Anyone know if TAYLOR is a permenant (sorry for the spelling)
"guest" now with the Stones. Is he staying on the next time they tour???

MLC

If he's only going to play one song, I hope not!

I hope so, but please not Midnight Rambler only again. This is what they've done for three years now and apart from some glimmers of greatness now and then (Sway, Can't You Hear Me Knocking) enough is enough.
On the other hand I understand fans in South-America won't mind



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-01-25 01:30 by OutOfTime.

As long as he's happy playing the one or two songs with the Stones, I hope he continues. It's obviously been good for his career and has exposed him to the new generation of Stones fans who had no clue who he was. I'm sure his back catalog sales have increased and the fee for his solo shows has gone up considerably too.

He appears to very happy in the role as constant guest and I can only imagine it is a very good gig. Of course I'd love to see him play on every song, replace Ronnie for that matter , but that's just not ever going to happen. Too much water under the bridge and not enough time to paddle back.

peace

Yes, why not?

I think the Rolling Stones (especially Mick Jagger) is strictly about business. MT is part of the past and think they won't involve him for future plans.

BUT for the South America tour the Stones will make exception. But don't expect new things there... :-(

Yes, Taylor is getting the short stick. I know some see it differently cause he left the band 40 years ago, but the bottom line is for a member of the band that recorded specific songs to be standing backstage while those songs are being played is ridiculous. The fact that they can't even give him more than 3 songs a show, and usually just 1 or 2, is insane.

BUT, if we're arguing that Taylor SHOULDN'T tour with the Stones anymore because he's not getting enough star time? Come on. We've been asking for this for years. Even if he continues to just play the same one song with them till the Stones don't play shows anymore, this is more than we could have ever hoped for. Even with its ridiculousness, our ridiculousness to have him leave now trumps it.

I'd like to understand the logic of dragging him around the world for one or two songs a night.

If he's happy, that's great but I can't help but think he wouldn't mind a little more time to stretch his legs on stage.

It seems this is coming from MJ, but I would like a rational explanation on the logic...just doesn't make sense, particularly when you factor in fan's general desire to see him play more.

As much as I'd kill to see Taylor get more time, I actually don't see that what's happening now is that weird. In fact, I think its completely logical. The guy was in the band for 5 years of 50. Granted, it was during their heyday, but it was still a fraction of their time together. The bottom line is no one really cares if Mick Taylor is there or not. You have 10-20% of the audience each night that does, but aside from that his presence means nothing.

Why should he get more time? He's not a founding member, and he's not a popular one aside from people in the diehards. He doesn't really deserve anything, even though I think he's being treated unfairly. But in the end, he DID walk away from the band. He wasn't fired, he wasn't bullied into leaving. He quit. And for them to have him back now, even if it is just for one song, is kind of pretty cool on the Stones' part, even though I know that them limiting him balances out their cruelity.

Would I like Taylor to be treated like Bernie Leadon is being treated with the Eagles reunion and play half the show? Yeah, of course. But its just not that band anymore and the major factor here is most don't care at all. Frankly, and its sad to say but I firmly believe its true, that Taylor should be happy with what he's getting at all. He should be up there each night playing Brown Sugar and Sympathy and Gimme Shelter and the other classics he was apart in creating, but to have him get an extended set is a pipe dream. He's not popular enough and there's nothing he's particularly done to warrant an extended set, despite that dream being awesome and being the right thing to do. But to benefit at the same price as the rest of the Stones when he's coming back from a 30 year absence? I think thats a pretty logical reason, even if I don't agree with it.

It would be awesome to have one more concert , filmed with quality sound, with MT playing the whole show!

I think it might even make good business sense since most the hardcore Stones Taylor era fans would spring for the DVD package. And the music would probably be so good they would sell as much or more than the vault stuff.

If that happened I think I could put the whole MT Stones saga/dream to rest, especially if they gave him an equal share of the profits.

peace

Rolling Freak:
"His presence means nothing".


I stopped reading your post RollingFreak, but continued again and you start talking about The Eagles and Bernie Leadon. Why not go and join an Eagles forum to spread the word?
Mind you: "The Eagles are a dry f*ck" (quote by Gram Parsons).



