For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
treaclefingers
that sounds risky. what if his injured wrist had him hit a bum chord on the show opener, say Start Me Up? Then WHAT?!
oh wait...
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
NaturalustQuote
StoneburstQuote
Naturalust
Add that to the fact that Taylor's insurability was probably more tenuous than Keith's and he was never in a position to replace him and it falls apart completely.
Isn't this just speculation? I'm aware of the irony of saying that in this of all threads, but seriously, do you have any evidence that Taylor was less insurable than Keith? Anyway, I'm pretty sure it wasn't the insurance people who wanted such an arrangement, rather the promoters - perhaps Tele can remind us.
Taylor himself has stated he was basically pulled out of rehab early right onto the Stones stage. So with Taylor himself as the source it doesn't take much speculation really. Anyway I find the whole idea that insurers are going to dictate to rock stars who can play and tour and why pretty dismal. I'm sure if any insurer said Keith can't go out because they won't insure him, the Stones would find a different insurance company a different promoter or assume the risk themselves.
that sounds risky. what if his injured wrist had him hit a bum chord on the show opener, say Start Me Up? Then WHAT?!
oh wait...
Quote
Turner68
what if he was going to play a bum note before the injury but then the injury had him play... the right note? what?
Quote
Naturalust
But to be honest I am more than a little impressed with Ronnie ... and think the discussions of no Taylor this tour have run their course and become tedious.
Quote
alimenteQuote
Naturalust
But to be honest I am more than a little impressed with Ronnie ... and think the discussions of no Taylor this tour have run their course and become tedious.
Same here. However, it's an interesting question what exactly lead to Ronnie's huge improvement. The sense of going out on a high note? Or did the collaboration with Taylor - in the framework of the band (rehearsals, live shows) and at solo shows - give Ronnie a serious kick in the butt? Or a combination of multiple factors, including sobriety?
Quote
bv
Matt Clifford is on stage for more songs now than Mick Taylor ever were during the 2012 - 2014 shows. I have been at every single show this summer in USA and so far nobody I have met, I have met many, countless fans, but nobody so far have asked me about Mick Taylor. He is a great blues guitarist but he quit the Stones in the 70's.
Quote
TravelinManQuote
bv
Matt Clifford is on stage for more songs now than Mick Taylor ever were during the 2012 - 2014 shows. I have been at every single show this summer in USA and so far nobody I have met, I have met many, countless fans, but nobody so far have asked me about Mick Taylor. He is a great blues guitarist but he quit the Stones in the 70's.
Ha! That's because all the Taylor fans didn't pay an absurd amount of money to see The Stones without him!
Quote
bv
Matt Clifford is on stage for more songs now than Mick Taylor ever were during the 2012 - 2014 shows. I have been at every single show this summer in USA and so far nobody I have met, I have met many, countless fans, but nobody so far have asked me about Mick Taylor. He is a great blues guitarist but he quit the Stones in the 70's.
His spot on the same number was the highlight of a great Philadelphia show for me as well as my wife (who asked me after the show who he was). That's why they cut it from the set.Quote
Hairball
No matter how great the Stones may have been this tour, Mick Taylor was missed by everyone I know who saw him with the Stones last tour.
Even my sister whose a casual Stones fan asked about his absence, claiming his spot during CYHMK at the LA Forum (the one show she saw) was the highlight of the show.
Quote
Hairball
No matter how great the Stones may have been this tour, Mick Taylor was missed by everyone I know who saw him with the Stones last tour.
Even my sister whose a casual Stones fan asked about his absence, claiming his spot during CYHMK at the LA Forum (the one show she saw) was the highlight of the show.
Quote
Swayed1967Quote
Hairball
No matter how great the Stones may have been this tour, Mick Taylor was missed by everyone I know who saw him with the Stones last tour.
Even my sister whose a casual Stones fan asked about his absence, claiming his spot during CYHMK at the LA Forum (the one show she saw) was the highlight of the show.
Yes, but if the Mighty Taylor had been constantly on stage your sister may hardly have noticed him or have begun to find his patented Time-Waits-For-No-One-But-Taylor soloing tiresome, especially were he to start noodling on Start Me Up. Not that I wouldn't welcome his presence but at this point in time he's just a sweet ol' memory. Besides, reviews of this tour have been stellar – I wish they’d come to Japan. I haven’t seen them since Saitama 2006. (My lovely wife got scammed for a couple thousand dollars on Yahoo auction trying to get me tickets to that show but since it was my birthday she forked out another 2 grand so I could be 4th row. She’s a big improvement on my first wife.)
