Quote
Amsterdamned
Don't worry about me.
I'am sorry for you not understanding Taylor is the missing link.

Quote
shortfatfanny

Quote
Amsterdamned
Don't worry about me.
I'am sorry for you not understanding Taylor is the missing link.

I think even Mick Taylor wouldn´t agree with you.

Quote
Bliss
>>we all wait anxiously with bated breath for the sequel to DOGSHIT in the doorway

I know I am. The Stones are creatively exhausted; they are literally scraping the bottom of the barrel, cobbling together 40 year old rejects to present to the public to squeeze the very last cent out of the punters. They will NEVER produce another album of new material.

Quote
Bliss
But when the dust settles and the Rolling Stones have hung up their touring hats for good, Mick will rise from the ashes like a phoenix, and you will see some new solo albums and possibly (hopefully) a new tour.

Quote
Bliss
Keith, Ronnie and Charlie will continue to play in small clubs and continue to contribute as side musicians til they can no longer perform.

Quote
Amsterdamned

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Amsterdamned

Quote
Doxa
To be true, I find that "Wired All Night" quite horrible. Just an empty posing cliche the whole performance and the song. Mick seems to try so hard but don't seem to have any true connection to the music at all. Plastic rock. Muzak as someone said.

- Doxa

With all respect for Keith as a songwriter:compared to this band the Stones sound like a water pistol compared to this band after Taylor's departure. They even don't need an open G to sound like a tank..

Of course, this band consists of techically better - but not so personal - musicians as Jagger's "other one", but I wasn't comparing this performance (and the band) to the Stones at all but tried to judge in its own rights. The band sounds totally boring to me, and I don't even register their musical existence because they don't touch me at all - so boring they are (the muzak effect) - but what bothers me is the star of the show who sounds and looks like totally out of place. To me it looks like Mick is so full of excitement of finally having the whole show and stage in his control but turns out to be totally lost for having all this freedom. To me he ends up just repeating every cliche he knows as quick and as much as possible. That's the only way he seems to know how to use this "chance": try to be more The Rolling Stones frontman than he is even within the Stones. He tries to fill the place with his presence and strongly over-plays. And the song is boring as hell (one of the reasons I think prevents me from listening to WANDERING SPIRIT more often.)

But there are some great performances in that show (and on the record as well), I know.

- Doxa

I think Mick is the absolute leader here; in fact he's the Stones.

Keith appearance on stage is a matter of nostalgia and pose,but as a guitar player over the last 30 years he has nothing to offer. The guys in Jagger's band do what Jagger asks for:play decent, and be a mix of Jones, Taylor,and Keith, .
but better please,and don't noodle..It also proves that Taylor still is the missing link...
The Stones are a formula,only in it for the money.

Quote
Doxa
So sterile. But biggest problem is Mick himself: He is playing every inch of his Rolling Stones stage persona (perhaps he doesn't have any other), but without having the balance or contrast musical and otherwise charisma there, he just fills the whole space with his presence and it, after a while, turns out to be quite one-dimensional. There is no real excitement, no real dynamics.

Quote
Bliss
This is not a popular point of view, but if the public could have overcome their prejudice against Mick appearing without Keith and Charlie, I really think his solo career could have been huge.

Quote
Bliss
Mick is a workaholic, and his efforts would have been unimpeded by having to accommodate Keith and Ronnie.

Quote
Bliss

The Stones are creatively exhausted; they are literally scraping the bottom of the barrel, cobbling together 40 year old rejects to present to the public to squeeze the very last cent out of the punters. They will NEVER produce another album of new material.

Quote
Bliss
But when the dust settles and the Rolling Stones have hung up their touring hats for good, Mick will rise from the ashes like a phoenix, and you will see some new solo albums and possibly (hopefully) a new tour.

Quote
Bliss

Keith, Ronnie and Charlie will continue to play in small clubs and continue to contribute as side musicians til they can no longer perform.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Bliss
This is not a popular point of view, but if the public could have overcome their prejudice against Mick appearing without Keith and Charlie, I really think his solo career could have been huge.

I would say that its stating the obvious. If the public had bought enough of his records, he would have been huge. Its a bit like saying if the public hadnt have bought many Stones tickets, they would still be playing small clubs.

>>>My opinion is that Mick wasn't given a chance. People do not want a non-Stones Mick especially if it means that this would mean the end of the Stones.

Unfortunately for Mick, the vision he and Walter Yetnikoff had of him being a solo superstar who outlived and grew beyond the band that created him (a la Michael Jackson) didnt quite work out because he was much better suited to being a frontman in a band, and his own realisation of this is a major factor in the Stones lasting as long as they have done.

Quote
Bliss
Mick is a workaholic, and his efforts would have been unimpeded by having to accommodate Keith and Ronnie.

Mick is far from being a workaholic. Feel free to reel me off a list of his concert appearances, recording activities and even movie work since the last Stones show two and half years ago. Note - attendance at fashion shows and film premieres don't count.

