Tell Me :
Talk
Not only Keith on Fallon's show, and Mick Jagger talking about a larger role, but Ronnie Wood also talked about Taylor doing more songs with them on a radio interview as well.
I was there too. I saw the '69 and '72 U.S. tours and after Mick Jagger (well after Jagger) people were talking about Keith Richards, the guy who wrote the songs and played all of Beggars Banquet and almost all of Let it Bleed, and was the epitome of rock and roll cool. There were still a lot of people who said the band died with Brian Jones. Obviously there were some people who dug Mick Taylor but there were also Stones fans who disn't appreciate the move into guitar solo heroism. I think Taylor was very important in moving the Stones into the 70's, but that everyone was talking about him? Only guitar worshipping boys. The real crux of this "argument" isn't even MT versus Ronnie, it's MT versus Keith.
Incidentially, I'd like to see MT play more too, so don't misunderstand. I think he would add a different bluesy dimension (danger too). And I like Woody. But I guess it's hard to have someone play an in between role. When Rod had Beck for those couple of shows and he played on like five songs, it was the highlight but also distracting.
Oops: forgot I also saw them in '73 at Nicaragua benefit.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-07 23:18 by TeddyB1018.
Teddy - Don't know where your from, but out here in So. Cal, besides us guitar
worhippers, alot of the girls I was hanging around with were not talking up "Keith" it was Jagger, then that incredible new guitarist they have...
Keith with his cavities in his front tooth (Gimme Shelter) didn't turn these
babes on much.. But we are on the same page, it sounds like in regards to what
Taylor brought to the Stones - back then. here's hoping they are working him in slowly... MLC
Unfortunately I don't think Mick Taylor is in a position to help on any of the real issues.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-08 00:34 by Max'sKansasCity.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-08 00:38 by DoomandGloom.
To be fair "guitar solo heroism" didn't really start until '72 (I would argue '73). In '69 Keith was playing a lot of lead and Taylor was playing some rhythm. It was a much more integrated guitar set-up. Also, very few people acknowledge that it was not necessarily all Taylor's doing that the lead/rhythm guitar thing got so separated. Keith got very into open-G rhythm. That's what he wanted to play at that time. Is it supposed to be Mick Taylor's fault that Keith wanted to be mostly a rhythm guitar player for several years? If he liked "weaving" so much he should have kept the guitar duties divided up in a way that more resembled 1969.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-08 01:07 by 71Tele.
ah. no self-aggrandizing at all. thanks for the clarification.
Well, I think one thing that is going on is that because MT is only being alotted one song, he is trying to make the most of it and hamming it up in a way that doesn't come natural for him. It's funny though, because many people who are criticizing him for moving around too much and waving his arms, etc. are the same people who didn't like him because he stood still and didn't "look like a Stone". So which way do you want it, folks?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-08 01:14 by 71Tele.
Apparently indulging in alcohol or other various substances to the point where one can barely function onstage (certain RS members in the past) is ok, but there is no forgiving being overweight.
Sounds like guitar playing.... guitar playing that hundreds of thousands of guitar players the world over could do the same way.
Not bashing. Just saying there is a double standard in rock & roll about drugs vs. weight. Over indulging in drinking or drugs is sort of considered a rock & roll sign of authenticity while weight gain is seen as completely inconsistent with rock & roll glory. You can be a drunk, but not fat. I find this regrettable. Speaking of Ronnie: he has his stuff together and is playing better than in years. I love the sound he is getting. Twangy and in your face (Dead Flowers is a great example). I couldn't be happier.
liar. you could be plenty happier and you know it.
In all my Stones concerts, multiple stops on every tour since 1981, and Ronnie did his job perfectly every time. Maybe people hit the wrong shows, but every time I saw him, he was perfect.
...and it is at this point someone post that mislabeled "Ronnie drunk" youtube clip.... the clip is doesnt show that.... so please dont bother.
How you doing up there in the peanut gallery? Ya got enough peanuts? plenty to drink?
Come on Max!
Your undying love for Ronnie is quite admirable, and defending him at all costs is very brave, but NOBODY'S PERFECT.
Or maybe Ronnie is perfect, and maybe I hit all the wrong shows...lol.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
I like him standing still and just playing, but as long as he is playing well I don't care what he does.
