ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board
A Bigger Bang Tour 2007

© 1981 Stand still from LSTNT
[ ROCKSOFF.ORG ] [ IORR NEWS ] [ SETLISTS 1962-2006 ] [ FORO EN ESPAÑOL ] [ BIT TORRENT TRACKER ] [ BIT TORRENT HELP ] [ BIRTHDAY'S LIST ] [ MICK JAGGER ] [ KEITHFUCIUS ] [ CHARLIE WATTS ] [ RONNIE WOOD ] [ BRIAN JONES ] [ MICK TAYLOR ] [ BILL WYMAN ] [ IAN "STU" STEWART ] [ NICKY HOPKINS ] [ MERRY CLAYTON ] [ IAN 'MAC' McLAGAN ] [ LINKS ] [ PHOTOS ] [ JIMI HENDRIX ] [ TEMPLE ] [GUESTBOOK ] [ ADMIN ]
CHAT ROOM aka The Fun HOUSE Rest rooms last days
ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board
Register | Update Profile | F.A.Q. | Admin Control Panel

Topic: The Stone Who Rolled Away - Mick Taylor (Daily Mail) Return to archive Page: 1 2
4th February 2007 11:49 AM
The Wick Well thanks for clearing that up. It's always nice to read something when someone at least sounds like they know what they're on about. Still it's a pity that for someone who gave not only the Stones and fans so much joy he doesn't have some sort of support from them. But who knows, maybe he does.
4th February 2007 12:27 PM
Stranger Well, I don't think that "support" is what MT is after. He's entitled to royalties over the records he helped to crate. I'm referring to record royalties (artist royalties), not publishing royalties (owed when you have written or co-written songs).

Even though Jagger promised to give him credit for the songs they wrote together when Keith was absent (which is what brought MT to leave after IORR), it's not those broken promises that MT is still going on about.
The bulk of the money that is owed to Mick T consists of artist royalties.
He helped them make some of their best albums. Moreover, after Get Yer Ya Ya's Out they (Mick J, Keith, Charlie, Mick T and Bill) decided to form their own record company Rolling Stones Records.

In 1981 they suddenly instructed their accountants to stop paying out MT's share of the royalites for the albums released on RSR.

Yes, MT is completely responsible for making the decision to leave the Stones. I have never seen him blame anyone else for this. It was the right decision for him and he doesn't regret it. He confirmed this a few years back in an interview he did for a documentary.
That doesn't mean that it's his fault that the Stones started withholding his artist royalties (which was actually illegal).
Since when loses a bandmember the right to receive royalties over the work they recorded together when he quits the band ? That's not how it works with other bands either.

Unfortunately, not all Stones fans are able to distinguish between these two things. (And I have no doubt that leaving while alive is simply "not done" in the eyes of Mr Richards).
[Edited by Stranger]
4th February 2007 12:58 PM
The Wick I suppose that's really what I'm getting at. You can call it what you want but he deserves some of the cash they generate from those songs.
4th February 2007 01:04 PM
steel driving hammer I'm sure in the past, recent past or whatever that Mick, Keith, Ronnie, Charlie have called Taylor on a personal note asking if he's ok or needs any money and has given Taylor almost everything he's ever asked for.

But for credits for the songs...? They can't go back in the future and change all the labeling now could they.
4th February 2007 01:10 PM
Gazza
quote:
steel driving hammer wrote:
But for credits for the songs...? They can't go back in the future and change all the labeling now could they.



of course they could. After all, didnt Mike Love sue Brian Wilson for lack of composing credits? I think Johnnie Johnson tried the same with Chuck Berry, and only recently there was a high profile case about who should have been credited for Procol Harum's 'White Shade of Pale' (a suit that was actually won). Its not unprecedented by any means.
4th February 2007 01:14 PM
steel driving hammer lol, did I say back in the future? That doesn't make sense. I meant back in time.

But, if they do, they risk the chance of not looking good in the history books. They will be lessoned in someway and the critics would be all over them like flies on horse shit and they'll go out on a bad note.

Like Bush says, the Stones gotta stay the course.
[Edited by steel driving hammer]
4th February 2007 01:15 PM
VoodooChileInWOnderl Hey "Stranger" you look like an "Insider" instead, thanks for your words.
4th February 2007 01:20 PM
fireontheplatter maybe i need glasses...but it sure as shit looks like pencil to me. it is long and thin.

he looks to me like he has a rockin hangover...4 time worse than i felt yesterday morning.



everybody say ow
4th February 2007 01:31 PM
Gazza
quote:
steel driving hammer wrote:
they risk the chance of not looking good in the history books. They will be lessoned in someway and the critics would be all over them like flies on horse shit and they'll go out on a bad note.



True...after all theyve not been subject to criticism, ridicule or been accused of being greedy at any time over the last 35 years or so.....
4th February 2007 01:35 PM
steel driving hammer
quote:
Gazza wrote:
True...after all theyve not been subject to criticism, ridicule or been accused of being greedy at any time over the last 35 years or so.....



