Quote
alimente
To explain Taylor's absence with insurance reasons is a far stretch imho. The last years, he constantly played on MR and Satisfaction plus some more or less "one-offs" like Sway, Knocking, Silver Train and, oh, Slipping Away. The show would not fall apart with Taylor being unable to play - they can do MR without him and on Satisfaction he was barely audible anyway.

Thy may very well be true. But you have to be willing to say that Taylor would not help ticket sales to make that argument. The insurance is against having to refund tickets for not delivering the promised show.

Its interesting speculation - but now if the Stones chose not to "advertise" Taylor's presence, then he's just, for arguments sake, a back-up musician on stage and insurance might not enter it then? if I am following correctly.

I would've guessed the relatively modest, but high priced, tickets Taylor might move for them, would've happened by word of mouth (social media, etc).

Looking back to when he was guesting with them though, it just didn't seem they wanted up him up there much on stage to begin with.. even if half the time, they seemed to demonstrably appreciate his presence. I'm guessing they just didn't want to be bothered... keep it simple.. he's not actually "needed" for them to do what they've done for decades now. Wish it were otherwise, but....

You're right. If the goal is to sound like the records then a guitarist who excels at improvisation is wasted.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
alimente
To explain Taylor's absence with insurance reasons is a far stretch imho. The last years, he constantly played on MR and Satisfaction plus some more or less "one-offs" like Sway, Knocking, Silver Train and, oh, Slipping Away. The show would not fall apart with Taylor being unable to play - they can do MR without him and on Satisfaction he was barely audible anyway.

Thy may very well be true. But you have to be willing to say that Taylor would not help ticket sales to make that argument. The insurance is against having to refund tickets for not delivering the promised show.

I don't think he helped move a significant amount of general public sales. However, I do think his presence drove a lot of hardcores. I for one went to a show BECAUSE Mick Taylor was gonna be there. Yeah it was the $90 ticket thing so it was relatively cheap (for the Stones), but I wouldn't have done that if Taylor wasn't there. I wouldn't have felt I had to see this version of the Stones again. The setlist was great, the show was great, but the determining factor was Mick Taylor and thats not an exaggeration. I wanted to see him onstage with the Stones and I basically paid $100 for that (it didn't hurt that they were great setlists too).

But I couldn't have been the only one that was a case for and I refuse to think they didn't include him as a gimmick. They knew it would get people that have seen them before to come back because it was new. They can play without him, but it alienates many. I've seen the Taylorless show before. And if they brought Taylor out again on this tour for more than he did last tour, I'd be seeing this one. His presence means that much to me. And I think it does for a lot of people. I don't think thats lost on the Stones, and whatever the case he was there for, I feel that 50% of it was for personal gain. "You haven't seen this and you'll fork $500 to."

Quote
Naturalust
The Taylor was there for insurance rumor is also obviously complete BS, imo. So many reasons why this should not be perpetuated.

Why is it obviously BS? To me, at the time, it made a lot more sense than any other explanation I'd heard. I remember that a lot of people here thought it was rubbish on the grounds that Taylor replacing Keith for a whole show was a ridiculous idea, which obviously missed the point since it wasn't a situation the Stones were actually planning for. Having him there was a decision not to forgo gate money.

Obviously, the insurance/promoters theory doesn't preclude the possibility that he was also there as a gimmick to sell tickets, in that once they knew MT was coming on tour with them they decided to milk his presence for all it was worth vis a vis the hardcore fans. And no, it doesn't explain the inconsistent way he was used - why he got four songs in LA but never again, a Sway, Knocking or Silver Train at some shows but not others - but that always seemed to me like a separate issue.

BV is hanging around with the band too, hotels, people VERY CLOSE to them, yet he didn't say a single word about Taylor...

What do you mean ? Why would he mention Taylor in relation to the ZipCode tour ? Or are you referring to something else ?

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

Quote
gotdablouse
What do you mean ? Why would he mention Taylor in relation to the ZipCode tour ? Or are you referring to something else ?

I bet that he knows the reason about Taylor's absence, he knows a lot of people inside the Stones' close circle.

Quote
georgelicks

Quote
gotdablouse
What do you mean ? Why would he mention Taylor in relation to the ZipCode tour ? Or are you referring to something else ?

I bet that he knows the reason about Taylor's absence, he knows a lot of people inside the Stones' close circle.

