Was thinking about this, and as much as I like Mick Taylor as a Stone and as a guitarist, I have to wonder if his leaving when he did wasn't for the best in retrospect.By the late '70s, his style of playing--Epic, bluesy playing--wasn't in vogue anymore. A rawer, stripped down, more ragged sound was as we know in style then, and the Stones adopted it and took their own spin on it. I just wonder if Taylor would've been able to adapt to the changing musical climate of the '70s with the Stones, what he might've contributed to a late '70s/early '80s Rolling Stones. Would they perhaps have grown stale with him in the band, locked into the trappings of an early-mid '70s megarock band?

I just can't see them doing Some Girls, for example, with Taylor in the band...His style doesn't seem to jive with what they were going for there. Although perhaps had he stayed, they wouldn't have done Some Girls...Maybe they would've fallen into being an irrelevant act by 1978. The general narrative seems to be that that's how they were beginning to be seen by 1976, 1977, and Some Girls revitalized them and their reputation and showed they weren't the dinosaurs which the Punk Rockers were saying they were.

Edith Grove wrote on Dec 31^st, 2011 at 3:02pm:


I don't know about that...I mean he left in late '74. The scene in '74 was still very much Rock N' Roll...Disco was starting to peep up into the mainstream, but it doesn't seem to have hit it big until around the summer of 1975. I wasn't alive then, but from all accounts that's how it seems. Punk wasn't a blip on the radar except in the underground scene in England and New York City. Maybe Mick could see these musical rumblings that early, but I doubt Keith could (or even if he could, would've cared).

It just seems to me--as someone who didn't experience the '70s--that Disco and Punk appeared on the mainstream scene almost overnight in 1975 and 1977 culturally and a lot changed, with little warning, and suddenly you had these groups going around saying bands like the Stones were "old farts" and music magazines agreeing with them. And then Some Girls came out and the music critic types who were saying they were old farts and past their expiration date shut up. That's the way the narrative seems, but again, I wasn't alive then, I only go by what I've read.

gimmekeef wrote on Dec 31^st, 2011 at 5:04pm:


Yeah but that wouldn't be because of his own ability...it'd be because of Keith's inability. Kind of an unfair advantage there, if one guitarist "shines" because the other can't really play anymore. I mean Taylor played with Keith when both were at their peak...And shined through that--that's a true show of talent. It's not really a show of talent if you're a decent guitar player and the other guitarist can barely play. It just uplifts mediocrity--I've always felt Ron is just an average guitar player personally. I've listened to his work with the Faces and whatnot...None of it really shines out.

StickyStones wrote on Dec 31^st, 2011 at 6:16pm:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzRpP0dFkNY ????

Holden wrote on Jan 1^st, 2012 at 4:42pm:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wZ2AnMuX5I on fire at 1:37 - 1:55 !!!!

Fresh, new, different every night. Ronnie is almost a genius imo.

The Prime Minister of Twang.

This thread needs an intervention.

Bitch wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2012 at 10:46am:


Bill quit too and was considering quitting as early as around 1974 himself. I wouldn't say he wasn't cut out to be a Rolling Stone. Mick quit because he was doing a lot of great stuff and not being any credit for it, being taken for granted by the band, being treated like shit by Keith, not really being allowed to grow musically in the band, the band had no plans to tour throughout all of 1974 and most of 1975 and Mick, like most musicians, preferred being on the road to being cooped up in a studio, and also was dealing with a major Heroin problem. He had more legitimate reasons for quitting than Bill did, who was simply tired of being in the band and was afraid of flying.

Heart Of Stone wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2012 at 6:14pm:

and it proves Mick T is weak and not really cut out to be a Stone. So he left because he couldnt take charge of his own life. I love the guy anyway for his contributions on Sticky Fingers which is my favorite album, and as a guitar player he had it all going for him. He coulda stuck it out if he was tougher but he couldnt handle the pressure..So as a matter of self preservation he quit and I respect that decision, but I still think he's a pussy!

Bitch wrote on Jan 4^th, 2012 at 9:30am:


Couldn't Bill be seen as a pussy for quitting too? I mean, a fear of flying, really? After 50 fucking years of flying?
And Bill left when they had just had like the biggest comeback in history. Mick left when they weren't doing jack shit except sitting in a studio while people died around them and Keith sunk more and more into Heroin. It wasn't exactly set in stone that The Stones would be together at the end of the 70s in 1974. At that time, Keith could've died any day, Bill was considering quitting, they hadn't toured in a year and weren't likely to tour for another six months....

I mean this is a guy who became a tax exile with the Stones. He went through a lot of the band's darkest moments with them--Altamont, being a tax exile and all of that. I'd say he was pretty strong. Sometimes it takes a bigger guy to quit than to just sit back and collect a pay check if you're unhappy.

I mean Mick and Keith only tolerate each other nowadays because it pays better than going it alone. That's weak on their parts. That's not being in it for the music or for a sense of brotherhood or because your heart's really in it. It's just for the extra cash.

The reason Ron hasn't quit is cause he has a dependent sort of personality, eager to please.

