Tell Me :
Talk
Are you referring to MT's rehearsal time or the entire band's rehearsal time?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-14 17:32 by bonddm.
Musicians doing performances and asking a lot of money in front of 100000 people should have their stuff together, right from the first note. There's no excuse for messing up, they all had enough time to rehearse, just do your homework, since you know the songs and keys for years already. I don't want to be the devil's advocate here, but playing like this RS guitar section did was quite embarrassing, apart from the predictable pre-arranged warhorses that even a child can play. There is just no excuse to act like that, imo. If they hadn't Chuck, Darryl, Charlie and Jagger singing in tune, this guitar section might as well have stayed at home. All three of them.
Apparently the audience takes it for granted, which is beyond me. No, it isn't, it is the Rolling Stones, a great garageband. They get away with it.
So you think Taylor's performance on Glastonbury Knocking is worthless?
I referred myself to the fact that he is a former member, as you expressed indirectly that you are aware of. An invited former member though. In that context I suggested a subordinate role on most songs. Then he would be better integrated with the band's way of playing, how this has changed over time. Something I think was Kleermaker's argument in one post. In my view a most reasonable argument. Then he most probably would do better each time. Or at least as well when he also now has done very well.
Mediocre at best, imo. Just imagine how it would have sounded in '72/'73. -CYHMN.
It is the "most songs-part" that is troubling, because the Stones are so loose. I can´t see the "tres amigos" working properly on most songs with a three guitar line up.
I really like Taylor.But on this tour Wood was the man! Because of all that Taylor he didn't get the credit he deserves.
And the guitar players look damaged
They've been outcasts all their lives
You made my day, you must live in the forest, DP.
I bet all your coats are TaYlor made
I think you haven't understood the music of this band at all. Moonlight Mile, very ragged indeed.
Only a great exception. The band has a sound, which has been the basis for their uniqueness - from the Brian era, via Exile and till today.
Satisfaction, Brown Sugar and Start Me Up are all more important and relevant songs, when the Stones' sound is described, even though MM indeed is a pearl.
On the other hand, there wouldn't be a the Rolling Stones with only Moonlight Miles.
Neither to me is raggedness the primary trademark. For me the primary trademark is rather the perfection of the imperfect. You tend to define away much of the diversity and richness about this band by identifying their trademark with raggedness. Or many moments of outright beauty spread around the band's career.
You are for instance doing away with an album as THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES' REQUEST. In fact, you define what is often the floating and melodic guitar sound of Mick Taylor's guitar as outside the band's trademark. On the other hand, you once also gave an example in a song of noise elements in Mick Taylor's guitar that you were opposed to as well.
I must say, Dandelion Powderman. that your presented criterium here for trademark of the Rolling Stones is narrowing down much of the surprisingly wide scope of their music.
[Edits: corrections of language]
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-16 20:08 by Witness.
I must say that I find it difficult to understand that Mick Taylor should be the one that brought danger to the Rolling Stones, or that he has been the only provider of magical songs, of a bluesy approach or of variation to the Rolling Stones. Really! And to say that the Rolling Stones before Mick Taylor only was marked by a "pop element", is not the case. And what there was of pop before Mick Taylor's joining the band was on the other hand often an experimental pop. Even their commercial pop music had large quality.
Where are the nuances in a understanding as the quoted?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-16 17:54 by Witness.
Bottom line is that during the Brian Jones and Mick Taylor era raggedness wasn't a trademark of their music at all. After those two gifted musicians, well ... raggedness became a growing factor, at the detriment of the beauty and feel of their music. Alas. The 2012/2013 tour has proved that once again. Just to remind us I guess.
It is a case of nuances of the language here, though, as to the word "raggedness". From a dictionary
adj.
1. Tattered, frayed, or torn: ragged clothes.
2. Dressed in tattered or threadbare clothes: a ragged scarecrow.
3. Unkempt or shaggy: ragged hair.
4. Having an irregular surface or edge; uneven or jagged in outline: a column of text set with a ragged right margin.
5. Imperfect; uneven: The actor gave a ragged performance.
6. Harsh; rasping: a ragged cough.
The sense no. 3 is not so flattering as parts of no. 1 "frayed" or "torn", I think.
There are several phases in a band like the Stones when "frayed" and "torn" exist side by side with the beautiful. Or they alternate from song to song. Other phases there might be more like "unkempt" alone, though even then with some kind of attraction. As there are moments of beauty only. And reflect then on noise elemensts that also can hold considerable attraction. Another case can be put forward as to chaos and even ugly elements.
I wonder if one should say that various senses of raggedness / noise / chaos on one side, beauty /perfection a.s.o have had roles coworking during many phases of their careeer. In certain songs maybe only beauty, or only chaos.But I think that it ought not to be reduced to one of them only as overriding characterization.
The perfect and the imperfect. And the perfection of the imperfect. Something or rather much of their magic might be said to lie therein.
I don't think you understood this fully, Witness.
The raggedness is in their sound on most songs, be it She Said Yeah, Under My Thumb, All Down The Line, Loving Cup, Can You Hear The Music, Citadel, Stray Cat Blues, Miss You, Down In The Hole and The Worst- to name a few.
No, I'm not narrowing anything. If you just listen to Keith's guitar, which is quintessential to the Stones' sound, I'm sure you'll know what I mean.
It's lovely in its aggressive sloppiness, as well as on the brink of falling apart any minute (Citadel, The Lantern, Loving Cup, Stray Cat Blues again...).
