Quote
latebloomer

Quote
71Tele
Almost double the number of posts for this thread as for the whole thread devoted to the tour. If any Stones insider is following,I wonder what they make of this discussion, and the level of passion it shows on this topic.

Tele, I do appreciate the sincere desire of you and others for a true return of Mick Taylor to the fold. But, at most, the bulk of the conversation here has taken place among a dozen or so members. As others have pointed out, I think the Stones make their decisions based on a myriad of factors. One would hope the impassioned wishes of some fans would be one of those, but I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

Exactamundo!

Quote
71Tele

A: Why is that any different? Why please a few people who want to hear obscure songs when the throngs will only talk through them or use them for a piss break?

There are far more people who would like to hear more rare songs than there are people who is concerned about Taylor not participating on this tour. I've met quite a few casual fans, who has not really heard the rare songs, but still says they don't feel any need to see the Stones again, since they always play the same old songs. Even casual fans like to challenged.

Quote
Stoneburst
TheBlockbuster: the idea that the only people who care about Mick Taylor are ageing baby boomers is nonsense. It's part and parcel of this silly myth that no one from the younger generation appreciates classic rock because they're all too busy listening to Justin Bieber or something. I'm 25 and Mick Taylor is the reason I play guitar. I have lots of friends that also play guitar and dig Taylor just as much. Several of the 'Taylorites' (whatever that term even means now) posting on this board are young as well. A lot of the anti-Taylor posters here would do well to give the Stones' audiences more credit. Young or old, we all have ears, and we all know what Taylor bought to the Stones these past few years when they actually let him on stage. I think the Stones management might be surprised at just how many people would make like Naturalust and take a Taylor solo gig over one of theirs at this point.

I think you and your friends are in a minority. Younger people in general who listen to the Stones tends to appreciate Ronnie Wood a lot more than the Taylor fans on this board do. Of course there are younger fan who likes Taylors playing alot, just like I do, but not very many of them takes it to the extreme when they won't see the next concert since MT is not with the band. But that's just my observation of course.

I also think the majority of the audience at a stones concert sees the bigger picture: The Stones is in their 70's now and won't walk the earth much longer, they have been an excellent band for 40 years without depending on Mick Taylor, and these 40 years is really what they should be celebrating at this point.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2015-04-13 00:03 by TheBlockbuster.

Quote
Witness

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
DandelionPowderman

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

But don't you see that the warhorses are their best songs? They works best out of all the songs they play already. They won't improve noteworthy by adding a wailing lead guitar on top of the horns etc, and they will never re-arrange them. Sorry, won't happen They tried it with Satisfaction and were obviously not happy with the results.

Lead guitar isn't the point. Putting the best and most interesting version of the band out there is. Surprised that you don't seem to get that after hundreds of posts, even if we disagree on the fine points of what the "best version" would be. It's not about adding wailing lead guitar. The Stones made the same mistake with Taylor recently a he has made with himself in his solo shoes: Boxing him into a blues lead guitar role rather than have him add "color" on the whole set, which really was his role in the Stones. If people forget that Taylor in the Stones was about much more than ead guitar, they should have a listen to the records again.

But what can he add, when they obviously won't rearrange the warhorses?

Well, yes of course. But that's my whole point. I don't want to just add Taylor "on top" of what they are already doing. I would like to see Taylor involved in new arrangements, which of course they would have to be willing to rehearse, and which I agree they have shown no inclination to do. Throwing him a bone in Midnight Rambler was the easy (and lazy) route.

That was my point. They won't change their "winning formula" because of a marginal number of fans only to let an ex-member shine.

They could have done to make a better product, out of a remnant of an artistic motive. Provided that they had not felt the need to have a given model for how their best songs, as you equated the warhorses to be, ideally should sound like, but be willing to have that model gradually to change to some degree. That is, be willing to let the control freak attitude go.

Of course, but if they feel they have a winning formula why should they change it?

I told you: Out of a remnant of an artistic motive!

"Winning formulas" are for cookie cutter record company creations...artistic movement is what I really want. Risky by nature but the only sure way to keep the muse alive.

peace

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Of course, but if they feel they have a winning formula why should they change it?

That is IT in a nut shell.

Change is risky. It is risky to the point of possible utter destruction.

What if the change is great, but only for a short time, and then the change mutates in away no one could predict and then it changes for the worse and implodes the band? What if that had happened in 1999 and the Rolling Stones had split up for good back then? What would we all be doing today? Watching NASCAR?

Quote
Leonioid
Change is risky. It is risky to the point of possible utter destruction.

Risky? Destruction? Implode?
No chance Leon, we can only hope for changes everyday, or else life would be an endless xerox, leading to death by boredom.

