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
bye bye johnny

Jose Sena Goulao

Bye bye johnny you take incredible pictures. Love the one of keith concentrating

the Stones are with no doubt my favorites, but the setlist is very boring, Stones have over 600 best hith and over 100 superhits. why they dont Change the setlist on every Show, like bruce springsteen does it always. they should take Songs for example from the GRRR box, an let just about 10 Songs same and the others Change always???????????????????

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Powerage
Sorry for Tumbling Dice.

IMO, typically as performance falling completely flat if Jagger and Bruce are not here to make (remarkably) the show. From the intro, behind, there is nothing. No guitar. I Try to perceive what "product" Keith ... Quite nothing. Riff ? None.

Juste my opinion, and yes, I know, I wasn't there...

And it's easy to tell that you're wrong, too. No riff, really?

Yes really no riff. But lots of Mick and Bruce.

Quote
hirschjaeger
the Stones are with no doubt my favorites, but the setlist is very boring,

... (SNIP!)

These boring-setlist discussions are really boring IMHO...

Quote
Powerage

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Powerage
Sorry for Tumbling Dice.

IMO, typically as performance falling completely flat if Jagger and Bruce are not here to make (remarkably) the show. From the intro, behind, there is nothing. No guitar. I Try to perceive what "product" Keith ... Quite nothing. Riff ? None.

Juste my opinion, and yes, I know, I wasn't there...

And it's easy to tell that you're wrong, too. No riff, really?

Yes really no riff. But lots of Mick and Bruce.

Funny, because I hear Keith's riffs loud and clear on every chorus...

71 Tele you are not alone. Normally I try to stay optimistic but it's obvious something is wrong. I fully believe they're capable of playing more songs with Mick Taylor. On the sinister side I also believe Jagger is not allowing this to happen for what reason I can only speculate like others on the board. What I wish at this point is that everyone (fans) gets to see Mick Taylor play his one song through the rest of the tour, then he leaves after that. Next tour they should play only hits, that way no one has to expect anything extra. Of course some will say it's better to have any Stones rather than no Stones. Maybe they're right. I kind of hope so. Anyhow there's always great memories and records to listen to. Cheers.

Here we go again: boring set list blah-blah-blah... You're abstruse snobs. Why do you always moan?

What do you expect from festival set list?. Last night in the back (besides bv) there were thousands of young creatures that even do not know all members of the band.

Let us turn the situation upside down and have some fun.

We all know
Hot Rock 2 [London 820 142-2] (please do not tell me you, moaners, do not like it)
1. Jumpin' Jack Flash
2. Street Fighting Man
3. Sympathy For The Devil
4. Honky Tonk Women
5. Gimme Shelter
6. Midnight Rambler
7. You Can't Always Get What You Want
8. Brown Sugar
9. Wild Horses
In Oslo they made 7 out of 9
In Lisbon 8 out of 9

Let us bet - when and where they will play it entirely?

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Powerage

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Powerage
Sorry for Tumbling Dice.

IMO, typically as performance falling completely flat if Jagger and Bruce are not here to make (remarkably) the show. From the intro, behind, there is nothing. No guitar. I Try to perceive what "product" Keith ... Quite nothing. Riff ? None.

Juste my opinion, and yes, I know, I wasn't there...

And it's easy to tell that you're wrong, too. No riff, really?

Yes really no riff. But lots of Mick and Bruce.

Funny, because I hear Keith's riffs loud and clear on every chorus...

You have very good ears.

Rolling Stones jam with friends on yahoo

(if this has been posted before I apologize)

[music.yahoo.com]

A few comments of my fifht concert of the Stones in Portugal:

- Poor audience altought the 90 000 attendence. Most of them went to watch the legends but didnt have much interest for the music.

- Mick Jagger is carrying the all show. Impressive how he can still do this with 70 years old.

- Keith Richards plays the role of legend but doesn`t add much more musically speaking.

- Mick Taylor should play during the all concert. Keith and Ron Wood can`t wave any more. it would be time to bring back the 72/73 Mick Taylors solos. Songs like GS, YCAGWYW, BS or SFTD could gaing a new life.

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.

