Quote
SPellegrino
Wow, this thread is so full of tripe.
First, if you really know the Stones from their history as an outsider then Yes you could say that Jagger has much to do with how the band is seen and heard, etc. However, don't thin Keith Richard is some pansy. Keith has much to say about just has much influence. Charlie has long been involved with the tour planning alongside Jagger as well as other elements. Don't sell Ronnie short. He found a way to live, thrive, and survive in the Stones bubble when Taylor and Wyman could not.

Now, Jagger does or has done much of the business of the band but he had a lot of help from Prince R and Ahmet E. He got into to LSE but droppe dout for the Stones so we know he can smell a better deal but seriously folks he does not run the lives of the other members.

Oh, and as far as Ronnie's playing- yeah MT and Richards had a good trade of licks on Sympathy but it was clearly two different kind of players. Look at Beast of a Burden from 1978 in Texas. Ronnie and Keith compliment one another in style.

Also, on last note and this is fact not supposition. MT left the band some 30 years ago. Don't bash Ronnie just to try to make your love MT seem stronger. Give the guy some respect. Our band could have broken up long ago if not for Mr. Wood's personality, talent, and ability to play so many styles.

40 years actually (MT departing). And while I personally do not like the bashing of RW as part of a "Pro Taylor" speech carried away, RW is actually not related to the topic here: this is not a debate about "Whos the best 2nd guitarist of the Stones" but rather about "why dont they use the Taylor sound more" - based on the assumption that Taylor's potential contribution wouldn't be YET ANOTHER Rythem guitar but a Taylor sound.

Quote
Dreamer

So Ronnie is a good team player doing his thing very tastefully for Richards who plays what he can while they all are in a terrible misbalance??
Some people can't get it out of their mouth!
Although you're not entirely wrong with your observations; so who do you think wants MT to play more when Ronnie is so very tastefully and with eternal respect to his older brother by knowing his place not outshining maestro Richards... That's the question people should answer for themselves.
The answer? For years KR is much better as a politician; he can sell anything he wants even if he's barking out of tune. He would never let MT play on 7 songs or something.
But hey, people believe they can vote for Silver Train believe anything...

Good that I am "entirely wrong" in my observations... gives me hope!

Yep, probably I was a bit vague about words about "misbalence". Let me try better. Let's say that from the outset the guitarist twins are in a balance in th sense that their co-work works (for the show), but there is a tension between them, which at least partly bothers me (if I want to be very very critical, which I am not if I go see them live - this is just arm-chair talk). The tension or misbalance derives from Keith playing his ass off, putting there anything he is able to deliver at the moment, while Woodie just uses rather little of his potentia - he could do so much more and better. That was teh impression I at least got from Hyde Park show last year - actually I never seen Wood so strong and sure as a Rolling Stone guitarist earlier (during the modern age, that is). It all looked so easy for him. Even too easy - like not needing to even try too much. There was no challenge for him. But wheras Keith sounded almost like struggling to keep his shit together - to somehow deliver all those legendary riffs and chords, even a solo here and there. Never seen Keith so fragile and weak as a guitar player. Which didn't mean that he couldn't sound impressive most of the time - he knows what he does within his limitations, and is doing a great job there. No one has a touch like him. But the over-all impression was that of the guys not any longer naturally matching together as a guitar team. But it works because all of it is build around Keith's role, and Ronnie plays (surely better than no one else in this world) a perfect second fiddle to him.

So I think adding Taylor there as an integral part of the team sounds good in a theory, but is there actually room for him really? He is all-over a different kind of guitar player than those other two. From those little moments he had been there in a 'three guitar attack' (and not just adding extended solos), it has been a rather chaotic, like no one really knowing what to do, with a result of Ronnie taking a back seat. From the base of their Jimmy Reed co-work Wood and Taylor could match easily, both being still rather strong, adaptive guitar players, but this is not a jam-based blues gig, but a Rolling Stones show...

