Now that Bill no longer wants to be included, I think it opens the door to Mick T playing atleast 4 songs.

Personally I think He should just be coming out with them (no introductions)and play the whole concert especially Hyde Park.

But with Ronnies recent comment about guests its unlikely He will be on stage the whole show.

i think this is all a setup and that MT's back in the fold so that Keith can finally kick him out...he's been pissed for four decades that MT quit on him and now it's finally pay-back time....

I don't think they'd drag Taylor around for one song. I'd say likeliest there will be a specific 'Taylor set' of 4 or 5 songs.

If we're lucky, he'll be at the whole gig, but I doubt it.

Quote
treaclefingers
I don't think they'd drag Taylor around for one song.

that would be a drag...perhaps they could cart him for one, and drag him for another?

If what they want to avoid is commentary about how much better they are/were with Taylor, maybe a short set is not the way to go (because that will invariably be the highlight of the show). Maybe better from that point of view to just have him in the band for the whole set.

Quote
GRNRBITW
i think this is all a setup and that MT's back in the fold so that Keith can finally kick him out...he's been pissed for four decades that MT quit on him and now it's finally pay-back time....

He certainly has been pissed that long for the reason you mention, but I think he's able to handle it now. At least I hope so. The same goes for Jagger, btw.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
GRNRBITW
i think this is all a setup and that MT's back in the fold so that Keith can finally kick him out...he's been pissed for four decades that MT quit on him and now it's finally pay-back time....

He certainly has been pissed that long for the reason you mention, but I think he's able to handle it now. At least I hope so. The same goes for Jagger, btw.

why do you think they care? I think they were pissed off at him for about ten minutes. Certainly any hard feelings were forgotten decades ago. .

Quote
Rokyfan

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
GRNRBITW
i think this is all a setup and that MT's back in the fold so that Keith can finally kick him out...he's been pissed for four decades that MT quit on him and now it's finally pay-back time....

He certainly has been pissed that long for the reason you mention, but I think he's able to handle it now. At least I hope so. The same goes for Jagger, btw.

why do you think they care? I think they were pissed off at him for about ten minutes. Certainly any hard feelings were forgotten decades ago. .

you just don't keith like i know keith. you're lucky.

Quote
GRNRBITW

Quote
Rokyfan

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
GRNRBITW
i think this is all a setup and that MT's back in the fold so that Keith can finally kick him out...he's been pissed for four decades that MT quit on him and now it's finally pay-back time....

He certainly has been pissed that long for the reason you mention, but I think he's able to handle it now. At least I hope so. The same goes for Jagger, btw.

why do you think they care? I think they were pissed off at him for about ten minutes. Certainly any hard feelings were forgotten decades ago. .

you just don't keith like i know keith. you're lucky.

residing next door to Keith must have certain advantages, surely? don't you get invited over for sheperd's pie..and an occasional all night party?

Mick Taylor will just play rhythm on Emotional Rescue. Oh, wait, that's false.

It would be great if he were there for an extended period of time on stage. I'd like to see him jam and trade licks with Ronnie and Keith. When they give him one song, he HAS to be the only one that goes nuts and it makes it seem like he doesn't fit. If he were there for songs and playing along WITH the guys, it would just give the whole thing a familial closeness which is what I'd love to see. I think it would give Ronnie and Taylor more comfort up there to be playing with each other.

Quote
RollingFreak
It would be great if he were there for an extended period of time on stage. I'd like to see him jam and trade licks with Ronnie and Keith. When they give him one song, he HAS to be the only one that goes nuts and it makes it seem like he doesn't fit. If he were there for songs and playing along WITH the guys, it would just give the whole thing a familial closeness which is what I'd love to see. I think it would give Ronnie and Taylor more comfort up there to be playing with each other.

that is true, he had to ramp up his performance no pun intended..for his one spot.

it was nothing like the classic Mick Taylor and really weird to see him stalking around the stage with Jagger..

hope to see him back on his post sentry-like..

I'm betting he's playing on most of the songs, and I'm hoping they go back to
the taylor era and pull out some of the classics... Sway? CYHMK, Gimme Shelter
Love In Vain,etc.. Can't wait

MLC

I have a feeling we're gonna be sorely disappointed.

Quote
RollingFreak
I have a feeling we're gonna be sorely disappointed.

it's okay....we've had decades of practice

I think I'm the only one here who couldn't give two shits about MT.

Quote
Sixsixseveneight
I think I'm the only one here who couldn't give two shits about MT.

i could conduct a quick poll, if you'd like. i'm good at this stuff...

ok...EVERYBODY ATTENTION!

Please reply here with the EXACT number of shits you give about MT....answers must be in the form of a WHOLE number...no halvies shit....

