Tell Me :
Talk
AND
To summarize, MT doesn't respect Mick Jagger and the Rolling Stones. No kidding. Said in good faith, DoomandGloom?
What about a little respect for MT?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-01 11:06 by MarkSchneider.
They won't do it because they (i.e. Jagger) have no interest in providing Taylor with a showcase. It's the same reason they won't do Sway regularly, or Love In Vain, Winter, Time Waits For No One etc at all. They use him extremely sparingly and when they do use him his contribution is almost always minimised.
Maybe, as some others have said, too, Mick Taylor felt embarassed by taking part in the final bow as one who really plays on one song only.
Then perhaps, only perhaps, Mick Jagger in Lisbon wanted to avoid making Mick Taylor embarassed. By not thanking him, Taylor would be treated in the same manner as the other guitarists of the band. Isolated, anyhow, it makes sense.
[Writing this as one who would have loved Mick Taylor not only playing one or two more songs during concerts, but taking part in a three guitarist Stones. Also being part in the making of a studio album.
However, I have stopped hoping.
]
I think they avoid those songs because they don't sound very good when they play them. I heard that myself on the rehearsals. Sway was shaky and CYHMK was even worse. Jagger won't allow that kind of hit and miss.
Yes, that too.
Their inability to do Sway well is really, really strange. It is not a difficult song to play, and it's not like they haven't worked on it: it appears frequently in the rehearsal setlists, usually being done several times over. Yet when they've played it live, they all start into the song at different tempos, and it sounds disjointed throughout. Very odd.
Great to hear you were at the rehearsals
Was the quality of the music not good enough cause of Keith or Taylor, or was it the entire band ? Maybe you can post something more detailed about it here - you are a musician yourself.
Hell no! Dissensus is FAR MORE productive than consensus.
Sway becomes too crowded and messy with three guitars on the verses, and Keith never really played the chords correctly
I heard a tribute band play it after the Stones rehearsals. They understood the main thing about the song: the slower tempo.
I have posted it, though
They had to re-start CYHMK three times because of Keith. He couldn't get the riff before they are taking it down in the middle of the song right. Taylor played a beautiful solo, almost a blueprint of his Glasto-solo.
That said, with Sway it's more the band performance that just isn't swinging, imo.
To clarify, I was outside listening to the rehearsals. They kept the windows open, so the sound was crystal clear
One of the highlights was Taylor and Charlie's You Gotta Move-jam.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-01 14:06 by DandelionPowderman.
always helps if its played at the right tempo, but yeah its doesnt swing it sounds a bit sticky/mechanical rythmically. this ones more about the band not having found the groove.
If you think about it songs like MR, CYHMK are cool showcase's for lead playing virtuosity, but a song like Slippin Away (i mention this due to the minimal songs to choose from atm..) show what can be done with 3. theres subtlity, space and movement. Basicly from one end of teh spectrum to the other, need more of this
Glen Fry and Don Henley... well... a rather bad example but at least they were generous to participate in the documentary last year, so not muck darkness when dealing with the "whos the #ss in the eagles".
Well, I deliberately wrote an anonymous acoustic guitar and not simply an acoustic guitar.
That's true. I wasn't really thinking of you here, although your post triggered this issue a bit
Maybe so, but having Taylor play one on Satisfaction is just a calculated insult.
At least an unintentional tactlessness. Having him on board on Satisfaction, ready for the final bow, was a great idea though.
Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-01 15:52 by MarkSchneider.
If I remember correctly they first added Taylor to S. as 3rd electric guitar (that was hardly noticed?). Then they changed to Acoustic. I think that the Satisfaction affair was just some way of saying "he is not a band member but he is also above level of some one time guest".
I suspect that the whole Taylor affair is much much more relaxed (band wise) than what we think. What if Taylor is just generally tired of this all? what if he doesn't want to play 4-5 songs? Its not that the man has a past of an opportunist. The opposite is true. It might be that he is happy with what he gets.
I think D&G is on to something here. There is a reason he's not onstage for more songs.
I don't understand though, why they'd keep him on board at this stage, for only one song.
Just seems very odd...as though they don't want to include him to a greater degree, but maybe feel there'd be a bit of a backlash if they dropped him altogether.
