For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
kleermaker
I prefer the Taylor era live versions by a mile. Sorry and peace.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
kleermakerQuote
LuxuryStonesQuote
Stoneburst
Any chance that Berry track is actually Taylor, not Keith? That was always the part he played live prior to '72.
If you want to hear Taylor on BS you have to listen to the live recordings.
Which are also much more interesting musically than the rather boring studio version.
You're taking this too far, kleerie. There is a band called the Rolling Stones playing there as well...
Quote
StoneburstQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
kleermakerQuote
LuxuryStonesQuote
Stoneburst
Any chance that Berry track is actually Taylor, not Keith? That was always the part he played live prior to '72.
If you want to hear Taylor on BS you have to listen to the live recordings.
Which are also much more interesting musically than the rather boring studio version.
You're taking this too far, kleerie. There is a band called the Rolling Stones playing there as well...
No, he's not. There's nothing wrong with preferring live performances to studio takes. I like the studio version of Brown Sugar lots, but in a kind of abstract way - I appreciate it more for the guitar tones and the production than the actual performance. It doesn't excite me in the way that the live versions do. That's partially to do with Taylor's playing, and partially to do with authenticity (this is why I listen to bootlegs more than official releases, btw). Hearing a band like the Stones at their very best in full flight on stage, warts and all, with no edits, sometimes in dodgy sound quality, is a totally thrilling experience. Those 69-73 bootlegs are the reason I don't do drugs.
Quote
StoneburstQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
kleermakerQuote
LuxuryStonesQuote
Stoneburst
Any chance that Berry track is actually Taylor, not Keith? That was always the part he played live prior to '72.
If you want to hear Taylor on BS you have to listen to the live recordings.
Which are also much more interesting musically than the rather boring studio version.
You're taking this too far, kleerie. There is a band called the Rolling Stones playing there as well...
No, he's not. There's nothing wrong with preferring live performances to studio takes. I like the studio version of Brown Sugar lots, but in a kind of abstract way - I appreciate it more for the guitar tones and the production than the actual performance. It doesn't excite me in the way that the live versions do. That's partially to do with Taylor's playing, and partially to do with authenticity (this is why I listen to bootlegs more than official releases, btw). Hearing a band like the Stones at their very best in full flight on stage, warts and all, with no edits, sometimes in dodgy sound quality, is a totally thrilling experience. Those 69-73 bootlegs are the reason I don't do drugs.
Quote
Mathijs
They used Taylor as special guest for an entire tour. It was fun while it lasted, the results where very mixed, and the Stones now move on to something new.
That's really all there is to it.
Mathijs
Quote
SweetThingQuote
Mathijs
They used Taylor as special guest for an entire tour. It was fun while it lasted, the results where very mixed, and the Stones now move on to something new.
That's really all there is to it.
Mathijs
OK for the 1st part..no more Taylor. But do you seriously believe they are moving on to something "new"?
Quote
DoomandGloom
Funny thing is that for Brown Sugar on a tribute to Sticky Fingers you wouldn't want Taylor's slide part which back in the day seems to fill up the entire stage. However great it was and would or wouldn't be today it's not a representation of the album version.
I would never think of the Pink Floyd "Wall" shows as note for note representations. I was there at Nassau Coliseum for 3 out of 4 nights and it was a ferocious and inspired undertaking beyond the album. No amount of praise is too much for Floyd they were innovators in sound design and their professionalism in bringing the very best show to the audience is second to none . My thoughts about Stones doing SF without Taylor is the same as most here, it seems ridiculous, I just think they'd miss him least on BS.Quote
treaclefingersQuote
DoomandGloom
Funny thing is that for Brown Sugar on a tribute to Sticky Fingers you wouldn't want Taylor's slide part which back in the day seems to fill up the entire stage. However great it was and would or wouldn't be today it's not a representation of the album version.
This isn't Pink Floyd trying to do a note for not rendition of the Wall though. Sticky Fingers set WILL be different absolutely for sure, than the album versions.
I don't think anyone is going to mind.
Quote
DoomandGloom
I would never think of the Pink Floyd "Wall" shows as note for note representations. I was there at Nassau Coliseum for 3 out of 4 nights and it was a ferocious and inspired undertaking beyond the album. No amount of praise is too much for Floyd they were innovators in sound design and their professionalism in bringing the very best show to the audience is second to none . My thoughts about Stones doing SF without Taylor is the same as most here, it seems ridiculous, I just think they'd miss him least on BS.
"WH" could really use some help even though it's Keith on the solo on the record, Ronnie basically plays a non solo, stays in a safe place but really it should be driven home with authority. Without Taylor and Bobby Keys the whole concept is ludicrous. Everything so far about this tour has been a surprise including the cities selected. It will probably all be great, it just seems like it's ass backwards to me right now.Quote
StoneburstQuote
DoomandGloom
I would never think of the Pink Floyd "Wall" shows as note for note representations. I was there at Nassau Coliseum for 3 out of 4 nights and it was a ferocious and inspired undertaking beyond the album. No amount of praise is too much for Floyd they were innovators in sound design and their professionalism in bringing the very best show to the audience is second to none . My thoughts about Stones doing SF without Taylor is the same as most here, it seems ridiculous, I just think they'd miss him least on BS.
