Wow...it get's pretty ugly on here when another Stones fan doesn't idolize Mick Taylor like a few of you do. Who's being selfish and idiotic? Sorry I interrupted your M.T. lovefest.

Quote
rtr
I'm an idiot because I don't have the same reverential opinion of M.T. as Duffydawg? I'm "crappin'"?? Gee, thanks for enlightening me to the fact that instead of enjoying the last 40 years of shows and boots, I should have been resenting R.W. and unappreciative of his contributions to the Stones' energy, sound and live shows. I'm from the school that thinks his solos were not that great, did not even fit the Stones attitude and sound, and are currently a distraction live. One song is plenty. To me, he is just a small blip in the Stones' 50 years, along with the "non-Stones" who played on Black 'n Blue. I have been a fan since I bought their first album in '64 and have travelled the country to catch them through the years. I never once thought "if only Mick Taylor were here to save the day". To me, his contributions are overrated. That is just my opinion.

I'm a Mach III guy myself (in its prime - 77-83), even though Exile is my favorite Stones record. I don't agree that Taylor's solos weren't great - Shine a Light and Time Waits for No One are two obvious examples. But I do agree with you on the weaving stuff and that Taylor's work with the Stones tends to get idealized. As much as I love the '73 Midnight Ramblers, I think this tour's versions aren't as rhythmically tight as on previous recent tours. I also think three guitars starts sounding quite messy. Still I'm glad Taylor's getting his time onstage with the Stones, for him and all of "his" fans (which includes me even if I prefer Ronnie) - and I'll be very happy to see him onstage in an upcoming show.

I just don't think he should be part of any future studio album or "reinstated" (not that I think that's going to happen). And part of that is that I don't want the Stones to become a purely nostalgic act - although many will think this has been the case already for years or decades.

Quote
Rokyfan

Quote
duffydawg

Quote
rtr
M.T. over plays and is overrated. Keith and Ronnie should not be backing this guy up. What a slap in their faces.

You are an idiot. Tell me a better "back and forth" than KR and MT in Sympathy for the Devil on GYYA???

So you saw them in 1969, huh? So you are like 65+ years old on a message board ranking on MT? I think you be crappin, my son.

Music is a matter of opinion. I agree with you that MT's contribution to the Stones' catalog is immeasurable. The guy to whom you are responding is not necessarily an idiot. People have the right not to like music that I love. But you are correct in that it is inexplicable for one to call themselves a fan of the Rolling Stones and hold that opinion of mick Taylor. . to not recognize the contributions you pointed out, and many others.

My general impression, as a fan of the Rolling Stones' work from 62-89 in equal parts, is that the Taylorites are incredibly defensive of anything said about Taylor and incredibly quick to insult not just Ron Wood but also Keith Richards, without whom there would be no Rolling Stones.

I'm sure Mick Taylor himself would be horrified to see what some of his fans have to say about Keith Richards and Ron Wood and would be the first to put some of you guys in your place.

Seems like the Taylorites often think it's a zero-sum game where they have to tear down the reputation of Keith or Ronnie in order to build up Mick Taylor.

How sad to see some of the disgusting insults from you guys in these days when we should all be celebrating the return of Taylor and the celebration of the Stones' 50th.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
gripweed

Quote
Rokyfan

Quote
duffydawg

Quote
rtr
M.T. over plays and is overrated. Keith and Ronnie should not be backing this guy up. What a slap in their faces.

You are an idiot. Tell me a better "back and forth" than KR and MT in Sympathy for the Devil on GYYA???

So you saw them in 1969, huh? So you are like 65+ years old on a message board ranking on MT? I think you be crappin, my son.

Music is a matter of opinion. I agree with you that MT's contribution to the Stones' catalog is immeasurable. The guy to whom you are responding is not necessarily an idiot. People have the right not to like music that I love. But you are correct in that it is inexplicable for one to call themselves a fan of the Rolling Stones and hold that opinion of mick Taylor. . to not recognize the contributions you pointed out, and many others.

this "rtr' fellow is just a TROLL... he signed up "today"... probably been BANNED many times already... ignore him and he will go away

I know. I have a pretty good idea who it is too.

