Quote
ironbelly

Once again, Super Hard Material (assuming the mastering is the same) is, in 99% of cases, nothing more than snake oil for audiophiles. Just like "green marker" to paint the center and the edges of a CD, "CD stabilizer rubber rings," "audiophile fuses," "audiophile speaker cables," "cable elevators" to dampen vibrations, "isolation platforms," and "audiophile power cords," it’s all part of the same overhyped trend.

You cannot be serious!!!

Just kidding.

The only "audiophile" snake oil that actually works for "normal" systems are - in my very humble opinion - cables and positioning of the speakers. I did notice an improvement when I changed the cables, and when I changed home after divorce, the same system I've loved for years sounded like crap in its new environment, which is a completely "wrong" room under all possible sonic points of view.

As for the "brickwalled" new versions of our bloved music, I have mixed feelings. True that I miss the dynamics of the old records, but these new CDs are not complete garbage form me. Don't want to make a shame of my self with some audiophile lingo, but I have to admit that I actually don't dislike these most recent releases!

C



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2025-03-20 19:29 by liddas.

Just like "green marker" to paint the center and the edges of a CD


Hey yeah .... I remember those things



ROCKMAN

Wasn't there a time when it was suggested to take a Sharpie to a CD?

A throwaway comment without reading the bulk of the posts upthread. Sorry if this is coming out of context.

GHS — an album that doesn’t do much for me. It is a reminder that everything the Stones did in the Miller/Taylor era is not gold.

It is too esoteric to deliver the goods, too unfocused or disjointed to bear cohesiveness although some may claim therein lies the album’s charm. The only song I can say I like without reservation is Heartbreaker. Honestly, I much prefer some of their post-1989 releases to GHS, Steel Wheels and Hackney Diamonds, the latter being the best modern Stones album IMHO, in particular.

I sometimes wonder if the stellar performance from Europe ‘73, the tour behind GHS, may have also contributed to more or less enhance the album’s estimation over the years as a consequence, a side effect so to speak. Had the show not been immortalized in the form of some iconic bootlegs, Nasty Music, Bedspring Symphony et al, would GHS have developed a strong support from certain quarters of the fandom as it does today?

My 2 cents.

Quote
RisingStone
A throwaway comment without reading the bulk of the posts upthread. Sorry if this is coming out of context.

GHS — an album that doesn’t do much for me. It is a reminder that everything the Stones did in the Miller/Taylor era is not gold.

It is too esoteric to deliver the goods, too unfocused or disjointed to bear cohesiveness although some may claim therein lies the album’s charm. The only song I can say I like without reservation is Heartbreaker. Honestly, I much prefer some of their post-1989 releases to GHS, Steel Wheels and Hackney Diamonds, the latter being the best modern Stones album IMHO, in particular.

I sometimes wonder if the stellar performance from Europe ‘73, the tour behind GHS, may have also contributed to more or less enhance the album’s estimation over the years as a consequence, a side effect so to speak. Had the show not been immortalized in the form of some iconic bootlegs, Nasty Music, Bedspring Symphony et al, would GHS have developed a strong support from certain quarters of the fandom as it does today?

My 2 cents.

It does represent a definite dip in form; especially arriving directly after the ‘Big Four’ classic run. I think it’s a ‘good’ album; just not on par with the four that preceded it. I would imagine that most would rate it somewhat more highly than its follow-up, It’s Only Rock n’ Roll, though. Now, that really was a step down.

Quote
Big Al
I would imagine that most would rate it somewhat more highly than its follow-up, It’s Only Rock n’ Roll, though. Now, that really was a step down.

I belong to the minority then — I rate IORR higher than GHS.
It’s a return to form if a little bit slick, and offers Time Waits For No One, a bona fide moment and crowning glory for the Taylor-era Stones.

Quote
RisingStone

Quote
Big Al
I would imagine that most would rate it somewhat more highly than its follow-up, It’s Only Rock n’ Roll, though. Now, that really was a step down.

I belong to the minority then — I rate IORR higher than GHS.
It’s a return to form if a little bit slick, and offers Time Waits For No One, a bona fide moment and crowning glory for the Taylor-era Stones.

Fair enough! After all, taste is subjective. Admittedly, I had a little run-through GHS after posting: it’s certainly no classic. I do think 100 Years Ago is quite excellent; Angie is lodged in Stones fans’ mind; and Silver Train is quite possibly the blandest thing they’ve ever recorded.

