StonesTod, Taylor has played many shows in Cleveland. I only bothered to see him once. While I wouldn't accuse him of capitalizing off the Stones (A STONE'S THROW notwithstanding), there's nothing wrong if he did - it is his legacy after all. Now, if your local radio station says Taylor's playing at the Slaphappy Lounge on West 6th and then plays "Plundered My Soul" mentioning Taylor just added guitar parts to it, then yes I'd say it is likely some people would bother to turn up who would otherwise skip the show. Again, I don't see any harm in it. Why be ashamed to say you were a Rolling Stone?

Amsterdamned, I like Taylor's playing a lot. Live and in the studio with the Stones. If you've read my posts in this thread even today, you know that. That's not what we're talking about and neither was Andy Johns' story about Keith's actual mean-spirited jibe during the IORR sessions. A story I don't doubt, either.

That wasn't your point originally and changing it now doesn't get us anywhere.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
StonesTod, Taylor has played many shows in Cleveland. I only bothered to see him once. While I wouldn't accuse him of capitalizing off the Stones (A STONE'S THROW notwithstanding), there's nothing wrong if he did - it is his legacy after all. Now, if your local radio station says Taylor's playing at the Slaphappy Lounge on West 6th and then plays "Plundered My Soul" mentioning Taylor just added guitar parts to it, then yes I'd say it is likely some people would bother to turn up who would otherwise skip the show. Again, I don't see any harm in it. Why be ashamed to say you were a Rolling Stone?

absolutely nothing wrong with this. but the chances of ANY radio station playing out that scenario are remote at best. that's my point. taylor himself ain't even promoting it - he was merely answering someone's question the other day and even gave a vague response at that!

Quote
Rocky Dijon
Amsterdamned, I like Taylor's playing a lot. Live and in the studio with the Stones. If you've read my posts in this thread even today, you know that. That's not what we're talking about and neither was Andy Johns' story about Keith's actual mean-spirited jibe during the IORR sessions. A story I don't doubt, either.

That wasn't your point originally and changing it now doesn't get us anywhere.

No,I'am not changing my point. Taylor's contribution on a 100 y ago was significant for this song an Richards particular remarks on Taylor in the studio,whenever, is not my main issue.They are misplaced.And there were quite a few.

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Rocky Dijon
StonesTod, Taylor has played many shows in Cleveland. I only bothered to see him once. While I wouldn't accuse him of capitalizing off the Stones (A STONE'S THROW notwithstanding), there's nothing wrong if he did - it is his legacy after all. Now, if your local radio station says Taylor's playing at the Slaphappy Lounge on West 6th and then plays "Plundered My Soul" mentioning Taylor just added guitar parts to it, then yes I'd say it is likely some people would bother to turn up who would otherwise skip the show. Again, I don't see any harm in it. Why be ashamed to say you were a Rolling Stone?

absolutely nothing wrong with this. but the chances of ANY radio station playing out that scenario are remote at best. that's my point. taylor himself ain't even promoting it - he was merely answering someone's question the other day and even gave a vague response at that!

The whole point here is that is suggested that Taylor isn't a reliable source because his mentioning of playing on PMS would be financially profitable for him. That's what I call a ridiculous way of thinking.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
I believe your "100 Years Ago" story, Amsterdamned. And then Jagger patted his sobbing friend Keith on the back and said, "There, there...we'll get all the royalties for all these albums Taylor brilliantly composes for us." And they rubbed their greedy hands together and cackled maniacally.

And Taylor labored away, a genius unmoved by ego or financial renumeration and lo when the great god Taylor stepped out on his own in December 1974, his muse mysteriously deserted him.

Here endeth the lesson.

LOL classic!!!!

My main question would be: if Taylor was asked to do the overdubs on PMS, why did they settle with what is on the released track? It's fairly standard pentatonic run-through licks, nothing really spectacular. It's clearly edited down from several takes, or one very long take. I find it difficult to believe you went into the trouble getting Taylor to a studio, record his noodling and saying "that's a wrap Mick, it's fantastic", and then release the stuff.

Mathijs
Ps If not being able to hear Keith on PMS is like stating Keith isn't very prominent on Honky Tonk Women.

Anyway, it's more than likely that Keith had little or nothing to do with the songwriting of 100 years ago, how 'witty' RD's fantasy might be, and that Taylor's contribution to one of the greatest Stonessongs ever was of more importance than Keith's.

