I also had the feeling of getting too attached to having Mick Taylor around. Knew it would upset me when he left again, and it did. It's difficult to accept Mick or all The Stones don't want him in the picture, but after all it's their band and they've done a great job up to now so I guess they know what they're doing. Anyhow, I'm sure the tour will be a great success and we'll all move on.

Quote
Green Lady
kleermaker, I think the quote Dandy has in mind is this:

People who really care about the music won't go to a RS stadium show. Unless Taylor has a substantial musical role of course.

If this doesn't mean that anybody who is willing to attend a stadium show without Taylor doesn't really care about the music, then what does it mean? Perhaps that's not what you meant to say, but that's how it comes across, and I can see why Dandy might feel offended. I'm really posting this so that he knows he isn't the only one who finds the Taylorite attitude of moral and musical superiority irritating.

You and others here are so disappointed by Mick Taylor's absence that for you it isn't worth going to the show at all. It's a decision I respect, but much as I enjoyed having him around, I can live without him. You can't: fine by me, but why do you have to sneer at the rest of us?

And now, since I'm a 60+ Brian era fan, I really do have to take my meds.

+1 Well said

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I am following several communities. I KNOW that many Brian era fans in that age group go to the shows. And keep in mind fans of the Taylor era don't put the music first any more than fans of any era.

It is possible to love all the eras AND to put the music first.

It is the lack of adventurousness and the safe setlists people worry about when it comes to the musical experience, not first and foremost if Taylor is there, although most fans would like to see him there.

It's a long way from that to boycott your favourite band because of this. I think many posters here wrongly equal the lack of taking risks with omitting Taylor. He has already proved that he could gel in nicely. He didn't turn anything upside down for good or bad.

Kleerie said that the fans who love Taylor the most are the ones that put the music first. That's ludicrous.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Kleerie said that the fans who love Taylor the most are the ones that put the music first. That's ludicrous.

Every Taylor fan, any musician's fan actually, puts the music first I hope.

I don't think any of you would deny that an awful lot of Stones fans ostensibly prefer Wood to Taylor primarily on the grounds that he 'looks like a Stone'. So, yes, there are fans for whom the music is a secondary consideration.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-05-03 21:18 by Stoneburst.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
It is the lack of adventurousness and the safe setlists people worry about when it comes to the musical experience, not first and foremost if Taylor is there, although most fans would like to see him there.
...
I think many posters here wrongly equal the lack of taking risks with omitting Taylor. He has already proved that he could gel in nicely. He didn't turn anything upside down for good or bad.

Good analysis. However, both aspects are connected. Concerning the lack of adventurousness and safe setlists, I think the inclusion of Taylor since 2012 was the last straw of hope for many that things would change, if not suddenly, then at least gradually. At least it looked like this for a short period of time (remember the enthusiastic "three guitar attack"-discussions right here on this board?), but instead things gradually went "back to normal", to the more or less same procedure as ... since I don't know when.

The thing is - not inviting Taylor for this ZipCode-thing more or less equals "the last straw of hope for any significant change in their routine finally gone". That's what's so depressing about this situation.

Lots of their most adventurous music was done with Brian. Just saying.

If people wanna hear Paint It Black instead of 100 Years Ago they can perfectly well put the music first. I think that is unfathomable for some Taylor fans, but it doesn't make it untrue, nor are those fans less concerned about the music.

I'm perfectly fine with Taylor not being there considering how underutilized he was for the shows in 2014. It's a shame that they may spotlight an album whose sound owes so much to him. Such is life.

Quote
Stoneburst
I don't think any of you would deny that there are an awful lot of Stones fans who ostensibly prefer Wood to Taylor primarily on the grounds that he 'looks like a Stone'. So, yes, there are fans for whom the music is a secondary consideration.

Yes, I know quite some people that visited a Stones show to see them, regardless the quality of the music. It's called entertainment, nothing wrong with that.

Definitely Ronnie fits the Stones image better than MT. But having them both together was a bonus I wish could continue. And I agree with the analysis about the last chance for any big change in direction. I think that bothers some of us because we want more.

Quote
Green Lady
kleermaker, I think the quote Dandy has in mind is this:

People who really care about the music won't go to a RS stadium show. Unless Taylor has a substantial musical role of course.

