Quote
DiamondDog7
In my opinion LOS ANGELES 2013 had the BEST RS setlist of the whole freakin' tour. With the right songs with MT. Period! Take a look:

RS SETLIST LOS ANGELES #2 May 20, 2013

Get Off Of My Cloud

It’s Only Rock ‘N’ Roll (But I Like It)

Paint It Black

Gimme Shelter

All Down The Line

Faraway Eyes

Sway (By Request – with Mick Taylor)

Doom And Gloom

One More Shot

Can’t You Hear Me Knocking (with Mick Taylor)

Honky Tonk Women

BAND INTRODUCTIONS

You Got The Silver (with Keith on lead vox)

Before They Make Me Run (with Keith on lead vox)

Midnight Rambler (with Mick Taylor)

Miss You

Start Me Up

Tumbling Dice

Brown Sugar

Sympathy For The Devil

ENCORE

You Can’t Always Get What You Want (with the University of Southern California Thornton Chamber Singers)

Jumpin’ Jack Flash

(I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction

I agree. It was the 3rd show I attended that tour, and I felt like I didn't need to see them again for a while (in a positive way)...a feeling of total satisfaction

Quote
andrewt

Quote
Milan
Nope...

Isn't that him third from the right?

Sure is!

In the longer line for the bows, he is definitely there for this show.
Right after that is just the four.

~"Love is Strong"~

That's what everyone's talking about, though, is the final bow. He's been in virtually every "core member" bow until the last couple shows.

Obviously a band decision, but Mick has final say...............probably.

Who knows.

Overall lack of respect.
For Mick Taylor, with added restrictions, even humiliations.
Hence, for the sensible fans and music lovers, expecting more MT’s involvement. After the dream come true of MT’s comeback. Hangover. No statement, no information. Communication zero. Having to guess. « Kremlinology » as someone rightly compared. Disappointing.
Contemptuous remarks and MT’s bashing (from RW’s fans who feel attacked, and/or lobby manoeuvres, who knows ?)
Unending frustration. Disgusted, kleermaker bid farewell.

Heartbreaking.

The Rolling Stones still have the remedy.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-31 09:13 by MarkSchneider.

Quote
crawdaddy
Obviously a band decision, but Mick has final say...............probably.

Who knows.

Obviously not - check out the totally shocked expression on Keith's face when Taylor walks off in Oslo.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-30 23:59 by Chacal.

Yeah! you could be right.

Maybe walking off is the only means he has of expressing how frustrated he is at the limited amount of playing time he is being allowed. He is playing fine. He looks fine. I think rumors that there is somehow something "wrong" with him are rubbish. Someone (I won't say who) with quite a bit of influence over what is played does not want him onstage with the Rolling Stones, except in a token "guest appearance" manner. Shame on them for the way he is being treated. But this is the band that only allowed Bill Wyman two songs, so we shouldn't be surprised. How unbelievably petty and small-minded.

Quote
Bellajane
It definitely will be a loss for the readers. I've learned a lot about MT from him..through discussions and videos (posted here and on Youtube). Yes, discussions could get heated, but message boards are like that.

Its a great loss, but that's life. I think Kleermaker made the right thing for him (decesion) - I actually, in some way, wrote him some weeks ago (on his YT channel as a remark for one of his uploads) that I'm a bit sad (for him) each time I read his dedicated posts/comments. Sad for him as he is obviously a big fan of the 1969-73 Stones and pratically, as far as this can happen for music (I do not know him in person beyond commenting on his channel) - emotionally attached for the golden era - an era that not only is long gone, but for the last 19 month we all know is not even pretending to be back (live). For some almost 2 years this board is busy about the tour(s) - and about the "Taylor question". New members come, new generations, but it is now clear that its the same RS we know since 1989 + one 10 minutes jam of Midnight Rambler. I guess that for avid "Taylorians" thats a big downer. He mentioned he never bothered to see the Stones after 1982, even though he lives in a country where the Stones play every tour. I guess that if you are a man of principle - you might feel that its all done for you. And you move on. What's the point reading a discussion board if you do not enjoy it?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-31 00:20 by Wroclaw.

Quote
Chacal

Quote
crawdaddy
Obviously a band decision, but Mick has final say...............probably.

Who knows.

Obviously not - check out the totally shocked expression on Keith's face when Taylor walks off in Oslo.

Mick seemed very surprised as well..

Quote
Chacal

Quote
crawdaddy
Obviously a band decision, but Mick has final say...............probably.

Who knows.

Obviously not - check out the totally shocked expression on Keith's face when Taylor walks off in Oslo.

Yes, I replayed that part several times (couldn't get a good frame freeze though) Keith looked really stunned as in "WTF ?!" before looking for some support on the other side and seeing the other guys. Maybe it brought back the shock of when Taylor took off 40 years...

