Quote
DandelionPowderman

One thing that has to be underlined is that MOST people think it's Richards, not Taylor, playing on WOAF. It's not 50/50, like you're insinuating

Having said that, it's not archtypical Richards, but it is indeed distinct Richards in places, imo. I'm not ruling out Taylor, but my ears say Richards -and I have repeatedly explained why in this thread.

I'm not insinuating 50/50, but my two ears make it 50/50 I don't know were you read the info that most people think it's Richards? Can it be that people are biased by the fact that it's Keith appearing on the released clip in 1981, and Taylor was out of the Stones picture for years already when they performed WAOF live? As for the live performances, it's just a pity Taylor never played it on stage, that could bring us closer to the source. The live performances with Wood, Jagger and Richards 1981 don't convince me either, like stated here before by Doxa.

I'm not ruling out Richards or Taylor either. Just like you, I repeatedly explained here before why I think it could be Taylor.

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
DandelionPowderman

One thing that has to be underlined is that MOST people think it's Richards, not Taylor, playing on WOAF. It's not 50/50, like you're insinuating

Having said that, it's not archtypical Richards, but it is indeed distinct Richards in places, imo. I'm not ruling out Taylor, but my ears say Richards -and I have repeatedly explained why in this thread.

I'm not insinuating 50/50, but my two ears make it 50/50 I don't know were you read the info that most people think it's Richards? Can it be that people are biased by the fact that it's Keith appearing on the released clip in 1981, and Taylor was out of the Stones picture for years already?. As for the live performances, it's just a pity Taylor never played it on stage, that could have brought us closer to the source. The live performances with Wood, Jagger and Richards 1981 don't convince me either, like stated here before by Doxa.

I'm not ruling out Richards or Taylor either. Just like you, I repeatedly explained here before why I think it could be Taylor.

Well, I haven't read on any sites that it is only Taylor's guitar that is featured on WOAF. And in discussions through the years there has been pretty much consensus about Keith playing on it.

That doesn't mean it's true, of course. When you say "some say it's Taylor, some say it's Keith - you leave an impression about a 50/50-stance among the fans, imo

Taylor is playing on WOAF here (Can't hear if he plays any rhythm guitar, but I can hear his lead lines, but they are low in the mix.), btw (from 56:00)

There is a thread about WAOF and Taylor on iorr, just gave it a quick look and unwanted post/edit I rather forget that one, ending up in a scuffle every now and then. I don't know about the concensus : fortunately, opinions about the Stones are bigger than IORR.org

I am waiting for René s track talk, he's posting songs in alphabetical order I found out.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
TravelinMan
It's not even close, that's Taylor on the original track. Sounds straight off the Leather Jacket/Separately rhythm mode.

That's what I hear. The strumming sounds a lot like Taylor and not at all how Keith would do it. The live versions from 1981 sound like Keith would've done it from the start. You'd expect Keith to rehearse and work the guitar part and WOAF doesn't sound like that.

Why would we expect that when he never does it?

What I meant was that just like @#$%& is typical non-Keith because Keith is a devoted Berry fan who'd focus on the rhythm, repeating a phrase until it becomes his own (they used to wait for Keith who'd be repeating some bit for hours until it sounded right) - WOAF is very non-Keithish (doesn't mean it isn't him) because you'd expect him to do a more precise riff, a more typical hook, a more folky or country like opening. Instead it's a calypsolike strumming typical of Taylor. Just compare with Taylors rhythm work when he's playing acoustic or turns down his Les Paul and strums. The intro of WOAF is a bit too anonymous to fit Keith.

Well, I disagree. And those C maj-"runs" are indeed typical Keith when he plays quieter songs. TIOMS live, RT live, RAAHP (minor, but the same open strings) etc.

On the studio version they are played more sparsely, and they are part of a chord figure/motif, though.

Everybody could have done the strumming, I'm talking about the (few) details in there.

A couple of years prior to this Keith was strumming pretty accurately, neatly and nicely on Sweet Virginia and Sister Morphine, though.

Funny detail, and it might be insignificant, but at the end of the official clip both Keith and Wood grab their guitars and start playing and moving in the groove, but none of them grab the C-chord during the playback, just playing up the neck. Just making fun or respect for Mick Taylor?

Sherlock says there are many ways of playing a c-chord

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Sherlock says there are many ways of playing a c-chord

Your under suspicion, DP, I'm talking about "the c-chord".

My hands are clean...

