Tell Me :
Talk
Have you got mad or something? Hereby you are officially expelled from the ranks of the fearless and proud taylorites. From now on you belong to the Wood camp. As punishment for a capital crime!
Kleerie my dear, I think you need to take a rest.
Bloomer, don't worry, it's Dutch humour with a serious undertone.
one has to be fearless to listen to some of that 1973 noodling...
Correct. Most of the time it is awful boring. Well played maybe, but ooooh so booooooring. Thanks God for raving Ronnie. The Stones are blessed to have him in the band.
I am fearless when it comes to listening music.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-31 12:28 by LuxuryStones.
+1
This reply reminds me of the historical comment made by the Austrian-Hungarian emperor after having attended the first performance of Die Entführung aus dem Serail, an opera by Mozart.
"Too many notes", he said. His ears and mind were probably only capable of a limited amount of notes.
And thank the gods of rock Ronnie wasn't picked in 1969! I couldn't imagine the Stones without their finest period, 1969-1974!
Excellent post. I've always loved Taylors excursions into long solos and extended passages. He has always been able to keep a level of emotional content and musical interest that is both genuine and satisfying.
I have witnessed artists where this wasn't the case. In particular I saw a Pat Metheny concert once where he played a zillion notes, never bent a single one or moved me with a single passage. I was left totally unsatisfied and with a clear understanding of how not to move people with endless noodling.
It's not necessarily about too many notes but too many of the wrong ones. Taylor never had a problem finding the right ones and the fact that he found a lot of them is a testament to his talent, imo.
Maybe but it definitely clashed with Mick & Keef's idea of the band's alchemy : "do or undo whatever's good for the song, not for your ego". Thefore you can stick your extended solos up yer bum, mate!
That's why MT's outro solo on "Sway" or "Rocks Off" are faded out after a few bars. It's the song that counts not anyone's dexterity. That's also why you can find countless live tapes from 72-73 where Jagger cuts Taylor off mid-solo with a "yeah yeah" which means "won't you shut up for Christ's sake!!"
The "quick and to the point"'s band musical philosophy (aka "less is more" ) is a thing MT had a problem understanding, from his 1st day in the band to his last one.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-31 19:11 by dcba.
Can it be that you were totally unsatisfied because of a clear misunderstanding of how to move people with endless and imo beautiful and brilliant noodling coming from Pat Metheny? To each his own of course.
Having said that I agree on your comments about Mick Taylor, '73. Beautiful playing coming from him, never too much.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-31 19:19 by LuxuryStones.
Yes that is definitely a good possibility. I sat next to his mother that night in the first row of the balcony and it was pretty clear to me. although very proud, she didn't "get" it either.
The thing is, I don't dislike jazz guitar, am a fan of fusion and generally love guitar masters who display a level of technique above the norm, but this night I was truly searching for a small iota of emotion and didn't find a bit of it. It was all about technique and amount of notes and as such failed to move me at all.
He wasn't there, the lovely lady was by herself that night which allowed me to engage in some wonderful conversation with her. I recall vaguely that she was a musician herself and she was pretty knowledgeable about music and fairly critical of her son's performance that night.
Mick and Keith knew his style, knew how he played, and they gave him his moments to take solos. Mick and Keith are the musical directors. The fade-outs also have to do with album constraints, but many solos are faded out as an aesthetic effect.
Live that happens the other way too where Taylor will end after 8 or 16 bars and Jagger is off dancing so Taylor starts up again. It's just part of the spontaneity of live music.
My point exactly.
Pat.
For someone who knows much of the live music during the Taylor era this is clearly (and probably provocative) nonsense.
The myth is that Taylor played long solos live. The truth is he did not, compared to his successor (whose name I won't mention). The truth is also that Jagger always (especially during the 1973 European tour, which some here consider as the noodling heyday) encouraged Taylor to play ("Showcase"! to be heard on the official Brussels Affair on Heartbreaker), many times calling Taylor sweet names as well. The great force of Taylor and Jagger during those years was how naturally they interchanged, which explains Jagger's famous 'bang off' quote. It is also very conspicuous how Taylor's role as a lead guitarist (not to mix up with guitar soloist!) expanded during his tenure. This would of course not have happened if Jagger and Richards would have opposed. In the meantime the interplay between both guitarists was better than it ever was since the beginning of the band until now.
