Tell Me :
Talk
Well, if sugarish acoustic guitar with a simple pop melody makes that to sound "countryish", okay then...
- Doxa
Might one part of a explanation be that exploration of reggae and funk and other subgenres that emerged around them in an innovative way, to a prevailing extent simply took the place of country in their minds for a while?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-09-02 12:54 by Witness.
Well, popularity and relevance do not go always hand in hand... The Stones were HUGE and always big news due to their cemented status and name, but behind the hyped surface the things were getting harder and harder... At the same as the hit albums started to sell more and more, the Stones album sales started to decrease. They reached number one positions, especially in America, but what was typical for their albums was that of dropping quite quickly out of charts. Naturally a new Stones album was a big thing, and they were promoted heavily (that graffiti of IORR is one example...), but they seemingly couldn't make a bigger impact, when the biggest early hype was over.
But surely, the sales of IORR and B&B suffered especially in America that the band was not promoting them by touring.
What goes for SOME GIRLS, I simply think that Jagger simply clicked with both big trends of the day: disco and punk (or to say it in larger terms: the most interesting things that were happening in the current dancable black music and current white guitar-based rock and roll), which not solely inspired him musically, but it also inspired him to alter or reinvent his public persona, image and attitude (which goes with music). Both the hit single "Miss You" and 'faster, faster, faster!' material like "Respectable" in SOME GIRLS are different versions of the phenomenon. The muse was there. The 'weaver boys' clicked perfectly with Jagger's new vision, and he even offered a helping hand in that department... It definitively helped him that he had the "original punk rocker", as he called him, in his band...
My picture is that it is the atmosphere in the late 70's music scene, of which we should not underestimate the influence of punk, that most affected on and suited to Jagger (and to the Stones). In SOME GIRLS they sound like able to cope with anything, playing anything they just please, and sound relaxed, self-comfortable, and, most of all, convincing. SOME GIRLS is, in the end, a very original Stones-sounding album, in where the mix of their experience with new trends - and even older trends - simply works perfectly. I think the weakest track is "Lies", in which Jagger and his boys sound a bit too hard actually aping punk (I almost feel sorry for Charlie in trying desperately to follow the beat and 'rock hard' by his natural classy and sophisticated swing). That's the least convincing track in that album for me.
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-09-02 13:37 by Doxa.
No. They play the riff like it's in open G, but if you listen more closely, Keith is only occasionally playing that riff + he is only using the D, G and B-strings in standard tuning while he is playing it. That's why it sounds generic in the first place!
Terrifying is played the same way, only this time Keith is using the A-string as well, getting a minor 7-chord in standard tuning.
It sounds different, and is NOT "as usual". As I said, Mick might be playing it on Rock And A Hard Place, but he sure isn't carrying the song with it - hence it won't be a "usual" open G-song.
There are many songs where Keith is doing the sus-thing without actually playing in open G. Whip it Up on TIC, for instance.
Great post, Doxa, and I agree with most of it.
But what is relevance, then, if it hasn't got anything to do with popularity or album sales? When push comes to show, remaining among the top 3 acts in the world, surely would classify as relevant?
IMO, what you and I think are creative nadirs could be another man's treasure
I'm not sure how long an album stays in the charts would be the right measurement of relevance...
If it was, I would say they became irrelevant in 1997, when they had a go at the charts with Anybody Seen My Baby. After all, they broke world records with VL and the tour, and they all over MTV with that album. Same thing with the comeback album SW.
Exile? All Down The Line is fantastic, maybe the best he ever did with the Stones in the studio, imo. But Exile was hardly a showcase album for Taylor?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-09-02 13:55 by DandelionPowderman.
Well how old were you at that time DP...
I think Ronnies style were perfect in time 1975....
2 1 2 0
He he, old enough to spot that Ronnie played the "guitar god-part" in 1975/76 - among other solos a 12 minute YCAGWYA-solo
In 1978, however...
I still thouhgt Zappa and Neil Young were OK solo-suppliers 1978 - 1982, and add Mark Knopfler for a couple ones also..
2 1 2 0
Sure, but my point was that the music change, that didn't require a "guitar god" happened in 1978.
