roby Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> and Taylor was never under mixed on stage.
> incredible no ?


Everybody makes it a Taylor/Wood discussion but that's nonsense. It should be if you think THE STONES played better with the one or the other!!!!!

Cheers,
Wuudy

kahoosier - are you serious with that comment on the 1969 version of: I'm Free?
Taylor's leads and fills are so incredible on that song!!! Don't know where your
ears are????? MLC

Of course Mick and Keith are the key to the success of the Stones with their songwriting and arrangements. The Stones output pre- Mick Taylor would still make them my favourite band and i also very much enjoyed the broad variety of sounds Brian brought to the group - he really did enrich their sound but if we are talking about the primary style which the Stones are most noted for and best suited (rock/blues) then the Beggars Banquet - Exile period is their best.
In my view Mick Taylor was the icing on the cake to an already fabulous group.He really did enrich their sound both in the studio and live.
The Stones were already at their peak when he joined having already recorded Beggars Banquet, Jumpin Jack Flash and some of Let It Bleed but his contribution made them even better.It is particuarly true in a live setting where the music is spontaneous.
I think the bitterness towards Ronnie stems from his attitude particuarly in recent years. I don't think anyone can really make a case for saying Ronnie is as technically gifted as Taylor but in the late seventies it hardly mattered as the Stones style had shifted and they were being influenced by some of the contempory sounds of the time which was not really Taylor's forte anyway (less technical-more stripped down). I don't find this period (Some Girls) anywhere near as inspiring but that is just my personal opinion.
I do believe it is the comeback tour of 1989 when the Stones (like it or not) became really a nostalgia act where the longing for the Taylor years first became really apparent. A lack of spontonaety and dedication particuarly from Ronnie really started to become most apparent.
There is a complete contrast between the dedication Taylor showed in his admittedly short time with the group and the clowning of Ronnie. There are fans who want a bit of musical quality in addition to the spectacle of the shows particuarly with rising ticket prices fans are parting with hard earned cash and are not being repaid with dedicated performances.Maybe Keith's dedication can occasionally come into question but Ronnie is the main culprit.
Taylor may have only been with the Stones for only five years but at least he had the respect to walk away when he was no longer dedicated unlike Ronnie who is raking in the money with below par performances and who is forever marring the reputation of the Greatest Rock 'n' Roll Band In The World.

Edward - couldn't agree with you more on your "take" listed above!!! MLC

Edward Twining Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
I don't
> think anyone can really make a case for saying
> Ronnie is as technically gifted as Taylor but in
> the late seventies it hardly mattered as the
> Stones style had shifted and they were being
> influenced by some of the contempory sounds of the
> time which was not really Taylor's forte anyway
> (less technical-more stripped down). I don't find
> this period (Some Girls) anywhere near as
> inspiring but that is just my personal opinion.

Just thought I'd voice a mild disagreement. I think many fans take it as a given that Taylor would not have worked well on Some Girls. I suspect if Some Girls and EOMS were switched in time, these folks would say Taylor would not have worked well on EOMS. WHile Richards' has ranted about Taylor's working only the top three strings, the truth is that Taylor adjusted to the song (especially on EOMS, but also throughout his tenure with the band) and I actually would love to hear Taylor's take on many of the Some Girls songs. (The KC show with probably no rehearsal and possibly near-hostile interaction is not quite what I mean.)

Also, OpenG, Mayall's band had explored jazz and open arrangements by '69. On some dimensions Taylor's movement to the Stones was a step back to a concentration on ABA arrangements albeit in different American musical styles. Of course he also progressed along many dimensions during this time.

Forgot to mention. I'm pleased about the irony of an "Enough about Mick Taylor already" thread going on for two pages.

Flip the Switch guys this Taylor is better than Wood debate has become just plain f---ing boring.
Excellent lead guitar player replaced by technically inferior lesser talented one mean't the end of the greatest Rock & Roll band of all time.
What a load of old bullshit is often spread by people talking about how superior their hero is compared to his successor.
Both MT & RW have contributed greatly to the Stones
and it should be left at that.

Stones40 - I'm not saying the "current" Stones are at their end, all I'm saying
is that they have dropped a few peg's down the musical ladder so to speak,
want an example - look at their last HBO special - enough said.

And in my opinion, Mick Taylor contributed a hell of alot more to the Stones
than Mr. Wood ever has... MLC

Edward said the right things. I want music, not the clowning act.

Excellent post, Edward.

MC I agree with you in general on the leads of I'm Free. I am using a PARTICULAR SHOW where it did not work to prove a point. The point is that MT is not without flaw here and there. I never tire of listening to his work wth the Stones, what I tire of is the blind devotion that refuses to admit that he had off nights also, while quick to point out any flaw in any other memeber of the group. It was never billed as MT and the rolling stones.

stillife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Edward said the right things. I want music, not
> the clowning act.


Don't we all?!
For the record, in all the my posts when i was talking about ""the Wood years" i meant '78/'82. After that the stones never peaked like they did from '62 'till '82.