He's not a member of the band.... What else is there to know?

Quote
georgelicks
BV is hanging around with the band too, hotels, people VERY CLOSE to them, yet he didn't say a single word about Taylor...

Well, he started the thread (I think) which got ahead of the tidal wave of sentiment - "We want more Mick Taylor please" (or whatever it was called). I had guessed it was sympathetic to a modest increase in Taylor contributions per show, but yes, whatever happened after that...nothing for public consumption now. Other than a request to maintain respect for Ronnie Wood's place in the band, which probably wasn't an issue for most of us.

They invited him back for what was always intended to be a limited role in connection with the anniversary celebration. I'm sure there is a lot of behind the scenes weirdness around why he was used the way he was, but nobody should have expected that he was back in the band in any greater role. Many reasons why they would not do that. I'm sure they also wanted to throw him some money, also part of the reason he was there. The insurance thing is ridiculous. They buy insurance against cancellation, they pay a lot of money for it, it is part of the cost of the tour. No insurance company is going to require an arrangement like that, it would solve nothing and create many more problems arising out of the fact that MT is not KR and with no KR there is no Rolling Stones and the litigation would be endless.

The reason behind his absence . . . the gig ended.

Quote
SweetThing

Quote
georgelicks
BV is hanging around with the band too, hotels, people VERY CLOSE to them, yet he didn't say a single word about Taylor...

Well, he started the thread (I think) which got ahead of the tidal wave of sentiment - "We want more Mick Taylor please" (or whatever it was called). I had guessed it was sympathetic to a modest increase in Taylor contributions per show, but yes, whatever happened after that...nothing for public consumption now. Other than a request to maintain respect for Ronnie Wood's place in the band, which probably wasn't an issue for most of us.

he didn't start the discussion. lots of MT threads popped up so he merged them into this one. it's to prevent MT coming up in every single thread.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-06 15:49 by Turner68.

Quote
Rokyfan
They invited him back for what was always intended to be a limited role in connection with the anniversary celebration. I'm sure there is a lot of behind the scenes weirdness around why he was used the way he was, but nobody should have expected that he was back in the band in any greater role. Many reasons why they would not do that. I'm sure they also wanted to throw him some money, also part of the reason he was there. The insurance thing is ridiculous. They buy insurance against cancellation, they pay a lot of money for it, it is part of the cost of the tour. No insurance company is going to require an arrangement like that, it would solve nothing and create many more problems arising out of the fact that MT is not KR and with no KR there is no Rolling Stones and the litigation would be endless.

The reason behind his absence . . . the gig ended.

That's what I tend to believe as well. I think what confuses people is choosing to celebrate an album that he was an integral part of (played on every song except one and possibly not Brown Sugar unless he has a buried rhythm part) without him. I suppose it became a fantasy for fans of Taylor and the band that the boys would all get back together and ride off into the sunset. If I was to know Taylor was going to only play on that last tour (2013) I would have gone out of my way and drove over 150 miles to see them. I'm a grad student, I don't have a lot of time and money, so I skipped this tour because I felt like I missed the show I should have gone to in 2013. Nobody's fault but my own, but it would have been nice to have a heads up. I think the three guitars is too much debate is totally bogus as I have played with two other guitarists multiple times and it's not hard at all if you actually practice.

The current brand of the Stones is Mick Jagger-Keith Richards-Ronnie Wood-Charlie Watts (plus other back up instrumentalists - D. Jones, C.Leavell, etc.,), not 'The Rolling Stones with special guest Mick Taylor.' The first 'fiftieth' tour they invited him to join in on a few numbers (including a couple of Sticky Fingers album songs), most certainly for marketing purposes for the early going of the world tour. But that they're doing fine now without Taylor as guest, can be indicative of the fact that they actually don't need him at this point.

That they're now doing a 'Sticky Fingers,' doesn't change that view. I think perhaps they do not want to screw up the idea that they perform well enough, not damage the current brand and marketing of the aforementioned lineup (which I think having Mick Taylor as a guest guitarist through an entire 'Sticky Fingers' concert would do, damage the current brand).

But, maybe they're keeping it a surprise, the possibility of a special guest appearance for certain venues, just for the key tracks (most likely 'Sway,' 'Can You Hear Me Knocking,' 'Moonlight Mile' and maybe 'Wild Horses')



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-06 16:45 by nightskyman.

