Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Naturalust
It's an interesting question of whether IORR as a parody. If it is, I think self-parody might just fit. It doesn't really have a whole lot of exaggeration musically but the lyrics certainly make light of taking Rock and Roll too seriously. But I think they were pretty serious when creating and recording this one.

I personally don't think it's sub-par at all. I think the Stones thought it was a great Rock song, certainly Keith did as he talks about hearing it and immediately wanting it for the Stones. When I first heard it I thought it was great and as treacle says, the version on the record is really good. I tend to think that it's just one of those songs that loses it's shine after many repeated listens.

"it's shine"?! Naturalust! I never heard it shine

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Naturalust
It's an interesting question of whether IORR as a parody. If it is, I think self-parody might just fit. It doesn't really have a whole lot of exaggeration musically but the lyrics certainly make light of taking Rock and Roll too seriously. But I think they were pretty serious when creating and recording this one.

I personally don't think it's sub-par at all. I think the Stones thought it was a great Rock song, certainly Keith did as he talks about hearing it and immediately wanting it for the Stones. When I first heard it I thought it was great and as treacle says, the version on the record is really good. I tend to think that it's just one of those songs that loses it's shine after many repeated listens.

"it's shine"?! Naturalust! I never heard it shine

Of course it shined kleerie...everything shines after a bubble bath.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Naturalust
It's an interesting question of whether IORR as a parody. If it is, I think self-parody might just fit. It doesn't really have a whole lot of exaggeration musically but the lyrics certainly make light of taking Rock and Roll too seriously. But I think they were pretty serious when creating and recording this one.

I personally don't think it's sub-par at all. I think the Stones thought it was a great Rock song, certainly Keith did as he talks about hearing it and immediately wanting it for the Stones. When I first heard it I thought it was great and as treacle says, the version on the record is really good. I tend to think that it's just one of those songs that loses it's shine after many repeated listens.

"it's shine"?! Naturalust! I never heard it shine

Of course it shined kleerie...everything shines after a bubble bath.

But the bubble bath was the parody version!

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Naturalust
It's an interesting question of whether IORR as a parody. If it is, I think self-parody might just fit. It doesn't really have a whole lot of exaggeration musically but the lyrics certainly make light of taking Rock and Roll too seriously. But I think they were pretty serious when creating and recording this one.

I personally don't think it's sub-par at all. I think the Stones thought it was a great Rock song, certainly Keith did as he talks about hearing it and immediately wanting it for the Stones. When I first heard it I thought it was great and as treacle says, the version on the record is really good. I tend to think that it's just one of those songs that loses it's shine after many repeated listens.

"it's shine"?! Naturalust! I never heard it shine

Of course it shined kleerie...everything shines after a bubble bath.

But the bubble bath was the parody version!

Yes it was rather silly but it was great to see Taylor laughing and having fun. The tune is just one of those light, fun ditties that reminds us all not to take the music (and ourselves) too seriously.

The original has a seriously deep groove, it's got elements that make it purely Rolling Stones and it's a very well put together piece of music, imo. Are there any live versions with Taylor playing out there?

Anyway I think Ozzy, Bonnie Raitt , James Brown, Iggy Pop, Chrissie Hynde, Joe Cocker, Herbie Hancock, BB King and quite a few others like it. This vid isn't a parody, these people are having fun man!

[www.youtube.com]

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Naturalust
It's an interesting question of whether IORR as a parody. If it is, I think self-parody might just fit. It doesn't really have a whole lot of exaggeration musically but the lyrics certainly make light of taking Rock and Roll too seriously. But I think they were pretty serious when creating and recording this one.

I personally don't think it's sub-par at all. I think the Stones thought it was a great Rock song, certainly Keith did as he talks about hearing it and immediately wanting it for the Stones. When I first heard it I thought it was great and as treacle says, the version on the record is really good. I tend to think that it's just one of those songs that loses it's shine after many repeated listens.

"it's shine"?! Naturalust! I never heard it shine

Of course it shined kleerie...everything shines after a bubble bath.

But the bubble bath was the parody version!

Yes it was rather silly but it was great to see Taylor laughing and having fun. The tune is just one of those light, fun ditties that reminds us all not to take the music (and ourselves) too seriously.

The original has a seriously deep groove, it's got elements that make it purely Rolling Stones and it's a very well put together piece of music, imo. Are there any live versions with Taylor playing out there?

Anyway I think Ozzy, Bonnie Raitt , James Brown, Iggy Pop, Chrissie Hynde, Joe Cocker, Herbie Hancock, BB King and quite a few others like it. This vid isn't a parody, these people are having fun man!

