Quote
Turner68
Mick Taylor was great with them on the 69/70 tours. Then he developed a bit too much of an ego IMO, became a little self-indulgent and started soloing and playing riffs all over the songs, trying to turn them into just another early 70s guitar band. Songs like Gimme Shelter and Brown sugar, to my ears, just aren't as good in 72/73 because Taylor just doesn't know when to stop.

As Keith Richards said, what you don't play is as important as what you do.

The Stones don't see the sort of endless soloing/riffing that Taylor does as part of their sound - if there was any doubt as to that, look at who they hired to replace Taylor: Ron Wood. They want someone who comes to rock and roll, not reinterpret all their songs as if it was Jazz fusion.

I believe it's for these reasons - plus the fact that he is not a member of the band (!) - that is not a "permanent guest" on their tours.

Hear, hear

Quote
kleermaker
Live with it: the best Stones years where the first ten, the Taylor years (the tours included of course) being the best part of them. But for these people that's hard to accept. If this weren't true they wouldn't campaign here constantly, trying to destroy the thread by any means, and let the decent members just doing their thing here and leave them alone, shaking their heads with mild irony. But they act like mad elephants.

Yes, Taylor was great on "Rolling Stones, the new hitmakers", and "Out of Our Heads" and "Aftermath" and "Beggars Banquet" and "Let It Bleed" and "Some Girls" and "Tattoo You". And his solo on "You Better Move On" really says it all, doesn't it?
Seriously though, yes, he *was* great on "Sticky Fingers", "Exile" and "Get Yer Ya Ya's Out". Yes he was, He certainly was. Yes.
Luckily, the Stones were also great before and after him. How lucky we are, really.

Quote
Turner68
Mick Taylor was great with them on the 69/70 tours. Then he developed a bit too much of an ego IMO, became a little self-indulgent and started soloing and playing riffs all over the songs, trying to turn them into just another early 70s guitar band. Songs like Gimme Shelter and Brown sugar, to my ears, just aren't as good in 72/73 because Taylor just doesn't know when to stop.

Thank God he didn't know were to stop. His noodling and rhythm playing always made my day. I liked almost everything he did with the Stones back in the days, the more the better.

A pity he stopped in '74 though. He left an emptiness that never has been filled ever since, IMO.

Question for Taylorites, Would you be happy if Keith quit the Stones and was replaced by Mick Taylor, so Wood and Taylor would be the two Stones guitarists?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-05-22 18:48 by EasterMan.

Quote
EasterMan
Question for Taylorites, Would you be happy if Keith quit the Stones and was replaced by Mick Taylor, so Wood and Taylor would be the two guitarists Stones guitarists?

Of course they would..

Quote
EasterMan
Question for Taylorites, Would you be happy if Keith quit the Stones and was replaced by Mick Taylor, so Wood and Taylor would be the two guitarists Stones guitarists?

No. I think their playing skills are below the standard they should keep to try up these days, maybe with the exception of Ron Wood, cause he's clean now.

Edit:Besides, it's either Richards + Wood or Richards and Taylor that is significant for the RS guitar sound.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-05-22 13:38 by LuxuryStones.

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
EasterMan
Question for Taylorites, Would you be happy if Keith quit the Stones and was replaced by Mick Taylor, so Wood and Taylor would be the two guitarists Stones guitarists?

No. I think their playing skills are below the standard they should keep to try up these days, maybe with the exception of Ron Wood, cause he's clean now.

Edit:Besides: It's either Richards + Wood or Richards and Taylor that is significant for the RS guitar sound.

The two of them did some great blues shows together, though.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
EasterMan
Question for Taylorites, Would you be happy if Keith quit the Stones and was replaced by Mick Taylor, so Wood and Taylor would be the two guitarists Stones guitarists?

Of course they would..

No!

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
EasterMan
Question for Taylorites, Would you be happy if Keith quit the Stones and was replaced by Mick Taylor, so Wood and Taylor would be the two guitarists Stones guitarists?

No. I think their playing skills are below the standard they should keep to try up these days, maybe with the exception of Ron Wood, cause he's clean now.

Edit:Besides: It's either Richards + Wood or Richards and Taylor that is significant for the RS guitar sound.

The two of them did some great blues shows together, though.

I cannot imagine the Rolling Stones without Keith, well maybe for two or three songs.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
EasterMan
Question for Taylorites, Would you be happy if Keith quit the Stones and was replaced by Mick Taylor, so Wood and Taylor would be the two guitarists Stones guitarists?

