Quote
His Majesty

Quote
kleermaker


Well, they helped him doing the job 'properly'.

Or maybe delayed the inevitable.

Who knows. Anyway very sad he died so young.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Doxa

Quote
His Majesty

Comparing The Beatles with the post Jones Rolling Stones is a bit silly because any band can bring in some younger hot shot musicians and move in different, arguably better ways than they can in their original form.

I think you have a point there. And also a good reminder what a big change occurred at the time when the band was 'updated' with Mick Taylor. It doesn't look like that any longer, since they came out as winners, but there was a big risky involved there (even though I don't think the Stones had a choice really). Not musically but imagewise, and The Stones tried to be as diplomatic as they ever could when announced the change.

A bit like if The Beatles had replaced George Harrison by, say, Eric Clapton or Jimmy Page (musically the band even might have sounded better and surely more competent if hey have decided to continue and go back to road...). Or if we continue the analogy, if the Stones had acted like they did in 1969 to 'update' the band, they should have kicked out Ronnie Wood in 1982 and had replaced him by some more current and relevant player (according to the times), someone from Eddie Van Halen generation of guitar players. Malmsteen? (Besides, by the 80's guitar standards, what was the worth of Ronnie Wood? Wood was a suitable guitarist in the late 70's when a rough guitar playing was a trend, but that was gone by the 80's, when the skillful guitar gods were back...)

- Doxa

Remember the Stones kicked Jones out because he didn't function anymore, so they had no choice. If he was still active and not 'wasted' he would still be in the band. Besides it's not fair to compare Harrison with Jones, because Harrison acted more like Taylor during the last years of the Beatles (his guitar playing on the last Beatles albums is splendid). With Harrison they were already 'update'. Second thing is that Taylor never had the role of the dominating lead guitar hotshot, but he added something special the way Jones did during his tenure in the band.

No doubt had The Beatles continued that they had managed just as well with the old team (and most probably left the The Stones in their shadows as before), but my speculative point was just to remind the radical decision the Stones did/were forced to do in 1969. But they were lucky too: having an ace guitarist as Taylor onboard was exactly the thing they needed in order to establish their credibility as a stage act, after the stage had been conquered such as acts like Hendrix, The Cream, Zeppelin, etc. who had taken the instrumental standard to a new level.

Anyways, by 1969 the old but inspiring rivalry between The Beatles and The Stones started to be yesterday's news, and I think Jagger as a clever trend-follower knew that they needed to do a next step in their career if there would be a future. They had more or less followed the example of The Beatles for some years, and like them, ending up as a studio band. But when they did they 'come back' to concert circuit, there were new challengers they need to compete with. With Taylor, and reinvented 'hard rock' sound they were more than ready to start a new decade, and a decade where there was no The FabFour any longer.

The Beatles, by contrast, never needed to re-establish their concert credibility, and they ended up as a pure studio band. By that time they call it finally quits, the roads of them and The Stones had already separated, and Jagger's group had its own adventures and new games by then. (I would claim that the Hyde Park concert - where they famously were introduced as the 'greatest rock and roll band of the world' for the very first time - was a kind of symbolic moment when The Stones broke free from the old tandem-like rivalry with the Beatles, and took a new Beatles-free direction in their career.)

What goes for Harrison, I don't think he was 'updated' at all compared to the scene The Stones were now taking part. Yeah, he did nice and suitable guitar stuff to their songs in the studio, but no way he was in the league of guitar players that took the scene by the end of the 60's. But the point is that I don't think The Beatles never should have needed that kind of 'updating' - they could have managed just well by their own, as splendid song-writers and good enough musicians. They were so damn big.

- Doxa

Doxa, I think I don't embrace your concept of the hot shot virtuoso player needed by the Stones at 1969 to be able to compete with those guitar god-bands playing hard rock music (Led Z., Clapton and the like).

