Tell Me :
Talk
yeah Keith (ironically) laid down the law..
didn't he belt Ronnie a good one because of Ronnie's base habit..?
But like I said, the Stones, for better or for worse, aren't really "nice" people. They think business, particularly Mick, and they will do whatever it takes to make a dollar and put on the best professional show possible. They aren't the same guys as back in the 70s. My point being that this can't be the first time you've been disappointed by the Stones. They've been doing stuff like this since they got back together in the late 80s, because it is who they are now. Not inviting Mick Taylor while potentially playing all of an album he was a part of is exactly what later day Mick and Keith would do. I don't know how else to explain that other than this is how they've acted for a long time now. Its been so long that it doesn't phase me anymore sadly.
An explanation might be that Mick and Keith were left without Mick Taylor for decades. Then there was established a set of routines of how to handle that material, concerning also who plays what and how. Then when Keith and Ronnie have their roles, which would need to be set aside to feature Mick Taylor on the old songs he shone on. In some degree that would mean a degradation of one or two of the others, and would, besides, mean work to rearrange. It is understandable though.
Therefore, as I have written in a post before, the best possibility to obtain Mick Taylor live would be on old songs seldom played live, with few fixed routines, or comparatively newer material that usually is not played live. Was not Mick Taylor on and partaking inspiredly in Rome in that wonderful live version that lifted the more anonymous, though too much underrated, "Streets of Love"? Involving Mick Taylor on one of those types of songs could have been a possible way ahead to use him more.
Later edit: Correction of a broken down last sentence.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-11 20:12 by Witness.
+ 1000
This can't be the first time most people are realizing this, right? I hate to sound so negative with the posts, but this IS how the Stones operate.
He got 20 minutes on stage every night as a special guest. They (Mick?) might have thought that the fans of the old line up would be happy with it.
Stones fans are hard to please. Many prefer the Brian and Ronnie eras, and Mick knows this very well, of course.
*revu
Seriously, live versions of Sway are terrible. It lacks the intimate atmosphere of the studio version, and Hopkins' piano.
and for all the reasons you wrote- all the more argument for keeping him as a guest. and if 2 songs worked, why not an album..
I mean if it was to generate more sales, having MT for Sticky Fingers would generate even more..surely they've factored that in..
(unless they've got Bill to agree to play..not likely however)
SFM from Stripped is my favourite live version. LIV from Live In Texas is another one. LWM from the 1995 single is probably the best they've ever done.
This is just from the top of my head. Oops! I forgot JJF from Live In Texas!
And it lacks the correct intro, tempo and groove.
We all love Taylor, but his participation doesn't generate more sales. It will sell out anyhow.
True, and true. But carry on with the supposition
I tend to agree, at least somewhat. Granted, Taylor was awesome on the studio cut -- it's great work, for sure. Of course, none of the problems mentioned above are really Ronnie's fault and none of them could be fixed by Taylor. As I've said before, in my opinion, the real problem with "Sway" live has been the disengaged singing, which Taylor also can't fix.
But I'm going to stop responding because I don't like being negative and that seems to the only thing I'm doing. I, for the record, am in the same boat as you and truly hope they play all of Sticky Fingers this tour with Mick Taylor playing the whole record. I think its an absolute pipe dream for both of those things to happen, but thats all I'm gonna say on the matter.
Agreed. Without him they cannot handle the nuances of some Sticky Finger songs
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Ojoy - Sticky Fingers 'Why Mick Taylor Has To Stay"
Posted by:
duke richardson
()
Date: March 11, 2015 20:17
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
duke richardsonQuote
IrisC
I say put Ronny on base and Taylor back on lead. Ronny is an excellent base player!
I say put Ronny on base
he already had enough of that and quit long ago..
Luckily!
yeah Keith (ironically) laid down the law..
didn't he belt Ronnie a good one because of Ronnie's base habit..?
Re: Ojoy - Sticky Fingers 'Why Mick Taylor Has To Stay"
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: March 11, 2015 20:21
He showed him his Smith & Wesson, didn't he?
How can Stones Play All of Sticky Fingers without Mick Taylor?
Posted by:
ronkeith72
()
Date: March 11, 2015 19:37
I don't get it...Mick/Keith have Mick Taylor at their fingertips. They finally have a great chance to expand his role and they don't invite him on a tour that includes his best work. Nicely done Glimmer Twins...have some balls and explain to us fans why he's not invited!!!
Re: How can Stones Play All of Sticky Fingers without Mick Taylor?
