Second guessing the band is a hardcore fan's right. I love this band but the fact is if Ronnie had been close to as good as Taylor in his long run Taylor may have been a smaller footnote. I imagine you are just too young to understand but this debate has been going strong with the same full head of steam since 1975. I was in the same room with the band a few times in the 80's, guess what? They talked about it too, so did their people. Mick Taylor talk never seemed off limits but as a subordinate I'd be afraid to partake. For many Stones fans and guitar fans Taylor's work in his short time is on par with Hendrix, Clapton, Allman or any rock guitarist that ever lived. It's not a sensitive subject because it's just part of the history. The Rolling Stones once had a guitarist that bridged the gap perfectly between the 60's and 70's. Hi vibrato was as sweet as Clapton, his tone original and unsurpassed by anyone, he played slide as well as Duane Allman, improvised and explored modes and unusual scales like Hendrix and Daevid Allen (RIP). THis just touches the love older fans have for the guy. he's still alive, if John Bonham were alive we'd like to see him play in Zep even if he were a tad rusty.. It's like that to Taylorites.

Judging people, based on what one thinks they know, is the worst kind of judging.

Quote
MisterDDDD
Judging people, based on what one thinks they know, is the worst kind of judging.

I don't think that's even close to the "worst kind of judging." Sounds like you run a fortune cookie factory.

Quote
DoomandGloom
Second guessing the band is a hardcore fan's right. I love this band but the fact is if Ronnie had been close to as good as Taylor in his long run Taylor may have been a smaller footnote. I imagine you are just too young to understand but this debate has been going strong with the same full head of steam since 1975. I was in the same room with the band a few times in the 80's, guess what? They talked about it too, so did their people. Mick Taylor talk never seemed off limits but as a subordinate I'd be afraid to partake. For many Stones fans and guitar fans Taylor's work in his short time is on par with Hendrix, Clapton, Allman or any rock guitarist that ever lived. It's not a sensitive subject because it's just part of the history. The Rolling Stones once had a guitarist that bridged the gap perfectly between the 60's and 70's. Hi vibrato was as sweet as Clapton, his tone original and unsurpassed by anyone, he played slide as well as Duane Allman, improvised and explored modes and unusual scales like Hendrix and Daevid Allen (RIP). THis just touches the love older fans have for the guy. he's still alive, if John Bonham were alive we'd like to see him play in Zep even if he were a tad rusty.. It's like that to Taylorites.

Exactly this. Not just older fans - I'm 25, and if Mick Taylor didn't quite change my life he certainly changed everything about how I listen to music and how I approach the guitar. This video sums it up perfectly:





Generic blues noodling? Up to a point, but listen to what he's actually doing - the vibrato, the way he's playing the changes, what he does with the slide. I love the bit where he's going into the third chorus of his solo, puts his slide back in his pocket, then decides he wants to play that way a bit more. He's totally in his element and just playing what he feels. To me, that's how music should be.

Your words describe exactly what I felt when I was 25, Stoneburst

What changed?

Quote
Stoneburst
What changed?

It hasn't really changed that much. Taylor is still my favourite solo guitarist for the music he plays. But I've spent thousands of hours listening, playing and sucking inspiration off him.

Eventually, I reached a point where some of the magic disappeared or at least faded a bit. I learned to appreciate the song (primarilly as a listener) and the wholeness of the music a bit more than the solo guitar playing as such. At this point I had started to create my own music, and eventually I broadened my musical horizon. I became more interested in the effect of short biting licks that extended and/or played off the groove

I don't know other ways to put this, and I hope it doesn't sound pretentious. I still love Taylor - and especially new stuff I haven't heard before, like when I came across this gig from 1988: [www.iorr.org]

I recognise the attitude you Taylorites have, I've been there myself. I just wish all of you will use the positivity and the love for his music in a good way, without bashing current band members or fans of those band members.

