Mick Taylor vs. Ronnie Wood

Led Zeppelin would credit whoever contributed to writing the individual songs. Apart from Page/Plant, there's plenty of Page/Plant/Jones, there's some Page/Plant/Bonham and also some that credit the entire band. And when Jimmy Page didn't contribute much to the band's final album, In Through The Out Door, many of that album's songs are credited to Jones/Plant.

Far too democratic for Mick and Keith.

 

We have the song "Flying" on Magical Mystery Tour listed as "Lennon - McCartney - Harrison - Starr".
In case of the Stones should not be forgotten that they wrote their first songs together - meaning all of them - under the fantasy Name "Nanker-Pheldge".
It's very difficult with these credits at all. In those days the writers were receiving the most money in a band. But their creativity was the basis of the company. It was the songwriting of Jagger and Richards, that made the Stones big, which allowed the others to earn a lot of money. So in a certain way the ideas they brought into some songs no doubt will have improved those, but were not essential to the whole career. So I can somehow understand, when Jagger and Richards refused to name others as co-writers for adding an idea.
But in the end we weren't there, we don't know how their relationship really was. We should accept, that a band is not a perfect world.

Back to the original topic - wasn't it Ron Wood, who brought Jagger and Richards together again after the big break in the 80s?
So Taylor was definitely the more interesting player, but sometimes a band needs members with other qualities a lot more.

 

Ah yes, thank you for reminding me of that often overlooked pearl Helmut. There are exceptions to every rule. So what was Jagger & Richards excuse, if Lennon & McCartney could see the light? hmm

> In case of the Stones should not be forgotten that they wrote their first songs together - meaning all of them - under the fantasy Name "Nanker-Pheldge".

Ah yes again, and the plot thickens. Once upon a time in Stoneyville, such things were actually conceivable. sheez

> It's very difficult with these credits at all. In those days the writers were receiving the most money in a band. But their creativity was the basis of the company. It was the songwriting of Jagger and Richards, that made the Stones big, which allowed the others to earn a lot of money. So in a certain way the ideas they brought into some songs no doubt will have improved those, but were not essential to the whole career. So I can somehow understand, when Jagger and Richards refused to name others as co-writers for adding an idea.

Well yes and no. Yes in that Jagger & Richards were definitely the two principals most responsible for the success of the Stones (looking past what Brian contributed early on, which was also quite substantial), especially if we look at it over their 50+ year career. But no in that by the 70's, Mick and Keith were aware - much more than during their seminal years - of what songwriting credits were worth. Meaning $ in royalties. Also Taylor claims Jagger assured him he would receive a number of song credits, certainly by IORR (since he overlooked giving a few to MT earlier). I have yet to see Jagger ever deny he promised those to Mick T. So I say to you: where's the beef? and do the math

> But in the end we weren't there, we don't know how their relationship really was. We should accept, that a band is not a perfect world.

Quite true there.

> Back to the original topic - wasn't it Ron Wood, who brought Jagger and Richards together again after the big break in the 80s?
> So Taylor was definitely the more interesting player, but sometimes a band needs members with other qualities a lot more.

Not sure on the first question, though I wouldn't doubt it as Ron Wood is a genuinely likable guy and probably the nicest Stone ever, but as for point two, it basically boils down to this: quality or quantity? Take yer pick.

 

We are just wise after the event - looking from the safe outside.
I'm pretty sure, that if the Stones could do it all again, they also would do a lot of things differently. Never forget - when they all did it, it was new ground.
Today's bands - if they are clever - can learn from their mistakes. But the Stones were "learning by doing". They did a lot and everyone doing a lot will also do a lot of mistakes.
Those doing nothing can easily point their fingers on them....

 

I cannot believe Mick is this far away in votes. Image in a band is everything. Ron Wood had it and still has it. Mick Taylor didn't and doesn't. Plus, Wood's gutiar playing is seamless with Keith's. Mick was overbearing. Case Closed. Next!

 

Does anyone know why in the Ladies and Gentlemen movie, Mick does not have the white, plastic toggle switch on his Les Paul?

 

Maybe it has something to do with this.

Charlie Watts - "The Mick Taylor period was a creative peak for us. A tremendous jump in musical credibility. Now Keith won't say that; Keith, I think, would prefer to play with Ronnie as a partner. But Mick Taylor was an incredible virtuoso. Brian wasn't, he was a good all-round player, and Ronnie's the same. He'll play wonderful bottleneck guitar and pedal steel -- any instrument, like Brian -- but Mick gave our music terrific lyricism. Ronnie is a very likeable person, a great sense of humor. Musically, he didn't bring anything, but he has this facility to add to things." Mojo Magazine 2003

 

Beautiful, John, beautiful.

Tree of Life is lucky we don't drag him to the guillotine for taking that vote count under the 80% mark for the first time in years!

