Mathjis,

Stranger wrote:

"Also, two of Taylor's houses went up in flames,
> something like that might slightly change your
> perspective on the importance of material
> possessions. "


The use of the word "your" was not personal to you. It should be read as "one's" or "a person's" - in this case the person is Mick Taylor.

Stranger means that when Taylor had seen all his material possessions destroyed and had been lucky to escape alive, he would not have put such value in the guitars or other possessions

It isn't hard to believe that Jagger and Co. should want to minimise Taylor's access to 'their' assets.

I'm surprised to hear Keith is so crazy about money, (although Bill recounts how there was a dispute between Mick AND Keith and the rest of the band about their earnings). (Money has always been a prime incentive for Mick).

I think you should be a bit more careful about saying "Ron Wood says" stuff about Mick Taylor asking for money in 2002. That's a rumour that you may have heard but unless you are damn sure about stuff like that, it's not right to air it. Can you not conceive that Mick T went to the hotel and socialised with his old mates? Is it likely he'd then pass a hat around in public? (Give him some respect).

ps I've always respected your knowledge of Stones' music, history ..... and guitars......... and the way that you have been able to criticise the Stones if they are just going through the motions, with an unprofessional 'second' guitarist.

Interesting thread as I always enjoy Mathjis's points and insight.

I find it disgusting the jokes about MT's weight and him being called "quitter" on some postings. Lets be honest, would RW have money or a career if not for the Stones? In addition, RW has battled crack, coke and alcohol in addition to who knows what but has Stones money to see hime through. Not bad for a guy that barely played on the numerous shows that I have seen and yes I am a fan for over 30 years. I also find it ridiculous when posters say that RW had the right look! Well, last time I checked the role was to be the guitarist opposite Keith and actually play. And yes, MT could have played on any thing after IORR as he has played sessions with all types of artists so it does not make sense to say that.


I have always felt a bit of sorrow for MT as he was only 24 when he left, battling addiction, a brutal shrewish wife and felt he was not fairly being compensated.
I am not saying that he wrote on his own with the Stones but it seems pretty clear that he did contribute and it is wrong to have his time and contributions diminshed. Funny how the Glimmers have succeeded in making Brian's contributions to be minimal.

The other thing that makes me laugh is how Mick/Keith make it seem like they invented everything about the Stones, as if BJ/MT/RW and Bill and Charlie had minimal input. I am so tired of Keith in particular, the same bs stories, the same lines in interviews, this coming from a guy that is strictly living off his legend from 30 years ago. Wyman and David Gilmour are right....it is all ego and the greed and hiding behind keyboards and backup singers and musicians.

ChrisM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's definety a Gibson ... I remember that he
> used a D-28 for most of his acoustic needs.

Thanks so much for this info


Mr Wibble Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I think you should be a bit more careful about
> saying "Ron Wood says" stuff about Mick Taylor
> asking for money in 2002. That's a rumour that you
> may have heard but unless you are damn sure about
> stuff like that, it's not right to air it.

Does anyone have "According to the Rolling Stones"? I thought someone who had this said this came from the book. (That does not make the point accurate--just that it may have a source.)

Now for some attempts at some pix:


More from Copenhagen '68


And for those of you who think Taylor didn't need shoulder relief (why else the SG?) when he was a youngin'. Presumably, the pix is reversed. October 13, 1968, Detroit, photos by "George from LA".

I cannot seem to find any of the 1973 pictures of him playing a Strat in the God Squad. Perhaps someone (Voodoo, are you out there?) still has one. Also, he has played this guitar [64.194.251.36] (a Gibson Firebird?), but there is a better picture out there, with Richards playing a Flying V and Taylor playing this guitar.

MLC,
Taylor is not receiving royalties from ABKCO (Allen Klein), although they should be accounting to him for the records that they sell in the US/Canada territory. MT might not have anything against Allen Klein personally but AK's company still owes him a substantial amount of money (For Ventilator Blues alone ABKCO have confirmed they know that there is £ 350.000 in an account somewhere - which is MT's share of the publishing money for that one song).