>>He has spent a great deal of time helping L'Wren launch her career as a fashion designer, quite beyond going to fashion shows. In a few short years, she has gone from being an absolute beginner to being considered a viable designer, with many celebrities buy and wearing her pieces to important events.

Those clips are from a pretty good album. That Webster Hall show is also very good. However, would he have been anywhere near the superstar he has been had he followed a different path and been a solo act for most or all of his career? Absolutely not.

Quote
Bliss

The Stones are creatively exhausted; they are literally scraping the bottom of the barrel, cobbling together 40 year old rejects to present to the public to squeeze the very last cent out of the punters. They will NEVER produce another album of new material.

You may be right on the last point, but I wouldnt expect much of any band after 45 odd years. '40 year old rejects' are an archives project, similar to what every other act of similar vintage have done, and its ridiculous to compare such a release to a new record.

>>>I think if they had new material they wouldn't bother with the archives. That material was considered sub-par at the time.

Quote
Bliss
But when the dust settles and the Rolling Stones have hung up their touring hats for good, Mick will rise from the ashes like a phoenix, and you will see some new solo albums and possibly (hopefully) a new tour.

You're kidding right? You're aware how old he is? No one is buying his solo albums. Record sales are in the toilet in general and arent going to get any better, and if the Stones do one more tour and disband, Mick Jagger will then be in his 70s. Who the hell is going to be lining up to buy all these solo albums and concert tickets? Phoenix from the ashes? There's more chance of the dodo coming back than there is of Mick packing them in and selling lots of copies of solo work when hes in his 70s.

>>>Well, we will see. I was prepared to make my predictions public.

Quote
Bliss

Keith, Ronnie and Charlie will continue to play in small clubs and continue to contribute as side musicians til they can no longer perform.

'Continue' ? Aside from Charlie's recent gigs, theyve barely played a note on a concert stage when the Stones have been off the road in a decade, and their recording activities have been almost non existent.

Quote
flilflam
This is what Rip This joint is supposed to sound like. There is a vast difference in quality between this original version and this rip off presented by someone who does not seem to know the difference between Stones music and Muzak.

Quote
Bliss

They will NEVER produce another album of new material.

But when the dust settles and the Rolling Stones have hung up their touring hats for good, Mick will rise from the ashes like a phoenix, and you will see some new solo albums and possibly (hopefully) a new tour.

Keith, Ronnie and Charlie will continue to play in small clubs and continue to contribute as side musicians til they can no longer perform.

Quote
alimente
I have the impression that some critics are not honest here. I am absolutely sure that in case Keith and Ron would play even remotely like Jimmy and the other guy in these Webster Hall clips the very same people would piss in their pants and fill this forum with endless "they are back and better than ever"-messages.

Quote
Amsterdamned

Quote
flilflam
This is what Rip This joint is supposed to sound like. There is a vast difference in quality between this original version and this rip off presented by someone who does not seem to know the difference between Stones music and Muzak.

Agreed!.That's a part of the point I'am trying to make.
The Stones after Taylor are making Muzak, with some exeptions. Jagger should have stayed solo,maybe some co-writing with Keith. Jagger's band maybe a bit impersonal,but trice better then the lame music the Stones made,repeating themselves and getting worse over the years.
A pitty Jagger and Richards went for the $$$$$..,even if they wanted to slit each others throat.

Quote
shortfatfanny

Quote
Amsterdamned

Quote
flilflam
This is what Rip This joint is supposed to sound like. There is a vast difference in quality between this original version and this rip off presented by someone who does not seem to know the difference between Stones music and Muzak.

Agreed!.That's a part of the point I'am trying to make.
The Stones after Taylor are making Muzak, with some exeptions. Jagger should have stayed solo,maybe some co-writing with Keith. Jagger's band maybe a bit impersonal,but trice better then the lame music the Stones made,repeating themselves and getting worse over the years.
A pitty Jagger and Richards went for the $$$$$..,even if they wanted to slit each others throat.

Oh dear,how did you sound about 40 years ago ?
What did you do,how did you move ?
What did you eat and drink ?
Reading and watching the same stuff ?
Listening to the same music ?
Knowing the same people ?
Leaving your home once in a while ?
Learning anything with more or less skill ?
Loving someone ?
Experiencing anything ?
Having a life ?

If you don´t like anything about the Stones the last 36 years and your
only interest is in establishing

The Temple Of Taylor,

have you ever asked yourself

WHAT AM I DOING HERE ?

( In case you didn´t realize...the Taylor years are my absolute favourite ones
concerning the Stones,which doesn´t mean at all to trash the time before and after...)

Quote
liddas
But also the opposite is true: music is not about scales and flashy chops. Those who dismiss the band for how it has performed in the last 20 years just don't get it. On a good night the stones could play (and still can play) like very few others can. Even with the ocacsional bum notes and all.