Quote
with sssoul

Quote
Gazza
Doesn't say much for Keith's involvement in the new Exile either IMO.

it says plenty about his non-involvement with recent overdubs, at least to Plundered My Soul.
but that doesn't imply that he was underinvolved in other aspects of the project.

what else would you say the project involved? Selecting the tracks?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-05-06 22:38 by cc.

Quote
Mathijs

Ps If not being able to hear Keith on PMS is like stating Keith isn't very prominent on Honky Tonk Women.

I competely agree, I don't get this 'can't hear Keith' on PMS, he is all over the entire track on the left channel, if that isnt Keith then has to be the best impersonation of him I ever heard.

Quote
Mathijs
My main question would be: if Taylor was asked to do the overdubs on PMS, why did they settle with what is on the released track? It's fairly standard pentatonic run-through licks, nothing really spectacular. It's clearly edited down from several takes, or one very long take. I find it difficult to believe you went into the trouble getting Taylor to a studio, record his noodling and saying "that's a wrap Mick, it's fantastic", and then release the stuff.

Mathijs
Ps If not being able to hear Keith on PMS is like stating Keith isn't very prominent on Honky Tonk Women.

Sorry Mathijs, but everything Taylor did you call "noodling". Always the same mantra: Taylor noodles, Taylor can't play rhythm, Taylor's influence on the Rolling Stones during his membership of the band is of little or no importance etc. etc. I can't take your ears seriously. Others may do, I don't.

Quote
kleermaker
Anyway, it's more than likely that Keith had little or nothing to do with the songwriting of 100 years ago, how 'witty' RD's fantasy might be, and that Taylor's contribution to one of the greatest Stonessongs ever was of more importance than Keith's.

100 years ago one of their best? get real, mediocre filler at best

Quote
kleermaker
Anyway, it's more than likely that Keith had little or nothing to do with the songwriting of 100 years ago, how 'witty' RD's fantasy might be, and that Taylor's contribution to one of the greatest Stonessongs ever was of more importance than Keith's.

According to Taylor, Jagger wrote 100 Years:

Some of the songs we used (for the album) were pretty old. 100 Years Ago was one that Mick (Jagger) had written 2 years ago and which we hadn't really got around to using before.

- Mick Taylor, 1973

And Jagger has stated he wrote it and that Billy Preston helped shaping it alot. Keith later stated when Preston left, that Preston was a fantastic musician but that he was sometimes too much for the Stones, as he would lead them away from what the Stones are. He mentioned 100 Years as an example.

The fact that Jagger credits Keith while he might not have wrotten anything is something between Mick and Keith.

Mathijs



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-05-06 22:33 by Mathijs.

<My main question would be: if Taylor was asked to do the overdubs on PMS, why did they settle with what is on the released track? It's fairly standard pentatonic run-through licks, nothing really spectacular. It's clearly edited down from several takes, or one very long take. I find it difficult to believe you went into the trouble getting Taylor to a studio, record his noodling and saying "that's a wrap Mick, it's fantastic", and then release the stuff.>

Well playing with one finger,adding 2 sometimes is more easier to copy than Taylor's licks,imo.
Strange people still don't believe Taylor plays on PMS.

Quote
Ket

Quote
Mathijs

Ps If not being able to hear Keith on PMS is like stating Keith isn't very prominent on Honky Tonk Women.

I competely agree, I don't get this 'can't hear Keith' on PMS, he is all over the entire track on the left channel, if that isnt Keith then has to be the best impersonation of him I ever heard.

Let me tell you a secret then, but keep it to yourself: It's Keith playing on 100 years ago, not Taylor or Jagger or anybody else. It's Keith all over, the best guitar player the world ever heard.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Mathijs
My main question would be: if Taylor was asked to do the overdubs on PMS, why did they settle with what is on the released track? It's fairly standard pentatonic run-through licks, nothing really spectacular. It's clearly edited down from several takes, or one very long take. I find it difficult to believe you went into the trouble getting Taylor to a studio, record his noodling and saying "that's a wrap Mick, it's fantastic", and then release the stuff.

Mathijs
Ps If not being able to hear Keith on PMS is like stating Keith isn't very prominent on Honky Tonk Women.

Sorry Mathijs, but everything Taylor did you call "noodling". Always the same mantra: Taylor noodles, Taylor can't play rhythm, Taylor's influence on the Rolling Stones during his membership of the band is of little or no importance etc. etc. I can't take your ears seriously. Others may do, I don't.

a little known fact: mathijs actually IS mick taylor - but he hates himself, so....

