Tell Me :
Talk
But hey, now they have one, if they only would give him more room...>
<
- Doxa
If Keith Richards had done that tour ALONE, he would have been focused.
Waddy only plays the Woody role, something he does brilliantly. But he is far, far, away from being an x-factor in the brilliant Winos, imo.
Like with the Stones, the whole band is the x-factor.
Keith played even better on the Steel Wheels tour, btw. Who challenged him then - Mick?
I think we agree on the Winos, just not on Waddy´s role, which is somewhat diminished - compared to what he really is capable of - again, imo.
I agree on the drummer, as I wrote in my previous post here, SP is no Charlie, although he rocks. Indeed the band is sharper and tighter than they where with Keith and Wood, completely drugged out. To me these guys have soul, they swing, are more to the point -just more professional musicians, and the crowd went crazy. Just a relief to hear Jagger sing a Stones song with different musicians. The Rolling Stones sound isn't necessarily the standard to me, apart from Jagger's voice. Now people will kill me here for this, but I just love the eightees sound these guys produce. A matter of taste I'm afraid.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-24 23:02 by svt22.
I read somewhere Taylor couldn't find his slide when he played love in vain. I would love to hear how he solved that problem.
I am. It ain't over until the skinny guy sings Satisfaction. Tonight's got possibilities...
Jagger sounds more vital, for sure, than he has ever since, perhaps. However, i don't agree with you with regard to the sound these musicians make. For me, their playing is too clinical, predictable, and soul LESS here, and part of the magic for me of the Stones playing, when they were at their best, was they were loose, and perhaps to a degree chaotic, in terms of their overall sound, but somehow, they still pretty much managed to hold it all together. I believe they managed to build a career out of playing on the edge, but rarely, if ever, crossing that line. They were, perhaps, pretty disciplined at making themselves appear to sound undisciplined, if you see what i mean. This group, for me, are just too well ordered by comparison, and lack a true rock 'n' roll spirit.
However, if you are talking strictly of the Stones today, i'm not necessarily of the view that their playing is especially unique, and incomparable. I believe it is possible to find Stones tribute bands who can approximate the sound of the Stones when they were in their prime, better the the Stones themselves can today, within their own brand of conservatism (or the bigger question is whether the Stones would ever really want to immitate their former live selves, live to such a degree, anyway!). That being said, of course, Jagger is irreplaceable as a singer/frontman, whoever was given his role, and Taylor's renewed playing within the group is also, for me, something that can still stand on its own merits. However, as many would say, who really wants a reproduction when you can have the real thing, even if they are still not even a shadow of their former selves.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-24 23:56 by Edward Twining.
Ronnie played it for him, from what I´ve heard. I don´t remember the name of the poster who was there, though.
Wait a minute Edward, are you talking about the Stones when they played with Taylor in let's say, '69 ? Then they where loose, sleazy, sounded unsurpassed and intuitive. Absolutely my favorite Stones sound. The htw version played in Japan is a different era. This band sounds more abstract, strictly arranged, not to be mixed up with clinical. The htw intro takes a bit longer here, the tempo a bit faster, so the guitarist has to play a bit more tight, but the basic fills he plays do the trick, they equal Keith's feel to me. The same goes for the drummer, it's all faster and more flashy, just like the guitar solo. The backing vocals are splendid, and the dynamics in this song are well calculated. Just a different approach, a different generation of musicians. Typically eightees.
As for the Stones today, no, I don't want to compare them to any era, I think they lack the energy to impress. And although all the musicians have their moments, they never seem to happen at the same time.
That was me. I did not mean to disparage MT so please don't take it that way (not that you are). It was a warm-up show, after all.
The first solo was offered to Ronnie which seemed unnecessarily gracious. However, that's exactly what they worked out for Sway on this tour. On the second solo, MT seemed to have misplaced his slide. It was found by the tech guy - can't remember if he ended up using it or picked out the solo. Some of you have stated your preference without slide -- either way, he owns it.
Happily, for the rest of the tour MT has always had his slide handy when necessary
Because they have not played LIV outside of rehearsals and Echoplex, and it is not a vote for tonight, I would be very surprised if it's ready to go, but here's to hoping I'm wrong. Unless they HAVE been practicing. . .or are feeling a little risky. . .jk.
Also if anyone else here was at Echoplex, let me know if my memory of LIV is accurate.
Why is that, with concerts in London coming up?
Quite the contrary, I for one want to repeat my support to the plea of this thread:
We want Mick Taylor on more songs, please! For my own part, I want to add: If possible, on varying songs!
