| 3rd October 2007 09:55 AM |
|
|
| glencar |
quote:
Ade wrote:
who's to define the criteria for being a
'true stones fan'?
LOL That phrase often appears when one can't develop an actual argument. |
| 3rd October 2007 10:06 AM |
|
|
| Ade |
There is no argument.
Taylor was/is a guitar player f the highest calibre.
end of. |
| 3rd October 2007 10:20 AM |
|
|
| oldkr |
Mr L. Would contend he is THE true stones fan , but as he's not here to defend himself, or chide anyone I shall continue the downer on MT.
he bores me, and plenty of others. He now plays bars in finland on tuesday "open mic" nights, the hendrix gig is the biggest thing he's done in years and still no one will know his name, he is washed up. His talent wasted. I've said it before and I'll say it again technical virtuosity does not interesting music make.
I'll say this for a true stones fan you can't possibly be a true fan and claim to have given up on the band musically in the mid 70s.
OLDKR |
| 3rd October 2007 10:56 AM |
|
|
| glencar |
I agree that he no longer has it. I saw him a few years back in NYC & he was rather boring. Plus I do like Ronnie. I've never taken part in those MT v. RW battles. They are who they are & each player did well. |
| 3rd October 2007 11:04 AM |
|
|
| oldkr |
amen to that! where is joshy?
OLDKR |
| 3rd October 2007 11:10 AM |
|
|
| glencar |
He's been in seedier venues lately - courtrooms & such... |
| 3rd October 2007 12:08 PM |
|
|
| jpenn11 |
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/
Thanks for posting the link. You've accomplished quite a lot in a short time. I like the way you handled the Richards rhythm part. However, the second solo would not be confused with Taylor's. At a basic level, in that solo, his playing conveys the chord changes--even when he's playing the same note over again. I'm not sure you can do that at this stage without counting more precisely. Also, his soloing stands out as authoritative. When he's playing he takes over the song and seems to embody it. Importantly, he's also telling a story. The solo isn't a string of notes, but a drama. I would encourage to you keep at it. With most of the notes down, you can work on these other aspects. And your progress shows much promise.
Incidentally, if you were referring to my post, my intention was not to "prove you wrong", but to encourage you to appreciate Taylor from a different perspective. |
| 3rd October 2007 12:32 PM |
|
|
| Mel Belli |
quote:
jpenn11 wrote:
Thanks for posting the link. You've accomplished quite a lot in a short time. I like the way you handled the Richards rhythm part. However, the second solo would not be confused with Taylor's. At a basic level, in that solo, his playing conveys the chord changes--even when he's playing the same note over again. I'm not sure you can do that at this stage without counting more precisely. Also, his soloing stands out as authoritative. When he's playing he takes over the song and seems to embody it. Importantly, he's also telling a story. The solo isn't a string of notes, but a drama. I would encourage to you keep at it. With most of the notes down, you can work on these other aspects. And your progress shows much promise.
Incidentally, if you were referring to my post, my intention was not to "prove you wrong", but to encourage you to appreciate Taylor from a different perspective.
Well put. Playing over chord progressions -- or as horn players say, "blowing through the changes" -- is the hardest thing to learn as a guitarist, especially in the age of tablature, which encourages you to play "in the boxes" without realizing why the notes fit where they do. |
| 4th October 2007 04:07 AM |
|
|
| Zack |
quote:
oldkr wrote:
MT was more kenny G than bach.
glencar no true stonesfan can care what MT did half a lifetime ago, he is irrelevamt.
OLDKR
Bullshit on both counts |
| 4th October 2007 10:57 AM |
|
|
| gustavobala |
if MT is kenny G, what about ronnie wood and brian jones = clowns? |
| 4th October 2007 11:11 AM |
|
|
| BONOISLOVE |
I have a tailor who's called Mick by his wife. Isn't that, like, another fantastic coincidence!?!? |
| 4th October 2007 02:03 PM |
|
|
| Boogie-Woogie |
@mrhipfl: i know i have to accept other opinions, but i really cant stand yours! if you really think mick taylor wasnt something special for the stones, then i really couldnt even speak with you about THE stones a minute...mick taylor and no harmonic abbilities...lol...best joke i ever heard! |
| 4th October 2007 02:08 PM |
|
|
| Boogie-Woogie |
i think mick taylor pushed keith and keith delivered the perfect rythm parts for taylor, and it was by far the best guitar duo back then...just my 2 cents! |
| 4th October 2007 02:15 PM |
|
|
| Boogie-Woogie |
"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."
