Quote
71Tele

Quote
DandelionPowderman
The way the Stones play rock'n'roll he's not a good rhythm player might be a better description. In a more classic rock-sounding band it wouldn't have been as evident, perhaps.

I offer 1969 as opposing evidence Exhibit A, and his first solo album (he does a perfect Keith-style open-G on Leather Jacket and Broken Hands) as Exhibit B. But I know we will never agree about this.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
71Tele
I wish to make the point again that Taylor's so-called "widdling" in '73 had as much to do with Keith prefering to develop his rhythm guitar style as much as anything else. What the hell else was Taylor supposed to do? He played what fit the songs and style of the band at the time. In '69 he played a lot of rhythm and counterpoint stuff, as Keith was still playing a great deal of lead. Richards then switched to 5-string open-G rhythm almost exclusively and Taylor changed his playing style accordingly. His playing in '73 is majestic. He is playing much more lead certainly, but he is still locked in with the band. He was unfortunately influenced by some of the fusion and quasi-jazz stuff going on at the time, hence his questionable joining of forces with Jack Bruce. After he left the Stones he had to make a living mostly as a bandleader (not his natural forte) with weaker bands and weaker material, he reverted more to the instrumentalist so many here criticize. But with strong songs and a strong band to balance him he was untouchable. I also think his brief live work with Dylan illustrates this point. With good material, Taylor shines. As a blues instrumentalist in the mode of a Jeff Beck, he is far less interesting.

Keith went on to play more and more rhythm guitar as Taylor wasn't really good at it. Taylor is a lead guitarist, and one that is so good that it is hard not to let him rip and focus yourself on the rhythm parts.

The thing is -the Stones have always been hit and miss, and Taylor was part of that as well. One show can be fabulous, the other horrible. Brussels is, most will agree, one of the best Stones shows, and a fantastic showcase of Taylor's abilities. But there are some remarks to be made -the Brussels gig as we know it is a blend of two shows, with the bad parts taken out. Also strange is that the well-known Brussels boots have some kind of magic that the official release seems to miss as well. Still, it is a testament of how good Taylor can be.

But yesterday I listened to second Frankfurt 73 show -and Taylor is just horrible there. His playing is just a mess of way too loud, overdone lead playing. He's not playing the actual songs, he's not listening to what the band plays, he's just thrashing out weird sounding improvisations. Then I listened to the 2nd Ft Worth 72 gig, only to listen in awe to how fresh Taylor played.

Mathijs

All due respect, the only one here who continually says Taylor was such a bad rhythm player is you. Doesn't mean it's true. I haven't had the privilege of hearing the 2nd Frankfurt '73 show, so I can't comment on it.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
71Tele
I wish to make the point again that Taylor's so-called "widdling" in '73 had as much to do with Keith prefering to develop his rhythm guitar style as much as anything else. What the hell else was Taylor supposed to do? He played what fit the songs and style of the band at the time. In '69 he played a lot of rhythm and counterpoint stuff, as Keith was still playing a great deal of lead. Richards then switched to 5-string open-G rhythm almost exclusively and Taylor changed his playing style accordingly. His playing in '73 is majestic. He is playing much more lead certainly, but he is still locked in with the band. He was unfortunately influenced by some of the fusion and quasi-jazz stuff going on at the time, hence his questionable joining of forces with Jack Bruce. After he left the Stones he had to make a living mostly as a bandleader (not his natural forte) with weaker bands and weaker material, he reverted more to the instrumentalist so many here criticize. But with strong songs and a strong band to balance him he was untouchable. I also think his brief live work with Dylan illustrates this point. With good material, Taylor shines. As a blues instrumentalist in the mode of a Jeff Beck, he is far less interesting.

Keith went on to play more and more rhythm guitar as Taylor wasn't really good at it. Taylor is a lead guitarist, and one that is so good that it is hard not to let him rip and focus yourself on the rhythm parts.

The thing is -the Stones have always been hit and miss, and Taylor was part of that as well. One show can be fabulous, the other horrible. Brussels is, most will agree, one of the best Stones shows, and a fantastic showcase of Taylor's abilities. But there are some remarks to be made -the Brussels gig as we know it is a blend of two shows, with the bad parts taken out. Also strange is that the well-known Brussels boots have some kind of magic that the official release seems to miss as well. Still, it is a testament of how good Taylor can be.

But yesterday I listened to second Frankfurt 73 show -and Taylor is just horrible there. His playing is just a mess of way too loud, overdone lead playing. He's not playing the actual songs, he's not listening to what the band plays, he's just thrashing out weird sounding improvisations. Then I listened to the 2nd Ft Worth 72 gig, only to listen in awe to how fresh Taylor played.

