Tell Me :
Talk
I seem to recall a certain J. Garcia who had a knack for commanding attention and blowing people's minds while standing nearly stock-still.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-06-19 20:51 by Dreamer.
Yeah you are right about that. I always got a bit of a kick out of the crowd reaction when he did wave his hand or move around a bit, they went nuts! You can call Jerry a lot of things but showman certainly wasn't one of them.
And Dreamer, none of us really know what Taylor is doing these days, all we really know is what he isn't doing and probably should be....playing with the Stones on a Sticky fingers tour! I've got no idea, even after all the speculation, why he wasn't invited back this tour but I would guess it has little to do with how his girlfriend acted backstage or because he didn't put on a happy face.
And dissing the man because he might need help to "get things together" is hardly constructive or telling really. The man is a guitar player, not everyone has a workaholic super businessman like Jagger or a manager like Jane Rose to organize and promote their careers. I imagine people like Keith would be just as helpless without the organization around them to do everything except play the guitar for them. Keith probably hasn't even stung a guitar up in many years.
But I understand what you are saying...something seems wrong with this picture, and perhaps when the true facts come out about it we'll all be able to quit speculating. I certainly don't believe the Stones are responsible for Taylor's current career, of course he himself ultimately is. But I don't think Taylor's inactivity should be characterized as "a bitter man , playing with his cat because he can't or won't do anything because he feels victimized". He is obviously choosing to take a break. No worries really, no one but he know why. Perhaps he is actually doing the best thing for his "career" right now and getting ready to go after 30+ years of unpaid royalties? That might be a better purely business decision, who knows? Probably what Jagger would do.
It's us as fans that have such high expectations, paint glorious or depraved pictures of the man for our own somewhat selfish reasons. I doubt he is particularly happy at the missed opportunity to play with them again, what human on the planet would be? I also think it's the whole rejuvenation of the Sticky Fingers thing that is bringing out more impassioned opinions on Taylor at this time.
In any case, Taylor is a subject everyone seems to have an opinion on, good or bad, and that shows me that we do care about him. I obviously do.
peace
Sounds on course as he elegantly plays the rhythm guitar...
All good and well, but it's not that Dreamer doesn't seem to have a point really. Which points are actually valid is a totally different thing, but this counts for the entire Taylor discussion because everything I've read so far (and heard outside of this message board) is based on observations, interpretations of these observations and very little, if any, proven facts. It's a bit like the ongoing Brian Jones "conspiracy" talk, so to speak, where the "good" and "bad" roles are very clear in some minds - "bad", of course, are the Stones, namely Mick and Keith, and their endless greed for money, power and artistic control.
I've got this feeling that the ongoing money issues brought up by (whom really? Taylor himself? His "management"? His associates?) don't do Taylor, him personally and also his career, no favour at all.
Hell, what he really "deserves" is a moral aspect. But what he is definitely owed (= in legal terms) must be written down in contracts. If you really think that the Stones cheated you out of royality payments since the 1980's, go, consult a lawyer and if he/she agrees with you after checking the papers, contact the Stones organisation and be prepared to sue them! It's high time to stop blaming the Stones for this and that, blame your own inactivity instead! Unlike Brian Jones, you are still alive, Mick, and can speak up for yourself and act! Stop this dishonourable charade on message boards and elsewhere now, act yourself!
The new supergroup of Mick Taylor, Jimmy Page, Bill Wyman, and Ringo Starr has just become a thing in my mind... and Page could help MT sue the Stones for royalties since he has a lot of experience in the courts.
I actually agree with most of what you Dreamer - things on this thread can get a little heated with us Taylorites venting our frustration at the Stones, and contradiction can make us a little touchy. But where I have to disagree is the part I underlined about drawing conclusions "backed by or based on facts". I ask you: What facts? All we have to go on is what the Stones/Chacal tell us, and the Stones just tell us that MT "is a shadow" and "he comes and goes", while Jagger tells us nothing five different ways. Ronnie won't give us anything because it's "easier to just play with Keith" so why would he want to know anything about MT? And so far as I know, no one has ever asked the Stones if they have in fact been denying him royalties for decades - not that we'd get a straight answer from them anyway... Forget the Stones, MT doesn't tell us much. So you can see where the "constant frustration" stems from: being in the dark all the time and going only off information from sources you may or may not be able to trust. Hence the 133 pages of endless (and sometimes baseless) speculation. Nobody tells us anything (except Chacal).
But again, I mostly agree with what you wrote. The Stones of course can play decent music minus MT, just they play better with him.
Have a nice day.
That's what I mean HearMeKnockin...there are no or just a few facts.
And "Nobody tells us anything except Chacal" Well Chacal might say a lot but it's basically just the attitude "that's not what happened: this is the truth!" of which nothing is backed by facts either...
He wasn't asked is not followed by a factual why he wasn't asked but it's just presented as something terrible itself (?)...and after that came a lot more assumptions and accusations. (But who knows: maybe they/someone did say why but it wasn't presented to us by Chacal because not telling that would be better for MT...? An assumption in another direction just for the sake of argument...)
Anyway the suggestion of how (allegedly) MT was told he would not be there in 2015 was followed by the 'conclusion' this could never be anything else than a scandal or an outrage: the coward MJ didn't even dare to call MT himself...
This hunger for a confirmation of the 'fact' that the RS are indeed stone cold businessmen or (a little better; let's get KR off the hook!) MJ is an ice cold manager is so desperate it doesn't allow any other interpretation...
But maybe the 'situation' just ended because they had other plans for 2015...that again seems a version that could not possibly be true...it has to be a conspiracy or something terrible and ridiculous by the RS/MJ. Where there's smoke there's a fire...and nobody thinks about the possibility of a pyromaniac.
And meanwhile all of it is not in correspondence with the fact that MT did say he was happy and loved playing with them and felt rejuvenated...
Another fact: nobody from the band gave any negative comments about MT starting with EOMS again and during or after him being on tour with the RS...au contraire: compliments in and around the stage and in the press by the band.
All there is are a couple of words put under a microscope and followed again by interpreations/assumptions and accusations all of them of course pointing at the RS/MJ.
So..."being in the dark"...I guess something or someone could be leading you to it but... I don't see any facts/evidence it's the RS doing that.
To me it looks like all the accusations and assumptions and interpretations and all the blaming of the RS and saying they owe him and stuff do lead you away from where there might be some light. And that's the situation in which they were in and are now out...the rest is speculation not giving things a better sight.
Hmmm. That would indeed be scandalous but I doubt Taylor is keen on refuting past authorship claims. It's more about money from sales of the records which the Stones owned all the copyrights to and he was a full fledged member. I doubt they could pay MT enough to cover his possible gain from that one.
Besides Taylor has not really criticized the Stones openly for a long time, he seems to much of a gentleman to do so and you get the feeling the few times he has have been pretty honest reflections of what he's felt about the subjects. One thing about Taylor is that he isn't evasive like Jagger or spins everything into a cute phrase like Keith, he seems to talk from a pretty straightforward and honest point of view.
peace
That's what I would have done in their position, too. And I would not rule out the possibility that this is exactly what they did in 2012. It would explain a lot - Taylor's silence, the fact that others (girlfriends, managers, associates) bringing up the topic constantly...
