For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
bvQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Stoneage
About Jagger's voice: It's noticeable that he has put some work to it. Much of the nasality is gone. However it cracks up on the high notes. Maybe his running around has something to do with that. Or age...
On the first take on Sway this tour, he managed most of the high notes. Might be he is getting tired, or that he has a slight cold - could be many reasons. But he had major trouble getting up there on this version.
It was nothing about high notes at all, that is for sure. I was up front watching Mick communicating with Chuck. It was a power or sync thing. Technical issues. May be they were missing so,mebody on their monitors. You could clearly hear it in the pit. It was a lost song out of sync like a loose canon without power until Keith (I think) cranked it up after a while. I am pretty sure they had technical issues in Boston, on several occations. Nothing like a major problem, but you could hear it, and the bacd, especially Mick, reacts immediately of course. He likes it perfect.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
JesseQuote
DandelionPowderman
I've only seen ONE poster who didn't want to have Mick Taylor on this tour.
There are no "Anti-Taylorites"...
You know exactly what I mean. Taylorites like MT's long guitar solos. I'd say "anti-taylorites" don't esp want his long guitar solos. Taylorites would like him to playt on every song; "anti-Taylorites" think 2 or 3 songs or just the right number. It has nothing to do with the man himself, I assume you know that.
If "anti-Taylorites" is the wrong label (notice I even placed a "?" after I used it), tell me what's the correct one. (no foul comments please.)
"Anti" is too strong, especially as many who regard the Taylorites and Taylorists too extreme really like Mick Taylor and his playing. You could be "anti" to the decision of having Taylor playing lead guitar throughout 22 songs, but you don't have to be "anti" having him as a guest on 5 or 6 of the numbers where he can contribute with some great guitar playing.
Oh I'm following you, but you're not following me. Who said anything about not wanting MT on the tour? I didn't. I like that he's a guest but don't want him playing as much as Taylorites do.
"Taylorite" refers to you -- his fan, not to Mick Taylor himself. So if I'm an anti-Taylorite, it means I don't agree with FANS. I'm "anti" his playing every song on tour, and listening to long guitar solos, and the belief that HE makes the Stones what they are on this tour. Nope. It certainly has nothing to do with the man himself. (and it doesn't mean I wouldn't like you, a Taylorite, personally either.)
NO ONE -- I repeat, NO ONE said Taylor shouldn't be on this tour. Don't exaggerate.
Quote
kleermakerQuote
JesseQuote
DandelionPowderman
I've only seen ONE poster who didn't want to have Mick Taylor on this tour.
There are no "Anti-Taylorites"...
You know exactly what I mean. Taylorites like MT's long guitar solos. I'd say "anti-taylorites" don't esp want his long guitar solos. Taylorites would like him to playt on every song; "anti-Taylorites" think 2 or 3 songs or just the right number. It has nothing to do with the man himself, I assume you know that.
If "anti-Taylorites" is the wrong label (notice I even placed a "?" after I used it), tell me what's the correct one. (no foul comments please.)
It's a big misunderstanding and incorrect to imply that Taylor did long guitar solos. Not on the studio albums nor on stage! That's absolutely NOT true at all. Those who say that don't know anything about that Stones era. Wood has played longer solos than Taylor ever did on stage! Surprised now?
Of course there are a lot of anti-Taylorites, but that has more to do with Wood struggling against the overwhelming Taylor inheritance and his own failure to really become a genuine Stones-guitarist. People love his loyalty, and I can understand that. Even people like Doxa who have nothing against his playing call him a fanboy. But well, I don't want to go into anti-Wood talk. I think he's a nice guy, but in my musical opinion he couldn't satisfyingly replace Taylor.
Quote
JesseQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
JesseQuote
DandelionPowderman
I've only seen ONE poster who didn't want to have Mick Taylor on this tour.
There are no "Anti-Taylorites"...
