No H-Dog -I think Open G is commenting on the Stones AFTER Taylor left. And I
agree mostly, I saw they in 75 with Ronnie, when they actually let him have solo's, didn't think they stunk but also didn't think they were at the level
of the 72 film (Ladies & Gents) of the 73 boot's I bought.

I think the point I'm trying to make is back then, Taylor was a much bigger part of the Stones than people give him credit for, I was there, I know!!!

and it's just sad a musician with this kind of talent has not gotten the
attention he deserves (and I know alot of it is his own fault)

I, along with alot of others around here will hope against hope, that maybe
one of these days the Stones decide to do a re-union show and bring Mick T.
and hopefully Bill Wyman back for (ONE) gig - and do justice to the 70's era
songs that made them the: "Greatest Rock & Roll Band" in the early 70's...

the title they LOST to Led Zep when Ronnie joined and they became a "Disco" band
(Miss You) remember Keith wanted Wayne Perkins but Jagger didn't want
another Guitar Player who "just stood there and played" he wanted a playmate
to run around the stage and make people laugh....

Wayne Perkins even said: Ronnie knew Perkins & Harvey Mandel were both better
Guitarists than him when he showed up and took the Gig from Perkins, who Keith
had given the impression that he was "IN" the band!! MLC

I think Open G is basically right. Obviously Ron at his peak could play but compared with Mick Taylor he pales. You only have to listen to the live Stones bootlegs to know the difference. Listen to Street Fighting Man, Gimmie Shelter and Love In Vain Taylor era and Wood era and compare.

Thank You Edward!!! MLC

As for taylor only playing blues penatonic scales thats so far from the truth.
The reason why Taylor was and is so great is that he plays in both major and
minor scales and is so fluid.

Winter - His solo on winter is not a blues scale listen to his melodic wonderment
and the SUSTAIN he CREATES and the ringing of the notes.

Time Waits - Not a blues scale

Gimme Shelter and YCAGWYW - not a blues scale.

I can go on and on and Taylor's solos on 72/73 boots are different thats why
they are so great and enjoyable to listen over and over.His fluidity and improvisation are his gift as a musician.

Taylor brought to life Stray Cat and Midnight Rambler and Gimme Shetler and
all the rest live. take the Taylor Test and listen to solos by taylor and then
take those same songs and listen to what Ron Wood did.The sad part is that he
copied Taylor's licks on Love in Vain and tried on CYHMK.

I agree that Taylor is a far better guitar player than Ronnie and 68-72 were the Stones best years. However I do like a lot of the Stones stuff since. I think Some Girls, Tattoo You, Black & Blue, Undercover and Voodoo Lounge are all very good albums. As far as live, the Stones' live sound did change after Taylor left the band but I also think that they were still a great live band especially from 77-82. A different sound but still pretty damn good. So I would not say that have done anything since Taylor left.

I just wish we could talk about something else on this board.

Hah H-Dog, we talk about all kinds of things... but Taylor's legacy and his
"sound" as compared to Woods is such a "topic" to talk about...

It's just some of us "old" Stones fans hoping for a chance to see the "old"lineup
once again that brought us so much "JOY" back in the day.... MLC

It's not harder to play a major scale than a blues scale, right? Even Keith changes between those scales in his solos all the time. Taylor is fluid, and that is his strength, but a lot of his solos with the Srones ARE in fact predictable. Too much tones become boring after a while, that's why I think Keith's solo on AAA from LYL is so refreshing to hear time after time. Re YCAGWUW I find LSTNT version superior to anything with Taylor.

I'm happy for Mick that Mayall put out the reunion album. It's really good for his legacy when he carries the whole band so brilliantly, just like Ron did with the Faces.

I'm a Taylor fan, and I'll sing his praises anytime. But I just happened to give Capitol Connection a spin tonight, and have to admit I was quite impressed with Woody on that disc. Amazing how in-front he is in the mix (granted, it's a radio show boot) and how much lead he plays. He really drives the guitar section and is quite "on". The guy could (can?) play.



