I understand the taylor years are the stones at their peak, but dont you think 69-73 would have still been the stones at their peak whether it was wooddy or brian during the same period?

Quote
melillo
SO YOU GUYS JUST WANNA TOSS RONNIE JUST LIKE THAT? BUMMER

Ronnie fans so afraid he will be replaced. I don't see that anybody suggested tossing anybody. It's not that they couldn't use the additional guitar at this stage. Having all the living members of the Rolling Stones perform makes sense musically and as a marketing edge. It is perfectly appropriate. Mick Taylor has more than paid for his quitting with his 35 years in the wilderness (except for exactly two appearances). Time to bring him back into the warm embrace of the band, and the fans.

Quote
melillo
I understand the taylor years are the stones at their peak, but dont you think 69-73 would have still been the stones at their peak whether it was wooddy or brian during the same period?

No. Especially Woody.

then what would have been their peak period?

Quote
melillo
I understand the taylor years are the stones at their peak, but dont you think 69-73 would have still been the stones at their peak whether it was wooddy or brian during the same period?

I think with another good lead blues-based player (Clapton, Peter Green), Sticky and Exile and the early 70's tours wouldn't have been that much different and they would have been fantastic as well.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
melillo
SO YOU GUYS JUST WANNA TOSS RONNIE JUST LIKE THAT? BUMMER

Ronnie fans so afraid he will be replaced. I don't see that anybody suggested tossing anybody. It's not that they couldn't use the additional guitar at this stage. Having all the living members of the Rolling Stones perform makes sense musically and as a marketing edge. It is perfectly appropriate. Mick Taylor has more than paid for his quitting with his 35 years in the wilderness (except for exactly two appearances). Time to bring him back into the warm embrace of the band, and the fans.

yes of course if its done that way it would be great to have taylor back without a doubt

Quote
stones78

Quote
melillo
I understand the taylor years are the stones at their peak, but dont you think 69-73 would have still been the stones at their peak whether it was wooddy or brian during the same period?

I think with another good lead blues-based player (Clapton, Peter Green), Sticky and Exile and the early 70's tours wouldn't have been that much different and they would have been fantastic as well.

Clapton and Green were too heavy handed to adapt to all the different styles in the Stones. They (especially Clapton) are not really "group" players. I think people miss that about Taylor a lot. Think of Taylor more along the lines of Charlie and Bill. That is he subsumed his own ego in interest of making the songs better. Clapton wouldn't have lasted two years in the Stones, about the longest he lasted in any other group. The idea of Taylor as just a blues technician does not do the work he did with the Stones justice. You might say "well, what has he done since then?" But that proves my point: Taylor needed the template and structure of the Stones and their songs to excel (just as he forced them up a notch or two musically). Without that structure, taylor indeed reverted to basically a not-very-interesting blues guitarist.

Quote
melillo
I understand the taylor years are the stones at their peak, but dont you think 69-73 would have still been the stones at their peak whether it was wooddy or brian during the same period?

The records may have been as good, but the live performances would have suffered without Taylor.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
stones78

Quote
melillo
I understand the taylor years are the stones at their peak, but dont you think 69-73 would have still been the stones at their peak whether it was wooddy or brian during the same period?

I think with another good lead blues-based player (Clapton, Peter Green), Sticky and Exile and the early 70's tours wouldn't have been that much different and they would have been fantastic as well.

Clapton and Green were too heavy handed to adapt to all the different styles in the Stones. They (especially Clapton) are not really "group" players. I think people miss that about Taylor a lot. Think of Taylor more along the lines of Charlie and Bill. That is he subsumed his own ego in interest of making the songs better. Clapton wouldn't have lasted two years in the Stones, about the longest he lasted in any other group. The idea of Taylor as just a blues technician does not do the work he did with the Stones justice. You might say "well, what has he done since then?" But that proves my point: Taylor needed the template and structure of the Stones and their songs to excel (just as he forced them up a notch or two musically). Without that structure, taylor indeed reverted to basically a not-very-interesting blues guitarist.

Very well stated, Tele, I couldn't agree with you more.

Quote
Shawn20

Quote
melillo
I understand the taylor years are the stones at their peak, but dont you think 69-73 would have still been the stones at their peak whether it was wooddy or brian during the same period?

