yeah man, virtuoso is a good word for him, though its dreadfully over used

There seems to be a variety of opinons here but isn't that always the case on any subject? It doesn't really matter to me what anyone else thinks about Mick Taylor's playing on Brussels or any other show. To my ears it is among the greatest electric guitar playing I've ever heard. His playing on this recording is beautifully melodic and soulful and his phrasing and tone are magical. His solo at the end of Brown Sugar makes me want to shout with joy at its sheer brilliance and the break on Tumbling Dice is a primer on great phrasing. quite honestly any words I write here fail to adequately express the greatness of his playing, but thats just me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-09-06 02:22 by ChrisM.

ChrisM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There seems to be a variety of opinons here but
> isn't that always the case on any subjec? It
> doesn't really matter to me what anyone else
> thinks about Mick Taylor's playing on Brussels or
> any other show. To my ears it is among the
> greatest electric guitar playing I've ever heard.
> His playing on this recording is beautifully
> melodic and soulful and his phrasing and tone are
> magical. His solo at the end of Brown Sugar makes
> me want to shout with joy at its sheer brilliance
> and the break on Tumbling Dice is primer on great
> phrasing . Any words I write here fail to
> adequately express the greatness of his playing
> quite honestly, but thats just me


Well put! Couldn't agree more.

Taylor may have been a better fit for The Allman Brothers Band or Lynyrd Skynrd...
I think the Stones just needed a blonde guy guitarist to replace their blonde guy guitarist. Then they broke that mold by signing Ronnie...but they do now have a guitarist named "Blondie", so the tradition is still there as a remnant.

Yup, now they are a three-guitar band like Lynyrd Skynyrd!

i would like to see him come back for a few shows....why not what the fvck??and i am no Taylorite



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-09-05 19:53 by tat2you.

ChrisM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There seems to be a variety of opinons here but
> isn't that always the case on any subjec? It
> doesn't really matter to me what anyone else
> thinks about Mick Taylor's playing on Brussels or
> any other show. To my ears it is among the
> greatest electric guitar playing I've ever heard.
> His playing on this recording is beautifully
> melodic and soulful and his phrasing and tone are
> magical. His solo at the end of Brown Sugar makes
> me want to shout with joy at its sheer brilliance
> and the break on Tumbling Dice is primer on great
> phrasing . Any words I write here fail to
> adequately express the greatness of his playing
> quite honestly, but thats just me

hey, seems that you did a pretty good job of expressing it, to me! spot on!

NumberOneStonesFan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Taylor may have been a better fit for The Allman
> Brothers Band or Lynyrd Skynrd...
> I think the Stones just needed a blonde guy
> guitarist to replace their blonde guy guitarist.
> Then they broke that mold by signing Ronnie...but
> they do now have a guitarist named "Blondie", so
> the tradition is still there as a remnant.


There's nothing wrong with blondes

------



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-09-05 22:15 by ryanpow.

spot on Chris M...you've made me want to spin it on my CD player right now!

I love the 73 European tour recordings, but it does become apparent that MT was starting to get bored.

One song that has quite a bit of "noodling" on it is "Dancing With Mr D".

However, it's well known that Jagger was very partial to the version of "Angie" from this tour -- he wanted to put it on the next live LP.

Personally, I think that the live "Angie" was much better than the studio recording. MT's solo really fit in nicely.

On another note: had a 1972 show been given the KBFH "radio-friendly" mix, then THAT would be regarded as the live peak. The only thing that comes close, IMHO, is the dry mix from "Welcome to New York".

bassplayer617 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I love the 73 European tour recordings, but it
> does become apparent that MT was starting to get
> bored.
>
> One song that has quite a bit of "noodling" on it
> is "Dancing With Mr D".
>
>

DWMD from brussles is sounds good to me, its a scorchin track!

bassplayer617 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> On another note: had a 1972 show been given the
> KBFH "radio-friendly" mix, then THAT would be
> regarded as the live peak. The only thing that
> comes close, IMHO, is the dry mix from "Welcome to
> New York".


The Ladies and Gentlemen soundtrack and some of the Philadelphia material - especially the early show on July 21st - are better sounding than Welcome To New York. ANd TX/PA/NY 1972 is also a live peak....so is MSG 1969
The reason Brussels is such a legendary bootleg is not only the soundquality - but also that it's a 100% terrific performance.
Strange - the last Brussels thread turned out so different from this one. How come ?

