It should be noted that Mick Taylor was very much influenced by Claptons playing.

Quote
His Majesty
It should be noted that Mick Taylor was very much influenced by Claptons playing.

True.And Claptons thoughts a about Taylor: "He is frightening."
Wish Clapton had done something with it....

Quote
His Majesty

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.

keith of course was a serious (ly good ) guitarplayer , i concede that, clowning much later!

beggars , i just meant more input from the then current other stones guitarplayer,

i prefer to have two styles of players e.g no expectations , i have no doubt that keith could have done it all himself

Quote
kleermaker
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.

I think the opposite is true. The more he widdled during gigs the more he separated himself from being a member of the group and this ever increasing separation between lead and rhythm took the band further away from what they were really all about.

By 1973 Taylors live playing comes across as selfish and self indulgent to me, almost as if he's intentionally trying to p-off the band by overplaying on every song. Reducing Keith to essentially being the rhythm guitarist may have been be good for Taylors ego at the time and for taylor fanboys there after, but it was detrimental to the stones sound imo because it made them sound very unbalanced.

I think their coming together produced wonderful results for awhile 1969 - 1972, but it soon got too ott with cod sophistication creeping in as Taylors ego grew and M&K's songwriting started to take a dive after the highs of Exile.

Quote
Amsterdamned

True.And Claptons thoughts a about Taylor: "He is frightening."
Wish Clapton had done something with it....

He'd already done something by being the key part of one of the best british blues albums ever recorded, helping to create a string of classic albums with Cream as well as being very influential to a whole number of players including Taylor.

Well, HM, your reputation as anti Taylor doesn't need any accent from my side, but to me you lack any convincing musical argument. You only utter some fuzzwords that are always the same ones. Of course you're entitled to any opinion on Taylor, but I have the strong impression that your opinion on Taylor has nothing to do with an opinion at all but with pure antipathy. Mostly to defend your champion Keith.

Clapton has never been much of a rock n' roller. Sure he played some rock but I can't imagine him playing on Rocks Off, Rip This Joint, Happy, Silver Train, Star Star, IORR...

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
Amsterdamned

True.And Claptons thoughts a about Taylor: "He is frightening."
Wish Clapton had done something with it....

He'd already done something by being the key part of one of the best british blues albums ever recorded, helping to create a string of classic albums with Cream as well as being very influential to a whole number of players including Taylor.

Here I strongly disagree. Taylor's playing is totally different from EC's way of playing, even if it concerns the blues, as Amsterdamned recently proved so evidently by his two video clips of both players . EC always plays the same patterns while Taylor enters new areas and has a much less stereotype way of playing the blues. Besides, I wouldn't call Taylor a bluesplayer, he plays many styles and I don't hear any influence of EC on his playing. Maybe you two mix up the words influence and inspiration, though the inspiration wasn't a musical one.

Quote
kleermaker
Well, HM, your reputation as anti Taylor doesn't need any accent from my side, but to me you lack any convincing musical argument. You only utter some fuzzwords that are always the same ones. Of course you're entitled to any opinion on Taylor, but I have the strong impression that your opinion on Taylor has nothing to do with an opinion at all but with pure antipathy. Mostly to defend your champion Keith.

The fact you´re not convinced doesn´t mean at all a lack of any convincing musical
argument.
It´s just the usual way you´re dealing with a different opinion,or a lack of reading
abilities.

Usually your phrase machine rotates with the same segments in endless loops,this time you failed
to include Amadeus and the meaning of him in Dutch history while philosophing
about the Greeks ...

You should pay more attention,kleermaker.

Come on now,you can do much better !

Quote
kleermaker

Here I strongly disagree. I don't hear any influence of EC on his playing. Maybe you two mix up the words influence and inspiration, though the inspiration wasn't a musical one.

