><

A marvel.

Quote
sonomastone

Quote
gotdablouse
I'd just seen the setist for last night and couldn't believe he was not asked to join on "No Expectations"...the reason we voted for thaf song to be added...and then I see they trotted him out for Satisafaction! Did they even play that song live when he was in the band? Well I guess it's better than nothing...even though it's a convenient way to have him back for the bow...and to improve on Keith's aimless soloing like he dis in Oakland ;-) But yeah, the one song pattern is broken!

Yes, they played satisfaction all the time when he was with the band. They performed Satisfaction with him a lot more than they did No Expectations.

They did "Satisfaction" regularly from 1969 to 1971. And still to the day those versions are the most interesting interpreations of the song. It is a great example of how evolving, adventerous band they were at the time. The "road version" from 1969 American tour is one of the finest examples of Richards/Taylor guitar axis in practise. The 1971 "Otis" version is an intersting experiment by its own terms.

But what goes for "No Expectations" - I'm with godtablouse with that one. It cries Taylor. As I recall Taylor only did at Hyde Park show, in his first (there is a thread of that with a clip - his playing is sublime.) But he has said it to be his favourite Stones song of all-time, and he plays it regularly in his solo gigs (and does a fantastic version, and uses the original song only as a rough sketch). That's exactly a track where nobody else in the world could make that slide guitar (since Brian is gone) better than Taylor. Ronnie does a fine job, but we all know what Taylor with his unique lyrical touch is able to make out of it.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-09 12:35 by Doxa.

Quote
sonomastone

Quote
gotdablouse
I'd just seen the setist for last night and couldn't believe he was not asked to join on "No Expectations"...the reason we voted for thaf song to be added...and then I see they trotted him out for Satisafaction! Did they even play that song live when he was in the band? Well I guess it's better than nothing...even though it's a convenient way to have him back for the bow...and to improve on Keith's aimless soloing like he dis in Oakland ;-) But yeah, the one song pattern is broken!

Yes, they played satisfaction all the time when he was with the band. They performed Satisfaction with him a lot more than they did No Expectations.

Yeah I looked it up and actually they stopped playing it in 1972, in any case it's a big improvement over the first three shows even if they put him in that slot where it was "convenient" (bow, Keith's rambling soloing in Oakland)...more to come no doubt.

But even though Taylor has "history" with "Satisfaction" I need to admit that if I could choose what song for him to play, that would be among the last ones to pick up in their recent set lists. But then again, having Taylor in any song is better than not having him at all. Dying to hear what he adds to "Satisfaction".

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa
But even though Taylor has "history" with "Satisfaction" I need to admit that if I could choose what song for him to play, that would be among the last ones to pick up in their recent set lists. But then again, having Taylor in any song is better than not having him at all. Dying to hear what he adds to "Satisfaction".

- Doxa

Your optimism suits you. `Keep up the good work!

Quote
Doxa
But even though Taylor has "history" with "Satisfaction" I need to admit that if I could choose what song for him to play, that would be among the last ones to pick up in their recent set lists. But then again, having Taylor in any song is better than not having him at all. Dying to hear what he adds to "Satisfaction".

- Doxa

Really really really really hope someone posts a video of it

Quote
Doxa
But even though Taylor has "history" with "Satisfaction" I need to admit that if I could choose what song for him to play, that would be among the last ones to pick up in their recent set lists. But then again, having Taylor in any song is better than not having him at all. Dying to hear what he adds to "Satisfaction".

- Doxa

You can think about it a lot of different ways though. They play a song specifically for Taylor... or Taylor joins on a song we've heard a thousand times and finally makes it sound fresh again. Either way, we can't lose!

Quote
VT22

Quote
Doxa
But even though Taylor has "history" with "Satisfaction" I need to admit that if I could choose what song for him to play, that would be among the last ones to pick up in their recent set lists. But then again, having Taylor in any song is better than not having him at all. Dying to hear what he adds to "Satisfaction".

- Doxa

Your optimism suits you. `Keep up the good work!

But I'm totally selfish here. For a veeeeeeerrryyyy long time The Stones are doing something on the stage that I am honestly thrilled of, and keen on following. Even though Taylor's role turns out to be one/two song cameo, and nothing more, I will be grateful for making me so excited. There is a part of me which don't like the way Taylor is treated (as a sort of circus number within the show), but there is a part which just selfisly loves hearing any little sound from him with them.

