For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
sonomastoneQuote
MathijsQuote
kleermakerQuote
sonomastone
now this is winding down I find myself reflecting that while most bands from the 70s or 80s are touring with half their lineup from the time period, the stones incredibly brought Taylor back for a few numbers. No matter how financially motivated it was they all - mt and rw in particular - deserve a lot of credit for being mature about it.
And Taylor completed the whole American tour, against some predictions (expectations) here. Also Keith deserves credit for being nice to Taylor. I've the impression that for Keith's part Taylor would have played more. At least they seemed to get along very well. As we could read in Leavell's on line diary it was especially Jagger who was more reserved towards more Taylor. This is also visible on the LA 2 videos. Imo all guitarists had a good time together. At least there was lots of interaction between the three. Finally I remember Keith applauding quite some times after a Taylor appearance. And quite some smiling by Keith during Taylor's playing, which was a great element of this tour.
My impression was that Keith hardly knew he was on tour. And that Jagger had great plans with Taylor but that he just fvvcked up bigtime with his noodling so Jagger cut him out. And that Richards didn't give a flying fvvck about any of this at all.
But that just might be me.
Mathijs
hmm i had the feeling that KR, while definitely impaired in ability vs 30 years ago, was very focused on playing well. my basis for that is the lack of posing/goofing off/smoking on stage and the quality of his playing vs say much of the last 5 years.
on the other hand, the fact that keith went along with some of the special guests they had makes me think he had to be pretty checked out. it might not have been his call but he knows how to kick up a storm when he disagrees with something :-)
Quote
svt22
But then how do you want to define "loose" in musical terms? If you listen to Love in vain on ya ya's, it is played very loose, maybe the word relaxed is a better one, but at the same time it is well organized, meticulous as you put it, those two concepts can merge in one song.
But I get your point, at least I think so. When they started performing with Taylor, a beautiful start, the approach was a more save one in the sense that this pure young blues guitarist, who also liked to play rock&roll, was doing his obligate rhythm parts, solos and fills.. As time went by, the band became more well-organised raunch sounding anarchy, the "don't worry, nothing is under control" approach. I think it worked very well in '72, and even better in '73. The loose and meticulous /methodical approach was still there, although it all became a bit more foggy. There's just no academic explanation why the Stones sounded like they did then, apart from the growing concert technology in the Taylor years. That's what I liked most about the Stones apart from Taylor himself: It took 5 to tango. Richards and Jagger made it all possible.
Quote
MathijsQuote
sonomastoneQuote
MathijsQuote
kleermakerQuote
sonomastone
now this is winding down I find myself reflecting that while most bands from the 70s or 80s are touring with half their lineup from the time period, the stones incredibly brought Taylor back for a few numbers. No matter how financially motivated it was they all - mt and rw in particular - deserve a lot of credit for being mature about it.
And Taylor completed the whole American tour, against some predictions (expectations) here. Also Keith deserves credit for being nice to Taylor. I've the impression that for Keith's part Taylor would have played more. At least they seemed to get along very well. As we could read in Leavell's on line diary it was especially Jagger who was more reserved towards more Taylor. This is also visible on the LA 2 videos. Imo all guitarists had a good time together. At least there was lots of interaction between the three. Finally I remember Keith applauding quite some times after a Taylor appearance. And quite some smiling by Keith during Taylor's playing, which was a great element of this tour.
My impression was that Keith hardly knew he was on tour. And that Jagger had great plans with Taylor but that he just fvvcked up bigtime with his noodling so Jagger cut him out. And that Richards didn't give a flying fvvck about any of this at all.
But that just might be me.
