Quote
svt22

Imo Taylor never overplayed, at the contrary, I loved it. That's what I try to point out, Kleer!
According to DP Taylor noodled too much, so it doesn't suit the song or even undermines the groove, doesn't suit the song.. To him there are laws, unwritten laws that are not respected by Taylor.
I respect DP's opinion, but I completely disagree. Music is freedom of speech, until the opposite has been proven.

I know svt, just teasing

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-18 05:15 by His Majesty.

Quote
Doxa

Actually I'd like to ask from the people who actually were there, during, say, 1973 European Tour or in those moments during American Tour when Taylor "went over the top" like is so many times argued in hindsight by Wood-era born fans, that did you really think so at the time? That Taylor is "playing too much" or "noodling" or "shaking the boat"? Were you thinking that Taylor is ruining the great songs by his "over-playing"?

I ask this, because I can't recall people who actually were in those concerts saying that ever. To me it seems to be one of Wood-era born fans' myths, which tells more of about the one-dimensional taste of those people than anything else.


- Doxa

I actually was to two concerts on the same day on October 6th, 1973. But, alas, they played too loud for my ears. Maybe I would have not been able to catch everything even if it had not been to loud; I probably would have needed repetitions. But never did I come across the view then that Mick Taylor should have overplayed.

The quotation "You can't "force" me into liking the JJF-version from 1972, which I admit I find utterly horrible, with all the squeeching, and constant off-rhythm playing and noodling on top of the vocals and the lead riff." seems to be something I could very much like. I am fond of music involving some noise elements . I look forward to listen to it when I come home. I wrote this earlier today that far. Now I have listened to the song. To me those aspects are what is now most attractive by that version and makes that version stand out.

I have always been fascinated when Stones songs present themselves in different versions. And of things happening sonically during the verses, not only during the solos.

Since Dandeliom Powderman has made that an argument, I apologize that I have to do so, too: I am not a oneeyed Taylorite. Quite the contrary, I am also one who like much from all eras. I love the early R&B band that I slowly learned to adore in 1964-65. I loved the experimental pop band they became. I love the four studio albums of '68 - '72, and do like the coming down again album GOAT'S HEAD SOUP. I have reminded another poster that this third peak of the band did not start with the arrival of Mick Taylor, and that his presence could not help it from ebbing out. To me IORR and BLACK AND BLUE mean a comparative slump (him taking part in the former). I consider three out of four albums starting With SOME GIRLS a fourh career peak, but I look on TATTOO YOU as their weakest album as a hole, and DIRTY WORK and STEEL WHEELS as another slump. But I do like their latest three studio albums, especially the last two. I have been opposed to the Las Vegas concept, and at the outset I found it an interesting turn to recreate the original studio songs. With mixed emotions I did support the new professionalism, and I acknowledged the need for more control and some premeditated coordination when the Stones should do a live come back in 1989, to avoid the danger of ending up as a pathetic band.

However, however, during the length of time what for some years functionned as a variation and a vital solution, seems to have developed into a routine. The recreation of songs are done with taste, but during time what is recreated tends to be more and more the surface of the songs, of course, a nice and rather satisfying feeling, when the conservatism of casual fans compels them to transform their strong songs of old to warhorses and almost not being able to present new songs live. Songs that maybe would be less dangerous, but more challenging. Take for instance "Blinded by Rainbows" A really challenging song would have been "Sweet NeoCon".

Accordingly, The Stones are trapped in their long functionning solution. They are deeply in need of somehow lessening some of their control and be able to play some new made songs live. Their more guitar oriented approach has given them some renewed vitality, but the novelty factor runs the risk of being used up. I believe that Mick Taylor's improvising way of playing can contribute to both lessening of control and the possibility to play new songs live, and give the band a boost.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-13 22:29 by Witness.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-18 05:17 by His Majesty.

Quote
Doxa


The Jones era doesn't matter. Chuck plays them.

- Doxa

Post of the year!...><

Quote
Witness

Quote
Doxa

Actually I'd like to ask from the people who actually were there, during, say, 1973 European Tour or in those moments during American Tour when Taylor "went over the top" like is so many times argued in hindsight by Wood-era born fans, that did you really think so at the time? That Taylor is "playing too much" or "noodling" or "shaking the boat"? Were you thinking that Taylor is ruining the great songs by his "over-playing"?

