Quote
treaclefingers
that sounds risky. what if his injured wrist had him hit a bum chord on the show opener, say Start Me Up? Then WHAT?!

oh wait...

Ha! The outrage, I'm sure 1000's of concertgoers would be demanding a refund and it would be discussed on the fan boards for years to come, obliterating their legacy and they would retreat to South America where bum chords are part of the language.

I imagine they have insurance company replacements standing by on call for all the members, Ringo for Charlie, Mick Taylor for Keith, Joe Satriani for Ronnie (at Mick's suggestion), and Chris Jagger for Mick....just in case you know. Hell this is such a big risk they might even have backups for the backups.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
Naturalust
Add that to the fact that Taylor's insurability was probably more tenuous than Keith's and he was never in a position to replace him and it falls apart completely.

Isn't this just speculation? I'm aware of the irony of saying that in this of all threads, but seriously, do you have any evidence that Taylor was less insurable than Keith? Anyway, I'm pretty sure it wasn't the insurance people who wanted such an arrangement, rather the promoters - perhaps Tele can remind us.

Taylor himself has stated he was basically pulled out of rehab early right onto the Stones stage. So with Taylor himself as the source it doesn't take much speculation really. Anyway I find the whole idea that insurers are going to dictate to rock stars who can play and tour and why pretty dismal. I'm sure if any insurer said Keith can't go out because they won't insure him, the Stones would find a different insurance company a different promoter or assume the risk themselves.

that sounds risky. what if his injured wrist had him hit a bum chord on the show opener, say Start Me Up? Then WHAT?!

oh wait...

what if he was going to play a bum note before the injury but then the injury had him play... the right note? what?

Quote
Turner68
what if he was going to play a bum note before the injury but then the injury had him play... the right note? what?

A good musician can usually make the wrong note into the right note. Repeating it a few times with conviction and a fancy transition lick usually works.

Quote
Naturalust
But to be honest I am more than a little impressed with Ronnie ... and think the discussions of no Taylor this tour have run their course and become tedious.

Same here. However, it's an interesting question what exactly lead to Ronnie's huge improvement. The sense of going out on a high note? Or did the collaboration with Taylor - in the framework of the band (rehearsals, live shows) and at solo shows - give Ronnie a serious kick in the butt? Or a combination of multiple factors, including sobriety?

Quote
alimente

Quote
Naturalust
But to be honest I am more than a little impressed with Ronnie ... and think the discussions of no Taylor this tour have run their course and become tedious.

Same here. However, it's an interesting question what exactly lead to Ronnie's huge improvement. The sense of going out on a high note? Or did the collaboration with Taylor - in the framework of the band (rehearsals, live shows) and at solo shows - give Ronnie a serious kick in the butt? Or a combination of multiple factors, including sobriety?

Yeah I'd bet sobriety has alot to do with it. It's an interesting concept that Ronnie might have been inspired by watching Taylors approach to Stones music. I did notice he often had his eyes glued to Taylors fretboard and he couldn't pick a better mentor....

But sober focus on the music and his playing after years of being wasted makes the most sense. I'm also willing to give credit to his new, healthy relationship with Sally, perhaps she is the perfect muse for him. I'll bet his painting is similarly improving. Anyway, like you, I'm grateful whatever the reason.

It sounds like you are a family friend!

Matt Clifford is on stage for more songs now than Mick Taylor ever were during the 2012 - 2014 shows. I have been at every single show this summer in USA and so far nobody I have met, I have met many, countless fans, but nobody so far have asked me about Mick Taylor. He is a great blues guitarist but he quit the Stones in the 70's.

Bjornulf

Quote
bv
Matt Clifford is on stage for more songs now than Mick Taylor ever were during the 2012 - 2014 shows. I have been at every single show this summer in USA and so far nobody I have met, I have met many, countless fans, but nobody so far have asked me about Mick Taylor. He is a great blues guitarist but he quit the Stones in the 70's.

