Maybe you're missing how this could be not as serious as you all think it is. How not so orchestrated as lots of people think.
They asked him to play EOMS. They asked him to tour.
Nothing is without troubles but...they asked him and they didn't have to do that.
But now he's back for his contracted two songs and after some three song shows he displays being disappointed because...pfff... MJ forgot to mention him like he usually does...?
Who's the primadonna??
It wouldn't surprise me if MT is not on stage again at a certain point in this tour. At the same time I'm not worried about that though I like his play.

Although I don't have the luxury of insider knowledge, I've now acquired a good sense by getting "close as can be" that a lot of the stuff is NOT orchestrated with the Stones as it can appear to be from the outside. Because they know each other inside out and because the principals probably like the idea that things "happen" and like to "wing it", you know, keep it "artistic", they are from the 60s after all...and it's served them well so far ;-)

...but again that's not the point, the signs that were identified in this thread point to some "issues" that could jeopardize Taylor's presence on stage and for those who haven't had the chance to see the band play with him since he came back for the O2 shows in 2012 that would be a real shame and would put a big dampener on the actual tour, here and elsewhere (like in the press, "where/why is Taylor gone" ). I'm a bit surprised that you don't seem to care either way?

Oh and I disagree with your calling Taylor a "primadonna" for not wanting to bow with four "current" Stones, the most likely explanation has been discussed several times above, i.e. "it's your show" and "let's not pretend I'm part of the band". His physical demeanor when he walked/bowed away is perfectly consistent with that.

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



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-31 03:02 by gotdablouse.

Quote
Dreamer
they asked him and they didn't have to do that.

Certainly in the context of the 02 shows, they HAD to invite Taylor and Wyman back. Both were crucial to the band's heyday and it wouldn't have been a proper celebration without them. I personally don't subscribe to the idea that Taylor and Wyman should be grateful for what they were offered.

But I do agree that Taylor signed up perhaps knowing that his role would be limited, and accepted that. Equally, I can totally understand Wyman's position.

Quite a couple of points were missed there (5 and 3 posts up).
The Stones took the commercial route while Taylor continued doing what he excels at (ask any Blues guitarist). That does not mean either of them went wrong.

It was like a miracle when they joined forces again after nearly 4 decades,

How can the fans be anything but disappointed when the band is letting petty political games get in the way of music ? A unique opportunity is going to waste that way.
Great musical heights can still be achieved - as was in evidence a number of times last year. It's a case of the whole being greater than the sum of the parts.
So of course people are going to ask why it's not happening now.

Doom & Gloom, I can't figure out why you said 'Charlie got tricked into this' ?

Dreamer: 'contracted 2 songs' - what is that supposed to mean ?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-31 03:15 by Chacal.

Bill Wyman was in the band 30 years and was even crowded in the van with them before they were famous, and he was offered a 2-song slot as a returning special guest. He was not asked to re-join the band, just do this 50th anniversary world tour as a returning guest. Likewise, Mick Taylor was in the band only 5 years, so he is featured on a lengthy number from the era when he was a part of the band.

So why should people expect him to play longer during concerts, like the whole show? The band didn't ask him to re-join as a full member, but instead just to do this 50th anniversary tour as a special guest to help them celebrate their history.

No doubt if Brian Jones were alive today he would have been given the same opportunity for this 50th tour--as a special guest. His guest spot likely would have been Little Red Rooster and one other number. But it would have been limited to a cameo.

That is what a special guest is--one who makes a cameo, as opposed to a full-time member who remains onstage throughout the set.

What is it about the concept of "special guest" that so many here don't seem to understand?

Quote
stonehearted


What is it about the concept of "special guest" that so many here don't seem to understand?

I think some of us expected that MT would be used the right way on the RIGHT songs during this tour. We've accepted him as a special guest. Fine by us. But we as REAL Stones-fans know that MT played a crucial role on Sway, CYHMK, TWFNO, Ventilator Blues etc etc. NOT on acoustic guitar on Satisfaction. I think it bothers us the most... MT not playing the right songs and the ammount of songs. It doesn't have to be the whole concert. But a little bit more than 2 songs.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-31 03:42 by DiamondDog7.