"I think the three guitars is too much debate is totally bogus as I have played with two other guitarists multiple times and it's not hard at all if you actually practice."


The Stones don't practice anymore...

Quote
Rokyfan
They invited him back for what was always intended to be a limited role in connection with the anniversary celebration. I'm sure there is a lot of behind the scenes weirdness around why he was used the way he was, but nobody should have expected that he was back in the band in any greater role. Many reasons why they would not do that. I'm sure they also wanted to throw him some money, also part of the reason he was there. The insurance thing is ridiculous. They buy insurance against cancellation, they pay a lot of money for it, it is part of the cost of the tour. No insurance company is going to require an arrangement like that, it would solve nothing and create many more problems arising out of the fact that MT is not KR and with no KR there is no Rolling Stones and the litigation would be endless.

The reason behind his absence . . . the gig ended.

Exactly. Add that to the fact that Taylor's insurability was probably more tenuous than Keith's and he was never in a position to replace him and it falls apart completely.

The Stones benefited from Taylor's presence, it was a big deal for many many fans and obviously contributed to the hype on that tour. People want to believe it didn't sell any more tickets but I would disagree. I know lots of people who were sitting on the fence who jumped in because of the Taylor presence. This wasn't just a charity effort to help MT with his finances, it was a sincere decision to bring in the guitarist who helped them make their best records as part of the 50th celebration. And it worked, imo.

FYI Turner68 and georgelicks, bv did indeed start a thread More Mick Taylor Please and he was highly supportive of and excited about the re-collaboration back when it was being hyped and happening on the last tour. If you read some of his reviews of the shows it's pretty clear that he is a huge Taylor with the Stones fan. But of course he is a Stones fan above all else and when they decided not to invite him was obviously more realistic and OK with it and wasn't going to let it get in the way of his enjoyment of the Stones, as some people here have.

All marketing of bands involves some gimmicks and hype these days, the Stones are not immune. Them hyping one of their best records, calling this the Zip Code tour, playing SF at the Fonda and promising a SF themed tour was the carrot for this tour. It's unfortunate that dropping the guitarist who played on that record coincided with the hype, I still think working him in could have been fantastic but as it turns out the tour is not much of a SF theme anyway, it's become more about the actual Zip Codes with an occasional SF tunes thrown in. But since they are kicking ass it all becomes rather meaningless. The Stones are going to play their hits, play them well, put on a good show and delight almost everybody who attends.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
SweetThing

Quote
georgelicks
BV is hanging around with the band too, hotels, people VERY CLOSE to them, yet he didn't say a single word about Taylor...

Well, he started the thread (I think) which got ahead of the tidal wave of sentiment - "We want more Mick Taylor please" (or whatever it was called). I had guessed it was sympathetic to a modest increase in Taylor contributions per show, but yes, whatever happened after that...nothing for public consumption now. Other than a request to maintain respect for Ronnie Wood's place in the band, which probably wasn't an issue for most of us.

he didn't start the discussion. lots of MT threads popped up so he merged them into this one. it's to prevent MT coming up in every single thread.

Actually - you're right, he did start a thread during the 2013 tour asking for more MT.

Quote
MartinB
"I think the three guitars is too much debate is totally bogus as I have played with two other guitarists multiple times and it's not hard at all if you actually practice."


The Stones don't practice anymore...

They rehearse before the tour and surely if you've played your instrument 50 plus years three guitars is not complicated whatsoever.

Quote
TravelinMan

Quote
MartinB
"I think the three guitars is too much debate is totally bogus as I have played with two other guitarists multiple times and it's not hard at all if you actually practice."


The Stones don't practice anymore...

They rehearse before the tour and surely if you've played your instrument 50 plus years three guitars is not complicated whatsoever.

And the tour last year proved that this three guitar band works fine! Either with or without extensive rehearsals. The Taylor spots were the highlight.

Quote
RobertJohnson

Quote
TravelinMan

Quote
MartinB
"I think the three guitars is too much debate is totally bogus as I have played with two other guitarists multiple times and it's not hard at all if you actually practice."


The Stones don't practice anymore...

They rehearse before the tour and surely if you've played your instrument 50 plus years three guitars is not complicated whatsoever.

And the tour last year proved that this three guitar band works fine! Either with or without extensive rehearsals. The Taylor spots were the highlight.

