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.

Yep. But it all started much earlier. With his annoying country lead noodlings Taylor managed to ruin "Honky Tonk Women" almost unbearable. Gladly he didn't have room more to destroy LET IT BLEED, but YA-YA'S, STICKY FINGERS and EXILE are a pain in the ass to listen thanks to Taylor's unfitting nonsense (and BRUSSELLS AFFAIR is simply a crime against humanity). Sad since many of the songs are quite okay. But aren't we lucky that we have masterpieces like DIRTY WORK to remind us what The Rolling Stones should sound like so we can skip that sad chapter from 1969 to 1974 in their history, and - in best scenario - even pretend that it never happened.

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2019-06-14 14:41 by Doxa.

I think Mick Taylor's solo albums and live shows are indicative of what the man likes to play: a well mixed concoction of blues, rock, and jazz, or in the haters' words "Santana-esque noodling". Sure, he has written a ballad or two over the years...

but the notion that he tried to undermine Richards and morph the Stones into balladeers is nonsense. Jagger was/is the main reason for any other style being injected into the Stones (besides perhaps reggae).

It's also funny HMS cites "Some Girls" as a return to the original rock & roll Stones, when in fact it is an album which includes a healthy dose of disco, wannabe punk rock, and even a country parody.

Taylor's ability to play beautiful stuff on albums, serving the songs, was also to be heard on the 69/70 tours when they peaked as a live band.

Then something happened. Whether it had something to do with the new songs, the arrangements of new and old songs, boredom or just the need to show off I don't know.

But it's all a matter of taste if one prefer seemingly aimless repeated noodling on a country tune like Dead Flowers, where the song really is about the band's groove and the vocal harmonies - or lead lines during Keith's HTW intros.

I like some of this stuff myself, but only isolated from the music.

My guess is that Taylor got bored eventually, but it could also be that the Glimmers encouraged him to let it loose.

I can see that Stones fans split over this ( this was the band with only the "golden tiaras" after all), but we mustn't forget all the great stuff he came up with.

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.

Close enough but it's not Mick as heard when he sings "glitters" and pronounced "gleaters" here ;-) Anyway, cool track, has a bit of Sway to it.

--------------
IORR Links : Essential Studio Outtakes CDs : Audio - History of Rarest Outtakes : Audio

Quote
Doxa

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.

Yep. But it all started much earlier. With his annoying country lead noodlings Taylor managed to ruin "Honky Tonk Women" almost unbearable. Gladly he didn't have room more to destroy LET IT BLEED, but YA-YA'S, STICKY FINGERS and EXILE are a pain in the ass to listen thanks to Taylor's unfitting nonsense (and BRUSSELLS AFFAIR is simply a crime against humanity). Sad since many of the songs are quite okay. But aren't we lucky that we have masterpieces like DIRTY WORK to remind us what The Rolling Stones should sound like so we can skip that sad chapter from 1969 to 1974 in their history, and - in best scenario - even pretend that it never happened.

- Doxa

Nice sarcasm.

Replace DIRTY WORK with THE ROLLING STONES, AFTERMATH and BEGGARS BANQUET and you are on to something that is reasonable to anyone that truly loves The Rolling Stones. Meaning the real one that was defined by the personal and musical relationships between Brian, Mick and Keith.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-06-14 16:27 by His Majesty.

I remember reading an interview with Bill Wyman :" I got a call from Mick Taylor suggesting the idea continuing the band with him, me and Charlie only". I said: forget it". I'm not sure if Bill's memory served him well.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Taylor's ability to play beautiful stuff on albums, serving the songs, was also to be heard on the 69/70 tours when they peaked as a live band.

Then something happened. Whether it had something to do with the new songs, the arrangements of new and old songs, boredom or just the need to show off I don't know.

But it's all a matter of taste if one prefer seemingly aimless repeated noodling on a country tune like Dead Flowers, where the song really is about the band's groove and the vocal harmonies - or lead lines during Keith's HTW intros.

I like some of this stuff myself, but only isolated from the music.

My guess is that Taylor got bored eventually, but it could also be that the Glimmers encouraged him to let it loose.

I can see that Stones fans split over this ( this was the band with only the "golden tiaras" after all), but we mustn't forget all the great stuff he came up with.

What happened is something that occurs when you put a bunch of viril players in their prime together and let them follow their natural insticts (with some good dope). Nothing will remain the same but evolve and change naturally. They didn't have any idea how the Stones should sound or a particular song "really" should go like but they were defining that by playing whatever and in whatever way they felt like. They just kept on moving. The musical argument is the variance - that they didn't sound like they did yesterday. Taylor's musical imagination fitted beautifully to that creative ideology. Those were fascinating times. By the time Taylor left almost no stone was unturned of how to interpret the blues rock material of those years (nowadays called 'war horses') through and through.