I ask this, because I can't recall people who actually were in those concerts saying that ever. To me it seems to be one of Wood-era born fans' myths, which tells more of about the one-dimensional taste of those people than anything else.


- Doxa

I actually was to two concerts on the same day on October 6th, 1973. But, alas, they played too loud for my ears. Maybe I would have not been able to catch everything even if it had not been to loud; I probably would have needed repetitions. But never did I come across the view then that Mick Taylor should have overplayed.

The quotation "You can't "force" me into liking the JJF-version from 1972, which I admit I find utterly horrible, with all the squeeching, and constant off-rhythm playing and noodling on top of the vocals and the lead riff." seems to be something I could very much like. I am fond of music involving some noise elements . I look forward to listen to it when I come home. I wrote this earlier today that far. Now I have listened to the song. To me those aspects are what is now most attractive by that version and makes that version stand out.

I have always been fascinated when Stones songs present themselves in different versions. And of things happening sonically during the verses, not only during the solos.

Since Dandeliom Powderman has made that an argument, I apologize that I have to do so, too: I am not a oneeyed Taylorite. Quite the contrary, I am also one who like much from all eras. I love the early R&B band that I slowly learned to adore in 1964-65. I loved the experimental pop band they became. I love the four studio albums of '68 - '72, and do like the coming down again album GOAT'S HEAD SOUP. I have reminded another poster that this third peak of the band did not start with the arrival of Mick Taylor, and that his presence could not help it from ebbing out. To me IORR and BLACK AND BLUE mean a comparative slump (him taking part in the former). I consider three out of four albums starting With SOME GIRLS a fourh career peak, but I look on TATTOO YOU as their weakest album as a hole, and DIRTY WORK and STEEL WHEELS as another slump. But I do like their latest three studio albums, especially the last two. I have been opposed to the Las Vegas concept, and at the outset I found it an interesting turn to recreate the original studio songs. With mixed emotions I did support the new professionalism, and I acknowledged the need for more control and some premeditated coordination when the Stones should do a live come back in 1989, to avoid the danger of ending up as a pathetic band.

However, however, during the length of time what for some years functionned as a variation and a vital solution, seems to have developed into a routine. The recreation of songs are done with taste, but during time what is recreated tends to be more and more the surface of the songs, of course, a nice and rather satisfying feeling, when the conservatism of casual fans compels them to transform their strong songs of old to warhorses and almost not being able to present new songs live. Songs that maybe would be less dangerous, but more challenging. Take for instance "Blinded by Rainbows" A really challenging song would have been "Sweet NeoCon".

Accordingly, The Stones are trapped in their long functionning solution. They are deeply in need of somehow lessening some of their control and be able to play some new made songs live. Their more guitar oriented approach has given them some renewed vitality, but the novelty factor runs the risk of being used up. I believe that Mick Taylor's improvising way of playing can contribute to both lessening of control and the possibility to play new songs live, and give the band a boost.

Many good points, Witness.

But are the Stones really trapped? They are 70 year olds doing the best they can to give us - the fans - a good show. They play ER, Sway and other obscure songs, but stick to the most popular songs they know the majority of the fans love.

I don't know if I'd have done different if I were in their shoes...

Quote
Witness


I have been opposed to the Las Vegas concept, and at the outset I found it an interesting turn to recreate the original studio songs. With mixed emotions I did support the new professionalism, and I acknowledged the need for more control and some premeditated coordination when the Stones should do a live come back in 1989, to avoid the danger of ending up as a pathetic band.

However, however, during the length of time what for some years functionned as a variation and a vital solution, seems to have developed into a routine. The recreation of songs are done with taste, but during time what is recreated tends to be more and more the surface of the songs, of course, a nice and rather satisfying feeling, when the conservatism of casual fans compels them to transform their strong songs of old to warhorses and almost not being able to present new songs live.

Thank you Witness for your reply. I just quoted this passage, since I think it captures something essential. Likewise I think the "new professionalism" was an interesting and vital solution at the time, but in the long run it has dried all the creative and daring elements of their live performances.