Winning formula? No, music has to keep evolving, I like Keith and Ronnnie playing together, but it seems they are not pushing new boundries anymore. MT would help in that aspect.

THere is little to lose and much to gain, so the question remains, why not?

Quote
71Tele

Quote
TheBlockbuster
All people I've meet who are Taylorites and think Taylor could bring the Stones concerts to a whole new level if they included him in the band again, has been old men in their sixties, who saw the Stones with Taylor in the 70's.

Since this group of people is a small minority of the audience at a Stones concert, there is really no reason to believe the Stones would care about the frustrated and disappointed comments on this board about Taylor not participating on the next tour.

What the Stones really should care about is to present a setlist which includes more rarely played songs, and to make sure that they rehearse enough to sound as good as possible on stage.

A: Why is that any different? Why please a few people who want to hear obscure songs when the throngs will only talk through them or use them for a piss break?

B: Regarding your first paragraph I would argue that they already succeeded in doing just that (going to a new level), at least partially. There were moments of danger and brilliance during the Taylor shows. We saw a glimpse of the musical possibilities, and even some of the "tourist" fans were enlightened. They wanted to know who "that guitar player" was.

Fascinating how many people feel better about being fed the same old meal.

It's reasonably fresh compared to what you're trying to sell as a five star dinner which is in fact a cold portion of 40 year old noodles...

Quote
Witness
I told you: Out of a remnant of an artistic motive!

You misunderstand. I don't disagree, but they feel they have found the winning formula as well as their artistic peak - musically, commercially and pragmatically.

They probably don't even reflect on this, as it is indeed a success for the masses.

Can one use terms like "artistic movement" and "muse" about a band whose last big hit was back in 1981?

Quote
Dreamer

Quote
71Tele

Quote
TheBlockbuster
All people I've meet who are Taylorites and think Taylor could bring the Stones concerts to a whole new level if they included him in the band again, has been old men in their sixties, who saw the Stones with Taylor in the 70's.

Since this group of people is a small minority of the audience at a Stones concert, there is really no reason to believe the Stones would care about the frustrated and disappointed comments on this board about Taylor not participating on the next tour.

What the Stones really should care about is to present a setlist which includes more rarely played songs, and to make sure that they rehearse enough to sound as good as possible on stage.

A: Why is that any different? Why please a few people who want to hear obscure songs when the throngs will only talk through them or use them for a piss break?

B: Regarding your first paragraph I would argue that they already succeeded in doing just that (going to a new level), at least partially. There were moments of danger and brilliance during the Taylor shows. We saw a glimpse of the musical possibilities, and even some of the "tourist" fans were enlightened. They wanted to know who "that guitar player" was.

Fascinating how many people feel better about being fed the same old meal.

It's reasonably fresh compared to what you're trying to sell as a five star dinner which is in fact a cold portion of 40 year old noodles...

LOL!

Quote
Dreamer

Quote
71Tele

Quote
TheBlockbuster
All people I've meet who are Taylorites and think Taylor could bring the Stones concerts to a whole new level if they included him in the band again, has been old men in their sixties, who saw the Stones with Taylor in the 70's.

Since this group of people is a small minority of the audience at a Stones concert, there is really no reason to believe the Stones would care about the frustrated and disappointed comments on this board about Taylor not participating on the next tour.

What the Stones really should care about is to present a setlist which includes more rarely played songs, and to make sure that they rehearse enough to sound as good as possible on stage.

A: Why is that any different? Why please a few people who want to hear obscure songs when the throngs will only talk through them or use them for a piss break?

B: Regarding your first paragraph I would argue that they already succeeded in doing just that (going to a new level), at least partially. There were moments of danger and brilliance during the Taylor shows. We saw a glimpse of the musical possibilities, and even some of the "tourist" fans were enlightened. They wanted to know who "that guitar player" was.

Fascinating how many people feel better about being fed the same old meal.

It's reasonably fresh compared to what you're trying to sell as a five star dinner which is in fact a cold portion of 40 year old noodles...

One to some extent varyingly made older type of experience emerges for many people as fresher than a standardized newer experience, as long as the latter is not from today.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Witness
I told you: Out of a remnant of an artistic motive!

You misunderstand. I don't disagree, but they feel they have found the winning formula as well as their artistic peak - musically, commercially and pragmatically.

They probably don't even reflect on this, as it is indeed a success for the masses.

What I commented on, your input in the thread then, involved no misunderstanding on my side.

Now you want to change the assumptions.
Very well. It is very probable that they think that they have reached another peak. That does not prevent me and many others from holding that they ought to think otherwise, if they would let themselves be led from a remnant of a real artistic motive.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-04-13 00:43 by Witness.

Quote
Witness

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Witness
I told you: Out of a remnant of an artistic motive!

