Quote
liddas

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
crumbling_mice
Well, if nothing else we have narrowed the live versions to the two which are on the official live albums. This makes a change, as usually the better versions are languishing in the vaults. I just wish I could see the live footage of the GYYYO version. From what people have said it doesn't look likely although while it is in existence there is hope...maybe I'll start a petition! If the majority of Stones fans think it's the best version then it would make sense to release it this year.

The LYL-version doensn't have the tragic darkness the Ya Ya's version has. Not to forget the Baltimore and Altamont versions.

I have to agree here. Yes the guitar solos are significant in both versions. (69 and 76). Taylor and Wood. personally I much prefer Keith's approach in 69. But it is Jagger who delivers the song 100% differently after a few years; never to return. In 69 I felt like he was up there delivering a message, something he believed in, and wanted to share. Same with the Blues earlier.
In 76 he delivers weighty lyrics like Sympathy in that rushed, slurred manner - makes no sense IMO.

The LYL version is an explosion of positive energy - thank god it is not dark, that is exactly what makes it great! And Jagger? He sings Devil like JB would - and I love it.

As I said, Ya Ya's version is truly great, but what what makes it something else is the solo section. Until then its good, well performed, excellent in many ways, but it has the pace of a song that comes early in the set.

LYL version is dynamite from the very first seconds. Just listen to Keith's first round of chords - he basically plays with one guitar what on Ya YAs is arrangemed for two, and that intro alone is a KILLER. It gets your bum instantly moving!

THAT is what the rolling stones are about on my book.

C

Well, it's obvious that we can differ as to what the essence of the Stones' music is. For me the Ya Ya's version is dramatic and meaningful, both the first part and the guitar solos part. They do hang together tightly.

As for the LYL-version: it could have been any song. It doens't tell me anything. I miss the drama. It's also too loose in its structure for this song. I gave it a serious listen yesterday to check my opinion.

kleermaker, it's the same for me. LYL version is just one of the bunch, an amphetaminic rush, it misses that particular swing that makes GYOOO version so different.
m.

In December of 2007, Albert Maysles held a benefit for his foundation. It was a cocktail party, dinner, Q&A deal, where he showed all of the film he had from MSG. It was kind of weird in that afterwards, no one would say what they had seen. It was organised by StonesDoug and apparently, Albert asked all the attendees to keep mum on the actual details of the footage. People on Shidoobee who didn't attend got quite irritated and things got a little heated about all the secrecy. I spoke to one of the guests at the Wildwood gathering the following year and the person said that they had seen the full setlist. Does anyone know anything more about it?

NO, it's a secret...

Quote
Doxa
Sorry I continue a bit my above post. I guess for dedicated and cultivated Taylorian ears that raelly approciate and hear the nuances during that era, the sound that took place in 1975 was not just a disappointment but also distinguishely different. Especially if the crucial thing that matters is the solo guitar. But, for example, for myself, a kid of Pathe Marconi era, LOVE YOU LIVE always sounded like a bad or tired version of GET YER YA-YA'S OUT!, whereas STILL LIFE or "When The Whip Comes Down" in SUCKING IN THE SEVENIES sounded completetely different. Of course, when I get all the bootlegs in my hands, and started to 'know' more, my picture came more detailed and I started to see more nunaces, etc. But still I think even to this day, the big picture has remained the same for me. One feature of it is that I have never 'learned' to listen the differences of solo guistarists so closely that they really matter so much. I think the most exciting thing in this band lies in somewhere else. A good solo ices the cake nicely but it is the cake that is delicious and a real deal there.

- Doxa

Good post! The Rolling Stones have never been about guitar solos despite the fact that there are many songs that have good guitar solos. The Stones are not even just about the songs themselves. The Rolling Stones are - or were - about the performance; a certain vibe that could rock you if there was a guitar solo or not. A lot of Stones songs, if transcribed to sheet music and given to some lounge piano would not sound like much in the way that perhaps a lot of Beatles songs would. A lot of Stones songs require a Stones performance, especially live, to be appreciated. Like Doxa said, they create a certain "cake" that no one else can quite bake. Guitar solos and other such embellishments are just icing upon said cake.

