As disappointed as he may have been when he left the chapel due to not having been credited for his contributions musicwise, as disappointed he stayed solo-wise.

Higher powers are ruling!

Now, things that belong together come together again, WONDERFULL!

THAT's HOW STRONG LOVE IS!!!



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2014-02-14 23:45 by TimeWaitsforNooooOne.

you're free to compare with those songs played after '75

Yeah Baby
what else could he do?

Love hurts - when you know what I mean

Don´t know if he "upgrades" the Stones but surely his contribution is very welcome...it happened as it had to be.....

But no way he was disappointed to stay solo, imo, it was his decision and I think he also enjoyed it to some extend (even if he didn´t earn that much money)

Well - now it is like it had to be (may be fate!?)

You make it sound like the 50th anniversary celebration tour is going to last forever.

These bits of Taylor era live Stones prove it once again. They never sounded so good before or after him and Keith must have been pissed. You just bring up the rear while I handle the load up here boy is what it sounds like to me. Not something that would have sat too well with an egotist such as K.Richards seems to be, especially after all his own success with the band before Taylor came around. Too bad Keiths ego came before the musicall integrity of the band and he created enough tension for Mick T. to decide to run. Thats the way I see it anyway and of course your all welcome to attack now that I've said my piece.
I will say though that in Keiths defence few players were ever as good as M.Taylor was during his time with the Stones. And it was a futile battle if Keith thought he could even compete with Taylor at the time. One was probably one of the best lead blues/rock guitar player there's ever been, the other a very good solid ryhtum player that also wrote many of the best rock/pop tunes of his era. Like Brian before him trying to take on M.Jagger for top dog in the band, Keith just couldn't come close to Mick as a guitar player, and its a shame we'll never know what might have been, had Keith been more willing to take less of an upfront roll?

I'm not attacking your piece, I don't really understand it, to be honest--but in any case, I never saw Keith as wanting to compete with MT during their years together in the band, there seemed an entirely different dynamic going on there. Keith, after all, was in a position to choose what role he wanted to play in the band. And this "One was probably one of the best lead blues/rock guitar player there's ever been, the other a very good solid ryhtum player that also wrote many of the best rock/pop tunes of his era." was quite possibly exactly how he saw it.

Quote
Aquamarine
I'm not attacking your piece, I don't really understand it, to be honest--but in any case, I never saw Keith as wanting to compete with MT during their years together in the band, there seemed an entirely different dynamic going on there. Keith, after all, was in a position to choose what role he wanted to play in the band. And this "One was probably one of the best lead blues/rock guitar player there's ever been, the other a very good solid ryhtum player that also wrote many of the best rock/pop tunes of his era." was quite possibly exactly how he saw it.

Oh, and Keith being pissed--yeah, pissed that he left, not that he made the band sound so good.

Quote
rob51
These bits of Taylor era live Stones prove it once again. They never sounded so good before or after him and Keith must have been pissed. You just bring up the rear while I handle the load up here boy is what it sounds like to me. Not something that would have sat too well with an egotist such as K.Richards seems to be, especially after all his own success with the band before Taylor came around. Too bad Keiths ego came before the musicall integrity of the band and he created enough tension for Mick T. to decide to run. Thats the way I see it anyway and of course your all welcome to attack now that I've said my piece.
I will say though that in Keiths defence few players were ever as good as M.Taylor was during his time with the Stones. And it was a futile battle if Keith thought he could even compete with Taylor at the time. One was probably one of the best lead blues/rock guitar player there's ever been, the other a very good solid ryhtum player that also wrote many of the best rock/pop tunes of his era. Like Brian before him trying to take on M.Jagger for top dog in the band, Keith just couldn't come close to Mick as a guitar player, and its a shame we'll never know what might have been, had Keith been more willing to take less of an upfront roll?

