I’ve enjoyed all the live stuff from Ya Ya’s to Texas. The ‘81 stuff sounds good too, but I don’t own it. I was listening to ‘73 Perth today and I’m convinced they could release it. On Rambler there is even a part where Jagger’s vocals ping pong in the stereo field. I think Taylor has some sort of wacky phaser on that track for a few bars.
Forum: Tell Me

QuoteHis Majesty QuoteTravelinMan Well it’s one thing make objective comments about playing style that lead to a healthy debate, but to attack his character? I haven’t seen anything here about Ron Wood abusing women and being so smashed his guitar was pulled out of the live mix. Every good and bad aspect about all of the stones has been discussed here a lot. It took just one little comment
Forum: Tell Me

QuoteDandelionPowderman QuoteTravelinMan QuoteDandelionPowderman Hmm, check out ANY thread about Ronnie Well it’s one thing make objective comments about playing style that lead to a healthy debate, but to attack his character? I haven’t seen anything here about Ron Wood abusing women and being so smashed his guitar was pulled out of the live mix. You mean subjective comments, I presume?
Forum: Tell Me

QuoteOpenG Wow I never knew MT had the opportunity to join Bad Company what were the details if anyone knows please tell us. Thanks From what I remember, it was during the Goat’s Head sessions or right after. The singer, his name escapes me, was looking for a lead guitar player for the new group. Taylor, being loyal to the Stones, turned it down. Then they screwed him over again on IORR and on
Forum: Tell Me

QuoteDandelionPowderman Hmm, check out ANY thread about Ronnie Well it’s one thing make objective comments about playing style that lead to a healthy debate, but to attack his character? I haven’t seen anything here about Ron Wood abusing women and being so smashed his guitar was pulled out of the live mix.
Forum: Tell Me

QuoteSpud I've never understood why folks feel they have to take sides in this issue. I don't either, but I will defend against BS. Same goes for any Stone, except MT is really the only one that gets lambasted around here. QuoteI think that to have made a further big footprint he would have needed to find another great band to adopt him . Would have been interesting to hear him i
Forum: Tell Me

QuoteTheflyingDutchman QuoteMathijs QuoteTheflyingDutchman The early copies in the eighties sounded much better. No they didn't. The official release is the best, even though it still isn't very good. Mathijs Matter of taste then. To me on the official release the guitars sound completely castrated. Like they put plastic foil over it. That producer is quite a control freak
Forum: Tell Me

Quote24FPS I don't get this. Don't they have a quadrophonic soundtrack somewhere to Ladies and Gentlemen? That's what I heard when I saw it at a midnight showing in the mid-70s. My DVD/BluRay whatever is quadraphonic (surround sound). It seems the CD and the video otherwise is a folded down mix rather than an independent stereo mix, hence the lack of clarity and separation you
Forum: Tell Me

QuoteHis Majesty Yes, for he they were a stepping stone not a rolling one. He had no intention of staying long term. He thought he was better than them as a musician. His joining Jack Bruce and being smug about the stones supposedly having problems replacing him is part ego part leech. His own words and actions support what I say. Have a nice day. How about the fact he gave an interview in 1
Forum: Tell Me

QuoteHis Majesty QuoteTravelinMan Taylor turned down playing with Bad Company, he could have easily been in the spotlight if he wanted to be. The point is, he did things HIS way and didn’t care about the money. You don’t join a Jack Bruce fusion band if you prioritize money! Who said he prioritised money? That's you projecting. QuoteTravelinMan ... Hall Of Fame members ...
Forum: Tell Me

QuoteTheflyingDutchman QuoteHis Majesty QuoteTravelinMan “ I never really felt, and I don't know why, but I never felt I was gonna stay with the Stones forever, even right from the beginning.” - Mick Taylor QuoteDandelionPowderman "they could hardly tune their guitars and sounded like a rough garage band" - Mick Taylor His smugness here: A leech, albeit a
Forum: Tell Me

QuoteDandelionPowderman QuoteTravelinMan QuoteHis Majesty QuoteTravelinMan He left because he thought he was better? Where on god’s grey earth has Taylor ever said that?!? Hah! Oh dear. “It's not rubbish to say that I was a bit peeved about not getting credit for a couple of songs, but that wasn't the whole reason. I guess I just felt like I had enough. I decided to leave and star
Forum: Tell Me

QuoteHis Majesty QuoteTravelinMan He left because he thought he was better? Where on god’s grey earth has Taylor ever said that?!? Hah! Oh dear. “It's not rubbish to say that I was a bit peeved about not getting credit for a couple of songs, but that wasn't the whole reason. I guess I just felt like I had enough. I decided to leave and start a group with Jack Bruce. I never really
Forum: Tell Me

