For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
kleermaker
I love dodgy slides
Quote
LuxuryStonesQuote
FPQuote
smokeyduskyQuote
MathijsQuote
FP
Any idea who plays what on Brown Sugar?
Live in 1972 and 1973 Taylor would play very close to his original rhythm track, which is a tremelo picked guitar.
Mathijs
Rather than the "I hear it"/"I hear it not" thing, you can see in both CS Blues and the Dick Cavett Show during the third verse, Taylor appears to be playing a "Berry-like rhythm" with his left hand and strumming (not tremolo picking) with his right.
By '73, was doing something different with the slide.
(In BS, I'd call what he used to do quavers, starting with the version at Altamont. I hear him tremolo picking in SV and during CYHMK in 2013.)
I am not sure what you mean by "tremelo"? Do you mean the guitar effect produced by a peddle, which I would say the right hand guitar on "I Got The Blues" has applied or do you mean "arpeggio" as in picking the notes of a chord rather than strumming he chord? From what I can see of the live performances Taylor plays some arpeggios of the chords and then basically doubles up Richards guitar chords with the same "Chuck Berry" groove but in standard tuning rather than open G. While on the alternate take below he does the same and adds a brief solo. It is interesting that the counter melody he developed over the chorus in live performance happened later than the recording, showing how working a song in live can bring up cool ideas. I prefer the live versions of many of their songs simply because the LP version is over familiar and Taylor (when not over playing) adds some nice extra melodies. I actually feel like something is missing when I hear the studio version of BS now when I listen to it!
Taylor never overplayed on stage, imo.
Quote
FPQuote
LuxuryStonesQuote
FPQuote
smokeyduskyQuote
MathijsQuote
FP
Any idea who plays what on Brown Sugar?
Live in 1972 and 1973 Taylor would play very close to his original rhythm track, which is a tremelo picked guitar.
Mathijs
Rather than the "I hear it"/"I hear it not" thing, you can see in both CS Blues and the Dick Cavett Show during the third verse, Taylor appears to be playing a "Berry-like rhythm" with his left hand and strumming (not tremolo picking) with his right.
By '73, was doing something different with the slide.
(In BS, I'd call what he used to do quavers, starting with the version at Altamont. I hear him tremolo picking in SV and during CYHMK in 2013.)
I am not sure what you mean by "tremelo"? Do you mean the guitar effect produced by a peddle, which I would say the right hand guitar on "I Got The Blues" has applied or do you mean "arpeggio" as in picking the notes of a chord rather than strumming he chord? From what I can see of the live performances Taylor plays some arpeggios of the chords and then basically doubles up Richards guitar chords with the same "Chuck Berry" groove but in standard tuning rather than open G. While on the alternate take below he does the same and adds a brief solo. It is interesting that the counter melody he developed over the chorus in live performance happened later than the recording, showing how working a song in live can bring up cool ideas. I prefer the live versions of many of their songs simply because the LP version is over familiar and Taylor (when not over playing) adds some nice extra melodies. I actually feel like something is missing when I hear the studio version of BS now when I listen to it!
Taylor never overplayed on stage, imo.
I'm a huge Taylor fan but to me he does just go over the top sometimes live, particularly on Brussels live album. I mean I love every lick but for me a lead guitar should not be playing over a vocal. It is only because Jagger is such a confident front man and singer that it is not in the way. I think a lead solo should either have it's own spot to shine or play between the vocals not through them. From interviews we know Richards was frustrated when Taylor did not weave or lock into the groove on certain tracks in the studio. This explains why a lot of Taylor solos were removed from songs to only leave Keith's parts such as Brown Sugar. Taylor could gel with Keith, such as on Shake Your Hips but sometimes he seems to have no understanding of what Keith wants from a song and just doodles away as if it is a different song he is hearing. Live I heard he started to play more to fill in for a drugged Keith but for me the peak was around the Sticky Fingers where there seemed a good balance in the studio and live between the solos and the songs. Exile was when it then went maybe too far into Keith's vision with not enough Taylor.
