[www.vguitar.com]

See Clapton's quote of Taylor in Article he told Melody Maker in 69

play that guitar boy

Interesting read. Thanks.

[www.reverbnation.com]

thank you

Thanks a lot for the link - great read
CrazyMama

Great article. I listened to Crusade while reading it.

Thanks OpenG! Now I gotta go back and listen to some old Mayall

Imagine Michael Jordan only talking about his short stint as a baseball player/and as a Washington Wizard.

Great read. Thanks

I usally don't get involved in these,Taylor threads. Because of you know who!lol. Anyway same old song and dance. Taylor was great for that time period.m That's it i don't think the Stones would have progressed as far as they did,do to the punk scene at the time Woody was a perfecy fit. As the article the Stones were a full blown band for 8 years before Taylor joined, coming off Beggers and Let it Bleed,so Taylor freaks don't get into it with me about Let It Bleed he only played on Country Honk! LET IT BLEED IS STRAIGHT UP KEITH.That's where Keef made himself the STONES! end of story. Now let's here some stupid Taylor responses to this arguement. Don't get me wrong i loved Taylor when he played with the Stones,as you can see i capatilize his name. He was a lead guitar player perfect for that point and time! The rest is tunnel vision by people stuck in 70 to 73 on a bad acid trip! The only reason why i say this is because i can fully enjoy the STONES From the get go to "All The Way Down" To the bitter end! That's just me!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-10-18 06:12 by stonesfrk.

Why has Taylor never become one of the top London session guitarists, like, say Robbie McIntosh or Tim Renwick?
He surely got the skills and talent it takes to back other artists in recording sessions and enrich their records with his sound.
And he's even done it before, for example on the "John McVie's Gotta Band with Lola Thomas" album.
So why not continue with it now? It doesn't always need to be Eric Clapton who gets all the prominent guest spots.

stonesfrk,

I never hesitate to get involved in Taylor threads!

Just a few points. OFCOURSE the Stones were an established band for 8 years before Taylor joined. But when he joined they were totally transformed from one live entity into another, all playing at a new level. 1969 was when they became TGR&RBITW.

Ofcourse on Let It Bleed is a Keith guitar-creation and he had no need for other guitarists - nor did he on Beggars. But you get inputs from Cooder and Taylor. Taylor plays rhythm on Live With Me, by the way, (as on Ya-Yas too). Does he play on Country Honk? Certainly him on Honky Tonk Woman though!

And another thing. Taylor was not/is not just a lead guitarist. He's an excellent rhythm guitarist - and on '69 you get him and Keith seamlessly swapping rhythm/lead roles. Infact Tayor started out as a rhythm guitarist. He just happenned to be rather good at lead too. And Keith just happenned to be extremeley good at rhythm and so, especially in the early seventies, it was not unusual or unnatural that each of them began to specialise to their respective strengths to create what we got in 72-73. One helluva guitar band.

But Taylor is no more 'just a lead guitarist' any more than keith is 'just a rhythm guitarist'.

Interesting read! Thanx!

And I just want to say this:
I've been with the Stones from mid-sixties to now. I'm hearing quite a lot of Stones through my days. But mostly I go back to either 60's material or stuff from that relativly short period with Mick Taylor.It's just too good . .

Quote
Four Stone Walls
stonesfrk,

I never hesitate to get involved in Taylor threads!

Just a few points. OFCOURSE the Stones were an established band for 8 years before Taylor joined. But when he joined they were totally transformed from one live entity into another, all playing at a new level. 1969 was when they became TGR&RBITW.

Ofcourse on Let It Bleed is a Keith guitar-creation and he had no need for other guitarists - nor did he on Beggars. But you get inputs from Cooder and Taylor. Taylor plays rhythm on Live With Me, by the way, (as on Ya-Yas too). Does he play on Country Honk? Certainly him on Honky Tonk Woman though!

And another thing. Taylor was not/is not just a lead guitarist. He's an excellent rhythm guitarist - and on '69 you get him and Keith seamlessly swapping rhythm/lead roles. Infact Tayor started out as a rhythm guitarist. He just happenned to be rather good at lead too. And Keith just happenned to be extremeley good at rhythm and so, especially in the early seventies, it was not unusual or unnatural that each of them began to specialise to their respective strengths to create what we got in 72-73. One helluva guitar band.

But Taylor is no more 'just a lead guitarist' any more than keith is 'just a rhythm guitarist'.

Well put Four Stone Walls! I like it at least you pointed out very good qualities of both players,and did not make this a combat situation, against Woody Keef and Taylor, like MLDLC or whatever the freak goes by and a few other's. Maybe we can talk legit about Taylor from now on and his real accomplishment's, and not a bunch of burned out acid head's trip's about him. That's all i want i love Taylor for what he did but he is not GOD,like alot around here think. I know i lived with a Taylor freak for 5 years it was brutal, to say the least.lol

Mick Taylor Time The Best Periode of The Stones .

