In Norway (perhaps in Finland, too?) we have an expression that goes like this:

"You're reading me like the devil reads the bible".

To simplify my point of view: There is a difference in sound when one of the guitarists have to diminish his role, and the other one is playing constructed motifs round a song.

Bill and Charlie are steady. It is with the guitars, first and foremost, the looseness comes from in the Stones sound.

When Taylor added extended melody lines to the songs, and Keith only played rhythm, something happened with their sound - they sounded more "professional", a bit like other classic rock acts at the time, imo.

If you now don't understand my point of view - or if you still disagree after listening to, say 1967 shows or 1978 shows - I'll suggest we just agree to disagree.

"The worst are filled with passion and intensity while the best lack all conviction."
W.B. Yeats

Choose yer camp wisely.

I like it too but Keith now mostly plays fills. He used to play non stop at his best.

Quote
Doxa
Okay, I guess what you mean, but I don't buy that "lost some of their signature sound", which equals to "the loose and sloppy with mistakes". They never lost the latter, and I don't like the idea of the Stones in their peak playing not according to their "signature sound". The whole term "signature sound" sounds unfortunate to me if its used against some of their top performances ever.

So is GET YER YA-YA'S OUT! "loose and sloppy with mistakes" whereas BRUSSELS AFFAIR is not? I think YA-YA's is about their most tight and professional, almost perfect live recordings ever. That they factured it in studio barely meant that they wanted it to sound as tight as they can. In many ways their readings of their songs were very strictly arranged, especially compared to the versions in later Taylor years. I mean, LOVE YOU LIVE might be better candidate to go under that category ("loose, sloppy, with mistakes"). Is the latter the ideal you have in mind? Or does these two albums have the same "signature sound", but which, say, BRUSSELS AFFAIR lacks?

Honestly, I can't understand what the idea of "became loose again" means? The all Taylor years were not "loose"? (you don't seem to mean that, but only 1972/73). For me the band the band just went more "loosier" and free-going as the Taylor years went further. For me it also looks like, if I may say, that you have some strange fixation against Taylor and "classic rock". Nothing wrong in that, though.

It could be some of our "conflict" is due to semantics.

- Doxa

it's rare that i find myself agreeing with Doxa and not DP on the topic of the stones sound, merits of tours, and MT, but in this case I do.

i think the taylor years were plenty loose, including 72/73. i think the 72 tour was bona fide Stones through and through.

i personally think that taylor's soloing was *starting* to get a little too unrestrained in 72/73 and i do agree with DP that it was an example of the stones following the latest trend and having a true lead who played very flashy solos - something just about every band was doing at the time. perhaps they felt insecure vis a vis led zeppelin. this direction they took caused them to be less focused on the groove (like in 69 where it was first and foremost). but that's a matter of personal taste and certainly not something that happened to an extreme that i would consider it a "wrong turn" in the same way i'd consider say TSMR, GHS, or DW a wrong turn.

Dandie, we probably need to agree to disagree, but I don't see the similarity between 1967 and 1978 shows. All I hear is the change in sound quite dramatically between the eras. If you think that the strict distinction between lead and rhythm guitars that more or less took place in 1972/73 is the crucial difference in compared both to 1967 and 1978, I agree with that. But for me the whole thing cannot be constructed in terms of negation: that both 1967 and 1978 do not have that element. Both what they do have in common in positive terms? I think 1967 is as (at least) as far musically from 1978 as it is from 1973. And by contrast, I think both 1973 and 1978 are more closer to each than to 1967.

Even though I salute the idea of bringing 1967 to the discussion, I think to appreciate the sound of that era one needs to have some different concepts altogether. Well, I guess the terms "loose and sloppy with mistakes" do suit there very well, but I cannot think the performances at all similar to 1978 ones. I think those terms are not crucial there; there was something else going on - that kind of energy, wilderness, and vitality - that never took place again since that. And in a way, they still were "happy amateurs", for whom "sloppiness and looseness" didn't mean anything, They never had that licence after that. They were damn professional in 1978 even though the punk had inspired them to go more back to basics, and have more fun. The sloppiness in 1975/76 tour more that of decadence and degenaration than that of "let's play like we used to do" (But damn exciting as well)

- Doxa

And oh yeah, I know that expression - but I also see some crucial differences in our way of viewing the band, and, you know, I just try to explicate those more... Your posts always inspire me, even though you might not always like that...

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa
And oh yeah, I know that expression - but I also see some crucial differences in our way of viewing the band, and, you know, I just try to explicate those more... Your posts always inspire me, even though you might not always like that...

- Doxa

*in a Deniro voice*
You talkin' to me?

If you are, that's cool - and any differences we may have I can respect as you seem to know what you're talking about. You know, that whole "grip on reality" thing.

Quote
Doxa

Even though I salute the idea of bringing 1967 to the discussion, I think to appreciate the sound of that era one needs to have some different concepts altogether. Well, I guess the terms "loose and sloppy with mistakes" do suit there very well, but I cannot think the performances at all similar to 1978 ones. I think those terms are not crucial there; there was something else going on - that kind of energy, wilderness, and vitality - that never took place again since that.

- Doxa

The 1963 - 1967 tours are a pure Rolling Stones live experience because it is the signed, sealed and delivered original band and there's no bringing in of technically superior musicians to beefen up the sound or make them more musical etc.


















The last pure Rolling Stones live performance was at NME Poll Winners concert on 12th May 1968.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-25 20:14 by His Majesty.

Quote
sonomastone


i personally think that taylor's soloing was *starting* to get a little too unrestrained in 72/73 and i do agree with DP that it was an example of the stones following the latest trend and having a true lead who played very flashy solos - something just about every band was doing at the time. perhaps they felt insecure vis a vis led zeppelin. this direction they took caused them to be less focused on the groove (like in 69 where it was first and foremost). but that's a matter of personal taste and certainly not something that happened to an extreme that i would consider it a "wrong turn" in the same way i'd consider say TSMR, GHS, or DW a wrong turn.

