Talk:Mick Taylor

Taylor's year of birth - IMPORTANT !

Many editors assume this wikipedia article is wrong about Taylor's date of birth. Please do not make any changes to Taylor's year of birth, even when it doesn't match with something you've read. There are thousands of publications out there that are mistaken about his date of birth. Mick Taylor was born on 17 January 1949 (not 1948). This is a fact and can be confirmed by his passport details. ... Much of the information on the internet has been taken from publications that wrongly cited his year of birth as 1948. ... 1949 is the year Taylor was born.Strawberryfields100 (talk) 12:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC) Also, Mick Taylor, in a documentary about him, states directly that he was born in 1949. Check out http://www.youtube.com/user/micktaylor49#p/u/4/TyDt0PIbpy0 V Schauf (talk) 07:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

songwriting credits

update: okay, i've gone ahead and changed some of the contentious unsupported statements about the songwriting situation to something factual & supportable and i hope it reads tolerably well; a factual statement or two about 1969-1971 could of course be added before it, if anyone feels like it (and has reliably-sourced facts to add!). later on in the article there's another bit about Taylor telling Nick Kent he expected credit on two numbers on the IORR album - if that's accurate, surely someone can come up with a source for it. otherwise it really needs to be deleted, in accordance with WP:BLP. Sssoul (talk) 13:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Sssoul: There have been multiple interviews in which Taylor is asked about songwriting, his expectations to be included in the credits (due to promises made to him by Jagger) and the songs he felt he made a significant contribution to. Nowadays Taylor seems to prefer to avoid the subject, but when the issue is raised, he usually lists five or six songs. This has been the case, pretty consistently, in recent years. There must be several sources for this. I don't have anything specific at hand right now - but I will look around. The 5-6 songs in question were mentioned in a previous edit of the article. If you read the Mojo interview from 1997 http://www.mick.us/ (part of section: The Man) he implies there that a falling out with Jagger over songwriting issues (It's Only Rock 'n Roll LP) DID affect his decision to leave. Which is contradicting a previous statement in the Gary James article (dating from about '93) that's in the reference list. So it appears by '97 he had either changed his mind or simply felt more at ease talking about the real reasons. (maybe spent some time reflecting on his time with the Stones and the impact this had on the music. -There was an interview in which he admitted he never listened back to their records until the mid 90's and was then surprised himself how good they sounded). I do know that he brought up the same 5-6 songs when the question came up during guitar clinics in Bath/London only a few years back. Maybe there are 2 songs that he was particularly angry about, plus his answer also depends on how the question is phrased, whether he likes the interviewer and other factors.Fortherecord-today (talk) 23:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Fortherecord-today: once again it's a question of finding and citing a reliable published source - that's wikipedia policy. i have my own speculative theories too, but you're plainly aware of WP:NOR, WP:BLP and other relevant policies, so you know that if you want the article to be more specific about how many/which songs Taylor felt/feels he deserved co-writing credit on, that means finding and citing a published interview where Taylor himself gets specific about it. if there are indeed many such interviews it shouldn't be too difficult to locate one or two of them. Sssoul (talk) 06:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it actually provable that Mr. Taylor cowrote the songs that he alleges that he was involved with? He retrospectively maintains that he cowrote "Sway", "Moonlight Mile", "Winter" and "Time Waits for No One", but never received any writing credits, and again, he has never provided a modicum of evidence to prove his claims, e.g. studio bootlegs or demo tapes. With his talk of expecting to be given writing credits, he perhaps should have just asked to be given writing credits if his contributions merited it rather than passively expect to be credited alongside Mick and Keith. For all I know, he may have been involved with the arranging side of those songs that he claimed to have cowritten, but he obviously underestimated the reality: arranging a song is not the same as songwriting. Mick Jagger himself stated that Mr. Taylor just threw a few chords in on "Time Waits For No One", which perhaps implies that he arranged, not cowrote, the song. 27.32.188.134 (talk) 05:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Jagger and Richards are notoriously reluctant to give up any songwriting credits. Ron Wood had to battle to get credits too - he said if you didn't speak up then and there in the studio as the song was being recorded, a credit wasn't going to happen. Billy Preston contributed substantially to "Melody" and only got an "inspired by" credit. Whether Taylor was a songwriter or just an arranger on those songs is not provable in any way. Taylor could have taken legal action if he felt he had a strong enough case but to my knowledge he never has.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

