Tell Me :
Talk
i know, but it reduces the power of the lyric. mick can be so maddening.
but i give him props for lady jane - the singular highlight of the mini-tour for me.
Dude, I wasn't disagreeing at all. You're 100%, it DOES take away from it. And yeah, Lady Jane sounded pretty amazing from the videos I've seen.
[thepowergoats.com]
there was more than one man. jim was a man, too. i can prolly think of others if you give me a moment.
A rare touching moment of synchronicity in IORR-land.
Mick called Angie and YCAGWYW also sad songs. The latter doesn't 'deserve' that qualification. Because of the but if..
All true--because he wrote it for Marianne, one of the big heartbreaks of his life, mainly because it was she who walked first.
yeah, but what if you don't? hmmm? pretty sad, then, right? see? don't assume...
I suppose another reason, from a musician's standpoint, is that it doesn't require virtuoso ability to play. The main strumming part of the opening part and the simple but emotively effective accents coming from the other guitar must sound very inviting to any guitarist, whether aspiring or accomplished.
Mick assures us that we will succeed then. Don't you believe him? Or is getting what you need not enough for you?
Or just an other-day.....................
__________________________
Keith explains in Life that he did write it for Marlon, but then Mick took it and made it about Marianne, which was fine with Keith. He's complimentary about what Mick did with the song. What I've always wondered is whether Mick had any musical imput on the song, or was it Keith/music, Mick/lyrics.
Liner notes from Jump Back reissue
ROCKMAN
you don't understand!!! what if we don't fukking try sometime??? what then? are we doomed to fukking misery then????
I thought Keith has said the lyrics we have, apart from the title, are Mick's, together with the music of the verses. The refrain is Keith's.
If we don't try it's our own fault and not sad. Just lazyness.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Why Has "Wild Horses" Endured where other older ballads sound dated?
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: December 27, 2012 18:51
Quote
jamesfdouglasQuote
StonesTod
if i could whine for a minute - and i rarely do...
i didn't understand it or like it when mick started adding "'cos" to the refrain on these past shows. there is no cause and effect here, mick. stop saying "'cos" - it doesn't work. stop it.
i do like the song alot, though, "'cos" or no "'cos."
This is a 'singer thing', and it's a crutch actually. Instead of hitting the "Wiiiiiiild" part off the bat, the 'cos' gives Mick the millisecond of sound he needs as a reference (pitch and rhythm-wise) for the same note.
i know, but it reduces the power of the lyric. mick can be so maddening.
but i give him props for lady jane - the singular highlight of the mini-tour for me.
Re: Why Has "Wild Horses" Endured where other older ballads sound dated?
Posted by:
jamesfdouglas
()
Date: December 27, 2012 18:55
Quote
StonesTodQuote
jamesfdouglasQuote
StonesTod
if i could whine for a minute - and i rarely do...
i didn't understand it or like it when mick started adding "'cos" to the refrain on these past shows. there is no cause and effect here, mick. stop saying "'cos" - it doesn't work. stop it.
i do like the song alot, though, "'cos" or no "'cos."
This is a 'singer thing', and it's a crutch actually. Instead of hitting the "Wiiiiiiild" part off the bat, the 'cos' gives Mick the millisecond of sound he needs as a reference (pitch and rhythm-wise) for the same note.
i know, but it reduces the power of the lyric. mick can be so maddening.
but i give him props for lady jane - the singular highlight of the mini-tour for me.
Dude, I wasn't disagreeing at all. You're 100%, it DOES take away from it. And yeah, Lady Jane sounded pretty amazing from the videos I've seen.
[thepowergoats.com]
Re: Why Has "Wild Horses" Endured where other older ballads sound dated?
Posted by:
stonesnow
()
Date: December 27, 2012 19:01
A good part of the reason has to do with the predominance of acoustic guitar throughout the song as well as the basic straightforward production which translates well across generations, as well as the rhythms which do not adhere to the constrictions of the typical ballad from its time. Its uniqueness is propelled in the yearning melancholy of the lyrics and vocals, which are heartfelt rather than sappy. One of my favorite covers is by The Sundays.
