OpenG, I'm not questioning Mick T's ability to play, I'm sure he's still great.
But the point is that he will never play with the Stones again, may be for a show or two, but definitley not on a regular basis. And one reason why Mick's not coming back is the physical shape he's in. He looks like a drunk, old, fat man - and you are right, the Stones shows are sometimes very much like a Vegas act, and they won't replace Ronnie with Mick. Simply because Mick would stand there like a statue playing his solos and he wouldn't look to good..
He isn't "cool", he has no stage presence. In the early 70ies nobody cared, probably the girls thought he was sweet cause he looked so shy and innocent, but this attractions is gone for sure.

Mick T's career chance are gone. He will continue to play in small clubs with local bands and I'm sure his playing will remain great and the insiders will continue to adore him, but he will never be more than that. And even if it sounds harsh, he will never be in a big list with the best guitar players, because the few years when he was recogniced by a wider public was some years in the early seventies. He failed completely becoming a succesful solo artist and there has to be a reason for this - and one reason is for sure that he is not a very talented songwriter.
He should have focused on playing with big names instead of trying it alone. That would have been the only chance for him to be successful

Anyway, don't think that anyone in the band consideres to fire or replace Ronnie, but I think that he was told to keep in "shape" for the next tour, that's why he's playing with everyone around (Charlatans, Thrills, J.Beck, Rod, ModAid,...)
We simply have to live with the fact that Ronnie is a not as good as he was in the late 70ies/early 80ies. We can just hope that his playing will improve. I'm really curious about his performance on Sunday in London.

MCDDTLC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have
> hoped for decades now that
> the Stones would bring him back, just of one night
> and perform songs that can't
> do now from the 70's Sway. Time whats for no one,
> CYHMK with Taylor doing the
> leads he introduced into that song,

3 songs that the Stones either never played or couldnt play when taylor was still in the band. At least they've finally managed to be able to play CYHMK

"At least they've finally managed to be able to play CYHMK"

Oh, did they really? Okay, a song of that named was incluled in their set...

- Doxa

They performed CYHMK quite well in 2002.

Well, the irony of that recent performance of CYHMK is that the "Taylor part" worked quite nicely; Mick's harp was fresh and brilliant, Ronnie's solo great, even flashing sometimes, the horn guys are pros ank know their job, Keith put some nice impromptu lick jams, etc. But the first part of the song, the "song part" was mostly horrible - thanks to mutual weak efforts of the Twins.

- Doxa

IMO I thought Woody's solo on CYHMK was choppy and not fluid.
He copied Taylor's triple stops and did not look confident and it looked like
on the HBO show that he said to himself I got it when he started to move on stage
when he played the octaves.

I agree with Doxa. I think the jam part of the song worked quite well. And Ronnie did a good job on most nights. MSG I thought he played the solo very well. The beginning of the song was what sounded a little weak. But in all fairness its much easier to get that sort of sound (the opening riff) out of a guitar when you are in the studio playing with the volumes and sounds compared to onstage.

And for the people who continue to bash everything that Ronnie does, answer me this. It is obvious that Taylor is technically a much better soloist than Ronnie but for the sake of the argument above about Taylor's songwriting skills I think there is no question that Ronnie is a much better song writer. He has a bunch of great solo albums and his songwriting with the Faces speaks for itself.

And also there is not a major artist these days who tours the US and does not play in Vegas. It is one of the most popular and fastest growing cities, bands would be stupid not to play there.

All this stuff about Ronnie being a sonwriter???

what has he wrote lately??? When he was with the Faces, it was Rod Stewart
doing the writing not Ronnie - Only thing I can think of was:
I've got my own Album to do - but that was with Many friends....

Name something recent he has wrote - he might have helped out on some of the
newer Stones songs but we'll never know, since they are all labeled:

Jagger/Richards !!!!

There are several songs on Taylor's last CD : A Stones Throw
Twister Sister, Secret Affair - that are head over heels better than anything
Ronnie's wrote - name a Ronnie song that compares!!! MLC

MCDDTLC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> what has he wrote lately???

A solo album in 2001.

Have you ever heard of Ronnie's Now Look, Gimme Some Neck or Slide On This.
His last album Not For Beginners (2002) is not bad either. And go check the writing credits for the Faces, hate to tell you but Ronnie's name is all over them, as much if not more than Rod Stewarts. Please if you are going to make arguments at least get the facts straight, Ronnie has written many good songs and HE HAS written music since his time with the Faces. In fact, he has more solo albums than anyone else in the Stones. In addition, the Stones album Dirty Work, while not everyone's favorite, has more than half of the songs with Ronnie's name on it.

