Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
DandelionPowderman
BB is a transitional album - just as much as LIB

Nah, there's too much distinctive to the third man contributions.

Not guitar-wise, and it's mainly a rock/blues/folk album.

I agree about some songs, though, like JSP and NE. But let's face it, those are pretty deep cuts. On DD I've always wondered who played the harp(s), and that says a lot about the influence of "the third man" on that number...

No Expectations is an essential album track and guitar contribution. Jones plays no guitar on TSMR, but is essential to that album.

Jones moving away from guitar and Keith taking on open E and D tunings is all part of that bands evolution.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-02 22:10 by His Majesty.

As well as an important transitional move toward the sound to come on those big four...

Guitar, and especially more guitar tracks, was more essential on BB than on TSMR, because of the musical change, imo.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
BB is a transitional album - just as much as LIB - much due to it being a "guitar album" where Keith where totally in charge, just like on LIB.

Secondly, because they found back to their blues and folky roots, after dabbling with experimental pop and psychedelia.

But perhaps the most important transitional album might be TSMR. That's when Keith found his guitar sound which made the albums you call the big four.

The term 'transitional' in the sense above could be addressed to any album in their their first decade/s of existence, since the band was always heading fo new adventures, and there was always some reminiscants of the previous album as well some indications of what we follow next, so the term would not have much explinatory significance in describing certain albums. The sense His Majesty talks about LET IT BLEED - and GasLightStreet and myself of BLACK AND BLUE as well - has more to do with the personnel, and particularly with the 'fifth' member of the band whose integral presence - or the lack of it - we take being as one important factor how the band and the albums sound like. Of course, if we see the music and albums of The Rolling Stones to be nothing but some sort of extensions of Keith Richards' guitar sound experiments, then whoever or whatever else there is in the studio or not, that does not matter.

But that said, I think there is a lot of common in BEGGARS BANQUET and LET IT BLEED based on Keith's guitar experiments taking the charge in the music and the over-all 'rootsie' orientation in music. Mick Jagger, who supposedly had something to contribute in those albums, does not not even seem to distinguish between them (with his selective memory) since they seem to derive from the same era and were done under similar cirmustances and guided by similar ideas.

The amount how much Brian Jones still affected on BEGGARS BANQUET seems to be an open debate. If we ask Jagger, he would say "one slide guitar". But my picture has been like that even though he can't be heard so clearly any longer, his presence is still somehow present in that album. I would suggest that by the time Jagger decided that psychedelia experiments are now over, and let's go back to roots (after listening Dylan, hearing what John and Paul were up to, etc.), Brian was rather involved in that 'rootsie turn' and was there helping Mick and Keith in rediscovering the authenticity again (until the second bust that seemed to collapse his life for good).

- Doxa

These are progressions within the same incarnation, like Brian using different instruments onstage, not transitions from one line up to another.

True, but the case with BB is lesser contributions from Brian. On TSMR, the very important change was Brian's almost definite move from the guitar toward other instruments. Hence, in both cases, important musical transitions for the band.

That's why I think BB and TSMR are the most important albums for shaping the sound to come: Keith took on a greater role, and developed incredibly by doing so. Brian brought in new, important sounds that followed the band in its music even after he passed away.

In a way, BB sounds just as you describe LIB, Phil. Brian wasn't "there", save JSP/NE.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-02 22:44 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

In a way, BB sounds just as you describe LIB, Phil. Brian wasn't "there", save JSP/NE.

No, Jones is there on Beggars Banquet, contributing essential guitar playing on a key album track as well as continuing his take on multi-instrumentalism in a unique and inspired way. Also, the harmonica on Dear Doctor is most likley Jones, or to put it another way, it definitely isn't Jagger.

He is essentially only audible with some overly hard auto harp strummed chords on Let it Bleed. A big and telling difference that is reflected in the sound and feel of the album.

Let It Bleed lacks a No Expectations or distinctly Jonesesque contributions like the mellotron on Jigsaw puzzle or sitar and tamboura on Street Fighting Man. What Jones brought to the band multi-instrumentally was essentially ditched by the band, it was replaced by a very different approach to other instruments.

Bill's use of vibraphone and autoharp on Let It Bleed could be viewed as his attempts at Brians approach though. I have said Beggars Banquet treads a fine line, but with no real contributions from Jones that line is most definitely crossed on Let It Bleed.