Yeah, it's worked so well..... MT on 4 songs in LA, down to 2 songs in DC, playing acoustic during Satisfaction!?! This thread has become the definition of insanity- Repeating the same action, expecting a different result....
It's played very much in the same tempo - and with the same long intro - as the Stones did in 1975.
Jimmy Rip is never playing around the beat in this version - not once. It's true that the licks somewhat sounds like what Keith does (not the same, though - for instance the thumb and index finger-trick in between the vocal lines is played with the wrong strings).
When you're on the beat continously, you will never get the same feel as Keith. I'm pretty certain you too know that.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-25 09:56 by DandelionPowderman.
I wouldn't expect anything special though. The Uk gigs are big festival affairs, so expect a set of greatest hits, with some guests thrown in.
Mathijs
Actually svt22, i believe to a degree the Stones actually played more formally on the American tour in 69, than any time before or since (up to the end of the 82 tour anyway). 1969 was the era when fans actually came to listen to the music, and the Stones performances were perhaps more musically accomplished in a playing sense, and as a listening experience, in technical terms, perhaps in a slight contrast to the 72/73 tours which were much looser, harking back a little more to the Jones era live experience with seemingly more rock 'n' roll spontaneity. However, the 69 tour was spontaneous too, but one senses that the Stones live arrangements to the songs were more closely adhered to from show to show, and with a new guitarist they were still feeling their way. Not that the results were not great, mind. The Stones live arrangements in 69 relied more on a thorough review of what each song demanded than the 72/73 tours feel of leaving things more to chance.
- Doxa
True enough! Apologies to the RJ, RIP.
But you know what I mean
Absolutely
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:
Doxa
()
Date: June 24, 2013 22:28
Quote
wanderingspirit66Quote
DandelionPowderman
'X factor is the competent Waddy Wachtel'
Nuff said...
Keith put together a fantastic live band and Waddy is the X factor in that live band to me. Keith himself shines when he is challenged. Keith needs the competence and the versatility of a Waddy to keep him focussed on the music. The Winos sound exactly like what we want them to sound like - loose and seemingly falling apart but are pulled tight just in the nick of time and somehow holding the groove together. It is what many of us have wanted from the Stones for along time. It is but one of the key missing ingredients in the professional and competent Jagger solo outfit. The Stones havent had a guitarist with the versatility or the caliber of Waddy Wachtel in a long time.
But hey, now they have one, if they only would give him more room...>
<- Doxa
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: June 24, 2013 22:40
Quote
wanderingspirit66Quote
DandelionPowderman
'X factor is the competent Waddy Wachtel'
Nuff said...
Keith put together a fantastic live band and Waddy is the X factor in that live band to me. Keith himself shines when he is challenged. Keith needs the competence and the versatility of a Waddy to keep him focussed on the music. The Winos sound exactly like what we want them to sound like - loose and seemingly falling apart but are pulled tight just in the nick of time and somehow holding the groove together. It is what many of us have wanted from the Stones for along time. It is but one of the key missing ingredients in the professional and competent Jagger solo outfit. The Stones havent had a guitarist with the versatility or the caliber of Waddy Wachtel in a long time.
If Keith Richards had done that tour ALONE, he would have been focused.
Waddy only plays the Woody role, something he does brilliantly. But he is far, far, away from being an x-factor in the brilliant Winos, imo.
Like with the Stones, the whole band is the x-factor.
Keith played even better on the Steel Wheels tour, btw. Who challenged him then - Mick?
I think we agree on the Winos, just not on Waddy´s role, which is somewhat diminished - compared to what he really is capable of - again, imo.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
svt22
()
Date: June 24, 2013 22:55
Quote
Edward TwiningQuote
svt22Quote
triceratopsQuote
MisterDDDD
This is like when Frank,Dean and Sammy when out on the road in the late 80s I think it was. Years past their prime. Dean new it was a joke and left the tour. They got Liza to fill in and still all are moms and dads paid big money to relive the past! Frank kept it up till he had to read a prompter for the lyrics... sad really. Lennon said they'd be congratulating the Stones on being together 100the years cause they can't hack it on their own.
Here is Jagger doing great!!! What do you mean can't hack it on their opwn!! What a base insult!!! (/sarcasm) You gotta love his corny schtick before his singing starts. The Japanese loved it!!!! To pieces!!!
The guitarist/rest of the band is playing great too imo. Jagger returning to the Stones must have been for financial reasons only.
