Quote
terraplane
Yep at that point he was leading the band.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
He was not "out", and he handled the vocals on those songs just as good as he handles the other songs

To me this observation sounds strange. Especially in "Knocking" I haven't seen so "weak" Jagger for ages. Both singing- and performing-wise. Straight from teh start he sounds uninspired and just trusting in his routines (which, of course, are, extraordinary), but he almost losts the feeling - or idea - for the singing as his part goes on, and finally sounds like doing karaoke - the lasts lines are simply a struggle, so that finally the mark of "yeah" (or whatever it is) for the band to start the jam part, sounds like a relief to him. "Finally it came".

Or was he waiting almost as much as each of us Taylor's solo, and was nervous how might that go....

Anyway, Jagger's body language and his performance while playing maracas and listening to Taylor's solo, was not very inspired either. Fisrt time this tour I had the feeling that Jagger has run out of ideas and point. Like he didn't have a natural role there. Or was he just digging Taylor?

"Sway" was better, but still insecure performance from Mick.

To repeat myself, I made this observation beacuse Jagger's been extremily strong and inspired throughout the tour.

- Doxa

I think you're reading a bit too much into this. He is 70 years old, and he chooses his moments where he can give those 100 percent. This just isn't such a moment, as it's a song, mostly dominated by instrumentation.

The "insecurity" by Mick (only a few times, though) was more due to three guitar players who all played differently during the verses

I think Mick handled the difficult parts in Sway ("There must be ways", "It's just that demon life". "One day I woke up to find" ), where there is dynamics and use of range involved way better than I expected.

If we should complain about Mick's singing, I would choose songs like JJF and Tumbling Dice instead.

I can be reading too much into it, and I really hope I am making a wrong interpretation, but's the way I see it.

Your point about Mick being insecure thanks to "three guitar attack" goes exactly along the lines I have argued here. Must easier to trust and follow Chuck.

"Complaining"? Again that very word to kill all the honest observation-making, judging and the point in discussing anything. Only cheerleading allowed when talking about the Rolling Stones performances, right? C'mon!

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa
Hmm.. on the second thought, I am not happy at all of that description "role in the band" (by elunse), For me it is more like a question of dynamics within the band: the whole band is like a field of force, driven by different tendencies; if you put some odd a force there - like Taylor now - it affects to everything. Before those numbers - starting with "Midnight Rambler" - I couldn't believe that adding one 'new' player there, could have so much affect to the whole sound and dynamics of the band.

My guess - based on on experience - that is Jagger who is not happy shaking the boat too much now. The whole "Vegas" boat, with its predictable features, is pretty much his brain-child. He wants to keep it safe and sure.

Maybe Richards as well during those strongest Vegas days, when he took his second frontman role, many times just freeriding the music, a bit too seriously. But that Richards the show man, the performer, is gone. I think his approach to music is different now. To me that has been the biggest musical surprise within the core band during this new tour. Keith "blames" Charlie for having more responsibilities to his and Ronnie's shoulders, and I love to think he is right (that Charlie is also a bit tired of the old concept). Keith is a shadow of his past as a player, but I really appreciate his dedication to the job now. It is the music that comes first, not the show (or even ego). It is the "old" Keith with teh philosophy of "I shine when the band shines". Jagger - by contrast - is the same as always (even though having fine-tuned his own act). But even the idea of going more to the core, guitar-based sound is in itself a move out of the safe and sure formula they've used for years. (And I have the picture that it was Jagger who wanted to get rid of that back in the 80's when the formula was created).

So you add to the already more strenghtened and powerful and responsible guitar section a powerhouse called Mick Taylor, then what happens? It's no Vegas no longer, baby! That Mick could "control" Keith and Ronnie, and keep them in a safe and sure track, wasn't any longer possible when the duo was strengthened with Taylor.

So my concern - if anything I speculate here has any point - is how Jagger reacts to the new "revolution" happening within the band, which might lead the group to a wild guitar-lead - music comes first - rock and roll band, to be odds with many show-aspects, choreographies, lights etc of the show. How far Jagger lets that go? Like said, I am happy if this three number comes a standard, and I don't need much more, but I have the feeling that there are people in the very band who would like to go it further.

It's now what I understand with Keith saying of him and Ronnie "needing Taylor". It's not that they can't fill their own post by their recent conditions, but that of having Taylor would make the band more to go according to their visions how to the band should sound like. They re-discovered the musicians in themselves.

- Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
<"Complaining"? Again that very word to kill all the honest observation-making, judging and the point in discussing anything. Only cheerleading allowed when talking about the Rolling Stones performances, right? C'mon!>

You lost me there, Doxa

Should I have said criticise instead?

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
<"Complaining"? Again that very word to kill all the honest observation-making, judging and the point in discussing anything. Only cheerleading allowed when talking about the Rolling Stones performances, right? C'mon!>

You lost me there, Doxa

Should I have said criticise instead?

Better. Maybe I over-reacted but I have had enough of the use of that word here in IORR. It is used way too loosely for all kinds of different things (mostly attacking differing opinions). To me one can complain about ticket prices, some people's behavior, etc, but when are talking about an artistic experience, there is no room for "complaining". Totally unsuitable term. People tend to see in "criticism" only the so called negative sides, but the term is neutral in covering everything: the good and the bad (and the ugly). I think there is no point in talking about music if one is not allowed to use the whole scale.

But like I said, I over-reacted - there was nothing "wrong" in your way of using the term.

