Santic, mckwil, I share your sentiments to a degree; For the next tour both Keith and Woody need to stop posing so much and PLAY MORE GUITAR!

The strange thing is that when the Stones visit the B stage they still play & sound like the great guitar based band that they are.
When they play on the B stage there is no hiding place and both Ronnie & Keith have to perform seriously which they both do.
I am looking for next years concerts to be based upon Arena/Club gigs which would ensure that Keith & Ronnie
perform to the best of their abilities.
But there again when you are in your late 50's/early 60's it is quite possible that you cannot produce a high standard of performance for 2 hours.
This is not an excuse but a reason why the consistency of performance provided in their youth is not fully achievable now.

It's 2005, so let me set the record straight, once and for all. It is obvious to any true Stones fanatic that the best shows ever were with Mick Taylor. Indeed, were Mick Taylor to play with the Stones now -- a dream, of course -- it would be obvious that he added a sound to the band that neither the Stones nor any other band have been able to reproduce. If you have any doubt, go listen to Exile, particularly Side 4.

By the way, does anyone know how to get a great video or audio copy of Ladies and Gentlemen? Why isn't it shown in theatres any more?

EXILED

"mt had a tinney sound and very hurtful to the STONES sound at that time. Thank the Gods they have mt no more." Poli, that is perhaps the stupidest and most ignorant thing, amongst many, that you have you ever written on this forum. Congratualtions! You've topped yourself!

stones40:
Great guitar player he (MT) was & is yet the Stones have still survived on record & live performance. Perhaps one is looking in the wrong direction as to why the Stones have been at the top of the tree for last 42 years."

Demon: That's right stones40, it's not because of MT, that's for sure.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-01-01 20:51 by Demon.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-01-01 20:51 by Demon.

Poli, you remind me of a little boy who feels that the only way he can get attention is to say and do stupid things. You should really listen to your Doctor and keep taking your medication and one day you'll be all better. You such a good little boy for some time, but now? tsk, tsk.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-01-01 20:58 by ChrisM.

"Good boy?" why, by not being here fo' awhile? Can't take it, hey? AWwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwBTW, yo'r TALK IS CHEAP, and btw, your verge'n on "slander"...honey............take........heed.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-01-01 21:41 by Demon.

Poli, I liken our verbal exchanges to a boxing match of a seasoned pugalist versus an armless man; it's a good work out but ultimately unfilling and not very challenging. I really feel like I'm picking on a kid, so rather than indulge in further child abuse I'll leave you to your nonsensical rantings. The only reason I chose to pipe in at all on this thread was because some impressionable minds might actually believe the cal you more often than not write here. As to any slander, this a case of the pot calling the kettle black as I'm sure Mick Taylor's attorneys could make a case against you if they thought it was worth the effort, which it is clearly not, given the source. However, I've asked my attorney Bob to render an opinion on the matter. Bob, your thoughts?



Ah,as I thought! Many thanks!

ChrisM wrote:"The only reason I chose to pipe in at all on this thread was because some impressionable minds might actually believe the cal you more often than not write here"

A total of 6X's, do ya think it shoulda took ya that many posts? I think ya like to see yourself in print. You're the type who wants to think for everyone too, do you think their all small children here, not very complimentary of you ChrisM, of the other posters here, tsk, tsk, tsk.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-01-02 06:38 by Demon.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-01-02 06:39 by Demon.

Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Refering to previous thread, below:
>
> From
> Re: Write down all new tour facts here!
> Posted by: Demon (IP Logged)
> Date: desember 30, 2004 18:38
>
> Sorry Gaz, what's bizarre is that you are refering
> to MT as an authentic Rolling Stone? No way. LA
> FORUM is correct, he named ALL the real STONES,
> not in order though. In order, and in reference to
> how the Rolling Stones were added to the RS band
> that Brian started, is as follows: BRIAN, KEITH,
> MICK, BILL and then Charlie, then RONNIE.
>
> You can't compare MT to Ronnie, in being a STONE,
> (MT was a fill in). Ronnie has been a STONE for 30
> years, compared to MT's barely 5 years of "filling
> in," while the STONES actually waited for Ronnie
> to finish with the FACES.
>
> Keith's own words, "It was so obvious to me that
> Ronnie should be in the Stones. The only reason he
> didn't join earlier is that "nobody" wanted to be
> the reason for the Faces breaking up." (Ref.
> Bockris)
>
> Keith also spoke of how Ronnie and he was closer
> to the STONES sound than MT and he was. (On the
> ancient art of weaving):
>
> "Woody and I can start playing together until we
> don't know who played the last lick. It's as close
> as that. We, both become one instrument. You're in
> the other person's head and he's in yours, and you
> two are on this little mental plane where no one
> else is, trying to predict and and follow, all at
> the same time." 'Keith and Ronnie played the same
> way Keith had played with Brian and their
> connection was similar,...In the spring of 1975, a
> whole new emotional engine began to run."
>
> Keith set the record straight: "He, never really
> wrote things, in spite of what he said. It's
> basically imagination."
>
> MT left the band because of his foolish pride and
> his "Stupid wife." (NK)
>
> Keith's attitude was, "We've got these sessions to
> do, we're the Rolling Stones. (@#$%& him.")
>
> Taylor fans will twist the above, but these are
> facts. Sure, Keith has had kind words for MT, but
> then, Keith has kind words for a lot of people
> from time to time.
>
> Remember, Brian started and named the band, 'in
> homage to Muddy Waters' song "Rollin' Stone."
> Brian will always be a STONE. You can't change the
> facts.
> Rollin' Stoli
>
> I DON'T REGRET NOTHIN' (KR)
>
>
> ---------------------------------------
>
> Re: Write down all new tour facts here!
> Posted by: LA FORUM (IP Logged)
> Date: desember 30, 2004 16:55
> Here's my info: I aint going!
>
>
> (maybe I will after all)
>
> Happy New year Mick, Keith, Charlie and Bill and
> Ron
> Happy New Year Brian
>
>
> Inglewood '75...
>
> ---------------------------------------
> Re: Write down all new tour facts here!
> Posted by: Gazza (IP Logged)
> Date: desember 30, 2004 17:14
> You're wishing Happy New Year to a dead Rolling
> Stone but omitting a living one?
>
> Very bizarre!
>
> ----------------------------------------
>
> Life's a bitch, hey!


Thought I'd bring this back......lol

Pleased to meet you......

I'd advise all who connect the presence of Mick Taylor,

one-on-one in a direct cause-result structure within one sentence, to the succes of the Stones during late sixties/early seventies,

to the Gazza-post on the MT-article-thread. Wait, I'll make it easy and provide you the link: [www.iorr.org]

Just to see another opinion on the succes of the Stones: very relevant, complete and well-written. So after you've read it, we maybe can put the whole MT-matter in perspective again, and hopefully give it some rest?

Jelle



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-02-02 15:45 by sluissie.

Odd to think that Ronnie's now been in the band longer than Bill was !

Quote
mitchtaylorormick
Sorry, but Woody sucks big fat elephant dick. 1975 and 1978 were the live musical low lights of the Stones career. 1981 was good because Keef stopped using herion.* I hate Woody.

*Do you mean heroin? Viz. your sweeping statement about 75 and 76, there were shows that were pretty good, Seattle being among them. If you haven't listened to it, I suggest you do. The crowd's energy hit them like an asbestos glove and things ramped up at the very beginning of the show and continued to get better.
I knew I was at a very good show.

And I maintain that far too much mental masturbation has been tossed toward the "they were on drugs back then so that means they sounded like crap." Rubbish. If they wanted to get stinko paralytico they waited until after a tour. Keep in mind they witnessed Brian's downward spiral at close range. Brian was a mess when he was interviewed in Charlie is My Darling.
Secondly, large, very large sums of money was needed to under write the tour. That money came from venture capitalists and large corporations, who, believe me you, were keeping an eagle eye for any behaviour that could endanger the expected return on their investment.

If you ask me, (wh. you certainly didn't. But I will state your opinion about 75 and 76 is neither sought nor is it welcome) 1981 & 82 were the nadir of Keith and Ronnie's playing and Mick's vocalisation. I saw them in 75 and 81. 75 was far more exciting.

You may leave the room now. But do not turn your back to me as you do, as I'm older and much, much wiser than you. Tar-ra.

Interesting to see this thread resurface....True, Woody seems like more of a "Stone" than Taylor, but Taylor did contribute to some of their best material. However, he did seem like almost a featured session man as apposed to Woody who quickly became integrated into the band... Meanwhile, a scope of their recent setlists is actually quite heavy on Brian-era material.

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-06-13 00:22 by HonkeyTonkFlash.

Quote
HEILOOBAAS

Quote
mitchtaylorormick
Sorry, but Woody sucks big fat elephant dick. 1975 and 1978 were the live musical low lights of the Stones career. 1981 was good because Keef stopped using herion.* I hate Woody.

*Do you mean heroin? Viz. your sweeping statement about 75 and 76, there were shows that were pretty good, Seattle being among them. If you haven't listened to it, I suggest you do. The crowd's energy hit them like an asbestos glove and things ramped up at the very beginning of the show and continued to get better.
I knew I was at a very good show.

