Quote
WilliamPatrickMaynard
Are you a cop? Seriously, what do you think I stated was incorrect? I thought it seemed rather balanced between the extremes of opinions voiced here.

Quote
nocomment

Quote
From4tilLate

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.

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

apparently all of it

You're totally dodging my question and lobbing childish insults. I know Exile very well and have for more than 30 years now. The only weaving going on is Keith weaving with himself. Taylor never weaved. Ever. Again, I ask you, show me a single example of Taylor weaving.

there's some kind of nomenclature issue here. despite your snideness about
EVERYBODY knowing what weaving is, apparently thats not the case, or at least
people seem to mean different things by it. its obviously not an established
technical term. its a keithism subject to interpretation...

we used the definition "playing both sympathetically and creatively at the same
time". are you actually saying that taylor does not play both sympathetically
and creatively at the same time on exile? you can't be saying that, can you?
and if you're not, then taylor is "weaving" by definition.

when somebody shreds or spotlight-solos, the other players are subordinated,
whether they want to be or not (which was the issue with taylor and keith).
the soloist takes flight and the others serve as backing, again whether they
want to or not. the solo-ing becomes the focal point for the listener, not
the band/song as a whole.

but during those passages when the whole band's sound is the focal point,
when the pre-determined or spontaneous interplay between the guitars is what
is supposed to grab the listener, that is weaving, by this definition, even if
one of those guitars is doing something a bit more fancy than the other one.

but anyway, call it what you want, this is what we mean: on exile the
integration or interplay between keith's and taylor's playing reached its
zenith. can that possibly be in dispute? what is it that is so special about
exile if not the way keith and taylor mesh?

so, because keith is neither the most talented nor most sympathetic
musician, it has always been the task of the second guitar in the stones
to compliment what the bandleader/composer keith is doing. that is their job.
we have put forth the proposition that taylor both did that job brilliantly
on exile and soon thereafter started to chafe in that role, and started to
solo needlessly or pointlessly, which led to his departure.

whether one calls the more restrained complimentary playing "weaving" or
not is hardly the point.

Quote
whitem8
It is clear that the atmosphere within the band during Goat's Head and IORR was quite toxic. And there were more than a few casualties. The drug haze permeated the band, and created a highly dysfunctional atmosphere. Taylor's honeymoon was over, and it seems plausible that he was often was Keith's surrogate with Mick. As early as Sticky Fingers there were times when Keith was not around and Jagger and Taylor would work on and finish songs. It isn't a stretch to think that Mick T was feeling like him and Mick were jelling well, creating together, and that this might be the opportunity for his collaborations to be finally recognized. But, like many close friends, that are like brothers, when Keith was back in the picture, even if there were arguments with Mick J, theirs was the center and core of the Stones. ANd anyone who got in the way of that relationship was sidelined. One can only imagine some of the discussions that went on between Mick J and Keith when IORR was being set for release, songs being chosen, and the final mix approved. But at the end of the day, IORR came out with the usual Jagger/Richards writing credits, and Mick Taylor must have felt quite frustrated and wondered why it made sense to be constantly in the middle between Mick and Keith, and often working with Mick J to finish off songs, and then not being given the credit he sought and yearned for. Realistically, when taken in context with the Stones historical record, that would never happen, but when you are in the thick of it, many times hopes, aspirations, and dreams often don't realistically and objectively fit with the reality of the situation. Taylor, by his own accounts in interviews, has stated his frustration, and that he got to the point where he wanted something different, and that it was his time to move on. Enter into the fray Ronnie Wood... which made it all the more easier for Mick T to rationalize his departure from The Stones.[/quote

Yes, I read where Charlie once said never try to break up a fight between Mick and Keith, they will both turn on you in a sec.

Quote
lapaz62
no-one can know

Quote
Amsterdamned

Quote
Amsterdamned
If Taylor never met Bruce, all he had to do was ask hwat kind of guy Bruce was –and the answer would have been ‘total junky, worse than Richards’. <Mathijs>

It's relative in a way you know. Playing with a guitarist like Allan Holdsworth and a drummer like Tony Williams required a fresh mind, -a fresher one than Keith or they would kick you out.. This is Jack Bruce on bass, 1974. Not bad for a boozer and junky.

Quote
Amsterdamned
That's a way to reply on my previous posts, joker

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
Amsterdamned
That's a way to reply on my previous posts, joker

I always fail to understand you.

Mathijs

Quote
Amsterdamned
Listen to this interview very well, Keith appearance and memory explains it all...

Quote
Amsterdamned
[I'am no cop. The density of your post shows an incredible stamina.

Quote
Lightnin'

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I had the imporession that Keith MIA was more of a problem during the GHS-sessions, so this was new info to me.