Like His M said the Stones would have been able to still be a super act from 1969 on when Jones would have been still capable, just like you say about the Beatles with Harrison. Beatles and Stones were a category on its own and would have continued to be that without any new guitarist. But as said Jones didn't function anymore, so they needed a new guitarist. And they got the right one, not a hotshot, purely blues, guitarist, but a versatile, all round guitar and team player like Taylor.

I've never understood the image of Taylor being a guitar god within the Stones. Mention me the songs/performances where he is. I can't find them. So if someone does, show me the YT-clip involved. There are simply none. On YaYa's he has only one blistering solo, duration less than a minute, (on Sympathy), during the 1970 and 1971 tours idem, even during the 1972 and 1973 tours only short solos. His main contribution was adding so much melody to the band, just the forte of the Beatles. So one could say he made the Stones more melodic, more Beatles-like, but no way more hard rock. Neither on studio albums nor on stage.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-10 19:04 by kleermaker.

Lol I posted one earlier.

He was for sure in the hot shot lead guitar player category. That's not all he was, but that's part of his thing, the melody stuff is part of the hot shot lead player thing.

Yer simply too in love with his playing to hear it.

Quote
His Majesty
Lol I posted one earlier.

He was for sure in the hot shot lead guitar player category. That's not all he was, but that's part of his thing, the melody stuff is part of the hot shot lead player thing.

Yer simply too in love with his playing to hear it.

Out of context. Just a guitar solo within the song. Post the whole song and let's then judge again. No I'm not blinded by love

Quote
His Majesty

You're relapsing into that bad habit. Pity.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
His Majesty

You're relapsing into that bad habit. Pity.

There's no point discussing things with you.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
His Majesty

You're relapsing into that bad habit. Pity.

There's no point discussing things with you.

Then don't reply.

Quote
LieB

Quote
treaclefingers
So, Abbey Road is like Exile, and The White Album's a bit like Sucking In The 70s 60s?

><

I don't know how to respond, so all you'll get is this:

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
His Majesty
Lol I posted one earlier.

He was for sure in the hot shot lead guitar player category. That's not all he was, but that's part of his thing, the melody stuff is part of the hot shot lead player thing.

Yer simply too in love with his playing to hear it.

Out of context. Just a guitar solo within the song. Post the whole song and let's then judge again. No I'm not blinded by love

Ya Yas: SCB, SFTD, LIV, SFM. Later, he extended his soloing on most of the songs he played on...

Quote
kleermaker
Then don't reply.

@#$%& off!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-10 23:18 by His Majesty.

Gentlemen, behave... It's only rock and roll, and blah blah blah...

- Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
His Majesty
Lol I posted one earlier.

He was for sure in the hot shot lead guitar player category. That's not all he was, but that's part of his thing, the melody stuff is part of the hot shot lead player thing.

Yer simply too in love with his playing to hear it.

Out of context. Just a guitar solo within the song. Post the whole song and let's then judge again. No I'm not blinded by love

Ya Yas: SCB, SFTD, LIV, SFM. Later, he extended his soloing on most of the songs he played on...

Except SFTD (two solos btw, each about as long as the other to end the song guitarwise), those other songs don't contain guitar god solos or even long solos at all. Just short solos, serving the songs quite well. Try other examples, will be difficult.

Quote
Doxa
Gentlemen, behave... It's only rock and roll, and blah blah blah...

- Doxa

I hate replies containing only this:

Besides someone who wants to 'win' the discussion and doesn't and then says "There's no point discussing things with you" doesn't understand the meaning of exchanging opinions and arguments or only wants to stick at his own point of view. The latter is okay, but don't expect others to give up their opinions without them being convinced that they're wrong.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
His Majesty
Lol I posted one earlier.

He was for sure in the hot shot lead guitar player category. That's not all he was, but that's part of his thing, the melody stuff is part of the hot shot lead player thing.

Yer simply too in love with his playing to hear it.

Out of context. Just a guitar solo within the song. Post the whole song and let's then judge again. No I'm not blinded by love

Ya Yas: SCB, SFTD, LIV, SFM. Later, he extended his soloing on most of the songs he played on...

