Tell Me :
Talk
You didn't know? Or don't you like Stripped? Or didn't you like this 78 version? You're a tough cookie when it comes to communicating sometimes, Amsterdamned
PS: I noticed I had posted the wrong version of LIV from 1978. The first one was a rehearsal
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-02-17 12:29 by DandelionPowderman.
Sorry DP,I was only referring to Wood's slide, as the topic compares Taylor and Wood.
"Better is the enemy of good."
That is a rather stupid statement, since Taylor's contributions in the Stones - not after - are what this is all about. Whatever he did or didn't do after leaving the group doesn't change one single note of what he did while he was a member, um, Buddy.
Also, he didn't get kicked out of the Stones. You might want to check your facts before making statements that easily disproved.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-02-17 17:52 by 71Tele.
That Mick Taylor is one lucky guy. Not only he's got one great, knowing supporter and a true Stones insider in your person, I am sure you're gonna tell soon Keith Richards what a terrible mistake he made as he let Taylor go ;*)
Buddy, let's no more be unrelated to reality. Let's get used of thinking for a change.
With the Stones he had to play that part, they didn't hire him to be an equal to Jagger/Richards. They weren't gonna let him "lead" as he did in the Faces.
A nice funky product.
Great bassline.
The drums sounds like a sterile rhythm box to me.
To stop the dicussion here seems a bit far fetched to me, as your post above is average funky guitar playing imo, (a 7/9 chord always does the trick), yet the very best KR & RW ever did together, Rolling Stones included.
The overdub and chord change at 2.02 come in very handy,a welcome variation.
They should have explored this way of playing deeper by getting into more jazzy licks and chords imo, cause their harmonic "bluesy" limitations (keith in particular) doze me off on the long term.
The Stones were are a Rock /Blues band, and as far as this is concerned, Wood is no genuine blues /rock/slide player: merely an all round guitar player, very average at any style, yet a great entertainer. Taylor might be more limited,but really good at what he did.
A pity once musicians become famous,the automatic pilot creeps in, (MT
included), and too much posing (KR and RW) got involved.
Hats off though..,it was 1974..
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2011-02-18 02:15 by Amsterdamned.
Is English your second language? Just curious.
Maybe he did. But maybe playing that part (especially the part of Keith's sidekick) diminished him. With Faces and Rod's solo work, he helped craft the sound. With the Stones, he became a non-essential bit player. I speak here musically. I am well aware that many people like him for his "image" or whatever. I couldn't care less about that. I saw L&G again last night. Yes, during Love In Vain Taylor just stood there. He didn't grimace, he didn't chase Mick around the stage. He merely stood there and made beautiful music.
Yep. And it's hilarious!
I agree that Woody "stepped up" on the last tour. But what does that mean? The bar for him had gotten so low that we were all simply thrilled that he played more or less normally. What does it say about the state of the guitar players in the band when the best thing we can say about the guitar playing on the last tour was that one underachieving player covered for the other's declining skills. It's depressing.
I doubt that; it's his sound that has changed. But it's probably been a deliberate band policy. His Faces sound could take up too much space for Stones purposes.
You mean you haven't even heard this. AND you can't spot that the clean guitar is Taylor, not Keith? My point was - this is Taylor and Wood together making great music.
Hey native Globish speaker, please forgive me, I think I've sinned - these google translators are so sh!tty these days :*(
I see spelling is your great virtue - do you eventually have some other hidden talents, like digesting or something
I see you have stooped to the level of personal insults. I won't follow you there, so enjoy yourself. I asked about your English because your syntax was rather strange - not your speilling.
Hey Tele, please lets differ between the insults and jokes - or bad jokes, if you want.
Well, Mick Taylor came to the Stones as a highly aclaimed prodigy - and had to left them as a heavy heroin addict, what possibly saved his life. Keith and Mick have simply jaded him like they squeezed before him Brian Jones and Jimmy Miller; that neat and young guy wasn't up to keep the pace with those "big, ferocious and tough animals", that's really all what I wanted to say. Being a fine guitar player is sometimes simply not enough to persist in such a monky business.
I definitely see your point that he had room to stretch out and play more in the Faces. However, Wood supposedly had a $5000 a day coke habit in the early 80s, and that had to have affected his playing to an extent. I think the changes in Woody's playing over the years was likely due to a combination of less improvisational freedom and a tad bit too much substance abuse.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-02-19 09:13 by Keefan.
