DandelionPowderman, that is okay, even nice playing there, but I won't call it "shining". If it wasn't Ronnie playing there, I think the whole thing would left be unnoticed. Over-all I think many Stones musical achievements (technically speaking) are rated with rather 'low' or 'easy' standards by the Stones fans.

But I dont see that any problem since the technical point of view is nothing essential in their music. But what I many times find funny is that the arguments against or for certain players (Brian Jones, Mick Taylor Ron Wood) are used from that point of view. Different criteria for them as to the others!

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-11-01 10:55 by Doxa.

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>

Do you mean The Jack Bruce Band with Taylor or prog/jazz rock in general?

Quote
Doxa
DandelionPowderman, that is okay, even nice playing there, but I won't call it "shining". If it wasn't Ronnie playing there, I think the whole thing would left be unnoticed. Over-all I think many Stones musical achievements (technically speaking) are rated with rather 'low' or 'easy' standards by the Stones fans.

But I dont see that any problem since the technical point of view is nothing essential in their music. But what I many times find funny is that the arguments against or for certain players (Brian Jones, Mick Taylor Ron Wood) are used from that point of view. Different criteria for them as to the others!

- Doxa

Then the word "shining" have to be discussed. For me, the outcome is the important thing, not the technique, nor the complexity.

When a guitar player makes music, plays well, and last but not least - creates something that suits his/her song (here is where most technical guitar players fail, imo), then it really shines in my book.

Quote
Amsterdamned
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.
.

I think you hit something essential here.

I think - I tried to hint that in my above post as well - that perhaps Taylor was doing everything a bit too young. Not just the Stones post - as a young boy he had already once tried Clapton's shoes, and he took the Mayall's post after Clapton and Peter Green. Of course he was great but that post was a dream job for anyone in his generation of rising musicians. There was a sure path to musical spotlight there alraedy created by Mayall. Perhaps everything happened too easily for him, and he actually didn't have time to really reflect what was going on. To really develop his own musical insights or sense of direction, and not just his own limited guitar signature. But in both posts he was alraedy filling the shoes made by someone else, and he was under the guidance of some bigger force. He wasn' ever in a process of creating those shoes, to stat from the scratch. He didn't have experience of that. That might explain something why his solo career never really happened. Maybe he was a bit "spoiled" after seeing so much within such a little time.

Remember, he was very young at the time.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-11-01 11:11 by Doxa.

Quote
Amsterdamned
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>

Do you mean The Jack Bruce Band with Taylor or prog/jazz rock in general?

I'm not a fan of prog/jazz rock in general but I really meant that even within the genre The Jack Bruce Band is horrible. if one wants to see one reason why the whole punk movement in rock happened, any clip of The Jack Bruce Band will do!

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-11-01 11:20 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Amsterdamned
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.
.

I think you hit something essential here.

I think - I tried to hint that in my above post as well - that perhaps Taylor was doing everything a bit too young. Not just the Stones post - as a young boy he had already once tried Clapton's shoes, and he took the Mayall's post after Clapton and Peter Green. Of course he was great but that post was a dream job for anyone in his generation of rising musicians. There was a sure path to musical spotlight there alraedy created by Mayall. Perhaps everything happened too easily for him, and he actually didn't have time to really reflect what was going on. To really develop his own musical insights or sense of direction, and not just his own limited guitar signature. But in both posts he was alraedy filling the shoes made by someone else, and he was under the guidance of some bigger force. He wasn' ever in a process of creating those shoes, to stat from the scratch. He didn't have experience of that. That might explain something why his solo career never really happened. Maybe he was a bit "spoiled" after seeing so much within such a little time.

Remember, he was very young at the time.

- Doxa

Yep, it should have been anyway. But according to Taylor he became bored with Mayall as well. In fairness, Mayall was making an acoustic album at the time, and that may have hurried Taylor's decision to quit. Still, in many interviews he has said that the 12 bar Mayall-blues became boring in the end.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Amsterdamned
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.
.

I think you hit something essential here.

I think - I tried to hint that in my above post as well - that perhaps Taylor was doing everything a bit too young. Not just the Stones post - as a young boy he had already once tried Clapton's shoes, and he took the Mayall's post after Clapton and Peter Green. Of course he was great but that post was a dream job for anyone in his generation of rising musicians. There was a sure path to musical spotlight there alraedy created by Mayall. Perhaps everything happened too easily for him, and he actually didn't have time to really reflect what was going on. To really develop his own musical insights or sense of direction, and not just his own limited guitar signature. But in both posts he was alraedy filling the shoes made by someone else, and he was under the guidance of some bigger force. He wasn' ever in a process of creating those shoes, to stat from the scratch. He didn't have experience of that. That might explain something why his solo career never really happened. Maybe he was a bit "spoiled" after seeing so much within such a little time.