Posted by:
MingSubu
()
Date: March 11, 2015 19:39
Yowza,
Keith and Ronnie can cover everything they need to, to perform Sticky Fingers.
Keith and Ronnie can cover everything they need to, to perform Sticky Fingers.
Re: How can Stones Play All of Sticky Fingers without Mick Taylor?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: March 11, 2015 19:41
They have played most of it without him for 40 years, haven't they?
I'd like to see Taylor in on this, too, but this is spamming the message board, imo. It's not deja vu, it's deja deja, vu vu vu
I'd like to see Taylor in on this, too, but this is spamming the message board, imo. It's not deja vu, it's deja deja, vu vu vu
Re: How can Stones Play All of Sticky Fingers without Mick Taylor?
Posted by:
RollingFreak
()
Date: March 11, 2015 19:43
Because Mick Taylor quit the band in 1975. And the Glimmer Twins did him a favor (as small and cold as it ended up being) by bringing him back for the 50th anniversary. It was for their own selfish gain as a gimmick to sucker hardcores in, and provide something we haven't seen in a long time again, but they didn't have to do it.
While I agree its almost unthinkable that they would play all of Sticky Fingers and NOT include Taylor because he is instrumental to that album and he just recently toured with them, they could certainly do it without him the same way they toured without him for 30+ years. I want him there as much as the next Stones fan, but don't get it confused that Mick and Keith can do anything they want and are ultimately the only ones besides Charlie that stayed with the entire band. They don't owe Mick Taylor anything.
Also, it should be noted that it isn't even official yet that they are doing Sticky Fingers in full. And again, I absolutely want and think Mick Taylor should be there. Its the only way I'll pay for a ticket. But in no way do they need to explain anything to us if they don't invite him. Mick Taylor is not an active member of the band and hasn't been for decades. That is the explanation.
While I agree its almost unthinkable that they would play all of Sticky Fingers and NOT include Taylor because he is instrumental to that album and he just recently toured with them, they could certainly do it without him the same way they toured without him for 30+ years. I want him there as much as the next Stones fan, but don't get it confused that Mick and Keith can do anything they want and are ultimately the only ones besides Charlie that stayed with the entire band. They don't owe Mick Taylor anything.
Also, it should be noted that it isn't even official yet that they are doing Sticky Fingers in full. And again, I absolutely want and think Mick Taylor should be there. Its the only way I'll pay for a ticket. But in no way do they need to explain anything to us if they don't invite him. Mick Taylor is not an active member of the band and hasn't been for decades. That is the explanation.
Re: How can Stones Play All of Sticky Fingers without Mick Taylor?
Posted by:
ronkeith72
()
Date: March 11, 2015 19:43
Yeah they sure have and pleez find any version over the last 40 years that is even close to the quality of what Mick Taylor put out from 69-73....
Re: How can Stones Play All of Sticky Fingers without Mick Taylor?
Posted by:
ronkeith72
()
Date: March 11, 2015 19:46
Fairly stated but her's the reality of things Glimmer Twinkies...Mick Taylor makes you guys 100 times better every time he plays with you and when he's not there...ya'll sound tired!!
Re: How can Stones Play All of Sticky Fingers without Mick Taylor?
Posted by:
duke richardson
()
Date: March 11, 2015 19:46
do we know for sure Taylor has not been invited?
Re: How can Stones Play All of Sticky Fingers without Mick Taylor?
Posted by:
RollingFreak
()
Date: March 11, 2015 19:52
I 100% agree. The bottom line is when Taylor played with them it was as close to those glory years as we've ever gotten. He elevates them and provides something that changes all of them. They get back into that old groove, however minorly that is at this age, but something changed.Quote
ronkeith72
Fairly stated but her's the reality of things Glimmer Twinkies...Mick Taylor makes you guys 100 times better every time he plays with you and when he's not there...ya'll sound tired!!
But like I said, the Stones, for better or for worse, aren't really "nice" people. They think business, particularly Mick, and they will do whatever it takes to make a dollar and put on the best professional show possible. They aren't the same guys as back in the 70s. My point being that this can't be the first time you've been disappointed by the Stones. They've been doing stuff like this since they got back together in the late 80s, because it is who they are now. Not inviting Mick Taylor while potentially playing all of an album he was a part of is exactly what later day Mick and Keith would do. I don't know how else to explain that other than this is how they've acted for a long time now. Its been so long that it doesn't phase me anymore sadly.
