-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-17 21:54 by marianna.

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Jesse

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Jesse

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Jesse

Quote
StonesTod
i live in the past cos the past was so much better. if anyone can show me a better present then i will consider living in it. Hurray for the past!

Do it! But that means toss out your computer and stop blogging.... Afterall THAT didn't exist back then. You can't reference music from youtube either. Get rid of your big flat screen tv and fancy music system and speakers. Didn't exist then -- but you'll like stereos!

And be prepared for a world that didn't address a slew of medical issues. If you're a woman (I doubt it though), will you be a beautician, secretary or happy homemaker?

I can go on and on but I seem to think you're not plugged into much intellectual stuff.

Oh yes, get rid of your microwave oven and cell phone too! HA!

can i keep my cute german shepherd? she's from the present but she's kind of a throwback dog.

Does she want to keep YOU?

You can't stay on topic can you? YOU are a fool.

that may be, but please remember that I'M not even ME, ok?

which is why the 2013 Stones and your idol MT would laugh you out of the room -- and throw a $5 bill your way out of pity.

I'm tired of you. People who need to always post with silly things like you do usually have a self-worth problem. But I'm sure someone will post and shower false praise on you.

are you tired of ME or the person I will be revealed to be?

i don't even like the MT of the present, by the way...i like the one from the past, however.

Jesse.

If I were to shower praise on that ratbag StonesTod right now, how could you tell if it was false praise or true praise?

Ironic that this isn't a true or false question.

Jesse hang on, there are some cool cats with great info

jesse isn't going anywhere. we're at a bar right now discussing intellectual subjects. well, he's discussing them; i'm just nodding my head up and down on occasion.

Kids, let's not leave out the exciting new thread AMAZING.

Quote
marianna
From listening to a response by Chuck Leavell as to Mick Taylor's role on the tour, they never intended to use him much. Chuck knows the company politics and he was very careful to state that Taylor was something out of their past and the band seemed to think it was a big gesture on their part to invite him on the tour at all. Those weren't Chuck's exact words, but his point. It seems stupid they ever bothered to begin with, but they owe the guy some money and it's easier to do it this way and saves them face. Hopefully Mick T. doesn't take it too personally because he knows how the band is, especially Keith. Just take the money and run and use the exposure to get better gigs.

Sounds very plausible to me.

Quote
Doxa
I have always thought that giving a free pass for artists in their past prime, that is, not to be taken artisticwise seriously anymore, is an insult against them. Like they don't really matter anymore.

- Doxa

Indeed. It's a matter of respect, being critical.

Quote
runaway
Kleermaker;
Then we have the example of painters and composers. They usually produce better art when they get older and wiser people. See my favourite composer Mozart and one of those famous Dutch painters, Rembrandt.

I totally disagree with you
Rembrandt painted his masterpiece " The Night Watch' at the age of 36.
Vincent reached the age of 37-Leaving great paintings behind.

Maybe for tourists, but his later work is better though less famous.
Anyway, it's nothing physical whatsoever.

What isn't physical, your love for Rembrandt?

See what happens when we stop quoting? It's anarchy!

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Jesse

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Jesse

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Jesse

Quote
StonesTod
i live in the past cos the past was so much better. if anyone can show me a better present then i will consider living in it. Hurray for the past!

Do it! But that means toss out your computer and stop blogging.... Afterall THAT didn't exist back then. You can't reference music from youtube either. Get rid of your big flat screen tv and fancy music system and speakers. Didn't exist then -- but you'll like stereos!

And be prepared for a world that didn't address a slew of medical issues. If you're a woman (I doubt it though), will you be a beautician, secretary or happy homemaker?

I can go on and on but I seem to think you're not plugged into much intellectual stuff.

Oh yes, get rid of your microwave oven and cell phone too! HA!

can i keep my cute german shepherd? she's from the present but she's kind of a throwback dog.

Does she want to keep YOU?

You can't stay on topic can you? YOU are a fool.

that may be, but please remember that I'M not even ME, ok?

which is why the 2013 Stones and your idol MT would laugh you out of the room -- and throw a $5 bill your way out of pity.

I'm tired of you. People who need to always post with silly things like you do usually have a self-worth problem. But I'm sure someone will post and shower false praise on you.

are you tired of ME or the person I will be revealed to be?

i don't even like the MT of the present, by the way...i like the one from the past, however.

Jesse.

