IMO, what always has made the stones great is that unexpected things happens on stage, shows in the Taylor era included. The Stones has never been about perfection. Listen to Vancouver 72 and tell me that this show is perfection... It's hot and almost "dangerous", things almost fall apart, but the moment it is corrected, that's where you find the swing and the rock'n'roll.

Talking about Handsome Girls; there are many such moments there, and I love them, much more than straight rhythm and lead-roles. Keith has never been only a rhythm guitar player, not even in the Taylor era.

I agree with the comment that Richards and Taylor were a great combination. Too much of one style can become dull. Taylor was a great player and complimented Richard's style perfectly. Having Taylor in the band provided the guitar duo with a change of pace and style. It's sort of like a baseball pitcher who only has one pitch. I always thought that Ronnie and Keef's style were to similar.......I enjoyed the contrast between Richards & Taylor. Sort of like Lennon and McCartney...very different, but they were beatiful together. I'm not bashing Ronnie because he is a true Rolling Stone.

i think you have missed the point.RON Wood and Keith Richard play together! when Mick Taylor was with the band Keith had to play mostly rhythm.he and Woody gel. i love to listen to Taylor's solos but, nothing beats Keith and Woody's playing together. besides, what has Mick Taylor done since '74? i ready thought that when he left we had a superstar in the making. as i mention earlier the Stones have held Ron Wood back. i love the Stones having seen them a dozen times since 1969. i appreciate all periods of there career. but regardless who plays the 2nd guitar, be it Brian Jones,Mick Taylor or Ron Wood the bottom line is that the Stones are Mick Jagger and Keith Richards! god bless them. remember this is just my opinion

Milo Yammbag Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MT could never play
> the way Ronnie does....loose,

Listen to Wembley 7/9/73 SFM

> choppy,

Listen to Black Hole with Carla Olsen

> a lttle
> rough and raw,

Most of his work on EOMS

> but he can play very gentle at
> times. Why he gets bashed so much is beyond me.
>
> Milo, NYC
> I'm Tired, Tired of doin what I'm told

You seem to have an idealized view of each.


kienan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> when Mick Taylor was
> with the band Keith had to play mostly rhythm.

Had to? Did Taylor twist his arm or hold a gun to his head? You think they had fist fights to determine who would play lead on Bitch or Star Star? Arguments? Debates? If Richards played rhythm, it was because he wanted to, not because he had to.

Taylor's produtivity in sense of new records / new material has been very slow in the whole period after he left the Stones.....

In that respect he wouldn't have contributed very much to the Stones......

Why hasn't he made the material? Poor song writer???? Lazy???? Or?????

Taylor might have been able to add something to the Dirty Work record, but he was out of the band for a long time even then, and he wouldn't have gotten any writing credits.

Dear Taylorists, I have no further vibrato to add to this discussion.

Slave is an excellent example of what Stones could do without MT....