Quote
Naturalust
Excellent interview, really enjoyed it. Thanks ProudMary, you rock!

Cool facto: I helped design and build that mixing console he is sitting in front of in that first picture. Whoo Hoo! peace

What? The very same one in the pic or the same model shown in the pic?

Thank you for sharing proudmary,very good read.Hope Mick gets an invite to participate in any future stones activities.

Quote
duke richardson

Quote
Naturalust
Excellent interview, really enjoyed it. Thanks ProudMary, you rock!

Cool facto: I helped design and build that mixing console he is sitting in front of in that first picture. Whoo Hoo! peace

very cool connection.

man he sure looks sad in that pic.

He looks like he is ready to play Gandalf at least. They could've all been actors I believe, albeit not great ones.

Quote
jamesfdouglas

Quote
marcovandereijk
It is interesting to speculate about the FOURth other Rolling Stone after Bill Wyman left.
Who is it? Darryl Jones? Chuck Leavell? Blondie Chaplin? Brenda?

They weren't with Atlantic at that point anymore.

It's too late in the day to piss in our cheerios.

Quote
proudmary
Mick T. said so many interesting things - about Jagger's leadership, what he thinks about Richards' book, how he perceives the Stones' legacy, etc... Directly from the horse's mouth - and no one wants to say anything

Thanks for sharing proudmary. Such a short interview but it provides sufficient insight. Nice to hear from Taylor that he is currently content and healthy. He has noted Jagger’s leadership before, in more than 1 interview, and has always given kudos to Jagger for his intelligence and lyrical ability – so nothing new there. And besides, any reasonable human being (or a grown-up) will concur that Jagger is the band leader. Even Brian did. I think though that there are some very precise and accurate comments here from Taylor regarding the bands lasting legacy - especially vis- a-vis the Beatles and Dylan. Taylor’s comments provide a quick answer to jamesfdouglas’ legacy thread [www.iorr.org] from a short while back. Taylor slights Richards for sure. His particular points regarding Richards sounding like an 18 year old is the exact same impression I was left with after reading LIFE. Richards seems perpetually trapped in adolescence. Interesting to hear a former insider corroborate that sentiment.

Quote
ChrisM

Quote
Naturalust
Excellent interview, really enjoyed it. Thanks ProudMary, you rock!

Cool facto: I helped design and build that mixing console he is sitting in front of in that first picture. Whoo Hoo! peace

What? The very same one in the pic or the same model shown in the pic?

The very same one considering the design was a continuing process and we built every single one in our little factory and we made damn sure they were all working perfectly before they hit the customers. With a wider panned shot I could probably nail down the studio that one is in but to tell the truth, they all look so similar after 10 years away from the biz.

On the article, it sounds a bit to me like he is kissing up to Jagger a bit more than what might be genuine. Obvious potential payouts for that kind of behaviour. Perhaps Keith isn't the only actor here. When did MT start having this dripping love affair with MJ? Why haven't we heard anything about it for 36 years. peace



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-27 01:47 by Naturalust.

“I enjoyed the book but in some ways it’s like reading about a completely different person, a mythological Keith, Keith the actor. Other people who know him have said the same. When I knew Keith, he was a very quiet guy. He was shy, that’s why he got into heroin — which was probably true for me but much later.
“What surprised me was the competitiveness, all that competing for women. He’s a guy in his late sixties and he sounds like an 18-year-old talking about his 18-year-old buddy.”


wow.it really is a bit strange to see mick taylor say the exact same thing many of us have been saying.i still cannot figure out what in the hell happened to keith.its like he read so many of his own press clippings that he become the guy they were writing about and the real keith just disappeared.

Jagger is surely smiling at this interview...Taylor just showed he can play the press as well as they can....he just may have bought himself a ticket to ride (a Stones tour) with that interview....nice work there Mick T!

Thanks for posting the interview. Hopefully Mick T will be involved in any Stones plans for 2013.