I mean let's look at another band: Would you say Slash was a pussy for quitting Guns N' Roses?

Teiz wrote on Jan 5^th, 2012 at 2:29am:


Cause post '89 Stones is better than no Stones at all. They put on great performances, there is no doubting that, I just think their motives for regrouping in 1989 and being together since have a lot more to do with money than any sense of brotherhood or "let's do it for the music." At times there's been some genuine moments where they seem to have been into it because they were into it...But IMO if Mick or Keith's solo careers had taken off, I don't think they would've regrouped. We might've gotten a "Reunion" tour and record in the 90s, just so that Dirty Work wasn't left as The Stones' last offering...But if Mick or Keith's solo careers had taken off, I doubt we'd have gotten much more than that in terms of the Stones.

Ron Wood may have been good with The Faces...But all he's been is a clone of Keith in the Stones. And a sucky one at that. At least Taylor brought something new to the table. So did Brian when he turned to other instruments. The really standout records are those when Brian and Taylor were forces in the band, with the exception of Beggars and Let it Be, where the band was rediscovering themselves and working with (for all intents and purposes) being a foursome (Brian being not really in the picture anymore). Ry Cooder's presence around this time might help as well. As for post Taylor efforts, Wayne Perkins and Harvey Mandel lift up "Black and Blue" and it's Mick's experimental nature which make Some Girls-Undercover great records.

Dirty Work is a good rock, fun album for what it is (the fruits of a band barely speaking and on the verge of breaking up), too maligned as a rock album (because its better than some stuff by other bands), but as a ROLLING STONES album (and when put to that standard), it's crap. And it's the album where Ronnie had the most input.

Steel Wheels was good in that it was Mick & Keith really trying again, like the reawakened passion of a remarried couple. It's got some fun, rollicking tracks. I like it a lot, personally, much moreso than anything since. But ever since then, they've trying to copy the '70s...Poorly. Voodoo Lounge and onward...Good albums, rare gems here and there...But compared to their output from '65-'83, it's Stones-lite (with the exception of Steel Wheels).

Also...GN'R had the potential of being the "next" Stones until they pissed it all away after 1993.

No I dont think Bill or Slash were weak in their decision to quit because they came right out and said they are quitting because they just dont want to do it anymore. Mick T said being in the band was too much temptation and he couldnt handle it. If he just came out and said I'm quitting because I dont get along with KEEF, or I dont get enough credit, that would be a decision based on strength.  Blaming a band for lack of willpower makes him a weakling. Its a big difference. If Mick T felt he wasnt being treated right, he could of stood up for himself and made some demands. And I bet MICK J would of made changes to give him more or some what he wanted (not all!). I doubt Mick T had the balls to ask or confront KEEF/MICK about whatever was bothering him.  Mick T lacked balls. I love the guy anyway, we all have our strengths and weaknesses and he probably avoids conflicts rather than confronting them.

http://ultimateclassicrock.com/jeff-beck-rolling-stones-audition/

Jeff Beck On His Rolling Stones Audition: Keith And I Would Have Punched Each Other Out
by: Matt Wardlaw Yesterday

Shortly after being named a ‘Living Legend’ by Classic Rock Magazine, Jeff Beck spent some time looking back at his storied career, including an ill-fated 1975 audition for the Rolling Stones.


The Stones were looking to fill the guitarist slot that had recently been vacated by Mick Taylor. Beck stopped by thinking that he was merely going to help them out with a couple of tracks for their next record. The fact that he might be auditioning for the group never crossed his mind.

As he relates in the story, he had been in the studio for two days without seeing any of the Stones. Looking around the area, he saw a stack of guitars and thought “odd…how many guitars does Keith need?”

Pianist Ian Stewart told Beck “they’re giving you an audition. They’ve told all the other guys to f-ck off.”

“Eventually, we got into the same room together and I started playing Bill Wyman’s bass so hard the dust was flying off. I wandered off and the engineer, Glyn Johns, said ‘that’s incredible!’ I said: ‘One for the archives, mate. I’m leaving tomorrow.’”

The group wasn’t happy with Beck’s decision to leave, but he describes the recording situation back then as “dysfunctional” and says that he couldn’t deal with the “lack of purpose.”

From their side, the Stones defended their methods as the way they worked as a unit, but Beck wanted no part of that, saying that “I’m not into chaos.”

“Some people might find it hard to believe that you’d walk away from the Stones gig, but Keith and I wouldn’t have gone through an album without punching each other out anyway.”

In the end, Beck was happy with his decision, because he was slated to work with Beatles producer George Martin on the album that would become Beck’s ‘Blow by Blow.’

Having recently revealed a new band lineup, Beck is excited about his forthcoming album, which he says will be “a real band album.”

Bitch wrote on Jan 25^th, 2012 at 9:50pm:



..as Taylor did, by choosing to stay alive instead of dying as a Rolling Stone and leaving his child fatherless.

Which, as he doesnt owe the entire point of his existence to a fanbase, doesnt make him a 'pussy'...