Tell Me :
Talk
I think you're right that Keith needed to feel better about Taylor leaving, so he projected a lot of negativity backwards, but how many great records did he make with Ronnie, exactly?
I would say one as well. Ronnie was only partially involved with Black & Blue and Tattoo You (which ironically had both Ronnie and Taylor on it). I think a lot of what Keith has thought of as he and Ronnie being ideal guitar mates has more to do with what he calls in his book "hanging" than with music.
Keith sums up what he thinks about MT at pages 270-1 of his book. I see nothing but sweet words of sincere admiration there. Where is all the negativity that you refer to in all your posts?
C
p.s. On my book Keith did two 1/2 superb records with Taylor (Sticky and Exile + 1/2 IORR) and two 1/2 superb records with Wood (Some Girls and Undercover + the half of Tattoo You with Ronnie).
You really think IORR is better than GHS? If you are counting Tattoo as a "plus" for Ronnie, it also has to be a plus for Taylor.
Keith has complained about Taylor many times, calling him a "cold fish", among other things. His complaints seem mainly to do with his personality, and alsways seem of the "he was a great player, BUT..." variety.
yeah, but given the organic nature to how many of their songs come into being, you can't discount the contributions each made to the "song-writing." there are plenty of tracks which clearly were at least co-authored by either wood or taylor, for which neither rec'd a credit...
yeah, well once in a blue moon i get it right. i'll check the sky later tonight just to be sure...
No good will come from that.
I don't like to keep the quotes so piled up as I usually edit them down but I thought this had merit. The part I don't understand is 100 Year Ago is a fanfuckingtastic song. What the hell is Keith's problem with that song? And does that translate to other songs as well? What a miserable grump he was then and is now! Goddamn!
1971. IMO, those shows weren't good at all.
Taylor did not receive credit because he did not write songs. Wood received credit for 20-odd songs, because he wrote 20-odd songs.
I can perfectly understand why a lead player like Taylor is less fun for Richards to work with in the studio. You don't have to wait for Taylor to play any great rhythm track, because he wasn't a great rhythm player. You want him for his lead guitar, and to all accounts Taylor very much was a one- or two-taker. So if you're Keith Richards, working for days and days on a song, a lead player like Richards is not what you need, unless that lead player is a great song writer. And that, to all accounts, Taylor wasn't, or he couldn't write with Richards.
There is another story by the way, by Glyn Johns, that Taylor had a habit of playing way too loud in the studio and that this could get Richards mad. This was around the IORR recordings.
Mathijs
DP, I can not agree with that at all. I just wish there were more well recorded boots from that tour.
Me too. But what we have from the 1971 tour is nowhere near the stuff from 1969, 1972 and maybe 1973, imo.
But we do have good recordings from Leeds And Marquee. Those shows were ragged and there is also something about the sound (I'm not talking boot-quality here) I don't like there, compared to the shows from the other tours.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-04-19 12:57 by DandelionPowderman.
Oh. Ha ha. That's right. I forgot that little part.
From what I understand, he didn't like the keyboard-heavy direction the songs took after Exile. Although some of them were great, I'm not disagreeing with him.
100 Years Ago has splendid guitar work from Taylor, but it's not "fanfvcktastic", imo
It is what history has made it: a decent half-forgotten song, hailed by some hardcore stones fans.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-04-19 15:24 by DandelionPowderman.
I agree. And I like 100 Years ago a lot, I've even played it a few times with my former band. My point was, when the Stones's history is to be written some day, it won't be 100 Years Ago they'll write about.
dammit - don't spoil the ending for me - i haven't read it yet...
Well, Richards did replace Taylor's rhythm guitar on Little Queenie and possibly on Carol....
But Taylor always had an awkward timing in his rhythm playing, and he even doesn't seem too fond of it, as live he would on most tracks play little licks and riffs and (counter) melodies instead of rhythm. Listen to his approach of rhythm guitar on Star Star, the Carol outtake from Gimme Shelter, and the Berry numbers of the Winter Tour.
