Quote
gotdablouse

Assuming this is correct it's a bit ironic though that Keith would go around (unknowingly/carelessly) spreading rumours about Taylor's health in an interview when the (main) reason Taylor was brought back was to cover for him due to his health.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

And the insurance people would happily accept a back up dragged out early from rehab?

Quote
dcba

Quote
gotdablouse

Assuming this is correct it's a bit ironic though that Keith would go around (unknowingly/carelessly) spreading rumours about Taylor's health in an interview when the (main) reason Taylor was brought back was to cover for him due to his health.

Some sort of unconscious Freudian guilt?
ou feel bad about sth not pretty you did, you try to hide it deep withing yourself, and the 1st occasion the object of your guilt pops up in full daylight thru your speech.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Turning To Gold
People who are saying that Taylor "couldn't possibly stand in for Richards" or that he didn't know the songs, are missing the point entirely. He was never intended to stand in for Richards. He never rehearsed in that role. It was never meant to be a thing at all. It was just something they concocted to get the insurance people off their back, and GET the insurance coverage, and get the band cleared to play and tour. The insurance people don't know or care about the subtleties or nuances of Taylor vs Richards vs Wood's style, they don't know anything about rhythm guitar vs. lead.

Anyone who doesn't understand the central importance of the insurance situation, doesn't understand the world of the big-time music business right now. Since the death of Michael Jackson, dealing with insurance for the performers is a HUGE part of the modern touring concert industry. Especially after the palm tree incident. And Keith's fall that postponed a tour in 1998. Any story they could concoct to get past the insurance people, no matter how far-fetched, could easily be fair game.

And the insurance people would happily accept a back up dragged out early from rehab?

Quote
Turning To Gold
People who are saying that Taylor "couldn't possibly stand in for Richards" or that he didn't know the songs, are missing the point entirely. He was never intended to stand in for Richards. He never rehearsed in that role. It was never meant to be a thing at all. It was just something they concocted to get the insurance people off their back, and GET the insurance coverage, and get the band cleared to play and tour. The insurance people don't know or care about the subtleties or nuances of Taylor vs Richards vs Wood's style, they don't know anything about rhythm guitar vs. lead.

Anyone who doesn't understand the central importance of the insurance situation, doesn't understand the world of the big-time music business right now. Since the death of Michael Jackson, dealing with insurance for the performers is a HUGE part of the modern touring concert industry. Especially after the palm tree incident. And Keith's fall that postponed a tour in 1998. Any story they could concoct to get past the insurance people, no matter how far-fetched, could easily be fair game.

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
fuzzbox

Quote
Naturalust

Taylor's solo musical performances are varied and often exciting...

Hilarious!

I don't dare ask if you've ever even attended such a performance. I'm probably a minority here but even a "shakey" MT performance with moments of brilliance is a musical treat to me and I've never been even slightly disappointed by his solo shows I've attended.

peace

Completely agree. The first time I saw MT live, it was an absolute revelation for me. I don't think it was even an especially hot night by his standards but it totally changed how I thought about playing the guitar. Taylor crystallises everything I love and appreciate in music. He is and always will be my favourite musician ever, Stones or no Stones. That concert is the reason I play slide guitar. Not Elmore, not Jeremy Spencer, not even Duane, much as I love them all.

Quote
Stoneage
So far everything is speculation about Taylor. Unconfirmed rumors. The only thing we know is what Richards and Jagger said in interviews. Which is basically nothing...

Quote
Naturalust
Not sure I need to know anything more except to hear some comments from Taylor himself, confirming his good health and telling us when we might expect to be able to see him play again. He doesn't need the Stones as much as they need him, imo, and I hope he kicks some ass now to prove it.

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
DandelionPowderman

And the insurance people would happily accept a back up dragged out early from rehab?

That's a fair question.

Here's another one that just occurred to me:

If the "insurance people" were so freaked out about Keith in 2012 that they pulled Taylor out of rehab, why are they not even more freaked out this time around by the prospect of a three-years-creakier Keith?

Quote
MCDDTLC
At least Jagger said: Not this Tour and not "Forever"..

Quote
Naturalust
He doesn't need the Stones as much as they need him, imo, and I hope he kicks some ass now to prove it.

peace

Quote


Oh please. What rubbish. You DO like to be a bit controversial I appreciate, but get a grip. The Stones are just fine without him. His playing on Rambler was very VERY nice last year in Adelaide and Perth, but it WAS NOT anywhere near his own glory days in the 70s. I loved the fact he was there, but not for Satisfaction. But I also know he left the band of his own accord 40 years ago. He's gone. The Stones roll on wonderfully without him.

I look forward to HIS next project.... Yeah, right.

