<Tops –The highlight of the song is Taylor’s guitar in the fade out...which is more than a little disappointing when you think about it>

So, the overall sound, Keith's guitar riff, Mick's singing, the piano, the beautiful melody, the dynamics - not to mention the drums and percussion-work - are not among the highlights on Tops??

It's time to re-visit, I'd say

I don't mind that TY didn't have it's own sessions. It has plenty o identity and character. So they reached back for a couple of songs. In a way they have always done this. The performances are all still pure Stones.
I do think Side 1 is better broken up; if I take it song by song I like the 'Fast Side' just fine. When I think of it as a whole, not so much. Side 2 is stellar. Even the most overlooked song of the album, in the next to last slot, where the Stones usually put the also-ans, "No Use in Cryin".
But I really think that a major slice of credit has to go to Kimsey. Maybe more for "Start me Up' than for the album. Like Hopkins said 'a masterpiece recording', this is all about Kimsey. He remembered it, discovered it, mixed and produced it; you can say he made it. We have heard the basic tracks of it. It is a slow reggae groove. Now it is regarded as one of Keith's great riffs. Keith himself has said it isn't really so.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
I don't mind that TY didn't have it's own sessions. It has plenty o identity and character. So they reached back for a couple of songs. In a way they have always done this. The performances are all still pure Stones.
I do think Side 1 is better broken up; if I take it song by song I like the 'Fast Side' just fine. When I think of it as a whole, not so much. Side 2 is stellar. Even the most overlooked song of the album, in the next to last slot, where the Stones usually put the also-ans, "No Use in Cryin".
But I really think that a major slice of credit has to go to Kimsey. Maybe more for "Start me Up' than for the album. Like Hopkins said 'a masterpiece recording', this is all about Kimsey. He remembered it, discovered it, mixed and produced it; you can say he made it. We have heard the basic tracks of it. It is a slow reggae groove. Now it is regarded as one of Keith's great riffs. Keith himself has said it isn't really so.

That is very true, as well as an important point!

What would SF be without Brown Sugar, Wild Horses, You Gotta Move and Sister Morphine?

What would Exile be without Shine A Light, Loving Cup, Sweet Virginia, All Down The Line, Shake Your Hips, Tumblin' Dice, Sweet Black Angel and Stop Breaking Down

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
JJHMick
...I never found a person who did not like Waiting On A Friend ...

Well not that I don't 'like' it, but I certainly don't think it's close to the masterpiece claimed by some. To me, it's just a decent track, cool that it's not much like anything they've done before, but overall not a 'must' to listen to.

Quote
matxil
...side B is pure art....

Eh ... again, it is good overall, but still not anywhere near what I would call 'pure art'. My favorites are Worried About You and Heaven, to me the rest are average to decent Stones tracks.

The waxy buildup in your ears fortunately can be addressed through some very simple techniques. Try lying on your side and having someone dribble warm, (not hot!) water into your ear canal...wait a minute, roll over and drain the water in your ear into a towel. gross, i know, especially if some orangey waxy buildup flows out onto the towel. When that happens though, success! Now. do the same in the other ear.

THEN, grab a vinyl copy of Tattoo You, and try listening to side two again, and please advise us of the results. I think you'll be pleased!

Probably hard for you to comprehend, not everyone has the same taste, favorites, etc. And since you can't seem to read, I didn't say I dislike it, only that it's not as great as some claim.

Every hear of Sticky Fingers? Try giving that a listen and then tell me TY is in the same ballpark.

SF is definitely one of their best albums, but I think Tattoo You is better (for me). It ages better, it shows more variety and it has more depth (especially the B side of course).
Actually, even of the "big four", as they are often called, I'd say Beggar's Banquet, Let It Bleed and Exile are superior to SF. And so is Tattoo You.

SF is definitely one of their best albums, but I think Tattoo You is better (for me). It ages better, it shows more variety and it has more depth (especially the B side of course).
Actually, even of the "big four", as they are often called, I'd say Beggar's Banquet, Let It Bleed and Exile are superior to SF. And so is Tattoo You.[/quote]

Agreed. I'd choose Tattoo You over Sticky Fingers alright. It's the more modern sounding one, yet it brings back the tuneful and warmer sound of the early 70s that I missed on Some Girls and Emotional Rescue.
I like to extend the 'Big Four' to the 'Big Six' (or rather 'Five' as I dont think Goats Head Soup qualifies). For me, after It's Only Rock 'n' Roll the Stones suddenly plunged to an all time low, only to slowly climb back up again. Tattoo You, in my opinion, was the culmination of that process. Nowadays I enjoy listening to Some Girls and Emotional Rescue, but back then I was put off by the production values of either record (or, rather, the lack of them).