What we're saying is: if the Stones had given MT an different song he was featured on at every show in addition to MR, we could have stitched together our dream Stones gig from YouTube clips by now...

(I jest, I jest!)

One has to understand how this business works, and, yes, it's a business, making money with our dreams, not a fun venture of some old friends, playing music (just) because they like it and -surprise,surprise!- even make some money out of it.

For their 50th Anniversary shows and possible following tours (which are now reality, of course), the Stones marketing needed some new sparks to create enough buzz amongst their target audiences, considering (among other factors) the lack of a new album, doubts concerning their ability to deliver high-class performances and last but not least their pricey ticketing strategy. Bringing back 2 former members (let's not forget, also Bill was asked to join them for the US-dates, but he declined) was a clever move to disguise the fact that they had nothing new to offer.

Did they need them? Well, at least, Taylor's and Wyman's "return" was quite useful for them. In Taylor's case even useful to solve some serious tour insurance matters by having him onboard as a safety net just in case one of main guitar players would go havoc while maintaining as much "Stones credibility" as possible at the same time. Taylor's participation could have saved them insurance fees that far outweight the money they have to pay him for his minimalistic contribution on stage.

All in all, and no matter what we fans may want to believe, Taylor is not on tour with them for any artistic reasons. It's a business move that serves many purposes, mainly (if not entirely) business purposes. It has nothing or very little to do with "old friendship" or the desire "to shake things up" and create a "new Stones live sound" or "3 guitar attack". If they wanted that, they would have done it. The proof is in the pudding, so they so say.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-31 08:00 by alimente.

Here's the best evidence for Taylor playing in the band. Last night Keith and Ronnie both played the same part trading Chuck licks, neither one holding down the song. Darrell as usual is undefined and what's missing is the actual riff, the running guitar line we loved on Ya Ya's is not there. When I listen to this I just wish one of the guitarists would actually play the song, this irreverence to the music is something Keith and Ronnie do sometimes like on "Still Life", personally I don't like when they play this way. I agree with "almonte" above, Taylor was taken as insurance reasons, the guitar section is keeping it together for the most part and he's a valuable asset for them otherwise. Taylor is not in the position to turn down work like Bill can. This is awful big money and it's cool that he takes it. Taylor remains silent but sends a message in the end, the new turn of events says to me he's holding out on something they didn't anticipate. A book deal perhaps, "Never Say Never Again" seems like a perfect title.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-31 04:36 by DoomandGloom.

Nothing but love for these guys for 50 years. MT is there. He should be on the stage all night. Bring a chair if someone wants to rest.

Quote
gotdablouse
Although I don't have the luxury of insider knowledge, I've now acquired a good sense by getting "close as can be" that a lot of the stuff is NOT orchestrated with the Stones as it can appear to be from the outside. Because they know each other inside out and because the principals probably like the idea that things "happen" and like to "wing it", you know, keep it "artistic", they are from the 60s after all...and it's served them well so far ;-)

...but again that's not the point, the signs that were identified in this thread point to some "issues" that could jeopardize Taylor's presence on stage and for those who haven't had the chance to see the band play with him since he came back for the O2 shows in 2012 that would be a real shame and would put a big dampener on the actual tour, here and elsewhere (like in the press, "where/why is Taylor gone" ). I'm a bit surprised that you don't seem to care either way?

Oh and I disagree with your calling Taylor a "primadonna" for not wanting to bow with four "current" Stones, the most likely explanation has been discussed several times above, i.e. "it's your show" and "let's not pretend I'm part of the band". His physical demeanor when he walked/bowed away is perfectly consistent with that.