Exactly my thoughts too.

Tele, I think you know where I am coming from. Of course Ronnie isn't on the original, but he does a better Keith than MT. I have made my MT love and appreciation clear. To be fair, no Ronnie is no MT, not on his best day, but I don't want to revise a 50 year catalogue over a great six year period. In his time, lead and rhythm was more clearly defined, with at times undeniable results, but TD, for example really disappointed me on L&G. It doesn't roll in my mind. Sometimes it's a wash.....Ronnie pulls off ADTL, to admirable results. I myself, am not a fan of the TWFN type of thing that MT gets into. The biggest exception for me is SFTD, not an original MT solo, but the GYYY's version is hands down the best. Just trying to put 6-7 years in a realistic context. Also, when speaking of sloppy 76' remember, there were other factors.......The 77' El Mocambo stuff is pretty hot. I love them all in there time and place.

Sorry "haters", the only reason I jumped on this thread was because I was upset to see that Taylor was now up to 4 songs, which gives him much more solo / feature time than the two mainstays who I love hearing play live together. And yes, the 3rd guitar does "murk up" the dynamic of the band's sound. Sorry everyone, but Taylor getting that much spotlight is not something I was hoping for when I forked out $700.00+ for a one day trip to catch the Stones in Chicago. (And I'm currently unemployed, so don't question whether I am a true fan)!

Quote
Thrylan
Tele, I think you know where I am coming from. Of course Ronnie isn't on the original, but he does a better Keith than MT. I have made my MT love and appreciation clear. To be fair, no Ronnie is no MT, not on his best day, but I don't want to revise a 50 year catalogue over a great six year period. In his time, lead and rhythm was more clearly defined, with at times undeniable results, but TD, for example really disappointed me on L&G. It doesn't roll in my mind. Sometimes it's a wash.....Ronnie pulls off ADTL, to admirable results. I myself, am not a fan of the TWFN type of thing that MT gets into. The biggest exception for me is SFTD, not an original MT solo, but the GYYY's version is hands down the best. Just trying to put 6-7 years in a realistic context. Also, when speaking of sloppy 76' remember, there were other factors.......The 77' El Mocambo stuff is pretty hot. I love them all in there time and place.

Actually I prefer the '69 mix of guitars slightly better than the stricter lead/rhythm split that came later. Which TD one prefers is a matter of taste. Who makes "a better Keith" is a bit beside the point, imo. Ronnie "pulls off an admirable ADTL"? Maybe it's admirable that he sometimes comes close to the slide part Taylor did on that song, but he never nails it. That kind of fluidity is not really his strength. Anyway, in my view none of the excitement about last night's show with Taylor is part of any kind of Wood vs. Taylor debate. It's about the Stones embracing all three guitarists and having them all onstage at once. I also think (as others have pointed out) that it brought the intensity of the band to a higher level: Taking chances, playing music, as opposed to just performing it. Making the Stones a bit dangerous again.

Quote
alimente

Quote
71Tele

Quote
gripweed

Quote
Rokyfan

Quote
duffydawg

Quote
rtr
M.T. over plays and is overrated. Keith and Ronnie should not be backing this guy up. What a slap in their faces.

You are an idiot. Tell me a better "back and forth" than KR and MT in Sympathy for the Devil on GYYA???

So you saw them in 1969, huh? So you are like 65+ years old on a message board ranking on MT? I think you be crappin, my son.

Music is a matter of opinion. I agree with you that MT's contribution to the Stones' catalog is immeasurable. The guy to whom you are responding is not necessarily an idiot. People have the right not to like music that I love. But you are correct in that it is inexplicable for one to call themselves a fan of the Rolling Stones and hold that opinion of mick Taylor. . to not recognize the contributions you pointed out, and many others.

this "rtr' fellow is just a TROLL... he signed up "today"... probably been BANNED many times already... ignore him and he will go away

I know. I have a pretty good idea who it is too.

Exactly my thoughts too.

Yes indeed; we're on the same page...

