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.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

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.

Quote
Captainchaos
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

Quote
Sighunt

Quote
Captainchaos
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

I think your assessment is spot on and you articulated what I was trying to say in one of my posts a page or two ago. I think the addition of Taylor along with more playing time on tunes could have elevated this band who basically have been coasting for years now and musically playing it safe. And sadly, I do feel that the casual fans who have been paying to see the Stones as of late are going for the spectacle (not the musicality) and/or the bragging rights: "Yeah, the Stones are on my bucket list. I got to see them for before they die." I hear that a lot from friends of mine who are going to Buffalo in July that really know nothing about the Stones other than it would be a great party/event. However, the hard-cores (ie. the people who inhabit this site) are a little more educated when it comes to the Stones and want something more and arguably the inclusion of Taylor could have been the last chance of show-casing the Stones (and the upcoming Sticky Fingers tunes in concert) in a very positive musical light while not just relying on the spectacle/staging, etc.

Quote
palerider22
What's depressing is I could miss this tour, possibly the last, and have no regrets. I've seen the spectacle many times. I have the t-shirts, the posters, the tour programs, the coffee mugs. I'm past that although I'm sure I'm in the minority. I really wanted this one to be about the 'sound'...with Mick Taylor on board. It makes me feel that I'm no longer a true fan. But I think I still am by wanting MT to be part of a beautiful finale. I'll always be a fan...but now with a sense of dissatisfaction...

Quote
LuxuryStones
[And than a jump to the present: The current RS are a nostalgia act, Taylor included. I don't really understand why people want him back on the upcoming tour, as he is also adding mediocracy, imo.

Quote
LuxuryStones

[...]

And than a jump to the present: The current RS are a nostalgia act, Taylor included. I don't really understand why people want him back on the upcoming tour, as he is also adding mediocracy, imo. Frankly, I felt sorry for the guitar section when Jeff Beck played "going down" with them at the O2 in 2012. But then they all have fun and the fans enjoy the shows, the most important part of the story. So let the Stones play, with or without Taylor.

Quote
matxil

Quote
LuxuryStones

[...]

And than a jump to the present: The current RS are a nostalgia act, Taylor included. I don't really understand why people want him back on the upcoming tour, as he is also adding mediocracy, imo. Frankly, I felt sorry for the guitar section when Jeff Beck played "going down" with them at the O2 in 2012. But then they all have fun and the fans enjoy the shows, the most important part of the story. So let the Stones play, with or without Taylor.

Spot on. Exactly. But I am sure this thread will go on another 80 pages, and people will still claim that Taylor is mister Innovation himself. Maybe the Stones should just sack everybody, and be a two-member band of mr. Taylor and mr. Wyman. They would fill entire stadiums with people "who only go there for the music", apparantly.

Quote
Bsebastian
Believing Mick Taylor can transform the Stones back to their once-great era, or that age has ravaged his skills less than any of the others in the band, is like believing in Santa Claus. Unless anyone on this board is under the age of 8, there should be no need for us to pretend otherwise.

It was a nice gesture for them to invite him along in 2013, and it was a nice gesture of him to come along. They buried the hatchet and had one last hurrah. But seriously, the dude left the band 40 years ago, get over it.

Quote
Witness

Quote
Bsebastian
Believing Mick Taylor can transform the Stones back to their once-great era, or that age has ravaged his skills less than any of the others in the band, is like believing in Santa Claus. Unless anyone on this board is under the age of 8, there should be no need for us to pretend otherwise.

It was a nice gesture for them to invite him along in 2013, and it was a nice gesture of him to come along. They buried the hatchet and had one last hurrah. But seriously, the dude left the band 40 years ago, get over it.

Instead of there being fixed models for how songs ought to come out, what Mick Taylor might contribute, is to make those models a little less fixed by giving rise to slightly changed and then varying live versions of songs. Whatever level of quality, he and the band would be at.

Quote
moonlightaffair

Quote
LuxuryStones
[And than a jump to the present: The current RS are a nostalgia act, Taylor included. I don't really understand why people want him back on the upcoming tour, as he is also adding mediocracy, imo.