Re: Why Has "Wild Horses" Endured where other older ballads sound dated?
Posted by:
Felix0452
()
Date: December 27, 2012 19:03
"Wild Horses" is one of my favorite songs of the Stones. A ballad just great, where everything is perfect. Guitars, Jagger's voice, tempo, arrangements. Truly a flawless success. The shadow of Gram Person gently flat above.
Re: Why Has "Wild Horses" Endured where other older ballads sound dated?
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: December 27, 2012 19:04
the late, great jim dickinson tickling the ivories...why stu couldn't just not play on the minor chords i never understood - but can't imagine him out-doing what jim laid down...
Re: Why Has "Wild Horses" Endured where other older ballads sound dated?
Posted by:
TheGreek
()
Date: December 27, 2012 19:45
Stu was the man!!!!!!!!! hard to imagine it's been what 26 years since he passed away ?Quote
StonesTod
the late, great jim dickinson tickling the ivories...why stu couldn't just not play on the minor chords i never understood - but can't imagine him out-doing what jim laid down...
Re: Why Has "Wild Horses" Endured where other older ballads sound dated?
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: December 27, 2012 19:47
Quote
TheGreekStu was the man!!!!!!!!! hard to imagine it's been what 26 years since he passed away ?Quote
StonesTod
the late, great jim dickinson tickling the ivories...why stu couldn't just not play on the minor chords i never understood - but can't imagine him out-doing what jim laid down...
there was more than one man. jim was a man, too. i can prolly think of others if you give me a moment.
Re: Why Has "Wild Horses" Endured where other older ballads sound dated?
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: December 27, 2012 20:10
Quote
jamesfdouglasQuote
StonesTodQuote
jamesfdouglasQuote
StonesTod
if i could whine for a minute - and i rarely do...
i didn't understand it or like it when mick started adding "'cos" to the refrain on these past shows. there is no cause and effect here, mick. stop saying "'cos" - it doesn't work. stop it.
i do like the song alot, though, "'cos" or no "'cos."
This is a 'singer thing', and it's a crutch actually. Instead of hitting the "Wiiiiiiild" part off the bat, the 'cos' gives Mick the millisecond of sound he needs as a reference (pitch and rhythm-wise) for the same note.
i know, but it reduces the power of the lyric. mick can be so maddening.
but i give him props for lady jane - the singular highlight of the mini-tour for me.
Dude, I wasn't disagreeing at all. You're 100%, it DOES take away from it. And yeah, Lady Jane sounded pretty amazing from the videos I've seen.
A rare touching moment of synchronicity in IORR-land.
Re: Why Has "Wild Horses" Endured where other older ballads sound dated?
Posted by:
thkbeercan
()
Date: December 27, 2012 20:17
Truly one for the ages.
For a song this beautiful, ethereal and poignant in its simplicity to come out of the chaos, confusion and controversy of the Stones 1969 yearbook is all the more amazing.
The first time I heard it was when I saw GIMME SHELTER in December 1970. I was mesmerized from the moment I heard it and waited anxiously for its official release the following spring. Was somewhat disappointed that the Sticky Fingers version was laden with overdubs which, IMHO, added nothing to the original version done at Muscle Shoals in the days before Altamont in 1969. Perhaps the Stones 'tarted it up' a bit to distance it from that early version and claim it as a post Klein creation, when they were clearly still under Allen Klein's management. (OMG, would the Stones ever do something like that?)
Thank God that the original acoustic version is available in pristine quality on bootlegs. Another interesting bootleg version is the one 'given' to the Burritos which saw slide guitar and organ overdubbed on the Muscle Shoals acoustic version. (This has yet to appear in excellent quality on a bootleg.) I remember reading something recently in which Chris Kimsey (I think) stated he found a version with a string quartet overdub while searching for material for the Exile re-release. THAT would be interesting to hear...
