Tell Me :
Talk
This clip does not show Taylor at his best, isn't it? For a moment I thought this was Flip the Switch, and not Taylor! This clip misses all the magic marks the original Sway has -this is just over-playing with some fairly lame technical tricks. It misses the build-up, frasing and melodic content of the original solo.
Concerning Taylor or Clapton with the Stones: it would not have made any difference. Sticky Fingers and Exile would have been the same brialliant albums, Goats and IORR would have been the same less-fantastic albums, and then Clapton would have left the Stones a bored drug addict complaining about writing credits, just as Taylor. We would have the same discussions here -did Clapton write Time Waits FNO, why is Clapton's solo on Sway too short, is that Clapton or Keith on Dead Flowers etc.
There really would have been no difference at all.
Mathijs
no difference at all is expressed a bit drastic.
but i have to agree the difference would have been minimal.
A great post.
- Doxa
You mustn´t be surprised. Seems as if a tiny little pic really bothers you...
Huh ? Since when am I speaking for others ? Would imply I could risk to speak for you as well
probably - thinking about it this may be an interesting option...
Oh,now you´re mixing up the threads ( to inform you,not to teach you ).
The last things blues is about are sex and fun.
It seems to me that you just like Mathijs miss a certain feeling for music if you state that.
You and Mathijs have in common that you don't like Taylor because he gets too much attention and draws it away from the Stones, id est Mick and Keith. That's also an important reason why Mathijs prefers Ron Wood's playing with the Stones. He not a factor of any importance. And to Mathijs the Stones are only M & K.
Of course Mathijs is entitled to dislike the Sway solo up here, but he misses all the hidden feelings that the public understands so well. At a certain moment they can't control themselves any longer because that Sway solo really got them in its sway. That's the magic of Mick Taylor's playing. You must be musical to feel that. It has nothing to do with guitar technics (and I'm not going to judge Mathijs' knowledge of guitar technics, because that's not needed).
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-16 16:42 by kleermaker.
This has got to be one of the stupidest things you've posted yet!
The blues is about life!!! There's a whole lot of sexual content in blues, as well as despair, joy etc etc.
It seems to me you have completely misunderstood an entire genre!
...
I don't care whether Taylor took any glory away from Mick and Keith(I don't see the stones the same way as Mathijs does), any disliking of taylor on my part is mostly to do him overplaying and widdling over nearly every song during gigs - apart from 1969 USA/1970 EU tours.
I agree with Mathijs and some others that the band would still have gone on to have a run of classic rock records without Taylor though. Some things would have been different, but not that different. The band had already upped their game a full year before Taylor was even considered.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-16 18:02 by His Majesty.
You clearly have no idea who I am and what I think, feel and like.
Mathijs
You'd just end up with similar battles.
IORR member a: ''I prefer that 1969 solo because it's more raw and simple.''
IORR member b: ''He's only using a pentatonic scale!?''
IORR member a: ''I don't care what scale he used! I love the sound of it!''
IORR member b: ''Listen to this more melodic solo from 1973, far better!
IORR member c: ''Yes, much better than the 69 one!''
IORR member a: ''Don't like that, it's too over the top for the song!''
IORR member c: ''It makes the song!''
IORR member a: ''No, the lyrics and the vocal melody do!''
etc etc...
You'll no doubt disagree, but Claptons solos on I feel Free, Sunshine of your Love(including the nice Blue Moon quote), solo and lead lines on SWALBR etc are small pieces of perfection. Melodic, tasteful, great tone and very effective in context.
Ok,Iam on holliday ..
I hear one guitarist who've stolen all his licks from SRV, and another who'se way past his expriry date.
Clapton and Taylor have many simularities -they where great innovative guitarists from '66 to '73, then got drugged out until mid-80's, and then came back to the music scene with tired old, same and same again songs and solo's. Taylor plays the same out of key solo's on the same five songs since '88, Clapton plays the same wash of mud since '92.
There both just not interesting and exciting anymore.
