[atari 2600]

live they pretty much became the Mick Taylor show with The Stones featuring Nicky Hopkins as the backing band

[gmku]

Originally Posted by Cantankerous

mick taylor was never a stone, really. he was kind of a shoe-in for brian.

I never saw it that way. The Stones would have sounded completely different without him (look what happened after Its Only Rock and Roll, after all). No, he may have been the "quiet Stone" but with his virtuoso guitar playing, he helped make that period between 69 and 73 so golden.

[Cantankerous]

ronnie just fits in so well with them though.

[gmku]

Originally Posted by atari 2600

live they pretty much became the Mick Taylor show with The Stones featuring Nicky Hopkins as the backing band

Exactly. The problem was that Taylor was so much better, technically, than Richards, and Richards was jealous of this. But yeah, I can't imagine those albums without Taylor on them. If he didn't contribute directly to the songwriting, he definitely helped shape how the songs sound.

[gmku]

Originally Posted by Cantankerous

ronnie just fits in so well with them though.

Too well, imo. He's like a copy of Richards, both in personality and playing style. What makes the Taylor-Richards era so great is that they had different strengths that perfectly complemented one another.

[Cantankerous]

oh no no. keith and ronnie compliment each other, the weaving thing they do. and they're best mates. but they are completely different people, believe me, i have so many DVDs...

[atari 2600]

Originally Posted by Cantankerous

mick taylor was never a stone, really. he was kind of a shoe-in for brian.

second time I've seen "shoe-in" used recently

(a) it's spelled "shoo-in"

(b) grammar cop here, don't be (too) upset

(c) we all make mistakes

[gmku]

They can lock into a groove well and all that, but Ronnie is not nearly the lead player that Taylor was. Taylor added something truly unique that wasn't there before.

[Cantankerous]

oh well. you know what i meant.

Originally Posted by gmku

They can lock into a groove well and all that, but Ronnie is not nearly the lead player that Taylor was. Taylor added something truly unique that wasn't there before.

he just didn't belong though. not only do you have to be able to play with them, you gotta be able to live with them.

[atari 2600]

Originally Posted by gmku

Too well, imo. He's like a copy of Richards, both in personality and playing style. What makes the Taylor-Richards era so great is that they had different strengths that perfectly complemented one another.

Originally Posted by Cantankerous

oh no no. keith and ronnie compliment each other, the weaving thing they do. and they're best mates. but they are completely different people, believe me, i have so many DVDs...

Keith made sure with Ronnie that he would no longer be upstaged.

But don't get me wrong. I love Keith's style from the best days...there's so much to appreciate.
And Taylor was sometimes too much...sometimes he's not feeling it live or he's feeling it intermittently.

Taylor could play and spontaneously compose stuff Keith will never be able to play, but Richards is an undisputed master of simple rock creativity.

The Richards/Taylor guitar duo is integral to all their best albums though.

I kinda think the only one with Wood that's really good is Black and Blue, the first one he played on.

[gmku]

To Cantankerous: I do.

But I don't buy the lifestyle argument. The Stones gave him the big freeze because they were envious. But I think he was one of the best things to ever happen to them.

[gmku]

Originally Posted by atari 2600

Keith made sure with Ronnie that he would no longer be upstaged

don't get me wrong, I love Keith's style from the best days...there's so much to appreciate...
and Taylor was sometimes too much...sometimes he's not feeling it live or he's feeling it intermittently

the Richards/Taylor guitar duo is integral to all their best albums though

I kinda think the only one with Wood that's really good is Black and Blue, the first one he played on.

I think he does all right with Some Girls, too. But you can already tell on SG that the sound is more limited.

But yeah, I agree--with Wood, Richards no longer had to deal with a guitar player who was better than he was.

[Cantankerous]

keith plays the solo on "cant you hear me knocking"

enough said.

[gmku]

As a fer instance... there's a beautiful moment near the end of Rocks Off on Exile where Taylor begins a solo that sounds like it will really soar... and the fade out starts. That has always pissed me off.

[atari 2600]

Hendrix was similarly robbed on some studio cuts.

Yeah, you're right Some Girls is good cause it's also great in parts.

[gmku]

Originally Posted by Cantankerous

keith plays the solo on "cant you hear me knocking"

enough said.

No he doesn't! Not that Santana-like, fluid, flying solo after the break. That is pure Mick Taylor.

Keith does the riff, and a great one it is, but the solo stuff that makes up the long jam is all Taylor's show.

[Cantankerous]

you can say it's mick taylor but i KNOW it's not.

he also plays the solo on sympathy.

[Cantankerous]

fuck whoever told me it wasn't taylor because evidently it is on the record but keith plays it live these days

and fuck wikipedia

[gmku]

The solo on Sympathy, sure, that's Keith, and that's an incredibly simple solo. It's great, but it's simple. Keith simply could not do the complicated, virtuoso solo work that Taylor did for the ending of Can't You Hear Me Knocking. They had completely different sounding styles.

Perhaps Keith can play it today, but he couldn't back then.

[demonrail666]

It's a weird one in that it's one of theirs I rarely listen to, but whenever I do, I'm always blown away by it.