Tell Me :
Talk
I am in total agreement with you, Doxa.
Thanks, it's yang then.
PS: With Brian it was a different matter,impossible to compare with the Taylor era.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-03 14:20 by Amsterdamned.
i think that's a silly example as Brian does nothing for Satisfaction.
And Satisfaction live on the US 1969 tour was an absolute killer and played none better...probably one of the band's greatest moments.
Very reasonable...Oddly, I never feel the need to compare these two eras. They are both wonderful in completely different ways. Also, Brian's influence was much less focused on the guitar than Taylor's was. When one thinks of Taylor, one things of the time when the band became a real juggernaut on stage. This was not really possible during the Brian era, as the performing technology had not yet come into its own, and most of the tours were of the screaming girls variety. Brian stamped his personality on the band through the use of many different musical textures: the recorder on Ruby Tuesday, sitar on Paint It Black and countless others. Taylor's moods were mostly created with the guitar, and it was his emotional, vibrant playing on that instrument that colored songs like Moonlight Mile, Sway, Winter, and Tops. Taylor also breathed new life onstage into Jones-era songs like I'm Free and Satisfaction...I think Wood had it hardest in a way because he had to step into the legacies of both of these versions of the band, and what they had already accomplished. By the time he joined the Jagger-Richards songwriting vehicle had begun to slow down and after Some Girls really began to sputter (at least compared to their previous work). He did not have the opportunity to put his stamp on new material the way the other two had. Personally I think Beast of Burden was his peak. But getting back to Brian vs. Taylor, I have never felt the need to like one over the other, as they brought completely different things to the mix.
One thing is sure though: I miss them both.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-03 18:22 by 71Tele.
Totally agreed with Tele. Jones V Taylor sounds a bit strange in my ears. Comparing is another thing. I think Taylor was such a perfect fit after Brian because he not only 'lived' in the Stones songs after Brian, but also in the Jones-era songs. To put Taylor away as "basically a typical member of British blues-based "guitar god" generation" like Doxa does, isn't just at all. Taylor did fit in so well especially because he was so many-sided as a guitarist ánd as a musician. Musically he was at least at the same level. He was able to put a musical and emotional stamp on the Jones-era songs, something Wood wasn't able to (for whatever reason).
I just can't see what lessering or pejorative my classing of Taylor includes? What extra Taylor had that, for example, Eric Clapton, Jeff Beck, Peter Green, Alvin Lee or Jimmy Page, didn't have? What sets him apart from those people?
Besides, I think that - belonging to certain rank - was the very reason The Stones picked him up: for his skills as a guitar player who were able to do things needed at the time (especially live). He belonged to the genre of great British blues players - just had graduated from John Mayall's high school - and didn't have enough name yet - unlike someone like Clapton - and thereby was easier to 'fit' in.
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-03 19:24 by Doxa.
Maybe it´s good if you like Keith keeping the groove with the G-string only. Not my cup of tea. The 1967 version, however is rocking way better, imo. I´m talking about era versions, not if Brian plays "better" (whatever that is?) than Taylor...
exactly.
to answer the original question.
brian jones all the way. no need to think twice.
Apart from the songwriting and Jaggers voice:
Any decent musician could have replaced Watts,Wymann Taylor and Richards musically.
If you don't like Taylor cause he's impossible to copy,just like Jagger,than just admit it.
People keep on stating Taylor lifted the Stones the greater hights. My opininion is: yes, on good nights he did. But he never was in control, he never was the one making it a good night, that was all to Richards foremost, than Jagger, Watts and Wyman. As proof you only need to listen to the '73 tour, where most Scandinavian and German shows wheren't any good at all, not could Taylor save GHS and IORR to be mediocre, forgetable albums.
Mathijs
That's the reason why the Stones where pissed when MT left.
He was no Rolling Stone.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-04 00:20 by Amsterdamned.
This really is the dumbest post ever. It is even too stupid to reply actually.
I am shocked by the stupidity.
Mathijs
That's mutual Mathijs.
Good night.
All due respect, Mathjis, I think sometimes you create false arguments which you then knock down. No one is really saying Taylor was totally responsible for the heights the Stones reached while he was with the group. What we are (or at least I am) saying is that his musicianship gave textures and colors to their sound that Wood, with his more limited palette, was incapable of doing. This is the core of the argument for me. I also disagree with your premise that GHS was forgettable. It certainly was a somewhat flawed (and badly mixed) album, but at least it had a coherent mood (I would call it melancholy, longing and exhaustion), and some great songs. For me the "forgettable" records start with Undercover, and pretty much continue from there. That record marks where the Stones try to latch onto a formula in order to fill out a record, rather than having something really to say.
You also continue to mention '73 shows that most of the rest of us are not privy to hearing. You seem to suggest that some bad '73 shows prove that Taylor is nothing special. But you never say Wood is nothing special given the countless more mediocre to bad shows with him onstage. I think you have some sort of dislike of Taylor (the motivation of which is a mystery) and then you grasp at straws of evidence to support this dislike.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-04 02:09 by 71Tele.
I have Brussels, of course. I was referring to '73 shows that Mathjis talks about that he says were poor, not Brussels. Whether or not Taylor's playing in '73 is a "distraction" is a matter of legitimate debate. I personally think his playing on YCAGWYW, Tumbling Dice and Gimme Shelter pushed the band to new levels of intensity, and made Richards (in particular) better. What I find a distraction is Wood's often aimless playing from the 90s on. And I think Wood encouraged Richards to be lazier as well. So I guess between the two extremes, I will side with '73 and Taylor's "overplaying".