And I maintain that far too much mental masturbation has been tossed toward the "they were on drugs back then so that means they sounded like crap." Rubbish. If they wanted to get stinko paralytico they waited until after a tour. Keep in mind they witnessed Brian's downward spiral at close range. Brian was a mess when he was interviewed in Charlie is My Darling.
Secondly, large, very large sums of money was needed to under write the tour. That money came from venture capitalists and large corporations, who, believe me you, were keeping an eagle eye for any behaviour that could endanger the expected return on their investment.

If you ask me, (wh. you certainly didn't. But I will state your opinion about 75 and 76 is neither sought nor is it welcome) 1981 & 82 were the nadir of Keith and Ronnie's playing and Mick's vocalisation. I saw them in 75 and 81. 75 was far more exciting.

You may leave the room now. But do not turn your back to me as you do, as I'm older and much, much wiser than you. Tar-ra.

You're talking to a guy that was banned more than ten years ago

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
HEILOOBAAS

Quote
mitchtaylorormick
Sorry, but Woody sucks big fat elephant dick. 1975 and 1978 were the live musical low lights of the Stones career. 1981 was good because Keef stopped using herion.* I hate Woody.

*Do you mean heroin? Viz. your sweeping statement about 75 and 76, there were shows that were pretty good, Seattle being among them. If you haven't listened to it, I suggest you do. The crowd's energy hit them like an asbestos glove and things ramped up at the very beginning of the show and continued to get better.
I knew I was at a very good show.

And I maintain that far too much mental masturbation has been tossed toward the "they were on drugs back then so that means they sounded like crap." Rubbish. If they wanted to get stinko paralytico they waited until after a tour. Keep in mind they witnessed Brian's downward spiral at close range. Brian was a mess when he was interviewed in Charlie is My Darling.
Secondly, large, very large sums of money was needed to under write the tour. That money came from venture capitalists and large corporations, who, believe me you, were keeping an eagle eye for any behaviour that could endanger the expected return on their investment.

If you ask me, (wh. you certainly didn't. But I will state your opinion about 75 and 76 is neither sought nor is it welcome) 1981 & 82 were the nadir of Keith and Ronnie's playing and Mick's vocalisation. I saw them in 75 and 81. 75 was far more exciting.

You may leave the room now. But do not turn your back to me as you do, as I'm older and much, much wiser than you. Tar-ra.

You're talking to a guy that was banned more than ten years ago

i'd say heiloobaas wins the argument in that case.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
HEILOOBAAS

Quote
mitchtaylorormick
Sorry, but Woody sucks big fat elephant dick. 1975 and 1978 were the live musical low lights of the Stones career. 1981 was good because Keef stopped using herion.* I hate Woody.

*Do you mean heroin? Viz. your sweeping statement about 75 and 76, there were shows that were pretty good, Seattle being among them. If you haven't listened to it, I suggest you do. The crowd's energy hit them like an asbestos glove and things ramped up at the very beginning of the show and continued to get better.
I knew I was at a very good show.

And I maintain that far too much mental masturbation has been tossed toward the "they were on drugs back then so that means they sounded like crap." Rubbish. If they wanted to get stinko paralytico they waited until after a tour. Keep in mind they witnessed Brian's downward spiral at close range. Brian was a mess when he was interviewed in Charlie is My Darling.
Secondly, large, very large sums of money was needed to under write the tour. That money came from venture capitalists and large corporations, who, believe me you, were keeping an eagle eye for any behaviour that could endanger the expected return on their investment.

If you ask me, (wh. you certainly didn't. But I will state your opinion about 75 and 76 is neither sought nor is it welcome) 1981 & 82 were the nadir of Keith and Ronnie's playing and Mick's vocalisation. I saw them in 75 and 81. 75 was far more exciting.

You may leave the room now. But do not turn your back to me as you do, as I'm older and much, much wiser than you. Tar-ra.

You're talking to a guy that was banned more than ten years ago

i'd say heiloobaas wins the argument in that case.

True, although I'm surprised he left the statement about ronnie's taste in zoo animals go unchallenged.

Sort of an absurd subject, isn't it? At this point Taylor has lived more like the definition of a "Rolling Stone" than the actual band with all their luxuries. I just wish he would release an album of old blues cuts like Clapton or Greeny. Blows my mind why he hasn't over the last 40 years, hell, I have access to professional-level studios and would record him for free!

Quote
TravelinMan
I just wish he would release an album of old blues cuts like Clapton or Greeny. Blows my mind why he hasn't over the last 40 years, hell, I have access to professional-level studios and would record him for free!