But let me remind that this is just my way of trying to make sense of what's going on from a musical point of view, not what I would like to see happen (which is 'More Taylor Please!"). . But my take is that it is not the issue of egos or politics here, but just the reality of the band and the condition of its key members in A.D. 2013/14. So I don't seek for 'guilty ones' here (be it Mick or Keith). I understand that sometimes Keith 'talks too much', which we romantic fools here may take too literally sometimes - like this thread shows.

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2014-03-03 13:26 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Dreamer

So Ronnie is a good team player doing his thing very tastefully for Richards who plays what he can while they all are in a terrible misbalance??
Some people can't get it out of their mouth!
Although you're not entirely wrong with your observations; so who do you think wants MT to play more when Ronnie is so very tastefully and with eternal respect to his older brother by knowing his place not outshining maestro Richards... That's the question people should answer for themselves.
The answer? For years KR is much better as a politician; he can sell anything he wants even if he's barking out of tune. He would never let MT play on 7 songs or something.
But hey, people believe they can vote for Silver Train believe anything...

Good that I am "entirely wrong" in my observations... gives me hope!

Yep, probably I was a bit vague about words about "misbalence". Let me try better. Let's say that from the outset the guitarist twins are in a balance in th sense that their co-work works (for the show), but there is a tension between them, which at least partly bothers me (if I want to be very very critical, which I am not if I go see them live - this is just arm-chair talk). The tension or misbalance derives from Keith playing his ass off, putting there anything he is able to deliver at the moment, while Woodie just uses rather little of his potentia - he could do so much more and better. That was teh impression I at least got from Hyde Park show last year - actually I never seen Wood so strong and sure as a Rolling Stone guitarist earlier (during the modern age, that is). It all looked so easy for him. Even too easy - like not needing to even try too much. There was no challenge for him. But wheras Keith sounded almost like struggling to keep his shit together - to somehow deliver all those legendary riffs and chords, even a solo here and there. Never seen Keith so fragile and weak as a guitar player. Which didn't mean that he couldn't sound impressive most of the time - he knows what he does within his limitations, and is doing a great job there. No one has a touch like him. But the over-all impression was that of the guys not any longer naturally matching together as a guitar team. But it works because all of it is build around Keith's role, and Ronnie plays (surely better than no one else in this world) a perfect second fiddle to him.

So I think adding Taylor there as an integral part of the team sounds good in a theory, but is there actually room for him really? He is all-over a different kind of guitar player than those other two. From those little moments he had been there in a 'three guitar attack' (and not just adding extended solos), it has been a rather chaotic, like no one really knowing what to do, with a result of Ronnie taking a back seat. From the base of their Jimmy Reed co-work Wood and Taylor could match easily, both being still rather strong, adaptive guitar players, but this is not a jam-based blues gig, but a Rolling Stones show...

But let me remind that this is just my way of trying to make sense of what's going on from a musical point of view, not what I would like to see happen (which is 'More Taylor Please!"). . But my take is that it is not the issue of egos or politics here, but just the reality of the band and the condition of its key members in A.D. 2013/14. So I don't seek for 'guilty ones' here (be it Mick or Keith). I understand that sometimes Keith 'talks too much', which we romantic fools here may take too literally sometimes - like this thread shows.

- Doxa

You certainly got more balance now Doxa.
You give a good impression of how it feels to you and what it means to you when you hear them play; always nice to read your analyses on various subjects.
I still have my doubts about playing more with MT; just two or three songs is a good choice I think but it should be stuff like CYHMK & MM; they should 'give' MR to Woody. They could and should make something out of MM like they did with 2000 LYFH the last tour BW was there; create an atmosphere with special lighting and some smoke, would be very nice.
Anyway; nobody on stage would really win when MT would play seven songs. So we wouldn't win. So three songs and one or two shows 4 is fine.

The band, as a whole, might win if Taylor is on stage for 7 songs having a prominent role in, say, three of them.

