Tell Me :
Talk
I know DP, I know,
It's different than Keith, different than the Stones, but good enough to enjoy them. I was referring to ya ya's version '69, which is slower
I think, and better of course.
The '72/'73 tours were more loose, and Taylor started noodling more, which I like very much - the Taylor era is my favorite anyway, but we have to be careful. It's better to compare the same songs from different tours than comparing entire tours. In '69, they played JJF rather tight, (ya ya'), but when you listen to JJF Essen'70, it's as loose as you can get. GS' Philly 72, is rather tight again, Dw Mr d Brussels'73 is loose again, JJF and R t Joint'73 as tight as you can get, etc etc. It's more accurate to discuss each song, gig, and instrument separately.
Does Taylor play in Hyde Park? He will see his life passing by.
I suppose he does play there. Even Jagger commented something to effect that it is interesting to have Taylor since the well-known history, etc.
- Doxa
Short summary: Taylor played Knocking 4 times, Sway 3 times and except the two first concerts all Satisfactions (including final bow). Of course he played on all Ramblers. And that's it.
Most sensational show to be at: LA 2, May 20, the absolute highlight of the tour. Most disappointing show: LA 1, May 3: Taylor appears to play on Rambler only.
You wouldn't choose the Echoplex??
I don't count the Echoplex as a formal tour show, but as a very limited try-out (come on, 500 visitors, most of them invited).
It was a fan lottery. On the second french club show most of them were invited.
This is to say, they mostly kepth the tiger in the cage, and showed us only a little glimpses of his teeth...
But still it has been incredible to have Taylor in "Knocking" and "Sway" (how would that idea sounded like a year ago?), and, of course, "Rambler", even though the band was seemingly was too inspired to play with him, despite in "Rambler".
"Ramblers" have been the tour highlights for me, and the solos in "Knocking", but unfortunately "Sway" turned out to have only that "historical" but not much musical value (I blame more the band than Taylor for that). Musically their readings of, say, "Memory Motel" and "Lady Jane" and "You Got The Silver" has been more memorable.
Yeah, lots of potentia has been left without of use in the historical opportunity we have witnessed here, but still it has been a joy to watch Taylor's adventures within this tour, Even though I'm not any "real" Taylorite, for me he brought some musical electricity to the band, and thereby make this tour special for a fan like me follow it behind the laptop. He proved positively that he is a special and unique musician in the history of this band.
- Doxa
I'm not sure about that, svt22. Without going through every bootleg from the 69-73 era, i'd certainly say the Stones were more meticulous and methodical in their approach in 69, maybe even a little careful, partly because they had been off the road for a while, and were bedding in Mick Taylor, so they were feeling their way a little more, before having the urge to let loose too extravagantly. Yes, those shows were raw and exciting, but at the same time a little more restrained and formal too, than their earlier and later tours. I suppose it was the first time live the Stones had brought an aura of sophistication to proceedings, partly as a result of the growing concert technology (as in amplification etc), which had allowed this, but more significantly a more fundamental shift anyway in the way music was being recorded and listened to - an artist like Jimi Hendrix having a huge bearing. 1966 must have seemed an eternity away.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-25 17:15 by Edward Twining.
I agree with you here Doxa. I liked the first two Sways also, especially the second one. But indeed, compared to the Knockings the Sways were not performed at their potential. Anyway I like the Taylor solos on Sway too, short as they were (the last one didn't succeed however). All Knockings were great, each time I listen to them there's something new. All four solos are different, though they have of course some key elements in common. As for the Ramblers, I like the pre tour ones, in which Taylor plays more adventurously, more than the tour ones.
All in all this American tour stood in the sign of Taylor's contribution and as such he was in every regard the dominant factor, compared to which the performance of songs like Worried About You and Memory Motel (a cheesy one imo) are quite unimportant. Btw: Taylor didn't have to prove his historical role in the band at all: we have the well known studio albums, YaYa's, the movies Hyde Park, GS, Marquee and L&G and of course the great bootlegs from the tours he did as a Stone.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-25 19:42 by kleermaker.
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.
Agreed!
