Quote
muffie

Quote
DandelionPowderman
How would YOU feel about that, if you were asked to sit out on several numbers during a concert where YOUR band was performing? Just asking...

How would you feel if you were asked to sit out on several numbers during a concert where YOUR solos were being imitated by someone who's earned a lot of $$ just doing it. Or how you'd feel when the imitator butchers the first signature solo in Sway? Or how you'd feel being shortchanged in writing credits where you did subtantial work? Just asking...

HIS solos? For the good part of those songs it is indeed Keith soloing on the studio albums. They don't play Sway, Dead Flowers or All Down The Line that often, and Ronnie does them just fine if they do anyway.

That Taylor snuck in some solos live (that weren't on the original studio albums) in his time with the Stones doesn't give him copyright on playing on those songs, while Ronnie sits out - that's ridiculous!

Mick Taylor is a friend of Ronnie's, and respect him a lot as a musician, as you should do - if you call yourself a Stones fan.

If I didn't WRITE anything, I wouldn't feel short-changed of anything. Mick Taylor was happy with the tour - you obviously weren't. That's really too bad

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
muffie

Quote
DandelionPowderman
How would YOU feel about that, if you were asked to sit out on several numbers during a concert where YOUR band was performing? Just asking...

How would you feel if you were asked to sit out on several numbers during a concert where YOUR solos were being imitated by someone who's earned a lot of $$ just doing it. Or how you'd feel when the imitator butchers the first signature solo in Sway? Or how you'd feel being shortchanged in writing credits where you did subtantial work? Just asking...

HIS solos? For the good part of those songs it is indeed Keith soloing on the studio albums. They don't play Sway, Dead Flowers or All Down The Line that often, and Ronnie does them just fine if they do anyway.

That Taylor snuck in some solos live (that weren't on the original studio albums) in his time with the Stones doesn't give him copyright on playing on those songs, while Ronnie sits out - that's ridiculous!

Mick Taylor is a friend of Ronnie's, and respect him a lot as a musician, as you should do - if you call yourself a Stones fan.

If I didn't WRITE anything, I wouldn't feel short-changed of anything. Mick Taylor was happy with the tour - you obviously weren't. That's really too bad

Settle. Waaay too many conclusions here. I've given you something to think about with your post positioning RW's feelings sitting out on numbers in 'his' supposed band.

I stand by my original post - allow MT to play on the numbers he played in the studio to give the most authetic live experience. You are welcome to put it to a vote to see if that is what fans want or not. You can add drama to the vote if you like.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
muffie

Quote
crholmstrom
I like both Ronnie & Mick T. Different flavors. Both have made lasting contributions to the Stones. Can't we all just get along?

Sure can. Let the man (MT) play live on the '69-74 numbers and RW can do the pre-68 or post-74 stuff. A fair deal for all parties involved. Gives the most authenticity to the numbers.

Done sooner rather than later before visible neurological deficits start affecting their performance (alzheimer's, Parkinson's, dementia).

How would YOU feel about that, if you were asked to sit out on several numbers during a concert where YOUR band was performing? Just asking...

Theoretically ? I would generously hand my guitar to my colleague and let him do what he is best at instead of butchering it myself. It's just an ego thing, "MY BAND".

Quote
muffie

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
muffie

Quote
DandelionPowderman
How would YOU feel about that, if you were asked to sit out on several numbers during a concert where YOUR band was performing? Just asking...

How would you feel if you were asked to sit out on several numbers during a concert where YOUR solos were being imitated by someone who's earned a lot of $$ just doing it. Or how you'd feel when the imitator butchers the first signature solo in Sway? Or how you'd feel being shortchanged in writing credits where you did subtantial work? Just asking...

HIS solos? For the good part of those songs it is indeed Keith soloing on the studio albums. They don't play Sway, Dead Flowers or All Down The Line that often, and Ronnie does them just fine if they do anyway.

That Taylor snuck in some solos live (that weren't on the original studio albums) in his time with the Stones doesn't give him copyright on playing on those songs, while Ronnie sits out - that's ridiculous!

Mick Taylor is a friend of Ronnie's, and respect him a lot as a musician, as you should do - if you call yourself a Stones fan.

If I didn't WRITE anything, I wouldn't feel short-changed of anything. Mick Taylor was happy with the tour - you obviously weren't. That's really too bad

Settle. Waaay too many conclusions here. I've given you something to think about with your post positioning RW's feelings sitting out on numbers in 'his' supposed band.

I stand by my original post - allow MT to play on the numbers he played in the studio to give the most authetic live experience. You are welcome to put it to a vote to see if that is what fans want or not. You can add drama to the vote if you like.

I'd like to see Taylor play on some of those numbers myself, WITH Ronnie.

It's the rudeness of saying that a band member (not supposed) has to sit out that is ridiculous to me. Mick Taylor quit the band, so he wouldn't have any hurt feelings, as you put it, about Ronnie doing his job.