I think the band play much sharper and tighter than the Stones play, and perhaps have ever (and not in a good way) but they also sound somehow soulless, and just haven't got any kind of swing, and especially from a drumming perspective. I think Charlie as a drummer is often very undervalued by fans because he's not a flamboyant type of player (like for example Keith Moon), and yet this live version proves just how vital he is to the effectiveness of the overall Stones sound. The drummer here seems just intent on maintaining a constant (and irritating) beat, but Charlie really allows the song to open up and breathe within the economy of his playing. As i read somewhere once, it's not just what you play that matters, sometimes it's what you leave out that's just as important.
I agree on the drummer, as I wrote in my previous post here, SP is no Charlie, although he rocks. Indeed the band is sharper and tighter than they where with Keith and Wood, completely drugged out. To me these guys have soul, they swing, are more to the point -just more professional musicians, and the crowd went crazy. Just a relief to hear Jagger sing a Stones song with different musicians. The Rolling Stones sound isn't necessarily the standard to me, apart from Jagger's voice. Now people will kill me here for this, but I just love the eightees sound these guys produce. A matter of taste I'm afraid.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-24 23:02 by svt22.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: June 24, 2013 23:22
Anyone expecting something special regarding Taylor? I mean him playing on more than his two regulars? I don't think so. The American tour will end quite normal I guess. Maybe, maybe a surprise in good old England.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: June 24, 2013 23:23
They played Love In Vain on Isle Of Wight in 2007 - say no more...
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
svt22
()
Date: June 24, 2013 23:27
Quote
kleermaker
Anyone expecting something special regarding Taylor? I mean him playing on more than his two regulars? I don't think so. The American tour will end quite normal I guess. Maybe, maybe a surprise in good old England.
I read somewhere Taylor couldn't find his slide when he played love in vain. I would love to hear how he solved that problem.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
winter
()
Date: June 24, 2013 23:47
Quote
kleermaker
Anyone expecting something special regarding Taylor? I mean him playing on more than his two regulars?
I am. It ain't over until the skinny guy sings Satisfaction. Tonight's got possibilities...
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
Edward Twining
()
Date: June 24, 2013 23:48
Quote
svt22
I agree on the drummer, as I wrote in my previous post here, SP is no Charlie, although he rocks. Indeed the band is sharper and tighter than they where with Keith and Wood, completely drugged out. To me these guys have soul, they swing, are more to the point -just more professional musicians, and the crowd went crazy. Just a relief to hear Jagger sing a Stones song with different musicians. The Rolling Stones sound isn't necessarily the standard to me, apart from Jagger's voice. Now people will kill me here for this, but I just love the eightees sound these guys produce. A matter of taste I'm afraid.
Jagger sounds more vital, for sure, than he has ever since, perhaps. However, i don't agree with you with regard to the sound these musicians make. For me, their playing is too clinical, predictable, and soul LESS here, and part of the magic for me of the Stones playing, when they were at their best, was they were loose, and perhaps to a degree chaotic, in terms of their overall sound, but somehow, they still pretty much managed to hold it all together. I believe they managed to build a career out of playing on the edge, but rarely, if ever, crossing that line. They were, perhaps, pretty disciplined at making themselves appear to sound undisciplined, if you see what i mean. This group, for me, are just too well ordered by comparison, and lack a true rock 'n' roll spirit.
However, if you are talking strictly of the Stones today, i'm not necessarily of the view that their playing is especially unique, and incomparable. I believe it is possible to find Stones tribute bands who can approximate the sound of the Stones when they were in their prime, better the the Stones themselves can today, within their own brand of conservatism (or the bigger question is whether the Stones would ever really want to immitate their former live selves, live to such a degree, anyway!). That being said, of course, Jagger is irreplaceable as a singer/frontman, whoever was given his role, and Taylor's renewed playing within the group is also, for me, something that can still stand on its own merits. However, as many would say, who really wants a reproduction when you can have the real thing, even if they are still not even a shadow of their former selves.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-24 23:56 by Edward Twining.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
Edward Twining
()
Date: June 24, 2013 23:53
Ha
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-24 23:57 by Edward Twining.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-24 23:57 by Edward Twining.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: June 24, 2013 23:58
Quote
svt22Quote
kleermaker
Anyone expecting something special regarding Taylor? I mean him playing on more than his two regulars? I don't think so. The American tour will end quite normal I guess. Maybe, maybe a surprise in good old England.
I read somewhere Taylor couldn't find his slide when he played love in vain. I would love to hear how he solved that problem.
