You never really liked the bluesy stuff or the Berry rockers in the Brian era, then.

FYI, there is just as much of melody, if not more, in One Hit - as in Dancing With Mr D. How Can I Stop is more melodic than Till The Next Goodbye.

That you are not liking a song doesn't mean that it isn't melodic. All About You, what about that one?

Quote
kleermaker
I'm in the good company of our friend Keith Richards, who adores Mozart more than any other musician. The man has certainly musical feeling. At least the Stones music, the great Stones music that is, is also very structured and loose at the same time. It's also western influences that influenced the great Stones music (I'm of course not talking about the inferior stuff like Start Me Up, Miss You, Dance and the likes).

An important rule on internet is to stop posting when your drunk. It saves you all the embarrassment when you wake up hung over the next morning.

Mathijs

Quote
DandelionPowderman
You never really liked the bluesy stuff or the Berry rockers in the Brian era, then.

FYI, there is just as much of melody, if not more, in One Hit - as in Dancing With Mr D. How Can I Stop is more melodic than Till The Next Goodbye.

That you are not liking a song doesn't mean that it isn't melodic. All About You, what about that one?

I like the songs with a certain feel, mood and melody the most, especially live ('cause I'm much more in listening to live music than to the well known studio albums, which don't surprise me any longer: I know them like the palm of my hand, so to speak. The Berry rockers don't indeed do much to me, but albums like TSMR, Aftermath and Between the Buttons have much feel, mood and melody. Let It Bleed contains fantastic songs (GS, MR, YCAGWYW, LIV for example), but I always prefer the Taylor-era live versions, how great the GS studio version may be.

The early, 'primitive' live Stones are musically not interesting to me, the live Stones with Taylor I can listen to many times, because there's always something new to discover. The 3.0 band became more and more one dimensional and has never attracted me. Especially the melodic section of that version of the band fails imo. It simply says nothing to me: they often sound as a mediocre tribute band: many great songs, but poor renditions without feel and emotion.

But Dandie, I know they're your well appreciated cup of tea, and you know they're not mine. I stick to let's say the first 10 years. That's for me the 'true' Rolling Stones. After that they are an act to me which I'm not interested in.

Quote
Nikolai
Great song which nicks the riff from Trampled Underfoot.

whats the info on that?. Who wrote and performed 'Trampled Underfoot'?

Quote
kleermaker

I like the songs with a certain feel, mood and melody the most, especially live ('cause I'm much more in listening to live music than to the well known studio albums, which don't surprise me any longer: I know them like the palm of my hand, so to speak. The Berry rockers don't indeed do much to me, but albums like TSMR, Aftermath and Between the Buttons have much feel, mood and melody. Let It Bleed contains fantastic songs (GS, MR, YCAGWYW, LIV for example), but I always prefer the Taylor-era live versions, how great the GS studio version may be.

The early, 'primitive' live Stones are musically not interesting to me, the live Stones with Taylor I can listen to many times, because there's always something new to discover. The 3.0 band became more and more one dimensional and has never attracted me. Especially the melodic section of that version of the band fails imo. It simply says nothing to me: they often sound as a mediocre tribute band: many great songs, but poor renditions without feel and emotion.

But Dandie, I know they're your well appreciated cup of tea, and you know they're not mine. I stick to let's say the first 10 years. That's for me the 'true' Rolling Stones. After that they are an act to me which I'm not interested in.

In other words, you're not really a fan of The Rolling Stones, certainly not the true Rolling Stones as a live band for that was the band with Brian Jones in it.

When someone can't appreciate the actual original live band opinions such as "Taylor is the best of the stones" are rendered totally ridiculous. Well, it's ridiculous anyway, but hey.

You don't rate the actual real thing, but think some 'could have been anyone' replacement as the best of a band and it's the real thing? That's a joke!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-04 15:07 by His Majesty.

Really really like dance, and if i were adancer, part2 dance, and the other long version.

Great great stuff.

wish they would do it once more, release a song like that.

Jeroen

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
kleermaker

I like the songs with a certain feel, mood and melody the most, especially live ('cause I'm much more in listening to live music than to the well known studio albums, which don't surprise me any longer: I know them like the palm of my hand, so to speak. The Berry rockers don't indeed do much to me, but albums like TSMR, Aftermath and Between the Buttons have much feel, mood and melody. Let It Bleed contains fantastic songs (GS, MR, YCAGWYW, LIV for example), but I always prefer the Taylor-era live versions, how great the GS studio version may be.

The early, 'primitive' live Stones are musically not interesting to me, the live Stones with Taylor I can listen to many times, because there's always something new to discover. The 3.0 band became more and more one dimensional and has never attracted me. Especially the melodic section of that version of the band fails imo. It simply says nothing to me: they often sound as a mediocre tribute band: many great songs, but poor renditions without feel and emotion.

