Quote
paulywaul

Quote
RobertJohnson
Okay, the point is: We want Mick Taylor on at least more than two songs. New thread, please ... Of course sticky ...

Why new thread ? As for sticky, the only place the message theme of this thread ought to be stuck is on Mick Jagger's forehead !!

And on Keith's ass ...

It is going forward - first: playing on one song, then playing on two songs, now playing on two songs an back-up singing on one song.
Next step is probably playing on three songs....

Quote
sonomastone

Quote
paulywaul

Quote
Sighunt
As much as I and others on this board have tried to get the Stones attention, I suspect that the Stones (in particular Mick Jagger) are going to keep things the way they are. They are creatures of habit. From all indications, Mick Jagger does not like to screw with the setlist once its established. Judging from past tours, the Stones typically craft a set list and toss songs that don't fit after the first or second gig in the beginning of the tour, and then (with some minor exceptions), pretty much play the same show from night to night (examples Steel Wheels 89, Tattoo You 81, Some Girls 78, Exile on Main Street tour 72, etc). Given a 22 song set list and their "obligation" to play the familiar warhorses (Honky Tonk, Brown Sugar, Jack Flash, Start Me Up, Satisfaction, etc)to a conservative audience, unless I am wrong, there appears to be no additional room for a Mick Taylor mini-set. Sadly, I think the Stones may feel that they threw the fans a bone by bringing Mick Taylor out for one extra song being Satisfaction. I really want to be wrong, but a pattern has emerged.

Yes, it has ........... but it's not too late with some dozen shows or so remaining for the pattern to be slightly modified and for Mick Taylor to be showcased a little more. But if they're going to do it, they can't leave it much longer ............

GET ON WITH IT GLIMMERS ............. MORE MICK TAYLOR PLEASE !!!

i think mick listens to the audience at the show, and the energy there. if everyone started chanting for taylor to stay on stage after midnight rambler for a couple of shows in a row, they might do something. unfortunately i'd guess at least half the people attending these shows have no idea who mick taylor is.

That's ok. I don't know who half the people in the audience are.

It is clearly a money issue as to why Taylor has been restricted in the number of songs he plays on. My guess is, and it's only a guess based on how the Stones LTD work, that a contract was drawn up for all musicians other than Mick, Keith, Charlie...possibly Ronnie. This could easily be changed, but Jagger would only do this if it made them more money...lots more money. It does seem, though that we may see him on at least one more song - Sway.

Quote
RollingFreak
Mick Taylor should get 3 songs in the main set, and the whole encore. Thats the bottom line. Give him Rambler or a different special song, and then have him up there also for Brown Sugar and Sympathy For The Devil/Tumbling Dice. He is well known to have played on those songs (either live or in the studio) and playing on about 5 songs total is worth it for his legacy. In that way, he still gets one special song, isn't playing the whole show, but is highlighted as much as he should be (if not still under utilized). No matter how you slice it now, under 3 songs is just wasting him if he's there every night. He deserves more, and there are so many ways to include him that wouldn't make him be stealing the spotlight from everyone else, but just adding to the overall show.

Right Answer +1 .... he was supposed to have an expanded role. This would be the logical compromise.

Quote
crumbling_mice
It is clearly a money issue as to why Taylor has been restricted in the number of songs he plays on. My guess is, and it's only a guess based on how the Stones LTD work, that a contract was drawn up for all musicians other than Mick, Keith, Charlie...possibly Ronnie. This could easily be changed, but Jagger would only do this if it made them more money...lots more money. It does seem, though that we may see him on at least one more song - Sway.

I guess I shouldn't have paid $600 a tix for Stones with MT in two songs.... my vote has already been counted, unfortunately. I am genuinely disappointed....

[discussions.latimes.com]

Some twit below in the comments complains about the Brown Sugar on Brussels Affair where MT is soloing the whole time.... LOL. That is the treasure of the Stones having MT!! Crazy....

Quote
crumbling_mice
It is clearly a money issue as to why Taylor has been restricted in the number of songs he plays on. My guess is, and it's only a guess based on how the Stones LTD work, that a contract was drawn up for all musicians other than Mick, Keith, Charlie...possibly Ronnie. This could easily be changed, but Jagger would only do this if it made them more money...lots more money. It does seem, though that we may see him on at least one more song - Sway.