I don't think there is any kind of nefarious plot, game-playing or politics going on. A decision was made about Taylor's involvement depending on "issues" we cannot know. They may be boringly practical or deeply personal but one thing's for sure: they are private. After several months, Taylor apparently feels stepping out of the spotlight with the core members is right. Who can blame him? He's a modest person, not a primadonna, and the other fellows are maybe thinking what that gesture means, or even discussing it, and agreeing rather than resenting it, or at least accepting it. And maybe something constructive will result, or not. No matter what, I will be surprised if MT does not play his other 2 tunes during 14 on Fire in spite of all our concern. Without rhyme or reason.

And by the way, did Taylor bow with the 4 core members from the start of the reunion tour at O2? If memory serves, they waved him in to join them after one or two performances... If that's true, the bowing protocol seems to have evolved spontaneously, and continues to do so, along the "go with the flow" MO described by gotdablouse.

Quote
stonehearted
Bill Wyman was in the band 30 years and was even crowded in the van with them before they were famous, and he was offered a 2-song slot as a returning special guest. He was not asked to re-join the band, just do this 50th anniversary world tour as a returning guest. Likewise, Mick Taylor was in the band only 5 years, so he is featured on a lengthy number from the era when he was a part of the band.



What is it about the concept of "special guest" that so many here don't seem to understand?

Perhaps it is the fact that the songs they play from that "only" five-year period are the cornerstone of these greatest hits shows: HTW, Brown Sugar, Tumbling Dice, etc., etc. What is it about "Taylor was a band member who played on these records" don't you understand? Do you really think people are paying their money hoping to hear the amazing material from the Voodoo Loungs and Bridges To Babylon period? Besides, the band is simply better with him onstage. He does inject a little risk and uncertainty into the proceedings, which is exactly why it's so exciting. When he delivers the rewards are ample indeed. But it seems like some people do not want their enjoyment of safe, predictable, Vegas-style shows to be disturbed; even by actual Rolling Stones like Mick Taylor or Bill Wyman.

Quote
DiamondDog7

Quote
stonehearted


What is it about the concept of "special guest" that so many here don't seem to understand?

I think some of us expected that MT would be used the right way on the RIGHT songs during this tour. We've accepted him as a special guest. Fine by us. But we as REAL Stones-fans know that MT played a crucial role on Sway, CYHMK, TWFNO, Ventilator Blues etc etc. NOT on acoustic guitar on Satisfaction. I think it bothers us the most... MT not playing the right songs and the ammount of songs. It doesn't have to be the whole concert. But a little bit more than 2 songs.

You said it better than me. And more elegantly.

Chuck Leavell's factor



(Chuck Leavell's as a musical manager)

[www.rollingstone.com]
By Patrick Doyle November 26, 2012

To prepare for the Stones' blistering 23-song set in London, Leavell acted as musical director during the Paris rehearsals, sifting through their rich 400-plus song catalog while fielding suggestions from Jagger and the rest of the band. "I can't remember the last time Charlie Watts or Ronnie Wood have come up and offered [set list] suggestions," he says. "Mick and I talked about it on several occasions, really, in the early stages of the rehearsals, and I made up varied lists. I make up a list every day of what I think the band should be rehearsing, and then I also had a separate list that is songs that we have yet to try to play that I think may have merit. We have tried to look very hard at all of the various eras of the band's career and tried as best as possible to represent those eras. Fifty years is a long time, man!"
...
For fans heading to future shows, looking at last night's set list may provide some spoilers. "The bottom line is that, only having a limited number of shows, obviously we're not gonna go crazy with swapping around songs in the set list," says Leavell. "In other words, we don't want to go too too deep at this juncture."...


On RELIX type "chuck leavell" or
[www.relix.com]
Here is an excerpt regarding guests and MT
Chuck Leavell Talks Stones Tour
by Mike Greenhaus on April 10, 2013
"...
Guest Stars
It’s been great to have [former Stones] Bill Wyman and Mick Taylor, and guests like Mary J. Blige, Jeff Beck, Eric Clapton, Florence Welch, Gary Clark Jr. and my good pal John Mayer onboard this run. Of course, the fans that have followed the band through its entire career, or most of it, were really excited to see Bill and Mick onstage. Bill and I stayed in touch through the years after he left, and so, on a personal level, it was wonderful for me. Mick is also much loved by the fans for his time with the band. He brought a lot to the table in those years and brought it with him to the stage for these shows. It was tough to only have them play a song or two, but we also wanted to accommodate the other guest artists – and, of course, to play as the core band we have now. Eric was a highlight for me as I played with him for two-and-a-half years. He (Eric Clapton) killed it on “Champagne and Reefer.” Mick doing “Midnight Rambler” made for a cool jam. Since I have been working with John Mayer over the past two years, he was my suggestion – and I’m so glad he could make it.
..."

