Quote
fuzzbox
I don't think he is lame, just that for this claim to be plausible there would have to have been some serious work put in to make it work. The stones without Keith woild be a huge thing.

Quote
fuzzbox
I don't think he is lame, just that for this claim to be plausible there would have to have been some serious work put in to make it work. The stones without Keith woild be a huge thing.

Quote
DoomandGloom

Quote
fuzzbox
I don't think he is lame, just that for this claim to be plausible there would have to have been some serious work put in to make it work. The stones without Keith woild be a huge thing.

Cool, I think a player like MT would rise to the challenge.

Quote
DoomandGloom

Quote
fuzzbox
I don't think he is lame, just that for this claim to be plausible there would have to have been some serious work put in to make it work. The stones without Keith woild be a huge thing.

Cool, I think a player like MT would rise to the challenge.

Quote
fuzzbox

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
fuzzbox
Taylor struggles to get through gigs of his own making, nevermind a whole stones concert and tour. Nothing in how he played during 2012 - 2014 shows he was ready to step in. He just about managed to remember the arrangements of the few songs he played on.

Sorry, but this is just a flat-out lie.

It is an observation, not a lie.

Quote
Chacal

Quote
Chacal
Naturalust: it would be good if you could stop the baseless speculation about Taylor's health and sobriety.
Thank you.

Baseless speculation which is being extrapolated from false info given to the press about someone's health is neither innocent or harmless. I asked Naturalust nicely to stop engaging in that pastime.

The truth will set you free. Unless you're under the spell of a dictator, who might throw you in prison for not liking the methods of the totalitarian regime.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Chacal

Quote
Chacal
Naturalust: it would be good if you could stop the baseless speculation about Taylor's health and sobriety.
Thank you.

Baseless speculation which is being extrapolated from false info given to the press about someone's health is neither innocent or harmless. I asked Naturalust nicely to stop engaging in that pastime.

The truth will set you free. Unless you're under the spell of a dictator, who might throw you in prison for not liking the methods of the totalitarian regime.

No worries Chacal, although speculation is often the core of many conversations here on iorr, and often not entirely baseless. My comments were more triggered by the quotes from MT himself concerning his pre-tour issues than anything else. And when Keith's comments are added to the mix you can see this was speculative certainly but hardly baseless.

You asked nicely and I will refrain from further comments about his health and sobriety, and I apologize if I offended you or anyone else with my posts. Not my intention.

My intention was to get to the truth of the matter. You say the truth will set you free but, assuming you have that truth, instead of providing it you choose to constrain us to speculation. Therefore, I also have a polite request of you, please tell me what's really behind Taylor's absence from this tour, what's going on with MT these days and when will we hear directly from him?

As strange as Tele's information seems, I'm grateful he provided it, he obviously took the effort to get permission to share it and, if true, it is quite a bombshell. Maybe it's Keith's health we should be speculating about?

That an insurance person could somehow contribute to the decision to have MT on board as insurance for Keith's potential absence seems ludicrous. MT would be the first to admit that without Keith there can be no Stones. I find it hard to believe Jagger would think any differently in 2015, regardless of his 1977 call to Taylor to potentially replace Keith if he ended up in jail after the Toronto trial. Seems, the Stones could probably afford to self insure themselves before they would agree to have some suit tell them who can play in their band. Am I missing something?

Any truth you can bring to the discussion would be welcome Chacal.

peace

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
71Tele

Quote
DoomandGloom
Tele it seems you are pointing the blame at MJ and him not wishing to be upstaged?

No. Here's what I was told. I have to emphasize that the information came from someone I trust who is a former poster here, and that person's information came from someone with direct knowledge, so yes, secondhand. You can believe it or not. It is my understanding that a few people here are already aware of this.

The reason Mick Taylor was hired in the first place and was taken around the world to play one or two songs is that Keith was still having seizures and the insurance people needed a "back-up" just in case. Had Keith been unable to perform, you would still have had two bona fide Rolling Stones guitarists and the show would have gone on. When Keith's health improved, the Taylor "insurance policy" was no longer needed, and he was not invited back. It's that simple.

