Dear me, this thread has gotten so out of hand. Coniving, ruthless, scheming, underhanded, sick, senile, doddering fool, machiavellian, cold...these are just some of the adjectives being flung around here and on the KR interview thread. They won't be around forever, it seems a shame to focus on what's missing rather than celebrate what is still there.

Quote
latebloomer
Dear me, this thread has gotten so out of hand. Coniving, ruthless, scheming, underhanded, sick, senile, doddering fool, machiavellian, cold...these are just some of the adjectives being flung around here and on the KR interview thread. They won't be around forever, it seems a shame to focus on what's missing rather than celebrate what is still there.

Yup, I have tried to steer clear, but it keeps popping up and when I peek in it feels/reads like stumbling into the wailing room at a funeral parlor, as I oops and quietly back out. Or maybe this thread is a like a youth center which helps keep the kids off the streets and out of trouble while providing a creative outlet for some amusing fan fiction here and there, so it has that going for it.

Quote
CousinC

Quote
treaclefingers

By the 80s, Mick was a dinosaur as far as the music buying youth was concerned (and they were right), so any potential at a big solo career was over...having some very weak material at the time didn't help matters. Had he started a solo career in the early 70s, let's say after Angie, I think matters would be completely different...

Well, I doubt this.If at all we should say 68-72 when at least he had that big sex image.
But music biz is very fast-paced, always been. While 73 to us is GHS and 73 tour, on the streets the Stones were old fasioned already in 73.
Like Bowies wife urged him then not to go out with Mick J.cause it wasn't cool anymore.

The Rolling Stones is much bigger than Mick and Keith. Both had to learn this the hard way.

OK, so I'm off by one or two years!

Quote
Leonioid

Quote
latebloomer
Dear me, this thread has gotten so out of hand. Coniving, ruthless, scheming, underhanded, sick, senile, doddering fool, machiavellian, cold...these are just some of the adjectives being flung around here and on the KR interview thread. They won't be around forever, it seems a shame to focus on what's missing rather than celebrate what is still there.

Yup, I have tried to steer clear, but it keeps popping up and when I peek in it feels/reads like stumbling into the wailing room at a funeral parlor, as I oops and quietly back out. Or maybe this thread is a like a youth center which helps keep the kids off the streets and out of trouble while providing a creative outlet for some amusing fan fiction here and there, so it has that going for it.

Oh well, here we see the people arriving, trying to discredit this insightful thread with just very neat discussions and intelligent posts. When some people don't like what they read they seemingly do that, trying to force everyone in the fan-modus.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Leonioid

Quote
latebloomer
Dear me, this thread has gotten so out of hand. Coniving, ruthless, scheming, underhanded, sick, senile, doddering fool, machiavellian, cold...these are just some of the adjectives being flung around here and on the KR interview thread. They won't be around forever, it seems a shame to focus on what's missing rather than celebrate what is still there.

Yup, I have tried to steer clear, but it keeps popping up and when I peek in it feels/reads like stumbling into the wailing room at a funeral parlor, as I oops and quietly back out. Or maybe this thread is a like a youth center which helps keep the kids off the streets and out of trouble while providing a creative outlet for some amusing fan fiction here and there, so it has that going for it.

Oh well, here we see the people arriving, trying to discredit this insightful thread with just very neat discussions and intelligent posts. When some people don't like what they read they seemingly do that, trying to force everyone in the fan-modus.

Go team!

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Leonioid

Quote
latebloomer
Dear me, this thread has gotten so out of hand. Coniving, ruthless, scheming, underhanded, sick, senile, doddering fool, machiavellian, cold...these are just some of the adjectives being flung around here and on the KR interview thread. They won't be around forever, it seems a shame to focus on what's missing rather than celebrate what is still there.

Yup, I have tried to steer clear, but it keeps popping up and when I peek in it feels/reads like stumbling into the wailing room at a funeral parlor, as I oops and quietly back out. Or maybe this thread is a like a youth center which helps keep the kids off the streets and out of trouble while providing a creative outlet for some amusing fan fiction here and there, so it has that going for it.