I wish to say something about the much bandied-about term "weaving". It is received wisdom from Keith (like Muddy's ceiling-painting) that the Richards/Wood guitar combo is this wonderful "two guitars as one" sound that he and Wood call "weaving". This little theory has gained much credence among fans, but like many things Richards has said, there is more than a little bit of myth-making at work here. First, I would suggest the interlocking guitar dynamics best exemplified by Taylor and Richards on "Satisfaction" from 1969 (especially Gimme Shelter film version) represents a much truer "weaving" than anything Richards and Wood have achieved. I will call it "weaving with a purpose" for lack of a better term. Second, the "weaving" that has been mythologized by Richards, Wood and many fans really only worked from about 1978 through 1981 - Best of Burden being the best example to me. After the '81 tour, quite often what the guitars were doing on stage was kind of a disoriented cacophony. On a couple of tours it amounted to Richards playing whatever he liked whenever he felt like it (and being much louder in the mix) and Wood taking whatever crumbs he could get. I found this approach hardly musical or interesting. I don't think we have really heard much 'weaving' of the Best of Burden variety for quite some time, yet people still throw this word around quite a lot to refer to the guitar approach of recent years.
As for Jones, he really stopped being vital to the guitar sound of the Stones fairly early on, so the comparison with Taylor to me is not a very appropriate one, other than being yet another opportunity for people who dislike Taylor to trash him.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-04 04:49 by 71Tele.
Couldn't agree more. I also agree that Wood in his own way made a very good contribution in the 70s and early 80s.
Yes!
Nor could Jagger, Richards, Charlie or Bill.
I have no dislike for Taylor at all. I think that the '72 tour was the best tour any band has done in the history of music, and that is for a part owed to Taylor's brilliant playing.
But I disagree very much with your statement that with Wood there where 'countless more mediocre to bad shows'. Further, this statement seems to imply -as so many statements on this board imply- that this has to do with Wood being present. Normally this statement then is followed with a 'if only Taylor was still in the band it would have been much better'.
I am of the opinion that the Stones where such a strong band, and on some cases even the best R&R band because of the chemistry between Jagger, Richards, Watts and Wyman. They where the driving forces behind the Stones, and when they where 'on' the band as an whole could truly excel.
In my opinion, Jagger was at his best in '72 and '78, Watts was a much better drummer in '75 and '78 than on any other tour. Wyman reached his peak in '81, Richards from '75 to '81. The fifth element, Jones, Taylor and Wood, are of a much lesser importance to me, especially live (although it is difficult to judge Jones here, as live music was different in the 60's and we do not have that many recordings). Sure, Taylor played some great leads in '72 and '73, I love the rhythmic interplay of Wood with Richards in '78, but it is not defining to me.
I think there where much more good shows with Wood than with Taylor, but this is purely because, as said, I think they where a better band from '75 to '81 than before.
Mathijs
ps 90% of the 73 tour is available for download on the various torrent sites, and also here on this board. Listen to Munich, Frankfurt and Essen and the Scandinavian shows and you will hear a band struggling as Keith just was very much out of it. Taylor could not save it from crashing. Listen to the British, Dutch and Belgium shows and you hear Richards on fire, with an excelling Taylor.
Agreed.To compare the three eras is imposibble.
Jones was a band member and created a special atmhosphere.
Taylor lifted the Stones to another musical level,gave them a boost.
Wood more a second Keith and a great showman.A pity he couldn't use his faces skills
Jagger and Richards are the face of the Rolling Stones.
Any other musician could have been replaced, which is completely irrelevant btw.
5 musicians,doing a great job,over three 3 eras.
Which one you like most is a matter of taste.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Yin/Yang 101
Posted by:
with sssoul
()
Date: October 3, 2010 11:54
>> only Yin when it comes to guitar playing. I like women <<
... if you mean yin as in yin/yang: yin is associated with the feminine aspect.
... if you mean yin as in yin/yang: yin is associated with the feminine aspect.
Re: Brian Jones V Mick Taylor
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: October 3, 2010 12:05
-
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-03 12:06 by Doxa.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-03 12:06 by Doxa.
Re: Brian Jones V Mick Taylor
Posted by:
Edward Twining
()
Date: October 3, 2010 12:38
Quote
DoxaQuote
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.
To be fair to the nature of the Rolling Stones as a "real, living, breathing band" the Ronnie Wood era needs to distinguished from the happenings since 1989, or actually 1983. This would be also more fair to mr. Wood when the amount of greatness during 'his' era is to be calculated. Then "a few moments" should be replaced by "mostly". There are two top ten Stones albums - SOME GIRLS and TATTOO YOU - and BLACK&BLUE, EMOTIONAL RESCUE and UNDERCOVER are all albums that are worth re-listening, especially the first two have done very good in a long run. LOVE YOU LIVE and STILL LIFE are charming, unique live albums by their own ways - unfortunately the best tour - 1978 - is not officially documented very well. If we judge their live performances from this era, from 1975 to 1982, we can still see the band reshaping its live sound and going for new ideas. Each tour had an essence of its own.
Anyways, I have argued elsewhere that we need to have three distinguished minds to really the grasp the legacy of the Stones in its all glory and uniqueness (no more is needed; for the Vegas era we do not need mind at all...)
----
But the basic issue of this thread. What is really asked for -
(1) to judge the eras over each other - when Brian Jones or Mick Taylor was a member of the band
or
(2) whether we think Brian or Taylor were more influentual to the Stones,
or
(3) whether we think that who is a cooler guy, Jones or Taylor?
