Quote
71Tele

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
stupidguy2

Quote
71Tele

Quote
stupidguy2

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
LuxuryStones
Well Kleer, I trust my own ears. Give me the old Taylor anytime, there's no comparison.

But, but that is whole other discussion!!!

Not to me. I'm a hard core Taylorite, a Stones fan, and I do think Mick deserves to be invited on the next tour.
But I'm not going to praise him only because it is Taylor. He's not the player he used to be, just like the rest of the band, not by a mile.. I don't like nostalgia acts. I'm speaking for myself of course.

Yes, also to you. You said that Jagger seemingly doesn't find Taylor good enough to invite him again and that he would be invited if he were still as good as in 1973. But that is nonsense, as has been proven by the LA 2 Knocking video as I already pointed out. That's what the discussion was (and is) about.

The question whether Taylor was better back then or not is a totally other one. Of course one may say that he was better in 1973, but that statement, or conclusion if you want, has totally nothing to do with him being invited or not. That was my point and I'm 100% right here.

I'm not going to analyse Taylor's solo he played on LA 2 note for note, but his timing is bad, the way he phrases is just a combination of licks he played a zillion times before - the natural melodic flow he had back in the days is not there anymore. I cannot imagine an artist like Jagger or someone with good ears doesn't hear this.
Taylor would have done a zillion times better 40 years ago, and that was exactly the reason why the Stones /Jagger wanted him aboard. The performance he delivered on this tour (and knocking LA2) must be the reason why Jagger or whomever is in charge doesn't want him aboard anymore. He was the Stones shit hot lead player, he had a guestspot but he didn't deliver, with a few exceptions. So the observation that he was a better player back in the day and the stuff he delivers these days is something we (at least I) cannot separate. I'm too much of a Taylorite to enjoy his latest efforts. I'm afraid Jagger feels the same.

And that's a hard truth to accept. Because I feel the same way. He just doesn't have the suppleness, melodicism and finesse. MT, at his peak, was an amazingly inventive guitarist. He's lost that, and I don't know why. Arthritis? Rusty? Age? I mean Keith has lost it as well, but its particularly hard to accept it with MT because he was such a technichally proficient and beautiful player. I don't know, but its just not there. I'd like to see Mick in a studio session, where he could add something to a track. But in a live setting, he's not the same Mick.

Neither is it the same Keith or Ronnie. Compare any recent SFTD Keith solo to Ya Yas, for example. There is almost no coherence to what he plays now.

Absolutely. But for me, its more glaring with MT simply because of the kind of player he was. Keith and Ronnie were funky players, and Keith in particular always had a quirky soloing style. He's not as smooth or rythmic as he once was, and that's to be expected. But for many of us, MT remained that almost sublime ingredient to the Stones at their glorious peak. And maybe because most remember his playing from that time, like its frozen in time - it's depressing to feel that it's gone. Like that kind of playing can only exist at a moment in time. What he did back then was so supreme, so elegant and refined and soulful...you can't recreate that because it was so organic and unrehearsed. It wasn't pre-packaged or calculated. In that respect, what he gave to the Stones music is not something you can just trot out and regurgitate. It's imeasurable and impossible to fake. He's not the same, but no one else can touch his beauty as a player back then.

That's true, but Taylor as he is now is still able to add something to the Stones that makes them sound special and interesting. Without him not at all. Instead of all those tricky contracts, they only had to put one absolute and inevitable condition to him: when you play JUST STAND STILL and DON'T MOVE anything else than your fingers.

But the whole MT tour presence/absence issue is not about his playing, but about something else and everybody knows that.

Stones with old Taylor are still better than Stones with no Taylor.

Quote
Chacal

Quote
treaclefingers
I think Chacal was Chac-idding.

Only half Chac-idding. I saw the word 'fact' thrown in with something that was clearly a supposition without any foundation. So that set off the alarm bells.

