For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
RickyQuote
mtaylorQuote
PhillyFANQuote
Hairball
Wondering if they'll invite him back for a few songs on stage considering it's now "55 and Counting...".
That would make the tour extra special, and might be part of the "surprises" that have been mentioned.
That would really be a surprise, but does he even want to berelegated to one song and an acoustic guitar again?
I guess he is basically retired.
When was the last time he played in public?
25th October, 2016 - Celebration of the Life And Music of Jack Bruce concert in London
Quote
mrpaulincanada
Awesome playing....Little Mick still has it. I wish there were a couple of Englishmen who could see that too...
Quote
RollingFreakQuote
mrpaulincanada
Awesome playing....Little Mick still has it. I wish there were a couple of Englishmen who could see that too...
Honestly, as much as I love him, that wouldn't fit at all with current day Stones. And its not always that inspired. There's a time and place for Mick, but most current day shows wouldn't benefit from him IMO.
Quote
Hairball
He would raise the bar back up where it belongs.
Quote
HairballQuote
RollingFreakQuote
mrpaulincanada
Awesome playing....Little Mick still has it. I wish there were a couple of Englishmen who could see that too...
Honestly, as much as I love him, that wouldn't fit at all with current day Stones. And its not always that inspired. There's a time and place for Mick, but most current day shows wouldn't benefit from him IMO.
Ridiculous.
He would raise the bar back up where it belongs.
Quote
RollingFreakQuote
HairballQuote
RollingFreakQuote
mrpaulincanada
Awesome playing....Little Mick still has it. I wish there were a couple of Englishmen who could see that too...
Honestly, as much as I love him, that wouldn't fit at all with current day Stones. And its not always that inspired. There's a time and place for Mick, but most current day shows wouldn't benefit from him IMO.
Ridiculous.
He would raise the bar back up where it belongs.
They don't play those types of solos anymore. He's best, at least nowadays, when you give him an extended time to solo. Otherwise he's not really adding much to a song or he's just sort of noodling around in the background. Its just not the show the Stones put on or have for the last 20 years. They have a set, its rather tight, and I would love to see Mick Taylor (its the ONLY reason I went on the 50th tour) but he'd bore most of the audience I think. Ronnie has that energy and those quick fills that, I think, gel best with what the band has become today.
Quote
MartinB
I saw several shows with him the last tour and, for whatever reasons, he did not live up to the expectations. Certainly did not raise the bar. And I saw numerous solo gigs of MT, and it was hit and miss...
Quote
RollingFreak
They don't play those types of solos anymore. He's best, at least nowadays, when you give him an extended time to solo. Otherwise he's not really adding much to a song or he's just sort of noodling around in the background. Its just not the show the Stones put on or have for the last 20 years. They have a set, its rather tight, and I would love to see Mick Taylor (its the ONLY reason I went on the 50th tour) but he'd bore most of the audience I think. Ronnie has that energy and those quick fills that, I think, gel best with what the band has become today.
Quote
RollingFreakQuote
HairballQuote
RollingFreakQuote
mrpaulincanada
Awesome playing....Little Mick still has it. I wish there were a couple of Englishmen who could see that too...
Honestly, as much as I love him, that wouldn't fit at all with current day Stones. And its not always that inspired. There's a time and place for Mick, but most current day shows wouldn't benefit from him IMO.
Ridiculous.
He would raise the bar back up where it belongs.
They don't play those types of solos anymore. He's best, at least nowadays, when you give him an extended time to solo. Otherwise he's not really adding much to a song or he's just sort of noodling around in the background. Its just not the show the Stones put on or have for the last 20 years. They have a set, its rather tight, and I would love to see Mick Taylor (its the ONLY reason I went on the 50th tour) but he'd bore most of the audience I think. Ronnie has that energy and those quick fills that, I think, gel best with what the band has become today.
Quote
S.T.PQuote
RollingFreak
They don't play those types of solos anymore. He's best, at least nowadays, when you give him an extended time to solo. Otherwise he's not really adding much to a song or he's just sort of noodling around in the background. Its just not the show the Stones put on or have for the last 20 years. They have a set, its rather tight, and I would love to see Mick Taylor (its the ONLY reason I went on the 50th tour) but he'd bore most of the audience I think. Ronnie has that energy and those quick fills that, I think, gel best with what the band has become today.
You're probably right about Ronny, and that he' comfortable with adapting to todays version of the band. But honestly there is much more involved than guitarplaying and the music. They have to deal with the one size fits all show. It's mostly about expressing energy and giving the crowd a good show. They've played the same versions of the classics for most of the time now for about two decades. From my point of view that's boring. The time when the Stones where exploring new ground is long gone. Therefore it would have been thrilling to hear new versions of both new and old songs -and I'm also shure that it would benefit them in this time of their career. Refreshing would be the right word, and Taylor would fit right in.