Ha! That's because all the Taylor fans didn't pay an absurd amount of money to see The Stones without him!

No matter how great the Stones may have been this tour, Mick Taylor was missed by everyone I know who saw him with the Stones last tour.
Even my sister whose a casual Stones fan asked about his absence, claiming his spot during CYHMK at the LA Forum (the one show she saw) was the highlight of the show.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
TravelinMan

Quote
bv
Matt Clifford is on stage for more songs now than Mick Taylor ever were during the 2012 - 2014 shows. I have been at every single show this summer in USA and so far nobody I have met, I have met many, countless fans, but nobody so far have asked me about Mick Taylor. He is a great blues guitarist but he quit the Stones in the 70's.

Ha! That's because all the Taylor fans didn't pay an absurd amount of money to see The Stones without him!

I talk to many fans. Many. After the shows. Many say it is their first ever show. Again and again. They know the band for sure and they know the songs but to be honest, when it is your first ever show, all you care about is the Stones. Then Mick Jagger. Then Keith Richards. Or the other way around. Then Charlie and Ronnie.

I have yet to meet a fan who saw the Stones before 1975 on this tour. There are some but not that many.

We are all nerds.

Bjornulf

Quote
bv
Matt Clifford is on stage for more songs now than Mick Taylor ever were during the 2012 - 2014 shows. I have been at every single show this summer in USA and so far nobody I have met, I have met many, countless fans, but nobody so far have asked me about Mick Taylor. He is a great blues guitarist but he quit the Stones in the 70's.

Yes and what about that hot solo by Mr. Clifford on Rambler.

Quote
Hairball
No matter how great the Stones may have been this tour, Mick Taylor was missed by everyone I know who saw him with the Stones last tour.
Even my sister whose a casual Stones fan asked about his absence, claiming his spot during CYHMK at the LA Forum (the one show she saw) was the highlight of the show.

His spot on the same number was the highlight of a great Philadelphia show for me as well as my wife (who asked me after the show who he was). That's why they cut it from the set.

Quote
Hairball
No matter how great the Stones may have been this tour, Mick Taylor was missed by everyone I know who saw him with the Stones last tour.
Even my sister whose a casual Stones fan asked about his absence, claiming his spot during CYHMK at the LA Forum (the one show she saw) was the highlight of the show.

Yes, but if the Mighty Taylor had been constantly on stage your sister may hardly have noticed him or have begun to find his patented Time-Waits-For-No-One-But-Taylor soloing tiresome, especially were he to start noodling on Start Me Up. Not that I wouldn't welcome his presence but at this point in time he's just a sweet ol' memory. Besides, reviews of this tour have been stellar – I wish they’d come to Japan. I haven’t seen them since Saitama 2006. (My lovely wife got scammed for a couple thousand dollars on Yahoo auction trying to get me tickets to that show but since it was my birthday she forked out another 2 grand so I could be 4th row. She’s a big improvement on my first wife.)

Quote
Swayed1967

Quote
Hairball
No matter how great the Stones may have been this tour, Mick Taylor was missed by everyone I know who saw him with the Stones last tour.
Even my sister whose a casual Stones fan asked about his absence, claiming his spot during CYHMK at the LA Forum (the one show she saw) was the highlight of the show.

Yes, but if the Mighty Taylor had been constantly on stage your sister may hardly have noticed him or have begun to find his patented Time-Waits-For-No-One-But-Taylor soloing tiresome, especially were he to start noodling on Start Me Up. Not that I wouldn't welcome his presence but at this point in time he's just a sweet ol' memory. Besides, reviews of this tour have been stellar – I wish they’d come to Japan. I haven’t seen them since Saitama 2006. (My lovely wife got scammed for a couple thousand dollars on Yahoo auction trying to get me tickets to that show but since it was my birthday she forked out another 2 grand so I could be 4th row. She’s a big improvement on my first wife.)

Nobody said he should have been constantly on stage for this tour.
And yes the reviews have been great - the one show I saw in San Diego was grrreat!!!
But now that you mention it, having MT constantly on stage might have been exceptional.
Having him playing lead on Start Me Up? Why not? Bring it on!

