Much more likely he is just keeping quiet about the Stones to keep open the possibility of future invitations. He has got absolutely nothing to gain by making disparaging comments. He has said how much he enjoyed the last tour and just because he isn't included in this one isn't going to change his gratitude and good will toward the Stones, imo.

peace

Quote
Naturalust
Much more likely he is just keeping quiet about the Stones to keep open the possibility of future invitations. He has got absolutely nothing to gain by making disparaging comments. He has said how much he enjoyed the last tour and just because he isn't included in this one isn't going to change his gratitude and good will toward the Stones, imo.

peace

lol. a couple pages ago on this forum you were assuring me that the Facebook page and the poster on here were very close to him, in fact that it was wrong of me to suggest that what they said might not reflect what is truly happening in taylor's world, although it might be colored by their own opinions.

in fact when i asked that you give keith's word equal credit to theirs you strongly implied that if they said taylor wasn't ill and keith said he heard he was, then your conclusion was that taylor wasn't ill and you went on to say how disappointed you were in keith for spreading a false rumor, albeit unknowingly, and not checking it more closely.

perhaps its best not to accuse people you've never met of things you know nothing about.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2015-06-08 18:49 by Turner68.

Quote
Naturalust
Much more likely he is just keeping quiet about the Stones to keep open the possibility of future invitations. He has got absolutely nothing to gain by making disparaging comments. He has said how much he enjoyed the last tour and just because he isn't included in this one isn't going to change his gratitude and good will toward the Stones, imo.

peace

I personally hope he'll never play with the Stones again. It simply doesn't work. Taylor may have become a lesser good player than he used to be, but the Stones are a dump band now. It's absolutely unbelievable to listen to them. I heard some YT-clips at random and felt substitutely ashamed.

Remember the few Knockings Taylor played with the Stones, actually only playing with Charlie and Darryl, the rest of the band being inactive. His solos were really nice, but he could have played them in any other setting. And those two Silver Trains: definitely sub par. Not to forget that humiliating acoustic guitar 'playing' on Satisfaction. The London, Newark and Shanghai Ramblers were nice, but that's about all it was.

And then his behaviour on stage: embarrassing, to put it mildly. He said he had to stop his rehab abruptly. Maybe he could consider to continue that and after having finished it properly, find out what he really wants, being an independent person.

The conclusion is simple and real: Taylor doesn't fit in the Stones anymore. Since decades actually.

If he feels like playing he'll have to seek for something else.

Quote
Getondown
Write a book? WTF don't you all get? He is under contract. The Stones won't allow that or disparagement.

This is why you don't hear from Mick Taylor - he can't say anything.

He can't comment on the tour without prior consent or if he does it has to be positive. Do you think Brenda would allow otherwise? GMAFB.

If that's true it's not very polite towards Mick Taylor to post this on a site like iorr.org. Some people never learn.

this is, unfortunately, very true.

still I enjoyed seeing the youtube videos even though I thought the same at times, as you say, kleermaker. guess it was sentimental.

Taylor brings something else, a very unpredictable vibe, which is the last thing Jagger wants, apparently.

his playing lit them up, but they certainly would never acknowledge that.

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
Getondown
Write a book? WTF don't you all get? He is under contract. The Stones won't allow that or disparagement.

This is why you don't hear from Mick Taylor - he can't say anything.

He can't comment on the tour without prior consent or if he does it has to be positive. Do you think Brenda would allow otherwise? GMAFB.

If that's true it's not very polite towards Mick Taylor to post this on a site like iorr.org. Some people never learn.

If that would be true it would be good if it were said! Especially on Iorr, so that the question of this thread would be answered. Or don't you want to know that answer at all?

has anyone considered starting a kickstarter campaign for a mick taylor solo effort? someone would need to get his OK to do it but i bet we could raise a decent sum of money to finance a professional recording by him. it could be kind of cool.

Quote
Naturalust
Much more likely he is just keeping quiet about the Stones to keep open the possibility of future invitations. He has got absolutely nothing to gain by making disparaging comments. He has said how much he enjoyed the last tour and just because he isn't included in this one isn't going to change his gratitude and good will toward the Stones, imo.

peace

+1

Quote
Ket

Quote
Getondown
Write a book? WTF don't you all get? He is under contract. The Stones won't allow that or disparagement.

