Tell Me :
Talk
Agree completely. Taylor made the whole band better, but it's the band that we love.
Maybe, but there were a lot of unworthy Stones moments. Most had nothing to do with Taylor being there or not though.
You are correct DP and you are not alone in your feelings, but the Taylorian hive mind has grown vicious towards anyone who doesnt proclaim Taylor a savior, and it is limiting those who will post, but I dont wanna leave you out here as the only one.
And it now appears that the Taylorian cheerleading hive mind has now developed a selective memory. But no matter what they deny, there was high level of Stones bashing that went on here for a long time and it has now turned into Taylor cheerleading. One can only conclude that these people are in reality Taylor cheerleaders and do not even like the Stones much. They are here to cheer for Taylor and those other guys.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-24 17:44 by Max'sKansasCity.
I watched Xfire hurricane last night......I had a Ronnie epiphany. I am at peace with the MT/Ronnie thing, but we can discuss later, as to not put a ripple in this still water.
Referring to yourself in the mirror again? Come on man, that can't be healthy.
And I havent seen you doing you one note bashing on Ronnie routine recently, dont be so hard on yourself.
I am at peace too. Who could watch them all having so much fun and not be? Ronnie has played his best in years lately, and it was a joy to hear him and MT "share" the glory on Sway.
This!
That's exactly how I felt, although I'm hoping he'll stick it out thru next Friday in Chicago for me, and maybe throw in Moonlight Mile as he's leaving
The thing though, Dandelion, is i don't believe the comments were necessarily unworthy, more that the emphasis of the comments are often directed too often towards people like Chuck, Ronnie, Lisa, Bernard etc. (those that are not original band members), and all too often Mick and occasionally Keith have been excused, simply because of their status and importance within the group. Those extra peripheral musicians have Mick's seal of approval, otherwise they wouldn't be up on stage, so he much feel a degree of satisfaction with their contributions (and take a degree of responsibiliy for the fans not liking them, too). That of course is not to say Mick and Keith are never criticised. Keith, especially,has come in for plenty of criticism too, in more recent times. My thoughts are, and have been for many years, that Mick has been as much a weak link live as anybody. When i listen to the 75/76 tours, as much as i feel his vocals compliment those most recent songs the Stones play from the time, all too often they are too sloppy and undisciplined to seriously do those older songs justice - and the 81 tour, which musically, especially between Keith and Ronnie, and Bill and Charlie, were highly effective in the raw stripped down rock 'n' roll style (with some wonderful guitar interplay by Keith and Ronnie by the way), is marred heavily by Jagger's gruff and uncommitted vocals. Jagger has been chiefly responsible for the Stones longevity, which we are all grateful for, if for nothing else because we can still see them live, yet for me, somewhere along the line, and perhaps before any inkling from any of the other band members, his business sensibilities/ other interests began to overtake his true commitment, in terms of the effectiveness of his performances. When i watch and listen to his performance from the Texas 1978 DVD, i am always struck by the freshness, raw vitality and full commitment of his live singing. However, that's arguably pretty much the final time we have been witnessed to a fully blooded and raw, vintage rock 'n' roll Jagger vocal (i'm sure it's possible for you to find other examples since to prove me wrong!). Jagger is a marvel these days, because he can still move around the stage, in such a physical way, with that youthful physique of his which has little changed in the last 50 years, and that's partly the draw for which the the fans come to see him. He's still playing that role well on stage, but the musical commitment from his singing left him a long long time ago. I'm less prone, however, to criticise his live singing now than in the early eighties, primarily because of age, i don't feel he could sing like he did in his youth even if he wanted to, but up to the early nineties i believe that to have been a different scenario. He was still capable of more of an edge.
