Tell Me :
Talk
Yup! Charley would know! He doesn't bite his words. Gotta love him.
Not necessarily. I expected you to come up with this statement btw. All people have different personality traits: haughtiness, ambition, creativity , frustration, naivety etc etc. That’s only human, isn’t it? Your statements about Taylor's character/ musicianship are very biased. When Taylor left he expressed his respect to the press about the Stones, both as humans as well as musicians.
Now it’s your turn again and call Taylor a... hypocrite, perhaps? Shoot!!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-06-14 21:07 by TheflyingDutchman.
Did they?
"He made it very musical. He was a very fluent, melodic player"
Yes and that imo is not what the Stones need. It´s the opposite of what Keith & Ronnie are doing and what imo is the quintessence of their style. Mick of course has his own opinions how the Stones should sound like, you only have to listen to his mostly crappy solo-output. Thanks to Keith the post-DW albums do not sound like that.
"It was very good for me working with him"
Sure. Jagger alwyay wanted the stones to sound "contemporary". Guitar heroes were in style in the early and mid-seventies. So no wonder that Mick was fond to have a noodler in the band.
I dont want to put all the blame for GHS/IORR being so very weak and boring on MT´s shoulders. But in fact the songs on which Taylor is most prominently featured are the weakest/most boring tracks.
And regarding to what the drummer said: In his heart he is a jazzman. Most of the Stones´ music is rather simple (but most effective), maybe quite boring for him to play. So he welcomed the sophisticated flavors that MT brought. But in the long run Taylor-like-playing is ruinous for a rock n roll band, it does not rock nor does it roll, at least to rock and roll wasn´t really the thing Taylor had in mind. He wanted to stretch out and do ten minutes of noodling as often as possible. Totally ruinous for stones-type rock n roll/r n b music - did Chuck Berry ever noodle?
... ER and DW are more enjoyable albums than GHS/IORR. They just sound fresher and less uninspired. The guitar work on both albums is very very good.
... the material since TY isn´t that subpar if you leave out all the fillers that made albums like VL, B2B, ABB much too long. For instance, B2B isn´t one of my favorite Stones-albums, because of the incredible amount of fillers and silly ballads. But reduced to 37 minutes of music it makes a very good album, better than GHS or IORR, even better than SG, imo. Undercover isnt subpar it is almost great, their best album since Exile. And Ron Wood plays some very good guitar parts on all of the Stones-albums since he became a member of the band.
Last not least: yes indeed, I discovered the Stones in 1981 but that does not automatically lead me to think the 80s would be their "golden years". I like their sixties-output a lot more and I think there has been some great Stones music in every decade since then. But I also think that the Taylor-years are completely overrated, this period started well with Sticky Fingers ...followed by not-as-good Exile ...followed by boring/weak GHS/IORR. So in fact it´s rather a temporary period of decline. Black And Blue saw the Stones in much better shape and they were born again around 1978.
My quote does not say what you appear to think it say's.
Most reviewers rate Emotional Rescue and Dirty Work worse than Goats Head Soup or IORR. Emotional Rescue is particularly lame considering the material they had to choose from which was later used on Tattoo You and the Some Girls bonus disc. It is probably their worst album to that point in their career.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2019-06-15 04:38 by boogaloojef.
I have similar thoughts. The Stones is not just one band but a bunch of bands, actually. Which at least for me is a big part of their attraction. Like you said, "appreciate all the different periods for different reason" (my italics). For that reason I also think it is natural that certain periods are liked more than the others by many fans. Since they are so different. I know a lot of people for whom, like for our His Majesty, the Jones era Stones is the only one that really matters. The 60's one, which once competed with the Beatles of the dominance of pop world. And there are really good reasons for that. The Stones never been more relevant, the voice of zeitgeit, as they then were. Most of their most loved songs derives from that era. The huge single hits. Revolutionary, fresh ideas and musical adventures. Especially if you were a kid then, nothing would be equal to that ever since. For folks who who were hooked by, say, "Paint It Black", listening to some "It's Only Rock'n'Roll" or "Start Me Up" might be a huge bore. Their biggest cultural impact, without doubt, derives from the 60's.
Like His Majesty, I consider the band that emerged from the 60's with Taylor, a different band. Like I said above, I consider that as their "second coming". They really readjusted their game, learned new tricks and defined their sound to fit to recent currents. Almost like the Jones era never happened. All that experentialism and almost naive darism had disappeared and substituted by a genre-awere professionalism and seriousness. They excelled the blues rock style, defined in Big Four, and put into practise during tours from 1969 to 1973. The results were so compelling that even today a certain 'signature' Stones sound derives from that period. During this period Keith discovered his signature style and mastered the art of riff/rhythm guitar, making it about the sexiest instrument in rock. And they had one of the best lead guitarists in the world onboard, an important aspect in their musical credibility. The argument for "the greatest rock and roll band in the world" was more than justified. And I can really well understand that people who were caught by them then, that's the peak period of the band ever, and how much, for example, listening to Ronnie's solos hurts their ears, if one was initially 'spoiled' by Taylor's lyricism. Much of rock music press thinks alike (seemingly Mick and Charlie as well).
But what is beautiful with them is that they kept on moving on. What Ronnie and Keith - with Mick sometimes - created together by the end of the 70's was another great achievemnent. The "ancient art of weaving", mastered during 178-82 tours, together with the 'loosiness' of the whole band, including the rhythm section, constitued another, renewed version of the Stones sound. The seriousness, sophistication and darkness of the Taylor blues rock years were substituted by more loose, funny, relaxed 'punkish' old-day rock and roll feel. I guess for us die-hards here, the avarege age being about 50, this version of the band is the most familiar one. Although it actually lasted only about a couple of years (the Pathe Marconi recordings and tours from 1978 to 1982). But it lives in all that folklore of 'ancient art of weaving', 'two guitars played like one', etc. It actually allows certain sloppiness considered okay, even cool, which especially is quite handy taking Keith's and Ronnie's guitar department shortcomings we have wittnessed during the last decades.
