Quote
crawdaddy
Still waiting for mine in the post after ordering it about two weeks ago, and it's coming from Germany costing about £17 so will have to email them.

Didn't really look around much, but now found out I could order it from my local record store, Banquet Records in Kingston for even less, and pick it up within a couple of days.

I'm really itching to get this double CD as soon as possible now.
Will order it from Banquet Records and a friend of mine can have the one coming from Germany.

I've now got my 2 x El Mocambo double CD and given one to a friend of mine and well pleased with the whole recording.
I'm not as critical as a few Stones fans posting here, but I love every single track on there.
Will be playing this a lot in the next week or two.

Quote
MKjan

Quote
WorriedAboutYou
I always preferred Ron's playing and the looser rock n' roll sound he bought to the Stones over Talyor. I find Taylor's playing too distracting, long-winded and even a bit dated now.

You make a legit point imo.

Long winded ? Nope just brilliant. And this nonsense about his playing being long winded .He hardly ever plays a solo that is evenlong or not concise. His guitar playing was perfect for the band.Woods solos are no less long winded.Youmay not like his playing but his solos are not long winded



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-06-17 23:51 by Taylor1.

It's funny, if you keep pushing 72/ Taylor era, the narrative and focus shifts away from the purpose of this thread. The El Mocambo release is fantastic plain and simple. Everyone who is a Stone's fan loves it. The best release in a long time hands down.

Quote
Taylor1

Quote
MKjan

Quote
WorriedAboutYou
I always preferred Ron's playing and the looser rock n' roll sound he bought to the Stones over Talyor. I find Taylor's playing too distracting, long-winded and even a bit dated now.

You make a legit point imo.

Long winded ? Nope just brilliant. And this nonsense about his playing being long winded .He hardly ever plays a solo that is evenlong or not concise. His guitar playing was perfect for the band.Woods solos are no less long winded.Youmay not like his playing but his solos are not long winded

How you can't hear Taylor's excessive noodling and when he overplayed is a mystery.

How'd we end up here ??????

Lurv Macombo ... Lurv it all .... PLAY LOUD and blow ya brains ...



ROCKMAN

Quote
Rockman
How'd we end up here ??????

Lurv Macombo ... Lurv it all .... PLAY LOUD and blow ya brains ...

Indeed!

><

Quote
Taylor1

Quote
MKjan

Quote
WorriedAboutYou
I always preferred Ron's playing and the looser rock n' roll sound he bought to the Stones over Talyor. I find Taylor's playing too distracting, long-winded and even a bit dated now.

You make a legit point imo.

Long winded ? Nope just brilliant. And this nonsense about his playing being long winded .He hardly ever plays a solo that is evenlong or not concise. His guitar playing was perfect for the band.Woods solos are no less long winded.Youmay not like his playing but his solos are not long winded

I've never heard Ronnie play anything purely self indulgent or for grandstanding. He's a player in a band and does that expertly. He's a subtle, tasteful and sympathetic player and always has Keith's back.

With Taylor, I find a lot of it masturbatory, lost in his own world and inwardly focussed. He didn't enhance the band as much as Ronnie does.

Quote
WorriedAboutYou

Quote
Taylor1

Quote
MKjan

Quote
WorriedAboutYou
I always preferred Ron's playing and the looser rock n' roll sound he bought to the Stones over Talyor. I find Taylor's playing too distracting, long-winded and even a bit dated now.

You make a legit point imo.

Long winded ? Nope just brilliant. And this nonsense about his playing being long winded .He hardly ever plays a solo that is evenlong or not concise. His guitar playing was perfect for the band.Woods solos are no less long winded.Youmay not like his playing but his solos are not long winded

I've never heard Ronnie play anything purely self indulgent or for grandstanding. He's a player in a band and does that expertly. He's a subtle, tasteful and sympathetic player and always has Keith's back.

With Taylor, I find a lot of it masturbatory, lost in his own world and inwardly focussed. He didn't enhance the band as much as Ronnie does.