Nope, we do not. Same as how we don't know they are playing all of Sticky Fingers.Quote
duke richardson
do we know for sure Taylor has not been invited?
Re: How can Stones Play All of Sticky Fingers without Mick Taylor?
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: March 11, 2015 19:53
Quote
ronkeith72
I don't get it...Mick/Keith have Mick Taylor at their fingertips. They finally have a great chance to expand his role and they don't invite him on a tour that includes his best work. Nicely done Glimmer Twins...have some balls and explain to us fans why he's not invited!!!
An explanation might be that Mick and Keith were left without Mick Taylor for decades. Then there was established a set of routines of how to handle that material, concerning also who plays what and how. Then when Keith and Ronnie have their roles, which would need to be set aside to feature Mick Taylor on the old songs he shone on. In some degree that would mean a degradation of one or two of the others, and would, besides, mean work to rearrange. It is understandable though.
Therefore, as I have written in a post before, the best possibility to obtain Mick Taylor live would be on old songs seldom played live, with few fixed routines, or comparatively newer material that usually is not played live. Was not Mick Taylor on and partaking inspiredly in Rome in that wonderful live version that lifted the more anonymous, though too much underrated, "Streets of Love"? Involving Mick Taylor on one of those types of songs could have been a possible way ahead to use him more.
Later edit: Correction of a broken down last sentence.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-11 20:12 by Witness.
Re: How can Stones Play All of Sticky Fingers without Mick Taylor?
Posted by:
duke richardson
()
Date: March 11, 2015 19:57
then why did they invite him for the 2012-14 shows, at all?
Re: How can Stones Play All of Sticky Fingers without Mick Taylor?
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: March 11, 2015 20:04
Quote
ronkeith72
Yeah they sure have and pleez find any version over the last 40 years that is even close to the quality of what Mick Taylor put out from 69-73....
+ 1000
Re: How can Stones Play All of Sticky Fingers without Mick Taylor?
Posted by:
RollingFreak
()
Date: March 11, 2015 20:06
Because it was a 50th anniversary celebration and it was a gimmick that would get people to spend money on their tickets. If Bill Wyman would have done it, the Stones would have been even more thrilled. I think they thought of it as a good way to bury any hatchet that may still have been there from past decades and also a great way to market this tour as a "celebration" and "return" and "something new". Thats why they used him to his most minimal degree. Cause it wasn't about him. It was about what he represented FOR THEIR GAIN.Quote
duke richardson
then why did they invite him for the 2012-14 shows, at all?
This can't be the first time most people are realizing this, right? I hate to sound so negative with the posts, but this IS how the Stones operate.
Re: How can Stones Play All of Sticky Fingers without Mick Taylor?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: March 11, 2015 20:06
Quote
duke richardson
then why did they invite him for the 2012-14 shows, at all?
He got 20 minutes on stage every night as a special guest. They (Mick?) might have thought that the fans of the old line up would be happy with it.
Stones fans are hard to please. Many prefer the Brian and Ronnie eras, and Mick knows this very well, of course.
Re: How can Stones Play All of Sticky Fingers without Mick Taylor?
Posted by:
RomanCandle
()
Date: March 11, 2015 20:08
.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-11 20:11 by RomanCandle.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-11 20:11 by RomanCandle.
Re: How can Stones Play All of Sticky Fingers without Mick Taylor?
Posted by:
RomanCandle
()
Date: March 11, 2015 20:09
Quote
DandelionPowderman
They have played most of it without him for 40 years, haven't they?
I'd like to see Taylor in on this, too, but this is spamming the message board, imo. It's not deja vu, it's deja deja, vu vu vu
*revu
Seriously, live versions of Sway are terrible. It lacks the intimate atmosphere of the studio version, and Hopkins' piano.
Re: How can Stones Play All of Sticky Fingers without Mick Taylor?
Posted by:
DoomandGloom
()
Date: March 11, 2015 20:12
But like I said, the Stones, for better or for worse, aren't really "nice" people. Not true, they may be business first but they are by far the nicest rock stars I ever knew. This Taylor thing is not about any of that it's just a decision many disagree with or aren't privy to understand.. Clearly The Glimmers have a different show in mind than Taylorites. Adding our voices is our only and best retort. As far as them being nice people, generous and trying to make a good memory for everyone they meet, they top my list.
Re: How can Stones Play All of Sticky Fingers without Mick Taylor?
