Live south of the Ohio River and could not afford the travel to the nearest show. Otherwise, I would have once again paid the extravagant ticket prices. Followed it all on YouTube, IORR, and Stones.com. Not the same thing, but I guess better than nothing.

Is it just me, or did Mick J. seem like he was more genuine and less posturing during Mick T.'s stand-ins? Everything of good quality, web wise, had me salivating, but nothing like MIDNIGHT RAMBLER and CAN'T YOU HEAR ME KNOCKIN.' Lord Keith seemed to be eating it up too. I can only imagine their version of MIDNIGHT RAMBLER at Glastonbury in a small venue (5,000 -10, 000). What a treat that would be! Says a lot about the band.

One more record, one more. Bitter, conflicted, and laying it all out. You got so much time left, and you all know it. Put it on tape, or whatever they record on now.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-25 11:04 by GeneGenie.

Ronnie & more importantly, Charlie seemed to enjoy the MT bits too. The closest show for me was about 800 miles & I bit the bullet & went to one show. Wasn't easy on the $ front on fairly short notice. Glad I did but was a little disappointed that I only got 2 MT songs, one of which he didn't play much on. The Midnight Rambler was by far the highlight of the show. Would've loved to have a bit more. The whole Las Vegas show is on YouTube & if you listen you'll see what I mean.

By viewing only through YouTube and owning Four Flicks and watching those on YouTube as well one can figure out what to listen to/for. Taylor playing Can't You Hear Me Knocking obviously blows Ronnie's playing away - and rightfully so.

It is a whole different show when Taylor is on stage. Some people like it, some don't. But the impact even for those brief appearances is noticeable. I might even say enormous. When was the last time you saw Jagger forget the audience, stand and interact with the band in giddy delight? I do not think Taylor's participation was entirely successful, partly due to his odd behavior on stage. But there were moments in there I have missed with this band. He was taking it into territory it has not visited in a long time. The band was playing/creating music and not merely performing it. There were moments when it felt real.

I would love a last record with Taylor and Wyman included in the writing and the recording. I'm sure that would add the missing bits and make a great record, and would also push sales. Will never happen.

Quote
pmk251
It is a whole different show when Taylor is on stage. Some people like it, some don't. But the impact even for those brief appearances is noticeable. I might even say enormous. When was the last time you saw Jagger forget the audience, stand and interact with the band in giddy delight? I do not think Taylor's participation was entirely successful, partly due to his odd behavior on stage. But there were moments in there I have missed with this band. He was taking it into territory it has not visited in a long time. The band was playing/creating music and not merely performing it. There were moments when it felt real.

Here's the same opinion. One of those moments was during Glastonebury, Can't You Hear Me Knocking. It's amazing how many views that vid still gets (about 1000 per day) and how many reactions, mainly positive ones, it provokes.

Quote
pmk251
It is a whole different show when Taylor is on stage. Some people like it, some don't. But the impact even for those brief appearances is noticeable. I might even say enormous. When was the last time you saw Jagger forget the audience, stand and interact with the band in giddy delight? I do not think Taylor's participation was entirely successful, partly due to his odd behavior on stage. But there were moments in there I have missed with this band. He was taking it into territory it has not visited in a long time. The band was playing/creating music and not merely performing it. There were moments when it felt real.

Had it been for ten songs it wouldn´have been as magical, imo.

Last time I saw Jagger forget the audience? On MR without Taylor as well. It´s just that kind of song.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
pmk251
It is a whole different show when Taylor is on stage. Some people like it, some don't. But the impact even for those brief appearances is noticeable. I might even say enormous. When was the last time you saw Jagger forget the audience, stand and interact with the band in giddy delight? I do not think Taylor's participation was entirely successful, partly due to his odd behavior on stage. But there were moments in there I have missed with this band. He was taking it into territory it has not visited in a long time. The band was playing/creating music and not merely performing it. There were moments when it felt real.

Had it been for ten songs it wouldn´have been as magical, imo.

Last time I saw Jagger forget the audience? On MR without Taylor as well. It´s just that kind of song.

I don't think pmk251 is hinting at that number.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
pmk251
It is a whole different show when Taylor is on stage. Some people like it, some don't. But the impact even for those brief appearances is noticeable. I might even say enormous. When was the last time you saw Jagger forget the audience, stand and interact with the band in giddy delight? I do not think Taylor's participation was entirely successful, partly due to his odd behavior on stage. But there were moments in there I have missed with this band. He was taking it into territory it has not visited in a long time. The band was playing/creating music and not merely performing it. There were moments when it felt real.

