Tell Me :
Talk
Maybe Mick Jagger didn't see it that way, that both Taylor and Wyman should come onstage together and blend into a "time warp tribute" to their former selves. Maybe he thought it would be better to give each a spotlight moment of their own--and better for the pacing of the show to have two special guest appearances at different times--so that the contributions of each could be fully recognized rather than being diluted by having them both on at the same time.
Isn't their entire career these days a "time warp tribute" to their former selves? It's a nostalgia show, and I don't mean that in a bad way like some people do. If Mick didn't want them on stage out of fear it would turn into a "time warp tribute", it probably had more to do with insecurities about the current lineup than any sort of pacing issue or diluting appearance. Not that he should. I don't think if the '69-'74 lineup got on stage they'd sound like the Stones of old, they'd just sound like old Stones, but it would have been a really cool treat for fans. Some at least. I know some people could give two shits about Taylor, and some of the general public have no clue who he is unless you tell them that he used to be in the Stones, but I personally would have liked to see it. As a fan of all guitarists in the group with no hate-boner for any of them, unlike some people seem to have around here in the silly Taylor/Wood feud that Taylor/Wood have probably never heard of, I like to see and hear stuff from all eras. If Brian were alive I would have liked to see him up there. As a fan of the band's entire history I can't help but have some things I'd like to see.
By this logic it would make sense to give the audience more Taylor and Wyman though. If they're putting on a nostalgia show for the sake of the audience, then why are they holding out on the nostalgia?
Are you sure they are doing it for "the sake of the audience"? I think they do it for themselves first--performing, that is.
Mick was just conceding that their concert audience, at this point in time, doesn't get excited over new material. He plans the set lists based on audience reaction, because he wants to keep them excited, to keep the show moving.
Otherwise, their mainstream audience doesn't care whether Taylor isn't there to play on Taylor-era songs, and they still pay to hear them play Brian-era songs even without Brian there to play on them. And after Wyman left, they still payed to see them play no matter who was there filling in on bass.
If The Stones announce a tour tomorrow, it will sell out in 5 minutes, regardless of special guests, just so long as the audience gets what it wants--the core band playing the familiar hits they want to hear.
Certainly if the Stones announce a tour tomorrow it will sell out, based on nostalgia. As Mick pointed out, people don't really care about new material, they're coming for the old stuff. It sounds like Mick has given up on trying to turn fans on to new music. That's the definition of nostalgia act. And nostalgia acts usually aren't doing it for themselves, there's nothing artistically satisfying about playing the same songs in the same order every night. At this point they are doing it for themselves as you said, but for the money. Which I have no problem with, I'll personally take as much cash as I can get my hands on. And to get that money, they're trying to do things they think the fans want, but only as long as it's within the realm of what they want.
As you pointed out, the mainstream audience doesn't care if Taylor or Bill are up there. Just like they probably care less if Darryl and Woody are up there either, or for some, even Keith. As long as Mick is shaking his ass up there and singing a well known song they're fine. But there are people who do care, so why not throw them a bone as long as it doesn't interfere with the mainstream audiences enjoyment? They could make two groups happy at once.
Someone posted statistics here, showing that they did.
It depends on how you would define stamina? His health, his musical input? He could easily play with them for 15 songs or something like that.
I think the entire RS stamina is questionable. Some kind of disaster tourism to listen and watch their shows imo. Others call it being a hardcore fan.
RollingFreak
He got bad banking advice from his healthcare provider...rotten healthcare provider...
He was forced out by junkie Keith. These were Keith's prime junkie years. Due to jelousy probably and-or Mick Taylor just started grating on Keith for who knows what reason. Mick was neutral but had to go along with his long time collaborator.
Keith had his big heroin bust in Toronto 1977, 26 months laater (about)
centerfield maz: Keith Richards Toronto Drug Bust 30 Years Later
www.centerfieldmaz.com/2008/.../keith-richards-toronto-drug-bust-30.ht...?
Oct 23, 2008 - According to Keith it took the law two hours to wake him up out of a stoned stupor. He was originally charged with "possession of heroin for the ...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-27 17:56 by triceratops.
... and his delusions of grandeur.