Seemingly, many of the Taylorites want the band to sound like it does on 100 Years Ago, Heartbreaker or Star Star, where Taylor carries the song also rhythm-wise.
That baffles me, as the band sound different, and not quite like the Stones.
I'm not talking about the songs where Keith and Taylor are playing well together here (Hip Shake, I Got The Blues, Dead Flowers, All Down The Line, Bitch, Can You Hear The Music and If You Can't Rock Me come to mind).
To summon it up I think what's unique about the Stones' sound is within the rhythm. If you take that away it won't quite sound like the Stones.
All the songs you mentioned are in open tuning, except for TWFNO.
Is it only Taylor that makes those songs great?
The variety between those songs says it all about the great possibilities you have with open tuning and the use of that vehicle in songwriting.
As you know, I know a thing or two about that.
It was great seeing Taylor on stage with the band again, btw. I hope he joins them on the fall tour.
The raggedness (or danger, if you like) has very much to do with definition number five - the imperfection/almost sloppy approach to rhythm and space in the songs. We can call it wobbliness. A little behind, a little in front.
This is going like a red thread throughout their career. If kleerie can't hear it on She Said Yeah, I'm Free and Connection it will surprise me a lot.
That wobble, or wonkiness, is bound to be there when Keith is leading the band rhythmwise, and Charlie and Bill are masters playing around with it.
For pete's sake: This is what separates the Stones from all the other bands! It shouldn't be very controversial? If it is, someone is in denial, pretending the Stones is/was a high class, profound and deep rock act, imo.
Well, DandelionPowderman, you said that I did not understand this fully. I rather would say that I did not understand at all that you by "raggedness", related to the Rolling Stones, referred as to timing to the question of who and which instrument leads and who and which instruments follow or play around. I don't think that you chose an adequate concept for that phenomenon, which I am and for a long time have been aware of about the Stones.
I don't play any instruments, however, so I am not able to tell when (at which played songs or versions of songs) this phenomenon is at work, and when it is not. Maybe, it is not necessary to play an instrument, maybe, that anyone, by practise perhaps, can train up their ears' ability to notice it. Myself I am a primitive listener, I have only got my taste, so I have not got that ability so far.
What other posters thought that you referred to, DandelionPowderman, I cannot tell, but my suspicion is that there were others as well that were led astray. You'd better find another expression or concept. When a so distinguished poster as kleermaker gave the following response to my reaction to a post by OpenG,
I found that much was lost and felt the need to recover some middleground and sought for various senses of "raggedness". I gave an answer on that basis, still not aware what you referred to, until I read from your response quoted in the following that it had a content that I for decades have been aware of, but never been in command of
I am a little surprised that you would abstain from stating instead that this "wonkiness" is not all, but a vital part of the claim for the Stones as a high class rock act on a specific basis. You instead seem to consider them as charming "low class" band in an unsurpassed degree.
Not all, but a part, in that you in your posts gave lists of songs where the said "wonkiness" is present, then of songs where it is not, thereafter of songs where Mick Taylor is said to carry the song rhythmwise, and of songs, where you give the verdict that Mick Taylor functions good in interplay with Keith Richards. Very well, all the more you have by the way given a basis for the view that Mick Taylor would have been in need to play in a subordinate role on stage for instance on a not so loudly mixed accoustic guitar on all other songs than his solos to be integrated with the band. And that it would be perhaps more demanding for him to play with the Stones than perhaps many other bands.
I have one objection though: When there are remarkable songs, where the "wonkiness" is not present, even if the "wonkiness" most of all would be what marks the band out from most (or all) other bands, this "wonkiness" is not exhaustive for the claim of the Rolling Stones as a historic band. It should not either ... or, where you, DandelionPowdwerman, goes for "wonkiness", but rather both ... and.
Then I wonder, I do, when the "wonkiness" started. At the outset my memory seems to tell me that there was an odd mixture between Brian Jones' blues oriented guitar and Keith Richards' Chuck Berry-oriented riffs. Was it from their playing of the Chuck Berry covers during rehearsals and concerts that the upcoming "wonkiness" gradually spread among other songs played as well? All of them or only some early songs, studiowise and live? I would like to ask you, DandelionPowdwerman, to make an evaluation of songs on the first two studio albums and the German Decca compilation AROUND AND AROUND (covering most of the two early EPs and a couple of early singles):To what extent is that "wonkiness" present there on which songs?
And I also wonder, His Majesty: Long ago I read it being said that Brian Jones lost confidence in his guitar playing over time. Rather puzzling for a musician that well capable of picking up so many instruments. Could it be possible that the development of this "wonkiness" that must be as much about Charlie Watts (and Bill Wyman) as it is about Keith Richards, might have had some influence - and understandable effect, not denigrating either on his behalf - on Brian Jones allegedly losing self-confidence in his guitar playing?
[I still think it would be most interesting if the Rolling Stones would enter the studio and record a studio album as a three guitar band. That songs therefrom would be played live during a possible continuance of their concerts. Those songs played by a three guitar band, also involving Mick Taylor.]
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-17 12:55 by Witness.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
bonddm
()
Date: July 14, 2013 17:08
If you are going to charge some of the most outrageous ticket prices in concert history,you should be willing to put in a lot more rehearsal time.Quote
kleermakerQuote
bonddm
How the hell do we know what Taylor is capable,of playing wise,in 2013 when not once has he been given a charm to "warm up"?How much easier could he nail CYHMK if it was his 2nd or 3rd consecutive song?If you watch his 2003 guest spot on John Mayall's 70th Bday concert,he plays his arse off because he is given a long set and can ease himself into it.