Again, what do we actually know? Even if they did stop royality payments in the 80's it's possible that they were legally entitled to do so. Instead of accusing the Stones of ripping Taylor off the question could be asked if they were ever legally bound to pay him royalties after he left in 1974. If not, it would of course mean that they had paid him from 1975 to the 80's despite not being legally bound to do so!
I don't take sides here, I'm just showing different possibilites and possible legal scenarios. I can't take sides here or even judge because I don't know the contracts.
Don't worry about it: just stop reading them.
All great points alimente and I don't have a clue what the legal status or ramification of Taylor's leaving in 1974 have on the situation. But it's a pretty good assumption that if they Stones weren't obligated to pay him from 1974 to 1982 they wouldn't have. After the Klein fiasco they were presumably pretty saavy about legal and financial issues. Perhaps they just found a clever laywer in '82 who found a loophole that allowed him to be cutoff. It seems the intention and legality was at least clear, at one time, that Taylor would continue to be paid.
If there were no legal contracts and this was a court of opinion (which of course it is on iorr), I'm pretty sure we would all pretty much be voting for Taylor to get his due.
And Dreamer, you do indeed defend MJ with considerably more enthusiasm than Chacal ever defended Taylor. And you must admit she is probably considerably closer to the situation than you are. As I've said I always got the impression her posts were very short and factual comments meant to refute untrue rumors that were being propagated here. Of course you can't expect her to come on this board and air out all the facts you are so anxious to say haven't been clearly put on the table. Then you would be accusing her of sharing private and inside information on a public board.
In general, by constantly bringing this up, you are making much more out of the demonization of MJ than anybody here is or has in a long time.
peace
Perhaps burst, but he has been kind, generally addressed his point to the topic at hand instead of the poster (except concerning the one poster in MT's camp), seems serious about his engagements and curious enough to deserve a reply. He actually complements Taylor's playing and contributions, so it's not all bad.
Sometimes, in the search for the truth, it magically appears in such discussions. Truth being self evident in many cases. I think lots of us are on that search, that's probably why I am so willing to engage him. That being said I'm not sure we've actually found any here. Ha!
peace
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
LongBeachArena72
()
Date: June 19, 2015 19:52
Quote
Naturalust
One of the things that was so attractive about Taylor to me was that he didn't have to rely on showmanship to get his point across and be totally relevant. Something about him just standing there, eyes of his fret board and devastating us with his guitar playing was so cool and amazing, it was perfect. Humility even though great, no gimmicks just the real thing. The only person I ever saw do it as effectively as Taylor was Barry Bailey of the Atlanta Rhythm Section. I saw a show where he didn't move a muscle, just stood perfectly still in the same spot the whole night, ripping it up on that Les Paul. For that reason, I remember that performance above so many others, stage presence can obviously come in different forms.
peace
I seem to recall a certain J. Garcia who had a knack for commanding attention and blowing people's minds while standing nearly stock-still.
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
Dreamer
()
Date: June 19, 2015 20:34
Quote
Naturalust
Dreamer you totally underestimate the the attraction Taylor has in this world where nostalgia, name recognition and anything associated with the Rolling Stones have huge marketing potential.
No I don't: MT does...he never used that potential actively but just thought or assumed it would come his way. And when invited back he should have shown a happy face everey day and make something out of it: indeed announce an album, a tour, start working out and give the world the impression you're back & better and that you want it now!
But there's nothing...
Besides, I'm not suggesting Taylor go it alone, quite the opposite. I believe he excels in an environment with other great songwriting musicians. Look at what he brought to the Stones table on the single friggin' song he was allowed to play on. If you didn't catch any of those shows you missed some of the most musically exciting moments in RS history in a long time. I'm not talking about a Tonight: Mick Taylor tour anymore than I'm talking about a Tonight: Mick Jagger tour.
I saw the first seven show after the Echoplex so I know...and I'm familiair with his previous work so I know that too. And I like a few things about that too so... And I know he excels with the Stones so... But it's about what he would or could do by himself. And the FACTS are he hardly achieved anything alone.
And you blatantly suggest Taylor didn't make the most of his RS gig? Like playing on more songs? No doubt he would have liked to do just that, it was obviously the Stones tying his hands on that aspect. If allowed a few more songs I have no doubt his value would have been even more apparent to the Stones and their fans and he would have made the most of it. The audiences came alive when he played and he was universally very very well received.
No I didn't suggest more songs. But in presentation and attitude he didn't exactly nailed it. And his girlfriend/manager making a scene backstage is also not exactly evidence of being constructive and looking at the future regarding the RS. And obviously the Stones tying his hands is an interpretation of a contract/deal he signed to go on tour so...for at least 50% of that he tied his own hands.
If you are just suggesting he hasn't done much since you are right, but in all fairness he was probably expecting a call from the Stones again. The fact that that call came from some lawyer and wasn't an invitation but a dismissal is both unfortunate and telling. Couldn't Mick or Keith pick up the phone?
That's exactly what I mean: he depends on the RS whil eit would be better taking things in his own hands but he got used to being a victim all he knows is how to act one. Sad but why blame the band who asked him back for EOMS and asked him back again for the tour...??
A kickstarter campaign is for people who need funding (and expect a return). We don't know Taylors financial situation, he could probably fund his own tour, certainly could if he had the royalties that have been denied him the last 32 years! In the meantime SF is selling like hotcakes and who would deny that Taylor deserves just as much from that as say Charlie does?
I don't why he doesn't try to tour or make an album but it probably got something to do with this attitude of feeling a victim instead of a person who tries to win something...
I still think the right management, marketing and collaboration would do wonders for Taylor's career. Obviously playing more with the Stones would have been an ideal jumpstart and a perfect platform for his skills but we know that's not happening. Taylor's appeal as a virtuoso guitar player in a good band is undeniable. He's still one of the most exciting guitarists from that era still alive and playing and to suggest that couldn't be parlayed into future success is just plain ignorant.
Yes who knows it would have been but nothing came from MT to this moment. He's at home with his cat because "unfortunately I wasn't asked"...come on: he's at home because he doesn't do anything! So he's still one of the most exciting guitarists from that era still alive and playing...yes; when he's playing with the RS or others...like you said with "I believe he excels in an environment with other great songwriting musicians."
At the moment he's just a man with his cat hardly capable of getting things together without his girlfriend/manager or without the RS. Getting to play on the reissue of EOMS and getting to play on tour with the RS was great for MT. I don't mean that nasty but just as I see the facts and I wish they where better for him but...it's up to him to do something about that.
peace
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-06-19 20:51 by Dreamer.
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: June 19, 2015 21:51
Quote
LongBeachArena72
I seem to recall a certain J. Garcia who had a knack for commanding attention and blowing people's minds while standing nearly stock-still.
Yeah you are right about that. I always got a bit of a kick out of the crowd reaction when he did wave his hand or move around a bit, they went nuts! You can call Jerry a lot of things but showman certainly wasn't one of them.