The first is a matter of idiosyncratic opinion (at least if we think solely in terms of music. In terms of musical and cultural influence, the Jones era is the era The Stones had its true significance - they are a 60's act - the Taylor era is nothing but an era of gradual downhill in that sense: when he joined in, they were the center of the universe of rock world, when he left, they were in musical marginal.). So it is the case if we rate, say, "Satisfaction", "Paint it Black", AFTERMATH, CHARLIE IS MY DARLING over, say, Brown Sugar, Tumblin' Dice, STICKY FINGERS, LADIES AND GENTS, etc.
The second one is a clear one: Jones. The band is his goddamn "baby",which is to say, that the original idea and concept - and personnel - was his brain child. Even after losing his leaderhip, he had a definitive role in creating the typical Stones sound. His contributions in fundamental Stones songs are still crystal clear and distinctive (and many times, historical): the solo of "I Wanna be Your Man", harmonica on "Not Fade Away", the power chords of "It's All Over Now", the slide of "Litle Red Rooster", the riff of "The Last Time", the sitar of "Paint It Black" and all the "colorism" of AFTERMATH, BETWEEN THE BUTTONS, SATANIC MAJESTIES; the slide of "No Expectaions", his last true contribution, is still one the most memorable features in that album. In records, Taylor never had that kind recognizable front-role in official Stones output. He surely left his mark and "brought professionalism" (Charlie's quote) which, expecially on live, had a huge contribution to the development of the Stones sound, but as a Stones member he never fulfilled the shoes - and role - of Jones. That was gone. Mick and Keith never accepted that kind of musical force within the band again (the role was, in fact, reduced in studio during Brian's last years), and, seriously, I doubt Taylor had/have the needed qualities for that.
The third, again, is a matter of idiosyncratic opinion. Taylor is basically a typical member of British blues-based "guitar god" generation and Jones is a character of his own - an odd character (by today's criteria) with its multi-instrumantalism, experimentality, and non-musical features such as life style, fashion leadership, etc. that was largely his own unique accomplishment.
- Doxa
I am in total agreement with you, Doxa.
Re: Yin/Yang 101
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: October 3, 2010 13:29
Quote
with sssoul
>> only Yin when it comes to guitar playing. I like women <<
... if you mean yin as in yin/yang: yin is associated with the feminine aspect.
Thanks, it's yang then.
PS: With Brian it was a different matter,impossible to compare with the Taylor era.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-03 14:20 by Amsterdamned.
Re: Brian Jones V Mick Taylor
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: October 3, 2010 15:36
And the few times you can compare, like Satisfaction live, I prefer the 65-67 versions with Brian. But like you say, it´s harder to compare Brian and Taylor. Then again, it´s also easier to compare Brian and Woody, because of their styles.
Re: Brian Jones V Mick Taylor
Posted by:
Eleanor Rigby
()
Date: October 3, 2010 16:02
Quote
DandelionPowderman
And the few times you can compare, like Satisfaction live, I prefer the 65-67 versions with Brian. But like you say, it´s harder to compare Brian and Taylor. Then again, it´s also easier to compare Brian and Woody, because of their styles.
i think that's a silly example as Brian does nothing for Satisfaction.
And Satisfaction live on the US 1969 tour was an absolute killer and played none better...probably one of the band's greatest moments.
Re: Brian Jones V Mick Taylor
Posted by:
MJG196
()
Date: October 3, 2010 17:34
OK, I am jumping into this discussion - at my own peril! I think this is an apples/oranges discussion, but here goes...
I really prefer Mick Taylor to Brian Jones-era Stones. I think that once MT came in, the music really branched out. Yes, with Brian on board, the experimentation went in many directions, but I feel that with MT the band seemed to blossom at a more rapid rate. And not only blossom, but really became a focused Rock & Roll machine.
No, Mick isn't a "virtuoso," but he could really free up Keef in a way Brian couldn't.
OK...feel free to tear me apart!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-03 17:35 by MJG196.
I really prefer Mick Taylor to Brian Jones-era Stones. I think that once MT came in, the music really branched out. Yes, with Brian on board, the experimentation went in many directions, but I feel that with MT the band seemed to blossom at a more rapid rate. And not only blossom, but really became a focused Rock & Roll machine.
No, Mick isn't a "virtuoso," but he could really free up Keef in a way Brian couldn't.
OK...feel free to tear me apart!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-03 17:35 by MJG196.
Re: Brian Jones V Mick Taylor
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: October 3, 2010 18:21
Quote
MJG196
OK, I am jumping into this discussion - at my own peril! I think this is an apples/oranges discussion, but here goes...
I really prefer Mick Taylor to Brian Jones-era Stones. I think that once MT came in, the music really branched out. Yes, with Brian on board, the experimentation went in many directions, but I feel that with MT the band seemed to blossom at a more rapid rate. And not only blossom, but really became a focused Rock & Roll machine.
No, Mick isn't a "virtuoso," but he could really free up Keef in a way Brian couldn't.
OK...feel free to tear me apart!
Very reasonable...Oddly, I never feel the need to compare these two eras. They are both wonderful in completely different ways. Also, Brian's influence was much less focused on the guitar than Taylor's was. When one thinks of Taylor, one things of the time when the band became a real juggernaut on stage. This was not really possible during the Brian era, as the performing technology had not yet come into its own, and most of the tours were of the screaming girls variety. Brian stamped his personality on the band through the use of many different musical textures: the recorder on Ruby Tuesday, sitar on Paint It Black and countless others. Taylor's moods were mostly created with the guitar, and it was his emotional, vibrant playing on that instrument that colored songs like Moonlight Mile, Sway, Winter, and Tops. Taylor also breathed new life onstage into Jones-era songs like I'm Free and Satisfaction...I think Wood had it hardest in a way because he had to step into the legacies of both of these versions of the band, and what they had already accomplished. By the time he joined the Jagger-Richards songwriting vehicle had begun to slow down and after Some Girls really began to sputter (at least compared to their previous work). He did not have the opportunity to put his stamp on new material the way the other two had. Personally I think Beast of Burden was his peak. But getting back to Brian vs. Taylor, I have never felt the need to like one over the other, as they brought completely different things to the mix.