Namely, I consider the band since 1989 as a different band. It has marks of all the eras prior it, is actually based on re-creating the past glory, but it is served with such a professionalism and care, that it deserves being called a different band. But unlike all the former reincarnations, it is designed to remain the same. No musical evolution belong to its DNA. It offers a greatest rock and roll show on Earth, with all great hits, played rather closely to originals. And usually surprisingly freshly and well. Since it has lasted so long - 30 years - I guess for about all of us the Rolling Stones starts to be this band. For example, I never seen live any others. But playing now 30 years to full stadiums, and earning more than any act ever, and no end in sight, is a clear argument that they areally are doing something right.
But what is the 'real' Rolling Stones? Well, one can pick up any of those, or dig them all, if one feels like. The problem usually starts when one starts judging the other versions of the band by the criterion laid by others (one's preferred one). Or tries to view the whole thing in one picture, defined by some essential features. A very big-hearted like me loves them all, and do not hear "over-playing" by Taylor, is not shocked by Brian's instrumental oddities, nor is annoyed by Ronnie's occasional trainwecks, or Chuck's keyboard nonsense. It all belongs to the same cake with its ups and downs.
But I was listening the other my old vinyl version of their first EP. And bloody hell, it sounded so great that I don't think they ever have sounded better...
- Doxa
Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 2019-06-15 18:31 by Doxa.
I do not think that. Of course the other related music matters, much of it amazing... but, there is only really one 'era' of The Rolling Stones.
With Taylors arrival it was "effectively a new band" as Taylor quite rightly put it.
Not The Rolling Stones as clearly defined by the wonky personal and musical relationships between Brian, Mick and Keith - "The emotional engine behind the whole thing! - Keith Richards 1977, but something new.
How could it not be with the arrival of a player of Taylors distinction?
It's more than just a member being replaced, it's a new band with it's own music and identity! One with an obvious strong connection and shared history with what came before. A variation on the mutation from Little Boy Blue and the Blue Boys in to The Rolling Stones... That too required the arrival of a distinctive musician in the greater story.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2019-06-15 21:29 by His Majesty.
This is correct, in my view. By BB, Brian was already slipping away, and the new direction was being created. Taylor added to the change, but it was already happening.
- A separate thought. I've been watching Scorsese's Rolling Thunder film this week, which reminded me that the Rolling Thunder Revue concert I saw was the second best rock concert I ever saw. The first? The Stones in 1972 at the International Amphitheatre in Chicago. The Stones packed more energy, beauty, and power in those 70 minutes than any of the many concerts I've seen before or since. Taylor added the beauty.
Your error is to focus on a transitional studio album and ignore live concerts.
For example...
Honolulu 1966 - MSG 1969. "Effectively a new band".
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-06-15 22:10 by His Majesty.
Brian was part of the supposed 'new direction'. Playing on 8 or so tracks on the album and on 3 or so other related session tracks. Bringing back slide and harmonica as part of his contributions.
HMS makes no error, Taylor is just not his cup of tea it seems. Funny part is that he keeps repeating it.
More is revealed as time and dedicated research allows people like me to find out more, clarify claims and throw out what is and what isn't etc etc.
Magazines like Mojo keep publishing the same error laden shite regardless.
He wasn't for TSMR either, but regardless, he was part of the conception, creation and process. Beggars Banquet would have a different sound and feel without him.
All part of the wonky personal and musical relationships between Brian, Mick and Keith, that being... "the emotional engine behind the whole thing" - Keith Richards, 1977.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-06-16 02:24 by His Majesty.
Every and any member of a band is replaceable. They just get someone else or stay as a reduced band and carry on.
Depending on the timing of the change, the position and the history, whether it remains to still be that band is another thing. Some bands change their name, some don't.
...
Like if Mick were replaced by Eric Burdon in 1964, that's not quite such a big a thing as the band identity wasn't fully realised and years on successful by that time.
Mick being replaced in 1969, no matter how good (or bad) the music was after, it brings to an end The Rolling Stones.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-06-16 02:19 by His Majesty.
Thank you Mrs. Wood for your um, interesting perspective on Ronnie.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
PhillyFAN
()
Date: June 14, 2019 20:59
Quote
HairballQuote
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!
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)
Yup! Charley would know! He doesn't bite his words. Gotta love him.
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
TheflyingDutchman
()
Date: June 14, 2019 21:02
Quote
HMSQuote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
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.
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.
Not necessarily. I expected you to come up with this statement btw. All people have different personality traits: haughtiness, ambition, creativity , frustration, naivety etc etc. That’s only human, isn’t it? Your statements about Taylor's character/ musicianship are very biased. When Taylor left he expressed his respect to the press about the Stones, both as humans as well as musicians.
Now it’s your turn again and call Taylor a... hypocrite, perhaps? Shoot!!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-06-14 21:07 by TheflyingDutchman.
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: June 14, 2019 21:11
These warm words didn't stop them from @#$%& him over financially. Actions speak louder than words. 
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-06-14 21:20 by His Majesty.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-06-14 21:20 by His Majesty.
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
TheflyingDutchman
()
Date: June 14, 2019 21:25
Quote
His Majesty
These warm words didn't stop them from @#$%& him over financially. Actions speak louder than words.
Did they?
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
HMS
()
Date: June 14, 2019 22:01
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.
"He made it very musical. He was a very fluent, melodic player"
Yes and that imo is not what the Stones need. It´s the opposite of what Keith & Ronnie are doing and what imo is the quintessence of their style. Mick of course has his own opinions how the Stones should sound like, you only have to listen to his mostly crappy solo-output. Thanks to Keith the post-DW albums do not sound like that.
"It was very good for me working with him"
Sure. Jagger alwyay wanted the stones to sound "contemporary". Guitar heroes were in style in the early and mid-seventies. So no wonder that Mick was fond to have a noodler in the band.
I dont want to put all the blame for GHS/IORR being so very weak and boring on MT´s shoulders. But in fact the songs on which Taylor is most prominently featured are the weakest/most boring tracks.
