Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman
No, it isn't, because it's easy to play it. By listening to you, many on this board think that Ronnie tries to copy Taylor's solo, but that he isn't able to finish it. That's just false - hence roller99's post is both valid and important.

Where did Bjørnulf say that Ronnie didn't play the solo, btw? Didn't he just say that he shortened it down?

Of course Ronnie isn't able to deliver a Knocking solo of about the same quality as Taylor's during 2013. That's relevant. Besides, I don't think he can equal Taylor's tone and phrasing at all, not even by copying the studio solo note by note.

I gave the link: you can see for yourself. Bjornulf didn't mention anything about a (supposed) solo by Ronnie and the other reporter leaves it in the middle if he played one if you read carefully.

I don't get your point. Daryl can't do everything Wyman did, Chuck Leavell is certain way behind other keyboardists they have played with, etc.

No one will play Sax the way Sonny Rollins did on Waiting on a Friend, does that mean they should never play it?

sorry for all the messages. i was hoping once I pushed this thread to 100 that it would finally die a noble death.

100 pages! The Stones Watchman should pass this up the chain of command.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
Nikkei

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Nikkei
Why so eagerly proclaim "the end of their career"? Neither we nor they really know what's coming next.

If anyone doesn't think they are approaching the end of their careers, I want some of what they're smoking.

Everything approaches it's end because time won't stand still. And those thoughts return every tour since '89.

Actually I think that was said about the '81 tour as well, and probably before then. Remember Jagger once said he didn't want to be singing Satisfaction when he was 30.

Yes, except they weren't in their 70s then.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Turner68

Quote
Nikkei

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Nikkei
Why so eagerly proclaim "the end of their career"? Neither we nor they really know what's coming next.

If anyone doesn't think they are approaching the end of their careers, I want some of what they're smoking.

Everything approaches it's end because time won't stand still. And those thoughts return every tour since '89.

Actually I think that was said about the '81 tour as well, and probably before then. Remember Jagger once said he didn't want to be singing Satisfaction when he was 30.

Yes, except they weren't in their 70s then.

I agree. I was just trying to get the page count to 100.

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
Stoneage
Congratulations, on beforehand, to the 90,000th view, 3,000th post and 100th page of this Mick Taylor thread!

Running around in circles.

Mostly running goes in circles Luxury, except the 100 meters.

Ok, here I go for the last time, inspired by Bars:

"All three guitarists are musically senile to the same degree bye [] now. I think that's a fair and democratic representation of reality". But let them play, or whatever, as long as fans are having fun, it's ok with me.

But why for heaven's sake did you interfere then in the discussion in the first place, if according to your opinion all three are of the same level and if, again according to your opinion, Mick T.'s playing is that bad that you're not interested in it anymore?

Because I'm naive enough to believe in miracles, and I won't take less than the Taylor years.

You old, stubborn romanticist.

Quote
Turner68
sorry for all the messages. i was hoping once I pushed this thread to 100 that it would finally die a noble death.

Hey...Ya wanna start another 100 pages or something...

*I'm not sure what, exactly, the following has to do with Mick Taylor; I've just been struck by the vehemence of some of the recent exchanges on this thread.*

Life is nasty, brutish, and too too short. So we seek to amuse ourselves, each according to our needs. When it comes to music, for example, we like different things, and we like what we like with varying levels of intensity. Some of us enjoy any little ditty we hear on the radio, others of us take music far more (too?) seriously and jump down the rabbit-hole of collecting, critical analysis, and general fan-boy and -girl obsessiveness.

When it comes to The Rolling Stones, the fans on this board seem to divide themselves (and please excuse the horribly unfair generalization) into two groups: the first group loves the band as it is, and feels that the band as currently constituted still produces memorable music; while the second group feels that the band hit its creative and/or artistic peak decades ago and is today a shadow of its former self.

I'm one of the obsessives who feels The Stones have been kaput as an artistic entity since the early 70's ... but I have actually begun to envy the large groups of people here who feel otherwise. There are people who post regularly on IORR who really, truly feel that this band of seventy-somethings just three nights ago at the Fonda performed THEIR BEST SHOW EVER.

Think about that. The shows that The Stones played in Detroit on 24 Nov 69, or at MSG on 26 July 72 were INFERIOR to the show they just played in Hollywood. While I may think it's ridiculous to prefer that show to a show from the band at what I regard to be the height of their creative powers (and, almost as important, the height of their cultural relevance), I understand that what these people are really saying, of course is that the Fonda show is THE BEST SHOW EVER in their experience.

And who can argue with that? Any show can be any viewer's best show ever. And more power to people who try to lift themselves out of the humdrum of daily life into a few moments of transcendence in the presence of a band they love.