I also agree that the Stones were following the trends of the time in 1972/73 (that of guitar heroism/typical hard rock) but I that's what they always had been doing. Even the sound they professionalized in 1969 was following a trend. I think too much not to be read off that trend-following, since they always tend to sound so original and "Stonesy". The same is with 1978 tour when they are said to follow the punk trend in their sound. Yes, they did, but still they sound nothing but the Rolling Stones. As a member of punk generation, I don't think they actually weren't very convincing to punk-trained ears. But it was more like them sounding good enough to sound relevant to the times. I don't know, but I would guess the Stones sound of 1972/73 was not really convincing to "hard rock-trained ears" of the day, but more like showing that they are still relevant by the criteria of the day.

(Actually if one wants to find real punk energy in their sound, the Brian Jones era recordings give us that!)

So my point has that people are reading too much off the "classic rock" or "punk" influences to their sound, and for me that has been one of the oddest thing I have encountered here in IORR (with archetype "Taylorites" and "Woodists"). Yes, it is a question of personal, idiosyncratic taste, but for me the Rolling Stones AD 1973 or AD 1978 sounds nothing but The Rolling Stones.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-25 20:23 by Doxa.

Yes. Their whole career is based on following trends and giving it their own unique angle. John Lennon would agree with me :-)

IMO Brian jones is the most underrated stone on this board and the Brian years the most underrated.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
Doxa

Even though I salute the idea of bringing 1967 to the discussion, I think to appreciate the sound of that era one needs to have some different concepts altogether. Well, I guess the terms "loose and sloppy with mistakes" do suit there very well, but I cannot think the performances at all similar to 1978 ones. I think those terms are not crucial there; there was something else going on - that kind of energy, wilderness, and vitality - that never took place again since that.

- Doxa

The 1963 - 1967 tours are a pure Rolling Stones live experience because it is the signed, sealed and delivered original band and there's no bringing in of technically superior musicians to beefen up the sound or make them more musical etc.


















The last pure Rolling Stones live performance was at NME Poll Winners concert on 12th May 1968.

Just like in 1978 (let Mac be a Stone for a minute)

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
Doxa

Even though I salute the idea of bringing 1967 to the discussion, I think to appreciate the sound of that era one needs to have some different concepts altogether. Well, I guess the terms "loose and sloppy with mistakes" do suit there very well, but I cannot think the performances at all similar to 1978 ones. I think those terms are not crucial there; there was something else going on - that kind of energy, wilderness, and vitality - that never took place again since that.

- Doxa

The 1963 - 1967 tours are a pure Rolling Stones live experience because it is the signed, sealed and delivered original band and there's no bringing in of technically superior musicians to beefen up the sound or make them more musical etc.
....






...

.

now *that's* how GOMC should be played!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-26 01:55 by sonomastone.

I think it is baffling that you don't see the parallell between the two stripped-down tours, Doxa...

No flash. Just plain rock'n'roll...

Sonomastone, when you've heard 20 JJFs with the same melodic pattern, the idea of looseness sort of goes out the window. That's what I meant. You wouldn't get that feeling in 1978, or in 1965 for that matter, as they just didn't play that way on those tours.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I think it is baffling that you don't see the parallell between the two stripped-down tours, Doxa...

No flash. Just plain rock'n'roll...

isn't the debate between you and doxa similar to what was going on (as i've read) in london in the early 60s - the chuck berry rock-n-rollers vs the bluesmen? that's kind of how i read it. and the beauty of the stones, for me, is that they always straddled both camps. but keith made sure they never let go of CB.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Sonomastone, when you've heard 20 JJFs with the same melodic pattern, the idea of looseness sort of goes out the window. That's what I meant. You wouldn't get that feeling in 1978, or in 1965 for that matter, as they just didn't play that way on those tours.

ah, ok, for me looseness is more about playing around the beat, charlie following keith rather than vice versa, etc... what they do with the rhythm. sounds like you mean something different.

When two guitars are playing around the beat, like in 78, Charlie is bound to follow Keith - and the magic happens, imo.

With the on-beat dominated sound something vanishes, imo. Maybe I'm too much of a rock'n'roll geek to get this across - but while playing yourself, this is so evident and obvious...

Quote
DandelionPowderman
When two guitars are playing around the beat, like in 78, Charlie is bound to follow Keith - and the magic happens, imo.

With the on-beat dominated sound something vanishes, imo. Maybe I'm too much of a rock'n'roll geek to get this across - but while playing yourself, this is so evident and obvious...

i get it, i think most of us get it, but are you saying that they didn't play like that in 72-73?

Quote
DandelionPowderman


Just like in 1978 (let Mac be a Stone for a minute)

The Rolling Faces?

Quote
sonomastone

Quote
DandelionPowderman
When two guitars are playing around the beat, like in 78, Charlie is bound to follow Keith - and the magic happens, imo.

With the on-beat dominated sound something vanishes, imo. Maybe I'm too much of a rock'n'roll geek to get this across - but while playing yourself, this is so evident and obvious...

i get it, i think most of us get it, but are you saying that they didn't play like that in 72-73?

I'm saying there is a big difference in how Taylor played around the beat, and how Keith does it. Taylor does it for whole songs or long passages (JJF L&G 1972), while Brian/Keith or Ronnie/Keith thrown down what Stu called "golden tiaras", or something - bringing extra flavor to the songs, instead of re-shaping them.

I know lots of people like it, but I think it went too far by 1973, and it did something to the band's sound. It was gone by 1978, when Ronnie started being himself, instead of copying Taylor, imo.