To try and capture some excitement to the upcoming tour here in US - I watched the B2B DVD last night and Keith was on fire and carried the whole show. I think Keith's best effort on the recent shows 2012-2014 was his playing and solo on GS from Hyde Park. Trying to find and get the groove for this tour without Taylor.

peace

During the 50th Anniv Tour(s), I never bought into the notion that Taylor was brought along as an "insurance policy", and still don't, but the it occurs to me now it is not such a dumb idea really. Ronnie and Keith being in good shape at the moment (or many other people at this stage of life) is just that.. the *moment*. Apart from the fact I am simply disappointed that Taylor will not have a roll now, it does also seem an unnecessary risk not to have an authentic potential substitute - since one is readily available - if Ronnie or Keith should need a night or part of a night off for whatever reason. Not suggesting it isn't problematic for the show to go on without Ronnie or certainly Keith, but there might be circumstances where they could paper over a good part of a show with Taylor whereas that really couldn't happen with Blondie or ..well it can't happen at all with no one to fill in. Just be a cancelled show.

Quote
OpenG
To try and capture some excitement to the upcoming tour here in US - I watched the B2B DVD last night and Keith was on fire and carried the whole show. I think Keith's best effort on the recent shows 2012-2014 was his playing and solo on GS from Hyde Park. Trying to find and get the groove for this tour without Taylor.

peace

Well, good luck then Open G. It won't be easy.

Kleermaker - As always we have all the 1972/1973 shows to ease the pain. That above post with Woodie playing solo on worried about you was awful and painful to watch.

peace

Quote
SweetThing
During the 50th Anniv Tour(s), I never bought into the notion that Taylor was brought along as an "insurance policy", and still don't, but the it occurs to me now it is not such a dumb idea really. Ronnie and Keith being in good shape at the moment (or many other people at this stage of life) is just that.. the *moment*. Apart from the fact I am simply disappointed that Taylor will not have a roll now, it does also seem an unnecessary risk not to have an authentic potential substitute - since one is readily available - if Ronnie or Keith should need a night or part of a night off for whatever reason. Not suggesting it isn't problematic for the show to go on without Ronnie or certainly Keith, but there might be circumstances where they could paper over a good part of a show with Taylor whereas that really couldn't happen with Blondie or ..well it can't happen at all with no one to fill in. Just be a cancelled show.

I believe the show would be canceled of either Ronnie or Keith couldn't play. there would be no last minute sub

Quote
wickerman
Come on guys, stop your whining. It's 'kin annoying to be honest with you. We have great opportunity to see one more Stones tour, which is a mircale considering their age and health condition of some of the band members over the recent years. If they get Mick Taylor to do some shows (LA?) or the whole tour with them - it's ok... If not, it's still great - after all we get the 4 STONES - Mick, Keith, Charlie and Ronnie... Mick is not a Stone anymore, just an ex-bandmember, of course respected and loved by the fans but not a permanent part of the band anymore. Just live with it and enjoy this tour. Or, if you can't, just stay at home and watch some classic DVD instead.

Didn't your read the thread title or something? If you're not interested in MT's participation and indifferent to his presence the coming tour, then skip it. Or do I have to say this thread is for those who appreciate Taylor and want him badly to be part of the tour very loudly? Let us, real Stones fans, be disappointed and let us share our feelings and thoughts with each other without being bothered by interference and preaching by those who think they're real Stones fans by hailing the current four men line-up.

While I would love to see Mick Taylor back for this tour I want to say this in defense of Ronnie Wood. His playing seems exceptionally good when he is away from the Stones. The gigs he did with Taylor are amazing. He was on fire for the short lived Faces reunion tour without Rod Stewart. I personally believe that Wood is afraid to outshine Keith. I remember Keith Richards once saying he is a very sympathetic player. I have seen Ron Wood when he was a Face with Rod Stewart. Ronnie was his own man and playing guitar on songs he actually wrote. Maybe his role in the Stones has him somewhat confined and like Taylor he could be bored after 40 years of interpreting solo's he did not create. That said I still would love to see Taylor back.

