With MT onboard I'm going to shelve plans of seeing the Black Crowes doing Stones covers (CYHMK, Sway). With no time machine handy, that had previously been the best option to hear an approximation of the early 70s Stones sound live.

Worth mention that Slash, of GNR fame, says Mick Taylor and the Beggars, LIB and SF albums were a major inspiration to him. He plays in a similar style to Mick Taylor though rotates between rhythm and lead.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-23 06:59 by muffie.

Fantastic having Mick Taylor on 5 Songs!

Havig him brings so much more richness and freshness to the band!

Go on with that, please. More songs with MT are welcome.

And now at last the world is waiting for:
"TIME WAITS FOR NO ONE"

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

I can't quite see an earthshake-like "turn to gold" of the Stones-sound as a whole. I'd love to be proven wrong, but there's still the danger that the clocks will be turned back for the upcoming shows. "Sway" was the "vote" - so it would be no surprise at all if we won't hear it again. "CYHMK" is a more likely candidate for a setlist constant - as a replacement for Emotional Rescue. Then we have Midnight Rambler plus Satisfaction (where Taylor is not really audible at all). Even with all four songs on board, it's still just four songs - for the rest of the show everything would stay the same - Taylor not being able to breathe new life into those songs because he simply does not play on them.

The problem I see is best documented in Sway: It still does not sound convincing, there are wrong chords, missed cues and a somewhat phoned-in sounding lead vocal by Mick. But, of course, there's Taylor's strong solo. But it's not like the icing on top of an already delicious cake, it's more like the icing on top of a, let's be honest here, pile of shit. It clearly shows that even Taylor's presence cannot save a lot when the rest of the band failed to do their homework. I can listen to Taylor's solo and say "wow! great!". But I can't listen to the song as a whole because there's still too many fuckups.

Consequently, I am a bit hesitant to read too much into the current events: There's no revolution going on that Jagger should be afraid of. Las Vegas ist still alive, it's just that Taylor's adding some nice touches far. But for a radical change of the Stones live sound in general, it needs more. A lot more.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-23 03:42 by alimente.

So many cool parts to the CYHMK clip....how about Jagger at the end of the clip motioning for MT to take a bow. Jagger ever the crowd pleaser and consumate performer.

Even cooler yet Jagger screaming "C'mon Mick!" then scurring over to KR and what the exchanged verbally I don't know. But they clearly knew they were springing something on the audience and themselves. It seemed like honest happiness.

I am happy for all them. The LA Times Review was spot-on.

5/20/2013!!!!!!!!!!! Staples Center. A great date in Rolling Stones history. In my opinion they are a dangerous band again with MT on board.
See you in Philly on 6/18.
This is very exiting....they sound great.

Looks like Jagger does read this forum after all. Last night in LA and the set list was to die for.

MT is alive!

"Street Fighting Man" as the encore with Mick Taylor. That would be OK with me.

That would make too much sense

Quote
alimente

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

I can't quite see an earthshake-like "turn to gold" of the Stones-sound as a whole. I'd love to be proven wrong, but there's still the danger that the clocks will be turned back for the upcoming shows. "Sway" was the "vote" - so it would be no surprise at all if we won't hear it again. "CYHMK" is a more likely candidate for a setlist constant - as a replacement for Emotional Rescue. Then we have Midnight Rambler plus Satisfaction (where Taylor is not really audible at all). Even with all four songs on board, it's still just four songs - for the rest of the show everything would stay the same - Taylor not being able to breathe new life into those songs because he simply does not play on them.

The problem I see is best documented in Sway: It still does not sound convincing, there are wrong chords, missed cues and a somewhat phoned-in sounding lead vocal by Mick. But, of course, there's Taylor's strong solo. But it's not like the icing on top of an already delicious cake, it's more like the icing on top of a, let's be honest here, pile of shit. It clearly shows that even Taylor's presence cannot save a lot when the rest of the band failed to do their homework. I can listen to Taylor's solo and say "wow! great!". But I can't listen to the song as a whole because there's still too many fuckups.

Consequently, I am a bit hesitant to read too much into the current events: There's no revolution going on that Jagger should be afraid of. Las Vegas ist still alive, it's just that Taylor's adding some nice touches far. But for a radical change of the Stones live sound in general, it needs more. A lot more.

