Quote
DandelionPowderman
Well, I find lots of things from this tour seriously worth a second listen already. Obviously you do to, since you are watching YouTube-clips, and have booked tickets to a show.

<aside from a few of the extras Taylor brought back with him>

This is more what you too had in mind, right?

Quote
Stoneage
Of course we all would have wanted Taylor to lift the whole band and sent it back to the days before Vegas. But that is just dreaming. It's not possible.

Quote
Stoneage
Of course we all would have wanted Taylor to lift the whole band and sent it back to the days before Vegas. But that is just dreaming. It's not possible.

Quote
Edward Twining

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.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Stoneage
Of course we all would have wanted Taylor to lift the whole band and sent it back to the days before Vegas. But that is just dreaming. It's not possible.

If this is Vegas - then I really love Vegas

Quote
MarkSchneider
9 CAREFULLY SELECTED reviewers of Washington DC show, on IORR:

Mathew Turner: "...Again, I was disappointed by the seemingly safe night, and that Taylor was only on two songs. And to top it off, he was playing acoustic on Satisfaction! That seemed like such a waste of his talent, and in someways was a bit embarrassing. Taylor didn't seem to happy at that point with no smiles during Satisfaction, however, him and Keith did huddle quite close during the song. I was really hoping for Can't You Hear Me Knocking, but seeing they had played it in Philly I was pretty sure DC wouldn't get it, and we didn't. I really can't understand why, during the last show of the tour, Mick Taylor wasn't used for more than two songs. But that is The Rolling Stones, their expertise in confounding and frustrating their fans is part in parcel of following The Rolling Stones. ..."

Gary Semerjian: "They may swing but they also thundered. Wonderful, Wonderful! Best since 69. Midnight Rambler the highlight of the evening".

Michael Sold: "...With no Special guest tonight other than Mick Taylor I admit that I was expecting an additional song with Taylor. ..."

Alwyn W: "...Mick T - good, but tried to take over control on Rambler - maybe thats why he had an accoustic on Satisfaction... "

Hendrik Mulder: "... Another hightlight was Midnight Rambler; Taylor's guitar solo came in loud...great! Amazing how this song is being built up. And this is what I really like about the 2012/2013 tour: you can hear all the guitars very well, well balanced and well in the mix. ..."

Robert Bagel: "...In keeping with the idea that a final U.S. show could have been much better, while we did not have a special guest we did not have any additional Mick Taylor either. Besides Midnight Rambler, Taylor was on stage only for Satisfaction. And this version of Satisfaction was just plain weird, with Taylor coming out with an acoustic guitar. Yes, an acoustic guitar! Strumming along with the band, relegated to Blondie Chaplin status. This was the polar opposite to Friday in Philadelphia, where Taylor owned Can't You Hear Me Knocking. Not only was this disappointing, it was downright sad.
It would be easy to say Stones fans deserved better tonight, but the torpor of the DC crowd makes that a difficult argument. Let us look forward to Glastonbury and Hyde Park -- and Mick Taylor having an electric guitar!"

Dave Kohl:"... And that led us to, again, my highlight of the show, Midnight Rambler. The energized Mick doing multiple harmonica spots, Mick Taylor front and center leading the way, and another "to die for" performance. ..."

Witz...:"...My hope was to hear Mick Taylor play a complete version of Cant You hear Me Knocking after hearing him do only a partial one at the Iridium Jazz club last year."

Ken Michaels: "...Mick Taylor was a great addition to the show but as others have noted did not get enough time to play during the set. I think this hurts him because he has to come out cold in mid show and be on with no chance to acclimate. If they had let him work on a few more tunes he would have had a better time blending with KR and RW. I think that the three of them could have taken things further than him just showcasing on Midnight Rambler and made the event a milestone in that respect. It appears that RW really seemed to enjoy working with him."

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
sonomastone

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
kleermaker

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.

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

Quote
MarkSchneider
Carefully selected, yes Dandelion: all reviewers and all that refers to Mick Taylor and/or Midnight Rambler. No more, no less. You may check.

[www.iorr.org]

Quote
Doxa

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. Expectional. 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...


- Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
If I want noodling in maj-chords or some other semi-fusion approach I'd rather put on Time Waits For No One or the real thing; Santana from the early 70s.

Quote
Edward Twining

Quote
DandelionPowderman
If I want noodling in maj-chords or some other semi-fusion approach I'd rather put on Time Waits For No One or the real thing; Santana from the early 70s.

Again Dandelion, you keep knocking Taylor. Now, according to you, he's not the 'real thing', whatever that's supposed to mean. If you can't knock him in terms of the perceived decline in his playing, then you knock him stylistically instead (he doesn't fit in etc.). If you can't knock him stylistically.........now you are deeming him to be 'not the real thing'. That's a new one on me!

Maybe i was a bit harsh on that performance of 'Street Fighting Man', in saying it lacks true conviction. I've heard much worse. Sometimes i just wish the Stones could really 'feel' the songs more instead of just going through the motions. Maybe a little more like Pete Townshend manages to do, where there is a level of intensity within the performance.

This discussion about decline shouldn't really concentrate on Taylor, because he really isn't the issue here. It is just that when he plays with the group, there is to a degree a level of contrast in what he delivers on occasions, with what the Stones can manage.

Quote
duffydawg

Quote
alimente

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.

I know at least 100 fans that have been to Stones shows this tour....all of them thought MT carried the load. I have been to quite a few message boards and only this one has idiots that even come close to criticizing MT. Above is silly but typical of this Board. Sigh....

If some of these anti-MT lunatics would put the same scrutiny to RW and Keef's play they would be sadly disappointed. You do realize that RW acts like a poster child for ADHD onstage. I mean if you get one or two cohesive solos from the old sodd at a concert, great. But to see that these two are in the same league as MT - a venerated virtuoso guitarist is beyond laughable.

Indeed I went with a few professional musicians. They all thought MT did an outstanding job for only doing a few songs a night and overcoming a lot - including DETOX.

Only on this Board does these nutbags come out. I guess idiots have opinions too...

Quote
DandelionPowderman
PS: I see you omitted the line about MJ when you quoted my post, presenting it as I knock Taylor alone for not liking the SFM 73 versions. That's not true. There are several reason for that, Taylor is only one of them.

Quote
Jesse
........................I know he doesn't read this thread, none of the Stones do. But many posters here believed their repetitive requests were going to get MT more playing time. Why else post a letter to Jagger demanding MT play more, or say "More MT please" over and over.

I think many of you thought you were being heard. I mocked that at Doxa's expense -- unless he/she too thought MT and the Stones were listening.

Enough.