Re: Mick Taylor's place amongst great guitarists
Date: September 29, 2005 05:20
keefriff99 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He may have been a virtuoso, but my god, his
> playing can just overwhelm me emotionally. He
> never seemed to over-emote or go for the cheap
> licks like, say, Clapton. He was always tasteful,
> elegant and deep.
For me, the mix of melody and soul are incredible in his playing. When the musician's around him referred to Taylor's "nailing it", they weren't referring to playing in the right key or getting the string to bend to the right note; they seem to be referring to his encapsulating in a solo the entire feeling of the song, generally by telling a "story" with his solo.
Also, both live and in the studio, his playing never suggests a canned collection of riffs or rehearsed parts: it always has this improvisatory, in-the-moment feeling to it.
And his playing typically is tailored (sorry) to the song so that by listening to the solo you can tell when the chords were changing, what the tempo is, etc., but you never hear the seams in his playing. (With so many lead guitarists, the leads are interchangeable and you wonder why they bother with a lead if they have nothing to "say". Just to give the singer a break?)
As for tasteful and elegant, I think he could do those things. But it kind of depends what you mean. SFM Wembley '73, LIV NY '72, ADTL NY '72--to choose some more well known examples--all show a rough edge that could readily match his co-guitarist grit for grit. If elegance means communicative simplicity--playing only those notes he needs to use to communicate the feeling he is trying to convey--then yes he was elegant.
As for the top 100 lists, etc., I don't think whether a guitarist is great depends on a popularity contest, in particular a list designed to sell magazines.