Quote
GravityBoy

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.

and cunning song writing skill

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
GravityBoy

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.

and cunning song writing skill

Definitely.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-15 23:42 by GravityBoy.

Quote
Mathijs

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

According to Charlie (recent interview from 2013), the best music was done with Mick T. I guess he knows what he talks about, CW was in studio most of the time unlike Wyman. So, not just a few solos here an there. Keith's problems was drugs and therefore throwing his bad mood on top of Taylor. Keith's drug use was the big problem for Stones and his bad mood as well, just take look at how he @#$%& up the situation with his childish comments in "Life" - a spoiled single child.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
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.

Absolutely -I guess Taylor's solo on Sway ran for 5 minutes, but Keith put the fader down after 30 seconds during final mixdown.

Mathijs

Charlie was right.

Anything Keith says is colored by being abducted by alien heroin dealers.

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
DandelionPowderman
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.

Absolutely -I guess Taylor's solo on Sway ran for 5 minutes, but Keith put the fader down after 30 seconds during final mixdown.

Mathijs

Actually studies show that was Keith's nose pulling down the fader...he fell asleep...the rest of the solo is lost to history...

Just before Taylor quit, Keef was a full blown Junkie.

Ever been around a Junkie, they are NOT nice people to be around....PERIOD

Quote
mtaylor

According to Charlie (recent interview from 2013), the best music was done with Mick T. I guess he knows what he talks about...

It's just Charlie's humble opinion, nothing more or less.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
mtaylor

According to Charlie (recent interview from 2013), the best music was done with Mick T. I guess he knows what he talks about...

It's just Charlie's humble opinion, nothing more or less.

Indeed it is, and also Mick J's and Bill's and (if he's really honest) probably also Keith's.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
mtaylor

According to Charlie (recent interview from 2013), the best music was done with Mick T. I guess he knows what he talks about...

It's just Charlie's humble opinion, nothing more or less.

Indeed it is, and also Mick J's and Bill's and (if he's really honest) probably also Keith's.

Yet Taylor and Nicky Hopkins think Beggars Banquet was their best, Keith has said so too, but Some Girls has reached sales of 8 million or so copies.

Funny world eh.

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.

Yes, I Agree. There is the story of Jagger showing up at Taylor's house towards the end of his run, crying that he (Jagger) wished he could fire Keith. There is also Taylor saying he left during a period when Keith and Jagger were not getting along.

I think its interesting when Jagger was asked why Taylor left, he says he doesn't know but that perhaps "he [Taylor] didn't get on with Keith".

Quote
Mathijs

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

Well, you could be right. But I am curious how we should then interpret Keith's "vision" of the band for huge chunks of the next decades when Ronnie Wood's guitar would be barely audible. Between brilliant periods of weaving, we have long periods of Ronnie being barely audible and then another bunch of years with Keith stepping all over Ronnie's attempts at leads with his own staccato half solos of varying quality -- and actually before the weaving of Some Girls we have Ronnie basically playing lead all over the place as well.

Horrible version from 1972. Just kidding. Taylor was gold. Listen from 3.00 something, I mean did he know what to play or what. Jagger sounds like he's saying: "Dont roll me much now?"





Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-16 00:55 by Redhotcarpet.

Only time this song worked by the way. 1972 and 1973. Thats it. I like the funky version from 1976, and wort of 1981, but hey 1972 is...the best. Followed by 1973 or maybe the other way around, hard to pick one of those diamonds. Only time this worked live and turned into something bigger, higher, spheric. That vanished when Taylor left.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-16 01:02 by Redhotcarpet.

Quote
Redhotcarpet

He's too wanky on this one, but that goes for most of the 1973 European tour.

