Tell Me :
Talk
Perfect summation!
CBII
He played on Country Honk and Live With Me.
?
Brian wanted to return to the blues, which they did. There wasnt anything weird about the recorder and the sitar but there was something weak in Satanic, a project Brian was critical of.
A great comment from you, Mathijs! My respects.
- Doxa
Not from one of Brian's last interviews [www.iorr.org]
Brian had a World Music thing going on.
The weird instruments in Rock in the 60s was a trend.
Ever see Chuck Berry with a Sitar?
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-17 10:34 by howled.
... which carried on in to the 70's.
With Brian there is many a contradiction, this includes his musical plans after leaving the stones.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-17 10:39 by His Majesty.
The world music thing was something he did when he couldnt be in the studio. He was lost somewhere by then. He also "wanted" to have a band like Creedence.
I have never seen a Brian interview saying that he wanted to have a band like Creedence.
As far as I'm aware, the Creedence thing is some third hand comment by someone.
Brian might have liked Creedence and said so to someone, and somehow it got turned around.
What we have got is Brian actually saying himself that he wants to pursue World Music in one of his last interviews.
Maybe Brian would have had a Creedence like band with African instruments
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-17 10:49 by howled.
You are right, Sir. I made too hasty generalation (one of my bad habits!). I should have said "some Taylorists" (and actually Green Lady did mention it generally going in your lines), and maybe nothing at all...
From retropect it looks like that there is a bigger difference between Brian and Taylor eras than it actually might felt like for the people who actually were there. For them - like you (thanks for your summary of your personal Stones history, by the way) - the changes probably were not so radical since at that time radical changes in rock music were a daily business. If the music just sounded great, who cares the "style". (Even though I know many people from the 60's who for a reason or other lost the interest around the time Brian had gone.)
It could be - I speculate, pardon me - that for "real" Taylorites, who stopped following the band with so big passion and love anymore after he was gone (which I think does not refer to Taylor an sich, but like discovering that the band didn't sound so good any longer after his departure), there is a more natural continuity between Brian and Taylor eras, one leading to other, and the music sounding fresh all the time. And it could be that for the people who did follow the band with as big heart as before after Wood taking the post, the Brian era (with which they probably didn't have any first hand experience) turned out to be a kind of "pre-history". There was more natural continuity between Taylor and Wood eras, one leading to other. The same goes for some Woodists, who still might have more in common with the blues rock band of Taylor days (even though Taylor over-doing...) than with the experimental pop group of the Brian days.
One of the observations I have of "modern" Stones fans is that for many the band almost didn't exist prior BEGGARS BANQUET, or live before 1969, when the counting starts when people are talking about "best tours", etc. Much to do with having material (bootlegs) for sure, but I think also something to do with how the band sounds like.
Hmmm... I wonder if I make any sense...
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-17 10:54 by Doxa.
Maybe some, but according to Alexis Korner he aslo wanted to get back in to saxophone.
Your vibe is that these are bad things, but hey ho he died anyway so you don't have to worry about him playing world music.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-17 10:59 by His Majesty.
Hey,that's a lot like my Stones history. Only that I went already to the 70's tour with ca.15 years. Against the strong will of my parents of course.But I was hooked already and nothing could stop me.
My vibe was just stating what Brian said and how Brian did a pretty good job in that weird instrument period which the Beatles and others were doing as well.
Brian was no Ravi Shankar or CannonBall Adderly but he could play minimal things on varying instruments.
The Sax he plays on the Beatles tune is ok but nothing more and Paul said it was a bit ropey but fit in.
Brian was good in that period in how he could play different instruments, but he only played them in a basic way and Charlie has said the same and he was there.
Taylor is a straight out Blues/Rock lead player with a bit of Jazz and Country and is a different ball game to Brian.
Not better in all ways than Brian, but different.
Taylor likes to play the bass as well and piano.
I don't think Taylor could have played Recorder, Sitar, Dulcimer etc like Brian did but I also don't think Brian could take a lead solo in a song like Taylor could.
So Horses for Courses.
What is interesting is that both Brian and Taylor suited the Stones in their periods and so did Ronnie, even though I personally don't like the Ronnie period much, I'll say that by the late 70s the Blues/Rock guitar hero solo thing was on it's way out and Ronnie turned out to be a good choice.
So someone was making the right sort of choices at the right time.
Post of the year!
Pity I missed the y in the first sentence!
I'm still trying to figure out how to interpret this one.
Agreed and correct in my humble opinion.
We don't know how a Brian Stones in the 70s or a Taylor Stones in the 80s would have gone with the public.
Ronnie seems to fit in and does the job but personally I have no interest in the Stones after Sticky Fingers so what do I know.
