Tell Me :
Talk
Or better yet, they marry you and take you with them.
However, I would like to add that this wonkiness or wobble in a musical sense could be said to give rise to a specific continuity aspect of the band, in addition to the strong Jagger / Richards relationship at that time, even specific for the Stones as you yourself state it, that may contend with this "third person" mechanism. Or taking its place, involving Charlie, and in case, relegate it to a fourth person effect, rhetorically speaking. Valid for LET IT BLEED?
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-04 03:37 by Witness.
Sure.
That four piece taken as a whole is THE mainstay of The Rolling Stones sound. The connection and power of that four piece is shown quite clearly on Let It Bleed.
They stuck with the band for 30 years through personal and musical changes. I would say that albums such as Aftermath, Sticky Fingers and Some Girls shows how important the third man element is to the band as far as presenting a full Rolling Stones listening experience on studio albums though.
Given the professional, as viewed through ALO eyes, beginning and continuation of the band as a core five piece for 30 years, too much of just a four piece version makes for odd listening.
It all makes better sense when viewed through listening to the live incarnations in relation to the studio releases.
The third man is the man in the middle if you like, the creative influence and contributor between Jagger Richards as individuals, but also between Jagger Richards and Wyman and Watts as a band. A distinctive otherness between the essence of the song writing and the basic rhythmic essentials.
The icing on the cake if you like, but that takes away from the sometimes vital influence of the third man on the more basic aspects of their music.
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-04 04:13 by His Majesty.
Brian was no longer interested in playing with the band and this prove I've given with credits from Nicky H and Jimmy M. At the time of the BB sessions the band changed from a 5 piece band to four,the ending of that band took place at the BB sessions! All in all BB and LIB belong to the top Stones albums of all time.
Add Beggars Banquet and-
THAT´S IT!!!!!!!!!
That makes sense.
The big numbers on GHS (Angie, Heartbreaker and CDA) are good, but as an album the songwriting is too uneven, imo.
DWMD, SS, HYL, W and ST aren't nowhere near the quality of similar songs on other albums. I like 100 YA, though.
"...when viewed through the live experiences in relation to the studio releases.
This is why I say again that it is "Ya-Yas" more than any that should rank with the Big 4 as No 5. It's no coincidence that the best Stonesalbums are also the ones that have been closest to the Keith-led sound; closest to a live stage. (Exile, Some Girls, Sticky Fingers). It's on stage, w/o any studio chicanery that the songs find their true identity. What part could stretch out, what hook worked in live setting, where the rhythm should be emphasized.
I am totally convinced that if they had toured behind "Dirty Work" our perception of that album would do a 180.
On the ABB tour, the few times they played "Streets of Love" it was the highlight of the set. And this is probably their most hated single ever.
"
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-04 21:03 by FortuneTeller800.
The answer is yes to me, at least during the GHS-tour.
His moving away and losing interest really begins during 1966 and reaches unbearable level by 1969. He wanted to leave in 1967, but was talked out of it by Mick. According to Bill, Brian mentions that he'd like to leave the band during a spring 1969 recording session.
Beggars Banquet sessions is for the most part a continuation of the wonkyness.
He was as much a wreck in summer - winter 1967 as he was in spring 1968. There is of course the crushing blow in the form of the 21 May 1968 drugs bust, but this doesn't really affect their future as a band until he was found guilty in September 1968 and lost his appeal in February 1969.
(Brian was) probably the one I've made most effort to get along with. When the sessions started, he came to me and said he didn't think he would be able to contribute much. I didn't push him. I asked Mick what the situation was and Mick said: Look, you can't force him, but he'll be OK. And he was right. When we started working he really got into it and started to get excited, and he apologized to me for having had doubts at the beginning. Brian is very insecure. He has to have people around him all the time - and he has a lot of hang-ups. But when he's doing something that really interests him he's almost a different character.
- Jimmy Miller 1969
"Brian played on some of BB... not all of it. Let's say he was helpful. I don't know exactly how many tracks he played on, but that was his last album.
- Mick Jagger 1974
They played live during the sessions as well.
All true realisations, voicings, and actions which result in Brian no longer being in The Rolling Stones took place in 1969.
Let It Bleed quotes.
We did "Let It Bleed" without him. But Brian wasn't around towards the end. What we didn't like was that we wanted to play again on stage and Brian wasn't in any condition to play. He couldn't play. He was far too messed up in his mind to play."