Quote
PhillyFAN
While I would love to see Mick Taylor back for this tour I want to say this in defense of Ronnie Wood. His playing seems exceptionally good when he is away from the Stones. The gigs he did with Taylor are amazing. He was on fire for the short lived Faces reunion tour without Rod Stewart. I personally believe that Wood is afraid to outshine Keith. I remember Keith Richards once saying he is a very sympathetic player. I have seen Ron Wood when he was a Face with Rod Stewart. Ronnie was his own man and playing guitar on songs he actually wrote. Maybe his role in the Stones has him somewhat confined and like Taylor he could be bored after 40 years of interpreting solo's he did not create. That said I still would love to see Taylor back.

oops..I meant Ronnie Wood Faces reunion tour without Rod Stewart.

Quote
PhillyFAN
While I would love to see Mick Taylor back for this tour I want to say this in defense of Ronnie Wood. His playing seems exceptionally good when he is away from the Stones. The gigs he did with Taylor are amazing. He was on fire for the short lived Faces reunion tour without Rod Stewart. I personally believe that Wood is afraid to outshine Keith. I remember Keith Richards once saying he is a very sympathetic player. I have seen Ron Wood when he was a Face with Rod Stewart. Ronnie was his own man and playing guitar on songs he actually wrote. Maybe his role in the Stones has him somewhat confined and like Taylor he could be bored after 40 years of interpreting solo's he did not create. That said I still would love to see Taylor back.

With all respect for Ronnie, I think he never was apt for being guitarist in the Rolling Stones next to Keith Richards. Many think that we 'taylorites' are only interested in Taylor, but nothing is less true. One of the most intriguing elements of Taylor being part of the band was the combination he formed with Keith. Though very different players (or better said: because they were very different players) they were a hell of a team on stage, blindly understanding each other musically. Another important element of course was the combination of Jagger and Taylor as for the melodic part of the music. So those three members together created a magical musical interplay, perfectly supported by Watts and Wyman.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
wickerman
Come on guys, stop your whining. It's 'kin annoying to be honest with you. We have great opportunity to see one more Stones tour, which is a mircale considering their age and health condition of some of the band members over the recent years. If they get Mick Taylor to do some shows (LA?) or the whole tour with them - it's ok... If not, it's still great - after all we get the 4 STONES - Mick, Keith, Charlie and Ronnie... Mick is not a Stone anymore, just an ex-bandmember, of course respected and loved by the fans but not a permanent part of the band anymore. Just live with it and enjoy this tour. Or, if you can't, just stay at home and watch some classic DVD instead.

Didn't your read the thread title or something? If you're not interested in MT's participation and indifferent to his presence the coming tour, then skip it. Or do I have to say this thread is for those who appreciate Taylor and want him badly to be part of the tour very loudly? Let us, real Stones fans, be disappointed and let us share our feelings and thoughts with each other without being bothered by interference and preaching by those who think they're real Stones fans by hailing the current four men line-up.

What ?
Are you kidding ? Neither this is your board nor your private thread.
Following this thread with great interest I realize there´s no official statement or something MT will not take part in the upcoming tour although it seems not very likely.
If your feelings are hurt being interfered and bothered by any thoughts and views concerning MT and a (non-)participation on the next tour you really should make up your mind.

There is a very thin line beetween passion and obsession.
In case you cross(ed) this line ,it´s your problem.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
PhillyFAN
While I would love to see Mick Taylor back for this tour I want to say this in defense of Ronnie Wood. His playing seems exceptionally good when he is away from the Stones. The gigs he did with Taylor are amazing. He was on fire for the short lived Faces reunion tour without Rod Stewart. I personally believe that Wood is afraid to outshine Keith. I remember Keith Richards once saying he is a very sympathetic player. I have seen Ron Wood when he was a Face with Rod Stewart. Ronnie was his own man and playing guitar on songs he actually wrote. Maybe his role in the Stones has him somewhat confined and like Taylor he could be bored after 40 years of interpreting solo's he did not create. That said I still would love to see Taylor back.

