Tell Me :  Talk
Talk about your favorite band. 

Previous page Next page First page IORR home

For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.

Goto Page: Previous1234Next
Current Page: 3 of 4
Re: Great NY Post article - Mick Taylor Aug 1977
Date: February 3, 2015 10:55

Quote
LieB
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.
What? You sure about that?

Of course. If there is anything in this world I'm sure of, it's that smiling smiley

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:







Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-02-03 10:55 by DandelionPowderman.

Re: Great NY Post article - Mick Taylor Aug 1977
Posted by: Doxa ()
Date: February 3, 2015 14:07

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.

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. We have to also notice that Taylor's most original contributions, him having most a say in guiding band's musical direction (think of "Moonlight Mile", "Winter"), took place when Keith was absent.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-02-03 14:21 by Doxa.

Re: Great NY Post article - Mick Taylor Aug 1977
Date: February 3, 2015 14:23

Quote
Doxa
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.

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

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.

Re: Great NY Post article - Mick Taylor Aug 1977
Posted by: Stoneburst ()
Date: February 3, 2015 14:54

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.

It's a tough call - you could say very similar things about Goat's Head Soup, in fact. In terms of Taylor's guitar playing alone, that album features some of his most mature, polished and memorable work - the slide on Silver Train, the countryish accompaniment on Winter, the solos on Hide Your Love and 100 Years Ago. 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. 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.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-02-03 14:54 by Stoneburst.

Re: Great NY Post article - Mick Taylor Aug 1977
Posted by: Doxa ()
Date: February 3, 2015 14:58

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.

Yeah, there is a lot of projecting easily going on. Which is natural that usually the people who are figuring teh issue ' why he left?' are Rolling Stones fans, and have the tendency to look everything from the perspective of their beloved band, and admire anything associated to the band (music, fame, status, life style, money) - 'How could anyone ever want to give up that dream job?' The best part in that article is Taylor's response to that "crazy" idea (and it was crazy for many people already then, not only now decades later). He wasn't into "fantasy", but seemingly saw it all by very different terms. Very different approach than what Woody later had - what seemingly excited Ronnie, bored Taylor... (Which reminds me of what one blues musician once told about meeting Taylor. Instead of throwing 'that' question, he, jokingly, asked 'why on earth did you join into that pop group in the first place?' - Taylor found that amusing, and they were immediately soul-mates...grinning smiley)

I also respect his decision. That was something we normal mortals would never do...grinning smiley

- Doxa

Re: Great NY Post article - Mick Taylor Aug 1977
Date: February 3, 2015 15:07

Good points, Stonesburst! I strongly believe that Taylor indeed was a team player. He was very musical, and had a rather modest style for rock'n'roll.

His studio output speaks volumes, and I don't think Mick and Keith called the shots as detailed as many here think, when it comes to what he would add to a studio track.

But when taking the songs to the stage something will always be missing, and the play and respond-style that Keith and Brian (and later with Ronnie) had wasn't Taylor's strongest side, imo.

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.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-02-03 15:08 by DandelionPowderman.

Re: Great NY Post article - Mick Taylor Aug 1977
Posted by: Doxa ()
Date: February 3, 2015 15:21

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.

In either of these articles Taylor did mention something pointing at the latter conclusion. That he was developing as a guitarist, and there was not any longer room for that in the band, and that he felt like not being able to contribute to their music as much any longer. It could be the stuff he did earlier, was satisfying for him and for his artistic ambition, but by iORR sessions that was not the case any longer. Playing his leads against Keith's riffs - for example,"If You Can't Rock Me" - like he had done so many times earlier, probably was not so exciting anymore. I can imagine him thinking like 'is this all what I am going to do for the rest of my life?'. Taylor surely was a total pro, and would play wonderfully whatever needed, but if his heart was not any longer in it, and not getting kicks of it, why to bother... specifically, if one is still releatively young and full of ambition and artistic curiosity.

- Doxa

Re: Great NY Post article - Mick Taylor Aug 1977
Posted by: SweetThing ()
Date: February 3, 2015 15:40

Quote
Naturalust
Quote
smokeydusky
Quote
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

I completely agree people are projecting in suggested Taylor ever regretted his decision. I don't think there is anything out there to conclude he ever regretted quitting. But I suspect it was not an easy decision for him. There are numerous scattered quotes about since about 1980 where Taylor consistently says he is open to working with them again, solo or otherwise. The thing I was referencing was where Keith had sent Taylor a letter with the words "thanks for all the turn ons" and Taylor shedding a tear over it...and then calling up the band from time to time shortly thereafter. I don't know if any of that is true, but it does not ring false. And yes, right after Taylor handed in his resignation to Jagger, by the few accounts we have, it seems Taylor didn't take any calls, and I presume that was because he didn't want to be talked into staying. Yeah, the 1977 story came from Taylor last year. He expressed skepticism of a Stones without Keith but then told Jagger, if needed, he would be there.