Mathijs
hmm i had the feeling that KR, while definitely impaired in ability vs 30 years ago, was very focused on playing well. my basis for that is the lack of posing/goofing off/smoking on stage and the quality of his playing vs say much of the last 5 years.
on the other hand, the fact that keith went along with some of the special guests they had makes me think he had to be pretty checked out. it might not have been his call but he knows how to kick up a storm when he disagrees with something :-)
I found Richards just a shadow, really just a shadow. He looked concentrated, sure, but all he played was just really the basic stuff, just the basic chords, just the odd lick here and there. He looked like a really old man, playing something from a far, far away past.
I have no doubts that this tour Jagger called the shots. That was probably the agreement with Richards after his remarks in the Life book. I have no doubt Jagger and Leavell called the shots about the guests.
I am sure Jagger was thinking of ways to incease the appeal of this tour. He knew Richards is a spent force, he know Wood is a rusty player since the mid 90's. Inviting Taylor was the best idea in years for sure, but I bet it didn't work out as Jagger planned. I am sure that if Taylor would have blown off the roof at the 02 and during the December 2012 leg he would have gotten more spots. I am sure that if he played fantastic on Sway and CYHMK the songs would have been played on all shows, and he would have appeared on more songs during the tour. But Taylor just realy blew it by being unrehearsed and unprofessional with his gear.
Mathijs
Quote
kleermakerQuote
MathijsQuote
sonomastoneQuote
MathijsQuote
kleermakerQuote
sonomastone
now this is winding down I find myself reflecting that while most bands from the 70s or 80s are touring with half their lineup from the time period, the stones incredibly brought Taylor back for a few numbers. No matter how financially motivated it was they all - mt and rw in particular - deserve a lot of credit for being mature about it.
And Taylor completed the whole American tour, against some predictions (expectations) here. Also Keith deserves credit for being nice to Taylor. I've the impression that for Keith's part Taylor would have played more. At least they seemed to get along very well. As we could read in Leavell's on line diary it was especially Jagger who was more reserved towards more Taylor. This is also visible on the LA 2 videos. Imo all guitarists had a good time together. At least there was lots of interaction between the three. Finally I remember Keith applauding quite some times after a Taylor appearance. And quite some smiling by Keith during Taylor's playing, which was a great element of this tour.
My impression was that Keith hardly knew he was on tour. And that Jagger had great plans with Taylor but that he just fvvcked up bigtime with his noodling so Jagger cut him out. And that Richards didn't give a flying fvvck about any of this at all.
But that just might be me.
Mathijs
hmm i had the feeling that KR, while definitely impaired in ability vs 30 years ago, was very focused on playing well. my basis for that is the lack of posing/goofing off/smoking on stage and the quality of his playing vs say much of the last 5 years.
on the other hand, the fact that keith went along with some of the special guests they had makes me think he had to be pretty checked out. it might not have been his call but he knows how to kick up a storm when he disagrees with something :-)
I found Richards just a shadow, really just a shadow. He looked concentrated, sure, but all he played was just really the basic stuff, just the basic chords, just the odd lick here and there. He looked like a really old man, playing something from a far, far away past.
I have no doubts that this tour Jagger called the shots. That was probably the agreement with Richards after his remarks in the Life book. I have no doubt Jagger and Leavell called the shots about the guests.
I am sure Jagger was thinking of ways to incease the appeal of this tour. He knew Richards is a spent force, he know Wood is a rusty player since the mid 90's. Inviting Taylor was the best idea in years for sure, but I bet it didn't work out as Jagger planned. I am sure that if Taylor would have blown off the roof at the 02 and during the December 2012 leg he would have gotten more spots. I am sure that if he played fantastic on Sway and CYHMK the songs would have been played on all shows, and he would have appeared on more songs during the tour. But Taylor just realy blew it by being unrehearsed and unprofessional with his gear.
