For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Yup, I have tried to steer clear, but it keeps popping up and when I peek in it feels/reads like stumbling into the wailing room at a funeral parlor, as I oops and quietly back out. Or maybe this thread is a like a youth center which helps keep the kids off the streets and out of trouble while providing a creative outlet for some amusing fan fiction here and there, so it has that going for it.Quote
latebloomer
Dear me, this thread has gotten so out of hand. Coniving, ruthless, scheming, underhanded, sick, senile, doddering fool, machiavellian, cold...these are just some of the adjectives being flung around here and on the KR interview thread. They won't be around forever, it seems a shame to focus on what's missing rather than celebrate what is still there.
Quote
CousinCQuote
treaclefingers
By the 80s, Mick was a dinosaur as far as the music buying youth was concerned (and they were right), so any potential at a big solo career was over...having some very weak material at the time didn't help matters. Had he started a solo career in the early 70s, let's say after Angie, I think matters would be completely different...
Well, I doubt this.If at all we should say 68-72 when at least he had that big sex image.
But music biz is very fast-paced, always been. While 73 to us is GHS and 73 tour, on the streets the Stones were old fasioned already in 73.
Like Bowies wife urged him then not to go out with Mick J.cause it wasn't cool anymore.
The Rolling Stones is much bigger than Mick and Keith. Both had to learn this the hard way.
Quote
LeonioidYup, I have tried to steer clear, but it keeps popping up and when I peek in it feels/reads like stumbling into the wailing room at a funeral parlor, as I oops and quietly back out. Or maybe this thread is a like a youth center which helps keep the kids off the streets and out of trouble while providing a creative outlet for some amusing fan fiction here and there, so it has that going for it.Quote
latebloomer
Dear me, this thread has gotten so out of hand. Coniving, ruthless, scheming, underhanded, sick, senile, doddering fool, machiavellian, cold...these are just some of the adjectives being flung around here and on the KR interview thread. They won't be around forever, it seems a shame to focus on what's missing rather than celebrate what is still there.
Quote
kleermakerQuote
LeonioidYup, I have tried to steer clear, but it keeps popping up and when I peek in it feels/reads like stumbling into the wailing room at a funeral parlor, as I oops and quietly back out. Or maybe this thread is a like a youth center which helps keep the kids off the streets and out of trouble while providing a creative outlet for some amusing fan fiction here and there, so it has that going for it.Quote
latebloomer
Dear me, this thread has gotten so out of hand. Coniving, ruthless, scheming, underhanded, sick, senile, doddering fool, machiavellian, cold...these are just some of the adjectives being flung around here and on the KR interview thread. They won't be around forever, it seems a shame to focus on what's missing rather than celebrate what is still there.
Oh well, here we see the people arriving, trying to discredit this insightful thread with just very neat discussions and intelligent posts. When some people don't like what they read they seemingly do that, trying to force everyone in the fan-modus.
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
kleermakerQuote
LeonioidYup, I have tried to steer clear, but it keeps popping up and when I peek in it feels/reads like stumbling into the wailing room at a funeral parlor, as I oops and quietly back out. Or maybe this thread is a like a youth center which helps keep the kids off the streets and out of trouble while providing a creative outlet for some amusing fan fiction here and there, so it has that going for it.Quote
latebloomer
Dear me, this thread has gotten so out of hand. Coniving, ruthless, scheming, underhanded, sick, senile, doddering fool, machiavellian, cold...these are just some of the adjectives being flung around here and on the KR interview thread. They won't be around forever, it seems a shame to focus on what's missing rather than celebrate what is still there.
Oh well, here we see the people arriving, trying to discredit this insightful thread with just very neat discussions and intelligent posts. When some people don't like what they read they seemingly do that, trying to force everyone in the fan-modus.
Go team!
wreck? more like aQuote
latebloomerQuote
treaclefingersQuote
kleermakerQuote
LeonioidYup, I have tried to steer clear, but it keeps popping up and when I peek in it feels/reads like stumbling into the wailing room at a funeral parlor, as I oops and quietly back out. Or maybe this thread is a like a youth center which helps keep the kids off the streets and out of trouble while providing a creative outlet for some amusing fan fiction here and there, so it has that going for it.Quote
latebloomer
Dear me, this thread has gotten so out of hand. Coniving, ruthless, scheming, underhanded, sick, senile, doddering fool, machiavellian, cold...these are just some of the adjectives being flung around here and on the KR interview thread. They won't be around forever, it seems a shame to focus on what's missing rather than celebrate what is still there.
Oh well, here we see the people arriving, trying to discredit this insightful thread with just very neat discussions and intelligent posts. When some people don't like what they read they seemingly do that, trying to force everyone in the fan-modus.
Go team!
