Quote
sonomastone

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.

Sounds good to me. Until next time, then!

Quote
DandelionPowderman

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.

Excuse me if this has been posted before, but this is an exert from the lengthy Rolling Stone interview with Jan Wenner & Mick Jagger from 1995 during the Voodoo Lounge tour in which Jagger reflected on his years with Mick Taylor in the band:

WENNER:
What about the contribution of Mick Taylor to the band in these years?

JAGGER:
I think he had a big contribution. He made it very musical. He was a very fluent, melodic player, which we never had, and we don’t have now. Neither Keith nor [Ronnie Wood] plays that kind of style. It was very good for me working with him. Charlie and I were talking about this the other day, because we could sit down – I could sit down – with Mick Taylor, and he would play very fluid lines against my vocals. He was exciting, and he was very pretty, and it gave me something to follow, to bang off. Some people think that’s the best version of the band that existed.

WENNER:
What do you think?

JAGGER:
They’re all interesting periods. They’re all different. I obviously can’t say if I think Mick Taylor was the best, because it sort of trashes the period the band is in now.

WENNER:
Why did Mick Taylor leave?

JAGGER:
I still don’t really know.

WENNER:
He never explained?

JAGGER:
Not really. He wanted to have a solo career. I think he found it difficult to get on with Keith.

WENNER:
On musical issues?

JAGGER:
Everything. I’m guessing.

Quote
sonomastone

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.

sonomastone, you make it sound like The Stones are doing a kind of charity work by inviting poor Taylor to do his one plus one song contribution. Maybe there is a bit of Mother Theresa in them, but the realist in me says that it is a business move, something to justify the ticket prices, and get some all-seen diehard fans there who might not be there otherwise. I am sure that when they calculate Taylor's salary with the amount of tickets sold by the help of him they are not losing money.

It is a bit same ideology by which they include two new cuts to GRRR! - they are also interested in hardcore fanbase's money; like I've been reminded here "their people" keep on eye on boards like ours - that's why we should behave nicely, and not critizise - they surely know how much Taylor has appeal among die-hards. Wyman, too. They are not stupid.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-16 07:25 by Doxa.

Quote
Redhotcarpet
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?"

By the time of Brussels 1st show, Taylor was playing his counterpoint at the spot where Jagger objected in '72. Did he convince Jagger and Richards it worked? Were they wrong to object earlier? So who had the correct vision in '72? Methinks Taylor, and it's part of why I think he contributed so positively. YMMV

Quote
Doxa

Quote
sonomastone

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.

sonomastone, you make it sound like The Stones are doing a kind of charity work by inviting poor Taylor to do his one plus one song contribution. Maybe there is a bit of Mother Theresa in them, but the realist in me says that it is a business move, something to justify the ticket prices, and get some all-seen diehard fans there who might not be there otherwise. I am sure that when they calculate Taylor's salary with the amount of tickets sold by the help of him they are not losing money.

It is a bit same ideology by which they include two new cuts to GRRR! - they are also interested in hardcore fanbase's money; like I've been reminded here "their people" keep on eye on boards like ours - that's why we should behave nicely, and not critizise - they surely know how much Taylor has appeal among die-hards. Wyman, too. They are not stupid.

- Doxa

Agreed! It's been all about the $$$ since 89

Quote
Sighunt

Quote
DandelionPowderman

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.

Excuse me if this has been posted before, but this is an exert from the lengthy Rolling Stone interview with Jan Wenner & Mick Jagger from 1995 during the Voodoo Lounge tour in which Jagger reflected on his years with Mick Taylor in the band:

WENNER:
What about the contribution of Mick Taylor to the band in these years?

JAGGER:
I think he had a big contribution. He made it very musical. He was a very fluent, melodic player, which we never had, and we don’t have now. Neither Keith nor [Ronnie Wood] plays that kind of style. It was very good for me working with him. Charlie and I were talking about this the other day, because we could sit down – I could sit down – with Mick Taylor, and he would play very fluid lines against my vocals. He was exciting, and he was very pretty, and it gave me something to follow, to bang off. Some people think that’s the best version of the band that existed.

WENNER:
What do you think?

JAGGER:
They’re all interesting periods. They’re all different. I obviously can’t say if I think Mick Taylor was the best, because it sort of trashes the period the band is in now.

WENNER:
Why did Mick Taylor leave?

JAGGER:
I still don’t really know.

WENNER:
He never explained?