Another important factor: actually Taylor didn't play so many notes, compared to the truly technical geniuses: he was rather fast, but not that fast at all. His enormous strenght was his ability to convey emotions by his playing, thus enforcing the songs in an incredible way, something we never heard in the era that followed the Taylor era. We never have heard such a lyrical, emotional and even aggressive musical approach after Taylor left.
Of course Taylor is still able to convey those emotions his successor never could and still cannot. That is the main reason why I objected very strongly to the thesis, put by our friend Luxury, that both guitarists are on the same level now. By saying that, he totally misses the point of the power of conveying emotions, even when the technical abilities have declined. In the end music is all about emotion and not about technical ability, though I know that a certain degree of technical ability is necessary to be able to convey the feelings and emotions involved. The fact that Taylor, despite his declined technical abilities, is still able to convey those feelings and emotions we could not only hear ourselves during the tours before the last one in 2015, but also by the response of the audiences, even though a big part of them even didn't know who he was. Think for instance of the audience response to the Knockings of 2013 in LA, Toronto etc.
Maybe this period would have been even finer, if Ronnie was picked in 1969. We will never know. But it´s 90% Mick/Keith´s creative power that made this period their finest, not the guitarplayer...
Ronnie Wood.
Must you now leave the building, spin around, expectorate, curse, and knock upon the door?
.....
Olly.
The only thing I heard on the last tour was that Taylor is more talented than Wood. Amen to that Kleer. A mediocre playing Taylor equalises Wood in good shape, that's the point I tried to make.
But lack of routine, for whatever reasons, even Taylor doesn't get away with it.
wow youre a heavy dude mr. Olly
I assure you I am not: I'm a keen runner.
.....
Olly.
"they become very well aware that this kind of playing was counterproductive and would only lead them to nowhere"
Source?
"because with Taylor the music began to lose its roughness and became more and more boring, as you can easily hear on albums like GHS and IORR."
Well Taylor didn't have any song writing credits so how can you blame him? Haha, Dancing With Mr. D, Hide Your Love, @#$%&, It's Only Rock n Roll, If You Can't Rock Me, Dance Little Sister all have edge. They are all more or less straight forward blues or rock and roll songs. Jagger and Richards both started writing more smack ballads, that's all.
*Haha Star Star is the one bleeped out
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-31 23:57 by TravelinMan.
Actually as I understand it, guitar solos and such were exactly what people did go to see in the early 70's and even the late 70's. It wasn't until the 80's and beyond the that sort of thing became less popular. The Stones knew what they had with Taylor and encouraged and exploited his playing just as they should have.
How you have such intimate knowledge of what Jagger/Richards wanted 40 years ago is impressive, especially since both men clearly expressed their dismay of Taylor leaving the band at the time. I personally feel Taylor would have grown with the Stones, kept them more rock and blues oriented and likely produced an even better Some Girls, Emotional Rescue, Tattoo You and many others. Of course we will never know but I tend to agree with Charlie on his recent quotes about the situation.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: July 30, 2015 20:50
Quote
LuxuryStonesQuote
HMS
I don´t think it´s about money or legal matters. It´s that Ronnie would have been humilated by Taylors presence on so many songs. You cannot treat your regular guitar player that way. It would have been very offensive.
Humiliated or offensive in what way? I think they are playing at the same level these days.
Have you got mad or something? Hereby you are officially expelled from the ranks of the fearless and proud taylorites. From now on you belong to the Wood camp. As punishment for a capital crime!
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
latebloomer
()
Date: July 30, 2015 20:56
Quote
kleermakerQuote
LuxuryStonesQuote
HMS
I don´t think it´s about money or legal matters. It´s that Ronnie would have been humilated by Taylors presence on so many songs. You cannot treat your regular guitar player that way. It would have been very offensive.
Humiliated or offensive in what way? I think they are playing at the same level these days.
Have you got mad or something? Hereby you are officially expelled from the ranks of the fearless and proud taylorites. From now on you belong to the Wood camp. As punishment for a capital crime!
Kleerie my dear, I think you need to take a rest.
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
Stones50
()
Date: July 30, 2015 21:21
What's for supper?