I agree with the observations about Oakland. I don't think that it makes me anti-Taylor to say he didn't play as well as he could, I think it merely means I have a high opinion of what he is capable of. He did not come off as a man on top of his game. Having said that, I'm glad he came out for a bow and would welcome him playing on more tracks.
Maybe you did... but I just call it like I see it, and sometimes that is unpopular. I may call one thing the way someone agrees and they like me.... but on the next topic I call it the other way, and now they hate me forever.... but what can I do?
If I had seen Ronnie play bad, for what ever reason I would say it, I dont pull punches and I have no reason to support Ronnie except to give him props for playing great at all of the shows I have seen.
And yeah, after reading here on IORR I guess the Stones have played somoe "off shows" over the years... but never one I was at.... I guess I am just lucky, or picked the right cities... Tornoto, LA, Chicgao, Nashville... maybe places they played more on it, or something.
Dead Flowers was great, wasn't it? I don't care what any of them look like. I come to listen and watch them play. I think Mick T should resolve to play so F***in well in San Jose this week that the crowd starts chanting for him to stay on stage. I'd love to see that. And if he goes out every night determined to do that, sooner or later they are going to have to let him play more.
With all due respect Max (because I am not privy to what concerts you were at) that simply has not been the experience of most people who have gone to shows during a certain period of time. Ronnie himself has admitted this, and the fact that he has been in rehab at least seven times means that there was a problem. You seem to be the only one in denial about it.
Regardless, I referred to "members" - plural - and was not taking a swipe at Ronnie. I was pointing out a well-known fact about more than one member of the Stones, and the fact that Mick Taylor's weight is treated much more derisively than the conditions of others whose problems affected their performance far more than Mick Taylor's weight has affected his. That is of course, if music and performance are what one cares most about in the Rolling Stones rather than image.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-08 02:00 by 71Tele.
As a human being? Yes, I could be. I was limiting to my happiness to the narrow scope of Ron Wood's current playing. It's a relative thing, but yes, I am happy with his playing, which hasn't always been the case.
you're on thin ice as it is with your very-near self-congratulatory biz today. i'd pipe down and lay low if i were you were...we're keeping a VERY close watch.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
SweetThing
()
Date: May 7, 2013 22:58
Quote
rambler44This further proves how the Stones purposely misled fans into believing Taylor would play a bigger role just to sell tickets. And the arrogance that there has been no explanation provided is disgusting.
Not only Keith on Fallon's show, and Mick Jagger talking about a larger role, but Ronnie Wood also talked about Taylor doing more songs with them on a radio interview as well.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
StonesCat
()
Date: May 7, 2013 23:04
I'm hoping for 3-4 songs myself, but the first thing that has to change is his 1 current song. It won't help anybody looking to see a lot of MT at the shows, but if they would at least vary his slot, it would provide some songs for fodder. At that rate you would get 6-10 songs, enough for a decent Stones w/MT live comp for fans to put together.
Rambler is such a showcase, with or without MT, that they've kind of boxed him into a corner. It's a great live song, the fans always love it, so it's always in the setlist. If Taylor's one tune was some obscurity to the casual fan, it might help get some turnover in his material, ha ha.
Rambler is such a showcase, with or without MT, that they've kind of boxed him into a corner. It's a great live song, the fans always love it, so it's always in the setlist. If Taylor's one tune was some obscurity to the casual fan, it might help get some turnover in his material, ha ha.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
TeddyB1018
()
Date: May 7, 2013 23:12
Quote
MCDDTLCQuote
TeddyB1018Quote
kpl
The whole tour is becoming a drag already. The reivew of last nights show in the Oakland paper was spot on. The WEAK LINK in their sound is Keith and Ronnie.
I love the quote in the article "its a shame they are going out this way". Mick Taylor could rescue this tour and make it more than an Las Vegas show biz act and bring his special magic to energize the band again.
In Bill Wymans book he said the band never sounded better than they did with Mick Taylor. "He was such a good musicain, we all had to elevate our game".
I have no hope now MT will be used on more than one track on this tour. Keith's comments on Fallon and Jaggers comments in RS appear to be BS.
I will always have Ya, Ya's, Brussels affair and the many bootlegs from 69 to 73 showing Mick Taylors live exotic brilliance.