I think it's the signal of Mick Taylor standing backstage, not contributing, that annoy most of the Taylorites - not necessarily that he isn't noodling all over the place for the entire show.

Moonlight Mile will always get my vote for a song Taylor needs to play on

DOXA QUOTE: So I think adding Taylor there as an integral part of the team sounds good in a theory, but is there actually room for him really? He is all-over a different kind of guitar player than those other two. From those little moments he had been there in a 'three guitar attack' (and not just adding extended solos), it has been a rather chaotic, like no one really knowing what to do, with a result of Ronnie taking a back seat. From the base of their Jimmy Reed co-work Wood and Taylor could match easily, both being still rather strong, adaptive guitar players, but this is not a jam-based blues gig, but a Rolling Stones show...

But let me remind that this is just my way of trying to make sense of what's going on from a musical point of view, not what I would like to see happen (which is 'More Taylor Please!"). . But my take is that it is not the issue of egos or politics here, but just the reality of the band and the condition of its key members in A.D. 2013/14. So I don't seek for 'guilty ones' here (be it Mick or Keith). I understand that sometimes Keith 'talks too much', which we romantic fools here may take too literally sometimes - like this thread shows.

- Doxa

DOXA QUOTE END



Perfectly said/written.

We should also always remember that the RS are no longer an "evolving act" and actually cannot be such even if they wanted, from reasons we all can guess (having their lives etc.... hell: when you see those 1970s pictures of the backstage with all the cigarette smoke and food leftovers you understand why after a certain age people can no longer hand around together in a way that allows the "Band musical evolution" to continue). Post 1989, and quite a few of today's audience are "post 89" people, and not 1970's veterans or/and hardcore bootlegs consumers - post 89 the Stones act and hence audience expectations, are based on the usual "blend". People are sure they will get the usual JJF and STMU. They "expect" to get to see "in their own eyes" the usual "print screen" shots of Woody&Keith loosing their hands, simultaneously, after that Satisfaction riff with their cigarettes at the end of their mouth. While MT is an important part of the bands history, most of the audience would not recognize the Stones sound of the lost golden years of 1969-73. I think that if they will get to their face the GS or JJF 1972 style with Taylor, many would actually ask themselves if they accidentally came to a tribute show to the Stones. The constant melodic guitar attack typical to Taylor might actually sound as a downgrade to some of the audience. It is just my guess, but it might be that while such a rich performance might look as a step ahead to all 4 RS members, professionally they think it would actually look like a big mess to the average gig attendant. Taylor can no longer integrate into the act, and some of the "rest" can no longer evolve their act, in a way that will produce the magic we all imagine happening.

Or so they think. And since no such attempt was made (putting Taylor, live, of 6-10 warhorses in a row) - we will probably never know.

* I removed the quote marks as the whole post was hopelessly messed and nothing I did with edits helped.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2014-03-03 14:25 by Wroclaw.

Well, I noticed that Charlie said something very interesting recently. Perhaps someone here caught it and can find the quote?

Asked about Mick Taylor's involvement, Charlie gave some pleasant off the cuff comment about appreciating it as you might expect, but then added that the matter is in the hands of the guitar department, and that's their own little world (Keith, Ronnie, Taylor) in which he (and Jagger!!) don't or can't really deal with.

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?

Quote
DandelionPowderman
The band, as a whole, might win if Taylor is on stage for 7 songs having a prominent role in, say, three of them.

I think it's the signal of Mick Taylor standing backstage, not contributing, that annoy most of the Taylorites - not necessarily that he isn't noodling all over the place for the entire show.

Moonlight Mile will always get my vote for a song Taylor needs to play on

Taylor on stage for 7 but having a prominent role in three; that would be a lousy signal.

Quote
Dreamer

Quote
DandelionPowderman
The band, as a whole, might win if Taylor is on stage for 7 songs having a prominent role in, say, three of them.

I think it's the signal of Mick Taylor standing backstage, not contributing, that annoy most of the Taylorites - not necessarily that he isn't noodling all over the place for the entire show.

