| 2nd October 2007 12:38 AM |
|
|
| oldkr |
Nothing was wrong with it, it just wasn't impressive at all. Honestly, I don't understand the hype of Mick Taylor. The only thing that he ever somewhat impressed me with is his speed and fluidity. His playing isn't unique at all. It has no character, no style. Not even his tone stands out. If you would listen to an audio of Mick Taylor with a bunch of other average blues guitarist, I doubt you'd be able pick out which solo was done by Taylor. All the really great guitar players sound unique and have their own style. BB King has his vibrato and sustain, Chuck Berry has his double-stops, Hendrix had this great way of manipulating tones and effects, Jeff Beck and Santana use these different scales to bring out these great melodies, Keith has his catchy riffs and open-g tuning...etc. Taylor has one tone and one scale perfected, but that's really it.
BRA-fucking-VO
somebody finally articulated why i don't "get taylor" he is soul-less!
OLDKR |
| 2nd October 2007 12:43 AM |
|
|
| Zack |
quote:
mrhipfl wrote:
If you would listen to an audio of Mick Taylor with a bunch of other average blues guitarist, I doubt you'd be able pick out which solo was done by Taylor.
Disagree completly, young man. The fact is he DOES stand out amongst others. That's what all the fuss is about.
I don't take the bait on Taylor vs. Wood, but I do take umbrage with those who deny he's an exceptional guitarist.
[Edited by Zack] |
| 2nd October 2007 07:56 AM |
|
|
| jostorm |
quote:
mojoman wrote:
cant be any worse than peter green!!!
So true....
But Peter Green has a better haircut....
I caught him at the 100Club a few years back.
Good guitarist.
Shame about the lack of stage presence, and his skills in communicating with the audience are non-existent..
Have a great time, Bitch! |
| 2nd October 2007 07:58 AM |
|
|
| jostorm |
quote:
Ten Thousand Motels wrote:
What's more pointless than 27,263 posts on a message board?
27298 that leave everyone catatonic with boredom???????? |
| 2nd October 2007 10:47 AM |
|
|
| gustavobala |
LOL,
NOW, ronnie is good, mick taylor only average....
God! |
| 2nd October 2007 12:58 PM |
|
|
| Dr Iff |
This is a good topic, of which I'm no expert. Taylor did do the slide lead on 'All down the line' which I thought was exceptional, yes? His stage presence sucked. It was as though(maybe because he's American-right?No wrong! He's from Hatfield, a London suburb -i don't think I ever heard him speak)he was separated from the band. Bobby Keyes is American, but he just does solos anyway. I guess when the rest of the band knew each other from childhood....what d'you expect I'm not quite sure if Ronnie Wood's playing fits the Stones needs as much as Taylor's,(or Jones's for that matter). Wood is more interchangeable with Richards than any of them however, and perhaps a better social fit.
[Edited by Dr Iff]
[Edited by Dr Iff]
[Edited by Dr Iff]
[Edited by Dr Iff] |
| 2nd October 2007 02:04 PM |
|
|
| texile |
old,
you're treading in dangerous waters...
taylor had an incomparable feel for melody..
his blues was accomplished and incendiary, but you're right - there are countless great blues artists and so many blend together - because the blues is based on a very limited playing scale -
but taylor would always go out on a limb for a melodic flourish....anyone can LEARN the blues scale, but finding melody is an intangible, and a rare gift.
(john mayer reminds me more of taylor than clapton because of this and that's a compliment)
something most blues players DON'T do - because it's off the standard scale.
what belli said is correct,
taylor's strength was in what he contributed to the stones' music - it's just untouchable.
if you're a musician, you get it -
if not, then it's all academic. |
| 2nd October 2007 02:37 PM |
|
|
| mrhipfl |
I don't think his playing is that melodic at all (of course there are some exceptions like "time waits for no one"). All he does is play familiar blues licks over and over again at an impressive speed. Anyone that has practiced and played blues guitar for 3 years can do what Taylor does.
The Stones were at their songwriting and performing peak with Taylor, no doubt about that. But it wasn't because of Taylor. |
| 2nd October 2007 02:51 PM |
|
|
| texile |
quote:
mrhipfl wrote:
I don't think his playing is that melodic at all (of course there are some exceptions like "time waits for no one"). All he does is play familiar blues licks over and over again at an impressive speed.
well,
i guess if you can't hear mr....
there's nothing anyone could SAY to make it audible to you.
my, how we listen with different ears and eyes.
|
| 2nd October 2007 03:01 PM |
|
|
| Mel Belli |
quote:
mrhipfl wrote:
I don't think his playing is that melodic at all (of course there are some exceptions like "time waits for no one"). All he does is play familiar blues licks over and over again at an impressive speed. Anyone that has practiced and played blues guitar for 3 years can do what Taylor does.
