Quote
OpenG
[www.youtube.com]


MICK TAYLOR & DEAD AMANDA: Turns To Gold

Bonus Track on the Japanese CD-Version of "Live At 14 Below"
Recorded: 1993 in Los Angeles
Mick Taylor: Guitar
Hasty Ambush: Vocals and Guitar
Dizzy Reed: Keyboards
Bobby Owsinski: Bass and Producer
Dick Ritchie: Drums

I guess that 'Hasty Ambush' is a pseudonym for Mick Jagger. There is no singer nor guitarist named Hasty Ambush to be found on the Internet.

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
hopkins
Taylor's a Stone. Every step he takes, there walks a Rolling Stone.

Nah. He's too much his own person and musician for that kind of labelling.

Brian, Mick and Keith are/were The Rolling Stones. Nearly everything about them is entangled in the band they defined and the band that defined them. They don't amount to much outside of that.

That's not the case with Mick Taylor. His playing is what defines him.

That's correct. Still I'm glad he played with them for a couple of years. It was a very special time to me, the main reason I listen to te Stones.

Sure. I see him more like Nicky Hopkins. A musician of a different/higher level that came onboard an already sailing ship and enabled them to go places they would never have done otherwise.

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
hopkins
Taylor's a Stone. Every step he takes, there walks a Rolling Stone.

Nah. He's too much his own person and musician for that kind of labelling.

Brian, Mick and Keith are/were The Rolling Stones. Nearly everything about them is entangled in the band they defined and the band that defined them. They don't amount to much outside of that.

That's not the case with Mick Taylor. His playing is what defines him.

That's correct. Still I'm glad he played with them for a couple of years. It was a very special time to me, the main reason I listen to te Stones.

I guess it was a special time for anyone involved. Quite a chapter in the story of The Stones and rock music. I'm with His Majesty that Mick Taylor was more an entity of his own than a Rolling Stone. But marrying that entity with the Stones amounted a special result in their music, which, I think was crucial and highly important for their career at the time. My favourite quote to describe Taylor's significance derives from Charlie - according to him, Taylor 'brought them professionalism'. He was there in helping to evolve the game to another level when that was needed. One could say that that could have been offered by any competent British ace guitarist at the time, but that doesn't really matter: the point is that they needed someone like him at the time, and hard to believe they could have found any better choice. They (and him) - and us - were lucky.

What I admire in the story of the Stones is that it is full of exciting chapters, and I enjoy the chapters being so diffferent from each other. The transformation of that wild, energetic band of Stonesmania years to the 'seriousness' of late 60's/early 70's when rock music was started be seen as an art form, The Stones as a live act excelling both, is a wonder of its own.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-05-31 14:50 by Doxa.

It's almost as if they were, in Taylor's own words... "effectively a new band."

Quote
His Majesty
It's almost as if they were, in Taylor's own words... "effectively a new band."

Well, they were. I still recall during my first Rolling Stones fan year, having bought both GOT LIVE IF YOU WANT IT! and GET YER YA-YA'S OUT! and listening to them against each other, and going 'how they sound so different in just three years!'. Loving both: both versions of the 'same' band excellent and exciting in their own terms.

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
hopkins
Taylor's a Stone. Every step he takes, there walks a Rolling Stone.

Nah. He's too much his own person and musician for that kind of labelling.

Brian, Mick and Keith are/were The Rolling Stones. Nearly everything about them is entangled in the band they defined and the band that defined them. They don't amount to much outside of that.

That's not the case with Mick Taylor. His playing is what defines him.

That's correct. Still I'm glad he played with them for a couple of years. It was a very special time to me, the main reason I listen to te Stones.

I guess it was a special time for anyone involved. Quite a chapter in the story of The Stones and rock music. I'm with His Majesty that Mick Taylor was more an entity of his own than a Rolling Stone. But marrying that entity with the Stones amounted a special result in their music, which, I think was crucial and highly important for their career at the time. My favourite quote to describe Taylor's significance derives from Charlie - according to him, Taylor 'brought them professionalism'. He was there in helping to evolve the game to another level when that was needed. One could say that that could have been offered by any competent British ace guitarist at the time, but that doesn't really matter: the point is that they needed someone like him at the time, and hard to believe they could have found any better choice. They (and him) - and us - were lucky.

What I admire in the story of the Stones is that it is full of exciting chapters, and I enjoy the chapters being so diffferent from each other. The transformation of that wild, energetic band of Stonesmania years to the 'seriousness' of late 60's/early 70's when rock music was started be seen as an art form, The Stones as a live act excelling both, is a wonder of its own.