Mathijs
I remember the very positive comments by Jagger right after the London Ramblers. He cut off Taylor's much promising Sway solo at LA 2. After that Taylor blew the roof off the arena with Knocking. Everyone who was there or has watched the videos from that show knows it. It's clear that Jagger calls the shots (served by Leavell), but this quote from Leavell's diary says it all:
" 5/20/13
Our last show in California, and the second one at the Staples Center. As usual, I took one of the early vans and settled in to do the set list and prepare for sound check. No guest on board tonight…the first time on the tour that has happened…and I have to say, kind of nice to have a break from it and have it be just us. Of course Mick Taylor would guest as usual, and I took advantage of that to suggest he be on more tunes. We had a “By Request” for the first time in a couple of shows, and “Sway” had won that position. That would serve as one tune for Taylor to play on, and as I had been stressing to get “Can’t You Hear Me Knocking” in and finally convinced Mick J to do it, that would be another…and we kept “Midnight Rambler”, so that was the third. Actually, of late he has been coming out for the final encore and playing on “Satisfaction”, so it was actually four tunes he would play on. I suggested “Far Away Eyes”, which had the reference to Bakersfield…and “…sending $20 to the church of the Bleedin’ Hearts somewhere in Los An…” for fun. It turned out to be a very special show, and the hard cores lit up the Internet and YouTube with positive comments and snippets. Mick thought it was one “…unusual song” too many, but I personally disagreed and thought it was great. Not that he thought the set as a whole didn’t work…he liked it, too and of course liked the fact that the fans were chattering about it. He commented to me later…rightfully…that we didn’t quite get the reaction on “Far Away Eyes” that we thought we would…they liked it, but it didn’t seem to bowl them over like we anticipated. Still, ya gotta take some chances, and we both agree on that."
Quote
kleermakerQuote
MathijsQuote
sonomastoneQuote
MathijsQuote
kleermakerQuote
sonomastone
now this is winding down I find myself reflecting that while most bands from the 70s or 80s are touring with half their lineup from the time period, the stones incredibly brought Taylor back for a few numbers. No matter how financially motivated it was they all - mt and rw in particular - deserve a lot of credit for being mature about it.
And Taylor completed the whole American tour, against some predictions (expectations) here. Also Keith deserves credit for being nice to Taylor. I've the impression that for Keith's part Taylor would have played more. At least they seemed to get along very well. As we could read in Leavell's on line diary it was especially Jagger who was more reserved towards more Taylor. This is also visible on the LA 2 videos. Imo all guitarists had a good time together. At least there was lots of interaction between the three. Finally I remember Keith applauding quite some times after a Taylor appearance. And quite some smiling by Keith during Taylor's playing, which was a great element of this tour.
My impression was that Keith hardly knew he was on tour. And that Jagger had great plans with Taylor but that he just fvvcked up bigtime with his noodling so Jagger cut him out. And that Richards didn't give a flying fvvck about any of this at all.
But that just might be me.
Mathijs
hmm i had the feeling that KR, while definitely impaired in ability vs 30 years ago, was very focused on playing well. my basis for that is the lack of posing/goofing off/smoking on stage and the quality of his playing vs say much of the last 5 years.
on the other hand, the fact that keith went along with some of the special guests they had makes me think he had to be pretty checked out. it might not have been his call but he knows how to kick up a storm when he disagrees with something :-)
I found Richards just a shadow, really just a shadow. He looked concentrated, sure, but all he played was just really the basic stuff, just the basic chords, just the odd lick here and there. He looked like a really old man, playing something from a far, far away past.
I have no doubts that this tour Jagger called the shots. That was probably the agreement with Richards after his remarks in the Life book. I have no doubt Jagger and Leavell called the shots about the guests.
I am sure Jagger was thinking of ways to incease the appeal of this tour. He knew Richards is a spent force, he know Wood is a rusty player since the mid 90's. Inviting Taylor was the best idea in years for sure, but I bet it didn't work out as Jagger planned. I am sure that if Taylor would have blown off the roof at the 02 and during the December 2012 leg he would have gotten more spots. I am sure that if he played fantastic on Sway and CYHMK the songs would have been played on all shows, and he would have appeared on more songs during the tour. But Taylor just realy blew it by being unrehearsed and unprofessional with his gear.