I just don't think it was his forte. Never was, and still isn't.
Mathijs
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Taylor Live/Studio
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: April 18, 2011 19:34
Quote
neylon79
I always look at it like this- Taylor quit, no one wanted him to leave the band. But once he was gone, I'd think Keith started focusing on the negative things about Taylor as a way to accept the loss. Then when he got Ronnie who he gelled with and made some great records with it was even easier to look back on Taylor's style and say it "didn't fit." Even though they continue to play songs from the Taylor era, and as far as I know there are no stories of Keith wanting to fire/replace Taylor during those years because he didn't fit.
I think you're right that Keith needed to feel better about Taylor leaving, so he projected a lot of negativity backwards, but how many great records did he make with Ronnie, exactly?
Re: Taylor Live/Studio
Posted by:
neylon79
()
Date: April 18, 2011 19:46
Well, I guess just one, but I'm sure Keith would say at least Black and Blue and Tattoo You also, just saying they were Ronnie's also.
Re: Taylor Live/Studio
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: April 18, 2011 19:56
Quote
neylon79
Well, I guess just one, but I'm sure Keith would say at least Black and Blue and Tattoo You also, just saying they were Ronnie's also.
I would say one as well. Ronnie was only partially involved with Black & Blue and Tattoo You (which ironically had both Ronnie and Taylor on it). I think a lot of what Keith has thought of as he and Ronnie being ideal guitar mates has more to do with what he calls in his book "hanging" than with music.
Re: Taylor Live/Studio
Posted by:
liddas
()
Date: April 18, 2011 20:41
Quote
71TeleQuote
neylon79
I always look at it like this- Taylor quit, no one wanted him to leave the band. But once he was gone, I'd think Keith started focusing on the negative things about Taylor as a way to accept the loss. Then when he got Ronnie who he gelled with and made some great records with it was even easier to look back on Taylor's style and say it "didn't fit." Even though they continue to play songs from the Taylor era, and as far as I know there are no stories of Keith wanting to fire/replace Taylor during those years because he didn't fit.
I think you're right that Keith needed to feel better about Taylor leaving, so he projected a lot of negativity backwards, but how many great records did he make with Ronnie, exactly?
Keith sums up what he thinks about MT at pages 270-1 of his book. I see nothing but sweet words of sincere admiration there. Where is all the negativity that you refer to in all your posts?
C
p.s. On my book Keith did two 1/2 superb records with Taylor (Sticky and Exile + 1/2 IORR) and two 1/2 superb records with Wood (Some Girls and Undercover + the half of Tattoo You with Ronnie).
Re: Taylor Live/Studio
Posted by:
Green Lady
()
Date: April 18, 2011 20:53
To get back to the original question: there's a quote from Keith somewhere to the effect that Mick Taylor's studio solos were wonderful the first time he played them - but if that take wasn't right in some other way, you had to wait until tomorrow to get his "first time" solo again. That would fit in very well with him being a great spontaneous, intuitive player on stage, but not being very happy with the sheer repetitive slog that Keith is known to go in for in the studio - playing it again and again until it comes out right.
I think tatters was right - it's not the results, it's the trouble it took to get them.
I think tatters was right - it's not the results, it's the trouble it took to get them.
Re: Taylor Live/Studio
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: April 18, 2011 21:24
Quote
liddasQuote
71TeleQuote
neylon79
I always look at it like this- Taylor quit, no one wanted him to leave the band. But once he was gone, I'd think Keith started focusing on the negative things about Taylor as a way to accept the loss. Then when he got Ronnie who he gelled with and made some great records with it was even easier to look back on Taylor's style and say it "didn't fit." Even though they continue to play songs from the Taylor era, and as far as I know there are no stories of Keith wanting to fire/replace Taylor during those years because he didn't fit.
I think you're right that Keith needed to feel better about Taylor leaving, so he projected a lot of negativity backwards, but how many great records did he make with Ronnie, exactly?