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2015-01-25 04:03 by RipThisBone.

do not know ... Taylor was only guest and I think that may be even. Needless to look for the reasons why taylor plays only one song, but should understand the dynamics in a band. For all the fans is always easy, but it never is and taylor today is no longer a member of the Stones, so needless to continue to wonder why. Thank which so called as a guest, if not they would have done no one would say anything.

everything's turning to gold

Quote
RipThisBone

Mind you: "The Eagles are a dry f*ck" (quote by Gram Parsons).

I think the Parsons quote was "listening to their music is like a plastic dry @#$%&". Unfortunately Gram never got to hear Joe Walsh play with them or he would have at least dropped or modified one of the adjectives.

peace

I think Mick Taylor was brought back as a "marketing hook" more than anything. They just needed something new to create more press and a buzz among both die-hard and casual Stones fans. That's good for the gate. It's not for artistic reasons. It's not because they spontaneously all started jamming together and realized that they had something special going on.

I feel good for Mick Taylor because I read that one article where they said he couldn't even pay his bills in recent years and was in pretty dire straights.

How many songs did he play on in Kansas City in 1981? I view that as the 'real' concert return of Mick Taylor with the Stones. I have only seen a few pictures of that concert. If he played a bunch of tunes with them and they filmed it, what a great document that would be to have.

Unfortunately, it looks to me like Mick Taylor aged just as much as Keith over the past 40 years. I think he is propped up to much but the people around here with respect to his recent appearances. I am not really hearing the soaring, dynamic, "steal the show" lead guitar playing on Brussels, for example.

Time travels so much faster when you are older, it's scary. Can this really be the fourth calendar year where we may see another continuation of the "return of the Stones?" Yikes!

I am not convinced that this year will see them do light touring again. Perhaps just three or four shows, or perhaps just nothing. For all the good vibes, I think the Ship of the Stones is being held together by elastic bands. For example, if Charlie calls it quits, then it's all over. Don't be surprised, but even if Darryl Jones called it quits that may kill it all.

Fantasy: Go out with a bang: Five concerts over 10 days, all tickets by lottery with a ticket price of 10 bucks. That's it, that's really the end of the line. Then they all can just do their own thing. Honestly, they must be tired in general, and must be really tired of playing the war horses. Bill Wyman is a great model for how to find happiness by simply doing what you really want to do on your own terms. I looked at Ron Wood's YouTube channel and you can see he is just having some fun on his own terms. He plays DJ and does some casual interviews and has fun.

No matter what 1968 to 1973 will live on forever. Then we had some nice spikes in 1978, 1981, 1989, 1997, etc. You look at them doing Bye Bye Johnny in Ladies and Gentlemen and you say to yourself as a smug Stones fan that nobody, anywhere, anytime could match that Rock and Roll greatness. Mick Jagger doesn't have to "jump around" all the time, just _deliver_, and does he ever deliver in that song. There are a lot of other shining moments like that that just blow any other band out of the water.

A new thread on this? Will probably be merged soon...

Yes this will, and should be, merged into an earlier thread on the same topic because I thought it was understood that this was still their 50th annum celebrations and that they still haven't played all their world markets yet for this tour concept. The only reason they didn't do another big 2-year world tour blowout was because that Charlie didn't want to do that kind of thing again, and so they made a deal with Charlie and so only do a dozen or so shows every few months. Because a drummer's job is demanding and Mick and the others would certainly understand.

Quote
stonehearted

The only reason they didn't do another big 2-year world tour blowout was because that Charlie didn't want to do that kind of thing again, and so they made a deal with Charlie and so only do a dozen or so shows every few months. Because a drummer's job is demanding and Mick and the others would certainly understand.

stonehearted, is this an educated guess or is this 'confirmed' somewhow, somewhere?

- Doxa

Quote
treaclefingers
I'd like to understand the logic of dragging him around the world for one or two songs a night.

Because the Stones are an entity that's moving forward. After Taylor left they moved forward and forgot about him. Bringing him back into the band and give him 7-10 numbers to play would be a move backward, back to the 69-73 years.
The Stones and Jagger specifically don't move backward. So they'll play D&G with Ron Wood not "Winter" with Taylor.

Okay there would be still be the possibility of a handful of (500$ tix) club-gigs with a setlist entirely designed around the MT years but that would require lots of rehearsals :
- the band's too old for this and
- Jagger knows the band still has a limited number of shows in it so he prefers to play stadiums and satisfy the majority not us IORR people.

Strategically speaking, it's unbeatable...

So yeah Taylor will be a 2-songs wonder till the band stops.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-01-25 16:14 by dcba.