man youre talkin straight up bullshit!!! in fact it makes me angry sittin here and have to read such a rubbish;-(
they were never the same albums, starting with the fact that keith and taylor just could play togehter...i guess you never heard anything from their 69 tour...a lot of stuff comes from there on stick fingers...sway without taylor the same...lol...unbelievable i have to read something like that!
by the way: i like ronny, but not with the stones.the faces were great, but i just couldnt get into the stones as intensive after taylor quit as before...so youre the lucky man because they produces way more albums with ronny than with taylor;-) |
| 4th October 2007 07:35 PM |
|
|
| texile |
quote:
Boogie-Woogie wrote:
i think mick taylor pushed keith and keith delivered the perfect rythm parts for taylor, and it was by far the best guitar duo back then...just my 2 cents!
yep,
keith never worked played so hard in his life -
he was competitive enough to stnad up to the challenge and we ended up with a great two-guitar attack that just doesn't exist with ronnie, who i love. |
| 4th October 2007 08:27 PM |
|
|
| TomL |
Me and Nanky will be checking him out on the 16th. Don't know what to expect but time will tell. |
| 4th October 2007 10:51 PM |
|
|
| oldkr |
the man did his job, he couldnt handle it and left a thousand years ago, he obviously bored himself stupid. His quest for musical perfection has left him wandering around the norse country doing midweek gigs with no-names.
Anyone who wants to compare a mere guitarist (any single one) with Bach, is clearly more deluded/and or drunk than I.
OLDKR |
| 5th October 2007 12:13 AM |
|
|
| Zack |
quote:
oldkr wrote:
Anyone who wants to compare a mere guitarist (any single one) with Bach, is clearly more deluded/and or drunk than I.
OLDKR
I said that the melody of one particular passage in one particular piece by Bach was "not unlike the electric guitar work of Mick Taylor. Like old Johann Sebastian, there is beauty in his playing."
There is certainly no way that any rock guitarist of the 20th century is in the same league as one of the great masters of classical music, but my saying that Taylor's work is "not unlike" one part of one piece insofar both contain submlime melodic invention is valid, unlike this shrill and losing argument. |
| 5th October 2007 01:48 AM |
|
|
| stonedinaustralia |
without entering into it this is one of the more interesting debates i have seen, tho based mainly on personal taste -
the anti-MT notion would seem to some as the most heinous of heresies or the ravings of cranks and lunatics (the latter being saferas it precludes the idea that the proponents could possibly be serious or, worse still,- correct!!)
quote:
Zack wrote:
There is certainly no way that any rock guitarist of the 20th century is in the same league as one of the great masters of classical music,
Zack I would rate Jimi as the one and only one who is(see recent jimi appreciation thread) - as odious as comparisons maybe,i would compare him to mozart - he absorbed all before him then re-wrote the rule book
I know jimi's work and the accepted facts of his life well - mozart's maybe less so but i am hip to it - however, I cannot see any basis to say that one had a greater or lesser understanding and mastery of his instrument and its rythmic and melodic potential or a greater or lesser influence on the musical style and milieu in which they operated and others beyond it
|
| 5th October 2007 03:57 AM |
|
|
| Altamont |
Clearly, someone had their idiocy amp set to 11 in this thread.
If Taylor's ability equals Kenny G
Then Keith and Ron's ability equals Beavis and Butthead
But I guess that sort of statement isn't allowed amongst Stones insiders and Hangers on.
|
| 5th October 2007 06:16 AM |
|
|
| Boogie-Woogie |
as you may know now i really adore taylors playing with the stones, or better said the stones around 69 till 73, but lets not forget to say that the stones already absolutly rocked when they started;-) i dont know any other band that changed their style of music or better had such a great versatility back then as the stones...and to say it one more time...i really doubt they would have managed to reach that status they had in the 70s(and the abbility to find yound hangers on like me) without taylor back then...
|
| 5th October 2007 07:12 AM |
|
|
| oldkr |
btw, I'm just being silly (in case anyone here runs a get MT back board) I do think he is over-rated, I do think there are more interesting live performances than Taylor took part in. I don't think Taylor was anywhere as talented - in melody, or anything else- as Bach. Kenny G is a very technically talented musician, but his stuff is boring to me. Much the same as MT.
I have to divert my energy back to the brian folks (theyre now all furiously posting now, see he IS targeting us, and if only he'd take the time to "Know" brian...)