To go further along the point, I rate the North American Tour ‘72 and the Pacific/Winter Tour ‘73 higher than Europe ‘73 on account of the former couple being behind EOMS as opposed to the latter, GHS. All of them are brilliant performance-wise but the former are better in terms of song selections.

Wish Budokan ‘73 had happened as planned on the Pacific tour — alas, it wasn’t to be. Blame the Japanese bureaucracy.

Quote
RisingStone
A throwaway comment without reading the bulk of the posts upthread. Sorry if this is coming out of context.

GHS — an album that doesn’t do much for me. It is a reminder that everything the Stones did in the Miller/Taylor era is not gold.

It is too esoteric to deliver the goods, too unfocused or disjointed to bear cohesiveness although some may claim therein lies the album’s charm. The only song I can say I like without reservation is Heartbreaker. Honestly, I much prefer some of their post-1989 releases to GHS, Steel Wheels and Hackney Diamonds, the latter being the best modern Stones album IMHO, in particular.

I sometimes wonder if the stellar performance from Europe ‘73, the tour behind GHS, may have also contributed to more or less enhance the album’s estimation over the years as a consequence, a side effect so to speak. Had the show not been immortalized in the form of some iconic bootlegs, Nasty Music, Bedspring Symphony et al, would GHS have developed a strong support from certain quarters of the fandom as it does today?

My 2 cents.

Eh, it's probably more that the ghost of EOMS drifted yet listening to GHS you'd never know that EOMS was the prior album. With over 40 years to listen and compare, that's not in the moment of then, which is what you're judging with extremely massive musical hindsight.

Which, of course, if you don't like something... but based on what you described, "too esoteric, too unfocused or disjointed to bear cohesiveness", a galloping horse is a galloping horse but perhaps you're severely comparing the speed of.

Mr D, 100, Coming Down Again, Heartbreaker, Winter and Star Star (ok, obviously Angie but) - it seems that the "thought" was anti- EMOS (thank you critics, as I recall reading, which is absurd) but it's the Stones being the Stones, they weren't "anti-EOMS". It was just the next thing they were doing.

If you take the historical aspect out of it, the context of the big four, which is extremely convenient, they were just doing what they do, with more change in their personal lives: an ongoing discord while still able to write and record: they were so used to being screwed up it was normal.

And! Consider that they left Through The Lonely Nights, Criss Cross and two unfinished tracks, Waiting On A Friend and Tops... and one hold over, Short And Curlies - they were still cooking pretty good in the Jamaican haze of - they probably had no idea what they were doing, they were just there and did it: they hadn't recorded outside of the UK and parts of the US prior, right?

Oh, France? Sorry. Europe, then. Some of the Irish think Disney is a 30 minute drive from anywhere in the USA so...


One other aspect to consider: 1970 didn't have a lot of shows. Nor did 1971. They barely played live. All the while recording for STICKY FINGERS and what would be leftovers for EOMS (SF could've been a double album instead of EOMS if they were able to focus/finish songs). All the while they were going through a lot of turmoil as a band, legally, and their private lives.

You read enough, the more freedom they had the worse they got yet somehow they still managed to do SF and EOMS.

1972 tour was a gleeful wasteland of freedom. Then they figure out they can't really go anywhere except Jamaica to record... how true that really is, right, they probably could've gone elsewhere but there's no point in judging that possibility of resulting in anything better or worse regarding recording. Not that they - they weren't going to record in Jakarta, Taiwan or Canada apparently, for three of many other possible possibilities.

As far as anyone knows, right?

Not saying 1969 isn't worthy but that was in motion whereas the 1972-73 Stones and 1977-78 Stones may've been their most chaotic as a band.

It's an interesting aspect to consider considering the recorded results.

Your "too esoteric to deliver the goods, too unfocused or disjointed to bear cohesiveness" point is the charm: the tilt into difference as a dysfunctional band in a plethora of ways: they were a mess but so in the middle of it they had no idea.

Another way to put it - they grew, changed, evolved.

Listen to EMOTIONAL RESCUE and then UNDERCOVER, the true follow up to ER - completely different, they basically sound like a different band between the two, with recording of each in 1978-79 and 1982-83.

EOMS covers 1969-1972, unintentionally.