And regarding to what the drummer said: In his heart he is a jazzman. Most of the Stones´ music is rather simple (but most effective), maybe quite boring for him to play. So he welcomed the sophisticated flavors that MT brought. But in the long run Taylor-like-playing is ruinous for a rock n roll band, it does not rock nor does it roll, at least to rock and roll wasn´t really the thing Taylor had in mind. He wanted to stretch out and do ten minutes of noodling as often as possible. Totally ruinous for stones-type rock n roll/r n b music - did Chuck Berry ever noodle?
... ER and DW are more enjoyable albums than GHS/IORR. They just sound fresher and less uninspired. The guitar work on both albums is very very good.
... the material since TY isn´t that subpar if you leave out all the fillers that made albums like VL, B2B, ABB much too long. For instance, B2B isn´t one of my favorite Stones-albums, because of the incredible amount of fillers and silly ballads. But reduced to 37 minutes of music it makes a very good album, better than GHS or IORR, even better than SG, imo. Undercover isnt subpar it is almost great, their best album since Exile. And Ron Wood plays some very good guitar parts on all of the Stones-albums since he became a member of the band.
Last not least: yes indeed, I discovered the Stones in 1981 but that does not automatically lead me to think the 80s would be their "golden years". I like their sixties-output a lot more and I think there has been some great Stones music in every decade since then. But I also think that the Taylor-years are completely overrated, this period started well with Sticky Fingers ...followed by not-as-good Exile ...followed by boring/weak GHS/IORR. So in fact it´s rather a temporary period of decline. Black And Blue saw the Stones in much better shape and they were born again around 1978.
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: June 14, 2019 22:37
Quote
boogaloojef
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."
My quote does not say what you appear to think it say's.
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
Testify
()
Date: June 15, 2019 00:08
Each musician has his own way of expressing himself musically through his qualities. Taylor is a great guitarist, otherwise he would never have joined the Stones, but he is a very different guitarist from Brian J., so the difference was felt in the band. I believe that the most creative period was until 69. Brian J. had given the Stones something more, which others could not give. Brian was not only a great guitarist, he was a great musician, this made the Stones become a band different from all the others. What came next was another story that has adapted to the times.
Obviously Taylor gave a lot to the band, but he never managed to integrate, with Keith the relationship was almost non-existent apart from the photos of circumstance, he still managed to leave a good impression thanks to some wonderful solos, but everything ends there, the Stones of the early 70s are a band that plays like so many bands of the time, they had lost that something different that the Stones had. The Stones were synonymous with the minimal, they were not a chitarrisica band, even if the guitars were fundamental. Listen to the great successes of the 60s and you will find few solos, but an obsessive rhythm with some extravagant embellishment.
Wood instead is a band musician, he likes being in a band, he is not Brain, but he tries to recreate those sounds of that band there, the guitars vary a lot, he plays the slide, pedal steel, wah wah, "sitar" and could contribute to the harmonica etc. it's much more like Brian. Many people underestimate the power of rhythm, Keith and Ronnie are great at it, the sound they created with the Stones is incredible, when the two are fit nobody can do what they do, a unique sound.
That being said, every period in the Stones' history has been great and Taylor has made a great contribution. But the Stones are Stones, they were great before Taylor arrived and they continued to be after and the story continues ...
Obviously Taylor gave a lot to the band, but he never managed to integrate, with Keith the relationship was almost non-existent apart from the photos of circumstance, he still managed to leave a good impression thanks to some wonderful solos, but everything ends there, the Stones of the early 70s are a band that plays like so many bands of the time, they had lost that something different that the Stones had. The Stones were synonymous with the minimal, they were not a chitarrisica band, even if the guitars were fundamental. Listen to the great successes of the 60s and you will find few solos, but an obsessive rhythm with some extravagant embellishment.
Wood instead is a band musician, he likes being in a band, he is not Brain, but he tries to recreate those sounds of that band there, the guitars vary a lot, he plays the slide, pedal steel, wah wah, "sitar" and could contribute to the harmonica etc. it's much more like Brian. Many people underestimate the power of rhythm, Keith and Ronnie are great at it, the sound they created with the Stones is incredible, when the two are fit nobody can do what they do, a unique sound.
That being said, every period in the Stones' history has been great and Taylor has made a great contribution. But the Stones are Stones, they were great before Taylor arrived and they continued to be after and the story continues ...
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
PhillyFAN
()
Date: June 15, 2019 03:01
it is so strange to be on a thread about Mick Taylor and a few posters always hustle their way to the thread to critize the fans admiration of his time in the Stones.
It is beyond strange.
Those of us that want to discuss his playing should be able to do without detractors hustling over to tell us he was not that good or good in the Stones. Damn both MJ and CW agree about his contributions but some posters know better then actual band members do. Even after posting direct quotes from band members that played and rehearsed with him. Wow.
It almost seems personal or something else. Obsessive?
There are posters on this board that have seen him while he was in the Stones. I have in both 1969 and 1972 and the playing was absolutely awesome - the entire band. I like to believe MT inspired and pushed them.
Unless you have witnessed this people will not understand just what made that version of the band great and why some people like more that time over other periods. There were glimpses of that in 2012 and 2013. No need to constantly berate his time in the band.
It is beyond strange.
Those of us that want to discuss his playing should be able to do without detractors hustling over to tell us he was not that good or good in the Stones. Damn both MJ and CW agree about his contributions but some posters know better then actual band members do. Even after posting direct quotes from band members that played and rehearsed with him. Wow.
It almost seems personal or something else. Obsessive?
There are posters on this board that have seen him while he was in the Stones. I have in both 1969 and 1972 and the playing was absolutely awesome - the entire band. I like to believe MT inspired and pushed them.
Unless you have witnessed this people will not understand just what made that version of the band great and why some people like more that time over other periods. There were glimpses of that in 2012 and 2013. No need to constantly berate his time in the band.
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
boogaloojef
()
Date: June 15, 2019 04:33
Quote
HMSQuote
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.
"He made it very musical. He was a very fluent, melodic player"
Yes and that imo is not what the Stones need. It´s the opposite of what Keith & Ronnie are doing and what imo is the quintessence of their style. Mick of course has his own opinions how the Stones should sound like, you only have to listen to his mostly crappy solo-output. Thanks to Keith the post-DW albums do not sound like that.