Also his rehearsing time with the band was extremely short. It's just wonderful what he has played beside MR: a handful outstanding Knockings and two very nice Sways (especially given the frame the Stones use to play that song).
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
svt22
()
Date: July 14, 2013 17:21
Quote
bonddmIf you are going to charge some of the most outrageous ticket prices in concert history,you should be willing to put in a lot more rehearsal time.Quote
kleermakerQuote
bonddm
How the hell do we know what Taylor is capable,of playing wise,in 2013 when not once has he been given a charm to "warm up"?How much easier could he nail CYHMK if it was his 2nd or 3rd consecutive song?If you watch his 2003 guest spot on John Mayall's 70th Bday concert,he plays his arse off because he is given a long set and can ease himself into it.
Also his rehearsing time with the band was extremely short. It's just wonderful what he has played beside MR: a handful outstanding Knockings and two very nice Sways (especially given the frame the Stones use to play that song).
Are you referring to MT's rehearsal time or the entire band's rehearsal time?
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
bonddm
()
Date: July 14, 2013 17:29
Both,but I'd bet Taylor's lack of rehearsal time wasn't by choice.Quote
svt22Are you referring to MT's rehearsal time or the entire band's rehearsal time?Quote
bonddmIf you are going to charge some of the most outrageous ticket prices in concert history,you should be willing to put in a lot more rehearsal time.Quote
kleermakerQuote
bonddm
How the hell do we know what Taylor is capable,of playing wise,in 2013 when not once has he been given a charm to "warm up"?How much easier could he nail CYHMK if it was his 2nd or 3rd consecutive song?If you watch his 2003 guest spot on John Mayall's 70th Bday concert,he plays his arse off because he is given a long set and can ease himself into it.
Also his rehearsing time with the band was extremely short. It's just wonderful what he has played beside MR: a handful outstanding Knockings and two very nice Sways (especially given the frame the Stones use to play that song).
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-14 17:32 by bonddm.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
svt22
()
Date: July 14, 2013 17:59
Quote
bonddmBoth,but I'd bet Taylor's lack of rehearsal time wasn't by choice.Quote
svt22Are you referring to MT's rehearsal time or the entire band's rehearsal time?Quote
bonddmIf you are going to charge some of the most outrageous ticket prices in concert history,you should be willing to put in a lot more rehearsal time.Quote
kleermakerQuote
bonddm
How the hell do we know what Taylor is capable,of playing wise,in 2013 when not once has he been given a charm to "warm up"?How much easier could he nail CYHMK if it was his 2nd or 3rd consecutive song?If you watch his 2003 guest spot on John Mayall's 70th Bday concert,he plays his arse off because he is given a long set and can ease himself into it.
Also his rehearsing time with the band was extremely short. It's just wonderful what he has played beside MR: a handful outstanding Knockings and two very nice Sways (especially given the frame the Stones use to play that song).
Musicians doing performances and asking a lot of money in front of 100000 people should have their stuff together, right from the first note. There's no excuse for messing up, they all had enough time to rehearse, just do your homework, since you know the songs and keys for years already. I don't want to be the devil's advocate here, but playing like this RS guitar section did was quite embarrassing, apart from the predictable pre-arranged warhorses that even a child can play. There is just no excuse to act like that, imo. If they hadn't Chuck, Darryl, Charlie and Jagger singing in tune, this guitar section might as well have stayed at home. All three of them.
Apparently the audience takes it for granted, which is beyond me. No, it isn't, it is the Rolling Stones, a great garageband. They get away with it.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: July 14, 2013 18:52
Quote
svt22Quote
bonddmBoth,but I'd bet Taylor's lack of rehearsal time wasn't by choice.Quote
svt22Are you referring to MT's rehearsal time or the entire band's rehearsal time?Quote
bonddmIf you are going to charge some of the most outrageous ticket prices in concert history,you should be willing to put in a lot more rehearsal time.Quote
kleermakerQuote
bonddm
How the hell do we know what Taylor is capable,of playing wise,in 2013 when not once has he been given a charm to "warm up"?How much easier could he nail CYHMK if it was his 2nd or 3rd consecutive song?If you watch his 2003 guest spot on John Mayall's 70th Bday concert,he plays his arse off because he is given a long set and can ease himself into it.
Also his rehearsing time with the band was extremely short. It's just wonderful what he has played beside MR: a handful outstanding Knockings and two very nice Sways (especially given the frame the Stones use to play that song).
Musicians doing performances in front of 100000 people asking a lot of money should have their stuff together, right from the first note. There's no excuse for messing up, they all had enough time to rehearse, just do your homework, since you know the songs and keys for years already. I don't want to be the devil's advocate here, but playing like this RS guitar section does, was quite embarrassing, apart from the predictable pre-arranged warhorses that even a child can play. There is just no excuse for that, imo. If they hadn't Chuck, Darryl, Charlie and Jagger, this guitar section might as well have stayed at home. All the three of them.
Apparently the audience takes it for granted, which is beyond me. No, it isn't, it is the Rolling Stones, a great garageband. They get away with it.
So you think Taylor's performance on Glastonbury Knocking is worthless?
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: July 14, 2013 20:36
Quote
DandelionPowderman
........
My point was that when the rest of the band play the same songs brilliantly, his contributions become the icing of the cake. Sometimes he improves the songs, sometimes not.
I understand the romantic thing about a former member should play on all songs, but if you've played with three guitarists before, and with a big machinery like the Stones' band, you'll see that it is bound to be a messy line up.