[/quote]
Good post! The Rolling Stones have never been about guitar solos despite the fact that there are many songs that have good guitar solos. The Stones are not even just about the songs themselves. The Rolling Stones are - or were - about the performance; a certain vibe that could rock you if there was a guitar solo or not. A lot of Stones songs, if transcribed to sheet music and given to some lounge piano would not sound like much in the way that perhaps a lot of Beatles songs would. A lot of Stones songs require a Stones performance, especially live, to be appreciated. Like Doxa said, they create a certain "cake" that no one else can quite bake. Guitar solos and other such embellishments are just icing upon said cake.[/quote]

well... I only partly agree... they were indeed about solos (and other things) during this period. Keith delivers blistering solos on Carol and Little Queenie, then comes Sympathy. And don't forget Love in Vain. One of the best parts of the solo section during Sympathy is the bridge part that Taylor adds after Keith finishes his solo... so it's guitar interplay and solos. And as I metioned before, a key ingredient is the rythmn riff Keith plays during the verses of Sympathy. It gives the song a certain kind of feel never to be repeated. And I agree Jagger sings it just right.

Quote
nomis
well... I only partly agree... they were indeed about solos (and other things) during this period. Keith delivers blistering solos on Carol and Little Queenie, then comes Sympathy. And don't forget Love in Vain. One of the best parts of the solo section during Sympathy is the bridge part that Taylor adds after Keith finishes his solo... so it's guitar interplay and solos. And as I metioned before, a key ingredient is the rythmn riff Keith plays during the verses of Sympathy. It gives the song a certain kind of feel never to be repeated. And I agree Jagger sings it just right.

It is true that during that period they were indeed about solos and other fancy guitar things. I think for that very reason they got an an excellent graduate from the British High School of blues guitarists. Mick Taylor was a man of the day to needed to update their sound - he pretty much represented the professionlism and seriousness of the late 60's. The Stones, like the Beatles, belonged to old school pop stars who had given up live performances, and saw themselves more as a creative studio band. In many ways the band neded to relearn the whole business when they made their "come back" in 1969. And they did an incredible job in that section. I think the band professionalized very quickly, and for some years, The Stones actually sounded like a "classic hard rock" band. GET YER YA-YA'S OUT! is the greatest testimony of that. The album and its sound was a statement with which showed that they - unlike tHe Beatles - are 100% current band with a current sound, and that the past is gone.

For many this is the best Stones ever - and it could be - but also at the same time it was a band trying to cope with the times. It is not 'essential' Stones from 1969 to 1973 but just one incarnation of the band. They sounded totally different in 1966 or 1978. They have always been a guitar band - they pretty much invented the idea of that - but I think what is essential to the Stones sound ever is that all the instruments (and members) seem to think the song is the hero there, not any individual achievement. It is catching that wonderful, chaotic noise that especially EXILE represents so well in terms of studio output (contra to STICKY FINGERS that sounds pretty mmore 'serious' and 'pro' attempt - it is rather extraorinary album in Stones catalog). So thereby the Taylor yaers in concert is quite extarordinary period in the history of the band; then actually some individual conribution in guitar department seemed to take the spotlight, or distinguished role to be listen seperately from the whole cake. I think "Dead Flowers" in LADYS and GENTS or MARQUEE '71 is good represenation of that, as is, of course, "Love in Vain" as well. Taylor's guitar is almsot 'odd man out' - it is so incredily fluidy and distinguished in that context. Almost 'too good', as absurd as it might sound, if you know what I mean.

