Well, if that's the alternative, Keith was right.

I like the Brussels version, and I have it on all imaginable sources (vinyl, cassette, cd and download).

However, it's too slow - that's my main beef with it.

Here it is played in the right tempo:

Quote
sonomastone

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
The result of Keith's reaction: Taylor goes back to play the riff - great stuff!

"Great stuff" because Taylor is (I suppose) humilated by the master Keith and "forced" to slow down and go "back to play the riff"? You anti-Taylorites seem to get your kicks off from strangest things...

Anyway, I hear Keith saying "I shit on my pants"...

- Doxa

wow you taylorites sure are defensive!

Anyway, this is a good moment to clear my stance. I'm a proud Taylorite only regards to 2012/13, meaning: more Taylor, the better. But as far as history go, and even though I generally think Taylor is better guitar player than Wood (who doesn't?), in regards to The Stones I weight equally the "Taylor Era" (1969-73) and "Ronnie Era" (1975-82). I think they both fitted to the band marvelously in their time, and helped the band to reshape their sound and to sound better (with different kind of contribution). So for me the old Taylor/Wood-controversy is a non-issue.

But I weight them equally, so equally that I appreciate the features that seem to piss some "Woodie era" or "weaving" fans - such as Taylor's "noodling", his lead guitars taken too much room, the strict lead/rhythm guitar division that took place especial'ly in 1973. I think those features were based on a natural progression, and even going 'over the top' does belong to the concept. Taylor was a natural force, a lion in guitar, a virtuoso, who would take his spot and place, and explode it, if no one was 'controlling' him. Jagger and Richards did a great job in "using" Taylor's strenghts to the benefit of the band. In that sense those funny little "orders" mentioned and clipped here belong naturally to the picture. Even though I don't think Jagger and Richards never had too much troubles in keeping Taylor 'in order'. I love that tension there (a bit like with Brian Jones earlier).

But I also tend to think that the departure of Taylor was a thing that needed to happen - I really can't see him a future in the band. He seemingly started to sound bored during 1973 tour and the position he had in the band didn't fulfill his artistic ambition - nor the music the Stones were playing. Can't really imagine how would the band have developed from 1973 with Taylor. I mean they were rather extreme sounding then.

So, as natural seems Ronnie's introduction to the band. In 1975 he calmed down Taylor's role, but still essentially playing his part. This gave a new cohesion to the band. Some of the tension was off, and the band sounded more relaxed. It wasn't any longer so full of different musical visions and powers trying to work together. In 1978 the band found a new sound, and it pretty much was based on Ronnie's and Keith's guitar tandem, the "weave" (with that "punk" kick). Ronnie helped Keith to refound himself as a player, after trying to cope with Taylor, and having found himself nothing but a riff master and a rhythmn guitarist (the world's best, though). Taylor had naturally taken the lead guitar duties to his hands - that's natural progression if any, if there is a such virtuoso in the band. But with Ronnie Keith became more an all-round player (again). The results were striking, once again.

The release of TEXAS LIVE gave us a renessaissance of that magic (even though it has been a bit calmed down here). In those discussions I am sure I was the most loud mouthiest "Woodiest" one ever can be...

Damn, I simply love and adore the progression of the band that took place from teh beginning to the early 80's (and in some way to 1989/90). A fascinating musical story, full of different musical peaks to be judged by terms of their own.

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-14 17:46 by Doxa.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I like the Brussels version, and I have it on all imaginable sources (vinyl, cassette, cd and download).

However, it's too slow - that's my main beef with it.

Here it is played in the right tempo:

...at the right tempo, but with the wrong guitarist.

Quote
Doxa

Anyway, I hear Keith saying "I shit on my pants"...

- Doxa

...They shit anywhere, man.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I like the Brussels version, and I have it on all imaginable sources (vinyl, cassette, cd and download).

However, it's too slow - that's my main beef with it.

Here it is played in the right tempo:

...at the right tempo, but with the wrong guitarist.

Absolutely not! This was never the best vehicle for Taylor, imo. Ronnie's short solo IS Tumbling Dice for me

Talk about Vegas era, this AC is way too fast. Ronnie is always good on this but I get no contact high from this uptempo version. They are playing this with a better groove presently.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I like the Brussels version, and I have it on all imaginable sources (vinyl, cassette, cd and download).

However, it's too slow - that's my main beef with it.

Here it is played in the right tempo:

...at the right tempo, but with the wrong guitarist.

