Quote
latebloomer

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
latebloomer

Quote
Doxa

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.

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.

Dear Bloomer, that's the innocent kid in you and that's why I love you so much.

Just a serious question: did you ever go to a classical music concert? If so, I'm totally sure you didn't pay attention to any bum note (you wouldn't even hear it!) or who played what solo or sung what aria or whatever. But you would be caught by the magic of the live musical experience itself. Believe me, not the best sound equipment in the world can equal a live musical experience.

Anyway, why don't you go to the disco or dance party or whatever it's called these days more often and have the same experience as during a nowadays Stones show. It's so much cheaper

Quote
kleermaker
...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.

Are you absolutely sure about this?

They don't need to get permission from you first?

.....

Olly.

Quote
Olly

Quote
kleermaker
...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.

Are you absolutely sure about this?

They don't need to get permission from you first?

No they don't, as I said before.

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.

He is a rock guitarist.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
latebloomer

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
latebloomer

Quote
Doxa

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.

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.

Dear Bloomer, that's the innocent kid in you and that's why I love you so much.

Just a serious question: did you ever go to a classical music concert? If so, I'm totally sure you didn't pay attention to any bum note (you wouldn't even hear it!) or who played what solo or sung what aria or whatever. But you would be caught by the magic of the live musical experience itself. Believe me, not the best sound equipment in the world can equal a live musical experience.

Anyway, why don't you go to the disco or dance party or whatever it's called these days more often and have the same experience as during a nowadays Stones show. It's so much cheaper

Yes, I have been to a classical concert, several. My mother took me to see Vladimir Horowitz when I was a young teen and that live experience still stands out in my mind as one of the most sublime I have ever had. So we are in agreement on the magic of a live concert. The difference is that I can still get that magic during a modern day Stones concert. You cannot. You think I'd be better off at a disco, I think you are a stubborn, prideful Taylor fanatic who can't see the forest for the trees. But, that's what I love about you, Kleerie...and I'm not so innocent, trust me.

Quote
Doxa
Since 71Tele is here, I need to mention that the most hilarous moment in that banned clip was that of Mr. H asking the people who thought Ronnie was a good replacement to leave the room. Almost all disappeared expect three or so die-hard 'Taylorites'. That's a helluva analogy for the big-mouthed minority here, bounded to this very thread.... Can't stop laughing... ><

I actually have started to think that "Taylorism" or actually "Tayloritism" is a synonym for free expression of speech here, the most striking example of people having an opinion against the main stream here, thereby testing the democracy of places like this. Without differing opinions there would be no discussion. I guess for some people that would be alright. I have reflected some bad tendencies here for some time now.

Of those swimming against the main stream by offering different perspectives, and thereby keeping discussion alive and interesting, I really miss His Majesty and his talk of "real Stones", aka Brian Jones era Stones... It was great, for example, to see how well him and Mathijs get along, despite having almost opposite kind of ideas of the Stones and of their greatness...

- Doxa

Thank you Doxa. Of course my little video was completely misconstrued by certain people. It is still available on YouTube, of course.

There is an old American saying: "You can't fight City Hall". I'll leave it at that.

Quote
DoomandGloom

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.

He is a rock guitarist.

listen to his work, he's versatile. there's a lot of jazz in his playing, but it comes out as his own style of course.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
latebloomer

Quote
Doxa

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.

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.

I think you have got this almost exactly right.

In the 1980s my dad took my brother and I to see Frank Sinatra. Why? we asked. We were not fans of Sinatra. "Because one day you'll appreciate him and he will be gone, and I want you to have the experience of seeing him before he is" my dad answered. Sinatra gave a very credible, professional experience, playing all his hits exactly as they had been recorded in numerous studio and live albums over the years.

And my Dad was right. Now I appreciate Sinatra and I"m glad I got to see him.

This is what the Stones shows are about now, in my opinion.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
latebloomer

Quote
Doxa

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.

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.

Exactly so, and I imagine why this is more or less the point where Crossfire Hurricane flames out the credits roll....