But Dandie, I know they're your well appreciated cup of tea, and you know they're not mine. I stick to let's say the first 10 years. That's for me the 'true' Rolling Stones. After that they are an act to me which I'm not interested in.

In other words, you're not really a fan of The Rolling Stones, certainly not the true Rolling Stones as a live band for that was the band with Brian Jones in it.

When someone can't appreciate the actual original live band opinions such as "Taylor is the best of the stones" are rendered totally ridiculous. Well, it's ridiculous anyway, but hey.

You don't rate the actual real thing, but think some 'could have been anyone' replacement as the best of a band and it's the real thing? That's a joke!

All those talk about being a fan of the Stones or not and about "the real or 'true' thing" is just ridiculous. I'm not that interested in the Stones as a live band with Brian Jones. The emphasis wasn't that much on the music. Those shows were happenings, where young fan girls used to scream and wet their pants and young fan boys used to fight and destroy the theatre. Only during the 69 tour the focus was on the music. At that time they had a guitarist who added something special, which I as a 15 years old boy immediately recognized.

Btw I've never said Taylor was the best of the Stones. But he undoubtedly was the best (lead) guitarist they ever had. Even they themselves agree on that. But everyone is of course free to disagree.

Not that much emphasis on music? What a load of shite!













Yeah, no riots or anything like that during Taylor era.

Thanks for posting REAL Stones live music

Kleerie, you're "not interested" in stuff like Live In England 65?

Really? Really??

Why don't you just stick with Taylor solo, then? Do you actually listen to the songs apart from Taylor's guitar?

Unfathomable...

A nice coverband at work. It's fun and all the screams and things like that and it suits the time very well (I was a witness then, you and Dandy weren't even in your diapers, so how do you know the atmosphere then, which came at the first place?). But musically it's indeed not very interesting. Sorry.

btw who's drumming at the beginning of clip no. 2 when Charlie doesn't even sit on his place yet?

Ah, I forgot, the fact that you catched a few shows makes you better qualified to judge the musical side of the shows

I guess the TAMI show leaves you cold, too...

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Kleerie, you're "not interested" in stuff like Live In England 65?

Really? Really??

Why don't you just stick with Taylor solo, then? Do you actually listen to the songs apart from Taylor's guitar?

Unfathomable...

No, it doesn't say me much musically, just like the Beatles doing She Loves You, I Want To Hold Your Hand etc don't. But nostalgically it really does, because I was there you know, I was part of that small revolution, which wasn't about the music in the first place, but also about clothes, long hair, anti authority etc. Man, a great time indeed!

I loved the Stones music, especially their own songs, even before you two were born. Taylor became rather fast a big part of it, starting in 69. It has nothing to do with solos, because your beloved Woody probably has soloed more in the Stones than Taylor ever did. At least he played longer solos. But especially you Dandie are a master of keeping the Taylor solo myth alive.

Erm, you didn't see them live till 1973. That's missing the boat some what with regards to the original Rolling Stones.

You part of some revolution? Please!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-04 20:48 by His Majesty.

Quote
His Majesty
Erm, you didn't see them live till 1973. That's missing the boat some what with regards to the original Rolling Stones.

You part of some revolution? Pleade!

Not so much, because I hate to be amidst of (roaring) masses. Part of, indeed, in a passive way of course.

Quote
kleermaker

Not so much, because I hate to be amidst of (roaring) masses. Part of, indeed, in a passive way of course.

You didn't see them live, end of story.

This rubbish about it not being about the music only further shows how ridiculous you can be.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-04 21:07 by His Majesty.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
kleermaker

Not so much, because I hate to be amidst of (roaring) masses. Part of, indeed, in a passive way of course.

You didn't see them live, end of story.

This rubbish about it not being about the music only further shows how ridiculous you can be.

Well, a great way to end another useless discussion.

Quote
kleermaker

btw who's drumming at the beginning of clip no. 2 when Charlie doesn't even sit on his place yet?

It's the drummer in the backing band that played for some of the solo artists and also provided music inbetween acts etc.

Quote
His Majesty

Those two guys at 1:15 going WTF. Priceless. ><



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-05 20:56 by Koen.

That young lady looks amazing!

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman
You never really liked the bluesy stuff or the Berry rockers in the Brian era, then.

FYI, there is just as much of melody, if not more, in One Hit - as in Dancing With Mr D. How Can I Stop is more melodic than Till The Next Goodbye.

That you are not liking a song doesn't mean that it isn't melodic. All About You, what about that one?

