So I wonder how much playing Taylor will be doing on UK soil...probably not a lot more than Rambler :-(

I hope it doesn't matter too much it should be a great event!

Quote
sonomastone
I hope it doesn't matter too much it should be a great event!

It will be. More Taylor would be just a nice extra.

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Jesse

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Jesse
Doxa:
I AM an academic and am guilty of laughing at certain sentence constructions that make one's message fall apart. By using the misspelling that you did, I bet more than one reader thought silly things like I did. Things like:"expectional"...hmm..."expecting," hmm...expecting a baby...hmm...MT has a big gut.... haha" (So does Keith but we're not talking about him, but the same connection could made if you WERE talking about him and HE was who you liked so much.) It was an unusual misspelling. Some people pick up on such things. I wasn't editing for mere misspellings. If you thought it was a low personal hit, sorry. I don't know you. I said I was mocking a group of you -- not you personally.

However, YOU made a very personal and insulting comment to me. Maybe you should translate what you wrote so posters can judge for themselves.

If that was a sort of apology, I accept it. And I apologize my harsh words in Finnish too.

But what I don't like is you to come here arrogantly grouping us individuals here, and you surely don't know me, or many others here. Some of us has been for some 15 years here discussing these matters, and there have been many kind of discourses going on. As an academian, you might find many of these discussions rather critical and many-dimensional, if you are interested viewing The Rolling Stones from many different angles. This really isn't a Justin Bieber forum. Anything you need to know me, you go and check my post history here (you need damn long time for that, and make sure you take a notebook with you). I don't need to tell anything of what I am or not outside this forum; my postings under the name "Doxa" is all what I am, and they do the talking for me. If you want to talk about the Rolling Stones, I am here for you.

- Doxa

Doxa:

I have no interest in researching you or your past comments. Why would you even think that?

As to your nasty comment to me: It was an underhanded attempt to pretend to speak sweetly in English, then cuss at me in Finnish. I think that says a lot about you.

Maybe other posters found it funny, I found it to be duplicitous. But you apologized for the Finnish comment, and I accept your apology.

I think I made my complaints about this thread pretty clear.

Pax

Well, I just gave a hint for doing some homework, since you are so keen on making hasty generalisations based on some random comments made in this thread. Where I come from, people and people's opinions should be treated with respect. You seemingly have some different values. We are individuals all here but sometimes our opinions might converge each other, sometimes not. If there would be a consensus, this board wouldn't exist. The Taylor theme caused a lot of passion, and with that, naturally, some heated discussions, but this is only one theme in this board.

You really can't see how arrogant you are, now do you?

- Doxa

Doxa, There you go again. Now you claim to know what my values are -- and you criticize them to boot! Shame. Didn't feel like cussing at me again in Finnish?

I don't think anyone one this thread wants to hear the two of us going back and forth. Stay on track. Don't criticize my country, I didn't criticize yours.

I think we are boring your friends on this thread. I'm smart enough to stop.

Quote
Jesse

Quote
Thrylan
Jesse, I would like to point out,(in reference to the school girl, bieber fan, act like they know portion), there certainly is the occasional "insider" on this forum. A great example, is our site administrator, BV. He dedicates a lot of time and effort to this forum, he seems to manage to be in the pit for every show, and also manages to have a camera of a high enough quality to bring us many wonderful shots. Pit tickets at face value, for the last 19 shows put you at @ $27,500. Add travel and accommodations, and you see where I am going. Notice too, that he is always very diplomatic. I am not saying he is in the "corporation" but he is obviously closer than most of us. There are others as well. You yourself admitted that this is a good place for information. Granted, there are many jackers, and people posting for their own amusement, but the incredibly accurate info and insight comes from somewhere.

I apologize in advance to BV, for using you as an example, but I believe it makes my point.

Thrylan:
I understand what you're saying. Really. I have the highest regard for BV and several others here. Guess I'll have to be more patient with those who repeat the exact same things and sound as if they're owed something -- then maybe I can enjoy all the good stuff.

Thanks for not cussing at me.

That comes next......