Ronnie played it for him, from what I´ve heard. I don´t remember the name of the poster who was there, though.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
svt22
()
Date: June 25, 2013 00:40
Quote
Edward TwiningQuote
svt22
I agree on the drummer, as I wrote in my previous post here, SP is no Charlie, although he rocks. Indeed the band is sharper and tighter than they where with Keith and Wood, completely drugged out. To me these guys have soul, they swing, are more to the point -just more professional musicians, and the crowd went crazy. Just a relief to hear Jagger sing a Stones song with different musicians. The Rolling Stones sound isn't necessarily the standard to me, apart from Jagger's voice. Now people will kill me here for this, but I just love the eightees sound these guys produce. A matter of taste I'm afraid.
Jagger sounds more vital, for sure, than he has ever since, perhaps. However, i don't agree with you with regard to the sound these musicians make. For me, their playing is too clinical, predictable, and soul LESS here, and part of the magic for me of the Stones playing, when they were at their best, was they were loose, and perhaps to a degree chaotic, in terms of their overall sound, but somehow, they still pretty much managed to hold it all together. I believe they managed to build a career out of playing on the edge, but rarely, if ever, crossing that line. They were, perhaps, pretty disciplined at making themselves appear to sound undisciplined, if you see what i mean. This group, for me, are just too well ordered by comparison, and lack a true rock 'n' roll spirit.
However, if you are talking strictly of the Stones today, i'm not necessarily of the view that their playing is especially unique, and incomparable. I believe it is possible to find Stones tribute bands who can approximate the sound of the Stones when they were in their prime, better the the Stones themselves can today, within their own brand of conservatism (or the bigger question is whether the Stones would ever really want to immitate their former live selves, live to such a degree, anyway!). That being said, of course, Jagger is irreplaceable as a singer/frontman, whoever was given his role, and Taylor's renewed playing within the group is also, for me, something that can still stand on its own merits. However, as many would say, who really wants a reproduction when you can have the real thing, even if they are still not even a shadow of their former selves.
Wait a minute Edward, are you talking about the Stones when they played with Taylor in let's say, '69 ? Then they where loose, sleazy, sounded unsurpassed and intuitive. Absolutely my favorite Stones sound. The htw version played in Japan is a different era. This band sounds more abstract, strictly arranged, not to be mixed up with clinical. The htw intro takes a bit longer here, the tempo a bit faster, so the guitarist has to play a bit more tight, but the basic fills he plays do the trick, they equal Keith's feel to me. The same goes for the drummer, it's all faster and more flashy, just like the guitar solo. The backing vocals are splendid, and the dynamics in this song are well calculated. Just a different approach, a different generation of musicians. Typically eightees.
As for the Stones today, no, I don't want to compare them to any era, I think they lack the energy to impress. And although all the musicians have their moments, they never seem to happen at the same time.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
LookoutMountain
()
Date: June 25, 2013 01:21
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
svt22Quote
kleermaker
Anyone expecting something special regarding Taylor? I mean him playing on more than his two regulars? I don't think so. The American tour will end quite normal I guess. Maybe, maybe a surprise in good old England.
I read somewhere Taylor couldn't find his slide when he played love in vain. I would love to hear how he solved that problem.
Ronnie played it for him, from what I´ve heard. I don´t remember the name of the poster who was there, though.
That was me. I did not mean to disparage MT so please don't take it that way (not that you are). It was a warm-up show, after all.
The first solo was offered to Ronnie which seemed unnecessarily gracious. However, that's exactly what they worked out for Sway on this tour. On the second solo, MT seemed to have misplaced his slide. It was found by the tech guy - can't remember if he ended up using it or picked out the solo. Some of you have stated your preference without slide -- either way, he owns it.
Happily, for the rest of the tour MT has always had his slide handy when necessary
Because they have not played LIV outside of rehearsals and Echoplex, and it is not a vote for tonight, I would be very surprised if it's ready to go, but here's to hoping I'm wrong. Unless they HAVE been practicing. . .or are feeling a little risky. . .jk.
Also if anyone else here was at Echoplex, let me know if my memory of LIV is accurate.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: June 25, 2013 01:48
So, in the end, Taylor managed to play the second solo of "Love In Vain"?
- Doxa
- Doxa
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
LookoutMountain
()
Date: June 25, 2013 02:05
Correct, your honor Mr Doxa, but -- he more than managed to play it. He OWNED it.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-25 02:09 by LookoutMountain.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-25 02:09 by LookoutMountain.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
Thrylan
()
Date: June 25, 2013 04:48
RJ owned it, everything else is a variation on a theme, baby.....