Oh well, here we see the people arriving, trying to discredit this insightful thread with just very neat discussions and intelligent posts. When some people don't like what they read they seemingly do that, trying to force everyone in the fan-modus.

Go team!

Far be it for me to spoil anyone's fun. I promise no more rubber necking here at the wreck on the side of the road...eyes straight, full speed ahead



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-04-12 00:52 by latebloomer.

It seems there is a lot of Mick Taylor talk on people's minds right now....

Quote
latebloomer

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Leonioid

Quote
latebloomer
Dear me, this thread has gotten so out of hand. Coniving, ruthless, scheming, underhanded, sick, senile, doddering fool, machiavellian, cold...these are just some of the adjectives being flung around here and on the KR interview thread. They won't be around forever, it seems a shame to focus on what's missing rather than celebrate what is still there.

Yup, I have tried to steer clear, but it keeps popping up and when I peek in it feels/reads like stumbling into the wailing room at a funeral parlor, as I oops and quietly back out. Or maybe this thread is a like a youth center which helps keep the kids off the streets and out of trouble while providing a creative outlet for some amusing fan fiction here and there, so it has that going for it.

Oh well, here we see the people arriving, trying to discredit this insightful thread with just very neat discussions and intelligent posts. When some people don't like what they read they seemingly do that, trying to force everyone in the fan-modus.

Go team!

Far be if for me to spoil anyone's fun. I promise no more rubber necking here at the wreck on the side of the road...eyes straight, full speed ahead

wreck? more like a

Quote
latebloomer

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Leonioid

Quote
latebloomer
Dear me, this thread has gotten so out of hand. Coniving, ruthless, scheming, underhanded, sick, senile, doddering fool, machiavellian, cold...these are just some of the adjectives being flung around here and on the KR interview thread. They won't be around forever, it seems a shame to focus on what's missing rather than celebrate what is still there.

Yup, I have tried to steer clear, but it keeps popping up and when I peek in it feels/reads like stumbling into the wailing room at a funeral parlor, as I oops and quietly back out. Or maybe this thread is a like a youth center which helps keep the kids off the streets and out of trouble while providing a creative outlet for some amusing fan fiction here and there, so it has that going for it.

Oh well, here we see the people arriving, trying to discredit this insightful thread with just very neat discussions and intelligent posts. When some people don't like what they read they seemingly do that, trying to force everyone in the fan-modus.

Go team!

Far be if for me to spoil anyone's fun. I promise no more rubber necking here at the wreck on the side of the road...eyes straight, full speed ahead

Be careful with your neck, always a wise attitude

Quote
latebloomer
Far be it for me to spoil anyone's fun. I promise no more rubber necking here at the wreck on the side of the road...eyes straight, full speed ahead

Side of the road? More like the middle of the highway, taking up both lanes, probably not going to clear anytime soon bloomer, you may want to turn around and look for an alternate route. Keep yer eyes peeled for Stones billboards.

As far as the "Coniving, ruthless, scheming, underhanded, sick, senile, doddering fool, machiavellian, cold" goes, most of us are not participating in those descriptions and a quick search of the adjectives in the recent Keith interview and MT threads comes up with the following occurance results (excluding your post).

Coniving - 0
Ruthless - 1 (and in a fairly benign speculation)
scheming - 0
underhanded - 0
sick - none not referring to health
senile - 0
doddering fool -0
machiavellian - 0
cold - a few but some were in defense of Mick being called cold.

I think, young lady, you have a colorful imagination and I must stand up for the good people representing their views with less provocative terms....and yes I have too much time on my hands this afternoon.

peace

I think, young lady, you have a colorful imagination...

But of course, everyone else here is completely straight. My choice of words may not have been a verbatim copy of what's here, but the sentiment is exactly the same.

....and yes I have too much time on my hands this afternoon.

Well, poll taking is serious business NL, no doubt.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-04-12 02:32 by latebloomer.

Quote
Doxa
Sometimes it is almost beyond the consciousness to realize how great they actually once were, all that musical talent and charisma involved plus the the obvious determination, attitude and fire. This was the greatest rock and roll band of the world indeed. Without any bloody cliches or gimmicks. A pure thing.