One thing is sure though: I miss them both.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-03 18:22 by 71Tele.
Re: Brian Jones V Mick Taylor
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: October 3, 2010 18:55
Quote
71TeleQuote
MJG196
OK, I am jumping into this discussion - at my own peril! I think this is an apples/oranges discussion, but here goes...
I really prefer Mick Taylor to Brian Jones-era Stones. I think that once MT came in, the music really branched out. Yes, with Brian on board, the experimentation went in many directions, but I feel that with MT the band seemed to blossom at a more rapid rate. And not only blossom, but really became a focused Rock & Roll machine.
No, Mick isn't a "virtuoso," but he could really free up Keef in a way Brian couldn't.
OK...feel free to tear me apart!
Very reasonable...Oddly, I never feel the need to compare these two eras. They are both wonderful in completely different ways. Also, Brian's influence was much less focused on the guitar than Taylor's was. When one thinks of Taylor, one things of the time when the band became a real juggernaut on stage. This was not really possible during the Brian era, as the performing technology had not yet come into its own, and most of the tours were of the screaming girls variety. Brian stamped his personality on the band through the use of many different musical textures: the recorder on Ruby Tuesday, sitar on Paint It Black and countless others. Taylor's moods were mostly created with the guitar, and it was his emotional, vibrant playing on that instrument that colored songs like Moonlight Mile, Sway, Winter, and Tops. Taylor also breathed new life onstage into Jones-era songs like I'm Free and Satisfaction...I think Wood had it hardest in a way because he had to step into the legacies of both of these versions of the band, and what they had already accomplished. By the time he joined the Jagger-Richards songwriting vehicle had begun to slow down and after Some Girls really began to sputter (at least compared to their previous work). He did not have the opportunity to put his stamp on new material the way the other two had. Personally I think Beast of Burden was his peak. But getting back to Brian vs. Taylor, I have never felt the need to like one over the other, as they brought completely different things to the mix.
One thing is sure though: I miss them both.
Totally agreed with Tele. Jones V Taylor sounds a bit strange in my ears. Comparing is another thing. I think Taylor was such a perfect fit after Brian because he not only 'lived' in the Stones songs after Brian, but also in the Jones-era songs. To put Taylor away as "basically a typical member of British blues-based "guitar god" generation" like Doxa does, isn't just at all. Taylor did fit in so well especially because he was so many-sided as a guitarist ánd as a musician. Musically he was at least at the same level. He was able to put a musical and emotional stamp on the Jones-era songs, something Wood wasn't able to (for whatever reason).
Re: Brian Jones V Mick Taylor
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: October 3, 2010 19:07
Quote
kleermaker
To put Taylor away as "basically a typical member of British blues-based "guitar god" generation" like Doxa does, isn't just at all. Taylor did fit in so well especially because he was so many-sided as a guitarist ánd as a musician. .
I just can't see what lessering or pejorative my classing of Taylor includes? What extra Taylor had that, for example, Eric Clapton, Jeff Beck, Peter Green, Alvin Lee or Jimmy Page, didn't have? What sets him apart from those people?
Besides, I think that - belonging to certain rank - was the very reason The Stones picked him up: for his skills as a guitar player who were able to do things needed at the time (especially live). He belonged to the genre of great British blues players - just had graduated from John Mayall's high school - and didn't have enough name yet - unlike someone like Clapton - and thereby was easier to 'fit' in.
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-03 19:24 by Doxa.
Re: Brian Jones V Mick Taylor
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: October 3, 2010 19:12
Quote
Eleanor RigbyQuote
DandelionPowderman
And the few times you can compare, like Satisfaction live, I prefer the 65-67 versions with Brian. But like you say, it´s harder to compare Brian and Taylor. Then again, it´s also easier to compare Brian and Woody, because of their styles.
i think that's a silly example as Brian does nothing for Satisfaction.
And Satisfaction live on the US 1969 tour was an absolute killer and played none better...probably one of the band's greatest moments.
Maybe it´s good if you like Keith keeping the groove with the G-string only. Not my cup of tea. The 1967 version, however is rocking way better, imo. I´m talking about era versions, not if Brian plays "better" (whatever that is?) than Taylor...
Re: Brian Jones V Mick Taylor
Posted by:
stoneswashed77
()
Date: October 3, 2010 19:29
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
71TeleQuote
His MajestyQuote
71Tele
By the way, did it ever occur to you to ask yourself why the great Ron Wood was not asked to do the overdubs on PMS so recently? After all, he's the one who is the official band member, "fits in" better, has a better haircut, isn't fat, didn't quit, kept the Stones together, is more "fun" etc, etc. I'm just wondering...
PMS is horrible, a chopped up time machine frankenstein of a thing, so it doesn't matter who plays on it.
Be that as it may, it has better feel than anything they have released in at least their last five studio albums. And, of course, you evaded my question, which wasn't "what do you think of PMS", but "why do you think Wood was not asked to play on it"?
Why should Wood have been asked to play? It wouldn´t have been natural at all, imo. This is Exile, and Ron wasn´t in the band...
I´m glad Taylor got to do his licks on a number, though
exactly.
to answer the original question.
brian jones all the way. no need to think twice.
