Quote
sonomastone

Quote
71Tele

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
rollingon
Could you enlighten me about that "studio incident", sorry but now I must reveal my lack of knowledge about this, thanks!

"You're great on stage, but no good in the studio".

- Keith

One of about a thousand foolish things Keith Richards has said.

it's basically the same thing as saying that his strength is in improvisation, do you not agree with that?

studio greatness on 3 minute rock and roll does not require great improvision. live work, on the other hand, begs for it.

The studio work is there for anyone who has ears to listen. The idea that Taylor was not good in the studio would seem to be disproved by the actual results of the studio tracks he was on, wouldn't it? Including ones that Keith isn't on at all.

Quote
GravityBoy
Mick Taylor is firmly enthroned in the pantheon of greatest rock guitarists who ever walked this earth.

69 to 74 is mindblowing.

What a waste after that.

The list is long and outside of stones/taylorites he's not very highly placed.

Quote
His Majesty
The list is long and outside of stones/taylorites he's not very highly placed.

I think they can treat cloth ears on the NHS.

Not sure.

Quote
GravityBoy

Quote
His Majesty
The list is long and outside of stones/taylorites he's not very highly placed.

I think they can treat cloth ears on the NHS.

Not sure.

Delusion therapy is available for taylorites too.

Whatever.

Apples are better than cheese.

I love the Stones with MT best of all.

That was my time.

Of course Taylor was good in the studio. Who takes that comment literally? It was probably just an annoyed Keith-saying in affect, picked up by Nick Kent.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Didn't Taylor's wife say something about Jagger playing mind games with Taylor, and that this was hard for him to deal with?

Maybe they played Mastermind together and was Taylor not very good at it.

It was a bit more serious than that, if memory serves

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Of course Taylor was good in the studio. Who takes that comment literally? It was probably just an annoyed Keith-saying in affect, picked up by Nick Kent.

If Nick Kent is the source, well, yeah.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
sonomastone

Quote
71Tele

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
rollingon
Could you enlighten me about that "studio incident", sorry but now I must reveal my lack of knowledge about this, thanks!

"You're great on stage, but no good in the studio".

- Keith

One of about a thousand foolish things Keith Richards has said.

it's basically the same thing as saying that his strength is in improvisation, do you not agree with that?

studio greatness on 3 minute rock and roll does not require great improvision. live work, on the other hand, begs for it.

The studio work is there for anyone who has ears to listen. The idea that Taylor was not good in the studio would seem to be disproved by the actual results of the studio tracks he was on, wouldn't it? Including ones that Keith isn't on at all.

Instead of taking the comment word for word literally (which we know it shouldn't be since we know keith didn't always approve of mt live) I was interpreting: the guy's strength was in improvisation. Which I think is clearly true.

Improvising, till he found phrases he liked. Then he stuck to those phrases for the most of the time. He developed some ace stuff, though.

Taylor was an excellent studio player. "Heartbreaker" is a good example. The solo and the wah wah parts help make that track, and it fit in well with what was on the radio at the time. The playing is economical and sounded very modern for its time. However, that record in particular sounds very much like a Mick Jagger production. I'm not sure how much he oversaw the nuts and bolts of productions, but the way Taylor played his guitar parts (Keith didn't even play guitar on the track, just bass), Billy Preston's clavinet, and the heavily arranged horns were very commercial and sounded like a Mick Jagger idea, not a Keith Richards one. That may have been part of the Jagger/Richards conflict, that Mick J. was taking over the reins of making records over Keith, which may have fueled Keith's resentment of MT.

Recording sessions were nice with Taylor. My beef is that he wasn't a part of the rhythm section like Jones; Taylor, more or less, listens to the rhythm section then adds over it, ala a lead guitar player. Didn't sit right with me. In the Stones, rhythm is lead.

In their book that came out 10 or so years ago, they touch on what I'm guessing Keith is talking about. Charlie talks how MT often layed his best stuff down in the first couple takes, then got bored if he had to repeat himself. Keith will play garbage for 40 takes before finding his perfect one.

As far as any of the Stones getting upset at Taylor's playing live, how upset could they have been if they allowed it to go on for a whole mess of shows in 72 and 73? Well, we didn't like it throughout the American Tour, but we'll get back to you about it after Europe in 73. It's just nonsense by people looking to prove their personal opinions.

Quote
StonesCat
In their book that came out 10 or so years ago, they touch on what I'm guessing Keith is talking about. Charlie talks how MT often layed his best stuff down in the first couple takes, then got bored if he had to repeat himself. Keith will play garbage for 40 takes before finding his perfect one.

As far as any of the Stones getting upset at Taylor's playing live, how upset could they have been if they allowed it to go on for a whole mess of shows in 72 and 73? Well, we didn't like it throughout the American Tour, but we'll get back to you about it after Europe in 73. It's just nonsense by people looking to prove their personal opinions.

