Need I say more, a bluesplayer or a coca cola player..

Who fits better with the Stones?
Judge yourself.

Neither.

JumpingKentFlash

Taylor!

Hmmmm..an interesting question.

Could have been a train wreck with Keith and Eric both having serious substance issues.

Could also have been amazing given Clapton's attachment to the blues and the likelihood of steering the Stones back toward their roots a bit more.

It's intriguing to imagine how the collaboration on certain albums would have worked, and how the songwriting tasks could have been impacted.

All in all, I'll take what we've got rather than what could have been, but it's fun to imagine!

Not only did Eric have some substance abuse demons, he also had a short attention span for most of his projects: Yardbirds, Mayall, Cream, Blind Faith, Delaney and Bonnie, Derek and the Dominos.

While he may have contributed to a record or 2 with the Stones, I could see him leaving to pursue other projects. If he had been around in 72/73 would the Stones have been at their peak live, or stuggling thru with a sloppy drunk lead guitarist?

(in the end they got their sloppy drunk lead guitarist in Ronnie during the 1981-82 tour)

Who, with any musical and human feelings, wouldn't want to hear this again and doesn't miss it terribly? I don't think EC could do this, his playing is too predictably blues only: always the same pattern.

Yes, two heroin addicts with huge egos would have been fantastic in the Stones.

Of course Taylor it should have been, and Taylor it was.

Mick Taylor...
Clapton would have been a touring regular with The Stones..He would have never actually been a Rolling Stone...

Charlie

Quote
soulsurvivor1
Mick Taylor...
Clapton would have been a touring regular with The Stones..He would have never actually been a Rolling Stone...

Charlie

same wasn´t mick tylor for me. but i surely think he is the better choice compared to ec.

taylor

With or without Mick Taylor or Eric Clapton the stones still would have sounded great!

If they wanted someone with a more british blues boom type style, the amazing Danny Kirwin would have been a better choice than boring Taylor or butterfly Clapton.







Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-14 19:57 by His Majesty.

Quote
His Majesty
With or without Mick Taylor or Eric Clapton the stones still would have sounded great!

So Keith could have done it all only by himself on guitar? The Stones always sound great, no matter who's on guitar or whatever. Viva les Stones!

Quote
kleermaker

So Keith could have done it all only by himself on guitar? The Stones always sound great, no matter who's on guitar or whatever. Viva les Stones!

Obviously they needed another player...

A piece of perfection like the studio version of Gimme Shelter is all the better for not having fancy MT like soloing all over it. Thank god he wasn't on board to get the chance to wank all over that masterpiece!!! ><



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-14 20:17 by His Majesty.

I suppose they basically were looking a Eric Clapton-like guitar ace, and they were proposed Taylor (was it Stu or John Mayall?). I think the following albums wouldn't have sounded dramatically different if it were Clapton or Taylor; Mick and Keith were in their creative peak and any competent British solo guitarist would have shined in that contect and being able to give the needed contribution. I think it took until GOAT'S HEAD SOAP that Taylor's signature was to be heard in the actual music. By then Clapton have had gone...

Taylor's real contribution can be heard in live surroundings, and it is difficult to imagine that anyone could have better than him in those years. He was a perfect choice for that post.

- Doxa

Taylor all the way. The more interesting question to me would have been if Ronnie had come in instead of Taylor in 69 what would it have changed? I dont think they could have produced the sounds with Ron at the time like MT. Maybe Keith would have been forced to take more responsiblity with lead duties? Or maybe Rons sound would have been so close to Brians(as far as weaving with Keith) that we would not have had that particular 5 yr string of classics? I think Taylor was the right man for the job at the time. Sometimes, looking back it seems that the timing of MT's leaving was as important as joining but thats just me speculating.

Quote
scottkeef
The more interesting question to me would have been if Ronnie had come in instead of Taylor in 69 what would it have changed?

Keith and Ronnie together during their peak years would have been good, different to what actually happened, but still potentially very good.

Faces and stones mixed before the disco stuff came in!?

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
kleermaker

So Keith could have done it all only by himself on guitar? The Stones always sound great, no matter who's on guitar or whatever. Viva les Stones!

