Of course, he quit voluntarily, but did the bigger kids push him around until...they got him to leave because he didn't fit in and because he was a better musician than they were and therefore a threat?

Taylor could have used an "it gets better" video in '74. : )

I understand Taylor is rather approachable.

Check out one of his gigs and ask him yourself.

This is the unspoken topic. Not so much "bullied" out, that is the wrong word. Just sort of given the cold shoulder while Keith in particular started spending all his time hanging out with and playing with Woody. It was time for a change; for the Stones and for Woody as the Faces came to a close.

When one has no real options, is leaving really "voluntary" or just the least bad of all bad options?

But Taylor was not a better musician than them. Why is it that because Taylor was a great lead player some people call him "the greatest musician to play in the Stones" or something like that.

Quote
stones78
But Taylor was not a better musician than them. Why is it that because Taylor was a great lead player some people call him "the greatest musician to play in the Stones" or something like that.

He was a more accomplished technical musician, which they themselves have said. It's not that important in a rock & roll group, but it was great to have a guy that good in the band, again, as they themselves have said.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
stones78
But Taylor was not a better musician than them. Why is it that because Taylor was a great lead player some people call him "the greatest musician to play in the Stones" or something like that.

He was a more accomplished technical musician, which they themselves have said. .

What does that mean? Yes he was a much better guitar player as far as technique goes, but besides that?

Isn't that all that really matters in the end is talent? I love Keith and he has a great stage presence/attitude and tone, but he's always been a bit overrated IMO. He's a great player but in terms of Stones guitar players I've always thought of it as Taylor, then Keith, then Wood (even though Wood saves his ass almost constantly). Again, I love Keith and without him in the band there wouldn't be Stones. I love the sight of him still playing onstage, albeit in a pretty minor way and its basically just having him there that counts to me at least. But Taylor was always so much better technically and it stood out. I don't see why its even a question that he was the best guitar player to go through the Stones. He was.

everyone in the Stones were surprised he left. Even Keith.

Quote
RollingFreak
Isn't that all that really matters in the end is talent? I love Keith and he has a great stage presence/attitude and tone, but he's always been a bit overrated IMO. He's a great player but in terms of Stones guitar players I've always thought of it as Taylor, then Keith, then Wood (even though Wood saves his ass almost constantly). Again, I love Keith and without him in the band there wouldn't be Stones. I love the sight of him still playing onstage, albeit in a pretty minor way and its basically just having him there that counts to me at least. But Taylor was always so much better technically and it stood out. I don't see why its even a question that he was the best guitar player to go through the Stones. He was.

Yeah, Keith only wrote the songs.

Quote
stones78

Quote
RollingFreak
Isn't that all that really matters in the end is talent? I love Keith and he has a great stage presence/attitude and tone, but he's always been a bit overrated IMO. He's a great player but in terms of Stones guitar players I've always thought of it as Taylor, then Keith, then Wood (even though Wood saves his ass almost constantly). Again, I love Keith and without him in the band there wouldn't be Stones. I love the sight of him still playing onstage, albeit in a pretty minor way and its basically just having him there that counts to me at least. But Taylor was always so much better technically and it stood out. I don't see why its even a question that he was the best guitar player to go through the Stones. He was.

Yeah, Keith only wrote the songs.

Don't you know, RollingFreak,
You can't objectively judge Keith to some people here.

Quote
stupidguy2

Quote
stones78

Quote
RollingFreak
Isn't that all that really matters in the end is talent? I love Keith and he has a great stage presence/attitude and tone, but he's always been a bit overrated IMO. He's a great player but in terms of Stones guitar players I've always thought of it as Taylor, then Keith, then Wood (even though Wood saves his ass almost constantly). Again, I love Keith and without him in the band there wouldn't be Stones. I love the sight of him still playing onstage, albeit in a pretty minor way and its basically just having him there that counts to me at least. But Taylor was always so much better technically and it stood out. I don't see why its even a question that he was the best guitar player to go through the Stones. He was.

Yeah, Keith only wrote the songs.

Don't you know, RollingFreak,
You can't objectively judge Keith to some people here.

How is saying that he is "overrated" judging him "objectively"?

I'll save my comments until the inevitable Was Taylor Sexually Harrassed Out of the Stones? thread takes over.