And except for the period 1975-1981,1989-1995 , most of Wood’ s guitar playing has not been good.Live Licks Wood playing is better than Taylor1969-1973?You are the only person in this universe who would say that. Taylor’s guitar playing on Sticky Fingers,Exile , Goat ,IORR, is the best of any guitarist not named Richards.This crap about masturbation is about as stupid a comment I have ever heard on this website.On stage live Taylor never even took very long solos, compared to say, guitarists in the Allman Brothers Was Hendrix masturbating on stage?.I love Wood’s playing in1975, 1989, but to say the Stones were not great live with Taylor is pretty silly.Wood live has beenpretty bad from1999 to the present.Bill Wyman said you couldn’t touch the Stones’s live in the Taylor years. All the other Stones have said he was great.A lot of Wood’s playing live this century is sloppy,unimaginative, unattractive guitar. Nothing like his earlier playing with the Faces or Stones.Nothing tops the Stones live 1969-1973.Just ask the Stones themselves



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2022-06-18 13:39 by Taylor1.

Quote
WorriedAboutYou
With Taylor, I find a lot of it masturbatory, lost in his own world and inwardly focussed. He didn't enhance the band as much as Ronnie does.

They both add great stuff...maybe MT was more inwardly focussed, but often delivering breathtaking solos, creating fluid themes within songs, off the cuff. I also love Ronnie's rhythmic, physical style, though it is more hit or miss.

Quote
Rockman
How'd we end up here ??????

Lurv Macombo ... Lurv it all .... PLAY LOUD and blow ya brains ...

Indeed.

How this thread about the release of one of the Stones' "holy grail" items could end up in the old "Taylor vs. Wood" debate is beyond me, honestly.

Quote
skytrench

Quote
WorriedAboutYou
With Taylor, I find a lot of it masturbatory, lost in his own world and inwardly focussed. He didn't enhance the band as much as Ronnie does.

They both add great stuff...maybe MT was more inwardly focussed, but often delivering breathtaking solos, creating fluid themes within songs, off the cuff. I also love Ronnie's rhythmic, physical style, though it is more hit or miss.

I’m sensing a theme here.

Nice paragraph on El Mocambo from the interview with Barbara Charone in today's Sunday Times. First night 'exceptional' after all. Who wouldn't ant to hear the rest of that? Paywall after a few free articles ... It's a good read.

'The shows at the El Mocambo (capacity 300) were the first the band had done since playing to 200,000 in England the summer before. The first night was exceptional but the second night was one of those “you had to be there” moments. Keith particularly was on fire, playing one out-of-this-world guitar solo after another. Sweat poured from every audience member, along with Margaret Trudeau, wife of the then Canadian prime minister Pierre Trudeau, whose appearance at the shows grabbed even more headlines, managing to knock Keith off quite a few front pages.'



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-06-19 19:36 by MadMetaphoricalMax.

Quote
GasLightStreet

How you can't hear Taylor's excessive noodling and when he overplayed is a mystery.

It never disturbed me. Frankly quite the opposite. I loved it.

"If you don't c sharp you'll b flat". - Muhammad Ali.

Quote
MadMetaphoricalMax
Nice paragraph on El Mocambo from the interview with Barbara Charone in today's Sunday Times. First night 'exceptional' after all. Who wouldn't ant to hear the rest of that? Paywall after a few free articles ... It's a good read.

'The shows at the El Mocambo (capacity 300) were the first the band had done since playing to 200,000 in England the summer before. The first night was exceptional but the second night was one of those “you had to be there” moments. Keith particularly was on fire, playing one out-of-this-world guitar solo after another. Sweat poured from every audience member, along with Margaret Trudeau, wife of the then Canadian prime minister Pierre Trudeau, whose appearance at the shows grabbed even more headlines, managing to knock Keith off quite a few front pages.'

Nice read, thanks for sharing!

Quote
Taylor1

Quote
MKjan

Quote
WorriedAboutYou
I always preferred Ron's playing and the looser rock n' roll sound he bought to the Stones over Talyor. I find Taylor's playing too distracting, long-winded and even a bit dated now.

You make a legit point imo.

Long winded ? Nope just brilliant. And this nonsense about his playing being long winded .He hardly ever plays a solo that is evenlong or not concise. His guitar playing was perfect for the band.Woods solos are no less long winded.Youmay not like his playing but his solos are not long winded

No Rolling Stones guitarist ever came closer to BB King's playing than Mick Taylor. That's the end of the Taylor-Wood discussion to me.