If this doesn't mean that anybody who is willing to attend a stadium show without Taylor doesn't really care about the music, then what does it mean? Perhaps that's not what you meant to say, but that's how it comes across, and I can see why Dandy might feel offended. I'm really posting this so that he knows he isn't the only one who finds the Taylorite attitude of moral and musical superiority irritating.

You and others here are so disappointed by Mick Taylor's absence that for you it isn't worth going to the show at all. It's a decision I respect, but much as I enjoyed having him around, I can live without him. You can't: fine by me, but why do you have to sneer at the rest of us?

And now, since I'm a 60+ Brian era fan, I really do have to take my meds.

All speculation and wrong interpretation, perhaps or probably provoked by your irritation. I also could have written: "People who really care about the music won't go to a RS stadium show. Unless the Rolling Stones are musically interesting." Which they are not and because it has been proven that they can be with Taylor I added instead: "Unless Taylor has a substantial musical role." That could of course also have been another great musician. But I don't know his name.

So the word "people" in my sentence is not to be replaced with "fans who love Taylor", like DP wrongly concluded (adding a psychiatric diagnosis on me, which is, well, not very polite, don't you think?), but with 'people who put the music at the first place'. It's a matter of reading properly instead of substituting my words with your own thoughts and feelings, obviously dominated by irritation.

Secondly I'm not at all disappointed by Taylor's absence, as you suggest without any ground. Of course it would be nice, but I've followed the celebration tour for some years and I'm no fool. It would have surprised me enormously if Taylor were invited for this new American tour in the first place and even more if he would get a bigger role in it. So you see that thinking for another person isn't very fruitful. One can learn something everyday, even at your age.

I've been twice at a Stones show since 1973, in 1976 and 1981, and I didn't enjoy it very much. The last time in a stadium I even disliked it. I also wouldn't go if Taylor only played on one song as he did the last years (only one or two songs extra by surprise, totally unpredictably and just a very few times).

Do you really think I'm disappointed about Stones shows for such a long time? Come on, you can say what you want about me, but I'm no fool. One only can be disappointed when there are at least realistic expectations. I didn't have them from 1981 on and I don't have them since it became very obvious that Taylor's role never would get any real substance. Which already became clear during the American leg of the celebration tour in 2013!

And now you accuse me of sneering at "the rest of us". Which I never did. I wish all who go to one of the RS shows in the US or whereever a very pleasant time.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-05-03 16:18 by kleermaker.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Lots of their most adventurous music was done with Brian. Just saying.

If people wanna hear Paint It Black instead of 100 Years Ago they can perfectly well put the music first. I think that is unfathomable for some Taylor fans, but it doesn't make it untrue, nor are those fans less concerned about the music.

It's a bit like comparing apples to oranges. Since 1989, we had oh so many (how many?) appearances of Paint It Black in the setlist which of course turned this great tune into an autopilot thing and, excactly, how many of 100 Years Ago? Apart from that, I don't think Brian era fans would be all too confused if they would play, let's say, Out Of Time instead of Paint It Black every once in while.

It's not that the Stones have only a limited catalog of 20 great songs to choose from. Would it really hurt if they drop It's Only Rock 'n' Roll every once in a while and play Star Star instead, a similar Berry-style rocker?

I stay by my words that without Taylor, the chances for any significant change of their routine have become almost nil. Brian is, as you might know, not available for obvious reasons. Apart from that, some decent solo guitar on GS, Sympathy, All Down The Line for example surely can't hurt.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-05-03 16:20 by alimente.

I agree with this, alimente. But I suspect that Out Of Time without Taylor wouldn't do it for many in this thread.

And many fans simply can't fathom it if they omit some of their greatest songs. They care just as much about the music as the ones who are tired of the warhorses.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-05-03 17:08 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
Witness
I am another fan with origin in the Brian era.

If available, I would like to go to one more show in their unchanged format, but only one. In case, I would probably be both frustrated and to a certain extent satisfied by such a concert.

To want to go to more than one show, I need some change. Either

a) a completely changed setlist, with 25 of their most usual live songs left out, or

b) after having made another studio album of new material, at least 5 songs from that album included in setlists, or

c) integrate Mick Taylor in the live band to play on all songs of unchanged setlists, and then they would not have to leave out any song to make me musically happy.

That is a measure of what Mick Taylor may supply to me.

That's some list, Witness...hey, let me know when you here back from them. I'll wait right here.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Green Lady
kleermaker, I think the quote Dandy has in mind is this:

People who really care about the music won't go to a RS stadium show. Unless Taylor has a substantial musical role of course.