Thats different. Going back to change the song writing credits is what I meant.

Wow, set me up so you can shoot me down.

Put me 6 feet under ground.

Thats just too deep for me baby...
4th February 2007 01:37 PM
guitarman53
quote:
Gazza wrote:


of course they could. After all, didnt Mike Love sue Brian Wilson for lack of composing credits? I think Johnnie Johnson tried the same with Chuck Berry, and only recently there was a high profile case about who should have been credited for Procol Harum's 'White Shade of Pale' (a suit that was actually won). Its not unprecedented by any means.


"A Whiter Shade Of Pale" was a piece of music written by J.S. Bach.
I totally agree that M.T. should be getting paid royality's for songs (Time Waits For No one, especially) that he co-wrote, & who knows, could have written period.
Ry Cooder has mentioned Keith ripped him off, M.J. is so tight with his money, look at Ron Wood, they wouldn't make him a offical member till after years & years, the Bass player is not even a member yet, & how many years has it been now he's been playing with them, they don't want to hand out any money to anyone, & how much money do they have?
& this is centered at M.J. & K.R., I don't think Charlie is a part of this kind of stuff.
[Edited by guitarman53]
4th February 2007 01:41 PM
Stranger Jagger has been accused of being a cheap-skating control freak a few times before.
Remember how he refused to pick up the phone after Marsha Hunt gave birth to Karis (because it wasn't a boy), or how he told Jerry Hall she could not have a divorce because they weren't even married... It's not too difficult to come up with more examples.

It's Jagger and the ex-merchant banker (appointed by him when the band set up their own business structure in 1970), Pr Rupert Loewenstein) that take the financial decisions.
[Edited by Stranger]
4th February 2007 01:45 PM
Stranger Voodoo Chile wrote:
-----------
Hey "Stranger" you look like an "Insider" instead, thanks for your words.
-----------

You're welcome. I thought it was time a few things get clarified, too many people don't understand these issues very well but judge too easily.
4th February 2007 01:49 PM
steel driving hammer This is what I feel.

If they do the right thing and publically change the song credits, I feel there's a chance it could backfire on them.

Backfire when there trying to do the right thing, is not a good thing.
4th February 2007 02:03 PM
fireontheplatter mick and keith have worked long and hard for their dough. they are not about to hand out so easily. they are pretty hard core guys and they are looking for consistancy and proof from the newcomers. give darryl another 2-3 years and he will be an official member.
4th February 2007 02:20 PM
Stranger SD Hammer wrote:
--------
I'm sure in the past, recent past or whatever that Mick, Keith, Ronnie, Charlie have called Taylor on a personal note asking if he's ok or needs any money and has given Taylor almost everything he's ever asked for.
--------

Really ? That's a slightly romanticised version of the truth.

Did you know it took MT over 5 years to even get his own legal dossier back after he returned to England in the mid 90's...(lawyers made themselves unavailable and tried not answering his calls).

In actual fact MT has written very eloquent letters (in recent years) to Jagger (as well as Loewenstein) detailing the reasons it's unlawful what's been happening with the artist royalties (artist royalties have been divided four ways instead of five ways since '81).

On a personal basis, Keith has admitted to him: "We owe you" (but he's not the one who's going to do anything about it).
Taylor received no response from Jagger. Loewenstein did write him a short reply telling him to take it to court if he thought he had a case.
Taylor sent him another letter (and several to Jagger). Loewenstein had his secretary type up a reply. It said: "The Prince is afraid he has nothing further to add to his last letter". (That's all).
Still no word from Jagger.
It's a bit like banging your head against a brick wall, isn't it.
[Edited by Stranger]
[Edited by Stranger]
4th February 2007 03:24 PM
The Wick
quote:
steel driving hammer wrote:
I'm sure in the past, recent past or whatever that Mick, Keith, Ronnie, Charlie have called Taylor on a personal note asking if he's ok or needs any money and has given Taylor almost everything he's ever asked for.


I seriously doubt this and I would doubt it even before reading Stranger's comments. They seem to only give a toss about themselves and who is in the band. Once you're out, I don't think they really give a toss about anyone.
4th February 2007 03:39 PM
steel driving hammer
quote:
The Wick wrote:
Once you're out, I don't think they really give a toss about anyone.



Stewart?

Wyman?
4th February 2007 03:41 PM
Gazza
quote:
steel driving hammer wrote:
This is what I feel.

If they do the right thing and publically change the song credits, I feel there's a chance it could backfire on them.

Backfire when there trying to do the right thing, is not a good thing.



Leaving aside the argument as to whether Mick T deserves these credits as a separate debate, how can doing the 'right thing' be in any way negative?

So you would rather they were perceived for decades as being bloodsuckers and have them do nothing to correct that image - as opposed to admitting there was an error or oversight made decades ago and seizing the initiative (before theyre taken to court) to correct that?

