For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
dcbaQuote
TravelinMan
and huge cojones to quit the Stones.
Don't think it was cojones it was more like hubris. He most probably thought he was ready for the next move forward in his career, the Stones could give him nothing more and they were going belly up soon. So it was wise to leave the wreck before it totally sank.
He also probably thought (with the success of Pink Floyd) that complex/prog rock was the future of pop music, hence the supergroup he created with Bruce.
That was two "good" (=wrong) reasons to leave the stones :
- MT underestimated the rather uncanny ability the Stones have to rise from their own ashes like a phoenix.
- the arrival of the punk movement in 1976 gave prog rock movement the terminal kick in the nuts.
I hear where you are coming from but how much commercial success does that translate into Box office sales and record sales = money in your pocket ? Versus his cut all to short paycheck from The Glimmer Twins ?Quote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
dcbaQuote
TravelinMan
and huge cojones to quit the Stones.
Don't think it was cojones it was more like hubris. He most probably thought he was ready for the next move forward in his career, the Stones could give him nothing more and they were going belly up soon. So it was wise to leave the wreck before it totally sank.
He also probably thought (with the success of Pink Floyd) that complex/prog rock was the future of pop music, hence the supergroup he created with Bruce.
That was two "good" (=wrong) reasons to leave the stones :
- MT underestimated the rather uncanny ability the Stones have to rise from their own ashes like a phoenix.
- the arrival of the punk movement in 1976 gave prog rock movement the terminal kick in the nuts.
I also think that Mick Taylor underestimated the complexity of progressive/jazz rock (a style that was not terminal btw).
OtherwiseTaylor would have had a good reason not to play with the likes of Jack Bruce and Carla Bley, or just do it in his spare time next to his job with the Stones.
Quote
TheGreekI hear where you are coming from but how much commercial success does that translate into Box office sales and record sales = money in your pocket ? Versus his cut all to short paycheck from The Glimmer Twins ?Quote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
dcbaQuote
TravelinMan
and huge cojones to quit the Stones.
Don't think it was cojones it was more like hubris. He most probably thought he was ready for the next move forward in his career, the Stones could give him nothing more and they were going belly up soon. So it was wise to leave the wreck before it totally sank.
He also probably thought (with the success of Pink Floyd) that complex/prog rock was the future of pop music, hence the supergroup he created with Bruce.
That was two "good" (=wrong) reasons to leave the stones :
- MT underestimated the rather uncanny ability the Stones have to rise from their own ashes like a phoenix.
- the arrival of the punk movement in 1976 gave prog rock movement the terminal kick in the nuts.
I also think that Mick Taylor underestimated the complexity of progressive/jazz rock (a style that was not terminal btw).
OtherwiseTaylor would have had a good reason not to play with the likes of Jack Bruce and Carla Bley, or just do it in his spare time next to his job with the Stones.
Such a big gamble like the proverbial jazz cats nowadays . If you are not a marquee headliner how will that put food on the table and funds in your account ? That's my whole point for Mick Taylor coming from easy street with the Stones to struggles in his chosen career path , and it is such a shame as he is really cut from the same cloth and the same DNA Tree as my favorite Guitar slinger is Mr. Eric Clapton . Damn Shame to not fully utilize those Blessed by God skills and hands of his ,along with his tone and vibrato as well !Quote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
TheGreekI hear where you are coming from but how much commercial success does that translate into Box office sales and record sales = money in your pocket ? Versus his cut all to short paycheck from The Glimmer Twins ?Quote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
dcbaQuote
TravelinMan
and huge cojones to quit the Stones.
Don't think it was cojones it was more like hubris. He most probably thought he was ready for the next move forward in his career, the Stones could give him nothing more and they were going belly up soon. So it was wise to leave the wreck before it totally sank.
He also probably thought (with the success of Pink Floyd) that complex/prog rock was the future of pop music, hence the supergroup he created with Bruce.