- Doxa

Right on, Doxa. At their best, no one was ever better.

Although, I must say that every now and then they manage to call back a memory of the old greatness. Just of touch. Not all the way. But it's there.

So that's something.

Quote
Reagan

Quote
Doxa
Sometimes it is almost beyond the consciousness to realize how great they actually once were, all that musical talent and charisma involved plus the the obvious determination, attitude and fire. This was the greatest rock and roll band of the world indeed. Without any bloody cliches or gimmicks. A pure thing.

- Doxa

Right on, Doxa. At their best, no one was ever better.

Although, I must say that every now and then they manage to call back a memory of the old greatness. Just of touch. Not all the way. But it's there.

So that's something.

Sometimes it is almost quaint to think of the time this band let the music speak for them, and the only gimmick was throwing flowers and emptying a bucket of water on the first few rows at the end of the show...But I would say that, wouldn't I?

This is not just about Mick Taylor. Taylor is a symbol of the schism between the fans who want the band to return (at least minimally) to a more musically adventurous approach, and those who are perfectly happy with the current product and do not want it interfered with. Bringing Taylor back - even in a limited capacity - reminded people of the glorious past, but also what could be possibilities for the present. I think the Stones maybe do not realize what they unleashed, and perhaps are surprised at the sustained interest in a person they considered a has-been. They let the genie out of the bottle, and now want us all to forget about it and go back to business as usual.

What I take from the anti-Taylor comments not just on this thread, but for years on this board - the "he quit, move on" school - is an extreme discomfort and defensiveness that is beyond any mere comparisons of guitarists. It's as if they bought a product they were perfectly happy with for years (or decades) and then someone came around to remind them of how much better that product used to be. After investing all that energy and time into the more recent version, they don't want to be made to feel that the version they purchased was of a lesser quality. No doubt I will take some flak for that, but I really think it's the case with some people. I think Mick Jagger himself (and perhaps the other fellow) may share some of this attitude as well, and may be surprised (as well as a bit irritated) at the continuing interest in Taylor's role.

Whatever anyone's feelings on the matter, the passion shown here (and elsewhere) on the subject certainly shows the lasting power of the Taylor-era Rolling Stones on the collective psyches of many of us.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-04-12 03:20 by 71Tele.

Quote
latebloomer
I think, young lady, you have a colorful imagination...

But of course, everyone else here is completely straight. My choice of words may not have been a verbatim copy of what's here, but the sentiment is exactly the same.

....and yes I have too much time on my hands this afternoon.

Well, poll taking is serious business NL, no doubt.

You mean your own sentiment. In that case it's the subjective truth for you only

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
latebloomer
I think, young lady, you have a colorful imagination...

But of course, everyone else here is completely straight. My choice of words may not have been a verbatim copy of what's here, but the sentiment is exactly the same.

....and yes I have too much time on my hands this afternoon.

Well, poll taking is serious business NL, no doubt.

You mean your own sentiment. In that case it's the subjective truth for you only

Very true, Klerrie...my truth is no better or more accurate than yours. Though I will say, coming from a long line of colorful bull sh-t artists, at least I am usually well aware of when I am full of it and I'm also pretty good at recognizing it. Perhaps Mick Taylor's downfall comes simply from taking himself too seriously in the first place. Some people are like that and it can make it hard for them to fit in and go with the flow. I'm not talking about this situation in particular, just the overall vibe I get from the man. But, that's must my subjective opinion, of course.

Good post Tele.

It may be unpopular to reveal this here and I can only speak for myself, but my story is that I bought into the product that was it's Taylor driven best even though Ron Wood had been with them for years by then. Been trying to get the same rush from their new music ever since. Chasing that rush and getting diminishing returns...like chasing the rush from cocaine and never quite getting it back but having some uncontrollable need to keep trying. (disclaimer: so I've been told ) Addicted to the Stones you might say.