Re: Brian Jones V Mick Taylor
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: October 3, 2010 23:55
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
Apart from the songwriting and Jaggers voice:
Any decent musician could have replaced Watts,Wymann Taylor and Richards musically.
If you don't like Taylor cause he's impossible to copy,just like Jagger,than just admit it.
Re: Brian Jones V Mick Taylor
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: October 4, 2010 00:08
Quote
71TeleQuote
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
Revisionism Mathjis, pure and simple. The moods created by Taylor lifted many tracks that would have otherwise been so-so or just ok. His ability to help craft and arrange songs is also something beyond mere guitar-playing. Ya yas was the best two-guitar juggernaut the Stones have ever offered up, and your dismissal of the his playing on the '73 tour is, frankly, laughable (kind of like taking only of Abraham Lincoln's worst speeches, throwing in the Gettysburg Address and saying Abe wasn't all that great a speechmaker).
Revisionist history custom-built to suit your bias.
People keep on stating Taylor lifted the Stones the greater hights. My opininion is: yes, on good nights he did. But he never was in control, he never was the one making it a good night, that was all to Richards foremost, than Jagger, Watts and Wyman. As proof you only need to listen to the '73 tour, where most Scandinavian and German shows wheren't any good at all, not could Taylor save GHS and IORR to be mediocre, forgetable albums.
Mathijs
Re: Brian Jones V Mick Taylor
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: October 4, 2010 00:09
Quote
carlostones10
Brian was the first Rolling Stone. MT never really was a Rolling Stone. So, the answer is easy. Brian!
That's the reason why the Stones where pissed when MT left.
He was no Rolling Stone.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-04 00:20 by Amsterdamned.
Re: Brian Jones V Mick Taylor
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: October 4, 2010 00:12
Quote
AmsterdamnedQuote
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
Apart from the songwriting and Jaggers voice:
Any decent musician could have replaced Watts,Wymann Taylor and Richards musically.
If you don't like Taylor cause he's impossible to copy,just like Jagger,than just admit it.
This really is the dumbest post ever. It is even too stupid to reply actually.
I am shocked by the stupidity.
Mathijs
Re: Brian Jones V Mick Taylor
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: October 4, 2010 00:14
Quote
MathijsQuote
AmsterdamnedQuote
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
Apart from the songwriting and Jaggers voice:
Any decent musician could have replaced Watts,Wymann Taylor and Richards musically.
If you don't like Taylor cause he's impossible to copy,just like Jagger,than just admit it.
This really is the dumbest post ever. It is even too stupid to reply actually.
I am shocked by the stupidity.
Mathijs
That's mutual Mathijs.
Good night.
Re: Brian Jones V Mick Taylor
Posted by:
stones78
()
Date: October 4, 2010 01:05
I'd say Brian...during the 66/67 pop period he was as influential on the studio as any of the other members, he took many songs to another level with his contributions on countless instruments. And that period was the Jagger/Richards songwriting peak for me.
I love the Taylor era as well, I think even GHS and IORR are fantastic records.
Ronnie wasn't that much of a contributor in the studio or live (apart from Some Girls) to make a difference in the band, he wasn't as strong musically as the other two were, so his influence in the music is minimal, if any. Also about him looking the part on stage...to me it's the other way around, Wood looked like Keith II and his posing and clowning always seemed forced...
I love the Taylor era as well, I think even GHS and IORR are fantastic records.
Ronnie wasn't that much of a contributor in the studio or live (apart from Some Girls) to make a difference in the band, he wasn't as strong musically as the other two were, so his influence in the music is minimal, if any. Also about him looking the part on stage...to me it's the other way around, Wood looked like Keith II and his posing and clowning always seemed forced...
Re: Brian Jones V Mick Taylor
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: October 4, 2010 02:07
Quote
MathijsQuote
71TeleQuote
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
Revisionism Mathjis, pure and simple. The moods created by Taylor lifted many tracks that would have otherwise been so-so or just ok. His ability to help craft and arrange songs is also something beyond mere guitar-playing. Ya yas was the best two-guitar juggernaut the Stones have ever offered up, and your dismissal of the his playing on the '73 tour is, frankly, laughable (kind of like taking only of Abraham Lincoln's worst speeches, throwing in the Gettysburg Address and saying Abe wasn't all that great a speechmaker).
Revisionist history custom-built to suit your bias.
People keep on stating Taylor lifted the Stones the greater hights. My opininion is: yes, on good nights he did. But he never was in control, he never was the one making it a good night, that was all to Richards foremost, than Jagger, Watts and Wyman. As proof you only need to listen to the '73 tour, where most Scandinavian and German shows wheren't any good at all, not could Taylor save GHS and IORR to be mediocre, forgetable albums.
Mathijs
All due respect, Mathjis, I think sometimes you create false arguments which you then knock down. No one is really saying Taylor was totally responsible for the heights the Stones reached while he was with the group. What we are (or at least I am) saying is that his musicianship gave textures and colors to their sound that Wood, with his more limited palette, was incapable of doing. This is the core of the argument for me. I also disagree with your premise that GHS was forgettable. It certainly was a somewhat flawed (and badly mixed) album, but at least it had a coherent mood (I would call it melancholy, longing and exhaustion), and some great songs. For me the "forgettable" records start with Undercover, and pretty much continue from there. That record marks where the Stones try to latch onto a formula in order to fill out a record, rather than having something really to say.
You also continue to mention '73 shows that most of the rest of us are not privy to hearing. You seem to suggest that some bad '73 shows prove that Taylor is nothing special. But you never say Wood is nothing special given the countless more mediocre to bad shows with him onstage. I think you have some sort of dislike of Taylor (the motivation of which is a mystery) and then you grasp at straws of evidence to support this dislike.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-04 02:09 by 71Tele.