And Dreamer, none of us really know what Taylor is doing these days, all we really know is what he isn't doing and probably should be....playing with the Stones on a Sticky fingers tour! I've got no idea, even after all the speculation, why he wasn't invited back this tour but I would guess it has little to do with how his girlfriend acted backstage or because he didn't put on a happy face.
And dissing the man because he might need help to "get things together" is hardly constructive or telling really. The man is a guitar player, not everyone has a workaholic super businessman like Jagger or a manager like Jane Rose to organize and promote their careers. I imagine people like Keith would be just as helpless without the organization around them to do everything except play the guitar for them. Keith probably hasn't even stung a guitar up in many years.
But I understand what you are saying...something seems wrong with this picture, and perhaps when the true facts come out about it we'll all be able to quit speculating. I certainly don't believe the Stones are responsible for Taylor's current career, of course he himself ultimately is. But I don't think Taylor's inactivity should be characterized as "a bitter man , playing with his cat because he can't or won't do anything because he feels victimized". He is obviously choosing to take a break. No worries really, no one but he know why. Perhaps he is actually doing the best thing for his "career" right now and getting ready to go after 30+ years of unpaid royalties? That might be a better purely business decision, who knows? Probably what Jagger would do.
It's us as fans that have such high expectations, paint glorious or depraved pictures of the man for our own somewhat selfish reasons. I doubt he is particularly happy at the missed opportunity to play with them again, what human on the planet would be? I also think it's the whole rejuvenation of the Sticky Fingers thing that is bringing out more impassioned opinions on Taylor at this time.
In any case, Taylor is a subject everyone seems to have an opinion on, good or bad, and that shows me that we do care about him. I obviously do.
peace
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
mtaylor
()
Date: June 19, 2015 23:36
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
pepganzo
()
Date: June 20, 2015 01:01
Love keith solo here
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: June 20, 2015 02:22
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
HearMeKnockin
()
Date: June 20, 2015 06:25
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Off course or on course?
Sounds on course as he elegantly plays the rhythm guitar...
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
Dreamer
()
Date: June 20, 2015 14:34
Quote
Naturalust
And dissing the man because he might need help to "get things together" is hardly constructive or telling really. The man is a guitar player, not everyone has a workaholic super businessman like Jagger or a manager like Jane Rose to organize and promote their careers. I imagine people like Keith would be just as helpless without the organization around them to do everything except play the guitar for them. Keith probably hasn't even stung a guitar up in many years.
I don't think the kickstarter thing that was suggested is 'dissing the man' but just a good suggestion he needs something.
Compare MT with MJ/JR is silly: he just has to do his thing like lots of other musicians have to who need to play gigs to earn some money...so play gigs! You don't need to be a super businessman to do that and you don't need a manager like Jane to do that. But you s.a.s. don't need one to make a serious argument with the RS about money on showday...
But I understand what you are saying...
You're getting there...
But I don't think Taylor's inactivity should be characterized as "a bitter man , playing with his cat because he can't or won't do anything because he feels victimized". He is obviously choosing to take a break.
Well I do think it's got something to do with it. He's a very good player but an even worse businessman than RW but RW keeps trying and continues to do what he likes to do which is expressing himself through his art every day. Painting or music. And RW could have done the same nagging at the RS for not making him a member for years. But he didn't. He continued to produce his work. That was his choice: to keep working and don't feel sorry for himself.
It's us as fans that have such high expectations, paint glorious or depraved pictures of the man for our own somewhat selfish reasons.
There you go. Projection. And some other things...of which wanting to read ones own post most and not the answer to that being one of them. Yes you're right and almost saying the same things I do. Hmm let's wait and see if they call that rubbish too...
peace
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: June 20, 2015 18:26
Dreamer, you seem to be doing a whole lot of projecting on to Mick Taylor yourself. Methinks it's you doing the dissing, not the person who suggested the kick starter campaign. Suggesting he needs something from us, he's bitter, he's playing a victim , he's abandoned his art, etc. You are painting a pretty depraved picture of the man (for what appear to be you own selfish reasons).
For all we know he's perfectly happy riding his bike, hanging out with his cat and probably playing his guitar. Hell, he could be jamming every night with Jimmy Page for all you know. He looked great in that picture I saw of him on Facebook! And he certainly looked happy playing with the Stones and later with Ronnie.
He has always taken responsibility for leaving the Stones, no doubt he had his reasons, no need to discuss that well worn subject, but in all reality, he probably deserves to be a bit angry, imo. Being cut off from decades of royalties would probably make anyone a bit pissed. Being publicly dismissed by Keith because he heard he was sick probably wouldn't tend to make a well person too chipper either.
Probably best to leave any comparisons to Ronnie out of the discussion, I don't see any similarities in their situations really.
And now you sneak in some statement about Taylor having a serious argument with the RS about money on showday? Not only do I not believe that, I'm beginning to think you have some ulterior motives here to discredit Taylor any way you can.
The truth of matter is that Taylor is quoted as saying he loved playing with them and was rejuvenated by the experience of his 11 minutes of stage time with them every night. I haven't heard him or his people say anything more about the Stones other than, "I wasn't invited", "He's not sick", and now unfortunately "That was the last time I will be touring with them".
peace
For all we know he's perfectly happy riding his bike, hanging out with his cat and probably playing his guitar. Hell, he could be jamming every night with Jimmy Page for all you know.
He looked great in that picture I saw of him on Facebook! And he certainly looked happy playing with the Stones and later with Ronnie.He has always taken responsibility for leaving the Stones, no doubt he had his reasons, no need to discuss that well worn subject, but in all reality, he probably deserves to be a bit angry, imo. Being cut off from decades of royalties would probably make anyone a bit pissed. Being publicly dismissed by Keith because he heard he was sick probably wouldn't tend to make a well person too chipper either.
Probably best to leave any comparisons to Ronnie out of the discussion, I don't see any similarities in their situations really.
And now you sneak in some statement about Taylor having a serious argument with the RS about money on showday? Not only do I not believe that, I'm beginning to think you have some ulterior motives here to discredit Taylor any way you can.
The truth of matter is that Taylor is quoted as saying he loved playing with them and was rejuvenated by the experience of his 11 minutes of stage time with them every night. I haven't heard him or his people say anything more about the Stones other than, "I wasn't invited", "He's not sick", and now unfortunately "That was the last time I will be touring with them".
peace
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
Captainchaos
()
Date: June 20, 2015 18:29
agree
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
drbryant
()
Date: June 20, 2015 19:08
I was watching Taylor in the lobby of the Langham hotel in Auckland the day after the show He didn't seem dour or cold. He seemed warm and happy; playing a little acoustic guitar for a kid who asked him to sign a guitar, exchanging hugs with the other supporting musicians, having a smoke with Bernard.
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
Dreamer
()
Date: June 20, 2015 19:21
Quote
Naturalust
The truth of matter is that Taylor is quoted as saying he loved playing with them and was rejuvenated by the experience of his 11 minutes of stage time with them every night.