Quote
bv
Matt Clifford is on stage for more songs now than Mick Taylor ever were during the 2012 - 2014 shows. I have been at every single show this summer in USA and so far nobody I have met, I have met many, countless fans, but nobody so far have asked me about Mick Taylor. He is a great blues guitarist but he quit the Stones in the 70's.
Quote
bvQuote
TravelinManQuote
bv
Matt Clifford is on stage for more songs now than Mick Taylor ever were during the 2012 - 2014 shows. I have been at every single show this summer in USA and so far nobody I have met, I have met many, countless fans, but nobody so far have asked me about Mick Taylor. He is a great blues guitarist but he quit the Stones in the 70's.
Ha! That's because all the Taylor fans didn't pay an absurd amount of money to see The Stones without him!
I talk to many fans. Many. After the shows. Many say it is their first ever show. Again and again. They know the band for sure and they know the songs but to be honest, when it is your first ever show, all you care about is the Stones. Then Mick Jagger. Then Keith Richards. Or the other way around. Then Charlie and Ronnie.
I have yet to meet a fan who saw the Stones before 1975 on this tour. There are some but not that many
We are all nerds.
Quote
Turner68Quote
DoxaQuote
Turner68Quote
RedhotcarpetQuote
DoxaQuote
StoneburstQuote
OpenG
I am so glad Taylor got carried away in the studio as he and jagger collaborated on sway,mm,winter,twfno,till the next goodbye,hide your love, and I guess he got over carried away on his solo on cyhmk as the tape get rolling on. Oh and yes we are left with his over indulegence on 69, 71,72-73 live recordings. No Taylor was a great musician during that period and everyone knew that at the time and contributed so much to the continued success of the stones.
+1. What's extraordinary is both how many people on this board claim otherwise, and the sheer effort they put into denying MT's contributions and talent (the Bill Wyman/JFF thread is also a great example of this). It's quite sad that a number of posters here seem to think one can't acknowledge others' fine musicianship and extensive contributions to the band's golden era without somehow diminishing Mick and Keith's accomplishments. It's tedious and tendentious.
Well, yeah. The impression I've got along the years is that in almost any discussion considering "who contributed and what and to what extent, etc." the division between Stones fans seem to go between those saying that it is basically just Mick and Keith (and within those two, Keith's role usually emphasized), and then those who think that besides those two there are also some other people that have an essential role to the creative output, legacy and story of the Stones once in a while. Be the case that of Brian Jones, Mick Taylor, Bill Wyman, song-writing (and credition) business, etc. For the first-mentioned it seems to be a hard task to give a credit to the 'underdog' section of the band, while the latter ones might sometimes try a bit too hard to give them that.
- Doxa
Hey Doxa! Welcome to the breakfast show!
i don't find this accurate at all regarding the current threads. everyone involved acknowledges the huge impact of taylor, wyman, jones, watts... i even said the stones should have quit when wyman left the band! i believe their greatest period was with taylor. what riles me, and i think others, up is when lies and accusations are hurled with no evidence or facts.
I expected this kind of comment. My description wasn't directed at the current discussions, but just reflecting what I've seen during, say, 15 years here. But that said, now when I checked, for example, Bill Wyman thread, it fits damn well to my scheme, and the arguments and stances thrown there, were more or less same ones I've seen along the years here. Nothing new under the sun. The thing is that in theory 'everyone acknowldges every one's significance blah blah', but when it goes to some particular instance, say, Wyman inventing the famous "Flash" riff, the division I described above takes place. The tension is there. For some folks it is pretty hard to accept the idea that it was Wyman, no matter how hard he insists that, who might come up with that Richards signature riff. I don't see there any 'facts' supporting this (anti-Wyman) stance, but just a kind of conviction 'no way it is that possible - it needs to be Keith's riff, because he is the 'riff master', and has written all those similar riffs, while Wyman did "Je Suis Un Rock Star" and "In Another Land", hahahahhaha, etc. etc.'. For me it looks like that Bill's claim just doesn't fit to a typical picture people have of The Rolling Stones, and further, taking the claim seriously would be like - to use a typical IORRean vocabulary - "bashing Keith Richards" (a kind of reduktio ad absurdum argument used rather much here lately, but which in my mind, even though I understand the sentiments it derives from, is just a cheap means to kill an interesting discussion).
Anyway, I probably move to Wyman thread to talk about more about this matter.