On the other hand Taylor was pretty "gracious", he bowed and clapped and seemed to be saying it's "your show", which it is. In Lisboa Keith didn't try to grab him and Taylor behaved in the same way.

Now having a (very small) sense of how these guys work I wonder if it was even discussed, probably not, par for the course...

--------------
IORR Links : Essential Studio Outtakes CDs : Audio - History of Rarest Outtakes : Audio



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-31 01:31 by gotdablouse.

I saw the Stones in Oslo. I traveled from Trondheim, and paid for driving down there, the hotel, two consert tickets and more. For me it was all about seeing Mick T. with the Stones. Even though songs like Gimme Shelter was really good, it was really acward to witness the band playing on without Taylor, (knowing he was sitting behind the stage). I think the impact Taylor have had on the band is bigger than just his partisipation on Rambler.One can clearly hear that they are much more focused on playing, and not falling into the too fast Vegas versions. Ever since I started to go to Stones shows, It always made me depressed when thinking of how the band could have sounded. At least two of the biggest newspapers made a point of waisting an opportunity not using Taylor more.I would really like to know why... I sertaintly understand Kleermakers frustration, I feel much the same way. Somehow I guess you will be back when there are more positive things happening conserning Taylors involvment with the band. I just whish they could release more live stuff where he's playing, so the few of us left, get a pice of the cake too. I walked out during Satisfaction, cause I couldn't help myself for not wanting to see Mick on aqustic guitar. It's just wery frustrating.Hope to see you back Kleermaker

Quote
Wroclaw
Its a great loss, but that's life. I think Kleermaker made the right thing for him (decesion) - I actually, in some way, wrote him some weeks ago (on his YT channel as a remark for one of his uploads) that I'm a bit sad (for him) each time I read his dedicated posts/comments. Sad for him as he is obviously a big fan of the 1969-73 Stones and pratically, as far as this can happen for music (I do not know him in person beyond commenting on his channel) - emotionally attached for the golden era - an era that not only is long gone, but for the last 19 month we all know is not even pretending to be back (live). For some almost 2 years this board is busy about the tour(s) - and about the "Taylor question". New members come, new generations, but it is now clear that its the same RS we know since 1989 + one 10 minutes jam of Midnight Rambler. I guess that for avid "Taylorians" thats a big downer. He mentioned he never bothered to see the Stones after 1982, even though he lives in a country where the Stones play every tour. I guess that if you are a man of principle - you might feel that its all done for you. And you move on. What's the point reading a discussion board if you do not enjoy it?

You're a good observer!

And he might have been banned anyway here in the near future since "someone" does not like all to much "campaigning", well, that's what it's called when a poster enthusiastically expresses opinions that seem to contradict the band's official politics.

Quote
angee

Quote
andrewt

Quote
Milan
Nope...

Isn't that him third from the right?

Sure is!

In the longer line for the bows, he is definitely there for this show.
Right after that is just the four.

He seems to be heartly applauding the other guys as he leaves. Maybe he simply said "y'know, guys, I appreciate the sentiment (the only reason he plays during Satisfaction is so he can be onstage for the bows) but one bow is fine for me". Without any hard feelings. It's a possibility.

Further thoughts: MT's not playing on Slipping Away may not be because MJ had a diva fit but simply because KR and MT went "okay, that was fun, now it's time for something else" because Keith seems to care about mixing his set up.

It should be accepted wisdom that this was a missed opportunity for the band. (Under using MT, that is). But it's not like they haven't missed oppurtinities before.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-31 01:33 by andrewt.

Hey all,
I was at Lisbon last night and he didn't introduce MT at the end of MR....and MT stood there waiting for it almost holding his guitar up. When the intro didn't come, he had an obviously disappointed look on his face, acted it out so we could all see.

Something is going on....maybe Ronnie was getting worried that MT was going to think himself a Stone again.

Quote
71Tele
But this is the band that only allowed Bill Wyman two songs, so we shouldn't be surprised. How unbelievably petty and small-minded.

Well, nothing seems to be easy with this bunch of primadonnas. Just when one thought that age also brought some wisdom (opening of the vaults, bringing Taylor back) things develop in a way that they're looking increasingly like a trainload of fools instead.

Quote
71Tele
Maybe walking off is the only means he has of expressing how frustrated he is at the limited amount of playing time he is being allowed. He is playing fine. He looks fine. I think rumors that there is somehow something "wrong" with him are rubbish. Someone (I won't say who) with quite a bit of influence over what is played does not want him onstage with the Rolling Stones, except in a token "guest appearance" manner. Shame on them for the way he is being treated. But this is the band that only allowed Bill Wyman two songs, so we shouldn't be surprised. How unbelievably petty and small-minded.

Can you expand on that without naming names?