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
LuxuryStones
()
Date: July 30, 2015 21:49
Quote
kleermakerQuote
LuxuryStonesQuote
HMS
I don´t think it´s about money or legal matters. It´s that Ronnie would have been humilated by Taylors presence on so many songs. You cannot treat your regular guitar player that way. It would have been very offensive.
Humiliated or offensive in what way? I think they are playing at the same level these days.
Have you got mad or something? Hereby you are officially expelled from the ranks of the fearless and proud taylorites. From now on you belong to the Wood camp. As punishment for a capital crime!
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: July 30, 2015 22:15
Quote
latebloomerQuote
kleermakerQuote
LuxuryStonesQuote
HMS
I don´t think it´s about money or legal matters. It´s that Ronnie would have been humilated by Taylors presence on so many songs. You cannot treat your regular guitar player that way. It would have been very offensive.
Humiliated or offensive in what way? I think they are playing at the same level these days.
Have you got mad or something? Hereby you are officially expelled from the ranks of the fearless and proud taylorites. From now on you belong to the Wood camp. As punishment for a capital crime!
Kleerie my dear, I think you need to take a rest.
Bloomer, don't worry, it's Dutch humour with a serious undertone.
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
Turner68
()
Date: July 31, 2015 01:57
Quote
kleermakerQuote
LuxuryStonesQuote
HMS
I don´t think it´s about money or legal matters. It´s that Ronnie would have been humilated by Taylors presence on so many songs. You cannot treat your regular guitar player that way. It would have been very offensive.
Humiliated or offensive in what way? I think they are playing at the same level these days.
Have you got mad or something? Hereby you are officially expelled from the ranks of the fearless and proud taylorites. From now on you belong to the Wood camp. As punishment for a capital crime!
one has to be fearless to listen to some of that 1973 noodling...
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
stonesrule
()
Date: July 31, 2015 03:16
Golly...I'm thrilled.
Found on IORR...a true gentleman!
Found on IORR...a true gentleman!
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
HMS
()
Date: July 31, 2015 11:56
Quote
Turner68
one has to be fearless to listen to some of that 1973 noodling...
Correct. Most of the time it is awful boring. Well played maybe, but ooooh so booooooring. Thanks God for raving Ronnie. The Stones are blessed to have him in the band.
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
LuxuryStones
()
Date: July 31, 2015 12:25
Quote
Turner68
one has to be fearless to listen to some of that 1973 noodling...
I am fearless when it comes to listening music.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-31 12:28 by LuxuryStones.
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
matxil
()
Date: July 31, 2015 12:56
A band is not a collection of "the best" (whatever that means) musicians, playing together. Something which anyway probably would lead to terrible results.
A band is collection of people who feel like playing together and somehow create a kind of music which none of them would be able to create without the others. The Stones is a band, and its members are Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, Ron Wood and Charlie Watts. There have been other members but they are not in that band anymore and wouldn't fit in anymore, regardless of their musical qualities. The most recent great albums they made (which are admittedly a long time ago: Some Girls and Tattoo You) have been made with this current line-up.
You might not like this band. You might think the band used to be better.
But to think that by replacing one guitar-player for another (apart from Keith), suddenly Mick and Keith will understand each other perfectly and write innovative, fresh, groovy, great songs again, and the band all of a sudden would "be as good as 40 years ago" (even though that's a meaningless thing to say in so many ways), is surreal.
Anyway, I am quite enjoying this thread. The great thing is you can skip 50 pages and still be at the same exchange of arguments.
A band is collection of people who feel like playing together and somehow create a kind of music which none of them would be able to create without the others. The Stones is a band, and its members are Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, Ron Wood and Charlie Watts. There have been other members but they are not in that band anymore and wouldn't fit in anymore, regardless of their musical qualities. The most recent great albums they made (which are admittedly a long time ago: Some Girls and Tattoo You) have been made with this current line-up.
You might not like this band. You might think the band used to be better.
But to think that by replacing one guitar-player for another (apart from Keith), suddenly Mick and Keith will understand each other perfectly and write innovative, fresh, groovy, great songs again, and the band all of a sudden would "be as good as 40 years ago" (even though that's a meaningless thing to say in so many ways), is surreal.
Anyway, I am quite enjoying this thread. The great thing is you can skip 50 pages and still be at the same exchange of arguments.
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
1962
()
Date: July 31, 2015 13:29
Quote
matxil
A band is not a collection of "the best" (whatever that means) musicians, playing together. Something which anyway probably would lead to terrible results.