That was two "good" (=wrong) reasons to leave the stones :
- MT underestimated the rather uncanny ability the Stones have to rise from their own ashes like a phoenix.
- the arrival of the punk movement in 1976 gave prog rock movement the terminal kick in the nuts.
I also think that Mick Taylor underestimated the complexity of progressive/jazz rock (a style that was not terminal btw).
OtherwiseTaylor would have had a good reason not to play with the likes of Jack Bruce and Carla Bley, or just do it in his spare time next to his job with the Stones.
It's the love for prog and jazz rock in the first place. There are not that many. Jeff Beck, Al DiMeola , John McLaughlin, Bill Bruford, Robert Fripp etc. Those guys worked really hard to make a good living in this style. It's not mainstream, I agree.
Quote
DandelionPowderman
We've all heard loads of these shows. That goes for Mathijs as well, of course.
Do you really doubt him doing his research?
Quote
dcbaQuote
TravelinMan
and huge cojones to quit the Stones.
Don't think it was cojones it was more like hubris. He most probably thought he was ready for the next move forward in his career, the Stones could give him nothing more and they were going belly up soon. So it was wise to leave the wreck before it totally sank.
He also probably thought (with the success of Pink Floyd) that complex/prog rock was the future of pop music, hence the supergroup he created with Bruce.
That was two "good" (=wrong) reasons to leave the stones :
- MT underestimated the rather uncanny ability the Stones have to rise from their own ashes like a phoenix.
- the arrival of the punk movement in 1976 gave prog rock movement the terminal kick in the nuts.
Quote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
dcbaQuote
TravelinMan
and huge cojones to quit the Stones.
Don't think it was cojones it was more like hubris. He most probably thought he was ready for the next move forward in his career, the Stones could give him nothing more and they were going belly up soon. So it was wise to leave the wreck before it totally sank.
He also probably thought (with the success of Pink Floyd) that complex/prog rock was the future of pop music, hence the supergroup he created with Bruce.
That was two "good" (=wrong) reasons to leave the stones :
- MT underestimated the rather uncanny ability the Stones have to rise from their own ashes like a phoenix.
- the arrival of the punk movement in 1976 gave prog rock movement the terminal kick in the nuts.
I also think that Mick Taylor underestimated the complexity of progressive/jazz rock (a style that was not terminal btw).
OtherwiseTaylor would have had a good reason not to play with the likes of Jack Bruce and Carla Bley, or just do it in his spare time next to his job with the Stones.
Quote
TravelinManQuote
DandelionPowderman
We've all heard loads of these shows. That goes for Mathijs as well, of course.
Do you really doubt him doing his research?
Taylor was literally the band leader for Bob effing Dylan in 1984. They played way larger concerts than the Stones ever did (fact check me on this, but I know at least his time with the Stones). To say he didn’t prepare for a show is absolutely bogus!
Somehow he just knew 30 Dylan songs and played them on command when Dylan switched the setlist during shows?!?
I agree. Taylor made some mistakes over the years, and I agree about his last round with the Stones. Even though he was the only reason I saw them for the last time, and enjoyed it, it's hard not to admit that his playing ssemed unrehearsed. On his concerts over the last 20 years (seen him twice) he was not the act I was hoping for. I love his playing, and has spent the last 25-30 years developing a guitarstyle that recembles the ssme style as him. But- he could have wrked harder, and it's frustrating that he havent acheeved more than two solo albums...He could still have been the guitargod that he used to be...Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
TravelinManQuote
DandelionPowderman
We've all heard loads of these shows. That goes for Mathijs as well, of course.
Do you really doubt him doing his research?
Taylor was literally the band leader for Bob effing Dylan in 1984. They played way larger concerts than the Stones ever did (fact check me on this, but I know at least his time with the Stones). To say he didn’t prepare for a show is absolutely bogus!
