Tell Me :
Talk
Yes minus the flash, but within the Stones, Keith was great. He had the groove, soul and splendid ideas. He was unique.
And within the Stones, Taylor was great, plus the flash. He had soul and great melodic ideas. He was unique.
Live in 1972 and 1973, absolutely. In the studio? I don't think so....
Mathijs
You forgot 1969/1970.
No, I did not. I don't like much of Taylor's playing on the '69, '70 and '71 tours. Fabulous band on the second part of the '69 tour, with some great solo's by Taylor, but his rhythm guitar work is annoying. The 1970 tour is hard to judge as there's not many good sounding recordings. But the band was good, but Taylor is overplaying like crazy, and I hate his tone on that tour. 1971 is even more difficult to judge, but the recordings we have range from awful (Marquee) to boring and lame (Leeds), and again Taylor is overplaying and noodling.
It wasn't until 1972 that Taylor found his tone and place within the band. But for much of the 1973 Euro tour he again overplays.
Funny thing is -I listened to the San Jose 2013 version of Rambler, and during the first shuffle jam Taylor starts to solo. Within 30 seconds he starts noodling again, playing these useless fake jazz fusion runs. I am absolutely sure Keith wanted to shout at that moment 'shut the fvck up' again, just like he did in '72.
Mathijs
And as usual, Taylor didn't give a @#$%&, that's what I liked about him. He didn't care much for Keith musical opinions on stage. Refused to listen to the "boss" and trusted his own compass. That's what I call a musician.
The rest of your post is to ridiculous to answer, at least to me.
Kinda, but not really unique and as you note in this post...
... A possible explanation for all the unnecessary widdling.
He cared enough to be so unhappy that he left the Stones. And what you call a musician I call a failure.
Mathijs
Do you expect me to answer this one?
No.
I know I'd be scared if he consistently solo'd through a 2+hours concert - arrrrrgh!
there's a slight return to the noodling routine in MR already.
Sure he did give a fvck, to a certain extend. Keith didn't sack him, in the end Jagger was the boss anyway, and the results were amazing. They loved to play together. Who was "Beethoven" without musicians?
Don't take my comments too literally. Music is also about freedom of speech.
Widdle widdle widdle.
I love widdling
It certainly has it's place, but every single song during a Rolling Stones concert isn't one of them.
Fvck, I just edited my post.
I felt you might.
Gimme more widdle!
If I understand correctly he was offered a two song deal. Purely contractural.
Game over.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Mick Taylor anwers the question.
Posted by:
lapaz62
()
Date: May 13, 2013 09:14
Taylor had a little smirk on his face when he said it, he was clearly just taking the piss.
Re: Mick Taylor anwers the question.
Posted by:
VT22
()
Date: May 13, 2013 11:11
Quote
His MajestyQuote
VT22Quote
His MajestyQuote
VT22
Let's agree to disagree then. To me the duo Taylor / Richards was both unique and groovy.
Taylor was not really unique in the context of the times.
The combination of Taylor/Richards was unique within the context of the stones as that Bluesbreakers thread of lead focused playing hadn't really been there before, but again, not really unique in terms of contemporary rock music of the time because it was a major part of various other bands.
Yes within the context of the Stones, that's what I'm talking about. What made
Richards unique as a guitarist then, in the context of his time, in your opinion? ...
With Brian whizzing about on different instruments Keith developed in to something akin to a more earthly hendrix, minus the flash.
Yes minus the flash, but within the Stones, Keith was great. He had the groove, soul and splendid ideas. He was unique.
And within the Stones, Taylor was great, plus the flash. He had soul and great melodic ideas. He was unique.
Re: Mick Taylor anwers the question.
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: May 13, 2013 11:58
Quote
VT22
And within the Stones, Taylor was great, plus the flash. He had soul and great melodic ideas. He was unique.
Live in 1972 and 1973, absolutely. In the studio? I don't think so....
Mathijs
Re: Mick Taylor anwers the question.
Posted by:
VT22
()
Date: May 13, 2013 12:01
Quote
MathijsQuote
VT22
And within the Stones, Taylor was great, plus the flash. He had soul and great melodic ideas. He was unique.
Live in 1972 and 1973, absolutely. In the studio? I don't think so....
Mathijs
You forgot 1969/1970.
Re: Mick Taylor anwers the question.
Posted by:
lapaz62
()
Date: May 13, 2013 12:06
In the studio, Taylor played what was asked of him, you cannot know what was never used, what ideas he had that the more influential members quashed or ignored, live he had a largely free hand but in the studio he was in my opinion most likely shackled.
Re: Mick Taylor anwers the question.
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: May 13, 2013 12:20
Quote
VT22Quote
MathijsQuote
VT22
And within the Stones, Taylor was great, plus the flash. He had soul and great melodic ideas. He was unique.
Live in 1972 and 1973, absolutely. In the studio? I don't think so....
Mathijs
You forgot 1969/1970.