There are 3 great Stones songs IMO that define the band and couldn't have been done by any other band, and that's Satisfaction and Jumpin' Jack Flash and Brown Sugar.
None of them have a guitar solo in them (one Sax solo) and I like guitar solos in some things.
None of them require much guitar technique either.
It's all in the way they were written and played.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-17 15:29 by howled.
Taylorians are very sceptical concerning the Ronnie-era. That's a rule. Enthusiasm for that era is strictly forbidden, but love for the Brian-era is a must.
That means that you both think I'm hypocrite, an arsehole and that I should piss off from this site. Thanks, brothers...
There is a long story behind this, but I don't wanna bother people with that.
To be honest I have no clue what this is about. I was sincere in my remark that I don't see why VT22 should be banned, as I did not see any posts that where insulting or objective. Then again, I only read selected threads.
I have no idea what your (DP's) part is in this, and I certainly don't want to see you go from this site.
Mathijs
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Mick Taylor playing lead all the time...
Posted by:
CBII
()
Date: May 17, 2013 03:24
Quote
Doxa
Before anyone is hurry to bash the article by the obvious error, there is a one great line to describe the experience of listening Taylor:
"You watch him play because you don’t know where he’s going next, but you know it’s going to sound great."
Sums up at least my feelings pretty fine.
- Doxa
Perfect summation!
CBII
Re: Mick Taylor playing lead all the time...
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: May 17, 2013 03:32
Quote
kleermaker
The Rolling Stones during their first golden age are an integral part of my youth. I had the age of ten when Satisfaction came out and I loved it immediately. Listened to TSMR when I was 12, knowing the songs by heart. Discovered Aftermath and Between The Buttons later, after Through The Past, Darkly (what a sleeve that album had!) and High Tide, Green Grass. Then all those other albums got my love: December's Children, Out Of Our Heads, Let It Bleed, Beggars Banquet. Then I bought Sticky Fingers when it was released, being 16 years old, having my own simple but very dear mono turntable, feeling richer than a king! A year later came Exile, then Goats Head Soup and my first Stones concert in 1973 at the age of 18. Still in love with all those records, discovering the boots in 1973, from Bright Lights, Big City to The Stars In The Sky They Never Lie. What a run from 63 --> 73! A treasure for life.
Re: Mick Taylor playing lead all the time...
Posted by:
backstreetboy1
()
Date: May 17, 2013 03:35
taylor didnt play on let it bleed.
Re: Mick Taylor playing lead all the time...
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: May 17, 2013 03:39
Quote
backstreetboy1
taylor didnt play on let it bleed.
He played on Country Honk and Live With Me.
Re: Mick Taylor playing lead all the time...
Posted by:
howled
()
Date: May 17, 2013 09:43
After the 60s and experiments with weird instruments in Rock (Recorder, Sitar etc) it was time to get back to guitar and Blues/Rock for the Stones, with Country/Blues coming into the mix as well.
Weird instruments continued with bands like Jethro Tull into the 70s and the Stones probably didn't want to do that (maybe Brian did though).
Brian did a pretty good job on the weird instruments even though it was at a pretty basic level.
Brian's guitar playing is a bit of a mystery because he never actually played a guitar lead solo and just played a few slide solos, and guitar playing seemed like it wasn't a huge attraction to him.
The weird instrument/world music trend ended up like all trends and it was time to move on and the Beatles were moving on too.
Taylor was hired and fit in to the Stones Blues/Rock/Country thang.
Blues/Rock was pretty popular in the late 60s/early 70s and the Stones probably knew they could sell albums going in that direction at that time and they probably would have liked going in that direction anyway, well I think Keith and Mick would have anyway.
The Stones changed direction again with Some Girls, basically trying to sell an album and with Mick probably getting bored with the old Blues/Rock routine and a player like Taylor is not really needed as much for Some Girls.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-17 09:56 by howled.
Weird instruments continued with bands like Jethro Tull into the 70s and the Stones probably didn't want to do that (maybe Brian did though).
Brian did a pretty good job on the weird instruments even though it was at a pretty basic level.
Brian's guitar playing is a bit of a mystery because he never actually played a guitar lead solo and just played a few slide solos, and guitar playing seemed like it wasn't a huge attraction to him.
The weird instrument/world music trend ended up like all trends and it was time to move on and the Beatles were moving on too.
Taylor was hired and fit in to the Stones Blues/Rock/Country thang.
Blues/Rock was pretty popular in the late 60s/early 70s and the Stones probably knew they could sell albums going in that direction at that time and they probably would have liked going in that direction anyway, well I think Keith and Mick would have anyway.