Quote
SomeGuy
SF is definitely one of their best albums, but I think Tattoo You is better (for me). It ages better, it shows more variety and it has more depth (especially the B side of course).
Actually, even of the "big four", as they are often called, I'd say Beggar's Banquet, Let It Bleed and Exile are superior to SF. And so is Tattoo You.

Agreed. I'd choose Tattoo You over Sticky Fingers alright. It's the more modern sounding one, yet it brings back the tuneful and warmer sound of the early 70s that I missed on Some Girls and Emotional Rescue.
I like to extend the 'Big Four' to the 'Big Six' (or rather 'Five' as I dont think Goats Head Soup qualifies). For me, after It's Only Rock 'n' Roll the Stones suddenly plunged to an all time low, only to slowly climb back up again. Tattoo You, in my opinion, was the culmination of that process. Nowadays I enjoy listening to Some Girls and Emotional Rescue, but back then I was put off by the production values of either record (or, rather, the lack of them).[/quote]

The quote there was matxil's.

The sound got gradually cleaner on SG, ER and TY, and the trebly drums of SG were gone by TY.

I'm not sure if Waiting On A Friend or Tops sound warmer and more tuneful than Far Away Eyes or All About You, though, but I know what you mean.

I find newer songs like Heaven (which is very different-sounding than the others) excellently produced.

Songs from the BAB-era (Worried About You and Slave) can't go wrong. The stuff they recorded in those sessions all sound excellent. Very well-recorded.

Just my two cents.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2018-01-31 20:09 by DandelionPowderman.

Can't say I prefer Tattoo You over Sticky Fingers or any of the other "big four", but I think overall it's better than Some Girls.
Looking at it from a track by track point of view, the good on Tattoo You outshines the good on Some Girls, and the bad on Some Girls outweighs the bad on Tattoo You imo. And comparing them as albums as a whole, if forced to pick one for a desert island, I'd go with Tattoo You for various reasons - some of them nostalgic. That said, love both of them for different reasons, and both were huge parts of the soundtrack of their particular era for me. Some Girls the summer of '78, and Tattoo You late summer and Fall of '81 with a tour to go with it.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
DandelionPowderman
The sound got gradually cleaner on SG, ER and TY, and the trebly drums of SG were gone by TY.

I'm not sure if Waiting On A Friend or Tops sound warmer and more tuneful than Far Away Eyes or All About You, though, but I know what you mean.

I find newer songs like Heaven (which is very different-sounding than the others) excellently produced.

Songs from the BAB-era (Worried About You and Slave) can't go wrong. The stuff they recorded in those sessions all sound excellent. Very well-recorded.

Just my two cents.

Black And Blue may be one of the best sounding albums they ever did, I think. Crystal clear, nothing muddy, perfect sounding instrumentation (really beautiful guitar sound! perfect drums, vocals, everything). I'm not so fond of the actual songs though, but, I do like Hot Stuff a lot! Personally I have nothing against their 'disco' flirtations of that era.

Quote
Swayed1967
Have to agree that this album is seriously overrated. Start Me Up and Waiting on a Friend are genuine classics and far superior to Emotional Rescue and She’s So Cold but overall I think Emotional Rescue (the album) is the better work.

Tops –The highlight of the song is Taylor’s guitar in the fade out...which is more than a little disappointing when you think about it.

Slave – I get the appeal of that hypnotic riff but in the end it’s just a jam. I know, it’s only just a jam but you like it, however, I call it a Huge Missed Opportunity.

Worried About You – Similar to Emotional Rescue, the song only kicks into high gear when Mick drops the falsetto. His falsetto is farcical and debases what could’ve been a cool ballad. Try walking around all day speaking falsetto and then tell me I’m wrong.

Waiting on a Friend – Here the falsetto works because he’s using it as an instrument. This is definitely one my favorite ballads (with surprisingly mature lyrics) – it’s quite reminiscent of ‘No Expectations’ in the sense that we’re treated to numerous grand performances (I’m thinking of Jack Nitzsche’s tinkly piano, Brian’s slide, Sonny’s sax etc.) which elevate a fairly simple piece of music to ethereal heights.