Moonlight Mile will always get my vote for a song Taylor needs to play on

Taylor on stage for 7 but having a prominent role in three; that would be a lousy signal.

But a better signal than showing him on the screen sitting behind Charlie's drum kit, not playing at all?

He's not having a very prominent role on Slipping Away, but he's important to the sound anyhow. I can't see why they couldn't use him like that on songs like Wild Horses, Angie (there's no solo there anyway!), Tumbling Dice and maybe Honky Tonk Women.

The tight open G-rockers and the old 60s numbers I can understand that he won't be an integral part of. The rockers are played differently today, and Paint It Black, Get Off Of My Cloud and the current YCAGWYW arrangement should just stay as they are - or it would get messy, imo...

This is just more of Keith's legend talk that is disconnected with reality. Taylor plays on 2 to 3 songs, so how does that expand their sound? I just don't get why they don't have him play on everything. Hell, they let Blondie play on most songs and he wasn't even a true Stone. Keep on spinning Keith!

<Taylor plays on 2 to 3 songs, so how does that expand their sound?>

While I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying - in fairness, Taylor plays on MR (12 minutes), Slipping Away (6 minutes) and Satisfaction (8 minutes).

He expands their sound on roughly a fourth of their show. That's not quite the minor contribution you're making it look like.

And yes, in a concert mix with good sound, the acoustic on Satisfaction does expand their sound...

Quote
duffydawg
Saw a recent link to an interview with Richards giving credit, justifiably so, to Taylor for expanding the sound of the Stones on the recent tour.

Where and when was this interview? Please post that link.

The only thing Taylor is capable of expanding is the size of his trousers, which are about to burst at the seams.

Seriously though, it just seems redundant to have 3 guitarists on stage when you only need 2. Why is Taylor there anyway? For old times sake, for nostalgia? Also, Taylor looks lost on stage, and I would think Ronnie would resent his presence.

LOL! No, Taylor and Ronnie are old friends!

Some of the Midnight Ramblers and a couple of the CYHMKs show that Taylor still can provide that X-factor on a good day.

The people who were at the warm up-show could maybe shed some light on how he performed on Love In Vain? There was some trouble with the slide, if memory serves?

I think Taylor can excel Slipping Away as well, if he get to discover it more.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Dreamer

Quote
DandelionPowderman
The band, as a whole, might win if Taylor is on stage for 7 songs having a prominent role in, say, three of them.

I think it's the signal of Mick Taylor standing backstage, not contributing, that annoy most of the Taylorites - not necessarily that he isn't noodling all over the place for the entire show.

Moonlight Mile will always get my vote for a song Taylor needs to play on

Taylor on stage for 7 but having a prominent role in three; that would be a lousy signal.

But a better signal than showing him on the screen sitting behind Charlie's drum kit, not playing at all?

He's not having a very prominent role on Slipping Away, but he's important to the sound anyhow. I can't see why they couldn't use him like that on songs like Wild Horses, Angie (there's no solo there anyway!), Tumbling Dice and maybe Honky Tonk Women.

The tight open G-rockers and the old 60s numbers I can understand that he won't be an integral part of. The rockers are played differently today, and Paint It Black, Get Off Of My Cloud and the current YCAGWYW arrangement should just stay as they are - or it would get messy, imo...

I think you may have part of the answer there - the arrangements on most songs are tightly scripted, and have been for some years, and MT's big appearances have been on numbers like Midnight Rambler and CYHMK with a bigger "jam" element. Clearly one or more members of the band just don't think that the work required to unpick those arrangements and redo them with three guitars is worth the trouble - which band members is anybody's guess. Sadly, change does become harder to deal with as you get older, and major redesigns of any warhorses are unlikely. But it is nice to have Slipping Away.

Quote
Green Lady

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Dreamer

Quote
DandelionPowderman
The band, as a whole, might win if Taylor is on stage for 7 songs having a prominent role in, say, three of them.