No, I did not. I don't like much of Taylor's playing on the '69, '70 and '71 tours. Fabulous band on the second part of the '69 tour, with some great solo's by Taylor, but his rhythm guitar work is annoying. The 1970 tour is hard to judge as there's not many good sounding recordings. But the band was good, but Taylor is overplaying like crazy, and I hate his tone on that tour. 1971 is even more difficult to judge, but the recordings we have range from awful (Marquee) to boring and lame (Leeds), and again Taylor is overplaying and noodling.
It wasn't until 1972 that Taylor found his tone and place within the band. But for much of the 1973 Euro tour he again overplays.
Funny thing is -I listened to the San Jose 2013 version of Rambler, and during the first shuffle jam Taylor starts to solo. Within 30 seconds he starts noodling again, playing these useless fake jazz fusion runs. I am absolutely sure Keith wanted to shout at that moment 'shut the fvck up' again, just like he did in '72.
Mathijs
Re: Mick Taylor anwers the question.
Posted by:
VT22
()
Date: May 13, 2013 12:34
Quote
MathijsQuote
VT22Quote
MathijsQuote
VT22
And within the Stones, Taylor was great, plus the flash. He had soul and great melodic ideas. He was unique.
Live in 1972 and 1973, absolutely. In the studio? I don't think so....
Mathijs
You forgot 1969/1970.
No, I did not. I don't like much of Taylor's playing on the '69, '70 and '71 tours. Fabulous band on the second part of the '69 tour, with some great solo's by Taylor, but his rhythm guitar work is annoying. The 1970 tour is hard to judge as there's not many good sounding recordings. But the band was good, but Taylor is overplaying like crazy, and I hate his tone on that tour. 1971 is even more difficult to judge, but the recordings we have range from awful (Marquee) to boring and lame (Leeds), and again Taylor is overplaying and noodling.
It wasn't until 1972 that Taylor found his tone and place within the band. But for much of the 1973 Euro tour he again overplays.
Funny thing is -I listened to the San Jose 2013 version of Rambler, and during the first shuffle jam Taylor starts to solo. Within 30 seconds he starts noodling again, playing these useless fake jazz fusion runs. I am absolutely sure Keith wanted to shout at that moment 'shut the fvck up' again, just like he did in '72.
Mathijs
And as usual, Taylor didn't give a @#$%&, that's what I liked about him. He didn't care much for Keith musical opinions on stage. Refused to listen to the "boss" and trusted his own compass. That's what I call a musician.
The rest of your post is to ridiculous to answer, at least to me.
Re: Mick Taylor anwers the question.
Posted by:
roby
()
Date: May 13, 2013 12:39
Well, I dream since 25 years to write in a same sentence : Ron Wood and Overplays...
But it's still science fiction
But it's still science fiction
Re: Mick Taylor anwers the question.
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: May 13, 2013 12:52
Quote
VT22
And within the Stones, Taylor was great, plus the flash. He had soul and great melodic ideas. He was unique.
Kinda, but not really unique and as you note in this post...
Quote
VT22
Taylor didn't give a @#$%&, that's what I liked about him. He didn't care much for Keith musical opinions on stage. Refused to listen to the "boss" and trusted his own compass.
... A possible explanation for all the unnecessary widdling.
Re: Mick Taylor anwers the question.
Posted by:
roby
()
Date: May 13, 2013 12:58
Prehistory...
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Re: Mick Taylor anwers the question.
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: May 13, 2013 13:00
Quote
VT22
And as usual, Taylor didn't give a @#$%&, that's what I liked about him. He didn't care much for Keith musical opinions on stage. Refused to listen to the "boss" and trusted his own compass. That's what I call a musician.
He cared enough to be so unhappy that he left the Stones. And what you call a musician I call a failure.
Mathijs
Re: Mick Taylor anwers the question.
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: May 13, 2013 13:00
Not giving a fvck about how to interact musically with your band mates (and with the song writers in particular) is NOT a very good quality
It might work with a little bar band, though, sometimes...
EDIT: I do NOT think Taylor didn't give a fvck, btw - that's purely romantically created fiction by some posters here...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-13 13:08 by DandelionPowderman.
It might work with a little bar band, though, sometimes...
EDIT: I do NOT think Taylor didn't give a fvck, btw - that's purely romantically created fiction by some posters here...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-13 13:08 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: Mick Taylor anwers the question.
Posted by:
ozziestone
()
Date: May 13, 2013 13:02
Taylor's live stuff at his peak is sublime-his second solo in LIV on Ladies and Gentleman is a good a live blues solo is you'll find anywhere, Clapton SRV Gary Moore Roy Buchanan Hendrix Buddy Guy the three Kings and everyone else included
Re: Mick Taylor anwers the question.
Posted by:
VT22
()
Date: May 13, 2013 13:07
Quote
His MajestyQuote
VT22
And within the Stones, Taylor was great, plus the flash. He had soul and great melodic ideas. He was unique.
Kinda, but not really unique and as you note in this post...Quote
VT22
Taylor didn't give a @#$%&, that's what I liked about him. He didn't care much for Keith musical opinions on stage. Refused to listen to the "boss" and trusted his own compass.
... A possible explanation for all the unnecessary widdling.
Do you expect me to answer this one?
Re: Mick Taylor anwers the question.