- Doxa

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
Doxa
But even though Taylor has "history" with "Satisfaction" I need to admit that if I could choose what song for him to play, that would be among the last ones to pick up in their recent set lists. But then again, having Taylor in any song is better than not having him at all. Dying to hear what he adds to "Satisfaction".

- Doxa

You can think about it a lot of different ways though. They play a song specifically for Taylor... or Taylor joins on a song we've heard a thousand times and finally makes it sound fresh again. Either way, we can't lose!

Exactly. That's the way I think. We can't lose. And I can't really understand why some people are against that idea. That of having more Taylor. All I can figure them to think is like:

(a) They just don't like Taylor, and they think his guitar sound or style don't "suit" to the Stones.
(b) They are stubborn Woodities, who don't want any "spotlight" to be taken out of Ronnie.
(c) They are diehard Vegas act fans - they don't want anything to change from the way the band has been sounding like for ages.
(d) They generally are conservatives in music and afraid of making readjustments, changes, riskies, novelties, etc.
(e) They don't like the guitars taking more role.

I guess in many cases, these positions overlap. (I think Jagger would vote for c, d, and e...><)

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-09 13:34 by Doxa.

I'm happy MT was asked to play Satisfaction and not Expectation.

Satisfaction is now developed in a sort of guitar jam, and allows more space to MT's improvisation. The solo on Expectation needs to be CONCISE, otherwise the song is dead. Sort of like flooding a pasta with too much sauce. I am sure that MT can be concise, but what's the use of burning his second slot with only a few seconds of solo. Besides, MT's solo version of Expectation is (am I allowed to say?) ... quite ... shitty

C

Quote
liddas
I'm happy MT was asked to play Satisfaction and not Expectation.

Satisfaction is now developed in a sort of guitar jam, and allows more space to MT's improvisation. The solo on Expectation needs to be CONCISE, otherwise the song is dead. Sort of like flooding a pasta with too much sauce. I am sure that MT can be concise, but what's the use of burning his second slot with only a few seconds of solo. Besides, MT's solo version of Expectation is (am I allowed to say?) ... quite ... shitty

C

Must say - the idea of MT playing on Satisfaction excites me, for no other reason than it's not an obvious choice for him...I mean in one sense it is because it's the last song of the evening but I'd rather hear what he adds to that over something he plays in his own shows...

"Ill put the tiger in your tank!!"



But "I Cant Get No (a clip of) Satisfaction"...

- Doxa

Quote
liddas
I'm happy MT was asked to play Satisfaction and not Expectation.

Satisfaction is now developed in a sort of guitar jam, and allows more space to MT's improvisation. The solo on Expectation needs to be CONCISE, otherwise the song is dead. Sort of like flooding a pasta with too much sauce. I am sure that MT can be concise, but what's the use of burning his second slot with only a few seconds of solo. Besides, MT's solo version of Expectation is (am I allowed to say?) ... quite ... shitty

C

I get you what you are saying, but I think in "Rambler" has enough to do that free-going jamming. I think some more structured and "formal" piece would get us another taster of Taylor's uniqueness, of his power to enrich the Stones sound. That's why I vote for "No Expectations".

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa

Quote
liddas
I'm happy MT was asked to play Satisfaction and not Expectation.

Satisfaction is now developed in a sort of guitar jam, and allows more space to MT's improvisation. The solo on Expectation needs to be CONCISE, otherwise the song is dead. Sort of like flooding a pasta with too much sauce. I am sure that MT can be concise, but what's the use of burning his second slot with only a few seconds of solo. Besides, MT's solo version of Expectation is (am I allowed to say?) ... quite ... shitty

C

I get you what you are saying, but I think in "Rambler" has enough to do that free-going jamming. I think some more structured and "formal" piece would get us another taster of Taylor's uniqueness, of his power to enrich the Stones sound. That's why I vote for "No Expectations".

- Doxa

I totally agree with you Doxa, but in another thread I wrote this, and I this it's still relevant:

MR is not the most suited song for fluid, beautiful lines, Taylor's brand.
So we can judge that only if he plays on more regular songs instead of on a long jam-like song like MR is nowadays played (not so much a choice of Taylor I guess, but a band decision to play it that way). So if he also can play on Dead Flowers, Brown Sugar, Gimme Shelter etc. we can get that beautiful Taylor playing, provided that he does get enough room to shine. I have my doubts about that in a combination with Keith and Ronnie and regarding the band is used to play those songs since many a long long year.