Sorry about your wife being scammed in 2006, and even more sorry that you missed "The Mighty Taylor" (lol) playing with the Stones a couple years ago - it was fantastic!

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
bv
Matt Clifford is on stage for more songs now than Mick Taylor ever were during the 2012 - 2014 shows. I have been at every single show this summer in USA and so far nobody I have met, I have met many, countless fans, but nobody so far have asked me about Mick Taylor. He is a great blues guitarist but he quit the Stones in the 70's.

Please, open a thread: We want even more Matt Clifford ...

Quote
bv

Quote
TravelinMan

Quote
bv
Matt Clifford is on stage for more songs now than Mick Taylor ever were during the 2012 - 2014 shows. I have been at every single show this summer in USA and so far nobody I have met, I have met many, countless fans, but nobody so far have asked me about Mick Taylor. He is a great blues guitarist but he quit the Stones in the 70's.

Ha! That's because all the Taylor fans didn't pay an absurd amount of money to see The Stones without him!

I talk to many fans. Many. After the shows. Many say it is their first ever show. Again and again. They know the band for sure and they know the songs but to be honest, when it is your first ever show, all you care about is the Stones. Then Mick Jagger. Then Keith Richards. Or the other way around. Then Charlie and Ronnie.

I have yet to meet a fan who saw the Stones before 1975 on this tour. There are some but not that many

We are all nerds.

Well Kleer, BV now actually confirms my theory (The Wyman thread) that age is a factor.

Statistics.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-07 12:58 by LuxuryStones.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Turner68

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
OpenG
I am so glad Taylor got carried away in the studio as he and jagger collaborated on sway,mm,winter,twfno,till the next goodbye,hide your love, and I guess he got over carried away on his solo on cyhmk as the tape get rolling on. Oh and yes we are left with his over indulegence on 69, 71,72-73 live recordings. No Taylor was a great musician during that period and everyone knew that at the time and contributed so much to the continued success of the stones.

+1. What's extraordinary is both how many people on this board claim otherwise, and the sheer effort they put into denying MT's contributions and talent (the Bill Wyman/JFF thread is also a great example of this). It's quite sad that a number of posters here seem to think one can't acknowledge others' fine musicianship and extensive contributions to the band's golden era without somehow diminishing Mick and Keith's accomplishments. It's tedious and tendentious.

Well, yeah. The impression I've got along the years is that in almost any discussion considering "who contributed and what and to what extent, etc." the division between Stones fans seem to go between those saying that it is basically just Mick and Keith (and within those two, Keith's role usually emphasized), and then those who think that besides those two there are also some other people that have an essential role to the creative output, legacy and story of the Stones once in a while. Be the case that of Brian Jones, Mick Taylor, Bill Wyman, song-writing (and credition) business, etc. For the first-mentioned it seems to be a hard task to give a credit to the 'underdog' section of the band, while the latter ones might sometimes try a bit too hard to give them that.

- Doxa

Hey Doxa! Welcome to the breakfast show!

i don't find this accurate at all regarding the current threads. everyone involved acknowledges the huge impact of taylor, wyman, jones, watts... i even said the stones should have quit when wyman left the band! i believe their greatest period was with taylor. what riles me, and i think others, up is when lies and accusations are hurled with no evidence or facts.