If this doesn't mean that anybody who is willing to attend a stadium show without Taylor doesn't really care about the music, then what does it mean? Perhaps that's not what you meant to say, but that's how it comes across, and I can see why Dandy might feel offended. I'm really posting this so that he knows he isn't the only one who finds the Taylorite attitude of moral and musical superiority irritating.

You and others here are so disappointed by Mick Taylor's absence that for you it isn't worth going to the show at all. It's a decision I respect, but much as I enjoyed having him around, I can live without him. You can't: fine by me, but why do you have to sneer at the rest of us?

And now, since I'm a 60+ Brian era fan, I really do have to take my meds.

All speculation and wrong interpretation, perhaps or probably provoked by your irritation. I also could have written: "People who really care about the music won't go to a RS stadium show. Unless the Rolling Stones are musically interesting." Which they are not and because it has been proven that they can be with Taylor I added instead: "Unless Taylor has a substantial musical role." That could of course also have been another great musician. But I don't know his name.

So the word "people" in my sentence is not to be replaced with "fans who love Taylor", like DP wrongly concluded (adding a psychiatric diagnosis on me, which is, well, not very polite, don't you think?), but with 'people who put the music at the first place'. It's a matter of reading properly instead of substituting my words with your own thoughts and feelings, obviously dominated by irritation.

Secondly I'm not at all disappointed by Taylor's absence, as you suggest without any ground. Of course it would be nice, but I've followed the celebration tour for some years and I'm no fool. It would have surprised me enormously if Taylor were invited for this new American tour in the first place and even more if he would get a bigger role in it. So you see that thinking for another person isn't very fruitful. One can learn something everyday, even at your age.

I've been twice at a Stones show since 1973, in 1976 and 1981, and I didn't enjoy it very much. The last time in a stadium I even disliked it. I also wouldn't go if Taylor only played on one song as he did the last years (only one or two songs extra by surprise, totally unpredictably and just a very few times).

Do you really think I'm disappointed about Stones shows for such a long time? Come on, you can say what you want about me, but I'm no fool. One only can be disappointed when there are at least realistic expectations. I didn't have them from 1981 on and I don't have them since it became very obvious that Taylor's role never would get any real substance. Which already became clear during the American leg of the celebration tour in 2013!

And now you accuse me of sneering at "the rest of us". Which I never did. I wish all who go to one of the RS shows in the US or whereever a very pleasant time.

kleermaker: I accept that you didn't intend to say what I thought you said in that sentence. I misunderstood a statement that was open to misunderstanding, and heard an insult where none was intended. I likewise wish you a very pleasant time listening to your Taylor era material, but the next time the band comes within range, I will be there - even at my age.

i do find it annoying those posters saying to lock this thread up.

Its a stones forum, this thread is about M Taylor and that entails. If you dont like reading this particular thread (The ONLY allowed Taylor thread btw..), rather than ask for it to be locked with the amount of posters as justification for this, your probly better off looking at the oodles of other threads on iorr.

sadly how it is at this point in time is these points

the band are old
only do a max few weeks of pracky before touring
play to the same standard formulaic template
play the same 15 songs every tour (plus the odd rare/novelty song or 2)
don't mix it up musicly as indivual players outside of a few toe dips in the water

Its more about the 'event/high energy performance/show' rather than the quality of the music and pushing themselves. Everyone acting their parts and doing so with 40+ years of playing that part already behind them, a few nods of yeah to each other a few strutts around, a fag in the mouth, the elegantly wasted look.

I do find that tedious and formulaic, abit false, altho as a performace it defo has its place and is important. The addition of the Taylor element brought the unexpected, excitement, danger, power, daring, true arrogance, justified swagger. this is what i miss

It's alittle like wtahcing the same stage show for the last 20 years, yeah its great but it could be so much more. i've watched every performance of Taylor i could find from every gig he's played with the Stones since 2012. i did that as i liked how the band played and interacted which looked less 'staged', how the band sounded overall, as well as catching a great musician seemingly elevating a good band (who 'perform' masterfully) into a great band (who 'excite' me and 'perform' majestically). i cant say i watched more than maybe 8 or 9 clips/songs of the stones without Taylor all the way thru, and i did get bored by them in allmost everyone - formulaic, patchy itl do gtr unit.

i get they cant or dont want to invest the time in intergrating, rearranging the songs when the last time it looked like they did so was around 'stripped' era decades ago, i get that the stage time isnt as long. they stick to the formula as the elder statesmen of R&R who can still run around and act it despite having so much more right there ready for them.

depressing

The addition of the Taylor element brought the unexpected, excitement, danger, power, daring, true arrogance, justified swagger....