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
71Tele

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
stupidguy2

Quote
71Tele

Quote
stupidguy2

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
LuxuryStones
Well Kleer, I trust my own ears. Give me the old Taylor anytime, there's no comparison.

But, but that is whole other discussion!!!

For the majority of the shows he only gets 2 numbers, and one of those is with an acoustic. The couple of other songs probably that did not get a great deal of rehearsal as the entire band sounded rusty. I wonder just how bad he would have been if he had gotten full rehearsal time and more songs to be fully prepared. But age changes everything and everybody.



Not to me. I'm a hard core Taylorite, a Stones fan, and I do think Mick deserves to be invited on the next tour.
But I'm not going to praise him only because it is Taylor. He's not the player he used to be, just like the rest of the band, not by a mile.. I don't like nostalgia acts. I'm speaking for myself of course.

Yes, also to you. You said that Jagger seemingly doesn't find Taylor good enough to invite him again and that he would be invited if he were still as good as in 1973. But that is nonsense, as has been proven by the LA 2 Knocking video as I already pointed out. That's what the discussion was (and is) about.

The question whether Taylor was better back then or not is a totally other one. Of course one may say that he was better in 1973, but that statement, or conclusion if you want, has totally nothing to do with him being invited or not. That was my point and I'm 100% right here.

I'm not going to analyse Taylor's solo he played on LA 2 note for note, but his timing is bad, the way he phrases is just a combination of licks he played a zillion times before - the natural melodic flow he had back in the days is not there anymore. I cannot imagine an artist like Jagger or someone with good ears doesn't hear this.
Taylor would have done a zillion times better 40 years ago, and that was exactly the reason why the Stones /Jagger wanted him aboard. The performance he delivered on this tour (and knocking LA2) must be the reason why Jagger or whomever is in charge doesn't want him aboard anymore. He was the Stones shit hot lead player, he had a guestspot but he didn't deliver, with a few exceptions. So the observation that he was a better player back in the day and the stuff he delivers these days is something we (at least I) cannot separate. I'm too much of a Taylorite to enjoy his latest efforts. I'm afraid Jagger feels the same.

And that's a hard truth to accept. Because I feel the same way. He just doesn't have the suppleness, melodicism and finesse. MT, at his peak, was an amazingly inventive guitarist. He's lost that, and I don't know why. Arthritis? Rusty? Age? I mean Keith has lost it as well, but its particularly hard to accept it with MT because he was such a technichally proficient and beautiful player. I don't know, but its just not there. I'd like to see Mick in a studio session, where he could add something to a track. But in a live setting, he's not the same Mick.

Neither is it the same Keith or Ronnie. Compare any recent SFTD Keith solo to Ya Yas, for example. There is almost no coherence to what he plays now.

Absolutely. But for me, its more glaring with MT simply because of the kind of player he was. Keith and Ronnie were funky players, and Keith in particular always had a quirky soloing style. He's not as smooth or rythmic as he once was, and that's to be expected. But for many of us, MT remained that almost sublime ingredient to the Stones at their glorious peak. And maybe because most remember his playing from that time, like its frozen in time - it's depressing to feel that it's gone. Like that kind of playing can only exist at a moment in time. What he did back then was so supreme, so elegant and refined and soulful...you can't recreate that because it was so organic and unrehearsed. It wasn't pre-packaged or calculated. In that respect, what he gave to the Stones music is not something you can just trot out and regurgitate. It's imeasurable and impossible to fake. He's not the same, but no one else can touch his beauty as a player back then.

That's true, but Taylor as he is now is still able to add something to the Stones that makes them sound special and interesting. Without him not at all. Instead of all those tricky contracts, they only had to put one absolute and inevitable condition to him: when you play JUST STAND STILL and DON'T MOVE anything else than your fingers.

But the whole MT tour presence/absence issue is not about his playing, but about something else and everybody knows that.

Stones with old Taylor are still better than Stones with no Taylor.