From 89 onwards, as Doxa has so often remarked, the Stones have become primarily a big business venture, safe and consistent (the Las Vegas Stones), and entirely predictable. With Jagger in control, and the various backing musicians/singers etc. the Stones have pretty much covered all the bases, should any of them suffer from complacency. This is of course no slight on Ronnie, who i doubt back in the 78-82 period, would have had the legacy of Mick Taylor breathing down his neck like today, because in those days the Stones had effectively taken their muse somewhere else (comparisons being pretty redundant). It's only through the passage of time, and the Stones reliance on the safety net, that one longs for a little of the old Stones spark/spontaneity. It has been deliberated for so long as to whether Mick Taylor was still able to deliver the goods and shake up the formula somewhat - and he has done that rather spectacularly! I imagine Mick and Keith are feeling very much out of their comfort zone when Taylor is introduced. It's great to see someone who doesn't play the same notes the same way night after night. That's worth the price of the entrance fee in itself. I just wish Jagger hadn't cut Taylor short on 'Sway'. Sometimes i believe Jagger has completely lost touch with what makes some songs so utterly riveting. The contolling side of him taking precidence.
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-24 21:10 by Edward Twining.
PWD posts are the BEST! We need more of that around here.
That is the model of the 3 guitar attack that will work. Have MT on stage but he takes solos only on some songs. But vary it by show. So one show gets an MT interpretation of BS and Gimme Shelter and the next show its Woods turn....
But don't just segment Taylor into some pre-canned song line up show after show. Vary it up and you will have fans going to multiple shows. AKA the Grateful Dead. But that means Jagger needs to get a bit more free form.
It also means they would have to rehearse more.
That's tough, it actually means WORK! Usually, after the initial tour rehearsals they just have soundchecks when they of course are able to test this and test that a bit or refresh their memories concerning rarely played songs, but in general the basic arrangement are fixed at that point.
Yes, the songs live are often performed closer to the original studio versions, but for me, the Stones excelled at taking a studio song and changing its perspective when introducing it into a live venue. It's great to have a different musical route to take, and ultimately different goals when delivering songs in front of a excited live audience as opposed to listening in the privacy of your own home etc. One is for a close listening experience on a more intimate level, and the other is part of a rave up. Part of the reason GET YER YA YAS OUT! is so great is that the Stones approach the songs from a slightly different angle. The chance of ever being able to match, for example 'Sympathy For The Devil' live with the same arrangement from BEGGARS BANQUET, would be so incredibly hard to achieve, but taken from a slightly different perspective means the live version stands on its own terms and not merely as a copy. The problem with the later Stones is that using the same arrangement, as in copying as closely as possible, rules out many of the potential risks associated with a more spontaneous approach, and so runs the risk of being a little less exciting and much more predictable. Those later live versions are never likely to move out of the shadows of those originals.
'Midnight Rambler' for me has been the song the Stones have performed most consistently great over the years. I just think the relative changes in tempo etc. really suit the Stones in whatever incarnation, in addition to Mick's greatly effective harp playing, which in effectiveness has taken over from his singing.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-25 09:56 by Edward Twining.
Damn you sound coherent, gentle and diplomatic while drunk! You are a good drinking company I can guess!
P.S. I write this as having a hang-over... had a "few" last night... it's damn hard to find the right letters, since my hands are shaking...
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-25 12:58 by Doxa.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
Eleanor Rigby
()
Date: May 24, 2013 17:18
this site didn't exist before Taylor joined..dont know what u r talking about dandy
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: May 24, 2013 17:19
Quote
Eleanor Rigby
this site didn't exist before Taylor joined..dont know what u r talking about dandy
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
Eleanor Rigby
()
Date: May 24, 2013 17:30
give me:
stray cat
sway
cyhmk
adtl
liv
gimmie shelter
jjf
sympathy
MR
brown sugar
[email protected] the great man play the whole set...
stray cat
sway
cyhmk
adtl
liv
gimmie shelter
jjf
sympathy
MR
brown sugar
[email protected] the great man play the whole set...
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: May 24, 2013 17:30
Quote
DandelionPowderman
I'm happy now, because everybody on this board seem to love their favourite band again.