Zappa "mocked" the guitar gods with his style, Young made had a noisy, simplistic approach and Knopfler had a smooth, laid back style. Apparently, there was room for everyone
Well, they were already in different worlds so a little geographic separation prolly didn't help, but I doubt it hurt all that much. It's not as though they were ever going to live in the same flat again.
It's what separates the greatest bands from average bands.
It's what takes the best from the past and creates a new path for the future, not simply regurgitating it.
Creativity coupled with competent musicianship are required.
Yeah, but you know too that it is a bit different with the Stones. None of the Stones were brilliant musicians that individually could stand out outside of the Stones bubble - merely as master musicians.
The swing and the groove that the Stones had/have is/was unique. Much of the reason for that was that they dared to keep it down, imo (aka simple, aka the groove). Then, all of a sudden they made Moonlight Mile. They couldn't have kept that up creatively - writing songs like that, and they knew it.
That's probably why they made Exile
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-09-02 17:13 by DandelionPowderman.
I meant the track as a whole. Mick J has said how he could write against the melodic quality of Mick T's playing, and Plundered is another example of that.
+1
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: is mick taylor responsible for the creative death of the stones?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 2, 2014 12:00
Wasn't the song IORR huge back then, with the saying in graffiti all over the place and all?
Surely, they must still have been relevant up to a point in 1974?
They couldn't tour, though, and Taylor left. BAB was merely a session album for new guitar players. So, the cool, calm and collectedness just wasn't there before 1978 - when they really hit hard. I'm pretty sure they would have anyway, punk or no punk. They were a real working band again in 1978, for the first time since 1973.
The ridiculous amount of music - all styles of music - shows a very active band again.
And let's not forget it was Miss You that made them relevant again, not Respectable
Surely, they must still have been relevant up to a point in 1974?
They couldn't tour, though, and Taylor left. BAB was merely a session album for new guitar players. So, the cool, calm and collectedness just wasn't there before 1978 - when they really hit hard. I'm pretty sure they would have anyway, punk or no punk. They were a real working band again in 1978, for the first time since 1973.
The ridiculous amount of music - all styles of music - shows a very active band again.
And let's not forget it was Miss You that made them relevant again, not Respectable
Re: is mick taylor responsible for the creative death of the stones?
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: September 2, 2014 12:22
There is one thing peculiar in those three albums - GHS, IORR, B&B - in compared to the 'Big Four': that of lacking almost totally references to American country music tradition. In many ways that source of inspiration was a rather constitutional element in the blues rock sound they created in those four milestone albums - and in "Honky Tonk Women". Why that happened? I somehow always tend to link the country element more to Keith Richards than to Jagger. Was Gram's death so shocking to Keith that he dropped playing the stuff for years? Or is that an indication of his drug problems affecting on his creativity - or losing the power in the band? If it has something to do with Jagger, the most I can think of him thinking that 'country rock' is too passe or too 'red-neck' for the Stones to record any longer. But that wasn't the case, or was it?
Anyway, it is interesting that the country element is strongly back again in SOME GIRLS sessions, almost totally in contrast to the trends of the day (or at least it looks like that). The SOME GIRLS bonus album rather strongly confirmed this. Johnny Rotten or Village People were not any big country & western lovers, now were them? Whatever the truth is, this is at least an example why creativity, inspiration, following trends etc. are not so easily to put into simple causal relations, and the story behind them is much more complex...
- Doxa
Anyway, it is interesting that the country element is strongly back again in SOME GIRLS sessions, almost totally in contrast to the trends of the day (or at least it looks like that). The SOME GIRLS bonus album rather strongly confirmed this. Johnny Rotten or Village People were not any big country & western lovers, now were them?
Whatever the truth is, this is at least an example why creativity, inspiration, following trends etc. are not so easily to put into simple causal relations, and the story behind them is much more complex...- Doxa
Re: is mick taylor responsible for the creative death of the stones?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 2, 2014 12:27
Till The Next Goodbye is country-ish
Re: is mick taylor responsible for the creative death of the stones?
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: September 2, 2014 12:31
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Till The Next Goodbye is country-ish
Well, if sugarish acoustic guitar with a simple pop melody makes that to sound "countryish", okay then...