Quote
rtr
Sorry "haters", the only reason I jumped on this thread was because I was upset to see that Taylor was now up to 4 songs, which gives him much more solo / feature time than the two mainstays who I love hearing play live together. And yes, the 3rd guitar does "murk up" the dynamic of the band's sound. Sorry everyone, but Taylor getting that much spotlight is not something I was hoping for when I forked out $700.00+ for a one day trip to catch the Stones in Chicago. (And I'm currently unemployed, so don't question whether I am a true fan)!

I think you should demand an apology and your money back from the Rolling Stones. You were led to believe that this was a "strictly Vegas-era" show and instead had to listen to three Rolling Stones guitarists for four whole songs! Oh the horror.

Well at least people are loyal.

It is interesting to watch the Taylor supporters defending Mick
with almost the same level of support as Wood fans support Ronnie.


As the World turns, these are the days of our Stones.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
rtr
Sorry "haters", the only reason I jumped on this thread was because I was upset to see that Taylor was now up to 4 songs, which gives him much more solo / feature time than the two mainstays who I love hearing play live together. And yes, the 3rd guitar does "murk up" the dynamic of the band's sound. Sorry everyone, but Taylor getting that much spotlight is not something I was hoping for when I forked out $700.00+ for a one day trip to catch the Stones in Chicago. (And I'm currently unemployed, so don't question whether I am a true fan)!

I think you should demand an apology and your money back from the Rolling Stones. You were led to believe that this was a "strictly Vegas-era" show and instead had to listen to three Rolling Stones guitarists for four whole songs! Oh the horror.

Analogy; We have been married to Ronnie for almost forty years, through some real bum notes, alcoholism(When I saw them on BB in Cbus, he was sitting for the encore, YCAGWYW, rolled over and somehow unplugged his wireless at solo time) and other stuff. Now in walks the chick we dated for a few years........you get it. I am trying to stay grounded here, sure, I LOVE strange, but I also love my wife. I know this will be perceived by some as hate, but you are knowledgable, and I think you understand, I hope.

So, you also have not enjoyed the Stones live for the last 38 years? Are you guys sure you are really even fans? Sounds like you've just been disappointed for years. "Vegas Stones", really? Sorry, I like the dynamic and sound of the band with Ronnie. I flew to Vancouver to catch the Stones at the end of 2006, thinking it would be the "last time". I did not expect such an extreme reaction from the fans of a long gone era of the band. Do you have the same disdain for other fans who do not agree with you on which albums are the best?

I dont embrace three guitars as a constant, but allow that it may be the way they have to go, considering the overall product, I do live in reality. Agreed, the band was never tighter than 69', it downright pulses at times, and the weaving on the Chuck stuff is TITE!!!!

Quote
Thrylan

Quote
71Tele

Quote
rtr
Sorry "haters", the only reason I jumped on this thread was because I was upset to see that Taylor was now up to 4 songs, which gives him much more solo / feature time than the two mainstays who I love hearing play live together. And yes, the 3rd guitar does "murk up" the dynamic of the band's sound. Sorry everyone, but Taylor getting that much spotlight is not something I was hoping for when I forked out $700.00+ for a one day trip to catch the Stones in Chicago. (And I'm currently unemployed, so don't question whether I am a true fan)!

I think you should demand an apology and your money back from the Rolling Stones. You were led to believe that this was a "strictly Vegas-era" show and instead had to listen to three Rolling Stones guitarists for four whole songs! Oh the horror.

Analogy; We have been married to Ronnie for almost forty years, through some real bum notes, alcoholism(When I saw them on BB in Cbus, he was sitting for the encore, YCAGWYW, rolled over and somehow unplugged his wireless at solo time) and other stuff. Now in walks the chick we dated for a few years........you get it. I am trying to stay grounded here, sure, I LOVE strange, but I also love my wife. I know this will be perceived by some as hate, but you are knowledgable, and I think you understand, I hope.

Sure I do. It's not a bad analogy. I just reject the idea put forward by a very few here (not you) that being excited about having Mick Taylor back in the mix is some kind of disloyalty to Ron Wood. Ronnie has the job. That won't change. These folks should relax and enjoy the show.

