For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
NikkeiQuote
runawayQuote
NikkeiQuote
runawayQuote
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.
Quote
runawayQuote
NikkeiQuote
runawayQuote
NikkeiQuote
runawayQuote
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.
Was the open G not used then with "Brown Sugar" during the 73 tour?
Quote
The last Stones road trip included a guest spot for former guitarist Mick Taylor. His absence is particularly conspicuous considering the prominent role he played on Sticky Fingers, but the band managed to fully recreate most of those songs without missing a step. The one exception was the seven-minute epic "Can't You Hear Me Knocking." The Stones began with a grinding Richards riff, but then the guitars went soft and funky as the saxman Karl Denson took centerstage for a round of sultry, jazzy honking. Keyboardist Chuck Leavell played a rousing lead and Jagger shook a pair of maracas at the crowd, but guitars were nearly invisible for much of this beloved album cut. Taylor was missed.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
runawayQuote
NikkeiQuote
runawayQuote
NikkeiQuote
runawayQuote
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.
Was the open G not used then with "Brown Sugar" during the 73 tour?
It shouldn't come as a surprise that Keith stuck mainly to a simpler rhythm guitar on the 73 tour. More open G, less lead guitar. More lead guitar from Taylor.
In 1969 they swapped more lead and rhythm duties, imo with a better-sounding band as the result.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
runawayQuote
NikkeiQuote
runawayQuote
NikkeiQuote
runawayQuote
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.
Was the open G not used then with "Brown Sugar" during the 73 tour?
It shouldn't come as a surprise that Keith stuck mainly to a simpler rhythm guitar on the 73 tour. More open G, less lead guitar. More lead guitar from Taylor.
In 1969 they swapped more lead and rhythm duties, imo with a better-sounding band as the result.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
TravelinManQuote
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.
The Stones knew what kind of guitarist they recruited and what direction they wanted to go in. They were also disappointed when he left. If you don't like the versions of the songs during his tenure that is fine.
Did they? To me, Black And Blue sounds very trying as far as musical directions go.
It's kinda funny, the last thing Taylor did was playing caribbean-esque stuff on TWFNO, and the first thing Ronnie did was bringing a caribbean-esque tune to the table (Hey Negrita).
Very different, though, I know...
Quote
StoneburstQuote
stoneheartedQuote
LeonioidBWWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAQuote
stonehearted
Max, is that you?
Oh god, it is him, isn't it?
Quote
NaturalustQuote
StoneburstQuote
stoneheartedQuote
LeonioidBWWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAQuote
stonehearted
Max, is that you?
Oh god, it is him, isn't it?
No Max was pretty cool. I suggest we don't feed this troll. Every time I've tried to nicely ask this guy to quit provoking fans here, he immediately answers with some insulting and offensive personal post, then goes into Eddie Haskell mode on every other post. As has been pointed out, completely ignoring is the best solution...man, I know it's hard.
I think latebloomer's post makes a pretty good point. All I can add is that the dynamics of two vs three guitarists are a lot harder to manage and I just don't think the Stones want to work that hard on such things at this point. Nor do I have any expectations of them to do so....they are old men and any such expectations are not realistic, a few years back maybe but not now. It's amazing that we expect as much as we do actually.
I have no doubt the music would have become more fresh and better with Taylor playing more songs. The Stones would have been the first to recognize this and where would it leave them then? Either they invite MT back into the band or they don't and continue to do their best realizing that their true best musical output isn't really happening. It's a tough position to be in and I think it was too easy for them to make the break as soon as possible and not have recent memories of how good the music actually was with Taylor playing more songs.
That being said, could Taylor have made the recent SF show more spectacular? Of course he could have, but then he would have had to be included in the whole tour, on all the songs he improved during that show. And again if the music was so improved, where would it leave them next year? In a way he is/was just too good to be a temporary guest and inviting him back as a member would probably have been the only logical solution, and this obviously wasn't going to happen at this late stage of the Stones game.
peace
Quote
DandelionPowderman
I think it was the rather arrogant fanboy approach to Mick Taylor Max reacted upon. I can see he hasn't lost his touch.