Quote
LuxuryStones
There is a thread about WAOF and Taylor on iorr, just gave it a quick look and unwanted post/edit I rather forget that one, ending up in a scuffle every now and then. I don't know about the concensus : fortunately, opinions about the Stones are bigger than IORR.org

Hahaha.. some seven more pages of this same "question"... the difference seems to be that in that two years old thread people - some with the most strongest oponion - initially seemingly heard more guitars there, but now it is only one left... I most likely skipped that thread back then, since I don't recall it. What surprises me how many actually thought that it is Taylor in the 'main' (and supposedly only) guitar, something I never had thought before this thread...

What surprises me there in the old thread and in this recent one as well, is the claims of the guitar part being not 'significant'. I have always find it integral part to the soundscape and feel of the song. It lays that fat, human, yes, distinct guitar feel and tone for the song, typical for Stones tracks, just like what Wyman and Watts basically do with their distinctive touch. Something I have actually missed in the live versions. There surely anything extraordinary, it is simple and basic hell, but still it has that capturing factor for me. I wouldn't call it even 'strumming', since the way it has done with those single-string but important notes, leaving enough empty places, is typical for Stones (Richards) riffs and rhythm tracks. What Jagger does with his acoustic is just 'strumming', but the original is something more and distinctive. That's why I have always assumed that it is Richards in the original. But now when I really listened it by 'open ears' (as much as I can), I wouldn't be sure, and, for example, what Redhotcarpet says of it, I can easily agree with. In the end it is a bit too standard, too busy, to be a typical Keith work, or what Richards is at his best. But still it can be very well him.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-10-13 22:04 by Doxa.

I could be Richards or Taylor, they both have that feeling and can play like that. It sounds a bit absent minded though...either Mick or a Stoned Richards. This is a difficult one, but Redhotcarpet has a point here indeed.

It's definitely a stoned Taylor or a stone cold sober Keith...

Seriously, it sounds like a Mick Jagger-riff, played by Keith, spiced up with some of his trademark licks.

That may enlighten me further

Yes it's significant and the trademark, the opening, but not quite "enough" for Keith and the carribean feel is 100% Taylorish.
Here's what I think. The track started with Taylor doing that guitar part (he says he's on the track, the part sounds typical of Taylor), Keith added a guitar and possibly that Time is on my side note ( thus accentuating the piano part) and some other typical licks (the Hendrix thing from "Mercy Mercy"). When Taylor complained Mick erased Taylors part and left Keiths (or thought he did, or said he did). The song could very well be one of those Jagger/Taylor tunes - it sure sounds like it - but since this is the Stones and not the Beatles we'll never know. I think Taylor and Jagger wrote this one.

<and the carribean feel is 100% Taylorish>

I really can't fathom why you're saying that. With your knowledge about the early/mid-70s Keith, the collaboration at The Wick and how Keith explored and developed that kind of music in the early 70s.

It's not impossible that Taylor played on it - not even that he had the riff or the idea.

But to say that the caribbean feel is 100% Taylor-ish is uncomprendable, as the caribbean stuff he did before and later was so different, whilst Keith's stuff always was chord and riff-based.

It doesn't sound like Richards' tone to me; he probably would have used an over the top Leslie tone at the time (I'm only half way kidding).

I was listening to the Dallas rehersals yesterday, and I was surprised that some of the rhythm guitar ended up being Taylor when he switched to playing lead.

Im actually changing sides now, to DP:s side but only half : I think it's Keith (and possibly also Taylor) on the official version but I dont think he wrote the part, I'm 100% sure his guitar part is following, colouring actually, improving even maybe, Taylors. It doesnt sound like the main guitar, it really sounds like a guitar part you add to some already recorded part.

It sounds exactly like that, the almost trembling, trying, a bit insecure, mellow style from someone who's adding a second guitar, not laying down the solid rhythm but colouring it. And that's would explain why Jagger says he wiped Taylors track and why Taylor said he was on it and should have been credited. I love this thread btw.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
<and the carribean feel is 100% Taylorish>

I really can't fathom why you're saying that. With your knowledge about the early/mid-70s Keith, the collaboration at The Wick and how Keith explored and developed that kind of music in the early 70s.

It's not impossible that Taylor played on it - not even that he had the riff or the idea.

But to say that the caribbean feel is 100% Taylor-ish is uncomprendable, as the caribbean stuff he did before and later was so different, whilst Keith's stuff always was chord and riff-based.

Im not questioning Keith and the Carribean thing but could you please post some example. I m interested in everything Keith did in the early and especially mid 70s when I think he was at his best (also late 70s of course).