Quote
MileHigh
I think Mick Taylor was brought back as a "marketing hook" more than anything. They just needed something new to create more press and a buzz among both die-hard and casual Stones fans. That's good for the gate. It's not for artistic reasons. It's not because they spontaneously all started jamming together and realized that they had something special going on.

I feel good for Mick Taylor because I read that one article where they said he couldn't even pay his bills in recent years and was in pretty dire straights.

How many songs did he play on in Kansas City in 1981? I view that as the 'real' concert return of Mick Taylor with the Stones. I have only seen a few pictures of that concert. If he played a bunch of tunes with them and they filmed it, what a great document that would be to have.

Unfortunately, it looks to me like Mick Taylor aged just as much as Keith over the past 40 years. I think he is propped up to much but the people around here with respect to his recent appearances. I am not really hearing the soaring, dynamic, "steal the show" lead guitar playing on Brussels, for example.

Time travels so much faster when you are older, it's scary. Can this really be the fourth calendar year where we may see another continuation of the "return of the Stones?" Yikes!

I am not convinced that this year will see them do light touring again. Perhaps just three or four shows, or perhaps just nothing. For all the good vibes, I think the Ship of the Stones is being held together by elastic bands. For example, if Charlie calls it quits, then it's all over. Don't be surprised, but even if Darryl Jones called it quits that may kill it all.

Fantasy: Go out with a bang: Five concerts over 10 days, all tickets by lottery with a ticket price of 10 bucks. That's it, that's really the end of the line. Then they all can just do their own thing. Honestly, they must be tired in general, and must be really tired of playing the war horses. Bill Wyman is a great model for how to find happiness by simply doing what you really want to do on your own terms. I looked at Ron Wood's YouTube channel and you can see he is just having some fun on his own terms. He plays DJ and does some casual interviews and has fun.

No matter what 1968 to 1973 will live on forever. Then we had some nice spikes in 1978, 1981, 1989, 1997, etc. You look at them doing Bye Bye Johnny in Ladies and Gentlemen and you say to yourself as a smug Stones fan that nobody, anywhere, anytime could match that Rock and Roll greatness. Mick Jagger doesn't have to "jump around" all the time, just _deliver_, and does he ever deliver in that song. There are a lot of other shining moments like that that just blow any other band out of the water.

Interesting post, MileHigh.

All that I can add it that the Taylor years embody the Stones to me, although I like a lot of stuff they did when Brian was with them, and some when Ron Wood joined. Whether Taylor plays with the Stones in the future is not that important
to me anymore, the Stones are getting old and cannot play like the early days, although I expected more songs and better playing with Taylor. It's great though for the hardcore fans and tourists to see this Dino travel around the globe, with or without Mick Taylor. He left in 1974, and about tree years ago he said "Get over it". I can live with that statement by now.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
stonehearted

The only reason they didn't do another big 2-year world tour blowout was because that Charlie didn't want to do that kind of thing again, and so they made a deal with Charlie and so only do a dozen or so shows every few months. Because a drummer's job is demanding and Mick and the others would certainly understand.

stonehearted, is this an educated guess or is this 'confirmed' somewhow, somewhere?

- Doxa

Oh, nothing confirmed, I don't mean to be misleading. This is just my educated guess. Just that it stands to reason: They've been on a world tour which is more time off than time on. Whether they call it 14 on Fire or whatever, it's still the 50th and Counting format and they haven't satisfied all their world markets as yet. So until they've gone completely round the world and played all their markets, and the South America markets seem the ones yet remaining, then it wouldn't yet be time to ask whether Taylor will be part of their touring guest lineup. It would be safe to say that he'll be part of whatever touring plans they have in store for 2015. So you could say this is just my educated guess.

When Keith releases (and supports with live shows) his solo album, then we'll know that the Stones have completed their present tour cycle. And then it would be likely that we would not see Mick Taylor guesting in future Stones shows

We all want Mick Taylor to be included on everything Stones-related, either with or without Ronnie Wood. But when you think back to five years ago....Mick was looking dire, and he couldn't even afford needed dental work. He was all but forgotten for his contributions except by diehard fans. Now, things have changed. They sent him to rehab which he took seriously and cleaned up his poor habits and health problems. He has lost weight. He is on the Exile album and will be on any concert albums. He has the unmatchable thrill of being on stage with the Stones. Presumably - hopefully - the recordings and concerts will make him at least comfortable financially for the rest of his life.