Mathijs

All due respect, the only one here who continually says Taylor was such a bad rhythm player is you. Doesn't mean it's true. I haven't had the privilege of hearing the 2nd Frankfurt '73 show, so I can't comment on it.

Tele, here you have GS and SFM (great footage!) from Frankfurt 2nd show 73. Well, you better judge it yourself. I think it's just great. I'm very glad to have a boot of that excellent show!

Quote
His Majesty
Yeah the repeated lick he plays during the verses of Gimme Shelter is cool, then he goes and spoils things by needlessly widdling too much.

I think there's someone trying to sing a song underneath all that.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
His Majesty
Yeah the repeated lick he plays during the verses of Gimme Shelter is cool, then he goes and spoils things by needlessly widdling too much.

I think there's someone trying to sing a song underneath all that.

It's a boot you know, an audience tape recording. Maybe that explains something.

Quote
GravityBoy

Quote
71Tele

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
His Majesty
Yeah the repeated lick he plays during the verses of Gimme Shelter is cool, then he goes and spoils things by needlessly widdling too much.

I think there's someone trying to sing a song underneath all that.

It's a boot you know, an audience tape recording. Maybe that explains something.

It's the taper who's playing?

I love what he's doing on Street Fighting Man, just think it's too much on nearly or actually every song.

Quote
runaway

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
His Majesty
Yeah the repeated lick he plays during the verses of Gimme Shelter is cool, then he goes and spoils things by needlessly widdling too much.

I think there's someone trying to sing a song underneath all that.

It's a boot you know, an audience tape recording. Maybe that explains something.

It's the taper who's playing?

I love what he's doing on Street Fighting Man, just think it's too much on nearly or actually every song.

I feel myself lucky to have been at one of their gigs in 1973! nuff said

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
His Majesty
Yeah the repeated lick he plays during the verses of Gimme Shelter is cool, then he goes and spoils things by needlessly widdling too much.

I think there's someone trying to sing a song underneath all that.

It's a boot you know, an audience tape recording. Maybe that explains something.

It's the taper who's playing?

I love what he's doing on Street Fighting Man, just think it's too much on nearly or actually every song.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
His Majesty
Yeah the repeated lick he plays during the verses of Gimme Shelter is cool, then he goes and spoils things by needlessly widdling too much.

I think there's someone trying to sing a song underneath all that.

It's a boot you know, an audience tape recording. Maybe that explains something.

It's the taper who's playing?

I love what he's doing on Street Fighting Man, just think it's too much on nearly or actually every song.

The taper is certainly a Taylorian and someone of great musical taste.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
runaway

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
His Majesty
Yeah the repeated lick he plays during the verses of Gimme Shelter is cool, then he goes and spoils things by needlessly widdling too much.

I think there's someone trying to sing a song underneath all that.

It's a boot you know, an audience tape recording. Maybe that explains something.

It's the taper who's playing?

I love what he's doing on Street Fighting Man, just think it's too much on nearly or actually every song.

I feel myself lucky to have been at one of their gigs in 1973! nuff said

Dunno why it's nuff said, but glad you enjoyed it. I'm sure I would have got a sore head much as happens when I listen to bootlegs from those times.

I saw them for the one and only time in 1995 at Wembley and got bored very quickly, but then I prefer them as the experimental pop band of 1966 so no surprises there really.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
His Majesty
Yeah the repeated lick he plays during the verses of Gimme Shelter is cool, then he goes and spoils things by needlessly widdling too much.

I think there's someone trying to sing a song underneath all that.

It's a boot you know, an audience tape recording. Maybe that explains something.

It's the taper who's playing?

I love what he's doing on Street Fighting Man, just think it's too much on nearly or actually every song.

The taper is certainly a Taylorian and someone of great musical taste.

Maybe he preferred Deep Purple.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
His Majesty
Yeah the repeated lick he plays during the verses of Gimme Shelter is cool, then he goes and spoils things by needlessly widdling too much.

I think there's someone trying to sing a song underneath all that.

It's a boot you know, an audience tape recording. Maybe that explains something.

It's the taper who's playing?

I love what he's doing on Street Fighting Man, just think it's too much on nearly or actually every song.

The taper is certainly a Taylorian and someone of great musical taste.

Maybe he preferred Deep Purple.