Great trap.
..yes I listened to it before I made my previous post.
Thanks for the lesson.I didn't check the musicians on the internet though, I was amazed by Keith "fast" playing already..
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2011-02-19 09:05 by Amsterdamned.
In that case sorry for my oversensitivity...No question Taylor's experience with the Stones was not altogether positive to him as a person, but I thought we were discussing musical differences.
It's actually rather tiresome. I know they had to fill the same role but they're so different as guitar players and musicians. And even then this is not a "let's compare their abilities", this has always been a "Wood can't play lead as Taylor" type of discussion.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Taylor Vs Wood One final thought
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: February 17, 2011 11:56
IMO, This is where this debate should stop, by listening to the two great guitar players shine together. They are both brilliant, especially on this track:
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-02-17 12:27 by DandelionPowderman.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-02-17 12:27 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: Taylor Vs Wood One final thought
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: February 17, 2011 12:14
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
headly123
Ok so here is my two cents on this matter. I was just watching Ladies and Gentlemen last night and started thinking about the people on here who swear Ron Wood is the best and great and all of that. And what I was thinking was ARE YOU FRIGGEN NUTS ? The way Taylor played was a thing of beauty . I was also thinking listening to Love In Vain was whether they even tried to play it with Woodie . I don't think they did and I am sure he would have screwed it up. Jeez he even stole most of the solo he played on Can't you hear me knocking when they played it live . So I submit to those of you who insist that Ron Wood is better to get your hearing checked.
OK I am done with me Rant.
LOL! Do your homework. Not only did the Stones do LIV with Ronnie on the 1978 tour, they re-recorded the song with him in 1995 on Stripped! Where have you been, man?
Re: Taylor Vs Wood One final thought
Posted by:
Corcovado
()
Date: February 17, 2011 12:17
Posted by: 71Tele ()
Date: February 17, 2011 00:40
Quote
Corcovado
Mick Taylor was one of many fine guitar players of his time - and I truly dig him for that - unfortunately he was just a fifth wheel in the band of the rolling stones. Woody, by never ever having his class as a guitar player, was simply much better match for the band.
Yeah, in every way except musically. I'll take a "fifth wheel" like Taylor any time, thank you very much.
Buddy, I knew you'll fully agree with me on that. Taylor's fantastic careers and achievements he made after he got his butt kicked out of the Stones definitely proove his unique musical abilities. It's such a pity that only you and me are aware of that.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-02-17 12:20 by Corcovado.
Date: February 17, 2011 00:40
Quote
Corcovado
Mick Taylor was one of many fine guitar players of his time - and I truly dig him for that - unfortunately he was just a fifth wheel in the band of the rolling stones. Woody, by never ever having his class as a guitar player, was simply much better match for the band.
Yeah, in every way except musically. I'll take a "fifth wheel" like Taylor any time, thank you very much.
Buddy, I knew you'll fully agree with me on that. Taylor's fantastic careers and achievements he made after he got his butt kicked out of the Stones definitely proove his unique musical abilities. It's such a pity that only you and me are aware of that.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-02-17 12:20 by Corcovado.
Re: Taylor Vs Wood One final thought
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: February 17, 2011 12:21
Quote
AmsterdamnedQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
headly123
Ok so here is my two cents on this matter. I was just watching Ladies and Gentlemen last night and started thinking about the people on here who swear Ron Wood is the best and great and all of that. And what I was thinking was ARE YOU FRIGGEN NUTS ? The way Taylor played was a thing of beauty . I was also thinking listening to Love In Vain was whether they even tried to play it with Woodie . I don't think they did and I am sure he would have screwed it up. Jeez he even stole most of the solo he played on Can't you hear me knocking when they played it live . So I submit to those of you who insist that Ron Wood is better to get your hearing checked.
OK I am done with me Rant.
LOL! Do your homework. Not only did the Stones do LIV with Ronnie on the 1978 tour, they re-recorded the song with him in 1995 on Stripped! Where have you been, man?
