Talk:Mick Taylor
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Guitarists, a group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to guitarists. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
 |
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. |
Contents |
[edit] Early Years
The Gods (Taylor's band at the time) really did open up for Cream in late '66. Although this is not widely known, it is a fact and can be supported by evidence. Please don't remove and don't get this event mixed up with the Bluesbreakers college gig in Hatfield which Taylor attended as a 16 year old (1965) - that was the night he ended up filling in for Clapton.88.211.144.49 01:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)yannic
[edit] It's Only Rock and Roll - year of release
Rolling stones released It's Only Rock and Roll in 1974, not 1975. check it on Amazon.com if there is any doubt.--Mikerussell 23:04, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)
Comment is correct about release of It's Only Rock and Roll: 1974; not 1975.
It can be checked (back of the album, for instance) and the year of release is 1974. The Stones were contractually bound to release a new album every year. So they could not wait with releasing this LP until '75 even if they had wanted to.88.211.144.49 15:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)yannic
[edit] Mick & Dick , The two Taylors
Is there any relation between Mick Taylor and Dick Taylor? Both have played for The Rolling Stones at some point. Does anyone know if they're brothers? --Ian911299
No, no relation whatsoever.
That's correct (no relation). Mick Taylor doesn't have any brothers.88.211.144.49 15:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)yann
Dick Taylor was an old pal of Keith Richards's at Sidcup. He agreed, somewhat reluctantly, to join the early version of the Rolling Stones as bassist since Richards and Jones held down the guitar positions. He quickly became dissatisfied with this arrangement and with the music the group was playing, so he quit to form the Pretty Things with another Sidcup alum, Phil May. The PTs were important on the London R & B scene 1963-66 and later when they expanded in psychedelic and other experimentation (e.g., the concept album SF Sorrow, released in 1968, which presaged many of the themes later explored in the Who's Tommy, which wasn't released until several months later). Taylor had no relationship to Mick Taylor beyond the surname and the fact that both were in the Stones, though widely separated in time.
[edit] Year of Birth
Was Mick Taylor born in 1948 or 1949? I have seen both, but I think the 1948 date is more reliable.
Mick Taylor was born as Michael Kevin Taylor on January 17th 1948 in Welwyn Garden City. 88.211.144.49 15:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)yannic
No, he definitely was not. This is an error made by the Rolling Stone magazine, what I think they read on the Blues From Laurel Canyon 33rpm artwork. 1948 is the right year.
Interesting that you would say this with so much certainty. Contrary to what has been claimed in many publications and books since the 60's, (and mistaken for a fact by many authors ever since) Taylor was not born in 1948. The Rolling Stone article was 100% right, and the details contained in the Blues from Laurel Canyon artwork were correct also. It was probably due to John Mayall's close working (and travelling) relationship that he knew what Taylor's passport says about his year of birth.88.211.144.49 18:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)yannic
The search is not born 1949 is 1948.
I don't know where you conducted this search ? Many books and articles claim he was born in 1948 (which is not true). Much of the information on the internet has been taken from publications that wrongly cited his year of birth as 1948. Please see the comments above to read about the reasons (Rolling Stone article, Blues from Laurel Canyon artwork and last but not least: Taylor's passport) that 1949 is the correct year. 81.107.223.38 12:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)yannic
[edit] Mick Taylor Bio
Accordiing to my understanding, Taylor replaced Peter Green as John Mayall's lead guitarist in 1967, when the latter quit Mayall to co-found Fleetwood Mac with Jeremy Spence, John McVie, and Mick Fleetwood (I'm not sure if Danny Kirwan was in the original FM line-up, but for a time FM did have the three-lead guitar line-up). Green, of course, had replaced Clapton the previous year (1966) after Clapton left Mayall (also after 1 year) to form Cream with Bruce and Baker.
