you must have very selective hearing.when i listen to brussels i hear a band on fire. not just mick taylor.shine a light is like listening to bad cover band imho!

I ain't slagging off Bruxelles, I just feel Ronnie is a much better guitarist for the unwritten thing that the make the Stones unique.

All Down The Line, HTW, MR and Rip This Joint and Angie have never sounded better than in '73. BUT, Brown Sugar and JJ Flash was even better on the Licks Tour than in 72/73.

Rather a bit of overplaying here and there than a guitarist who spends quite a bit of time clowning around with his hands in the air....

Quote
batcave
Rather a bit of overplaying here and there than a guitarist who spends quite a bit of time clowning around with his hands in the air....

or playing a lot of random, meaningless noise, as he did for much of post-1981.

I like Ronnie but as a guitar player he wouldn't make a pimple on Mick Taylor's ass.

Quote
Who's Driving Your Plane?
Shine a light soundtrack...Really?

Really, listening to Shine is like porking with a wrapper.

Quote
shadooby

Quote
Who's Driving Your Plane?
Shine a light soundtrack...Really?

Really, listening to Shine is like porking with a wrapper.

Porking with a wrapper? This must be an English term. I don't get it. "Porking a rapper" (a big, mean-assed ghetto one) seems more fit. Do explain please. peace.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
shadooby

Quote
Who's Driving Your Plane?
Shine a light soundtrack...Really?

Really, listening to Shine is like porking with a wrapper.

Porking with a wrapper? This must be an English term. I don't get it. "Porking a rapper" (a big, mean-assed ghetto one) seems more fit. Do explain please. peace.

Yeah, that too!

Quote
MadMax
I ain't slagging off Bruxelles, I just feel Ronnie is a much better guitarist for the unwritten thing that the make the Stones unique.

All Down The Line, HTW, MR and Rip This Joint and Angie have never sounded better than in '73. BUT, Brown Sugar and JJ Flash was even better on the Licks Tour than in 72/73.

stop the insanity...or something

Quote
SwayStones

Quote
stonesdan60
Right now I'm listening to Live Licks. I'm enjoying Live Licks much more. .

Quote
SwayStones

Quote
MadMax
.

Taylor destroyed the essence of what The Stones was LIVE. . Thanks God Ronnie was invited to join the band.

que the fvck???

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
SwayStones

Quote
MadMax
.

Taylor destroyed the essence of what The Stones was LIVE. . Thanks God Ronnie was invited to join the band.

que the fvck???

Taylor destroyed nothing. The addition of Ron Wood brought about five years of fun and 30 years of mediocrity.

I don't know about liking Live Licks or Shine a Light over Brussels, but I have to agree that whilst the 73 show is a great band performance , Taylor does overplay IMHO. The 1st bootlegs I bought were Brussels and Passiac 78 about 30 years ago. The 78 vinyl is almost worn out ! Brussels stayed in the rack.

69 - 71 Taylor swapped Rhythm / Lead with Keith flawlessly.


sc uk

Delete



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-24 13:43 by Amsterdamned.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
stonesdan60
OK - I finally downloaded The Brussells Affair and have been listening to it a lot. It's not radically new to me as I've owned a bootleg since the mid seventies. As a guitar player myself, I used to judge music by the talent of the lead guitar player. I loved The Stones and thought Mick Taylor was a god. Later on I grew to realize there's more to music than the guitar solo. What I really love is a great song, great performance and the overall ESSENCE of the music. Having said that, I have some thoughts that will probably get me burned at the stake by many here. That's OK. Cyber-fire doesn't hurt as much as real fire. I much prefer the Stones with Ron Wood. Listening to Brussels, my current impression is that Mick Taylor, as technically great as he was stepped all over the ESSENCE of the Stones sound and vibe. As one writer - who's name I forget - wrote in a review once: "The sound of the Stones is the sound of CHORDS." Yes, those crashing crunching, gritty Keith chords in front of the rest of the band supporting Jagger's live interpretations of their great songs. Don't get me wrong. Brussells is a smoking hot performance and Mick Taylor is awesome if lead guitar is what you like most in a band. He's certainly way better technically than Wood. What I don't like is that Taylor treats the bulk of every song as if it's all a guitar solo. His riffs - brilliant as they are- seem like they're stealing the show from the vocals and Keith's playing, which should be the more prominent backing to Mick's vocals. With Ron Wood, it stopped being about the guitar solos, and I'm glad. It once again became about the SONGS, and the ESSENCE of the sound- that gritty chordal interplay between the guitars. That's the sound I prefer. So prepare to burn me at the stake here: I just listened to Brussells again. Right now I'm listening to Live Licks. I'm enjoying Live Licks much more. If I'm in the mood for great lead guitar I'll listen to Eric Clapton or Jeff beck. If I'm in the mood for great live Stones, I'll put on something from the Ron Wood era. Personally, I think Live Licks and the Shine A Light soundtrack is some of the best live Stones out there. (Although I haven't had a chance to see or hear Some Girls Live In Texas yet). Note: My all time favorite live Stones is Ya Yas, but at that point, Taylor had not yet started to over-ride everything with non-stop lead playing. So get a stake and some kindling wood for the burning. Tie Me Up. Flip The Switch.