Many of us here are musicians as well as fans, and have been frustrated that the band for decades now seemed to be playing it pretty safe. They have finally done something a little challenging and exciting musically (of course performance-wise they are always exciting) and many of us thought that would never happen again. It's terrific. Hope they do more!

I play too, like a 35 year lesson with Keith....lol, yes for the last twenty, it's mostly nuance....lol, but we love our Stones, glad you can differentiate my comments and opinions from hate........I would think being a Stones fan would give some a thicker skin, saying MT doesnt need every solo is not hate, hell, it's life with more than one player!

Quote
rtr
So, you also have not enjoyed the Stones live for the last 38 years? Are you guys sure you are really even fans? Sounds like you've just been disappointed for years. "Vegas Stones", really? Sorry, I like the dynamic and sound of the band with Ronnie. I flew to Vancouver to catch the Stones at the end of 2006, thinking it would be the "last time". I did not expect such an extreme reaction from the fans of a long gone era of the band. Do you have the same disdain for other fans who do not agree with you on which albums are the best?

The guitars have been lacking creativity for quite some time. Ronnie tries but he just doesn't have the off the cuff talent that Mick Taylor has. Ronnie has to work really hard to come up with his solos and it's not improvised at all.

For Mick Taylor, he could create a new off the cuff solo every time he picked up the guitar with little to no effort required. He's more gifted in this aspect. Ronnie is gifted too though, but lead guitar is not his strongest suit.

Quote
rtr
So, you also have not enjoyed the Stones live for the last 38 years? Are you guys sure you are really even fans? Sounds like you've just been disappointed for years. "Vegas Stones", really? Sorry, I like the dynamic and sound of the band with Ronnie. I flew to Vancouver to catch the Stones at the end of 2006, thinking it would be the "last time". I did not expect such an extreme reaction from the fans of a long gone era of the band. Do you have the same disdain for other fans who do not agree with you on which albums are the best?

Yes, I just haven't enjoyed them quite as much. You can like whatever you want. It's just odd that adding another band member for a few songs would have such a negative impact on you. Fortunately the other Rolling Stones (including Ronnie) have a completely different view of it than you do.

Quote
sanQ

Quote
rtr
So, you also have not enjoyed the Stones live for the last 38 years? Are you guys sure you are really even fans? Sounds like you've just been disappointed for years. "Vegas Stones", really? Sorry, I like the dynamic and sound of the band with Ronnie. I flew to Vancouver to catch the Stones at the end of 2006, thinking it would be the "last time". I did not expect such an extreme reaction from the fans of a long gone era of the band. Do you have the same disdain for other fans who do not agree with you on which albums are the best?

The guitars have been lacking creativity for quite some time. Ronnie tries but he just doesn't have the off the cuff talent that Mick Taylor has. Ronnie has to work really hard to come up with his solos and it's not improvised at all.

For Mick Taylor, he could create a new off the cuff solo every time he picked up the guitar with little to no effort required. He's more gifted in this aspect. Ronnie is gifted too though, but lead guitar is not his strongest suit.

That's my problem with Ron Wood, too. He lacks so many things that a high quality guitarist should have at their disposal. He's been at it for years and never developed it further and he's had periods of subpar play. He's not only not as proficient as Mick Taylor, he's not as good as many professional guitarists. He can be adequate and can produce the Stones sound, though, so that's good enough for some people. You get the feeling sometimes watching Ron that he doesn't always remember where every note in every scale is on a fretboard, and he needs to be in his comfort zone. However, that doesn't mean he can't produce adequate rhythm and even solos if he's practiced a particular song, and when he's done that, he's fine. He also has a pretty sound on slide. I like his slide playing the best. There, I said something nice about him.

Quote
alimente

Quote
71Tele

Quote
gripweed

Quote
Rokyfan

Quote
duffydawg

Quote
rtr
M.T. over plays and is overrated. Keith and Ronnie should not be backing this guy up. What a slap in their faces.