If you get away from the myth of EOMS being "the debauched south of France" album, which it only kind of is, and consider the big picture, perhaps GHS will soften up for you.

In the 2010s and 2020s content is king but in the 1970s it's about context.

If you tell me to piss off, fine: I enjoy writing about the Stones so no big.

Quote
RisingStone
A throwaway comment without reading the bulk of the posts upthread. Sorry if this is coming out of context.

GHS — an album that doesn’t do much for me. It is a reminder that everything the Stones did in the Miller/Taylor era is not gold.

It is too esoteric to deliver the goods, too unfocused or disjointed to bear cohesiveness although some may claim therein lies the album’s charm. The only song I can say I like without reservation is Heartbreaker. Honestly, I much prefer some of their post-1989 releases to GHS, Steel Wheels and Hackney Diamonds, the latter being the best modern Stones album IMHO, in particular.

I sometimes wonder if the stellar performance from Europe ‘73, the tour behind GHS, may have also contributed to more or less enhance the album’s estimation over the years as a consequence, a side effect so to speak. Had the show not been immortalized in the form of some iconic bootlegs, Nasty Music, Bedspring Symphony et al, would GHS have developed a strong support from certain quarters of the fandom as it does today?

My 2 cents.

You’re correct, GHS isn’t gold, it went 3x platinum in the US lol

Quote
GasLightStreet

EOMS covers 1969-1972, unintentionally.

If you get away from the myth of EOMS being "the debauched south of France" album, which it only kind of is, and consider the big picture, perhaps GHS will soften up for you.

In the 2010s and 2020s content is king but in the 1970s it's about context.

If you tell me to piss off, fine: I enjoy writing about the Stones so no big.

Now why would anyone wanna tell you to ‘piss off?’ You’re just providing ‘context,’ right?

On the other hand, your ‘context’ is 95% self-indulgent prattle. You unapologetically churn out worthless, incomprehensible drivel (which for once you seem to acknowledge) and you would rather be told to ‘piss off’ than stop. Because you enjoy it. Yeah, we get that but I’m afraid this type of behavior is simply unacceptable. Think about it. Here you are shamelessly pleasuring yourself on a public forum which might be gratifying for you but for us it's nothing but a load of jism on our screens. I don’t want to see your jism on my screen.

It's enough now, Swayed. Be nice.

We are many who enjoy Skippy's posts.

I guess Swayed couldn't resist the temptation to piss on him! Been a long time since a positive Swayed post was posted on here. Being strong with the logic of the written word is a blessing, but being dominated by critique makes you blind.

23 shows in 1970, isn't that a little bit more than barely playing live?

30 (including Hyde Park) shows in 1969 so not a vast difference I'd say.

IMHO GHS is a helluva album because of its atmosphere, it's like sniffing on a 50's Gibson, it SMELLS the 50's

Goat's Head Soup SOUNDS like that dark, gloomy early 70's with it's brown and yellow colours. And I wasn't even around then



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2025-03-24 11:27 by MadMax.

Quote
z

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
TravelinMan

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I was listening to Hide Your Love with headphones, and heard a guitar in the right channel for the first time! It comes in round 2:04 and does a classic Keith lick round 3:36.

The baritone sax comes in at 2:04

That blues lick at 3:36 sounds like a classic Taylor Bluesbreakers lick. It might have been from his original take.

Listen to how that lick ends, and you'll hear it's not Taylor.

I didn't mean the sax, there's also a rhythm guitar entering at 2:04.

I think all guitars are by Jagger and Taylor, I doubt Keith did a guitar overdub, he did overdub the bass.

Mathijs

A little more audible on this mix:
[youtu.be]

It does sound like Keith.
At the end of the song too.

Indeed.

I leave GLS’s response as that. Don’t think he is opposed to all of the points I made in my post.

Here is some food for thought. Another record of the 1973 release I didn’t get on its initial listen is Houses Of The Holy by Led Zeppelin. Many may have felt it as esoteric, unfocused or disjointed an album as GHS. The difference for me, however, is that after repeated listens, HOTH grew on me — eventually it became one of my favorite in Led Zeppelin’s catalogue. The same didn’t happen to GHS. I wonder why.

