For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
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.
Quote
saltoftheearthQuote
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
DoxaQuote
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
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.
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.
Quote
His MajestyQuote
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
DandelionPowderman
But the debate here was whether he overplayed or not, and what that did with the music?
Quote
Doxa
THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES sounds nothing but a Rolling Stones.
- Doxa
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
Quote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
His MajestyQuote
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.
Quote
Doxa
Taylor era band was busy creating...
Quote
gotdablouseQuote
saltoftheearthQuote
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.
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
Quote
His MajestyQuote
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
HMSQuote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
His MajestyQuote
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
boogaloojef
That is your opinion of what the Stones should sound like, others may beg to differ.
Quote
His MajestyQuote
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
boogaloojef
You contend that they only sound like the Stones with Brian Jones in the band.
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.
Quote
PhillyFANQuote
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!