Quote
latebloomer
... and I'm not so innocent, trust me.

LOl! I know, it was irony.

Latebloomer, I really think you would have the same reaction as I have when you had heard the Stones with Taylor in 1973. It's not so much "prideful", it's being extremely sensitive for the emotional effects of music. When I attended that Stones concert in 1973 I just listened to it as I later listened to Mozart's Requiem and his big four operas. Not dancing, drinking, singing or whatever, but just listening and taken away by the emotions of the music, at the same time being very well aware of the situation and everything.

Quote
kleermaker
Latebloomer, I really think you would have the same reaction as I have when you had heard the Stones with Taylor in 1973. It's not so much "prideful", it's being extremely sensitive for the emotional effects of music. When I attended that Stones concert in 1973 I just listened to it as I later listened to Mozart's Requiem and his big four operas. Not dancing, drinking, singing or whatever, but just listening and taken away by the emotions of the music, at the same time being very well aware of the situation and everything.

Maybe so, maybe so...and I do very much appreciate the emotional effects of music. The Stones of the Taylor era had a kind of purity and perfection to you and to others who loved them so much during that era. But, it does no good to live in the past, my friend, and I think if you let yourself, you might even find some real value in the Stones music of today. Ronnie Wood is a fine guitarist and his playing has really lifted the band on this tour. But, that's just my opinion.

Quote
latebloomer

Quote
kleermaker
Latebloomer, I really think you would have the same reaction as I have when you had heard the Stones with Taylor in 1973. It's not so much "prideful", it's being extremely sensitive for the emotional effects of music. When I attended that Stones concert in 1973 I just listened to it as I later listened to Mozart's Requiem and his big four operas. Not dancing, drinking, singing or whatever, but just listening and taken away by the emotions of the music, at the same time being very well aware of the situation and everything.

Maybe so, maybe so...and I do very much appreciate the emotional effects of music. The Stones of the Taylor era had a kind of purity and perfection to you and to others who loved them so much during that era. But, it does no good to live in the past, my friend, and I think if you let yourself, you might even find some real value in the Stones music of today. Ronnie Wood is a fine guitarist and his playing has really lifted the band on this tour. But, that's just my opinion.

There's living in the past, sure. But there is also stupidly squandering opportunities to make the band better, which the Stones have done. Taylor was there in the flesh (ok, lots of flesh) and was barely used. I don't think it's living in the past to say what a waste it was to under-utilize him that way or to not invite him on a supposed Sticky Fingers-themed tour when he was available and such a big part of that album. It's a very contemporary issue, imo.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Naturalust

As far as the Keith fast Spanish licks go though, I'm pretty convinced after hearing him do some at the end of Sister Morphine on the Fonda release. A bit slower than what we've heard in the past but the same notes are there, coming from Keith for anybody who cares to listen.

The best part of the performance of this song. A pity it's overshadowed by the brutal power guitar playing by Wood.

Ha! Sorry you feel that way. I would have expected you would have liked the entire first verse where he is sitting out. I think Ronnie is particularly good leading into and during the second verse, maybe gets a bit noisy toward the end, but overall a good interpretation of the dark (brutal) emotion of the song.

No, no and no again! I mean: the emotion of the song is dark, sad, lost and lonely. But as usual Ronnie Wood isn't able to convey that atmospere at all and just plays some brutal non-melodic guitar. I sure know how MT would have done it. Listen to this little snippet, to get an impression/imagination of how ...:
[www.youtube.com]

+1 .

About emotions and sex etc: the difference between Ronnie and say Keith or Taylor in a song like Hey Negrita: great riff but the sexiness is in Keiths rhythm and Micks vocals. And Billys piano. Ronnies style is different.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
latebloomer

Quote
kleermaker
Latebloomer, I really think you would have the same reaction as I have when you had heard the Stones with Taylor in 1973. It's not so much "prideful", it's being extremely sensitive for the emotional effects of music. When I attended that Stones concert in 1973 I just listened to it as I later listened to Mozart's Requiem and his big four operas. Not dancing, drinking, singing or whatever, but just listening and taken away by the emotions of the music, at the same time being very well aware of the situation and everything.