I expected this kind of comment. My description wasn't directed at the current discussions, but just reflecting what I've seen during, say, 15 years here. But that said, now when I checked, for example, Bill Wyman thread, it fits damn well to my scheme, and the arguments and stances thrown there, were more or less same ones I've seen along the years here. Nothing new under the sun. The thing is that in theory 'everyone acknowldges every one's significance blah blah', but when it goes to some particular instance, say, Wyman inventing the famous "Flash" riff, the division I described above takes place. The tension is there. For some folks it is pretty hard to accept the idea that it was Wyman, no matter how hard he insists that, who might come up with that Richards signature riff. I don't see there any 'facts' supporting this (anti-Wyman) stance, but just a kind of conviction 'no way it is that possible - it needs to be Keith's riff, because he is the 'riff master', and has written all those similar riffs, while Wyman did "Je Suis Un Rock Star" and "In Another Land", hahahahhaha, etc. etc.'. For me it looks like that Bill's claim just doesn't fit to a typical picture people have of The Rolling Stones, and further, taking the claim seriously would be like - to use a typical IORRean vocabulary - "bashing Keith Richards" (a kind of reduktio ad absurdum argument used rather much here lately, but which in my mind, even though I understand the sentiments it derives from, is just a cheap means to kill an interesting discussion).

Anyway, I probably move to Wyman thread to talk about more about this matter.

- Doxa

I think his claim should be taken seriously, but not accepted blindly. However, when you say "no matter how hard he insists that" i think you're forgetting that wyman has not insisted very hard at all that he wrote the riff. he mentioned it in 82 and 89, in 89 in his book. (imagine exaggerating something to sell a book - unheard of right?). to my knowledge the claim has not been raised again for 26 years. nor was it mentioned once for 14 years after the song was written.

there has been no law suit, no threat of law suit, no refusal to play with the stones until his contribution is recognized, not even a claim made on video, much less one where he shows what he played... in the universe of people claiming credit for songs they wrote but didn't get credit for, he has not asserted his claim very much at a all, certainly not to the extent that one can say "no matter how hard he insists" he is not listened to; indeed, he is bill wyman, a great bass player, *the* rolling stones bass player, and we are in fact listening to him. i read stone alone cover to cover when it came out, 20 years before I'd heard of IORR, and have ever since thought it was likely that he played a part in the riff.

i think a mountain is being made out of a molehill here.

Well, I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill of my saying of "no matter how hard he insists"... That was just a phrase to emphasize his claim. And he surely has mentioned it since STONE ALONE. The two further claims by him I quoted in a Wyman thread are made rather recently (sorry can't remember exact contexts though, but those can be found in back pages of IORR). and it is actually those two (further claims) that I find Wyman rather serious about his initial claim.

Personally I am sick and tired discussing not just Wyman case but any kind of credition or creation issues any longer, since I've have done so much that, and I guess reached a level one cannot go further without some 'hard facts' or new info. Let's say that I am happy with all the possible scenarios I have in my mind, and die happy even without reaching any final truth (I am used to live in a theoretical uncertainty...) But I think anyone who is interested in these kind of matters - how it all really was created, and who did and what - it is necessary to go the process of comparing different kind of scenarios through, even though most of it must be just 'theoretical' or 'speculative'. The reason I intervened the Wyman thread was because of I saw there a kind of group effort to a consensus of silenting down the Wyman stance, very much reperesnted there by Redhotcarpet, once and for all. Like this topic - Wyman's claim - should be not discussed further, which I find odd.

I think the only way to stop the conversation (besides Dirty Harry) is just people getting tired of it (not having anything novel to say about it). But nothing is solved, nothing is agreed on - there will be another posters some day to pop up the issue in their seeking for truth...

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-07 14:06 by Doxa.

Quote
bv


I talk to many fans. Many. After the shows. Many say it is their first ever show. Again and again. They know the band for sure and they know the songs but to be honest, when it is your first ever show, all you care about is the Stones. Then Mick Jagger. Then Keith Richards. Or the other way around. Then Charlie and Ronnie.

What amazes me is that there still exists so many people who hasn't seen the Stones earlier... There've been so many possibilities. Well, there must be, and 'they' know that, because it is them the shows are primarily targeted...

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa

Quote
bv


I talk to many fans. Many. After the shows. Many say it is their first ever show. Again and again. They know the band for sure and they know the songs but to be honest, when it is your first ever show, all you care about is the Stones. Then Mick Jagger. Then Keith Richards. Or the other way around. Then Charlie and Ronnie.