You didn't know? Or don't you like Stripped? Or didn't you like this 78 version? You're a tough cookie when it comes to communicating sometimes, Amsterdamned
PS: I noticed I had posted the wrong version of LIV from 1978. The first one was a rehearsal
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-02-17 12:29 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: Taylor Vs Wood One final thought
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: February 17, 2011 15:11
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
AmsterdamnedQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
headly123
Ok so here is my two cents on this matter. I was just watching Ladies and Gentlemen last night and started thinking about the people on here who swear Ron Wood is the best and great and all of that. And what I was thinking was ARE YOU FRIGGEN NUTS ? The way Taylor played was a thing of beauty . I was also thinking listening to Love In Vain was whether they even tried to play it with Woodie . I don't think they did and I am sure he would have screwed it up. Jeez he even stole most of the solo he played on Can't you hear me knocking when they played it live . So I submit to those of you who insist that Ron Wood is better to get your hearing checked.
OK I am done with me Rant.
LOL! Do your homework. Not only did the Stones do LIV with Ronnie on the 1978 tour, they re-recorded the song with him in 1995 on Stripped! Where have you been, man?
You didn't know? Or don't you like Stripped? Or didn't you like this 78 version? You're a tough cookie when it comes to communicating sometimes, Amsterdamned
PS: I noticed I had posted the wrong version of LIV from 1978. The first one was a \
rehearsal
Sorry DP,I was only referring to Wood's slide, as the topic compares Taylor and Wood.
"Better is the enemy of good."
Re: Taylor Vs Wood One final thought
Posted by:
Eleanor Rigby
()
Date: February 17, 2011 15:59
People talk about how Ronnie fitted into the band so well...i actually think Ronnie is too much of a try-hard for me.
forget about his playing, but it never sat well with me during the early years he joined....who is this guy I thought...leave it to Keith & Mick.
Mick T, on the other hand, just helped create brilliant live music with his playing...sat in the background and supported Mick J.
In the studio both never really drastically changed the band.
lastly, give me a live bootleg from the Taylor years any day...
forget about his playing, but it never sat well with me during the early years he joined....who is this guy I thought...leave it to Keith & Mick.
Mick T, on the other hand, just helped create brilliant live music with his playing...sat in the background and supported Mick J.
In the studio both never really drastically changed the band.
lastly, give me a live bootleg from the Taylor years any day...
Re: Taylor Vs Wood One final thought
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: February 17, 2011 17:51
Quote
Corcovado
Posted by: 71Tele ()
Date: February 17, 2011 00:40
Quote
Corcovado
Mick Taylor was one of many fine guitar players of his time - and I truly dig him for that - unfortunately he was just a fifth wheel in the band of the rolling stones. Woody, by never ever having his class as a guitar player, was simply much better match for the band.
Yeah, in every way except musically. I'll take a "fifth wheel" like Taylor any time, thank you very much.
Buddy, I knew you'll fully agree with me on that. Taylor's fantastic careers and achievements he made after he got his butt kicked out of the Stones definitely proove his unique musical abilities. It's such a pity that only you and me are aware of that.
That is a rather stupid statement, since Taylor's contributions in the Stones - not after - are what this is all about. Whatever he did or didn't do after leaving the group doesn't change one single note of what he did while he was a member, um, Buddy.
Also, he didn't get kicked out of the Stones. You might want to check your facts before making statements that easily disproved.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-02-17 17:52 by 71Tele.
Re: Taylor Vs Wood One final thought
Posted by:
Corcovado
()
Date: February 17, 2011 21:27
Quote
71TeleQuote
Corcovado
Posted by: 71Tele ()
Date: February 17, 2011 00:40
Quote
Corcovado
Mick Taylor was one of many fine guitar players of his time - and I truly dig him for that - unfortunately he was just a fifth wheel in the band of the rolling stones. Woody, by never ever having his class as a guitar player, was simply much better match for the band.
Yeah, in every way except musically. I'll take a "fifth wheel" like Taylor any time, thank you very much.
Buddy, I knew you'll fully agree with me on that. Taylor's fantastic careers and achievements he made after he got his butt kicked out of the Stones definitely proove his unique musical abilities. It's such a pity that only you and me are aware of that.
That is a rather stupid statement, since Taylor's contributions in the Stones - not after - are what this is all about. Whatever he did or didn't do after leaving the group doesn't change one single note of what he did while he was a member, um, Buddy.
Also, he didn't get kicked out of the Stones. You might want to check your facts before making statements that easily disproved.