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I agree with this, alimente. But I suspect that Out Of Time without Taylor wouldn't do it for many in this thread.

And many fans simply can't fathom it if they omit some of their greatest songs. They care just as much about the music as the ones who are tired of the warhorses.

Yes, I guess the biggest problem is the (relatively) short setlist of app. 20 songs, and these include 2 Keith lead vocals - if they don't want to omit some of their greatest songs, it leaves little to no room for "stretching out a bit.

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
Stoneburst
I don't think any of you would deny that there are an awful lot of Stones fans who ostensibly prefer Wood to Taylor primarily on the grounds that he 'looks like a Stone'. So, yes, there are fans for whom the music is a secondary consideration.

Yes, I know quite some people that visited a Stones show to see them, regardless the quality of the music. It's called entertainment, nothing wrong with that.

Indeed, nothing wrong with that. But I wasn't talking about the tourists that go to the concerts: I was talking about those one might call actual Stones fans, those that care enough to post on this board and others. There are plenty of people here who openly say they prefer Wood to Taylor because he looks the part, smokes on stage, plays to the crowd and poses. I don't claim that these people are in any way lesser Stones fans than I, but the simple truth of the matter is that they are not primarily interested in the music. They're into the Stones as spectacle, a sort of electric cabaret.

One of the reasons I'm disappointed about MT not being asked to play on this tour is that from the limited sources we have, it appears HE is disappointed that he wasn't invited. Always wanted to see a happy inspired Taylor, knowing that the musical result would probably be equally inspiring.


peace

Quote
Naturalust
One of the reasons I'm disappointed about MT not being asked to play on this tour is that from the limited sources we have, it appears HE is disappointed that he wasn't invited. Always wanted to see a happy inspired Taylor, knowing that the musical result would probably be equally inspiring.


peace

Seems as though MT had an expectation that he would continue with the band, which presumably would be based in the way the tour went, and whether explicitly stated to him, or implied.

I wonder if there was just something that derailed this, or whether Jagger had no intention whatsoever in including MT beyond the first few rounds of shows?

Quote
latebloomer

Quote
Witness
I am another fan with origin in the Brian era.

If available, I would like to go to one more show in their unchanged format, but only one. In case, I would probably be both frustrated and to a certain extent satisfied by such a concert.

To want to go to more than one show, I need some change. Either

a) a completely changed setlist, with 25 of their most usual live songs left out, or

b) after having made another studio album of new material, at least 5 songs from that album included in setlists, or

c) integrate Mick Taylor in the live band to play on all songs of unchanged setlists, and then they would not have to leave out any song to make me musically happy.

That is a measure of what Mick Taylor may supply to me.

That's some list, Witness...hey, let me know when you here back from them. I'll wait right here.

All right, latebloomer, but you did notice the words "Either, ....., or ..... or", I hope?

Quote
Green Lady

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Green Lady
kleermaker, I think the quote Dandy has in mind is this:

People who really care about the music won't go to a RS stadium show. Unless Taylor has a substantial musical role of course.

If this doesn't mean that anybody who is willing to attend a stadium show without Taylor doesn't really care about the music, then what does it mean? Perhaps that's not what you meant to say, but that's how it comes across, and I can see why Dandy might feel offended. I'm really posting this so that he knows he isn't the only one who finds the Taylorite attitude of moral and musical superiority irritating.

You and others here are so disappointed by Mick Taylor's absence that for you it isn't worth going to the show at all. It's a decision I respect, but much as I enjoyed having him around, I can live without him. You can't: fine by me, but why do you have to sneer at the rest of us?

And now, since I'm a 60+ Brian era fan, I really do have to take my meds.

All speculation and wrong interpretation, perhaps or probably provoked by your irritation. I also could have written: "People who really care about the music won't go to a RS stadium show. Unless the Rolling Stones are musically interesting." Which they are not and because it has been proven that they can be with Taylor I added instead: "Unless Taylor has a substantial musical role." That could of course also have been another great musician. But I don't know his name.

