For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
Spud
the Infidels album is a beauty .
Quote
Erik_Snow
There's hours of rehearsals from Los Angeles, May 1984, available via torrents and bootlegs
Quote
Phil GoodQuote
Spud
Some players are also gear heads and/or guitar collectors ... but for others the guitar is just a tool of the trade.
Think Chuck Berry.
He made that really clear back then in the movie "Hail Hail RnR"
Tools ...
Quote
TravelinManAny titles?Quote
Erik_Snow
There's hours of rehearsals from Los Angeles, May 1984, available via torrents and bootlegs
I think I have only heard the Infidels outtakes, although that sounds familiar.
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.
Quote
SpudQuote
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
CBIIQuote
Phil GoodQuote
Spud
Some players are also gear heads and/or guitar collectors ... but for others the guitar is just a tool of the trade.
Think Chuck Berry.
He made that really clear back then in the movie "Hail Hail RnR"
Tools ...
Yeah, what my father said in Hail! Hail! Rock and Roll about guitar was a bit tongue in cheek. He did have quite a few over the years but there were some he absolutely cherished. His 1978 ES-355 (SECOND)he absolutely loved and it played more shows with it than any other guitar in his collection. That one saw nearly 38 years of duty. It was his "Go To" guitar for live performances and recording sessions.
He LOVED playing his guitar. As he got older, the playing for fun slowed down but there were countless times when he would call me over just to show me some stuff he wanted to play.
He did not need to pick up his guitar to make money, he just still loved doing it.
Quote
TravelinManQuote
SpudQuote
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.
Hey, I didn’t ask that question!
It is interesting info though. I didn’t know they were trying to mimic old fades, except for the unburst.
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
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
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?
No, I don't, but that doesn't take away his opinions are a bit biased. That's only human of course.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
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?
No, I don't, but that doesn't take away his opinions are a bit biased. That's only human of course.
Opinions will always be opinions. How can opinions be anything but biased?
Quote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
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?
No, I don't, but that doesn't take away his opinions are a bit biased. That's only human of course.
Opinions will always be opinions. How can opinions be anything but biased?
I thought you're implying that his research represents the truth. At least that's what I read between the lines.
Quote
TravelinManQuote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
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?
No, I don't, but that doesn't take away his opinions are a bit biased. That's only human of course.
Opinions will always be opinions. How can opinions be anything but biased?
I thought you're implying that his research represents the truth. At least that's what I read between the lines.
Right, just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean it’s bad. Otherwise The Rolling Stones wouldn’t be good music because most in academia don’t consider it good music.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
TravelinManQuote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
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?
No, I don't, but that doesn't take away his opinions are a bit biased. That's only human of course.
Opinions will always be opinions. How can opinions be anything but biased?
I thought you're implying that his research represents the truth. At least that's what I read between the lines.
Right, just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean it’s bad. Otherwise The Rolling Stones wouldn’t be good music because most in academia don’t consider it good music.
Then it's bad for them. It's their opinions. There are no facts when it comes to acquired taste, only opinions.
But was it really Mathijs's taste you were referring to when you asked him to do better research?
Quote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
TravelinManQuote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
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?
No, I don't, but that doesn't take away his opinions are a bit biased. That's only human of course.
Opinions will always be opinions. How can opinions be anything but biased?
I thought you're implying that his research represents the truth. At least that's what I read between the lines.
Right, just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean it’s bad. Otherwise The Rolling Stones wouldn’t be good music because most in academia don’t consider it good music.
Then it's bad for them. It's their opinions. There are no facts when it comes to acquired taste, only opinions.
But was it really Mathijs's taste you were referring to when you asked him to do better research?
Gentlemen, I think the semantical confusion here arises from Mathijs not really distinguishing himself "facts" from "opinions", that is, has a habit of presenting most of he says more like as facts than as opinions. Then again, seeing, say, Taylor as playing unrehearsed is a bit different thing than not liking what he plays. It could be an educated guess, but still belonging to the realm of opinions and not stating a fact.
- Doxa
Quote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
TravelinManQuote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
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?
No, I don't, but that doesn't take away his opinions are a bit biased. That's only human of course.
Opinions will always be opinions. How can opinions be anything but biased?
I thought you're implying that his research represents the truth. At least that's what I read between the lines.
Right, just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean it’s bad. Otherwise The Rolling Stones wouldn’t be good music because most in academia don’t consider it good music.
Then it's bad for them. It's their opinions. There are no facts when it comes to acquired taste, only opinions.
But was it really Mathijs's taste you were referring to when you asked him to do better research?
Gentlemen, I think the semantical confusion here arises from Mathijs not really distinguishing himself "facts" from "opinions", that is, has a habit of presenting most of he says more like as facts than as opinions. Then again, seeing, say, Taylor as playing unrehearsed is a bit different thing than not liking what he plays. It could be an educated guess, but still belonging to the realm of opinions and not stating a fact.
- Doxa
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
TravelinManQuote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
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?
No, I don't, but that doesn't take away his opinions are a bit biased. That's only human of course.
Opinions will always be opinions. How can opinions be anything but biased?
I thought you're implying that his research represents the truth. At least that's what I read between the lines.
Right, just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean it’s bad. Otherwise The Rolling Stones wouldn’t be good music because most in academia don’t consider it good music.
Then it's bad for them. It's their opinions. There are no facts when it comes to acquired taste, only opinions.
But was it really Mathijs's taste you were referring to when you asked him to do better research?
Quote
TravelinManQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
TravelinManQuote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
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?
No, I don't, but that doesn't take away his opinions are a bit biased. That's only human of course.
Opinions will always be opinions. How can opinions be anything but biased?
I thought you're implying that his research represents the truth. At least that's what I read between the lines.
Right, just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean it’s bad. Otherwise The Rolling Stones wouldn’t be good music because most in academia don’t consider it good music.
Then it's bad for them. It's their opinions. There are no facts when it comes to acquired taste, only opinions.
But was it really Mathijs's taste you were referring to when you asked him to do better research?
Originally? No, my comment was in regards to the Dylan stuff. Stuff like flying in Knopfler just didn’t happen. Stuff he was saying was completely the opposite of what is in print, like in the Dylan bio.
The fact he said he was unrehearsed yet played “the same five shitty songs for 25 years” is funny. Taylor may be a big name to players, but that doesn’t mean you always get a sound check at every little club you play. Especially if you’re on a tour playing somewhere new every night. Why can he be so definite that rehearsing (I think he means sound checking) was in Taylor’s hands? Just because you say something with authority does not make it a fact. Peeking back over the years, you and him have both changed/evolved your statements on many many things.
Also, he definitely rehearsed with the Stones before the 2012 stuff as it was reported by Stones fans. The Stones gave him a few spots a night to do his improv thing. If he’s not up to the level he was in 1972, well news flash, not a single person in the band is.
Besides, instead of defending Mathjis, what’s YOUR actual take? You claim to love the sloppy, fly by the seat of their pants Stones. So Taylor running a ragged (albeit entertaining and impressive IMO) show at clubs in the 80’s must be enjoyable?
Quote
DandelionPowderman
I also catched a Bluesbreakers-show, but unluckily I got too drunk to enjoy it.