That's the way I see it too. MT came in fresh and un-stoned so was a lot of the reason he was leagues better than Keith and took lead while Keith kicked back and could relax more. Take more nasty drugs due to less burden of responsibility. By the time MT left he was as wasted as Keith which has hurt him for years. Another Stones casualty like Gram and Jimmy Miller

Quote
rob51
These bits of Taylor era live Stones prove it once again. They never sounded so good before or after him and Keith must have been pissed. You just bring up the rear while I handle the load up here boy is what it sounds like to me. Not something that would have sat too well with an egotist such as K.Richards seems to be, especially after all his own success with the band before Taylor came around. Too bad Keiths ego came before the musicall integrity of the band and he created enough tension for Mick T. to decide to run. Thats the way I see it anyway and of course your all welcome to attack now that I've said my piece.
I will say though that in Keiths defence few players were ever as good as M.Taylor was during his time with the Stones. And it was a futile battle if Keith thought he could even compete with Taylor at the time. One was probably one of the best lead blues/rock guitar player there's ever been, the other a very good solid ryhtum player that also wrote many of the best rock/pop tunes of his era. Like Brian before him trying to take on M.Jagger for top dog in the band, Keith just couldn't come close to Mick as a guitar player, and its a shame we'll never know what might have been, had Keith been more willing to take less of an upfront roll?

+1

Quote
rob51
These bits of Taylor era live Stones prove it once again. They never sounded so good before or after him and Keith must have been pissed. You just bring up the rear while I handle the load up here boy is what it sounds like to me. Not something that would have sat too well with an egotist such as K.Richards seems to be, especially after all his own success with the band before Taylor came around. Too bad Keiths ego came before the musicall integrity of the band and he created enough tension for Mick T. to decide to run. Thats the way I see it anyway and of course your all welcome to attack now that I've said my piece.
I will say though that in Keiths defence few players were ever as good as M.Taylor was during his time with the Stones. And it was a futile battle if Keith thought he could even compete with Taylor at the time. One was probably one of the best lead blues/rock guitar player there's ever been, the other a very good solid ryhtum player that also wrote many of the best rock/pop tunes of his era. Like Brian before him trying to take on M.Jagger for top dog in the band, Keith just couldn't come close to Mick as a guitar player, and its a shame we'll never know what might have been, had Keith been more willing to take less of an upfront roll?

Well, I think Keith is a much better guitar player than Taylor and that they sounded better before.

Now, you may think this is 1000 miles in to the land of ridiculous, but Keith was a musician who came up with so many creative, brilliant hooks, riffs, solos and multi guitar arrangements that defined somgs and inspired millions of people.

You focus on Keith's ego, but why not on Taylor's?

Anyway, Taylor had no intent to stay in the band for a long time, he was always going to leave.

The Rolling Stones was everything to Keith, for Taylor is was just an interesting thing to be involved in for awhile.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-02-15 15:10 by His Majesty.

whether its an upgrade or not its still a great idea to have him back

Quote
Aquamarine

Quote
Aquamarine
I'm not attacking your piece, I don't really understand it, to be honest--but in any case, I never saw Keith as wanting to compete with MT during their years together in the band, there seemed an entirely different dynamic going on there. Keith, after all, was in a position to choose what role he wanted to play in the band. And this "One was probably one of the best lead blues/rock guitar player there's ever been, the other a very good solid ryhtum player that also wrote many of the best rock/pop tunes of his era." was quite possibly exactly how he saw it.

Oh, and Keith being pissed--yeah, pissed that he left, not that he made the band sound so good.

...this, and

whether its an upgrade or not its still a great idea to have him back

this.


I don't like the term upgrade, makes it sound like they are trading in the old beatup van for a shiny new Escalade...something I wish I could do, by the way. Mick Taylor's presence on the tour is a welcome addition, but to say it's an upgrade is somewhat of an insult to the old, reliable Stones machine.

Quote
rob51
These bits of Taylor era live Stones prove it once again. They never sounded so good before or after him and Keith must have been pissed. You just bring up the rear while I handle the load up here boy is what it sounds like to me. Not something that would have sat too well with an egotist such as K.Richards seems to be, especially after all his own success with the band before Taylor came around. Too bad Keiths ego came before the musicall integrity of the band and he created enough tension for Mick T. to decide to run. Thats the way I see it anyway and of course your all welcome to attack now that I've said my piece.
I will say though that in Keiths defence few players were ever as good as M.Taylor was during his time with the Stones. And it was a futile battle if Keith thought he could even compete with Taylor at the time. One was probably one of the best lead blues/rock guitar player there's ever been, the other a very good solid ryhtum player that also wrote many of the best rock/pop tunes of his era. Like Brian before him trying to take on M.Jagger for top dog in the band, Keith just couldn't come close to Mick as a guitar player, and its a shame we'll never know what might have been, had Keith been more willing to take less of an upfront roll?