JAGGER:
Not really. He wanted to have a solo career. I think he found it difficult to get on with Keith.

WENNER:
On musical issues?

JAGGER:
Everything. I’m guessing.

Read this back in the day. So?

He never said he missed having a REAL lead guitar. Everybody knows that Taylor was outstanding.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Sighunt

Quote
DandelionPowderman

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.

Excuse me if this has been posted before, but this is an exert from the lengthy Rolling Stone interview with Jan Wenner & Mick Jagger from 1995 during the Voodoo Lounge tour in which Jagger reflected on his years with Mick Taylor in the band:

WENNER:
What about the contribution of Mick Taylor to the band in these years?

JAGGER:
I think he had a big contribution. He made it very musical. He was a very fluent, melodic player, which we never had, and we don’t have now. Neither Keith nor [Ronnie Wood] plays that kind of style. It was very good for me working with him. Charlie and I were talking about this the other day, because we could sit down – I could sit down – with Mick Taylor, and he would play very fluid lines against my vocals. He was exciting, and he was very pretty, and it gave me something to follow, to bang off. Some people think that’s the best version of the band that existed.

WENNER:
What do you think?

JAGGER:
They’re all interesting periods. They’re all different. I obviously can’t say if I think Mick Taylor was the best, because it sort of trashes the period the band is in now.

WENNER:
Why did Mick Taylor leave?

JAGGER:
I still don’t really know.

WENNER:
He never explained?

JAGGER:
Not really. He wanted to have a solo career. I think he found it difficult to get on with Keith.

WENNER:
On musical issues?

JAGGER:
Everything. I’m guessing.

Read this back in the day. So?

He never said he missed having a REAL lead guitar. Everybody knows that Taylor was outstanding.

These Taylor discussions are so weird. If you don't say that he's a god then you are branded as being anti-Taylor and get bombarded with rehashes of information like this.

Clapton
Taylor
Bonnamassa

Who's best? They're playing in blues-style and is still touring the world..who would you choose to watch a concert with?

I say Joe....

2 1 2 0

Quote
Sighunt
Excuse me if this has been posted before, but this is an exert from the lengthy Rolling Stone interview with Jan Wenner & Mick Jagger from 1995 during the Voodoo Lounge tour in which Jagger reflected on his years with Mick Taylor in the band:

WENNER:
What about the contribution of Mick Taylor to the band in these years?

JAGGER:
I think he had a big contribution. He made it very musical. He was a very fluent, melodic player, which we never had, and we don’t have now. Neither Keith nor [Ronnie Wood] plays that kind of style. It was very good for me working with him. Charlie and I were talking about this the other day, because we could sit down – I could sit down – with Mick Taylor, and he would play very fluid lines against my vocals. He was exciting, and he was very pretty, and it gave me something to follow, to bang off. Some people think that’s the best version of the band that existed.

WENNER:
What do you think?

JAGGER:
They’re all interesting periods. They’re all different. I obviously can’t say if I think Mick Taylor was the best, because it sort of trashes the period the band is in now.

WENNER:
Why did Mick Taylor leave?

JAGGER:
I still don’t really know.

WENNER:
He never explained?

JAGGER:
Not really. He wanted to have a solo career. I think he found it difficult to get on with Keith.

WENNER:
On musical issues?

JAGGER:
Everything. I’m guessing.

Everything you need to know is here.

I like this bit " I obviously can’t say if I think Mick Taylor was the best, because it sort of trashes the period the band is in now".

Obviously Mick. But we know what you are thinking.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-16 09:12 by GravityBoy.

Quote
GravityBoy

Quote
Sighunt
Excuse me if this has been posted before, but this is an exert from the lengthy Rolling Stone interview with Jan Wenner & Mick Jagger from 1995 during the Voodoo Lounge tour in which Jagger reflected on his years with Mick Taylor in the band:

WENNER:
What about the contribution of Mick Taylor to the band in these years?

JAGGER:
I think he had a big contribution. He made it very musical. He was a very fluent, melodic player, which we never had, and we don’t have now. Neither Keith nor [Ronnie Wood] plays that kind of style. It was very good for me working with him. Charlie and I were talking about this the other day, because we could sit down – I could sit down – with Mick Taylor, and he would play very fluid lines against my vocals. He was exciting, and he was very pretty, and it gave me something to follow, to bang off. Some people think that’s the best version of the band that existed.

WENNER:
What do you think?

JAGGER:
They’re all interesting periods. They’re all different. I obviously can’t say if I think Mick Taylor was the best, because it sort of trashes the period the band is in now.