For reference, a self-quote of my post here from way back:

Re: Critically Maligned LPs
Posted by: RisingStone ()
Date: July 19, 2020 07:53

Quote
RisingStone
Led Zeppelin - Houses Of The Holy
It sold in tons. But the negative responses from both music journalism and general public that greeted this album are legendary.
Back in the day, most of the criticisms were seemingly pointed at The Crunge, Dancing Days and D’yer Mak’er, the ‘lightweight threesome’. However, beneath the superficiality of these often daft-sounding tracks — along with the album closer, The Ocean — therein lies an interesting attempt of intricate, odd rhythm patterns, which makes HOTH the most experimental work of their entire catalogue.

For me, Houses of The Holy is the far better album.

Quote
RisingStone
I leave GLS’s response as that. Don’t think he is opposed to all of the points I made in my post.

Here is some food for thought. Another record of the 1973 release I didn’t get on its initial listen is Houses Of The Holy by Led Zeppelin. Many may have felt it as esoteric, unfocused or disjointed an album as GHS. The difference for me, however, is that after repeated listens, HOTH grew on me — eventually it became one of my favorite in Led Zeppelin’s catalogue. The same didn’t happen to GHS. I wonder why.

For reference, a self-quote of my post here from way back:

Re: Critically Maligned LPs
Posted by: RisingStone ()
Date: July 19, 2020 07:53

Quote
RisingStone
Led Zeppelin - Houses Of The Holy
It sold in tons. But the negative responses from both music journalism and general public that greeted this album are legendary.
Back in the day, most of the criticisms were seemingly pointed at The Crunge, Dancing Days and D’yer Mak’er, the ‘lightweight threesome’. However, beneath the superficiality of these often daft-sounding tracks — along with the album closer, The Ocean — therein lies an interesting attempt of intricate, odd rhythm patterns, which makes HOTH the most experimental work of their entire catalogue.

That's hilarious, D'Yer Maker is easily my favourite Led Zep track!

Do you remember 73
And the albums..aladdin sane.sabbath bloody sabbath.burn by purple..recording and life was very different..i lived in fort lauderdale
Angie made the charts but stones didnt
Have a market here...was disco starting.i think the album is amazing with all the craziness in their lives

Quote
Swayed1967

Quote
GasLightStreet

EOMS covers 1969-1972, unintentionally.

If you get away from the myth of EOMS being "the debauched south of France" album, which it only kind of is, and consider the big picture, perhaps GHS will soften up for you.

In the 2010s and 2020s content is king but in the 1970s it's about context.

If you tell me to piss off, fine: I enjoy writing about the Stones so no big.

Now why would anyone wanna tell you to ‘piss off?’ You’re just providing ‘context,’ right?

On the other hand, your ‘context’ is 95% self-indulgent prattle. You unapologetically churn out worthless, incomprehensible drivel (which for once you seem to acknowledge) and you would rather be told to ‘piss off’ than stop. Because you enjoy it. Yeah, we get that but I’m afraid this type of behavior is simply unacceptable. Think about it. Here you are shamelessly pleasuring yourself on a public forum which might be gratifying for you but for us it's nothing but a load of jism on our screens. I don’t want to see your jism on my screen.

Your projection is always so busy and now pornographic. Have you been listening to Winning Ugly a lot?

You really need to work on your reading comprehension.

Thank you for the kind words. Since you enjoy my writing so enthusiastically I will do much more of it. However, I think you have some issues where professional help might be a wise idea.

For example:

You are cognitively incapable and are clearly impaired.

Just as with anything else in life, you don't have to participate, just take your little ball and go home and stay home with your angry little frustrated self.

As long as you continue to participate at iorr you'll have to see what I post. And now that your soft spot is exposed, and understanding your love of literacy, I will make each response equivalent to a chapter in a novel.

Just for you! Bless your little heart.

Quote
RisingStone
I leave GLS’s response as that. Don’t think he is opposed to all of the points I made in my post.

Here is some food for thought. Another record of the 1973 release I didn’t get on its initial listen is Houses Of The Holy by Led Zeppelin. Many may have felt it as esoteric, unfocused or disjointed an album as GHS. The difference for me, however, is that after repeated listens, HOTH grew on me — eventually it became one of my favorite in Led Zeppelin’s catalogue. The same didn’t happen to GHS. I wonder why.