Maybe so, maybe so...and I do very much appreciate the emotional effects of music. The Stones of the Taylor era had a kind of purity and perfection to you and to others who loved them so much during that era. But, it does no good to live in the past, my friend, and I think if you let yourself, you might even find some real value in the Stones music of today. Ronnie Wood is a fine guitarist and his playing has really lifted the band on this tour. But, that's just my opinion.

There's living in the past, sure. But there is also stupidly squandering opportunities to make the band better, which the Stones have done. Taylor was there in the flesh (ok, lots of flesh) and was barely used. I don't think it's living in the past to say what a waste it was to under-utilize him that way or to not invite him on a supposed Sticky Fingers-themed tour when he was available and such a big part of that album. It's a very contemporary issue, imo.

Well, that's a separate discussion from whether or not the current band is worth seeing, but your little aside there made me laugh. This thread gets way too heavy at times. I'm going to leave it at that, as I'm not up for stepping into that mine field. It just circles back to the same discussion and nobody ever changes their minds. But carry on, and best to you 71Tele.

Quote
71Tele
There's living in the past, sure. But there is also stupidly squandering opportunities to make the band better, which the Stones have done. Taylor was there in the flesh (ok, lots of flesh) and was barely used. I don't think it's living in the past to say what a waste it was to under-utilize him that way or to not invite him on a supposed Sticky Fingers-themed tour when he was available and such a big part of that album. It's a very contemporary issue, imo.

This is exactly the point. Living in the past would be people on this board pining for Taylor had 50 & Counting been and gone without the merest glimmer (geddit?) of him. But that's not what happened: rather, the Stones bought the guy back, squandered the opportunity to do something artistically meaningful with him over the course of several years, then dropped him prior to a Sticky Fingers tour, of all things. They've nobody but themselves to blame for whatever blowback they get as a result.

Keep talking ... but a band is like a family, where they live also feelings, Mick Taylor is no longer in the band for years and no one wants it, he was a guest of the Stones. Everything else is just bar talk ...

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
71Tele
There's living in the past, sure. But there is also stupidly squandering opportunities to make the band better, which the Stones have done. Taylor was there in the flesh (ok, lots of flesh) and was barely used. I don't think it's living in the past to say what a waste it was to under-utilize him that way or to not invite him on a supposed Sticky Fingers-themed tour when he was available and such a big part of that album. It's a very contemporary issue, imo.

This is exactly the point. Living in the past would be people on this board pining for Taylor had 50 & Counting been and gone without the merest glimmer (geddit?) of him. But that's not what happened: rather, the Stones bought the guy back, squandered the opportunity to do something artistically meaningful with him over the course of several years, then dropped him prior to a Sticky Fingers tour, of all things. They've nobody but themselves to blame for whatever blowback they get as a result.

so to jump in on a conversation betweenst you two,

regarding blowback about dropping Taylor,because the agreed-upon time for him to participate had ended -

I wish there was some blowback. but there isn't, just great shows with no Mick Taylor.

its just their way of going about things. what a great musical, artistic difference if Mick Taylor had been included on this tour..all these great shows would have been even better.

but they chose to play it safe.

Quote
duke richardson
so to jump in on a conversation betweenst you two,

regarding blowback about dropping Taylor,because the agreed-upon time for him to participate had ended -

I wish there was some blowback. but there isn't, just great shows with no Mick Taylor.

its just their way of going about things. what a great musical, artistic difference if Mick Taylor had been included on this tour..all these great shows would have been even better.

but they chose to play it safe.

Well, yes and no. A lot of long term fans were undeniably very pissed that Taylor wasn't involved, but most of the shows have indeed been a lot better than those on the Licks and ABB tours and fans of all stripes have acknowledged them as such. I think you can acknowledge that the band are playing well, yet also be very critical of both the way Taylor was used previously and the decision to drop him for this tour.