Neighbors – I’m sure most agree that this song should be filed under ‘Tolerable Filler.’

Start Me Up – Fans tend to focus on the iconic riff and in fact the whole band is totally locked into that sleazy rhythm but Mick’s vocal performance is a tour de force. The lyrics are sleazy (the antithesis of Waiting on a Friend) but fairly irrelevant – it’s all in Mick’s relentless delivery (he could’ve sang ‘Turn Me Off’ and it still would’ve been a huge hit).

Quote
DandelionPowderman


So, the overall sound, Keith's guitar riff, Mick's singing, the piano, the beautiful melody, the dynamics - not to mention the drums and percussion-work - are not among the highlights on Tops??

It's time to re-visit, I'd say

So every freaking note played by every freaking instrument is a highlight for you...yeah, why am I not surprised? But personally Taylor’s guitar in the outro is the only reason I listen to the first three minutes of the song, all those other ‘highlights’ you mentioned notwithstanding. He was right to sue them.

Other quibbles about ‘Tops’:
1. The title – I know it’s probably a highlight for you but the ‘s’ somewhat baffles me.
2. The lyrics – the stuff of B-movies.l
3. The rumour - Harvey Weinstein sings it in the shower.

Quote
Swayed1967
3. The rumour - Harvey Weinstein sings it in the shower.

lol...will be hard to shake that image whenever I listen to Tops now...ugh.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
Swayed1967

Quote
Swayed1967
Have to agree that this album is seriously overrated. Start Me Up and Waiting on a Friend are genuine classics and far superior to Emotional Rescue and She’s So Cold but overall I think Emotional Rescue (the album) is the better work.

Tops –The highlight of the song is Taylor’s guitar in the fade out...which is more than a little disappointing when you think about it.

Slave – I get the appeal of that hypnotic riff but in the end it’s just a jam. I know, it’s only just a jam but you like it, however, I call it a Huge Missed Opportunity.

Worried About You – Similar to Emotional Rescue, the song only kicks into high gear when Mick drops the falsetto. His falsetto is farcical and debases what could’ve been a cool ballad. Try walking around all day speaking falsetto and then tell me I’m wrong.

Waiting on a Friend – Here the falsetto works because he’s using it as an instrument. This is definitely one my favorite ballads (with surprisingly mature lyrics) – it’s quite reminiscent of ‘No Expectations’ in the sense that we’re treated to numerous grand performances (I’m thinking of Jack Nitzsche’s tinkly piano, Brian’s slide, Sonny’s sax etc.) which elevate a fairly simple piece of music to ethereal heights.

Neighbors – I’m sure most agree that this song should be filed under ‘Tolerable Filler.’

Start Me Up – Fans tend to focus on the iconic riff and in fact the whole band is totally locked into that sleazy rhythm but Mick’s vocal performance is a tour de force. The lyrics are sleazy (the antithesis of Waiting on a Friend) but fairly irrelevant – it’s all in Mick’s relentless delivery (he could’ve sang ‘Turn Me Off’ and it still would’ve been a huge hit).

Quote
DandelionPowderman


So, the overall sound, Keith's guitar riff, Mick's singing, the piano, the beautiful melody, the dynamics - not to mention the drums and percussion-work - are not among the highlights on Tops??

It's time to re-visit, I'd say

So every freaking note played by every freaking instrument is a highlight for you...yeah, why am I not surprised? But personally Taylor’s guitar in the outro is the only reason I listen to the first three minutes of the song, all those other ‘highlights’ you mentioned notwithstanding. He was right to sue them.

Other quibbles about ‘Tops’:
1. The title – I know it’s probably a highlight for you but the ‘s’ somewhat baffles me.
2. The lyrics – the stuff of B-movies.l
3. The rumour - Harvey Weinstein sings it in the shower.

LOL!

a) I'm just giving you the opportunity to see the song in a broader context, as you seemingly get lost in minor (or was it major?) details..

b) He never sued.

Quote
Swayed1967


Slave – I get the appeal of that hypnotic riff but in the end it’s just a jam. I know, it’s only just a jam but you like it, however, I call it a Huge Missed Opportunity.

It's not just a jam it's a great song and imho it's also the ultimate testament to Jagger's ability to edit a song in the studio. By editing I mean cutting out the B-grade parts and keeping the most inspired moments.