Far be if for me to spoil anyone's fun. I promise no more rubber necking here at the wreck on the side of the road...eyes straight, full speed ahead
Quote
latebloomerQuote
treaclefingersQuote
kleermakerQuote
LeonioidYup, I have tried to steer clear, but it keeps popping up and when I peek in it feels/reads like stumbling into the wailing room at a funeral parlor, as I oops and quietly back out. Or maybe this thread is a like a youth center which helps keep the kids off the streets and out of trouble while providing a creative outlet for some amusing fan fiction here and there, so it has that going for it.Quote
latebloomer
Dear me, this thread has gotten so out of hand. Coniving, ruthless, scheming, underhanded, sick, senile, doddering fool, machiavellian, cold...these are just some of the adjectives being flung around here and on the KR interview thread. They won't be around forever, it seems a shame to focus on what's missing rather than celebrate what is still there.
Oh well, here we see the people arriving, trying to discredit this insightful thread with just very neat discussions and intelligent posts. When some people don't like what they read they seemingly do that, trying to force everyone in the fan-modus.
Go team!
Far be if for me to spoil anyone's fun. I promise no more rubber necking here at the wreck on the side of the road...eyes straight, full speed ahead
Quote
latebloomer
Far be it for me to spoil anyone's fun. I promise no more rubber necking here at the wreck on the side of the road...eyes straight, full speed ahead
Quote
Doxa
Sometimes it is almost beyond the consciousness to realize how great they actually once were, all that musical talent and charisma involved plus the the obvious determination, attitude and fire. This was the greatest rock and roll band of the world indeed. Without any bloody cliches or gimmicks. A pure thing.
- Doxa
Quote
ReaganQuote
Doxa
Sometimes it is almost beyond the consciousness to realize how great they actually once were, all that musical talent and charisma involved plus the the obvious determination, attitude and fire. This was the greatest rock and roll band of the world indeed. Without any bloody cliches or gimmicks. A pure thing.
- Doxa
Right on, Doxa. At their best, no one was ever better.
Although, I must say that every now and then they manage to call back a memory of the old greatness. Just of touch. Not all the way. But it's there.
So that's something.
Quote
latebloomer
I think, young lady, you have a colorful imagination...
But of course, everyone else here is completely straight. My choice of words may not have been a verbatim copy of what's here, but the sentiment is exactly the same.
....and yes I have too much time on my hands this afternoon.
Well, poll taking is serious business NL, no doubt.
Quote
kleermakerQuote
latebloomer
I think, young lady, you have a colorful imagination...
But of course, everyone else here is completely straight. My choice of words may not have been a verbatim copy of what's here, but the sentiment is exactly the same.
....and yes I have too much time on my hands this afternoon.
Well, poll taking is serious business NL, no doubt.
You mean your own sentiment. In that case it's the subjective truth for you only
True passion for the music we love. I can only hope MT gets to read some of these heartfelt posts so he knows what fans really think of him and the impact he has had on us musicians and fans... This thread may have been designed to be a dumping ground but instead you folks have brainstormed the perfect case for MT. Bravo...Quote
Naturalust
Good post Tele.
It may be unpopular to reveal this here and I can only speak for myself, but my story is that I bought into the product that was it's Taylor driven best even though Ron Wood had been with them for years by then. Been trying to get the same rush from their new music ever since. Chasing that rush and getting diminishing returns...like chasing the rush from cocaine and never quite getting it back but having some uncontrollable need to keep trying. (disclaimer: so I've been told ) Addicted to the Stones you might say.
I personally think the Stones have been providing diminishing musical returns since 1973 with a definite drop off around 1978 but I didn't even fantasize they would ever be able to bring back the musical magic....until Taylor popped up on stage again. Hey, this could get very interesting and very exciting again, whoo hoo. Let that boy play. But alas they barely let him do that and then dropped the idea altogether for the Zip Him Up tour. Of course people who are into it purely for the music are going to be disappointed, the possibilities were huge, the potential for musical greatness within reach, then not.
With Hendrix, Zappa and Lowell George gone, Clapton bored to death, Dickey Betts burnt out and Jimmy Page mostly retired all we really have left is Jeff Beck and Mick Taylor. The Stones don't need Taylor but if we are really honest the Stones music does...Let that boy play!
peace
Quote
71Tele
This is not just about Mick Taylor. Taylor is a symbol of the schism between the fans who want the band to return (at least minimally) to a more musically adventurous approach, and those who are perfectly happy with the current product and do not want it interfered with. Bringing Taylor back - even in a limited capacity - reminded people of the glorious past, but also what could be possibilities for the present. I think the Stones maybe do not realize what they unleashed, and perhaps are surprised at the sustained interest in a person they considered a has-been. They let the genie out of the bottle, and now want us all to forget about it and go back to business as usual.
