If you can,t always get what you want and need to go back to a time when the stones were the greatest rock band and forget how you grew up with the Woody
Era like me.Then go to www.micktaylor.net click on MT Links and go to
Jiene Pieres Site and click on the video of SFM from 1973 Frankfurt I think
and listen to how Taylor takes the stones to another level.This is an amazing
video clip.Watch Keith CHOMP down on the OPEN Chords and Taylor does the rest.

Nice try, OpenG Maybe you should change your name to "Vibrato"?

What Nice Try the truth and his Vibrato is all out there to listen to without
any dubs.Taylor stands tall and delivered in front of the live audience.
I guess I am watching a different video.Its all out there the Vibrato does not
hide behind any gimmicks and its all documented for generations to come accross
until these live perfromances are released from the vaults where now they are
stacked behind dollar bills the glimmers continue to rack in.

Another example of Taylor's greatness - take any tumbling dice 73 version and
listen to the VAMP outro when Keith plays his riff in open tunings and then
listen to Taylor's VIBRATO he actually PLAYS back KEITH's RIFF so beautifully
that brings the song to life and another level.YEAH he plays back KEITH RIFF
so yeah Taylor can play riffs rhythm and all the rest and is brilliant.
Wow he is like a buttlerfly flowing and flying accross the fretboard with
vibrato.

For sure Taylor was/is a true guitarmen/virtuoso.

Time to puke again.
Open G, the next time, and i'm afraid there will be one, can you please talk about something else then that stupid "vibrato" when you're talking about Mick Taylor?!

Cheers,
Wuudy

Please don't tease OpenG, he'll post a book on the vibrato on this board

Its okay to keep on posting about keith's riffs and rhythm and Ron Wood's
imaginary lead guitar so why can,t we discuss Taylor's vibrato you cant discount
his contributions to the greatest body of work they produced live and in the
studio.I do not just say vibrato go back my posts are more detailed and I try to
make it worthwhile out here in IORR

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-04-05 19:55 by BowieStone.

Brilliant as Mick Taylor is to this day, I can't quite fathom out why we hear so little of his accoustic playing, especially when compared to say Steve Hackett, the ex-Genesis axeman. Certainly, there seems to be little evidence on record.

Is this perhaps a weakness in Mick's all-round ability in so much that his inimitable style is limited to the electric guitar?

Listen to taylor's runs on Sweet Virgina and his acoustic work on wild horses
to name a few

Wuudy - If you need to PUKE -go listen to Wood's live stuff!!! that will do
the trick!! give me Taylor and his VIBRATO!!!!!!!!! MLC

OpenG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Its okay to keep on posting about keith's riffs
> and rhythm and Ron Wood's
> imaginary lead guitar so why can,t we discuss
> Taylor's vibrato you cant discount
> his contributions to the greatest body of work
> they produced live and in the
> studio.I do not just say vibrato go back my posts
> are more detailed and I try to
> make it worthwhile out here in IORR


Of course it's okay to talk about Mick Taylor just as it is to talk about Keith, Mick, Ronnie etc. Hell we even discuss the pling pling of Chuck, although it has been awhile ;-) But it seems, i know you see you're more detailed, that it is all the man can do and that he is the only one on this planet that can do it. I think Mick Taylor is an awesome guitarist that fitted the sound of the stones in that period perfectly. For me it is about the band and how they were during certain albums/tours not about who was the lead guitarist at that moment.




MCDDTLC wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Wuudy - If you need to PUKE -go listen to Wood's live stuff!!! that will do
the trick!! give me Taylor and his VIBRATO!!!!!!!!! MLC


MCDDTLC, i'm not a Wood fan over Taylor. Taylor is a far better guiatrist than Wood but like Brian Jones, Wood is a more gifted musician. Two completely different things but both are great. I can imagine that it would be really frustrating if you dislike Woods playing that much to be fan these days and go to stones show. As i stated above, i don't get how someone can like a period of a band because of who was the lead guitarist. For me there is more to it. I put Handsome girls just a little bit above Philadelphia '72 and Brussels '73 because the whole band plays better. Charlie and Bill were really awesome in '78 and i like weaving guitars a bit more than a more obvious rhythem and lead guitars. But it is a luxury problem because the guitars on Beast of Burden on Handsome girls 1 are magic and i think i have never heard such a beatifull solo as on Angie and YCAGWYW (espescially followed by the sax solo) on Brussels '73.


Conclusion: I like both styles and you guys obviously not wich is to bad because you miss a lot of great music. What do you think of "the early albums"?



I hope i didn't started a new Taylor/Wood discussion because that was certaintly not my intension.




ps. Nothing beats the old Rhythem and Blues of the early days like on the BBC sessions!!!!!!

Cheers,
Wuudy



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-04-05 20:57 by Wuudy.

I love this board!