Mathijs
I remember the very positive comments by Jagger right after the London Ramblers. He cut off Taylor's much promising Sway solo at LA 2. After that Taylor blew the roof off the arena with Knocking. Everyone who was there or has watched the videos from that show knows it. It's clear that Jagger calls the shots (served by Leavell), but this quote from Leavell's diary says it all:
" 5/20/13
Our last show in California, and the second one at the Staples Center. As usual, I took one of the early vans and settled in to do the set list and prepare for sound check. No guest on board tonight…the first time on the tour that has happened…and I have to say, kind of nice to have a break from it and have it be just us. Of course Mick Taylor would guest as usual, and I took advantage of that to suggest he be on more tunes. We had a “By Request” for the first time in a couple of shows, and “Sway” had won that position. That would serve as one tune for Taylor to play on, and as I had been stressing to get “Can’t You Hear Me Knocking” in and finally convinced Mick J to do it, that would be another…and we kept “Midnight Rambler”, so that was the third. Actually, of late he has been coming out for the final encore and playing on “Satisfaction”, so it was actually four tunes he would play on. I suggested “Far Away Eyes”, which had the reference to Bakersfield…and “…sending $20 to the church of the Bleedin’ Hearts somewhere in Los An…” for fun. It turned out to be a very special show, and the hard cores lit up the Internet and YouTube with positive comments and snippets. Mick thought it was one “…unusual song” too many, but I personally disagreed and thought it was great. Not that he thought the set as a whole didn’t work…he liked it, too and of course liked the fact that the fans were chattering about it. He commented to me later…rightfully…that we didn’t quite get the reaction on “Far Away Eyes” that we thought we would…they liked it, but it didn’t seem to bowl them over like we anticipated. Still, ya gotta take some chances, and we both agree on that."
Quote
Edward TwiningQuote
svt22
But then how do you want to define "loose" in musical terms? If you listen to Love in vain on ya ya's, it is played very loose, maybe the word relaxed is a better one, but at the same time it is well organized, meticulous as you put it, those two concepts can merge in one song.
But I get your point, at least I think so. When they started performing with Taylor, a beautiful start, the approach was a more save one in the sense that this pure young blues guitarist, who also liked to play rock&roll, was doing his obligate rhythm parts, solos and fills.. As time went by, the band became more well-organised raunch sounding anarchy, the "don't worry, nothing is under control" approach. I think it worked very well in '72, and even better in '73. The loose and meticulous /methodical approach was still there, although it all became a bit more foggy. There's just no academic explanation why the Stones sounded like they did then, apart from the growing concert technology in the Taylor years. That's what I liked most about the Stones apart from Taylor himself: It took 5 to tango. Richards and Jagger made it all possible.
I think in the case of 'Love In Vain', svt22, the original focus of the live version was more simplistic, with just the basic group set up - the guitar, drums, slide and Jagger's vocals, which were played very well - very precisely so to speak, whereas by 72 the song had been augmented by horns, in almost a memphis soul style at its climax, and especially in combination with Jagger's more raw and soulful vocals. The group very much expanded on the song's original vision where the first step had been in 69 Taylor's wonderful slide playing, and then by 72, the addition of the horns. The 69 version was the song in its more pure form, but by 72 the Stones were experimenting with different textures. There are times i feel that the GET YER YA YAS OUT! is the definiive live take on the song, because of its precision, but the 72/73 versions are the ones i find most exciting to listen to, ultimately.
