For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
Stoneage
I don't mind if Taylor is not on the Zip Code tour. I'm not a Taylorist. I'm just stating that it's ironic that they took him around the world for three years playing, basically, one song over and over again.
And then they keep him out of the golden opportunity to show his skills on this Sticky Fingers special. That's my point. Nothing else.
Quote
Stoneage
I don't mind if Taylor is not on the Zip Code tour. I'm not a Taylorist. I'm just stating that it's ironic that they took him around the world for three years playing, basically, one song over and over again.
And then they keep him out of the golden opportunity to show his skills on this Sticky Fingers special. That's my point. Nothing else.
Quote
gotdablouseQuote
DreamerQuote
gotdablouseQuote
RollingFreak
The real killer is that they brought him back and then didn't for this. If he hadn't played with them for years, this would be such a discussion. Its that he toured as a guest with them ALL tour the last 3 years, and was criminally underused. And I'll even give the Stones the fact that on the tour maybe he wasn't so much underused as he just didn't fit in. I don't believe that, but fine I'll let them have it.
Then, after 3 years of underusing him as a guest, you do a show where it wouldn't make all the sense in the world to NOT include him! Thats what really hammers the point home. There's no real logical reason after everything thats happened since 2012 that he couldn't and shouldn't have been a part of this. This is kind of the proverbial c*ck in their 3 year c*cktease. The fact that his minimal participation led to his complete LACK of participation here is... well... its just unexplainable, and it is frankly rather cruel. Cause none of us would have felt this way if they hadn't brought him back.
And I say this all being a very big fan of how the show last night turned out. But to not mention this is just lying to yourself.
Exactly, plus they had an easy way to get some musical integrity back but they're so entrapped in money and fame that they just can't function any other way now, which is ridiculous given what they've achieved and where they are in their career and lives.
If they would have made MT their musical director in 1974 people would get bored with their "musical integrity" real soon and they would eat noodles every day for the rest of their lives.
Do you remember what you did in Europe to get inside a gig like this?
Don't pretend you know a lot about integrity.
It's bad enough that you're annoying everyone here who wants to discuss all things Taylor, we get it that you don't like him or think he's important, just move on to better things...but adding insult to injury you're now making baseless personal accusations, you really have no shame. WTF is wrong with you ?! It's totally OT here, but I got in fair and square at the Trabendo as the +1 of a friend with which I spent dozens of hours in the freezing cold in Bondy and still see regularly to share our passion for the Stones, so I demand an immediate apology. Once that's done feel free to send me an email and I'll be happy to clear up any BS you've been told that might have led you to make a fool of yourself with this grotesque accusation.
Quote
Turner68
Mick Taylor was great with them on the 69/70 tours. Then he developed a bit too much of an ego IMO, became a little self-indulgent and started soloing and playing riffs all over the songs, trying to turn them into just another early 70s guitar band. Songs like Gimme Shelter and Brown sugar, to my ears, just aren't as good in 72/73 because Taylor just doesn't know when to stop.
As Keith Richards said, what you don't play is as important as what you do.
The Stones don't see the sort of endless soloing/riffing that Taylor does as part of their sound - if there was any doubt as to that, look at who they hired to replace Taylor: Ron Wood. They want someone who comes to rock and roll, not reinterpret all their songs as if it was Jazz fusion.
I believe it's for these reasons - plus the fact that he is not a member of the band (!) - that is not a "permanent guest" on their tours.
Quote
Gfmsoccer
Well the reviews are in, and overall it was a great club gig in LA, if you were one of the few to experience it.
For all the Mick Taylor minions, I read all the legit reviews and they said the only song he was really missed on was Can't You Hear Me Knocking. His guitar was missed as they focused on Sax & Keyboards last night. Otherwise they did great with Sticky Fingers.
So get off the Mick Taylor train, the band does just great without him.
He was a guest on the last tour anyway. They never said he was rejoining the band.
Quote
LeonioidBWWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAQuote
stonehearted
Quote
Stoneage
I don't mind if Taylor is not on the Zip Code tour. I'm not a Taylorist. I'm just stating that it's ironic that they took him around the world for three years playing, basically, one song over and over again.
And then they keep him out of the golden opportunity to show his skills on this Sticky Fingers special. That's my point. Nothing else.
Quote
Turner68
Mick Taylor was great with them on the 69/70 tours. Then he developed a bit too much of an ego IMO, became a little self-indulgent and started soloing and playing riffs all over the songs, trying to turn them into just another early 70s guitar band. Songs like Gimme Shelter and Brown sugar, to my ears, just aren't as good in 72/73 because Taylor just doesn't know when to stop.