Keith sums up what he thinks about MT at pages 270-1 of his book. I see nothing but sweet words of sincere admiration there. Where is all the negativity that you refer to in all your posts?
C
p.s. On my book Keith did two 1/2 superb records with Taylor (Sticky and Exile + 1/2 IORR) and two 1/2 superb records with Wood (Some Girls and Undercover + the half of Tattoo You with Ronnie).
You really think IORR is better than GHS? If you are counting Tattoo as a "plus" for Ronnie, it also has to be a plus for Taylor.
Keith has complained about Taylor many times, calling him a "cold fish", among other things. His complaints seem mainly to do with his personality, and alsways seem of the "he was a great player, BUT..." variety.
Re: Taylor Live/Studio
Posted by:
MCDDTLC
()
Date: April 18, 2011 22:45
Latest comment from Keith on Taylor was: If I had my way, Taylor would still be in the band.... Think Keith still regards him very well in the guitar playing
department. Hope Keith pushed the issue about a invite back in for the next tour!!!
MLC
department. Hope Keith pushed the issue about a invite back in for the next tour!!!
MLC
Re: Taylor Live/Studio
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: April 18, 2011 23:14
Taylor joined when the song writing was great, he didn't make them great. Ronnie joined when it was getting stale, he didn't make them stale.
This pissing match about who played on more classics is just silly.
This pissing match about who played on more classics is just silly.
Re: Taylor Live/Studio
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: April 18, 2011 23:35
Quote
His Majesty
Taylor joined when the song writing was great, he didn't make them great. Ronnie joined when it was getting stale, he didn't make them stale.
This pissing match about who played on more classics is just silly.
yeah, but given the organic nature to how many of their songs come into being, you can't discount the contributions each made to the "song-writing." there are plenty of tracks which clearly were at least co-authored by either wood or taylor, for which neither rec'd a credit...
Re: Taylor Live/Studio
Posted by:
MCDDTLC
()
Date: April 19, 2011 00:31
Spot-on Tod!!! and I don't agree with Majesty's comment on Taylor not making them great.. he sure-as-hell made them great- LIVE!!!! at a time when the music comming off the stage mattered, now just a "show" as it is now....
MLC
MLC
Re: Taylor Live/Studio
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: April 19, 2011 00:34
Quote
MCDDTLC
Spot-on Tod!!! and I don't agree with Majesty's comment on Taylor not making them great.. he sure-as-hell made them great- LIVE!!!! at a time when the music comming off the stage mattered, now just a "show" as it is now....
MLC
yeah, well once in a blue moon i get it right. i'll check the sky later tonight just to be sure...
Re: Taylor Live/Studio
Posted by:
ryanpow
()
Date: April 19, 2011 00:43
whoops- a- daisy, wrong thread
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-04-19 00:44 by ryanpow.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-04-19 00:44 by ryanpow.
Re: Taylor Live/Studio
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: April 19, 2011 00:49
The Rolling Stones were great, exciting, lifeless and dull before Taylor joined, whilst he was with them and after he left both live and in the studio.
Regardless the thing about who played on more classics is silly.
Regardless the thing about who played on more classics is silly.
Re: Taylor Live/Studio
Posted by:
MCDDTLC
()
Date: April 19, 2011 00:52
Majesty - when were they - lifeless & dull when Taylor was on board?
just wondering - examples - for you ??
MLC
just wondering - examples - for you ??
MLC
Re: Taylor Live/Studio
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: April 19, 2011 01:18
Quote
MCDDTLC
Majesty - when were they - lifeless & dull when Taylor was on board?
just wondering - examples - for you ??
MLC
No good will come from that.