Re: Great NY Post article - Mick Taylor Aug 1977
Posted by: Stoneburst ()
Date: February 3, 2015 15:41

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.

Re: Great NY Post article - Mick Taylor Aug 1977
Posted by: duke richardson ()
Date: February 3, 2015 17:41

true or false:

MT had to have surgery to repair his nasal cavaties because of drug intake..

I'm asking because I remember reading this from a credible source, around 1978

never seen this confirmed, however..

Re: Great NY Post article - Mick Taylor Aug 1977
Posted by: 71Tele ()
Date: February 3, 2015 18:42

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.

Re: Great NY Post article - Mick Taylor Aug 1977
Posted by: Naturalust ()
Date: February 3, 2015 20:31

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.

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.

One thing I've rarely heard the Stones called is tight. Their looseness on stage while still managing to come together for the important parts is part of their appeal. I think Bill called it wobble. It's one of those intangible things that define Stones music, especially in the 70's. I think it was natural for that group of musicians and probably a result of keying off of Keith. peace

Re: Great NY Post article - Mick Taylor Aug 1977
Posted by: triceratops ()
Date: February 3, 2015 20:50

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

I will simply add my speculation that Mick Taylor also kept his eyes on Jagger and followed him a bit out of loyalty due to having written a few tunes together. Keith saw these instances of Mick + Mick writing and recording sessions as a threat. Was Keith nastier to Taylor over this? 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

Re: Great NY Post article - Mick Taylor Aug 1977
Posted by: Redhotcarpet ()
Date: February 3, 2015 20:58

I dont believe musical indifferences at all, it sounds like the same standard rutine. See Brian Jones. Same explanation then.

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 took Ry Cooder for everything I could get" - Keith Richards
"We took Keith Richards for everything we could get" - guitar players of IORR.

Re: Great NY Post article - Mick Taylor Aug 1977
Posted by: Naturalust ()
Date: February 3, 2015 21:25

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.

Yeah I can see Keith being both upfront with his aggression as well as passive-aggressive. Considering the cocktail of drugs he was taking at the time I imagine he could switch between the two pretty quickly. Keith has said many nice things about playing with Taylor and his musicianship but also says things like "cold fish" and other rather nasty cutting remarks. Guess it depends on which Keith was doing the talking. For all the talk about Jagger being a nice bunch of fellows, at least he seemed consistently nice, at least during the interviews. peace

Re: Great NY Post article - Mick Taylor Aug 1977
Posted by: LieB ()
Date: February 3, 2015 23:15

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.
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.

Re: Great NY Post article - Mick Taylor Aug 1977
Posted by: TeddyB1018 ()
Date: February 3, 2015 23:45

I think MT jumped at the offer of touring with Jack Bruce. Steve Hunter had done the album with Jack but was unavailable to tour. Coming from the John Mayall crowd, and modeling himself after Clapton, 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). Since Jack and his band were all smack enthusiasts, it seems unlikely that MT left to get away from it.

Re: Great NY Post article - Mick Taylor Aug 1977
Date: February 4, 2015 10:12

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.

Re: Great NY Post article - Mick Taylor Aug 1977
Posted by: TravelinMan ()
Date: February 4, 2015 16:44

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Quote
LieB
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.
What? You sure about that?

Of course. If there is anything in this world I'm sure of, it's that smiling smiley

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...

Re: Great NY Post article - Mick Taylor Aug 1977
Date: February 4, 2015 17:06

Quote
TravelinMan
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Quote
LieB
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.
What? You sure about that?

Of course. If there is anything in this world I'm sure of, it's that smiling smiley

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...

There are couple (at least one) classic "Keith-stop" on the acoustic guitar in there (round the 0:15-mark), which Taylor never does. It is a bit clumsily played as well.

As far as the "I co-wrote this track"-quote, I'm pretty sure Taylor is refering to the advanced melody he added to the song through his solos.

There are many examples on adding guitar themes to written Stones tracks, where the guitarist didn't get songwriting credits, though.

Here's another one:




Re: Great NY Post article - Mick Taylor Aug 1977
Posted by: dcba ()
Date: February 4, 2015 19:33

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).

