsclips on Harold Colson's STP pages for example, and there is hardly any reference to Taylor except for being static. Many people seeing the Stones in '73 mentioned how encredibly loud the gigs where, how Jagger wore too much make-up and how Richards looked drugged out, but nobdoy seems to remember Taylor much.
Mathijs
"...The stones were magnificent, still superbly capable of thrashing out the best music currently available. The horns helped, but it was Mick Taylor who played a lead guitar which burned your ears off".
and from The Adelaide News during the 73 Tour in Australia:
"Jagger is the perfect pop star, the perfect entertainer. Keith Richards even more evil than before, is still the prancing gypsy . Mick Taylor stands back. Musically, he is the highlight of the band."
Vienna - Best Magazine (not my translation): "Mick Taylor, more and more brilliant, embroider through the riffs, while Watts is always so simply efficacious."
London - Melody Maker: "Never a guitar out of tune, as used to happen, or a hiatus between numbers, the roles are now perfectly balanced, particularly between Keith Richard on rhythm guitar and Mick Taylor, who finally seems like a member of the Rolling Stones and whose solo work infectious that he as ideal, has become something to look for."
London - New Musical Express: "Mick Taylor, who more than any of the Stones is currently hitting his stride in these concerts, plays peerless guitar lines throughout, paces the riff and then Jagger moves in for the kill. ... By now a pattern appears to have been worked out building around a thoroughly competent rhythm section complete with effective horns and keyboards, Mick Taylor standing out on lead, Keith Richard reticently strumming rhythm phrases...."
Newcastle - City Hall, Newcastle-on-Tyne: "The musical excellence of the performance was due to no small part to the emergence of lead guitarist Mick Taylor--the man who replaced Brian Jones four years ago--as a real force in the group."
Birmingham - At the Odeon: "But the Stones are not all Jagger as it is fashionable to assert. The twin guitar power of Keith Richard and Mick Taylor is a priceless asset--Richard cuttingly aggressive and Taylor smoothly inventive."
Quote
terraplane
Probably sound like EOMS
Yes, and that's about as strong a compliment as one can make.
Re: How different would have Some Girls sounded with Mick Taylor?
Posted by:
Smokey
()
Date: February 27, 2010 05:51
Quote
dcba
I know SO many of you adore the 73 tour b ut listen to 15 shows in a row and there's
one thing that quickly becomes boring : it's MT's solos, spot-on, played flawlessly, but quite mechanical and a bit stiff.
Much like Jimmy Page he NEVER evolved he just played longer and longer solos (which are the antithesis of rock'n roll...). Hendrix would reinvent himself night after night...
I have listened to the entire tour sequentially. I find him endlessly inventive and exciting.
Re: How different would have Some Girls sounded with Mick Taylor?
Posted by:
baxlap
()
Date: February 27, 2010 08:40
It certainly wouldn't have been anything like Some Girls as we know it with Mick Taylor on it. Subbing Taylor for Ron Wood would have taken the careen out of the guitars and brought things back to more standard rhythm and lead guitar roles. Given that Wood prodded Jagger to play more guitar on Some Girls, Jagger would have played a lot less guitar on that album with Taylor still around.
Re: How different would have Some Girls sounded with Mick Taylor?
Posted by:
Edward Twining
()
Date: February 27, 2010 10:42
I agree with pmk251 too. I've always viewed Some Girls as being fluff. It's very one dimensional throughout, although i can see how it fitted into the late seventies punk influenced era, where things were getting back to being more primitive with a little less musical sophistication. I think it may have sounded fresh and exciting at the time because the Stones did sound like they had found a new sense of musical focus, although longterm it offers very little of any real substance. Taylor would have brought an extra dimension to the songs without doubt, although many of them do sound like they were written with that certain stripped down style in mind. However, i believe Taylor may have transformed Beast Of Burden into something far more exciting.
Re: How different would have Some Girls sounded with Mick Taylor?
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: February 27, 2010 11:37
Quote
SmokeyQuote
ryanpowHere's a review of the 72 tour from the Village Voice in "Rolling With The Stones":Quote
Mathijs
You keep mentioning Taylor's star rising on stage. Of course he was a renowned world class lead guitarist, but it's actually quite interesting to see that he's almost never mentioned by press or fans who witnessed and described the show. Read the newsclips on Harold Colson's STP pages for example, and there is hardly any reference to Taylor except for being static. Many people seeing the Stones in '73 mentioned how encredibly loud the gigs where, how Jagger wore too much make-up and how Richards looked drugged out, but nobdoy seems to remember Taylor much.