I haven't been to see The Stones in concert since 1978 (the "shoe" concert at Anaheim Stadium when they were horrible compared to 1972). I still like this board, and have my opinions about things, and like to learn more about the behind-the-scenes goings-on of the band during the years in which I hung on their every new record.

I take my musical pleasures elsewhere, for the most part, these days. But I must admit it brings a smile to my face to read the joy that people still feel about going to see The Rolling Stones today. I may not agree with their estimation of the band ... but the passion that they continue to pour into their favorite band is impressive!

Quote
LongBeachArena72
*I'm not sure what, exactly, the following has to do with Mick Taylor; I've just been struck by the vehemence of some of the recent exchanges on this thread.*

Life is nasty, brutish, and too too short. So we seek to amuse ourselves, each according to our needs. When it comes to music, for example, we like different things, and we like what we like with varying levels of intensity. Some of us enjoy any little ditty we hear on the radio, others of us take music far more (too?) seriously and jump down the rabbit-hole of collecting, critical analysis, and general fan-boy and -girl obsessiveness.

When it comes to The Rolling Stones, the fans on this board seem to divide themselves (and please excuse the horribly unfair generalization) into two groups: the first group loves the band as it is, and feels that the band as currently constituted still produces memorable music; while the second group feels that the band hit its creative and/or artistic peak decades ago and is today a shadow of its former self.

I'm one of the obsessives who feels The Stones have been kaput as an artistic entity since the early 70's ... but I have actually begun to envy the large groups of people here who feel otherwise. There are people who post regularly on IORR who really, truly feel that this band of seventy-somethings just three nights ago at the Fonda performed THEIR BEST SHOW EVER.

Think about that. The shows that The Stones played in Detroit on 24 Nov 69, or at MSG on 26 July 72 were INFERIOR to the show they just played in Hollywood. While I may think it's ridiculous to prefer that show to a show from the band at what I regard to be the height of their creative powers (and, almost as important, the height of their cultural relevance), I understand that what these people are really saying, of course is that the Fonda show is THE BEST SHOW EVER in their experience.

And who can argue with that? Any show can be any viewer's best show ever. And more power to people who try to lift themselves out of the humdrum of daily life into a few moments of transcendence in the presence of a band they love.

I haven't been to see The Stones in concert since 1978 (the "shoe" concert at Anaheim Stadium when they were horrible compared to 1972). I still like this board, and have my opinions about things, and like to learn more about the behind-the-scenes goings-on of the band during the years in which I hung on their every new record.

I take my musical pleasures elsewhere, for the most part, these days. But I must admit it brings a smile to my face to read the joy that people still feel about going to see The Rolling Stones today. I may not agree with their estimation of the band ... but the passion that they continue to pour into their favorite band is impressive!

I think your post is very articulate. I would put myself in camp that thinks they've been on a creative decline since Exile on Main Street, however I believe the problem is not Mick Taylor being or not being with the band, but rather the decline in the song writing of Jagger/Richards.

Great post...although the absence of MT is a sore spot with I wish no dissatisfaction on anyone going to see the show...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-05-24 01:57 by palerider22.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
roller99
The funniest thing here is that nobody knows why MT was on the 2013 tour, etc.

To celebrate their anniversary and possibly to settle any hard feelings about lack of credit or payment of royalties due, most likely stemming from certain tracks on Tattoo You.

I happen to think most things can be explained by behind the scenes financial dealings. For example, I think he didn't play more in 2013 because he wanted more money than the band wanted to pay him.

But I'm just guessing and a bit cynical, so take it with a grain of salt.

It had NOTHING to do with any anniversary, or nostalgia, or how much anyone was paid. That's why I find this thread ironic. And no, I'm not saying, out of respect for the band's privacy.

Quote
roller99

Quote
Turner68

Quote
roller99
The funniest thing here is that nobody knows why MT was on the 2013 tour, etc.

To celebrate their anniversary and possibly to settle any hard feelings about lack of credit or payment of royalties due, most likely stemming from certain tracks on Tattoo You.

I happen to think most things can be explained by behind the scenes financial dealings. For example, I think he didn't play more in 2013 because he wanted more money than the band wanted to pay him.

But I'm just guessing and a bit cynical, so take it with a grain of salt.

It had NOTHING to do with any anniversary, or nostalgia, or how much anyone was paid. That's why I find this thread ironic. And no, I'm not saying, out of respect for the band's privacy.

i think you already gave your opinion a few days ago, you said it was about an insurance issue with keith and his health.

