Quote
TravelinMan

You're talking about precision. Mick Taylor is was an extremely precise player born out of the B.B. King tradition of blues guitar playing. Doesn't mean he hasn't dabbled in dirty, crunchy tones though.

Dirty is the opposite of clean and I suppose I mainly think of it in terms of a guitar player's tone. A dirty/distorted tone vs. a clean tone. Usually, when one says a guitarist's actual playing is clean, the opposite is sloppy, not dirty.

Neil Young is a dirty, sloppy player whom I thoroughly enjoy. He's extremely creative as well.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
HMS
Indeed. MT gave even rocking Stones-songs a mellow touch. Very unfitting most of the times. With MT the Stones were in danger to end up sounding like any (american) rock-band. Playing melodic, not too hard rocking songs and having a guitar-hero soloing the usual stuff. They´ve almost lost their identity while Taylor was in the band. Of course Taylor isn´t to blame for everything that went wrong, but he isn´t totally innocent either. His playing and style watered down the Stones.

Where you hear "watered down" Taylor era Stones, real Stones fans hear searing rock'n'roll. There's one of many reasons why GET YER YA-YA'S OUT! is such a stellar album - Taylor's playing.

Where real Stones fans hear shit you hear excellence. Coincidence?

Nope. Just a fact.

Quote
TravelinMan

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
TravelinMan

Quote
DandelionPowderman
That's distorted, not dirty.

Ever heard of a dirt pedal?

Look, players like Don Fender, Mick Taylor or Ry Cooder won't sound dirty because of a pedal. They play and produce their tones a different way. The attack is different - as are the notes and motifs they are creating.

The dirt happens when one lets go of the precision and focus solely on the energy and drive (Chuck Berry, Keith, Ronnie, Lou Reed, John Lee Hooker and others).

On the contrary, distorting a sound can make it even more pretty (Hotel California, Through The Lonely Nights, Winter, Sway).

You're talking about precision. Mick Taylor is an extremely precise player born out of the B.B. King tradition of blues guitar playing. Doesn't mean he hasn't dabbled in dirty, crunchy tones though.

Dirty is the opposite of clean and I suppose I mainly think of it in terms of a guitar player's tone. A dirty/distorted tone vs. a clean tone. Usually, when one says a guitarist's actual playing is clean, the opposite is sloppy, not dirty.

Neil Young is a dirty, sloppy player whom I thoroughly enjoy. He's extremely creative as well.

Quote
HMS

Quote
Rip This
...taylor's style as beautiful as it was and can sometimes be is essentially very dated... He sounds as old as he is...probably older...in 50 and counting he was a duck out of water...even for the Stones.

Fully agree. Midnight Rambler always has a lot more punch with MT not being around. Now that he´s gone MR finally sounds aggressive and fresh again.

Quote
HMS

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
HMS
Indeed. MT gave even rocking Stones-songs a mellow touch. Very unfitting most of the times. With MT the Stones were in danger to end up sounding like any (american) rock-band. Playing melodic, not too hard rocking songs and having a guitar-hero soloing the usual stuff. They´ve almost lost their identity while Taylor was in the band. Of course Taylor isn´t to blame for everything that went wrong, but he isn´t totally innocent either. His playing and style watered down the Stones.

Where you hear "watered down" Taylor era Stones, real Stones fans hear searing rock'n'roll. There's one of many reasons why GET YER YA-YA'S OUT! is such a stellar album - Taylor's playing.

Where real Stones fans hear shit you hear excellence. Coincidence?

Nope. Just a fact.

Huge parts of GHS and IORR are watered down Stones. No coincidence that those albums are the ones on which Taylor is most prominently featured and most audible. Regarding live albums - especially Brussels is sometimes watered down by Taylor taking away the roughness of the originals by his virtuoso playing. And with YaYa´s I´ve always felt a bit bored. It lacks the roughness of Love You Live and it also lacks the in some way charming hectic of Still Life. YaYa´s for the most part is like afternoon tea with the Queen compared to the aforementioned live-albums.

Quote
alimente

Quote
HMS

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
HMS
Indeed. MT gave even rocking Stones-songs a mellow touch. Very unfitting most of the times. With MT the Stones were in danger to end up sounding like any (american) rock-band. Playing melodic, not too hard rocking songs and having a guitar-hero soloing the usual stuff. They´ve almost lost their identity while Taylor was in the band. Of course Taylor isn´t to blame for everything that went wrong, but he isn´t totally innocent either. His playing and style watered down the Stones.