Obviously they needed another player...

and they had mick taylor - a superb choice , because two clowns in a band is enough , anyway
speaking of another player, BB and LiB are great albums but what if keith had another guitar player to bounce ideas of and to work with then......

Quote
straycatblues73


and they had mick taylor - a superb choice , because two clowns in a band is enough , anyway
speaking of another player, BB and LiB are great albums but what if keith had another guitar player to bounce ideas of and to work with then......

Keith a clown in 1969!? Don't think so...

Stick MT style of playing in to Beggars and you ruin a perfect record.

"Faces and Stones mixed". Good lord, the idea! Well then the Stones would already have been passé in 69 instead of 75.

" Sometimes, looking back it seems that the timing of MT's leaving was as important as joining but thats just me speculating."

scottkeef, you're not far from the truth with that remark. Anyway, the Taylor factor has been actual since his departure. Often is spoken about the burden on Taylor because of his leaving the Stones. But what about the burden on the Glimmers and of course on Ron Wood because of MT's leaving??

Doxa, I can agree for the very most part of you opinion. But don't forget that Taylor mark on some Sticky F and Exile songs (Sway, CYHMK, Moonlight Mile and Shine a Light to name some, not the least songs of those albums). No one else could/would have marked those songs like Taylor did. Besides, which guitarist of his stature could have get along with Big Ego KR? Even the 'soft' Taylor couldn't go on longer than 5 years (which is extremely long, in this case).

Quote
kleermaker
"Faces and Stones mixed". Good lord, the idea! Well then the Stones would already have been passé in 69 instead of 75.

Nonsense!

Quote
kleermaker
Doxa, I can agree for the very most part of you opinion. But don't forget that Taylor mark on some Sticky F and Exile songs (Sway, CYHMK, Moonlight Mile and Shine a Light to name some, not the least songs of those albums). No one else could/would have marked those songs like Taylor did. Besides, which guitarist of his stature could have get along with Big Ego KR? Even the 'soft' Taylor couldn't go on longer than 5 years (which is extremely long, in this case).

I think the ego-thing you refer is an important factor in this imaginative "comparison".

When Taylor took the post he was virtually quite low profile and relatively not very well-known player and thereby came with quite humble attitude to the second biggest band in the world (for example, he has said that he was horrified for stepping into the big shoes of Brian Jones). For that reason Taylor was quite careful to not over-play in the beginning, and I think for that reason he and Keith really made a great tight guitar team. Taylor gave quite low profile support and place for Keith to shine. It would take years and tours before he step by step started to take more freedoms in his playing (and end up finally stealing the musical spotlight..).

In contrast, in 1969 Clapton was with Hendrix the most famous rock instrumentalist in the world and he had so many notes in his (slow)hands then... I think with Clapton it would would have been like 1973 already in 1969 (without the natural progression)... Perhaps Eric and Keith would have never would have time and patience to made themselves such a tight duo as Taylor and Keith did.

(Of that Taylor's contribution EXILE and STICKY- that's an interseting subject I'd love to talk more, but I pass it here. But we will get back to it, I'm sure, am I right?!)

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-14 21:03 by Doxa.

Doxa, though I don't always share (the greatest part of) your opinion, I always like reading your posts, also because of your writer's skills.

You forgot one crucial factor and that is Taylor's age when he joined the Stones. He was just a kid, 20 years old. Indeed he did restrain himself in the beginning, but already during the 69 tour you can hear him taking more musical room (listen for example to the Sympathy clip that I put on YT and compare it to the first concerts, where he didn't even play a solo in that song). But in 1970 things changed dramaticly: when you listen to the boots of that tour he shines all over the non-Berry (like) songs: Stray Cat Blues, Dead Flowers, Love In Vain, Midnight Rambler and of course SFTD. Those had become 'his' songs, as for the guitars. And then the UK tour: the same story here: see the Marquee Club video. In the 1972 tour he pops up as THE lead and solo guitarist of the Stones without any 'competition' whatsoever. And in 1973 it was almost Mick Taylor and the Rolling Stones. His playing during that tour definitely made him one of the three core members. At that time he was 24 years old. And then Keith couldn't stand him any longer. He felt outshined and he was. The European 1973 tour was the tour of the two Micks. Taylor's humbleness was radically over at that time. And so was his membership of the Stones. To MJ and KR applies the saying "Two is a crowd on my cloud", as we could see in the years to follow. Well, how crowded must that cloud have been with three on it? Tremendously, I guess. So MT's departure was bound (better said: doomed) to happen from the very beginning.