Certainly not. Totally different songs and sound and by near not such a good guitar sound as Mr. Richards and Mr. Taylor produced together.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
71Tele
I wish to make the point again that Taylor's so-called "widdling" in '73 had as much to do with Keith prefering to develop his rhythm guitar style as much as anything else. What the hell else was Taylor supposed to do? He played what fit the songs and style of the band at the time. In '69 he played a lot of rhythm and counterpoint stuff, as Keith was still playing a great deal of lead. Richards then switched to 5-string open-G rhythm almost exclusively and Taylor changed his playing style accordingly. His playing in '73 is majestic. He is playing much more lead certainly, but he is still locked in with the band. He was unfortunately influenced by some of the fusion and quasi-jazz stuff going on at the time, hence his questionable joining of forces with Jack Bruce. After he left the Stones he had to make a living mostly as a bandleader (not his natural forte) with weaker bands and weaker material, he reverted more to the instrumentalist so many here criticize. But with strong songs and a strong band to balance him he was untouchable. I also think his brief live work with Dylan illustrates this point. With good material, Taylor shines. As a blues instrumentalist in the mode of a Jeff Beck, he is far less interesting.

Keith went on to play more and more rhythm guitar as Taylor wasn't really good at it. Taylor is a lead guitarist, and one that is so good that it is hard not to let him rip and focus yourself on the rhythm parts.

The thing is -the Stones have always been hit and miss, and Taylor was part of that as well. One show can be fabulous, the other horrible. Brussels is, most will agree, one of the best Stones shows, and a fantastic showcase of Taylor's abilities. But there are some remarks to be made -the Brussels gig as we know it is a blend of two shows, with the bad parts taken out. Also strange is that the well-known Brussels boots have some kind of magic that the official release seems to miss as well. Still, it is a testament of how good Taylor can be.

But yesterday I listened to second Frankfurt 73 show -and Taylor is just horrible there. His playing is just a mess of way too loud, overdone lead playing. He's not playing the actual songs, he's not listening to what the band plays, he's just thrashing out weird sounding improvisations. Then I listened to the 2nd Ft Worth 72 gig, only to listen in awe to how fresh Taylor played.

Mathijs

All due respect, the only one here who continually says Taylor was such a bad rhythm player is you. Doesn't mean it's true. I haven't had the privilege of hearing the 2nd Frankfurt '73 show, so I can't comment on it.

Tele, here you have GS and SFM (great footage!) from Frankfurt 2nd show 73. Well, you better judge it yourself. I think it's just great. I'm very glad to have a boot of that excellent show!

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
71Tele
I wish to make the point again that Taylor's so-called "widdling" in '73 had as much to do with Keith prefering to develop his rhythm guitar style as much as anything else. What the hell else was Taylor supposed to do? He played what fit the songs and style of the band at the time. In '69 he played a lot of rhythm and counterpoint stuff, as Keith was still playing a great deal of lead. Richards then switched to 5-string open-G rhythm almost exclusively and Taylor changed his playing style accordingly. His playing in '73 is majestic. He is playing much more lead certainly, but he is still locked in with the band. He was unfortunately influenced by some of the fusion and quasi-jazz stuff going on at the time, hence his questionable joining of forces with Jack Bruce. After he left the Stones he had to make a living mostly as a bandleader (not his natural forte) with weaker bands and weaker material, he reverted more to the instrumentalist so many here criticize. But with strong songs and a strong band to balance him he was untouchable. I also think his brief live work with Dylan illustrates this point. With good material, Taylor shines. As a blues instrumentalist in the mode of a Jeff Beck, he is far less interesting.

Keith went on to play more and more rhythm guitar as Taylor wasn't really good at it. Taylor is a lead guitarist, and one that is so good that it is hard not to let him rip and focus yourself on the rhythm parts.

The thing is -the Stones have always been hit and miss, and Taylor was part of that as well. One show can be fabulous, the other horrible. Brussels is, most will agree, one of the best Stones shows, and a fantastic showcase of Taylor's abilities. But there are some remarks to be made -the Brussels gig as we know it is a blend of two shows, with the bad parts taken out. Also strange is that the well-known Brussels boots have some kind of magic that the official release seems to miss as well. Still, it is a testament of how good Taylor can be.

But yesterday I listened to second Frankfurt 73 show -and Taylor is just horrible there. His playing is just a mess of way too loud, overdone lead playing. He's not playing the actual songs, he's not listening to what the band plays, he's just thrashing out weird sounding improvisations. Then I listened to the 2nd Ft Worth 72 gig, only to listen in awe to how fresh Taylor played.

Mathijs

All due respect, the only one here who continually says Taylor was such a bad rhythm player is you. Doesn't mean it's true. I haven't had the privilege of hearing the 2nd Frankfurt '73 show, so I can't comment on it.

Tele, here you have GS and SFM (great footage!) from Frankfurt 2nd show 73. Well, you better judge it yourself. I think it's just great. I'm very glad to have a boot of that excellent show!