You know exactly what I mean. Taylorites like MT's long guitar solos. I'd say "anti-taylorites" don't esp want his long guitar solos. Taylorites would like him to playt on every song; "anti-Taylorites" think 2 or 3 songs or just the right number. It has nothing to do with the man himself, I assume you know that.
If "anti-Taylorites" is the wrong label (notice I even placed a "?" after I used it), tell me what's the correct one. (no foul comments please.)
"Anti" is too strong, especially as many who regard the Taylorites and Taylorists too extreme really like Mick Taylor and his playing. You could be "anti" to the decision of having Taylor playing lead guitar throughout 22 songs, but you don't have to be "anti" having him as a guest on 5 or 6 of the numbers where he can contribute with some great guitar playing.
Oh I'm following you, but you're not following me. Who said anything about not wanting MT on the tour? I didn't. I like that he's a guest but don't want him playing as much as Taylorites do.
"Taylorite" refers to you -- his fan, not to Mick Taylor himself. So if I'm an anti-Taylorite, it means I don't agree with FANS. I'm "anti" his playing every song on tour, and listening to long guitar solos, and the belief that HE makes the Stones what they are on this tour. Nope. It certainly has nothing to do with the man himself. (and it doesn't mean I wouldn't like you, a Taylorite, personally either.)
NO ONE -- I repeat, NO ONE said Taylor shouldn't be on this tour. Don't exaggerate.
One poster said he didn't want him on the tour.
I think the Taylorites think of "anti-Taylorites" as people who don't like Taylor, hence not them
EDIT: Technically, you're right about what an "anti-Taylorite" is, of course.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-13 16:58 by DandelionPowderman.
Quote
bv
It was nothing about high notes at all, that is for sure. I was up front watching Mick communicating with Chuck. It was a power or sync thing. Technical issues. May be they were missing so,mebody on their monitors. You could clearly hear it in the pit. It was a lost song out of sync like a loose canon without power until Keith (I think) cranked it up after a while. I am pretty sure they had technical issues in Boston, on several occations. Nothing like a major problem, but you could hear it, and the bacd, especially Mick, reacts immediately of course. He likes it perfect.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
kleermakerQuote
JesseQuote
DandelionPowderman
I've only seen ONE poster who didn't want to have Mick Taylor on this tour.
There are no "Anti-Taylorites"...
You know exactly what I mean. Taylorites like MT's long guitar solos. I'd say "anti-taylorites" don't esp want his long guitar solos. Taylorites would like him to playt on every song; "anti-Taylorites" think 2 or 3 songs or just the right number. It has nothing to do with the man himself, I assume you know that.
If "anti-Taylorites" is the wrong label (notice I even placed a "?" after I used it), tell me what's the correct one. (no foul comments please.)
It's a big misunderstanding and incorrect to imply that Taylor did long guitar solos. Not on the studio albums nor on stage! That's absolutely NOT true at all. Those who say that don't know anything about that Stones era. Wood has played longer solos than Taylor ever did on stage! Surprised now?
Of course there are a lot of anti-Taylorites, but that has more to do with Wood struggling against the overwhelming Taylor inheritance and his own failure to really become a genuine Stones-guitarist. People love his loyalty, and I can understand that. Even people like Doxa who have nothing against his playing call him a fanboy. But well, I don't want to go into anti-Wood talk. I think he's a nice guy, but in my musical opinion he couldn't satisfyingly replace Taylor.
Are you pointed out to be the judge of what long guitar solos are now?
Wood played like Taylor on 75/76, because the Stones wouldn't change the formula so close between tours. By 1978 the several minutes long guitar solos were gone.
Don't you regard YCAGWYW, GS, LIV, JJF (the entire song, almost) or SFM as more than a little extended solos?
Good point. Part of Taylor's lore is that his replacement Wood has been less than remarkableQuote
kleermakerQuote
JesseQuote
DandelionPowderman
I've only seen ONE poster who didn't want to have Mick Taylor on this tour.
There are no "Anti-Taylorites"...
