For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
VT22Quote
Mathijs
Taylor hater? What a bollocks. But it is true that I am of the opinion that the second guitarists Jones/Taylor/Wood all are of much lesser importance than many on this board would like to believe. The Stones really are Watts/Jagger/Richards, and added with Bill Wyman live. I think Taylor was brilliant on the 72 and 73 tour, had a tendency to really overplay on the 69 to 71 tours, and had very limited input on the records they produced. I like the Wood years more, but not because of Wood or because Taylor was gone -I just find the band a much better, tighter and more aggressive band from 75 to 81.
Mathijs
Which is a matter of perception and taste of course.
Quote
MathijsQuote
VT22Quote
Mathijs
Taylor hater? What a bollocks. But it is true that I am of the opinion that the second guitarists Jones/Taylor/Wood all are of much lesser importance than many on this board would like to believe. The Stones really are Watts/Jagger/Richards, and added with Bill Wyman live. I think Taylor was brilliant on the 72 and 73 tour, had a tendency to really overplay on the 69 to 71 tours, and had very limited input on the records they produced. I like the Wood years more, but not because of Wood or because Taylor was gone -I just find the band a much better, tighter and more aggressive band from 75 to 81.
Mathijs
Which is a matter of perception and taste of course.
Who says otherwise?
Mathijs
Quote
VT22Quote
MathijsQuote
VT22Quote
Mathijs
Taylor hater? What a bollocks. But it is true that I am of the opinion that the second guitarists Jones/Taylor/Wood all are of much lesser importance than many on this board would like to believe. The Stones really are Watts/Jagger/Richards, and added with Bill Wyman live. I think Taylor was brilliant on the 72 and 73 tour, had a tendency to really overplay on the 69 to 71 tours, and had very limited input on the records they produced. I like the Wood years more, but not because of Wood or because Taylor was gone -I just find the band a much better, tighter and more aggressive band from 75 to 81.
Mathijs
Which is a matter of perception and taste of course.
Who says otherwise?
Mathijs
Nobody, but although your last answer is a clincher statement, I wonder what's a good rockband without a great lead guitarist, be it Taylor or someone else. Your previous answer excludes that more or less. No need to reply of course.
Quote
MathijsQuote
VT22Quote
Mathijs
Taylor hater? What a bollocks. But it is true that I am of the opinion that the second guitarists Jones/Taylor/Wood all are of much lesser importance than many on this board would like to believe. The Stones really are Watts/Jagger/Richards, and added with Bill Wyman live. I think Taylor was brilliant on the 72 and 73 tour, had a tendency to really overplay on the 69 to 71 tours, and had very limited input on the records they produced. I like the Wood years more, but not because of Wood or because Taylor was gone -I just find the band a much better, tighter and more aggressive band from 75 to 81.
Mathijs
Which is a matter of perception and taste of course.
Who says otherwise?
Mathijs
Quote
71TeleQuote
MathijsQuote
VT22Quote
Mathijs
Taylor hater? What a bollocks. But it is true that I am of the opinion that the second guitarists Jones/Taylor/Wood all are of much lesser importance than many on this board would like to believe. The Stones really are Watts/Jagger/Richards, and added with Bill Wyman live. I think Taylor was brilliant on the 72 and 73 tour, had a tendency to really overplay on the 69 to 71 tours, and had very limited input on the records they produced. I like the Wood years more, but not because of Wood or because Taylor was gone -I just find the band a much better, tighter and more aggressive band from 75 to 81.
Mathijs
Which is a matter of perception and taste of course.
Who says otherwise?
Mathijs
Limited input? He was collaborater with Jagger (instead of Richards) on songs like Moonlight Mile, Sway, Winter, Time Waits For No One, etc. I just don't buy the argument that Taylor was merely a soloist and that anyone could have had the same inpact on the band's music during this period. And he "overplayed" on the '69 tour? Are you kidding?
Quote
71TeleQuote
MathijsQuote
VT22Quote
Mathijs
Taylor hater? What a bollocks. But it is true that I am of the opinion that the second guitarists Jones/Taylor/Wood all are of much lesser importance than many on this board would like to believe. The Stones really are Watts/Jagger/Richards, and added with Bill Wyman live. I think Taylor was brilliant on the 72 and 73 tour, had a tendency to really overplay on the 69 to 71 tours, and had very limited input on the records they produced. I like the Wood years more, but not because of Wood or because Taylor was gone -I just find the band a much better, tighter and more aggressive band from 75 to 81.
