Tell Me :
Talk
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 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.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-25 22:25 by Edward Twining.
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."
Some people like to live in their falsely created reality, just let 'em be. If MJ had any actual doubts about Taylor's playing, there wouldn't have been Taylor choices in the online vote, over and over after LA. He was basically the sole redeeming factor of the Sways. When probably 95% of the reviews from everybody who actually went to the shows were very positive re/MT, chances are he played well. In the context of today's guitar lineup, to say that Taylor was subpar vs Richards/Wood is laughable. And at Chicago 2 that I attended, all were great, no complaints from me.
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.
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?
You really believe 'Sway' would win any voting contest over any of the big hits?
You really believe any of them would consider the 'hardcores' (about 100 people) over the actual audience paying bucks to see them?
Sure....
Mathijs
The horns had its charm on all the songs they played on, I don't know if they made Love in vain without them sound "simplistic", or more basic, cause without them LiV could breath a bit more. I like all the tours they did with Taylor, they all had its own charm, although they messed up every now and then. 1973 Was special to me cause I saw them myself. The interplay between Richards and Taylor reached their artistic peak in '73, although 1972 comes very close to me.
I'm not sure what to think about the bitterness Mick felt towards the Stones. If he had been a few years older he probably would have made a different
decision. His statements about this case vary through the years.
As for his contemporary playing with the Stones, I'm not very thrilled by his efforts. And that's not meant to bash him like some posters here do, I just liked his former playing with the Rolling Stones much more, I cannot deny the difference. That goes for the entire band actually, but that's a different story. It almost feels like seeing your beloved musicians going in the wrong direction. This might sound sentimental or even harsh, but it comes straight from my heart.
Interviews and blog posts are designed to get out the message they want, not to reveal the inner workings or truth.
This is not just true of the stones, it is true of any press-savvy organization.
The one thing we can be reasonably sure of is that most of their decisions these days are financially motivated.
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.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-26 04:42 by alimente.
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...
I never knew that. Thanks for the tip. I found a site to download it, including the original issue. It's impressive. The guy just liked to play. In the band intros, Preston said MT was there to jam with the band, so I'm not sure he got paid to do it, either.
CARRIED THE LOAD??
I ignore him DP. All the other discussion groups are saying the same things about Taylor - great to see him, but he's not what he once was and his playing was erratic. A simple google search demonstrates this. Why does this thread always have to nose dive into name calling and blatant falsehoods....
But did he carry the load on this tour? Utter BS!
Taylor has done a fine job, considering the circumstances: that he is not what he used to be. The same goes for the rest of the Stones - they are old men, but they still put on a more than fine show.
And there is no one here that don't "like" Mick Taylor in general. We are discussing whether SOME of his lead guitar playing did suit the Stones or not.
The fact that a few posters on this board can't grasp this is nothing but incredible!
The same song, but always another story to be told by Taylor's solo... a bit more smooth and lyrical this time, but not maybe so dynamical as earlier. It is incredible how he is able to emotionally step down to a different sentimental level altogether in the middle of all that hectic rock and roll show, and keep us and the whole band with his fingers there. EXCEPTIONAL. My "complaint" is that he could build up the tension in the end part a bit longer and stronger, but what the hec, this goes to history books for the future bootleg fans to judge what Taylor did this time...
But what is sad sad sad in this clip is the same thing that was sad already when they tried this song during LICKS TOUR, but now it is even more explicate: maestro Richards. Half of the song is in his shoulders, and when he has no feel, no fire, not even sound, and probably even technical ability to nail the majestic riffage that carries the song, the band simply sounds lifeless. No matter what the rest do - little specialities: Taylor coloring the chorus with little melodic runs, which is fitting well - the result is rather dull and pointless, just through the motions.
Attention: the original word "expectional" is corrected to to "exceptional", thanks to contributor called Jesse's "kind" advice.
I am sorry for all the folks, including Mick Taylor, for causing traumatic experiences. My English is not always so good.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-26 18:52 by Doxa.