If there is one negative - or a positive - trait in those Taylor yaers is that the band is as close as ever to a traditional rock band (that was born at the time: late 60's/early 70's); flashy solos pretty much defining the sound. It is the version of the band that even today is probably easiest to sell to trad rock ears. For example, I have always enjoyed playing BRUSSELS AFFAIR to my 'hard rock', 'lead guitar-driven' friends. That works every time, and they are pretty impressed that the Stones can sound so great even in those traditional rock band terms. So clear and distinctive. But trying to sell them HAMPTON or SOME GIRLS LIVE IN TEXAS is pretty much harder because the band sounds much more 'excentric' - unique, chaotic, defined by their own terms - there. Even the concept of 'ancient art or weaving' is not such easy to 'grasp' I think. They don't teach that in your text books of rock.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-02 14:02 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa
distinguished role to be listen seperately from the whole cake. I think "Dead Flowers" in LADYS and GENTS or MARQUEE '71 is good represenation of that, as is, of course, "Love in Vain" as well

To my ears there is a lot of difference between the Dead Flowers case and Love in Vain.
During Dead Flowers Taylor is playing a lot of lines I could easily do without, not to
say, they are a bit annoying. A bit like Ernie Watts adding sax lines where they do not
add anything to some of the songs during the early 80s tour. On Love in Vain a love every
single note Taylor adds to the song, mainly because he is telling a nice story with his
guitar, not just trying to make us aware of his presence and abilities.

Just as long as the guitar plays, let it steal your heart away

Yeah, his playing on live versions of Dead Flowers irritates the hell out of me, he's great on Love In Vain during 1969 US tour though.

Quote
His Majesty
Yeah, his playing on live versions of Dead Flowers irritates the hell out of me, he's great on Love In Vain during 1969 US tour though.

Yes, I think the only song from that period (68/69) that is actually better than its original studio version is "Love In Vain", and that is mostly to do with Taylor's guitar. He owns that number. Maybe the finest blues solo by any English blues guitar player ever. I rememebr when I listened first time ever YA-YA'S, that was the thing I was most stunned by. I thought where the hell that came from. So mature, so reflective - each little nuance perfect; every sound significant and in place

- Doxa

Doxa, did you ever hear of the word rationalization?

Maybe you already knew I love Mozart's music. I don't love it because it's lead guitar (or any solo instrument) driven, but because there's a unique balance between rhythm and melody (not to speak of structure and drama). But I dislike hard rock music, and I think the Stones are never to be compared to any hard rock (lead guitar driven) band at all, so also not during the Taylor years. In fact Taylor doesn't even play more or much more solo than Wood did during his first Stones years. And when he did, Taylor always stayed within the framework of the song, just recapitulating or adding an extra dimension to it on his own terms (not on those of a so called guitar god, which he wasn't anyway).

I have no hard rock lead guitar driven friends and they are no Stones fans either. But they prefer the band with Taylor on stage because everything just fits in. And yes, also during the Taylor years they sometimes sounded "eccentric and chaotic" on stage and were trading licks (a more adequate term for the obsolete myth of 'the ancient art of weaving'). Of course they also were "defined by their own terms" (your favourite, almost magical term), even more than later, when they started to imitating new and passing musical trends (do punk and disco still exist?).

The Stones are a wonderful musical journey from about 1963 - 1973. A whole decade discovering the greatness of a melting pot of (rhythm and) blues, rock, pop, ballad, country and their own unique way of integrating and performing it. From 1975 on I don't hear so much spectacular music anymore. By far not so much as before that year. They reached out to a mass public and became an established and well respected band by the big audience, playing their well recognizable and 'modernized' music in football stadiums for the whole family, supplying a contemporary act. So they became a mass product.

But one still remains a child of his time and does prefer whatever one wants or is bound to prefer. No rationalization needed.

Kleermaker, I can see your love for Taylor Stones coming from quite different source than what I described in my post above. You talk in analogies to Mozart, me to hard rock. Well, I am not happy with terms like "hard rock" or "traditional rock band" but I just can't find any better ones. By no means I claim that the Stones were a "hard rock" band in 1969-73. Not any more than they were a "punk band" in 1978. In both cases they had their own unique sound but they were leaning towards set by the trends of the day. Not even 1969 the band was no any longer a trend setter but more just trying to cope with the changing of the climate. Yeah, it didn't make it any worse that Jagger/Richards had their artistic peak, especially 1968/69 they really expressed the zeitgeist. Taylor's entrance with his professionalism was exactly what was needed at the time to make them a competent live act again. (Not everyone was happy; ask His Majesty.)