That Mick Taylor is one lucky guy. Not only he's got one great, knowing supporter and a true Stones insider in your person, I am sure you're gonna tell soon Keith Richards what a terrible mistake he made as he let Taylor go ;*)
Buddy, let's no more be unrelated to reality. Let's get used of thinking for a change.
Re: Taylor Vs Wood One final thought
Posted by:
ablett
()
Date: February 17, 2011 22:03
"Buddy, let's no more be unrelated to reality. Let's get used of thinking for a change."
Statement of the night!! Love it....
Statement of the night!! Love it....
Re: Taylor Vs Wood One final thought
Posted by:
stones78
()
Date: February 17, 2011 22:57
Quote
71TeleQuote
stones78Quote
cc
listen to the tone of his guitar with the Faces, then with the Stones.
Even if his tone changed, he's still the same type of player. But they are completely different bands. What works for one band doesn't work for the other.
Not at all. In the Faces he led the band and had a great deal of confidence. he became more of a jokester and sidekick in the Stones, Musically, he also relied on a very thin tone with the Stones for much of the time, which is not very much to my liking. He used more colors of the instrument in the Faces.
With the Stones he had to play that part, they didn't hire him to be an equal to Jagger/Richards. They weren't gonna let him "lead" as he did in the Faces.
Re: Taylor Vs Wood One final thought
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: February 17, 2011 23:37
Quote
DandelionPowderman
IMO, This is where this debate should stop, by listening to the two great guitar players shine together. They are both brilliant, especially on this track:
A nice funky product.
Great bassline.
The drums sounds like a sterile rhythm box to me.
To stop the dicussion here seems a bit far fetched to me, as your post above is average funky guitar playing imo, (a 7/9 chord always does the trick), yet the very best KR & RW ever did together, Rolling Stones included.
The overdub and chord change at 2.02 come in very handy,a welcome variation.
They should have explored this way of playing deeper by getting into more jazzy licks and chords imo, cause their harmonic "bluesy" limitations (keith in particular) doze me off on the long term.
The Stones were are a Rock /Blues band, and as far as this is concerned, Wood is no genuine blues /rock/slide player: merely an all round guitar player, very average at any style, yet a great entertainer. Taylor might be more limited,but really good at what he did.
A pity once musicians become famous,the automatic pilot creeps in, (MT
included), and too much posing (KR and RW) got involved.
Hats off though..,it was 1974..
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2011-02-18 02:15 by Amsterdamned.
Re: Taylor Vs Wood One final thought
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: February 18, 2011 00:21
Quote
CorcovadoQuote
71TeleQuote
Corcovado
Posted by: 71Tele ()
Date: February 17, 2011 00:40
Quote
Corcovado
Mick Taylor was one of many fine guitar players of his time - and I truly dig him for that - unfortunately he was just a fifth wheel in the band of the rolling stones. Woody, by never ever having his class as a guitar player, was simply much better match for the band.
Yeah, in every way except musically. I'll take a "fifth wheel" like Taylor any time, thank you very much.
Buddy, I knew you'll fully agree with me on that. Taylor's fantastic careers and achievements he made after he got his butt kicked out of the Stones definitely proove his unique musical abilities. It's such a pity that only you and me are aware of that.
That is a rather stupid statement, since Taylor's contributions in the Stones - not after - are what this is all about. Whatever he did or didn't do after leaving the group doesn't change one single note of what he did while he was a member, um, Buddy.
Also, he didn't get kicked out of the Stones. You might want to check your facts before making statements that easily disproved.
That Mick Taylor is one lucky guy. Not only he's got one great, knowing supporter and a true Stones insider in your person, I am sure you're gonna tell soon Keith Richards what a terrible mistake he made as he let Taylor go ;*)
Buddy, let's no more be unrelated to reality. Let's get used of thinking for a change.
Is English your second language? Just curious.
Re: Taylor Vs Wood One final thought
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: February 18, 2011 00:28
Quote
stones78Quote
71TeleQuote
stones78Quote
cc
listen to the tone of his guitar with the Faces, then with the Stones.
Even if his tone changed, he's still the same type of player. But they are completely different bands. What works for one band doesn't work for the other.
Not at all. In the Faces he led the band and had a great deal of confidence. he became more of a jokester and sidekick in the Stones, Musically, he also relied on a very thin tone with the Stones for much of the time, which is not very much to my liking. He used more colors of the instrument in the Faces.