- Doxa
I think his claim should be taken seriously, but not accepted blindly. However, when you say "no matter how hard he insists that" i think you're forgetting that wyman has not insisted very hard at all that he wrote the riff. he mentioned it in 82 and 89, in 89 in his book. (imagine exaggerating something to sell a book - unheard of right?). to my knowledge the claim has not been raised again for 26 years. nor was it mentioned once for 14 years after the song was written.
there has been no law suit, no threat of law suit, no refusal to play with the stones until his contribution is recognized, not even a claim made on video, much less one where he shows what he played... in the universe of people claiming credit for songs they wrote but didn't get credit for, he has not asserted his claim very much at a all, certainly not to the extent that one can say "no matter how hard he insists" he is not listened to; indeed, he is bill wyman, a great bass player, *the* rolling stones bass player, and we are in fact listening to him. i read stone alone cover to cover when it came out, 20 years before I'd heard of IORR, and have ever since thought it was likely that he played a part in the riff.
i think a mountain is being made out of a molehill here.
Quote
bv
I talk to many fans. Many. After the shows. Many say it is their first ever show. Again and again. They know the band for sure and they know the songs but to be honest, when it is your first ever show, all you care about is the Stones. Then Mick Jagger. Then Keith Richards. Or the other way around. Then Charlie and Ronnie.
Quote
DoxaQuote
bv
I talk to many fans. Many. After the shows. Many say it is their first ever show. Again and again. They know the band for sure and they know the songs but to be honest, when it is your first ever show, all you care about is the Stones. Then Mick Jagger. Then Keith Richards. Or the other way around. Then Charlie and Ronnie.
What amazes me is that there still exists so many people who hasn't seen the Stones earlier... There've been so many possibilities. Well, there must be, and 'they' know that, because it is them the shows are primarily targeted...
- Doxa
Quote
latebloomerQuote
DoxaQuote
bv
I talk to many fans. Many. After the shows. Many say it is their first ever show. Again and again. They know the band for sure and they know the songs but to be honest, when it is your first ever show, all you care about is the Stones. Then Mick Jagger. Then Keith Richards. Or the other way around. Then Charlie and Ronnie.
What amazes me is that there still exists so many people who hasn't seen the Stones earlier... There've been so many possibilities. Well, there must be, and 'they' know that, because it is them the shows are primarily targeted...
- Doxa
Of course there are many, Doxa, BV is right about that. I saw many, many young people at the Nashville and Pittsburgh shows. My sixteen year old son was one of them, though he had seen the Stones once before with me in DC. But his friend had never been and was very excited to see them. He loved the show and happily listened to the six hours of Stones music I subjected them both to on the drive there from Virginia. It's a real, once in a lifetime experience for most people to go to a Stones concert. Most of them will never see them again and they know it. Those are the fans that the Stones are playing to, not fanatics like us who know every song by heart and maybe wish for more variety, other band members, so on and so forth...
Quote
kleermakerQuote
latebloomerQuote
DoxaQuote
bv
I talk to many fans. Many. After the shows. Many say it is their first ever show. Again and again. They know the band for sure and they know the songs but to be honest, when it is your first ever show, all you care about is the Stones. Then Mick Jagger. Then Keith Richards. Or the other way around. Then Charlie and Ronnie.
What amazes me is that there still exists so many people who hasn't seen the Stones earlier... There've been so many possibilities. Well, there must be, and 'they' know that, because it is them the shows are primarily targeted...
- Doxa
Of course there are many, Doxa, BV is right about that. I saw many, many young people at the Nashville and Pittsburgh shows. My sixteen year old son was one of them, though he had seen the Stones once before with me in DC. But his friend had never been and was very excited to see them. He loved the show and happily listened to the six hours of Stones music I subjected them both to on the drive there from Virginia. It's a real, once in a lifetime experience for most people to go to a Stones concert. Most of them will never see them again and they know it. Those are the fans that the Stones are playing to, not fanatics like us who know every song by heart and maybe wish for more variety, other band members, so on and so forth...
Because, as I've said so many times before (excuse me for that), going to a Stones show has become a nice family trip these days, something like visiting a vivid Mme Tussaud museum with living dolls. It has little or nothing to do with the music since ... decades.
One could hear on the videos where Taylor played on Knocking or Sway, the real fans went wild, because they were aware something exceptional and interesting happened. Those old Stones fans still going to Stones shows are a bit pathetic in my view. But they are free to do it of course.
Quote
Doxa
yeah, all true, latebloomer. I have always assumed that of any major acts The Stones having been the one attracting most 'casual fans' and even people who are not fans at all, aka, 'tourists'. They just are such a huge musical institution that almost anyone interested popular music need to catch them at least once, just out of curiosity. That is to say that their potential audience is bigger than anyone else's, even though some other names might have even a bigger 'hardcore' fan base (for example, U2). I think Jagger is awere of that, and one reason for 'conservative' or 'safe' lists (and show) is to offer an ultimate Rolling Stones experience for those kind 'one-timers'. And I think it is safe to assume that he succeeds on that - what I've seen and heard, the 'first timers' or 'one-timers' are usually totally blown by the concert. I can also say that my fisrt Rolling Stones concert (Helsinki 1995) is the one that really totally blew my mind. None gig ever since has been anything close to that experience, and sometimes I feel that it has been just a waste of time and money ever since seeing more or less the same show so many times... (not really!) For a 'critical' fan like me, who is not such a 'superfan' like some others here being able to to be thrilled about anything The Stones do, but seeks some difference, the 'Taylor factor' actually was a big factor to make me catch them at Hyde Park two years ago.
