on the face of it, the evidence is clear. just prior to hiring taylor, the stones had recorded "beggar's banquet" and "let it bleed," two of their greatest albums. they were on a roll.

but by the time he left, they had just released "it's only rock-n-roll," one of their worst albums to date.

however, i'm inclined to give taylor some more credit than that. clearly heroin and distractions of being rich and comfortable took some of the edge of their creativity too.

what do you think, is mick taylor the reason the band completely tanked creatively in the mid-70s?

It's Only Rock 'n Roll is one of their most underrated albums--woops, sorry! Wrong thread.

When I saw your thread title I thought you were referring to the present tour, as in "Is Mick Taylor the reason they don't record a new album?" or something.

Plunder My Soul--that's the two Micks working together, quite creatively and with impressive results.

Creativity is like a wave--you have your crest and you have your trough. The mid-seventies was a trough period for a whole generation of musicians turning thirty and thirty-five--largely due to the prevalence of cocaine in the recording studio.

No not at all. A ridiculous claim to make. With taylor on board we got exile, sticky fongers and goats head soup. Not to mention the excellent live recordings.

No, it's more because the two music visionaries of the band started looking and going in different directions for inspiration.

yes by all means, let's blame MT.

Finally, after MT they were free once again to get all 'creative' for us.

Oh Cherry Oh Baby!

ROCKMAN

No. Blame it on Richards' heroin problem.

No. MT helped the creative process and made the live shows epic. Unfortunately, the well ran dry for the creative team of a Jagger/Richards after Tattoo You.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-09-02 08:31 by Brstonesfan.

i love it!

Quote
Rockman

As someone who loves Mick T, I must admit that he was never important enough in the Stones to be responsible for the level of "creativity", either good or bad.

I don't agree that the Stones have suffered a creative death as such out of their own accord. Instead they gradually over the years were made to lose the incentives to perfect their music by the lack of real interest in newer material. I will single out the reception to UNDERCOVER as the critical moment.

There followed a process that led almost to a permanent breakup of the band. From time to time, the Stones later tried anew to see if new creativity might capture a new audience and vitalize the interest of their former audience. What the Stones instead were more or less compelled to do, was more and more to present their older songs. From 1989 this involved a professionalist turn, where the band also started with what at the outset was a novelty. That was to recreate live their studio songs. During this, only to a lesser extent were they allowed to present their newer material live and only to be met with a more reserved response than for the older songs. The end of that process is their seemingly abandonment now from wanting to make more studio albums of new songs.

All this I blame the customer for, not the band. For the customer has neglected Stones music that have been good and sometimes semi-great, because it was not outright great. The result was to diminish the band's efforts to work more in the studio and to go more often in the studio. And to try anew making outright great Stones music. The customer has not deserved to receive that.

1. Lack of inspiration for new material.
2. The breakdown of the Jagger-Richards partnership.
3. Keith Richards' substance abuse.

Those three things contributed to a decline in quality. At the same time, the Stones perfected the greatest hits juggernaut we know and love(?).

Not sure if the op meant to place the blame for the eroding quality of material on Mick Taylor, but if so, I would say that is rather far-fetched to say the least.

The main fact was that Jagger and Richards started to live in two separate countries, and in some instances, two separate continents.

Quote
stonehearted
It's Only Rock 'n Roll is one of their most underrated albums--woops, sorry! Wrong thread.

When I saw your thread title I thought you were referring to the present tour, as in "Is Mick Taylor the reason they don't record a new album?" or something.

Plunder My Soul--that's the two Micks working together, quite creatively and with impressive results.

Creativity is like a wave--you have your crest and you have your trough. The mid-seventies was a trough period for a whole generation of musicians turning thirty and thirty-five--largely due to the prevalence of cocaine in the recording studio.

Is Mick's vocals and Taylor's guitar impressive on PMS?

Quote
treaclefingers
yes by all means, let's blame MT.

Finally, after MT they were free once again to get all 'creative' for us.

Oh Cherry Oh Baby!

At least they started playing music they hadn't played before. That they got zonked out in reggae rock-land, via some road ballads and a ballroom blues, before wrapping it up with what to become their standard rock style, has nothing to do with it...

Quote
ab
No. Blame it on Richards' heroin problem.

Was he the only one with a heroin problem?

No, Mick Taylor wasn't more responsible than others.

After a peak, there will always be a bottom. 4 years later they were on top of their game again with Some Girls, fine-tuning what they started, instead of exploring more musical paths - which they would only do occasionally from there on.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Is Mick's vocals and Taylor's guitar impressive on PMS?

