Tell Me :
Talk
The Ramones made it work with Five Ramones in their band.
They never made it work
So did the Jacksons, and the Osmonds, and the Partridges.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-07-28 03:01 by TornAndFried.
That’s what is interesting, the fact a kid joined the world’s greatest band. That’s unheard of anywhere else in rock music. They were firmly established when he was invited.
Did he stand still on stage? Yes, but try playing that precisely jumping around like a jester. His idols were Albert and B.B. King for crying out loud! Was he visually appealing? Reviewers at the time certainly thought so, including the one and only Andy Warhol.
The more I think about his story, the more I feel bad about a young blues enthusiast that got sucked into that lifestyle. The stories must be incredible though.
I shoved the Rock and Roll Circus soundtrack in the car CD player yesterday. This is the first time the band sounds funky, exemplified by the often overlooked Parachute Woman, and the slow choogling version of Jumping Jack Flash. They don't resemble the earlier band at all. It had to be Jimmy Miller's direction. Their first tentative steps toward the band we recognize the Greatest Rock and Roll Band in the World.
I don't feel bad about Mick Taylor because he lifted the Stones to their zenith. He is admittedly more of a presence, and more impactful, to me, live, than in the studio. And Mr. Taylor was not that angelic. He certainly seemed to be enjoying himself on the Exile Tour of '72, and peaked musically on the '73 Europe tour. He might have thought he was moving on to a more musically challenging, jazz leaning career, but it didn't work out that way. He played his absolute best with the Rolling Stones.
Yes, Bill had the quiet stoic role already sewn up. But more than that - Bill for a long time, looked VERY much a true Stone. Matter of fact, when I first followed the Stones as a little kid, to me Bill was the meanest looking one of them all. IMO it wasn't so much Taylor's stage demeanor, but that he just had that fresh faced, vegetarian look about him. A look that Keith beat out of him pretty fast.
I totally agree on Jimmy Miller. He was a much bigger part of those years than he gets credit for. He was a collaborative producer that added that American funk.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-07-28 15:59 by TravelinMan.
[youtu.be]
Practically unknowable because he's seemingly a pretty boring person.
He was technically superior as a guitarist in some ways, but he wasn't the finest musician 'the stones' ever had.
Taylor was essentially a guitarist waiting for the solos. His playing is/was quite predictable.
Jaded views here. I’m unsure why. I love his extended solos on Bitch and Hip Shake. Also the way he just takes over the Chuck Berry tunes soloing the night away. Star Star and Honky Tonk Women are other examples where his solos ruin the song.
Please try to be more objective, he’s actually an interesting guitarist overall if you give him a chance. Is he a bluesmen at heart? Yes. Does he only solo? Absolutely not. There are plenty examples of really cool rhythm playing including Hip Shake, that alternate version of All Down The Line, the alternate version of Bitch. I can’t leave out the rhythm/lead hybrid of my very own namesake!
Having known His Majesty personally for many years, i can assure you that he is extremely interesting
I have gave him lots of chances, but I mostly find him to be quite boring and predictable... he lacked the intensity of say Clapton in 1965/66 and far off the emotional depth of Peter Green.
He's the lesser of the Mayall school of guitarists who lucked out and was given the chance of a lifetime in 1969, walked away after a few years because he thought he was better than them and went on to show the world just how wrong he was.
Perhaps it's right that the stones got Taylor because they may not have been able to handle someone who was better.
Total lack of depth to any of your posts. He left because he thought he was better? Where on god’s grey earth has Taylor ever said that?!?
You have an idea in your head and you’re trying to impose it on the situation rather than actually viewing it objectively.
As a man and a person, Taylor is head and shoulders above the other two guitarists that played alongside Richards. Perhaps that makes him boring, that’s fine with me.
