Tell Me :
Talk
I think the Stones became, what shall I call it, a band of more skilled musicians over time. My view as a non- musician listener, with my beginnings as listener during their existence as an R&B - band in the early 60s, my "roots" so to speak, was that much was gained, but also, however, that something was lost. Sometimes they had an exstacy-producing ability in those early years. A kind of immediacy, maybe now and then in a quite primitive way, but that later was more or less lost.
So I agree with ProcessorWolf, not necessarily meaning that he will share the view of these exact words.
Me too my friend. I AM a massive lover of both. But BBJ does shade it for me. Probably because I have heard it less over the years.
I do love those early Stones recordings. Warts, shortcomings, imperfections and all. Something about hearing something truly amazing as it emerges from the shell...
Here, here! My late father only ever truly liked those early recordings; and as a result, they were the first recordings I remember: Route 66, Walking The Dog, etc. Obviously my fandom took me through all their era's, but I do absolutely have a special place in my heart for those earliest releases. In my opinion, they are very much underappreciated.
100% agree Big Al. And of course, their link to your dad will make them even more precious to you. God bless your dad. I applaud his taste sir.
It's just how I hear it. The brilliance of their 1964-65 recordings, and performances, as green as they were but getting railed by performing so many shows, laid the groundwork for later.
I prefer later.
There's way more Chuck than Muddy in their music up through TATTOO YOU. After that both pretty much disappeared, only occasionally having a visit (Break The Spell, The Storm, Back Of My Hand and, well, BLUE AND LONESOME but even that was neither except for the two Willie Dixon tunes).
The press went on about It's Only Rock'N'Roll being Chuck Berry like... I never understood that. But whatever possessed them to perform it like Chuck in 1975-76 is how they've always played it, thankfully, as much as it's a bathroom break for some post-1990. Throw in Star Star and that's quite a treat back then.
They named the band after Muddy but both talk about JAZZ ON A SUMMER'S DAY as being more important (my perception).
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2025-09-04 13:18 by Taylor1.
I doubt that, as there is nothing musically that tie those songs together. They both have that mid tempo-vibe, though, but calling them «the same song» is fresh, imo.
I think they played it like Keith Richards would have written it. On the record, he re-did the electric guitars, but the acoustic remained and so did the tempo.
I would say the record sounds more like Wood/Faces and the live version is more Richards/Stones.
I do hear the T-Rex comparison however. A great band that got pigeonholed as "Glam Rock" IMO. And yes, Jagger definitely leaned into that trend at the time and even name dropped Bolan in an interview because he was obviously jealous lol
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2025-09-04 15:02 by TravelinMan.
The difference is gargantuan - the studio version eases in and lopes along in a haze.
The Rolling Stones live version is Chuck Berry, Keith ripping and tearing out the Chuck Berry riffage/licks and, depending on what era or even year/tour, it sizzles and humps or it chugs and puffs (although lately it fluffs and luffs).
100% different. Nothing alike.
The key change helps but they're completely different songs.
First heard in public in 1975-76, the LOVE YOU LIVE version is, to this day, possibly the best live version put to tape yet alone performed live, overdubs be damned.
No really: play the boogie riff of the album version. Now play the same riff 20 beats or so faster: now you have the Chuck Berry version. The fact that Keith plays it in open G in 1975 is a bigger change than only the tempo change.
It's the same as for Midnight Rambler: it's basically a slow blues in E, but now played faster in B. It's the same for Satisfaction, but then the other way round....
Mathijs
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Track Talk: Bye Bye Johnny
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: September 2, 2025 01:06
Quote
ProfessorWolfQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
WitnessQuote
ProfessorWolfQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
steenhorstQuote
Turd On The RunQuote
jamesfdouglas
It's just a cover tune. No one plays Chuck Berry like Chuck Berry.
Funnily, Keith is worshipped for his covering of Chuck, and for some, his Berry-ing is the definitive sound of the band. I've never prescribed to that. I've heard other groups do much more interesting thing with Berry's songs.