Mathijs
I would like to add the 70 and 71 shows he did with the Dominoes. There where some lesser shows, but when they where on fire they where the greatest jam band in the world, with Clapton playing with the same improvisational skills as with Cream, but much better controlled.
Mathijs
Amsterdamned, actually people 'interpret' the music very differently, as we so often have experienced here. Don't bother about it and realise that it matters that you, Tele, me and some others here are able to hear the real musical feelings being expressed by the band with Taylor as a very special and unique 'spokesman' so to say. Those who say that it doesn't matter at all who is the spokesman and that any lead guitarist would be an apt spokesman for the Stonesmusic are simply wrong. We have living proof in the person of Ron Wood. He was not the apt spokesman, supposed that he indeed was a spokesman at all (which is at least doubtful).
that´s bullshit. compared to SRV, john mayer has better tone, writes better songs, especially not only blues songs, he has an own style, his play serves the song, his voice is a lot better, his backing band is a lot better. and he @#$%& grooves.
all those strat nerds sound a bit the same and copy each other, so if you wanna start to talk about that then SRV is the biggest Rip-Off of all of them.
There are numerous blues tracks where sex is THE main issue. Just as many tracks which essentially have the dwirty rhythms of folks f**king etc etc.
Big 4? hardly ever since 2001 or so apart from Beggars Banquet which is usually my favourite stone album. That gets heavy rotation every few months.
As for whether I ''get'' it or not... I simply don't like how Taylor developed as a live player post 1970/in studio post 1972 in the context of the stones and the affect this had on the bands sound.
I prefer the stones live when they are more raw and with less soloing, I simply think they sound best that way. 1964 - 1970 live stuff is mostly all fine by me, the rest I have no desire to hear ever again really.
Taylor drinking coffee. Very interesting.
Yes we know that smoking cigarettes isn't healthy.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: March 16, 2010 13:24
All this arguing about white boy blues guitarists, they all lack some key ingredients! The sex, the fun!
This is hows it's done!
This is hows it's done!
Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: March 16, 2010 13:27
Quote
kleermaker
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.
This clip does not show Taylor at his best, isn't it? For a moment I thought this was Flip the Switch, and not Taylor! This clip misses all the magic marks the original Sway has -this is just over-playing with some fairly lame technical tricks. It misses the build-up, frasing and melodic content of the original solo.
Concerning Taylor or Clapton with the Stones: it would not have made any difference. Sticky Fingers and Exile would have been the same brialliant albums, Goats and IORR would have been the same less-fantastic albums, and then Clapton would have left the Stones a bored drug addict complaining about writing credits, just as Taylor. We would have the same discussions here -did Clapton write Time Waits FNO, why is Clapton's solo on Sway too short, is that Clapton or Keith on Dead Flowers etc.
There really would have been no difference at all.
Mathijs
Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
liddas
()
Date: March 16, 2010 14:05
I am not a great clapton fan, but lets render unto Caesar ...
To see Clapton "only" as a guitarist is a very narrow minded point of view. He was "only" a guitarist when he quit the BBs in 66 but, paraphrasing one of the greatest Australian poets of our times, he had "other plans". So, by the time our fave band was in the process of recording Aftermath, EC formed Cream. I think it is fair to say that at that time EC and the Stones were not exactly on the same wave lenghth.
When 3 years later the stones needed to replace Jones, they did not look for a traditional harp player, or a polivalent multistrumentalist session player (after all, Banquet and Bleed could be taken easily on the road with only one guitar in the band - see rnr circus). No, they hired a guitarist, a "virtuoso" guitarist. They never had a "virtuoso" guitarist in the band. Why so? Times had changed. Guess who was one of major factor of the change? Cream.
Today everything is taken for granted, but in 66 Cream were groundbreaking. Those were the days when improvisation in a rock blues was born.
By 69 Clapton was no longer "only" a guitarist. He was "also" a celebrity, a frontman and a competent songwriter. Could he have fitted in the Stones? Probably yes. Musically - Layla and Exile are not so far distant. They were friends. EC played well with Charlie and Bill on the Wolf london sessions.