Also, I will always have Winter, Sway, Time Waits for No Man, All Down the Line ect ect ect in the studio to remind my ears that at one time this band was special and electrifying.
Have you seen a show? Tours in the Stones' heyday were not about YouTube, or setlists, or live audience recordings, or bootlegs. It was about going to see them when they came to your town. Mick Taylor was far less glorified by the audience when he was in the group than by people who have grown up on bootleg recordings. I'm not denigrating his contribution, but when the live show was about the in person experience, it was a different world than the one on this message board.
Teddy - WRONG!!! Sorry but after Jagger the one band member EVERYONE was talking
about in 1969 , 1972 & 1973 was: MICK TAYLOR!!!!! because of what he was doing
LIVE in concert. Back in those days, if you didn't have it, musically people walked out on you, saw that a few times, back then when "headliners" had someone better open for them, but back on point, the buzz on the street & radio was how
good the Stones were live, the reason was this kid on Lead Guitar who was the focal point of the Stones live sound - believe me he was glorified by the people going to and "listening" to what was comming off the stage.. MLC
I was there too. I saw the '69 and '72 U.S. tours and after Mick Jagger (well after Jagger) people were talking about Keith Richards, the guy who wrote the songs and played all of Beggars Banquet and almost all of Let it Bleed, and was the epitome of rock and roll cool. There were still a lot of people who said the band died with Brian Jones. Obviously there were some people who dug Mick Taylor but there were also Stones fans who disn't appreciate the move into guitar solo heroism. I think Taylor was very important in moving the Stones into the 70's, but that everyone was talking about him? Only guitar worshipping boys. The real crux of this "argument" isn't even MT versus Ronnie, it's MT versus Keith.
Incidentially, I'd like to see MT play more too, so don't misunderstand. I think he would add a different bluesy dimension (danger too). And I like Woody. But I guess it's hard to have someone play an in between role. When Rod had Beck for those couple of shows and he played on like five songs, it was the highlight but also distracting.
Oops: forgot I also saw them in '73 at Nicaragua benefit.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-07 23:18 by TeddyB1018.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
DoomandGloom
()
Date: May 7, 2013 23:25
I'm going on hunger strike...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-07 23:25 by DoomandGloom.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-07 23:25 by DoomandGloom.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
MCDDTLC
()
Date: May 7, 2013 23:57
Quote
TeddyB1018Quote
MCDDTLCQuote
TeddyB1018Quote
kpl
The whole tour is becoming a drag already. The reivew of last nights show in the Oakland paper was spot on. The WEAK LINK in their sound is Keith and Ronnie.
I love the quote in the article "its a shame they are going out this way". Mick Taylor could rescue this tour and make it more than an Las Vegas show biz act and bring his special magic to energize the band again.
In Bill Wymans book he said the band never sounded better than they did with Mick Taylor. "He was such a good musicain, we all had to elevate our game".
I have no hope now MT will be used on more than one track on this tour. Keith's comments on Fallon and Jaggers comments in RS appear to be BS.
I will always have Ya, Ya's, Brussels affair and the many bootlegs from 69 to 73 showing Mick Taylors live exotic brilliance.
Also, I will always have Winter, Sway, Time Waits for No Man, All Down the Line ect ect ect in the studio to remind my ears that at one time this band was special and electrifying.
Have you seen a show? Tours in the Stones' heyday were not about YouTube, or setlists, or live audience recordings, or bootlegs. It was about going to see them when they came to your town. Mick Taylor was far less glorified by the audience when he was in the group than by people who have grown up on bootleg recordings. I'm not denigrating his contribution, but when the live show was about the in person experience, it was a different world than the one on this message board.
Teddy - WRONG!!! Sorry but after Jagger the one band member EVERYONE was talking
about in 1969 , 1972 & 1973 was: MICK TAYLOR!!!!! because of what he was doing
LIVE in concert. Back in those days, if you didn't have it, musically people walked out on you, saw that a few times, back then when "headliners" had someone better open for them, but back on point, the buzz on the street & radio was how
good the Stones were live, the reason was this kid on Lead Guitar who was the focal point of the Stones live sound - believe me he was glorified by the people going to and "listening" to what was comming off the stage.. MLC
I was there too. I saw the '69 and '72 U.S. tours and after Mick Jagger (well after Jagger) people were talking about Keith Richards, the guy who wrote the songs and played all of Beggars Banquet and almost all of Let it Bleed, and was the epitome of rock and roll cool. There were still a lot of people who said the band died with Brian Jones. Obviously there were some people who dug Mick Taylor but there were also Stones fans who disn't appreciate the move into guitar solo heroism. I think Taylor was very important in moving the Stones into the 70's, but that everyone was talking about him? Only guitar worshipping boys. The real crux of this "argument" isn't even MT versus Ronnie, it's MT versus Keith.