He did a little more I believe...? Not just 11 minutes but with Satisfaction it's around 18 minute I guess? Don't do him short!
But this "truth of the matter" is exactly one of the most important points I wonder about on this thread: why... when MT was so happy and loved playing and was rejuvenated by it, why these 133 pages of attacks by Taylorites at the other RS and also often at other fans? Isn't it strange that while Taylor was happy and loved playing and was rejuvenated his fans are very very angry?
And why was his girlfriend/manager posting on IORR (!) and more than insinuating the RS didn't treat him right...when you read her posts again you might think MT wasn't happy at all but just said he was? The attitude she had and lots of posters with her made it look like he was forced to play with them! It's truly a mystery when you consider MT was happy and loved playing and was rejuvenated...
That's the motive I have Naturalust: I don't get it!
peace
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
alimente
()
Date: June 20, 2015 19:55
Quote
Naturalust
Dreamer, you seem to be doing a whole lot of projecting on to Mick Taylor yourself. Methinks it's you doing the dissing, not the person who suggested the kick starter campaign. Suggesting he needs something from us, he's bitter, he's playing a victim , he's abandoned his art, etc. You are painting a pretty depraved picture of the man (for what appear to be you own selfish reasons).
For all we know he's perfectly happy riding his bike, hanging out with his cat and probably playing his guitar. Hell, he could be jamming every night with Jimmy Page for all you know.
He has always taken responsibility for leaving the Stones, no doubt he had his reasons, no need to discuss that well worn subject, but in all reality, he probably deserves to be a bit angry, imo. Being cut off from decades of royalties would probably make anyone a bit pissed. Being publicly dismissed by Keith because he heard he was sick probably wouldn't tend to make a well person too chipper either.
Probably best to leave any comparisons to Ronnie out of the discussion, I don't see any similarities in their situations really.
And now you sneak in some statement about Taylor having a serious argument with the RS about money on showday? Not only do I not believe that, I'm beginning to think you have some ulterior motives here to discredit Taylor any way you can.
The truth of matter is that Taylor is quoted as saying he loved playing with them and was rejuvenated by the experience of his 11 minutes of stage time with them every night. I haven't heard him or his people say anything more about the Stones other than, "I wasn't invited", "He's not sick", and now unfortunately "That was the last time I will be touring with them".
peace
All good and well, but it's not that Dreamer doesn't seem to have a point really. Which points are actually valid is a totally different thing, but this counts for the entire Taylor discussion because everything I've read so far (and heard outside of this message board) is based on observations, interpretations of these observations and very little, if any, proven facts. It's a bit like the ongoing Brian Jones "conspiracy" talk, so to speak, where the "good" and "bad" roles are very clear in some minds - "bad", of course, are the Stones, namely Mick and Keith, and their endless greed for money, power and artistic control.
I've got this feeling that the ongoing money issues brought up by (whom really? Taylor himself? His "management"? His associates?) don't do Taylor, him personally and also his career, no favour at all.
Hell, what he really "deserves" is a moral aspect. But what he is definitely owed (= in legal terms) must be written down in contracts. If you really think that the Stones cheated you out of royality payments since the 1980's, go, consult a lawyer and if he/she agrees with you after checking the papers, contact the Stones organisation and be prepared to sue them! It's high time to stop blaming the Stones for this and that, blame your own inactivity instead! Unlike Brian Jones, you are still alive, Mick, and can speak up for yourself and act! Stop this dishonourable charade on message boards and elsewhere now, act yourself!
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: June 20, 2015 20:16
Fair enough Dreamer. but perhaps you could tone down your own fairly bold criticisms and statements concerning Taylor's disposition and those of whomever was posting from an apparent insiders perspective. We generally welcome ALL such information and those posts were mainly refuting baseless speculation from what I remember. We need more truly insiders perspectives not less, let them say what they want, imo.
I also believe you are wrong in your characterization of fans on this thread being very very angry or attacking the RS or each other. The great majority of the fans are here celebrating what Taylor brought to the Stones both in the 70's and his more recent tenure, and we have all been generally very civilized, especially since bv was kind enough to re-open the thread. With all due respect some of your own posts have been stirring the pot as much as anyone. Mostly what I've seen is just disappointment for what could have been if they had kept MT on for this tour. That is completely understandable and you must "get it".
I have no idea what other posters motivations are, perhaps you should try contacting them directly if you are so concerned about them. I've got no reason to believe any poster isn't speaking from their own base of opinion and feeling, likely there is stuff going on that we don't know about. Not sure why those posts bother you so much, I was actually happy to hear Taylor wasn't sick and some minute details concerning his being uninvited. Obviously not everyone is going to be totally enamored with the Stones on every level. I love the music, that's why I'm here.
No doubt the Stones are shrewd businessmen, you don't get to their level of success without being so. The perceived conflicts we infer from all this seem to be business and personal stuff and are pretty far removed from the music really. Some have even said the business has eclipsed the music and it's not hard to imagine that some might think the music would take a front seat again with Taylor on board.
Finally the reason we've got 133 pages of Taylor here, imo, is because of the huge impact he made to the music and since all discussions of him are limited to one thread, it's bound to get long.
peace
I also believe you are wrong in your characterization of fans on this thread being very very angry or attacking the RS or each other. The great majority of the fans are here celebrating what Taylor brought to the Stones both in the 70's and his more recent tenure, and we have all been generally very civilized, especially since bv was kind enough to re-open the thread. With all due respect some of your own posts have been stirring the pot as much as anyone. Mostly what I've seen is just disappointment for what could have been if they had kept MT on for this tour. That is completely understandable and you must "get it".
I have no idea what other posters motivations are, perhaps you should try contacting them directly if you are so concerned about them. I've got no reason to believe any poster isn't speaking from their own base of opinion and feeling, likely there is stuff going on that we don't know about. Not sure why those posts bother you so much, I was actually happy to hear Taylor wasn't sick and some minute details concerning his being uninvited. Obviously not everyone is going to be totally enamored with the Stones on every level. I love the music, that's why I'm here.
No doubt the Stones are shrewd businessmen, you don't get to their level of success without being so. The perceived conflicts we infer from all this seem to be business and personal stuff and are pretty far removed from the music really. Some have even said the business has eclipsed the music and it's not hard to imagine that some might think the music would take a front seat again with Taylor on board.
Finally the reason we've got 133 pages of Taylor here, imo, is because of the huge impact he made to the music and since all discussions of him are limited to one thread, it's bound to get long.
peace
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
HearMeKnockin
()
Date: June 20, 2015 22:52
Quote
Naturalust
Hell, he could be jamming every night with Jimmy Page for all you know.
peace
The new supergroup of Mick Taylor, Jimmy Page, Bill Wyman, and Ringo Starr has just become a thing in my mind... and Page could help MT sue the Stones for royalties since he has a lot of experience in the courts.
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
Dreamer
()
Date: June 21, 2015 17:56
Quote
Naturalust
Fair enough Dreamer. but perhaps you could tone down your own fairly bold criticisms and statements concerning Taylor's disposition and those of whomever was posting from an apparent insiders perspective. We generally welcome ALL such information and those posts were mainly refuting baseless speculation from what I remember. We need more truly insiders perspectives not less, let them say what they want, imo.