Had it been for ten songs it wouldn´have been as magical, imo.

Last time I saw Jagger forget the audience? On MR without Taylor as well. It´s just that kind of song.

I don't think pmk251 is hinting at that number.

Yeah, sometimes one muscian can make the difference, like it or not.

I had some info for you, kleerie, but you never got back to me...

Wonderful but they can never get the damn intro to sound as powerful and amazing as the recorded version. Jimmy Miller and company be praised for that I guess. peace

Quote
GeneGenie
Live south of the Ohio River and could not afford the travel to the nearest show. Otherwise, I would have once again paid the extravagant ticket prices. Followed it all on YouTube, IORR, and Stones.com. Not the same thing, but I guess better than nothing.

Is it just me, or did Mick J. seem like he was more genuine and less posturing during Mick T.'s stand-ins? Everything of good quality, web wise, had me salivating, but nothing like MIDNIGHT RAMBLER and CAN'T YOU HEAR ME KNOCKIN.' Lord Keith seemed to be eating it up too. I can only imagine their version of MIDNIGHT RAMBLER at Glastonbury in a small venue (5,000 -10, 000). What a treat that would be! Says a lot about the band.

One more record, one more. Bitter, conflicted, and laying it all out. You got so much time left, and you all know it. Put it on tape, or whatever they record on now.

Yes, GeneGenie.

And PK, it did feel "real." By jove, it was!

~"Love is Strong"~



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-25 22:08 by angee.

Quote
Naturalust
Wonderful but they can never get the damn intro to sound as powerful and amazing as the recorded version. Jimmy Miller and company be praised for that I guess. peace

I agree.

Hearing and seeing it live, during the Licks and 50 & Counting... tours. I've wondered why they didn't give the intro a little dirt and some volume?

Let's face it, the current version of the Stones is bland and unchanged since they became a quartet and decided the Voodoo Lounge album would be a 'retro' album. Instead of pushing the Stones thing further into new territory, they mostly patched together songs reminiscent of past glory. They were now officially an oldies band. Nothing has changed for them on stage, with the same tired backup musicians. Darryl replaced Bill about as well as Kenney Jones replaced Moon. Everyone has tired of Leavell's inappropriate tinkling on songs like Midnight Rambler.

The remaining Stones were pulled out of their torpor by having Mick Taylor with them. He at least still had something to prove. His playing might have reminded them of when they mattered. It seemed they would have used him on more songs on the tour, but they didn't. Why that occurred is a mystery worth knowing.

Darryl replaced Bill about as well as Kenney Jones replaced Moon.

Great analogy 24FPS! That is FUNNY.

The remaining Stones were pulled out of their torpor by having Mick Taylor with them. He at least still had something to prove. His playing might have reminded them of when they mattered. It seemed they would have used him on more songs on the tour, but they didn't. Why that occurred is a mystery worth knowing.

I like the way you think. The reason is obviously affluenza, Taylor just hasn't caught it yet. peace

If Taylor hasn't caught it yet, which is quite possible, no one of the guitar department has. So affluenza cannot be the (only) reason. Taylor just doesn't seem to fit in the concept the Stones have been doing over the last 38 years. And you cannot expect Wood to step aside.

Quote
svt22


Yeah, sometimes one muscian can make the difference, like it or not.

Indeed, especially the absence of a founding member from 1969 onwards.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-26 01:08 by His Majesty.

Quote
24FPS
His playing might have reminded them of when they mattered.

Oh, they've mattered to me for a very long time, and still seem to matter to a lot of other people. When I want to listen to songs written yesterday, I go see other bands (often). But I'm not worried about the Stones having to have some kind of fake "relevance." They'll always be relevant.

I loved MT's contributions too.

Quote
24FPS
The remaining Stones were pulled out of their torpor by having Mick Taylor with them. He at least still had something to prove. His playing might have reminded them of when they mattered.