Surely this must have affected the morale of the Stones?
"It did, we felt like we had a wooden leg. We wanted to go out and play but Brian couldn't. I don't think that he really wanted to and it was this that really p***ed me off. He didn't have any desire to go on stage and play. Let's talk about something else."
- Mick Jagger 1974
They were treating Brian badly, but they probably had good reason. He literally couldn't play his instrument anymore. Brian was simply being detrimental to the group and letting them know it. One night while they were jamming, Brian tried to play harp. He was real @#$%& up and his mouth started bleeding. It was all over then anyway.
- Jack Nitzsche
Edited 9 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-04 17:12 by His Majesty.
The Making of Let It Bleed:
Three songs from Let It Bleed — "Midnight Rambler." "You Can't Always Get What You Want" and "You Got the Silver," featuring Keith Richards' first lead vocal — came from the prolific sessions for Beggars Banquet in the spring of 1968. The other six — including the apocalyptic "Gimme Shelter" — were cut at sessions stretching from May through July 1969. Beggars Banquet and Let It Bleed were produced at Olympic Studios in London by Jimmy Miller, who would work with the Stones through 1973's Goats Head Soup
[www.rollingstone.com]
Nah, that's totally wrong.
If I remember right "Love in Vain" was he first LIB song to be picked up. In mid 68 when BB sessions were in full swing.
HM says LIB didn't start until Nov 68. That sound about right. Right before BB was released they started with YCAGWYW, and "Memo Frm Turner" (which I always consider as part of the LIB vibe).
So when was it that Mick and Keith went to Positano, and wrote "Rambler"? Was that when Anita was doing that film with Schifano?
Nope, the first sessions for what became Let It Bleed started in November 1968. Every single note heard on the album comes from the November 1968 - October 1969 recording sessions.
It's not like Sticky Fingers and Exile which actually features music recorded at earlier recording sessions.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-04 21:39 by His Majesty.
Which of the Sticky Fingers and Exile tracks were, either, written or worked-on during earlier sessions? Loving Cup, Sister Morphine and Brown Sugar are the three that immediately come to mind. I know the latter-mentioned was debuted during the '69 tour, though, was the initial recording during the Let It Bleed sessions, or just after?
Wild Horses and Shine A Light as well.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-04 22:01 by DandelionPowderman.
If we take the final mixing session for Let It Bleed as a cut off point for sessions for that album, the only track to come from an earlier albums session on Sticky Fingers is Sister Morphine - March 1969.
The December 1969 sessions at Muscle Shoals are the first sessions for a new album, that became Sticky Fingers.
Let It Loose and Stop Breaking Down date from 1970 sessions at Stargroves/Olympic Studios.
Aftermath, Between The Buttons, Their Satanic Majesties Request, Beggars Banquet and Let It Bleed are all albums that feature music recorded within those particular albums sessions. There's no dipping in to a prior albums sessions and taking a recording from them and using it on the next album.
Sticky fingers is the first instance of that happening since before Aftermath.
When things are written is a different thing. 100 Years Ago was supposedly written in 1969 for example, but the GHS recording is all from the sessions for that album.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-04 22:23 by His Majesty.
Wild Horses is a post Let It Bleed recording, it is essentially from the first sessions for their next album ie, Sticky Fingers.
Actual recordings from 1970 sessions at Stargroves and Olympic Studios were used for both Sticky Fingers and Exile. Things tried out earlier in 1969, ie Loving Cup, Shine A Light seem to have been recorded all over again and date to these 1970 sessions.
Exile is kinda like a compilation of 1970 - early 1972 recordings.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-04 22:24 by His Majesty.
Backing tracks were recorded at Muscle Shoals when BS was recorded.
Brown Sugar, Wild Horses and You Gotta Move. Not just backing tracks though, they all had vocals on them, but sure, they were wroked on after their return to the UK.
The Muscle Shoals sessions are the beginning of their next album and what a beginning!
It's not an earlier sesion in the context of this off shoot discussion.
Sister Morphone is the only track on Sticky Fingers from an earlier session, in as such that it was recorded during sessions for what became let it bleed and was pulled out from the past for inclusion on Sticky Fingers.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-04 23:18 by His Majesty.
There is no argument, Let It Bleed is a transitional album as it features both the Jones and Taylor incarnations of The Rolling Stones without giving us the full on version of either.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-04 23:35 by His Majesty.