Decca is the only record company that is paying MT for Stones records. This is only a tiny amount, because Decca is the label they were signed to during the Brian Jones era.
Since MT's work is embodied in a couple of records of the Decca catalogue, they figured it was reasonable to pay him a percentage of the artist royalties generated by those records (the Brian Jones estate gets the lion's share since BJ played on most of the tracks).

As for what Mathijs posted, with all due respect but I have never seen so many inaccurate statements in such a short piece of text. It's difficult to decide where to start. I just can't understand why you are so persistent in commenting on things you don't really know about. Maybe you shouldn't automatically exclude the possibility that there is a big difference between your way of seeing things, the explanations that you have been comfortable with for many years and what really happened. You weren't there, so when something comes up that is new to you, it doesn't mean it can't be true.

First of all, you seem very confused about the difference between publishing royalties, record royalties (artist royalties), and public performance royalties.

The publishing royalties are the only royalties that will only benefit the person that wrote the song. Publishing royalties, in turn, are divided in categories. Mechanical royalties (earned from the sale of records), Print royalties (earned from the sale of sheet music), Synchronisation royalties (earned when music is used in film or TV). I'll leave print and sync royalites out of it for now.
The mechanical royalties have to be paid by the record company to the composer of the song. In England it's 8,5 % of the RRP of each record pressed. There is usually a music publishing company involved that acts as a middleman between the record company and the artist. The publishing co gets commissioned to get the mechanicals from the record co and then pays out to the songwriter (after tracking down the mechanicals they are allowed to keep 20 % of the 8,5 % for the trouble).

Of course nobody gets extremely wealthy from public performance royalties, which are the royalties that are collected by performing rights societies (every time a song is played in a public place be it radio, TV, a concerthall or a nightclub, a few pennies have to be paid to the artist or band that originally released the song (not only the author of the song gets paid for this).
Each country has their own own organisation, e.g. the public performance money for Dutch artists is collected from the users (the aforementioned public places and radio/TV) by SENA - which has only existed since '93. Holland is a very small country so when your song doesn't get airplay outside of Holland, it's not going to amount to much. In the case of Stones songs, it's a different ball game because these tunes get played all over the world. PRS will account for England, GEMA for Germany, STIM for Sweden and so on and so forth. I heard they are going to introduce a similar system for American performers (in America, the system so far was that only songwriters were getting paid public performance).

There are two thing that I can imagine to be infuriating if I would be in Taylor's shoes. I don't understand why he keeps getting singled out for drugs problems he had in the past (is it because he has openly spoken about it ?) There are not that many musicians from the 70's that have not had serious problems with either drugs or alcohol at one point or another, esp among the guys that were in the most successful bands.
It seems some people are just determined to repeat insinuating and unfounded remarks whenever they get a chance.
Why is it that Keith gets glorified for his recreational drug habits and Taylor gets condemned for it, even though his chemical intake was never on the same kind of scale as KR's. Taylor's private nickname for Keith is "Cockroach". (A cockroach is the one creature that will still be alive after a nuclear attack). I think this is Taylor's way of saying (acknowledging ?) that when it came to chemical warfare, he could never keep up with Keith.
The second source of discontent is that he is not getting artist royalties for the records on the record label he co-founded with Mick J, Keith, Bill and Charlie.

When they formed Rolling Stones Records (in 1970), it was decided that each bandmember would get exactly the same rights with regard to the proceeds from any of their activities. The only exception is of course publishing royalties, which were paid by the publishing company to the bandmembers that got an (official) credit on any of the compositions they released).