WENNER:
Why did Mick Taylor leave?

JAGGER:
I still don’t really know.

WENNER:
He never explained?

JAGGER:
Not really. He wanted to have a solo career. I think he found it difficult to get on with Keith.

WENNER:
On musical issues?

JAGGER:
Everything. I’m guessing.

Everything you need to know is here.

I like this bit " I obviously can’t say if I think Mick Taylor was the best, because it sort of trashes the period the band is in now".

Obviously Mick. But we know what you are thinking.

What is "the best"? You could have had the Stones with Taylor and Carlos Santana as well - there is no doubt that they are "better" than Keith.

Still, Keith is "the best" - for the Stones. Anyone who disagree?

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
GravityBoy

Quote
Sighunt
Excuse me if this has been posted before, but this is an exert from the lengthy Rolling Stone interview with Jan Wenner & Mick Jagger from 1995 during the Voodoo Lounge tour in which Jagger reflected on his years with Mick Taylor in the band:

WENNER:
What about the contribution of Mick Taylor to the band in these years?

JAGGER:
I think he had a big contribution. He made it very musical. He was a very fluent, melodic player, which we never had, and we don’t have now. Neither Keith nor [Ronnie Wood] plays that kind of style. It was very good for me working with him. Charlie and I were talking about this the other day, because we could sit down – I could sit down – with Mick Taylor, and he would play very fluid lines against my vocals. He was exciting, and he was very pretty, and it gave me something to follow, to bang off. Some people think that’s the best version of the band that existed.

WENNER:
What do you think?

JAGGER:
They’re all interesting periods. They’re all different. I obviously can’t say if I think Mick Taylor was the best, because it sort of trashes the period the band is in now.

WENNER:
Why did Mick Taylor leave?

JAGGER:
I still don’t really know.

WENNER:
He never explained?

JAGGER:
Not really. He wanted to have a solo career. I think he found it difficult to get on with Keith.

WENNER:
On musical issues?

JAGGER:
Everything. I’m guessing.

Everything you need to know is here.

I like this bit " I obviously can’t say if I think Mick Taylor was the best, because it sort of trashes the period the band is in now".

Obviously Mick. But we know what you are thinking.

What is "the best"? You could have had the Stones with Taylor and Carlos Santana as well - there is no doubt that they are "better" than Keith.

Still, Keith is "the best" - for the Stones. Anyone who disagree?

Mick is referrin to the best period.

Context.

Context.

Context.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-16 09:50 by GravityBoy.

Quote
GravityBoy

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
GravityBoy

Quote
Sighunt
Excuse me if this has been posted before, but this is an exert from the lengthy Rolling Stone interview with Jan Wenner & Mick Jagger from 1995 during the Voodoo Lounge tour in which Jagger reflected on his years with Mick Taylor in the band:

WENNER:
What about the contribution of Mick Taylor to the band in these years?

JAGGER:
I think he had a big contribution. He made it very musical. He was a very fluent, melodic player, which we never had, and we don’t have now. Neither Keith nor [Ronnie Wood] plays that kind of style. It was very good for me working with him. Charlie and I were talking about this the other day, because we could sit down – I could sit down – with Mick Taylor, and he would play very fluid lines against my vocals. He was exciting, and he was very pretty, and it gave me something to follow, to bang off. Some people think that’s the best version of the band that existed.

WENNER:
What do you think?

JAGGER:
They’re all interesting periods. They’re all different. I obviously can’t say if I think Mick Taylor was the best, because it sort of trashes the period the band is in now.

WENNER:
Why did Mick Taylor leave?

JAGGER:
I still don’t really know.

WENNER:
He never explained?

JAGGER:
Not really. He wanted to have a solo career. I think he found it difficult to get on with Keith.

WENNER:
On musical issues?

JAGGER:
Everything. I’m guessing.

Everything you need to know is here.

I like this bit " I obviously can’t say if I think Mick Taylor was the best, because it sort of trashes the period the band is in now".

Obviously Mick. But we know what you are thinking.

What is "the best"? You could have had the Stones with Taylor and Carlos Santana as well - there is no doubt that they are "better" than Keith.

Still, Keith is "the best" - for the Stones. Anyone who disagree?

Mick is referrin to the best period.

Context.

Context.

Context.

68-72 was a great period, no doubt! The strongest run of great albums over a period of time. Two of them with basically Keith alone on guitar (it had to be said ).