As a teenager, I myself thought that Taylor could have won writing credits through legal action if he was able to prove that he did cowrite those songs that he claimed to have been involved with, but Ronnie Wood obviously had lesser problems with getting cowriting credits, given his experience writing hit songs with Rod Stewart during their days in The Faces. The inspiration credit was clearly, in a way, some compensation over not getting writing credits, but I'm not sure how reluctant Mick and Keith are to share writing credits, since they had no problem doing so with Steve Jordan. Thank you for giving me some feedback on this. 27.32.188.134 (talk) 01:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

april 2008 Vintage Guitar magazine article

in case it's useful as a reference: http://www.vguitar.com/features/artists/details.asp?AID=3094 i'm not sure all the details are correct (was it an ES-345 he had on the 69 tour, or an ES-355?) but ... well, there it is in case it's of use and/or interest. Sssoul (talk) 13:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

personal recollections reverted

just wanted to explain that i reverted John3Lee's contribution because it goes against wikipedia policies like WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliable source and WP:No original research. for the record, the bit i took out is below. Sssoul (talk) 07:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

My recolection is slightly different to Jab's... I went with Mike Taylor in my mini car to see Cream, as Mike said this was a new band was worth seeing !! Whilst helping Ginger Baker off load some amplifiers, to get into the Cream gig foc..... we struck up a conversation with Eric Clapton, whom pointed out to Mike, that auditions were coming up for the Bluesbreakers, and he should go along.... Thats as i recall this event... John Wheatley now living quietly in Somerset.

I also removed the following paragraph for the same reasons.... I suspect it was written by and about the same person. ----->

Mick also had a legendary night in a club in Cambridge Mass in the late eighties when one of his fans, a young Taylor Stone's years afficianado who was so negatively affected by commercial record companies inability to release a new Taylor album, that he tried to obtain the soundboard tape of a live performance to fill the gap. Said individual was duely tackled by nightclub staff and safely rendered to the exit door and invited not to return. Earlier that same evening they had spoken and he had given Taylor a Silver Bracelet ( Ya Got the Silver) in appreciation of his work, same individual humbly apologized as unceremoniously rolled out the door by bouncers (blame it on Exiled on Main St.). DFS (talk) 09:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Obviously no work group is focused here

Would anyone be interested in a work group to cover Mick Taylor? It would help to have a group to help revert nonsense, and actually do the research that produce worthy articles. I'm asking!! --leahtwosaints (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Most of the nonsense that was added to this article by Tiger Eye 27 (and his sockpuppets) was removed long ago. More cleanup and copyediting would be good though. If you're talking WikiProject... there is already a Rolling Stones WikiProject which covers off this article. There could be a Mick Taylor task force that is branched off of the RS WikiProject... but having a single subject task force for any project is just a waste of creation. Now... a Rolling Stones Guitarists task force... that might hold more water. Sssoul are you listening?? :-) I nominate you as supreme ruler over all things related to Rolling Stones Guitarists. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