"made a cool jam"... This says a lot...


MT, dangerous for conservative Chuck Leavell's controlled planet?



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-31 12:03 by MarkSchneider.

Quote
DiamondDog7
I think some of us expected that MT would be used the right way on the RIGHT songs during this tour. We've accepted him as a special guest. Fine by us. But we as REAL Stones-fans know that MT played a crucial role on Sway, CYHMK, TWFNO, Ventilator Blues etc etc. NOT on acoustic guitar on Satisfaction. I think it bothers us the most... MT not playing the right songs and the ammount of songs. It doesn't have to be the whole concert. But a little bit more than 2 songs.

Exactly what I think as well

More MT, since he is with the band, just a little more and on the rights songs.

Quote
Sister Marie

Quote
DiamondDog7
I think some of us expected that MT would be used the right way on the RIGHT songs during this tour. We've accepted him as a special guest. Fine by us. But we as REAL Stones-fans know that MT played a crucial role on Sway, CYHMK, TWFNO, Ventilator Blues etc etc. NOT on acoustic guitar on Satisfaction. I think it bothers us the most... MT not playing the right songs and the ammount of songs. It doesn't have to be the whole concert. But a little bit more than 2 songs.

Exactly what I think as well

More MT, since he is with the band, just a little more and on the rights songs.

Sensitive

You all put it very well, as did Kleermaker and so many others, even critics -- it's OBVIOUS, LOGICAL to any Stones fan of the golden Taylor years (whether they know him by name or not) -- and the Stones themselves are not idiots about this, or about what he brings to the band now, plus how can their managers, crew and inner circle etc not be wondering and discussing the same thing, or having some tacit understanding that Taylor could and should be playing more during this unique window of time? So there must be a very good and perhaps delicate reason, and what bothers us is no one is explaining it -- and though it's incredibly frustrating and disappointing, rather than blame it on some kind of sinister plot, maybe it's better to accept it in good faith that it is for the best



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-31 10:21 by LookoutMountain.

Quote
LookoutMountain
You all put it very well, as did Kleermaker and so many others, even critics -- it's OBVIOUS, LOGICAL to any Stones fan of the golden Taylor years (whether they know him by name or not) -- and the Stones themselves are not idiots about this, or about what he brings to the band now, plus how can their managers, crew and inner circle etc not be wondering and discussing the same thing, or having some tacit understanding that Taylor could and should be playing more during this unique window of time? So there must be a very good and perhaps delicate reason, and what bothers us is no one is explaining it -- and though it's incredibly frustrating and disappointing, rather than blame it on some kind of sinister plot, maybe it's better to accept it in good faith that it is for the best

We are getting nervous for sure. We have reasons but few explanations.

Nervous? I'm scared to ask what impending doom is in the offing.

Don't worry Aqua -- I think he means his nerves are torn and frayed trying to figure this out We need a group hug.

Quote
DiamondDog7


I think some of us expected that MT would be used the right way on the RIGHT songs during this tour. We've accepted him as a special guest. Fine by us. But we as REAL Stones-fans know that MT played a crucial role on Sway, CYHMK, TWFNO, Ventilator Blues etc etc. NOT on acoustic guitar on Satisfaction. I think it bothers us the most... MT not playing the right songs and the ammount of songs. It doesn't have to be the whole concert. But a little bit more than 2 songs.

Agreed! I was surprised when it did not turn out this way. By now its a farce. Why even bother taking him along? Just give MT a payment for past songwriting he did not get credit on and be done with it.