This is why you don't hear from Mick Taylor - he can't say anything.

He can't comment on the tour without prior consent or if he does it has to be positive. Do you think Brenda would allow otherwise? GMAFB.

and how exactly do you know this?

Because that is what groups do for tours. MT was under contract for a set amount of songs for set pay. I am sure everyone on the stage except the 4 Stones have contracts. And if you are going to have contracts you are going to tie them up for non-disparagement. Only the Stones speak for the Stones.

Kleer, I mostly agree with you but why do you say his behaviour on stage was embarrassing?

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
Getondown
Write a book? WTF don't you all get? He is under contract. The Stones won't allow that or disparagement.

This is why you don't hear from Mick Taylor - he can't say anything.

He can't comment on the tour without prior consent or if he does it has to be positive. Do you think Brenda would allow otherwise? GMAFB.

If that's true it's not very polite towards Mick Taylor to post this on a site like iorr.org. Some people never learn.

If that would be true it would be good if it were said! Especially on Iorr, so that the question of this thread would be answered. Or don't you want to know that answer at all?

Depends on who says so of course. Is it just a desperate fan barking in Getondown's style, or people that represent him, with or without Taylor's permission? That's the crux, my dear Kleer. As for the truth: The Taylor era stopped in '75.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
Naturalust
Much more likely he is just keeping quiet about the Stones to keep open the possibility of future invitations. He has got absolutely nothing to gain by making disparaging comments. He has said how much he enjoyed the last tour and just because he isn't included in this one isn't going to change his gratitude and good will toward the Stones, imo.

peace

lol. a couple pages ago on this forum you were assuring me that the Facebook page and the poster on here were very close to him, in fact that it was wrong of me to suggest that what they said might not reflect what is truly happening in taylor's world, although it might be colored by their own opinions.

in fact when i asked that you give keith's word equal credit to theirs you strongly implied that if they said taylor wasn't ill and keith said he heard he was, then your conclusion was that taylor wasn't ill and you went on to say how disappointed you were in keith for spreading a false rumor, albeit unknowingly, and not checking it more closely.

perhaps its best not to accuse people you've never met of things you know nothing about.

No, you should probably re-read my posts. What I said was a bit different actually. I said Keith was likely not lying, just repeating what he'd heard and that my disappointment was that Keith appeared to not have spoken with Taylor directly before making the comment. I believe Keith would have been a bit more clear than "I heard he was sick" if he had actually spoken to the man. Don't you?

My comments regarding the poster that is close to Taylor were just that she is not putting word in Taylor's mouth, she is generally speaking from her own perspective and we have no reason to doubt her. The fact that she didn't say "I heard Taylor was well" but said "He is not sick" pretty much gives the impression that she has some first hand knowledge of the situation.

My whole point was we don't have reason to doubt either statement. Keith was probably truthful in stating what he had heard and Chacal was probably truthful is stating what she knows. I don't think this has to be near the conflict you apparently want it to be, I'm not disrespecting Keith for stating what he heard or accusing him of lying.

Btw: I have met both Keith and Taylor so by your logic I guess I can accuse them of whatever I want?

peace

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Turner68

Quote
Naturalust
Much more likely he is just keeping quiet about the Stones to keep open the possibility of future invitations. He has got absolutely nothing to gain by making disparaging comments. He has said how much he enjoyed the last tour and just because he isn't included in this one isn't going to change his gratitude and good will toward the Stones, imo.

peace

lol. a couple pages ago on this forum you were assuring me that the Facebook page and the poster on here were very close to him, in fact that it was wrong of me to suggest that what they said might not reflect what is truly happening in taylor's world, although it might be colored by their own opinions.

in fact when i asked that you give keith's word equal credit to theirs you strongly implied that if they said taylor wasn't ill and keith said he heard he was, then your conclusion was that taylor wasn't ill and you went on to say how disappointed you were in keith for spreading a false rumor, albeit unknowingly, and not checking it more closely.

perhaps its best not to accuse people you've never met of things you know nothing about.

No, you should probably re-read my posts. What I said was a bit different actually. I said Keith was likely not lying, just repeating what he'd heard and that my disappointment was that Keith appeared to not have spoken with Taylor directly before making the comment. I believe Keith would have been a bit more clear than "I heard he was sick" if he had actually spoken to the man. Don't you?