Yeah, the legacy is out there for any music lover to discover. I just meant that he was still able to bring unique musicianship to the band.
- Doxa
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 :-)
Bollocks (to say it in your own terminology)
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 songs please
Posted by:
svt22
()
Date: June 25, 2013 12:16
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
svt22Quote
Edward TwiningQuote
svt22
I agree on the drummer, as I wrote in my previous post here, SP is no Charlie, although he rocks. Indeed the band is sharper and tighter than they where with Keith and Wood, completely drugged out. To me these guys have soul, they swing, are more to the point -just more professional musicians, and the crowd went crazy. Just a relief to hear Jagger sing a Stones song with different musicians. The Rolling Stones sound isn't necessarily the standard to me, apart from Jagger's voice. Now people will kill me here for this, but I just love the eightees sound these guys produce. A matter of taste I'm afraid.
Jagger sounds more vital, for sure, than he has ever since, perhaps. However, i don't agree with you with regard to the sound these musicians make. For me, their playing is too clinical, predictable, and soul LESS here, and part of the magic for me of the Stones playing, when they were at their best, was they were loose, and perhaps to a degree chaotic, in terms of their overall sound, but somehow, they still pretty much managed to hold it all together. I believe they managed to build a career out of playing on the edge, but rarely, if ever, crossing that line. They were, perhaps, pretty disciplined at making themselves appear to sound undisciplined, if you see what i mean. This group, for me, are just too well ordered by comparison, and lack a true rock 'n' roll spirit.
However, if you are talking strictly of the Stones today, i'm not necessarily of the view that their playing is especially unique, and incomparable. I believe it is possible to find Stones tribute bands who can approximate the sound of the Stones when they were in their prime, better the the Stones themselves can today, within their own brand of conservatism (or the bigger question is whether the Stones would ever really want to immitate their former live selves, live to such a degree, anyway!). That being said, of course, Jagger is irreplaceable as a singer/frontman, whoever was given his role, and Taylor's renewed playing within the group is also, for me, something that can still stand on its own merits. However, as many would say, who really wants a reproduction when you can have the real thing, even if they are still not even a shadow of their former selves.
Wait a minute Edward, are you talking about the Stones when they played with Taylor in let's say, '69 ? Then they where loose, sleazy, sounded unsurpassed and intuitive. Absolutely my favorite Stones sound. The htw version played in Japan is a different era. This band sounds more abstract, strictly arranged, not to be mixed up with clinical. The htw intro takes a bit longer here, the tempo a bit faster, so the guitarist has to play a bit more tight, but the basic fills he plays do the trick, they equal Keith's feel to me. The same goes for the drummer, it's all faster and more flashy, just like the guitar solo. The backing vocals are splendid, and the dynamics in this song are well calculated. Just a different approach, a different generation of musicians. Typically eightees.
As for the Stones today, no, I don't want to compare them to any era, I think they lack the energy to impress. And although all the musicians have their moments, they never seem to happen at the same time.
It's played very much in the same tempo - and with the same long intro - as the Stones did in 1975.
Jimmy Rip is never playing around the beat in this version - not once. It's true that the licks somewhat sounds like what Keith does (not the same, though - for instance the thumb and index finger-trick in between the vocal lines is played with the wrong strings).
When you're on the beat continously, you will never get the same feel as Keith. I'm pretty certain you too know that.
I know DP, I know,
It's different than Keith, different than the Stones, but good enough to enjoy them. I was referring to ya ya's version '69, which is slowerI think, and better of course.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
svt22
()
Date: June 25, 2013 12:47
Quote
Edward TwiningQuote
svt22
Wait a minute Edward, are you talking about the Stones when they played with Taylor in let's say, '69 ? Then they where loose, sleazy, sounded unsurpassed and intuitive. Absolutely my favorite Stones sound. The htw version played in Japan is a different era. This band sounds more abstract, strictly arranged, not to be mixed up with clinical. The htw intro takes a bit longer here, the tempo a bit faster, so the guitarist has to play a bit more tight, but the basic fills he plays do the trick, they equal Keith's feel to me. The same goes for the drummer, it's all faster and more flashy, just like the guitar solo. The backing vocals are splendid, and the dynamics in this song are well calculated. Just a different approach, a different generation of musicians. Typically eightees.