I never denied that.

Quote
Chacal

Quote
gotdablouse
So what's the link to the page that the "office" took over ? Doesn't look like it would be this one [www.facebook.com] ?

Gotdablouse: Yes, that's the one.
Only the Stones office has the password and they gave it to their social media girl - who has to anwer to their publicist. They didn't want any publicity to come out, except the PR blurbs they issued themselves.

They started referring the fans to the Mick Taylor page they control, and also had all backing musicians etc use that one for Twitter updates and everything else. Mick Taylor doesn't tweet, but they took to Twitter and linked an account to the Facebook page they control.
This all helped to divert traffic away from the legitimate page (which was forced to start over, as a fansite) and generally pull the wool over the eyes of the public.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Yeah, that treacle has always been a nice chap.

Quote
gotdablouse

Quote
Chacal

Quote
gotdablouse
So what's the link to the page that the "office" took over ? Doesn't look like it would be this one [www.facebook.com] ?

Gotdablouse: Yes, that's the one.
Only the Stones office has the password and they gave it to their social media girl - who has to anwer to their publicist. They didn't want any publicity to come out, except the PR blurbs they issued themselves.

They started referring the fans to the Mick Taylor page they control, and also had all backing musicians etc use that one for Twitter updates and everything else. Mick Taylor doesn't tweet, but they took to Twitter and linked an account to the Facebook page they control.
This all helped to divert traffic away from the legitimate page (which was forced to start over, as a fansite) and generally pull the wool over the eyes of the public.

How confusing...well at least Mick Taylor has a FB page that can express his views and communicate with his fans, even if it's with the help of others. In case anyone needs the link, here it is : [www.facebook.com]

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Chacal
Only half Chac-idding. I saw the word 'fact' thrown in with something that was clearly a supposition without any foundation. So that set off the alarm bells.

In that case I'd like to humbly Chapologize!

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Yeah, that treacle has always been a nice chap.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
gotdablouse

Quote
Chacal

Quote
gotdablouse
So what's the link to the page that the "office" took over ? Doesn't look like it would be this one [www.facebook.com] ?

Gotdablouse: Yes, that's the one.
Only the Stones office has the password and they gave it to their social media girl - who has to anwer to their publicist. They didn't want any publicity to come out, except the PR blurbs they issued themselves.

They started referring the fans to the Mick Taylor page they control, and also had all backing musicians etc use that one for Twitter updates and everything else. Mick Taylor doesn't tweet, but they took to Twitter and linked an account to the Facebook page they control.
This all helped to divert traffic away from the legitimate page (which was forced to start over, as a fansite) and generally pull the wool over the eyes of the public.

How confusing...well at least Mick Taylor has a FB page that can express his views and communicate with his fans, even if it's with the help of others. In case anyone needs the link, here it is : [www.facebook.com]

Well, not a word about the next USA Rolling Stones tour on 'his' FB page. He simply shouldn't have left the Stones. His biggest mistake, because the so called life saving argument (the drugs issue) was of course nonsense. Not only because he replaced the one drug addict (Keith) with even a worse one (Jack Bruce), but because there were other solutions. Besides he got room from Jagger for his solo activities. A fatal and life determining decision for both Taylor himself, the band and us fans.

Quote
LuxuryStones
During the Jimmy Fallon show Mick Taylor said: "Get over it!!". Maybe that helps

Quote
kleermaker
He simply shouldn't have left the Stones. His biggest mistake, because the so called life saving argument (the drugs issue) was of course nonsense. Not only because he replaced the one drug addict (Keith) with even a worse one (Jack Bruce), but because there were other solutions. Besides he got room from Jagger for his solo activities. A fatal and life determining decision for both Taylor himself, the band and us fans.

