Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I think most of the Mayall students lent an ear to the Stones, Clapton and Taylor included.

Taylor preferred The Beatles to the Stones, before he joined the latter, so he may have lent his ear more to the Beatles. Funnily enough, his live playing with Preston on the Beatles songs Day Tripper, Let It Be and Get Back is outstanding.

Hence the sweetness in his playing.

Yet, he loved BB. Still his favourite Stones album, ironically. If he didn't lend and ear to Keith there...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-05-24 22:33 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
Turner68
I have done a scientific analysis of this.

The Stones influences are 25% blues, 45% rock, 15% country and 15% pop. (for simplicity's stake i have assigned the "rhythm and blues/soul" component as equal parts blues, rock and pop)

Take any of their great albums and you will see this shakes out. To wit:

1. Brown Sugar - Rock
2. Sway - Rock
3. Wild Horses - Pop/Country
4. Can't You Hear me Knocking - Rock/blues
5. You Gotta Move - Blues
6. Bitch - Rock
7. I got the Blues - Blues
8. Sister Morphine - I think this is actually a brilliant combination of influences from many places; really great synthesis.
9. Dead Flowers - Country/Rock
10. Moonlight Mile - Pop

I believe many of the Taylor/Wood arguments including the derivative one about John Mayall are mostly related to whether fans come from more of a blues angle or more of a rock one.

I don't consider Sway as a rock song. Rather a ballad. So it must be pop. At the same time I Got The Blues tends more to soul than to blues, and the second part of Knocking has clearly a jazzy colour over it. Sister M. is imo a pop song; pop can be dark too.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Regarding CYHMK at the Fonda (From the interview with Denson):

"A highlight came when Denson performed a bravura solo on "Can't You Hear Me Knocking," then went toe-to-toe with guitarist Ron Wood for a series of charged sax-and-guitar exchanges that earned a sustained ovation from the audience".

Nice, an ovation for Stones newbie Denson.

Try again. You're 50 percent right

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Turner68
I have done a scientific analysis of this.

The Stones influences are 25% blues, 45% rock, 15% country and 15% pop. (for simplicity's stake i have assigned the "rhythm and blues/soul" component as equal parts blues, rock and pop)

Take any of their great albums and you will see this shakes out. To wit:

1. Brown Sugar - Rock
2. Sway - Rock
3. Wild Horses - Pop/Country
4. Can't You Hear me Knocking - Rock/blues
5. You Gotta Move - Blues
6. Bitch - Rock
7. I got the Blues - Blues
8. Sister Morphine - I think this is actually a brilliant combination of influences from many places; really great synthesis.
9. Dead Flowers - Country/Rock
10. Moonlight Mile - Pop

I believe many of the Taylor/Wood arguments including the derivative one about John Mayall are mostly related to whether fans come from more of a blues angle or more of a rock one.

I don't consider Sway as a rock song. Rather a ballad. So it must be pop. At the same time I Got The Blues tends more to soul than to blues, and the second part of Knocking has clearly a jazzy colour over it. Sister M. is imo a pop song; pop can be dark too.

Those comments all resonate with me; obviously the categories are somewhat silly, but still fun sometimes to talk about and also i think the blues/rock strains in their music are relevant to the taylor discussion. i think there was and is a valid debate about how bluesy and improvisational the stones were/are/wanted to be.

Ronnie almost always plays the blues. Taylor varies a lot more between genres.

Ronnie is more funky, and his country playing is more... country.

CYHMK is rock/jazz, IGTB is a soul ballad. Sway is mid-tempo pop rock. SM is a ballad with a crescendo. So is MM.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Turner68
I have done a scientific analysis of this.

