Did Clapton, Page, and Beck really change things that much for music? I think Page did, just because Led Zep was so huge and influenced so many bands that were around then and came after. I'm not sure that was due to his guitar playing alone, but he did have that type of impact. I'm not quite sure Clapton and Beck had as much influence on the music world at large, Beck in particular. Clapton at least had Cream to claim, though I'm not sure that music has stood the test of time or had much influence after its era. I love Beck's work the the Yardbirds and the Jeff Beck Group, but I'm not sure how much influence his work had after that, or how well those bands have held up over time, or influenced later bands the way Led Zep did.

Yes they did.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
svt22



Hendrix was the big 3.

Indeed, but a fan of the English big 3.

Clapton is very overrated, but as far as innovation and influence (within white boy blues etc) he was really important.

The world of music would be much the same whether Taylor existed or not. That's not the case with regards to the big 3.

Sure, we can go back as far as John Dowland.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
svt22



Hendrix was the big 3.

Indeed, but a fan of the English big 3.

Clapton is very overrated, but as far as innovation and influence (within white boy blues etc) he was really important.

The world of music would be much the same whether Taylor existed or not. That's not the case with regards to the big 3.

You do no no as much as you want and argue as much as you want, but to me no other guitarist, Hendrix included, has or had the capacity to express and transport so much feel and emotion as Taylor did. Like it or not, I don't care but enjoy. I've been listening to this video with Billy P. and I can't get enough of it. What a musician!

Quote
His Majesty
Yes they did.

Explain. Elucidate. Expound.

Quote
kleermaker


You do no no as much as you want and argue as much as you want, but to me no other guitarist, Hendrix included, has or had the capacity to express and transport so much feel and emotion as Taylor did. Like it or not, I don't care but enjoy. I've been listening to this video with Billy P. and I can't get enough of it. What a musician!

Those ears you claim are special are actually just faulty. Must be that encrusted Taylor spunk in them.

PS: It's not a video.

Quote
marianna

Quote
His Majesty
Yes they did.

Explain. Elucidate. Expound.

Their recordings do that.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
kleermaker


You do no no as much as you want and argue as much as you want, but to me no other guitarist, Hendrix included, has or had the capacity to express and transport so much feel and emotion as Taylor did. Like it or not, I don't care but enjoy. I've been listening to this video with Billy P. and I can't get enough of it. What a musician!

Those ears you claim are special are actually just faulty. Must be that encrusted Taylor spunk in them.

PS: It's not a video.

Call it what you want, it's not important. It's all jealousy.

Quote
kleermaker


Call it what you want, it's not important. It's all jealousy.

There's nothing to be jealous about.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
svt22



Hendrix was the big 3.

Indeed, but a fan of the English big 3.

Clapton is very overrated, but as far as innovation and influence (within white boy blues etc) he was really important.

The world of music would be much the same whether Taylor existed or not. That's not the case with regards to the big 3.

I think Hendrix is the only one you can confidently say had a real influence on the rest of the rock world.

Taylor is up with the Becks, Pages etc..whether you like it or not.
...and there's lots of people who would agree with me on that one.

Quote
Eleanor Rigby


I think Hendrix is the only one you can confidently say had a real influence on the rest of the rock world.

Taylor is up with the Becks, Pages etc..whether you like it or not.
...and there's lots of people who would agree with me on that one.

Those 3 were quite important, influential etc and anyone that thinks otherwise is really quite clueless about the history of pop/rock music.

Taylor is not up there with them whether you like it or not.

There's lots of people who agree with me on that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-23 05:02 by His Majesty.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
Eleanor Rigby


I think Hendrix is the only one you can confidently say had a real influence on the rest of the rock world.

Taylor is up with the Becks, Pages etc..whether you like it or not.
...and there's lots of people who would agree with me on that one.

Those 3 were quite important, influential etc and anyone that thinks otherwise is really quite clueless about the history of pop/rock music.

Taylor is not up there with them whether you like it or not.

There's lots of people who agree with me on that.

you have to wonder why you guys Hijack (trolls?) every thread that speaks highly of Mick Taylor.
You have no idea HM...why bother....and many people would agree with me on that point !!

Quote
Eleanor Rigby

You have no idea HM...why bother....and many people would agree with me on that point !!

You and they need educating.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-23 05:10 by His Majesty.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
Eleanor Rigby

You have no idea HM...why bother....and many people would agree with me on that point !!

You and they need educating.

just stick to Brian Jones threads...that way everyone is happy.

Mick Taylor is a fantastic guitar player, no doubt about it.

However, to compare him with innovateurs like Beck, Clapton and Page is stretching it a bit too much. These guys were in the lead with what they were doing - they were first.

Taylor was never first. He developed his style nicely, but neither him or Peter Green did it first. That's why they never will be mentioned first - no matter how good they were.

Taylor wasn't first with the blues stuff, nor was he first with mixing the quasi-fusion stuff with the blues.

To sum it up, there is no doubt he is a great guitarist, but things need to be put it perspective, without having to be called a troll.

When we broaden our horizon musically, it becomes even more evident.

It's quite absurd actually, that one needs to explain the differene between the big 3 and Taylor...

The big three had a changing impact on music -pop/rock/hardrock music changed due to their body of work.

Taylor never had that. He was, as Peter Green, a fantastic melodic player, but neither one didn't change a thing. They listened to the orginal blues greats, and basically repeated what they heard, with a better technique. Green had the best vibrato of them all, but did he change the face of music? I don't think so. Taylor was fantastic in 1972 and 1973, but did he inspire thousands of young people to pick up the guitar? I don't think so.

Mathijs

Taylor didn't play with Preston in Rotterdam, 1973. Just reverse everything Kleermaker quotes and you'll always get the right answer. Easy.