I personally think the Stones have been providing diminishing musical returns since 1973 with a definite drop off around 1978 but I didn't even fantasize they would ever be able to bring back the musical magic....until Taylor popped up on stage again. Hey, this could get very interesting and very exciting again, whoo hoo. Let that boy play. But alas they barely let him do that and then dropped the idea altogether for the Zip Him Up tour. Of course people who are into it purely for the music are going to be disappointed, the possibilities were huge, the potential for musical greatness within reach, then not.

With Hendrix, Zappa and Lowell George gone, Clapton bored to death, Dickey Betts burnt out and Jimmy Page mostly retired all we really have left is Jeff Beck and Mick Taylor. The Stones don't need Taylor but if we are really honest the Stones music does...Let that boy play!

peace

I've been reading and posting here for a long time. Stood in line next to BV for Brixton Academy tix and bought IORR mag before the web happened. In all that time, I think that these last two posts from Tele and NLust are the most rewarding comments I've seen. I sometimes wonder why I continue pursuing this love affair that started for me at age 12 in the spring of 81 when clearly, my desires, needs and hopes are not those of my beloved. It all seems so very close, yet desperately out of reach.

I've been incredibly lucky to have seen more variety of tunes in my 21 shows since 89 than most,so I'm grateful for that (opener of 94, 99, Oakland 02, HWood Bowl05, LAForum 06, 2-Philly 13 [bittersweet now],Brixton,etc.), but I've also seen Miss You 20 times as well. I've gritted my teeth hoping and praying, not for greatness, but just,"please make it through the end of the solo without crashing the plane, Ronnie", many times as well.

I am glad to see the 50 pages of similar feelings, so I'm not just a lone tree falling in the forest and I hate how this has (inevitably) always been an MT vs RW argument as I love Ronnie for his many gifts, musically and in the diplomatic arts. But, the feelings expressed in these last two posts hits home like a thumb under a hammer (see what I did there?). Bravo. Well done, the both of you. I only wish your eloquence could have been spent on a celebratory occasion. Oh, what coulda, woulda and shoulda been.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2015-04-12 06:25 by shawnriffhard1.

Looks like our timeline is pretty much exactly the same, funny ;-) So like you I got into the Stones in 1981 when Taylor was long gone and was part of the myth in the same way as "club shows", stuff I'd never get to experience first hand. That was fine, I could live with it and enjoyed the albums, the shows, the hunting for news in the press, the outtakes, etc...a lot for 30 (huh!) years...then came the Trabendo, then came Bondy (and the type of superfan you would meet over there, bv, Sonoko Marc, etc...) then came the O2 and Taylor out of the blue for MR five feet away from me and it went to another level altogether, this is what they had been talking about! Expect the unexpected, priceless!

It went a notch further when I woke up to see the setlist for LA/3 with CYHML and Sway and the YT videos a few minutes later. The genie was indeed out of the bottle but it's been somewhat downhill ever since with the last hurray in Paris last year when I took my kids and dad.

Sure it's been (mostly) a business since 1989 but with Taylor they had an easy way to inject some "adventure" with little/no risk and they're opting out of it, their loss and their fans' loss.

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-04-12 11:17 by gotdablouse.

Quote
Naturalust
Good post Tele.

It may be unpopular to reveal this here and I can only speak for myself, but my story is that I bought into the product that was it's Taylor driven best even though Ron Wood had been with them for years by then. Been trying to get the same rush from their new music ever since. Chasing that rush and getting diminishing returns...like chasing the rush from cocaine and never quite getting it back but having some uncontrollable need to keep trying. (disclaimer: so I've been told ) Addicted to the Stones you might say.

I personally think the Stones have been providing diminishing musical returns since 1973 with a definite drop off around 1978 but I didn't even fantasize they would ever be able to bring back the musical magic....until Taylor popped up on stage again. Hey, this could get very interesting and very exciting again, whoo hoo. Let that boy play. But alas they barely let him do that and then dropped the idea altogether for the Zip Him Up tour. Of course people who are into it purely for the music are going to be disappointed, the possibilities were huge, the potential for musical greatness within reach, then not.