Now, there may or may not be additional issues with Taylor's health or dynamics within the band, I have no idea about any of those things, but I was told none of them were the reason Taylor was not brought back for this tour.

I am posting this because the person who gave me the information gave me permission to do so, and I did not want to be one of those people who has information and then says they can't share it. Make of it what you will.

It all sounds completely logic and plausible to my ears Tele. It explains everything. Taylor surely will have got some nice money for his stand-in job (and a few occasions to show us his guitar playing).

Quote
DoomandGloom

Quote
fuzzbox
I don't think he is lame, just that for this claim to be plausible there would have to have been some serious work put in to make it work. The stones without Keith woild be a huge thing.

Cool, I think a player like MT would rise to the challenge.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DoomandGloom

Quote
fuzzbox
I don't think he is lame, just that for this claim to be plausible there would have to have been some serious work put in to make it work. The stones without Keith woild be a huge thing.

Cool, I think a player like MT would rise to the challenge.

I think so too.

And for the casual/tourist fans the Rolling Stones is just Mick Jagger. Everyone else is replaceable for them, even Keith. If he were absent because of illness they wouldn't grumble and walk away. Just as long as the old songs were being sung by Jagger, supported by a bunch of musicians.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Dreamer

Quote
71Tele
Forgive my "Kumbaya" moment, but where is the love? I guess that's what really bothers me here. Taylor is a brother who they could embrace with open arms, welcome him back to the fold, the "prodigal son" returns and all that. For God's sake these are men in their 70s. Make him a member of the band again, what does it matter at this point? OK, don't cut him in equally financially, but spiritually he belongs, as well as musically. Wouldn't this be a great end to the story, which surely must end fairly soon? So he left 40 years ago, forgive, and play some great music together in the little time left.

If you knew the real reasons (as I have been told) that he joined them again in the first place and why he isn't invited back you wouldn't believe how cold and calculating it all is. All I can say is Mick Jagger (and perhaps others) is a very cold fish. The whole thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Sorry for the sentimentality.

The real reason that he joined them again is that he decided to join them again.
Why he was asked to join is something else but if MT thought that was something cold and calculating he should not have joined. But he did so that's his responsability. And it's the responsability of the RS to not ask him again.

The thing is other peoples sentimentality is playing a far too huge role here. Maybe even MT's sentimentality is playing a cold fish or at least a dubious role since 'his people' are maybe talking through your mouth here.
Ever thought about why that might be the case? Why on earth when the RS are such cold fish does MT want to play with them? And why are his people trying to talk through your mouth here - what's in it for them? Are they really serving the interest of MT to join again for one or two songs? They are going to all of this crap about cold fish because they want him to join that cold fish for two songs?? What do you want to believe? And what do you want other people to believe with posts like this?

His people are not trying to talk through my mouth. I don't know his people.

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
fuzzbox
I don't think he is lame, just that for this claim to be plausible there would have to have been some serious work put in to make it work. The stones without Keith woild be a huge thing.

I do agree with that. I disagree with you saying Mick Taylor can't hold his own at one of his shows or at a Stones show. But I do agree that the Stones is Mick and Keith and thats how the Stones have presented to us for decades. It seems a bit odd that they'd all of a sudden think Taylor stepping in could replace Keith, to casual fans (the audience they freely admit they're playing to).

Quote
Naturalust
Regardless of the plausibility of Taylor actually replacing Keith, it is entirely plausible that an insurance guy could think it was possible. I think that's the only thing which really makes sense. And, if so, Mick probably knew the chances of of having to use that insurance in that way were pretty small compared to the chances of having to use it in other ways, which they obviously did for the Hanging Rock show.

My questions are, if this is true, did Taylor know his reason for being around and did he agree to it? Was he practicing to prepare himself for the possibility? Would the Stones have actually tried to play without Keith? I can't imagine Charlie would have been willing to play without him or the fans would have been willing to accept a Keith-less Stones.

peace

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Naturalust
Regardless of the plausibility of Taylor actually replacing Keith, it is entirely plausible that an insurance guy could think it was possible. I think that's the only thing which really makes sense. And, if so, Mick probably knew the chances of of having to use that insurance in that way were pretty small compared to the chances of having to use it in other ways, which they obviously did for the Hanging Rock show.