[www.youtube.com]

There is no live version with Taylor. But I disagree: it's a sub par song, less than mediocre, far from being funny too.

Quote
buffalo7478
I have never liked Ronnie's live playing with the Stones. I always felt that during the Taylor years, his excellent playing 'pushed' Keith and the band to higher levels. IMHO it is easy to listen to live recordings from 1969 on thru 1973 and hear the band getting better and better. Then we got a rough love band in 1975-76. Anand trying to be punk-like in 1978, Then the no real edge at all in 1981. Though they were pleasant live, there was nothing really being enhanced or created on stage.

I was very let down when I found that Taylor was not going to be part of the Zip Code Tour. I felt him playing on one song for most of the 50th Anniversary dates (playing inaudible acoustic on Satisfaction doesn't count as playing) was a waste as he had to jump into the show each night, cold, and try to do something with Rambler. Probably not easy for a guy near 70.

But after witnessing the Zip Code show in Buffalo, 'Sober Ronnie' and seemingly Sober Keith were amazing together. Ronnie's solos were great and Keith was equally pushing himself when he went to lead. I had been down on Ronnie and Keith for over a decade, but like monsters from a horror movie, they are BACK.

Even on CYHMK, which I always felt belonged to Taylor and Bobby Keys, and had always sucked live in the Wood era....was phenomenal. I will get slammed for writing this, but I walked away thinking: the current Mick Taylor would not have sounded as good on that song as Ronnie did.

Quote
kleermaker
There is no live version with Taylor. But I disagree: it's a sub par song, less than mediocre, far from being funny too.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Naturalust
It's an interesting question of whether IORR as a parody. If it is, I think self-parody might just fit. It doesn't really have a whole lot of exaggeration musically but the lyrics certainly make light of taking Rock and Roll too seriously. But I think they were pretty serious when creating and recording this one.

I personally don't think it's sub-par at all. I think the Stones thought it was a great Rock song, certainly Keith did as he talks about hearing it and immediately wanting it for the Stones. When I first heard it I thought it was great and as treacle says, the version on the record is really good. I tend to think that it's just one of those songs that loses it's shine after many repeated listens.

"it's shine"?! Naturalust! I never heard it shine

Of course it shined kleerie...everything shines after a bubble bath.

But the bubble bath was the parody version!

Yes it was rather silly but it was great to see Taylor laughing and having fun. The tune is just one of those light, fun ditties that reminds us all not to take the music (and ourselves) too seriously.

The original has a seriously deep groove, it's got elements that make it purely Rolling Stones and it's a very well put together piece of music, imo. Are there any live versions with Taylor playing out there?

Anyway I think Ozzy, Bonnie Raitt , James Brown, Iggy Pop, Chrissie Hynde, Joe Cocker, Herbie Hancock, BB King and quite a few others like it. This vid isn't a parody, these people are having fun man!

[www.youtube.com]

Quote
Brstonesfan
It is not even debatable that the Taylor era was the best...

Quote
Naturalust
A couple interesting quotes from the two Micks: (from timeisonourside)

The idea of the song has to do with our persona at the time. I was getting a bit tired of people having a go, all that oh, it's not as good as their last one business. The single-sleeve had a picture of me with a pen digging into me as if it were a sword. It was a light-harded, anti-journalistic sort of thing. We originally recorded it in Ronnie Wood's demo-studio.

- Mick Jagger, 1993

I like that track It's Only Rock 'n Roll...

- Mick Taylor, 1979





I think the lyrics are some of the best Mick has ever written and his vocal performance really good. I'm still astounded so many folks here dislike the tune and wonder if that dislike came with time or was there when they first heard it? To me is was instantly compelling. But I will admit it was somewhat the beginning of the end......

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
buffalo7478
I have never liked Ronnie's live playing with the Stones. I always felt that during the Taylor years, his excellent playing 'pushed' Keith and the band to higher levels. IMHO it is easy to listen to live recordings from 1969 on thru 1973 and hear the band getting better and better. Then we got a rough love band in 1975-76. Anand trying to be punk-like in 1978, Then the no real edge at all in 1981. Though they were pleasant live, there was nothing really being enhanced or created on stage.

I was very let down when I found that Taylor was not going to be part of the Zip Code Tour. I felt him playing on one song for most of the 50th Anniversary dates (playing inaudible acoustic on Satisfaction doesn't count as playing) was a waste as he had to jump into the show each night, cold, and try to do something with Rambler. Probably not easy for a guy near 70.