My comments regarding the poster that is close to Taylor were just that she is not putting word in Taylor's mouth, she is generally speaking from her own perspective and we have no reason to doubt her. The fact that she didn't say "I heard Taylor was well" but said "He is not sick" pretty much gives the impression that she has some first hand knowledge of the situation.

My whole point was we don't have reason to doubt either statement. Keith was probably truthful in stating what he had heard and Chacal was probably truthful is stating what she knows. I don't think this has to be near the conflict you apparently want it to be, I'm not disrespecting Keith for stating what he heard or accusing him of lying.

Btw: I have met both Keith and Taylor so by your logic I guess I can accuse them of whatever I want?

peace

Well, whaddya expect, Naturalust... Keith doesn't like Taylor, so why would he talk to him?

I don't think Keith was trying to lie, I think he was just being lazy and didn't particularly care what the truth was. So far as I can tell Keith doesn't want Taylor onstage at all... particularly when he says stuff like "He's like a shadow - he comes and goes..."

Also, Naturalust: you've met Keith and Taylor??? Did you get their autograph?

Quote
Naturalust

Btw: I have met both Keith and Taylor so by your logic I guess I can accuse them of whatever I want?

peace

Absolutely not. In fact there is an important point we are discussing, which is that when one person accuses another person of something, the burden of proof is on the accuser. If your neighbor goes around telling people that you bury dead corpses in your backyard, your neighbors won't "believe her because she has no reason not to tell the truth". They'll ask to see what evidence there is. When there is none, then it's idle speculation.

I will say that your mentioning that you've met Keith before did conjure up the funny image of you looking the guy in the eye and trying to explain some of the things posted on here.

I intend no confrontations although I acknowledge I'm now participating in an ongoing one started by idk who. I'm a big Mick Taylor fan although i prefer his more restrained playing of 69 and 70 to 72-73. I like to believe the best about him and I know the Stones are hard core about how they conduct their business and that might sometime hurt.

I think it's a shame that some Taylor fans struggle to focus on the music and instead try to create big crusade around Mick Taylor the hero being persecuted by the big mean Rolling Stones whose big goal in life is to deny the world great music. Reality is almost always more subtle and nuanced.

All I know about these guys is that they are great musicians, certainly past their prime but still cranking it out, and by the way Naturlist I have great respect for your musical knowledge and have learned a lot about that from you in a couple short weeks.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-06-08 20:19 by Turner68.

No worries Turner68, thanks. I too am obviously a Taylor fan but also a fan of the Rolling Stones in their current line up. I don't really see too much point in villainizing them for not keeping Taylor on as a guest. But it was actually somewhat painful to see him walk off after only one song on the last tour.

And no HearMeKnockin I didn't get autographs from either Keith or Taylor. The situations were more social, although I do have some photographs with Keith and Patti somewhere in the bottom of a box in one of the barns. Someday I'll dig them out.

peace

Quote
Stoneburst
Kleer, I mostly agree with you but why do you say his behaviour on stage was embarrassing?

Didn't you see his kneeling for Jagger, his jumping between Richards and Wood, his playing while the song was already over? Accepting being truncated during his Sway solo in LA, being bossed around by Jagger? Sometimes also behaving as a kid that is allowed to stay with the adults late at night?

The relationship with the Stones wasn't equal at all and that was visible by MT's submissive behaviour. Where was the Taylor that just played his guitar, just standing and playing like in this clip, cool as ice, letting his fingers speak volumes, a man being proud of himself?






Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-06-08 20:51 by kleermaker.

I agree Kleer.

Taylor, Wyman, and even Keith standing back calmly, expressionlessly, creating enormous, monstrous, transcendent sounds out of their guitars while Jagger pranced around like the diva he is was definitely a huge part of their coolness factor.

Keith is not calm on MR on the Marquee gig. I've never seen him that wasted

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Stoneburst
Kleer, I mostly agree with you but why do you say his behaviour on stage was embarrassing?

Didn't you see his kneeling for Jagger, his jumping between Richards and Wood, his playing while the song was already over? Accepting being truncated during his Sway solo in LA, being bossed around by Jagger? Sometimes also behaving as a kid that is allowed to stay with the adults late at night?