Wild Horses was the second single released from Sticky Fingers and did NOT receive much airplay at the time. Over the years its reputation has grown and it became a staple of alternative FM radio play.
IMHO I don't think this is a song that the Stones have ever performed as well in concert. They may agree, as it did not show up on set lists until the 1975 American tour, where it was transformed into an electric guitar number and Mick started changing the lyrics: 'the things you wanted" becoming 'the things you AKSED for..." Was he mocking the country nature of this beauty? Another 20 years would pass before it became a concert staple.
Even the acoustic version on Stripped pales compared to that original acoustic number from 1969.
And again IMHO, the current version from the recent set of shows has Charlie drumming too loudly, too early, and too fast. A real dream come true: Mick alone on vocals, Mick T and Keith on acoustic guitars and Bill and Charlie providing the rhythm...followed by Midnight Rambler!
But definitely one of the Stone's best and under-rated creations.
For a song this beautiful, ethereal and poignant in its simplicity to come out of the chaos, confusion and controversy of the Stones 1969 yearbook is all the more amazing.
The first time I heard it was when I saw GIMME SHELTER in December 1970. I was mesmerized from the moment I heard it and waited anxiously for its official release the following spring. Was somewhat disappointed that the Sticky Fingers version was laden with overdubs which, IMHO, added nothing to the original version done at Muscle Shoals in the days before Altamont in 1969. Perhaps the Stones 'tarted it up' a bit to distance it from that early version and claim it as a post Klein creation, when they were clearly still under Allen Klein's management. (OMG, would the Stones ever do something like that?)
Thank God that the original acoustic version is available in pristine quality on bootlegs. Another interesting bootleg version is the one 'given' to the Burritos which saw slide guitar and organ overdubbed on the Muscle Shoals acoustic version. (This has yet to appear in excellent quality on a bootleg.) I remember reading something recently in which Chris Kimsey (I think) stated he found a version with a string quartet overdub while searching for material for the Exile re-release. THAT would be interesting to hear...
Wild Horses was the second single released from Sticky Fingers and did NOT receive much airplay at the time. Over the years its reputation has grown and it became a staple of alternative FM radio play.
IMHO I don't think this is a song that the Stones have ever performed as well in concert. They may agree, as it did not show up on set lists until the 1975 American tour, where it was transformed into an electric guitar number and Mick started changing the lyrics: 'the things you wanted" becoming 'the things you AKSED for..." Was he mocking the country nature of this beauty? Another 20 years would pass before it became a concert staple.
Even the acoustic version on Stripped pales compared to that original acoustic number from 1969.
And again IMHO, the current version from the recent set of shows has Charlie drumming too loudly, too early, and too fast. A real dream come true: Mick alone on vocals, Mick T and Keith on acoustic guitars and Bill and Charlie providing the rhythm...followed by Midnight Rambler!
But definitely one of the Stone's best and under-rated creations.
Re: Why Has "Wild Horses" Endured where other older ballads sound dated?
Posted by:
drbryant
()
Date: December 27, 2012 20:39
Interesting responses. Agree that the biggest reason is probably that it's just gorgeous. There might be some truth to the post that suggested that the fact that it wasn't a hit makes it "easier" for others to cover. I also agree that it sounds like it could have been written yesterday or 100 years ago.
Looking around, I found Debbie Harry's and Norah Jones' takes on the song.
Looking around, I found Debbie Harry's and Norah Jones' takes on the song.
Re: Why Has "Wild Horses" Endured where other older ballads sound dated?
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: December 27, 2012 20:44
i liked the aksed for version in '75. aksed ain't country, it's r&b...aks anyone...
Re: Why Has "Wild Horses" Endured where other older ballads sound dated?
Posted by:
stupidguy2
()
Date: December 27, 2012 21:52
One of my favorite musical moments in the Stones history is that second interlude with just the two guitars: 12-string strumming and Keith's gentle, country-ish licks. It's so quiet and melancholy.