Karl



'Don’t forget, if you’re on your bike, wear white'

The Taylor fanatics don't listen enough to Ronnie when he was at his best with the Faces. I watched the "Last Show film" today and he's simply brilliant.

KSIE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> . Amazing
> how in-front he is in the mix (granted, it's a
> radio show boot)

No - it's a raw soundboard.

Right you are T&A, my mistake. In fact this is the SB that was supposedly stolen right off the board at the show, isn't it?

Yup - I know I was listening to the vinyl boot before the '78 tour was even over (and it was a short tour!).

Smokey, dont take this personal, but you must have had to dig hard to find ALL of the material MT has done in the past 30 years. The bottom line still exists.......he is a very talented guitar player who was lucky enough to add his parts to songs that 2 of the greatest rock songwriters wrote. It's too bad he stupid enough to quit the band.

Yeah the thread is about Ronnie, but of course the MT comparisons start. Maybe I am little harsh oN MT because he was with the band at their peak and it elevated his playing and added to the bands. Sure there was some genuine interplay between KR & MT in the studio, but Keith was heavily into overdubbing tracks at the time which usually left a spot for MT to drop in, thats just a fact

I wonder if people would be so kind to MT today if he were still with the band? I doubt it very much.

Rythmic changes, tempo changes ? Woody over the course of his time with the band has taken many chances onstage. MT was a smooth player and Woody is ragged, but both are incredibly talented. Thats my point. People dismiss Woody's playing compared to MT's playing like Woody has been plucking a stick with 4 rubberbands. I stick to my guns, in the totality of MT's career (if he has actually had one since 1975) he is over-rated. Its not a knock at his talent, its a knock at his lack of USING his talent.

Milo, NYC
Aint no use in crying

Milo Yammbag Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Smokey, dont take this personal, but you must have
> had to dig hard to find ALL of the material MT has
> done in the past 30 years.

The digging has been quite fun. I've met some great Taylor, Dylan, Mayall and Stones fans doing so.

The bottom line still
> exists.......he is a very talented guitar player
> who was lucky enough to add his parts to songs
> that 2 of the greatest rock songwriters wrote.

True, but some of us think they were very lucky to have him and that he brought out great playing in Keith and songwriting in Jagger. Did they need him? No--I think Taylor would readily admit that. Did he need them? He was an incredibly talented guitarist when he left Mayall in '69. Sure he learned stuff from the Stones. But who knows where he would have ended up without the drug abuse, the musical straightjacket, the songwriting rejection, the silly headgames, etc. that left him in a tailspin for years.

> It's too bad he stupid enough to quit the band.

Getting out of the Jagger/Richards show so he could expand his musical horizons and save himself from drug abuse doesn't seem stupid. Getting out because Richards did not want him in the band doesn't seem stupid.

It's the remarks about stupidity that make clear these are personal attacks on Taylor.

In my view, the direction of his post-Stones solo career has had more to do with his limited ambition and drive than with his musical talents. I think he was luckiest to link up with Mayall, who has treated him very well over the years (though there obviously is a symbiotic relationship). I think he also was lucky to link up with the Stones. Without Mayall or the Stones, it is unclear he would have pushed himself into the limelight though he would have had a career that no doubt would have been satisfactory to him.

>
> Yeah the thread is about Ronnie, but of course
> the MT comparisons start. Maybe I am little harsh
> oN MT because he was with the band at their peak
> and it elevated his playing and added to the
> bands. Sure there was some genuine interplay
> between KR & MT in the studio, but Keith was
> heavily into overdubbing tracks at the time which
> usually left a spot for MT to drop in, thats just
> a fact

If Taylor's role were just a Perkins/Mandel overdub role--as it probably was for IORR (ex-FF&TWFNO)--then I don't think folks would have the same view. Many Taylor fans think he was part of the creative process for Sway, MM, Winter, TWFNO, etc. (Let's not turn this into a songwriting credit argument. Whether his creative role merited a credit is a separate issue.)
>
> I wonder if people would be so kind to MT today
> if he were still with the band? I doubt it very
> much.