It's a bit sad, though, all the negative comments about the band when Mick Taylor is not on stage with them - from some posters...
<They just think differently, have different opinions, and that's it.>
Is that really it, Doxa? I dunno. For me it looks like bashing. There is a huge difference between the posts of someone like Edward Twining, always analytical and to the point, and never falls for the temptation of quick-labeling things or jumping to conclusions with a few examples - and the "Keith can't play anymore"/"Ronnie never contributed anything to the band's sound"/"Mick is just greedy" and "Charlie doesn't swing anymore"-arguments. It's ludicrous! All the band members cleaned the floor for Taylor, and performed at a very high level during CYHMK - and they have worked hard doing that since the tour started.
In the midst of this Taylor love-fest (which I really appreciate btw, and I'm really for the Taylorites finally got what they wanted) - don't forget that it's the Rolling Stones we are talking about here. They always deliver a few awesome performances on every show, even though it's probably hard to keep up the standard we'd like to for 22 numbers.
Agree completely. Taylor made the whole band better, but it's the band that we love.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: May 24, 2013 17:31
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
kleermaker
Dandy, as a matter of fact most of us are so excited to see The Rolling Stones as a whole with Taylor included. So many great comments about Keith and Jagger and praise for Ronnie and Charlie. It's just that when Taylor joins them there's so much going on, musically and in terms of interaction between ALL band members, that most of us get a strike of enthusiasm, something we reflect from what's happening on stage. It's the ultimate Stones-feeling we're all addicted to. And in this case it's great to be addicted!
I agree totally, and I'm having the same feeling myself
Before Taylor joined, however, there were lots of unworthy (imo) comments...
Maybe, but there were a lot of unworthy Stones moments. Most had nothing to do with Taylor being there or not though.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
Max'sKansasCity
()
Date: May 24, 2013 17:36
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
kleermaker
Dandy, as a matter of fact most of us are so excited to see The Rolling Stones as a whole with Taylor included. So many great comments about Keith and Jagger and praise for Ronnie and Charlie. It's just that when Taylor joins them there's so much going on, musically and in terms of interaction between ALL band members, that most of us get a strike of enthusiasm, something we reflect from what's happening on stage. It's the ultimate Stones-feeling we're all addicted to. And in this case it's great to be addicted!
I agree totally, and I'm having the same feeling myself
Before Taylor joined, however, there were lots of unworthy (imo) comments...
You are correct DP and you are not alone in your feelings, but the Taylorian hive mind has grown vicious towards anyone who doesnt proclaim Taylor a savior, and it is limiting those who will post, but I dont wanna leave you out here as the only one.
And it now appears that the Taylorian cheerleading hive mind has now developed a selective memory. But no matter what they deny, there was high level of Stones bashing that went on here for a long time and it has now turned into Taylor cheerleading. One can only conclude that these people are in reality Taylor cheerleaders and do not even like the Stones much. They are here to cheer for Taylor and those other guys.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-24 17:44 by Max'sKansasCity.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
angee
()
Date: May 24, 2013 17:57
"And I am personally thrilled that I am going to see The Rolling Stones live at Hyde Park. For some time ago, I wasn't so - but now I love that feeling!
- Doxa"
I'm so glad you are attending. Maybe you can be the representative for many of us who can't go, for reasons of distance and monetary depletion, like me, for example. I feel lucky to have been there in the UK for two of the last three shows on ABB and this smaller tour is better, musically, imo.
~"Love is Strong"~
- Doxa"
I'm so glad you are attending. Maybe you can be the representative for many of us who can't go, for reasons of distance and monetary depletion, like me, for example. I feel lucky to have been there in the UK for two of the last three shows on ABB and this smaller tour is better, musically, imo.
~"Love is Strong"~
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: May 24, 2013 18:03
I see that Johnny One Note is back amongst us.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
Thrylan
()
Date: May 24, 2013 18:08
Quote
71Tele
I see that Johnny One Note is back amongst us.
