Quote
stonehearted

Quote
DandelionPowderman

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

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

I meant the track as a whole. Mick J has said how he could write against the melodic quality of Mick T's playing, and Plundered is another example of that.

Is it? How?

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
marcovandereijk
I think creativity is an overrated quality for a Rock 'n' Roll band.

It's what separates the greatest bands from average bands.

It's what takes the best from the past and creates a new path for the future, not simply regurgitating it.

Creativity coupled with competent musicianship are required.

Yeah, but you know too that it is a bit different with the Stones. None of the Stones were brilliant musicians that individually could stand out outside of the Stones bubble - merely as master musicians.

The swing and the groove that the Stones had/have is/was unique. Much of the reason for that was that they dared to keep it down, imo (aka simple, aka the groove). Then, all of a sudden they made Moonlight Mile. They couldn't have kept that up creatively - writing songs like that, and they knew it.

That's probably why they made Exile

But you're arguing a point I didn't make. You're saying that none of the stones are brilliant musicians. That's exactly what I've said, I said they were competent and there is a massive difference between brilliant and competent. You don't need to be a brilliant musician to be amongst the pantheon of greatest groups.

You do need creativity, otherwise you just spit out what came before.

HELL NO . maybe to many substances ?

Quote
Raymond82
This is such a stupid thread. I don't post on here too often but I read it every day. From an outsider looking in, I'd swear people had it in for Mick Taylor.

All bands go through hot streaks and cold streaks, nobody is consistently brilliant. Mick Taylor's contribution is something to celebrate not query!!

I'd swear people had it in for Mick Taylor.[/b][/b]


Amen! I agree with you. I have only been here a year but like you a read this board daily. I have followed this band since 1969 and saw them live once with Taylor. They music was fantastic. You would have to has seen and heard them with Taylor to appreciate his contributions to the music. It was unbelievable. It is difficult to understand why many people want to disparage him as much as they do. I am really sorry that he chose to leave. It was a loss for the band and for the fans. Listening to old bootlegs and You Tubes can give you examples of the brilliance of the band during that period but never really capture it live.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
DandelionPowderman

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

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

I meant the track as a whole. Mick J has said how he could write against the melodic quality of Mick T's playing, and Plundered is another example of that.

Is it? How?

Anyone with a musical ear can hear similarities in Jagger's melody lines and Taylor's melodic conception during critical moments, songs like "Moonlight Mile" and live versions of YCAGWYW, or Heartbreaker. Taylor and Jagger spent a lot of time together, they must have inspired each other musically. That's the "how". What else do you want to dispute, songwriting again?

Yes, a very stupid thread to initiate.

Most bands stop being creative after 5-10 years.... and hence break up.

Stones have survived 50 years, be happy for that (the first 10-15 years being creative).

Quote
PhillyFAN
It is difficult to understand why many people want to disparage [Taylor] as much as they do.

Initially, they disparaged Taylor because he disrupts their mythology of the Stones (who the hell does this guy think he is, leaving the greatest rock and roll band in the world?) These days, they disparage him because when he played with them on the past tour he highlighted - both onstage and off - how mediocre they are now.

Quote
sonomastone
on the face of it, the evidence is clear.

...

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

Correlation does not equal causation.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
marcovandereijk
I think creativity is an overrated quality for a Rock 'n' Roll band.

It's what separates the greatest bands from average bands.

It's what takes the best from the past and creates a new path for the future, not simply regurgitating it.

Creativity coupled with competent musicianship are required.

Yeah, but you know too that it is a bit different with the Stones. None of the Stones were brilliant musicians that individually could stand out outside of the Stones bubble - merely as master musicians.

The swing and the groove that the Stones had/have is/was unique. Much of the reason for that was that they dared to keep it down, imo (aka simple, aka the groove). Then, all of a sudden they made Moonlight Mile. They couldn't have kept that up creatively - writing songs like that, and they knew it.

That's probably why they made Exile

But you're arguing a point I didn't make. You're saying that none of the stones are brilliant musicians. That's exactly what I've said, I said they were competent and there is a massive difference between brilliant and competent. You don't need to be a brilliant musician to be amongst the pantheon of greatest groups.

You do need creativity, otherwise you just spit out what came before.

At the same time lots of bands and people did not make it while having a lot more creativity.. Most important factor? Luck.

Yes, of course. Who else is there to blame?