So they're stuck and passive-aggressively waiting him out, until he's sick of it himself.
OR, we're endlessly speculating on something we have absolutely no clue on.
Seconded
I think your point about Keith's limitations is relevant to a lot of the setlist discussion. It is a much greater influence on why they don't mix things up more than is the supposed audience dislike of anything but 25 songs, which is BS.
But, CYHMK was the highlight of the show I saw in Philadelphia last year.
it is clear to me that the Rolling Stones don't like it when Taylor is in the spotlight and do not want reviews saying that his parts were the highlights and how much better they sound with him.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Why no Mick Taylor in final bow?
Posted by:
MarkSchneider
()
Date: June 1, 2014 10:52
Quote
DoomandGloomBack in the 60's early 70's bands hired guys and made them members as a matter of course, eventually that changed and players like Wood and Warren Haynes had to make themselves invaluable to get the nod. Still the "member" status comes with conditions and thus they are "members" with conditions. Taylor was and is brilliant with his guitar but he is not in the special class of Jagger who sits up there with Elvis, Lennon, Macca and Keef. I've been around great famous people and when Mick or Yoko or Miles or Dylan was around they got special respect, you see it from Chuck, Ronnie, Bobby and the rest of the players. Taylor not so much, he pushes Mick's buttons and challenges him in MR, directs Keith in CYHMK. Great as he is he is not their contemporary, we may think it's great music but they don't like it, Clapton arguably the biggest guitar legend of all always approaches the RS stage with courtesy.Quote
ChacalQuote
DoomandGloom
When MJ asked me to do something I did it without question, always. He has earned that respect and loyalty by producing the greatest rock music. I love Taylor but I don't think he shows that respect and that's maybe the issue.
Unless you were once a member of the Rolling Stones, the two situations can just not be compared at all.
Are you saying that MJ can only deal with yes-men ? Taylor might have his own opinion, but that's only to be expected after the significant contribution he made to the band's music.
Besides: does Taylor not deserve to be treated with respect ? Maybe that is exactly what's been lacking.
AND
Quote
DoomandGloom
...
In 2013 they brought him back and instead of being the subdued bluesman we all expected he danced around the stage dressed like Capt. Kangaroo.
To summarize, MT doesn't respect Mick Jagger and the Rolling Stones. No kidding. Said in good faith, DoomandGloom?
What about a little respect for MT?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-01 11:06 by MarkSchneider.
Re: Why no Mick Taylor in final bow?
Posted by:
Stoneburst
()
Date: June 1, 2014 11:47
Quote
StonesCat
It still boggles my mind how they can't find a spot in the setlist for that occasionally, if not every, night.
They won't do it because they (i.e. Jagger) have no interest in providing Taylor with a showcase. It's the same reason they won't do Sway regularly, or Love In Vain, Winter, Time Waits For No One etc at all. They use him extremely sparingly and when they do use him his contribution is almost always minimised.
Re: Why no Mick Taylor in final bow?
Posted by:
Wroclaw
()
Date: June 1, 2014 11:58
This discussion is one of the best debates about historical events we know very little - if any - about since I guess... the debates about the rise and fall of the Easter island culture... 
Re: Why no Mick Taylor in final bow?
Posted by:
TeddyB1018
()
Date: June 1, 2014 11:58
None of those are songs the great majority of people want to hear. Only Love in Vain was ever a live staple. They range from a mid tempo rocker in Sway to several ballads. I don't think the only reason they are not played is to keep Mick Taylor down. Though neither is it a particular goal to promote him. Only Can't You Hear Me Knockin' was even a semi-deep cut FM favorite, which is why they have played it a few times, including at Glastonbury, with a festival vibe.
Re: Why no Mick Taylor in final bow?
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: June 1, 2014 12:22
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Powerage
Apparently, not introduced by Jagger in Lisbon. Strange.
Is that true? He is always introduced like this "thank you, Mick Taylor".
Maybe, as some others have said, too, Mick Taylor felt embarassed by taking part in the final bow as one who really plays on one song only.