You misunderstand. I don't disagree, but they feel they have found the winning formula as well as their artistic peak - musically, commercially and pragmatically.

They probably don't even reflect on this, as it is indeed a success for the masses.

What I commented on, your input in the thread then, involved no misunderstanding on my side.

Now you want to change the assumptions.
Very well. It is very probable that they think that they have reached another peak. That does not prevent me and many others from holding that they ought to think otherwise, if they would let themselves be led from a remnant of a real artistic motive.

I thought it was clear that I posted my assumption on why the band chooses to stick with their arrangements on the warhorses.

Obviously, it wasn't that clear... But had you read my previous posts it might have gone without saying?

Again: I think that the Stones are happy with how they play the warhorses, hence they won't do changes.

Quote
Dreamer
It's reasonably fresh compared to what you're trying to sell as a five star dinner which is in fact a cold portion of 40 year old noodles...

lmfao! I may disagree completely but that is a good read!

I would say the proper metaphor is: The Stones have been serving a hot dish of 40 year old noodles at 5 star prices for a while now and since we know a new menu isn't likely, we are just asking for a bit of aged Taylor sauce to spice it up a bit

@Stoneage - Sure we can. I prefer artistic movement over hits any 'ole day and hits in todays market are not really compatible with Stones music. One could argue that hits and intentionally trying to create them are the opposite of artistic movement (there are obviously exceptions).

To paraphrase DP's comment: The Stones have found their commercial peak by exploiting their 40 year old artistic peak. That is the winning formula but it has little to do with artistic creativity in 2015.

The Stones know it...We wouldn't be getting SuperHeavy, a solo record from Keith and side projects from almost every band member if the Stones were truly fulfilling their creative needs. More like the Stones finance the creative needs of it's members.

peace

I think that the Stones are happy when they they see 10s of thousands of happy faces smiling and dancing and having fun while they play the warhorses... and they thinking "we get paid to do this" so except for 5-10 people I think everyone is pretty happy with the whole current Rolling Stones situation.

Quote
Dreamer

Quote
71Tele

Quote
TheBlockbuster
All people I've meet who are Taylorites and think Taylor could bring the Stones concerts to a whole new level if they included him in the band again, has been old men in their sixties, who saw the Stones with Taylor in the 70's.

Since this group of people is a small minority of the audience at a Stones concert, there is really no reason to believe the Stones would care about the frustrated and disappointed comments on this board about Taylor not participating on the next tour.

What the Stones really should care about is to present a setlist which includes more rarely played songs, and to make sure that they rehearse enough to sound as good as possible on stage.

A: Why is that any different? Why please a few people who want to hear obscure songs when the throngs will only talk through them or use them for a piss break?

B: Regarding your first paragraph I would argue that they already succeeded in doing just that (going to a new level), at least partially. There were moments of danger and brilliance during the Taylor shows. We saw a glimpse of the musical possibilities, and even some of the "tourist" fans were enlightened. They wanted to know who "that guitar player" was.

Fascinating how many people feel better about being fed the same old meal.

It's reasonably fresh compared to what you're trying to sell as a five star dinner which is in fact a cold portion of 40 year old noodles...

Clever, but false. Enjoy the 123,925nd version of Brown Sugar in a stadium Yeah, yeah, yeah, wooh.

It would have been "yeah, yeah, yeah, whoo" with Taylor as well

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Witness

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Witness
I told you: Out of a remnant of an artistic motive!

You misunderstand. I don't disagree, but they feel they have found the winning formula as well as their artistic peak - musically, commercially and pragmatically.

They probably don't even reflect on this, as it is indeed a success for the masses.

What I commented on, your input in the thread then, involved no misunderstanding on my side.

Now you want to change the assumptions.
Very well. It is very probable that they think that they have reached another peak. That does not prevent me and many others from holding that they ought to think otherwise, if they would let themselves be led from a remnant of a real artistic motive.

I thought it was clear that I posted my assumption on why the band chooses to stick with their arrangements on the warhorses.

Obviously, it wasn't that clear... But had you read my previous posts it might have gone without saying?

Again: I think that the Stones are happy with how they play the warhorses, hence they won't do changes.

I have not lately read all the posts in the thread.

I agree that they do not seem to want the way that they play the songs to change. That was my point. I am rather sad about that. To repeat myself: I commented on how they could react if they would be led by a remnant of an artistic motive.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
It would have been "yeah, yeah, yeah, whoo" with Taylor as well

But it could be "yeah (sweet note) yeah (sweet note) yeah (stunning slide) whoo" with Taylor.

peace

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
DandelionPowderman
It would have been "yeah, yeah, yeah, whoo" with Taylor as well

But it could be "yeah (sweet note) yeah (sweet note) yeah (stunning slide) whoo" with Taylor.

peace

I prefer my BS slide-free

Quote
Dreamer
It's reasonably fresh compared to what you're trying to sell as a five star dinner which is in fact a cold portion of 40 year old noodles...

if there was a way to "win" this thread, this comment would've done it!

