Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Mathijs
If it was Jimi Hendrix on guitar I would have said it was an insignificant Jimi Hendrix guitar part.

Mathijs

Insignificant guitar part? Maybe simplistic is a better description and I'd even bet it was that guitar part which birthed the entire song. The spark. That is never insignificant, imho. The nuances of that rhythm is what gives the vocal and sax a platform to spring from.

No one thing seems insignificant in the Stones songs recorded in the Jimmy Miller era. peace

Not simplistic - that implies dumb and, in this case, a monkey could have played his part. Simple is the correct term.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Mathijs
If it was Jimi Hendrix on guitar I would have said it was an insignificant Jimi Hendrix guitar part.

Mathijs

Insignificant guitar part? Maybe simplistic is a better description and I'd even bet it was that guitar part which birthed the entire song. The spark. That is never insignificant, imho. The nuances of that rhythm is what gives the vocal and sax a platform to spring from.

No one thing seems insignificant in the Stones songs recorded in the Jimmy Miller era. peace

Not simplistic - that implies dumb and, in this case, a monkey could have played his part. Simple is the correct term.

Of course there might be some 'lost in translation', as I am not a native English speaker. The nuances of insignificant, simplistic and simple are not all that natural for us non-native English speakers.

Mathijs

Quote
JC21769
I cant be the only person who thinks that the Sax solo on Waiting on a Friend was overdubbed almost note for note from a Mick Taylor guitar solo...can I?

Well, to date there is not one outtake with a Taylor solo available, and the Rollins sax is based on Hopkins' piano more than on the guitar or vocal melody.

Mathijs

i hate this song now..

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Mathijs
If it was Jimi Hendrix on guitar I would have said it was an insignificant Jimi Hendrix guitar part.

Mathijs

Insignificant guitar part? Maybe simplistic is a better description and I'd even bet it was that guitar part which birthed the entire song. The spark. That is never insignificant, imho. The nuances of that rhythm is what gives the vocal and sax a platform to spring from.

No one thing seems insignificant in the Stones songs recorded in the Jimmy Miller era. peace

Not simplistic - that implies dumb and, in this case, a monkey could have played his part. Simple is the correct term.

Of course there might be some 'lost in translation', as I am not a native English speaker. The nuances of insignificant, simplistic and simple are not all that natural for us non-native English speakers.

Mathijs

I guess you simply have a simple command of English then, or am I being too simplistic?

In any case, simple is a necessary component of good rock and roll, especially when tone is the real king. peace

Tops is a better example of his contribution.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Mathijs
If it was Jimi Hendrix on guitar I would have said it was an insignificant Jimi Hendrix guitar part.

Mathijs

Insignificant guitar part? Maybe simplistic is a better description and I'd even bet it was that guitar part which birthed the entire song. The spark. That is never insignificant, imho. The nuances of that rhythm is what gives the vocal and sax a platform to spring from.

No one thing seems insignificant in the Stones songs recorded in the Jimmy Miller era. peace

Not simplistic - that implies dumb and, in this case, a monkey could have played his part. Simple is the correct term.

Of course there might be some 'lost in translation', as I am not a native English speaker. The nuances of insignificant, simplistic and simple are not all that natural for us non-native English speakers.

Mathijs

I guess you simply have a simple command of English then, or am I being too simplistic?

How's your Dutch? German? French? Danish?

Mathijs

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Mathijs
If it was Jimi Hendrix on guitar I would have said it was an insignificant Jimi Hendrix guitar part.

Mathijs

Insignificant guitar part? Maybe simplistic is a better description and I'd even bet it was that guitar part which birthed the entire song. The spark. That is never insignificant, imho. The nuances of that rhythm is what gives the vocal and sax a platform to spring from.

No one thing seems insignificant in the Stones songs recorded in the Jimmy Miller era. peace

Not simplistic - that implies dumb and, in this case, a monkey could have played his part. Simple is the correct term.

Of course there might be some 'lost in translation', as I am not a native English speaker. The nuances of insignificant, simplistic and simple are not all that natural for us non-native English speakers.