I disagree. When I saw Taylor with the Stones in 2013 he was not mediocre, he was very good! He added so much to their sound.

Quote
Bsebastian

Quote
Witness

Quote
Bsebastian
Believing Mick Taylor can transform the Stones back to their once-great era, or that age has ravaged his skills less than any of the others in the band, is like believing in Santa Claus. Unless anyone on this board is under the age of 8, there should be no need for us to pretend otherwise.

It was a nice gesture for them to invite him along in 2013, and it was a nice gesture of him to come along. They buried the hatchet and had one last hurrah. But seriously, the dude left the band 40 years ago, get over it.

Instead of there being fixed models for how songs ought to come out, what Mick Taylor might contribute, is to make those models a little less fixed by giving rise to slightly changed and then varying live versions of songs. Whatever level of quality, he and the band would be at.

This is the most interesting point I have heard a Taylorite make. It makes sense. They are so locked into their standard way of playing all the songs, simply adding a third guitar moves them out of their comfort zone a bit. Sadly, I can't say I felt it worked out that way in 2013, but honestly, anything that would shake the band up a little bit and make them feel like they had something at stake would be a good thing. You've convinced me that there's merit to the idea.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
But wouldn't playing Moonlight Mile, Sister Morphine and some other deep cuts be quite a shake for these "old dogs" now?

Apart from the NS and Licks Tours, this band has always been conservative in this regard. Some of their best tours have consisted of minimal change in the setlists, ditto with the arrangements and variation from night to night.

It's a romantic dream we have that the Stones all of a sudden will be like Springsteen, pulling out ace after ace outta their sleeves.

Just to put things in perspective...

Quote
DandelionPowderman
But wouldn't playing Moonlight Mile, Sister Morphine and some other deep cuts be quite a shake for these "old dogs" now?

Apart from the NS and Licks Tours, this band has always been conservative in this regard. Some of their best tours have consisted of minimal change in the setlists, ditto with the arrangements and almost non-existant variation from night to night.

It's a romantic dream we have that the Stones all of a sudden will be like Springsteen, pulling out ace after ace outta their sleeves.

Just to put things in perspective...

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
But wouldn't playing Moonlight Mile, Sister Morphine and some other deep cuts be quite a shake for these "old dogs" now?

Apart from the NS and Licks Tours, this band has always been conservative in this regard. Some of their best tours have consisted of minimal change in the setlists, ditto with the arrangements and almost non-existant variation from night to night.

It's a romantic dream we have that the Stones all of a sudden will be like Springsteen, pulling out ace after ace outta their sleeves.

Just to put things in perspective...

The idea that changing a setlist from one date to another is a modern issue. Because they play the songs similarly arrangewise and ideawise from tour to tour, the only wish to hear some musical differences is reduced to hear some songs not yet or often played. So that has been the key issue for many hardcore fans during the modern age. To hear 'odd' pieces.

The Taylor factor brought along the idea that probably they could find a new, fresh, unexpected angle to those very songs we are so familiar with. With Taylor it doesn't matter what are those songs, he brings something to the table that we have not heard for ages or ever. That is not reducing the Stones back to 1969-73 ("Taylor era"), but that of enrichening the sound of current Stones. So it is not about the songs, but that of the sound. Give the guy any song, it doesn't matter - he most probably could do something interesting with it. Being Taylor as good or just a shadow of himself long ago (like the others), does not really matter - it was just him being a kind of musician who could have re-shaped their sound a bit today. Or that was the dream, with no much realism.

"Moonlight Mile" or "Sister Morphine" being some sort of challenges to them? Hell not. I am sure the musical maestro Chuck Leavell brings those nicely home to resemble enough the originals and most likely the (lame) versions they have already done during 'modern age', and Jagger (karaoke) sings good enough to Chuck's offered platform. Keith and Ronnie surely do some funny, but irrelevant licks along there to make their loyal fans excited when they study those with microscopes, even though the criterion of good guitar playing with some point having lost its significance long ago in those circles..

Just to put the things in perspective...

- Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman


I'm glad you agree on it only being a romantic dream.