Quote
Send It To me
Of course, he quit voluntarily, but did the bigger kids push him around until...they got him to leave because he didn't fit in and because he was a better musician than they were and therefore a threat?

Taylor could have used an "it gets better" video in '74. : )

what's the matter with you?

Quote
stones78

Quote
stupidguy2

Quote
stones78

Quote
RollingFreak
Isn't that all that really matters in the end is talent? I love Keith and he has a great stage presence/attitude and tone, but he's always been a bit overrated IMO. He's a great player but in terms of Stones guitar players I've always thought of it as Taylor, then Keith, then Wood (even though Wood saves his ass almost constantly). Again, I love Keith and without him in the band there wouldn't be Stones. I love the sight of him still playing onstage, albeit in a pretty minor way and its basically just having him there that counts to me at least. But Taylor was always so much better technically and it stood out. I don't see why its even a question that he was the best guitar player to go through the Stones. He was.

Yeah, Keith only wrote the songs.

Don't you know, RollingFreak,
You can't objectively judge Keith to some people here.

How is saying that he is "overrated" judging him "objectively"?

I meant overrated solely in his guitar playing. I didn't think I could be clearer that he's fantastic but his guitar playing, while sounding great, has never been technically incredible. He's an innovator, an amazing songwriter, and a phenomenal rock star in general. But I can't believe its even an argument that Taylor isn't as good as Keith. Keith may have wrote the songs, but Mick added amazing fills and solos that are extremely unique to him. But yes, don't mean to upset anyone.

Of course the Stones were surprised he left. Why? Because they took him for granted. I am sure they had the attitude, "we got this young virtuoso to join THE ROLLING STONES. He should be grateful." Then after years of treating him no better than a sideman, not recognizing his contributions, both within the band and in public. And I am sure after many a conversation where he expressed his dissatisfaction he made an adult choice to leave. And they are shocked. Why? Because the band was steeped in a culture of we are The Stones, and Keith is a junkie not really wanting to hang out with Taylor. Mick is hanging out with Taylor using him as a foil and collaborator, but not acknowledging his contributions, then who could blame Taylor for leaving?

Overrated....give me a break!!!!!!! As a rhythm guitar player...and we are talkin just as a rhythm player(and in the Stones it has always been about the rhythm)there is nobody who can play around the beat,in front of the beat,on the beat better better than Keith Richards. Yeah there are some good rhythm players out there,Malcom Young for one,but two differnt styles...That being said...sombody had to write those great great grooves and riffs. Well again the would be Keith Richards. Now take that and top it off with some Chuck Berry licks(Jimmy Page said "Keith does Chuck Berry better than Chuck Berry")and you have not an "OVERRATED" guitar player,but ONE of the finest players to ever play rock and roll. Lead guitar players are a whole differnt bag and very important to the overall result...but thats just one part of the sum. When I go see a band I check out the rhythm players...how is the bass working with the bass guitar and rhythm guitar players? Is there a groove or a nice riff going on...if they have it going on,then it makes it easy for the lead guitar player and the singer to do their thing. Yeah Taylors great...and Ronnie fun to hear and watch...but its allways been about Keith,Charlie and Bill for my bucks,and the singers pretty good too!!! So when you people bitch about them...remember Frank,Mudddy or Wolf in their twlight and thankgod we still have them around...sorry about the spelling.

WhiteM8 and Send It To Me, you're way off base. "Bullied"..."Taken for granted"? That's NOT how it was. And all I have to say on the suject.

Jeeeeeeesus! I am so sick of this Taylor worship. He was/is a wonderfully talented guitar player, but take a look at the man's career since he left the Stones! I mean...he basically squandered the best springboard imaginable to a successful solo career. That HAS to be part of the conversation. You can't just bring up the five years he spent playing with the best band on the planet, because he wasn't even remotely the driving force behind that band. (Also, it should be mentioned that the Stones were the best band in the world before he was asked to join and after he quit.) I find it hilarious that so many people feel like he was somehow screwed out of credits, etc....during his time with the band. Taylor isn't in the same league as Mick and Keith when it comes to songwriting, the idea that his contributions were good enough to become wildly popular on their own is inane and easily disproved by simply looking at reality. Since leaving the Stones, the guy has had a nice career by the standard of a professional musician who was never in the Rolling Stones. In other words, Taylor's time with the Stones was an aberration within his career; since he left those lofty heights, he has resumed the career he would have had all along. There's not a damn thing wrong with that either, but the concept that Taylor was integral to the greatness of the Rolling Stones is wrong. Your opinion may differ, but the past 37 years tell another story.