Karl


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

Wuudy - 1st of all - Wood a more gifted musician??????? where did that come
from?? even Charlie has said Taylor was the "BEST" musician that was EVER in the band!!! he can play any instrument, piano, Bass you name it,

even Wayne Perkins says Ronnie "knew" that Wayne & the other guitarist at the
Black & Blue sessions was better than he was, only reason he got the gig was because Jagger didn't want a guitarist that just "stands there" and plays
(aka someone to clown around with on stage) and that's what Ronnie was known for
back then with the Faces, a good-time bar-band, I know I saw them.

enough of Ronnie, I've ben a fan since the beginning, have their 1st album,

some of faves are; Everybody needs somebody, Last Time, that's how strong my
love is, Mona... us (original) Stones fans were thrilled whem Taylor joined in
the late 60's and took them to another level. That's why I'm so passionate
about Taylor, I know he quit, it was probably the best thing at the time,
he would have never hung around thru the "Disco" faze (Miss You) but I've
always held out hope that somehow, someway - they would bring him & Bill back for one Gig, it's not out of the question (see the Cream re-union)

MLC

MCDDTLC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wuudy - 1st of all - Wood a more gifted
> musician??????? where did that come
> from?? even Charlie has said Taylor was the
> "BEST" musician that was EVER in the band!!! he
> can play any instrument, piano, Bass you name it,
>


I always thought Wood, like Brian, could play anything he layed his hands on like saxophone, mouthharp, drums etc. I did not know that about Taylor although now that you mention it, he played piano on Angie or at least in the video (i think someone like Nicky Hopkins played it on the record). Interesting, goes to show there all very gifted musicians not "just" guitar players.

Cheers,
Wuudy

Thank you open G

For the hint of the site. I didn´t know about it. After a long day´s hard work it´s absolutely fantastic to hear those wonderful tunes from the greatest guitar player of all - Mick Taylor. You saved my day!

Wow - Mago nice to hear from another person who appreciates Mr. Taylor!!

MLC

As always, I bow in deference to MT and his ability and Thank God on a daily basis (or at least whenever Open G posts) I can appreciate more aspects to his playing than that single dimension of VIBRATO!

Howvever, for me, with the Stones, it has always been about the songs, as Keith as claimed, and not the solos.Now there is a song here and there, CYHMK for instance, or TWFNO, when the solo makes the song, but for most part that is not true. There are not any greater moments in Rock and Roll than the original releases of Satisfaction or JJF, and neither has a memorable or difficult guitar solo.

MT had his place, he had his day, he is still a fine pub player that I will see when the opportunity arrives. However, I will never spend the money travelling to his shows like I have to see the Stones



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2005-04-06 10:05 by kahoosier.

Thanks OpenG - a Mick Taylor thread once a week is always needed.....

However, I agree with Kahoosier above, the great rock songs don't have 3 minute solos to make them good. BUT, I believe Mick Taylor's worth wasn't so much in the studio, but more on stage. These great songs Kahoosier mentions above were boosted in the live arena - just listen to Satisfaction on the US Tour of 1969 - now there's vibrato like you've never heard before!!! Same for JJF on the 1972/73 Tour......the list goes on.... These classics were further boosted by Taylor's magical guitar work on stage - unmatched.

I mean how many times do you listen to a complete version of Love In Vain live from the woody era...??

Esky

I respect women who can suck golf balls through a garden hose....

Open G have you heard there is a boot of practically all of Taylor's YCAGWYW solos?

"Leave Preaching to the Preacher

These are all of the "You Can't Always Get What You Want" solos that I have been able to compile from the touring years of 1972-1973. These solos are made up from sources of varying degrees of quality so fidelity is below standard on many of the solos. In other words if fidelity is your bag baby you'll for the most part be disappointed. They have been "tweaked" to insure the finest possible sound from the source and they have all been speed and pitch-corrected. Keep in mind that the purpose ct this is to document for history the great compositional skills of Mick Taylor during this period. Each solo is unique. These are arranged in chronological order so that the listener can get an idea of how the solo evolved over time (all within a year and a half). On most nights the solo was great but there are a few that are not stellar (Charlotte for example). I am a guitarist and it is difficult for me to imagine that any non-musician would enjoy over 2 1/2 hours of the same solo on the same song; maybe I'm wrong. These are beautiful solos. There are too many stand out solos to mention, in fact most are, but just listen to Pittsburgh, Brussels, Washington D.C, and my favorite Essen (on the 10th) to name a few.

These are but a small sampling of an entire body of work of great moments. Mick Taylor always seems to be able to add something fresh to each solo. Listen to the end of the Hawaii 1-21-73 solo (at about the 1:20 sec mark). I am sure that each of you will have your own favorites but sit back and listen and understand that it is the norm for Mick Taylor to have some unique section of each solo, which is utterly amazing. Because of the era we have no audio record of most great composers of the past. We are very fortunate to have an audio record of Mick Taylor during this period. I have enjoyed immensely compiling these solos, I hope you have a fraction of that enjoyment listening to them. This is a unique collection of solos by Mick Taylor during the Rolling Stones 1972 and 1973 tours. These are clips from the song "You Can't Always Get What You Want" from 57 different shows."