And the idea of the Stones taking care of Taylor and giving him anything he needs over the years is pretty laughable. The lack of credits for using his playing on Tattoo You being one example.

[Edited by Gazza]
4th February 2007 03:47 PM
gimmekeef Always wondered why they gave KD Laing credit for Anybody See My Baby...when there was only the slightest hint of glimmering if at all...and nothing was said/done about the blatant rip off of Papa Was A Rolling Stone that is...Outta Control....As far as Taylor theres no way they go back in time...
4th February 2007 03:47 PM
steel driving hammer
quote:
Gazza wrote:
So you would rather they were perceived for decades as bloodsuckers



I'm sorry you perceive them as bloodsuckers.

I don't.
4th February 2007 03:48 PM
Gazza
quote:
guitarman53 wrote:

"A Whiter Shade Of Pale" was a piece of music written by J.S. Bach.



Not the case apparently.

More on the court case and the Bach influence here :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_whiter_shade_of_pale
4th February 2007 03:50 PM
Gazza
quote:
steel driving hammer wrote:


I'm sorry you perceive them as bloodsuckers.

I don't.



I didnt say I did. Dont put words in my mouth. Personally I dont care what they're 'perceived' as. They'll hardly lose sleep or go broke as a result.

Ry Cooder does, though. Thats where my quote comes from. Take the matter up with him.

No offence, Tony - but I doubt you'd 'perceive' them in any way negatively even if they burgled your home

[Edited by Gazza]
4th February 2007 07:15 PM
The Wick
quote:
steel driving hammer wrote:


Stewart?

Wyman?



Ian Stewart, the guy they willfuly kicked out? He wasn't out in the same way though, he stayed on as "tour manager" and played on the tours so that doesn't count. And Wyman? Are you kidding about him? He chose to leave and he got plenty from the Stones and made some smart business choices. Otherwise, they wouldn't give a toss about him either.
4th February 2007 07:46 PM
fireontheplatter
quote:
The Wick wrote:


Ian Stewart, the guy they willfuly kicked out? He wasn't out in the same way though, he stayed on as "tour manager" and played on the tours so that doesn't count. And Wyman? Are you kidding about him? He chose to leave and he got plenty from the Stones and made some smart business choices. Otherwise, they wouldn't give a toss about him either.



if this is a true story, i totally agree. they most likely wouldn't give a rusty fuck about ol billy boy.
bill was thinking ahead

who is winning that stupid football game anyway?
4th February 2007 08:01 PM
steel driving hammer
quote:
fireontheplatter wrote:
who is winning that stupid football game anyway?



Colts by deux - Rain Falling Down...
4th February 2007 09:28 PM
gotdablouse "In 1981 they suddenly instructed their accountants to stop paying out MT's share of the royalites for the albums released on RSR."

Was that before or after the Kansas City disaster ? ;-) I know, a cheap shot. This really makes no sense, any lawyer would have jumped at the occasion on behalf of MT, there must be something we don't know.

Since you mention Wyman, I also remember him saying that MT was in a terrible shape in the late 90s, but it seemed to have more to do with drinking than financial problems if memory serves.
4th February 2007 09:31 PM
steel driving hammer Good point.
5th February 2007 09:14 AM
Stranger Got da blouse,

* It was before Kansas City.

* Regarding comments made by Wyman about Taylor:
He made all kinds of wrong assumptions about Taylor's personal life. Just because Taylor showed up at the studio with just a guitar, he thought this meant he had sold all his gear.

In recent years, Wyman has admitted it was his mistake to jump to (the wrong) conclusions. Three or four years back he apologised to Mick T for saying these things to a French fan (who published it on a website) without even knowing if his theories were correct.

Don't forget that Taylor and Wyman had not been in touch regularly while Taylor was living in America.
When they met up for recordings in London, Taylor didn't tell Wyman much (hardly anything) about what was going on in his life. Not even about his mother's illness. That's why Bill didn't even realise why Taylor was travelling up and down to Wales.

(Just to show what ridiculous assumptions Wyman made, he said in the same interview that MT was "living by his mother".)

So be careful with quoting this old interview. The only thing that interview shows is that Wyman makes too many assumptions.
[Edited by Stranger]
5th February 2007 06:40 PM
Soldatti I'd love to see Taylor back with the Stones for a tour.
Page: 1 2
Search for information in the wet page, the archives and this board:

PicoSearch
The Rolling Stones World Tour 2005 Rolling Stones Bigger Bang Tour 2005 2006 Rolling Stones Forum - Rolling Stones Message Board - Mick Jagger - Keith Richards - Brian Jones - Charlie Watts - Ian Stewart - Stu - Bill Wyman - Mick Taylor - Ronnie Wood - Ron Wood - Rolling Stones 2005 Tour - Farewell Tour - Rolling Stones: Onstage World Tour A Bigger Bang US Tour

NEW: SEARCH ZONE:
Search for goods, you'll find the impossible collector's item!!!
Enter artist an start searching using "Power Search" (RECOMMENDED)