MT is great!
While MT may be technically better, and he made great contributuions in the Nixon years :-), he is ultimately less important than Mick, Keith,Charlie, and Bill, and Brian, and even Stu.
They were The Rolling Stones, having made great songs for 7 years before MT came along.Keith has made an incredible contribution as a guitar player and songwriter,as a song builder, he can not be overrated. Perhaps MT's frustration is that he joined a band, but wanted more than what was offered. I can understand that, but he did try that with Bruce, et al........and here we are in 2011.
The way Keith and Brian approached the playing in their early day rehearsels, it was about a sound and a feel, not about being technicians.Those they covered
because they loved their music so much were hardly technical players. I think MT came along, did his magic, and then felt he wanted to try something else.

Quote
stonesrule
WhiteM8 and Send It To Me, you're way off base. "Bullied"..."Taken for granted"? That's NOT how it was. And all I have to say on the suject.

I am so glad that a stones insider with the true historical perspective has finally come forward and gave us the inside scoop. Awesome! Thanks.

Writing credit on Moonlight Mile? Don't talk back.

From a technical point of view of guitar playing Taylor is not that great. He is a rather old fashioned player with quite standard three-finger technique. He isn't overly fast, he isn't flashy or anything. And, Taylor is a lead player, with not too much rhythm skills. In that respect Wood always has had a better technique than Taylor.

There's one thing though that Taylor is superb in, truly talented and magnificent: melodic feel, touch and emotion. Wood always has been much more the raw R&R player.

Mathijs

There's one thing though that Taylor is superb in, truly talented and magnificent: melodic feel, touch and emotion. Wood always has been much more the raw R&R player.



And what would you say about Brian Jones?

2 1 2 0

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
stones78

Quote
stupidguy2

Quote
stones78

Quote
RollingFreak
Isn't that all that really matters in the end is talent? I love Keith and he has a great stage presence/attitude and tone, but he's always been a bit overrated IMO. He's a great player but in terms of Stones guitar players I've always thought of it as Taylor, then Keith, then Wood (even though Wood saves his ass almost constantly). Again, I love Keith and without him in the band there wouldn't be Stones. I love the sight of him still playing onstage, albeit in a pretty minor way and its basically just having him there that counts to me at least. But Taylor was always so much better technically and it stood out. I don't see why its even a question that he was the best guitar player to go through the Stones. He was.

Yeah, Keith only wrote the songs.

Don't you know, RollingFreak,
You can't objectively judge Keith to some people here.

How is saying that he is "overrated" judging him "objectively"?

I meant overrated solely in his guitar playing. I didn't think I could be clearer that he's fantastic but his guitar playing, while sounding great, has never been technically incredible. He's an innovator, an amazing songwriter, and a phenomenal rock star in general. But I can't believe its even an argument that Taylor isn't as good as Keith. Keith may have wrote the songs, but Mick added amazing fills and solos that are extremely unique to him. But yes, don't mean to upset anyone.

You got it. The sound, the songs, the musician. That's what matters, imo.

Quote
Come On
There's one thing though that Taylor is superb in, truly talented and magnificent: melodic feel, touch and emotion. Wood always has been much more the raw R&R player.



And what would you say about Brian Jones?

In my opinion Jones wasn't much of a guitar player. He was a lot of (important) things, but not a great guitar player. He never went beyond standard tremelo picked chording, and even though his slide playing was fresh and new and really fitting the songs, from a guitar players point of view it isn't really very good or skilled. To me he always sounded like a skilled musician who decided to learn some guitar, but never got any further than the basic lessons. Much like Jagger by the way. But again, that didn't stop Jones and Jagger from creating great music.

Mathijs

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
Come On
There's one thing though that Taylor is superb in, truly talented and magnificent: melodic feel, touch and emotion. Wood always has been much more the raw R&R player.