Remember, he was very young at the time.

- Doxa

Yep, it should have been anyway. But according to Taylor he became bored with Mayall as well. In fairness, Mayall was making an acoustic album at the time, and that may have hurried Taylor's decision to quit. Still, in many interviews he has said that the 12 bar Mayall-blues became boring in the end.

Well, the point is that like Clapton and Green before him he probably thought that now it is time for him also to step outside and reach the next level. He was just following the path created by his forerunners. In this sense he was just a "follower" of certain pattern or habits of the era. Clapton created The Cream, Green Fleetwood Mac; joining the Stones sounded a logical - and perhaps easier - step. One more graduated A-level student from the Mayal Highschool ready to conquer the pop/rock world. If we look Taylor's early interviews about what he has in his mind (what he will do the Stones), they are out of his world.... He learned the reality, soon...

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-11-01 11:33 by Doxa.

Quote
Amsterdamned
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.

now we're getting somewhere...

while we never would have used the word "bullied", there's a tad of truth to it.

at the time mick and keith were hardly touchy-feely heart-to-heart communicators.
they would make their wishes known like the tough schoolboys they still were, with
cutting humor and cold shoulders.

what they were wishing at the time was that taylor would stop his incessant soloing
and get back to what made the band great, taylor's weaving*, like on exile.
taylor was the greatest weaver ever, far surpassing even brian and ronnie in
that regard.

very surprised this is not talked about more: taylor's weaving! its what raises
exile to the level of mozart.

and it was taylor who abandoned weaving as an unworthy expression of his skills,
tragically. weaving was taylor's greatest and most important and most historic
musical skill, and his ego made him walk away from it to become just another of
a thousand wanky soloists.

obviously taylor was going to get his solos in the stones, but in the end that's
all he wanted to do. he wanted to never be keith's second, which is the first
thing required of that position. like we said, tragic, because for a
brief while there, taylor was the greatest second that ever lived.

totally understandably, mick and keith wanted that back, and were pressuring
taylor, in their many trademarked nasty ways, to see the light. but all that
taylor could see, blinded by ego, was the darkness, which is where he fled.
into the darkness.

* (for those who may not know, what is "weaving"? it is playing both
sympathetically and creatively at the same time. it is playing your ass off
while playing neither rhythm nor lead)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-11-01 11:51 by nocomment.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Amsterdamned
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.
.

I think you hit something essential here.

I think - I tried to hint that in my above post as well - that perhaps Taylor was doing everything a bit too young. Not just the Stones post - as a young boy he had already once tried Clapton's shoes, and he took the Mayall's post after Clapton and Peter Green. Of course he was great but that post was a dream job for anyone in his generation of rising musicians. There was a sure path to musical spotlight there alraedy created by Mayall. Perhaps everything happened too easily for him, and he actually didn't have time to really reflect what was going on. To really develop his own musical insights or sense of direction, and not just his own limited guitar signature. But in both posts he was alraedy filling the shoes made by someone else, and he was under the guidance of some bigger force. He wasn' ever in a process of creating those shoes, to stat from the scratch. He didn't have experience of that. That might explain something why his solo career never really happened. Maybe he was a bit "spoiled" after seeing so much within such a little time.

Remember, he was very young at the time.

- Doxa

Yes, he was very young at the time, and I think we both agree he was pefectly competent for the Rolling job...And as Mick himself stated: "too much money and too much time". Several years hitting the road with Mayall proved he could compete with most contemporary players at the time though, maybe with the exception of Hendrix, who was a Rock/Blues player extraordinaire. One can argue about that of course, many people like players like Clapton and Page more, but that's really a matter of taste: When it comes to feeling, many amongst us even prefer Taylor.
I'am convinced Taylor could have developed much more as a (session) player if he had focussed on his improvisation skills, both from a harmonic and technical point of view. No lack of talent there, and something necessary in particular when you're not a natural songwriter/singer

After leaving the Stones Taylor dealt with private issues, something that -imo- distracted him from his musical focus with the Jack Bruce band. Some details on this can also be found in Jack Bruce's book "composing himself". The Jack Bruce Band could have done better, excuse me, Bruce Gary † was the best drummer you could get. I liked them, attended and still have recordings of 4 songs they played at the Pinkpop'75 festival: they did a really great job there.

