Tell Me :
Talk
How can a non existent entity read a silly book?
Exactly!
I may write silly things, and Doxa's attitude is artificially provocative - he's not really like that
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-10 23:37 by DandelionPowderman.
Yeah, it is especially those songs song you mentioned - "Moonlight Mile", "100 Years Ago", "Winter", "Time Waits For No One" - which represent me Taylor's most efficient and unique contribution in enrichening the musical vocabulary of the Stones (as far as their studio works go). In those songs Taylor really steps into musical command with Jagger and leads the band into new adventures (and one could say, steps really into Brian's shoes as well). The co-work of two Mick's gets the band to a new level of expression, and it is pretty hard to find such musical landscapes prior of after them. There is that kind of reflective, mature, lyrical, even melancholic feel in them - the qualities Jagger reflects in his song-writing and in his vocal delivery but is pretty much channeling Taylor's bluesy but still melodical way of playing the guitar.
Of that special connection of the two Micks I think "Winter" is the most shining example - even though over-all I would rate "Moonlight Mile" over it - the way Jagger's vocals match with Taylor's guitar, having a dialogue, each reflecting the other, feeding each other, almost like singing a duetto - is simply haunting and sublime, musically so naturally flowing, and to me one of the greatest moments ever captured on a record by the Rolling Stones.
It is also songs like these I think Taylor was a perfect or lucky choice for them to choose in 1969. I can't see of any other British top level blues guitar gods having that kind of melodic finesse in their playing to take the band into "Moonlight Mile" route. Many could have played the rockers Taylor did, and showing flashy guitar there, but it is especially the ballad section where Taylor's unique touch shines.
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-11 00:02 by Doxa.
I Don't Know Why and Can You Hear The Music deserve a mention here, maybe even more than a couple of the songs you're talking about here, imo. Well, it's all about taste, of course - but the efficiency of what Taylor brings on those two songs is astonishing for me.
I am afraid that if you say that those two songs represent better the ideas than the examples I offered, that barely shows that you really don't understand or want to understand what I try to say. It is the co-work of Jagger and Taylor - their connection - that constitutes the uniqueness and musical foundation of those tracks. I guess for you who deny that Taylor never really had a real contribution to the very constitution of Stones music, or being integral part of the band in the creative sense, that is just bullshit. For you I guess Taylor's greatness is 'just' isolated guitar leads and solos you can compare one against each other, them being like added cherries to already baked cake. But I see Taylor's efficiency in a larger scale, of which "inspiring" (whatever that supposed to mean) or 'sparring' Jagger being not the least. I mean, if you can effect on Jagger, you will effect on the Stones sound. And if you are the first person with whom Jagger starts to labor his song sketches to a finished form, you surely will have a say how the song ends up sounding like. (And especially when there is no Keith Richards around).
So, I don't think "I Don't Know Why" belongs at all to the category of songs I listed above. Not that being 'just' a cover, I don't think Taylor either is much integrated to the band sound yet. There he is 'just' a wonderful guitarist doing his bit. He does a 'efficient' job in that sense - even though sounding a bit isolated - but not in the sense I was talking about above. There is not yet that special connection and mutual 'understanding' between him and Jagger yet. "Can You Hear The Music" is a better example - Taylor belongs to the constitution by being very integral part of the whole song feel - but as a song it doesn't quite fit to the melodic bluesy ballads territory I referred to (even though there are those 'Eastern meets West' elements in it like in "Moonlight Mile"). Of other 'not making the category I meant' Jagger/Taylor run pieces, I would mention "Hide Your Love" and, of course, "Sway". "Stop Breaking Down", in a way, as well.
What is phenomenal in about all those pieces is that Keith's contribution (both song-writing- and instrumental-wise) is minimal, and despite that, they manage to create authentic sounding Rolling Stones tracks, sounding naturally 'Stonesy' but still offering something 'different' and unique. Most of the songs are based on Jagger/Taylor co-work in instrumental level (both playing guitars, sometimes Mick in piano). Either of them is actually substituting Keith in the 'normal' order (and it is these tracks where Jagger started to play the guitar when Keith was absent). But they seem to 'click' damn well together. Interesting little phase in the Stones history (which seemingly happened thanks to Keith's extra curricular activities...). Prior that it would have been Keith to whom Jagger would have presented his song sketch, and they would together think what they would do with it, and how to develop it further (think of "Sympathy for The Devil", "You Can't Always Get What You Want", "Brown Sugar",etc.). Now that person, in that little phase, was Taylor.
- Doxa
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-11 03:03 by Doxa.
Those are both pretty terrible songs!
Nowhere near the aceness of Moonlight Mile.
Winter is a stunner
More like a minger!
Shite lyrics, weak melody, too much fake manerism from Jagger, lighters in the air moments with the cheesey guitar soloing. Gadz.
A cheap combination of Moonlight Mile and YCAGWYW.
Nup. A stunner. Complements Coming Down Again absolutely perfectly.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-11 04:40 by bitusa2012.
<It is the co-work of Jagger and Taylor - their connection - that constitutes the uniqueness and musical foundation of those tracks.>
You should stop listening to others, and instead trust your own ears.
You have no musical grounds for saying that there is a difference, except for that Keith wasn't there to record Winter. You don't know if the strings were arranged first - before Taylor laid down his guitar theme (which has nothing to do with what Mick sings, btw - one tiny exception, though), and you don't know how the song would have sounded with strings only on those themes.
On Time Waits For No One, Keith plays two guitars. The verses don't have a melody at all (try to hum or whistle it!), and the chorus (which has a brilliant melody) Keith sings, and he could very well have had a hand in writing it (as one liners and/or short phrases/themes/sayings like that is Keith's style).
Now, you will explain to me why it is that Jagger couldn't have been inspired by Taylor when singing the bridge on Can You Hear The Music. My ears tell me that he probably was. Winter, TWFNO, CYHTM and I Don't Know Why all have Taylor playing a motif/theme/melody. Are you really saying that the two latter songs are not in the same league only becuase they managed to pull it off nicely without Keith on the two former songs? (and you obviously didn't know that Keith played on TWFNO).
No, Doxa, I mentioned those songs, because Taylor's role in them is the same. With or without Keith, what he does has the same effect.
<CYHTM: "but as a song it doesn't quite fit to the melodic bluesy ballads territory I referred to">
What are you basing this on?? Of course it does! And it has a greater effect on how Mick sings as well.
