Maybe not in the way Mick Taylor transformed songs like I'm free, GS, YCAGWYW with his signature soloing, but Ronnie's best live contributions are as much 'classic' Stones for me (this comes from a big Taylor fan). Listen to the best songs of the '81 tour, in which the art of weaving which got so much beating on this board the last months came to perfection. The two guitars echoing, mimicking, bouncing of eachother on BoB, Imagination, WoaF, Whip just make for an incredible groove. Two guitars sounding like one played by four hands: much rarer also than the ttraditional rhythm/lead divison. In a way it's more exiting too because you never know what notes, licks or riffing you'll hear the next second. For me this forms as much the heart of the Stones as STP '72.

Which one of the two guitarists was or fitted the best is a discussion that should be eternally banned from this board imo. It's The Eternal Apples And Pears Debate.

----------------------------
"Music is the frozen tapioca in the ice chest of history."

"Shit!... No shit, awright!"

The whole weaving concept is great for keith to give to the rock magazines and
cover up for the bands lack of improvisation since Taylor left.

What great licks did Ronnie ever play live any attempt at a extended solo Ronnie
always hides behind his slide or pedal steel instead of playing a single note
solo in front of the crowd.I understand alot has to do with Keith and always
keeping Ronnie low in the mix.Ronnie has no fluidity and has difficulty playing
when the band gives him his space.

How often did he use sustain,hammers and pulloffs with his playing.HIs answer
to bend the strings is to GRIMACE with his FACE.

The art of weaving is extinct NOW, but it was REAL in '81. One could even make a point saying there was more instant improvisation then - the guitars reacting on and bouncing of eachother every tenth of a second - than in '73, when Taylors solos often sounded like they had been mixed in in the studio. Fluidity and soloing indeed is not Ronnies strengh but that wasn't my point.

And listen to Hampton, it has Ronnie louder in the mix than Keith.

----------------------------
"Music is the frozen tapioca in the ice chest of history."

"Shit!... No shit, awright!"

similiar playing - I love keith but he has played the same angular chuck berry
riff and pattern for 40 years in different tunings and I am bored.

Are you guys and gals tired of those same notes and patterns he plays.and RW
does the same thing in standard concert tunings mimicks keith and no improvisation with the 2nd guitar.



The stones miss improvisation with that 2nd guitar keys and leavell are not
the answer for me to carry the band.

Havent't contributed very much to this MT vs. RW debate lately..

But I think MT brought with himself very much professionalism and true skills that were very much needed to make the band convincing around the late 60's, with acts like Hendrix, The Who, Zeppelin etc. around (the Beatles vs Stones pop battle was already dated).

As somebody said that MT was a key player in an important transformation from a studio pop band into raunchy live blues or rock band.. True is that the transformation has already happened in the studio without MT.. Beggars Banquet is not just maybe the band's most important album ever, but still to this date VERY mature sounding and convincing.. the Muddy Waters cover band have found their own original blues sound. But the problem was still that the group couldn't transform this absolutely peaky new Jagger-Richards material into a live format. Rock&Roll Circus is a great proof of that.. Although the band looks @#$%& great and cool, and Jagger is maybe doing his best performace ever, one can not be without noticing the thinness of the sound of Jagger's "background band" (that what it really seems to be); especially the lack of the guitar work is outstanding (comparing to the following year's performances in Hyde Park or American tour, and GYYO! with MT). Keith is doing his best maybe, but for god sake, he is not any Jimi Hendrix, or even Pete Townshend, to keep the whole thing in his shoulders. There is not help from Brian - expect some rare moment of great slide playing (heh, like some other Stones guitarist very many years later...). MT was exactly the right man to the job and to fill the empty space. The Stones were lucky to have him, and MT was lucky one to join in the band who were just releasing or about to release the best material ever done in the history of rock and roll.

