Another MR - 2014-05-26 Telenor Arena Oslo video: [www.youtube.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-04-25 12:57 by Heart for Stones.

Quote
RomanCandle
chuck has a lame style? well I would say no style at all

He has ruined the band with his terrible plink, plink

Quote
mtaylor

Quote
RomanCandle
chuck has a lame style? well I would say no style at all

He has ruined the band with his terrible plink, plink

Not to get OT here, but I thought we agreed he was just doing what he was told and Mick needed him to do what he does. I get the fact that a lot of folks don't like his keyboard sound but both him and Darryl seem to be handcuffed somewhat musically speaking. I can only imagine if he was playing with the Stones during the years Nicky did, he would have a better place in the mix and have contributed more stylistically solid piano parts.

Basically I think part of the issue is how the Stones utilize their support musicians. And blaming one side man for ruining the band seems a bit narrow.

peace

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
mtaylor

Quote
RomanCandle
chuck has a lame style? well I would say no style at all

He has ruined the band with his terrible plink, plink

Not to get OT here, but I thought we agreed he was just doing what he was told and Mick needed him to do what he does. I get the fact that a lot of folks don't like his keyboard sound but both him and Darryl seem to be handcuffed somewhat musically speaking. I can only imagine if he was playing with the Stones during the years Nicky did, he would have a better place in the mix and have contributed more stylistically solid piano parts.

Basically I think part of the issue is how the Stones utilize their support musicians. And blaming one side man for ruining the band seems a bit narrow.

peace

Your completely right Naruralust......he would have fit in the Stones back in the 70's and still does (Pity the sound isn't right of the clip below)





__________________________

I blame Mick since it's his extended solo tour since 1989. He doesn't interact with the others really. I get it, with the dancing and the vocals that I don't care for, those over pronounced singing that is the opposite of what made him special. He does his show, he is Peter Pan, he does that weird fast dance, he is not the rambler anymore.

Quote
Redhotcarpet
I blame Mick since it's his extended solo tour since 1989. He doesn't interact with the others really. I get it, with the dancing and the vocals that I don't care for, those over pronounced singing that is the opposite of what made him special. He does his show, he is Peter Pan, he does that weird fast dance, he is not the rambler anymore.

You should blame KR actually: he made MJ take charge of everything and if MJ didn't do that the way he did they would not be touring today as the Rolling Stones.
But I understand you hate MJ and love KR & MT: yeah it sure is a Peter Pan thing alright!

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
mtaylor

Quote
RomanCandle
chuck has a lame style? well I would say no style at all

He has ruined the band with his terrible plink, plink

Not to get OT here, but I thought we agreed he was just doing what he was told and Mick needed him to do what he does. I get the fact that a lot of folks don't like his keyboard sound but both him and Darryl seem to be handcuffed somewhat musically speaking. I can only imagine if he was playing with the Stones during the years Nicky did, he would have a better place in the mix and have contributed more stylistically solid piano parts.

Basically I think part of the issue is how the Stones utilize their support musicians. And blaming one side man for ruining the band seems a bit narrow.

peace

Both yes and no.

Playing piano, which I do myself, is a matter of style and here I like and prefer the style from the early 80'ies and before much better than now. Listen to Stu / Nicky and compare it to Chuck "plastic piano style". It is a joy to listen to Stu / Nicky, not to Chuck.

I do agree that Stones as a band has changed quite much. But, it is coinciding with the arrival of Chuck / Matt and the MJ solo career. As a band, they have become quite artificial and programmed.

The spontanity has gone, and there I am sure Chuck has an impact. He wants to be in charge of the songs being played, the style / orchestration and has probably convinced Jagger that he is the one to take care of "arranging Stones music" and he is better than Keith. Americanized / mainstream / crowd pleasing music.

Just a few examples of the artificial and programmed behaviour: Darryl's solo on Miss You is terrible to see. It is like: Darryl plays his 45-60 seconds bass solo, everybody looks very impressed and then the MJ, KR, RW go the catwalk shake hands, laugh a bit and run back.