(Watch on YouTube).

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Rockman
How'd we end up here ??????

Lurv Macombo ... Lurv it all .... PLAY LOUD and blow ya brains ...

Indeed.

How this thread about the release of one of the Stones' "holy grail" items could end up in the old "Taylor vs. Wood" debate is beyond me, honestly.

Agreed.

People have far too much time on their hands.

Can't be said enough what a fabulous release this is.

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Rockman
How'd we end up here ??????

Lurv Macombo ... Lurv it all .... PLAY LOUD and blow ya brains ...

Indeed.

How this thread about the release of one of the Stones' "holy grail" items could end up in the old "Taylor vs. Wood" debate is beyond me, honestly.

Agreed.

People have far too much time on their hands.

Nope. The original band members: Jagger, Richards, Wyman and Watts kept on playing as great like before. So from a musical point of view the only subject that makes the El Mocambo gig worth arguing or even writing about is the fact that Wood replaced Taylor. That's not too difficult to understand?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-06-20 00:09 by TheflyingDutchman.

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Rockman
How'd we end up here ??????

Lurv Macombo ... Lurv it all .... PLAY LOUD and blow ya brains ...

Indeed.

How this thread about the release of one of the Stones' "holy grail" items could end up in the old "Taylor vs. Wood" debate is beyond me, honestly.

Agreed.

People have far too much time on their hands.

Nope. The original band members: Jagger, Richards, Wyman and Watts kept on playing as great like before. So from a musical point of view the only subject that makes the El Mocambo gig worth arguing or even writing about is the fact that Wood replaced Taylor. That's not too difficult to understand?

It's obviously too difficult for you to understand that Taylor left on his own will in 1974 so the only question is if you find any enjoyment with the Taylor-less Stones in this 1977 club show or not. If not, well - to each his own.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Rockman
How'd we end up here ??????

Lurv Macombo ... Lurv it all .... PLAY LOUD and blow ya brains ...

Indeed.

How this thread about the release of one of the Stones' "holy grail" items could end up in the old "Taylor vs. Wood" debate is beyond me, honestly.

Agreed.

People have far too much time on their hands.

Can't be said enough what a fabulous release this is.

Can't get enough of it... love it! And yes..made loud to play loud

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Rockman
How'd we end up here ??????

Lurv Macombo ... Lurv it all .... PLAY LOUD and blow ya brains ...

Indeed.

How this thread about the release of one of the Stones' "holy grail" items could end up in the old "Taylor vs. Wood" debate is beyond me, honestly.

Agreed.

People have far too much time on their hands.

Nope. The original band members: Jagger, Richards, Wyman and Watts kept on playing as great like before. So from a musical point of view the only subject that makes the El Mocambo gig worth arguing or even writing about is the fact that Wood replaced Taylor. That's not too difficult to understand?

I think you're ignoring the setlist here, though. Many blues and r&b-covers and new songs from Black And Blue.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

I think you're ignoring the setlist here, though. Many blues and r&b-covers and new songs from Black And Blue.

I cannot Ignore the setlist. I remember very well when LyL was released as a double vinyl at the time. Something tells me that you are going to play a part of it with the Iorr band in London.

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
DandelionPowderman

I think you're ignoring the setlist here, though. Many blues and r&b-covers and new songs from Black And Blue.

I cannot Ignore the setlist. I remember very well when LyL was released as a double vinyl at the time. Something tells me that you are going to play a part of it with the Iorr band in London.

Hehe, we'll see

However, I meant as a musical comparison to earlier performances (regarding ElMo). When the setlist is vastly different to what they did before, that's more than a valid musical reason to judge the live album on its own merits, imo.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

However, I meant as a musical comparison to earlier performances (regarding ElMo). When the setlist is vastly different to what they did before, that's more than a valid musical reason to judge the live album on its own merits, imo.

Absolutely true. 75 pages already. I don' believe any Stones release
reached that number.Aah, I must be getting too old and a bit sour..



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2022-06-20 13:29 by TheflyingDutchman.

Quote
retired_dog

It's obviously too difficult for you to understand that Taylor left on his own will in 1974 so the only question is if you find any enjoyment with the Taylor-less Stones in this 1977 club show or not. If not, well - to each his own.