I think they have solved it perfectly, although I would have preferred him on a couple of more songs myself.
Many tend to forget, though, he is not in the band. Had he played on all songs, it would have reduced other band members' tasks.
I referred myself to the fact that he is a former member, as you expressed indirectly that you are aware of. An invited former member though. In that context I suggested a subordinate role on most songs. Then he would be better integrated with the band's way of playing, how this has changed over time. Something I think was Kleermaker's argument in one post. In my view a most reasonable argument. Then he most probably would do better each time. Or at least as well when he also now has done very well.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: July 14, 2013 21:05
I don't think Taylor has been a problem on this tour, Witness.
He's been playing good, as expected. Messing with a lot of songs, to make room for three guitars is difficult at this stage for the Stones.
We probably got what worked out the best at the rehearsals.
He's been playing good, as expected. Messing with a lot of songs, to make room for three guitars is difficult at this stage for the Stones.
We probably got what worked out the best at the rehearsals.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
svt22
()
Date: July 15, 2013 04:00
Quote
kleermakerQuote
svt22Quote
bonddmBoth,but I'd bet Taylor's lack of rehearsal time wasn't by choice.Quote
svt22Are you referring to MT's rehearsal time or the entire band's rehearsal time?Quote
bonddmIf you are going to charge some of the most outrageous ticket prices in concert history,you should be willing to put in a lot more rehearsal time.Quote
kleermakerQuote
bonddm
How the hell do we know what Taylor is capable,of playing wise,in 2013 when not once has he been given a charm to "warm up"?How much easier could he nail CYHMK if it was his 2nd or 3rd consecutive song?If you watch his 2003 guest spot on John Mayall's 70th Bday concert,he plays his arse off because he is given a long set and can ease himself into it.
Also his rehearsing time with the band was extremely short. It's just wonderful what he has played beside MR: a handful outstanding Knockings and two very nice Sways (especially given the frame the Stones use to play that song).
Musicians doing performances in front of 100000 people and asking a lot of money should have their stuff together, right from the first note. There's no excuse for messing up: they all had enough time to rehearse, just do your homework since you know the songs and keys for years already. I don't want to be the devil's advocate here, but playing like this RS guitar section did was quite embarrassing, apart from some predictable pre-arranged warhorses that even a child can play. There is just no excuse to act like that, imo. If they hadn't Chuck, Darryl, Charlie (and Jagger singing in tune), this guitar section might as well have stayed at home. All three of them.
Apparently the audience takes it for granted, which is beyond me. No, it isn't, it is the Rolling Stones, the greatest garageband. They get away with it.
So you think Taylor's performance on Glastonbury Knocking is worthless?
Mediocre at best, imo. Just imagine how it would have sounded in '72/'73. -CYHMN.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: July 15, 2013 09:37
Quote
WitnessQuote
DandelionPowderman
........
My point was that when the rest of the band play the same songs brilliantly, his contributions become the icing of the cake. Sometimes he improves the songs, sometimes not.
I understand the romantic thing about a former member should play on all songs, but if you've played with three guitarists before, and with a big machinery like the Stones' band, you'll see that it is bound to be a messy line up.
I think they have solved it perfectly, although I would have preferred him on a couple of more songs myself.
Many tend to forget, though, he is not in the band. Had he played on all songs, it would have reduced other band members' tasks.
I referred myself to the fact that he is a former member, as you expressed indirectly that you are aware of. An invited former member though. In that context I suggested a subordinate role on most songs. Then he would be better integrated with the band's way of playing, how this has changed over time. Something I think was Kleermaker's argument in one post. In my view a most reasonable argument. Then he most probably would do better each time. Or at least as well when he also now has done very well.
It is the "most songs-part" that is troubling, because the Stones are so loose. I can´t see the "tres amigos" working properly on most songs with a three guitar line up.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
duffydawg
()
Date: July 16, 2013 01:19
Any chance Ron Wood might be gone from Stones and Mick Taylor take his old spot back? 
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
CousinC
()
Date: July 16, 2013 01:43
Quote
duffydawg
Any chance Ron Wood might be gone from Stones and Mick Taylor take his old spot back?
I really like Taylor.But on this tour Wood was the man! Because of all that Taylor he didn't get the credit he deserves.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
TimeIs
()
Date: July 16, 2013 06:36
Quote
svt22
If they hadn't Chuck, Darryl, Charlie and Jagger singing in tune, this guitar section might as well have stayed at home. All three of them.
And the guitar players look damaged
They've been outcasts all their lives
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: July 16, 2013 07:30
As one who has expressed my wish not only for more Mick Taylor participation during the now completed concerts, but my dream for him, if possible, to be able to work as an "as if" member (I have employed that impression), with the Stones hereafter, I state that I urgently will not be identified with the vicious thought by that poster duffydawg.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: July 16, 2013 09:49
I find it baffling that fans want to take away the band's trademark: the raggedness.
More Wood, please! And Taylor should stay on selected songs, where his abilities can be fully utilised.
More Wood, please! And Taylor should stay on selected songs, where his abilities can be fully utilised.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
svt22
()
Date: July 16, 2013 09:54
Quote
DandelionPowderman
More Wood, please!
You made my day, you must live in the forest, DP.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
sonomastone
()
Date: July 16, 2013 10:02
Who's mick Taylor?
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: July 16, 2013 12:51
Quote
svt22Quote
DandelionPowderman
More Wood, please!
You made my day, you must live in the forest, DP.
I bet all your coats are TaYlor made
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: July 16, 2013 13:09
Quote
DandelionPowderman
I find it baffling that fans want to take away the band's trademark: the raggedness.