So the word "people" in my sentence is not to be replaced with "fans who love Taylor", like DP wrongly concluded (adding a psychiatric diagnosis on me, which is, well, not very polite, don't you think?), but with 'people who put the music at the first place'. It's a matter of reading properly instead of substituting my words with your own thoughts and feelings, obviously dominated by irritation.

Secondly I'm not at all disappointed by Taylor's absence, as you suggest without any ground. Of course it would be nice, but I've followed the celebration tour for some years and I'm no fool. It would have surprised me enormously if Taylor were invited for this new American tour in the first place and even more if he would get a bigger role in it. So you see that thinking for another person isn't very fruitful. One can learn something everyday, even at your age.

I've been twice at a Stones show since 1973, in 1976 and 1981, and I didn't enjoy it very much. The last time in a stadium I even disliked it. I also wouldn't go if Taylor only played on one song as he did the last years (only one or two songs extra by surprise, totally unpredictably and just a very few times).

Do you really think I'm disappointed about Stones shows for such a long time? Come on, you can say what you want about me, but I'm no fool. One only can be disappointed when there are at least realistic expectations. I didn't have them from 1981 on and I don't have them since it became very obvious that Taylor's role never would get any real substance. Which already became clear during the American leg of the celebration tour in 2013!

And now you accuse me of sneering at "the rest of us". Which I never did. I wish all who go to one of the RS shows in the US or whereever a very pleasant time.

kleermaker: I accept that you didn't intend to say what I thought you said in that sentence. I misunderstood a statement that was open to misunderstanding, and heard an insult where none was intended. I likewise wish you a very pleasant time listening to your Taylor era material, but the next time the band comes within range, I will be there - even at my age.

GL, you really make me smile when you say that you accept that I ... etc. You interpreted a totally clear text wrongly. Who has to accept what here? I mean: I accept that you took my words in the wrong direction. No problem.

As for the insulting part: you also did read selectively, given the fact that you did say nothing about the major insult Dandelion Powderman made to me, thinking that he could afford to diagnose me with borderline psychiatric disease. So you missed something that was a clear-cut insult, but "heard an insult where none was intended" in your words, but where, in reality, none was made.

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
Stoneburst
I don't think any of you would deny that there are an awful lot of Stones fans who ostensibly prefer Wood to Taylor primarily on the grounds that he 'looks like a Stone'. So, yes, there are fans for whom the music is a secondary consideration.

Yes, I know quite some people that visited a Stones show to see them, regardless the quality of the music. It's called entertainment, nothing wrong with that.

Indeed, nothing wrong with that. But I wasn't talking about the tourists that go to the concerts: I was talking about those one might call actual Stones fans, those that care enough to post on this board and others. There are plenty of people here who openly say they prefer Wood to Taylor because he looks the part, smokes on stage, plays to the crowd and poses. I don't claim that these people are in any way lesser Stones fans than I, but the simple truth of the matter is that they are not primarily interested in the music. They're into the

Stones as spectacle, a sort of electric cabaret.

Not gonna lie, rock music is almost always related to attitude, sex, charisma and poses.
But if you don't have the right songs and STYLE you are just ridiculous. Don't get me wrong, rock must be kind of ridiculous IMO, but if you're ridiculous without the right songs and musical style you are just a clown like Pete Doherty or the current Noel Gallagher. Now wonder why Gallagher thinks that Ron Wood is a genius.

Prince or DB and the Spiders from Mars = lot of attitude but genius comes first

Another quality post from ChelseaGirls

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Green Lady

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Green Lady
kleermaker, I think the quote Dandy has in mind is this:

People who really care about the music won't go to a RS stadium show. Unless Taylor has a substantial musical role of course.

If this doesn't mean that anybody who is willing to attend a stadium show without Taylor doesn't really care about the music, then what does it mean? Perhaps that's not what you meant to say, but that's how it comes across, and I can see why Dandy might feel offended. I'm really posting this so that he knows he isn't the only one who finds the Taylorite attitude of moral and musical superiority irritating.

You and others here are so disappointed by Mick Taylor's absence that for you it isn't worth going to the show at all. It's a decision I respect, but much as I enjoyed having him around, I can live without him. You can't: fine by me, but why do you have to sneer at the rest of us?

And now, since I'm a 60+ Brian era fan, I really do have to take my meds.