The records may have been as good, but the live performances would have suffered without Taylor.

without a doubt but i still think it would have been considered their peak period

Quote
71Tele
Clapton and Green were too heavy handed to adapt to all the different styles in the Stones. They (especially Clapton) are not really "group" players. I think people miss that about Taylor a lot. Think of Taylor more along the lines of Charlie and Bill. That is he subsumed his own ego in interest of making the songs better. Clapton wouldn't have lasted two years in the Stones, about the longest he lasted in any other group. The idea of Taylor as just a blues technician does not do the work he did with the Stones justice. You might say "well, what has he done since then?" But that proves my point: Taylor needed the template and structure of the Stones and their songs to excel (just as he forced them up a notch or two musically). Without that structure, taylor indeed reverted to basically a not-very-interesting blues guitarist.

Yes, I know Clapton at the time probably wouldn't have lasted two weeks with another egomaniacal junkie. Maybe a bad example, but strictly musically speaking, as far as his style of guitar goes, he too would have served the Stones' music as well as Taylor, he could be pretty melodic in the context of great songs apart from his blues playing. But of course, too much a star and too much of an ego at the time.

Does a bear shit in the woods ?

Agree on Clapton comments as well. Remember, he was already "God" in '68. Plus, Clapper does not have the whirling dervish thing that MT crafted around '73. No where close.

I am not one to glamorize or go in for nostalgia for its own sake, but MT took the band to WAY new heights. Do yourself a favor, go listen/watch to Ladies and Gentlemen, Philly Special, Brussels Affair, Sydney '73...h3ll even Ya-Yas. Even on a personal level, I like the tension that MT brought to the band: MJ was obviously inspired by him, KR was a lil' musically intimidated by him, yet the young MT stood up very well to the imposing Glimmer Twins, who you might recall totally crushed BJ psychologically. Just watch MT's focus when playing live; he's so singularly confident, yet tuned in with the group, not a prima dona trip the late BJ, who did indeed color early Stones' songs nicely. MT is just in a different class as a guitarist, and his focus was where it should have been: serving up the goods and leaving the glamour for MJ and to a lesser degree KR.

I think if MT were more mature, and was able to stand up for himself in his musical contributions to the group (ie. get a laywer), he could have made it. But MT just didn't have what it took to stand up against them in that way. And even if he did, would MJ and KR have concurred? Personally, I don't think so. I think they would have given MT his walking papers at that point. But that's the bridge that would have had to have been crossed for the group to move into another dimension, with MT after 1975.

I still say compensate MT for past royalties on Moonlight, Sway, Can't U Hear, etc., ask him to re-join them in a symbolic Hyde Park Show, put RW on his orig. instrument, bass, or keep BW on bass and let Ronnie do face painting in the crowd. Sorry for this last repeat but previous comment got lost in another thread.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-15 00:34 by paulm.

Quote
paulm
I am not one to glamorize or go in for nostalgia for its own sake, but MT took the band to WAY new heights. Do yourself a favor, go listen/watch to Ladies and Gentlemen, Philly Special, Brussels Affair, Sydney '73...h3ll even Ya-Yas. Even on a personal level, I like the tension that MT brought to the band: MJ was obviously inspired by him, KR was a lil' musically intimidated by him, yet the young MT stood up very well to the imposing Glimmer Twins, who you might recall totally crushed BJ psychologically. Just watch MT's focus when playing live; he's so singularly confident, yet tuned in with the group, not a prima dona trip the late BJ, who did indeed color early Stones' songs nicely. MT is just in a different class as a guitarist, and his focus was where it should have been: serving up the goods and leaving the glamour for MJ and to a lesser degree KR.

I think if MT were more mature, and was able to stand up for himself in his musical contributions to the group (ie. get a laywer), he could have made it. But MT just didn't have what it took to stand up against them in that way. And even if he did, would MJ and KR have concurred? Personally, I don't think so. I think they would have given MT his walking papers at that point. But that's the bridge that would have had to have been crossed for the group to move into another dimension, with MT after 1975.

The only thing I don't understand is the people who have pre-emptively decided they would not welcome a performance with Taylor under any circumstances. Really? Why? Wouldn't you want to at least see it and hear it first and then judge? For God's sake we have had Justin Timberlake and Dave Matthews forced on us at Stones shows in recent years and survived, but no, Mick taylor is mot allowed! It would be terrible! He doesn't deserve it because he quit! What about poor Ronnie?, boo hoo.