Well, that is why the 4th episode of the "Mick Taylor Years" is missing on Youtube. It doesn't fit in with the dream of the "Taylorites". The hard truth is that the Stones had no room for development with Taylor in any other direction than staying a guitar virtuosa noodling support act. Don't get me wrong I love Goat's Head Soup and IORR, but generally the consenses is that these albums were the sad sign of a band run out of inspiration. Mick Taylor himself admitted that he was bored playing with the Stones and his boredom clearly effected the Stones. It was said before but the Stones "had run it's mile" with Taylor, nothing new or refreshing would come from this line-up any more. In other words by 1974 the Stones "did not matter anymore". But, in 1978 with Wood and Some Girls the Stones DID matter again.

Quote
thabo

Quote
24FPS
The remaining Stones were pulled out of their torpor by having Mick Taylor with them. He at least still had something to prove. His playing might have reminded them of when they mattered.

Well, that is why the 4th episode of the "Mick Taylor Years" is missing on Youtube. It doesn't fit in with the dream of the "Taylorites". The hard truth is that the Stones had no room for development with Taylor in any other direction than staying a guitar virtuosa noodling support act. Don't get me wrong I love Goat's Head Soup and IORR, but generally the consenses is that these albums were the sad sign of a band run out of inspiration. Mick Taylor himself admitted that he was bored playing with the Stones and his boredom clearly effected the Stones. It was said before but the Stones "had run it's mile" with Taylor, nothing new or refreshing would come from this line-up any more. In other words by 1974 the Stones "did not matter anymore". But, in 1978 with Wood and Some Girls the Stones DID matter again.

Not to me.
Taylor says something quite different:

Quote
Aquamarine

Quote
24FPS
His playing might have reminded them of when they mattered.

Oh, they've mattered to me for a very long time, and still seem to matter to a lot of other people. When I want to listen to songs written yesterday, I go see other bands (often). But I'm not worried about the Stones having to have some kind of fake "relevance." They'll always be relevant.

I loved MT's contributions too.

Don't take me wrong. They matter in a commercial band sense, obviously. They're still the biggest draw on the oldies circuit. But the Stones music used to be a mirror of the times they were in, and therefore relevant. Doom & Gloom touched on that old feeling, trying to say something about the current world we live in. But the Stones used to also stretch themselves out musically and let's be honest, that relevance ended over 20 years ago. Of course the Stones as historical icons will always be relevant. The 1963-1989 band will have no equal. Other than setting records for seats sold, the band's history won't matter much after that golden time period.

I honestly think the notion of "relevance" when it comes to music is, well, irrelevant. Buddy Guy doesn't stretch himself out musically, has nothing much to say about contemporary life, but God can he play that guitar, and that's all I care about, really. Ditto the Stones--I'm not rocking out to historical icons, they're very much of the moment to me.

Quote
24FPS

Quote
Aquamarine

Quote
24FPS
His playing might have reminded them of when they mattered.

Oh, they've mattered to me for a very long time, and still seem to matter to a lot of other people. When I want to listen to songs written yesterday, I go see other bands (often). But I'm not worried about the Stones having to have some kind of fake "relevance." They'll always be relevant.

I loved MT's contributions too.

Don't take me wrong. They matter in a commercial band sense, obviously. They're still the biggest draw on the oldies circuit. But the Stones music used to be a mirror of the times they were in, and therefore relevant. Doom & Gloom touched on that old feeling, trying to say something about the current world we live in. But the Stones used to also stretch themselves out musically and let's be honest, that relevance ended over 20 years ago. Of course the Stones as historical icons will always be relevant. The 1963-1989 band will have no equal. Other than setting records for seats sold, the band's history won't matter much after that golden time period.

Again and again this insistence that the "1963-1989 band" is the best. I don't get it. Is it because Bill left afterwards? Bill's leaving did not initiate their decline. The Stones themselves never found him that important: Bill only played on 60% of the recordings during those years--Keith, Ron and even Mick Taylor often played the bass in his absence, and, quite honestly, often better than Bill would have! To put anything after 1981 on a pedestal is just weird. Steel Wheels was an awful album. I enjoy Undercover and Dirty Work quite a bit (they're not top tenners or even close) but Steel Wheels was just terrible--bad lyrics, dated production (gated reverb drums! synths! overproduced! too many backing singers!). Voodoo Lounge is no more "songs reminiscent of past glories" than Steel Wheels; in fact, Voodoo Lounge doesn't have a single song that features a riff they had literally already used, whereas "Rock And A Hard Place" is exactly the same riff from "Sole Survivor" and "It Must Be Hell" in a different key. Second time they recycled that riff! There are attempts at being "modern sounding" all over both Steel Wheels and Voodoo Lounge and mostly they fall flat. None of their albums since Tattoo You have been masterpieces, and, at least to me, none of their albums beginning with Steel Wheels have been very memorable. It also must be said that not ONE song on Steel Wheels is even close to the equal of the killer opening Voodoo Lounge cut "Love Is Strong," which features a great bass line btw (that Darryl/Kenny Jones comparison is ridiculous--as if Bill's playing was to the bass guitar what Keith Moon was to the drums! not even close). That was their last great single until "Doom And Gloom." There are a few highlights on all their quartet albums that are better than every song on Steel Wheels. "Almost Hear You Sigh" is the only reason to even own Steel Wheels, and it's not as good as the few highlights (and there are only a few!) on the following so-called quartet albums.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-27 07:48 by CanYouHearTheMusic.

