Quote
OpenG
Keith's electric solo was always a mystery to me as I learned about ten years ago on another stones forum that it was Keith and not MT.If you listen to the wild horses outtakes keith's solos are so bad that you wonder how the hell did it finally cut a clean electric solo.The solo is outside the penatonic box that's Keith's comfort zone.

play the guitar boy

i was suprised too... Could be the reason they apologize for noise and cracks... Multiple generation loss due to mad bouncing and possible fly ins... Still that's how it's done with guys who's creativity is bigger than their technique... The genius is what he means to play not always what he plays sometimes...

Quote
kowalski

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.

There's an official video release from 2009.

I really like the 1975 and 1976 live versions.

A great cover by Bernard Fowler. Enjoy

[youtu.be]

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Green Lady
3 Like all Stones songs, it is refreshingly free from schmaltz and sentimentality.

would someone please introduce this lady to streets of love? thanks....

OK, OK, like NEARLY all Stones songs, then, if you want to split hairs...

Jon Landau


"Wild Horses": A good song with lots of good things in it that doesn't quite come off. The acoustic 12-string stands out over everything else in the arrangement — perhaps a little too far out, as the rest of the instruments sound like mere fragments, wandering in and out of the track at arbitrary intervals.

Jagger's vocal is clearly audible for the first time on the album and I don't care for it. It is mannered, striving for intensity without being wholly convincing. Musically, the more complex the Stones get the m ore inadequate he sometimes sounds. The man is a stylist as opposed to a singer. He has always lacked power and range: on 15 albums he has never really grabbed hold of a note and let it ring. At his best, he sings around the notes — plays with them — dancing in and out with precision.

Or, he can let himself go entirely, with no attempt at stylistic posturing and thereby achieving an almost incredibly naturalism. But, on "Wild Horses," there is a pint in which the only thing that will work is a good note, well sung, sustained and sufficient to stand on its own. It is not to be found. A musical attitude is not a replacement for a musical style and style is not a replacement for essential technique, which is what is missing here.

The longing of the song's lyrics coupled with its ultimate hope constitute as much of a theme a there is on this record. Typically (since "Between the Buttons") the Stones' statement alternates between aggressive sexuality and warmer, more subtly erotic statements of emotional dependence and openness. The flirtation with social significance of the last two albums has been almost wholly abandoned in what appears to be something of a recommitment to more personal subject matter.



Read more: [www.rollingstone.com]
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

I listened to WH closely. The comp has at least 2 guitar parts. 2 separate tracks where you can hear the country climbs hanging over the riffs. My guess this could be snippets of both Taylor and Richards combined. There are some notes there that recall Mick's vibrato, I worked on some Stones multitracks and have seen them mix bass parts, one guy in verses and another in chorus or both together, they only care about the results heard. They'd expect the engineer to reasonably match the tones but aren't too fussy about the edits . In the days of analog it resulted in a generation loss, plus running at 15ips caused a warm non brittle sound impossible to brighten without excessive hiss.

Quote
Mimi73
Guns`n Roses did it, they play Wild Horses in 2008, a great concert...if you want to hear, this is the link...I hope, it works





a happy new year
Mimi

That's not from 2008, it's from the Illusion tour.

Quote
Virgin Priest
Because the whole song is INTENSE.

The lyrics, the melody line, the guitar playing, the arrangement, everything is intense, right in your face.

I think, the somg writing and the recording was a real FLOW.

Priest

I can agree 100%

I htink Landau has apoint in his review of Sticky Fingers. Take Brown Sugar. The electric riff guitar is great but the acoustic is pointless. Just one listens to the Altamont version where Keiths guitar slices thru the air, every single note.

Same with Wild Horses. And wasnt both songs recorded at Muscle Shoals? Maybe that's the problem. Sure, its the Stones and were used to them but remember the first time you heard Sticky or Exile? I was used to a live version of Sugar and didnt care for the studio version which sounded too messy.

Live in 1975 Wild Horses moves me. Mick doesnt come off trying to sound emotional and Keiths guitar and backup is crisp.

Quote
Redhotcarpet
Jon Landau


"Wild Horses": A good song with lots of good things in it that doesn't quite come off. The acoustic 12-string stands out over everything else in the arrangement — perhaps a little too far out, as the rest of the instruments sound like mere fragments, wandering in and out of the track at arbitrary intervals.