Brian has evolved to the point of not contributing, a new member is needed and sought. The transition from one line up to another is shown on Let It bleed. A marked and obvious difference from a band evolving within the same incarnation even if some aspects were kept for the following incarnation.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-02 23:15 by His Majesty.

Of course, but it is a bit put in black and white, as Brian gradually faded and Taylor gradually contributed on record

Quote
tomk

Quote
Wry Cooter
Marx Brothers/Stones

Monkey Business/Beggar's Banquet
Horsefeathers/Let it Bleed
Duck Soup/Sticky Fingers
A Night at the Opera/Exile on Main Street

Goat's Head Soup/A Day at the Races

Marx Brothers fans will get my drift (though actually Duck Soup would more like the sprawl of Exile but I went for time sequence). Day at the Races was the last gasp of their true trailblazing greatness, albeit sucking a little wind. After that it's often good, but they're kinda painting by numbers. Still better than most of the rest of course.

No, Beggars Banquet would be Duck Soup, as it was the last film by the original four Marx Bros. Would Room Service be Emotional Rescue? Love Happy be Dirty Work?

You Bet Your Life is Talk is Cheap....

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Of course, but it is a bit put in black and white, as Brian gradually faded and Taylor gradually contributed on record

Let It Bleed is THE album that features the transitional process from the end of the Jones Era in to the beginning of the Taylor era. This new core five piece band only really appearing in fully integrated form on the following live album and staying the same through the next four official studio albums.

A very different thing to musical evolutions within one incarnation.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-03 00:27 by His Majesty.

Well, I get a glimpse of what's about to happen on LIB on BB already...

Quote
His Majesty

This new core five piece band only really appearing in fully integrated form on the following live album and staying the same through the next four official studio albums.

A very different thing to musical evolutions within one incarnation.

Did you expect that new core five piece band to perform TSMR or being a cover band of their former selves? During the Taylor years there was enough variation in style, so much (subtle) musical work done in the studio blasting from the stage, added with room for improvisation, enough songs coming from the 6-tees were lifted to a different level. A patchwork that can easily compete with the Jones era.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Well, I get a glimpse of what's about to happen on LIB on BB already...

Not the change in personnel or the guitar style change brought by that new member.

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
His Majesty

This new core five piece band only really appearing in fully integrated form on the following live album and staying the same through the next four official studio albums.

A very different thing to musical evolutions within one incarnation.

Did you expect that new core five piece band to perform TSMR or being a cover band of their former selves? During the Taylor years there was enough variation in style, so much (subtle) musical work done in the studio blasting from the stage, added with room for improvisation, enough songs coming from the 6-tees were lifted to a different level. A patchwork that can easily compete with the Jones era.

No.

As for the rest, you have some reading/catching up to do as it seems you think I am coming at this from an anti Taylor angle. That has no part in my view that Let It Bleed is a transitional album that some find to be a bit of a weird listen. He's drastically under used on the album. Something that would do much to take the transitional sound and feel away from it.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-03 02:21 by His Majesty.

Great thread. Taylor does seem under used on LIB but I think most of it was done before he joined the band.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Well, I get a glimpse of what's about to happen on LIB on BB already...

As anyone with ears does! The two albums compliment each other very well. This transition that HM speaks of has nothing to do with either Jones or Taylor, as neither one of them contributed much to either BB or LIB.

The sound of The Band changed on BB, that is where the transition took place, and it's on that album that The Stones really caught their stride, and continued it on through the next three albums.

As for GHS, it's a damn good album, but belongs in the group of albums below BB, LIB, SF and Exile.

Quote
strat72

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Well, I get a glimpse of what's about to happen on LIB on BB already...

As anyone with ears does! The two albums compliment each other very well. This transition that HM speaks of has nothing to do with either Jones or Taylor, as neither one of them contributed much to either BB or LIB.

The sound of The Band changed on BB, that is where the transition took place, and it's on that album that The Stones really caught their stride, and continued it on through the next three albums.

The transition I speak of is something that you clearly aren't getting.

It's totally simple, Let It Bleed shows the transition from the end of the first incarnation and the beginning of the 2nd in incarnation without truly featuring either in it's fully functioning form.