Quote
sonomastone
These Taylor discussions are so weird. If you don't say that he's a god then you are branded as being anti-Taylor and get bombarded with rehashes of information like this.

Aha, the rhetorics go this level now... running out of bullets?

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-16 10:11 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
sonomastone
These Taylor discussions are so weird. If you don't say that he's a god then you are branded as being anti-Taylor and get bombarded with rehashes of information like this.

Aha, the rhetorics go this level now... running out of bullets?

- Doxa

What I find ludicrous is the fact that one is not allowed to enjoy Taylor's playing and excellent skills, and say that some of his playing didn't suit the Stones ver well at the same time.

A fusion-solo doesn't sound as good on a Berry number as it does on a more dreamy song a la I'm Free or TWFNO - is THAT so hard to understand that at least some people might think so?

It's almost like we're hitting a sore spot on the Taylorites, when we point this out. The reaction is almost without exceptions "anti-Taylorite" - how old are we??

And I have always been the first to praise him for his blistering leads on All Down The Line, YCAGWYW, MR, GS and others. That seems to get lost in the haze everytime I am critical (which is supposed to be a good thing, imo).

YES, Mick Taylor was/is without doubt the most profound and accomplished guitar player in the Stones. That doesn't mean that all that glitters is gold...

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Doxa

Quote
sonomastone
These Taylor discussions are so weird. If you don't say that he's a god then you are branded as being anti-Taylor and get bombarded with rehashes of information like this.

Aha, the rhetorics go this level now... running out of bullets?

- Doxa

What I find ludicrous is the fact that one is not allowed to enjoy Taylor's playing and excellent skills, and say that some of his playing didn't suit the Stones ver well at the same time.

A fusion-solo doesn't sound as good on a Berry number as it does on a more dreamy song a la I'm Free or TWFNO - is THAT so hard to understand that at least some people might think so?

It's almost like we're hitting a sore spot on the Taylorites, when we point this out. The reaction is almost without exceptions "anti-Taylorite" - how old are we??

And I have always been the first to praise him for his blistering leads on All Down The Line, YCAGWYW, MR, GS and others. That seems to get lost in the haze everytime I am critical (which is supposed to be a good thing, imo).

YES, Mick Taylor was/is without doubt the most profound and accomplished guitar player in the Stones. That doesn't mean that all that glitters is gold...

What I find ludicrous is the mantra of talking about "not suiting to the Stones very well", which presupposes some stabile idea of how Thee Stones should sound like. Did Brian's exotic instrument "suit to the Stones"? Did SATANIC MAJESTIES altogether "suit to the Stones?". Where this static idea which suits derives from?

To me believing in that fixed idea denies the fact that the Rolling Stones once were a dynamic band - a band of musicians interacting in ever going evolving process. That was a time when Brian Jones or Mick Taylor were members (and Ronnie Wood still for a decade or so). There was no static defination how the Stones should sound like. That's why I find for example those moments Taylor "going over the top" still as fascinating things happening in a living and breathing band. They were still in the process of constant redefinition of their sound. Being as unique as it turned out to be, makes it more valuable.

The claim of Taylor not suiting to the Stones, is often married with the idea that Jagger and Richards are in total charge in everything the Stones do - that's why we are now treated here with evidence of Keith or Mick putting Taylor in order - that is, his playing is not suited to the "vision" they have of their band's musical direction. Of course, The Twins are the leaders and the people in charge of many things, but I think some people here are putting way too much weight:

(a) to the examples thrown here - simply reading way too much off from some incidental moments a dynamic band is doing live. "Play that guitar, boy", or "one more time" are equal "orders" as those of asking to calm down, etc. No drama there. No bloody "visions" in fight. Just practical things.

(b) to Jagger/Richards dominance in everything. This seems the biggest issue here. A blind belief that the Stones are nothing but a Mick and Keith show. Is it a co-incidence that the same people who are here critical of Taylor's contribution tend to be also the ones most denying the "co-credit" for anyone else (expect Ronnie)? Only Mick and Keith can we trust, and only they can be responsible for everything. Only they can write (expect Ronnie). Tele71 made a great insight above - in his criticism of Mathijs - that from not liking Taylor's style of guitar playing one is easily belittlening his contribution in everything. That is, one's opinions dictate the way to see the facts.