The Stones changed direction again with Some Girls, basically trying to sell an album and with Mick probably getting bored with the old Blues/Rock routine and a player like Taylor is not really needed as much for Some Girls.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-17 09:56 by howled.
Re: Mick Taylor playing lead all the time...
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: May 17, 2013 09:52
Quote
howled
After the 60s and experiments with weird instruments in Rock (Recorder, Sitar etc) it was time to get back to guitar and Blues/Rock for the Stones, with Country/Blues coming into the mix as well.
Weird instruments continued with bands like Jethro Tull into the 70s and the Stones probably didn't want to do that (maybe Brian did though).
The weird instrument/world music trend ended up like all trends and it was time to move on and the Beatles were moving on too.
Taylor was hired and fit in to the Stones Blues/Rock/Country thang.
Blues/Rock was pretty popular in the late 60s/early 70s and the Stones probably knew they could sell albums going in that direction at that time and they probably would have liked going in that direction anyway, well I think Keith and Mick would have anyway.
The Stones changed direction again with Some Girls, basically trying to sell an album and with Mick probably getting bored with the old Blues/Rock routine and a player like Taylor is not really needed as much for Some Girls.
?
Brian wanted to return to the blues, which they did. There wasnt anything weird about the recorder and the sitar but there was something weak in Satanic, a project Brian was critical of.
Re: Mick Taylor playing lead all the time...
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: May 17, 2013 10:09
Quote
Mathijs
And why is VT22 now again banned since 4 days? I don't see any offensive or objective postings at all, only ones I don't agree with!
Mathijs
A great comment from you, Mathijs! My respects.
- Doxa
Re: Mick Taylor playing lead all the time...
Posted by:
howled
()
Date: May 17, 2013 10:32
Quote
RedhotcarpetQuote
howled
After the 60s and experiments with weird instruments in Rock (Recorder, Sitar etc) it was time to get back to guitar and Blues/Rock for the Stones, with Country/Blues coming into the mix as well.
Weird instruments continued with bands like Jethro Tull into the 70s and the Stones probably didn't want to do that (maybe Brian did though).
The weird instrument/world music trend ended up like all trends and it was time to move on and the Beatles were moving on too.
Taylor was hired and fit in to the Stones Blues/Rock/Country thang.
Blues/Rock was pretty popular in the late 60s/early 70s and the Stones probably knew they could sell albums going in that direction at that time and they probably would have liked going in that direction anyway, well I think Keith and Mick would have anyway.
The Stones changed direction again with Some Girls, basically trying to sell an album and with Mick probably getting bored with the old Blues/Rock routine and a player like Taylor is not really needed as much for Some Girls.
?
Brian wanted to return to the blues, which they did. There wasnt anything weird about the recorder and the sitar but there was something weak in Satanic, a project Brian was critical of.
Not from one of Brian's last interviews [www.iorr.org]
Brian had a World Music thing going on.
The weird instruments in Rock in the 60s was a trend.
Ever see Chuck Berry with a Sitar?
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-17 10:34 by howled.
Re: Mick Taylor playing lead all the time...
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: May 17, 2013 10:36
Quote
howled
The weird instruments in Rock in the 60s was a trend.
... which carried on in to the 70's.
With Brian there is many a contradiction, this includes his musical plans after leaving the stones.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-17 10:39 by His Majesty.
Re: Mick Taylor playing lead all the time...
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: May 17, 2013 10:39
Quote
howledQuote
RedhotcarpetQuote
howled
After the 60s and experiments with weird instruments in Rock (Recorder, Sitar etc) it was time to get back to guitar and Blues/Rock for the Stones, with Country/Blues coming into the mix as well.
Weird instruments continued with bands like Jethro Tull into the 70s and the Stones probably didn't want to do that (maybe Brian did though).
The weird instrument/world music trend ended up like all trends and it was time to move on and the Beatles were moving on too.
Taylor was hired and fit in to the Stones Blues/Rock/Country thang.
Blues/Rock was pretty popular in the late 60s/early 70s and the Stones probably knew they could sell albums going in that direction at that time and they probably would have liked going in that direction anyway, well I think Keith and Mick would have anyway.
The Stones changed direction again with Some Girls, basically trying to sell an album and with Mick probably getting bored with the old Blues/Rock routine and a player like Taylor is not really needed as much for Some Girls.
?
Brian wanted to return to the blues, which they did. There wasnt anything weird about the recorder and the sitar but there was something weak in Satanic, a project Brian was critical of.
Not from one of Brian's last interviews [www.iorr.org]
Brian had a World Music thing going on.
The weird instruments in Rock in the 60s was a trend.