Careerwise much of Stones musical credibility is based on those Taylor years. It was their second coming. They proved themselves being a respectable rock band by criteria laid by people like Cream, Hendrix and Zeppelin. They were unique and idiosyncratic but still spoke in universal terms anyone digging rock music (and for whom a great lead guitar is not a sin but if not a must at least a benefit), now or then, can understand. No specific Stones-training was needed to hear the brilliance. A helluva achievement. As a musical achievement it was similar to that of Mick and Keith having earlier proved being helluva song-writers. It also laid a solid foundation for their upcoming musical adventures with Ronnie on board, allowing them luxury to be more 'loose' (the "ancient art of weaving", etc.), and having whatever kind of idiosyncries and oddities a trained Stones fan ear loves.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-06-14 16:46 by Doxa.

Quote
TheflyingDutchman
I remember reading an interview with Bill Wyman :" I got a call from Mick Taylor suggesting the idea continuing the band with him, me and Charlie only". I said: forget it". I'm not sure if Bill's memory served him well.

Hah, if true it shows it's just not a conspiracy by a member with a very vivid imagination.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
TheflyingDutchman
I remember reading an interview with Bill Wyman :" I got a call from Mick Taylor suggesting the idea continuing the band with him, me and Charlie only". I said: forget it". I'm not sure if Bill's memory served him well.

Hah, if true it shows it's just not a conspiracy by a member with a very vivid imagination.

If it's true it's naive on MT's behalf, and it tells us something about the atmosphere in the band at the time. Bill was thinking about leaving the Stones as well.

<and for whom a great lead guitar is not a sin but if not a must at least a benefit>

But the debate here was whether he overplayed or not, and what that did with the music?

His lead guitar was great on Ya Yas as well.

Quote
DandelionPowderman


But the debate here was whether he overplayed or not, and what that did with the music?

The idea of "over-playing" comes from the assumption that there is a such a thing as how the song supposed to go. Like that there are some sacred ideals how certain songs should be played, otherwise they would be ruined or something. I don't believe on such normative essences. A song is a template, open for interpretation. For me Taylor added to many songs, especially during 1973 tour, features that enrichened the outcome and gave them new dimensions. Made them unique to that particular era. I cherish the difference, the presence of novelty and dare. Some of the most interesting and fascinating versions of certain Stones songs derive especially from 1973 tour. And not the least to do with Taylor (or how he perfected the lead/rhytm guitar dualism with Keith).

Generally, I think the idea of The Stones should sound such-and-such, and otherwise being 'Unstonesy' or something, derives from the long and wasted Ronnie years... the Brian and Taylor era band was busy creating and re-creating themselves, and whatever they end up sounding-like, was the sound of The Rolling Stones. For example, THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES sounds nothing but a Rolling Stones.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-06-14 17:41 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa
THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES sounds nothing but a Rolling Stones.

- Doxa

There are three very important reasons for that.

Quote
Doxa
The idea of "over-playing" comes from the assumption that there is a such a thing as how the song supposed to go. Like that there are some sacred ideals how certain songs should be played, otherwise they would be ruined or something. I don't believe on such normative essences. A song is a template, open for interpretation. For me Taylor added to many songs, especially during 1973 tour, features that enrichened the outcome and gave them new dimensions. Made them unique to that particular era. I cherish the difference, the presence of novelty and dare. Some of the most interesting and fascinating versions of certain Stones songs derive especially from 1973 tour. And not the least to do with Taylor (or how he perfected the lead/rhytm guitar dualism with Keith).

Generally, I think the idea of The Stones should sound such-and-such, and otherwise being 'Unstonesy' or something, derives from the long and wasted Ronnie years... the Brian and Taylor era band was busy creating and re-creating themselves, and whatever they end up sounding-like, was the sound of The Rolling Stones. For example, THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES sounds nothing but a Rolling Stones.

- Doxa

I wouldn't disagree with the vast majority of that ...but MT was certainly sometimes guilty [on stage, never on record] of over playing...often to the detriment of the specific song structure and feel.
Nothing wrong the with the paying itself...which was typically wonderful.

But picture in your ear [if that's a thing ?] MT's constant, fast and fluid flurries of notes in his soloing towards the end of Rocks Off on Exile .

Then imagine if he'd played that stuff all the way through the song.

That's what he sometimes did with some numbers on stage . Less would perhaps have been more on those occasions.

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
TheflyingDutchman
I remember reading an interview with Bill Wyman :" I got a call from Mick Taylor suggesting the idea continuing the band with him, me and Charlie only". I said: forget it". I'm not sure if Bill's memory served him well.

Hah, if true it shows it's just not a conspiracy by a member with a very vivid imagination.

If it's true it's naive on MT's behalf, and it tells us something about the atmosphere in the band at the time. Bill was thinking about leaving the Stones as well.