With Hendrix, Zappa and Lowell George gone, Clapton bored to death, Dickey Betts burnt out and Jimmy Page mostly retired all we really have left is Jeff Beck and Mick Taylor. The Stones don't need Taylor but if we are really honest the Stones music does...Let that boy play!

peace

True passion for the music we love. I can only hope MT gets to read some of these heartfelt posts so he knows what fans really think of him and the impact he has had on us musicians and fans... This thread may have been designed to be a dumping ground but instead you folks have brainstormed the perfect case for MT. Bravo...

Quote
71Tele

This is not just about Mick Taylor. Taylor is a symbol of the schism between the fans who want the band to return (at least minimally) to a more musically adventurous approach, and those who are perfectly happy with the current product and do not want it interfered with. Bringing Taylor back - even in a limited capacity - reminded people of the glorious past, but also what could be possibilities for the present. I think the Stones maybe do not realize what they unleashed, and perhaps are surprised at the sustained interest in a person they considered a has-been. They let the genie out of the bottle, and now want us all to forget about it and go back to business as usual.

What I take from the anti-Taylor comments not just on this thread, but for years on this board - the "he quit, move on" school - is an extreme discomfort and defensiveness that is beyond any mere comparisons of guitarists. It's as if they bought a product they were perfectly happy with for years (or decades) and then someone came around to remind them of how much better that product used to be. After investing all that energy and time into the more recent version, they don't want to be made to feel that the version they purchased was of a lesser quality. No doubt I will take some flak for that, but I really think it's the case with some people. I think Mick Jagger himself (and perhaps the other fellow) may share some of this attitude as well, and may be surprised (as well as a bit irritated) at the continuing interest in Taylor's role.

Whatever anyone's feelings on the matter, the passion shown here (and elsewhere) on the subject certainly shows the lasting power of the Taylor-era Rolling Stones on the collective psyches of many of us.

Hm, I seee your point, but I disagree on a few matters.

I think most people would agree that the best years of the Stones were in between 1968 - 1972 (/1973/1974/.../1978). This was for a (large/some/certain) part thanks to the glorious, gracious, precious touch and tone of Mick Taylor's guitar-playing. It was also thanks to Mick Jagger and Keith working as a team, having found "their own" (instead of copying blues masters or the Beatles), and being the years in which pop and rock music was changing rapidly and interestingly. I think even the Stones would agree with this. However: you cannot go back to that. Even if they would want to, they can't. You cannot live in the past. You cannot re-integrate a guy who's been out of the band for 40 years. It's musically and psychologically impossible. Like going to back to an ex of 40 years ago, even though you still have feelings for her. It just won't work. Taylor now is not Taylor 40 years ago and - more importantly maybe - the Stones now are not the Stones of 40 years ago (and neither is the rest of the world).

You mention that the "pro-Taylor" people want more musical adventure, and that's why they want Taylor back. Don't you see the inherent paradox in that sentence? I highlighted the keywords of that paradox.

It was nice to see Taylor last year doing Midnight Rambler. It had nothing to do with what he (and the Stones) did and sounded like 40 years ago, but yes, there was a sense of jamming, of improvisation, but then, it's Midnight Rambler, the song basically is a blues jam. On Sway, things were less convincing. But taking Taylor back for an entire album, or for an entire concert-set, they would have the choice of either 1) trying to copy the past, which would be sad or 2) trying to do something new, which would be impossible with a guy who has gone through a completely different development than the rest of the Stones (for better or worse). And nothing Taylor has been doing for the past 40 years has been particularly adventurous musically.

In the end, it's not about good or bad. It's about reality. Taylor is not part of the band. The band obviously - for many reasons aforementioned - is not as good as it was 30 or 40 or 50 years ago. But this is what the band is nowadays. If you want them to get better, the worst thing you can do is bring back someone from the past and try to revive "the good old days". They are gone.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-04-12 13:15 by matxil.

Nope,imagination trumps reality. Inspiration defies time. Don't you want to feel inspired?

Yes, but going back to the past does not inspire me. And I don't think hearing Taylor playing Doom and Gloom or You Got Me Rocking or Start Me Up would be very inspiring. And those songs are what the Stones are now.

