Really wish people would stop all the talk about Mick Taylor already hes been out of the band for 30 years and hes not returning. In fact I don't think he even has a friendship with the Stones any more.

I understand your point but Mick Taylor's contribution cannot be denied.
I love the Stones and play their music constantly and Taylor's era is the best.
As a fan particuarly when listening to live bootlegs i find it impossible not to have favourite moments and prefererences. It's also difficult not to compare the contributions of the various members.Technically Mick Taylor is so far ahead of Ronnie Wood it's stands out a mile and that's is when Ronnie was at his very best.
I think it is good that Stones fans are informed enough to recognise his contribution - to the casual observer he's the forgotten Stone.

With time Edward, like a good wine, you are mellowing. I think there were times when statements like the one from Riskster might have triggered apoplexy. Of course we have still to see MC and Open G weigh in.

But there is a not a thing in your answer I can argue with, MT is the better lead guitarist, the years that MT was in the group are their legendary years. We can both agree on that without declaring Ronnie and all the other years a useless waste...and so...for once...I cannot argue with you on a Wood-Taylor debate.

I'm with the Rickster on this one!

Sorry ET, Taylor has a tinny sounding, yuck! The numbers tell the real story, 5 years vs/ 30years, in Ronnie's favor!

I'm waiting the people to recognize the importance and musival superior of Brian Jones to his substitutes... Both Taylor and Wood are next to nothing compared to him as a definitive Rolling Stone (although lil' Mick is a better technician and Ronnie is a nicer guy.) Bring Brian back!!!

- Doxa




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-02-23 10:45 by Rorty.

I never get it why there is a comparison about the guitar players.
To me it is about the band. I think the band is better from '78 'til '82. And that is because of a lot more reasons than which guitar player was playing. Of course Taylor is a better lead guitarist then Wood but that doesn't make the band better. But i love all the periods and that is what makes the stones great for me. You have four different live era's, '64 /'67, '69/'73, '77/'82, '89/present (i never really liked '75/'76), and that is what make them great. They're totally different bands!!!

Cheers,
Wuudy

I agree. Taylor was good when he was with the stones. I dont see his relevance today other than the fact that he was a Stone. His playing is ok...nothing great and nothing to write home about. I don't think the Stones overall lost anyting with his departure. Still the best, still around and still very relevant....I love the last 2 records by the Stones... fresh, inovative for and older band, different vibe. maybe I am in the minority.. but I dont want another Exile which was great for its time and still holds up BUT it would pan in todys market. I want FRESH new stuff with different tunings and different cord progressions and different sounds... I hope the new record is VERY experimental with the underlying stones up beat vibe. Anyway my point is....Taylor.. yeah was nice to have, but who cares now?

The deal is they never replaced a FRIST class Musician who could flat out play
and take the band to higher levels live.

Keith keeps saying in the guitar magazines he wants to keep the band together so
they can get to another level.He needs another great guitar player or musican
who can provide that dimension.There is no great next level with the current
lineup.

I think if jagger/richards continued to write quality records post Taylor then
Taylor's absence would be less of an impact all these years.But the fact is that
jagger/richards wrote 2 good records with Black and Blue and Some girls and all
the other records had some good songs but overall they were not groundbreaking
songs and great records.They were living on there past fame and glory and making
records every 5 years is not prolific anymore and to have to watch them live
is painful and play their hits.But if you don,t write quality records then a band
must be able to play live to survive but I guess the glimmers can always get by
from their past fame and glory which were the golden period with Taylor.

Rickster - 1st of all - Keith says of Mick Taylor "We're Mates"
Taylor partied with them during the last tour in England!

And how the hell do you know if he will ever be asked to sit-in with the band again!! you don't!!! anything's possible

And in alot of our opinion's the Stones could use a musician like Taylor right about now, Wood had his place taking over for Taylor and helped keep things going for the Stones over the years but right about now they need a KICK IN THE ASS!!! Taylor could possibly deliver like Clapton did while sitting-in during Steel Wheels in the 90's on Little Red Rooster - watch & listen to that number
and tell me the Stones don't sound better with a "Lead Guitarist!!! listen to
the crowd react!!!

