I was interested by comments Charlie Watts made that he thought Mick Taylor should have created a jazz fusion band with Billy Cobham after he left the Stones. Of course he joined Jack Bruce's band which covered a lot of ground musically but does anyone think Mick T could have become a fusion superstar with the right players and a bit of luck? I never felt he was that good a fit with Bruce's rather mannered music and sometimes seemed rather restrained in his playing, a bit like how Clapton become less flashy once he left Cream. However I can see Taylor in a trio like Tony William's Lifetime which was a bit more free.

Does anyone think he had the musical knowledge to make it as a jazz rock player and how does he compare to the gods of fusion guitar like Al Di Meola and John Mclaughlin? Was he too rooted in the blues to become a more challenging player? It is interesting how Billy Cobham's landmark fusion album Spectrum featured a rock player, Deep Purple's Tommy Bolin. I could definitely imagine Taylor playing similar guitar to Bolin's in a jazz context so it always felt like a missed opportunity compared to his sole solo album.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-16 16:09 by FP.

But wasn't that the route he wanted to go, jazz and blues, before he joined the Rolling Stones? At least that is what I've read many times; that was what his first wife has said. I also read that he was taking classical guitar lessons (don't know if that is true, either). I think he was at a "crossroads" in his life when he made the decision to join the Stones. I think an appropriate question to ask, was the Rolling Stones music challenging enough for him? I really don't think so in the long term. I think he could've done anything musically, to be honest with you.

Quote
Bellajane
But wasn't that the route he wanted to go, jazz and blues, before he joined the Rolling Stones? At least that is what I've read many times; that was what his first wife has said. I also read that he was taking classical guitar lessons (don't know if that is true, either). I think he was at a "crossroads" in his life when he made the decision to join the Stones. I think an appropriate question to ask, was the Rolling Stones music challenging enough for him? I really don't think so in the long term. I think he could've done anything musically, to be honest with you.

True he played on the increasingly jazz influenced John Mayall albums so he always had a unique mix of blues feel with jazz melody. However I am puzzled as his solo album is, at least for me, rather boring blues rock and jamming. He did not seem to follow the jazz elements that much which I think is a shame.

Taylor was nowhere near the level, technically or knowledge of theory wise as McLauchlin etc.

He would really have had to practicsed and studied hard to reach that level of musicianship. The ability was clearly there though and he could have reached that level had he really wanted to.

Quote
His Majesty
Taylor was nowhere near the level, technically or knowledge of theory wise as McLauchlin etc.

He would really have had to practicsed and studied hard to reach that level of musicianship. The ability was clearly there though and he could have reached that level had he really wanted to.

I agree. I sometimes feel he was just naturally talented and did not have to try to hard on the Stones music. However the jump from playing rock to playing jazz is a big one and maybe he was a bit stranded once he left the Stones, too good for the average blues band but not quite good enough for a jazz outfit? Although there have been reverse influences between the genres such as the effect Hendrix had on McLaughlin, who woodshedded for a year before he formed Mahavishnu Orchestra. The jump from his, still great, work with Miles Davis to Mahavishnu Orchestra is astounding.

He is good at finding small drops of different styles to mash in the blues based stuff he is playing. But a musical career shift like that is bigger than it seems.

Quote
FP
too good for the average blues band but not quite good enough for a jazz outfit?

I fair take on things I think.

Then again, lots of musicians have had successful careers, focusing on a niche or a very limited part a genre.

Quote
FP

Quote
His Majesty
Taylor was nowhere near the level, technically or knowledge of theory wise as McLauchlin etc.

He would really have had to practicsed and studied hard to reach that level of musicianship. The ability was clearly there though and he could have reached that level had he really wanted to.

I agree. I sometimes feel he was just naturally talented and did not have to try to hard on the Stones music. However the jump from playing rock to playing jazz is a big one and maybe he was a bit stranded once he left the Stones, too good for the average blues band but not quite good enough for a jazz outfit? Although there have been reverse influences between the genres such as the effect Hendrix had on McLaughlin, who woodshedded for a year before he formed Mahavishnu Orchestra. The jump from his, still great, work with Miles Davis to Mahavishnu Orchestra is astounding.