With the Stones he had to play that part, they didn't hire him to be an equal to Jagger/Richards. They weren't gonna let him "lead" as he did in the Faces.
Maybe he did. But maybe playing that part (especially the part of Keith's sidekick) diminished him. With Faces and Rod's solo work, he helped craft the sound. With the Stones, he became a non-essential bit player. I speak here musically. I am well aware that many people like him for his "image" or whatever. I couldn't care less about that. I saw L&G again last night. Yes, during Love In Vain Taylor just stood there. He didn't grimace, he didn't chase Mick around the stage. He merely stood there and made beautiful music.
Re: Taylor Vs Wood One final thought
Posted by:
Midnight Toker
()
Date: February 18, 2011 01:35
If I needed a guitar player to come in and work his magic with some beautiful riffs, I would call on MT in a hearbeat. Too bad he hasn't seen much work or reaped the $$$ benefits from his amazing talents.
Re: Taylor Vs Wood One final thought
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: February 18, 2011 05:04
Quote
71TeleQuote
skipstone
Woody has better hair.
I know you are joking, but it amazes me that there are many people on this site who basically say that to defend Wood and attack Taylor ("Ronnie looks like a Stone" ) and they are being quite serious.
Yep. And it's hilarious!
Re: Taylor Vs Wood One final thought
Posted by:
Keefan
()
Date: February 18, 2011 06:31
I've always enjoyed Wood's contribution to the Stones, but I definitely prefer the Mick Taylor era. However, Mick T left of his own accord, and I've never understood all this pitting one against the other crap. Its not like the Stones fired Mick T so they could replace him with Woody.
I think that maybe Wood got carried away with the excesses and decadence of the Stones, and that affected his playing to a degree. He seems to have put partying ahead of growing as a musician at some point (but that's just my perception, I don't claim to know the man).
That said I still admire and like Woody, and enjoy his playing. I think he really stepped up on the last tour to help cover for Keith's problems playing. I love the Mick T. era the best, but I'm glad the Stones stuck together after he left - they are still the best at what they do.
I think that maybe Wood got carried away with the excesses and decadence of the Stones, and that affected his playing to a degree. He seems to have put partying ahead of growing as a musician at some point (but that's just my perception, I don't claim to know the man).
That said I still admire and like Woody, and enjoy his playing. I think he really stepped up on the last tour to help cover for Keith's problems playing. I love the Mick T. era the best, but I'm glad the Stones stuck together after he left - they are still the best at what they do.
Re: Taylor Vs Wood One final thought
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: February 18, 2011 08:40
Quote
Keefan
I've always enjoyed Wood's contribution to the Stones, but I definitely prefer the Mick Taylor era. However, Mick T left of his own accord, and I've never understood all this pitting one against the other crap. Its not like the Stones fired Mick T so they could replace him with Woody.
I think that maybe Wood got carried away with the excesses and decadence of the Stones, and that affected his playing to a degree. He seems to have put partying ahead of growing as a musician at some point (but that's just my perception, I don't claim to know the man).
That said I still admire and like Woody, and enjoy his playing. I think he really stepped up on the last tour to help cover for Keith's problems playing. I love the Mick T. era the best, but I'm glad the Stones stuck together after he left - they are still the best at what they do.
I agree that Woody "stepped up" on the last tour. But what does that mean? The bar for him had gotten so low that we were all simply thrilled that he played more or less normally. What does it say about the state of the guitar players in the band when the best thing we can say about the guitar playing on the last tour was that one underachieving player covered for the other's declining skills. It's depressing.
Re: Taylor Vs Wood One final thought
Posted by:
lsbz
()
Date: February 18, 2011 08:55
Quote
Keefan
I think that maybe Wood got carried away with the excesses and decadence of the Stones, and that affected his playing to a degree.
I doubt that; it's his sound that has changed. But it's probably been a deliberate band policy. His Faces sound could take up too much space for Stones purposes.
Re: Taylor Vs Wood One final thought
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: February 18, 2011 10:47
Quote
AmsterdamnedQuote
DandelionPowderman
IMO, This is where this debate should stop, by listening to the two great guitar players shine together. They are both brilliant, especially on this track:
A nice funky product.
Great bassline.
