For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
duffydawg
I think that must be MJ and KR's current take - MT is just a Blues guitarist for a special sit-in. Never mind Gimme Shelter, Brown Sugar or Sympathy for The Devil form the late 60s / early 1970s that Taylor owned. Now he is just a Bluesman.
But for the love of God, can you at least have him play a few more tunes. I think if they play CYHMK without Taylor on the Tour, I am going to explode....
I should have known better than to spend this kind of money for such a scripted event...
Quote
bleedingman
To me Taylor plays great but also like he's trying to squeeze everything he's got into the brief time given him. His adrenalin must be off the hook. "Shine A Light", "Love In Vain", "Knockin'" all would give him time to breathe and settle in with the band. They should definitely give him at least one more song than they gave Stefani.
Quote
triceratops
This special guest stuff has spoiled Mick Taylors re-emergence. Where he is expected to perform spectacularly for a few tunes same as a John Mayer. What The Stones need to do is plant Mick Taylor in the back next to Charlie where he can quietly fill and enhance each tune the way Keith described. Have MickT play on 75% of the set this way. Then bring him to the forefront for Dead Flowers, Sway what have you that are tunes where MickT plays a key role. Do this for 2-3 tunes each set.
Mick Taylor should play the role of just another Stones guitarist. Why is Mick Jagger so against this?
Quote
jhrock83
I LL BE IN HYDE PARK AND I DREAM TO SEE MICK TAYLOR PLAYING LOVE IN VAIN.
PLEASE CAN YOU CHANGE THE SET LIST MICK !!!
MIDNIGHT RAMBLER
LOVE IN VAIN
SWAY
THAT's a F*cking good set list no ?????
Quote
kleermakerQuote
71TeleQuote
uhbuhgullayewQuote
71TeleQuote
uhbuhgullayewQuote
71Tele
I personally would have skipped this tour entirely if not for the comments by Keith and others that led us to believe MT would be a greater part of the show. So, here I am in Oakland, after spending hundreds of dollars and traveling then finding it may just be "Midnight Rambler" - again. The underutilization of Taylor is quite bizarre, unless it has to do with Jagger's perverse refusal to give people the satisfaction of seeing the 1972-era lineup again and making comparisons (hence no Taylor and Wyman at the same time in London). Yet, we get novelty "special guests" like Lady Ga Ga and Gwen Stefani in a continuing losing battle to appear "relevant" and "contemporary". These artists may be fine in their own right, but have zero relationship to the Stones.
I wonder what it must be like for MT to have to sit backstage while the band plays "Wild Horses", "Tumbling Dice", and "Brown Sugar" - all songs he recorded with them? He should be on that stage.
MT probably has been wondering what it would have been like for the last few decades - only he was not backstage during Stones tours - he was elsewhere. His choice.
...and irrelevant to the thread, which is not about whether he quit, why he quit, whether it was a good idea to quit, etc. Taylor is with the band now, so the only question is whether or not he is used effectively.
True, I wish he was on stage and playing for the whole show.
Enjoy the show tonight Tele & hope you get to see MT playing more than MR.
Thanks! Much appreciated.
71Tele is going to see the Stones with Taylor for the first time in his life!
A great moment, Tele, even if he only plays on MR (which we don't hope!).
Anyway, enjoy, have a great time and please write a report for us, even if it is a little one, about your first Taylor-with-the-Stones experience. Better late than never, as we say it here.
Quote
backstreetboy1
guys he's your best musician,use him.
Quote
sanQQuote
Sighunt
For people who are interested, my open letter on Facebook is posted, it is half-way down the page under Scott Sigel open letter to Mick Jagger. If you have an account on Facebook, go to the Rolling Stones page, AND IF YOU AGREE with my thoughts regarding using Mick Taylor more, add a reply or comment to it. Thanks, Scott.
I couldn't find it!
no its not absurd.Quote
vermontoffender
The concept that Jagger is concerned adding Taylor to the Rolling Stones for a few more songs in 2013 might somehow garner unfavorable comparisons to '72 is both absurd and hilarious.
I mean, half the "fans" on this board compare every note the Stones have played since 1975 to 1972. There is no reason whatsoever to think that Jagger doesn't know this or that he cares in the least about comparisons that have been occurring on a daily basis for the past four decades.
A few years ago, "fans" on this board floated this exact same "conspiracy" to explain why "Ladies and Gentleman..." wasn't ever given a proper release. Then the Stones released it in conjunction with the remastered Exile. The single meant to increase exposure of the remastered Exile featured Taylor on guitar.
Now, Taylor is touring with the band.
Perhaps when Jagger wrote the words to (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction he was somehow magically describing a delusional portion of his band's fan base in 2013.
Quote
vermontoffender
The concept that Jagger is concerned adding Taylor to the Rolling Stones for a few more songs in 2013 might somehow garner unfavorable comparisons to '72 is both absurd and hilarious.
I mean, half the "fans" on this board compare every note the Stones have played since 1975 to 1972. There is no reason whatsoever to think that Jagger doesn't know this or that he cares in the least about comparisons that have been occurring on a daily basis for the past four decades.
A few years ago, "fans" on this board floated this exact same "conspiracy" to explain why "Ladies and Gentleman..." wasn't ever given a proper release. Then the Stones released it in conjunction with the remastered Exile. The single meant to increase exposure of the remastered Exile featured Taylor on guitar.
Now, Taylor is touring with the band.
Perhaps when Jagger wrote the words to (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction he was somehow magically describing a delusional portion of his band's fan base in 2013.
Quote
vermontoffender
The concept that Jagger is concerned adding Taylor to the Rolling Stones for a few more songs in 2013 might somehow garner unfavorable comparisons to '72 is both absurd and hilarious.
I mean, half the "fans" on this board compare every note the Stones have played since 1975 to 1972. There is no reason whatsoever to think that Jagger doesn't know this or that he cares in the least about comparisons that have been occurring on a daily basis for the past four decades.
A few years ago, "fans" on this board floated this exact same "conspiracy" to explain why "Ladies and Gentleman..." wasn't ever given a proper release. Then the Stones released it in conjunction with the remastered Exile. The single meant to increase exposure of the remastered Exile featured Taylor on guitar.
Now, Taylor is touring with the band.
Perhaps when Jagger wrote the words to (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction he was somehow magically describing a delusional portion of his band's fan base in 2013.
Quote
mariannaQuote
vermontoffender
The concept that Jagger is concerned adding Taylor to the Rolling Stones for a few more songs in 2013 might somehow garner unfavorable comparisons to '72 is both absurd and hilarious.
I mean, half the "fans" on this board compare every note the Stones have played since 1975 to 1972. There is no reason whatsoever to think that Jagger doesn't know this or that he cares in the least about comparisons that have been occurring on a daily basis for the past four decades.
A few years ago, "fans" on this board floated this exact same "conspiracy" to explain why "Ladies and Gentleman..." wasn't ever given a proper release. Then the Stones released it in conjunction with the remastered Exile. The single meant to increase exposure of the remastered Exile featured Taylor on guitar.
Now, Taylor is touring with the band.
Perhaps when Jagger wrote the words to (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction he was somehow magically describing a delusional portion of his band's fan base in 2013.
Why did they bring Mick Taylor back at all? The Stones are the ones making themselves look bad and insecure by only using him on one song, not the so-called "delusional" portion of the band's fan base who appreciate decent musicianship. If Mick Taylor weren't back in the band at all, that would be silly to complain, but he's there. I wonder what he does backstage while waiting to come on and then after he's off? I feel sorry for the guy and hope they're paying him well for the humiliation.