From my perspective as a musician and a guitarist in particular, Taylor played the sweetest and most sympathetic guitar on any Stones record. He could also deliver some muscular aggressive guitar and interesting rhythm. Live he was asked to perform the role of gunslinger, which was popular at the time. And boy did he deliver!
Nicky Hopkins was the best musician to ever play with the Stones. That’s not even a debate.
That would be because dead people can't sue for any form of defamation.
--
Captain Corella
60 Years a Fan
Hah! Oh dear.
“It's not rubbish to say that I was a bit peeved about not getting credit for a couple of songs, but that wasn't the whole reason. I guess I just felt like I had enough. I decided to leave and start a group with Jack Bruce. I never really felt, and I don't know why, but I never felt I was gonna stay with the Stones forever, even right from the beginning.”
Hmm, he goes on to praise the band multiple times in the interview. Stop projecting your opinion.
Wouldn't it be fair to add the "they could hardly tune their guitars and sounded like a rough garage band"-quote in this context?
Not that he was wrong per se. Still, he said it.
His smugness here: [youtu.be]
A leech, albeit a talented one, that thought he'd use a world famous and established band for awhile to further his career. That worked out well.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-07-29 15:31 by His Majesty.
Leaving the Stones in 1974 was one of the biggest blunderers in the history of Rock and Roll, imo. Making fun out f it by digging up old footage, well, we should make
a new thread posting pictures and footage of drug-fuelled Stones members. I do think that Taylor was the only Stone who didn't let drugs affect his playing, and Bill and Stue of course.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-07-29 16:50 by TheflyingDutchman.
Yes, because drug/alcohol addiction and an ego-tarist thinking he was better than the Rolling Stones are clearly the same thing.
Always stay on topic in Chapter Two.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-07-29 18:46 by TheflyingDutchman.
While I think that's a clever and funny statement about MT waiting to pounce on a spot to solo, I don't quite agree with that. IMO TaYlor doesn't get enough credit as rhythm player. No, he was not into chords or even riffage that much. But double stops were used when needed in solo, but the main point is: he did play with Stones in glory years. often behind Keith solo-ing. And that machine moved and chugged along much, much more fluid than in Ron Wood years. there was something, maybe it's an intangible, but there was something he was doing just exactly right. who knows? Maybe that is what the Stones needed exactly to smooth over and slide into the groove behind Keith's choppy leads, and Bill's busy octaves and fifths - just a straight chord player, strumming along.
And another point in MT's favor: we all know he wrote several of the classic hooks and riffs from those years. Obviously not the hook-riff-magic that Keith had, but strong core songs. Jagger definitely found a lot to work with there.
There is no chapter two.
It's an obviously humorous generalisation, but it's one that kind of fits. That he did other things doesn't take much away from it.
I'm glad you saw the light.
Yes. It ended in 1969.
I'm sorry to hear that.
I believe that was in the context that they were not in practice to tour, not that they were a bad band.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: The perfect book about the Stones that wont ever be written (supposition...)
Posted by:
HopeYouGuessMyName
()
Date: July 28, 2019 02:06
Quote
24FPS
Plus it was awkward to have two Micks in the band. As if it all matters now. Mick Taylor was simply the finest guitar player the Stones ever had.
The Ramones made it work with Five Ramones in their band.
Re: The perfect book about the Stones that wont ever be written (supposition...)
Posted by:
Cooltoplady
()
Date: July 28, 2019 02:11
Quote
HopeYouGuessMyNameQuote
24FPS
Plus it was awkward to have two Micks in the band. As if it all matters now. Mick Taylor was simply the finest guitar player the Stones ever had.
The Ramones made it work with Five Ramones in their band.
They never made it work
Re: The perfect book about the Stones that wont ever be written (supposition...)
Posted by:
TornAndFried
()
Date: July 28, 2019 02:59
Quote
HopeYouGuessMyNameQuote
24FPS
Plus it was awkward to have two Micks in the band. As if it all matters now. Mick Taylor was simply the finest guitar player the Stones ever had.