Re: Why Has "Wild Horses" Endured where other older ballads sound dated?
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: December 27, 2012 22:06
Quote
Silver Dagger
It is more of a lament than a ballad.
It doesn't try to be sacharrine, schmaltzy or even a chart-topping hit. It is a plaintive lament, pure and simple. Ballads are usually more up tempo and narrative in informing the listener of an event. This is, in the words of Mick at Knebworth, "a sad, sad song." Written straight from the heart as a carthartic release.
Mick called Angie and YCAGWYW also sad songs. The latter doesn't 'deserve' that qualification. Because of the but if..
Re: Why Has "Wild Horses" Endured where other older ballads sound dated?
Posted by:
ryanpow
()
Date: December 27, 2012 22:07
Its kind of a 'crossover' song. people who aren't necessarily Stones fans like Wild Horses.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-12-27 22:14 by ryanpow.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-12-27 22:14 by ryanpow.
Re: Why Has "Wild Horses" Endured where other older ballads sound dated?
Posted by:
stonesnow
()
Date: December 27, 2012 22:10
Quote
Silver Dagger
It is more of a lament than a ballad.
It doesn't try to be sacharrine, schmaltzy or even a chart-topping hit. It is a plaintive lament, pure and simple. Ballads are usually more up tempo and narrative in informing the listener of an event. This is, in the words of Mick at Knebworth, "a sad, sad song." Written straight from the heart as a carthartic release.
All true--because he wrote it for Marianne, one of the big heartbreaks of his life, mainly because it was she who walked first.
Re: Why Has "Wild Horses" Endured where other older ballads sound dated?
Posted by:
drbryant
()
Date: December 27, 2012 22:23
I was just surprised to see so many versions on youtube. I knew about The Sundays, Alicia Keys and Susan Boyle because they had been released as singles. I just didn't realize that so many artists have covered the song in concert recently. It'll be ironic if a single that was a relative failure on the charts ends up being their most covered song.
Which brings up another random thought - Brown Sugar, Sway, Wild Horses and Can't You Hear Me Knocking are the first four tracks on Sticky Fingers - in retrospect, that's just mind blowing.
Which brings up another random thought - Brown Sugar, Sway, Wild Horses and Can't You Hear Me Knocking are the first four tracks on Sticky Fingers - in retrospect, that's just mind blowing.
Re: Why Has "Wild Horses" Endured where other older ballads sound dated?
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: December 27, 2012 22:30
Quote
kleermakerQuote
Silver Dagger
It is more of a lament than a ballad.
It doesn't try to be sacharrine, schmaltzy or even a chart-topping hit. It is a plaintive lament, pure and simple. Ballads are usually more up tempo and narrative in informing the listener of an event. This is, in the words of Mick at Knebworth, "a sad, sad song." Written straight from the heart as a carthartic release.
Mick called Angie and YCAGWYW also sad songs. The latter doesn't 'deserve' that qualification. Because of the but if..
yeah, but what if you don't? hmmm? pretty sad, then, right? see? don't assume...
Re: Why Has "Wild Horses" Endured where other older ballads sound dated?
Posted by:
stonesnow
()
Date: December 27, 2012 22:36
Quote
drbryant
I was just surprised to see so many versions on youtube. I knew about The Sundays, Alicia Keys and Susan Boyle because they had been released as singles. I just didn't realize that so many artists have covered the song in concert recently. It'll be ironic if a single that was a relative failure on the charts ends up being their most covered song.
Which brings up another random thought - Brown Sugar, Sway, Wild Horses and Can't You Hear Me Knocking are the first four tracks on Sticky Fingers - in retrospect, that's just mind blowing.
I suppose another reason, from a musician's standpoint, is that it doesn't require virtuoso ability to play. The main strumming part of the opening part and the simple but emotively effective accents coming from the other guitar must sound very inviting to any guitarist, whether aspiring or accomplished.
Re: Why Has "Wild Horses" Endured where other older ballads sound dated?