Just a cover tune!? With all due respect, I beg to differ. The Stones' 1972 detonation of Berry's "Bye Bye Johnny" is arguably their absolute apotheosis. It is a 3:00 minute distillation of everything that inspired them to become the Rolling Stones and that established rock and roll to be the common language of the first global generation. Every component of the Stones mythological mojo is gloriously on display - Mick 'n Keef on the mike (wonderful chemistry and pure malevolent joy in their faces), Mick almost jumping out of his skin from the adrenalin kick, Bill's superb and subtle swing on bass, Charlie propelling the racket forward mercilessly, Taylor with incredible swiftness going from lead fills to solid rhythm and, finally, Keef taking Berry-esque, knee-buckling riffing to the stratosphere - the Stones in full flight burning down the roof and transforming every faceless arena into a smoky, sweaty Delta honky-tonk. It is pure bliss to my ears.
Their version of Bye Bye Johnny circa 1972 demolishes any other version...Berry's original included. It is the Stones at their rollicking best...
Not sure how I missed this one, must've been busy. My Berry cover fave is apparently Little Queenie from GYYYO or Around And Around from LOVE YOU LIVE or Let It Rock from LIVE IN TEXAS or Sweet Little Sixteen from TEXAS or Bye Bye from LADIES...
just curious
why not a berry cover from the brian years?
what is it about the post brian ones that make you prefer them?
A very adequate question!
A better band. They're better players. More oomph. The TAMI show is fantastic but they were better later. That's all.
fair enough
to me i guess i just find that (and i know this may sound dumb) they kind of overplay them a bit in the 70's as opossed to the 60's versions
if that makes any senses
i just feel that berry's music is better when performed in a more simpler way maybe it's that the band is just a little to good for these songs by the 70's
which is not to say there bad at all there not there great
there's just something missing for me
I think the Stones became, what shall I call it, a band of more skilled musicians over time. My view as a non- musician listener, with my beginnings as listener during their existence as an R&B - band in the early 60s, my "roots" so to speak, was that much was gained, but also, however, that something was lost. Sometimes they had an exstacy-producing ability in those early years. A kind of immediacy, maybe now and then in a quite primitive way, but that later was more or less lost.
So I agree with ProcessorWolf, not necessarily meaning that he will share the view of these exact words.
Re: Track Talk: Bye Bye Johnny
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: September 2, 2025 04:52
Their exuberance in 1964-65 makes those performances considerably different than 1969-1978.
Brian Jones playing chords, Keith doing the walking etc. Extremely straight forward, no weaving, no real meat to the performances.
By 1969 Keith had gotten more laid in to the licks, an easing of letting them do the work as opposed to just tearing them out: more dialed in and between him and Taylor they chugged those songs.
It's not exactly subtle. Mick sang better. Taylor held down the chug while Keith laid in the licks. And of course the live sound had improved fantastically.
There's a line, it seems, with their 1964-1966 performances where they were probably amazed they could completely play one song (historically it's been talked about like that, which is exaggerated - they had plenty of shows they played all their songs). By 1969 they had not only experience but also the room to perform.
Although Route 66 from the BRIDGES tours was pretty good, whatever live album that's on, it's nowhere near as good as MOCAMBO or earlier but by 1997 it didn't matter. The Taylor years were definitely on fire. Only 1978 with Ronnie did they ever sound differently as good (and a different attitude, obviously). There's a huge difference between 1978 and 1981 in regard to how they performed, and it seems the slower ones, like Time and Imagination and Go Go (and for a little bit Chantilly Lace and Mona) fit better than the savagery of the 1978 attitude (and certainly nothing compared to 1969-1972).
They also had a hug catalog to draw from so playing Chuck Berry songs among others basically took a back seat from 1989 onward. Not Fade Away aside, they focused mainly on their own songs. Which makes sense.
The beauty of the Stones playing Chuck Berry songs is they gave them a complete frame with a solid backbeat and moving rhythm, almost a surge (Oh Carol, Little Queenie for certain). Had Chuck had the ability in the late 1960s/1970s to record what he did in the late 1950s/early 1960s he still wouldn't've had the muscle the Stones had but the songs (recordings) may've been a bit more full.
Still great songs regardless.
I like Chuck's recordings but the Stones versions are considerably better (although Chuck's Memphis, Tennessee and Havana Moon will probably never be improved).
Chuck's last album, CHUCK, is pretty damn good.
Brian Jones playing chords, Keith doing the walking etc. Extremely straight forward, no weaving, no real meat to the performances.
By 1969 Keith had gotten more laid in to the licks, an easing of letting them do the work as opposed to just tearing them out: more dialed in and between him and Taylor they chugged those songs.
It's not exactly subtle. Mick sang better. Taylor held down the chug while Keith laid in the licks. And of course the live sound had improved fantastically.