As Keith Richards said, what you don't play is as important as what you do.
The Stones don't see the sort of endless soloing/riffing that Taylor does as part of their sound - if there was any doubt as to that, look at who they hired to replace Taylor: Ron Wood. They want someone who comes to rock and roll, not reinterpret all their songs as if it was Jazz fusion.
I believe it's for these reasons - plus the fact that he is not a member of the band (!) - that is not a "permanent guest" on their tours.
Quote
strat72Quote
Turner68
Mick Taylor was great with them on the 69/70 tours. Then he developed a bit too much of an ego IMO, became a little self-indulgent and started soloing and playing riffs all over the songs, trying to turn them into just another early 70s guitar band. Songs like Gimme Shelter and Brown sugar, to my ears, just aren't as good in 72/73 because Taylor just doesn't know when to stop.
As Keith Richards said, what you don't play is as important as what you do.
The Stones don't see the sort of endless soloing/riffing that Taylor does as part of their sound - if there was any doubt as to that, look at who they hired to replace Taylor: Ron Wood. They want someone who comes to rock and roll, not reinterpret all their songs as if it was Jazz fusion.
I believe it's for these reasons - plus the fact that he is not a member of the band (!) - that is not a "permanent guest" on their tours.
No, the band were at their live best between 69 and 73.... I know this, the band know this, and deep down, you do as well. When I say the band, I mean all of them, not just Taylor. He was the cherry on top of the cake, and what a sweet cherry he was. I love Ronnie, but the band never reached the same heights after Mick T left. I'm sure Ron would admit this himself.
Quote
Turner68Quote
strat72Quote
Turner68
Mick Taylor was great with them on the 69/70 tours. Then he developed a bit too much of an ego IMO, became a little self-indulgent and started soloing and playing riffs all over the songs, trying to turn them into just another early 70s guitar band. Songs like Gimme Shelter and Brown sugar, to my ears, just aren't as good in 72/73 because Taylor just doesn't know when to stop.
As Keith Richards said, what you don't play is as important as what you do.
The Stones don't see the sort of endless soloing/riffing that Taylor does as part of their sound - if there was any doubt as to that, look at who they hired to replace Taylor: Ron Wood. They want someone who comes to rock and roll, not reinterpret all their songs as if it was Jazz fusion.
I believe it's for these reasons - plus the fact that he is not a member of the band (!) - that is not a "permanent guest" on their tours.
No, the band were at their live best between 69 and 73.... I know this, the band know this, and deep down, you do as well. When I say the band, I mean all of them, not just Taylor. He was the cherry on top of the cake, and what a sweet cherry he was. I love Ronnie, but the band never reached the same heights after Mick T left. I'm sure Ron would admit this himself.
i didn't say they were better with Ron. i was just explaining my interpretation of why he wasn't on this tour. 69 and 70 were their best tours in my opinion. they were over the hill before ron even joined.
Quote
Getondown
You are clueless. He is one of the great blues rock guitarist of all time.
Quote
latebloomerQuote
Stoneage
I don't mind if Taylor is not on the Zip Code tour. I'm not a Taylorist. I'm just stating that it's ironic that they took him around the world for three years playing, basically, one song over and over again.
And then they keep him out of the golden opportunity to show his skills on this Sticky Fingers special. That's my point. Nothing else.
It's not at all ironic, it makes perfect sense if you consider it from another perspective. If they had invited Mick T on this tour, which is being marketed partly as a celebration of Sticky Fingers, they would have gotten endless questions and flack from the press if they didn't use Taylor on a lot more songs. So either they include him more and let him do his thing, in which case you have the inevitable comparison to Ronnie plus the uncertainty of where he would go with the songs on stage. Or he plays much the same number of songs that he did on the last few tours and everything is about, why doesn't Mick Taylor play more on his own songs? Throw in some potential personal tensions over this between the main players, and it makes perfect sense that they decided...that's it, not worth it this time around. Of course the reason could very well be something completely unrelated to all the speculation, my own included, that has been gong on now here for months.
...and yes, Kleerie, I said I wouldn't be back and I changed my mind, probably because I am a woman, right?
Quote
StonesCatQuote
Stoneage
I don't mind if Taylor is not on the Zip Code tour. I'm not a Taylorist. I'm just stating that it's ironic that they took him around the world for three years playing, basically, one song over and over again.