If I were to shower praise on that ratbag StonesTod right now, how could you tell if it was false praise or true praise?

Ironic that this isn't a true or false question.

Does StonesTod have a blog I don't know about?

I would respond, but I am currently moderating a discussion between a dozen Ivy league post-grads on the merits of young artists passion v/s older artists sense taste and wisdom.

and you're online?

Quote
Jesse
"Here, we haven't stopped explaining, reasoning, arguing and screaming this friendly alarm to the Rolling Stones."
_____________________________________________________________

Oh PLEEEZE. YOU are giving an alarm to THE ROLLING STONES? what kind of over-inflated ego do you have? I understand you want more MT but What I find childish is your thinking that Stones & Co. would listen to what bloggers say! Are you kidding? ha!

The RS businessmen are Internet professionals. They allow themselves to block controversial tweets, decent or not. They can't ignore IORR. They track fans' opinions. They know the existence of threads like this one. I wouldn't be surprised if they had antennas here.

You wrote:
"Re: Chicago-1 May 28 Stones show live updates new
Posted by: Jesse ()
Date: May 30, 2013 01:57

MT is really talented but HE left the Stones. He's lucky they asked him to play with them at all on this tour. I don't think they owe him time on stage. He doesn't fit the image of the lean mean music machine that each guy is. Sure he was part of the original recordings but not part of the last 30+ years. I'm satisfied with him being a two-song guest. I KNOW he can play but he's a bore to watch."

Poor and disrespectful arguments. A nasty habit?
Why this bashing? Is it so horrible to have Mick Taylor on 4-5 songs? Is it that horrible to please lots of fans who are deeply fond of a certain RS sound?

Come on! Say the truth about your connections with the RS' staff!

Are "Vegas shows" bores to attend? Obviously not for you.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-18 11:50 by MarkSchneider.

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Jesse

Quote
StonesTod
i live in the past cos the past was so much better. if anyone can show me a better present then i will consider living in it. Hurray for the past!

Do it! But that means toss out your computer and stop blogging.... Afterall THAT didn't exist back then. You can't reference music from youtube either. Get rid of your big flat screen tv and fancy music system and speakers. Didn't exist then -- but you'll like stereos!

And be prepared for a world that didn't address a slew of medical issues. If you're a woman (I doubt it though), will you be a beautician, secretary or happy homemaker?

I can go on and on but I seem to think you're not plugged into much intellectual stuff.

Oh yes, get rid of your microwave oven and cell phone too! HA!

can i keep my cute german shepherd? she's from the present but she's kind of a throwback dog.

I'll take your microwave, Tod. I'm not proud.

About that big screen TV...

I "Ain't Too Proud to Beg," Tod buddy.

Quote
stonesrule
and you're online?

I am amazing.....

Which one of you is the cool cat with great info?

Quote
winter
Of course the thread needs to remain up top. There are 6 shows left, including 2 where Taylor began his career with them. A token appearance during Satisfaction and a nightly Rambler may equal 16+ minutes on stage, but it's not an effective use of the guitarist they're bringing on the road with them. Is it greedy? Not at all. Give the man something that can showcase his strengths with the band.

I think many of us simply want to see him for 2 'regular' songs more suited to a simple lead break: LIV, ADTL, YCAGWYW, DF, Heartbreaker, etc. Rambler and Satisfaction are not those kind of songs; and those 2 songs weren't ones that needed a soloist on anyways.

...It would simply be nice as part of the overall celebration to have a few songs with more ably executed solos that take the listener somewhere and enhance the song.

Bringing him out cold for Rambler and then shuttling him off, egging him on to be 'entertaining'...and the band not taking the time to figure out how to incorporate him for 2-3 simple songs in a row despite having more offtime to rehearse between gigs than ever before.. is simply disappointing and a big waste of a special moment in time...a quick romp thru LIV and Heartbreaker would be less time on stage but a more satisfying use of him than Rambler...puzzling why they couldn't pull another Taylor appearance out during such a stellar show.

We don't need Taylor on stage for more time (16+ minutes), we want Taylor on for better songs suited for how Taylor circa 2013 and Stones circa 2013 can make the best music for their 50th anniversary jaunt.

Well put, from a fan who cares a lot. I relate to this.

Given Jagger's penchant for detail, and his generosity in extending the olive branch, why would he deliberatey compromise by denying the opportunity for MT to do what he does best? It's so strange, that it just, well it's unfathomable. Look how many people are freaking out on this thread.