Well, it's all personal opinions of course, but I just find this bloody awful. This is not a great band playing, but this is a bored lead guitarist warming up fingers and practicing scales and runs over some tape playing. This is me in my bedroom doing my best Taylor impersonation, mistakes included.

Mathijs

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
71Tele
I wish to make the point again that Taylor's so-called "widdling" in '73 had as much to do with Keith prefering to develop his rhythm guitar style as much as anything else. What the hell else was Taylor supposed to do? He played what fit the songs and style of the band at the time. In '69 he played a lot of rhythm and counterpoint stuff, as Keith was still playing a great deal of lead. Richards then switched to 5-string open-G rhythm almost exclusively and Taylor changed his playing style accordingly. His playing in '73 is majestic. He is playing much more lead certainly, but he is still locked in with the band. He was unfortunately influenced by some of the fusion and quasi-jazz stuff going on at the time, hence his questionable joining of forces with Jack Bruce. After he left the Stones he had to make a living mostly as a bandleader (not his natural forte) with weaker bands and weaker material, he reverted more to the instrumentalist so many here criticize. But with strong songs and a strong band to balance him he was untouchable. I also think his brief live work with Dylan illustrates this point. With good material, Taylor shines. As a blues instrumentalist in the mode of a Jeff Beck, he is far less interesting.

Keith went on to play more and more rhythm guitar as Taylor wasn't really good at it. Taylor is a lead guitarist, and one that is so good that it is hard not to let him rip and focus yourself on the rhythm parts.

The thing is -the Stones have always been hit and miss, and Taylor was part of that as well. One show can be fabulous, the other horrible. Brussels is, most will agree, one of the best Stones shows, and a fantastic showcase of Taylor's abilities. But there are some remarks to be made -the Brussels gig as we know it is a blend of two shows, with the bad parts taken out. Also strange is that the well-known Brussels boots have some kind of magic that the official release seems to miss as well. Still, it is a testament of how good Taylor can be.

But yesterday I listened to second Frankfurt 73 show -and Taylor is just horrible there. His playing is just a mess of way too loud, overdone lead playing. He's not playing the actual songs, he's not listening to what the band plays, he's just thrashing out weird sounding improvisations. Then I listened to the 2nd Ft Worth 72 gig, only to listen in awe to how fresh Taylor played.

Mathijs

All due respect, the only one here who continually says Taylor was such a bad rhythm player is you. Doesn't mean it's true. I haven't had the privilege of hearing the 2nd Frankfurt '73 show, so I can't comment on it.

Tele, here you have GS and SFM (great footage!) from Frankfurt 2nd show 73. Well, you better judge it yourself. I think it's just great. I'm very glad to have a boot of that excellent show!

Well, it's all personal opinions of course, but I just find this bloody awful. This is not a great band playing, but this is a bored lead guitarist warming up fingers and practicing scales and runs over some tape playing. This is me in my bedroom doing my best Taylor impersonation, mistakes included.

Mathijs

Quote
His Majesty
Nothing Mick Taylor played live or or in the studio is better than Brian's slide guitar on No Expectations or Keith's soloing on Sympathy For The Devil from Beggars Banquet.

My criteria for judgment is not technical ability, but pure emotional and musical relevance. Brian's fragile slide guitar ties in perfectly with the emotional aspect of No Expectations. Keith's spikey and hot playing perfectly ties in with the lyrics and delivery of Sympathy For The Devil.

Quote
Markdog
Nothing is more irritating then measuring a guitarist primarily by their ability to play a solo. Yes, it's often the icing on the cake of a song but it is meaningless without a great song to start with, and great songs are often written by great rythmn players.

Music is 100% subjective so debating who is better is pointless but discussing it is fun.

MT is a blues player pure and simple. He is a master of the 12 bar solo, very fluid and smooth but only when he is inspired. Often he plays all these scales so nicely yet they don't speak to me at all. Early on at times he could be mind blowing though. Blues rock and long vurtuoso solos died just as he was leaving so the timing couldn't be better. He would have been a lost puppy on Some Girls.

Ronnie is an all around rocker, does everything well and not one thing spectacularly. Being a rocker at heart I feel what Ronnie is playing, he is a master of feel and groove rythmically and his early solos made me pick up my air guitar more than MT ever could. Although shortly after he was always on something and his playing went down hill, the skill was there and shone here and there but what a waste. I listen to Handsome Girls and Ronnie is incredible! But Ronnie would not have added the same magic on a song like CYHMK.