Intended for their next album which at that point had no release date. Bear in mind they were probably in no rush as all the label related stuff had to be sorted and cleared up. End of Decca contract, formation of Rolling Stones Records with Atlantic etc.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-04 23:45 by His Majesty.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: January 4, 2014 03:15
Quote
LuxuryStones
Decent girls go to heaven...dirty ones to hell.
Or better yet, they marry you and take you with them.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: January 4, 2014 03:33
Quote
His MajestyQuote
Witness
..................................
What some others refer to as wonkyness or the wobble, dandie for example, and what you seem to be focusing on is a musical thing. As I understand it, it refers to the unique blend of rhythm and drive that essentially comes from Keith through Bill and Charlie working together as a melting pot of rhythmic influence and creativity. That exists well in to the Ronnie Wood era. It is, if we exclude the song writing, THE very thing that seperates The Rolling Stones from other bands.
In essence Keith lead the rhythm of the band and the others followed. This is something that is almost completely alien to most other succsesful pop/rock bands, the majority of whom follow the rhythm of the drummer. This creates a bounce and vitality to all of their music when ever Keith is in the drivers seat.
It's the thing that stops them sounding too heavy, leaden and bogged down ala Black Sabbath etc. Being heavy and strict is fine if that's the intention, but it's a killer of feel for the songs Jagger Richards were writing. During late 60's and 70's for example even at their heaviest there is still much in the way of flow and life about the rhythm of the band.
This is refelected in photos and footage. It is not by chance that Keith is often shown as having his entire being aimed and focused towards Charlie.
However, I would like to add that this wonkiness or wobble in a musical sense could be said to give rise to a specific continuity aspect of the band, in addition to the strong Jagger / Richards relationship at that time, even specific for the Stones as you yourself state it, that may contend with this "third person" mechanism. Or taking its place, involving Charlie, and in case, relegate it to a fourth person effect, rhetorically speaking. Valid for LET IT BLEED?
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-04 03:37 by Witness.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: January 4, 2014 04:00
Quote
Witness
However, I would like to add that this wonkiness or wobble in a musical sense could be said to give rise to a specific continuity aspect of the band, in addition to the strong Jagger / Richards relationship at that time, even specific for the Stones as you yourself state it, that may contend with this "third person" mechanism. Or taking its place, involving Charlie, and in case, relegate it to a fourth person effect, rhetorically speaking. Valid for LET IT BLEED?
Sure.
That four piece taken as a whole is THE mainstay of The Rolling Stones sound. The connection and power of that four piece is shown quite clearly on Let It Bleed.
They stuck with the band for 30 years through personal and musical changes. I would say that albums such as Aftermath, Sticky Fingers and Some Girls shows how important the third man element is to the band as far as presenting a full Rolling Stones listening experience on studio albums though.
Given the professional, as viewed through ALO eyes, beginning and continuation of the band as a core five piece for 30 years, too much of just a four piece version makes for odd listening.
It all makes better sense when viewed through listening to the live incarnations in relation to the studio releases.
The third man is the man in the middle if you like, the creative influence and contributor between Jagger Richards as individuals, but also between Jagger Richards and Wyman and Watts as a band. A distinctive otherness between the essence of the song writing and the basic rhythmic essentials.
The icing on the cake if you like, but that takes away from the sometimes vital influence of the third man on the more basic aspects of their music.
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-04 04:13 by His Majesty.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
runaway
()
Date: January 4, 2014 11:08
Quote
His MajestyQuote
runaway
Beggars Banquet info of the sessions:
Brian was'nt playing a lot on that album, there were quite a few holes to be filled in. NH.
His appearences at the sessions were less and less so it required a lot from Keith. JM.
So his leaving already took place during the BB sessions I think.
I could cherry pick some quotes and post a more balanced view or en even worse view dating back to 1966. No denying things were wonky though and Brian was unreliable, but that goes back to Aftermath sessions.
Despite all this he still plays on about half if not more on Beggars Banquet. There is a career highlight and also some distinctive to Brian contributions.
A very different dynamic to that shown on Let It Bleed.
Beggars Banquet is a continuation of the wonkyness, Let It Bleed shows the end of that band and it's wonkyness and it also shows a partial introduction to the new Rolling Stones.
He probably began to leave the band in 1967, but the intent and then the actions to replace him do do not take place until 1969. The ending of that band and the beginning of another takes place during the Let It Bleed sessions, the album reflects this transition. It may even be intentionally highlighted as such... It's the first record to contain such detailed track by track credits.