Then perhaps, only perhaps, Mick Jagger in Lisbon wanted to avoid making Mick Taylor embarassed. By not thanking him, Taylor would be treated in the same manner as the other guitarists of the band. Isolated, anyhow, it makes sense.
[Writing this as one who would have loved Mick Taylor not only playing one or two more songs during concerts, but taking part in a three guitarist Stones. Also being part in the making of a studio album.
However, I have stopped hoping.
]Re: Why no Mick Taylor in final bow?
Posted by:
Stoneburst
()
Date: June 1, 2014 12:29
DoomandGloom - I'm a little confused on what you mean by courtesy and respect here. With the exception of Atlantic City '89 I've always thought Clapton's guest spots with the Stones were extraordinarily bland - maybe justifiably, since he was never actually a member. Does respect in this context add up to much more than supporting the Mick and Keith show?
In any case, can we agree that the Stones would be a far more interesting live act were Taylor given free reign to do what he does, throwing little musical grenades into otherwise bland performances and a predictable setlist? Wouldn't it be nice if Mick and Keith embraced that fear of what he might do?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-01 12:31 by Stoneburst.
In any case, can we agree that the Stones would be a far more interesting live act were Taylor given free reign to do what he does, throwing little musical grenades into otherwise bland performances and a predictable setlist? Wouldn't it be nice if Mick and Keith embraced that fear of what he might do?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-01 12:31 by Stoneburst.
Re: Why no Mick Taylor in final bow?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: June 1, 2014 12:38
Quote
StoneburstQuote
StonesCat
It still boggles my mind how they can't find a spot in the setlist for that occasionally, if not every, night.
They won't do it because they (i.e. Jagger) have no interest in providing Taylor with a showcase. It's the same reason they won't do Sway regularly, or Love In Vain, Winter, Time Waits For No One etc at all. They use him extremely sparingly and when they do use him his contribution is almost always minimised.
I think they avoid those songs because they don't sound very good when they play them. I heard that myself on the rehearsals. Sway was shaky and CYHMK was even worse. Jagger won't allow that kind of hit and miss.
Re: Why no Mick Taylor in final bow?
Posted by:
Stoneburst
()
Date: June 1, 2014 12:47
Quote
DandelionPowderman
I think they avoid those songs because they don't sound very good when they play them. I heard that myself on the rehearsals. Sway was shaky and CYHMK was even worse. Jagger won't allow that kind of hit and miss.
Yes, that too.
Their inability to do Sway well is really, really strange. It is not a difficult song to play, and it's not like they haven't worked on it: it appears frequently in the rehearsal setlists, usually being done several times over. Yet when they've played it live, they all start into the song at different tempos, and it sounds disjointed throughout. Very odd.
Re: Why no Mick Taylor in final bow?
Posted by:
Powerage
()
Date: June 1, 2014 12:56
Stange, the recent live CYHMK versions on this tour with Taylor were good though.
Re: Why no Mick Taylor in final bow?
Posted by:
LuxuryStones
()
Date: June 1, 2014 13:00
Quote
DandelionPowderman
I think they avoid those songs because they don't sound very good when they play them. I heard that myself on the rehearsals. Sway was shaky and CYHMK was even worse. Jagger won't allow that kind of hit and miss.
Great to hear you were at the rehearsals
Was the quality of the music not good enough cause of Keith or Taylor, or was it the entire band ? Maybe you can post something more detailed about it here - you are a musician yourself.
Re: Why no Mick Taylor in final bow?
Posted by:
dcba
()
Date: June 1, 2014 13:24
Quote
Straycat13
Harmony, guys! Please keep it together.
Hell no! Dissensus is FAR MORE productive than consensus.
Re: Why no Mick Taylor in final bow?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: June 1, 2014 13:55
Quote
StoneburstQuote
DandelionPowderman
I think they avoid those songs because they don't sound very good when they play them. I heard that myself on the rehearsals. Sway was shaky and CYHMK was even worse. Jagger won't allow that kind of hit and miss.
Yes, that too.
Their inability to do Sway well is really, really strange. It is not a difficult song to play, and it's not like they haven't worked on it: it appears frequently in the rehearsal setlists, usually being done several times over. Yet when they've played it live, they all start into the song at different tempos, and it sounds disjointed throughout. Very odd.
