For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
Gazza
... the magic ...
Quote
DandelionPowderman
And when Mick comes on stage and Keith strums a chord, the magic is still there
Quote
Glam Descendant
>It took forever for people to realize Taylor's musical contribution
You old people obviously took too many drugs lol. It really is peculiar though: Taylor's playing is in your face on those records (and live recordings) but he seems to have received scant attention at the time, while it was happening.
Quote
Amsterdamned
On the other hand,he doesn't feature on their worst too.
Quote
His MajestyQuote
Amsterdamned
On the other hand,he doesn't feature on their worst too.
IORR is one of their worst for me, and had he stayed longer it's doubtful he would have saved them from creating the turkeys that followed during 70's - 80's.
Quote
MathijsQuote
His MajestyQuote
Amsterdamned
On the other hand,he doesn't feature on their worst too.
IORR is one of their worst for me, and had he stayed longer it's doubtful he would have saved them from creating the turkeys that followed during 70's - 80's.
Aside from Taylor not being a virtuoso, he also did not 'lift' the Stones musically. That was done by Jagger and Richards, and by Watts and Wyman. 1972 was fantastic, absolutely, but Exile is a total Jagger/Richards album with little input by Taylor, and the '72 tour is great as Watts, Wyman, Jagger and Richards where in absolute top form. Any decent lead player would have excelled in this band.
The 1971 tour wasn't particularly great, 1970 could be fairly sloppy and sluggish, half of the '73 shows are sloppy and feature an overplaying Taylor, GHS and IORR aren't particularly great albums. Taylor certainly did not lift the Stones on the forementioned tours and albums.
To sum up Taylor: inspirational playing on a fantastic '69 tour, fantastic playing on the fantastic 1972 tour, great playing on some shows of the 1973 tour, plus half a dozen stand-out studio tracks.
Mathijs
Quote
WeLoveYou
Is it a coincidence that a lot of artists sounded good in the late 60s and early 70s, and then declined thereafter? Eg. Paul McCartney - great songs though the 60s up until about 1972 or so ("Bluebird", "Maybe I'm Amazed", etc) then the songs go downhill. Also: Rod Stewart early stuff good but then after about 1974 or so it goes downhill.
I've mentioned this before, but in my view the biggest influences on music are: A - the trends in music at the time (which heavily influences the songwriting), and B - the production techniques. These factors simply can't be underestimated.
An example of B is the dreadful production in the 80s..all those drums with huge echo etc.
So back to Brian / Mick (and Ronnie!).....well they didn't matter too much as regards to the Stones' output. It was down to Mick and Keith, however I believe even they were overshadowed by A and B above.
Well, this is my theory of pop music, others may disagree.
Quote
saulsurvivor
I saw the L&G Re-release.
I have heard the boots from the Taylor years.
And, all of the official releases. Duh.
Taylor was great, but he didn't raise the level of the music one iota, and by the time he was done, he was contributing nothing. The Stones from 68-73 were the Jagger/Richards show. Taylor's work on IORR is by the numbers boring and his supposedly great work on the '73 tour distracts mightily from what the rest of the band is playing. Seriously, the guy just starts soloing at the beginning of a song and doesn't stop until the end. It's annoying, and I'm glad he quit when he did. His noodling did not fit the Rolling Stones in 1973, or for a fair portion of '72 for that matter.
And that's another thing Taylorites; why the heck does MT's post-Stones career suck so astonishingly? Sure, he played with some greats, but his own material is just awful and completely pedestrian. How could he be so magnificent for 5 and then just...suck? Could there possibly be mitigating circumstances causing his "greatness"? Like, maybe, he was asked to join the best @#$%& band ever well after they had entered a period of creativity like no other?
Taylor had jack shit to do with Beggars Banquet and Let It Bleed. The band was absolutely smoking when they hired his ass. If he was so @#$%& great, he would have kicked ass after he left 5 years later, but no; he sucked and sucked and continued to suck. He got the bends because his creative descent was so extreme. (ba-dum)
Thank God for Ronnie Wood. The shit he puts up with from Taylor fans is astonishing. It never ceases to amaze me how nobodies try to equate their ill informed, dime-a-dozen opinions with the actual, real life, accomplishments of a man who has been a member of the Rolling Stones for over 30 years.
Do us all a favor Taylorites, go listen to the blues fusion crap that MT has been foisting upon a (thankfully) teenie, tiny portion of the population since 1974. And, realize that not a note of it is in the same league as the Rolling @#$%& Stones.
Quote
MathijsQuote
His MajestyQuote
Amsterdamned
On the other hand,he doesn't feature on their worst too.
IORR is one of their worst for me, and had he stayed longer it's doubtful he would have saved them from creating the turkeys that followed during 70's - 80's.
Aside from Taylor not being a virtuoso, he also did not 'lift' the Stones musically. That was done by Jagger and Richards, and by Watts and Wyman. 1972 was fantastic, absolutely, but Exile is a total Jagger/Richards album with little input by Taylor, and the '72 tour is great as Watts, Wyman, Jagger and Richards where in absolute top form. Any decent lead player would have excelled in this band.
The 1971 tour wasn't particularly great, 1970 could be fairly sloppy and sluggish, half of the '73 shows are sloppy and feature an overplaying Taylor, GHS and IORR aren't particularly great albums. Taylor certainly did not lift the Stones on the forementioned tours and albums.
To sum up Taylor: inspirational playing on a fantastic '69 tour, fantastic playing on the fantastic 1972 tour, great playing on some shows of the 1973 tour, plus half a dozen stand-out studio tracks.
Mathijs
Quote
slew
Can we all agree that and are all great in their own way??
Quote
ablett
"Revisionist history custom-built to suit your bias."
other than your opinion?
Quote
kleermakerQuote
slew
Can we all agree that and are all great in their own way??
I can agree that "all three era's have a uniquness", but only the first two were really great. Musically.
Quote
71TeleQuote
kleermakerQuote
slew
Can we all agree that and are all great in their own way??
I can agree that "all three era's have a uniquness", but only the first two were really great. Musically.
Two were great. One much less so, but did have a few moments of greatness. As a live act they never delivered the intensity and artistry of 1969-73 again, even though there were some very good shows. As a recording act they were unable to maintain the songwriting standards they had set through 1973 or so, with a few of spikes in 1978 and later.
Quote
His MajestyQuote
Amsterdamned
On the other hand,he doesn't feature on their worst too.
IORR is one of their worst for me, and had he stayed longer it's doubtful he would have saved them from creating the turkeys that followed during 70's - 80's.