"It was very good for me working with him"
Sure. Jagger alwyay wanted the stones to sound "contemporary". Guitar heroes were in style in the early and mid-seventies. So no wonder that Mick was fond to have a noodler in the band.
I dont want to put all the blame for GHS/IORR being so very weak and boring on MT´s shoulders. But in fact the songs on which Taylor is most prominently featured are the weakest/most boring tracks.
And regarding to what the drummer said: In his heart he is a jazzman. Most of the Stones´ music is rather simple (but most effective), maybe quite boring for him to play. So he welcomed the sophisticated flavors that MT brought. But in the long run Taylor-like-playing is ruinous for a rock n roll band, it does not rock nor does it roll, at least to rock and roll wasn´t really the thing Taylor had in mind. He wanted to stretch out and do ten minutes of noodling as often as possible. Totally ruinous for stones-type rock n roll/r n b music - did Chuck Berry ever noodle?
... ER and DW are more enjoyable albums than GHS/IORR. They just sound fresher and less uninspired. The guitar work on both albums is very very good.
... the material since TY isn´t that subpar if you leave out all the fillers that made albums like VL, B2B, ABB much too long. For instance, B2B isn´t one of my favorite Stones-albums, because of the incredible amount of fillers and silly ballads. But reduced to 37 minutes of music it makes a very good album, better than GHS or IORR, even better than SG, imo. Undercover isnt subpar it is almost great, their best album since Exile. And Ron Wood plays some very good guitar parts on all of the Stones-albums since he became a member of the band.
Last not least: yes indeed, I discovered the Stones in 1981 but that does not automatically lead me to think the 80s would be their "golden years". I like their sixties-output a lot more and I think there has been some great Stones music in every decade since then. But I also think that the Taylor-years are completely overrated, this period started well with Sticky Fingers ...followed by not-as-good Exile ...followed by boring/weak GHS/IORR. So in fact it´s rather a temporary period of decline. Black And Blue saw the Stones in much better shape and they were born again around 1978.
Most reviewers rate Emotional Rescue and Dirty Work worse than Goats Head Soup or IORR. Emotional Rescue is particularly lame considering the material they had to choose from which was later used on Tattoo You and the Some Girls bonus disc. It is probably their worst album to that point in their career.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2019-06-15 04:38 by boogaloojef.
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
hopkins
()
Date: June 15, 2019 06:08
Super great Stones tracks on IORR and GHS that I still enjoy immensely.
Dismissing Taylor's contribution as 'noodling' in context with the actual output,
is something I've never respected and wondered if those people were at '72 a time or two; i'm sorry to have missed '69. Endless rubbish about this miracle guy and the miracle output that has never, still, been equaled or touched by a rock and roll unit. I could pick other than adtl on exiles, but that'll do.
I guess it's fun but whoever the reviewer was seems to have reviewer disease;
sort of thinking their way up the old kazoo about such a sterling, melodic and heavy riffin' dudester like the Taylor. seeing dw as more 'fresh' than
silver train or dance little sister or others. ignorance is bliss i guess.
bet a fortune that guy can't dance. or write.
----
dw. really? the album with no charlie isn't a stones album.
take the most inconsequential, to be kind, of all solo K and M efforts combined, there's dw, plus un-listenable cold steely 'production'....
..well that's not totally true; i like 'had it with you' and some of the others; a lot of effort went in to the guitars. i appreciated it for what it was but ultimately found it without groove and hard to find the 'warmth' in whatever uber steely bad sound they somehow get out of there; it always gives me ear fatigue; even at low volume; i'm a fan; i've tried.
; which pisses me off even more about it; because some of those songs and performances are good imo.
it just didn't work out right; there are endless opinions more informed than my own about the many different angles one could approach that period in their lives; and what came out of it...to be fair; i don't dismiss dw for fun; i still wish sometimes, that someone would remix one or two of those; get charlie in there; if they screwed with plundered my thunder they can screw with this one. think of the extra bucks mick!!
maybe if would have been more honest for Mick J. to have mused.
'well he's a very good player but the band was pretty much exploding
from smack; yeh Jimmy Miller too; Shirley eventually dragged Charlie back
to the farm and put a halter on him so he couldn't get sicker; K was
fishing for the bust that had to happen; we stopped being friends, we sort of ran through taylor like we did everyone else including bill, yeh he was real good. a lot of people liked that stuff they tell me, yeh we didn't credit him or get him more involved cause we were crashing ourselves and couldn't give a darn, we needed a guy more into crack anyway........time for a hair color, nice to chat'
---
which ain't fair to Ronnie; i hate comparisons but they have to be made in that slot; i tell you true i love Respectable and so many Ron cuts; i saw him in Faces and I've been a fan since Jeff Beck with Ron Wood. Ronnie's a big part of Tremendous Stones smashes. Everybody knows,
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2019-06-15 09:59 by hopkins.
Dismissing Taylor's contribution as 'noodling' in context with the actual output,
is something I've never respected and wondered if those people were at '72 a time or two; i'm sorry to have missed '69. Endless rubbish about this miracle guy and the miracle output that has never, still, been equaled or touched by a rock and roll unit. I could pick other than adtl on exiles, but that'll do.
I guess it's fun but whoever the reviewer was seems to have reviewer disease;
sort of thinking their way up the old kazoo about such a sterling, melodic and heavy riffin' dudester like the Taylor. seeing dw as more 'fresh' than
silver train or dance little sister or others. ignorance is bliss i guess.
bet a fortune that guy can't dance. or write.
----
dw. really? the album with no charlie isn't a stones album.
take the most inconsequential, to be kind, of all solo K and M efforts combined, there's dw, plus un-listenable cold steely 'production'....
..well that's not totally true; i like 'had it with you' and some of the others; a lot of effort went in to the guitars. i appreciated it for what it was but ultimately found it without groove and hard to find the 'warmth' in whatever uber steely bad sound they somehow get out of there; it always gives me ear fatigue; even at low volume; i'm a fan; i've tried.
