Quote
Stoneburst
I think what Kleerie means is that generally speaking Taylor's actual solos weren't any longer than the ones on the studio cuts or the ones Ronnie's played live since. Playing lead guitar and soloing are not the same thing.

Exactly, a solo is just: a solo! Lead guitar is adding melody to the song.

This is Taylor's longest solo on stage with the Stones during 69 - 73 (from 4:10 until 7:35); no sax solo this time, thank god!

Damn that was sweet! Forget what I said about having him integrate more rhythm playing into the Stones tunes this tour. Let him play like that!

peace

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Stoneburst
I think what Kleerie means is that generally speaking Taylor's actual solos weren't any longer than the ones on the studio cuts or the ones Ronnie's played live since. Playing lead guitar and soloing are not the same thing.

Exactly, a solo is just: a solo! Lead guitar is adding melody to the song.

This is Taylor's longest solo on stage with the Stones during 69 - 73 (from 4:10 until 7:35); no sax solo this time, thank god!

Very nice. A sort of "Winter"-ized version, at times.

Quote
Stoneburst
I think what Kleerie means is that generally speaking Taylor's actual solos weren't any longer than the ones on the studio cuts or the ones Ronnie's played live since. Playing lead guitar and soloing are not the same thing.

I think that's what kleerie says, too, so no misunderstanding there.

With the Stones, the rhythm guitar is often also the lead guitar, btw, which makes this even more complicated

I don't follow. Doesn't that mean that virtually every song they ever did was a long Keith solo, by your logic?

Quote
Stoneburst
I don't follow. Doesn't that mean that virtually every song they ever did was a long Keith solo, by your logic?

I mean that Keith's approach to rhythm guitar is different than the traditional term. If you forget the "solo-part" for a second, and start focusing on what really is the leading instrument on tracks like Brown Sugar, JJF, HTW and others, you'll probably know what I mean? The riffing is not just about keeping the rhythm down or the groove, it's a lead guitar on its own, with both melodies and a groove. If you take that away from the songs...

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.

From what I have managed to find, this is from around 2008-2009.
Most likely not very well rehearsed and so on...
Song starts around 2:00.
Real enjoyment from 6:20 to 7:40

At least it clearly shows that MT still can play melodic solos.
Why on Earth they chose to have MT on MR the last RS tours is an enigma to me.

video: [www.youtube.com]

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.

My point is simple: Sometimes his soloing clashed with the song's other "lead" guitar and the vocals. Mainly because he was not playing fills around the end of the vocal lines, but rather filled out extended solos during entire verses and choruses. GS in 1973 is a good example, imo.

Again, I'm not criticising the indisputable quality of his playing. Only this way of arranging songs. Sometimes it was for the better, sometimes not.

Quote
HALOLS
From what I have managed to find, this is from around 2008-2009.
Most likely not very well rehearsed and so on...
Song starts around 2:00.
Real enjoyment from 6:20 to 7:40

At least it clearly shows that MT still can play melodic solos.
Why on Earth they chose to have MT on MR the last RS tours is an enigma to me.

video: [www.youtube.com]

Maybe because MR from Brussels 1973 features some of his (and the band's) best playing ever?

Quote
HALOLS
From what I have managed to find, this is from around 2008-2009.
Most likely not very well rehearsed and so on...
Song starts around 2:00.
Real enjoyment from 6:20 to 7:40

At least it clearly shows that MT still can play melodic solos.
Why on Earth they chose to have MT on MR the last RS tours is an enigma to me.

video: [www.youtube.com]

Very nice indeed, and all the better for being totally off the cuff and played on a cheap Squier strat - tone is in the fingers, not the gear.

Quote
bv
How did they survive as a band through these four decades - 40 years - since MT quit? By playing rock'n'roll like they have done for 50+ years. May be if you did arrive with an UFO into planet Earth and read a book from 1973 you might find it impossible to play Brown Sugar or Bith with the current (since 1975!!!) members, but I do not find it that difficult. That is what they have done during hundreds of shows and lots of tours to millions of people.

I don't often say this, but I agree with you completely. It was great to see MT back for the 50th celebrations,but they can't just turn the clock back to 1973 to accommodate his sound in a full set. Keith and Ronnie have it covered.

sc uk

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.

