Oh Yap Yap, I assume nothing about you. I only read and understand. Your opinion is yours. I hope you keep it well. I need it not.

Bingo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does any of that body of work come close to his
> creation with Led Zep? Much of it is Led Zep with
> different personal.
>
> The Golden years of The Rolling Stones, are the
> years Mick Taylor played guitar. There isn't even
> a close debate.
>
> 50-100 years from now, not many people will be
> talking about Steel Wheels, Dirty Work, BTB, etc.
>
> No, they'll be playing the music from Jones and
> Taylor albums, or maybe the Harvey Mandel days?
> LOL


without wishing to get into a pissing contest about it (because I like Taylor and love the era youre so keen on) I would say that there IS some debate about what the 'golden years' of the Stones are. Taylor only came into the band in mid 1969, at a time when much of Let it Bleed had been written or recorded. The period that preceded that is the period for which the Stones ARE most synonymous. Their public perception is as a great 60's band, so even while thats a bit inaccurate, its a question thats certainly open for debate to most people. Jumpin Jack Flash, Sympathy for the Devil and Satisfaction (three of their most fanous signature tunes) were released prior to Taylor's involvement.

THE 'iconic' era for which the Stones will always be identified however, is the first one with Brian Jones.

Personally, I'd date the golden era as 1968-72, not mid 1969- 1974. The essential difference being that it was an era when Mick and Keith were writing their greatest songs and , not coincidentally, when they were being produced by Jimmy Miller.

Fine words Mr Gazza......

thanks Gazza.

-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-02-02 13:24 by Ket.

Gazza Wrote:

>
> Personally, I'd date the golden era as 1968-72,
> not mid 1969- 1974. The essential difference being
> that it was an era when Mick and Keith were
> writing their greatest songs and , not
> coincidentally, when they were being produced by
> Jimmy Miller.

Fully agree, only I'd smuggle an extra year and make it 1968-1973, if only for the Australian shows of that year.

----------------------------
"Music is the frozen tapioca in the ice chest of history."

"Shit!... No shit, awright!"

well..I specifically meant the band's recorded output, Greg which is what their legacy will be as its preserved on official releases. Both tours in ''73 were amongst their best for sure, however.

"Gazza Wrote:

Mick and Keith were
writing their greatest songs and , not
coincidentally, when they were being produced by
Jimmy Miller."

Yup, very well put!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-02-02 15:10 by His Majesty.

You could also arguably date the band's relative decline as a creative force around that era not just to Taylor's eventual departure and Miller's burn-out as a producer, but Richards' creativity being eventually hampered by heavy drug use (at its worst by the mid 70s), Jagger's jet-set lifestyle having a negative affect on his own creative muse and a gradual deterioration in the relationship between both Glimmer Twins - part of which being down to them ceasing to work as a 'team' like before as they wrote apart more and more and as often as not ceased living in the same country. It's no coincidence IMO that the more they saw of each other, the better they worked together. Up until the early 70's they were living only a couple of hundred yards apart in the same street - their respective lifestyles and circle of acquaintances changed dramatically after the band moved to France in 1971. All artists eventually reach a period of creative burnout or decline but its increasingly hard to keep a creative partnership firing on all cylinders when you live for most of the time on separate continents.

i guess its tough to establish a causative link but 68-73 or 68-72 or whatever, those years dovetail almost perfectly with mick taylor's involvement in the band....also mick taylor, seems to me, never gets credit for my favorite live album of all time.. i speak of ya ya's....

we cannot establish whether mick taylor made those great years what they were but i hope we can agree that without him they surely would not have happened....ya ya's , for sure, is impossible to conceive of without mick taylor's blistering leads (and keith's too!)

but i realize we cannot even agree on that.... i read a lot of posts saying that with or without mick taylor things would have been the same..i think this is rubbish....

i think mick taylor is one of the greats.. people here conveniently diminish his contributions by citing his bad decision to leave the stones or his meager output post-stones but i don't see how either of those facts tarnishes what he accomplished as a stone.

Things would have been different, but also rather similar...

Mick Taylor did not make those magical albums appear, the band were already on that path before he joined, the source for that is Mick and Keith.

Ok perhaps a few tunes would not exist had Mick Taylor not joined, but the main body of work is Mick and Keith's songs!

In most cases, Mick's playing is just the icing on the cake.

And, imagine Some Girls with MT???

Some Girls with MT?Terrible.

Pleased to meet you......

stoned_in_dc Wrote:
a ya's , for sure, is impossible to
> conceive of without mick taylor's blistering leads
> (and keith's too!)

It's not a true live album, but anyway...

It's not impossible to concieve such an album without MT, it would just have been different depending on who was in MT's place.

Keith may or may not have had to play more of the lead if a more rthymic player was in MT place, something Keith was more than capable of doing at that time.

Certainly a lot of interest concerning Mick Taylor on this board.

At any given time the first page of the board will have several topics concerning MT.

... until i started reading message boards like this one, the only feeling i had about Mick T
was that he sure played some nice guitar.
the regular diatribes from folks who get all het up and judgemental about stuff they're only speculating about,
and who seem to think making exaggerated/untrue claims and/or dissing others is a way to make Mick T look good,
have messed up my appreciation for him with a sludge of negativity. i resent that.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> well..I specifically meant the band's recorded
> output, Greg which is what their legacy will be as
> its preserved on official releases. Both tours in
> ''73 were amongst their best for sure, however.

That's why I smuggled that extra year in ;-)

Generally speaking, I think MT's greatest legacy is bringing beauty and lyricism to the music, in a period the Stones transformed to a hard rocking band, whether it was live or in the studio making records that defined modern rock. I would go so far and call it adding a dimension.