The original 1975 track is indeed a jam : 8 minutes or so of drums guitars and keyboards recorded live.
Then Jagger decides to rework the song... compare the 75 track (available on many boots) and the TY song and you'll see MJ's extraordinary flair for excising bad parts, keeping the best riffs and inserting Sonny Rollin's sax into this.

Wow, genius!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-02-01 10:35 by dcba.

Quote
dcba

Quote
Swayed1967


Slave – I get the appeal of that hypnotic riff but in the end it’s just a jam. I know, it’s only just a jam but you like it, however, I call it a Huge Missed Opportunity.

It's not just a jam it's a great song and imho it's also the ultimate testament to Jagger's ability to edit a song in the studio. By editing I mean cutting out the B-grade parts and keeping the most inspired moments.

The original 1975 track is indeed a jam : 8 minutes or so of drums guitars and keyboards recorded live.
Then Jagger decides to rework the song... compare the 75 track (available on many boots) and the TY song and you'll see MJ's extraordinary flair for excising bad parts, keeping the best riffs and inserting Sonny Rollin's sax into this.

Wow, genius!

Sure you don't mean Kimsey's ability?

No DP I do mean Jagger.

About 25 years at a record fair I eavesdropped a conversation between a bunch of hardcore fans and a French man in his 40's. He was either a label exec or a sound engineer and the story he was telling stemmed from the late 70's/early 80's : he explained in detail how Jagger would direct an editing session from a long jam "enough of this guitar lick... cut that verse here... shorter... that's enough".

Jagger would direct dozens of micro-cuts/micro-edits till the uninspired stuff was out and only remained the best bits. Slowly the raw/long take would morph into a releasable song.
The guy who was telling the story was still in awe btw... Like so many other ppl working with/for the Stones was probably the apex of his whole career.

Now if you listen to "Slave I" from 1975 and the TY version you realize the same process took place : entire bars of music (the boring ones) have been left out. In what was kept the guitar and organ licks have been carefully examined and only the most inspired stuff has been kept.

My guess is Jagger did the deed. He also had the guts to tell Rollins his 1st pass at overdubbing the song wasn't good enough.

Quote
dcba
No DP I do mean Jagger.

About 25 years at a record fair I eavesdropped a conversation between a bunch of hardcore fans and a French man in his 40's. He was either a label exec or a sound engineer and the story he was telling stemmed from the late 70's/early 80's : he explained in detail how Jagger would direct an editing session from a long jam "enough of this guitar lick... cut that verse here... shorter... that's enough".

Jagger would direct dozens of micro-cuts/micro-edits till the uninspired stuff was out and only remained the best bits. Slowly the raw/long take would morph into a releasable song.
The guy who was telling the story was still in awe btw... Like so many other ppl working with/for the Stones was probably the apex of his whole career.

Now if you listen to "Slave I" from 1975 and the TY version you realize the same process took place : entire bars of music (the boring ones) have been left out. In what was kept the guitar and organ licks have been carefully examined and only the most inspired stuff has been kept.

My guess is Jagger did the deed. He also had the guts to tell Rollins his 1st pass at overdubbing the song wasn't good enough.

There's also other stories. Chris Kimsey has stated various times that the band would record 40 takes, choose the best 1 or 2 takes lasting 13 minutes and basically told Kimsey to cut it down to 4 minutes, and they then left only to return the next day for overdubs.

Mathijs

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
dcba
No DP I do mean Jagger.

About 25 years at a record fair I eavesdropped a conversation between a bunch of hardcore fans and a French man in his 40's. He was either a label exec or a sound engineer and the story he was telling stemmed from the late 70's/early 80's : he explained in detail how Jagger would direct an editing session from a long jam "enough of this guitar lick... cut that verse here... shorter... that's enough".

Jagger would direct dozens of micro-cuts/micro-edits till the uninspired stuff was out and only remained the best bits. Slowly the raw/long take would morph into a releasable song.
The guy who was telling the story was still in awe btw... Like so many other ppl working with/for the Stones was probably the apex of his whole career.

Now if you listen to "Slave I" from 1975 and the TY version you realize the same process took place : entire bars of music (the boring ones) have been left out. In what was kept the guitar and organ licks have been carefully examined and only the most inspired stuff has been kept.

My guess is Jagger did the deed. He also had the guts to tell Rollins his 1st pass at overdubbing the song wasn't good enough.

There's also other stories. Chris Kimsey has stated various times that the band would record 40 takes, choose the best 1 or 2 takes lasting 13 minutes and basically told Kimsey to cut it down to 4 minutes, and they then left only to return the next day for overdubs.

