Mick Taylor was a Stone for 5 & 1/2 years. He was both frustrated & evidently had a drug habit when he left, & it would be half a decade (in his TWENTIES) before he would come back w/ his first solo album, & 12 or 13 years ('87?) before he did his 1st solo tour. He has never made his mark as a songwriter, but as a player he is frequently a melodist.His music is also frequently Stonesy ("Broken Hands" the clear best 'song' on the debut) & I'm sure he would sometimes regret leaving - the occasional solo album could be done w/in the band. He split with the wife too. Ron Wood was already an accomplished guitarist/bassist in 1969 - listen to the Birds collection (1964 - 66) on Deram.The Jeff Beck Group (in which Wood/Stewart/Hopkins wrote much of the material) were well liked by Hendrix, for one (not to mention Zeppelin), who jammed with them several times onstage & copped the 'Rice Pudding' riff for 'In From The Storm'.
I'm glad Ron didn't join til '75, because Mick Taylor fit in fine & made great contributions & because Faces were 1 of the best groups of the 70s, & RW was a central figure in the band (its KR, creatively if not personality wise) - writing w/ both Lane & Stewart (& McLagan). And during the 1969 - 75 period his writing (inc w/ Rod 'Gasoline Alley', 'Every Picture Tells A Story') & playing was frequently praised in reviews of those Rod albums. For sensitivity, wit, nuance, & craft check out the GA album, (Jos Lament, Only a Hobo, You're My Girl, Lady Day). Ron was a respected guitarist/songwriter/collaborator AND a star when he joined the RS. He likely doesnt regret it, but as with Brian, whose status in the group shifted depemnding on where KR threw in his lot, only when Mick & Keith were falling out did he write many songs (half the orig material on Dirty Work), w/ Keith whose allegiences shift occasionally. Socially KR & RW do not have the entent or friendship they used to, perhaps due to RWs drug/alcohol problems, & RW has been increasingly marginalized in the group (I thought he played superbly on some of the US tour, esp on tracks w/out the horns like MR)tho he frequently seems to be looking for spaces to fill - and when loaded he just goofed off as he himself described). Even in the Tip of the Tongue flick, when the Stones are all praising each other, KR's remarks on RW are backhanded at best, & even derogitory ('he can get in the way')
There have been eery similarties btwn Brian, MT, & RW that can only have to do with that niche in the band as they have such different personalities: they all developed drug habits (Keith's position was hardly ever really threatened, except perhaps '77), & MT missed sessions for IORR a la BJ. The 1st few times I saw MT live there was a creepy resemblance to Brian during his later bloated period, & he didn't really get original material into the set til the 2nd or 3rd tour I saw. RW's marginalization recalls Brian's too, right down to his volume being sometimes reduced a la R & R Circus. Finally, I am tired of this either/or attitude towards MT & RW - I love both, along with BJ, & they all (RW most perhaps SG thru Dirty Work, but even since)made great contributions to their band. Hell, I dont care how good Mayall's bands were/are, the guy's singing & lyrics (i.e. Blues from Laural Canyon) are terrible. (well I do care, but have to shut out Mayall)



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2005-01-02 19:02 by john r.

sorry to repeat points Kahoosier made so eloquently, but i started that post, had to go out, came back to finish 2 hours later.
btw, Clapton is somewhat of a odd case as well as a great guitarist - read the Tom Dowd (who produced it)liner notes to 461 Ocean Blvd (Mobile Fidelity version, 1994)- coming to the studio w/no material, no musicians, etc after 4 years. It would seem most songs/musicians/covers are suggested by others. I don't think EC is a group person (since the Dominos, who lasted what, 6 months?)nor do I think he's done anything as worthy as even the much maligned B2B since 1980 or so. (nothing as good as A Stone's Throw, for that matter). Also, w/his addictive tendencies how long would he have lasted had he joined in '75?

In response to both Kahoosier's and John R's well reasoned arguments, I would ask you all to consider what Ya-Yas would have sounded like with Ron Wood at the helm. Additionally, what would the 72/73 tours have sounded like?

A clue is to listen to Rod Stewart's Coast to Coast live album from that same time. The guitar playing is pathetic. Respect? As a good bloke perhaps but not as a guitarist.