Like I've said before (and suspect Mick was referring to in interviews, when asked), Mick probably was more inspired by Taylor's playing, regarding his singing, live on stage - going out of the box, improvising. On records, there aren't really many signs of this, no matter how many books you've read or how many Taylorites you've talked to
The romantic notion of how the Stones sounded even more Stonesy with the two Micks working together lacks substance. Mostly, the songs sounded different - some of them were very good, mind you, but to say that Taylor's effect on Mick's singing was more important just because Keith wasn't there is ludicrous, imo.
Did Mick sing his heart out on Let It Loose because Taylor wasn't there, and Keith had a melodic pattern to die for?
No, we're talking about a few songs here. Some were good, some were not so good. And Mick Jagger would have sung them brilliantly no matter who the other guitar player would be.
Nope.
I completely disagree to the quoted in bold. The one comparative weakness about "Winter" is its perhaps almost lack of "bloodfulness" and "sensuality",
All such is present in the background of "Coming Down Again". To me those two songs are not so much related.
Whereas in "Moonlight Mile" there are both "blood" and sensuality (if not in the form of "dirty" sex) and passion!
[I have to admit that a song, so fine as "Time Waits for Noone", to me sometimes or more often emerges as a little ...... "sterile".]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-11 11:37 by Witness.
Well, OK. I commented on the possibility that those two songs were to be seen or taken as complements, as was asserted (absolutely perfect), or, as not asserted by anyone, alternatives. I thought neither. I find little relation in those two senses between the songs, but cannot exclude that others might think otherwise and can give their good reasons.
I think "Winter " is a very fine song though. Have earlier said that it could ("should" ) have been made a single instead of album track.
Last edit: Correction of a word's spelling
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-11 15:06 by Witness.
I guess you next say I better use my own brains as well?
For the rest of the rant, I just pick up the most telling one:
"The romantic notion of how the Stones sounded even more Stonesy with the two Micks working together lacks substance."
I advice to see you some sort of therapist or reading consult, namely that has nothing to do with what I said, and just shows that you have some serious issues involved here (which probably makes it possible even to grasp what I try to say). We are adults here, and the legacy of Keith Richards and his significance in the Rolling Stones is doing just fine even though we might find glimpses of greatness in Rolling Stones pieces where "Keef" is not present.
- Doxa
I have. Keith has no input whatsoever in those songs, songs that Jagger directly or between the lines says were created from the unique collaboration of Jagger/Taylor. It's obvious that Jagger even told Taylor he'd be credited later on, namley get credits on their 1974 album, the same year he told Taylor he wanted to kick Keith out of the band.
Had this been a lesser known band they'd probably be able to speak out but since this is a huge corporation everything has to be done in regards to making money and keeping power. Jagger/Richards is power and heritage and part of the corporations legacy.
I get that, I'd do the same had I been Jagger in 1974. Theres nothing wrong in it from that perspective but if you think of it in musical terms there are many "wrongdoings" in the Stones recording history.
Giving co-credits in 1997 doesnt affect anything anymore but in 1962-1981 credits were an integral part of their identity and part of the whole idea of having a band. Everyone in the 60s compared themselves to Lennon/McCartney. Today McCartney is trying to change some credits to McCartney/Lennon.
That's the power and meaning of credits.
According to Taylor that was about Till The Next Goodbye.
The rest is just you guessing and speculating, unfortunately.
"Created", as you put it, doesn't necessarily mean something else than "finished", "recorded" or "arranged" together.
Now, tell me your sources saying that Keith had no input whatsoever on Time Waits For No One. Taylor hoped for a credit for creating the guitar theme, but I have never heard that Keith was absent, had no input or didn't have anything to do with this song in particular. To me, it sounds like his guitars (and the backing tracks) were recorded before Taylor's.
BTW, you're quoting me from a slightly different discussion: Taylor's role in these songs vs. that of CYHTM and IDKW...
I wrote:
"What is phenomenal in about all those pieces is that Keith's contribution (both song-writing- and instrumental-wise) is minimal, and despite that, they manage to create authentic sounding Rolling Stones tracks, sounding naturally 'Stonesy' but still offering something 'different' and unique."
Which is to say: despite Keith minimal contribution, they manage to create "Stonesy" sounding stuff but which still sounds essentially different. I guess some people might think that "Moonlight Mile" or "Winter" don't sound 'Stonesy' enough or at all, but I see them naturally and convincingly enrichening their musical vocabulary. The presupposition behind the claim is that whatever Keith touches upon, sounds naturally 'Stonesy', so the whole idea that I am belittlening Keith here sounds comical, since it is the opposite (and I see that misinterpretation only as a symptom of over-sensitivity concerning Keith's status or some deep-going issues with "Taylorites" of which I can't really make sense of).
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-11 12:53 by Doxa.
Yes, I do assume a lot, and as much as I can, I keep reminding people that what I talk is just my "educated guess", but even for aesthetical reasons I don't always start my sentences with "I think", "I presume", "As far as I can see", etc. I am sorry if it looks like that I am stating 'facts', but let's say, I am highly critical even using that term, and the way I see people using it here quite generally is very sloppy talk to my eyes (but for pragmatic reasons, alright).
I am assuming a lot, but so are other people - actually all of them - as well, and much more than they think they are. It is assumptions based on reading books, seeing quatations, using own ears, having personal experiences, musical education, living one's life, whatever. There would be really interesting stories to tell about trusting one's one ears, the past experiences, reading books and articles, listening other people - whatever we think, consciously or not, about what we would rely on as an authority of our beliefs - but this is not a forum to talk about those things. But let's just briefly say that even the idea that "just use your own ears" - that sort of empirical evidence - it's much complex thing than it is generally assumed, and involves damn much more idiosyncratic features - to do with our acquired taste, trained ear, prior knowledge and conceptual thought; generally: our interpretative skills - that it is hardly any good for proving 'evidence', if we would seek any 'neutrality' or 'objectivity'. There are people in this board who actually take their own intuitions as some sort of source of knowledge giving us factual statements. And they believe on them blindly. But it's alright, because this is just a fan forum people discussing of their favourite rock and roll band, not any scientific symposium.
I write this because I am personally not just keen on the fantastic music we can hear in our own ears, but also highly interested in the creative processes behind it. The first mentioned is easy to put in words, since it nothing but stating an opinion based on own taste. But the latter one is more challenging, because it theoretically is based not on our own taste or opinion, but on empirical fact. But since the actual facts we know about it, are very rare - just hints here and there - our accounts of trying make sense of it never can be nothing but 'educated guesses', which is to say, pure speculation.
