Boy I hope you folks in Europe get the MT experience. You deserve it. And it would be nice, if instead of having him come on and off stage three times they do a special set in right in the middle of the the show with him.

Tops(since all three guitars player played on the track)
Slipping Away
Happy
Midnight Rambler
Tumblin Dice
I don't know why
Sway
CYHMK
Three guitar acoutic of Sweet Virginia

Then he come back for Satisfaction.

Keith wants him there. You can see it in his eyes. So does Charlie for that matter.
His distortion the other night on MT just shows how bad ass this band can be.
Mick Jagger can put down the guitar. Unless he wants to play Winter with MT.

OK. Back to 2014. Sorry. I was in LA 2nd night. I know what they are capable of.

Bit off topic but has anyone got a good clip of the last time mick taylor played satisfaction with the stones on electric?





Just been watchon this one with taylor on acoustic and its gota nice lazy swagger groove on it (acoustic does get swallowed as youd expect towards the end of the song tho, but adds some nice touches in the 1st 1/2), it sounds nice with the acoustic vibe as a style but got me wonderin whats it like compared to all electric 3 gtrs compared to 2 electric and acoustic.

Quote
Captainchaos
Bit off topic but has anyone got a good clip of the last time mick taylor played satisfaction with the stones on electric?

Just been watchon this one with taylor on acoustic and its gota nice lazy swagger groove on it (acoustic does get swallowed as youd expect towards the end of the song tho, but adds some nice touches in the 1st 1/2), it sounds nice with the acoustic vibe as a style but got me wonderin whats it like compared to all electric 3 gtrs compared to 2 electric and acoustic.

Here you go:
with short solo:


without solo:

cheers

Quote
s083874
Boy I hope you folks in Europe get the MT experience. You deserve it. And it would be nice, if instead of having him come on and off stage three times they do a special set in right in the middle of the the show with him.

Tops(since all three guitars player played on the track)
Slipping Away
Happy
Midnight Rambler
Tumblin Dice
I don't know why
Sway
CYHMK
Three guitar acoutic of Sweet Virginia

Then he come back for Satisfaction.

Keith wants him there. You can see it in his eyes. So does Charlie for that matter.
His distortion the other night on MT just shows how bad ass this band can be.
Mick Jagger can put down the guitar. Unless he wants to play Winter with MT.

OK. Back to 2014. Sorry. I was in LA 2nd night. I know what they are capable of.

Fantastic suggestion. This would be phenomenal. Historic. As far as MT "Sacrificing" himself on this tour ... bollocks ... he feels privileged to be where he is ... and the band feels the same ... now it is time to integrate him fully into these shows and come back to Europe and the U.S. with renewed vigour and purpose ... Taylor gives them that extra gear that takes them into greatness. It is clear for everyone to see ... why is it so difficult for Jagger to see this?

Quote
Turd On The Run
As far as MT "Sacrificing" himself on this tour ... bollocks ... he feels privileged to be where he is ...

You know this how? Have you spoken to him about it?

Quote
Turd On The Run
now it is time to integrate him fully into these shows and come back to Europe and the U.S. with renewed vigour and purpose ... Taylor gives them that extra gear that takes them into greatness.

...aaaaaaaaaand here we go again with the fantasies. There isn't the slightest shred of evidence that this is going to happen, nor has there been since the second night in Los Angeles. On the contrary, it seems pretty clear that things will remain exactly as they are, give or take the occasional Sway, Silver Train or CYHMK.

Quote
Turd On The Run
It is clear for everyone to see ... why is it so difficult for Jagger to see this?

Firstly, Mick Jagger isn't into being upstaged, and Taylor is the one person in the Stones touring party who still has the chops to do that. Touring with Keith and Ronnie, hollow shells of their former selves, is great for Jagger: with the exception of Charlie, he's the one band member who's still got it, and he saves the shows from mediocrity almost single-handedly.