Re: Taylor Live/Studio
Posted by:
MCDDTLC
()
Date: April 19, 2011 01:24
Just wondering.... not too many times I can think of that weren't special
from 1969 thru 1974... but I guess that's just me seeing that lineup perform live
(3 - times)
MLC
from 1969 thru 1974... but I guess that's just me seeing that lineup perform live
(3 - times)
MLC
Re: Taylor Live/Studio
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: April 19, 2011 04:13
Quote
MCDDTLC
Just wondering.... not too many times I can think of that weren't special
from 1969 thru 1974... but I guess that's just me seeing that lineup perform live
(3 - times)
MLC
Re: Taylor Live/Studio
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: April 19, 2011 04:19
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
skipstoneQuote
71TeleQuote
soulsurvivor1
Mick T. felt upset that many of his studio playing was lost in the mix. I have a bootleg that has a copy of an article by Keith Richards ex guitar builder/tech in the mide 70s. He states that Mick T. became very angry during the mixing for the Its Only Rock N Roll album. The guitar builder states that Mick T. had worked out a very long solo for "Time Waits For No One", at the final mix down Mick & Keith gave the engineer the signal to fade out just as Mick Taylor's lead got going. Mick T. stormed out of the control room. He then announced his departure from the band at the infamous Faces party.
Soulsurvivor
Hadn't heard that one. I have also read that he claimed some of his best playing was edited out of Exile (or rather his wife claimed this). I am usually very "pro-Taylor" here, but I will say this: Mick & Keith served as "editors" for the Stones' recordings, and I think in the way they used his parts they got the best of Taylor's contributions - even if that meant leaving some of Taylor's best playing on the control room floor. That can be frustrating as a musician, but in a band context, the parts should serve the song, not the other way around.
That is absolutely correct, Tele! I can relate to that having recorded in Franklin, TN and on one song, a country song, which we had played live a gazillion times, I came to the conclusion that what I played live did not serve the song in a studio. It just didn't work. I suggested pedal steel as I thought that would be best (and classic, of course) but instead they found someone that can play that kind of Fender Telecaster country solo bendy plucky lead guitar playing - and it turned out fantastic. It served the song.
If that thing about TWFNO id true, his solo was much longer or whatever, then it is - I'd like to hear it. But the mix and the LP version (and edit version) are great the way they are. So yeah, the mixing and editing is what serves the song in the end. There's got to be some control on when things stop etc. Pull the reins in so to speak. Just like on Emotional Rescue, there is guitar answering the sax but it's buried deep in the mix - the sax is the main deal.
I don't understand the thing about 100 Years Ago. Is there a quote or video or something? What did Keith say?
Keith said something about musicians in the Stones drew the band in unwanted directions, and used 100 Years Ago as an example. The interview was from 1973, don't remember from where...
I don't like to keep the quotes so piled up as I usually edit them down but I thought this had merit. The part I don't understand is 100 Year Ago is a fanfuckingtastic song. What the hell is Keith's problem with that song? And does that translate to other songs as well? What a miserable grump he was then and is now! Goddamn!
Re: Taylor Live/Studio
Posted by:
Smokey
()
Date: April 19, 2011 08:06
He's not on it!Quote
skipstone
What the hell is Keith's problem with that song?
Re: Taylor Live/Studio
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: April 19, 2011 10:36
Quote
MCDDTLC
Majesty - when were they - lifeless & dull when Taylor was on board?
just wondering - examples - for you ??
MLC
1971. IMO, those shows weren't good at all.
Re: Taylor Live/Studio
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: April 19, 2011 10:46
Quote
StonesTodQuote
His Majesty
Taylor joined when the song writing was great, he didn't make them great. Ronnie joined when it was getting stale, he didn't make them stale.
This pissing match about who played on more classics is just silly.
yeah, but given the organic nature to how many of their songs come into being, you can't discount the contributions each made to the "song-writing." there are plenty of tracks which clearly were at least co-authored by either wood or taylor, for which neither rec'd a credit...
Taylor did not receive credit because he did not write songs. Wood received credit for 20-odd songs, because he wrote 20-odd songs.
I can perfectly understand why a lead player like Taylor is less fun for Richards to work with in the studio. You don't have to wait for Taylor to play any great rhythm track, because he wasn't a great rhythm player. You want him for his lead guitar, and to all accounts Taylor very much was a one- or two-taker. So if you're Keith Richards, working for days and days on a song, a lead player like Richards is not what you need, unless that lead player is a great song writer. And that, to all accounts, Taylor wasn't, or he couldn't write with Richards.
