Hi

Do not want to get into an argument about who is a better guitarist than so an so...that is all so subjective in any case. However, I have just listened to Mick T's playing on Carla Olson's 'Within an Ace'. I have never heard this before, really beautiful and melodic,it can only be him.

Just wish he did a lot more of this.

MickyG

He's fantastic, no doubt, and I think he's the band's best they've ever had.
But most distinctive ever?? I think you have to look a bit beyond the Stones to discover that.

My vote, for the record, goes to Jerry Garcia.

[thepowergoats.com]

yes he is, if by distinctive you mean he has a recognizable style and tone.

but what is he doing these days?

I'd have to agree - his sound is very recognizable. I can usually tell when he's playing on something.

Jimi Hendrix. Gary Moore. Brian Robertson. David Gilmour.
Frank Zappa. Carlos Santana. Clapton. Robbie Robertson.
Kenny Håkansson. Franz Beckerlee. Sandor Bencsik.

Keith is pretty distinct in my book

Yeah, Keef is a good sample. And Ron Wood.
John Lee Hooker. Lightin Hopkins.
Ritchie Blackmore. Mike Oldfield.
Jimmy Page. Toni Iommi.

I wouldn't say EVER. I don't think he ever did anything monumental in terms of what people recognise immediately - like Keith's playing or Led Zep and on and on, The Who, The Beatles, etc...the Riff Masters of each band. Keith hits a lick and or a riff and everyone with a fu*cking brain KNOWS ITS THE STONES MANNNNNNNN.

I think he's right there with Peter Green, Mark Knopfler and the rest

too bad people like Albett can't appreciate "vibrato"

he just wants to listen to; "Shattered" all day..

MLC

Shattered all day - I can think of much worse!

Stones with Mick Taylor again! I hope he's asked to record on a new song or two for their next album

they're still friends, right?

Jimis Hendrix and Page are undisputedly the top of the heap. Everybody else falls far, far short.

Quote
HEILOOBAAS
Jimis Hendrix and Page are undisputedly the top of the heap. Everybody else falls far, far short.

While I agree and Love Page & Hendrix, one cannot discount Garcia.
Nor Duane Allman for that matter.

[thepowergoats.com]

"I think he's right there with Peter Green, Mark Knopfler and the rest

too bad people like Albett can't appreciate "vibrato"

he just wants to listen to; "Shattered" all day..

MLC"


You bet your bottom dollar!
I can appreciate music by many musician over many genres and not 'worship' one artist to the point of ridicule.

Now this is guitar playing!




Peter Green Need your love so bad

Or this....



Jeff Beck group

Beat this....



Won't get fooled again

Just for my mate MCL



Shattered

"

&





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-08-07 23:58 by swampff.

He has a beautiful tone
Amazing fluidity and, certainly from the Stones onwards, a carefree vibrato (it's really interesting to note how he develops from stuff like JMB's Crusade to Laurel Canyon and on the live records like Diary of a Band, to the massive 72 and 73 tours with the Stones - he does become a bit of a guitar god)

I put him up there with Jimmy Page - sure JP was a gutsy, fast, instinctive player and a great producer and studio musician, but he was never as fluid and tight as Taylor (if they're gonna be compared)

ahh, just looked up the word distinctive in the dictionary...
must say one of the most distinctive ones is mr may from the queen.

Mick Taylor sure could play some blues. Great slide player.

Another very distinctive (and under-rated IMO) player is Sonny Landreth

great live and very understated in his stage presence, like MT

Pat Hare.....Joey Long...



ROCKMAN

He was good, but I really don't think he is up there with the giants like Hendrix etc, his playing is just too bog standard - british blues to be deemed distinctive.

No one beats Duane Allman. One Way Out baby

no,not even close.

I kind of agree with His Majesty.
MT is a great player and very recognisable to those in the know...but his playing isn't instantly identifiable to the typical music fan in the way that Clapton, Hendrix or Knopfler are.
And without making it a comparison of merit...I think that Ronnie Wood's guitar playing is probably more recognisable and distinctive in some ways.