Having said all that it must have been frustrating to be one of the best lead players in rock and then have all your parts removed. I wonder how many time Taylor recorded a solo, felt he had done something great and then when he hears the released version he is missing! Considering Taylor was a player that most bands would give their eye teeth to have as lead guitarist it is a strange situation. It makes Taylor's relative inactivity on the rock stage even more of a shame. There were lots of big bands he probably could have worked with. I always thought he could have been in a jam band like the Allman Brothers.
Quote
kleermaker
I love dodgy slides
Quote
FPQuote
LuxuryStonesQuote
FPQuote
smokeyduskyQuote
MathijsQuote
FP
Any idea who plays what on Brown Sugar?
Live in 1972 and 1973 Taylor would play very close to his original rhythm track, which is a tremelo picked guitar.
Mathijs
Rather than the "I hear it"/"I hear it not" thing, you can see in both CS Blues and the Dick Cavett Show during the third verse, Taylor appears to be playing a "Berry-like rhythm" with his left hand and strumming (not tremolo picking) with his right.
By '73, was doing something different with the slide.
(In BS, I'd call what he used to do quavers, starting with the version at Altamont. I hear him tremolo picking in SV and during CYHMK in 2013.)
I am not sure what you mean by "tremelo"? Do you mean the guitar effect produced by a peddle, which I would say the right hand guitar on "I Got The Blues" has applied or do you mean "arpeggio" as in picking the notes of a chord rather than strumming he chord? From what I can see of the live performances Taylor plays some arpeggios of the chords and then basically doubles up Richards guitar chords with the same "Chuck Berry" groove but in standard tuning rather than open G. While on the alternate take below he does the same and adds a brief solo. It is interesting that the counter melody he developed over the chorus in live performance happened later than the recording, showing how working a song in live can bring up cool ideas. I prefer the live versions of many of their songs simply because the LP version is over familiar and Taylor (when not over playing) adds some nice extra melodies. I actually feel like something is missing when I hear the studio version of BS now when I listen to it!
Taylor never overplayed on stage, imo.
I'm a huge Taylor fan but to me he does just go over the top sometimes live, particularly on Brussels live album. I mean I love every lick but for me a lead guitar should not be playing over a vocal. It is only because Jagger is such a confident front man and singer that it is not in the way. I think a lead solo should either have it's own spot to shine or play between the vocals not through them. From interviews we know Richards was frustrated when Taylor did not weave or lock into the groove on certain tracks in the studio. This explains why a lot of Taylor solos were removed from songs to only leave Keith's parts such as Brown Sugar. Taylor could gel with Keith, such as on Shake Your Hips but sometimes he seems to have no understanding of what Keith wants from a song and just doodles away as if it is a different song he is hearing. Live I heard he started to play more to fill in for a drugged Keith but for me the peak was around the Sticky Fingers where there seemed a good balance in the studio and live between the solos and the songs. Exile was when it then went maybe too far into Keith's vision with not enough Taylor.
Having said all that it must have been frustrating to be one of the best lead players in rock and then have all your parts removed. I wonder how many time Taylor recorded a solo, felt he had done something great and then when he hears the released version he is missing! Considering Taylor was a player that most bands would give their eye teeth to have as lead guitarist it is a strange situation. It makes Taylor's relative inactivity on the rock stage even more of a shame. There were lots of big bands he probably could have worked with. I always thought he could have been in a jam band like the Allman Brothers.
Quote
elunsiQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
elunsiQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
DiscoVolante
I've always seen Sticky Fingers (and Goats Head Soup) as a Jagger/Taylor album; while Let it bleed and Exile being Keith's.
Brown Sugar
Wild Horses
CYHMK
YGM
Bitch
IGTB
SM
DF
Sway and MM are probably the only songs that somewhat fit your description.