I saw the Cream reunion so I don't believe musicians can not bring something great from past work
The warhorse set has many Taylor friendly songs

Quote
matxil

Quote
71Tele

This is not just about Mick Taylor. Taylor is a symbol of the schism between the fans who want the band to return (at least minimally) to a more musically adventurous approach, and those who are perfectly happy with the current product and do not want it interfered with. Bringing Taylor back - even in a limited capacity - reminded people of the glorious past, but also what could be possibilities for the present. I think the Stones maybe do not realize what they unleashed, and perhaps are surprised at the sustained interest in a person they considered a has-been. They let the genie out of the bottle, and now want us all to forget about it and go back to business as usual.

What I take from the anti-Taylor comments not just on this thread, but for years on this board - the "he quit, move on" school - is an extreme discomfort and defensiveness that is beyond any mere comparisons of guitarists. It's as if they bought a product they were perfectly happy with for years (or decades) and then someone came around to remind them of how much better that product used to be. After investing all that energy and time into the more recent version, they don't want to be made to feel that the version they purchased was of a lesser quality. No doubt I will take some flak for that, but I really think it's the case with some people. I think Mick Jagger himself (and perhaps the other fellow) may share some of this attitude as well, and may be surprised (as well as a bit irritated) at the continuing interest in Taylor's role.

Whatever anyone's feelings on the matter, the passion shown here (and elsewhere) on the subject certainly shows the lasting power of the Taylor-era Rolling Stones on the collective psyches of many of us.

Hm, I seee your point, but I disagree on a few matters.

I think most people would agree that the best years of the Stones were in between 1968 - 1972 (/1973/1974/.../1978). This was for a (large/some/certain) part thanks to the glorious, gracious, precious touch and tone of Mick Taylor's guitar-playing. It was also thanks to Mick Jagger and Keith working as a team, having found "their own" (instead of copying blues masters or the Beatles), and being the years in which pop and rock music was changing rapidly and interestingly. I think even the Stones would agree with this. However: you cannot go back to that. Even if they would want to, they can't. You cannot live in the past. You cannot re-integrate a guy who's been out of the band for 40 years. It's musically and psychologically impossible. Like going to back to an ex of 40 years ago, even though you still have feelings for her. It just won't work. Taylor now is not Taylor 40 years ago and - more importantly maybe - the Stones now are not the Stones of 40 years ago (and neither is the rest of the world).

You mention that the "pro-Taylor" people want more musical adventure, and that's why they want Taylor back. Don't you see the inherent paradox in that sentence? I highlighted the keywords of that paradox.

It was nice to see Taylor last year doing Midnight Rambler. It had nothing to do with what he (and the Stones) did and sounded like 40 years ago, but yes, there was a sense of jamming, of improvisation, but then, it's Midnight Rambler, the song basically is a blues jam. On Sway, things were less convincing. But taking Taylor back for an entire album, or for an entire concert-set, they would have the choice of either 1) trying to copy the past, which would be sad or 2) trying to do something new, which would be impossible with a guy who has gone through a completely different development than the rest of the Stones (for better or worse). And nothing Taylor has been doing for the past 40 years has been particularly adventurous musically.

In the end, it's not about good or bad. It's about reality. Taylor is not part of the band. The band obviously - for many reasons aforementioned - is not as good as it was 30 or 40 or 50 years ago. But this is what the band is nowadays. If you want them to get better, the worst thing you can do is bring back someone from the past and try to revive "the good old days". They are gone.

Isn't that exactly what The Stones have been doing since 1989?

Quote
mr edward

Quote
matxil
try to revive "the good old days".

Isn't that exactly what The Stones have been doing since 1989?

Not quite. And when they did, it didn't work.
But "Undercover" or "One Hit" or "Love Is Strong" or "Anybody Seen My Baby" or "Doom and Gloom" are not exactly reviving the good old days, and they may be the best they could do in the past 30 years. I am not saying these are their best songs ever, but as long as Mick and Keith are not working as a real team (which has been the case for the past 30 years on/off)), this is the best they can do. Not a million Taylors will change that.