It does appear that he was stranded once leaving the Stones. Left to his own devices, he became a bit lost. It possibly could have happened when he left John Mayall..but he was a little bit younger then, ready to take on the world (what 20 year old isn't?), and not addicted to drugs..but he very quickly joined the Rolling Stones, so we'll never know what he could have accomplished at that juncture in his life. Despite his natural talent, maybe opportunities came too easily and quickly. He didn't have the struggle many other artists have had to endure to "make it". Possibly, he didn't know how to survive outside the structure of a group and the influences of a strong leader or peer even. Something to that effect, was posted on the Jack Bruce Live 75 thread. Appears as though, Taylor was a fish out of water once leaving the Stones. Again...drugs didn't help, at all. I really don't know how he survived to be honest. I mean, I do like his first album..but I think he should have done better.

Jazz rock fusion is a bit dangerous for non jazz players, I think even Jeff Beck sounds a bit out of his depth in that kind of stuff.

You can feel and hear that he can't quite let loose in the way the more jazz based players can. Playing the changes for example is not typical for blues, rock music, but it's common in jazz and in turn fusion.

Fusion requires more effort from a blues, rock player that isn't that advanced in theory and technical ability.

Interesting thoughts there, FP and Bellajane.

The Stones were probably not challenging (or organised/sober/polite) enough for Mick Taylor to feel satisfied in the long run, which is basically why he left. But in my opinion the simple blues-based rock 'n' roll of the Stones really enabled Mick T to play those heavy blues leads that we love. In a more progressive unit like the Mahavishnu Orchestra, he may have loved the challenge but it might have hampered his playing, kinda like in the Jack Bruce band. My guess is that he loved the simplicity and easiness of the Stones at first but started to become a little tired of it towards the end of his tenure.

In my opinion, Mick T's guitar playing would have been more interesting in a prog rock band rather than in a jazz-fusion thing. I can picture him in the role as David Gilmour, Steve Howe, Martin Barre, or as mentioned Tommy Bolin, playing prog rock but with a lot of blues-rock roots, with a fair amount of room to wail. Many of the hard rock bands of the 70s were a bit progressive as well (such as Deep Purple and Led Zeppelin) but I don't think Mick T would have been aggressive enough to play Blackmore-style riffs.

Listen here how he could wail. Some love it, some hate it. I happen to love this lyrical style, whatever you call it. But it doesn't sound like blues to me:

Quote
His Majesty
Jazz rock fusion is a bit dangerous for non jazz players, I think even Jeff Beck sounds a bit out of his depth in that kind of stuff.

You can feel and hear that he can't quite let loose in the way the more jazz based players can. Playing the changes for example is not typical for blues, rock music, but it's common in jazz and in turn fusion.

Fusion requires more effort from a blues, rock player that isn't that advanced in theory and technical ability.

True, although both jazz and non jazz players find their way in jazz rock fusion stuff, especially when both kind of players shake hands. The clip below proves it.
A pity you're not here anymore, HM.

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
His Majesty
Jazz rock fusion is a bit dangerous for non jazz players, I think even Jeff Beck sounds a bit out of his depth in that kind of stuff.

You can feel and hear that he can't quite let loose in the way the more jazz based players can. Playing the changes for example is not typical for blues, rock music, but it's common in jazz and in turn fusion.

Fusion requires more effort from a blues, rock player that isn't that advanced in theory and technical ability.

True, although both jazz and non jazz players find their way in jazz rock fusion stuff, especially when both kind of players shake hands. The clip below proves it.
A pity you're not here anymore, HM.

Gosh, I listen to that and as much as it is probably fantastic from the perspective of technical ability and musical accomplishment etc, it just leaves me completely and utterly cold. Boring boring and even more bloody boring. Just cannot tune it to jazz as a form of music at all, not for lack of trying either !

I gave Jeff Beck the benefit of the doubt back in May this year and bought a ticket to see him at the Royal Albert Hall. I had to leave after about 40 minutes, simply couldn't stand anymore of it ! Never ever again .... !