Maybe not a Jagger/Taylor album, but a Jagger album. He has at least 5 songs written mainly by him.
Which brings me back to the discussion about what M.Taylor said, that MJ was the main song-writer and you said until 1972 it was Keith who wrote most of the songs. I think this album proofs that Mick was a full song (-music, meldoy) writer, not only the lyricwriter, much earlier than 1972.
How do you know Mick wrote 5 songs by himself for this album?
We don't even know how much Keith contributed on, say, Sway. Did Mick teach him all the harmony vocals he did on the Hopkins tape, did he shape this himself, did Taylor write more than we know?
We just don't know - it's speculation, songwriting-wise.
We know it because Taylor said that Mick wrote Sway. IF Keith added something, it is still a Jagger song. Like Brown Sugar, IF Keith added something or not, it is still a Jagger song.
We also don´t know if or what Mick added on the Keith songs but you would still call them Keiths songs.
Quote
LuxuryStones
Taylor never overplayed on stage, imo.
Quote
FP
I'm a huge Taylor fan but to me he does just go over the top sometimes live, particularly on Brussels live album. I mean I love every lick but for me a lead guitar should not be playing over a vocal. It is only because Jagger is such a confident front man and singer that it is not in the way. I think a lead solo should either have it's own spot to shine or play between the vocals not through them. From interviews we know Richards was frustrated when Taylor did not weave or lock into the groove on certain tracks in the studio. This explains why a lot of Taylor solos were removed from songs to only leave Keith's parts such as Brown Sugar.
Quote
kleermakerQuote
FPQuote
LuxuryStonesQuote
FPQuote
smokeyduskyQuote
MathijsQuote
FP
Any idea who plays what on Brown Sugar?
Live in 1972 and 1973 Taylor would play very close to his original rhythm track, which is a tremelo picked guitar.
Mathijs
Rather than the "I hear it"/"I hear it not" thing, you can see in both CS Blues and the Dick Cavett Show during the third verse, Taylor appears to be playing a "Berry-like rhythm" with his left hand and strumming (not tremolo picking) with his right.
By '73, was doing something different with the slide.
(In BS, I'd call what he used to do quavers, starting with the version at Altamont. I hear him tremolo picking in SV and during CYHMK in 2013.)
I am not sure what you mean by "tremelo"? Do you mean the guitar effect produced by a peddle, which I would say the right hand guitar on "I Got The Blues" has applied or do you mean "arpeggio" as in picking the notes of a chord rather than strumming he chord? From what I can see of the live performances Taylor plays some arpeggios of the chords and then basically doubles up Richards guitar chords with the same "Chuck Berry" groove but in standard tuning rather than open G. While on the alternate take below he does the same and adds a brief solo. It is interesting that the counter melody he developed over the chorus in live performance happened later than the recording, showing how working a song in live can bring up cool ideas. I prefer the live versions of many of their songs simply because the LP version is over familiar and Taylor (when not over playing) adds some nice extra melodies. I actually feel like something is missing when I hear the studio version of BS now when I listen to it!
Taylor never overplayed on stage, imo.
I'm a huge Taylor fan but to me he does just go over the top sometimes live, particularly on Brussels live album. I mean I love every lick but for me a lead guitar should not be playing over a vocal. It is only because Jagger is such a confident front man and singer that it is not in the way. I think a lead solo should either have it's own spot to shine or play between the vocals not through them. From interviews we know Richards was frustrated when Taylor did not weave or lock into the groove on certain tracks in the studio. This explains why a lot of Taylor solos were removed from songs to only leave Keith's parts such as Brown Sugar. Taylor could gel with Keith, such as on Shake Your Hips but sometimes he seems to have no understanding of what Keith wants from a song and just doodles away as if it is a different song he is hearing. Live I heard he started to play more to fill in for a drugged Keith but for me the peak was around the Sticky Fingers where there seemed a good balance in the studio and live between the solos and the songs. Exile was when it then went maybe too far into Keith's vision with not enough Taylor.