Except SFTD (two solos btw, each about as long as the other to end the song guitarwise), those other songs don't contain guitar god solos or even long solos at all. Just short solos, serving the songs quite well. Try other examples, will be difficult.

If you really mean that, you're blinded

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
His Majesty
Lol I posted one earlier.

He was for sure in the hot shot lead guitar player category. That's not all he was, but that's part of his thing, the melody stuff is part of the hot shot lead player thing.

Yer simply too in love with his playing to hear it.

Out of context. Just a guitar solo within the song. Post the whole song and let's then judge again. No I'm not blinded by love

Ya Yas: SCB, SFTD, LIV, SFM. Later, he extended his soloing on most of the songs he played on...

Except SFTD (two solos btw, each about as long as the other to end the song guitarwise), those other songs don't contain guitar god solos or even long solos at all. Just short solos, serving the songs quite well. Try other examples, will be difficult.

If you really mean that, you're blinded

I mean it without being blinded.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Doxa
Gentlemen, behave... It's only rock and roll, and blah blah blah...

- Doxa

I hate replies containing only this:

Besides someone who wants to 'win' the discussion and doesn't and then says "There's no point discussing things with you" doesn't understand the meaning of exchanging opinions and arguments or only wants to stick at his own point of view. The latter is okay, but don't expect others to give up their opinions without them being convinced that they're wrong.

At least you're being kleer about things.

The scariest of scary pictures in the world of music must be:

I am one who, whilst 'searching' for a musical identity to grasp (notwithstanding my parent's efforts to get me to like The Seekers!) found The Stones doing Route 66 - on a crystal set from my bedroom one evening in about 1965.

For me - hook, line and sinker. To this day the best band in the world. I love them, addicted to them (Springsteen is my only other vice - LIVE he is the best) and thru the latter 60's through to the mid 90's really had NO time for The Beatles at all really.

Then something happened and I started to LISTEN to their latter records, Revolver, and after, and became really really attached to them. The Beatle White Album and Let it Be, together with Revolver and much of Abbey Road are superb.

I understood and understand why, if not for them perhaps my Stones would not have made it, or existed. They (The Beatles) created the long form record, the true LP (not just a hit with a dozen other fillers). But a fully formed piece of music.

Others stepped up - incl, thankfully, the Stones.

I love them both (though NOT early She Loves You Beatles). Two hands, two gloves.

A pair. Both required.

I prefer the Stones, but need the Beatles too.

Rgds
Rod
Perth

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-11 17:31 by His Majesty.

You can discuss with kleermaker when he acknowledges that there are two extended guitar solos on Love In Vain (Ya Yas)

It's not just solos, by 1973 the hot shot lead guitar player approach spills over in to nearly every song. Many a vocal line gets smothered by it.

<Many a vocal line gets smothered by it.>

I reckon kleerie rather will say "gets inspired by it>

Quote
His Majesty

You cannot be convinced otherwise because the very things which can show the viewpoint you claim is not true you see as being proof that it isn't true.

Can you translate that for me?

Quote
kleermaker


Can you translate that for me?

I see this as proof he was in the hot shot lead guitar category, you see it as being proof he isn't.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
<Many a vocal line gets smothered by it.>

I reckon kleerie rather will say "gets inspired by it>

Good guess .

Jagger btw thought so too. (I admire him for having been able to sing together with that other - guitar - voice).

Jagger also thought his own solo albums were great.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-11 17:38 by His Majesty.

Quote
kleermaker

Doxa, I think I don't embrace your concept of the hot shot virtuoso player needed by the Stones at 1969 to be able to compete with those guitar god-bands playing hard rock music (Led Z., Clapton and the like).

Like His M said the Stones would have been able to still be a super act from 1969 on when Jones would have been still capable, just like you say about the Beatles with Harrison. Beatles and Stones were a category on its own and would have continued to be that without any new guitarist. But as said Jones didn't function anymore, so they needed a new guitarist. And they got the right one, not a hotshot, purely blues, guitarist, but a versatile, all round guitar and team player like Taylor.