Incidentially, I'd like to see MT play more too, so don't misunderstand. I think he would add a different bluesy dimension (danger too). And I like Woody. But I guess it's hard to have someone play an in between role. When Rod had Beck for those couple of shows and he played on like five songs, it was the highlight but also distracting.
Oops: forgot I also saw them in '73 at Nicaragua benefit.
Teddy - Don't know where your from, but out here in So. Cal, besides us guitar
worhippers, alot of the girls I was hanging around with were not talking up "Keith" it was Jagger, then that incredible new guitarist they have...
Keith with his cavities in his front tooth (Gimme Shelter) didn't turn these
babes on much.. But we are on the same page, it sounds like in regards to what
Taylor brought to the Stones - back then. here's hoping they are working him in slowly... MLC
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: May 8, 2013 00:22
Quote
Max'sKansasCity
I wonder how many here who appear so emotional, and overly concerned, about getting Taylor more songs on this tour and spending so much of their time and effort posting so many words here, have ever spent a fraction of that time and effort either thinking about, or actually doing something, to help fight against REAL problems in this world. For instance.....
Slavery still exists, and many new laws fighting human trafficking are needed to fight it.
The worlds oceans are being severely over harvested and international agreement must be made, and kept, to keep them healthy.
Access to healthy drinking water is an increasing concern, and must be addressed.
Something is wrong with the worlds honey bees, look up colony collapse disorder.
Big Business is wanting to gentically modify the worlds crops, and force it upon us.
Global over population is going to kill this planet, humans can not continue to grow at the current rate without casuing major issues.
Those are a just a few of the REAL PROBLEMS facing this planet, and could use the type of attention, petitions and emotional out pouring, that is being given Mick Taylor.
I wonder, "Do any of these "Taylor Activist" "donate" any of thier efforts towards any real issues facing the planet?"
I do spend part of my time, money and efforts where they might do some good. I try to do my part. I support, donate money and write letters or emails to fight real issues in this world, hopefully where they might do the most good.
Unfortunately I don't think Mick Taylor is in a position to help on any of the real issues.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
Max'sKansasCity
()
Date: May 8, 2013 00:32
Everyone is in a position to help on those issues, just as every one of those issues could affect everyone. I was simply trying to say that maybe some the more zealous Taylor activists might direct some of their energy towards one of the more important issues facing this planet, besides Taylor playing more songs. And the only reason I mentioned what I do was to answer that question before it was asked.Quote
treaclefingers
Unfortunately I don't think Mick Taylor is in a position to help on any of the real issues.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-08 00:34 by Max'sKansasCity.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
DoomandGloom
()
Date: May 8, 2013 00:37
I do much of that, fight for healthy food and against Monsanto plus volunteer for seniors in my town. The Taylor thing is just a hobby but he's getting screwed. He is a toy to these richies and it's offensive.Quote
Max'sKansasCityEveryone is in a position to help on those issues, just as every one of those issues could affect everyone. I was simply trying to say that maybe some the more zealous Taylor activists might direct some of their energy towards one of the more important issues facing this planet, besides Taylor playing more songs. And the only reason I mentioned what I do was to answer that question before it was asked.Quote
treaclefingers
Unfortunately I don't think Mick Taylor is in a position to help on any of the real issues.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-08 00:38 by DoomandGloom.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
Max'sKansasCity
()
Date: May 8, 2013 00:41
I applaud you and thank you.Quote
DoomandGloomI do much of that, fight for healthy food and against Monsanto plus volunteer for seniors in my town. The Taylor thing is just a hobby but he's getting screwed. He is a toy to these richies and it's offensive.Quote
Max'sKansasCityEveryone is in a position to help on those issues, just as every one of those issues could affect everyone. I was simply trying to say that maybe some the more zealous Taylor activists might direct some of their energy towards one of the more important issues facing this planet, besides Taylor playing more songs. And the only reason I mentioned what I do was to answer that question before it was asked.Quote
treaclefingers
Unfortunately I don't think Mick Taylor is in a position to help on any of the real issues.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: May 8, 2013 01:03
Quote
TeddyB1018
Obviously there were some people who dug Mick Taylor but there were also Stones fans who disn't appreciate the move into guitar solo heroism.
