Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-18 05:05 by His Majesty.

Quote
His Majesty
He was replaced by Ronnie.

Not based on the live version of Shine A Light I just heard.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-18 05:06 by His Majesty.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
71Tele

Quote
His Majesty
He was replaced by Ronnie.

Not based on the live version of Shine A Light I just heard.

Replaced he was, you just don't like the replacement.

What do you mean? I love the Replacements. One of my favorite bands.

My short (biased?) history of the RS live performances.
1964-1969 (Hyde Park included!): the concerts were "happenings" but musically... approximate. The screams of the audience didn't help.
1969-1973: Keith was in top form, the Rolling Stones too. And... they had MT. With this jewel, they used to play remarkable RnR setlists (warhorses etc. including Chuck Berry's hits), often in a way noticeably differing from their studio creations [JJF, Street Fighting Man, Sympathy and Gimme Shelter (ask kleermaker)]. Get Yer Yas Ya's Out is a great example of these new sound and mastery. the Rolling Stones could be named The Greatest Rock and Roll Band in the World.
I still consider Taylor's major (and extraordinary) contribution lied in live performances.
1975-2013 without MT: the concerts are good, ie efficient but far from being breathtaking.
2012-2013 moments with MT (OK he plays at a level 80% of what he used to): Exciting. Yes, exciting, for various reasons.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-13 01:35 by MarkSchneider.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
.................................................

About improvising. The Stones have always improvised a lot, during all eras.

For me, the most impressive things happened on the albums - and with Brian's different instruments. Of course, there were lots of great stuff with Taylor too, as well as with Ronnie - up till 1982.

Not including UNDERCOVER, released in 1983, among "the great stuff", that is?

When you say: "The Stones have always improvised a lot, during all eras.", I wonder if you include the period after 1989 in that statement, especially when you say "a lot". I gather that would be quite contrary to common judgement.

Added in an edit: Apparently(?) against your own judgement, too, when you answer "It won't happen." to my reflection about how Mick Taylor might function: " He might contribute to make the band lessen the control element about their concerts that seems to have characterized their playing live at large venues for so long". Otherwise there must be involved some paradox here.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-12 23:52 by Witness.

Quote
duffydawg
A friend of mine who in his mid 60s and said when MT left the band it was very close to the end of the Stones - at least that is how many fans felt at the time....thinks the Stones are not playing MT more because of concerns on how all that exposure might be on him. (i.e. his fragile persona / rehab).

I don't know if I agree with above but would love to see more of MT with the Stones.

IMO, Taylor's withdrawal mostly had an effect on live performances.
Creativity (songwriting more than studio work) had suffered a little earlier from Keith's drug issues. (I admit I'm not a fan of Exile on Main Street)
Both events affected the Rolling Stones, enough to bore me until last fall.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-12 23:56 by MarkSchneider.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
svt22

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
duffydawg
The Rolling Stones is NOT "The Greatest Rock and Roll Band in the World"

The Rolling Stones with MT is "The Greatest Rock and Roll Band in the World"

Capeche?

"We recorded about three albums with the same people we're using now. Like Let It Bleed... And Mick (Taylor) was in on only half of the last sessions in Munich, for It's Only Rock 'n Roll, because he was in the hospital. We had two sessions and he didn't come to the first one. So it's not really any great difficulty (continuing without him)".
- Mick Jagger, December 1974

[www.timeisonourside.com]

If you listen to LIB there is not much difficulty without Brian Jones either, the same goes for B&B, only 2 songs with Wood.

Jagger and Richards were rather pissed when Taylor left, so I consider Jagger's remark as a reflection of frustration and disappointment -understandably.

Taylor's forte was in the first place playing on stage. They were able to make and sell records without him, though we never got the likes as Sway, Knocking, Winter, 100 Years Ago, Shine A Light, Time Waits FN, Dance Little Sister etc, before or after him. But the loss on stage was incredible and Jagger was aware of that like nobody else. And rightly so, because Taylor proved to be irreplaceable.

(needless to say)

Midnight Rambler (Montreal june 9th 2013)



Excellent



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-13 00:07 by MarkSchneider.

Quote
MarkSchneider
Midnight Rambler (Montreal june 9th 2013)



Excellent

Love it!

Quote
Witness

Quote
DandelionPowderman
.................................................

About improvising. The Stones have always improvised a lot, during all eras.

For me, the most impressive things happened on the albums - and with Brian's different instruments. Of course, there were lots of great stuff with Taylor too, as well as with Ronnie - up till 1982.

Not including UNDERCOVER, released in 1983, among "the great stuff", that is?

