Cool! He must have influenced pretty much every guitarist around in those days.

I love the Stones no matter what era I am listening to. I never saw MT live, but have listened to and seen many shows where RW performed stunningly (SG Live in Texas comes to mind).

I only listen to the Stones and with or without MT, I am still going to four Zip Codes (ATL ORL Nash Raleigh).

See you there.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Turner68

They know the hard core fans want Taylor. They don't care. Hardcore fans are going to come anyway and the shows aren't for them.
The band intros tells you everything you need to know about who they are targeting. Why would they introduce the band to hardcore fans? They are targeting people who know 10-15 hits and aren't sure who the drummer is and know the guitarist is Keith something or other.

It felt like they cared about me when they were playing Moonlight Mile. Band introductions are a tradition and a nod to all the musicians and chance for them to get individual applause I don't think it has much to do with the target audience, per se.

peace

During the 1971 tour, the first time they did introductions, they only introduced the sidemen: Hopkins, Keys and Price. That's the way they should have done it during the 1972 tour. No introductions during the 1973 tour. People knew them.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Turner68

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Turner68

They know the hard core fans want Taylor. They don't care. Hardcore fans are going to come anyway and the shows aren't for them.
The band intros tells you everything you need to know about who they are targeting. Why would they introduce the band to hardcore fans? They are targeting people who know 10-15 hits and aren't sure who the drummer is and know the guitarist is Keith something or other.

It felt like they cared about me when they were playing Moonlight Mile. Band introductions are a tradition and a nod to all the musicians and chance for them to get individual applause I don't think it has much to do with the target audience, per se.

peace

so you honestly think the problem is that they don't realize that the fans on IORR and other fan boards want to see Mick Taylor and for them to play lesser known songs?

No, that's not the problem. The problems is it's not really a problem to the Stones business and as much as I'd love to see Taylor and a more varied set list, in the end it's not that much of a problem to me either. A real problem would be the Stones retiring or expiring.

I doubt it's as simple as the Stones not caring about us, they probably actually do to some extent. We tend to think of them as supermen, capable of providing new creative output and playing exciting and musically varied and challenging parts at every outing. The fact is they are old men, frail in ways we probably can't imagine or allow them to be with our somewhat selfish needs and expectations. I just as guilty as anyone in my selfishness but am realistic enough to lower my expectations from here on out.

peace

Very well put, thank you.

Slowly but surely building up to 100,000 views, here...

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Turner68

They know the hard core fans want Taylor. They don't care. Hardcore fans are going to come anyway and the shows aren't for them.
The band intros tells you everything you need to know about who they are targeting. Why would they introduce the band to hardcore fans? They are targeting people who know 10-15 hits and aren't sure who the drummer is and know the guitarist is Keith something or other.

It felt like they cared about me when they were playing Moonlight Mile. Band introductions are a tradition and a nod to all the musicians and chance for them to get individual applause I don't think it has much to do with the target audience, per se.

peace

During the 1971 tour, the first time they did introductions, they only introduced the sidemen: Hopkins, Keys and Price. That's the way they should have done it during the 1972 tour. No introductions during the 1973 tour. People knew them.

Sure about that?

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Turner68

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Turner68

They know the hard core fans want Taylor. They don't care. Hardcore fans are going to come anyway and the shows aren't for them.
The band intros tells you everything you need to know about who they are targeting. Why would they introduce the band to hardcore fans? They are targeting people who know 10-15 hits and aren't sure who the drummer is and know the guitarist is Keith something or other.

It felt like they cared about me when they were playing Moonlight Mile. Band introductions are a tradition and a nod to all the musicians and chance for them to get individual applause I don't think it has much to do with the target audience, per se.

peace

so you honestly think the problem is that they don't realize that the fans on IORR and other fan boards want to see Mick Taylor and for them to play lesser known songs?

No, that's not the problem. The problems is it's not really a problem to the Stones business and as much as I'd love to see Taylor and a more varied set list, in the end it's not that much of a problem to me either. A real problem would be the Stones retiring or expiring.

I doubt it's as simple as the Stones not caring about us, they probably actually do to some extent. We tend to think of them as supermen, capable of providing new creative output and playing exciting and musically varied and challenging parts at every outing. The fact is they are old men, frail in ways we probably can't imagine or allow them to be with our somewhat selfish needs and expectations. I just as guilty as anyone in my selfishness but am realistic enough to lower my expectations from here on out.

peace

We should all try to keep that in mind (I know it's not easy )

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Turner68

They know the hard core fans want Taylor. They don't care. Hardcore fans are going to come anyway and the shows aren't for them.
The band intros tells you everything you need to know about who they are targeting. Why would they introduce the band to hardcore fans? They are targeting people who know 10-15 hits and aren't sure who the drummer is and know the guitarist is Keith something or other.

