posted by: palerider22 ()
Date: April 22, 2015 00:40

Check this list out...We 'Taylorites' all know what we're talking about!

Rolling Stones Readers Poll : Top 10 Deep Cuts
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Yep, I always liked Taylor much more than Santana:


Keith Richards melds with new bandmate Mick Taylor perfectly, and the song ends with a jam that sounds like the best piece of music Carlos Santana never recorded.

It's hard to top early 70s Santana. Then again, it's hard to top early 70s Taylor

Quote
DandelionPowderman
It's hard to top early 70s Santana. Then again, it's hard to top early 70s Taylor

Santana's contributions with John McLaughlin are a pain in the arse, imo.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Stoneburst
There is no evidence for this having been a band decision. If anything, quite the opposite, since
a) Keith appeared to know very little about the situation
b) Ronnie had Taylor playing on stage with him last month
c) since when did Charlie ever get involved in this stuff?

All true. Formally it's a band decision, but in fact it's Jagger who has decided this. And it has nothing to do with any health issue.

My intuïtion tells me that Jagger knows that dragging Taylor around for only one song (MR or whatever) during a Sticky Fingers Tour is impossible and at the same time he isn't willing to change things. He's conservative as an artist, not wanting to take any risk, just serving the public what he thinks it likes, preserving the brand of the band as it is since the prehistory.

no offense but I believe that's all jagger has done his whole career is take risks with bs and star star etc.

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
DandelionPowderman
It's hard to top early 70s Santana. Then again, it's hard to top early 70s Taylor

Santana's contributions with John McLaughlin are a pain in the arse, imo.

That's mid-70s. Try Santana III.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
DandelionPowderman
It's hard to top early 70s Santana. Then again, it's hard to top early 70s Taylor

Santana's contributions with John McLaughlin are a pain in the arse, imo.

That's mid-70s. Try Santana III.

Love Devotion Surrender was 1973. The Guru era. I heard almost everything coming from Santana. Apart from some hits, like "she's not there" and a few others, he never moved me. He always sounds like he's feeling nervous.

A matter os taste of course.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-04-22 01:28 by LuxuryStones.

Quote
palerider22
Check this list out...We 'Taylorites' all know what we're talking about!

Did you ever have any doubt? Certainly don't need a RS poll to affirm what our ears have been telling us for years. But maybe some other folks do though.

peace

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
DandelionPowderman
It's hard to top early 70s Santana. Then again, it's hard to top early 70s Taylor

Santana's contributions with John McLaughlin are a pain in the arse, imo.

That's mid-70s. Try Santana III.

Love Devotion Surrender was 1973. The Guru era. I heard almost everything coming from Santana. Apart from some hits, like "she's not there" and a few others, he never moved me. He always sounds like he's feeling nervous.

A matter os taste of course.

Yeah, but he had already lost a bit by then, imo.

Not much "nervousness" to spot here. Only feeling and sheer beauty, imo:

From Dylan's 1984 European tour: Taylor and Santana playing together on Tombstone Blues. Santana's playing isn't great, unfortunately, but there's not a lot of video footage from this tour so it's worth it for the novelty value.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
DandelionPowderman
It's hard to top early 70s Santana. Then again, it's hard to top early 70s Taylor

Santana's contributions with John McLaughlin are a pain in the arse, imo.

That's mid-70s. Try Santana III.

Love Devotion Surrender was 1973. The Guru era. I heard almost everything coming from Santana. Apart from some hits, like "she's not there" and a few others, he never moved me. He always sounds like he's feeling nervous.

A matter os taste of course.

Yeah, but he had already lost a bit by then, imo.

Not much "nervousness" to spot here. Only feeling and sheer beauty, imo:

Nice guitar playing by Neal Schon!

Sorry for beeing offtopic Taylorwise here, but from Santana I very deeply am still in love with Caravanserai, Borboletta and even Welcome...

Quote
kevinkamphuis

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
DandelionPowderman
It's hard to top early 70s Santana. Then again, it's hard to top early 70s Taylor

Santana's contributions with John McLaughlin are a pain in the arse, imo.

That's mid-70s. Try Santana III.

Love Devotion Surrender was 1973. The Guru era. I heard almost everything coming from Santana. Apart from some hits, like "she's not there" and a few others, he never moved me. He always sounds like he's feeling nervous.

A matter os taste of course.

Yeah, but he had already lost a bit by then, imo.

Not much "nervousness" to spot here. Only feeling and sheer beauty, imo:

Nice guitar playing by Neal Schon!

That, too.

But his solo is the technical one, with less soul and feeling, imo.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-04-22 22:46 by DandelionPowderman.

