Quote
kleermaker

I prefer the Taylor era live versions by a mile. Sorry and peace.

Me too. Pax tecum.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
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.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-15 14:37 by Stoneburst.

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
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.

There is no doubt the band was far and away its best live from 1969-73. Taylor is on fire. I think his playing pushed the whole band and took them to a higher level in 1973. Ronnie is a great guy, has been a member of the band for 40 years and is going nowhere....but his playing never pushed Keith or anyone in the band. Then again, not pushing made it easier on Keith. Made sloppiness much more acceptable (or it it Respectable).

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
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.

He's totally entitled to find the original BS boring, of course.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-15 15:22 by DandelionPowderman.

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

OK for the 1st part..no more Taylor. But do you seriously believe they are moving on to something "new"?

I saw somewhere on this combined thread, don't know if it is still there or not, but where the notion was floated the Stones would series of "guest guitarists" play some of Taylor's parts from SF. I don't doubt that could work, or be interesting, but so it might work to have guest vocalists take over all of Jagger's singing as well. I don't imagine I would pay for it though.

If they did do that an awful lot of people would be very unhappy about it. Plenty of us already dislike Jagger's obsession with special guests, but going to all that trouble of rehearsing each song with a different guitarist and hauling them all along on tour? Logistically it's just nuts, although if they tried it it would presumably put the lie to this idea that they couldn't incorporate Taylor properly on the last tour because they were too set in their ways to rearrange the songs...

If they're, in fact, going to do SF at just a couple special shows out west, it's a perfect opportunity to include him there. Then, if they are bound and determined to go do something different for the bulk of the shows, okay. I just felt it was wrong to cut him loose and do that type of show a)on that particular album and b)after he'd just featured on two of its iconic cuts. Other than a Red Rocks type of venue, my own interest would be minimal, but the SF shows with good MT participation would make up for it.

Quote
SweetThing

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

OK for the 1st part..no more Taylor. But do you seriously believe they are moving on to something "new"?

OK, regarding 'something new' do we actually have any firm news on MT's participation, or is this still all just speculation?

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.

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.

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
treaclefingers

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.

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.

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
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
Stoneburst

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.

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

"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
DoomandGloom

Quote
Stoneburst

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.

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

"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.

Agree with it all...but still speculative, imo. Not sure whether all the new show cities is good or bad indication for a possible Taylor appearance. Since they are going places they didn't the last time out, either they are "moving on" or possibly going to share MT's talents with these new markets.

When did they announce his participation the last tour? Since there has been no formal announcement yet and that Facebook site is probably a fan's page I am going to stay positive about the possibility of his playing this tour.

peace

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
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

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.)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-15 21:56 by Stoneburst.

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.)

Exactly. Well said Stoneburst.

peace

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
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
Naturalust

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.)

Exactly. Well said Stoneburst.

peace

The only musically exciting moments on the last tour were when Taylor was onstage. I don't mean they were necessarily the most consistent or predicable, but unpredictability and chance-taking are what make artists relevant, as opposed to just milking nostalgia. It's this very risk-taking that Mick Jagger seems more and more adverse to, unfortunately. I always thought Rambler was a curious choice to feature Taylor. After all, he wasn't on the original record and they had played plenty of credible versions after he left. I have mentioned it before, but playing songs like Tumbling Dice and All Down The Line with Taylor on the bench was a wasted opportunity if not an outright insult to Taylor as well as to serious Rolling Stones fans. A damn shame.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

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.

Well said!

I also prefer the studio version sans slide to the live version with Taylor on slide. But I prefer any Taylor-slide live version to any Ron Wood version they have done live, and not just for Taylor
s part. Keith's rhythm was more consistent and sharper in '72-'73, in my opinion.

Quote
Naturalust

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.

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

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.

Secondly, the so called three guitar attack never worked, neither on Rambler, neither on Sway, not even on Can't You Hear Me Knocking.

The only way Taylor will be able to make a real difference is when he plays with Keith alone, without Ronnie. It won't happen. Yes he certainly is the only one who can play those tasteful fills and licks. They could be heard sparsely on Sway and Can't You Hear Me Knocking during the last world tour. But it won't be enough to be satisfying. Maybe the only moment Taylor was special except on Knocking was on Rambler in Shanghai, while Jagger was walking the catwalk around. Anyway, it would surprise me very much if Taylor would get a substantial role during the next tour, if he gets a role at all.

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.

Some of your own great Stones videos on YouTube seem to contradict your assertion. On some tunes Taylor was almost constantly soloing, sometimes even stepping on the lyrics. But you have obviously keyed on Taylor's contribution to the Stones live stuff (more than most) and "long" is somewhat subjective. But the soloing in Taylor's era seemed more frequent and longer than what the Stone's are doing these days, so I guess it's all relative.





peace

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.

This decision - whether or not Mick Taylor should have any part of these shows - is frustrating for them I would think. It's an admission, in a small way, that they really do benefit from his playing.

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.

Well, if you look at it that way, we can say that Charlie really has drum solos all songs through.

Quote
kleermaker

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.

Well, if you look at it that way, we can say that Charlie really has drum solos all songs through.

No. You gotta understand that there is a distinction between keeping the beat and playing long, extended solo lines. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but you're fighting windmills here.

Had Charlie done drum rolls all the way through, it would have been similar.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-16 01:40 by DandelionPowderman.

I think what Kleerie means is that generally speaking Taylor's actual solos weren't any longer than the ones on the studio cuts or the ones Ronnie's played live since. Playing lead guitar and soloing are not the same thing.

Also, about his slide part on Brown Sugar, let's remember that he only did that in '73.