The Stones influences are 25% blues, 45% rock, 15% country and 15% pop. (for simplicity's stake i have assigned the "rhythm and blues/soul" component as equal parts blues, rock and pop)

Take any of their great albums and you will see this shakes out. To wit:

1. Brown Sugar - Rock
2. Sway - Rock
3. Wild Horses - Pop/Country
4. Can't You Hear me Knocking - Rock/blues
5. You Gotta Move - Blues
6. Bitch - Rock
7. I got the Blues - Blues
8. Sister Morphine - I think this is actually a brilliant combination of influences from many places; really great synthesis.
9. Dead Flowers - Country/Rock
10. Moonlight Mile - Pop

I believe many of the Taylor/Wood arguments including the derivative one about John Mayall are mostly related to whether fans come from more of a blues angle or more of a rock one.

I don't consider Sway as a rock song. Rather a ballad. So it must be pop. At the same time I Got The Blues tends more to soul than to blues, and the second part of Knocking has clearly a jazzy colour over it. Sister M. is imo a pop song; pop can be dark too.

Those comments all resonate with me; obviously the categories are somewhat silly, but still fun sometimes to talk about and also i think the blues/rock strains in their music are relevant to the taylor discussion. i think there was and is a valid debate about how bluesy and improvisational the stones were/are/wanted to be.

During the Taylor years there was a significant difference between the studio and live performances. While Keith could easily sweep quite some parts of Taylor off of the studio tracks, he couldn't (and probably didn't want to) stop Taylor from extreme overplaying and endless noodling, especially during his last tour.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Turner68

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Turner68
I have done a scientific analysis of this.

The Stones influences are 25% blues, 45% rock, 15% country and 15% pop. (for simplicity's stake i have assigned the "rhythm and blues/soul" component as equal parts blues, rock and pop)

Take any of their great albums and you will see this shakes out. To wit:

1. Brown Sugar - Rock
2. Sway - Rock
3. Wild Horses - Pop/Country
4. Can't You Hear me Knocking - Rock/blues
5. You Gotta Move - Blues
6. Bitch - Rock
7. I got the Blues - Blues
8. Sister Morphine - I think this is actually a brilliant combination of influences from many places; really great synthesis.
9. Dead Flowers - Country/Rock
10. Moonlight Mile - Pop

I believe many of the Taylor/Wood arguments including the derivative one about John Mayall are mostly related to whether fans come from more of a blues angle or more of a rock one.

I don't consider Sway as a rock song. Rather a ballad. So it must be pop. At the same time I Got The Blues tends more to soul than to blues, and the second part of Knocking has clearly a jazzy colour over it. Sister M. is imo a pop song; pop can be dark too.

Those comments all resonate with me; obviously the categories are somewhat silly, but still fun sometimes to talk about and also i think the blues/rock strains in their music are relevant to the taylor discussion. i think there was and is a valid debate about how bluesy and improvisational the stones were/are/wanted to be.

During the Taylor years there was a significant difference between the studio and live performances. While Keith could easily sweep quite some parts of Taylor off of the studio tracks, he couldn't (and probably didn't want to) stop Taylor from extreme overplaying and endless noodling, especially during his last tour.

yes, i agree completely, that is my feeling as well - the endless noodling and overplaying is a blues/jazz approach rather than a rock approach, and i think the rock approach is more in line with how Mick and Keith (the official definers of the Stones) defined the Stones.

Instead of rock we can say Chicago blues/rhythm and blues, imo. Blues tunes with short, biting guitar licks. Taylor dragged them toward the jam band/prog scene.

Lots of nice stuff there as well, but I don't think Mick and Keith were comfortable with such a transition.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Turner68

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Turner68
I have done a scientific analysis of this.

The Stones influences are 25% blues, 45% rock, 15% country and 15% pop. (for simplicity's stake i have assigned the "rhythm and blues/soul" component as equal parts blues, rock and pop)

Take any of their great albums and you will see this shakes out. To wit:

1. Brown Sugar - Rock
2. Sway - Rock
3. Wild Horses - Pop/Country
4. Can't You Hear me Knocking - Rock/blues
5. You Gotta Move - Blues
6. Bitch - Rock
7. I got the Blues - Blues
8. Sister Morphine - I think this is actually a brilliant combination of influences from many places; really great synthesis.
9. Dead Flowers - Country/Rock
10. Moonlight Mile - Pop

I believe many of the Taylor/Wood arguments including the derivative one about John Mayall are mostly related to whether fans come from more of a blues angle or more of a rock one.