- Doxa
Re: is mick taylor responsible for the creative death of the stones?
Posted by:
funkydrummer
()
Date: September 2, 2014 12:43
What do you mean??
Rock and a Hard Place is all open-G! The main riff, the whole song...as usual...
Basically the generic and overused Stones "sound" is open-G.
Rock and a Hard Place is all open-G! The main riff, the whole song...as usual...
Basically the generic and overused Stones "sound" is open-G.
Quote
DandelionPowderman
No, it's not all over SW.
Mick might be playing open G on Rock And A Hard Place, but he isn't very audible.
Re: is mick taylor responsible for the creative death of the stones?
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: September 2, 2014 12:52
Quote
Doxa
There is one thing peculiar in those three albums - GHS, IORR, B&B - in compared to the 'Big Four': that of lacking almost totally references to American country music tradition. In many ways that source of inspiration was a rather constitutional element in the blues rock sound they created in those four milestone albums - and in "Honky Tonk Women". Why that happened? I somehow always tend to link the country element more to Keith Richards than to Jagger. Was Gram's death so shocking to Keith that he dropped playing the stuff for years? Or is that an indication of his drug problems affecting on his creativity - or losing the power in the band? If it has something to do with Jagger, the most I can think of him thinking that 'country rock' is too passe or too 'red-neck' for the Stones to record any longer. But that wasn't the case, or was it?
Anyway, it is interesting that the country element is strongly back again in SOME GIRLS sessions, almost totally in contrast to the trends of the day (or at least it looks like that). The SOME GIRLS bonus album rather strongly confirmed this. Johnny Rotten or Village People were not any big country & western lovers, now were them?
- Doxa
Might one part of a explanation be that exploration of reggae and funk and other subgenres that emerged around them in an innovative way, to a prevailing extent simply took the place of country in their minds for a while?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-09-02 12:54 by Witness.
Re: is mick taylor responsible for the creative death of the stones?
Posted by:
duke richardson
()
Date: September 2, 2014 13:12
All they've ever wanted to do is: (fill in your idea of what the Stones do)...
They've never stopped doing whatever that is.. there have been necessary breaks but creatively they've done good work certainly after Taylor.
A live band that still plays live! After all they've been through, we still have shows to look forward to.
They've never stopped doing whatever that is.. there have been necessary breaks but creatively they've done good work certainly after Taylor.
A live band that still plays live! After all they've been through, we still have shows to look forward to.
Re: is mick taylor responsible for the creative death of the stones?
Posted by:
Silver Dagger
()
Date: September 2, 2014 13:13
Two songs alone answer that daft question - Can't Your Hear Me Knocking, Time Waits For No One.
And the input he gave to Sticky Fingers, Exile and Goats Head Soup was immense.
And the input he gave to Sticky Fingers, Exile and Goats Head Soup was immense.
Re: is mick taylor responsible for the creative death of the stones?
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: September 2, 2014 13:26
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Wasn't the song IORR huge back then, with the saying in graffiti all over the place and all?
Surely, they must still have been relevant up to a point in 1974?
They couldn't tour, though, and Taylor left. BAB was merely a session album for new guitar players. So, the cool, calm and collectedness just wasn't there before 1978 - when they really hit hard. I'm pretty sure they would have anyway, punk or no punk. They were a real working band again in 1978, for the first time since 1973.
The ridiculous amount of music - all styles of music - shows a very active band again.
And let's not forget it was Miss You that made them relevant again, not Respectable
Well, popularity and relevance do not go always hand in hand... The Stones were HUGE and always big news due to their cemented status and name, but behind the hyped surface the things were getting harder and harder... At the same as the hit albums started to sell more and more, the Stones album sales started to decrease. They reached number one positions, especially in America, but what was typical for their albums was that of dropping quite quickly out of charts. Naturally a new Stones album was a big thing, and they were promoted heavily (that graffiti of IORR is one example...), but they seemingly couldn't make a bigger impact, when the biggest early hype was over.
But surely, the sales of IORR and B&B suffered especially in America that the band was not promoting them by touring.