Of course they would..

Would you? You said you like Taylor and that era of the Stones? I dont think Stones fans who enjoy the era the Stones themselves call their greatest at least live would like Keith to stop. Quite the opposite. I think they were the best during htat era despite Brian Jones's huge influence, image, life, starting the band, his music etc. I alos really enjoy their 70s production with Ronnie. Shes so cold is one of their best songs. Hey Negrita has a great riff as does Shattered.

Quote
matxil

Quote
Turner68
Mick Taylor was great with them on the 69/70 tours. Then he developed a bit too much of an ego IMO, became a little self-indulgent and started soloing and playing riffs all over the songs, trying to turn them into just another early 70s guitar band. Songs like Gimme Shelter and Brown sugar, to my ears, just aren't as good in 72/73 because Taylor just doesn't know when to stop.

As Keith Richards said, what you don't play is as important as what you do.

The Stones don't see the sort of endless soloing/riffing that Taylor does as part of their sound - if there was any doubt as to that, look at who they hired to replace Taylor: Ron Wood. They want someone who comes to rock and roll, not reinterpret all their songs as if it was Jazz fusion.

I believe it's for these reasons - plus the fact that he is not a member of the band (!) - that is not a "permanent guest" on their tours.

Hear, hear

I have to disagree with this. They were at their absolute best during 1972 and 1973. Thanks to Taylor and the impact he must have had on Keith. Also thanks to Nicky.

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
EasterMan
Question for Taylorites, Would you be happy if Keith quit the Stones and was replaced by Mick Taylor, so Wood and Taylor would be the two guitarists Stones guitarists?

No. I think their playing skills are below the standard they should keep to try up these days, maybe with the exception of Ron Wood, cause he's clean now.

Edit:Besides: It's either Richards + Wood or Richards and Taylor that is significant for the RS guitar sound.

The two of them did some great blues shows together, though.

I cannot imagine the Rolling Stones without Keith, well maybe for two or three songs.

Well live I can nowadays because anybody could play what Keith plays but of course not back in the day. 1981? 1972?? No. Never. Mick could and obviously tried to replace him.

I'd like to hear all 3 of Woods Richards Taylor playing

Im not really interested in discussing Woods Taylor untill Richards has lost an arm, died or his knuckles have swollen to head size.

Outside of The Stones I'd defo like to hear Woods & Taylor but dif than whats been heard so far ie Woods plays more rytham and Taylor plays more lead.

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
EasterMan
Question for Taylorites, Would you be happy if Keith quit the Stones and was replaced by Mick Taylor, so Wood and Taylor would be the two guitarists Stones guitarists?

Of course they would..

Would you? You said you like Taylor and that era of the Stones? I dont think Stones fans who enjoy the era the Stones themselves call their greatest at least live would like Keith to stop. Quite the opposite. I think they were the best during htat era despite Brian Jones's huge influence, image, life, starting the band, his music etc. I alos really enjoy their 70s production with Ronnie. Shes so cold is one of their best songs. Hey Negrita has a great riff as does Shattered.

I thought you had a better memory, Carpet.

My answer was tongue in cheek, of course. But it doesn't take much detective work to find posts from many of the usual suspects here who wanted both Keith and Ronnie to sit it out, permanently if needed.

BTW, the era where Taylor is the most prominent is also the era with less magic from Keith – on stage that is. There is a huge difference between the sharp Altamont Keith and the low key "Rotterdam-strummer".

I'm with Turner68 on this. 1969/70 was fantastic. 1973 not so much.

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
EasterMan
Question for Taylorites, Would you be happy if Keith quit the Stones and was replaced by Mick Taylor, so Wood and Taylor would be the two guitarists Stones guitarists?

No. I think their playing skills are below the standard they should keep to try up these days, maybe with the exception of Ron Wood, cause he's clean now.

Edit:Besides: It's either Richards + Wood or Richards and Taylor that is significant for the RS guitar sound.

The two of them did some great blues shows together, though.

I cannot imagine the Rolling Stones without Keith, well maybe for two or three songs.

Well live I can nowadays because anybody could play what Keith plays but of course not back in the day. 1981? 1972?? No. Never. Mick could and obviously tried to replace him.