My brief problem - or difference in opinion - with people like you Dandie, Mathijs, and some others, is that you have defined so strictly what the Stones should sound like, and what is worse, what each Stone is all about, what they are good at, and in which not (i.e. writing songs, playing rhythmn guitar), that it simply makes it impossible to see the band as a dynamic unit they once where, and when those roles, and each one's contribution, was not no static or settled at all (or yet). I thought alike earlier (years ago), but the fact I don't do any longer, does not make me less appreciate Jagger and Richards.

To recapitulate: there is nothing wrong being awe of Mick and Keith (or even Ronnie) - I guess we all are - but I think you are a bit too dogmatic in seeing everything just through the Majestic Dominance of The Glimmer Twins. They surely are geniouses and the bosses, but the story of the Stones is not that simple.

I hope I somehow got my point through.

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-16 11:52 by Doxa.

You're missing the point, Doxa. I don't have a defined view on how the Stones SHOULD sound - I just have an aquired taste, and say what I think sound the best.

Sometimes the unexpected and different approach works best, sometimes not. Nothing has ever been written in stone (pun intended) with the Stones. That's why we enjoy Lady Jane, Time Waits For No One, Miss You or Continental Drift. Exploration and development is a good thing - why would I enjoy Moonlight Mile, if that wasn't the case for me.

So, Doxa, I'm afraid you're just misunderstanding - or chooses to do so, because you don't like criticism of what YOU consider to be the best line up/sound/era of the Stones.

You've been around here long enough to remember my thorough criticism of Ronnie in the 90s, Keith on the Licks tour and on or even my beef with Mick's thinner and more mannered voice. Nobody runs clear of criticism.

However, when Taylor gets criticism, it's almost like an army of ants are coming out of their hives to rescue. Why is that? Is it a thorn in their pride that he quit? Do they desperately want to persuade people with a different view on thing? Do they feel superior, because THEY know he was the best, and hence the band sounded the best when he was in the band?

Listen to what people say, don't over-analyze everything and take some criticism with a grain of salt - because it might be enhanced by some because of repeatedly counter-attacks.

I'm gonna put on Moonlight Mile and Real Live - some of my favourite Taylor moments now - and I don't wanna be disturbed

Quote
DandelionPowderman
So, Doxa, I'm afraid you're just misunderstanding - or chooses to do so, because you don't like criticism of what YOU consider to be the best line up/sound/era of the Stones.

Now tell me what I consider the best line up/sound/era of the Stones?

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa


sonomastone, you make it sound like The Stones are doing a kind of charity work by inviting poor Taylor to do his one plus one song contribution. Maybe there is a bit of Mother Theresa in them, but the realist in me says that it is a business move, something to justify the ticket prices, and get some all-seen diehard fans there who might not be there otherwise. I am sure that when they calculate Taylor's salary with the amount of tickets sold by the help of him they are not losing money.

It is a bit same ideology by which they include two new cuts to GRRR! - they are also interested in hardcore fanbase's money; like I've been reminded here "their people" keep on eye on boards like ours - that's why we should behave nicely, and not critizise - they surely know how much Taylor has appeal among die-hards. Wyman, too. They are not stupid.

- Doxa

Not charity but compensation for not paying Mick Taylor for tunes he had a part in writing. 1-2 million UK Pounds would be fair payment for Mick Taylor on this tour. Statements by KR that MT would be a real help on stage, this helped sell tickets to the older loyalist fan base. Plus this 1-2 million UK Pounds would make up for past songwiting credits and royalties MT never recieved. Odd that after what Keith said, that MT is only getting on two tunes each night. If Keith is this unreliable, then it casts doubt on what he has said in the past about other matters.

Mick Jagger is aware of the buzz out there, that MT got robbed due to pure greed on the part of the Glimmer Twins. This is how you eliminate this negative reputation. Keith could care less but it might bug Mick.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
sonomastone
These Taylor discussions are so weird. If you don't say that he's a god then you are branded as being anti-Taylor and get bombarded with rehashes of information like this.

Aha, the rhetorics go this level now... running out of bullets?

- Doxa

Bullets? This topic was started by someone claiming that the fact that Keith told Taylor to "stop playing" when Taylor was soloing over Mick's vocals at a point in Tumbling Dice was somehow a sign of Keith being 'jealous' of Taylor. Is that the point you are trying to make? Because a careful examination of the facts has shown that is not the case at all. If that is not your point then what is?

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
So, Doxa, I'm afraid you're just misunderstanding - or chooses to do so, because you don't like criticism of what YOU consider to be the best line up/sound/era of the Stones.

Now tell me what I consider the best line up/sound/era of the Stones?