Quote
Jesse

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Jesse

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Jesse
Doxa:
I AM an academic and am guilty of laughing at certain sentence constructions that make one's message fall apart. By using the misspelling that you did, I bet more than one reader thought silly things like I did. Things like:"expectional"...hmm..."expecting," hmm...expecting a baby...hmm...MT has a big gut.... haha" (So does Keith but we're not talking about him, but the same connection could made if you WERE talking about him and HE was who you liked so much.) It was an unusual misspelling. Some people pick up on such things. I wasn't editing for mere misspellings. If you thought it was a low personal hit, sorry. I don't know you. I said I was mocking a group of you -- not you personally.

However, YOU made a very personal and insulting comment to me. Maybe you should translate what you wrote so posters can judge for themselves.

If that was a sort of apology, I accept it. And I apologize my harsh words in Finnish too.

But what I don't like is you to come here arrogantly grouping us individuals here, and you surely don't know me, or many others here. Some of us has been for some 15 years here discussing these matters, and there have been many kind of discourses going on. As an academian, you might find many of these discussions rather critical and many-dimensional, if you are interested viewing The Rolling Stones from many different angles. This really isn't a Justin Bieber forum. Anything you need to know me, you go and check my post history here (you need damn long time for that, and make sure you take a notebook with you). I don't need to tell anything of what I am or not outside this forum; my postings under the name "Doxa" is all what I am, and they do the talking for me. If you want to talk about the Rolling Stones, I am here for you.

- Doxa

Doxa:

I have no interest in researching you or your past comments. Why would you even think that?

As to your nasty comment to me: It was an underhanded attempt to pretend to speak sweetly in English, then cuss at me in Finnish. I think that says a lot about you.

Maybe other posters found it funny, I found it to be duplicitous. But you apologized for the Finnish comment, and I accept your apology.

I think I made my complaints about this thread pretty clear.

Pax

Well, I just gave a hint for doing some homework, since you are so keen on making hasty generalisations based on some random comments made in this thread. Where I come from, people and people's opinions should be treated with respect. You seemingly have some different values. We are individuals all here but sometimes our opinions might converge each other, sometimes not. If there would be a consensus, this board wouldn't exist. The Taylor theme caused a lot of passion, and with that, naturally, some heated discussions, but this is only one theme in this board.

You really can't see how arrogant you are, now do you?

- Doxa

Doxa, There you go again. Now you claim to know what my values are -- and you criticize them to boot! Shame. Didn't feel like cussing at me again in Finnish?

I don't think anyone one this thread wants to hear the two of us going back and forth. Stay on track. Don't criticize my country, I didn't criticize yours.

I think we are boring your friends on this thread. I'm smart enough to stop.

Yes, you do stop, since it was you who started, remember?

P.S. I do seemingly anything - even this kind of meta-talk crap - to keep this thread up...

- Doxa

Sweet Thing,
I agree with you. No argument from me about many Americans who shoot off their mouths about things they know nothing about. You should go to a baseball game in Chicago...everybody in the stands knows more than anyone on the field, including the manager! Drives me crazy.

The BlackHawks just won the Stanley Cup here. At lunch I heard two overweight guys who probably can't ice skate complain about how a Chicago player "should have" been playing yesterday. They didn't seem glad the Hawks won! They were just nitpicking. That kind of talk is as mysterious to me as some of what's said on this thread. Only difference is, if I would have said something to the guys in the restaurant, I'd probably have been knocked to the floor!

I understand. It's just frustrating. I'm not interested in blog arguments so I'll keep my mouth shut... or my fingers from typing or whatever....

Doxa you are a genius! :-)

Everything I have read puts this mess squarely on Jagger. Its that he doesn't trust Taylor, like Taylor's play or suspect extra songs means either more money or a defacto new equity partner in the Band.

I like Jagger dont get me wrong but it was my hope - albeit underestimating their slipperiness....that MT was going to play on the traditional rock songs....

This very disciplined siloed appearances....overly scripted for MT...is sad.

Would be interesting to hear the inside story of why Mick Taylor performed the last song on the last date of the tour "satisfaction"with an accoustic guitar?! I wonder if he was "asked" by Mick Jagger or KR to tone down his sound and come out with an accoustic guitar.
Either way its very unfortunate way to to end the US tour with MT strumming on an accoustic guitar getting drowned out by the Vegas boys.
If anyone has any info on this that would be great. Thanks.

Quote
kpl
....."satisfaction"with an accoustic guitar?!...

Come on now, the coolest part of the original single is the acoustic guitar.
They asked Taylor to do the best part of that song. People will gripe about darn near everything. Ha!
It's always about the nuances....and The Stones are the absolute best at nuance.