- Doxa

That's absolutely right of course, all the members are special and interacted magnificent. I made a Stones -compilation for myself with all (the best) Taylor solo's pasted. That's my main-connection with the Stones. I'd prefer a Taylor Solo concert above a Stones concert, cause Taylor is mainly noodling when playing with his own band. I'm simple minded, a Taylor fan first. I'm sorry, cannot help it.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2019-05-31 15:29 by TheflyingDutchman.

Quote
Doxa


That's absolutely right of course, all the members are special and interacted magnificent. I made a Stones -compilation for myself with all (the best) Taylor solo's pasted. That's my main-connection with the Stones. I'd prefer a Taylor Solo concert above a Stones concert, cause Taylor is mainly noodling when playing with his own band. I'm a simple mind, a Taylor fan first. I'm sorry, cannot help it.

No, you're not! Mick Taylor is such an excellent guitarist that he needs the best musicians to play against. Around 2003 I saw him in concert with his band and he pláyed brillant solos but you got the impression that he played with a school band because nobody could match him (although the musicians were well-known names),and above all, nobody challenged him.

If you listen to Midnight rambler from BRUSSELS AFFAIR which IMHO is simply the greatest live track in rock ever recorded you will hear an almost incredible interplay between Keith and Mick T. (and the others, of course). This is the challenge he Needs to bring out the best, And then, it's the opposite of a simple-minded guy to appreciate Mickt T as one of the very best rock guitarists ever.

Nevertheless I Keep thinking if Ron Wood was not the better band member image-wise throughout the 1980s and 1990s. Therefor I do not participate in the Taylor-Wood debate.

You misquoted doxa.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-05-31 15:42 by TheflyingDutchman.

My enjoyment of the Taylor and Wood stones is tainted by the fact those two were/are only there because Brian destroyed himself. Not their fault, but still. It's just not The Rolling Stones without him.

The Taylor era is more enjoyable because the music is mostly so good. The Wood years mostly features rubbish comedy music.

Not much of a problem at all these days as I rarely listen to any Rolling Stones music at all. It's all too familiar.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-05-31 15:52 by His Majesty.

Quote
saltoftheearth

If you listen to Midnight rambler from BRUSSELS AFFAIR which IMHO is simply the greatest live track in rock ever recorded you will hear an almost incredible interplay between Keith and Mick T. (and the others, of course). This is the challenge he needs to bring out the best

100% right and this is part of the "Stones curse" MT was a victim of. The Stones are so talented that they give an extra "something" to sidemen or additional band members. Then said sidemen or additional band members might start to think they're quite good on their own on par with the Stones... but they're not.

Ever listened to 70's solo albums by Bobby Keys or Nicky Hopkins? They're nice oddities but compared to contemporary Stones records they're nothing.
Imo MT pushed that perceptional bias a step too far : he probably thought the Stones were beginning to be an obstacle to the expression of his musical talent and that Jack Bruce would be a better vehicule for his talent.

Well... he was wrong, wasn't he?

Given what was to come, he stepped out at the right time.

[www.youtube.com]


Gerry Groom featuring Mick Taylor - Music Teacher

[www.youtube.com]


Tribute to Mick Taylor (by Simona Sansovini)

[www.youtube.com]

Mike Oldfield 'Tubular Bells' Live at the BBC 1973 (HQ remastere

Tubular Bells Live Performance on BBC TV
"BBC TV 2nd House Performance": live-in-the-studio performance for the BBC, filmed on 30 November 1973, originally broadcast on BBC2 on 1 December, with a cast including Oldfield, his brother Terry (flute), Fred Frith (and other members of Henry Cow), Steve Hillage, Pierre Moerlen, Tom Newman, Mike Ratledge, Mick Taylor, Karl Jenkins and others. It includes a new part for oboe.

This has been released on the Elements DVD and is on the 2009 reissue of Tubular Bells

Quote
dcba

Quote
saltoftheearth

If you listen to Midnight rambler from BRUSSELS AFFAIR which IMHO is simply the greatest live track in rock ever recorded you will hear an almost incredible interplay between Keith and Mick T. (and the others, of course). This is the challenge he needs to bring out the best

100% right and this is part of the "Stones curse" MT was a victim of. The Stones are so talented that they give an extra "something" to sidemen or additional band members. Then said sidemen or additional band members might start to think they're quite good on their own on par with the Stones... but they're not.