Personally i do prefer the Stones 72/73 live performances to the 69 shows, because of their looseness and spontaneity, and raw energy. I think especially in the case of Keith and Mick Taylor, who had by that time built a level of telepathy within their playing where they were more readily willing to take more chances, which only really playing together over time can truly allow for. They complimented each other so perfectly with Keith raunchy rhythm playing and Taylor's wonderful lead playing and beautiful counter melodies. Those shows through 1972 and early 1973 are the Stones live pinnacle in my opinion. Yes, i do love the 73 European tour too, and BRUSSELS AFFAIR, but i find the Stones much 'warmer' sounding in those earlier shows without so many theatrics, and less brutality, and especially from Jagger. Those Australian bootlegs from 73 remain my favourites, and especially with the inclusion of 'Love In Vain', and 'Little Queenie' in the setlist, which were dropped from the later tour.
I remember meeting Mick Taylor in 2004 after one of his concerts and chatting to him. As soon as i mentioned how great the Stones were when he was in the band, he turned his head away, and refused to acknowledge me. At that time i really did believe his bitterness towards the Stones was so great that there was next to no chance of him forming any musical relationship with them again. I am so pleased i have been proved wrong. My thoughts are he's in better shape musically today than the other members of the band. He still takes the Stones to that other level, although for much of the time it's only he who's willing to step up.
Huh?...Maybe for a bar band walk-on...don't they have an army of techies behind the stage to make sure the gear is okay?Quote
Mathijs
But Taylor just realy blew it by being unrehearsed and unprofessional with his gear.
Mathijs
Quote
kleermakerQuote
MathijsQuote
sonomastoneQuote
MathijsQuote
kleermakerQuote
sonomastone
now this is winding down I find myself reflecting that while most bands from the 70s or 80s are touring with half their lineup from the time period, the stones incredibly brought Taylor back for a few numbers. No matter how financially motivated it was they all - mt and rw in particular - deserve a lot of credit for being mature about it.
And Taylor completed the whole American tour, against some predictions (expectations) here. Also Keith deserves credit for being nice to Taylor. I've the impression that for Keith's part Taylor would have played more. At least they seemed to get along very well. As we could read in Leavell's on line diary it was especially Jagger who was more reserved towards more Taylor. This is also visible on the LA 2 videos. Imo all guitarists had a good time together. At least there was lots of interaction between the three. Finally I remember Keith applauding quite some times after a Taylor appearance. And quite some smiling by Keith during Taylor's playing, which was a great element of this tour.
My impression was that Keith hardly knew he was on tour. And that Jagger had great plans with Taylor but that he just fvvcked up bigtime with his noodling so Jagger cut him out. And that Richards didn't give a flying fvvck about any of this at all.
But that just might be me.
Mathijs
hmm i had the feeling that KR, while definitely impaired in ability vs 30 years ago, was very focused on playing well. my basis for that is the lack of posing/goofing off/smoking on stage and the quality of his playing vs say much of the last 5 years.
on the other hand, the fact that keith went along with some of the special guests they had makes me think he had to be pretty checked out. it might not have been his call but he knows how to kick up a storm when he disagrees with something :-)
I found Richards just a shadow, really just a shadow. He looked concentrated, sure, but all he played was just really the basic stuff, just the basic chords, just the odd lick here and there. He looked like a really old man, playing something from a far, far away past.
I have no doubts that this tour Jagger called the shots. That was probably the agreement with Richards after his remarks in the Life book. I have no doubt Jagger and Leavell called the shots about the guests.
I am sure Jagger was thinking of ways to incease the appeal of this tour. He knew Richards is a spent force, he know Wood is a rusty player since the mid 90's. Inviting Taylor was the best idea in years for sure, but I bet it didn't work out as Jagger planned. I am sure that if Taylor would have blown off the roof at the 02 and during the December 2012 leg he would have gotten more spots. I am sure that if he played fantastic on Sway and CYHMK the songs would have been played on all shows, and he would have appeared on more songs during the tour. But Taylor just realy blew it by being unrehearsed and unprofessional with his gear.