- Doxa

The word "or" indicates that I'm asking...

Quote
GravityBoy
Charlie was right.

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

This is why in a few recent interviews Keith teases us with the Stones having lots of Mick Taylor up on stage. How helpful it would be to have a third guitarist.

But this never happens. Keith says one thing but all MT gets are two tunes each night and KR even took MT's solo time on Satisfaction for himself. Blame this on Keith's residual druggie mentality, this also casts doubts on his version of events in his book Life



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-16 12:15 by triceratops.

Quote
triceratops

Quote
Doxa


sonomastone, you make it sound like The Stones are doing a kind of charity work by inviting poor Taylor to do his one plus one song contribution. Maybe there is a bit of Mother Theresa in them, but the realist in me says that it is a business move, something to justify the ticket prices, and get some all-seen diehard fans there who might not be there otherwise. I am sure that when they calculate Taylor's salary with the amount of tickets sold by the help of him they are not losing money.

It is a bit same ideology by which they include two new cuts to GRRR! - they are also interested in hardcore fanbase's money; like I've been reminded here "their people" keep on eye on boards like ours - that's why we should behave nicely, and not critizise - they surely know how much Taylor has appeal among die-hards. Wyman, too. They are not stupid.

- Doxa

Not charity but compensation for not paying Mick Taylor for tunes he had a part in writing. 1-2 million UK Pounds would be fair payment for Mick Taylor on this tour. Statements by KR that MT would be a real help on stage, this helped sell tickets to the older loyalist fan base. Plus this 1-2 million UK Pounds would make up for past songwiting credits and royalties MT never recieved. Odd that after what Keith said, that MT is only getting on two tunes each night. If Keith is this unreliable, then it casts doubt on what he has said in the past about other matters.

Mick Jagger is aware of the buzz out there, that MT got robbed due to pure greed on the part of the Glimmer Twins. This is how you eliminate this negative reputation. Keith could care less but it might bug Mick.

It's funny how unaware of the facts some of you guys are. The biggest offense to Taylor was not the songwriting credits for a handful of songs, it was that starting in 1982 he wasn't paid any royalties at all for the albums he played on , which is clearly an egregious offense and ridiculously unfair.

Quote
triceratops
[

Odd that after what Keith said, that MT is only getting on two tunes each night. If Keith is this unreliable, then it casts doubt on what he has said in the past about other matters.

you guys go around and around in circles. we've been through this on other posts, gone back to the jimmy fallon interview with keith, in which he clearly says "nothing has been decided yet, we haven't even started rehearsals, and we will figure it all out then."

Repeating something false over and over will not make it true.

So many Taylorites are so extreme and blind in their love for him that they choose to ignore facts. This is a posting on a recent video of the studio version of 'Gimme Shelter': "for your info that's not? kieths guitar it is mick taylor playing lead on this.Taylor played all the leads when he was in the band.He is a giutar vertuoso and one of the finest ever to play the instrament."

I know you know the Stones well enough to know that not only did MT not play any guitar on the studio version of Gimme Shelter, but that the song was finished before he joined the band, and that every guitar on that track is played by Keith. But this is an example of why people like me who think Mick Taylor is great get upset at all the rhetoric from 'Taylorites'.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-16 12:35 by sonomastone.

Keith said Taylor would get a bigger role, and he probably has tried to make that happen.

After all, Taylor HAS a bigger role than in 2012...

Quote
sonomastone


It's funny how unaware of the facts some of you guys are. The biggest offense to Taylor was not the songwriting credits for a handful of songs, it was that starting in 1982 he wasn't paid any royalties at all for the albums he played on , which is clearly an egregious offense and ridiculously unfair.

How can this be done legally? Did MT sign away those right for a lump sum payout? I don't know the details here but it sounds like serious cash.

For everyone--- 2009 Mick Taylor article and interview which has him poor and unable to pay his bills.


[www.dailymail.co.uk]
But what about his royalties from the Stones? ‘In 1982 they stopped paying me. They’d signed to a different record company and had new contracts and were advised they didn’t need to pay me any more,’ explained Taylor with a shrug.

‘Until then, I’d had a contract with Rolling Stones Records which was licensed to Atlantic Records – the same contract as the rest of the band.’

The deal gave him an equal share of performing royalties, though Jagger and Richards shared the writers’ royalties. But when the Atlantic contract expired, the band’s management used a loophole in Taylor’s contract to stop all payments.