Acoustic on Satisfaction was brilliant. Such a shame they didn't ask him to play acoustic on songs like Wild Horses, GS or even Sympathy. It's all a mystery, Is Taylor too burnt? Is Mick being cheap? Is the guitar duo jealous? I doubt we'll get a straight story, certainly Taylor was more inconsistent than expected.

You are right. MT on accoustic opens up all kinds of neat possibilities live-torn and frayed, wild horses, angie, I got the blues, sweet black angel, till the next goodbye, love in vain accoustic, 2000 man ect ect

So you guys want "More acoustic Taylor please"...

Nothing wrong with that, but the idea of him playing acoustic in "Sympathy", probably even turned off, might sound awkward in Hyde Park... some sort of historical authenticity, one plus one, but...

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-27 11:13 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa
So you guys want "More acoustic Taylor please"...

Nothing wrong with that, but the idea of him playing acoustic in "Sympathy", probably even turned off, might sound awkward in Hyde Park... some sort of historical authenticity, one plus one, but...

- Doxa

we have bigger things to worry about with "sympathy". the piano playing.

think of their 2013 version but imagine if there was no chuck. and instead of his playing at the beginning of the song and through the first verse taylor was playing acoustic. it would be much better. although i'd still prefer a ya-ya's style arrangement. but the problem with sympathy right now IMO is it's way too piano-heavy. great example of why it's called the "vegas era".

Sonomastone,
Simply because they strive to emulate the sound of the studio album. And Chuck Leavell is not Nicky Hopkins.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-27 14:04 by MarkSchneider.

Quote
MarkSchneider
Sonomastone,
Simply because they strive to emulate the sound of the studio album. And Chuck Leavell is not Nicky Hopkins.

Yes indeed. Just thinking of the difference of the modern versions, based on emulating the original, to the guitar driven versions from the old days... how much that, if anything, is to do with Jagger's will? Namely, now thinking of those guitar-driven versions, Jagger's vocals were very much buried to the guitar storm (sometimes Jagger sounding almost a tourist-like, a bit icing the cake), whereas in the 'modern' versions he is pretty much the center of the whole song, and what the rest do is basically just providing a backing track for Mick's distinguished vocals to shine. Also the the theatrical 'show' features pretty much emphasize Jagger's performance.

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-27 15:53 by Doxa.

I think some people have forgotten that the studio version of Satisfaction had an acoustic guitar that was quite prominent.

The guitars were very prominent at the DC show. In fact, sometimes they were almost too loud. And for whatever reason, Ronnie's guitar sounded very harsh at times. And not in a good way.

Yes the volume of the guitars is fine at the shows. But the piano playing....

it's in danger of coming off the first page

I like the fact that this forum references MT's impact live by comparing Love you Live to Ya Ya's and Brussels affair. If you listen to the version of you can't always get what you want on Brussels Affair and love you live it literally sounds like two different bands. One is tight musically with sections of imprvisational brilliance. The other......has Ron Wood on lead guitar

Quote
kpl
I like the fact that this forum references MT's impact live by comparing Love you Live to Ya Ya's and Brussels affair. If you listen to the version of you can't always get what you want on Brussels Affair and love you live it literally sounds like two different bands. One is tight musically with sections of imprvisational brilliance. The other......has Ron Wood on lead guitar

Bringing up Love you Live in any context to a Stones fan is a low blow. It was a terrible freak accident, like if you're walking through park and a bird's droppings fall on you, that is best forgotten and no friend would ever remind you of. Except to laugh about.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-28 02:15 by sonomastone.

Quote
sonomastone

Quote
kpl
I like the fact that this forum references MT's impact live by comparing Love you Live to Ya Ya's and Brussels affair. If you listen to the version of you can't always get what you want on Brussels Affair and love you live it literally sounds like two different bands. One is tight musically with sections of imprvisational brilliance. The other......has Ron Wood on lead guitar

Bringing up Love you Live in any context to a Stones fan is a low blow. It was a terrible freak accident, like if you're walking through park and a bird's droppings fall on you, that is best forgotten and no friend would ever remind you of. Except to laugh about.

Sonomastone:

Didn't Keith Richards basically say Love You Live was edited during one of the rough periods for him and him and Jagger. Basically he edited one album and Jagger did the other? Total mess.....not crapping on Ronnie...just the album.