; which pisses me off even more about it; because some of those songs and performances are good imo.
it just didn't work out right; there are endless opinions more informed than my own about the many different angles one could approach that period in their lives; and what came out of it...to be fair; i don't dismiss dw for fun; i still wish sometimes, that someone would remix one or two of those; get charlie in there; if they screwed with plundered my thunder they can screw with this one. think of the extra bucks mick!!
maybe if would have been more honest for Mick J. to have mused.
'well he's a very good player but the band was pretty much exploding
from smack; yeh Jimmy Miller too; Shirley eventually dragged Charlie back
to the farm and put a halter on him so he couldn't get sicker; K was
fishing for the bust that had to happen; we stopped being friends, we sort of ran through taylor like we did everyone else including bill, yeh he was real good. a lot of people liked that stuff they tell me, yeh we didn't credit him or get him more involved cause we were crashing ourselves and couldn't give a darn, we needed a guy more into crack anyway........time for a hair color, nice to chat'
---
which ain't fair to Ronnie; i hate comparisons but they have to be made in that slot; i tell you true i love Respectable and so many Ron cuts; i saw him in Faces and I've been a fan since Jeff Beck with Ron Wood. Ronnie's a big part of Tremendous Stones smashes. Everybody knows,
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2019-06-15 09:59 by hopkins.
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
rollmops
()
Date: June 15, 2019 15:16
Ideally a rolling stones fan should have a mind of his or her own on the matter of the Rolling Stones. There are preconceived notions that one period of the Rolling Stones is better than the other ones; that is fine. Those preconceived notions are widespreaded and adopted by persons that don't really spend too much time listening to or thinking about the Stones ; that's fine too. As a fanatic who has spent lot of time since 1976 listening and thinking about the entire work and career of the Stones I love and appreciate all the different periods for different reasons. I don't need to adopt the preconceived notions, or conclusions of others to decide on the Rolling Stones. I do that for other subjects because of time and lesser interests.
Rockandroll,
Mops
Rockandroll,
Mops
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: June 15, 2019 17:03
Quote
rollmops
Ideally a rolling stones fan should have a mind of his or her own on the matter of the Rolling Stones. There are preconceived notions that one period of the Rolling Stones is better than the other ones; that is fine. Those preconceived notions are widespreaded and adopted by persons that don't really spend too much time listening to or thinking about the Stones ; that's fine too. As a fanatic who has spent lot of time since 1976 listening and thinking about the entire work and career of the Stones I love and appreciate all the different periods for different reasons. I don't need to adopt the preconceived notions, or conclusions of others to decide on the Rolling Stones. I do that for other subjects because of time and lesser interests.
Rockandroll,
Mops
I have similar thoughts. The Stones is not just one band but a bunch of bands, actually. Which at least for me is a big part of their attraction. Like you said, "appreciate all the different periods for different reason" (my italics). For that reason I also think it is natural that certain periods are liked more than the others by many fans. Since they are so different. I know a lot of people for whom, like for our His Majesty, the Jones era Stones is the only one that really matters. The 60's one, which once competed with the Beatles of the dominance of pop world. And there are really good reasons for that. The Stones never been more relevant, the voice of zeitgeit, as they then were. Most of their most loved songs derives from that era. The huge single hits. Revolutionary, fresh ideas and musical adventures. Especially if you were a kid then, nothing would be equal to that ever since. For folks who who were hooked by, say, "Paint It Black", listening to some "It's Only Rock'n'Roll" or "Start Me Up" might be a huge bore. Their biggest cultural impact, without doubt, derives from the 60's.
Like His Majesty, I consider the band that emerged from the 60's with Taylor, a different band. Like I said above, I consider that as their "second coming". They really readjusted their game, learned new tricks and defined their sound to fit to recent currents. Almost like the Jones era never happened. All that experentialism and almost naive darism had disappeared and substituted by a genre-awere professionalism and seriousness. They excelled the blues rock style, defined in Big Four, and put into practise during tours from 1969 to 1973. The results were so compelling that even today a certain 'signature' Stones sound derives from that period. During this period Keith discovered his signature style and mastered the art of riff/rhythm guitar, making it about the sexiest instrument in rock. And they had one of the best lead guitarists in the world onboard, an important aspect in their musical credibility. The argument for "the greatest rock and roll band in the world" was more than justified. And I can really well understand that people who were caught by them then, that's the peak period of the band ever, and how much, for example, listening to Ronnie's solos hurts their ears, if one was initially 'spoiled' by Taylor's lyricism. Much of rock music press thinks alike (seemingly Mick and Charlie as well).
But what is beautiful with them is that they kept on moving on. What Ronnie and Keith - with Mick sometimes - created together by the end of the 70's was another great achievemnent. The "ancient art of weaving", mastered during 178-82 tours, together with the 'loosiness' of the whole band, including the rhythm section, constitued another, renewed version of the Stones sound. The seriousness, sophistication and darkness of the Taylor blues rock years were substituted by more loose, funny, relaxed 'punkish' old-day rock and roll feel. I guess for us die-hards here, the avarege age being about 50, this version of the band is the most familiar one. Although it actually lasted only about a couple of years (the Pathe Marconi recordings and tours from 1978 to 1982). But it lives in all that folklore of 'ancient art of weaving', 'two guitars played like one', etc. It actually allows certain sloppiness considered okay, even cool, which especially is quite handy taking Keith's and Ronnie's guitar department shortcomings we have wittnessed during the last decades.
Namely, I consider the band since 1989 as a different band. It has marks of all the eras prior it, is actually based on re-creating the past glory, but it is served with such a professionalism and care, that it deserves being called a different band. But unlike all the former reincarnations, it is designed to remain the same. No musical evolution belong to its DNA. It offers a greatest rock and roll show on Earth, with all great hits, played rather closely to originals. And usually surprisingly freshly and well. Since it has lasted so long - 30 years - I guess for about all of us the Rolling Stones starts to be this band. For example, I never seen live any others. But playing now 30 years to full stadiums, and earning more than any act ever, and no end in sight, is a clear argument that they areally are doing something right.