I watched Xfire hurricane last night......I had a Ronnie epiphany. I am at peace with the MT/Ronnie thing, but we can discuss later, as to not put a ripple in this still water.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
Max'sKansasCity
()
Date: May 24, 2013 18:10
Quote
71Tele
I see that Johnny One Note is back amongst us.
Referring to yourself in the mirror again? Come on man, that can't be healthy.
And I havent seen you doing you one note bashing on Ronnie routine recently, dont be so hard on yourself.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: May 24, 2013 18:19
Quote
ThrylanQuote
71Tele
I see that Johnny One Note is back amongst us.
I watched Xfire hurricane last night......I had a Ronnie epiphany. I am at peace with the MT/Ronnie thing, but we can discuss later, as to not put a ripple in this still water.
I am at peace too. Who could watch them all having so much fun and not be? Ronnie has played his best in years lately, and it was a joy to hear him and MT "share" the glory on Sway.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
gotdablouse
()
Date: May 24, 2013 18:25
Quote
paulm
For me, seeing and hearing that performance of cyhmn put years of wondering to rest. I always felt a little bitter about how MT was dealt, even though he left the band. Hearing him the other night, even expanding on his virtuosity from years ago, gained through hundreds of gigs playing his uncompensated co-written song in beer halls where for $10 a fan like me could say hello...so much was put to rest for me the other night, 'closure' in psycho-babble...that if he doesn't play another note with the band, I'm good. Anything beyond this is gravy.
This!
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
StonesCat
()
Date: May 24, 2013 19:03
Quote
gotdablouseQuote
paulm
For me, seeing and hearing that performance of cyhmn put years of wondering to rest. I always felt a little bitter about how MT was dealt, even though he left the band. Hearing him the other night, even expanding on his virtuosity from years ago, gained through hundreds of gigs playing his uncompensated co-written song in beer halls where for $10 a fan like me could say hello...so much was put to rest for me the other night, 'closure' in psycho-babble...that if he doesn't play another note with the band, I'm good. Anything beyond this is gravy.
This!
That's exactly how I felt, although I'm hoping he'll stick it out thru next Friday in Chicago for me, and maybe throw in Moonlight Mile as he's leaving
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
Edward Twining
()
Date: May 24, 2013 20:25
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
kleermaker
Dandy, as a matter of fact most of us are so excited to see The Rolling Stones as a whole with Taylor included. So many great comments about Keith and Jagger and praise for Ronnie and Charlie. It's just that when Taylor joins them there's so much going on, musically and in terms of interaction between ALL band members, that most of us get a strike of enthusiasm, something we reflect from what's happening on stage. It's the ultimate Stones-feeling we're all addicted to. And in this case it's great to be addicted!
I agree totally, and I'm having the same feeling myself
Before Taylor joined, however, there were lots of unworthy (imo) comments...