Quote
Naturalust


On the article, it sounds a bit to me like he is kissing up to Jagger a bit more than what might be genuine. Obvious potential payouts for that kind of behaviour

You may be on to something there. In the early 2000s when the Stones were touring MT sent the Stones a message via media, saying, "Say hello to Mick. I'm a little short on cash."

The link below from a 2009 Daily Mail article reveals the depth of his poverty. The interviewer describes "the unopened stacks of bills and threats to cut off the water, electricity and gas. The uncut grass, empty cans in the kitchen sink and the ancient car parked in the driveway with weeds growing through its wheels..." The article also has photos of his home and car--he's so broke, he can't even afford to take it to a car wash.

Also in the interview MT hints that he doesn't so much regret leaving the Stones as he does joining!

Perhaps MT is realizing that with the passage of time, his life will never improve financially unless he has some form of relationship with his former bandmates--a relationship that was reformed somewhat around the time of this article with his work on the Exile reissue. Wonder if he made anything off Plundered My Soul.

www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1213013/the-Rolling-Stone-whos-stony-broke-Why-Mick-Taylor-lives-rundown-Suffolk-semi-shabby-car.html

Quote
Naturalust


On the article, it sounds a bit to me like he is kissing up to Jagger a bit more than what might be genuine. Obvious potential payouts for that kind of behaviour. Perhaps Keith isn't the only actor here. When did MT start having this dripping love affair with MJ? Why haven't we heard anything about it for 36 years. peace

I had the same reaction. It sounds to me like Taylor maybe feels flattered by the attention from Mick and wants it to continue. As to his comment, “What surprised me was the competitiveness, all that competing for women. He’s a guy in his late sixties and he sounds like an 18-year-old talking about his 18-year-old buddy", well it is a memoir and he wrote about it happening in the past when he was young, not as if it were going on now.

Overall a nice article though, thanks for posting it proudmary.

Quote
Rip This
Jagger is surely smiling at this interview...Taylor just showed he can play the press as well as they can....he just may have bought himself a ticket to ride (a Stones tour) with that interview....nice work there Mick T!

If he really want to butter-up to Jagger and ensure his ticket to ride, he should've slightly modified his statement to something along the lines of "I don’t remember anybody in the Stones being particularly well endowed...except of course for Mick, who was hung like an elephant."

Thanks for posting, ProudMary.

Quote
lem motlow
“I enjoyed the book but in some ways it’s like reading about a completely different person, a mythological Keith, Keith the actor. Other people who know him have said the same. When I knew Keith, he was a very quiet guy. He was shy, that’s why he got into heroin — which was probably true for me but much later.
“What surprised me was the competitiveness, all that competing for women. He’s a guy in his late sixties and he sounds like an 18-year-old talking about his 18-year-old buddy.”


wow.it really is a bit strange to see mick taylor say the exact same thing many of us have been saying.i still cannot figure out what in the hell happened to keith.its like he read so many of his own press clippings that he become the guy they were writing about and the real keith just disappeared.

The "real Keith" disappeared somewhere around 1968.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
lem motlow
“I enjoyed the book but in some ways it’s like reading about a completely different person, a mythological Keith, Keith the actor. Other people who know him have said the same. When I knew Keith, he was a very quiet guy. He was shy, that’s why he got into heroin — which was probably true for me but much later.
“What surprised me was the competitiveness, all that competing for women. He’s a guy in his late sixties and he sounds like an 18-year-old talking about his 18-year-old buddy.”


wow.it really is a bit strange to see mick taylor say the exact same thing many of us have been saying.i still cannot figure out what in the hell happened to keith.its like he read so many of his own press clippings that he become the guy they were writing about and the real keith just disappeared.

The "real Keith" disappeared somewhere around 1968.

I will take the present day Keith any old day of the week. People evolve. Keith is far more entertaining today. Who cares about whether someone can play a friggen guitar. The world is full of guitarists. None of them come close to being as entertaining as Keith Richards, the pirate rock 'n' roll rebel!