But what is the 'real' Rolling Stones? Well, one can pick up any of those, or dig them all, if one feels like. The problem usually starts when one starts judging the other versions of the band by the criterion laid by others (one's preferred one). Or tries to view the whole thing in one picture, defined by some essential features. A very big-hearted like me loves them all, and do not hear "over-playing" by Taylor, is not shocked by Brian's instrumental oddities, nor is annoyed by Ronnie's occasional trainwecks, or Chuck's keyboard nonsense. It all belongs to the same cake with its ups and downs.
But I was listening the other my old vinyl version of their first EP. And bloody hell, it sounded so great that I don't think they ever have sounded better...
- Doxa
Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 2019-06-15 18:31 by Doxa.
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
HMS
()
Date: June 15, 2019 17:33
If DW isn´t a Stones-album because Charlie does not play on some tracks, then a couple of other albums aren´t Stones-albums too, because Bill does not play bass on a lot of tracks...
I never cared in detail on which DW-tracks charlie is on drums and on which who-knows-who. I think most people don´t even know about that. And it seems nobody can really tell on which tracks he´s actually not playing...
...ER has only one weak song, the horrible Indian Girl, all of the other material is very good, imo. I like ER even better than SG. And yes, ER is much fresher than GHS/IORR.
...i wonder why a guitar-wizard like Taylor who "saved the Stones and lifted them to incredible hights never reached before or after", never had a huge career of his own. You might say he can´t sing that´s the problem... but Eric Clapton can´t sing... Jimi Hendrix could not sing... so what´s the problem with MT... I think it is his haughtiness and inability to get along with other musicians... probably... Strangly enough music-fans all over the world praise him for once being a member of the Stones, but no-one cares about what he´s been doing after his departure. One of music history´s most mysterious enigmas that this guy never had a career and is completely forgotten today. His membership with the Stones is overestimated anyway in my opinion. In the studio he was rarely given a chance to really shine and live he was a kind of "isolated" player, no team-player, always trying to noodle away. He often had to be stopped by Mick or Keith, it seems he had no group-feeling, always just thinking of his solo, not caring for the rest of the band. One can hear that pretty good on Brussel´73 - there is the band and there is MT, never a unit, always two seperate parts. With Ronnie it is totally different and - imo - it´s better that way.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-06-15 17:41 by HMS.
I never cared in detail on which DW-tracks charlie is on drums and on which who-knows-who. I think most people don´t even know about that. And it seems nobody can really tell on which tracks he´s actually not playing...
...ER has only one weak song, the horrible Indian Girl, all of the other material is very good, imo. I like ER even better than SG. And yes, ER is much fresher than GHS/IORR.
...i wonder why a guitar-wizard like Taylor who "saved the Stones and lifted them to incredible hights never reached before or after", never had a huge career of his own. You might say he can´t sing that´s the problem... but Eric Clapton can´t sing... Jimi Hendrix could not sing... so what´s the problem with MT... I think it is his haughtiness and inability to get along with other musicians... probably... Strangly enough music-fans all over the world praise him for once being a member of the Stones, but no-one cares about what he´s been doing after his departure. One of music history´s most mysterious enigmas that this guy never had a career and is completely forgotten today. His membership with the Stones is overestimated anyway in my opinion. In the studio he was rarely given a chance to really shine and live he was a kind of "isolated" player, no team-player, always trying to noodle away. He often had to be stopped by Mick or Keith, it seems he had no group-feeling, always just thinking of his solo, not caring for the rest of the band. One can hear that pretty good on Brussel´73 - there is the band and there is MT, never a unit, always two seperate parts. With Ronnie it is totally different and - imo - it´s better that way.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-06-15 17:41 by HMS.
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
rollmops
()
Date: June 15, 2019 18:52
Quote
HMS
If DW isn´t a Stones-album because Charlie does not play on some tracks, then a couple of other albums aren´t Stones-albums too, because Bill does not play bass on a lot of tracks...
I never cared in detail on which DW-tracks charlie is on drums and on which who-knows-who. I think most people don´t even know about that. And it seems nobody can really tell on which tracks he´s actually not playing...
...ER has only one weak song, the horrible Indian Girl, all of the other material is very good, imo. I like ER even better than SG. And yes, ER is much fresher than GHS/IORR.
...i wonder why a guitar-wizard like Taylor who "saved the Stones and lifted them to incredible hights never reached before or after", never had a huge career of his own. You might say he can´t sing that´s the problem... but Eric Clapton can´t sing... Jimi Hendrix could not sing... so what´s the problem with MT... I think it is his haughtiness and inability to get along with other musicians... probably... Strangly enough music-fans all over the world praise him for once being a member of the Stones, but no-one cares about what he´s been doing after his departure. One of music history´s most mysterious enigmas that this guy never had a career and is completely forgotten today. His membership with the Stones is overestimated anyway in my opinion. In the studio he was rarely given a chance to really shine and live he was a kind of "isolated" player, no team-player, always trying to noodle away. He often had to be stopped by Mick or Keith, it seems he had no group-feeling, always just thinking of his solo, not caring for the rest of the band. One can hear that pretty good on Brussel´73 - there is the band and there is MT, never a unit, always two seperate parts. With Ronnie it is totally different and - imo - it´s better that way.[/quote/
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-06-15 19:02 by rollmops.
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
rollmops
()
Date: June 15, 2019 18:53
Quote
HMS
If DW isn´t a Stones-album because Charlie does not play on some tracks, then a couple of other albums aren´t Stones-albums too, because Bill does not play bass on a lot of tracks...
I never cared in detail on which DW-tracks charlie is on drums and on which who-knows-who. I think most people don´t even know about that. And it seems nobody can really tell on which tracks he´s actually not playing...
...ER has only one weak song, the horrible Indian Girl, all of the other material is very good, imo. I like ER even better than SG. And yes, ER is much fresher than GHS/IORR.