When you say: "The Stones have always improvised a lot, during all eras.", I wonder if you include the period after 1989 in that statement, especially when you say "a lot". I gather that would be quite contrary to common judgement.

Added in an edit: Apparently(?) against your own judgement, too, when you answer "It won't happen." to my reflection about how Mick Taylor might function: " He might contribute to make the band lessen the control element about their concerts that seems to have characterized their playing live at large venues for so long". Otherwise there must be involved some paradox here.

Well, I don't think there are less control because Taylor gets space to solo in, and as we have witnessed already they turn him down (Satisfaction) when his soloing might put the song/rhythm in jeopardy.

I meant they narrowed the possibility for improvising since their arrangements became more streamlined in concert from 1989.

Of course there is lots of good stuff on Undercover, but for the song with the most room for instrumentation/improvisation (Pretty Beat Up), they went for the extended sax solo.

After 1989 there is still imrovisation, but mainly within short solos.

Sorry if I came across a bit unclear.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-13 00:30 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
svt22

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
duffydawg
The Rolling Stones is NOT "The Greatest Rock and Roll Band in the World"

The Rolling Stones with MT is "The Greatest Rock and Roll Band in the World"

Capeche?

"We recorded about three albums with the same people we're using now. Like Let It Bleed... And Mick (Taylor) was in on only half of the last sessions in Munich, for It's Only Rock 'n Roll, because he was in the hospital. We had two sessions and he didn't come to the first one. So it's not really any great difficulty (continuing without him)".
- Mick Jagger, December 1974

[www.timeisonourside.com]

If you listen to LIB there is not much difficulty without Brian Jones either, the same goes for B&B, only 2 songs with Wood.

Jagger and Richards were rather pissed when Taylor left, so I consider Jagger's remark as a reflection of frustration and disappointment -understandably.

That's my take on it as well re Jagger's remark.

The quote was a reply to a rather fanatic comment from duffydawg, basically saying the Stones were nothing without Taylor.

here's a question I'd like some help on

What's the best 2013 gig (& best qual audio/youtube Version) of Midnight Rambler with Mick Taylor?

Really hard to choose, each ones a little bit dif (i like this aspect btw) so maybe top 2 or 3 versions would be MEGA appreciated

over to you!

Really hard to tell. Recent versions seem more sober, appropriately.
Look at kleermaker1000's audio (great)/video mixes on You Tube, like Chicago's may 31st or june 3rd in HD 720p.
This San Jose may 8th for its video quality in HD 1080p:






Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-13 08:21 by MarkSchneider.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Witness

Quote
DandelionPowderman
.................................................

About improvising. The Stones have always improvised a lot, during all eras.

For me, the most impressive things happened on the albums - and with Brian's different instruments. Of course, there were lots of great stuff with Taylor too, as well as with Ronnie - up till 1982.

Not including UNDERCOVER, released in 1983, among "the great stuff", that is?

When you say: "The Stones have always improvised a lot, during all eras.", I wonder if you include the period after 1989 in that statement, especially when you say "a lot". I gather that would be quite contrary to common judgement.

Added in an edit: Apparently(?) against your own judgement, too, when you answer "It won't happen." to my reflection about how Mick Taylor might function: " He might contribute to make the band lessen the control element about their concerts that seems to have characterized their playing live at large venues for so long". Otherwise there must be involved some paradox here.

Well, I don't think there are less control because Taylor gets space to solo in, and as we have witnessed already they turn him down (Satisfaction) when his soloing might put the song/rhythm in jeopardy.

I meant they narrowed the possibility for improvising since their arrangements became more streamlined in concert from 1989.

Of course there is lots of good stuff on Undercover, but for the song with the most room for instrumentation/improvisation (Pretty Beat Up), they went for the extended sax solo.

After 1989 there is still imrovisation, but mainly within short solos.

Sorry if I came across a bit unclear.

That "they narrowed the possibility for improvising since their arrangements became more streamlined in concert from 1989", is quite precisely in accordance with my understanding of increased control since 1989. (In opposition to the "Las Vegas era"-concept, I have thought in such terms when I have written about the band's need for control and premediated coordination in the context of what I have called the new pofessionalism of their comeback in 1989). I agree that there might have been also then a rather limited scope for improvisation within short solos, which I admit I have largely tended to neglect, (where I mainly have not listened to bootlegs later than from 1990), but I don't know if they have used this opportunity that much.

By the way, when I hope for some increased scope for Mick Taylor, that is on my part not directed at a wish for long solos by him on each and every song - the length and kind of solos would have to depend on what kind of songs which are played. (Or, as an exception, if he had entered on something that was thought to be especially interesting, suitably evaluated by Mick Jagger eagerly waiting to sing another verse of a song.)