Fine in your eyes, Dandelion, but what constitutes a fine show - them all showing up? (except for the inclusion of Taylor who may spoil things from time to time!).
I don't find anything from this tour seriously worth a second listen, aside from a few of the extras Taylor brought back with him. Maybe there is a sense with Taylor that there is a novelty in having him back, and had the rest of the band decided to call it a day when he quit, or perhaps after the 81 tour, we may have been glowing in the novelty of having them back as well. Those ramifications are actually quite difficult to assess, because we have become so used to the present set up. Or had Taylor never left we may not have been quite so overawed with his presence again this time round, either. I suppose really it's what you get used to. Taylor is fresh blood, so to speak, to a very stale set up, even if he's contributed to the Stones before. Fans are entitled to be excited by his presence. Taylor may not be the player he was either, but there is a case that even if he isn't, he's still capable of making a significant contribution when he's up on stage with the band. My thoughts are he's still capable of playing to a very high standard, which in my personal opinion is perhaps beyond what the Stones have managed for several decades. The magic is still inherant in his playing, if a little jaded at times, too. Sometimes i wish he would just stand and play without putting on a show like in the old days, where he gives his playing undivided attention, or that there had been a little more preparation and rehearsal with the band, which to my ears, seems to be lacking. I'm not for a moment attempting to conclude Taylor is still the player he was, but back in the day, they actually worked more as a team through practice. On this tour sometimes Taylor appears to be thrown in at the deep end, without much in the way of a life jacket. The results haven't always been great, but there is enough evidence to suggest Taylor is by no means a spent force. And when he does still manage to effectively string a few of his guitar lines together, which he has done a great many times, there is still that element of magic to his playing. That's something that's a lot harder to find with the rest of the Stones for the majority of the time.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-26 11:42 by Edward Twining.
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:
Mathijs
()
Date: June 25, 2013 22:01
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 :-)
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
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
Edward Twining
()
Date: June 25, 2013 22:21
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.
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.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-25 22:25 by Edward Twining.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: June 25, 2013 22:36
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
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."
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
BowieStone
()
Date: June 25, 2013 22:48
I'm not following this thread at all.
I don't really get what all the fuzz is about.
Mick Taylor is just really poor on this tour.
So no, I don't want more Taylor songs.
MR is more than enough.
I want more Mick Jagger.
In other words: no Keith set (or let Mick do some backings) and no more boring solos (which sound just as a finger practice to me).
I don't really get what all the fuzz is about.
Mick Taylor is just really poor on this tour.
So no, I don't want more Taylor songs.
MR is more than enough.
I want more Mick Jagger.
In other words: no Keith set (or let Mick do some backings) and no more boring solos (which sound just as a finger practice to me).
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
StonesCat
()
Date: June 25, 2013 23:05
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."
Some people like to live in their falsely created reality, just let 'em be. If MJ had any actual doubts about Taylor's playing, there wouldn't have been Taylor choices in the online vote, over and over after LA. He was basically the sole redeeming factor of the Sways. When probably 95% of the reviews from everybody who actually went to the shows were very positive re/MT, chances are he played well. In the context of today's guitar lineup, to say that Taylor was subpar vs Richards/Wood is laughable. And at Chicago 2 that I attended, all were great, no complaints from me.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: June 25, 2013 23:29
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."
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.
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?
You really believe 'Sway' would win any voting contest over any of the big hits?
You really believe any of them would consider the 'hardcores' (about 100 people) over the actual audience paying bucks to see them?
Sure....
Mathijs
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
svt22
()
Date: June 25, 2013 23:31
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.
The horns had its charm on all the songs they played on, I don't know if they made Love in vain without them sound "simplistic", or more basic, cause without them LiV could breath a bit more. I like all the tours they did with Taylor, they all had its own charm, although they messed up every now and then. 1973 Was special to me cause I saw them myself. The interplay between Richards and Taylor reached their artistic peak in '73, although 1972 comes very close to me.