Hey All,
Been thinking about this situation alot and here is my latest take on what's Jagger's motivation for not including Taylor on this short Tour. I think
MJ is testing Taylor as a sort of re-initiation into the Stones...

Throw a little curve at him and see how he reacts, remember it was Taylor who had
the leverage back in 1974, Stones needed him more than he needed the Stones at that time, and Taylor's decision that Keith couldn't last much longer at the pace he was going and no Keith, no Stones.. plus the writing credit situation..

Now Jagger and the Stones have all the leverage and MJ is showing it..
at least I hope this is what's going on....

MLC

Quote
MCDDTLC
Hey All,
Been thinking about this situation alot and here is my latest take on what's Jagger's motivation for not including Taylor on this short Tour. I think
MJ is testing Taylor as a sort of re-initiation into the Stones...

Throw a little curve at him and see how he reacts, remember it was Taylor who had
the leverage back in 1974, Stones needed him more than he needed the Stones at that time, and Taylor's decision that Keith couldn't last much longer at the pace he was going and no Keith, no Stones.. plus the writing credit situation..

Now Jagger and the Stones have all the leverage and MJ is showing it..
at least I hope this is what's going on....

MLC

I think it's simpler than that: They have a set formula that's worked for decades. Changing things up in a way that truly incorporates Taylor would not produce a payoff worth the extra effort and time needed to pull it off properly, hence Taylor's inclusion is seen more of a complication than an opportunity.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
MCDDTLC
Hey All,
Been thinking about this situation alot and here is my latest take on what's Jagger's motivation for not including Taylor on this short Tour. I think
MJ is testing Taylor as a sort of re-initiation into the Stones...

Throw a little curve at him and see how he reacts, remember it was Taylor who had
the leverage back in 1974, Stones needed him more than he needed the Stones at that time, and Taylor's decision that Keith couldn't last much longer at the pace he was going and no Keith, no Stones.. plus the writing credit situation..

Now Jagger and the Stones have all the leverage and MJ is showing it..
at least I hope this is what's going on....

MLC

I think it's simpler than that: They have a set formula that's worked for decades. Changing things up in a way that truly incorporates Taylor would not produce a payoff worth the extra effort and time needed to pull it off properly, hence Taylor's inclusion is seen more of a complication than an opportunity.

A combination of not wanting to be dependent on Taylor musically and economics would be my guess.

Quote
MCDDTLC
Hey All,
Been thinking about this situation alot and here is my latest take on what's Jagger's motivation for not including Taylor on this short Tour. I think
MJ is testing Taylor as a sort of re-initiation into the Stones...

Throw a little curve at him and see how he reacts, remember it was Taylor who had
the leverage back in 1974, Stones needed him more than he needed the Stones at that time, and Taylor's decision that Keith couldn't last much longer at the pace he was going and no Keith, no Stones.. plus the writing credit situation..

Now Jagger and the Stones have all the leverage and MJ is showing it..
at least I hope this is what's going on....

MLC

Nah. They just don't want to bring him back. Its as simple as that. Bringing in Taylor brings up money issues, musical issues and personal issues they don't want to deal with. They've had a system in place the last 20 years. It works for them. Taylor only complicates that if he continues to stay with them, and I think in their 70s the last thing they want is complications or something new.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
MCDDTLC
Hey All,
Been thinking about this situation alot and here is my latest take on what's Jagger's motivation for not including Taylor on this short Tour. I think
MJ is testing Taylor as a sort of re-initiation into the Stones...

Throw a little curve at him and see how he reacts, remember it was Taylor who had
the leverage back in 1974, Stones needed him more than he needed the Stones at that time, and Taylor's decision that Keith couldn't last much longer at the pace he was going and no Keith, no Stones.. plus the writing credit situation..

Now Jagger and the Stones have all the leverage and MJ is showing it..
at least I hope this is what's going on....

MLC

I think it's simpler than that: They have a set formula that's worked for decades. Changing things up in a way that truly incorporates Taylor would not produce a payoff worth the extra effort and time needed to pull it off properly, hence Taylor's inclusion is seen more of a complication than an opportunity.

A combination of not wanting to be dependent on Taylor musically and economics would be my guess.

My guess as well plus the brand of the band thingy.

Close the thread? How silly! MT is a Rolling Stone. We are not supposed to talk about it? Guess what, perhaps you don't have to read the thread~!

I wonder if MJ will call MT if something happens to Ronnie or Keef? Other than that I think only Ticket Sales will get their attention.

I got played by MJ with the MT rollout. I won't go to another show with these crazy prices unless MT is given a lot more songs!