Ironically, hadn't this board crashed in 2004, when all the posts from 1997-2004 got deleted, you would have found a lot of Ron Wood and Keith Richards-criticism from me prior to that



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-17 11:37 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Stoneburst
What changed?

It hasn't really changed that much. Taylor is still my favourite solo guitarist for the music he plays. But I've spent thousands of hours listening, playing and sucking inspiration off him.

Eventually, I reached a point where some of the magic disappeared or at least faded a bit. I learned to appreciate the song (primarilly as a listener) and the wholeness of the music a bit more than the solo guitar playing as such. At this point I had started to create my own music, and eventually I broadened my musical horizon. I became more interested in the effect of short biting licks that extended and/or played off the groove

I don't know other ways to put this, and I hope it doesn't sound pretentious. I still love Taylor - and especially new stuff I haven't heard before, like when I came across this gig from 1988: [www.iorr.org]

I recognise the attitude you Taylorites have, I've been there myself. I just wish all of you will use the positivity and the love for his music in a good way, without bashing current band members or fans of those band members.

Ironically, hadn't this board crashed in 2004, when all the posts from 1997-2004 got deleted, you would have found a lot of Ron Wood and Keith Richards-criticism from me prior to that

That Nightstage gig is brilliant indeed. And no, it doesn't sound pretentious, and makes complete sense. It is very easy to get so into Taylor's playing that you listen to it in isolation. I think I probably did that when I first got into his music (not just with the Stones, but with the Bluesbreakers and Dylan too), but one of the reasons I like this board so much is that people here - including yourself - have made me listen again and appreciate his playing as part of a bigger musical picture.

MisterDDDD said that people who won't see a Sticky Fingers show sans Taylor have forgotten what they loved about the band. For me it's the other way round: I wouldn't see that show because I'm conscious of what was so special about the 69-74 lineup. IMO, what made that band such compulsive listening was the tension of it all - personal tension onstage between Mick and Keith, yes, but also the musical contrasts in the band. Charlie's jazz pedigree locking in with Bill's rock'n'roll bass, and Keith's sloppy, Berryish swagger trading off against Taylor's fluidity. You listen to any of them in that context and it's just amazing, because it should never have worked, but somehow it did. And that's what I miss in the current lineup. Darryl doesn't push the band in the way Bill did. As for Ronnie, I like him a lot, and I try not to lay into him because I think he's a versatile player with great feel and attitude. But when I listen to him with Keith, all I hear is sloppy chops plus more slop, and it's just a turn-off.

Did that make any sense?

That off the cuff live performance of YCAGWYW with Andy Sharrock and MT from 2004 was wow for me. The singer sang the song with emotion and MT's guitar lines throughout the song and his octave riffs over the chorus and fluid solo.
Sorry but this version is some much better then the canned performance we are stuck with today.

Play the guitar boy

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Stoneburst
What changed?

It hasn't really changed that much. Taylor is still my favourite solo guitarist for the music he plays. But I've spent thousands of hours listening, playing and sucking inspiration off him.

Eventually, I reached a point where some of the magic disappeared or at least faded a bit. I learned to appreciate the song (primarilly as a listener) and the wholeness of the music a bit more than the solo guitar playing as such. At this point I had started to create my own music, and eventually I broadened my musical horizon. I became more interested in the effect of short biting licks that extended and/or played off the groove

I don't know other ways to put this, and I hope it doesn't sound pretentious. I still love Taylor - and especially new stuff I haven't heard before, like when I came across this gig from 1988: [www.iorr.org]

I recognise the attitude you Taylorites have, I've been there myself. I just wish all of you will use the positivity and the love for his music in a good way, without bashing current band members or fans of those band members.

Ironically, hadn't this board crashed in 2004, when all the posts from 1997-2004 got deleted, you would have found a lot of Ron Wood and Keith Richards-criticism from me prior to that

That Nightstage gig is brilliant indeed. And no, it doesn't sound pretentious, and makes complete sense. It is very easy to get so into Taylor's playing that you listen to it in isolation. I think I probably did that when I first got into his music (not just with the Stones, but with the Bluesbreakers and Dylan too), but one of the reasons I like this board so much is that people here - including yourself - have made me listen again and appreciate his playing as part of a bigger musical picture.