I couldnt give 1/8 of shit

Quote
Max'sKansasCity
I couldnt give 1/8 of shit

we're looking for the shits you COULD give...is it fair to infer that you COULD give 7/8 of one?

Quote
GRNRBITW

Quote
Max'sKansasCity
I couldnt give 1/8 of shit

we're looking for the shits you COULD give...is it fair to infer that you COULD give 7/8 of one?

I am not sure that I understood the question. What is the question again?

I thought you were supposed to be good at this?

Could you repeat the question, what was the question?

it's about giving shits....i don't think the act of giving comes naturally to you, so we're going to move on...

Why this madness now about Taylor, he´s been playing most of the time for recent years. He is not starting in the band again. I would point out that Ronnie has never imo been better than his playing last year and he´s the best guitar player dead or alive for the Stones. Enjoy

Quote
GRNRBITW
it's about giving shits....i don't think the act of giving comes naturally to you, so we're going to move on...

so the question is going to be about taking a....

Quote
steini
Why this madness now about Taylor, he´s been playing most of the time for recent years. He is not starting in the band again. I would point out that Ronnie has never imo been better than his playing last year and he´s the best guitar player dead or alive for the Stones. Enjoy

Its easy. Stones fans are really really tired of the 'formula'...

Quote
Max'sKansasCity

Quote
GRNRBITW
it's about giving shits....i don't think the act of giving comes naturally to you, so we're going to move on...

so the question is going to be about taking a....

Before we determine what the question is going to be about, it might be helpful to put the term in its historical context:



Upon first glance, the phrases themselves seem vulgar and obscene. Wikipedia notes the word "shit" as being of Old Norse origin and denoting feces. Today, feces is often regarded as very disgusting and unpleasant, and so "giving a shit" would mean one would give the lowest amount of attention or concern about, considering again the value of shit.

However, if we reverse the clock a few hundred years to the 12th century, we find that the word "shit" had a somewhat similar meaning to today's use of the term.

Just as the Romans had used human urine to wash clothes (due to its acidity of course), early Scandinavians had used shit (skita) to make various things, including but not limited to:

- Thick paints
- Make-up
- Pottery
- Jewelry
- Medicine
- Small children


A Biblical phrase from the Book of Job when Job wouldn't stop crying.

The value of shit is estimated to have been greater than the value of gold, and therefore shit made a great yet expensive gift. For Yule, shit sales could be found at every Viking market; it wasn't uncommon, however, for people to make their own shit.

From: [uncyclopedia.wikia.com]

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
Max'sKansasCity

Quote
GRNRBITW
it's about giving shits....i don't think the act of giving comes naturally to you, so we're going to move on...

so the question is going to be about taking a....

Before we determine what the question is going to be about, it might be helpful to put the term in its historical context:



Upon first glance, the phrases themselves seem vulgar and obscene. Wikipedia notes the word "shit" as being of Old Norse origin and denoting feces. Today, feces is often regarded as very disgusting and unpleasant, and so "giving a shit" would mean one would give the lowest amount of attention or concern about, considering again the value of shit.

However, if we reverse the clock a few hundred years to the 12th century, we find that the word "shit" had a somewhat similar meaning to today's use of the term.

Just as the Romans had used human urine to wash clothes (due to its acidity of course), early Scandinavians had used shit (skita) to make various things, including but not limited to:

- Thick paints
- Make-up
- Pottery
- Jewelry
- Medicine
- Small children


A Biblical phrase from the Book of Job when Job wouldn't stop crying.

The value of shit is estimated to have been greater than the value of gold, and therefore shit made a great yet expensive gift. For Yule, shit sales could be found at every Viking market; it wasn't uncommon, however, for people to make their own shit.

From: [uncyclopedia.wikia.com]

Interesting...so this place is a fricken GOLDMINE!

they once dragged bobby keys around on the road just to play sax on brown sugar every night

Munichhilton wrote
"Its easy. Stones fans are really really tired of the 'formula'..."

What do you mean by the formula? Are you talking about Ronnie´s playing or the show structure(that they havn´t mixed up enough imo) Or formula like Taylor plays?
Remember on the 1969 tour or 1972 each show was got almost the same setlist! "i think i lost button on my trousers.."

Quote
steini
Munichhilton wrote
"Its easy. Stones fans are really really tired of the 'formula'..."

What do you mean by the formula? Are you talking about Ronnie´s playing or the show structure(that they havn´t mixed up enough imo) Or formula like Taylor plays?
Remember on the 1969 tour or 1972 each show was got almost the same setlist! "i think i lost button on my trousers.."

You got it brother...Its the safe and sane Stones..no risk no reward but plenty of payoff