With all respect for Ronnie, I think he never was apt for being guitarist in the Rolling Stones next to Keith Richards. Many think that we 'taylorites' are only interested in Taylor, but nothing is less true. One of the most intriguing elements of Taylor being part of the band was the combination he formed with Keith. Though very different players (or better said: because they were very different players) they were a hell of a team on stage, blindly understanding each other musically. Another important element of course was the combination of Jagger and Taylor as for the melodic part of the music. So those three members together created a magical musical interplay, perfectly supported by Watts and Wyman.

How right are you are Kleermaker. I have often noticed how Ronnie Wood is eager to play away from the Stones, and when he does it is always so much better playing. You can hear the difference. I think Ronnie is to much like Keith or has been compelled to play like Keith in a supportive fashion. There was an interview with Ronnie Wood and he said "I'm tired of making other people look good". I wish I could recall the exact details of that statement but I never forgot it. I am an unapologetic Taylorite myself, and love the Stones even more with Taylor. Those of us that witnessed the power of Taylor and Richards will always know what potential for greatness there really is. Even if for only a few songs each show. But, they have chosen not to enhance their music and I will be watching You Tube this last tour. (sigh)

Quote
kleermaker
do I have to say this thread is for those who appreciate Taylor and want him badly to be part of the tour very loudly?

Good joke, but april fools day was yesterday.

What thread is there for those who appreciate Taylor and are also pleased with the fact
that The Stones are still touring?

Just as long as the guitar plays, let it steal your heart away

Quote
Chacal

Quote
gotdablouse
+10 with the comments about Taylor bringing a bit of "adventure" to the show for 2+ years, they all enjoyed it, Jagger included, why he "limited" it is anyone's guess, now he's canned it. Maybe it was too painful to relive his youth? Most people would be happy with that but one thing we keep forgetting (his fault!) is that the guy is nearly 72...at that age you tend to play it safe and like something that's predictable especially when you have to handle crowds of 60000+ ! Sam Cutler not only shared Taylor's happiness at being back he also let us in on what Mick needed to do to prepare for the show, a real "marathon", show after show.

Not that Sam Cutler ever got to see (meet) Mick J in Brisbane.

You're nearly there though with the painful part - it's probably more to do with hurt pride. Typical Leo.

Honestly I can't imagine any other "good" reason, well that and the fact that with the obviously enormous stress of carrying the show with massive audiences Jagger needs it to be as predictable as possible. Sam Cutler didn't see him but he apparently got a good sense of what he needed to do to be able to perform the way he does. What's a bit sad is that that Taylor didn't let him down on stage or put him in any difficult situations so why punish him? It would have been easy to justify having him around to continue the "50th and Counting" theme or even with the "Zip"/SF theme. Dunno...something doesn't make sense.

--------------
IORR Links : Essential Studio Outtakes CDs : Audio - History of Rarest Outtakes : Audio

yeah ..this is over 900 comments and 33 pages and counting..

Taylor didn't let him down on stage or put him in any difficult situations so why punish him? It would have been easy to justify having him around to continue the "50th and Counting" theme or even with the "Zip"/SF theme. Dunno...something doesn't make sense.

we got a taste of the old Stones greatness, and want more..

well I say 'we' but I didn't see any of the shows, just the vids, but it was there for all to see.

and I've been holding on to the hope that MT may still be included somehow, on some shows..

Quote
marcovandereijk

Quote
kleermaker
do I have to say this thread is for those who appreciate Taylor and want him badly to be part of the tour very loudly?

Good joke, but april fools day was yesterday.

What thread is there for those who appreciate Taylor and are also pleased with the fact
that The Stones are still touring?

You can always create one.

Since Taylor brought out some of the best if not the best of Jagger they really should try and reconnect once and record something.

Quote
liddas

Quote
alimente

Because a stoned 1998 Ronnie simply looks better or what?