Quote
roller99

Quote
Turner68

Quote
roller99
The funniest thing here is that nobody knows why MT was on the 2013 tour, etc.

To celebrate their anniversary and possibly to settle any hard feelings about lack of credit or payment of royalties due, most likely stemming from certain tracks on Tattoo You.

I happen to think most things can be explained by behind the scenes financial dealings. For example, I think he didn't play more in 2013 because he wanted more money than the band wanted to pay him.

But I'm just guessing and a bit cynical, so take it with a grain of salt.

It had NOTHING to do with any anniversary, or nostalgia, or how much anyone was paid. That's why I find this thread ironic. And no, I'm not saying, out of respect for the band's privacy.

The reason you're getting at has been discussed here plenty, sorry. 71Tele posted it a few months ago and a lot of people concurred that it made far more sense than any other explanation offered thus far.

You can believe the band has been in artistic decline and at the same time you can be drawn into their still existent magic at a current show. I have never left a show thinking it was their best show ever,
but when I have seen them put on a very strong show I know their decline is a very relative thing. After the Hyde Park shows I had to admit to myself that it wasn't as good as I hoped for, then a year later
I was blown away once again and couldn't explain how they managed to do that. The curve can move down and up again in very short timespans, and to be honest I feel a bit sorry for those of you
who missed out on all that just because they didn't satisfy you at one point in 1978.

I've only seen the Stones since 1978..
More often than not I enjoyed the show...but the biggest thrill I ever got in 20 odd shows was MT on CYHMK and MR in Toronto..

Quote
LBA 72
There are people who post regularly on IORR who really, truly feel that this band of seventy-somethings just three nights ago at the Fonda performed THEIR BEST SHOW EVER

Sure, I can understand that. But I'm suspecting there are some of them who claims that after every show!

Quote
Nikkei
You can believe the band has been in artistic decline and at the same time you can be drawn into their still existent magic at a current show. I have never left a show thinking it was their best show ever,
but when I have seen them put on a very strong show I know their decline is a very relative thing. After the Hyde Park shows I had to admit to myself that it wasn't as good as I hoped for, then a year later
I was blown away once again and couldn't explain how they managed to do that. The curve can move down and up again in very short timespans, and to be honest I feel a bit sorry for those of you
who missed out on all that just because they didn't satisfy you at one point in 1978.

It's entirely possible I've missed out on a lot. But it wasn't just the bad show. It was the bad records, and then the no records, and then they just didn't pique my interest anymore, artistically.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
LongBeachArena72
*I'm not sure what, exactly, the following has to do with Mick Taylor; I've just been struck by the vehemence of some of the recent exchanges on this thread.*

Life is nasty, brutish, and too too short. So we seek to amuse ourselves, each according to our needs. When it comes to music, for example, we like different things, and we like what we like with varying levels of intensity. Some of us enjoy any little ditty we hear on the radio, others of us take music far more (too?) seriously and jump down the rabbit-hole of collecting, critical analysis, and general fan-boy and -girl obsessiveness.

When it comes to The Rolling Stones, the fans on this board seem to divide themselves (and please excuse the horribly unfair generalization) into two groups: the first group loves the band as it is, and feels that the band as currently constituted still produces memorable music; while the second group feels that the band hit its creative and/or artistic peak decades ago and is today a shadow of its former self.

I'm one of the obsessives who feels The Stones have been kaput as an artistic entity since the early 70's ... but I have actually begun to envy the large groups of people here who feel otherwise. There are people who post regularly on IORR who really, truly feel that this band of seventy-somethings just three nights ago at the Fonda performed THEIR BEST SHOW EVER.

Think about that. The shows that The Stones played in Detroit on 24 Nov 69, or at MSG on 26 July 72 were INFERIOR to the show they just played in Hollywood. While I may think it's ridiculous to prefer that show to a show from the band at what I regard to be the height of their creative powers (and, almost as important, the height of their cultural relevance), I understand that what these people are really saying, of course is that the Fonda show is THE BEST SHOW EVER in their experience.

And who can argue with that? Any show can be any viewer's best show ever. And more power to people who try to lift themselves out of the humdrum of daily life into a few moments of transcendence in the presence of a band they love.

I haven't been to see The Stones in concert since 1978 (the "shoe" concert at Anaheim Stadium when they were horrible compared to 1972). I still like this board, and have my opinions about things, and like to learn more about the behind-the-scenes goings-on of the band during the years in which I hung on their every new record.

I take my musical pleasures elsewhere, for the most part, these days. But I must admit it brings a smile to my face to read the joy that people still feel about going to see The Rolling Stones today. I may not agree with their estimation of the band ... but the passion that they continue to pour into their favorite band is impressive!