Funny thing is I am probably a bigger Taylor fan, I just can't say that he is a better songwriter than Ronnie Wood. Please go listen to his solo albums and Faces stuff (and look at the song credits for the Faces songs).

H-Dog - I have listened to some of Ronnie's music - it didn't impress me - MLC

<Have you ever heard of Ronnie's Now Look, Gimme Some Neck or Slide On This.
His last album Not For Beginners (2002)>

Let's not forget "I've Got My Own Album To Do", including Mick Taylor (brilliant interplay with Ronnie on Crotch Music and Shirley).

When you listen to this album, and put on a Taylor solo album afterwards, you'll know that Mick never could make records at this level. It's not enough to be a good solo guitarist, IMO that's only a part of being a great guitar player. Also, you gotta be able to write good songs, and your playing will not reach the highest level before you get that ownership...

Question

Does Woody's solo stuff or Taylor's melodic passages of vibrato stay with you
inside your soul ready to conjure up from time to time.Well for me Taylor's
melodic passages he created with the stones and his solo work far surpass any
3 minute song Woody has wrote.Time Waits For No One is haunting and melodic,Taylor's melodic wonderment on winter and all is solos live with the
stones enriched the material.You can,t discount a great solo within a three
minute song and I agree you can,t discount a great song with lyrics and chord
foundation.But if I review Taylor's body of work with the stones and his solo
stuff IMO Taylor's musical genius is on those records.Yeah the mainstream fan
has no idea of Taylor and only knows the current stones lineup.

I hate when someone says only TAYLOR CAN NOODLE on stage.So I guess his ending
climatic outro solo on Moonlight is another example of his noodling.No way its
GENIUS and Talent and having the god given ability to play guitar to a live
audience and forget about how you look or react to the crowd.Does taylor need
to jump up and down and wave to the crowd to play.So taylor did not show
emotion with the stones was he going to compete with jagger as a frontman.
He did his JOB to play lead guitar for a band that was once the greatest rock
and roll band with Taylor in the lineup.

When the stones play All Down The Line on LAG well that to me is one of the
greatest live band performances ever the whole band cooked with keith providing
the rhythm and Taylor playing those blistering slide leads on the verses.And jaggers prancing on ALL Down The Line is great.
That was the greatest rock and roll band during the 72/73 tours.

And another point I guess Woody was so impressed by Taylor's solos that he
copied Taylor's triple stops on CYHMK and also he copied Taylor's licks when
he does LIV on slide(He can,t play Taylor's single note solo on LIV and gets
by taking the easy way out only playing slide.

So I guess Woody is influenced by Taylor's genius.Why cant woody come up with his
own improvisation and be a true lead player.

Just to make some issues clearer:

My favourite stones track is Moonlight Mile (of course with brilliant guitars).

May favourite solo-stone track is I Got Lost When I Found You (Ronnie - also with great guitars).

There you go; it does the same trick for the song, whether there are brilliant solos, brilliant feel, good rhythm, good riffs etc. - whatever suits the song is of main importantance.

I am a (semi) professional guitar player my self, and as much as I love the Taylor solos with the stones, my point is that we gotta be realistic when it comes to Taylor's work after the stones - I've seen him live three times in small clubs. The first concert was horrible, the second OK, and the third great. I do NOT like his current playing as much as I did. I think he's approaching the semi-jazz style, almost muzak at times, and the rock numbers are rarer performed.

He is still a great player, but unfortunately he is NOT a solo act. He lacks too much (charisma, signature voice etc.). He needs a good band and a different musical style to get up there where he belongs.

I agree groove is important and thats how the current lineup gets by but Taylor's
techinical brilliance of playing those melodies can,t be overlooked.Johns said
that he got bored listening to all the british guitar gods but he praised Taylor
saying he could listen to Taylor's playing all day.He said Winter was the best
stones studio recording and Keith was not even on it.Thats powerful stuff coming
from an engineer.Taylor's live solo on Dead Flowers is brilliance his technique
and how he positions his fingers to go up an down the fretboard and how he uses
his pinky to support those country bends and licks is textbook.From time to time
some say Taylor could not play punk well thats so far from the truth.He proved
right away he could play and really showed Keith how to play those country licks
on dead flowers that keith learned from gram parsons.I learned how to play guitar
listening to Beggars Banquet and learning all of keith's open stuff but I really
get better on guitar listening to Taylor because he makes you really pratice and
experiment up and down the fretboard with his use of all the major scales.Keith
stays in the pentatonic box which is his style and I find limits your creativity
as a player.yeah you can find all small chord shapes with open tunings but that
even gets stale from time to time.Using all tehcinques and styles I guess is the
best way to stay creative as a musician.