For reference, a self-quote of my post here from way back:

Re: Critically Maligned LPs
Posted by: RisingStone ()
Date: July 19, 2020 07:53

Quote
RisingStone
Led Zeppelin - Houses Of The Holy
It sold in tons. But the negative responses from both music journalism and general public that greeted this album are legendary.
Back in the day, most of the criticisms were seemingly pointed at The Crunge, Dancing Days and D’yer Mak’er, the ‘lightweight threesome’. However, beneath the superficiality of these often daft-sounding tracks — along with the album closer, The Ocean — therein lies an interesting attempt of intricate, odd rhythm patterns, which makes HOTH the most experimental work of their entire catalogue.

Zero opposition. You said it didn't and doesn't connect.

HOUSES is a fantastic album (although The Crunge... eh) and certainly is a rounded album and has one of the top 5 all time heavy rhythmic monsters in rock'n'roll with The Ocean - a perfection in lurch.


Interestingly, a bizarre side effect erupted, almost like Tonga, this time, because of what I wrote.

It's too bad there's no medication for narcissists.

I kind of dig GLS's posts.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
I kind of dig GLS's posts.

me too

yeah he's a bit grumpy and doesn't suffer fools easily

but at least when he's critical of someone he attacks there ideas and not them

i may often disagree with him but at least he makes me think about somethings in ways i hadn't considered before

Quote
skytrench
Being strong with the logic of the written word is a blessing, but being dominated by critique makes you blind.

Ah, thank you for les bons mots. I shall endeavor to be less critical and more positive.

But for the record my charge that his posts are self-indulgent and largely unintelligible has never been refuted. And he is just as guilty of breaking the rules of ‘netiquette’ as I am. Unfortunately for me I can’t prosecute my case without looking like a thug bullying a special needs person. I will do better.

Quote
MadMax

That's hilarious, D'Yer Maker is easily my favourite Led Zep track!

D’yer Mak’er? That title piqued my curiosity so I just had to give it a listen on YouTube. Ah, that song. That song was a jukebox favorite at my local pool hall in the early 80s. (That and Stairway to Heaven.) But I was never a Zeppelin fan…Love the strutting guitars and Plant’s vocal delivery in ‘D’yer Mak’er’ (had to retype that twice before I got it right) but not the fluffy lyrics (nor the title). It’s a groovy song but there would have to be several better for HOTH to get the nod over GHS IMO. I might listen to some other cuts or I might not. ‘The Rain Song?’ ‘The Crunge?’ ‘The Ocean?’ Half the songs on the album start with ‘The.’ WTF is that about? Grateful to Mick for sensibly ditching definite articles (although ‘The Beast of Burden’ would’ve had a nice death metal ring to it).

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Swayed1967

Quote
GasLightStreet

EOMS covers 1969-1972, unintentionally.

If you get away from the myth of EOMS being "the debauched south of France" album, which it only kind of is, and consider the big picture, perhaps GHS will soften up for you.

In the 2010s and 2020s content is king but in the 1970s it's about context.

If you tell me to piss off, fine: I enjoy writing about the Stones so no big.

Now why would anyone wanna tell you to ‘piss off?’ You’re just providing ‘context,’ right?

On the other hand, your ‘context’ is 95% self-indulgent prattle. You unapologetically churn out worthless, incomprehensible drivel (which for once you seem to acknowledge) and you would rather be told to ‘piss off’ than stop. Because you enjoy it. Yeah, we get that but I’m afraid this type of behavior is simply unacceptable. Think about it. Here you are shamelessly pleasuring yourself on a public forum which might be gratifying for you but for us it's nothing but a load of jism on our screens. I don’t want to see your jism on my screen.

Your projection is always so busy and now pornographic. Have you been listening to Winning Ugly a lot?

You really need to work on your reading comprehension.

Thank you for the kind words. Since you enjoy my writing so enthusiastically I will do much more of it. However, I think you have some issues where professional help might be a wise idea.

For example:

You are cognitively incapable and are clearly impaired.

Just as with anything else in life, you don't have to participate, just take your little ball and go home and stay home with your angry little frustrated self.

As long as you continue to participate at iorr you'll have to see what I post. And now that your soft spot is exposed, and understanding your love of literacy, I will make each response equivalent to a chapter in a novel.

Just for you! Bless your little heart.

I owe you an apology, fine sir. After rereading your post from a less critical perspective, I found it to be a real smasher, chock-full of precious information, like the Irish searching for theme parks that don’t exist. It was very kind of you to share your thoughts with us so unsparingly.

RisingStone - though he forgot to mention it - no doubt has a much deeper appreciation of GHS thanks to your illuminating post. I’m sure we all do.