Yeah!

- Doxa

What a stupid idea.
It's only rock and roll is classic great Stones album, creative death of The Rolling Stones in 1974 ????
The Stones classic era ended in the mid 80's not in the 70's.

No Keith's overuse of open-G tuning was.

Quote
funkydrummer
No Keith's overuse of open-G tuning was.

Well, he didn't play a lot of open G in the studio or live between 1976 and 1989. On the SW-album he only plays it on Mixed Emotions.

Ummm, well I haven't played along with SW for a while, but from what I remember nearly every track on that was open-G! Boring simplistic open-G riffing...
In fact I have to say that it was Steel Wheels that "broke the spell" for me, because I was a teenager and had recently worked out the open-G/open tuning "secret" and it was a bit like knowing there was no Santa Claus, because I could see how simplistic their approach to songwriting had become.
Bang out some open-G, Mick does some scat singing, writes the lyrics - another song that sounded vaguely like everything else since 1968.
I have heard some call this "style" - but I call it laziness - I wish they had stopped this approach but it has only become worse over time.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
funkydrummer
No Keith's overuse of open-G tuning was.

Well, he didn't play a lot of open G in the studio or live between 1976 and 1989. On the SW-album he only plays it on Mixed Emotions.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-09-02 10:44 by funkydrummer.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
ab
No. Blame it on Richards' heroin problem.

Was he the only one with a heroin problem?

No, but he was supposedly the only co-leader of the Rolling Stones with one. By all accounts, Keith became less involved as he became more strung out, and Jagger took on more responsibility.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-09-02 11:05 by ab.

What creative death ?

-------------------
Keep On Rolling

Quote
funkydrummer
Ummm, well I haven't played along with SW for a while, but from what I remember nearly every track on that was open-G! Boring simplistic open-G riffing...
In fact I have to say that it was Steel Wheels that "broke the spell" for me, because I was a teenager and had recently worked out the open-G/open tuning "secret" and it was a bit like knowing there was no Santa Claus, because I could see how simplistic their approach to songwriting had become.
Bang out some open-G, Mick does some scat singing, writes the lyrics - another song that sounded vaguely like everything else since 1968.
I have heard some call this "style" - but I call it laziness - I wish they had stopped this approach but it has only become worse over time.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
funkydrummer
No Keith's overuse of open-G tuning was.

Well, he didn't play a lot of open G in the studio or live between 1976 and 1989. On the SW-album he only plays it on Mixed Emotions.

Not true, but there are two numbers: Sad Sad Sad and Hold On To Your Hat - but the open G playing there was done by Mick. Keith played the solo guitar in standard tuning.

PS: You can do A LOT with open G-tuning, that isn't Stones related. Lots of wonderful chords and possibilities, also for lead guitar playing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-09-02 11:05 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
ab

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
ab
No. Blame it on Richards' heroin problem.

Was he the only one with a heroin problem?

No, but he was supposedly the only co-leader of the Rolling Stones with one.

Not according to the Taylorites

OK regardless of whether it was Mick or Keith - the open-G thing is all over SW in general. SSS and HOTYH are just two - from memory Rock and a Hard Place is another, Almost Hear You Sign another...only perhaps a couple of the ballads weren't...as I said I haven't played along for a while...it is basically the Stones "sound" but they only play a couple of chord variations and thus it all sounds the same.
I agree that open tuning has immense possibility but it has always angered me that the Stones have barely bothered to explore them.

Quote

Not true, but there are two numbers: Sad Sad Sad and Hold On To Your Hat - but the open G playing there was done by Mick. Keith played the solo guitar in standard tuning.

PS: You can do A LOT with open G-tuning, that isn't Stones related. Lots of wonderful chords and possibilities, also for lead guitar playing.

Quote
funkydrummer
OK regardless of whether it was Mick or Keith - the open-G thing is all over SW in general. SSS and HOTYH are just two - from memory Rock and a Hard Place is another, Almost Hear You Sign another...only perhaps a couple of the ballads weren't...as I said I haven't played along for a while...it is basically the Stones "sound" but they only play a couple of chord variations and thus it all sounds the same.
I agree that open tuning has immense possibility but it has always angered me that the Stones have barely bothered to explore them.

Quote

Not true, but there are two numbers: Sad Sad Sad and Hold On To Your Hat - but the open G playing there was done by Mick. Keith played the solo guitar in standard tuning.