Well I don't excel in hiding my opinion in subtlety do I? Could be experienced as a bit of a shock in this thread since it's the opposite of current believes & conviction but hey: I happen to like the same kind of music and I'm on this board so MT is my guitarist too.
To me it's not only a challenge to improve my writing in English but I also find it interesting to start or be in something polemical. So of course I'm stirring the pot, especially in a place where people like Taylorites (especially the Taylorologists) are so confident of their own believes and have, well let's put it mildly, some difficulties trying to accept anything other: in comes DreamerAs long as attacks don't lead to calling names but stay in the literary environment it's okay to be ironic. Or sarcastic. Or even controversial or whatever. When you try to make other people think about their arguments and their believes from a different angle by saying things like 'this is a church of Taylorology' and so on it's kind of disappointing people react to that with just calling names and/or using terms like 'sociopath' and 'needs a psychologist or a psychiatrist.' So I have experience based doubts about what's 'fair enough' in this thread right from the start but let's see how you and others that understand this like to exchange points of view.
Mostly what I've seen is just disappointment for what could have been if they had kept MT on for this tour. That is completely understandable and you must "get it".
I wouldn't diminish this to being a 'this tour' only thing/thread: but regarding touring in general; what I've also seen (a lot! do give it a read again if you doubt this Naturalust...) is things going further than disappointment and turning in aggressively scolding during the tour(s) he was playing...it wasn't enough, it was stupid, it was humiliating, it was a scandal...while all the time MT was happy and loved playing with them and felt rejuvenated... And like I said that's something I question (both polarities).
I don't buy your "That is completely understandable and you must "get it" stuff. 'Just disappointment'? You move forward after disappointment. When you don't and when you need 133 pages to say the same things every day again and again there's something developing that's a little more than 'just disappointment'. (constant) frustration and (repeated) hostility is really something else...
No doubt the Stones are shrewd businessmen, you don't get to their level of success without being so. The perceived conflicts we infer from all this seem to be business and personal stuff and are pretty far removed from the music really. Some have even said the business has eclipsed the music and it's not hard to imagine that some might think the music would take a front seat again with Taylor on board.
...and MT is a victim of that(?) The willingness of using assumptions like "No doubt the Stones are shrewd businessman" (this one is friendly...) and the constant use of it (practically always in a negative and even accusing context) is what leads to MT being the victim (of that) in the perspective of many. He has to be? They live in castles while he can't pay the rent... The RS businessmen and their money versus MT the victim being screwed by them is the frame even his girlfriend/manager is/was spreading on IORR on a regular basis (being the poster formerly known as SundanceKid or Chacal or under whatever alias she's posting at the moment). And that frame is totally accepted by lots of people. So the fact that the RS asked him back for EOMS and again for the tour is almost becoming something irrational since it was probably a conspiracy or something because you know they are after all just shrewd businessmen...in any case it's hardly consumed as something nice and friendly, maybe only the first couple of shows but after that it was shrewd businessmen all over using MT 'for their own selfish gain'.
I'm just trying to move people from positions like that to think about other possibilities than superficial interpretations: preferably the ones backed by or based on facts.
Combined with the conviction and believe spread here by some posters that the RS can only play decent music with MT...this thread really doesn't breathe rejuvenated happiness Naturalust. And it doesn't have to be happy I mean don't get me wrong I'm not a cheerleader myself. But this attitude that the RS did not exist before or after MT and the hostile conviction he was/is screwed by the RS...that's more like ressentiment instead of 'just disappointment' and I just oppose that kind of simplicity by trying to bring some other elements in the discussion.
Probably hard content to grasp...
peace
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
HearMeKnockin
()
Date: June 21, 2015 18:58
Quote
DreamerQuote
Naturalust
Fair enough Dreamer. but perhaps you could tone down your own fairly bold criticisms and statements concerning Taylor's disposition and those of whomever was posting from an apparent insiders perspective. We generally welcome ALL such information and those posts were mainly refuting baseless speculation from what I remember. We need more truly insiders perspectives not less, let them say what they want, imo.
Well I don't excel in hiding my opinion in subtlety do I? Could be experienced as a bit of a shock in this thread since it's the opposite of current believes & conviction but hey: I happen to like the same kind of music and I'm on this board so MT is my guitarist too.
To me it's not only a challenge to improve my writing in English but I also find it interesting to start or be in something polemical. So of course I'm stirring the pot, especially in a place where people like Taylorites (especially the Taylorologists) are so confident of their own believes and have, well let's put it mildly, some difficulties trying to accept anything other: in comes Dreamer
Mostly what I've seen is just disappointment for what could have been if they had kept MT on for this tour. That is completely understandable and you must "get it".
I wouldn't diminish this to being a 'this tour' only thing/thread: but regarding touring in general; what I've also seen (a lot! do give it a read again if you doubt this Naturalust...) is things going further than disappointment and turning in aggressively scolding during the tour(s) he was playing...it wasn't enough, it was stupid, it was humiliating, it was a scandal...while all the time MT was happy and loved playing with them and felt rejuvenated... And like I said that's something I question (both polarities).
I don't buy your "That is completely understandable and you must "get it" stuff. 'Just disappointment'? You move forward after disappointment. When you don't and when you need 133 pages to say the same things every day again and again there's something developing that's a little more than 'just disappointment'. (constant) frustration and (repeated) hostility is really something else...
No doubt the Stones are shrewd businessmen, you don't get to their level of success without being so. The perceived conflicts we infer from all this seem to be business and personal stuff and are pretty far removed from the music really. Some have even said the business has eclipsed the music and it's not hard to imagine that some might think the music would take a front seat again with Taylor on board.
...and MT is a victim of that(?) The willingness of using assumptions like "No doubt the Stones are shrewd businessman" (this one is friendly...) and the constant use of it (practically always in a negative and even accusing context) is what leads to MT being the victim (of that) in the perspective of many. He has to be? They live in castles while he can't pay the rent... The RS businessmen and their money versus MT the victim being screwed by them is the frame even his girlfriend/manager is/was spreading on IORR on a regular basis (being the poster formerly known as SundanceKid or Chacal or under whatever alias she's posting at the moment). And that frame is totally accepted by lots of people. So the fact that the RS asked him back for EOMS and again for the tour is almost becoming something irrational since it was probably a conspiracy or something because you know they are after all just shrewd businessmen...in any case it's hardly consumed as something nice and friendly, maybe only the first couple of shows but after that it was shrewd businessmen all over using MT 'for their own selfish gain'.
I'm just trying to move people from positions like that to think about other possibilities than superficial interpretations: preferably the ones backed by or based on facts.
Combined with the conviction and believe spread here by some posters that the RS can only play decent music with MT...this thread really doesn't breathe rejuvenated happiness Naturalust. And it doesn't have to be happy I mean don't get me wrong I'm not a cheerleader myself. But this attitude that the RS did not exist before or after MT and the hostile conviction he was/is screwed by the RS...that's more like ressentiment instead of 'just disappointment' and I just oppose that kind of simplicity by trying to bring some other elements in the discussion.