<Had it been for ten songs it wouldn´have been as magical, imo.>

I disagree with this and not merely because I am a fan of the band with Taylor and he can play all he wants as far as I'm concerned. Given the reality of the situation I was not going to get THAT! There are a number of songs (I could probably come up with 10) that are particularly suitable for the Taylor touch. I was hoping for songs we have never heard him play on, e.g., Wild Horses. But more than that I think more songs would have given him and the band the opportunity to settle into each other instead of having Taylor come out for an All-Star, make the most of it moment. MR was a grand gesture. But having listened to the old recordings so many times they still provide me with the pleasure of Taylor's "small" touches that are not so readily apparent. I suspect more songs would given us that.

Quote
angee

Quote
GeneGenie
Live south of the Ohio River and could not afford the travel to the nearest show. Otherwise, I would have once again paid the extravagant ticket prices. Followed it all on YouTube, IORR, and Stones.com. Not the same thing, but I guess better than nothing.

Is it just me, or did Mick J. seem like he was more genuine and less posturing during Mick T.'s stand-ins? Everything of good quality, web wise, had me salivating, but nothing like MIDNIGHT RAMBLER and CAN'T YOU HEAR ME KNOCKIN.' Lord Keith seemed to be eating it up too. I can only imagine their version of MIDNIGHT RAMBLER at Glastonbury in a small venue (5,000 -10, 000). What a treat that would be! Says a lot about the band.

One more record, one more. Bitter, conflicted, and laying it all out. You got so much time left, and you all know it. Put it on tape, or whatever they record on now.

Yes, GeneGenie.

And PK, it did feel "real." By jove, it was!

Not on Satisfaction - on MR and CYHMK, yes, because it was the "MT solo" it was all about. If MT fx had played acoustic guitar on other songs like he did on Satisfaction, it would not have limited MJ activity on-stage.

I would have liked MT on more songs filling in guitar parts (making the guitar even stronger) and maybe play the second lead part on SFTD. Keith's lead on SFTD seems to be weak somehow.

Quote
CanYouHearTheMusic

Quote
24FPS

Quote
Aquamarine

Quote
24FPS
His playing might have reminded them of when they mattered.

Oh, they've mattered to me for a very long time, and still seem to matter to a lot of other people. When I want to listen to songs written yesterday, I go see other bands (often). But I'm not worried about the Stones having to have some kind of fake "relevance." They'll always be relevant.

I loved MT's contributions too.

Don't take me wrong. They matter in a commercial band sense, obviously. They're still the biggest draw on the oldies circuit. But the Stones music used to be a mirror of the times they were in, and therefore relevant. Doom & Gloom touched on that old feeling, trying to say something about the current world we live in. But the Stones used to also stretch themselves out musically and let's be honest, that relevance ended over 20 years ago. Of course the Stones as historical icons will always be relevant. The 1963-1989 band will have no equal. Other than setting records for seats sold, the band's history won't matter much after that golden time period.

