Quote
Nikkei

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.

Was the open G not used then with "Brown Sugar" during the 73 tour?

Quote
runaway

Quote
Nikkei

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.

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.

From the RS review [www.rollingstone.com]

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.

It sounds like Ronnie didn't even try a solo on CYHMK, probably just as well given his previous attempts, I guess that's "some" consolation but still, what a friggin' missed opportunity, depriving themselves and the fans of that glorious moment.

--------------
IORR Links : Essential Studio Outtakes CDs : Audio - History of Rarest Outtakes : Audio

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
runaway

Quote
Nikkei

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.

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.

During the 1973 Eur. tour Keith played solos on Heartbreaker, MR, Angie, Star Star, HT Women. Also adding to the melody on Gimme Shelter, Tumbling Dice, YCAGWYW. Further his well known and dominant riffs on BS, Dancing w. Mr. D., etc. It's too simple to divide them into rhythm and lead only.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-05-22 19:57 by kleermaker.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
runaway

Quote
Nikkei

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.

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.

Thanks for your info and were they using the same amps during the 73 tour as in 69? I'm a fan of their sound from 69-73 even with the band exploring various guitar sounds.


No doubt that Rotterdam 73 is my favourite concert. 3x sold out concerts.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
TravelinMan

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.

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...

I was referring to the recruitment of Taylor. But yes, B&B is an interesting album to say the least. Also never thought about Caribbean connection, good observation.

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
Leonioid

Quote
stonehearted

BWWAAAAHAHAHAHAHA

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
Naturalust

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
Leonioid

Quote
stonehearted

BWWAAAAHAHAHAHAHA

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

Yes, Max was cool if you agreed with him or you liked his big "funny" pictures he so loved to post, but he was extremely hostile to anyone who even mentioned Mick Taylor, and he also hated Bill Wyman (calling him "boring", and Taylor "fat"). So, while I came to like him, he certainly was not the most even-tempered debater, and tended to mock or shout down anyone who didn't agree with his fanboy approach. I liked the guy, but I don't think he should get a pass, as I remember several very unpleasant exchanges with him.

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
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
Stoneburst

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.

No, you, Dreamer and this idiot are the ones calling Taylorites a cult. Over and over again.

I have never used those words, but have a look over at the MT-thread now.

Quote
Stoneburst

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.

No, you, Dreamer and this idiot are the ones calling Taylorites a cult. Over and over again.

If the term fits-

cult- noun: cult; plural noun: cults
a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
Leonioid

Quote
stonehearted

BWWAAAAHAHAHAHAHA

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
kleermaker

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
Leonioid

Quote
stonehearted

BWWAAAAHAHAHAHAHA

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.

Without much real information on the facts of the matter, I would like to assume that the sick bit was actually the information Keith had at the time. I think Mick was pretty forthright in just saying no he wouldn't be included. I'm just not sure much of an explanation was really necessary...they made a decision and moved on.

I would of course be disappointed if untrue sick rumors were spread in order to somehow justify his absence, implying that if he was well the possibilities would still exist! I also have been a bit discouraged by the assertions that the insurance against Keith's health problems was the only reason for his inclusion. The irony if both of those happened to be true is pretty obvious.

I guess all we can hope for at this point is that sometime in the future we get another gift from the Stones of Taylor included in some shows and/or recordings. And of course I'd love to see MT get something truly exciting going on his own. A new record would be great some solo shows more than welcome.

peace



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-05-22 22:52 by Naturalust.

What did do to get booted again ?

[www.iorr.org]

Unless your MT is Modern Talking

So what's more there to say about Michael Kevin Taylor, solo-guitarist in The Rolling Stones between 1969 - 1974?

2 1 2 0

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.

had enough. quit. tried to play with others. took awhile, but finally did just that.

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.

He didn't laughed at Keiths jokes...

2 1 2 0

Quote
Come On

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.

He didn't laughed at Keiths jokes...

He was close a few times, though..

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Come On

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.

He didn't laughed at Keiths jokes...

He was close a few times, though..

On this pic it's Mick that tells the jokes...

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.

I respected Mick Taylor as a guitarist with the Stones and I respected it when he left. I assume he had good reasons and I can totally see how spending the rest of the 70s with Mick and Keith would have been self destructive for him.

However the pathetic whining about lack of credit, not being invited back, slagging off band members, etc. I find offensive.

The Rolling Stones were the best thing that happened to Mick Taylor and his playing will be remembered for decades and decades to come because they invited him to play in their band.

At his very best, Mick Taylor knew this and behaved graciously on the 50 and counting tour and I thought that was great and it's a shame that that can't serve as a gracious and appropriate way of closing the chapter on Mick Taylor and The Rolling Stones.

Gold rings on ya Mick Taylor.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-05-22 21:22 by Turner68.

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.

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
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.

What a joke, especially if the one who does "fit visually" adds about 10% of what MT did to the music.

I do agree with your second paragraph though.

All these taylor cultist seem to talk about is how much they dont like the Stones since 1974 and how much they wish taylor was in the band, what a boring cult.

The taylor cult's idea of adding some variety here is to start another taylor thread and then sit and wait for anyone to say anything that does not 100% agree with their "book of taylor" and then overzealously pounce all of the poster screamimng how wrong everyone is, as it will change anyone's opinion.

Everyone knows taylor was good in The Stones, it is too bad he quit, but good grief, don't you taylor cult members have anytyhing else of interest to add or talk about?

Always the same 8-9 taylorcurmudgeons posting the same things over and over and over in every thread, it is boring.

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.

Quote
Naturalust

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.

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

As Jagger has noticed Taylor was a handsome guy back then. I never considered his attitude on stage as humble, but just as cool. Btw: remember he was allowed to be included in the interviews sessions together with Jagger and Richards during the 73 tour. His status in the band surely had grown over the years.

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.

It fits this thread...
I bet those 2 might not have made it as long at taylor did, and the albums might not have been as good.

I say that because as we all know there is a lot more to being in this band than playing the notes... there is lots of ego, and I bet that Eric and Jeff (who are almost too talented- if there is such a thing) would have clashed almost instantly with the glimmer twins way of doing things and been on their way.

Ronnie is a perfect fit for this band and the proof is in the pudding. Not only is he a great guitar player but he can also handle the heat in the kitchen.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-05-22 22:33 by Leonioid.