Cheers,
Wuudy

KA - I'm the 1st to admit that Taylor's more than human and doesn't "walk on water" and I've heard him hit a few wrong notes too, but that being said,
there's enough brilliant music out there that has him included to keep me happy
(for the moment) I just get pissed when I read where someone tried to downplay
his contributions to the Stones... Back in the day, all my friends who were into
the Stones sure noticed him!!! it was: did you heard that new album from the
Stones (Sticky Fingers) and Taylor's leads on Sway, CYHMK, etc. It was TAYLOR
everyone was commenting about not Jagger/Richards. Now that's not to say
MJ & Keith were not contributing to the music that was being produced, but
alot of comments around here are: it was Jagger/Richards composing this music
Taylor was just along for the ride, etc. Name one song that when you hear it,
you think; Oh - that's Ron Wood on guitar, that's Ronnie's playing a certain lead
that makes that song so special.... I can name many where Taylor involk's
that kind of a response!!!! MLC

I think the big differents here is that you, MCDDTLC, are more of a fan of beatifull solo's in comparisson of someone like me who likes the the guitar duel.
But i love, and i think all of us here, both versions of the stones. But everybody has there preference.
My favorite boots are Handsome girls, Brussels, Hamptons, Perth and last but certaintly not least the Chess sessions. So there you captured all the "three periods".

Cheers,
Wuudy



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-02-25 02:34 by Wuudy.

kahoosier Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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?


Geez, I have a hard time finding a better example of Taylors improvisational genius! Compare the Oakland live version to the original, which is a just an innocent and poppy song with a catching melody. Taylor tranforms it with his incredible tapestry of free floating melodic lines into a dark, mysterious, almost hypnotical song: a psychedelical anthem if you want. A perfect counterpoint to Keiths heavy chords. Amazing invention. Pure brilliance.



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

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

why cant anyone just aprreciate both guitar players

they both have different styles of playing.

why cant anyone just aprreciate both guitar players

they both have different styles of playing.

Its Taylor's first real free flowing GLISTENING lead that just catches your ear
and you want more more - like a David Gilmour melodic solo with all the space
that keith leaves to explore.This is the magic that left the stones when taylor
left someone that could play like Taylor thats why his Vibrato LIVES ON

Mandu, indeed it's not a matter of either/or but more of and/and. I like Whip or Imagination from the Wood era as much. Two equally great but completely different sides of the spectre.

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

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

It's fascinating how fans views tend to vary so much when particuarly to my mind the question of who's best seems so clear cut but everyone is entitled to their opinions.
Having seen Mick Taylor twice recently with John Mayall's Bluesbreakers i know he hasn't lost his touch. Whether he would be as consistant as in his youth is questionable but it would certainly be interesting to hear how he would sound in the Stones these days and what effect his playing would have on the rest of the group. I don't expect they would relive the glory years (69-73) but i'm sure they would sound an awful lot better than they do at the present time.
I don't think it would reflect too well on Ronnie and the rest of the Stones though it may expose their complacency in recent years a little too much.

Since we love the Mick Taylor VS Ronnie debate- we seems to compare the MT in his prime & Stones prime vs. 50yr old+ Ronnie. Although 1978 tour was sloppy it was great and Ronnie fits much better with Some Girls material.

The Stones are just not a guitar band as much as they were back in the 70s. Thye aer a giant SHOW>

Bringing MT back and moving Ronnie to bass would be the greatest This-is-really-the-last-time tour. Keep Ronnie on guitar for Some Girls stuff. A combo of the 72/73 set list with 1978 and then a few gems thrown in.

Rickster,

Do you realize that by starting this thread you just gave people an excuse to start blathering about MT more?!?

bigfrankie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Since we love the Mick Taylor VS Ronnie debate- we
> seems to compare the MT in his prime & Stones
> prime vs. 50yr old+ Ronnie. Although 1978 tour was
> sloppy it was great and Ronnie fits much better
> with Some Girls material.
>
> The Stones are just not a guitar band as much as
> they were back in the 70s. Thye aer a giant
> SHOW>
>
> Bringing MT back and moving Ronnie to bass would
> be the greatest This-is-really-the-last-time tour.
> Keep Ronnie on guitar for Some Girls stuff. A
> combo of the 72/73 set list with 1978 and then a
> few gems thrown in.


why would they want to bring back a fat self indulgent loser who left them in a lurch in 74? , give it a rest!

Posted by IP Logged: 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!


Polli! It is you isn't? To describe Taylor's sound as "tinny" is illustrative of a lack of vocabulary. A Les Paul through an Ampeg SVT (live rig) is anything but "tinny" especially in Mr T's hands. By the way, you never adequately explained you obvious intense dislike of Mick. Would you care to explain it now?

Goodnight Mick Taylor, I am putting you to bed. Thanks for the cool riffs.

Couldn't agree more with Edward Twining.
But the whole debate is ridiculous: the Stones will NEVER call MT back.
Why would they? It's not like Ron is some replacement guy -- he's been with the RS for 30 years.
The majority of the people who now go see them never even heard of MT and their favorite Stones' songs is Start Me Up. It's sad but RW is what fits best for the Stones right now: an easy to manage player who's never make them look bad even on a good night.

micwer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The majority of the people who now go see them
> never even heard of MT and their favorite Stones'
> songs is Start Me Up.

That is the SAD truth. And If they heard of him they think "Wasn't he the guy that drownd in the summing pooL?"