Mathijs

Ha ha. OK, sorry about that. Someone was aping about that word the other day, it stuck in my mind. Didn't know - it's difficult, sometimes, to remember who lives where etc here.

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Mathijs
If it was Jimi Hendrix on guitar I would have said it was an insignificant Jimi Hendrix guitar part.

Mathijs

Insignificant guitar part? Maybe simplistic is a better description and I'd even bet it was that guitar part which birthed the entire song. The spark. That is never insignificant, imho. The nuances of that rhythm is what gives the vocal and sax a platform to spring from.

No one thing seems insignificant in the Stones songs recorded in the Jimmy Miller era. peace

Not simplistic - that implies dumb and, in this case, a monkey could have played his part. Simple is the correct term.

Of course there might be some 'lost in translation', as I am not a native English speaker. The nuances of insignificant, simplistic and simple are not all that natural for us non-native English speakers.

Mathijs

I guess you simply have a simple command of English then, or am I being too simplistic?

How's your Dutch? German? French? Danish?

Mathijs

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-01-03 02:25 by lapaz62.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Mathijs
If it was Jimi Hendrix on guitar I would have said it was an insignificant Jimi Hendrix guitar part.

Mathijs

Insignificant guitar part? Maybe simplistic is a better description and I'd even bet it was that guitar part which birthed the entire song. The spark. That is never insignificant, imho. The nuances of that rhythm is what gives the vocal and sax a platform to spring from.

No one thing seems insignificant in the Stones songs recorded in the Jimmy Miller era. peace

Not simplistic - that implies dumb and, in this case, a monkey could have played his part. Simple is the correct term.

Of course there might be some 'lost in translation', as I am not a native English speaker. The nuances of insignificant, simplistic and simple are not all that natural for us non-native English speakers.

Mathijs

Ha ha. OK, sorry about that. Someone was aping about that word the other day, it stuck in my mind. Didn't know - it's difficult, sometimes, to remember who lives where etc here.

Someone also said "Surrender, monkeys", but edited, so I can't quote it in full, something about a certain part of the world that would have been speaking German were it not for English-speaking people. Oh, well, here's another insight into the human monkeys we all apparently are....

What a thread!

i hate this song now.....reply of the year



ROCKMAN

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-01-03 05:05 by lapaz62.

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
VT22

Quote
Mathijs
Taylor hater? What a bollocks. But it is true that I am of the opinion that the second guitarists Jones/Taylor/Wood all are of much lesser importance than many on this board would like to believe. The Stones really are Watts/Jagger/Richards, and added with Bill Wyman live. I think Taylor was brilliant on the 72 and 73 tour, had a tendency to really overplay on the 69 to 71 tours, and had very limited input on the records they produced. I like the Wood years more, but not because of Wood or because Taylor was gone -I just find the band a much better, tighter and more aggressive band from 75 to 81.

Mathijs

Which is a matter of perception and taste of course.

Who says otherwise?

Mathijs

Limited input? He was collaborater with Jagger (instead of Richards) on songs like Moonlight Mile, Sway, Winter, Time Waits For No One, etc. I just don't buy the argument that Taylor was merely a soloist and that anyone could have had the same inpact on the band's music during this period. And he "overplayed" on the '69 tour? Are you kidding?

That's not really much is it, one or two tracks per classic album. And on those classic albums he's not very upfront on Exile...And he wasn't able to save Goats ead and IORR now was he? I just don't think Taylor was that great in the studio. That might not be his fault because Stones music is not written to accomodate scorching lead guitars, and next to a Keith Richards there isn't much room anymore.

I do find his playing on the 69 tour, and even more so on the 70 and 71 tour to be close to noodling much of the time. For whatever reason it suddenly all came together on the 1972 tour, where he just was able to rip out fantastic solo's night after night. On the 73 tour he was great one night, and bored the other night.