Mathijs, sorry but I don't hear Keith. I agree "Plundered My Soul" is routine and not a particularly noteworthy performance lacking as it does an opening riff or even a solo. In fact, its lacking everything "Honky Tonk Women" has including sounding distinctively like Keith.

But they're only my ears and yours, so I'll spare you my wrath.

Kleermaker, I agree that claiming Taylor is not a reputable source on the overdub issue because he stands to benefit from people remembering him is faulty logic. I also posted today and before that I believe he overdubbed guitar on the new single or are my "witty" fantasies limited to when I don't agree with you?

Amsterdamned, I never denied Taylor's contribution to "100 Years Ago." I've just corrected you on two separate threads in the past month on where the PAPA JOHN anecdote came from. With sssoul did the same. It really isn't the same thing whether we're talking about a Jagger/Richards song or a John Phillips song and yes, changing what my remarks are about is dodging the issue when you're losing an argument. Its an old trick. Keep it up. I enjoy a good Taylorite now and then.

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
kleermaker
Anyway, it's more than likely that Keith had little or nothing to do with the songwriting of 100 years ago, how 'witty' RD's fantasy might be, and that Taylor's contribution to one of the greatest Stonessongs ever was of more importance than Keith's.

According to Taylor, Jagger wrote 100 Years:

Some of the songs we used (for the album) were pretty old. 100 Years Ago was one that Mick (Jagger) had written 2 years ago and which we hadn't really got around to using before.

- Mick Taylor, 1973

And Jagger has stated he wrote it and that Billy Preston helped shaping it alot. Keith later stated when Preston left, that Preston was a fantastic musician but that he was sometimes too much for the Stones, as he would lead them away from what the Stones are. He mentioned 100 Years as an example.

The fact that Jagger credits Keith while he might not have wrotten anything is something between Mick and Keith.

Mathijs

I know that quote. Doesn't deny my remark. The fact that the Glimmers credit each other injustly is not only something between them. It's a policy they've had since the very beginning, excluding other members of the band, including Taylor. I remember some other quotes of Taylor on this issue as well. I guess you'll believe them too.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Ket

Quote
Mathijs

Ps If not being able to hear Keith on PMS is like stating Keith isn't very prominent on Honky Tonk Women.

I competely agree, I don't get this 'can't hear Keith' on PMS, he is all over the entire track on the left channel, if that isnt Keith then has to be the best impersonation of him I ever heard.

Let me tell you a secret then, but keep it to yourself: It's Keith playing on 100 years ago, not Taylor or Jagger or anybody else. It's Keith all over, the best guitar player the world ever heard.

Don't think Keith would want to play on such a shite song.

Quote
Ket

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Ket

Quote
Mathijs

Ps If not being able to hear Keith on PMS is like stating Keith isn't very prominent on Honky Tonk Women.

I competely agree, I don't get this 'can't hear Keith' on PMS, he is all over the entire track on the left channel, if that isnt Keith then has to be the best impersonation of him I ever heard.

Let me tell you a secret then, but keep it to yourself: It's Keith playing on 100 years ago, not Taylor or Jagger or anybody else. It's Keith all over, the best guitar player the world ever heard.

Don't think Keith would want to play on such a shite song.

Well, your last sentence says enough.

<Amsterdamned, I never denied Taylor's contribution to "100 Years Ago." I've just corrected you on two separate threads in the past month on where the PAPA JOHN anecdote came from. With sssoul did the same. It really isn't the same thing whether we're talking about a Jagger/Richards song or a John Phillips song and yes, changing what my remarks are about is dodging the issue when you're losing an argument. Its an old trick. Keep it up. I enjoy a good Taylorite now and then.>

Ok lets quit.Either you don't read accurate or misinterpret my posts, you are an illiterate I'am afraid.

he reads what he wants too

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Ket

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Ket

Quote
Mathijs

Ps If not being able to hear Keith on PMS is like stating Keith isn't very prominent on Honky Tonk Women.

I competely agree, I don't get this 'can't hear Keith' on PMS, he is all over the entire track on the left channel, if that isnt Keith then has to be the best impersonation of him I ever heard.

Let me tell you a secret then, but keep it to yourself: It's Keith playing on 100 years ago, not Taylor or Jagger or anybody else. It's Keith all over, the best guitar player the world ever heard.

Don't think Keith would want to play on such a shite song.