I won't be holding my breath....ugh.

i can kind of tell the songs the two micks wrote together,i'm sure they're mostly on goats head but can someone give me the full rundown that you know of.

the taylorites should have a hard and fast list i would think.i'm almost positive they did time waits for no one together,which by the way i still cant believe stones fans dont drool over.

its literally one of the best songs i've ever heard.

I love Taylor's recent and past playing with the band but I never for a minute thought he would ever be asked to be a Rolling Stone again. Way too much water under the bridge for that. Guest for one tour was great, guest for two would be better, full time sideman would be ideal and the best I thought we could hope for.

Possibly giving him the spotlight and encouraging him to play it up on stage was actually the very thing that ensured he wouldn't be invited back! It's a strange situation because his musical contribution is so noticeable, not sure he could ever become less prominent like Chuck and Darryl.

But perhaps if he could have just stood humbly to the side of the stage and gradually and subtly worked his magic with the music he would have found a place in the band going forward.

peace

kleermaker! It's time for a great Mick Taylor/Stones video...What can you pull up...

Quote
lem motlow
i can kind of tell the songs the two micks wrote together,i'm sure they're mostly on goats head but can someone give me the full rundown that you know of.

the taylorites should have a hard and fast list i would think.i'm almost positive they did time waits for no one together,which by the way i still cant believe stones fans dont drool over.

its literally one of the best songs i've ever heard.

Yep, they recorded it together, with the rest of the band.

The song was initially Keith's, and he plays the first short solo as well + possibly the acoustic guitar.

It turned out to be different than Keith had planned to, as he has said in interviews ("my idea got taken up by others in the band"), referring to the extended solo theme that Taylor obviously improvised.

Not my favourite track, but I enjoy listening to parts of it, and to sing and play it with an acoustic. The chorus is very nice.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-04-23 11:01 by DandelionPowderman.

Lem: the tracks that were just Jagger and Taylor collaborating in the studio without Keith are Sway, Stop Breaking Down (well, the arrangement is theirs) and Winter. Hide Your Love sounds like it might be the two of them as well: I can neither hear Keith playing on it nor imagine he'd have had much interest in such an obvious vehicle for Taylor's soloing. He does play on Time Waits For No One, though.

From the outtakes, I once heard it suggested - can't remember where - that Jagger and Taylor came up with Travelin' Man together. It doesn't sound likely, but who knows.

Quote
Stoneburst
Lem: the tracks that were just Jagger and Taylor collaborating in the studio without Keith are Sway, Stop Breaking Down (well, the arrangement is theirs) and Winter. Hide Your Love sounds like it might be the two of them as well: I can neither hear Keith playing on it nor imagine he'd have had much interest in such an obvious vehicle for Taylor's soloing. He does play on Time Waits For No One, though.

From the outtakes, I once heard it suggested - can't remember where - that Jagger and Taylor came up with Travelin' Man together. It doesn't sound likely, but who knows.

I see some sites has Keith on bass on Hide Your Love, but I'm not too sure about that

Did Keith play on both versions of Signifying? Or any?

Quote
TravelinMan
Did Keith play on both versions of Signifying? Or any?

No.

I don't know why Mick Taylor would want to play with Jagger/Richards anyway besides money. He should just sue to get some royalties. Jagger uses a backing track for vocals now (compared the late 90's to 2006 and there's a sudden massive improvement) and Keith probably does too for his guitar, at least that's what I've read. Then Gene Simmons said they were using backing tracks as well.

that guitar intro on winter is amazing,i always thought it was keith with mick t coming in after with that sort of lead,well you know the song..

i've only heard that its jagger playing guitar on stop breaking down in the last few years-it doesnt really seem possible to be honest.i like jagger but i dont think he could play guitar that well right now let alone back then.its him on sway also?...hmmm i dont know.

hide your love,yeah that sounds like a slam dunk jagger/taylor

time waits-i can totally believe keith brought the germ in on that one.its such a moody soulful song and goes with the undercurrent of bluesy sadness to his writing around that time[coming down again,angie]they probably added that jam at the end.i dont think keith is a fan of the extended guitar solo and it may have been more effective if the song was shorter but its still a hidden classic.

can you hear the music? that sounds like something a little off the wall that jagger/taylor may have done.that guitar intro kills..dun dunt da da can you hear the music...totally underrated.

funny how alot of people think the stones were'nt playing that well during goats head but it was recorded on a break between the 72 and 73 tours-.thats some good fckng music.

sanQ writes: "Jagger uses a backing track for vocals now...and Keith probably does too for his guitar, at least that's what I've read."

You mean Keith doesn't play live, it's a backing track of his guitar? Would not that defeat the purpose of doing live concerts?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-04-23 20:06 by nightskyman.