Being a Stones fan alot longer than you or these others, I've seen them at the best, and their best was when Taylor was on LEAD Guitar!!! Don't ever forget that!!

MLC

OpenG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The deal is they never replaced a FRIST class
> Musician who could flat out play
> and take the band to higher levels live.
>
> Keith keeps saying in the guitar magazines he
> wants to keep the band together so
> they can get to another level.He needs another
> great guitar player or musican
> who can provide that dimension.There is no great
> next level with the current
> lineup.
>
>


IMO the band got to an higher level in '78. Listen to Beast of Burden, When the Whip, Miss You and Just my imagination during the '78 and '81 tour. The best guitars you can get!!!!!

Cheers,
Wuudy



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-02-24 01:33 by Wuudy.

Congratulations Open G - two posts about Mick Taylor without one reference to 'vibrato'.

The 'golden period' coinciding with Taylor's time in the band was more to do with other factors than Taylor's (undeniably significant) input, something which those who idolise him ad nauseam seem blind to and which overlooks four more significant factors

1) the so-called 'golden period' you refer to started over a year before he joined the band and included stuff like Jumpin Jack Flash, Beggars Banquet and most of Let it Bleed, which he had nothing to do with.

2) it ended before he left the band

3) the Stones were at their creative peak when Jimmy Miller produced them. By the time he burnt himself out, it had passed.

4) the main reason for why the Stones were so mind numbingly brilliant from 1968-72 (aside from point 3) above) was simple. Mick Jagger and Keith Richards wrote more great songs than they did at any other point in their careers.

To overlook that major factor is blind ignorance and idiocy, pure and simple.

I am not dening that he was great when he was with them the point is he is not there now and the chances of him returning are slim to none. As far as you saying that Mick Taylor partied with them on the last tour where are you getting you information. I am not saying your wrong but from what I heard when they were both in the same city they spent no time together at all.

What does it matter who one likes
best? If you only like MT or only
RW than just listen to one and not
the other! Really, this is getting
tedious...................

Thanks Gazza, I have tried to point this timing out to people also, but it just doesn't seem to sink at all. . BTW, if anyone wants to hear how bad MT can get, listen to the solo from Oakland 69 on I'm Free, what does that have to do with what the rest of the band is doing?

Great guitar player, right man at the right time. Still a respectable musicisn if not a world famous stadium or arena act, but he is not God, nor was he Mick and Keith's salvation.

Wuudy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I never get it why there is a comparison about the
> guitar players.
> To me it is about the band. I think the band is
> better from '78 'til '82. And that is because of a
> lot more reasons than which guitar player was
> playing. Of course Taylor is a better lead
> guitarist then Wood but that doesn't make the band
> better. But i love all the periods and that is
> what makes the stones great for me. You have four
> different live era's, '64 /'67, '69/'73, '77/'82,
> '89/present (i never really liked '75/'76), and
> that is what make them great. They're totally
> different bands!!!
>
> Wuudy


So Wuudy, the band who created Some Girls, Tattoo You & Emotional Rescue is better than the band who created Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers, Exile, Goats Head Soup & It’s Only Rock n Roll ??????

I think not !

Esky



I respect women who can suck golf balls through a garden hose....

matter of opinion

Personally speaking, I'd take Some Girls over every album the band has ever done, with the exception of Exile (and possibly Sticky Fingers)

They were more consistent in the early 70's but on Some Girls, they proved that on their day they could be just as good.

Interesting you choose to leave the pre-Taylor material produced by Jimmy Miller out of your argument. Did the Stones only start to become great from summer '69 onwards?

I think not!

Esky, i meant playing live.

Cheers,
Wuudy

Gazza,

I am not an idiot I have made many posts all over cyberspace that the stones
were best at writing great songs with great arrangements I have defended the
glimmers but the fact is that they started to decline with their song writing
after some girls.Thats why Taylor's absence is so obivious when you listen to
their live show playing the old hits from tour to tour.

VIBRATOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO means something to a musician which you most
likely do not understand or care for.Yes the chord foundation and music and
lyrics come before the melody but the stones can,t hide behind bad songs and
lyrics all these years.

Thank You Mick Taylor for your timeless contributions to the golden period.
We will never forget you.