Well, later RW was a very right guy to replace him, but that's another story, and belongs to another phase in the history of the greatest rock and roll band in the world. (And of course, Brian Jones was more than the right man to do the job in the beginning). Jagger and Richards have always been very lucky or talented to find the exactly right people in the exactly the right time, and take absolutely everything they need from them - for their own and to their band's (and to ours) benefit. After their "come back" (Mach IV) Chuck Leavell (and his side musicians) is their latest ace to fill the empty space (left by sloppy and lousy guitar work), and make the thing musically professional...

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2005-01-10 17:48 by Rorty.

Hey people - us Taylor fan's are not "going to get over it" until Taylor is
"invited" back to play a set with these guys to see what they could do with songs like: Sway, Time waits for no one, Hide your love, CYHMK, etc.

Hell if Cream can re-form, why not bring Taylor back, at least for one gig,
for all us "old" Stones fans who saw them in their prime, and would like to
see how close they can come to what the produced in the 70's. From what I've seen
lately, (that HBO special) they "need" someone like Taylor - I couldn't watch
their latest concert all the way thru.... sad - MLC

I have mixed emotions about MT. He might have been the right person at the time, but I'm not sorry he left.

I love a lot of his solos, but on my live boots he sometimes gets annoying when he fills every slot with the same kind of notes. A bit like Chuck does on his piano nowadays.

Sometimes I prefer the combination of Ronnie and Keith. It' like Keith says: 'It's not about How many notes you play... No one can keep a rythm down like me'

Fred Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
It' like Keith says: 'It's not about How many notes you play...


Good precison regarding Ronnie, during some shows he almost doesn't play at all lol !

The problem with Rock n Roll circus is also that Keith mixed out Brians guitar. He did play at the concert but you can't hear him. It's Keiths guitars on YCAGWYW.

I would rather hear many notes which in Taylor's defense is nonsense then BUM
notes from the weavers.

Taylor is a solist and can played around any jagger/richard chord progression
that they wrote and brought into the studio.Taylor never got in the way in the
studio or live.All those notes you hear are alot of times Taylor would use rapid
fire hammers/Also Taylor played alot of asending and desending patterns up and
down the fretboard adding the extra notes with the major scales.Watch Dead Flowers on LAG he gives you a textbook lesson on proper techinque and fluidity
all over the fretboard.

The notion that Taylor would of got in the way on Some Girls is crazy.Taylor
went from playing 12 bar blues with Mayall and played country,rock,blues,reggae
with the stones as they experimented with all kinds of music.Imagine Taylor
doing a solo on BEAST OF BURDEN with all that space or any other post Taylor
record that needed that BLAST from the PAST.

Greg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The art of weaving is extinct NOW, but it was REAL
> in '81. One could even make a point saying there
> was more instant improvisation then - the guitars
> reacting on and bouncing of eachother every tenth
> of a second - than in '73, when Taylors solos
> often sounded like they had been mixed in in the
> studio. Fluidity and soloing indeed is not Ronnies
> strengh but that wasn't my point.
>
> And listen to Hampton, it has Ronnie louder in the
> mix than Keith.
>
> ----------------------------
>
> "Shit!... No shit, awright!"


Right on the spot Greg. Just check Let It Bleed from New Orleans 12.05.81 or Hang Fire from Largo 12.09.81 both on [www.rockpassion.com]. Fantastic spontaneous guitars.

OpenG wrote;

Imagine Taylor
doing a solo on BEAST OF BURDEN with all that space or any other post Taylor
record that needed that BLAST from the PAST.


Some songs don`t need a solo at all.

I remember reading an interview with Woody in (I think) Guitarist Magazine where he said that guitar solos are a thing of the past. I think this was about the time of Bridges to Babylon.

I'll leave it to others to interpret this.

<Imagine Taylor
doing a solo on BEAST OF BURDEN with all that space or any other post Taylor
record that needed that BLAST from the PAST.>

He did that at The Kemper Arena, Kansas City in December 1981. Completety without succeeding. He hadn't rehearsed, but anyway...

Interesting to see these comments from years ago, and I am curious as to how people might revise these in light of the current tour having had MT every night, so there should be a good amout of material for comparison.