A band is collection of people who feel like playing together and somehow create a kind of music which none of them would be able to create without the others. The Stones is a band, and its members are Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, Ron Wood and Charlie Watts. There have been other members but they are not in that band anymore and wouldn't fit in anymore, regardless of their musical qualities. The most recent great albums they made (which are admittedly a long time ago: Some Girls and Tattoo You) have been made with this current line-up.
You might not like this band. You might think the band used to be better.
But to think that by replacing one guitar-player for another (apart from Keith), suddenly Mick and Keith will understand each other perfectly and write innovative, fresh, groovy, great songs again, and the band all of a sudden would "be as good as 40 years ago" (even though that's a meaningless thing to say in so many ways), is surreal.
Anyway, I am quite enjoying this thread. The great thing is you can skip 50 pages and still be at the same exchange of arguments.
+1
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: July 31, 2015 16:03
Quote
Turner68Quote
kleermakerQuote
LuxuryStonesQuote
HMS
I don´t think it´s about money or legal matters. It´s that Ronnie would have been humilated by Taylors presence on so many songs. You cannot treat your regular guitar player that way. It would have been very offensive.
Humiliated or offensive in what way? I think they are playing at the same level these days.
Have you got mad or something? Hereby you are officially expelled from the ranks of the fearless and proud taylorites. From now on you belong to the Wood camp. As punishment for a capital crime!
one has to be fearless to listen to some of that 1973 noodling...
This reply reminds me of the historical comment made by the Austrian-Hungarian emperor after having attended the first performance of Die Entführung aus dem Serail, an opera by Mozart.
"Too many notes", he said. His ears and mind were probably only capable of a limited amount of notes.
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
TravelinMan
()
Date: July 31, 2015 18:25
Quote
HMSQuote
Turner68
one has to be fearless to listen to some of that 1973 noodling...
Correct. Most of the time it is awful boring. Well played maybe, but ooooh so booooooring. Thanks God for raving Ronnie. The Stones are blessed to have him in the band.
And thank the gods of rock Ronnie wasn't picked in 1969! I couldn't imagine the Stones without their finest period, 1969-1974!
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: July 31, 2015 18:47
Quote
kleermakerQuote
Turner68Quote
kleermakerQuote
LuxuryStonesQuote
HMS
I don´t think it´s about money or legal matters. It´s that Ronnie would have been humilated by Taylors presence on so many songs. You cannot treat your regular guitar player that way. It would have been very offensive.
Humiliated or offensive in what way? I think they are playing at the same level these days.
Have you got mad or something? Hereby you are officially expelled from the ranks of the fearless and proud taylorites. From now on you belong to the Wood camp. As punishment for a capital crime!
one has to be fearless to listen to some of that 1973 noodling...
This reply reminds me of the historical comment made by the Austrian-Hungarian emperor after having attended the first performance of Die Entführung aus dem Serail, an opera by Mozart.
"Too many notes", he said. His ears and mind were probably only capable of a limited amount of notes.
Excellent post. I've always loved Taylors excursions into long solos and extended passages. He has always been able to keep a level of emotional content and musical interest that is both genuine and satisfying.
I have witnessed artists where this wasn't the case. In particular I saw a Pat Metheny concert once where he played a zillion notes, never bent a single one or moved me with a single passage. I was left totally unsatisfied and with a clear understanding of how not to move people with endless noodling.
It's not necessarily about too many notes but too many of the wrong ones. Taylor never had a problem finding the right ones and the fact that he found a lot of them is a testament to his talent, imo.
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
dcba
()
Date: July 31, 2015 19:10
Quote
Naturalust
It's not necessarily about too many notes but too many of the wrong ones. Taylor never had a problem finding the right ones and the fact that he found a lot of them is a testament to his talent, imo.
Maybe but it definitely clashed with Mick & Keef's idea of the band's alchemy : "do or undo whatever's good for the song, not for your ego". Thefore you can stick your extended solos up yer bum, mate!
That's why MT's outro solo on "Sway" or "Rocks Off" are faded out after a few bars. It's the song that counts not anyone's dexterity. That's also why you can find countless live tapes from 72-73 where Jagger cuts Taylor off mid-solo with a "yeah yeah" which means "won't you shut up for Christ's sake!!"