There's a line, it seems, with their 1964-1966 performances where they were probably amazed they could completely play one song (historically it's been talked about like that, which is exaggerated - they had plenty of shows they played all their songs). By 1969 they had not only experience but also the room to perform.
Although Route 66 from the BRIDGES tours was pretty good, whatever live album that's on, it's nowhere near as good as MOCAMBO or earlier but by 1997 it didn't matter. The Taylor years were definitely on fire. Only 1978 with Ronnie did they ever sound differently as good (and a different attitude, obviously). There's a huge difference between 1978 and 1981 in regard to how they performed, and it seems the slower ones, like Time and Imagination and Go Go (and for a little bit Chantilly Lace and Mona) fit better than the savagery of the 1978 attitude (and certainly nothing compared to 1969-1972).
They also had a hug catalog to draw from so playing Chuck Berry songs among others basically took a back seat from 1989 onward. Not Fade Away aside, they focused mainly on their own songs. Which makes sense.
The beauty of the Stones playing Chuck Berry songs is they gave them a complete frame with a solid backbeat and moving rhythm, almost a surge (Oh Carol, Little Queenie for certain). Had Chuck had the ability in the late 1960s/1970s to record what he did in the late 1950s/early 1960s he still wouldn't've had the muscle the Stones had but the songs (recordings) may've been a bit more full.
Still great songs regardless.
I like Chuck's recordings but the Stones versions are considerably better (although Chuck's Memphis, Tennessee and Havana Moon will probably never be improved).
Chuck's last album, CHUCK, is pretty damn good.
Re: Track Talk: Bye Bye Johnny
Posted by:
ProfessorWolf
()
Date: September 2, 2025 06:58
well put
i'm not entirely convinced but you made your point very well
and chuck (the album) was wonderful
i so want keith to do a cover of the dutchman!
i'm not entirely convinced but you made your point very well
and chuck (the album) was wonderful
i so want keith to do a cover of the dutchman!
Re: Track Talk: Bye Bye Johnny
Posted by:
TravelinMan
()
Date: September 2, 2025 22:43
I've always wondered why Taylor played the solo on this excellent song for the first show in 1972
Re: Track Talk: Bye Bye Johnny
Posted by:
GerardHennessy
()
Date: September 3, 2025 17:00
Quote
Elmo Lewis
I always liked BBJ better than Johnny B. Goode.
Me too my friend. I AM a massive lover of both. But BBJ does shade it for me. Probably because I have heard it less over the years.
I do love those early Stones recordings. Warts, shortcomings, imperfections and all. Something about hearing something truly amazing as it emerges from the shell...
Re: Track Talk: Bye Bye Johnny
Posted by:
Big Al
()
Date: September 3, 2025 17:04
Quote
GerardHennessyQuote
Elmo Lewis
I always liked BBJ better than Johnny B. Goode.
Me too my friend. I AM a massive lover of both. But BBJ does shade it for me. Probably because I have heard it less over the years.
I do love those early Stones recordings. Warts, shortcomings, imperfections and all. Something about hearing something truly amazing as it emerges from the shell...
Here, here! My late father only ever truly liked those early recordings; and as a result, they were the first recordings I remember: Route 66, Walking The Dog, etc. Obviously my fandom took me through all their era's, but I do absolutely have a special place in my heart for those earliest releases. In my opinion, they are very much underappreciated.
Re: Track Talk: Bye Bye Johnny
Posted by:
GerardHennessy
()
Date: September 3, 2025 17:19
Quote
Big AlQuote
GerardHennessyQuote
Elmo Lewis
I always liked BBJ better than Johnny B. Goode.
Me too my friend. I AM a massive lover of both. But BBJ does shade it for me. Probably because I have heard it less over the years.
I do love those early Stones recordings. Warts, shortcomings, imperfections and all. Something about hearing something truly amazing as it emerges from the shell...
Here, here! My late father only ever truly liked those early recordings; and as a result, they were the first recordings I remember: Route 66, Walking The Dog, etc. Obviously my fandom took me through all their era's, but I do absolutely have a special place in my heart for those earliest releases. In my opinion, they are very much underappreciated.
100% agree Big Al. And of course, their link to your dad will make them even more precious to you. God bless your dad. I applaud his taste sir.