I'll tell you something: About the ONLY thing the group has to offer ME at this point is the prospect of seeing the five members who made my favorite music on one stage again. Who would not want to see that?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-15 00:38 by 71Tele.

Yes of course I would,but remember that Bill Wyman will be 75 in October .MT is 62 and even current yougest member Ronnie is 64.
What on earth is everybody expecting,can't see a long tour,could possibly do a few residences like some of the upstarts have done lately,like Take That and Kings Of Leon,both those acts managed to do multible nights at stadiums in London,Manchester,Cardiff,Sunderland,Glasgow and Birmingham,and I'm damned sure they are not THAT popular,it was all about how they were marketed.
Surely the Stones could sell as many tickets in all those stadiums if they really wanted to.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
paulm
I am not one to glamorize or go in for nostalgia for its own sake, but MT took the band to WAY new heights. Do yourself a favor, go listen/watch to Ladies and Gentlemen, Philly Special, Brussels Affair, Sydney '73...h3ll even Ya-Yas. Even on a personal level, I like the tension that MT brought to the band: MJ was obviously inspired by him, KR was a lil' musically intimidated by him, yet the young MT stood up very well to the imposing Glimmer Twins, who you might recall totally crushed BJ psychologically. Just watch MT's focus when playing live; he's so singularly confident, yet tuned in with the group, not a prima dona trip the late BJ, who did indeed color early Stones' songs nicely. MT is just in a different class as a guitarist, and his focus was where it should have been: serving up the goods and leaving the glamour for MJ and to a lesser degree KR.

I think if MT were more mature, and was able to stand up for himself in his musical contributions to the group (ie. get a laywer), he could have made it. But MT just didn't have what it took to stand up against them in that way. And even if he did, would MJ and KR have concurred? Personally, I don't think so. I think they would have given MT his walking papers at that point. But that's the bridge that would have had to have been crossed for the group to move into another dimension, with MT after 1975.

The only thing I don't understand is the people who have pre-emptively decided they would not welcome a performance with Taylor under any circumstances. Really? Why? Wouldn't you want to at least see it and hear it first and then judge? For God's sake we have had Justin Timberlake and Dave Matthews forced on us at Stones shows in recent years and survived, but no, Mick taylor is mot allowed! It would be terrible! He doesn't deserve it because he quit! What about poor Ronnie?, boo hoo.

I'll tell you something: About the ONLY thing the group has to offer ME at this point is the prospect of seeing the five members who made my favorite music on one stage again. Who would not want to see that?

Absolutely! Tele, you are in top form today, on fire, mate!

Absolutely!!! - be great to see current and former band members together again.Whether it be for a few select shows or just a once off - Id be lining up to buy any dvd of such event no worries.The "Boogie for Stu"shows was good opportunity for this - and seemed to go well minus Keith and Mick.Fingers crossed this may eventuate.

Yes siree! It would be great for all of them to be on stage for a few gigs. Wonderful and magic. I think Ronnie and Mick T would be into jamming off each other, and Keith wouldn't have to carry much. But I also don't think he is as bad off as many on this board think he is. But yes, bring it on! Would be a great show!

Quote
stonescrow

Quote
71Tele

Quote
paulm
I am not one to glamorize or go in for nostalgia for its own sake, but MT took the band to WAY new heights. Do yourself a favor, go listen/watch to Ladies and Gentlemen, Philly Special, Brussels Affair, Sydney '73...h3ll even Ya-Yas. Even on a personal level, I like the tension that MT brought to the band: MJ was obviously inspired by him, KR was a lil' musically intimidated by him, yet the young MT stood up very well to the imposing Glimmer Twins, who you might recall totally crushed BJ psychologically. Just watch MT's focus when playing live; he's so singularly confident, yet tuned in with the group, not a prima dona trip the late BJ, who did indeed color early Stones' songs nicely. MT is just in a different class as a guitarist, and his focus was where it should have been: serving up the goods and leaving the glamour for MJ and to a lesser degree KR.