Chuck, he has to put his feet on the keyboard on the end of HTW while the camera records it and the same with Lisa doing her dancing.... funny, funny....

There is no improvisation.... and this has been going on since the late 80'ies, when Chuck / Matt took over.

Chuck played differently and better on the 1982 tour, though. He had a different role back then.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-04-25 23:26 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
mtaylor
Chuck, he has to put his feet on the keyboard on the end of HTW while the camera records it and the same with Lisa doing her dancing.... funny, funny....

The Foot-on-the-Keys thing seriously has to stop. That used to be funny when he had Keith back there.

Quote
mtaylor

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
mtaylor

Quote
RomanCandle
chuck has a lame style? well I would say no style at all

He has ruined the band with his terrible plink, plink

Not to get OT here, but I thought we agreed he was just doing what he was told and Mick needed him to do what he does. I get the fact that a lot of folks don't like his keyboard sound but both him and Darryl seem to be handcuffed somewhat musically speaking. I can only imagine if he was playing with the Stones during the years Nicky did, he would have a better place in the mix and have contributed more stylistically solid piano parts.

Basically I think part of the issue is how the Stones utilize their support musicians. And blaming one side man for ruining the band seems a bit narrow.

peace

Both yes and no.

Playing piano, which I do myself, is a matter of style and here I like and prefer the style from the early 80'ies and before much better than now. Listen to Stu / Nicky and compare it to Chuck "plastic piano style". It is a joy to listen to Stu / Nicky, not to Chuck.

I do agree that Stones as a band has changed quite much. But, it is coinciding with the arrival of Chuck / Matt and the MJ solo career. As a band, they have become quite artificial and programmed.

The spontanity has gone, and there I am sure Chuck has an impact. He wants to be in charge of the songs being played, the style / orchestration and has probably convinced Jagger that he is the one to take care of "arranging Stones music" and he is better than Keith. Americanized / mainstream / crowd pleasing music.

Just a few examples of the artificial and programmed behaviour: Darryl's solo on Miss You is terrible to see. It is like: Darryl plays his 45-60 seconds bass solo, everybody looks very impressed and then the MJ, KR, RW go the catwalk shake hands, laugh a bit and run back.

Chuck, he has to put his feet on the keyboard on the end of HTW while the camera records it and the same with Lisa doing her dancing.... funny, funny....

There is no improvisation.... and this has been going on since the late 80'ies, when Chuck / Matt took over.

Or Keith will lean on Darryl's shoulder with a big smile. Not to maintain the O/T with the keys but, talented as he is, Chuck's "soul factor" takes a back seat to being Musical Director. It would be great to see the Stones work without the Chuck safety net and have somebody like this occasionally:

Quote
mtaylor

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
mtaylor

Quote
RomanCandle
chuck has a lame style? well I would say no style at all

He has ruined the band with his terrible plink, plink

Not to get OT here, but I thought we agreed he was just doing what he was told and Mick needed him to do what he does. I get the fact that a lot of folks don't like his keyboard sound but both him and Darryl seem to be handcuffed somewhat musically speaking. I can only imagine if he was playing with the Stones during the years Nicky did, he would have a better place in the mix and have contributed more stylistically solid piano parts.

Basically I think part of the issue is how the Stones utilize their support musicians. And blaming one side man for ruining the band seems a bit narrow.

peace

Both yes and no.

Playing piano, which I do myself, is a matter of style and here I like and prefer the style from the early 80'ies and before much better than now. Listen to Stu / Nicky and compare it to Chuck "plastic piano style". It is a joy to listen to Stu / Nicky, not to Chuck.

I do agree that Stones as a band has changed quite much. But, it is coinciding with the arrival of Chuck / Matt and the MJ solo career. As a band, they have become quite artificial and programmed.

The spontanity has gone, and there I am sure Chuck has an impact. He wants to be in charge of the songs being played, the style / orchestration and has probably convinced Jagger that he is the one to take care of "arranging Stones music" and he is better than Keith. Americanized / mainstream / crowd pleasing music.