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
lazzzybones
()
Date: June 25, 2013 07:01
Might as well remove this thread now.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
Thrylan
()
Date: June 25, 2013 07:44
Quote
lazzzybones
Might as well remove this thread now.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: June 25, 2013 09:08
Quote
lazzzybones
Might as well remove this thread now.
Why is that, with concerts in London coming up?
Quite the contrary, I for one want to repeat my support to the plea of this thread:
We want Mick Taylor on more songs, please! For my own part, I want to add: If possible, on varying songs!
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
Thrylan
()
Date: June 25, 2013 09:14
Quote
WitnessQuote
lazzzybones
Might as well remove this thread now.
Why is that, with concerts in London coming up?
Quite the contrary, I for one want to repeat my support to the plea of this thread:
We want Mick Taylor on more songs, please! For my own part, I want to add: If possible, on varying songs!
Yeah, it's worked so well..... MT on 4 songs in LA, down to 2 songs in DC, playing acoustic during Satisfaction!?! This thread has become the definition of insanity- Repeating the same action, expecting a different result....
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
muenke
()
Date: June 25, 2013 09:28
So this is done and now: Mick Taylor ON AT LEAST 4 SONGS IN HYDE PARK!!!!! This is such a special place for a little special gig!!!
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: June 25, 2013 09:48
Quote
svt22Quote
Edward TwiningQuote
svt22
I agree on the drummer, as I wrote in my previous post here, SP is no Charlie, although he rocks. Indeed the band is sharper and tighter than they where with Keith and Wood, completely drugged out. To me these guys have soul, they swing, are more to the point -just more professional musicians, and the crowd went crazy. Just a relief to hear Jagger sing a Stones song with different musicians. The Rolling Stones sound isn't necessarily the standard to me, apart from Jagger's voice. Now people will kill me here for this, but I just love the eightees sound these guys produce. A matter of taste I'm afraid.
Jagger sounds more vital, for sure, than he has ever since, perhaps. However, i don't agree with you with regard to the sound these musicians make. For me, their playing is too clinical, predictable, and soul LESS here, and part of the magic for me of the Stones playing, when they were at their best, was they were loose, and perhaps to a degree chaotic, in terms of their overall sound, but somehow, they still pretty much managed to hold it all together. I believe they managed to build a career out of playing on the edge, but rarely, if ever, crossing that line. They were, perhaps, pretty disciplined at making themselves appear to sound undisciplined, if you see what i mean. This group, for me, are just too well ordered by comparison, and lack a true rock 'n' roll spirit.
However, if you are talking strictly of the Stones today, i'm not necessarily of the view that their playing is especially unique, and incomparable. I believe it is possible to find Stones tribute bands who can approximate the sound of the Stones when they were in their prime, better the the Stones themselves can today, within their own brand of conservatism (or the bigger question is whether the Stones would ever really want to immitate their former live selves, live to such a degree, anyway!). That being said, of course, Jagger is irreplaceable as a singer/frontman, whoever was given his role, and Taylor's renewed playing within the group is also, for me, something that can still stand on its own merits. However, as many would say, who really wants a reproduction when you can have the real thing, even if they are still not even a shadow of their former selves.
Wait a minute Edward, are you talking about the Stones when they played with Taylor in let's say, '69 ? Then they where loose, sleazy, sounded unsurpassed and intuitive. Absolutely my favorite Stones sound. The htw version played in Japan is a different era. This band sounds more abstract, strictly arranged, not to be mixed up with clinical. The htw intro takes a bit longer here, the tempo a bit faster, so the guitarist has to play a bit more tight, but the basic fills he plays do the trick, they equal Keith's feel to me. The same goes for the drummer, it's all faster and more flashy, just like the guitar solo. The backing vocals are splendid, and the dynamics in this song are well calculated. Just a different approach, a different generation of musicians. Typically eightees.
As for the Stones today, no, I don't want to compare them to any era, I think they lack the energy to impress. And although all the musicians have their moments, they never seem to happen at the same time.
It's played very much in the same tempo - and with the same long intro - as the Stones did in 1975.
Jimmy Rip is never playing around the beat in this version - not once. It's true that the licks somewhat sounds like what Keith does (not the same, though - for instance the thumb and index finger-trick in between the vocal lines is played with the wrong strings).
