Great thread.

Quote
OpenG
Its pretty sad for me in that Mick Taylor has stated in interviews is highlight of his career was when he played with Dylan live and in the studio and not as part of the greatest band from the golden era from 69-74.

As a Taylorite I must say that his playing as a sideman with Dylan and Mayall was probably the best he ever did, next to the Stones between '69-74. -IMO.

Taylor/Mayall '82

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Stoneburst

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.

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.

Of course you can. There is no "play and respond" left. It's a steady rhythm (Keith), vocals (Mick) and long melodic guitar lines filling in most of the spaces + on top of the vocals. It had reached the point where the guitar interaction from 1969 was almost gone.

That doesn't mean that it isn't good. It's very good, but in a different way. But the one who's suffering the most from this approach was Keith - as what he was playing became less important.

I agree. In his heart, MT seems a solo guitarists (as was common at that time). This was not a good fit with this particular band.

Quote
71Tele
1. He didn't get on with Keith.
2. His own drug problems had become serious.
3. His wife nagged him to leave.
4. He was feeling unappreciated given that he had worked closely with Jagger on so many songs and not received credit.
5. He wanted to play that fusion style of music, which was unfortunately in vogue at the time.

Some comments:
2. except he joined the Bruce band whose musicians were more heavily into drugs than The Stones,
5. except that his musical career since hardly inspires one to believe he had untapped songwriting potential or the technical abilities to develop his musical styles.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Stoneburst

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.

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.

Of course you can. There is no "play and respond" left. It's a steady rhythm (Keith), vocals (Mick) and long melodic guitar lines filling in most of the spaces + on top of the vocals. It had reached the point where the guitar interaction from 1969 was almost gone.

That doesn't mean that it isn't good. It's very good, but in a different way. But the one who's suffering the most from this approach was Keith - as what he was playing became less important.

Keith's playing less important/ suffering?? OK, he was on dope, but that didn't affect his way of playing to me, his coke abuse made it probably worse in the 8-tees, imo. Keith has always been a splendid player in his chosen field, so dope... , Richards and Taylor did what they were best at, both on stage and in the Studio. Just like Brian Jones beteween'63-'68' and Wood between '75 and today. Three different bands- no, four: Wyman left as well.
Sheer luxury for allround Stones fans.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-03-12 18:53 by TheflyingDutchman.

Quote
Doxa
Quite many 'hads' and 'perhapses' there, Rocky...

- Doxa

It was meant to be speculative. Bill Wyman leaving the Stones was choosing to just play what he liked with friends and not be on the same size stage for what was left of his life. Doing so after thirty years is also quite another thing.

You could argue Taylor made the same choice, but he bottomed out when he had the talent to be another Jeff Beck, though not another Clapton.

As for what he did accomplish post-Stones, I would agree his work on REAL LIVE is equal to YA-YA'S. He had the ability, just not the direction and so the opportunity wasn't there much of the time.

I'm not a Taylorite, though I do support their right to live among the rest of us.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-03-12 19:07 by Rocky Dijon.

Rocky, don't get me wrong. It was great speculation and I loved it - and can't much disagree!

Quote
Rocky Dijon


Had he done this and stayed a name guitarist in the 1980s, perhaps he would have played on Jagger's solo records as was mentioned when he left the band. Perhaps he would have returned in 1989 as was discussed as a back-up plan if Wyman did not come back.

I pick these two interesting scenarios, both based on some news to me.

I recall Jagger having said in some radio interview made during 1973 European Tour (if memory serves) that he has a solo record in his mind, and that Taylor would play on it. True - and sad - that by the 80's Taylor's star had fallen so radically that trendy-Jagger had no interest in him many longer (Dylan did - and Keith!). He was no an established guitar-god like Jeff Beck or an uprising young gun a'la Joe Satriani. Though I would not think Jagger's solo records/tours would have been any better - or worse - had Taylor played on them. Though, for nostalgic Rolling Stones fanboy reasons - of which I am sure Jagger of the 80's couldn't give a shit - the combo of Two Micks would have sounded perfect. (But as well it could be that Jagger wanted to separate his solo records/career so strongly from any Stones associations that probably an ex-member wouldn't have a chance being whatever 'big name').