I admit I am a bit romantical fool here, or an idealist, ánd see more there than actually there is, but let's say that I personally am - or was - so sick and tired for the Vegas concept that I welcome any change for better - musically more intersting and challenging - with a hurray. I really don't expect radical changes, and I'm okay with that. Like I said I'm happy with three big Taylor numbers. And also what actually is happening with Taylor is, of course, pretty much dictated by the Vegas premises. That's realism.

For example, the "guitar turn" that took place last November, sounded great in a theory, but I was highly disappointed when I saw the final results in that PPV show (or from some clips). To me sounded that even if Keith and Ronnie got more responsibilties, and both of them playing better than before, or than I expected, it still sounded pretty lame to my ears. Just the Vegas nostalgia concept by other means, or that teh guitarists were not strong enough to break free, or use the given opportunity properly. Maybe they had played for too long within that concept.

But with Taylor it all realized - the idea of the Stones being guitar-driven band. Taylor sounded like he is never heard of that concept. He is simply way too wild, too unpredicable musician to go "the show first, the music second", teh latter being a some kind of safe and sure soundtrack to the event. And I think that affected to the whole band, and to my eyes - first time for I don't know how long - the band suddendly started to sound like a group of musicians, not just performers.

But like said, the actual difference to a "typical" Vegas number is not probably so radical, but for me it is. For me the plain presence of Taylor bring some electricity or even magic to the band. Like they trusting more to their musicianship. Just feeling it.

I don't actually care how sloppy the band sounds - actually most Taylor numbers are more chaotic, full of mistakes, than a standard Vegas numbers they can do autopilot safe and sure, it is the feeling of them taking riskies, going out of the box. Believing in their music. That's always been the secret of the live Stones for me. That beautiful mess with which they move mountains. The simple raw power. Even the infamous out of tune Hyde Park gig is damn effective to me. I think there was something similar in those Taylor numbers two nights ago. Even Jagger's not so typically strong, almost nervous performance, somehow fitted to that context (even I'm not sure if Jaggers thinks alike). It lives and breathes. Like life.

With the Stones, the whole is always more than its parts. That's their incredible chemical constitution, the dynamical wonder. So there is no point in analyzing the final result into pieces if one tries catch the magic of it - why it sounds so phenomenal. With Taylor, the result is not just his beautiful solos - he makes the whole band sound different. Sparring them, giving them strenght in music, foundational power. It sounds like only the band members finally do or can really grasp how much a high-class musician Taylor affect to them when he walked into the band back at the day. The effect is not barely the individual sounds he makes - you cannot analyzise his live offerings or record contributions as hearing his real influence. Charlie Watts and Bill Wyman have always been vocal about it, and Mick and Keith in their own way. The secret of the Stones never been a technical excellence - quite the contrary: it's rough idiosyncracy and magical team-play with unique effect - but having an actually excellent player as Taylor to make his stance into that beautiful mess, just makes it better. Them all better (as I think that actually happened back at the day).

History is repeating itself: Taylor did it again. But if in 1969 he brought them - to quote Charlie - "professionalism", he now is bringing them musicianship. Which actually in the case of Taylor holds the same, the band just being different now than it was in 1969.

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-23 10:58 by Doxa.

Quote
roby
Love in Vain with Taylor and with a crazy Keith...

Thanks for posting, but this isn't Mick Taylor, but Ronnie Wood on the Barbarians tour 1979. Nice version, although the sound quality isn't quite good.

Quote
Doxa

I admit I am a bit romantical fool here, or an idealist, ánd see more there than actually there is, but let's say that I personally am - or was - so sick and tired for the Vegas concept that I welcome any change for better - musically more intersting and challenging - with a hurray.

But with Taylor it all realized - the idea of the Stones being guitar-driven band. Taylor sounded like he is never heard of that concept. He is simply way too wild, too unpredicable musician to go "the show first, the music second", teh latter being a some kind of safe and sure soundtrack to the event. And I think that affected to the whole band, and to my eyes - first time for I don't know how long - the band suddendly started to sound like a group of musicians, not just performers.

But like said, the actual difference to a "typical" Vegas number is not probably so radical, but for me it is. For me the plain presence of Taylor bring some electricity or even magic to the band. Like they trusting more to their musicianship. Just feeling it.