What goes for SOME GIRLS, I simply think that Jagger simply clicked with both big trends of the day: disco and punk (or to say it in larger terms: the most interesting things that were happening in the current dancable black music and current white guitar-based rock and roll), which not solely inspired him musically, but it also inspired him to alter or reinvent his public persona, image and attitude (which goes with music). Both the hit single "Miss You" and 'faster, faster, faster!' material like "Respectable" in SOME GIRLS are different versions of the phenomenon. The muse was there. The 'weaver boys' clicked perfectly with Jagger's new vision, and he even offered a helping hand in that department... It definitively helped him that he had the "original punk rocker", as he called him, in his band...
My picture is that it is the atmosphere in the late 70's music scene, of which we should not underestimate the influence of punk, that most affected on and suited to Jagger (and to the Stones). In SOME GIRLS they sound like able to cope with anything, playing anything they just please, and sound relaxed, self-comfortable, and, most of all, convincing. SOME GIRLS is, in the end, a very original Stones-sounding album, in where the mix of their experience with new trends - and even older trends - simply works perfectly. I think the weakest track is "Lies", in which Jagger and his boys sound a bit too hard actually aping punk (I almost feel sorry for Charlie in trying desperately to follow the beat and 'rock hard' by his natural classy and sophisticated swing). That's the least convincing track in that album for me.
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-09-02 13:37 by Doxa.
Re: is mick taylor responsible for the creative death of the stones?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 2, 2014 13:41
Quote
funkydrummer
What do you mean??
Rock and a Hard Place is all open-G! The main riff, the whole song...as usual...
Basically the generic and overused Stones "sound" is open-G.Quote
DandelionPowderman
No, it's not all over SW.
Mick might be playing open G on Rock And A Hard Place, but he isn't very audible.
No. They play the riff like it's in open G, but if you listen more closely, Keith is only occasionally playing that riff + he is only using the D, G and B-strings in standard tuning while he is playing it. That's why it sounds generic in the first place!
Terrifying is played the same way, only this time Keith is using the A-string as well, getting a minor 7-chord in standard tuning.
It sounds different, and is NOT "as usual". As I said, Mick might be playing it on Rock And A Hard Place, but he sure isn't carrying the song with it - hence it won't be a "usual" open G-song.
There are many songs where Keith is doing the sus-thing without actually playing in open G. Whip it Up on TIC, for instance.
Re: is mick taylor responsible for the creative death of the stones?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 2, 2014 13:53
Quote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowderman
Wasn't the song IORR huge back then, with the saying in graffiti all over the place and all?
Surely, they must still have been relevant up to a point in 1974?
They couldn't tour, though, and Taylor left. BAB was merely a session album for new guitar players. So, the cool, calm and collectedness just wasn't there before 1978 - when they really hit hard. I'm pretty sure they would have anyway, punk or no punk. They were a real working band again in 1978, for the first time since 1973.
The ridiculous amount of music - all styles of music - shows a very active band again.
And let's not forget it was Miss You that made them relevant again, not Respectable
Well, popularity and relevance do not go always hand in hand... The Stones were HUGE and always big news due to their cemented status and name, but behind the hyped surface the things were getting harder and harder... At the same as the hit albums started to sell more and more, the Stones album sales started to decrease. They reached number one positions, especially in America, but what was typical for their albums was that of dropping quite quickly out of charts. Naturally a new Stones album was a big thing, and they were promoted heavily (that graffiti of IORR is one example...), but they seemingly couldn't make a bigger impact, when the biggest early hype was over.
But surely, the sales of IORR and B&B suffered especially in America that the band was not promoting them by touring.
What goes for SOME GIRLS, I simply think that Jagger simply clicked with both big trends of the day: disco and punk (or to say it in larger terms: the most interesting things that were happening in the current dancable black music and current white guitar-based rock and roll), which not solely inspired him musically, but it also inspired him to alter or reinvent his public persona, image and attitude (which goes with music). Both the hit single "Miss You" and 'faster, faster, faster!' material like "Respectable" in SOME GIRLS are different versions of the phenomenon. The muse was there. The 'weaver boys' clicked perfectly with Jagger's new vision, and he even offered a helping hand in that department... It definitively helped him that he had the "original punk rocker", as he called him, in his band...