And what would you say about Brian Jones?

In my opinion Jones wasn't much of a guitar player. He was a lot of (important) things, but not a great guitar player. He never went beyond standard tremelo picked chording, and even though his slide playing was fresh and new and really fitting the songs, from a guitar players point of view it isn't really very good or skilled. To me he always sounded like a skilled musician who decided to learn some guitar, but never got any further than the basic lessons. Much like Jagger by the way. But again, that didn't stop Jones and Jagger from creating great music.

Mathijs

Mmmm...Dylan isn't much of a guitar player either compared to Jimi Hendrix or Joe Satriani...music must be played by soul rather than speed imo...

I think Mathijs is spot on about Taylor not being technically that good. It depends on the criteria of excellency. Taken in the context and especially at the time he entered and played in the band (the era altogether is "old-fashionable" in today's standards), he was so much techically superior to play his intrument than the other members, and this made the difference that still seem to be remembered today. I mean, all the rest are technically speaking quite limited and primitive players. Sometimes "idiosyncracy", especially in Keith's case, is confused with technical excellency. Then Taylor, actually a player in the standard of Cream/Hendrix/Zeppelin-level, joining them, opened them a page in rock music. This is a point (with different words) all the rest - Mick, Bill, Charlie and even Keith (who nowadays don't see himself as a "guitarist" at all) has openly admitted.

The argument for Ronnie's superior technical abilities than Taylor's is, of course, justified if the technicality refers to ability to handle (somehow) many fields of guitar work. Ronnie's scope is larger. But his problem is that he does not shine anywhere - there is not a field he actually is awesome. Like showing his ace serve to make the difference. Just a mediocre all-over player. That's a major drawback for Ronnie consired any technically significant player. Besides, he has the old reputation, even before joining the Stones as "the British guitar player who plays most bum notes". Yeah, that is a part of his raw rock&roll style and charm, but technically speaking, it does much support his technical credibility. But it does suits wonderfully to 1978-1983 Rolling Stones!

But let me some clarification. I am not for Taylor or agianst Wood here. I think the whole guitar god phase that took place from teh mid-60's to mid-70's is over-rated from a technical point of view. The idea of lead guitar and all the egoism/bullshitting/pseudo-artness involved there just left from the hand. It started from clapton-like 'let's play the white boy blues and be flashing and skilfull', and ended up to progressive rock of the 70's when the "rock musicians" took themselves and their 'art' way too seriously. Mick Taylor is a typical product of the era. He asolutely mentally belonged to the phase that started to consider 'rock' as a kind of jazz-like art form, and forgot the fun/dance nature of it. I think the reason he actually left from the Stones was that he didn't respect musically the band any longer. He wanted to do something musically more "challenging". Progressive rock, that is. Well, just look at the stuff he did with Jack Bruce Band to see what I mean, and what he, seemingly, had in his mind.

But with Taylor it happened like with many players of his era that the actual interest to that sort of stuff died as the punk phase took over in rock music, and changed the climate dramatically. Taylor was n't able to create Clapton-like solo career (besides, Clapton was in a rank of his own among the british "blues" players. He was the pioneer in creating the guitar genre, that everyone else followed, and, yeah, he was "god". He was for blues guitar players what The Stones were for the other r&b bands. Clapton had a name that would keep him in spotlight no matter what kind of musical hassles he had). The result is that Mick Taylor has today the name of the third guitarist after Clapton AND Peter Green in Mayall's band who joined the Stones. There is not much to be talked after that. The world in which Taylor was a major name and force, just disappeared. Taylor ended up playing the blues he once begin with in the clubs again. Not that there is nothing wrong with that. I guess he feels more home there than being a "celebrity rock star" a'la Ron Wood.

I think the tragedy of Mick Taylor is the tragedy of the whole era: they took the guitar vistuosity and musicianship (and themselves) way too seriosly and forgot the fun, not-serious part of it. The always pragmatic, groove-based Stones never did that (and I think they actually learned much more from Muddy Waters and other Chicago blues bands than aynone else in Britain). And what is ironical is that the technical excellence of Taylor was best served within a context that was basically function of "let's make their asses move".... Outside of that context he is not really that special, actually.