Probably hard content to grasp...
peace
I actually agree with most of what you Dreamer - things on this thread can get a little heated with us Taylorites venting our frustration at the Stones, and contradiction can make us a little touchy. But where I have to disagree is the part I underlined about drawing conclusions "backed by or based on facts". I ask you: What facts? All we have to go on is what the Stones/Chacal tell us, and the Stones just tell us that MT "is a shadow" and "he comes and goes", while Jagger tells us nothing five different ways. Ronnie won't give us anything because it's "easier to just play with Keith" so why would he want to know anything about MT? And so far as I know, no one has ever asked the Stones if they have in fact been denying him royalties for decades - not that we'd get a straight answer from them anyway... Forget the Stones, MT doesn't tell us much. So you can see where the "constant frustration" stems from: being in the dark all the time and going only off information from sources you may or may not be able to trust. Hence the 133 pages of endless (and sometimes baseless) speculation. Nobody tells us anything (except Chacal).
But again, I mostly agree with what you wrote. The Stones of course can play decent music minus MT, just they play better with him.
Have a nice day.
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: June 21, 2015 20:16
Yes Dreamer, I welcome different viewpoints too and totally agree with your opinion on the name calling and personal attacks. It should be no surprise that Taylorites have strong and somewhat unwavering views concerning his role in the Stones and subsequent adventures, there is a similar sentiment about the Stones here too. Unfortunately any suggestion, critical comment or opinion is often met with fierce opposition and just the kind of attacks you describe. Hell, you apparently can't even dislike a Stones NFL T-Shirt without some exuberant fanboy calling you out with disrespect and contempt. I guess it's just the nature of the internet and group mentality that the loudest and often most immature posters will tend to dominate a discussion.
What I thought you might "get" is the musical possibilities that could have existed with more Taylor involvement. Disappointment in lost opportunities to breath new life into Stones music. There are plenty who strongly believe this kind of evolution would be a great thing for the music. The Stones are playing great and the shows are very successful, of course they can play decent music without MT, but it's pretty hard to say the music has evolved much for many years now. I think the Taylor crowd basically represents the people who yearn for this kind of change. If the Stones were doing it themselves there would probably be less constant frustration that you are seeing on this thread. Some of it is displaced here and projected onto the Taylor saga because it's the only place it is somewhat allowed and it's easy to imagine Taylor could make them the band they were in the early 70's again, however unrealistic that assertion actually is.
As far as the business end of things go, I believe the Stones benefited from Taylor's involvement as much as Taylor did. It was a win-win situation for both of them. I don't think anybody truly believes there is some conspiracy involved. I do get the feeling a lot of your resentment is directed at the person who posted a few short posts on Taylors behalf, mostly refuting untrue rumors. Like I said, she probably has her reasons, and as an insider probably knows more about the truth of the situation than you or I. Perhaps it isn't being consumed as nice and friendly because it wasn't? Business and money matters often aren't.
What seems to be the only real documented truth here is the royalties haven't been paid to Taylor for many years. It probably represents alot of money and even you should recognize that this is probably the source of frustration these days when the SF re-issue is selling well and Taylor played on it. Completely understandable. Those issues brought up by Taylor himself several times are probably behind any friction you feel between Taylor and the Stones camp. Sometimes people play a victim role because they actually are a victim. However wonderful it was for the Stones to include him the past few years doesn't really touch that issue does it?
peace
What I thought you might "get" is the musical possibilities that could have existed with more Taylor involvement. Disappointment in lost opportunities to breath new life into Stones music. There are plenty who strongly believe this kind of evolution would be a great thing for the music. The Stones are playing great and the shows are very successful, of course they can play decent music without MT, but it's pretty hard to say the music has evolved much for many years now. I think the Taylor crowd basically represents the people who yearn for this kind of change. If the Stones were doing it themselves there would probably be less constant frustration that you are seeing on this thread. Some of it is displaced here and projected onto the Taylor saga because it's the only place it is somewhat allowed and it's easy to imagine Taylor could make them the band they were in the early 70's again, however unrealistic that assertion actually is.
As far as the business end of things go, I believe the Stones benefited from Taylor's involvement as much as Taylor did. It was a win-win situation for both of them. I don't think anybody truly believes there is some conspiracy involved. I do get the feeling a lot of your resentment is directed at the person who posted a few short posts on Taylors behalf, mostly refuting untrue rumors. Like I said, she probably has her reasons, and as an insider probably knows more about the truth of the situation than you or I. Perhaps it isn't being consumed as nice and friendly because it wasn't? Business and money matters often aren't.
What seems to be the only real documented truth here is the royalties haven't been paid to Taylor for many years. It probably represents alot of money and even you should recognize that this is probably the source of frustration these days when the SF re-issue is selling well and Taylor played on it. Completely understandable. Those issues brought up by Taylor himself several times are probably behind any friction you feel between Taylor and the Stones camp. Sometimes people play a victim role because they actually are a victim. However wonderful it was for the Stones to include him the past few years doesn't really touch that issue does it?
peace
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
drbryant
()
Date: June 21, 2015 21:12
I am just speculating, but if I were a lawyer for the Stones back in 2012, I would advise that in exchange for an agreement by the Stones to include Taylor in the tour and pay him well, Taylor would waive any past claims over authorship and would agree to a non-disparagement clause (meaning that Taylor would agree not to criticize the Stones).
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
dcba
()
Date: June 21, 2015 21:29
An outsider's pov :
"Not only is Wood a better guitar player but he is a WAY better songwriter...listen to Wood's solo albums.. the first two are criminally underrated..the first one might as well be a Stones album
I'm tired of the Taylor worship..... I used to buy into it more but when I listen to Brussels 73 I hear a guy who is on a different plain than the rest of the band.. there on the side he's almost like a jam band guitarist.... that is not what the Stones are about....
none of this is to deny my favorite Stones records are the ones Taylor is on but that does not mean it is because Taylor was in the band....I just think the STones reached a level of maturity about 1968 or so...
I've seen Wood with them playing sitar, lap steel, etc etc.... he can play virtually everything they need...gives them a lot of different angles....and he has carried the band in the guitar department since the Keith coconut incident ...
nobody would look at the totality of their work and say they would rather have Taylor's legacy to that of Woods..."
[forums.stevehoffman.tv]
"Not only is Wood a better guitar player but he is a WAY better songwriter...listen to Wood's solo albums.. the first two are criminally underrated..the first one might as well be a Stones album
I'm tired of the Taylor worship..... I used to buy into it more but when I listen to Brussels 73 I hear a guy who is on a different plain than the rest of the band.. there on the side he's almost like a jam band guitarist.... that is not what the Stones are about....
none of this is to deny my favorite Stones records are the ones Taylor is on but that does not mean it is because Taylor was in the band....I just think the STones reached a level of maturity about 1968 or so...