Where you hear "watered down" Taylor era Stones, real Stones fans hear searing rock'n'roll. There's one of many reasons why GET YER YA-YA'S OUT! is such a stellar album - Taylor's playing.

Where real Stones fans hear shit you hear excellence. Coincidence?

Nope. Just a fact.

Huge parts of GHS and IORR are watered down Stones. No coincidence that those albums are the ones on which Taylor is most prominently featured and most audible. Regarding live albums - especially Brussels is sometimes watered down by Taylor taking away the roughness of the originals by his virtuoso playing. And with YaYa´s I´ve always felt a bit bored. It lacks the roughness of Love You Live and it also lacks the in some way charming hectic of Still Life. YaYa´s for the most part is like afternoon tea with the Queen compared to the aforementioned live-albums.

And the ongoing HMS mission of turning common Stones sense upside down continues, now with stabbing Brussels... What's next?

Quote
HMS

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
HMS
Indeed. MT gave even rocking Stones-songs a mellow touch. Very unfitting most of the times. With MT the Stones were in danger to end up sounding like any (american) rock-band. Playing melodic, not too hard rocking songs and having a guitar-hero soloing the usual stuff. They´ve almost lost their identity while Taylor was in the band. Of course Taylor isn´t to blame for everything that went wrong, but he isn´t totally innocent either. His playing and style watered down the Stones.

Where you hear "watered down" Taylor era Stones, real Stones fans hear searing rock'n'roll. There's one of many reasons why GET YER YA-YA'S OUT! is such a stellar album - Taylor's playing.

Where real Stones fans hear shit you hear excellence. Coincidence?

Nope. Just a fact.

Huge parts of GHS and IORR are watered down Stones. No coincidence that those albums are the ones on which Taylor is most prominently featured and most audible. Regarding live albums - especially Brussels is sometimes watered down by Taylor taking away the roughness of the originals by his virtuoso playing. And with YaYa´s I´ve always felt a bit bored. It lacks the roughness of Love You Live and it also lacks the in some way charming hectic of Still Life. YaYa´s for the most part is like afternoon tea with the Queen compared to the aforementioned live-albums.

Quote
HMS
Huge parts of GHS and IORR are watered down Stones. No coincidence that those albums are the ones on which Taylor is most prominently featured and most audible.

Quote
HMS
Regarding live albums - especially Brussels is sometimes watered down by Taylor taking away the roughness of the originals by his virtuoso playing. And with YaYa´s I´ve always felt a bit bored. It lacks the roughness of Love You Live and it also lacks the in some way charming hectic of Still Life. YaYa´s for the most part is like afternoon tea with the Queen compared to the aforementioned live-albums.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
HMS
Huge parts of GHS and IORR are watered down Stones. No coincidence that those albums are the ones on which Taylor is most prominently featured and most audible.

All of DIRTY WORK is an unflushed toilet bowl. Ronnie Wood is prominently on that album. So is Keith Richards. Aside from those facts, it's no coincidence - it is a bowl of shit.

STEEL WHEELS, VOODOO LOUNGE, BRIDGES TO BABYLON and A BIGGER BANG - all have watered down Stones on them, with or without Ronnie, Keith and Mick. That is no coincidence.

Quote
HMS
Regarding live albums - especially Brussels is sometimes watered down by Taylor taking away the roughness of the originals by his virtuoso playing. And with YaYa´s I´ve always felt a bit bored. It lacks the roughness of Love You Live and it also lacks the in some way charming hectic of Still Life. YaYa´s for the most part is like afternoon tea with the Queen compared to the aforementioned live-albums.

You can't regard live albums because your auditory perception has a percentage of zero.

Quote
TheGreek
maybe we should cut him some slack because maybe he has hearing loss ?

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
TheGreek
maybe we should cut him some slack because maybe he has hearing loss ?

But it doesn't have anything to do with the spewing like the BP oil well: nothing good about it in any possible way.