The Ramones made it work with Five Ramones in their band.
So did the Jacksons, and the Osmonds, and the Partridges.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-07-28 03:01 by TornAndFried.
Re: The perfect book about the Stones that wont ever be written (supposition...)
Posted by:
TravelinMan
()
Date: July 28, 2019 03:59
Quote
24FPS
I certainly wouldn't call Mick Taylor dull. Practically unknowable, sure. His addition to the apex of classic Stones music will never be dull. I think his inside view of the band would be interesting to hear, if he would ever tell it. I always state that you can't remove people from their time, and during Mick Taylor's actual hitch in the band, there was always something awkward about him.
There was an energy about the Jones/Jagger/Richard visual lineup that was jarring to lose. Mick Taylor lacked the visual charisma of Jones, or Wood. That seemed much more important back then. Bill already had the taciturn funeral stiff down pat, and was actually an anchor against the flamboyant front line. With time, and a deeper appreciation of the music, both Bill and Mick Taylor are now lauded for their musical contribution to the Stones.
Mick Taylor never did fit visually. Plus it was awkward to have two Micks in the band. As if it all matters now. Mick Taylor was simply the finest guitar player the Stones ever had.
That’s what is interesting, the fact a kid joined the world’s greatest band. That’s unheard of anywhere else in rock music. They were firmly established when he was invited.
Did he stand still on stage? Yes, but try playing that precisely jumping around like a jester. His idols were Albert and B.B. King for crying out loud! Was he visually appealing? Reviewers at the time certainly thought so, including the one and only Andy Warhol.
The more I think about his story, the more I feel bad about a young blues enthusiast that got sucked into that lifestyle. The stories must be incredible though.
Re: The perfect book about the Stones that wont ever be written (supposition...)
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: July 28, 2019 04:36
Quote
TravelinManQuote
24FPS
I certainly wouldn't call Mick Taylor dull. Practically unknowable, sure. His addition to the apex of classic Stones music will never be dull. I think his inside view of the band would be interesting to hear, if he would ever tell it. I always state that you can't remove people from their time, and during Mick Taylor's actual hitch in the band, there was always something awkward about him.
There was an energy about the Jones/Jagger/Richard visual lineup that was jarring to lose. Mick Taylor lacked the visual charisma of Jones, or Wood. That seemed much more important back then. Bill already had the taciturn funeral stiff down pat, and was actually an anchor against the flamboyant front line. With time, and a deeper appreciation of the music, both Bill and Mick Taylor are now lauded for their musical contribution to the Stones.
Mick Taylor never did fit visually. Plus it was awkward to have two Micks in the band. As if it all matters now. Mick Taylor was simply the finest guitar player the Stones ever had.
That’s what is interesting, the fact a kid joined the world’s greatest band. That’s unheard of anywhere else in rock music. They were firmly established when he was invited.
Did he stand still on stage? Yes, but try playing that precisely jumping around like a jester. His idols were Albert and B.B. King for crying out loud! Was he visually appealing? Reviewers at the time certainly thought so, including the one and only Andy Warhol.
The more I think about his story, the more I feel bad about a young blues enthusiast that got sucked into that lifestyle. The stories must be incredible though.
I shoved the Rock and Roll Circus soundtrack in the car CD player yesterday. This is the first time the band sounds funky, exemplified by the often overlooked Parachute Woman, and the slow choogling version of Jumping Jack Flash. They don't resemble the earlier band at all. It had to be Jimmy Miller's direction. Their first tentative steps toward the band we recognize the Greatest Rock and Roll Band in the World.
I don't feel bad about Mick Taylor because he lifted the Stones to their zenith. He is admittedly more of a presence, and more impactful, to me, live, than in the studio. And Mr. Taylor was not that angelic. He certainly seemed to be enjoying himself on the Exile Tour of '72, and peaked musically on the '73 Europe tour. He might have thought he was moving on to a more musically challenging, jazz leaning career, but it didn't work out that way. He played his absolute best with the Rolling Stones.