All speculation and wrong interpretation, perhaps or probably provoked by your irritation. I also could have written: "People who really care about the music won't go to a RS stadium show. Unless the Rolling Stones are musically interesting." Which they are not and because it has been proven that they can be with Taylor I added instead: "Unless Taylor has a substantial musical role." That could of course also have been another great musician. But I don't know his name.

So the word "people" in my sentence is not to be replaced with "fans who love Taylor", like DP wrongly concluded (adding a psychiatric diagnosis on me, which is, well, not very polite, don't you think?), but with 'people who put the music at the first place'. It's a matter of reading properly instead of substituting my words with your own thoughts and feelings, obviously dominated by irritation.

Secondly I'm not at all disappointed by Taylor's absence, as you suggest without any ground. Of course it would be nice, but I've followed the celebration tour for some years and I'm no fool. It would have surprised me enormously if Taylor were invited for this new American tour in the first place and even more if he would get a bigger role in it. So you see that thinking for another person isn't very fruitful. One can learn something everyday, even at your age.

I've been twice at a Stones show since 1973, in 1976 and 1981, and I didn't enjoy it very much. The last time in a stadium I even disliked it. I also wouldn't go if Taylor only played on one song as he did the last years (only one or two songs extra by surprise, totally unpredictably and just a very few times).

Do you really think I'm disappointed about Stones shows for such a long time? Come on, you can say what you want about me, but I'm no fool. One only can be disappointed when there are at least realistic expectations. I didn't have them from 1981 on and I don't have them since it became very obvious that Taylor's role never would get any real substance. Which already became clear during the American leg of the celebration tour in 2013!

And now you accuse me of sneering at "the rest of us". Which I never did. I wish all who go to one of the RS shows in the US or whereever a very pleasant time.

kleermaker: I accept that you didn't intend to say what I thought you said in that sentence. I misunderstood a statement that was open to misunderstanding, and heard an insult where none was intended. I likewise wish you a very pleasant time listening to your Taylor era material, but the next time the band comes within range, I will be there - even at my age.

GL, you really make me smile when you say that you accept that I ... etc. You interpreted a totally clear text wrongly. Who has to accept what here? I mean: I accept that you took my words in the wrong direction. No problem.

As for the insulting part: you also did read selectively, given the fact that you did say nothing about the major insult Dandelion Powderman made to me, thinking that he could afford to diagnose me with borderline psychiatric disease. So you missed something that was a clear-cut insult, but "heard an insult where none was intended" in your words, but where, in reality, none was made.

Since my words upset you, I will say no more of them.

Quote
Green Lady

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Green Lady

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Green Lady
kleermaker, I think the quote Dandy has in mind is this:

People who really care about the music won't go to a RS stadium show. Unless Taylor has a substantial musical role of course.

If this doesn't mean that anybody who is willing to attend a stadium show without Taylor doesn't really care about the music, then what does it mean? Perhaps that's not what you meant to say, but that's how it comes across, and I can see why Dandy might feel offended. I'm really posting this so that he knows he isn't the only one who finds the Taylorite attitude of moral and musical superiority irritating.

You and others here are so disappointed by Mick Taylor's absence that for you it isn't worth going to the show at all. It's a decision I respect, but much as I enjoyed having him around, I can live without him. You can't: fine by me, but why do you have to sneer at the rest of us?

And now, since I'm a 60+ Brian era fan, I really do have to take my meds.

All speculation and wrong interpretation, perhaps or probably provoked by your irritation. I also could have written: "People who really care about the music won't go to a RS stadium show. Unless the Rolling Stones are musically interesting." Which they are not and because it has been proven that they can be with Taylor I added instead: "Unless Taylor has a substantial musical role." That could of course also have been another great musician. But I don't know his name.

So the word "people" in my sentence is not to be replaced with "fans who love Taylor", like DP wrongly concluded (adding a psychiatric diagnosis on me, which is, well, not very polite, don't you think?), but with 'people who put the music at the first place'. It's a matter of reading properly instead of substituting my words with your own thoughts and feelings, obviously dominated by irritation.

Secondly I'm not at all disappointed by Taylor's absence, as you suggest without any ground. Of course it would be nice, but I've followed the celebration tour for some years and I'm no fool. It would have surprised me enormously if Taylor were invited for this new American tour in the first place and even more if he would get a bigger role in it. So you see that thinking for another person isn't very fruitful. One can learn something everyday, even at your age.