I think it's the signal of Mick Taylor standing backstage, not contributing, that annoy most of the Taylorites - not necessarily that he isn't noodling all over the place for the entire show.

Moonlight Mile will always get my vote for a song Taylor needs to play on

Taylor on stage for 7 but having a prominent role in three; that would be a lousy signal.

But a better signal than showing him on the screen sitting behind Charlie's drum kit, not playing at all?

He's not having a very prominent role on Slipping Away, but he's important to the sound anyhow. I can't see why they couldn't use him like that on songs like Wild Horses, Angie (there's no solo there anyway!), Tumbling Dice and maybe Honky Tonk Women.

The tight open G-rockers and the old 60s numbers I can understand that he won't be an integral part of. The rockers are played differently today, and Paint It Black, Get Off Of My Cloud and the current YCAGWYW arrangement should just stay as they are - or it would get messy, imo...

I think you may have part of the answer there - the arrangements on most songs are tightly scripted, and have been for some years, and MT's big appearances have been on numbers like Midnight Rambler and CYHMK with a bigger "jam" element. Clearly one or more members of the band just don't think that the work required to unpick those arrangements and redo them with three guitars is worth the trouble - which band members is anybody's guess. Sadly, change does become harder to deal with as you get older, and major redesigns of any warhorses are unlikely. But it is nice to have Slipping Away.

Exactly.

To keep it short. The Rolling Stones of 2014 is very much a fixed set and Taylor 2014 isn't exactly Taylor 1972. I guess they didn't have the heart to let him go after the initial jubilee concerts.

Still, the role he got on Slipping Away gives some hope...

Quote
bye bye johnny

Quote
duffydawg
Saw a recent link to an interview with Richards giving credit, justifiably so, to Taylor for expanding the sound of the Stones on the recent tour.

Where and when was this interview? Please post that link.

The poster is probably referring to Keith's appearance last year on the Jimmy Fallon show just prior to the U.S. leg of the tour, where (from 3:50) Keith talks about how great it is to have Taylor on tour with them because of all the overdubbing of guitars that were used on Stones records--which generated a lot of speculation among IORR posters that Taylor would have a larger role onstage for the rest of the tour.

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
bye bye johnny

Quote
duffydawg
Saw a recent link to an interview with Richards giving credit, justifiably so, to Taylor for expanding the sound of the Stones on the recent tour.

Where and when was this interview? Please post that link.

The poster is probably referring to Keith's appearance last year on the Jimmy Fallon show just prior to the U.S. leg of the tour, where (from 3:50) Keith talks about how great it is to have Taylor on tour with them because of all the overdubbing of guitars that were used on Stones records--which generated a lot of speculation among IORR posters that Taylor would have a larger role onstage for the rest of the tour.

Which again is exactly the same he said prior to the 2012 50 & Counting shows...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-03-03 16:25 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Green Lady

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Dreamer

Quote
DandelionPowderman
The band, as a whole, might win if Taylor is on stage for 7 songs having a prominent role in, say, three of them.

I think it's the signal of Mick Taylor standing backstage, not contributing, that annoy most of the Taylorites - not necessarily that he isn't noodling all over the place for the entire show.

Moonlight Mile will always get my vote for a song Taylor needs to play on

Taylor on stage for 7 but having a prominent role in three; that would be a lousy signal.

But a better signal than showing him on the screen sitting behind Charlie's drum kit, not playing at all?

He's not having a very prominent role on Slipping Away, but he's important to the sound anyhow. I can't see why they couldn't use him like that on songs like Wild Horses, Angie (there's no solo there anyway!), Tumbling Dice and maybe Honky Tonk Women.

The tight open G-rockers and the old 60s numbers I can understand that he won't be an integral part of. The rockers are played differently today, and Paint It Black, Get Off Of My Cloud and the current YCAGWYW arrangement should just stay as they are - or it would get messy, imo...