In the end Taylors career was not a small one. An idiosyncratic '79 solo album, working with Dylan an Mayall again, and some extensive touring with his own bands. "A Stones Throw" was a great album too imo. Finally he sticked at what he was best at: playing the blues. No one can blame him for that.

Quote
Amsterdamned
In the end Taylors carreer was not a small one. A idiosyncratic '79 solo album, working with Dylan an Mayall again, and some extensive touring with his own bands. "A Stones Throw" was a great album too imo. Finally he sticked at what he was best at: playing the blues. No one can blame him for that.

True, but I can't help the feeling that just like Peter Green after leaving Fleetwood Mac, Taylor somehow got lost.

In my humble opinion Jones or Taylor were key part of the Stones formula. You may find in any school of music more skillfull guitar players. And of course any average gypsy teen playing professioanlly flamenco in Sevilla is able to teach how to play guitar to Clapton, Wood, Taylor, Jones or Plant (and he would give that lesson while sleeping). But that´s another different story.

They fit. And in misterious way they helped to make the stones sound which made us stones fans and for instance members of this forum. ANd their contribution is imposible to define as if it were mathematics.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Doxa
DandelionPowderman, that is okay, even nice playing there, but I won't call it "shining". If it wasn't Ronnie playing there, I think the whole thing would left be unnoticed. Over-all I think many Stones musical achievements (technically speaking) are rated with rather 'low' or 'easy' standards by the Stones fans.

But I dont see that any problem since the technical point of view is nothing essential in their music. But what I many times find funny is that the arguments against or for certain players (Brian Jones, Mick Taylor Ron Wood) are used from that point of view. Different criteria for them as to the others!

- Doxa

Then the word "shining" have to be discussed. For me, the outcome is the important thing, not the technique, nor the complexity.

When a guitar player makes music, plays well, and last but not least - creates something that suits his/her song (here is where most technical guitar players fail, imo), then it really shines in my book.

Yeah, I know what you mean and I wholeheartidly agree. I guess the case is mostly to do with semantics - I tried to speak considering the technical side of the things. Taylor shines with his fluid technics, his trademark melodic sense playing and phrasing - there is not reason to under-appreciate that; he has technical ability in his hands that is beyond reach of any other Stones guitarist (and many otehrs as well in the business), and I claim that it is not such idiosyncratic originality that is so efficient in Keith's playing (that is masterful in its own terms: Keef makes his own rules, so to say). I just don't find neither of those qualities in Ronnie's playing. Yeah, he has a kind of signature sound but not really standing out. I sometimes feel that his signature can only to be descri ed in 'negative' terms, it is to be a bit sloppy and rough on the edges. And he leaves a bit insecure impression of himself. Both on his solo/slide and rhythm work. As guitarist he is a good 'salt of the earth' kind of all-over player. Good basic team work but not those shining moments of glory with which he can electrify the listener.

So to use the term "shine" (in any sense) is not the one which occures to me when I listen Ronnie's work (which I really like). It's not the technical sense; for example, Brian Jones could "shine" without much technical ability.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-11-01 14:39 by Doxa.

It's not the technical sense; for example, Brian Jones could "shine" without much technical ability.



NOW we're beginning to talk...

2 1 2 0

When conversations turn to debating "best" -[usually a million notes per second]guitar players , I always move the goal posts a wee bit and talk about the "most effective " guitar players.

You get a very diiferent set of results that way

Quote
nocomment

Quote
Amsterdamned
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.

now we're getting somewhere...

while we never would have used the word "bullied", there's a tad of truth to it.

at the time mick and keith were hardly touchy-feely heart-to-heart communicators.
they would make their wishes known like the tough schoolboys they still were, with
cutting humor and cold shoulders.

what they were wishing at the time was that taylor would stop his incessant soloing
and get back to what made the band great, taylor's weaving*, like on exile.
taylor was the greatest weaver ever, far surpassing even brian and ronnie in
that regard.

very surprised this is not talked about more: taylor's weaving! its what raises
exile to the level of mozart.

and it was taylor who abandoned weaving as an unworthy expression of his skills,
tragically. weaving was taylor's greatest and most important and most historic
musical skill, and his ego made him walk away from it to become just another of
a thousand wanky soloists.

obviously taylor was going to get his solos in the stones, but in the end that's
all he wanted to do. he wanted to never be keith's second, which is the first
thing required of that position. like we said, tragic, because for a
brief while there, taylor was the greatest second that ever lived.

totally understandably, mick and keith wanted that back, and were pressuring
taylor, in their many trademarked nasty ways, to see the light. but all that
taylor could see, blinded by ego, was the darkness, which is where he fled.
into the darkness.