And then they keep him out of the golden opportunity to show his skills on this Sticky Fingers special. That's my point. Nothing else.
That's the main point that most of us try to make on here, then you get everybody providing answers to questions nobody was asking. I couldn't give a damn about people wearing Stones clothes, or famous people with the Stones, or any number of other threads that have been on here forever, but I don't feel the need to over and over ask those that do care-why they do.
Quote
Turner68
Mick Taylor was great with them on the 69/70 tours. Then he developed a bit too much of an ego IMO, became a little self-indulgent and started soloing and playing riffs all over the songs, trying to turn them into just another early 70s guitar band. Songs like Gimme Shelter and Brown sugar, to my ears, just aren't as good in 72/73 because Taylor just doesn't know when to stop.
As Keith Richards said, what you don't play is as important as what you do.
The Stones don't see the sort of endless soloing/riffing that Taylor does as part of their sound - if there was any doubt as to that, look at who they hired to replace Taylor: Ron Wood. They want someone who comes to rock and roll, not reinterpret all their songs as if it was Jazz fusion.
I believe it's for these reasons - plus the fact that he is not a member of the band (!) - that is not a "permanent guest" on their tours.
Quote
TravelinManQuote
Turner68
Mick Taylor was great with them on the 69/70 tours. Then he developed a bit too much of an ego IMO, became a little self-indulgent and started soloing and playing riffs all over the songs, trying to turn them into just another early 70s guitar band. Songs like Gimme Shelter and Brown sugar, to my ears, just aren't as good in 72/73 because Taylor just doesn't know when to stop.
As Keith Richards said, what you don't play is as important as what you do.
The Stones don't see the sort of endless soloing/riffing that Taylor does as part of their sound - if there was any doubt as to that, look at who they hired to replace Taylor: Ron Wood. They want someone who comes to rock and roll, not reinterpret all their songs as if it was Jazz fusion.
I believe it's for these reasons - plus the fact that he is not a member of the band (!) - that is not a "permanent guest" on their tours.
The Stones knew what kind of guitarist they recruited and what direction they wanted to go in. They were also disappointed when he left. If you don't like the versions of the songs during his tenure that is fine.
Quote
DreamerQuote
gotdablouseQuote
DreamerQuote
gotdablouseQuote
RollingFreak
The real killer is that they brought him back and then didn't for this. If he hadn't played with them for years, this would be such a discussion. Its that he toured as a guest with them ALL tour the last 3 years, and was criminally underused. And I'll even give the Stones the fact that on the tour maybe he wasn't so much underused as he just didn't fit in. I don't believe that, but fine I'll let them have it.
Then, after 3 years of underusing him as a guest, you do a show where it wouldn't make all the sense in the world to NOT include him! Thats what really hammers the point home. There's no real logical reason after everything thats happened since 2012 that he couldn't and shouldn't have been a part of this. This is kind of the proverbial c*ck in their 3 year c*cktease. The fact that his minimal participation led to his complete LACK of participation here is... well... its just unexplainable, and it is frankly rather cruel. Cause none of us would have felt this way if they hadn't brought him back.
And I say this all being a very big fan of how the show last night turned out. But to not mention this is just lying to yourself.
Exactly, plus they had an easy way to get some musical integrity back but they're so entrapped in money and fame that they just can't function any other way now, which is ridiculous given what they've achieved and where they are in their career and lives.
If they would have made MT their musical director in 1974 people would get bored with their "musical integrity" real soon and they would eat noodles every day for the rest of their lives.
Do you remember what you did in Europe to get inside a gig like this?
Don't pretend you know a lot about integrity.
It's bad enough that you're annoying everyone here who wants to discuss all things Taylor, we get it that you don't like him or think he's important, just move on to better things...but adding insult to injury you're now making baseless personal accusations, you really have no shame. WTF is wrong with you ?! It's totally OT here, but I got in fair and square at the Trabendo as the +1 of a friend with which I spent dozens of hours in the freezing cold in Bondy and still see regularly to share our passion for the Stones, so I demand an immediate apology. Once that's done feel free to send me an email and I'll be happy to clear up any BS you've been told that might have led you to make a fool of yourself with this grotesque accusation.
Thank you and this is exactly what I mean: you behave like a sincere fan when they are around the corner (and I gave my compliments for how enthusiastically you shared your journo reports) but when in a discussion with some other folks here about a gig ten thousand miles away I notice you suddenly accuse the same band of having no "musical integrity" and that "they're so entrapped in money and fame"... That is what is "bad enough"; the double standard you're pulling here is grotesque! That's a legitimate WTF!