As you can read in my previous post I plea guilty your honour. Some things in life just never change. Could be a PTSD.

Quote
TheflyingDutchman


Absolutely true. 75 pages already. I don' believe any Stones release
reached that number.Aah, I must be getting too old and a bit sour..

To be honest: Blue and Lonesome made us fill 117 pages.
And yes, even then some had to bring up Mick Taylor in the discussions.

Whoever complains about The Stones repeating themselves: we as fans, are a poor example.

Just as long as the guitar plays, let it steal your heart away

Quote
marcovandereijk

Quote
TheflyingDutchman


Absolutely true. 75 pages already. I don' believe any Stones release
reached that number.Aah, I must be getting too old and a bit sour..

To be honest: Blue and Lonesome made us fill 117 pages.
And yes, even then some had to bring up Mick Taylor in the discussions.

Whoever complains about The Stones repeating themselves: we as fans, are a poor example.

Stating "The best" or "Greatest" defines being a fan. A band or musician is the best because his fans say so. Not the other way round. How to measure someone or a band is the greatest? Fast sell out, or nostalgia, a long history of success? I think that the Rolling Stones give their fans a feeling of freedom and "@#$%&" the musical rules, some sort of musical anarchy. They do what they like, not striving for perfection like the London Symphony Orchestra . They never did. Jeff Beck called it "designer sloppiness" . The only thing we know for sure is that Mount Everest is the highest mountain above sea level.

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
Taylor1

Quote
MKjan

Quote
WorriedAboutYou
I always preferred Ron's playing and the looser rock n' roll sound he bought to the Stones over Talyor. I find Taylor's playing too distracting, long-winded and even a bit dated now.

You make a legit point imo.

Long winded ? Nope just brilliant. And this nonsense about his playing being long winded .He hardly ever plays a solo that is evenlong or not concise. His guitar playing was perfect for the band.Woods solos are no less long winded.Youmay not like his playing but his solos are not long winded

No Rolling Stones guitarist ever came closer to BB King's playing than Mick Taylor. That's the end of the Taylor-Wood discussion to me.

Some say it's blasphemy -But I never liked BB King. It's pop ballroom blues to me, and he's really just a one-note wonder.

Mathijs

Quote
Taylor1
Long winded ? Nope just brilliant. And this nonsense about his playing being long winded .He hardly ever plays a solo that is evenlong or not concise. His guitar playing was perfect for the band.Woods solos are no less long winded.Youmay not like his playing but his solos are not long winded

Sorry that's not true at all. Taylor's playing was extremely long winded on the 1970 and 1971 tour. On tracks like Dead Flowers and Honky Tonk Women I find his noodling really irritating and just very cliché.

Mathijs

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
Taylor1

Quote
MKjan

Quote
WorriedAboutYou
I always preferred Ron's playing and the looser rock n' roll sound he bought to the Stones over Talyor. I find Taylor's playing too distracting, long-winded and even a bit dated now.

You make a legit point imo.

Long winded ? Nope just brilliant. And this nonsense about his playing being long winded .He hardly ever plays a solo that is evenlong or not concise. His guitar playing was perfect for the band.Woods solos are no less long winded.Youmay not like his playing but his solos are not long winded

No Rolling Stones guitarist ever came closer to BB King's playing than Mick Taylor. That's the end of the Taylor-Wood discussion to me.

Some say it's blasphemy -But I never liked BB King. It's pop ballroom blues to me, and he's really just a one-note wonder.

Mathijs

Of course tastes are tastes etc.

But if you think that BB's music doesn't touch your heart, you sure need to come to my place, have a few drinks, listen to a few beauties from a proper system played LOUD, and I can assure you that within nothing you will see the light!!

C

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
Taylor1
Long winded ? Nope just brilliant. And this nonsense about his playing being long winded .He hardly ever plays a solo that is evenlong or not concise. His guitar playing was perfect for the band.Woods solos are no less long winded.Youmay not like his playing but his solos are not long winded

Sorry that's not true at all. Taylor's playing was extremely long winded on the 1970 and 1971 tour. On tracks like Dead Flowers and Honky Tonk Women I find his noodling really irritating and just very cliché.

Mathijs

Dead Flowers at the Marquee in 71. It's a beautiful song, but it didn't need all that noodling, it needed less.