He hasnt done that because he cant afford recording sessions, I guess... Even recording him free of charge (he wouldnt agree anyway, he is too proud and haughty for that and doing that would make him a beggar actually) would be not very useful, the recorded music has to be manufactured, distributet, promoted, artwork has to be done and on and on - I think he hasnt the money for all that. He cant do it by himself and no record company wants to sign him...

Last not least, nobody would buy it. If boring EC does that kind of album, everybody´s buying it. EC - although he is oh so boring - has superstar-status, MT hasnt. EC sits on top of the mountain, MT dwells on the bottom.

Quote
HMS

Quote
TravelinMan
I just wish he would release an album of old blues cuts like Clapton or Greeny. Blows my mind why he hasn't over the last 40 years, hell, I have access to professional-level studios and would record him for free!

He hasnt done that because he cant afford recording sessions, I guess... Even recording him free of charge (he wouldnt agree anyway, he is too proud and haughty for that and doing that would make him a beggar actually) would be not very useful, the recorded music has to be manufactured, distributet, promoted, artwork has to be done and on and on - I think he hasnt the money for all that. He cant do it by himself and no record company wants to sign him...

Last not least, nobody would buy it. If boring EC does that kind of album, everybody´s buying it. EC - although he is oh so boring - has superstar-status, MT hasnt. EC sits on top of the mountain, MT dwells on the bottom.

True - these days Mick Taylor is known mainly to Stones diehards. Casual classic rock fans may not even know his name. Not saying it's fair but it is what it is. Taylor had his shot at mega-fame with the Stones and chose to walk away from it.

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

It's called the Golden Era w/ Taylor for a reason.

Quote
SuperC
It's called the Golden Era w/ Taylor for a reason.

The era was mainly golden because Mick and Keith were writing their best songs. Taylor was lucky enough to walk in on that era. True he added a special something to the live show but I suspect the era would have been golden anyway because of the strength of the songs...

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

This again oh no. I don't even want to jump in really. Just look at the list of songs Mick Taylor recorded when he was in the Stones. Get the list. Listen to their live stuff of that era too. The End.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-06-15 01:22 by hopkins.

Quote
Tornandfrayed
This thread is so stupid it´s not even funny.

AMEN...

The Original Rolling Stone.

This thread is older than dirt.

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash

Quote
SuperC
It's called the Golden Era w/ Taylor for a reason.

The era was mainly golden because Mick and Keith were writing their best songs. Taylor was lucky enough to walk in on that era. True he added a special something to the live show but I suspect the era would have been golden anyway because of the strength of the songs...

True - agree totally that MJ and KR were at their creative peak. Yet how much post Taylor Stones music do you listen? Me, just about zero. A little Black & Blue, Handsome Girls, a bit of LA Friday and that's it. More to the point, when they play Taylor era tunes at post MT shows, most renditions pale in comparison. Same MJ/KR songs written in their prime yet hardly in the same league to the ear. Sure, some exceptions but not many. Its it KR skills declining?, Woody?, Age? Certainly all factors. For me it's mostly the absence of Taylor, especially when it comes to live stuff. It's just not the same for numerous reasons but a big reason for me is a lack of Taylors varying influence that make every version of the Golden Era tunes worth multiple listens.

Quote
SuperC

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash

Quote
SuperC
It's called the Golden Era w/ Taylor for a reason.

The era was mainly golden because Mick and Keith were writing their best songs. Taylor was lucky enough to walk in on that era. True he added a special something to the live show but I suspect the era would have been golden anyway because of the strength of the songs...

True - agree totally that MJ and KR were at their creative peak. Yet how much post Taylor Stones music do you listen? Me, just about zero. A little Black & Blue, Handsome Girls, a bit of LA Friday and that's it. More to the point, when they play Taylor era tunes at post MT shows, most renditions pale in comparison. Same MJ/KR songs written in their prime yet hardly in the same league to the ear. Sure, some exceptions but not many. Its it KR skills declining?, Woody?, Age? Certainly all factors. For me it's mostly the absence of Taylor, especially when it comes to live stuff. It's just not the same for numerous reasons but a big reason for me is a lack of Taylors varying influence that make every version of the Golden Era tunes worth multiple listens.

Respectfully disagree as everyone's tastes are different. I agree about the magic of the golden era but I also do listen to tons of post-Taylor Stones music. And I think that - especially on certain tours, and very recently, Wood does a great job with material from the Taylor era. I've recently been getting into Sticky Fingers Live and Woody does a great job there in my opinion. He's not Taylor but I think he more than holds his own, and has actually gotten better in his old age.

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."