There is another story by the way, by Glyn Johns, that Taylor had a habit of playing way too loud in the studio and that this could get Richards mad. This was around the IORR recordings.
Mathijs
Re: Taylor Live/Studio
Posted by:
Palace Revolution 2000
()
Date: April 19, 2011 12:36
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
MCDDTLC
Majesty - when were they - lifeless & dull when Taylor was on board?
just wondering - examples - for you ??
MLC
1971. IMO, those shows weren't good at all.
DP, I can not agree with that at all. I just wish there were more well recorded boots from that tour.
Re: Taylor Live/Studio
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: April 19, 2011 12:55
Quote
Palace Revolution 2000Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
MCDDTLC
Majesty - when were they - lifeless & dull when Taylor was on board?
just wondering - examples - for you ??
MLC
1971. IMO, those shows weren't good at all.
DP, I can not agree with that at all. I just wish there were more well recorded boots from that tour.
Me too. But what we have from the 1971 tour is nowhere near the stuff from 1969, 1972 and maybe 1973, imo.
But we do have good recordings from Leeds And Marquee. Those shows were ragged and there is also something about the sound (I'm not talking boot-quality here) I don't like there, compared to the shows from the other tours.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-04-19 12:57 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: Taylor Live/Studio
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: April 19, 2011 15:10
Quote
SmokeyHe's not on it!Quote
skipstone
What the hell is Keith's problem with that song?
Oh. Ha ha. That's right. I forgot that little part.
Re: Taylor Live/Studio
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: April 19, 2011 15:23
Quote
skipstoneQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
skipstoneQuote
71TeleQuote
soulsurvivor1
Mick T. felt upset that many of his studio playing was lost in the mix. I have a bootleg that has a copy of an article by Keith Richards ex guitar builder/tech in the mide 70s. He states that Mick T. became very angry during the mixing for the Its Only Rock N Roll album. The guitar builder states that Mick T. had worked out a very long solo for "Time Waits For No One", at the final mix down Mick & Keith gave the engineer the signal to fade out just as Mick Taylor's lead got going. Mick T. stormed out of the control room. He then announced his departure from the band at the infamous Faces party.
Soulsurvivor
Hadn't heard that one. I have also read that he claimed some of his best playing was edited out of Exile (or rather his wife claimed this). I am usually very "pro-Taylor" here, but I will say this: Mick & Keith served as "editors" for the Stones' recordings, and I think in the way they used his parts they got the best of Taylor's contributions - even if that meant leaving some of Taylor's best playing on the control room floor. That can be frustrating as a musician, but in a band context, the parts should serve the song, not the other way around.
That is absolutely correct, Tele! I can relate to that having recorded in Franklin, TN and on one song, a country song, which we had played live a gazillion times, I came to the conclusion that what I played live did not serve the song in a studio. It just didn't work. I suggested pedal steel as I thought that would be best (and classic, of course) but instead they found someone that can play that kind of Fender Telecaster country solo bendy plucky lead guitar playing - and it turned out fantastic. It served the song.
If that thing about TWFNO id true, his solo was much longer or whatever, then it is - I'd like to hear it. But the mix and the LP version (and edit version) are great the way they are. So yeah, the mixing and editing is what serves the song in the end. There's got to be some control on when things stop etc. Pull the reins in so to speak. Just like on Emotional Rescue, there is guitar answering the sax but it's buried deep in the mix - the sax is the main deal.
I don't understand the thing about 100 Years Ago. Is there a quote or video or something? What did Keith say?
Keith said something about musicians in the Stones drew the band in unwanted directions, and used 100 Years Ago as an example. The interview was from 1973, don't remember from where...
I don't like to keep the quotes so piled up as I usually edit them down but I thought this had merit. The part I don't understand is 100 Year Ago is a fanfuckingtastic song. What the hell is Keith's problem with that song? And does that translate to other songs as well? What a miserable grump he was then and is now! Goddamn!