I don't believe the drug-escape theory. They didn't live as a gang anymore. It weren't the Nellcote days anymore, so to speak.
I don't know how much truth there is to that story, but you can't dismiss the drug-escape theory for that reason. Maybe they weren't together all the time, but they WOULD be. If you're trying to get off smack, you might be able to stay off when you're at home, but then you go into the studio and on tour with the likes of Keith Richards, that's trigger city. If he were trying to get off drugs, separating himself from the Stones would have been very necessary. If you're an alcoholic trying to stay dry you don't take a job at a liquor store, and if you're trying to get off drugs you don't go touring with the Stones in the 70's. Having said that, I have no clue if it played any part in his leaving. Aside from his playing and the few things Keith wrote about him in "Life" I don't know much about the guy.
If the drug-escape theory is true then Taylor should have been drug-free after leaving the Stones. I heavily doubt if that was the case. So I think we can send that theory to Stones's myths land
Deary me!
He could easily have wanted to get away from the full on unlimited access to drugs stones world, but failed to get himself away from his own addictions.
Anyway, his smug and pompous demeanour in the old grey whistle test interview suggests to me it was more his delusions of grandeur and egotism that made him leave.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-28 15:46 by His Majesty.
"and egotism" ... The other Stones, especially Mick and Keith, are altruists, you suggest? Deary me!
I'm guessing you don't have a lot of experience with, or knowledge of, drugs if you think that the moment you say "I'm quitting" is the moment you're done. How many times in Keith's book do we read about him "quitting" only to fall back into heroin? How many cold turkeys, bogus cures and the like did Keith try before he was finally (I'm assuming) off? It lasts about a decade in his book with a couple of more relapses in later years, and sometimes he was more serious than others, but he couldn't get off is the point. IF Taylor left because of drugs, it doesn't mean he had to stay off. Especially when his career didn't pan out the way he was hoping, and being known as that "idiot who quit the Stones". Can you imagine seeing the Stones on TV, going on Mega-Tours and being filthy rich, riding around in limos and living the glamorous life, all the while you're sitting in your crappy house next to a pile of bills with your broken down sedan rusting in the driveway? Knowing that could be you if you'd just stayed? I'd probably shoot up too. But the point is that if he quit to try and get off the drugs, it's not a shock at all that he didn't stay off. Look how people struggle with just getting off cigarettes, now imagine that with heroin.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Stones should have used Mick Taylor the way the Eagles used Bernie Leadon this year
Posted by:
mnewman505
()
Date: September 26, 2013 04:58
This is all purely speculation but based on the size venues Mick Taylor was booking i'd say he was earning around $3-$5K a night solo. Various people on here and rumors have suggested MT was paid in the neighborhood of 2.2-2.5 million US$ for this tour. If he played on 26? shows that comes out to around $88,000 a show. Not a bad payday at all. Let's assume for the sake of argument he only got 1.5 million for the tour, that still comes out to $57,000 a show. My guess is that's still way way more than he was making playing bars and tiny theaters.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-26 05:00 by mnewman505.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-26 05:00 by mnewman505.
Re: Stones should have used Mick Taylor the way the Eagles used Bernie Leadon this year
Posted by:
stonehearted
()
Date: September 26, 2013 05:02
Quote
NoCode0680
the missed opportunity of having the '69-'74 lineup on stage together, even just for one song. Bill was there Taylor was there, but they never went on stage together. I thought that was a real shame.
Maybe Mick Jagger didn't see it that way, that both Taylor and Wyman should come onstage together and blend into a "time warp tribute" to their former selves. Maybe he thought it would be better to give each a spotlight moment of their own--and better for the pacing of the show to have two special guest appearances at different times--so that the contributions of each could be fully recognized rather than being diluted by having them both on at the same time.
Re: Stones should have used Mick Taylor the way the Eagles used Bernie Leadon this year
Posted by:
NoCode0680
()
Date: September 26, 2013 05:25
Quote
stoneheartedQuote
NoCode0680
the missed opportunity of having the '69-'74 lineup on stage together, even just for one song. Bill was there Taylor was there, but they never went on stage together. I thought that was a real shame.