I just can't understand people who try to put this down.

----------------------------
"Music is the frozen tapioca in the ice chest of history."

"Shit!... No shit, awright!"

Greg, I would agree MT did add an extra dimension to the Stones sound whether it was in the studio or a live setting.

Lyricism to a hard rocking sound. A great combination and one that I don't hear with the Stones anymore.

30 years later guys........

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bingo Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Does any of that body of work come close to his
> > creation with Led Zep? Much of it is Led Zep
> with
> > different personal.
> >
> > The Golden years of The Rolling Stones, are the
> > years Mick Taylor played guitar. There isn't
> even
> > a close debate.
> >
> > 50-100 years from now, not many people will be
> > talking about Steel Wheels, Dirty Work, BTB,
> etc.
> >
> > No, they'll be playing the music from Jones and
> > Taylor albums, or maybe the Harvey Mandel days?
> > LOL
>
>
> without wishing to get into a pissing contest
> about it (because I like Taylor and love the era
> youre so keen on) I would say that there IS some
> debate about what the 'golden years' of the Stones
> are. Taylor only came into the band in mid 1969,
> at a time when much of Let it Bleed had been
> written or recorded. The period that preceded that
> is the period for which the Stones ARE most
> synonymous. Their public perception is as a great
> 60's band, so even while thats a bit inaccurate,
> its a question thats certainly open for debate to
> most people. Jumpin Jack Flash, Sympathy for the
> Devil and Satisfaction (three of their most fanous
> signature tunes) were released prior to Taylor's
> involvement.
>
> THE 'iconic' era for which the Stones will always
> be identified however, is the first one with Brian
> Jones.
>
> Personally, I'd date the golden era as 1968-72,
> not mid 1969- 1974. The essential difference being
> that it was an era when Mick and Keith were
> writing their greatest songs and , not
> coincidentally, when they were being produced by
> Jimmy Miller.




I can't disagree with one word you said, I should have been a bit clearer at 3am in the morning....I should have said the golden years of "Live" Rolling Stones music. IMO.

I fully acknowledge Brian Jones and his work, as I said before...

> > 50-100 years from now, not many people will be
> > talking about Steel Wheels, Dirty Work, BTB,
> etc.
> >
> > No, they'll be playing the music from Jones and
> > Taylor albums


I agree, no need for a pissing match, just a influx of opinions on what era "we" as individuals enjoy.

: )

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... until i started reading message boards like
> this one, the only feeling i had about Mick T
> was that he sure played some nice guitar.
> the regular diatribes from folks who get all het
> up and judgemental about stuff they're only
> speculating about,
> and who seem to think making exaggerated/untrue
> claims and/or dissing others is a way to make Mick
> T look good,
> have messed up my appreciation for him with a
> sludge of negativity. i resent that.


I know what you mean.....I think it was OpenG who got me started on a downhill slide against Taylor.Of course,IORR Reality and real reality are two different things.I have my seperate view of Mick Taylor the man and player.Some would agree,some not,who cares?

And,not trying to be funny here at all,but what does "het up" mean? I've never heard that expression before and am curious?

Pleased to meet you......

Great posts Gaz.

I'd call the golden era 1968 to 1981. There's a golden era inside this golden era though. That's '68 to '78. The second golden era, for me, is between1994 and 2006, though only counting 3 albums it's a very good period. Kick ass tours and nothing but great albums.

JumpingKentFlash

"het up" is probably derived from "heated up" - overexcited, usually in an angry way.

i should note that i don't "blame" Mick T for the cloud of crummy atmosphere that follows his name around on message boards,
but not letting that interfere with my appreciation for him is something i have to put an effort into,
and as i said i resent that. i also resent how it seems to be impossible to have a normal discussion about him
without it deteriorating into outlandish unpleasantness. if people are so moved by his music
i wish they'd just let it shine. that's what it's for.

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "het up" is probably derived from "heated up" -
> overexcited, usually in an angry way.
>
> i should note that i don't "blame" Mick T for the
> cloud of crummy atmosphere that follows his name
> around on message boards,
> but not letting that interfere with my
> appreciation for him is something i have to put an
> effort into,
> and as i said i resent that. i also resent how it
> seems to be impossible to have a normal discussion
> about him
> without it deteriorating into outlandish
> unpleasantness. if people are so moved by his
> music
> i wish they'd just let it shine. that's what it's
> for.


This is distressing, sssoul...have some popcorn and don't let the unpleasantness touch the music...

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>i also resent how it
> seems to be impossible to have a normal discussion
> about him
> without it deteriorating into outlandish
> unpleasantness. if people are so moved by his
> music
> i wish they'd just let it shine. that's what it's
> for.


Hear, hear Ms. Ssoul!

Time Waits For No One is enough to justify his legend on its own.

Chav Watch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Time Waits For No One is enough to justify his
> legend on its own.

He is NOT legend, just a has been guitar player that was in the stones for a few years.

February will be a MICK TAYLOR free month here on IORR. If you need to talk about Mick Taylor - 30+ years after he quit the Stones - then feel free to discuss other places, but not on IORR. Or may be you ned to start your own MT web site. I see some people (the same people) keep starting new threads on variations on this subject - Mick Taylor related - almost daily here. From now on new Mick Taylor threads will be closed, and may be deleted. I am pretty sure some of these people do these posts more as campaigns than just for the sake of an intelligent discussion. It's a policy issue, and it is not open for discussions. Thank you.

Bjornulf