I like the songs with a certain feel, mood and melody the most, especially live ('cause I'm much more in listening to live music than to the well known studio albums, which don't surprise me any longer: I know them like the palm of my hand, so to speak. The Berry rockers don't indeed do much to me, but albums like TSMR, Aftermath and Between the Buttons have much feel, mood and melody. Let It Bleed contains fantastic songs (GS, MR, YCAGWYW, LIV for example), but I always prefer the Taylor-era live versions, how great the GS studio version may be.

The early, 'primitive' live Stones are musically not interesting to me, the live Stones with Taylor I can listen to many times, because there's always something new to discover. The 3.0 band became more and more one dimensional and has never attracted me. Especially the melodic section of that version of the band fails imo. It simply says nothing to me: they often sound as a mediocre tribute band: many great songs, but poor renditions without feel and emotion.

But Dandie, I know they're your well appreciated cup of tea, and you know they're not mine. I stick to let's say the first 10 years. That's for me the 'true' Rolling Stones. After that they are an act to me which I'm not interested in.

These early 'primitive' Rolling Stones have those special qualities which got more or less lost when they developed other qualities. Among them, in direct relation to the music itself, an unsurpassable quality is that musical ecstasy. I will never blame or disregard girls for screaming, exposed to that. Without screaming, I feel the ecstacy myself. I am open to it and deepest down want to be caught by it in the form of (Rolling Stones) music when possible. It has been that way since.

It was not until 1970 that I was present at a Stones concert, even if I had been aware of them since the first album and had had records from them since late 1965, when I at long last got my first record player as a gift. But I never obtained to be present at a live concert with Brian Jones in the band. I could have had one chance, but I was not really mobile enough at the time.

These takes, which you presented, His Najesty, I had not seen or heard (and they seemed to be blocked all of them when I tried to listen to the third).



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-06 02:02 by Witness.

Quote
Witness

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman
You never really liked the bluesy stuff or the Berry rockers in the Brian era, then.

FYI, there is just as much of melody, if not more, in One Hit - as in Dancing With Mr D. How Can I Stop is more melodic than Till The Next Goodbye.

That you are not liking a song doesn't mean that it isn't melodic. All About You, what about that one?

I like the songs with a certain feel, mood and melody the most, especially live ('cause I'm much more in listening to live music than to the well known studio albums, which don't surprise me any longer: I know them like the palm of my hand, so to speak. The Berry rockers don't indeed do much to me, but albums like TSMR, Aftermath and Between the Buttons have much feel, mood and melody. Let It Bleed contains fantastic songs (GS, MR, YCAGWYW, LIV for example), but I always prefer the Taylor-era live versions, how great the GS studio version may be.

The early, 'primitive' live Stones are musically not interesting to me, the live Stones with Taylor I can listen to many times, because there's always something new to discover. The 3.0 band became more and more one dimensional and has never attracted me. Especially the melodic section of that version of the band fails imo. It simply says nothing to me: they often sound as a mediocre tribute band: many great songs, but poor renditions without feel and emotion.

But Dandie, I know they're your well appreciated cup of tea, and you know they're not mine. I stick to let's say the first 10 years. That's for me the 'true' Rolling Stones. After that they are an act to me which I'm not interested in.

These early 'primitive' Rolling Stones have those special qualities which got more or less lost when they developed other qualities. Among them, in direct relation to the music itself, an unsurpassable quality is that musical ecstasy. I will never blame or disregard girls for screaming, exposed to that. Without screaming, I feel the ecstacy myself. I am open to it and deepest down want to be caught by it in the form of (Rolling Stones) music when possible. It has been that way since.

It was not until 1970 that I was present at a Stones concert, even if I had been aware of them since the first album and had had records from them since late 1965, when I at long last got my first record player as a gift. But I never obtained to be present at a live concert with Brian Jones in the band. I could have had one chance, but I was not really mobile enough at the time.

These takes, which you presented, His Najesty, I had not seen or heard (and they seemed to be blocked all of them when I tried to listen to the third).

Luckily, they got back to it















Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-06 14:01 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Witness

Not earphones at work. However, towards morning and deep into the night, when I am to listen to what you posted, DandelionPowderman, instead of that, there are only icons of exclamation mark. Exactly what clicking at the third of His Majesty's offerings, led to.

So I am sorry, J can't judge, Dandelion, whether you are right or not. The claim that later Stones 3.0 should have that ecstatic component, which early .Rolling Stones 1.0 had-

Even the tracks from the El Mocambo Club of LOVE YOU LIVE, good as they were, did not have that. In fact, far from it.