I've been twice at a Stones show since 1973, in 1976 and 1981, and I didn't enjoy it very much. The last time in a stadium I even disliked it. I also wouldn't go if Taylor only played on one song as he did the last years (only one or two songs extra by surprise, totally unpredictably and just a very few times).

Do you really think I'm disappointed about Stones shows for such a long time? Come on, you can say what you want about me, but I'm no fool. One only can be disappointed when there are at least realistic expectations. I didn't have them from 1981 on and I don't have them since it became very obvious that Taylor's role never would get any real substance. Which already became clear during the American leg of the celebration tour in 2013!

And now you accuse me of sneering at "the rest of us". Which I never did. I wish all who go to one of the RS shows in the US or whereever a very pleasant time.

kleermaker: I accept that you didn't intend to say what I thought you said in that sentence. I misunderstood a statement that was open to misunderstanding, and heard an insult where none was intended. I likewise wish you a very pleasant time listening to your Taylor era material, but the next time the band comes within range, I will be there - even at my age.

GL, you really make me smile when you say that you accept that I ... etc. You interpreted a totally clear text wrongly. Who has to accept what here? I mean: I accept that you took my words in the wrong direction. No problem.

As for the insulting part: you also did read selectively, given the fact that you did say nothing about the major insult Dandelion Powderman made to me, thinking that he could afford to diagnose me with borderline psychiatric disease. So you missed something that was a clear-cut insult, but "heard an insult where none was intended" in your words, but where, in reality, none was made.

Since my words upset you, I will say no more of them.

Here you go again. Your words didn't and don't upset me. I simply did set things straight. But okay, let's conclude the communication between us doesn't flow, so to speak. No hanging matter, I would say, nor a capital crime.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Green Lady

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Green Lady

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Green Lady
kleermaker, I think the quote Dandy has in mind is this:

People who really care about the music won't go to a RS stadium show. Unless Taylor has a substantial musical role of course.

If this doesn't mean that anybody who is willing to attend a stadium show without Taylor doesn't really care about the music, then what does it mean? Perhaps that's not what you meant to say, but that's how it comes across, and I can see why Dandy might feel offended. I'm really posting this so that he knows he isn't the only one who finds the Taylorite attitude of moral and musical superiority irritating.

You and others here are so disappointed by Mick Taylor's absence that for you it isn't worth going to the show at all. It's a decision I respect, but much as I enjoyed having him around, I can live without him. You can't: fine by me, but why do you have to sneer at the rest of us?

And now, since I'm a 60+ Brian era fan, I really do have to take my meds.

All speculation and wrong interpretation, perhaps or probably provoked by your irritation. I also could have written: "People who really care about the music won't go to a RS stadium show. Unless the Rolling Stones are musically interesting." Which they are not and because it has been proven that they can be with Taylor I added instead: "Unless Taylor has a substantial musical role." That could of course also have been another great musician. But I don't know his name.

So the word "people" in my sentence is not to be replaced with "fans who love Taylor", like DP wrongly concluded (adding a psychiatric diagnosis on me, which is, well, not very polite, don't you think?), but with 'people who put the music at the first place'. It's a matter of reading properly instead of substituting my words with your own thoughts and feelings, obviously dominated by irritation.

Secondly I'm not at all disappointed by Taylor's absence, as you suggest without any ground. Of course it would be nice, but I've followed the celebration tour for some years and I'm no fool. It would have surprised me enormously if Taylor were invited for this new American tour in the first place and even more if he would get a bigger role in it. So you see that thinking for another person isn't very fruitful. One can learn something everyday, even at your age.

I've been twice at a Stones show since 1973, in 1976 and 1981, and I didn't enjoy it very much. The last time in a stadium I even disliked it. I also wouldn't go if Taylor only played on one song as he did the last years (only one or two songs extra by surprise, totally unpredictably and just a very few times).

Do you really think I'm disappointed about Stones shows for such a long time? Come on, you can say what you want about me, but I'm no fool. One only can be disappointed when there are at least realistic expectations. I didn't have them from 1981 on and I don't have them since it became very obvious that Taylor's role never would get any real substance. Which already became clear during the American leg of the celebration tour in 2013!

And now you accuse me of sneering at "the rest of us". Which I never did. I wish all who go to one of the RS shows in the US or whereever a very pleasant time.

kleermaker: I accept that you didn't intend to say what I thought you said in that sentence. I misunderstood a statement that was open to misunderstanding, and heard an insult where none was intended. I likewise wish you a very pleasant time listening to your Taylor era material, but the next time the band comes within range, I will be there - even at my age.