As long as people post stuff like "the band is clearly better with Taylor", "the music must prevail", "only Taylor fans put the music first" you are pissing on the rest of the board (the majority).
That's why people are calling 6-7 of the Taylorites a cult.
Drop the arrogance, skip the unnecessary comparisons and lose the bitterness. Then this thread and imo the whole board will become a better place.
And Max is a good guy. He's been posting here since the 90s. One of the best posters around. NOT a troll.
Quote
StoneburstQuote
DandelionPowderman
I think it was the rather arrogant fanboy approach to Mick Taylor Max reacted upon. I can see he hasn't lost his touch.
As long as people post stuff like "the band is clearly better with Taylor", "the music must prevail", "only Taylor fans put the music first" you are pissing on the rest of the board (the majority).
That's why people are calling 6-7 of the Taylorites a cult.
Drop the arrogance, skip the unnecessary comparisons and lose the bitterness. Then this thread and imo the whole board will become a better place.
And Max is a good guy. He's been posting here since the 90s. One of the best posters around. NOT a troll.
No, you, Dreamer and this idiot are the ones calling Taylorites a cult. Over and over again.
Quote
StoneburstQuote
DandelionPowderman
I think it was the rather arrogant fanboy approach to Mick Taylor Max reacted upon. I can see he hasn't lost his touch.
As long as people post stuff like "the band is clearly better with Taylor", "the music must prevail", "only Taylor fans put the music first" you are pissing on the rest of the board (the majority).
That's why people are calling 6-7 of the Taylorites a cult.
Drop the arrogance, skip the unnecessary comparisons and lose the bitterness. Then this thread and imo the whole board will become a better place.
And Max is a good guy. He's been posting here since the 90s. One of the best posters around. NOT a troll.
No, you, Dreamer and this idiot are the ones calling Taylorites a cult. Over and over again.
Quote
NaturalustQuote
StoneburstQuote
stoneheartedQuote
LeonioidBWWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAQuote
stonehearted
Max, is that you?
Oh god, it is him, isn't it?
No Max was pretty cool. I suggest we don't feed this troll. Every time I've tried to nicely ask this guy to quit provoking fans here, he immediately answers with some insulting and offensive personal post, then goes into Eddie Haskell mode on every other post. As has been pointed out, completely ignoring is the best solution...man, I know it's hard.
I think latebloomer's post makes a pretty good point. All I can add is that the dynamics of two vs three guitarists are a lot harder to manage and I just don't think the Stones want to work that hard on such things at this point. Nor do I have any expectations of them to do so....they are old men and any such expectations are not realistic, a few years back maybe but not now. It's amazing that we expect as much as we do actually.
I have no doubt the music would have become more fresh and better with Taylor playing more songs. The Stones would have been the first to recognize this and where would it leave them then? Either they invite MT back into the band or they don't and continue to do their best realizing that their true best musical output isn't really happening. It's a tough position to be in and I think it was too easy for them to make the break as soon as possible and not have recent memories of how good the music actually was with Taylor playing more songs.
That being said, could Taylor have made the recent SF show more spectacular? Of course he could have, but then he would have had to be included in the whole tour, on all the songs he improved during that show. And again if the music was so improved, where would it leave them next year? In a way he is/was just too good to be a temporary guest and inviting him back as a member would probably have been the only logical solution, and this obviously wasn't going to happen at this late stage of the Stones game.
peace
Quote
kleermakerQuote
NaturalustQuote
StoneburstQuote
stoneheartedQuote
LeonioidBWWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAQuote
stonehearted
Max, is that you?
Oh god, it is him, isn't it?
No Max was pretty cool. I suggest we don't feed this troll. Every time I've tried to nicely ask this guy to quit provoking fans here, he immediately answers with some insulting and offensive personal post, then goes into Eddie Haskell mode on every other post. As has been pointed out, completely ignoring is the best solution...man, I know it's hard.