And for the fans, we can now think better of our chosen band, for having made some long-owed restitution to Mick Taylor, albeit at the 11th hour.

Quote
Bliss
We all want Mick Taylor to be included on everything Stones-related, either with or without Ronnie Wood. But when you think back to five years ago....Mick was looking dire, and he couldn't even afford needed dental work. He was all but forgotten for his contributions except by diehard fans. Now, things have changed. They sent him to rehab which he took seriously and cleaned up his poor habits and health problems. He has lost weight. He is on the Exile album and will be on any concert albums. He has the unmatchable thrill of being on stage with the Stones. Presumably - hopefully - the recordings and concerts will make him at least comfortable financially for the rest of his life.

And for the fans, we can now think better of our chosen band, for having made some long-owed restitution to Mick Taylor, albeit at the 11th hour.

Hear hear!

...or maybe with Keef and Winos.

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
Doxa

Quote
stonehearted

The only reason they didn't do another big 2-year world tour blowout was because that Charlie didn't want to do that kind of thing again, and so they made a deal with Charlie and so only do a dozen or so shows every few months. Because a drummer's job is demanding and Mick and the others would certainly understand.

stonehearted, is this an educated guess or is this 'confirmed' somewhow, somewhere?

- Doxa

Oh, nothing confirmed, I don't mean to be misleading. This is just my educated guess. Just that it stands to reason: They've been on a world tour which is more time off than time on. Whether they call it 14 on Fire or whatever, it's still the 50th and Counting format and they haven't satisfied all their world markets as yet. So until they've gone completely round the world and played all their markets, and the South America markets seem the ones yet remaining, then it wouldn't yet be time to ask whether Taylor will be part of their touring guest lineup. It would be safe to say that he'll be part of whatever touring plans they have in store for 2015. So you could say this is just my educated guess.

When Keith releases (and supports with live shows) his solo album, then we'll know that the Stones have completed their present tour cycle. And then it would be likely that we would not see Mick Taylor guesting in future Stones shows

well, Keith could do some shows for his new album and have Mick Taylor play a couple with him...

Quote
Bliss
We all want Mick Taylor to be included on everything Stones-related, either with or without Ronnie Wood. But when you think back to five years ago....Mick was looking dire, and he couldn't even afford needed dental work. He was all but forgotten for his contributions except by diehard fans. Now, things have changed. They sent him to rehab which he took seriously and cleaned up his poor habits and health problems. He has lost weight. He is on the Exile album and will be on any concert albums. He has the unmatchable thrill of being on stage with the Stones. Presumably - hopefully - the recordings and concerts will make him at least comfortable financially for the rest of his life.

And for the fans, we can now think better of our chosen band, for having made some long-owed restitution to Mick Taylor, albeit at the 11th hour.

Let's also not forget that he guested with them in the early 80s and then was with them for the Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame Induction ceremony in the late 80s. They've given him a few chances since leaving the band to stand with them again, which is nicer than they had to be. Combine that with what dcba mentioned about the moving forward statement earlier, AND the fact that I can understand why they wouldn't want fat old Mick Taylor rejoining as a member (they do seem to be image conscious), it makes complete sense how he's interacted with the band since leaving. And you can't say the band ever deliberately left him out of anything, which again they easily could have as other bands of the Stones caliber have with former members.

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
Doxa

Quote
stonehearted

The only reason they didn't do another big 2-year world tour blowout was because that Charlie didn't want to do that kind of thing again, and so they made a deal with Charlie and so only do a dozen or so shows every few months. Because a drummer's job is demanding and Mick and the others would certainly understand.

stonehearted, is this an educated guess or is this 'confirmed' somewhow, somewhere?

- Doxa

Oh, nothing confirmed, I don't mean to be misleading. This is just my educated guess. Just that it stands to reason: They've been on a world tour which is more time off than time on. Whether they call it 14 on Fire or whatever, it's still the 50th and Counting format and they haven't satisfied all their world markets as yet. So until they've gone completely round the world and played all their markets, and the South America markets seem the ones yet remaining, then it wouldn't yet be time to ask whether Taylor will be part of their touring guest lineup. It would be safe to say that he'll be part of whatever touring plans they have in store for 2015. So you could say this is just my educated guess.