Look, Taylor was a fantastic guitarist. He was melodically fantastic. But he is, in my opinion, not in the 'wow' department, he never was a guitarist that really blows my socks off. When I listen to Duane Allman on those 1970 festival gigs I just lay my guitar down and listen in awe. He's unreal. The same with Peter Green when he still had it together. Jan Akkerman had that. Brian May, Slash. Clapton with the Dominoes, they had it.

Mathijs

Spot on. I still love the space Taylor left Keith for the garage rock classic that the 69 tour is at times.

Not a "wow" guitarist? Pfft, you couldn't be more wrong. He's one of the greatest. Do you really think he would have been in the Bluesbreakers if he were subpar to fill the shoes of some of the other greats? He was Slash's guitar hero. He was an influence on a lot of other guitarists who probably have no idea that he was. When it comes to rock guitar, I think Jimi Hendrix and Mick Taylor played with the most taste when it came to solos. What about Dead Flowers from Ladies And Gentlemen...are you guys deaf? Can you play a better solo on those songs? I highly doubt it. He is not an easy guitarist to emulate because he played so differently. I learned how to play those solos after years of listening. I picked up Jimi Hendrix style a lot easier. MT was difficult since he is playing in a melody more often than most guitarists who are soloing in a scale.

I'm sorry for anyone who doesn't think the solos that he played on Get Yer Ya Ya's Out are not wow material. Sympathy For The Devil and Midnight Rambler from that album are some of the best solos of all freaking time! There is no way you have natural musical ability if you can't "hear" his talent for melody. Plus he never played the same way twice either, he was always creative and always in the moment musically. He's brilliant. You really must listen again.

Is it only me, or shouldn't it be perfectly ok to say that a barely audible guitar part isn't very important (aka significant) for the song - no matter who played it?

All Down The Line = Significant part

Waiting On A Friend = Fairly insignificant part



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-01-03 11:31 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
sanQ
Not a "wow" guitarist? Pfft, you couldn't be more wrong. He's one of the greatest. Do you really think he would have been in the Bluesbreakers if he were subpar to fill the shoes of some of the other greats? He was Slash's guitar hero. He was an influence on a lot of other guitarists who probably have no idea that he was. When it comes to rock guitar, I think Jimi Hendrix and Mick Taylor played with the most taste when it came to solos. What about Dead Flowers from Ladies And Gentlemen...are you guys deaf? Can you play a better solo on those songs? I highly doubt it. He is not an easy guitarist to emulate because he played so differently. I learned how to play those solos after years of listening. I picked up Jimi Hendrix style a lot easier. MT was difficult since he is playing in a melody more often than most guitarists who are soloing in a scale.

I'm sorry for anyone who doesn't think the solos that he played on Get Yer Ya Ya's Out are not wow material. Sympathy For The Devil and Midnight Rambler from that album are some of the best solos of all freaking time! There is no way you have natural musical ability if you can't "hear" his talent for melody. Plus he never played the same way twice either, he was always creative and always in the moment musically. He's brilliant. You really must listen again.

Why aren't people allowed to have an opinion? You find Taylor a demigod, I find Taylor a decent guitarist in the studio, and a fantastic lead guitarist in 72/73. You find the Dead Flowers solo utterly great, while I find the first half having some nice country bends, and the second half annoying pentatonic noodling, the same as he did many times on Tumbling Dice and what made Keith shout 'stop @#$%& around' on L&G. You find it very difficult to play like Taylor, I find it quite easy as Taylor plays pentatonic scales 98% of the time, which doesn't require much technical abilities. Of course, Taylor has a fantastic melodic sense that not many guitarists/musicians have, and what made him unique with the Stones.

Mathijs

<he never played the same way twice either>

Well, by that statement I can tell you that you have a lot of catching up to do, when it comes to collecting bootlegs

Playing the same twice isn't necesarily a bad thing, imo, especially the best solos by Taylor.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-01-03 12:02 by DandelionPowderman.