I think you haven't understood the music of this band at all. Moonlight Mile, very ragged indeed.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: July 16, 2013 13:25
Quote
kleermakerQuote
DandelionPowderman
I find it baffling that fans want to take away the band's trademark: the raggedness.
I think you haven't understood the music of this band at all. Moonlight Mile, very ragged indeed.
Only a great exception. The band has a sound, which has been the basis for their uniqueness - from the Brian era, via Exile and till today.
Satisfaction, Brown Sugar and Start Me Up are all more important and relevant songs, when the Stones' sound is described, even though MM indeed is a pearl.
On the other hand, there wouldn't be a the Rolling Stones with only Moonlight Miles.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: July 16, 2013 15:17
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
kleermakerQuote
DandelionPowderman
I find it baffling that fans want to take away the band's trademark: the raggedness.
I think you haven't understood the music of this band at all. Moonlight Mile, very ragged indeed.
Only a great exception. The band has a sound, which has been the basis for their uniqueness - from the Brian era, via Exile and till today.
Satisfaction, Brown Sugar and Start Me Up are all more important and relevant songs, when the Stones' sound is described, even though MM indeed is a pearl.
On the other hand, there wouldn't be a the Rolling Stones with only Moonlight Miles.
Neither to me is raggedness the primary trademark. For me the primary trademark is rather the perfection of the imperfect. You tend to define away much of the diversity and richness about this band by identifying their trademark with raggedness. Or many moments of outright beauty spread around the band's career.
You are for instance doing away with an album as THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES' REQUEST. In fact, you define what is often the floating and melodic guitar sound of Mick Taylor's guitar as outside the band's trademark. On the other hand, you once also gave an example in a song of noise elements in Mick Taylor's guitar that you were opposed to as well.
I must say, Dandelion Powderman. that your presented criterium here for trademark of the Rolling Stones is narrowing down much of the surprisingly wide scope of their music.
[Edits: corrections of language]
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-16 20:08 by Witness.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
OpenG
()
Date: July 16, 2013 16:47
Moonlight Mile, Sway, CYHMK, TWFKO - these songs are magical and due not sound like RS songs as defined by Keith. That is why Mick Taylor's contributions are so important - He took the studio sound and live sound from a pop element and brought danger and blusey rock and roll.
The stones sound of open g tunings is very limited in what you can do. All those open g sounds sound the same and the guitar palyer is boxed in as what he can play once he finds the small chords etc.
play the guitar boy.
The stones sound of open g tunings is very limited in what you can do. All those open g sounds sound the same and the guitar palyer is boxed in as what he can play once he finds the small chords etc.
play the guitar boy.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: July 16, 2013 17:53
Quote
OpenG
Moonlight Mile, Sway, CYHMK, TWFKO - these songs are magical and due not sound like RS songs as defined by Keith. That is why Mick Taylor's contributions are so important - He took the studio sound and live sound from a pop element and brought danger and blusey rock and roll.
The stones sound of open g tunings is very limited in what you can do. All those open g sounds sound the same and the guitar palyer is boxed in as what he can play once he finds the small chords etc.
play the guitar boy.
I must say that I find it difficult to understand that Mick Taylor should be the one that brought danger to the Rolling Stones, or that he has been the only provider of magical songs, of a bluesy approach or of variation to the Rolling Stones. Really! And to say that the Rolling Stones before Mick Taylor only was marked by a "pop element", is not the case. And what there was of pop before Mick Taylor's joining the band was on the other hand often an experimental pop. Even their commercial pop music had large quality.
Where are the nuances in a understanding as the quoted?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-16 17:54 by Witness.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: July 16, 2013 19:20
Quote
WitnessQuote
OpenG
Moonlight Mile, Sway, CYHMK, TWFKO - these songs are magical and due not sound like RS songs as defined by Keith. That is why Mick Taylor's contributions are so important - He took the studio sound and live sound from a pop element and brought danger and blusey rock and roll.
The stones sound of open g tunings is very limited in what you can do. All those open g sounds sound the same and the guitar palyer is boxed in as what he can play once he finds the small chords etc.
play the guitar boy.
I must say that I find it difficult to understand that Mick Taylor should be the one that brought danger to the Rolling Stones, or that he has been the only provider of magical songs, of a bluesy approach or of variation to the Rolling Stones. Really! And to say that the Rolling Stones before Mick Taylor only was marked by a "pop element", is not the case. And what there was of pop before Mick Taylor's joining the band was on the other hand often an experimental pop. Even their commercial pop music had large quality.
Where are the nuances in a understanding as the quoted?
Bottom line is that during the Brian Jones and Mick Taylor era raggedness wasn't a trademark of their music at all. After those two gifted musicians, well ... raggedness became a growing factor, at the detriment of the beauty and feel of their music. Alas. The 2012/2013 tour has proved that once again. Just to remind us I guess.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: July 16, 2013 20:53
Quote
kleermakerQuote
WitnessQuote
OpenG
Moonlight Mile, Sway, CYHMK, TWFKO - these songs are magical and due not sound like RS songs as defined by Keith. That is why Mick Taylor's contributions are so important - He took the studio sound and live sound from a pop element and brought danger and blusey rock and roll.
The stones sound of open g tunings is very limited in what you can do. All those open g sounds sound the same and the guitar palyer is boxed in as what he can play once he finds the small chords etc.
play the guitar boy.