MisterDDDD said that people who won't see a Sticky Fingers show sans Taylor have forgotten what they loved about the band. For me it's the other way round: I wouldn't see that show because I'm conscious of what was so special about the 69-74 lineup. IMO, what made that band such compulsive listening was the tension of it all - personal tension onstage between Mick and Keith, yes, but also the musical contrasts in the band. Charlie's jazz pedigree locking in with Bill's rock'n'roll bass, and Keith's sloppy, Berryish swagger trading off against Taylor's fluidity. You listen to any of them in that context and it's just amazing, because it should never have worked, but somehow it did. And that's what I miss in the current lineup. Darryl doesn't push the band in the way Bill did. As for Ronnie, I like him a lot, and I try not to lay into him because I think he's a versatile player with great feel and attitude. But when I listen to him with Keith, all I hear is sloppy chops plus more slop, and it's just a turn-off.

Did that make any sense?

Absolutely

No Taylor, No Sticky @#$%& Fingers WTF whats the problem, bring on Mick Taylor. I love Richards/Wood but i also love Taylor. C"mon everybody Taylor, Taylor, Taylor, everybody Taylor, Taylor, Taylor...............................Taylor.....

It was a true pleasure to buy BV a beer in Philly and talk all things Rolling Stones for about 20 minutes in 2013. But he and I will just have to disagree on the Taylor issue. The Rolling Stones are about history and Mick Taylor was a major factor in their incredible run from 69-74. I find it criminal he wouldn't be included - unless there is some unknown factor.

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Stoneburst
What changed?

It hasn't really changed that much. Taylor is still my favourite solo guitarist for the music he plays. But I've spent thousands of hours listening, playing and sucking inspiration off him.

Eventually, I reached a point where some of the magic disappeared or at least faded a bit. I learned to appreciate the song (primarilly as a listener) and the wholeness of the music a bit more than the solo guitar playing as such. At this point I had started to create my own music, and eventually I broadened my musical horizon. I became more interested in the effect of short biting licks that extended and/or played off the groove

I don't know other ways to put this, and I hope it doesn't sound pretentious. I still love Taylor - and especially new stuff I haven't heard before, like when I came across this gig from 1988: [www.iorr.org]

I recognise the attitude you Taylorites have, I've been there myself. I just wish all of you will use the positivity and the love for his music in a good way, without bashing current band members or fans of those band members.

Ironically, hadn't this board crashed in 2004, when all the posts from 1997-2004 got deleted, you would have found a lot of Ron Wood and Keith Richards-criticism from me prior to that

That Nightstage gig is brilliant indeed. And no, it doesn't sound pretentious, and makes complete sense. It is very easy to get so into Taylor's playing that you listen to it in isolation. I think I probably did that when I first got into his music (not just with the Stones, but with the Bluesbreakers and Dylan too), but one of the reasons I like this board so much is that people here - including yourself - have made me listen again and appreciate his playing as part of a bigger musical picture.

MisterDDDD said that people who won't see a Sticky Fingers show sans Taylor have forgotten what they loved about the band. For me it's the other way round: I wouldn't see that show because I'm conscious of what was so special about the 69-74 lineup. IMO, what made that band such compulsive listening was the tension of it all - personal tension onstage between Mick and Keith, yes, but also the musical contrasts in the band. Charlie's jazz pedigree locking in with Bill's rock'n'roll bass, and Keith's sloppy, Berryish swagger trading off against Taylor's fluidity. You listen to any of them in that context and it's just amazing, because it should never have worked, but somehow it did. And that's what I miss in the current lineup. Darryl doesn't push the band in the way Bill did. As for Ronnie, I like him a lot, and I try not to lay into him because I think he's a versatile player with great feel and attitude. But when I listen to him with Keith, all I hear is sloppy chops plus more slop, and it's just a turn-off.