My questions are, if this is true, did Taylor know his reason for being around and did he agree to it? Was he practicing to prepare himself for the possibility? Would the Stones have actually tried to play without Keith? I can't imagine Charlie would have been willing to play without him or the fans would have been willing to accept a Keith-less Stones.

peace

Two words: Not true.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Naturalust
Regardless of the plausibility of Taylor actually replacing Keith, it is entirely plausible that an insurance guy could think it was possible. I think that's the only thing which really makes sense. And, if so, Mick probably knew the chances of of having to use that insurance in that way were pretty small compared to the chances of having to use it in other ways, which they obviously did for the Hanging Rock show.

My questions are, if this is true, did Taylor know his reason for being around and did he agree to it? Was he practicing to prepare himself for the possibility? Would the Stones have actually tried to play without Keith? I can't imagine Charlie would have been willing to play without him or the fans would have been willing to accept a Keith-less Stones.

peace

Two words: Not true.

Quote
duke richardson

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DoomandGloom

Quote
fuzzbox
I don't think he is lame, just that for this claim to be plausible there would have to have been some serious work put in to make it work. The stones without Keith woild be a huge thing.

Cool, I think a player like MT would rise to the challenge.

I think so too.

And for the casual/tourist fans the Rolling Stones is just Mick Jagger. Everyone else is replaceable for them, even Keith. If he were absent because of illness they wouldn't grumble and walk away. Just as long as the old songs were being sung by Jagger, supported by a bunch of musicians.

You really think that, Kleermaker? That's a stretch and Keith is as rock-star-iconic as MJ ..it would sound weird too..

Quote
71Tele
From my source:

"I’m following the thread. Folks are missing the KEY POINT: without a guarantee of gate money (which the stones would NEVER tour without), there would be no tour. And the insurance companies needed a compensation for the inability of Keith himself to get a clean bill of health. All agreed that having MT along would satisfy that requirement. Not sure what’s so hard to understand. It wasn’t the Stones decision, in effect…only their decision not to forego the guarantee of whatever the gate proceeds would provide…."

Quote
kleermaker


And for the casual/tourist fans the Rolling Stones is just Mick Jagger. Everyone else is replaceable for them, even Keith. If he were absent because of illness they wouldn't grumble and walk away. Just as long as the old songs were being sung by Jagger, supported by a bunch of musicians.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Naturalust
Regardless of the plausibility of Taylor actually replacing Keith, it is entirely plausible that an insurance guy could think it was possible. I think that's the only thing which really makes sense. And, if so, Mick probably knew the chances of of having to use that insurance in that way were pretty small compared to the chances of having to use it in other ways, which they obviously did for the Hanging Rock show.

My questions are, if this is true, did Taylor know his reason for being around and did he agree to it? Was he practicing to prepare himself for the possibility? Would the Stones have actually tried to play without Keith? I can't imagine Charlie would have been willing to play without him or the fans would have been willing to accept a Keith-less Stones.

peace

Two words: Not true.

What Tele has been told.

He was dragged out of a rehab paid by the Stones to be a backup for Keith? No way.

I have more info, too, but you can't trust anyone these days...

What's not true? The Taylor for insurance story? Or something in my post?

peace

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
kleermaker


And for the casual/tourist fans the Rolling Stones is just Mick Jagger. Everyone else is replaceable for them, even Keith. If he were absent because of illness they wouldn't grumble and walk away. Just as long as the old songs were being sung by Jagger, supported by a bunch of musicians.

Wood and D. Jones are replaceable. Charlie, ...difficult. Jagger and Richards cannot be replaced, they are the Glimmer Twins, Kleer. Jagger and Richards don't fill stadiums with solo acts.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DoomandGloom

Quote
fuzzbox
I don't think he is lame, just that for this claim to be plausible there would have to have been some serious work put in to make it work. The stones without Keith woild be a huge thing.

Cool, I think a player like MT would rise to the challenge.

I think so too.

And for the casual/tourist fans the Rolling Stones is just Mick Jagger. Everyone else is replaceable for them, even Keith. If he were absent because of illness they wouldn't grumble and walk away. Just as long as the old songs were being sung by Jagger, supported by a bunch of musicians.