Just a few examples of the artificial and programmed behaviour: Darryl's solo on Miss You is terrible to see. It is like: Darryl plays his 45-60 seconds bass solo, everybody looks very impressed and then the MJ, KR, RW go the catwalk shake hands, laugh a bit and run back.

Chuck, he has to put his feet on the keyboard on the end of HTW while the camera records it and the same with Lisa doing her dancing.... funny, funny....

There is no improvisation.... and this has been going on since the late 80'ies, when Chuck / Matt took over.

I understand what you're saying and agree for the most part...while Keith was the defacto musical leader for the most part in the bands middling years you've got to give him some of the onus for giving it up. I'm sure if he told Chuck, we're going to play this song at this tempo and add another break, Chuck would probably just comply, write it all down in his book and off they go. Plus Keith's memory probably isn't what it used to be and he's so used to someone taking care of his every need it was probably not a bit stretch to see how he has given up things like keeping track of all the arrangements, etc. He has a hard enough time keeping track of the intro's.

Mick just probably got tired of the Keith's lack of consistent tempos and such...which he understandably needs to sing properly. It has been suggested that Mick completely keys off reliable, consistent Chuck these days...makes sense to me. I doubt Chuck wants to be the leader, he is just doing his job of pleasing Mick as best he can. Mick and Keith both probably very much appreciate his organizational, arranging and historical skills. That stuff isn't always the most fun part of a band and it allows them both more energy to perform.

And while there is no real improvisation (except solos) or adventurous arrangements, they still have a style which allows quite a bit of looseness within the songs. Not really improv in the true sense but small bits of phrases and fills which aren't completely solid. Space where is wasn't last time and changing rhythm accents. You do get the feeling they are still listening to each other and playing off one another, one of the things that make them great. Although, it would be nice to see some change in the performance aspects from tour to tour.

But hey, since Chuck is the musical director these days, maybe he made the decision to exclude MT.. That would certainly give the many Taylor fans who dislike Chuck's playing something to squawk about! LOL

peace

Quote
Dreamer

Quote
Redhotcarpet
I blame Mick since it's his extended solo tour since 1989. He doesn't interact with the others really. I get it, with the dancing and the vocals that I don't care for, those over pronounced singing that is the opposite of what made him special. He does his show, he is Peter Pan, he does that weird fast dance, he is not the rambler anymore.

You should blame KR actually: he made MJ take charge of everything and if MJ didn't do that the way he did they would not be touring today as the Rolling Stones.
But I understand you hate MJ and love KR & MT: yeah it sure is a Peter Pan thing alright!

LOL what?? I dont hate Mick Jagger!

Quote
Nikkei

Quote
mtaylor
Chuck, he has to put his feet on the keyboard on the end of HTW while the camera records it and the same with Lisa doing her dancing.... funny, funny....

The Foot-on-the-Keys thing seriously has to stop. That used to be funny when he had Keith back there.

No it wasnt funny either, it was just embarrassing.

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
Nikkei

Quote
mtaylor
Chuck, he has to put his feet on the keyboard on the end of HTW while the camera records it and the same with Lisa doing her dancing.... funny, funny....

The Foot-on-the-Keys thing seriously has to stop. That used to be funny when he had Keith back there.

No it wasnt funny either, it was just embarrassing.

Say what you will, but my parents had me take piano lessons back then and it felt encouraging to see Keith doing it

Back to Chuck. More chuckles. People who don't like his playing are told it's not his fault because he's doing the job he's paid to do. I accept that as a reason he sounds bland and soulless, but whatever the reason, he still sounds bland and soulless. I have a few thoughts about a legendary band who jetisons a great former member but keeps an uninspired sideman, but I will save them for the next Chuck thread.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-04-26 00:47 by 71Tele.

bv shoulda let this thread RIP...
First it's about supporting MT.. now (and throughout) it's about bashing the others.

The anti-fan thread.