Ever see Chuck Berry with a Sitar?
The world music thing was something he did when he couldnt be in the studio. He was lost somewhere by then. He also "wanted" to have a band like Creedence.
Re: Mick Taylor playing lead all the time...
Posted by:
howled
()
Date: May 17, 2013 10:45
Quote
RedhotcarpetQuote
howledQuote
RedhotcarpetQuote
howled
After the 60s and experiments with weird instruments in Rock (Recorder, Sitar etc) it was time to get back to guitar and Blues/Rock for the Stones, with Country/Blues coming into the mix as well.
Weird instruments continued with bands like Jethro Tull into the 70s and the Stones probably didn't want to do that (maybe Brian did though).
The weird instrument/world music trend ended up like all trends and it was time to move on and the Beatles were moving on too.
Taylor was hired and fit in to the Stones Blues/Rock/Country thang.
Blues/Rock was pretty popular in the late 60s/early 70s and the Stones probably knew they could sell albums going in that direction at that time and they probably would have liked going in that direction anyway, well I think Keith and Mick would have anyway.
The Stones changed direction again with Some Girls, basically trying to sell an album and with Mick probably getting bored with the old Blues/Rock routine and a player like Taylor is not really needed as much for Some Girls.
?
Brian wanted to return to the blues, which they did. There wasnt anything weird about the recorder and the sitar but there was something weak in Satanic, a project Brian was critical of.
Not from one of Brian's last interviews [www.iorr.org]
Brian had a World Music thing going on.
The weird instruments in Rock in the 60s was a trend.
Ever see Chuck Berry with a Sitar?
The world music thing was something he did when he couldnt be in the studio. He was lost somewhere by then. He also "wanted" to have a band like Creedence.
I have never seen a Brian interview saying that he wanted to have a band like Creedence.
As far as I'm aware, the Creedence thing is some third hand comment by someone.
Brian might have liked Creedence and said so to someone, and somehow it got turned around.
What we have got is Brian actually saying himself that he wants to pursue World Music in one of his last interviews.
Maybe Brian would have had a Creedence like band with African instruments
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-17 10:49 by howled.
Re: Mick Taylor playing lead all the time...
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: May 17, 2013 10:52
Quote
kleermakerQuote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowderman
WHAT, doxa!!! I just noticed you tried to pin on me that I treat Brian era fans with an "implicit attitude, putting them in some garbage box"???
WHERE DID YOU GET THAT FROM???
And that goes for fans of all eras as well...
No, that reference was not directed at you - only the Taylorites is your concern, and even there you are way too mild and moderate to label you as an "anti-Taylorite"..
Like Green Lady above mentioned, bad habits of Taylorites - and Woodists as well - is to see it as a sort of "primitive ara", or "pre-history"m and the real action started with "Jumpin Jack Flash". There is not enough Brian Era Fans to make big fuss about it, or to cause aggressive reaction. So the whole era is almost ignored. (Wonderful we have His Majesty here!).
- Doxa
Objection your Honour! Three famous Taylorians here - pmk251, VT22 and myself - are stubborn Brian-era lovers. So are many other Taylorians.
You are right, Sir. I made too hasty generalation (one of my bad habits!). I should have said "some Taylorists" (and actually Green Lady did mention it generally going in your lines), and maybe nothing at all...
From retropect it looks like that there is a bigger difference between Brian and Taylor eras than it actually might felt like for the people who actually were there. For them - like you (thanks for your summary of your personal Stones history, by the way) - the changes probably were not so radical since at that time radical changes in rock music were a daily business. If the music just sounded great, who cares the "style". (Even though I know many people from the 60's who for a reason or other lost the interest around the time Brian had gone.)
It could be - I speculate, pardon me - that for "real" Taylorites, who stopped following the band with so big passion and love anymore after he was gone (which I think does not refer to Taylor an sich, but like discovering that the band didn't sound so good any longer after his departure), there is a more natural continuity between Brian and Taylor eras, one leading to other, and the music sounding fresh all the time. And it could be that for the people who did follow the band with as big heart as before after Wood taking the post, the Brian era (with which they probably didn't have any first hand experience) turned out to be a kind of "pre-history". There was more natural continuity between Taylor and Wood eras, one leading to other. The same goes for some Woodists, who still might have more in common with the blues rock band of Taylor days (even though Taylor over-doing...) than with the experimental pop group of the Brian days.
One of the observations I have of "modern" Stones fans is that for many the band almost didn't exist prior BEGGARS BANQUET, or live before 1969, when the counting starts when people are talking about "best tours", etc. Much to do with having material (bootlegs) for sure, but I think also something to do with how the band sounds like.