My argument about lessening of control has rather been aimed more or less at a possible expansion of Mick Taylor's role from what it has been until now, to other songs, than at what he has been allowed to play on. It would apply also to more "ordinary playing" in addition to isolated solos. And, at the core of the argument, what I have been and am thinking of, would be playing of songs in new versions of the moment instead of aiming at recreating the originals from the studio albums. It is there the possibiilty of slackening of the control primarily lies, I think. In a three guitar approach then, as I for one think about it, it would varying who of the three guitarists who would play the solo, where the other two would do the underlying accompanyment of the song.

Quote
His Majesty
He was replaced by Ronnie.

Because he left the band. Let's not think this was an upgrade, because it obviously wasn't. Don't forget, for many decades he was the only person to leave the Stones of his own choosing. Bad decision in my book and probably 99%+ of the people out there. But he is damn talented and I feel badly for the guy as well.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
svt22

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
duffydawg
The Rolling Stones is NOT "The Greatest Rock and Roll Band in the World"

The Rolling Stones with MT is "The Greatest Rock and Roll Band in the World"

Capeche?

"We recorded about three albums with the same people we're using now. Like Let It Bleed... And Mick (Taylor) was in on only half of the last sessions in Munich, for It's Only Rock 'n Roll, because he was in the hospital. We had two sessions and he didn't come to the first one. So it's not really any great difficulty (continuing without him)".
- Mick Jagger, December 1974

[www.timeisonourside.com]

If you listen to LIB there is not much difficulty without Brian Jones either, the same goes for B&B, only 2 songs with Wood.

Jagger and Richards were rather pissed when Taylor left, so I consider Jagger's remark as a reflection of frustration and disappointment -understandably.

That's my take on it as well re Jagger's remark.

The quote was a reply to a rather fanatic comment from duffydawg, basically saying the Stones were nothing without Taylor.

LOL. Talk about a fanatical reaction and a complete misread of what I stated above. I didn't say the Stones were "Nothing" - I merely stated what me and all of my Stone fans truly believe: With MT the Stones are the Greatest Rock and Roll Band Ever. Without MT I think many musicians and rock fans would point to Led Zepplin, the Who, the Beatles....

Sorry Anti-MT fans want to downplay his prominence in RS history and his guitarist pedigree.

I willingly concede the Stones are a great band and MT is not a great solo act. Yet you Ant-MT fans cannot concede the obvious point that MT makes the Stones much greater than without them. Sigh....

Quote
MarkSchneider
My short (biased?) history of the RS live performances.
1964-1969 (Hyde Park included!): the concerts were "happenings" but musically... approximate. The screams of the audience didn't help.
1969-1973: Keith was in top form, the Rolling Stones too. And... they had MT. With this jewel, they used to play remarkable RnR setlists (warhorses etc. including Chuck Berry's hits), often in a way noticeably differing from their studio creations [JJF, Street Fighting Man, Sympathy and Gimme Shelter (ask kleermaker)]. Get Yer Yas Ya's Out is a great example of these new sound and mastery. the Rolling Stones could be named The Greatest Rock and Roll Band in the World.
I still consider Taylor's major (and extraordinary) contribution lied in live performances.
1975-2013 without MT: the concerts are good, ie efficient but far from being breathtaking.
2012-2013 moments with MT (OK he plays at a level 80% of what he used to): Exciting. Yes, exciting, for various reasons.

+1

1975-2013 without MT: the concerts are good, ie efficient but far from being breathtaking.[/quote]

Yet another NON Rolling Stones fan.
Sad, really.

And to think, all those shows I attended, yet they were only "efficient".
LofL

Quote
duffydawg

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
svt22

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
duffydawg
The Rolling Stones is NOT "The Greatest Rock and Roll Band in the World"

The Rolling Stones with MT is "The Greatest Rock and Roll Band in the World"

Capeche?

"We recorded about three albums with the same people we're using now. Like Let It Bleed... And Mick (Taylor) was in on only half of the last sessions in Munich, for It's Only Rock 'n Roll, because he was in the hospital. We had two sessions and he didn't come to the first one. So it's not really any great difficulty (continuing without him)".
- Mick Jagger, December 1974

[www.timeisonourside.com]

If you listen to LIB there is not much difficulty without Brian Jones either, the same goes for B&B, only 2 songs with Wood.

Jagger and Richards were rather pissed when Taylor left, so I consider Jagger's remark as a reflection of frustration and disappointment -understandably.

That's my take on it as well re Jagger's remark.