MickT should get minimum one million pounds for this tour to make up for the past cheating him on song writing credits etc. If the Stone gyp him again he must hire a lawyer to sue them for the album royalties he has not been receiving since 1982

Quote
triceratops

Quote
crumbling_mice
It is clearly a money issue as to why Taylor has been restricted in the number of songs he plays on. My guess is, and it's only a guess based on how the Stones LTD work, that a contract was drawn up for all musicians other than Mick, Keith, Charlie...possibly Ronnie. This could easily be changed, but Jagger would only do this if it made them more money...lots more money. It does seem, though that we may see him on at least one more song - Sway.

MickT should get minimum one million pounds for this tour to make up for the past cheating him on song writing credits etc. If the Stone gyp him again he must hire a lawyer to sue them for the album royalties he has not been receiving since 1982

why do you think he's on this tour in the first place? it's clearly part of a settlement. there's no way they could pay back the money to him, as it's disperesed to various holding companies and individuals (e.g. wyman) who they have no control of. clearly they offered to pay him $x amount for appearing each night on the tour, and he agreed in return to drop all claims.

I dont think MT is on tour as a part of a legal settlement. I see this is away to sell tickets at $500 bucks a pop.

And if there were any type of settlement, it could be paid in cash in a heartbeat.

Why do people embark on these factless scenarios of lawsuits and settlements. This is just weird. A middle school paper would receive an "F" and a scolding for writing this fiction. I want MT on more songs because he is great and adds so much as he always has to the Rolling Stones music.

I'm embarrassed to see how many long time "fans" have turned into the whiny demanding lot that all you armchair Mick Jagger's have become on this thread.

Jeezus.
Let them run THEIR band, work out who plays what when and where and be GRATEFUL.

It's not like we're shareholders.

We're FANS.
Ar least a lot of you used to be, and some of us still are.

Quote
Midnight Toker
I dont think MT is on tour as a part of a legal settlement. I see this is away to sell tickets at $500 bucks a pop.

And if there were any type of settlement, it could be paid in cash in a heartbeat.

surely you guys don't think that taylor would go on tour with them while he had outstanding legal claims against them, or that they would allow taylor to go on tour with them while he had outstanding legal claims against them? this is not how business is done.

perhaps it could happen if those claims were rumored and/or not discussed publicly and seriously (e.g. in 81), but in this case a few years ago he publicly aired those claims and announced his intention to recover the money (see the daily mail article).

it could be very hard for them to recompensate taylor for his claims (however legitimate or not) since it would require computing his % for those songs he played on, and then reducing all the income by everyone else paid for playing on those songs by that proportion, and then recovering that money from those people, and then giving it to him. extremely messy to go through especially when you figure that all those people have paid tax on the money long ago too. this of course only applies to people who had points in the royalties vs those paid a flat fee. presumably it includes wood, watts, wyman, taylor, jagger, and richards, but it could also include producers, etc.

so no, it's not as simple as a cash payment from the rolling stones ltd, because the money would have to come from various tax authorities as well as people who are no longer associated with the rolling stones ltd. it's certainly not crazy or unprecedented to say, sign a waiver of these claims and in return we will give you $x in return for playing on tour with us (where %x is a larger than normal amount that he would feel sqaured them up.)

regardless of how it was resolved (which we will presumably never know, or not know for a long time), we can be reasonably sure that any legal claims were resolved prior to this tour.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-18 07:25 by sonomastone.

Sonomastone, I see you have a point, but still it is just speculation (which is alright per se!). But I wouldn't count too much on the claims of that Daily Mail article. The credibility of it has been refuted here many times.

- Doxa

But but... what I was about to say... oh yeah... MORE TAYLOR PLEASE!!!

- Doxa

[www.facebook.com]

Bernard Fowler posts a picture on Facebook, there's a setlist with Sway and Love in Vain, really hoping to see Mick T. to play at least in one of those songs.

Really hope my wish is not Love in Vain...

Quote
sonomastone

Quote
triceratops


MickT should get minimum one million pounds for this tour to make up for the past cheating him on song writing credits etc. If the Stone gyp him again he must hire a lawyer to sue them for the album royalties he has not been receiving since 1982

why do you think he's on this tour in the first place? it's clearly part of a settlement. there's no way they could pay back the money to him, as it's disperesed to various holding companies and individuals (e.g. wyman) who they have no control of. clearly they offered to pay him $x amount for appearing each night on the tour, and he agreed in return to drop all claims.