Now, since they were the record label themselves, they could do whatever they wanted with the proceeds from the record sales (i.c. split them between the five members. Which is exactly what they decided to do - this was all put in writing when they set up their own company and label).
MT was being paid a healthy amount in artist royalties in the 70's. This had nothing to do with touring. For instance, they didn't tour very much between the end of the European tour Oct '73 and Dec '74. In fact, Taylor has said in interviews he got fed up with waiting and felt like it was a stalemate situation. Even Jagger was totally exasperated with Keith's behaviour. (Jagger turned up at MT's doorstep, literally in tears. He repeatedly said to Mick: I wish I could fire him [KR], but I can't...). Keith was getting in trouble a lot (possession of drugs) and the rest of the band had to pick up the pieces as a result, like paying for the fines that Keith was given, immigration problems (missed out income when they could not enter certain countries) etc.

So if Taylor was not entitled to his 1/5 of the artist royalties, how come his earnings were substantial even when they were not touring.
I wouldn't be surprised if Woody and Watts have different reasons for still wanting to tour. Watts was getting the same percentage as Taylor from the artist royalties for the albums '69 -'75, enough for them to open a Swiss bank account. With Woody it's a completely different story, as he was not made a fully fledged member of the band for about 20 years. They only paid him a fixed salary for all that time.

Immediately after MT left, the Stones tried to get away with not sending his royalty cheques anymore.
I guess they reasoned 1/4 is more than 1/5. A former student of the London School of Economics who is not exactly known for his generosity would not fail to come up with that idea.

They made amends eventually after Taylor sought legal advice (he did not sue them) and correspondence was exchanged (years of legal bills) between his lawyer and their lawyers. Their lawyers were going by the instructions of Jagger and Rupert Loewenstein, their business manager.

Then in '81 they suddenly instructed their accountants to stop paying out his share of the artist royalties.
Something that is easily overlooked is that Taylor was a company director in each of the subcompanies, which were set up to deal with different aspects of the business. Which means he should be getting a percentage from all kinds of products relating to the '69-'75 period (Taylor era) like films, merchandise etc.

Just because he hasn't sued them doesn't mean they don't have a legal conflict.
Taylor has written very eloquent letters to Jagger and to Loewenstein about this.
If you ask Taylor, he might tell you that it is not resolved as far as he's concerned, although he's not one to discuss these things with fans (which is probably wise).

RSR is no longer the label that puts out Stones Records. First they signed a distribution deal with Atlantic Records (Atlantic made them an offer, while MT was still with the band). Later on they got even better (distribution) deals with labels like Columbia, CBS (Sony nowadays) before they went with Virgin. (Virgin has also bought the back catalogue). Each time they switched between labels, a lot of money changed hands and Taylor should have gotten his 1/5 from the "transfer sum".

The Stones also know that they have some serious business to sort out with Taylor. Not long after they stopped paying his royalties, MT met up with the band in Kansas City. He was spending time with Keith and Ronnie at the hotel before they went to the venue. Keith and Ronnie took MT into Jagger's dressingroom and said: "Can Mick play with us?" Jagger looked embarassed and nervous. Just before they had to go on, he came over to Mick T and said: "Mick, I know what happened with your royalties... Don't worry, we'll get it sorted out".

Now why would he say that if they were not withholding his royalties ? Also, Keith has told MT: We owe you.

Mick Taylor was never as broke as you want to make it sound in the early 80's. He secured himself a very good record deal (Keith was green with envy) and was paid an advance. The recordcompany wanted him to promote the album by visiting American radio stations while Taylor wanted to take a band on the road. He fullfilled his obligations, even though what he really wanted to do is put a new band together. The LP didn't become an instant commercial success. It didn't help that it was released at the height of the punk movement - nobody could have foreseen this. So that's probably why he didn't do much touring in 1980, the record company wasn't backing his plan to put a new band together. Not so strange that he needed some time to consider what to do next.

MT lived in America till the mid 90's. After returning to England he had a great deal of trouble retrieving his legal documents from the lawyer that used to represent him. The lawfirm tried not answering his calls and then refused to give him his files back, even while it could not be denied the dossier belonged to him officially. It turned out that they still had quite close ties with the Stones and their organisation, hence the concerns about handing over the legal ammunition to Taylor.