Well, your last sentence says enough.

and your last 10 million posts have proved how much of a hi-jacking prick you are.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Mathijs
My main question would be: if Taylor was asked to do the overdubs on PMS, why did they settle with what is on the released track? It's fairly standard pentatonic run-through licks, nothing really spectacular. It's clearly edited down from several takes, or one very long take. I find it difficult to believe you went into the trouble getting Taylor to a studio, record his noodling and saying "that's a wrap Mick, it's fantastic", and then release the stuff.

Mathijs
Ps If not being able to hear Keith on PMS is like stating Keith isn't very prominent on Honky Tonk Women.

Sorry Mathijs, but everything Taylor did you call "noodling". Always the same mantra: Taylor noodles, Taylor can't play rhythm, Taylor's influence on the Rolling Stones during his membership of the band is of little or no importance etc. etc. I can't take your ears seriously. Others may do, I don't.

I do not take any credit of your summary of my opinion of Taylor. As you've been on this board for just a few months I understand you can not read several years worth of posts.

But in short: I find Taylor an utterly fantastic guitar player. He's has a true gift for melody, and a technique and vibrato to express it. In his prime, he truly was one of the best guitarists on this planet, and he pushed the Stones to much greater heights.

There main lesser expects of Taylor in my opinion: I fully agree with Richards that Taylor isn't a studio guitarist. The truly fantastic Taylor bits on record with the Stones are just too few, and he has never been able to push lesser material to greater heights, he needed good material to shine.

So Taylor to me can be summurized to the tours of 1972 and 1973: that was utter magic. All else: good guitarist, but not outstanding or spectacular.

Mathijs

Good one, Amsterdamned. You can't win, so you'll insult. I like that in a Taylorite. I have some Taylorite tendencies myself if you haven't noticed, but not enough to be accepted by the True Believers.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
kleermaker
Anyway, it's more than likely that Keith had little or nothing to do with the songwriting of 100 years ago, how 'witty' RD's fantasy might be, and that Taylor's contribution to one of the greatest Stonessongs ever was of more importance than Keith's.

According to Taylor, Jagger wrote 100 Years:

Some of the songs we used (for the album) were pretty old. 100 Years Ago was one that Mick (Jagger) had written 2 years ago and which we hadn't really got around to using before.

- Mick Taylor, 1973

And Jagger has stated he wrote it and that Billy Preston helped shaping it alot. Keith later stated when Preston left, that Preston was a fantastic musician but that he was sometimes too much for the Stones, as he would lead them away from what the Stones are. He mentioned 100 Years as an example.

The fact that Jagger credits Keith while he might not have wrotten anything is something between Mick and Keith.

Mathijs

I know that quote. Doesn't deny my remark. The fact that the Glimmers credit each other injustly is not only something between them. It's a policy they've had since the very beginning, excluding other members of the band, including Taylor. I remember some other quotes of Taylor on this issue as well. I guess you'll believe them too.

That's bollocks as Wood got about 20 Jagger/Richards/Wood credits.

So the only conclusion can be that Wood can write songs, and Taylor not.

Judging the solo albums of both: that conclusion is correct.

Mathijs

I'll ask again. Does it say in the Guitar World interview when it took place?

I think its true that Jagger/Richards would rip off collaborators given a chance. I also think its true that Taylorites tend to exaggerate their hero's contributions. Seeing some Jagger/Richards/Taylor credits would have been equitable. Pretending Taylor was the Stones is delusional. And the number of Jagger/Richards/Wood credits is only 10 songs and Wood believes there should have been a few more just like Wyman, Jones (allegedly), Taylor, Cooder, Kooper, Dr. John, etc.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
Good one, Amsterdamned. You can't win, so you'll insult. I like that in a Taylorite. I have some Taylorite tendencies myself if you haven't noticed, but not enough to be accepted by the True Believers.

What are you talking about winning or loosing all the time??Take a deep breath,read my post again and come back with a bit more nuanced reply.

Quote
Ket

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Ket

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Ket

Quote
Mathijs

Ps If not being able to hear Keith on PMS is like stating Keith isn't very prominent on Honky Tonk Women.

I competely agree, I don't get this 'can't hear Keith' on PMS, he is all over the entire track on the left channel, if that isnt Keith then has to be the best impersonation of him I ever heard.

Let me tell you a secret then, but keep it to yourself: It's Keith playing on 100 years ago, not Taylor or Jagger or anybody else. It's Keith all over, the best guitar player the world ever heard.

Don't think Keith would want to play on such a shite song.

Well, your last sentence says enough.

and your last 10 million posts have proved how much of a hi-jacking prick you are.

If insulting me makes you feel good, well go ahead and enjoy it. It says more about you than about me. I'll leave it at that.