The drums sounds like a sterile rhythm box to me.
To stop the dicussion here seems a bit far fetched to me, as your post above is average funky guitar playing imo, (a 7/9 chord always does the trick), yet the very best KR & RW ever did together, Rolling Stones included.
The overdub and chord change at 2.02 come in very handy,a welcome variation.
They should have explored this way of playing deeper by getting into more jazzy licks and chords imo, cause their harmonic "bluesy" limitations (keith in particular) doze me off on the long term.
The Stones were are a Rock /Blues band, and as far as this is concerned, Wood is no genuine blues /rock/slide player: merely an all round guitar player, very average at any style, yet a great entertainer. Taylor might be more limited,but really good at what he did.
A pity once musicians become famous,the automatic pilot creeps in, (MT
included), and too much posing (KR and RW) got involved.
Hats off though..,it was 1974..
You mean you haven't even heard this. AND you can't spot that the clean guitar is Taylor, not Keith? My point was - this is Taylor and Wood together making great music.
Re: Taylor Vs Wood One final thought
Posted by:
Corcovado
()
Date: February 18, 2011 11:47
Quote
71TeleQuote
CorcovadoQuote
71TeleQuote
Corcovado
Posted by: 71Tele ()
Date: February 17, 2011 00:40
Quote
Corcovado
Mick Taylor was one of many fine guitar players of his time - and I truly dig him for that - unfortunately he was just a fifth wheel in the band of the rolling stones. Woody, by never ever having his class as a guitar player, was simply much better match for the band.
Yeah, in every way except musically. I'll take a "fifth wheel" like Taylor any time, thank you very much.
Buddy, I knew you'll fully agree with me on that. Taylor's fantastic careers and achievements he made after he got his butt kicked out of the Stones definitely proove his unique musical abilities. It's such a pity that only you and me are aware of that.
That is a rather stupid statement, since Taylor's contributions in the Stones - not after - are what this is all about. Whatever he did or didn't do after leaving the group doesn't change one single note of what he did while he was a member, um, Buddy.
Also, he didn't get kicked out of the Stones. You might want to check your facts before making statements that easily disproved.
That Mick Taylor is one lucky guy. Not only he's got one great, knowing supporter and a true Stones insider in your person, I am sure you're gonna tell soon Keith Richards what a terrible mistake he made as he let Taylor go ;*)
Buddy, let's no more be unrelated to reality. Let's get used of thinking for a change.
Is English your second language? Just curious.
Hey native Globish speaker, please forgive me, I think I've sinned - these google translators are so sh!tty these days :*(
I see spelling is your great virtue - do you eventually have some other hidden talents, like digesting or something
Re: Taylor Vs Wood One final thought
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: February 18, 2011 16:31
Quote
CorcovadoQuote
71TeleQuote
CorcovadoQuote
71TeleQuote
Corcovado
Posted by: 71Tele ()
Date: February 17, 2011 00:40
Quote
Corcovado
Mick Taylor was one of many fine guitar players of his time - and I truly dig him for that - unfortunately he was just a fifth wheel in the band of the rolling stones. Woody, by never ever having his class as a guitar player, was simply much better match for the band.
Yeah, in every way except musically. I'll take a "fifth wheel" like Taylor any time, thank you very much.
Buddy, I knew you'll fully agree with me on that. Taylor's fantastic careers and achievements he made after he got his butt kicked out of the Stones definitely proove his unique musical abilities. It's such a pity that only you and me are aware of that.
That is a rather stupid statement, since Taylor's contributions in the Stones - not after - are what this is all about. Whatever he did or didn't do after leaving the group doesn't change one single note of what he did while he was a member, um, Buddy.
Also, he didn't get kicked out of the Stones. You might want to check your facts before making statements that easily disproved.
That Mick Taylor is one lucky guy. Not only he's got one great, knowing supporter and a true Stones insider in your person, I am sure you're gonna tell soon Keith Richards what a terrible mistake he made as he let Taylor go ;*)
Buddy, let's no more be unrelated to reality. Let's get used of thinking for a change.
Is English your second language? Just curious.
Hey native Globish speaker, please forgive me, I think I've sinned - these google translators are so sh!tty these days :*(
I see spelling is your great virtue - do you eventually have some other hidden talents, like digesting or something
I see you have stooped to the level of personal insults. I won't follow you there, so enjoy yourself. I asked about your English because your syntax was rather strange - not your speilling.