...i wonder why a guitar-wizard like Taylor who "saved the Stones and lifted them to incredible hights never reached before or after", never had a huge career of his own. You might say he can´t sing that´s the problem... but Eric Clapton can´t sing... Jimi Hendrix could not sing... so what´s the problem with MT... I think it is his haughtiness and inability to get along with other musicians... probably... Strangly enough music-fans all over the world praise him for once being a member of the Stones, but no-one cares about what he´s been doing after his departure. One of music history´s most mysterious enigmas that this guy never had a career and is completely forgotten today. His membership with the Stones is overestimated anyway in my opinion. In the studio he was rarely given a chance to really shine and live he was a kind of "isolated" player, no team-player, always trying to noodle away. He often had to be stopped by Mick or Keith, it seems he had no group-feeling, always just thinking of his solo, not caring for the rest of the band. One can hear that pretty good on Brussel´73 - there is the band and there is MT, never a unit, always two seperate parts. With Ronnie it is totally different and - imo - it´s better that way.[/quote
One reason why Mick Taylor did not have big commercial success as a solo artist
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: June 15, 2019 20:49
Quote
Doxa
I know a lot of people for whom, like for our His Majesty, the Jones era Stones is the only one that really matters.
I do not think that. Of course the other related music matters, much of it amazing... but, there is only really one 'era' of The Rolling Stones.
Quote
Doxa
I consider the band that emerged from the 60's with Taylor, a different band.
With Taylors arrival it was "effectively a new band" as Taylor quite rightly put it.
Not The Rolling Stones as clearly defined by the wonky personal and musical relationships between Brian, Mick and Keith - "The emotional engine behind the whole thing! - Keith Richards 1977, but something new.
How could it not be with the arrival of a player of Taylors distinction?
It's more than just a member being replaced, it's a new band with it's own music and identity! One with an obvious strong connection and shared history with what came before. A variation on the mutation from Little Boy Blue and the Blue Boys in to The Rolling Stones... That too required the arrival of a distinctive musician in the greater story.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2019-06-15 21:29 by His Majesty.
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
HMS
()
Date: June 15, 2019 21:45
The transformation into a "effectively new band" happened before MT arrived on the set. It happened with Let It Bleed, an album with only minor MT-input (he only played slide on Country Honk and electric guitar on Live With Me). And some of the most important songs of Sticky Fingers are in fact left-overs from LIB-sessions, as far as I´ve been told.
So Taylor was not the motor of this transformation, the musical change was already made no matter what new guitarist stepped in, if it wasn´t Taylor it would have been another (skillful) player. It would have made no (or almost no) difference for the sound of the albums of 1971-74. Taylor did not turn the Stones into a new band, he already found a new band when he arrived. He is not as important for the development of the band as some people may think.
So Taylor was not the motor of this transformation, the musical change was already made no matter what new guitarist stepped in, if it wasn´t Taylor it would have been another (skillful) player. It would have made no (or almost no) difference for the sound of the albums of 1971-74. Taylor did not turn the Stones into a new band, he already found a new band when he arrived. He is not as important for the development of the band as some people may think.
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
marianna
()
Date: June 15, 2019 22:00
I don't understand the attacks on Taylor's character. If people don't like his playing, fine. But I don't think he was deliberately trying to cause problems in the band. The fact he hasn't had much of a career in recent years is not something that reflects badly on him, either. It could be his choice. Not everyone wants or is made for the music industry. Didn't his professional career happen by accident? He was very young when he started out. It was nice for the Stones to give him some work and cash a few years ago, but it was never going to work out long-term.
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
bam
()
Date: June 15, 2019 22:05
Quote
HMS
The transformation into a "effectively new band" happened before MT arrived on the set. It happened with Let It Bleed, an album with only minor MT-input (he only played slide on Country Honk and electric guitar on Live With Me). And some of the most important songs of Sticky Fingers are in fact left-overs from LIB-sessions, as far as I´ve been told.
So Taylor was not the motor of this transformation, the musical change was already made no matter what new guitarist stepped in, if it wasn´t Taylor it would have been another (skillful) player. It would have made no (or almost no) difference for the sound of the albums of 1971-74. Taylor did not turn the Stones into a new band, he already found a new band when he arrived. He is not as important for the development of the band as some people may think.
This is correct, in my view. By BB, Brian was already slipping away, and the new direction was being created. Taylor added to the change, but it was already happening.
- A separate thought. I've been watching Scorsese's Rolling Thunder film this week, which reminded me that the Rolling Thunder Revue concert I saw was the second best rock concert I ever saw. The first? The Stones in 1972 at the International Amphitheatre in Chicago. The Stones packed more energy, beauty, and power in those 70 minutes than any of the many concerts I've seen before or since. Taylor added the beauty.
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: June 15, 2019 22:06
Quote
HMS
The transformation into a "effectively new band" happened before MT arrived on the set. It happened with Let It Bleed, an album with only minor MT-input (he only played slide on Country Honk and electric guitar on Live With Me). And some of the most important songs of Sticky Fingers are in fact left-overs from LIB-sessions, as far as I´ve been told.
So Taylor was not the motor of this transformation, the musical change was already made no matter what new guitarist stepped in, if it wasn´t Taylor it would have been another (skillful) player. It would have made no (or almost no) difference for the sound of the albums of 1971-74. Taylor did not turn the Stones into a new band, he already found a new band when he arrived. He is not as important for the development of the band as some people may think.
Your error is to focus on a transitional studio album and ignore live concerts.
For example...
Honolulu 1966 - MSG 1969. "Effectively a new band".
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-06-15 22:10 by His Majesty.
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: June 15, 2019 22:24
Quote
bam
This is correct, in my view. By BB, Brian was already slipping away, and the new direction was being created.
Brian was part of the supposed 'new direction'. Playing on 8 or so tracks on the album and on 3 or so other related session tracks. Bringing back slide and harmonica as part of his contributions.
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
bam
()
Date: June 15, 2019 22:43
The extent of Brian's contributions to BB has been argued for a long time. Glyn Johns suggested his role was limited and that when he did show up, some of what he did wasn't even recorded.
[en.wikipedia.org]
[en.wikipedia.org]
Brian clearly contributed something to many of the tracks, but doesn't seem to have been a driving force. That said, the slide on No Expectations was exquisite.
Taylor, IMHO, added a unique ability to blend the melody with the riffs.
[en.wikipedia.org]
[en.wikipedia.org]
Brian clearly contributed something to many of the tracks, but doesn't seem to have been a driving force. That said, the slide on No Expectations was exquisite.