But after witnessing the Zip Code show in Buffalo, 'Sober Ronnie' and seemingly Sober Keith were amazing together. Ronnie's solos were great and Keith was equally pushing himself when he went to lead. I had been down on Ronnie and Keith for over a decade, but like monsters from a horror movie, they are BACK.

Even on CYHMK, which I always felt belonged to Taylor and Bobby Keys, and had always sucked live in the Wood era....was phenomenal. I will get slammed for writing this, but I walked away thinking: the current Mick Taylor would not have sounded as good on that song as Ronnie did. And Karl on sax, sounded like he belonged.

I went to the show just for nostalgia. A last chance to see the Stones, in my hometown, even though they would probably be sloppy, Keith would be lazy and posing more than playing and Ronnie would sound like shit on all the Taylor-created leads from Sticky Fingers. I expected little. But this show demonstrated that they don't need MT at this point. They just need Keith and Ronnie on their game. With them playing like they did a week ago, they are one formidable guitar band.

I saw them get blown off the stage in 2003 by ACDC. The Stones I saw last week would have blown ANY band off the stage - Taylor not needed.

How does it feel to suddenly see the light and have become Paul instead of Saul?

Quote
buffalo7478
I have never liked Ronnie's live playing with the Stones. I always felt that during the Taylor years, his excellent playing 'pushed' Keith and the band to higher levels. IMHO it is easy to listen to live recordings from 1969 on thru 1973 and hear the band getting better and better. Then we got a rough love band in 1975-76. Anand trying to be punk-like in 1978, Then the no real edge at all in 1981. Though they were pleasant live, there was nothing really being enhanced or created on stage.

I was very let down when I found that Taylor was not going to be part of the Zip Code Tour. I felt him playing on one song for most of the 50th Anniversary dates (playing inaudible acoustic on Satisfaction doesn't count as playing) was a waste as he had to jump into the show each night, cold, and try to do something with Rambler. Probably not easy for a guy near 70.

But after witnessing the Zip Code show in Buffalo, 'Sober Ronnie' and seemingly Sober Keith were amazing together. Ronnie's solos were great and Keith was equally pushing himself when he went to lead. I had been down on Ronnie and Keith for over a decade, but like monsters from a horror movie, they are BACK.

Even on CYHMK, which I always felt belonged to Taylor and Bobby Keys, and had always sucked live in the Wood era....was phenomenal. I will get slammed for writing this, but I walked away thinking: the current Mick Taylor would not have sounded as good on that song as Ronnie did. And Karl on sax, sounded like he belonged.

I went to the show just for nostalgia. A last chance to see the Stones, in my hometown, even though they would probably be sloppy, Keith would be lazy and posing more than playing and Ronnie would sound like shit on all the Taylor-created leads from Sticky Fingers. I expected little. But this show demonstrated that they don't need MT at this point. They just need Keith and Ronnie on their game. With them playing like they did a week ago, they are one formidable guitar band.

I saw them get blown off the stage in 2003 by ACDC. The Stones I saw last week would have blown ANY band off the stage - Taylor not needed.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Naturalust
It's an interesting question of whether IORR as a parody. If it is, I think self-parody might just fit. It doesn't really have a whole lot of exaggeration musically but the lyrics certainly make light of taking Rock and Roll too seriously. But I think they were pretty serious when creating and recording this one.

I personally don't think it's sub-par at all. I think the Stones thought it was a great Rock song, certainly Keith did as he talks about hearing it and immediately wanting it for the Stones. When I first heard it I thought it was great and as treacle says, the version on the record is really good. I tend to think that it's just one of those songs that loses it's shine after many repeated listens.

"it's shine"?! Naturalust! I never heard it shine

Of course it shined kleerie...everything shines after a bubble bath.

Quote
Naturalust
A couple interesting quotes from the two Micks: (from timeisonourside)

The idea of the song has to do with our persona at the time. I was getting a bit tired of people having a go, all that oh, it's not as good as their last one business. The single-sleeve had a picture of me with a pen digging into me as if it were a sword. It was a light-harded, anti-journalistic sort of thing. We originally recorded it in Ronnie Wood's demo-studio.

- Mick Jagger, 1993

I like that track It's Only Rock 'n Roll...

- Mick Taylor, 1979

I think the lyrics are some of the best Mick has ever written and his vocal performance really good. I'm still astounded so many folks here dislike the tune and wonder if that dislike came with time or was there when they first heard it? To me is was instantly compelling. But I will admit it was somewhat the beginning of the end......

Quote
LuxuryStones
The most accomplished guitarist the Stones ever had.