I imagine an interview with Mick Jagger ...
Because not there is Mick Taylor on this tour ?
Answer: simple, M. Taylor is not a rolling stones! The Rolling Stones I am, Keith, Charlie and Ronnie.

everything's turning to gold

Quote
MisterDDDD
bv shoulda let this thread RIP...
First it's about supporting MT.. now (and throughout) it's about bashing the others.

The anti-fan thread.

No, the critical fan thread. There are many fanboy threads to look at if you don't like this one.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-04-26 01:23 by 71Tele.

Quote
71Tele
I have a few thoughts about a legendary band who jetisons a great former member but keeps an uninspired sideman, but I will save them for the next Chuck thread.

Well you and Chuck have something in common Tele, you are both consistent.

I keep asking myself "What does Mick Taylor have to offer the Stones, and specifically Mick, that would make him invaluable enough to keep around?"

The main thing, of course, is a musical improvement and either they don't think he improves the music or they don't care if the music improves.

The other thing is more ticket sales and I'm not sure that really matters since they are performing for guarantees.

He may have had some value as insurance against Keith or Ronnie not playing well but that doesn't seem to be a significant issue right now and I believe the loss of Keith or Ronnie for even one show would result in a cancellation.

Whatever, still hoping for an unannounced appearance early on that goes so well he stays on for the rest of the shows.

peace

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
71Tele
I have a few thoughts about a legendary band who jetisons a great former member but keeps an uninspired sideman, but I will save them for the next Chuck thread.

Well you and Chuck have something in common Tele, you are both consistent.

I keep asking myself "What does Mick Taylor have to offer the Stones, and specifically Mick, that would make him invaluable enough to keep around?"

The main thing, of course, is a musical improvement and either they don't think he improves the music or they don't care if the music improves.

The other thing is more ticket sales and I'm not sure that really matters since they are performing for guarantees.

He may have had some value as insurance against Keith or Ronnie not playing well but that doesn't seem to be a significant issue right now and I believe the loss of Keith or Ronnie for even one show would result in a cancellation.

Whatever, still hoping for an unannounced appearance early on that goes so well he stays on for the rest of the shows.

peace

They are not interested in musical improvement because there is no payoff, and the additional ticket sales would be negligible at the level they're at (stadiums). But I admire your optimism. Wish I could share it.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
MisterDDDD
bv shoulda let this thread RIP...
First it's about supporting MT.. now (and throughout) it's about bashing the others.

The anti-fan thread.

No, the critical fan thread. There are many fanboy threads to look at if you don't like this one.

Heavy on the critical.
Gotcha.

Quote
MisterDDDD

Quote
71Tele

Quote
MisterDDDD
bv shoulda let this thread RIP...
First it's about supporting MT.. now (and throughout) it's about bashing the others.

The anti-fan thread.

No, the critical fan thread. There are many fanboy threads to look at if you don't like this one.

Heavy on the critical.
Gotcha.

There are some people who can't stand any criticism of the Stones or anything they do, I get that. There are other people for whom being a fan means not suspending one's critical faculties. Otherwise it's just "go team!". The Rolling Stones set a very high standard from about 1964 to 1981, and it's natural that when they decided to basically become a Nostalgia Entertainment Conglomerate rather than living, breathing artists, that some of us would notice. So, do you still buy it every time Keith talks about "seeing how far this thing can go" and "getting the boys back in the studio", stuff he's been saying for about twenty years? Because at a certain point it is difficult to ignore how statements like that and objective reality diverge.

If you honestly believe that The Rolling Stones haven't put out or on anything of high value since 1981, then you need to be honest and call yourself what you clearly are.. a former fan. Just like Taylor is a former member.

No shame in admitting it.

Quote
Naturalust

But hey, since Chuck is the musical director these days, maybe he made the decision to exclude MT.. That would certainly give the many Taylor fans who dislike Chuck's playing something to squawk about! LOL

peace

Yes, it certainly would. But it seems the opposite. Chuck in some interview credited himself for that night in California where they finally played CYHMK and SWAY (in addition to Satisfaction and Midnight Rambler with Taylor). He specifically stated he thought to give Taylor some room to stretch out (or words to that end). I think it was implicit he had Jagger's approval.....but then ...something..I don't know what...happened.. Probably just became clear Taylor would've become a considerable factor if that had kept up.