My argument simply was that during that 'Taylor' era The Stones were as close as they can be to a traditional lead guitar-driven rock band as it is defined nowadays. I think also that for that reason the early 70's band is generally liked more by non-fan ears than the late-70's band. As a band, and their distinctive roles, especially in guitar department, they speak generally recognizable language. A wonderful solo guitarist belongs to that concept.

I think you are unjust to Taylor's skills as a guitarist. You are trying to downplay his virtuosity like that wouldn't matter. It does. To me he is a typical English guitar ace, following the steps lead by Clapton. He is a perfect representative of that genre. No other Rolling Stone is. In fact, even though being the original "blues missioners", they were basically a pop band, trying to compete with the Beatles in hit lists. Among more 'serious' blues rock players - the people with whom Taylor brought up; Mayall, Jack Bruce, Clapton, Beck, Baker, etc. - the Stones belonged to another category. It is typical that Taylor even preferred The Beatles; that rivalry was an issue of popular music. A friend of mine - a Finnish blues musician - once amused Taylor by saying that he had always wondered why on earth a John Mayll musician decided to join a pop band. Taylor actually liked that remark very much. There were people who started to took rock music very seriously at the time. One feature of that was that of making guitar almost like a cult instrument, and the masters of it almost like gifted jazz musicians in their 'seriousness'.

Well, in any case, I think Taylor was a perfect choice for The Stones, and I think they used the best out of him. Yes, he was basically a "guitar hero" (by old 60's/70's mild terms, not by generic 80's ones), but in that context that role was kept in reasonable measures. Especially when limited to Jagger/Richards song format. But damn if you look what he did when he got free hands! When he left, that that was fusion jazz/prog rock (crap) Jack Bruce Band. Taylor was especially stunned of that kind "serious" stuff - he digged Mike Oldfield especially - which was as far as it can be from the easy-listening three-minute "rock and roll" (=pop) of the Stones. By hindsight we can say that thanks to Jagger/Richards guidance - and the Stones scheme - Taylor's extraordinay skills were used for good ends. The whole history of rock and roll benefitted of that! (But it is Taylor's strong personal intuitions and seriousness that I admire so much in him, and I think because of that he contributed so much to the Stones. A musician like Ronnie Wood - a Stones fan boy that also admires their 'rock' life style, and musically a Keith Richards clone - is as as far as can be from him. But let us not go there now...)

But I remember we agree that Taylor is best within the scheme of the Stones, right?

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-02 18:02 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Taylor's entrance with his professionalism was exactly what was needed at the time to make them a competent live act again.

- Doxa

What if they had continued with the (superb) 67 formula taking on stage the band that recorded Bleed and Banquet? Something like a well rehearsed version of the R&R circus band?

It didn't happen, so no use discussing on the sex of the angels, as we say here in Italy, but I think that the Stones could have been a perfecty competent live band even without MT (or RW or any other second guitarist) because they proved to be so when BJ was not on guitar.

Quote
Doxa

My argument simply was that during that 'Taylor' era The Stones were as close as they can be to a traditional lead guitar-driven rock band as it is defined nowadays.

- Doxa

Can we say that they were the first BIG such two guitar rock and roll group?

Can't think of many others at the time.

Quote
Doxa

In fact, even though being the original "blues missioners", they were basically a pop band, trying to compete with the Beatles in hit lists. Among more 'serious' blues rock players - the people with whom Taylor brought up; Mayall, Jack Bruce, Clapton, Beck, Baker, etc. - the Stones belonged to another category.

- Doxa

Here I totally disagree.

First because Cream, Yardbirds, Jeff Beck group,etc. they all released solid pop numbers, and that is why today everybody still knows them.

Second because whenever the Stones played straight blues in those "pop" years - well, they were still something else. Parachute Woman, Rambler. Whose bass&drums were supportin the Wolf at the london sessions?

No need to make competitions here, but the Stones could play some superb blues at the time!

C