For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
Naturalust
Much more likely he is just keeping quiet about the Stones to keep open the possibility of future invitations. He has got absolutely nothing to gain by making disparaging comments. He has said how much he enjoyed the last tour and just because he isn't included in this one isn't going to change his gratitude and good will toward the Stones, imo.
peace
Quote
Naturalust
Much more likely he is just keeping quiet about the Stones to keep open the possibility of future invitations. He has got absolutely nothing to gain by making disparaging comments. He has said how much he enjoyed the last tour and just because he isn't included in this one isn't going to change his gratitude and good will toward the Stones, imo.
peace
Quote
Getondown
Write a book? WTF don't you all get? He is under contract. The Stones won't allow that or disparagement.
This is why you don't hear from Mick Taylor - he can't say anything.
He can't comment on the tour without prior consent or if he does it has to be positive. Do you think Brenda would allow otherwise? GMAFB.
Quote
LuxuryStonesQuote
Getondown
Write a book? WTF don't you all get? He is under contract. The Stones won't allow that or disparagement.
This is why you don't hear from Mick Taylor - he can't say anything.
He can't comment on the tour without prior consent or if he does it has to be positive. Do you think Brenda would allow otherwise? GMAFB.
If that's true it's not very polite towards Mick Taylor to post this on a site like iorr.org. Some people never learn.
Quote
Naturalust
Much more likely he is just keeping quiet about the Stones to keep open the possibility of future invitations. He has got absolutely nothing to gain by making disparaging comments. He has said how much he enjoyed the last tour and just because he isn't included in this one isn't going to change his gratitude and good will toward the Stones, imo.
peace
Quote
KetQuote
Getondown
Write a book? WTF don't you all get? He is under contract. The Stones won't allow that or disparagement.
This is why you don't hear from Mick Taylor - he can't say anything.
He can't comment on the tour without prior consent or if he does it has to be positive. Do you think Brenda would allow otherwise? GMAFB.
and how exactly do you know this?
Quote
kleermakerQuote
LuxuryStonesQuote
Getondown
Write a book? WTF don't you all get? He is under contract. The Stones won't allow that or disparagement.
This is why you don't hear from Mick Taylor - he can't say anything.
He can't comment on the tour without prior consent or if he does it has to be positive. Do you think Brenda would allow otherwise? GMAFB.
If that's true it's not very polite towards Mick Taylor to post this on a site like iorr.org. Some people never learn.
If that would be true it would be good if it were said! Especially on Iorr, so that the question of this thread would be answered. Or don't you want to know that answer at all?
Quote
Turner68Quote
Naturalust
Much more likely he is just keeping quiet about the Stones to keep open the possibility of future invitations. He has got absolutely nothing to gain by making disparaging comments. He has said how much he enjoyed the last tour and just because he isn't included in this one isn't going to change his gratitude and good will toward the Stones, imo.
peace
lol. a couple pages ago on this forum you were assuring me that the Facebook page and the poster on here were very close to him, in fact that it was wrong of me to suggest that what they said might not reflect what is truly happening in taylor's world, although it might be colored by their own opinions.
in fact when i asked that you give keith's word equal credit to theirs you strongly implied that if they said taylor wasn't ill and keith said he heard he was, then your conclusion was that taylor wasn't ill and you went on to say how disappointed you were in keith for spreading a false rumor, albeit unknowingly, and not checking it more closely.
perhaps its best not to accuse people you've never met of things you know nothing about.