The quote was a reply to a rather fanatic comment from duffydawg, basically saying the Stones were nothing without Taylor.

LOL. Talk about a fanatical reaction and a complete misread of what I stated above. I didn't say the Stones were "Nothing" - I merely stated what me and all of my Stone fans truly believe: With MT the Stones are the Greatest Rock and Roll Band Ever. Without MT I think many musicians and rock fans would point to Led Zepplin, the Who, the Beatles....

Sorry Anti-MT fans want to downplay his prominence in RS history and his guitarist pedigree.

I willingly concede the Stones are a great band and MT is not a great solo act. Yet you Ant-MT fans cannot concede the obvious point that MT makes the Stones much greater than without them. Sigh....

If you think that the Stones weren't the greatest when they recorded JJF, SFTD, GS or SFM, then I guess you're a MT-fan, not a RS- fan...

"All of my Stones fans..." Christ



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-13 10:10 by DandelionPowderman.

Well said.

RS fan, MT fan, taylorites, anti RS, anti RS fans, anti MT, antitaylorites, RW fan, anti RW, anti RW fans...

Formerly, I used to be enthralled by the overall sound of the Rolling Stones.
Now I have insight and elements to analyse it.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-13 09:09 by MarkSchneider.

Sway Boston june 12th



MJ: "Thank you Mick!"



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-13 10:13 by MarkSchneider.

Quote
Witness

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Witness

Quote
DandelionPowderman
.................................................

About improvising. The Stones have always improvised a lot, during all eras.

For me, the most impressive things happened on the albums - and with Brian's different instruments. Of course, there were lots of great stuff with Taylor too, as well as with Ronnie - up till 1982.

Not including UNDERCOVER, released in 1983, among "the great stuff", that is?

When you say: "The Stones have always improvised a lot, during all eras.", I wonder if you include the period after 1989 in that statement, especially when you say "a lot". I gather that would be quite contrary to common judgement.

Added in an edit: Apparently(?) against your own judgement, too, when you answer "It won't happen." to my reflection about how Mick Taylor might function: " He might contribute to make the band lessen the control element about their concerts that seems to have characterized their playing live at large venues for so long". Otherwise there must be involved some paradox here.

Well, I don't think there are less control because Taylor gets space to solo in, and as we have witnessed already they turn him down (Satisfaction) when his soloing might put the song/rhythm in jeopardy.

I meant they narrowed the possibility for improvising since their arrangements became more streamlined in concert from 1989.

Of course there is lots of good stuff on Undercover, but for the song with the most room for instrumentation/improvisation (Pretty Beat Up), they went for the extended sax solo.

After 1989 there is still imrovisation, but mainly within short solos.

Sorry if I came across a bit unclear.

That "they narrowed the possibility for improvising since their arrangements became more streamlined in concert from 1989", is quite precisely in accordance with my understanding of increased control since 1989. (In opposition to the "Las Vegas era"-concept, I have thought in such terms when I have written about the band's need for control and premediated coordination in the context of what I have called the new pofessionalism of their comeback in 1989). I agree that there might have been also then a rather limited scope for improvisation within short solos, which I admit I have largely tended to neglect, (where I mainly have not listened to bootlegs later than from 1990), but I don't know if they have used this opportunity that much.

By the way, when I hope for some increased scope for Mick Taylor, that is on my part not directed at a wish for long solos by him on each and every song - the length and kind of solos would have to depend on what kind of songs which are played. (Or, as an exception, if he had entered on something that was thought to be especially interesting, suitably evaluated by Mick Jagger eagerly waiting to sing another verse of a song.)

My argument about lessening of control has rather been aimed more or less at a possible expansion of Mick Taylor's role from what it has been until now, to other songs, than at what he has been allowed to play on. It would apply also to more "ordinary playing" in addition to isolated solos. And, at the core of the argument, what I have been and am thinking of, would be playing of songs in new versions of the moment instead of aiming at recreating the originals from the studio albums. It is there the possibiilty of slackening of the control primarily lies, I think. In a three guitar approach then, as I for one think about it, it would varying who of the three guitarists who would play the solo, where the other two would do the underlying accompanyment of the song.

That is exactly what I think will not happen.

Back in the day they did this:





I'm pretty sure the result (if Taylor tries to "rock the boat", like here on Satisfaction), he will be turned down in the PA-mix - like he indeed was during this performance. However, a fan managed to point his mic towards Taylor's amp:

[www.youtube.com]

My guess is that it isn't necessarily because they fear Taylor will harm the sound, or be playing bad. It's more to do with hearing yourself well, knowing exactly where you are in the song etc.