Quote
RaiseTheKnife
I always get a laugh when you people call Taylor a ''virtuoso'', he never was. Guthrie Govan, Tommy Emmanuel, Paul Gilbert, Eric Johnson etc those guys are virtuosos. Taylor is blues player who started out by copying Clapton on his first Mayall record and then moved on the his own style with the Stones. But he was never a fast player with amazing chops. He was a blues player with fantastic tone, vibrato and great flow in his playing, but not by any means a virtuoso.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
RaiseTheKnife
I always get a laugh when you people call Taylor a ''virtuoso'', he never was. Guthrie Govan, Tommy Emmanuel, Paul Gilbert, Eric Johnson etc those guys are virtuosos. Taylor is blues player who started out by copying Clapton on his first Mayall record and then moved on the his own style with the Stones. But he was never a fast player with amazing chops. He was a blues player with fantastic tone, vibrato and great flow in his playing, but not by any means a virtuoso.

Your last sentence is odd. Because to me it comes off like a contradiction.
I guess it comes down to the definition of 'virtuoso'. In your opinion is it all about speed?
And actually MT at times can be heard playing with a lot of speed. Maybe it was a choice; to not play with too much speed.
I do want to say though, that those names you mention are all pretty decent guitarists.They're not shredders.

Quote
RaiseTheKnife

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
RaiseTheKnife
I always get a laugh when you people call Taylor a ''virtuoso'', he never was. Guthrie Govan, Tommy Emmanuel, Paul Gilbert, Eric Johnson etc those guys are virtuosos. Taylor is blues player who started out by copying Clapton on his first Mayall record and then moved on the his own style with the Stones. But he was never a fast player with amazing chops. He was a blues player with fantastic tone, vibrato and great flow in his playing, but not by any means a virtuoso.

Your last sentence is odd. Because to me it comes off like a contradiction.
I guess it comes down to the definition of 'virtuoso'. In your opinion is it all about speed?
And actually MT at times can be heard playing with a lot of speed. Maybe it was a choice; to not play with too much speed.
I do want to say though, that those names you mention are all pretty decent guitarists.They're not shredders.

I think it's a combination of both great tone, vibrato, flow and speed. Taylor never had the speed, which comes naturally comes to anyone with enough mastery of the instrument.

I'm not a fast guitar player, but I can still play any Taylor solo note for note after a day of two if I want to learn it. It may not sound like Taylor but from a technical standpoint he has never played anything which requires 5+ hours of daily practice like those others players I mentioned.

Quote
RaiseTheKnife

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
RaiseTheKnife
I always get a laugh when you people call Taylor a ''virtuoso'', he never was. Guthrie Govan, Tommy Emmanuel, Paul Gilbert, Eric Johnson etc those guys are virtuosos. Taylor is blues player who started out by copying Clapton on his first Mayall record and then moved on the his own style with the Stones. But he was never a fast player with amazing chops. He was a blues player with fantastic tone, vibrato and great flow in his playing, but not by any means a virtuoso.

Your last sentence is odd. Because to me it comes off like a contradiction.
I guess it comes down to the definition of 'virtuoso'. In your opinion is it all about speed?
And actually MT at times can be heard playing with a lot of speed. Maybe it was a choice; to not play with too much speed.
I do want to say though, that those names you mention are all pretty decent guitarists.They're not shredders.

I think it's a combination of both great tone, vibrato, flow and speed. Taylor never had the speed, which comes naturally comes to anyone with enough mastery of the instrument.

I'm not a fast guitar player, but I can still play any Taylor solo note for note after a day of two if I want to learn it. It may not sound like Taylor but from a technical standpoint he has never played anything which requires 5+ hours of daily practice like those others players I mentioned.

Quote
Rip This
...isn't this a Ronnie thread?...why are we talking about Taylor....%^&$ him.

Quote
HMS

Quote
Rip This
...isn't this a Ronnie thread?...why are we talking about Taylor....%^&$ him.

Haven´t you realized yet that every thread on this board sooner or later becomes a Mick-Taylor-thread?

Those Taylorites are everywhere

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash

Quote
HMS

Quote
Rip This
...isn't this a Ronnie thread?...why are we talking about Taylor....%^&$ him.

Haven´t you realized yet that every thread on this board sooner or later becomes a Mick-Taylor-thread?

Those Taylorites are everywhere

Yeah, I was gonna say the same thing. Taylor hasn't been a member since 1974 but you can't just talk about Ronnie without MT coming up....