I don't think there any factual basis for this. It seems to be the product of an overactive imagination? The division of roles between Keith and Mick T during the 69-73 period came about because of Keith's respect to Taylor's abilities as a soloist. It's evidence of Keith's self-confidence that he was willing to step back and be primarily a rhythm guitarist. And that confidence is not surprising, since Keith is a genius - you can't learn to write guitar parts as instantly memorable as those on Satisfaction, Street Fighting Man, Jumping Jack Flash, Honky Tonk Women, Gimme Shelter, Brown Sugar, Start Me Up, etc., etc. It's something that you are born with - otherwise a lot more people would do it, and game and ringtone companies would be paying someone else.

If Taylor had stay, I am truly convinced that the Stones would have died around 1977. The path taken by the Stones was the correct one, they are still around and pretty much relevant.

Quote
His Majesty

Well, I think Keith is a much better guitar player than Taylor and that they sounded better before.

Now, you may think this is 1000 miles in to the land of ridiculous, but Keith was a musician who came up with so many creative, brilliant hooks, riffs, solos and multi guitar arrangements that defined somgs and inspired millions of people.


Anyway, Taylor had no intent to stay in the band for a long time, he was always going to leave.

The Rolling Stones was everything to Keith, for Taylor is was just an interesting thing to be involved in for awhile.

Keith worked harder for sure, like you described it, but to compare them as guitarists makes no sense to me. When Taylor was with the Stones, the band had that different and unique sound, I think part of the boost came from Taylor's playing, on stage in particular. Being a good guitarist is more than just writing songs, coming up with riffs. It's also the style, feel and the aura of one's playing that influences fellow musicians + the audience, both on a conscious and subconscious level. In my opinion, Richards and Taylor got the best out of each other. The very fact that Taylor was only with them for 5 years, and Richards for 50 years should not be confused with talent, or being a better player having more ideas. Richards worked 40 years on the Stones project, Taylor only 5.That made the difference. As guitarists they both had their individual talents. Richards for the masses, Taylor for the more subtle and sensitive listeners.

Syle, feel, aura and influence, Keith had loads of that.

Quote
LuxuryStones
Richards for the masses, Taylor for the more subtle and sensitive listeners.

Liking Taylor means you like Taylor, nothing more, nothing less.


Anyway, the main factual, not opinion, based point of my post was that he was always going to leave. Taylor has told us so himself.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2014-02-16 15:27 by His Majesty.

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
His Majesty

Well, I think Keith is a much better guitar player than Taylor and that they sounded better before.

Now, you may think this is 1000 miles in to the land of ridiculous, but Keith was a musician who came up with so many creative, brilliant hooks, riffs, solos and multi guitar arrangements that defined somgs and inspired millions of people.


Anyway, Taylor had no intent to stay in the band for a long time, he was always going to leave.

The Rolling Stones was everything to Keith, for Taylor is was just an interesting thing to be involved in for awhile.

Keith worked harder for sure, like you described it, but to compare them as guitarists makes no sense to me. When Taylor was with the Stones, the band had that different and unique sound, I think part of the boost came from Taylor's playing, on stage in particular. Being a good guitarist is more than just writing songs, coming up with riffs. It's also the style, feel and the aura of one's playing that influences fellow musicians + the audience, both on a conscious and subconscious level. In my opinion, Richards and Taylor got the best out of each other. The very fact that Taylor was only with them for 5 years, and Richards for 50 years should not be confused with talent, or being a better player having more ideas. Richards worked 40 years on the Stones project, Taylor only 5.That made the difference. As guitarists they both had their individual talents. Richards for the masses, Taylor for the more subtle and sensitive listeners.

For me, that unique style, which was very much coloured by Keith´s guitar playing, disappeared with Taylor.

Taylor was a beautiful guitarist, but his style was more similar to other british blues and rock greats in the late 60s/early 70s - hence his dominating style made the Stones more similar to those other groups.

I have to add that there isn´t anything wrong with that, and that Taylor did lots of lovely things.

But the unique sound of the Stones, to be found on their previous albums and tours, disappeared.