Maybe Mick Jagger didn't see it that way, that both Taylor and Wyman should come onstage together and blend into a "time warp tribute" to their former selves. Maybe he thought it would be better to give each a spotlight moment of their own--and better for the pacing of the show to have two special guest appearances at different times--so that the contributions of each could be fully recognized rather than being diluted by having them both on at the same time.
Isn't their entire career these days a "time warp tribute" to their former selves? It's a nostalgia show, and I don't mean that in a bad way like some people do. If Mick didn't want them on stage out of fear it would turn into a "time warp tribute", it probably had more to do with insecurities about the current lineup than any sort of pacing issue or diluting appearance. Not that he should. I don't think if the '69-'74 lineup got on stage they'd sound like the Stones of old, they'd just sound like old Stones, but it would have been a really cool treat for fans. Some at least. I know some people could give two shits about Taylor, and some of the general public have no clue who he is unless you tell them that he used to be in the Stones, but I personally would have liked to see it. As a fan of all guitarists in the group with no hate-boner for any of them, unlike some people seem to have around here in the silly Taylor/Wood feud that Taylor/Wood have probably never heard of, I like to see and hear stuff from all eras. If Brian were alive I would have liked to see him up there. As a fan of the band's entire history I can't help but have some things I'd like to see.
Re: Stones should have used Mick Taylor the way the Eagles used Bernie Leadon this year
Posted by:
stonehearted
()
Date: September 26, 2013 05:53
Quote
NoCode0680Quote
stonehearted
Isn't their entire career these days a "time warp tribute" to their former selves? It's a nostalgia show
For the musicians onstage it's just a show, period--one that takes focus, energy, coordination, and, above all, work.
It's the audience that's drunk, dancing, and mooning over their glory days, not the band.
You must of heard what Mick said earlier this year to USA Today, that a new album would be nice, but the audience just doesn't want to hear it.
I'm sure they have another Bridges To Babylon in them, too.
Re: Stones should have used Mick Taylor the way the Eagles used Bernie Leadon this year
Posted by:
NoCode0680
()
Date: September 26, 2013 06:04
Quote
stoneheartedQuote
NoCode0680
Isn't their entire career these days a "time warp tribute" to their former selves? It's a nostalgia show
For the musicians onstage it's just a show, period--one that takes focus, energy, coordination, and, above all, work.
It's the audience that's drunk, dancing, and mooning over their glory days, not the band.
You must of heard what Mick said earlier this year to USA Today, that a new album would be nice, but the audience just doesn't want to hear it.
I'm sure they have another Bridges To Babylon in them, too.
By this logic it would make sense to give the audience more Taylor and Wyman though. If they're putting on a nostalgia show for the sake of the audience, then why are they holding out on the nostalgia?
Re: Stones should have used Mick Taylor the way the Eagles used Bernie Leadon this year
Posted by:
stonehearted
()
Date: September 26, 2013 06:27
Quote
NoCode0680
By this logic it would make sense to give the audience more Taylor and Wyman though. If they're putting on a nostalgia show for the sake of the audience, then why are they holding out on the nostalgia?
Are you sure they are doing it for "the sake of the audience"? I think they do it for themselves first--performing, that is.
Mick was just conceding that their concert audience, at this point in time, doesn't get excited over new material. He plans the set lists based on audience reaction, because he wants to keep them excited, to keep the show moving.
Otherwise, their mainstream audience doesn't care whether Taylor isn't there to play on Taylor-era songs, and they still pay to hear them play Brian-era songs even without Brian there to play on them. And after Wyman left, they still payed to see them play no matter who was there filling in on bass.
If The Stones announce a tour tomorrow, it will sell out in 5 minutes, regardless of special guests, just so long as the audience gets what it wants--the core band playing the familiar hits they want to hear.
Re: Stones should have used Mick Taylor the way the Eagles used Bernie Leadon this year
Posted by:
NoCode0680
()
Date: September 26, 2013 06:51
Quote
stoneheartedQuote
NoCode0680
By this logic it would make sense to give the audience more Taylor and Wyman though. If they're putting on a nostalgia show for the sake of the audience, then why are they holding out on the nostalgia?
Are you sure they are doing it for "the sake of the audience"? I think they do it for themselves first--performing, that is.