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
ChrisM

Quote
Naturalust
Excellent interview, really enjoyed it. Thanks ProudMary, you rock!

Cool facto: I helped design and build that mixing console he is sitting in front of in that first picture. Whoo Hoo! peace

What? The very same one in the pic or the same model shown in the pic?

The very same one considering the design was a continuing process and we built every single one in our little factory and we made damn sure they were all working perfectly before they hit the customers. With a wider panned shot I could probably nail down the studio that one is in but to tell the truth, they all look so similar after 10 years away from the biz.

On the article, it sounds a bit to me like he is kissing up to Jagger a bit more than what might be genuine. Obvious potential payouts for that kind of behaviour. Perhaps Keith isn't the only actor here. When did MT start having this dripping love affair with MJ? Why haven't we heard anything about it for 36 years. peace

I believe that motivation on Taylor's part is certainly possible, but before coming to that conclusion there is much to be considered.

Keep in mind Taylor has said similar things about Jagger long ago as well (intelligent, amusing etc.)

What appears to be "new" here is the acknowledgement of Jagger's leadership.

But recalling that Taylor tendered his resignation to Jagger, not Richards, all those years ago, it appears Taylor's view on the matter is consistent in terms of who was "boss", both then and now.

Consider also, according to a Taylor representative, it was Jagger that sent his people to inquire of Taylor's medical condition a year or so ago, and offer assistance if needed. Stop to consider Richards' more caustic (if spotty) comments on Taylor over the years, and contrast those with Jagger's inclination to remain civil when on the record.

Indeed, it was also Jagger that appeared to actively recruit Taylor for the Exile deluxe release. And the magic between Taylor's playing and Jagger's singing reappeared instantly on Plundered My Soul. We must remember Taylor had a creative relationship with Jagger in working up songs from time to time.

While Taylor is on record saying Keith and himself playing guitar together was "special", it's apparently not the same as when he worked directly with Jagger in Richards absence.

Finally, we should also acknowledge that Taylor, at one point at least, was responding to a question about Richard's book. While Taylor certainly could've chosen to be more diplomatic, he only pointed out what is the most obvious problem with it, which seems a reasonable thing to do.

As for the rest, Bill Wyman has documented Keith's shyness previously, and it's reflected in much of the record we see in the film clips throughout the 60s and 70s.

Jagger is clearly the leader. Perhaps nowhere else was the point better made than Pete Townsend's comments on the Rock and Roll Circus (I don't have a link to them at the moment).

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
71Tele

Quote
lem motlow
“I enjoyed the book but in some ways it’s like reading about a completely different person, a mythological Keith, Keith the actor. Other people who know him have said the same. When I knew Keith, he was a very quiet guy. He was shy, that’s why he got into heroin — which was probably true for me but much later.
“What surprised me was the competitiveness, all that competing for women. He’s a guy in his late sixties and he sounds like an 18-year-old talking about his 18-year-old buddy.”


wow.it really is a bit strange to see mick taylor say the exact same thing many of us have been saying.i still cannot figure out what in the hell happened to keith.its like he read so many of his own press clippings that he become the guy they were writing about and the real keith just disappeared.

The "real Keith" disappeared somewhere around 1968.

I will take the present day Keith any old day of the week. People evolve. Keith is far more entertaining today. Who cares about whether someone can play a friggen guitar. The world is full of guitarists. None of them come close to being as entertaining as Keith Richards, the pirate rock 'n' roll rebel!

You're saying that Richards is ready to be on the next game show? Maybe a reality show like Ozzy? I agree... it's just about come to that. When I come across an interview with Richards in the last whatever number of many many years, I completely expect him to be talking about personalities more than music. Keith Kardashian is simply more interested in discussing his personal relationship (or lack of one) with Jagger than he is in anything else.