<<Perhaps it is the fact that the songs they play from that "only" five-year period are the cornerstone of these greatest hits shows: HTW, Brown Sugar, Tumbling Dice, etc., etc. What is it about "Taylor was a band member who played on these records" don't you understand?>>

Perhaps you're forgetting that those song titles you mention--HTW, Brown Sugar, Tumbling Dice, etc., etc.--were not written by MT. He was a band member, not a writer.

I don't hear people in this thread complaining that Jimmy miller is not alive and present to play on You Can't Always Get What You Want You Want or It's Only Rock And Roll rather than Charlie Watts--who did not play on those studio recordings.

Because those songs are included in the Stones canon anyway, even if true Stones aren't in fact playing on them....

Quote
triceratops
Agreed! I was surprised when it did not turn out this way. By now its a farce. Why even bother taking him along? Just give MT a payment for past songwriting he did not get credit on and be done with it.

Wonder if Jagger has become more unbearing since the L'Wren incident? Rather than loosen the leash, he's tightened it, unwilling to split any of the attention with anybody else? MT being the only musician that could upstage him. Kinda of schoolyard politics if it is. Either that, or he's so much into the look that MT just doesn't cut it?

Either way, times have changed and wish whoever is undermining MT to be given a cease-and-desist.

Quote
muffie

Wonder if Jagger has become more unbearing since the L'Wren incident? Rather than loosen the leash, he's tightened it, unwilling to split any of the attention with anybody else? MT being the only musician that could upstage him. Kinda of schoolyard politics if it is.

*shoots self*

Quote
gotdablouse
Although I don't have the luxury of insider knowledge, I've now acquired a good sense by getting "close as can be" that a lot of the stuff is NOT orchestrated with the Stones as it can appear to be from the outside. Because they know each other inside out and because the principals probably like the idea that things "happen" and like to "wing it", you know, keep it "artistic", they are from the 60s after all...and it's served them well so far ;-)

...but again that's not the point, the signs that were identified in this thread point to some "issues" that could jeopardize Taylor's presence on stage and for those who haven't had the chance to see the band play with him since he came back for the O2 shows in 2012 that would be a real shame and would put a big dampener on the actual tour, here and elsewhere (like in the press, "where/why is Taylor gone" ). I'm a bit surprised that you don't seem to care either way?

Oh and I disagree with your calling Taylor a "primadonna" for not wanting to bow with four "current" Stones, the most likely explanation has been discussed several times above, i.e. "it's your show" and "let's not pretend I'm part of the band". His physical demeanor when he walked/bowed away is perfectly consistent with that.

a lot of the stuff is NOT orchestrated I'm glad you see that! Lot's of situations discussed on IORR are really not organized as lots of people think. They're sloppy in that part as well!
you don't seem to care I do but I don't worry about it. I saw them 40 years without him!! And 45 years without BJ!
And maybe just when he left I missed him now and then but after that year you embrace the new situation or you quit. That's what music offers you as well: new renditions, new situations, new arangements. And sometimes a new guitar player or a new bass player. And you can quit as a fan anytime. For me it became less interesting when BW was out; his play was far more important to the band than MT's playing was.
But this situation; I'm reversing the primadonna thing because I read someone saying something about the four primadonnas. Which in a way they are and good for them Everybody has a right to behave like that once in a while. I hope how they see each other is not influenced by that.

Quote
DiamondDog7

Quote
stonehearted


What is it about the concept of "special guest" that so many here don't seem to understand?

I think some of us expected that MT would be used the right way on the RIGHT songs during this tour. We've accepted him as a special guest. Fine by us. But we as REAL Stones-fans know that MT played a crucial role on Sway, CYHMK, TWFNO, Ventilator Blues etc etc. NOT on acoustic guitar on Satisfaction. I think it bothers us the most... MT not playing the right songs and the ammount of songs. It doesn't have to be the whole concert. But a little bit more than 2 songs.