Ever listened to 70's solo albums by Bobby Keys or Nicky Hopkins? They're nice oddities but compared to contemporary Stones records they're nothing.
Imo MT pushed that perceptional bias a step too far : he probably thought the Stones were beginning to be an obstacle to the expression of his musical talent and that Jack Bruce would be a better vehicule for his talent.

Well... he was wrong, wasn't he?

I would go even further and say that what you describe applies to the core members of the band themselves. None of their solo efforts is of much interest to anyone but fans of the group, but somehow together they are able to create incredible music.

Indeed.

Quote
saltoftheearth

Quote
OpenG
[www.youtube.com]


MICK TAYLOR & DEAD AMANDA: Turns To Gold

Bonus Track on the Japanese CD-Version of "Live At 14 Below"
Recorded: 1993 in Los Angeles
Mick Taylor: Guitar
Hasty Ambush: Vocals and Guitar
Dizzy Reed: Keyboards
Bobby Owsinski: Bass and Producer
Dick Ritchie: Drums

I guess that 'Hasty Ambush' is a pseudonym for Mick Jagger. There is no singer nor guitarist named Hasty Ambush to be found on the Internet.

This song is really great, and would have made a super track on a Stones album!

[www.youtube.com]

Bitch
From "London Underground" (1974), Atlantic.

Herbie Mann - flute, alto flute ;
Mick Taylor - guitar ;
Albert Lee - electric and acoustic guitar ;
Aynsley Dunbar - drums ;
Stephane Grappelli - violin ;
Ian McDonald - alto sax ;
Pat Rebiliot - keyboards ;
Fuzzy Samuels - bass ;
Al Gorry - bass ;
Robbie McIntosh - drums ;
Armen Halburian - percussion.

Ronnie is better at weaving but MT's scorching solos made the music "heavier" and very dramatic.

Quote
saltoftheearth

Quote
saltoftheearth

Quote
OpenG
[www.youtube.com]


MICK TAYLOR & DEAD AMANDA: Turns To Gold

Bonus Track on the Japanese CD-Version of "Live At 14 Below"
Recorded: 1993 in Los Angeles
Mick Taylor: Guitar
Hasty Ambush: Vocals and Guitar
Dizzy Reed: Keyboards
Bobby Owsinski: Bass and Producer
Dick Ritchie: Drums

I guess that 'Hasty Ambush' is a pseudonym for Mick Jagger. There is no singer nor guitarist named Hasty Ambush to be found on the Internet.

This song is really great, and would have made a super track on a Stones album!

yay; what a find. thanks!!

I don't know if this recent interview with Mick Taylor has been posted here before but it has a few interesting tidbits. For example, I wasn't aware Mick Jagger wrote "Moonlight Mile" while traveling on a train from London to Bath.

[www.loudersound.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-06-13 22:31 by TornAndFried.

From timeisonourside.com:

At Stargroves, we had the Stones' 16-track mobile recording unit outside, and, inside, we played in this huge room with a gallery and great acoustics. That's where Moonlight Mile came from. But Mick first sang it to me in a first-class railway compartment on the way from London to Bristol. Then he had the idea of embellishing it with strings. I contributed the riff that Paul Buckmaster's strings are based on - that ethereal, unresolved ending. Moonlight Mile, I Got the Bluesand Sister Morphine are probablay my favourite songs on the whole album.

- Mick Taylor, 2011

It was my idea to use Paul (Buckmaster) to arrange the strings. I had used him before, on the end of Sway. For this piece, we thought it would be nice to build the song with strings and have those hinted quarter-tones Paul’s so good at. His orchestration echoes what I’m singing and builds into the coda, so it amplifies all the stuff you heard before in a rather subtle way. Then he has a really nice edit that mellows when I sing, Yeah, I’m coming home.

- Mick Jagger, 2015

Taylor almost dragged the Stones down like a stone... On albums GHS & IORR their rudeness seems to calm down due to his non-Stones-like-soloing on some songs. His style is so different from what is the original Stones-sound, he almost ruined the band soundwise. Occasionally he fits, when there was a certain flavor demanded, but mostly he does not fit. When they finally got rid of Taylor and released Some Girls, they sounded revitalized and Stones-like again (finally).
Taylor - imo - is a very haughty fellow who thought he could trump Keith and become Mick´s main songwriting partner, I think his aim was to create a new sound very different from what was Keith´ musical intention. Yes indeed I am conveinced that Taylor tried to spoil the Mick-Keith-relationship in order to take over the Stones and make them more or less his backing band. Especially on GHS but also on some IORR-tracks you can hear what he intended - to turn the once rude and angry Stones into a ballad-heavy pop-band with his santana-esque soloing and endless noodling sitting on top of it all.