Taylor has openly admitted he was very influenced by Clapton. Understandably it's more obvious during his Mayall period, but of course he wasn't simply a clone and added in other influences etc.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
kleermaker

Here I strongly disagree. I don't hear any influence of EC on his playing. Maybe you two mix up the words influence and inspiration, though the inspiration wasn't a musical one.

Taylor has openly admitted he was very influenced by Clapton. Understandably it's more obvious during his Mayall period, but of course he wasn't simply a clone and added in other influences etc.

Even Taylor is sometimes wrong. Or he didn't express himself properly.

Should Eric Clapton joined? Probably in 1969 that possibility didn't have any real base and it didn't even occurred to anyone's mind. But what do we know about 1975? I only know Ronnie Wood - and Keith - talking about it, but is there any other other source? Any comment from Eric? Just another urban myth?

And what about the very latest rumours? Wasn't there a rumour that Jagger has asked Clapto to tour with them few months ago (during Ron's hassles), but Clapton declined?

Anyway, the questions aside, and let us listen how Clapton does indeed sound like with the Rolling Stones:

Here is the legendary altarnate "Brown Sugar":





Here is "Little Red Rooster" from 1989, not the well-known Atlantic City version but (rougher and better) LA one:





And here is the other way round: the core of the Stones - plus some lesser acts - backing up Eric in 1984...





- Doxa

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
kleermaker

Here I strongly disagree. I don't hear any influence of EC on his playing. Maybe you two mix up the words influence and inspiration, though the inspiration wasn't a musical one.

Taylor has openly admitted he was very influenced by Clapton. Understandably it's more obvious during his Mayall period, but of course he wasn't simply a clone and added in other influences etc.

Even Taylor is sometimes wrong. Or he didn't express himself properly.

A Taylor is never wrong !

Quote
shortfatfanny

Quote
kleermaker
Well, HM, your reputation as anti Taylor doesn't need any accent from my side, but to me you lack any convincing musical argument. You only utter some fuzzwords that are always the same ones. Of course you're entitled to any opinion on Taylor, but I have the strong impression that your opinion on Taylor has nothing to do with an opinion at all but with pure antipathy. Mostly to defend your champion Keith.

The fact you´re not convinced doesn´t mean at all a lack of any convincing musical
argument.
It´s just the usual way you´re dealing with a different opinion,or a lack of reading
abilities.

Usually your phrase machine rotates with the same segments in endless loops,this time you failed
to include Amadeus and the meaning of him in Dutch history while philosophing
about the Greeks ...

You should pay more attention,kleermaker.

Come on now,you can do much better !

It's obvious that I did hurt your feelings some time ago. Now I remember I said that I wouldn't reply to you any longer. Well, that's still bothering you. But relax, the (goats head) soup isn't eaten that hot as it has been served, as a good Dutch saying says (I believe we got that one from the Greeks, as so many things).

But more important: I said that HM lacks any convincing musical argument this time in general and not specifically as for me.

Anyway, you can learn something from me yet. Profit by it!

Quote
kleermaker

Even Taylor is sometimes wrong. Or he didn't express himself properly.

Mick learnt claptons guitar parts from the beano album note for note.

Quote
shortfatfanny

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
kleermaker

Here I strongly disagree. I don't hear any influence of EC on his playing. Maybe you two mix up the words influence and inspiration, though the inspiration wasn't a musical one.

Taylor has openly admitted he was very influenced by Clapton. Understandably it's more obvious during his Mayall period, but of course he wasn't simply a clone and added in other influences etc.

Even Taylor is sometimes wrong. Or he didn't express himself properly.

A Taylor is never wrong !

Aha, so we must put it this way:

Rule 1: Taylor is never wrong.
Rule 2: If Taylor is wrong Rule 1 is in force.

Quote
kleermaker
Well, HM, your reputation as anti Taylor doesn't need any accent from my side, but to me you lack any convincing musical argument. You only utter some fuzzwords that are always the same ones. Of course you're entitled to any opinion on Taylor, but I have the strong impression that your opinion on Taylor has nothing to do with an opinion at all but with pure antipathy. Mostly to defend your champion Keith.