Did that make any sense?

A cool exchange of views, guys. Hats off to you!

As far as I am concerned I think I have gone through a reverse development than Dandie has. When I was 25, younger or so, I was so thrilled of that kind of thing Dandie loves thsee days - the little things serving the song most - and that was the thing I especially learned from Keith Richards and Ronnie Wood (and from Brian JOnes as well) - of course, Keith being the king of all that. They were like an anti-thesis to anything posing and over-playing people were admiring at the time (it was the 80's, with all that post-Eddie van Halen crowd). I went pretty extreme in that sense. Taylor for me at the time was a kind of anomaly in Stones guitarist history. Even the most stubborn listener could see what a helluva guitarist he was (in the very classical and technical sense of the word) if compared to our other (anti-)heroes. But his guitar, even though sounding so good and distinguished, just didn't fitted to the sound. It was like an element not essentially needed, but just icing already good-tasting cake. As a deep Keith Richards fan it was almost painful to listen Taylor playing not only so much, but so damn well.... And he didn't even looked like a Stone....

It took me years, if not even decades, that I really started to appreciate and understand not just Taylor's greatness properly but also his contribution to the music of the Rolling Stones over-all. These days I am almost a Taylorite, since I feel very easily related to the sentiments I hear Taylorites saying here, and it his period I listen most and get most kicks at the moment (and I have finally accepted the eternal truth of rock journalism that it actually is THE peak era, and not the least to do with Taylor)... The classical lead/rhythm split we many Stones fans have learned to hate, as much as there is that, sounds damn exciting to my ears these days. Nor nothing wrong with great guitar solos. The band also nailed that. For me that is not actually preferring something, but more like widening my Rolling Stones horizon.

But one is not a good (wannabe) Taylorite, if one doesn't bash a bit Ronnie Wood, right?

It easy for me. For ages ago, I need to say that I got bored with Ron Wood, and stopped over-rating, and finding excuses for, the lazy and sloppy playing he has provided us for years. Now he is good, but it is only in regards to his recent doings - and he wasn't that interesting or special player to begin with, even though I still love and admire his work with Keith from 1975 to 1982 (and that era will always be special to me personally). For that matter, I have never been that convinced that even though he is 'more rhythm-oriented' (like Keith), he is any strong rhythm player per se. He is as sloppy and technically limited there as he is when playing solos. Nor he has not Keith-like extraordinary sense of timing. Especially the funk fan in me hurts sometimes when I hear him trying to do some actual funk things, which actually asks some special skills (but no matter is roughness, or maybe because of it, it suits sometimes damn well to the Stones). Keith always gets a free pass from me, since he has that special touch, which never leaves me cold when he picks up a guitar. Especially live. But honestly, I don't think he is as good as I thought he was, when I was 25.... I mean, I can only any longer get glimpses of that over-all feeling (of adoration) I had when I was that age and younger...

BUt the thing is that the Stones always are bigger than the sum of their parts, and it is that wholeness I like in them most, or what moves me most. So critizising or praising some individual member does not mean so much to me. LIke Keith said a long time ago, "I shine when the band shines". With Taylor it was easy for them to shine...

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-17 16:07 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

BUt the thing is that the Stones always are bigger than the sum of their parts, and it is that wholeness I like in them most, or what moves me most. So critizising or praising some individual member does not mean so much to me. LIke Keith said a long time ago, "I shine when the band shines". With Taylor it was easy for them to shine...

- Doxa

I've been amateurishly playing guitar for almost 3 decades by now, most of the time trying to figure out how to play guitar parts of Stones's songs. In fact the very reason why I even bough a guitar was because I wanted to play JJF!

After all these years, I am still learning how to play JJF, but one thing I know for fact, that is that each and all the members of the Rolling Stones were and still are huge musicians.

Then, like a guitar teacher used to tell me, guitarists are like women, some like sophisticated ladies other like the bitches.

I like the bitches!