As for the Faces, well they were merely a novelty act who made a few singles and got drunk. They were quite sensibly self-effacing because everybody else laughed at them as well. As for their actual output, well I can recall Stay with Me, Pool Hall Richard and Cindy Incidentally. That's about it. Would the Stones have survived for five minutes sounding like that drivel? Even Rod was making plans to ditch them.

Ron Wood is a nice bloke, a fantastic personality, a great joiner-inner and the luckiest man on the planet.

The Faces themselves have all dismissed "Coast To Coast" as an impulsive decision & poor live album. A fairer representation of live Faces is the BBC & live material included in the box set (including a beautiful 'Angel'). Rod's albums of the period, & the Faces', are classic, & the box also includes numerous outtakes & non-lp singles (for just 1 good RW guitar-dominated track, check "Skewiff" Cindy's b-side). As for classic material, song wise & recording-craft wise, "Flying', Dylan's 'Wicked Messenger', 'Stone', Sweet Lady Mary', 'Richmond', 'Tell Everyone', their covers of 'Maybe I'm Amazed' and virtually all of "Nod Is As Good as A Wink' & "Ooh La La" - rate w/ the best rock & roll of the era, and for newly unearthed stuff their cover (from the box) of Brian Wilson's "Getting Hungry" is incredible, 1 of the great surprises of last year, along with 'The Cheater' 'Open To Ideas' & several other studio gems. Small Faces were already a great group when Steve Marriott split in '69, (Stones fans should check out both versions of "Wham Bam Thank You Ma'm")& when Ron & Rod joined, bringing more of a blues/folk/Stones influence to the r'nb/soul/psych of SF, the combination exuded a passion, joy, spontaneity, humility, & soul onstage & on record all too rare in big groups, esp. over the last 30 years - and the depth & range from the various songwriting voices (Lane, Wood, Stewart, & occasionally McLagan) is/was also very unusual even in their own time.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-01-02 21:11 by john r.

To Demon, about the quote:

KEITH: "It was so obvious to me that Ronnie should be in the STONES. The only reason he didn't join earlier is that nobody wanted to be the reason for the FACES breaking up"

This a famous quote. I always understood it as 1975 (when Ronnie was a guess) versus 1976 (when he was officially hired), not as 1969 versus 1976

I mean "a guest", but thinking of it, it maybe as well has been a guess i.e. a bet.

Yes, & because Ron's serious involvement began in 1974 w/ IORR & his debut solo album. Following that album, & his solo gigs w/ Keith, Keith guested in December '74 onstage w/Faces (in their so-called 'Last Concert' film), then RW did the first USA '75 Faces tour, followed by the summer '75 RS TOTA, & the final faces tour (August - November '75) - all the while putting out a 2nd solo album, various Faces sessions, & working on the RS' Black & Blue. When Rod announced the Faces split in Dec '75 (a full year after Mick T quit), cancelling a Far East tour for '76, the delayed decision was made.

John R, I'll check out that box set.

I believe the Rose Taylor story. There is always a Yoko around every corner... musicians always seemed to get screwed when listening to outside sources. As far as the second story/ question. That it would be really sad if / the story really was true...and do true mates make up and get over petty differences???!!! I for one love Ron Wood but I hope someday that Mick Taylor gets to feel some of the glory of playing again with the The Stones...Bill too!

To The Joker: Ron Officially joined in 1975, not 1976 (page 302 Bockris)

Posted by: Tornandfrayed
Date: januar 2, 2005 15:43

"Clapton should have joined in 1975."


It would never fly, because Clapton is a solo musician.

Keith said at the time, to writer Barbara Charone: "It doesn't matter about the B. B. Kings, Eric Claptons, and Mick Taylors, 'cause they do what they do,---but I KNOW THEY CAN'T DO WHAT I DO." They can play as many notes under the sun, but they can't hold that rhythm down, baby."

Also, when Clapton asked Keith why he didn't ask him to join the Stones, Keith actually told Clapton, "Because you're a SOLO artist."

It is sad that many here do not really understand the span and quality of Ron Wood's career as a musicianand solo musician before and during the Stones.

The man has nothing to prove. He wrote more than his fair share of good songs, with the Faces and solo. In the Stones I definitely feel his contributions have been ignored or used and not credited, with some exceptions.

Ron Wood had a great career before the Stones and was (and still is) respected among his peers.

Milo, NYC
You must of been low down crazy in order to become real wise

Ron Wood had great contributions to the stones studio records playing many
instruments.