Mick was just conceding that their concert audience, at this point in time, doesn't get excited over new material. He plans the set lists based on audience reaction, because he wants to keep them excited, to keep the show moving.
Otherwise, their mainstream audience doesn't care whether Taylor isn't there to play on Taylor-era songs, and they still pay to hear them play Brian-era songs even without Brian there to play on them. And after Wyman left, they still payed to see them play no matter who was there filling in on bass.
If The Stones announce a tour tomorrow, it will sell out in 5 minutes, regardless of special guests, just so long as the audience gets what it wants--the core band playing the familiar hits they want to hear.
Certainly if the Stones announce a tour tomorrow it will sell out, based on nostalgia. As Mick pointed out, people don't really care about new material, they're coming for the old stuff. It sounds like Mick has given up on trying to turn fans on to new music. That's the definition of nostalgia act. And nostalgia acts usually aren't doing it for themselves, there's nothing artistically satisfying about playing the same songs in the same order every night. At this point they are doing it for themselves as you said, but for the money. Which I have no problem with, I'll personally take as much cash as I can get my hands on. And to get that money, they're trying to do things they think the fans want, but only as long as it's within the realm of what they want.
As you pointed out, the mainstream audience doesn't care if Taylor or Bill are up there. Just like they probably care less if Darryl and Woody are up there either, or for some, even Keith. As long as Mick is shaking his ass up there and singing a well known song they're fine. But there are people who do care, so why not throw them a bone as long as it doesn't interfere with the mainstream audiences enjoyment? They could make two groups happy at once.
Re: Stones should have used Mick Taylor the way the Eagles used Bernie Leadon this year
Posted by:
crholmstrom
()
Date: September 26, 2013 12:19
They didn't sell out the last tour.Quote
stoneheartedQuote
NoCode0680
By this logic it would make sense to give the audience more Taylor and Wyman though. If they're putting on a nostalgia show for the sake of the audience, then why are they holding out on the nostalgia?
Are you sure they are doing it for "the sake of the audience"? I think they do it for themselves first--performing, that is.
Mick was just conceding that their concert audience, at this point in time, doesn't get excited over new material. He plans the set lists based on audience reaction, because he wants to keep them excited, to keep the show moving.
Otherwise, their mainstream audience doesn't care whether Taylor isn't there to play on Taylor-era songs, and they still pay to hear them play Brian-era songs even without Brian there to play on them. And after Wyman left, they still payed to see them play no matter who was there filling in on bass.
If The Stones announce a tour tomorrow, it will sell out in 5 minutes, regardless of special guests, just so long as the audience gets what it wants--the core band playing the familiar hits they want to hear.
Re: Stones should have used Mick Taylor the way the Eagles used Bernie Leadon this year
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 26, 2013 12:42
Quote
crholmstromThey didn't sell out the last tour.Quote
stoneheartedQuote
NoCode0680
By this logic it would make sense to give the audience more Taylor and Wyman though. If they're putting on a nostalgia show for the sake of the audience, then why are they holding out on the nostalgia?
Are you sure they are doing it for "the sake of the audience"? I think they do it for themselves first--performing, that is.
Mick was just conceding that their concert audience, at this point in time, doesn't get excited over new material. He plans the set lists based on audience reaction, because he wants to keep them excited, to keep the show moving.
Otherwise, their mainstream audience doesn't care whether Taylor isn't there to play on Taylor-era songs, and they still pay to hear them play Brian-era songs even without Brian there to play on them. And after Wyman left, they still payed to see them play no matter who was there filling in on bass.
If The Stones announce a tour tomorrow, it will sell out in 5 minutes, regardless of special guests, just so long as the audience gets what it wants--the core band playing the familiar hits they want to hear.
Someone posted statistics here, showing that they did.
Re: Stones should have used Mick Taylor the way the Eagles used Bernie Leadon this year
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 26, 2013 12:48
Taylor got four songs on selected shows, and two songs every night.
I don't think anyone in the audience doubted he was appreciated by the band as something more than a "special guest".
Of course, they could have used him more, but there are lots of things we don't know about this.
I don't think anyone in the audience doubted he was appreciated by the band as something more than a "special guest".