I think latebloomer's post makes a pretty good point. All I can add is that the dynamics of two vs three guitarists are a lot harder to manage and I just don't think the Stones want to work that hard on such things at this point. Nor do I have any expectations of them to do so....they are old men and any such expectations are not realistic, a few years back maybe but not now. It's amazing that we expect as much as we do actually.
I have no doubt the music would have become more fresh and better with Taylor playing more songs. The Stones would have been the first to recognize this and where would it leave them then? Either they invite MT back into the band or they don't and continue to do their best realizing that their true best musical output isn't really happening. It's a tough position to be in and I think it was too easy for them to make the break as soon as possible and not have recent memories of how good the music actually was with Taylor playing more songs.
That being said, could Taylor have made the recent SF show more spectacular? Of course he could have, but then he would have had to be included in the whole tour, on all the songs he improved during that show. And again if the music was so improved, where would it leave them next year? In a way he is/was just too good to be a temporary guest and inviting him back as a member would probably have been the only logical solution, and this obviously wasn't going to happen at this late stage of the Stones game.
peace
Yeah, there is a lot of logic in your post. But the way they treated the whole issue, suggesting that Taylor were sick while he was just playing with his cat and biking around in Holland was below the belt.
Sometimes it's hard to tell the truth, but that isn't an excuse for such a lie.
Quote
onlystones
I'm not taking any sides I never do when it comes to MT. But the facts are he quit. He was never booted. So if he was booted the question is why did he get booted for the first time.
Quote
Come OnQuote
onlystones
I'm not taking any sides I never do when it comes to MT. But the facts are he quit. He was never booted. So if he was booted the question is why did he get booted for the first time.
He didn't laughed at Keiths jokes...
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Come OnQuote
onlystones
I'm not taking any sides I never do when it comes to MT. But the facts are he quit. He was never booted. So if he was booted the question is why did he get booted for the first time.
He didn't laughed at Keiths jokes...
He was close a few times, though..
Quote
24FPS
Always try to remember the real time when Taylor was there. Mick Taylor never fit visually. That front line of Jagger/Richards/Jones set the template. Taylor was so quiet, with little stage presence. They already had the Cigar Indian Duo in Wyman and Watts. It was obvious, especially upon later listening, that Taylor was a supreme musician, but one who was uncomfortable being a hired gun and either needed to express himself more within the group, or move on without it.
Quote
24FPS
Always try to remember the real time when Taylor was there. Mick Taylor never fit visually. That front line of Jagger/Richards/Jones set the template. Taylor was so quiet, with little stage presence. They already had the Cigar Indian Duo in Wyman and Watts. It was obvious, especially upon later listening, that Taylor was a supreme musician, but one who was uncomfortable being a hired gun and either needed to express himself more within the group, or move on without it.
And you can never forget the times. It was the mid-70s, when jazz fusion was really big and the Stones were sort of scoffed at as rudimentary musicians playing simple songs. There were probably people in Taylor's ear that told him he could be in much better bands, or even a solo artist.
Oh yeah, and heroin.
Quote
NaturalustQuote
24FPS
Always try to remember the real time when Taylor was there. Mick Taylor never fit visually. That front line of Jagger/Richards/Jones set the template. Taylor was so quiet, with little stage presence. They already had the Cigar Indian Duo in Wyman and Watts. It was obvious, especially upon later listening, that Taylor was a supreme musician, but one who was uncomfortable being a hired gun and either needed to express himself more within the group, or move on without it.
Couldn't disagree more on the visual fit. I wasn't around for the Brian era but I always thought the quiet blond kid Taylor was back in 1969-1974 was a perfect balance to the dark but loud personas of Mick and Keith. He was the one I was drawn to and was the perfect compliment to round out this boy band. His stand in the corner ripping serious guitar and on stage "humility" only added to the appeal, imo.
People always say Ronnie was the perfect visual fit for the Stones but I always thought he was basically a Keith clone and they lost some purely visual appeal with another black haired skinny English rocker in the mix. In my case some obvious musical appeal was lost too.
peace
Quote
nightskyman
I keep wondering what would happen if they had Eric Clapton or Jeff Beck instead of Mick Taylor as the lead guitarist...but that's the subject of another thread.