I've seen Wood with them playing sitar, lap steel, etc etc.... he can play virtually everything they need...gives them a lot of different angles....and he has carried the band in the guitar department since the Keith coconut incident ...
nobody would look at the totality of their work and say they would rather have Taylor's legacy to that of Woods..."
[forums.stevehoffman.tv]
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
Dreamer
()
Date: June 21, 2015 21:35
Quote
HearMeKnockin
I actually agree with most of what you Dreamer - things on this thread can get a little heated with us Taylorites venting our frustration at the Stones, and contradiction can make us a little touchy. But where I have to disagree is the part I underlined about drawing conclusions "backed by or based on facts". I ask you: What facts? All we have to go on is what the Stones/Chacal tell us, and the Stones just tell us that MT "is a shadow" and "he comes and goes", while Jagger tells us nothing five different ways. Ronnie won't give us anything because it's "easier to just play with Keith" so why would he want to know anything about MT? And so far as I know, no one has ever asked the Stones if they have in fact been denying him royalties for decades - not that we'd get a straight answer from them anyway... Forget the Stones, MT doesn't tell us much. So you can see where the "constant frustration" stems from: being in the dark all the time and going only off information from sources you may or may not be able to trust. Hence the 133 pages of endless (and sometimes baseless) speculation. Nobody tells us anything (except Chacal).
But again, I mostly agree with what you wrote. The Stones of course can play decent music minus MT, just they play better with him.
Have a nice day.
That's what I mean HearMeKnockin...there are no or just a few facts.
And "Nobody tells us anything except Chacal" Well Chacal might say a lot but it's basically just the attitude "that's not what happened: this is the truth!" of which nothing is backed by facts either...
He wasn't asked is not followed by a factual why he wasn't asked but it's just presented as something terrible itself (?)...and after that came a lot more assumptions and accusations. (But who knows: maybe they/someone did say why but it wasn't presented to us by Chacal because not telling that would be better for MT...? An assumption in another direction just for the sake of argument...)
Anyway the suggestion of how (allegedly) MT was told he would not be there in 2015 was followed by the 'conclusion' this could never be anything else than a scandal or an outrage: the coward MJ didn't even dare to call MT himself...
This hunger for a confirmation of the 'fact' that the RS are indeed stone cold businessmen or (a little better; let's get KR off the hook!) MJ is an ice cold manager is so desperate it doesn't allow any other interpretation...
But maybe the 'situation' just ended because they had other plans for 2015...that again seems a version that could not possibly be true...it has to be a conspiracy or something terrible and ridiculous by the RS/MJ. Where there's smoke there's a fire...and nobody thinks about the possibility of a pyromaniac.
And meanwhile all of it is not in correspondence with the fact that MT did say he was happy and loved playing with them and felt rejuvenated...
Another fact: nobody from the band gave any negative comments about MT starting with EOMS again and during or after him being on tour with the RS...au contraire: compliments in and around the stage and in the press by the band.
All there is are a couple of words put under a microscope and followed again by interpreations/assumptions and accusations all of them of course pointing at the RS/MJ.
So..."being in the dark"...I guess something or someone could be leading you to it but... I don't see any facts/evidence it's the RS doing that.
To me it looks like all the accusations and assumptions and interpretations and all the blaming of the RS and saying they owe him and stuff do lead you away from where there might be some light. And that's the situation in which they were in and are now out...the rest is speculation not giving things a better sight.
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: June 21, 2015 21:38
Quote
drbryant
I am just speculating, but if I were a lawyer for the Stones back in 2012, I would advise that in exchange for an agreement by the Stones to include Taylor in the tour and pay him well, Taylor would waive any past claims over authorship and would agree to a non-disparagement clause (meaning that Taylor would agree not to criticize the Stones).
Hmmm. That would indeed be scandalous but I doubt Taylor is keen on refuting past authorship claims. It's more about money from sales of the records which the Stones owned all the copyrights to and he was a full fledged member. I doubt they could pay MT enough to cover his possible gain from that one.
Besides Taylor has not really criticized the Stones openly for a long time, he seems to much of a gentleman to do so and you get the feeling the few times he has have been pretty honest reflections of what he's felt about the subjects. One thing about Taylor is that he isn't evasive like Jagger or spins everything into a cute phrase like Keith, he seems to talk from a pretty straightforward and honest point of view.
peace
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
Stoneburst
()
Date: June 21, 2015 21:47
Dreamer, several pages later and you still haven't answered my initial question: what proof do you have that the RS genuinely wanted to integrate Taylor into the band properly over the last few years, but were unable to do this either because of MT's entourage or the man himself? Your argument seems to be that the way this ended up is Taylor's fault and that he didn't make the most of the opportunities he had. Two problems: firstly, you outright ignore the fact that he generally was not allowed to play on more than one song a night (Satisfaction doesn't count), so it's hard to see what opportunity you wanted him to take better advantage of - or was his playing on Rambler just not enough for you? Secondly, the only evidence you seem to have for your thesis is a story about MT's girlfriend picking a backstage fight with the RS management about money. Whether that actually happened or not, one of the very few facts established here is that Taylor's royalties were cut in 1982 and the issue remains unresolved. So, without you telling us in greater detail what was discussed backstage, it's hard to see what your point is. Yes, Taylor's management is amateurish, but we know that anyway. Had you actually read about half the things I've posted in this thread instead of banging on endlessly about 'Taylorologists', you would know that I actually agree with you about that and about MT being far too dependent on other people when it comes to his career.
By the way, why do you criticise Chacal for posting here when you do exactly the same thing on the Stones' behalf? You complain about the amount of speculation on this board. How can that possibly come as a surprise to you when posts like yours and Chacal's are literally all the information we have?
Edit:
Chacal doesn't say a lot. She has posted five times in the past two months, and her posts are usually short and to the point. You, on the other hand, post a great deal, but somehow tell us even less than Chacal does, since your posts are usually pop psychology analyses of people on this board that you disagree with. You also write in enormously long, rambling sentences that ultimately lose meaning (I mention this because you said polemicising on IORR is something you do in part to improve your English).
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-06-21 21:55 by Stoneburst.
By the way, why do you criticise Chacal for posting here when you do exactly the same thing on the Stones' behalf? You complain about the amount of speculation on this board. How can that possibly come as a surprise to you when posts like yours and Chacal's are literally all the information we have?
Edit:
Quote
Dreamer
And "Nobody tells us anything except Chacal" Well Chacal might say a lot but it's basically just the attitude "that's not what happened: this is the truth!" of which nothing is backed by facts either...
Chacal doesn't say a lot. She has posted five times in the past two months, and her posts are usually short and to the point. You, on the other hand, post a great deal, but somehow tell us even less than Chacal does, since your posts are usually pop psychology analyses of people on this board that you disagree with. You also write in enormously long, rambling sentences that ultimately lose meaning (I mention this because you said polemicising on IORR is something you do in part to improve your English).
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-06-21 21:55 by Stoneburst.
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
alimente
()
Date: June 21, 2015 22:01
Quote
drbryant
I am just speculating, but if I were a lawyer for the Stones back in 2012, I would advise that in exchange for an agreement by the Stones to include Taylor in the tour and pay him well, Taylor would waive any past claims over authorship and would agree to a non-disparagement clause (meaning that Taylor would agree not to criticize the Stones).