My picture is that it is the atmosphere in the late 70's music scene, of which we should not underestimate the influence of punk, that most affected on and suited to Jagger (and to the Stones). In SOME GIRLS they sound like able to cope with anything, playing anything they just please, and sound relaxed, self-comfortable, and, most of all, convincing. SOME GIRLS is, in the end, a very original Stones-sounding album, in where the mix of their experience with new trends - and even older trends - simply works perfectly. I think the weakest track is "Lies", in which Jagger and his boys sound a bit too hard actually aping punk (I almost feel sorry for Charlie in trying desperately to follow the beat and 'rock hard' by his natural classy and sophisticated swing). That's the least convincing track in that album for me.
- Doxa
Great post, Doxa, and I agree with most of it.
But what is relevance, then, if it hasn't got anything to do with popularity or album sales? When push comes to show, remaining among the top 3 acts in the world, surely would classify as relevant?
IMO, what you and I think are creative nadirs could be another man's treasure
I'm not sure how long an album stays in the charts would be the right measurement of relevance...
If it was, I would say they became irrelevant in 1997, when they had a go at the charts with Anybody Seen My Baby. After all, they broke world records with VL and the tour, and they all over MTV with that album. Same thing with the comeback album SW.
Re: is mick taylor responsible for the creative death of the stones?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 2, 2014 13:54
Quote
Silver Dagger
Two songs alone answer that daft question - Can't Your Hear Me Knocking, Time Waits For No One.
And the input he gave to Sticky Fingers, Exile and Goats Head Soup was immense.
Exile? All Down The Line is fantastic, maybe the best he ever did with the Stones in the studio, imo. But Exile was hardly a showcase album for Taylor?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-09-02 13:55 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: is mick taylor responsible for the creative death of the stones?
Posted by:
funkydrummer
()
Date: September 2, 2014 14:13
I just had a look at Whip It Up on Youtube and you are correct about that "sus-thing" played in standard tuning - and perhaps there are some that I just assumed were open-G that are actually standard - so I stand corrected on that.
But I also looked at Rock and a Hard Place live and I believe Mick is playing Open-G - maybe Keith is playing the middle strings open-G style but in standard, so I am technically incorrect but it is the same boring hammer-on "sus-thing" which they have done to death over the years both in open and standard tuning to boot!
But I also looked at Rock and a Hard Place live and I believe Mick is playing Open-G - maybe Keith is playing the middle strings open-G style but in standard, so I am technically incorrect but it is the same boring hammer-on "sus-thing" which they have done to death over the years both in open and standard tuning to boot!
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
funkydrummer
What do you mean??
Rock and a Hard Place is all open-G! The main riff, the whole song...as usual...
Basically the generic and overused Stones "sound" is open-G.Quote
DandelionPowderman
No, it's not all over SW.
Mick might be playing open G on Rock And A Hard Place, but he isn't very audible.
No. They play the riff like it's in open G, but if you listen more closely, Keith is only occasionally playing that riff + he is only using the D, G and B-strings in standard tuning while he is playing it. That's why it sounds generic in the first place!
Terrifying is played the same way, only this time Keith is using the A-string as well, getting a minor 7-chord in standard tuning.
It sounds different, and is NOT "as usual". As I said, Mick might be playing it on Rock And A Hard Place, but he sure isn't carrying the song with it - hence it won't be a "usual" open G-song.
There are many songs where Keith is doing the sus-thing without actually playing in open G. Whip it Up on TIC, for instance.
Re: is mick taylor responsible for the creative death of the stones?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 2, 2014 14:16
<but it is the same boring hammer-on "sus-thing" which they have done to death over the years both in open and standard tuning to boot!>
Yep, but with the not insignificant difference that Keith is alternating a lot what he is playing on that track.
I'm not defending Rock And A Hard Place, it's not my favourite - but there is a difference from its "brothers" Soul Survivor and It Must Be Hell - that was my point
Yep, but with the not insignificant difference that Keith is alternating a lot what he is playing on that track.