The "quick and to the point"'s band musical philosophy (aka "less is more" ) is a thing MT had a problem understanding, from his 1st day in the band to his last one.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-31 19:11 by dcba.
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
LuxuryStones
()
Date: July 31, 2015 19:13
Quote
Naturalust
Excellent post. I've always loved Taylors excursions into long solos and extended passages. He has always been able to keep a level of emotional content and musical interest that is both genuine and satisfying.
In particular I saw a Pat Metheny concert once where he played a zillion notes, never bent a single one or moved me with a single passage. I was left totally unsatisfied and with a clear understanding of how not to move people with endless noodling.
Can it be that you were totally unsatisfied because of a clear misunderstanding of how to move people with endless and imo beautiful and brilliant noodling coming from Pat Metheny? To each his own of course.
Having said that I agree on your comments about Mick Taylor, '73. Beautiful playing coming from him, never too much.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-31 19:19 by LuxuryStones.
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: July 31, 2015 19:32
Quote
LuxuryStonesQuote
Naturalust
Excellent post. I've always loved Taylors excursions into long solos and extended passages. He has always been able to keep a level of emotional content and musical interest that is both genuine and satisfying.
In particular I saw a Pat Metheny concert once where he played a zillion notes, never bent a single one or moved me with a single passage. I was left totally unsatisfied and with a clear understanding of how not to move people with endless noodling.
Can it be that you were totally unsatisfied because of a clear misunderstanding of how to move people with endless and imo beautiful and brilliant noodling coming from Pat Metheny? To each his own of course.
Having said that I agree on your comments about Mick Taylor, '73. Beautiful playing coming from him, never too much.
Yes that is definitely a good possibility. I sat next to his mother that night in the first row of the balcony and it was pretty clear to me. although very proud, she didn't "get" it either.
The thing is, I don't dislike jazz guitar, am a fan of fusion and generally love guitar masters who display a level of technique above the norm, but this night I was truly searching for a small iota of emotion and didn't find a bit of it. It was all about technique and amount of notes and as such failed to move me at all.
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
LuxuryStones
()
Date: July 31, 2015 19:50
You should have talked to his father, I guess.
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: July 31, 2015 20:10
Quote
LuxuryStones
You should have talked to his father, I guess.
He wasn't there, the lovely lady was by herself that night which allowed me to engage in some wonderful conversation with her. I recall vaguely that she was a musician herself and she was pretty knowledgeable about music and fairly critical of her son's performance that night.
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
TravelinMan
()
Date: July 31, 2015 20:13
Quote
dcbaQuote
Naturalust
It's not necessarily about too many notes but too many of the wrong ones. Taylor never had a problem finding the right ones and the fact that he found a lot of them is a testament to his talent, imo.
Maybe but it definitely clashed with Mick & Keef's idea of the band's alchemy : "do or undo whatever's good for the song, not for your ego". Thefore you can stick your extended solos up yer bum, mate!
That's why MT's outro solo on "Sway" or "Rocks Off" are faded out after a few bars. It's the song that counts not anyone's dexterity. That's also why you can find countless live tapes from 72-73 where Jagger cuts Taylor off mid-solo with a "yeah yeah" which means "won't you shut up for Christ's sake!!"
The "quick and to the point"'s band musical philosophy (aka "less is more" ) is a thing MT had a problem understanding, from his 1st day in the band to his last one.
Mick and Keith knew his style, knew how he played, and they gave him his moments to take solos. Mick and Keith are the musical directors. The fade-outs also have to do with album constraints, but many solos are faded out as an aesthetic effect.
Live that happens the other way too where Taylor will end after 8 or 16 bars and Jagger is off dancing so Taylor starts up again. It's just part of the spontaneity of live music.
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
LuxuryStones
()
Date: July 31, 2015 20:14
Quote
NaturalustQuote
LuxuryStones
You should have talked to his father, I guess.
He wasn't there, the lovely lady was by herself that night which allowed me to engage in some wonderful conversation with her. I recall vaguely that she was a musician herself and she was pretty knowledgeable about music and fairly critical of her son's performance that night.
My point exactly.
Pat.
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: July 31, 2015 20:49
Quote
dcbaQuote
Naturalust
It's not necessarily about too many notes but too many of the wrong ones. Taylor never had a problem finding the right ones and the fact that he found a lot of them is a testament to his talent, imo.