I think people also want to see Keith, no pun intended, he's with them since the beginning. As far as the guitar skills are concerned: there are enough guitarists out there that easily could replace Wood, Keith and Taylor like they are playing now!. To me the Stones are a nostalgia act. Nothing wrong with that for the fans, of course.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-05-22 14:44 by LuxuryStones.

Everyone is disposable, but it won't sound the same – that's the problem.

And it would be ridiculous not seeing this:





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-05-22 14:54 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
latebloomer

Quote
Stoneage
I don't mind if Taylor is not on the Zip Code tour. I'm not a Taylorist. I'm just stating that it's ironic that they took him around the world for three years playing, basically, one song over and over again.
And then they keep him out of the golden opportunity to show his skills on this Sticky Fingers special. That's my point. Nothing else.

It's not at all ironic, it makes perfect sense if you consider it from another perspective. If they had invited Mick T on this tour, which is being marketed partly as a celebration of Sticky Fingers, they would have gotten endless questions and flack from the press if they didn't use Taylor on a lot more songs. So either they include him more and let him do his thing, in which case you have the inevitable comparison to Ronnie plus the uncertainty of where he would go with the songs on stage. Or he plays much the same number of songs that he did on the last few tours and everything is about, why doesn't Mick Taylor play more on his own songs? Throw in some potential personal tensions over this between the main players, and it makes perfect sense that they decided...that's it, not worth it this time around. Of course the reason could very well be something completely unrelated to all the speculation, my own included, that has been gong on now here for months.

...and yes, Kleerie, I said I wouldn't be back and I changed my mind, probably because I am a woman, right?

Oh well latebloomer, always good to see you.
But beware: changing one's mind is certainly not only a woman's thing!

You made some reasonable points, but there's also the answer RollingFreak wrote to your post. The Stones (i.e. Jagger) obviously have manoeuvred themself in an awkward position. Both your post and RollingFreak's one do confirm that.

Anyway: that SF show they did would have been incredible and historical with Taylor included. Indeed, that would have meant a step back for Ronnie, but n the end the music must win!

It would have been a great statement if Taylor were included for this club show and it would undoubtedly have been fantastic if they had rehearsed properly and would have done Sway in the right tempo and with some more space for Taylor to end it epically. Because he's still able to play very well and in his own well know style, despite Luxury's cynicism about that.

As for the big stadium shows: I've been once at such a show, in 1982, and it was horrible. But my friends and my wife convinced me to join them and I couldn't resist them, being the nice guy I am.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Hey Mick watch out mate! You got a lad stuck up yer arse, mate!

Quote
kleermaker
The aggressiveness of people like Dreamer c.s. is just food for psychologists. Or perhaps even more for psychiatrists.

Live with it: the best Stones years where the first ten, the Taylor years (the tours included of course) being the best part of them. But for these people that's hard to accept. If this weren't true they wouldn't campaign here constantly, trying to destroy the thread by any means, and let the decent members just doing their thing here and leave them alone, shaking their heads with mild irony. But they act like mad elephants.

I think one of the main reasons this thread is still alive is that BV (to his immense credit, IMO) recognises that virtually all the trolling and personal abuse in this thread comes from people who don't like Taylor or his fans, not from those who are actually interested in discussing the topic.

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
Leonioid

Quote
stonehearted

BWWAAAAHAHAHAHAHA

Max, is that you?

Oh god, it is him, isn't it?

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
kleermaker
The aggressiveness of people like Dreamer c.s. is just food for psychologists. Or perhaps even more for psychiatrists.

Live with it: the best Stones years where the first ten, the Taylor years (the tours included of course) being the best part of them. But for these people that's hard to accept. If this weren't true they wouldn't campaign here constantly, trying to destroy the thread by any means, and let the decent members just doing their thing here and leave them alone, shaking their heads with mild irony. But they act like mad elephants.

I think one of the main reasons this thread is still alive is that BV (to his immense credit, IMO) recognises that virtually all the trolling and personal abuse in this thread comes from people who don't like Taylor or his fans, not from those who are actually interested in discussing the topic.