Absolutely not! This was never the best vehicle for Taylor, imo. Ronnie's short solo IS Tumbling Dice for me

The worst version of TD with Taylor is better than the best version with Ronnie. Period.

in regards to The Stones I weight equally the "Taylor Era" (1969-73) and "Ronnie Era" (1975-82). I think they both fitted to the band marvelously in their time, and helped the band to reshape their sound and to sound better

- i hear ya doxa but the thing to me that matters..is the tunes

and they were so so so much better in the taylor era. just better songs. so i gotta put the taylor era ahead a notch for that

Quote
pinkfloydthebarber
in regards to The Stones I weight equally the "Taylor Era" (1969-73) and "Ronnie Era" (1975-82). I think they both fitted to the band marvelously in their time, and helped the band to reshape their sound and to sound better

- i hear ya doxa but the thing to me that matters..is the tunes

and they were so so so much better in the taylor era. just better songs. so i gotta put the taylor era ahead a notch for that

I think the songs held up from '75 to roughly '82, so in that sense all eras were equal. It can scarcely be ignored that other than the two new token GRRR songs, the Stones are playing absolutely nothing post-Tattoo You. It is simply weaker material.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
pinkfloydthebarber
in regards to The Stones I weight equally the "Taylor Era" (1969-73) and "Ronnie Era" (1975-82). I think they both fitted to the band marvelously in their time, and helped the band to reshape their sound and to sound better

- i hear ya doxa but the thing to me that matters..is the tunes

and they were so so so much better in the taylor era. just better songs. so i gotta put the taylor era ahead a notch for that

I think the songs held up from '75 to roughly '82, so in that sense all eras were equal. It can scarcely be ignored that other than the two new token GRRR songs, the Stones are playing absolutely nothing post-Tattoo You. It is simply weaker material.

i guess perhaps. but to me the songs in that (Woodys) era just aren't as strong. SG is the only real strong record, and even some of it is debateable (lies) while TY has some Taylor era outakes revised on it anyways, which to me are the best tracks (like 'tops'and 'waiting on a friend') while some other TY tracks (like neigbours - which i think was written for TY) are horrifying. and it was into that punk and post punk era, which sort of watered everything down a bit. or diluted it. 1980 had nuthin on 1970, musically speaking in the world of rock and roll, in other words..

absolutely agree on the post TY stuff..



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-14 21:10 by pinkfloydthebarber.

Quote
sonomastone

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Mathijs
Funny thing is -I listened to the San Jose 2013 version of Rambler, and during the first shuffle jam Taylor starts to solo. Within 30 seconds he starts noodling again, playing these useless fake jazz fusion runs. I am absolutely sure Keith wanted to shout at that moment 'shut the fvck up' again, just like he did in '72.

Mathijs

Mathijs's own fetisse... no one else has ever heard that from LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, but he is keep on circulating it as a fact....

- Doxa

At 3:12.





Mathijs

great clip, thanks for posting. and keith was right, mt was hurting the performance.

I'm not English or American, but I think Mathijs is right. Keith is saying 'stop f...... around' and then 'stop' again. At the same time he is moving his guitar up and down by the neck, like saying play along the line.
Another interesting moment is at 3:30 when Jagger looks back at Charlie, who is playing harder than maybe Jagger wanted on the cymbals and then Charlie goes softer with the cymbals just to reach the climax before the horns enter. Really interesting moment/s and no, this has nothing to do with the pro or anti-Taylor thing. I never understood this in the first place.

Quote
pinkfloydthebarber

Quote
71Tele

Quote
pinkfloydthebarber
in regards to The Stones I weight equally the "Taylor Era" (1969-73) and "Ronnie Era" (1975-82). I think they both fitted to the band marvelously in their time, and helped the band to reshape their sound and to sound better

- i hear ya doxa but the thing to me that matters..is the tunes

and they were so so so much better in the taylor era. just better songs. so i gotta put the taylor era ahead a notch for that

I think the songs held up from '75 to roughly '82, so in that sense all eras were equal. It can scarcely be ignored that other than the two new token GRRR songs, the Stones are playing absolutely nothing post-Tattoo You. It is simply weaker material.

i guess perhaps. but to me the songs in that (Woodys) era just aren't as strong. SG is the only real strong record, and even some of it is debateable (lies) while TY has some Taylor era outakes revised on it anyways, which to me are the best tracks (like 'tops'and 'waiting on a friend') while some other TY tracks (like neigbours - which i think was written for TY) are horrifying. and it was into that punk and post punk era, which sort of watered everything down a bit. or diluted it. 1980 had nuthin on 1970, musically speaking in the world of rock and roll, in other words..

absolutely agree on the post TY stuff..