Quote
His Majesty
Syle, feel, aura and influence, Keith had loads of that.

Quote
LuxuryStones
Richards for the masses, Taylor for the more subtle and sensitive listeners.

Liking Taylor means you like Taylor, nothing more, nothing less.

I do like Richards as well, but Taylor tickled my musical fantasy more.

Thinking Richards is a better guitarist means you like Richards better, nothing more, nothing less.

I think this debate is more about the effect of a guitarist´s playing, than who´s the better player.

Liking the effect, or the direction, a guitar player is driving the band in - is a matter of taste - cheers

Everything in music is a matter of taste.

Quote
LuxuryStones

I do like Richards as well...

Sure.

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
His Majesty
Syle, feel, aura and influence, Keith had loads of that.

Quote
LuxuryStones
Richards for the masses, Taylor for the more subtle and sensitive listeners.

Liking Taylor means you like Taylor, nothing more, nothing less.

I do like Richards as well, but Taylor tickled my musical fantasy more.

Thinking Richards is a better guitarist means you like Richards better, nothing more, nothing less.

Keith has invented lots of great riffs, but as a guitar player he has never been that good. I remember I was a big fan of his when Taylor wasn't in the band yet, particularly because of the fact he was a guitar underdog.
When Taylor arrived, the band got another great voice, which resulted in a tremendous melodic upgrade. These factors together, Richards manly way of (power)playing, Taylor's extremely melodic and soulful way of playing, the great rhythmic heart of the band and Jagger's voice made the band an unbeatable monster on stage during the 69-73 years. A level never reached before or after by nobody.

I'm afraid we are in the minority, Kleer.

Quote
LuxuryStones
I'm afraid we are in the minority, Kleer.

No problem, Luxury. Lesser is more.

Quote
LuxuryStones
I'm afraid we are in the minority, Kleer.

You clearly aren't.

Quote
kleermaker

Keith has invented lots of great riffs, but as a guitar player he has never been that good. I remember I was a big fan of his when Taylor wasn't in the band yet, particularly because of the fact he was a guitar underdog.
When Taylor arrived, the band got another great voice, which resulted in a tremendous melodic upgrade. These factors together, Richards manly way of (power)playing, Taylor's extremely melodic and soulful way of playing, the great rhythmic heart of the band and Jagger's voice made the band an unbeatable monster on stage during the 69-73 years. A level never reached before or after by nobody.

Keith's creativity, distinctiveness and focus made him so good.

The thing of Taylor being so melodic and soulful is being overstated. You never seem to acknowledge some of that playing is just Taylor running through stock phrases and/or running through his latest worked out licks on a particular scale etc. There is plenty of coasting, buying time and widdle - ie just playing without really saying anything from him.

Maybe you don't hear it, but every musician does it. Taylor is no exception.

Keith, Brian and Ronnie didn't have the technical pwrowess to fall back on like Taylor did so it's kinda more obvious when they aren't fully engaged etc.

In a way there's not that much difference between Taylor connecting or coasting, the technical level stays much the same.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-02-16 20:01 by His Majesty.

Quote
His Majesty

The thing of Taylor being so melodic and soulful is being overstated. You never seem to acknowledge some of that playing is just Taylor running through stock phrases and/or running through his latest worked out licks on a particular scale etc. There is plenty of coasting, buying time and widdle - ie just playing without really saying anything from him.

Maybe you don't hear it, but every musician does it.

Nope, I know and could mention quite a lot of musicians that appreciate Taylor not being on the "square side" of noodling, him running through the stock phrases etc.
If you don't hear the beauty of his melodic lines, and that's only a part of his forte, well, so be it -, yes he had his bloopers, who hasn't ...and it's a matter of taste.
I pick him out of a zillion of other players. Taylor is trademark Taylor. Just like Keith.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-02-16 20:12 by LuxuryStones.

Not many players have a trade mark sound. I´d say Keith has that even more than most guitarists. You know it´s the Rolling Stones playing just by listening to a Berry lick, a phrasing or a chord.

Why is he an "underdog", kleerie, and what does that mean?

Keith is almost always in the top 5 of the world´s greatest players (yeah, I know, those lists are stupid!). But you won´t end up there if you´re underrated/underappreciated/an underdog?

Do you mean he´s a poor guitar player?