Bad on you MJ and I love you.

OK so MT is there for whatever reason, payback let's say. Jagger, the band, the music, the fans, and MT would benefit greatly for just a little tweak to the format of the concerts so MT can display his gifts on the proper songs. It's really not that big a deal, and yet with the omission, Jagger is making it into one. I can't believe he does not "get" this. That no one notices, cares, or dares confront him about it.

Taylor is exciting and represents a significant period of this band which sadly does not get equal play to the rest of what they have become, as stated many times, a cover band of their own material. At this stage of the game his improvs won't be perfect every time, but of all bands, this one is quite forgiving in that regard. And that dangerous edge, that play of the "masters" is what makes it great: the energy they quite obviously enjoy when he participates.

To be sure (and fair), more rehearsal time, more practice on stage = more confidence & better playing as can be seen by the band in general. To deny that to their comrade and yet tolerate other guests messing up their performance, and CONTINUE in that vein is really surprising.

At some level RS Inc & friends are aware of this 70+ page petition. It has to penetrate that a large number of their most passionate core fans, who relate to and love this band like brothers, are upset.

Sorry for the long post, I reached the boiling point and just had to spew.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
runaway
Kleermaker;
Then we have the example of painters and composers. They usually produce better art when they get older and wiser people. See my favourite composer Mozart and one of those famous Dutch painters, Rembrandt.

I totally disagree with you
Rembrandt painted his masterpiece " The Night Watch' at the age of 36.
Vincent reached the age of 37-Leaving great paintings behind.

Maybe for tourists, but his later work is better though less famous.
Anyway, it's nothing physical whatsoever.

Some painters and composers produce better when they get older. Some painters and musicians make great art/music in their early years and some artists/musicians are capable to make great art/music in the long run.
Potatoes was made in 1885 and Arles in 1888. All this great art made in 10 years time. You do prefer the Arles period, a good choise, I've been there twice

Quote
LookoutMountain

Quote
winter
Of course the thread needs to remain up top. There are 6 shows left, including 2 where Taylor began his career with them. A token appearance during Satisfaction and a nightly Rambler may equal 16+ minutes on stage, but it's not an effective use of the guitarist they're bringing on the road with them. Is it greedy? Not at all. Give the man something that can showcase his strengths with the band.

I think many of us simply want to see him for 2 'regular' songs more suited to a simple lead break: LIV, ADTL, YCAGWYW, DF, Heartbreaker, etc. Rambler and Satisfaction are not those kind of songs; and those 2 songs weren't ones that needed a soloist on anyways.

...It would simply be nice as part of the overall celebration to have a few songs with more ably executed solos that take the listener somewhere and enhance the song.

Bringing him out cold for Rambler and then shuttling him off, egging him on to be 'entertaining'...and the band not taking the time to figure out how to incorporate him for 2-3 simple songs in a row despite having more offtime to rehearse between gigs than ever before.. is simply disappointing and a big waste of a special moment in time...a quick romp thru LIV and Heartbreaker would be less time on stage but a more satisfying use of him than Rambler...puzzling why they couldn't pull another Taylor appearance out during such a stellar show.

We don't need Taylor on stage for more time (16+ minutes), we want Taylor on for better songs suited for how Taylor circa 2013 and Stones circa 2013 can make the best music for their 50th anniversary jaunt.

Well put, from a fan who cares a lot. I relate to this.

Given Jagger's penchant for detail, and his generosity in extending the olive branch, why would he deliberatey compromise by denying the opportunity for MT to do what he does best? It's so strange, that it just, well it's unfathomable. Look how many people are freaking out on this thread.

Bad on you MJ and I love you.

OK so MT is there for whatever reason, payback let's say. Jagger, the band, the music, the fans, and MT would benefit greatly for just a little tweak to the format of the concerts so MT can display his gifts on the proper songs. It's really not that big a deal, and yet with the omission, Jagger is making it into one. I can't believe he does not "get" this. That no one notices, cares, or dares confront him about it.

Taylor is exciting and represents a significant period of this band which sadly does not get equal play to the rest of what they have become, as stated many times, a cover band of their own material. At this stage of the game his improvs won't be perfect every time, but of all bands, this one is quite forgiving in that regard. And that dangerous edge, that play of the "masters" is what makes it great: the energy they quite obviously enjoy when he participates.