That's just crazy ... His chops weren't, in fact, all that fast. They were fluid, but that's different. And to name only TWFNO as a rare melodic expection is equally crazy. There's Winter, Shine A Light, If You Really Want to Be My Friend, Tops, Tumbling Dice, YCAGWYW live ... for God's sake, Moonlight Mile, Sway. If you think those solos are nothing but familiar blues licks -- licks that can be mastered in 3 years! -- then you're from a different species. |
| 2nd October 2007 03:19 PM |
|
|
| texile |
quote:
Mel Belli wrote:
That's just crazy ... His chops weren't, in fact, all that fast. They were fluid, but that's different. And to name only TWFNO as a rare melodic expection is equally crazy. There's Winter, Shine A Light, If You Really Want to Be My Friend, Tops, Tumbling Dice, YCAGWYW live ... for God's sake, Moonlight Mile, Sway. If you think those solos are nothing but familiar blues licks -- licks that can be mastered in 3 years! -- then you're from a different species.
how can anyone listen to ycagwyw live and not get it?
those 72, 73 solos were different every night.
live, taylor really showed his melodic strengths..
check out no expectations from the nicarguan benefit.
|
| 2nd October 2007 03:36 PM |
|
|
| mrhipfl |
He's a great player, sure, but there's no way he would have made it very far as a guitarist without the Stones. Exile on Main St. and Sticky Fingers would have been just as great as they are now had they chosen a different guitar player at the time.
It's easy to tell how good a guitar player is by listening to him play the twelve bar blues, because you get to hear their unique tone and character and style. And when I listen to Taylor play the blues, I don't hear anything that special, nothing sets him apart from the rest.
I've been playing guitar for about 2 years now, and I could pull off pretty much any Taylor solo after a week or two of practice. But it would be harder for me to learn a Faces song because Ronnie had a very unique style of playing. |
| 2nd October 2007 03:45 PM |
|
|
| texile |
quote:
mrhipfl wrote:
He's a great player, sure, but there's no way he would have made it very far as a guitarist without the Stones. Exile on Main St. and Sticky Fingers would have been just as great as they are now had they chosen a different guitar player at the time.
It's easy to tell how good a guitar player is by listening to him play the twelve bar blues, because you get to hear their unique tone and character and style. And when I listen to Taylor play the blues, I don't hear anything that special, nothing sets him apart from the rest.
I've been playing guitar for about 2 years now, and I could pull off pretty much any Taylor solo after a week or two of practice. But it would be harder for me to learn a Faces song because Ronnie had a very unique style of playing.
i've been playing guitar for 30 years now and you can't just mimic that kind of fluidity or grace.
you're missing the point:
you keep talking about the blues -
but im talking about melody...
you may be able to mimic a solo -
anyone with an ear can do that, but you didn't do it first.
play the solo from winter or moonlight mile - learn it not for note -
and then tell me you did it -
but going down that road by foot isn't the same as flying.
it's not about whether he's the best or greatest -
but he had something special. |
| 2nd October 2007 03:52 PM |
|
|
| mrhipfl |
Yeah, I'll listen closely to Sticky Fingers and Exile tonight before I go to sleep and see if my opinions change. Either way, it's a stupid argument since music is all based on personal taste and opinion anyway.  |
| 2nd October 2007 04:13 PM |
|
|
| texile |
quote:
mrhipfl wrote:
Yeah, I'll listen closely to Sticky Fingers and Exile tonight before I go to sleep and see if my opinions change. Either way, it's a stupid argument since music is all based on personal taste and opinion anyway.
forget about the blues,
just listen to the beauty. |
| 2nd October 2007 04:41 PM |
|
|
| yellerstang |
"Nothing was wrong with it, it just wasn't impressive at all. Honestly, I don't understand the hype of Mick Taylor. The only thing that he ever somewhat impressed me with is his speed and fluidity. His playing isn't unique at all. It has no character, no style. Not even his tone stands out. If you would listen to an audio of Mick Taylor with a bunch of other average blues guitarist, I doubt you'd be able pick out which solo was done by Taylor. All the really great guitar players sound unique and have their own style. BB King has his vibrato and sustain, Chuck Berry has his double-stops, Hendrix had this great way of manipulating tones and effects, Jeff Beck and Santana use these different scales to bring out these great melodies, Keith has his catchy riffs and open-g tuning...etc. Taylor has one tone and one scale perfected, but that's really it."