I don't consider Sway as a rock song. Rather a ballad. So it must be pop. At the same time I Got The Blues tends more to soul than to blues, and the second part of Knocking has clearly a jazzy colour over it. Sister M. is imo a pop song; pop can be dark too.

Those comments all resonate with me; obviously the categories are somewhat silly, but still fun sometimes to talk about and also i think the blues/rock strains in their music are relevant to the taylor discussion. i think there was and is a valid debate about how bluesy and improvisational the stones were/are/wanted to be.

During the Taylor years there was a significant difference between the studio and live performances. While Keith could easily sweep quite some parts of Taylor off of the studio tracks, he couldn't (and probably didn't want to) stop Taylor from extreme overplaying and endless noodling, especially during his last tour.

yes, i agree completely, that is my feeling as well - the endless noodling and overplaying is a blues/jazz approach rather than a rock approach, and i think the rock approach is more in line with how Mick and Keith (the official definers of the Stones) defined the Stones.

I was joking of course as for the overplaying and endless noodling. During the Taylor years they played quite some heavy rock & roll. Some people seem to think that r&r is just rhythm and hardly melody.

Believe me that especially Jagger was fond of Taylor's live playing. He said so himself and I guess Keith loved it too. Anyway, there were quite some discussions in the band itself at the time, but they could find each other blindly by playing music (free interpretation of the tendency of one of the Taylor interviews - 2002 if I recall well).

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Regarding CYHMK at the Fonda (From the interview with Denson):

"A highlight came when Denson performed a bravura solo on "Can't You Hear Me Knocking," then went toe-to-toe with guitarist Ron Wood for a series of charged sax-and-guitar exchanges that earned a sustained ovation from the audience".

Nice, an ovation for Stones newbie Denson.

Try again. You're 50 percent right

Would have preferred a Stones oldie doing that exchange with Ronnie...

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Instead of rock we can say Chicago blues/rhythm and blues, imo. Blues tunes with short, biting guitar licks. Taylor dragged them toward the jam band/prog scene.

Lots of nice stuff there as well, but I don't think Mick and Keith were comfortable with such a transition.

I mean something very specific and clear when i say rock: chuck berry

Slown down brown sugar a bit and it sounds just like chuck berry yes?

I have been thinking about the Wood/Taylor comparisons, which I know have been discussed ad nauseum, yet I have another way to describe their relative contributions.

I think of Taylor as a colorist (rather than solosit) who brought already-good material to another level when the band was at a high point, and put a distinctive stamp on material he did not record with them (I'm Free, Gimme Shelter, Under My Thumb, etc). Yes, perhaps this came at the expense of "stage presence", and "rock star attitude", something some people here seem to think is very important in a band that already had two stars. But Taylor added texture, color, and complexity, something the people who believe he is a "mere soloist" seem to leave out when they minimize his contributions to the music.

Wood, on the other hand, I would call a "team player". When the material was good, say on Some Girls, he rose to the occasion. I can't imagine that album with Mick Taylor. When the material was weak, he didn't do much to make it better. He went with the flow and the results were what they were. His presence in the band coincides with a long decline in the quality of recorded output, which of course eventually stopped altogether (given that their last album of new material was 10 years ago). That means we judge his playing based on the live performances, most of which is of classic" material on which he did not appear originally. I would say those results are rather mixed.

I am not saying that one approach is necessarily better than the other, though I certainly know which I prefer in the case of the Stones.

Sorry for the edits - hands not working well today.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2015-05-24 23:01 by 71Tele.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Instead of rock we can say Chicago blues/rhythm and blues, imo. Blues tunes with short, biting guitar licks. Taylor dragged them toward the jam band/prog scene.

