Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
lunar!!!

Quote
flacnvinyl

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues


HA! The LYL version is a million times better than the studio version!

+1. Thank you, the LYL version, really the 1975/1976 versions of HTW are the only ones I like.

Agree, but I really liked the Hyde Park version as well. It was rawer than on the 69 tour. The 1973 version is a joke, imo, with the boogie guitar in the intro...

Well, it's a matter of taste. I prefer the version on the released Brussels boot from the archive, especially the beginning of the song.

The studio version is, with all respect and despite the fact that it was one of the songs that definitely sealed my love for the Jones- and Taylor-Stones (on Through The Past, Darkly), just like Brown Sugar (great song) a bit boring. To my taste at least.

Why is bluring the song's forte cool? That intro IS HTW!

And it should have sealed your love for Keith, he does the song!

I didn't talk about the intro, but about the beginning of the Brussels official HTW. Keith starts the usual notes, then Taylor does something unusual I like.

Btw: The intro on the studio version is Charlie. I loved Keith in the beginning because he was an underdog as a guitarist in those days. At least that's the way he sounded. And I love underdogs as you know.

Sorry, I meant the GUITAR INTRO.

Underdog? he was rated as the world's 5th best guitar player in music magazines as early as the mid-60s

PS: The standard boogie Taylor is playing on Keith's guitar intro makes me think more of southern classic rock than the Stones, but each to his/her own

I didn't know about those ratings and they say nothing to me either. My ears told me I heard a simple guitarist and I was right. He's good, but he needs another player to make a song interesting to listen to. As long as the name of that second player isn't Wood of course.

I don't know about southern classic rock and I don't care. It's the Stones playing (they did gospel as well, didn't they?) and I like those guitar screams in combination with Keith's guitar the most as a guitar intro to HTW. A great find that suits the song perfectly (it's not classic rock and roll).

Yeah, like I said: Each to their own.

I hope you agree that Let It Bleed is one of the best albums the Stones ever released?

Who played guitar on it, mostly by himself, and wasn't it indeed interesting?

A screaming standard boogie guitar? That's a new one. However, I'm glad you enjoy it

I love the great songs on Let It Bleed, but the album itself, the way the songs have been performed on it, I don't like that much, except the intro of GS and LIB. Something's missing in the instrumental section. Keith's guitar isn't enough (listen for example to LIV, MR, YCAGWYW). They bore me rather quickly. But live those songs are fantastic (as long as ... well you know the rest).

So, the instrumental section is already there (sax, fiddle, choirs, slide guitars, piano/organ). What you are saying is that you are missing a lead guitar on all those tracks, that's what's lacking to make the songs interesting?

The instrumental section you mention doesn't do the trick for me. Firstly I don't like the sax on LWM (I'm not a fan of the sax in Stones music anyway: superfluous and an annoying sound too), secondly the fiddle on CH is funny, but it has nothing special and thirdly that silly and bad singing choir (I mean the style of singing, not the quality of the choir itself) on YCAGWYW doesn't compensate for the musical things Jones and Taylor added (you didn't hear me complain about BB, BtB, Aftermath, TSMR for instance). So it's not correct to conclude that imo it's only a lead guitar that's the decisive factor. For instance Back Street Girl has no lead guitar, but the accordion lifts that song to a higher level.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues


HA! The LYL version is a million times better than the studio version!

+1. Thank you, the LYL version, really the 1975/1976 versions of HTW are the only ones I like.

Agree, but I really liked the Hyde Park version as well. It was rawer than on the 69 tour. The 1973 version is a joke, imo, with the boogie guitar in the intro...

Well, it's a matter of taste. I prefer the version on the released Brussels boot from the archive, especially the beginning of the song.

The studio version is, with all respect and despite the fact that it was one of the songs that definitely sealed my love for the Jones- and Taylor-Stones (on Through The Past, Darkly), just like Brown Sugar (great song) a bit boring. To my taste at least.

Why is bluring the song's forte cool? That intro IS HTW!

And it should have sealed your love for Keith, he does the song!

I didn't talk about the intro, but about the beginning of the Brussels official HTW. Keith starts the usual notes, then Taylor does something unusual I like.

