Re: Sign here please for MICK TAYLOR
Date: September 28, 2005 19:59
camper88 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Smokey Wrote:
> > camper88 Wrote:
> > > Hell, I'm not signing any petition out
> of
> > > principle. This isn't American Idol,
> this is
> > the
> > > Rolling Stones. Fans don't get to
> decide
> > who
> > > plays in the band any more than we get
> to
> > decide
> > > what songs go on the next album or what
> get
> > played
> > > live at the next gig.
> >
> > Here is a posting to quarrel with. Do you
> > seriously think they ever would have returned
> to
> > Sway if it were not so high on the fan
> request
> > list?
>
>
> Do I seriously think so? Sure.
>
> As T&A might say, I know so. Look at the
> rehearsals.
>
> Sway was simply a matter of time.
A matter of time? It's a matter of time before they get to TWFNO? If they live forever, will we hear the Rice Krispies jingle?
The issue is what inspires them to rehearse a song not merely that they rehearse it. Your view is their artistic instincts told them to do Sway and should be the only contribution to the decision. My view is that the fans' hankering after it was a strong contribution to those instincts and should be. Should the fans shy away from trying to get the band to play certain songs? In my view: absolutely not.
If (hypothetically) the band wants to play Torn and Frayed, but the fans want Sway, so the band plays Sway as if it were Torn and Frayed, that probably is not the most desirable outcome. But if the band thinks it can do anything it has recorded or played for the past 40 years and is equally happy to play any one of 10 "surprises" and the fans have one of those surprises at the top of their list, why should the Stones not play that one? Why should the fans shy away from telling the Stones which of those 10 they most want to hear?
Also (for example and purely hypothetically), if Richards does not want to play any of the old songs that he had no or minimal input into, the band would otherwise not play them and the fans really want to hear it, why shouldn't the fans encourage the band (read Richards) to get over it and humor them?
> Besides, you're missing the point: fans don't tell
> the Stones who should be in the band. This isn't
> American Idol, it's the Stones.
First, you missed this point: the anti-Taylor crowd makes silly, sloppy points just just to spew venom. There are enough reasons for them not to play with each other--with mutual indifference probably topping the list--that there is little reason for the other nonsense. Second, I don't think the Stones cultivate or want to cultivate a passive fan base.
Incidentally, as for "who should be in the band", I also suspect that the fan noise about Chuck's prominence in the mix had some effect on both the album and the mix at ABB concerts. Obviously, the band determines their own sound, but the fan noise can influence or help confirm decisions by the band.
> You let enough fans in on this vote and you'll end
> up with Eddie Van Halen on stage right. Okay with
> that thought in my head, I have to go lie down
> now.
A fan vote can obviously have a bad outcome. But bad outcomes--did anyone say Timberlake?--can happen without fan input. Or contrary to fan input.
The issue is whether fans should let the band know what they want. In my view, of course they should. The band can decide whether they think it works artistically, socially, politically, economically, hygenically, ...
>
>