I think if MT were more mature, and was able to stand up for himself in his musical contributions to the group (ie. get a laywer), he could have made it. But MT just didn't have what it took to stand up against them in that way. And even if he did, would MJ and KR have concurred? Personally, I don't think so. I think they would have given MT his walking papers at that point. But that's the bridge that would have had to have been crossed for the group to move into another dimension, with MT after 1975.

The only thing I don't understand is the people who have pre-emptively decided they would not welcome a performance with Taylor under any circumstances. Really? Why? Wouldn't you want to at least see it and hear it first and then judge? For God's sake we have had Justin Timberlake and Dave Matthews forced on us at Stones shows in recent years and survived, but no, Mick taylor is mot allowed! It would be terrible! He doesn't deserve it because he quit! What about poor Ronnie?, boo hoo.

I'll tell you something: About the ONLY thing the group has to offer ME at this point is the prospect of seeing the five members who made my favorite music on one stage again. Who would not want to see that?

Absolutely! Tele, you are in top form today, on fire, mate!

Thank you, sir. It beats the hell out of working today.

Quote
stonescrow
Assuming the Stones are done with their mega touring days would you welcome back both Bill Wyman and Mick Taylor to the band for a dozen or so shows in Europe next summer? Seems like a "no-brainer" at least for the rumored Hyde Park concert.

Come On Stones, let's turn back the clock one last time and go out in a blaze of glory!

Let me think about it yes.

Assuming everyone is up to it, it's pretty simple with the song separation. Woody can take a breather during the Taylor and Jones era stuff, and Taylor does likewise for the later stuff. Not that difficult.

Quote
71Tele
Clapton and Green were too heavy handed to adapt to all the different styles in the Stones. They (especially Clapton) are not really "group" players. I think people miss that about Taylor a lot. Think of Taylor more along the lines of Charlie and Bill. That is he subsumed his own ego in interest of making the songs better. Clapton wouldn't have lasted two years in the Stones, about the longest he lasted in any other group. The idea of Taylor as just a blues technician does not do the work he did with the Stones justice. You might say "well, what has he done since then?" But that proves my point: Taylor needed the template and structure of the Stones and their songs to excel (just as he forced them up a notch or two musically). Without that structure, taylor indeed reverted to basically a not-very-interesting blues guitarist.

Very well said. I think it's often overlooked that Taylor was quite adept at playing pretty rocking rhythm guitar when he had to. That great jangling rhythm on "Hip Shake" which sounds so quintessentially Keith is actually Taylor. Same with "Bitch". A big reason it's my all-time favourite guitar tag-team is that on occasion they could switch roles, to great effect.

Agree totally about Clapton, he wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes having to share guitar duties (and the spotlight) with Keith. Taylor lasted 5 1/2 years. You have to look at it from both perspectives too. From Taylor's point of view at that time, Keith is addicted to heroin, doesn't always turn up to sessions, and when he doesn't he and Jagger have to pick up the slack, and he then doesn't get songwriting credits. Not on every song obviously, but still now and again. The mid-70s seemed a perfect time to launch into solo work, take the hit Jeff Beck had with "Blow by Blow" as ample evidence of that.

The one weakness Taylor had (and has) is a songwriter and frontman. He's a superb collaborator, but needs someone like Jagger to provide the framework and focus. It's easy to say in hindsight. But there's no reason musically why he couldn't rejoin for a few shows. If Ronnie Wood is trying to faciliate that and pulls it off I will be eternally grateful.

Who knows, Jagger could use it as a nice way to help out a former colleague too. Rehearse properly, select the right songs, make it look and sound good, and you help the band celebrate a great 50th anniversary properly.

Two interresting things:

Ronnie and Taylor played together both at the 100 Club and The Ambassadors Theatre quite resently.

1. They get along very well, smiling and having fun together. So as far as Ronnie goes, I don't think he sees Taylor as a competitor or anything like that. He considers Taylor as one of his musician friends and I'm pretty sure he would welcome him onto the stage.

2. Ronnie had to tell Taylor what key the songs were in, and so on. Ronnie was sharp and ready. Taylor was clearly out of it, wawing his arms to let everybody know "I'm waiting to have a solo".

To me it is very sad to see Taylor these days. He is not fit by any means, and he looks quite uninterrested when he plays. Ronnie, on the other hand, is really ON.