But Live Ron Wood is tin and showed no real desire to improvise.
Listen to his attempt at a solo on YCAGWYW on FF from London he has no idea
what to play when he tries an extended solo.

<Ron Wood had great contributions to the stones studio records playing many
instruments>

Nowadays, your description is correct. But listen to YCAGWYW in 1975 and state again that he didn't know what to do when playing extended solos - you'll find that he did!

To OpenG: I think just the opposite. Improvising sometimes ruins the live songs. Extended solos suck.

Woody has no clue and can,t play when the band gives him Space.

live is improvisation and not canned arrangements and setlists and
backup singers and all the rest of the glitter.

Edward Twinning wrote: "I liked Ronnie in the Faces but i've never been convinced by him in the Stones."

I think 30 years is pretty "convincing" don't you? Yer all "BLINDED BY RAINBOWS"

To contribute or not contribute to another Taylor-Wood conflagration. That is the question . . .

Tossing in another this or that sucks seems pointless. Even "ancient art of weaving" vs. "virtuosic soloing" seems silly. Everyone has their preferences and I'm not sure why anyone would argue over chocolate vs vanilla. (At least offer something like: Chocolate works on the same receptors as heroin and sex. It's also an aphrodisiac. Can't you see that????!??!?)

Then there is the logic [?] of the posting. The same person posted: (1) MT's was a fill in, the Stones knew it and MT knew it. The Stones were just waiting for RW so MT would be gone as soon as RW became available. So MT never had a chance to stay on. (2) MT's greed, wife, songwriting credit furor, etc. caused _him_ to leave the band. So MT blew it by leaving the band.

Incidentally, on the point of waiting for RW, Keith said in any interview that he tried to call up Ronnie Lane to get RW in 1969 instead of Taylor. The problem with this wishful-thinking story is that RW was with JBG then.

There seem to be a lot of assumptions that MT wants to get back together with the Stones. I've heard and read interviews with MT and never heard or read him say that. I've also not heard or read any Stone say that MT asked to rejoin. The crying story is about MT when he read Keith's letter praising him--this, of course, being after MT left the band in large part over "not getting along with Keith" according to Jagger. There were reports that MT would play in Astoria in 2003, but apparently he did not show up at the sound check. It does not seem that he has a great interest in returning to the band he left 30 1/12 years ago.

Is it not funny that this was a mick taylor question yet we have the same old pissing match about ron wood VS mick taylor. It makes me wanna scream. It's gets pretty boring.Am I wrong?

No bassaleman, you ae not wrong, at least from where I'm sitting!

How can anyone come to the conclusion that MT was a fill in.He played all the
greatest stones records and his studio contributions with all his timeless solos
blow away the output of any other guitar god during that time span of 69-74.

He played on the greatest live studio release in Ya Ya's and played on the
greatest record in exile.

He took Honky Tonk Woman and made it a classic rocker and even keith says that
in interviews.The whole concept of a Hank Williams country song was changed by
MT when he first joined the band.

And all his LIVE performances from 69,70,72,73 are timeless and make jagger
and keith cringe and they hide that stuff in vaults so the mainstream fan today
cant make comparisons on how the greatest rock and roll band used to sound.

You nailed it OpenG!

Milo:

I think your comments on Taylor are right on. He was a superb soloist at a time when that was The Thing in rock. But by the time of Some Girls, the Stones were about rhythm guitar (and that's NOT because Ronnie couldn't solo - he could and he can!).

Check out the Oakland '69 boot where the amps are blown on JJF, and Mick has to take over the last half of JJF for Keith. His rhythm guitar chops were laughable - he was barely playing at all, though he literally had the whole sound system to himself.

I'm not against MT: I saw him live twice with the Stones, and heard him on many live boots: just like you infer, he was technically brilliant, but he wasn't gonna keep up with where Keith and the band were headed in the long run.

Scaffer

Open G, I haven't seen you on the boards for a while. Glad to see your posts again.

Again, not trying to get into the "this is great" vs. "that sucks" debate:

I think the point being made about "fill in" is that the band or MT knew that MT's days in the band were numbered from fairly early on. I don't think that view itself suggests MT's contribution was insignificant or unaccomplished. Similarly, MT's temporary stays with the Bluesbreakers in '82, Dylan in '84 and Carla Olson in the early 90s I think were intended to be temporary, but that does not diminish his contribution.