Maybe but it definitely clashed with Mick & Keef's idea of the band's alchemy : "do or undo whatever's good for the song, not for your ego". Thefore you can stick your extended solos up yer bum, mate!
That's why MT's outro solo on "Sway" or "Rocks Off" are faded out after a few bars. It's the song that counts not anyone's dexterity. That's also why you can find countless live tapes from 72-73 where Jagger cuts Taylor off mid-solo with a "yeah yeah" which means "won't you shut up for Christ's sake!!"
The "quick and to the point"'s band musical philosophy (aka "less is more" ) is a thing MT had a problem understanding, from his 1st day in the band to his last one.
For someone who knows much of the live music during the Taylor era this is clearly (and probably provocative) nonsense.
The myth is that Taylor played long solos live. The truth is he did not, compared to his successor (whose name I won't mention). The truth is also that Jagger always (especially during the 1973 European tour, which some here consider as the noodling heyday) encouraged Taylor to play ("Showcase"! to be heard on the official Brussels Affair on Heartbreaker), many times calling Taylor sweet names as well. The great force of Taylor and Jagger during those years was how naturally they interchanged, which explains Jagger's famous 'bang off' quote. It is also very conspicuous how Taylor's role as a lead guitarist (not to mix up with guitar soloist!) expanded during his tenure. This would of course not have happened if Jagger and Richards would have opposed. In the meantime the interplay between both guitarists was better than it ever was since the beginning of the band until now.
Another important factor: actually Taylor didn't play so many notes, compared to the truly technical geniuses: he was rather fast, but not that fast at all. His enormous strenght was his ability to convey emotions by his playing, thus enforcing the songs in an incredible way, something we never heard in the era that followed the Taylor era. We never have heard such a lyrical, emotional and even aggressive musical approach after Taylor left.
Of course Taylor is still able to convey those emotions his successor never could and still cannot. That is the main reason why I objected very strongly to the thesis, put by our friend Luxury, that both guitarists are on the same level now. By saying that, he totally misses the point of the power of conveying emotions, even when the technical abilities have declined. In the end music is all about emotion and not about technical ability, though I know that a certain degree of technical ability is necessary to be able to convey the feelings and emotions involved. The fact that Taylor, despite his declined technical abilities, is still able to convey those feelings and emotions we could not only hear ourselves during the tours before the last one in 2015, but also by the response of the audiences, even though a big part of them even didn't know who he was. Think for instance of the audience response to the Knockings of 2013 in LA, Toronto etc.
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
HMS
()
Date: July 31, 2015 21:01
Quote
TravelinMan
And thank the gods of rock Ronnie wasn't picked in 1969! I couldn't imagine the Stones without their finest period, 1969-1974!
Maybe this period would have been even finer, if Ronnie was picked in 1969. We will never know. But it´s 90% Mick/Keith´s creative power that made this period their finest, not the guitarplayer...
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
Olly
()
Date: July 31, 2015 22:09
Quote
kleermaker
For someone who knows much of the live music during the Taylor era this is clearly (and probably provocative) nonsense.
The myth is that Taylor played long solos live. The truth is he did not, compared to his successor (whose name I won't mention)...
Ronnie Wood.
Must you now leave the building, spin around, expectorate, curse, and knock upon the door?
.....
Olly.
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
LuxuryStones
()
Date: July 31, 2015 22:10
Quote
kleermaker
..That is the main reason why I objected very strongly to the thesis, put by our friend Luxury, that both guitarists are on the same level now. By saying that, he totally misses the point of the power of conveying emotions, even when the technical abilities have declined. In the end music is all about emotion and not about technical ability, though I know that a certain degree of technical ability is necessary to be able to convey the feelings and emotions involved....
The only thing I heard on the last tour was that Taylor is more talented than Wood. Amen to that Kleer. A mediocre playing Taylor equalises Wood in good shape, that's the point I tried to make.
But lack of routine, for whatever reasons, even Taylor doesn't get away with it.
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
DoctorFreddie
()
Date: July 31, 2015 22:52
Quote
OllyQuote
kleermaker
For someone who knows much of the live music during the Taylor era this is clearly (and probably provocative) nonsense.