‘I should have got a lawyer,’ he said. ‘But instead I called them rude words and asked how they could just stop paying me. They all know it’s not right. In fact it is outrageous. They get all the money and I get the plaudits and praise, even from Mick.

‘I’ve tried to talk to Mick a couple of times, but I realise that hiring a lawyer is probably the only way they’ll take me seriously. But they figure I’m not going to do anything about it.’

Taylor thinks for a moment, then adds: ‘I’m going to do something about it because it’s morally wrong to cut my royalties for those six albums.’

(EXCERPT)

Quote
triceratops

Quote
Doxa


sonomastone, you make it sound like The Stones are doing a kind of charity work by inviting poor Taylor to do his one plus one song contribution. Maybe there is a bit of Mother Theresa in them, but the realist in me says that it is a business move, something to justify the ticket prices, and get some all-seen diehard fans there who might not be there otherwise. I am sure that when they calculate Taylor's salary with the amount of tickets sold by the help of him they are not losing money.

It is a bit same ideology by which they include two new cuts to GRRR! - they are also interested in hardcore fanbase's money; like I've been reminded here "their people" keep on eye on boards like ours - that's why we should behave nicely, and not critizise - they surely know how much Taylor has appeal among die-hards. Wyman, too. They are not stupid.

- Doxa

Not charity but compensation for not paying Mick Taylor for tunes he had a part in writing. 1-2 million UK Pounds would be fair payment for Mick Taylor on this tour. Statements by KR that MT would be a real help on stage, this helped sell tickets to the older loyalist fan base. Plus this 1-2 million UK Pounds would make up for past songwiting credits and royalties MT never recieved. Odd that after what Keith said, that MT is only getting on two tunes each night. If Keith is this unreliable, then it casts doubt on what he has said in the past about other matters.

Mick Jagger is aware of the buzz out there, that MT got robbed due to pure greed on the part of the Glimmer Twins. This is how you eliminate this negative reputation. Keith could care less but it might bug Mick.

Why do you think Mick Taylor kisses Keith Richards every time he enters the stage on this tour? Is it because he has no self-respect or integrity and so kisses the person you claim has cheated him so badly? I choose to believe it is because he feels real affection for and gratitude to KR.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-16 12:29 by sonomastone.

Quote
triceratops

Quote
sonomastone


It's funny how unaware of the facts some of you guys are. The biggest offense to Taylor was not the songwriting credits for a handful of songs, it was that starting in 1982 he wasn't paid any royalties at all for the albums he played on , which is clearly an egregious offense and ridiculously unfair.

How can this be done legally? Did MT sign away those right for a lump sum payout? I don't know the details here but it sounds like serious cash.

For everyone--- 2009 Mick Taylor article and interview which has him poor and unable to pay his bills.


[www.dailymail.co.uk]
But what about his royalties from the Stones? ‘In 1982 they stopped paying me. They’d signed to a different record company and had new contracts and were advised they didn’t need to pay me any more,’ explained Taylor with a shrug.

‘Until then, I’d had a contract with Rolling Stones Records which was licensed to Atlantic Records – the same contract as the rest of the band.’

The deal gave him an equal share of performing royalties, though Jagger and Richards shared the writers’ royalties. But when the Atlantic contract expired, the band’s management used a loophole in Taylor’s contract to stop all payments.

‘I should have got a lawyer,’ he said. ‘But instead I called them rude words and asked how they could just stop paying me. They all know it’s not right. In fact it is outrageous. They get all the money and I get the plaudits and praise, even from Mick.

‘I’ve tried to talk to Mick a couple of times, but I realise that hiring a lawyer is probably the only way they’ll take me seriously. But they figure I’m not going to do anything about it.’

Taylor thinks for a moment, then adds: ‘I’m going to do something about it because it’s morally wrong to cut my royalties for those six albums.’

(EXCERPT)

I also don't know the details. Hopefully now you understand the true gripe that Taylor has however.

Quote
sonomastone

Quote
triceratops

Quote
sonomastone


It's funny how unaware of the facts some of you guys are. The biggest offense to Taylor was not the songwriting credits for a handful of songs, it was that starting in 1982 he wasn't paid any royalties at all for the albums he played on , which is clearly an egregious offense and ridiculously unfair.

How can this be done legally? Did MT sign away those right for a lump sum payout? I don't know the details here but it sounds like serious cash.

For everyone--- 2009 Mick Taylor article and interview which has him poor and unable to pay his bills.