Again and again this insistence that the "1963-1989 band" is the best. I don't get it. Is it because Bill left afterwards? Bill's leaving did not initiate their decline. The Stones themselves ever found him that important: Bill only played on 60% of the recordings during those years--Keith, Ron and even Mick Taylor often played the bass in his absence, and, quite honestly, often better than Bill would have! To put anything after 1981 on a pedestal is just weird. Steel Wheels was an awful album. I enjoy Undercover and Dirty Work quite a bit (they're not top tenners or even close) but Steel Wheels was just terrible--bad lyrics, dated production (gated reverb drums! synths! overproduced! too many backing singers!). Voodoo Lounge is no more "songs reminiscent of past glories" than Steel Wheels; in fact, Voodoo Lounge doesn't have a single song that features a riff they had literally already used, whereas "Rock And A Hard Place" is exactly the same riff from "Sole Survivor" and "It Must Be Hell" in a different key. Second time they recycled that riff! There are attempts at being "modern sounding" all over both Steel Wheels and Voodoo Lounge and mostly they fall flat. None of their albums since Tattoo You have been masterpieces, and, at least to me, none of their albums beginning with Steel Wheels have been very memorable. It also must be said that not ONE song on Steel Wheels is even close to the equal of the killer opening Voodoo Lounge cut "Love Is Strong," which features a great bass line btw (that Darryl/Kenny Jones comparison is ridiculous--as if Bill's playing was to the bass guitar what Keith Moon was to the drums! not even close). That was their last great single until "Doom And Gloom." There are a few highlights on all their quartet albums that are better than every song on Steel Wheels. "Almost Hear You Sigh" is the only reason to even own Steel Wheels, and it's not as good as the few highlights (and there are only a few!) on the following so-called quartet albums.

I think most fans would call the 63-89 Stones the peak years of the band, though you could argue that their absolute peak years were 63-72 for recordings, and 63-73 for stage work. Bill Wyman on 60% of their recordings? I highly doubt that. And I can think of only a handful of non-Bill bass parts where the song is better because of it. SFTD is one. JJF and Happy are played in a Bill style. I've heard Bill play those, and other non-Bill bass songs live and he either equals or exceeds them. Bill is on almost all of their important records. Tumbling Dice would have been fine with Bill. They didn't generally make records without Bill because he wasn't good. It was usually because he got tired of waiting for junkie Keith and he simply wasn't around.

The Kenny Jones/Darryl Jones comparison is apt in that inappropriate musicians, not at the high level of their predecessors, were brought into famous bands with a famous sound. Bill Wyman was a hell of a musician. Him and Brian were the only ones with training as a child. Critics for years said the Stones secret weapon was Watts and Wyman. And no, the band did not decline because of Bill leaving. Bill did however see the band had peaked and that they were only going to repeat themselves. Those words ring even truer today.

I just listened to Steel Wheels the other day. Fantastic, especially compared to the two clunkers that preceded it and what came after. Blinded By Love is sublime. Rock And A Hard Place and Can't Be Seen are turkeys, but the rest of the album is head and shoulders above any NEW album they put out since Some Girls. Slipping Away should have been their swan song.

Voodoo Lounge is not reminiscent of other work? New Faces?

I will give Darryl Jones 'Love Is Strong'. Then why did he lose that mojo so quick? Talk about someone they hardly use on their studio recordings. I knew why when he crapped all over the stage in '97 at Dodger Stadium when he totally screwed up Anybody Seen My Baby?

No, the quartet years have not been kind to the Stones, at least their musical legacy. Maybe Bill couldn't have saved their sound, but at least he could have made those songs more listenable.

I dig that we're keeping it totally respectful here, 24FPS, I really appreciate that! Opinions are like bums, we all have 'em. 60% of the recordings is actually not the best estimate with hindsight; probably more like 70%. On Beggars he plays on 8 of the 10 songs. Same with LIB ("Live With Me" is just fine with Keith on bass!) & IORR. He's only missing from one Black & Blue cut & appears on all of Sticky Fingers but on Exile he only plays on 11 of the 18 songs and on 3 of said 11 Bill Plummer's upright is mixed louder. I get that it was because Keith was an a-hole wasting their time while passing out upstairs, but why is that everyone's favorite album if he's so essential? Then there's Goats Head Soup where he only plays on 6 of the 10 songs. Mick T. plays what are personally my favorite bass lines on ALL Stones records, the divisive (yet BRILLIANT, IMHO) "Dancing With Mr. D" (those runs he does as Keith's heroin-riff gets ready to repeat are incredible!) and IORR's excellent, funky "Fingerprint File" bassline. In defense of Bill, his playing on "100 Years Ago," especially the end jam, is up there with both. Getting back to where he's missing, he appears on 7 of the 10 tracks on Some Girls, Emotional Rescue & Undercover each, and with the ER the best bass playing on the album is done by Ronnie on the title track whereas on Undercover Keith plays on "Pretty Beat Up" and that's one of Undercover's top 3 basslines along with the title cut and "Too Much Blood." He's only missing from 2 Tattoo You cuts, but is missing from 4 of Steel Wheels' 12 tracks. I dunno if anyone will ever know who plays what on Dirty Work since everyone in the world is on that album and even the drums are rarely played by Charlie.