The relationship with the Stones wasn't equal at all and that was visible by MT's subdued behaviour. Where was the Taylor that just played his guitar, just standing and playing like in this clip, cool as ice, letting his fingers speak volumes?

Totally agree about Taylor's on stage movement being somewhat uncomfortable. Obviously he was somewhat insecure (or something) about his role in the organization the Stones have become. I don't really blame Jagger or any of the other Stones for that, Taylor obviously could have acted anyway he wanted but for some reason felt this was the way he should perform. Unfortunately as kleerie points out, it somewhat diluted his image as the ultra cool ultra confident badass guitar player, standing still on stage right and playing devastating guitar.

I personally will speculate that it was a combination of a lot of factors. Him actually trying to be what he perceived as a good performer on a large stage, trying to fit in with the spectacle the Stones have become, making up for previous rather hurtful comments he endured from Keith about him being a cold fish and trying to please the Stones to further ingratiate himself into this wildly successful outfit.

Perhaps his recent sobriety had something to do with it as well. Taylor trying to find out who he really is after so long and experiencing long suppressed emotions might explain the "behaving as a kid that is allowed to stay with the adults late at night" stuff.

peace

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Keith is not calm on MR on the Marquee gig. I've never seen him that wasted

:-) you're right. No question Taylor and wyman were the masters of the calm non chalance



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-06-08 21:07 by Turner68.

Quote
Getondown

Quote
Ket

Quote
Getondown
Write a book? WTF don't you all get? He is under contract. The Stones won't allow that or disparagement.

This is why you don't hear from Mick Taylor - he can't say anything.

He can't comment on the tour without prior consent or if he does it has to be positive. Do you think Brenda would allow otherwise? GMAFB.

and how exactly do you know this?

Because that is what groups do for tours. MT was under contract for a set amount of songs for set pay. I am sure everyone on the stage except the 4 Stones have contracts. And if you are going to have contracts you are going to tie them up for non-disparagement. Only the Stones speak for the Stones.

Isn't it very likely that Taylor gets continuing payments from the Stones in exchange for quietly dropping any claim, formal or otherwise, to have contributed to their success and for not saying anything negative. I don't know this for a fact. Others have suggested it here. it seems unlikely that it is not the case. I would never refer to Jagger as 'Brenda,' Keith can do that, not you, but otherwise I think you are on target, especially since their whole relationship was likely revamped around the tours he just appeared on. You think Jagger took him on those tours without the commitment to STFU? Permanently? I don't.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Stoneburst
Kleer, I mostly agree with you but why do you say his behaviour on stage was embarrassing?

Didn't you see his kneeling for Jagger, his jumping between Richards and Wood, his playing while the song was already over? Accepting being truncated during his Sway solo in LA, being bossed around by Jagger? Sometimes also behaving as a kid that is allowed to stay with the adults late at night?

The relationship with the Stones wasn't equal at all and that was visible by MT's submissive behaviour. Where was the Taylor that just played his guitar, just standing and playing like in this clip, cool as ice, letting his fingers speak volumes, a man being proud of himself?

Yes, of course I saw all that. Some of that, I think, was down to him genuinely enjoying being on stage with them (his theatrics on Rambler and whatnot). Other parts were probably scripted, and still others he just didn't have a choice in. What did you expect him to do on Sway, just carry on playing as Jagger tried to end the song? Had he tried, Pierre would just have turned his amplifier off. It must have been extremely frustrating for him, but once he signed up for it his options were always going to be limited.

You're absolutely right that it was nowhere near an equal relationship. That's why Bill Wyman told them to get stuffed after the O2. But then Wyman didn't need the Stones in the way Taylor does. Even if it wasn't a financial issue for him, he's demonstrated very little ability to actually organise his own career over the past few decades, and has usually depended on other people. The moment I saw Taylor playing acoustic on Satisfaction, I took it as read that, for whatever reason, he felt he had little choice but to stick around the Stones camp and take whatever crap they were throwing at him.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-06-08 21:18 by Stoneburst.

Quote
Getondown
Write a book? WTF don't you all get? He is under contract. The Stones won't allow that or disparagement.

This is why you don't hear from Mick Taylor - he can't say anything.