Well, I'm not anti-Taylor -- I think he was a great (and sometimes fantastic) guitarist. I've come to expect the Taylor fans to to go on about how Taylor had the best skills of the "other" guitarists in the band and to complain about how Ronnie doesn't have "the vibrato."

But, it's quite another thing to suggest that Taylor rises to the level of Keith. Just look at the entire body of work and be serious....please.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
kleermaker

Even Taylor is sometimes wrong. Or he didn't express himself properly.

Mick learnt claptons guitar parts from the beano album note for note.

That may have been the case, but by influence I mean that you still can hear EC's influence/style in his playing as a maturing and mature guitarist. That's not the case at all. Therefore I used the word inspiration, and that's exactly what made him play those Clapton guitar parts, when he was still an immature and very young, developping guitarist. Influence and inspiration are two different things. That's not a matter of semantics but of essential difference.

Quote
texas fan

Quote
kleermaker
Well, HM, your reputation as anti Taylor doesn't need any accent from my side, but to me you lack any convincing musical argument. You only utter some fuzzwords that are always the same ones. Of course you're entitled to any opinion on Taylor, but I have the strong impression that your opinion on Taylor has nothing to do with an opinion at all but with pure antipathy. Mostly to defend your champion Keith.

Well, I'm not anti-Taylor -- I think he was a great (and sometimes fantastic) guitarist. I've come to expect the Taylor fans to to go on about how Taylor had the best skills of the "other" guitarists in the band and to complain about how Ronnie doesn't have "the vibrato."

But, it's quite another thing to suggest that Taylor rises to the level of Keith. Just look at the entire body of work and be serious....please.

As a guitarist he surpassed Keith. But only as a guitarist.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
shortfatfanny

Quote
kleermaker
Well, HM, your reputation as anti Taylor doesn't need any accent from my side, but to me you lack any convincing musical argument. You only utter some fuzzwords that are always the same ones. Of course you're entitled to any opinion on Taylor, but I have the strong impression that your opinion on Taylor has nothing to do with an opinion at all but with pure antipathy. Mostly to defend your champion Keith.

The fact you´re not convinced doesn´t mean at all a lack of any convincing musical
argument.
It´s just the usual way you´re dealing with a different opinion,or a lack of reading
abilities.

Usually your phrase machine rotates with the same segments in endless loops,this time you failed
to include Amadeus and the meaning of him in Dutch history while philosophing
about the Greeks ...

You should pay more attention,kleermaker.

Come on now,you can do much better !

It's obvious that I did hurt your feelings some time ago. Now I remember I said that I wouldn't reply to you any longer. Well, that's still bothering you. But relax, the (goats head) soup isn't eaten that hot as it has been served, as a good Dutch saying says (I believe we got that one from the Greeks, as so many things).

But more important: I said that HM lacks any convincing musical argument this time in general and not specifically as for me.

Anyway, you can learn something from me yet. Profit by it!

At least you detected a certain kind and sense of humour...,
but please,neither you hurt my feelings some time ago nor you will now or in the future.

You will understand that your teaching attitude isn´t really something anyone´s
asking for...but thank you very kindly for the offer.

Kennst du übrigens die deutsche Redensart :
"Wenn der Hund nich´geschissen hätt´...."

Doubt it´s greek based but you never know...anyway,good to see you don´t
run in the basement for a laugh,´til we meet again,

Quote
shortfatfanny

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
shortfatfanny

Quote
kleermaker
Well, HM, your reputation as anti Taylor doesn't need any accent from my side, but to me you lack any convincing musical argument. You only utter some fuzzwords that are always the same ones. Of course you're entitled to any opinion on Taylor, but I have the strong impression that your opinion on Taylor has nothing to do with an opinion at all but with pure antipathy. Mostly to defend your champion Keith.