The thing though, Dandelion, is i don't believe the comments were necessarily unworthy, more that the emphasis of the comments are often directed too often towards people like Chuck, Ronnie, Lisa, Bernard etc. (those that are not original band members), and all too often Mick and occasionally Keith have been excused, simply because of their status and importance within the group. Those extra peripheral musicians have Mick's seal of approval, otherwise they wouldn't be up on stage, so he much feel a degree of satisfaction with their contributions (and take a degree of responsibiliy for the fans not liking them, too). That of course is not to say Mick and Keith are never criticised. Keith, especially,has come in for plenty of criticism too, in more recent times. My thoughts are, and have been for many years, that Mick has been as much a weak link live as anybody. When i listen to the 75/76 tours, as much as i feel his vocals compliment those most recent songs the Stones play from the time, all too often they are too sloppy and undisciplined to seriously do those older songs justice - and the 81 tour, which musically, especially between Keith and Ronnie, and Bill and Charlie, were highly effective in the raw stripped down rock 'n' roll style (with some wonderful guitar interplay by Keith and Ronnie by the way), is marred heavily by Jagger's gruff and uncommitted vocals. Jagger has been chiefly responsible for the Stones longevity, which we are all grateful for, if for nothing else because we can still see them live, yet for me, somewhere along the line, and perhaps before any inkling from any of the other band members, his business sensibilities/ other interests began to overtake his true commitment, in terms of the effectiveness of his performances. When i watch and listen to his performance from the Texas 1978 DVD, i am always struck by the freshness, raw vitality and full commitment of his live singing. However, that's arguably pretty much the final time we have been witnessed to a fully blooded and raw, vintage rock 'n' roll Jagger vocal (i'm sure it's possible for you to find other examples since to prove me wrong!). Jagger is a marvel these days, because he can still move around the stage, in such a physical way, with that youthful physique of his which has little changed in the last 50 years, and that's partly the draw for which the the fans come to see him. He's still playing that role well on stage, but the musical commitment from his singing left him a long long time ago. I'm less prone, however, to criticise his live singing now than in the early eighties, primarily because of age, i don't feel he could sing like he did in his youth even if he wanted to, but up to the early nineties i believe that to have been a different scenario. He was still capable of more of an edge.
From 89 onwards, as Doxa has so often remarked, the Stones have become primarily a big business venture, safe and consistent (the Las Vegas Stones), and entirely predictable. With Jagger in control, and the various backing musicians/singers etc. the Stones have pretty much covered all the bases, should any of them suffer from complacency. This is of course no slight on Ronnie, who i doubt back in the 78-82 period, would have had the legacy of Mick Taylor breathing down his neck like today, because in those days the Stones had effectively taken their muse somewhere else (comparisons being pretty redundant). It's only through the passage of time, and the Stones reliance on the safety net, that one longs for a little of the old Stones spark/spontaneity. It has been deliberated for so long as to whether Mick Taylor was still able to deliver the goods and shake up the formula somewhat - and he has done that rather spectacularly! I imagine Mick and Keith are feeling very much out of their comfort zone when Taylor is introduced. It's great to see someone who doesn't play the same notes the same way night after night. That's worth the price of the entrance fee in itself. I just wish Jagger hadn't cut Taylor short on 'Sway'. Sometimes i believe Jagger has completely lost touch with what makes some songs so utterly riveting. The contolling side of him taking precidence.
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-24 21:10 by Edward Twining.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: May 24, 2013 23:44
The safety net wasn't there before 2002 imo, the tours prior to ghat were too different, as was the musical output. What is the parallell between SW and B2B? Not much.
From Licks and on I agree with you.
However, for me there is a huge difference today in terms of venues, sound and performance. I like that difference. It's more back to basic. More small scale, better singing and songs performed like they were written.
40 years ago the Stones were wilder, but some of the songs were performed T breaknecking speed and with looser arrangements. It's all about taste. I like both, some don't...
PS: POSTED while drunk, but straight from the heart
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-25 01:16 by DandelionPowderman.
From Licks and on I agree with you.
However, for me there is a huge difference today in terms of venues, sound and performance. I like that difference. It's more back to basic. More small scale, better singing and songs performed like they were written.
40 years ago the Stones were wilder, but some of the songs were performed T breaknecking speed and with looser arrangements. It's all about taste. I like both, some don't...
PS: POSTED while drunk, but straight from the heart
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-25 01:16 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
rtr
()
Date: May 25, 2013 03:33
Remember that MJ was running jumping non-stop in '81 (and in '75 to some extent). He's "winded" and it affects his vocals. He started pacing himself in '89, and going forward, putting more of an emphasis on giving a strong vocal performance.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
Max'sKansasCity
()
Date: May 25, 2013 03:53
Quote
DandelionPowderman
The safety net wasn't there before 2002 imo, the tours prior to ghat were too different, as was the musical output. What is the parallell between SW and B2B? Not much.