You are an idiot. Tell me a better "back and forth" than KR and MT in Sympathy for the Devil on GYYA???

So you saw them in 1969, huh? So you are like 65+ years old on a message board ranking on MT? I think you be crappin, my son.

Music is a matter of opinion. I agree with you that MT's contribution to the Stones' catalog is immeasurable. The guy to whom you are responding is not necessarily an idiot. People have the right not to like music that I love. But you are correct in that it is inexplicable for one to call themselves a fan of the Rolling Stones and hold that opinion of mick Taylor. . to not recognize the contributions you pointed out, and many others.

this "rtr' fellow is just a TROLL... he signed up "today"... probably been BANNED many times already... ignore him and he will go away

I know. I have a pretty good idea who it is too.

Exactly my thoughts too.

Welcome Keith!! So you finally got off the fax, and on the web

I'm a Dave Grohl fan, but after the novelty wore off, I'd rather hear the Stones play Bitch without the distraction. I love this band live and could do without all of the guest stars. I understand the feelings about M.T., it's just that when I saw it went up to 4 songs, with 3 featuring him, it cuts into what I really want to hear (possibly for the last time), which is Keith and Ronnie playing together. It's been my favorite live incarnation of the band since I first caught the Stones with Ronnie in '78....it ain't no capitol crime!

Quote
rtr
So, you also have not enjoyed the Stones live for the last 38 years? Are you guys sure you are really even fans? Sounds like you've just been disappointed for years. "Vegas Stones", really? Sorry, I like the dynamic and sound of the band with Ronnie.[... ]

Will you be playing more shows in Europe, next year, Keith?

Quote
rtr
I'm a Dave Grohl fan, but after the novelty wore off, I'd rather hear the Stones play Bitch without the distraction. I love this band live and could do without all of the guest stars. I understand the feelings about M.T., it's just that when I saw it went up to 4 songs, with 3 featuring him, it cuts into what I really want to hear (possibly for the last time), which is Keith and Ronnie playing together. It's been my favorite live incarnation of the band since I first caught the Stones with Ronnie in '78....it ain't no capitol crime!

I have found sometimes it is best to post one's opinion and not go too far into defending it. I dont think in the history of IORR that anyone has ever swayed someone elses opinion on anything, and typically the more one defends one's opinion the more piling on occurs, just like everywhere on the net.

Every one has an opinion and should have an opinion and be able to post it without getting thrashed, but that is not the way it usually goes. As with all boards, if you go agains the "group think" it is a gonna be a battle. But dont worry about it. Post and move on.... or not... or whatever works best for you.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-22 08:53 by Max'sKansasCity.

Max's - I appreciate you and maybe one other person being civil to a fellow fan. I should have let it drop, but was surprised at the level of condescension and anger I received in response to a differing opinion.

Quote
rtr
Max's - I appreciate you and maybe one other person being civil to a fellow fan. I should have let it drop, but was surprised at the level of condescension and anger I received in response to a differing opinion.

It can be a mad house around here, but if you can make it here, you can make it anywhere. Best international board anywhere, but it can get "odd"... just keep on keeping on. In the end we are all fans (of varying degrees) of The Stones... at least we have that broadly in common

Come to think of it, years ago I knew a guy who's favorite album was Between the Buttons. I may not have been very respectful of his opinion at the time either!

Quote
Max'sKansasCity

Quote
rtr
Max's - I appreciate you and maybe one other person being civil to a fellow fan. I should have let it drop, but was surprised at the level of condescension and anger I received in response to a differing opinion.

It can be a mad house around here, but if you can make it here, you can make it anywhere. Best international board anywhere, but it can get "odd"... just keep on keeping on. In the end we are all fans (of varying degrees) of The Stones... at least we have that broadly in common

On the other hand, it seems we can ALL kick Mick around, and I think I know why.

rtr is making solid points. This ia a "Taylor lovefest" here, but I don't see anything wrong in that. It is nice to see people so thrilled, and I am one of them.

