I'd guess old. Anyone know for certain? Sorry if this has been covered already in any of the now-merged threads.

Written by Mick Jagger         Vocals, Guitar &
and Keith Richards.            Percussion: Mick Jagger.
Published by Promopub B.V.     Guitar: Keith Richards.
                               Drums: Charlie Watts.
Produced by Jimmy Miller,      Bass: Bill Wyman.
Don Was & The Glimmer Twins.   Piano: Nicky Hopkins.
Engineered by Andy Johns,      Guitar: Mick Taylor.
Glyn Johns & Joe Zaganno.      Saxophone: Bobby Keys.
Additional Engineering and     Background Vocals:
Editing by Krish Sharma.       Lisa Fischer &
Mixed by Bob Clearmountain.    Cindy Mizelle.

They didn't bring back Bill or Nicky for this....



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-04-22 15:36 by schillid.

<They didn't bring back Bill or Nicky for this...>

Nicky is dead. Taylor´s sound is more 1973, imo. Could be a GHS outtake.

Sounds new to me, but of course I don't know. I love the 3-guitar combo of Jagger/Richards/Taylor. Love it, love it, love it.

my guess is new

How do you get that guitar sound today???

Quote
DandelionPowderman
<They didn't bring back Bill or Nicky for this...>

Nicky is dead.

Yes I know.
Good point though. : )
So is Jimmy Miller.

Interesting that Nicky is listed in the credits before Mick Taylor...






When I first read the title of this thread I wondered if he had anything to do with the development of Celexa.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-04-17 23:29 by loog droog.

Taylor would have played his parts far more interesting in 1970/1971 than he did now (2009/2010?)...

Quote
Sacke
Taylor would have played his parts far more interesting in 1970/1971 than he did now (2009/2010?)...

I agree with that.

I noted in another Plundered thread, which one I can't seem to remember, ha ha, that it seems next to impossible to me that he would be able to get the sound he had then now. For a plethora of reasons of course. There's one spot, right at 2:00 exactly, some little lick and a riff, that sounds completely different from the rest of the track. Just that one spot. But throughout the lead runs there are changes in tone etc so who knows. I'd think the more ballsy sounding runs are from 1971 and possibly the less ballsy ones are from 2009 or whenever. If that is the case. That would be my guess anyway.

It's still nice to hear it regardless.

I believe that if Mick Taylor had been working on a Stones project in 2009 we would know about it. There's no way it would / could be kept a secret. MT recording with the Stones again is huge news and huge publicity and would not be kept a secret by the Stones' publicity machine.

I think I've bust a button on my trousers....

Isn't that what the bit with Was was about, the no confirming or denying. Wasn't that late last year that the actual work was done? I can't remember. They didn't do any new work this year right? The second disc was all worked on in '009 right?

I think you are overestimating the publicity a possible Taylor comeback would generate Skelly. Nobody, except for us, would care.

JumpingKentFlash

Quote
JumpingKentFlash
I think you are overestimating the publicity a possible Taylor comeback would generate Skelly. Nobody, except for us, would care.

i think you are over-estimating; we wouldn't care either....

Quote
JumpingKentFlash
I think you are overestimating the publicity a possible Taylor comeback would generate Skelly. Nobody, except for us, would care.

Yeah, ok, maybe not that "huge" but surely there are more than us who would care? I would expect to have read articles about it in music publications at least.

I think I've bust a button on my trousers....

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
JumpingKentFlash
I think you are overestimating the publicity a possible Taylor comeback would generate Skelly. Nobody, except for us, would care.

i think you are over-estimating; we wouldn't care either....

Am I supposed to believe that? Everybody would go apeshit over that.

JumpingKentFlash

Quote
skelly
I believe that if Mick Taylor had been working on a Stones project in 2009 we would know about it. .

We do. Someone (I forget who) broke the story several weeks ago that he'd added some overdubs. There were a few cynics at the time, but it turned out he was almost certanly right.

And in this day and age with the magic of pro tools its quite easy for someone to be involved on a record without going near a studio or the music industry being aware of it.

i reckon it's old Taylor guitar. Sounds like a typical "jam" IMO.

I'm not an expert but it could be new - it sounds great but a little out of it. Guess we will know soon!

It could be old as well as new soundwise, it's just a cranked small Fender amp. But to me it's clear Taylor's part is a total edit job. The song was a work in progress with Taylor noodling over it, and they just took the best parts and edited them in different spots. Some riffs feel a bit off and out of place, something Taylor would not have done in '72 or '73.