Keep up the good work, Skipperoo!

Quote
Swayed1967

Quote
MadMax

That's hilarious, D'Yer Maker is easily my favourite Led Zep track!

D’yer Mak’er? That title piqued my curiosity so I just had to give it a listen on YouTube. Ah, that song. That song was a jukebox favorite at my local pool hall in the early 80s. (That and Stairway to Heaven.) But I was never a Zeppelin fan…Love the strutting guitars and Plant’s vocal delivery in ‘D’yer Mak’er’ (had to retype that twice before I got it right) but not the fluffy lyrics (nor the title). It’s a groovy song but there would have to be several better for HOTH to get the nod over GHS IMO. I might listen to some other cuts or I might not. ‘The Rain Song?’ ‘The Crunge?’ ‘The Ocean?’ Half the songs on the album start with ‘The.’ WTF is that about? Grateful to Mick for sensibly ditching definite articles (although ‘The Beast of Burden’ would’ve had a nice death metal ring to it).

Yeah, it's a real groove, I love Bonham's drums on it. A rare thing with Zep as they rarely swung. To quote Keith, "they were aptly named"
Interesting aspect with the definite articles, The Lantern and the singer not the song and the spider n the fly are rare early examples I guess. Can't think of any after 1968

I rate GHS much higher than HoTH. IMHO the only album better than GHS in 1973 was Quadrophenia which is arguably the best album in history along with Exile of course.

I think one of the most hard achieved things to get while making a record (full LP) is to get that overall feeling, a sound that could only exist on that particular record

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
z

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
TravelinMan

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I was listening to Hide Your Love with headphones, and heard a guitar in the right channel for the first time! It comes in round 2:04 and does a classic Keith lick round 3:36.

The baritone sax comes in at 2:04

That blues lick at 3:36 sounds like a classic Taylor Bluesbreakers lick. It might have been from his original take.

Listen to how that lick ends, and you'll hear it's not Taylor.

I didn't mean the sax, there's also a rhythm guitar entering at 2:04.

I think all guitars are by Jagger and Taylor, I doubt Keith did a guitar overdub, he did overdub the bass.

Mathijs

A little more audible on this mix:
[youtu.be]

It does sound like Keith.
At the end of the song too.

Indeed.

There’s the 'Hide Your Love outtake III': this is a different, earlier mix than the official version, now with the second guitar louder in the mix. This indeed is Richards, with his Les Paul Junior. So he did play guitar on the track!

Also never noticed before that on all versions it is Jagger on piano, but 'Hide Your Love – Alternative Mix on the official Deluxe version has Ian Stewart on piano, Jagger on rhythm guitar and Taylor lead guitar.

Mathijs



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2025-03-25 21:56 by Mathijs.

Quote
MadMax
That's hilarious, D'Yer Maker is easily my favourite Led Zep track!

Ditto! ... as in my favorite, although for me not so 'easily' a choice.

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
z

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
TravelinMan

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I was listening to Hide Your Love with headphones, and heard a guitar in the right channel for the first time! It comes in round 2:04 and does a classic Keith lick round 3:36.

The baritone sax comes in at 2:04

That blues lick at 3:36 sounds like a classic Taylor Bluesbreakers lick. It might have been from his original take.

Listen to how that lick ends, and you'll hear it's not Taylor.

I didn't mean the sax, there's also a rhythm guitar entering at 2:04.

I think all guitars are by Jagger and Taylor, I doubt Keith did a guitar overdub, he did overdub the bass.

Mathijs

A little more audible on this mix:
[youtu.be]

It does sound like Keith.
At the end of the song too.

Indeed.

There ' Hide Your Love outtake III' : this is a different, earlier mix than the official version, now with the second guitar louder in the mix.This indeed is Richards, with his Les Paul Junior. So he did play guitar on the track!

Also never noticed before that on all versions it is Jagger on piano, but 'Hide Your Love – Alternative Mix on the Deluxe version has Ian Stewart on piano, Jagger on rhythm guitar and Taylor lead guitar.

Mathijs

Mathijs, are you refering to the version on CD 2 on the GHS Super Deluxe?

In that case it's actually the white writing against the yellow background that confuse us as Jagger's name is written above the others. I missed it too but thought it odd that Charlie, bless him, would play guitar on the track

If I refer to the wrong version I apologize