I just ask this because there seems to be many posters like open G and four stone walls among others who never give any credit to the band before or after Taylor, they seem to think the band reached greatness when Taylor joined, do they not think Out of our heads, Aftermath, Beggars banquet,Some Girls, Tattoo You are among the best albums they ever made? and if so why do they post on a board that is about the Rolling Stones as a whole and not just the short period with Taylor. I myself think they made 2 of their best albums with MT SF and EOMS and 2 of their worst GHS and IORR, in short he is just a good player and is greatly overated in Stones history

Ket Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I just ask this because there seems to be many
> posters like open G and four stone walls among
> others who never give any credit to the band
> before or after Taylor, they seem to think the
> band reached greatness when Taylor joined, do they
> not think Out of our heads, Aftermath, Beggars
> banquet,Some Girls, Tattoo You are among the best
> albums they ever made? and if so why do they post
> on a board that is about the Rolling Stones as a
> whole and not just the short period with Taylor. I
> myself think they made 2 of their best albums with
> MT SF and EOMS and 2 of their worst GHS and IORR,
> in short he is just a good player and is greatly
> overated in Stones history


I'm an MT fan AND a Stones fan, lololol...


"It's just that demon life has got me in it's sway..."

i agree Ket, Taylor joined in the ' golden' era indeed and did a great job 2 but it was only 5 out of 40+ years Stones, I'm not nostalgic, I'll go for them 2005/06

nostalgia is vastly underrated

who are these "rolling stones" you speak of?

J.J.Flash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> who are these "rolling stones" you speak of?


the Rolling Stones 2005

Mick Taylor is history - things are just fine as they are.

I'll say this about the MT crowd here - we have a better sense of humor! So, there!

yeah, take that!

i liked mick taylor and i loved the albums he played on...i love iorr and ghs...
he helped bring the stones into the new era..and helped widen the over all sound of the stones...i didn't he was much to look at live..woodie is fun to see..

but jagger/richards are the real masters...they know how to use and to take everything out of a person and make it into the stones..look what brian jones did for them...then taylor, bobby keys, nickey h., stu, woodie, bill wyman,watts etc..
mick taylor is great, but not the masters that jagger and richards are...
mick taylor was nothing without mick and keith...in fact jagger and richards would be nothing without each other...thats why i like them so much.
they really need each other to make the greatest rock and roll band of all time...

hot stuff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> mick taylor was nothing without mick and
> keith...


You take it too far when you make a comment like that. MT was a well-respected (at 17) blues master before he hooked on with the Stones. He was not "nothing."

hot stuff wrote:

> didn't he was much to look at live..woodie is fun to see..




yeah, but he sure sounded great!

t&a...sorry...taylor is a great guitar player...sure..but was never up at the same level as the stones were in 1969...he came into the spotlight to millions of people after joining the stones.

The question has to be read: Why are Stones fans no Mick Taylor fans? I'm a fan of Mick Taylor because he was a Stone. And he still is a brilliant guitar player (I wish I could say this about our guitareros). Furthermore the Stones did their best albums when Mick Taylor was in the band (in opposite to Ronnie Mick T. was even drunken able to play a brilliant guitar!)

I love all the eras.

T&A Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> hot stuff Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > mick taylor was nothing without mick and
> > keith...
>
>
> You take it too far when you make a comment like
> that. MT was a well-respected (at 17) blues master
> before he hooked on with the Stones. He was not
> "nothing."


No I disagee, loads of players probably all of them great technical played with Mayall but as far as his playing recognized yes he was NOTHING before and after the Stones, the 200 people who go to his gigs or somehow find a way to buy his albums does not aLter the fact that without him ever being in the stones his legacy is shite it is a fact!

that's just a load of hog-wash, Ket. I guess you're not much of a fan of the 60's blues scene. A guy named John Mayall hired a 17-year-old talent named Mick Taylor in 1968 to fill the prodigious shoes left by the likes of Peter Green (heard of him?), who left after filling in for the departed Eric Clapton (the name ring a bell?). MT contributed to 3 highly acclaimed Mayall LPs before the Stones snatched him away. He was already A MAJOR TALENT ON THE BRITISH BLUES SCENE IN 1969. HE WAS NOT NOTHING. Had the Stones not hired him away, some other high-profile band (not that Mayall wasn't high-profile already - he was considered the father of British Blues already) would have, no doubt.

Don't try to rewrite history here....

T&A Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> that's just a load of hog-wash, Ket. I guess
> you're not much of a fan of the 60's blues scene.
> A guy named John Mayall hired a 17-year-old talent
> named Mick Taylor in 1968 to fill the prodigious
> shoes left by the likes of Peter Green (heard of
> him?), who left after filling in for the departed
> Eric Clapton (the name ring a bell?). MT
> contributed to 3 highly acclaimed Mayall LPs
> before the Stones snatched him away. He was
> already A MAJOR TALENT ON THE BRITISH BLUES SCENE
> IN 1969. HE WAS NOT NOTHING. Had the Stones not
> hired him away, some other high-profile band (not
> that Mayall wasn't high-profile already - he was
> considered the father of British Blues already)
> would have, no doubt.
>
> Don't try to rewrite history here....

you nailed it T&A and no more to say

though if you take a look at the MT msgboards it is hard to deny the fact that a lot of MT fans consider RS A.MT a shit
which i don't think they've been or still are

i think everyone who has sense must acknowledge the great contribution of MT to the stones' early seventies sound, i think exspecially livewise
but his contribution is not to be stretched or overestimated beyond its limits
most of the songs that appear on SF or EOMS for example were written or sketched in 68/69/70 and they would have made great records with or without MT

I think that in general, MT fans should give more credit to MJ and KR creativity than they seems willing to do
It can't be stretched so far to say that MT would have been nothing without the stones, but i think i can say loud that the greatest chance and fortune of MT as a musician was to be chosen by the glimmer twins

the same thing can be said about ronnie

agree with you maumau - MT has said as much (about his fortune in hooking on with the lads). but, the talent stands apart from that fortune/distinction.

Are Mick Taylor fans, Stones fans? Umm.... Yep.

Mick Taylor overrated? Listen to the bootlegs, and this silly idea will disappear. We're all Stones fans, for Christ's sake!

Ket,

I'll be polite..........you are another of these bloody ostriches.

Those that bury their head in the sand and can't realise that it is possible to like both Taylor and the Stones.

There are many here that do just that and go to both type of show.

Why ON EARTH due you assume that because I, (or because OpenG and others) like Taylor that we only like Stones during the'Taylor period'.

It is because you are a blinkered ostrich. They are the worst sort.

For your information I like every album before 1970. One of my least favourite Stones' albums is IORR. One of my favorites is B&B. And....... this will be really hard for your ostrich-head to fathom, my long-term favourite albums are SW and DW.

But they were a far better live band during Taylor years, and NOT because of Taylor, brilliant though he was, (and is).

Similarly they were bad in '76 but not because of Ronnie.

I think that Ronnie's playing is pretty patchy these days to say the best, that's if you can even hear him.

But it really has nothing to do with Ronnie, or my particular favourite albums etc.

It is simply to say that there is not a contradiction between appreciating Taylor TODAY and also being a Stones' fan.

It is crass and stupid of the ostrich fraternity to keep putting up futile posts in order to slag off Taylor.

Do you all feel threatened?

Then put your heads back in the sand and stop posting your insecure puerile Taylor-pecking posts.

Or we'll eat you!

Objection. The question is irrelevant.
Sustained.