To be sure (and fair), more rehearsal time, more practice on stage = more confidence & better playing as can be seen by the band in general. To deny that to their comrade and yet tolerate other guests messing up their performance, and CONTINUE in that vein is really surprising.

At some level RS Inc & friends are aware of this 70+ page petition. It has to penetrate that a large number of their most passionate core fans, who relate to and love this band like brothers, are upset.

Sorry for the long post, I reached the boiling point and just had to spew.

I very much agree with you. I think the problem is, our 70+ page petition holds no weight. Sure we have it, and maybe they know about it, but clearly we've had it the whole tour and they've done nothing about it. Its not like we've risen up in any way. We can't. We just have this thread, and even if they know there is a huge thread on here, they probably know it can't lead to anything. The only thing it'll make them think is "we are disappointing a lot of fans but dangling this meat in front of them, but they'll get over it. They always do." I don't think its how they should look at it, but thats a more realistic view of what they are probably doing, if they know at all.

The bottom line is, it is generous for them to bring Taylor on tour. Yes, he should get more time, and yes I agree he's not even really being used on the right songs so its almost like "well why did you bother". But he could very easily not be up there and the fact that he is at all is just incredible. That really shouldn't be forgotten. He was a major part of their golden period, but he's kind of over-idolized because he wasn't there that long. And I say that with much love for the guy. I know how important he was and he is my favorite Stones guitarist. But just like with the others in the band, his solo albums suck (well maybe not that harsh, but its not like they were good enough to merit any real recognition at all. Same as Jagger's, same as Keith's). The band works together as a unit, so he shined but it was because Jagger and Richards had the material for him to shine on. They don't really owe him anything, and in many ways its not their fault he left and fell out of the spotlight. Thats kind of what happens when you leave the Rolling Stones, even though I know at the time in his life he had no other choice.

NOW, having said all of that, the way they are treating him is ridiculous. Ok, they don't owe him anything IMO. But you brought him on tour, and now you're just not using him. You friggen practiced with him for several days. And ALL he's done this tour is the same song he did last year, add him to Satisfaction which essentially means nothing, and every now and then he gets one more song live. Its the mind boggling question of "if you didn't want to use him, why did you waste valuable time that you had to rehearse for your overall tour and dedicate at least two days just to Taylor. Only to add maybe 5% of those rehearsals to the show." Sorry, but its just plain stupid. Before this tour, they really owed him nothing, and now they've succeeded in showing people he still has the ability to play and building up more of a myth of how great he is. He is excellent, and I'm not overlooking that, but he has a legacy because he left. If they let him shine this tour, people would maybe think more realistically, and it would actually be better for Jagger and Richards, as they wouldn't get so much heat now for ignoring the best guitarist they had in the Stones. But no, they dangle the meat, and then look like more dicks than they have since the 70s by creating more fervor for Taylor. You wanted to use him less so he didn't overshadow, but sorry, you're lack of using him has only made it so that thats ALL people talk about.

You have a chance to recover, but I think its safe to say they blew it with Taylor this tour. On top of everything I just mentioned about using him less which causes more myth, they also have him in the final bows with the Stones. So if they want to minimalism his contribution to the band, don't put him in the final bows! Its like saying "yeah, he's just as important as us" which is then a completely contradictory statement because you have an important member backstage the whole show that you ignore. Taylor deserves to be in those final bows, but its baffling that Jagger and Richards don't see that they are contributing to Taylor being idolized in this band.

Sorry. Like the other poster, I just had to blow off steam. I do think this is a great tour, and I love all of the Stones. But if we want to look at the tour realistically, they are missing a huge opportunity for Taylor, which Jagger instigating and is then stabbing himself in the back with. He went out of his way to bring Taylor back, probably with the intention of limiting him and satisfying some. However, now we just want more, people see him as more of Stone than anyone has ever thought of him in the last 30 years, and as old 70 year old guys they literally blew off entire days playing with a guy they don't want to have the spotlight. Again, I like the tour, but you can't ignore the ridiculous logic they've had with its planning. If they were hoping to cool of the Taylorites, they only made it much much worse.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-18 11:01 by MarkSchneider.

@LookoutMountain & Rolling Freak

You both proved that this thread still has a reason to stay alive.
Great posts.

Just chiming in to repeat what many others have said, more Mick Taylor! Oh, yeah.
Having seen a few shows now, I think Mick J knows that he's bringing excitement
to the stage.

