For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
StoneburstQuote
Stoneage
You might say that the Rolling Stones are stuck in time. There is some truth in that. With Mick Taylor you get this feeling even more. If the late 60s bluesrock scene is your cup of tea then that is fine. I guess...
I think Taylor's quite into the idea of being an itinerant bluesman. None of his heroes when he was a kid - save BB King, I guess - were megastars; they all had to play clubs for a living, picking up local musicians as they toured. (Clapton is into this idea as well, but his decades of pop success mean that he's not convincing in this role; ironically, Taylor's lack of commercial success is in some ways his greatest asset.)
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
StoneburstQuote
Stoneage
You might say that the Rolling Stones are stuck in time. There is some truth in that. With Mick Taylor you get this feeling even more. If the late 60s bluesrock scene is your cup of tea then that is fine. I guess...
I think Taylor's quite into the idea of being an itinerant bluesman. None of his heroes when he was a kid - save BB King, I guess - were megastars; they all had to play clubs for a living, picking up local musicians as they toured. (Clapton is into this idea as well, but his decades of pop success mean that he's not convincing in this role; ironically, Taylor's lack of commercial success is in some ways his greatest asset.)
With a few more albums under his belt, maybe the touring situation would have been different for Taylor? I'm not pointing at the lack of commercial success, merely that his followers would have had more music to enjoy, and hence would turn up at more gigs + that he could have gained more fans? Just a thought..
Quote
exhpart
Don't think I'd plan for a Mick Taylor concert...saw him at the Queen Elizabeth Hall South Bank London in I think 2008 and it was all a bit of a mess. He seemed to lose his temper with Mitch Mitchell on drums. He went out for a cigarette and disappeared for 15 minutes. The sound wasn't right etc etc. And I believe he also has a history of postponements and cancellations. If he was round the corner for £15 tonight I'd go but I don't think I'd make big plans.
Quote
StoneburstQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
StoneburstQuote
Stoneage
You might say that the Rolling Stones are stuck in time. There is some truth in that. With Mick Taylor you get this feeling even more. If the late 60s bluesrock scene is your cup of tea then that is fine. I guess...
I think Taylor's quite into the idea of being an itinerant bluesman. None of his heroes when he was a kid - save BB King, I guess - were megastars; they all had to play clubs for a living, picking up local musicians as they toured. (Clapton is into this idea as well, but his decades of pop success mean that he's not convincing in this role; ironically, Taylor's lack of commercial success is in some ways his greatest asset.)
With a few more albums under his belt, maybe the touring situation would have been different for Taylor? I'm not pointing at the lack of commercial success, merely that his followers would have had more music to enjoy, and hence would turn up at more gigs + that he could have gained more fans? Just a thought..
I agree that Taylor's management of his own career leaves a hell of a lot to be desired, but I've always thought that by the very nature of his music he appeals to a) guitar nerds and b) Stones fans of a certain age. You might offer Jeff Beck as a counterargument - he doesn't even have the Stones connection to trade off, but he can fill the O2. Then again, Beck's music is progressive in a way Taylor's isn't, and his well-known influence on guys like Satriani and even Slash means he attracts fans of more recent guitar music. I don't know.
Quote
DandelionPowderman
But he was sort of getting there with his first album, but for some reason he chose not to explore that progressive route any further.
Quote
stonehearted
Jeff Beck has too much storm and thrash, there would be no room for Taylor to breath. When Jeff Beck is around, there is only one lead guitarist, and that is Jeff Beck.
Quote
RomanCandle
What does "progressive" mean in this context?
Quote
fuzzbox
Taylor is obviously a bit funny in the head. A potential genius that squandered and wasted his talent for too many years. He is now a shadow of his former self and miles away from what he could have been.
He seems to behave like a spoilt child far too often. Quite unlike the hard living, hard working bluesmen some are comparing him to in that he has been handed great opportunities so many times, but he walks away after awhile or doesn't go for it fully.
What a waste!
Nothing is obvious or funny with his head. He's a rock star from the 1960's and has accomplished more in his lifetime than the majority of musicians. It's just not right to analyze a guy like this even if you knew him which you clearly don't. Substance abuse, trials and tribulations, falling down, rising up, that's all part of the road of life for most of us. He's earned and and re-earned our respect for his splendid playing, show it.Quote
fuzzbox
Taylor is obviously a bit funny in the head. A potential genius that squandered and wasted his talent for too many years. He is now a shadow of his former self and miles away from what he could have been.
He seems to behave like a spoilt child far too often. Quite unlike the hard living, hard working bluesmen some are comparing him to in that he has been handed great opportunities so many times, but he walks away after awhile or doesn't go for it fully.
What a waste!
I'll still go. I am a big time Taylor fan and think he is one of rock's greatest soloists but i love The Stones and won't punish myself for something that happened in 1974. I was at The Brooklyn show which oddly had no Taylor and MR was the best tune of the night. Taylor with Little FeatQuote
ronkeith72
Doom and Gloom, you are so right. He has earned and re-earned EVERYBODY's respect...What did Keith say when they were jamming out on Rambler one night? He looked over at MT and was like..."where the hell have you been"? Well, he was back, the Stones wasted an opportunity to use him more and if they stick to their guns and don't invite him back, I'm not going to any more shows...
Quote
DoomandGloom
Nothing is obvious or funny with his head. He's a rock star from the 1960's and has accomplished more in his lifetime than the majority of musicians. It's just not right to analyze a guy like this even if you knew him which you clearly don't. Substance abuse, trials and tribulations, falling down, rising up, that's all part of the road of life for most of us. He's earned and and re-earned our respect for his splendid playing, show it.
well this is a fan site... personally I find the armchair psychiatrist's public diagnosis of anybody in poor taste.Quote
fuzzboxQuote
DoomandGloom
Nothing is obvious or funny with his head. He's a rock star from the 1960's and has accomplished more in his lifetime than the majority of musicians. It's just not right to analyze a guy like this even if you knew him which you clearly don't. Substance abuse, trials and tribulations, falling down, rising up, that's all part of the road of life for most of us. He's earned and and re-earned our respect for his splendid playing, show it.
It obvious that you are an overly sensitive a fanboy.
Quote
DoomandGloom
well this is a fan site... personally I find the armchair psychiatrist's public diagnosis of anybody in poor taste.
That's the other me.Quote
fuzzboxQuote
DoomandGloom
well this is a fan site... personally I find the armchair psychiatrist's public diagnosis of anybody in poor taste.
Yet, you do it yourself.
Quote
DoomandGloomThat's the other me.Quote
fuzzboxQuote
DoomandGloom
well this is a fan site... personally I find the armchair psychiatrist's public diagnosis of anybody in poor taste.
Yet, you do it yourself.
Quote
MrThompsonWooft
How about Mick Taylor and the Sons of The Beatles. Or the Sons Of The Beatles featuring Mick Taylor?