Quote
three16

Quote
71Tele
Yet another waste of Taylor, and yet another wasted opportunity (if you actually care about music). At this point one has to wonder about the motivations of certain people. They seemed determined to use the man as a one-song freak show, rather than a former member who helped make the magic that enables them to cash these big paychecks decades later. If I sound bitter it's because I am.

They are not touring in celebration of Mick Taylor guitar solos. It's 2014 and they're on fire, touring as a current active band with new songs and members that have not quit the band since joining.

At least two of their super biggest warhorse hits include the work Ronnie. About seventy percent of their warhorse or other fan favorite popular songs played randomly include the work of Brian. All the songs they recorded with Taylor that they 'cash' in on would have been great songs without him because Mick and Keith primarily wrote them. He was in the right place at the right time. Just as he is again, considering.

I haven't heard any Taylor solo material written with glimmer twin quality. Happy still would have been Happy. Just a different smile is all. He certainly did contribute immensely and his time in the band is my favorite but I like exactly what they're doing. The band and probably mostly Jagger has the smart judgment to not slap Ronnie for his steadfast patience and dedication.

I do understand your point though. I don't know why he is used on satisfaction or Slipping away, two songs he had nothing to do with. (Imagine how Ronnie feels while covering the other two guitarists work during a show)

IORR, it's not to be taken too seriously. Except when Mick Taylor is on the Rambler.

Quote
71Tele
Yet another waste of Taylor, and yet another wasted opportunity (if you actually care about music). At this point one has to wonder about the motivations of certain people. They seemed determined to use the man as a one-song freak show, rather than a former member who helped make the magic that enables them to cash these big paychecks decades later. If I sound bitter it's because I am.

Quote
corriecas

Quote
71Tele
Yet another waste of Taylor, and yet another wasted opportunity (if you actually care about music). At this point one has to wonder about the motivations of certain people. They seemed determined to use the man as a one-song freak show, rather than a former member who helped make the magic that enables them to cash these big paychecks decades later. If I sound bitter it's because I am.

I agree with you and i am sure we will never get a mature answerfromone of the Glimmer twins.
I hope mick Taylor will explain more in a few years, but is not allowed to dsay anything now. But i bet he is slightly happy with the money he will receive. Nevertheless i can understand if he also feels bitter.
Jeroen

Quote
EddieByword

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
EddieByword

Quote
The Worst.
The set list moaners must absolutely hate the tours The Rolling Stones did in 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1976, 1978, 1981 & 1982
when they played more or less the exact same set of songs on every single show on the tour with few exceptions.
Also the Steel Wheels, Jungle, Voodoo and Bridges tours had few surprises. Apart from a few club shows, the set list was always predictable.
In fact, it was first on the Licks Tour that The Rolling Stones started to change the set lists drastically from show to show.
And the fans got spoiled big time and have demanded huge set list changes ever since. But even on the ABB tour, The Stones continued to change the set a lot.
On that tour I heard more than 60 different songs live - about the same amount of songs that they performed during the entire 1970s.
Set list moaners need to get some perspective.

There's perspective and perspective........first it's not about same setlist every night or not, it's about new songs. On those tours you mention it was just tons of new songs all the time.
Everyone of those tours you mention were done on the back of a new album. New song laden setlists every tour.
Even all the warhorses were still relatively new, only Satisfaction was over 10 years old, and that wasn't even played in '73 & '75, just once in '76 and just couple of times in'78.
I saw them in '82, for that tour we heard live for the first time, songs from the latest 3 albums, Some girls, Emotional Rescue and Tattoo you, with 3 other songs included, Chantilly lace, 20 flight rock and Going to a go-go etc.
Out of a 24 song setlist, the first 12 songs had not been played before in Europe with the exception of Under my thumb & Let's spend the night together sometime in the early sixties.
Out of the 2nd half of the show I'd only ever heard live, YCAGWYW, HTW, Brown Sugar and JJF. That was it, the rest was new to almost everyone else at the show also, so, 20 'new' songs out of 24.
Also, times have changed, there's the Internet and iorr's Tell me etc. Years ago as you might remember, you could wait years or forever for a bootleg......Passiac '78 and the like were like manna from heaven and held that status for years. Now boots are available at the push of a button overnight.
In that regard you're right about spoiled, now it's like now 'we' don't want 15 boots of the same show, so for that reason, as well as just wanting to hear new stuff when attending a show personally, the call to mix it up some more is louder.
Also, years ago there was an album every year or so,,,,,,,it's 9 years since the last new Stones album, so, I'd say if they can't write any new stuff dig deeper into the old.
If nothing else, what a missed opportunity with the Exile and Some girls outtakes for example..........on and on.........
Last thing, Mick Jagger keeps trotting out this old chestnut about "Oh, if the crowd don't know it they won't like it"...........
Everybody on this board and outside it who like rock music must have had the experience sometime of walking in a pub or club, perhaps not knowing the band, not knowing the song but instantly recognising quality and straight away saying "yeah, I like this".
I think they underestimate the audience and themselves, or maybe I've got it all wrong and they really can't play Time waits for no one or Child of the moon or 100 years ago anymore.......(for example)............I guess it's about the fine line between a rut and a groove and which side of that line one stands.

imo, comparing then with now and shouting down people who want to hear some more variety on the basis you called ('69 - '82 tours) is simplistic and a bit misleading.

