For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
DandelionPowderman
It's hard to top early 70s Santana. Then again, it's hard to top early 70s Taylor
no offense but I believe that's all jagger has done his whole career is take risks with bs and star star etc.Quote
kleermakerQuote
Stoneburst
There is no evidence for this having been a band decision. If anything, quite the opposite, since
a) Keith appeared to know very little about the situation
b) Ronnie had Taylor playing on stage with him last month
c) since when did Charlie ever get involved in this stuff?
All true. Formally it's a band decision, but in fact it's Jagger who has decided this. And it has nothing to do with any health issue.
My intuïtion tells me that Jagger knows that dragging Taylor around for only one song (MR or whatever) during a Sticky Fingers Tour is impossible and at the same time he isn't willing to change things. He's conservative as an artist, not wanting to take any risk, just serving the public what he thinks it likes, preserving the brand of the band as it is since the prehistory.
Quote
LuxuryStonesQuote
DandelionPowderman
It's hard to top early 70s Santana. Then again, it's hard to top early 70s Taylor
Santana's contributions with John McLaughlin are a pain in the arse, imo.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
LuxuryStonesQuote
DandelionPowderman
It's hard to top early 70s Santana. Then again, it's hard to top early 70s Taylor
Santana's contributions with John McLaughlin are a pain in the arse, imo.
That's mid-70s. Try Santana III.
Quote
palerider22
Check this list out...We 'Taylorites' all know what we're talking about!
Quote
LuxuryStonesQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
LuxuryStonesQuote
DandelionPowderman
It's hard to top early 70s Santana. Then again, it's hard to top early 70s Taylor
Santana's contributions with John McLaughlin are a pain in the arse, imo.
That's mid-70s. Try Santana III.
Love Devotion Surrender was 1973. The Guru era. I heard almost everything coming from Santana. Apart from some hits, like "she's not there" and a few others, he never moved me. He always sounds like he's feeling nervous.
A matter os taste of course.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
LuxuryStonesQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
LuxuryStonesQuote
DandelionPowderman
It's hard to top early 70s Santana. Then again, it's hard to top early 70s Taylor
Santana's contributions with John McLaughlin are a pain in the arse, imo.
That's mid-70s. Try Santana III.
Love Devotion Surrender was 1973. The Guru era. I heard almost everything coming from Santana. Apart from some hits, like "she's not there" and a few others, he never moved me. He always sounds like he's feeling nervous.
A matter os taste of course.
Yeah, but he had already lost a bit by then, imo.
Not much "nervousness" to spot here. Only feeling and sheer beauty, imo:
Quote
kevinkamphuisQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
LuxuryStonesQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
LuxuryStonesQuote
DandelionPowderman
It's hard to top early 70s Santana. Then again, it's hard to top early 70s Taylor
Santana's contributions with John McLaughlin are a pain in the arse, imo.
That's mid-70s. Try Santana III.
Love Devotion Surrender was 1973. The Guru era. I heard almost everything coming from Santana. Apart from some hits, like "she's not there" and a few others, he never moved me. He always sounds like he's feeling nervous.
A matter os taste of course.
Yeah, but he had already lost a bit by then, imo.
Not much "nervousness" to spot here. Only feeling and sheer beauty, imo:
Nice guitar playing by Neal Schon!
Quote
MCDDTLC
Hey All,
Been thinking about this situation alot and here is my latest take on what's Jagger's motivation for not including Taylor on this short Tour. I think
MJ is testing Taylor as a sort of re-initiation into the Stones...
Throw a little curve at him and see how he reacts, remember it was Taylor who had
the leverage back in 1974, Stones needed him more than he needed the Stones at that time, and Taylor's decision that Keith couldn't last much longer at the pace he was going and no Keith, no Stones.. plus the writing credit situation..
Now Jagger and the Stones have all the leverage and MJ is showing it..
at least I hope this is what's going on....
MLC
Quote
71TeleQuote
MCDDTLC
Hey All,
Been thinking about this situation alot and here is my latest take on what's Jagger's motivation for not including Taylor on this short Tour. I think
MJ is testing Taylor as a sort of re-initiation into the Stones...
Throw a little curve at him and see how he reacts, remember it was Taylor who had
the leverage back in 1974, Stones needed him more than he needed the Stones at that time, and Taylor's decision that Keith couldn't last much longer at the pace he was going and no Keith, no Stones.. plus the writing credit situation..
Now Jagger and the Stones have all the leverage and MJ is showing it..
at least I hope this is what's going on....
MLC
I think it's simpler than that: They have a set formula that's worked for decades. Changing things up in a way that truly incorporates Taylor would not produce a payoff worth the extra effort and time needed to pull it off properly, hence Taylor's inclusion is seen more of a complication than an opportunity.
Quote
MCDDTLC
Hey All,
Been thinking about this situation alot and here is my latest take on what's Jagger's motivation for not including Taylor on this short Tour. I think
MJ is testing Taylor as a sort of re-initiation into the Stones...
Throw a little curve at him and see how he reacts, remember it was Taylor who had
the leverage back in 1974, Stones needed him more than he needed the Stones at that time, and Taylor's decision that Keith couldn't last much longer at the pace he was going and no Keith, no Stones.. plus the writing credit situation..
Now Jagger and the Stones have all the leverage and MJ is showing it..
at least I hope this is what's going on....
MLC
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
71TeleQuote
MCDDTLC
Hey All,
Been thinking about this situation alot and here is my latest take on what's Jagger's motivation for not including Taylor on this short Tour. I think
MJ is testing Taylor as a sort of re-initiation into the Stones...
Throw a little curve at him and see how he reacts, remember it was Taylor who had
the leverage back in 1974, Stones needed him more than he needed the Stones at that time, and Taylor's decision that Keith couldn't last much longer at the pace he was going and no Keith, no Stones.. plus the writing credit situation..
Now Jagger and the Stones have all the leverage and MJ is showing it..
at least I hope this is what's going on....
MLC
I think it's simpler than that: They have a set formula that's worked for decades. Changing things up in a way that truly incorporates Taylor would not produce a payoff worth the extra effort and time needed to pull it off properly, hence Taylor's inclusion is seen more of a complication than an opportunity.
A combination of not wanting to be dependent on Taylor musically and economics would be my guess.
Quote
lem motlow
i can kind of tell the songs the two micks wrote together,i'm sure they're mostly on goats head but can someone give me the full rundown that you know of.
the taylorites should have a hard and fast list i would think.i'm almost positive they did time waits for no one together,which by the way i still cant believe stones fans dont drool over.
its literally one of the best songs i've ever heard.
Quote
Stoneburst
Lem: the tracks that were just Jagger and Taylor collaborating in the studio without Keith are Sway, Stop Breaking Down (well, the arrangement is theirs) and Winter. Hide Your Love sounds like it might be the two of them as well: I can neither hear Keith playing on it nor imagine he'd have had much interest in such an obvious vehicle for Taylor's soloing. He does play on Time Waits For No One, though.
From the outtakes, I once heard it suggested - can't remember where - that Jagger and Taylor came up with Travelin' Man together. It doesn't sound likely, but who knows.
Quote
TravelinMan
Did Keith play on both versions of Signifying? Or any?