Re: Brian Jones V Mick Taylor
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: October 4, 2010 03:20
Since I DO have access to '73 shows, I was just listening to Brussels in the car. Taylor is fine, but he seems to veer in and out of actually complementing the Stones sound. I didn't notice this at all on Ya Yas. I'll have to wait on my Ladies and Gentlemen DVD to see how he's playing at that point. I wonder how much 'weaving' him and Keith actually did during his tenure when they weren't touring. Brian may not have played a lot on some songs, but I don't remember his guitar playing ever being a distraction. This is not an indictment of Taylor. It's possible he began to lose interest in enhancing the Stones sound and felt he should be noodling to show he was there. When it works the Stones absolutely soar to their live peak.
We do tend to take things out of their historical context and do forget that the Jones era Stones did not have the stage technology the Taylor era Stones had. The studio was way ahead of the stage and that's where Jones excelled. I tend to think that Taylor burst into the group and enabled them to go to another level, at least live. Then, for whatever reasons, Taylor faded. His best studio work was Sticky Fingers and Exile. Monumental times and achievement, but Jones seems more important to the history of the group.
We do tend to take things out of their historical context and do forget that the Jones era Stones did not have the stage technology the Taylor era Stones had. The studio was way ahead of the stage and that's where Jones excelled. I tend to think that Taylor burst into the group and enabled them to go to another level, at least live. Then, for whatever reasons, Taylor faded. His best studio work was Sticky Fingers and Exile. Monumental times and achievement, but Jones seems more important to the history of the group.
Re: Brian Jones V Mick Taylor
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: October 4, 2010 03:51
Quote
24FPS
Since I DO have access to '73 shows, I was just listening to Brussels in the car. Taylor is fine, but he seems to veer in and out of actually complementing the Stones sound. I didn't notice this at all on Ya Yas. I'll have to wait on my Ladies and Gentlemen DVD to see how he's playing at that point. I wonder how much 'weaving' him and Keith actually did during his tenure when they weren't touring. Brian may not have played a lot on some songs, but I don't remember his guitar playing ever being a distraction. This is not an indictment of Taylor. It's possible he began to lose interest in enhancing the Stones sound and felt he should be noodling to show he was there. When it works the Stones absolutely soar to their live peak.
We do tend to take things out of their historical context and do forget that the Jones era Stones did not have the stage technology the Taylor era Stones had. The studio was way ahead of the stage and that's where Jones excelled. I tend to think that Taylor burst into the group and enabled them to go to another level, at least live. Then, for whatever reasons, Taylor faded. His best studio work was Sticky Fingers and Exile. Monumental times and achievement, but Jones seems more important to the history of the group.
I have Brussels, of course. I was referring to '73 shows that Mathjis talks about that he says were poor, not Brussels. Whether or not Taylor's playing in '73 is a "distraction" is a matter of legitimate debate. I personally think his playing on YCAGWYW, Tumbling Dice and Gimme Shelter pushed the band to new levels of intensity, and made Richards (in particular) better. What I find a distraction is Wood's often aimless playing from the 90s on. And I think Wood encouraged Richards to be lazier as well. So I guess between the two extremes, I will side with '73 and Taylor's "overplaying".
I wish to say something about the much bandied-about term "weaving". It is received wisdom from Keith (like Muddy's ceiling-painting) that the Richards/Wood guitar combo is this wonderful "two guitars as one" sound that he and Wood call "weaving". This little theory has gained much credence among fans, but like many things Richards has said, there is more than a little bit of myth-making at work here. First, I would suggest the interlocking guitar dynamics best exemplified by Taylor and Richards on "Satisfaction" from 1969 (especially Gimme Shelter film version) represents a much truer "weaving" than anything Richards and Wood have achieved. I will call it "weaving with a purpose" for lack of a better term. Second, the "weaving" that has been mythologized by Richards, Wood and many fans really only worked from about 1978 through 1981 - Best of Burden being the best example to me. After the '81 tour, quite often what the guitars were doing on stage was kind of a disoriented cacophony. On a couple of tours it amounted to Richards playing whatever he liked whenever he felt like it (and being much louder in the mix) and Wood taking whatever crumbs he could get. I found this approach hardly musical or interesting. I don't think we have really heard much 'weaving' of the Best of Burden variety for quite some time, yet people still throw this word around quite a lot to refer to the guitar approach of recent years.
As for Jones, he really stopped being vital to the guitar sound of the Stones fairly early on, so the comparison with Taylor to me is not a very appropriate one, other than being yet another opportunity for people who dislike Taylor to trash him.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-04 04:49 by 71Tele.
Re: Brian Jones V Mick Taylor
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: October 4, 2010 04:56
I certainly don't dislike Taylor. With the passage of time, and the different voices on this blog, it has become possible to 'weave' together the reality of his contribution. I think he worked best when sublimating his playing to the needs and sound of the band, ala his coda on 'Rocks Off' that really lifts the song at the end. Even his playing on the recent loveably Frankensteinish 'Plundered My Soul' is a great example of his playing from the inside out of the band. Brian and Mick T both took something with them when they left the band that would never be replaced; Brian's sensitivity and Mick T's facility.
That we should be comparing Jones and Taylor is in the end nonsense. The Stones are many eras. Some people even think of Ron Wood having his own era with the band in the 70s and early 80s where his contribution was important to the band. All we can hope for is that Ron and Keith are engaged and hungry to show they've still got it when they inevitably hit the road, perhaps for the last time.