The myth is that Taylor played long solos live. The truth is he did not, compared to his successor (whose name I won't mention)...
Ronnie Wood.
Must you now leave the building, spin around, expectorate, curse, and knock upon the door?
wow youre a heavy dude mr. Olly
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
Olly
()
Date: July 31, 2015 23:13
Quote
DoctorFreddieQuote
OllyQuote
kleermaker
For someone who knows much of the live music during the Taylor era this is clearly (and probably provocative) nonsense.
The myth is that Taylor played long solos live. The truth is he did not, compared to his successor (whose name I won't mention)...
Ronnie Wood.
Must you now leave the building, spin around, expectorate, curse, and knock upon the door?
wow youre a heavy dude mr. Olly
I assure you I am not: I'm a keen runner.
.....
Olly.
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
HMS
()
Date: July 31, 2015 23:47
People dont go to Stones-concerts to hear stretched out guitar-solos. That´s not what Stones-style-Rock n Roll is about. Jagger/Richards maybe were at first fascinated by Taylor´s skillful playing but as time marched on they become very well aware that this kind of playing was counterproductive and would only lead them to nowhere, because with Taylor the music began to lose its roughness and became more and more boring, as you can easily hear on albums like GHS and IORR.
And that´s why a certain guitar-player whose name I dont need to mention fits better. He brought back the roughness they had almost lost. All of a sudden they sounded fresh and sparkling again.
And that´s why a certain guitar-player whose name I dont need to mention fits better. He brought back the roughness they had almost lost. All of a sudden they sounded fresh and sparkling again.
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
TravelinMan
()
Date: July 31, 2015 23:56
Quote
HMS
People dont go to Stones-concerts to hear stretched out guitar-solos. That´s not what Stones-style-Rock n Roll is about. Jagger/Richards maybe were at first fascinated by Taylor´s skillful playing but as time marched on they become very well aware that this kind of playing was counterproductive and would only lead them to nowhere, because with Taylor the music began to lose its roughness and became more and more boring, as you can easily hear on albums like GHS and IORR.
And that´s why a certain guitar-player whose name I dont need to mention fits better. He brought back the roughness they had almost lost. All of a sudden they sounded fresh and sparkling again.
"they become very well aware that this kind of playing was counterproductive and would only lead them to nowhere"
Source?
"because with Taylor the music began to lose its roughness and became more and more boring, as you can easily hear on albums like GHS and IORR."
Well Taylor didn't have any song writing credits so how can you blame him? Haha, Dancing With Mr. D, Hide Your Love, @#$%&, It's Only Rock n Roll, If You Can't Rock Me, Dance Little Sister all have edge. They are all more or less straight forward blues or rock and roll songs. Jagger and Richards both started writing more smack ballads, that's all.
*Haha Star Star is the one bleeped out
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-31 23:57 by TravelinMan.
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: August 1, 2015 01:00
Quote
HMS
People dont go to Stones-concerts to hear stretched out guitar-solos. That´s not what Stones-style-Rock n Roll is about. Jagger/Richards maybe were at first fascinated by Taylor´s skillful playing but as time marched on they become very well aware that this kind of playing was counterproductive and would only lead them to nowhere, because with Taylor the music began to lose its roughness and became more and more boring, as you can easily hear on albums like GHS and IORR.
And that´s why a certain guitar-player whose name I dont need to mention fits better. He brought back the roughness they had almost lost. All of a sudden they sounded fresh and sparkling again.
Actually as I understand it, guitar solos and such were exactly what people did go to see in the early 70's and even the late 70's. It wasn't until the 80's and beyond the that sort of thing became less popular. The Stones knew what they had with Taylor and encouraged and exploited his playing just as they should have.
How you have such intimate knowledge of what Jagger/Richards wanted 40 years ago is impressive, especially since both men clearly expressed their dismay of Taylor leaving the band at the time. I personally feel Taylor would have grown with the Stones, kept them more rock and blues oriented and likely produced an even better Some Girls, Emotional Rescue, Tattoo You and many others. Of course we will never know but I tend to agree with Charlie on his recent quotes about the situation.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
abbiatti , andrews27 , artedm , britstones , crawdaddy , elvisloose , Green Lady , hockenheim95 , JDSAM1994 , Joce , NathanLaze , Sami , SirCorto , Topi
Guests:
2227
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10