Sincerely, not simply out of being prejudiced, I have to say, I doubt it



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-07 06:31 by Witness.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Sleepy City
Just a decade before (give or take a couple of years) they were opening albums with songs like 'Sympathy For the Devil', 'Gimme Shelter', 'Brown Sugar' & 'Rocks Off' instead of filler like this.

IMO, it's up there with the other songs you mentioned.

Yeah I totally agree. It's equal to those, for totally different reasons. Their best groove ever, AND I'm WAY less tired of it than all the aforementioned songs.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
whitem8
Yeah funk it is! And I disagree about Miss You being disco. No another slab of funk. Very Curtis Mayfieldish. To many grinding guitars, harmonica, and grit for it to be disco. Now Emotional Rescue was more towards disco than anything they did.

You may add Too Much Blood and Back To Zero as well

Too Much Blood, sure, but Back To Zero? Try "dated 80s funk," but *not* disco.

Quote
Witness

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Witness

Not earphones at work. However, towards morning and deep into the night, when I am to listen to what you posted, DandelionPowderman, instead of that, there are only icons of exclamation mark. Exactly what clicking at the third of His Majesty's offerings, led to.

So I am sorry, J can't judge, Dandelion, whether you are right or not. The claim that later Stones 3.0 should have that ecstatic component, which early .Rolling Stones 1.0 had-

Even the tracks from the El Mocambo Club of LOVE YOU LIVE, good as they were, did not have that. In fact, far from it.

Sincerely, not simply out of being prejudiced, I have to say, I doubt it

You mean you don't own the "Live In Texas" CDs or DVDs??

I was referring to what you called "the "primitive and special qualities". They surely put more emphasis on that from the Pathe Marconi Sessions, SG the album and the 1978 tour and on.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Witness
Not earphones at work. However, towards morning and deep into the night, when I am to listen to what you posted, DandelionPowderman, instead of that, there are only icons of exclamation mark. Exactly what clicking at the third of His Majesty's offerings, led to.

So I am sorry, J can't judge, Dandelion, whether you are right or not. The claim that later Stones 3.0 should have that ecstatic component, which early .Rolling Stones 1.0 had-

Even the tracks from the El Mocambo Club of LOVE YOU LIVE, good as they were, did not have that. In fact, far from it.

Sincerely, not simply out of being prejudiced, I have to say, I doubt it

You mean you don't own the "Live In Texas" CDs or DVDs??

I was referring to what you called "the "primitive and special qualities". They surely put more emphasis on that from the Pathe Marconi Sessions, SG the album and the 1978 tour and on.

No, I don't own it.

What I doubted was not primitive qualities, but if there is present in the same manner the ecstatic somponent which early Rolling Stones were remarkable for during concerts.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-07 15:50 by Witness.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Witness

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Witness

Not earphones at work. However, towards morning and deep into the night, when I am to listen to what you posted, DandelionPowderman, instead of that, there are only icons of exclamation mark. Exactly what clicking at the third of His Majesty's offerings, led to.

So I am sorry, J can't judge, Dandelion, whether you are right or not. The claim that later Stones 3.0 should have that ecstatic component, which early .Rolling Stones 1.0 had-

Even the tracks from the El Mocambo Club of LOVE YOU LIVE, good as they were, did not have that. In fact, far from it.

Sincerely, not simply out of being prejudiced, I have to say, I doubt it

You mean you don't own the "Live In Texas" CDs or DVDs??

I was referring to what you called "the "primitive and special qualities". They surely put more emphasis on that from the Pathe Marconi Sessions, SG the album and the 1978 tour and on.

Primitive isn't always a positive qualification. I would call the early Stones not so much primitive as well as basic, fresh and 'to the point'. Even innocent. All these qualifications aren't apt for their punk trick in 1978.

Quote
Witness

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Witness
Not earphones at work. However, towards morning and deep into the night, when I am to listen to what you posted, DandelionPowderman, instead of that, there are only icons of exclamation mark. Exactly what clicking at the third of His Majesty's offerings, led to.

So I am sorry, J can't judge, Dandelion, whether you are right or not. The claim that later Stones 3.0 should have that ecstatic component, which early .Rolling Stones 1.0 had-

Even the tracks from the El Mocambo Club of LOVE YOU LIVE, good as they were, did not have that. In fact, far from it.

Sincerely, not simply out of being prejudiced, I have to say, I doubt it

You mean you don't own the "Live In Texas" CDs or DVDs??

I was referring to what you called "the "primitive and special qualities". They surely put more emphasis on that from the Pathe Marconi Sessions, SG the album and the 1978 tour and on.

No, I don't own it.

What I doubted was not primitive qualities, but if there is present in the same manner the ecstatic somponent which early Rolling Stones were remarkable for.

Get it!

You mean the hysteria from the audience, and not the music? You lost me a bit there.