But that's what I do, and that's all. I put the hints together I get hearing here and there - be them quotes, other people's guesses, using my ears, my own knowledge of music and working methods of making music, whatever - and try to construct as coherent piece as I can (with the help of my imagination). Since what we do here is not any academic stuff, and we are not writing to scientific journals, but just for having fun, I don't even try to be punctual or explicating every claim I make by some sort of factual evidence. My points are fated to be rough sketches or theoretical assumptions (like anyone alse's, really). Probably they are more accurate sometimes, and more probably sometimes less. My posts are long and boring enough without that kind of 'pseudo-scientific' justification, besides I don't have that much spare time in my hands to be really precise...
I was about to say something about Taylor-Jagger connection, of the effect of Keith's absence, and still some of "Moonlight Mile", but shit, I leave it to other time, since my prelude took a bit too long time...
- Doxa
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-11 14:53 by Doxa.
Yeah, we are hearing the same thing - and I guess we will talk more about "Winter" - one of my favourite Stones tracks ever - when Rene's Track Talk gets there (quite a long time for "W", though). But before that, a few quick words (and I think it belongs to the typical Jagger/Taylor collaborations "Moonlight Mile" started with).
It is fascinating to compare "Winter" to "You Can't Always Get What You Want", as an example what happens to Jagger's song if it is given to hands of Taylor instead of Richards (or, to say it other words: Jagger's main musical partner is Taylor instead of Richards). Namely, the songs are surprisingly similar structuralwise, based on same simple two-chord basic riff (A/D vs. C/F, an open tuning excercise), with one additional chord in chorus, and the melody going around and reflecting the chordbase (and having a lot of similaraties in the verses). "Can't Always Get" is much more 'strict', and Keith-like having 'balls', stronger rhythmical 'kick', Jagger following the main melody line rather faithfully and note-perfect on his own, while "Winter" is much more free-going, fluidy, almost improvisitional, and Jagger's vocals heavily affected by Taylor's lead lines.
Like you OpenG, I would think that "Winter" have sounded rather different if there had been Keith instead of Taylor there.
- Doxa
Keith wasn't missing in action on Sway.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Track Talk: Moonlight Mile
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: December 10, 2013 23:32
Quote
DandelionPowderman
You read me like the devil reads the bible.
How can a non existent entity read a silly book?
Re: Track Talk: Moonlight Mile
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: December 10, 2013 23:37
Quote
His MajestyQuote
DandelionPowderman
You read me like the devil reads the bible.
How can a non existent entity read a silly book?
Exactly!
I may write silly things, and Doxa's attitude is artificially provocative - he's not really like that
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-10 23:37 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: Track Talk: Moonlight Mile
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: December 10, 2013 23:57
Quote
OpenG
DP - MM is a great studio performance but I think there best studio song is Winter again the stones sounding magical without Keith. MT's playing helps Jagger with his singing and with the melody same can be said with songs like 100 Years Ago and TWFNO again MT's helps jagger with the melody and especially with 100 years Ago jagger is singing in a different style as they take chances. Also on Hide Your Love - jaggers vocal delivery is just great. So with MT presence they do stuff outside the box and do not sound like Keith's idea of how the stones should sound
play the guitar boy
Yeah, it is especially those songs song you mentioned - "Moonlight Mile", "100 Years Ago", "Winter", "Time Waits For No One" - which represent me Taylor's most efficient and unique contribution in enrichening the musical vocabulary of the Stones (as far as their studio works go). In those songs Taylor really steps into musical command with Jagger and leads the band into new adventures (and one could say, steps really into Brian's shoes as well). The co-work of two Mick's gets the band to a new level of expression, and it is pretty hard to find such musical landscapes prior of after them. There is that kind of reflective, mature, lyrical, even melancholic feel in them - the qualities Jagger reflects in his song-writing and in his vocal delivery but is pretty much channeling Taylor's bluesy but still melodical way of playing the guitar.
Of that special connection of the two Micks I think "Winter" is the most shining example - even though over-all I would rate "Moonlight Mile" over it - the way Jagger's vocals match with Taylor's guitar, having a dialogue, each reflecting the other, feeding each other, almost like singing a duetto - is simply haunting and sublime, musically so naturally flowing, and to me one of the greatest moments ever captured on a record by the Rolling Stones.
It is also songs like these I think Taylor was a perfect or lucky choice for them to choose in 1969. I can't see of any other British top level blues guitar gods having that kind of melodic finesse in their playing to take the band into "Moonlight Mile" route. Many could have played the rockers Taylor did, and showing flashy guitar there, but it is especially the ballad section where Taylor's unique touch shines.
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-11 00:02 by Doxa.
Re: Track Talk: Moonlight Mile
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: December 11, 2013 00:11
Winter is a good example. I like it better actually. Worried about you has that same structure albeit more formalized with a Winterish riff from Keith. Tops too. And the live version of YCAGWYW.
Re: Track Talk: Moonlight Mile
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: December 11, 2013 00:19
Quote
DoxaQuote
OpenG
DP - MM is a great studio performance but I think there best studio song is Winter again the stones sounding magical without Keith. MT's playing helps Jagger with his singing and with the melody same can be said with songs like 100 Years Ago and TWFNO again MT's helps jagger with the melody and especially with 100 years Ago jagger is singing in a different style as they take chances. Also on Hide Your Love - jaggers vocal delivery is just great. So with MT presence they do stuff outside the box and do not sound like Keith's idea of how the stones should sound
play the guitar boy
Yeah, it is especially those songs song you mentioned - "Moonlight Mile", "100 Years Ago", "Winter", "Time Waits For No One" - which represent me Taylor's most efficient and unique contribution in enrichening the musical vocabulary of the Stones (as far as their studio works go). In those songs Taylor really steps into musical command with Jagger and leads the band into new adventures (and one could say, steps really into Brian's shoes as well). The co-work of two Mick's gets the band to a new level of expression, and it is pretty hard to find such musical landscapes prior of after them. There is that kind of reflective, mature, lyrical, even melancholic feel in them - the qualities Jagger reflects in his song-writing and in his vocal delivery but is pretty much channeling Taylor's bluesy but still melodical way of playing the guitar.
