Quote
EJM
Great summary Doxa. I think it is really interesting to see Keith struggle with decline but not be defeated by it - others find it sad but curiously I think it is one of the most interesting parts of the show

Yeah EJM, it is uplifting and brings to mind that other Dylan...

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.


Okay, enough philsophy from me for today, the dishes are waiting in the sink.

The mess is that the Stones have turned themselves into their own geriatric coverband with a singer who is still engaged with his Peter Pan obsessions. It had been better if they had focussed their portfolio on their blues roots. They always had their best and most authentic moments if they played the blues. Thus it had been possible for them to make tasteful Post-ABB-albums composing new tunes and covering their "musical parents". To do this material live would be no problem at all since it would be expression of "their inner lights". Johnny Cash dared to do so and was successful. The point is to grow old in dignity or gracefully. What we have now is a band who is unable to play their own music in an acceptable manner torturing their audience with lousy gigs again and again since they play the music of their youth in an inauthentic manner, as a show act and nothing more.

<unable to play their own music in an acceptable manner torturing their audience with lousy gigs again and again>



I can promise you that I didn't feel the slightest torture while rocking out to the Stones in neither the O2 Arena or in HP.

On the contrary, the shows were good, and the setlists were very different

I never saw them live in Their heyday. I was expecting it to be terrible at HP2 and it was absolutely fantastic - I saw no sign of torture any where in the park ( or outside the perimeter wall ) . Whatever it is they are capable of doing , on a good night they can do it to a very high standard - the suspense is knowing if they will pull it off on your particular night.

I'd add that the bulk of the people attending (and forking out big bucks) these concerts are not going to pay to see/hear old blues songs.

Besides, there's the Mick Taylor guest appearances to look forward to for the blues roots stuff.

I'm pretty sure most members don't want let MT play more than he did during the 2013 tour, except maybe CW, because he's all smile when Taylor is on stage, but his preference doesn't count.

The whole thing has to do with the image of the band. Don't forget LA 2013, the reviews of Knocking, the reaction of the crowd. Letting MT fire on all cylinders would make the band like it played before look pale as dead. These shows aren't meant to show the band at its utmost best with Taylor, they're meant to show Jagger and Richards in what probably will be their last Stones glory.

Quote
RobertJohnson
What we have now is a band who is unable to play their own music in an acceptable manner torturing their audience with lousy gigs again and again

No we dont. I suspect your opinion is based on the poor quality mobile phone clips on youtube. All of the recent gigs have been solid, solid playing by the whole band and none of the audience left feeling tortured. All left with a smile on their face from watching a great rock n roll band play a great gig. Who cares if Keith flubbed an easy intro? Since when hasnt Keith flubbed an intro or played in the wrong key...this has happened since the 60's and nobody flubs it as well as Keith.

Quote
RobertJohnson
The point is to grow old in dignity or gracefully.

What the hell are you talking about? This is the Rolling Stones not Cliff Richards...of course theyre not going to grow old gracefully.

Quote
RobertJohnson
They always had their best and most authentic moments if they played the blues.

Nope.

Quote
RobertJohnson
The mess is that the Stones have turned themselves into their own geriatric coverband with a singer who is still engaged with his Peter Pan obsessions. It had been better if they had focussed their portfolio on their blues roots. They always had their best and most authentic moments if they played the blues. Thus it had been possible for them to make tasteful Post-ABB-albums composing new tunes and covering their "musical parents". To do this material live would be no problem at all since it would be expression of "their inner lights". Johnny Cash dared to do so and was successful. The point is to grow old in dignity or gracefully. What we have now is a band who is unable to play their own music in an acceptable manner torturing their audience with lousy gigs again and again since they play the music of their youth in an inauthentic manner, as a show act and nothing more.

A bit harsh but there's more truth in your statement than a lot of people here dare to realize.

Quote
kleermaker
I'm pretty sure most members don't want let MT play more than he did during the 2013 tour, except maybe CW, because he's all smile when Taylor is on stage, but his preference doesn't count.

The whole thing has to do with the image of the band. Don't forget LA 2013, the reviews of Knocking, the reaction of the crowd. Letting MT fire on all cylinders would make the band like it played before look pale as dead. These shows aren't meant to show the band at its utmost best with Taylor, they're meant to show Jagger and Richards in what probably will be their last Stones glory.

It did for Darryl. In the end, it was based CW's opinion.

Quote
whitem8
This is just more of Keith's legend talk that is disconnected with reality.

Bingo! That's exactly what I meant in my earlier post.

Bottom line is that a lot of people here make the mistake to analyze Taylor's involvement from a purely musical or artistic point of view and therefore draw conclusions that fail to explain the current state of affairs.

So it turned out last year that either Taylor or the rest of the band or even both parties were unable to integrate a third guitar? Are we talking about Mozart or Beethoven here or relatively simply structured basic Rock 'n Roll tunes? Even if it was the case that "having Taylor back" was a nice idea that did not work out in reality it would not explain Taylor's presence in 2014.