Why is Taylor a freak show, one song or not? That seems a bizarre description unless we are having a language mix up here. He is a former member now guesting on a number which, presumably, displays his strengths to good advantage and on terms he has agreed. I have been delighted to see him back on stage with the Stones and definitely wouldn't mind seeing him do different or more numbers but I don't see why all the negative conspiracy theories as to why he isn't are any more valid than perfectly positive reasons why his role isn't bumped up (like the effect it might have on his replacement for e.g - Ronnie is a generous musician but I expect he has his limits).

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.

Quote
stillife
A few comments of my fifht concert of the Stones in Portugal:

- Poor audience altought the 90 000 attendence. Most of them went to watch the legends but didnt have much interest for the music.

- Mick Jagger is carrying the all show. Impressive how he can still do this with 70 years old.

- Keith Richards plays the role of legend but doesn`t add much more musically speaking.

- Mick Taylor should play during the all concert. Keith and Ron Wood can`t wave any more. it would be time to bring back the 72/73 Mick Taylors solos. Songs like GS, YCAGWYW, BS or SFTD could gaing a new life.

Indeed. I don't about the other countries. But here, in Portugal, The Rolling Stones are viewed only for their longevity and 2-3 songs(Basically Satisfaction, Start Me Up or Sympathy).
For example, in You Got The Silver i noticed that i was the only singing and enjoying in my area.

People only care in taking photos and recording video for the posterity.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-31 01:44 by BJPortugal.

Yes good point on the "standard" setlist in past tours. However, on most of those tours those songs were newer and/or most people hadn't seen them performed live. Also I don't understand why I can not give my opinion (setlist moaner) without being attacked. I'm still a fan even though I don't approve of everything they do. I wonder how some of you handle adversity in life. Or maybe you're just trying to be funny?

Quote
Bastion
Out of Control sounds amazing!

Yep! Great work by Ronnie!

Quote
frankotero
Also I don't understand why I can not give my opinion (setlist moaner) without being attacked.

It's perfectly fine to give your opinion to us.

But we've heard it too many times now. Stop repeating yourself.

I think Rock in Rio is not much for people that actually enjoys music.if the concert was in a smaller venue for sure there would be more real fans. And I also find disguting that people are seeing the concerts truth the camera of the smart phone rather than wathing the real scen. Sign of the times.

Quote
BJPortugal

Quote
stillife
A few comments of my fifht concert of the Stones in Portugal:

- Poor audience altought the 90 000 attendence. Most of them went to watch the legends but didnt have much interest for the music.

- Mick Jagger is carrying the all show. Impressive how he can still do this with 70 years old.

- Keith Richards plays the role of legend but doesn`t add much more musically speaking.

- Mick Taylor should play during the all concert. Keith and Ron Wood can`t wave any more. it would be time to bring back the 72/73 Mick Taylors solos. Songs like GS, YCAGWYW, BS or SFTD could gaing a new life.

Indeed. I don't about the other countries. But here, in Portugal, The Rolling Stones are viewed only for their longevity and 2-3 songs(Basically Satisfaction, Start Me Up or Sympathy).
For example, in You Got The Silver i noticed that i was the only singing and enjoying in my area.

People only care in taking photos and recording video for the posterity.

Quote
DoomandGloom
Keith jacket change is proof of the power of IORR.

Yes, but now Mick is wearing one of those jackets - he wore a black and white one during Midnight Rambler. Mind you, it looked much better than Keith's awful blue and white one.

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.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-31 03:37 by EddieByword.

Quote
MarthaTuesday

Quote
DoomandGloom
Keith jacket change is proof of the power of IORR.

In which case, I'd better put in another request for Keith to play Little T&A...><

I'll second that request!

