Has Mick T. ever truly detailed why he left the band?

He Left???!! Don't tell Open G!

yes.....he wanted to start his own band!

He needed more time to pursue other interests,eat, have lunch,do supper,have a bite,brunch,a quick breakfast,midnight snack,lunch,get into some comfort food,and eat a candy bar.

Pleased to meet you......

In an article entitled, "Mick Taylor: the Stone who got away", published in Rolling Stone magazine in 1976, he cited to reporter Mick Brown the following as his reason for leaving;



So there we have it!

cause he wanted to be the lead singer

Drugs- and weavin' problems would be in there too.

He couldnt tell the press he had co written songs with Jagger and left because he was upset with the credits. Or that Keith had re recorded after erasing tracks by Taylor.

I didn't know Kieth did that, anyone care to give me a quick run down on what Keith did? What he wiped?

It was right before his blood transfusion.

>> He couldnt tell the press he had co written songs with Jagger and left because he was upset with the credits. <<

why couldn't he, if it was the case?

AW NO!!!!


THE STONES ARE FINISHED FOR SURE, MAN!

Its better than leaving to open a chip shop

Because if he had told the truth, they would have killed him like they killed Brian...or so our beloved conspiracy theorists would have it. The sad truth is Mr. Taylor, like Bill Wyman, was an amazingly talented songwriter who was unable to achieve commercial success away from those talentless hacks, The Glimmer Twins, thanks to the evil Dorian Gray-style curse they have on all former bandmembers. At least that's what I've learned from reading Stones messageboards for the last decade.

He never would have been able to sing or get his own songs on their records. Brian Jones & Bill Wyman went through the same frustration. Whatever he wrote he wasn't being credited for.

Plus MT says he was bored - a short solo guitar spot on the same 14-15 songs every night.

I think they asked Eric Clapton to join before Mick Taylor. If he had joined, it wouldn't have lasted either.

....an evil Dorian Gray-style curse? I hear those can be some nasty curses. It could be worse, though, they could have played keyboards for the Grateful Dead.

It's been my experience that when members of any band don't freely talk to each other, there are always hangers-on or a woman or two stirring up jealousy and saying, "You can do so much better on your own." Almost always they don't.

Don't you think that if Mick and Keith were being unfair to Mick or cheating him of credit, that Charlie, especially, and Bill might have spoken up?

Is it fair to say that Mick T. simply doesn't have the motivation or the personality to be a leader? Or the guts to have told Mick and or Keith, "I would like more credit for my input?"

Mick never looked very happy playing with the Stones, and I saw several gigs from Hyde Park on. Offstage, he always seemed to be a guy with problems.

As for Clapton, you could say he was an equal "star" to the Stones and liked fronting his own band. So it's unlikely either he or the Stones would have considered a somewhat permanent arrangement.

It was the wife,rosie who told him to leave the band,never listen to a woman when it comes to music,look what happend to the beatles,keep on rocking boys to the STONES.

Stonesrule wrote:
Don't you think that if Mick and Keith were being unfair to Mick or cheating him of credit, that Charlie, especially, and Bill might have spoken up?


Well Bill Wyman had already been burnt himself. I don't know what Charlie Watts thought or what his motivations were/are. Maybe they did say something within the group. Whatever transpired, MT was clearly not happy with the outcome.




Stonesrule wrote:
Or the guts to have told Mick and or Keith, "I would like more credit for my input?"

Presumably he did. He quit the band. That would have taken a bit more 'guts' I should think.




Stonesrule wrote:
Is it fair to say that Mick T. simply doesn't have the motivation or the personality to be a leader?

I agree with you here. I think his weak point is he is not a natural leader but what does that have to do with why he quit the stones?




Stonesrule wrote:
As for Clapton, you could say he was an equal "star" to the Stones and liked fronting his own band.

Absolutely. The stones are not big enough to accommodate a 2nd star. Therefore it wouldn't have lasted. Interestingly, EC did tour for a fair bit as a backup muso with Delaney & Bonney (as did George Harrison) after the Cream split. He also recently said that he was hoping The Band had asked him to join them.

stonesrule Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's been my experience that when members of any
> band don't freely talk to each other, there are
> always hangers-on or a woman or two stirring up
> jealousy and saying, "You can do so much better on
> your own." Almost always they don't.

Or getting it on with your fellow band members.

why do people question Taylor's own words on why he left? Why do they point to Jagger/Richards as driving him out of the band when he does not? He wanted to go it on his own, fair enough but why blame Jagger/Richards just because he was not commercially successful?

His Majesty Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I didn't know Kieth did that, anyone care to give
> me a quick run down on what Keith did? What he
> wiped?


around that time? Marlon and Angela's arses, mostly....

I sat down in Border's for a half hour or so with Greenfield's new "Exile" book. There is a few page section in there about Taylor. After reading it I thought "That's why he left." You read this book or watch CS Blues and you cannot help but think the scene around and within the band at that time was...well, creepy.