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
duke richardson
so to jump in on a conversation betweenst you two,

regarding blowback about dropping Taylor,because the agreed-upon time for him to participate had ended -

I wish there was some blowback. but there isn't, just great shows with no Mick Taylor.

its just their way of going about things. what a great musical, artistic difference if Mick Taylor had been included on this tour..all these great shows would have been even better.

but they chose to play it safe.

Well, yes and no. A lot of long term fans were undeniably very pissed that Taylor wasn't involved, but most of the shows have indeed been a lot better than those on the Licks and ABB tours and fans of all stripes have acknowledged them as such. I think you can acknowledge that the band are playing well, yet also be very critical of both the way Taylor was used previously and the decision to drop him for this tour.

It's simply a matter of good vs. better. As was pointed out, the Stones settled for good.

Question,

This section is so large would hate to read all the lines to find this info.
What's the story on Mick Taylor's girlfriend/Manager and some back-stage
incident? what happened? If something did happen I bet that's the main reason
Taylor wasn't invited on the Zip Tour???

MLC

Quote
MCDDTLC
Question,

This section is so large would hate to read all the lines to find this info.
What's the story on Mick Taylor's girlfriend/Manager and some back-stage
incident? what happened? If something did happen I bet that's the main reason
Taylor wasn't invited on the Zip Tour???

MLC

A total unsubstantiated rumor briefly mentioned by someone who seemed to have a strange personal problem with this person. I wouldn't give it a second thought if I were you.

It's been discussed plenty on here but I would just like to add that, in my opinion, having Mick Taylor on a tour promoting the re-issue of Sticky Fingers after they had cut him off of his share of royalties from that record probably would probably make more than a few people uncomfortable....wouldn't you think so?

Quote
MCDDTLC
Question,

This section is so large would hate to read all the lines to find this info.
What's the story on Mick Taylor's girlfriend/Manager and some back-stage
incident? what happened? If something did happen I bet that's the main reason
Taylor wasn't invited on the Zip Tour???

MLC

There was definitely tension there. Exactly what happened, no one is giving specifics about. No point speculating. One day the truth will come out:

It can all fall apart said Bill of the rhythm section. I wish Keith Bill and Charlie would play together again and I wish Jagger and Taylor would write a song together again. I think taylor did to jagger what keith did before him: make jagger dance. Move him.

The reason Taylor is not on tour with them=Mick Jagger.

Quote
Hairball

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
latebloomer

Quote
Doxa

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.

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.

Funny you should say that! Back in 1997 I wrote a review of the Stones show at Dodgers stadium for a college course I was currently enrolled in, and mentioned the atmosphere was akin to a family outing with the kids at Disneyland - a very safe place for one and all, and a far cry from previous tours I'd seen where there was an element of danger and chaos. But instead of relating it to Madame Tussauds, I wrote about all the children mannequin/robots singing "It's A small World", and the Pirates of the Carribbean singing "Yo ho, yo ho, the pirate's life for me" with Micky, Pluto, Donald, and Goofy singing along and dancing in the aisles. By 1997, a Stones show had already become the happiest place on earth!

I've been following this band since 71. Longer than most, not nearly as long as some. I remember when The Stones lost DROVES of fans w/ GOAT'S HEAD SOUP, people who never came back. But they rolled on and did become a sort of rock'n'roll institution. They are not a band built for hardcore fans, plain and simple. They have some hardcore fans, of course, but as others have observed in this thread, probably fewer than a band of their longevity and stature should have.

What they are really really good at is a form of fakery, an ability to reproduce, visually and aurally, a moment in time, decades past, when they were at the height of their artistic powers and cultural relevance. Cracks show through of course since there is such a disconnect between 1970 and 2015 ... but while on tour The Stones roll out, every three nights, a revue that "passes," a show that allows people to suspend their disbelief and revel in the nostalgia of "I can't believe they can do this at their ages!"

This is not a trivial art. It is HARD to pull off and nearly no one else in their field can do it with anywhere near the skill that The Stones can.