Sway becomes too crowded and messy with three guitars on the verses, and Keith never really played the chords correctly
I heard a tribute band play it after the Stones rehearsals. They understood the main thing about the song: the slower tempo.
Re: Why no Mick Taylor in final bow?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: June 1, 2014 14:03
Quote
LuxuryStonesQuote
DandelionPowderman
I think they avoid those songs because they don't sound very good when they play them. I heard that myself on the rehearsals. Sway was shaky and CYHMK was even worse. Jagger won't allow that kind of hit and miss.
Great to hear you were at the rehearsals
Was the quality of the music not good enough cause of Keith or Taylor, or was it the entire band ? Maybe you can post something more detailed about it here - you are a musician yourself.
I have posted it, though
They had to re-start CYHMK three times because of Keith. He couldn't get the riff before they are taking it down in the middle of the song right. Taylor played a beautiful solo, almost a blueprint of his Glasto-solo.
That said, with Sway it's more the band performance that just isn't swinging, imo.
To clarify, I was outside listening to the rehearsals. They kept the windows open, so the sound was crystal clear
One of the highlights was Taylor and Charlie's You Gotta Move-jam.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-01 14:06 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: Why no Mick Taylor in final bow?
Posted by:
Captainchaos
()
Date: June 1, 2014 14:38
the link riff in CYHMK is played by Ronnie Wood on the live vids ive seen?
Sure Richards plays it too, (or maybe keith plays a similiar harmonising riff along to ronnie? eitherway, he's not often audible here, nor is he often actually playing here that often, kinda pretends to p[lay it if you know what i mean?)
The crux aint on replicating 70s era, its about intergrating taylor into the band and hearing a 3 guitar approach - everyones in a grudging agreement that the band steps up when he's on the stage
Sure Richards plays it too, (or maybe keith plays a similiar harmonising riff along to ronnie? eitherway, he's not often audible here, nor is he often actually playing here that often, kinda pretends to p[lay it if you know what i mean?)
The crux aint on replicating 70s era, its about intergrating taylor into the band and hearing a 3 guitar approach - everyones in a grudging agreement that the band steps up when he's on the stage
Re: Why no Mick Taylor in final bow?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: June 1, 2014 14:41
Yeah, but on some songs (like Sway) the three guitar thing doesn't work. .
Re: Why no Mick Taylor in final bow?
Posted by:
Captainchaos
()
Date: June 1, 2014 14:56
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Yeah, but on some songs (like Sway) the three guitar thing doesn't work. .
always helps if its played at the right tempo, but yeah its doesnt swing it sounds a bit sticky/mechanical rythmically. this ones more about the band not having found the groove.
If you think about it songs like MR, CYHMK are cool showcase's for lead playing virtuosity, but a song like Slippin Away (i mention this due to the minimal songs to choose from atm..) show what can be done with 3. theres subtlity, space and movement. Basicly from one end of teh spectrum to the other, need more of this
Re: Why no Mick Taylor in final bow?
Posted by:
mrpaulincanada
()
Date: June 1, 2014 15:01
I find this difficult to say but I think Glen Fry and Don Henley were a lot more repsectful to their musical legacy and to their old band mates (who quit) than Mick and Keith have been to Mick T and Bill.
Bernie Leadon does a partial set with them and if Randy Mesiner was well, I am certain he would have joined them onstage as well...
That's a pretty sad statement...
Bernie Leadon does a partial set with them and if Randy Mesiner was well, I am certain he would have joined them onstage as well...
That's a pretty sad statement...
Re: Why no Mick Taylor in final bow?
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: June 1, 2014 15:02
Let one guitarist play an anonymous acoustic guitar on those songs then. And let it rotate who will be that guitarist.
Re: Why no Mick Taylor in final bow?
Posted by:
Wroclaw
()
Date: June 1, 2014 15:08
Quote
mrpaulincanada
I find this difficult to say but I think Glen Fry and Don Henley were a lot more repsectful to their musical legacy and to their old band mates (who quit) than Mick and Keith have been to Mick T and Bill.