Mathijs
"...The stones were magnificent, still superbly capable of thrashing out the best music currently available. The horns helped, but it was Mick Taylor who played a lead guitar which burned your ears off".
and from The Adelaide News during the 73 Tour in Australia:
"Jagger is the perfect pop star, the perfect entertainer. Keith Richards even more evil than before, is still the prancing gypsy . Mick Taylor stands back. Musically, he is the highlight of the band."
Vienna - Best Magazine (not my translation): "Mick Taylor, more and more brilliant, embroider through the riffs, while Watts is always so simply efficacious."
London - Melody Maker: "Never a guitar out of tune, as used to happen, or a hiatus between numbers, the roles are now perfectly balanced, particularly between Keith Richard on rhythm guitar and Mick Taylor, who finally seems like a member of the Rolling Stones and whose solo work infectious that he as ideal, has become something to look for."
London - New Musical Express: "Mick Taylor, who more than any of the Stones is currently hitting his stride in these concerts, plays peerless guitar lines throughout, paces the riff and then Jagger moves in for the kill. ... By now a pattern appears to have been worked out building around a thoroughly competent rhythm section complete with effective horns and keyboards, Mick Taylor standing out on lead, Keith Richard reticently strumming rhythm phrases...."
Newcastle - City Hall, Newcastle-on-Tyne: "The musical excellence of the performance was due to no small part to the emergence of lead guitarist Mick Taylor--the man who replaced Brian Jones four years ago--as a real force in the group."
Birmingham - At the Odeon: "But the Stones are not all Jagger as it is fashionable to assert. The twin guitar power of Keith Richard and Mick Taylor is a priceless asset--Richard cuttingly aggressive and Taylor smoothly inventive."Quote
terraplane
Probably sound like EOMS
Yes, and that's about as strong a compliment as one can make.
That's more than I thought, and I didn't knew these. I read through most newsclips on Colson's STP site and there I noticed the lack of acknowledgement for Taylor.
Mathijs
Re: How different would have Some Girls sounded with Mick Taylor?
Posted by:
JJHMick
()
Date: February 27, 2010 11:49
There is another effect punk had that Mick T didn't fit that well: The bands were bands again, they had to be a team of mates.
Re: How different would have Some Girls sounded with Mick Taylor?
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: February 27, 2010 11:57
Quote
SmokeyQuote
dcba
I know SO many of you adore the 73 tour b ut listen to 15 shows in a row and there's
one thing that quickly becomes boring : it's MT's solos, spot-on, played flawlessly, but quite mechanical and a bit stiff.
Much like Jimmy Page he NEVER evolved he just played longer and longer solos (which are the antithesis of rock'n roll...). Hendrix would reinvent himself night after night...
I have listened to the entire tour sequentially. I find him endlessly inventive and exciting.
I find the '73 tour typical for Taylor. When the band was on fire Taylor just was truly fantastic. When the band wasn't on fire (which was the case on most German shows for example), Taylor could be very tiring and overplaying. Taylor really needs a good band to excel, and he is not one to drive a band.
Mathijs
Re: How different would have Some Girls sounded with Mick Taylor?
Posted by:
JJHMick
()
Date: February 27, 2010 12:04
The listed 70s critics proof that the stress of the reviews was on the music. I am sure by the appearance of Ronnie they will stress the show. The band is important again and not the "orchestra".
to make sure: My favourite Stones records are the ones of the Taylor period but that is more due to the composing skills of Jagger/Richards than to the arrangements.
I do not pay Some Girls (though it is amazingly fresh and spontaneous) that often as I don't like the styles: disco, punk - they only proof that the Stones were always (at any time, including Brian and MickT) able: Anything you can do we can do it better.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-27 12:06 by JJHMick.
to make sure: My favourite Stones records are the ones of the Taylor period but that is more due to the composing skills of Jagger/Richards than to the arrangements.
I do not pay Some Girls (though it is amazingly fresh and spontaneous) that often as I don't like the styles: disco, punk - they only proof that the Stones were always (at any time, including Brian and MickT) able: Anything you can do we can do it better.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-27 12:06 by JJHMick.
Re: How different would have Some Girls sounded with Mick Taylor?
Posted by:
mtaylor
()
Date: February 27, 2010 12:06
Was that because of Keith's drug problems (band not on fire)? That annoyed all the other ones - both Mick, Bill and Charlie. So, it is not Mick T to blame but more Keith.Quote
MathijsQuote
SmokeyQuote
dcba
I know SO many of you adore the 73 tour b ut listen to 15 shows in a row and there's
one thing that quickly becomes boring : it's MT's solos, spot-on, played flawlessly, but quite mechanical and a bit stiff.
Much like Jimmy Page he NEVER evolved he just played longer and longer solos (which are the antithesis of rock'n roll...). Hendrix would reinvent himself night after night...