Of that special connection of the two Micks I think "Winter" is the most shining example - even though over-all I would rate "Moonlight Mile" over it - the way Jagger's vocals match with Taylor's guitar, having a dialogue, each reflecting the other, feeding each other, almost like singing a duetto - is simply haunting and sublime, musically so naturally flowing, and to me one of the greatest moments ever captured on a record by the Rolling Stones.
It is also songs like these I think Taylor was a perfect or lucky choice for them to choose in 1969. I can't see of any other British top level blues guitar gods having that kind of melodic finesse in their playing to take the band into "Moonlight Mile" route. Many could have played the rockers Taylor did, and showing flashy guitar there, but it is especially the ballad section where Taylor's unique touch shines.
- Doxa
I Don't Know Why and Can You Hear The Music deserve a mention here, maybe even more than a couple of the songs you're talking about here, imo. Well, it's all about taste, of course - but the efficiency of what Taylor brings on those two songs is astonishing for me.
Re: Track Talk: Moonlight Mile
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: December 11, 2013 02:34
Quote
DandelionPowderman
I Don't Know Why and Can You Hear The Music deserve a mention here, maybe even more than a couple of the songs you're talking about here, imo. Well, it's all about taste, of course - but the efficiency of what Taylor brings on those two songs is astonishing for me.
I am afraid that if you say that those two songs represent better the ideas than the examples I offered, that barely shows that you really don't understand or want to understand what I try to say. It is the co-work of Jagger and Taylor - their connection - that constitutes the uniqueness and musical foundation of those tracks. I guess for you who deny that Taylor never really had a real contribution to the very constitution of Stones music, or being integral part of the band in the creative sense, that is just bullshit. For you I guess Taylor's greatness is 'just' isolated guitar leads and solos you can compare one against each other, them being like added cherries to already baked cake. But I see Taylor's efficiency in a larger scale, of which "inspiring" (whatever that supposed to mean) or 'sparring' Jagger being not the least. I mean, if you can effect on Jagger, you will effect on the Stones sound. And if you are the first person with whom Jagger starts to labor his song sketches to a finished form, you surely will have a say how the song ends up sounding like. (And especially when there is no Keith Richards around).
So, I don't think "I Don't Know Why" belongs at all to the category of songs I listed above. Not that being 'just' a cover, I don't think Taylor either is much integrated to the band sound yet. There he is 'just' a wonderful guitarist doing his bit. He does a 'efficient' job in that sense - even though sounding a bit isolated - but not in the sense I was talking about above. There is not yet that special connection and mutual 'understanding' between him and Jagger yet. "Can You Hear The Music" is a better example - Taylor belongs to the constitution by being very integral part of the whole song feel - but as a song it doesn't quite fit to the melodic bluesy ballads territory I referred to (even though there are those 'Eastern meets West' elements in it like in "Moonlight Mile"). Of other 'not making the category I meant' Jagger/Taylor run pieces, I would mention "Hide Your Love" and, of course, "Sway". "Stop Breaking Down", in a way, as well.
What is phenomenal in about all those pieces is that Keith's contribution (both song-writing- and instrumental-wise) is minimal, and despite that, they manage to create authentic sounding Rolling Stones tracks, sounding naturally 'Stonesy' but still offering something 'different' and unique. Most of the songs are based on Jagger/Taylor co-work in instrumental level (both playing guitars, sometimes Mick in piano). Either of them is actually substituting Keith in the 'normal' order (and it is these tracks where Jagger started to play the guitar when Keith was absent). But they seem to 'click' damn well together. Interesting little phase in the Stones history (which seemingly happened thanks to Keith's extra curricular activities...). Prior that it would have been Keith to whom Jagger would have presented his song sketch, and they would together think what they would do with it, and how to develop it further (think of "Sympathy for The Devil", "You Can't Always Get What You Want", "Brown Sugar",etc.). Now that person, in that little phase, was Taylor.
- Doxa
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-11 03:03 by Doxa.
Re: Track Talk: Moonlight Mile
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: December 11, 2013 04:10
Quote
Doxa
"Winter", "Time Waits For No One"
Those are both pretty terrible songs!
Nowhere near the aceness of Moonlight Mile.
Re: Track Talk: Moonlight Mile
Posted by:
bitusa2012
()
Date: December 11, 2013 04:23
Quote
His MajestyQuote
Doxa
"Winter", "Time Waits For No One"
Those are both pretty terrible songs!
Nowhere near the aceness of Moonlight Mile.
Winter is a stunner
Re: Track Talk: Moonlight Mile
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: December 11, 2013 04:31
Quote
bitusa2012
Winter is a stunner
More like a minger!
Shite lyrics, weak melody, too much fake manerism from Jagger, lighters in the air moments with the cheesey guitar soloing. Gadz.
A cheap combination of Moonlight Mile and YCAGWYW.
Re: Track Talk: Moonlight Mile
Posted by:
bitusa2012
()
Date: December 11, 2013 04:40
Quote
His MajestyQuote
bitusa2012
Winter is a stunner
More like a minger!
Shite lyrics, weak melody, too much fake manerism from Jagger, lighters in the air moments with the cheesey guitar soloing. Gadz.
A cheap combination of Moonlight Mile and YCAGWYW.
Nup. A stunner. Complements Coming Down Again absolutely perfectly.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-11 04:40 by bitusa2012.
Re: Track Talk: Moonlight Mile
Posted by:
moonlightaffair
()
Date: December 11, 2013 04:44
Nup. A stunner. Complements Coming Down Again absolutely perfectly.[/quote]
Agreed
Agreed
Re: Track Talk: Moonlight Mile
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: December 11, 2013 10:06
Quote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowderman
I Don't Know Why and Can You Hear The Music deserve a mention here, maybe even more than a couple of the songs you're talking about here, imo. Well, it's all about taste, of course - but the efficiency of what Taylor brings on those two songs is astonishing for me.
I am afraid that if you say that those two songs represent better the ideas than the examples I offered, that barely shows that you really don't understand or want to understand what I try to say. It is the co-work of Jagger and Taylor - their connection - that constitutes the uniqueness and musical foundation of those tracks. I guess for you who deny that Taylor never really had a real contribution to the very constitution of Stones music, or being integral part of the band in the creative sense, that is just bullshit. For you I guess Taylor's greatness is 'just' isolated guitar leads and solos you can compare one against each other, them being like added cherries to already baked cake. But I see Taylor's efficiency in a larger scale, of which "inspiring" (whatever that supposed to mean) or 'sparring' Jagger being not the least. I mean, if you can effect on Jagger, you will effect on the Stones sound. And if you are the first person with whom Jagger starts to labor his song sketches to a finished form, you surely will have a say how the song ends up sounding like. (And especially when there is no Keith Richards around).