To be fair "guitar solo heroism" didn't really start until '72 (I would argue '73). In '69 Keith was playing a lot of lead and Taylor was playing some rhythm. It was a much more integrated guitar set-up. Also, very few people acknowledge that it was not necessarily all Taylor's doing that the lead/rhythm guitar thing got so separated. Keith got very into open-G rhythm. That's what he wanted to play at that time. Is it supposed to be Mick Taylor's fault that Keith wanted to be mostly a rhythm guitar player for several years? If he liked "weaving" so much he should have kept the guitar duties divided up in a way that more resembled 1969.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-08 01:07 by 71Tele.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
darkstardew
()
Date: May 8, 2013 01:03
I'm wondering if Mick Taylor isn't up for more, either from the rest of the Stones' viewpoint or his own... I love the man and he's my favorite historically but after listening to the Oakland Rambler again, his playing isn't all that amazing. He stumbles a little bit on the solo, has a few nice melodic ideas, then peters out (and I remember him kissing and talking to Woody, who took the final solo.) Maybe he is hitting the bottle and/or is having arthritis issues?
In any case I still would like to hear him play more but I wonder if (as others have) there's something going on behind the scenes.
In any case I still would like to hear him play more but I wonder if (as others have) there's something going on behind the scenes.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
GRNRBITW
()
Date: May 8, 2013 01:04
Quote
Max'sKansasCityEveryone is in a position to help on those issues, just as every one of those issues could affect everyone. I was simply trying to say that maybe some the more zealous Taylor activists might direct some of their energy towards one of the more important issues facing this planet, besides Taylor playing more songs. And the only reason I mentioned what I do was to answer that question before it was asked.Quote
treaclefingers
Unfortunately I don't think Mick Taylor is in a position to help on any of the real issues.
ah. no self-aggrandizing at all. thanks for the clarification.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
Max'sKansasCity
()
Date: May 8, 2013 01:12
Nope, none at all.Quote
GRNRBITWQuote
Max'sKansasCityEveryone is in a position to help on those issues, just as every one of those issues could affect everyone. I was simply trying to say that maybe some the more zealous Taylor activists might direct some of their energy towards one of the more important issues facing this planet, besides Taylor playing more songs. And the only reason I mentioned what I do was to answer that question before it was asked.Quote
treaclefingers
Unfortunately I don't think Mick Taylor is in a position to help on any of the real issues.
ah. no self-aggrandizing at all.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: May 8, 2013 01:13
Quote
darkstardew
I'm wondering if Mick Taylor isn't up for more, either from the rest of the Stones' viewpoint or his own... I love the man and he's my favorite historically but after listening to the Oakland Rambler again, his playing isn't all that amazing. He stumbles a little bit on the solo, has a few nice melodic ideas, then peters out (and I remember him kissing and talking to Woody, who took the final solo.) Maybe he is hitting the bottle and/or is having arthritis issues?
In any case I still would like to hear him play more but I wonder if (as others have) there's something going on behind the scenes.
Well, I think one thing that is going on is that because MT is only being alotted one song, he is trying to make the most of it and hamming it up in a way that doesn't come natural for him. It's funny though, because many people who are criticizing him for moving around too much and waving his arms, etc. are the same people who didn't like him because he stood still and didn't "look like a Stone". So which way do you want it, folks?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-08 01:14 by 71Tele.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: May 8, 2013 01:14
How about all those other anti-Mick Taylor/pro-Ronnie folks?
Perhaps they could better spend their time by showing some love to the world rather than hating on MT.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Perhaps they could better spend their time by showing some love to the world rather than hating on MT.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: May 8, 2013 01:19
Quote
Hairball
How about all those other anti-Mick Taylor/pro-Ronnie folks?
Perhaps they could better spend their time by showing some love to the world rather than hating on MT.