Mathijs

That's the more likely story as well, as they had been working like that for years.

Mick might very well have come up with some suggestions on which parts he liked, but I doubt he dug himself way down in the details - as one must do when a 14 minutes track needs tape cutting and splices several places in a song, to eventually become an awesome 3 or 4 minutes smashing single.

Quote
dcba
No DP I do mean Jagger.

About 25 years at a record fair I eavesdropped a conversation between a bunch of hardcore fans and a French man in his 40's. He was either a label exec or a sound engineer and the story he was telling stemmed from the late 70's/early 80's : he explained in detail how Jagger would direct an editing session from a long jam "enough of this guitar lick... cut that verse here... shorter... that's enough".

Jagger would direct dozens of micro-cuts/micro-edits till the uninspired stuff was out and only remained the best bits. Slowly the raw/long take would morph into a releasable song.
The guy who was telling the story was still in awe btw... Like so many other ppl working with/for the Stones was probably the apex of his whole career.

Now if you listen to "Slave I" from 1975 and the TY version you realize the same process took place : entire bars of music (the boring ones) have been left out. In what was kept the guitar and organ licks have been carefully examined and only the most inspired stuff has been kept.

My guess is Jagger did the deed. He also had the guts to tell Rollins his 1st pass at overdubbing the song wasn't good enough.

Yeah, I've heard that, too, but I also know Kimsey's own recollection which was a bit different

Slave was masterfully done, though, but I like the longer Virgin-version even more. The long jam (with Ronnie's track included) should be TY Bonus material, imo

One of the first Stones albums I bought and still got a soft spot.

When TY gets mentioned the music that pops into my head is invariably the riff from Slave. What a sound.

One thing I always loved about TY, besides the songs and how they're performed is the *sound* of the album. For an album of tracks culled from several different sessions, they mastered them in a way that made them sound like they were all of a piece. It was a long time before I realized how many different sources the album came from. At the time, in some interviews, they did mention that some tracks were old but they still gave us the impression that it was a new album, made up of mostly recently recorded tracks. I guess maybe that was true if you consider whatever they did with overdubs, etc.

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

My first Stones album so I have a "soft spot" for it as someone said. I'm aware age is a factor here. At the time older Stones fans pointed out that it didn't compare to older recordings.
I guess they were right, but it didn't matter to me then. And still doesn't as it still is one of my absolute favourites...

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
dcba
No DP I do mean Jagger.

About 25 years at a record fair I eavesdropped a conversation between a bunch of hardcore fans and a French man in his 40's. He was either a label exec or a sound engineer and the story he was telling stemmed from the late 70's/early 80's : he explained in detail how Jagger would direct an editing session from a long jam "enough of this guitar lick... cut that verse here... shorter... that's enough".

Jagger would direct dozens of micro-cuts/micro-edits till the uninspired stuff was out and only remained the best bits. Slowly the raw/long take would morph into a releasable song.
The guy who was telling the story was still in awe btw... Like so many other ppl working with/for the Stones was probably the apex of his whole career.

Now if you listen to "Slave I" from 1975 and the TY version you realize the same process took place : entire bars of music (the boring ones) have been left out. In what was kept the guitar and organ licks have been carefully examined and only the most inspired stuff has been kept.

My guess is Jagger did the deed. He also had the guts to tell Rollins his 1st pass at overdubbing the song wasn't good enough.

Yeah, I've heard that, too, but I also know Kimsey's own recollection which was a bit different

Slave was masterfully done, though, but I like the longer Virgin-version even more. The long jam (with Ronnie's track included) should be TY Bonus material, imo

Listening to unedited tracks, like Slave or Emotional Rescue (brilliantly edited for the LP) and so many from the 1970s and early 80s, there's no reason to not think Jagger had a big hand in the edits. Either being there to tell someone what parts or approving them.

Editing a song can entail quite a few things but from what I've been able to discern, the Stones record, finish overdubs - and then edit. They do full mixes - ie the unedited song, and then use the mixdown for the edit (Emotional Rescue is a great example of that). I've been involved in editing, both with giving suggestions or telling whoever to do this and that, and it can get really funny. But it's always interesting.

But there's no reason not to think they've also had sections trimmed down to get right to it for overdubbing but I would think that doesn't happen often. A great example of how that wasn't done is listening to the full version of Love Is Strong - there's a blend in the middle break that blows my mind, because the full version has a screw up in it and how they got that edit to sound perfect, a little "trickery" was used on that.