Bands go on for years carrying personal beef with other members. If Keith's book is anything to go by they sometimes carry it for decades without any face to face resolution.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
StonesCat
In their book that came out 10 or so years ago, they touch on what I'm guessing Keith is talking about. Charlie talks how MT often layed his best stuff down in the first couple takes, then got bored if he had to repeat himself. Keith will play garbage for 40 takes before finding his perfect one.

As far as any of the Stones getting upset at Taylor's playing live, how upset could they have been if they allowed it to go on for a whole mess of shows in 72 and 73? Well, we didn't like it throughout the American Tour, but we'll get back to you about it after Europe in 73. It's just nonsense by people looking to prove their personal opinions.

Bands go on for years carrying personal beef with other members. If Keith's book is anything to go by they sometimes carry it for decades without any face to face resolution.

Indeed. People talk about Keith's book creating the rift but by all accounts in 81 they were fully at odds personally and there is no evidence that has changed since then.

Quote
terraplane

Quote
rollingon
Especially one comment beneath the story is interesting, Mick Taylor was playing lead all the time and Keith got angry...

Unless that guy can lip read who can say what Keith was saying and to whom. He was looking over in the direction of MicK T and Bobby Keys. He could have been saying "Stop snorting my coke" "Stop it Bobby"

It's at around 3.10 - it does look like "stop playing" but he doesn't look particularly angry to me.

Mick Taylor was the best but why didn't Jagger-Richards tell him not to solo & noodle so much behind Micks singing? The Glimmers called the shots and should have demanded this.

Taylor did some great versions of Satisfaction (such as Philidelphia live) where he was soloing like crazy behind Mick Jagger. Also the Marque Club "Dead Flowers" has lots of that Taylor noodling I like in the right proportion



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-15 21:37 by triceratops.

Quote
Green Lady

Quote
terraplane

Quote
rollingon
Especially one comment beneath the story is interesting, Mick Taylor was playing lead all the time and Keith got angry...

Unless that guy can lip read who can say what Keith was saying and to whom. He was looking over in the direction of MicK T and Bobby Keys. He could have been saying "Stop snorting my coke" "Stop it Bobby"

It's at around 3.10 - it does look like "stop playing" but he doesn't look particularly angry to me.

It's called musical direction.

Keith used to do that.

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
terraplane

Quote
rollingon
Especially one comment beneath the story is interesting, Mick Taylor was playing lead all the time and Keith got angry...

Unless that guy can lip read who can say what Keith was saying and to whom. He was looking over in the direction of MicK T and Bobby Keys. He could have been saying "Stop snorting my coke" "Stop it Bobby"

Richards says something like 'stop fuvcking around', in respond to Taylor's lead lines that are a bit too jazzy or fusion for his likings. At the exact spot during Ft Worth, 2nd gig, Jagger tells to taylor 'don't play too much'.

Mathijs

Oh Christ, to be a perfect member of the Rolling Stones. Did anyone ever tell Keith "don't nod out so much" or "don't show up for the gig two hours late so much"? Doubtful. Taylor was always the New Boy, and Richards increasingly used him as a scapegoat for whatever problems he was experiencing. I believe the real story will never be told about why Taylor left, but perhaps it is as simple as he just got tired of being picked on.

The reason why I point it out is not to bash Taylor. To me it shows that the vision of Jagger and certainly Richards differed greatly from Taylor's vision of how the Stones should sound.

Mathijs

yes at that particular moment.. in a world where everyone is so elegantly wasted many things happen from bitching on stage to waking up next to one another naked.. Mathijs this point is tired and not relevant considering their unquestionable, admitted success with MT.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
sonomastone

Quote
71Tele

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
rollingon
Could you enlighten me about that "studio incident", sorry but now I must reveal my lack of knowledge about this, thanks!

"You're great on stage, but no good in the studio".

- Keith

One of about a thousand foolish things Keith Richards has said.

it's basically the same thing as saying that his strength is in improvisation, do you not agree with that?

studio greatness on 3 minute rock and roll does not require great improvision. live work, on the other hand, begs for it.

The studio work is there for anyone who has ears to listen. The idea that Taylor was not good in the studio would seem to be disproved by the actual results of the studio tracks he was on, wouldn't it? Including ones that Keith isn't on at all.

I give up.. The records are there for us to listen to.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
rollingon
Could you enlighten me about that "studio incident", sorry but now I must reveal my lack of knowledge about this, thanks!

"You're great on stage, but no good in the studio".

- Keith

One of about a thousand foolish things Keith Richards has said.