Dumbest.......post.........ever. |
| 2nd October 2007 04:41 PM |
|
|
| Chris74 |
quote:
oldkr wrote:
Nothing was wrong with it, it just wasn't impressive at all. Honestly, I don't understand the hype of Mick Taylor. The only thing that he ever somewhat impressed me with is his speed and fluidity. His playing isn't unique at all. It has no character, no style. Not even his tone stands out. If you would listen to an audio of Mick Taylor with a bunch of other average blues guitarist, I doubt you'd be able pick out which solo was done by Taylor. All the really great guitar players sound unique and have their own style. BB King has his vibrato and sustain, Chuck Berry has his double-stops, Hendrix had this great way of manipulating tones and effects, Jeff Beck and Santana use these different scales to bring out these great melodies, Keith has his catchy riffs and open-g tuning...etc. Taylor has one tone and one scale perfected, but that's really it.
BRA-fucking-VO
somebody finally articulated why i don't "get taylor" he is soul-less!
OLDKR
This is not true, Taylor had definetely his own style, you can tell a Taylor solo always if you hear it. He had a more variable playing style than Hendrix.
|
| 2nd October 2007 04:46 PM |
|
|
| Chris74 |
quote:
mrhipfl wrote:
He's a great player, sure, but there's no way he would have made it very far as a guitarist without the Stones. Exile on Main St. and Sticky Fingers would have been just as great as they are now had they chosen a different guitar player at the time.
It's easy to tell how good a guitar player is by listening to him play the twelve bar blues, because you get to hear their unique tone and character and style. And when I listen to Taylor play the blues, I don't hear anything that special, nothing sets him apart from the rest.
I've been playing guitar for about 2 years now, and I could pull off pretty much any Taylor solo after a week or two of practice. But it would be harder for me to learn a Faces song because Ronnie had a very unique style of playing.
Rubbish, you can not play a Taylor solo after 2 years - it is simply not possible. Post your solo here in the threat then we can vote.
True: Without the Stones he wouldn't have made it so far.
False: Sticky and Exile would have been the same without Taylor. His contributions were unbeatable. |
| 2nd October 2007 04:50 PM |
|
|
| Chris74 |
quote:
mrhipfl wrote:
I don't think his playing is that melodic at all (of course there are some exceptions like "time waits for no one"). All he does is play familiar blues licks over and over again at an impressive speed. Anyone that has practiced and played blues guitar for 3 years can do what Taylor does.
The Stones were at their songwriting and performing peak with Taylor, no doubt about that. But it wasn't because of Taylor.
Rubbish - you can not play Taylor like solos after 3 years guitar practicing, most of us won't be able to play even the easiest Taylor solo after their whole life practicing.
His playing was by all means very melodic. His playing was more variable than Jimi Hendrix. The Stones peak was among other things also because of Taylors skills no doubt about that. |
| 2nd October 2007 05:01 PM |
|
|
| texile |
quote:
Chris74 wrote:
Rubbish - you can not play Taylor like solos after 3 years guitar practicing, most of us won't be able to play even the easiest Taylor solo after their whole life practicing.
exactly - i can do my version of keith and ronnie because it's about feel -
but doing taylor required a more complex skill and grace...
|
| 2nd October 2007 09:17 PM |
|
|
| jpenn11 |
quote:
mrhipfl wrote:
He's a great player, sure, but there's no way he would have made it very far as a guitarist without the Stones.
He was well established with Mayall's Bluesbreakers before the Stones. His predecessors in that role were Peter Green and Eric Clapton. Any band he joined would have obtained instant celebrity status.
Also, it is conceivable that his time with the Stones stunted rather than advanced his musical development. That presumably was among the reasons he left.
quote:
Exile on Main St. and Sticky Fingers would have been just as great as they are now had they chosen a different guitar player at the time.
The contributions of Taylor to the Jagger/Richards sound added a third dimension and influenced the songs in dramatic ways, not merely adding a few notes. Their collaborators since then have not helped them--or pushed them--to reach the same heights.
RS: What about the contribution of Mick Taylor to the band in these years?
MJ: I think he had a big contribution. He made it very musical. He was a very fluent, melodic player, which we never had, and we don't have now. Neither Keith nor [Ronnie Wood] plays that kind of style. It was very good for me working with him. Charlie and I were talking about this the other day, because we could sit down -- I could sit down -- with Mick Taylor, and he would play very fluid lines against my vocals. He was exciting, and he was very pretty, and it gave me something to follow, to bang off. Some people think that's the best version of the band that existed.