I saw a clip of Woody talking about EC who said he could have had Woody's job. Woody's response was "Then you'd have to live with them." Taylor couldn't and to his credit, he left. Woody could and that is hardly a compliment. You would think being the lead guitarist in the Rolling Stones is a plum job, but it isn't. There is a price to pay.

yap yap Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He needed more time to pursue other interests,eat,
> have lunch,do supper,have a bite,brunch,a quick
> breakfast,midnight snack,lunch,get into some
> comfort food,and eat a candy bar.

Wow I bet if he eats that often he is really fat!

Any pictures?

Yep pmk251 ya hit the nail on the head,working between them two egos was to much for taylor.I dont think he was strong enough to deal with the glimmer twins. i still think he done the right thing and leave.That decision saved his life, im sure of that.Makes you wonder why ronnie hits the bottle,mind you his always loved his pint.lol just abit more when mick n keef are about.But ive noticed in recent years when ronnie comes of the wagon, micks been there for him.Is it because theres a multi million pound tour coming up, or that he really does care.

Any arguments about Mick Taylor or Bill Wyman not being permitted to write songs within the Stones are pretty much washed away when you hear the songs they HAVE written apart from the Stones. Has either one of them ever written anything even approaching a great Stones song? Where are all these great songs they weren't given the freedom to contribute to the band?

????

You have to go with what was written and said when it happened. MT stated a few reasons and that was it. They may not seem to make sense. One thing that seems to get over-looked was that he was a young guy when he left. 26, right? Sometimes at that age you think you'll live forever and before you know it the years fly by.

If MT had a solo career similar to Clapton, there would not be so many questions. The fact is, in the last 30+ years he has basically fallen off the map. Even his most well-known work, with Dylan, was 20 years ago!!!!

don't give me that ole one two, one two three four

when?

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> His Majesty Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I didn't know Kieth did that, anyone care to
> give
> > me a quick run down on what Keith did? What he
> > wiped?
>
>
> around that time? Marlon and Angela's arses,
> mostly....

Not wiped: sponged.

Incidentally, I don't write them. I just copy them from the Internet:

"Such tunings and capo transpositions can cause the performer a great deal more trouble than the casual listener might suppose, at worst bringing the entire show to a halt. Witness Keith Richards’ early attempt to take his open tunings onstage, at Hyde Park 1969, where the resultant confusion caused a reticent, teenage Mick Taylor to cross the stage gingerly and offer to help The Great Man work out which fret to capo. Strangely, this sequence has been excised from the film. Dylan’s solution to a similar basic problem avoided the need for any emergency Robertson aid.

Much of the distinctive sound of Dylan’s ’66 acoustic guitar comes from his altered tunings. The two alt. tunings most commonly used in blues, folk and rock are Open E (or D) and Open G. Open E is the ‘Elmore James’ style much used by 60’s British Blues bands (done to death many would say, by Peter Green’s Jeremy Spencer-era Fleetwood Mac) but also put to more original use on songs like the Stones ‘Gimme Shelter’. Open G (especially the 5 string variant) became a staple of the Stones post-‘Honky Tonk Women’ sound. It seems to have entered mainstream British use via Ry Cooder who played on the Let It Bleed album filling Brian Jones’s chair and whose guitar parts mysteriously vanished, only to re-appear, played almost note for note by Keith Richards (a technique known in the trade as a ‘Sponge Job’)."

[www.judasmagazine.com]



stonesrule Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don't you think that if Mick and Keith were being
> unfair to Mick or cheating him of credit, that
> Charlie, especially, and Bill might have spoken
> up?

What have they ever challenged Mick and Keith on?

> Or the guts to have told Mick and or Keith, "I
> would like more credit for my input?"

The story seems to be he had the guts, Jagger told him the credits would be given, they were not, and he walked. In various interviews, he said that the
major complaint was that he was told they would be given. So, as least as
relayed by him, the issue is not whether he deserved them, but whether
the leaders would follow through on a promise.

> Mick never looked very happy playing with the
> Stones, and I saw several gigs from Hyde Park on.

I've listened to many of the live shows. He often sounds very happy.

Might you also think that every string quartet playing Beethoven is unhappy to do so from their dour expressions? Often the poker face comes from concentration, not depression. While Taylor may have been bored as he claimed, I would not assume too much from any particular facial expression from a musician who concentrated so well like he did. Incidentally, many of the old times blues musicians sang with expressionless faces on the videos I've seen: the truth was in the sound, not the sight.

Smokey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Might you also think that every string quartet
> playing Beethoven is unhappy to do so from their
> dour expressions? Often the poker face comes from
> concentration, not depression. While Taylor may
> have been bored as he claimed, I would not assume
> too much from any particular facial expression
> from a musician who concentrated so well like he
> did. Incidentally, many of the old times blues
> musicians sang with expressionless faces on the
> videos I've seen: the truth was in the sound, not
> the sight.


extremely well put......bored....you'd have to have no pulse playin with the RollInG STones....fer christ sake..........are u kiddin.......your adrenalin would be pumping so hard, you wouldnt know what hit ya



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-05 05:32 by Leonard Keringer.