In a sense i agree with Doxa, in that it is hard to see where the Stones could have gone, especially within a live context, with the Taylor line up. Not, of course that there was anything especially lacking in their late 73 live performances (quite the opposite), just that the Stones (and Taylor especially) had reached such a pinnacle in terms of their musical accomplishments, that it was going to be pretty hard to top. They could have carried on with Taylor, of course, but the live momentum which had been building since his arrival had reached a natural climax, and it is hard to see where they could have taken it from there. Repetition was perhaps the only likely outcome which would inevitably bring less inspiring results (which is partly true, minus Taylor anyway, of the 75 tour), although once Ronnie found a more natural role in the band and the musical emphasis shifted, the Stones became more refreshed and more vital sounding as a result (the 78 tour).

Musically, in terms of recording output, and often live, the Wood era Stones were not really as good the Taylor era Stones, in my opinion. Although BLACK AND BLUE and the 75 tour are without Taylor, clearly stylistically they are closer to the Taylor era, than anything that came after. Ronnie's time with the Stones (and the beginning of the clear division from that of the Taylor era) started with SOME GIRLS and the 78 tour, which were both inspiring in a contemporary sense, but in the case of SOME GIRLS, clearly lacking with regards to it transcending the era from which it came, unlike that of BEGGARS BANQUET - EXILE ON MAIN STREET. However, that's clearly not the result of Wood's participation, but more the Stones contemporary influences.

The band were sounding fresh and vital, which was admirable, but scratch the surface and they were also rather shallow sounding too. In a sense this reflected the punk spirit, and the era from which it came. Unfortunately, the late seventies were nowhere near as inspiring as the early seventies.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-14 23:23 by Edward Twining.

Quote
sonomastone

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Mathijs
Funny thing is -I listened to the San Jose 2013 version of Rambler, and during the first shuffle jam Taylor starts to solo. Within 30 seconds he starts noodling again, playing these useless fake jazz fusion runs. I am absolutely sure Keith wanted to shout at that moment 'shut the fvck up' again, just like he did in '72.

Mathijs

Mathijs's own fetisse... no one else has ever heard that from LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, but he is keep on circulating it as a fact....

- Doxa

At 3:12.





Mathijs

great clip, thanks for posting. and keith was right, mt was hurting the performance.

oh boy

really? keith mumbles something in MT's general direction (i guess) and MT doesn't pay any attention. what? he was playing (barely audibly even) over keith's signiture riff like it is some kind of a crime?

and its a mountain outta a molehill here i'm afraid

Quote
71Tele

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I like the Brussels version, and I have it on all imaginable sources (vinyl, cassette, cd and download).

However, it's too slow - that's my main beef with it.

Here it is played in the right tempo:

...at the right tempo, but with the wrong guitarist.

Absolutely not! This was never the best vehicle for Taylor, imo. Ronnie's short solo IS Tumbling Dice for me

The worst version of TD with Taylor is better than the best version with Ronnie. Period.

I quite like the very slow '75 versions too...listen to MSG '75 for example: that's real sleaz.

Talking about tempi: the San Jose Midnight Rambler certainly isn't bad, but there is something really missing. Listen to any '70's version, and even 1989/1990 version and it's clear: they used to play it almost twice as fast, which really helps the groove and energy in my opinion.

Mathijs

I'mmssing something, what did Mick taylor say when asked the question?

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
71Tele

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I like the Brussels version, and I have it on all imaginable sources (vinyl, cassette, cd and download).

However, it's too slow - that's my main beef with it.

Here it is played in the right tempo:

...at the right tempo, but with the wrong guitarist.

Absolutely not! This was never the best vehicle for Taylor, imo. Ronnie's short solo IS Tumbling Dice for me

The worst version of TD with Taylor is better than the best version with Ronnie. Period.

I quite like the very slow '75 versions too...listen to MSG '75 for example: that's real sleaz.

Talking about tempi: the San Jose Midnight Rambler certainly isn't bad, but there is something really missing. Listen to any '70's version, and even 1989/1990 version and it's clear: they used to play it almost twice as fast, which really helps the groove and energy in my opinion.

Mathijs

Well, they now seem to be married to the idea of playing everything at the exact studio tempo, with Chuck counting it off. Bad idea, imo, as songs like TD and Brown Sugar sound way too slow and lethargic now.

TD is still faster today than in 1973 and 1975. I agree about BS and JFF as well, though.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
71Tele

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I like the Brussels version, and I have it on all imaginable sources (vinyl, cassette, cd and download).

However, it's too slow - that's my main beef with it.

Here it is played in the right tempo:

...at the right tempo, but with the wrong guitarist.