I think your post is very articulate. I would put myself in camp that thinks they've been on a creative decline since Exile on Main Street, however I believe the problem is not Mick Taylor being or not being with the band, but rather the decline in the song writing of Jagger/Richards.

Yes, I completely agree. Taylor was not THAT good and Wood is not THAT bad. Jagger/Richards, however, simply lost their mojo.

Quote
Stoneage

Quote
LBA 72
There are people who post regularly on IORR who really, truly feel that this band of seventy-somethings just three nights ago at the Fonda performed THEIR BEST SHOW EVER

Sure, I can understand that. But I'm suspecting there are some of them who claims that after every show!

No doubt!

Our dear MT and music RW can't deliver - neither plink, plink

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
roller99

Quote
Turner68

Quote
roller99
The funniest thing here is that nobody knows why MT was on the 2013 tour, etc.

To celebrate their anniversary and possibly to settle any hard feelings about lack of credit or payment of royalties due, most likely stemming from certain tracks on Tattoo You.

I happen to think most things can be explained by behind the scenes financial dealings. For example, I think he didn't play more in 2013 because he wanted more money than the band wanted to pay him.

But I'm just guessing and a bit cynical, so take it with a grain of salt.

It had NOTHING to do with any anniversary, or nostalgia, or how much anyone was paid. That's why I find this thread ironic. And no, I'm not saying, out of respect for the band's privacy.

The reason you're getting at has been discussed here plenty, sorry. 71Tele posted it a few months ago and a lot of people concurred that it made far more sense than any other explanation offered thus far.

And what was that reason?

Quote
Stoneage

Quote
LBA 72
There are people who post regularly on IORR who really, truly feel that this band of seventy-somethings just three nights ago at the Fonda performed THEIR BEST SHOW EVER

Sure, I can understand that. But I'm suspecting there are some of them who claims that after every show!

That's the point. I read that plink-plonk Chuck was great and Mr. Denson on CYHMN. But what's with the guitars? Always I thought the Stones a guitar band. Am I right?

Quote
roller99

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
roller99

Quote
Turner68

Quote
roller99
The funniest thing here is that nobody knows why MT was on the 2013 tour, etc.

To celebrate their anniversary and possibly to settle any hard feelings about lack of credit or payment of royalties due, most likely stemming from certain tracks on Tattoo You.

I happen to think most things can be explained by behind the scenes financial dealings. For example, I think he didn't play more in 2013 because he wanted more money than the band wanted to pay him.

But I'm just guessing and a bit cynical, so take it with a grain of salt.

It had NOTHING to do with any anniversary, or nostalgia, or how much anyone was paid. That's why I find this thread ironic. And no, I'm not saying, out of respect for the band's privacy.

The reason you're getting at has been discussed here plenty, sorry. 71Tele posted it a few months ago and a lot of people concurred that it made far more sense than any other explanation offered thus far.

And what was that reason?

OK, I'll bite:

What's supposed to have happened is that the insurance people insisted on having a.n.other guitarist along to cover for Keith in case of health problems - and since they had to have someone, they decided that it should be MT, which looked convincing as a 50th anniversary guest spot, kept the insurance company off their backs, concealed the "real" reason (maybe even from Keith and/or MT) and had additional benefits in the form of good publicity for Taylor fans and interesting musical opportunities (which in the event they didn't exploit as fully as they might have). There are various holes in the theory, but it's as plausible as any other.

If this isn't the reason Roller99 has in mind, then please either tell us or stop the "I know something you don't know but I'm not going to tell you" teasing.

PS: No inside knowledge or betrayal of confidences here: all the above comes from other posts on public view.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-05-24 10:48 by Green Lady.

V e r y interesting. Cmon Roller99 speak out. Give us a glimmer.

I agree that it could possibly be the insurance theory.

We will never know really, as MT may not even know that.

MT's agent should call every major insurance company and let them know his client is available to play in the event any of unforeseen circumstances like a lead guitarist falling off of a stage.

Of course it might not have been that way around. Perhaps MT was going to be invited anyway, and when the insurance issue arose they decided to have him on the books as cover guitarist as well as welcome guest. Who knows?

Quote
onlystones
MT's agent should call every major insurance company and let them know his client is available to play in the event any of unforeseen circumstances like a lead guitarist falling off of a stage.

MT's agent?

If MT has an agent. I don't follow those things. I just love the music and performances.

Can we pour some gasoline on the ashes of this dying thread?

I'll try : I never liked MT cause he used super-light gauge strings. A real guitarist uses a .010-046 or even better a .011-052 set of strings.