Often wondered if the stones could pull off having mick t. and ronnie. they could dispense with a bass player and let them alternate on bass and lead guitar. or maybe it's just a pipedream? (pardon the pun!)

Hasn't this been done already in Kansas City?

yes,I see what you mean but with one of them having to pull the bass duties maybe each could take his turn on his particular studio performances? Taylor does have the upper hand on some songs. I just thought the outcome might be a little better since then.

would anybody worry/notice - i mean outside of the super fan world. MT is gone please accept it.

OLDKR

Ahhh...a short answer?...No. Why would the band bother with THAT? Its shows have become a ritual, lazy and self indulgent. It's last CD is a perfunctory and thoughtless effort at best. They are raking in money riding on its reputation. No one seems to care. The fans want to hear the familiar chords and the muddle of arrangements, the faster the better. Why would they want anyone rocking the boat and knocking it off its comfort zone? Taylor playing with the Stones? Too much work!

pmk sleeps with a Nightlight and a cOpy of the New Yorker on his nighTstand. He enjoys a warm glass of milk before sleep, and thinks that spending friday night watching Fawlty Towers is his idea of cutting loose.

But he's a good guy...

pmk251 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ahhh...a short answer?...No. Why would the band
> bother with THAT? Its shows have become a ritual,
> lazy and self indulgent. It's last CD is a
> perfunctory and thoughtless effort at best. They
> are raking in money riding on its reputation. No
> one seems to care. The fans want to hear the
> familiar chords and the muddle of arrangements,
> the faster the better. Why would they want anyone
> rocking the boat and knocking it off its comfort
> zone? Taylor playing with the Stones? Too much
> work!


Hmmmm...why are you a member of this board? I know you're gonna holler and scream that as a fan you have a right to critizise the Stones - but you seem to have totally passed on them in their current incarnation. Nothing seems to be going right for you.

If I felt that way about the Stones I would not want to be "on board", so to speak. And that is not to say I agree on everything and anything they do - although I do still like ABB a lot (a recent masterpiece).....and saw two kick-ass shows in 2006 and 2007 ;-)

As for Mick Taylor - why do people keep bringing this up? It won't happen! ;-) And I don't think it even should happen. He's just not reliable enough.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-08 09:14 by mofur.

mofur Wrote (answering pmk251):
-------------------------------------------------------
>>
> Hmmmm...why are you a member of this board? I know
> you're gonna holler and scream that as a fan you
> have a right to critizise the Stones - but you
> seem to have totally passed on them in their
> current incarnation. Nothing seems to be going
> right for you.
>

Why, I understand pmk251 perfectly because he made a point. The Stones have been extremely successful on their recent tour and have worked really hard - no question. But the remark about 'the muddle of arrangements,
the faster the better' really is something that characterized many concerts. Any spontaneity has gone and the sense of experimentation which the Stones were famous for back then has also vanished.

Why are we on this board? Basically because we love the Stones and appreciate their body of work. But for me that does not mean that I have to praise everything they do/did. People on this board should not try to exclude others. Otherwise it will become a place for senseless adoration where everything they do is praised to death.

Oh, I forgot to answer the question. Yes, there would be room if pmk251 was not so right with his critical remarks.

I don't think the Stones are lazy at all. I've seen 18 shows on this tour, and they've played a lot of different songs. Of course I've seen songs over and over again, but we have to realize that most people see one show during a tour, and all the people I know who has done that think that the band is better than ever.

pmk251 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ahhh...a short answer?...No. Why would the band
> bother with THAT? Its shows have become a ritual,
> lazy and self indulgent. It's last CD is a
> perfunctory and thoughtless effort at best. They
> are raking in money riding on its reputation. No
> one seems to care. The fans want to hear the
> familiar chords and the muddle of arrangements,
> the faster the better. Why would they want anyone
> rocking the boat and knocking it off its comfort
> zone? Taylor playing with the Stones? Too much
> work!


Well I'm still impressed by the Stones- I think ABB is a modern masterpiece and the shows still kick ass!

pmk251 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Taylor playing with the Stones? Too much
> work!


Yes it is, for Taylor!

and all
> the people I know who has done that think that the
> band is better than ever.


WHAT? are you kidding?? this is ridiculous. the stones are admired & loved for all they've done. they are the greatest rock n roll band of history. but nowadays it's just nostalgia, which is ok and i still go to see them. but to claim that they're better then ever is just absurd!!!

the band is better than ever?
thanks god that individual tastes differ.
i tried to watch the "biggest bang" dvd - box the other day.
for the first time in my life i was too bored to watch a new stones - dvd.
i switched to the tv - program instead.
i havn't watched any more of the dvd's yet.
maybe i am too old to rock'n roll.
maybe they are.
like many old people i think, that it was better in the past...
and..hey...they ARE old and for their age - and their lifestyle...
it's nice they're still around.
god bless.

twanghound Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the band is better than ever?
> thanks god that individual tastes differ.
> i tried to watch the "biggest bang" dvd - box the
> other day.
> for the first time in my life i was too bored to
> watch a new stones - dvd.
> i switched to the tv - program instead.
> i havn't watched any more of the dvd's yet.
> maybe i am too old to rock'n roll.
> maybe they are.
> like many old people i think, that it was better
> in the past...
> and..hey...they ARE old and for their age - and
> their lifestyle...
> it's nice they're still around.
> god bless.