I don't want to burn you at the stake. I just feel rather sorry for you. It's not about Taylor in '73, it's about the intensity of the band's performance. Not only does Live Licks not have Taylor, it doesn't have Wyman. So what you really are saying is you prefer the Vegas-era Stones to the Stones at their peak with five actual members. Your right to prefer it, but your statements that Brussels is about lead guitar are completely off base, imo.

You're 100% right that Brussells shows a band on fire. My point is that I feel personally that Taylor ( no doubt a spectacular lead player) overplayed. I feel a band is there to make the main performer - usually the singer - sound great. IMO opinion, Taylor's riffs step right in front of Jagger's mic and compromise the essence of the song. When it was solo time he was awesome. Sure I wish Live Licks had Wyman. I miss him terribly and the Stones classic sound has lost something special for sure. Still, I think Live Licks is still a damn good album. Do I prefer the "Vegas Stones?" I have mixed emotions. First of all, while I could do without the horns and singers, apparently the Stones - mostly Jagger - wanted to play the songs closer to the studio arrangements and felt the extra help was required to to that. Does that denigrate the Stones into a Vegas act? I don't think they're down in the embarrassing ranks of Wayne Newton. And while I prefer the stripped down Stones, I have to say that many of the '89 and on shows I've seen were still kick ass rock and roll concerts. Original members? Well, Taylor was no more of an original member than Ron Wood, and yes - I prefer them with Wyman. What I'd really like to hear is more well mixed and produced official live releases from my personal favorite period, '78 - '81. The band rocked. All but Ron were originals and I loved that raw stripped down sound. I've seen the '81 tour get trashed here, but my experiences of the '81 tour were great shows. That tour deserves a better live document than Still Life. That album doesn't really sound like they sounded onstage but it has it's moments. I love the first three songs, Under My Thumb, LSTNT, and Shattered. Going to a Go Go should have been replaced with a Stones tune. Time Is On My Side is great. Imagination starts off sloppy with not the best vocals, but I love the way the band evolves into the jams with Wood, Ernie Watts and keith all taking their turns. Let me Go is sloppy but it rocks. Start me Up and Satisfaction are weak and sloppy. Ironically, what would have my favorite song on the album, Beast of Burden was left off! I'm glad they finally stuck it on rarities. That song, IMO shows the '81 Stones at their best; they way the guitars weave, gel and jam makes me smile every time I hear it. Then we need a film. LSTNT also sounds nothing like the actual sound I heard coming from the stage and the editing is horrible. Alas, due to being unemployed and broke i don't have Some Girls Live In Texas yet, but I can't wait to check it out.

I don't have to be a "Wood-Basher" to prefer the Stones live with Taylor. I don't think Taylor did anything close to "stepping all over the songs", and ruining their live essence. Matter of fact - i think he took those very songs to the next level. They are superb songs to begin with; now you add a searing lead guitar - it is even better. It elevated Jagger and Keith's respective performances - not ruined it. IMO there is no better Keith live than hearing him slashing away under Taylor or Bobby in 73 on YCAGWYW. I also think that it elevated Keith's solo -ing on the Berry numbers or "@#$%&".
What makes the discussion of Wood vs Taylor a lot harder, actually impossible to keep strictly objective is the reality of time passing. Who knows if Jagger would be doing just what he is doing nowadays on stage, or what he did in 81 if it had been Taylor all along. If there never had been a Ron Wood. So if someone says they prefer 73 Jagger over 89 Jagger - who knows if it has anything to do with the guitarist?
I love Ron Wood. Have always loved him; have everything by him. I just think the Stones were in their primest prime when Taylor was with them.