If it´s true it is the best example for MT´s haughtiness. Very strange that one could think the Stones could keep rolling without Keith and especially without Mick Jagger.

Btw it is not correct to always refer to MT as the main ingredient for what is by some fans regarded as their golden years. Songwise their golden years were already behind them in 1970. Nothing can beat their iconic singles of that period before MT entered the band. The so called "golden Taylor years" are in fact nothing more than one album he is hardly heard on (Let It Bleed), Sticky Fingers which would have been great with any guitar player since the songs are mostly awesome, EOMS which is a very mixed bag of excellent songs and also a good portion of crap and GHS/IORR, both albums being no highlights in their career. Black And Blue for instance is more enjoyable and adventurous than boring GHS/IORR (btw the albums that contained the most significant MT-contributions). The "golden Taylor-era" imo is most of all a vision inside the heads of some MT-afficionados rather than reality.
In reality the Taylor-years produced one and a half milestones followed by two rather mediocre albums. That´s all. The Ron-Wood-era with albums like SG, ER, Undercover & DW is indeed more fruitful and more successful than the short period with Taylor. Fans of endless noodling might always prefer Taylor but he never was an integral part of the Stones-sound, that sound is simply not compatible with MT´s jazzy and often rather soft and mellow playing. No doubt that MT was an excellent player but he played in the wrong band and what´s even more he tried to change the band into something he wished for himself to be - a vehicle for his endless soloing aka noodling.

Quote
Doxa

Taylor era band was busy creating...

... itself as a new band with a new sound and identity. A supergroup of sorts.

...

Lets get hypothetical.

In spring 1967 a respected young, hot guitarist named Jimi Hendrix replaces Brian Jones in The Rolling Stones.

There ends The Rolling Stones and a new band is created. That is essentially what happened two years later. Replace spring 1967 with June 1969 and Jimi Hendrix with Mick Taylor.

It can sound "stonsey" and it will have similarities for obvious reasons, but it's not the actuality because The Rolling Stones is the sound of Brian, Mick and Keith playing together in a band.

Quote
gotdablouse

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.

Close enough but it's not Mick as heard when he sings "glitters" and pronounced "gleaters" here ;-) Anyway, cool track, has a bit of Sway to it.

"Hasty Ambush" was Louis Marciano's stage name. Marciano was Guns 'n' Roses' video historian in the 1990s (note Dizzy Reed's involvement). There's a full Dead Amanda album entitled WHY? on Shattered Records that includes the Taylor track and six others.

In the studio Taylor did not overplay( he served the rock structure and song) when he got the opportunity to showcase his studio solos he shined and many fans and guitar peers always mention those solos as iconic when you read the various rock forums on social media. Trey Anastio of Phish - They wiped out MT guitar parts on Rocks Off except for the inconic guitar run by MT at end of song that is what he always remembers about the song.

MT live played many counter melodies to Keith and did not go over the top. He was the guitar lead player and that was important going into the 70's as with other rock groups. His most over the top playing if that is what you want is when he took the band on his shoulders on SFM and played that appregio guitar ending .

1) I definitely don’t think Taylor overplayed on a Dead Flowers. What did they play that once in ‘73 (the tour he is most accused of overplaying on)? He plays arpeggios during the verse and responds beautifully to vocals. This is not a blues or minor key rock number, so generic minor pentatonic and blues lines will not work. He elevated this tune exceptionally well. Certainly doesn’t need another chunky rhythm guitar.

2) I’d be hard pressed to put together a single album of “fruitful” material after Tattoo You. Somebody discovered the Stones in 80’s and has a passion for their subpar middle aged “rockers” with bad 80’s production.

3) From what I understand, Taylor wanted to do a spin-off with Bill and Charlie, not take over the Stones. That’s ridiculous. He wanted to do a side project that was more experimental and jazzy.

4) Mick Taylor has one of the strongest tones in blues rock. Get outta here with that “weak” talk! That’s pure cranked-up tube amp, son!

If you don't like Goat's Head Soup or It's Only Rock N Roll, so be it, but to blame Mick Taylor for it is a joke. That would be like me blaming Ron Wood for about 40 years of subpar material that has come out since Tattoo You!

The same people that claim Taylor had NO influence in the band are the same that are blaming him for albums they don't like. Hmmmmmmmmm

Quote
TravelinMan
If you don't like Goat's Head Soup or It's Only Rock N Roll, so be it, but to blame Mick Taylor for it is a joke. That would be like me blaming Ron Wood for about 40 years of subpar material that has come out since Tattoo You!

The same people that claim Taylor had NO influence in the band are the same that are blaming him for albums they don't like. Hmmmmmmmmm

My thoughts exactly.

Taylor doesn't even play on three tracks on IORR so how can he be blamed if people don't care for the album. That would be like saying Bill Wyman ruined Goats Head Soup when he plays on less than half of the tracks.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-06-14 19:49 by boogaloojef.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
Doxa

Taylor era band was busy creating...