It felt like they cared about me when they were playing Moonlight Mile. Band introductions are a tradition and a nod to all the musicians and chance for them to get individual applause I don't think it has much to do with the target audience, per se.

peace

During the 1971 tour, the first time they did introductions, they only introduced the sidemen: Hopkins, Keys and Price. That's the way they should have done it during the 1972 tour. No introductions during the 1973 tour. People knew them.

Sure about that?

Haha, that was somebody else, not they. No one will have heard a word of it, though Billy Wyman sounds really funny.

Indeed!

Quote
kleermaker
During the 1971 tour, the first time they did introductions, they only introduced the sidemen: Hopkins, Keys and Price. That's the way they should have done it during the 1972 tour. No introductions during the 1973 tour. People knew them.

They intro the whole band except MJ in Sydney 1973. Check out 59:25





Same in Melbourne in 1973. Check out 1:04:05





Same in perth in 1973. Check out 1:00:30






Many thank yous for your youtube vids. Have bought hours of enjoyment. Particularly tasty the latest Sticky Fingers additions.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2015-06-03 16:44 by muffie.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Turner68

They know the hard core fans want Taylor. They don't care. Hardcore fans are going to come anyway and the shows aren't for them.
The band intros tells you everything you need to know about who they are targeting. Why would they introduce the band to hardcore fans? They are targeting people who know 10-15 hits and aren't sure who the drummer is and know the guitarist is Keith something or other.

It felt like they cared about me when they were playing Moonlight Mile. Band introductions are a tradition and a nod to all the musicians and chance for them to get individual applause I don't think it has much to do with the target audience, per se.

peace

During the 1971 tour, the first time they did introductions, they only introduced the sidemen: Hopkins, Keys and Price. That's the way they should have done it during the 1972 tour. No introductions during the 1973 tour. People knew them.

Sure about that?

Haha, that was somebody else, not they. No one will have heard a word of it, though Billy Wyman sounds really funny.

It was great fun listening to: "Got Live If You Want It" at the time with friends, the introduction was done by Long John Baldry who had a great voice: "Walk me out in the morning dew".

Ronnie Wood recalls living with Jimi Hendrix

Why was Taylor not invited on the Zip Code Tour???

Quote
muffie

Quote
kleermaker
During the 1971 tour, the first time they did introductions, they only introduced the sidemen: Hopkins, Keys and Price. That's the way they should have done it during the 1972 tour. No introductions during the 1973 tour. People knew them.

They intro the whole band except MJ in Sydney 1973. Check out 59:25





Same in Melbourne in 1973. Check out 1:04:05





Same in perth in 1973. Check out 1:00:30






Many thank yous for your youtube vids. Have bought hours of enjoyment. Particularly tasty the latest Sticky Fingers additions.

Okay, okay, I stand corrected. But when mentioning the 1973 tour I automatically mean the European 1973 tour, which is of course wrong.

Quote
rambler44
Why was Taylor not invited on the Zip Code Tour???

because the Stones love to annoy kleermaker
sometimes mick and keith sit around asking themselves "what can we do to annoy kleermaker this time?"

Quote
smokeydusky

Quote
Turner68

Quote
LieB

Quote
Turner68

Quote
LieB
I believe the main difference between Hendrix and Taylor is not in the guitar department, but in terms of songwriting, vocals, stage persona, charisma, etc.

Even Ronnie Wood is a better solo artist than MT, in my opinion, because he has written good songs and is a more extroverted stage artist. In terms of singing, I would say Woody and Taylor are on pretty much the same level.

you really should listen to jimi some more. i don't think you've fully experienced his guitar work.

I knew someone would say this.
I have listened a lot to Hendrix and I love him. He was a genious, and I would say he was probably the best electric guitarist ever to have walked on earth. But I also think Mick T is amazing, and from a pure guitar playing perspective, I think it's perfectly valid to rate him as highly as Hendrix. It's mostly a matter of taste, I suppose.

fair enough. i assume the tie goes to the guy playing the guitar upside down? :-)

Couldn't resist:
from His Majesty's archive, a pre-RS Mick Taylor is second to the left of Hendrix' guitar:

this Jimi -Taylor comparison hopefully reaches MT... He should know how much he is admired. No petty jealousy from his "mates" can take that away from him. He is rock's greatest living improvising legend. He did it all in a pop band which makes him most significant. Imagine if he had joined The Monkeys instead.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
rambler44
Why was Taylor not invited on the Zip Code Tour???

because the Stones love to annoy kleermaker
sometimes mick and keith sit around asking themselves "what can we do to annoy kleermaker this time?"