The blade must be shown. Keith was very upset when Taylor left the band.

An insult to a brilliant player indeed. Enjoy Live Licks and Shine a Light.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-24 16:50 by Zack.

To me I prefer Brussels over the RW era. That being said I just got live n Texas in 1978 and this is very close to Brussels. Ronnie and Keith have an incredible weave going on here.

Quote
Zack
The blade must be shown. Keith was very upset when Taylor left the band.

An insult to a brilliant player indeed. Enjoy Live Licks and Shine a Light.

Of course Keith was upset. The Stones were planning to tour in 1975 and now they needed to hurry up and find a second guitarist. That being said, Keith has also said that he much prefers playing with Ron Wood over Taylor. And yes, thank you I will enjoy Live Licks and Shine A Light. Nice blade. And a Merry Christmas to you as well.

Quote
stonesdan60

Quote
Zack
The blade must be shown. Keith was very upset when Taylor left the band.

An insult to a brilliant player indeed. Enjoy Live Licks and Shine a Light.

Of course Keith was upset. The Stones were planning to tour in 1975 and now they needed to hurry up and find a second guitarist. That being said, Keith has also said that he much prefers playing with Ron Wood over Taylor. And yes, thank you I will enjoy Live Licks and Shine A Light. Nice blade. And a Merry Christmas to you as well.

Just joking man, lighten up. Merry Christmas to you too. I mean it.

Someone posted that "Charlie's peak was 1969.

Completely disagree.

Quote
stonesrule
Someone posted that "Charlie's peak was 1969.

Completely disagree.

Me too. I am constantly amazed by Charlies work throughout the 80's and 90's and beyond. Charlie is the Rolling Stones for me. Just the most basic stuff to fit the song with that ever strong 2 and 4 of his which I never get tired of. It's great to hear him talking about how Bobby Keys was showing him the modified beat to use for Ventilator Blues. That song is just great and his playing really makes it. I love the acoustic mix of it they hint at on the Exile DVD before they fade to the released mix of the tune. It's a slightly different lick than the one on the Exile record and so sweet. peace.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
stonesrule
Someone posted that "Charlie's peak was 1969.

Completely disagree.

Me too. I am constantly amazed by Charlies work throughout the 80's and 90's and beyond. Charlie is the Rolling Stones for me. Just the most basic stuff to fit the song with that ever strong 2 and 4 of his which I never get tired of. It's great to hear him talking about how Bobby Keys was showing him the modified beat to use for Ventilator Blues. That song is just great and his playing really makes it. I love the acoustic mix of it they hint at on the Exile DVD before they fade to the released mix of the tune. It's a slightly different lick than the one on the Exile record and so sweet. peace.

I mentioned the 1969-peak. And this is a discussion already done on an other thread about Charlie's 'swíng', 'groove' etc...and the hi-hat pattern (by ommitting certain hits) changed Charlie's style...

I still can't get over the part about preferring Live Licks and Shine A Light to Brussels Affair.

To each their own of course, but that one's got me scratching my head wondering if they're talking about the same Live Licks, Shine A Light, and Brussels Affair that I've got.

I'm going to go ahead and shoot of my mouth.

Mick Taylor was just right for the Stones in '73. It was the era of the lead guitarist. Taylor was one of the most tasteful of the generation. I would say his only rival were Duane Allman or Donald Roeser (for those who don't know Donald Roeser was "Buck Dhrama" of Blue Oyster Cult). Duane had slightly more stage presence than Taylor. It's all opinion, anyway. "Jimmy Page started a rage."

The Stones were actually ahead of the curve when Woodie came on board. The transitional period of 1975 to 1978 was the coming of the end of the lead guitarist as the centerpiece of of a band. By the early Eigthies concerts were becoming more about the show than the music, thus the guitarist leaping around, etc.

Enough of me mouthing off.

Quote
GrandToad
I'm going to go ahead and shoot of my mouth.

