After the tour, my wish would be they continue their relationship with Taylor and do the album with the Jagger, Richards, Wood, Taylor, Watts lineup. Taylor, Wood and Richards all can play bass, so that is covered, maybe have Chuck do the keys and call it a day. Throw a few originals, a few covers on it.

Has anyone thought along the same lines?

Taylor should go solo.

Quote
ifyacantrockme
maybe have Chuck do the keys

Then again, maybe not.

I suspect it is likely Taylor may figure into the equation on any future Stones album. He has nearly always expressed an interest in doing so and Jagger, Richards and Wood have all worked with him at one point or another over the years anyway outside of the Stones, however briefly.

I imagine it could, possibly, even be a large(ish) role, should it come to pass, or maybe a very small spot only, but if it happens at all, the line would almost certainly be drawn somewhere. We'll see in time.

Would love to see an album with the line-up you list.

Would personally also love to see Mr. Bill Wyman in the mix.

I know he got a little bent about only doing a couple numbers on the
anniversary gigs,so it would also be nice to see that ironed out.It'd be very cool to have every living member of the band collaborate on a kick ass double LP.

Would love to hear a new Stones album with Bill and Mick Taylor on it. If they concentrate on music and not on current trends I believe they could make an increbible record. Anything is possible.

I don't think Bill would come back. Taylor absolutely would, but that would mean Mick and Keith would have to ask them, which I doubt they'd do. I doubt they'd make a new album anyway at this point, but if they were I don't think they'd ask him back. The same amount of people would buy a new Stones album, whether it included Taylor and Wyman or not, and thats all that really matters to them.

Get Bobby Keys on the album as well. What was the last studio album he was on, Emotional Rescue? Crazy.

Quote
ifyacantrockme
After the tour, my wish would be they continue their relationship with Taylor and do the album with the Jagger, Richards, Wood, Taylor, Watts lineup. Taylor, Wood and Richards all can play bass, so that is covered, maybe have Chuck do the keys and call it a day. Throw a few originals, a few covers on it.

Has anyone thought along the same lines?

Yes.

Why does Darryl Jones get no respect as a bassist? (I'm just assuming this based on the fact that this scenario seems to be finding ways to avoid using him, I could be misinterpreting the intent.)

Quote
ifyacantrockme
After the tour, my wish would be they continue their relationship with Taylor and do the album with the Jagger, Richards, Wood, Taylor, Watts lineup. Taylor, Wood and Richards all can play bass, so that is covered, maybe have Chuck do the keys and call it a day. Throw a few originals, a few covers on it.

Has anyone thought along the same lines?

the musicians and musicianship has not been the problem with their albums over the last 25 years.

the problem has been the songwriting.

if there is a new stones album in the future, it should be a covers-only record.

look at how amazing some of keith's coutnry and western covers have been - or mick doing blues covers at the white house a few months ago. these guys still have it as far as performers and arrangement and interpretation of music.

i hope they get lots of great people on their next album including taylor, etc. but they should really think twice, and then again, before recording original material.

My intuition is that with Mick Taylor hopefully in the studio, preferably as a rejoined member of the band, their interacting could change in a favourable way, and that this new personal chemistry would inspire more passionate and ambitious studio development of their song ideas. In that case their own songs ought to be much more interesting.

Would love to hear a new Stones album with BMick Taylor on it. Would be great.

Maybe a new producer as well, they need new inspiration and Don Was is not the best anymore. He has locked them into a certain style / sound, now there is need for some change.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
ifyacantrockme
After the tour, my wish would be they continue their relationship with Taylor and do the album with the Jagger, Richards, Wood, Taylor, Watts lineup. Taylor, Wood and Richards all can play bass, so that is covered, maybe have Chuck do the keys and call it a day. Throw a few originals, a few covers on it.

Has anyone thought along the same lines?

Yes.

Would be great !!!
Jeroen

Quote
Aquamarine
Why does Darryl Jones get no respect as a bassist? (I'm just assuming this based on the fact that this scenario seems to be finding ways to avoid using him, I could be misinterpreting the intent.)

there's a contingent that thinks he isn't right at all for the Stones..

then theres a sizable faction that is glad Darryl has turned out to be such a solid, reliable player...who does his best to support the songs, and is loved by the rest of the band..

I include myself in this faction yet Bill's sound and style were so unique to the Stones that it has to be said they are quite different without him

...its complicated but without Darryl no touring.

Quote
duke richardson

Quote
Aquamarine
Why does Darryl Jones get no respect as a bassist? (I'm just assuming this based on the fact that this scenario seems to be finding ways to avoid using him, I could be misinterpreting the intent.)

there's a contingent that thinks he isn't right at all for the Stones..

then theres a sizable faction that is glad Darryl has turned out to be such a solid, reliable player...who does his best to support the songs, and is loved by the rest of the band..

I include myself in this faction yet Bill's sound and style were so unique to the Stones that it has to be said they are quite different without him

...its complicated but without Darryl no touring.

Agree with everything you say, except the last part. If they will tour without Bill, they will tour without Darryl if need be. Bass is no longer a permanent position in the band and after 20 years Darryl has not been made a full member, whereas Ronnie didn't have to wait 20 years to become a full member. They are indeed happy with Darryl but they would tour regardless, even if they had to find a session player to fill the role.

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
duke richardson

Quote
Aquamarine
Why does Darryl Jones get no respect as a bassist? (I'm just assuming this based on the fact that this scenario seems to be finding ways to avoid using him, I could be misinterpreting the intent.)

there's a contingent that thinks he isn't right at all for the Stones..

then theres a sizable faction that is glad Darryl has turned out to be such a solid, reliable player...who does his best to support the songs, and is loved by the rest of the band..