Mathijs

I wish they had specified this in the credits. One paragraph of old credits, one with new.

I agree with Mathijs that the guitar sound doesn't give much away, but I think Taylor's playing/sound feels more new than old. There is something about the correctness of it. And the tone would be a bit smoother if it was recorded in the early '70s. There would have been more bending and vibrato, IMHO.

The lead guitar is also very well placed around the vocals. So either it's new (which I think, but I'm not sure), or it's heavily edited (as Mathijs suggested), or a more or less complete vocal was actually there from the beginning (which I don't believe).

To me it also sounds like it is a new over-dub.

But the very existence of it and the distinguished role it has in the song is a bit surprising. It sounds to me that they really wanted to emphasize the Taylor element here. Namely if one listens to original EXILE, Taylor's guitar is much more difficult to find there...

Could it be the case that Mick Jagger has actually missed that melodic counter-guitar to his vocals and now, when finally had a chance, took anything he could out of it?

- Doxa

Quote
Mathijs
It could be old as well as new soundwise, it's just a cranked small Fender amp. But to me it's clear Taylor's part is a total edit job. The song was a work in progress with Taylor noodling over it, and they just took the best parts and edited them in different spots. Some riffs feel a bit off and out of place, something Taylor would not have done in '72 or '73.

Mathijs

Playing a guitarsolo 'live' is something completely different from playing it in a studio. 'Live' you've got the boost of the band behind you, the volume of your amp (plus natural distorted sound) and the interaction with the audience. That's why even the greatest guitarplayers in a studiorecordingsession need several takes before they are satisfied with their efforts. And although most musicians hate it when their solos are edited and pieced together, producers (like the one on Plundered My Solo) decide from another point of view.

Many times I read about 'putting it on tape in one or two takes', and years later you find the 23 takes of the tune on (for example) a Yellow Dog release...

Quote
Sacke

Quote
Mathijs
It could be old as well as new soundwise, it's just a cranked small Fender amp. But to me it's clear Taylor's part is a total edit job. The song was a work in progress with Taylor noodling over it, and they just took the best parts and edited them in different spots. Some riffs feel a bit off and out of place, something Taylor would not have done in '72 or '73.

Mathijs

Playing a guitarsolo 'live' is something completely different from playing it in a studio. 'Live' you've got the boost of the band behind you, the volume of your amp (plus natural distorted sound) and the interaction with the audience. That's why even the greatest guitarplayers in a studiorecordingsession need several takes before they are satisfied with their efforts. And although most musicians hate it when their solos are edited and pieced together, producers (like the one on Plundered My Solo) decide from another point of view.

Many times I read about 'putting it on tape in one or two takes', and years later you find the 23 takes of the tune on (for example) a Yellow Dog release...

But one of Taylor's claims to fame is that about everything he did with the Stones was done in one take, without much editing and overdubbing.

What I hear on Plundered is a great deal of ProTools "drag-and-drop" editing.

Mathijs

I agree with Doxa. It's a new (Mick T) overdub and Jagger is missing the fantstic harmony between them. Me too! But on the other hand I love Ronnie also.

When listening on headphones the solo guitar sounds more like Ronnie in his Faces days!

By the way, Joe Z is Joe Zagarino, spelled Zaganno on Exile.

Mathijs

Well, when it comes to Mick Taylor, some disputants here clearly show signs of PMS. And this is an o l d issue. What I am not so sure about is whether there is any sort of deliberate contribution to this by Mick T himself; the ladies at least are cursed with a PMS anyway once in a while.

Quote
Mathijs
It could be old as well as new soundwise, it's just a cranked small Fender amp. But to me it's clear Taylor's part is a total edit job. The song was a work in progress with Taylor noodling over it, and they just took the best parts and edited them in different spots. Some riffs feel a bit off and out of place, something Taylor would not have done in '72 or '73.

Mathijs

That's it, exactly. No new Taylor on that, as there is so much editing on the lead guitar parts.

Nice use of the lead guitar as a counterpoint to Jagger's singing. Maybe some of the electric guitar is KEITH recorded recently. I don't know if anyone has mentioned that as possibility.

I love that lead guitar melody that starts the song.

No offense to Mathijs but imho the drumming on PMS is CW at his sloppiest. I even wonder if it's Charlie at all..