He can't comment on the tour without prior consent or if he does it has to be positive. Do you think Brenda would allow otherwise? GMAFB.

Mick Taylor has led a very interesting life, to say the least. He doesn't need to disparage anyone, certainly not nearly as much as Keith did, to tell his story. He can be discreet about certain eras but he's certainly had plenty to say in the past which was less-than-complimentary. If Jo Wood can write a book and stay on good terms with them, I'm sure Taylor could pull it off with a good co-author. Just tell us your story, Mick. Then comes book singings, talk show appearances, a new CD. Do it, Mick.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Keith is not calm on MR on the Marquee gig. I've never seen him that wasted

I've never seen him calm while playing. Maybe during the 69 tour.

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Stoneburst
Kleer, I mostly agree with you but why do you say his behaviour on stage was embarrassing?

Didn't you see his kneeling for Jagger, his jumping between Richards and Wood, his playing while the song was already over? Accepting being truncated during his Sway solo in LA, being bossed around by Jagger? Sometimes also behaving as a kid that is allowed to stay with the adults late at night?

The relationship with the Stones wasn't equal at all and that was visible by MT's submissive behaviour. Where was the Taylor that just played his guitar, just standing and playing like in this clip, cool as ice, letting his fingers speak volumes, a man being proud of himself?

Yes, of course I saw all that. Some of that, I think, was down to him genuinely enjoying being on stage with them (his theatrics on Rambler and whatnot). Other parts were probably scripted, and still others he just didn't have a choice in. What did you expect him to do on Sway, just carry on playing as Jagger tried to end the song? Had he tried, Pierre would just have turned his amplifier off. It must have been extremely frustrating for him, but once he signed up for it his options were always going to be limited.

You're absolutely right that it was nowhere near an equal relationship. That's why Bill Wyman told them to get stuffed after the O2. But then Wyman didn't need the Stones in the way Taylor does. Even if it wasn't a financial issue for him, he's demonstrated very little ability to actually organise his own career over the past few decades, and has usually depended on other people. The moment I saw Taylor playing acoustic on Satisfaction, I took it as read that, for whatever reason, he felt he had little choice but to stick around the Stones camp and take whatever crap they were throwing at him.

Well, I'm not blaming him for all of that, but certainly for a substantial part of it. Anyway, in my eyes it was embarrassing. So that's another reason why I don't want him to see playing with this Rolling Stones band-in-very-long-extra-time.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Stoneburst
Kleer, I mostly agree with you but why do you say his behaviour on stage was embarrassing?

Didn't you see his kneeling for Jagger, his jumping between Richards and Wood, his playing while the song was already over? Accepting being truncated during his Sway solo in LA, being bossed around by Jagger? Sometimes also behaving as a kid that is allowed to stay with the adults late at night?

The relationship with the Stones wasn't equal at all and that was visible by MT's submissive behaviour. Where was the Taylor that just played his guitar, just standing and playing like in this clip, cool as ice, letting his fingers speak volumes, a man being proud of himself?

I didn't view Taylor's jump between Ronnie and Keith as embarrassing, but the kneeling you refer to was.

I really like that photo of Taylor jumping. just an expression of joy, I thought. the looks on their faces..its heart-warming.


its possible the kneeling was sarcastic...

delete



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-06-08 21:54 by DoomandGloom.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Stoneburst
Kleer, I mostly agree with you but why do you say his behaviour on stage was embarrassing?

Didn't you see his kneeling for Jagger, his jumping between Richards and Wood, his playing while the song was already over? Accepting being truncated during his Sway solo in LA, being bossed around by Jagger? Sometimes also behaving as a kid that is allowed to stay with the adults late at night?

The relationship with the Stones wasn't equal at all and that was visible by MT's submissive behaviour. Where was the Taylor that just played his guitar, just standing and playing like in this clip, cool as ice, letting his fingers speak volumes, a man being proud of himself?

Yes, of course I saw all that. Some of that, I think, was down to him genuinely enjoying being on stage with them (his theatrics on Rambler and whatnot). Other parts were probably scripted, and still others he just didn't have a choice in. What did you expect him to do on Sway, just carry on playing as Jagger tried to end the song? Had he tried, Pierre would just have turned his amplifier off. It must have been extremely frustrating for him, but once he signed up for it his options were always going to be limited.