* (for those who may not know, what is "weaving"? it is playing both
sympathetically and creatively at the same time. it is playing your ass off
while playing neither rhythm nor lead)

We know what weaving is, thanks. And tell me, when did Taylor EVER weave? I'm pretty well-versed on the Taylor era and I don't recall a single instance of weaving.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Doxa
DandelionPowderman, that is okay, even nice playing there, but I won't call it "shining". If it wasn't Ronnie playing there, I think the whole thing would left be unnoticed. Over-all I think many Stones musical achievements (technically speaking) are rated with rather 'low' or 'easy' standards by the Stones fans.

But I dont see that any problem since the technical point of view is nothing essential in their music. But what I many times find funny is that the arguments against or for certain players (Brian Jones, Mick Taylor Ron Wood) are used from that point of view. Different criteria for them as to the others!

- Doxa

Then the word "shining" have to be discussed. For me, the outcome is the important thing, not the technique, nor the complexity.

When a guitar player makes music, plays well, and last but not least - creates something that suits his/her song (here is where most technical guitar players fail, imo), then it really shines in my book.

Yeah, I know what you mean and I wholeheartidly agree. I guess the case is mostly to do with semantics - I tried to speak considering the technical side of the things. Taylor shines with his fluid technics, his trademark melodic sense playing and phrasing - there is not reason to under-appreciate that; he has technical ability in his hands that is beyond reach of any other Stones guitarist (and many otehrs as well in the business), and I claim that it is not such idiosyncratic originality that is so efficient in Keith's playing (that is masterful in its own terms: Keef makes his own rules, so to say). I just don't find neither of those qualities in Ronnie's playing. Yeah, he has a kind of signature sound but not really standing out. I sometimes feel that his signature can only to be descri ed in 'negative' terms, it is to be a bit sloppy and rough on the edges. And he leaves a bit insecure impression of himself. Both on his solo/slide and rhythm work. As guitarist he is a good 'salt of the earth' kind of all-over player. Good basic team work but not those shining moments of glory with which he can electrify the listener.

So to use the term "shine" (in any sense) is not the one which occures to me when I listen Ronnie's work (which I really like). It's not the technical sense; for example, Brian Jones could "shine" without much technical ability.

- Doxa

Indeed he could. And just to make one thing clear; I absolutely love Taylor's playing (if anyone doubted that)

I always move the goal posts a wee bit and talk about the "most effective " guitar players.



Yes like Johnny Thunders- Pete Townshend and John Lennon...I'm with you here...

2 1 2 0

Quote
From4tilLate

Quote
nocomment
* for those who may not know, what is "weaving"? it is playing both
sympathetically and creatively at the same time. it is playing your ass off
while playing neither rhythm nor lead

We know what weaving is, thanks. And tell me, when did Taylor EVER weave? I'm pretty well-versed on the Taylor era and I don't recall a single instance of weaving.

what part of "for those who may not know" didnt you understand?

and regarding taylor's "weaving" what part of "exile" didnt you understand?

apparently all of it

My answer is yes, he was bullied out of the band.

Quote
Spud
When conversations turn to debating "best" -[usually a million notes per second]guitar players , I always move the goal posts a wee bit and talk about the "most effective " guitar players.

You get a very diiferent set of results that way

Yes, but I think as far as the Stones guitarists go, the results will be quite the same. I mean, if one really appreciates Keith's guitar work, one needs to apply be the criterion of effectiveness there.

But one minor difference would be that even though Ron Wood is miles better guitarist than Brian Jones, it is not obvious at all if Ronnie has ever reached Brian's level of effectiveness. Brian surely let his mark with the screaming solo of "I Wanna be Your Man",the riff of "the last Time", the ryhthm chords of "It's All Over Now" and "Mona"; the slide of "Little Red Rooster", "King Bee" and "No Expectations"... Not much quantity but sure hell lot of quality as far as "effectiviness" goes! Brian always seemed to have a "point" to make when picked up a guitar and played it for a record.

