I've seen bits and pieces around over the years but this one is pretty darn good. I did not know that Perkins played the solo on 'Worried About You'.

[forums.stevehoffman.tv]

My most sincere apologies if this has appeared before. I couldn't find it.

Loved this bit of the article:

"It kinda just sucked. [Perkins is not the first musician to comment on the Stones' lack of musical finesse.] It was like the worst garage band I'd ever heard in my life. Then the engineer turned on the red light [to begin recording] and it's like somebody reached out with a magic wand and went, 'Bing!' And all of a sudden, it's the Stones! Damnedest thing I've ever seen."

Rod

He doesn't live far from me here in Birmingham, AL. I met some of his family members at a wedding a couple of years back, at that time I was saying I wanted to come out and meet him, I need to get back in touch with them, but not sure what frame of mind he's in at this time to talk "Stones". I think I heard he's health wasn't that great, been a in a recent car accident...

Love this stuff!! An interesting period with all the auditions, etc.

Actually the article is quite fascinating.

Perkin's observations are intriguing...offering a tiny little glimpse into the Stones' world at the time (in particular Mick and Keith). The idea that wanted to see how Perkins looked on stage, next to the others...a bit strange, but I suppose it was relevant (it was, after all,, an audition).

The stuff on Clapton is also fascinating.

Interesting article

Methinks Perkins probably failed the spotlight test. He looks more Michael Dukakis than Rolling Stone

pitchy vibrato.

Interesting. Thanks for posting!

Quote
chop
Interesting article

Methinks Perkins probably failed the spotlight test. He looks more Michael Dukakis than Rolling Stone

LOL He probably should have gotten the traditional English shag haircut prior to the tryout and no doubt a couple more months with Keith and Anita would have had him looking like a Stone just fine.

Quote
BamaStone
He doesn't live far from me here in Birmingham, AL. I met some of his family members at a wedding a couple of years back, at that time I was saying I wanted to come out and meet him, I need to get back in touch with them, but not sure what frame of mind he's in at this time to talk "Stones". I think I heard he's health wasn't that great, been a in a recent car accident...

I am in Birmingham, AL, too. What part of town?

Line-up ‘Hot Stuff’: MJ (voc, perc)/KR (gtr, bvoc)/RW (bvoc)/BW (bass,
perc)/CW (dr, perc)/STU (perc)/Billy Preston (p, bvoc)/Ollie Brown
(perc)/Harvey Mandel (gtr)

Line-up ‘Hand Of Fate’: MJ (voc)/KR (gtr, bvoc)/RW (bvoc)/BW (bass)/
CW (dr)/Billy Preston (p)/Ollie Brown (perc)/Wayne Perkins (gtr)

Line-up ‘Cherry Oh Baby’: MJ (voc)/KR (gtr, bvoc)/RW (gtr)/BW (bass)/CW
(dr)/Nicky Hopkins (org)

Line-up ‘Memory Motel’: MJ (voc, p)/KR (el p, bvoc)/RW (bvoc)/BW
(bass)/CW (dr)/Billy Preston (string synth, bvoc)/Harvey Mandel
(gtr)/Wayne Perkins (gtr)

Line-up ‘Hey Negrita’: MJ (voc)/KR (gtr, bvoc)/RW (gtr, bvoc)/BW (bass)/
CW (dr)/Billy Preston (p, org, bvoc)/Ollie Brown (perc)

Line-up ‘Melody’: MJ (voc, perc)/KR (gtr)/BW (bass)/CW (dr)/Billy Preston
(p, org, bvoc)/Ollie Brown (perc)/Arif Mardin (horn arranger)

Line-up ‘Fool To Cry’: MJ (voc, el p)/KR (gtr)/BW (bass)/CW (dr)/Wayne
Perkins (gtr)/Nicky Hopkins (p, string synth)

Line-up ‘Crazy Mama’: MJ (voc, gtr)/KR (gtr, bass, bvoc)/RW (gtr, bvoc)/CW (dr)/
Billy Preston (p, bvoc)/Ollie Brown (perc)

If playing on 3 of 8 songs on an LP defines plays on most of their 1976 "Black and Blue" album then either I'm really bad with math or he recorded on more than has been released, including the one of two BLACK AND BLUE sessions tracks on TATTOO YOU.