Somehow he just knew 30 Dylan songs and played them on command when Dylan switched the setlist during shows?!?
I'm pretty sure he meant his solo shows after Dylan, though. And Taylor's collaboration with Dylan didn't work as smoothly as you say. He was fired, but luckily taken back. There were conflicts.
Hyde Park and Altamont were pretty huge gigs, btw...
Quote
DandelionPowderman
I'm pretty sure he meant his solo shows after Dylan, though. And Taylor's collaboration with Dylan didn't work as smoothly as you say. He was fired, but luckily taken back. There were conflicts.
Hyde Park and Altamont were pretty huge gigs, btw...
Quote
OpenG
All those players were real talented musicians and could play on the spot and not have to practice, practice, practice.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
TravelinManQuote
DandelionPowderman
We've all heard loads of these shows. That goes for Mathijs as well, of course.
Do you really doubt him doing his research?
Taylor was literally the band leader for Bob effing Dylan in 1984. They played way larger concerts than the Stones ever did (fact check me on this, but I know at least his time with the Stones). To say he didn’t prepare for a show is absolutely bogus!
Somehow he just knew 30 Dylan songs and played them on command when Dylan switched the setlist during shows?!?
I'm pretty sure he meant his solo shows after Dylan, though. And Taylor's collaboration with Dylan didn't work as smoothly as you say. He was fired, but luckily taken back. There were conflicts.
Hyde Park and Altamont were pretty huge gigs, btw...
Quote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
DandelionPowderman
I'm pretty sure he meant his solo shows after Dylan, though. And Taylor's collaboration with Dylan didn't work as smoothly as you say. He was fired, but luckily taken back. There were conflicts.
Hyde Park and Altamont were pretty huge gigs, btw...
This one is worth reading, written by Dylan's drummer Colin Allen. Played with Taylor, and on many other occasions.
[www.facebook.com]
Quote
Mathijs
Taylor's stint with Dylan was flawed like hell. First off he didn't play on '30 tracks', but on selected tracks. Then he was missing in action for several gigs, prompting Dylan to fly in high profiled guitarists like Knopfler and even Santana. And Taylor was fired by Dylan for being absent for rehearsals and late for shows due to drug abuse. Listen to the audience tapes of these shows: some were terrible.
Mathijs
Quote
OpenG
Well if Taylor's stint with Dylan was flawed we sure got a great live release with
Real Live from 1984 - The live versions of Master of War, Every Grain of Sand and I and I were fantastic along with the others.
Quote
dcba
MT doesn't seem to be band-leading anything on this vid :
[www.youtube.com]
Dylan is on though.
Quote
TravelinManQuote
dcba
MT doesn't seem to be band-leading anything on this vid :
[www.youtube.com]
Dylan is on though.
That’s an encore jam with guests. Taylor put the band together and lead the band.
The facts are the facts and you have made a air tight case and it is all very simple to understand . To bad , as I said earlier to me it is just a tremendous talent to waste . Love or hate Ronnie he answers the bell and shows up !Quote
Mathijs
Taylor's stint with Dylan was flawed like hell. First off he didn't play on '30 tracks', but on selected tracks. Then he was missing in action for several gigs, prompting Dylan to fly in high profiled guitarists like Knopfler and even Santana. And Taylor was fired by Dylan for being absent for rehearsals and late for shows due to drug abuse. Listen to the audience tapes of these shows: some were terrible.
I don't care whether he plays small clubs or not, but at least show up prepared and rehearsed, do a sound check, show up not drunk and coked up, and play something else than the same 5 shitty songs for 25 years in a row. Taylor's biggest chance was when the Stones invited him back. And what does he do? Turn up totally unrehearsed. And make such a mess that in the end he and his manager were banned.
Yes Ron Wood has seen some bad years. But even then he toured with the Stones, recorded solo albums, did club gigs, guested on friends' albums and shows. Wood just simply loves playing. The Stones ended their tour this year, and the first thing Wood does is organize some small shows, just for fun.