Mathijs
I remember the very positive comments by Jagger right after the London Ramblers. He cut off Taylor's much promising Sway solo at LA 2. After that Taylor blew the roof off the arena with Knocking. Everyone who was there or has watched the videos from that show knows it. It's clear that Jagger calls the shots (served by Leavell), but this quote from Leavell's diary says it all:
" 5/20/13
Our last show in California, and the second one at the Staples Center. As usual, I took one of the early vans and settled in to do the set list and prepare for sound check. No guest on board tonight…the first time on the tour that has happened…and I have to say, kind of nice to have a break from it and have it be just us. Of course Mick Taylor would guest as usual, and I took advantage of that to suggest he be on more tunes. We had a “By Request” for the first time in a couple of shows, and “Sway” had won that position. That would serve as one tune for Taylor to play on, and as I had been stressing to get “Can’t You Hear Me Knocking” in and finally convinced Mick J to do it, that would be another…and we kept “Midnight Rambler”, so that was the third. Actually, of late he has been coming out for the final encore and playing on “Satisfaction”, so it was actually four tunes he would play on. I suggested “Far Away Eyes”, which had the reference to Bakersfield…and “…sending $20 to the church of the Bleedin’ Hearts somewhere in Los An…” for fun. It turned out to be a very special show, and the hard cores lit up the Internet and YouTube with positive comments and snippets. Mick thought it was one “…unusual song” too many, but I personally disagreed and thought it was great. Not that he thought the set as a whole didn’t work…he liked it, too and of course liked the fact that the fans were chattering about it. He commented to me later…rightfully…that we didn’t quite get the reaction on “Far Away Eyes” that we thought we would…they liked it, but it didn’t seem to bowl them over like we anticipated. Still, ya gotta take some chances, and we both agree on that."
Quote
MathijsQuote
kleermakerQuote
MathijsQuote
sonomastoneQuote
MathijsQuote
kleermakerQuote
sonomastone
now this is winding down I find myself reflecting that while most bands from the 70s or 80s are touring with half their lineup from the time period, the stones incredibly brought Taylor back for a few numbers. No matter how financially motivated it was they all - mt and rw in particular - deserve a lot of credit for being mature about it.
And Taylor completed the whole American tour, against some predictions (expectations) here. Also Keith deserves credit for being nice to Taylor. I've the impression that for Keith's part Taylor would have played more. At least they seemed to get along very well. As we could read in Leavell's on line diary it was especially Jagger who was more reserved towards more Taylor. This is also visible on the LA 2 videos. Imo all guitarists had a good time together. At least there was lots of interaction between the three. Finally I remember Keith applauding quite some times after a Taylor appearance. And quite some smiling by Keith during Taylor's playing, which was a great element of this tour.
My impression was that Keith hardly knew he was on tour. And that Jagger had great plans with Taylor but that he just fvvcked up bigtime with his noodling so Jagger cut him out. And that Richards didn't give a flying fvvck about any of this at all.
But that just might be me.
Mathijs
hmm i had the feeling that KR, while definitely impaired in ability vs 30 years ago, was very focused on playing well. my basis for that is the lack of posing/goofing off/smoking on stage and the quality of his playing vs say much of the last 5 years.
on the other hand, the fact that keith went along with some of the special guests they had makes me think he had to be pretty checked out. it might not have been his call but he knows how to kick up a storm when he disagrees with something :-)
I found Richards just a shadow, really just a shadow. He looked concentrated, sure, but all he played was just really the basic stuff, just the basic chords, just the odd lick here and there. He looked like a really old man, playing something from a far, far away past.
I have no doubts that this tour Jagger called the shots. That was probably the agreement with Richards after his remarks in the Life book. I have no doubt Jagger and Leavell called the shots about the guests.
I am sure Jagger was thinking of ways to incease the appeal of this tour. He knew Richards is a spent force, he know Wood is a rusty player since the mid 90's. Inviting Taylor was the best idea in years for sure, but I bet it didn't work out as Jagger planned. I am sure that if Taylor would have blown off the roof at the 02 and during the December 2012 leg he would have gotten more spots. I am sure that if he played fantastic on Sway and CYHMK the songs would have been played on all shows, and he would have appeared on more songs during the tour. But Taylor just realy blew it by being unrehearsed and unprofessional with his gear.