Now, the headline needs to be changed to:

We want Mick Taylor on more than two songs please

Quote
Doxa

Quote
sonomastone

Quote
gotdablouse
I'd just seen the setist for last night and couldn't believe he was not asked to join on "No Expectations"...the reason we voted for thaf song to be added...and then I see they trotted him out for Satisafaction! Did they even play that song live when he was in the band? Well I guess it's better than nothing...even though it's a convenient way to have him back for the bow...and to improve on Keith's aimless soloing like he dis in Oakland ;-) But yeah, the one song pattern is broken!

Yes, they played satisfaction all the time when he was with the band. They performed Satisfaction with him a lot more than they did No Expectations.

They did "Satisfaction" regularly from 1969 to 1971. And still to the day those versions are the most interesting interpreations of the song. It is a great example of how evolving, adventerous band they were at the time. The "road version" from 1969 American tour is one of the finest examples of Richards/Taylor guitar axis in practise. The 1971 "Otis" version is an intersting experiment by its own terms.

But what goes for "No Expectations" - I'm with godtablouse with that one. It cries Taylor. As I recall Taylor only did at Hyde Park show, in his first (there is a thread of that with a clip - his playing is sublime.) But he has said it to be his favourite Stones song of all-time, and he plays it regularly in his solo gigs (and does a fantastic version, and uses the original song only as a rough sketch). That's exactly a track where nobody else in the world could make that slide guitar (since Brian is gone) better than Taylor. Ronnie does a fine job, but we all know what Taylor with his unique lyrical touch is able to make out of it.

- Doxa

Doxa, once again: Taylor played No Expectations twice live with The Stones. The second time was during the Nicaragua earth victims show in January 1973. Here you go, it's amazingly great, both Taylor and Keith:

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-17 23:30 by His Majesty.

Quote
mtaylor
Now, the headline needs to be changed to:

We want Mick Taylor on more than two songs please

Let's hope there will be a lot of changes in future!

- Doxa

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-17 23:30 by His Majesty.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
kleermaker

Too slow and Taylor spoils it, it was much better at Hyde Park.

The 1973 version is very moving, very emotional and subdued. Almost silent.
The version at HP is raw and very well too. I love them both, just like I love the studio version. Both live versions are honouring Brian quite well.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-17 23:36 by His Majesty.

Okay, yeah, there was that "Nicaraguan" version as well. I wasn't certain - and too lazy to check it - so I just mentioned the Hyde Park one.

It is interesting version as well. It is a one timer, and I think very much "hey, how did that one go - let's see what happens", as I think the many "odd choices" in that special concert were. And they were not yet people like Chuck Leavell to give guidance.

- Doxa

Er, Doxa. What about Billy?

Really glad to see Mick Taylor on stage for Satisfaction. Thats great. Also, the tweaks to the setlist I like.
Hopefully, as the tour moves on Mick Taylor will have his role continue to expand and the band sounds dangerous again with him on guitar.

It's Keith's guitar that sounds dangerous. Taylor brings melody.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
It's Keith's guitar that sounds dangerous. Taylor brings melody.

Agreed, Keith's playing is outstanding here. Two great guitarists playing together very well.

Now let's see and hear how they did Satisfaction last night. In any case the pics are very nice, especially the one with Keith and Taylor together.

Two songs! Great news.... the real goal is to have MT sit-in for the whole concert. Why should he be treated as a guest?

I want to see on Satisfaction if they traded leads or just pandered to MT again. I hope the Stones embrace the 3 guitar attack. Let MT step back and let Ronnie and Keith work it too. Why does everything have to be a nostalgia solo for MT. Make him part of the band.

Quote
duffydawg
Two songs! Great news.... the real goal is to have MT sit-in for the whole concert. Why should he be treated as a guest?

I want to see on Satisfaction if they traded leads or just pandered to MT again. I hope the Stones embrace the 3 guitar attack. Let MT step back and let Ronnie and Keith work it too. Why does everything have to be a nostalgia solo for MT. Make him part of the band.

He is treated as a guest because he's not in the band