Quote
straycatuk

Quote
bv
How did they survive as a band through these four decades - 40 years - since MT quit? By playing rock'n'roll like they have done for 50+ years. May be if you did arrive with an UFO into planet Earth and read a book from 1973 you might find it impossible to play Brown Sugar or Bith with the current (since 1975!!!) members, but I do not find it that difficult. That is what they have done during hundreds of shows and lots of tours to millions of people.

I don't often say this, but I agree with you completely. It was great to see MT back for the 50th celebrations,but they can't just turn the clock back to 1973 to accommodate his sound in a full set. Keith and Ronnie have it covered.

sc uk

Honestly, I couldn't care less who played on Brown Sugar or Bitch now. What I am interested in is MM, CYHMK, Sway, IGTB...the rarer songs. And, if it's a couple special shows meant for a rerelease anyway, the Stones were pretty pure as far as the Exile rerelease went and not using Ronnie, so they can suck it up here as well for a show or two, and at the very least include Taylor, especially when SF is the point of those shows.

Quote
HALOLS
From what I have managed to find, this is from around 2008-2009.
Most likely not very well rehearsed and so on...
Song starts around 2:00.
Real enjoyment from 6:20 to 7:40

At least it clearly shows that MT still can play melodic solos.
Why on Earth they chose to have MT on MR the last RS tours is an enigma to me.

Nice find! Thanks.

Quote
DoomandGloom
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.

DP wasn't talking about Keith's solos, rather suggesting that the intricacies of his rhythm playing (the way it swings, how he uses suspensions etc) make his guitar the Stones' lead instrument. I see what he means but don't quite agree with him. Read the previous posts before you start calling people names.

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
DoomandGloom
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.

DP wasn't talking about Keith's solos, rather suggesting that the intricacies of his rhythm playing (the way it swings, how he uses suspensions etc) make his guitar the Stones' lead instrument. I see what he means but don't quite agree with him. Read the previous posts before you start calling people names.

I did, I just didn't follow it correctly, sorry about being rude I'm mad about the tour schedule and generally grumpy today... No excuse for being an jerk to you guys..



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-16 17:23 by DoomandGloom.

Quote
DoomandGloom

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
DoomandGloom
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.

DP wasn't talking about Keith's solos, rather suggesting that the intricacies of his rhythm playing (the way it swings, how he uses suspensions etc) make his guitar the Stones' lead instrument. I see what he means but don't quite agree with him. Read the previous posts before you start calling people names.

I did, I just didn't follow it correctly, sorry about being rude I'm mad about the tour schedule and generally grumpy today...

No worries, me too *big hug*

Quote
DandelionPowderman

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.

My point is simple: Sometimes his soloing clashed with the song's other "lead" guitar and the vocals. Mainly because he was not playing fills around the end of the vocal lines, but rather filled out extended solos during entire verses and choruses. GS in 1973 is a good example, imo.

Again, I'm not criticising the indisputable quality of his playing. Only this way of arranging songs. Sometimes it was for the better, sometimes not.

I understand what you are saying Dandie and totally agree with you. The lead/rhythm guitar thing is long established in rock music and shouldn't require such analysis and semantic massage to be clear. Taylor was known to take the lead guitar role and play single note lines and sometimes solo over entire songs while Keith generally played more chords, riffs and fills. Keith and Taylor have both talked about it so the roles were obvious to them as well.

It wasn't always the case of course but the 1973 live recordings show this relationship was pretty well established. That it happened to be some of the best Stones live music is probably no coincidence.

peace

Quote
Naturalust
That it happened to be some of the best Stones live music is probably no coincidence.

peace

Are you really saying "some of"??

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Naturalust
That it happened to be some of the best Stones live music is probably no coincidence.

peace

Are you really saying "some of"??

OK, It was definitely the best Stones live music that I've ever heard recordings of. I can only imagine how great it was for people who were actually there.

peace

I love Ronnie, but I really don't care for his solos on Midnight Rambler, Can't You Hear Me Knocking, Sway, etc. Not really his style. Of course the Stones can play these songs with Ronnie, like they have been doing for 40 years, but IMO, they would be better to use Taylor in that capacity, especially if the Sticky Fingers set is to be believed.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
HALOLS
From what I have managed to find, this is from around 2008-2009.
Most likely not very well rehearsed and so on...
Song starts around 2:00.
Real enjoyment from 6:20 to 7:40

At least it clearly shows that MT still can play melodic solos.
Why on Earth they chose to have MT on MR the last RS tours is an enigma to me.