This makes it transitional in the way I am saying it and in the way other members like kleermaker recognise.

...

What you seem to think I am meaning, ie the arrival at Beggars Banquet sound is actually a natural musical evolution within the first incarnation of the band, one that sonically atleast was arrived at during 1967 recording sessions.





Once again Brian plays enough on Beggars Banquet, it is still an album made by THAT band. The very same band that made Their Satanic Majesties Request.

This thread has been highjacked and spoiled by some of the usual suspects that seem incapable of holding an unexpressed opinion here I see.

To answer the topic of the thread - no I don't the GHS is anywhere up to the previous four studio albums. They are all bodies of work by the Rolling Stones no matter who may or may not have participated on each track and they are classic in my opinion. GHS has horrible production with only a few stand out tracks to me. It also has the weakest opener of any Stones album I can think of.

That said it had a place in rock history that no album would wanted to have followed. If it had been released prior to the big four I think I'd perhaps like it a little better. Miller lost the plot on this one I think and the songs aren't that strong by Stones standards.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Well, I get a glimpse of what's about to happen on LIB on BB already...

Not the change in personnel or the guitar style change brought by that new member.

Look, the "change" in personnel started when one member increasingly brought less colour to the soundscape (Brian on BB - 60% of the album). The four piece-sound continued on LIB, even if Taylor played rather anonymously on two tracks.

So, the change in personnel and the guitar style change happened before Taylor started to be audible in the soundscape.

Don't get me wrong, I see what you're getting at, only I don't think the need for defining transition, pointing at the personnel change only is there - much due to the musical transition that happened.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-03 09:42 by DandelionPowderman.

Simply put: Alterations in personnel provided possibilities for transition. The for this period strong relation between Jagger and Richards provided a framework for continuity. (Jimmy Miller strengthened that.) Then it becomes a question which mechanism was the stronger, at the same time as these mechanisms were alternately coworking and/or counterworking.

When the musical output then gradually changed or through leaps and bounds, it is after all a question if that mostly followed from transition and/or from development within the continuity, in turn stimulated by impulses they were exposed to.All the latter is somewhat forgotten here.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
The four piece-sound continued on LIB, even if Taylor played rather anonymously on two tracks.

This is the very transitional sound and feel that I am talking about. You are highlighting the very thing that some of us think gives the Let It Bleed a strange and incomplete sound and feel. Not only does it sound and feel as if it has been made with four piece stones, it also presents the transition from one incarnation to another without us hearing the full version of either. An emptier album as far as the full Rolling Stones sound of either incarnation is concerned, strange, but interesting listen.

Although it treads a fine line, this is not the case on Beggars Banquet and even with it's odd man out Sister Morphine, is obviously not the case on Sticky Fingers. Both albums are releases distinctly related to each respective incarnation of the The Rolling Stones.

Let It Bleed is the transitional album between those two incarnations. One version dies, the other is yet to fully blossom. That new version finds itself and blossoms during 1969 US tour and appears on Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out onwards till 1974.

As for the obvious presence of Jones on Beggars Banquet, that is pretty similar on UK Between The Buttons as well.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-03 10:57 by His Majesty.

<Although it treads a fine line, this is not the case on Beggars Banquet amd obviously not the case on Sticky Fingers.>

I don't wanna be difficult, but that is where we disagree (a bit), as there are many songs on BB that showcases the same thing.

To knitpick a bit more, it continues on the first song on Sticky Fingers

Quote
DandelionPowderman
<Although it treads a fine line, this is not the case on Beggars Banquet amd obviously not the case on Sticky Fingers.>

I don't wanna be difficult, but that is where we disagree (a bit), as there are many songs on BB that showcases the same thing.

To knitpick a bit more, it continues on the first song on Sticky Fingers

No, not many, just some. It is markedly different to the situation on Let It Bleed. You even said so yourself with your pulled out of nowhere 60%.

Your nit picking with regards to Brown Sugar is ignoring the context within which Brown Sugar is presented.

I covered it better earlier.

Quote
His Majesty
This is where it seems I differ slightly from Doxa and kleermaker. Or maybe not.

For me context and consistency is important. Gimme Shelter as heard on the album or on it's own is magic, same with Midnight Rambler, Monkey Man (except for the lyrics hehe) and so on.