From Licks and on I agree with you.
However, for me there is a huge difference today in terms of venues, sound and performance. I like that difference. It's more back to basic. More small scale, better singing and songs performed like they were written.
40 years ago the Stones were wilder, but some of the songs were performed T breaknecking speed and with looser arrangements. It's all about taste. I like both, some don't...
PS: POSTED while drunk, but straight from the heart
PWD posts are the BEST! We need more of that around here.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
duffydawg
()
Date: May 25, 2013 06:12
Quote
71TeleQuote
ThrylanQuote
71Tele
I see that Johnny One Note is back amongst us.
I watched Xfire hurricane last night......I had a Ronnie epiphany. I am at peace with the MT/Ronnie thing, but we can discuss later, as to not put a ripple in this still water.
I am at peace too. Who could watch them all having so much fun and not be? Ronnie has played his best in years lately, and it was a joy to hear him and MT "share" the glory on Sway.
That is the model of the 3 guitar attack that will work. Have MT on stage but he takes solos only on some songs. But vary it by show. So one show gets an MT interpretation of BS and Gimme Shelter and the next show its Woods turn....
But don't just segment Taylor into some pre-canned song line up show after show. Vary it up and you will have fans going to multiple shows. AKA the Grateful Dead. But that means Jagger needs to get a bit more free form.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: May 25, 2013 07:38
Quote
duffydawgQuote
71TeleQuote
ThrylanQuote
71Tele
I see that Johnny One Note is back amongst us.
I watched Xfire hurricane last night......I had a Ronnie epiphany. I am at peace with the MT/Ronnie thing, but we can discuss later, as to not put a ripple in this still water.
I am at peace too. Who could watch them all having so much fun and not be? Ronnie has played his best in years lately, and it was a joy to hear him and MT "share" the glory on Sway.
That is the model of the 3 guitar attack that will work. Have MT on stage but he takes solos only on some songs. But vary it by show. So one show gets an MT interpretation of BS and Gimme Shelter and the next show its Woods turn....
But don't just segment Taylor into some pre-canned song line up show after show. Vary it up and you will have fans going to multiple shows. AKA the Grateful Dead. But that means Jagger needs to get a bit more free form.
It also means they would have to rehearse more.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
alimente
()
Date: May 25, 2013 08:00
Quote
71TeleQuote
duffydawgQuote
71TeleQuote
ThrylanQuote
71Tele
I see that Johnny One Note is back amongst us.
I watched Xfire hurricane last night......I had a Ronnie epiphany. I am at peace with the MT/Ronnie thing, but we can discuss later, as to not put a ripple in this still water.
I am at peace too. Who could watch them all having so much fun and not be? Ronnie has played his best in years lately, and it was a joy to hear him and MT "share" the glory on Sway.
That is the model of the 3 guitar attack that will work. Have MT on stage but he takes solos only on some songs. But vary it by show. So one show gets an MT interpretation of BS and Gimme Shelter and the next show its Woods turn....
But don't just segment Taylor into some pre-canned song line up show after show. Vary it up and you will have fans going to multiple shows. AKA the Grateful Dead. But that means Jagger needs to get a bit more free form.
It also means they would have to rehearse more.
