It has been much discussed about ego and money to explain the two-song limitation for Wyman and Taylor. I see it differently. I rather see it for the rendering of the music

The Stones have a set which works technically well, but they are also prone to do mistakes in some songs played live, even (or because) having play 50 years – you can put the blame on various reasons, be it one guitarist or the sound system –whatever.

Thing is that introducing a major new element, third, superb guitarist MT who likes to play loud, or a wonderful bass player BW who has not really played with CW for 20 years is a serious issue. The songs may render much better than usual, but on the other side, have more chance to turn into a train wreck than usual. Of course, it could be fixed, or prevent, but that would suppose the Stones rehearsing quite a lot more to manage this “variable geometry” and I don’t think they would do so – much work for to go back in the 1970’s pattern with MT and 1990’s pattern with BW.
Bottom line: it is a safer bet for them, technically, to not go to much in unchartered water - and you may say that when the equation is : former musician of the band versus new songs + new habits

best technical reasons ever

I understand why your name is Joker....

Quote
emotionalbarbecue
I understand why your name is Joker....

See? It turns emotional. No reason for that. Before being The all-mighty Stones, it is a band. Plain and simple. Ask any band if they would switch without risk present members for former band members, and backwards. It is like a clock. You don't change the parts too many time, or it can go south.

Maybe, just maybe Taylor has no interest in playing more than he is, and maybe Wyman doesn't want to play at all?

Quote
jazzbass
Maybe, just maybe Taylor has no interest in playing more than he is, and maybe Wyman doesn't want to play at all?

and keith has no more interest in playing more than he is. don't leave him out of this.

I can sort of see where you are coming from with respect to rehearsals or difficulties of having 3 guitars ... but if they can bring in the likes of Paisley/Urban/Grohl/Raitt to work out songs in the afternoon of the show, then they could also easily do this with Taylor. Especially something like Dead Flowers, it would take them about 10 minutes to work that out with Mick T replacing what Paisley played.

Over the course of the tour, they could easily build up a working repertoire that is way more songs than Sway, CYHMK, MR and Satisfaction ... but it's clear that one of the parties involved (and I'm not sure which, might even be Mick T) does not want that to happen.

the reasons are surely financial.

I think you may be right on a technicality

Quote
Alfonz
I can sort of see where you are coming from with respect to rehearsals or difficulties of having 3 guitars ... but if they can bring in the likes of Paisley/Urban/Grohl/Raitt to work out songs in the afternoon of the show, then they could also easily do this with Taylor. Especially something like Dead Flowers, it would take them about 10 minutes to work that out with Mick T replacing what Paisley played.

Precisely. The Stones like their routine (so do we, to a certain extent). A total stranger on their stage for one song every night is quite hazardous enough, and it works like a lottery. Safe for John Forgerty and one or two others, the result has not been too convincing. So if one adds a former guitar player with a former bass player, and some happy mistakes by the present members, one may think they have yet a lot on their plate with a two-song bit for Taylor and Wyman. I don't say I wish it, not at all. But the Stones are conservative regarding their habits and scarce use of their huge catalogue. They don’t want a revolution. I guess they want, first and foremost, safe rendering.

Mick Taylor's contract with the Stones says that he gets $1000 for every song he plays on. They had to cut him back because it was costing them too much.

Quote
The Joker

Quote
Alfonz
I can sort of see where you are coming from with respect to rehearsals or difficulties of having 3 guitars ... but if they can bring in the likes of Paisley/Urban/Grohl/Raitt to work out songs in the afternoon of the show, then they could also easily do this with Taylor. Especially something like Dead Flowers, it would take them about 10 minutes to work that out with Mick T replacing what Paisley played.