Bernie Leadon does a partial set with them and if Randy Mesiner was well, I am certain he would have joined them onstage as well...
That's a pretty sad statement...
Glen Fry and Don Henley... well... a rather bad example but at least they were generous to participate in the documentary last year, so not muck darkness when dealing with the "whos the #ss in the eagles".
Re: Why no Mick Taylor in final bow?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: June 1, 2014 15:09
The acoustic guitar's function in music is very underrated on this board
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-01 15:09 by DandelionPowderman.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-01 15:09 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: Why no Mick Taylor in final bow?
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: June 1, 2014 15:14
Quote
DandelionPowderman
The acoustic guitar's function in music is very underrated on this board
Well, I deliberately wrote an anonymous acoustic guitar and not simply an acoustic guitar.
Re: Why no Mick Taylor in final bow?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: June 1, 2014 15:17
Quote
WitnessQuote
DandelionPowderman
The acoustic guitar's function in music is very underrated on this board
Well, I deliberately wrote an anonymous acoustic guitar and not simply an acoustic guitar.
That's true. I wasn't really thinking of you here, although your post triggered this issue a bit
Re: Why no Mick Taylor in final bow?
Posted by:
Stoneburst
()
Date: June 1, 2014 15:35
Quote
DandelionPowderman
The acoustic guitar's function in music is very underrated on this board
Maybe so, but having Taylor play one on Satisfaction is just a calculated insult.
Re: Why no Mick Taylor in final bow?
Posted by:
MarkSchneider
()
Date: June 1, 2014 15:41
Quote
StoneburstQuote
DandelionPowderman
The acoustic guitar's function in music is very underrated on this board
Maybe so, but having Taylor play one on Satisfaction is just a calculated insult.
At least an unintentional tactlessness. Having him on board on Satisfaction, ready for the final bow, was a great idea though.
Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-01 15:52 by MarkSchneider.
Re: Why no Mick Taylor in final bow?
Posted by:
Wroclaw
()
Date: June 1, 2014 15:52
Quote
StoneburstQuote
DandelionPowderman
The acoustic guitar's function in music is very underrated on this board
Maybe so, but having Taylor play one on Satisfaction is just a calculated insult.
If I remember correctly they first added Taylor to S. as 3rd electric guitar (that was hardly noticed?). Then they changed to Acoustic. I think that the Satisfaction affair was just some way of saying "he is not a band member but he is also above level of some one time guest".
I suspect that the whole Taylor affair is much much more relaxed (band wise) than what we think. What if Taylor is just generally tired of this all? what if he doesn't want to play 4-5 songs? Its not that the man has a past of an opportunist. The opposite is true. It might be that he is happy with what he gets.
Re: Why no Mick Taylor in final bow?
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: June 1, 2014 16:03
Electro-acoustic, quite a different sound and it's use results in a different effect than an acoustic sound on a studio recording.
A horrible plastic harsh sound, particularly horrible when people strum hard.
A horrible plastic harsh sound, particularly horrible when people strum hard.
Re: Why no Mick Taylor in final bow?
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: June 1, 2014 16:09
Quote
MarkSchneiderQuote
DoomandGloomBack in the 60's early 70's bands hired guys and made them members as a matter of course, eventually that changed and players like Wood and Warren Haynes had to make themselves invaluable to get the nod. Still the "member" status comes with conditions and thus they are "members" with conditions. Taylor was and is brilliant with his guitar but he is not in the special class of Jagger who sits up there with Elvis, Lennon, Macca and Keef. I've been around great famous people and when Mick or Yoko or Miles or Dylan was around they got special respect, you see it from Chuck, Ronnie, Bobby and the rest of the players. Taylor not so much, he pushes Mick's buttons and challenges him in MR, directs Keith in CYHMK. Great as he is he is not their contemporary, we may think it's great music but they don't like it, Clapton arguably the biggest guitar legend of all always approaches the RS stage with courtesy.Quote
ChacalQuote
DoomandGloom
When MJ asked me to do something I did it without question, always. He has earned that respect and loyalty by producing the greatest rock music. I love Taylor but I don't think he shows that respect and that's maybe the issue.