Actually I was looking for a reaction like his/hers to come, since the band has played now with the same concept from 1989 or 1994 (if we count Wyman or not) with an incredible success - so it is no wonder that there are people deeply loved with that concept. (I prefer to call it a concept more than a certain line-up). What is now happening with Taylor, and the emergence of "three guitar attack" is destroying that concept.

Even though some people are desperately trying to reduce the whole thing to the classical Taylor/Wood-debate, this is not the case in my eyes. No, the issue is, to use my favourite vocabulary, about Vegas vs. non-Vegas concept. The band is actually now taking serious steps out of the format they have used for years now, and which they master by experience. What they are now occasionally doing is taking a step to the realm of danger, which they used to (all the way to 1982) master as well. They are doing something unpredictable and taking riskies.

This is no Wood/Taylor debate, since most of "Taylorites" - those who see the 1969/73 live era as their peak - and "Woodists" - those who see the 1975(77, 78)/82 live era as their peak - are in the same side of the coin. As this forum strictly shows - just look at the thrill concerning the second Staples concert - the hardcore fanbase is remarkably happy what we are wittnessing now. We are now wittnessing something historical. I haven't seen such a common feeling shared here for ages, if ever.

So the issue finally is if one wants desperately keep everything as it has been now for ages been, or do we want something special and different happen. That's the way I see it.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-22 10:32 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa
rtr is making solid points. This ia a "Taylor lovefest" here, but I don't see anything wrong in that. It is nice to see people so thrilled, and I am one of them.

Actually I was looking for a reaction like his/hers to come, since the band has played now with the same concept from 1989 or 1994 (if we count Wyman or not) with an incredible success - so it is no wonder that there are people deeply loved with that concept. (I prefer to call it a concept more than a certain line-up). What is now happening with Taylor, and the emergence of "three guitar attack" is destroying that concept.

Even though some people are desperately trying to reduce the whole thing to the classical Taylor/Wood-debate, this is not the case in my eyes. No, the issue is, to use my favourite vocabulary, about Vegas vs. non-Vegas concept. The band is actually now taking serious steps out of the format they have used for years now, and which they master by experience. What they are now occasionally doing is taking a step to the realm of danger, which they used to (all the way to 1982) master as well. They are doing something unpredictable and taking riskies.

This is no Wood/Taylor debate, since most of "Taylorites" - those who see the 1969/73 live era as their peak - and "Woodists" - those who see the 1975(77, 78)/82 live era as their peak - are in the same side of the coin. As this forum strictly shows - just look at the thrill concerning the second Staples concert - the hardcore fanbase is remarkably happy what we are wittnessing now. We are now wittnessing something historical. I haven't seen such a common feeling shared here for ages, if ever.

So the issue finally is if one wants desperately keep everything as it has been now for ages been, or do we want something special and different happen. That's the way I see it.

- Doxa

It is also a question of letting Mick Taylor come across with this kind of power in his performances. I'm pretty sure some of the thrill will vanish (for some fans) if they give him 10 songs with extended solos (which I'm sure they won't anyway).

Adding some real boosts to the show, however - like yesterday - was nothing but wonderful, imo.

I like the concept of Taylor coming on stage again and again to make some of the songs better. I don't think Midnight Rambler was HIS song to shine on. At least not the version they play today. Maybe that's why the sped it up in 1969-1973?

It shouldn't be pure nostalgia, bringing on Taylor. The purpose should be to enhance the songs, something they succeded very well with yesterday, imo

Quote
Doxa
rtr is making solid points. This ia a "Taylor lovefest" here, but I don't see anything wrong in that. It is nice to see people so thrilled, and I am one of them.

Actually I was looking for a reaction like his/hers to come, since the band has played now with the same concept from 1989 or 1994 (if we count Wyman or not) with an incredible success - so it is no wonder that there are people deeply loved with that concept. (I prefer to call it a concept more than a certain line-up). What is now happening with Taylor, and the emergence of "three guitar attack" is destroying that concept.