Precisely. The Stones like their routine (so do we, to a certain extent). A total stranger on their stage for one song every night is quite hazardous enough, and it works like a lottery. Safe for John Forgerty and one or two others, the result has not been too convincing. So if one adds a former guitar player with a former bass player, and some happy mistakes by the present members, one may think they have yet a lot on their plate with a two-song bit for Taylor and Wyman. I don't say I wish it, not at all. But the Stones are conservative regarding their habits and scarce use of their huge catalogue. They don’t want a revolution. I guess they want, first and foremost, safe rendering.

Fogerty had lots of problems on stage, both with his singing and his guitar.

Who says? So he would get... what.. only 60,000 dollars for the whole tour?

They're limited for membership reasons. They were hired on as "special guests". Usually a special guest gets a one-song cameo, but as former members they got a two-song mini-set. If they had been hired on as side players--or actually were invited to re-join the group--then they would be playing full gigs. It's all about job description, really.

Don't know how the $1,000 per song thing works out, as speculated on above. Someone must have seen the actual contract, and must therefore be a Stones insider--or otherwise is just joking.

Still, I don't think money is the issue number one in that region of billing. Musical uncertainty is much at stake.

Jagger has everything in control with the band as it is. Can we say fairly he is a control freak, for all the good of the music? When MT is on stage, it is quite different. Mick seems pretty excited, but also unease. MT is the wild card, and also a former member. This gives him much power than a guest.

Quote
The Joker
Still, I don't think money is the issue number one in that region of billing. Musical uncertainty is much at stake.

Jagger has everything in control with the band as it is. Can we say fairly he is a control freak, for all the good of the music? When MT is on stage, it is quite different. Mick seems pretty excited, but also unease. MT is the wild card, and also a former member. This gives him much power than a guest.

You certainly could see trust being an issue. Both these guys quit. You can see them not wanting to be in a situation where fans start expecting to see MT in every tour only to have him quit again or say he isn't going to go unless they double his salary etc.

And I have never seen Ronnie Wood taking so much liberties in 38 years as Mick Taylor did in 20 shows. He teases Jagger, follows him, kisses him...

Quote
The Joker
And I have never seen Ronnie Wood taking so much liberties in 38 years as Mick Taylor did in 20 shows. He teases Jagger, follows him, kisses him...

hard to tell if he is auditioning or just taking the mick, isn't it?

Quote
sonomastone

Quote
The Joker
Still, I don't think money is the issue number one in that region of billing. Musical uncertainty is much at stake.

Jagger has everything in control with the band as it is. Can we say fairly he is a control freak, for all the good of the music? When MT is on stage, it is quite different. Mick seems pretty excited, but also unease. MT is the wild card, and also a former member. This gives him much power than a guest.

You certainly could see trust being an issue. Both these guys quit. You can see them not wanting to be in a situation where fans start expecting to see MT in every tour only to have him quit again or say he isn't going to go unless they double his salary etc.

Good point. No - even better: EXCELLENT point.

It's obviously important to demonstrate that Taylor is just a guest - and nothing more. Nothing permanent. No re-joining the band. No promises or expectations for the future (what future anyway)?

Quote
alimente

Quote
sonomastone

Quote
The Joker
Still, I don't think money is the issue number one in that region of billing. Musical uncertainty is much at stake.

Jagger has everything in control with the band as it is. Can we say fairly he is a control freak, for all the good of the music? When MT is on stage, it is quite different. Mick seems pretty excited, but also unease. MT is the wild card, and also a former member. This gives him much power than a guest.

You certainly could see trust being an issue. Both these guys quit. You can see them not wanting to be in a situation where fans start expecting to see MT in every tour only to have him quit again or say he isn't going to go unless they double his salary etc.

Good point. No - even better: EXCELLENT point.

It's obviously important to demonstrate that Taylor is just a guest - and nothing more. Nothing permanent. No re-joining the band. No promises or expectations for the future (what future anyway)?

Great points!

don't give me that ole one two, one two three four

Quote
alimente

Quote
sonomastone

Quote
The Joker
Still, I don't think money is the issue number one in that region of billing. Musical uncertainty is much at stake.