The fact you´re not convinced doesn´t mean at all a lack of any convincing musical
argument.
It´s just the usual way you´re dealing with a different opinion,or a lack of reading
abilities.

Usually your phrase machine rotates with the same segments in endless loops,this time you failed
to include Amadeus and the meaning of him in Dutch history while philosophing
about the Greeks ...

You should pay more attention,kleermaker.

Come on now,you can do much better !

It's obvious that I did hurt your feelings some time ago. Now I remember I said that I wouldn't reply to you any longer. Well, that's still bothering you. But relax, the (goats head) soup isn't eaten that hot as it has been served, as a good Dutch saying says (I believe we got that one from the Greeks, as so many things).

But more important: I said that HM lacks any convincing musical argument this time in general and not specifically as for me.

Anyway, you can learn something from me yet. Profit by it!

At least you detected a certain kind and sense of humour...,
but please,neither you hurt my feelings some time ago nor you will now or in the future.

You will understand that your teaching attitude isn´t really something anyone´s
asking for...but thank you very kindly for the offer.

Kennst du übrigens die deutsche Redensart :
"Wenn der Hund nich´geschissen hätt´...."

Doubt it´s greek based but you never know...anyway,good to see you don´t
run in the basement for a laugh,´til we meet again,

Truly wise men let themselves be taught by others.

Btw: that German saying could have come from Mozart's mouth.

Quote
kleermaker
That may have been the case, but by influence I mean that you still can hear EC's influence/style in his playing as a maturing and mature guitarist.

Ah, moving the goal posts now.

Clapton like licks and tones can be heard throughout Micks time with bluesbreakers and in to stones.

Quote
kleermaker
[
As a guitarist he surpassed Keith. But only as a guitarist.

I respect your opinion, kleermaker, but are you really putting up a couple of decent solos against all of the incredibly original, powerful and influential music Keith made with his guitar?

I understand that you believe Taylor had more skills and technical ability. But,technical ability is just a tool; it is not music. The guitarist that makes better music with his guitar is the better guitarist, regardless of technical ability.

Now, don't misunderstand me -- I'm not saying Taylor was all technique and no substance. He was sensitive to the musical context and generally played, not only well, but also appropriately in the context of the Stones music. This is what made him great. Far better than Clapton would have been, I think.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
texas fan

Quote
kleermaker
Well, HM, your reputation as anti Taylor doesn't need any accent from my side, but to me you lack any convincing musical argument. You only utter some fuzzwords that are always the same ones. Of course you're entitled to any opinion on Taylor, but I have the strong impression that your opinion on Taylor has nothing to do with an opinion at all but with pure antipathy. Mostly to defend your champion Keith.

Well, I'm not anti-Taylor -- I think he was a great (and sometimes fantastic) guitarist. I've come to expect the Taylor fans to to go on about how Taylor had the best skills of the "other" guitarists in the band and to complain about how Ronnie doesn't have "the vibrato."

But, it's quite another thing to suggest that Taylor rises to the level of Keith. Just look at the entire body of work and be serious....please.

As a guitarist he surpassed Keith. But only as a guitarist.

i don´t really think so. even if you don´t look at how both use the guitar to compose, where keith is like miles ahead. so even if you look at the abilities to play guitar only. i would still say that the way keith can make a guitar sound, drive a song rhythmically and melodically, is something where taylor and clapton don´t even come close.

a normal pop rock song contains of 99% song and 1% solo (or no solo at all for 95 % of songs). clapton and taylor are great for that 1% but in case of clapton almost useless for the rest of the song.

while keith is the BEST for 99% and quite good and sometimes really great for the remaining 1%.

counting that together keith is the way better guitarist than both of the so called virtuosos.

sometimes that 99% to 1% rule gets ignored by one of those virtuosos and they make it the other way around, 1% song, 99% endles pentatonic patterns,

and yes, that´s getting on the nerves after 30 secs.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
kleermaker
That may have been the case, but by influence I mean that you still can hear EC's influence/style in his playing as a maturing and mature guitarist.