What amazes me is that there still exists so many people who hasn't seen the Stones earlier... There've been so many possibilities. Well, there must be, and 'they' know that, because it is them the shows are primarily targeted...

- Doxa

Of course there are many, Doxa, BV is right about that. I saw many, many young people at the Nashville and Pittsburgh shows. My sixteen year old son was one of them, though he had seen the Stones once before with me in DC. But his friend had never been and was very excited to see them. He loved the show and happily listened to the six hours of Stones music I subjected them both to on the drive there from Virginia. It's a real, once in a lifetime experience for most people to go to a Stones concert. Most of them will never see them again and they know it. Those are the fans that the Stones are playing to, not fanatics like us who know every song by heart and maybe wish for more variety, other band members, so on and so forth...

yeah, all true, latebloomer. I have always assumed that of any major acts The Stones having been the one attracting most 'casual fans' and even people who are not fans at all, aka, 'tourists'. They just are such a huge musical institution that almost anyone interested popular music need to catch them at least once, just out of curiosity. That is to say that their potential audience is bigger than anyone else's, even though some other names might have even a bigger 'hardcore' fan base (for example, U2). I think Jagger is awere of that, and one reason for 'conservative' or 'safe' lists (and show) is to offer an ultimate Rolling Stones experience for those kind 'one-timers'. And I think it is safe to assume that he succeeds on that - what I've seen and heard, the 'first timers' or 'one-timers' are usually totally blown by the concert. I can also say that my fisrt Rolling Stones concert (Helsinki 1995) is the one that really totally blew my mind. None gig ever since has been anything close to that experience, and sometimes I feel that it has been just a waste of time and money ever since seeing more or less the same show so many times... (not really!) For a 'critical' fan like me, who is not such a 'superfan' like some others here being able to to be thrilled about anything The Stones do, but seeks some difference, the 'Taylor factor' actually was a big factor to make me catch them at Hyde Park two years ago.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-07 18:37 by Doxa.

Sounds pretty spot on Doxa, nice to hear you say the Taylor factor was a big reason you went to the Hyde Park show. It was a motivating factor for me last tour too, just as Sticky Fingers was for this tour. It seems the Stones are genius at marketing to hard core fans like me with these "gimmicks" while still basically playing the greatest hits to appeal to the tourists and first timers.

When I hear someone say "I have not met any fans who saw them before 1975" in the interest of trying to minimize the Taylor factor I smile at the irony since fans like you and I who didn't see concerts till years are obviously still attracted to his playing and Stones legacy. And absolutely no disrespect, but to compare Matt Clifford to Mick Taylor, in any context is hilarious.

Quote
latebloomer

Quote
Doxa

Quote
bv


I talk to many fans. Many. After the shows. Many say it is their first ever show. Again and again. They know the band for sure and they know the songs but to be honest, when it is your first ever show, all you care about is the Stones. Then Mick Jagger. Then Keith Richards. Or the other way around. Then Charlie and Ronnie.

What amazes me is that there still exists so many people who hasn't seen the Stones earlier... There've been so many possibilities. Well, there must be, and 'they' know that, because it is them the shows are primarily targeted...

- Doxa

Of course there are many, Doxa, BV is right about that. I saw many, many young people at the Nashville and Pittsburgh shows. My sixteen year old son was one of them, though he had seen the Stones once before with me in DC. But his friend had never been and was very excited to see them. He loved the show and happily listened to the six hours of Stones music I subjected them both to on the drive there from Virginia. It's a real, once in a lifetime experience for most people to go to a Stones concert. Most of them will never see them again and they know it. Those are the fans that the Stones are playing to, not fanatics like us who know every song by heart and maybe wish for more variety, other band members, so on and so forth...

Because, as I've said so many times before (excuse me for that), going to a Stones show has become a nice family trip these days, something like visiting a vivid Mme Tussaud museum with living dolls. It has little or nothing to do with the music since ... decades.