C

Right U R Doxa...perfectly described. Mick Taylor makes this band shine, he keeps them relevant and when he's out there, the rest of the Stones push themselves to keep up with him. PLEEEEEEZZ Mick/Keith, reach out to MT to add him to these shows, it's not too late, you'll sound better and you'll sell more tickets...

I differ from some Taylorites in that it is my view that Taylor needed the Stones to shine. Without them he is just one of many very, very good British blues-based guitarists. But the Stones needed him too. On the records, there is an extra sparkle to the tracks he played on, and it's not just soloing - it's musicianship. And live there was something about the combination of him and Keith that was magical, even early on when the rhythm/lead structure they would later develop hadn't happened yet.

Taylor's solo and collaborative projects don't interest me at all. But neither do the Rolling Stones playing songs without him that he helped define. I am not saying those versions are necessarily bad, I am saying they are never as good. Whereas Taylor took songs he was not on on the record (Gimme Shelter, I'm Free, Love In Vain and many more) and gave them an extra dimension live, Ron Wood has done the opposite with songs in which he was not on the record, often playing parts I would describe as "Taylor-lite". That's the difference between them as musicians, and therefore we cannot help draw comparisons. I don't say that to "bash" Wood, and I don't think it's unfair to compare them. After all, it is the Rolling Stones who have decided to present this material (and charge a lot of money for the privilege of hearing it), so it is perfectly fair to judge the product.

Ron Wood is a great guitarist for a certain Stones sound (I can't imagine the Some Girls period without him), but as long as there are Stones fans with ears and memories, this debate will go on.

Sorry for the edits - hadn't had my coffee yet!



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-17 17:36 by 71Tele.

Quote
Shawn20
It was a true pleasure to buy BV a beer in Philly and talk all things Rolling Stones for about 20 minutes in 2013. But he and I will just have to disagree on the Taylor issue. The Rolling Stones are about history and Mick Taylor was a major factor in their incredible run from 69-74. I find it criminal he wouldn't be included - unless there is some unknown factor.

Ya' think???

anyone who thinks ronnies going to bass is on crack.more taylor i agree,atleast 3 to 4 songs.

Quote
backstreetboy1
anyone who thinks ronnies going to bass is on crack.more taylor i agree,atleast 3 to 4 songs.

You're right. No way that would happen.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Eventually, I reached a point where some of the magic disappeared or at least faded a bit.

That's always the problem with learning your favorite songs, they're not as magic anymore. It's like flying over the forest in your back yard and realizing it isn't the huge wilderness your mind created it to be.

And I have to agree with Tele and other posters here that his best work was when he was playing with Keith. The combination of those two at that time is what was over the top. Neither one has sparkled as much since, and I was at that Great American Music Hall show of Taylor's in 2000.

Just like Ronnie's playing has never been so good as when he was in the Faces. I think the Stones have somehow truncated Ronnie's guitar talents, he was much more exciting earlier in his career and as much as he fits as a person the Stones have not been good for his musical development.

Basically all three guitarists are not what they once were in 1973, not sure if that magic could ever be re-created. They were all in their primes, the drugs were still working and hadn't done noticeable damage yet and something was obviously in the air in early 70's that has flown the coup since.

Finally, as much as I'd love to hear Taylor playing with the Stones again, I'm scared it wouldn't work as well as our minds have built it up to work. That we would realize that Taylor can't do what he did to Stones music in 1973. The Stones have probably jammed more than Rambler with him recently and on some level I think if the magic was truly there, they would have recognized it and included him more. Of course I'd like to be the judge of that and I'm not sure musical magic (with it's associated risk) is what the Stones are aiming for in 2015.

peace

Quote
DoomandGloom

Quote
Stoneburst
I get that Keith's role as a rhythm guitarist is different and much more 'leading' than that of most bands' rhythm guitarists, I just don't think that this makes him a 'lead guitarist' (as that term is normally understood). Lots of Who fans like to claim that John Entwistle was their lead guitarist. He wasn't, he was the bass player, albeit a much more aggressive and melodic bass player than most. We use terms of convenience because they're convenient, you know?