For many fans (who's "real" anyway?) MR w Taylor on Brussels is the holy grail. Why should he play on Ventilator Blues instead, a song he's not playing a lot on?

Sway and CYHMK are cool, but the band needs to rehearse those songs more, imo.

IMO, it would have been cool having Taylor on the newer songs as well - OOC, for instance.

Quote
stonehearted
What is it about the concept of "special guest" that so many here don't seem to understand?

We understand the concept perfectly well. We just don't accept that a former member of the band, one of the greatest guitarists of all time, a key ingredient in the finest albums and live shows ever recorded and performed by anyone, should be limited to 'special guest' status.

It's cheap, it involves a strong element of ritualistic humiliation (as Bill Wyman saw), and it demonstrates a total lack of interest in the music on Jagger/Richards' part.

Quote
alimente
One has to understand how this business works, and, yes, it's a business, making money with our dreams, not a fun venture of some old friends, playing music (just) because they like it and -surprise,surprise!- even make some money out of it.

For their 50th Anniversary shows and possible following tours (which are now reality, of course), the Stones marketing needed some new sparks to create enough buzz amongst their target audiences, considering (among other factors) the lack of a new album, doubts concerning their ability to deliver high-class performances and last but not least their pricey ticketing strategy. Bringing back 2 former members (let's not forget, also Bill was asked to join them for the US-dates, but he declined) was a clever move to disguise the fact that they had nothing new to offer.

Did they need them? Well, at least, Taylor's and Wyman's "return" was quite useful for them. In Taylor's case even useful to solve some serious tour insurance matters by having him onboard as a safety net just in case one of main guitar players would go havoc while maintaining as much "Stones credibility" as possible at the same time. Taylor's participation could have saved them insurance fees that far outweight the money they have to pay him for his minimalistic contribution on stage.

All in all, and no matter what we fans may want to believe, Taylor is not on tour with them for any artistic reasons. It's a business move that serves many purposes, mainly (if not entirely) business purposes. It has nothing or very little to do with "old friendship" or the desire "to shake things up" and create a "new Stones live sound" or "3 guitar attack". If they wanted that, they would have done it. The proof is in the pudding, so they so say.

surprise,surprise! I like that one! Yeah, but it's still a fun thing...

It's the WHY and the HOW that people are mixing up sometimes.
This is an interesting thesis about the how. Concepts fly around in that process so you can imagine someone came up with the idea to have them join as a suprise guest and others came up with the idea to do that on every show...that evolved into what it's happening now I guess.
Born out of a good and nice idea.
At the same time there is a why (the need) because maybe some problems elsewhere created that question. So the how and the why meet. That's where creativity and business meet. The guy who's steering this is someone who always comes with a solution. He's doing a great job handling calculated risks and anticipating uncalculated risks. With the intention of producing a great tour. With just a few left unhappy. And they can feel used and I understand that...
But again: when you sign the deal you deliver. Even if you just signed because you need the cash. And you know they take it away out there with huge promotion and stuff: shake things up...that's how it works and you know that. That business can be fun man...RW is having fun for years and years even when he wasn't a full member. He never complained but had fun. So it's an attitude thing as well. There's the business, the music, the attitude. He doesn't like the business but makes a deal with them because he needs the cash. We talk about his attitude and his music is, oops spoiler alert, not as legendary good on all songs he plays as people like us to believe... Above all it's not what the audience is used to for decades so it's a smart move to limit him to MR and one or two other songs.
And he knew that before he signed...

All sold out!
Big money rule, end of the game.

Quote
Aquamarine
*shoots self*

Let me know if you need help there.

Quote
MarkSchneider
All sold out!
Big money rule, end of the game.

Stones started as anti-establishment, then became it. A hierarchical rock monopoly. Have to resign myself to the fact that the Vegas era Stones are a different animal. Back to my '69-73 boots when the music reigned supreme. I will concede that the current Stones would win the 'Rock Survivor' contest if there was one. Testimony to their endurance, or OCD if you consider the lack of setlist variation.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-31 12:50 by muffie.