Jagger's vocal is clearly audible for the first time on the album and I don't care for it. It is mannered, striving for intensity without being wholly convincing. Musically, the more complex the Stones get the m ore inadequate he sometimes sounds. The man is a stylist as opposed to a singer. He has always lacked power and range: on 15 albums he has never really grabbed hold of a note and let it ring. At his best, he sings around the notes — plays with them — dancing in and out with precision.

Or, he can let himself go entirely, with no attempt at stylistic posturing and thereby achieving an almost incredibly naturalism. But, on "Wild Horses," there is a pint in which the only thing that will work is a good note, well sung, sustained and sufficient to stand on its own. It is not to be found. A musical attitude is not a replacement for a musical style and style is not a replacement for essential technique, which is what is missing here.

The longing of the song's lyrics coupled with its ultimate hope constitute as much of a theme a there is on this record. Typically (since "Between the Buttons") the Stones' statement alternates between aggressive sexuality and warmer, more subtly erotic statements of emotional dependence and openness. The flirtation with social significance of the last two albums has been almost wholly abandoned in what appears to be something of a recommitment to more personal subject matter.



Read more: [www.rollingstone.com]
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

I remember reading this review when I was in high school and bought the paperback collection of old RS record reviews. I thought Landau was so messed up. First, for thinking that Brown Sugar was good, not great, and for thinking that the guitar on Dead Flowers was terrible. He also called McCartney's Ram the "nadir in the decay of 60's rock music" or something like that. I don't think he's ever lived that down.

Quote
OpenG
Keith's electric solo was always a mystery to me as I learned about ten years ago on another stones forum that it was Keith and not MT.If you listen to the wild horses outtakes keith's solos are so bad that you wonder how the hell did it finally cut a clean electric solo.The solo is outside the penatonic box that's Keith's comfort zone.

play the guitar boy

i had no doubt that it was keith , although sticky fingers as a whole needs a few listens sometimes before you're sure !!

i've got only one doubt and that is the electric guitar in the intro . it sounds different to the rest of the song .

That review by Landau is a joke!

Keith's solo- another reason I never thought it was Keith before I learned otherwise was Keith never played the electric solo live all these years and no attempt. I know he left it for Woody but you would of think Keith would of claimed that solo as his work and play it live.Keith would never let anyone else play for example his solo on HTW.

Also Keith never reproduced the Sympathy solo live from 1969, the tone and overall dangerous mood of the ya ya performance.


play the guitar boy.

keith let woody share leads on htw on the tour of the americas. sharing is caring.

Quote
drbryant

Quote
Redhotcarpet
Jon Landau


"Wild Horses": A good song with lots of good things in it that doesn't quite come off. The acoustic 12-string stands out over everything else in the arrangement — perhaps a little too far out, as the rest of the instruments sound like mere fragments, wandering in and out of the track at arbitrary intervals.

Jagger's vocal is clearly audible for the first time on the album and I don't care for it. It is mannered, striving for intensity without being wholly convincing. Musically, the more complex the Stones get the m ore inadequate he sometimes sounds. The man is a stylist as opposed to a singer. He has always lacked power and range: on 15 albums he has never really grabbed hold of a note and let it ring. At his best, he sings around the notes — plays with them — dancing in and out with precision.

Or, he can let himself go entirely, with no attempt at stylistic posturing and thereby achieving an almost incredibly naturalism. But, on "Wild Horses," there is a pint in which the only thing that will work is a good note, well sung, sustained and sufficient to stand on its own. It is not to be found. A musical attitude is not a replacement for a musical style and style is not a replacement for essential technique, which is what is missing here.

The longing of the song's lyrics coupled with its ultimate hope constitute as much of a theme a there is on this record. Typically (since "Between the Buttons") the Stones' statement alternates between aggressive sexuality and warmer, more subtly erotic statements of emotional dependence and openness. The flirtation with social significance of the last two albums has been almost wholly abandoned in what appears to be something of a recommitment to more personal subject matter.



Read more: [www.rollingstone.com]
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

I remember reading this review when I was in high school and bought the paperback collection of old RS record reviews. I thought Landau was so messed up. First, for thinking that Brown Sugar was good, not great, and for thinking that the guitar on Dead Flowers was terrible. He also called McCartney's Ram the "nadir in the decay of 60's rock music" or something like that. I don't think he's ever lived that down.

Thing is he was right. Think outside the box! He meant that BS wasnt the strong opener to a great album like GS or SFTD were to their great albums. He said BS is not well produced with a pointless acoustic disturbing the perfect electric riff.

Brown Sugar is just a nasty, smoking track with a groove and chorus that are so good that it went straight to no. 1 despite being about slaves and S&M and oral sex. It's pretty tough to call any opening track better than Gimme Shelter or Sympathy, but Brown Sugar/Bitch/Let It Rock may be their greatest single.

