For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
PhillyFAN
There is a FB group for Mick Taylor " Time waits for no one".t
This is from Rolling Stone magazine interview Jagger Remembers.
What about the contribution of Mick Taylor to the band in these years?
I think he had a big contribution. He made it very musical. He was a very fluent, melodic player, which we never had, and we don't have now. Neither Keith nor [Ronnie Wood] plays that kind of style. It was very good for me working with him. Charlie and I were talking about this the other day, because we could sit down – I could sit down – with Mick Taylor, and he would play very fluid lines against my vocals. He was exciting, and he was very pretty, and it gave me something to follow, to bang off. Some people think that's the best version of the band that existed.
What do you think?
They're all interesting periods. They're all different. I obviously can't say if I think Mick Taylor was the best, because it sort of trashes the period the band is in now.
Why did Mick Taylor leave
I still don't really know.
He never explained?
Not really. He wanted to have a solo career. I think he found it difficult to get on with Keith.
On musical issues?
Everything. I'm guessing.
Quote
PhillyFAN
There is a FB group for Mick Taylor " Time waits for no one".t
This is from Rolling Stone magazine interview Jagger Remembers.
What about the contribution of Mick Taylor to the band in these years?
I think he had a big contribution. He made it very musical. He was a very fluent, melodic player, which we never had, and we don't have now. Neither Keith nor [Ronnie Wood] plays that kind of style. It was very good for me working with him. Charlie and I were talking about this the other day, because we could sit down – I could sit down – with Mick Taylor, and he would play very fluid lines against my vocals. He was exciting, and he was very pretty, and it gave me something to follow, to bang off. Some people think that's the best version of the band that existed.
Quote
PhillyFAN
There is a FB group for Mick Taylor " Time waits for no one".t
This is from Rolling Stone magazine interview Jagger Remembers.
What about the contribution of Mick Taylor to the band in these years?
I think he had a big contribution. He made it very musical. He was a very fluent, melodic player, which we never had, and we don't have now. Neither Keith nor [Ronnie Wood] plays that kind of style. It was very good for me working with him. Charlie and I were talking about this the other day, because we could sit down – I could sit down – with Mick Taylor, and he would play very fluid lines against my vocals. He was exciting, and he was very pretty, and it gave me something to follow, to bang off. Some people think that's the best version of the band that existed.
What do you think?
They're all interesting periods. They're all different. I obviously can't say if I think Mick Taylor was the best, because it sort of trashes the period the band is in now.
.
Quote
RollingFreak
I don't think so. Obviously its easy to say with hindsight but its a variety of things. Brian was a lost soul. Same as the Syd Barretts, Peter Greens, those types of guys from that era. Very talented, too far out and it consumed them. Thats not really on the Stones in my opinion, thats them.
Taylor, on top of the fact that he was very young, was also the first replacement member. They basically stifled him. Granted, his work post Stones maybe shows he didn't have much to give, but he claimed and I feel its accepted he did write things and didn't get credit. He could have left well enough alone but he wanted more. Thats more than understandable.
Ronnie on the other hand is a completely different case. He was a known name already AND already fine to take that sideman position like he did in Rod's case. Ronnie was the best of all worlds for them. I don't think he was EVER intimated about being Keith's counterpart, he just enjoyed being along for the ride. Again, he already had that role in other bands and was definitely treated way nicer because of it. I think on a level they saw him as a peer, not an employee. Very similar to Joe Walsh's situation in the Eagles, almost to a tee. They admired him but brought him in as an employee. He was an asset to them but hopefully wouldn't challenge them. And he didn't, he goes with whatever they want, which is a godsend for them and not a sure thing. Same for Ronnie with the Stones. He doesn't ruffle feathers but they also gave him a much longer leash. Taylor, for lack of a better term, was basically a young boy they lured in and used up. Maybe unintentionally, but I believe they saw Ronnie as more of a peer than they ever saw Taylor cause Ronnie already came in with outside success. I don't think that role's difficult, I think they got very lucky with the third person they found in it. Also, you could argue Ronnie knew a good thing and sacrificed possible success on his own for being a cog in a machine that'll last forever.