But I think that, as always, Mick and Keith wanted to do it their own way. And I think they were right, and not only because generally "supergroups" are super only on paper: too many cooks spoil the soup.
It is not surprising that when also Taylor grew up and matured as a musician he decided that he too had to walk his own way. And it is worth to mention that his plans contemplated a journey that EC had already done. And that Jack Bruce wanted to continue ...
C
To see Clapton "only" as a guitarist is a very narrow minded point of view. He was "only" a guitarist when he quit the BBs in 66 but, paraphrasing one of the greatest Australian poets of our times, he had "other plans". So, by the time our fave band was in the process of recording Aftermath, EC formed Cream. I think it is fair to say that at that time EC and the Stones were not exactly on the same wave lenghth.
When 3 years later the stones needed to replace Jones, they did not look for a traditional harp player, or a polivalent multistrumentalist session player (after all, Banquet and Bleed could be taken easily on the road with only one guitar in the band - see rnr circus). No, they hired a guitarist, a "virtuoso" guitarist. They never had a "virtuoso" guitarist in the band. Why so? Times had changed. Guess who was one of major factor of the change? Cream.
Today everything is taken for granted, but in 66 Cream were groundbreaking. Those were the days when improvisation in a rock blues was born.
By 69 Clapton was no longer "only" a guitarist. He was "also" a celebrity, a frontman and a competent songwriter. Could he have fitted in the Stones? Probably yes. Musically - Layla and Exile are not so far distant. They were friends. EC played well with Charlie and Bill on the Wolf london sessions.
But I think that, as always, Mick and Keith wanted to do it their own way. And I think they were right, and not only because generally "supergroups" are super only on paper: too many cooks spoil the soup.
It is not surprising that when also Taylor grew up and matured as a musician he decided that he too had to walk his own way. And it is worth to mention that his plans contemplated a journey that EC had already done. And that Jack Bruce wanted to continue ...
C
Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
stoneswashed77
()
Date: March 16, 2010 14:42
Quote
MathijsQuote
kleermaker
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.
This clip does not show Taylor at his best, isn't it? For a moment I thought this was Flip the Switch, and not Taylor! This clip misses all the magic marks the original Sway has -this is just over-playing with some fairly lame technical tricks. It misses the build-up, frasing and melodic content of the original solo.
Concerning Taylor or Clapton with the Stones: it would not have made any difference. Sticky Fingers and Exile would have been the same brialliant albums, Goats and IORR would have been the same less-fantastic albums, and then Clapton would have left the Stones a bored drug addict complaining about writing credits, just as Taylor. We would have the same discussions here -did Clapton write Time Waits FNO, why is Clapton's solo on Sway too short, is that Clapton or Keith on Dead Flowers etc.
There really would have been no difference at all.
Mathijs
no difference at all is expressed a bit drastic.
but i have to agree the difference would have been minimal.
Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: March 16, 2010 14:50
Quote
liddas
I am not a great clapton fan, but lets render unto Caesar ...
To see Clapton "only" as a guitarist is a very narrow minded point of view. He was "only" a guitarist when he quit the BBs in 66 but, paraphrasing one of the greatest Australian poets of our times, he had "other plans". So, by the time our fave band was in the process of recording Aftermath, EC formed Cream. I think it is fair to say that at that time EC and the Stones were not exactly on the same wave lenghth.
When 3 years later the stones needed to replace Jones, they did not look for a traditional harp player, or a polivalent multistrumentalist session player (after all, Banquet and Bleed could be taken easily on the road with only one guitar in the band - see rnr circus). No, they hired a guitarist, a "virtuoso" guitarist. They never had a "virtuoso" guitarist in the band. Why so? Times had changed. Guess who was one of major factor of the change? Cream.
Today everything is taken for granted, but in 66 Cream were groundbreaking. Those were the days when improvisation in a rock blues was born.