We already had 99 pages with More Taylor Please - with the same 5 or 6 posters - hardly representative poll material - but, by all means, kick off a poll, and start voting. It's ridiculous anyway, as Taylor has come in from his chosen cold, and is happy playing with the Stones again - too bad you aren't...

BTW, if you think Ronnie is basing his show on imitating Mick Taylor now, you probably don't have a musical fiber in your body - just saying...

But MT proved the stones do sound better with him after 40 years even if it was only on two songs MR and CYHMK. He is the perfect guitarist that fits in so well with the band. All those special guests guitar players over the years never could capture the magic that MT brought to the band playing live. He was and still is a rolling stone as I listen to that golden period.

play the guitar boy

Quote
svt22

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
muffie

Quote
crholmstrom
I like both Ronnie & Mick T. Different flavors. Both have made lasting contributions to the Stones. Can't we all just get along?

Sure can. Let the man (MT) play live on the '69-74 numbers and RW can do the pre-68 or post-74 stuff. A fair deal for all parties involved. Gives the most authenticity to the numbers.

Done sooner rather than later before visible neurological deficits start affecting their performance (alzheimer's, Parkinson's, dementia).

How would YOU feel about that, if you were asked to sit out on several numbers during a concert where YOUR band was performing? Just asking...

Theoretically ? I would generously hand my guitar to my colleague and let him do what he is best at instead of butchering it myself. It's just an ego thing, "MY BAND".

Yeah, but I don't think the lack of generousity would be one of Ronnie's flaws, to be honest

I don't think he's that vain or prestigious, either.

It's the principle - to ask a member of your favourite band to sit out on several numbers - that rings a bit off-key, to put it mildly.

They sounded just fine without him and with other guests who played well.

Quote
OpenG
But MT proved the stones do sound better with him after 40 years even if it was only on two songs MR and CYHMK. He is the perfect guitarist that fits in so well with the band. All those special guests guitar players over the years never could capture the magic that MT brought to the band playing live. He was and still is a rolling stone as I listen to that golden period.

play the guitar boy

In your, and a few others' opinion, Alan. I thought Taylor did great myself, but I was very impressed with Gary Clark as well.

Some nights Taylor wasn't very impressive on CYHMK, but on the LA2-show he really tore it down and killed it

Quote
LA FORUM
The problem with Rock n Roll circus is also that Keith mixed out Brians guitar. He did play at the concert but you can't hear him. It's Keiths guitars on YCAGWYW.

On that track there's nothing really to have been mixed out, just some partial chord strumming.

I don't think Brian was musically really adding anything for the whole set, but it's just made very odd by him being there, but not really heard on 3 songs from the 5 song set. He's not playing anything bad, but not playing anything great either.

Brian's chuck berry rhythm playing can be heard better on the outtake version of Parachute Woman.





We don't really know who mixed him out on those 3 songs, but I think it's safe to assume it was an executive decision.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-09 15:08 by His Majesty.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
svt22

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
muffie

Quote
crholmstrom
I like both Ronnie & Mick T. Different flavors. Both have made lasting contributions to the Stones. Can't we all just get along?

Sure can. Let the man (MT) play live on the '69-74 numbers and RW can do the pre-68 or post-74 stuff. A fair deal for all parties involved. Gives the most authenticity to the numbers.

Done sooner rather than later before visible neurological deficits start affecting their performance (alzheimer's, Parkinson's, dementia).

How would YOU feel about that, if you were asked to sit out on several numbers during a concert where YOUR band was performing? Just asking...

Theoretically ? I would generously hand my guitar to my colleague and let him do what he is best at instead of butchering it myself. It's just an ego thing, "MY BAND".

Yeah, but I don't think the lack of generousity would be one of Ronnie's flaws, to be honest

Of course not - besides it's not up to him anyway I think. That's why I said "Theoretically".



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-09 15:15 by svt22.

Quote
svt22
deleted.

What did you say?

Don't forget that bringing Taylor back was Ronnie's idea..

I think that says a lot about his generousity. That ability is also reflected in his playing, imo.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-09 15:20 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Don't forget that bringing Taylor back was Ronnie's idea..

... And that Taylor thinks Ronnie is very under rated.

He'd probably be aghast at many of the comments his fans make.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
svt22
deleted.

What did you say?

Are you an undertaker ? I always get that feeling when I read your posts.

Quote
svt22

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
svt22
deleted.

What did you say?

Are you an undertaker ? I always get that feeling when I read your posts.

Are you a shizoid Fannie? I always get that impression when I see yet another deleted post under yet another user name.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-09 15:26 by His Majesty.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
OpenG
But MT proved the stones do sound better with him after 40 years even if it was only on two songs MR and CYHMK. He is the perfect guitarist that fits in so well with the band. All those special guests guitar players over the years never could capture the magic that MT brought to the band playing live. He was and still is a rolling stone as I listen to that golden period.

play the guitar boy

In your, and a few others' opinion, Alan. I thought Taylor did great myself, but I was very impressed with Gary Clark as well.