As for the letter allegedly received by Ronnie Wood (all the quotes found in According to the RS are coming from one interview he did in '02, in which he made several stupid comments). To this day, Taylor does not know anything about this letter. He doesn't recall sending Ronnie a letter like that. (Although according to Taylor he did send him a "Get well soon" note a year earlier, after hearing Ronnie was unwell).
There seems to be a problem with the synchronicity because how can Ronnie be reporting on speaking with Taylor in August '03 (Astoria gig) in a book that had already been printed earlier that year.

With regard to comments made by Bill Wyman, he said those things years back (around '99) while talking (informally) to a guy in France that runs a website. Bill and Mick have spoken about this about 3 or 4 years back, when they cleared up some misunderstandings. Bill apologised for jumping to conclusions. During the time of the recordings, Taylor's mother was terminally ill and (unbeknownst to Bill) Taylor had been at her bedside for weeks. Bill didn't know this was the reason Taylor was travelling up and down to Wales (with one guitar) while worrying about his mother. So he thought that Taylor was out of it or something and didn't even have a house of his own. It's interesting that other people present in the studio have said that Taylor's playing was just fine (despite his family circumstances) but that Bill had only just come up with the plan to put a band together, hadn't decided on the direction of the album and didn't seem to have any songs ready when Taylor came to the studio (he asked Mick to play to a track that had only a bass and computerised drums).
Bill Wyman had been led to believe (by others, like Jagger and Loewenstein) that Taylor had been bought out in the early 80's. When Mick told him (a couple of years ago) this was not the case, he looked quite shocked. He said that he and Charlie had tried to stand up for him (MT) after he left. When he was enlightened with some facts, he said to Mick: You should do something about it.

Oh, by the way Bob Dylan knows how badly the Stones treated Taylor because he spent quite a bit of time with Taylor, going out in NY (while recording Infidels, '83) and rehearsing the band (the musicians were selected by Mick), at Bob's house in Malibu before the tour. He also advised Mick to take legal action, Dylan's lawyer even managed to get a few answers from their accountant and from Loewenstein.

Last subject for today. According to MT himself the only guitar he ever sold in the 80's was a Telecaster that he didn't particularly like. There's just one other guitar he sold, a Les Paul Classic (re-issued model from the 90's), About 4 years ago he decided he wanted to replace it with a guitar that looked and sounded more like the one (Les Paul Standard '58 with Bigsby) that was stolen from him while on tour.
No, he did not leave it on the train, someone (most likely it was someone that had been wating for his chance after recognising Taylor) was seen running off while Taylor was getting himself a cup of coffee. This can be confirmed by the person that was accompanying him that day (in '96). but was just too late to stop the thief.
Taylor and Richards also used to share guitars, which can make it hard to follow what happened. Taylor has said in interviews it has always mystified him why Keith wanted to sell his (Bigsby equipped) Les Paul Standard in '67 (a few years later, he still seemed to like it). Unfortunately this guitar was not found back and re-united with its rightful owner (MT), after it got nicked from Nellcote.
If there are guitar traders that claim they have a vintage Les Paul that was once owned by Mick Taylor then they must have bought it from a third party. Maybe the person that paid the burglars/thieves for the instrument ? If they didn't buy it directly from the person that stole it - buying something that you know must have been stolen (a guitar trader should be suspicious when the asking price is a fraction of the real value) is a criminal offence, by the way. After the raid on Nellcote, Ian Stewart searched music shops in France and London for weeks, hoping that some of guitars that were stolen would turn up eventually (a few did).
The Les Paul SG (with Bigsby) Taylor already owned when he was with the Bluesbreakers is the same one he gave to Robin Millar (talk about generosity) after he left the Stones. I believe that's the guitar that's hanging around the donkey's neck on the cover of Get Yer Ya Ya's Out.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2006-07-07 17:31 by Stranger.