By 69 Clapton was no longer "only" a guitarist. He was "also" a celebrity, a frontman and a competent songwriter. Could he have fitted in the Stones? Probably yes. Musically - Layla and Exile are not so far distant. They were friends. EC played well with Charlie and Bill on the Wolf london sessions.
But I think that, as always, Mick and Keith wanted to do it their own way. And I think they were right, and not only because generally "supergroups" are super only on paper: too many cooks spoil the soup.
It is not surprising that when also Taylor grew up and matured as a musician he decided that he too had to walk his own way. And it is worth to mention that his plans contemplated a journey that EC had already done. And that Jack Bruce wanted to continue ...
C
A great post.
- Doxa
Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
shortfatfanny
()
Date: March 16, 2010 16:19
Quote
kleermaker
Well, at least you have a much better pic/avatar now than before, and I remember having said something about it, I thought something like "scary", but it wouldn't surprise me if you deny the causality.
You mustn´t be surprised. Seems as if a tiny little pic really bothers you...
Quote
kleermaker
Anyway, speak for yourself and not for others. Seems to me another good advice. And it's for free.
Huh ? Since when am I speaking for others ? Would imply I could risk to speak for you as well
probably - thinking about it this may be an interesting option...
Quote
kleermaker
Btw: how can one prefer a rather vulgar and one dimensional song like Star star to Silvertrain? Teach me that, please. But I'm really glad that you can appreciate 100 years ago as a great song
Oh,now you´re mixing up the threads ( to inform you,not to teach you ).
Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: March 16, 2010 16:22
Quote
His Majesty
All this arguing about white boy blues guitarists, they all lack some key ingredients! The sex, the fun!
This is hows it's done!
The last things blues is about are sex and fun.
It seems to me that you just like Mathijs miss a certain feeling for music if you state that.
You and Mathijs have in common that you don't like Taylor because he gets too much attention and draws it away from the Stones, id est Mick and Keith. That's also an important reason why Mathijs prefers Ron Wood's playing with the Stones. He not a factor of any importance. And to Mathijs the Stones are only M & K.
Of course Mathijs is entitled to dislike the Sway solo up here, but he misses all the hidden feelings that the public understands so well. At a certain moment they can't control themselves any longer because that Sway solo really got them in its sway. That's the magic of Mick Taylor's playing. You must be musical to feel that. It has nothing to do with guitar technics (and I'm not going to judge Mathijs' knowledge of guitar technics, because that's not needed).
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-16 16:42 by kleermaker.
Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: March 16, 2010 17:07
Quote
kleermaker
The last things blues is about are sex and fun.
It seems to me that you miss a certain feeling for music if you state that.
This has got to be one of the stupidest things you've posted yet!
The blues is about life!!! There's a whole lot of sexual content in blues, as well as despair, joy etc etc.
It seems to me you have completely misunderstood an entire genre!
...
I don't care whether Taylor took any glory away from Mick and Keith(I don't see the stones the same way as Mathijs does), any disliking of taylor on my part is mostly to do him overplaying and widdling over nearly every song during gigs - apart from 1969 USA/1970 EU tours.
I agree with Mathijs and some others that the band would still have gone on to have a run of classic rock records without Taylor though. Some things would have been different, but not that different. The band had already upped their game a full year before Taylor was even considered.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-16 18:02 by His Majesty.
Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
JJHMick
()
Date: March 16, 2010 17:47
If Clapton had joined the Stones he would have died in 1970. With two casualties within two years, I don't know if the Stones could have continued.
Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: March 16, 2010 18:00
Quote
kleermaker
It seems to me that you just like Mathijs miss a certain feeling for music if you state that.
You and Mathijs have in common that you don't like Taylor because he gets too much attention and draws it away from the Stones, id est Mick and Keith. That's also an important reason why Mathijs prefers Ron Wood's playing with the Stones. He not a factor of any importance. And to Mathijs the Stones are only M & K.
Of course Mathijs is entitled to dislike the Sway solo up here, but he misses all the hidden feelings that the public understands so well. At a certain moment they can't control themselves any longer because that Sway solo really got them in its sway. That's the magic of Mick Taylor's playing. You must be musical to feel that. It has nothing to do with guitar technics (and I'm not going to judge Mathijs' knowledge of guitar technics, because that's not needed).