One could hear on the videos where Taylor played on Knocking or Sway, the real fans went wild, because they were aware something exceptional and interesting happened. Those old Stones fans still going to Stones shows are a bit pathetic in my view. But they are free to do it of course.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
latebloomer

Quote
Doxa

Quote
bv


I talk to many fans. Many. After the shows. Many say it is their first ever show. Again and again. They know the band for sure and they know the songs but to be honest, when it is your first ever show, all you care about is the Stones. Then Mick Jagger. Then Keith Richards. Or the other way around. Then Charlie and Ronnie.

What amazes me is that there still exists so many people who hasn't seen the Stones earlier... There've been so many possibilities. Well, there must be, and 'they' know that, because it is them the shows are primarily targeted...

- Doxa

Of course there are many, Doxa, BV is right about that. I saw many, many young people at the Nashville and Pittsburgh shows. My sixteen year old son was one of them, though he had seen the Stones once before with me in DC. But his friend had never been and was very excited to see them. He loved the show and happily listened to the six hours of Stones music I subjected them both to on the drive there from Virginia. It's a real, once in a lifetime experience for most people to go to a Stones concert. Most of them will never see them again and they know it. Those are the fans that the Stones are playing to, not fanatics like us who know every song by heart and maybe wish for more variety, other band members, so on and so forth...

Because, as I've said so many times before (excuse me for that), going to a Stones show has become a nice family trip these days, something like visiting a vivid Mme Tussaud museum with living dolls. It has little or nothing to do with the music since ... decades.

One could hear on the videos where Taylor played on Knocking or Sway, the real fans went wild, because they were aware something exceptional and interesting happened. Those old Stones fans still going to Stones shows are a bit pathetic in my view. But they are free to do it of course.

Funny you should say that! Back in 1997 I wrote a review of the Stones show at Dodgers stadium for a college course I was currently enrolled in, and mentioned the atmosphere was akin to a family outing with the kids at Disneyland - a very safe place for one and all, and a far cry from previous tours I'd seen where there was an element of danger and chaos. But instead of relating it to Madame Tussauds, I wrote about all the children mannequin/robots singing "It's A small World", and the Pirates of the Carribbean singing "Yo ho, yo ho, the pirate's life for me" with Micky, Pluto, Donald, and Goofy singing along and dancing in the aisles. By 1997, a Stones show had already become the happiest place on earth!

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-07 19:31 by Hairball.

Matt Clifford is onstage more than Mick Taylor was? If that doesn't say something about the priorities of the current version of the band, I'm not sure what does.

I suppose it's good that people my age and in their teenage years are going to see the Stones on this tour, if for no other reason than it might put an end to this nonsense that today's youth have no interest in 'real music' and mostly listen to Justin Bieber, or whoever the manufactured pop sensation de nos jours happens to be at the time (I'm always charmed by the tone of amazement that goes with anyone on IORR mentioning that they saw someone under the age of 35 at a Stones concert). But, if we're honest, it is a surprising state of affairs. Today's Rolling Stones are a legacy act, a nostalgia trip, irrelevant for all intents and purposes. Also, the tickets are still too damn expensive. The question is not why so many kids are going to see them, it's why most people their own age aren't. In that sense, BV admitting that he's yet to meet anyone who saw them before 1975 on this tour is just confirmation of how thoroughly the Stones have alienated the wealthy baby boomers who should be their natural audience.

Quote
Doxa
yeah, all true, latebloomer. I have always assumed that of any major acts The Stones having been the one attracting most 'casual fans' and even people who are not fans at all, aka, 'tourists'. They just are such a huge musical institution that almost anyone interested popular music need to catch them at least once, just out of curiosity. That is to say that their potential audience is bigger than anyone else's, even though some other names might have even a bigger 'hardcore' fan base (for example, U2). I think Jagger is awere of that, and one reason for 'conservative' or 'safe' lists (and show) is to offer an ultimate Rolling Stones experience for those kind 'one-timers'. And I think it is safe to assume that he succeeds on that - what I've seen and heard, the 'first timers' or 'one-timers' are usually totally blown by the concert. I can also say that my fisrt Rolling Stones concert (Helsinki 1995) is the one that really totally blew my mind. None gig ever since has been anything close to that experience, and sometimes I feel that it has been just a waste of time and money ever since seeing more or less the same show so many times... (not really!) For a 'critical' fan like me, who is not such a 'superfan' like some others here being able to to be thrilled about anything The Stones do, but seeks some difference, the 'Taylor factor' actually was a big factor to make me catch them at Hyde Park two years ago.