- Doxa
Quote
bv
I have yet to meet a fan who saw the Stones before 1975 on this tour. There are some but not that many.
Quote
kleermakerQuote
latebloomerQuote
DoxaQuote
bv
I talk to many fans. Many. After the shows. Many say it is their first ever show. Again and again. They know the band for sure and they know the songs but to be honest, when it is your first ever show, all you care about is the Stones. Then Mick Jagger. Then Keith Richards. Or the other way around. Then Charlie and Ronnie.
What amazes me is that there still exists so many people who hasn't seen the Stones earlier... There've been so many possibilities. Well, there must be, and 'they' know that, because it is them the shows are primarily targeted...
- Doxa
Of course there are many, Doxa, BV is right about that. I saw many, many young people at the Nashville and Pittsburgh shows. My sixteen year old son was one of them, though he had seen the Stones once before with me in DC. But his friend had never been and was very excited to see them. He loved the show and happily listened to the six hours of Stones music I subjected them both to on the drive there from Virginia. It's a real, once in a lifetime experience for most people to go to a Stones concert. Most of them will never see them again and they know it. Those are the fans that the Stones are playing to, not fanatics like us who know every song by heart and maybe wish for more variety, other band members, so on and so forth...
Because, as I've said so many times before (excuse me for that), going to a Stones show has become a nice family trip these days, something like visiting a vivid Mme Tussaud museum with living dolls. It has little or nothing to do with the music since ... decades.
One could hear on the videos where Taylor played on Knocking or Sway, the real fans went wild, because they were aware something exceptional and interesting happened. Those old Stones fans still going to Stones shows are a bit pathetic in my view. But they are free to do it of course.
Quote
latebloomerQuote
kleermakerQuote
latebloomerQuote
DoxaQuote
bv
I talk to many fans. Many. After the shows. Many say it is their first ever show. Again and again. They know the band for sure and they know the songs but to be honest, when it is your first ever show, all you care about is the Stones. Then Mick Jagger. Then Keith Richards. Or the other way around. Then Charlie and Ronnie.
What amazes me is that there still exists so many people who hasn't seen the Stones earlier... There've been so many possibilities. Well, there must be, and 'they' know that, because it is them the shows are primarily targeted...
- Doxa
Of course there are many, Doxa, BV is right about that. I saw many, many young people at the Nashville and Pittsburgh shows. My sixteen year old son was one of them, though he had seen the Stones once before with me in DC. But his friend had never been and was very excited to see them. He loved the show and happily listened to the six hours of Stones music I subjected them both to on the drive there from Virginia. It's a real, once in a lifetime experience for most people to go to a Stones concert. Most of them will never see them again and they know it. Those are the fans that the Stones are playing to, not fanatics like us who know every song by heart and maybe wish for more variety, other band members, so on and so forth...
Because, as I've said so many times before (excuse me for that), going to a Stones show has become a nice family trip these days, something like visiting a vivid Mme Tussaud museum with living dolls. It has little or nothing to do with the music since ... decades.
One could hear on the videos where Taylor played on Knocking or Sway, the real fans went wild, because they were aware something exceptional and interesting happened. Those old Stones fans still going to Stones shows are a bit pathetic in my view. But they are free to do it of course.
You're problem Kleerie, is you care too much. By the way, I hate wax museums, they creep me out.
But, you are a little right about it not having so much to do with the music as the experience. Honestly, if I want to really just focus on the music, then I will listen to a live boot or recording at home or in my car with good speakers and multiple times. Then I can concentrate on who played what solo and how well and whether or not Mick hit that note perfectly or was a little off. But when I go to a concert, I want to enjoy everything about it - the music, the costumes, Keith's smiles, Mick's wild dancing, the lights, the energy of the crowd, the night sky, my companions, even the drunk next to me is slightly endearing, no worse probably then my jumping around, hollering and occasionally singing along. I walk away feeling like I just got a wonderful gift, even if I'm drenched in sweat from the hot Nashville air or feel like a drowned rat after all the rain in Pittsburgh. But, that's my pathetic old experience at a Stones concert. I'm really quite a simple person in what makes me happy.