As we've seen on these tours, one guitar player won't change the Stones's sound. That's too much to ask of Taylor.

Quote
Bsebastian
Believing Mick Taylor can transform the Stones back to their once-great era, or that age has ravaged his skills less than any of the others in the band, is like believing in Santa Claus. Unless anyone on this board is under the age of 8, there should be no need for us to pretend otherwise.

It was a nice gesture for them to invite him along in 2013, and it was a nice gesture of him to come along. They buried the hatchet and had one last hurrah. But seriously, the dude left the band 40 years ago, get over it.

Quote
Bsebastian

Quote
matxil

Quote
LuxuryStones

[...]

And than a jump to the present: The current RS are a nostalgia act, Taylor included. I don't really understand why people want him back on the upcoming tour, as he is also adding mediocracy, imo. Frankly, I felt sorry for the guitar section when Jeff Beck played "going down" with them at the O2 in 2012. But then they all have fun and the fans enjoy the shows, the most important part of the story. So let the Stones play, with or without Taylor.

Spot on. Exactly. But I am sure this thread will go on another 80 pages, and people will still claim that Taylor is mister Innovation himself. Maybe the Stones should just sack everybody, and be a two-member band of mr. Taylor and mr. Wyman. They would fill entire stadiums with people "who only go there for the music", apparantly.

I laughed out loud at this. So dead on. Also, Bill W and Mick T wrote most of the songs, haven't you heard?

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
Bsebastian

Quote
matxil

Quote
LuxuryStones

[...]

And than a jump to the present: The current RS are a nostalgia act, Taylor included. I don't really understand why people want him back on the upcoming tour, as he is also adding mediocracy, imo. Frankly, I felt sorry for the guitar section when Jeff Beck played "going down" with them at the O2 in 2012. But then they all have fun and the fans enjoy the shows, the most important part of the story. So let the Stones play, with or without Taylor.

Spot on. Exactly. But I am sure this thread will go on another 80 pages, and people will still claim that Taylor is mister Innovation himself. Maybe the Stones should just sack everybody, and be a two-member band of mr. Taylor and mr. Wyman. They would fill entire stadiums with people "who only go there for the music", apparantly.

I laughed out loud at this. So dead on. Also, Bill W and Mick T wrote most of the songs, haven't you heard?

Who said that? Never heard that.

Quote
mtaylor
Improvement to current show - play Gimme Shelter like on this version in stead of Lisa dominating. That would be a boost to their continuing existence as a band.





Then the audience could focus on listening than using their time on taken selfies, which seems to be the most important thing theses days. Fully agree that quite some people are not at the concert for the music, but to be seen and posting selfies.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
The reply and response thing they've done for decades on Rambler. Great, though.

The only difference was that Keith played a bit more old school blues licks than Taylor did. Same effect, imo.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
The reply and response thing they've done for decades on Rambler. Great, though.

The only difference was that Keith played a bit more old school blues licks than Taylor did. Same effect, imo.

No, there a huge difference how they do that dialogue. With Mick and Keith they both do their own thing - touching melodically in some pieces, whih sounds more like co-indicental, since they happen to play on same key... Keith altogether is not that kind of player who listens the others very much but just do this own thing wth his own intuition and determintation (and that, tnaks god, is one of the reasns for the very idiosyncratic Rolling Stones sound). I don't think he actually does not own very good tone ear, for example, immediately being able to reconstruct the notes and melodies he hear some other doing. Taylor, by contrast, seem to have a great ear for things like that, and I think his melodical style of playing has lots to do with that. He is quick to adapt to anything, and react to anything. So what he does with Jagger is actually responding to Mick's harmonica, being damn close to it - really having an intimate dialogue, speaking the very same language. I've seen and heard all those "Ramblers" around the years, and know all those intros, but never heard anything like what Taylor does with Jagger. It really made a huge impression to me when I witnessed live - how 'present', 'active', and 'reactive' Taylor really was. It also effects on Jagger, because he knows he is really getting the 'right' reply he asks for; even he sounded more keen on doing that part as I remember him being... It is different kind of musicianship I have learned to expect from them.

- Doxa