I'm not defending Rock And A Hard Place, it's not my favourite - but there is a difference from its "brothers" Soul Survivor and It Must Be Hell - that was my point
Re: is mick taylor responsible for the creative death of the stones?
Posted by:
funkydrummer
()
Date: September 2, 2014 14:27
I just checked Rock live again - yes Mick is playing standard tuning - so I was wrong there...so yeah, not quite Soul Survivor and It Must Be Hell - but I will introduce them as evidence for the prosecution!
Quote
DandelionPowderman
<but it is the same boring hammer-on "sus-thing" which they have done to death over the years both in open and standard tuning to boot!>
Yep, but with the not insignificant difference that Keith is alternating a lot what he is playing on that track.
I'm not defending Rock And A Hard Place, it's not my favourite - but there is a difference from its "brothers" Soul Survivor and It Must Be Hell - that was my point
Re: is mick taylor responsible for the creative death of the stones?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 2, 2014 14:30
Re: is mick taylor responsible for the creative death of the stones?
Posted by:
RobertJohnson
()
Date: September 2, 2014 14:39
I think the retirement of MT in 74 were a negative landmark for the creativity of the band, not his joining in 69. Furthermore there are two suppositions in your statement that are questionable: "Let It Bleed" is only partly without Taylor, one of the creative albums in your opinion. IORR is a bulk of creative musical ideas, maybe the last one along with "Some Girls". And: MT was the only one who thwarted the Circus Soleil attitude of the last tour. His contributions were the highlights and proved to be a vivid element in a rather lame "to be on the safe side" performance.
Re: is mick taylor responsible for the creative death of the stones?
Posted by:
Raymond82
()
Date: September 2, 2014 14:53
This is such a stupid thread. I don't post on here too often but I read it every day. From an outsider looking in, I'd swear people had it in for Mick Taylor.
All bands go through hot streaks and cold streaks, nobody is consistently brilliant. Mick Taylor's contribution is something to celebrate not query!!
All bands go through hot streaks and cold streaks, nobody is consistently brilliant. Mick Taylor's contribution is something to celebrate not query!!
Re: is mick taylor responsible for the creative death of the stones?
Posted by:
Come On
()
Date: September 2, 2014 15:04
In 1969 Stones needed a solo-string-bender, and they didn't 1975...style in music changes....
2 1 2 0
2 1 2 0
Re: is mick taylor responsible for the creative death of the stones?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 2, 2014 15:09
Quote
Come On
In 1969 Stones needed a solo-string-bender, and they didn't in 1978...style in music changes....
Re: is mick taylor responsible for the creative death of the stones?
Posted by:
Come On
()
Date: September 2, 2014 15:26
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Come On
In 1969 Stones needed a solo-string-bender, and they didn't in 1978...style in music changes....
Well how old were you at that time DP...
I think Ronnies style were perfect in time 1975....
2 1 2 0
Re: is mick taylor responsible for the creative death of the stones?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 2, 2014 15:34
Quote
Come OnQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Come On
In 1969 Stones needed a solo-string-bender, and they didn't in 1978...style in music changes....
Well how old were you at that time DP...
I think Ronnies style were perfect in time 1975....
He he, old enough to spot that Ronnie played the "guitar god-part" in 1975/76 - among other solos a 12 minute YCAGWYA-solo
In 1978, however...
Re: is mick taylor responsible for the creative death of the stones?
Posted by:
Come On
()
Date: September 2, 2014 15:45
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Come OnQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Come On
In 1969 Stones needed a solo-string-bender, and they didn't in 1978...style in music changes....
Well how old were you at that time DP...
I think Ronnies style were perfect in time 1975....
He he, old enough to spot that Ronnie played the "guitar god-part" in 1975/76 - among other solos a 12 minute YCAGWYA-solo
In 1978, however...
I still thouhgt Zappa and Neil Young were OK solo-suppliers 1978 - 1982, and add Mark Knopfler for a couple ones also..
2 1 2 0
Re: is mick taylor responsible for the creative death of the stones?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 2, 2014 16:06
Quote
Come OnQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Come OnQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Come On
In 1969 Stones needed a solo-string-bender, and they didn't in 1978...style in music changes....
Well how old were you at that time DP...