I must say that I find it difficult to understand that Mick Taylor should be the one that brought danger to the Rolling Stones, or that he has been the only provider of magical songs, of a bluesy approach or of variation to the Rolling Stones. Really! And to say that the Rolling Stones before Mick Taylor only was marked by a "pop element", is not the case. And what there was of pop before Mick Taylor's joining the band was on the other hand often an experimental pop. Even their commercial pop music had large quality.
Where are the nuances in a understanding as the quoted?
Bottom line is that during the Brian Jones and Mick Taylor era raggedness wasn't a trademark of their music at all. After those two gifted musicians, well ... raggedness became a growing factor, at the detriment of the beauty and feel of their music. Alas. The 2012/2013 tour has proved that once again. Just to remind us I guess.
It is a case of nuances of the language here, though, as to the word "raggedness". From a dictionary
adj.
1. Tattered, frayed, or torn: ragged clothes.
2. Dressed in tattered or threadbare clothes: a ragged scarecrow.
3. Unkempt or shaggy: ragged hair.
4. Having an irregular surface or edge; uneven or jagged in outline: a column of text set with a ragged right margin.
5. Imperfect; uneven: The actor gave a ragged performance.
6. Harsh; rasping: a ragged cough.
The sense no. 3 is not so flattering as parts of no. 1 "frayed" or "torn", I think.
There are several phases in a band like the Stones when "frayed" and "torn" exist side by side with the beautiful. Or they alternate from song to song. Other phases there might be more like "unkempt" alone, though even then with some kind of attraction. As there are moments of beauty only. And reflect then on noise elemensts that also can hold considerable attraction. Another case can be put forward as to chaos and even ugly elements.
I wonder if one should say that various senses of raggedness / noise / chaos on one side, beauty /perfection a.s.o have had roles coworking during many phases of their careeer. In certain songs maybe only beauty, or only chaos.But I think that it ought not to be reduced to one of them only as overriding characterization.
The perfect and the imperfect. And the perfection of the imperfect. Something or rather much of their magic might be said to lie therein.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: July 16, 2013 23:43
Quote
WitnessQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
kleermakerQuote
DandelionPowderman
I find it baffling that fans want to take away the band's trademark: the raggedness.
I think you haven't understood the music of this band at all. Moonlight Mile, very ragged indeed.
Only a great exception. The band has a sound, which has been the basis for their uniqueness - from the Brian era, via Exile and till today.
Satisfaction, Brown Sugar and Start Me Up are all more important and relevant songs, when the Stones' sound is described, even though MM indeed is a pearl.
On the other hand, there wouldn't be a the Rolling Stones with only Moonlight Miles.
Neither to me is raggedness the primary trademark. For me the primary trademark is rather the perfection of the imperfect. You tend to define away much of the diversity and richness about this band by identifying their trademark with raggedness. Or many moments of outright beauty spread around the band's career.
You are for instance doing away with an album as THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES' REQUEST. In fact, you define what is often the floating and melodic guitar sound of Mick Taylor's guitar as outside the band's trademark. On the other hand, you once also gave an example in a song of noise elements in Mick Taylor's guitar that you were opposed to as well.
I must say, Dandelion Powderman. that your presented criterium here for trademark of the Rolling Stones is narrowing down much of the surprisingly wide scope of their music.
[Edits: corrections of language]
I don't think you understood this fully, Witness.
The raggedness is in their sound on most songs, be it She Said Yeah, Under My Thumb, All Down The Line, Loving Cup, Can You Hear The Music, Citadel, Stray Cat Blues, Miss You, Down In The Hole and The Worst- to name a few.
No, I'm not narrowing anything. If you just listen to Keith's guitar, which is quintessential to the Stones' sound, I'm sure you'll know what I mean.
It's lovely in its aggressive sloppiness, as well as on the brink of falling apart any minute (Citadel, The Lantern, Loving Cup, Stray Cat Blues again...).
Seemingly, many of the Taylorites want the band to sound like it does on 100 Years Ago, Heartbreaker or Star Star, where Taylor carries the song also rhythm-wise.
That baffles me, as the band sound different, and not quite like the Stones.
I'm not talking about the songs where Keith and Taylor are playing well together here (Hip Shake, I Got The Blues, Dead Flowers, All Down The Line, Bitch, Can You Hear The Music and If You Can't Rock Me come to mind).
To summon it up I think what's unique about the Stones' sound is within the rhythm. If you take that away it won't quite sound like the Stones.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: July 16, 2013 23:49
Quote
OpenG
Moonlight Mile, Sway, CYHMK, TWFKO - these songs are magical and due not sound like RS songs as defined by Keith. That is why Mick Taylor's contributions are so important - He took the studio sound and live sound from a pop element and brought danger and blusey rock and roll.
The stones sound of open g tunings is very limited in what you can do. All those open g sounds sound the same and the guitar palyer is boxed in as what he can play once he finds the small chords etc.
play the guitar boy.
All the songs you mentioned are in open tuning, except for TWFNO.
Is it only Taylor that makes those songs great?
The variety between those songs says it all about the great possibilities you have with open tuning and the use of that vehicle in songwriting.
As you know, I know a thing or two about that.
It was great seeing Taylor on stage with the band again, btw. I hope he joins them on the fall tour.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: July 17, 2013 00:05
Quote
WitnessQuote
kleermakerQuote
WitnessQuote
OpenG
Moonlight Mile, Sway, CYHMK, TWFKO - these songs are magical and due not sound like RS songs as defined by Keith. That is why Mick Taylor's contributions are so important - He took the studio sound and live sound from a pop element and brought danger and blusey rock and roll.