Quote
LuxuryStones
The most accomplished guitarist the Stones ever had.

Quote
Olly

Quote
LuxuryStones
The most accomplished guitarist the Stones ever had.

Are you referring to technical accomplishment in particular?

There are many ways in which a guitar player can be accomplished.

Quote
pepganzo

Quote
LuxuryStones
The most accomplished guitarist the Stones ever had.

He must do something with Steve Winwood
Something like that.

[www.youtube.com]

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
pepganzo

Quote
LuxuryStones
The most accomplished guitarist the Stones ever had.

He must do something with Steve Winwood
Something like that.

pepganzo, I'm beginning trust just about everything you say. No doubt Taylor and Mr. Winwood could do some interesting stuff.

I also think Taylor could learn a few things from Warren Haynes about gear and guitar tone. That track made me wonder what Taylor would sound like playing through Warren's rig.

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
pepganzo

Quote
LuxuryStones
The most accomplished guitarist the Stones ever had.

He must do something with Steve Winwood
Something like that.

pepganzo, I'm beginning trust just about everything you say. No doubt Taylor and Mr. Winwood could do some interesting stuff.

I also think Taylor could learn a few things from Warren Haynes about gear and guitar tone. That track made me wonder what Taylor would sound like playing through Warren's rig.

I don't want to interfere, but although Warren Haynes sound is very good, I tend to hear that Taylors tone is coming straight from his fingers (heart), and Warren Haynes tone relies more on his gear.. not only of course. So in a way you're right, the better Taylor's gear, the better his tone. I don't believe any guitarist could teach Taylor much about tone on the electric though, he was in the league of players like Jeff Beck when it comes to that: Listen to Mick Taylor's solo record 1979, playing Ampeg or Boogie, or his tour with Dylan were Taylor played Musicman amps, and compare it to Jeff Beck's "Wired", or Jeff Beck's "Behind the Veil", for example. Two masters of tone and sound. I'm talking about the past, unfortunately. Taylor's tone was plug and play so to speak, not the player that needed towers of 19 inch equipment etc to give us goosebumps.That's just not the way it worked when it comes to Taylor's sound.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
pepganzo

Quote
LuxuryStones
The most accomplished guitarist the Stones ever had.

He must do something with Steve Winwood
Something like that.

pepganzo, I'm beginning trust just about everything you say. No doubt Taylor and Mr. Winwood could do some interesting stuff.

I also think Taylor could learn a few things from Warren Haynes about gear and guitar tone. That track made me wonder what Taylor would sound like playing through Warren's rig.

I don't want to interfere, but although Warren Haynes sound is very good, I tend to hear that Taylors tone is coming straight from his fingers (heart), and Warren Haynes tone relies more on his gear.. not only of course. So in a way you're right, the better Taylor's gear, the better his tone. I don't believe any guitarist could teach Taylor much about tone on the electric though, he was in the league of players like Jeff Beck when it comes to that: Listen to Mick Taylor's solo record 1979, playing Ampeg or Boogie, or his tour with Dylan were Taylor played Musicman amps, and compare it to Jeff Beck's "Wired", or Jeff Beck's "Behind the Veil", for example. Two masters of tone and sound. I'm talking about the past, unfortunately. Taylor's tone was plug and play so to speak, not the player that needed towers of 19 inch equipment etc to give us goosebumps.That's just not the way it worked when it comes to Taylor's sound.

As someone who has heard Taylor solo several times and Gov't Mules live several times I can testify that Taylor has had several problems getting his tone correct while Warren's is amazing from the first few notes.

I don't want to get into a discussion of which guitarist gets better tone from his fingers or heart because I love both guitarists and they each have their own way of approaching the guitar and both are great in that respect, imo..

I just think Warren has probably spent more time checking out the new boutique guitar amps and gear and has really got the Les Paul almost breaking up sound down to a tee while it's possible Taylor hasn't spent the time and energy to do they same. So like I said I'd love to hear Taylor playing through Warren's rig. I'm pretty sure they would have a blast together teaching each other stuff about gear and guitars and tone and approach. To some extent, when you quit learning or wanting to learn, the game is up....one of the reasons Jeff Beck is so amazing, he never quits learning it seems and I'm sure that includes learning from other players too.

Quote
Ket

Quote
Brstonesfan
It is not even debatable that the Taylor era was the best...

yes it is! I agree there was a golden period from beggars to exile but half of that was recorded without taylor. and i strongly disagree that ghs or iorr were better than some girls or tatoo you. for live? yeah i think 69 was their best ever but i would still rank 75-81 over 72 or 73, so yes it is very debatable