Fascinating to read. I've always loved the Hand of Fate and Worried About You solos, although for years I was so impressed by Woody's solo on Worried, and then I learned Mick Taylor played on TATTOO YOU, so I was impressed with Taylor's solo on Worried. Finally I learned it was Wayne Perkins!

Perkins missing Stones membership by a whisker reminds me of Jay Leno waiting for the decision whether he or David Letterman would take over the TONIGHT SHOW. Leno said, as he waited for the decision, "I'm waiting to find out if I'll lead America into the the 21st Century...or be unemployed."

Quote
Naturalust

LOL He probably should have gotten the traditional English shag haircut prior to the tryout and no doubt a couple more months with Keith and Anita would have had him looking like a Stone just fine.

If your "body mass index" exceeds 15 you can't be a Stones.

Yeah, fascinating to read (again). The description of how Perkins needed to stand next to MIck and Charlie and 'pose' (to see if he really would 'fit') has always been one of the most revealing ones of how the Stones always heve been aware of the importance of the 'aesthetical' matters (image, that is) of a 'pop' act of their caliber. Even Charlie - who we might think wouldn't give a damn due his image - knew the name of the game... Andrew Loog Oldham really taught them a lesson, and they learn it mighty fine..

I have always had an impression that Perkins was Keith's favourite, and the actual choice of Ronnie was more like Mick's decision/suggestion. Keith, it has been claimed, needed to be assured since he was afraid that Ronnie and him were too similar guitar players. That might sound strange today - or taken how good they turned out to be together when they really get it going ('weave', etc.) - but to me it looks like that Keith himself was still at the time more in a Taylor or rhythm/lead guitar split mood and thought the new guitarist in the base of that idea. This is to say he had a new "Taylor" in his mind, and Perkins was a perfect choice for that. A cynic in me says that Jagger saw in Wood a way to strengthen the 'Keith component' in the band, since the maestro himself had shown a bit too many risky factors lately, and the future was uncertain (to say it mildly). Ronnie was able to handle the Keith kind of guitar (rhythm) playing, was able to write, looked right... (and there were those odd rumours - by Nicky Hopkins - back in 1973 that Mick wanted to replace Keith with Ronnie...).

Well, as we know, later Keith and Ronnie would find an innovative way to click together, and the rest is history... But I guess there have been times when Mick Jagger wasn't too satisfied with the 'monster' he was influental to create; there were not just one but two musically rather similar, risky Keith Richards factors in the band he needed to cope with.... The 1981/82 tour was probably too much for Mick's taste; he at least would made sure the band would never work from that base again..

As far as Mick Taylor goes, many - usually our beloved "Taylorites" - have speculated that Jagger has been missing him and his melodic playing (which helped him a lot as a singer), and I guess that is true to an extent (and Jagger has said something to that effect). But my picture is that Jagger, even though feeling a personal disappointment or even insult by Taylor letting him down, was not a kind of guy who would look back. Quite the opposite, Taylor was gone, that's bad, but hey: now it is a good opportunity to do something different; there are damn many different kind of great guitar players in the world, with whom it is able alter or reshape the dynamics and the sound of the band interestingly! That's the greatness of Jagger: to look forward. I guess there have been times when Jagger has wished the band to contain a Taylor kind of melodic guitar player (like his solo tour band had), but I wouldn't stress that too far. Since 1989 he has taken care of that kind of factor by having Chuck Leavell, backing up singers, etc. to help with his vocals.

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2016-01-23 12:34 by Doxa.

Quote
Title5Take1
Fascinating to read. I've always loved the Hand of Fate and Worried About You solos, although for years I was so impressed by Woody's solo on Worried, and then I learned Mick Taylor played on TATTOO YOU, so I was impressed with Taylor's solo on Worried. Finally I learned it was Wayne Perkins!

Ditto!

Quote
Doxa
I guess there have been times when Jagger has wished the band to contain a Taylor kind of melodic guitar player (like his solo tour band had), but I wouldn't stress that too far. Since 1989 he has taken care of that kind of factor by having Chuck Leavell, backing up singers, etc. to help with his vocals.

- Doxa

You can do better than that, Doxa.

Although Keith has said that Ronnie could play like him, he has never showed that he actually can. I doubt it.