Lots of nice stuff there as well, but I don't think Mick and Keith were comfortable with such a transition.

I mean something very specific and clear when i say rock: chuck berry

Slown down brown sugar a bit and it sounds just like chuck berry yes?

You don't even have to slow it down

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Instead of rock we can say Chicago blues/rhythm and blues, imo. Blues tunes with short, biting guitar licks. Taylor dragged them toward the jam band/prog scene.

Lots of nice stuff there as well, but I don't think Mick and Keith were comfortable with such a transition.

You mean they were happy that he left? I don't think so. As for that transition you mention, I don't see nor hear it at all. The 1975/76 shows were a watered down version of the 1973 tour. Remember the 1981/82 tours? Endless sax solos dominating the shows. Much jamming as well during songs like Beast of B. and Imagination for instance. It's not as black and white as you suggest imho.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Turner68

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Turner68
I have done a scientific analysis of this.

The Stones influences are 25% blues, 45% rock, 15% country and 15% pop. (for simplicity's stake i have assigned the "rhythm and blues/soul" component as equal parts blues, rock and pop)

Take any of their great albums and you will see this shakes out. To wit:

1. Brown Sugar - Rock
2. Sway - Rock
3. Wild Horses - Pop/Country
4. Can't You Hear me Knocking - Rock/blues
5. You Gotta Move - Blues
6. Bitch - Rock
7. I got the Blues - Blues
8. Sister Morphine - I think this is actually a brilliant combination of influences from many places; really great synthesis.
9. Dead Flowers - Country/Rock
10. Moonlight Mile - Pop

I believe many of the Taylor/Wood arguments including the derivative one about John Mayall are mostly related to whether fans come from more of a blues angle or more of a rock one.

I don't consider Sway as a rock song. Rather a ballad. So it must be pop. At the same time I Got The Blues tends more to soul than to blues, and the second part of Knocking has clearly a jazzy colour over it. Sister M. is imo a pop song; pop can be dark too.

Those comments all resonate with me; obviously the categories are somewhat silly, but still fun sometimes to talk about and also i think the blues/rock strains in their music are relevant to the taylor discussion. i think there was and is a valid debate about how bluesy and improvisational the stones were/are/wanted to be.

During the Taylor years there was a significant difference between the studio and live performances. While Keith could easily sweep quite some parts of Taylor off of the studio tracks, he couldn't (and probably didn't want to) stop Taylor from extreme overplaying and endless noodling, especially during his last tour.

yes, i agree completely, that is my feeling as well - the endless noodling and overplaying is a blues/jazz approach rather than a rock approach, and i think the rock approach is more in line with how Mick and Keith (the official definers of the Stones) defined the Stones.

Well, they were rather stuck with Taylor then in '72 and '73. Are there any complaints available regarding Taylor's "overplaying" (like you feel it) coming from the official definers themselves?

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
Turner68

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Turner68

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Turner68
I have done a scientific analysis of this.

The Stones influences are 25% blues, 45% rock, 15% country and 15% pop. (for simplicity's stake i have assigned the "rhythm and blues/soul" component as equal parts blues, rock and pop)

Take any of their great albums and you will see this shakes out. To wit:

1. Brown Sugar - Rock
2. Sway - Rock
3. Wild Horses - Pop/Country
4. Can't You Hear me Knocking - Rock/blues
5. You Gotta Move - Blues
6. Bitch - Rock
7. I got the Blues - Blues
8. Sister Morphine - I think this is actually a brilliant combination of influences from many places; really great synthesis.
9. Dead Flowers - Country/Rock
10. Moonlight Mile - Pop

I believe many of the Taylor/Wood arguments including the derivative one about John Mayall are mostly related to whether fans come from more of a blues angle or more of a rock one.