- Doxa

Doxa,

I don't think it is a matter of being romantic, foolish or whatever. Music is about emotions, after all, and when you describe emotions it is every easy to pass from seeing the same glass half full to half empty without any reason that can be rationally explained.

If you keep the sentiments out of the discussion for a moment, you will see that during the so called Vegas Era there have been many similar stellar moments. Only that those who are into Mick Taylor's style of playing (not necessarily Taylorites) tend to dismiss or neglect them. For them, the glass will be always half empty.

Nevertheless the band never stopped to give us (me) so many great great music also after 1989.

Just to make an example, the Knocking that I saw in 2003 at the MSG was just as good and adventurous (musically speaking) as the one with Taylor. If you ask me, of course I even prefer Ron Wood's take of the song. But that's me. And that is what makes me see the glass (completely) full.

I am the first to see the strict format imposed to all stones shows since 1989 as a limitation. A necessary limitation, yet a limitation. To see Keith play along a recorded conga track always makes me sad.

Now for you and many others the antidote is Taylor.

I am the first to be enthusiastic for Taylor being back. I never saw him perform in the days, in 1969 I was one year old, but Ya Yas, and the Leeds, Perth and Brussells boots are pillars of my musical formation. In London it was great to have him on stage again, and have a taste of what used to be.

But I fear that in the best scenario Taylor can only bring back something similar to what the band was in HIS days.

I used the word "fear" because for one, like me, who is madly in love with the Brian Jones era with the 78 - 82 live shows being a close second, seeing the only true wild cat of the bunch - Ron Wood - even lower in the mix is very bad news ...

I'm digressing now.

What I really wanted to point out to everybody who hated and hates the vegas years, now that after repeated listens of a vegas era product you are a little more acquainted with the vegas sound, go back and dig your vegas era boots. You might find more than one surprise!

C

Quote
liddas

Quote
Doxa

I admit I am a bit romantical fool here, or an idealist, ánd see more there than actually there is, but let's say that I personally am - or was - so sick and tired for the Vegas concept that I welcome any change for better - musically more intersting and challenging - with a hurray.

But with Taylor it all realized - the idea of the Stones being guitar-driven band. Taylor sounded like he is never heard of that concept. He is simply way too wild, too unpredicable musician to go "the show first, the music second", teh latter being a some kind of safe and sure soundtrack to the event. And I think that affected to the whole band, and to my eyes - first time for I don't know how long - the band suddendly started to sound like a group of musicians, not just performers.

But like said, the actual difference to a "typical" Vegas number is not probably so radical, but for me it is. For me the plain presence of Taylor bring some electricity or even magic to the band. Like they trusting more to their musicianship. Just feeling it.

- Doxa

Doxa,

I don't think it is a matter of being romantic, foolish or whatever. Music is about emotions, after all, and when you describe emotions it is every easy to pass from seeing the same glass half full to half empty without any reason that can be rationally explained.

If you keep the sentiments out of the discussion for a moment, you will see that during the so called Vegas Era there have been many similar stellar moments. Only that those who are into Mick Taylor's style of playing (not necessarily Taylorites) tend to dismiss or neglect them. For them, the glass will be always half empty.

Nevertheless the band never stopped to give us (me) so many great great music also after 1989.

Just to make an example, the Knocking that I saw in 2003 at the MSG was just as good and adventurous (musically speaking) as the one with Taylor. If you ask me, of course I even prefer Ron Wood's take of the song. But that's me. And that is what makes me see the glass (completely) full.

I am the first to see the strict format imposed to all stones shows since 1989 as a limitation. A necessary limitation, yet a limitation. To see Keith play along a recorded conga track always makes me sad.

Now for you and many others the antidote is Taylor.

I am the first to be enthusiastic for Taylor being back. I never saw him perform in the days, in 1969 I was one year old, but Ya Yas, and the Leeds, Perth and Brussells boots are pillars of my musical formation. In London it was great to have him on stage again, and have a taste of what used to be.

But I fear that in the best scenario Taylor can only bring back something similar to what the band was in HIS days.

I used the word "fear" because for one, like me, who is madly in love with the Brian Jones era with the 78 - 82 live shows being a close second, seeing the only true wild cat of the bunch - Ron Wood - even lower in the mix is very bad news ...