And in your desperate attempt to try to finish me you bring this "annoying everyone": you can't do this little tricky on your own and need your dubious friendo's with the same fake moral superiority.
And "we get it you don't like him": trying to create a coalition with those hysterical MT aficionados and wannabee intellectuals.
You're hiding something with this shouting "I demand an imediate apology".
Hiding your hypocrisy. It's not the RS that are 'entrapped.'
It's you that is entrapped in your double standard.
Quote
Turner68
Mick Taylor was great with them on the 69/70 tours. Then he developed a bit too much of an ego IMO, became a little self-indulgent and started soloing and playing riffs all over the songs, trying to turn them into just another early 70s guitar band. Songs like Gimme Shelter and Brown sugar, to my ears, just aren't as good in 72/73 because Taylor just doesn't know when to stop.
As Keith Richards said, what you don't play is as important as what you do.
The Stones don't see the sort of endless soloing/riffing that Taylor does as part of their sound - if there was any doubt as to that, look at who they hired to replace Taylor: Ron Wood. They want someone who comes to rock and roll, not reinterpret all their songs as if it was Jazz fusion.
Quote
stoneheartedQuote
LeonioidBWWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAQuote
stonehearted
Max, is that you?
Quote
latebloomerQuote
Stoneage
I don't mind if Taylor is not on the Zip Code tour. I'm not a Taylorist. I'm just stating that it's ironic that they took him around the world for three years playing, basically, one song over and over again.
And then they keep him out of the golden opportunity to show his skills on this Sticky Fingers special. That's my point. Nothing else.
It's not at all ironic, it makes perfect sense if you consider it from another perspective. If they had invited Mick T on this tour, which is being marketed partly as a celebration of Sticky Fingers, they would have gotten endless questions and flack from the press if they didn't use Taylor on a lot more songs. So either they include him more and let him do his thing, in which case you have the inevitable comparison to Ronnie plus the uncertainty of where he would go with the songs on stage. Or he plays much the same number of songs that he did on the last few tours and everything is about, why doesn't Mick Taylor play more on his own songs? Throw in some potential personal tensions over this between the main players, and it makes perfect sense that they decided...that's it, not worth it this time around. Of course the reason could very well be something completely unrelated to all the speculation, my own included, that has been gong on now here for months.
...and yes, Kleerie, I said I wouldn't be back and I changed my mind, probably because I am a woman, right?
Quote
gotdablouseQuote
DreamerQuote
gotdablouseQuote
DreamerQuote
gotdablouseQuote
RollingFreak
The real killer is that they brought him back and then didn't for this. If he hadn't played with them for years, this would be such a discussion. Its that he toured as a guest with them ALL tour the last 3 years, and was criminally underused. And I'll even give the Stones the fact that on the tour maybe he wasn't so much underused as he just didn't fit in. I don't believe that, but fine I'll let them have it.
Then, after 3 years of underusing him as a guest, you do a show where it wouldn't make all the sense in the world to NOT include him! Thats what really hammers the point home. There's no real logical reason after everything thats happened since 2012 that he couldn't and shouldn't have been a part of this. This is kind of the proverbial c*ck in their 3 year c*cktease. The fact that his minimal participation led to his complete LACK of participation here is... well... its just unexplainable, and it is frankly rather cruel. Cause none of us would have felt this way if they hadn't brought him back.
And I say this all being a very big fan of how the show last night turned out. But to not mention this is just lying to yourself.
Exactly, plus they had an easy way to get some musical integrity back but they're so entrapped in money and fame that they just can't function any other way now, which is ridiculous given what they've achieved and where they are in their career and lives.
If they would have made MT their musical director in 1974 people would get bored with their "musical integrity" real soon and they would eat noodles every day for the rest of their lives.
Do you remember what you did in Europe to get inside a gig like this?
Don't pretend you know a lot about integrity.
It's bad enough that you're annoying everyone here who wants to discuss all things Taylor, we get it that you don't like him or think he's important, just move on to better things...but adding insult to injury you're now making baseless personal accusations, you really have no shame. WTF is wrong with you ?! It's totally OT here, but I got in fair and square at the Trabendo as the +1 of a friend with which I spent dozens of hours in the freezing cold in Bondy and still see regularly to share our passion for the Stones, so I demand an immediate apology. Once that's done feel free to send me an email and I'll be happy to clear up any BS you've been told that might have led you to make a fool of yourself with this grotesque accusation.