Stones are better than ever, but not at home on DVD, but live on the spot...

keef, you may be right.
sadly i havn't seen them live since 1990.
and yes - i liked the real concert more than the video "live at the max".

Moving past the point that it won't happen, lets move onto could it be done... YES. You have three guys playing guitar now anyways (with Blondie). They could do it by dropping alot of the extra musicians and go with a three guitar band. Keith doesn't carry as much of the bulk of the sound as he used to. Just watch some old DVD's compared to some newer ones. So three guitars could work.

"You'll be studying history and you'll be down the gym. And I'll be down the pub, probably playing pool and drinking."

Great idea.

The e-Street Band work well with both Miami Steve and Nils Lofgren.

Had to go to bed last night after posing this question and was very pleased to read all the opinions. I think an important part of the "line-up" would be the alternating bass and guitar duties. Then ron and mick wouldnt be running over each other. Or maybe I'm just wishing for a all stones(or former) group. And since the band straightened out ron maybe they could put the boot up mick t's ass and provoke him into what he once was. Everyones forgiving each other these days-look at eddie and diamond dave!! But mick t. does still seem a bit fragile.Could he keep up the pace? Oh well, one good thing about mick's solo career(??) its a hell of a lot easier and cheaper to see him when he does tour! and he's such a nice guy-even signed a "Liver" boot for my friend in D.C.

no, mick taylor choose to walk away from the greatest rock and roll band in the world. this would disrespect rocking ron wood !

"this would disrespect rocking ron wood" good point

you could be right that people might perceive it as such,but would ron and the other stones really care? Since ron and mick t have been friends since before either was a stone, would ron feel this way?

...and presumably we'd just fire The Munch after 14 years of loyal service?

"I'll be in my basement room with a needle and a spoon."

Mick T could handle the duties - NO problem!!!

The only one who could keep up with him might be Ronnie, this would help Keith
as he would just have to handle the ryhthms, Charlie might have a tough time
as Taylor would push him like he hasn't been pushed in... 30 odd years..

BRING HIM BACK!!!! MLC

Mmmmm, not so sure. Recent reviews of the Hendrix tribute shows were far from glowing eh MLC????

when Mick T. is hot, he's hot. But then ain't they all. Charlie's the only one left that is 100% reliable musically. But when everyone is on it's still "the greatest rock n roll band in the world". As far as Daryll on bass. well he's a sideman. Not a stone-never will be a stone. And thats not taking away from his talent, but he's a hired gun and jobs end.

God forbid! He left the band. End of story. And now he's in no condition to be in the Rolling Stones. He's even more drunk on stage than Keith was in Helsinki, only Taylor's drunk all the time. The last 3 times I've seen him play have been real disappointments. Anyway, this is so hypothetical it's totally uniterrresting.

scottkeef Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Charlie's the only one left that is 100%
> reliable musically.

There was never a point when any or all of them were musically reliable- theyre the rolling stones.

OLDKR

Angel with dirty wings Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> God forbid! He left the band. End of story. And
> now he's in no condition to be in the Rolling
> Stones. He's even more drunk on stage than Keith
> was in Helsinki, only Taylor's drunk all the time.
> The last 3 times I've seen him play have been real
> disappointments. Anyway, this is so hypothetical
> it's totally uniterrresting.

of course its hypothetical! you say the last THREE times you say him play? i guess you were still holding out hope for the old boy. I respect your loyalty!

saltoftheearth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why are we on this board? Basically because we
> love the Stones and appreciate their body of work.
> But for me that does not mean that I have to
> praise everything they do/did. People on this
> board should not try to exclude others. Otherwise
> it will become a place for senseless adoration
> where everything they do is praised to death.

Next time, try to read the whole text. I'm saying there SHOULD be room to critizise - where does that fit in with "senseless adoration"? My point was - and I've just reread my own post - I personally cannot understand why someone will be on this board if you dislike the Stones to THAT degree. PMK has nothing positive to say about the Stones as they are now.

Like, I don't expect girls who were members of the Take That fanclub in the 90's to still be members just for old times sake. And if you don't like the Stones any more - fine with me, but why participate on boards like this? Not very likely that you will convert anyone either way. If you want to read that as "trying to exclude someone".....weeelll.

As for Stones improvising less than in the "old times" ("Any spontaneity has gone and the sense of experimentation which the Stones were famous for back then has also vanished"). Hmmmmm....how far are we reaching back? IMHO the most polished shows - the ones where the Stones were dangerously close to going Las Vegas - were the Steel Wheels and Urban Jungle tours.

Since then, they have improved vastly in my book - bringing the guitars out front again. And letting go of the blow-up dolls and whatnot.

....and I can think of many ways to describe the Stones - but experimentation onstage is not one of them. Besides MT they have never had a virtuoso in the band and playing endless solos is not what they are about in my book. They are the Stones - not Cream ;-)