On another point, that Some Girls is regarded as a "rhythm guitar" album is amusing to me. Yes, there is Lies, but the line up of WTWCD, Respectable, etc. had two _lead_ guitars over Jagger's rhythm guitar. When I first heard the album and all that "lead guitaring", I thought they were going for a punk/"new wave" version of Lynyrd Skynyrd during the lead breaks. A fine album, but a rhythm guitar album? Not to my ears.

I've not heard the Oakland 69 JJF. The electronic mishaps at that show finally gave MT the oppty to start playing leads on SFTD--previously only KR played the lead. In any case, I have heard the NY 72 JJF and, while I never would have thought a different riff in JJF would work, MT's alternative riffs in the verses and chorus make that version among my favorites.

I think Some Girls is a great guitar record with the weaving and charlies best
drumming record.

One of MT's first GLISTENING leads is from IM Free fron 1969.That solo just gets
in your ear and flys sort of like David Gilmour with all the space for MT to
soar.

MT's chunky rhythm on Carol and Little Queenie sure add to the dyanmite on
Ya Ya's.Listen to MT's octave riffing on SFTD on Ya yas.One of the greatest
octave riffs ever is by MT YCAGWYW from 1972 the Philly 1 special.We forget
keith is the greatest rhythm player and riff master but MT sure proved he could
do that also.

I actually thought MT was not really interested in that rudimentary Carol, Little Queenie, Star rhythm stuff even though he seemed quite capable of doing it. Whenever he said he was bored on stage, I thought he was referring to that stuff, where is playing was straightjacketed.

Live, I prefer his rhythm stuff on GS on the '73 tour, JJF '72, Pretty Woman '67 & '82, and Checkin on My Baby '82, where his inventiveness really soared. On the whole though, I prefer where his rhythm is alot like a lead: e.g., BBJ '72, particularly NYC.

Mick Taylor great soloist & guitar player left the Stones because of -

1) Substance abuse was taking a heavy toll and to survive he & his wife decided that he must leave the Stones

2) Wished to pursue a new career in song writting and with a more Bluesy style band

3) Ego becoming as big as his extended guitar solos

4) His long guitar solos especially live were beginning to undermine the other 4 members of the band.

5) Creative differences with Keith


These are five main possibilities as to why Mick Taylor suddenly decided to inform Mick Jagger that with immediate effect (after 5 years) he was leaving the Stones.
The truth is in there but is not as obvious as everyone assumes.
Remember when considering these that the Stones did not ask Mick Taylor to leave - it was the other way round.
What is the real reason that MT left the Stones ?

Actually having Keith screaming at him, etc. may sound to some ears like a request to leave. (The reports I'm aware of were that Keith did not like Taylor in the studio.) Maybe Jagger did not ask him to leave, or Bill or Charlie.

I suppose Brian "left" the Stones as well. . .

I don't think Taylor was looking for a Bluesy band. He hooked up with Jack Bruce to do progressive rock-type stuff.

I think Keith is terrible to work with at least if you are in the band. Simple as that. And he couldnt stand Mick Ts greatness. Ron Wood was a fan of Keiths while Mick Taylor co-wrote brilliant songs with Mick. Jeaolusy, brotherhood, male egos etc. Keith treated Brian like shit and still does and dont tell me Brian was treating Keith in some bad way cause he wasnt. Keith is the real @#$%& in this band. Jimmy Page says that and so does Mick Jagger though in slitghtly different ways. Hes not very mature I think and while he was really cool and great in the 70s he is a parody today. As I said before from cool to clown. A real gangster.

LA Forum, you are a brave guy to come right out and call a spade a spade. LOL I guess in multiple posts I have tried to hint at tha fact that maybe Keith is at least as responsible if not more so than Mick for problems. God knows living in the adult world and having a managerial position, I could never tolerate a worker let alone a partner that could not be depended to show up for work / rehearsal, let alone asking even more ;that they should show up sober.

Bu that is part of the probelm with an addict, and it worsens with time, be the addiction heroin or alcohol. Hell just watch how cranky a smoker gets with non-smoking areas in public. Keith has got to be terribly hard to work with, because while he is quick to point out someone elses flaws ( he flays Ronnie at times)he cannot see any of his own.