Apparently indulging in alcohol or other various substances to the point where one can barely function onstage (certain RS members in the past) is ok, but there is no forgiving being overweight.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
Max'sKansasCity
()
Date: May 8, 2013 01:22
Oh brother... here it comes again.
Some people just love bashing on Ronnie, while whining their heads off at the slightest anything about Taylor.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-08 01:24 by Max'sKansasCity.
Some people just love bashing on Ronnie, while whining their heads off at the slightest anything about Taylor.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-08 01:24 by Max'sKansasCity.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: May 8, 2013 01:22
In the meanwhile, what does Taylor himself think of this issue? He doesn't talk, but he lets his guitar speak in a very subtle way.
During the Oakland MR he played two notes and they were just a cry. It's that what makes Taylor such an interesting and extraordinary musician. Only TWO notes simply make this version of MR worthwhile.
Listen and shudder:
During the Oakland MR he played two notes and they were just a cry. It's that what makes Taylor such an interesting and extraordinary musician. Only TWO notes simply make this version of MR worthwhile.
Listen and shudder:
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
Max'sKansasCity
()
Date: May 8, 2013 01:27
Quote
kleermaker
In the meanwhile, what does Taylor himself think of this issue? He doesn't talk, but he lets his guitar speak in a very subtle way.
During the Oakland MR he played two notes and they were just a cry. It's that what makes Taylor such an interesting and extraordinary musician. Only TWO notes simply make this version of MR worthwhile.
Listen and shudder:
Sounds like guitar playing.... guitar playing that hundreds of thousands of guitar players the world over could do the same way.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: May 8, 2013 01:28
Quote
Max'sKansasCity
Oh brother... here it comes again.
Some people just love bashing on Ronnie, while whining their heads off at the slightest anything about Taylor.
Not bashing. Just saying there is a double standard in rock & roll about drugs vs. weight. Over indulging in drinking or drugs is sort of considered a rock & roll sign of authenticity while weight gain is seen as completely inconsistent with rock & roll glory. You can be a drunk, but not fat. I find this regrettable. Speaking of Ronnie: he has his stuff together and is playing better than in years. I love the sound he is getting. Twangy and in your face (Dead Flowers is a great example). I couldn't be happier.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
GRNRBITW
()
Date: May 8, 2013 01:33
Quote
71TeleQuote
Max'sKansasCity
Oh brother... here it comes again.
Some people just love bashing on Ronnie, while whining their heads off at the slightest anything about Taylor.
Not bashing. Just saying there is a double standard in rock & roll about drugs vs. weight. Over indulging in drinking or drugs is sort of considered a rock & roll sign of authenticity while weight gain is seen as completely inconsistent with rock & roll glory. You can be a drunk, but not fat. I find this regrettable. Speaking of Ronnie: he has his stuff together and is playing better than in years. I love the sound he is getting. Twangy and in your face (Dead Flowers is a great example). I couldn't be happier.
liar. you could be plenty happier and you know it.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
Max'sKansasCity
()
Date: May 8, 2013 01:33
Quote
71TeleQuote
Max'sKansasCity
Oh brother... here it comes again.
Some people just love bashing on Ronnie, while whining their heads off at the slightest anything about Taylor.
Not bashing. Just saying there is a double standard in rock & roll about drugs vs. weight. Over indulging in drinking or drugs is sort of considered a rock & roll sign of authenticity while weight gain is seen as completely inconsistent with rock & roll glory. You can be a drunk, but not fat. I find this regrettable. Speaking of Ronnie: he has his stuff together and is playing better than in years. I love the sound he is getting. Twangy and in your face (Dead Flowers is a great example). I couldn't be happier.
In all my Stones concerts, multiple stops on every tour since 1981, and Ronnie did his job perfectly every time. Maybe people hit the wrong shows, but every time I saw him, he was perfect.
...and it is at this point someone post that mislabeled "Ronnie drunk" youtube clip.... the clip is doesnt show that.... so please dont bother.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
Max'sKansasCity
()
Date: May 8, 2013 01:34
Quote
GRNRBITWQuote
71TeleQuote
Max'sKansasCity
Oh brother... here it comes again.
Some people just love bashing on Ronnie, while whining their heads off at the slightest anything about Taylor.
