Quote
Mathijs
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.

Quote
Eleanor Rigby

Cannot agree with you about the band being better during the period 75 - 81.
Surely Jagger's vocals for one were rubbish compared to 1963 --> 1973 ????
Doesn't matter what the band sounds like if the lead vocal is making weird barking noises....

Quote
saulsurvivor
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.

Quote
Mathijs

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.

Quote
saulsurvivor
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

Quote
Edward Twining
I think sometimes the mistake is to give the impression that Taylor is somehow more important than the rest of the band. Mick Taylor was very much an enormous asset to the Rolling Stones, certainly within the sophistication of his playing, which, as is said so many times, is something the Stones never truly had before, or since. However, at the same time, the Stones exceptional song writing (and song structure), were very much responsible for giving his art (his guitar playing) a platform for which Mick could exhibit his considerable skill, which without, pretty much finds Mick lacking any context in which to apply himself (for example - as of today). Sometimes i believe too much is made of Mick's songwriting potential in the band, because had he been truly gifted in writing songs, i think 36 years on since he left the band we would have known. However, that's not to take anything away from his exceptional playing while in the band. To a degree, i agree with Doxa's analysis of the Stones having Taylor because he fitted with the guitar 'god' tag, which was very much in voque at the time, yet different guitar 'gods' such as Eric Clapton and Peter Green, of course have their own individuality too, within being great blues influenced guitar virtuosos (or players). My view is the Stones struck extremely lucky with Mick Taylor, because he brought so many elements to the group's sound which benefitted them so very greatly during the period he was with them. He could also take a less prominant role, certainly with the studio output, which the likes of the high profile Clapton may have found difficult to handle. It was the small things Taylor does, as well as the more prominant role, that endears him to me so greatly. He was an incredibly soulful player within the Stones, where his every note, however large or small its profile, really mattered. He fitted into the greater whole of the Stones sound most perfectly.

Quote
Doxa
By the way, does anyone here know did any of the Stones actually have heard Taylor to play before he entered to the studio with them? I have never anything to indicate that. He sounded like coming from out of blue(s)... Someone just recommended him - who he was - John Mayall, Ian Stewart, Alexis Korner?

- Doxa

Quote
71Tele
So for me, it's not Taylor as a writer or soloist that I miss, it's Taylor as a Stone.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Doxa
By the way, does anyone here know did any of the Stones actually have heard Taylor to play before he entered to the studio with them? I have never anything to indicate that. He sounded like coming from out of blue(s)... Someone just recommended him - who he was - John Mayall, Ian Stewart, Alexis Korner?

- Doxa

Recommended by John Mayall. Taylor had just left Mayall's band and Jagger asked Mayall about him.

Quote
Edward Twining
Brian's contributions should never be underestimated either. I believe in the scheme of things he has been much more important than Mick Taylor, most obviously because he was the Stones founding member, and also because he added so much scope to the Stones sound while he was in the group. Sometimes, i feel his contributions are unfairly neglected, because to a point the Stones were very much trying out a variety of influences, which by and large, worked marvellously well, before narrowing their sights with Taylor to concentrate on what in later years would be regarded as their true forte (blues influenced rock). However, i think Brian's influence in those earlier years has incredible results, when looking through the Stones catalogue, because those early songs prove the Stones were very capable of interpreting a variety of genres with impressive, and often very inspiring results.

Quote
Edward Twining
Yes, stones 78, not forgetting Brian played the main riff on 'The Last Time' and slide guitar on 'Little Red Rooster' too. I think it's a pity that even as early as 1964 Brian was becoming very much marginalised within the group. The recording by the Stones of 'Little Red Rooster', followed by Brian being asked to overdub his slide after all the other members had laid down their contributions, suggests even then he was beginning to feel left out. One of my favourite clips of Brian with the Stones is that of the live performance of 'Little Red Rooster' on the Ed Sullivan Show, where Brian appears very much in his blues element, where he takes that very prominant and impressive slide role. I think it's ironic that he should have been reported as saying he was dissatisfied with the direction the Stones music had been taking by the latter half of the sixties, when he played such a key role in broadening the Stones sound, and adding so much colour. I think by 68 the Stones were returning to greater blues influences with 'Beggars Banquet', where arguably Brian's main highlight (his slide playing on 'No Expectations'), should also prove one of the most impressive things to be found. The remark about him leaving because he didn't agree with the direction the Stones music was taking was something i find hard to swallow. However, Brian was about to hook up with John Mayall, to perform music which perhaps was not overtly blues influenced. John Mayall at this point in time was certainly getting in on the action, where the suggestion for Mick Taylor to join the Stones was concerned, and then the proposed collaboration with the recently departed Brian.

Quote
71Tele
The statement issued by Brian ("I no longer see eye to eye with the others on the discs we are cutting" ) was pure PR to mask the real reasons for his dismissal - his inability to tour because of his drug arrests, and his near total incapacitation as a guitar player (see "Rock & Roll Circus" ).

Quote
neptune

Quote
71Tele
The statement issued by Brian ("I no longer see eye to eye with the others on the discs we are cutting" ) was pure PR to mask the real reasons for his dismissal - his inability to tour because of his drug arrests, and his near total incapacitation as a guitar player (see "Rock & Roll Circus" ).

Yes, it was pure PR for sure, but I don't think it was because of his 'incapacitation' as a guitar player. If Brian was the good soldier and made no waves ala Bill or Charlie, he would have remained in the band. The REASON why Brian and the Stones split was because he was no longer interested in staying with the group, as evidenced by his countless no-shows in the studio. Mick and Keith decided enough was enough, making the decision to pay Brian that final visit at his home and agreeing to end their professional relationship with him. If Brian was so incapacitated as a guitarist, then can you explain his superb slide contribution on No Expectations a mere year earlier?

Quote
Beelyboy
u mite chek out htw w keith on lead btw . and bs. and hyde park and berry numbers on ya yas. taylo plays better rhytm than malcolm. whooooo