Re: The perfect book about the Stones that wont ever be written (supposition...)
Posted by:
Palace Revolution 2000
()
Date: July 28, 2019 12:53
Quote
TravelinManQuote
24FPS
I certainly wouldn't call Mick Taylor dull. Practically unknowable, sure. His addition to the apex of classic Stones music will never be dull. I think his inside view of the band would be interesting to hear, if he would ever tell it. I always state that you can't remove people from their time, and during Mick Taylor's actual hitch in the band, there was always something awkward about him.
There was an energy about the Jones/Jagger/Richard visual lineup that was jarring to lose. Mick Taylor lacked the visual charisma of Jones, or Wood. That seemed much more important back then. Bill already had the taciturn funeral stiff down pat, and was actually an anchor against the flamboyant front line. With time, and a deeper appreciation of the music, both Bill and Mick Taylor are now lauded for their musical contribution to the Stones.
Mick Taylor never did fit visually. Plus it was awkward to have two Micks in the band. As if it all matters now. Mick Taylor was simply the finest guitar player the Stones ever had.
That’s what is interesting, the fact a kid joined the world’s greatest band. That’s unheard of anywhere else in rock music. They were firmly established when he was invited.
Did he stand still on stage? Yes, but try playing that precisely jumping around like a jester. His idols were Albert and B.B. King for crying out loud! Was he visually appealing? Reviewers at the time certainly thought so, including the one and only Andy Warhol.
The more I think about his story, the more I feel bad about a young blues enthusiast that got sucked into that lifestyle. The stories must be incredible though.
Yes, Bill had the quiet stoic role already sewn up. But more than that - Bill for a long time, looked VERY much a true Stone. Matter of fact, when I first followed the Stones as a little kid, to me Bill was the meanest looking one of them all. IMO it wasn't so much Taylor's stage demeanor, but that he just had that fresh faced, vegetarian look about him. A look that Keith beat out of him pretty fast.
Re: The perfect book about the Stones that wont ever be written (supposition...)
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: July 28, 2019 13:22
Taylor's stage demeanor, but that he just had that fresh faced, vegetarian look about him
Any wonder …. first show with The Stones
and its the Hyde Park gig and all those butterflies ….
That whole thing would be spookier than seein' Eleanor in the nude …
ROCKMAN
Any wonder …. first show with The Stones
and its the Hyde Park gig and all those butterflies ….
That whole thing would be spookier than seein' Eleanor in the nude …
ROCKMAN
Re: The perfect book about the Stones that wont ever be written (supposition...)
Posted by:
TravelinMan
()
Date: July 28, 2019 15:58
Quote
24FPSQuote
TravelinManQuote
24FPS
I certainly wouldn't call Mick Taylor dull. Practically unknowable, sure. His addition to the apex of classic Stones music will never be dull. I think his inside view of the band would be interesting to hear, if he would ever tell it. I always state that you can't remove people from their time, and during Mick Taylor's actual hitch in the band, there was always something awkward about him.
There was an energy about the Jones/Jagger/Richard visual lineup that was jarring to lose. Mick Taylor lacked the visual charisma of Jones, or Wood. That seemed much more important back then. Bill already had the taciturn funeral stiff down pat, and was actually an anchor against the flamboyant front line. With time, and a deeper appreciation of the music, both Bill and Mick Taylor are now lauded for their musical contribution to the Stones.
Mick Taylor never did fit visually. Plus it was awkward to have two Micks in the band. As if it all matters now. Mick Taylor was simply the finest guitar player the Stones ever had.
That’s what is interesting, the fact a kid joined the world’s greatest band. That’s unheard of anywhere else in rock music. They were firmly established when he was invited.