Posted by:
duke richardson
()
Date: March 11, 2015 20:12
Quote
RollingFreakBecause it was a 50th anniversary celebration and it was a gimmick that would get people to spend money on their tickets. If Bill Wyman would have done it, the Stones would have been even more thrilled. I think they thought of it as a good way to bury any hatchet that may still have been there from past decades and also a great way to market this tour as a "celebration" and "return" and "something new". Thats why they used him to his most minimal degree. Cause it wasn't about him. It was about what he represented FOR THEIR GAIN.Quote
duke richardson
then why did they invite him for the 2012-14 shows, at all?
This can't be the first time most people are realizing this, right? I hate to sound so negative with the posts, but this IS how the Stones operate.
and for all the reasons you wrote- all the more argument for keeping him as a guest. and if 2 songs worked, why not an album..
I mean if it was to generate more sales, having MT for Sticky Fingers would generate even more..surely they've factored that in..
(unless they've got Bill to agree to play..not likely however)
Re: How can Stones Play All of Sticky Fingers without Mick Taylor?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: March 11, 2015 20:13
Quote
ronkeith72
Yeah they sure have and pleez find any version over the last 40 years that is even close to the quality of what Mick Taylor put out from 69-73....
SFM from Stripped is my favourite live version. LIV from Live In Texas is another one. LWM from the 1995 single is probably the best they've ever done.
This is just from the top of my head. Oops! I forgot JJF from Live In Texas!
Re: How can Stones Play All of Sticky Fingers without Mick Taylor?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: March 11, 2015 20:14
Quote
RomanCandleQuote
DandelionPowderman
They have played most of it without him for 40 years, haven't they?
I'd like to see Taylor in on this, too, but this is spamming the message board, imo. It's not deja vu, it's deja deja, vu vu vu
*revu
Seriously, live versions of Sway are terrible. It lacks the intimate atmosphere of the studio version, and Hopkins' piano.
And it lacks the correct intro, tempo and groove.
Re: How can Stones Play All of Sticky Fingers without Mick Taylor?
Posted by:
Cristiano Radtke
()
Date: March 11, 2015 20:17
Quote
DandelionPowderman
They have played most of it without him for 40 years, haven't they?
I'd like to see Taylor in on this, too, but this is spamming the message board, imo. It's not deja vu, it's deja deja, vu vu vu
Re: How can Stones Play All of Sticky Fingers without Mick Taylor?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: March 11, 2015 20:20
Quote
duke richardsonQuote
RollingFreakBecause it was a 50th anniversary celebration and it was a gimmick that would get people to spend money on their tickets. If Bill Wyman would have done it, the Stones would have been even more thrilled. I think they thought of it as a good way to bury any hatchet that may still have been there from past decades and also a great way to market this tour as a "celebration" and "return" and "something new". Thats why they used him to his most minimal degree. Cause it wasn't about him. It was about what he represented FOR THEIR GAIN.Quote
duke richardson
then why did they invite him for the 2012-14 shows, at all?
This can't be the first time most people are realizing this, right? I hate to sound so negative with the posts, but this IS how the Stones operate.
and for all the reasons you wrote- all the more argument for keeping him as a guest. and if 2 songs worked, why not an album..
I mean if it was to generate more sales, having MT for Sticky Fingers would generate even more..surely they've factored that in..
(unless they've got Bill to agree to play..not likely however)
We all love Taylor, but his participation doesn't generate more sales. It will sell out anyhow.
Re: How can Stones Play All of Sticky Fingers without Mick Taylor?
Posted by:
Mel Belli
()
Date: March 11, 2015 20:22
Quote
RollingFreakI 100% agree. The bottom line is when Taylor played with them it was as close to those glory years as we've ever gotten. He elevates them and provides something that changes all of them. They get back into that old groove, however minorly that is at this age, but something changed.Quote
ronkeith72
Fairly stated but her's the reality of things Glimmer Twinkies...Mick Taylor makes you guys 100 times better every time he plays with you and when he's not there...ya'll sound tired!!
But like I said, the Stones, for better or for worse, aren't really "nice" people. They think business, particularly Mick, and they will do whatever it takes to make a dollar and put on the best professional show possible. They aren't the same guys as back in the 70s. My point being that this can't be the first time you've been disappointed by the Stones. They've been doing stuff like this since they got back together in the late 80s, because it is who they are now. Not inviting Mick Taylor while potentially playing all of an album he was a part of is exactly what later day Mick and Keith would do. I don't know how else to explain that other than this is how they've acted for a long time now. Its been so long that it doesn't phase me anymore sadly.Nope, we do not. Same as how we don't know they are playing all of Sticky Fingers.Quote
duke richardson
do we know for sure Taylor has not been invited?