Not bashing. Just saying there is a double standard in rock & roll about drugs vs. weight. Over indulging in drinking or drugs is sort of considered a rock & roll sign of authenticity while weight gain is seen as completely inconsistent with rock & roll glory. You can be a drunk, but not fat. I find this regrettable. Speaking of Ronnie: he has his stuff together and is playing better than in years. I love the sound he is getting. Twangy and in your face (Dead Flowers is a great example). I couldn't be happier.
liar. you could be plenty happier and you know it.
How you doing up there in the peanut gallery? Ya got enough peanuts? plenty to drink?
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: May 8, 2013 01:44
Quote
Max'sKansasCity
In all my Stones concerts, multiple stops on every tour since 1981, and Ronnie did his job perfectly every time. Maybe people hit the wrong shows, but every time I saw him, he was perfect.
Come on Max!
Your undying love for Ronnie is quite admirable, and defending him at all costs is very brave, but NOBODY'S PERFECT.
Or maybe Ronnie is perfect, and maybe I hit all the wrong shows...lol.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
sonomastone
()
Date: May 8, 2013 01:53
Quote
71TeleQuote
darkstardew
I'm wondering if Mick Taylor isn't up for more, either from the rest of the Stones' viewpoint or his own... I love the man and he's my favorite historically but after listening to the Oakland Rambler again, his playing isn't all that amazing. He stumbles a little bit on the solo, has a few nice melodic ideas, then peters out (and I remember him kissing and talking to Woody, who took the final solo.) Maybe he is hitting the bottle and/or is having arthritis issues?
In any case I still would like to hear him play more but I wonder if (as others have) there's something going on behind the scenes.
Well, I think one thing that is going on is that because MT is only being alotted one song, he is trying to make the most of it and hamming it up in a way that doesn't come natural for him. It's funny though, because many people who are criticizing him for moving around too much and waving his arms, etc. are the same people who didn't like him because he stood still and didn't "look like a Stone". So which way do you want it, folks?
I like him standing still and just playing, but as long as he is playing well I don't care what he does.
I agree with the observations about Oakland. I don't think that it makes me anti-Taylor to say he didn't play as well as he could, I think it merely means I have a high opinion of what he is capable of. He did not come off as a man on top of his game. Having said that, I'm glad he came out for a bow and would welcome him playing on more tracks.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
Max'sKansasCity
()
Date: May 8, 2013 01:56
Quote
HairballQuote
Max'sKansasCity
In all my Stones concerts, multiple stops on every tour since 1981, and Ronnie did his job perfectly every time. Maybe people hit the wrong shows, but every time I saw him, he was perfect.
Come on Max!
Your undying love for Ronnie is quite admirable, and defending him at all costs is very brave, but NOBODY'S PERFECT.
Or maybe Ronnie is perfect, and maybe I hit all the wrong shows...lol.
Maybe you did... but I just call it like I see it, and sometimes that is unpopular. I may call one thing the way someone agrees and they like me.... but on the next topic I call it the other way, and now they hate me forever.... but what can I do?
If I had seen Ronnie play bad, for what ever reason I would say it, I dont pull punches and I have no reason to support Ronnie except to give him props for playing great at all of the shows I have seen.
And yeah, after reading here on IORR I guess the Stones have played somoe "off shows" over the years... but never one I was at.... I guess I am just lucky, or picked the right cities... Tornoto, LA, Chicgao, Nashville... maybe places they played more on it, or something.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
sonomastone
()
Date: May 8, 2013 01:57
Quote
71TeleQuote
Max'sKansasCity
Oh brother... here it comes again.
Some people just love bashing on Ronnie, while whining their heads off at the slightest anything about Taylor.
Not bashing. Just saying there is a double standard in rock & roll about drugs vs. weight. Over indulging in drinking or drugs is sort of considered a rock & roll sign of authenticity while weight gain is seen as completely inconsistent with rock & roll glory. You can be a drunk, but not fat. I find this regrettable. Speaking of Ronnie: he has his stuff together and is playing better than in years. I love the sound he is getting. Twangy and in your face (Dead Flowers is a great example). I couldn't be happier.
Dead Flowers was great, wasn't it? I don't care what any of them look like. I come to listen and watch them play. I think Mick T should resolve to play so F***in well in San Jose this week that the crowd starts chanting for him to stay on stage. I'd love to see that. And if he goes out every night determined to do that, sooner or later they are going to have to let him play more.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: May 8, 2013 01:58
Quote
Max'sKansasCityQuote
71TeleQuote
Max'sKansasCity
Oh brother... here it comes again.