Did he stand still on stage? Yes, but try playing that precisely jumping around like a jester. His idols were Albert and B.B. King for crying out loud! Was he visually appealing? Reviewers at the time certainly thought so, including the one and only Andy Warhol.
The more I think about his story, the more I feel bad about a young blues enthusiast that got sucked into that lifestyle. The stories must be incredible though.
I shoved the Rock and Roll Circus soundtrack in the car CD player yesterday. This is the first time the band sounds funky, exemplified by the often overlooked Parachute Woman, and the slow choogling version of Jumping Jack Flash. They don't resemble the earlier band at all. It had to be Jimmy Miller's direction. Their first tentative steps toward the band we recognize the Greatest Rock and Roll Band in the World.
I don't feel bad about Mick Taylor because he lifted the Stones to their zenith. He is admittedly more of a presence, and more impactful, to me, live, than in the studio. And Mr. Taylor was not that angelic. He certainly seemed to be enjoying himself on the Exile Tour of '72, and peaked musically on the '73 Europe tour. He might have thought he was moving on to a more musically challenging, jazz leaning career, but it didn't work out that way. He played his absolute best with the Rolling Stones.
I totally agree on Jimmy Miller. He was a much bigger part of those years than he gets credit for. He was a collaborative producer that added that American funk.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-07-28 15:59 by TravelinMan.
Re: The perfect book about the Stones that wont ever be written (supposition...)
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: July 28, 2019 18:12
Quote
24FPS
I shoved the Rock and Roll Circus soundtrack in the car CD player yesterday. This is the first time the band sounds funky, exemplified by the often overlooked Parachute Woman, and the slow choogling version of Jumping Jack Flash. They don't resemble the earlier band at all.
[youtu.be]
Re: The perfect book about the Stones that wont ever be written (supposition...)
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: July 28, 2019 23:39
Quote
24FPS
I certainly wouldn't call Mick Taylor dull. Practically unknowable, sure. His addition to the apex of classic Stones music will never be dull. Mick Taylor was simply the finest guitar player the Stones ever had.
Practically unknowable because he's seemingly a pretty boring person.
He was technically superior as a guitarist in some ways, but he wasn't the finest musician 'the stones' ever had.
Taylor was essentially a guitarist waiting for the solos. His playing is/was quite predictable.
Re: The perfect book about the Stones that wont ever be written (supposition...)
Posted by:
TravelinMan
()
Date: July 29, 2019 00:23
Quote
His MajestyQuote
24FPS
I certainly wouldn't call Mick Taylor dull. Practically unknowable, sure. His addition to the apex of classic Stones music will never be dull. Mick Taylor was simply the finest guitar player the Stones ever had.
Practically unknowable because he's seemingly a pretty boring person.
He was technically superior as a guitarist in some ways, but he wasn't the finest musician 'the stones' ever had.
Taylor was essentially a guitarist waiting for the solos. His playing is/was quite predictable.
Jaded views here. I’m unsure why. I love his extended solos on Bitch and Hip Shake. Also the way he just takes over the Chuck Berry tunes soloing the night away. Star Star and Honky Tonk Women are other examples where his solos ruin the song.
Please try to be more objective, he’s actually an interesting guitarist overall if you give him a chance. Is he a bluesmen at heart? Yes. Does he only solo? Absolutely not. There are plenty examples of really cool rhythm playing including Hip Shake, that alternate version of All Down The Line, the alternate version of Bitch. I can’t leave out the rhythm/lead hybrid of my very own namesake!
Re: The perfect book about the Stones that wont ever be written (supposition...)
Posted by:
SilverBlanket
()
Date: July 29, 2019 00:43
Quote
TravelinManQuote
His MajestyQuote
TravelinMan
Yes, because joining the WORLD’S GREATEST ROCK AND ROLL BAND AT 20 makes for a dull story.
Yes. It's not the band, it's the person who joined that would make it a dull read.
Woke up, played guitar solos all day and night, went to bed.