~"Love is Strong"~

Quote
RollingFreak

I do think this is a great tour, and I love all of the Stones. But if we want to look at the tour realistically, they are missing a huge opportunity for Taylor, which Jagger instigating and is then stabbing himself in the back with. He went out of his way to bring Taylor back, probably with the intention of limiting him and satisfying some. However, now we just want more, people see him as more of Stone than anyone has ever thought of him in the last 30 years, and as old 70 year old guys they literally blew off entire days playing with a guy they don't want to have the spotlight. Again, I like the tour, but you can't ignore the ridiculous logic they've had with its planning. If they were hoping to cool of the Taylorites, they only made it much much worse.

Rolling Freak, excellent points.
I love how rock & roll on one level so easy to digest -- rock out and party! -- and yet here is this epic passion play going on in front of our eyes steeped in intrigue. What can you say when hundreds of thousands of happy fans are entertained at these anniversary concerts and yet Taylor's marginalization on this tour is the elephant in the room for the core group of fans? It's disheartening to think that Jagger (if he's the responsible party) rationalizes that we'll get over it, we always do. He's catering to the masses but it shows us where his heart is, too. He cares, but he also withholds. And there is no no rhyme or reason. That's very confusing and dysfunctional. The same pattern keeps playing out, and people accept it, as Taylor has, most graciously it seems.

And yet...what was all of that about MT spontaneously getting down on his knees in front of the four core players during CYHMK and Jagger shaking the maracas over his head -- undeniably symbolic gesture of contrition, gratitude, forgiveness, benediction -- OK, not to go overboard but all of this is symbolic whether unconscious or intentional. And then what, that's it? It's done? Prodigal Son comes full cycle and healing happens, and then...no more spotlights even when there is not another special guest? But still ok to include him on Satisfaction (how ironic a title is that?) before final bows even though he really has not doe much on this tour, because he qualifies as a real Stone? Is that for him or them or what? The inconsistency of the pattern, the give, and then the take, leaves Jagger's choices open to scrutiny and if there is no accountability, then you get reams of agitation from fans like us who sincerely care. And I like that there is still hope that the RS will see the light and bring MT on for even just a couple of the tunes they rehearsed, or swap out Satisfaction for a more meaningful finale, especially for Hyde Park, 45 years plus one day after MT's debut with the band (7/6). Similarly, wouldn't it be appropriate if Marianne Faithfull came out to sing As Tears Go By? That is the kind of opportunity -- showmanship but also honor, full-circle resonance -- that cannot be missed! It's all there, Mr. Jagger. Please take it! If only because it makes YOU look better and enhances the legacy of your band!!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-18 21:17 by LookoutMountain.

Quote
LookoutMountain

Quote
RollingFreak

I do think this is a great tour, and I love all of the Stones. But if we want to look at the tour realistically, they are missing a huge opportunity for Taylor, which Jagger instigating and is then stabbing himself in the back with. He went out of his way to bring Taylor back, probably with the intention of limiting him and satisfying some. However, now we just want more, people see him as more of Stone than anyone has ever thought of him in the last 30 years, and as old 70 year old guys they literally blew off entire days playing with a guy they don't want to have the spotlight. Again, I like the tour, but you can't ignore the ridiculous logic they've had with its planning. If they were hoping to cool of the Taylorites, they only made it much much worse.

Excellent points here. I shall attempt to improvise upon your last paragraph.

I love that rock & roll seems on one level so easy to digest -- rock out and party! -- and yet here is this epic passion play going on in front of our eyes steeped in intrigue. What can you say when hundreds of thousands of happy fans are entertained at these anniversary concerts and yet Taylor's marginalization on this tour is the elephant in the room for the core group of fans? It's disheartening to think that Jagger (if he's the responsible party) "doesn't care" cause they'll get over it. He's catering to the masses but it shows us where his heart is, too. He cares, but he also withholds. And there is no explanation, no rhyme or reason. That's very confusing and dysfunctional reminds me of why kids get messed up by their parents, for the same reasons. The same pattern keeps playing out, and people accept it, as Taylor has, most graciously it seems.