Quote
Rollin92

Quote
andrewt

Quote
Green Lady

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
Bellajane
It definitely will be a loss for the readers. I've learned a lot about MT from him..through discussions and videos (posted here and on Youtube). Yes, discussions could get heated, but message boards are like that.

Well, his YouTube channel is invaluable and, I trust, not going away any time soon. But yes, if Kleerie is really gone it is a big loss for this board. It is important that IORR remains open to people who have no interest in the Stones as they are today, but love to listen to and discuss the band of the 60s and 70s. Likewise it's important that the board doesn't just become a hangout for the 'you should be grateful they're still touring at all' crowd. If things carry on in the way they have been, Kleerie will not be the only one getting out of here.

When iorr seem to have become a club for all the people whose opinions offend you, that is the time you're most needed here. I hope kleermaker will reconsider.

I sure he's just being grumpy, Like Bill Wyman.

Don't blame either Taylor or Wyman for being grumpy. Both were huge parts of the band so the Stones did have to invite them back, but each was/has been offered what amounts to a paltry few minutes. If I was Taylor I would tell them where to stick it, and I certainly admire Bill for doing so.

Oh I ain't blaming Bill. I had a comment once in a thread about Bill where I implied he was a grumpy guy that got deleted.

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
71Tele
Maybe walking off is the only means he has of expressing how frustrated he is at the limited amount of playing time he is being allowed. He is playing fine. He looks fine. I think rumors that there is somehow something "wrong" with him are rubbish. Someone (I won't say who) with quite a bit of influence over what is played does not want him onstage with the Rolling Stones, except in a token "guest appearance" manner. Shame on them for the way he is being treated. But this is the band that only allowed Bill Wyman two songs, so we shouldn't be surprised. How unbelievably petty and small-minded.

Can you expand on that without naming names?

Mick J. would be the most obvious possibility, and then there's Chuck, possibly having a jealous eye on everybody who's threatening his position as the "fifth Stone"? Can't think of anybody else with "quite a bit of influence over what is played".

Quote
little queenie
maybe Ronnie was getting worried that MT was going to think himself a Stone again.

The same Ronnie who has taken MT under his wing and was going around doing Jimmy Reed tribute shows with him?

Quote
little queenie
Hey all,
I was at Lisbon last night and he didn't introduce MT at the end of MR....and MT stood there waiting for it almost holding his guitar up. When the intro didn't come, he had an obviously disappointed look on his face, acted it out so we could all see.

Something is going on....maybe Ronnie was getting worried that MT was going to think himself a Stone again.

Okay, everyone going to Zurich, we need details! Video! If it's 3 for 3 maybe something really is up. I just can't picture Ronnie throwing down the gauntlet, it's just not his style. He's enormously generous onstage.

Quote
alimente

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
71Tele
Maybe walking off is the only means he has of expressing how frustrated he is at the limited amount of playing time he is being allowed. He is playing fine. He looks fine. I think rumors that there is somehow something "wrong" with him are rubbish. Someone (I won't say who) with quite a bit of influence over what is played does not want him onstage with the Rolling Stones, except in a token "guest appearance" manner. Shame on them for the way he is being treated. But this is the band that only allowed Bill Wyman two songs, so we shouldn't be surprised. How unbelievably petty and small-minded.

Can you expand on that without naming names?

Mick J. would be the most obvious possibility, and then there's Chuck, possibly having a jealous eye on everybody who's threatening his position as the "fifth Stone"? Can't think of anybody else with "quite a bit of influence over what is played".

I thought the implication was more Chuck than Jagger, but I may have misunderstood Tele's post - i.e. I don't know whether he meant that he knows who it is but won't say or that he doesn't know and isn't going to hazard a guess. Either way, my question was less who's behind it (does it really matter?) and more why it's happening. And I think that's what we all want to know. See also SadDayBadDay's posts, for which he seems to have been banned from IORR, and Keno's old Gasland post about some sort of cover-up.

There's been a palpable frustration and resentment on this board in the last couple of days, since the Oslo show. Clearly, the dream is dead - Kleermaker leaving is indicative of that. More than at any time I can remember, the conversation here is dominated not by the 'isn't it great the Stones are still touring just for us?' brigade, but by the question of why Taylor is so deliberately underused. Sooner or later, we will find out.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-31 01:56 by Stoneburst.

Quote
Aquamarine

Quote
little queenie
maybe Ronnie was getting worried that MT was going to think himself a Stone again.

The same Ronnie who has taken MT under his wing and was going around doing Jimmy Reed tribute shows with him?