Quote
funkydrummer

open tuning has immense possibility but it has always angered me that the Stones have barely bothered to explore them.

Yup Jimmy Page explored the open G thing and came up with "Dancing Days", which is totally different from any Mick/Keef songs in that tuning.

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
PhillyFAN
It is difficult to understand why many people want to disparage [Taylor] as much as they do.

Initially, they disparaged Taylor because he disrupts their mythology of the Stones (who the hell does this guy think he is, leaving the greatest rock and roll band in the world?) These days, they disparage him because when he played with them on the past tour he highlighted - both onstage and off - how mediocre they are now.

Without Mick and Keith, Mick T. couldn't have done much. Listen to Keith's live guitar...

Umm, Some Girls, Tattoo You

With Taylor they came out with Sticky Fingers and Exile on Main Street, so the answer is no.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-09-03 01:07 by ryanpow.

Mick Taylor is responsible for removing himself from the band and therefor seizing his own ability to create within the band. In walks Ronnie and the rest is history.

Quote
Dreamer

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
marcovandereijk
I think creativity is an overrated quality for a Rock 'n' Roll band.

It's what separates the greatest bands from average bands.

It's what takes the best from the past and creates a new path for the future, not simply regurgitating it.

Creativity coupled with competent musicianship are required.

Yeah, but you know too that it is a bit different with the Stones. None of the Stones were brilliant musicians that individually could stand out outside of the Stones bubble - merely as master musicians.

The swing and the groove that the Stones had/have is/was unique. Much of the reason for that was that they dared to keep it down, imo (aka simple, aka the groove). Then, all of a sudden they made Moonlight Mile. They couldn't have kept that up creatively - writing songs like that, and they knew it.

That's probably why they made Exile

But you're arguing a point I didn't make. You're saying that none of the stones are brilliant musicians. That's exactly what I've said, I said they were competent and there is a massive difference between brilliant and competent. You don't need to be a brilliant musician to be amongst the pantheon of greatest groups.

You do need creativity, otherwise you just spit out what came before.

At the same time lots of bands and people did not make it while having a lot more creativity.. Most important factor? Luck.

Luck has lots to do with it...not excluding that fact. Also hard work and determination.

My only point is that you have to have creativity otherwise you have absolutely nothing.

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
PhillyFAN
It is difficult to understand why many people want to disparage [Taylor] as much as they do.

Initially, they disparaged Taylor because he disrupts their mythology of the Stones (who the hell does this guy think he is, leaving the greatest rock and roll band in the world?) These days, they disparage him because when he played with them on the past tour he highlighted - both onstage and off - how mediocre they are now.

+1

Quote
three16
Mick Taylor is responsible for removing himself from the band and therefor seizing his own ability to create within the band. In walks Ronnie and the rest is history.

That's true, but maybe not in the way you intended.

.....more like .... And then in runs Ronnie and the rest is history.



ROCKMAN

I don't think that there is a band out there that would not be envious of their recorded output from 1962-1983. Some albums are much better than others but there is not one of those albums that you can sit back and say oh that is terrible. There is merit in all of them. The Stones have always been at their best when the Glimmer Twins have some semblance of harmony. What led to disharmony? Keith's drug habit, Mick's jet-setting with the "in-crowd", the fact that some of the music is so good that some of it pales in comparison. Songs like Moonlight Mile and YCAGWYW are masterworks of rock music and then there are songs like Luxury or Melody that are good but we all sit and compare. I for one am happy with what they have given us. To say MT may have had something to do with artistic decline is absurd. he plays great melodic lead guitar that is just so great live combined with Keith's riffs that he plays off. Jagger stated in Crossfire Hurricane that he thought it was a stupid idea of MT leaving and a lot of people think that was the best Stones. maybe he is right but all three guitarists that have come and gone all lent a lot to the band. A lot of what has come after 1983 is pretty damn good as well. None of the Beatles are anywhere near as good on their own as they were as a band either. The sum of the parts is what makes groups great. Yes has brilliant musicians and they bore the absolute hell of me!

Even if I agreed with the premise that the Stones suffered a "creative death" after Mick Taylor walked out, and I do not agree...to say that Mick Taylor is the sole reason for the creative zenith of the Stones and that it was all downhill after he left is absurd. Mick Taylor was one piece of the Stones creativity during a certain point in time, but they had periods where there musical output was astonishingly good both before and after the Mick Taylor years. Trying to pin it all on Mick Taylor makes about as much sense as saying that there is only one reason why a war starts or a marriage ends.