Of course, they could have used him more, but there are lots of things we don't know about this.
Re: Stones should have used Mick Taylor the way the Eagles used Bernie Leadon this year
Posted by:
svt22
()
Date: September 26, 2013 13:39
Quote
DoomandGloom
I love Taylor but his stamina is questionable.
It depends on how you would define stamina? His health, his musical input? He could easily play with them for 15 songs or something like that.
I think the entire RS stamina is questionable. Some kind of disaster tourism to listen and watch their shows imo. Others call it being a hardcore fan.
Re: Stones should have used Mick Taylor the way the Eagles used Bernie Leadon this year
Posted by:
kwf
()
Date: September 26, 2013 15:39
It's probably down to business and marketing decision making at this point. The 50&C tour in 2013 featured him more than in 2012...Perhaps they will feature him even more in 2014. Business angles and marketing strategies will be different. They might not be able to get more $ per ticket, but perhaps they'll be better able to justify what they are asking for $ wise...and that will keep them on the road.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-26 15:40 by kwf.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-26 15:40 by kwf.
Re: Stones should have used Mick Taylor the way the Eagles used Bernie Leadon this year
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 26, 2013 16:02
Do you think Taylor has anything to do with the RS marketing strategy?
Re: Stones should have used Mick Taylor the way the Eagles used Bernie Leadon this year
Posted by:
kwf
()
Date: September 26, 2013 18:12
No, but the 50&C tour wasn't billed as any kind of reunion or a tour for a new album, etc...If the strategy was "We're going out and touring in support of the Deluxe Sticky Fingers reissue" mentioning that MT was on board in advertising might move additional tickets/create additional hype...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-26 18:15 by kwf.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-26 18:15 by kwf.
Re: Stones should have used Mick Taylor the way the Eagles used Bernie Leadon this year
Posted by:
owlbynite
()
Date: September 27, 2013 08:57
RollingFreakRe: Stones should have used Mick Taylor the way the Eagles used Bernie Leadon this year
Posted by:
dgodkin
()
Date: September 27, 2013 16:14
love mick taylor but he quit the stones, no one forced him out,so in my book the stones did right by him, the man could have been a stone the last 30 yrs..that was his call
Re: Stones should have used Mick Taylor the way the Eagles used Bernie Leadon this year
Posted by:
Munichhilton
()
Date: September 27, 2013 16:18
Quote
dgodkin
love mick taylor but he quit the stones, no one forced him out,so in my book the stones did right by him, the man could have been a stone the last 30 yrs..that was his call
He got bad banking advice from his healthcare provider...rotten healthcare provider...
Re: Stones should have used Mick Taylor the way the Eagles used Bernie Leadon this year
Posted by:
triceratops
()
Date: September 27, 2013 17:55
Quote
dgodkin
love mick taylor but he quit the stones, no one forced him out,so in my book the stones did right by him, the man could have been a stone the last 30 yrs..that was his call
He was forced out by junkie Keith. These were Keith's prime junkie years. Due to jelousy probably and-or Mick Taylor just started grating on Keith for who knows what reason. Mick was neutral but had to go along with his long time collaborator.
Keith had his big heroin bust in Toronto 1977, 26 months laater (about)
centerfield maz: Keith Richards Toronto Drug Bust 30 Years Later
www.centerfieldmaz.com/2008/.../keith-richards-toronto-drug-bust-30.ht...?
Oct 23, 2008 - According to Keith it took the law two hours to wake him up out of a stoned stupor. He was originally charged with "possession of heroin for the ...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-27 17:56 by triceratops.
Re: Stones should have used Mick Taylor the way the Eagles used Bernie Leadon this year
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 27, 2013 18:36
That is a fairy tale. Keith never forced him out, but probably the wish to stay alive and getting off smack himself did...
Re: Stones should have used Mick Taylor the way the Eagles used Bernie Leadon this year
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: September 27, 2013 18:43
Quote
DandelionPowderman
That is a fairy tale. Keith never forced him out, but probably the wish to stay alive and getting off smack himself did...
... and his delusions of grandeur.