Btw: The intro on the studio version is Charlie. I loved Keith in the beginning because he was an underdog as a guitarist in those days. At least that's the way he sounded. And I love underdogs as you know.

Sorry, I meant the GUITAR INTRO.

Underdog? he was rated as the world's 5th best guitar player in music magazines as early as the mid-60s

PS: The standard boogie Taylor is playing on Keith's guitar intro makes me think more of southern classic rock than the Stones, but each to his/her own

I didn't know about those ratings and they say nothing to me either. My ears told me I heard a simple guitarist and I was right. He's good, but he needs another player to make a song interesting to listen to. As long as the name of that second player isn't Wood of course.

I don't know about southern classic rock and I don't care. It's the Stones playing (they did gospel as well, didn't they?) and I like those guitar screams in combination with Keith's guitar the most as a guitar intro to HTW. A great find that suits the song perfectly (it's not classic rock and roll).

Yeah, like I said: Each to their own.

I hope you agree that Let It Bleed is one of the best albums the Stones ever released?

Who played guitar on it, mostly by himself, and wasn't it indeed interesting?

A screaming standard boogie guitar? That's a new one. However, I'm glad you enjoy it

I love the great songs on Let It Bleed, but the album itself, the way the songs have been performed on it, I don't like that much, except the intro of GS and LIB. Something's missing in the instrumental section. Keith's guitar isn't enough (listen for example to LIV, MR, YCAGWYW). They bore me rather quickly. But live those songs are fantastic (as long as ... well you know the rest).

So, the instrumental section is already there (sax, fiddle, choirs, slide guitars, piano/organ). What you are saying is that you are missing a lead guitar on all those tracks, that's what's lacking to make the songs interesting?

The instrumental section you mention doesn't do the trick for me. Firstly I don't like the sax on LWM (I'm not a fan of the sax in Stones music anyway: superfluous and an annoying sound too), secondly the fiddle on CH is funny, but it has nothing special and thirdly that silly and bad singing choir (I mean the style of singing, not the quality of the choir itself) on YCAGWYW doesn't compensate for the musical things Jones and Taylor added (you didn't hear me complain about BB, BtB, Aftermath, TSMR for instance). So it's not correct to conclude that imo it's only a lead guitar that's the decisive factor. For instance Back Street Girl has no lead guitar, but the accordion lifts that song to a higher level.

I don't have anything to add to this, I just love seeing you guys quote each other at insane lengths. One love!

ha! i was waiting for someone to say that!!!

The discussions are getting even longer when you guys are pasting in other discussions as well -

What?

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
pinkfloydthebarber

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
CousinC
I loved W.Perkins playing on Black and Blue (H.Mandel was great too).His work for Bob Marley on tracks like Concrete jungle was fantastic.

It must have been really hard for him. He had already lived with Keith for 4 weeks - playing and getting used to hard drugs. Then coming with them to Munich studio as the new Stones guitarplayer.And suddenly it's all over.

But I don't think he would have stayed with them for such a long time and Punk was already luring around the corner.
So reg.image,longevity and zeitgeist they probably made the right decision.
On the other hand they could have done much better albums and music.

Btw. the best HT Woman to me is still the studio version. That was great . .

They had released GHS and IORR. Then came Black And Blue, Some Girls, ER was so so and Tattoo You was awesome. I think they improved for a while, but then came those horrible 80s...

maybe but Tattoo You was made up of alot of Taylor era songs anyways, outtakes, and whatnot from GHS etc

A lot??

We've got Tops, Waiting On A Friend and...?

Hey now, 2 is a lot! It's one more than 1!

ok a few, then

and they happen to be two of the best, if not the best, songs on the record

Quote
pinkfloydthebarber
ok a few, then

and they happen to be two of the best, if not the best, songs on the record

2 is not a "few", it's a "couple" and, ha ha, no, Slave and Worried About You are easily the best tracks on the LP, although Tops is extremely killer. Of course, the entire LP is killer.

I tend to think that there are not a lot of guitar overdubs on Ya-Ya's but why did Jagger re-do all of the vocals? His vocal were really great on the 69 tour no they don't sound identical to what he can do in a studio but that is what I like about them. Why the overdubbed vocals?