If you read Richards book, he does ultimately give an honest assessment of himself.. not only that he is no longer a musician so much as an entertainer, but also that he his an @#$%& and all his friends are now @#$%& as well. Getting accolades and hanging out with other celebrities and politicians. A big no no when Brian Jones and Mick Jagger did it, but we can now surmise Keith was jealous. Its a no brainer.

Again, the Taylor-Jagger dynamic is something I have long been curious about. Each of them speak so little of the other, so Taylor's comments here are interesting. Anyone who listens to the band's boots knows how tuned in Jagger was to Taylor's playing. From those first shows together in '69 to the 9/8/73, 1st YCAGWYW, it is obvious Jagger was proud of his lead guitarist. Jagger admitted as much in the mid-90's RS interview. In the films from '72 you see them traveling together. Keith's comments about Taylor leaving the band are well known, but it was Jagger who reportedly held the grudge. That is why I thought the Exile project so interesting. Jagger and Taylor in the studio together. Wow! I would have liked to have been a fly on the wall for that one! I still do not know what to make of Taylor telling Jagger he's out while Woody is sitting between them. Does that not strike you as odd? One can only imagine what was going on there.

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
71Tele

Quote
lem motlow
“I enjoyed the book but in some ways it’s like reading about a completely different person, a mythological Keith, Keith the actor. Other people who know him have said the same. When I knew Keith, he was a very quiet guy. He was shy, that’s why he got into heroin — which was probably true for me but much later.
“What surprised me was the competitiveness, all that competing for women. He’s a guy in his late sixties and he sounds like an 18-year-old talking about his 18-year-old buddy.”


wow.it really is a bit strange to see mick taylor say the exact same thing many of us have been saying.i still cannot figure out what in the hell happened to keith.its like he read so many of his own press clippings that he become the guy they were writing about and the real keith just disappeared.

The "real Keith" disappeared somewhere around 1968.

I will take the present day Keith any old day of the week. People evolve. Keith is far more entertaining today. Who cares about whether someone can play a friggen guitar. The world is full of guitarists. None of them come close to being as entertaining as Keith Richards, the pirate rock 'n' roll rebel!

Well, we know where you stand...But I wasn't at all talking about his playing abilities.

The person Keith Richards - the guy with big ears who used to grin awkwardly and endearingly during performances - was replaced by the character "Keith Richards" (or Richard). This character was the Riffmeister, the "most elegantly wasted man in the world", the prince of cool. This was done with the help of heroin, which allows one to be removed from almost all things, people and situations. It's the character we see in "Life", showing the blade, shooting at dealers, telling Mick Jagger he can't play guitar. Yes, it's quite an entertaining character, I'll admit. But sometimes I wonder where that other guy went.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-27 07:14 by 71Tele.

Quote
proudmary
"When I knew Keith, he was a very quiet guy. He was shy, that’s why he got into heroin — which was probably true for me but much later."

Keith always denies being shy when asked by interviewers. The only concession I've seen him make was in the following exchange:

MUSICIAN MAGAZINE: "Bill Wyman told us that you were nicer and more introverted than your image would indicate."

KEITH: [shyly] "We all are."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-29 18:59 by Title5Take1.

Quote
pmk251
Again, the Taylor-Jagger dynamic is something I have long been curious about. Each of them speak so little of the other, so Taylor's comments here are interesting. Anyone who listens to the band's boots knows how tuned in Jagger was to Taylor's playing. From those first shows together in '69 to the 9/8/73, 1st YCAGWYW, it is obvious Jagger was proud of his lead guitarist. Jagger admitted as much in the mid-90's RS interview. In the films from '72 you see them traveling together. Keith's comments about Taylor leaving the band are well known, but it was Jagger who reportedly held the grudge. That is why I thought the Exile project so interesting. Jagger and Taylor in the studio together. Wow! I would have liked to have been a fly on the wall for that one! I still do not know what to make of Taylor telling Jagger he's out while Woody is sitting between them. Does that not strike you as odd? One can only imagine what was going on there.

It is probably the tenth time I've read a Taylor-interview where he is praising Mick. What do you mean "speak so little of eachother"?