Mathijs
Which is a matter of perception and taste of course.
Who says otherwise?
Mathijs
Limited input? He was collaborater with Jagger (instead of Richards) on songs like Moonlight Mile, Sway, Winter, Time Waits For No One, etc. I just don't buy the argument that Taylor was merely a soloist and that anyone could have had the same inpact on the band's music during this period. And he "overplayed" on the '69 tour? Are you kidding?
Quote
71TeleQuote
MathijsQuote
VT22Quote
Mathijs
Taylor hater? What a bollocks. But it is true that I am of the opinion that the second guitarists Jones/Taylor/Wood all are of much lesser importance than many on this board would like to believe. The Stones really are Watts/Jagger/Richards, and added with Bill Wyman live. I think Taylor was brilliant on the 72 and 73 tour, had a tendency to really overplay on the 69 to 71 tours, and had very limited input on the records they produced. I like the Wood years more, but not because of Wood or because Taylor was gone -I just find the band a much better, tighter and more aggressive band from 75 to 81.
Mathijs
Which is a matter of perception and taste of course.
Who says otherwise?
Mathijs
Limited input? He was collaborater with Jagger (instead of Richards) on songs like Moonlight Mile, Sway, Winter, Time Waits For No One, etc. I just don't buy the argument that Taylor was merely a soloist and that anyone could have had the same inpact on the band's music during this period. And he "overplayed" on the '69 tour? Are you kidding?
Quote
MathijsQuote
71TeleQuote
MathijsQuote
VT22Quote
Mathijs
Taylor hater? What a bollocks. But it is true that I am of the opinion that the second guitarists Jones/Taylor/Wood all are of much lesser importance than many on this board would like to believe. The Stones really are Watts/Jagger/Richards, and added with Bill Wyman live. I think Taylor was brilliant on the 72 and 73 tour, had a tendency to really overplay on the 69 to 71 tours, and had very limited input on the records they produced. I like the Wood years more, but not because of Wood or because Taylor was gone -I just find the band a much better, tighter and more aggressive band from 75 to 81.
Mathijs
Which is a matter of perception and taste of course.
Who says otherwise?
Mathijs
Limited input? He was collaborater with Jagger (instead of Richards) on songs like Moonlight Mile, Sway, Winter, Time Waits For No One, etc. I just don't buy the argument that Taylor was merely a soloist and that anyone could have had the same inpact on the band's music during this period. And he "overplayed" on the '69 tour? Are you kidding?
That's not really much is it, one or two tracks per classic album. And on those classic albums he's not very upfront on Exile...And he wasn't able to save Goats ead and IORR now was he? I just don't think Taylor was that great in the studio. That might not be his fault because Stones music is not written to accomodate scorching lead guitars, and next to a Keith Richards there isn't much room anymore.
I do find his playing on the 69 tour, and even more so on the 70 and 71 tour to be close to noodling much of the time. For whatever reason it suddenly all came together on the 1972 tour, where he just was able to rip out fantastic solo's night after night. On the 73 tour he was great one night, and bored the other night.
Look, Taylor was a fantastic guitarist. He was melodically fantastic. But he is, in my opinion, not in the 'wow' department, he never was a guitarist that really blows my socks off. When I listen to Duane Allman on those 1970 festival gigs I just lay my guitar down and listen in awe. He's unreal. The same with Peter Green when he still had it together. Jan Akkerman had that. Brian May, Slash. Clapton with the Dominoes, they had it.
Mathijs
Quote
punkfloyd
Leather Jacket from Taylor's 1979 solo album shows his melodic rhythm playing in fine form. One can imagine this as a 1979 Stones song if he had stayed in the band. (Yes I know this song originated when he WAS in the band).
Quote
MathijsQuote
71TeleQuote
MathijsQuote
VT22Quote
Mathijs
Taylor hater? What a bollocks. But it is true that I am of the opinion that the second guitarists Jones/Taylor/Wood all are of much lesser importance than many on this board would like to believe. The Stones really are Watts/Jagger/Richards, and added with Bill Wyman live. I think Taylor was brilliant on the 72 and 73 tour, had a tendency to really overplay on the 69 to 71 tours, and had very limited input on the records they produced. I like the Wood years more, but not because of Wood or because Taylor was gone -I just find the band a much better, tighter and more aggressive band from 75 to 81.
