Talk:Mick Taylor/Archive 1

Anonymous users from Fredericton, Canada

It is clear that users 156.34.213.216 and 142.167.66.181 (suspected "anonymous sock poppets" both stemming from the exact same location) will not stop making changes to this article until it is completely ruined and in total alignment with their personal opinion. This user has been very busy with "editing" this article. It is also quite possible that this is the same editor (70.53.154.134) that was repeatedly inserting a wrong birthyear for Taylor in the last 1-2 weeks. See history below, including accusation of "vandalism" by user 156.34.213.216 after the wrong birth year (inserted by IP 70.53.154.134) was corrected by another editor.

The diminished capacity of this editor to make a good distinction between relevant and redundant details will have an adverse effect on the quality of this article. A lot of essential information has already been removed by this editor, including a list of the Stones records in which Taylor's playing is embodied, background on how the IORR record was made and also several references and citations. It is a pity that this user has a very limited knowledge of Taylor's career and this will obviously be reflected in the quality of his/her edits. Tiger Eye 27 (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor's year of birth - IMPORTANT !

Do not change the details in this explanation regarding Taylor's year of birth. If you want to make a statement you should write your own instead of altering what someone else wrote on the discussion page.

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.

Some clarification: Contrary to what has been claimed in many publications and books since the 60's, -and taken at face value by many journalists ever since- Taylor was not born in 1948. An article from Rolling Stone in the late 1960's was 100% right, and the details contained in the Blues from Laurel Canyon artwork (John Mayall's 1968 LP) 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.

Much of the information on the internet has been taken from publications that wrongly cited his year of birth as 1948. Please conform to the Rolling Stone article, Blues from Laurel Canyon artwork (and last but not least: Taylor's passport). 1949 is the year Taylor was born.Strawberryfields100 (talk) 12:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Message to the anonymous user with IP 70.53.154.134: Could you please leave the details regarding Mick Taylor's date of birth alone ? You have repeatedly inserted the wrong year of birth. You have done this three times which is regarded as vandalism. Taylor turned 59 two days ago. His year of birth is 1949, that is what is in his passport and that makes it a fact. It doesn't matter what has been written in newspapers or books since 1969. Which part of that is it that you don't understand ? The origin of the error can be traced back to 1969 when a journalist didn't check his information properly and listed Taylor's year of birth as 1948 (which is wrong).

Message to the user with IP 156.34.213.216: It is not allowed to make changes to a statement written by someone else on the discussion page. User 70.53.154.134 has done this repeatedly. When the author of the original statement is forced to repair the changes after unauthorised interference with the statement by another user, the author is not committing an act of vandalism but is actually combatting vandalism. Please look closely before accusing the wrong person of vandalism. Making changes to your own writing is not vandalism. If user 70.53.154.134 has something noteworthy to say, he/she should make the effort to compose their own statement instead of interfering with someone else's writing. Tiger Eye 27 (talk) 10:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citing sources

If anyone wants to paraphrase or reproduce something printed in a magazine or any other published AND reliable source, please include essential details so all readers can check you have not misinterpreted the information or put your own spin on it.

For magazines: include date of publication, issue number, name of interviewer and page number. For books: include year of publication, name of author and publisher, ISBN number and page number.

This is to ensure information based on other sources can be verified by everyone interested. Strawberryfields100 (talk) 15:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)yann[reply]

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)yann[reply]

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, there is no relation. Mick Taylor doesn't have any brothers.88.211.144.49 15:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)yann[reply]

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.

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)yann[reply]

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 1949. 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)yan[reply]

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 1949 (which is not true). Much of the information on the internet has been taken from publications that wrongly cited his year of birth as 1949. 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)yann[reply]

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

It's a real shame it's not as simple as asking Mick Taylor when his birthday is. I bet he could tell us the year!! Is anyone a friend of a friend of a friend of Mick Taylor, lol???!? V Schauf (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)

Technically, Mick Taylor was in another realm than Keith Richards, and this created tensions at times. (If you read the rolling stones auto-biography, there is a clear resentment by Keith Richards over Mick Taylor aggressive playing and chops.)Simply put, Richards simply wasn't as technically as skilled as Taylor, and it led to some resentment from Richards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.23.58 (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

As for his use of a Strat, on the cover of his first solo album is him and his Strat. But further back, can there be any question that "Dance Little Sister" is played on anything other than a Strat? He uses the whammy bar on that song. Also, on the inner sleave of Billy Preston's album "Billy Preston Live" is a picture of Mick Taylor playing a Strat. On the cover of Mayall's "Blues from Laurel Canyon" is a picture of Taylor sitting down in front of a Marshall playing a Strat.