When Keith releases (and supports with live shows) his solo album, then we'll know that the Stones have completed their present tour cycle. And then it would be likely that we would not see Mick Taylor guesting in future Stones shows

SOLO SHOWS FOR KEITH ? REALLY? YOU THINK HE CAN PULL OFF FRONTING A BAND THESE DAYS? DOUBT IT.

We are still waiting for the NFL to decide if Mick Taylor will ever play guitar again....haha

Quote
BILLPERKS

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
Doxa

Quote
stonehearted

The only reason they didn't do another big 2-year world tour blowout was because that Charlie didn't want to do that kind of thing again, and so they made a deal with Charlie and so only do a dozen or so shows every few months. Because a drummer's job is demanding and Mick and the others would certainly understand.

stonehearted, is this an educated guess or is this 'confirmed' somewhow, somewhere?

- Doxa

Oh, nothing confirmed, I don't mean to be misleading. This is just my educated guess. Just that it stands to reason: They've been on a world tour which is more time off than time on. Whether they call it 14 on Fire or whatever, it's still the 50th and Counting format and they haven't satisfied all their world markets as yet. So until they've gone completely round the world and played all their markets, and the South America markets seem the ones yet remaining, then it wouldn't yet be time to ask whether Taylor will be part of their touring guest lineup. It would be safe to say that he'll be part of whatever touring plans they have in store for 2015. So you could say this is just my educated guess.

When Keith releases (and supports with live shows) his solo album, then we'll know that the Stones have completed their present tour cycle. And then it would be likely that we would not see Mick Taylor guesting in future Stones shows

SOLO SHOWS FOR KEITH ? REALLY? YOU THINK HE CAN PULL OFF FRONTING A BAND THESE DAYS? DOUBT IT.

Why are you shouting?

Anyways, I think Keith might be able to do it if he really wanted to. He might enjoy a change of pace and playing some songs he hasn't since...when? 1993? Stranger things have happened, after all.

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
Bliss
We all want Mick Taylor to be included on everything Stones-related, either with or without Ronnie Wood. But when you think back to five years ago....Mick was looking dire, and he couldn't even afford needed dental work. He was all but forgotten for his contributions except by diehard fans. Now, things have changed. They sent him to rehab which he took seriously and cleaned up his poor habits and health problems. He has lost weight. He is on the Exile album and will be on any concert albums. He has the unmatchable thrill of being on stage with the Stones. Presumably - hopefully - the recordings and concerts will make him at least comfortable financially for the rest of his life.

And for the fans, we can now think better of our chosen band, for having made some long-owed restitution to Mick Taylor, albeit at the 11th hour.

Let's also not forget that he guested with them in the early 80s and then was with them for the Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame Induction ceremony in the late 80s. They've given him a few chances since leaving the band to stand with them again, which is nicer than they had to be. Combine that with what dcba mentioned about the moving forward statement earlier, AND the fact that I can understand why they wouldn't want fat old Mick Taylor rejoining as a member (they do seem to be image conscious), it makes complete sense how he's interacted with the band since leaving. And you can't say the band ever deliberately left him out of anything, which again they easily could have as other bands of the Stones caliber have with former members.

Well they did leave him out of getting PAID Since about 1983.

I believe if there will be any more Stones show Mick Taylor will continue to be there. For Taylor, I am sure the fee he gets for participating is substantial enough to keep his head above water financially. Taylor has said he realised how much he enjoyed playing with the Stones when he returned. Let's face it. Taylor, a truly great guitar player, never sounded as good as he does with the Stones. He may only be getting one song but it is Midnight Rambler and he does get to shine playing that. They have highlighted him at times - eg second LA in 2013. The show I saw in Toronto was a CYHMK show and they gave the stage over to him for a full four minutes for his solo. In 2014 there was Silver Train. Keith invited him on stage for Slipping Away and, good God he was invited out for Streets Of Love. Besides we don't see what goes on behind the scenes. Taylor has known Woody longer than anyone else in the band and they seem to be friends. Plus there seems to be some sort of redemption between Taylor and Keith. Firstly, it was Keith who said in 2012 that Mick Taylor would be invited because he was a Stone - a very exclusive club and Taylor and Wyman are the only survivors of those who have left. Wyman was pissy about his lack of stage time but Taylor saw his own involvement as a good thing. They may have stopped paying him in the 1980s cos lawyers told them they didn't have to but they were not above sharing some of the wealth in the last three years. To me it is a good story all around and I see no reason why things would change.