Even though some people are desperately trying to reduce the whole thing to the classical Taylor/Wood-debate, this is not the case in my eyes. No, the issue is, to use my favourite vocabulary, about Vegas vs. non-Vegas concept. The band is actually now taking serious steps out of the format they have used for years now, and which they master by experience. What they are now occasionally doing is taking a step to the realm of danger, which they used to (all the way to 1982) master as well. They are doing something unpredictable and taking riskies.

This is no Wood/Taylor debate, since most of "Taylorites" - those who see the 1969/73 live era as their peak - and "Woodists" - those who see the 1975(77, 78)/82 live era as their peak - are in the same side of the coin. As this forum strictly shows - just look at the thrill concerning the second Staples concert - the hardcore fanbase is remarkably happy what we are wittnessing now. We are now wittnessing something historical. I haven't seen such a common feeling shared here for ages, if ever.

So the issue finally is if one wants desperately keep everything as it has been now for ages been, or do we want something special and different happen. That's the way I see it.

- Doxa

With a reference to another of your posts, Doxa, I wrote earlier in this thread a post with a parallel point, but in a different understanding. Read only text in bold:

Quote
Witness
.........................................................

Totally, this means I have great respect for almost every period of the band and for the members the band has had during their periods of absolute peaks and relative slumps.

All the same, I think Mick Taylor possibly may have something special to provide by now. I have been opposed to the "Las Vegas era" tag that has been sticked to the band for the period starting in 1989. I supported then as a necessary ingredient the new professionalism that was introduced at a time when the band was to have its come back after a difficult period, and when the band was to play stadium concerts. Part of that was a need for some control and most certainly some coordination.

However, during the decades to follow, even if there have been inspired concerts, it seems that the understandable playing live of warhorses craved by the majority of more and more conservative audiences, from time to time may have gone a little stale, even if competent. Now that the band has delivered most convincing concerts, also with the addition of a few surprises, as a consequence of better playing by a more guitar driven band, I have one thought (inspired by a post Doxa had): In some respect Mick Taylor at this point in time can supply something special which I think the band might need, and which the band at its present surprisingly bettered level of playing might be able to absorb. That is, perhaps paradoxially, a lessening of control, supplied by Mick Taylor's kind of playing. I have a feeling that this will contribute to some kind of dynamism, that would enrich the concerts even above what they are now.

Therefore I would wish for Mick Taylor to take a greater part and contribute to more songs.

And when I want Mick Taylor to do this, it is for me not to recreate an earlier version of the band. Quite the contrary, I am (as I have seen Green Lady express in the same direction) interested in what a three guitar band might lead the Stones to achieve. In fact, my dream has been for Mick Taylor later to take fully part in the making of a possible studio album, with the idea that he could inspire a new chemistry in such a situation.

At first though, I would like to support the content of the subject matter of this thread. And if possible, that the potentially extended participation from Mick Taylor would be to different songs to avoid the risk that a pattern becomes a routine.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-22 11:32 by Witness.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Doxa
rtr is making solid points. This ia a "Taylor lovefest" here, but I don't see anything wrong in that. It is nice to see people so thrilled, and I am one of them.

Actually I was looking for a reaction like his/hers to come, since the band has played now with the same concept from 1989 or 1994 (if we count Wyman or not) with an incredible success - so it is no wonder that there are people deeply loved with that concept. (I prefer to call it a concept more than a certain line-up). What is now happening with Taylor, and the emergence of "three guitar attack" is destroying that concept.

Even though some people are desperately trying to reduce the whole thing to the classical Taylor/Wood-debate, this is not the case in my eyes. No, the issue is, to use my favourite vocabulary, about Vegas vs. non-Vegas concept. The band is actually now taking serious steps out of the format they have used for years now, and which they master by experience. What they are now occasionally doing is taking a step to the realm of danger, which they used to (all the way to 1982) master as well. They are doing something unpredictable and taking riskies.

This is no Wood/Taylor debate, since most of "Taylorites" - those who see the 1969/73 live era as their peak - and "Woodists" - those who see the 1975(77, 78)/82 live era as their peak - are in the same side of the coin. As this forum strictly shows - just look at the thrill concerning the second Staples concert - the hardcore fanbase is remarkably happy what we are wittnessing now. We are now wittnessing something historical. I haven't seen such a common feeling shared here for ages, if ever.