Quote
mtaylor

Quote
Mathijs

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

According to Charlie (recent interview from 2013), the best music was done with Mick T. I guess he knows what he talks about, CW was in studio most of the time unlike Wyman. So, not just a few solos here an there. Keith's problems was drugs and therefore throwing his bad mood on top of Taylor. Keith's drug use was the big problem for Stones and his bad mood as well, just take look at how he @#$%& up the situation with his childish comments in "Life" - a spoiled single child.

the studio successes of the golden era (beggar's banquet, let it bleed, sticky fingers, and exile) were the result of keith richards taking over musical direction of the band after Satantic Majesties and Jagger/Richards being in their prime as far as song writers.

the successes of the band playing live in 69 and 72 were the result of a great band playing in their prime, including having a great lead guitarist (taylor). like all golden eras, it came to an end and all parties involved moved on (though perhaps not all their fans).

be careful about making it sound like the stones "golden era" was some sort a result of Mick Taylor and in spite of rather than because of keith richards.

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
DandelionPowderman
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.

Absolutely -I guess Taylor's solo on Sway ran for 5 minutes, but Keith put the fader down after 30 seconds during final mixdown.

Mathijs

The Glimmers were the producers, it is the correct move. CYHMK was the extended solo track for this record. Many songs are shorter after mixdown, Keith and Mick were great producers, that's a given.

Quote
ChrisM
At times Mick brought a jazz musicians sensibilty to the Stones music which to me means he would solo or riff more than a traditonal rock guitarist would over the verses and choruses

Which likely explains why Charlie has spoken of him so highly, more so than any of the others by far.

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
DandelionPowderman
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.

Absolutely -I guess Taylor's solo on Sway ran for 5 minutes, but Keith put the fader down after 30 seconds during final mixdown.

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.


Mathijs

Mathijs: I say this with no malice, but why do you constantly try to minimize Taylor's contributions on the albums he played on? Yes, he "only" played brilliant solos on these albums, like Charlie "only" played drums, and Bill "only" played bass. Nobody has claimed that he was doing more. If you don't think what he did on Sway or CYHMK or Winter or his bass parts on Exile, etc. are enough, what exactly do you think he should have been doing instead? Your line of reasoning here really makes no sense, and frankly, makes you seem like you have some kind of animus or agenda. To say you don't like his style of playing is one thing, to minimize the importance of his contribution to the band's sound while he was in the group is quite another, and frankly strains credulity.

The bass line on Tumbling Dice and the slide solo at the end of Sway (to cite just two examples of dozens) are key characteristics of those particular classic Stones recordings. They are part of the indelible impression those records have made on us, and on the music world as a whole, and they are testaments to the legacy of Mick Taylor's talent and musicianship. To deny that fact just makes you seem like a crank.

Before you make your usual response that "any" guitarist could have made that impact, I will say that, one, you can't prove a hypothetical, so we don't know. But what we DO know is that those records have attained classic or even mythic status partly because of Taylor's contributions.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-16 01:53 by 71Tele.

The idea—expressed often by Keith over the years—that Mick Taylor is a great lead player, but not a "weaver," is absolute pure unadulterated unmitigated bs.

Fact is, Taylor was as deft a rhythmic accompanist as he was a soloist.

Quote
Mel Belli
The idea—expressed often by Keith over the years—that Mick Taylor is a great lead player, but not a "weaver," is absolute pure unadulterated unmitigated bs.

Fact is, Taylor was as deft a rhythmic accompanist as he was a soloist.

he proved he could be IMO, however, he didn't always like to. his choice. he's lucky they are having him on stage this tour, it could turn his whole life around.

Quote
sonomastone

Quote
Mel Belli
The idea—expressed often by Keith over the years—that Mick Taylor is a great lead player, but not a "weaver," is absolute pure unadulterated unmitigated bs.

Fact is, Taylor was as deft a rhythmic accompanist as he was a soloist.

he proved he could be IMO, however, he didn't always like to. his choice. he's lucky they are having him on stage this tour, it could turn his whole life around.

What does that mean—"he didn't always like to"? Think of tracks like CYHMK, where he did both. His jazzy chordal accompaniment during the sax solo is, in its understated way, as brilliant as the famous solo.

Quote
Mel Belli

Quote
sonomastone

Quote
Mel Belli
The idea—expressed often by Keith over the years—that Mick Taylor is a great lead player, but not a "weaver," is absolute pure unadulterated unmitigated bs.