That we should be comparing Jones and Taylor is in the end nonsense. The Stones are many eras. Some people even think of Ron Wood having his own era with the band in the 70s and early 80s where his contribution was important to the band. All we can hope for is that Ron and Keith are engaged and hungry to show they've still got it when they inevitably hit the road, perhaps for the last time.
Re: Brian Jones V Mick Taylor
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: October 4, 2010 07:34
Quote
24FPS
I certainly don't dislike Taylor. With the passage of time, and the different voices on this blog, it has become possible to 'weave' together the reality of his contribution. I think he worked best when sublimating his playing to the needs and sound of the band, ala his coda on 'Rocks Off' that really lifts the song at the end. Even his playing on the recent loveably Frankensteinish 'Plundered My Soul' is a great example of his playing from the inside out of the band. Brian and Mick T both took something with them when they left the band that would never be replaced; Brian's sensitivity and Mick T's facility.
That we should be comparing Jones and Taylor is in the end nonsense. The Stones are many eras. Some people even think of Ron Wood having his own era with the band in the 70s and early 80s where his contribution was important to the band. All we can hope for is that Ron and Keith are engaged and hungry to show they've still got it when they inevitably hit the road, perhaps for the last time.
Couldn't agree more. I also agree that Wood in his own way made a very good contribution in the 70s and early 80s.
Re: Brian Jones V Mick Taylor
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: October 4, 2010 10:09
Quote
AmsterdamnedQuote
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.
Maybe not, but could Taylor have made it worse??
Yes!
Re: Brian Jones V Mick Taylor
Posted by:
terraplane
()
Date: October 4, 2010 10:26
Quote
Mathijs
not could Taylor save GHS and IORR to be mediocre, forgetable albums.
Mathijs
Nor could Jagger, Richards, Charlie or Bill.
Re: Brian Jones V Mick Taylor
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: October 4, 2010 11:30
Quote
71Tele
You also continue to mention '73 shows that most of the rest of us are not privy to hearing. You seem to suggest that some bad '73 shows prove that Taylor is nothing special. But you never say Wood is nothing special given the countless more mediocre to bad shows with him onstage. I think you have some sort of dislike of Taylor (the motivation of which is a mystery) and then you grasp at straws of evidence to support this dislike.
I have no dislike for Taylor at all. I think that the '72 tour was the best tour any band has done in the history of music, and that is for a part owed to Taylor's brilliant playing.
But I disagree very much with your statement that with Wood there where 'countless more mediocre to bad shows'. Further, this statement seems to imply -as so many statements on this board imply- that this has to do with Wood being present. Normally this statement then is followed with a 'if only Taylor was still in the band it would have been much better'.
I am of the opinion that the Stones where such a strong band, and on some cases even the best R&R band because of the chemistry between Jagger, Richards, Watts and Wyman. They where the driving forces behind the Stones, and when they where 'on' the band as an whole could truly excel.
In my opinion, Jagger was at his best in '72 and '78, Watts was a much better drummer in '75 and '78 than on any other tour. Wyman reached his peak in '81, Richards from '75 to '81. The fifth element, Jones, Taylor and Wood, are of a much lesser importance to me, especially live (although it is difficult to judge Jones here, as live music was different in the 60's and we do not have that many recordings). Sure, Taylor played some great leads in '72 and '73, I love the rhythmic interplay of Wood with Richards in '78, but it is not defining to me.
I think there where much more good shows with Wood than with Taylor, but this is purely because, as said, I think they where a better band from '75 to '81 than before.
Mathijs
ps 90% of the 73 tour is available for download on the various torrent sites, and also here on this board. Listen to Munich, Frankfurt and Essen and the Scandinavian shows and you will hear a band struggling as Keith just was very much out of it. Taylor could not save it from crashing. Listen to the British, Dutch and Belgium shows and you hear Richards on fire, with an excelling Taylor.
Re: Brian Jones V Mick Taylor
Posted by:
saulsurvivor
()
Date: October 4, 2010 11:49
Gorgeous slide work, my ass.
The best parts of the track are Jagger's vocals, Nicky's piano, and Charlie's killer drums.
Also, my original name was Wendell Whipcomesdown. I changed it to Saul Survivor because I'm Jewish.
I far prefer When The Whip Comes Down to Soul Survivor.
The best parts of the track are Jagger's vocals, Nicky's piano, and Charlie's killer drums.
Also, my original name was Wendell Whipcomesdown. I changed it to Saul Survivor because I'm Jewish.
I far prefer When The Whip Comes Down to Soul Survivor.
Re: Brian Jones V Mick Taylor
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: October 4, 2010 11:49
Quote
stones78
I'd say Brian...during the 66/67 pop period he was as influential on the studio as any of the other members, he took many songs to another level with his contributions on countless instruments. And that period was the Jagger/Richards songwriting peak for me.
I love the Taylor era as well, I think even GHS and IORR are fantastic records.
Ronnie wasn't that much of a contributor in the studio or live (apart from Some Girls) to make a difference in the band, he wasn't as strong musically as the other two were, so his influence in the music is minimal, if any. Also about him looking the part on stage...to me it's the other way around, Wood looked like Keith II and his posing and clowning always seemed forced...
Agreed.To compare the three eras is imposibble.
Jones was a band member and created a special atmhosphere.
Taylor lifted the Stones to another musical level,gave them a boost.
Wood more a second Keith and a great showman.A pity he couldn't use his faces skills
Jagger and Richards are the face of the Rolling Stones.
Any other musician could have been replaced, which is completely irrelevant btw.
5 musicians,doing a great job,over three 3 eras.
Which one you like most is a matter of taste.