Mick Taylor was just right for the Stones in '73. It was the era of the lead guitarist. Taylor was one of the most tasteful of the generation. I would say his only rival were Duane Allman or Donald Roeser (for those who don't know Donald Roeser was "Buck Dhrama" of Blue Oyster Cult). Duane had slightly more stage presence than Taylor. It's all opinion, anyway. "Jimmy Page started a rage."

The Stones were actually ahead of the curve when Woodie came on board. The transitional period of 1975 to 1978 was the coming of the end of the lead guitarist as the centerpiece of of a band. By the early Eigthies concerts were becoming more about the show than the music, thus the guitarist leaping around, etc.

Enough of me mouthing off.

Another person misses the point and thinks Taylor was about lead guitar. Taylor was about elevating the band. Just listen to Charlie's comments on the new BBC interview posted on another thread. He said Taylor brought something extra, both in the studio and live. It wasn't slagging Wood, just saying that Taylor was special. Wyman said the same thing in the Exile reissue DVD interview. No one says any of these things about Ron Wood, face it. If you think those of us who love the Taylor era are necessarily big fans of lead guitar for its own sake, think again. I don't give a crap about Clapton, Beck, Hendrix, etc. I love the Stones as a band and they were the best band they've ever been with Taylor in it. It's about how they responded to him and played off him, not just about guitar solos.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-26 07:19 by 71Tele.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
GrandToad
I'm going to go ahead and shoot of my mouth.

Mick Taylor was just right for the Stones in '73. It was the era of the lead guitarist. Taylor was one of the most tasteful of the generation. I would say his only rival were Duane Allman or Donald Roeser (for those who don't know Donald Roeser was "Buck Dhrama" of Blue Oyster Cult). Duane had slightly more stage presence than Taylor. It's all opinion, anyway. "Jimmy Page started a rage."

The Stones were actually ahead of the curve when Woodie came on board. The transitional period of 1975 to 1978 was the coming of the end of the lead guitarist as the centerpiece of of a band. By the early Eigthies concerts were becoming more about the show than the music, thus the guitarist leaping around, etc.

Enough of me mouthing off.

Another person misses the point and thinks Taylor was about lead guitar. Taylor was about elevating the band. Just listen to Charlie's comments on the new BBC interview posted on another thread. He said Taylor brought something extra, both in the studio and live. It wasn't slagging Wood, just saying that Taylor was special. Wyman said the same thing in the Exile reissue DVD interview. No one says any of these things about Ron Wood, face it. If you think those of us who love the Taylor era are necessarily big fans of lead guitar for its own sake, think again. I don't give a crap about Clapton, Beck, Hendrix, etc. I love the Stones as a band and they were the best band they've ever been with Taylor in it. It's about how they responded to him and played off him, not just about guitar solos.

Total misrepresentation of where I was going. I was actually saying that the 69-73 era Stones was a band unrivaled. I wasn't slagging the Stones of that era.

That's not what I meant. I agree, "Taylor brought something new extra." I grew up on the Taylor ear Stones. I'm a guitar player, and Taylor happens to be one of my favorites, but Keith is my all time favorite player. Richards and Taylor were absolute magic. And, Taylor was about lead guitar, he was absolutely the essential ingredient at that point.

71tele - the Taylor era Stones were different than anything that I had ever heard (I'm not sure a lot of folks would get that.). I listen to the songs on "Brussels" and hear a band that grooved more than any other band I'd ever heard. And yes, "They were the best band They've ever been with Taylor in it." I saw, what we called "Ladies and Gents" back in 1975 at a midnight showing.

I'm a guitar player, have been for years. Because of my guitar playing I tend to pick apart music. My preference is to play in two guitar bands. My favorite bands have two guitar players or more (the only one guitar band I like is ZZ Top). Something that I've never understood is why people, NOW, dismiss the interplay between Taylor and Richards. In fact, I think, Richards himself, has perpetuated a myth.For me the interplay between Richard and Taylor was little short of magic (Sympathy for the Devil).

I listen to "Brussels" and hear a band that was as good as any band of the era. I was too young to see them in 1972 or 1973, but they "blew my mind."

Again, time to close my trap.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-26 20:33 by GrandToad.

Quote
GrandToad

Quote
71Tele

Quote
GrandToad
I'm going to go ahead and shoot of my mouth.