So, I don't think "I Don't Know Why" belongs at all to the category of songs I listed above. Not that being 'just' a cover, I don't think Taylor either is much integrated to the band sound yet. There he is 'just' a wonderful guitarist doing his bit. He does a 'efficient' job in that sense - even though sounding a bit isolated - but not in the sense I was talking about above. There is not yet that special connection and mutual 'understanding' between him and Jagger yet. "Can You Hear The Music" is a better example - Taylor belongs to the constitution by being very integral part of the whole song feel - but as a song it doesn't quite fit to the melodic bluesy ballads territory I referred to (even though there are those 'Eastern meets West' elements in it like in "Moonlight Mile"). Of other 'not making the category I meant' Jagger/Taylor run pieces, I would mention "Hide Your Love" and, of course, "Sway". "Stop Breaking Down", in a way, as well.
What is phenomenal in about all those pieces is that Keith's contribution (both song-writing- and instrumental-wise) is minimal, and despite that, they manage to create authentic sounding Rolling Stones tracks, sounding naturally 'Stonesy' but still offering something 'different' and unique. Most of the songs are based on Jagger/Taylor co-work in instrumental level (both playing guitars, sometimes Mick in piano). Either of them is actually substituting Keith in the 'normal' order (and it is these tracks where Jagger started to play the guitar when Keith was absent). But they seem to 'click' damn well together. Interesting little phase in the Stones history (which seemingly happened thanks to Keith's extra curricular activities...). Prior that it would have been Keith to whom Jagger would have presented his song sketch, and they would together think what they would do with it, and how to develop it further (think of "Sympathy for The Devil", "You Can't Always Get What You Want", "Brown Sugar",etc.). Now that person, in that little phase, was Taylor.
- Doxa
<It is the co-work of Jagger and Taylor - their connection - that constitutes the uniqueness and musical foundation of those tracks.>
You should stop listening to others, and instead trust your own ears.
You have no musical grounds for saying that there is a difference, except for that Keith wasn't there to record Winter. You don't know if the strings were arranged first - before Taylor laid down his guitar theme (which has nothing to do with what Mick sings, btw - one tiny exception, though), and you don't know how the song would have sounded with strings only on those themes.
On Time Waits For No One, Keith plays two guitars. The verses don't have a melody at all (try to hum or whistle it!), and the chorus (which has a brilliant melody) Keith sings, and he could very well have had a hand in writing it (as one liners and/or short phrases/themes/sayings like that is Keith's style).
Now, you will explain to me why it is that Jagger couldn't have been inspired by Taylor when singing the bridge on Can You Hear The Music. My ears tell me that he probably was. Winter, TWFNO, CYHTM and I Don't Know Why all have Taylor playing a motif/theme/melody. Are you really saying that the two latter songs are not in the same league only becuase they managed to pull it off nicely without Keith on the two former songs? (and you obviously didn't know that Keith played on TWFNO).
No, Doxa, I mentioned those songs, because Taylor's role in them is the same. With or without Keith, what he does has the same effect.
<CYHTM: "but as a song it doesn't quite fit to the melodic bluesy ballads territory I referred to">
What are you basing this on?? Of course it does! And it has a greater effect on how Mick sings as well.
Like I've said before (and suspect Mick was referring to in interviews, when asked), Mick probably was more inspired by Taylor's playing, regarding his singing, live on stage - going out of the box, improvising. On records, there aren't really many signs of this, no matter how many books you've read or how many Taylorites you've talked to
The romantic notion of how the Stones sounded even more Stonesy with the two Micks working together lacks substance. Mostly, the songs sounded different - some of them were very good, mind you, but to say that Taylor's effect on Mick's singing was more important just because Keith wasn't there is ludicrous, imo.
Did Mick sing his heart out on Let It Loose because Taylor wasn't there, and Keith had a melodic pattern to die for?
No, we're talking about a few songs here. Some were good, some were not so good. And Mick Jagger would have sung them brilliantly no matter who the other guitar player would be.
Re: Track Talk: Moonlight Mile
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: December 11, 2013 11:02
Quote
bitusa2012
Nup. A stunner. Complements Coming Down Again absolutely perfectly.
Nope.
Re: Track Talk: Moonlight Mile
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: December 11, 2013 11:37
Quote
bitusa2012Quote
His MajestyQuote
bitusa2012
Winter is a stunner
More like a minger!
Shite lyrics, weak melody, too much fake manerism from Jagger, lighters in the air moments with the cheesey guitar soloing. Gadz.
A cheap combination of Moonlight Mile and YCAGWYW.
Nup. A stunner. Complements Coming Down Again absolutely perfectly.
I completely disagree to the quoted in bold. The one comparative weakness about "Winter" is its perhaps almost lack of "bloodfulness" and "sensuality",
All such is present in the background of "Coming Down Again". To me those two songs are not so much related.
Whereas in "Moonlight Mile" there are both "blood" and sensuality (if not in the form of "dirty" sex) and passion!
[I have to admit that a song, so fine as "Time Waits for Noone", to me sometimes or more often emerges as a little ...... "sterile".]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-11 11:37 by Witness.
Re: Track Talk: Moonlight Mile
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: December 11, 2013 11:40
<To me those two songs are not so much related.>
They're not related at all. Coming Down Again is a brilliant mood-piece, whilst Winter tries to be it, imo.
They're not related at all. Coming Down Again is a brilliant mood-piece, whilst Winter tries to be it, imo.
Re: Track Talk: Moonlight Mile
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: December 11, 2013 12:03
Quote
DandelionPowderman
<To me those two songs are not so much related.>
They're not related at all. Coming Down Again is a brilliant mood-piece, whilst Winter tries to be it, imo.
Well, OK. I commented on the possibility that those two songs were to be seen or taken as complements, as was asserted (absolutely perfect), or, as not asserted by anyone, alternatives. I thought neither. I find little relation in those two senses between the songs, but cannot exclude that others might think otherwise and can give their good reasons.
I think "Winter " is a very fine song though. Have earlier said that it could ("should" ) have been made a single instead of album track.