Mathijs
I remember the very positive comments by Jagger right after the London Ramblers. He cut off Taylor's much promising Sway solo at LA 2. After that Taylor blew the roof off the arena with Knocking. Everyone who was there or has watched the videos from that show knows it. It's clear that Jagger calls the shots (served by Leavell), but this quote from Leavell's diary says it all:
" 5/20/13
Our last show in California, and the second one at the Staples Center. As usual, I took one of the early vans and settled in to do the set list and prepare for sound check. No guest on board tonight…the first time on the tour that has happened…and I have to say, kind of nice to have a break from it and have it be just us. Of course Mick Taylor would guest as usual, and I took advantage of that to suggest he be on more tunes. We had a “By Request” for the first time in a couple of shows, and “Sway” had won that position. That would serve as one tune for Taylor to play on, and as I had been stressing to get “Can’t You Hear Me Knocking” in and finally convinced Mick J to do it, that would be another…and we kept “Midnight Rambler”, so that was the third. Actually, of late he has been coming out for the final encore and playing on “Satisfaction”, so it was actually four tunes he would play on. I suggested “Far Away Eyes”, which had the reference to Bakersfield…and “…sending $20 to the church of the Bleedin’ Hearts somewhere in Los An…” for fun. It turned out to be a very special show, and the hard cores lit up the Internet and YouTube with positive comments and snippets. Mick thought it was one “…unusual song” too many, but I personally disagreed and thought it was great. Not that he thought the set as a whole didn’t work…he liked it, too and of course liked the fact that the fans were chattering about it. He commented to me later…rightfully…that we didn’t quite get the reaction on “Far Away Eyes” that we thought we would…they liked it, but it didn’t seem to bowl them over like we anticipated. Still, ya gotta take some chances, and we both agree on that."
But you know this is all utter bullshit, right? If you believe this crap you also believe Coca Cola is healthy for you, and hamburgers make you slim.
Rhetoric.
You realy think they are surprised about te audience's reaction to Far Away Eyes after touring for 50 years and playing for a gazillion people? You believe that?
In the context of this text (LA) I believe that. Why not?
You really believe 'Sway' would win any voting contest over any of the big hits?
Here you're contradicting yourself blatantly.
You really believe any of them would consider the 'hardcores' (about 100 people) over the actual audience paying bucks to see them?
Sure....
You certainly never take a look at YouTube ... Besides many concert goers are older than you and have seen the Stones during the Taylor era. Finally you intendedly neglect all my arguments, especially the crowd's response to all the Knockings. The easy way out.
But Stonescat has already refuted your argument adequately.
Mathijs
Quote
kleermaker
Man was this great:
Quote
alimenteQuote
kleermaker
Man was this great:
In theory, yes. The overall sound was great. But I hear bum chords/missed chord changes in the first section. And while Taylor has a fantastic tone/sound in the final jam section, I hear lots of insecurities, passages where he simply stumbles, and that's not something I associate with Taylor, that was usually Ronnie's "forte" in the past when a melodic and fluid solo was required. That's why I always wished Taylor back for songs that begged for decent guitar solos. But now I feel that with Taylor I got what I already had with Ronnie! I am particularily disappointed with Taylor's playing on Rambler which has nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing in common with his playing on this very song from 1969 to 1973. No complaints with his playing on the few Sways during this tour, though. But overall, my initial "Taylor back" enthusiasm did not sustain very long.
Quote
kpl
The most remarkable thing about the 73 tour. Is MT never left the stage as he played lead guitar with the opening act Billy Prestons band. If you have not heard the Billy Preston live from 73 CD its worth listening to as MT plays great on every tune. Would have been awsome event to attend. Full sets with MT on the same night with two ddifferent bands!!