Quote
DoomandGloom
I saw the Cream reunion so I don't believe musicians can not bring something great from past work
The warhorse set has many Taylor friendly songs

But don't you see that the warhorses are their best songs? They works best out of all the songs they play already. They won't improve noteworthy by adding a wailing lead guitar on top of the horns etc, and they will never re-arrange them. Sorry, won't happen They tried it with Satisfaction and were obviously not happy with the results.

Quote
matxil

Quote
71Tele

This is not just about Mick Taylor. Taylor is a symbol of the schism between the fans who want the band to return (at least minimally) to a more musically adventurous approach, and those who are perfectly happy with the current product and do not want it interfered with. Bringing Taylor back - even in a limited capacity - reminded people of the glorious past, but also what could be possibilities for the present. I think the Stones maybe do not realize what they unleashed, and perhaps are surprised at the sustained interest in a person they considered a has-been. They let the genie out of the bottle, and now want us all to forget about it and go back to business as usual.

What I take from the anti-Taylor comments not just on this thread, but for years on this board - the "he quit, move on" school - is an extreme discomfort and defensiveness that is beyond any mere comparisons of guitarists. It's as if they bought a product they were perfectly happy with for years (or decades) and then someone came around to remind them of how much better that product used to be. After investing all that energy and time into the more recent version, they don't want to be made to feel that the version they purchased was of a lesser quality. No doubt I will take some flak for that, but I really think it's the case with some people. I think Mick Jagger himself (and perhaps the other fellow) may share some of this attitude as well, and may be surprised (as well as a bit irritated) at the continuing interest in Taylor's role.

Whatever anyone's feelings on the matter, the passion shown here (and elsewhere) on the subject certainly shows the lasting power of the Taylor-era Rolling Stones on the collective psyches of many of us.

Hm, I seee your point, but I disagree on a few matters.

I think most people would agree that the best years of the Stones were in between 1968 - 1972 (/1973/1974/.../1978). This was for a (large/some/certain) part thanks to the glorious, gracious, precious touch and tone of Mick Taylor's guitar-playing. It was also thanks to Mick Jagger and Keith working as a team, having found "their own" (instead of copying blues masters or the Beatles), and being the years in which pop and rock music was changing rapidly and interestingly. I think even the Stones would agree with this. However: you cannot go back to that. Even if they would want to, they can't. You cannot live in the past. You cannot re-integrate a guy who's been out of the band for 40 years. It's musically and psychologically impossible. Like going to back to an ex of 40 years ago, even though you still have feelings for her. It just won't work. Taylor now is not Taylor 40 years ago and - more importantly maybe - the Stones now are not the Stones of 40 years ago (and neither is the rest of the world).

You mention that the "pro-Taylor" people want more musical adventure, and that's why they want Taylor back. Don't you see the inherent paradox in that sentence? I highlighted the keywords of that paradox.

It was nice to see Taylor last year doing Midnight Rambler. It had nothing to do with what he (and the Stones) did and sounded like 40 years ago, but yes, there was a sense of jamming, of improvisation, but then, it's Midnight Rambler, the song basically is a blues jam. On Sway, things were less convincing. But taking Taylor back for an entire album, or for an entire concert-set, they would have the choice of either 1) trying to copy the past, which would be sad or 2) trying to do something new, which would be impossible with a guy who has gone through a completely different development than the rest of the Stones (for better or worse). And nothing Taylor has been doing for the past 40 years has been particularly adventurous musically.

In the end, it's not about good or bad. It's about reality. Taylor is not part of the band. The band obviously - for many reasons aforementioned - is not as good as it was 30 or 40 or 50 years ago. But this is what the band is nowadays. If you want them to get better, the worst thing you can do is bring back someone from the past and try to revive "the good old days". They are gone.

Very good post!

Quote
DandelionPowderman
They tried it with Satisfaction and were obviously not happy with the results.

Satisfaction never was a good candidate for a 3-guitar attack, it's already constipated as it is. But many of the other classics could benefit from an extra guitar, they are getting older, less precise and don't have as much to say. Keith leading, and the other guitars filling and following. Good tracks for MT would be slower tracks like YCAGWYW, Dice, Got the Silver, Shelter, Sympathy, hell even Miss You :-) Of course, Ron and Keith would have to drop some of their solo's.