Quote
bitusa2012

Quote
Naturalust
He doesn't need the Stones as much as they need him, imo, and I hope he kicks some ass now to prove it.

peace

Oh please. What rubbish. You DO like to be a bit controversial I appreciate, but get a grip. The Stones are just fine without him. His playing on Rambler was very VERY nice last year in Adelaide and Perth, but it WAS NOT anywhere near his own glory days in the 70s. I loved the fact he was there, but not for Satisfaction. But I also know he left the band of his own accord 40 years ago. He's gone. The Stones roll on wonderfully without him.

I look forward to HIS next project.... Yeah, right.

Quote
LoganWaters
The Insurance Hypothesis makes the most sense. A shame if Keith was still having seizure issues. A shame that MT was marginalized as he was.

Folks were talking about MT replacing Keith on stage had Keith had problems. But that makes little sense.

What if the plan was actually that Ronnie would take Keith's part, and MT simply take lead?

Now that I buy.

Quote
LoganWaters
The Insurance Hypothesis makes the most sense. A shame if Keith was still having seizure issues. A shame that MT was marginalized as he was.

Folks were talking about MT replacing Keith on stage had Keith had problems. But that makes little sense.

What if the plan was actually that Ronnie would take Keith's part, and MT simply take lead?

Now that I buy.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
bitusa2012

Quote
Naturalust
He doesn't need the Stones as much as they need him, imo, and I hope he kicks some ass now to prove it.

peace

Oh please. What rubbish. You DO like to be a bit controversial I appreciate, but get a grip. The Stones are just fine without him. His playing on Rambler was very VERY nice last year in Adelaide and Perth, but it WAS NOT anywhere near his own glory days in the 70s. I loved the fact he was there, but not for Satisfaction. But I also know he left the band of his own accord 40 years ago. He's gone. The Stones roll on wonderfully without him.

I look forward to HIS next project.... Yeah, right.

As I've said, I'm just expressing my opinion on the matter of the music. I truly believe the Stones music could benefit with his further involvement and I am indeed looking forward to seeing what he does in the future. He obviously wasn't utilized to his full potential on songs like Satisfaction. And I probably shouldn't have to remind you that in his glory days he was given considerably more time to integrate and develop his work on the live performances.

I've accepted the fact he won't roll with the Stones this time out but I don't have to be happy about it. Attacks like yours aren't going to convince me to dismiss Taylor so easily.

peace

Quote
Green Lady

Quote
LoganWaters
The Insurance Hypothesis makes the most sense. A shame if Keith was still having seizure issues. A shame that MT was marginalized as he was.

Folks were talking about MT replacing Keith on stage had Keith had problems. But that makes little sense.

What if the plan was actually that Ronnie would take Keith's part, and MT simply take lead?

Now that I buy.

If they were going to have to do that at short notice, then that would be the way to go - Ronnie probably knows all Keith's parts already, and we know that he and Mick T can make a good team.

If the insurance business was planned at all, it was planned around the time that Mick was appearing solo in SNL, turning down the Olympics "because we're not ready", and a couple of Keith's recent public performances had most of us pretty worried. "Seizures" (possibly) or chronic lack of practice (more likely) , I think most people were very relieved at how well he did at the O2. But if this was the motive, Mick T was kept on long after it was clear that he wouldn't be wanted - at least not as backup for Keith. It's entirely possible that it was only one of several motives: the cynical Insurance Scam doesn't need to be 100% of the reason for having him along.

Quote
terraplane
Actually now that I have seen the Stones (with Taylor) and Taylor (without the Stones) if in the future it was a choice of seeing Taylor with his own blues band or the Stones without Taylor, I would choose Taylor every time.

Quote
LoganWaters
The Insurance Hypothesis makes the most sense. A shame if Keith was still having seizure issues. A shame that MT was marginalized as he was.

Folks were talking about MT replacing Keith on stage had Keith had problems. But that makes little sense.

What if the plan was actually that Ronnie would take Keith's part, and MT simply take lead?

Now that I buy.

Quote
mtaylor

Quote
LoganWaters
The Insurance Hypothesis makes the most sense. A shame if Keith was still having seizure issues. A shame that MT was marginalized as he was.

Folks were talking about MT replacing Keith on stage had Keith had problems. But that makes little sense.

What if the plan was actually that Ronnie would take Keith's part, and MT simply take lead?

Now that I buy.

That was in fact considered by MJ in the late 70'ies when Keith had his problems with court.... what if Keith was sent to jail for a longer period.

Quote
LoganWaters
To show where Mick was/is at re not having Keith onstage on a Stones tour, I offer this quote from engineer Andy Johns, in Robert Greenfield's book Ain't It Time We Said Goodbye:

I said to Mick, ‘What’s going to happen?’ And he said, ‘I think Keith’s going down. But it’s all right. I’ve got Jesse Ed Davis with his bags packed in LA. He can be on the next plane.’ Which I thought was beyond mercenary.

That was about the possibility that Keith was going to be jailed for a drug conviction before the Goats Head Soup tour.

So yeah, Mick Jagger really is that cold.