Re: Stones should have used Mick Taylor the way the Eagles used Bernie Leadon this year
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: September 27, 2013 20:16
Quote
DandelionPowderman
That is a fairy tale. Keith never forced him out, but probably the wish to stay alive and getting off smack himself did...
I don't believe the drug-escape theory. They didn't live as a gang anymore. It weren't the Nellcote days anymore, so to speak.
Re: Stones should have used Mick Taylor the way the Eagles used Bernie Leadon this year
Posted by:
NoCode0680
()
Date: September 27, 2013 20:47
Quote
kleermakerQuote
DandelionPowderman
That is a fairy tale. Keith never forced him out, but probably the wish to stay alive and getting off smack himself did...
I don't believe the drug-escape theory. They didn't live as a gang anymore. It weren't the Nellcote days anymore, so to speak.
I don't know how much truth there is to that story, but you can't dismiss the drug-escape theory for that reason. Maybe they weren't together all the time, but they WOULD be. If you're trying to get off smack, you might be able to stay off when you're at home, but then you go into the studio and on tour with the likes of Keith Richards, that's trigger city. If he were trying to get off drugs, separating himself from the Stones would have been very necessary. If you're an alcoholic trying to stay dry you don't take a job at a liquor store, and if you're trying to get off drugs you don't go touring with the Stones in the 70's. Having said that, I have no clue if it played any part in his leaving. Aside from his playing and the few things Keith wrote about him in "Life" I don't know much about the guy.
Re: Stones should have used Mick Taylor the way the Eagles used Bernie Leadon this year
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: September 27, 2013 21:26
Quote
NoCode0680Quote
kleermakerQuote
DandelionPowderman
That is a fairy tale. Keith never forced him out, but probably the wish to stay alive and getting off smack himself did...
I don't believe the drug-escape theory. They didn't live as a gang anymore. It weren't the Nellcote days anymore, so to speak.
I don't know how much truth there is to that story, but you can't dismiss the drug-escape theory for that reason. Maybe they weren't together all the time, but they WOULD be. If you're trying to get off smack, you might be able to stay off when you're at home, but then you go into the studio and on tour with the likes of Keith Richards, that's trigger city. If he were trying to get off drugs, separating himself from the Stones would have been very necessary. If you're an alcoholic trying to stay dry you don't take a job at a liquor store, and if you're trying to get off drugs you don't go touring with the Stones in the 70's. Having said that, I have no clue if it played any part in his leaving. Aside from his playing and the few things Keith wrote about him in "Life" I don't know much about the guy.
If the drug-escape theory is true then Taylor should have been drug-free after leaving the Stones. I heavily doubt if that was the case. So I think we can send that theory to Stones's myths land
Re: Stones should have used Mick Taylor the way the Eagles used Bernie Leadon this year
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 27, 2013 23:23
It's not easy getting off smack... you can't say "should have"
Re: Stones should have used Mick Taylor the way the Eagles used Bernie Leadon this year
Posted by:
nick
()
Date: September 28, 2013 01:31
Let's see...
1. 50th Anniversary tour
2. Keith saying "We're a 3 guitar band"
3. Pricing, although in line with price increases from the last tour you can't pull off in the current global economy.
4. Slower tempo in the music. I dont need to be there and that you CAN hear it by watching YouTube.
...are all good reasons why "Stones should have used Mick Taylor the way the Eagles used Bernie Leadon this year".
I just ripped on my band. I never did that before. Now that I'm on the other side I want to say that this BAND is also a BRAND and as a consumer we have every right to either bitch about product WE are paying for or simply don't buy it. I wonder how many people didn't go this time? I didn't.
1. 50th Anniversary tour
2. Keith saying "We're a 3 guitar band"
3. Pricing, although in line with price increases from the last tour you can't pull off in the current global economy.
4. Slower tempo in the music. I dont need to be there and that you CAN hear it by watching YouTube.
...are all good reasons why "Stones should have used Mick Taylor the way the Eagles used Bernie Leadon this year".
I just ripped on my band. I never did that before. Now that I'm on the other side I want to say that this BAND is also a BRAND and as a consumer we have every right to either bitch about product WE are paying for or simply don't buy it. I wonder how many people didn't go this time? I didn't.