I don't consider Sway as a rock song. Rather a ballad. So it must be pop. At the same time I Got The Blues tends more to soul than to blues, and the second part of Knocking has clearly a jazzy colour over it. Sister M. is imo a pop song; pop can be dark too.

Those comments all resonate with me; obviously the categories are somewhat silly, but still fun sometimes to talk about and also i think the blues/rock strains in their music are relevant to the taylor discussion. i think there was and is a valid debate about how bluesy and improvisational the stones were/are/wanted to be.

During the Taylor years there was a significant difference between the studio and live performances. While Keith could easily sweep quite some parts of Taylor off of the studio tracks, he couldn't (and probably didn't want to) stop Taylor from extreme overplaying and endless noodling, especially during his last tour.

yes, i agree completely, that is my feeling as well - the endless noodling and overplaying is a blues/jazz approach rather than a rock approach, and i think the rock approach is more in line with how Mick and Keith (the official definers of the Stones) defined the Stones.

Well, they were rather stuck with Taylor then in '72 and '73. Are there any complaints available regarding Taylor's "overplaying" (like you feel it) coming from the official definers themselves?

I think that by the 72 tour Keith was too zonked out on drugs and mick on celebrity to care as much and that's why the band launched into its steady decline. For me the 72 tour was the beginning of a 43 year decline. I personally love the 72 sound but much prefer the more restrained 69 sound. Of course it's a matter of taste.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
Turner68

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Turner68

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Turner68
I have done a scientific analysis of this.

The Stones influences are 25% blues, 45% rock, 15% country and 15% pop. (for simplicity's stake i have assigned the "rhythm and blues/soul" component as equal parts blues, rock and pop)

Take any of their great albums and you will see this shakes out. To wit:

1. Brown Sugar - Rock
2. Sway - Rock
3. Wild Horses - Pop/Country
4. Can't You Hear me Knocking - Rock/blues
5. You Gotta Move - Blues
6. Bitch - Rock
7. I got the Blues - Blues
8. Sister Morphine - I think this is actually a brilliant combination of influences from many places; really great synthesis.
9. Dead Flowers - Country/Rock
10. Moonlight Mile - Pop

I believe many of the Taylor/Wood arguments including the derivative one about John Mayall are mostly related to whether fans come from more of a blues angle or more of a rock one.

I don't consider Sway as a rock song. Rather a ballad. So it must be pop. At the same time I Got The Blues tends more to soul than to blues, and the second part of Knocking has clearly a jazzy colour over it. Sister M. is imo a pop song; pop can be dark too.

Those comments all resonate with me; obviously the categories are somewhat silly, but still fun sometimes to talk about and also i think the blues/rock strains in their music are relevant to the taylor discussion. i think there was and is a valid debate about how bluesy and improvisational the stones were/are/wanted to be.

During the Taylor years there was a significant difference between the studio and live performances. While Keith could easily sweep quite some parts of Taylor off of the studio tracks, he couldn't (and probably didn't want to) stop Taylor from extreme overplaying and endless noodling, especially during his last tour.

yes, i agree completely, that is my feeling as well - the endless noodling and overplaying is a blues/jazz approach rather than a rock approach, and i think the rock approach is more in line with how Mick and Keith (the official definers of the Stones) defined the Stones.

Well, they were rather stuck with Taylor then in '72 and '73. Are there any complaints available regarding Taylor's "overplaying" (like you feel it) coming from the official definers themselves?

I think that by the 72 tour Keith was too zonked out on drugs and mick on celebrity to care as much and that's why the band launched into its steady decline. For me the 72 tour was the beginning of a 43 year decline. I personally love the 72 sound but much prefer the more restrained 69 sound. Of course it's a matter of taste.

Then have a accurate view and listen of the Ladies and Gentlemen movie from 1972. Having done that you'll draw a contrary conclusion.

I've seen it and it's great but not as good as "gimme shelter" :-)

Not much is better than GS.

For me the chuck Berry tunes on the 69 tour were the closest to the ideal live rock performance ever. If anyone asked me what rock and roll was I would play them little queenie and carol from those tours. The best stones guitars ever were mick t and Keith on that tour.