What was all of that about MT spontaneously getting down on his knees in front of the four core players during CYHMK and Jagger shaking the maracas over his head -- undeniably symbolic gesture of contrition, gratitude, forgiveness, benediction -- OK, not to go overboard but all of this stagecraft that we see displayed is symbolic and means something. The final bows, with MT among them, as pointed out. If it's not conscious or intentional, then it is open to scrutiny and if there is no accountability, then you get reams of agitation from fans like us who sincerely care. And I like that there is still hope that the RS will see the light and bring MT on for the tunes they rehearsed, especially for Hyde Park, 45 years plus one day after MT's debut with the band (7/6) -- and wouldn't it be appropriate if Marianne Faithfull came out to sing As Tears Go By. That is the kind of opportunity that cannot be missed! It's all there, Mr. Jagger. Please take it! If only because it makes YOU look better and enhances the legacy of your band!!!

Perfectly said, especially the part I bolded. You are absolutely right. Its only they way they've handled Taylor that makes it impossible to ignore. Like I said, its a great tour and Taylor being there is excellent on its own, but its handling is one that just can't be ignored. The Mick Jagger thing is really tricky. Sorry to put all the blame on him, because we don't really know, although if you had to guess. If he wants to appeal to the masses, thats fine. Its not that weird and its within keeping of how the Stones have always operated. But to even acknowledge Taylor, you see on some level either he cares or he knows the fans do. Then for him to keep it so strict, it just shows he's either delusional or feels this is enough. It really is "why go that far, just to be a dick." It makes him look worse and he would have come off better if he never brought up Mick Taylor again. The one thing I understand in all of this is Taylor's behavior. He should be happy with whatever he gets, or at least portray that to the Stones because they could drop him any second. He won't make the same mistake again with pissing them off so he probably feels like he's not being used, but at least is smart enough to know he should never say that, at least until the tour is over.

But yeah, there really is some connection to him being there, because you see the looks on the guys faces. That can't ALL be for the cameras. They must genuinely feel something. We at least know Taylor is, as we do. Its sad that they seem so close to breaking out of their shell but yet just unable to do it for some reason. Why don't you just have fun on stage with your band and stop caring about structuring everything? The Mick Taylor improvised moments, the moments like Come On where the guys are just there having fun. I don't get why its so difficult for them. They are one of the biggest bands in the world and they have to know everything they do onstage means something to their worldwide fanbase. Yet they continue to open the lid and shut it extremely quickly. As I said, the damage is already done with using Taylor this tour. Hyde Park would be the last big chance, and it would be amazing if what we all think actually ends up happening, but there's also the annoying elephant of "well yeah, we wanted this all tour. So you wasted two months of a tour to get to one really amazing, special show."

Perhaps this tour will serve as a re-introduction to MT for the general public. Hopefully, if they continue in the future they will use him more. I would want him on any future album, even if only a song or two...

Page 73 is deserved of another plug for MT + the band in their 1973 heyday:



More MT please.

It really was the greatest period for the Stones wasn't it? Magical times, and to think someone could have dragged me to Philly in '72...heck I would have remembered that at 6 years old. Also never got over that I had aunts and uncles who saw Elvis. Considering I went to Beatlemania in NYC in like 1976 or so, I could easily have seen the King. My dad pretty much despised Elvis.

But at least he took me to see Ray Charles...

Oh yes more Mick Taylor, but not in the current setting. Something should change, like, I don't know, he playing guitar on ALL the '68-'74 songs. How about that? Watching Ronnie Wood plinking away anemically at treasures like TD, GS, BS...etc. etc. while MT is puffing backstage...anyway...

And beyond that MT would have to play in tempo, and stand in one place and play his damn guitar, which is something he's not always doing in these sideshow cameos.

I think Mick realized after that amazing four song performances of MT at Staples Center that the line had been crossed and realized it might quickly become Mick Taylor and the Rolling Stones. It was after that concert MTs number of performances declined.I was there in LA and am privilaged to have seen MT with the boys for the last time. I saw MT with the Stones at the Forum in 73 when he was in the band. MT is a guest now and I think he would love to play more but excepts what he is given. Say what you will about Ronnie. But I think HE is the one who got MT on this tour. They are good friends. But no one is going to upstage MJ. Thats why Keef, Ronnie, Daryll laugh at the end of a song MT plays on because they know it pisses off Mick.

Quote
paulm

And beyond that MT would have to play in tempo, and stand in one place and play his damn guitar, which is something he's not always doing in these sideshow cameos.

Indeed. I've also noticed that the 4 Ramblers from 2012 are ALL substantially better than the ones played during this tour, especially regarding Taylor's input. Maybe posing and showboating is contageous?