That Jack Bruce Band stuff is probably biggest piece of shit ever done under the headline of "rock music". Gimme The Faces or Ronnie's solo records any day.

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2011-11-01 10:45 by Doxa.

Taylor wasn't bullied out of the Stones imo, he was too good for that. There might be other reasons that have been discussed here. Maybe things should have turned out different for him if he was born a few years earlier, and maybe even under a different sign: You need to have both feet on the ground if you join a band like the Stones in 1969.

To me he was a great lead/slide player and a very effective and smart rhythm player, providing welcome counterplay to Keith's great sledgehammer.


I wish him all the best.

Quote
Doxa
I think Mathijs is spot on about Taylor not being technically that good. It depends on the criteria of excellency. Taken in the context and especially at the time he entered and played in the band (the era altogether is "old-fashionable" in today's standards), he was so much techically superior to play his intrument than the other members, and this made the difference that still seem to be remembered today. I mean, all the rest are technically speaking quite limited and primitive players. Sometimes "idiosyncracy", especially in Keith's case, is confused with technical excellency. Then Taylor, actually a player in the standard of Cream/Hendrix/Zeppelin-level, joining them, opened them a page in rock music. This is a point (with different words) all the rest - Mick, Bill, Charlie and even Keith (who nowadays don't see himself as a "guitarist" at all) has openly admitted.

The argument for Ronnie's superior technical abilities than Taylor's is, of course, justified if the technicality refers to ability to handle (somehow) many fields of guitar work. Ronnie's scope is larger. But his problem is that he does not shine anywhere - there is not a field he actually is awesome. Like showing his ace serve to make the difference. Just a mediocre all-over player. That's a major drawback for Ronnie consired any technically significant player. Besides, he has the old reputation, even before joining the Stones as "the British guitar player who plays most bum notes". Yeah, that is a part of his raw rock&roll style and charm, but technically speaking, it does much support his technical credibility. But it does suits wonderfully to 1978-1983 Rolling Stones!

But let me some clarification. I am not for Taylor or agianst Wood here. I think the whole guitar god phase that took place from teh mid-60's to mid-70's is over-rated from a technical point of view. The idea of lead guitar and all the egoism/bullshitting/pseudo-artness involved there just left from the hand. It started from clapton-like 'let's play the white boy blues and be flashing and skilfull', and ended up to progressive rock of the 70's when the "rock musicians" took themselves and their 'art' way too seriously. Mick Taylor is a typical product of the era. He asolutely mentally belonged to the phase that started to consider 'rock' as a kind of jazz-like art form, and forgot the fun/dance nature of it. I think the reason he actually left from the Stones was that he didn't respect musically the band any longer. He wanted to do something musically more "challenging". Progressive rock, that is. Well, just look at the stuff he did with Jack Bruce Band to see what I mean, and what he, seemingly, had in his mind.

But with Taylor it happened like with many players of his era that the actual interest to that sort of stuff died as the punk phase took over in rock music, and changed the climate dramatically. Taylor was n't able to create Clapton-like solo career (besides, Clapton was in a rank of his own among the british "blues" players. He was the pioneer in creating the guitar genre, that everyone else followed, and, yeah, he was "god". He was for blues guitar players what The Stones were for the other r&b bands. Clapton had a name that would keep him in spotlight no matter what kind of musical hassles he had). The result is that Mick Taylor has today the name of the third guitarist after Clapton AND Peter Green in Mayall's band who joined the Stones. There is not much to be talked after that. The world in which Taylor was a major name and force, just disappeared. Taylor ended up playing the blues he once begin with in the clubs again. Not that there is nothing wrong with that. I guess he feels more home there than being a "celebrity rock star" a'la Ron Wood.

I think the tragedy of Mick Taylor is the tragedy of the whole era: they took the guitar vistuosity and musicianship (and themselves) way too seriosly and forgot the fun, not-serious part of it. The always pragmatic, groove-based Stones never did that. And what is ironical is that the technical excellence of Taylor was best served within a context that was basically function of "let's make their asses move".... Outside of that context he is not really that special, actually.

That Jack Bruce Band stuff is probably biggest piece of shit ever done under the headline of "rock music". Gimme The Faces or Ronnie's solo records any day.

- Doxa

Well, he used to shine as a slide player, right?