Last edit: Correction of a word's spelling
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-11 15:06 by Witness.
Re: Track Talk: Moonlight Mile
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: December 11, 2013 12:08
Quote
DandelionPowderman
You should stop listening to others, and instead trust your own ears..
I guess you next say I better use my own brains as well?
For the rest of the rant, I just pick up the most telling one:
"The romantic notion of how the Stones sounded even more Stonesy with the two Micks working together lacks substance."
I advice to see you some sort of therapist or reading consult, namely that has nothing to do with what I said, and just shows that you have some serious issues involved here (which probably makes it possible even to grasp what I try to say). We are adults here, and the legacy of Keith Richards and his significance in the Rolling Stones is doing just fine even though we might find glimpses of greatness in Rolling Stones pieces where "Keef" is not present.
- Doxa
Re: Track Talk: Moonlight Mile
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: December 11, 2013 12:27
I think the quotes below say enough about your patronizing and unwillingness to listen to what I actually say. It's almost like you want to disagree (especially about CYHTM). You assume a lot, and present it as facts, too.
I will say this, though - if you have a hard time getting it - that Taylor surely played an extremely vital part in making these songs what they are. But the songs ARE different - and that's probably why you like them so much?
I wrote "even more Stonesy". "Authentic-sounding and naturally Stonesy" would be the correct quoting of you. That's my bad (even though I still disagree).
<that barely shows that you really don't understand or want to understand>
<I see Taylor's efficiency in a larger scale>
<they manage to create authentic sounding Rolling Stones tracks, sounding naturally 'Stonesy>
<What is phenomenal in about all those pieces is that Keith's contribution (both song-writing- and instrumental-wise) is minimal>
<It is the co-work of Jagger and Taylor - their connection - that constitutes the uniqueness and musical foundation of those tracks>
<For you I guess Taylor's greatness is 'just' isolated guitar leads and solos>
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-11 12:28 by DandelionPowderman.
I will say this, though - if you have a hard time getting it - that Taylor surely played an extremely vital part in making these songs what they are. But the songs ARE different - and that's probably why you like them so much?
I wrote "even more Stonesy". "Authentic-sounding and naturally Stonesy" would be the correct quoting of you. That's my bad (even though I still disagree).
<that barely shows that you really don't understand or want to understand>
<I see Taylor's efficiency in a larger scale>
<they manage to create authentic sounding Rolling Stones tracks, sounding naturally 'Stonesy>
<What is phenomenal in about all those pieces is that Keith's contribution (both song-writing- and instrumental-wise) is minimal>
<It is the co-work of Jagger and Taylor - their connection - that constitutes the uniqueness and musical foundation of those tracks>
<For you I guess Taylor's greatness is 'just' isolated guitar leads and solos>
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-11 12:28 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: Track Talk: Moonlight Mile
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: December 11, 2013 12:39
Quote
DandelionPowderman
You have no musical grounds for saying that there is a difference, except for that Keith wasn't there to record Winter. You don't know if the strings were arranged first - before Taylor laid down his guitar theme (which has nothing to do with what Mick sings, btw - one tiny exception, though), and you don't know how the song would have sounded with strings only on those themes.
I have. Keith has no input whatsoever in those songs, songs that Jagger directly or between the lines says were created from the unique collaboration of Jagger/Taylor. It's obvious that Jagger even told Taylor he'd be credited later on, namley get credits on their 1974 album, the same year he told Taylor he wanted to kick Keith out of the band.
Had this been a lesser known band they'd probably be able to speak out but since this is a huge corporation everything has to be done in regards to making money and keeping power. Jagger/Richards is power and heritage and part of the corporations legacy.
I get that, I'd do the same had I been Jagger in 1974. Theres nothing wrong in it from that perspective but if you think of it in musical terms there are many "wrongdoings" in the Stones recording history.
Giving co-credits in 1997 doesnt affect anything anymore but in 1962-1981 credits were an integral part of their identity and part of the whole idea of having a band. Everyone in the 60s compared themselves to Lennon/McCartney. Today McCartney is trying to change some credits to McCartney/Lennon.
That's the power and meaning of credits.
Re: Track Talk: Moonlight Mile
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: December 11, 2013 12:51
Quote
RedhotcarpetQuote
DandelionPowderman
You have no musical grounds for saying that there is a difference, except for that Keith wasn't there to record Winter. You don't know if the strings were arranged first - before Taylor laid down his guitar theme (which has nothing to do with what Mick sings, btw - one tiny exception, though), and you don't know how the song would have sounded with strings only on those themes.
I have. Keith has no input whatsoever in those songs, songs that Jagger directly or between the lines says were created from the unique collaboration of Jagger/Taylor. It's obvious that Jagger even told Taylor he'd be credited later on, namley get credits on their 1974 album, the same year he told Taylor he wanted to kick Keith out of the band.
Had this been a lesser known band they'd probably be able to speak out but since this is a huge corporation everything has to be done in regards to making money and keeping power. Jagger/Richards is power and heritage and part of the corporations legacy.
I get that, I'd do the same had I been Jagger in 1974. Theres nothing wrong in it from that perspective but if you think of it in musical terms there are many "wrongdoings" in the Stones recording history.
Giving co-credits in 1997 doesnt affect anything anymore but in 1962-1981 credits were an integral part of their identity and part of the whole idea of having a band. Everyone in the 60s compared themselves to Lennon/McCartney. Today McCartney is trying to change some credits to McCartney/Lennon.
That's the power and meaning of credits.
According to Taylor that was about Till The Next Goodbye.
The rest is just you guessing and speculating, unfortunately.
"Created", as you put it, doesn't necessarily mean something else than "finished", "recorded" or "arranged" together.
Now, tell me your sources saying that Keith had no input whatsoever on Time Waits For No One. Taylor hoped for a credit for creating the guitar theme, but I have never heard that Keith was absent, had no input or didn't have anything to do with this song in particular. To me, it sounds like his guitars (and the backing tracks) were recorded before Taylor's.
BTW, you're quoting me from a slightly different discussion: Taylor's role in these songs vs. that of CYHTM and IDKW...
Re: Track Talk: Moonlight Mile
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: December 11, 2013 12:52
Quote
DandelionPowderman
I wrote "even more Stonesy". "Authentic-sounding and naturally Stonesy" would be the correct quoting of you. That's my bad (even though I still disagree).