As for the Stones today, no, I don't want to compare them to any era, I think they lack the energy to impress. And although all the musicians have their moments, they never seem to happen at the same time.
Actually svt22, i believe to a degree the Stones actually played more formally on the American tour in 69, than any time before or since (up to the end of the 82 tour anyway). 1969 was the era when fans actually came to listen to the music, and the Stones performances were perhaps more musically accomplished in a playing sense, and as a listening experience, in technical terms, perhaps in a slight contrast to the 72/73 tours which were much looser, harking back a little more to the Jones era live experience with seemingly more rock 'n' roll spontaneity. However, the 69 tour was spontaneous too, but one senses that the Stones live arrangements to the songs were more closely adhered to from show to show, and with a new guitarist they were still feeling their way. Not that the results were not great, mind. The Stones live arrangements in 69 relied more on a thorough review of what each song demanded than the 72/73 tours feel of leaving things more to chance.
The '72/'73 tours were more loose, and Taylor started noodling more, which I like very much - the Taylor era is my favorite anyway, but we have to be careful. It's better to compare the same songs from different tours than comparing entire tours. In '69, they played JJF rather tight, (ya ya'), but when you listen to JJF Essen'70, it's as loose as you can get. GS' Philly 72, is rather tight again, Dw Mr d Brussels'73 is loose again, JJF and R t Joint'73 as tight as you can get, etc etc. It's more accurate to discuss each song, gig, and instrument separately.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: June 25, 2013 13:59
A-ha, this one lost its sticky status - so it is up to us to keep it up. Or start doing a "couple" of new Taylor threads...
- Doxa
- Doxa
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
svt22
()
Date: June 25, 2013 14:01
Quote
Doxa
A-ha, this one lost its sticky status - so it is up to us to keep it up. Or start doing a "couple" of new Taylor threads...
- Doxa
Does Taylor play in Hyde Park? He will see his life passing by.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: June 25, 2013 14:09
Quote
svt22Quote
Doxa
A-ha, this one lost its sticky status - so it is up to us to keep it up. Or start doing a "couple" of new Taylor threads...
- Doxa
Does Taylor play in Hyde Park? He will see his life passing by.
I suppose he does play there. Even Jagger commented something to effect that it is interesting to have Taylor since the well-known history, etc.
- Doxa
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
Eleanor Rigby
()
Date: June 25, 2013 14:50
bump.
ha !
ha !
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: June 25, 2013 15:33
Quote
DoxaQuote
svt22Quote
Doxa
A-ha, this one lost its sticky status - so it is up to us to keep it up. Or start doing a "couple" of new Taylor threads...
- Doxa
Does Taylor play in Hyde Park? He will see his life passing by.
I suppose he does play there. Even Jagger commented something to effect that it is interesting to have Taylor since the well-known history, etc.
- Doxa
Short summary: Taylor played Knocking 4 times, Sway 3 times and except the two first concerts all Satisfactions (including final bow). Of course he played on all Ramblers. And that's it.
Most sensational show to be at: LA 2, May 20, the absolute highlight of the tour. Most disappointing show: LA 1, May 3: Taylor appears to play on Rambler only.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: June 25, 2013 15:34
Quote
kleermakerQuote
DoxaQuote
svt22Quote
Doxa
A-ha, this one lost its sticky status - so it is up to us to keep it up. Or start doing a "couple" of new Taylor threads...
- Doxa
Does Taylor play in Hyde Park? He will see his life passing by.
I suppose he does play there. Even Jagger commented something to effect that it is interesting to have Taylor since the well-known history, etc.
- Doxa
Short summary: Taylor played Knocking 4 times, Sway 3 times and except the two first concerts all Satisfactions (including final bow). Of course he played on all Ramblers. And that's it.
Most sensational show to be at: LA 2, May 20, the absolute highlight of the tour. Most disappointing show: LA 1, May 3: Taylor appears to play on Rambler only.