Because my ears like what comes out of his amp, and how what comes out of his amp works within the contest. Simple as that.

C

You gotta be kidding me. April fools?

Heres an instructional video for Ronnie. If youre gonna renew a solo you have to actually come up with something of your own. Ronnie hasnt managed to do that yet and he just doesnt know where to go after those first notes of the solo so why not just study it note by note. Just sayin.
But yes, he looks like a rock star, I'll give you that.

Does the average Stones concert-goer really care about Mick Taylor? My guess is that half of them don't even know who he is. And he isn't that gorgeous Wunderkind of the 1970s, nor the same stand-out guitar player. Does he even look like a Rolling Stone? and that is what the casual fan cares about.

Mick Taylor Fans: You can't always get what you want.


Mick Jagger Fans: Who wants yesterday's papers?



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2015-04-02 17:40 by JamesMadison.

Quote
JamesMadison
Does the average Stones concert-goer really care about Mick Taylor? My guess is that half of them don't even know who he is. And he isn't that gorgeous Wunderkind of the 1970s, nor the same stand-out guitar player. Does he even look like a Rolling Stone? and that is what the casual fan cares about.

Mick Taylor Fans: You can't always get what you want.


Mick Jagger Fans: Who wants yesterday's papers?

I want yesterday's papers, and I'm an MJ fan.

Quote
Redhotcarpet
Heres an instructional video for Ronnie. If youre gonna renew a solo you have to actually come up with something of your own. Ronnie hasnt managed to do that yet and he just doesnt know where to go after those first notes of the solo so why not just study it note by note. Just sayin.
But yes, he looks like a rock star, I'll give you that.

And now show us YOUR video...

Mick Taylor didn't look like a Rolling Stone??

Didn't the founding member have blonde hair? haha..

Brothers, brothers and sisters, whos fighting and what for.....Peace between Woodies and Taylorites

Yeah, why blame Woody?

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
PhillyFAN
While I would love to see Mick Taylor back for this tour I want to say this in defense of Ronnie Wood. His playing seems exceptionally good when he is away from the Stones. The gigs he did with Taylor are amazing. He was on fire for the short lived Faces reunion tour without Rod Stewart. I personally believe that Wood is afraid to outshine Keith. I remember Keith Richards once saying he is a very sympathetic player. I have seen Ron Wood when he was a Face with Rod Stewart. Ronnie was his own man and playing guitar on songs he actually wrote. Maybe his role in the Stones has him somewhat confined and like Taylor he could be bored after 40 years of interpreting solo's he did not create. That said I still would love to see Taylor back.

With all respect for Ronnie, I think he never was apt for being guitarist in the Rolling Stones next to Keith Richards. Many think that we 'taylorites' are only interested in Taylor, but nothing is less true. One of the most intriguing elements of Taylor being part of the band was the combination he formed with Keith. Though very different players (or better said: because they were very different players) they were a hell of a team on stage, blindly understanding each other musically. Another important element of course was the combination of Jagger and Taylor as for the melodic part of the music. So those three members together created a magical musical interplay, perfectly supported by Watts and Wyman.

I agree more or less with you guys. What was great with Brian Jones and Mick Taylor was that they wre so unique-sounding, distinguished, independent, proud players who weren't in the Rolling Stones just because "wow, I am a Rolling Stone... am I bloody lucky that I can play next to Mick and Keith.. If I am a good boy everthing's going be to be alright". No, they were true musicians, having a vision, of own of music and everything, sometiems probably conflicting with the ideas od The Glimmer Twins, and they had balls enough to offer those - and they didn't do much compromises. The Stones - Mick and Keih - were more than lucky to have people of that caliber in their band. The music - we all - gained a helluva of that.