Maybe I'll find the time to make a little compilation for you tomorrow, Carpet

Can anyone please post WAOF 72/73 with both Taylor and Richards on it? I never heard it, and as far as I hear it there's only one guitar track played by the same guitarist.
Without a Caribbean feel, just some very relaxed strumming, and some basic bass lines and hammer on pull off fills in between. A bit of Country actually, if you isolate that guitar track. Thanx.

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
DandelionPowderman
<and the carribean feel is 100% Taylorish>

I really can't fathom why you're saying that. With your knowledge about the early/mid-70s Keith, the collaboration at The Wick and how Keith explored and developed that kind of music in the early 70s.

It's not impossible that Taylor played on it - not even that he had the riff or the idea.

But to say that the caribbean feel is 100% Taylor-ish is uncomprendable, as the caribbean stuff he did before and later was so different, whilst Keith's stuff always was chord and riff-based.

Im not questioning Keith and the Carribean thing but could you please post some example. I m interested in everything Keith did in the early and especially mid 70s when I think he was at his best (also late 70s of course).

Thanks for letting me have so much fun, Carpet! I've been listening through the caribbean or caribbean-flavoured stuff Keith did in the 70s (there might be one song from the mid-80s). So much great music to choose from.

Rather than making a "Look, Keith played the guitar on WOAF"-compilation, I wanted to show the span in his work - from simple strumming to pure reggae. Snippets of released and unreleased songs.

Enjoy!







Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-10-15 12:53 by DandelionPowderman.

Cool stuff, Dandie! What's the crazy thing after "Time Waits For No One", 1:22-1:48, something-like super-doped "Sympathy For The Devil"?

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa
Cool stuff, Dandie! What's the crazy thing after "Time Waits For No One", 1:22-1:48, something-like super-doped "Sympathy For The Devil"?

- Doxa

It's "Crotch Music" live from Kilburn by the First Barbarians

Must post more of it

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
<What I find curious, and probably not paying so much attention before, was that how differently Richards approaches the song when playing it live. If the original guitar track is rhythm guitar played a bit "riff" like (as is taken to be in Stones circles), very much in the constitution of the song, Keith's live guitar is more like 'icing the cake>

Not so strange, since Mick plays the strumming with his acoustic.

The single-string stuff Keith plays is the same both on the studio version and live, though.

<But odd thing is that the original guitar contribution is nothing special at all, so damn basic and everything ('distinct'?). But for a reason or other, Richards seemingly didn't want to play it then nor ever since... The reason can be, of course, that of artistic choice.>

It's not a "guitar tune". However, they did indeed try out both a 6-string and a 12-string acoustic guitar on it.

Well, "You Can't Always Get What You Want" is not either a "guitar tune", but that didn't prevent Keith to make it one... But contrast to its live version (and to "Get What You Want"), the guitar has a distinct role in the original version. And I think the reason why people assume that it needs to be Richards, since it is him who usually enjoys that role.

Let me put this way: what Keith does live does not give much support to the claim that he plays the original 1972 recorded guitar track, even though some single-string notes are similar. In that I disagree with some trained ears here...

- Doxa

She's So Cold live is a GREAT example of that in the way that he doesn't play it like the studio recording AT ALL.

Same with Little T+A.

Yeah, "She's So Cold" and "Little T&A" are clear examples of what I called "artistic choice" earlier. Theoretically, "Waiting On A Friend" could be also similar case - even more understable, since he probably hadn't even played the song since they recorded it in 1972. They were in many ways different band in 1981 than they were in 1972, and they would approach the songs differently. This is not as much a case with those two other numbers.

But my point originally was just show that from the base of how Richards play "Waiting On A Friend" live, we cannot infer that he played the original studio guitar part as well, since the guitar contributions differ so much. I saw that claim made here, and I find it unjustified (Well, to be strict, if Keith would play it live exactly like it was recorded, I am not sure if that count as an evidence either, maybe a bit better...)

Anyway, I still believe that it is Richards in the original, for that matter.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-10-16 10:16 by Doxa.

If you listen to what Keith plays live, Doxa - especially when Mick is singing "don't need no virgin priest"/"it is a game for fools" etc., you'll find that Keith plays exactly the same as on the studio recording, only with a slight delay.

The stuff he plays there, is what I repeatedly has claimed to be trademark Keith.

Apparently, no one else agrees...

Yes thank you Dandelion! Awesome, fantastic. I love it. The sound, the perfect timing, you can almost hear he's got "impossible" hands or fingers, they dont look gentle but he has a gentle touch. Often minimalistic. He took the rhythm guitarist from the stall into the arena.