Hmmm... I wonder if I make any sense...
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-17 10:54 by Doxa.
Re: Mick Taylor playing lead all the time...
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: May 17, 2013 10:57
Quote
howled
Maybe Brian would have had a Creedence like band with African instruments
Maybe some, but according to Alexis Korner he aslo wanted to get back in to saxophone.
Your vibe is that these are bad things, but hey ho he died anyway so you don't have to worry about him playing world music.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-17 10:59 by His Majesty.
Re: Mick Taylor playing lead all the time...
Posted by:
CousinC
()
Date: May 17, 2013 11:10
Quote
kleermaker
The Rolling Stones during their first golden age are an integral part of my youth. I had the age of ten when Satisfaction came out and I loved it immediately. Listened to TSMR when I was 12, knowing the songs by heart. Discovered Aftermath and Between The Buttons later, after Through The Past, Darkly (what a sleeve that album had!) and High Tide, Green Grass. Then all those other albums got my love: December's Children, Out Of Our Heads, Let It Bleed, Beggars Banquet. Then I bought Sticky Fingers when it was released, being 16 years old, having my own simple but very dear mono turntable, feeling richer than a king! A year later came Exile, then Goats Head Soup and my first Stones concert in 1973 at the age of 18. Still in love with all those records, discovering the boots in 1973, from Bright Lights, Big City to The Stars In The Sky They Never Lie. What a run from 63 --> 73! A treasure for life.
Hey,that's a lot like my Stones history. Only that I went already to the 70's tour with ca.15 years. Against the strong will of my parents of course.But I was hooked already and nothing could stop me.
Re: Mick Taylor playing lead all the time...
Posted by:
howled
()
Date: May 17, 2013 11:51
Quote
His MajestyQuote
howled
Maybe Brian would have had a Creedence like band with African instruments
Maybe some, but according to Alexis Korner he aslo wanted to get back in to saxophone.
Your vibe is that these are bad things, but hey ho he died anyway so you don't have to worry about him playing world music.
My vibe was just stating what Brian said and how Brian did a pretty good job in that weird instrument period which the Beatles and others were doing as well.
Brian was no Ravi Shankar or CannonBall Adderly but he could play minimal things on varying instruments.
The Sax he plays on the Beatles tune is ok but nothing more and Paul said it was a bit ropey but fit in.
Brian was good in that period in how he could play different instruments, but he only played them in a basic way and Charlie has said the same and he was there.
Taylor is a straight out Blues/Rock lead player with a bit of Jazz and Country and is a different ball game to Brian.
Not better in all ways than Brian, but different.
Taylor likes to play the bass as well and piano.
I don't think Taylor could have played Recorder, Sitar, Dulcimer etc like Brian did but I also don't think Brian could take a lead solo in a song like Taylor could.
So Horses for Courses.
What is interesting is that both Brian and Taylor suited the Stones in their periods and so did Ronnie, even though I personally don't like the Ronnie period much, I'll say that by the late 70s the Blues/Rock guitar hero solo thing was on it's way out and Ronnie turned out to be a good choice.
So someone was making the right sort of choices at the right time.
Re: Mick Taylor playing lead all the time...
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: May 17, 2013 12:28
You are just stating the obvious.
You are missing however that within these era's there were other music styles going on and some that continued past the trends etc and continued to be viable options for success. Also You are missing that the stones adapted to various different styles within these era's as well.
Had Brian not been a mess and in to the band there's no reason why they couldn't have adapted to the early 70's world in their own way much as they did from R&B group to pop superstars. Success didn't hinge on the whole guitar solo thing and Keith wasn't all that bad at soloing anyway. Most of the great songs would still have been there anyway, they just would have been different.
No reason why the Taylor era band couldn't have adapted to the late 70's world either. Not all already succsesful bands ditched great lead playing, there actually was a continuing of all that via many rock, heavy rock and metal bands that emerged during those times.
Musical style changes were happening all the time, from the outside it looks as if the 2nd guitairst spot perfectly ties in with these changes, that there's a solidity to these changes happening at the right time, but that would appear much the same had Brian left in 1967 or 1970, had Taylor left in 1977 etc.
To keep the thread Talor focused... The Rolling Stones with Mick Taylor could easily have continued to be successful well in to the future just like, for example, Pink Floyd did with their distinctive, bluesy lead guiutarist Dave Gilmour.
You are missing however that within these era's there were other music styles going on and some that continued past the trends etc and continued to be viable options for success. Also You are missing that the stones adapted to various different styles within these era's as well.