It's not essential that every core band member should be on every track, the music doesn't call for that and it seems they are quite willing to acquiesce when the track requires it or someone else has a stronger idea on how a part should go etc.

The weirdness of let It Bleed is that we get so many tracks which only feature the four piece Rolling Stones and even the tracks featuring the third man, new or old, doesn't really give us either of those line ups in their fully formed and functioning way.

Hearing a load of tracks essentially recorded by four piece Rolling Stones or variations of stones set ups all together without any real distinctive contribution from either Jones or Taylor makes for a weird, incomplete stones listening experience.

In essence a whole Rolling Stones album made up of the line up on Gimme Shelter still makes for ace listening, but it's strange listening as far as it being an album by The Rolling Stones.

Beggars Banquet treads a fine line, but I think there's enough of the full core band on the album to balance any of the variations of the core band set ups on it.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-03 11:24 by His Majesty.

We're not that far off from eachother here.

The difference is mainly that I find songs like SFTD, DD, PW, SOTE and FG to be lacking the vital "third man-contributions" just as much as songs like MR, YGTS, MM and YCAGWYW do.

On LIV and CH there is just as dominant "third man contributions" from Cooder and Taylor as there is on NE and JSP, imo - hence the feel of something missing is also present on BB for me, which also makes that album transitional.

If Taylor were to have played some of his signature slide on Love In Vain then that would be a step in the right direction towards takkng Let It Bleed away from the place we are talking about and maomg it more distinctivley part of a particular incarnation of the band.

Let It Bleed lacks a No Expectations type contribution from either third man stones.

Were Taylor on Beggars Banquet, then it would be a transitional album, but he isn't and thus it isn't.

His distinctive voice is still there on Beggars Banquet, about 7 or so tracks, it even features a contribution career highlight from him.

Despite playing on the album both Jones and Taylors distinctive voice is missing from let It Bleed.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-03 12:05 by His Majesty.

Quote
His Majesty
If Taylor were to have played some of his signature slide on Love In Vain then that would be a step in the right direction towards takkng Let It Bleed away from the place we are talking about and maomg it more distinctivley part of a particular incarnation of the band.

Let It Bleed lacks a No Expectations type contribution from either third man stones.

In a way he does on CH, but I agree on NE being a more vital contribution from Brian.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
His Majesty

This new core five piece band only really appearing in fully integrated form on the following live album and staying the same through the next four official studio albums.

A very different thing to musical evolutions within one incarnation.

Did you expect that new core five piece band to perform TSMR or being a cover band of their former selves? During the Taylor years there was enough variation in style, so much (subtle) musical work done in the studio blasting from the stage, added with room for improvisation, enough songs coming from the 6-tees were lifted to a different level. A patchwork that can easily compete with the Jones era.

No.

As for the rest, you have some reading/catching up to do as it seems you think I am coming at this from an anti Taylor angle. That has no part in my view that Let It Bleed is a transitional album that some find to be a bit of a weird listen. He's drastically under used on the album. Something that would do much to take the transitional sound and feel away from it.

Yes.

I'm just making my point here, not pointing my finger at you.

The Rolling Stones are not about rock(et) science, or some absolute truth hidden there.. They are about music, its like water, and nice to chat or read about. A band that lasted for 50 years keeps changing in different ways, and like I said before they were the right guys at the right time, there is something in it for everyone. Period.
SometImes life is simple.

Twas just a small observation on the fact that Let It Bleed features the transition from one version to another version with the additional opinion that the album sounds and feels slightly odd because they are on it, but not in any real distinctive way.

Some agreed and acknowledged the above, others either completely missed the very basic fact with an additional opinion and/or took it as a personal attack on their beloved big four.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-03 12:21 by His Majesty.

I said I agreed about LIB being a transitional album earlier, but wanted to nuance the picture a bit by showing evident examples of the same before and after.

That has nothing to do with "missing a basic fact"

I totally agree, but I would like to add "I'ts only Rock'n'Roll" so we have six great albums in a row !!!

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I said I agreed about LIB being a transitional album earlier, but wanted to nuance the picture a bit by showing evident examples of the same before and after.

That has nothing to do with "missing a basic fact"

If the Basic fact had been understood, then you would know that there are no evident examples from earlier because Let It Bleed was first instance of two incarnations of The Rolling Stones appearing on the same studio album.