Ah, moving the goal posts now.

Clapton like licks and tones can be heard throughout Micks time with bluesbreakers and in to stones.

I have a John Mayall album (titled Laurel Canyon, or something like that) with Taylor on guitar. But he sounds totally different from Clapton on that album. And if he sounded even a bit like our friend Eric, how could it then be possible that Amsterdamned, who doesn't like Eric's playing at all, likes Taylor's playing so much? And A. is a profi, otherwise than I, the amateur.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
Amsterdamned

True.And Claptons thoughts a about Taylor: "He is frightening."
Wish Clapton had done something with it....

He'd already done something by being the key part of one of the best british blues albums ever recorded, helping to create a string of classic albums with Cream as well as being very influential to a whole number of players including Taylor.

I'am not going to argue about it too much..Clapton is older then Taylor,so he came first. As a bluesplayer I prefer Taylor .Much more feeling.As John Mayall stated "We got someone better" But there were better bluesplayers in the 60 already..no Cream members, thus not as famous as Clapton.
I'm not interested in statistics,but music.

Quote
kleermaker
I have a John Mayall album (titled Laurel Canyon, or something like that) with Taylor on guitar. But he sounds totally different from Clapton on that album. And if he sounded even a bit like our friend Eric, how could it then be possible that Amsterdamned, who doesn't like Eric's playing at all, likes Taylor's playing so much? And A. is a profi, otherwise than I, the amateur.

Mick himself has acknowledged the influence and I think he knows more about it than you do. Amsterdamned has acknowledged the influence, as for why he doesn't like clapton, well he's kind of answered that above.

The influence is there in some of the phrases, the tones and the guitar, amp, effect choice.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
kleermaker
I have a John Mayall album (titled Laurel Canyon, or something like that) with Taylor on guitar. But he sounds totally different from Clapton on that album. And if he sounded even a bit like our friend Eric, how could it then be possible that Amsterdamned, who doesn't like Eric's playing at all, likes Taylor's playing so much? And A. is a profi, otherwise than I, the amateur.

Mick himself has acknowledged the influence and I think he knows more about it than you do. Amsterdamned has acknowledged the influence, as for why he doesn't like clapton, well he's kind of answered that above.

The influence is there in some of the phrases, the tones and the guitar, amp, effect choice.

Well, maybe I'm a total fool, but I don't hear it in his phrases (just not in his phrases, Taylor's breathing is totally diffent from EC's 'breathing'!). The tones? Too vague. Anyway, Clapton is not god and Amsterdamned isn't either (although, almost . They aren't even the pope.

the clapton from the bluesbreakers didnt exist by 1970.the dominos were really the last gasp of his greatness.he was too flaky anyway,he wouldnt have lasted 6 months with the stones.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
kleermaker
I have a John Mayall album (titled Laurel Canyon, or something like that) with Taylor on guitar. But he sounds totally different from Clapton on that album. And if he sounded even a bit like our friend Eric, how could it then be possible that Amsterdamned, who doesn't like Eric's playing at all, likes Taylor's playing so much? And A. is a profi, otherwise than I, the amateur.

Mick himself has acknowledged the influence and I think he knows more about it than you do. Amsterdamned has acknowledged the influence, as for why he doesn't like clapton, well he's kind of answered that above.

The influence is there in some of the phrases, the tones and the guitar, amp, effect choice.

Well, maybe I'm a total fool, but I don't hear it in his phrases (just not in his phrases, Taylor's breathing is totally diffent from EC's 'breathing'!). The tones? Too vague. Anyway, Clapton is not god and Amsterdamned isn't either (although, almost . They aren't even the pope.

A simple xample of an unknown white bluesplayer '68,way more tastefull then Clapton.
He played like this in '66 already. To mention one..
Clapton would have been impressed.