Quote
LuxuryStones
During the Jimmy Fallon show Mick Taylor said: "Get over it!!". Maybe that helps

Quote
kleermaker

Well, not a word about the next USA Rolling Stones tour on 'his' FB page. He simply shouldn't have left the Stones. His biggest mistake, because the so called life saving argument (the drugs issue) was of course nonsense. Not only because he replaced the one drug addict (Keith) with even a worse one (Jack Bruce), but because there were other solutions. Besides he got room from Jagger for his solo activities. A fatal and life determining decision for both Taylor himself, the band and us fans.

Quote
Dreamer

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Yeah, that treacle has always been a nice chap.

Chap? I thought treacle was a woman.
Ok second guess: a gay hairdresser..?

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Dreamer

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Yeah, that treacle has always been a nice chap.

Chap? I thought treacle was a woman.
Ok second guess: a gay hairdresser..?

I do get called a sissy from time to time...but I'm a heterosexual male...not that there's anything wrong with that!

Quote
Naturalust
I think MT thought the drugs issue was real, he's talked about it on several occasions and who are we to doubt his own words? Keith was obviously a mess back then and maybe Taylor just didn't want to become that kind of addict. Jack Bruce may have been better at hiding his use and functioning in a musical environment at that time. MT might not have even known about Jack's heroin use initially. I imagine most people don't advertise the fact they are heroin addicts.

But like I've said, I think Andy Johns probably had the best outside perspective of the split and although I agree the decision to leave seems poor in retrospect, the combination of reasons at the time were all pretty valid. Micks statement that it had something to do with "not getting on" with Keith is probably the best inside information we'll ever get.

peace

Quote
Dreamer

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Dreamer

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Yeah, that treacle has always been a nice chap.

Chap? I thought treacle was a woman.
Ok second guess: a gay hairdresser..?

I do get called a sissy from time to time...but I'm a heterosexual male...not that there's anything wrong with that!

You want me to call you that? I mean geez what a coincidence; it's what my wife calls me every weekend and... Fancy that eh?
And I'm also a heterosexual male. That is apart from the weekends of course... Yes you're right: nothing wrong with both!

I like your style treacle

Quote
Chacal

Quote
Naturalust
I think MT thought the drugs issue was real, he's talked about it on several occasions and who are we to doubt his own words? Keith was obviously a mess back then and maybe Taylor just didn't want to become that kind of addict. Jack Bruce may have been better at hiding his use and functioning in a musical environment at that time. MT might not have even known about Jack's heroin use initially. I imagine most people don't advertise the fact they are heroin addicts.

But like I've said, I think Andy Johns probably had the best outside perspective of the split and although I agree the decision to leave seems poor in retrospect, the combination of reasons at the time were all pretty valid. Micks statement that it had something to do with "not getting on" with Keith is probably the best inside information we'll ever get.

peace

You're making a lot of sense, especially in the 1st part of your post. Some other contributors here are mainly preoccupied with their own interpretation of factors that may have contributed to Taylor's decision.
Not only that, but they are apparently able to pull up an 'x-ray' of someone else's thought process over 40 years ago. I had no idea the technology was available.

Why anyone would assume that J. Bruce told MT upfront about the state he was in, is beyond me. I can only imagine Taylor's horror when he discovered those particular details after he had left the band.

I was expecting better of Duke. Maybe he hasn't had his coffee yet.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Dreamer

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Dreamer

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Yeah, that treacle has always been a nice chap.

Chap? I thought treacle was a woman.
Ok second guess: a gay hairdresser..?

I do get called a sissy from time to time...but I'm a heterosexual male...not that there's anything wrong with that!

You want me to call you that? I mean geez what a coincidence; it's what my wife calls me every weekend and... Fancy that eh?
And I'm also a heterosexual male. That is apart from the weekends of course... Yes you're right: nothing wrong with both!

I like your style treacle

I'll be forever your friend now, because your under the misconception I have style!

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
gotdablouse

Quote
Chacal

Quote
gotdablouse
So what's the link to the page that the "office" took over ? Doesn't look like it would be this one [www.facebook.com] ?