... itself as a new band with a new sound and identity. A supergroup of sorts.

...

Lets get hypothetical.

In spring 1967 a respected young, hot guitarist named Jimi Hendrix replaces Brian Jones in The Rolling Stones.

There ends The Rolling Stones and a new band is created. That is essentially what happened two years later. Replace spring 1967 with June 1969 and Jimi Hendrix with Mick Taylor.

It can sound "stonsey" and it will have similarities for obvious reasons, but it's not the actuality because The Rolling Stones is the sound of Brian, Mick and Keith playing together in a band.

That is your opinion of what the Stones should sound like, others may beg to differ.

Quote
HMS

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
TheflyingDutchman
I remember reading an interview with Bill Wyman :" I got a call from Mick Taylor suggesting the idea continuing the band with him, me and Charlie only". I said: forget it". I'm not sure if Bill's memory served him well.

Hah, if true it shows it's just not a conspiracy by a member with a very vivid imagination.

If it's true it's naive on MT's behalf, and it tells us something about the atmosphere in the band at the time. Bill was thinking about leaving the Stones as well.

If it´s true it is the best example for MT´s haughtiness. Very strange that one could think the Stones could keep rolling without Keith and especially without Mick Jagger.

Btw it is not correct to always refer to MT as the main ingredient for what is by some fans regarded as their golden years. Songwise their golden years were already behind them in 1970. Nothing can beat their iconic singles of that period before MT entered the band. The so called "golden Taylor years" are in fact nothing more than one album he is hardly heard on (Let It Bleed), Sticky Fingers which would have been great with any guitar player since the songs are mostly awesome, EOMS which is a very mixed bag of excellent songs and also a good portion of crap and GHS/IORR, both albums being no highlights in their career. Black And Blue for instance is more enjoyable and adventurous than boring GHS/IORR (btw the albums that contained the most significant MT-contributions). The "golden Taylor-era" imo is most of all a vision inside the heads of some MT-afficionados rather than reality.
In reality the Taylor-years produced one and a half milestones followed by two rather mediocre albums. That´s all. The Ron-Wood-era with albums like SG, ER, Undercover & DW is indeed more fruitful and more successful than the short period with Taylor. Fans of endless noodling might always prefer Taylor but he never was an integral part of the Stones-sound, that sound is simply not compatible with MT´s jazzy and often rather soft and mellow playing. No doubt that MT was an excellent player but he played in the wrong band and what´s even more he tried to change the band into something he wished for himself to be - a vehicle for his endless soloing aka noodling.

Comparing the Taylor years with Emotional Rescue and Dirty work is like comparing apples to rotten oranges.

Taylor has stated in interviews that Jagger used to like working with him on the ballads. It is not really Taylor's fault if Jagger asked him to work on them. If you don't like the ballads why not just say so instead of blaming Taylor.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-06-14 19:56 by boogaloojef.

Quote
boogaloojef


That is your opinion of what the Stones should sound like, others may beg to differ.

It is not an opinion of what the stones should sound like.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
boogaloojef


That is your opinion of what the Stones should sound like, others may beg to differ.

It is not an opinion of what the stones should sound like.

Sure it is. You contend that they only sound like the Stones with Brian Jones in the band.

Your quote "The Rolling Stones is the sound of Brian, Mick and Keith playing together in a band."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-06-14 20:18 by boogaloojef.

Quote
boogaloojef
You contend that they only sound like the Stones with Brian Jones in the band.

Nope.

This is from the Rolling Stone magazine interview " Jagger Remembers"

[www.rollingstone.com]




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 Mick Taylor was the best, it sort of trashes the period the band is in now.

Jagger also thinks his solo material is worth releasing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-06-14 20:31 by His Majesty.

Quote
PhillyFAN
This is from the Rolling Stone magazine interview " Jagger Remembers"

[www.rollingstone.com]




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 Mick Taylor was the best, it sort of trashes the period the band is in now.

This is from the Wild Horse's mouth. We all have our "IMO", but I'll stick with the opinion of the band leader on this one!

Quote
PhillyFAN

Quote
PhillyFAN
This is from the Rolling Stone magazine interview " Jagger Remembers"

[www.rollingstone.com]




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 Mick Taylor was the best, it sort of trashes the period the band is in now.

This is from the Wild Horse's mouth. We all have our "IMO", but I'll stick with the opinion of the band leader on this one!

And the drummer: "The Mick Taylor period was a creative peak for us. A tremendous jump in musical credibility...Mick gave our music terrific lyricism.
Ronnie is a very likeable person, a great sense of humor. Musically, he didn't bring anything, but he has this facility to add to things." (Charlie, Mojo magazine, '03)

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

All this shows is that they are @#$%&.