The Telecaster is documented in the Stones video from December 1969. On the two songs I've seen from the video, "Jumping Jack Flash" and "Satisfaction" Taylor is playing a Telecaster. You can clearly hear Taylor playing a Telecaster on both available of versions of The Stones "Jiving Sister Fanny". In the interview Taylor did with "Guitar Player Magazine" in support of the release of his first solo album, Taylor cites his use of a Telecaster. And you can hear this Tele as the first song "Leather Jacket" begins to wind down and close.

When Taylor started touring on his own in 1986, he used his Strat. This guitar had a '62 body and a custom neck (a nice fat and thick neck). Ampeg 20:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Ampeg[reply]

The reason why Taylor most likely used a Strat for Dance Little Sister is that it SOUNDS like a Strat, not that he uses a whammy bar. Second, Taylor has stated personally that he used a Strat. (Heteren 12:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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))[reply]

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[reply]

I agree that it isn't impartial in many respects. An example would be at the end of the supergroup paragraph that he planned to team up with "drummer extraordinaire" Bruce Gary... since when would that description of anyone be impartial? --leahtwosaints 21:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this section should include that Mick Taylor was the guitar soloist at the end of "Can't You Hear Me Knocking?". We shouldn't list everytime that he did a guitar solo in Rolling Stones songs, but "Can't You Hear Me Knocking?" is different. Here are my reasons: it's easy to argue that "Can't You Hear Me Knocking?" is a well known song, the album it came from (STICKY FINGERS) is one of the best known Stones albums, and finally, Taylor's solo was an extremely important element to the song. I'm not going to "red dog" this entry and put this edit in. I have enough respect for the editor not to. HOWEVER, I would hope that there is enough consensus among those who are interested that the above will eventually be added to the Stones section. - V Schauf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.2.70.5 (talk) 12:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and wrote the mention of Taylor's key contribution to "Can't You Hear Me Knocking?" The reason I didn't wait for a consensus was there was no response to what I wrote in the preceding paragraph. Someone took it out the very next day. I stand by what I say before and don't think it was POV. He either did the solo or he didn't (he did). Can't You Hear Me Knocking?" is either a well known song on an important Stones album or it isn't (it is!) V Schauf (talk) 17:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

for what it's worth consensus-wise, i agree with the removal of that statement: personal opinions of the "importance" of any given track are not in line with wikipedia standards; besides, is there some reason to pinpoint one number to "exemplify" his contribution to the Stones' output? he was a member of the band for five years - obviously he contributed to their output.

meanwhile i'm right on the verge of deleting all those unreferenced assertions about the songwriting situation - they've been tagged as needing references for eight months now, and since no one's come up with anything to support them, they seem to meet all the WP:BLP criteria for immediate deletion. as far as i know Taylor himself has said there were two (2) numbers he felt he deserved songwriting credit on, and fans' speculation that there were others doesn't belong in a wikipedia article. Sssoul (talk) 09:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's crucial to bring more of Jagger's insight on how he liked playing with Mick Taylor. If Jagger thought he was excellent, a good collaborator, then obviously that shouldn't be dismissed easily as a "point of view" statement. If you all don't want the addition of "Can't You Hear Me Knocking?" added, then so be it. That deletion stands. But I promise you that it won't be so easy keeping out the edits I've made currently b/c I have the references to back them up and it's information that gives more insight into Taylor's contribution to the band. V Schauf (talk) 11:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no one is objecting to verifiable facts being accurately stated - the point is backing them up by citing reliable sources, and leaving our own personal opinions/speculations out of it. if you have a quote from Jagger about collaborating with Taylor, great, bring it on - but cite the source. thanks ... Sssoul (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Ssoul, I didn't mean to sound defensive, but I didn't want to be deleted in "knee jerk fashion". I can understand your opinion in the other instance when you said, "Can't You Hear Me Knocking?" shouldn't exemplify his 5 year contribution. I don't quite agree with that (for the reasons listed above), but respect your opinion. The concern (defensiveness, if you will) is that the author above stated that he wrote this "Rolling Stone" and didn't want anymore edits. Frankly, the section before I came on WAS GOOD, but just about anything on Wikipedia can be improved. Is there anything on here that's "perfect"?? Anyway, Ssoul, thank you for explaining why you thought my first edited should have been deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by V Schauf (talk • contribs) 11:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

V Schauf: Nobody should be claiming to have written this entry all by themselves. The article has grown over the years and many people have added to it. The person that said (a long time ago) that "nobody should change anything" is not among the main contributors. For some reason this editor insisted on adding over the top claims regarding alleged drug abuse to the article which were based on gossip and speculation, not facts. Other editors objected and took action - as per Wikipedia's policy to remove libelous and poorly sourced info from biographies on living persons.Fortherecord-today (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say whoever made the quotes (from the Rolling Stone article) about Brian Jones being fired and extending my quotes on Mick Jagger about what was the best lineup of the Stones, that was a very good addition, & I'm glad you made the edit. It's an improvement from what I originally added Saturday morning. V Schauf (talk) 12:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that was me (you can always check who made what changes by clicking on the "history" tab at the top of the article) and i'm glad you see the point of the finetuning.