OLDKR
|
| 5th October 2007 10:02 AM |
|
|
| Boogie-Woogie |
opinions are like assholes, everyone has one...god bless;-) |
| 5th October 2007 10:26 AM |
|
|
| JOHNNYSTONED |
I HAVE SEEN THE STONES LIVE EVERY TOUR SINCE 1969. THERE IS NO DOUBT IN MY MIND THAT THEIR BEST YEARS LIVE WERE
THE TAYLOR YEARS. IT MAY HAVE BEEN TAYLOR AND IT MAY BE THAT THEY AND I ARE GETTING OLD. BUT THE SHOW TODAY IS MORE LIKE A CELEBRATION WITH YOUR GRANDFATHERS THEN A ROCK SHOW. IN THE OLD DAYS THERE WAS A MOOD OF MENACE AND EXCITEMENT THAT IS LOMG GONE. TODAY WE CLAP WHEN THEY DO SOME THING GOOD--WOW THEY CAN STILL DO IT- WE USED TO EXPECT IT AND DEMAND IT. WHEN BRIAN LEFT THE STONES I WAS SHATTERED BUT MICK TAYLOR HELPED KEEP THE GREATEST BAND IN
THE WORLD GOING AND PUSH THEM TO THEIR GREATEST HEIGHTS
LIVE AND FOR THAT I WILL BE FOREVER GRATEFUL. |
| 5th October 2007 11:22 AM |
|
|
| gustavobala |
quote:
oldkr wrote:
btw, I'm just being silly (in case anyone here runs a get MT back board) I do think he is over-rated, I do think there are more interesting live performances than Taylor took part in. I don't think Taylor was anywhere as talented - in melody, or anything else- as Bach. Kenny G is a very technically talented musician, but his stuff is boring to me. Much the same as MT.
I have to divert my energy back to the brian folks (theyre now all furiously posting now, see he IS targeting us, and if only he'd take the time to "Know" brian...)
OLDKR
i believe MT not boring the "rest" of stones´s fans |
| 6th October 2007 12:03 PM |
|
|
| Bitch |
quote:
JOHNNYSTONED wrote:
I HAVE SEEN THE STONES LIVE EVERY TOUR SINCE 1969. THERE IS NO DOUBT IN MY MIND THAT THEIR BEST YEARS LIVE WERE
THE TAYLOR YEARS.
As an old time fan, I agree with this statement. The Taylor years WERE the best Stones years! Anyone who is posting on this thread without actually having heard MT play live as a RS does NOT know that they are talking about! THose lucky enough to experience MT's bigtime stage presence would agree he was equal to JAGGER or KEEF as a driving force. You really cant judge by the studio albums. IMO |
| 6th October 2007 05:07 PM |
|
|
| Erik_Snow |
OLDKR, do you play guitar yourself - nevermind a few chords ?
I've been playing for nearly 20 years, I'm amazed by the incredible feel and vibrato of Taylor's licks. I know people who are professionals - and they are also totally awestruck when they hear my bootlegs of what Taylor actually did on stage in 72-73....and also with Carla Olson, Bob Dylan, and John Mayall
It's so plain silly to read all this critisicm of Taylor, by someone that obviously don't know what he's talking about. Of course Taylor has got no career to speak of after he left the Rolling Stones - and a lot of his music the last 20 years sounds like a dull bar-band -
but we all know that allready. A lot of the bad sides of recent Taylor is to blame on alcohol.
There's no need in your bashing-agenda..."he's a washed up old fool...etc etc."
I do love what Ronnie Wood brought to Rolling Stones, but the most incredible solos I ever heard - not only "spotlight-solos" but...all over the darn place, belonged to Taylor.
If you can't hear it - well, then there's no need in bragging about your incompetance.
[Edited by Erik_Snow] |
| 6th October 2007 10:32 PM |
|
|
| oldkr |
Erik, on the contrary, your critique of my thinking is ludicrous. I have stated many times that he is clearly a virtuoso. The technicality of his playing is incredible. Doesn't make it musically interesting.
OLDKR |
| 6th October 2007 11:50 PM |
|
|
| MrPleasant |
Why don't you people just find somebody to have DIRTY sex with (and forget it all)?
(Not me. You perverts.)
BTW: Mick Taylor rules. |
| 8th October 2007 05:04 PM |
|
|
| Boogie-Woogie |
please add "not for me" to you comment OLDKR!
as we know tis a matter of personel choice,but...
if i watch ladies and gentleman today and for comparison the LA show from 1975...im really shocked how bad theyre gone within 2 years...theres nothing that touches me...not one song...
of course it has a lot do to with keiths massive addition at that time, but i think somehow somethings missing there thats obviously and that piece never came back...
|