It becomes easier, in a sense, to see things this way when you admit that the band isn't any good any more. That you don't like the way they play, or sing, or dance, that the music they produce doesn't move you, and you wish for something more. Because they won't give us anything new, there's nothing left to do BUT compare them to their own pasts. And for many hardcore fans, those who no longer believe, that is the band's downfall. But because the band is soooo good at recreating their rock'n'roll revue, the steady dwindling of the hardcore base over the years is no hanging matter. In fact, for what Mick and Keith want to achieve, they NEED to shed that skin every few years, they need to be in front of people who WANT to believe that what they do is new and exciting and fresh and artistically relevant. In other words, people who do not know the band's history, or who know them only as "@#$%&, The Rolling Stones are still around? Christ! Let's go!"

To make my no doubt unpopular position even more unpopular: it would not have made an ounce of difference to me if they had trotted out Mick Taylor for a STICKY FINGERS tour. Why do I want to see old guys try to recreate a 45-year-old record? It would suck no matter who they tried to get to join them. The Stones became something else when Mick and Keith could no longer write songs together and decided to create a brand instead. They succeeded beyond their wildest imaginings, I'm sure.

They will outlast us all, will shed more skin along the way, and will be playing JJF to new groups of fans via hologram no doubt one day. That's what they do.

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
Hairball

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
latebloomer

Quote
Doxa

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.

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.

Funny you should say that! Back in 1997 I wrote a review of the Stones show at Dodgers stadium for a college course I was currently enrolled in, and mentioned the atmosphere was akin to a family outing with the kids at Disneyland - a very safe place for one and all, and a far cry from previous tours I'd seen where there was an element of danger and chaos. But instead of relating it to Madame Tussauds, I wrote about all the children mannequin/robots singing "It's A small World", and the Pirates of the Carribbean singing "Yo ho, yo ho, the pirate's life for me" with Micky, Pluto, Donald, and Goofy singing along and dancing in the aisles. By 1997, a Stones show had already become the happiest place on earth!

I've been following this band since 71. Longer than most, not nearly as long as some. I remember when The Stones lost DROVES of fans w/ GOAT'S HEAD SOUP, people who never came back. But they rolled on and did become a sort of rock'n'roll institution. They are not a band built for hardcore fans, plain and simple. They have some hardcore fans, of course, but as others have observed in this thread, probably fewer than a band of their longevity and stature should have.

What they are really really good at is a form of fakery, an ability to reproduce, visually and aurally, a moment in time, decades past, when they were at the height of their artistic powers and cultural relevance. Cracks show through of course since there is such a disconnect between 1970 and 2015 ... but while on tour The Stones roll out, every three nights, a revue that "passes," a show that allows people to suspend their disbelief and revel in the nostalgia of "I can't believe they can do this at their ages!"

This is not a trivial art. It is HARD to pull off and nearly no one else in their field can do it with anywhere near the skill that The Stones can.

It becomes easier, in a sense, to see things this way when you admit that the band isn't any good any more. That you don't like the way they play, or sing, or dance, that the music they produce doesn't move you, and you wish for something more. Because they won't give us anything new, there's nothing left to do BUT compare them to their own pasts. And for many hardcore fans, those who no longer believe, that is the band's downfall. But because the band is soooo good at recreating their rock'n'roll revue, the steady dwindling of the hardcore base over the years is no hanging matter. In fact, for what Mick and Keith want to achieve, they NEED to shed that skin every few years, they need to be in front of people who WANT to believe that what they do is new and exciting and fresh and artistically relevant. In other words, people who do not know the band's history, or who know them only as "@#$%&, The Rolling Stones are still around? Christ! Let's go!"

To make my no doubt unpopular position even more unpopular: it would not have made an ounce of difference to me if they had trotted out Mick Taylor for a STICKY FINGERS tour. Why do I want to see old guys try to recreate a 45-year-old record? It would suck no matter who they tried to get to join them. The Stones became something else when Mick and Keith could no longer write songs together and decided to create a brand instead. They succeeded beyond their wildest imaginings, I'm sure.

They will outlast us all, will shed more skin along the way, and will be playing JJF to new groups of fans via hologram no doubt one day. That's what they do.