Had Brian not been a mess and in to the band there's no reason why they couldn't have adapted to the early 70's world in their own way much as they did from R&B group to pop superstars. Success didn't hinge on the whole guitar solo thing and Keith wasn't all that bad at soloing anyway. Most of the great songs would still have been there anyway, they just would have been different.
No reason why the Taylor era band couldn't have adapted to the late 70's world either. Not all already succsesful bands ditched great lead playing, there actually was a continuing of all that via many rock, heavy rock and metal bands that emerged during those times.
Musical style changes were happening all the time, from the outside it looks as if the 2nd guitairst spot perfectly ties in with these changes, that there's a solidity to these changes happening at the right time, but that would appear much the same had Brian left in 1967 or 1970, had Taylor left in 1977 etc.
To keep the thread Talor focused... The Rolling Stones with Mick Taylor could easily have continued to be successful well in to the future just like, for example, Pink Floyd did with their distinctive, bluesy lead guiutarist Dave Gilmour.
Re: Mick Taylor playing lead all the time...
Posted by:
howled
()
Date: May 17, 2013 13:26
Well you are assuming things I didn't say anything about.
Like the trends thing and the right man for the job thing.
I will expand.
If Brian had left in 65 when apparently he first wanted to, then the Stones would have replaced him with someone else who could do the job that the Stones had vacant at that time, and it wouldn't have been Taylor.
If Brian had left in 67 when he apparently wanted to then they would have replaced him with someone else who could do the job that the Stones had vacant at that time.
When Brian left/got fired, the Stones didn't replace him with a Banjo/Flute/Clarinet player because they wouldn't really want a Banjo/Flute/Clarinet player at that time.
What the Stones might have wanted was a guitarist that could cut it live and solo a bit and also work in the studio on songs and they chose Taylor.
No one can go back and rewrite what happened.
If the Stones continued with Brian, it would have been a different Stones.
If the Stones continued with Taylor then it would have been a different Stones to the Ronnie Stones.
The main trends that made it into the 1960s commercial pop/rock world were the psychedelic world music trends and also Folk as well.
Beatles, Dylan etc etc, these things are pretty far removed from Chuck Berry and Muddy Waters and the Stones were following those trends and then in 68 the Stones mostly abandoned them and went in a more Blues/Rock/Country direction which was also a rising popular trend at that time with guitar heroes like Clapton having pop chart success.
Taylor was a player who would give the Stones more options in the Blues/Rock/Country area and I assume that's why they chose him.
Choosing a player like Taylor to join the Stones in 76 instead of 69 might not have been what the Stones would choose at that time and they happened to choose Ronnie.
btw Brian always seemed to be wanting to leave the Stones and he didn't seem to like their songs much.
He played on them, but that doesn't mean that they were his main musical interests.
Brian seemed to want to do world music and not really play the Last Time riff all the time.
I'm sure Taylor played on a fair few Stones songs he didn't like much as well and in the end he wanted to do other things.
Being in the Stones could be very restricting to some musicians because the Stones are a Pop/Rock band and they give a certain freedom to the members but the members have to operate within a commercial band area.
Both Brian and Taylor probably found this too constricting IMO.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-17 14:08 by howled.
Like the trends thing and the right man for the job thing.
I will expand.
If Brian had left in 65 when apparently he first wanted to, then the Stones would have replaced him with someone else who could do the job that the Stones had vacant at that time, and it wouldn't have been Taylor.
If Brian had left in 67 when he apparently wanted to then they would have replaced him with someone else who could do the job that the Stones had vacant at that time.
When Brian left/got fired, the Stones didn't replace him with a Banjo/Flute/Clarinet player because they wouldn't really want a Banjo/Flute/Clarinet player at that time.
What the Stones might have wanted was a guitarist that could cut it live and solo a bit and also work in the studio on songs and they chose Taylor.
No one can go back and rewrite what happened.
If the Stones continued with Brian, it would have been a different Stones.
If the Stones continued with Taylor then it would have been a different Stones to the Ronnie Stones.
The main trends that made it into the 1960s commercial pop/rock world were the psychedelic world music trends and also Folk as well.
Beatles, Dylan etc etc, these things are pretty far removed from Chuck Berry and Muddy Waters and the Stones were following those trends and then in 68 the Stones mostly abandoned them and went in a more Blues/Rock/Country direction which was also a rising popular trend at that time with guitar heroes like Clapton having pop chart success.
Taylor was a player who would give the Stones more options in the Blues/Rock/Country area and I assume that's why they chose him.
Choosing a player like Taylor to join the Stones in 76 instead of 69 might not have been what the Stones would choose at that time and they happened to choose Ronnie.
btw Brian always seemed to be wanting to leave the Stones and he didn't seem to like their songs much.
