For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
LieBWhat? You sure about that?Quote
DandelionPowderman
Keith was back on every song on IORR, including TWFNO where he plays the first solo, acoustic guitar and sings back up vocals.
Quote
DandelionPowderman
There is so much mis-leading information and misunderstandings about Keith's so called absence from the IORR-sessions - that's why I'm stressing this.
Quote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowderman
There is so much mis-leading information and misunderstandings about Keith's so called absence from the IORR-sessions - that's why I'm stressing this.
I don't recall such information. It was Mick Taylor who missed the first sessions (due ilness or something) for the album.
My picture is that IORR was a sort of 'come back' of Keith, after being rather low-profilic (in his usual terms) in GOATS HEAD SOUP, despite his heroin habit (at its worse). There were rumours of the album consisting of cover songs and things like that but Mick and Keith suddenly realized that they had enough original material to make a 'proper' album. I take that being that Mick realized that Keith could be productive and reliable enough (which probably wasn't such a clear thing at the time). That he with Mick also produced the album tells something of Keith's involvement as well.
As far as Taylor goes, it could be that Keith being strongly back onboard - no matter his condition or how spent he was creativewise - was more like the problem. There are those credition problems, yes, but I think the whole album as such could be the reason why Taylor wasn't any longer too interested in contributing any further (like he mentions in the article). After STICKY FINGERS, EXILE and GOATS HEAD SOUP, IORR, starting with its title, plainly shows that the band refuses to develop musically any longer (or is actually taking steps back) which seemingly was in odds with Taylor's approach at the time.
- Doxa
Quote
DandelionPowderman
It's been stated countless times on IORR that Keith was missing while recording GHS AND IORR. TWFNO has been used as an example, cobbled with MM, Winter, 100 Years Ago and Sway, to make that argument.
The fact is, as you say yourself, that it was Taylor who missed some IORR-sessions.
I agree with the points you make in your post, though, but I'm not sure if Taylor became frustrated with how their musical style developed (after all, he probably both had fun and felt it refreshing playing the latin jazz on TWFNO, the adventerous bass on FF and the tex/mex-stuff on Till The Next Goodbye).
Maybe he wasn't happy with the quality of the material? Hard to tell...
I'm pretty sure he didn't quit because he didn't get credits for Till The Next Goodbye, though. That sounds preposterous to me.
Quote
Naturalust
I think the loss of potential big money and fame is what causes most people to project MT's regret over leaving the Stones. I've never heard him convincingly say he ever regretted his decision. Most people want to believe he did because of their own inability to believe someone could give all that up. I respect his decision, even more so because of what he gave up.
Quote
Stoneburst
I'm not sure what you'd conclude from this except that maybe a) Taylor was, contrary to what some people think, actually more interested in the music the band was producing than in his own guitar playing - in other words, he was more of a team player than some here seem to think he was - or b) that Taylor got to a point where he felt his own development as a musician was no longer adding much to the band. And that might be one more amongst many reasons why he left.
Quote
NaturalustQuote
smokeyduskyQuote
SweetThing
That opinion is perhaps backed up somewhat a Taylor confidant somewhere.. (his ex wife? someone?) At least an indication that Taylor had shortly after quitting phoned them up a few times to see if they needed any help etc.. I don't know that he really regretted his decision to leave exactly, and this is before it would've become clear how much sustained success the Stones would still have and how much money had been sacraficed or how humble Taylor's solo carreer would pan out... but it seems fairly reasonable to suspect Taylor might've wanted his cake and eaten in too up to a point... who wouldn't really?
Never seen this anywhere. The opposite seems more likely.
There were reports that Taylor would not answer calls from the Stones org after he left.
Also, Taylor very recently recounted that in '77 Jagger asked if Taylor would sub for Richards if Richards were indisposed. Taylor said he dismissed the question.
He still had money in 1977. I think the loss of potential big money and fame is what causes most people to project MT's regret over leaving the Stones. I've never heard him convincingly say he ever regretted his decision. Most people want to believe he did because of their own inability to believe someone could give all that up. I respect his decision, even more so because of what he gave up. peace
Quote
DandelionPowderman
I think that was the reason he gradually chose to extend his output on stage. There were fewer guitars, the keyboards weren't as audible - he probably felt that the songs needed more extended guitar lines, and chose to play them more off Mick's vocals than that of Keith's guitar. The reason for the latter could also be that Keith added less adventurous stuff with his open tuning than he would do in standard.
Quote
StoneburstQuote
DandelionPowderman
I think that was the reason he gradually chose to extend his output on stage. There were fewer guitars, the keyboards weren't as audible - he probably felt that the songs needed more extended guitar lines, and chose to play them more off Mick's vocals than that of Keith's guitar. The reason for the latter could also be that Keith added less adventurous stuff with his open tuning than he would do in standard.
I agree, and I've often felt that if there was a tension between Keith and MT, this was probably why - as many have pointed out, the Stones are a unique band rhythmically in that they follow Keith more than they do Charlie. Taylor did this as well in the early days, but by 1973 it was Jagger he was listening to onstage. Keith may not have been happy about that.