I've not listened to the full version of Everything Is Turning To Gold in a long time but just listening to the released version, they HACKED that song up! It's very obvious.

Their live tracks, they've had some great editing (from STILL LIFE, Time Is On My Side, Imagination, the end of LSTNT with the screw up being replaced; the edit of Brown Sugar on LIVE LICKS is seamless) and some horrible editing - Brown Sugar on LOVE YOU LIVE and Rocks Off from LIVE LICKS are two of the best worst ones I can think of. Street Fighting Man is a bit of a jarring on LIVE LICKS. They should've used the Madison Square Garden PPV one - it's a thousand times better - even with Keith's screw up fixed.

Quote
Hairball
That said, love both of them for different reasons, and both were huge parts of the soundtrack of their particular era for me. Some Girls the summer of '78, and Tattoo You late summer and Fall of '81 with a tour to go with it.

"No Anchovies, Please"

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
HMS
The album is slightly better then Some Girls and quite as good as Emotional Rescue, but not as good as Undercover. And it certainly cannot match their last all-the-way masterpiece, the fantastic Dirty Work.

Chemtrailers always find a way to skew reality. Although in one aspect HMS is right, it's not as good as UNDERCOVER - it's greater than U. I love U but even Stevie Wonder can see it's not anywhere near as good as TY.

HMS is right about comparing TY to DW - it could never match their "all-the-way masterpiece" of garbage, of scraping under the barrel, the shit soup that is DW.

Where did HMS go? He always cheered me up. You're welcome back HMS!

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash
One thing I always loved about TY, besides the songs and how they're performed is the *sound* of the album. For an album of tracks culled from several different sessions, they mastered them in a way that made them sound like they were all of a piece. It was a long time before I realized how many different sources the album came from. At the time, in some interviews, they did mention that some tracks were old but they still gave us the impression that it was a new album, made up of mostly recently recorded tracks. I guess maybe that was true if you consider whatever they did with overdubs, etc.

I agree but in the main that is down to Bob Clearmountain's studious mix and building in the dubs.

"I'll be in my basement room with a needle and a spoon."

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
dcba
No DP I do mean Jagger.

About 25 years at a record fair I eavesdropped a conversation between a bunch of hardcore fans and a French man in his 40's. He was either a label exec or a sound engineer and the story he was telling stemmed from the late 70's/early 80's : he explained in detail how Jagger would direct an editing session from a long jam "enough of this guitar lick... cut that verse here... shorter... that's enough".

Jagger would direct dozens of micro-cuts/micro-edits till the uninspired stuff was out and only remained the best bits. Slowly the raw/long take would morph into a releasable song.
The guy who was telling the story was still in awe btw... Like so many other ppl working with/for the Stones was probably the apex of his whole career.

Now if you listen to "Slave I" from 1975 and the TY version you realize the same process took place : entire bars of music (the boring ones) have been left out. In what was kept the guitar and organ licks have been carefully examined and only the most inspired stuff has been kept.

My guess is Jagger did the deed. He also had the guts to tell Rollins his 1st pass at overdubbing the song wasn't good enough.

Yeah, I've heard that, too, but I also know Kimsey's own recollection which was a bit different

Slave was masterfully done, though, but I like the longer Virgin-version even more. The long jam (with Ronnie's track included) should be TY Bonus material, imo

Listening to unedited tracks, like Slave or Emotional Rescue (brilliantly edited for the LP) and so many from the 1970s and early 80s, there's no reason to not think Jagger had a big hand in the edits. Either being there to tell someone what parts or approving them.

Editing a song can entail quite a few things but from what I've been able to discern, the Stones record, finish overdubs - and then edit. They do full mixes - ie the unedited song, and then use the mixdown for the edit (Emotional Rescue is a great example of that). I've been involved in editing, both with giving suggestions or telling whoever to do this and that, and it can get really funny. But it's always interesting.

But there's no reason not to think they've also had sections trimmed down to get right to it for overdubbing but I would think that doesn't happen often. A great example of how that wasn't done is listening to the full version of Love Is Strong - there's a blend in the middle break that blows my mind, because the full version has a screw up in it and how they got that edit to sound perfect, a little "trickery" was used on that.

I've not listened to the full version of Everything Is Turning To Gold in a long time but just listening to the released version, they HACKED that song up! It's very obvious.