Re: Stones should have used Mick Taylor the way the Eagles used Bernie Leadon this year
Posted by:
crholmstrom
()
Date: September 28, 2013 14:56
I heard a story that Mick T had a hole eaten through his septum from the coke abuse. Not good.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-29 03:43 by crholmstrom.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-29 03:43 by crholmstrom.
Re: Stones should have used Mick Taylor the way the Eagles used Bernie Leadon this year
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: September 28, 2013 15:44
Quote
kleermaker
If the drug-escape theory is true then Taylor should have been drug-free after leaving the Stones. I heavily doubt if that was the case. So I think we can send that theory to Stones's myths land
Deary me!
He could easily have wanted to get away from the full on unlimited access to drugs stones world, but failed to get himself away from his own addictions.
Anyway, his smug and pompous demeanour in the old grey whistle test interview suggests to me it was more his delusions of grandeur and egotism that made him leave.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-28 15:46 by His Majesty.
Re: Stones should have used Mick Taylor the way the Eagles used Bernie Leadon this year
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: September 28, 2013 16:55
Quote
His MajestyQuote
kleermaker
If the drug-escape theory is true then Taylor should have been drug-free after leaving the Stones. I heavily doubt if that was the case. So I think we can send that theory to Stones's myths land
Deary me!
He could easily have wanted to get away from the full on unlimited access to drugs stones world, but failed to get himself away from his own addictions.
Anyway, his smug and pompous demeanour in the old grey whistle test interview suggests to me it was more his delusions of grandeur and egotism that made him leave.
"and egotism" ... The other Stones, especially Mick and Keith, are altruists, you suggest? Deary me!
Re: Stones should have used Mick Taylor the way the Eagles used Bernie Leadon this year
Posted by:
NoCode0680
()
Date: September 28, 2013 17:21
Quote
kleermakerQuote
NoCode0680Quote
kleermakerQuote
DandelionPowderman
That is a fairy tale. Keith never forced him out, but probably the wish to stay alive and getting off smack himself did...
I don't believe the drug-escape theory. They didn't live as a gang anymore. It weren't the Nellcote days anymore, so to speak.
I don't know how much truth there is to that story, but you can't dismiss the drug-escape theory for that reason. Maybe they weren't together all the time, but they WOULD be. If you're trying to get off smack, you might be able to stay off when you're at home, but then you go into the studio and on tour with the likes of Keith Richards, that's trigger city. If he were trying to get off drugs, separating himself from the Stones would have been very necessary. If you're an alcoholic trying to stay dry you don't take a job at a liquor store, and if you're trying to get off drugs you don't go touring with the Stones in the 70's. Having said that, I have no clue if it played any part in his leaving. Aside from his playing and the few things Keith wrote about him in "Life" I don't know much about the guy.
If the drug-escape theory is true then Taylor should have been drug-free after leaving the Stones. I heavily doubt if that was the case. So I think we can send that theory to Stones's myths land
I'm guessing you don't have a lot of experience with, or knowledge of, drugs if you think that the moment you say "I'm quitting" is the moment you're done. How many times in Keith's book do we read about him "quitting" only to fall back into heroin? How many cold turkeys, bogus cures and the like did Keith try before he was finally (I'm assuming) off? It lasts about a decade in his book with a couple of more relapses in later years, and sometimes he was more serious than others, but he couldn't get off is the point. IF Taylor left because of drugs, it doesn't mean he had to stay off. Especially when his career didn't pan out the way he was hoping, and being known as that "idiot who quit the Stones". Can you imagine seeing the Stones on TV, going on Mega-Tours and being filthy rich, riding around in limos and living the glamorous life, all the while you're sitting in your crappy house next to a pile of bills with your broken down sedan rusting in the driveway? Knowing that could be you if you'd just stayed? I'd probably shoot up too. But the point is that if he quit to try and get off the drugs, it's not a shock at all that he didn't stay off. Look how people struggle with just getting off cigarettes, now imagine that with heroin.
Re: Stones should have used Mick Taylor the way the Eagles used Bernie Leadon this year
Posted by:
moonlightaffair
()
Date: September 28, 2013 18:22
Lots of keen observations NoCode. Seems right on to me.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Guests:
1201
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10