Quote
NaturalustQuote
Turner68Quote
Naturalust
Much more likely he is just keeping quiet about the Stones to keep open the possibility of future invitations. He has got absolutely nothing to gain by making disparaging comments. He has said how much he enjoyed the last tour and just because he isn't included in this one isn't going to change his gratitude and good will toward the Stones, imo.
peace
lol. a couple pages ago on this forum you were assuring me that the Facebook page and the poster on here were very close to him, in fact that it was wrong of me to suggest that what they said might not reflect what is truly happening in taylor's world, although it might be colored by their own opinions.
in fact when i asked that you give keith's word equal credit to theirs you strongly implied that if they said taylor wasn't ill and keith said he heard he was, then your conclusion was that taylor wasn't ill and you went on to say how disappointed you were in keith for spreading a false rumor, albeit unknowingly, and not checking it more closely.
perhaps its best not to accuse people you've never met of things you know nothing about.
No, you should probably re-read my posts. What I said was a bit different actually. I said Keith was likely not lying, just repeating what he'd heard and that my disappointment was that Keith appeared to not have spoken with Taylor directly before making the comment. I believe Keith would have been a bit more clear than "I heard he was sick" if he had actually spoken to the man. Don't you?
My comments regarding the poster that is close to Taylor were just that she is not putting word in Taylor's mouth, she is generally speaking from her own perspective and we have no reason to doubt her. The fact that she didn't say "I heard Taylor was well" but said "He is not sick" pretty much gives the impression that she has some first hand knowledge of the situation.
My whole point was we don't have reason to doubt either statement. Keith was probably truthful in stating what he had heard and Chacal was probably truthful is stating what she knows. I don't think this has to be near the conflict you apparently want it to be, I'm not disrespecting Keith for stating what he heard or accusing him of lying.
Btw: I have met both Keith and Taylor so by your logic I guess I can accuse them of whatever I want?
peace
Quote
Naturalust
Btw: I have met both Keith and Taylor so by your logic I guess I can accuse them of whatever I want?
peace
Quote
Stoneburst
Kleer, I mostly agree with you but why do you say his behaviour on stage was embarrassing?
Quote
kleermakerQuote
Stoneburst
Kleer, I mostly agree with you but why do you say his behaviour on stage was embarrassing?
Didn't you see his kneeling for Jagger, his jumping between Richards and Wood, his playing while the song was already over? Accepting being truncated during his Sway solo in LA, being bossed around by Jagger? Sometimes also behaving as a kid that is allowed to stay with the adults late at night?
The relationship with the Stones wasn't equal at all and that was visible by MT's subdued behaviour. Where was the Taylor that just played his guitar, just standing and playing like in this clip, cool as ice, letting his fingers speak volumes?
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Keith is not calm on MR on the Marquee gig. I've never seen him that wasted
Isn't it very likely that Taylor gets continuing payments from the Stones in exchange for quietly dropping any claim, formal or otherwise, to have contributed to their success and for not saying anything negative. I don't know this for a fact. Others have suggested it here. it seems unlikely that it is not the case. I would never refer to Jagger as 'Brenda,' Keith can do that, not you, but otherwise I think you are on target, especially since their whole relationship was likely revamped around the tours he just appeared on. You think Jagger took him on those tours without the commitment to STFU? Permanently? I don't.Quote
GetondownQuote
KetQuote
Getondown
Write a book? WTF don't you all get? He is under contract. The Stones won't allow that or disparagement.
This is why you don't hear from Mick Taylor - he can't say anything.
He can't comment on the tour without prior consent or if he does it has to be positive. Do you think Brenda would allow otherwise? GMAFB.
and how exactly do you know this?
Because that is what groups do for tours. MT was under contract for a set amount of songs for set pay. I am sure everyone on the stage except the 4 Stones have contracts. And if you are going to have contracts you are going to tie them up for non-disparagement. Only the Stones speak for the Stones.
Quote
kleermakerQuote
Stoneburst
Kleer, I mostly agree with you but why do you say his behaviour on stage was embarrassing?
Didn't you see his kneeling for Jagger, his jumping between Richards and Wood, his playing while the song was already over? Accepting being truncated during his Sway solo in LA, being bossed around by Jagger? Sometimes also behaving as a kid that is allowed to stay with the adults late at night?