Quote
Doxa
There is one thing peculiar in those three albums - GHS, IORR, B&B - in compared to the 'Big Four': that of lacking almost totally references to American country music tradition. In many ways that source of inspiration was a rather constitutional element in the blues rock sound they created in those four milestone albums - and in "Honky Tonk Women". Why that happened? I somehow always tend to link the country element more to Keith Richards than to Jagger. Was Gram's death so shocking to Keith that he dropped playing the stuff for years? Or is that an indication of his drug problems affecting on his creativity - or losing the power in the band? If it has something to do with Jagger, the most I can think of him thinking that 'country rock' is too passe or too 'red-neck' for the Stones to record any longer. But that wasn't the case, or was it?

Anyway, it is interesting that the country element is strongly back again in SOME GIRLS sessions, almost totally in contrast to the trends of the day (or at least it looks like that). The SOME GIRLS bonus album rather strongly confirmed this. Johnny Rotten or Village People were not any big country & western lovers, now were them? Whatever the truth is, this is at least an example why creativity, inspiration, following trends etc. are not so easily to put into simple causal relations, and the story behind them is much more complex...

- Doxa

great observation about country music and the band. i tend to agree that it is a keith thing.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Wasn't the song IORR huge back then, with the saying in graffiti all over the place and all?

Surely, they must still have been relevant up to a point in 1974?

They couldn't tour, though, and Taylor left. BAB was merely a session album for new guitar players. So, the cool, calm and collectedness just wasn't there before 1978 - when they really hit hard. I'm pretty sure they would have anyway, punk or no punk. They were a real working band again in 1978, for the first time since 1973.

The ridiculous amount of music - all styles of music - shows a very active band again.

And let's not forget it was Miss You that made them relevant again, not Respectable

yes but was that rebirth due to the arrival of a new guitarist, at least in part?

IORR was a big song. it was also primarily the work of Mick Jagger and Ron Wood.

Quote
sonomastone
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?

IORR is a decent album, better than any pre-Beggar's album. The 60's had some great singles by the Stones, but some not great albums...very uneven. I think they faded as the 70s turned to the 80s as they were past their prime, Keith's years of drug use, outside lives and all the things that draw friends, bands and other groups apart that happen.

Quote
Silver Dagger


And the input he gave to Sticky Fingers, Exile and Goats Head Soup was immense.

Goats Head Soup marked the beginning of the decline, and I think most would agree that Exile would still be Exile if Keith had been the only guitarist in the band. Indeed, a good part of the album features only Keith on guitar.

This is interesting to me. I think the more traditionally defined roles hurt once the limitations, set by the definition s started to peter out.

As a devils advocate I would argue that S F was about half way in the can before MT had any real influence, and Exile is Keith's. I have noted this seemingly downward arc before. The Micks did work well together, perhaps that is when Mick should have had solo aspirations.

Quote
funkydrummer
I agree that open tuning has immense possibility but it has always angered me that the Stones have barely bothered to explore them.

I can't wait to tell my therapist that there IS someone in the world other than myself who is angry about the Stones' failure to explore open tunings!

Quote
LuxuryStones
Anyone with a musical ear can hear similarities in Jagger's melody lines and Taylor's melodic conception during critical moments

Unlike yourself (who has a musical ear having played the violin) my musical ear is deficient enough not to be able to quite grasp just how it was that Mick Jagger was able to craft PMS's melody off an overdubbed guitar part.

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
DandelionPowderman

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

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

I meant the track as a whole. Mick J has said how he could write against the melodic quality of Mick T's playing, and Plundered is another example of that.

Is it? How?

Anyone with a musical ear can hear similarities in Jagger's melody lines and Taylor's melodic conception during critical moments, songs like "Moonlight Mile" and live versions of YCAGWYW, or Heartbreaker. Taylor and Jagger spent a lot of time together, they must have inspired each other musically. That's the "how". What else do you want to dispute, songwriting again?

I can't hear that on PMS. I hear a finished Jagger song with a MT track added later. I'm really looking forward to your explanation of how Mick wrote these lyrics off of MT's guitar

In all my years on this board, that is the most bizarre and original theory I have ever seen.

But my view is the opposite - Mick Taylor was responsible for extending the Golden Era of the Stones. Keith has said that Mick's playing inspired him.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-09-03 08:49 by Bliss.