'81/82 which was the better live band - John Mayall's Bluesbreakers with Mick Taylor or the Rolling Stones?

The Colin Allen/McVie rhythm section was tight like Bill & Charlie

but Jagger sings better than John Mayall (IMO)

but Mayall is a better harp player than Jagger as well being pretty good on keyboards (IMO)

and Mick Taylor was on fire '81/82 - better than Richards/Wood combined (IMO).

[www.iorr.org]

Anyone else have an opinion?

The Bluesbreakers Reunion period from '82-'84 showcases some of Taylor's best playing. He is in his element here. He's the star of the show without having to be the star. Mayall is supportive and encouraging and gives him plenty of room to move. He would often put his guitarist on the spot and egg him on. During these shows Taylor's guitar really swings. Recordings from this period are prizes for Taylor fans. Do you prefer musicianship in a club or an extravagant "show" in an stadium? It's apples and oranges, really.

2-4 extended virtuoso solos and I'm bored. I'll take the dual guitars of Keith and Ron every time.

not even an issue, the stones tour in 81-82 burried anything from the bluesbreakers imho

terraplane Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> '81/82 which was the better live band - John
> Mayall's Bluesbreakers with Mick Taylor or the
> Rolling Stones?
>
> The Colin Allen/McVie rhythm section was tight
> like Bill & Charlie
>
> but Jagger sings better than John Mayall (IMO)
>
> but Mayall is a better harp player than Jagger as
> well being pretty good on keyboards (IMO)
>
> and Mick Taylor was on fire '81/82 - better than
> Richards/Wood combined (IMO).
>
> [www.iorr.org]
>
> Anyone else have an opinion?


My opinion is that youve overlooked the significant detail that is that the Stones' songs are FAR better. If youre putting a show together, that helps significantly.

I haven't heard yet the Bluesbreakers in 81/82, but great topic!!

[p207.ezboard.com]

yes the songs are better lyrically but the music by then played live lacked substance and depth. IMO it was not edgey and by then the stones were not taking
chances when playing live . I mean what can you do with the guitar playing in open tunings all the time you are limited to what you can do and its the same old sound by then.

terraplane Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> '81/82 which was the better live band - John
> Mayall's Bluesbreakers with Mick Taylor or the
> Rolling Stones?
>
> The Colin Allen/McVie rhythm section was tight
> like Bill & Charlie
>
> but Jagger sings better than John Mayall (IMO)
>
> but Mayall is a better harp player than Jagger as
> well being pretty good on keyboards (IMO)
>
> and Mick Taylor was on fire '81/82 - better than
> Richards/Wood combined (IMO).
>
> [www.iorr.org]
>
> Anyone else have an opinion?



music is not olympic games.

Open G, strange you bring that up about all that playing in open tunings starting to sound alike. Unfortunately for some of us, that is what all the scales and variations of a virtuoso like Taylor begin to sound like after the second or third solo. I am not denying his talent, but much as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so is mucic in our ears. The whole explosion of punk and new wave that revitalized the rock scene in the time period when MT left the group was a rebellion against virtuosity and the stagnation many felt/feel comes along with it. It was nothing less than another rock revolution, and it was vitally needed some music critics/historians feel. Needed or not it happened.

It is, as someone else has pointed out, apples and oranges. I truely enjoy both and may want either at any given time. What always amazes me is that someone who prefers oranges to apples will spend so much time trying to convince all of us that his choice is better.

I really can't see how you can compare the two. They are two very different bands and genres of music.

If ever the term "apples and oranges" applied.........

I'm not so sure about apples and oranges.

The Bluesbreakers were/are obviously a blues band. The Stones started out as a blues band and there is still a strong blues element to a lot of their music.

I think where 'apples and oranges' comes into it is that the Bluesbreakers are/were more about musicianship while the Stones in '81/82 were (and continue to be) more about putting on a show.

So I guess I'm wondering which do people prefer to see when they see a band - musicianship or a show?

MUSICIANSHIP

Love the Bluesbreakers!

[p207.ezboard.com]

I can appreciate good musicianship, but that doesn't necessarily move me like a clangy Telecaster played by a drunken man does.