Secondly, Jagger isn't concerned with how much better the band sounds with Taylor onstage, he's concerned with how much worse they sound when he isn't there. Midnight Rambler is a centrepiece of their set anyway, Taylor or no Taylor, so they kind of get away with having him on for that. Integrate him into the set more generally and it's going to be patently obvious to everyone pretty quickly that they suck without him.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-03-16 03:53 by Stoneburst.

I saw that first hand in LA. And all of us have the boot 'Mick taylor and HIS Rolling Stones. Why can't I fantasize? I saw them at the Forun in'73.

"Midnight Rambler is a centrepiece of their set anyway, Taylor or no Taylor".

No. Not by a long shot.

Quote
s083874
"Midnight Rambler is a centrepiece of their set anyway, Taylor or no Taylor".

No. Not by a long shot.

But it is. I agree that Taylor's contributions make it immeasurably better, but it's still an epic, sprawling, time-shifting blues operetta that's totally different from anything else in the Stones' setlist. Rambler is the dramatic zenith of every show: having Taylor play on it in particular lessens the impact of him not playing on the rest of the set, if you see what I mean.

Like, if they just had him on for, I don't know, All Down The Line, he'd tear it up and it would be awesome to listen to, but a hell of lot more people in the audience would be pissed when he didn't proceed to play on Brown Sugar, Gimme Shelter and so forth. But Rambler is different, it's climactic, and so you miss his potential contributions on the rest of the set less.

Also, remember that Rambler a) is just as much a showcase for Jagger as it is for Taylor and b) isn't all that great a showcase for Taylor. As great a song as it is, it doesn't give him any interesting chord changes to play over or much to bounce off melodically, in the way that something like Winter or Time Waits For No One would.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-03-16 04:14 by Stoneburst.

I had really hoped they would break out Love in Vain with Taylor as the practiced it quite a few times in rehearsals with him.

Quote
jazzbass
I had really hoped they would break out Love in Vain with Taylor as the practiced it quite a few times in rehearsals with him.

An easy number to play . . . they won't do it because it's a showpiece for Taylor and everything Stoneburst said above about Mick J. not wanting that (and how great playing next to struggling old Keith makes Jagger look) is right on target. Taylor's guitar playing is another level from the other two. The last thing Jagger wants is people talking about that. He's fine with Keith and Woody strumming along with Chuck.

Wow, that "Mick Taylor Quit" thread sure disappeared quickly. Must be some kind of IORR record for thread death.

Quote
71Tele
Wow, that "Mick Taylor Quit" thread sure disappeared quickly. Must be some kind of IORR record for thread death.

Was it a rehash of MT's departure in '74 or a breaking story pertaining to the current tour?

Quote
jazzbass

Quote
71Tele
Wow, that "Mick Taylor Quit" thread sure disappeared quickly. Must be some kind of IORR record for thread death.

Was it a rehash of MT's departure in '74 or a breaking story pertaining to the current tour?

Both. But the former.

Quote
s083874
Boy I hope you folks in Europe get the MT experience. You deserve it. And it would be nice, if instead of having him come on and off stage three times they do a special set in right in the middle of the the show with him.

Tops(since all three guitars player played on the track)
Slipping Away
Happy
Midnight Rambler
Tumblin Dice
I don't know why
Sway
CYHMK
Three guitar acoutic of Sweet Virginia

Then he come back for Satisfaction.

Keith wants him there. You can see it in his eyes. So does Charlie for that matter.
His distortion the other night on MT just shows how bad ass this band can be.
Mick Jagger can put down the guitar. Unless he wants to play Winter with MT.

OK. Back to 2014. Sorry. I was in LA 2nd night. I know what they are capable of.

Ronnie didn't play on the studio version of Tops.

The only interesting point concerning the (rather weak, sorry) On Fire-Tour ...

Quote
Rokyfan

Quote
jazzbass
I had really hoped they would break out Love in Vain with Taylor as the practiced it quite a few times in rehearsals with him.

An easy number to play . . . they won't do it because it's a showpiece for Taylor and everything Stoneburst said above about Mick J. not wanting that (and how great playing next to struggling old Keith makes Jagger look) is right on target. Taylor's guitar playing is another level from the other two. The last thing Jagger wants is people talking about that. He's fine with Keith and Woody strumming along with Chuck.