I have listened to the entire tour sequentially. I find him endlessly inventive and exciting.
I find the '73 tour typical for Taylor. When the band was on fire Taylor just was truly fantastic. When the band wasn't on fire (which was the case on most German shows for example), Taylor could be very tiring and overplaying. Taylor really needs a good band to excel, and he is not one to drive a band.
Mathijs
Re: How different would have Some Girls sounded with Mick Taylor?
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: February 27, 2010 12:17
Quote
Mathijs
That's more than I thought, and I didn't knew these. I read through most newsclips on Colson's STP site and there I noticed the lack of acknowledgement for Taylor.
Mathijs
Some of those quotes do support the supposed myth that Taylor mostly solo'd/played lead lines.
Whether it's a melodic line during verses or out right soloing obviously for some listeners it gives an over all effect of constant soloing.
Re: How different would have Some Girls sounded with Mick Taylor?
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: February 27, 2010 12:21
Quote
kleermaker
I think I could, but that would be very off topic, Amsterdamned. Perhaps something apt for a new topic.
The direct and conscious influence of classical music on the stones is minimal.
Re: How different would have Some Girls sounded with Mick Taylor?
Posted by:
JJHMick
()
Date: February 27, 2010 12:39
Quote
His MajestyQuote
kleermaker
I think I could, but that would be very off topic, Amsterdamned. Perhaps something apt for a new topic.
The direct and conscious influence of classical music on the stones is minimal.
The first classical influence is the one regarding harmonies . There are rarely some weird chord combinations (actually as late as the blue notes of the Blues a change occured in music), harmonies (starting by chosing major or minor) support the overall feeling of the song. Brian's recorder lines in Ruby Tuesday - he said so - or Lady Jane in general are very "classical".
Re: How different would have Some Girls sounded with Mick Taylor?
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: February 27, 2010 12:44
Quote
JJHMick
The first classical influence is the one regarding harmonies . There are rarely some weird chord combinations (actually as late as the blue notes of the Blues a change occured in music), harmonies (starting by chosing major or minor) support the overall feeling of the song. Brian's recorder lines in Ruby Tuesday - he said so - or Lady Jane in general are very "classical".
Oh dear, here we go...
Re: How different would have Some Girls sounded with Mick Taylor?
Posted by:
Britney
()
Date: February 27, 2010 12:59
Just trying to imagine Brian Jones playing Undercover Of The Night....
Re: How different would have Some Girls sounded with Mick Taylor?
Posted by:
mtaylor
()
Date: February 27, 2010 13:22
Brian's use of harpsichord in Lady Jane of course is taken from classical music. That's an instrument for classical music, not for rock music.Quote
His MajestyQuote
JJHMick
The first classical influence is the one regarding harmonies . There are rarely some weird chord combinations (actually as late as the blue notes of the Blues a change occured in music), harmonies (starting by chosing major or minor) support the overall feeling of the song. Brian's recorder lines in Ruby Tuesday - he said so - or Lady Jane in general are very "classical".
Oh dear, here we go...
Re: How different would have Some Girls sounded with Mick Taylor?
Posted by:
RobertJohnson
()
Date: February 27, 2010 13:33
I've been always curious how MT would soloing on "Beast of Burden". The only song on SG which is Taylor-like I think. This simple song (4 chords in numerous variations) is one of the most beautiful ballads in rock-history. The harmonies of MT would be great.
Re: How different would have Some Girls sounded with Mick Taylor?
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: February 27, 2010 13:50
Quote
mtaylor
Brian's use of harpsichord in Lady Jane of course is taken from classical music. That's an instrument for classical music, not for rock music.
Brian probably didn't play the harpsichord on Lady Jane(Brian himself said Jack Nitzsche handled the ballads) and that instrument was in use before the classical period.
The harpsichord is a musical instrument and can be used in any context.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-27 13:52 by His Majesty.
Re: How different would have Some Girls sounded with Mick Taylor?
Posted by:
mtaylor
()
Date: February 27, 2010 15:30
Quote
His MajestyQuote
mtaylor
Brian's use of harpsichord in Lady Jane of course is taken from classical music. That's an instrument for classical music, not for rock music.
Brian probably didn't play the harpsichord on Lady Jane(Brian himself said Jack Nitzsche handled the ballads) and that instrument was in use before the classical period.
The harpsichord is a musical instrument and can be used in any context.
Could or probably JN was playing harpischord on Lady Jane, but nevertheless harpischod orinally is from around 1500 to 1800 (some early versions around 100 years earlier) used for baroque and renaissance music, fx Bach:
No more need to comment any more.
Re: How different would have Some Girls sounded with Mick Taylor?