I'm digressing now.

What I really wanted to point out to everybody who hated and hates the vegas years, now that after repeated listens of a vegas era product you are a little more acquainted with the vegas sound, go back and dig your vegas era boots. You might find more than one surprise!

C

"Hating" the "Vegas" era is purely tabloid. There are just as many highlights musically during the last 24 years. No wonder, with so many tours and the vast number of songs performed!

Like you, I think it's the format of those tours that people quickly grew tired of, not necessarily the good performances during those years.

In 2002/2003 the fans got a glimpse of the good ol' Stones again, with the club-shows. I have heard reports from the fans who were there, reporting with tears in their eyes. The very same guys attended shows in 1969 and 1972. That says it all, imo, it's the stadium format, the limitations and the secure formula that symbolises this part of the band's career that people are dissing - not the music.

This is a "chill-down-your-spine-moment" from the "Vegas"-era. It's simply astonishing, and there are many, many examples of this, of course:

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-18 01:59 by His Majesty.

Quote
His Majesty
That Monkey Man doesn't give me the chills, to me it is partly the music because they generally lack the bite of their pre Steel Wheels eras. True though that in a smaller environment and without some of the stadium show gloss such things would be something special to witness.

Now, imagine the above good performance with some of the edge and improvised unpredictability Taylor is currently bringing to the stage.

It would have helped had you liked the song or the LIB-album in the first place

To me, this performance is wonderful, albeit a little light on guitars.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
To me, this performance is wonderful, albeit a little light on guitars.

Hmm... for that problem I know a cure...

But for us happy for having Mick "the musician" Taylor there, and at least keeping the spot he has achieved by now, there is a nice recent quote by Jagger in Independent (thanks to proudmary in other thread):

"I thought about this yesterday, how strange it will be to turn around on stage at Hyde Park and see Mick Taylor there again. But it's nice. He's playing very well."

It doesn't look bad from boss' side either.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-23 14:27 by Doxa.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-18 02:00 by His Majesty.

MT alone did not succeeded.The whole band in stage succeeded.

This is not a MT issue in itself. This new stage belongs to the whole band and I hope Mick, Keith, Ron and Charlie let it flow and face the challange.

The mere 50th anniversary celebration has scalated to a new and likely not forecasted dimension: the musical dimension. They surprinsingly have a lot of work ahead of them....

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
To me, this performance is wonderful, albeit a little light on guitars.

Hmm... for that problem I know a cure...

But for us happy for having Mick "the musician" Taylor there, and at least keeping the spot he has achieved by now, there is a nice recent quote by Jagger in Independent (thanks to proudmary in other thread):

"I thought about this yesterday, how strange it will be to turn around on stage at Hyde Park and see Mick Taylor there again. But it's nice. He's playing very well."

It doesn't look bad from boss' side either.

- Doxa

"Light on guitars" has nothing to do with guitar solos That DVD-mix would have been as light with any other guitar player on board.

And nobody has said that he doesn't play well

PS: I hope Mick wouldn't be honest in interviews, saying stuff like "he's not really playing that well at the time"

I want Angie with Mick Taylor. Normally i'd never want Angie, but I want it with MT.

I would love for them to do Stop Breaking Down as their blues number with Taylor on slide guitar. How awesome would that be?

Quote
bv

I am NOT one of those who want Mick Taylor to replace Ronnie. Still you can hear the moment Mick Taylor is on stage he is there, because his style and playing is unique.
[...]
Having Mick Taylor as a guest on a few selected songs where he can shine and give us his special style is just fantastic, a true treat for Stones fans, but I want Ronnie on stage for all of the show. Ronnie is as important for the Stones as Mick, Keith and Charlie.

Bjornulf

I agree with you.

Quote
RobertJohnson

Quote
roby
Love in Vain with Taylor and with a crazy Keith...

Thanks for posting, but this isn't Mick Taylor, but Ronnie Wood on the Barbarians tour 1979. Nice version, although the sound quality isn't quite good.

aye, another 7 minutes i wont get back, he he

Quote
emotionalbarbecue
MT alone did not succeeded.The whole band in stage succeeded.

This is not a MT issue in itself. This new stage belongs to the whole band and I hope Mick, Keith, Ron and Charlie let it flow and face the challange.