Jagger has everything in control with the band as it is. Can we say fairly he is a control freak, for all the good of the music? When MT is on stage, it is quite different. Mick seems pretty excited, but also unease. MT is the wild card, and also a former member. This gives him much power than a guest.

You certainly could see trust being an issue. Both these guys quit. You can see them not wanting to be in a situation where fans start expecting to see MT in every tour only to have him quit again or say he isn't going to go unless they double his salary etc.

Good point. No - even better: EXCELLENT point.

It's obviously important to demonstrate that Taylor is just a guest - and nothing more. Nothing permanent. No re-joining the band. No promises or expectations for the future (what future anyway)?

I second that.
Adding that trust, in that context, is essentially related to music (the band and the enterprise that comes with it)

Joker. You're thinking to much.

Quote
MitchSeaGull
Mick Taylor's contract with the Stones says that he gets $1000 for every song he plays on. They had to cut him back because it was costing them too much.

That would be a steal.

I could almost halfway buy an argument that Bill Wyman's flat, thumpy bass sound is wholly different from Daryl Jones' popping, funky bright jazz fusion sound, which causes the sound guy problems. But no I just can't. These people are the pinnacle of the concert industry, they can do whatever they want up there. If Paul McCartney can bring his rickety old out-of-tune vintage psychedelic piano from his living room in London on tour with him all over the world, and if Neil Young can bring a huge pipe organ with him on certain tours, then there is no technical reason why the Stones can't do anything they set their minds to, as far as the stage and the concerts go.

For instance, if Mick Taylor is allegedly playing too Loud, they could put a limiter on his guitar channel, so no matter how loud he played on the stage it would never reach beyond a certain volume in the audience. They could even "sidechain" a compressor on his guitar to the mixing of the other guitars, and set the sound so that when Keith plays loudly it's ALWAYS louder than everyone else, but when Keith lays back plays quietly, Mick T. and Ronnie's guitars get louder and cut through. This has been an old technique around on records for years called sidechaining compressors, and I'm sure many bands do it.

So, no I just can't buy it's technical reasons.

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
jazzbass
Maybe, just maybe Taylor has no interest in playing more than he is, and maybe Wyman doesn't want to play at all?

and keith has no more interest in playing more than he is. don't leave him out of this.

No little buddy, Keith is playing precisely as much as he means to.

Well I was in Chicago for CYHMK and the place went nuts. MT is incredible. Far better than those other blokes who have their head up them bums!

Cheers!!

Based on my brief conversation with MT, he's interested in playing as much as they let him. He was excited about getting more songs in LA.

Quote
The Joker
Who says? So he would get... what.. only 60,000 dollars for the whole tour?

Mitch says.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
The Joker

Quote
Alfonz
I can sort of see where you are coming from with respect to rehearsals or difficulties of having 3 guitars ... but if they can bring in the likes of Paisley/Urban/Grohl/Raitt to work out songs in the afternoon of the show, then they could also easily do this with Taylor. Especially something like Dead Flowers, it would take them about 10 minutes to work that out with Mick T replacing what Paisley played.

Precisely. The Stones like their routine (so do we, to a certain extent). A total stranger on their stage for one song every night is quite hazardous enough, and it works like a lottery. Safe for John Forgerty and one or two others, the result has not been too convincing. So if one adds a former guitar player with a former bass player, and some happy mistakes by the present members, one may think they have yet a lot on their plate with a two-song bit for Taylor and Wyman. I don't say I wish it, not at all. But the Stones are conservative regarding their habits and scarce use of their huge catalogue. They don’t want a revolution. I guess they want, first and foremost, safe rendering.

Fogerty had lots of problems on stage, both with his singing and his guitar.

Lol....funny. The problem there is the Stones don't do many songs in E.....John gets lost in other keys...

Quote
StonesTod
best technical reasons ever

You can't really blame the sound system. You just can't.