I sure hope you are correct on this. I can't tell if they are paying him $10,000 per show with free hotel and travel or whether Mick Taylor will get a nice big payoff to settle matters. He seems happy go lucky during the shows doing air guitar on some tunes behind Charlie's drums. Maybe he is totally unconcerned how much he gets to play each night because he gets a nice lump sum settlement at the end of the tour no matter if he plays on one tune a night or twenty tunes a night. Laying one to two million British pounds on Mick Taylor would be the right thing to do. If this doesn't happen then MickT should sue after the tour. I posted this before --- That Mathew Fisher won a case in ~2007 where he is now being paid for co-writing Whiter Shade of Pale after fuming about it for years

This is also Mick Taylors fault for being so flakey he didn't sue years ago for being cut off from album royalty payments in 1982. I believe MT here



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-18 14:57 by triceratops.

Quote
Doxa
Sonomastone, I see you have a point, but still it is just speculation (which is alright per se!). But I wouldn't count too much on the claims of that Daily Mail article. The credibility of it has been refuted here many times.

- Doxa

Do tell us. Specifically about Mick Taylor's claim in the UK Daily Mail [www.dailymail.co.uk] that he was cut off from Stones album royalties in 1982. Do you have counter information?

Now the other parts about how shabby his living accommodations are, his roof leaking? (2009) could be partly wrong but this is not my prime concern. Thanks

The above UK Daily Mail article is so revealing and I'll bet single handedly got Mick Taylor onto the current tour. Flesh out this article into a book and this is not something Mick and Keith want to see. More so Mick obviously, since in his mind he has a certain public image he does not want tarnished. Keith could care less. Best case is MT gets a very generous lump sum settlement and it all started with the UK Daily Mail



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-18 15:21 by triceratops.

Taylor's limited role thus far has nothing to do with money. Nothing. It's Jagger's preference. Simple as that. Let's hope it changes soon.

Quote
sonomastone

Quote
Midnight Toker
I dont think MT is on tour as a part of a legal settlement. I see this is away to sell tickets at $500 bucks a pop.

And if there were any type of settlement, it could be paid in cash in a heartbeat.

surely you guys don't think that taylor would go on tour with them while he had outstanding legal claims against them, or that they would allow taylor to go on tour with them while he had outstanding legal claims against them? this is not how business is done.

perhaps it could happen if those claims were rumored and/or not discussed publicly and seriously (e.g. in 81), but in this case a few years ago he publicly aired those claims and announced his intention to recover the money (see the daily mail article).

it could be very hard for them to recompensate taylor for his claims (however legitimate or not) since it would require computing his % for those songs he played on, and then reducing all the income by everyone else paid for playing on those songs by that proportion, and then recovering that money from those people, and then giving it to him. extremely messy to go through especially when you figure that all those people have paid tax on the money long ago too. this of course only applies to people who had points in the royalties vs those paid a flat fee. presumably it includes wood, watts, wyman, taylor, jagger, and richards, but it could also include producers, etc.


so no, it's not as simple as a cash payment from the rolling stones ltd, because the money would have to come from various tax authorities as well as people who are no longer associated with the rolling stones ltd. it's certainly not crazy or unprecedented to say, sign a waiver of these claims and in return we will give you $x in return for playing on tour with us (where %x is a larger than normal amount that he would feel sqaured them up.)

regardless of how it was resolved (which we will presumably never know, or not know for a long time), we can be reasonably sure that any legal claims were resolved prior to this tour.

this whole discussion is absurd. Taylor has no legal claim against the Stones or any of them - if he did at any point, if he could prove anything in a court of law, any such claim is long since barred by the statute of limitations. He has not asserted a claim for royalties and there is no settlement of anything,this is all just made up gossip. And if there were any such viable claim, all that you said about how it has to be resolved is complete nonsense, made up out of thin air.

Well a poor boy took his father's bread and started down the road
Started down the road
Took all he had and started down the road
Going out in this world, where God only knows
And that'll be the way to get along

Well poor boy spent all he had, famine come in the land
Famine come in the land
Spent all he had and famine come in the land
Said, "I believe I'll go and hire me to some man"
And that'll be the way I'll get along

Well, man said, "I'll give you a job for to feed my swine
For to feed my swine
I'll give you a job for to feed my swine"
Boy stood there and hung his head and cried
`Cause that is no way to get along

Said, "I believe I'll ride, believe I'll go back home
Believe I'll go back home
Believe I'll ride, believe I'll go back home
Or down the road as far as I can go"
And that'll be the way to get along

Well, father said, "See my son coming home to me
Coming home to me"
Father ran and fell down on his knees
Said, "Sing and praise, Lord have mercy on me"
Mercy

Oh poor boy stood there, hung his head and cried
Hung his head and cried
Poor boy stood and hung his head and cried
Said, "Father will you look on me as a child?"
Yeah

Well father said, "Eldest son, kill the fatted calf,
Call the family round
Kill that calf and call the family round
My son was lost but now he is found
'Cause that's the way for us to get along"

@The Joker

Thanks. Have not heard that "Prodigal Son" live in years. The level of dedication and fidelity there by Keith Richards was 1000%. It made me imagine the thousands of hours back then he played and practiced this old acoustic blues material at home. This is the foundation of the "electric" Rolling Stones. This is why they were so good for years before the cynicism and jadedness seeped in.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-18 16:21 by triceratops.