PS: You can do A LOT with open G-tuning, that isn't Stones related. Lots of wonderful chords and possibilities, also for lead guitar playing.

No, it's not all over SW.

Mick might be playing open G on Rock And A Hard Place, but he isn't very audible.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-09-02 11:20 by DandelionPowderman.

Taylor was withg them for only three albums the last of which is dodgy at best. Some Girls, Tattoo and Bridges are all classics in my opinion and they did them minus him.

Drugs and living too far away from one another I think is what kiloled them in many ways with regard to not bringing out the quality of work they did to 1972.

Quote
71Tele
1. Lack of inspiration for new material.
2. The breakdown of the Jagger-Richards partnership.
3. Keith Richards' substance abuse.

Those three things contributed to a decline in quality.

Quote
BigAl
No, it's more because the two music visionaries of the band started looking and going in different directions for inspiration.

I think 71Tele specifies what BigAl is saying here, and I take the Jagger/Richards breakdown being the biggest reason for the creative downhill that took place after EXILE.

But if the problems with the inspiration with Keith were more from that of dopeville (resulting in lazyness and disinterest in new things), with Mick I think it was more to do with the diversity of the trends that happened during the 70's. It was hard for him - and knowing his ambitious mind - to get grasp of all them, to find the right paths suiting for him/them, and keep the focus. Jagger, nor the Stones, was not any longer THE trend, and them naturally moving along the waves, like they had done all the way to EXILE. Ten years in pop business is, especially back then, a huge time. Their biggest trend leading contemporaries, The Beatles and Dylan, had given up by different means.

During the next couple of years, before oddly punk came to rescue them, The Stones were a bit lost in the sea of new trends. GOATS HEAD SOUP, IORR and BLACK AND BLUE, were not bad albums by any means, but they were irrelevant, couldn't 'click' with the times. One problem is that the blues rock the Stones had perfected in the golden era albums and singles started to be yesterday's papers, or transformed to 'hard rock' in the vein of trend-leader Zeppelin. To an extent the Stones had coped with that, with a flashy lead guitarist, especially live, but to charm audience like that with albums like GHS, IORR and B&B, was a mission impossible. Or with radio hits like "Angie" and "Fool To Cry", even though still reaching a rather wide popularity among more pop-oriented, conservative audiences. The young kids were looking for 'harder' forms of rock and roll bands, and new acts like Aerosmith, AC/DC etc. were popping up to excite them. And selling a helluva amount of albums. And this was just the beginning of what will happen in that section (think of the 80's etc.).

Linked and behind to this, there is a typical 70's phenomenon in the evolution of main stream rock: that of distancing itself from the latest currents in American black music. That was something that was odd to people like Mick Jagger who had spent all their formative years by listening and learning what happens in that front. The Stones didn't lose that connection and source of inspiration. But things like "If You Really Want to Be My Friend", and "Hot Stuff" didn't win them much new fans from a new white rock fan generation, nor I suppose them charming much their old fan base, like they have earlier done.

Then there was the glam rock movement, lead by David Bowie, probably the most innovative and revutionary new talent in early 70's rock, and who almost single-handly made Mick Jagger to look like an old fart. And, of course, Jagger paid attention, and to an extent, tried to response by his own means.

Another thing to notice, more to do with Jagger himself, was that of starting to write material which was probably a bit more self-reflective than earlier, probably something to with recognizing his own age - the guy was getting old, having kids and all... This was resulted in the 'mature' ballads the three albums had quite heavy amount of. (In hindsight I would say that this is the most inspired and interesting stuff he did those days. He was really getting somewhere). But I guess for those audiences who were crazy for people like Bowie or the hard rock acts that was something rather lame. Old fart's stuff...

So my point is that the mid-seventies Stones albums suffer a kind of lack of focus - they try to catch new things, but the trends starting to be out of their reach naturally, to be heard in convincing results. Where to go naturally next? The musical foundation of those three albums is still very much based on their 'traditional' blues rock base they had championed especially in STICKY FINGERS and EXILE, but it is not any longer so inspired and fresh. The new things are a bit like icing the cake, a bit forced-like added to the cake. The mix aren't so naturally tasty like it used to be.

But in SOME GIRLS it all worked beautifully again.... The context was right for Mick and the Stones to do their original mix with convincing results.

Oh yeah, the original issue.... Actually I don't find this anything to do with Mick Taylor...

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-09-02 11:48 by Doxa.