Re: Track Talk: Bye Bye Johnny
Posted by:
Big Al
()
Date: September 3, 2025 17:20
Quote
GerardHennessyQuote
Big AlQuote
GerardHennessyQuote
Elmo Lewis
I always liked BBJ better than Johnny B. Goode.
Me too my friend. I AM a massive lover of both. But BBJ does shade it for me. Probably because I have heard it less over the years.
I do love those early Stones recordings. Warts, shortcomings, imperfections and all. Something about hearing something truly amazing as it emerges from the shell...
Here, here! My late father only ever truly liked those early recordings; and as a result, they were the first recordings I remember: Route 66, Walking The Dog, etc. Obviously my fandom took me through all their era's, but I do absolutely have a special place in my heart for those earliest releases. In my opinion, they are very much underappreciated.
100% agree Big Al. And of course, their link to your dad will make them even more precious to you. God bless your dad. I applaud his taste sir.
Re: Track Talk: Bye Bye Johnny
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: September 4, 2025 07:20
Quote
ProfessorWolf
well put
i'm not entirely convinced but you made your point very well
and chuck (the album) was wonderful
i so want keith to do a cover of the dutchman!
It's just how I hear it. The brilliance of their 1964-65 recordings, and performances, as green as they were but getting railed by performing so many shows, laid the groundwork for later.
I prefer later.
There's way more Chuck than Muddy in their music up through TATTOO YOU. After that both pretty much disappeared, only occasionally having a visit (Break The Spell, The Storm, Back Of My Hand and, well, BLUE AND LONESOME but even that was neither except for the two Willie Dixon tunes).
The press went on about It's Only Rock'N'Roll being Chuck Berry like... I never understood that. But whatever possessed them to perform it like Chuck in 1975-76 is how they've always played it, thankfully, as much as it's a bathroom break for some post-1990. Throw in Star Star and that's quite a treat back then.
They named the band after Muddy but both talk about JAZZ ON A SUMMER'S DAY as being more important (my perception).
Re: Track Talk: Bye Bye Johnny
Posted by:
Taylor1
()
Date: September 4, 2025 13:16
Maybe they have always performed IORR live like Chuck Berry because the studio version sounds like Bang the Gong.They sound like the same song with different lyricsQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
ProfessorWolf
well put
i'm not entirely convinced but you made your point very well
and chuck (the album) was wonderful
i so want keith to do a cover of the dutchman!
It's just how I hear it. The brilliance of their 1964-65 recordings, and performances, as green as they were but getting railed by performing so many shows, laid the groundwork for later.
I prefer later.
There's way more Chuck than Muddy in their music up through TATTOO YOU. After that both pretty much disappeared, only occasionally having a visit (Break The Spell, The Storm, Back Of My Hand and, well, BLUE AND LONESOME but even that was neither except for the two Willie Dixon tunes).
The press went on about It's Only Rock'N'Roll being Chuck Berry like... I never understood that. But whatever possessed them to perform it like Chuck in 1975-76 is how they've always played it, thankfully, as much as it's a bathroom break for some post-1990. Throw in Star Star and that's quite a treat back then.
They named the band after Muddy but both talk about JAZZ ON A SUMMER'S DAY as being more important (my perception).
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2025-09-04 13:18 by Taylor1.
Re: Track Talk: Bye Bye Johnny
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 4, 2025 14:16
Quote
Taylor1Maybe they have always performed IORR live like Chuck Berry because the studio version sounds like Bang the Gong.They sound like the same song with different lyricsQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
ProfessorWolf
well put
i'm not entirely convinced but you made your point very well
and chuck (the album) was wonderful
i so want keith to do a cover of the dutchman!
It's just how I hear it. The brilliance of their 1964-65 recordings, and performances, as green as they were but getting railed by performing so many shows, laid the groundwork for later.
I prefer later.
There's way more Chuck than Muddy in their music up through TATTOO YOU. After that both pretty much disappeared, only occasionally having a visit (Break The Spell, The Storm, Back Of My Hand and, well, BLUE AND LONESOME but even that was neither except for the two Willie Dixon tunes).
The press went on about It's Only Rock'N'Roll being Chuck Berry like... I never understood that. But whatever possessed them to perform it like Chuck in 1975-76 is how they've always played it, thankfully, as much as it's a bathroom break for some post-1990. Throw in Star Star and that's quite a treat back then.
They named the band after Muddy but both talk about JAZZ ON A SUMMER'S DAY as being more important (my perception).