This issue of touring behind a vital new record is key. That's why it didn't use to matter that they played the same songs every night: most of them were NEW songs ... and they were usually very good, if not great songs.

But the other thing to remember is that The Rolling Stones have been a nostalgia act now for approximately half their life as a band. That's a loooooong time. We are reduced to applauding them for performing at a level that can charitably be described as "really good for 70 year olds."

We always hope that they might turn back time and do something that mattered again ... they were once so good that it makes it very difficult to give up on them. Perhaps we're afraid if we give up on The Stones (by not demanding that they produce new work) we're giving up on a part of our youth.

1. In a nutshell and 2.........so true....

Also, as I said in a previous post, in the old days...well, I didn't know where they'd played the previous night, let alone what they'd played........

Oh no, I just realised, the expression to describe them now is dumbed down.....arggghhhh........but they do it so well.........

Quote
The Worst.

Quote
EddieByword

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
EddieByword

Quote
The Worst.
The set list moaners must absolutely hate the tours The Rolling Stones did in 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1976, 1978, 1981 & 1982
when they played more or less the exact same set of songs on every single show on the tour with few exceptions.
Also the Steel Wheels, Jungle, Voodoo and Bridges tours had few surprises. Apart from a few club shows, the set list was always predictable.
In fact, it was first on the Licks Tour that The Rolling Stones started to change the set lists drastically from show to show.
And the fans got spoiled big time and have demanded huge set list changes ever since. But even on the ABB tour, The Stones continued to change the set a lot.
On that tour I heard more than 60 different songs live - about the same amount of songs that they performed during the entire 1970s.
Set list moaners need to get some perspective.

There's perspective and perspective........first it's not about same setlist every night or not, it's about new songs. On those tours you mention it was just tons of new songs all the time.
Everyone of those tours you mention were done on the back of a new album. New song laden setlists every tour.
Even all the warhorses were still relatively new, only Satisfaction was over 10 years old, and that wasn't even played in '73 & '75, just once in '76 and just couple of times in'78.
I saw them in '82, for that tour we heard live for the first time, songs from the latest 3 albums, Some girls, Emotional Rescue and Tattoo you, with 3 other songs included, Chantilly lace, 20 flight rock and Going to a go-go etc.
Out of a 24 song setlist, the first 12 songs had not been played before in Europe with the exception of Under my thumb & Let's spend the night together sometime in the early sixties.
Out of the 2nd half of the show I'd only ever heard live, YCAGWYW, HTW, Brown Sugar and JJF. That was it, the rest was new to almost everyone else at the show also, so, 20 'new' songs out of 24.
Also, times have changed, there's the Internet and iorr's Tell me etc. Years ago as you might remember, you could wait years or forever for a bootleg......Passiac '78 and the like were like manna from heaven and held that status for years. Now boots are available at the push of a button overnight.
In that regard you're right about spoiled, now it's like now 'we' don't want 15 boots of the same show, so for that reason, as well as just wanting to hear new stuff when attending a show personally, the call to mix it up some more is louder.
Also, years ago there was an album every year or so,,,,,,,it's 9 years since the last new Stones album, so, I'd say if they can't write any new stuff dig deeper into the old.
If nothing else, what a missed opportunity with the Exile and Some girls outtakes for example..........on and on.........
Last thing, Mick Jagger keeps trotting out this old chestnut about "Oh, if the crowd don't know it they won't like it"...........
Everybody on this board and outside it who like rock music must have had the experience sometime of walking in a pub or club, perhaps not knowing the band, not knowing the song but instantly recognising quality and straight away saying "yeah, I like this".
I think they underestimate the audience and themselves, or maybe I've got it all wrong and they really can't play Time waits for no one or Child of the moon or 100 years ago anymore.......(for example)............I guess it's about the fine line between a rut and a groove and which side of that line one stands.

imo, comparing then with now and shouting down people who want to hear some more variety on the basis you called ('69 - '82 tours) is simplistic and a bit misleading.

This issue of touring behind a vital new record is key. That's why it didn't use to matter that they played the same songs every night: most of them were NEW songs ... and they were usually very good, if not great songs.

But the other thing to remember is that The Rolling Stones have been a nostalgia act now for approximately half their life as a band. That's a loooooong time. We are reduced to applauding them for performing at a level that can charitably be described as "really good for 70 year olds."