You know exactly what I mean. Taylorites like MT's long guitar solos. I'd say "anti-taylorites" don't esp want his long guitar solos. Taylorites would like him to playt on every song; "anti-Taylorites" think 2 or 3 songs or just the right number. It has nothing to do with the man himself, I assume you know that.
If "anti-Taylorites" is the wrong label (notice I even placed a "?" after I used it), tell me what's the correct one. (no foul comments please.)
It's a big misunderstanding and incorrect to imply that Taylor did long guitar solos. Not on the studio albums nor on stage! That's absolutely NOT true at all. Those who say that don't know anything about that Stones era. Wood has played longer solos than Taylor ever did on stage! Surprised now?
Of course there are a lot of anti-Taylorites, but that has more to do with Wood struggling against the overwhelming Taylor inheritance and his own failure to really become a genuine Stones-guitarist. People love his loyalty, and I can understand that. Even people like Doxa who have nothing against his playing call him a fanboy. But well, I don't want to go into anti-Wood talk. I think he's a nice guy, but in my musical opinion he couldn't satisfyingly replace Taylor.
Quote
rollingonQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
kleermakerQuote
JesseQuote
DandelionPowderman
I've only seen ONE poster who didn't want to have Mick Taylor on this tour.
There are no "Anti-Taylorites"...
You know exactly what I mean. Taylorites like MT's long guitar solos. I'd say "anti-taylorites" don't esp want his long guitar solos. Taylorites would like him to playt on every song; "anti-Taylorites" think 2 or 3 songs or just the right number. It has nothing to do with the man himself, I assume you know that.
If "anti-Taylorites" is the wrong label (notice I even placed a "?" after I used it), tell me what's the correct one. (no foul comments please.)
It's a big misunderstanding and incorrect to imply that Taylor did long guitar solos. Not on the studio albums nor on stage! That's absolutely NOT true at all. Those who say that don't know anything about that Stones era. Wood has played longer solos than Taylor ever did on stage! Surprised now?
Of course there are a lot of anti-Taylorites, but that has more to do with Wood struggling against the overwhelming Taylor inheritance and his own failure to really become a genuine Stones-guitarist. People love his loyalty, and I can understand that. Even people like Doxa who have nothing against his playing call him a fanboy. But well, I don't want to go into anti-Wood talk. I think he's a nice guy, but in my musical opinion he couldn't satisfyingly replace Taylor.
Are you pointed out to be the judge of what long guitar solos are now?
Wood played like Taylor on 75/76, because the Stones wouldn't change the formula so close between tours. By 1978 the several minutes long guitar solos were gone.
Don't you regard YCAGWYW, GS, LIV, JJF (the entire song, almost) or SFM as more than a little extended solos?
Have you noticed that still in 81/82 tours Wood played quite good solos especially in YCAGWYW, really quick high notes and stuff like that that worked pretty good and really added something special to the song dynamics IMO but he hasn't really played like this after those tours.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
JesseQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
JesseQuote
DandelionPowderman
I've only seen ONE poster who didn't want to have Mick Taylor on this tour.
There are no "Anti-Taylorites"...
You know exactly what I mean. Taylorites like MT's long guitar solos. I'd say "anti-taylorites" don't esp want his long guitar solos. Taylorites would like him to playt on every song; "anti-Taylorites" think 2 or 3 songs or just the right number. It has nothing to do with the man himself, I assume you know that.
If "anti-Taylorites" is the wrong label (notice I even placed a "?" after I used it), tell me what's the correct one. (no foul comments please.)
"Anti" is too strong, especially as many who regard the Taylorites and Taylorists too extreme really like Mick Taylor and his playing. You could be "anti" to the decision of having Taylor playing lead guitar throughout 22 songs, but you don't have to be "anti" having him as a guest on 5 or 6 of the numbers where he can contribute with some great guitar playing.
Oh I'm following you, but you're not following me. Who said anything about not wanting MT on the tour? I didn't. I like that he's a guest but don't want him playing as much as Taylorites do.