smile: wow Wiki Libs - i am honoured and bashful and all that! i have very limited knowledge of Mick Taylor's career apart from his sojourn with the Stones, but yeah, i'll help when i can. his autobiography is about to come out, right? which might help with some of the perennial points of contention ... or not 8) Sssoul (talk) 05:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Leahtwosaints, if you want to form a work group, count me in. Does a handful of people constitute a "work group"? Taylor is worthy of a work group as he is an underappreciated guitarist. I saw him play in June, 2005 (he even sang lead when the Bluesbreakers did "You Shook Me"!!). This is in reference to RealLibs comment about a subgroup for Rolling Stones guitar group. Is any one in the Rock n Roll Guitar group? There doesn't seem to be very much action going on. I don't mean to trivialize anything anyone has done recently, but it just struck me that there weren't a lot of open tasks to do. Interesting idea Real Libs (not sure if you were kidding or not, I'm " a little slow" that way). At any rate, if anyone wants help with anything regarding Mick Taylor, please go to my page and e-mail me. & PLEASE let me know when his autobiography comes out !!!!!! V Schauf (talk) 21:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

One of the big criticisms of this article is that there's too much that has not been referenced. Using Stephen Davis' book, some of the entries that said, "Citations needed" have been shored up and given cites from this book. Also, I think it's a good idea to put in the quote from K. Richards hectoring Taylor as it's a good descriptive illustation of one of the reasons Taylor decided to leave the band. V Schauf (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

What bothers me is we had a quote AND A CITATION for the sentence in the Rolling Stones section as follows: "When Taylor resumed work with the band, he found it difficult to get along with Richards.[citation needed]." I had a citation there! I referred to Keith putting Taylor down for being "worthless in the studio and playing too loud. I don't know whose bright idea it was to delete that section! V Schauf (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Brother you are not slow in any capacity! But we've had this discussion. Far as I'm concerned, 3 people is good enough as a start for a "work group", although perhaps not officially here on Wikipeidia- I don't know as I get so tired of working out what rules and new descisions get made while I plod along and try to fix stuff and add things ;) --Leahtwosaints (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

rebuttal

for the record, here's a rebuttal of a lot of what was in that recent Daily Mail article: http://www.nme.com/news/the-rolling-stones/47326 Sssoul (talk) 20:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to add a section regarding Taylor's relationship with the Rolling Stones

Taylor's relationship with the Rolling Stones, both as a group/band and on an individual basis is of primary interest to people checking out this article. There are numerous sources regarding what he himself calls his "love/hate relationship" with the Stones.. examples being the issue of royalties that many fans, and now, apparently, Mick Taylor himself have considered his due. On the other hand, he has mentioned his chemistry working with Keith Richards on guitars "the most satisfying connection" he has had, with the possible exception of Bob Dylan, (although on a different level), whom he admires as a prolific songwriter, and an artist who treated him with kindness and respect. How do other people feel about this? I really think it needs to be addressed. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Concerts cancelled due to illness?

Several concerts scheduled in the East Coast (as with Baltimore, Maryland) have been cancelled due to illness-- those at the end of May, 2010) and refunds are being offered. On another note, Taylor's website has been updated to 2010.--Leahtwosaints (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Mick Taylor and "Honky Tonk Women"

According to AMG, Mick Taylor did NOT play guitar on "Honky Tonk Women".

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:aifoxqr5ldje~T1 By the time of his death, the Stones had already replaced Brian Jones with Mick Taylor, a former guitarist for John Mayall's Bluesbreakers. He wasn't featured on "Honky Tonk Women," a number one single released days after Jones' funeral, and he contributed only a handful of leads on their next album, Let It Bleed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.117.241.183 (talk) 03:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC) Taylor didn't contribute to "Honky Tonk Women", but he did contribute to "Country Honk."V Schauf (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

No personal life section

There needs to be a section regarding his personal life, namely his marriage to Rose and their daughter.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I have added the section, but it needs to be expanded.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Contradictory sentence?

Re: "Sales were poor but [sic] the album reached #119 on the Billboard charts in early August with a stay of five weeks on the Billboard 200."