Stay With Me is not JJF or GS.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Although Keith has said that Ronnie could play like him, he has never showed that he actually can. I doubt it.

Stay With Me is not JJF or GS.

That's too specific. He's not talking licks, he's talking sound and attitude.

Quote
Doxa


I have always had an impression that Perkins was Keith's favourite, and the actual choice of Ronnie was more like Mick's decision/suggestion. Keith, it has been claimed, needed to be assured since he was afraid that Ronnie and him were too similar guitar players.

to me it looks like that Keith himself was still at the time more in a Taylor or rhythm/lead guitar split mood and thought the new guitarist in the base of that idea. This is to say he had a new "Taylor" in his mind, and Perkins was a perfect choice for that.

- Doxa

My guess is they knew they had a goldmine in all these 69-74 songs MT had put his touch on. And they barely started to dig it live.
So in order to keep on capitalizing on these great songs that went very well live they needed Taylor... or a Taylor clone.

My guess is the 1975 tour was to be the coninuation of the 73 tour : GHS songs, melodic arrangements, long lyrical solos etc etc. Perkins could have brought that to the band.
Maybe they were planning to do TWFNO every night?

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Although Keith has said that Ronnie could play like him, he has never showed that he actually can. I doubt it.

Stay With Me is not JJF or GS.

That's too specific. He's not talking licks, he's talking sound and attitude.

Ronnie's sound and attitude Rhythm-wise has always been thinner, more funky and with less attack, imo.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Although Keith has said that Ronnie could play like him, he has never showed that he actually can. I doubt it.

Stay With Me is not JJF or GS.

I don't think anyone can actually play like Keith Richards, because he is so idiosyncratic, so much based on feeling, unique timing, etc. But I don't think the question is of anyone being a total copy of someone else but more like having enough of understanding of that else's style and approach in order to fill about the same function the guy does in the band. Ronnie seems to share the same kind of rhythm-based approach towards guitar-playing Keith does, which I think sets him apart from many other players that were speculated for that job at the time. Of course, we can distinguish their style from each other rather easily - and Ronnie's versatility to do almost anything (he was the guy to carry the guitar duties all by his own in the Faces - but if compared to people like Taylor, Clapton and Perkins, Ronnie and Keith belong more to the same corner in the ring. I guess for someone like Jagger working with Ronnie wasn't much different as it was Keith (like he has pointed out by emphasizing Taylor's "melodic" approach both Keith and Ronnie seemingly are lacking of). And had Ronnie showed his abilities to fill a classical Richardsian function by writing a Rolling Stones single A-side (with Jagger) before joining the band...

The thing is also that Keith Richards of, say, from 1975 on, especially in 1978-82 was different and more versatile than the Keith Richards of Taylor years, especially the one of 1972/73, but, however, that 'stick to the rhythm and riffs and let someone else who knows that stuff better to do the leads -Richards' probably still was the on-going Richards at the time they were looking a replacement for Taylor. (A great thing about Keith has been that he never tried to copycat himself, but was evolving and changing as a guitarist all the way to the 90's, even though there is that 'signature sound' from the Big Four era, or certain chuck-berryish two note solos from teh early days, etc).

Anyway, I have also heard a story/theory that the choice of Ronnie was actually based on kicking the balls of Keith a bit. That he also needs to get his shit together and take more responsilities of the guitar department, since there was not any longer Taylor-class virtuoso in the band.

- Doxa

"The fact is Ronnie can play like me, but I can't play like Ronnie." — Keith (timeisonourside.com)

Ronnie said of some EMOTIONAL RESCUE guitar bit (on Where the Boys All Go or Summer Romance, I forget which), "Keith says that's him playing, but it's actually me playing like Keith." (Paraphrase from memory, and I forget which magazine I read this in.)

Quote
Doxa
I guess there have been times when Jagger has wished the band to contain a Taylor kind of melodic guitar player (like his solo tour band had), but I wouldn't stress that too far. Since 1989 he has taken care of that kind of factor by having Chuck Leavell, backing up singers, etc. to help with his vocals.