When you're on the beat continously, you will never get the same feel as Keith. I'm pretty certain you too know that.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-25 09:56 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: June 25, 2013 09:52
Quote
muenke
So this is done and now: Mick Taylor ON AT LEAST 4 SONGS IN HYDE PARK!!!!! This is such a special place for a little special gig!!!
I wouldn't expect anything special though. The Uk gigs are big festival affairs, so expect a set of greatest hits, with some guests thrown in.
Mathijs
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
muenke
()
Date: June 25, 2013 10:26
I know, Mathijs, but tomorrow never knows ....
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
Edward Twining
()
Date: June 25, 2013 10:52
Quote
svt22
Wait a minute Edward, are you talking about the Stones when they played with Taylor in let's say, '69 ? Then they where loose, sleazy, sounded unsurpassed and intuitive. Absolutely my favorite Stones sound. The htw version played in Japan is a different era. This band sounds more abstract, strictly arranged, not to be mixed up with clinical. The htw intro takes a bit longer here, the tempo a bit faster, so the guitarist has to play a bit more tight, but the basic fills he plays do the trick, they equal Keith's feel to me. The same goes for the drummer, it's all faster and more flashy, just like the guitar solo. The backing vocals are splendid, and the dynamics in this song are well calculated. Just a different approach, a different generation of musicians. Typically eightees.
As for the Stones today, no, I don't want to compare them to any era, I think they lack the energy to impress. And although all the musicians have their moments, they never seem to happen at the same time.
Actually svt22, i believe to a degree the Stones actually played more formally on the American tour in 69, than any time before or since (up to the end of the 82 tour anyway). 1969 was the era when fans actually came to listen to the music, and the Stones performances were perhaps more musically accomplished in a playing sense, and as a listening experience, in technical terms, perhaps in a slight contrast to the 72/73 tours which were much looser, harking back a little more to the Jones era live experience with seemingly more rock 'n' roll spontaneity. However, the 69 tour was spontaneous too, but one senses that the Stones live arrangements to the songs were more closely adhered to from show to show, and with a new guitarist they were still feeling their way. Not that the results were not great, mind. The Stones live arrangements in 69 relied more on a thorough review of what each song demanded than the 72/73 tours feel of leaving things more to chance.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: June 25, 2013 11:11
Quote
WitnessQuote
lazzzybones
Might as well remove this thread now.
Why is that, with concerts in London coming up?
Quite the contrary, I for one want to repeat my support to the plea of this thread:
We want Mick Taylor on more songs, please! For my own part, I want to add: If possible, on varying songs!
- Doxa
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
MarkSchneider
()
Date: June 25, 2013 11:14
Christmas in July, Hyde Park with MT :
Jumping Jack Flash (Paris 1970 style)
Gimme Shelter (Philadelphia 1972 style)
Sympathy for the Devil (Ya Ya's style)
Can't You hear Me Knocking (L.A. 2013 style)
Midnight Rambler (Philadelphia 2013 style)
Doo Doo Doo Doo (London 1973 style)
Street Fighting Man (Brussels 1973 style)
Jumping Jack Flash (Paris 1970 style)
Gimme Shelter (Philadelphia 1972 style)
Sympathy for the Devil (Ya Ya's style)
Can't You hear Me Knocking (L.A. 2013 style)
Midnight Rambler (Philadelphia 2013 style)
Doo Doo Doo Doo (London 1973 style)
Street Fighting Man (Brussels 1973 style)
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
muenke
()
Date: June 25, 2013 11:24
Quote
MarkSchneider
Christmas in July, Hyde Park with MT :
Jumping Jack Flash (Paris 1970 style)
Gimme Shelter (Philadelphia 1972 style)
Sympathy for the Devil (Ya Ya's style)
Can't You hear Me Knocking (L.A. 2013 style)
Midnight Rambler (Philadelphia 2013 style)
Doo Doo Doo Doo (London 1973 style)
Street Fighting Man (Brussels 1973 style)
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
LookoutMountain
()
Date: June 25, 2013 11:47
Quote
Thrylan
RJ owned it, everything else is a variation on a theme, baby.....
True enough! Apologies to the RJ, RIP.
But you know what I mean
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
Thrylan
()
Date: June 25, 2013 11:51
Quote
LookoutMountainQuote
Thrylan
RJ owned it, everything else is a variation on a theme, baby.....
True enough! Apologies to the RJ, RIP.
But you know what I mean
Absolutely
This Thread has been closed
Online Users
2004Man , Big Al , DGA35 , joemusic1958 , keefgotsoul , mariano , midimannz , TheBluesHadaBaby , Vernon32F2
Guests:
1513
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10