Can't you hear me knocking is a showpiece for Taylor and they played it a couple of times (and judging from the YouTube videos everybody in the band loved it).

Cheers,
Wuudy

Quote
Wuudy

Quote
Rokyfan

Quote
jazzbass
I had really hoped they would break out Love in Vain with Taylor as the practiced it quite a few times in rehearsals with him.

An easy number to play . . . they won't do it because it's a showpiece for Taylor and everything Stoneburst said above about Mick J. not wanting that (and how great playing next to struggling old Keith makes Jagger look) is right on target. Taylor's guitar playing is another level from the other two. The last thing Jagger wants is people talking about that. He's fine with Keith and Woody strumming along with Chuck.

Can't you hear me knocking is a showpiece for Taylor and they played it a couple of times (and judging from the YouTube videos everybody in the band loved it).

They probably love MR even more. Maybe they don't want to play several long songs in the set (MR, Satisfaction etc...).

Quote
Wuudy

Quote
Rokyfan

Quote
jazzbass
I had really hoped they would break out Love in Vain with Taylor as the practiced it quite a few times in rehearsals with him.

An easy number to play . . . they won't do it because it's a showpiece for Taylor and everything Stoneburst said above about Mick J. not wanting that (and how great playing next to struggling old Keith makes Jagger look) is right on target. Taylor's guitar playing is another level from the other two. The last thing Jagger wants is people talking about that. He's fine with Keith and Woody strumming along with Chuck.

Can't you hear me knocking is a showpiece for Taylor and they played it a couple of times (and judging from the YouTube videos everybody in the band loved it).

Exactly my point. They hardly play it, who knows if they will play it again. It's a showpiece for Taylor so it's out. Rambler is fine because he's part of the group. Jagger's goal is to not have people talking about how much better the band is with Taylor, that's why they hardly use him, and when they do it is in songs where he does not stand out.

Quote
Rokyfan
They hardly play it, who knows if they will play it again. It's a showpiece for Taylor so it's out. Rambler is fine because he's part of the group. Jagger's goal is to not have people talking about how much better the band is with Taylor, that's why they hardly use him, and when they do it is in songs where he does not stand out.

Exactly this

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
s083874
"Midnight Rambler is a centrepiece of their set anyway, Taylor or no Taylor".

No. Not by a long shot.

But it is. I agree that Taylor's contributions make it immeasurably better, but it's still an epic, sprawling, time-shifting blues operetta that's totally different from anything else in the Stones' setlist. Rambler is the dramatic zenith of every show: having Taylor play on it in particular lessens the impact of him not playing on the rest of the set, if you see what I mean.

Like, if they just had him on for, I don't know, All Down The Line, he'd tear it up and it would be awesome to listen to, but a hell of lot more people in the audience would be pissed when he didn't proceed to play on Brown Sugar, Gimme Shelter and so forth. But Rambler is different, it's climactic, and so you miss his potential contributions on the rest of the set less.

Also, remember that Rambler a) is just as much a showcase for Jagger as it is for Taylor and b) isn't all that great a showcase for Taylor. As great a song as it is, it doesn't give him any interesting chord changes to play over or much to bounce off melodically, in the way that something like Winter or Time Waits For No One would.

I think you're totally right. The Shanghai MR rendition showed a 'generous' Jagger when he literally allowed Taylor a second solo, which turned into something spectacular. I doubt if it will happen again, but it would be the utmost stretch as far as Taylor's contribution will go. But I'm happily proven wrong.

Quote
kleermaker
I think you're totally right. The Shanghai MR rendition showed a 'generous' Jagger when he literally allowed Taylor a second solo, which turned into something spectacular. I doubt if it will happen again, but it would be the utmost stretch as far as Taylor's contribution will go. But I'm happily proven wrong.