- Doxa

I do think you're comparing apples to oranges here, at least it's difficult to imagine that Jagger was thinking that way.. Chuck Leavell, the backing up singers etc had a different mission in the Stones' musical spectrum than a guitarist like Taylor. Ron Wood was perfectly able to fulfill Taylor's melodic role (albeit in a much less impressive way than Taylor) but still good enough. Bringing up Chuck and the backing up singers etc from 1989 and onwards can be considered as a change of their contemporary sound, Jagger always looking foreward, like you stated rightfully. And Jagger as a lead singer was doing ok anyway at that time.

It wasn't until 1973 that Taylor really started playing melodic lines that where supporting Jagger or crossing his vocal lines, but that definitely wasn't planned but merely considered as overplaying because he was "bored to tears" according to Taylor himself. Prior to that -1969 -1972 Taylor was still heavily contributing as a rhythm player, the Stones where a rocking 2 guitar band, and there where the horns plus in 1973, Billy Preston.

By saying that Jagger took care of the absence of a Taylorish player like you posted I think you overestimate the musical role of every individual player brought up here.

Quote
dcba

If your "body mass index" exceeds 15 you can't be a Stones.

By definition, they are very lithe; as you know, 1 Stone = 14 pounds.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-01-23 22:46 by camper88.

Quote
DancelittleSister

Quote
Doxa
I guess there have been times when Jagger has wished the band to contain a Taylor kind of melodic guitar player (like his solo tour band had), but I wouldn't stress that too far. Since 1989 he has taken care of that kind of factor by having Chuck Leavell, backing up singers, etc. to help with his vocals.

- Doxa

I do think you're comparing apples to oranges here, at least it's difficult to imagine that Jagger was thinking that way.. Chuck Leavell, the backing up singers etc had a different mission in the Stones' musical spectrum than a guitarist like Taylor. Ron Wood was perfectly able to fulfill Taylor's melodic role (albeit in a much less impressive way than Taylor) but still good enough. Bringing up Chuck and the backing up singers etc from 1989 and onwards can be considered as a change of their contemporary sound, Jagger always looking foreward, like you stated rightfully. And Jagger as a lead singer was doing ok anyway at that time.

It wasn't until 1973 that Taylor really started playing melodic lines that where supporting Jagger or crossing his vocal lines, but that definitely wasn't planned but merely considered as overplaying because he was "bored to tears" according to Taylor himself. Prior to that -1969 -1972 Taylor was still heavily contributing as a rhythm player, the Stones where a rocking 2 guitar band, and there where the horns plus in 1973, Billy Preston.

By saying that Jagger took care of the absence of a Taylorish player like you posted I think you overestimate the musical role of every individual player brought up here.

Fine points, dancelittlesister, thank you.

You are absolutely right that these things are 'apples and oranges', and that Mick surely not was thinking in 1989 that 'I will take care of the Taylor factor by having all these backing up people like Leavell, etc.'. No, I didn't mean that. It is more like the new Stones 'order', established in 1989, was arranged in such a way that there wasn't need or role for such a guitar player any longer (which is also to say that the band altogether didn't rely on the guitar department as much as it had done earlier). What he seemingly needed was to make the show as pro, calculated and disciplined as possible, thereby making it an easier template - with the help of a better technology - for him to sing and perform. The role of 'musical director' Leavell - probably the guy Jagger mostly nowadays follows and listens while performs - and the backing up singers literally backing up Jagger on choruses and so, was a part of the deal. It was a very different kind of rock and roll band by constitution than the one with Mick Taylor back in the day. Even though the Stones had back-up players during teh classical old time tours, I don't think Jagger was able to rely on them as much - if he even could even hear them through the loud guitars... (I could easily hear Jagger saying something to the effect that 'shit, what did I know about what Nicky or Billy were doing, since all I hear was Keith's guitar ringing in one ear, and Taylor's on the other... try to cope with there..).

The reason I mentioned it was because Jagger himself have sometimes talked about Taylor's melodic way of playing as giving him a guide and help as a singer, and this issue has been brought on the table here sometimes. I just wanted to point out that from 1989 Jagger had no any reason to 'miss' Taylor for that. So much had changed by then.