Absolutely not! This was never the best vehicle for Taylor, imo. Ronnie's short solo IS Tumbling Dice for me

The worst version of TD with Taylor is better than the best version with Ronnie. Period.

I quite like the very slow '75 versions too...listen to MSG '75 for example: that's real sleaz.

Talking about tempi: the San Jose Midnight Rambler certainly isn't bad, but there is something really missing. Listen to any '70's version, and even 1989/1990 version and it's clear: they used to play it almost twice as fast, which really helps the groove and energy in my opinion.

Mathijs

Well, they now seem to be married to the idea of playing everything at the exact studio tempo, with Chuck counting it off. Bad idea, imo, as songs like TD and Brown Sugar sound way too slow and lethargic now.

Their music sped up in concert as a result of the Some Girls/punk era, which is one of the things that Mick Taylor found difficult in dealing with on his 1981 guest spot, describing their music at that point as "fast and furious".

Now that we are in a "vintage era" and are prepared to worship at the altar of the old rock gods, we are happy for a faithful reproduction of the classic album tracks we love so much, original slow tempo and all.

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
VT22


Thanks for posting; I never noticed that: Keith gets upset and Taylor doesn't give a shit. Those were the days. Priceless.

Difficult to judge footage, but to me Taylor stops the noodling and looks quite sheepisly to Richards.

Mathijs

It is an interesting moment. I think Keith says "Stop that..." then something else. Then he shows Taylor exactly what he wants. It is a moment of contrast in musical visions. Keith wants a single repetitive riff. Why not? He composed it and its a nice one. He's defending his turf. Keith favors repetition. There are many examples of that. Taylor sees other possibilities. Taylor knows he will rejoin Keith in emphasizing the riff in the finale, but in the meantime...he has ideas. BTW: Taylor is right. After the Brussels performance every other performance of this song sounds one dimensional.

Taylor gives Keith a blank stare at the end of the L&G performance. I'd love to know what he was thinking. He does not look sheepish to me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-15 00:29 by pmk251.

Repetition is "roll" in Keith's book...

Quote
pmk251

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
VT22


Thanks for posting; I never noticed that: Keith gets upset and Taylor doesn't give a shit. Those were the days. Priceless.

Difficult to judge footage, but to me Taylor stops the noodling and looks quite sheepisly to Richards.

Mathijs

It is an interesting moment. I think Keith says "Stop that..." then something else. Then he shows Taylor exactly what he wants. It is a moment of contrast in musical visions. Keith wants a single repetitive riff. Why not? He composed it and its a nice one. He's defending his turf. Keith favors repetition. There are many examples of that. Taylor sees other possibilities. Taylor knows he will rejoin Keith in emphasizing the riff in the finale, but in the meantime...he has ideas. BTW: Taylor is right. After the Brussels performance every other performance of this song sounds one dimensional.

Taylor gives Keith a blank stare at the end of the L&G performance. I'd love to know what he was thinking. He does not look sheepish to me.

Great observation. Maybe his blank stare has also something of arrogance or rather self-confidence in it. I always think he must be thinking "Shall I go on playing or just stop playing at all?" But he seems also a bit surprised like: "Hey Keith, don't you hear it's much nicer and more interesting the way I play it now? I'll join you at the end anyway.". And so he did in 1973 as we can here on the Brussels video for instance.

The tighter, more concise ending of L&G is better than the overly drawn out and unnecessarily widdley ending of Brussls 73.

Quote
stonehearted
one of the things that Mick Taylor found difficult in dealing with on his 1981 guest spot, describing their music at that point as "fast and furious".

Taylor was playing with Alvin Lee at the time. Considerably faster than the Stones. No problem keeping up.

Quote
VT22

Quote
DoomandGloom
That's it? This happens every second on stage, less noticeable but the band leader does lead. Taylor's lost in his own world for a second.

For a second? Taylor was always lost in his own world when he started noodling. That's what I liked about him.

I think VT22 is right. He even had to adjust his amp to a brand new
series of Ampegs here.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
pmk251

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
VT22


Thanks for posting; I never noticed that: Keith gets upset and Taylor doesn't give a shit. Those were the days. Priceless.

Difficult to judge footage, but to me Taylor stops the noodling and looks quite sheepisly to Richards.

Mathijs

It is an interesting moment. I think Keith says "Stop that..." then something else. Then he shows Taylor exactly what he wants. It is a moment of contrast in musical visions. Keith wants a single repetitive riff. Why not? He composed it and its a nice one. He's defending his turf. Keith favors repetition. There are many examples of that. Taylor sees other possibilities. Taylor knows he will rejoin Keith in emphasizing the riff in the finale, but in the meantime...he has ideas. BTW: Taylor is right. After the Brussels performance every other performance of this song sounds one dimensional.