I also think some of Taylor's greatness comes to show when he moves out of the "pentatonic box", but to be honest - he didn't do that much with the stones. Time Waits For No one, Moonlight Mile, Street Fighting Man (Live), I'm Free are some examples. He does the hard work inside "the box" The important thing is what he does, and how he can keep it going with fluidity. IMO, that's what makes Taylor a great player - the stuff he plays is not hard to copy for a pub player, and much of it is not his inventions, but rather Taylor communicating his inspirations to the audience. Dead Flowers is not a good example IMO, because that country-lickin' is full of clichées - he's done greater thing.

Don't be easily impressed by guitarists who run up and down the fretboard. Remember, there are many "boxes" and easy roads between them

Powerman - I would love to hear you re-create Taylor's leads if you think it's that easy... something tell's it wouldn't be quite the same. I haven't seen too
many that can touch his Vibrato, and I've been going to concerts since the 60's.
and by the way, Taylor was a BIG!!!! influence on the Stones music while he was there, Jivin Sister Fanny, Hide your Love, 100 Years ago, bass on Fingerprint file, Sway, HIS introduced leads at the end of CYHMK - must I go on...

I know how much the Stones needed this guy when he 1st came on board in 1968/69.
I was there, they could have faded away like the Kinks, Herman's Hermits,etc.
did the 60's without the presence of a gifted Guitarist like Taylor back then.
he helped them a great deal, and too many are here just blow him off or feel
Jagger/Richards were the only reason.. - MLC

I agree to everything in your post.

Recreating can never beat the original thing. My point is that the stuff is not hard to play, but what you do with it is another matter.

Taylor was at his best in a rock'n'roll format. He's just isn't a solo artist...

Its taylor's fluidity and vibrato thats so important thats god given and comes
from his soul.yeah going up and down the fretboard is not difficult but taylor
adds the extra notes or uses sustain and hammers.Listen to Winter and the
sustain(ringing of notes) he gets its fantastic and beautiful.He comes out of bends and goes into sustain from the 4th fret to the 9th fret.His signature
trademark YCYGWYW lick he uses on also on winter.His techinque and his rapid
fluidity and change of pace to slow it down is something you can,t copy or teach
it comes from his soul and his life experiences as a musician.His Haunting and
chilling solo on Time Waits For no One is his way to say I am leaving the stones
with his haunting asending and desending patterns up and down the fretboard.
Taylor's fluidity and vibrato was far better than all the other british gods at
that time and they now are all rich and famous.Taylor's body of work all his live
solos and studio work are classic and blow away what Clapton or Beck did live or
in the studio.For all the Jeff Beck fans IMO his tone is terrible a gifted player
but i cant listen to his tone.

CREAM'S CROP
Jack Bruce reminisces about his legendary rock band

BY COREY LEVITAN
POP MUSIC WRITER



Q: I need to ask about another famous band you're connected to. Many say
that Mick Taylor's decision to quit the Rolling Stones in 1974 to join the Jack
Bruce Band was rock's second-worst decision after Decca Records turned down the
Beatles in 1962. I don't mean this as an insult, but would YOU have quit the
Stones?
A: Well, I wouldn't say he left the Stones to join my band. He left the
Stones and THEN he joined my band. He was going to leave the Stones anyway. He
was very unhappy, because the Stones are very much a clique. Ronnie Wood's now a
part of it because he's a mate with Keith (Richards) and he's been part of them
so long. But it's always been like that. I've known them since before they were
the Stones and Charlie's still a very good friend of mine. But they (expletive)
up everybody that comes in contact with them, to be quite honest about it. Andy
Johns (former Stones engineer) has never been the same since. And I think it was
very difficult for Mick (Taylor) to be a part of that. He was a very
inexperienced kid when he joined the Stones. And they were ripping him off as
well, because they rip everyone off. Financially, they're not good to the people
who work for them.