I've never understood the image of Taylor being a guitar god within the Stones. Mention me the songs/performances where he is. I can't find them. So if someone does, show me the YT-clip involved. There are simply none. On YaYa's he has only one blistering solo, duration less than a minute, (on Sympathy), during the 1970 and 1971 tours idem, even during the 1972 and 1973 tours only short solos. His main contribution was adding so much melody to the band, just the forte of the Beatles. So one could say he made the Stones more melodic, more Beatles-like, but no way more hard rock. Neither on studio albums nor on stage.

I don't think the question was that of being capable still to be a "super act" from 1969 on, but more that of they wanting to follow more the "hard rock rock" guitar-driven path (part, but big part of) the scene was following around the time, and which would emerge during the 70's as a mainstream rock and roll. An artistic choice. At least that what they factually did. I am not eager to even speculate with another possible alternatives they could have done. I think Jagger - if they really any other options, I don't know - sensed 'what was going on' rather well, and taking their actual success, I don't know could they have done any better.

We have to remember that they initially were a guitar-based blues band, and that was also the birth place of the upcoming 'hard rock bands' and 'guitar-gods', being just technically some degrees in a higher level than the early Stones (thanks to people like Clapton and Hendrix). In BEGGARS BANQUET they kind re-established their connection to the blues tradition again, and from then on they would further experiment their version of 'Americana', of which the songs based on strong guitar riffs, were an essential part. The Stones rather naturally belonged to the 'blues rock' scene (they originally were the first r&b act to make a national breakthrough from a blues club circuit). The Beatles never so.

But more of anything, they wanted to make and made - unlike the Beatles - a strong return as a live act. And for that they needed to adapt to whole new game than they had experienced with the Beatles in the 'mania years'. That Jagger vetoed ROCK AND ROLL CIRCUS also showed how careful they were for their credibility - probably the red and hot Who taught them a lesson. They wanted to sound great on stage.

All the evidence seem to indicate that Brian Jones was not up to the task needed then - lack of condition, skills or interest or whatever, it doesn't matter. So for my eyes, having a hot shot straight from John Mayall's high school of fantastic British blues players, from the class of Eric Clapton, was indeed a marvellous career move. The only problem seemed to be that imagewise - but surely not any longer musically - Brian Jones was a tough one to replace (how would the fans react?). But they took the chance, and I guess they really didn't have a choice in the path they have decided to follow. I mean, if they wanted to continue as the Beatles - just as a studio band - they probably shouldn't have needed to fire Jones.

Altogether I tend to think that the crossed roads of The Beatles and the Stones started to separate already in 1968 when both of them were 'going back to roots'. But like always The Stones seemed to go more extreme (credit to DandelionPowderman for articulating this in another thread), and in fact, they build up a new career based on that 'experiment', whereas for The Beatles it started to be like the last 'novel' thing they were able to do, a kind of conservative move (as you Kleerie described it) after doing about anything an open minded rock and roll band can do. At least after that the Stones didn't seem to pay attention or even needed to care to what the Beatles were 'doing next'. I mean, the biggest document capturing what took place in their camp in 1969 was GET YER YA-YA'S OUT! Were they following The Beatles there? Or is there anything in the Beatles output equavalent to it? Hell not! Nearest is them calling it quits (that took place around the same time when YA-YA'S! was released).

- Doxa



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-11 18:34 by Doxa.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
<Many a vocal line gets smothered by it.>

I reckon kleerie rather will say "gets inspired by it>

Well, I just saw this related post on another thread.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
... the wanking fest JJF from L&G. At least Keith and Ronnie take their solo spots, instead of destroying Mick's singing...

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
kleermaker


Can you translate that for me?

I see this as proof he was in the hot shot lead guitar category, you see it as being proof he isn't.

Yes indeed. In my view he is serving the song excellently by exploring its boundaries.