I'd love it if they gave Taylor a real mini-set within the set, or better still had him on for the whole show. That I would pay to see. But it's never going to happen. As you say, Jagger controls these things on stage and isn't exactly generous: every time they've done Sway, Jagger has cut Taylor off mid-solo just as he's starting to cook. It's immensely frustrating - for god's sake, his solos don't have to be Carla Olson length, but at least give him eight more bars in which to say what he wants to say. Same with the Los Angeles CYHMK, where Jagger spent the best part of the guitar solo trying to make Taylor stop playing.

Whenever possible lots of people still like to put the blame on MJ for anything they believe is wrong. Same as for Taylor playing on three songs and/or playing on MR instead of CYHMK or MM.

I posted this about two weeks ago (in the suddenly closed thread 'Keith Richards quote: "Taylor expands the sound of the Stones"'):

"Just don't forget it's really not in KR's best interest when MT would be playing on seven songs or something like that.
Just a band decision; strategy by KR & MJ. CW agreed fully. RW said 'great he's in'. Simple commes bonjour."

Believe me; when in all those quotes like "Jagger controls these things on stage..." and "Jagger's goal is to not have people talking about how much better the band is with Taylor..." or "The last thing Jagger wants..." you would say 'Richards' instead of 'Jagger' you would be just as close to the truth...

Quote
Dreamer
Whenever possible lots of people still like to put the blame on MJ for anything they believe is wrong. Same as for Taylor playing on three songs and/or playing on MR instead of CYHMK or MM.

I posted this about two weeks ago (in the suddenly closed thread 'Keith Richards quote: "Taylor expands the sound of the Stones"'):

"Just don't forget it's really not in KR's best interest when MT would be playing on seven songs or something like that.
Just a band decision; strategy by KR & MJ. CW agreed fully. RW said 'great he's in'. Simple commes bonjour."

Believe me; when in all those quotes like "Jagger controls these things on stage..." and "Jagger's goal is to not have people talking about how much better the band is with Taylor..." or "The last thing Jagger wants..." you would say 'Richards' instead of 'Jagger' you would be just as close to the truth...

Also true indeed.

Quote
Dreamer
Whenever possible lots of people still like to put the blame on MJ for anything they believe is wrong. Same as for Taylor playing on three songs and/or playing on MR instead of CYHMK or MM.

I posted this about two weeks ago (in the suddenly closed thread 'Keith Richards quote: "Taylor expands the sound of the Stones"'):

"Just don't forget it's really not in KR's best interest when MT would be playing on seven songs or something like that.
Just a band decision; strategy by KR & MJ. CW agreed fully. RW said 'great he's in'. Simple commes bonjour."

Believe me; when in all those quotes like "Jagger controls these things on stage..." and "Jagger's goal is to not have people talking about how much better the band is with Taylor..." or "The last thing Jagger wants..." you would say 'Richards' instead of 'Jagger' you would be just as close to the truth...

Honestly, I don't put it past Richards at all to be Machiavellian enough to be the major VETO of Taylor playing more and then put him on Slipping Away while Jagger gets whatever passes for "heat" from the Taylorites....

Agree with everyone, its such a wasted opportunity. At least a two song set where he sits in with them doing Love in Vain and Rambler every night would make it at least a little more satisfying for the fans. Could really make for some special shows.

[www.keno.org]


Just passing it on for discussion.

It 's very depressing all this importance that is given to Mick Taylor, If there is I'll be happy, if there is not I will be the same. I have seen many other concerts without Taylor and were wonderful.

Quote
Testify
It 's very depressing all this importance that is given to Mick Taylor, If there is I'll be happy, if there is not I will be the same. I have seen many other concerts without Taylor and were wonderful.

Yeah, but whether you like him or not, watch the videos and you'll see there is a change in the band and performance when he is there. No question.

Any Rolling Stones concert without Mick T is gonna be a great one.

A gig with Mick T doing any amount of songs that we know are special when he is on lead guitar doing his solo's ,is an extra special treat for a Stones show.

Definately adds a more 'feel good' factor for fans attending the gig or just seeing and enjoying the youtube clips.

Why not on board for Europe ? Let him play the @#$%& lead with a decent distortion, and within 4 concerts we have complete musical and sleazy anarchi again.