I watched the clip and there were no surprises regarding the guitars, it was split rythym and lead with MT playing one long solo throughout the song. WHAT WAS surprising was how bad MJ was singing, or lack thereof. One thing for sure....since 1989 MJ has actually and consistantly sang the songs instead of jumping around and gasping out the words. I read that MJ performing like that drove KR nuts......also, the faster tempo that they used to play live sometimes made it hard for MJ to sing the song.

I am not getting involved in the MT vs RW. Both great musicians, each have their own style. You either prefer one, the other or both. I choose both.

Milo, NYC
I sit and watch

A suggestion so Wuudy doesn't puke.

Could it be possible for Bjornulf to substitute the word VIBRATO for those $&#@!@# symbols as when you try to type f uck ?

[There'll be no wedding today...]

HI Smokey,

I have that boot of all Taylor's YCAGWYW solos from 72/73.Yes I notice all the
subtle changes Taylor does with the solos but the amazing thing to me his how
taylor influenced Keith's rhythm on that song when he slows down his solo and gets the whole band in a groove.I also have the boot of all Taylor's Love In
Vain solos.

Esky Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> However, I agree with Kahoosier above, the great
> rock songs don't have 3 minute solos to make them
> good. BUT, I believe Mick Taylor's worth wasn't so
> much in the studio, but more on stage.
>

I have always found it strange and dissapointing that Taylor was indeed more of a factor on stage then in the studio with his solo's.
There a lot of songs on Exile that could need a fantastic Taylor solo. You have Can't you hear me Knocking on Sticky fingers but Wild Horses is an ideal song for Taylor to play a solo. It wasn't untill Goads Head Soup that he really plays the trademark solo's.



> I mean how many times do you listen to a complete
> version of Love In Vain live from the woody
> era...??
>

I love the Stripped version. Hard to compare with Taylor era version because it's acoustic and has a totally different feel.



ps. Thanks Bruno ;-)

Cheers,
Wuudy

Also, Ronnie's leads on LIV on the 78-tour are worth listening to.

Wuudy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have always found it strange and dissapointing
> that Taylor was indeed more of a factor on stage
> then in the studio with his solo's.
> There a lot of songs on Exile that could need a
> fantastic Taylor solo. You have Can't you hear me
> Knocking on Sticky fingers but Wild Horses is an
> ideal song for Taylor to play a solo. It wasn't
> untill Goads Head Soup that he really plays the
> trademark solo's.

Wild Horses is an "ideal" song without ANY "solos" ! Keith, at the time, wanted to release the song as it was from the first recording (i.e. without overdubs etc). It was only until UK '71 they added a few bits to it...but in my mind it never asked for a Taylor "solo" - he just played the perfect acoutic guitar! Mind you - You have to remember, Wild Horses was recorded in 1969 when Taylor was just starting in the band, and CYHMK was recorded late '70/early '71 .. when Taylor was just fitting in....

Exile isn't the "type" of album that needs "glossy" solos....that's why it is one of the best albums EVER!!! The Stones aren't Guns & Roses!!!!!

>
> I love the Stripped version. Hard to compare with
> Taylor era version because it's acoustic and has a
> totally different feel.

True - but I haven't played this version more than twice before....
>
>
>
> ps. Thanks Bruno ;-)
>
> Wuudy

'ave a good weekend...

Esky




I respect women who can suck golf balls through a garden hose....

Esky Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Exile isn't the "type" of album that needs
> "glossy" solos....that's why it is one of the best
> albums EVER!!! The Stones aren't Guns &
> Roses!!!!!
>


True, but there are some songs where it would fit.

Cheers,
Wuudy

OpenG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes I notice all the
> subtle changes Taylor does with the solos but the
> amazing thing to me his how
> taylor influenced Keith's rhythm on that song when
> he slows down his solo and gets the whole band in
> a groove.

So when folks write "there was no interaction in '72 and '73", you wonder "what are they listening to"? It's tough to hear more than one instrument at a time unless you really, really listen.


> I also have the boot of all Taylor's Love
> In
> Vain solos.

The only other thing I've seen is the collected SFTDs '69 (full song).


Milo Yammbag Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WHAT WAS surprising was how bad MJ was
> singing, or lack thereof. One thing for
> sure....since 1989 MJ has actually and
> consistantly sang the songs instead of jumping
> around and gasping out the words. I read that MJ
> performing like that drove KR nuts......also, the
> faster tempo that they used to play live sometimes
> made it hard for MJ to sing the song.

The loud, crunchy guitars must have made it difficult as well, no matter how much amplification of his voice to the audience.