I still don't see what this has to do with Mick Taylor and your claim that he spent entire songs soloing. He didn't. He played solos where he was meant to and played fills around the end of the vocal lines.

Keith is a lead guitarist. His sympathy solo is The Stones most well known solo perhaps. The concept of a guy being a lead or rhythm guitarist is for fans and amateurs.

point taken, so does that make you a fan or an amateur?

Quote
71Tele
I differ from some Taylorites in that it is my view that Taylor needed the Stones to shine. Without them he is just one of many very, very good British blues-based guitarists. But the Stones needed him too. On the records, there is an extra sparkle to the tracks he played on, and it's not just soloing - it's musicianship. And live there was something about the combination of him and Keith that was magical, even early on when the rhythm/lead structure they would later develop hadn't happened yet.

I agree (maybe with the only exception of MTs tour with Dylan). The way I see it is that MT when playing alone or with a "normal" second guitar tends to have a "lazy" timing, while with Keith's strong presence in the beat, there is more "tension" in his playing as if he was "pushed forward".

(Note: by "lazy" timing I don't mean to criticize MT at all. It's my way of describing a certain attitude that is common with blues soloist).

C

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
DoomandGloom

Quote
Stoneburst
I get that Keith's role as a rhythm guitarist is different and much more 'leading' than that of most bands' rhythm guitarists, I just don't think that this makes him a 'lead guitarist' (as that term is normally understood). Lots of Who fans like to claim that John Entwistle was their lead guitarist. He wasn't, he was the bass player, albeit a much more aggressive and melodic bass player than most. We use terms of convenience because they're convenient, you know?

I still don't see what this has to do with Mick Taylor and your claim that he spent entire songs soloing. He didn't. He played solos where he was meant to and played fills around the end of the vocal lines.

Keith is a lead guitarist. His sympathy solo is The Stones most well known solo perhaps. The concept of a guy being a lead or rhythm guitarist is for fans and amateurs.

point taken, so does that make you a fan or an amateur?

><

Jordi Güell from Barcelona Spain tells you in Spanish, English and German the Mick Taylor affair USA Stones Tour at dirty rock magazine!
[www.dirtyrock.info]

Quote
carlitosbaez
Jordi Güell from Barcelona Spain tells you in Spanish, English and German the Mick Taylor affair USA Stones Tour at dirty rock magazine!
[www.dirtyrock.info]

Never really read or heard of this magazine. But I took the liberty of translating the article.


This Thursday the new tour will be announced in Rolling Stone s for North America.
It will be a bittersweet announcement because apparently, they will not have Mick Taylor . For me it is a mess, I do not understand how they can do without their talent and it saddens me as has been done with the cold call from a lawyer.

Let us remember. November 2012 . For the celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of the band ( 50 and Counting ), six concerts were prepared. Two in London and four in NY with great surprises: They were going to invite Bill Wyman and Mick Taylor !

Bill, was only the two of London, but Mick Taylor , continued. If he continued to accompany the band for over fifty concerts in USA, Europe, Asia and Australia.

The highlight of the concert was in Midnight Rambler and when Mick Taylor appeared all fans agreed that the band gained a lot with his genius on guitar. Charlie and Ronnie also agreed. Keith himself said in the program of Jimmy Fallon . Then, why?

It is rumored that this year will reissue Sticky Fingers , key work in the history of the Stones with the magnificent contribution of Mick Taylor . And they want to celebrate giving doors? Is this the way to thank his wonderful work?

Please, a little common sense. Leave out Mick Taylor is like sit Messi on the bench. Totally incomprehensible.

Hopefully who have made this decision, we reconsider and return the mastery of Mick Taylor to the greatest band of all time R'n'R.

Jordi Güell



We want the Stones! We want Mick Taylor back!

\

I totally concur with you 71 Tele.