In terms of the album as a whole, you're right. As much as I loved Taylor's contributions on Brown Sugar back in the day, Ronnie adds some perfectly nice touches to it and always has. Like I said, same with Keith on Bitch. It's the rest of the album that's the problem - the thought of Ronnie doing the Sway solos again is too much for me to bear
Quote
DoomandGloom"WH" could really use some help even though it's Keith on the solo on the record, Ronnie basically plays a non solo, stays in a safe place but really it should be driven home with authority. Without Taylor and Bobby Keys the whole concept is ludicrous. Everything so far about this tour has been a surprise including the cities selected. It will probably all be great, it just seems like it's ass backwards to me right now.Quote
StoneburstQuote
DoomandGloom
I would never think of the Pink Floyd "Wall" shows as note for note representations. I was there at Nassau Coliseum for 3 out of 4 nights and it was a ferocious and inspired undertaking beyond the album. No amount of praise is too much for Floyd they were innovators in sound design and their professionalism in bringing the very best show to the audience is second to none . My thoughts about Stones doing SF without Taylor is the same as most here, it seems ridiculous, I just think they'd miss him least on BS.
In terms of the album as a whole, you're right. As much as I loved Taylor's contributions on Brown Sugar back in the day, Ronnie adds some perfectly nice touches to it and always has. Like I said, same with Keith on Bitch. It's the rest of the album that's the problem - the thought of Ronnie doing the Sway solos again is too much for me to bear
Quote
71Tele
They are "moving on" without Taylor? Moving on to what, exactly? More lame versions of Sway and CYHMK with bad feel and bashed guitar solos? More rote renditions of the big hits, led by Chuck? No thanks.
Quote
Stoneburst
It is indeed very hard to judge from his Rambler performances. It's just not that kind of song and they never used it as a vehicle for soloing before: it doesn't give him a melody to bang off (to paraphrase Jagger) or any interesting chord changes. He plays some nice stuff on it, sure, but there's only so much he can do. (The genius of the jam at the end of CYHMK is that, one chord or not, it gave him and Bobby Keys a lot of rhythmic and melodic freedom to do their respective things, which Rambler does not.)
Quote
TeddyB1018
Funny thing about taste. MT's slide on Brown Sugar live was probably my least favorite thing he played. I much prefer the cooler (or more "boring") groove of the record, and the slide changed that considerably. Of course, riding him on top of the mix like they did was one reason for it, which by '73 was OTT.
The secondary markets nature of this tour would seem to suggest a continuation of the concept of the 2012-now tour. If for some unfathomable reason they decide to do a special show or two (which should displease the ticket buyers elsewhere) that pays tribute to Sticky Fingers, then it would only make sense to invite MT.
Quote
NaturalustQuote
Stoneburst
It is indeed very hard to judge from his Rambler performances. It's just not that kind of song and they never used it as a vehicle for soloing before: it doesn't give him a melody to bang off (to paraphrase Jagger) or any interesting chord changes. He plays some nice stuff on it, sure, but there's only so much he can do. (The genius of the jam at the end of CYHMK is that, one chord or not, it gave him and Bobby Keys a lot of rhythmic and melodic freedom to do their respective things, which Rambler does not.)
Exactly. Well said Stoneburst.
peace
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
TeddyB1018
Funny thing about taste. MT's slide on Brown Sugar live was probably my least favorite thing he played. I much prefer the cooler (or more "boring") groove of the record, and the slide changed that considerably. Of course, riding him on top of the mix like they did was one reason for it, which by '73 was OTT.
The secondary markets nature of this tour would seem to suggest a continuation of the concept of the 2012-now tour. If for some unfathomable reason they decide to do a special show or two (which should displease the ticket buyers elsewhere) that pays tribute to Sticky Fingers, then it would only make sense to invite MT.
Well said!
Quote
NaturalustQuote
71Tele
They are "moving on" without Taylor? Moving on to what, exactly? More lame versions of Sway and CYHMK with bad feel and bashed guitar solos? More rote renditions of the big hits, led by Chuck? No thanks.
What I meant by moving on is my impression that Mick is always thinking of the future and may consider Taylor's involvement a been there done that thing of the past. Not that they ever really gave him the kind of participation I wanted to see.
I think MT still has it in him to really spice up the majority of new and old songs they will play, not just the SF tunes. Unfortunately I doubt many of the Start Me Up crowd will care one way or another and there are plenty of them in all these new cities on the tour.
Another small side of me thinks Taylors playing doesn't fit with the Stones as well as it once did just like long guitar solos don't work as well as they once did. Unless they can incorporate him in a role playing solid rhythms and sweet fills and back it up with some solid rehearsals I'm not sure it would work. Of course it's hard to judge from just the single tune he was given a chance on and Ronnie already has most of the extra guitar space taken up...
What I'd really like to see is a show with Taylor actually filling in for Ronnie. I'd travel to anywhere on the globe for that.
peace
Quote
kleermaker
Firstly, Taylor never did long guitar solos back in the day. It's a stubborn misunderstanding and has become the status of a myth, so it's hard to beat. You can find much more longer sax solos than Taylor ever played on guitar.
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Take any GS from 72/73 and you'll find that it's basically a long Taylor solo. It's great, but it's a long solo just the same, be it verses, choruses or his solo spot.
Quote
kleermakerQuote
DandelionPowderman
Take any GS from 72/73 and you'll find that it's basically a long Taylor solo. It's great, but it's a long solo just the same, be it verses, choruses or his solo spot.
Well, if you look at it that way, we can say that Charlie really has drum solos all songs through.