I include myself in this faction yet Bill's sound and style were so unique to the Stones that it has to be said they are quite different without him

...its complicated but without Darryl no touring.

Agree with everything you say, except the last part. If they will tour without Bill, they will tour without Darryl if need be. Bass is no longer a permanent position in the band and after 20 years Darryl has not been made a full member, whereas Ronnie didn't have to wait 20 years to become a full member. They are indeed happy with Darryl but they would tour regardless, even if they had to find a session player to fill the role.

yes I have to agree...no Darryl means, nothing changes.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
duke richardson

Quote
Aquamarine
Why does Darryl Jones get no respect as a bassist? (I'm just assuming this based on the fact that this scenario seems to be finding ways to avoid using him, I could be misinterpreting the intent.)

there's a contingent that thinks he isn't right at all for the Stones..

then theres a sizable faction that is glad Darryl has turned out to be such a solid, reliable player...who does his best to support the songs, and is loved by the rest of the band..

I include myself in this faction yet Bill's sound and style were so unique to the Stones that it has to be said they are quite different without him

...its complicated but without Darryl no touring.

Agree with everything you say, except the last part. If they will tour without Bill, they will tour without Darryl if need be. Bass is no longer a permanent position in the band and after 20 years Darryl has not been made a full member, whereas Ronnie didn't have to wait 20 years to become a full member. They are indeed happy with Darryl but they would tour regardless, even if they had to find a session player to fill the role.

yes I have to agree...no Darryl means, nothing changes.

seriously? nothing changes?? after all Keith's blah blah about not wanting any changes in the engine room???

If there's a new Stones album in the future...it might cost $150 for single cd, $450 for Deluxe 2 cd, and $650 for Super Deluxe 3cd/dvd.

VIP version will cost $1500 which includes all of the above + exclusive t-shirt and laminate.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
Hairball
If there's a new Stones album in the future...it might cost $150 for single cd, $450 for Deluxe 2 cd, and $650 for Super Deluxe 3cd/dvd.

VIP version will cost $1500 which includes all of the above + exclusive t-shirt and laminate.

But surely there will be an $85 surprise box version--though you won't know how many CDs are in it until you open the box and you won't know the track listing until you actually take it out and play it....

Quote
duke richardson

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
duke richardson

Quote
Aquamarine
Why does Darryl Jones get no respect as a bassist? (I'm just assuming this based on the fact that this scenario seems to be finding ways to avoid using him, I could be misinterpreting the intent.)

there's a contingent that thinks he isn't right at all for the Stones..

then theres a sizable faction that is glad Darryl has turned out to be such a solid, reliable player...who does his best to support the songs, and is loved by the rest of the band..

I include myself in this faction yet Bill's sound and style were so unique to the Stones that it has to be said they are quite different without him

...its complicated but without Darryl no touring.

Agree with everything you say, except the last part. If they will tour without Bill, they will tour without Darryl if need be. Bass is no longer a permanent position in the band and after 20 years Darryl has not been made a full member, whereas Ronnie didn't have to wait 20 years to become a full member. They are indeed happy with Darryl but they would tour regardless, even if they had to find a session player to fill the role.

yes I have to agree...no Darryl means, nothing changes.

seriously? nothing changes?? after all Keith's blah blah about not wanting any changes in the engine room???

Charlie would call it a day if they had to break in a new bass...that's a big change...

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
Hairball
If there's a new Stones album in the future...it might cost $150 for single cd, $450 for Deluxe 2 cd, and $650 for Super Deluxe 3cd/dvd.

VIP version will cost $1500 which includes all of the above + exclusive t-shirt and laminate.

But surely there will be an $85 surprise box version--though you won't know how many CDs are in it until you open the box and you won't know the track listing until you actually take it out and play it....

... and you can only play the CD if your fingerprints are biometricly verified to match the fingerprints of the person who bought the surprise box...

stonehearted-

>>whereas Ronnie didn't have to wait 20 years to become a full member.<<

no only 16 ...gotta be a record of some sort..

I doubt they'll bother with a new record if the current tour turns out to be a fiasco in terms of sales as it currently stands, they're gonna want to get as far away from the Stones as they can, especially Mick...it's not like they were particularly interested in making new music before that anyway.

A shame really because the demand to see them was there, as well as hear new music as the good reception of D&G proved last year.

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
duke richardson

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
duke richardson

Quote
Aquamarine
Why does Darryl Jones get no respect as a bassist? (I'm just assuming this based on the fact that this scenario seems to be finding ways to avoid using him, I could be misinterpreting the intent.)

there's a contingent that thinks he isn't right at all for the Stones..

then theres a sizable faction that is glad Darryl has turned out to be such a solid, reliable player...who does his best to support the songs, and is loved by the rest of the band..

I include myself in this faction yet Bill's sound and style were so unique to the Stones that it has to be said they are quite different without him

...its complicated but without Darryl no touring.

Agree with everything you say, except the last part. If they will tour without Bill, they will tour without Darryl if need be. Bass is no longer a permanent position in the band and after 20 years Darryl has not been made a full member, whereas Ronnie didn't have to wait 20 years to become a full member. They are indeed happy with Darryl but they would tour regardless, even if they had to find a session player to fill the role.

yes I have to agree...no Darryl means, nothing changes.

seriously? nothing changes?? after all Keith's blah blah about not wanting any changes in the engine room???

Charlie would call it a day if they had to break in a new bass...that's a big change...

Charlie would call it a day if he was on smack and Mick called him his drummer...short of that, he's in no matter what.