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: December 27, 2012 22:37
Quote
StonesTodQuote
kleermakerQuote
Silver Dagger
It is more of a lament than a ballad.
It doesn't try to be sacharrine, schmaltzy or even a chart-topping hit. It is a plaintive lament, pure and simple. Ballads are usually more up tempo and narrative in informing the listener of an event. This is, in the words of Mick at Knebworth, "a sad, sad song." Written straight from the heart as a carthartic release.
Mick called Angie and YCAGWYW also sad songs. The latter doesn't 'deserve' that qualification. Because of the but if..
yeah, but what if you don't? hmmm? pretty sad, then, right? see? don't assume...
Mick assures us that we will succeed then. Don't you believe him? Or is getting what you need not enough for you?
Re: Why Has "Wild Horses" Endured where other older ballads sound dated?
Posted by:
ChrisO
()
Date: December 27, 2012 22:56
I love it.....Very pure!
Re: Why Has "Wild Horses" Endured where other older ballads sound dated?
Posted by:
NICOS
()
Date: December 27, 2012 23:01
Quote
StonesTod
yesterday is the most covered song of all-time...folks are still covering it...a folk did just yesterday, in fact.
Or just an other-day.....................
__________________________
Re: Why Has "Wild Horses" Endured where other older ballads sound dated?
Posted by:
mstmst
()
Date: December 27, 2012 23:51
My read is that this is primarily Keith's - written for Marlon as he left to tour - I know MJ claimed this for Marianne - but based on Stan Booth's recounting, it was Keith who brought this into the session, and finished it right in the studio.
Re: Why Has "Wild Horses" Endured where other older ballads sound dated?
Posted by:
latebloomer
()
Date: December 28, 2012 00:08
Quote
mstmst
My read is that this is primarily Keith's - written for Marlon as he left to tour - I know MJ claimed this for Marianne - but based on Stan Booth's recounting, it was Keith who brought this into the session, and finished it right in the studio.
Keith explains in Life that he did write it for Marlon, but then Mick took it and made it about Marianne, which was fine with Keith. He's complimentary about what Mick did with the song. What I've always wondered is whether Mick had any musical imput on the song, or was it Keith/music, Mick/lyrics.
Re: Why Has "Wild Horses" Endured where other older ballads sound dated?
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: December 28, 2012 00:15
Liner notes from Jump Back reissue
ROCKMAN
Re: Why Has "Wild Horses" Endured where other older ballads sound dated?
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: December 28, 2012 00:25
Quote
kleermakerQuote
StonesTodQuote
kleermakerQuote
Silver Dagger
It is more of a lament than a ballad.
It doesn't try to be sacharrine, schmaltzy or even a chart-topping hit. It is a plaintive lament, pure and simple. Ballads are usually more up tempo and narrative in informing the listener of an event. This is, in the words of Mick at Knebworth, "a sad, sad song." Written straight from the heart as a carthartic release.
Mick called Angie and YCAGWYW also sad songs. The latter doesn't 'deserve' that qualification. Because of the but if..
yeah, but what if you don't? hmmm? pretty sad, then, right? see? don't assume...
Mick assures us that we will succeed then. Don't you believe him? Or is getting what you need not enough for you?
you don't understand!!! what if we don't fukking try sometime??? what then? are we doomed to fukking misery then????
Re: Why Has "Wild Horses" Endured where other older ballads sound dated?
Posted by:
Lady Jayne
()
Date: December 28, 2012 00:43
Quote
latebloomerQuote
mstmst
My read is that this is primarily Keith's - written for Marlon as he left to tour - I know MJ claimed this for Marianne - but based on Stan Booth's recounting, it was Keith who brought this into the session, and finished it right in the studio.
Keith explains in Life that he did write it for Marlon, but then Mick took it and made it about Marianne, which was fine with Keith. He's complimentary about what Mick did with the song. What I've always wondered is whether Mick had any musical imput on the song, or was it Keith/music, Mick/lyrics.