Nobody will ever confuse you with an ethnomusicologist, or anybody remotely interesting for that matter.
Having known His Majesty personally for many years, i can assure you that he is extremely interesting
Re: The perfect book about the Stones that wont ever be written (supposition...)
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: July 29, 2019 01:33
Quote
TravelinMan
He’s actually an interesting guitarist overall if you give him a chance.
I have gave him lots of chances, but I mostly find him to be quite boring and predictable... he lacked the intensity of say Clapton in 1965/66 and far off the emotional depth of Peter Green.
He's the lesser of the Mayall school of guitarists who lucked out and was given the chance of a lifetime in 1969, walked away after a few years because he thought he was better than them and went on to show the world just how wrong he was.
Perhaps it's right that the stones got Taylor because they may not have been able to handle someone who was better.
Re: The perfect book about the Stones that wont ever be written (supposition...)
Posted by:
TravelinMan
()
Date: July 29, 2019 03:22
Quote
His MajestyQuote
TravelinMan
He’s actually an interesting guitarist overall if you give him a chance.
I have gave him lots of chances, but I mostly find him to be quite boring and predictable... he lacked the intensity of say Clapton in 1965/66 and far off the emotional depth of Peter Green.
He's the lesser of the Mayall school of guitarists who lucked out and was given the chance of a lifetime in 1969, walked away after a few years because he thought he was better than them and went on to show the world just how wrong he was.
Perhaps it's right that the stones got Taylor because they may not have been able to handle someone who was better.
Total lack of depth to any of your posts. He left because he thought he was better? Where on god’s grey earth has Taylor ever said that?!?
You have an idea in your head and you’re trying to impose it on the situation rather than actually viewing it objectively.
As a man and a person, Taylor is head and shoulders above the other two guitarists that played alongside Richards. Perhaps that makes him boring, that’s fine with me.
From my perspective as a musician and a guitarist in particular, Taylor played the sweetest and most sympathetic guitar on any Stones record. He could also deliver some muscular aggressive guitar and interesting rhythm. Live he was asked to perform the role of gunslinger, which was popular at the time. And boy did he deliver!
Nicky Hopkins was the best musician to ever play with the Stones. That’s not even a debate.
Re: The perfect book about the Stones that wont ever be written (supposition...)
Posted by:
CaptainCorella
()
Date: July 29, 2019 05:50
Quote
His MajestyQuote
24FPS
I guess Anita didn't leave behind a manuscript. That would have been a real insider's look.
She did and Marlon has said he'll release it once certain people have passed away.
That would be because dead people can't sue for any form of defamation.
--
Captain Corella
60 Years a Fan
Re: The perfect book about the Stones that wont ever be written (supposition...)
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: July 29, 2019 07:41
Quote
TravelinMan
He left because he thought he was better? Where on god’s grey earth has Taylor ever said that?!?
Hah! Oh dear.
Re: The perfect book about the Stones that wont ever be written (supposition...)
Posted by:
TravelinMan
()
Date: July 29, 2019 14:51
Quote
His MajestyQuote
TravelinMan
He left because he thought he was better? Where on god’s grey earth has Taylor ever said that?!?
Hah! Oh dear.
“It's not rubbish to say that I was a bit peeved about not getting credit for a couple of songs, but that wasn't the whole reason. I guess I just felt like I had enough. I decided to leave and start a group with Jack Bruce. I never really felt, and I don't know why, but I never felt I was gonna stay with the Stones forever, even right from the beginning.”
Hmm, he goes on to praise the band multiple times in the interview. Stop projecting your opinion.
Re: The perfect book about the Stones that wont ever be written (supposition...)
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: July 29, 2019 15:14
Quote
TravelinManQuote
His MajestyQuote
TravelinMan
He left because he thought he was better? Where on god’s grey earth has Taylor ever said that?!?
Hah! Oh dear.