and while i'm here: i think you misinterpreted Heteren's old "please don't change it" statement (above) - he wasn't saying he doesn't want any more edits at all - just that he didn't want it to be changed back into the overly-subjective/nonfactual/nonchronological exuding that it was before he cleaned it up. of course further *good* edits are welcome - the article still needs tons of work ... among other things, replacing those ornery unsubstantiated claims about the songwriting situation with something that has some accurate, reliable back-up. Sssoul (talk) 12:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Neutral?

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[reply]

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))[reply]

Taylor recruited by Mayall

this part is bogus! "When Taylor was 16 years old (1965) he had come to see a John Mayall's Bluesbreakers college gig in Hatfield with some of his mates from his band. Eric Clapton failed to show up for some reason and after Taylor approached Mayall during the intermission, he ended up filling in as the guitarist for the second set, playing Clapton's guitar".

check out the interview with John Mayall on his 70th anniversary DVD and hear from him how Taylor was recruited. this wikipedia is becoming like that saying about the "opinions" and how everyone got one ... >

To the person (IP 65.217.164.162) who left the comment above on 3 May 2007 at 13:08 :

I assume you mean the Godfather of British Blues documentary. There is no 70th anniversary DVD although there is a 70th Birthday concert DVD (released in 2004, just like the Godfather of Brit Blues docu). Can you explain why Mayall's comments (when interviewed for Godfather of British Blues DVD) would in any way be incongruous with the anecdote described in the article? As a teenager Taylor did substitute for Clapton in 1965 and that's how Mayall was introduced to him. In the liner notes of the Crusade LP you can read back how Mayall was "suitably impressed by the skill and maturity of the quiet natured aspirant". It would be 1-2 years until Mayall needed a guitarist to replace Peter Green who left early 1967. Mayall placed an ad in Melody Maker. Like JM says himself in the documentary when Taylor got back in touch (after seeing the ad) "I could basically stop answering the phone after that". Taylor went to see Mayall at his place in London. Taylor was offered the job as soon as he walked in the door, without an audition. 88.211.144.49 23:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)yann[reply]

Writing Credits

Taylor has only received one writing credit, namely for 'Ventilator Blues' on Exile. Three other credits were granted, but withdrawn: "I'm Going Down" and "I Don't Know Why" (from Metamorphosis) were mistakenly credited to Jagger/Richards/Taylor. "I Don't Know Why" is written by Stevie Wonder/Paul Riser/Don Hunter/Lula Hardaway and the credits for "I'm Going Down" were changed to Jagger/Richards after the first pressing. The original credits to "Stop Breaking Down" were retracted after the Robert Johnson estate filed a lawsuit against Allen Klein cs. ABKCO.

Still Alive And Well

Exactly who was kicked off the Stones' article. I've been editing it for awhile and have no recollection of anything like that happening. BTW, anyone who restores "shocked the music world" will have to defend that indefensible restoration. Mr Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.229.239.97 (talk) 04:21, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

69.229.239.97: The "shocked the music world" comment is something that was included before in publications from music critics reporting on Taylor leaving the Stones. As the wiki article is only making reference to what was written before I would not call it an indefensible statement. Strawberryfields100 (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

69.229.239.97: Where did anyone say that an editor was banned from the wiki Stones article? Nowhere. The only comment made about a ban came from Heteren. Heteren wrote here that there had been desperate attempts to re-write Taylor's history. He stated one person was responsible for this and the same person would have been thrown off all Stones boards - apparently referring to fansites that exist on the internet. I wonder if maybe this was said with the object of silencing someone that disagreed with views expressed by Heteren (whose statements have sometimes been poorly sourced/libelous and sensational). I've been here for a while also. I don't think any of the editors here were blocked from editing on wiki. I doubt very much that anyone involved with editing the Mick Taylor biography on wiki was thrown off any Stones forums eitherTiger Eye 27 21:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shocked the music world

I have seen this phrase in print in other places, even though I didn't insert in into the article. If you read back news reports from December 1974, there were definitely quite a lot of people within the music business that were shocked by Taylor's announcement. The Stones themselves had never considered someone could join the band and then just leave. The phrase "nobody leaves the Rolling Stones alive!" reveals some astonishment, doesn't it... Even people in the Stones organisation did not expect this at all. Marshall Chess later described it like this: Expeditions were set out by foot, by car, by train (or plane?) in an attempt to track Taylor down and reason with him. Something to that effect - right now I can't remember which book this is from.