That's what I would have done in their position, too. And I would not rule out the possibility that this is exactly what they did in 2012. It would explain a lot - Taylor's silence, the fact that others (girlfriends, managers, associates) bringing up the topic constantly...
Again, what do we actually know? Even if they did stop royality payments in the 80's it's possible that they were legally entitled to do so. Instead of accusing the Stones of ripping Taylor off the question could be asked if they were ever legally bound to pay him royalties after he left in 1974. If not, it would of course mean that they had paid him from 1975 to the 80's despite not being legally bound to do so!
I don't take sides here, I'm just showing different possibilites and possible legal scenarios. I can't take sides here or even judge because I don't know the contracts.
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
Dreamer
()
Date: June 21, 2015 22:19
Quote
Naturalust
What I thought you might "get" is the musical possibilities that could have existed with more Taylor involvement. Disappointment in lost opportunities to breath new life into Stones music. There are plenty who strongly believe this kind of evolution would be a great thing for the music. The Stones are playing great and the shows are very successful, of course they can play decent music without MT, but it's pretty hard to say the music has evolved much for many years now. I think the Taylor crowd basically represents the people who yearn for this kind of change. If the Stones were doing it themselves there would probably be less constant frustration that you are seeing on this thread. Some of it is displaced here and projected onto the Taylor saga because it's the only place it is somewhat allowed and it's easy to imagine Taylor could make them the band they were in the early 70's again, however unrealistic that assertion actually is.
Of course I agree with this conclusion
At the same time I will say it was great to witness him playing with the RS again on the songs he did. But not giving him more songs to play on was a wise choice for many reasons: that would have been stirring the pot!
As far as the business end of things go, I believe the Stones benefited from Taylor's involvement as much as Taylor did. It was a win-win situation for both of them. I don't think anybody truly believes there is some conspiracy involved. I do get the feeling a lot of your resentment is directed at the person who posted a few short posts on Taylors behalf, mostly refuting untrue rumors. Like I said, she probably has her reasons, and as an insider probably knows more about the truth of the situation than you or I. Perhaps it isn't being consumed as nice and friendly because it wasn't? Business and money matters often aren't.
I'm not sure about the win-win situation. I think MT should have made more out of it...like Lisa and others always doing their gigs he should have done or prepare something too.
When I post I direct it at the subject at hand not so much on the poster. I'll probably like her or agree with lots of things I know and the RS & (especially) their surroundings can be a political minefield but giving details like that or even the suggestion they are details from actual situations does not benefit the position of MT imo.
What seems to be the only real documented truth here is the royalties haven't been paid to Taylor for many years. It probably represents alot of money and even you should recognize that this is probably the source of frustration these days when the SF re-issue is selling well and Taylor played on it. Completely understandable. Those issues brought up by Taylor himself several times are probably behind any friction you feel between Taylor and the Stones camp. Sometimes people play a victim role because they actually are a victim. However wonderful it was for the Stones to include him the past few years doesn't really touch that issue does it?
That's a subject too that hardly has any facts presented publically to draw conclusions from... The fact that MT has been quoted about this for a longer period of time doesn't make it more truthful... That's something else than my thoughts which are: if they owe him money they should pay him...but I think at this point there's a discussion about who is right and who's wrong and when the legal conclusion of that is they owe him they will pay him.
peace
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
Dreamer
()
Date: June 21, 2015 22:23
Quote
Stoneburst
... your posts are usually pop psychology analyses of people on this board that you disagree with. You also write in enormously long, rambling sentences that ultimately lose meaning (I mention this because you said polemicising on IORR is something you do in part to improve your English).
Don't worry about it: just stop reading them.
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: June 21, 2015 22:30
Quote
alimenteQuote
drbryant
I am just speculating, but if I were a lawyer for the Stones back in 2012, I would advise that in exchange for an agreement by the Stones to include Taylor in the tour and pay him well, Taylor would waive any past claims over authorship and would agree to a non-disparagement clause (meaning that Taylor would agree not to criticize the Stones).
That's what I would have done in their position, too. And I would not rule out the possibility that this is exactly what they did in 2012. It would explain a lot - Taylor's silence, the fact that others (girlfriends, managers, associates) bringing up the topic constantly...
Again, what do we actually know? Even if they did stop royality payments in the 80's it's possible that they were legally entitled to do so. Instead of accusing the Stones of ripping Taylor off the question could be asked if they were ever legally bound to pay him royalties after he left in 1974. If not, it would of course mean that they had paid him from 1975 to the 80's despite not being legally bound to do so!
I don't take sides here, I'm just showing different possibilites and possible legal scenarios. I can't take sides here or even judge because I don't know the contracts.
All great points alimente and I don't have a clue what the legal status or ramification of Taylor's leaving in 1974 have on the situation. But it's a pretty good assumption that if they Stones weren't obligated to pay him from 1974 to 1982 they wouldn't have. After the Klein fiasco they were presumably pretty saavy about legal and financial issues. Perhaps they just found a clever laywer in '82 who found a loophole that allowed him to be cutoff. It seems the intention and legality was at least clear, at one time, that Taylor would continue to be paid.
If there were no legal contracts and this was a court of opinion (which of course it is on iorr), I'm pretty sure we would all pretty much be voting for Taylor to get his due.
And Dreamer, you do indeed defend MJ with considerably more enthusiasm than Chacal ever defended Taylor. And you must admit she is probably considerably closer to the situation than you are. As I've said I always got the impression her posts were very short and factual comments meant to refute untrue rumors that were being propagated here. Of course you can't expect her to come on this board and air out all the facts you are so anxious to say haven't been clearly put on the table. Then you would be accusing her of sharing private and inside information on a public board.
In general, by constantly bringing this up, you are making much more out of the demonization of MJ than anybody here is or has in a long time.
peace
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
Stoneburst
()
Date: June 21, 2015 22:48
Naturalust, I think you're wasting your time trying to engage Dreamer in a serious conversation here.
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
Dreamer
()
Date: June 21, 2015 22:54
Quote
Naturalust
And Dreamer, you do indeed defend MJ ...
Sometimes I can't resist when the bs is stretching beyond what bs used to be. But in general there's no use in defending him because that's a mission impossible: the guy is under attack almost daily in practically all threads on IORR.
peace
Re: Mick Taylor Talk - what's on your mind right now...
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: June 21, 2015 23:05
Quote
Stoneburst
Naturalust, I think you're wasting your time trying to engage Dreamer in a serious conversation here.
Perhaps burst, but he has been kind, generally addressed his point to the topic at hand instead of the poster (except concerning the one poster in MT's camp), seems serious about his engagements and curious enough to deserve a reply. He actually complements Taylor's playing and contributions, so it's not all bad.
Sometimes, in the search for the truth, it magically appears in such discussions. Truth being self evident in many cases. I think lots of us are on that search, that's probably why I am so willing to engage him. That being said I'm not sure we've actually found any here. Ha!
peace
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Guests:
1753
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10