“It's not rubbish to say that I was a bit peeved about not getting credit for a couple of songs, but that wasn't the whole reason. I guess I just felt like I had enough. I decided to leave and start a group with Jack Bruce. I never really felt, and I don't know why, but I never felt I was gonna stay with the Stones forever, even right from the beginning.”
Hmm, he goes on to praise the band multiple times in the interview. Stop projecting your opinion.
Wouldn't it be fair to add the "they could hardly tune their guitars and sounded like a rough garage band"-quote in this context?
Not that he was wrong per se. Still, he said it.
Re: The perfect book about the Stones that wont ever be written (supposition...)
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: July 29, 2019 15:23
Quote
TravelinMan
“ I never really felt, and I don't know why, but I never felt I was gonna stay with the Stones forever, even right from the beginning.” - Mick Taylor
Quote
DandelionPowderman
"they could hardly tune their guitars and sounded like a rough garage band" - Mick Taylor
His smugness here: [youtu.be]
A leech, albeit a talented one, that thought he'd use a world famous and established band for awhile to further his career. That worked out well.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-07-29 15:31 by His Majesty.
Re: The perfect book about the Stones that wont ever be written (supposition...)
Posted by:
TheflyingDutchman
()
Date: July 29, 2019 16:49
Quote
His MajestyQuote
TravelinMan
“ I never really felt, and I don't know why, but I never felt I was gonna stay with the Stones forever, even right from the beginning.” - Mick TaylorQuote
DandelionPowderman
"they could hardly tune their guitars and sounded like a rough garage band" - Mick Taylor
His smugness here: [youtu.be]
A leech, albeit a talented one, that thought he'd use a world famous and established band for awhile to further his career. That worked out well.
Leaving the Stones in 1974 was one of the biggest blunderers in the history of Rock and Roll, imo. Making fun out f it by digging up old footage, well, we should make
a new thread posting pictures and footage of drug-fuelled Stones members. I do think that Taylor was the only Stone who didn't let drugs affect his playing, and Bill and Stue of course.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-07-29 16:50 by TheflyingDutchman.
Re: The perfect book about the Stones that wont ever be written (supposition...)
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: July 29, 2019 17:56
Quote
TheflyingDutchman
Leaving the Stones in 1974 was one of the biggest blunderers in the history of Rock and Roll, imo. Making fun out f it by digging up old footage, well, we should make
a new thread posting pictures and footage of drug-fuelled Stones members.
Yes, because drug/alcohol addiction and an ego-tarist thinking he was better than the Rolling Stones are clearly the same thing.
Re: The perfect book about the Stones that wont ever be written (supposition...)
Posted by:
TheflyingDutchman
()
Date: July 29, 2019 18:40
Quote
His MajestyQuote
TheflyingDutchman
Leaving the Stones in 1974 was one of the biggest blunderers in the history of Rock and Roll, imo. Making fun out f it by digging up old footage, well, we should make
a new thread posting pictures and footage of drug-fuelled Stones members. I do think that Taylor was the only Stone who didn't let drugs affect his playing, and Bill and Stue of course.
Yes, because drug/alcohol addiction and an ego-tarist thinking he was better than the Rolling Stones are clearly the same thing.
Always stay on topic in Chapter Two.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-07-29 18:46 by TheflyingDutchman.
Re: The perfect book about the Stones that wont ever be written (supposition...)
Posted by:
Palace Revolution 2000
()
Date: July 29, 2019 18:52
Quote
His MajestyQuote
24FPS
I certainly wouldn't call Mick Taylor dull. Practically unknowable, sure. His addition to the apex of classic Stones music will never be dull. Mick Taylor was simply the finest guitar player the Stones ever had.
Practically unknowable because he's seemingly a pretty boring person.
He was technically superior as a guitarist in some ways, but he wasn't the finest musician 'the stones' ever had.
Taylor was essentially a guitarist waiting for the solos. His playing is/was quite predictable.