Not using that many words but totally agree with KM, at least I feel the same

__________________________

Quote
Doxa

Quote
kleermaker
.

I think the ego-thing you refer is an important factor in this imaginative "comparison".

When Taylor took the post he was virtually quite low profile and relatively not very well-known player and thereby came with quite humble attitude to the second biggest band in the world (for example, he has said that he was horrified for stepping into the big shoes of Brian Jones). For that reason Taylor was quite careful to not over-play in the beginning, and I think for that reason he and Keith really made a great tight guitar team. Taylor gave quite low profile support and place for Keith to shine. It would take years and tours before he step by step started to take more freedoms in his playing (and end up finally stealing the musical spotlight..).
xa,
In contrast, in 1969 Clapton was with Hendrix the most famous rock instrumentalist in the world and he had so many notes in his (slow)hands then... I think with Clapton it would would have been like 1973 already in 1969 (without the natural progression)... Perhaps Eric and Keith would have never would have time and patience to made themselves such a tight duo as Taylor and Keith did.

- Doxa

Garbage. Clapton in the late 6-tees wasn't half the guitarplayer Taylor was in the 7-tees,let alone Hendrix.He had absolutely no significant blues feel, Without Jack Bruce he was just another mediocre guitar player that got lucky to became famous.Players like Holdsworth and MC Laughlin wiped the floor with him those days already in every way.. It was all about image. Being famous doesn't imply you are good. Crapton.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
kleermaker
Doxa, I can agree for the very most part of you opinion. But don't forget that Taylor mark on some Sticky F and Exile songs (Sway, CYHMK, Moonlight Mile and Shine a Light to name some, not the least songs of those albums). No one else could/would have marked those songs like Taylor did. Besides, which guitarist of his stature could have get along with Big Ego KR? Even the 'soft' Taylor couldn't go on longer than 5 years (which is extremely long, in this case).

I think the ego-thing you refer is an important factor in this imaginative "comparison".

When Taylor took the post he was virtually quite low profile and relatively not very well-known player and thereby came with quite humble attitude to the second biggest band in the world (for example, he has said that he was horrified for stepping into the big shoes of Brian Jones). For that reason Taylor was quite careful to not over-play in the beginning, and I think for that reason he and Keith really made a great tight guitar team. Taylor gave quite low profile support and place for Keith to shine. It would take years and tours before he step by step started to take more freedoms in his playing (and end up finally stealing the musical spotlight..).

In contrast, in 1969 Clapton was with Hendrix the most famous rock instrumentalist in the world and he had so many notes in his (slow)hands then... I think with Clapton it would would have been like 1973 already in 1969 (without the natural progression)... Perhaps Eric and Keith would have never would have time and patience to made themselves such a tight duo as Taylor and Keith did.

(Of that Taylor's contribution EXILE and STICKY- that's an interseting subject I'd love to talk more, but I pass it here. But we will get back to it, I'm sure, am I right?!)

- Doxa

And, a pretty good example of this is the alternate version of Brown Sugar - the one which was reported to have been made on Keith's birthday with Eric Clapton laying down some pretty decent lead over Keith's signature riff.

No matter what you think of the alternate version, it begins to show the impact a guitarist like Clapton would have had on the material produced by the Stones during this period. Personally, I like the lead on the alternate version even though the guitar and vocal tracks under it aren't as strong and polished as the version ultimately released.

That being said, Keith and the others chose not to use the Clapton lead on the version released which gives a fair bit of insight into where their heads were musically at the time - i.e. less is sometimes, and frequently, more. As to ego - it's just a guess on anyone's part and I'm certainly not going to go there.