I wrote:
"What is phenomenal in about all those pieces is that Keith's contribution (both song-writing- and instrumental-wise) is minimal, and despite that, they manage to create authentic sounding Rolling Stones tracks, sounding naturally 'Stonesy' but still offering something 'different' and unique."
Which is to say: despite Keith minimal contribution, they manage to create "Stonesy" sounding stuff but which still sounds essentially different. I guess some people might think that "Moonlight Mile" or "Winter" don't sound 'Stonesy' enough or at all, but I see them naturally and convincingly enrichening their musical vocabulary. The presupposition behind the claim is that whatever Keith touches upon, sounds naturally 'Stonesy', so the whole idea that I am belittlening Keith here sounds comical, since it is the opposite (and I see that misinterpretation only as a symptom of over-sensitivity concerning Keith's status or some deep-going issues with "Taylorites" of which I can't really make sense of).
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-11 12:53 by Doxa.
Re: Track Talk: Moonlight Mile
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: December 11, 2013 13:07
And where didn't I get this?
It's the naturally Stonesy-thing I don't get...
They had made songs like that for years before Taylor joined:
Back Street Girl
I Am Waiting
As Tears Go By
Lady Jane
Songs that aren't Stonesy at all, but great. If you add some different instrumentation, they'll sound marvellous - which they did.
It's the same with those songs featuring Taylor. The only difference is that his guitar is one of those different instrumentations - often combined with other things, like strings.
My point: It's not phenonemal at all that the Stones make songs like this - with or without one of the songwriters present. They've done it since 1964.
You seem determined that Mick couldn't have written these songs without Taylor. I say the opposite, without ruling anything out, let's leave it at that.
It's the naturally Stonesy-thing I don't get...
They had made songs like that for years before Taylor joined:
Back Street Girl
I Am Waiting
As Tears Go By
Lady Jane
Songs that aren't Stonesy at all, but great. If you add some different instrumentation, they'll sound marvellous - which they did.
It's the same with those songs featuring Taylor. The only difference is that his guitar is one of those different instrumentations - often combined with other things, like strings.
My point: It's not phenonemal at all that the Stones make songs like this - with or without one of the songwriters present. They've done it since 1964.
You seem determined that Mick couldn't have written these songs without Taylor. I say the opposite, without ruling anything out, let's leave it at that.
Re: Track Talk: Moonlight Mile
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: December 11, 2013 14:42
Quote
DandelionPowderman
You assume a lot, and present it as facts, too.
Yes, I do assume a lot, and as much as I can, I keep reminding people that what I talk is just my "educated guess", but even for aesthetical reasons I don't always start my sentences with "I think", "I presume", "As far as I can see", etc. I am sorry if it looks like that I am stating 'facts', but let's say, I am highly critical even using that term, and the way I see people using it here quite generally is very sloppy talk to my eyes (but for pragmatic reasons, alright).
I am assuming a lot, but so are other people - actually all of them - as well, and much more than they think they are. It is assumptions based on reading books, seeing quatations, using own ears, having personal experiences, musical education, living one's life, whatever. There would be really interesting stories to tell about trusting one's one ears, the past experiences, reading books and articles, listening other people - whatever we think, consciously or not, about what we would rely on as an authority of our beliefs - but this is not a forum to talk about those things. But let's just briefly say that even the idea that "just use your own ears" - that sort of empirical evidence - it's much complex thing than it is generally assumed, and involves damn much more idiosyncratic features - to do with our acquired taste, trained ear, prior knowledge and conceptual thought; generally: our interpretative skills - that it is hardly any good for proving 'evidence', if we would seek any 'neutrality' or 'objectivity'. There are people in this board who actually take their own intuitions as some sort of source of knowledge giving us factual statements. And they believe on them blindly. But it's alright, because this is just a fan forum people discussing of their favourite rock and roll band, not any scientific symposium.
I write this because I am personally not just keen on the fantastic music we can hear in our own ears, but also highly interested in the creative processes behind it. The first mentioned is easy to put in words, since it nothing but stating an opinion based on own taste. But the latter one is more challenging, because it theoretically is based not on our own taste or opinion, but on empirical fact. But since the actual facts we know about it, are very rare - just hints here and there - our accounts of trying make sense of it never can be nothing but 'educated guesses', which is to say, pure speculation.
But that's what I do, and that's all. I put the hints together I get hearing here and there - be them quotes, other people's guesses, using my ears, my own knowledge of music and working methods of making music, whatever - and try to construct as coherent piece as I can (with the help of my imagination). Since what we do here is not any academic stuff, and we are not writing to scientific journals, but just for having fun, I don't even try to be punctual or explicating every claim I make by some sort of factual evidence. My points are fated to be rough sketches or theoretical assumptions (like anyone alse's, really). Probably they are more accurate sometimes, and more probably sometimes less. My posts are long and boring enough without that kind of 'pseudo-scientific' justification, besides I don't have that much spare time in my hands to be really precise...
I was about to say something about Taylor-Jagger connection, of the effect of Keith's absence, and still some of "Moonlight Mile", but shit, I leave it to other time, since my prelude took a bit too long time...
- Doxa
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-11 14:53 by Doxa.
Re: Track Talk: Moonlight Mile
Posted by:
OpenG
()
Date: December 11, 2013 15:12
More on Winter - Melodic Wonderment To My Ears
There are so many examples of Taylor getting Jagger to sing his ass off (or jagger would of been on record flat (we all know jagger at best he sings
around the notes) but with Taylor's vibrato that changed especially on the songs they collaborated on that were magical moments on record(moonlight,TWFNO
etc. But the greatest example is on Winter where there collaboration is two fold. Listen to jagger's sweet delivery after each verse against Taylor's guitar. As jagger sings 'wrap my coat around you woman' that fine beautiful moment its jagger's turn to influence Taylor that sets up MT's brilliant melodic wonderment. That solo stops time for me as I dive into his tonal lines.
This song could of not sounded this way with just Keith and Mick collaboration - what would be missing is the lack of obviuous guitar lines and Jagger not diving into the song going outside the box
play the guitar boy
There are so many examples of Taylor getting Jagger to sing his ass off (or jagger would of been on record flat (we all know jagger at best he sings
around the notes) but with Taylor's vibrato that changed especially on the songs they collaborated on that were magical moments on record(moonlight,TWFNO
etc. But the greatest example is on Winter where there collaboration is two fold. Listen to jagger's sweet delivery after each verse against Taylor's guitar. As jagger sings 'wrap my coat around you woman' that fine beautiful moment its jagger's turn to influence Taylor that sets up MT's brilliant melodic wonderment. That solo stops time for me as I dive into his tonal lines.