The only way I can understand why Mick Jagger once decided that Ron Wood is suitable - technically, but not substantially - to fill Taylor's shoes, was that of him thinking he had a Keith Richards substitute in the band, if the worst scenario comes true... It is handy to have a poor man's version of teh maestro - every damn people back then did know that Ron Wood was the Keith Richards of the Faces next to Rod Stewart's Mick Jagger, and Wood didn't hide too much that he was the biggest Rolling Stones fan boy in the world... They didn't want any longer someone with a distinguished musical vision and ability. No, they only wanted a "team player", a puppet, someone to to be ever so loyal to them and kiss their asses. Just to be with them. To 'support' them. Being 'poor man's Keith Richards' was not actually gaining him much good in the long run. The Stones don't need two Keefs.

I also agree that Ron Wood is much more insteresting, strong, powerful guitar player outside the Rolling Stones framework. His Faces stuff alone speaks for itself. He also had his sayings into Stones sound back in the day, when the guitars still mattered, the guitarists were still able to play their hearts out, when Keith Richards was the musical maestro of the band - and the thing he did with Keith those days I think are simply phenomenal - but even then the thing most was that of providing Keith a safe and sure framework where Keith could shine - call that "ancient art of weaving". But even that was a long time ago. Since 1989 Ronnie has been an anti-thesis to any guitarist having any balls or sense of self-respect.

Thesedays I think in anology what a poster called Justin said of Jagger in some other thread: The Stones have educated their fans what to expect to, and like playing 'war horses', people are so used to hearing these theatrical, posed routine replicas of once great and inspired guitar things that they think that it is the "real thing". Only if they could play even those somehow decently... (I wouldn't even dare to suggest that play them daringly or with some inspiration or with some point or something...). To be true, I don't really know what people are really expecting from Ron Wood - from Keith they most likely expect that he can still deliver teh idiosyncratic stuff somehow - to get those startmeups and jumpinjackflashes alright - but Woody - I just don't know.

Mostly I think the issue with the Stones is that any kind of conversation talking about musical aspects in regards to the Rolling Stones is rather pointless - the factor of simple adoration and worshsip is so strong, that there is no room for any musical common sense.

That said, I don't claim that the Stones don't do a great show. They do. It is a helluva show, and the charisma and showmanship those goys have - plus teh great songs - alone will make it fly high. But honestly if I ever going to see teh Stones, musically it is Mick Jagger and his backing band I am going to see for. Not any real guitar band.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-04-02 19:17 by Doxa.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
JamesMadison
Does the average Stones concert-goer really care about Mick Taylor? My guess is that half of them don't even know who he is. And he isn't that gorgeous Wunderkind of the 1970s, nor the same stand-out guitar player. Does he even look like a Rolling Stone? and that is what the casual fan cares about.

Mick Taylor Fans: You can't always get what you want.


Mick Jagger Fans: Who wants yesterday's papers?

I want yesterday's papers, and I'm an MJ fan.

I want Yesterday's Papers too, with Mick Taylor!

Just throw those so called 'average fans' away. They are just legend tourists, that's all. During the 69 - 73 tours they played new songs the audience even didn't know or wasn't familiar with. But they loved it, because those songs are great and were played very well. And that's what matters to every audience. Here's suggesting the audience exists of dumb donkeys. Don't underestimate them. Remember how the crowds went crazy when they played Knocking and that 'unknown' figure played guitar. Many people reacting like: who the hell is that guy, playing guitar like we never imagined was possible? The biggest mistake you can make as an artist is underestimating your public. In fact that comes down to belittling and underestimating yourself.

Its so tricky, and at the same time not tricky.

Really, he shouldn't be there, because he's not a band member anymore and hasn't been for a long time. Yes he played on nearly all of the famous recordings, but he quit the band and that is what he has to deal with. It was nice to bring him back as a guest. He was completely underutilized, but again, you can't disagree that they didn't have to do it.

On the other hand, its just so easy to have him there. At this point in life, with all bands this age, I don't see why they don't just have as many members of the band on tour as possible. Bill won't do it, but Taylor will. If Taylor is willing, and you can get that 3 guitar sound and it can at least spice some stuff up for the audience (and the band) then its just silly not to. As mentioned, he played on all the famous stuff, so he has his right to be there and he was universally praised on his guesting.