???

> Rythmic changes, tempo changes ? Woody over the
> course of his time with the band has taken many
> chances onstage.

This at one time was a Wood thread. If the best that can be offered about Wood is that Taylor stinks, then that merits a reponse. His playing offers finite joys to me, but that is a topic for a separate thread.

> MT was a smooth player and Woody
> is ragged, but both are incredibly talented.

Either could be smooth or ragged as the situation called for it. (Yes, I even dug up "Black Hole" from Taylor's album with Carla Olson, which is even more ragged than the '73 SFM solos.)

> Thats
> my point. People dismiss Woody's playing compared
> to MT's playing like Woody has been plucking a
> stick with 4 rubberbands. I stick to my guns, in
> the totality of MT's career (if he has actually
> had one since 1975) he is over-rated. Its not a
> knock at his talent, its a knock at his lack of
> USING his talent.

Agreed that he has not exploited his talent to the fullest. But that is not "overrated", that is "lack of ambition", "lack of drive", etc. Perhaps we're just quibbling over the English language.


> Milo, NYC

Perhaps the Bluesbreakers will make a stop in NYC this summer on their way to or from the Chicago Blues Festival. Then you perhaps can catch up on Mr. Taylor's solo career then.

> Aint no use in crying

If you really want to understand a man
Let him off the lead sometimes, set him free

I have been following these Tayor discussions for years now and I have not commented on one single one of them. Well, my commet would be that i know for a fact that Taylor was in for one of the Licks gigs. He was suppesed to play one gig on the last tour. Well, the same day as the gig, he was supposed to be at the sound check. Well, he never got to the rehersals so he was not let out on the stage during the evening show, even though his amp was on the stage....
I do not think we ever will se a Taylor reunion or a Wyman reunion for that matter... So, Da Stones is a four man band today and NO historical flashbacks will ever take place. If so, then I ouw a few guys a few KOSKENKORVAs (Finnish white wine)

www.stonesvikings.com



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-03-27 03:30 by Jan Richards.

Jan Richards Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have been following these Tayor discussions for
> years now and I have not commented on one single
> one of them.

Congratulations--you have the willpower and discretion that many of us should have.

> Well, my commet would be that i know
> for a fact that Taylor was in for one of the Licks
> gigs.

As best as I've been able to tell, it's a myth. Taylor saw one of the shows, probably Astoria, because his wife or companion wanted to. So, he attended the show, but never intended to play. He may have broken bread with the band as well.


> I do not think we ever will se a Taylor reunion or
> a Wyman reunion for that matter... So, Da Stones
> is a four man band today and NO historical
> flashbacks will ever take place. If so, then I ouw
> a few guys a few KOSKENKORVAs (Finnish white wine)
>

I suspect any "reunion" would involve no more than a fly-by-night/Kansas City '81-type appearance. As historical as that might be, its hardly worth expending so much energy for (I mean all the Taylor-Wood threads). If they included Taylor in a cut on the new album or let him open and then guest for some of the shows that would be worth fussing over. It's tough to believe there could ever be more, even during this redemption?/resurrection?-filled weekend . . .


But now back to the "Ronnie's place in the Stones" segment of our regular programming: in 1976, Keith said Ronnie was a great addition because he brought in a third songwriter unlike all the others who thought they could write but couldn't (he may have actually mentioned Wyman and Taylor). Yet, Wood was griping about songwriting credits from at least 1978 and was given only "inspiration" credits earlier. So what was Wood's "songwriting place" at the outset?






Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2005-03-28 05:06 by Smokey.

I think Taylor did intend to guest on that gig, but now the story is changed to "never intended to play".
If it's just one gig that Taylor plays on next tour, I don't see what the excitement is either, most of us won't see it unless it's recorded. Maybe the Stones can have John Mayall open for them on tour, with Mick T playing with JM and also on 1 or 2 songs with the stones.
I think Ronnie, Brian, Taylor and Wyman could all write songs contrary to what Keith says, they just weren't given credit.

[p207.ezboard.com]