Having said all that it must have been frustrating to be one of the best lead players in rock and then have all your parts removed. I wonder how many time Taylor recorded a solo, felt he had done something great and then when he hears the released version he is missing! Considering Taylor was a player that most bands would give their eye teeth to have as lead guitarist it is a strange situation. It makes Taylor's relative inactivity on the rock stage even more of a shame. There were lots of big bands he probably could have worked with. I always thought he could have been in a jam band like the Allman Brothers.
You are not a huge Taylor fan, at least you don't understand anything of his playing. And of course he wasn't Keith's servant.
Quote
LuxuryStonesQuote
LuxuryStones
Taylor never overplayed on stage, imo.Quote
FP
I'm a huge Taylor fan but to me he does just go over the top sometimes live, particularly on Brussels live album. I mean I love every lick but for me a lead guitar should not be playing over a vocal. It is only because Jagger is such a confident front man and singer that it is not in the way. I think a lead solo should either have it's own spot to shine or play between the vocals not through them. From interviews we know Richards was frustrated when Taylor did not weave or lock into the groove on certain tracks in the studio. This explains why a lot of Taylor solos were removed from songs to only leave Keith's parts such as Brown Sugar.
Most people seem to like that safe concept of verse-chorus-verse - bridge-solo- verse etc concept, and a little fill here and there. It's an ok, and a very traditional way to play music. In '72-'73 Taylor trashed this concept on sevearal songs and I loved his approach:
He often noodled at the same time when Jagger was singing, and from a harmonical point of view they never clashed. This concept can be heard in late medieval music already. Sure Taylor didn't stick to the academic rules of Counterpoint and Polyphony, but he was a very intuitive player who to my taste was talented enough to get away with it: he gave the Stones that particular extra.
The only (negative) remark on Taylor's noodling coming from Keith that I read was: "Once he starts noodling you cannot stop him", and "you're not good in the studio". But Keith and Jagger certainly used Taylor's tracks that improved the songs in the studio meant for the masses..
I understand what you are saying, but how many hit records from the 60's and 70's have continuous guitar soloing all through the song and over the vocal? Yes there is a difference between live and recorded music and the approach you can have to a song in this context. And yes Taylor is a brilliant player and a very underrated player. But for me he sometimes played without much of a thought for anyone else in the band and sometimes he played without a sense of restraint or taste. Hell you can say that about Jimi Hendrix or Eric Clapton or any great player. What makes them great is the risks they take but sometimes it does not work. I love Hendrix but sometimes he solos and gets lost and does not have a point. This is something that differentiates the great rock players from jazz players, a sense of a beginning a middle and an end to a solo. Sometimes is just takes a few notes in the right place to say something powerful, it is not simply a matter of "following rules", Miles Davis on his revolutionary album Bitches Brew both pushed the boundaries of form and rhythm to braking point yet his playing is concise and powerful. He plays a handful of notes and everything changes and everyone listens. The same with his concert performances of the time. This is a master at work. There is a difference between Mick Taylor and Miles Davis, it's not a criticism just a fact, less is more
Quote
FPQuote
LuxuryStonesQuote
LuxuryStones
Taylor never overplayed on stage, imo.Quote
FP
I'm a huge Taylor fan but to me he does just go over the top sometimes live, particularly on Brussels live album. I mean I love every lick but for me a lead guitar should not be playing over a vocal. It is only because Jagger is such a confident front man and singer that it is not in the way. I think a lead solo should either have it's own spot to shine or play between the vocals not through them. From interviews we know Richards was frustrated when Taylor did not weave or lock into the groove on certain tracks in the studio. This explains why a lot of Taylor solos were removed from songs to only leave Keith's parts such as Brown Sugar.