You're absolutely right that it was nowhere near an equal relationship. That's why Bill Wyman told them to get stuffed after the O2. But then Wyman didn't need the Stones in the way Taylor does. Even if it wasn't a financial issue for him, he's demonstrated very little ability to actually organise his own career over the past few decades, and has usually depended on other people. The moment I saw Taylor playing acoustic on Satisfaction, I took it as read that, for whatever reason, he felt he had little choice but to stick around the Stones camp and take whatever crap they were throwing at him.

Well, I'm not blaming him for all of that, but certainly for a substantial part of it. Anyway, in my eyes it was embarrassing. So that's another reason why I don't want him to see playing with this Rolling Stones band-in-very-long-extra-time.

Yes, the whole saga was bizarre and left a bad taste in the mouth. I totally agree that his self-respect ought to prevent him playing with the Stones again. Honestly, I just want to see him out there doing his own thing and proving whatever point he has to make in the best way he knows how, through his music.

Quote
DoomandGloom
When his guitar broke he stood there while the great Pierre froze like a shoe salesman at the sock department in Macy's. .

lol. Must have missed that one. Which show was that?

peace

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Stoneburst
Kleer, I mostly agree with you but why do you say his behaviour on stage was embarrassing?

Didn't you see his kneeling for Jagger, his jumping between Richards and Wood, his playing while the song was already over? Accepting being truncated during his Sway solo in LA, being bossed around by Jagger? Sometimes also behaving as a kid that is allowed to stay with the adults late at night?

The relationship with the Stones wasn't equal at all and that was visible by MT's submissive behaviour. Where was the Taylor that just played his guitar, just standing and playing like in this clip, cool as ice, letting his fingers speak volumes, a man being proud of himself?

Yes, of course I saw all that. Some of that, I think, was down to him genuinely enjoying being on stage with them (his theatrics on Rambler and whatnot). Other parts were probably scripted, and still others he just didn't have a choice in. What did you expect him to do on Sway, just carry on playing as Jagger tried to end the song? Had he tried, Pierre would just have turned his amplifier off. It must have been extremely frustrating for him, but once he signed up for it his options were always going to be limited.

You're absolutely right that it was nowhere near an equal relationship. That's why Bill Wyman told them to get stuffed after the O2. But then Wyman didn't need the Stones in the way Taylor does. Even if it wasn't a financial issue for him, he's demonstrated very little ability to actually organise his own career over the past few decades, and has usually depended on other people. The moment I saw Taylor playing acoustic on Satisfaction, I took it as read that, for whatever reason, he felt he had little choice but to stick around the Stones camp and take whatever crap they were throwing at him.

Well, I'm not blaming him for all of that, but certainly for a substantial part of it. Anyway, in my eyes it was embarrassing. So that's another reason why I don't want him to see playing with this Rolling Stones band-in-very-long-extra-time.

Yes, the whole saga was bizarre and left a bad taste in the mouth. I totally agree that his self-respect ought to prevent him playing with the Stones again. Honestly, I just want to see him out there doing his own thing and proving whatever point he has to make in the best way he knows how, through his music.

No he must play with them if he can. It goes beyond reason or feelings... The whole thing was like the Twilight Zone. Taylor at O2 jumping around, it was shocking. He chose to stand in between the other guitars but his amps remained on he other side of the stage. If Taylor is anything he's an amp guy, in his Stones days he stood right in front of a cranked SVT. MT however did well for himself and blew the roof off at Staples, Shanghai and was stunningly creative at Glaston. There were quite a few others, his playing earned him more cameos in 2015. Yes he jumped a 1/4 inch off the ground and sported a Captain Kangaroo chalked stained jacket but he was on his own up there. 1 man amid a band with a monster entourage, constantly tested to prove his mettle, "he's the bloke that quit." When his guitar broke he stood there while the great Pierre froze like a shoe salesman at the sock department in Macy's. Oh yeah, now his buddy Ron comes out saying it's easier just with Keith, Wood covers all the bases, takes MT on a club tour, maybe he hoped he'd grab those critical CHYMK notes and a few scales he's yet to understand after 40 years of getting by but in the end he's no Taylorite.