So for me the issue is that do we want this safe and sure old concept to carry on till the end, or do we need some fresh blood and dareness to the mix. That's the cash value of "anti-Taylorism" vs. "Taylorism" debate we are having these days, or what it is all about. Between those who don't want anything to change, and those who want.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-13 22:44 by Doxa.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
............................
But are the Stones really trapped? They are 70 year olds doing the best they can to give us - the fans - a good show. They play ER, Sway and other obscure songs, but stick to the most popular songs they know the majority of the fans love.

I don't know if I'd have done different if I were in their shoes...

I think that they, especially Mick Jagger, would have loved to play new songs live. Then they would have been stimulated to make and record more songs, too, more than they have during the last two decades. It would have meant the privilege to continue to be creative.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-13 22:53 by Witness.

Quote
Witness

Quote
DandelionPowderman
............................
But are the Stones really trapped? They are 70 year olds doing the best they can to give us - the fans - a good show. They play ER, Sway and other obscure songs, but stick to the most popular songs they know the majority of the fans love.

I don't know if I'd have done different if I were in their shoes...

I think that they, especially Mick Jagger, would have loved to play new songs live. Then they would have been stimulated to make and record more songs, too, more than they have during the last two decades. It would have meant the privilege to continue to be creative.

It looks indeed like they are having fun playing the two new songs every night.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-18 05:18 by His Majesty.

Quote
His Majesty

With respect, but your head seems to be some what up your bum lately.

Are the guests not adding "fresh blood and dareness to the mix"?

Various things are different on this tour... It's stripped down minimal stage set up, less constant backing musicians, a rejuvenated Ron Wood, an older, but more focused on playing Keith, some guests kicking up a storm and yes, the inclusion of Mick Taylor.

Some of the other guests are contributing as much if not more musically than he is.

Even without Taylor, this tour is different and features "fresh blood and dareness to the mix", but it seems you and some others are deaf and blind to it due to so much focus on Taylor.

I'm sorry to say that I can't take this seriously at all.

IMO, Mick Taylor overplayed (slightly) last fall.
Lacking confidence, he put too many notes on his first Midnight Ramblers, at the expense of the fright atmosphere and sharpness that MR specially demands. Then he corrected that, and now Ramblers have got the right balance between structure and flavours, like great wines.

IMO, he never overplayed in his 69-73 era. Never faulty (a fact), never excessive (though questionable for a few people).



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-13 23:19 by MarkSchneider.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Witness

Quote
DandelionPowderman
............................
But are the Stones really trapped? They are 70 year olds doing the best they can to give us - the fans - a good show. They play ER, Sway and other obscure songs, but stick to the most popular songs they know the majority of the fans love.

I don't know if I'd have done different if I were in their shoes...

I think that they, especially Mick Jagger, would have loved to play new songs live. Then they would have been stimulated to make and record more songs, too, more than they have during the last two decades. It would have meant the privilege to continue to be creative.

It looks indeed like they are having fun playing the two new songs every night.

But only a hint of what it might have meant to them if they could have had a fresh album and another recent to base a setlist on. Really to be able to do that.

(Edit is correction of a printing error,)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-14 06:47 by Witness.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-18 05:18 by His Majesty.

Quote
His Majesty
With respect, but your head seems to be some what up your bum lately.

Are the guests not adding "fresh blood and dareness to the mix"?

Various things are different on this tour... It's stripped down minimal stage set up, less constant backing musicians, a rejuvenated Ron Wood, an older, but more focused on playing Keith, some guests kicking up a storm and yes, the inclusion of Mick Taylor.

Some of the other guests are contributing as much if not more musically than he is.

Even without Taylor, this tour is different and features "fresh blood and dareness to the mix", but it seems you and some others are deaf and blind to it due to so much focus on Taylor.

You are going this level of argumentation now?

Nice that you see so much excitement going on this tour, but you don't - or want to - grasp what I am talking about here, and I don't feel like explicating any longer. Done that enough by now.