Erik_Snow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bassplayer617 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > On another note: had a 1972 show been given the
> > KBFH "radio-friendly" mix, then THAT would be
> > regarded as the live peak. The only thing that
> > comes close, IMHO, is the dry mix from "Welcome
> to
> > New York".
>
>
> The Ladies and Gentlemen soundtrack and some of
> the Philadelphia material - especially the early
> show on July 21st - are better sounding than
> Welcome To New York. ANd TX/PA/NY 1972 is also a
> live peak....so is MSG 1969
> The reason Brussels is such a legendary bootleg is
> not only the soundquality - but also that it's a
> 100% terrific performance.
> Strange - the last Brussels thread turned out so
> different from this one. How come ?

Because this thread is asking a specific question about a tiny element of the performance.

At the end of the day, Brussels 73 was a BRILLIANT performance by a band which was either at its peak or just past its peak and still riding high. Nearly everyone will also agree (or at least I do) that the 69 - 72 period was the best, albeit that you could probably expand that to 68 - 78. Mick Taylor was obviously a huge part of that sound and he was a genius. However, there were one or two occasions, particularly on the 73 Europe tour, when he went OTT by constant soloing over vocals or by playing uninspired - but still technically good - lead guitar. His YCAGWYW solos, especially in 72, should be on the national curriculum for kids to learn about at school. But I also believe that his solos over SFM are a classic example of how NOT to play - when the lead guitarist won't stop noodling and give the song some space. As the saying goes - "It's not what you play, it's what you don't play that counts..."

The whole band was playing with fire. Keith is amazing. Bill and Charlie doing their usual masterful job. And Taylor taking his play to new heights.

My only disappointment with anything I have listened to from the Taylor era is that I was too young to attend any shows at that point.

Weird thought, but....Springsteen and the E-Street Band is considered one of the greatest live acts ever (I have seen him on both good an bad nights...but I think most critics list him as one of the best live bands ever). Little Steven left the E-Street band. Nils Lofgren then joined the band and become the lead guitarist. 20 years after quitting Little Steven rejoins the band and they now have essentially 2 lead guitarists...and it works. I wonder what the Stones would sound like with Taylor and Ronnie trading leads, Keith worrying about Rhythm only, and Blondie crawling back into wherever he came from....

sjs12 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Erik_Snow Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > Strange - the last Brussels thread turned out
> so
> > different from this one. How come ?
>
> Because this thread is asking a specific question
> about a tiny element of the performance.

Obviously, but I thought most people would disagree with the thread-title.

For me, Taylor's performance on SFM from 9/9/73, which usually appears on Brussels discs, is spectacular, First, he never loses his soul. Second, you can hear him playing to Jagger. Jagger sounds as if his voice and breath are not quite his best. So Taylor supports those long notes in the verses in Jagger's register so it sounds as if Jagger's voice is stronger. Also, at the end of the middle solo you hear Taylor serving up Jagger's first note after the solo on a silver platter. This wasn't a lazy lead guitarist's cliche; it was a sympathetic contribution that did not appear in the SFM solos from other shows that I recall. Third, the outro lead doesn't sound to me like the solo of a show off. While at one level the solo is a collection of many notes, it--again for me--communicates something about the indignation, chaos, frustration, etc. that Jagger is singing about. He isn't communicating with words, but with a guitar and (yet again for me) he has a lot to say. This "communication" that is tailored (pun intended) to each song so that his solos for ADTL, RTJ, JJF and SFM are so differentiated is part of what makes his playing so fascinating for me. YMMV

Incidentally, as far as soloing over the singer is concerned, isn't that Richards playing solo over Jagger's vocals during the final verses of Angie?

Yep Mick was great, but just listen to this....little Mickie, Micky, and Keefy could get an idea or two from THIS....

I dont think PETER GREEN is boring.. Nor Danny Kirwin...GOD love 'em

[concerts.wolfgangsvault.com]|2365



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-09-06 06:05 by stone-relics.

Taylor's certainly not boring and i don't agree with the view that his solo's are lazy on the 73 European Tour. I think really the question is does a great Mick Taylor performance constitute a great Stones performance? I prefer the Stones performances as a whole on the earlier tours 72-73 but as a guide to the magic of Taylor, Brussels is really hard to beat.

Taylor brought a polished, techinical, run of the mill late 60's early 70's guitar style to a high energy punk rock bar band. Luckly for him he did it when the writing team of Jagger/Richards were red hot and Jimmy Miller knew how capture it all on tape. The Stones were never the same an IMO that was not a good thing.

buffalo7478 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The whole band was playing with fire. Keith is
> amazing. Bill and Charlie doing their usual
> masterful job. And Taylor taking his play to new
> heights.
>
> It's because Taylor was playing so brilliantly that the others had to keep pace - that's why those shows are so good.

ChrisM - you nailed it, my friend.

NumberOneStonesFan, that blonde guitarist line was the biggest crock of shit I've read in a long time. You're busted to NumberFortytwoStonesFan.