- Doxa

Quote
Witness

My impression, or rather my guess, would be that Mick Jagger, even if he likes to have some control, is not so much against some unpredictability as he is sceptical to what might become too long instrumental breaks within a song. That is, if it is to be each and any song. He will insist (I believe) that it should be what he will regard as interesting to warrant duration.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Witness

My impression, or rather my guess, would be that Mick Jagger, even if he likes to have some control, is not so much against some unpredictability as he is sceptical to what might become too long instrumental breaks within a song. That is, if it is to be each and any song. He will insist (I believe) that it should be what he will regard as interesting to warrant duration.

Yeah, you could be right. That it is the showmaster Jagger - keeping eye on the whole - keeping the band in order when the "boys" are getting too much into it. But as the ending of "Knocking" I think shows, he sometimes loses the power to control the band. It looks to my eyes that the whole guitar section ignores him trying to put it down earlier. With "Sway" he manages better. Jagger has nowadays a lot to do in keeping that section in order!

- Doxa

Quote
terraplane
Taylor's guitar solo is like Charlie Parker. I think Jagger can't believe what he is hearing.

Quote
gimmelittledrink
Not only was Taylor leading the band, but the way they all gathered around him during the outre, when he turned away from the audience, was quite remarakable. From the videos, I didn't get the feeling that Mick was worried about losing control or being out of his comfort zone; I thought he was having the time of his life on stage. He looked completely into it and seemed as awed as the audience was by the groove everyone had gotten into. And the interaction with Richards was great to see (and seemed quite genuine, although it seemed to take Keith by surprise). Taylor definitely adds a spark to whatever he plays on and - for whatever reason - seems to be bringing the best out of everyone else. I was fine with Mick's singing on both songs. Give him a couple more tries and I bet he'll be nailing both of them. It's great to see the entire band recapturing what made them so special as a live act. I hope they keep it up in the shows to follow and don't go back to where they were before - perfectly good but not nearly as inspired as they were in LA.

Quote
rtr
....but not a member of the band for almost 40 years. I much prefer the band live with the focus on Keith and Ronnie where it belongs, not on a guest "soloist". I'm flying to Chicago to catch the Stones for about the 30th time and really hope I don't have to sit through 4 songs with M.T. in the spotlight.

Quote
MCDDTLC

Quote
rtr
....but not a member of the band for almost 40 years. I much prefer the band live with the focus on Keith and Ronnie where it belongs, not on a guest "soloist". I'm flying to Chicago to catch the Stones for about the 30th time and really hope I don't have to sit through 4 songs with M.T. in the spotlight.

Hey - RTR - do us all a favor and don't go see the show, Taylor's playing more and more because Jagger/Richards/Watts & Wood like his playing that much!!!
You don't so stay home and watch DVD's of previous years..

MLC

Quote
71Tele

Quote
MCDDTLC

Quote
rtr
....but not a member of the band for almost 40 years. I much prefer the band live with the focus on Keith and Ronnie where it belongs, not on a guest "soloist". I'm flying to Chicago to catch the Stones for about the 30th time and really hope I don't have to sit through 4 songs with M.T. in the spotlight.

Hey - RTR - do us all a favor and don't go see the show, Taylor's playing more and more because Jagger/Richards/Watts & Wood like his playing that much!!!
You don't so stay home and watch DVD's of previous years..

MLC

FYI: This rtr person registered yesterday specifically so he could dump on the Mick Taylor excitement. Quite possibly another individual we all know and love posting under a different name.

Quote
gimmelittledrink
Ronnie's playing is fantastic on this tour, but if you don't see the difference when Taylor is on stage, then you just don't get it. They are a completely different band with Taylor. And for us old-timers, it's quite amazing to see them recapture some of the magic that made them so great in the first place. It's something I never thought I'd see again.

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.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
gimmelittledrink
Not only was Taylor leading the band, but the way they all gathered around him during the outre, when he turned away from the audience, was quite remarakable. From the videos, I didn't get the feeling that Mick was worried about losing control or being out of his comfort zone; I thought he was having the time of his life on stage. He looked completely into it and seemed as awed as the audience was by the groove everyone had gotten into. And the interaction with Richards was great to see (and seemed quite genuine, although it seemed to take Keith by surprise). Taylor definitely adds a spark to whatever he plays on and - for whatever reason - seems to be bringing the best out of everyone else. I was fine with Mick's singing on both songs. Give him a couple more tries and I bet he'll be nailing both of them. It's great to see the entire band recapturing what made them so special as a live act. I hope they keep it up in the shows to follow and don't go back to where they were before - perfectly good but not nearly as inspired as they were in LA.

It was electric. The Stones on the high wire again - but for the right reasons (musical rather than innebriation). Mick Jagger actually challenged. The whole CYHMK experience brings chills. The excitement of the audience builds, Charlie kicks it up a notch, the wide grins on the faces of Keith and Ronnie. Taylor venturing past the "safe" zone and going up to jam with Bobby Keys. All this can be perceived in a crappy phone video. I only hope they thought to film this professionally. The greatest Stones moment onstage since El Mocambo in '77, in my opinion, and maybe even earlier.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
T & F was hit and miss in 2002 (Chicago was good, though). Taylor played bass on the studio recording.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman
T & F was hit and miss in 2002 (Chicago was good, though). Taylor played bass on the studio recording.

But he has played it on stage one time. Only one time, but it sounds terrific. It would be wonderful to hear it again, especially as the lyrics are so adequate this time.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman
T & F was hit and miss in 2002 (Chicago was good, though). Taylor played bass on the studio recording.

But he has played it on stage one time. Only one time, but it sounds terrific. It would be wonderful to hear it again, especially as the lyrics are so adequate this time.