Yep, and that's also the very reason why they put this 'self made' hybrid video from my YT-channel on their very website some months ago: just to annoy me. Enjoy it as yet:

so no chance of getting an answer here?

Quote
rambler44
so no chance of getting an answer here?

The only answer the Stones (Keith and partially Mick) gave was that Taylor was sick, but that was quickly denied by his people...

I like Mick Taylor as much as the next guy--and I LOVE the music The Stones made during his tenure--but reading the at least semi-serious comparisons to HENDRIX made me choke on my cornflakes this morning!

Quote
LongBeachArena72
I like Mick Taylor as much as the next guy--and I LOVE the music The Stones made during his tenure--but reading the at least semi-serious comparisons to HENDRIX made me choke on my cornflakes this morning!

Agreed and I think Taylor would be the first to be call out such comparisons as ridiculous.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
LongBeachArena72
I like Mick Taylor as much as the next guy--and I LOVE the music The Stones made during his tenure--but reading the at least semi-serious comparisons to HENDRIX made me choke on my cornflakes this morning!

Agreed and I think Taylor would be the first to be call out such comparisons as ridiculous.

respectfully disagree

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
rambler44
so no chance of getting an answer here?

The only answer the Stones (Keith and partially Mick) gave was that Taylor was sick, but that was quickly denied by his people...

There are probably 50 pages of answers in this thread rambler44, browse back a bit and you will see it was a much discussed topic. Everything from he was only there for insurance requirements against Keith's health problems to him having health problems of his own as DP said.

Probably the most logical answer is that the band just decided they didn't want to bring him along again because they had already done so for the last couple tours. He obviously took some attention away from the band of the last 40 years and to further include him would require they basically hire him on as a permanent guest which sort of detracts from the 40 year legacy. There was hardly an article about the last tour that didn't talk about Taylor.

I think it was pretty clear he added a lot to the music and people would have started to wonder even more why he wasn't included for more songs. They obviously weren't going to make him a full fledged band member with Ronnie around to play the leads, fills and second guitar duties. A bit of a slap to Ronnies face. And it would likely have just been too much work to fully integrate him as a third guitarist and even having him as a guest tended to shed a bit too much light on what was missing from modern Stones live music.

Maybe someday we will get a further explanation from the Stones, I doubt Taylor knows more than he wasn't invited. No doubt if the Stones found themselves actually needing another guitarist MT would be first on the list but the current tour is showing, at least from demand perspective, that the current band is quite capable without one.

peace

Quote
Naturalust

I doubt Taylor knows more than he wasn't invited.

peace

Then he must be sick indeed, like Keith stated.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
rambler44
so no chance of getting an answer here?

The only answer the Stones (Keith and partially Mick) gave was that Taylor was sick, but that was quickly denied by his people...

There are probably 50 pages of answers in this thread rambler44, browse back a bit and you will see it was a much discussed topic. Everything from he was only there for insurance requirements against Keith's health problems to him having health problems of his own as DP said.

Probably the most logical answer is that the band just decided they didn't want to bring him along again because they had already done so for the last couple tours. He obviously took some attention away from the band of the last 40 years and to further include him would require they basically hire him on as a permanent guest which sort of detracts from the 40 year legacy. There was hardly an article about the last tour that didn't talk about Taylor.

I think it was pretty clear he added a lot to the music and people would have started to wonder even more why he wasn't included for more songs. They obviously weren't going to make him a full fledged band member with Ronnie around to play the leads, fills and second guitar duties. A bit of a slap to Ronnies face. And it would likely have just been too much work to fully integrate him as a third guitarist and even having him as a guest tended to shed a bit too much light on what was missing from modern Stones live music.

Maybe someday we will get a further explanation from the Stones, I doubt Taylor knows more than he wasn't invited. No doubt if the Stones found themselves actually needing another guitarist MT would be first on the list but the current tour is showing, at least from demand perspective, that the current band is quite capable without one.

peace

One thing aspect that I have not heard discussed at length is Taylor's attitude. The guy was prettymuch grumpy all the time. The only time I saw him smile was on stage. If he was a jerk or generally unpleasant off-stage, that would be reason alone. He spent a year touring the world with them.. In addition to all the other arguments, there is something to be said for CHEMISTRY or lack thereof. I have no evidence to backup my thoughts, only that Taylor has proven to be a complex individual. If he had been a ton of fun and reasonable to work with, maybe he'd still be playing with them? I thought it was a given when they announced the Sticky Fingers theme.

To me, that theme was just a side-note. They just want to play concerts to as many people as will pay to see them. Screw the 'themes', they just want to play. To that extent,

Well Charlie's "attitude" certainly hasn't been what you'd call cheery and he's still around.

I think Taylor's attitude was probably "grateful" and "delighted" on the last tour and considering how little he was allowed to play I believe that was quite an accomplishment.