This song could of not sounded this way with just Keith and Mick collaboration - what would be missing is the lack of obviuous guitar lines and Jagger not diving into the song going outside the box
play the guitar boy
Re: Track Talk: Moonlight Mile
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: December 11, 2013 15:53
Quote
OpenG
More on Winter - Melodic Wonderment To My Ears
There are so many examples of Taylor getting Jagger to sing his ass off (or jagger would of been on record flat (we all know jagger at best he sings
around the notes) but with Taylor's vibrato that changed especially on the songs they collaborated on that were magical moments on record(moonlight,TWFNO
etc. But the greatest example is on Winter where there collaboration is two fold. Listen to jagger's sweet delivery after each verse against Taylor's guitar. As jagger sings 'wrap my coat around you woman' that fine beautiful moment its jagger's turn to influence Taylor that sets up MT's brilliant melodic wonderment. That solo stops time for me as I dive into his tonal lines.
This song could of not sounded this way with just Keith and Mick collaboration - what would be missing is the lack of obviuous guitar lines and Jagger not diving into the song going outside the box
play the guitar boy
Yeah, we are hearing the same thing - and I guess we will talk more about "Winter" - one of my favourite Stones tracks ever - when Rene's Track Talk gets there (quite a long time for "W", though). But before that, a few quick words (and I think it belongs to the typical Jagger/Taylor collaborations "Moonlight Mile" started with).
It is fascinating to compare "Winter" to "You Can't Always Get What You Want", as an example what happens to Jagger's song if it is given to hands of Taylor instead of Richards (or, to say it other words: Jagger's main musical partner is Taylor instead of Richards). Namely, the songs are surprisingly similar structuralwise, based on same simple two-chord basic riff (A/D vs. C/F, an open tuning excercise), with one additional chord in chorus, and the melody going around and reflecting the chordbase (and having a lot of similaraties in the verses). "Can't Always Get" is much more 'strict', and Keith-like having 'balls', stronger rhythmical 'kick', Jagger following the main melody line rather faithfully and note-perfect on his own, while "Winter" is much more free-going, fluidy, almost improvisitional, and Jagger's vocals heavily affected by Taylor's lead lines.
Like you OpenG, I would think that "Winter" have sounded rather different if there had been Keith instead of Taylor there.
- Doxa
Re: Track Talk: Moonlight Mile
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: December 11, 2013 15:58
They played in the same band, didn't they?
Re: Track Talk: Moonlight Mile
Posted by:
OpenG
()
Date: December 11, 2013 16:18
Yeah, we are hearing the same thing - and I guess we will talk more about "Winter" - one of my favourite Stones tracks ever - when Rene's Track Talk gets there (quite a long time for "W", though). But before that, a few quick words (and I think it belongs to the typical Jagger/Taylor collaborations "Moonlight Mile" started with).
It is fascinating to compare "Winter" to "You Can't Always Get What You Want", as an example what happens to Jagger's song if it is given to hands of Taylor instead of Richards (or, to say it other words: Jagger's main musical partner is Taylor instead of Richards). Namely, the songs are surprisingly similar structuralwise, based on same simple two-chord basic riff (A/D vs. C/F, an open tuning excercise), with one additional chord in chorus, and the melody going around and reflecting the chordbase (and having a lot of similaraties in the verses). "Can't Always Get" is much more 'strict', and Keith-like having 'balls', stronger rhythmical 'kick', Jagger following the main melody line rather faithfully and note-perfect on his own, while "Winter" is much more free-going, fluidy, almost improvisitional, and Jagger's vocals heavily affected by Taylor's lead lines.
Like you OpenG, I would think that "Winter" have sounded rather different if there had been Keith instead of Taylor there.
- Doxa
Doxa - I agree I have always thought MT got his solo for Winter from his playing live YCAGWYW - take either 72/73 versions and listen how Winter starts on the studio version at 3.20 of the song he gets that lick from YCAGWYW and builds upon that on his Winter solo.
It is fascinating to compare "Winter" to "You Can't Always Get What You Want", as an example what happens to Jagger's song if it is given to hands of Taylor instead of Richards (or, to say it other words: Jagger's main musical partner is Taylor instead of Richards). Namely, the songs are surprisingly similar structuralwise, based on same simple two-chord basic riff (A/D vs. C/F, an open tuning excercise), with one additional chord in chorus, and the melody going around and reflecting the chordbase (and having a lot of similaraties in the verses). "Can't Always Get" is much more 'strict', and Keith-like having 'balls', stronger rhythmical 'kick', Jagger following the main melody line rather faithfully and note-perfect on his own, while "Winter" is much more free-going, fluidy, almost improvisitional, and Jagger's vocals heavily affected by Taylor's lead lines.
Like you OpenG, I would think that "Winter" have sounded rather different if there had been Keith instead of Taylor there.
- Doxa
Doxa - I agree I have always thought MT got his solo for Winter from his playing live YCAGWYW - take either 72/73 versions and listen how Winter starts on the studio version at 3.20 of the song he gets that lick from YCAGWYW and builds upon that on his Winter solo.
Re: Track Talk: Moonlight Mile
Posted by:
liddas
()
Date: December 11, 2013 16:18
The great thing about this thread is that it made me notice for the first time in more than 30 years that MT is actually playing a solo on MM ...
No kidding!
C
No kidding!
C
Re: Track Talk: Moonlight Mile
Posted by:
OpenG
()
Date: December 11, 2013 16:32
Yeah and on SWAY - Jagger sings with that BAD attitude that sets up MT's blistering outro solo.
These are all examples of the working relationship with MT and MJ while Keith is MIA.
play that guitar boy
These are all examples of the working relationship with MT and MJ while Keith is MIA.
play that guitar boy
Re: Track Talk: Moonlight Mile
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: December 11, 2013 16:42
Quote
OpenG
Yeah and on SWAY - Jagger sings with that BAD attitude that sets up MT's blistering outro solo.
These are all examples of the working relationship with MT and MJ while Keith is MIA.
play that guitar boy
Keith wasn't missing in action on Sway.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
babyblue , Christopher , Colonel Dan , FeelslikeaGhost , JMoisica , mariano , pjb , rastakeith , TooTight
Guests:
2492
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10