The relationship with the Stones wasn't equal at all and that was visible by MT's submissive behaviour. Where was the Taylor that just played his guitar, just standing and playing like in this clip, cool as ice, letting his fingers speak volumes, a man being proud of himself?
Quote
Getondown
Write a book? WTF don't you all get? He is under contract. The Stones won't allow that or disparagement.
This is why you don't hear from Mick Taylor - he can't say anything.
He can't comment on the tour without prior consent or if he does it has to be positive. Do you think Brenda would allow otherwise? GMAFB.
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Keith is not calm on MR on the Marquee gig. I've never seen him that wasted
Quote
StoneburstQuote
kleermakerQuote
Stoneburst
Kleer, I mostly agree with you but why do you say his behaviour on stage was embarrassing?
Didn't you see his kneeling for Jagger, his jumping between Richards and Wood, his playing while the song was already over? Accepting being truncated during his Sway solo in LA, being bossed around by Jagger? Sometimes also behaving as a kid that is allowed to stay with the adults late at night?
The relationship with the Stones wasn't equal at all and that was visible by MT's submissive behaviour. Where was the Taylor that just played his guitar, just standing and playing like in this clip, cool as ice, letting his fingers speak volumes, a man being proud of himself?
Yes, of course I saw all that. Some of that, I think, was down to him genuinely enjoying being on stage with them (his theatrics on Rambler and whatnot). Other parts were probably scripted, and still others he just didn't have a choice in. What did you expect him to do on Sway, just carry on playing as Jagger tried to end the song? Had he tried, Pierre would just have turned his amplifier off. It must have been extremely frustrating for him, but once he signed up for it his options were always going to be limited.
You're absolutely right that it was nowhere near an equal relationship. That's why Bill Wyman told them to get stuffed after the O2. But then Wyman didn't need the Stones in the way Taylor does. Even if it wasn't a financial issue for him, he's demonstrated very little ability to actually organise his own career over the past few decades, and has usually depended on other people. The moment I saw Taylor playing acoustic on Satisfaction, I took it as read that, for whatever reason, he felt he had little choice but to stick around the Stones camp and take whatever crap they were throwing at him.
Quote
kleermakerQuote
Stoneburst
Kleer, I mostly agree with you but why do you say his behaviour on stage was embarrassing?
Didn't you see his kneeling for Jagger, his jumping between Richards and Wood, his playing while the song was already over? Accepting being truncated during his Sway solo in LA, being bossed around by Jagger? Sometimes also behaving as a kid that is allowed to stay with the adults late at night?
The relationship with the Stones wasn't equal at all and that was visible by MT's submissive behaviour. Where was the Taylor that just played his guitar, just standing and playing like in this clip, cool as ice, letting his fingers speak volumes, a man being proud of himself?
Quote
kleermakerQuote
StoneburstQuote
kleermakerQuote
Stoneburst
Kleer, I mostly agree with you but why do you say his behaviour on stage was embarrassing?
Didn't you see his kneeling for Jagger, his jumping between Richards and Wood, his playing while the song was already over? Accepting being truncated during his Sway solo in LA, being bossed around by Jagger? Sometimes also behaving as a kid that is allowed to stay with the adults late at night?
The relationship with the Stones wasn't equal at all and that was visible by MT's submissive behaviour. Where was the Taylor that just played his guitar, just standing and playing like in this clip, cool as ice, letting his fingers speak volumes, a man being proud of himself?
Yes, of course I saw all that. Some of that, I think, was down to him genuinely enjoying being on stage with them (his theatrics on Rambler and whatnot). Other parts were probably scripted, and still others he just didn't have a choice in. What did you expect him to do on Sway, just carry on playing as Jagger tried to end the song? Had he tried, Pierre would just have turned his amplifier off. It must have been extremely frustrating for him, but once he signed up for it his options were always going to be limited.