GL, you really make me smile when you say that you accept that I ... etc. You interpreted a totally clear text wrongly. Who has to accept what here? I mean: I accept that you took my words in the wrong direction. No problem.

As for the insulting part: you also did read selectively, given the fact that you did say nothing about the major insult Dandelion Powderman made to me, thinking that he could afford to diagnose me with borderline psychiatric disease. So you missed something that was a clear-cut insult, but "heard an insult where none was intended" in your words, but where, in reality, none was made.

Since my words upset you, I will say no more of them.

Here you go again. Your words didn't and don't upset me. I simply did set things straight. But okay, let's conclude the communication between us doesn't flow, so to speak. No hanging matter, I would say, nor a capital crime.

But is Green Lady just 15 years old?

I think that really is what's at issue here, kleerly.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Green Lady

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Green Lady
kleermaker, I think the quote Dandy has in mind is this:

People who really care about the music won't go to a RS stadium show. Unless Taylor has a substantial musical role of course.

If this doesn't mean that anybody who is willing to attend a stadium show without Taylor doesn't really care about the music, then what does it mean? Perhaps that's not what you meant to say, but that's how it comes across, and I can see why Dandy might feel offended. I'm really posting this so that he knows he isn't the only one who finds the Taylorite attitude of moral and musical superiority irritating.

You and others here are so disappointed by Mick Taylor's absence that for you it isn't worth going to the show at all. It's a decision I respect, but much as I enjoyed having him around, I can live without him. You can't: fine by me, but why do you have to sneer at the rest of us?

And now, since I'm a 60+ Brian era fan, I really do have to take my meds.

All speculation and wrong interpretation, perhaps or probably provoked by your irritation. I also could have written: "People who really care about the music won't go to a RS stadium show. Unless the Rolling Stones are musically interesting." Which they are not and because it has been proven that they can be with Taylor I added instead: "Unless Taylor has a substantial musical role." That could of course also have been another great musician. But I don't know his name.

So the word "people" in my sentence is not to be replaced with "fans who love Taylor", like DP wrongly concluded (adding a psychiatric diagnosis on me, which is, well, not very polite, don't you think?), but with 'people who put the music at the first place'. It's a matter of reading properly instead of substituting my words with your own thoughts and feelings, obviously dominated by irritation.

Secondly I'm not at all disappointed by Taylor's absence, as you suggest without any ground. Of course it would be nice, but I've followed the celebration tour for some years and I'm no fool. It would have surprised me enormously if Taylor were invited for this new American tour in the first place and even more if he would get a bigger role in it. So you see that thinking for another person isn't very fruitful. One can learn something everyday, even at your age.

I've been twice at a Stones show since 1973, in 1976 and 1981, and I didn't enjoy it very much. The last time in a stadium I even disliked it. I also wouldn't go if Taylor only played on one song as he did the last years (only one or two songs extra by surprise, totally unpredictably and just a very few times).

Do you really think I'm disappointed about Stones shows for such a long time? Come on, you can say what you want about me, but I'm no fool. One only can be disappointed when there are at least realistic expectations. I didn't have them from 1981 on and I don't have them since it became very obvious that Taylor's role never would get any real substance. Which already became clear during the American leg of the celebration tour in 2013!

And now you accuse me of sneering at "the rest of us". Which I never did. I wish all who go to one of the RS shows in the US or whereever a very pleasant time.

kleermaker: I accept that you didn't intend to say what I thought you said in that sentence. I misunderstood a statement that was open to misunderstanding, and heard an insult where none was intended. I likewise wish you a very pleasant time listening to your Taylor era material, but the next time the band comes within range, I will be there - even at my age.

GL, you really make me smile when you say that you accept that I ... etc. You interpreted a totally clear text wrongly. Who has to accept what here? I mean: I accept that you took my words in the wrong direction. No problem.

As for the insulting part: you also did read selectively, given the fact that you did say nothing about the major insult Dandelion Powderman made to me, thinking that he could afford to diagnose me with borderline psychiatric disease. So you missed something that was a clear-cut insult, but "heard an insult where none was intended" in your words, but where, in reality, none was made.

I never did such a thing. If you read again you'll see that I said it was borderline psychiatrically worrying (borderline in this context means almost) IF you indeed thought that only Taylor fans put the music first.

I stand by that.