For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
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.
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).Quote
Turner68Quote
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.
Quote
Naturalust
The Taylor was there for insurance rumor is also obviously complete BS, imo. So many reasons why this should not be perpetuated.
Quote
gotdablouse
What do you mean ? Why would he mention Taylor in relation to the ZipCode tour ? Or are you referring to something else ?
Quote
georgelicksQuote
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
BV is hanging around with the band too, hotels, people VERY CLOSE to them, yet he didn't say a single word about Taylor...
Quote
SweetThingQuote
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.
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.
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.
Quote
Turner68Quote
SweetThingQuote
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.
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...
Quote
TravelinManQuote
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
RobertJohnsonQuote
TravelinManQuote
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
NaturalustQuote
RobertJohnsonQuote
TravelinManQuote
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
kleermakerQuote
NaturalustQuote
RobertJohnsonQuote
TravelinManQuote
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
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!
Quote
kleermakerQuote
NaturalustQuote
kleermakerQuote
NaturalustQuote
RobertJohnsonQuote
TravelinManQuote
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!
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".
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.
Quote
StoneburstQuote
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
NaturalustQuote
StoneburstQuote
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
Turner68
Ya-Ya's is widely regarded as one of the best, if not the best, live rock and roll albums ever.