Mick Taylor was just right for the Stones in '73. It was the era of the lead guitarist. Taylor was one of the most tasteful of the generation. I would say his only rival were Duane Allman or Donald Roeser (for those who don't know Donald Roeser was "Buck Dhrama" of Blue Oyster Cult). Duane had slightly more stage presence than Taylor. It's all opinion, anyway. "Jimmy Page started a rage."

The Stones were actually ahead of the curve when Woodie came on board. The transitional period of 1975 to 1978 was the coming of the end of the lead guitarist as the centerpiece of of a band. By the early Eigthies concerts were becoming more about the show than the music, thus the guitarist leaping around, etc.

Enough of me mouthing off.

Another person misses the point and thinks Taylor was about lead guitar. Taylor was about elevating the band. Just listen to Charlie's comments on the new BBC interview posted on another thread. He said Taylor brought something extra, both in the studio and live. It wasn't slagging Wood, just saying that Taylor was special. Wyman said the same thing in the Exile reissue DVD interview. No one says any of these things about Ron Wood, face it. If you think those of us who love the Taylor era are necessarily big fans of lead guitar for its own sake, think again. I don't give a crap about Clapton, Beck, Hendrix, etc. I love the Stones as a band and they were the best band they've ever been with Taylor in it. It's about how they responded to him and played off him, not just about guitar solos.

Total misrepresentation of where I was going. I was actually saying that the 69-73 era Stones was a band unrivaled. I wasn't slagging the Stones of that era.

That's not what I meant. I agree, "Taylor brought something new extra." I grew up on the Taylor ear Stones. I'm a guitar player, and Taylor happens to be one of my all time favorites, but Keith is my all time favorite player. Richards and Taylor were absolute magic. And, Taylor was about lead guitar, he was absolutely the essential ingredient at that point.

71tele - the Taylor era Stones were different than anything that I had ever heard (I'm not sure a lot of folks would get that.). I listen to the songs on "Brussels" and hear a band that grooved more than any other band I'd ever heard. And yes, "They were the best band They've ever been with Taylor in it." I saw, what we called "Ladies and Gents" back in 1975 at a midnight showing.

I'm a guitar player, have been for years. Because of my guitar playing I tend to pick apart music. My preference is to play in two guitar bands. My favorite bands have two guitar players or more (the only one guitar band I like is ZZ Top). Something that I've never understood is why people, NOW, dismiss the interplay between Taylor and Richards. In fact, I think, Richards himself, has perpetuated a myth.For me the interplay between Richard and Taylor was little short of magic (Sympathy for the Devil).

I listen to "Brussels" and hear a band that was as good as any band of the era. I was too young to see them in 1972 or 1973, but they "blew my mind."

Again, time to close my trap.

Ah, it seemed I somewhat misunderstood you. My apologies. You make some excellent points. Yes, the interplay between Taylor and Keith is not that well acknowledged now. You are absolutely right about Keith perpetuating a myth. My personal belief is that Taylor made him somewhat insecure, so he created the Great Myth Of Weaving after Woody joined. Just because Keith might have more fun playing with Ronnie, that doesn't mean the guitar interplay - or the band - was better.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
GrandToad

Quote
71Tele

Quote
GrandToad
I'm going to go ahead and shoot of my mouth.

Mick Taylor was just right for the Stones in '73. It was the era of the lead guitarist. Taylor was one of the most tasteful of the generation. I would say his only rival were Duane Allman or Donald Roeser (for those who don't know Donald Roeser was "Buck Dhrama" of Blue Oyster Cult). Duane had slightly more stage presence than Taylor. It's all opinion, anyway. "Jimmy Page started a rage."

The Stones were actually ahead of the curve when Woodie came on board. The transitional period of 1975 to 1978 was the coming of the end of the lead guitarist as the centerpiece of of a band. By the early Eigthies concerts were becoming more about the show than the music, thus the guitarist leaping around, etc.

Enough of me mouthing off.

Another person misses the point and thinks Taylor was about lead guitar. Taylor was about elevating the band. Just listen to Charlie's comments on the new BBC interview posted on another thread. He said Taylor brought something extra, both in the studio and live. It wasn't slagging Wood, just saying that Taylor was special. Wyman said the same thing in the Exile reissue DVD interview. No one says any of these things about Ron Wood, face it. If you think those of us who love the Taylor era are necessarily big fans of lead guitar for its own sake, think again. I don't give a crap about Clapton, Beck, Hendrix, etc. I love the Stones as a band and they were the best band they've ever been with Taylor in it. It's about how they responded to him and played off him, not just about guitar solos.