He always says the same, too; "Intelligent, financially wise, the band leader" etc. His descriptions sound very spot on, though.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
lem motlow
“I enjoyed the book but in some ways it’s like reading about a completely different person, a mythological Keith, Keith the actor. Other people who know him have said the same. When I knew Keith, he was a very quiet guy. He was shy, that’s why he got into heroin — which was probably true for me but much later.
“What surprised me was the competitiveness, all that competing for women. He’s a guy in his late sixties and he sounds like an 18-year-old talking about his 18-year-old buddy.”


wow.it really is a bit strange to see mick taylor say the exact same thing many of us have been saying.i still cannot figure out what in the hell happened to keith.its like he read so many of his own press clippings that he become the guy they were writing about and the real keith just disappeared.

The "real Keith" disappeared somewhere around 1968.

Yeah, he disappeared even before he found his sound, which probably wasn't even real...

Could someone post a print of the Times article, please?

(I've no access to Times Online.)

Thanks a lot.

EDIT

Oops ... I've found it ... thanks though

Quote
The liquid summer of 2012 has, of course, brought the jubilee of a proud British institution — one that has suffered the odd annus horribilis but enjoyed a few anni mirabiles too. It has survived fad and fashion with its dignity, and most of its teeth, intact. Yes, the Rolling Stones are 50 years old. The anniversary of their first gig, July 12, 1962, will be marked with books, films, exhibitions and a lot of ageist jokes but no glimpse of the Methuselahs of rock themselves. The Stones say they won’t be ready to roll out their anniversary gigs until 2013 — a spree that may or may not, depending on whom you believe, climax at the Glastonbury Festival. Bill Wyman, who quit the band in 1992, is slated to be involved, and also tipped for a guest spot is the man sitting next to me in a North London Mexican restaurant, nursing a mojito and mild indigestion. “If there was a tour, I’d love to do it, of course I would,” says former guitarist Mick Taylor, “I’d like to do some recording as well. But I’ve only heard rumours so far.” Taylor has not played with the full band for 38 years and has enjoyed/endured what you could politely term an uneven career since. He is, though, the band veteran you are most likely to see on the road this year, leading his own punchy blues band with a renewed vigour. At 63, with his stockman’s coat, ruddy jowls and impressive thatch (what have the Stones done to retain so much hair?) he seems like a cheery yeoman farmer. But, as he’s slightly tired of being reminded, his callow younger self once played outstanding lead guitar with the best vintage of the Stones: the one that forged Honky Tonk Women, Brown Sugar, Tumbling Dice and It’s Only Rock’n’Roll. Between 1969 and 1974 the Stones created the template for every blues-rock, guitar-abusing, drug-abusing, gang-band to blast a stadium since. Not that the 20-year-old Taylor was initially convinced, after joining the Stones from John Mayall and the Bluesbreakers to replace the increasingly erratic Brian Jones: “I remember the early rehearsals and being struck by how out of tune and awful they were,” he says. “I remember wondering how on earth they could make such great records when they couldn’t even tune their guitars up.” Mick Jagger and Keith Richards, though, “just kept coming up with great ideas” and, with astute production, raw blues was turned into gold. Taylor left in 1974, unhappy about a lack of songwriting credits, bored by the band’s inactivity as Richards sank deeper into heroin use, and worried about his own drug habits. Regrets? None, he insists. Taylor joined a band with Jack Bruce, toured and recorded with Bob Dylan and made decent solo albums. But life also brought full-blown addiction (he spent the Eighties “in a narcoleptic fog”), homes burnt down twice (in 1975 and 1979) and he acquired a rock vet’s tangled genealogy: two marriages, girlfriends, a daughter on each side of the Atlantic. Today, while Mick Jagger has an estimated fortune of about £200 million, Taylor lives in a two-bedroom semi down a lane in deepest Suffolk. While his former colleagues may enjoy the Croesus life, Taylor insists he is content: “I’m very happy, very relaxed and I’m healthy compared with how I have been.” This, it turns out, is mainly to do with his teeth. Thanks to £10,000 implants from a Norwich dentist, he no longer