All in all, the Stones sound we've all come to love so much just wouldn't have been as spartan as it ended up being with Clapton in the band. Embellishments for the sake of embellishment are often just needless and perhaps that's one of the keys to this discussion. Where Mick Taylor was capable of similar virtuosity, for whatever reason, his impact didn't overpower the essence of the sound the Stones had lined up in their crosshairs.

It's a fair debate about what transpired further down the road 5 years on - but, MTaylor was clearly the right choice at the right time.

Cool down, Amsterdamned!

Take a breath, my friend, and reread what I wrote and you don't see anything there contrasting what you say in your post.

Funny though, the pure hatred towards Eric Clapton in these two EC-related threads amazes me... he hadn't really touch me anyway anytime at all, so this passion surprises me... Nothing wrong there, but I am all question marks...

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa
Cool down, Amsterdamned!

Take a breath, my friend, and reread what I wrote and you don't see anything there contrasting what you say in your post.

Funny though, the pure hatred towards Eric Clapton in these two EC-related threads amazes me... he hadn't really touch me anyway anytime at all, so this passion surprises me... Nothing wrong there, but I am all question marks...

- Doxa

Then why stating in '69 the Stones could have sounded with Clapton in '69 just like they did with Taylor in the 7-tees or compare him with Hendrix ? I don't hate Clapton, I just don't believe in God.
So I don't understand your answer??

...

because clapton writes boring songs that are anyway blues rip-offs with new lyrics, because his interpretations of other ppls music is also boring, always kind of depressed, even though covering is his strong part,
and the solos he plays are not innovative at all, it is the same stolen blues licks scales, hammer-on pull-offs for every song.

Quote
Amsterdamned

Quote
Doxa
Cool down, Amsterdamned!

Take a breath, my friend, and reread what I wrote and you don't see anything there contrasting what you say in your post.

Funny though, the pure hatred towards Eric Clapton in these two EC-related threads amazes me... he hadn't really touch me anyway anytime at all, so this passion surprises me... Nothing wrong there, but I am all question marks...

- Doxa

Then why stating in '69 the Stones could have sounded with Clapton in '69 just like they did with Taylor in the 7-tees or compare him with Hendrix ? I don't hate Clapton, I just don't believe in God.
So I don't understand your answer??

Well, you misunderstood me. The idea of pointing out 1973 was to say that Clapton would most probably use as much room as Taylor did in 1973. Many people even claim that Taylor "over-played" during that tour (that's a matter of opinion).. What that might have sounded like? I don't know. My guess - like I said in my original post - that without the "natural progression" that Taylor and Keith (and the whole band) went through from 1969 to 1973, playing lead guitar as much as Taylor did and filling every place with solos would surely have NOT been so great as it was with Taylor. To repeat: if Clapton had played SO MUCH and ALL OVER in 1969 as Taylor did in 1973 it would not have been so great.

I did't compare Eric Clapton to Jimi Hendrix. I just stated the fact that those two guys were the most famous rock instrumentalists in 1969. I didn't say any qualities of them as players. You can mock and dis-like as much you like of EC, but in 1969 he was still the most well-known and copied blues quitarist in the world, and he wouldn't have played a second fiddle to anyone (this is not a question of skills but that of ego and status). Like kleermaker reminded us, Mick Taylor was only 20 years, and just making name for himself. He most probably was humble enough to do things what would have been impossible for the ego of the proto type of all guitar gods.

To put this in perspective, in 1969 Keith Richards was not generally known as any big guitar player yet but more like "one of the Rolling Stones", a pop star, or "the one who makes the songs". He was just about creating his signature sound and it would take until the 70's or perhaps even early 80's that Keith Richards, the musician, a master of rock guitar, would be really noticed. To think that Clapton had played second fiddle to him in 1969 is, well, quite anachronistic. Perhaps this clip says all is needed of the statuses of Clapton and Keef in the late 60's as guitar players:






- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-15 00:20 by Doxa.

I know this clip..Clapton doesn,t move me here either, apart from the fact that Keith is playing Bass which makes it even more imaginary.

But thanks,get your point.