What I take from the anti-Taylor comments not just on this thread, but for years on this board - the "he quit, move on" school - is an extreme discomfort and defensiveness that is beyond any mere comparisons of guitarists. It's as if they bought a product they were perfectly happy with for years (or decades) and then someone came around to remind them of how much better that product used to be. After investing all that energy and time into the more recent version, they don't want to be made to feel that the version they purchased was of a lesser quality. No doubt I will take some flak for that, but I really think it's the case with some people. I think Mick Jagger himself (and perhaps the other fellow) may share some of this attitude as well, and may be surprised (as well as a bit irritated) at the continuing interest in Taylor's role.
Whatever anyone's feelings on the matter, the passion shown here (and elsewhere) on the subject certainly shows the lasting power of the Taylor-era Rolling Stones on the collective psyches of many of us.
Quote
matxilQuote
71Tele
This is not just about Mick Taylor. Taylor is a symbol of the schism between the fans who want the band to return (at least minimally) to a more musically adventurous approach, and those who are perfectly happy with the current product and do not want it interfered with. Bringing Taylor back - even in a limited capacity - reminded people of the glorious past, but also what could be possibilities for the present. I think the Stones maybe do not realize what they unleashed, and perhaps are surprised at the sustained interest in a person they considered a has-been. They let the genie out of the bottle, and now want us all to forget about it and go back to business as usual.
What I take from the anti-Taylor comments not just on this thread, but for years on this board - the "he quit, move on" school - is an extreme discomfort and defensiveness that is beyond any mere comparisons of guitarists. It's as if they bought a product they were perfectly happy with for years (or decades) and then someone came around to remind them of how much better that product used to be. After investing all that energy and time into the more recent version, they don't want to be made to feel that the version they purchased was of a lesser quality. No doubt I will take some flak for that, but I really think it's the case with some people. I think Mick Jagger himself (and perhaps the other fellow) may share some of this attitude as well, and may be surprised (as well as a bit irritated) at the continuing interest in Taylor's role.
Whatever anyone's feelings on the matter, the passion shown here (and elsewhere) on the subject certainly shows the lasting power of the Taylor-era Rolling Stones on the collective psyches of many of us.
Hm, I seee your point, but I disagree on a few matters.
I think most people would agree that the best years of the Stones were in between 1968 - 1972 (/1973/1974/.../1978). This was for a (large/some/certain) part thanks to the glorious, gracious, precious touch and tone of Mick Taylor's guitar-playing. It was also thanks to Mick Jagger and Keith working as a team, having found "their own" (instead of copying blues masters or the Beatles), and being the years in which pop and rock music was changing rapidly and interestingly. I think even the Stones would agree with this. However: you cannot go back to that. Even if they would want to, they can't. You cannot live in the past. You cannot re-integrate a guy who's been out of the band for 40 years. It's musically and psychologically impossible. Like going to back to an ex of 40 years ago, even though you still have feelings for her. It just won't work. Taylor now is not Taylor 40 years ago and - more importantly maybe - the Stones now are not the Stones of 40 years ago (and neither is the rest of the world).
You mention that the "pro-Taylor" people want more musical adventure, and that's why they want Taylor back. Don't you see the inherent paradox in that sentence? I highlighted the keywords of that paradox.
It was nice to see Taylor last year doing Midnight Rambler. It had nothing to do with what he (and the Stones) did and sounded like 40 years ago, but yes, there was a sense of jamming, of improvisation, but then, it's Midnight Rambler, the song basically is a blues jam. On Sway, things were less convincing. But taking Taylor back for an entire album, or for an entire concert-set, they would have the choice of either 1) trying to copy the past, which would be sad or 2) trying to do something new, which would be impossible with a guy who has gone through a completely different development than the rest of the Stones (for better or worse). And nothing Taylor has been doing for the past 40 years has been particularly adventurous musically.
In the end, it's not about good or bad. It's about reality. Taylor is not part of the band. The band obviously - for many reasons aforementioned - is not as good as it was 30 or 40 or 50 years ago. But this is what the band is nowadays. If you want them to get better, the worst thing you can do is bring back someone from the past and try to revive "the good old days". They are gone.
Quote
mr edwardQuote
matxil
try to revive "the good old days".
Isn't that exactly what The Stones have been doing since 1989?
Quote
DoomandGloom
I saw the Cream reunion so I don't believe musicians can not bring something great from past work
The warhorse set has many Taylor friendly songs
Quote
matxilQuote
71Tele
This is not just about Mick Taylor. Taylor is a symbol of the schism between the fans who want the band to return (at least minimally) to a more musically adventurous approach, and those who are perfectly happy with the current product and do not want it interfered with. Bringing Taylor back - even in a limited capacity - reminded people of the glorious past, but also what could be possibilities for the present. I think the Stones maybe do not realize what they unleashed, and perhaps are surprised at the sustained interest in a person they considered a has-been. They let the genie out of the bottle, and now want us all to forget about it and go back to business as usual.