Most people seem to like that safe concept of verse-chorus-verse - bridge-solo- verse etc concept, and a little fill here and there. It's an ok, and a very traditional way to play music. In '72-'73 Taylor trashed this concept on sevearal songs and I loved his approach:
He often noodled at the same time when Jagger was singing, and from a harmonical point of view they never clashed. This concept can be heard in late medieval music already. Sure Taylor didn't stick to the academic rules of Counterpoint and Polyphony, but he was a very intuitive player who to my taste was talented enough to get away with it: he gave the Stones that particular extra.
The only (negative) remark on Taylor's noodling coming from Keith that I read was: "Once he starts noodling you cannot stop him", and "you're not good in the studio". But Keith and Jagger certainly used Taylor's tracks that improved the songs in the studio meant for the masses..
I understand what you are saying, but how many hit records from the 60's and 70's have continuous guitar soloing all through the song and over the vocal? Yes there is a difference between live and recorded music and the approach you can have to a song in this context. And yes Taylor is a brilliant player and a very underrated player. But for me he sometimes played without much of a thought for anyone else in the band and sometimes he played without a sense of restraint or taste. Hell you can say that about Jimi Hendrix or Eric Clapton or any great player. What makes them great is the risks they take but sometimes it does not work. I love Hendrix but sometimes he solos and gets lost and does not have a point. This is something that differentiates the great rock players from jazz players, a sense of a beginning a middle and an end to a solo. Sometimes is just takes a few notes in the right place to say something powerful, it is not simply a matter of "following rules", Miles Davis on his revolutionary album Bitches Brew both pushed the boundaries of form and rhythm to braking point yet his playing is concise and powerful. He plays a handful of notes and everything changes and everyone listens. The same with his concert performances of the time. This is a master at work. There is a difference between Mick Taylor and Miles Davis, it's not a criticism just a fact, less is more
Quote
RobberBride
Haven´t heard the 40 takes on the CYHMK coda Stoneburst...It would be cool if these threads starts to include links directly to the in-work versions and demos of the songs or links to the HotStuff section where we can find these versions. I presume somebody have collected different versions/boots of work in preogress tracks over the years and categorized it as "albums" ?
Quote
Doxa
But if it was spontaneuos, seemingly they couldn't get that spontaneous feeling again when they tried the song during British Tour '71, as it - according to Bobby Keyes - collapsed totally...
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
elunsiQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
elunsiQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
DiscoVolante
I've always seen Sticky Fingers (and Goats Head Soup) as a Jagger/Taylor album; while Let it bleed and Exile being Keith's.
Brown Sugar
Wild Horses
CYHMK
YGM
Bitch
IGTB
SM
DF
Sway and MM are probably the only songs that somewhat fit your description.
Maybe not a Jagger/Taylor album, but a Jagger album. He has at least 5 songs written mainly by him.
Which brings me back to the discussion about what M.Taylor said, that MJ was the main song-writer and you said until 1972 it was Keith who wrote most of the songs. I think this album proofs that Mick was a full song (-music, meldoy) writer, not only the lyricwriter, much earlier than 1972.
How do you know Mick wrote 5 songs by himself for this album?
We don't even know how much Keith contributed on, say, Sway. Did Mick teach him all the harmony vocals he did on the Hopkins tape, did he shape this himself, did Taylor write more than we know?
We just don't know - it's speculation, songwriting-wise.
We know it because Taylor said that Mick wrote Sway. IF Keith added something, it is still a Jagger song. Like Brown Sugar, IF Keith added something or not, it is still a Jagger song.
We also don´t know if or what Mick added on the Keith songs but you would still call them Keiths songs.
No, I wouldn't.
If the classic BS riff wasn't there before Keith worked on it, it'll always be a Jagger/Richards tune.
Quote
howledQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
elunsiQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
elunsiQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
DiscoVolante
I've always seen Sticky Fingers (and Goats Head Soup) as a Jagger/Taylor album; while Let it bleed and Exile being Keith's.