[ I want to shout, but I can hardly speak ]

Quote
kleermaker
Listen here how he could wail. Some love it, some hate it. I happen to love this lyrical style, whatever you call it. But it doesn't sound like blues to me:

Just wowowowowow! Listen to those trills! Trill heaven! Truly the Shakespeare of guitar that doesn't sound like blues to some people.
Listening to that transports me into another realm (which is why I never want it on when I'm driving)

Taylor approached lead guitar exactly the way a jazz player would. I have a DVD where he admits he doesn't know any scales. Perfect for jazz, because jazz is all about connecting seemingly unrelated chords (a Eb7 to Dmaj7 for example) fluidly and lyrically with chord tones. Taylor had/has a chordal approach to blues and rock, and I think that is what makes him unique amongst his peers who are more scale based. I mean he was talking about playing a Cmaj7 in Time Waits for No One.

Would he have had to practice and learn the theory behind why chords go where they do? Secondary dominants, secondary leading tones, tritone subs, extended chords, etc., Im not sure that is a requirement, or if it is sort of picked up along the way. I suppose it is different for each player.

In February 2000 we took a trip to our hometown Los Angeles area and caught Taylor's shows at the Coach House in San Juan Capistrano and at the well known Troubadour the following night. Carla Olson was at the Troubadour show. We approached her and started chatting. She is very nice. We had some laughs. I complimented her on her playing on Dylan's Sweetheart Like You video. She laughed. She was, of course, mimicking Taylor's solo on the song. She said she got most of it, but had no idea what Taylor was playing toward the end and she was faking it big time. We kept in touch for a while. She told us some very interesting and funny stories. But she was there that night not only to see her friend Taylor, but to approach him about playing on her new album. I found out later long after the show she and Taylor went next door to discuss his participation in what would be Olson's The Ring of Truth which was released the following year. As I understand it, Taylor flew to Los Angeles from London for a very short studio session (a couple of days?) to overdub his parts for the album. The version of Winter on that album and the one that was later released on the deluxe "snakes" release come from those sessions. I know someone who is an accomplished guitarist and friend of Taylor's who hates his playing on this song. I think it sounds a bit tired, jet-lagged if you will, but pretty nonetheless. I have seen a lot of criticism of Olson on a number of boards, but I am a fan of hers. She is very, very nice and appreciative of her fans. I am grateful to her for providing a platform on which Taylor has played on her releases and live. Recording the "snakes" shows, getting Taylor to revisit this song and Sway as well as their many other collaborations is more than enough for me to be a fan.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-08-31 20:56 by pmk251.

Quote
TravelinMan
Taylor approached lead guitar exactly the way a jazz player would. I have a DVD where he admits he doesn't know any scales. Perfect for jazz, because jazz is all about connecting seemingly unrelated chords (a Eb7 to Dmaj7 for example) fluidly and lyrically with chord tones. Taylor had/has a chordal approach to blues and rock, and I think that is what makes him unique amongst his peers who are more scale based. I mean he was talking about playing a Cmaj7 in Time Waits for No One.

Would he have had to practice and learn the theory behind why chords go where they do? Secondary dominants, secondary leading tones, tritone subs, extended chords, etc., Im not sure that is a requirement, or if it is sort of picked up along the way. I suppose it is different for each player.

Jazz players improvise more than Taylor does, hence the approach is a bit different. I have no doubt that Taylor would make a fine jazz musician if he wanted to - but that takes a real dedication and effort.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Jazz players improvise more than Taylor does, hence the approach is a bit different. I have no doubt that Taylor would make a fine jazz musician if he wanted to - but that takes a real dedication and effort.

Right. I still try to imagine how he would have sounded had he dived into stuff like the Berklee college of music, minor melodic jazz scales etc etc, I think we would have heard a Larry Carlton alike player with a Jeff Beck tone or something like that. But then his efforts as a blues rock player with some relaxed chord changes also thrill me

I think Mick could have done a few pretty decent albums in the Carlos Santana-Jeff Beck-Pat Metheney vein--- his first solo album pointed in that type of direction, and his ethereal solos on Cant You Hear Me Knocking and Time Waits for No One showed he had the chops for that type of stuff.

