Quote
Doxa

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

Do the fans encourage Mick to leaving the stage?

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Doxa

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

Do the fans encourage Mick to leaving the stage?

No, but he has so big heart and so little ego to leave the stage for his pal to sing little for us...

Seriously, I am not here kicking Ronnie out of stage; the three guitar attack will do for me, if Taylor to be added. Besides. I've seen shows where Ronnie does nothing else than waving hands to audience and making funny faces in a couple of numbers...

- Doxa

Why do the comparison, then?

Because you were talking about principles... I don't see any reason why Wood couldn't leave the stage for some tunes and let Taylor do them, if of all people, Mick Jagger can do that. (But like I said, I don't want that, but I don't see it as a big deal, if it actually happens.)

We tend to take Keith's solo numbers nowadays as a tradition and a natural part of the show, but if we really think about that: is there really Rolling Stones playing there if Mick Jagger is not there present? If it is, theoretically they could do a show or an album without Jagger...

- Doxa

The principle is a reaction to fans wanting a Stone to sit it out, which sounds ridiculous to me.

Some people are not so strong Woodists, Dandie... But I get your point. For me the "second" guitarist is rather flexible figure in the band.. Give me Taylor or Wood, or better: both, it's alright with me... Both are Rolling Stones guitarists, and made their unique contribution (long time ago). Who is an "official" member (share holder), who quitted in the year one and two, and all that, I don't care. Contracts are contracts. Just the musicians on stage, and what they are doing there, matters to me.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-09 22:24 by Doxa.

But you don't think it's all right if someone wishes that Taylor weren't on stage with the Stones. That's my point. That fires you up.

With Ronnie it isn't that important...

And Taylor is a guest, not a Stone, albeit a good guest.

I really don't understand why I am a "strong Woodist"?

What is that anyway

Are you presuming that there are more Taylorites than Rolling Stones fans?

I know he doesn't sing it anymore, but I'd rather see Ronnie up there doing Ooh La La instead of one of Keith's numbers. Probably one of the most well known non-Stones Stone vocals anyway. Give Keith a break.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
But you don't think it's all right if someone wishes that Taylor weren't on stage with the Stones. That's my point. That fires you up.

With Ronnie it isn't that important...

And Taylor is a guest, not a Stone, albeit a good guest.

This "Ronnie apologism" I don't get. Ronnie is there, has been jezus how many years, and most likely will be as long as the band continues... If now someone wants that what about having Taylor as well - or even instead of Ronnie sometimes - what is so tragical in it? It's all celebration and nostalgia now, so why not using some originality in nostalgia as well, since the guy who was there when rather big chapter in their story was written, is still alive and rather well?

If someone doesn't want Taylor there, well, that's her/his opinion - why should I care?

And this being a "Stone" or not and all that, what this labelling really mean? Having a shareholdership in Rolling Stones inc.? Having a vote in business meetings? Posing in group photographs? Shit, they are musicians, interacting with each other through music, and we can enjoy the result. When I watching the guys doing "Midnight Rambler" at Hyde Park, I didn't see and hear The Four Rolling Stones plus many side musicians added by a special guest doing a great number, but damn great group of musicians doing some excellent music, which my ears automatically connected to the concept I had of the music of the Rolling Stones.

As long as a rock and roll band doesn't have a bass player as an official member of the band, then that "officiality" does not have anything to mean with actual playing the music, but with something else.

- Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I really don't understand why I am a "strong Woodist"?

What is that anyway

Are you presuming that there are more Taylorites than Rolling Stones fans?

Can't you see how arrogant you are by making that distinction: Taylorites vs. Rolling Stones fans?

By making that I think you are really answering to your two questions. Can't you really see?

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-09 23:12 by Doxa.

I want them all. Fans wanting a Stone to sit it out is what I'm baffled about.

If it's no big deal to you, ok...

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I really don't understand why I am a "strong Woodist"?

What is that anyway

Are you presuming that there are more Taylorites than Rolling Stones fans?

Can't you see how arrogant you are by making that distinction: Taylorites vs. Rolling Stones fans?

By making that I think you are really answering to your two questions. Can't you really see?

- Doxa

Taylorites ARE more interested in Taylor than in the band. RS fans who also love Taylor are a totally different story, totally different people.

You really can't tell the difference between roby and Edward Twining, to be more accurate??

You really seem to have an issue with "Taylorites", Dandie. If the "real" Taylorites are those who really weight Taylor over the Stones, I think we are talking about very marginal group of people, and I think many who proudly describe themselves with that title, do not really count. Why such a big fuss? Let them think so. They can't kick Ronnie Wood out of the Stones.

Honestly, I have long time wondered why these "Taylorites" go so much to your nerves, which I am afraid sometimes make you to see also Mick Taylor in a rather bad light (even I know how much you appreciate him), since you generally are always so positive, constructive guy. But probably that is just an outcome of some over and over again going conversations here at IORR during the years, which little by little just gets too much, I can understand that...

Anyway, if we look the infamous "More Taylor Please" thread, the very first pages are full of people - many people - being totally excited about the possibilty of having Taylor more. Very rarely in this site such a movement happens. Lots of positive vibe. It was not the case of "Taylorites" making noise (of course, for them it was a field day after spending decades in darkness), but actually many, many Rolling Stones fans seeing an unique possibility to hear something exceptional, even historical. It was just later, when the early enthusiasism was gone, when the thread degenerated to the dialogue of a few people, between tough Taylorites and some nay-sayers.

- Doxa

Yeah, it really beats me that you can't see it, Doxa...

Good for you that fanatism, spreading of mis-information and cheap mocking of band members on a regular basis, in countless posts, don't affect you in any way. On the contrary, you seem to accept it..

I guess you're more hard-headed than me...

Well, maybe because I used to (many, many yaers ago) spent quite a lot of time in one Brian Jones board, I get used to rather heavy "fanatism, spreading of mis-information and cheap mocking of band members" (to say it mildly), so what happens here with "Taylorites" is rather harmless for me, and I guess I might ignore some of the worst things quite easily. I try to see the positive side in every "extreme" position - why people are into something, not against something, in the first place. People tend to talk in negative terms in articulating their own stance. The mocking of Ronnie Wood goes too far and tasteless sometimes, I totally agree with you. But I guess it is mostly not against him an sich, but more like disappointed him not being Mick Taylor...

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-10 01:02 by Doxa.

I was trying to find if this was documented somewhere on IORR, but I gave up - however, if you guys haven't threaded it already, check this out...still no part 4 yet...