Quote
duffydawgQuote
alimenteQuote
kleermaker
Man was this great:
In theory, yes. The overall sound was great. But I hear bum chords/missed chord changes in the first section. And while Taylor has a fantastic tone/sound in the final jam section, I hear lots of insecurities, passages where he simply stumbles, and that's not something I associate with Taylor, that was usually Ronnie's "forte" in the past when a melodic and fluid solo was required. That's why I always wished Taylor back for songs that begged for decent guitar solos. But now I feel that with Taylor I got what I already had with Ronnie! I am particularily disappointed with Taylor's playing on Rambler which has nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing in common with his playing on this very song from 1969 to 1973. No complaints with his playing on the few Sways during this tour, though. But overall, my initial "Taylor back" enthusiasm did not sustain very long.
I know at least 100 fans that have been to Stones shows this tour....all of them thought MT carried the load. I have been to quite a few message boards and only this one has idiots that even come close to criticizing MT. Above is silly but typical of this Board. Sigh....
If some of these anti-MT lunatics would put the same scrutiny to RW and Keef's play they would be sadly disappointed. You do realize that RW acts like a poster child for ADHD onstage. I mean if you get one or two cohesive solos from the old sodd at a concert, great. But to see that these two are in the same league as MT - a venerated virtuoso guitarist is beyond laughable.
Indeed I went with a few professional musicians. They all thought MT did an outstanding job for only doing a few songs a night and overcoming a lot - including DETOX.
Only on this Board does these nutbags come out. I guess idiots have opinions too...
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
duffydawgQuote
alimenteQuote
kleermaker
Man was this great:
In theory, yes. The overall sound was great. But I hear bum chords/missed chord changes in the first section. And while Taylor has a fantastic tone/sound in the final jam section, I hear lots of insecurities, passages where he simply stumbles, and that's not something I associate with Taylor, that was usually Ronnie's "forte" in the past when a melodic and fluid solo was required. That's why I always wished Taylor back for songs that begged for decent guitar solos. But now I feel that with Taylor I got what I already had with Ronnie! I am particularily disappointed with Taylor's playing on Rambler which has nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing in common with his playing on this very song from 1969 to 1973. No complaints with his playing on the few Sways during this tour, though. But overall, my initial "Taylor back" enthusiasm did not sustain very long.
I know at least 100 fans that have been to Stones shows this tour....all of them thought MT carried the load. I have been to quite a few message boards and only this one has idiots that even come close to criticizing MT. Above is silly but typical of this Board. Sigh....
If some of these anti-MT lunatics would put the same scrutiny to RW and Keef's play they would be sadly disappointed. You do realize that RW acts like a poster child for ADHD onstage. I mean if you get one or two cohesive solos from the old sodd at a concert, great. But to see that these two are in the same league as MT - a venerated virtuoso guitarist is beyond laughable.
Indeed I went with a few professional musicians. They all thought MT did an outstanding job for only doing a few songs a night and overcoming a lot - including DETOX.
Only on this Board does these nutbags come out. I guess idiots have opinions too...
CARRIED THE LOAD??
Quote
marianna
It's the same small group of people here and on the other couple of Stones boards who post repetitively that they don't like Mick Taylor's playing on this tour, and they usually don't like his playing in general. Mick Taylor did a great job with the limited amount of songs he did get to play on. If he had any flaws here and there, there are plenty of examples of Ron and Keith having plenty of flaws in their playing, and their playing was much more simplistic. Mick's playing is more ambitious and challenging than those other two guys, and they would acknowledge that fact. Ron Wood in particular has always been very complimentary of Mick Taylor and in fact, they play well together, when given the chance. They just didn't get much of a chance on this tour.
Quote
kleermaker
Man was this great:
Quote
DandelionPowderman
but they still put on a more than fine show.