I'm not sure what to think about the bitterness Mick felt towards the Stones. If he had been a few years older he probably would have made a different
decision. His statements about this case vary through the years.
As for his contemporary playing with the Stones, I'm not very thrilled by his efforts. And that's not meant to bash him like some posters here do, I just liked his former playing with the Rolling Stones much more, I cannot deny the difference. That goes for the entire band actually, but that's a different story. It almost feels like seeing your beloved musicians going in the wrong direction. This might sound sentimental or even harsh, but it comes straight from my heart.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
palerider22
()
Date: June 25, 2013 23:36
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
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
sonomastone
()
Date: June 25, 2013 23:44
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."
Interviews and blog posts are designed to get out the message they want, not to reveal the inner workings or truth.
This is not just true of the stones, it is true of any press-savvy organization.
The one thing we can be reasonably sure of is that most of their decisions these days are financially motivated.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: June 26, 2013 00:06
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
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
palerider22
()
Date: June 26, 2013 03:05
This thread now has more posts than "YouTube" Post a NEW or FAVORITE video(s)" which was started in 2008...
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: June 26, 2013 03:25
Man was this great:
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
kpl
()
Date: June 26, 2013 04:00
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!!
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: June 26, 2013 04:11
It's fascinating how clueless 'Can't See the Forest For the Trees' Mick can be about the Rolling Stones. Of course there was a positive response to more playing time for Taylor at the 2nd LA show. Maybe Mick was miffed, and too invested in the guest star bit, having little faith that people want to hear just the band at this point. (Which I sort of understand. They weren't exactly overwhelming early on).
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
alimente
()
Date: June 26, 2013 04:41
Quote
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.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-26 04:42 by alimente.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
duffydawg
()
Date: June 26, 2013 05:45
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.
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...
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
marianna
()
Date: June 26, 2013 05:54
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!!
I never knew that. Thanks for the tip. I found a site to download it, including the original issue. It's impressive. The guy just liked to play. In the band intros, Preston said MT was there to jam with the band, so I'm not sure he got paid to do it, either.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
kpl
()
Date: June 26, 2013 06:16
The cool thing is the Preston setlist had 4 Beatles tracks so its neat to hear MT going off on Taxman, Let it Be, and Get Back. As you will hear MT is not just a sideman -he is the featured soloist on every track. There is a funny picture in the CD of MT walking onstage with a fake giant afro with the Preston band. 73 was a good Year for MT and that Preston live import cd is a must have for any taylor fan.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
winter
()
Date: June 26, 2013 07:21
I guess it's up to Hyde Park, where the Taylor era all began. Still incredible that no one has heard a LIV circulating from the club show.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: June 26, 2013 08:28
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...
CARRIED THE LOAD??
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
sonomastone
()
Date: June 26, 2013 08:47
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??
I ignore him DP. All the other discussion groups are saying the same things about Taylor - great to see him, but he's not what he once was and his playing was erratic. A simple google search demonstrates this. Why does this thread always have to nose dive into name calling and blatant falsehoods....
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
marianna
()
Date: June 26, 2013 09:11
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.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: June 26, 2013 09:30
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.
But did he carry the load on this tour? Utter BS!
Taylor has done a fine job, considering the circumstances: that he is not what he used to be. The same goes for the rest of the Stones - they are old men, but they still put on a more than fine show.
And there is no one here that don't "like" Mick Taylor in general. We are discussing whether SOME of his lead guitar playing did suit the Stones or not.
The fact that a few posters on this board can't grasp this is nothing but incredible!
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: June 26, 2013 10:49
I don't think you are going anywhere discussing with Taylorites, Dandelion. They are a bit like a sect (at least some of them). They want Taylor to be something he no longer can be. It's a bit sad really.
Still I think it's great of them to have him on. As a recognition to his earlier work with the band and an opportunity for Taylor to somewhat secure his pension.
Still I think it's great of them to have him on. As a recognition to his earlier work with the band and an opportunity for Taylor to somewhat secure his pension.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: June 26, 2013 11:03
Yeah, I know...