Unless you were once a member of the Rolling Stones, the two situations can just not be compared at all.
Are you saying that MJ can only deal with yes-men ? Taylor might have his own opinion, but that's only to be expected after the significant contribution he made to the band's music.
Besides: does Taylor not deserve to be treated with respect ? Maybe that is exactly what's been lacking.
ANDQuote
DoomandGloom
...
In 2013 they brought him back and instead of being the subdued bluesman we all expected he danced around the stage dressed like Capt. Kangaroo.
To summarize, MT doesn't respect Mick Jagger and the Rolling Stones. No kidding. Said in good faith, DoomandGloom?
What about a little respect for MT?
I think D&G is on to something here. There is a reason he's not onstage for more songs.
I don't understand though, why they'd keep him on board at this stage, for only one song.
Just seems very odd...as though they don't want to include him to a greater degree, but maybe feel there'd be a bit of a backlash if they dropped him altogether.
So they're stuck and passive-aggressively waiting him out, until he's sick of it himself.
OR, we're endlessly speculating on something we have absolutely no clue on.
Re: Why no Mick Taylor in final bow?
Posted by:
MarkSchneider
()
Date: June 1, 2014 16:16
Edited : "we're endlessly speculating on something we have absolutely no clue on" .Exactly treaclefingers, our posts crossed each other :
Final bow or not, respect or not, Taylorites vs Woodites, reasoning, inducting, deducting, calculating, reckoning, getting frustrated, bitter... big waste of energy.
My last word is :
Let's have Mick Taylor on more songs
Having Sympathy For The Devil would be a plus, of course
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-01 16:24 by MarkSchneider.
Final bow or not, respect or not, Taylorites vs Woodites, reasoning, inducting, deducting, calculating, reckoning, getting frustrated, bitter... big waste of energy.
My last word is :
Let's have Mick Taylor on more songs
Having Sympathy For The Devil would be a plus, of course
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-01 16:24 by MarkSchneider.
Re: Why no Mick Taylor in final bow?
Posted by:
Captainchaos
()
Date: June 1, 2014 16:22
Quote
MarkSchneider
( Edited : Exactly treaclefingers, our posts crossed each other)
Final bow or not, respect or not, Taylorites vs Woodites, reasoning, inducting, deducting, calculating, reckoning, getting frustrated, bitter... big waste of energy.
My last word is :
Let's have Mick Taylor on more songs
Having Sympathy For The Devil would be a plus, of course
Seconded
Re: Why no Mick Taylor in final bow?
Posted by:
Rokyfan
()
Date: June 1, 2014 16:32
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
LuxuryStonesQuote
DandelionPowderman
I think they avoid those songs because they don't sound very good when they play them. I heard that myself on the rehearsals. Sway was shaky and CYHMK was even worse. Jagger won't allow that kind of hit and miss.
Great to hear you were at the rehearsals
Was the quality of the music not good enough cause of Keith or Taylor, or was it the entire band ? Maybe you can post something more detailed about it here - you are a musician yourself.
I have posted it, though
They had to re-start CYHMK three times because of Keith. He couldn't get the riff before they are taking it down in the middle of the song right. Taylor played a beautiful solo, almost a blueprint of his Glasto-solo.
That said, with Sway it's more the band performance that just isn't swinging, imo.
To clarify, I was outside listening to the rehearsals. They kept the windows open, so the sound was crystal clear
One of the highlights was Taylor and Charlie's You Gotta Move-jam.
I think your point about Keith's limitations is relevant to a lot of the setlist discussion. It is a much greater influence on why they don't mix things up more than is the supposed audience dislike of anything but 25 songs, which is BS.
But, CYHMK was the highlight of the show I saw in Philadelphia last year.
it is clear to me that the Rolling Stones don't like it when Taylor is in the spotlight and do not want reviews saying that his parts were the highlights and how much better they sound with him.
This Thread has been closed
Online Users
daisybenito , django , elvisloose , glmmr_twn , grzegorz67 , john lomax , jp.M , kidquick185 , marclaff , mgmiller , micha063 , novica , rolling1us , skorpio65 , StonedRambler , voodoodrew , wiredallnight , xke38
Guests:
1706
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10