John Phillips reports on Keith's experience of being pushed by Taylor:
"says Phillips... After Mick Taylor played a tremendous solo on 'Oh Virginia,' Keith turned to him and said, 'Now I know why I never liked you!''"
quote:
It's easy to tell how good a guitar player is by listening to him play the twelve bar blues, because you get to hear their unique tone and character and style. /quote]
'In 1997’s British GUITAR magazine, ... a very conciliatory statement from Richards from 1996: “Mick’s a great weaver...his touch, his tone, and his melodic ideas wowed me. I never understood why he left...”
Regardless, I wonder that one would tell how good a player Richards is by listening to his playing on Little Queenie or Let It Rock, which don't convey to me what makes Richards stand out.
[quote]
And when I listen to Taylor play the blues, I don't hear anything that special,
One wonders why you think he's "great".
quote:
nothing sets him apart from the rest.
It is fairly easy to pick out Taylor from Wood in Black Limousine in the KC '81 show, from even Santana in the '84 Dylan shows, and from Clapton in both the '84 Dylan London show and 2003 Mayall show.
That soulful, melodic, improvisational style and incredible phrasing make him exceptional for me.
quote:
I've been playing guitar for about 2 years now, and I could pull off pretty much any Taylor solo after a week or two of practice. But it would be harder for me to learn a Faces song because Ronnie had a very unique style of playing.
I too would like to hear Taylor's playing emulated after two years. |
| 2nd October 2007 09:28 PM |
|
|
| mrhipfl |
well, I guess that's it for my arguments, then....
This isn't the first time I've been proven wrong, ya know.
for what it's worth, here's a link to my attempt of Taylor's sympathy for the devil solo after about a year of playing guitar:
http://mrhipfl.dmusic.com/ |
| 2nd October 2007 10:13 PM |
|
|
| Bitch |
MICK TAYLOR was fantastic as a Rolling Stone - he HAD IT back in the 70's. I'm just wondering if her still HAS IT now, which is why I'm going to the Beacon to see the gig. He isnt making too much money, all those musicians on the stage and the tickets were only $35.00. Wow. Thats almost embarassing. Humiliating. |
| 2nd October 2007 10:50 PM |
|
|
| oldkr |
all he added was droning over-complicated superfluous guitar based-verbosity to the best songs ever written, you can call it melodic, you can call it virtuosity. I think its boring as hell, I'd take a late 70s boot over a 73 boot any day of the week. And why, well because thats my personal taste; but then again I prefer to appreciate the space between the notes the drama and the passion, not an endless james-like stream of "melody". But thats my own taste and to each his own.
OLDKR |
| 2nd October 2007 11:56 PM |
|
|
| Zack |
Don't talk shit about Taylor!
You know what? {five minuetes after my Tourette's guy quip) As I am sitting at work listening to Bach's Partita #3 in A minor and the melody is dancing around a lovely phrase it in the Il Corrente section it struck me: it is not unlike the electric guitar work of Mick Taylor. Like old Johann Sebastian, there is beauty in his playing. Some people may say that's inappropriate or incongruous with rock and roll, but not for me.
[Edited by Zack] |
| 3rd October 2007 12:02 AM |
|
|
| Throwaway |
I like Taylor here...at his best as a sideman, like always. He doesn't get many solos but his rhythm is strong and he makes the most of his spots. From Oct 27 1981:
http://tela.sugarmegs.org/_asxtela/AlvinLee1981-10-27MickTaylorFirenzeItaly.asx
(right click, save, open in windows media, voila) |
| 3rd October 2007 12:59 AM |
|
|
| glencar |
Taylor had his day. It's in the past but no knowledgable Stones fan could say he wasn't excellent when he was with the Stones. He brought out the best in them and vice versa; just like a good band does. Tired of people talking out their ass! |
| 3rd October 2007 07:41 AM |
|
|
| oldkr |
MT was more kenny G than bach.
glencar no true stonesfan can care what MT did half a lifetime ago, he is irrelevamt.
OLDKR |
| 3rd October 2007 07:56 AM |
|
|
| Ade |
quote:
oldkr wrote:
glencar no true stonesfan can care what MT did half a lifetime ago, he is irrelevamt.
OLDKR
who's to define the criteria for being a
'true stones fan'?
|
| 3rd October 2007 08:57 AM |
|
|
| Mel Belli |
quote:
mrhipfl wrote:
well, I guess that's it for my arguments, then....
This isn't the first time I've been proven wrong, ya know.
for what it's worth, here's a link to my attempt of Taylor's sympathy for the devil solo after about a year of playing guitar:
http://mrhipfl.dmusic.com/
Hey, not bad for only one year's experience... |