Taylor, IMHO, added a unique ability to blend the melody with the riffs.
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
TheflyingDutchman
()
Date: June 15, 2019 22:59
Quote
His MajestyQuote
HMS
The transformation into a "effectively new band" happened before MT arrived on the set. It happened with Let It Bleed, an album with only minor MT-input (he only played slide on Country Honk and electric guitar on Live With Me). And some of the most important songs of Sticky Fingers are in fact left-overs from LIB-sessions, as far as I´ve been told.
So Taylor was not the motor of this transformation, the musical change was already made no matter what new guitarist stepped in, if it wasn´t Taylor it would have been another (skillful) player. It would have made no (or almost no) difference for the sound of the albums of 1971-74. Taylor did not turn the Stones into a new band, he already found a new band when he arrived. He is not as important for the development of the band as some people may think.
Your error is to focus on a transitional studio album and ignore live concerts.
For example...
Honolulu 1966 - MSG 1969. "Effectively a new band".
HMS makes no error, Taylor is just not his cup of tea it seems. Funny part is that he keeps repeating it.
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
HMS
()
Date: June 15, 2019 23:18
BB, imo does not represent the "new band". They still sounded like guys from England. The "new direction" that started with LIB and was brought to perfection with Sticky Fingers was mainly to pick up elements of american rockbands that were successful by the end of the 60s. On Sticky Fingers (and all albums that were to come) they no longer sounded like guys from England. They sounded more "international" or - and that imo was their intention - "american". All that musical change and going in a new direction had nothing to do with the influence of a new lead guitarist, be it Taylor or some other guy. It was a natural development as well as a commercial dicision. Taylor did not change the band all over it already had changed. He added what the Stones allowed him to add. I am not getting tired of saying that his influence on the band was only marginal. He was their guitarist, no more no less. It could have been Wayne Perkins as well, the difference would not have been significant. They expanded their musical horizon focusing on the north american type of rock-music in order to keep up with the american bands.
They could no longer rest on the laurels of being a most important part of the "british invasion", these days were gone. The change had to be made in order to stay successful in america (and worldwide because american rock music had become the role model)
They could no longer rest on the laurels of being a most important part of the "british invasion", these days were gone. The change had to be made in order to stay successful in america (and worldwide because american rock music had become the role model)
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
HMS
()
Date: June 15, 2019 23:56
...and I´d like to add that Taylor was the part of the Stones that could be replaced most easily, because he never was an integral part. Any skillful guitarist could have replaced Taylor.
Ronnie Wood is an integral part because of his unique interaction with Keith, Ronnie and Keith are two of a kind, they are weaving - creating a unique sound. Ronnie is irreplaceable for the Stones-sound. Wonderful solos are not quintessential for the Stones-sound, never were. So Taylor always was some kind of foreign body.
Ronnie Wood is much more important for the Stones than Taylor ever was.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2019-06-15 23:59 by HMS.
Ronnie Wood is an integral part because of his unique interaction with Keith, Ronnie and Keith are two of a kind, they are weaving - creating a unique sound. Ronnie is irreplaceable for the Stones-sound. Wonderful solos are not quintessential for the Stones-sound, never were. So Taylor always was some kind of foreign body.
Ronnie Wood is much more important for the Stones than Taylor ever was.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2019-06-15 23:59 by HMS.
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
TheflyingDutchman
()
Date: June 16, 2019 00:00
Once being famous the Rolling Stones could have repeated their setlist with either Jones, Taylor or Ron Wood without changing their style or one note and still fill stadiums.. Virtually they could rest on their Laurels since, let's say 1967/'68.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-06-16 00:14 by TheflyingDutchman.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-06-16 00:14 by TheflyingDutchman.
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
powerage78
()
Date: June 16, 2019 00:10
Stones with Mick Taylor is just gold Stones era.
On stage and on records.
Just History. For ever.
***
I'm just a Bad Boy Boogie
On stage and on records.
Just History. For ever.
***
I'm just a Bad Boy Boogie
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: June 16, 2019 01:32
Quote
bam
The extent of Brian's contributions to BB has been argued for a long time.
More is revealed as time and dedicated research allows people like me to find out more, clarify claims and throw out what is and what isn't etc etc.
Magazines like Mojo keep publishing the same error laden shite regardless.
Quote
bam
Brian clearly contributed something to many of the tracks, but doesn't seem to have been a driving force.
He wasn't for TSMR either, but regardless, he was part of the conception, creation and process. Beggars Banquet would have a different sound and feel without him.
All part of the wonky personal and musical relationships between Brian, Mick and Keith, that being... "the emotional engine behind the whole thing" - Keith Richards, 1977.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-06-16 02:24 by His Majesty.
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: June 16, 2019 01:41
Quote
HMS
...and I´d like to add that Taylor was the part of the Stones that could be replaced most easily, because he never was an integral part. Any skillful guitarist could have replaced Taylor.
Every and any member of a band is replaceable. They just get someone else or stay as a reduced band and carry on.
Depending on the timing of the change, the position and the history, whether it remains to still be that band is another thing. Some bands change their name, some don't.
...
Like if Mick were replaced by Eric Burdon in 1964, that's not quite such a big a thing as the band identity wasn't fully realised and years on successful by that time.
Mick being replaced in 1969, no matter how good (or bad) the music was after, it brings to an end The Rolling Stones.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-06-16 02:19 by His Majesty.
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
TornAndFried
()
Date: June 16, 2019 01:46
Quote
HMS
...and I´d like to add that Taylor was the part of the Stones that could be replaced most easily, because he never was an integral part. Any skillful guitarist could have replaced Taylor.
Ronnie Wood is an integral part because of his unique interaction with Keith, Ronnie and Keith are two of a kind, they are weaving - creating a unique sound. Ronnie is irreplaceable for the Stones-sound. Wonderful solos are not quintessential for the Stones-sound, never were. So Taylor always was some kind of foreign body.
Ronnie Wood is much more important for the Stones than Taylor ever was.
Thank you Mrs. Wood for your um, interesting perspective on Ronnie.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Guests:
1360
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10