Posted by:
texas fan
()
Date: February 27, 2010 15:56
Quote
RobertJohnson
I've been always curious how MT would soloing on "Beast of Burden". The only song on SG which is Taylor-like I think. This simple song (4 chords in numerous variations) is one of the most beautiful ballads in rock-history. The harmonies of MT would be great.
What we know is Ronnie is great on this song, which I do not think is Taylor-like. In fact, I don't find any Stones songs Taylor-like.
Much like Brian before him, he fleshed out and textured Jagger/Richards songs, usually in a very interesting and appropriate way.
Taylor was a fine lead guitarist -- great with the Stones when he wasn't doing that silly hammer thing or soloing over the vocals, but at the time, I never heard him mentioned as one of the top two or three guitarists. Frankly, I think he should've been, but I would not like to hear him on SG.
Re: How different would have Some Girls sounded with Mick Taylor?
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: February 27, 2010 16:33
Quote
mtaylor
used for baroque and renaissance music,
No more need to comment any more.
Exactly, those are before the classical period.
Re: How different would have Some Girls sounded with Mick Taylor?
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: February 27, 2010 16:44
Quote
His MajestyQuote
mtaylor
used for baroque and renaissance music,
No more need to comment any more.
Exactly, those are before the classical period.
By referring to the influence of classical music on the Stones' music I didn't think of the 'classical' music instuments that they used, but of the music itself.
Re: How different would have Some Girls sounded with Mick Taylor?
Posted by:
mtaylor
()
Date: February 27, 2010 19:00
Quote
His MajestyQuote
mtaylor
used for baroque and renaissance music,
No more need to comment any more.
Exactly, those are before the classical period.
You use the narrow concept "wienerclassical", I use the braod concept spanning from 1500 to 1900.
Re: How different would have Some Girls sounded with Mick Taylor?
Posted by:
Smokey
()
Date: February 27, 2010 23:06
Quote
RobertJohnson
I've been always curious how MT would soloing on "Beast of Burden". The only song on SG which is Taylor-like I think. This simple song (4 chords in numerous variations) is one of the most beautiful ballads in rock-history. The harmonies of MT would be great.
Your curiosity needn't get the better of you. As pmk indicated, he plays a solo during Beast of Burden during the KC 1981 show. It's a lovely swinging piece that captures Charlie cool beat in a manner that is a world away from what the weavers do. You can also get a sense of how Taylor handles this sort of thing in Rubies and Diamonds on the Two Hot for Snakes, Taylor's live album with Carla Olsen.
As for "Taylor-like" SG songs: were Rocks Off, Rip This Joint, ADTL, etc. not "Taylor-like"? If you mean that Taylor would make SG sound less like the Rolling Faces, well I'd have to agree and wish he had played on it for just that reason.
Re: How different would have Some Girls sounded with Mick Taylor?
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: February 27, 2010 23:21
Quote
Mathijs
You keep mentioning Taylor's star rising on stage. Of course he was a renowned world class lead guitarist, but it's actually quite interesting to see that he's almost never mentioned by press or fans who witnessed and described the show. Read the newsclips on Harold Colson's STP pages for example, and there is hardly any reference to Taylor except for being static. Many people seeing the Stones in '73 mentioned how encredibly loud the gigs where, how Jagger wore too much make-up and how Richards looked drugged out, but nobdoy seems to remember Taylor much.
Mathijs
I do remember him.The press is only interested in selling magazines.Who cares about a drug ravaged and clownnesk musicians? Only Fools .
Mathijs
You keep mentioning Taylor's star rising on stage. Of course he was a renowned world class lead guitarist, but it's actually quite interesting to see that he's almost never mentioned by press or fans who witnessed and described the show. Read the newsclips on Harold Colson's STP pages for example, and there is hardly any reference to Taylor except for being static. Many people seeing the Stones in '73 mentioned how encredibly loud the gigs where, how Jagger wore too much make-up and how Richards looked drugged out, but nobdoy seems to remember Taylor much.
Mathijs
I do remember him.The press is only interested in selling magazines.Who cares about a drug ravaged and clownnesk musicians? Only Fools .
Re: How different would have Some Girls sounded with Mick Taylor?
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: February 27, 2010 23:26
Quote
His MajestyQuote
mtaylor
Brian's use of harpsichord in Lady Jane of course is taken from classical music. That's an instrument for classical music, not for rock music.
Brian probably didn't play the harpsichord on Lady Jane(Brian himself said Jack Nitzsche handled the ballads) and that instrument was in use before the classical period.
The harpsichord is a musical instrument and can be used in any context.
Jack Nitzsche is confirmed to play harpsichord on LJ.
Mathijs
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
adorjan , alexander paul , franzk , niki , RobberBride , Skikkert , spunky , Stoneage , Stonesfan2146
Guests:
544
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10