Quote
drbryant
Brown Sugar is just a nasty, smoking track with a groove and chorus that are so good that it went straight to no. 1 because it was about slaves and S&M and oral sex.

fixed your post.

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
drbryant
Brown Sugar is just a nasty, smoking track with a groove and chorus that are so good that it went straight to no. 1 because it was about slaves and S&M and oral sex.

fixed your post.

I'd like ti think that's true, but I think most people didn't get it. Mick's vocals are a little buried in the mix, and he garbles as usual. I remember seeing the lyrics "how come you DANCE so good, just like a black girl should," which is hilarious because by today's standards, it would be considered just as offensive as the original lyrics. But, in those days, that was fine.

Quote
drbryant

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
drbryant
Brown Sugar is just a nasty, smoking track with a groove and chorus that are so good that it went straight to no. 1 because it was about slaves and S&M and oral sex.

fixed your post.

I'd like ti think that's true, but I think most people didn't get it. Mick's vocals are a little buried in the mix, and he garbles as usual. I remember seeing the lyrics "how come you DANCE so good, just like a black girl should," which is hilarious because by today's standards, it would be considered just as offensive as the original lyrics. But, in those days, that was fine.

yeah man so many of Mick's lyrics would get banned today... Stray Cat for example. Brown Sugar is a dangerous song by any standards, I wanted to play it at an inauguration party 4 years ago but the band wouldn't do it. The Stones used it as an audition tape for guitarists including Clapton, then they released it with a sax solo, probably so sick of hearing guitars. The Juliard version is hysterical where Woody cops the sax solo and Keith starts congratulating him. I still think Wild Horses is a comp lead track with snippets of both guitarists mixed as one performance.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-01-01 13:44 by DoomandGloom.

Landau wrote that as an opener BS was NOT strong - production wise - and as a record Sticky wasnt as good as Bleed or Beggars.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-01-02 00:48 by Redhotcarpet.

Quote
DoomandGloom

Quote
drbryant

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
drbryant
Brown Sugar is just a nasty, smoking track with a groove and chorus that are so good that it went straight to no. 1 because it was about slaves and S&M and oral sex.

fixed your post.

I'd like ti think that's true, but I think most people didn't get it. Mick's vocals are a little buried in the mix, and he garbles as usual. I remember seeing the lyrics "how come you DANCE so good, just like a black girl should," which is hilarious because by today's standards, it would be considered just as offensive as the original lyrics. But, in those days, that was fine.

yeah man so many of Mick's lyrics would get banned today... Stray Cat for example. Brown Sugar is a dangerous song by any standards, I wanted to play it at an inauguration party 4 years ago but the band wouldn't do it. The Stones used it as an audition tape for guitarists including Clapton, then they released it with a sax solo, probably so sick of hearing guitars. The Juliard version is hysterical where Woody cops the sax solo and Keith starts congratulating him. I still think Wild Horses is a comp lead track with snippets of both guitarists mixed as one performance.

No BS-audition for Clapton. Only a jam when celebrating Keith's birthday. A good one, though.

Jamesdouglas, that was amazingly astute! WOW! The perfect answer to the question about the added mini-word...".cos "is almost like the intake of breathe...but I like the way you put it better than anything I could offer.

Quote
drbryant
In searching for the O2 performance of "Wild Horses", I was stunned by how many more recent artists have covered the song. Some great versions on youtube by artists like Garbage, Chris Cornell, Elvis Costello and Lucinda Williams, Guns N' Roses, Bush, Jewel, The Sundays, Charlotte Martin, Kelly Clarkson, Alicia Keys and Adam Levine. It seems to have achieved the status of a classic ballad; odd when you consider that it wasn't a hit when it was first released (stalling at #28 in the US). Interestingly, unlike other sixties/early seventies ballads (by groups ranging from the Carpenters to the Beatles) that sound strangely dated, and which one rarely hears except on American Idol and the like, "Wild Horses" sounds timeless.

I really found myself wondering what the reasons for that are - what is it about "Wild Horses" that contemporary artists/listeners don't hear in other ballads of the time? I immediately thought of all the great Beatles ballads from the late 60's - "Yesterday", "Let it Be", "The Long and Winding Road", which no contemporary artist would cover. "Wild Horses" has something that those songs lack - I can't put my finger on it, but it's definitely there. I guess the point of this post is to just draw attention to an amazing achievement by the Stones (despite their being more well-known for their rock/blues music).