Brian was no longer interested in playing with the band and this prove I've given with credits from Nicky H and Jimmy M. At the time of the BB sessions the band changed from a 5 piece band to four,the ending of that band took place at the BB sessions! All in all BB and LIB belong to the top Stones albums of all time.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
LuxuryStones
()
Date: January 4, 2014 11:59
Quote
His MajestyQuote
LuxuryStones
Decent girls go to heaven...dirty ones to hell.
Or better yet, they marry you and take you with them.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
deardoctor
()
Date: January 4, 2014 14:18
Quote
NedKelly
I´d say
Let It Bleed
Sticky Fingers
Exile on Main St
Goats Head Soup
It´s only rock´n roll
Black and blue
Some girls
are the BIG 7!
Add Beggars Banquet and-
THAT´S IT!!!!!!!!!
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
drbryant
()
Date: January 4, 2014 14:32
Ten Stones albums are in the list of 500 greatest albums of all time in Rolling Stone magazine. So, maybe it should be the big 10 (but GHS isn't one of them)
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 4, 2014 14:55
Quote
drbryant
Ten Stones albums are in the list of 500 greatest albums of all time in Rolling Stone magazine. So, maybe it should be the big 10 (but GHS isn't one of them)
That makes sense.
The big numbers on GHS (Angie, Heartbreaker and CDA) are good, but as an album the songwriting is too uneven, imo.
DWMD, SS, HYL, W and ST aren't nowhere near the quality of similar songs on other albums. I like 100 YA, though.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
FortuneTeller800
()
Date: January 4, 2014 15:20
Quote
His MajestyQuote
Witness
However, I would like to add that this wonkiness or wobble in a musical sense could be said to give rise to a specific continuity aspect of the band, in addition to the strong Jagger / Richards relationship at that time, even specific for the Stones as you yourself state it, that may contend with this "third person" mechanism. Or taking its place, involving Charlie, and in case, relegate it to a fourth person effect, rhetorically speaking. Valid for LET IT BLEED?
Sure.
That four piece taken as a whole is THE mainstay of The Rolling Stones sound. The connection and power of that four piece is shown quite clearly on Let It Bleed.
They stuck with the band for 30 years through personal and musical changes. I would say that albums such as Aftermath, Sticky Fingers and Some Girls shows how important the third man element is to the band as far as presenting a full Rolling Stones listening experience on studio albums though.
Given the professional, as viewed through ALO eyes, beginning and continuation of the band as a core five piece for 30 years, too much of just a four piece version makes for odd listening.
It all makes better sense when viewed through listening to the live incarnations in relation to the studio releases.
The third man is the man in the middle if you like, the creative influence and contributor between Jagger Richards as individuals, but also between Jagger Richards and Wyman and Watts as a band. A distinctive otherness between the essence of the song writing and the basic rhythmic essentials.
The icing on the cake if you like, but that takes away from the sometimes vital influence of the third man on the more basic aspects of their music.
"...when viewed through the live experiences in relation to the studio releases.
This is why I say again that it is "Ya-Yas" more than any that should rank with the Big 4 as No 5. It's no coincidence that the best Stonesalbums are also the ones that have been closest to the Keith-led sound; closest to a live stage. (Exile, Some Girls, Sticky Fingers). It's on stage, w/o any studio chicanery that the songs find their true identity. What part could stretch out, what hook worked in live setting, where the rhythm should be emphasized.
I am totally convinced that if they had toured behind "Dirty Work" our perception of that album would do a 180.
On the ABB tour, the few times they played "Streets of Love" it was the highlight of the set. And this is probably their most hated single ever.
"
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-04 21:03 by FortuneTeller800.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: January 4, 2014 16:16
Quote
His Majesty
Well, an argument about live versions giving a truer representation of the song as interpreted by the whole band is a valid angle to come from.
Is the intent of the song better realised onstage as a live band or in a studio as a creation more akin to a painting in a painters studio.
With one eye on the original post (they appear to have left btw), is GHS better realised in live context?
The answer is yes to me, at least during the GHS-tour.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: January 4, 2014 16:32
Quote
runaway
Brian was no longer interested in playing with the band and this prove I've given with credits from Nicky H and Jimmy M. At the time of the BB sessions the band changed from a 5 piece band to four,the ending of that band took place at the BB sessions!