Brown Sugar
Wild Horses
CYHMK
YGM
Bitch
IGTB
SM
DF
Sway and MM are probably the only songs that somewhat fit your description.
Maybe not a Jagger/Taylor album, but a Jagger album. He has at least 5 songs written mainly by him.
Which brings me back to the discussion about what M.Taylor said, that MJ was the main song-writer and you said until 1972 it was Keith who wrote most of the songs. I think this album proofs that Mick was a full song (-music, meldoy) writer, not only the lyricwriter, much earlier than 1972.
How do you know Mick wrote 5 songs by himself for this album?
We don't even know how much Keith contributed on, say, Sway. Did Mick teach him all the harmony vocals he did on the Hopkins tape, did he shape this himself, did Taylor write more than we know?
We just don't know - it's speculation, songwriting-wise.
We know it because Taylor said that Mick wrote Sway. IF Keith added something, it is still a Jagger song. Like Brown Sugar, IF Keith added something or not, it is still a Jagger song.
We also don´t know if or what Mick added on the Keith songs but you would still call them Keiths songs.
No, I wouldn't.
If the classic BS riff wasn't there before Keith worked on it, it'll always be a Jagger/Richards tune.
I take it that you mean the intro?
Mick already had the main Brown Sugar parts worked out in the Ike and Tina Turner video from late 1969.
The intro is really nothing but an add on to the song.
The intro isn't even a riff really as it's just a bit of a setup for the break part that follows.
The sax solo break part of the song is one of the main parts of the song and it occurs 3 times and it is way more important than the intro that only occurs once.
Leave out the intro and Brown Sugar would still be ok, but leave out the break and Brown Sugar would be very different.
Mick had the break and verse and chorus structure in the Ike and Tina video, and that's basically the song.
A little intro isn't much to add on.
Keith plays Mick's song the way Keith plays.
Brown Sugar Structure
intro, break, verse, chorus, break, verse, break (sax solo), chorus, verse, chorus, outro (chorus)
Quote
straycatblues73
Tremelo picked as in arpeggio indeed. PLaying the chord note by note instead of as one chord. Live taylor's part resembled the part he plays on this outtake, I guess it is the original take from Muscle Shoals, which in the end was dropped completely.
.
Mathijs
Quote
His Majesty
Enough to get a song writing credit?
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
His Majesty
Enough to get a song writing credit?
It's not that black and white, I guess.
If the melody (and the riff) on SMU was different, and Keith came up with the DA-da-da riff, resulting in an overall change of melody on the track, I'd say yes. And you?
Quote
DandelionPowderman
I think the intro-riffs of BS, SMU, HTW, JJF, SFM, 2000 LYFH, Satisfaction, Angie, Rocks Off, Ventilator Blues, Sweet Black Angel and others are essential for the songs.
You might not think they are important - fine!
Quote
howled
JJF and BS have an intro and an outro.
Quote
Mathijs
They simply acknowledge the fact that without the input of the other, albeit 5% or 50%, the end result is not Rolling Stones music.
Take Happy: the music is recorded at Nellcote, but the lyrics where written by Jagger and Richards in LA, and Jagger had a great deal of input in producing (vocals, backup vocals), mixing and mastering the track. And we don't know who wrote the riff, or the melody, or the breaks exactly. It could have been something Jagger was playing over and over out of boredom....
Mathijs
Quote
elunsiQuote
Mathijs
They simply acknowledge the fact that without the input of the other, albeit 5% or 50%, the end result is not Rolling Stones music.
Take Happy: the music is recorded at Nellcote, but the lyrics where written by Jagger and Richards in LA, and Jagger had a great deal of input in producing (vocals, backup vocals), mixing and mastering the track. And we don't know who wrote the riff, or the melody, or the breaks exactly. It could have been something Jagger was playing over and over out of boredom....
Mathijs
Interesting...
Usually everyone says that Mick had zero to do with it.