Kind of ironic that the highlight of this tour, for me, has been Moonlight Mile and the other SF songs they have played. But to be honest I am more than a little impressed with Ronnie (for the first time ever) and think the discussions of no Taylor this tour have run their course and become tedious.

I still obviously like to talk about Taylor since he is such a big part of the music that drew me into the Stones fold. I have discovered much amazing live Taylor music from contributions from kleermaker and others and appreciate it when we can discuss him without comparisons and comments which try to detract from what the Stones are in 2015.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
RobertJohnson

Quote
TravelinMan

Quote
MartinB
"I think the three guitars is too much debate is totally bogus as I have played with two other guitarists multiple times and it's not hard at all if you actually practice."


The Stones don't practice anymore...

They rehearse before the tour and surely if you've played your instrument 50 plus years three guitars is not complicated whatsoever.

And the tour last year proved that this three guitar band works fine! Either with or without extensive rehearsals. The Taylor spots were the highlight.

Kind of ironic that the highlight of this tour, for me, has been Moonlight Mile and the other SF songs they have played. But to be honest I am more than a little impressed with Ronnie (for the first time ever) and think the discussions of no Taylor this tour have run their course and become tedious.

I still obviously like to talk about Taylor since he is such a big part of the music that drew me into the Stones fold. I have discovered much amazing live Taylor music from contributions from kleermaker and others and appreciate it when we can discuss him without comparisons and comments which try to detract from what the Stones are in 2015.

That's an illusion. But perhaps that's also part of nostalgia.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
RobertJohnson

Quote
TravelinMan

Quote
MartinB
"I think the three guitars is too much debate is totally bogus as I have played with two other guitarists multiple times and it's not hard at all if you actually practice."


The Stones don't practice anymore...

They rehearse before the tour and surely if you've played your instrument 50 plus years three guitars is not complicated whatsoever.

And the tour last year proved that this three guitar band works fine! Either with or without extensive rehearsals. The Taylor spots were the highlight.

Kind of ironic that the highlight of this tour, for me, has been Moonlight Mile and the other SF songs they have played. But to be honest I am more than a little impressed with Ronnie (for the first time ever) and think the discussions of no Taylor this tour have run their course and become tedious.

I still obviously like to talk about Taylor since he is such a big part of the music that drew me into the Stones fold. I have discovered much amazing live Taylor music from contributions from kleermaker and others and appreciate it when we can discuss him without comparisons and comments which try to detract from what the Stones are in 2015.

That's an illusion. But perhaps that's also part of nostalgia.

What I appreciate certainly is no illusion. It seems perfectly reasonable (and real) to me that we can celebrate Taylor without detracting from what the Stones are today. The nostalgia card works both ways, my friend. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your comment.

Is someone who loves MT responsible for any feeling of inferiority...

***
I'm just a Bad Boy Boogie

Quote
kleermaker
How for heaven's sake can you separate the MT factor from the current Stones tour? It's the very core of this thread's discussion for C's sake!

Well the same way I've been able to separate it since 1974 and still remain a fan. And although it has been discussed to death on this thread I'd still like to think us adults can separate the MT factor from the current Stones tour and discuss MT in terms of his past contributions. Yeah it was unfortunate that they didn't include him more but I'm over it. And it's not like this tour is really SF themed anyway. They have been playing the greatest hits with many songs from Taylor's tenure for decades now and it's not a Taylor or no Taylor thing for me. They blew the chance to integrate Taylor more, it's been said a hundred different ways, time to move on, imo.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
RobertJohnson

Quote
TravelinMan

Quote
MartinB
"I think the three guitars is too much debate is totally bogus as I have played with two other guitarists multiple times and it's not hard at all if you actually practice."


The Stones don't practice anymore...

They rehearse before the tour and surely if you've played your instrument 50 plus years three guitars is not complicated whatsoever.

And the tour last year proved that this three guitar band works fine! Either with or without extensive rehearsals. The Taylor spots were the highlight.

Kind of ironic that the highlight of this tour, for me, has been Moonlight Mile and the other SF songs they have played. But to be honest I am more than a little impressed with Ronnie (for the first time ever) and think the discussions of no Taylor this tour have run their course and become tedious.