Gotdablouse: Yes, that's the one.
Only the Stones office has the password and they gave it to their social media girl - who has to anwer to their publicist. They didn't want any publicity to come out, except the PR blurbs they issued themselves.

They started referring the fans to the Mick Taylor page they control, and also had all backing musicians etc use that one for Twitter updates and everything else. Mick Taylor doesn't tweet, but they took to Twitter and linked an account to the Facebook page they control.
This all helped to divert traffic away from the legitimate page (which was forced to start over, as a fansite) and generally pull the wool over the eyes of the public.

How confusing...well at least Mick Taylor has a FB page that can express his views and communicate with his fans, even if it's with the help of others. In case anyone needs the link, here it is : [www.facebook.com]

Well, not a word about the next USA Rolling Stones tour on 'his' FB page. He simply shouldn't have left the Stones. His biggest mistake, because the so called life saving argument (the drugs issue) was of course nonsense. Not only because he replaced the one drug addict (Keith) with even a worse one (Jack Bruce), but because there were other solutions. Besides he got room from Jagger for his solo activities. A fatal and life determining decision for both Taylor himself, the band and us fans.

Quote
Dreamer

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Yeah, that treacle has always been a nice chap.

Chap? I thought treacle was a woman.
Ok second guess: a gay hairdresser..?

Quote
dcba

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Dreamer

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Dreamer

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Yeah, that treacle has always been a nice chap.

Chap? I thought treacle was a woman.
Ok second guess: a gay hairdresser..?

I do get called a sissy from time to time...but I'm a heterosexual male...not that there's anything wrong with that!

You want me to call you that? I mean geez what a coincidence; it's what my wife calls me every weekend and... Fancy that eh?
And I'm also a heterosexual male. That is apart from the weekends of course... Yes you're right: nothing wrong with both!

I like your style treacle

I'll be forever your friend now, because your under the misconception I have style!

We need a tour announcement NOW! No more gay-ish double entendre messages on IORR!

Quote
DoomandGloom
Saw Gimme Shelter last night on public TV. Taylor just blows Keith off the stage in the entire film. Of course Keith grew into standing toe to toe with Taylor in the 70's but Taylor ups the game starting in 1969. Taylor's perfect slide solo on LIV is against a out of tune arpeggio guitar, that's tough to perform with, no wonder why he plays so loudly. In recent years if Taylor got the same horsepower as the other guitarists rather than a combo far from him that he's unable to monitor directly we might have seen a different approach from him.

Quote
alimente

Quote
kleermaker
He simply shouldn't have left the Stones. His biggest mistake, because the so called life saving argument (the drugs issue) was of course nonsense. Not only because he replaced the one drug addict (Keith) with even a worse one (Jack Bruce), but because there were other solutions. Besides he got room from Jagger for his solo activities. A fatal and life determining decision for both Taylor himself, the band and us fans.

The only thing I wonder is how Some Girls would have sounded with Taylor, can't really imagine how - an album that helped them to "survive" punk and won them a whole new generation of fans, but apart from that, your analysis sounds brutally honest and brutally true at the same time.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
DoomandGloom
Saw Gimme Shelter last night on public TV. Taylor just blows Keith off the stage in the entire film. Of course Keith grew into standing toe to toe with Taylor in the 70's but Taylor ups the game starting in 1969. Taylor's perfect slide solo on LIV is against a out of tune arpeggio guitar, that's tough to perform with, no wonder why he plays so loudly. In recent years if Taylor got the same horsepower as the other guitarists rather than a combo far from him that he's unable to monitor directly we might have seen a different approach from him.

It doesn't matter how many notes you play or how majestic your solo sound is. Nobody "blows" Keith off the stage. It never happened. I was there when Jeff Beck tried. A simple and effective solo by Keith put I'm Going Down into place again, after Beck's attacks. That's what the Stones is for me.