Sad thing is, most of those who've since remade it most likely couldn't even tell you who was in the group. They simply do what their promoter or manager tells them.

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
kowalski

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.

There's an official video release from 2009.

I really like the 1975 and 1976 live versions.

Woody played a little bit lika Taylor for his frist year in the Stones

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
DoomandGloom

Quote
drbryant

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
drbryant
Brown Sugar is just a nasty, smoking track with a groove and chorus that are so good that it went straight to no. 1 because it was about slaves and S&M and oral sex.

fixed your post.

I'd like ti think that's true, but I think most people didn't get it. Mick's vocals are a little buried in the mix, and he garbles as usual. I remember seeing the lyrics "how come you DANCE so good, just like a black girl should," which is hilarious because by today's standards, it would be considered just as offensive as the original lyrics. But, in those days, that was fine.

yeah man so many of Mick's lyrics would get banned today... Stray Cat for example. Brown Sugar is a dangerous song by any standards, I wanted to play it at an inauguration party 4 years ago but the band wouldn't do it. The Stones used it as an audition tape for guitarists including Clapton, then they released it with a sax solo, probably so sick of hearing guitars. The Juliard version is hysterical where Woody cops the sax solo and Keith starts congratulating him. I still think Wild Horses is a comp lead track with snippets of both guitarists mixed as one performance.

No BS-audition for Clapton. Only a jam when celebrating Keith's birthday. A good one, though.

I could swear I've heard a version of BS with Clapton, no?

Quote
DoomandGloom

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
DoomandGloom

Quote
drbryant

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
drbryant
Brown Sugar is just a nasty, smoking track with a groove and chorus that are so good that it went straight to no. 1 because it was about slaves and S&M and oral sex.

fixed your post.

I'd like ti think that's true, but I think most people didn't get it. Mick's vocals are a little buried in the mix, and he garbles as usual. I remember seeing the lyrics "how come you DANCE so good, just like a black girl should," which is hilarious because by today's standards, it would be considered just as offensive as the original lyrics. But, in those days, that was fine.

yeah man so many of Mick's lyrics would get banned today... Stray Cat for example. Brown Sugar is a dangerous song by any standards, I wanted to play it at an inauguration party 4 years ago but the band wouldn't do it. The Stones used it as an audition tape for guitarists including Clapton, then they released it with a sax solo, probably so sick of hearing guitars. The Juliard version is hysterical where Woody cops the sax solo and Keith starts congratulating him. I still think Wild Horses is a comp lead track with snippets of both guitarists mixed as one performance.

No BS-audition for Clapton. Only a jam when celebrating Keith's birthday. A good one, though.

I could swear I've heard a version of BS with Clapton, no?

yeah that's what he meant there .

Quote
Green Lady

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Green Lady
3 Like all Stones songs, it is refreshingly free from schmaltz and sentimentality.

would someone please introduce this lady to streets of love? thanks....

OK, OK, like NEARLY all Stones songs, then, if you want to split hairs...

That's beyond quite specific, which smashes the 'Like all Stones songs, it is refreshingly free from schmaltz and sentimentality' statement. You've never walked the streets of love that are full of tears have you.

Quote
Redhotcarpet
I htink Landau has apoint in his review of Sticky Fingers. Take Brown Sugar. The electric riff guitar is great but the acoustic is pointless. Just one listens to the Altamont version where Keiths guitar slices thru the air, every single note.

Same with Wild Horses. And wasnt both songs recorded at Muscle Shoals? Maybe that's the problem. Sure, its the Stones and were used to them but remember the first time you heard Sticky or Exile? I was used to a live version of Sugar and didnt care for the studio version which sounded too messy.

Live in 1975 Wild Horses moves me. Mick doesnt come off trying to sound emotional and Keiths guitar and backup is crisp.

The acoustic in Brown Sugar does indeed help propel the song. It enhances the grittiness of it.

Quote
Redhotcarpet
Landau wrote that as an opener BS was NOT strong - production wise - and as a record Sticky wasnt as good as Bleed or Beggars.

Landau is an obvious idiot with shit for brains clogging up whatever listening capabilities he had.

Quote
DoomandGloom

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
DoomandGloom
The Stones used it as an audition tape for guitarists including Clapton, then they released it with a sax solo, probably so sick of hearing guitars.

No BS-audition for Clapton. Only a jam when celebrating Keith's birthday. A good one, though.

I could swear I've heard a version of BS with Clapton, no?

Why would you confuse it for a guitarist audition when Taylor was in the band?