You clearly have no idea who I am and what I think, feel and like.
Mathijs
Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: March 16, 2010 18:02
So in the end we all can conclude that everybody has his own opinion,and everybody defends or judges (not me in the least) other musicians.
That's fine ,always a bit of a battle..
What I miss in this topic are strictly musical arguments,not influenced by nostagia. Just forget how famous someone is or was,are MJ or KR responsable for the Stones sound(Mathijs) ,Clapton is great (T Dice) Clapton is crap(me
.. but talk about feeling sond ,tone,timing ,functional noodling or not and why ,etc.
That's a pity to me.
That's fine ,always a bit of a battle..
What I miss in this topic are strictly musical arguments,not influenced by nostagia. Just forget how famous someone is or was,are MJ or KR responsable for the Stones sound(Mathijs) ,Clapton is great (T Dice) Clapton is crap(me
.. but talk about feeling sond ,tone,timing ,functional noodling or not and why ,etc.That's a pity to me.
Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: March 16, 2010 18:27
Quote
Amsterdamned
What I miss in this topic are strictly musical arguments,
That's a pity to me.
You'd just end up with similar battles.
IORR member a: ''I prefer that 1969 solo because it's more raw and simple.''
IORR member b: ''He's only using a pentatonic scale!?''
IORR member a: ''I don't care what scale he used! I love the sound of it!''
IORR member b: ''Listen to this more melodic solo from 1973, far better!
IORR member c: ''Yes, much better than the 69 one!''
IORR member a: ''Don't like that, it's too over the top for the song!''
IORR member c: ''It makes the song!''
IORR member a: ''No, the lyrics and the vocal melody do!''
etc etc...
Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
dewlover
()
Date: March 16, 2010 18:30
Nope, Eric doesn't have the "personality" for the job...
Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
stoneswashed77
()
Date: March 16, 2010 18:40
[url=http://<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="
&hl=de_DE&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="
&hl=de_DE&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>]Mayer and Clapton[/url]
One has a good sound, tone and phrasing, feels the rhythm and drives the song to another level during the solo, wastes no notes but instead plays every note with intention and meaning, which makes it sensefull, interesting and a joy to watch and listen. and then there is the other.
&hl=de_DE&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="
&hl=de_DE&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>]Mayer and Clapton[/url]
One has a good sound, tone and phrasing, feels the rhythm and drives the song to another level during the solo, wastes no notes but instead plays every note with intention and meaning, which makes it sensefull, interesting and a joy to watch and listen. and then there is the other.
Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
wild_horse_pete
()
Date: March 16, 2010 18:40
Talking about functional nudling.
Clapton knows how to start a solo and to end it also, he never solo above a song like Taylor did especially in `73.
About feeling, it`s just a matter of taste, you can`t say Clapton or Taylor has or hasn`t got feeling, i think when you`re acting on that platform of top musician you really got feeling other wise you don`t get there at all.
The tone is also a mather of taste, they got there own tone and you can like it or not.
Timing I think is Clapton better, just the fact like i said before, he knows how to start and end a solo.
Here you are!
Clapton knows how to start a solo and to end it also, he never solo above a song like Taylor did especially in `73.
About feeling, it`s just a matter of taste, you can`t say Clapton or Taylor has or hasn`t got feeling, i think when you`re acting on that platform of top musician you really got feeling other wise you don`t get there at all.
The tone is also a mather of taste, they got there own tone and you can like it or not.
Timing I think is Clapton better, just the fact like i said before, he knows how to start and end a solo.
Here you are!
Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: March 16, 2010 19:30
Quote
Amsterdamned
... not very tasteful or effective.
You'll no doubt disagree, but Claptons solos on I feel Free, Sunshine of your Love(including the nice Blue Moon quote), solo and lead lines on SWALBR etc are small pieces of perfection. Melodic, tasteful, great tone and very effective in context.
Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: March 16, 2010 19:31
Quote
wild_horse_pete
Talking about functional nudling.
Clapton knows how to start a solo and to end it also, he never solo above a song like Taylor did especially in `73.
About feeling, it`s just a matter of taste, you can`t say Clapton or Taylor has or hasn`t got feeling, i think when you`re acting on that platform of top musician you really got feeling other wise you don`t get there at all.
The tone is also a mather of taste, they got there own tone and you can like it or not.
Timing I think is Clapton better, just the fact like i said before, he knows how to start and end a solo.
Here you are!
Ok,Iam on holliday ..
Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: March 16, 2010 19:51
Quote
His MajestyQuote
kleermaker
The blues is about life!!!
Real good music is always about the essence of life. In my narrow minded view sex and fun aren't part of the essence of life, however stupid that may sound in your ears. And don't think that I don't like sex and fun.
Another thing (maybe something more apt for a new thread): how often do you listen to the so called big four? As for me: seldom. I listen pretty regularly to GHS but incredibly more often to the live music from those albums during their peak, with Taylor 'overplaying' and 'widdling' (those 'less intelligent' qualifications really piss me off
I find the big four wonderful albums, with fantastic songs, but I can't listen to them all the time without getting bored, because something is missing on those great albums with maybe the best songs ever written in blues/rock history. The missing element is the performance, the 'Taylor'-factor, and I don't mean Taylor himself! Keith wasn't able to compensate that, he wasn't able to lay down the real story of the song, like Taylor did during their concerts on stage, what you call overplaying and widdling and certainly also noodling. I think both you and Mathijs don't 'get' the story of the Stones songs told by Taylor. At least Mathijs needs a storyteller like Wood to understand the story of the song. Or maybe he (and you) don't get the story at all or don't need any story at all. Because Wood has nothing to say in the band (in both senses of the word).
In a former post I already said that the Biggest Mistake of K and M is their illusion that they could do it all by themselves, without a third man. Later on each of them even thought he could make it on his own. History has proven that they were two times heavily wrong. Two Capital Mistakes. I'm afraid that the Exile bonus CD will show that Big Mistake once more, which is the reason why I don't have high expectations of those 'new' numbers. I don't have great doubts about their quality as songs, but I have great doubts about their performance.
Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: March 16, 2010 20:01
Quote
stoneswashed77
[/url]
One has a good sound, tone and phrasing, feels the rhythm and drives the song to another level during the solo, wastes no notes but instead plays every note with intention and meaning, which makes it sensefull, interesting and a joy to watch and listen. and then there is the other.
I hear one guitarist who've stolen all his licks from SRV, and another who'se way past his expriry date.
Clapton and Taylor have many simularities -they where great innovative guitarists from '66 to '73, then got drugged out until mid-80's, and then came back to the music scene with tired old, same and same again songs and solo's. Taylor plays the same out of key solo's on the same five songs since '88, Clapton plays the same wash of mud since '92.
There both just not interesting and exciting anymore.
Mathijs
Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
wild_horse_pete
()
Date: March 16, 2010 20:02
Happy holliday
Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: March 16, 2010 20:04
Quote
His Majesty
You'll no doubt disagree, but Claptons solos on I feel Free, Sunshine of your Love(including the nice Blue Moon quote), solo and lead lines on SWALBR etc are small pieces of perfection. Melodic, tasteful, great tone and very effective in context.
I would like to add the 70 and 71 shows he did with the Dominoes. There where some lesser shows, but when they where on fire they where the greatest jam band in the world, with Clapton playing with the same improvisational skills as with Cream, but much better controlled.
Mathijs
Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: March 16, 2010 20:27
Quote
Amsterdamned
So in the end we all can conclude that everybody has his own opinion,and everybody defends or judges (not me in the least) other musicians.
That's fine ,always a bit of a battle..
What I miss in this topic are strictly musical arguments,not influenced by nostagia. Just forget how famous someone is or was,are MJ or KR responsable for the Stones sound(Mathijs) ,Clapton is great (T Dice) Clapton is crap(me
That's a pity to me.