From what I understand, he didn't like the keyboard-heavy direction the songs took after Exile. Although some of them were great, I'm not disagreeing with him.
100 Years Ago has splendid guitar work from Taylor, but it's not "fanfvcktastic", imo
It is what history has made it: a decent half-forgotten song, hailed by some hardcore stones fans.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-04-19 15:24 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: Taylor Live/Studio
Posted by:
marcovandereijk
()
Date: April 19, 2011 16:14
I've gotta admit that I like the song 100 years ago. Not only because of the splendid
guitar solo by Mick Taylor, but I also think it is is wonderfully constructed with those
changes of tempo and melodies. I tend to disagree that the band was drawn in unwanted
directions. I want it! But isn't that one of the aspects that makes us love them Stones,
they went into a lot of different directions, and many times they brought us a nice surprise.
You can call it decent half-forgotten songs, but to me those are the cherries on the cake!
guitar solo by Mick Taylor, but I also think it is is wonderfully constructed with those
changes of tempo and melodies. I tend to disagree that the band was drawn in unwanted
directions. I want it! But isn't that one of the aspects that makes us love them Stones,
they went into a lot of different directions, and many times they brought us a nice surprise.
You can call it decent half-forgotten songs, but to me those are the cherries on the cake!
Re: Taylor Live/Studio
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: April 19, 2011 16:36
Quote
marcovandereijk
I've gotta admit that I like the song 100 years ago. Not only because of the splendid
guitar solo by Mick Taylor, but I also think it is is wonderfully constructed with those
changes of tempo and melodies. I tend to disagree that the band was drawn in unwanted
directions. I want it! But isn't that one of the aspects that makes us love them Stones,
they went into a lot of different directions, and many times they brought us a nice surprise.
You can call it decent half-forgotten songs, but to me those are the cherries on the cake!
I agree. And I like 100 Years ago a lot, I've even played it a few times with my former band. My point was, when the Stones's history is to be written some day, it won't be 100 Years Ago they'll write about.
Re: Taylor Live/Studio
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: April 19, 2011 17:32
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
marcovandereijk
I've gotta admit that I like the song 100 years ago. Not only because of the splendid
guitar solo by Mick Taylor, but I also think it is is wonderfully constructed with those
changes of tempo and melodies. I tend to disagree that the band was drawn in unwanted
directions. I want it! But isn't that one of the aspects that makes us love them Stones,
they went into a lot of different directions, and many times they brought us a nice surprise.
You can call it decent half-forgotten songs, but to me those are the cherries on the cake!
I agree. And I like 100 Years ago a lot, I've even played it a few times with my former band. My point was, when the Stones's history is to be written some day, it won't be 100 Years Ago they'll write about.
dammit - don't spoil the ending for me - i haven't read it yet...
Re: Taylor Live/Studio
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: April 19, 2011 17:37
quote Mathjis "Taylor wasn't a great rhythm player"
There you go again... Maybe my copy of Ya Yas is different from yours.
There you go again... Maybe my copy of Ya Yas is different from yours.
Re: Taylor Live/Studio
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: April 19, 2011 17:45
Quote
71Tele
quote Mathjis "Taylor wasn't a great rhythm player"
There you go again... Maybe my copy of Ya Yas is different from yours.
Well, Richards did replace Taylor's rhythm guitar on Little Queenie and possibly on Carol....
But Taylor always had an awkward timing in his rhythm playing, and he even doesn't seem too fond of it, as live he would on most tracks play little licks and riffs and (counter) melodies instead of rhythm. Listen to his approach of rhythm guitar on Star Star, the Carol outtake from Gimme Shelter, and the Berry numbers of the Winter Tour.
I just don't think it was his forte. Never was, and still isn't.
Mathijs
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Antonio218 , DandelionPowderman , harjen , hj3009 , maxgb , NilsHolgersson , P@py , smokeydusky , Spud , Stonesfan2146 , Topi , wolundamo , woody
Guests:
1776
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10