Some people just love bashing on Ronnie, while whining their heads off at the slightest anything about Taylor.
Not bashing. Just saying there is a double standard in rock & roll about drugs vs. weight. Over indulging in drinking or drugs is sort of considered a rock & roll sign of authenticity while weight gain is seen as completely inconsistent with rock & roll glory. You can be a drunk, but not fat. I find this regrettable. Speaking of Ronnie: he has his stuff together and is playing better than in years. I love the sound he is getting. Twangy and in your face (Dead Flowers is a great example). I couldn't be happier.
In all my Stones concerts, multiple stops on every tour since 1981, and Ronnie did his job perfectly every time. Maybe people hit the wrong shows, but every time I saw him, he was perfect.
...and it is at this point someone post that mislabeled "Ronnie drunk" youtube clip.... the clip is doesnt show that.... so please dont bother.
With all due respect Max (because I am not privy to what concerts you were at) that simply has not been the experience of most people who have gone to shows during a certain period of time. Ronnie himself has admitted this, and the fact that he has been in rehab at least seven times means that there was a problem. You seem to be the only one in denial about it.
Regardless, I referred to "members" - plural - and was not taking a swipe at Ronnie. I was pointing out a well-known fact about more than one member of the Stones, and the fact that Mick Taylor's weight is treated much more derisively than the conditions of others whose problems affected their performance far more than Mick Taylor's weight has affected his. That is of course, if music and performance are what one cares most about in the Rolling Stones rather than image.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-08 02:00 by 71Tele.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: May 8, 2013 01:59
Quote
GRNRBITWQuote
71TeleQuote
Max'sKansasCity
Oh brother... here it comes again.
Some people just love bashing on Ronnie, while whining their heads off at the slightest anything about Taylor.
Not bashing. Just saying there is a double standard in rock & roll about drugs vs. weight. Over indulging in drinking or drugs is sort of considered a rock & roll sign of authenticity while weight gain is seen as completely inconsistent with rock & roll glory. You can be a drunk, but not fat. I find this regrettable. Speaking of Ronnie: he has his stuff together and is playing better than in years. I love the sound he is getting. Twangy and in your face (Dead Flowers is a great example). I couldn't be happier.
liar. you could be plenty happier and you know it.
As a human being? Yes, I could be. I was limiting to my happiness to the narrow scope of Ron Wood's current playing. It's a relative thing, but yes, I am happy with his playing, which hasn't always been the case.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more than one song please
Posted by:
GRNRBITW
()
Date: May 8, 2013 02:01
Quote
Max'sKansasCityQuote
GRNRBITWQuote
71TeleQuote
Max'sKansasCity
Oh brother... here it comes again.
Some people just love bashing on Ronnie, while whining their heads off at the slightest anything about Taylor.
Not bashing. Just saying there is a double standard in rock & roll about drugs vs. weight. Over indulging in drinking or drugs is sort of considered a rock & roll sign of authenticity while weight gain is seen as completely inconsistent with rock & roll glory. You can be a drunk, but not fat. I find this regrettable. Speaking of Ronnie: he has his stuff together and is playing better than in years. I love the sound he is getting. Twangy and in your face (Dead Flowers is a great example). I couldn't be happier.
liar. you could be plenty happier and you know it.
How you doing up there in the peanut gallery? Ya got enough peanuts? plenty to drink?
you're on thin ice as it is with your very-near self-congratulatory biz today. i'd pipe down and lay low if i were you were...we're keeping a VERY close watch.
This Thread has been closed
Online Users
Angus MacBagpipe , bakersfield , bluenote , Boett , ChrisL , cwalters , Dan , dedospegajosos , drwatts , eduardoacdc , FeelslikeaGhost , IsakSun , J-J-Flash , Jbeckerfan , michaelrobert , More Hot Rocks , Mr Jimmy , Nankstone , Nellcote1971 , NilsHolgersson , Nobbi82 , O2 , PaintitBlue , petewasbristol , philrock90 , RaahenTiikeri , rastakeith , rsvp2000 , sonnystitt , spunky , stargroover , trm15 , vinckske , werther2003
Guests:
1688
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10