Re: Taylor Vs Wood One final thought
Posted by:
ablett
()
Date: February 18, 2011 16:32
For a 'final thought' it don't half drag on.....
Re: Taylor Vs Wood One final thought
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: February 18, 2011 17:33
It's way too thought about. It's only music, it's not heart surgery.
It only means one thing - money - and the Stones have made gazillions with both in the band. It is only rock'n'roll and nothing else.
It only means one thing - money - and the Stones have made gazillions with both in the band. It is only rock'n'roll and nothing else.
Re: Taylor Vs Wood One final thought
Posted by:
Corcovado
()
Date: February 18, 2011 23:33
Quote
71TeleQuote
CorcovadoQuote
71TeleQuote
CorcovadoQuote
71TeleQuote
Corcovado
Posted by: 71Tele ()
Date: February 17, 2011 00:40
Quote
Corcovado
Mick Taylor was one of many fine guitar players of his time - and I truly dig him for that - unfortunately he was just a fifth wheel in the band of the rolling stones. Woody, by never ever having his class as a guitar player, was simply much better match for the band.
Yeah, in every way except musically. I'll take a "fifth wheel" like Taylor any time, thank you very much.
Buddy, I knew you'll fully agree with me on that. Taylor's fantastic careers and achievements he made after he got his butt kicked out of the Stones definitely proove his unique musical abilities. It's such a pity that only you and me are aware of that.
That is a rather stupid statement, since Taylor's contributions in the Stones - not after - are what this is all about. Whatever he did or didn't do after leaving the group doesn't change one single note of what he did while he was a member, um, Buddy.
Also, he didn't get kicked out of the Stones. You might want to check your facts before making statements that easily disproved.
That Mick Taylor is one lucky guy. Not only he's got one great, knowing supporter and a true Stones insider in your person, I am sure you're gonna tell soon Keith Richards what a terrible mistake he made as he let Taylor go ;*)
Buddy, let's no more be unrelated to reality. Let's get used of thinking for a change.
Is English your second language? Just curious.
Hey native Globish speaker, please forgive me, I think I've sinned - these google translators are so sh!tty these days :*(
I see spelling is your great virtue - do you eventually have some other hidden talents, like digesting or something
I see you have stooped to the level of personal insults. I won't follow you there, so enjoy yourself. I asked about your English because your syntax was rather strange - not your speilling.
Hey Tele, please lets differ between the insults and jokes - or bad jokes, if you want.
Well, Mick Taylor came to the Stones as a highly aclaimed prodigy - and had to left them as a heavy heroin addict, what possibly saved his life. Keith and Mick have simply jaded him like they squeezed before him Brian Jones and Jimmy Miller; that neat and young guy wasn't up to keep the pace with those "big, ferocious and tough animals", that's really all what I wanted to say. Being a fine guitar player is sometimes simply not enough to persist in such a monky business.
Re: Taylor Vs Wood One final thought
Posted by:
Keefan
()
Date: February 19, 2011 08:38
Quote
lsbzQuote
Keefan
I think that maybe Wood got carried away with the excesses and decadence of the Stones, and that affected his playing to a degree.
I doubt that; it's his sound that has changed. But it's probably been a deliberate band policy. His Faces sound could take up too much space for Stones purposes.
I definitely see your point that he had room to stretch out and play more in the Faces. However, Wood supposedly had a $5000 a day coke habit in the early 80s, and that had to have affected his playing to an extent. I think the changes in Woody's playing over the years was likely due to a combination of less improvisational freedom and a tad bit too much substance abuse.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-02-19 09:13 by Keefan.
Re: Taylor Vs Wood One final thought
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: February 19, 2011 08:47
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
AmsterdamnedQuote
DandelionPowderman
IMO, This is where this debate should stop, by listening to the two great guitar players shine together. They are both brilliant, especially on this track:
A nice funky product.
Great bassline.
The drums sounds like a sterile rhythm box to me.
To stop the dicussion here seems a bit far fetched to me, as your post above is average funky guitar playing imo, (a 7/9 chord always does the trick), yet the very best KR & RW ever did together, Rolling Stones included.
The overdub and chord change at 2.02 come in very handy,a welcome variation.