Quote
RollingFreak
I want him back as much as you, but his soloing on Sway probably impressed 5% at most of the audience in LA. To the other 95%, it wouldn't have mattered to them if it was Ronnie playing it. They wouldn't have noticed a difference.
Quote
HairballQuote
RollingFreakQuote
HairballQuote
RollingFreakQuote
mrpaulincanada
Awesome playing....Little Mick still has it. I wish there were a couple of Englishmen who could see that too...
Honestly, as much as I love him, that wouldn't fit at all with current day Stones. And its not always that inspired. There's a time and place for Mick, but most current day shows wouldn't benefit from him IMO.
Ridiculous.
He would raise the bar back up where it belongs.
They don't play those types of solos anymore. He's best, at least nowadays, when you give him an extended time to solo. Otherwise he's not really adding much to a song or he's just sort of noodling around in the background. Its just not the show the Stones put on or have for the last 20 years. They have a set, its rather tight, and I would love to see Mick Taylor (its the ONLY reason I went on the 50th tour) but he'd bore most of the audience I think. Ronnie has that energy and those quick fills that, I think, gel best with what the band has become today.
Keep Ronnie - he can play an occasional lead and a quick fill here and there, but mainly rhythm to help fill out Keith's missing parts - as for now Chuck L. is filling Keith's parts on keyboard which is kind of lame.
Or move Ronnie to bass - once a bass player always a bass player, and he certainly knows his way around the bass.
Mick Taylor is not all about extended solos - yes he's a master at that, but he's an all around great guitar player including rhythm. Having seen him play with the Bluesbreakers reunion in '82, along with a couple of solo shows throughout the years, and most recently six shows when they brought him back a few years ago, I can attest to this fact. He is the missing link that has been missing for many years in the Stones world IMO, and while the Stones are fun without him, they just aren't quite up to snuff - especially in these latter years. Seeing him play Sway, CYHMK, AND Midnight Rambler at the second Staples show in 2013 ranks up there with the very best Stones shows I've ever seen - actually it's probably the #1 Stones show I've seen as far as musicianship is concerned.[/quote
Mick Taylor rejoining the band would not detract from the music. I am remembering the 69, 73, and 73 tours. His contributions made the Rolling Stones absolutely incredible. His appearances on 50 and counting were the highlight of most shows. But I doubt very much if he wants to deal the Stones ever again but it sure would be sweet music again if they got together at this very late date.
Quote
PhillyFANQuote
HairballQuote
RollingFreakQuote
HairballQuote
RollingFreakQuote
mrpaulincanada
Awesome playing....Little Mick still has it. I wish there were a couple of Englishmen who could see that too...
Honestly, as much as I love him, that wouldn't fit at all with current day Stones. And its not always that inspired. There's a time and place for Mick, but most current day shows wouldn't benefit from him IMO.
Ridiculous.
He would raise the bar back up where it belongs.
They don't play those types of solos anymore. He's best, at least nowadays, when you give him an extended time to solo. Otherwise he's not really adding much to a song or he's just sort of noodling around in the background. Its just not the show the Stones put on or have for the last 20 years. They have a set, its rather tight, and I would love to see Mick Taylor (its the ONLY reason I went on the 50th tour) but he'd bore most of the audience I think. Ronnie has that energy and those quick fills that, I think, gel best with what the band has become today.
Keep Ronnie - he can play an occasional lead and a quick fill here and there, but mainly rhythm to help fill out Keith's missing parts - as for now Chuck L. is filling Keith's parts on keyboard which is kind of lame.
Or move Ronnie to bass - once a bass player always a bass player, and he certainly knows his way around the bass.
Mick Taylor is not all about extended solos - yes he's a master at that, but he's an all around great guitar player including rhythm. Having seen him play with the Bluesbreakers reunion in '82, along with a couple of solo shows throughout the years, and most recently six shows when they brought him back a few years ago, I can attest to this fact. He is the missing link that has been missing for many years in the Stones world IMO, and while the Stones are fun without him, they just aren't quite up to snuff - especially in these latter years. Seeing him play Sway, CYHMK, AND Midnight Rambler at the second Staples show in 2013 ranks up there with the very best Stones shows I've ever seen - actually it's probably the #1 Stones show I've seen as far as musicianship is concerned.[/quoteQuote
PhillyFAN
Mick Taylor rejoining the band would not detract from the music. I am remembering the 69, 73, and 73 tours. His contributions made the Rolling Stones absolutely incredible. His appearances on 50 and counting were the highlight of most shows. But I doubt very much if he wants to deal the Stones ever again but it sure would be sweet music again if they got together at this very late date.