[www.dailymail.co.uk]
But what about his royalties from the Stones? ‘In 1982 they stopped paying me. They’d signed to a different record company and had new contracts and were advised they didn’t need to pay me any more,’ explained Taylor with a shrug.

‘Until then, I’d had a contract with Rolling Stones Records which was licensed to Atlantic Records – the same contract as the rest of the band.’

The deal gave him an equal share of performing royalties, though Jagger and Richards shared the writers’ royalties. But when the Atlantic contract expired, the band’s management used a loophole in Taylor’s contract to stop all payments.

‘I should have got a lawyer,’ he said. ‘But instead I called them rude words and asked how they could just stop paying me. They all know it’s not right. In fact it is outrageous. They get all the money and I get the plaudits and praise, even from Mick.

‘I’ve tried to talk to Mick a couple of times, but I realise that hiring a lawyer is probably the only way they’ll take me seriously. But they figure I’m not going to do anything about it.’

Taylor thinks for a moment, then adds: ‘I’m going to do something about it because it’s morally wrong to cut my royalties for those six albums.’

(EXCERPT)

I also don't know the details. Hopefully now you understand the true gripe that Taylor has however.

Thanks. MT has a much better legal case here and is likely due more money here than from songwriting credits he got cheated on. As far as Keith and MT getting along a lot better these days you seem to be right.

MickJ is the one who would be knowlegable about MickT being cheated out of "royalties for those six albums" Mick is the numbers man, Keith would be dimly aware of this though maybe he is now.

Quote
triceratops

Quote
sonomastone

Quote
triceratops

Quote
sonomastone


It's funny how unaware of the facts some of you guys are. The biggest offense to Taylor was not the songwriting credits for a handful of songs, it was that starting in 1982 he wasn't paid any royalties at all for the albums he played on , which is clearly an egregious offense and ridiculously unfair.

How can this be done legally? Did MT sign away those right for a lump sum payout? I don't know the details here but it sounds like serious cash.

For everyone--- 2009 Mick Taylor article and interview which has him poor and unable to pay his bills.


[www.dailymail.co.uk]
But what about his royalties from the Stones? ‘In 1982 they stopped paying me. They’d signed to a different record company and had new contracts and were advised they didn’t need to pay me any more,’ explained Taylor with a shrug.

‘Until then, I’d had a contract with Rolling Stones Records which was licensed to Atlantic Records – the same contract as the rest of the band.’

The deal gave him an equal share of performing royalties, though Jagger and Richards shared the writers’ royalties. But when the Atlantic contract expired, the band’s management used a loophole in Taylor’s contract to stop all payments.

‘I should have got a lawyer,’ he said. ‘But instead I called them rude words and asked how they could just stop paying me. They all know it’s not right. In fact it is outrageous. They get all the money and I get the plaudits and praise, even from Mick.

‘I’ve tried to talk to Mick a couple of times, but I realise that hiring a lawyer is probably the only way they’ll take me seriously. But they figure I’m not going to do anything about it.’

Taylor thinks for a moment, then adds: ‘I’m going to do something about it because it’s morally wrong to cut my royalties for those six albums.’

(EXCERPT)

I also don't know the details. Hopefully now you understand the true gripe that Taylor has however.

Thanks. MT has a much better legal case here and is likely due more money here than from songwriting credits he got cheated on. As far as Keith and MT getting along a lot better these days you seem to be right.

MickJ is the one who would be knowlegable about MickT being cheated out of "royalties for those six albums" Mick is the numbers man, Keith would be dimly aware of this though maybe he is now.

Re Keith and Taylor getting along better...

Where do the assumption that they really didn't get along come from, apart from a Mick Jagger-interview from the 90s?

- In 1986, Keith was invited on stage with Taylor in New York. I have the bootleg (thanks Open G!).

- In 1988, Taylor was invited to play on Keith's solo album, which he did.

These things tell me more about their relationship than the gossip-ish stuff that people post here.

Quote
triceratops
KR even took MT's solo time on Satisfaction for himself. Blame this on Keith's residual druggie mentality, this also casts doubts on his version of events in his book Life

Keith Richards is the creator and co-writer of Satisfaction. The song was recorded 4 years before Mick Taylor joined the band. For you to call it MT's solo is a great example of everything that's wrong with the Taylor extremists. I am of the opinion that, in writing and recording the song, Mr. Keith Richards has earned the right to decide for himself who solos on it, and not Triceratops.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-16 12:54 by sonomastone.