Nicely put. Of course no one would have fell for it if they'd said they were 'trotting out' Mick Taylor for a Sticky Fingers tour. They already screwed us by waving Mick Taylor around for the last tour, only to deliver next to nothing but the same old Tumbling Devil crap.

Quote
Redhotcarpet
It can all fall apart said Bill of the rhythm section. I wish Keith Bill and Charlie would play together again and I wish Jagger and Taylor would write a song together again. I think taylor did to jagger what keith did before him: make jagger dance. Move him.

can you think of one good song mick & mick wrote together?

Very eloquently stated. I would add that I was a freshman in High School when "Black And Blue" came out and a die hard fan. Looking back I think they lost a generation of fans when they went in this direction as heavy metal and California rock were coming into their own. I have always maintained it is amazing how few true hardcore fans they have , how few albums they have sold compared to other classic rockers, yet, that notion that the Stones are still around and in your city still resonates with the folks. If they tried to please us hardcore fans, particularly Taylor junkies like me, it would have ended long ago...sad, but true.

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
Hairball

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
latebloomer

Quote
Doxa

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.

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.

Funny you should say that! Back in 1997 I wrote a review of the Stones show at Dodgers stadium for a college course I was currently enrolled in, and mentioned the atmosphere was akin to a family outing with the kids at Disneyland - a very safe place for one and all, and a far cry from previous tours I'd seen where there was an element of danger and chaos. But instead of relating it to Madame Tussauds, I wrote about all the children mannequin/robots singing "It's A small World", and the Pirates of the Carribbean singing "Yo ho, yo ho, the pirate's life for me" with Micky, Pluto, Donald, and Goofy singing along and dancing in the aisles. By 1997, a Stones show had already become the happiest place on earth!

I've been following this band since 71. Longer than most, not nearly as long as some. I remember when The Stones lost DROVES of fans w/ GOAT'S HEAD SOUP, people who never came back. But they rolled on and did become a sort of rock'n'roll institution. They are not a band built for hardcore fans, plain and simple. They have some hardcore fans, of course, but as others have observed in this thread, probably fewer than a band of their longevity and stature should have.

What they are really really good at is a form of fakery, an ability to reproduce, visually and aurally, a moment in time, decades past, when they were at the height of their artistic powers and cultural relevance. Cracks show through of course since there is such a disconnect between 1970 and 2015 ... but while on tour The Stones roll out, every three nights, a revue that "passes," a show that allows people to suspend their disbelief and revel in the nostalgia of "I can't believe they can do this at their ages!"

This is not a trivial art. It is HARD to pull off and nearly no one else in their field can do it with anywhere near the skill that The Stones can.

It becomes easier, in a sense, to see things this way when you admit that the band isn't any good any more. That you don't like the way they play, or sing, or dance, that the music they produce doesn't move you, and you wish for something more. Because they won't give us anything new, there's nothing left to do BUT compare them to their own pasts. And for many hardcore fans, those who no longer believe, that is the band's downfall. But because the band is soooo good at recreating their rock'n'roll revue, the steady dwindling of the hardcore base over the years is no hanging matter. In fact, for what Mick and Keith want to achieve, they NEED to shed that skin every few years, they need to be in front of people who WANT to believe that what they do is new and exciting and fresh and artistically relevant. In other words, people who do not know the band's history, or who know them only as "@#$%&, The Rolling Stones are still around? Christ! Let's go!"

To make my no doubt unpopular position even more unpopular: it would not have made an ounce of difference to me if they had trotted out Mick Taylor for a STICKY FINGERS tour. Why do I want to see old guys try to recreate a 45-year-old record? It would suck no matter who they tried to get to join them. The Stones became something else when Mick and Keith could no longer write songs together and decided to create a brand instead. They succeeded beyond their wildest imaginings, I'm sure.

They will outlast us all, will shed more skin along the way, and will be playing JJF to new groups of fans via hologram no doubt one day. That's what they do.

i feel like you just said something i have tried to say ever since i started posting, but 1000% better. nicely done.