Quote
Rokyfan


this whole discussion is absurd. Taylor has no legal claim against the Stones or any of them - if he did at any point, if he could prove anything in a court of law, any such claim is long since barred by the statute of limitations. He has not asserted a claim for royalties and there is no settlement of anything,this is all just made up gossip. And if there were any such viable claim, all that you said about how it has to be resolved is complete nonsense, made up out of thin air.

You are the one treading on thin air. Please explain [en.wikipedia.org] how Mathew Fisher is now (since 2008) collecting royalties from Whiter Shade of Pale. Case being decided 38 years after the fact. Fisher was not given retroactive royalties though.

Not relevant, (different FACTS), to the claims of complete gossip with no evidence to support the statements. Do people understand the difference between facts and gossip? Not one of these legal claim commentaries or what Mick and Keith "think about this" is true. None of you has a single pleading from a court or have discussed this personally with Mick, Keith or anyone, so......, The pertinent players, MT and the Gang, seem happy so why not stop gossiping and sniping like school girls and let them have some fun!

More Taylor PLEASE, the true issue at hand with evidence of insufficient use on the tour. Carry on!

Mick Taylor on perhaps the half of the show ...
That would be a dream come true!

Just simply do it!

Quote
Mel Belli
Taylor's limited role thus far has nothing to do with money. Nothing. It's Jagger's preference. Simple as that.

Jagger doesn't want his band to become a nostalgia act, hence the new albums, young guests onstage, Internet/Facebook activity etc etc

Giving MT more stage time would be (in his mind) a backward move.

Quote
triceratops

Quote
Rokyfan


this whole discussion is absurd. Taylor has no legal claim against the Stones or any of them - if he did at any point, if he could prove anything in a court of law, any such claim is long since barred by the statute of limitations. He has not asserted a claim for royalties and there is no settlement of anything,this is all just made up gossip. And if there were any such viable claim, all that you said about how it has to be resolved is complete nonsense, made up out of thin air.

You are the one treading on thin air. Please explain [en.wikipedia.org] how Mathew Fisher is now (since 2008) collecting royalties from Whiter Shade of Pale. Case being decided 38 years after the fact. Fisher was not given retroactive royalties though.

I know nothing about Matthew Fisher or his claim, nor how it has anything to do with this alleged, imaginary claim of Mick Taylor to songwriting royalties, that he has never asserted.

And I think it's treading on thin ice. Makes more sense than "thin air."

Quote
Rokyfan

Quote
triceratops

Quote
Rokyfan


this whole discussion is absurd. Taylor has no legal claim against the Stones or any of them - if he did at any point, if he could prove anything in a court of law, any such claim is long since barred by the statute of limitations. He has not asserted a claim for royalties and there is no settlement of anything,this is all just made up gossip. And if there were any such viable claim, all that you said about how it has to be resolved is complete nonsense, made up out of thin air.

You are the one treading on thin air. Please explain [en.wikipedia.org] how Mathew Fisher is now (since 2008) collecting royalties from Whiter Shade of Pale. Case being decided 38 years after the fact. Fisher was not given retroactive royalties though.

I know nothing about Matthew Fisher or his claim, nor how it has anything to do with this alleged, imaginary claim of Mick Taylor to songwriting royalties, that he has never asserted.

And I think it's treading on thin ice. Makes more sense than "thin air."

Taylor has claimed performance royalties not songwriting royalties. Have you read the daily mail article?

This will draw hate......MR is more about rhythm artistry(weaving), Variety would be nice, CYHMK, Sway, Love in Vain........VENTILATOR BLUES, Dance Little Sister, Jivin Sister Fanny........Sympathy, Ya-Yas style.....etc.

Quote
dcba

Quote
Mel Belli
Taylor's limited role thus far has nothing to do with money. Nothing. It's Jagger's preference. Simple as that.

Jagger doesn't want his band to become a nostalgia act, hence the new albums, young guests onstage, Internet/Facebook activity etc etc

Giving MT more stage time would be (in his mind) a backward move.

Then how do you explain playing only songs 30 years old or older (except the token two new ones)?