I think DP is right in that Taylor's technical ability to get to that level of virtuosity isn't in question, but his mentality is. Taylor is at his best when he's a sideman playing under a bandleader's direction, be that Mayall, the Glimmers, Dylan or whoever else. Much as I like his solo albums and have enjoyed the solo shows of his I've seen, I don't think he's ever really had the dedication to devote himself to woodshedding in the way that someone like McLaughlin or indeed Santana could. Left to his own devices, Taylor confines himself to the blues idiom (although he plays with much more fluidity and melodic invention than 99.9% of other blues guitarists).

That said, it isn't really a problem for me - I would much rather listen to Taylor as he is now than yet another jazz virtuoso indistinguishable from all the others.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-09-01 02:57 by Stoneburst.

Unfortunately, MT did not have anyone to really direct his career post Stones. With the talent he had( and still does) he should gave had a great solo career. As n all business, it takes more than talent . Marketing and sales appear to be something MT never had a handle on. Just sheer talent.

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Jazz players improvise more than Taylor does, hence the approach is a bit different. I have no doubt that Taylor would make a fine jazz musician if he wanted to - but that takes a real dedication and effort.

Right. I still try to imagine how he would have sounded had he dived into stuff like the Berklee college of music, minor melodic jazz scales etc etc, I think we would have heard a Larry Carlton alike player with a Jeff Beck tone or something like that. But then his efforts as a blues rock player with some relaxed chord changes also thrill me

That's what he is really good at, and why he stands out among his contemporaries, imo.

Clapton is "too" stuck in the blues, Beck lacks a bit of the bluesy fundament, but Taylor walks in and out, and that's interesting to listen to on great songs.

Three of a kind indeed. In the end it's all about feeling, in that context blues or bluesy is a subordinate division to me. Feeling, technique or even virtuosity can go hand in hand, overlooked by many people imo. A good solo or improvisation can make or break a song, doesn't require a great song per se. Zappa's "Rat Tomago", McLaughlin's "The Dark Prince", Jeff Beck's "Behind the Veil" or Taylor's "A minor" come to mind.

Well, let me put it this way: It's more likely that I give the song more spins if it's great

Sometimes, technical "vanity" can kill the feeling, but not always of course.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Well, let me put it this way: It's more likely that I give the song more spins if it's great

Now I understand Taylors' frustration with the Stones in the studio.

A song can be great in different ways, though.

Mannish Boy is not "earth-shattering" songwriting-wise, but the sound and the performance is

While working on my on-hiatus YouTube channel, I dug pretty deeply into MT's solo stuff. No, of course, he couldn't play like John McLaughlin -- but he had a great pair of ears and an exceptional sense of phrasing. The solo he plays on the head of "Spanish," for instance, is simple in theory — a natural-minor scale. But he wrings a ton of musicality out of it. Same goes for "Time Waits for No One"; the notes of the C-major scale, and nothing more. And yet it sounds sophisticated and, for lack of a better term, "jazzy." Another great one is the live recording of "Soliloquy." I don't know if Mick could've made it far in the world of jazz fusion, but Donald Fagen used to say you could get by in Steely Dan by playing blues with a nice touch. Mick had that, and a good deal more.

i could totally see mick taylor doing a jeff beck type album like "blow by bow" or wired ,and i could see him playing with Steely Dan

Quote
Mel Belli
While working on my on-hiatus YouTube channel, I dug pretty deeply into MT's solo stuff. No, of course, he couldn't play like John McLaughlin -- but he had a great pair of ears and an exceptional sense of phrasing. The solo he plays on the head of "Spanish," for instance, is simple in theory — a natural-minor scale. But he wrings a ton of musicality out of it. Same goes for "Time Waits for No One"; the notes of the C-major scale, and nothing more. And yet it sounds sophisticated and, for lack of a better term, "jazzy." Another great one is the live recording of "Soliloquy." I don't know if Mick could've made it far in the world of jazz fusion, but Donald Fagen used to say you could get by in Steely Dan by playing blues with a nice touch. Mick had that, and a good deal more.

Agree with all this wholeheartedly. Also, are you going to revive the YouTube channel anytime soon? It would be great if you did: you're a superb guitarist and your videos were some of the best Taylor lessons I've seen. I learned a lot from watching your stuff.