We always hope that they might turn back time and do something that mattered again ... they were once so good that it makes it very difficult to give up on them. Perhaps we're afraid if we give up on The Stones (by not demanding that they produce new work) we're giving up on a part of our youth.

1. In a nutshell and 2.........so true....

Also, as I said in a previous post, in the old days...well, I didn't know where they'd played the previous night, let alone what they'd played........

Oh no, I just realised, the expression to describe them now is dumbed down.....arggghhhh........but they do it so well.........

Yes, I can see your points about touring behind a new album.
But one major difference between now and then, is that people sit home behind their computers and complain about the set lists without attending the actual shows.

Quote
Lien
ROLLING STONES LISBOA 2014

36 min. video



[www.youtube.com]

Quote
sabata
[www.facebook.com]

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
sabata
[www.facebook.com]

The Stones really looking like the Stones here. Except Keith has old man chin now.

Quote
EJM
Except keith is not in the picture .....

Quote
Bastion

Quote
EJM
Except keith is not in the picture .....

...Yes he is.

Or are you trying to tell us that it's Feith?

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
sabata
[www.facebook.com]

The Stones really looking like the Stones here. Except Keith has old man chin now.

Quote
jammingedward
Did I just imagine it or did Jagger change the words to IORR from 'stick a knife in my heart, suicide right on stage to "spill it all over the stage"?

Quote
MartinB


Mick T. may be bitter for his limited involvement but he decided to quit 40 years ago (and I still think this was THE mistake of his life). So I do not expect that his role will become more prominent.

IMO all this discussion is futile.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
MartinB


Mick T. may be bitter for his limited involvement but he decided to quit 40 years ago (and I still think this was THE mistake of his life). So I do not expect that his role will become more prominent.

IMO all this discussion is futile.

I think accepting the offer to join them in 1969 was THE mistake of his life.

Quote
MartinB


Mick T. he decided to quit 40 years ago (and I still think this was THE mistake of his life). So I do not expect that his role will become more prominent.

IMO all this discussion is futile.

Quote
mickjerome
Hi everybody,
Just back from Lisbon where i spent 4 days with Marclaff and his daughter.
On tuesday, in the aeroport we met Daryl and Chuck, good signs.
On thursday, we arrived on the place around 6 pm and we could find a nice spot on the side where we could sit and even lie.
From 6 to 12, it was very long but the bands before the Stones were quite good (Angelique Kidjo singin' Redemption song for instance).
At midnight, the night were "freezing" but our boys and particulary Mick were possessed : the atmosphere heated very quick.
The sound from our spot was fantastic (Keith's guitar high in the mix), the set list was enough surprising and Bruce of course the ice on the cake.
All in all, my best show since Bercy 2003.
For Marclaff, it was his best show since Lyon 2007 and he has seen a lot of them since.
Highlights : Jagger really into the show, interactions between the band, no mistake hearable, all the songs well played with great energy.
Downlight : M. Taylor not introduced by the other Mick

Quote
MartinB

Quote
corriecas

Quote
71Tele
Yet another waste of Taylor, and yet another wasted opportunity (if you actually care about music). At this point one has to wonder about the motivations of certain people. They seemed determined to use the man as a one-song freak show, rather than a former member who helped make the magic that enables them to cash these big paychecks decades later. If I sound bitter it's because I am.

I agree with you and i am sure we will never get a mature answerfromone of the Glimmer twins.
I hope mick Taylor will explain more in a few years, but is not allowed to dsay anything now. But i bet he is slightly happy with the money he will receive. Nevertheless i can understand if he also feels bitter.
Jeroen

Mick T. may be bitter for his limited involvement but he decided to quit 40 years ago (and I still think this was THE mistake of his life). So I do not expect that his role will become more prominent.

IMO all this discussion is futile.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
MartinB

Quote
corriecas

Quote
71Tele
Yet another waste of Taylor, and yet another wasted opportunity (if you actually care about music). At this point one has to wonder about the motivations of certain people. They seemed determined to use the man as a one-song freak show, rather than a former member who helped make the magic that enables them to cash these big paychecks decades later. If I sound bitter it's because I am.

I agree with you and i am sure we will never get a mature answerfromone of the Glimmer twins.
I hope mick Taylor will explain more in a few years, but is not allowed to dsay anything now. But i bet he is slightly happy with the money he will receive. Nevertheless i can understand if he also feels bitter.
Jeroen

Mick T. may be bitter for his limited involvement but he decided to quit 40 years ago (and I still think this was THE mistake of his life). So I do not expect that his role will become more prominent.

IMO all this discussion is futile.

So, you're of the "he quit 40 years ago therefore should be punsihed the rest of his life" school of thought? This logic has always puzzled me. At this stage of their career, why not forgive and celebrate (especially since they did invite him back)? Why invite him back and then not let him play? And by the way, he is NOT merely a "special guest", he is a former band member. Big difference between Mick Taylor and Taylor Swift, though they get the same allotment of songs (1).

Quote
Milan
MR