I thought Keith has said the lyrics we have, apart from the title, are Mick's, together with the music of the verses. The refrain is Keith's.
Re: Why Has "Wild Horses" Endured where other older ballads sound dated?
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: December 28, 2012 00:50
Quote
StonesTodQuote
kleermakerQuote
StonesTodQuote
kleermakerQuote
Silver Dagger
It is more of a lament than a ballad.
It doesn't try to be sacharrine, schmaltzy or even a chart-topping hit. It is a plaintive lament, pure and simple. Ballads are usually more up tempo and narrative in informing the listener of an event. This is, in the words of Mick at Knebworth, "a sad, sad song." Written straight from the heart as a carthartic release.
Mick called Angie and YCAGWYW also sad songs. The latter doesn't 'deserve' that qualification. Because of the but if..
yeah, but what if you don't? hmmm? pretty sad, then, right? see? don't assume...
Mick assures us that we will succeed then. Don't you believe him? Or is getting what you need not enough for you?
you don't understand!!! what if we don't fukking try sometime??? what then? are we doomed to fukking misery then????
If we don't try it's our own fault and not sad. Just lazyness.
Re: Why Has "Wild Horses" Endured where other older ballads sound dated?
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: December 28, 2012 01:00
Wild horses is very much the blue print for G&R ballads. I hate the intro with the delicate guitars trying to create a sad and touching romantic tone. I see thru it easily. The verses are ok, the refrain is too much. I dunno how to put it but wild Horses sounds like something a teen would write. It's not terribly bad but too vulgar.
Re: Why Has "Wild Horses" Endured where other older ballads sound dated?
Posted by:
latebloomer
()
Date: December 28, 2012 01:11
Quote
Redhotcarpet
It's not terribly bad but too vulgar.
How so?
Re: Why Has "Wild Horses" Endured where other older ballads sound dated?
Posted by:
pinkfloydthebarber
()
Date: December 28, 2012 01:13
I hate the intro with the delicate guitars trying to create a sad and touching romantic tone. I see thru it easily. The verses are ok, the refrain is too much. I dunno how to put it but wild Horses sounds like something a teen would write. It's not terribly bad but too vulgar.
- i disagree
wild horses is fantastic on every level imaginable. you really notice how great it is when you hear some hack amateur cover it on an episode of American Idol or something
i love the Nashville-tuned acoustic strums, the heartbreaking harmonic pings, aching piano lines and jagger's vocals; mick's best vocal performance since no expectations.
its genuine and emotional
its over played is the only downside of it but that's not because its bad; bands just dont make music as good like this anymore; wild horses, 'couldn't drag me away.' that phrase alone is golden. a tiny little phrase that evokes love and devotion and wide open plains and wild beauty all at the same time
my wife hates this song but i think its classic; it differentiates the men from the boys (stones from G&R or black crowes etc)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-12-28 01:15 by pinkfloydthebarber.
- i disagree
wild horses is fantastic on every level imaginable. you really notice how great it is when you hear some hack amateur cover it on an episode of American Idol or something
i love the Nashville-tuned acoustic strums, the heartbreaking harmonic pings, aching piano lines and jagger's vocals; mick's best vocal performance since no expectations.
its genuine and emotional
its over played is the only downside of it but that's not because its bad; bands just dont make music as good like this anymore; wild horses, 'couldn't drag me away.' that phrase alone is golden. a tiny little phrase that evokes love and devotion and wide open plains and wild beauty all at the same time
my wife hates this song but i think its classic; it differentiates the men from the boys (stones from G&R or black crowes etc)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-12-28 01:15 by pinkfloydthebarber.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
1StonesRecluse , bauk77 , chrisvw , EJM , GAFF , hockenheim95 , ladinsky14 , livefromuk , mab1888 , O2 , perkmo , rockdoc8885 , Steinschlag , Stoneswolf , swimtothemoon , woodyrichards
Guests:
1936
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10