FAMED GUITARIST IS STONE COLD
When I heard that Mick Taylor was playing the
Temple Bar in Santa Monica on Aug. 29, I was so
ecstatic I put in a request for an interview more than a
month before the date.
I'm not alone among critics and fans in citing
1969-1972 as the greatest Rolling Stones era. And it's
probably not coincidental that those are the years the
band's lead guitarist was Taylor.
Replacing Brian Jones, who resigned mere days
before his death, the 21-year-old pumped the Stones
full of the high-grade blues that also fueled his tenure
as a member of John Mayall's Bluesbreakers (which
before him broke Eric Clapton and members of
Fleetwood Mac).
Although hired as a lead guitarist, Taylor mostly
strummed rhythm. His chunky, concussive chug was
miles from the sound of Jones, who played strict lead,
or Ron Wood (Taylor's replacement), who to this day
merely shadows Richards' noodling. It singularly
propelled the group's hands-down best songs,
including "Brown Sugar," "Rocks Off" and "Bitch."
Taylor ostensibly played rhythm because he
sensed what would best roll the Stones. But I suspect
it was also because Richards loathed getting blown
away by the guy. (Listen to Taylor, on the left
channel, blast leads that are 100 times better than
Richards', on the right, on the 1969 live album, "Get
Yer Ya-Ya's Out.")
Two weeks after my interview request was
placed, I hadn't heard back. So I called management,
which expressed frustration, then gave me a cell
number for Taylor's road manager.
"Claude should have called you already," they
said. "Go ahead, try him yourself."
Claude is an amiable Brit who, I discovered,
keeps his phone turned off about 22 hours a day.
(And there's no voicemail set up to leave a message.)
He finally answered two days later, while Taylor was
in Denver. I was given Mick's hotel number and told
to ring him there. But the guitarist had instructed
the reception desk not to place any calls through.
Claude apologized, telling me to try them back
last Friday. (When I did, Claude's cell phone was shut
off all day.)
That such a major player in rock history would be
playing such a minor concert venue as the Temple
Bar, which holds 259 people, struck me as sad but
also downright peculiar.
And why would his presence in town go so virtually
unpublicized? I hadn't seen one article about the gig. None of
my fellow Stones-fan friends knew about it, nor did they
know that Taylor was currently touring.
Hell, they didn't even know he still played music.
I believe I discovered the reason for all this on
Monday, when I tracked Taylor down to a Select Inn
in Bloomington, Minn.
"I'm not doing any interviews," said the 53-year-
old. "I really don't have anything to say. I don't know
why Claude didn't tell you this."
No interviews? Gee, that's a good idea. Not only
will Taylor play a bar that holds 259 people, he won't
even fill it.
Here's my theory: The guy is sick of being asked
Stones questions year after year -- one in particular.
Unfortunately for Taylor, rock history will
probably remember him better for his decision to quit
the Stones than for his rich contribution to them. His
departure in 1974, for a gig in the quickly defunct
Jack Bruce Band, is often called rock's all-time worst
decision, next to Decca Records' rejection of the
Beatles because, so one exec allegedly said, "guitar
groups are on the way out."
But I knew Taylor was sensitive about the
subject. So for hours I prepared Mick Taylor
questions having nothing to do with the Stones (no
easy task). They addressed Taylor's recent work,
including recording with someone named Carla
Olson; the legacy of recently deceased bluesman John
Lee Hooker; and just how John Mayall was once able
to spot new guitar talent so consistently.
"I'm not doing interviews, OK?" Taylor
concluded our 15-second conversation. "Bye-bye."
I wanted to ring him back and ask which Mick he
thought he was -- Jagger? But I chickened out, fearing
how my editors would react if word of my rant got back
to the paper.
Instead, I called Claude, who apologized
profusely.
"He gets like this sometimes, mate," Claude said.
"He'll promise to do interviews and then he'll turn
around and cancel them all. I know I told him about
your interview."
Of course, after my softball questions, I was
planning to zing Taylor with the big one: WHY THE
HELL WOULD ANYBODY QUIT THE ROLLING
STONES?
Was it a clash of musical differences,
egos, drugs? Was he not offered the publishing or
songwriting credit he felt he deserved? Was he
getting bad advice? Was he temporarily insane?
Or maybe he was secretly fired and never told
anyone.
These questions will remain unsatisfactorily
answered, as surely as Taylor's concerts will remain
unsatisfactorily attended, as long as he refuses to face
the music.

Wow, I like Mick Taylor but I think some people here want get him from behind or something.

"they could have faded away like the Kinks, Herman's Hermits,etc.
did the 60's without the presence of a gifted Guitarist like Taylor back then"

You don't think the songs Mick and Keith wrote were the reason they didn't fade away like Herman's Hermits?? Songs like Brown Sugar, Wild Horses and others are what made them not fade away..

<Wow, I like Mick Taylor but I think some people here want get him from behind or something.>

LOL!!! That's a good one.

I think OpenG sees this Taylor-thing as a mission; spread it out to the people, let's not forget how great he was/is. This is a noble thing, and I (despite the overwhelming worshiping) think we should give him credit for that.

I hear you DP. I am a big Talyor fan and speak very highly of him to friends of mine who are not familiar with his work. I will buy anything that MT plays on, Dylan, John Mayall, and so on.. I am just amused sometimes by some of these posts.