"Taylorite" refers to you -- his fan, not to Mick Taylor himself. So if I'm an anti-Taylorite, it means I don't agree with FANS. I'm "anti" his playing every song on tour, and listening to long guitar solos, and the belief that HE makes the Stones what they are on this tour. Nope. It certainly has nothing to do with the man himself. (and it doesn't mean I wouldn't like you, a Taylorite, personally either.)
NO ONE -- I repeat, NO ONE said Taylor shouldn't be on this tour. Don't exaggerate.
One poster said he didn't want him on the tour.
I think the Taylorites think of "anti-Taylorites" as people who don't like Taylor, not them
Well then, that makes all the difference.... I paid attention to the word ending with "ite" -- not the proper noun, Taylor = the man. OK. So if "anti-Taylorite" means one is against Mick Taylor himself -- then I'm wrong. Glad to get that straightened out.
(But it doesn't make sense according to the English language does it??)
Quote
JesseQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
JesseQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
JesseQuote
DandelionPowderman
I've only seen ONE poster who didn't want to have Mick Taylor on this tour.
There are no "Anti-Taylorites"...
You know exactly what I mean. Taylorites like MT's long guitar solos. I'd say "anti-taylorites" don't esp want his long guitar solos. Taylorites would like him to playt on every song; "anti-Taylorites" think 2 or 3 songs or just the right number. It has nothing to do with the man himself, I assume you know that.
If "anti-Taylorites" is the wrong label (notice I even placed a "?" after I used it), tell me what's the correct one. (no foul comments please.)
"Anti" is too strong, especially as many who regard the Taylorites and Taylorists too extreme really like Mick Taylor and his playing. You could be "anti" to the decision of having Taylor playing lead guitar throughout 22 songs, but you don't have to be "anti" having him as a guest on 5 or 6 of the numbers where he can contribute with some great guitar playing.
Oh I'm following you, but you're not following me. Who said anything about not wanting MT on the tour? I didn't. I like that he's a guest but don't want him playing as much as Taylorites do.
"Taylorite" refers to you -- his fan, not to Mick Taylor himself. So if I'm an anti-Taylorite, it means I don't agree with FANS. I'm "anti" his playing every song on tour, and listening to long guitar solos, and the belief that HE makes the Stones what they are on this tour. Nope. It certainly has nothing to do with the man himself. (and it doesn't mean I wouldn't like you, a Taylorite, personally either.)
NO ONE -- I repeat, NO ONE said Taylor shouldn't be on this tour. Don't exaggerate.
One poster said he didn't want him on the tour.
I think the Taylorites think of "anti-Taylorites" as people who don't like Taylor, not them
Well then, that makes all the difference.... I paid attention to the word ending with "ite" -- not the proper noun, Taylor = the man. OK. So if "anti-Taylorite" means one is against Mick Taylor himself -- then I'm wrong. Glad to get that straightened out.
(But it doesn't make sense according to the English language does it??)
I edited my post
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
JesseQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
JesseQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
JesseQuote
DandelionPowderman
I've only seen ONE poster who didn't want to have Mick Taylor on this tour.
There are no "Anti-Taylorites"...
You know exactly what I mean. Taylorites like MT's long guitar solos. I'd say "anti-taylorites" don't esp want his long guitar solos. Taylorites would like him to playt on every song; "anti-Taylorites" think 2 or 3 songs or just the right number. It has nothing to do with the man himself, I assume you know that.
If "anti-Taylorites" is the wrong label (notice I even placed a "?" after I used it), tell me what's the correct one. (no foul comments please.)
"Anti" is too strong, especially as many who regard the Taylorites and Taylorists too extreme really like Mick Taylor and his playing. You could be "anti" to the decision of having Taylor playing lead guitar throughout 22 songs, but you don't have to be "anti" having him as a guest on 5 or 6 of the numbers where he can contribute with some great guitar playing.
Oh I'm following you, but you're not following me. Who said anything about not wanting MT on the tour? I didn't. I like that he's a guest but don't want him playing as much as Taylorites do.