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: June 26, 2013 11:08
Quote
kleermaker
Man was this great:
The same song, but always another story to be told by Taylor's solo... a bit more smooth and lyrical this time, but not maybe so dynamical as earlier. It is incredible how he is able to emotionally step down to a different sentimental level altogether in the middle of all that hectic rock and roll show, and keep us and the whole band with his fingers there. EXCEPTIONAL. My "complaint" is that he could build up the tension in the end part a bit longer and stronger, but what the hec, this goes to history books for the future bootleg fans to judge what Taylor did this time...
But what is sad sad sad in this clip is the same thing that was sad already when they tried this song during LICKS TOUR, but now it is even more explicate: maestro Richards. Half of the song is in his shoulders, and when he has no feel, no fire, not even sound, and probably even technical ability to nail the majestic riffage that carries the song, the band simply sounds lifeless. No matter what the rest do - little specialities: Taylor coloring the chorus with little melodic runs, which is fitting well - the result is rather dull and pointless, just through the motions.
Attention: the original word "expectional" is corrected to to "exceptional", thanks to contributor called Jesse's "kind" advice.
I am sorry for all the folks, including Mick Taylor, for causing traumatic experiences. My English is not always so good.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-26 18:52 by Doxa.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
Edward Twining
()
Date: June 26, 2013 11:31
Quote
DandelionPowderman
but they still put on a more than fine show.
Fine in your eyes, Dandelion, but what constitutes a fine show - them all showing up? (except for the inclusion of Taylor who may spoil things from time to time!).
I don't find anything from this tour seriously worth a second listen, aside from a few of the extras Taylor brought back with him. Maybe there is a sense with Taylor that there is a novelty in having him back, and had the rest of the band decided to call it a day when he quit, or perhaps after the 81 tour, we may have been glowing in the novelty of having them back as well. Those ramifications are actually quite difficult to assess, because we have become so used to the present set up. Or had Taylor never left we may not have been quite so overawed with his presence again this time round, either. I suppose really it's what you get used to. Taylor is fresh blood, so to speak, to a very stale set up, even if he's contributed to the Stones before. Fans are entitled to be excited by his presence. Taylor may not be the player he was either, but there is a case that even if he isn't, he's still capable of making a significant contribution when he's up on stage with the band. My thoughts are he's still capable of playing to a very high standard, which in my personal opinion is perhaps beyond what the Stones have managed for several decades. The magic is still inherant in his playing, if a little jaded at times, too. Sometimes i wish he would just stand and play without putting on a show like in the old days, where he gives his playing undivided attention, or that there had been a little more preparation and rehearsal with the band, which to my ears, seems to be lacking. I'm not for a moment attempting to conclude Taylor is still the player he was, but back in the day, they actually worked more as a team through practice. On this tour sometimes Taylor appears to be thrown in at the deep end, without much in the way of a life jacket. The results haven't always been great, but there is enough evidence to suggest Taylor is by no means a spent force. And when he does still manage to effectively string a few of his guitar lines together, which he has done a great many times, there is still that element of magic to his playing. That's something that's a lot harder to find with the rest of the Stones for the majority of the time.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-26 11:42 by Edward Twining.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: June 26, 2013 11:49
I always respect your opinion, Edward. Keep in mind that you are in minority here, though, since most fans are enjoying this tour - myself included.
Taylor has done a fine job overall in his comeback, like I said.
I think you are, like you say yourself, a bit over-awed when you describe his importance to this 50th anniversary celebration, though.
For me, the highlights have been beautiful renditions of Memory Motel, Worried About You, Street Fighting Man, some of the songs from the mid-60s - Lady Jane included.
I would like to add that Taylor's first CYHMK was one of those highlights, because the band gave him space to do his thing, something he did wonderfully. The rest of the CYHMKs and Sways have been mediocre at best, imo.