Thank you and this is exactly what I mean: you behave like a sincere fan when they are around the corner (and I gave my compliments for how enthusiastically you shared your journo reports) but when in a discussion with some other folks here about a gig ten thousand miles away I notice you suddenly accuse the same band of having no "musical integrity" and that "they're so entrapped in money and fame"... That is what is "bad enough"; the double standard you're pulling here is grotesque! That's a legitimate WTF!
And in your desperate attempt to try to finish me you bring this "annoying everyone": you can't do this little tricky on your own and need your dubious friendo's with the same fake moral superiority.
And "we get it you don't like him": trying to create a coalition with those hysterical MT aficionados and wannabee intellectuals.
You're hiding something with this shouting "I demand an imediate apology".
Hiding your hypocrisy. It's not the RS that are 'entrapped.'
It's you that is entrapped in your double standard.
Oh so you were in fact not accusing me of cheating my way in to the Trabendo, I guess that's a relief...but you're saying that because I spent dozens of hours in the cold day after day in 2012 in 2014 in Bondy and indirectly gained access to the Trabendo thanks to that I'm not allowed to voice my discontent that they've ditched Taylor like an old sock when it would have made so much sense to keep him at the very least for that SF special ? Some kind of warped "don't bite the hand that feeds you"/'toe the line" concept?
Is that what working for the Stones organization for 21 years did to you (re : Bianca's description of how it operates) or were you always like that? I guess that explains a lot of your posts here (first the fighting with Dandy about Keith vs Mick and now this) but has got nothing to do with the Taylor discussion, so yeah, move on and let fans discuss what he means to them.
Quote
TravelinManQuote
Turner68
Mick Taylor was great with them on the 69/70 tours. Then he developed a bit too much of an ego IMO, became a little self-indulgent and started soloing and playing riffs all over the songs, trying to turn them into just another early 70s guitar band. Songs like Gimme Shelter and Brown sugar, to my ears, just aren't as good in 72/73 because Taylor just doesn't know when to stop.
As Keith Richards said, what you don't play is as important as what you do.
The Stones don't see the sort of endless soloing/riffing that Taylor does as part of their sound - if there was any doubt as to that, look at who they hired to replace Taylor: Ron Wood. They want someone who comes to rock and roll, not reinterpret all their songs as if it was Jazz fusion.
I believe it's for these reasons - plus the fact that he is not a member of the band (!) - that is not a "permanent guest" on their tours.
The Stones knew what kind of guitarist they recruited and what direction they wanted to go in. They were also disappointed when he left. If you don't like the versions of the songs during his tenure that is fine.
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Good post, latebloomer. You really should post in this thread more often
What Mick sees is that he didn't want to get dependent on Taylor, so much that it would have been a question of hhim re-joining the band. Nothing wrong with re-joining, as far as I'm concerned, but I really understand that the band wouldn't wanna end up in that situation.
They have toured with (more or less) the same concept since the 50 & Counting tour in 2012. Now they had a new concept and theme, and they probably were thinking "clean slates, new tour".
I'm not saying that I agree, but this is what I see when I try to see it from the band's angle. One can always discuss the way they've handled this, though (and we have done that!).
Quote
ChacalQuote
DandelionPowderman
Good post, latebloomer. You really should post in this thread more often
What Mick sees is that he didn't want to get dependent on Taylor, so much that it would have been a question of hhim re-joining the band. Nothing wrong with re-joining, as far as I'm concerned, but I really understand that the band wouldn't wanna end up in that situation.
They have toured with (more or less) the same concept since the 50 & Counting tour in 2012. Now they had a new concept and theme, and they probably were thinking "clean slates, new tour".
I'm not saying that I agree, but this is what I see when I try to see it from the band's angle. One can always discuss the way they've handled this, though (and we have done that!).
'They' is plural.
The band's angle ? There are 4 official bandmembers, right ?
Several of them may not have shared the CEO's point of view. One of them could have exercised a veto, but chose instead to repeat what he was told (without doing any fact checking) before withdrawing from the situation.
What is this breathtaking new concept they are launching for the upcoming tour ?
It appears the plan is to take the familiar setlist (it's not like these songs were first introduced on the 50 & Counting tour) to 15 stadiums in North America, throw in 2 or 3 songs from the last release and keep fingers crossed the market is not fully saturated yet ?
How is this any different from what they've done before.