So the issue finally is if one wants desperately keep everything as it has been now for ages been, or do we want something special and different happen. That's the way I see it.

- Doxa

It is also a question of letting Mick Taylor come across with this kind of power in his performances. I'm pretty sure some of the thrill will vanish (for some fans) if they give him 10 songs with extended solos (which I'm sure they won't anyway).

Adding some real boosts to the show, however - like yesterday - was nothing but wonderful, imo.

I like the concept of Taylor coming on stage again and again to make some of the songs better. I don't think Midnight Rambler was HIS song to shine on. At least not the version they play today. Maybe that's why the sped it up in 1969-1973?

It shouldn't be pure nostalgia, bringing on Taylor. The purpose should be to enhance the songs, something they succeded very well with yesterday, imo

Yeah, like I said above I am happy with the way Taylor is now - I hope that will be a trend, and not a one-timer! - used, since I am so also afraid that if Taylor would be given the "rights" he has back in 1972/73, that might be too much asked now. For the rest of the band, for the stubborn "Woodists" and all those Vegas concept fans. Only the pure "Taylorists" and those who are totally bored with the Vegas concept, and needing a total break off, would be happy. Jagger seemed to be a bit lost or confused how to control and react during "Sway" and "Knocking" last night, so I suppose he would be the first to not shake the boat so much (actually I think Wood and Richards wouldn't mind so much - I come to that point later). Probably it would be too "avantgarde"!

What goes for the "nostalgia" point, I agree with you. I've been thinking about that since Taylor was brought in.

In a theory, having Taylor there is as nostalgic act as it can be. Taking something from the past. And looking how they behave by their body-languages and facial impressions, there surely is much of that there. Naturally.

But if we listen the actual music those guys are producing us, these numbers have turned out to be the least nostalgic ones of the show (with Keith's "You Got The Silver" me thinks). The idea of re-producing the original studio versions as close as possible seems to go out of the hand with Taylor. Seemingly Taylor is not that kind of player from whom we could ask something like that. It is not that it is the Taylor from 1969/73 replicating the stuff he did back then to make it more "authentic". Nor does the whole idea of having three guitarists there correspond to anything they have done earlier. This opens up a way new different dynamics to the songs. Taylor is as unpredictable as he has always been - you never know what we might hear next, only to be sure that it will be great - and I think that alone has a tremendous effect on their whole dynamics - how they approach the music. The Stones with him are going to new musical adventures, doing something they have never done earlier. Nothing to do with nostalgia per se.

I think both Wood and Richards - and I think Charlie, Darryl, Bobby etc. - are also thrilled of that impact. It gives more role for the whole band as musicians than being just performers doing the same show thing every night. Somehow I can feel and see the joy in their faces and the sounds they produce of going "now it is actually the music that comes first". I don't think there is at all any "ego-problem" within the guitarists. I take especially Keith thinking: "wow, now there is a three of us: more powere to US" - what Taylor does to The Rolling Stones is to make the guitar section stronger and more powerful, and more in charge of everything. It all works for Richards, who actually always is the head master of the guitar section. But with Taylor, Richards has has more power in the band than he has have for ages. Like Wyman once said "it's Keith's band". With Taylor it actually is.

So as one guess, only Jagger - and his side kick and his "band leader" Chuck Leavell - are in the opposition here (even I am sure Chuck, like any musician in the band, loves to play with Taylor). And I have my terrible fears that "Sway" and "Knocking" might suffer a quick death soon. It is Jagger's position and ringmaster role in danger, and he - in VERY CONTRAST TO ANY SONG OR PERFORMANCE DURING THIS TOUR - was somehow confused, uncertain in his delivery and performance in those songs. Jagger's been so incredibly strong - really leading the band by his example - during this tour, so it was odd to see Jagger like that. And I am afraid he will do something about it.

I first thought that bringing up Taylor would "help" Jagger, but I think it is Keith who actually gains of having him. And all of us who love unpredictable guitar-lead band.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-22 11:42 by Doxa.