You're absolutely right that it was nowhere near an equal relationship. That's why Bill Wyman told them to get stuffed after the O2. But then Wyman didn't need the Stones in the way Taylor does. Even if it wasn't a financial issue for him, he's demonstrated very little ability to actually organise his own career over the past few decades, and has usually depended on other people. The moment I saw Taylor playing acoustic on Satisfaction, I took it as read that, for whatever reason, he felt he had little choice but to stick around the Stones camp and take whatever crap they were throwing at him.
Well, I'm not blaming him for all of that, but certainly for a substantial part of it. Anyway, in my eyes it was embarrassing. So that's another reason why I don't want him to see playing with this Rolling Stones band-in-very-long-extra-time.
Quote
DoomandGloom
When his guitar broke he stood there while the great Pierre froze like a shoe salesman at the sock department in Macy's. .
No he must play with them if he can. It goes beyond reason or feelings... The whole thing was like the Twilight Zone. Taylor at O2 jumping around, it was shocking. He chose to stand in between the other guitars but his amps remained on he other side of the stage. If Taylor is anything he's an amp guy, in his Stones days he stood right in front of a cranked SVT. MT however did well for himself and blew the roof off at Staples, Shanghai and was stunningly creative at Glaston. There were quite a few others, his playing earned him more cameos in 2015. Yes he jumped a 1/4 inch off the ground and sported a Captain Kangaroo chalked stained jacket but he was on his own up there. 1 man amid a band with a monster entourage, constantly tested to prove his mettle, "he's the bloke that quit." When his guitar broke he stood there while the great Pierre froze like a shoe salesman at the sock department in Macy's. Oh yeah, now his buddy Ron comes out saying it's easier just with Keith, Wood covers all the bases, takes MT on a club tour, maybe he hoped he'd grab those critical CHYMK notes and a few scales he's yet to understand after 40 years of getting by but in the end he's no Taylorite.Quote
StoneburstQuote
kleermakerQuote
StoneburstQuote
kleermakerQuote
Stoneburst
Kleer, I mostly agree with you but why do you say his behaviour on stage was embarrassing?
Didn't you see his kneeling for Jagger, his jumping between Richards and Wood, his playing while the song was already over? Accepting being truncated during his Sway solo in LA, being bossed around by Jagger? Sometimes also behaving as a kid that is allowed to stay with the adults late at night?
The relationship with the Stones wasn't equal at all and that was visible by MT's submissive behaviour. Where was the Taylor that just played his guitar, just standing and playing like in this clip, cool as ice, letting his fingers speak volumes, a man being proud of himself?
Yes, of course I saw all that. Some of that, I think, was down to him genuinely enjoying being on stage with them (his theatrics on Rambler and whatnot). Other parts were probably scripted, and still others he just didn't have a choice in. What did you expect him to do on Sway, just carry on playing as Jagger tried to end the song? Had he tried, Pierre would just have turned his amplifier off. It must have been extremely frustrating for him, but once he signed up for it his options were always going to be limited.
You're absolutely right that it was nowhere near an equal relationship. That's why Bill Wyman told them to get stuffed after the O2. But then Wyman didn't need the Stones in the way Taylor does. Even if it wasn't a financial issue for him, he's demonstrated very little ability to actually organise his own career over the past few decades, and has usually depended on other people. The moment I saw Taylor playing acoustic on Satisfaction, I took it as read that, for whatever reason, he felt he had little choice but to stick around the Stones camp and take whatever crap they were throwing at him.
Well, I'm not blaming him for all of that, but certainly for a substantial part of it. Anyway, in my eyes it was embarrassing. So that's another reason why I don't want him to see playing with this Rolling Stones band-in-very-long-extra-time.
Yes, the whole saga was bizarre and left a bad taste in the mouth. I totally agree that his self-respect ought to prevent him playing with the Stones again. Honestly, I just want to see him out there doing his own thing and proving whatever point he has to make in the best way he knows how, through his music.