Mathijs
Which is a matter of perception and taste of course.
Who says otherwise?
Mathijs
Limited input? He was collaborater with Jagger (instead of Richards) on songs like Moonlight Mile, Sway, Winter, Time Waits For No One, etc. I just don't buy the argument that Taylor was merely a soloist and that anyone could have had the same inpact on the band's music during this period. And he "overplayed" on the '69 tour? Are you kidding?
That's not really much is it, one or two tracks per classic album. And on those classic albums he's not very upfront on Exile...And he wasn't able to save Goats ead and IORR now was he? I just don't think Taylor was that great in the studio. That might not be his fault because Stones music is not written to accomodate scorching lead guitars, and next to a Keith Richards there isn't much room anymore.
I do find his playing on the 69 tour, and even more so on the 70 and 71 tour to be close to noodling much of the time. For whatever reason it suddenly all came together on the 1972 tour, where he just was able to rip out fantastic solo's night after night. On the 73 tour he was great one night, and bored the other night.
Look, Taylor was a fantastic guitarist. He was melodically fantastic. But he is, in my opinion, not in the 'wow' department, he never was a guitarist that really blows my socks off. When I listen to Duane Allman on those 1970 festival gigs I just lay my guitar down and listen in awe. He's unreal. The same with Peter Green when he still had it together. Jan Akkerman had that. Brian May, Slash. Clapton with the Dominoes, they had it.
Mathijs
Quote
DoomandGloom
Mathijs has got no respect..
Quote
MathijsQuote
71TeleQuote
MathijsQuote
VT22Quote
Mathijs
Taylor hater? What a bollocks. But it is true that I am of the opinion that the second guitarists Jones/Taylor/Wood all are of much lesser importance than many on this board would like to believe. The Stones really are Watts/Jagger/Richards, and added with Bill Wyman live. I think Taylor was brilliant on the 72 and 73 tour, had a tendency to really overplay on the 69 to 71 tours, and had very limited input on the records they produced. I like the Wood years more, but not because of Wood or because Taylor was gone -I just find the band a much better, tighter and more aggressive band from 75 to 81.
Mathijs
Which is a matter of perception and taste of course.
Who says otherwise?
Mathijs
Limited input? He was collaborater with Jagger (instead of Richards) on songs like Moonlight Mile, Sway, Winter, Time Waits For No One, etc. I just don't buy the argument that Taylor was merely a soloist and that anyone could have had the same inpact on the band's music during this period. And he "overplayed" on the '69 tour? Are you kidding?
That's not really much is it, one or two tracks per classic album. And on those classic albums he's not very upfront on Exile...And he wasn't able to save Goats ead and IORR now was he? I just don't think Taylor was that great in the studio. That might not be his fault because Stones music is not written to accomodate scorching lead guitars, and next to a Keith Richards there isn't much room anymore.
I do find his playing on the 69 tour, and even more so on the 70 and 71 tour to be close to noodling much of the time. For whatever reason it suddenly all came together on the 1972 tour, where he just was able to rip out fantastic solo's night after night. On the 73 tour he was great one night, and bored the other night.
Look, Taylor was a fantastic guitarist. He was melodically fantastic. But he is, in my opinion, not in the 'wow' department, he never was a guitarist that really blows my socks off. When I listen to Duane Allman on those 1970 festival gigs I just lay my guitar down and listen in awe. He's unreal. The same with Peter Green when he still had it together. Jan Akkerman had that. Brian May, Slash. Clapton with the Dominoes, they had it.
Mathijs
Quote
71TeleQuote
MathijsQuote
71TeleQuote
MathijsQuote
VT22Quote
Mathijs
Taylor hater? What a bollocks. But it is true that I am of the opinion that the second guitarists Jones/Taylor/Wood all are of much lesser importance than many on this board would like to believe. The Stones really are Watts/Jagger/Richards, and added with Bill Wyman live. I think Taylor was brilliant on the 72 and 73 tour, had a tendency to really overplay on the 69 to 71 tours, and had very limited input on the records they produced. I like the Wood years more, but not because of Wood or because Taylor was gone -I just find the band a much better, tighter and more aggressive band from 75 to 81.