I think the bottom line is the "quitting" is the biggest thing here, and whoever it is (probably Jagger) doesn't really want to just let him back in or "reward him" for that after so many years. They've made it without him and they could continue to do that. He improves their sound, but he doesn't really change ticket sales, and I think its just a big thing there that they think he shouldn't be allowed to come back so easily. Whether I agree or disagree with that doesn't really matter, but I do understand that reasoning. For him to just suddenly become a full time member again would be weird and maybe undeserving technically, even though he obviously contributed enough to their legacy that it wouldn't be disrespectful to anyone (like Ronnie) if he returned. I really do think his quitting is the key. They see it as why should he reap the benefits of everything they've built when he, on his own, chose to walk away from it.

Quote
liddas

Quote
alimente

Because a stoned 1998 Ronnie simply looks better or what?

Because my ears like what comes out of his amp, and how what comes out of his amp works within the contest. Simple as that.

C

Maybe you liked it because 1997 to 1999 were years when Ronnie was quite "out of it" many times and, consequently, barely audible in the mix?

Quote
RollingFreak
Its so tricky, and at the same time not tricky.

Really, he shouldn't be there, because he's not a band member anymore and hasn't been for a long time. Yes he played on nearly all of the famous recordings, but he quit the band and that is what he has to deal with. It was nice to bring him back as a guest. He was completely underutilized, but again, you can't disagree that they didn't have to do it.

On the other hand, its just so easy to have him there. At this point in life, with all bands this age, I don't see why they don't just have as many members of the band on tour as possible. Bill won't do it, but Taylor will. If Taylor is willing, and you can get that 3 guitar sound and it can at least spice some stuff up for the audience (and the band) then its just silly not to. As mentioned, he played on all the famous stuff, so he has his right to be there and he was universally praised on his guesting.

I think the bottom line is the "quitting" is the biggest thing here, and whoever it is (probably Jagger) doesn't really want to just let him back in or "reward him" for that after so many years. They've made it without him and they could continue to do that. He improves their sound, but he doesn't really change ticket sales,

Yeah...maybe that's it. Big corporations think that way... Why bother if it's not necessary to the bottom-line. It would take the band members to overrule all the financial managers that make these decisions...

Normally it would be unrealistic to be doing so many comparisons of the Taylor vs. Wood Stones after Taylor has been gone 40 years, but I think the fact that the Stones are playing so many 40 year old songs gives it relevance. If they had developed a catalog with Ron Wood that was strong enough to fill out entire concerts and still draw big crowds and send them away happy, the Taylor discussions would take on a entirely different angle. People would probably be talking about Ronnies playing in the 70's vs. his playing in the 2000's and the great Taylor years would be discussed but in a different context.

The myriad of reasons Taylor can't come back into the Stones fold are understandable and mostly reasonable and I can accept them. It doesn't diminish the superb stuff we have from him in the early 70's but only makes it more precious. On one level I'm actually happy Taylor isn't relegated to play with the modern Stones..it preserves his greatest work and I can imagine even his mighty playing might be reduced by the requirements of the Stones in 2015....some bubbles might get burst.

And Doxa, to add to your discussion of why Jagger chose Ron Wood, I have to believe that Keith, as musical director had a large say in the choice at the time and as a full blown addict, was as concerned about having someone who could tolerate his condition and even participate in it as he was about any musical considerations. The fact that he was an Englishman and looked the part certainly sealed the deal. It's never solely about the music. I think back to the story about Jo Wood meeting Keith and how he walked in, openly fixed his drugs and only then decided an introduction was in order. The fact that Ronnie was ok with that speaks volumes..most of the other guitarist choices (and their wives) would probably have run from that scene. Mick knew this was a problem too and it probably contributed to his acceptance of Ronnie.

All that being said, do I think Ronnie was the right choice for the Stones? Obviously he was because they are still together and super successful. Was it the best choice for the music or Ronnie's development as a guitarist? I don't think so and that's why some of us fans are still pining for the glorious days of Mick Taylor, some 40 friggin' years later.

peace