You wouldn't choose the Echoplex??
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: June 25, 2013 15:39
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
kleermakerQuote
DoxaQuote
svt22Quote
Doxa
A-ha, this one lost its sticky status - so it is up to us to keep it up. Or start doing a "couple" of new Taylor threads...
- Doxa
Does Taylor play in Hyde Park? He will see his life passing by.
I suppose he does play there. Even Jagger commented something to effect that it is interesting to have Taylor since the well-known history, etc.
- Doxa
Short summary: Taylor played Knocking 4 times, Sway 3 times and except the two first concerts all Satisfactions (including final bow). Of course he played on all Ramblers. And that's it.
Most sensational show to be at: LA 2, May 20, the absolute highlight of the tour. Most disappointing show: LA 1, May 3: Taylor appears to play on Rambler only.
You wouldn't choose the Echoplex??
I don't count the Echoplex as a formal tour show, but as a very limited try-out (come on, 500 visitors, most of them invited).
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: June 25, 2013 15:41
Quote
kleermakerQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
kleermakerQuote
DoxaQuote
svt22Quote
Doxa
A-ha, this one lost its sticky status - so it is up to us to keep it up. Or start doing a "couple" of new Taylor threads...
- Doxa
Does Taylor play in Hyde Park? He will see his life passing by.
I suppose he does play there. Even Jagger commented something to effect that it is interesting to have Taylor since the well-known history, etc.
- Doxa
Short summary: Taylor played Knocking 4 times, Sway 3 times and except the two first concerts all Satisfactions (including final bow). Of course he played on all Ramblers. And that's it.
Most sensational show to be at: LA 2, May 20, the absolute highlight of the tour. Most disappointing show: LA 1, May 3: Taylor appears to play on Rambler only.
You wouldn't choose the Echoplex??
I don't count the Echoplex as a formal tour show, but as a very limited try-out (come on, 500 visitors, most of them invited).
It was a fan lottery. On the second french club show most of them were invited.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: June 25, 2013 16:18
Quote
kleermakerQuote
DoxaQuote
svt22Quote
Doxa
A-ha, this one lost its sticky status - so it is up to us to keep it up. Or start doing a "couple" of new Taylor threads...
- Doxa
Does Taylor play in Hyde Park? He will see his life passing by.
I suppose he does play there. Even Jagger commented something to effect that it is interesting to have Taylor since the well-known history, etc.
- Doxa
Short summary: Taylor played Knocking 4 times, Sway 3 times and except the two first concerts all Satisfactions (including final bow). Of course he played on all Ramblers. And that's it.
Most sensational show to be at: LA 2, May 20, the absolute highlight of the tour. Most disappointing show: LA 1, May 3: Taylor appears to play on Rambler only.
This is to say, they mostly kepth the tiger in the cage, and showed us only a little glimpses of his teeth...
But still it has been incredible to have Taylor in "Knocking" and "Sway" (how would that idea sounded like a year ago?), and, of course, "Rambler", even though the band was seemingly was too inspired to play with him, despite in "Rambler".
"Ramblers" have been the tour highlights for me, and the solos in "Knocking", but unfortunately "Sway" turned out to have only that "historical" but not much musical value (I blame more the band than Taylor for that). Musically their readings of, say, "Memory Motel" and "Lady Jane" and "You Got The Silver" has been more memorable.
Yeah, lots of potentia has been left without of use in the historical opportunity we have witnessed here, but still it has been a joy to watch Taylor's adventures within this tour, Even though I'm not any "real" Taylorite, for me he brought some musical electricity to the band, and thereby make this tour special for a fan like me follow it behind the laptop. He proved positively that he is a special and unique musician in the history of this band.
- Doxa
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
Edward Twining
()
Date: June 25, 2013 17:13
Quote
svt22
The '72/'73 tours were more loose, and Taylor started noodling more, which I like very much - the Taylor era is my favorite anyway, but we have to be careful. It's better to compare the same songs from different tours than comparing entire tours. In '69, they played JJF rather tight, (ya ya'), but when you listen to JJF Essen'70, it's as loose as you can get. GS' Philly 72, is rather tight again, Dw Mr d Brussels'73 is loose again, JJF and R t Joint'73 as tight as you can get, etc etc. It's more accurate to discuss each song, gig, and instrument separately.