While I do hope that you two come to an agreement, I am learning a bundle in your argument here.

"...no longer shall you trudge 'cross my peaceful mind."

>> Does anyone know what is the acoustic guitar in the Exile book picture above? <<

i hope someone who knows what they're talking about will answer that, but meanwhile
it looks to me like the same Gibson Hummingbird that Mick (Jagger) has in the photo that the good Rockman just posted in this thread:
[www.iorr.org]

which i believe is actually Keith's guitar, no?


- 1971 by Dominique Tarle

Stranger,

It seems like Taylor is just too nice a guy to push his case with Jagger and Loewenstein. Or he is intimidated.

I really hopes he gets a brave lawyer and goes for it. Taylor may be wise enough to know that life is not just about making money - but i hope he gets his dues and can then get a studio of his own and get a regular band again to record and tour with. His live appearances are becoming fewer and further between. His last album was just superb.

So the loss is his and ours until he 'gets his dues'.

Smokey, here's that photo the right way round (presumably!):


- Detroit, october 13th 1968, by "George from LA", courtesy of Smokey

and i opened a thread especially for folks who want to continue this discussion of the cat's legal and personal stuff: [www.iorr.org]
you're welcome! enjoy it! and i'm goin back to the topic of guitars. :E



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-14 02:00 by with sssoul.

Since my last post above I did some thinking(!).

If Taylor were to pursue his dues legally, that would be total end to any remaining amicability between himself and former band-mates, and the end to any future co-operation. So perhaps he values that more than the money.

His decision. Strictly none of our business. But it's been good to have been enlightened by Stranger. Clearly not a stranger to MickT! Thanks.

Stranger - Sounds like your close to Taylor, somehow.

And in regards to Allen Klein, I know I read where Mick T. stated he
sees Allen Klein from time to time and Klein has given him $$..
If I can remember where I read that I pass it on. Shoot that question to
Taylor if you are in England and run into him, let's see what he says.

And I agree with: Mr. Wibble, if he was to sue the Stones, that would be the
FINAL Nail in the coffin. Maybe he's hoping that if the Ice was to thaw and
the Stones let him sit-in, once in a while, the legal issues would work
themselves out.. We'll see
MLC

I liked the guitar-info and the pictures.

>> I liked the guitar-info and the pictures. <<

so did i.
don't you gentlemen want to discuss these other issues in this lovely thread i made specially for you?
see how cozy it is - it's even got a nice picture hanging in it: [www.iorr.org]

i'd be personally very grateful if this thread could go back to being about guitars.

Stranger, you seem remarkably well informaed so I wish you would post here more often. Now back to the thread.

Mathijs, or indeed anyone else, if you have any more information on the Ketih/Mick Les Paul I'd very much appreciate much hearing from you!

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Stranger, here's that photo the right way round
> (presumably

Thanks for this. I'll try to search harder for the Strats and Firebirds.

Meanwhile, I think that is a Jack Kramer below.

ohhhh very sorry Smokey! i will fix that photo credit pronto.
thanks for posting the shot.

and Stranger, thanks for your insights into the history of these instruments.
i'm not trying to stifle any discussions; i simply want to make room for the two separate discussions that are of interest to people,
hence the second thread.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-14 02:00 by with sssoul.

ChrisM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mathijs, or indeed anyone else, if you have any
> more information on the Ketih/Mick Les Paul I'd
> very much appreciate much hearing from you!

Not that I have any further info, but having in mind the light stripe in the flame, this would be very same that guitar. Then, it seems Keith lost its pickup switch tip sometime after mixing Exile and before the 72 tour ended, LOL!



[There'll be no wedding today...]

Thanks Bruno. It does appear to be the same guitar. I'm hoping Mathijs will chime in as he seems to have had some contact with the guitar's current owner.

