Why would anyone want to discuss live stones after Taylor is hard for me to
understand .

Yeah Kyle - go listen to "Shattered" live for 24 hours straight then come
back and give a coherent statement! Here's a point:

The Stones have always provided the line that Allen Klein has the copywrites
so the Stones haven't been able to release Ladies & Gentlemen.... bla bla

Well how did they "arrange" for it to get released in the Theatres back in 1974?? Funny when that relationship was at it's most bitter period, right after
the Stones dumped Klein?? I went and saw it (numerous times) here in LA
with a $50,000 JBL Quad sound system in the theatre.. it was like the Stones
were in there.. seems funny to me that it was "released" & shown in theatres
thru-out the 70's, but it can't be released for sale ... bull shit - MLC

The issues relating to Klein and his obstructiveness are more specific to the double album from the 72 tour that was never allowed to be released, despite the record company getting as far as manufacturing the covers and promotional material.

Even by 1977, with these issues settled, the band condsidered putting a whole side of Mick Taylor live stuff on Love You Live but finally thought against it (for obvious reasons!).

So yes, they did try!

ouch love you live ouch

Kyle you cheeky bastard! You have been very much missed and so it's good to see you back! Keep the posts coming!

Why would anyone want to listen to anything that was the same thing for 24 hours?

Coherency quite obviously isn't your strong point so perhaps in future you'd be better served by avoiding any mention of it old son.
Have a read of your above post and then you may have an idea of what it is I'm on about.
Peace.

Poor ole openg

> "Why would anyone want to discuss live stones after Taylor is hard for me to
understand."

I believe there are far too many things that you find hard to understand.
And for this frank and honest admission of yours - I absolve you.
Take a time capsule pill that will not allow you to physically pass 1974 and all will be well again poor lad.
At last your mind and body will then have a much greater chance of coexisting in same time continuum.

Chris my dear friend it's good to read you again.
I absolutely love Mr Taylor as I know you do, but at least the two of us have interests in the Rolling Stones that are beyond talking about the Taylor era.
The same cannot be said for some about these parts however.

Bought Live Aid the other day and cannot bring myself to watch the lads with Dylan as yet.
Guess it could have been worse.
Could have been Taylor with Keith and Bob.
hahaha.

:0)

kyle m

Have you ever lent somebody $20 and never seen them again? It was probably worth it.

Mick Taylor's legacy is to The Stones what Jackie Kennedy's legacy is to the White House.

"The wonder of Jimi Hendrix was that he could stand up at all he was so pumped full of drugs." Patsy, Patsy Stone

So if Mick Taylor is the Jackie Kennedy of the Stones, keeping the band (white House) together then that makes Mick Jagger (front man...ladies man) the JFK of the Stones.

ROCKMAN

Well the next tour better bloody bypass Dallas then!

kyle m

Have you ever lent somebody $20 and never seen them again? It was probably worth it.

Rockman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So if Mick Taylor is the Jackie Kennedy of the
> Stones, keeping the band (white House) together
> then that makes Mick Jagger (front man...ladies
> man) the JFK of the Stones.
>
> ROCKMAN


OpenG, it appears the Ronnie/Bay of Pigs line has been served up to you on a silver platter . . .

it happened in 63 poor young lee killed the president they say he acted alone but we know now it was the big blue ribbon cover up.before young lee could plea his case patriot Jake shoot him down,shot him down.

it happened in 74 the stones lost their balls and glory before young mick could plea his case the glimmers shut him up shut him up and he was gone.

Holy shit!!...two fathers Joe Jagger & Joe Kennedy.

rockman

So,

OpenG are we to imbue Michaelangelo Taylor with some sort of saintly Martyr status?

A MichaelAngelical Cult perhaps?!

Did he find Deliverance with Dylan?

I feel a wonderfully parabolic Testament coming on. Not a Myth. A Legend.

Well they have not sounded great live since Taylor left so maybe there is
a cult/curse martyr thing going on

<they have not sounded great live since Taylor left>

Toronto 77
Detroit 78
Fort Worth 78
Lexington 78
Hampton 81
New Jersey 81
Kansas City 81
Gothenburg 82
Naples 82
Leeds 82
Atlantic City 89
London 90
New Orleans 94
Oslo 95
New Orleans 97

Listen to those boots - you can't seriously mean that not one of them sounds great???

same canned arrangements with no real improvisation which is the key when a
band plays live.sorry keith alone could never carry both roles.

Songs aren't made solely for improvisation. The songs became different, were written different and there was a new musical era. In 78 and 81 there were many new song, not the same canned arrangements...

I guess playing 16ths "under the sun" wasn't even an issue. The main purpose on the great stones shows in this period was to play great music, and they did.

Ronnie did a great job in this period on songs like Beast Of Burden, Whip, Shattered, Twenty Flight Rock, imagination, Miss You, Black Limousine - all improvised solos. Mick Taylor was/is a brilliant guitar player, but his improvisation range (the difference in solos from show to show) wasn't that much bigger than that of Ronnie's.

OpenG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> same canned arrangements with no real
> improvisation which is the key when a
> band plays live.

The key to live bands is to make good music for the fans.
Same canned arrangements with no improve??? I don't think Under My Thumb, LSTNT and others on the 81 tour were the "same canned arrangements" How can you say that... the riff for LSTNY was always originally played on piano. Your statement doesn't make sense. It would perhaps if you were talking about the last few tours and how they played songs.