KR is the best rythmn player off all time and could pull some sweet solos in all 3 eras with BJ, MT and RW. I don't consider the Stones as a "current", creative band much past 83. It was great they all could play solos to keep it more interesting though.

That band in the video is horrible. The bass player need to hold his bass higher,lol.

Quote
CanYouHearTheMusic

Quote
His Majesty
Nothing Mick Taylor played live or or in the studio is better than Brian's slide guitar on No Expectations or Keith's soloing on Sympathy For The Devil from Beggars Banquet.

My criteria for judgment is not technical ability, but pure emotional and musical relevance. Brian's fragile slide guitar ties in perfectly with the emotional aspect of No Expectations. Keith's spikey and hot playing perfectly ties in with the lyrics and delivery of Sympathy For The Devil.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but are you sure that's Brian on the slide on "No Expectations?" In every interview I've ever read with Keith, as well as just watching the brief recording session scenes in Jean-Luc Godard's Sympathy For The Devil, Keith made it sound like Brian is basically a non-event on Beggars Banquet. I thought Keith played 95% of the guitar on that record and that Brian just showed up and passed out high during those sessions. Isn't that Keith on slide?

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
71Tele
I wish to make the point again that Taylor's so-called "widdling" in '73 had as much to do with Keith prefering to develop his rhythm guitar style as much as anything else. What the hell else was Taylor supposed to do? He played what fit the songs and style of the band at the time. In '69 he played a lot of rhythm and counterpoint stuff, as Keith was still playing a great deal of lead. Richards then switched to 5-string open-G rhythm almost exclusively and Taylor changed his playing style accordingly. His playing in '73 is majestic. He is playing much more lead certainly, but he is still locked in with the band. He was unfortunately influenced by some of the fusion and quasi-jazz stuff going on at the time, hence his questionable joining of forces with Jack Bruce. After he left the Stones he had to make a living mostly as a bandleader (not his natural forte) with weaker bands and weaker material, he reverted more to the instrumentalist so many here criticize. But with strong songs and a strong band to balance him he was untouchable. I also think his brief live work with Dylan illustrates this point. With good material, Taylor shines. As a blues instrumentalist in the mode of a Jeff Beck, he is far less interesting.

Keith went on to play more and more rhythm guitar as Taylor wasn't really good at it. Taylor is a lead guitarist, and one that is so good that it is hard not to let him rip and focus yourself on the rhythm parts.

The thing is -the Stones have always been hit and miss, and Taylor was part of that as well. One show can be fabulous, the other horrible. Brussels is, most will agree, one of the best Stones shows, and a fantastic showcase of Taylor's abilities. But there are some remarks to be made -the Brussels gig as we know it is a blend of two shows, with the bad parts taken out. Also strange is that the well-known Brussels boots have some kind of magic that the official release seems to miss as well. Still, it is a testament of how good Taylor can be.

But yesterday I listened to second Frankfurt 73 show -and Taylor is just horrible there. His playing is just a mess of way too loud, overdone lead playing. He's not playing the actual songs, he's not listening to what the band plays, he's just thrashing out weird sounding improvisations. Then I listened to the 2nd Ft Worth 72 gig, only to listen in awe to how fresh Taylor played.

Mathijs

All due respect, the only one here who continually says Taylor was such a bad rhythm player is you. Doesn't mean it's true. I haven't had the privilege of hearing the 2nd Frankfurt '73 show, so I can't comment on it.

Tele, here you have GS and SFM (great footage!) from Frankfurt 2nd show 73. Well, you better judge it yourself. I think it's just great. I'm very glad to have a boot of that excellent show!

Well, it's all personal opinions of course, but I just find this bloody awful. This is not a great band playing, but this is a bored lead guitarist warming up fingers and practicing scales and runs over some tape playing. This is me in my bedroom doing my best Taylor impersonation, mistakes included.

Mathijs

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
Taylor himself hurt his own legacy within the Stones by leaving. I'm sure he himself thinks he left at a high point in his playing; that he had exhausted all he could do in (for him) a limited framework of a 4 minute rock/pop band. But history shows that he left it open ended. That he never put a bookend on his development.
there is a lot of growth in his playing from 69 to 74.
Since he never "ended" it all, it looks like it wasn't growth, but just a degeneration into noodling. I like where he was going with his solos, but not so much where he stood at the end. the one angle that he had not explored yet IMO was rhythmic possibilities in his playing. His notes, and esp, his scales were getting more interesting. But he had gotten to where they ran up and down, and down and up. he had a lot more placement in 69-71; then the 'notes' came in next years. he never tied it all together. then he left.
I have said this a few times here, but IMO Taylor was anything but a lousy rhtythm guitar player. In 69-70 his rhythm playing was excellent.