He played on them, but that doesn't mean that they were his main musical interests.
Brian seemed to want to do world music and not really play the Last Time riff all the time.
I'm sure Taylor played on a fair few Stones songs he didn't like much as well and in the end he wanted to do other things.
Being in the Stones could be very restricting to some musicians because the Stones are a Pop/Rock band and they give a certain freedom to the members but the members have to operate within a commercial band area.
Both Brian and Taylor probably found this too constricting IMO.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-17 14:08 by howled.
Re: Mick Taylor playing lead all the time...
Posted by:
svt22
()
Date: May 17, 2013 14:01
Quote
His Majesty
To keep the thread Talor focused... The Rolling Stones with Mick Taylor could easily have continued to be successful well in to the future just like, for example, Pink Floyd did with their distinctive, bluesy lead guiutarist Dave Gilmour.
Post of the year!
Re: Mick Taylor playing lead all the time...
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: May 17, 2013 14:13
The point is that they have proven themselves time and time again to be able to adapt to the times with or without changes in 2nd guitarist slot.
Re: Mick Taylor playing lead all the time...
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: May 17, 2013 14:15
Quote
svt22Quote
His Majesty
To keep the thread Talor focused... The Rolling Stones with Mick Taylor could easily have continued to be successful well in to the future just like, for example, Pink Floyd did with their distinctive, bluesy lead guiutarist Dave Gilmour.
Post of the year!
Pity I missed the y in the first sentence!
Re: Mick Taylor playing lead all the time...
Posted by:
svt22
()
Date: May 17, 2013 14:18
Quote
His MajestyQuote
svt22Quote
His Majesty
To keep the thread Talor focused... The Rolling Stones with Mick Taylor could easily have continued to be successful well in to the future just like, for example, Pink Floyd did with their distinctive, bluesy lead guiutarist Dave Gilmour.
Post of the year!
Pity I missed the y in the first sentence!
Re: Mick Taylor playing lead all the time...
Posted by:
svt22
()
Date: May 17, 2013 14:48
Quote
DoxaQuote
Mathijs
And why is VT22 now again banned since 4 days? I don't see any offensive or objective postings at all, only ones I don't agree with!
Mathijs
A great comment from you, Mathijs! My respects.
- Doxa
I'm still trying to figure out how to interpret this one.
Re: Mick Taylor playing lead all the time...
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: May 17, 2013 15:17
Quote
His Majesty
You are just stating the obvious.
You are missing however that within these era's there were other music styles going on and some that continued past the trends etc and continued to be viable options for success. Also You are missing that the stones adapted to various different styles within these era's as well.
Had Brian not been a mess and in to the band there's no reason why they couldn't have adapted to the early 70's world in their own way much as they did from R&B group to pop superstars. Success didn't hinge on the whole guitar solo thing and Keith wasn't all that bad at soloing anyway. Most of the great songs would still have been there anyway, they just would have been different.
No reason why the Taylor era band couldn't have adapted to the late 70's world either. Not all already succsesful bands ditched great lead playing, there actually was a continuing of all that via many rock, heavy rock and metal bands that emerged during those times.
Musical style changes were happening all the time, from the outside it looks as if the 2nd guitairst spot perfectly ties in with these changes, that there's a solidity to these changes happening at the right time, but that would appear much the same had Brian left in 1967 or 1970, had Taylor left in 1977 etc.
To keep the thread Talor focused... The Rolling Stones with Mick Taylor could easily have continued to be successful well in to the future just like, for example, Pink Floyd did with their distinctive, bluesy lead guiutarist Dave Gilmour.
Agreed and correct in my humble opinion.
Re: Mick Taylor playing lead all the time...
Posted by:
GravityBoy
()
Date: May 17, 2013 15:19
Imagine if Rolf Harris had replaced Brian Jones in '65.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-17 15:19 by GravityBoy.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-17 15:19 by GravityBoy.
Re: Mick Taylor playing lead all the time...
Posted by:
howled
()
Date: May 17, 2013 15:26
Quote
His Majesty
You are just stating the obvious.
You are missing however that within these era's there were other music styles going on and some that continued past the trends etc and continued to be viable options for success. Also You are missing that the stones adapted to various different styles within these era's as well.
Had Brian not been a mess and in to the band there's no reason why they couldn't have adapted to the early 70's world in their own way much as they did from R&B group to pop superstars. Success didn't hinge on the whole guitar solo thing and Keith wasn't all that bad at soloing anyway. Most of the great songs would still have been there anyway, they just would have been different.
No reason why the Taylor era band couldn't have adapted to the late 70's world either. Not all already succsesful bands ditched great lead playing, there actually was a continuing of all that via many rock, heavy rock and metal bands that emerged during those times.