No, as the Stones are almost entirely a business-driven thing these days, my conclusion is that Taylor's involvement was never planned out of any artistic desires. He is just a part of the "show" to throw some older fans a bone to chew on, to create some excitement that "something great" is going to happen, to help to sell tickets.

He's also a safety net in case any problems occur in the shaky guitar department we experienced during tours of the past. Quite possibly they even save a lot of insurance money with a safety net that has some kind of Stones credibility - unlike, let's say, Blondie Chaplin.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-03-03 21:29 by retired_dog.

Quote
retired_dog

Bottom line is that a lot of people here make the mistake to analyze Taylor's involvement from a purely musical or artistic point of view and therefore draw conclusions that fail to explain the current state of affairs.

Yes indeed, despite Doxa's lengthy try to rationalize things from a musical point of view.

Good points, retired_dog, and I don't necessarily see that you are that far from my stance, even though I emphasize some things differently.

I don't think they had any plans to 'integrate' Taylor into band initially. He wasn't there when the band seriously started to rehearse. Like Wyman he was asked to be a 'special guest' in some shows, and that seemed to work so fine that they continued that deal. So I don't think it never 'turned out to be that' anything more than that. Neither there were any 'artistic desires' more than that. Just a special 'show number' to excite hardcore fans and probably sell some more tickets - and it worked also PR-wise nicely. In almost article discussing the tour or the upcoming shows, Taylor's presence - and associatation to band's glory past - was mentioned. It created some extra 'hype', even though many people didn't know who the man was - but probably understood that was something extraordinary and special (even not for anything else but justify the high ticket prices).

My point was just give some light to the musical reasons why even theoretically there was not much desire to integrate him more. Musically the band didn't need him, and like I tried to argue, his involvement could have caused too much extra hassle for these guys and to their quarter century old routines, that they didn't even didn't want to try that (if it ever even occured to their minds). They had enough to do by just warming up their old routines, never mind reinventing some new ones. True, that adding some third guitar is not any rocket science musically, but, frankly, I tend to see these guys so conservative and damn stubborn, routine-tied musically these days, always looking for a safest option, that to me it looks like a mission impossible, even if there had been a will for that (which I doubt). So in there we disagree.

But, honestly, now when I think of that, I am not that certain - probably it finally is/was a question of will, and there simply was not that (for integrating Taylor more). So Taylor ended up as a kind of circus number within the show they drag all over the world, causing as little damage to the 'basic show' as possible.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-03-03 22:08 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

But, honestly, now when I think of that, I am not that certain - probably it finally is/was a question of will, and there simply was not that (for integrating Taylor more). So Taylor ended up as a kind of circus number within the show they drag all over the world, causing as little damage to the 'basic show' as possible.

- Doxa

Indeed, if there was a will, there also was a way, as we say it here.

Secondly, I doubt the supposition that Taylor is the great unknown. He is not, maybe only amongst the younger 'fans', for whom the Stones are no more than some interesting museum piece one must have seen when having the opportunity.

Quote
SweetThing


But whatever the reason, I think its like Dandy says... just disturbing Taylor is back there night after night, with so little to do. Wish they'd just put their toe in the water and maybe throw him on one warhorse every 2nd or third show. How much would that really upset the apple cart at this late date?

It is aggravating, Mick Taylor is 50ft away but not called to play on Stones tunes where he was on the original recording. It's downright ridiculous. You could put him over in the back mostly strumming

Here is the beginning of the recent Tokyo setlist

Get Off Of My Cloud
It's Only Rock'n Roll
Tumbling Dice
Wild Horses
Emotional Rescue
Doom & Gloom
Bitch (fan vote)
Honky Tonk Women

MT was on the original recording of 5 of them by my count

Quote
triceratops

Quote
SweetThing


But whatever the reason, I think its like Dandy says... just disturbing Taylor is back there night after night, with so little to do. Wish they'd just put their toe in the water and maybe throw him on one warhorse every 2nd or third show. How much would that really upset the apple cart at this late date?

It is aggravating, Mick Taylor is 50ft away but not called to play on Stones tunes where he was on the original recording. It's downright ridiculous. You could put him over in the back mostly strumming

Here is the beginning of the recent Tokyo setlist

Get Off Of My Cloud
It's Only Rock'n Roll
Tumbling Dice
Wild Horses
Emotional Rescue
Doom & Gloom
Bitch (fan vote)
Honky Tonk Women

MT was on the original recording of 5 of them by my count

He was on four of them, and played guitar on three.

Quote
DandelionPowderman


He was on four of them, and played guitar on three.

Right! Mick Taylor was not on It's Only Rock'n Roll

Quote
Rockman
Keith wants more MT
Jagger over rules this. The amount of MT you see on tour is what Jagger wants

... yeah but that just you surmising what is going on within the Stones camp...still not proof

...then we will need to get some pudding