I still obviously like to talk about Taylor since he is such a big part of the music that drew me into the Stones fold. I have discovered much amazing live Taylor music from contributions from kleermaker and others and appreciate it when we can discuss him without comparisons and comments which try to detract from what the Stones are in 2015.

That's an illusion. But perhaps that's also part of nostalgia.

What I appreciate certainly is no illusion. It seems perfectly reasonable (and real) to me that we can celebrate Taylor without detracting from what the Stones are today. The nostalgia card works both ways, my friend. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your comment.

How for heaven's sake can you separate the MT factor from the current Stones tour? It's the very core of this thread's discussion for C's sake!

being new here, does IORR usually have 140 pages of discussion about the MT "factor" on a Stones tour every time they tour? e.g. on BTB, or licks, or even back in the day with VL? if not, why on this one? there was never any promise whatsoever that he was rejoining the band in 2013, he was very clearly billed as a "guest".

Quote
Turner68
being new here, does IORR usually have 140 pages of discussion about the MT "factor" on a Stones tour every time they tour? e.g. on BTB, or licks, or even back in the day with VL? if not, why on this one? there was never any promise whatsoever that he was rejoining the band in 2013, he was very clearly billed as a "guest".

Taylor has been a popular subject here for as long as I can remember, bound to continue to be considering even Jagger says their best music was produced during the Taylor years, and I agree. But I believe the topic became a lot more popular after his appearance the last tour and disappearance this tour. It's not that anyone actually expected he'd be asked to join the band again, just that his impact on the music and the excitement of the shows was huge, especially considering he was only playing a short time each show. The cat was out of the bag, hard to put back in sort of thing. Of course a Sticky Fingers themed tour adds fuel to the fire and many people just though a continued guest spot made sense for many reasons.

Quote
Naturalust
Add that to the fact that Taylor's insurability was probably more tenuous than Keith's and he was never in a position to replace him and it falls apart completely.

Isn't this just speculation? I'm aware of the irony of saying that in this of all threads, but seriously, do you have any evidence that Taylor was less insurable than Keith? Anyway, I'm pretty sure it wasn't the insurance people who wanted such an arrangement, rather the promoters - perhaps Tele can remind us.

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
Naturalust
Add that to the fact that Taylor's insurability was probably more tenuous than Keith's and he was never in a position to replace him and it falls apart completely.

Isn't this just speculation? I'm aware of the irony of saying that in this of all threads, but seriously, do you have any evidence that Taylor was less insurable than Keith? Anyway, I'm pretty sure it wasn't the insurance people who wanted such an arrangement, rather the promoters - perhaps Tele can remind us.

Taylor himself has stated he was basically pulled out of rehab early right onto the Stones stage. So with Taylor himself as the source it doesn't take much speculation really. Anyway I find the whole idea that insurers are going to dictate to rock stars who can play and tour and why pretty dismal. I'm sure if any insurer said Keith can't go out because they won't insure him, the Stones would find a different insurance company a different promoter or assume the risk themselves.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
Naturalust
Add that to the fact that Taylor's insurability was probably more tenuous than Keith's and he was never in a position to replace him and it falls apart completely.

Isn't this just speculation? I'm aware of the irony of saying that in this of all threads, but seriously, do you have any evidence that Taylor was less insurable than Keith? Anyway, I'm pretty sure it wasn't the insurance people who wanted such an arrangement, rather the promoters - perhaps Tele can remind us.

Taylor himself has stated he was basically pulled out of rehab early right onto the Stones stage. So with Taylor himself as the source it doesn't take much speculation really. Anyway I find the whole idea that insurers are going to dictate to rock stars who can play and tour and why pretty dismal. I'm sure if any insurer said Keith can't go out because they won't insure him, the Stones would find a different insurance company a different promoter or assume the risk themselves.

that sounds risky. what if his injured wrist had him hit a bum chord on the show opener, say Start Me Up? Then WHAT?!

oh wait...

Quote
Turner68
Ya-Ya's is widely regarded as one of the best, if not the best, live rock and roll albums ever.

This stopped me in my tracks...it's Hunter/Wagner on Rock N Roll Animal!

Of that live record, the bassist said this:

"It's unedited. The beauty of that is none of the mistakes are fixed. Nothing is fixed on that album. It's a true live album. It was the third day I was in that band. I rehearsed one day, played in Toronto - of all places - the opening night, the next night was in New York and they recorded this album."