Tried to fix your quote Phillyfan - something has run amok.
And what you say is absolutely 100% correct!!!
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Quote
HairballQuote
RollingFreak
I want him back as much as you, but his soloing on Sway probably impressed 5% at most of the audience in LA. To the other 95%, it wouldn't have mattered to them if it was Ronnie playing it. They wouldn't have noticed a difference.
Again ridiculous and false - no offense.
Quote
RollingFreak
...... but his soloing on Sway probably impressed 5% at most of the audience in LA. To the other 95%, it wouldn't have mattered to them if it was Ronnie playing it. They wouldn't have noticed a difference.
As long as SmartPhones were (are) allowed and pictures can be taken there is no difference what so ever - music or no music.....Quote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
RollingFreak
...... but his soloing on Sway probably impressed 5% at most of the audience in LA. To the other 95%, it wouldn't have mattered to them if it was Ronnie playing it. They wouldn't have noticed a difference.
Very sad news.
Quote
mtaylorAs long as SmartPhones were (are) allowed and pictures can be taken there is no difference what so ever - music or no music.....Quote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
RollingFreak
...... but his soloing on Sway probably impressed 5% at most of the audience in LA. To the other 95%, it wouldn't have mattered to them if it was Ronnie playing it. They wouldn't have noticed a difference.
Very sad news.
Quote
RollingFreakQuote
HairballQuote
RollingFreak
I want him back as much as you, but his soloing on Sway probably impressed 5% at most of the audience in LA. To the other 95%, it wouldn't have mattered to them if it was Ronnie playing it. They wouldn't have noticed a difference.
Again ridiculous and false - no offense.
Lol I mean I don't even have a response. Its neither but ok. Just chalk it up to another thing we simply disagree on . I'm as baffled by your comment as you are of mine. The Eagles prove, even though its been clear for decades, that today's audiences don't care who's in a band! They care about a name, they care about the hits, they care about a good nostalgic time. Thats why Stones fans get annoyed with the Stones, Springsteen fans get annoyed with Springsteen, Tom Petty fans get annoyed with Tom Petty. Because they cater to the 90% and not the 10% of hardcores. But hey, it sells so I don't judge them for not changing. Its on the stupid concert public that has gotten stupider with each passing day.
Just my two cents though. I'm not as angry as I seem.
Quote
HairballQuote
RollingFreakQuote
HairballQuote
RollingFreak
I want him back as much as you, but his soloing on Sway probably impressed 5% at most of the audience in LA. To the other 95%, it wouldn't have mattered to them if it was Ronnie playing it. They wouldn't have noticed a difference.
Again ridiculous and false - no offense.
Lol I mean I don't even have a response. Its neither but ok. Just chalk it up to another thing we simply disagree on . I'm as baffled by your comment as you are of mine. The Eagles prove, even though its been clear for decades, that today's audiences don't care who's in a band! They care about a name, they care about the hits, they care about a good nostalgic time. Thats why Stones fans get annoyed with the Stones, Springsteen fans get annoyed with Springsteen, Tom Petty fans get annoyed with Tom Petty. Because they cater to the 90% and not the 10% of hardcores. But hey, it sells so I don't judge them for not changing. Its on the stupid concert public that has gotten stupider with each passing day.
Just my two cents though. I'm not as angry as I seem.
No you don't sound angry, just a bit misguided.
Again, the tickets were selling poorly at the recent Las Vegas shows (and Desert Trip). Yes they were overpriced, but also many people were either bored and/or weren't willing to see the same old Stones show again.
Having some "Fresh blood" ala Mick Taylor back with the Stones is what the Stones world needs (casual fan or not), and dropping prices back to normal might also be of help.
Quote
PhillyFAN
I have been fortunate enough to see Philly 1969 and 1972 versions of The Rolling Stones. Most fans have not had that ecperience. The music was simply unbelievable. I would venture to say no other band could compare. Simply put they were just that good. Even Mick Jagger has said it is the best vetdion of yhe band. Most fans are not as old as some of uz and only know the Ron Wood version of the band.I still like to imagine 3 Stone guitarists one one ztage and ripping it up as their finale. Hell of way to go out.Music on fire again.
Quote
PhillyFAN
I don't think younger Stones only know the Ron Wood-version at all. I'm pretty sure the Brian era is the one they know best, though, as most of the material they play comes from that era.
People have the internet, remember