"Taylorite" refers to you -- his fan, not to Mick Taylor himself. So if I'm an anti-Taylorite, it means I don't agree with FANS. I'm "anti" his playing every song on tour, and listening to long guitar solos, and the belief that HE makes the Stones what they are on this tour. Nope. It certainly has nothing to do with the man himself. (and it doesn't mean I wouldn't like you, a Taylorite, personally either.)
NO ONE -- I repeat, NO ONE said Taylor shouldn't be on this tour. Don't exaggerate.
One poster said he didn't want him on the tour.
I think the Taylorites think of "anti-Taylorites" as people who don't like Taylor, not them
Well then, that makes all the difference.... I paid attention to the word ending with "ite" -- not the proper noun, Taylor = the man. OK. So if "anti-Taylorite" means one is against Mick Taylor himself -- then I'm wrong. Glad to get that straightened out.
(But it doesn't make sense according to the English language does it??)
I edited my post
Could you temper this frame/over frame/over frame thing? I enjoy your posts, but they are drifting in some infinity which make them quite unreadable. Unless posting this way is some guilty pleasure of yours.
Quote
Jesse
@kleermaker,
I keep learning from you. I didn't realize that the term "Taylorite" also implied a few things about Wood.
I'm learning, I'm learning....
Quote
CindyCQuote
bv
I've messed up songs I know by heart, it happens.
what's your top-end ticket price these days?
Quote
bvQuote
gotdablouseQuote
Honestman
At least , their IORR version yesterday was unbeatable, they were on fire ><
Yeah, WTF happened? Did Keith's guitar come unplugged or what? It can only be heard in the intro and then again at 40 seconds or so. That song is jinxed, they already messed up the beginning, but not so badly, at CHI/2 !
IORR was a big mess last night in Boston. Everybody looked at each other, Mick facing Chuck asking for a cue or whatever, trying several starts, then after something that felt like a long time, the power of the song is suddenly back, and they are on.
The sound was shifting through this show. On Satisfaction Mick Taylor did not want to go on stage, Ronnie came for him but Mick T just asked him to ignore. In the end he walked forward. But there were problems.
Quote
It was nothing about high notes at all, that is for sure. I was up front watching Mick communicating with Chuck. It was a power or sync thing. Technical issues. May be they were missing so,mebody on their monitors. You could clearly hear it in the pit. It was a lost song out of sync like a loose canon without power until Keith (I think) cranked it up after a while.
Quote
StonesTodQuote
CindyCQuote
bv
I've messed up songs I know by heart, it happens.
what's your top-end ticket price these days?
UGH, don't ask. I took a severe raping on tickets.
Quote
gotdablouse
Yeah, WTF happened? Did Keith's guitar come unplugged or what? It can only be heard in the intro and then again at 40 seconds or so. That song is jinxed, they already messed up the beginning, but not so badly, at CHI/2 !
Quote
CindyC
Agree, there several screw ups that I noticed and I'm usually too "into it" to notice that kind of stuff. The IORR one was very noticeable. It seemed to me that Mick started at the wrong point and wasn't sure how to continue. I also witnessed that interaction with Chuck and found that interesting.
I've messed up songs I know by heart, it happens.
In any event, before the encore started I was exhausted and I am 20+ years younger than the band, so hats off to them!!!
Quote
bv
Sway was not rehearsed properly. I have to admit that. It is a compex song and with Mick Taylor on stage it is a lot more complicated than just having Ronnie and Keith there. The Stones are a bit rusty and they do need time to polish off songs. But please do not use that as a reason for not playing Sway. I would rather have an unpolished Sway than a polished You Got Me Rocking.
Quote
shakeydeal
I found last night to be a good, solid show. Very enjoyable with the usual little bumps here and there like IORR. IORR started off hobbled, and then matters got worse when, from my vantage point, it looked like Keith just blanked totally. Ronnie came to his side and he found the right key to re-start the Berry riffs and almost immediately the song just clicked.