I do think however that MT is as good as any of the "British Blues" players,
whether famous or lesser known.
His fluidity and melodic sense within the blues stand comparison with anybody.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-08-08 10:13 by Spud.

>> MT is a great player and very recognisable to those in the know <<

like a lot of people i recognize Keith's playing from miles away - all those guest spots on other people's albums,
and it don't take but one listen and your whole nervous system goes "hark!" the moment he comes in.
is that because he's so distinctive or because i know his playing so well that it's tattooed on my psyche for permanent?
probably both.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-08-08 11:36 by with sssoul.

Richard Thompson is recognizable from the first bar.

Quote
His Majesty
He was good, but I really don't think he is up there with the giants like Hendrix etc, his playing is just too bog standard - british blues to be deemed distinctive.

I agree. It would be unjust to equalize him to people like Hendrix - Taylor has a nice, distinguished style ("vibrato"), but he is way too limited and unprofilc to be said to be 'most distinctive". Even in the category of British blues guitarists, I would say Eric Clapton is a head above of him, not to mention Jeff Beck.

Even in the context of The Stones, I don't think he is the most distinctive - that's Keith Richards. With this I mean nothing of professional skills - Taylor is surely the best in terms of those - but if we think the style to be recognized Keith has created very unique and well-known one. Like said, the Stones tune will be recognized from his trademark guitar playing (or that IT IS KEITH RICHARDS playing there). (Also this can be said of Chralie Watts and Bill Wyman, but it is most clear with Keef.)

Perhaps in the world of rock music, Taylor is a bit too under-valuated, but perhaps a bit too over-valuated by some Stones fans. The latter I think is due to the fact that Taylor is the only so called virtuoso the band ever seen; it is easy to 'shine' with such wonderful carage musicians... but then again: the secret of the band - the reason why it is loved so much - does not rely on any skillful instrumentation. For this reason, the loss of their biggest technical player ever, was not very drastic move at all (expect to some die-hard Tayloroties, bless them!). Taylor's skills, even though they were highly important, especially in 1969 when they hit the road again, never turned out to be the core or the substance of the band. Finally, he was icing the cake (as Brian's flutes or sitars did before him). Taylor was the right guy at the right time (when a hot solo guitarist was an essential part of any credible band), but like Brian, the band was able to continue without him. The last is not an opinion, but a historical fact.

I think the biggest contribution Taylor ever did to The Stones is the one mentioned by Charlie Watts: he brought them "professionalism". I take this not only mean his own guitar contributions, but that he effected to the others to find a new geer from their engine. He forced the others to play better, more tightier. The effect of this was the birth of The Greatest Rock and Roll band (together with the great material Mick and Keith created in 1968-69 - totally independent of Taylor). I think this is quite analogical to effect Brian Jones had in his days of leader of the band (prior ALO took over): Brian pushed them forward, and to believe on the band and of its future. But in both cases, the actual greatness was not done by Jones or Taylor, but the rest, the actual core of the band. They - Mick, Keith, Bill, Charlie - made it happen. When Taylor left, I don't think there was much for him to contribute anymore - the band had enough professionalism to carry on; his post was actually quite easily to be replaced with a new quy - the core which would keep the sound of the band great would go on. And it is true that having Ronnie onboard also gave them a new fresh kick (and they were better armed to face the punk movement of the late 70's when the egoist solo guitarists were more than "passe".)

The touring years with Taylor are my - like many others - favourite ones. But it is not solely thanks to his wonderful guitar playing, but also due to the fact that all of them were in the peak of their career at the time. Even more grateful as what the rest should be toward Taylor of those years, I think even more grateful - and lucky - Taylor should feel for having the chance to play with Mick and Keith and the rest when they happen to be in height of their powers.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-08-08 11:46 by Doxa.