- Doxa

I think for everyone it's an individual experience, whether it's the first time or the 50th - and to your critical way of thinking I can see why Taylor being there would be the big draw for you. Thanks for your thoughtful answer Doxa, always a pleasure.

Quote
bv


I have yet to meet a fan who saw the Stones before 1975 on this tour. There are some but not that many.

Of course there are only a few of them. Before 1975 a certain Mick Taylor was in the band, but since 1975 not any longer. That's the reason of course. Were he still in the band, you certainly would have met masses of those people.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
latebloomer

Quote
Doxa

Quote
bv


I talk to many fans. Many. After the shows. Many say it is their first ever show. Again and again. They know the band for sure and they know the songs but to be honest, when it is your first ever show, all you care about is the Stones. Then Mick Jagger. Then Keith Richards. Or the other way around. Then Charlie and Ronnie.

What amazes me is that there still exists so many people who hasn't seen the Stones earlier... There've been so many possibilities. Well, there must be, and 'they' know that, because it is them the shows are primarily targeted...

- Doxa

Of course there are many, Doxa, BV is right about that. I saw many, many young people at the Nashville and Pittsburgh shows. My sixteen year old son was one of them, though he had seen the Stones once before with me in DC. But his friend had never been and was very excited to see them. He loved the show and happily listened to the six hours of Stones music I subjected them both to on the drive there from Virginia. It's a real, once in a lifetime experience for most people to go to a Stones concert. Most of them will never see them again and they know it. Those are the fans that the Stones are playing to, not fanatics like us who know every song by heart and maybe wish for more variety, other band members, so on and so forth...

Because, as I've said so many times before (excuse me for that), going to a Stones show has become a nice family trip these days, something like visiting a vivid Mme Tussaud museum with living dolls. It has little or nothing to do with the music since ... decades.

One could hear on the videos where Taylor played on Knocking or Sway, the real fans went wild, because they were aware something exceptional and interesting happened. Those old Stones fans still going to Stones shows are a bit pathetic in my view. But they are free to do it of course.

You're problem Kleerie, is you care too much. By the way, I hate wax museums, they creep me out.
But, you are a little right about it not having so much to do with the music as the experience. Honestly, if I want to really just focus on the music, then I will listen to a live boot or recording at home or in my car with good speakers and multiple times. Then I can concentrate on who played what solo and how well and whether or not Mick hit that note perfectly or was a little off. But when I go to a concert, I want to enjoy everything about it - the music, the costumes, Keith's smiles, Mick's wild dancing, the lights, the energy of the crowd, the night sky, my companions, even the drunk next to me is slightly endearing, no worse probably then my jumping around, hollering and occasionally singing along. I walk away feeling like I just got a wonderful gift, even if I'm drenched in sweat from the hot Nashville air or feel like a drowned rat after all the rain in Pittsburgh. But, that's my pathetic old experience at a Stones concert. I'm really quite a simple person in what makes me happy.

Since 71Tele is here, I need to mention that the most hilarous moment in that banned clip was that of Mr. H asking the people who thought Ronnie was a good replacement to leave the room. Almost all disappeared expect three or so die-hard 'Taylorites'. That's a helluva analogy for the big-mouthed minority here, bounded to this very thread.... Can't stop laughing... ><

I actually have started to think that "Taylorism" or actually "Tayloritism" is a synonym for free expression of speech here, the most striking example of people having an opinion against the main stream here, thereby testing the democracy of places like this. Without differing opinions there would be no discussion. I guess for some people that would be alright. I have reflected some bad tendencies here for some time now.