Re: Brian Jones V Mick Taylor
Posted by:
saulsurvivor
()
Date: October 4, 2010 12:40
I find it sad that you have to compare the guitarists at all. I'm defending Ronnie because I'm so friggin sick and tired of all the crap he gets from fans with a hard on for Taylor. It's nice for you that you think Taylor added so much to the band. I don't. I think Ronnie added more and did a great job of playing Taylor's licks in '75 and '76, while incorporating his own, before kicking ass in '78 and '81 in his own style. I think GHS is a joke. I think the best songs on IORR have very little to do with MT. I think the concept that "three members of the band" have ripped on Ronnie's playing means absolutely nothing. I think I've read all of those quotes and can honestly say that they were all tongue and cheek or, at the very least, taken out of context and absolutely misinterpreted by Taylor-hardies who need help coping with the fact that a guitarist they loved so very much hasn't been in The Rolling Stones since 1974. I don't envy you. That must be difficult to stomach, seeing your favorite band play with another guitarist for um...like, 36 years and counting.
I also find it sad that people on this board have undoubtedly attended Rolling Stones shows since Taylor's stint ended and have probably been watching this great, great band live and comparing the performance that is happening right in front of their faces to a bootleg cd of Brussels. How many of you sad, sad people have been listening to the band cook through a version of Tumbling Dice, or All Down The Line, and thought, "Sounds pretty good...but it ain't no Brussels." Seriously, that is beyond pathetic. You're watching the Greatest Rock and Roll Band in the World and comparing them to an earlier incarnation that the vast majority of you have only heard on tape or cd. Sad.
And, I don't know who said it, but the concept that MT's "greatest Stones guitarist" status is somehow cemented by the fact that Mick asked him, and not Ronnie, to play on the remaster of Exile is fffffrrriggin hilarious. Really!?! Grasp at straws much?! You don't think Mick considered the promotional/sales aspect of having MT play on PMS? You honestly don't think he knew you living-in- the-past freaks would run out and buy a bunch of copies and give it crazy good word of mouth if MT was on it? Your golden boy got used as a sales ploy, and it worked. Plus, let's not forget to mention the fact that modern day Jagger is often talked about on this board as if he can't write a good lyric, doesn't know good music, can't write a good song, doesn't hold a candle to his former self, ain't no Keith when it comes to soul, etc.... Ask yourselves this, if that's true, then do you really think he recognized the brilliance of MT and brought him in to let all of us hear that brilliance? I mean, according to many of you, Jagger wouldn't know brilliance these days if it bit him on the ass. But, noooooo, wait! Somehow he must've recognized the brilliance of MT....how can that be?
It's simple; Jagger knows what he's doing as a businessman and I think he still kicks ass as a musician/singer. He brought in Taylor to play leads that any of a thousand other guitarists could have done, and probably gave him plenty of coaching during the process. Again, it worked, overall a very successful remaster of a difficult, majestic, wonderfully uncompromising double album that more people cite as being brilliant than actually own it. Tough sell; great job by Jagger.
If MT and Bill end up on stage with the Stones during some 50th anniversary tour, that would be wonderful. I would welcome them with open arms to a band that has worked better than ever without them.
Peace,
Saul
I also find it sad that people on this board have undoubtedly attended Rolling Stones shows since Taylor's stint ended and have probably been watching this great, great band live and comparing the performance that is happening right in front of their faces to a bootleg cd of Brussels. How many of you sad, sad people have been listening to the band cook through a version of Tumbling Dice, or All Down The Line, and thought, "Sounds pretty good...but it ain't no Brussels." Seriously, that is beyond pathetic. You're watching the Greatest Rock and Roll Band in the World and comparing them to an earlier incarnation that the vast majority of you have only heard on tape or cd. Sad.
And, I don't know who said it, but the concept that MT's "greatest Stones guitarist" status is somehow cemented by the fact that Mick asked him, and not Ronnie, to play on the remaster of Exile is fffffrrriggin hilarious. Really!?! Grasp at straws much?! You don't think Mick considered the promotional/sales aspect of having MT play on PMS? You honestly don't think he knew you living-in- the-past freaks would run out and buy a bunch of copies and give it crazy good word of mouth if MT was on it? Your golden boy got used as a sales ploy, and it worked. Plus, let's not forget to mention the fact that modern day Jagger is often talked about on this board as if he can't write a good lyric, doesn't know good music, can't write a good song, doesn't hold a candle to his former self, ain't no Keith when it comes to soul, etc.... Ask yourselves this, if that's true, then do you really think he recognized the brilliance of MT and brought him in to let all of us hear that brilliance? I mean, according to many of you, Jagger wouldn't know brilliance these days if it bit him on the ass. But, noooooo, wait! Somehow he must've recognized the brilliance of MT....how can that be?
It's simple; Jagger knows what he's doing as a businessman and I think he still kicks ass as a musician/singer. He brought in Taylor to play leads that any of a thousand other guitarists could have done, and probably gave him plenty of coaching during the process. Again, it worked, overall a very successful remaster of a difficult, majestic, wonderfully uncompromising double album that more people cite as being brilliant than actually own it. Tough sell; great job by Jagger.
If MT and Bill end up on stage with the Stones during some 50th anniversary tour, that would be wonderful. I would welcome them with open arms to a band that has worked better than ever without them.
Peace,
Saul
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
AntoineParis , DandelionPowderman , dedospegajosos , dnewton99 , doubledoor , downagain , eduardoacdc , EJM , fanch , fortilix , GJV , Happy Jack , Kuntaman , Shotaway2 , stargroover , stonemac , syrel , thecitadel , thorgal34 , tinnitus , vlaci66 , werner67976
Guests:
1828
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10