That's tough, it actually means WORK! Usually, after the initial tour rehearsals they just have soundchecks when they of course are able to test this and test that a bit or refresh their memories concerning rarely played songs, but in general the basic arrangement are fixed at that point.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
rtr
()
Date: May 25, 2013 08:26
Wow...think how cool it would be if they made Ronnie and Keith sit out instead of getting in the way while M.T. is playing over them! They should let him sing some of his originals! In fact, they should let him have the stage to himself!! The Stones are nothing without M.T., Especially compared to what he is without them. And at least he kept his integrity and has not been doing a lousy "Vegas set", or playing as piss poor as Ronnie, or wanting to be in total control like Mick does........Get over it! He left the band almost 40 years ago and the Stones were great before he joined, and after he left. I'm glad he wasn't there in the late 70's or the energy and sound of "Some Girls" and the live shows would have been "tasteful", instead of raw and reckless, (due to his far "superior musicianship". I'm surprised he is lowering himself to play with Keith and Ronnie...) Sorry, but he's not back in the band. He plays like a guest soloist, like he did when he was being paid a salary to be "in" the Stones. I just watched the PPV again and after the nostalgia dissipates, he's just soloing non-stop, out of context and all over the top of Midnight Rambler. Sorry, more annoyed than impressed.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-25 08:27 by rtr.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-25 08:27 by rtr.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
Edward Twining
()
Date: May 25, 2013 09:37
Quote
DandelionPowderman
The safety net wasn't there before 2002 imo, the tours prior to ghat were too different, as was the musical output. What is the parallell between SW and B2B? Not much.
From Licks and on I agree with you.
However, for me there is a huge difference today in terms of venues, sound and performance. I like that difference. It's more back to basic. More small scale, better singing and songs performed like they were written.
40 years ago the Stones were wilder, but some of the songs were performed T breaknecking speed and with looser arrangements. It's all about taste. I like both, some don't...
PS: POSTED while drunk, but straight from the heart
Yes, the songs live are often performed closer to the original studio versions, but for me, the Stones excelled at taking a studio song and changing its perspective when introducing it into a live venue. It's great to have a different musical route to take, and ultimately different goals when delivering songs in front of a excited live audience as opposed to listening in the privacy of your own home etc. One is for a close listening experience on a more intimate level, and the other is part of a rave up. Part of the reason GET YER YA YAS OUT! is so great is that the Stones approach the songs from a slightly different angle. The chance of ever being able to match, for example 'Sympathy For The Devil' live with the same arrangement from BEGGARS BANQUET, would be so incredibly hard to achieve, but taken from a slightly different perspective means the live version stands on its own terms and not merely as a copy. The problem with the later Stones is that using the same arrangement, as in copying as closely as possible, rules out many of the potential risks associated with a more spontaneous approach, and so runs the risk of being a little less exciting and much more predictable. Those later live versions are never likely to move out of the shadows of those originals.
'Midnight Rambler' for me has been the song the Stones have performed most consistently great over the years. I just think the relative changes in tempo etc. really suit the Stones in whatever incarnation, in addition to Mick's greatly effective harp playing, which in effectiveness has taken over from his singing.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-25 09:56 by Edward Twining.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: May 25, 2013 10:50
Sometimes the songs are better with looser arrangement, sometimes not, imo.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: May 25, 2013 12:56
Quote
DandelionPowderman
The safety net wasn't there before 2002 imo, the tours prior to ghat were too different, as was the musical output. What is the parallell between SW and B2B? Not much.
From Licks and on I agree with you.
However, for me there is a huge difference today in terms of venues, sound and performance. I like that difference. It's more back to basic. More small scale, better singing and songs performed like they were written.
40 years ago the Stones were wilder, but some of the songs were performed T breaknecking speed and with looser arrangements. It's all about taste. I like both, some don't...
PS: POSTED while drunk, but straight from the heart
Damn you sound coherent, gentle and diplomatic while drunk! You are a good drinking company I can guess!
P.S. I write this as having a hang-over... had a "few" last night... it's damn hard to find the right letters, since my hands are shaking...
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-25 12:58 by Doxa.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: May 25, 2013 13:02
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: May 25, 2013 19:02
I think it is advantageous to draw a distinction between "safety" and "control and coordination", in the context of the Stones during more than the two last decades, something which usually is not done. It is important if one shall get an adequate understanding of the increased (premeditated) control and coordination which belong to "the new professionalism" starting from that point in time (1989). As such it is in my understanding no allcomprising "lazyness" or a "comfort zone" involved.