The mere 50th anniversary celebration has scalated to a new and likely not forecasted dimension: the musical dimension. They surprinsingly have a lot of work ahead of them....

Yes!

what about Ventilator Blues ?
I think they tried some times but the rhythm is too tricky

Good points, liddas and DandelionPowderman (and, of, course, His Majesty with whom I agree completely).

I have never been in denail that there are great musical moments during "Vegas Era", and to an extent this what is now happening with Taylor is as much an exception to a rule as all those moments. For example, I liked very much the official bootleg from A BIGGER BANG TOUR. But I am afraid that even now in more "fresh" or not so "prejudicd" ) ears, I would not change my mind no matter how much I try to relisten the stuff from those years.

Namely, I've been following the band rather closely through all these years, but nothing has affected me the way as these Taylor moments. I don't even recall when I have felt like listening four or five times one after other a new Stones live "recording". In most cases it has been just once, in best cases twice or so. There is just nothing I have found so exciting that I need to relisten after the curiosity aspect has been satisfied. But, for example, with "Knocking" now, I am dying to hear it again. Be it 13th or 14th turn, I don't know. Just can't get enough. Like with old bootlegs from the classical era (all the way to 1982)

I take the examples mentioned here.

I see many praising the reading of "Monkey Man", but actually I have never heard what I would call interesting, inspiring or exciting version of it. Good ones, but nothing magical. To me it is a typical Vegas era replica - the band trying to reproduce the original version as faithfully as they, with their recent resources, can. And they never got it "right", or I feel something crucial is missing. Like His Majesty I think something extra, a new interesting angle - like Taylor's guitar - might do miracles into it. This is not to say that they could not make great, even excellent versions by this replica "method" - I think, the version of "Gimme Shelter" from Paradiso 1995, is simply stunning, even magical, but I haven't heard equavalent for it of "Monkey Man".

"Knocking" is a bit difference case - there they actually are more creative, and I recall how excited I was when hearing it live in 2003. The duo solo of Jagger's harmonica and Wood's guitar made a great impact (I mentioned this in other thread). But outside of that first hand live experience (which always is different than some second-hand one), I have never being too impressed of it. it is probably one of their finest reconstructed Vegas numbers, with good arrangement ideas and structure, but once heard it, there is nothing that compells me to re-listen it. Greatly manufactured, but some important musical soul is missing for me.

Ouh, I didn't want to drag myself back to this "anti-Vegas" stuff, as I really want to stay out of it now, and just concentrate to thrillness brought by these latest moves, but you guys asked...

But liddas, your point about the glass half full/empty is a good one, and who knows what kind of I conversion I might have some day towards the so called Vegas Era. Now it just feels like there is not awards to be gained no matter how much I start doing archeology there. The question is never that of "hating" but that of not being moved. Hating is a passion, but that is certainly not the case here.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-23 18:35 by Doxa.

YES, I know. Dream to hear Love in Vain in 2013 with Taylor and Keith crazy like in 1979...

Quote
RobertJohnson

Quote
roby
Love in Vain with Taylor and with a crazy Keith...

Thanks for posting, but this isn't Mick Taylor, but Ronnie Wood on the Barbarians tour 1979. Nice version, although the sound quality isn't quite good.

Love VB, but is there room for three? I am all for them trying it though.

Doxa, get with the program. The Vegas Era is over. We are now in the Three Weavers Era (courtesy of Thrylan).

Quote
71Tele
Doxa, get with the program. The Vegas Era is over. We are now in the Three Weavers Era (courtesy of Thrylan).

Officially an era already??? I hope this isn't a decline is twice the rate of the rise type of thing......I am dizzy.

Quote
71Tele
The Vegas Era is over. We are now in the Three Weavers Era (courtesy of Thrylan).

Well, not quite, Tele. We're not already there, but we're on a good way. At least it looks like it in the moment. But it remains to be seen if they will follow this route, if it really leads them to a new and once again unique incarnation of the band's sound.

I agree with Doxa that ANY move away from the predictability of the "Vegas-era" sound is already more than we could have expected after all these years of musical stagnation.

But only the future can tell if we are witnessing a radical change or just a case of having Taylor here and there in a few selected spots for a handful of shows.