You also brought an interesting point about when Taylor actually did that 'melodic support', and we could also ask what that actually is. The 'over-playing' of 1973 tour could be an obvious answer, but I am not sure if Jagger only refers to that. It is, however, about five years period Taylor was with them, and it doubtable that Jagger only remembers the last tour he was with them. My quess is that he has a general idea what it was like playing with Taylor, including concerts, rehearsals, recording sessions, jammings... that sort of melodicity comes across all over the board, it doesn't have to be very specific, or like doing it all the time (a'la 'over-playing of 1973), but like occasionally directing the right direction by melodic appoach, hitting the right notes for a singer. But it seemingly is something Jagger feels like not getting from Richards or Wood. Probably Wood was able to do that to an extent during 1975 tour when he was filling Taylor's shoes, but who knows if that was enough for Jagger who was 'spoiled' with Taylor...

But then again, Jagger seemingly speaks only about guitarists - comparing Taylor to Richards and Wood. It could be that he actually got the needed 'melodical support' already from other sources back in the day. For example, the role of saxophonists during 1981/82 tour could have been one. If we look at the recent releases of HAMPTON or LEEDS, there is almost Taylor-like 'over-playing' coming from that section... very melodic, even 'Taylorisque' in pieces, compared to what Keith and Woodie were doing in the height of their free-going weaving...

Another thing is that those post-Taylor tours from 1975 to 1982 when the band heavily relied on Richards/Wood axis are not exactly remembered from Jagger's superb singing delivery, quite the opposite... (of course, this is a matter of taste, and I know some people would disagree rather strongly...). however, I am sure there are also many other factors affecting on that.

- Doxa

P.S. Did I do any better this time?



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2016-01-24 14:40 by Doxa.

Man, you're invincible.

Quote
dcba

Quote
Doxa


I have always had an impression that Perkins was Keith's favourite, and the actual choice of Ronnie was more like Mick's decision/suggestion. Keith, it has been claimed, needed to be assured since he was afraid that Ronnie and him were too similar guitar players.

to me it looks like that Keith himself was still at the time more in a Taylor or rhythm/lead guitar split mood and thought the new guitarist in the base of that idea. This is to say he had a new "Taylor" in his mind, and Perkins was a perfect choice for that.

- Doxa

My guess is they knew they had a goldmine in all these 69-74 songs MT had put his touch on. And they barely started to dig it live.
So in order to keep on capitalizing on these great songs that went very well live they needed Taylor... or a Taylor clone.

My guess is the 1975 tour was to be the coninuation of the 73 tour : GHS songs, melodic arrangements, long lyrical solos etc etc. Perkins could have brought that to the band.
Maybe they were planning to do TWFNO every night?

Very good point. And one more reason to understand why they were so pissed off for Taylor leaving, just after the release of a new album. For 1975 tour they needed to rely almost totally on a Taylor-influenced material. Even the album they released for a tour - MADE IN THE SHADE - was a pure Taylor-era complilation. There was literally nothing else to do than to fill Taylor's shoes. If Taylor had left after, say, 1973 tour - or done that 1975 tour still with them - it would have been easier for them to integrate a new guitarist to the band, having first released something with him. Things were an inch better for Wood in 1976 tour, having a hand in their new songs and sound (and a face in the album cover...)

Perkins would have been a logical choice for 1975. However, it would be interesting to know if the personel and 'funky' sound of that tour would have been similar had Taylor stayed - was that a natural 'continuation' of 1973 (like Billy was a big part of the sound of 1973 already) - or had Taylor's departure something to do with the reshaping the sound of the band for that tour - like thinking, 'okay, let's use this as opportunity to do something else'?

- Doxa

Anyway, I think this - a great old time thread with a substance - is a good place to say goodbye to all of all ofyou. I retire now, and I wish all the best for you. Be good and love the Stones! At least, that's what I am going to do, no matter if it hadn't been so explicit about it sometimes with my critical observations...

The passion! The Stones! BV and everybody, have a great tour, like always!

All yours,

And thank you... without you, nothing...

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-01-24 23:28 by Doxa.

You cannot be serious?????? This feels like Taylor leaving the Stones

Quote
dcba

Quote
Naturalust

LOL He probably should have gotten the traditional English shag haircut prior to the tryout and no doubt a couple more months with Keith and Anita would have had him looking like a Stone just fine.

If your "body mass index" exceeds 15 you can't be a Stones.

bbbb...but....maybe i could sub for two members of the band, or Darryl?