 

Why not both together + Mick Jagger + Keith Richards + George Harrison + Rod Stewart. Gotta be the most star spangled original album ever.



http://monolover.blogspot.se/2013/01/ron-woodive-got-my-own-album-to-do-k.html

 

I think I actually like that album better than Black & Blue.

 

It's like comparing apples and oranges, but I certainly listen more to this than to B&B. "I Can Feel The Fire" sounds very much like classic Stones.

 

not even close.

taylor's years in the stones could possibly be the best run of albums in rock history.

 

I've got that as well. It's instructive that although Taylor looks awful, and Clapton looks immaculate, Taylor's playing on that blows Clapton to pieces. Tone, sound, technique, everything.

 

The nice thing is we can check that. Watch the 1978 live show in Texas that came out a couple of years ago. 'All Down the Line' is early in the set. A perfect comparison is available; we've got Taylor on the studio version, Taylor on the even better and blistering 1972 live version from 'Ladies and Gentlemen', and Wood on the 1978 show. It's not even a comparison.

 

One would also be tempted to ask where are all the classic albums that Richards and Wood should be able to effortlessly create? Especially due to their 'ancient art of weaving' horse**** that Keith in particular likes to indulge in. Instead, we got one really good album (Some Girls), an outstanding one-man salvage job of old material by Jagger (Tattoo You), and some up, some down. There hasn't been a Sticky Fingers or Exile, or for that matter an Aftermath in the last 40 years, and it's reasonable to wonder why.

 

I'll own up; I really, really like Ronnie Wood. Comes across as a cool guy, seems to get along with everyone, and also seems to go out of his way to keep things happy and get people involved. If you see the Stones induction ceremony into the hall of fame in 1989, he practically pushes Taylor to the microphone. I'd love to have a beer with him.

But as a musician, to me he doesn't come close. I loved him in the Faces; unique, distinct, a sensational rhythm/lead player and songwriter. But as a pure guitarist, he's not in Taylor's league.

 

Sadly, I don't think those insecurities were growing; I think they were there all along. He was intimidated and threatened by Brian Jones, and he was again on a musical level by Mick Taylor.

It's Jagger's one big weak spot. A lot of things that have occurred you can forgive him for, especially when Keith was in really bad shape in the 1970s. He had to take over the band, and that wouldn't have been a picnic. But he's smart enough to know if he'd thrown Taylor the occasional co-credit he would have stayed, and everyone would have been happy. Of course, a decade earlier they could have retained the 'Nanker-Phelge' credits for band compositions too, but I guess millions of dollars makes you do strange things.

 

Likely not, No doubt Ron Wood blows him away.

 

We will have to agree to disagree.

 

Far better album than any post 73 Stones or Rod album other than Some Girls or Tatoo You.

 

That's your opinion period. Mick Taylor is way ahead for a reason he's a much better guitar player, and many here can tell the difference between the two.

 

That's definitely debatable, and you may be right. I for one wish Brian hadn't gotten so f'ed up towards the end so we could have heard more from him. Then he goes and takes a nap in the deep end! [Forget any memoirs from Jones from that point on, but those are the ones I would have enjoyed perusing thru perhaps more than any others].

I know, a simple bone or two. HOW WAS THAT SUCH A BIG DEAL! To this day I have never understood it. And it's not like he wasn't aware of how important this was to MT, as the guy brought it up to him repeatedly -- and then Mick assures him he'd get 'em. Ach du Lieber Scheisskopf! as our friend Helmut would say.

You know, you may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope someday Tree of Life will join us, and the world will be as one...

 

Charlie Watts - "The Mick Taylor period was a creative peak for us. A tremendous jump in musical credibility. Now Keith won't say that; Keith, I think, would prefer to play with Ronnie as a partner. But Mick Taylor was an incredible virtuoso. Brian wasn't, he was a good all-round player, and Ronnie's the same. He'll play wonderful bottleneck guitar and pedal steel -- any instrument, like Brian -- but Mick gave our music terrific lyricism. Ronnie is a very likeable person, a great sense of humor. Musically, he didn't bring anything, but he has this facility to add to things." Mojo Magazine 2003

 

As usual, Charlie, a man of few words, nails it!

Sadly Taylor is now gone again so I guess Wood "wins", but the joy he brought to this fan when he popped out of the blue a few feet away on the O2 stage for MR in 2012 will not be forgotten !

 

Bassist Bill Wyman declares, “Musically he (Mick Taylor) was a better musician than the other guys in the band. Some of the things he did was amazing but he was incredibly boring onstage. He’d do the most amazing licks, riffs and solos but he’d just stand there and look at his guitar. God, the audience would see the top of his head all the time. I always thought he could’ve been a bit more… but then I’m not a good one to talk. I don’t leap about much. In 30 years with The Stones I’ve probably made three steps on the stage.”