As for Mick Taylor's contributions (songwriting) to the Stones: I would definitely add the song "Sway". Keith does not even play guitar on this song, though he does sing on the choruses. But the most important melodic elements of this song are Taylor's soaring guitar work and the string arrangement of Paul Buckmaster (also featured, of course, on "Moonlight Mile," which the article identifies as a probable Taylor composition; also, another song with a minimal Richards contribution in the final mix).
"Did you ever wake up to find/a day that broke up your mind/destroyed your notion of circular time/it's just that demon life that got you in its sway..." that pretty well sums up the Stones in the early '70s, hurtling away from the silly vestiges of '60s innocence into the jadedness and knowingness of the '70s, harder drugs, but still absolutely brilliant music. More than 35 years after its release, and for decades to come, Sticky Fingers holds up and will do so long after people have forgotten artistic pipsqueaks like Clodplay (the misspelling is intentional on my part) and O-ass-is ("Wonderwall" indeed. Blunder blob is more like it). Sincerely , mackb
[edit] NPOV
Sentences like: "Richards' playing style with Taylor was brilliant, and Keith's choppy, staccato rhythm guitar blended unforgettably with Taylor's languid, melodious stroke, but ultimately Taylor was too dominating a player for Richards." Need I say more, come on. 75pickup (talk • contribs)
[edit] NPOV and honesty
This article is plagued by NPOV sentences, and a lack of honesty from the writer. Taylor hardly did anything from late '76 until '79, and nothing from late '79 until mid-1981, all completely due to his drug addiction. This is not to bring Taylor down (the contrary), but it is a fact that is important to understanding Taylor's musical carreer. (Heteren 11:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC))
[edit] Jack Bruce Supergroup
What was the name of the supergroup with Jack Bruce, they couldn't have toured without a name. 75pickup (talk • contribs) 22:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
They simply went with the name Jack Bruce Band. Originally the plan was to form a (super)group in which each member was going to be equally important. Once everyone had committed and they started rehearsing at the studio it became clear Jack Bruce just saw it as a vehicle to promote his 3 solo records.88.211.144.49 16:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)yannic
[edit] Notable Guitars
Can we get a cite on the Fender Strat & Tele. I always thought he was a Gibson Les Paul player & the top picture supports this. The picture further down the article has him playing a Gibson SG. If he's "Notably" a Fender player surely there'd be pictures of him playing them! Megamanic 05:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Taylor and Bruce
The main reason why the Jack Bruce band broke up so soon was because both Taylor and Bruce were heavilly addicted to heroin. The European tour was a fiasco due to the addictions, and Jack Bruce commented in the large Rollin' Stone interviews from a few years back that this period was a dark period, and all he could remember about the tour was him and taylor trying to score heroin constantly fighting over it.
I have added this fact to the main text, but an over protective fan of Taylor keeps editing it out.
Editing it out is only the right thing to do. It is in accordance with Wikipedia rules as these comments are controversial (not to mention potentially libelous) and can not be properly sourced.
JB's assertions do not qualify as a fact, merely an opinion (JB's opinion). Jack Bruce can hardly be considered as a reliable source since he was definitely not in a position to comment on anyone else's "problems". Taylor had just made the decision to form a new group with Jack Bruce (Keith's "problems" starting to overshadow everything had brought him to leave the Stones) and then discovered in what kind of shape Jack Bruce was.
From interviews available on tape it is clear Bruce's judgement is somewhat clouded. He comes across as a very difficult and self-centered individual (Members of Cream have also testified to his volatile nature - in a recent interview Ginger Baker says Jack Bruce has a Jekyll and Hyde personality and he will never work with him again). So maybe this was the most significant factor in the group breaking up and JB is just trying to distract from this? Despite all this, many fans enjoyed the 1975 concerts plus you can still enjoy live recordings from that tour, so the word fiasco is totally misplaced here.88.211.144.49 16:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)yann
The Bruce/Taylor project was by all accounts a total failure. Taylor left the Stones to become the biggest star next to god, and literally nothing has happened ever since he left. The Bruce/Taylor combination was presented to the press as the biggest supergroup since Cream, and nothing happened. The writing of material was terrible and the very short tour was a total drug unfused fiasco by all accounts. There's many books and arcticles on this tour, and all account the total mess it was. Within a few months the entire band had exploded due to drugs and terrible ego's.