Well, it could be said that the collaboration with Woody brought a new lease of life to the proceedings but that was quite late in the game (late April / early May 1974) as far as the recording of IORR goes...

It all started with Taylor being asked by Wood if he could help out with his first solo LP (I've got my own album to do). Back then, KR and MJ weren't interested in what Ronnie was doing.

Quote
duke richardson
Well Ronnie always liked a drink...the Faces...I reckon his sense of fun all the time made it easier to handle his mediator role. God love 'em both, Taylor and Wood.

Keith it seems behaved in exactly the same way that got Brian fired..

Quote
WilliamPatrickMaynard
Since we're all running with the facts as we've learned them from various sources, here's how I thought the period went:

'73 European tour finishes. Bobby was fired by Jagger. Keith threw a hissy fit and has the entire horn section sacked. Taylor goes off to rehab to deal with his heroin addiction and misses the initial sessions for IORR. Bill was in and out and clearly more interested working on MONKEY GRIP in LA. Sessions were tiresome because Mick and/or Keith would disappear for long gaps into the console room with Andy Johns or argue about the sound he was getting. Grumblings begin about replacing Wyman after Giorgio Moroder played bass on the demo for "Fingerprint File" and apparently because of the solo sessions. IORR sessions resume after the holidays with Taylor back. Keith goes through a passive-aggressive state with Taylor praising his playing one minute, criticizing it the next (as he had on the '73 tour). Jagger's broken promises regarding credits and alleged harrassment of Taylor (perhaps much like his behavior with Ronnie later) works on Taylor along with the fact that he is allegedly bored with playing nearly the same setlist and dealing with the Glimmers' up's and down's with one another and their bandmates. Taylor, Jagger, and Keith have all been socializing with mutual friend Ronnie Wood while Ronnie works on his solo album and in the middle of mixing and overdubbing IORR at Island Records, first Keith then Jagger disappear for protracted stays at The Wick. Taylor ends up on the album literally in an effort to bring Jagger and Richards back to finish IORR. The sessions at Island dragged from April through June. They make the July deadline for the single, but the album is delayed until "By the Balls" is retitled after several weeks of fighting with Ahmet Ertegun over the title. There were no tour plans for 1974 (confirmed in Creem and Melody Maker at the time), but the '75 tour in support of a new album (not greatest hits) was the plan as of October '74. Oh, and add to the fact that Jagger was becoming critical of Charlie's apparent boredom playing with them during the IORR sessions. That's what my brain has rattling around for this period.

What I'm waiting for is an explanation for the similarity between "Hand of Fate" and "Broken Hands."

Quote
WilliamPatrickMaynard
Okay, calling me dense was meant as humor. I'd still rather discuss the Stones the Stones with you than not.

Quote
vermontoffender
Dear vermontoffender:

While walking the dog this morning, I realized I was humming Keith's SFTD solo from Ya Yas. So, after the walk, I dusted off Ya Yas and listened to it.

Here's the thing, the MT problem has crept it's way into '69 for me.

Keith's solo in Sympathy is so spot on; perfect notes, perfect sound, just enormous and incredible.

And then, Taylor comes in and plays something that.....I don't know. I used to love Taylor's solo on Sympathy; now it just kinda leaves me cold. The band is cooking behind him, but I'm pretty sure that's because Keith is nailing the rhythm behind Taylor's "mastery".

I am so confused. I have a tough time listening to live recordings from '72/'73 because I consider what Taylor is playing, most of the time, to be ill fitting garbage.

I don't want to feel that way about '69.

But, what can a poor boy do?

- Johnny from Ft. Worth.


Well JFFW, I think you should let your freak flag fly and follow your emotions! Taylor DID make much of '73 unlistenable. Many of us die hard Stones fans are thankful he left the band in '74. He was a great guitarist, but he didn't fit the band anymore. Truth. Maybe everyone would feel less inclined to worship his contributions if his solo career had been more successful. Taylor worshiping Stones fans are a bitter, resentful lot. Take it easy on them, pity them; the past 37 years have been very difficult for them and tearing down those years, along with the fans who prefer Ronnie's Stones over Taylor's, is the only way some of them can get satisfaction, so to speak. The funniest part to me is when they try to make people believe the Stones were just better with Taylor. JFFW, I've been in bands for the past 25 years. I've played some amazing shows and on some incredible recordings. I can tell you, without reservation, that the Stones were no better with Taylor than they were with Jones or Wood. How do I know this, because musical opinions are subjective. It's all about how YOU feel, JJFW. I prefer Ronnie, but I'm not going to sh*t all over someone who prefers Taylor unless they try to denigrate my opinions....then they're fair game.