Quote
Turner68
I've seen it and it's great but not as good as "gimme shelter" :-)

That's not the point here. But look for instance at Love In Vain, when Charlie makes a miss hit and Mick J. immediately notices it (M.T. of course too). Another interesting moment is when Keith shouts Taylor down when he's adding some melodic licks to the Tumbling Dice riff at the end of the song instead of reinforcing the riff.

Those are both examples of how 'in' and alert both Jagger and Richards were during that tour. Once on stage the drug issue and celebrity attitude were gone.

Quote
Turner68
For me the chuck Berry tunes on the 69 tour were the closest to the ideal live rock performance ever. If anyone asked me what rock and roll was I would play them little queenie and carol from those tours. The best stones guitars ever were mick t and Keith on that tour.

Funny that you mention two cover songs instead of original Stones songs.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Not much is better than GS.

Sadly it's not a concert movie at all. Still waiting for it!

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Turner68
I've seen it and it's great but not as good as "gimme shelter" :-)

That's not the point here. But look for instance at Love In Vain, when Charlie makes a miss hit and Mick J. immediately notices it (M.T. of course too). Another interesting moment is when Keith shouts Taylor down when he's adding some melodic licks to the Tumbling Dice riff at the end of the song instead of reinforcing the riff.

Those are both examples of how 'in' and alert both Jagger and Richards were during that tour. Once on stage the drug issue and celebrity attitude were gone.

I see your point. I'll watch it again. Thanks.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-05-24 23:48 by Turner68.

Quote
kleermaker

Another interesting moment is when Keith shouts Taylor down when he's adding some melodic licks to the Tumbling Dice riff at the end of the song instead of reinforcing the riff.

How did Taylor react, did he even notice it?

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
kleermaker

Another interesting moment is when Keith shouts Taylor down when he's adding some melodic licks to the Tumbling Dice riff at the end of the song instead of reinforcing the riff.

How did Taylor react?

Here you have it, you lazy bastard

See between 3:00 and 3:20, read Keith's lips at about 3:10 and observe Taylor's reaction yourself.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Turner68
I've seen it and it's great but not as good as "gimme shelter" :-)

That's not the point here. But look for instance at Love In Vain, when Charlie makes a miss hit and Mick J. immediately notices it (M.T. of course too). Another interesting moment is when Keith shouts Taylor down when he's adding some melodic licks to the Tumbling Dice riff at the end of the song instead of reinforcing the riff.

Those are both examples of how 'in' and alert both Jagger and Richards were during that tour. Once on stage the drug issue and celebrity attitude were gone.

I see your point. I'll watch it again. Thanks.

Have a look between 5:50 and 6:00 and pay especially attention to Mick J.

Keith was right about tumbling dice. :-)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-05-25 00:19 by Turner68.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
kleermaker

Another interesting moment is when Keith shouts Taylor down when he's adding some melodic licks to the Tumbling Dice riff at the end of the song instead of reinforcing the riff.

How did Taylor react, did he even notice it?

Here you have it, you lazy bastard

See between 3:00 and 3:20, read Keith's lips at about 3:10 and observe Taylor's reaction yourself.

IC, he finishes the melodic line, about 6 seconds, and than plays along
with Richards and Wyman. He should have shouted "@#$%& you" and have doubled the amount of notes. This ending of the song is utterly boring and too predictable.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-05-25 00:19 by LuxuryStones.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Regarding CYHMK at the Fonda (From the interview with Denson):

"A highlight came when Denson performed a bravura solo on "Can't You Hear Me Knocking," then went toe-to-toe with guitarist Ron Wood for a series of charged sax-and-guitar exchanges that earned a sustained ovation from the audience".

Nice, an ovation for Stones newbie Denson.

Try again. You're 50 percent right

Only half right, huhn? Hmm, an ovation for Karl Denson?