Ronnie isn´t a better player but his style brought the Stones back on the right track.

Wow we have conspiracy on the thread after 238 pages - I think IORR and GHS had many songs sounding what Keith thought the stones should sound like. I think Keith on smack had a lot to do with Jagger and Taylor hanging out more and collaborating on ideas since Keith was not around. I do not think Taylor took down the stones it was all a collected effort - by IORR Keith would be in the studio when others were not present and vice a versa and if you believe the stories of tracks getting wiped clean by Keith then that's your business. Taylor's guitar is not noodling but always enriched the studio material. In the end all bands had inner problems and challenges and jealousy just human nature.

Quote
OpenG
I think Keith on smack had a lot to do with Jagger and Taylor hanging out more and collaborating on ideas since Keith was not around.

I'm sure that at some point (73? 74?) MT thought that Mick J. would join him to form a creative partnership and "divorce" from a drug-addled Keef. The "coup" never happened as Jagger never gave up his loyalty to his glimmer twin.

When MT realized this change of balance of power within the band would never happen and he'd always remain a sideman and a musical embellisher he left.

Taylor never saw the Stones as a band that he would be in forever.
He left when he felt he needed to. A huge loss to the Stones.
A great guitarist at his peak - better than Clapton, Page and Beck.
Hope he is doing okay.

Quote
rbp

Hope he is doing okay.

I assume he is still searching for the one thing that has eluded him for decades...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-06-14 01:50 by His Majesty.

Quote
HMS
Taylor almost dragged the Stones down like a stone... On albums GHS & IORR their rudeness seems to calm down due to his non-Stones-like-soloing on some songs. His style is so different from what is the original Stones-sound, he almost ruined the band soundwise. Occasionally he fits, when there was a certain flavor demanded, but mostly he does not fit. When they finally got rid of Taylor and released Some Girls, they sounded revitalized and Stones-like again (finally).
Taylor - imo - is a very haughty fellow who thought he could trump Keith and become Mick´s main songwriting partner, I think his aim was to create a new sound very different from what was Keith´ musical intention. Yes indeed I am conveinced that Taylor tried to spoil the Mick-Keith-relationship in order to take over the Stones and make them more or less his backing band. Especially on GHS but also on some IORR-tracks you can hear what he intended - to turn the once rude and angry Stones into a ballad-heavy pop-band with his santana-esque soloing and endless noodling sitting on top of it all.

Ronnie isn´t a better player but his style brought the Stones back on the right track.

Funny you think that Taylor almost ruined the Stones when he didn’t write any of those songs from those two albums. All he did was play over the chords presented to him. Or are you saying he did write songs and was screwed out of credits?

Take your bs elsewhere because you obviously don’t understand music and would rather delve into conspiracy theories.

Quote
TravelinMan

Quote
HMS
Taylor almost dragged the Stones down like a stone... On albums GHS & IORR their rudeness seems to calm down due to his non-Stones-like-soloing on some songs. His style is so different from what is the original Stones-sound, he almost ruined the band soundwise. Occasionally he fits, when there was a certain flavor demanded, but mostly he does not fit. When they finally got rid of Taylor and released Some Girls, they sounded revitalized and Stones-like again (finally).
Taylor - imo - is a very haughty fellow who thought he could trump Keith and become Mick´s main songwriting partner, I think his aim was to create a new sound very different from what was Keith´ musical intention. Yes indeed I am conveinced that Taylor tried to spoil the Mick-Keith-relationship in order to take over the Stones and make them more or less his backing band. Especially on GHS but also on some IORR-tracks you can hear what he intended - to turn the once rude and angry Stones into a ballad-heavy pop-band with his santana-esque soloing and endless noodling sitting on top of it all.

Ronnie isn´t a better player but his style brought the Stones back on the right track.

Funny you think that Taylor almost ruined the Stones when he didn’t write any of those songs from those two albums. All he did was play over the chords presented to him. Or are you saying he did write songs and was screwed out of credits?

Take your bs elsewhere because you obviously don’t understand music and would rather delve into conspiracy theories.

Well said Travelin Man.

Quote
HMS
Yes indeed I am conveinced that Taylor tried to spoil the Mick-Keith-relationship in order to take over the Stones and make them more or less his backing band. Especially on GHS but also on some IORR-tracks you can hear what he intended - to turn the once rude and angry Stones into a ballad-heavy pop-band with his santana-esque soloing and endless noodling sitting on top of it all.

In fact Keith's main contributions to GHS, Angie and Coming Down Again, are exteremly "rude and angry" ...

C