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: May 13, 2013 13:12
Quote
VT22Quote
His MajestyQuote
VT22
And within the Stones, Taylor was great, plus the flash. He had soul and great melodic ideas. He was unique.
Kinda, but not really unique and as you note in this post...Quote
VT22
Taylor didn't give a @#$%&, that's what I liked about him. He didn't care much for Keith musical opinions on stage. Refused to listen to the "boss" and trusted his own compass.
... A possible explanation for all the unnecessary widdling.
Do you expect me to answer this one?
No.
Re: Mick Taylor anwers the question.
Posted by:
VT22
()
Date: May 13, 2013 13:35
Quote
His MajestyQuote
VT22Quote
His MajestyQuote
VT22
And within the Stones, Taylor was great, plus the flash. He had soul and great melodic ideas. He was unique.
Kinda, but not really unique and as you note in this post...Quote
VT22
Taylor didn't give a @#$%&, that's what I liked about him. He didn't care much for Keith musical opinions on stage. Refused to listen to the "boss" and trusted his own compass.
... A possible explanation for all the unnecessary widdling.
Do you expect me to answer this one?
No.
Re: Mick Taylor anwers the question.
Posted by:
open-g
()
Date: May 13, 2013 13:43
Quote
duffydawg
What an asinine remark. He gets at most two songs a show. He has not played on SFTD since he left the band. Give the guy a chance, which the Stones, won't. I am sure its no longer over pay but rather ego. They are scared letting this guy loose again and showing them that neither of their current guitarists can consistently solo as well. Yes MT's abilities have diminished somewhat...he still is way out front when called upon to do so...
I know I'd be scared if he consistently solo'd through a 2+hours concert - arrrrrgh!
there's a slight return to the noodling routine in MR already.
Re: Mick Taylor anwers the question.
Posted by:
VT22
()
Date: May 13, 2013 13:48
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Not giving a fvck about how to interact musically with your band mates (and with the song writers in particular) is NOT a very good quality
It might work with a little bar band, though, sometimes...
EDIT: I do NOT think Taylor didn't give a fvck, btw - that's purely romantically created fiction by some posters here...
Sure he did give a fvck, to a certain extend. Keith didn't sack him, in the end Jagger was the boss anyway, and the results were amazing. They loved to play together. Who was "Beethoven" without musicians?
Don't take my comments too literally. Music is also about freedom of speech.
Re: Mick Taylor anwers the question.
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: May 13, 2013 14:05
Quote
VT22
Widdle widdle widdle.
Re: Mick Taylor anwers the question.
Posted by:
VT22
()
Date: May 13, 2013 14:09
Quote
His MajestyQuote
VT22
Widdle widdle widdle.
I love widdling
Re: Mick Taylor anwers the question.
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: May 13, 2013 14:28
Quote
VT22
I love widdling
It certainly has it's place, but every single song during a Rolling Stones concert isn't one of them.
Re: Mick Taylor anwers the question.
Posted by:
VT22
()
Date: May 13, 2013 14:29
Quote
His MajestyQuote
VT22
I love widdling
It certainly has it's place, but every single song during a Rolling Stones concert isn't one of them.
Fvck, I just edited my post.
Re: Mick Taylor anwers the question.
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: May 13, 2013 14:31
Quote
VT22
Fvck, I just edited my post.
I felt you might.
Re: Mick Taylor anwers the question.
Posted by:
VT22
()
Date: May 13, 2013 14:32
Quote
MathijsQuote
VT22
And as usual, Taylor didn't give a @#$%&, that's what I liked about him. He didn't care much for Keith musical opinions on stage. Refused to listen to the "boss" and trusted his own compass. That's what I call a musician.
And what you call a musician I call a failure.
Mathijs
Re: Mick Taylor anwers the question.
Posted by:
VT22
()
Date: May 13, 2013 14:33
Quote
His MajestyQuote
VT22
Fvck, I just edited my post.
I felt you might.
Re: Mick Taylor anwers the question.
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: May 13, 2013 17:11
Quote
VT22Quote
His MajestyQuote
VT22
Widdle widdle widdle.
I love widdling
Gimme more widdle!
Re: Mick Taylor anwers the question.
Posted by:
StonedInTokyo
()
Date: May 13, 2013 17:14
Quote
jazzbass
Why can't he answer the question of why he is incapable of pulling it together well enough to join the band on stage for more songs?
If I understand correctly he was offered a two song deal. Purely contractural.
Re: Mick Taylor anwers the question.
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: May 13, 2013 17:49
Quote
kleermaker
Gimme more widdle!
Game over.
Re: Mick Taylor anwers the question.
Posted by:
VT22
()
Date: May 13, 2013 18:14
That Hendrix version is unsurpassed. He is playing 3 guitars here. I posted it several times on iorr. He wiped the floor with any rock/blues player in the 6-tees. 
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
ChrisL , Dolf , HardRiffin , hockenheim95 , Joce , maumau , michaelrobert , Nellcote1971 , resotele , rocknola , rover , rsvp2000 , snarf2014 , spunky , syrel , thorgal34 , vertigojoe , vibrolux , waterrats
Guests:
1079
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10