What I take from the anti-Taylor comments not just on this thread, but for years on this board - the "he quit, move on" school - is an extreme discomfort and defensiveness that is beyond any mere comparisons of guitarists. It's as if they bought a product they were perfectly happy with for years (or decades) and then someone came around to remind them of how much better that product used to be. After investing all that energy and time into the more recent version, they don't want to be made to feel that the version they purchased was of a lesser quality. No doubt I will take some flak for that, but I really think it's the case with some people. I think Mick Jagger himself (and perhaps the other fellow) may share some of this attitude as well, and may be surprised (as well as a bit irritated) at the continuing interest in Taylor's role.
Whatever anyone's feelings on the matter, the passion shown here (and elsewhere) on the subject certainly shows the lasting power of the Taylor-era Rolling Stones on the collective psyches of many of us.
Hm, I seee your point, but I disagree on a few matters.
I think most people would agree that the best years of the Stones were in between 1968 - 1972 (/1973/1974/.../1978). This was for a (large/some/certain) part thanks to the glorious, gracious, precious touch and tone of Mick Taylor's guitar-playing. It was also thanks to Mick Jagger and Keith working as a team, having found "their own" (instead of copying blues masters or the Beatles), and being the years in which pop and rock music was changing rapidly and interestingly. I think even the Stones would agree with this. However: you cannot go back to that. Even if they would want to, they can't. You cannot live in the past. You cannot re-integrate a guy who's been out of the band for 40 years. It's musically and psychologically impossible. Like going to back to an ex of 40 years ago, even though you still have feelings for her. It just won't work. Taylor now is not Taylor 40 years ago and - more importantly maybe - the Stones now are not the Stones of 40 years ago (and neither is the rest of the world).
You mention that the "pro-Taylor" people want more musical adventure, and that's why they want Taylor back. Don't you see the inherent paradox in that sentence? I highlighted the keywords of that paradox.
It was nice to see Taylor last year doing Midnight Rambler. It had nothing to do with what he (and the Stones) did and sounded like 40 years ago, but yes, there was a sense of jamming, of improvisation, but then, it's Midnight Rambler, the song basically is a blues jam. On Sway, things were less convincing. But taking Taylor back for an entire album, or for an entire concert-set, they would have the choice of either 1) trying to copy the past, which would be sad or 2) trying to do something new, which would be impossible with a guy who has gone through a completely different development than the rest of the Stones (for better or worse). And nothing Taylor has been doing for the past 40 years has been particularly adventurous musically.
In the end, it's not about good or bad. It's about reality. Taylor is not part of the band. The band obviously - for many reasons aforementioned - is not as good as it was 30 or 40 or 50 years ago. But this is what the band is nowadays. If you want them to get better, the worst thing you can do is bring back someone from the past and try to revive "the good old days". They are gone.
Quote
DandelionPowderman
They tried it with Satisfaction and were obviously not happy with the results.
Quote
71Tele
This is not just about Mick Taylor. Taylor is a symbol of the schism between the fans who want the band to return (at least minimally) to a more musically adventurous approach, and those who are perfectly happy with the current product and do not want it interfered with. Bringing Taylor back - even in a limited capacity - reminded people of the glorious past, but also what could be possibilities for the present.
Quote
DoxaQuote
71Tele
This is not just about Mick Taylor. Taylor is a symbol of the schism between the fans who want the band to return (at least minimally) to a more musically adventurous approach, and those who are perfectly happy with the current product and do not want it interfered with. Bringing Taylor back - even in a limited capacity - reminded people of the glorious past, but also what could be possibilities for the present.
Very well put. At least it cohers with my stance. The reason why I jumped on Taylor bandwagon is simply thinking that he is a kind of player who could shake a bit the boat now. Let's say I'm not into Taylor per se, or that of them sounding like 1972 now but what he is able to bring on the table now. I never even imagined that we would be some day speculating what we do now. I had accepted the Brechevian kind of nature the band and how the band will sound like now and forever as long as it does exist. But then suddenly they brought Taylor there, and the alarming performance of "Midnight Rambler" exploded all the bounds of imagination. Shit, they actually could do something different and non-predictable! "Three guitar attacks" and everything... mamma mia...
Surely, those wildest dreams never came true, but just having him there for a while (and little) was enough of having some glimpses of what the Stones could be and sound like, if they really want that. Like Naturalust put it, The Stones might not need him, but their music does. That's at least the way I see it. But I know there are lots of people - die-hard and casual fans - who are happy just the way they sound these days (and for the last 25 years), so for them the whole 'Taylor-gate' is not any big deal. So the issue between stances toward Taylor actually is: are we happy how the things are like now or would we like something a bit different and unpredictable to happen.
- Doxa