I think Ronnies style were perfect in time 1975....
He he, old enough to spot that Ronnie played the "guitar god-part" in 1975/76 - among other solos a 12 minute YCAGWYA-solo
In 1978, however...
I still thouhgt Zappa and Neil Young were OK solo-suppliers 1978 - 1982, and add Mark Knopfler for a couple ones also..
Sure, but my point was that the music change, that didn't require a "guitar god" happened in 1978.
Zappa "mocked" the guitar gods with his style, Young made had a noisy, simplistic approach and Knopfler had a smooth, laid back style. Apparently, there was room for everyone
Re: is mick taylor responsible for the creative death of the stones?
Posted by:
marcovandereijk
()
Date: September 2, 2014 16:46
I think creativity is an overrated quality for a Rock 'n' Roll band.
Yellow Submarine, Ummagumma, After bathing at Baxter's, Lizard, I could name a long list of
albums that are full of creativity, but hardly listenable. Creativity does not get my
tailfeather shaking. I need a groove. And those skinny cats provided a lot of those
all through their entire carreer. Can't get enough! Thanks.
Just as long as the guitar plays, let it steal your heart away
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-09-02 16:54 by marcovandereijk.
Yellow Submarine, Ummagumma, After bathing at Baxter's, Lizard, I could name a long list of
albums that are full of creativity, but hardly listenable. Creativity does not get my
tailfeather shaking. I need a groove. And those skinny cats provided a lot of those
all through their entire carreer. Can't get enough! Thanks.
Just as long as the guitar plays, let it steal your heart away
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-09-02 16:54 by marcovandereijk.
Re: is mick taylor responsible for the creative death of the stones?
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: September 2, 2014 16:57
Quote
tomcasagranda
The main fact was that Jagger and Richards started to live in two separate countries, and in some instances, two separate continents.
Well, they were already in different worlds so a little geographic separation prolly didn't help, but I doubt it hurt all that much. It's not as though they were ever going to live in the same flat again.
Re: is mick taylor responsible for the creative death of the stones?
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: September 2, 2014 17:07
Quote
marcovandereijk
I think creativity is an overrated quality for a Rock 'n' Roll band.
It's what separates the greatest bands from average bands.
It's what takes the best from the past and creates a new path for the future, not simply regurgitating it.
Creativity coupled with competent musicianship are required.
Re: is mick taylor responsible for the creative death of the stones?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 2, 2014 17:12
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
marcovandereijk
I think creativity is an overrated quality for a Rock 'n' Roll band.
It's what separates the greatest bands from average bands.
It's what takes the best from the past and creates a new path for the future, not simply regurgitating it.
Creativity coupled with competent musicianship are required.
Yeah, but you know too that it is a bit different with the Stones. None of the Stones were brilliant musicians that individually could stand out outside of the Stones bubble - merely as master musicians.
The swing and the groove that the Stones had/have is/was unique. Much of the reason for that was that they dared to keep it down, imo (aka simple, aka the groove). Then, all of a sudden they made Moonlight Mile. They couldn't have kept that up creatively - writing songs like that, and they knew it.
That's probably why they made Exile
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-09-02 17:13 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: is mick taylor responsible for the creative death of the stones?
Posted by:
stonehearted
()
Date: September 2, 2014 17:16
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
stonehearted
Plunder My Soul--that's the two Micks working together, quite creatively and with impressive results.
Is Mick's vocals and Taylor's guitar impressive on PMS?
I meant the track as a whole. Mick J has said how he could write against the melodic quality of Mick T's playing, and Plundered is another example of that.
Re: is mick taylor responsible for the creative death of the stones?
Posted by:
1962
()
Date: September 2, 2014 18:09
Quote
marcovandereijk
I think creativity is an overrated quality for a Rock 'n' Roll band.
Yellow Submarine, Ummagumma, After bathing at Baxter's, Lizard, I could name a long list of
albums that are full of creativity, but hardly listenable. Creativity does not get my
tailfeather shaking. I need a groove. And those skinny cats provided a lot of those
all through their entire carreer. Can't get enough! Thanks.
+1
This Thread has been closed
Online Users
Guests:
3252
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10