What is kind of obvious to me that is if they had brought him out on this tour and only allowed a minimal guest spot we would have all been screaming loudly how terribly unfair it was. But, they would have probably felt more obligated to play more SF tunes and with Taylor on board they would likely be the highlights of the tour, just as his appearances last year were.

Perhaps they will still bring him out in Buffalo or Quebec as kind of a grand finale. That would be incredibly cool.

peace

What about this theory (sorry if somebody else came up with the same before?)

Remember this?

[www.dailymail.co.uk]

...so, what if he actually did get a lawyer, and they sued Stones for missed royalties etc.
At the time Stones were in a coma, although with the 50 coming up, bad publicity from an extended lawsuit would not benefit their intentions.
So, maybe some kind of settlement was made, where MT would instead contribute to the Exile reissue and with a fixed xx number of performances for the 50th, each giving MT reasonable $$ etc to compensate for any loss. Even though Stones really didn't want him there, it would benefit their image for the 50th etc, and MT would agree not to proceed or comment on that matter again etc. After exactly the agreed terms were fulfilled it was goodbye. ...Would at least explain why they brought him along for all those shows even though he wasn't included more, and the abrupt end. ...only another theory.

Quote
flacnvinyl

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
rambler44
so no chance of getting an answer here?

The only answer the Stones (Keith and partially Mick) gave was that Taylor was sick, but that was quickly denied by his people...

There are probably 50 pages of answers in this thread rambler44, browse back a bit and you will see it was a much discussed topic. Everything from he was only there for insurance requirements against Keith's health problems to him having health problems of his own as DP said.

Probably the most logical answer is that the band just decided they didn't want to bring him along again because they had already done so for the last couple tours. He obviously took some attention away from the band of the last 40 years and to further include him would require they basically hire him on as a permanent guest which sort of detracts from the 40 year legacy. There was hardly an article about the last tour that didn't talk about Taylor.

I think it was pretty clear he added a lot to the music and people would have started to wonder even more why he wasn't included for more songs. They obviously weren't going to make him a full fledged band member with Ronnie around to play the leads, fills and second guitar duties. A bit of a slap to Ronnies face. And it would likely have just been too much work to fully integrate him as a third guitarist and even having him as a guest tended to shed a bit too much light on what was missing from modern Stones live music.

Maybe someday we will get a further explanation from the Stones, I doubt Taylor knows more than he wasn't invited. No doubt if the Stones found themselves actually needing another guitarist MT would be first on the list but the current tour is showing, at least from demand perspective, that the current band is quite capable without one.

peace

One thing aspect that I have not heard discussed at length is Taylor's attitude. The guy was prettymuch grumpy all the time. The only time I saw him smile was on stage. If he was a jerk or generally unpleasant off-stage, that would be reason alone. He spent a year touring the world with them.. In addition to all the other arguments, there is something to be said for CHEMISTRY or lack thereof. I have no evidence to backup my thoughts, only that Taylor has proven to be a complex individual. If he had been a ton of fun and reasonable to work with, maybe he'd still be playing with them? I thought it was a given when they announced the Sticky Fingers theme.

To me, that theme was just a side-note. They just want to play concerts to as many people as will pay to see them. Screw the 'themes', they just want to play. To that extent,

I remember a short interview with Charlie from the celebration tour in which he said that it was such a joy having Taylor around. And we know Charlie wouldn't have said that if it weren't true.

O well, once in Paris he had no smile on his face, standing in a hotel lobby. That must be it.

Quote
RSforever
What about this theory (sorry if somebody else came up with the same before?)

Remember this?

[www.dailymail.co.uk]

...so, what if he actually did get a lawyer, and they sued Stones for missed royalties etc.
At the time Stones were in a coma, although with the 50 coming up, bad publicity from an extended lawsuit would not benefit their intentions.
So, maybe some kind of settlement was made, where MT would instead contribute to the Exile reissue and with a fixed xx number of performances for the 50th, each giving MT reasonable $$ etc to compensate for any loss. Even though Stones really didn't want him there, it would benefit their image for the 50th etc, and MT would agree not to proceed or comment on that matter again etc. After exactly the agreed terms were fulfilled it was goodbye. ...Would at least explain why they brought him along for all those shows even though he wasn't included more, and the abrupt end. ...only another theory.

Quite a stretch, imo. Mick said it was how well his initial appearance went that caused them to decide to include him on the tour. I believe "carry him around the world" or something were his words. I got the feeling they thought they were doing him a big favor by allowing him so many guest spots. Perhaps they were but I don't think they valued the return favor Mick was providing to the music. Some say he wouldn't have made a difference to ticket sales, but everyone I know went to see that tour mostly because it was a chance to see Taylor playing with the Stones again.

peace