Why you are anyway being so vocal in this thread anyway? You have always made your stance very clear that you simply hate Taylor and that kind of guitar rock. You got some kind of pervert pleasure for sharing your anti-Taylor sentiments here? Okay, enjoy and give us some mellotron pictures more.

- Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
What I don't like is when a musician is trying to become "bigger than the band or the song" in the soundscape - be it Wood or Taylor. It is the latter who, in his last year/couple of years on stage with the Stones, tended to go in that direction. Some of you like it, some don't. I prefer the 1969-tour, because I think they found the right balance back then. I don't like the sound on the 1970/71 tours so much, but I find the best shows from 1972 (Charlotte, Mobile come to mind) to be absolute astonishingly good. Still, there are some songs that go over the top, concerning guitar playing to my liking.

Is this the same has hating/being anti/slagging Mick Taylor? Of course not.

I expect bright people like you to understand that!

Danelion, to a point i can sympathise with your views here, because i too tend to prefer the pre Brussels Stones live performances, and especially enjoy those from the Australian Tour in early 73. Maybe the Stones were more cohesive before the 73 European tour, and in a sense i find those earlier songs/performances more sincere, and well rounded before the musical and visual theatricality became so pronounced. However, i don't feel the charge against Taylor overplaying live can really be made before that last tour, and for me his integration within the overall sound of the band was always very seamless, and quite subtle at times too, and only enhanced what was only sometimes, occasionally, a mere hint within those studio recordings.

Sometimes on that final Stones tour, Taylor presence really does enhance some songs (like the dirge like 'Dancing With Mr D') which may actually be lacking artistically in so many other ways. Taylor gives several songs a new perspective, a lift so to speak, to keep them from becoming mere hollow shells of the Stones best moments. Artistically, on the 73 European Tour, Taylor for me is the highlight of those shows, because, in part Jagger is starting to become vocally a caricature of his former self (check out his growling on 'Street Fighting Man' and 'Midnight Rambler'), and the GOATS HEAD SOUP songs, whatever their vibe, just aren't as distinctive as those songs from its immediate predecessors (maybe 'Angie' aside).

Sometimes, though, Dandelion, i feel you lack a perspective with regards to the general musical climate of the time. Progressive rock was huge, and like i have said once in a previous post, Taylor's vituoso style guitaring was only really reflecting a growing trend within popular music more generally. When you say Taylor was 'bigger than the band or the song' you really do need to look from a much wider perspective of what was happening everywhere musically at that time. Just listen to 'That Lady' by the Isley Brothers or 'Sylvia' by Focus. Don't just isolate the Stones within their own history - look at what was happening in more general musical circles too, because the Stones were as influenced as anybody in incorprating more contemporary sounds. My thoughts regarding Taylor's last tour is it was great to move into a few new musical areas, including funk and progressive rock. If i'm pushed, i will say that sometimes the more theatrical elements occasionally detracted from the core elements of the songs -in other words - their strengths - and the songs risk becoming merely caricatures - and as i have previously mentioned, 'Street Fighting Man' and 'Midnight Ranbler', especially (with 'Midnight Rambler' losing much of its sinister intimacy).

Generally, i enjoyed those shows though, even if i don't see them quite as the Stones live crowning glory, like some. This was only one tour, remember, in the Stones 50 year history, so not a permanent musical change of direction, or permanent diversion. Shouldn't that be what's so great about musical creativity, taking chances, trying out new things etc? Sometimes they work well, sometimes less well etc, but its great to see them at least trying. And we all have varying opinions on that we particularly like, or dislike. All these disagreements concerning Taylor are completely unnecessary, and extremely petty, in my opinion.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-13 23:46 by Edward Twining.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-18 05:19 by His Majesty.

Yeah, you are rather predictable, His Majesty. Happy now?

- Doxa

Quote
Edward Twining
Shouldn't that be what's so great about musical creativity, taking chances, trying out new things etc? All these disagreements concerning Taylor are completely unnecessary, and extremely petty, in my opinion.

I don't think the disagreements are unnecessary etc., because they are there, but the way some people express their 'opinions' is "extremely petty" indeed. To name man and horse (as we Dutch say it) I mean His Majesty with his undeserving of believe-comments that are in fact Schadenfreude, because he doesn't give a hoot about anything but the Mellotron Stones and also Dandelion, who uses irrelevant arguments as Doxa already has pointed out so clearly.