So, as much as I love the Taylor years, I don't think it will do the Stones any good to bring him in. It would be fun as a special guest for a show or two, but no more.

Bill, on the other hand, would bring a lot back in. His roll is essential to the Stones groove. I miss him dearly, and to bring him back would make the Stones complete again.

I'd welcome them back in 2011.

A guitarist who could probably make a better contribution to the band than Mick Taylor these days is Jimmy Rip. Of course he's Jagger's guitarist (or he was in 1988 & 1993), but he's worked with Keith before too; you can see them together here in 2004:

It will never happen they won't return.

Hey 24FPS Carlo Little can only play the bones now, but when he was drumming he could drum with a punch.

Quote
Rickster
It will never happen they won't return.

I never realised how important Bill Wyman was to the authenticity of the Stones until 15 years after he left.
The background type of character was absolutely necessary as a counterpoint to Mick and Keith. In my oppinion his bass playing was ages above Daryll Jones' interpretations.

The Rolling Stones with Mick Taylor and Bill Wyman on one final show would be something very special! Even if members (or one member) of the band would not play very well.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
stones78

Quote
melillo
I understand the taylor years are the stones at their peak, but dont you think 69-73 would have still been the stones at their peak whether it was wooddy or brian during the same period?

I think with another good lead blues-based player (Clapton, Peter Green), Sticky and Exile and the early 70's tours wouldn't have been that much different and they would have been fantastic as well.

Clapton and Green were too heavy handed to adapt to all the different styles in the Stones. They (especially Clapton) are not really "group" players. I think people miss that about Taylor a lot. Think of Taylor more along the lines of Charlie and Bill. That is he subsumed his own ego in interest of making the songs better. Clapton wouldn't have lasted two years in the Stones, about the longest he lasted in any other group. The idea of Taylor as just a blues technician does not do the work he did with the Stones justice. You might say "well, what has he done since then?" But that proves my point: Taylor needed the template and structure of the Stones and their songs to excel (just as he forced them up a notch or two musically). Without that structure, taylor indeed reverted to basically a not-very-interesting blues guitarist.

Mick Taylor is probably one of the guitarists most similar in style to Clapton, especially when it comes to solos and counter-melodies. Hence he has the same strenghts and weaknesses when it comes to blend with the Stones, imo.

About versatility, Clapton did make great pop, reggae, funk and rock tracks. Taylor seemed to moved more in the direction of fusion and jazz - further from the Stones´s background and style than that of Clapton.

My answer to both is, of course, Yes, but I fully admit that the inclusion of Taylor might be a train wreak. The band has long had a comfort zone and Taylor would upset that. But I hear many possibilities for three guitars in various combinations: electric, accoustic, slide, pedal steel, lap steel, etc. Given Keith's playing at this point in his life three guitars may do the trick.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
stones78

Quote
melillo
I understand the taylor years are the stones at their peak, but dont you think 69-73 would have still been the stones at their peak whether it was wooddy or brian during the same period?

I think with another good lead blues-based player (Clapton, Peter Green), Sticky and Exile and the early 70's tours wouldn't have been that much different and they would have been fantastic as well.

Clapton and Green were too heavy handed to adapt to all the different styles in the Stones. They (especially Clapton) are not really "group" players. I think people miss that about Taylor a lot. Think of Taylor more along the lines of Charlie and Bill. That is he subsumed his own ego in interest of making the songs better. Clapton wouldn't have lasted two years in the Stones, about the longest he lasted in any other group. The idea of Taylor as just a blues technician does not do the work he did with the Stones justice. You might say "well, what has he done since then?" But that proves my point: Taylor needed the template and structure of the Stones and their songs to excel (just as he forced them up a notch or two musically). Without that structure, taylor indeed reverted to basically a not-very-interesting blues guitarist.

Mick Taylor is probably one of the guitarists most similar in style to Clapton, especially when it comes to solos and counter-melodies. Hence he has the same strenghts and weaknesses when it comes to blend with the Stones, imo.

About versatility, Clapton did make great pop, reggae, funk and rock tracks. Taylor seemed to moved more in the direction of fusion and jazz - further from the Stones´s background and style than that of Clapton.

That's great reasoning if neither one had actually played with the Stones and one were theorizing about what each would be like. But that's not the case, we have Taylor's body of work with the group, live and on stage.