- Doxa

But one minor difference would be that even though Ron Wood is miles better guitarist than Brian Jones, it is not obvious at all if Ronnie has ever reached Brian's level of effectiveness. Brian surely let his mark with the screaming solo of "I Wanna be Your Man",the riff of "the last Time", the ryhthm chords of "It's All Over Now" and "Mona"; the slide of "Little Red Rooster", "King Bee" and "No Expectations"... Not much quantity but sure hell lot of quality as far as "effectiviness" goes! Brian always seemed to have a "point" to make when picked up a guitar and played it for a record.



Very insightful...a masterclass statement...

2 1 2 0

Quote
Come On
But one minor difference would be that even though Ron Wood is miles better guitarist than Brian Jones, it is not obvious at all if Ronnie has ever reached Brian's level of effectiveness. Brian surely let his mark with the screaming solo of "I Wanna be Your Man",the riff of "the last Time", the ryhthm chords of "It's All Over Now" and "Mona"; the slide of "Little Red Rooster", "King Bee" and "No Expectations"... Not much quantity but sure hell lot of quality as far as "effectiviness" goes! Brian always seemed to have a "point" to make when picked up a guitar and played it for a record.



Very insightful...a masterclass statement...

The songs mentioned above+some live moments and also the pop songs like Paint it black. A certain touch, timing and menace in his playing. Perfect really. But, he didnt stick to it and he burnt out. Taylor was fluid in everything. Freaking wonderboy.

Quote
Mathijs
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

Don't agree. Hear and see for example the Bitch version in the LG movie. The excellent rhythm is created by MT, it is not Keith. Or hear Carol on GYYYO, it is Taylor who is responsible for the awesome rhythm. Thus I think that MT has also extraordinary skills in the rhythm section.

Quote
nocomment

Quote
From4tilLate

Quote
nocomment
* for those who may not know, what is "weaving"? it is playing both
sympathetically and creatively at the same time. it is playing your ass off
while playing neither rhythm nor lead

We know what weaving is, thanks. And tell me, when did Taylor EVER weave? I'm pretty well-versed on the Taylor era and I don't recall a single instance of weaving.

what part of "for those who may not know" didnt you understand?

and regarding taylor's "weaving" what part of "exile" didnt you understand?

apparently all of it

The only small glimpses of weaving on Exile are on Shake Your Hips and Casino Boogie.

The one and only brilliant weaving-example from Richards/Taylor is in the beautiful intro of I Got The Blues, imo.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-11-01 15:24 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
Come On
But one minor difference would be that even though Ron Wood is miles better guitarist than Brian Jones, it is not obvious at all if Ronnie has ever reached Brian's level of effectiveness. Brian surely let his mark with the screaming solo of "I Wanna be Your Man",the riff of "the last Time", the ryhthm chords of "It's All Over Now" and "Mona"; the slide of "Little Red Rooster", "King Bee" and "No Expectations"... Not much quantity but sure hell lot of quality as far as "effectiviness" goes! Brian always seemed to have a "point" to make when picked up a guitar and played it for a record.



Very insightful...a masterclass statement...

yes

Quote
RobertJohnson
Hear and see for example the Bitch version in the LG movie. The excellent rhythm is created by MT, it is not Keith. Or hear Carol on GYYYO, it is Taylor who is responsible for the awesome rhythm. Thus I think that MT has also extraordinary skills in the rhythm section.

and that's the role taylor eventually rejected. and that's why he had to go.

Taylor's guitar was always louder than Keith.

And back then, that was not good.

Quote
RobertJohnson

Quote
Mathijs
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

Don't agree. Hear and see for example the Bitch version in the LG movie. The excellent rhythm is created by MT, it is not Keith. Or hear Carol on GYYYO, it is Taylor who is responsible for the awesome rhythm. Thus I think that MT has also extraordinary skills in the rhythm section.

Taylor had a perfect timing and feel for rhythm. Perfect. Class A. He is not overrated, if anything he is underrated as a musician, overated by some fans as a guitar hero (Hendrix) but overall forgotten within the greatness that was the Stones in studio and live during his time with the band.

well fire the mixer-table engineer then...

2 1 2 0

The opportunity to join the stones offered Taylor a new challenge, new music, something interesting.

I have in mind that even when his joining the stones was announced Taylor was talking of also making a solo album. Not that unusual in the strange year that was 1969, but i think it's a sign that he was never going to be the blood brother, here till the bitter end type of band member Keith seems to expect of people.

All said and done, i think Taylor went where the music interested him and in 1974 the stones did seem to have reached some kind of turning point, much like
Mayall had in 1969.

He followed the music and I guess we ought to respect that.