His moving away and losing interest really begins during 1966 and reaches unbearable level by 1969. He wanted to leave in 1967, but was talked out of it by Mick. According to Bill, Brian mentions that he'd like to leave the band during a spring 1969 recording session.
Beggars Banquet sessions is for the most part a continuation of the wonkyness.
He was as much a wreck in summer - winter 1967 as he was in spring 1968. There is of course the crushing blow in the form of the 21 May 1968 drugs bust, but this doesn't really affect their future as a band until he was found guilty in September 1968 and lost his appeal in February 1969.
(Brian was) probably the one I've made most effort to get along with. When the sessions started, he came to me and said he didn't think he would be able to contribute much. I didn't push him. I asked Mick what the situation was and Mick said: Look, you can't force him, but he'll be OK. And he was right. When we started working he really got into it and started to get excited, and he apologized to me for having had doubts at the beginning. Brian is very insecure. He has to have people around him all the time - and he has a lot of hang-ups. But when he's doing something that really interests him he's almost a different character.
- Jimmy Miller 1969
"Brian played on some of BB... not all of it. Let's say he was helpful. I don't know exactly how many tracks he played on, but that was his last album.
- Mick Jagger 1974
They played live during the sessions as well.
Quote
Rockman
Anita & Marianne in the NME audience
All shots Daily Mirror Archives
Quote
Rockman
All true realisations, voicings, and actions which result in Brian no longer being in The Rolling Stones took place in 1969.
Let It Bleed quotes.
We did "Let It Bleed" without him. But Brian wasn't around towards the end. What we didn't like was that we wanted to play again on stage and Brian wasn't in any condition to play. He couldn't play. He was far too messed up in his mind to play."
Surely this must have affected the morale of the Stones?
"It did, we felt like we had a wooden leg. We wanted to go out and play but Brian couldn't. I don't think that he really wanted to and it was this that really p***ed me off. He didn't have any desire to go on stage and play. Let's talk about something else."
- Mick Jagger 1974
They were treating Brian badly, but they probably had good reason. He literally couldn't play his instrument anymore. Brian was simply being detrimental to the group and letting them know it. One night while they were jamming, Brian tried to play harp. He was real @#$%& up and his mouth started bleeding. It was all over then anyway.
- Jack Nitzsche
Edited 9 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-04 17:12 by His Majesty.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
runaway
()
Date: January 4, 2014 17:16
Quote
His MajestyQuote
runaway
Brian was no longer interested in playing with the band and this prove I've given with credits from Nicky H and Jimmy M. At the time of the BB sessions the band changed from a 5 piece band to four,the ending of that band took place at the BB sessions!
His moving away and losing interest really begins during 1966 and reaches unbearable level by 1969. He wanted to leave in 1967, but was talked out of it by Mick. According to Bill, Brian mentions that he'd like to leave the band during a spring 1969 recording session.
Beggars Banquet sessions is for the most part a continuation of the wonkyness.
He was as much a wreck in 1967 as he was in 1968. There is of course the crushing blow in the form of the 21 May 1968 drugs bust, but this doesn't really affect their future as a band until he was found guilty in September 1968 and lost his appeal in February 1969.
(Brian was) probably the one I've made most effort to get along with. When the sessions started, he came to me and said he didn't think he would be able to contribute much. I didn't push him. I asked Mick what the situation was and Mick said: Look, you can't force him, but he'll be OK. And he was right. When we started working he really got into it and started to get excited, and he apologized to me for having had doubts at the beginning. Brian is very insecure. He has to have people around him all the time - and he has a lot of hang-ups. But when he's doing something that really interests him he's almost a different character.
- Jimmy Miller 1969
"Brian played on some of BB... not all of it. Let's say he was helpful. I don't know exactly how many tracks he played on, but that was his last album.
We did "Let It Bleed" without him. But Brian wasn't around towards the end. What we didn't like was that we wanted to play again on stage and Brian wasn't in any condition to play. He couldn't play. He was far too messed up in his mind to play."
Surely this must have affected the morale of the Stones?
"It did, we felt like we had a wooden leg. We wanted to go out and play but Brian couldn't. I don't think that he really wanted to and it was this that really p***ed me off. He didn't have any desire to go on stage and play. Let's talk about something else."
- Mick Jagger 1974
Thanks HM.
Early renditions of three tracks later to appear on the LIB album were recorded
during the BB sessions. March/june 1968. So the making of LIB was 68/69.