As for "most fans would call 63-89 the peak years of the band," I'm not sure why the numerous (most? certainly not Brian purists like His Majesty but most others?) posters here haven't zeroed in on that and amended it to the longstanding, accepted consensus that the peak years are 63-81 (my take & many others') or even more narrowly, 63-72 (Taylorites' pick). Speaking of longstanding consensuses within the Stones diverse fans, it's rare you find many defenders of the Steel Wheels/Urban Jungle tour considering it's easily the Vegas-iest tour they ever did. Period! The largest amount of extra musicians on stage, the cheesiest keyboard tones to ever grace a Stones concert (3 keyboard players!), Jagger with 1989 clothes and a late 80s aesthetic throughout. They played it so safe that you realize THAT is why Wyman left--he felt that tour had no feeling behind it and that they over-rehearsed and played songs the same way night after night with no spontaneity and has been vocal since leaving that he feels they kept that exact approach on every tour that followed. How could the tour that re-imagined the Stones as a live band purely based on nostalgia and grandiose, over-the-top visual spectacle be their last great one? For the record, I enjoy the so-called Vegas-Stones live (if not in the studio that much), but these are quips many fans have.

As for Darryl, he had way more training than Bill! How could a man who played with the one and only Miles Davis and was personally selected by Charlie always catch so much flak? I've always enjoyed him live; I personally don't see his playing to be a step down but that's my opinion. I'd never say he was better, but he's no Kenny Jones to Wyman's non-existent Keith Moon.

"New Faces" is an Aftermath retread, no doubt about that. But "Rock And A Hard Place" is not only a "Sole Survivor" retread but the *second* "Sole Survivor" retread they had recorded! Also--"Blinded By Love" brilliant?!?! That's one of the worst they ever did and worse than your derided "Blinded By Rainbows" and very possibly equal to how abysmal "Streets Of Love" is. It's totally maudlin and the words are pretentious. I'll definitely take Emotional Rescue, Tattoo You (I assume this one doesn't count as new to you since it's outtakes? well it was new to fans then and the vocals were all new!), Undercover and yes, even Dirty Work (hell, ESPECIALLY Dirty Work because I love how angry it is, there's so much more genuine feeling in it than the phoned-in feeling I get listening to Steel Wheels) over Steel Wheels. We'll always disagree on this but thanks for keeping our debate classy!

Well, Can You Hear The Music, the only thing I would add is that yes, Darryl Jones played with Miles Davis. And? Did Darryl Jones join a jazz band? Is Charlie Watts qualified to pick rock and roll musicians? Bill Wyman was steeped in 1950s rock and roll, in the 1950s. Darryl didn't listen to rock and roll and was almost 30 years old before he even started playing it. Rock is a sideline to Darryl, but was a passion for Bill. Darryl is as out of place in the Stones as Bill would have been in Herbie Hancock and the Headhunters.

As for Darryl's musical training as a youth, I'm not sure what that comprised. His dad got him a guitar. A friend convinced him to switch to bass. Darryl got some studio work and got to know Mile's Davis' nephew who recommended Darryl to his uncle. It's all nice, but I don't see where it adds up to being qualified to play the varied catalogue of the Rolling Stones in a way that enhances the music, the way Bill did. Yes, Bill isn't on a number of tracks on Exile. But he's almost always on the kickoff tune on an album and you can be damn sure they had him on Rocks Off.

I didn't know that Mick Taylor played the studio bass on Dancing With Mr. D. All I have to do is pull out Brussells '73 and hear what Bill did with it, and it's fantastic. Mick Taylor was a great guitar/bass player, period. I don't think we ever got to hear a live version of Emotional Rescue with Bill on bass. After being the funk master supreme on Miss You, do you really think Wyman couldn't handle it?

Very good call. Wyman KILLS IT on "Miss You;" we can only expect he would've done the same on not only a live rendition of "Emotional Rescue" but on "Dance" as well!

Quote
24FPS
Is Charlie Watts qualified to pick rock and roll musicians?

Charlie Watts has been the drummer with the Rolling Stones for 50 years. Charlie Watts knows from rock and roll.