Aren't the Billboard charts based entirely on record sales? If so, the "but" here makes no sense. If reaching #119, etc., represents a significant accomplishment, then the first clause should be "Sales were strong [or some synonym]". If it doesn't represent a significant accomplishment, then the above might be changed to something like "Sales were poor: The album reached only #119 on the Billboard charts in early August with a stay of five weeks on the Billboard 200." Or maybe sales were sluggish at first, then picked up. If that's what the article means, it needs actually to say that. TheScotch (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I subsequently decided that "sales were poor" is a subjective remark (POV) anyway, and removed it, leaving the bit about the Billboard charts. "Just the facts." TheScotch (talk) 08:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

"Ladies and Gentleman: The Rolling Stones" release date

The article states that the documentary "Ladies and Gentlemen: The Rolling Stones" was shown only once in a theater in 1974 and was subsequently only available in boot leg versions until 2010 when it was officially released. However, I distinctly remember seeing the film at a National Film Board of Canada screening in Vancouver in the late 1970s and I'm sure the NFB would not have screened a boot leg. For what it's worth, the Internet Movie Data Base (IMBD.com) lists the release date as 1973 and 2010 as the "restored version" release date: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070283/releaseinfo. But, you can't believe everything you read on the Internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Copyvet (talk • contribs) 22:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm certain I saw the film Ladies and Gentlemen: The Rolling Stones in the fall of 1974 at a movie theater in Portland, Oregon. Unless that was it's one and only showing, which I doubt, the statement in this article is incorrect. Frank Prchal (talk) 06:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Best Stones guitarist?

The source for that statement itself provides no supporting evidence. As an unsupported claim it should be removed. Nicmart (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. So many editors fail to understand this concept. It's nice to see someone who gets it; I have removed it, per your suggestion. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Photo placement

OK, what is all this foolishness moving pics around like flavor of the month?! I uploaded all the photos of Mick Taylor to Commons (yeah, I couldn't believe it myself)-- and laid them out in a sort of chronological order. Now, granted, I was in a coma and pretty much out of commission for a couple of years and am only now doing bitty edits, but to have a photo of the man in 1972 in the infobox seems silly. Personally, I think a whole lot of young ladies (and some men, too?) prefer to remember him as Jagger pointed out, "a pretty boy in his youth, something to bang off on...". If new photography placement rules were passed while I was still trying to squeeze a hand from a hospital bed, please leave a note on my talk page. Sorry, I'm tired and cranky. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 08:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mick Taylor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090823095539/http://mog.com/Willard/blog/1252954 to http://mog.com/Willard/blog/1252954

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mick Taylor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090822230925/http://www.jazzedmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=1906255FFDB44D00B523627031537F7C to http://www.jazzedmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=1906255FFDB44D00B523627031537F7C

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Mick Taylor2.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Peculiar paragraph

When interviewed by Jann Wenner of Rolling Stone in 1995, Wenner wrote that Jagger had stated that Taylor never explained why he had left, and surmised that "[Taylor] wanted to have a solo career. I think he found it difficult to get on with Keith." In the same Wenner interview, Jagger had reportedly said of Taylor's contribution to the band: "I think he had a big contribution. He made it very musical. He was a very fluent, melodic player, which we never had, and we don't have now. Neither Keith nor Ronnie Wood (who replaced Taylor) plays that kind of style. It was very good for me working with him .... Mick Taylor would play very fluid lines against my vocals. He was exciting, and he was very pretty, and it gave me something to follow, to bang off. Some people think that's the best version of the band that existed".[17] Asked if he agreed with that assessment, Jagger said: "I obviously can't say if I think Mick Taylor was the best, because it sort of trashes the period the band is in now."

When interviewed by Jann Wenner...Wenner wrote that...

Wenner was interviewed by Wenner?

Jagger had reportedly said...Asked if he agreed with that assessment, Jagger said...

Jagger was asked if he agreed with the assessment he himself made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.251.16.246 (talk) 04:04, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, the text at notes 17 and 18 is garbled – Jagger being asked if he agrees with himself Billsmith60 (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)