Keith Richards: "I admire somebody who can walk out on a situation like that. Walk out on the fucking Rolling Stones..." So do you have any suggestions? At least something should be mentioned about the fact nobody had expected Taylor to leave. Tiger Eye 27 21:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your right about nobody being kicked off the message boards, and I stand corrected. Still, "shocked the music world" is bad writing. "Surprised many"- since readers would be intelligent enough to guess would would be among the "many" - would be a better edit. Also reactions from the Stones' camp are not enough to comprise "the music world". Concrete example of a "shocked...music world" are lacking. Assertion and vague interpretation isn't enough. Mr Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.229.239.247 (talk) 00:04, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Exile on Main St - Keith Richards' intake

In his book "Exile on Main St, A Season in Hell with the Rolling Stones" Robert Greenfield has documented some of the goings on at Nellcôte in summer '71. People that lived at Nellcôte are quoted saying that the only thing they saw Richards do was drink Jack Daniels and smoke joints. (Richards was extremely discrete about his drug taking). Because a joint doesn't equal marijuna it's better to stick exactly to the quote from the book. Also Richards' preference for JD is well-documented (interviews and photos), so in this case it makes sense to leave that as it is instead of changing it to a general term like alcohol. Strawberryfields100 19:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple article issues

This article has some serious issues with regards to WP:CITE, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. It reads like a fansite and has numerous errors which seem to be copied from the www.micktaylor.net website which itself is laden with unverified oroginal research and false claims. Some attempt has been made to clean the article but some troubling edits from the editor, the who seems to have turned the article into a poorly written fansite in the first place, have made improving the article difficult. More maintenance tags will be added and an administrator will have to be summoned to deal with the fancrufter. 142.167.66.181 (talk) 13:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of objective information, references and citations

Anyone that has read the above statement by anon user 142.167.66.181 should also read the talk page of this editor.

This editor has removed important sections of the article, incl the list of Stones albums that embody Taylor's playing, the background information on the making of the IORR record and several reliable and verifiable citations and references (while screaming for WP:CITE, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV).

The anon editor has blanked part of the section on Taylor's years as member of the Stones. This informantion was relevant and did not take up much space. The editor has asserted that this paragraph had to be condensed because it's already included in the wiki entry on the Rolling Stones. Referral to the Rolling Stones article is misguided, naieve and besides the point. The RS article will obviously focus on the career overview of the band as a whole and will never tell the story from Taylor's perspective. The wiki entry on the band is linked automatically every time the word "Rolling Stones" is mentioned. For this reason there is no need for a separate referral to the Stones article in Taylor's biography. Assuming that Taylor's story will be done justice in an article about the Rolling Stones is like believing that his version of events will be represented in a book published by them. Most people that know a little bit about Taylor's career and his decision to leave the band will recognise that that is not the case.

There are no false claims in the article. Just because the article contains positive statements about Taylor's influence on the music produced by the Stones from '69 to December '74 does not equal it reads like a fansite. The article has benefitted from contributions by many diffent editors, the information contained herein is not just representing any one person's opinion but has been tried and tested. Most of it can be traced back to published sources even when a couple publications have to be relocated so the list of references can be expanded. If anyone wants to help with finding good references to information in the article that would be helpful. Tiger Eye 27 (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only extensive content removal was the superfluous listing of each and every Rolling Stones album that Taylor appears on. And if you would scroll down the page... there a discography section for that. The quoted policies that the page was shading are all valid issues. Compare this article to similar articles. Does the Jimmy Page article go on and on about Led Zeppelin? No. It doesn't have to. There's already a Led Zeppelin article even though, as most would recognise, Page IS Led Zeppelin. Wikipedia has clear policies and guidelines for what an encyclopedia article should look like. And what goes in and what doesn't. Taylor was a member of the Rolling Stones. And there is a Rolling Stones article. The page contained text refering to Taylor introducing Jagger to Branson. Probably a key moment for both Jagger and Branson. But just unreq'd superfluity in this page. Taylor is a stellar talent. And the only way to build any good encyclopedia page (and I've built many) is to rn the bad and then re-populate with properly referenced, neutral text. It's the Wikipedia way. In an attempt to try and clean up the page all I've come across is anti-anon prejudice and non-constructive complaints that are pushing to rv the article back to "fansite" instead of moving forward to encyclopedia. I will request an edit mentor for both of you to help you understand better. Then the work towards a quality article will be a community effort. You title this talk section as removal of objective information??? Citations??? there were no citations for valid information removed and no objective content that was centred on Taylor and not other acts or individuals was not removed. 142.167.73.151 (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

== Taylor's picture==

I had complained about no picture of Mick Taylor back in 2008. I would like to thank the person who added the picture. A good point was made that it would be nice to get a picture of him when he was younger, but hey, "beggars can't be choosers"!