I think the drug arrests had an enormous influence on the Stones at the time but especially Brian, but I thank him for the early Sixties Stones period and music and the Joujouka album.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: January 4, 2014 17:40
Let It bleed began in November 1968, nothing that was recorded before was used on the album.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
runaway
()
Date: January 4, 2014 18:23
Quote
His Majesty
Let It bleed began in November 1968, nothing that was recorded before was used on the album.
The Making of Let It Bleed:
Three songs from Let It Bleed — "Midnight Rambler." "You Can't Always Get What You Want" and "You Got the Silver," featuring Keith Richards' first lead vocal — came from the prolific sessions for Beggars Banquet in the spring of 1968. The other six — including the apocalyptic "Gimme Shelter" — were cut at sessions stretching from May through July 1969. Beggars Banquet and Let It Bleed were produced at Olympic Studios in London by Jimmy Miller, who would work with the Stones through 1973's Goats Head Soup
[www.rollingstone.com]
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: January 4, 2014 18:29
Quote
runawayQuote
His Majesty
Let It bleed began in November 1968, nothing that was recorded before was used on the album.
The Making of Let It Bleed:
Three songs from Let It Bleed — "Midnight Rambler." "You Can't Always Get What You Want" and "You Got the Silver," featuring Keith Richards' first lead vocal — came from the prolific sessions for Beggars Banquet in the spring of 1968. The other six — including the apocalyptic "Gimme Shelter" — were cut at sessions stretching from May through July 1969. Beggars Banquet and Let It Bleed were produced at Olympic Studios in London by Jimmy Miller, who would work with the Stones through 1973's Goats Head Soup
[www.rollingstone.com]
Nah, that's totally wrong.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 4, 2014 20:52
I believe you're right, Phil, but I have heard about earlier LIB sessions as well, from different sources...
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
FortuneTeller800
()
Date: January 4, 2014 21:18
Quote
His MajestyQuote
runawayQuote
His Majesty
Let It bleed began in November 1968, nothing that was recorded before was used on the album.
The Making of Let It Bleed:
Three songs from Let It Bleed — "Midnight Rambler." "You Can't Always Get What You Want" and "You Got the Silver," featuring Keith Richards' first lead vocal — came from the prolific sessions for Beggars Banquet in the spring of 1968. The other six — including the apocalyptic "Gimme Shelter" — were cut at sessions stretching from May through July 1969. Beggars Banquet and Let It Bleed were produced at Olympic Studios in London by Jimmy Miller, who would work with the Stones through 1973's Goats Head Soup
[www.rollingstone.com]
Nah, that's totally wrong.
If I remember right "Love in Vain" was he first LIB song to be picked up. In mid 68 when BB sessions were in full swing.
HM says LIB didn't start until Nov 68. That sound about right. Right before BB was released they started with YCAGWYW, and "Memo Frm Turner" (which I always consider as part of the LIB vibe).
So when was it that Mick and Keith went to Positano, and wrote "Rambler"? Was that when Anita was doing that film with Schifano?
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: January 4, 2014 21:23
Quote
DandelionPowderman
I believe you're right, Phil, but I have heard about earlier LIB sessions as well, from different sources...
Nope, the first sessions for what became Let It Bleed started in November 1968. Every single note heard on the album comes from the November 1968 - October 1969 recording sessions.
It's not like Sticky Fingers and Exile which actually features music recorded at earlier recording sessions.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-04 21:39 by His Majesty.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: January 4, 2014 21:27
Beggars Banquet was done and dusted, ready for release in July 1968.
Circa April 1969
Quote
FortuneTeller800
So when was it that Mick and Keith went to Positano, and wrote "Rambler"? Was that when Anita was doing that film with Schifano?
Circa April 1969
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
Big Al
()
Date: January 4, 2014 21:57
Quote
His Majesty
It's not like Sticky Fingers and Exile which actually features music recorded at earlier recording sessions.
Which of the Sticky Fingers and Exile tracks were, either, written or worked-on during earlier sessions? Loving Cup, Sister Morphine and Brown Sugar are the three that immediately come to mind. I know the latter-mentioned was debuted during the '69 tour, though, was the initial recording during the Let It Bleed sessions, or just after?
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 4, 2014 22:00
Quote
Big AlQuote
His Majesty
It's not like Sticky Fingers and Exile which actually features music recorded at earlier recording sessions.