Quote
slew
I tend to think that there are not a lot of guitar overdubs on Ya-Ya's but why did Jagger re-do all of the vocals? His vocal were really great on the 69 tour no they don't sound identical to what he can do in a studio but that is what I like about them. Why the overdubbed vocals?

Yep, an interesting question on the vocal overdubs. Why did Jagger bother?

But...veering back again to the original point of all of this re: the instruemental overdubs...after ALL of this input and discussion, here is the takeway:

There MIGHT be ONE, at the MOST two, guitar overdubs on GYYO. And those that do appear (in the Berry tunes), are pretty damn hard to identify despite comments that "differences are easy to detect." Nobody has offered time-markers referencing the start/end of the overdubs compared to the known sources of the GYYO performances, which obviously differ from the liner notes on the jacket.

Again, please refute if needed. My subject line was deliberately baiting, as I'll concede it's technically false. ONE guitar overdub...at the MOST two guitar overdubs...exist on the album as it was released. But that is far fewer than most people assume.

All those "quots this message" make the post unreadable!

Quote
rocker1

Quote
slew
I tend to think that there are not a lot of guitar overdubs on Ya-Ya's but why did Jagger re-do all of the vocals? His vocal were really great on the 69 tour no they don't sound identical to what he can do in a studio but that is what I like about them. Why the overdubbed vocals?

Yep, an interesting question on the vocal overdubs. Why did Jagger bother?

But...veering back again to the original point of all of this re: the instruemental overdubs...after ALL of this input and discussion, here is the takeway:

There MIGHT be ONE, at the MOST two, guitar overdubs on GYYO. And those that do appear (in the Berry tunes), are pretty damn hard to identify despite comments that "differences are easy to detect." Nobody has offered time-markers referencing the start/end of the overdubs compared to the known sources of the GYYO performances, which obviously differ from the liner notes on the jacket.

Again, please refute if needed. My subject line was deliberately baiting, as I'll concede it's technically false. ONE guitar overdub...at the MOST two guitar overdubs...exist on the album as it was released. But that is far fewer than most people assume.

Concerning the vocal overdubs: live vocals are just very different to studio vocals, and if you listen closely to live vocals there's quite a lot than can be improved for a release: the recording quality, the prenounciation, the lyrics which can be garbled, being out out of breath and/or off-key and/or of beat. Jagger just didn't feel the original vocals where good enough to release.

About the guitar overdubs: indeed there is only one confirmed guitar overdub, and one suspected (Carol). There could be more, but we don't have all the original tracks without the overdubs. The overdub in LQ is not hard to identify: it is just a complete different guitar track. Taylor's track has been erased, and replaced by Richards who keeps it a lot more simpler and straight-ahead.

The funny thing though is that the video of LQ has been in circulation for at least 20 years, and it was only last year or so that somebody on this board noticed the difference in guitar tracks. Probably due to the bad quality, nobody had bothered to listen properly to the video track.

Mathijs

Quote
maremma
All those "quots this message" make the post unreadable!

I agree

Quote
Mathijs
About the guitar overdubs: indeed there is only one confirmed guitar overdub, and one suspected (Carol). There could be more, but we don't have all the original tracks without the overdubs. The overdub in LQ is not hard to identify: it is just a complete different guitar track. Taylor's track has been erased, and replaced by Richards who keeps it a lot more simpler and straight-ahead.

The funny thing though is that the video of LQ has been in circulation for at least 20 years, and it was only last year or so that somebody on this board noticed the difference in guitar tracks. Probably due to the bad quality, nobody had bothered to listen properly to the video track.

Mathijs

The audio track on the LQ video is so bad that I'm surprised anyone can determine anything as regards guitar overdubs. I sure can't. I'm not saying it's impossible, I just can't see it. Or hear it. Either way.

A key to the vocal overdubs is if you hear Keith singing backup, it's probably an overdub. He seems to have mostly forgot to sing backup that tour. Here and there, he would. Not consistently. No matter though, he was obviously concentrating on guitar playing.

-R

Quote
Reagan

Quote
Mathijs
About the guitar overdubs: indeed there is only one confirmed guitar overdub, and one suspected (Carol). There could be more, but we don't have all the original tracks without the overdubs. The overdub in LQ is not hard to identify: it is just a complete different guitar track. Taylor's track has been erased, and replaced by Richards who keeps it a lot more simpler and straight-ahead.