I doubt that, as there is nothing musically that tie those songs together. They both have that mid tempo-vibe, though, but calling them «the same song» is fresh, imo.
Re: Track Talk: Bye Bye Johnny
Posted by:
TravelinMan
()
Date: September 4, 2025 15:01
Quote
Taylor1Maybe they have always performed IORR live like Chuck Berry because the studio version sounds like Bang the Gong.They sound like the same song with different lyricsQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
ProfessorWolf
well put
i'm not entirely convinced but you made your point very well
and chuck (the album) was wonderful
i so want keith to do a cover of the dutchman!
It's just how I hear it. The brilliance of their 1964-65 recordings, and performances, as green as they were but getting railed by performing so many shows, laid the groundwork for later.
I prefer later.
There's way more Chuck than Muddy in their music up through TATTOO YOU. After that both pretty much disappeared, only occasionally having a visit (Break The Spell, The Storm, Back Of My Hand and, well, BLUE AND LONESOME but even that was neither except for the two Willie Dixon tunes).
The press went on about It's Only Rock'N'Roll being Chuck Berry like... I never understood that. But whatever possessed them to perform it like Chuck in 1975-76 is how they've always played it, thankfully, as much as it's a bathroom break for some post-1990. Throw in Star Star and that's quite a treat back then.
They named the band after Muddy but both talk about JAZZ ON A SUMMER'S DAY as being more important (my perception).
I think they played it like Keith Richards would have written it. On the record, he re-did the electric guitars, but the acoustic remained and so did the tempo.
I would say the record sounds more like Wood/Faces and the live version is more Richards/Stones.
I do hear the T-Rex comparison however. A great band that got pigeonholed as "Glam Rock" IMO. And yes, Jagger definitely leaned into that trend at the time and even name dropped Bolan in an interview because he was obviously jealous lol
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2025-09-04 15:02 by TravelinMan.
Re: Track Talk: Bye Bye Johnny
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: September 4, 2025 15:18
The difference between the album version and the live versions is not that big though, it's played in B instead of E and quite a lot faster, which emphasizes the boogie more.
Mathijs
Mathijs
Re: Track Talk: Bye Bye Johnny
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: September 5, 2025 09:12
Quote
Mathijs
The difference between the album version and the live versions is not that big though, it's played in B instead of E and quite a lot faster, which emphasizes the boogie more.
Mathijs
The difference is gargantuan - the studio version eases in and lopes along in a haze.
The Rolling Stones live version is Chuck Berry, Keith ripping and tearing out the Chuck Berry riffage/licks and, depending on what era or even year/tour, it sizzles and humps or it chugs and puffs (although lately it fluffs and luffs).
100% different. Nothing alike.
The key change helps but they're completely different songs.
First heard in public in 1975-76, the LOVE YOU LIVE version is, to this day, possibly the best live version put to tape yet alone performed live, overdubs be damned.
Re: Track Talk: Bye Bye Johnny
Posted by:
steenhorst
()
Date: September 5, 2025 11:26
What are these stupid comments? Bye bye Johnny, played in '75/'76?!!!!
A real Stones pro again....
A real Stones pro again....
Re: Track Talk: Bye Bye Johnny
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: September 5, 2025 11:30
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
Mathijs
The difference between the album version and the live versions is not that big though, it's played in B instead of E and quite a lot faster, which emphasizes the boogie more.
Mathijs
The difference is gargantuan - the studio version eases in and lopes along in a haze.
The Rolling Stones live version is Chuck Berry, Keith ripping and tearing out the Chuck Berry riffage/licks and, depending on what era or even year/tour, it sizzles and humps or it chugs and puffs (although lately it fluffs and luffs).
100% different. Nothing alike.
The key change helps but they're completely different songs.
First heard in public in 1975-76, the LOVE YOU LIVE version is, to this day, possibly the best live version put to tape yet alone performed live, overdubs be damned.
No really: play the boogie riff of the album version. Now play the same riff 20 beats or so faster: now you have the Chuck Berry version. The fact that Keith plays it in open G in 1975 is a bigger change than only the tempo change.
It's the same as for Midnight Rambler: it's basically a slow blues in E, but now played faster in B. It's the same for Satisfaction, but then the other way round....
Mathijs
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
alexander paul , austrianstones , JumpinFrankFlash , RaahenTiikeri , sandandglue , switchblade1975 , TooTight
Guests:
522
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10