Which of the Sticky Fingers and Exile tracks were, either, written or worked-on during earlier sessions? Loving Cup, Sister Morphine and Brown Sugar are the three that immediately come to mind. I know the latter-mentioned was debuted during the '69 tour, though, was the initial recording during the Let It Bleed sessions, or just after?
Wild Horses and Shine A Light as well.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-04 22:01 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: January 4, 2014 22:11
Quote
Big Al
Which of the Sticky Fingers and Exile tracks were, either, written or worked-on during earlier sessions? Loving Cup, Sister Morphine and Brown Sugar are the three that immediately come to mind. I know the latter-mentioned was debuted during the '69 tour, though, was the initial recording during the Let It Bleed sessions, or just after?
If we take the final mixing session for Let It Bleed as a cut off point for sessions for that album, the only track to come from an earlier albums session on Sticky Fingers is Sister Morphine - March 1969.
The December 1969 sessions at Muscle Shoals are the first sessions for a new album, that became Sticky Fingers.
Let It Loose and Stop Breaking Down date from 1970 sessions at Stargroves/Olympic Studios.
Aftermath, Between The Buttons, Their Satanic Majesties Request, Beggars Banquet and Let It Bleed are all albums that feature music recorded within those particular albums sessions. There's no dipping in to a prior albums sessions and taking a recording from them and using it on the next album.
Sticky fingers is the first instance of that happening since before Aftermath.
When things are written is a different thing. 100 Years Ago was supposedly written in 1969 for example, but the GHS recording is all from the sessions for that album.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-04 22:23 by His Majesty.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: January 4, 2014 22:18
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Wild Horses and Shine A Light as well.
Wild Horses is a post Let It Bleed recording, it is essentially from the first sessions for their next album ie, Sticky Fingers.
Actual recordings from 1970 sessions at Stargroves and Olympic Studios were used for both Sticky Fingers and Exile. Things tried out earlier in 1969, ie Loving Cup, Shine A Light seem to have been recorded all over again and date to these 1970 sessions.
Exile is kinda like a compilation of 1970 - early 1972 recordings.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-04 22:24 by His Majesty.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 4, 2014 22:56
Quote
His MajestyQuote
DandelionPowderman
Wild Horses and Shine A Light as well.
Wild Horses is a post Let It Bleed recording, it is essentially from the first sessions for their next album ie, Sticky Fingers.
Actual recordings from 1970 sessions at Stargroves and Olympic Studios were used for both Sticky Fingers and Exile. Things tried out earlier in 1969, ie Loving Cup, Shine A Light seem to have been recorded all over again and date to these 1970 sessions.
Exile is kinda like a compilation of 1970 - early 1972 recordings.
Backing tracks were recorded at Muscle Shoals when BS was recorded.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: January 4, 2014 23:08
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Backing tracks were recorded at Muscle Shoals when BS was recorded.
Brown Sugar, Wild Horses and You Gotta Move. Not just backing tracks though, they all had vocals on them, but sure, they were wroked on after their return to the UK.
The Muscle Shoals sessions are the beginning of their next album and what a beginning!
It's not an earlier sesion in the context of this off shoot discussion.
Sister Morphone is the only track on Sticky Fingers from an earlier session, in as such that it was recorded during sessions for what became let it bleed and was pulled out from the past for inclusion on Sticky Fingers.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-04 23:18 by His Majesty.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: January 4, 2014 23:23
You're only on page 8 now but when you finally have settled this argument on page 24: Will there be some sort of promulgation about the result? A press conference, maybe?
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: January 4, 2014 23:28
Quote
Stoneage
You're only on page 8 now but when you finally have settled this argument on page 24: Will there be some sort of promulgation about the result? A press conference, maybe?
There is no argument, Let It Bleed is a transitional album as it features both the Jones and Taylor incarnations of The Rolling Stones without giving us the full on version of either.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-04 23:35 by His Majesty.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 4, 2014 23:35
It was probably not intended for a 1971 album, more like they wanted to record at Muscle Shoals 
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: January 4, 2014 23:43
Quote
DandelionPowderman
It was probably not intended for a 1971 album, more like they wanted to record at Muscle Shoals
Intended for their next album which at that point had no release date. Bear in mind they were probably in no rush as all the label related stuff had to be sorted and cleared up. End of Decca contract, formation of Rolling Stones Records with Atlantic etc.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-04 23:45 by His Majesty.
Re: Should the BIG 4 be the BIG 5
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 5, 2014 00:01
I know.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.