QuoteHis Majesty QuoteTravelinMan He’s actually an interesting guitarist overall if you give him a chance. I have gave him lots of chances, but I mostly find him to be quite boring and predictable... he lacked the intensity of say Clapton in 1965/66 and far off the emotional depth of Peter Green. He's the lesser of the Mayall school of guitarists who lucked out and was given the chance
Forum: Tell Me

QuoteHis Majesty Quote24FPS I certainly wouldn't call Mick Taylor dull. Practically unknowable, sure. His addition to the apex of classic Stones music will never be dull. Mick Taylor was simply the finest guitar player the Stones ever had. Practically unknowable because he's seemingly a pretty boring person. He was technically superior as a guitarist in some ways, but he wasn
Forum: Tell Me

Quote24FPS QuoteTravelinMan Quote24FPS I certainly wouldn't call Mick Taylor dull. Practically unknowable, sure. His addition to the apex of classic Stones music will never be dull. I think his inside view of the band would be interesting to hear, if he would ever tell it. I always state that you can't remove people from their time, and during Mick Taylor's actual hitch in the band
Forum: Tell Me

Quote24FPS I certainly wouldn't call Mick Taylor dull. Practically unknowable, sure. His addition to the apex of classic Stones music will never be dull. I think his inside view of the band would be interesting to hear, if he would ever tell it. I always state that you can't remove people from their time, and during Mick Taylor's actual hitch in the band, there was always something
Forum: Tell Me

QuoteHis Majesty QuoteTravelinMan Yes, because joining the WORLD’S GREATEST ROCK AND ROLL BAND AT 20 makes for a dull story. Yes. It's not the band, it's the person who joined that would make it a dull read. Woke up, played guitar solos all day and night, went to bed. Nobody will ever confuse you with an ethnomusicologist, or anybody remotely interesting for that matter.
Forum: Tell Me

QuoteHis Majesty QuoteTravelinMan Need a Mick Taylor book. That would be dull. Yes, because joining the WORLD’S GREATEST ROCK AND ROLL BAND AT 20 makes for a dull story.
Forum: Tell Me

Need a Mick Taylor book.
Forum: Tell Me

QuoteDandelionPowderman We know they both stayed within the bluesrock-genre, in fact even more so than the Stones. So I can't see why they would have gotten bored musically? IMO, none of these competent guitarists had the uniqueness or the signature sound that the guitarists in The Stones had. Nowhere near that. That said, Mandel plays on one of my fave albums, Never Get Out Of These B
Forum: Tell Me

Check out Charlie Musselwhite and the Southside Band for some straight Harvey Mandel FIRE! I’m not as familiar with Perkins, but I’ve liked what I heard. Both seem to have had their hopes in a solo career, whereas Wood is just fine being Richards sideman and on-stage crony. I don’t think either would have lasted this long. The writing was on the wall that Stewart was over the Faces, so it was
Forum: Tell Me

QuoteOpenG All the talk about the intro had to be Taylor and not Keith - I am not sure because the intro walking down the C chord( b and c notes) to the b note is second nature to Keith and then to the suspended F is something Keith would play. Yes separately is similar but its all a guess. To me, it could be either of them. Taylor could have certainly picked up some techniques from Richards af
Forum: Tell Me

Towards the left channel. It’s a quick double strum of a steel string acoustic.
Forum: Tell Me

If you can’t hear an acoustic at 2:16 (most obvious spot) you can’t hear. It’s all over once you tune-in to it.
Forum: Tell Me

I listened to Separately today and I got a Waiting On A Friend vibe. Taylor may have played the electric on this song with Jagger on the acoustic. I'm wondering who plays what on Separately. Seems to be two acoustics and one electric? The lead sounds like Richards compared to the version Taylor released later.
Forum: Tell Me

QuoteDandelionPowderman QuoteTheflyingDutchman There's an article in a magazine in the early eighties -I wish I could dig it up- writing that Taylor was driving in his car with his then wife Valerie and Taylor heard WAOF on a local radios station. Taylor's reaction was :" WtF, that's me playing". Hence the settlement , Tops included in the early 8-tees. A little mixu
Forum: Tell Me

If you can’t hear an acoustic on WOAF then you just can’t hear it. It’s there.
Forum: Tell Me

As far as Waiting On A Friend goes: I think Mick Taylor played the acoustic guitar, which is very low in the mix, but pops at certain points. Listen to beats two and four after the three minute mark on the official version. It's an undeniable acoustic strum. It's quite low at other parts throughout (what's that at 2:16 behind the sax, for instance), and it's also my person
Forum: Tell Me

I love the 1970 version of Gimme Shelter where Richards, Keys, and Taylor take a solo. It’s like a raw three hits to the body combo. They never played it like that before or after.
Forum: Tell Me