Smokey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For me, Taylor's performance on SFM from 9/9/73,
> which usually appears on Brussels discs, is
> spectacular, First, he never loses his soul.
> Second, you can hear him playing to Jagger.
> Jagger sounds as if his voice and breath are not
> quite his best. So Taylor supports those long
> notes in the verses in Jagger's register so it
> sounds as if Jagger's voice is stronger. Also, at
> the end of the middle solo you hear Taylor serving
> up Jagger's first note after the solo on a silver
> platter. This wasn't a lazy lead guitarist's
> cliche; it was a sympathetic contribution that did
> not appear in the SFM solos from other shows that
> I recall. Third, the outro lead doesn't sound to
> me like the solo of a show off. While at one
> level the solo is a collection of many notes,
> it--again for me--communicates something about the
> indignation, chaos, frustration, etc. that Jagger
> is singing about. He isn't communicating with
> words, but with a guitar and (yet again for me) he
> has a lot to say. This "communication" that is
> tailored (pun intended) to each song so that his
> solos for ADTL, RTJ, JJF and SFM are so
> differentiated is part of what makes his playing
> so fascinating for me. YMMV
>
> Incidentally, as far as soloing over the singer is
> concerned, isn't that Richards playing solo over
> Jagger's vocals during the final verses of Angie?


I think the same thing, only, you put it down in words better than i could! Taylor as a guitar player has not been studied hard enough IMO. sure we've had all the discussions about why he left the Stones blah blah but where is our appraisal of his playing like we have with Keith, Clapton, Page, Beck - christ people write books on this stuff...I'd love just to talk about his influences, his development, his talent at such an early age, how he exploded into this rock guitar great!

JMoisica Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Brussels '73: Do Taylor's leads get annoying?
no

melodic wonderment that glistens, taylor uses his guitar as a voice and sure collaborated with jagger in many ways that helped him sing to the melody the best he could because jagger at best sang around the notes. no posing or half attempted playing or bending a note, sure brilliance and yes taylor's solo on YCAGWYW from brussels should be played as you enter the rock and roll hall of fame and his technique and vibrato studied by upcoming students of the guitar.

play that guitar boy

;-))))

OpenG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> melodic wonderment that glistens, taylor uses his
> guitar as a voice and sure collaborated with
> jagger in many ways that helped him sing to the
> melody the best he could because jagger at best
> sang around the notes. no posing or half attempted
> playing or bending a note, sure brilliance and yes
> taylor's solo on YCAGWYW from brussels should be
> played as you enter the rock and roll hall of fame
> and his technique and vibrato studied by upcoming
> students of the guitar.
>
> play that guitar boy


Funny, because I don't think Jagger's singing was at its best on the 73 tour. SOmetimes he nails it but at other times he seems to be doing a gruff half-sing half-shout voice. (BTW, the 75/76 tours often saw the worst examples of this.) Obviously there was a lot more to the performance than the quality of vocals, and he sang great on many shows and many different songs. But the 73 tour was NOT the pinnacle of Micks vocal talents by any means.

You're right about the CAGWYW solo and many other solos from this era. MT was gifted at guitar and even his half-arsed playing was far better than the best I could ever do. But just because his playing was brilliant, does that mean that he should never ever give some space in the music, like he did in the 69-72 tours? Just because you're good, does that mean that you just turn up, drown everyone else out and continue playing 100% of the time relentlesly without providing space for the other instruments to glisten through? (I know I'm exagerating! - he doesn't do it all of the time but there are one or two songs where he seems like he does.)

This is the reason why I sometimes prefer the 72 and early 73 (Australia) boots to the European ones. Brussels is still one of the best boots around - sound quality and performance wise - but there is always that nagging feeling when listening that it is just an ego trip for MT.

The only time Taylors leads are annoying to me is when played over the vocals - same as when Keith keeps soloing over vocals nowadays (esp on Gimme Shelter!!!).

At all other times, his leads are exquisite!

it was possibly the only time MT was allowed to "ego trip", bless his little heart

sjs12 - The comment that MT helped jagger I meant was more in the studio when they collaborated on winter,sway,hide your love and Time Waits, 100 years ago etc.

play that guitar boy.

>> soloing over vocals <<

smile: what's *really* annoying is singing over guitar solos :E

Gotta say that the soloing over vocals thing is something that I like a lot.

In the context of the song it works more or less like the comp of a string ensemble, but since the Gibson LP has a more ballsy sound than a string ensemble, as I see it fits well.

I also agree with who noted that Taylor's style is very underrated in the camp of guitar gods. The thing I truly love is - where - he plays his famous vibrato, more than the vibrato itself.

C