On Rambler, which is a long jam song, you can fall off for a few bars and come back in again. You can't do that that easily on other songs.

This is just my take on it, however based on how they have worked for decades now.

Quote
MarkSchneider
Sway Boston june 12th



MJ: "Thank you Mick!"

You know why you don't get Taylor on more songs?

Because in 2013, Taylor sucks.

Mathijs

DandelionPowderman, you are confusing facts with your own taste and wishful thinking. You are about the only person I know who says that Taylor trying "to rock the boat" in that LADIES AND GENTS "Flash", and you have given some more harsh words about Taylor's contribution in that one in the past. Well, you don't like that (and Taylor's style), but for me that is one of the greatest performances of that song ever, and not the least to do how Taylor ices the cake. And seemingly, that didn't trouble so much Mick and Keith either, since they released that performance in a high profile movie. They didn't "turn Taylor down", did they? My suggestion is that they were damn proud of that performance.

And you are also seeing soething in those "Satisfaction" clips of this tour that there factually is not. You seem to think that because you think Taylor plays awfully, he has or needs to be turned down. Like someone actually making that decision - since seeing him disturbing the sound, he presses the "Taylor down" button. Well, that the way you want to see it. I'm sure you - and some others here - would love to press that button.

But I think that button is only in your imagination. Taylor is, and has always been in rather low in the mix during that song, and he knows that and plays according to that. He does his little thing there to beefen up the sound, and surely not "rock the boat". Isolating Taylor's contribution out of the context in that one clip was totally an unfair move, and it seemingly caused a field day among anti-Taylorian people here (and shocked some Taylorians as well).

- Doxa

Ah, the Rolling Stones in 1972, I loved this band, this approach with that damn good lead guitarist. Who is he, and do they still exist, sounding like this?

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
MarkSchneider
Sway Boston june 12th



MJ: "Thank you Mick!"

You know why you don't get Taylor on more songs?

Because in 2013, Taylor sucks.

Mathijs

I can assure you he's not gay, buy let's observe things in the right context:

I agree, to a certain extend, and this goes for the entire band. Taylor doesn't make it worse either. If they let him play on more songs, he gets better.

Quote
Doxa
DandelionPowderman, you are confusing facts with your own taste and wishful thinking. You are about the only person I know who says that Taylor trying "to rock the boat" in that LADIES AND GENTS "Flash", and you have given some more harsh words about Taylor's contribution in that one in the past. Well, you don't like that (and Taylor's style), but for me that is one of the greatest performances of that song ever, and not the least to do how Taylor ices the cake. And seemingly, that didn't trouble so much Mick and Keith either, since they released that performance in a high profile movie. They didn't "turn Taylor down", did they? My suggestion is that they were damn proud of that performance.

And you are also seeing soething in those "Satisfaction" clips of this tour that there factually is not. You seem to think that because you think Taylor plays awfully, he has or needs to be turned down. Like someone actually making that decision - since seeing him disturbing the sound, he presses the "Taylor down" button. Well, that the way you want to see it. I'm sure you - and some others here - would love to press that button.

But I think that button is only in your imagination. Taylor is, and has always been in rather low in the mix during that song, and he knows that and plays according to that. He does his little thing there to beefen up the sound, and surely not "rock the boat". Isolating Taylor's contribution out of the context in that one clip was totally an unfair move, and it seemingly caused a field day among anti-Taylorian people here (and shocked some Taylorians as well).

- Doxa

You got my post totally wrong , and you didn't understand the point I tried to make with JJF, nor Satisfaction.

I didn't say what you claimed, I said this:

"My guess is that it isn't necessarily because they fear Taylor will harm the sound, or be playing bad".

And that means that the Stones, at this stage: 70 year olds, can't risk too many unexpected sonically happenings on stage before they fall totally apart (that's why I said, from studying the band closely on a musical level for decades, that the kind of playing you see Taylor do on JJF in 1972 won't happen audibly for the audience in 2013 - do you really disagree with that??).

That goes for off-rhythm playing in particular.

I like Taylor (read my post on the new Sway-video).

You can't "force" me into liking the JJF-version from 1972, which I admit I find utterly horrible, with all the squeeching, and constant off-rhythm playing and noodling on top of the vocals and the lead riff.

I like the 1969 version though, with Taylor, as you very well know.

PS: I used Satisfaction as an example, because he was doing some of the same type of playing he did on the JJF-version from 1972, and because we had an audible video of that. Not because it was bad.

Edit: Christ, how sensitive some of the TaylorISTS are!!!



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-13 11:51 by DandelionPowderman.

deleted