In a nutshell: the problem is not the disagreement (on the contrary, no discussion or dialectics without disagreement), but the way two main posters do argue here. It is (in one case intended, in the other I doubt that) nothing else but obstruction. So I tend to stop discussing with them any longer. It's simply useless.

Quote
Edward Twining

Quote
DandelionPowderman
What I don't like is when a musician is trying to become "bigger than the band or the song" in the soundscape - be it Wood or Taylor. It is the latter who, in his last year/couple of years on stage with the Stones, tended to go in that direction. Some of you like it, some don't. I prefer the 1969-tour, because I think they found the right balance back then. I don't like the sound on the 1970/71 tours so much, but I find the best shows from 1972 (Charlotte, Mobile come to mind) to be absolute astonishingly good. Still, there are some songs that go over the top, concerning guitar playing to my liking.

Is this the same has hating/being anti/slagging Mick Taylor? Of course not.

I expect bright people like you to understand that!

Danelion, to a point i can sympathise with your views here, because i too tend to prefer the pre Brussels Stones live performances, and especially enjoy those from the Australian Tour in early 73. Maybe the Stones were more cohesive before the 73 European tour, and in a sense i find those earlier songs/performances more sincere, and well rounded before the musical and visual theatricality became so pronounced. However, i don't feel the charge against Taylor overplaying live can really be made before that last tour, and for me his integration within the overall sound of the band was always very seamless, and quite subtle at times too, and only enhanced what was only sometimes, occasionally, a mere hint within those studio recordings. Sometimes on that final Stones tour, Taylor presence really does enhance some songs (like the dirge like 'Dancing With Mr D') which may actually be lacking artistically in so many other ways. Taylor gives several songs a new perspective, a lift so to speak, to keep them from becoming mere hollow shells of the Stones best moments. Artistically, on the 73 European Tour, Taylor for me is the highlight of those shows, because in part Jagger is starting to become vocally a caricature of his former self (check out his growling on 'Street Fighting Man' and 'Midnight Rambler'), and the GOATS HEAD SOUP songs, whatever their vibe, just aren't as distinctive as those songs from its immediate predecessors (maybe 'Angie' aside). Sometimes, though, Dandelion, i feel you lack a perspective with regards to the general musical climate of the time. Progressive rock was huge, and like i have said once in a previous post, Taylor's vituoso style guitaring was only really reflecting a growing trend within popular music more generally. When you say Taylor was 'bigger than the band or the song' you really do need to look from a much wider perspective of what was happening everywhere musically at that time. Just listen to 'That Lady' by the Isley Brothers or 'Sylvia' by Focus. Don't just isolate the Stones within their own history - look at what was happening in more general musical circles too, because the Stones were as influenced as anybody in incorprating more contemporary sounds. My thoughts regarding Taylor's last tour is it was great to move into a few new musical areas, including funk and progressive rock. If i'm pushed, i will say that sometimes the more theatrical elements occasionally detracted from the core elements of the songs -in other words their strengths - as i have previously mentioned 'Street Fighting Man' and 'Midnight Ranbler', especially (with 'Midnight Rambler' losing a little of its sinister intimacy). Generally, i enjoyed those shows though, even if i don't see them quite as the Stones live crowning glory, like some. This was only one tour remember, in the Stones 50 year history, so not a permanent musical change of direction. Shouldn't that be what's so great about musical creativity, taking chances, trying out new things etc? All these disagreements concerning Taylor are completely unnecessary, and extremely petty, in my opinion.

Lots of good thoughts here, Edward.

I know what was happening at the time musically. However, moving in the guitar hero direction (JJF, Texas 1972) made a unique band sound more similar to the vlassic rock bands and the early metal bands - a development I didn't particularly enjoy.

This really doesn't have anything to do with taking risks, as Taylor in fact didn't improvise so much on stage as many think. Many of his motifs were crafted, and some of them fit really well, especially those who took us by surprise, went in and out or had room, provided by the band, imo. The continous on-going lead guitar, blocking riffs and vocal melodies doesn't interest me.