Their live tracks, they've had some great editing (from STILL LIFE, Time Is On My Side, Imagination, the end of LSTNT with the screw up being replaced; the edit of Brown Sugar on LIVE LICKS is seamless) and some horrible editing - Brown Sugar on LOVE YOU LIVE and Rocks Off from LIVE LICKS are two of the best worst ones I can think of. Street Fighting Man is a bit of a jarring on LIVE LICKS. They should've used the Madison Square Garden PPV one - it's a thousand times better - even with Keith's screw up fixed.

As we were talking about TY, the main reason not to believe that Mick was the main force in the editing process is Kimsey's own description of what happened.

I'm sure Mick was good at pointing out parts to keep for different albums, but for TY Kimsey was sort of left alone with the long version, according to himself.

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash
One thing I always loved about TY, besides the songs and how they're performed is the *sound* of the album. For an album of tracks culled from several different sessions, they mastered them in a way that made them sound like they were all of a piece. It was a long time before I realized how many different sources the album came from. At the time, in some interviews, they did mention that some tracks were old but they still gave us the impression that it was a new album, made up of mostly recently recorded tracks. I guess maybe that was true if you consider whatever they did with overdubs, etc.

Back in the days way before the internet, it was nearly impossible to find out such details regarding the album - maybe a few comments in various interviews, and that's only if you happened to have the magazines/papers that the interviews were in. The attention to the minutiae to detail was probably relegated to the complete obsesso's of the time - digging deep for whatever info. they could find. Like you, I had not much of an idea as to the origins of the album if any at all - and trying to think back to that time, as far as I knew it was a 100% brand new Stones album with brand new songs - give or take a few guitar parts taken from the past.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
dcba
No DP I do mean Jagger.

About 25 years at a record fair I eavesdropped a conversation between a bunch of hardcore fans and a French man in his 40's. He was either a label exec or a sound engineer and the story he was telling stemmed from the late 70's/early 80's : he explained in detail how Jagger would direct an editing session from a long jam "enough of this guitar lick... cut that verse here... shorter... that's enough".

Jagger would direct dozens of micro-cuts/micro-edits till the uninspired stuff was out and only remained the best bits. Slowly the raw/long take would morph into a releasable song.
The guy who was telling the story was still in awe btw... Like so many other ppl working with/for the Stones was probably the apex of his whole career.

Now if you listen to "Slave I" from 1975 and the TY version you realize the same process took place : entire bars of music (the boring ones) have been left out. In what was kept the guitar and organ licks have been carefully examined and only the most inspired stuff has been kept.

My guess is Jagger did the deed. He also had the guts to tell Rollins his 1st pass at overdubbing the song wasn't good enough.

Yeah, I've heard that, too, but I also know Kimsey's own recollection which was a bit different

Slave was masterfully done, though, but I like the longer Virgin-version even more. The long jam (with Ronnie's track included) should be TY Bonus material, imo

Listening to unedited tracks, like Slave or Emotional Rescue (brilliantly edited for the LP) and so many from the 1970s and early 80s, there's no reason to not think Jagger had a big hand in the edits. Either being there to tell someone what parts or approving them.

Editing a song can entail quite a few things but from what I've been able to discern, the Stones record, finish overdubs - and then edit. They do full mixes - ie the unedited song, and then use the mixdown for the edit (Emotional Rescue is a great example of that). I've been involved in editing, both with giving suggestions or telling whoever to do this and that, and it can get really funny. But it's always interesting.

But there's no reason not to think they've also had sections trimmed down to get right to it for overdubbing but I would think that doesn't happen often. A great example of how that wasn't done is listening to the full version of Love Is Strong - there's a blend in the middle break that blows my mind, because the full version has a screw up in it and how they got that edit to sound perfect, a little "trickery" was used on that.

I've not listened to the full version of Everything Is Turning To Gold in a long time but just listening to the released version, they HACKED that song up! It's very obvious.

Their live tracks, they've had some great editing (from STILL LIFE, Time Is On My Side, Imagination, the end of LSTNT with the screw up being replaced; the edit of Brown Sugar on LIVE LICKS is seamless) and some horrible editing - Brown Sugar on LOVE YOU LIVE and Rocks Off from LIVE LICKS are two of the best worst ones I can think of. Street Fighting Man is a bit of a jarring on LIVE LICKS. They should've used the Madison Square Garden PPV one - it's a thousand times better - even with Keith's screw up fixed.