has to endure the pain of “black, rotted teeth” that marred his social and musical life. He’s playing regularly and in contact with all the Stones except Keith Richards, who tends to stay at home in Connecticut. In 2010 Taylor recorded new guitar parts while Mick Jagger sang a vocal to a half-finished Stones track from 1972. Plundered My Soul went to No 15 in the French singles charts. While Taylor used to brood over alleged unpaid royalties — “it cast a shadow over my career” — he insists that these days he does not care what other musicians have earned. I ask what he thinks of Richards’s 2010 autobiography, Life, in which the veteran Stone paid lavish tribute to Taylor’s musical skills but called him morose and shy. “I don’t think I was morose. He said I was fighting demons but so was he. I wasn’t shy, it was just that everyone wanted to talk to Mick and Keith not me or Bill or Charlie [Watts]. “I enjoyed the book but in some ways it’s like reading about a completely different person, a mythological Keith, Keith the actor. Other people who know him have said the same. When I knew Keith, he was a very quiet guy. He was shy, that’s why he got into heroin — which was probably true for me but much later. “What surprised me was the competitiveness, all that competing for women. He’s a guy in his late sixties and he sounds like an 18-year-old talking about his 18-year-old buddy.” And what about the reference to Mick’s “tiny todger”? Taylor laughs. “That was kind of nasty. I don’t remember anybody in the Stones being particularly well endowed and I should know.” Still grinning, he adds: “It’s so childish. A lot of people were amused by that but I don’t think Mick was.” Taylor also learnt for the first time from the book just how upset Richards was at him quitting. Richards wrote: “I always want to keep a band together. You can leave in a coffin or with dispensations for long service, but otherwise you can’t.” Taylor recalls it thus: “He sent me a message saying, ‘Dear Mick, thanks for all the turn-ons. It was great playing with you.’ And that was that. Possibly because I had my own problems, I didn’t realise how he was affected.” Taylor has a lot of time for Jagger: “Mick was always the leader; he had the final say and still does. He was very funny, very entertaining and very intelligent. “I remember Keith getting very upset when we were signing with Atlantic Records after we’d left Decca. The contract said that the Rolling Stones must always consist of Mick Jagger and four others. Didn’t mention Keith, and he was very put out.” Jagger was always ambitious. “It comes from his background. He was middle class, better educated than the rest of us, and it comes from being at the London School of Economics. And of course he became very good with money . . .” When I last met Taylor, 15 years ago, the mantle of being an ex-Stone seemed to weigh heavy as he detailed perceived slights. Today, he appears much more content, and proud of his service. Nevertheless, he is sanguine about the Stones’ place in history. “People say to me, ‘What do you think people will think about the Rolling Stones in a hundred years’ time?’ Their music doesn’t travel. It’s very difficult for other artists to interpret Stones music because it’s got its own attitude and rebelliousness that’s got nothing to do with the notes — whereas the Beatles will be remembered for their harmonies and melodies, or Bob Dylan songs for their words. “But that’s not to say the Stones are overrated. I think Mick Jagger has written some great lyrics — and this is the most enduring rock band that has ever existed.” And come 2013, Taylor wouldn’t mind joining in one last blast.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-27 13:42 by dead.flowers.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
71Tele

Quote
lem motlow
“I enjoyed the book but in some ways it’s like reading about a completely different person, a mythological Keith, Keith the actor. Other people who know him have said the same. When I knew Keith, he was a very quiet guy. He was shy, that’s why he got into heroin — which was probably true for me but much later.
“What surprised me was the competitiveness, all that competing for women. He’s a guy in his late sixties and he sounds like an 18-year-old talking about his 18-year-old buddy.”


wow.it really is a bit strange to see mick taylor say the exact same thing many of us have been saying.i still cannot figure out what in the hell happened to keith.its like he read so many of his own press clippings that he become the guy they were writing about and the real keith just disappeared.