Yeah, I agree with DandelionPowderman and Mathijs here, who I think are stating here just the obvious. Taylor belongs to that great generation of late 60's British blues rock guitar players, such as Peter Green and Alvin Lee and many others, but the "big three" was a head above of the others.

Clapton easily was the most influental of them at the time. His album with Bluesbreakers is probably the most influental guitar album ever released (at least if we look its immediate impact), even though it gets rather little notice any longer. There is a saying that Velvet Underground's "banana" album did not sell but a handful of copies, but each buyer founded a band... The same goes in regards to BLUESBREAKERS WITH ERIC CLAPTON and guitar players. The whole idea what "white boy blues" is all about, and how the blues is to be played with electric guitar is laid there. Clapton's influence is direct or indirect to almost any white kid playing the blues ever since. Had he disappeared ever since, and never founded Cream, he would still be regarded the king of that scene, and the most influental British blues player.

Jimmy Page's influence is, of course, pretty much founded on the huge influence of Led Zeppelin and the "hard rock" scene, which is even more influental in the long run as Clapton's.

Jeff Beck might have been the most innovative of them all - and I think quite many 'experts' consider him also the best of them all - but I think his real influence cannot be compared to Clapton's or Page's. But he is "the guitar god of guitar gods", the most guitar-minded extremist - "@#$%&" - of the whole scene, and a concept of his own, and who see innovation in guitar an aim of its own... (he was Hendrix's favourite as well, if I recall right).

But, of course, of those British "guitar gods", Mick Taylor is my personal favourite, even though belonging to the second division in influencewise. Taylor was a perfect choice for the Rolling Stones: Mick and Keith couldn't have better guitarist for that spot in 1969. No better application of great British blues guitar generation was done what that kid that with their material... Interestingly, while Jimi Hendrix made the whole British guitar school to look a bit boring, unimaginative and school-boy-like - and now a historical anecdote - Taylor's delicated contribution with the Stones still sounds timeless and spot-on.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-23 11:20 by Doxa.

I'm outta here.

>Taylor didn't play with Preston in Rotterdam, 1973. Just reverse everything >Kleermaker quotes and you'll always get the right answer. Easy.

There's audience recordings from Preston's three Rotterdam-sets with a clearly audible Mick Taylor on one of the shows (probably Oct. 13) and an absent Taylor on the other two (probably Oct. 14.).

N

Quote
NeddieFlanders
>Taylor didn't play with Preston in Rotterdam, 1973. Just reverse everything >Kleermaker quotes and you'll always get the right answer. Easy.

There's audience recordings from Preston's three Rotterdam-sets with a clearly audible Mick Taylor on one of the shows (probably Oct. 13) and an absent Taylor on the other two (probably Oct. 14.).

N

The entire show, or just as a guest on one or two songs?

>The entire show, or just as a guest on one or two songs?

The entire show (which is only 28 minutes by the way).

N

Thanks, Neddie

Quote
Doxa

But, of course, of those British "guitar gods", Mick Taylor is my personal favourite, even though belonging to the second division in influencewise. Taylor was a perfect choice for the Rolling Stones: Mick and Keith couldn't have better guitarist for that spot in 1969. No better application of great British blues guitar generation was done what that kid that with their material... Interestingly, while Jimi Hendrix made the whole British guitar school to look a bit boring, unimaginative and school-boy-like - and now a historical anecdote - Taylor's delicated contribution with the Stones still sounds timeless and spot-on.

- Doxa

Their move to get a bluesbreaker and jump on board that whole rock with that kind of lead guitarist was a bit cheap IMO. They knew Clapton wouldn't work out in the long run so got someone similar, but a few levels down the pecking order... that didn't work out in long run either.

He lucked out big time in 1969, but anyone joining then would have to have been really crap or @#$%& up to not have been inspired to play some good stuff.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-23 14:11 by His Majesty.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Thanks, Neddie

Did you doubt my statement ?

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
Doxa

But, of course, of those British "guitar gods", Mick Taylor is my personal favourite, even though belonging to the second division in influencewise. Taylor was a perfect choice for the Rolling Stones: Mick and Keith couldn't have better guitarist for that spot in 1969. No better application of great British blues guitar generation was done what that kid that with their material... Interestingly, while Jimi Hendrix made the whole British guitar school to look a bit boring, unimaginative and school-boy-like - and now a historical anecdote - Taylor's delicated contribution with the Stones still sounds timeless and spot-on.

- Doxa

Their move to get a bluesbreaker and jump on board that whole rock with that kind of lead guitarist was a bit cheap IMO. They knew Clapton wouldn't work out in the long run so got someone similar, but a few levels down the pecking order... that didn't work out in long run either.

He lucked out big time in 1969, but anyone joining then would have to have been really crap or @#$%& up to not have been inspired to play some good stuff.

Blah blah blah.

- Doxa

Quote
svt22

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Thanks, Neddie

Did you doubt my statement ?

No, but you never said whether he was on for the entire show or not

Quote
Doxa

Blah blah blah.

- Doxa

In a round about way you've said similar things before. Hiring a lead guitarist inorder to keep up with Led zeppelin etc etc and blah blah blah.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-23 14:30 by His Majesty.

Quote
NeddieFlanders
>The entire show, or just as a guest on one or two songs?

The entire show (which is only 28 minutes by the way).

N

There's three bootlegs of Preston opening for the Stones that I am aware of: an audience recording of Vienna (without Taylor), the full Essen show in rough soundboard (later released as the expanded live album), and a recording of what was said Rotterdam, but in fact was a 6th generation of his original live album.

I would love to hear the three audience tapes of Preston opening in Rotterdam -never heard of their existance.

Mathijs

Then it's easy (to convince whomever being in doubt) - post the tapes