Total misrepresentation of where I was going. I was actually saying that the 69-73 era Stones was a band unrivaled. I wasn't slagging the Stones of that era.

That's not what I meant. I agree, "Taylor brought something new extra." I grew up on the Taylor ear Stones. I'm a guitar player, and Taylor happens to be one of my all time favorites, but Keith is my all time favorite player. Richards and Taylor were absolute magic. And, Taylor was about lead guitar, he was absolutely the essential ingredient at that point.

71tele - the Taylor era Stones were different than anything that I had ever heard (I'm not sure a lot of folks would get that.). I listen to the songs on "Brussels" and hear a band that grooved more than any other band I'd ever heard. And yes, "They were the best band They've ever been with Taylor in it." I saw, what we called "Ladies and Gents" back in 1975 at a midnight showing.

I'm a guitar player, have been for years. Because of my guitar playing I tend to pick apart music. My preference is to play in two guitar bands. My favorite bands have two guitar players or more (the only one guitar band I like is ZZ Top). Something that I've never understood is why people, NOW, dismiss the interplay between Taylor and Richards. In fact, I think, Richards himself, has perpetuated a myth.For me the interplay between Richard and Taylor was little short of magic (Sympathy for the Devil).

I listen to "Brussels" and hear a band that was as good as any band of the era. I was too young to see them in 1972 or 1973, but they "blew my mind."

Again, time to close my trap.

Ah, it seemed I somewhat misunderstood you. My apologies. You make some excellent points. Yes, the interplay between Taylor and Keith is not that well acknowledged now. You are absolutely right about Keith perpetuating a myth. My personal belief is that Taylor made him somewhat insecure, so he created the Great Myth Of Weaving after Woody joined. Just because Keith might have more fun playing with Ronnie, that doesn't mean the guitar interplay - or the band - was better.

Thanks. The thing for me is that "Brussels" shows what a great band the Stones were at that point. The stuff from 78 is good, but, my God, 73 was just phenomenal. That's why I mentioned Duane Allman. It really does make me think of the Allman Brothers Band with Duane - sheer unadulterated power (remember two guitar band {BTW - people complained that Betts was too loud and overplayed). I know a lot of folks reference At the Fillmore East, but if one listens to that band on Live at the Atlanta International Pop Festival: July 3 & 5, 1970. It wasn't about "lead guitars" it was about a band. I think that's what bends me out of shape when I read stuff about the Stones - it's the band.

I saw the Stones in 81 at LA, twice. Good shows, but one thing that I felt was it was Keith carrying the show (?).

Sometimes I feel, as I come here, don't pick on Woodie, Well, OK. I saw the Faces in early 1975 and Woodie was smokin'. I mean it, the guy carried the show (San Bernardino, Swing Auditorium). Why the hell wouldn't he do it with the Stones. The hell of it is, I know he can play. Woodie, if there is a tour, needs to pull his head out and play his freakin' guitar.

Off on a tangent. With all the caterwauling about Taylor overplaying, too loud, and such, who do the carpers think was in control. If Mick and Keith didn't want Taylor too to play what he was playing wouldn't they have stopped him. The "cat" was doing his job. I've heard all the crap about him being to loud, etc. Give me a break - the band was playing Ampeg SVTs (it appears that Keith was playing SVTs - cant' get much louder than those things) and V-4s - some of the loudest amps on the planet.(BTW - the Faces were using Ampeg V-4s in 1975 - I wish I could find a reliable V-4 to play today. {most are too beat to crap to use}).

Taylor was quite young when he played with the Stones and to a certain extent he was showing off, demonstrating his amazing technical abilities. I think that his best playing came later when his style had matured and he found the right balance between demonstrating technical brilliance and serving the songs. I think that Mick Taylor's greatest artistic achievement is his guitar playing on Bob Dylan's 1984 European tour. He was the main guitar player in that band and pretty much carried the sound. He did not overpower the songs, he really strengthened their essence. The tapes of that tour are a must-have for every serious Taylor fan.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-29 16:09 by MrEcho.