So this goes on here every time the subject of MT comes Up?? Taylor's accomplishments in the band begin with him being able to fit into an already highly successful act. He then raised the bar for them as musicians and contributed to updating their game, making them sound fresh heading into the 70's while their contemporaries were calling it quits. His mellow stage persona was all his own as he made his own way turning a pop band into a blues powerhouse. Duane Allman is often mentioned as a player Taylor is not but Duane is not a subtle as Taylor who somehow retained all that was good about the Stones and then made it greater. Standing toe to toe with the greatest band in the world, playing with exceptional vibrato and landmark guitar tone while making himself an icon for guitarists for generations to come puts Taylor in a special place beyond nerdy deconstruction of the scales he played.

Who cares what scales MT was playing( Penatonic or adding notes from major scales) MT was an expressive player with god gifted technique that you can not teach a player. I think one of the best solos ever was his solo on Stray Cat Blues from ya ya's - They should play that solo as you enter the rock and roll hall of fame.


play the guitar boy

Quote
OpenG
Who cares what scales MT was playing( Penatonic or adding notes from major scales) MT was an expressive player with god gifted technique that you can not teach a player. I think one of the best solos ever was his solo on Stray Cat Blues from ya ya's - They should play that solo as you enter the rock and roll hall of fame.


play the guitar boy

Certainly some of the finest lead playing from the Stones ever

SCB and SFTD from Ya Ya's was Taylor at his best, imo. After that, some of the danger disappeared from his playing, imo - although he became more melodic, which was great at times as well

MT's studio contributions - The best stones ballad ever Moonlight Mile would not of got done without MT or it would of been different in some way and not as great if they used another guitarist other then MT. The bottom line it was MT and he contributed. The ending looping outro solo is timless and that is MT's stamp. Sway would of not as been as great without MT and so on. MT could never break the jagger/richards song writing empire and three was a crowd and he was forced out. But songs like 100 Years Ago where jagger starts to explore is vocal lines were greatly helped by MT's melodic presence.


play the guitar boy

Quote
OpenG
MT's studio contributions - The best stones ballad ever Moonlight Mile would not of got done without MT or it would of been different in some way and not as great if they used another guitarist other then MT. The bottom line it was MT and he contributed. The ending looping outro solo is timless and that is MT's stamp. Sway would of not as been as great without MT and so on. MT could never break the jagger/richards song writing empire and three was a crowd and he was forced out. But songs like 100 Years Ago where jagger starts to explore is vocal lines were greatly helped by MT's melodic presence.


play the guitar boy

All those songs are great, and Moonlight Mile is my personal favorite of all Stones songs. However, it is a bit of a stretch saying how they would have been without Taylor, imo.

Remember that at least 50 percent of the greatest songs were recorded without him.

And, as much as you and I as hard core fans love Sway, in fairness it is only an album filler for the average guy.

Quote
DoomandGloom
So this goes on here every time the subject of MT comes Up?? Taylor's accomplishments in the band begin with him being able to fit into an already highly successful act. He then raised the bar for them as musicians and contributed to updating their game, making them sound fresh heading into the 70's while their contemporaries were calling it quits. His mellow stage persona was all his own as he made his own way turning a pop band into a blues powerhouse. Duane Allman is often mentioned as a player Taylor is not but Duane is not a subtle as Taylor who somehow retained all that was good about the Stones and then made it greater. Standing toe to toe with the greatest band in the world, playing with exceptional vibrato and landmark guitar tone while making himself an icon for guitarists for generations to come puts Taylor in a special place beyond nerdy deconstruction of the scales he played.

"He then raised the bar for them as musicians and contributed to updating their game,"

No, not really.

The driving force behind the Stones in the late 60s/early 70s was as usual Keith and Mick.

Keith didn't try to play long pentatonic blues solos just because Taylor was.

Keith was sticking to his open G tuning and songwriting.

The Stones are Keith and Mick except for the very early Stones.

The role of 2nd guitarist in the Stones is a role.

Keith and Mick need a guitarist for live shows but they don't always need them in the studio.

Keith was supposed to have said something to Taylor along those lines.