Frankly, I think there was a whole lot of covering for Keith this tour!

stonesstein

Kick me like you did before
I can't even feel the pain no more
Rocks Off, 1972

I found this on Steve Hoffman's board and got a chuckle. Maybe you will too...or not.
----------------

I think some clarification is in order: Mick Taylor went from playing a full wagon of Chicago blues cover's and some of his bandleader's original composition's (which sounded a good deal like the Chicago blues cover's but with different words) to the Rolling Stones, where he became bored, and, under-appreciated. To relieve these encumbrances he left the musically restrictive Rolling Stones to play music more befitting a player with his skill set. He collaborated with Jack Bruce, made a solo album and played guitar with the Carla's -Bley and Olsen.

One surely could have expected that by virtue of his unparalleled virtuosity and impeccable pedigree, Mick Taylor was destined for greatness. And let us not forget his song writing ability. After all, he said he wrote every Stones ballad while he was with the band, leaving us only to guess how restrictive 'Wild Horses' would've sounded had Keith really wrote it. But somehow Mick Taylor's lone solo album was so forgettable, so restrictive, that one can speculate Keith somehow wrote the whole of it.

By some cruel twist of fate, Mick Taylor's collaborations with Jack Bruce, Carla Bley and Carla Olsen fell on deaf ears. People hearing Mick Taylor's virtuosity during this period might as well have been been asleep. In fact, many were. Aside from a stint with the paragon of complex musical composition, Bob Dylan, the last twenty five to thirty years have found Mick Taylor playing basically the same music he played with John Mayall, minus the latter's vocal ability.

All of which leads to the question: Where would the Stones be had Mick Taylor stayed in the band? If I may briefly speculate in another direction: Mick Taylor's replacement, ersatz as he is, might have stayed with Rod Stewart. Those two seemed to work well together. Of course it's a given that 'Every Picture Tells A Story, 'Stay With Me' 'Ooh La La' and 'Lost Paraguayos' become very pale in the glow of Mick Taylor's 'Leather Jacket', but its already been established that mass audience's really don't appreciate when simple minded rock musicians attempt to break free from the blues form (Jeff Beck and Jimmy Page notwithstanding) but can you imagine how much better 'Maggie May' and 'You Wear It Well' would be if Mick Taylor had soloed on those songs... or played bass for Jeff Beck?

As for the Stones, they would certainly be better live if Mick Taylor stayed in the band. Many people mistakenly believe that Keith Richards is yelling at Mick Taylor to 'stop playing' during 'Tumbling Dice' as featured in the concert film 'Ladies and Gentleman, The Rolling Stones'. In actuality Keith is yelling at the horn section to 'stop playing' so that Mick Taylor can be properly heard while accompanying Mick Jagger. Apparently Mick Taylor must've thought Keith was yelling at him because to my knowledge Mick Taylor never again played over top of Mick Jagger's vocal in that song. He did in others, but not Tumbling Dice. It's a shame that Mick Taylor's replacement doesn't have the chops to accompany Mick Jagger that way.

Mick Taylor was also a stabilizing presence for the band while they were onstage. Whereas Keith Richards and Mick Taylor's replacement often play a quave or semi-quave in front of the beat or behind it when laying down the groove or soloing (if you can even call what they play 'solo's'), Mick Taylor could always be counted on to start his remarkable solo excursions right on the one. He did the same for his rare Jimmy Nolen-esque rhythm playing. Speaking of solo's, it has been said that Jimmy Page's solo on 'Sympathy For The Devil' and who ever is playing the solo on 'Gimme Shelter' are two of rock's best. I propose they would have been even better had Mick Taylor played them.