Well maybe not. Taylor's key parts on the albums he plays on are really limited to 2 or 3 great solo's per record. Sure Sway and CYHMK are great, but what did he do on the rest of the album? Sure Hundred Years, Heartbreaker and Winter are great, but what else did he do on that album that stands out? Sure there's 4 or 5 great solo's on Exile, but about all other guitars are Keith.

Taylor's parts on the albums and his role live, including the 'stop fcvcking around' comment shows that Keith had a different vision than Taylor. Keith likes half a dozen guitars doing great rhythmic 'weaving', with the odd short solo thrown in, and not a rhythm guitar with a great, long solo on top.

Mathijs

Right and Jimmy Page only has a dozen really great guitar solos, what's the point? John Ford, film director once said, "You are as great as the best single thing you've ever done". Taylor's record speaks for itself, I'm confounded by your prejudice . Q:How Many Lead Guitarists does it take to change a lightbulb?

A:Four. One to change it and three to stand back and say "Not bad, but I could have done it way better"

Mick Jagger didn't seem to have a problem with Mick Taylor. Didn't someone here pull a quote from some years ago where he said Mick J. called Taylor's playing exciting and said he missed having a real lead guitar player in the band? Why is Keith Richards vision for the band more valid than Mick Jagger? Mick J. is a pretty good musician in his own right, including writing some very good songs virtually all by himself, music and words. Since Keith was so zonked out on heroin, somebody had to step up. Taylor may have left because he saw himself as being someone coming between J & R and that it was one more stress that could lead to the possible break up of the Stones.

Quote
GravityBoy

Quote
Green Lady

Quote
terraplane

Quote
rollingon
Especially one comment beneath the story is interesting, Mick Taylor was playing lead all the time and Keith got angry...

Unless that guy can lip read who can say what Keith was saying and to whom. He was looking over in the direction of MicK T and Bobby Keys. He could have been saying "Stop snorting my coke" "Stop it Bobby"

It's at around 3.10 - it does look like "stop playing" but he doesn't look particularly angry to me.

It's called musical direction.

Keith used to do that.

He still does... on selected songs. Watch the breaks in Rambler.

Quote
marianna
Why is Keith Richards vision for the band more valid than Mick Jagger?

It isn't.

Keith is an @#$%& when it comes to Mick Taylor.

"Weaving" is bullsh*t.

The best guitar interplay in the Stones was lead/rhythm = Taylor/Richards.

Keith can't play lead very much. He proved that over and over down the years except for a few bright moments (SFTD GYYYO, BegBan).

However IMO he is greatest rhythm player ever.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-15 22:52 by GravityBoy.

Quote
marianna
Mick Jagger didn't seem to have a problem with Mick Taylor. Didn't someone here pull a quote from some years ago where he said Mick J. called Taylor's playing exciting and said he missed having a real lead guitar player in the band? Why is Keith Richards vision for the band more valid than Mick Jagger? Mick J. is a pretty good musician in his own right, including writing some very good songs virtually all by himself, music and words. Since Keith was so zonked out on heroin, somebody had to step up. Taylor may have left because he saw himself as being someone coming between J & R and that it was one more stress that could lead to the possible break up of the Stones.

Jagger never said he missed having a real lead guitar player in the band. What is that anyway?

Keith always did good shows, so there was no reason to "step up".

On the FW-show Jagger is saying "don't play too much". That tells me that he was aware of the possibility of Taylor's noodling leading them astray of his vision.

Mathijs, I think Keith pretty much controlled the guitar takes in the studio, so it might not be Tsylor's fault that he isn't as prominent on record as in their live sound pre GHS.

Not every rock band has to play the same simplistic riff over and over, with a really basic guitar solo break played in the same scale. It that's what Keith wanted, why did they ever hire Mick Taylor or even Ron Woods, for that matter? There were many bands in the '60s that were power trios consisting of drums, bass, and one guitar. The Who, Cream, the Small Faces, etc. What Mick Taylor brought was some counterpoint along with complementary rhythm playing at times. Brian Jones also had a sense of counterpoint, though he sometimes played it on the records with other instruments.

If some people prefer a more garage band, primitive approach, all the time, that's fine. If you don't like the Taylor era, don't listen to the recordings he participated in, either live or in studio. He only played with them a few years. He only gets one song with them now. I'm not sure what the problem is. He played lead "all the time" a long time ago.

Quote
marianna
Not every rock band has to play the same simplistic riff over and over, with a really basic guitar solo break played in the same scale. It that's what Keith wanted, why did they ever hire Mick Taylor or even Ron Woods, for that matter? There were many bands in the '60s that were power trios consisting of drums, bass, and one guitar. The Who, Cream, the Small Faces, etc.

I don't think Keith could ever carry a band on his own the way Townshend or Clapton did.

I don't think he had the guitar "fills" or the lead ability.

What Keith had going for him was chord ryhthm, which he was especially good at.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-15 23:36 by GravityBoy.