Amsterdamned, actually people 'interpret' the music very differently, as we so often have experienced here. Don't bother about it and realise that it matters that you, Tele, me and some others here are able to hear the real musical feelings being expressed by the band with Taylor as a very special and unique 'spokesman' so to say. Those who say that it doesn't matter at all who is the spokesman and that any lead guitarist would be an apt spokesman for the Stonesmusic are simply wrong. We have living proof in the person of Ron Wood. He was not the apt spokesman, supposed that he indeed was a spokesman at all (which is at least doubtful).
Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
stoneswashed77
()
Date: March 16, 2010 20:32
Quote
Mathijs
I hear one guitarist who've stolen all his licks from SRV, and another who'se way past his expriry date.
Mathijs
that´s bullshit. compared to SRV, john mayer has better tone, writes better songs, especially not only blues songs, he has an own style, his play serves the song, his voice is a lot better, his backing band is a lot better. and he @#$%& grooves.
all those strat nerds sound a bit the same and copy each other, so if you wanna start to talk about that then SRV is the biggest Rip-Off of all of them.
Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: March 16, 2010 20:42
Quote
kleermaker
Real good music is always about the essence of life. In my narrow minded view sex and fun aren't part of the essence of life, however stupid that may sound in your ears. And don't think that I don't like sex and fun
Another thing (maybe something more apt for a new thread): how often do you listen to the so called big four?
I think both you and Mathijs don't 'get' the story of the Stones songs told by Taylor.
There are numerous blues tracks where sex is THE main issue. Just as many tracks which essentially have the dwirty rhythms of folks f**king etc etc.
Big 4? hardly ever since 2001 or so apart from Beggars Banquet which is usually my favourite stone album. That gets heavy rotation every few months.
As for whether I ''get'' it or not... I simply don't like how Taylor developed as a live player post 1970/in studio post 1972 in the context of the stones and the affect this had on the bands sound.
I prefer the stones live when they are more raw and with less soloing, I simply think they sound best that way. 1964 - 1970 live stuff is mostly all fine by me, the rest I have no desire to hear ever again really.
Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
T&A
()
Date: March 16, 2010 20:45
i didn't realize there were blooze songs that weren't about sex; i learn so much here....
Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: March 16, 2010 20:49
Quote
kleermaker
... are able to hear the real musical feelings being expressed by the band with Taylor as a very special and unique 'spokesman' so to say.
Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
stoneswashed77
()
Date: March 16, 2010 20:58
"In my narrow minded view sex and fun aren't part of the essence of life"
uuuhhhh. this is definately the most stupid thing i have ever heard.
you obviously don´t understand the world you are living in, where it comes from, what holds it together. and also how your psyche and body functions.
thank god that you function, are able to live and pee and reproduce yourself without having to know and think.
uuuhhhh. this is definately the most stupid thing i have ever heard.
you obviously don´t understand the world you are living in, where it comes from, what holds it together. and also how your psyche and body functions.
thank god that you function, are able to live and pee and reproduce yourself without having to know and think.
Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
Bjorn
()
Date: March 16, 2010 20:59
You´re a joke Matthijs...Always this technical bullshit...Clapton plays from his heart...Period. Ever had a look at "the Concert for George"-dvd?
Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: March 16, 2010 21:15
The discussion is getting better an deeper!!
No some quavers ,syncopation and intonation versus tone,melodic approach, about Clapton, Taylor etc.....Evidence please..
No some quavers ,syncopation and intonation versus tone,melodic approach, about Clapton, Taylor etc.....Evidence please..
Re: Should Clapton or Taylor have joined the Stones?
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: March 16, 2010 21:40
Quote
His MajestyQuote
kleermaker
... are able to hear the real musical feelings being expressed by the band with Taylor as a very special and unique 'spokesman' so to say.
Taylor drinking coffee. Very interesting.
Yes we know that smoking cigarettes isn't healthy.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Guests:
1896
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10