I like Taylor's contribution on MR, especially after the first few renditions, when he kicked off the rust, and found the sweet spots to play in.
I know that you guys are Mick Taylor fans, and it's great that he is back. But like some poster said - that Taylor is carrying the load on this tour - or that he is the reason people are buying tickets is a wild exaggeration at best.
And, I must add, the Stones are playing far better than I expected on this tour. It's a pity you feel the shows aren't worth catching. Which shows did you attend again?
Taylor has done a fine job overall in his comeback, like I said.
I think you are, like you say yourself, a bit over-awed when you describe his importance to this 50th anniversary celebration, though.
For me, the highlights have been beautiful renditions of Memory Motel, Worried About You, Street Fighting Man, some of the songs from the mid-60s - Lady Jane included.
I would like to add that Taylor's first CYHMK was one of those highlights, because the band gave him space to do his thing, something he did wonderfully. The rest of the CYHMKs and Sways have been mediocre at best, imo.
I like Taylor's contribution on MR, especially after the first few renditions, when he kicked off the rust, and found the sweet spots to play in.
I know that you guys are Mick Taylor fans, and it's great that he is back. But like some poster said - that Taylor is carrying the load on this tour - or that he is the reason people are buying tickets is a wild exaggeration at best.
And, I must add, the Stones are playing far better than I expected on this tour. It's a pity you feel the shows aren't worth catching. Which shows did you attend again?
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: June 26, 2013 11:52
A strong post, Edward. Sums up my thoughts as well.
Especially this one:
"Taylor may not be the player he was either, but there is a case that even if he isn't, he's still capable of making a significant contribution when he's up on stage with the band."
The argument I've seen thrown here from time to time, is that "look, Taylor, like the rest, is not he used to be -> so no special need for him". I think there is something odd in this argument; first of all; it seems implicate that they all are used canoons, so that musically it doesn't matter at all what they do; secondly, it takes the level of Taylor's musicianship to be in the same level as the others, especially Wood's, to begin with. No, it's not. I am sure the band would be the first to admit that (as they have done, all of them, during the years). When Taylor is degenarated as a player - "being not what he used to be" - that doesn't mean that he wouldn't still have qualities that are expectional in Stones circles. I mean, if all of them have degenarated, say, 70% of their full capacity, Taylor would still shine there.
- Doxa
Especially this one:
"Taylor may not be the player he was either, but there is a case that even if he isn't, he's still capable of making a significant contribution when he's up on stage with the band."
The argument I've seen thrown here from time to time, is that "look, Taylor, like the rest, is not he used to be -> so no special need for him". I think there is something odd in this argument; first of all; it seems implicate that they all are used canoons, so that musically it doesn't matter at all what they do; secondly, it takes the level of Taylor's musicianship to be in the same level as the others, especially Wood's, to begin with. No, it's not. I am sure the band would be the first to admit that (as they have done, all of them, during the years). When Taylor is degenarated as a player - "being not what he used to be" - that doesn't mean that he wouldn't still have qualities that are expectional in Stones circles. I mean, if all of them have degenarated, say, 70% of their full capacity, Taylor would still shine there.
- Doxa
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: June 26, 2013 12:03
Dandelion, you miss some important feature in Edward's post: he did not claim that the shows are not "enjoyable", but are those performances interesting or exciting enough to stand repeated listenings. So he is putting the whole thing to another level: is there musically something worth remembering afterwards. He is situating the current shows to a bigger scheme of things, to the same level as any of their shows in the past that we are now able to reach by second hand.
If I can speak of myself, I am sure I will enjoy the show I will attend in Hyde park, but I am rather sure I would not have any need to hear the show in bootleg afterwards. Well, maybe once, out of curiosity, but that's it.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-26 12:04 by Doxa.
If I can speak of myself, I am sure I will enjoy the show I will attend in Hyde park, but I am rather sure I would not have any need to hear the show in bootleg afterwards. Well, maybe once, out of curiosity, but that's it.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-26 12:04 by Doxa.
This Thread has been closed