I'm not sure about that, svt22. Without going through every bootleg from the 69-73 era, i'd certainly say the Stones were more meticulous and methodical in their approach in 69, maybe even a little careful, partly because they had been off the road for a while, and were bedding in Mick Taylor, so they were feeling their way a little more, before having the urge to let loose too extravagantly. Yes, those shows were raw and exciting, but at the same time a little more restrained and formal too, than their earlier and later tours. I suppose it was the first time live the Stones had brought an aura of sophistication to proceedings, partly as a result of the growing concert technology (as in amplification etc), which had allowed this, but more significantly a more fundamental shift anyway in the way music was being recorded and listened to - an artist like Jimi Hendrix having a huge bearing. 1966 must have seemed an eternity away.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-25 17:15 by Edward Twining.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
schillid
()
Date: June 25, 2013 18:08
et: "betting on" Taylor
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
duffydawg
()
Date: June 25, 2013 18:10
So much for the Three Guitar Attack... Chevy and Ford being driven...Ferarri kept in garage....
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: June 25, 2013 18:27
Quote
DoxaQuote
kleermakerQuote
DoxaQuote
svt22Quote
Doxa
A-ha, this one lost its sticky status - so it is up to us to keep it up. Or start doing a "couple" of new Taylor threads...
- Doxa
Does Taylor play in Hyde Park? He will see his life passing by.
I suppose he does play there. Even Jagger commented something to effect that it is interesting to have Taylor since the well-known history, etc.
- Doxa
Short summary: Taylor played Knocking 4 times, Sway 3 times and except the two first concerts all Satisfactions (including final bow). Of course he played on all Ramblers. And that's it.
Most sensational show to be at: LA 2, May 20, the absolute highlight of the tour. Most disappointing show: LA 1, May 3: Taylor appears to play on Rambler only.
This is to say, they mostly kepth the tiger in the cage, and showed us only a little glimpses of his teeth...
But still it has been incredible to have Taylor in "Knocking" and "Sway" (how would that idea sounded like a year ago?), and, of course, "Rambler", even though the band was seemingly was too inspired to play with him, despite in "Rambler".
"Ramblers" have been the tour highlights for me, and the solos in "Knocking", but unfortunately "Sway" turned out to have only that "historical" but not much musical value (I blame more the band than Taylor for that). Musically their readings of, say, "Memory Motel" and "Lady Jane" and "You Got The Silver" has been more memorable.
Yeah, lots of potentia has been left without of use in the historical opportunity we have witnessed here, but still it has been a joy to watch Taylor's adventures within this tour, Even though I'm not any "real" Taylorite, for me he brought some musical electricity to the band, and thereby make this tour special for a fan like me follow it behind the laptop. He proved positively that he is a special and unique musician in the history of this band.
- Doxa
I agree with you here Doxa. I liked the first two Sways also, especially the second one. But indeed, compared to the Knockings the Sways were not performed at their potential. Anyway I like the Taylor solos on Sway too, short as they were (the last one didn't succeed however). All Knockings were great, each time I listen to them there's something new. All four solos are different, though they have of course some key elements in common. As for the Ramblers, I like the pre tour ones, in which Taylor plays more adventurously, more than the tour ones.
All in all this American tour stood in the sign of Taylor's contribution and as such he was in every regard the dominant factor, compared to which the performance of songs like Worried About You and Memory Motel (a cheesy one imo) are quite unimportant. Btw: Taylor didn't have to prove his historical role in the band at all: we have the well known studio albums, YaYa's, the movies Hyde Park, GS, Marquee and L&G and of course the great bootlegs from the tours he did as a Stone.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-25 19:42 by kleermaker.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
svt22
()
Date: June 25, 2013 19:28
Quote
Edward TwiningQuote
svt22
The '72/'73 tours were more loose, and Taylor started noodling more, which I like very much - the Taylor era is my favorite anyway, but we have to be careful. It's better to compare the same songs from different tours than comparing entire tours. In '69, they played JJF rather tight, (ya ya'), but when you listen to JJF Essen'70, it's as loose as you can get. GS' Philly 72, is rather tight again, Dw Mr d Brussels'73 is loose again, JJF and R t Joint'73 as tight as you can get, etc etc. It's more accurate to discuss each song, gig, and instrument separately.