Quote
MisterDDDD
If you honestly believe that The Rolling Stones haven't put out or on anything of high value since 1981, then you need to be honest and call yourself what you clearly are.. a former fan. Just like Taylor is a former member.

No shame in admitting it.

I didn't say "of any value" - you did. I said they created a high standard from 1964 to about 1981. Now, we can disagree about that but don't put words in my mouth.

Notice all those post-1981 songs in their sets? Yeah, neither did I, so maybe my opinion is more on par with that of the band members - former or present.

Quote
MisterDDDD
If you honestly believe that The Rolling Stones haven't put out or on anything of high value since 1981, then you need to be honest and call yourself what you clearly are.. a former fan. Just like Taylor is a former member.

No shame in admitting it.

I'm not sure there's a litmus test. Perhaps for you there is, but not for others. I must've read a hundred "I hate Miss You", "Wish they wouldn't play Miss You" etc. on many of the "positive" threads here... without attendant drama they would say such a thing. Face it.. There's a very good reason Crossfire Hurricane basically comes to a screeching halt halfway through Stones "history". Some of us may (or may not) sit on our hands when it comes to forking over cash for new product if its not what we might hope for...and yes, there is no shame in admitting that. I suppose I should add I have ABB in my collection. There's a couple of songs on it that I like.. so, to me, I am a fan. A Fan that would like to see more collaboration with Taylor.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-04-26 02:29 by SweetThing.

Taylor needs to take the bull by the horns and capitalize on the past few years. Damn, if I toured with the Stones for 2-3 years as a former member, I'd milk it dry. I still say Taylor blew a big opportunity by not selling merchandise at the shows he played at as a "special guest/former band member". He had a prime opportunity to re-establish his "brand". I find it hard to believe that his artistic side didn't feel stifled while he was touring the world as the "Midnight Rambler Special Guest displaying his death-defying feats"for our entertainment.

Quote
SweetThing

Quote
Naturalust

But hey, since Chuck is the musical director these days, maybe he made the decision to exclude MT.. That would certainly give the many Taylor fans who dislike Chuck's playing something to squawk about! LOL

peace

Yes, it certainly would. But it seems the opposite. Chuck in some interview credited himself for that night in California where they finally played CYHMK and SWAY (in addition to Satisfaction and Midnight Rambler with Taylor). He specifically stated he thought to give Taylor some room to stretch out (or words to that end). I think it was implicit he had Jagger's approval.....but then ...something..I don't know what...happened.. Probably just became clear Taylor would've become a considerable factor if that had kept up.

That very likely is the actual reason and the Stones quite obviously are not interested in leaving their comfort zone. Can't really blame them. The older you get the less tolerance you have with someone messing with your routine. But they seemed to enjoy it when they did. They just don't seem to want to let loose. I think the audience, young or old, would give them credit if they did.
I think someone at Stones HQ don't give us enough credit....

Quote
bleedingman
Taylor needs to take the bull by the horns and capitalize on the past few years. Damn, if I toured with the Stones for 2-3 years as a former member, I'd milk it dry. I still say Taylor blew a big opportunity by not selling merchandise at the shows he played at as a "special guest/former band member". He had a prime opportunity to re-establish his "brand". I find it hard to believe that his artistic side didn't feel stifled while he was touring the world as the "Midnight Rambler Special Guest displaying his death-defying feats"for our entertainment.

At the 2nd Chicago show in 2013, I saw a guy with a very nice looking black t-shirt that said something like "The Rolling Stones 50th Anniversary Tour featuring Mick Taylor". Obviously not official, but could have fooled me.

I've been searching MR from the last tour, there are some amazing Taylor moments. Every one is different, MT really dared them to be adventurous, the band was not up for it. Chuck, I'll never figure out but the criticism is fair. This show is designed for seeing once, those that follow the tour should accept that and not get irked by redundancy.