Then that 1989 're-union'- never heard that back-up plan! Fascinating to think of it now - Richards, Taylor and Wood all onboard. Swifting the bass role I guess, since all of them know well enough for the demands of The Rolling Stones to play it. We could have the weaving thing and the classical Richards/Taylor lead/rhythm separation within the same show.... And no need for any pros like Darryl, since there would be a willing 'amateur' there... Great that Wyman did that final tour (89/90), but if I could decide between 1989/90 Wyman plus Darryl ever since and all the way from 1989 just Keith, Ron and Mick, I most likely would pick up the latter...

-----

Anyways, as speculation is allowed and fun, I have long maintained that the reason to pick up Ronnie in 1975 - seemingly mostly Jagger's decision/insistence - was not just to find the guy to fill Taylor's shoes but that of emphasizing the 'Keef element' in the band due to the unpredictable ways of the maestro himself. If the worst scenario would happen, Ronnie - an established song-writer and rhythm-based guitar player and basically a 'poor man's Keith Richards' in British rock scene - would step in and took Big Brother's shoes. Interestingly, almost all of the other big name candidates for the job were more like flashy lead guitarists a'la Taylor, but they ended up picking up another rhythm based player. Keith himself had second thoughts about Ronnie - because Ron being too similar player to him (no any a priori ideas of 'ancient art of weaving' yet - the latter being a happy, non-predictable by-product of the new order). And as it is a historical fact that Jagger approached Taylor in 1977/78 when Richards was facing a sentence.

If Jagger really loved so much Taylor's melodic way of playing, why on earth he would have chosen a guy so different to that style? Because Ronnie is such a loveble guy? My suggestion simply is that he was more worried about Keith's condition/contribution to the band, and with that, about the future of The Rolling Stones. ---- Taylorites, close your eyes now! ----- Great lead guitarists come and go, they are all over the place, and one can always pick a new one, but fill up Keith's position in the band, that's helluva task! --- Taylorites, you can open your eyes again! ---- So Ronnie was a back up plan 'just in case'. He was ready there to grow up for the task. Yeah, it would be very difficult to imagine then or now The Rolling Stones without Keith Richards - that's also what Taylor said to Jagger at the time when he approached him - but I don't think we should underestimate Jagger's professionalism, ambition and determination at the time (or ever). That his oldest friend and most important musical colloborator and heart of his band was taking the dopeville dead-end-street, that's surely sad indeed, but what one can do - should that mean that they they all - and especially him, the commander, the biggest rock star of the world - should quit the job because one guy screws up? We have to remember that at that time - the 70's that is - we or them didn't know yet that Keith is immortal...

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2018-03-12 21:49 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Taylorites, close your eyes now! ----- Great lead guitarists come and go, they are all over the place, and one can always pick a new one, but fill up Keith's position in the band, that's helluva task! --- Taylorites, you can open your eyes again! ---- So Ronnie was a back up plan 'just in case'. -

- Doxa

Are you suggesting that Ron Wood could fill both Taylor's and Richard's shoes, in each and every way, for the plebs that is ?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-03-12 22:46 by TheflyingDutchman.

Spot on Doxa

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
Doxa

Taylorites, close your eyes now! ----- Great lead guitarists come and go, they are all over the place, and one can always pick a new one, but fill up Keith's position in the band, that's helluva task! --- Taylorites, you can open your eyes again! ---- So Ronnie was a back up plan 'just in case'. -

- Doxa

Are you suggesting that Ron Wood could fill both Taylor's and Richard's shoes, in each and every way?

My theory is that noone replaced Taylor. Mick added Ronnie beacause of his image and fame and Billy and Ollie for musical reasons but also adding to their new image. Their best image as well as rhythm section if you ask me. Jagger danced with Billy and shared the mike with Ronnie.

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
Doxa

Taylorites, close your eyes now! ----- Great lead guitarists come and go, they are all over the place, and one can always pick a new one, but fill up Keith's position in the band, that's helluva task! --- Taylorites, you can open your eyes again! ---- So Ronnie was a back up plan 'just in case'. -

- Doxa

Are you suggesting that Ron Wood could fill both Taylor's and Richard's shoes, in each and every way?

My theory is that noone replaced Taylor. Mick added Ronnie beacause of his image and fame and Billy and Ollie for musical reasons but also adding to their new image. Their best image as well as rhythm section if you ask me. Jagger danced with Billy and shared the mike with Ronnie.

