Quote
VT22

Quote
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
Mathijs

Quote
VT22

Quote
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 text excludes that more or less. No need to reply of course.

Quote
VT22

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
VT22

Quote
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.

There's nothing academic about it. But you are completely correct with the phrase 'be it Taylor or someone else'. That's key -I love Taylor's work with the Stones live, but I would have loved it just as well with any other shit hot lead player. That's because the band was fantastic, playing the best songs written with the best front man in the world.

Mathijs

Part of made Taylor so fabulous is the fact the Ronnie followed him and he's not the same gunslinger guitarist. If Peter Frampton or Roy Buchanan had taken the job we'd be looking at Taylor from a different perspective. Still Taylor can stop time in the tradition of the other Bluesbreakers, Clapton and Peter Green.

Just to get on topic again: Taylor (or is it Jagger) seems rather audible, doing a relaxed job too. He deserved more volume here. Don't know whether he played on the entire song, or why he got wiped. The rhythm intro (continuing) is nice indeed, as I pointed out earlier in this thread, although the vocals, the piano and the sax really save the song afterwards. An early outtake according to the YouTube poster. Ive never heard this "Stoned" version before.

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
VT22

Quote
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
71Tele

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
VT22

Quote
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?

Mathijs is sometimes such a fool that I have to cry.

They could have done it with any other Drummer and Bass player too.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
VT22

Quote
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?

All were wonderful, albeit not classics, except for the former, imo. But those are four song s out of å pile of classics from that era

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
VT22

Quote
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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-12-29 14:48 by Mathijs.

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
Mathijs

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
VT22

Quote
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

last time i talked to taylor he expressed his deep sorrow for not blowing off mathijs' socks. he even got a little teary-eyed.

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).

This playing would be "too experimental" for Rolling Stones standards.

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
VT22

Quote
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.

Mathijs has got no respect.. It's irritating.

Quote
DoomandGloom
Mathijs has got no respect..

yeah, but you do have to respect that

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..

Saying any hot guitarist could of done what MT did with the stones is just not fair to MT and his contributions. Would of Sway, TWFNO, Moonlight Mile, and winter and others have been the same and have that magic glistening wonderment that makes the stones music more dangerous and he takes the band to new musical levels. MT working with Jagger helped him with his melodies and Jagger's vocals are especially GHS were more creative and mystical on journey type songs like 100 years Ago and TWFNO.


play the guitar boy

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
VT22

Quote
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
71Tele

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
VT22

Quote
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.

When we think of the 69 tour we think of the MSG shows, and maybe Altamont. Sure right: these are shit hot shows, and all material from Ya Ya's and GS is fabulous, including Taylor. But have you listened to the first 20 or so shows? I find them interesting, but far from good.

And you're right about Wood -after 1984 his role in the Stones has diminished considerably, even to such extent that really any decent guitarist could have done the job, and probably even a better one.

Mathijs

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..

Not defianlty right, but I stand by my opinion. You can have yours. I do like it though if you quote my opinions correctly -I find Taylor a great guitarist, and I think when a guitar looks like a Les Paul, is build like a LP, plays like a LP and sounds like a LP, then it most likely is part of that big LP family of guitars.

Only the reference to Jones is correct: I do not think Brian was much of a guitarist.

Mathijs

Quote
lapaz62

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
VT22

Quote
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

well we can agree that KR is always the best.... IMO if you were in a room with Keith and Brian listening to them in 1964 you'd have been blown away... or watching Mike Taylor record something like "All Down The Line" ..

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
lapaz62

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
VT22

Quote
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

It's called Brainbox, but thank's for mentioning Brian , brilliant in his own way, imo.

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.

that electric guitar starts at say 0:55 to 1:04 poss. mick taylor

another in between at 1:07 (and that three note riff is heard repeatedly )is obviously keith

so maybe accoustic is mick jagger

taylor is awesome .i wish he never left the stones ,having said that ronnie was a great choice to replace taylor.ronnie can play his arse off (slide guitar also ,but taylor is better on slide)check out taylor slide work on love in vain fro the l&g dvd .it's killer !!!!!!!

The intro guitar, which later goes on to do some kind of honking lick leading out of the 'I'm just trying to make some sense' parts is obviously Keith. Taylor wouldn't play that almost annoying honk so consistently.

Which is hilarious because I've never heard it before, all these years, until this thread came up. Thanks a lot for ruining a perfectly awesome tune!

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
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?

So far it seems that way. I do not recall anyone having said that. Of course, if it did happen, Jagger would never admit it. However, certainly Sonny Rollins came up with his own melody - there's no reason to get HIM to mimic a Mick Taylor solo.

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
VT22

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
VT22

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
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

Insignificant guitar part? Maybe simplistic is a better description and I'd even bet it was that guitar part which birthed the entire song. The spark. That is never insignificant, imho. The nuances of that rhythm is what gives the vocal and sax a platform to spring from.

No one thing seems insignificant in the Stones songs recorded in the Jimmy Miller era. peace