Of those swimming against the main stream by offering different perspectives, and thereby keeping discussion alive and interesting, I really miss His Majesty and his talk of "real Stones", aka Brian Jones era Stones... It was great, for example, to see how well him and Mathijs get along, despite having almost opposite kind of ideas of the Stones and of their greatness...

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-07 20:20 by Doxa.

Quote
latebloomer

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
latebloomer

Quote
Doxa

Quote
bv


I talk to many fans. Many. After the shows. Many say it is their first ever show. Again and again. They know the band for sure and they know the songs but to be honest, when it is your first ever show, all you care about is the Stones. Then Mick Jagger. Then Keith Richards. Or the other way around. Then Charlie and Ronnie.

What amazes me is that there still exists so many people who hasn't seen the Stones earlier... There've been so many possibilities. Well, there must be, and 'they' know that, because it is them the shows are primarily targeted...

- Doxa

Of course there are many, Doxa, BV is right about that. I saw many, many young people at the Nashville and Pittsburgh shows. My sixteen year old son was one of them, though he had seen the Stones once before with me in DC. But his friend had never been and was very excited to see them. He loved the show and happily listened to the six hours of Stones music I subjected them both to on the drive there from Virginia. It's a real, once in a lifetime experience for most people to go to a Stones concert. Most of them will never see them again and they know it. Those are the fans that the Stones are playing to, not fanatics like us who know every song by heart and maybe wish for more variety, other band members, so on and so forth...

Because, as I've said so many times before (excuse me for that), going to a Stones show has become a nice family trip these days, something like visiting a vivid Mme Tussaud museum with living dolls. It has little or nothing to do with the music since ... decades.

One could hear on the videos where Taylor played on Knocking or Sway, the real fans went wild, because they were aware something exceptional and interesting happened. Those old Stones fans still going to Stones shows are a bit pathetic in my view. But they are free to do it of course.

You're problem Kleerie, is you care too much. By the way, I hate wax museums, they creep me out.
But, you are a little right about it not having so much to do with the music as the experience. Honestly, if I want to really just focus on the music, then I will listen to a live boot or recording at home or in my car with good speakers and multiple times. Then I can concentrate on who played what solo and how well and whether or not Mick hit that note perfectly or was a little off. But when I go to a concert, I want to enjoy everything about it - the music, the costumes, Keith's smiles, Mick's wild dancing, the lights, the energy of the crowd, the night sky, my companions, even the drunk next to me is slightly endearing, no worse probably then my jumping around, hollering and occasionally singing along. I walk away feeling like I just got a wonderful gift, even if I'm drenched in sweat from the hot Nashville air or feel like a drowned rat after all the rain in Pittsburgh. But, that's my pathetic old experience at a Stones concert. I'm really quite a simple person in what makes me happy.

I think bloomer is quite correct in stating a live concert is much more than just the music. But I will add that seeing musicians, especially the Stones, performing live music is always a special thrill, musically speaking. Kleerie, you yourself pointed out the value and virtues of such in a post not to long back, I would think you of all people could understand the musical value of seeing a modern Stones show.

To try to nail it down for you from my perspective...it's such a dynamic event that it is never quite the same....always things like the mix of instruments, the vocal phrasing, the guitar tones and the energy projected by the band to keep it alive and exciting. It may not equal the exceptional and stunning display of seeing these songs performed when they were fresh but the Stones are so good at it after all these years and still not stuck to perfectly replicating the same performances of each song that each show is still able to maintain a sense of the first time for me.

I still wish I could get you to a modern show with an up close and personal view of the band so you could get a better sense of what is happening that still makes this band worth seeing. There is an intangible factor I couldn't explain with 10,000 words or with all the videos and recording that have been done. They are still better than the GREAT majority of live acts available for us to see in 2015 and you are truly missing something by not experiencing it at least once.