They should have explored this way of playing deeper by getting into more jazzy licks and chords imo, cause their harmonic "bluesy" limitations (keith in particular) doze me off on the long term.
The Stones were are a Rock /Blues band, and as far as this is concerned, Wood is no genuine blues /rock/slide player: merely an all round guitar player, very average at any style, yet a great entertainer. Taylor might be more limited,but really good at what he did.
A pity once musicians become famous,the automatic pilot creeps in, (MT
included), and too much posing (KR and RW) got involved.
Hats off though..,it was 1974..
You mean you haven't even heard this. AND you can't spot that the clean guitar is Taylor, not Keith? My point was - this is Taylor and Wood together making great music.
Great trap.
..yes I listened to it before I made my previous post.Thanks for the lesson.I didn't check the musicians on the internet though, I was amazed by Keith "fast" playing already..
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2011-02-19 09:05 by Amsterdamned.
Re: Taylor Vs Wood One final thought
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: February 19, 2011 09:28
Quote
CorcovadoQuote
71TeleQuote
CorcovadoQuote
71TeleQuote
CorcovadoQuote
71TeleQuote
Corcovado
Posted by: 71Tele ()
Date: February 17, 2011 00:40
Quote
Corcovado
Mick Taylor was one of many fine guitar players of his time - and I truly dig him for that - unfortunately he was just a fifth wheel in the band of the rolling stones. Woody, by never ever having his class as a guitar player, was simply much better match for the band.
Yeah, in every way except musically. I'll take a "fifth wheel" like Taylor any time, thank you very much.
Buddy, I knew you'll fully agree with me on that. Taylor's fantastic careers and achievements he made after he got his butt kicked out of the Stones definitely proove his unique musical abilities. It's such a pity that only you and me are aware of that.
That is a rather stupid statement, since Taylor's contributions in the Stones - not after - are what this is all about. Whatever he did or didn't do after leaving the group doesn't change one single note of what he did while he was a member, um, Buddy.
Also, he didn't get kicked out of the Stones. You might want to check your facts before making statements that easily disproved.
That Mick Taylor is one lucky guy. Not only he's got one great, knowing supporter and a true Stones insider in your person, I am sure you're gonna tell soon Keith Richards what a terrible mistake he made as he let Taylor go ;*)
Buddy, let's no more be unrelated to reality. Let's get used of thinking for a change.
Is English your second language? Just curious.
Hey native Globish speaker, please forgive me, I think I've sinned - these google translators are so sh!tty these days :*(
I see spelling is your great virtue - do you eventually have some other hidden talents, like digesting or something
I see you have stooped to the level of personal insults. I won't follow you there, so enjoy yourself. I asked about your English because your syntax was rather strange - not your speilling.
Hey Tele, please lets differ between the insults and jokes - or bad jokes, if you want.
Well, Mick Taylor came to the Stones as a highly aclaimed prodigy - and had to left them as a heavy heroin addict, what possibly saved his life. Keith and Mick have simply jaded him like they squeezed before him Brian Jones and Jimmy Miller; that neat and young guy wasn't up to keep the pace with those "big, ferocious and tough animals", that's really all what I wanted to say. Being a fine guitar player is sometimes simply not enough to persist in such a monky business.
In that case sorry for my oversensitivity...No question Taylor's experience with the Stones was not altogether positive to him as a person, but I thought we were discussing musical differences.
Re: Taylor Vs Wood One final thought
Posted by:
straycatblues73
()
Date: February 19, 2011 18:53
no need for a final thought , this is THE most wanted and discussed subject and long may it continue !
Re: Taylor Vs Wood One final thought
Posted by:
stones78
()
Date: February 19, 2011 21:37
Quote
straycatblues73
no need for a final thought , this is THE most wanted and discussed subject and long may it continue !
It's actually rather tiresome. I know they had to fill the same role but they're so different as guitar players and musicians. And even then this is not a "let's compare their abilities", this has always been a "Wood can't play lead as Taylor" type of discussion.
This Thread has been closed
Online Users
Andrea82 , Domonkos , Doxa , EggersBand , frankotero , keefriffhards , marclaff , Marhsall , midimannz , More Hot Rocks , ohmercy61 , philrock90 , retired_dog , straycatuk , TeaAtThree , txussilvestre , WillInUK
Guests:
1394
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10