The Stones gave Taylor a bit of freedom to do some soloing but basically Keith and Mick run the show.

The 2nd guitarist has to blend in with Keith.

Brian Jones did it early on with a different style (slide etc) until he lost interest as Mick and Keith started to drive the band.

Ronnie Wood has to blend in with Keith and he's got a different style to Taylor so he blends in a different way to Taylor.

There is more than one way to blend in.

Opposite styles can blend in together.

Keith says in his book that Ronnie wasn't an automatic choice for the Stones because Ronnie's style was similar to Keith's in a fair few ways.

I think after Ronnie Wood joins that we basically get a stereo Keith.

I would have preferred Keith blending in with a bit of a contrasting style myself, but Ronnie was the one that got the job.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-01-03 15:45 by howled.

Quote
DoomandGloom
His mellow stage persona was all his own as he made his own way turning a pop band into a blues powerhouse.

Yeah I hate those fluffy pop tunes like Sympathy for the Devil and Midnight Rambler they did before Taylor joined.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-01-03 16:40 by Ket.

Quote
Ket

Quote
DoomandGloom
His mellow stage persona was all his own as he made his own way turning a pop band into a blues powerhouse.

Yeah I hate those fluffy pop tunes like Sympathy for the Devil and Midnight Rambler they did before Taylor joined.

Sympathy is def a pop song, MR not so much.. I am very surprised there's so little respect for Taylor here especially since for 30 years we've been listening to incomplete solos from the dynamic duo. Yes I love Woody and would hug him given the chance, Keith too but when the music counted and The Stones made their legacy that mowed over The Beatles Taylor's late 60's contemporary style was the lead man.

Quote
Rockman
....but what if Mick don't get along with my friend??....

He would'nt get any SATISFACTION !!!!!

Why aren't people allowed to have an opinion? You find Taylor a demigod, I find Taylor a decent guitarist in the studio, and a fantastic lead guitarist in 72/73. You find the Dead Flowers solo utterly great, while I find the first half having some nice country bends, and the second half annoying pentatonic noodling, the same as he did many times on Tumbling Dice and what made Keith shout 'stop @#$%& around' on L&G. You find it very difficult to play like Taylor, I find it quite easy as Taylor plays pentatonic scales 98% of the time, which doesn't require much technical abilities. Of course, Taylor has a fantastic melodic sense that not many guitarists/musicians have, and what made him unique with the Stones.

Mathijs[/quote]

I call bullshit on what you just said. Show me what pentatonic scale he's playing! I know the pentatonic scales and I can play them up and down the neck off by heart, behind my back, under my legs, and he's not playing it according to what you are saying. I would love for you to show me an example of your playing what you call easy Mick Taylor pentatonic scales. As someone who is honest and can actually play this, I would love to see you back up what you are saying! You can't because what you are saying is ridiculous and preposterous. You are seriously telling me that "He is playing pentatonic scales but he is also fantastically melodic." If he is playing so fantastically melodic, then he is not playing strictly in the pentatonic scale. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Always the same shit from the same people.

The great solo from Love In Vain is not strictly pentatonic, Time Waits is not really at all pentatonic. Yes Mathijs is entitled to an opinion but trashing Taylor every time he's mentioned while claiming otherwise deserves a steady barrage, I was a young Stones fan in the Taylor years and during this time he was adored by everyone and considered the lead guitarist. When he left was and replaced by Woody it was even clearer what a contribution he made. Yes there could have been someone else that did the job almost as good as Taylor, for example, Roy Buchanon, Mike Bloomfield, Peter Frampton, Eric Clapton all monster guitarists but Wood became the choice in an era where lead guitar was not as cool as the harmonious weaving the Stones gravitated to, My last word is Taylor had a tougher job than many of you think. He joined a band of erratic individuals with very strong conflicting opinions regarding everything he did. He had to find a place where he could energize the band yet not continually blow away the great but inconsistent KR. He accomplished that and more, it's not a coincidence that Richards' best playing was with Mick, that's what truly great musicians do, make everyone perform better.