Yeah,that's doxa's message in a nutshell, I should have read his post more precise/ reacted less hasty.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-03-12 23:20 by TheflyingDutchman.

My opinion is that the Rolling Stones have always been a band where the priority is rhythm. But we also need to realize that Mick and Keith wanted someone to rely on and Ronnie seemed the most suitable personality. Being in a band is not easy, they did not want a first guitarist who would abandon them at the first opportunity. They wanted someone to go with ... moreover, Ronnie, let's not forget it was already on Stones ride, and was a friend of both Keith and Mick. I agree that one reason could also be that Ronnie being a very dynamic guitarist could have replaced Keith if things went wrong, but I think it's just one of the many reasons. After all, I think that if they had chosen other guitarists maybe today the RS would not exist anymore or at least they would have already changed some guitarist.
Edit. As for why Taylor abandoned the Stones, I think we will never have the truth and maybe not even he remembers it or perhaps the reasons were many and not least the thought that the band was writing the word end. Then things went differently, but we do not know if they would go on with Taylor, in my opinion they needed new incentives and a new guitarist was.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-03-12 23:44 by Testify.

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
Doxa

Taylorites, close your eyes now! ----- Great lead guitarists come and go, they are all over the place, and one can always pick a new one, but fill up Keith's position in the band, that's helluva task! --- Taylorites, you can open your eyes again! ---- So Ronnie was a back up plan 'just in case'. -

- Doxa

Are you suggesting that Ron Wood could fill both Taylor's and Richard's shoes, in each and every way?

Easy thing for such a Renaissance Man, as His Majesty him once described...

Seriously, of course not - though I think Ronnie, who naturally belongs more to Keith's corner than that of Taylor's, is more versatile player than those two - but those two happen to have such an unique, idiosyncratic style, and Taylor even having such a finesse in his playing out of Ronnie's reach (one could also say that Ronnie never can be as good lead guitarist as Taylor is, nor as great rhythm guitarist as Richards is - both are total masters in those fields - but then again, one could argue that Ronnie is better/more naturally oriented lead and slide guitarist than Richards is, and a better/more naturally oriented rhythm guitarist/'riff-master' than Taylor is. But these are rather banal observations - the term 'better' is so subjective).

I think Ronnie actually and initially has suffered from comparison to Taylor because he was seen taken his place one-to-one and he was also 'forced' to do Taylor's job especially during 1975/76 tours, playing Taylor's old parts, etc. As the weaving thing started to develop, and him and Keith creating a whole new way to interact (Keith also taking more of the lead duties than in later-Taylor days), and the whole band achieving a new, original post-Taylor sound, that wasn't such a problem any longer. (There are also theories that Ronnie was chosen to kick Keith's ass - since no virtuoso lead player any longer around, now he could do something else than hitting riffs out of open tuning.)

But the point of my highly speculative post was that Wood was chosen for his Richards-type of strenghts (including song-writing ability evident not only from the The Faces, but of which Jagger had authentic experience with "It's Only Rock'n'Roll' and "I Can Feel The Fire"). That decision also meant that the great lead days were over. That 'Taylorian' element - almost essential element of their recent years - was consciously sacrified - something they could have get from, say, Perkins, Clapton or Mandel - and I am rather sure Jagger has sometimes regreted that - seemingly he hasn't always been too satisfied with the non-melodic 'monster' (the Weavers) he helped to create... especially Ronnie having the tendency to follow Keith's lead in some other aspects as well...

But let me repeat that my controversial claim is that Ronnie was actually a back up to Keith - that's why he was chosen; that was more important for Jagger and to the future of tHe Rolling Stones than any flashy solo guitarist no matter how Jagger loved to have one in a band. Fortunately, the worst scenario never realized.

- Doxa

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Yeah,that's doxa's message in a nutshell, I should have read his post more precise/ reacted less hasty.[/quote]

Haha... of course, you just picked up the part I mentioned not suitable for Taylorites!

- Doxa

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
dcba
He takes himself rather seriously, doesn't he?
I saved Mayall...... I (with Wyman and Watts) contributed to the skeletons of songs brought by Jagger & Richards... etc etc...

Methinks part of the reason he joined the Stones was he thought he could easily take the leadership of the band as MT thought (rightly so?) that he was by far the most skilled musician in the band.