While I think that's a clever and funny statement about MT waiting to pounce on a spot to solo, I don't quite agree with that. IMO TaYlor doesn't get enough credit as rhythm player. No, he was not into chords or even riffage that much. But double stops were used when needed in solo, but the main point is: he did play with Stones in glory years. often behind Keith solo-ing. And that machine moved and chugged along much, much more fluid than in Ron Wood years. there was something, maybe it's an intangible, but there was something he was doing just exactly right. who knows? Maybe that is what the Stones needed exactly to smooth over and slide into the groove behind Keith's choppy leads, and Bill's busy octaves and fifths - just a straight chord player, strumming along.
And another point in MT's favor: we all know he wrote several of the classic hooks and riffs from those years. Obviously not the hook-riff-magic that Keith had, but strong core songs. Jagger definitely found a lot to work with there.
Re: The perfect book about the Stones that wont ever be written (supposition...)
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: July 29, 2019 19:15
Quote
TheflyingDutchman
Always stay on topic in Chapter Two.
There is no chapter two.
Re: The perfect book about the Stones that wont ever be written (supposition...)
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: July 29, 2019 19:22
Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
While I think that's a clever and funny statement about MT waiting to pounce on a spot to solo, I don't quite agree with that.
It's an obviously humorous generalisation, but it's one that kind of fits. That he did other things doesn't take much away from it.
Re: The perfect book about the Stones that wont ever be written (supposition...)
Posted by:
TheflyingDutchman
()
Date: July 29, 2019 19:34
Quote
His MajestyQuote
TheflyingDutchman
Always stay on topic in Chapter Two.
There is no chapter two.
I'm glad you saw the light.
Re: The perfect book about the Stones that wont ever be written (supposition...)
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: July 29, 2019 19:40
Quote
TheflyingDutchman
I'm glad you saw the light.
Yes. It ended in 1969.
Re: The perfect book about the Stones that wont ever be written (supposition...)
Posted by:
TheflyingDutchman
()
Date: July 29, 2019 19:46
Quote
His MajestyQuote
TheflyingDutchman
I'm glad you saw the light.
Yes. It ended in 1969.
I'm sorry to hear that.
Re: The perfect book about the Stones that wont ever be written (supposition...)
Posted by:
OpenG
()
Date: July 29, 2019 20:50
MT played some fine rhythm guitar just strumming the chords over Keith's solos fit fine and he also played many counter melodies to what Keith was playing. To this day MT might of come up with the opening intro on Bitch since Keith never claimed that intro in any interview or article. My memory serves me the band was playing around with the song at Mick's house and the song was not rocking or going anywhere until Keith joined in.
Re: The perfect book about the Stones that wont ever be written (supposition...)
Posted by:
TravelinMan
()
Date: July 29, 2019 23:23
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
TravelinManQuote
His MajestyQuote
TravelinMan
He left because he thought he was better? Where on god’s grey earth has Taylor ever said that?!?
Hah! Oh dear.
“It's not rubbish to say that I was a bit peeved about not getting credit for a couple of songs, but that wasn't the whole reason. I guess I just felt like I had enough. I decided to leave and start a group with Jack Bruce. I never really felt, and I don't know why, but I never felt I was gonna stay with the Stones forever, even right from the beginning.”
Hmm, he goes on to praise the band multiple times in the interview. Stop projecting your opinion.
Wouldn't it be fair to add the "they could hardly tune their guitars and sounded like a rough garage band"-quote in this context?
Not that he was wrong per se. Still, he said it.
I believe that was in the context that they were not in practice to tour, not that they were a bad band.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Andrew , Benjiboy13 , bv , cwalters , cyclist , franzk , hbwriter , letitloose6 , Martin90 , MelBelli , MichaelLassen , More Hot Rocks , Papo , perkmo , Potato , Rambler62 , roryg , Stonesfan62 , TeddyB1018 , Tonstone , TumblinDice76
Guests:
2956
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10