The "real Keith" disappeared somewhere around 1968.

I will take the present day Keith any old day of the week. People evolve. Keith is far more entertaining today. Who cares about whether someone can play a friggen guitar. The world is full of guitarists. None of them come close to being as entertaining as Keith Richards, the pirate rock 'n' roll rebel!

Well, we know where you stand...But I wasn't at all talking about his playing abilities.

The person Keith Richards - the guy with big ears who used to grin awkwardly and endearingly during performances - was replaced by the character "Keith Richards" (or Richard). This character was the Riffmeister, the "most elegantly wasted man in the world", the prince of cool. This was done with the help of heroin, which allows one to be removed from almost all things, people and situations. It's the character we see in "Life", showing the blade, shooting at dealers, telling Mick Jagger he can't play guitar. Yes, it's quite an entertaining character, I'll admit. But sometimes I wonder where that other guy went.

The other guy was submerged in drugs. There is quote from a judge from one of KR's 1960s drug trials in which the judge says KR is a person who uses drugs to overcome his shyness and lack of confidence. There's no doubt that drugs can provide a mental crutch to people who've experienced emotional trauma etc.

This Times interview is not that much different from the Daily Mail interview [www.dailymail.co.uk]

When I brought up the Daily Mail interview a few months ago and mentioned that one of the things that led Mick Taylor to leave the Stones were drug problems, I just got flamed by some Mick Taylor fan/dork who apparently knew everything about Mick Taylor and dismissed the Daily Mail as trash (which it might indeed be).

Now it's also in the Times, so now that Mick Taylor fan/dork has to dismiss 2 interviews basically saying the same thing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-27 14:38 by howled.

The Stones are not the Stones without Keith.

The only problem is that Keith was past his best output by the mid 70s.

But if the Stones still exist, then Keith is still a huge part of it.

Very nice post SweetThing, you are an insightful presence here.

My only additional response is the DRUGS are not the answer to overcome shyness and hurt. It only delays the inevitable feelings and when they come back out they can be as mean and viscious as a junkyard dog. I know. I was kicked to the ground and ground into the dust by what I thought was a casual addiction to pain medication. Hell couldn't be any worse and I wouldn't wish the misery I went through on any human being.

I don't doubt half the people who post here are on some sort of medication to get through the day and all I can say is there is light at the end of that tunnel and narcotics only kill all that is good inside a person, they are the biggest lie on the planet. It's time we held these billion dollar profit Pharmecutical companies accountable and somehow overcome what is bound to be a planet full of zombies.

That whole elegantly wasted shit is a f u c k i n g lie in itself and I think KR is still on pharmeceutical drugs and has never come down off the horse he mounted all those years ago. I may be wrong but I doubt it. That the only thing that still pisses me off about the Stones, they perpetuated that whole thing and it turned out be be harmful if not fatal to many good souls.

Look at Mick Taylor in that first picture, you can see the pain of his years of addiction written all over his once beautiful face. Imagine what the 80's could have been with guys like him producing good rock and roll instead of lost in a narco fog as he admits in the article. We have all been ripped off by that fact and I am still angry about it. I guess pain and misery sold alot of records but the real cost has yet to be paid. Where will you be when the
man comes to collect the tax on all the dead souls produced by Swiss, German and American drug companies. They are our worst enemy and I am here to humbly speak the truth, Keith didn't have the balls to really address it properly although he could have, no wonder Mick is sick and tired of him. peace

Quote
howled
This Times interview is not that much different from the Daily Mail interview [www.dailymail.co.uk]

When I brought up the Daily Mail interview a few months ago and mentioned that one of the things that led Mick Taylor to leave the Stones were drug problems, I just got flamed by some Mick Taylor fan/dork who apparently knew everything about Mick Taylor and dismissed the Daily Mail as trash (which it might indeed be).

Now it's also in the Times, so now that Mick Taylor fan/dork has to dismiss 2 interviews basically saying the same thing.