Nice find! Thanks.

defo! great find, man i wish id been in the pub when this happened!!!!!!

Quote
Captainchaos

defo! great find, man i wish id been in the pub when this happened!!!!!!

At the football club, actually. Sutton United in Surrey.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-16 19:50 by Chacal.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Naturalust
That it happened to be some of the best Stones live music is probably no coincidence.

peace

Are you really saying "some of"??

OK, It was definitely the best Stones live music that I've ever heard recordings of. I can only imagine how great it was for people who were actually there.

peace

Unbelievably great I can tell you.

The YCAGWYW clip is from the Sutton United Football Club, March 12, 2004

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Naturalust
That it happened to be some of the best Stones live music is probably no coincidence.

peace

Are you really saying "some of"??

OK, It was definitely the best Stones live music that I've ever heard recordings of. I can only imagine how great it was for people who were actually there.

peace

Unbelievably great I can tell you.

Absolutely. I think it's the reason I am so fanatic about those years. I have seem and witnessed the Stones while Taylor was in the band, The music was incredible. Honestly it has never ever been as good. The Stones are a still a very gppd band but Taylor could make the music great, It would be a fantastic swan song for this legendary band if they incorporated him into the show.

Quote
HALOLS
From what I have managed to find, this is from around 2008-2009.
Most likely not very well rehearsed and so on...
Song starts around 2:00.
Real enjoyment from 6:20 to 7:40

At least it clearly shows that MT still can play melodic solos.
Why on Earth they chose to have MT on MR the last RS tours is an enigma to me.

video: [www.youtube.com]

Thanks for posting this!

Well everyone, guess it's my turn to wade in on this conversation..
I for one will not be attending any "Sticky Finger" themed Stones shows here in the US if this holds true that Taylor will not be included. Along with about 20-30 of my "old" Stones fans who caught them last time thru in Los Angeles,Ahaheim and
Northern Calif. And I believe that Facebook post of Taylor's. Know he goes on
Facebook from time to time. Very sad to think that Jagger/Richards have this opportunity to present us with some Stones music that could possibly be remembered
for years and for some reason think Taylor wouldn't add something special???
beyond me.. Too much to think they might consider the musical part of the show but
the $$ seems to be the deciding factor these days. You guys don't have too many more chances to leave us something special, like the versions of: Can't you hear me Knockin from the last tour. Hope there is a change of heart. Even BV thought that
number should be included in all their shows..

MLC

Quote
MCDDTLC
Well everyone, guess it's my turn to wade in on this conversation..
I for one will not be attending any "Sticky Finger" themed Stones shows here in the US if this holds true that Taylor will not be included. Along with about 20-30 of my "old" Stones fans who caught them last time thru in Los Angeles,Ahaheim and
Northern Calif. And I believe that Facebook post of Taylor's. Know he goes on
Facebook from time to time. Very sad to think that Jagger/Richards have this opportunity to present us with some Stones music that could possibly be remembered
for years and for some reason think Taylor wouldn't add something special???
beyond me.. Too much to think they might consider the musical part of the show but
the $$ seems to be the deciding factor these days. You guys don't have too many more chances to leave us something special, like the versions of: Can't you hear me Knockin from the last tour. Hope there is a change of heart. Even BV thought that
number should be included in all their shows..

MLC

I find it offensive to those that have provided us with the greatest rock n roll band the world has ever, or will ever, see to be second guessed after all these years by their "hard-core fans"All the speculation is just that. None of us know the reasons for the "non-invite". For all we know MT himself knows about his own demons and perfectly understands the non-invite and would do the same.

Point is we don't know, and it doesn't matter. And to continue to second guess Jagger/Richards?Watts/Wood is not only inappropriate,it's rude.

Anyone that says they won't go see the (same band that they loved just fine for FORTY years without MT) band because of this is either lying, or are forgetting what it was about his band that they loved. Either way..sad.