Quote
OpenG
That off the cuff live performance of YCAGWYW with Andy Sharrock and MT from 2004 was wow for me. The singer sang the song with emotion and MT's guitar lines throughout the song and his octave riffs over the chorus and fluid solo.
Sorry but this version is some much better then the canned performance we are stuck with today.

Play the guitar boy

I saw in an old post you have the 1st Roxy show w/ Carla Olson from '90? Is it possible to get that from you?

Quote
Dreamer

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
DoomandGloom

Quote
Stoneburst
I get that Keith's role as a rhythm guitarist is different and much more 'leading' than that of most bands' rhythm guitarists, I just don't think that this makes him a 'lead guitarist' (as that term is normally understood). Lots of Who fans like to claim that John Entwistle was their lead guitarist. He wasn't, he was the bass player, albeit a much more aggressive and melodic bass player than most. We use terms of convenience because they're convenient, you know?

I still don't see what this has to do with Mick Taylor and your claim that he spent entire songs soloing. He didn't. He played solos where he was meant to and played fills around the end of the vocal lines.

Keith is a lead guitarist. His sympathy solo is The Stones most well known solo perhaps. The concept of a guy being a lead or rhythm guitarist is for fans and amateurs.

point taken, so does that make you a fan or an amateur?

><

I had to really consider this as I should be able to back up my statements, even ones I make when hung over, bitter and full of doom... As a guitarist in the classic rock style I know that the line between lead and rhythm changes by the moment on stage. I don't consider myself an amateur although I admittedly am only a professional musician by a stroke of luck. My band and singer are much better than I... Still I am a fan, even working for them when I was a kid hasn't changed my giggly admiration for them. As a fan I guess I'll always consider Keith the lead guitarist. Not because of a count of solos but he is the leader no matter which role he is playing on the guitar.

Quote
liddas

Quote
71Tele
I differ from some Taylorites in that it is my view that Taylor needed the Stones to shine. Without them he is just one of many very, very good British blues-based guitarists. But the Stones needed him too. On the records, there is an extra sparkle to the tracks he played on, and it's not just soloing - it's musicianship. And live there was something about the combination of him and Keith that was magical, even early on when the rhythm/lead structure they would later develop hadn't happened yet.

I agree (maybe with the only exception of MTs tour with Dylan). The way I see it is that MT when playing alone or with a "normal" second guitar tends to have a "lazy" timing, while with Keith's strong presence in the beat, there is more "tension" in his playing as if he was "pushed forward".

(Note: by "lazy" timing I don't mean to criticize MT at all. It's my way of describing a certain attitude that is common with blues soloist).

C

For the record, I agree about his work with Dylan (both on Infidels and live). Taylor thrives when he has great material to work with from top-flight artists. He is much less interesting playing Stones material with other people or fairly generic blues lead guitar as a solo artist.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
liddas

Quote
71Tele
I differ from some Taylorites in that it is my view that Taylor needed the Stones to shine. Without them he is just one of many very, very good British blues-based guitarists. But the Stones needed him too. On the records, there is an extra sparkle to the tracks he played on, and it's not just soloing - it's musicianship. And live there was something about the combination of him and Keith that was magical, even early on when the rhythm/lead structure they would later develop hadn't happened yet.

I agree (maybe with the only exception of MTs tour with Dylan). The way I see it is that MT when playing alone or with a "normal" second guitar tends to have a "lazy" timing, while with Keith's strong presence in the beat, there is more "tension" in his playing as if he was "pushed forward".

(Note: by "lazy" timing I don't mean to criticize MT at all. It's my way of describing a certain attitude that is common with blues soloist).

C

For the record, I agree about his work with Dylan (both on Infidels and live). Taylor thrives when he has great material to work with from top-flight artists. He is much less interesting playing Stones material with other people or fairly generic blues lead guitar as a solo artist.

Liddas's point is an interesting one, definitely - Taylor is much less prone to doing that Albert King / Clapton thing of dropping slightly behind the beat when Keith is there. I'd never really thought about it like that but it's true.