Without a Dodo of a doubt, Rufestone. (They were at their combined peak then).

thanks for the link. very interesting reading! and though the article doesn't say so, it shows that the peack of Mick's creativity was with the Stones IMO (except maybe for shows with Carla Olson, where he really played like the best gtrist ever).

And now that I've read thr article, this is an interesting bit:

>> In late May of '69, Taylor handed in his resignation. In England's Melody Maker, Taylor said, "John wasn't an easy person to work with because he's got such a strong musical personality, but it was very enjoyable... until the last six months when I began to get fed up. Then I'd get up onstage and just go through the motions." <<

A case of deja vu with the Stones about four or five years later.

I could never understand why Mick Taylor doesn't rule up high on those Best Guitar Charts. Seriously - why is this?
He was very high profile. The music listening public is not stupid. Everyone knows who plays lead guitar on the Golden Era Stonesalbums. His sense of melody is incredible; I would rate him as high as Duane on slide. There might be louder or flashier slide players, but few better. It is not easy to play slide with such precision; he does not get an open tuning and then fake and muck his way through a 1-4-5. And someone mentions his rhythm playing. Very underrated; especially since he played with Keith, the rhythm king, when HE was at the top of his game. MT's style on rhythm is nothing like Keith. He plays mainly straight chords; not much obvious syncopation. But he found his perfect groove in a niche within the Stones tricky rhythm machine. Ya-Ya's has some of he finest, meanest shuffles and grooves going on. And it happens usually when Taylor is chording. "Midnight Rambler", "Carol", "Sympathy". I'm thinking that the 69 Stones with Dan Armstrongs, SGs and Ampegs were just as fierce as the Mid Range/Tele 72 Stones.

Rolling Stones Gimme Shelter Philadelphia Shows Mick Taylor


You would think only God could play like this I guess Taylor had his attenas up LOL Frightening playing as Clapton indicated in 1969

Brilliant startint at 2.25

Wonderful article. Thank you.

It gives a good perspective into Taylor's career.

Seemingly the problems with us Rolling Stones fans is that we think and judge people as rock stars, and with all the glory, money, life style, adoration, looks... because our biggest heroes are the biggest rocks stars of all time, people who much origanated the idea of being a "rock star". The music has never been the whole secret of the Stones, it includes much more (ALO already knew it!!).

Seemingly Taylor is 'just' a musician - a person who seems just to breath music, creating one's abilities as a musician, or as a guitarist, expressing one's ideas through music, and nothing more.

So, the decision to leave The Stones sounds quite natural for a person like that. Most of us think that as an idiotic career-move, but perhaps that is a wrong interpretation. For being himself and what he represents perhaps that was the only possible decision, and he would have done it sooner or later. Like noticed above, the words he decribes his reasons to leave Mayall, could also be his reasons to leave the Stones.

I think the opinion to think Taylor's departure as a stupid career-move seems to entail the presupposition that to be 'popular' and famous, and to gather lots of money and adoration and all kind of attention, and love performing in many sense of the term, is the point of being a musician. That is say, to be like Mick Jagger and Keith Richards. Seemingly Ronnie Wood is happy in that kind of position, to be a "Rolling Stone", as he personally agrees on. That is his dream came true (that never was Mick Taylor's dream). He seemed to accepted many kind of humilations along the years just to be "one of the boys". Good for him.

But also good for Mick Taylor. He had the balls to follow his own muse. To quit the Stones, and the jet set life like that, one indeed does need to have a hell kind of balls - and perhaps to most of us - ordinary fellows who idolize the stars - that looked like a failure. It was not. Taylor never turned out to be a name of is own, but rather "ex-Rolling Stone", but so what. As the article shows he has done some very interesting things along the years. For example, to be the band leader of Dylan is a VERY impressive job. If he had remained in the Stones scheme, I think that frustrated him to death. Even though The Stones did one great album - and no more, in fact - after his departure, very much inspired the presence of Ronnie Wood, musically it has been the same old song, the same old gig. He was wittnessing the slow decrease of Mick and Keith's creativity (we have to remember where they were in the late 60's and early 70's!), and he was already bored in 1973 - the tour we now consider now maybe their most inspired one!

I think the article gives a good insight to understand few quotes considering Taylor's joining to the Stones. First, Taylor's own: that he was horrified how awful carage band the Stones were just by their own, when he first met them in studio - how these 'not very professinal sounding' musicians could make such a great sounding records. Second, Charlie's quote that "Mick Taylor brought us professionalism". (There are also early interviews of Taylor in which he describes with great enthuasism what kind of contributions he might do within the Stones- total hyper idealism in retropect!). I finish with one quote not well-known at all (because it said in a private discussion). It is from one Finnish long road blues musician who met Taylor (in late 80's I think can't recall). Knowing the famous "Why did you quit The Stones?" questions he said to Mick "I don't understand why did join in that pop group in the first place at all..." That was a joke, but Taylor was amused. Anyway, we all should be glad he did join the pop band!!!!

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2008-10-24 10:52 by Doxa.

I think the Stones have done more than one good album after Taylor left. Although I know many don't want to consider Tattoo You as a real album just cause all the songs weren't written that year.