The stones sound of open g tunings is very limited in what you can do. All those open g sounds sound the same and the guitar palyer is boxed in as what he can play once he finds the small chords etc.
play the guitar boy.
I must say that I find it difficult to understand that Mick Taylor should be the one that brought danger to the Rolling Stones, or that he has been the only provider of magical songs, of a bluesy approach or of variation to the Rolling Stones. Really! And to say that the Rolling Stones before Mick Taylor only was marked by a "pop element", is not the case. And what there was of pop before Mick Taylor's joining the band was on the other hand often an experimental pop. Even their commercial pop music had large quality.
Where are the nuances in a understanding as the quoted?
Bottom line is that during the Brian Jones and Mick Taylor era raggedness wasn't a trademark of their music at all. After those two gifted musicians, well ... raggedness became a growing factor, at the detriment of the beauty and feel of their music. Alas. The 2012/2013 tour has proved that once again. Just to remind us I guess.
It is a case of nuances of the language here, though, as to the word "raggedness". From a dictionary
adj.
1. Tattered, frayed, or torn: ragged clothes.
2. Dressed in tattered or threadbare clothes: a ragged scarecrow.
3. Unkempt or shaggy: ragged hair.
4. Having an irregular surface or edge; uneven or jagged in outline: a column of text set with a ragged right margin.
5. Imperfect; uneven: The actor gave a ragged performance.
6. Harsh; rasping: a ragged cough.
The sense no. 3 is not so flattering as parts of no. 1 "frayed" or "torn", I think.
There are several phases in a band like the Stones when "frayed" and "torn" exist side by side with the beautiful. Or they alternate from song to song. Other phases there might be more like "unkempt" alone, though even then with some kind of attraction. As there are moments of beauty only. And reflect then on noise elemensts that also can hold considerable attraction. Another case can be put forward as to chaos and even ugly elements.
I wonder if one should say that various senses of raggedness / noise / chaos on one side, beauty /perfection a.s.o have had roles coworking during many phases of their careeer. In certain songs maybe only beauty, or only chaos.But I think that it ought not to be reduced to one of them only as overriding characterization.
The perfect and the imperfect. And the perfection of the imperfect. Something or rather much of their magic might be said to lie therein.
The raggedness (or danger, if you like) has very much to do with definition number five - the imperfection/almost sloppy approach to rhythm and space in the songs. We can call it wobbliness. A little behind, a little in front.
This is going like a red thread throughout their career. If kleerie can't hear it on She Said Yeah, I'm Free and Connection it will surprise me a lot.
That wobble, or wonkiness, is bound to be there when Keith is leading the band rhythmwise, and Charlie and Bill are masters playing around with it.
For pete's sake: This is what separates the Stones from all the other bands! It shouldn't be very controversial? If it is, someone is in denial, pretending the Stones is/was a high class, profound and deep rock act, imo.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
pepganzo
()
Date: July 17, 2013 12:38
I am a big fan of MT, but I must say that MT was not at his best during this tour and maybe for many reasons.
1. The Stones' sound is changed during the time: for example it's faster than during the 1969 and less powerful
2. The Stones' idea of concert is changed (they give moreand more revelance to the show than to the music)
3. Taylor could play other songs (Ventilator Blues/Love in vain/ Mr D)
Anyway he is a virtuoso and not a good guitar player like Ronnie (is) and the difference is always relevant
1. The Stones' sound is changed during the time: for example it's faster than during the 1969 and less powerful
2. The Stones' idea of concert is changed (they give moreand more revelance to the show than to the music)
3. Taylor could play other songs (Ventilator Blues/Love in vain/ Mr D)
Anyway he is a virtuoso and not a good guitar player like Ronnie (is) and the difference is always relevant
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: July 17, 2013 12:43
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
WitnessQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
kleermakerQuote
DandelionPowderman
I find it baffling that fans want to take away the band's trademark: the raggedness.
I think you haven't understood the music of this band at all. Moonlight Mile, very ragged indeed.
Only a great exception. The band has a sound, which has been the basis for their uniqueness - from the Brian era, via Exile and till today.
Satisfaction, Brown Sugar and Start Me Up are all more important and relevant songs, when the Stones' sound is described, even though MM indeed is a pearl.
On the other hand, there wouldn't be a the Rolling Stones with only Moonlight Miles.
Neither to me is raggedness the primary trademark. For me the primary trademark is rather the perfection of the imperfect. You tend to define away much of the diversity and richness about this band by identifying their trademark with raggedness. Or many moments of outright beauty spread around the band's career.
You are for instance doing away with an album as THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES' REQUEST. In fact, you define what is often the floating and melodic guitar sound of Mick Taylor's guitar as outside the band's trademark. On the other hand, you once also gave an example in a song of noise elements in Mick Taylor's guitar that you were opposed to as well.
I must say, Dandelion Powderman. that your presented criterium here for trademark of the Rolling Stones is narrowing down much of the surprisingly wide scope of their music.
[Edits: corrections of language]
I don't think you understood this fully, Witness.
The raggedness is in their sound on most songs, be it She Said Yeah, Under My Thumb, All Down The Line, Loving Cup, Can You Hear The Music, Citadel, Stray Cat Blues, Miss You, Down In The Hole and The Worst- to name a few.
No, I'm not narrowing anything. If you just listen to Keith's guitar, which is quintessential to the Stones' sound, I'm sure you'll know what I mean.
It's lovely in its aggressive sloppiness, as well as on the brink of falling apart any minute (Citadel, The Lantern, Loving Cup, Stray Cat Blues again...).