He gets to improvise today. And he gets room to shine on CYHMK and partly on MR.

Everybody should be happy...

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-18 19:37 by His Majesty.

Quote
His Majesty
[... I shall refrain from posting anything about Mick Taylor or posting in Mick Taylor focused threads ever again.

Hear, hear!

Quote
DandelionPowderman
He gets to improvise today. And he gets room to shine on CYHMK and partly on MR.

Everybody should be happy...

"Everybody" is not you. That's your "ideal" Taylor, giving us only isolated solos. Some of us want the whole man, not just a half.

- Doxa

I'm out. Fill the thread with some more interesting stuff, now.

Maybe you'll get Taylor on six songs. It means the world

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I know what was happening at the time musically. However, moving in the guitar hero direction (JJF, Texas 1972) made a unique band sound more similar to the vlassic rock bands and the early metal bands - a development I didn't particularly enjoy.

This really doesn't have anything to do with taking risks, as Taylor in fact didn't improvise so much on stage as many think. Many of his motifs were crafted, and some of them fit really well, especially those who took us by surprise, went in and out or had room, provided by the band, imo. The continous on-going lead guitar, blocking riffs and vocal melodies doesn't interest me.

He gets to improvise today. And he gets room to shine on CYHMK and partly on MR.

Everybody should be happy...

Some people do like it though, Dandelion.

Not to put too fine a point on it, Dandelion, you sound rather bitter, almost envious towards Taylor and the high appreciation afforded him. I know we are all welcome to our own opinions, of course, but you sound like you are on an ongoing crusade to diminish everything he has ever done!

Quote
His Majesty


Just for you, I shall refrain from posting anything about Mick Taylor or posting in Mick Taylor focused threads ever again.

What? The kitchen was just getting warmed up....

(I seemingly did found a specific medicine for anti-Taylor disease in this thread...)

Don't worry, His Majesty, the things just fight, not the men...

- Doxa

Quote
Edward Twining

Some people do like it though, Dandelion.

Not to put too fine a point on it, Dandelion, you sound rather bitter, almost envious towards Taylor and the high appreciation afforded him. I know we are all welcome to our own opinions, of course, but you sound like you are on an ongoing crusade to diminish everything he has ever done!

Well Dandy, I told you so before. You got Doxa angry (which is quite an achievement!) and now even our always reasonable and calm Edward says it in for him unusually sharp words. It cannot but must make you think for a moment.

Of course we all know it's not about the hail of mankind but only about rock 'n roll. But even then.

Quote
Edward Twining

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I know what was happening at the time musically. However, moving in the guitar hero direction (JJF, Texas 1972) made a unique band sound more similar to the vlassic rock bands and the early metal bands - a development I didn't particularly enjoy.

This really doesn't have anything to do with taking risks, as Taylor in fact didn't improvise so much on stage as many think. Many of his motifs were crafted, and some of them fit really well, especially those who took us by surprise, went in and out or had room, provided by the band, imo. The continous on-going lead guitar, blocking riffs and vocal melodies doesn't interest me.

He gets to improvise today. And he gets room to shine on CYHMK and partly on MR.

Everybody should be happy...

Some people do like it though, Dandelion.

Not to put too fine a point on it, Dandelion, you sound rather bitter, almost envious towards Taylor and the high appreciation afforded him. I know we are all welcome to our own opinions, of course, but you sound like you are on an ongoing crusade to diminish everything he has ever done!

That's cheap Edward. A little bit of effort will lead you to many favourable posts about Taylor and his playing - several today, in fact

I thought you should be able to differ between being critical to the use of Taylor in some contexts, and what I think of him as a player. Those who know me know that he's been a huge inspiration for me as a musician and a music lover.

When I'm debating with fanatics my arguments might be lead a bit away from the chore point. Just a bit, though..

Looks like the tour is taking its toll on Taylor!



(from Bernard Fowler's FB page)

Quote
DandelionPowderman

When I'm debating with fanatics my arguments might be lead a bit away from the chore point. Just a bit, though..

Well, who are those fanatics? Doxa, me, svt22, anyone else? Come ón!