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
DandelionPowderman
It would have been "yeah, yeah, yeah, whoo" with Taylor as well

But it could be "yeah (sweet note) yeah (sweet note) yeah (stunning slide) whoo" with Taylor.

peace

I prefer my BS slide-free

You prefer a perfect copy of the boring studio version.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
DandelionPowderman
It would have been "yeah, yeah, yeah, whoo" with Taylor as well

But it could be "yeah (sweet note) yeah (sweet note) yeah (stunning slide) whoo" with Taylor.

peace

I prefer my BS slide-free

You prefer a perfect copy of the boring studio version.

There is no boring finished studio version.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
DandelionPowderman
It would have been "yeah, yeah, yeah, whoo" with Taylor as well

But it could be "yeah (sweet note) yeah (sweet note) yeah (stunning slide) whoo" with Taylor.

peace

I prefer my BS slide-free

Well ok but you've heard it plenty of times that way and as a fellow guitar player you've got to admit it could actually work! I can even hear Bobby's sax solo with all those sliding sustained notes mimic'ed by a mid-rangey toned Les Paul. Sweet and refreshingly different......whoo!

peace

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
DandelionPowderman
It would have been "yeah, yeah, yeah, whoo" with Taylor as well

But it could be "yeah (sweet note) yeah (sweet note) yeah (stunning slide) whoo" with Taylor.

peace

I prefer my BS slide-free

You prefer a perfect copy of the boring studio version.

There is no boring finished studio version.

It is things you say like that which prove you are one the smartest people in the room, for a long time now, and that is a serious statement of fact.

Quote
Leonioid

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
DandelionPowderman
It would have been "yeah, yeah, yeah, whoo" with Taylor as well

But it could be "yeah (sweet note) yeah (sweet note) yeah (stunning slide) whoo" with Taylor.

peace

I prefer my BS slide-free

You prefer a perfect copy of the boring studio version.

There is no boring finished studio version.

It is things you say like that which prove you are one the smartest people in the room, for a long time now, and that is a serious statement of fact.

BS would have not been as big a record with slide, I love MT but the production is right on Sticky Fingers..

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Dreamer
It's reasonably fresh compared to what you're trying to sell as a five star dinner which is in fact a cold portion of 40 year old noodles...

lmfao! I may disagree completely but that is a good read!

I would say the proper metaphor is: The Stones have been serving a hot dish of 40 year old noodles at 5 star prices for a while now and since we know a new menu isn't likely, we are just asking for a bit of aged Taylor sauce to spice it up a bit

@Stoneage - Sure we can. I prefer artistic movement over hits any 'ole day and hits in todays market are not really compatible with Stones music. One could argue that hits and intentionally trying to create them are the opposite of artistic movement (there are obviously exceptions).

To paraphrase DP's comment: The Stones have found their commercial peak by exploiting their 40 year old artistic peak. That is the winning formula but it has little to do with artistic creativity in 2015.

The Stones know it...We wouldn't be getting SuperHeavy, a solo record from Keith and side projects from almost every band member if the Stones were truly fulfilling their creative needs. More like the Stones finance the creative needs of it's members.

peace

It's what I always try to offer but fail in achieving frequently.
I do like your metaphor!
By the way few people know how to handle interesting forms of using words like that and just reach the level of asking what's a meta for? On the other hand: asking questions is always interesting and it's mostly the answers that are terrible or lead to terrible things. Trying to prove things can lead to war...
Like your question about an aged MT is valid in itself but the answer...well it probably takes 550 pages to find out there really isn't an overall satisfying answer.
They'll do their best and we have to be happy with that considering their age and capabilities (as long as they'll never imitate and continue as long as CB!). To demand anything more is...less than appropriate or wise.
Even hope is silly in a way... Just take them as they come or stay at home I guess.

Quote
Nikkei

Quote
Dreamer
It's reasonably fresh compared to what you're trying to sell as a five star dinner which is in fact a cold portion of 40 year old noodles...

if there was a way to "win" this thread, this comment would've done it!

Why? If it's supposed to be directed at me, it completely misses my point. The people proferring a stale meal are the Stones themselves, by putting on the same stadium nostalgia show, and the fans who keep consuming the same bland meal, albeit with fewer "noodles".

The "five star dinner" I would like to sell would be completely different. But by all means, continue with the tried, true, and familiar if that satisfies you.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
It would have been "yeah, yeah, yeah, whoo" with Taylor as well

But better guitar, and perhaps we would have some different songs to go with the yaeah, yeah, yeah, wooh.