Well that plan didn't go down too well, Taylor hit a concrete wall as M&Keef kept a strong leadership of the band and only used Taylor sparsely... (and they robbed him blind on a few song credits).

Methinks part of the reason he quit the Stones was the realization he had failed miserably, that he would remain a sideman in the band.

"Do that, play this, stop here" could sum up his time in the band...

No way Mick thought he was going to lead the Stones, musically or otherwise. That is preposterous!

Well in a 2017 interview for Uncit or Mojo Glyn Johns revealed that around 1971 or 1972 he found a Stones tape where MT had made significant overdubs by himself without asking permission from Mick or Keef... So yeah I'd tend to believe MT has "Napoleon-esque" plans for himself within the Stones.

Quote
Doxa

But let me repeat that my controversial claim is that Ronnie was actually a back up to Keith - that's why he was chosen; that was more important for Jagger and to the future of tHe Rolling Stones than any flashy solo guitarist no matter how Jagger loved to have one in a band. Fortunately, the worst scenario never realized.

- Doxa

It's a controversial claim indeed. I think that the post Taylor Stones and the rehashes ('63-'75 ) they did with Wood would be much more interesting if they had a good melodic or if you like a"flashy" player aboard. Yin and Yang, instead of the "ancient art of weaving ". It really depends on what kind of approach one likes. Anyway, what's done is done.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-03-13 00:51 by TheflyingDutchman.

Quote
dcba

Well in a 2017 interview for Uncit or Mojo Glyn Johns revealed that around 1971 or 1972 he found a Stones tape where MT had made significant overdubs by himself without asking permission from Mick or Keef... So yeah I'd tend to believe MT has "Napoleon-esque" plans for himself within the Stones.

Permission? Did Glyn wipe them ?

Quote
TheflyingDutchman
I think that the post-Taylor Stones...would be much more interesting if they had a good melodic or if you like a"flashy" player aboard. Yin and Yang, instead of the "ancient art of weaving ". It really depends on what kind of approach one likes. Anyway, what's done is done.

Very true. They had that with Wayne Perkins. I can't hear his playing without thinking how much they wanted it to sound like Taylor. Of course, Taylor didn't tend to repeat solos note for note. Perkins' solo on "Hand of Fate" could be the same solo on "Worried About You" to my ears. It's as if it was him doing his Mick Taylor and not having the musical vocabulary to vary it.

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
dcba

Well in a 2017 interview for Uncit or Mojo Glyn Johns revealed that around 1971 or 1972 he found a Stones tape where MT had made significant overdubs by himself without asking permission from Mick or Keef... So yeah I'd tend to believe MT has "Napoleon-esque" plans for himself within the Stones.

Permission? Did Glyn wipe them ?

Why would he need permission? He was a fully fledged member. They should have been happy he made that amount of effort

Sorry, guys - I didn't mean to unleash this beast (this very thread). I was just looking for info about something in another thread, and thought I'd answer an old question in here (which I already had replied to, of course)

Quote
terraplane

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
dcba

Well in a 2017 interview for Uncit or Mojo Glyn Johns revealed that around 1971 or 1972 he found a Stones tape where MT had made significant overdubs by himself without asking permission from Mick or Keef... So yeah I'd tend to believe MT has "Napoleon-esque" plans for himself within the Stones.

Permission? Did Glyn wipe them ?

Why would he need permission? He was a fully fledged member. They should have been happy he made that amount of effort

Exactly. I would love to hear it.

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
terraplane

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
dcba

Well in a 2017 interview for Uncit or Mojo Glyn Johns revealed that around 1971 or 1972 he found a Stones tape where MT had made significant overdubs by himself without asking permission from Mick or Keef... So yeah I'd tend to believe MT has "Napoleon-esque" plans for himself within the Stones.

Permission? Did Glyn wipe them ?

Why would he need permission? He was a fully fledged member. They should have been happy he made that amount of effort

Exactly. I would love to hear it.

Wonder what tune (or tunes)? And wonder if they were erased or kept intact?
Maybe Mick, Keith, and Johns were pleased with the virtuosity and they were kept on a tune (or tunes) that we all know?
Or if they were edited out, maybe they were somehow set aside and saved, but now long lost like the holy grail.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-03-14 00:02 by Hairball.