The funny thing though is that the video of LQ has been in circulation for at least 20 years, and it was only last year or so that somebody on this board noticed the difference in guitar tracks. Probably due to the bad quality, nobody had bothered to listen properly to the video track.

Mathijs

The audio track on the LQ video is so bad that I'm surprised anyone can determine anything as regards guitar overdubs. I sure can't. I'm not saying it's impossible, I just can't see it. Or hear it. Either way.

A key to the vocal overdubs is if you hear Keith singing backup, it's probably an overdub. He seems to have mostly forgot to sing backup that tour. Here and there, he would. Not consistently. No matter though, he was obviously concentrating on guitar playing.

-R

You can clearly hear Taylor's rhythm guitar in the LQ video, and it differs a lot from the rhythm guitar on Ya Ya's. If you have bad pc-speakers, put on headphones.

I'm just listening to the GYYO Alternate (IMP020), and more especially to LQ.
It seems to me that Keith's backup vocals are much more important and up in the mix.
The outro played by Keith seems also different.

What do you think about it?

Quote
maremma
I'm just listening to the GYYO Alternate (IMP020), and more especially to LQ.
It seems to me that Keith's backup vocals are much more important and up in the mix.
The outro played by Keith seems also different.

What do you think about it?

My father and I noticed the same thing. A joy to hear those Keith harmonies!

ø



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-17 01:31 by Erik_Snow.

ROCKMAN

Watch out for being in the sarcastic section, Rockman, or I might talk Drake's father into loathering you too

Quote
maremma
I'm just listening to the GYYO Alternate (IMP020), and more especially to LQ.
It seems to me that Keith's backup vocals are much more important and up in the mix.
The outro played by Keith seems also different.

What do you think about it?

On the record Keith harmonizes on JJF and whatever yet in Gimme Shelter he's nowhere near the mic. Huh. Jagger sang the JJF chorus broken up without Keith singing back up yet on the record he sings it just like the studio version with Keith singing.

Amazing, innit?

its all here since nobody gives me any credit for proving something after40 years that had been speculated about for that time , ive got to do it myself.
at the same time it was dandelion p man who put keith forward as the overdubber so credit to him. [www.iorr.org]

for the guy who can't hear the difference , idont know if i should pity you or think you ar a lucky beast !!! youve got so much more stones music to enjoy than me !



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-15 22:36 by straycatblues73.

Quote
Erik_Snow
Watch out for being in the sarcastic section, Rockman, or I might talk Drake's father into loathering you too

Love the Drake.

There are no guitar overdubs on Ya-Yas

Who said there were overdubs on Ya-Ya's ?

__________________________

Quote
straycatblues73
its all here since nobody gives me any credit for proving something after40 years that had been speculated about for that time , ive got to do it myself.
at the same time it was dandelion p man who put keith forward as the overdubber so credit to him. [www.iorr.org]

for the guy who can't hear the difference , idont know if i should pity you or think you ar a lucky beast !!! youve got so much more stones music to enjoy than me !

I forgot that, LOL!

Quote
straycatblues73
its all here since nobody gives me any credit for proving something after40 years that had been speculated about for that time , ive got to do it myself.
at the same time it was dandelion p man who put keith forward as the overdubber so credit to him. [www.iorr.org]

for the guy who can't hear the difference , idont know if i should pity you or think you ar a lucky beast !!! youve got so much more stones music to enjoy than me !

Sorry about that -I gave 'someone on this board' credit on finding the overdub on LQ, as I forgot who exactly it was.

So, it was you!

Mathijs

Deleted

Quote
VT22

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Why is this turning into a Taylor vs. Wood-thread again? Wood didn't play on Ya Yas...

However, since you guys insist. This is Ronnie Wood in 1989.

The funky guitar solo here is trademark Ronnie. Name one other guitar player that plays like this. It's BS that he hasn't his own signature sound or style.

That short solo Ron is playing here is decent.
I could name several players that could play like this though -any professional session player actually.

Of course many could play like that or copy Wood's style, the question is whether they would play like that. Since Wood has his own style the answer is of course no.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Bärs
What is the cause and what is the effect about Wood in the 90's? Was he low in the mix because he played bad, or did he play bad (which he didn't do all the time btw) because he was only given a minor role musically? Even in 89-90 he was sometimes barely audible despite him playing well.