Some nights Taylor wasn't very impressive on CYHMK, but on the LA2-show he really tore it down and killed it

Jeff Beck was stellar on the 02 show. Clapton no slouch either! I really like Gary Clark Jr. He is well schooled & respectful but also doing his own thing. John Mayer has his moments but overall not as impressed by him.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
svt22

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
svt22
deleted.

What did you say?

Are you an undertaker ? I always get that feeling when I read your posts.

Are you a shizoid Fannie? I always get that impression when I see yet another deleted post under yet another user name.

Yes Yes.

Quote
svt22

Oh, yet more guitar soloing, how interessszzzzting.

But at the age of 23 and 24 MT live with the stones captured the greatest rock and roll band. You could say that MT was not even in his prime as a guitar player at that young age. Other then that period with the stones MT greatest playing was with Mayall in 1982 and before he joined the stones and with Dylan in 1984 and him as a solo artist in the late 1980's playing with his band.

All the other guitar players that guested with the stones were either in their prime or past their prime and never captured the magic that MT played with at his early age of 23 and 24 with the stones.

play the guitar boy

Quote
OpenG
But at the age of 23 and 24 MT live with the stones captured the greatest rock and roll band.

No, it didn't.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
svt22

Oh, yet more guitar soloing, how interessszzzzting.

I was referring to the lyrics this time.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Don't forget that bringing Taylor back was Ronnie's idea..

I think that says a lot about his generousity. That ability is also reflected in his playing, imo.

I don't think it was Ronnie's idea nor that he had anything to say about it. It must have been Jagger, and I think the whole Plundered experience had much to do with his decision. I also think that Keith felt comfortable with Taylor's presence. I got that impression when watching them both on stage and Keith's positive approach to Taylor, dragging him to the final bow included.

This isn't West-Virginia

Quote
svt22

I was referring to the lyrics this time.

Taylorites listen to the lyrics!?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-09 16:42 by His Majesty.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Don't forget that bringing Taylor back was Ronnie's idea..

I think that says a lot about his generousity. That ability is also reflected in his playing, imo.

I don't think it was Ronnie's idea nor that he had anything to say about it. It must have been Jagger, and I think the whole Plundered experience had much to do with his decision. I also think that Keith felt comfortable with Taylor's presence. I got that impression when watching them both on stage and Keith's positive approach to Taylor, dragging him to the final bow included.

It doesn't matter what we think, it was Ronnie's idea.

Why shouldn't Keith be comfortable with his presence, btw? They have recorded together, as well as played two shows together since Taylor left the group.

Haven't seen this thread until now and noticed a couple of errors...

1969 - LIB and Tour
1970 - tour and sticky
1971 sticky and exile
1972 tour
1973 tour GHS
1974 IORR

They recorded GHS in 1972 and did overdubs in 1973.
They started IORR in 1973 and they started Black And Blue at the end of 1974 and Taylor quit in the middle of those sessions that he did not attend.

Quote
DandelionPowderman


It's the principle - to ask a member of your favourite band to sit out on several numbers - that rings a bit off-key, to put it mildly.

But that seems to be okay with Mick Jagger to sit down two songs every night, but of course, it is "just" Jagger, nothing so substantial as Ronnie Wood is to "his group"..

- Doxa

What are the actual sources for believing that it was Ronnie who got MickT on the recent tour?

Quote
stonesrule
What are the actual sources for believing that it was Ronnie who got MickT on the recent tour?

No sources. It's just a product of Dandelion's wild imagination.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
svt22

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
muffie

Quote
crholmstrom
I like both Ronnie & Mick T. Different flavors. Both have made lasting contributions to the Stones. Can't we all just get along?

Sure can. Let the man (MT) play live on the '69-74 numbers and RW can do the pre-68 or post-74 stuff. A fair deal for all parties involved. Gives the most authenticity to the numbers.

Done sooner rather than later before visible neurological deficits start affecting their performance (alzheimer's, Parkinson's, dementia).

How would YOU feel about that, if you were asked to sit out on several numbers during a concert where YOUR band was performing? Just asking...

Theoretically ? I would generously hand my guitar to my colleague and let him do what he is best at instead of butchering it myself. It's just an ego thing, "MY BAND".

Yeah, but I don't think the lack of generousity would be one of Ronnie's flaws, to be honest

I don't think he's that vain or prestigious, either.

It's the principle - to ask a member of your favourite band to sit out on several numbers - that rings a bit off-key, to put it mildly.

In virtually the same situation, doesn't Joe Walsh sit out while Bernie Leadon does a set now? And Walsh is a bigger draw than Ron Wood. I think MT should play on his era tunes, but I'm okay with the way they handled it w/three on stage. I don't understand why they don't combine Taylor's songs into an actual set, though, instead of him wandering on and off stage.