As great as he is, I don't believe Mick Taylor could've added anything more to subsequent Stone's albums. It is difficult perhaps to the point of exhaustion for a genius like Mick Taylor to be tied down to such prosaic material as 'Beast of Burden', 'You Got Me Rocking' etc. I also suspect it must be tiresome to have bandmates who are so in awe of you, yet so jealous at the same time. That vibe catches up with other people too, and amazingly, at other times! When after spending an entire hour playing piano along with Keith Richards who was playing guitar, Don Was said, "this is what I've been searching for, I've just never played with a master musician before" I think it was Mick Taylor who Was was jamming with. If so it's just another example of Mick Taylor not getting the credit he deserved



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-09 06:02 by TonyMo.

This crap again!!!! The Rolling Stones were broke when MT joined the band and yes they worked, toured and recorded and made money. They made more money with Ronnie and don't need to work. Hello!!!

Christ! Alan, this topic is hilarious!

And there were tours in 1976 and 1982 that you "forgot"...

Quote
slew
This crap again!!!! The Rolling Stones were broke when MT joined the band and yes they worked, toured and recorded and made money. They made more money with Ronnie and don't need to work. Hello!!!

"Again"? This thread is 8 years old... But OpenG was on fire then!

- Doxa

He he, now I noticed that not only is this an old thread, but that I have been posting in it as well...

Heh, our topics haven't changed much during the years (not too much progress...) Yeah, noticed mine also, and seemingly all I have to say, I did already then...

- Doxa

It also shows some unnecessarily meanness from the Taylorites that I hope both "sides" can avoid in the future...

I like both Ronnie & Mick T. Different flavors. Both have made lasting contributions to the Stones. Can't we all just get along?

Funny thread!

Quote
crholmstrom
I like both Ronnie & Mick T. Different flavors. Both have made lasting contributions to the Stones. Can't we all just get along?

Sure can. Let the man (MT) play live on the '69-74 numbers and RW can do the pre-68 or post-74 stuff. A fair deal for all parties involved. Gives the most authenticity to the numbers.

Done sooner rather than later before visible neurological deficits start affecting their performance (alzheimer's, Parkinson's, dementia).

Quote
muffie

Quote
crholmstrom
I like both Ronnie & Mick T. Different flavors. Both have made lasting contributions to the Stones. Can't we all just get along?

Sure can. Let the man (MT) play live on the '69-74 numbers and RW can do the pre-68 or post-74 stuff. A fair deal for all parties involved. Gives the most authenticity to the numbers.

Done sooner rather than later before visible neurological deficits start affecting their performance (alzheimer's, Parkinson's, dementia).

How would YOU feel about that, if you were asked to sit out on several numbers during a concert where YOUR band was performing? Just asking...

Quote
DandelionPowderman
How would YOU feel about that, if you were asked to sit out on several numbers during a concert where YOUR band was performing? Just asking...

How would you feel if you were asked to sit out on several numbers during a concert where YOUR solos were being imitated by someone who's earned a lot of $$ just doing it. Or how you'd feel when the imitator butchers the first signature solo in Sway? Or how you'd feel being shortchanged in writing credits where you did subtantial work? Just asking...

Quote
muffie

Quote
crholmstrom
I like both Ronnie & Mick T. Different flavors. Both have made lasting contributions to the Stones. Can't we all just get along?

Sure can. Let the man (MT) play live on the '69-74 numbers and RW can do the pre-68 or post-74 stuff. A fair deal for all parties involved. Gives the most authenticity to the numbers.

Done sooner rather than later before visible neurological deficits start affecting their performance (alzheimer's, Parkinson's, dementia).

Not to mention severe arthritis. As someone who has unfortunate first hand knowledge of that, its amazing Keith still playing at all. Not that I was any sort of good guitar player (more noise than anything else) but I can't play at all anymore. Too much pain & the fingers just don't work too well anymore. I've had to change the way I type to keep working.

Quote
muffie

How would you feel if you were asked to sit out on several numbers during a concert where YOUR solos were being imitated by someone who's earned a lot of $$ just doing it. Or how you'd feel when the imitator butchers the first signature solo in Sway? Or how you'd feel being shortchanged in writing credits where you did subtantial work? Just asking...

He walked out on having any say about stuff like that in 1974.

Writing credits thing is speculation.

deleted.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-09 14:33 by svt22.