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> it looks to me like the same Gibson Hummingbird
> that Mick (Jagger) has in the photo
>
> [snip]
>
> which i believe is actually Keith's guitar, no?

I think they both had at least one Hummingbird, which they bought around the same time, late sixties I'd say, Keith can be seen with one in the High Tide Green Grass booklet - Mick still has one, see Goddess In The Doorway booklet. Kris Needs reports in his book that Keith gave one Hummingbird to Alan Clayton (singer of the Dirty Stangers, Keith's friend for more than 20 years, road companion, roadie & joint roller).

thanks Gwen! i did know that both of them have Hummingbirds (a few each, i'm sure - at least i'm sure Keith has had a number of them),
but all the talk about the stripes on that LP had me peering hard at the grain of the wood
on the particular Hummingbird in those particular shots of Mick T, Mick J and Keith.
i'm not sure but it looks like it could be the same instrument in all three photos.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-14 02:01 by with sssoul.

Thanks for the insights Mr Wibble, Stranger and MLC>
My opinion-- if MT has been waiting for the ice to thaw, it certainly has been a long wait with no end in sight. I hope as has been stated he can get his dues for the sake of his own career and for the benefit of the fans too. But it's his life and his happiness that are most important.
Nice to see an open discussion here.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2006-07-07 02:39 by Miss U..

Stranger...excellent post and as a Taylorite I have always had concerns about MT and yes I am a Taylorite that does not put down Ronnie as they are friends, even though I believe RW knows he had some very large shoes (BJ and MT) to fill.

Plus........if the Glimmers love Ronnie so much why did they not pay him fairly either for over 20 years? He was paid $50K per year and for touring (read that on this board...possibly Mathjis and also in some books). I have always been amazed that he was just a salaried musician as RW himeslf has stated that he had money problems throughout the 80's.

Miss U, I was wondering yesterday if you would show up (or should I say I missed you ?)

For all clarity, I followed the discussion on the guitars with great interest and enjoyed seeing 2 or 3 pictures I had not seen before (Detroit Oct 13th '68 provided by With Ssoul for example).
It's only a couple of allegations (which I know to be false) about someone's personal life that I had strong objections against. The problem is when nobody steps forward to dispute those kind of statements, there is a danger that everyone else that reads them will take it at face value.

Mr Wibble, thanks for clarifying how the word "your" (as in "Things like that might slightly change your perspective on the importance of material possessions") should be read. I hadn't even occurred to me that somebody could misinterpret that.

Smokey, the moment you chose to introduce that picture of MT's "ace" on the tenniscourt was funny. I always thought that was a great shot.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-07-07 17:00 by Stranger.

what a fascinating and informative thread. So much about Mick Taylor and the way the financial side of the music business (and especially the Stones) operates that I personally had little or no idea about. Thanks



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-07-07 15:01 by Gazza.

OK, here are some others.

A Gibson Firebird?


The Gibson Firebird? with a Flying V


Back to the Fenders

Stratfro


Stratubular bells

nice - thank you Smokey!

the shot with the Firebird and the Flying Vee is from the july 3rd 1969 session when they mimed HTW for Top of the Pops,
and it was most likely taken by Chris Walter.


"What do you want - what?!"
- Keith

When in the Hell did Taylor wear that "FRO" ???
Was he hangin with Eric C. and Jimi H. during that period when everyone over
in England in the 60's was sportin FRO's -

Thanks for that Pic - Smokey - that was sure a new one..

MLC

He wore it when he played with Billy Preston and his band in Europe 1973.

He also strummed a Fender during the IORR video, but I could not find a picture of that. I, however, was a able to find a pix of Taylor's versatility and that enigmatic "Firebird?"



Incidentally, if they rehearsed the video with Taylor on drums, that might explain why they did not anticipate Charlie's near-drowning in the sea of foam.

Erik - Is that true?? really, was that when in 1973??

MLC

Indeed it is true MLC. Mick donned the 'fro while playing with Billy Preston during the Stones '73 tour!