Quote
71Tele


This is not just about Mick Taylor. Taylor is a symbol of the schism between the fans who want the band to return (at least minimally) to a more musically adventurous approach, and those who are perfectly happy with the current product and do not want it interfered with. Bringing Taylor back - even in a limited capacity - reminded people of the glorious past, but also what could be possibilities for the present.

Very well put. At least it cohers with my stance. The reason why I jumped on Taylor bandwagon is simply thinking that he is a kind of player who could shake a bit the boat now. Let's say I'm not into Taylor per se, or that of them sounding like 1972 now but what he is able to bring on the table now. I never even imagined that we would be some day speculating what we do now. I had accepted the Brechevian kind of nature the band and how the band will sound like now and forever as long as it does exist. But then suddenly they brought Taylor there, and the alarming performance of "Midnight Rambler" exploded all the bounds of imagination. Shit, they actually could do something different and non-predictable! "Three guitar attacks" and everything... mamma mia...

Surely, those wildest dreams never came true, but just having him there for a while (and little) was enough of having some glimpses of what the Stones could be and sound like, if they really want that. Like Naturalust put it, The Stones might not need him, but their music does. That's at least the way I see it. But I know there are lots of people - die-hard and casual fans - who are happy just the way they sound these days (and for the last 25 years), so for them the whole 'Taylor-gate' is not any big deal. So the issue between stances toward Taylor actually is: are we happy how the things are like now or would we like something a bit different and unpredictable to happen.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-04-12 14:44 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
71Tele


This is not just about Mick Taylor. Taylor is a symbol of the schism between the fans who want the band to return (at least minimally) to a more musically adventurous approach, and those who are perfectly happy with the current product and do not want it interfered with. Bringing Taylor back - even in a limited capacity - reminded people of the glorious past, but also what could be possibilities for the present.

Very well put. At least it cohers with my stance. The reason why I jumped on Taylor bandwagon is simply thinking that he is a kind of player who could shake a bit the boat now. Let's say I'm not into Taylor per se, or that of them sounding like 1972 now but what he is able to bring on the table now. I never even imagined that we would be some day speculating what we do now. I had accepted the Brechevian kind of nature the band and how the band will sound like now and forever as long as it does exist. But then suddenly they brought Taylor there, and the alarming performance of "Midnight Rambler" exploded all the bounds of imagination. Shit, they actually could do something different and non-predictable! "Three guitar attacks" and everything... mamma mia...

Surely, those wildest dreams never came true, but just having him there for a while (and little) was enough of having some glimpses of what the Stones could be and sound like, if they really want that. Like Naturalust put it, The Stones might not need him, but their music does. That's at least the way I see it. But I know there are lots of people - die-hard and casual fans - who are happy just the way they sound these days (and for the last 25 years), so for them the whole 'Taylor-gate' is not any big deal. So the issue between stances toward Taylor actually is: are we happy how the things are like now or would we like something a bit different and unpredictable to happen.

- Doxa

We've heard that the Stones with Taylor don't sound like they did in the golden era 69-73 and the remarks that they never will sound like that (to convince us to drop the issue) is just old news. But during Rambler (especially the two in London and the two in Newark), the Knockings, and even a couple of Sways (even though we didn't like the groove and the truncating of the solo) we heard new things, 'another' band, some licks and fills long missed.

For me as a well known taylorite (but started as a 'fan' during Brian's era! And always and still loving the music from that era) it wasn't by far as good as I've heard myself in reality in 1973 and on YaYa's, the boots, Brussels etc., but it made the Stones musically interesting again to me. Okay, many things were to be criticized, but something special happened, even when the Ramblers went on and became rather 'common'. Suddenly something new happened in Shanghai that drew our attention, even if it were just a couple of minutes.

Anyway, this SF-tour was a huge chance, not a chance to return to the past, but a chance to hear something that would heighten our enthusiasm again. Us, who love the great music and songs of the Stones so dearly.