Exactly. I don't think there's any hard feelings between them guys

Quote
alimente

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
71Tele
Maybe walking off is the only means he has of expressing how frustrated he is at the limited amount of playing time he is being allowed. He is playing fine. He looks fine. I think rumors that there is somehow something "wrong" with him are rubbish. Someone (I won't say who) with quite a bit of influence over what is played does not want him onstage with the Rolling Stones, except in a token "guest appearance" manner. Shame on them for the way he is being treated. But this is the band that only allowed Bill Wyman two songs, so we shouldn't be surprised. How unbelievably petty and small-minded.

Can you expand on that without naming names?

Mick J. would be the most obvious possibility, and then there's Chuck, possibly having a jealous eye on everybody who's threatening his position as the "fifth Stone"? Can't think of anybody else with "quite a bit of influence over what is played".

Mick seemed to dig the bonus Taylor every few gigs, and as Dreamer said it was him who started the whole ball rolling with Plundered My Soul.

Chuck? Maybe, he seems so humble and down to earth, I have a hard time seeing getting diva-ish. It seems completely out of character.

Who the f**k knows?

Quote
andrewt
Okay, everyone going to Zurich, we need details! Video! If it's 3 for 3 maybe something really is up. I just can't picture Ronnie throwing down the gauntlet, it's just not his style. He's enormously generous onstage.

Don't underestimate his acting abilities. I noticed he stayed away from the 'scene' when Taylor walked away, leaving Keith looking stupefied. I know he can be two-faced (no pun intended).

Yes, gotdablouse - that's exactly how it appeared to me, as if KR was reliving the shock of MT's sudden departure 40 years ago.

I can't recall SadDayBadDay's posts, but sometime ago I posted some thoughts on this "Taylor-game" that were quickly deleted which made me believe that they were either too ridiculous or too close to the truth!

Oh dear, Mick didn't introduce Taylor at the end of MR ? There's always the possibility that he got busy with something else but that's rather out of character for him. Especially since he introduced him in Oslo but not with the "that was great, I loved it" that he trots out occasionally (for Taylor or other guests as I found by listening to 2013 shows recently...). Hard not to see a connection with Taylor stunning Keith in Oslo. Nothing discussed since, but a little "payback" of sorts.

I really hope that Taylor will stay on board for the rest of the European tour, that would put a big damper on the shows, well for us at least.

As for the Tele's comment, obviously it can't be Mick who has more than "a little influence" on what gets played, or maybe it was ironic?

--------------
IORR Links : Essential Studio Outtakes CDs : Audio - History of Rarest Outtakes : Audio

Quote
Chacal

Quote
andrewt
Okay, everyone going to Zurich, we need details! Video! If it's 3 for 3 maybe something really is up. I just can't picture Ronnie throwing down the gauntlet, it's just not his style. He's enormously generous onstage.

Don't underestimate his acting abilities. I noticed he stayed away from the 'scene' when Taylor walked away, leaving Keith looking stupefied. I know he can be two-faced (no pun intended).

Yes, gotdablouse - that's exactly how it appeared to me, as if KR was reliving the shock of MT's sudden departure 40 years ago.

There is no doubt Ronnie can play the game from both sides, he is a master diplomat. Can he hold the idea of leaving The Stones for a Faces tour if he's not happy over The Glimmer's heads? I just don't see Ronnie having the clout plus he's happy just playing, I doubt he cares how many solos he gets, after all he has to work hard to do what he does. This is a decision by Keith and Mick together. Keith does not want it believed he needs the return of Taylor to carry on. Mick wants what's easy and gives him the most room to sound good. Charlie got tricked into this and now that the dates are booked The Glimmers can f*ck with Taylor. Suddenly this looks like the end.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-31 02:21 by DoomandGloom.

Hmm now it's a cover-up!
All those disappointed people...why really?
Yes he could play on more songs.
He could have done that for lots of more years than he did..he decided to leave.

Why not be positive that they asked him back for EOMS and the tour?
He was out for so long but came back when they asked him: why did he do that?
Why are the Stones stupid: maybe Taylor is the stupid one..?

People say he was right to leave for almost 40 years but they missed him a great deal and said the Stones were nothing without him... now they say after he was asked to make this kinda come back it's a shame he's only on stage for two songs.
Well what did he do for almost 40 years...?

I say his best days in decades are right now with the Stones on stage again. Even for two or three songs.
He left the Titanic? When you compare what they did after Taylor left and what Taylor didn't do after he left maybe you should say Taylor was the Titanic...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-31 02:29 by Dreamer.

I think you're missing the point. Obviously any dedicated fan would like to see him playing more with them on stage but that's unlikely to change now. The more immediate concern is that all of a sudden something seems to have gone wrong (no bow, which makes sense after all as discussed above, Keith's stunned look and Mick not introducing Taylor last night) so we're worried that Taylor might not be along for the ride a lot longer, which would be a real shame.

--------------
IORR Links : Essential Studio Outtakes CDs : Audio - History of Rarest Outtakes : Audio