Mathijs
Which is a matter of perception and taste of course.
Who says otherwise?
Mathijs
Limited input? He was collaborater with Jagger (instead of Richards) on songs like Moonlight Mile, Sway, Winter, Time Waits For No One, etc. I just don't buy the argument that Taylor was merely a soloist and that anyone could have had the same inpact on the band's music during this period. And he "overplayed" on the '69 tour? Are you kidding?
That's not really much is it, one or two tracks per classic album. And on those classic albums he's not very upfront on Exile...And he wasn't able to save Goats ead and IORR now was he? I just don't think Taylor was that great in the studio. That might not be his fault because Stones music is not written to accomodate scorching lead guitars, and next to a Keith Richards there isn't much room anymore.
I do find his playing on the 69 tour, and even more so on the 70 and 71 tour to be close to noodling much of the time. For whatever reason it suddenly all came together on the 1972 tour, where he just was able to rip out fantastic solo's night after night. On the 73 tour he was great one night, and bored the other night.
Look, Taylor was a fantastic guitarist. He was melodically fantastic. But he is, in my opinion, not in the 'wow' department, he never was a guitarist that really blows my socks off. When I listen to Duane Allman on those 1970 festival gigs I just lay my guitar down and listen in awe. He's unreal. The same with Peter Green when he still had it together. Jan Akkerman had that. Brian May, Slash. Clapton with the Dominoes, they had it.
Mathijs
Taylor certainly played more in '73 than some people here like, but '69? He was still playing lots of rhythm, and the two-guitar sound he and Keith achieved on this tour is the best of any Stones period - ever. Exhibit A is "Satisfaction". Absolutely riveting.
As for his studio contributions, I only mentioned four songs as examples - there are more. What he added was mood and flavor, much more than soloing. I would turn your argument around and say that after Some Girls and Emotional Rescue, any guitarist could have filled the role that Wood has in the studio (or live for that matter). This is not a putdown of Wood by any means, just that his role as #2 guitarist could have been filled by just about anybody, whereas on Some Girls particularly he colored the mood and sound and I can't imagine that album without him any more than I can imagine Sticky Fingers or GHS without Taylor.
Quote
DoomandGloom
There's one on every board.. Always defiantly right, a Zemaitis is a Les Paul, Mick Taylor and Brian Jones are not great guitarists. Re-writing history based on 2012 not what actually occurred..
Quote
lapaz62Quote
MathijsQuote
71TeleQuote
MathijsQuote
VT22Quote
Mathijs
Taylor hater? What a bollocks. But it is true that I am of the opinion that the second guitarists Jones/Taylor/Wood all are of much lesser importance than many on this board would like to believe. The Stones really are Watts/Jagger/Richards, and added with Bill Wyman live. I think Taylor was brilliant on the 72 and 73 tour, had a tendency to really overplay on the 69 to 71 tours, and had very limited input on the records they produced. I like the Wood years more, but not because of Wood or because Taylor was gone -I just find the band a much better, tighter and more aggressive band from 75 to 81.
Mathijs
Which is a matter of perception and taste of course.
Who says otherwise?
Mathijs
Limited input? He was collaborater with Jagger (instead of Richards) on songs like Moonlight Mile, Sway, Winter, Time Waits For No One, etc. I just don't buy the argument that Taylor was merely a soloist and that anyone could have had the same inpact on the band's music during this period. And he "overplayed" on the '69 tour? Are you kidding?
That's not really much is it, one or two tracks per classic album. And on those classic albums he's not very upfront on Exile...And he wasn't able to save Goats ead and IORR now was he? I just don't think Taylor was that great in the studio. That might not be his fault because Stones music is not written to accomodate scorching lead guitars, and next to a Keith Richards there isn't much room anymore.
I do find his playing on the 69 tour, and even more so on the 70 and 71 tour to be close to noodling much of the time. For whatever reason it suddenly all came together on the 1972 tour, where he just was able to rip out fantastic solo's night after night. On the 73 tour he was great one night, and bored the other night.