Gazza,

Listen to Keith's bag of tricks he recyles old riffs IM GOING DOWN,SOUL SOUVIER
A ROCK and A HARD Place.The list goes on at least VIBRATO IS FRESH AND COMES
FROM THE SOUL.Keith uses the same slides,walkdowns from open tuning to open
tuning watch the videos.AND Ron Wood Mimics him with the weaving how original

The Stones now are Jagger and Watts now is Charlie Jagger's drummer or Jagger
is Charlies Singer depends which one you talk to.

I'm yankin' your chain over the vibrato fixation - relax, fer Chrissakes

If the Stones music in the last few years is 'bad' (although I wouldnt go so far as to call it that) then IMO the buck again primarily rests with the inability of the principle songwriters to write and produce great songs - just as it's primarily their input which makes songs great in the first place as well.

Works both ways. I dont think the argument that were great BECAUSE Mick Taylor was in the band is any more valid than the one that they were medicoire BECAUSE he left.

My whole point is that they were great live with Taylor forget the studio stuff
or song writing.Taylor's guitar makes the difference because they never replaced him with another gifted musician.So whats left is there sound live all these
years is not groundbreaking musical improvisation but canned arrangements over
and over.If they wrote quality material and played these songs instead of the
hits maybe the live shows would be more interesting.Don,t you see if you write
sub par songs but have the ability to improvise and play live then you can get by as a touring live band.

Dont agree with your last point, personally, as I've seen Taylor both with his own band and with Mayall in the last 18 months and while I enjoyed the shows from a technical point of view (plus the fact that I got to meet Mick and he was a very nice guy), the dearth of good SONGS is a major factor in reducing one's enjoyment of a show to some degree. In that respect, I still prefer a Stones show for all it's flaws.

I dont see the argument in as black and white terms as you do, mate, which seems to be ; lots of improvisation = good show versus not a lot of improvisation = bad show. Personally, I think that's a bit over analytical and I don't go to a concert to agonize over the finer points in such detail. If I was that concerned about improvisation, I'd go and watch jazz or something.

But each to their own. What someone looks for or gets out of a concert is a personal thing and a matter of taste.

I never thought Keith's Studio GS introduction and overall studio performance
could ever be matched live until I heard Taylor's added vibrato from the 72/73
tour.What Taylor brings to the live version is amazing and the song takes on
another life live.Same with YCAGWYW,Dead Flowers and the rest.

He certainly took Angie and YCAGWYW to a higher leverl with his beatifull solo's. But i don't think some girls or the tours in '78 and '81 would be as good or better if he was still playing. The band got a lot better in those years.


Cheers,
Wuudy



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-02-24 16:58 by Wuudy.

I disagree Taylor proved he could play chunky rhythm with Keith on songs like
Bitch,Carol, ETC. Taylor is a talented musician and could play anything.He proved
that early on in his career when he went from playing 12 bar blues with mayall and played country,rock,blues,regaee,etc with the stones.

This has to be the one of the most frequently discussed matters on this board. Here's my take on all this: Mick Taylor is a better guitarist than Ron Wood. However, I think MT's contribution is sometimes overblown because he was in the band during the peak of the creative songwriting period of Mick and Keith. What I mean by this is that Sticky Fingers, Let It Bleed and Exile on Main Street are classics due more to the contributions of MJ and KR than to the fact that MT played on those albums. Ronnie may have lost a little lustre in recent years, but Some Girls and Tatoo Yoo and the tours that accompanied those albums stand up pretty well when compared to the 69-73 years. I just listened to Fort Worth 78. Ronnie and Keith are smokin' on that tour. (Figuratively..., as well as literally.)

Well put DJ.
It is about the band not about wich guitarist played during those periods.

Cheers,
Wuudy

and Taylor was never under mixed on stage. incredible no ?

Rickster - Mick Taylor himself relayed that info on "hanging" with the Stones
in London, he told fans in Canada there was a good chance he would "play" with
the Stones in London, alot of Taylor fans went to the particular gig to see it.
He didn't play with them for whatever reason but the Stones camp released the
explaination that: Taylor didn't show up to the sound check as the reason he
didn't guest on one number that was pre-arranged... So there must have been
something to Taylor comments!! MLC