As we were talking about TY, the main reason not to believe that Mick was the main force in the editing process is Kimsey's own description of what happened.

I'm sure Mick was good at pointing out parts to keep for different albums, but for TY Kimsey was sort of left alone with the long version, according to himself.

I'm sure both stories are totally true. I can very well see Jagger, 100% focused, directing the edits of a long take. E.g. "Too Much Blood" - he most likely heard the song in his head, and knew what needed to go and stay. That is really not all that big of a deal.
I have a lot of respect for the work that engineers do on their own time, and I think on TY Kimsey was given a much bigger role. He was producing. What he did with SMU is almost witchcraft.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
dcba
No DP I do mean Jagger.

About 25 years at a record fair I eavesdropped a conversation between a bunch of hardcore fans and a French man in his 40's. He was either a label exec or a sound engineer and the story he was telling stemmed from the late 70's/early 80's : he explained in detail how Jagger would direct an editing session from a long jam "enough of this guitar lick... cut that verse here... shorter... that's enough".

Jagger would direct dozens of micro-cuts/micro-edits till the uninspired stuff was out and only remained the best bits. Slowly the raw/long take would morph into a releasable song.
The guy who was telling the story was still in awe btw... Like so many other ppl working with/for the Stones was probably the apex of his whole career.

Now if you listen to "Slave I" from 1975 and the TY version you realize the same process took place : entire bars of music (the boring ones) have been left out. In what was kept the guitar and organ licks have been carefully examined and only the most inspired stuff has been kept.

My guess is Jagger did the deed. He also had the guts to tell Rollins his 1st pass at overdubbing the song wasn't good enough.

Yeah, I've heard that, too, but I also know Kimsey's own recollection which was a bit different

Slave was masterfully done, though, but I like the longer Virgin-version even more. The long jam (with Ronnie's track included) should be TY Bonus material, imo

Listening to unedited tracks, like Slave or Emotional Rescue (brilliantly edited for the LP) and so many from the 1970s and early 80s, there's no reason to not think Jagger had a big hand in the edits. Either being there to tell someone what parts or approving them.

Editing a song can entail quite a few things but from what I've been able to discern, the Stones record, finish overdubs - and then edit. They do full mixes - ie the unedited song, and then use the mixdown for the edit (Emotional Rescue is a great example of that). I've been involved in editing, both with giving suggestions or telling whoever to do this and that, and it can get really funny. But it's always interesting.

But there's no reason not to think they've also had sections trimmed down to get right to it for overdubbing but I would think that doesn't happen often. A great example of how that wasn't done is listening to the full version of Love Is Strong - there's a blend in the middle break that blows my mind, because the full version has a screw up in it and how they got that edit to sound perfect, a little "trickery" was used on that.

I've not listened to the full version of Everything Is Turning To Gold in a long time but just listening to the released version, they HACKED that song up! It's very obvious.

Their live tracks, they've had some great editing (from STILL LIFE, Time Is On My Side, Imagination, the end of LSTNT with the screw up being replaced; the edit of Brown Sugar on LIVE LICKS is seamless) and some horrible editing - Brown Sugar on LOVE YOU LIVE and Rocks Off from LIVE LICKS are two of the best worst ones I can think of. Street Fighting Man is a bit of a jarring on LIVE LICKS. They should've used the Madison Square Garden PPV one - it's a thousand times better - even with Keith's screw up fixed.

As we were talking about TY, the main reason not to believe that Mick was the main force in the editing process is Kimsey's own description of what happened.

I'm sure Mick was good at pointing out parts to keep for different albums, but for TY Kimsey was sort of left alone with the long version, according to himself.

I'm sure both stories are totally true. I can very well see Jagger, 100% focused, directing the edits of a long take. E.g. "Too Much Blood" - he most likely heard the song in his head, and knew what needed to go and stay. That is really not all that big of a deal.
I have a lot of respect for the work that engineers do on their own time, and I think on TY Kimsey was given a much bigger role. He was producing. What he did with SMU is almost witchcraft.

Have you heard the full version of SMU? Never heard it myself..

when i got into the band in 1987 and was buying the back catalogue, between mid 1988 and mid 1989, i was drawn more to some albums than others. the big 4 plus tattoo you i preferred more than most. I didnt realize tattoo you was songs from different eras,the album sounded well produced compared to some girls which was a bit flat in comparison.