Look, Taylor was a fantastic guitarist. He was melodically fantastic. But he is, in my opinion, not in the 'wow' department, he never was a guitarist that really blows my socks off. When I listen to Duane Allman on those 1970 festival gigs I just lay my guitar down and listen in awe. He's unreal. The same with Peter Green when he still had it together. Jan Akkerman had that. Brian May, Slash. Clapton with the Dominoes, they had it.
Mathijs
Jan Akkerman, what a lot of Hocus Pocus, I cant really Focus now but Slash, really.
Quote
MathijsQuote
lapaz62Quote
MathijsQuote
71TeleQuote
MathijsQuote
VT22Quote
Mathijs
Taylor hater? What a bollocks. But it is true that I am of the opinion that the second guitarists Jones/Taylor/Wood all are of much lesser importance than many on this board would like to believe. The Stones really are Watts/Jagger/Richards, and added with Bill Wyman live. I think Taylor was brilliant on the 72 and 73 tour, had a tendency to really overplay on the 69 to 71 tours, and had very limited input on the records they produced. I like the Wood years more, but not because of Wood or because Taylor was gone -I just find the band a much better, tighter and more aggressive band from 75 to 81.
Mathijs
Which is a matter of perception and taste of course.
Who says otherwise?
Mathijs
Limited input? He was collaborater with Jagger (instead of Richards) on songs like Moonlight Mile, Sway, Winter, Time Waits For No One, etc. I just don't buy the argument that Taylor was merely a soloist and that anyone could have had the same inpact on the band's music during this period. And he "overplayed" on the '69 tour? Are you kidding?
That's not really much is it, one or two tracks per classic album. And on those classic albums he's not very upfront on Exile...And he wasn't able to save Goats ead and IORR now was he? I just don't think Taylor was that great in the studio. That might not be his fault because Stones music is not written to accomodate scorching lead guitars, and next to a Keith Richards there isn't much room anymore.
I do find his playing on the 69 tour, and even more so on the 70 and 71 tour to be close to noodling much of the time. For whatever reason it suddenly all came together on the 1972 tour, where he just was able to rip out fantastic solo's night after night. On the 73 tour he was great one night, and bored the other night.
Look, Taylor was a fantastic guitarist. He was melodically fantastic. But he is, in my opinion, not in the 'wow' department, he never was a guitarist that really blows my socks off. When I listen to Duane Allman on those 1970 festival gigs I just lay my guitar down and listen in awe. He's unreal. The same with Peter Green when he still had it together. Jan Akkerman had that. Brian May, Slash. Clapton with the Dominoes, they had it.
Mathijs
Jan Akkerman, what a lot of Hocus Pocus, I cant really Focus now but Slash, really.
Not really a big fan of Focus, but check out Brianbox -that's brilliant.
Mathijs
Quote
marcovandereijk
Listening to this outtake, I get the impression Mick Taylor is adding some licks behind
the acoustic guitar, like the licks one hears at 1:03 or 1:27 et cetera.
Quote
JC21769
I cant be the only person who thinks that the Sax solo on Waiting on a Friend was overdubbed almost note for note from a Mick Taylor guitar solo...can I?
Quote
MathijsQuote
VT22Quote
MathijsQuote
VT22Quote
MathijsQuote
liddas
My guess is that Taylor is the guitar low in the mix doing the arpeggios
C
Correct. Taylor's part is farily insignificant on this track, there's half a dozen guitars dubbed over it by Jagger and Richards.
Mathijs
Taylor's guitar intro is fairly significant though. What's a nice house without a beautifull doorbell, bugger?
The intro isn't Taylor.
Mathijs
Sounds Mick Taylor to me, but the intro is just nice and frienly neutral strumming, so it might as well be Keith, or anybody, I don't care, but that's not really my point.
My point is that your statement: "Taylor's part is farily insignificant on this track" is your usual Taylor bullshit talk.
Well, the GUITAR part is insignificant, isn't it? No matter who plays it. This track is all about Hopkins' piano, the vocal melody, the sax by Sonny Rollins. The main guitar part is Richards, and Taylor adds little fills here and there. But that could even be one guitar part, by either Jagger, Richards or Taylor. It doesn't really matter because it is just strumming G, F, C and Aminor chords.
If it was Jimi Hendrix on guitar I would have said it was an insignificant Jimi Hendrix guitar part.
Mathijs