True, and true. But carry on with the supposition
Re: How can Stones Play All of Sticky Fingers without Mick Taylor?
Posted by:
bv
()
Date: March 11, 2015 20:37
How did they survive as a band through these four decades - 40 years - since MT quit? By playing rock'n'roll like they have done for 50+ years. May be if you did arrive with an UFO into planet Earth and read a book from 1973 you might find it impossible to play Brown Sugar or Bith with the current (since 1975!!!) members, but I do not find it that difficult. That is what they have done during hundreds of shows and lots of tours to millions of people.
Bjornulf
Bjornulf
Re: How can Stones Play All of Sticky Fingers without Mick Taylor?
Posted by:
RollingFreak
()
Date: March 11, 2015 20:37
Maybe they top your list, but they are not by any stretch of the imagination the nicest rock stars ever. I can only speak for myself, but Bruce Springsteen is one of the more down to earth rockers. Pearl Jam are insanely nice guys. Foo Fighters are very generous and play in people's garages. The guys in Led Zeppelin by all accounts are really nice people. Mick and Keith are not "bad" people, and of course they use their wealth and popularity for great things, big and small. But in terms of being in the music business, I don't know anything that points to them being "nice". Charging through the nose for tickets and being one of the leaders of that is just one example of them working the system. They do what they have to do, and thats fine, but I don't know if anyone sees them as "down to earth, nice" people. Personally, and its obviously just my opinion, but anyone thinking they are some of the nicest rock stars ever are kidding themselves.Quote
DoomandGloom
But like I said, the Stones, for better or for worse, aren't really "nice" people. Not true, they may be business first but they are by far the nicest rock stars I ever knew. This Taylor thing is not about any of that it's just a decision many disagree with or aren't privy to understand.. Clearly The Glimmers have a different show in mind than Taylorites. Adding our voices is our only and best retort. As far as them being nice people, generous and trying to make a good memory for everyone they meet, they top my list.
Re: How can Stones Play All of Sticky Fingers without Mick Taylor?
Posted by:
texas fan
()
Date: March 11, 2015 20:37
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
RomanCandleQuote
DandelionPowderman
They have played most of it without him for 40 years, haven't they?
I'd like to see Taylor in on this, too, but this is spamming the message board, imo. It's not deja vu, it's deja deja, vu vu vu
*revu
Seriously, live versions of Sway are terrible. It lacks the intimate atmosphere of the studio version, and Hopkins' piano.
And it lacks the correct intro, tempo and groove.
I tend to agree, at least somewhat. Granted, Taylor was awesome on the studio cut -- it's great work, for sure. Of course, none of the problems mentioned above are really Ronnie's fault and none of them could be fixed by Taylor. As I've said before, in my opinion, the real problem with "Sway" live has been the disengaged singing, which Taylor also can't fix.
Re: How can Stones Play All of Sticky Fingers without Mick Taylor?
Posted by:
ronkeith72
()
Date: March 11, 2015 20:38
maybe they'll come to their senses and finally do the right thing...anything is possible. C'mon Glimmer Twinkies, Don't Let us Down!!!
Re: How can Stones Play All of Sticky Fingers without Mick Taylor?
Posted by:
RollingFreak
()
Date: March 11, 2015 20:44
They will let you down, and getting your hopes up is only going to make it worse.Quote
ronkeith72
maybe they'll come to their senses and finally do the right thing...anything is possible. C'mon Glimmer Twinkies, Don't Let us Down!!!
But I'm going to stop responding because I don't like being negative and that seems to the only thing I'm doing. I, for the record, am in the same boat as you and truly hope they play all of Sticky Fingers this tour with Mick Taylor playing the whole record. I think its an absolute pipe dream for both of those things to happen, but thats all I'm gonna say on the matter.
Re: How can Stones Play All of Sticky Fingers without Mick Taylor?
Posted by:
alhavu1
()
Date: March 11, 2015 20:44
Quote
ronkeith72
I don't get it...Mick/Keith have Mick Taylor at their fingertips. They finally have a great chance to expand his role and they don't invite him on a tour that includes his best work. Nicely done Glimmer Twins...have some balls and explain to us fans why he's not invited!!!
Agreed. Without him they cannot handle the nuances of some Sticky Finger songs
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
1963luca0 , Dan , kid killowatt , mariano , ohmercy61 , PaintitBlue , quietbeatle , TumblinDice76 , TW2019
Guests:
1865
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10