Quote
StoneburstQuote
DandelionPowderman
I think that was the reason he gradually chose to extend his output on stage. There were fewer guitars, the keyboards weren't as audible - he probably felt that the songs needed more extended guitar lines, and chose to play them more off Mick's vocals than that of Keith's guitar. The reason for the latter could also be that Keith added less adventurous stuff with his open tuning than he would do in standard.
I agree, and I've often felt that if there was a tension between Keith and MT, this was probably why - as many have pointed out, the Stones are a unique band rhythmically in that they follow Keith more than they do Charlie. Taylor did this as well in the early days, but by 1973 it was Jagger he was listening to onstage. Keith may not have been happy about that.
Quote
Naturalust
Kinda hard NOT to follow Keith rhythmically and musically on stage during the Taylor years. All the tunes were based around his riffs and depending on the night he would play them with slightly different tempos and accents. If they wanted the band to gel, everyone had to listen to Keith, imo. But yes as a lead player, MT probably also listened to the vocals in order to know when to fill the spaces between them without stepping on them. But your assertion that he was listening to Jagger instead of Keith and that Keith may have been unhappy about it is a stretch, imo.
peace
Quote
triceratops
Did he act in passive-aggressive way to make matters unpleasant for Mick Taylor to get him to leave? Who knows?
But I believe that if Mick Taylor left over a personality clash, it was with Keith, not with Mick Jagger
Quote
Redhotcarpet
More like Keith marked his territory after GHS and made sure he is this glimmer twin, not Taylor. And Keith "the blade" Richards probably didnt do that in a subtle way.
I have actually read an interview (don't remember where), where Taylor said something like "those albums [GHS and IORR] aren't very highly regarded, but I think they're okay." He has played Winter, Silver Train and Time Waits For No One outside of the Stones, so I reckon he's fairly and justifiably proud of those songs.Quote
Stoneburst
You'd think he had fun playing that stuff too, yet he's rarely if ever said anything good about GHS and seems to think of it as a sub-par album. Same story with IORR.
Quote
71TeleQuote
StoneburstQuote
DandelionPowderman
I think that was the reason he gradually chose to extend his output on stage. There were fewer guitars, the keyboards weren't as audible - he probably felt that the songs needed more extended guitar lines, and chose to play them more off Mick's vocals than that of Keith's guitar. The reason for the latter could also be that Keith added less adventurous stuff with his open tuning than he would do in standard.
I agree, and I've often felt that if there was a tension between Keith and MT, this was probably why - as many have pointed out, the Stones are a unique band rhythmically in that they follow Keith more than they do Charlie. Taylor did this as well in the early days, but by 1973 it was Jagger he was listening to onstage. Keith may not have been happy about that.
If that's true, you certainly can't tell by listening to Brussels.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
LieBWhat? You sure about that?Quote
DandelionPowderman
Keith was back on every song on IORR, including TWFNO where he plays the first solo, acoustic guitar and sings back up vocals.
Of course. If there is anything in this world I'm sure of, it's that
There is so much mis-leading information and misunderstandings about Keith's so called absence from the IORR-sessions - that's why I'm stressing this.
Here it is, in all its 16 seconds-glory:
Quote
TravelinManQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
LieBWhat? You sure about that?Quote
DandelionPowderman
Keith was back on every song on IORR, including TWFNO where he plays the first solo, acoustic guitar and sings back up vocals.
Of course. If there is anything in this world I'm sure of, it's that
There is so much mis-leading information and misunderstandings about Keith's so called absence from the IORR-sessions - that's why I'm stressing this.
Here it is, in all its 16 seconds-glory:
I never even paid close enough attention, but you're right. Sure does sound like Richards, and then he plays that riff various parts throughout the song. Sounds like Taylor may be playing some partial chords and fills until his lead breaks. Are you positive it's Richards on acoustic. Just asking because I don't know why Taylor would believe he deserved writing credit for the lead guitar and synth parts unless maybe he wrote some of the riffs? What's your take?
Also I think this is Richards at his most melodic...
Quote
TeddyB1018
MT probably saw the opportunity to propel himself into that pantheon of blues rock soloists (not that he wasn't already, but limited by the format of the Stones).
Quote
Naturalust
Probably been discussed here before but I recall some quotes from Andy Johns claiming he was mostly responsible for MT leaving the Stones. I guess they were pretty close starting in the Exile in France and by the GHS time Andy was always hearing Taylor complaining and wanting to leave. He apparently not only convinced Jack Bruce that Taylor was right for his new band but also specifically called Taylor the week before he left the Stones and said "here is your chance, Jack is really happening musically and wants you to play in the band." Sounds plausible since it's easier to swallow than Taylor just quitting without some firm future plans in mind. peace
Quote
DandelionPowderman
.
Quote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowderman
.
???? Damn you, Dandie... you surely had something to say to pop up this old thread..
- Doxa