I'm not sure about that, svt22. Without going through every bootleg from the 69-73 era, i'd certainly say the Stones were more meticulous and methodical in their approach in 69, maybe even a little careful, partly because they had been off the road for a while, and were bedding in Mick Taylor, so they were feeling their way a little more, before having the urge to let loose too extravagantly. Yes, those shows were raw and exciting, but at the same time a little more restrained and formal too, than their earlier and later tours. I suppose it was the first time live the Stones had brought an aura of sophistication to proceedings, partly as a result of the growing concert technology (as in amplification etc), which had allowed this, but more significantly a more fundamental shift anyway in the way music was being recorded and listened to - an artist like Jimi Hendrix having a huge bearing. 1966 must have seemed an eternity away.
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.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
kpl
()
Date: June 25, 2013 19:47
The highlight for me was the 4th and last rendition of CYHNK at the second Philly show. The band is very tight and Mick plays like the star he is. Its a paridise loost moment for me because in my opinion, with Mick Taylor back in the fold the band sounds nasty and relevant again.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
sonomastone
()
Date: June 25, 2013 19:51
Yeah they sounded great on that song.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: June 25, 2013 19:55
Regarding the Stones tours during the Taylor years one has to notice that Taylor's musical role increased during the ride. His playing during the 69 tour evolved to that of the 73 tour. I think that's a key factor. "It took 5 to tango" indeed, but the dancing parts of the members changed in time.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
svt22
()
Date: June 25, 2013 19:58
Quote
kleermaker
Regarding the Stones tours during the Taylor years one has to notice that Taylor's musical role increased during the ride. His playing during the 69 tour evolved to that of the 73 tour. I think that's a key factor. "It took 5 to tango" indeed, but the dancing parts of the members changed in time.
Agreed!
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
MingSubu
()
Date: June 25, 2013 20:33
Is this dude sticking around if they do more concerts?
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: June 25, 2013 20:44
Quote
kleermaker
Btw: Taylor didn't have to prove his historical role in the band at all: we have the well known studio albums, YaYa's, the movies Hyde Park, GS, Marquee and L&G and of course the great bootlegs from the tours he did as a Stone.
Yeah, the legacy is out there for any music lover to discover. I just meant that he was still able to bring unique musicianship to the band.
- Doxa
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
sonomastone
()
Date: June 25, 2013 21:13
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.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: June 25, 2013 21:14
Quote
DoxaQuote
kleermaker
Btw: Taylor didn't have to prove his historical role in the band at all: we have the well known studio albums, YaYa's, the movies Hyde Park, GS, Marquee and L&G and of course the great bootlegs from the tours he did as a Stone.
Yeah, the legacy is out there for any music lover to discover. I just meant that he was still able to bring unique musicianship to the band.
- Doxa
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: June 25, 2013 21:18
Still baffled that MT wasn't utilized more throughout the tour.
Staples 2 set the bar, and I thought it would keep getting raised...but sadly/mysteriously no such luck.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Staples 2 set the bar, and I thought it would keep getting raised...but sadly/mysteriously no such luck.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: June 25, 2013 21:26
Quote
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.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
sonomastone
()
Date: June 25, 2013 21:30
yes, the keith-MT energy seemed very good this tour.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: June 25, 2013 21:38
Quote
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
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
sonomastone
()
Date: June 25, 2013 21:42
Quote
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 :-)
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: June 25, 2013 21:50
Quote
Mathijs
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
Bollocks (to say it in your own terminology)
This Thread has been closed
Online Users
2004Man , agu82 , Big Al , bitusa2012 , britstones , daspyknows , kstones79 , mariano , midimannz , Paddy , sonnystitt , TheBluesHadaBaby
Guests:
1548
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10