Hey this post above had me laughing so hard...

"a combat situation, against Woody Keef and Taylor, like MLDLC or whatever the freak goes by"

Well Stonesfrk,

I've never taken acid, and don't push for the dumping of Ronnie & bring back Taylor.

Ronnie these days is playing better than Keith IMO.

All I want is to see Taylor sit-in with the Stones (once)
to see what might happen. So get your facts straight before you shoot off your
"incorrect" mouth.

And Palace Rev. - Your comment on the music public not being stupid, everyone
know's who played in the golden era - do some research - you will be surprised
how many "Stones" fans don't know who Mick Taylor is or was. It's been over 30 years since he was in the band..

MLC

Just an observation but I dont consider anyone a "stonesfan" if they're not aware at least who Mick Taylor is!

Just take it or leave it...without slogging each other. Discussion is fine, but these always get ugly. Gotta love ALL the Stones incarnations. My personal fave is the Brian Stuff, but cant say enough about Mick Taylor, either. Ronnie came in, and was perfect. A lot of people say not as good, but what choice did they have.....Taylor was gone, and Brian died....they turned a different direction anyway....already done that, the Stones are always like that. They dont want to repeat anything (Studio wise, anyway)....Since '89, IMHO, I think basically the same set.....all those tours should be called war horses. But, I still forked over the dough, travelled the world, and most cases got "Satisfaction".....but, I think, for the best, those days are over. After hearing some of the Euro shows, from the last leg, pretty sure I am right....no offense, Kent....glad you dug them....

JR, aka Devil Bird..

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
I could never understand why Mick Taylor doesn't rule up high on those Best Guitar Charts. Seriously - why is this?
He was very high profile.

Well, it's mostly due to his demons -drugs and alcohol. Ever since he left the Stones he's been in and out of addictions and leaving a life of peaks and low points. But basically he's been such a mess at various times that he has never been able to build a real career after the Stones. I also think that it's also due to the fact that he is a great guitarist, but not a prolific song writer and singer. He's just not capable of being a solo artist like Clapton for example.

The man is a genius on guitar, but it takes more than that to build a career.

Mathijs

Quote
stonesfrk
I usally don't get involved in these,Taylor threads.

...so why get involved with this one?

To me Mick Taylor is truly a gifted guitarist, never was a great vocalist or song writer. It seems that no matter which artist he is working with, he always adds so much of himself to that music, and in the end, that artist's music certainly becomes Taylor's also. It is undeniable that the mark he left on the Rolling Stones is looked upon by those who truly have followed their music as certainly their best period. I personally do not look at Mick Taylor as being an ex-Rolling Stone, even though he is, but as one of the all time great guitarists. The fact that he has not become a session musician is no reflection on his talents whatsoever. Whenever i get in the mood of listening to the Rolling Stones, i inevitably grab a Taylor period disc.

Mathijs, I don't think it was the drugs & booze, Taylor's a different cat,

being a "rock star" is not where he's at. He just want's to play music, would
he like the money the Stones are making -sure - but he marched to his own drum.

And Mtripoli - I think he writes some very good songs, when he want's to.

Like alot of the tunes from: A Stones Throw..

MLC

I think drugs and booze has a lot to do with it, I've seen a few Taylor shows were he was so loaded that he was just awful. And I'd imagine if he is playing live solo shows in that shape than its probably effected a few other things during his career.

I'd have to agree I don't think Taylor is much of a songwriter, or at least at the level of other guitars who have left bands and become successful as a solo acts.

I write this here because I hate starting threads.

I've been listening to a lot "Jiving Sister Fanny" lately. It is included in my 'blues collection' I did while ago. That guitar solo really strikes me. It really opens a new chapter in the Stones music - and with Keith's "Sympathy" solo (and Brian's "I Wanna Be Your Man"), it is about the most front-mixed and distinguished guitar solo in recorded Stones history..

According to the article it derives from Taylor's first session with the Stones. Boy, did he really showed the guys what he is capable of! I can only what the rest of them were thinking when he let that guitar sing, shout and cry and tell stories. In many way it reminds a lot of Keith's solo in "Sympathy", and it has also to some licks of "Gimme Shelter", but I can think that when he 'showed his gun' Keith knew that his days as a solo guitarist were over. It almost sounds like a lesson that if one wants to play guitar solos, it goes like this... makes me wonder if Keith as a musician felt a bit offended. Interesting is that they would never let Taylor shine like this in 'official' output to come. In fact, the 'hidden gun' of Taylor can only to be heard in live - especially in 1972/73 tour we can hear Taylor's guitar to talk like it already did in his first session.

Good or not, but it looks like that the 'new boy' was given few lessons of his role and how to behave after his first sessions... Taylor's young and naive idealism was turned into realism and finally into skepticism.

(Don't get me wrong - I don't critizise Mick and Keith's intuitions, actions or decisions; taking the marvellous results they were absolutely right and they knew what was best for The Stones and for their sound. I just try to enlighten the 'Taylor years' from the side of Taylor. It is so easy to be anachronist.)

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-10-24 11:38 by Doxa.