I liked Love you Live.

Quote
duffydawg

Quote
sonomastone

Quote
kpl
I like the fact that this forum references MT's impact live by comparing Love you Live to Ya Ya's and Brussels affair. If you listen to the version of you can't always get what you want on Brussels Affair and love you live it literally sounds like two different bands. One is tight musically with sections of imprvisational brilliance. The other......has Ron Wood on lead guitar

Bringing up Love you Live in any context to a Stones fan is a low blow. It was a terrible freak accident, like if you're walking through park and a bird's droppings fall on you, that is best forgotten and no friend would ever remind you of. Except to laugh about.

Sonomastone:

Didn't Keith Richards basically say Love You Live was edited during one of the rough periods for him and him and Jagger. Basically he edited one album and Jagger did the other? Total mess.....not crapping on Ronnie...just the album.

Yes it's an album we all would do well to forget - except side 3 of course.

Quote
jazzbass
I liked Love you Live.

A few people do. I was just trying to bring a little humor to the thread.

Quote
Mathijs
I found Richards just a shadow

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.

Where did you find Richards just a shadow, on YouTube? Hope you catch a show when they play Europe. Keith is up there enjoying himself and having fun, and you will too.... well, maybe you won't.

Tom Waits and Aaron Neville are proof that Keith has input with guest selection as well.

Keith is "spent" and Ron is "rusty"? The guitar section hasn't sounded this loud and vibrant since the Tattoo You tour. You'll be surprised when you experience it live. Mick would never go out on tour if he didn't think the band could still cut it.

Jagger doesn't need to think of ways to increase the appeal of the tour, because Charlie did that for him by suggesting a more stripped down stage arrangement--besides, The Rolling Stones are the appeal.

How did Taylor not work out as planned? He's a special guest--that's the plan--and as a former member himself he blends in better than any other special guest. By inviting him as a guest, they are honoring their 50 years as a band by giving a nod to one of their former members. You mean if Taylor stole the show at the 2012 shows, then Jagger would have had to have had him along for a full concert because the band couldn't get through a show without him? Was that Jagger's plan? I don't think so.

Taylor hasn't blown anything. His playing may be better on some nights than on others, but that's the way with all performers and musicians. That's rock n roll.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
MarkSchneider
Sonomastone,
Simply because they strive to emulate the sound of the studio album. And Chuck Leavell is not Nicky Hopkins.

Yes indeed. Just thinking of the difference of the modern versions, based on emulating the original, to the guitar driven versions from the old days... how much that, if anything, is to do with Jagger's will? Namely, now thinking of those guitar-driven versions, Jagger's vocals were very much buried to the guitar storm (sometimes Jagger sounding almost a tourist-like, a bit icing the cake), whereas in the 'modern' versions he is pretty much the center of the whole song, and what the rest do is basically just providing a backing track for Mick's distinguished vocals to shine. Also the the theatrical 'show' features pretty much emphasize Jagger's performance.

- Doxa

Very spot on.

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
Mathijs
I found Richards just a shadow

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.

Where did you find Richards just a shadow, on YouTube? Hope you catch a show when they play Europe. Keith is up there enjoying himself and having fun, and you will too.... well, maybe you won't.

Tom Waits and Aaron Neville are proof that Keith has input with guest selection as well.

Keith is "spent" and Ron is "rusty"? The guitar section hasn't sounded this loud and vibrant since the Tattoo You tour. You'll be surprised when you experience it live. Mick would never go out on tour if he didn't think the band could still cut it.

Jagger doesn't need to think of ways to increase the appeal of the tour, because Charlie did that for him by suggesting a more stripped down stage arrangement--besides, The Rolling Stones are the appeal.

How did Taylor not work out as planned? He's a special guest--that's the plan--and as a former member himself he blends in better than any other special guest. By inviting him as a guest, they are honoring their 50 years as a band by giving a nod to one of their former members. You mean if Taylor stole the show at the 2012 shows, then Jagger would have had to have had him along for a full concert because the band couldn't get through a show without him? Was that Jagger's plan? I don't think so.

Taylor hasn't blown anything. His playing may be better on some nights than on others, but that's the way with all performers and musicians. That's rock n roll.

I think Mathijs was at the second show on this tour: November 29, if I'm not mistaken.