Exactly the problem of the entire Taylorology Church: because Taylorologists think so much about only one thing they automatically present it as the truth; a prison of belief...
Take a look at some recent quotes like this from their Leader Kleerie Miscavige:
"The Stones (i.e. Jagger) obviously have manoeuvred themself in an awkward position. Both your post and RollingFreak's one do confirm that."
So... if a Taylorologist says something about the RS it becomes a 'truth' just because a fellow Taylorologist 'confirmed' it by also posting about it

How about this one:
"Anyway: that SF show they did would have been incredible and historical with Taylor included. Indeed, that would have meant a step back for Ronnie, but n the end the music must win!"
I get it: playing all songs of SF in one club gig for 950 people wasn't incredible and it wasn't historical because Taylor wasn't there...
That's how the Taylorology Church writes history. Maybe you guys call it going clear..?

It's in any case obvious where the knowledge from your Leader is coming from:
"As for the big stadium shows: I've been once at such a show, in 1982, and it was horrible."

The poor guy hasn't been to a RS show for over 35 years
I rest my case.

Yes nurse...better not give him a room with a view: it would scare him even more.

What the @#$%& is your problem? Your whole IORR persona is that of an aggressive, paranoid sociopath. You add nothing to this board and judging by most of your posts could probably do with professional help.

Quote
Dreamer
How about this one:
"Anyway: that SF show they did would have been incredible and historical with Taylor included. Indeed, that would have meant a step back for Ronnie, but n the end the music must win!"
I get it: playing all songs of SF in one club gig for 950 people wasn't incredible and it wasn't historical because Taylor wasn't there...
That's how the Taylorology Church writes history. Maybe you guys call it going clear..?

F*ck you. No one's saying it wasn't historical in its own right. We're pointing out the extremely obvious fact of how much better it could have been had a key member of that album participated, when he's been participating with the band for the last 3 years. Its the irony and the craziness of the situation. No one's saying it wasn't an incredible momentous show because he wasn't there. Get a f*cking grip.

Quote
Stoneage
I don't mind if Taylor is not on the Zip Code tour. I'm not a Taylorist. I'm just stating that it's ironic that they took him around the world for three years playing, basically, one song over and over again.
And then they keep him out of the golden opportunity to show his skills on this Sticky Fingers special. That's my point. Nothing else.

Mick Taylor got to travel around the world in high class StonesStyle. I am sure he got a kick out of this. Room service at lux hotels etc etc. He could parlay this into a solo tour but has not.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

BTW, the era where Taylor is the most prominent is also the era with less magic from Keith – on stage that is. There is a huge difference between the sharp Altamont Keith and the low key "Rotterdam-strummer".

I'm with Turner68 on this. 1969/70 was fantastic. 1973 not so much.

Is Keith as well low key at The Brussels concert in 1973?

Quote
runaway

Quote
DandelionPowderman

BTW, the era where Taylor is the most prominent is also the era with less magic from Keith – on stage that is. There is a huge difference between the sharp Altamont Keith and the low key "Rotterdam-strummer".

I'm with Turner68 on this. 1969/70 was fantastic. 1973 not so much.

Is Keith as well low key at The Brussels concert in 1973?

Keith isn't, his bottom string is.

Quote
Stoneburst
What the @#$%& is your problem? Your whole IORR persona is that of an aggressive, paranoid sociopath. You add nothing to this board and judging by most of your posts could probably do with professional help.

+ 1000000000000

Quote
Captainchaos

Quote
Stoneburst
What the @#$%& is your problem? Your whole IORR persona is that of an aggressive, paranoid sociopath. You add nothing to this board and judging by most of your posts could probably do with professional help.

+ 1000000000000

We better ignore him, instead of reacting on his provocations.

Quote
Nikkei

Quote
runaway

Quote
DandelionPowderman

BTW, the era where Taylor is the most prominent is also the era with less magic from Keith – on stage that is. There is a huge difference between the sharp Altamont Keith and the low key "Rotterdam-strummer".

I'm with Turner68 on this. 1969/70 was fantastic. 1973 not so much.

Is Keith as well low key at The Brussels concert in 1973?

Keith isn't, his bottom string is.

You critisize the 73 European Tour by the sound difference of one bottom string?

Quote
runaway

Quote
Nikkei

Quote
runaway

Quote
DandelionPowderman

BTW, the era where Taylor is the most prominent is also the era with less magic from Keith – on stage that is. There is a huge difference between the sharp Altamont Keith and the low key "Rotterdam-strummer".

I'm with Turner68 on this. 1969/70 was fantastic. 1973 not so much.

Is Keith as well low key at The Brussels concert in 1973?

Keith isn't, his bottom string is.

You critisize the 73 European Tour by the sound difference of one bottom string?

God, no. It was a lame quip referring to open tuning.