Seemingly, many of the Taylorites want the band to sound like it does on 100 Years Ago, Heartbreaker or Star Star, where Taylor carries the song also rhythm-wise.
That baffles me, as the band sound different, and not quite like the Stones.
I'm not talking about the songs where Keith and Taylor are playing well together here (Hip Shake, I Got The Blues, Dead Flowers, All Down The Line, Bitch, Can You Hear The Music and If You Can't Rock Me come to mind).
To summon it up I think what's unique about the Stones' sound is within the rhythm. If you take that away it won't quite sound like the Stones.
Well, DandelionPowderman, you said that I did not understand this fully. I rather would say that I did not understand at all that you by "raggedness", related to the Rolling Stones, referred as to timing to the question of who and which instrument leads and who and which instruments follow or play around. I don't think that you chose an adequate concept for that phenomenon, which I am and for a long time have been aware of about the Stones.
I don't play any instruments, however, so I am not able to tell when (at which played songs or versions of songs) this phenomenon is at work, and when it is not. Maybe, it is not necessary to play an instrument, maybe, that anyone, by practise perhaps, can train up their ears' ability to notice it. Myself I am a primitive listener, I have only got my taste, so I have not got that ability so far.
What other posters thought that you referred to, DandelionPowderman, I cannot tell, but my suspicion is that there were others as well that were led astray. You'd better find another expression or concept. When a so distinguished poster as kleermaker gave the following response to my reaction to a post by OpenG,
Quote
kleermakerBottom line is that during the Brian Jones and Mick Taylor era raggedness wasn't a trademark of their music at all. After those two gifted musicians, well ... raggedness became a growing factor, at the detriment of the beauty and feel of their music. Alas. The 2012/2013 tour has proved that once again. Just to remind us I guess.Quote
Witness
........
I found that much was lost and felt the need to recover some middleground and sought for various senses of "raggedness". I gave an answer on that basis, still not aware what you referred to, until I read from your response quoted in the following that it had a content that I for decades have been aware of, but never been in command of
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Witness
........................................
The raggedness (or danger, if you like) has very much to do with definition number five - the imperfection/almost sloppy approach to rhythm and space in the songs. We can call it wobbliness. A little behind, a little in front.
This is going like a red thread throughout their career. If kleerie can't hear it on She Said Yeah, I'm Free and Connection it will surprise me a lot.
That wobble, or wonkiness, is bound to be there when Keith is leading the band rhythmwise, and Charlie and Bill are masters playing around with it.
For pete's sake: This is what separates the Stones from all the other bands! It shouldn't be very controversial? If it is, someone is in denial, pretending the Stones is/was a high class, profound and deep rock act, imo.
I am a little surprised that you would abstain from stating instead that this "wonkiness" is not all, but a vital part of the claim for the Stones as a high class rock act on a specific basis. You instead seem to consider them as charming "low class" band in an unsurpassed degree.
Not all, but a part, in that you in your posts gave lists of songs where the said "wonkiness" is present, then of songs where it is not, thereafter of songs where Mick Taylor is said to carry the song rhythmwise, and of songs, where you give the verdict that Mick Taylor functions good in interplay with Keith Richards. Very well, all the more you have by the way given a basis for the view that Mick Taylor would have been in need to play in a subordinate role on stage for instance on a not so loudly mixed accoustic guitar on all other songs than his solos to be integrated with the band. And that it would be perhaps more demanding for him to play with the Stones than perhaps many other bands.
I have one objection though: When there are remarkable songs, where the "wonkiness" is not present, even if the "wonkiness" most of all would be what marks the band out from most (or all) other bands, this "wonkiness" is not exhaustive for the claim of the Rolling Stones as a historic band. It should not either ... or, where you, DandelionPowdwerman, goes for "wonkiness", but rather both ... and.
Then I wonder, I do, when the "wonkiness" started. At the outset my memory seems to tell me that there was an odd mixture between Brian Jones' blues oriented guitar and Keith Richards' Chuck Berry-oriented riffs. Was it from their playing of the Chuck Berry covers during rehearsals and concerts that the upcoming "wonkiness" gradually spread among other songs played as well? All of them or only some early songs, studiowise and live? I would like to ask you, DandelionPowdwerman, to make an evaluation of songs on the first two studio albums and the German Decca compilation AROUND AND AROUND (covering most of the two early EPs and a couple of early singles):To what extent is that "wonkiness" present there on which songs?
And I also wonder, His Majesty: Long ago I read it being said that Brian Jones lost confidence in his guitar playing over time. Rather puzzling for a musician that well capable of picking up so many instruments. Could it be possible that the development of this "wonkiness" that must be as much about Charlie Watts (and Bill Wyman) as it is about Keith Richards, might have had some influence - and understandable effect, not denigrating either on his behalf - on Brian Jones allegedly losing self-confidence in his guitar playing?
[I still think it would be most interesting if the Rolling Stones would enter the studio and record a studio album as a three guitar band. That songs therefrom would be played live during a possible continuance of their concerts. Those songs played by a three guitar band, also involving Mick Taylor.]
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-17 12:55 by Witness.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: July 18, 2013 16:04
Hopes and dreams... it was fun while it lasted... The fat lady has sung now..
- Doxa
- Doxa
This Thread has been closed
Online Users
ChrisL , daspyknows , eduardoacdc , FeelslikeaGhost , Hound Dog , Irix , josepi , kish_stoned , NICOS , spidey39 , StonedRambler , stones94 , stoneskid , syrel
Guests:
2025
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10