Mathijs
Quote
dcba
MT doesn't seem to be band-leading anything on this vid :
[www.youtube.com]
Dylan is on though.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
TravelinManQuote
dcba
MT doesn't seem to be band-leading anything on this vid :
[www.youtube.com]
Dylan is on though.
That’s an encore jam with guests. Taylor put the band together and lead the band.
In Mac's bio he claimed that Dylan brought him in, not Taylor.
Quote
TheGreekThe facts are the facts and you have made a air tight case and it is all very simple to understand . To bad , as I said earlier to me it is just a tremendous talent to waste . Love or hate Ronnie he answers the bell and shows up !Quote
Mathijs
Taylor's stint with Dylan was flawed like hell. First off he didn't play on '30 tracks', but on selected tracks. Then he was missing in action for several gigs, prompting Dylan to fly in high profiled guitarists like Knopfler and even Santana. And Taylor was fired by Dylan for being absent for rehearsals and late for shows due to drug abuse. Listen to the audience tapes of these shows: some were terrible.
I don't care whether he plays small clubs or not, but at least show up prepared and rehearsed, do a sound check, show up not drunk and coked up, and play something else than the same 5 shitty songs for 25 years in a row. Taylor's biggest chance was when the Stones invited him back. And what does he do? Turn up totally unrehearsed. And make such a mess that in the end he and his manager were banned.
Yes Ron Wood has seen some bad years. But even then he toured with the Stones, recorded solo albums, did club gigs, guested on friends' albums and shows. Wood just simply loves playing. The Stones ended their tour this year, and the first thing Wood does is organize some small shows, just for fun.
Mathijs
Quote
TravelinMan
Except I can’t wade through opinions to find facts.
The tapes of ‘84 I’ve heard I’ve enjoyed. England, Italy, Germany, you name it.
As far as most recently, I’ve liked the few improvs I’ve heard and I remember reading he did rehearse with the band before the tour so I’m not sure where that info is coming from.
Quote
S.T.PQuote
MathijsQuote
TravelinMan
I have one more question that you might have an answer to..? What's your opinion on what type of burst the 1972 guitar had... tea burst or cherry burst?
The original 58 to 60 bursts were of course all the same "Cherry Burst" from the factory...but differing subsequent histories & varying exposure to light down the years caused the finishes to fade & age differently .
This was exacerbated by changes to the red dye used in later production , which was very light sensitive and faded almost completely... to result in that finish that today we call "Unburst" .
All the other names, "Honey Burst", "Tea Burst" "Lemon Burst" etc are just names invented for attempts to mimic some the various ways in which the old guitars have faded and mellowed.
Quote
SpudQuote
S.T.PSo true , and starting in 1960 because of the fading issue the paint formula was changed to hold more of the red color and thusly the clown burst was born or the tomato burst of the Campbell Soup burst variety . Also 1960 vintage Les Paul's (last year in production until the 1968 reissue Goldtop P-90 Standard and Ebony Les Paul Custom ) necks became pencil thin , why I don't know ? 1958 Les Paul's had the biggest profile necks followed by a tad bit smaller profile in 1959 which was nice followed by the 1960 pencil thin necks .Quote
MathijsQuote
TravelinMan
I have one more question that you might have an answer to..? What's your opinion on what type of burst the 1972 guitar had... tea burst or cherry burst?
The original 58 to 60 bursts were of course all the same "Cherry Burst" from the factory...but differing subsequent histories & varying exposure to light down the years caused the finishes to fade & age differently .
This was exacerbated by changes to the red dye used in later production , which was very light sensitive and faded almost completely... to result in that finish that today we call "Unburst" .
All the other names, "Honey Burst", "Tea Burst" "Lemon Burst" etc are just names invented for attempts to mimic some the various ways in which the old guitars have faded and mellowed.