He was mainly drunk, hence he was turned way down in the mix.

But was he drunk in 89-90 also? Wasn't he turned down because the band for other reasons in SW abandoned the dual guitar attack approach?

Quote
Bärs

Quote
VT22

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Why is this turning into a Taylor vs. Wood-thread again? Wood didn't play on Ya Yas...

However, since you guys insist. This is Ronnie Wood in 1989.

The funky guitar solo here is trademark Ronnie. Name one other guitar player that plays like this. It's BS that he hasn't his own signature sound or style.

That short solo Ron is playing here is decent.
I could name several players that could play like this though -any professional session player actually.

Of course many could play like that or copy Wood's style, the question is whether they would play like that. Since Wood has his own style the answer is of course no.

That was my point.

Quote
Bärs

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Bärs
What is the cause and what is the effect about Wood in the 90's? Was he low in the mix because he played bad, or did he play bad (which he didn't do all the time btw) because he was only given a minor role musically? Even in 89-90 he was sometimes barely audible despite him playing well.

He was mainly drunk, hence he was turned way down in the mix.

But was he drunk in 89-90 also? Wasn't he turned down because the band for other reasons in SW abandoned the dual guitar attack approach?

Not drunk. The band just took a different approach in '89, basically on Jagger's assistance. Less guitars, more piano's, synths, backup singers and brass. It basically is an extension to what Jagger started with his '88 solo tours.

Mathijs

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
Bärs

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Bärs
What is the cause and what is the effect about Wood in the 90's? Was he low in the mix because he played bad, or did he play bad (which he didn't do all the time btw) because he was only given a minor role musically? Even in 89-90 he was sometimes barely audible despite him playing well.

He was mainly drunk, hence he was turned way down in the mix.

But was he drunk in 89-90 also? Wasn't he turned down because the band for other reasons in SW abandoned the dual guitar attack approach?

Not drunk. The band just took a different approach in '89, basically on Jagger's assistance. Less guitars, more piano's, synths, backup singers and brass. It basically is an extension to what Jagger started with his '88 solo tours.

Mathijs

He was probably drunk as well

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
Bärs

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Bärs
What is the cause and what is the effect about Wood in the 90's? Was he low in the mix because he played bad, or did he play bad (which he didn't do all the time btw) because he was only given a minor role musically? Even in 89-90 he was sometimes barely audible despite him playing well.

He was mainly drunk, hence he was turned way down in the mix.

But was he drunk in 89-90 also? Wasn't he turned down because the band for other reasons in SW abandoned the dual guitar attack approach?

Not drunk. The band just took a different approach in '89, basically on Jagger's assistance. Less guitars, more piano's, synths, backup singers and brass. It basically is an extension to what Jagger started with his '88 solo tours.

Mathijs

That was my point. It's understandable that this diminished role for Wood also affected his inspiration and willingness to stay (more) sober during the upcoming tours. Basically it's Jagger who should be critizised for not utlizing "his" musicians, while Wood shuld be praised for not quitting despite being turned down.

Only in it for the money, I would say.

Quote
Bärs

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
Bärs

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Bärs
What is the cause and what is the effect about Wood in the 90's? Was he low in the mix because he played bad, or did he play bad (which he didn't do all the time btw) because he was only given a minor role musically? Even in 89-90 he was sometimes barely audible despite him playing well.

He was mainly drunk, hence he was turned way down in the mix.

But was he drunk in 89-90 also? Wasn't he turned down because the band for other reasons in SW abandoned the dual guitar attack approach?

Not drunk. The band just took a different approach in '89, basically on Jagger's assistance. Less guitars, more piano's, synths, backup singers and brass. It basically is an extension to what Jagger started with his '88 solo tours.

Mathijs

That was my point. It's understandable that this diminished role for Wood also affected his inspiration and willingness to stay (more) sober during the upcoming tours. Basically it's Jagger who should be critizised for not utlizing "his" musicians, while Wood shuld be praised for not quitting despite being turned down.

Quitting? The guy was completely broke every couple of years, he needed the touring money badly!

Mathijs



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-16 14:03 by Mathijs.