For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
treaclefingers
I'd love to know the reason why MT is dragged around the world, but not used.
It's a real shame.
Quote
saltoftheearthQuote
Roll73
... - but again for the majority it would be weird to see a 3rd guitarist on stage for more than just a guest slot.
Really? I doubt if many people would care at all if the band sounded good, be it fans or casual concertgoers. Many bands have additional musicians on stage, think only of Ollie Brown on the 1975/76 tours who sat prominently behind Charlie.
Quote
gotdablouseQuote
Roll73
It's not just about the music though is it. People come to SEE Keith. He represents so much. Ironically in some ways it's like a return to the days when girls' screaming drowned out the sound of the band. For most people, when Keith steps to the front of the stage for a solo it's not about the execution of it at all - it's just the excitement of seeing Keith throwing the shapes and making some sounds. The rest of the band is clearly strong enough to cover his shortcomings, so for most of the casual concert attendee Keith's decline playing-wise probably goes unnoticed.
Yep, but where do you draw the line? Look at what's happening with Chuck Berry these days, he's a total embarrassment as a musician but people are still paying to SEE him and many/most say they had a great time after the show.
Obviously (?) cooler heads will prevail in the Stones' camp...having said that maybe they should work on a way of having Taylor "ramp up" and play some of Keith's more difficult parts. I know this sounds crazy but would the casual concert attendee even notice if he played the GS intro next to Keith strumming?
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
treaclefingers
I'd love to know the reason why MT is dragged around the world, but not used.
It's a real shame.
He's not used during the 25 minutes (more than a fourth of the show effectively) he's on stage?
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
treaclefingers
I'd love to know the reason why MT is dragged around the world, but not used.
It's a real shame.
He's not used during the 25 minutes (more than a fourth of the show effectively) he's on stage?
Because the rest of the set MT needs a cigarette break?
PS, when I saw them in Toronto, the show was over 2 hours...it's under 1 hour and 40 minutes now?
Quote
Roll73Quote
gotdablouseQuote
Roll73
It's not just about the music though is it. People come to SEE Keith. He represents so much. Ironically in some ways it's like a return to the days when girls' screaming drowned out the sound of the band. For most people, when Keith steps to the front of the stage for a solo it's not about the execution of it at all - it's just the excitement of seeing Keith throwing the shapes and making some sounds. The rest of the band is clearly strong enough to cover his shortcomings, so for most of the casual concert attendee Keith's decline playing-wise probably goes unnoticed.
Yep, but where do you draw the line? Look at what's happening with Chuck Berry these days, he's a total embarrassment as a musician but people are still paying to SEE him and many/most say they had a great time after the show.
Obviously (?) cooler heads will prevail in the Stones' camp...having said that maybe they should work on a way of having Taylor "ramp up" and play some of Keith's more difficult parts. I know this sounds crazy but would the casual concert attendee even notice if he played the GS intro next to Keith strumming?
I know it's been said many, many times before but surely (I mean surely?!) we aren't going to see the Stones on the road again once this current tour is over. As you say 'cooler heads will prevail' which I'm sure will be the case. So therefore, even if it makes sense musically, are they really going to start dialling down Keith's input in favour of 'ramping up' Taylor? Doubt it.