It's all in the nuance. Taylor doesn't talk so much about his drug problems in The Times' article.

Quote from The Times:

"Taylor left in 1974, unhappy about 1) a lack of songwriting credits, 2) bored by the band’s inactivity as Richards sank deeper into heroin use, and 3) worried about his own drug habits.

Quote
SweetThing

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
ChrisM

Quote
Naturalust
Excellent interview, really enjoyed it. Thanks ProudMary, you rock!

Cool facto: I helped design and build that mixing console he is sitting in front of in that first picture. Whoo Hoo! peace

What? The very same one in the pic or the same model shown in the pic?

The very same one considering the design was a continuing process and we built every single one in our little factory and we made damn sure they were all working perfectly before they hit the customers. With a wider panned shot I could probably nail down the studio that one is in but to tell the truth, they all look so similar after 10 years away from the biz.

On the article, it sounds a bit to me like he is kissing up to Jagger a bit more than what might be genuine. Obvious potential payouts for that kind of behaviour. Perhaps Keith isn't the only actor here. When did MT start having this dripping love affair with MJ? Why haven't we heard anything about it for 36 years. peace

I believe that motivation on Taylor's part is certainly possible, but before coming to that conclusion there is much to be considered.

Keep in mind Taylor has said similar things about Jagger long ago as well (intelligent, amusing etc.)

What appears to be "new" here is the acknowledgement of Jagger's leadership.

But recalling that Taylor tendered his resignation to Jagger, not Richards, all those years ago, it appears Taylor's view on the matter is consistent in terms of who was "boss", both then and now.

Consider also, according to a Taylor representative, it was Jagger that sent his people to inquire of Taylor's medical condition a year or so ago, and offer assistance if needed. Stop to consider Richards' more caustic (if spotty) comments on Taylor over the years, and contrast those with Jagger's inclination to remain civil when on the record.

Indeed, it was also Jagger that appeared to actively recruit Taylor for the Exile deluxe release. And the magic between Taylor's playing and Jagger's singing reappeared instantly on Plundered My Soul. We must remember Taylor had a creative relationship with Jagger in working up songs from time to time.

While Taylor is on record saying Keith and himself playing guitar together was "special", it's apparently not the same as when he worked directly with Jagger in Richards absence.

Finally, we should also acknowledge that Taylor, at one point at least, was responding to a question about Richard's book. While Taylor certainly could've chosen to be more diplomatic, he only pointed out what is the most obvious problem with it, which seems a reasonable thing to do.

As for the rest, Bill Wyman has documented Keith's shyness previously, and it's reflected in much of the record we see in the film clips throughout the 60s and 70s.

Jagger is clearly the leader. Perhaps nowhere else was the point better made than Pete Townsend's comments on the Rock and Roll Circus (I don't have a link to them at the moment).

Good post Sweet Thing. You are accurate on almost all counts. Taylor may be trying to gain some brownie points but there is absolutely nothing new regarding Taylor's comments on Jagger's leadership. He has said this in at least 3 other interviews and even as much stated previously that the band would have been long gone if it were not for Jagger.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
howled
This Times interview is not that much different from the Daily Mail interview [www.dailymail.co.uk]

When I brought up the Daily Mail interview a few months ago and mentioned that one of the things that led Mick Taylor to leave the Stones were drug problems, I just got flamed by some Mick Taylor fan/dork who apparently knew everything about Mick Taylor and dismissed the Daily Mail as trash (which it might indeed be).

Now it's also in the Times, so now that Mick Taylor fan/dork has to dismiss 2 interviews basically saying the same thing.

It's all in the nuance. Taylor doesn't talk so much about his drug problems in The Times' article.

Quote from The Times:

"Taylor left in 1974, unhappy about 1) a lack of songwriting credits, 2) bored by the band’s inactivity as Richards sank deeper into heroin use, and 3) worried about his own drug habits.

Those are the reporter's words, though.