Musical style changes were happening all the time, from the outside it looks as if the 2nd guitairst spot perfectly ties in with these changes, that there's a solidity to these changes happening at the right time, but that would appear much the same had Brian left in 1967 or 1970, had Taylor left in 1977 etc.
To keep the thread Talor focused... The Rolling Stones with Mick Taylor could easily have continued to be successful well in to the future just like, for example, Pink Floyd did with their distinctive, bluesy lead guiutarist Dave Gilmour.
We don't know how a Brian Stones in the 70s or a Taylor Stones in the 80s would have gone with the public.
Ronnie seems to fit in and does the job but personally I have no interest in the Stones after Sticky Fingers so what do I know.
There are 3 great Stones songs IMO that define the band and couldn't have been done by any other band, and that's Satisfaction and Jumpin' Jack Flash and Brown Sugar.
None of them have a guitar solo in them (one Sax solo) and I like guitar solos in some things.
None of them require much guitar technique either.
It's all in the way they were written and played.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-17 15:29 by howled.
Re: Mick Taylor playing lead all the time...
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: May 17, 2013 19:15
Quote
71TeleQuote
kleermakerQuote
71TeleQuote
kleermakerQuote
71TeleQuote
svt22Quote
kleermaker
Objection your Honour! Three famous Taylorians here - pmk251, VT22 and myself - are stubborn Brian-era lovers. So are many other Taylorians.
VT22 has been banned from this site.
Count me as a Brian-era lover as well.
I will, but are you a Taylorian as well? I .. doubt it.
You doubt my Taylorite credentials, Kleermaker?
You're too much into Some Girls, which is extremely suspicious and a contra-indication for being a Taylorian.
Only for you! Or is there a rule that Taylorites must dislike all Rolling Stones music without Taylor? I must have missed that meeting.
Taylorians are very sceptical concerning the Ronnie-era. That's a rule. Enthusiasm for that era is strictly forbidden, but love for the Brian-era is a must.
Re: Mick Taylor playing lead all the time...
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: May 18, 2013 16:52
Quote
DoxaQuote
Mathijs
And why is VT22 now again banned since 4 days? I don't see any offensive or objective postings at all, only ones I don't agree with!
Mathijs
A great comment from you, Mathijs! My respects.
- Doxa
That means that you both think I'm hypocrite, an arsehole and that I should piss off from this site. Thanks, brothers...
There is a long story behind this, but I don't wanna bother people with that.
Re: Mick Taylor playing lead all the time...
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: May 18, 2013 17:03
We all clash with folks here, but I'd hope that it's nothing that would be enough to get in the way of us sitting down in person for a beer or 5!?
Re: Mick Taylor playing lead all the time...
Posted by:
Thrylan
()
Date: May 18, 2013 22:14
I believe the quote is,"you're a tremendous live player, you're @#$%& useless in the studio..." That being said, there are moments on Ladies and Gentleman that he is too clinical, Tumbling Dice in particular.........probably why Keith wiped his lead,(see outtakes) and put down the perfect "skillfully, slovenly" leads we love.
Re: Mick Taylor playing lead all the time...
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: May 18, 2013 23:00
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
DoxaQuote
Mathijs
And why is VT22 now again banned since 4 days? I don't see any offensive or objective postings at all, only ones I don't agree with!
Mathijs
A great comment from you, Mathijs! My respects.
- Doxa
That means that you both think I'm hypocrite, an arsehole and that I should piss off from this site. Thanks, brothers...
There is a long story behind this, but I don't wanna bother people with that.
To be honest I have no clue what this is about. I was sincere in my remark that I don't see why VT22 should be banned, as I did not see any posts that where insulting or objective. Then again, I only read selected threads.
I have no idea what your (DP's) part is in this, and I certainly don't want to see you go from this site.
Mathijs
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
1963luca0 , aranbee , bertrichards , Big Al , bisonvodka , bv , CamRS , Christiaan , chrisvw , CJFP , curt , cyclist , Dan , drgonzo7198 , ds1984 , eccles6789 , frankotero , goingmad , gotdablouse , Harry , JDSAM1994 , jjj , john-nicholas , JoolsH , lennonx , MadMetaphoricalMax , mariano , maumau , michrud , mistermj , MKjan , O2 , PalaisRoyale , plusplusjames , Putty , snarf2014 , spain73 , Stilllife09 , stonenut356 , Stonesfan13 , StonesSmeth99 , swimtothemoon , switchblade1975 , thomponj , TooTight , TransmaniaconMC , usetobesampeg , willy80 , witterings , z
Guests:
1048
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10