Although it is policy of Wikipedia to edit out controversial remarks, mentioning Taylor's drug addiction are instrumental in understanding why Taylor's carreer after the Stones has been a total failure. (Heteren 12:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC))
[edit] Cleanup
All of this information is unsourced and riddled with POV statements, so I put the cleanup tag on. 75pickup (talk • contribs) 75pickup 05:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Almost all these claims are untrue or exaggerated, e.g. where and when did Taylor say he wanted to become "the biggest star next to God" ? Wikipedia rules state that unsourced or poorly sourced controversial information should not be part of biographies on living persons. Malicious, biased or sensational content has no place in an encyclopaedic article and should be deleted immediately (without discussion). This is an exception to the three reverts rule. The comments about the way MT & JB worked together are subjective and do not qualify as facts, whether it's printed somewhere or not. So 75pick up is right: it should be removed. 88.211.144.49 18:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)yann
[edit] Rolling Stones part rewritten
I have rewritten the "Rolling Stones" section. It now is much more chronologial and factually right. Please leave it like this and do not rewrite it into the Taylor worshipping bullshit that this article has turned into.
About facts: if Jack Bruce states that the band never worked because all members were heroin addicts I think we should take that as a fact, and as the sole reason for the project being a failure. (Heteren 14:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC))
No, this is just a personal opinion and Jack Bruce doesn't have a very good track record in terms of his reliability. Others that were there have different opinions. Leaving these comments aside is the right thing to do as they don't fit in with a encyclopaedic article.88.211.144.49 16:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)yann
[edit] Neutral?
I have added the neutrality and factual accuracy tag to the solo career section. As was the case with the Brian Jones article some "fans" make up their own truth. If you don't want to write down the real reason why Taylor was not active between '77 - '79, late '79 - '81 and '84 to '90, then just don't mention ANYTHING. But do not write down YOUR truth. (Heteren 14:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC))
From '77 to '79 Taylor worked on writing songs, recruiting musicians and recording tracks. Following the release of his 1st solo album ('79) he moved to the East Coast, fullfilled his contractual obligations and took a year off before going on tour with Alvin Lee. In '84 he toured with Mayall, rehearsed and toured with Bob Dylan. From '86 until '90 he toured North America (5x), Japan (3x), Europe (2x), E-Coast (6x), W-Coast (2x), Canada (2x), South-America (1x), Australia (1x). He also worked with Long John Baldry, Joan Jett & Blackhearts, Corky Laing, Joe Walsh, The Grateful Dead, Keith Richards, Jack Bruce, Dicky Betts, Phoebe Snow amongst others.
There has been no indication that anyone has been making up their own version of the truth. Taylor's activities can be verified by sources that are completely factual and unbiased. This article is only meant to be a summary. Including a complete list of everything he has ever worked on would take up too much space.
There is no justification for these continued attempts to put a negative spin on Taylor's musical career. One individual has repeatedly removed references to projects Taylor was involved in (presumably because this disproves his "theory" that Taylor was inactive for years on end). There have also been many exaggerated and unfounded claims made by this same person, these are not factual but are insinuations, most of which are to do with alleged drug abuse (which this person seems to have some sort of fixation with). Taylor's biography can do without the interference from someone that wants to make it sound he didn't achieve anything after leaving the Stones. 88.211.144.49 16:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)yann
I have put back the "Rolling Stones" section, as it is factually right and it is far better written than the old article. Now also the chronological order is correct. All statements by Rolling Stones members are taking from actual interviews, for example with Rollin' Stone magazine, Guitar PLayer magazine, and the Guitar Legends magazine from January 2007. I have not touched any other section, although I do feel that most content is disputed as it is written by somebody whom is too much of a biased fan of Taylor. (Heteren 12:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC))