Taylor gives Keith a blank stare at the end of the L&G performance. I'd love to know what he was thinking. He does not look sheepish to me.

Great observation. Maybe his blank stare has also something of arrogance or rather self-confidence in it. I always think he must be thinking "Shall I go on playing or just stop playing at all?" But he seems also a bit surprised like: "Hey Keith, don't you hear it's much nicer and more interesting the way I play it now? I'll join you at the end anyway.". And so he did in 1973 as we can here on the Brussels video for instance.

Since when are the Stones automatons who play everything like it first was on record? By that logic maybe Taylor should yell across the stage at Bill for not playing Taylor's original TD bass line exactly the same.

I prefer this mix of the well known performance. IMO when Keith said two guitars under the right circumstances can sound like a symphony, this was what he was talking about.

Mathijs has a point and I understand it. But I would rather experience the occasional moment of brilliance and inspiration amid the competence than...something less. Having Taylor come out for one song is awkward. It is a guest spot and he wants to show his stuff. I was afraid of that and hoped for something else.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
pmk251

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
VT22


Thanks for posting; I never noticed that: Keith gets upset and Taylor doesn't give a shit. Those were the days. Priceless.

Difficult to judge footage, but to me Taylor stops the noodling and looks quite sheepisly to Richards.

Mathijs

It is an interesting moment. I think Keith says "Stop that..." then something else. Then he shows Taylor exactly what he wants. It is a moment of contrast in musical visions. Keith wants a single repetitive riff. Why not? He composed it and its a nice one. He's defending his turf. Keith favors repetition. There are many examples of that. Taylor sees other possibilities. Taylor knows he will rejoin Keith in emphasizing the riff in the finale, but in the meantime...he has ideas. BTW: Taylor is right. After the Brussels performance every other performance of this song sounds one dimensional.

Taylor gives Keith a blank stare at the end of the L&G performance. I'd love to know what he was thinking. He does not look sheepish to me.

Great observation. Maybe his blank stare has also something of arrogance or rather self-confidence in it. I always think he must be thinking "Shall I go on playing or just stop playing at all?" But he seems also a bit surprised like: "Hey Keith, don't you hear it's much nicer and more interesting the way I play it now? I'll join you at the end anyway.". And so he did in 1973 as we can here on the Brussels video for instance.

Since when are the Stones automatons who play everything like it first was on record? By that logic maybe Taylor should yell across the stage at Bill for not playing Taylor's original TD bass line exactly the same.

wow you guys are blowing this way out of proportion, and by the way keith was clearly right.

taylor was doing his noodling throughout the song and it was great in parts (and no one in the band complained.) when they got to the break where they break the song down and build it back up again, increasing the tempo little by little, it's all about the groove getting faster and faster and the singer performing on top of all of that. taylor however doesn't get with this program and continues his endless noodling, thereby detracting from the musical moment. he should have stopped, keith yelled at him, and the next bar he followed keith's directions.

taylor added a ton to their sound but he didn't know when to stop playing in some cases (more and more often near the end).

Quote
Mathijs
Taylor is fairly absent on most of Exile. And with that, Taylor just isn't much of a studio guitarist -it's the live shows where he shined.

You must have a different version of EOMS. The one I have has Taylor playing on almost all or maybe every track. I would hardly call that fairly absent.

Quote
pmk251

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
VT22


Thanks for posting; I never noticed that: Keith gets upset and Taylor doesn't give a shit. Those were the days. Priceless.

Difficult to judge footage, but to me Taylor stops the noodling and looks quite sheepisly to Richards.

Mathijs

It is an interesting moment. I think Keith says "Stop that..." then something else. Then he shows Taylor exactly what he wants. It is a moment of contrast in musical visions. Keith wants a single repetitive riff. Why not? He composed it and its a nice one. He's defending his turf. Keith favors repetition. There are many examples of that. Taylor sees other possibilities. Taylor knows he will rejoin Keith in emphasizing the riff in the finale, but in the meantime...he has ideas. BTW: Taylor is right. After the Brussels performance every other performance of this song sounds one dimensional.

Taylor gives Keith a blank stare at the end of the L&G performance. I'd love to know what he was thinking. He does not look sheepish to me.

Keith isn't defending his turf. Taylor is noodling through Jaggers vocals, which is extremely irritating. It simply isn't the right place in the song to noodle. Keith says something like 'stop playing that' and after that 'stop @#$%& around'. The noodling is self-serving, it doesn't serve the song. At least not that part of the song.