What "regular" people are saying in the comments on a Yahoo page about this gig
Read it all here>>> [music.yahoo.com]

COMMENTS SECTION-

Midge 13 minutes ago

RE: The setlist and a few comments about it - agreed, it's amazing. I don't know what these guys and gals we loved so much are doing, but Ann and Nancy sound great; Boston, April Wine, Kansas, Knight Ranger, REO, Steve Miller, Pat Benatar, The Stones - They all give you twice what you paid for - seriously. All AMAZING and great work ethic! I've seen them all recently and they give it everything they've got. Thanks to all these artists for taking care of themselves and rocking' in to their 60's and 70's.


vman 5 hours ago

Anybody under 35yo. Sorry you missed out on the era when great bands, made great music. The 60s, 70s, and 80s were the panicle years. Record companies, musicians, concert promoters, all made big money. Then studios produced junk, the record labels folded, and the culture seamed to change. The pool of talent moved on to other things and now we are left with drum machines and auto tuned #$%$.The vast majority of music is just disappointing.


John 2 hours ago

If someone told me when I bought their first LP in 1964 that the Stones would still be rockin' in 2014, I would have deemed them crazy! Incredible saga of rock longevity!


playa dude 6 hours ago

To think these guys preforming like they do in their 70's. I just want to be alive in my rocking chair, and I didn't do half the drugs they did. Thanks for sticking together for over 5 decades and bring us great rock and roll.


Ed F. 57 minutes ago

The 50's 60's 70's and the 80's music were great.
I use to watch the American bandstand with #$%$ Clark and I danced on his show because I was born in Philly Pa.


Justathought 1 hour ago

Did they play for Clinton, or did they play and he happened to be in the audience?


Daniel 2 minutes ago

Birds gotta fly, musicians gotta play. Long live rock and roll!


BAN-ONE 2 hours ago

That's a pretty big set list for a band their age...Then again, Keith Richards will outlive us all. I've heard his secret to longevity is the fact that he pickled his internal organs, decades ago.


HEY! CAN I PLAY! 5 hours ago

HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY HERE SINCE THE RELEASE OF THE FIRST ROLLING STONES ALBUM!!! Sorry for the all caps I'm hard of hearing!


barnity 5 hours ago

Any song from their vast catalog could've started the show and any song could've ended the show and none of those choices would be wrong. Just look at their set list from the show. and that accounts for, maybe, 5% of their "released" catalog. I mean, these guys have released something like 30 albums...


MORE HERE>> [music.yahoo.com]

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.

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.........



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-31 04:09 by EddieByword.

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.

How has the music sounded?? I watch youtube video and get bored or does not sound great. I agree, what happened to the hype with MT coming on board. What does he do during show? Chill then given 10 min. call to get fingers ready. Put him on stage and get loud. Not ready to see them if they roll State side. Especially at the prices they are are requesting with the setlist they are offering.

Deleted



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-31 07:44 by bonddm.

I'm glad they added OOC. Musically it sounded good, but Mick sounded pretty flat,and didn't seem to remember the breaks in the song too well. B2B tour versions were much stronger and vocally superior.

Quote
Lady Jayne

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.

Why is Taylor a freak show, one song or not? That seems a bizarre description unless we are having a language mix up here. He is a former member now guesting on a number which, presumably, displays his strengths to good advantage and on terms he has agreed. I have been delighted to see him back on stage with the Stones and definitely wouldn't mind seeing him do different or more numbers but I don't see why all the negative conspiracy theories as to why he isn't are any more valid than perfectly positive reasons why his role isn't bumped up (like the effect it might have on his replacement for e.g - Ronnie is a generous musician but I expect he has his limits).

Don't get me wrong: Some Taylor is better than no Taylor, and yes, it's great he's there at all, never thought it would happen. But since he's there, why not let him PLAY. He is much more than a guest, he was a member who is on many of their greatest records - songs they are playing show after show. (Ironically he was NOT on the studio version of Midnight Rambler). And yes, the treatment of him does seem bizarre to me. Let's face it: audiences for the last 20 years or so have responded to the legend of the Stones, the spectacle of the Stones, to Jagger's remarkable showmanship the fact that the Gods were in their presence, but not really to the music of the Stones. That changed when they started playing CYHMK with Mick Taylor. You can hear the excitement build as the music builds. You think that happens for Doom & Gloom? I just hate that they are not taking advantage of the musical possibilities - the opportunity to thrill us once again.

Quote
three16
(Imagine how Ronnie feels while covering the other two guitarists work during a show)

He loves it, I should think. What guitarist wouldn't?