Kyle - You say your a Taylor fan, are you telling me you would not like to see
Taylor jump back in with the Stones for a show or two?? if yes how do you
think it's gonna happen if people like me (OpenG, Ed, Logie, etc.) don't push
for it to happen, Jagger would like Taylor to fall of the face of the earth so
he doesn't have to deal with the issue of screwing him out of writing credits
and being a cheap bastard!! The only way Taylor get's to sit-in will be if
enough people "pester" the Glimmer Twins or they decide to do a re-union show
and Bill Wyman forces the issue to include Taylor!! -MLC

I know exactly what Open G is getting at and i agree with him totally. When Mick Taylor left, the Stones lost a very important aspect to their music. Many of his solos were truly breathtaking not just a means to filling gaps in different songs.
Of course the Stones have performed some great concerts since but there's always that vital element missing.
Obviously the Stones were great before Mick joined and occasionally after he left but the Stones really were on a completely different level when he was in the group. Mick really did enhance Mick and Keith's songs in a way that has rarely happened since.

I agree with Edward - Taylor's vibrato is truly a gift and not to many players
played like Taylor did at his early age with the stones.

Taylor came up with those beautiful melodies and I doubt clapton,beck and the
rest could of played better then Taylor and that beautiful.

Babe Ruth,Wille Mays come around once in a lifetime the same can be said of
Taylor's vibrato.

Go back and listen to Handsome Girls RW's pinnacle playing as you say and listen
to all those bum notes.

zzZZzzzzzzzZZzzzzzZzzzz.......vibrato.....yeah....zzZZzzzzZzzz...vibrato.....

Find a new word dude. We're all aware that you are in full command of putting at least one seven letter word to use in its correct context.

You and Edward do not like the Stones and apparently have not done since 1974.
Hard to believe you're as loquatious as the two of you are, when one considers you are on a site dedicated to something you obviously dislike.
Why not find something else to do?

Visit a Beatles site and complain they have been nothing since Stu Sutcliffe left perhaps?

Or maybe a site dedicated to the Spice Girls. You can incessantly drone on about how they lost all of their creative touch once Gerry split.

Visit a Chipmunks site and complain that Melvin signed the death warrant of them once he decided to ditch the band in order to find an adam's apple in the hope that his balls may one day drop.

Have sex with a cheesgrater.

Do anything.

Just stop crapping on about the same old tired thing here on this website.


MCDDTLC

Seeing Taylor on stage for a gig or two wasn't the point I was making.
My point is if those here that are stuck in 1974 still re the Stones should perhaps stop going on and on and on and on and on about the same thing.

I'd love to see Taylor jump on stage with them again - as I'd love to see Bill rejoin.
I just know that it ain't gonna happen, but if it ever does I will be stoked.
I just choose not to go on about that almost exclusively when discussing the Stones.

I mean how many times do we want to read....When Mick Taylor left, the Stones lost a very important aspect to their music. Many of his solos were truly breathtaking not just a means to filling gaps in different songs........and.....Taylor came up with those beautiful melodies?

I mean who here is not aware of this?
How could one not be with the likes of these two rambling on about it on an almost daily basis?

It's like listening to a new parent crapping on about how amazing his/her three month old is because he/she instictively knows to close his/her eyes whilst being asleep.

Amazing.




kyle m

Have you ever lent somebody $20 and never seen them again? It was probably worth it.

yep - I agree.

Although I am a huge Taylor fan and do listen more to the Taylor years than any other, these threads are beginning to shit me....boring!!

I reckon BV makes a point of having 1 month without any comparisons/hero worship posts of Stones guitarists!!!

PLEASE?

They drive me to the bottle....

Esky

A million times on Wood Vs Taylor____ They were both the right man for the right job at the right time.

But we have to stay grounded in reality, and with the release of Live Licks, Chuck Leveall, rising ticket prices, and on and on that we bitch about incessantly, its amazing that there is anyone left that really believes THAT MICK JAGGER OR KEITH RICHARDS REALLY GIVES A FLYING FIG FOR WHAT 4-5 POSTERS ON IORR REALLY WANT or want think. How many of us are in any position to "pester" the glimmer twins? Bill was none to happy about MT at the one and only KC re-union ( really read what he had to say about it, he felt it was the worst show of he tour), so he is never going to force the issue if he climbs on stage.

Also, look at what you write...if you really think that MT thinks of Jagger as a bastard and that he was screwed over, why oh why would he want to share a stage with the man. For us? Isn't that a form of whoring yourself, that you would perfrom for the masses WITH PEOpLE YOU THINK ILL OF AND YOU FEEL CHEATED YOU? If that is the way MT feels, than why would any of his fans want him to compromise himself.

Same said for Jagger...if he is to have any shred of respect as an artist, he should not get on stage with someone that he wishes would "fall of the face of the Earth." Personally, I think the people fighting this Wood Vs Taylor thing that HAS TO END IN STALEMATE, are now beginning to foist there own feelings onto the shoulders of others. It is quite a bit of transference to state we know what the harsh feelings between all of these guys ( MT, MJ, KR)are when t none of us have really met them. They apparently did spend the day together, if the rumour mill is right, the day of the Astoria. MT did show up at the theater show and sit in the audience, so it does not seem believable to me that he felt hateful, shunned , put off, or angry. IT has been 30 plus years and the protaginists in this never ending story probably do not have near the emotion vested in the sitaution any more as some of the fans do.

Maybe, just maybe, they do not hate each other but just do not feel like playing together any more. Stories say Lennon and McCartny made peace in the seventies very quietly, and resumed a form of friendship and respect and there break up was much uglier. Still, they never ever had any desire to really play together any more. Whether it is MT or MJ or KR, by us trying to force, or pester, or anything ( not that it is really possible) some sort of reunion, then we just loose repsct for all the players and their sensitivities in order for us to get what we want fomr them when we want it.