I think you may have part of the answer there - the arrangements on most songs are tightly scripted, and have been for some years, and MT's big appearances have been on numbers like Midnight Rambler and CYHMK with a bigger "jam" element. Clearly one or more members of the band just don't think that the work required to unpick those arrangements and redo them with three guitars is worth the trouble - which band members is anybody's guess. Sadly, change does become harder to deal with as you get older, and major redesigns of any warhorses are unlikely. But it is nice to have Slipping Away.

Exactly.

This. But I don't buy that change becomes harder when you get older. I think it's more a combination of three possibilities. As Green Lady and others have said, they've reached a comfort zone with the arrangement of the songs and are loath to mess with success. I also think that with the busy lives that they all have, Mick especially, they can't get everyone together for the extended period it would take to really change things up. It would also cost them more to rehearse longer, a small factor, but one more nonetheless. Finally, there is the unknowable. We are all just speculating here, there very well could be issues that none of us are aware of, which is fine. It's nobodies business but their own.

I agree, latebloomer, but at the same time they're digging up stuff like I'm Going Down (2012), Love In Vain (Warm up-show), CYHMK (US tour and Glastonbury) and Slipping Away - all, but the latter, played effortlessly...

My guess is that there is something in that latter category of yours that we don't know about. That's fine by me, but it sure won't stop fans from speculating

Quote
Wroclaw

We should also always remember that the RS are no longer an "evolving act" and actually cannot be such even if they wanted, from reasons we all can guess (having their lives etc.... hell: when you see those 1970s pictures of the backstage with all the cigarette smoke and food leftovers you understand why after a certain age people can no longer hand around together in a way that allows the "Band musical evolution" to continue). Post 1989, and quite a few of today's audience are "post 89" people, and not 1970's veterans or/and hardcore bootlegs consumers - post 89 the Stones act and hence audience expectations, are based on the usual "blend". People are sure they will get the usual JJF and STMU. They "expect" to get to see "in their own eyes" the usual "print screen" shots of Woody&Keith loosing their hands, simultaneously, after that Satisfaction riff with their cigarettes at the end of their mouth. While MT is an important part of the bands history, most of the audience would not recognize the Stones sound of the lost golden years of 1969-73. I think that if they will get to their face the GS or JJF 1972 style with Taylor, many would actually ask themselves if they accidentally came to a tribute show to the Stones. The constant melodic guitar attack typical to Taylor might actually sound as a downgrade to some of the audience. It is just my guess, but it might be that while such a rich performance might look as a step ahead to all 4 RS members, professionally they think it would actually look like a big mess to the average gig attendant. Taylor can no longer integrate into the act, and some of the "rest" can no longer evolve their act, in a way that will produce the magic we all imagine happening.

Yeah, the fact is that from a pragmatical point of view, they've been now doing damn well for some 25 years with a same musical concept - and why to change a winning receipt? As much there might be those internal reasons that they are not even able to alter their sound/concept any longer, there is no either an artistic reason to do that either.

But I still open up a bit that 'internal reason' part. Like you pointed out during those classical times when they were young, like we all were too, if not even born yet, they were an "evolving act", and living together, touring rather constantly, and the music/sound kept changing along the way rather naturally. I can easily them thinking once in while that while they changed the arrangemnents, tempos, vocal interpretations, etc of those song they breathed just to keep them fresh and themselves interested, or just for fun. Besides the musical world around them was changing all the time, and there was not yet such a demand for musical conservatism, and the concept of 'classic rock' was not even born yet. They need to evolve to remain as a relevant act. That what it was being an "living and breathing band" - to evolve was a part of being a rock band those days.

But if we now think what it was for them to start playing again two years ago - after being off some five years, and their most important instrumentalist having stopped playing his instrument for two years or something. They surely were not thinking 'hey, let us invent something new, aren't we bored playing the songs in a similar way for too long now?'. They seemingly not do that that neither in 1994, 1997, or in 2001 or 2005 either - why now? No, my guess is that what they were worried was if they can play those any way at all. So what they were up to was trying to get their chops again literally - to be able to present once again those songs hopefully at least as good as before. Just to make the old formula or concept work again.