Thta would lend credence to Nick Kent's theory that MT left the Stones cos he percieved them as an empty shell a dead band. From that pov, Jack Bruce's band looked fresh, new and full of life/potential.

As a career-booster, this choice was as bad as Carrie Snodgress turning down the "Adrian" part in the first Rocky to choose instead to shoot a film with Robert Altman. confused smiley

Re: Great NY Post article - Mick Taylor Aug 1977
Posted by: LuxuryStones ()
Date: February 4, 2015 19:59

Taylor's sound was too clean with Jack Bruce, when playing lead and solos imo. If he had chosen for more sustain/ overdrive and a bit more rehearsals it could have become something really great. Taylor admitted in an interview 1975 -in the Bell Air Hotel The Hague - "the band didn't have enough time to rehearse before the tour". Taylor as always was kind to the press unlike Jack Bruce, who locked himself
in his room. Other band members had to persuade him to have a word with the press.

Re: Great NY Post article - Mick Taylor Aug 1977
Posted by: Naturalust ()
Date: February 6, 2015 22:49

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

Re: Great NY Post article - Mick Taylor Aug 1977
Posted by: rootsman ()
Date: February 6, 2015 23:17

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

There is actually an available studio recording of MT w/Jack Bruce:
Without A Word - November 28, 1974. It´s a bonus track on the How´s Tricks CD.
Seems to fit with the above...

Re: Great NY Post article - Mick Taylor Aug 1977
Date: March 12, 2018 16:00

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-03-12 16:01 by DandelionPowderman.

Re: Great NY Post article - Mick Taylor Aug 1977
Posted by: Doxa ()
Date: March 12, 2018 16:38

Quote
DandelionPowderman
.


???? Damn you, Dandie... you surely had something to say to pop up this old thread..grinning smiley

- Doxa

Re: Great NY Post article - Mick Taylor Aug 1977
Date: March 12, 2018 16:50

Quote
Doxa
Quote
DandelionPowderman
.


???? Damn you, Dandie... you surely had something to say to pop up this old thread..grinning smiley

- Doxa

I found out that I had replied LieB already: about Keith's arpeggio / solo on TWFNO grinning smiley



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-03-12 16:50 by DandelionPowderman.

Re: Great NY Post article - Mick Taylor Aug 1977
Posted by: Rocky Dijon ()
Date: March 12, 2018 17:18

Most of the problem with what we think of this period is based on Keith's dismissive remarks when Taylor left and when BLACK AND BLUE came out. In spite of what Keith said, Taylor was very much a part of the John Phillips sessions when The Glimmer Twins were trying to set Phillips up on Rolling Stones Records and convince Ahmet Ertegun the material was worth releasing. Taylor stayed close to Woody on his first two solo albums. He and Ronnie had shared musician friends in their social circles. Had Keith gone to prison or suffered a fatal overdose, I think it likely Taylor would have been back in 1977.

Had Taylor's career been managed properly...had he established himself as another Jeff Beck mixing high profile session work while building a cult following as a jazz fusion guitar player turning out major label releases with regularity, the 1980s might have gone differently. What happened with Jack Bruce wasn't Taylor's fault, but he made himself too accessible to artists far beneath his stature. This was likely partly out of his humble nature and partly out of his drug addiction. Had he released LEATHER JACKET a bit sooner and gone on tour supporting The Jeff Beck Group, he might have had some momentum.

Instead the Dylan collaboration and later session work with Joan Jett were last gasps from a guy who seemed to have squandered his talent and opportunities doing instructional videos, doing sessions with indie bands, and playing the bar circuit. He needed real management and minders so he stayed viable and said yes only when it made sense to the people who were straight when he wasn't.

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. His whole career might have gone differently if he had a bit of ego, learned to be cut-throat, and hired someone with experience to represent him and give his career the direction it needed. As it is, he's a brilliant player who fell to obscurity after 1974 despite the odd moment in the spotlight with Jack Bruce, Dylan, Joan Jett, and the Stones. He never had someone looking out for his interest who didn't hurt him. He was his own worst enemy. The nice guy who doesn't say no when he should and surrounds himself with people beneath his stature.

Re: Great NY Post article - Mick Taylor Aug 1977
Posted by: Doxa ()
Date: March 12, 2018 17:30

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

- Doxa

Re: Great NY Post article - Mick Taylor Aug 1977
Posted by: OpenG ()
Date: March 12, 2018 17:42

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.

Goto Page: Previous1234Next
Current Page: 3 of 4


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 391
Record Number of Users: 184 on May 17, 2018 22:46
Record Number of Guests: 3948 on December 7, 2015 15:07

Previous page Next page First page IORR home