Those who like to operate (not all me, as some will know, I have been in opposition to the term) with "a Las Vegas Era" concept for the whole period following 1989 until recently, need to present their view in more precise terms. During "the Steel Wheels Tour" (probably) as certainly during "the Urban Jungle Tour" the band was daring in the construction of their shows, where they must have relied on increased control and coordination. In that respect I have specially in mind their three song triology presentation from that period, constituted by "Paint It Black", "2000 Light Years from Home" and "Sympathy for the Devil". It is one the of omissions of the band that FLASHPOINT did not feature these songs in that way.
(Apart from the mentionned distinction, I myself as a matter of taste prefer the three following studio albums to STEEL WHEELS, especially the two latest.)
My view is, however, it would be very wishable for the band by now to lessen the control aspect. That is at the centre of what Mick Taylor is capable to supply to the band. With better playing of the band, they are capaple to absorb this impulse that Mick Taylor gives. In my understanding it might even make possible a new phase of the band at this late stage of their career. I hope they seize the possibility.
The latest edits have been of a couple of these embarassing printing errors.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-25 19:58 by Witness.
Those who like to operate (not all me, as some will know, I have been in opposition to the term) with "a Las Vegas Era" concept for the whole period following 1989 until recently, need to present their view in more precise terms. During "the Steel Wheels Tour" (probably) as certainly during "the Urban Jungle Tour" the band was daring in the construction of their shows, where they must have relied on increased control and coordination. In that respect I have specially in mind their three song triology presentation from that period, constituted by "Paint It Black", "2000 Light Years from Home" and "Sympathy for the Devil". It is one the of omissions of the band that FLASHPOINT did not feature these songs in that way.
(Apart from the mentionned distinction, I myself as a matter of taste prefer the three following studio albums to STEEL WHEELS, especially the two latest.)
My view is, however, it would be very wishable for the band by now to lessen the control aspect. That is at the centre of what Mick Taylor is capable to supply to the band. With better playing of the band, they are capaple to absorb this impulse that Mick Taylor gives. In my understanding it might even make possible a new phase of the band at this late stage of their career. I hope they seize the possibility.
The latest edits have been of a couple of these embarassing printing errors.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-25 19:58 by Witness.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
gotdablouse
()
Date: May 26, 2013 05:16
Back to business as usual in Toronto tonight with Taylor only on MR so far and not asked to join for SFM...which they had rehearsed with him in L.A....WTF ?!
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
roby
()
Date: May 26, 2013 09:42
Yes, very disappointed, and a floopy SFM version... 
Too much applause for him in LA, especially during CYHMK... Back in the shade, thanks mate.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-26 10:20 by roby.
Too much applause for him in LA, especially during CYHMK... Back in the shade, thanks mate.Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-26 10:20 by roby.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
GravityBoy
()
Date: May 26, 2013 10:21
Dear Mick Jagger,
I thought we had an agreement.
What are you doing? Don't welch on our agreement.
More Mick Taylor.. please.
Cheers,
Gravityboy
I thought we had an agreement.
What are you doing? Don't welch on our agreement.
More Mick Taylor.. please.
Cheers,
Gravityboy
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: May 26, 2013 10:47
Seemingly one possible prediction of the formula got a bit confirmation in Toronto: no guests = more Taylor. Taylor is a spare option to use if there is no one else.
Unfortunately this sticky thread became more relevant now... so, let us go back to work and keep noise!
MORE TAYLOR, PLEASE!!!!
- Doxa
Unfortunately this sticky thread became more relevant now... so, let us go back to work and keep noise!
MORE TAYLOR, PLEASE!!!!
- Doxa
This Thread has been closed
Online Users
Andrew , bakersfield , BeastyBurdeny , Britney , Dan , DandelionPowderman , DEmerson , dishevelmentblues , doubledoor , Doxa , Fuman2 , Heart for Stones , jasona93 , JDSAM1994 , JN99 , liddas , philrock90 , Rambler62 , Sici , sonnystitt , stevem1950 , yahozna
Guests:
1653
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10