I think for at least two of them - Mick and Keith - to perform in a standard and do the tricks they've been used to before, is surely a big enough challenge. Keith especially is a working class hero of this tour - he might have lost a lot of his natural dynamism and skills, and his fingers aren't working as they used to (and who knows what else) but his concentration is probably best for decades. He really puts a lot of effort there, and wants to do his stuff properly. And one can only imagine how much Jagger does in order to gave us that show. He, in the end, is a 70 years old man. But more it is safer to both of them - familiar songs, arrangements - easier their task is.

That's at least the way I see The Stones 2012/14. According to their own standards, I think the band plays very well - better than during A BIGGER BANG tour at least. It is a well-oiled machine, and I can't see them playing realistically speaking any better as they do now. They actually play much better than I thought when the rumours started to spread of their upcoming tour activities. Add to that Woodie in his best form for 30 years (not just doing his job well, but more, with his low-profile filling holes here and there, backing up Keith), things could be a lot of worse.

Mick Taylor added an extra dimension and opportunity which totally came out of the blue - still two years ago I was more than skeptical about the idea seeing him ever again onstage with them. When the hardcore fan dream was realized, I admit I also was carried away. Who can blame? The whole idea of the Stones, after all these years, could do something so radical - integrate Taylor once again - was just such a mesmerizing thought. Anyway, I have rethought my stance now, and this cold-blooded realism I now - boringly - spell out here, is I guess the therapy needed to get out of that illusion....

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2014-03-03 17:00 by Doxa.

I think even Keith gets embarrassed by the sucking-up quality of this "interview". He doesn't say much though. Mostly due to poor craftmanship from the host.

The possibilities and potential for 3 quality players to play together and rip it up is undeniable to everyone on here.

The arguments of who left when, who complements who is kinda an iorrelevance, from the recent clips we've seen, ronnie and mick play great with each other.
The 3 of them together also play great together and for alot (myself included) elivate the show just that little bit higher, i9 love the danger, the ecitement of the unknown,the jamming, the dynamics getting broadened etc.

what i dont like is that its now becoming formulaic, wheel him out for 1 song he can go crazy on, let him cover Keiths ass on another, and yeah we'll stick him on at the end so the fans get to see the group bow..

this is such a missed opportunity, and on what could be the last tour they do.

kinda sad that to put the ground work in, get the guy playing, and gradually fade him out so he just comes on for ONE show tune?!?!?!

Slippin Away sounds great, the approach on this tune for the 3 players is great, why this isnt being continued or expanded upon for heck, THREE tunes more (I'm praying on my knees here) at worst.

sad way to blow out, danger of being a novelty band as it currently stands

Quote
Stoneage
I think even Keith gets embarrassed by the sucking-up quality of this "interview". He doesn't say much though. Mostly due to poor craftmanship from the host.

I thought that interview was kinda cringe-inducing in places too, Stoneage. Fallon has a tendency to inject himself too much in interviews sometimes. Still, I remember at the time that it was really exciting and cool to see Keith again, especially looking and sounding so healthy and vibrant.

Yes, the big thing was probably to get him there in the first place, Bloomer. And sometimes that's just enough...

He is a fanboy, and a friend of Keith's - so obviously "interviews" like this one will be a little "off"

Quote
Stoneage
Yes, the big thing was probably to get him there in the first place, Bloomer. And sometimes that's just enough...

Yep, showing up is half the battle...same could be said for most of us.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
He is a fanboy, and a friend of Keith's - so obviously "interviews" like this one will be a little "off"

Yeah, I know Dandy. But he is also a professional so he could have toned it down a little and let Keith do more of the talking. Just picking hairs here, it really wasn't that big a deal. As I said, I was just very happy to see Keith and if his friendship with Fallon lands him on the show again, then Jimmy can talk all he wants.

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