Fact is, Taylor was as deft a rhythmic accompanist as he was a soloist.

he proved he could be IMO, however, he didn't always like to. his choice. he's lucky they are having him on stage this tour, it could turn his whole life around.

What does that mean—"he didn't always like to"? Think of tracks like CYHMK, where he did both. His jazzy chordal accompaniment during the sax solo is, in its understated way, as brilliant as the famous solo.

i don't know if you've been following this thread but one example cited is him soloing all over MJ"s vocals in concert.

I don't think Mick Taylor is "lucky" to be on tour with them if he's only getting one song per show (I'm not sure the extra one he got counts, now that Keith has reclaimed his incredible guitar solo in that one). That's just a bone to allay their guilt, IMO. I'm sure the Bill Wyman offer was the same thing, but Bill is rich enough that he doesn't have to play their stupid game of playing one or two songs per show. I'm not sure why they bothered asking either of them.

It means nothing. Taylor was a complete guitarist in his day. Some of his best parts are acoustic. The band leaned on his skills in the studio, employing him on bass as well. The question is why is he still so beloved till this day? Perhaps because sweet as he is Woody has rarely filled his shoes.

Quote
sonomastone

Quote
Mel Belli

Quote
sonomastone

Quote
Mel Belli
The idea—expressed often by Keith over the years—that Mick Taylor is a great lead player, but not a "weaver," is absolute pure unadulterated unmitigated bs.

Fact is, Taylor was as deft a rhythmic accompanist as he was a soloist.

he proved he could be IMO, however, he didn't always like to. his choice. he's lucky they are having him on stage this tour, it could turn his whole life around.

What does that mean—"he didn't always like to"? Think of tracks like CYHMK, where he did both. His jazzy chordal accompaniment during the sax solo is, in its understated way, as brilliant as the famous solo.

i don't know if you've been following this thread but one example cited is him soloing all over MJ"s vocals in concert.

I just picked up the thread, so pardon me if I'm repeating someone else. But Jagger has surrounded himself with hot dogs (Beck, Satriani, etc.) every chance he could get. He has said numerous times that Taylor's melodic approach was a great foil for his vocals. If Taylor "stepped on" MJ, that's in the ear of the beholder—but almost certainly not Jagger's ear.

Quote
marianna
I don't think Mick Taylor is "lucky" to be on tour with them if he's only getting one song per show (I'm not sure the extra one he got counts, now that Keith has reclaimed his incredible guitar solo in that one). That's just a bone to allay their guilt, IMO. I'm sure the Bill Wyman offer was the same thing, but Bill is rich enough that he doesn't have to play their stupid game of playing one or two songs per show. I'm not sure why they bothered asking either of them.

perhaps you aren't familiar with the status of MT's career circa 2009.
don't get me wrong, he deserves the recognition and was a huge part of their success. i'm glad they are doing it. but they certainly didn't have to invite him. i imagine it was a way of resolving any legal difficulties. it was horrible if it's true that he was cut out of royalties post 1982.

Quote
Mel Belli

Quote
sonomastone

Quote
Mel Belli

Quote
sonomastone

Quote
Mel Belli
The idea—expressed often by Keith over the years—that Mick Taylor is a great lead player, but not a "weaver," is absolute pure unadulterated unmitigated bs.

Fact is, Taylor was as deft a rhythmic accompanist as he was a soloist.

he proved he could be IMO, however, he didn't always like to. his choice. he's lucky they are having him on stage this tour, it could turn his whole life around.

What does that mean—"he didn't always like to"? Think of tracks like CYHMK, where he did both. His jazzy chordal accompaniment during the sax solo is, in its understated way, as brilliant as the famous solo.

i don't know if you've been following this thread but one example cited is him soloing all over MJ"s vocals in concert.

I just picked up the thread, so pardon me if I'm repeating someone else. But Jagger has surrounded himself with hot dogs (Beck, Satriani, etc.) every chance he could get. He has said numerous times that Taylor's melodic approach was a great foil for his vocals. If Taylor "stepped on" MJ, that's in the ear of the beholder—but almost certainly not Jagger's ear.

yep, we've been through this ad nauseum. in any case we agree that he was a good rhythm player as well as lead.