For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
Hairball
That Taylor part sounds almost like some modern classical piece...sprinkling his magic over the tune. Without him it would have still been a great chugger of a tune, but with him it's elevated to a holy level.
Like very fine and subtle brushstrokes in the hair of the Mona Lisa painted by Leonardo Da Vinci. Might not be the main attraction of the painting, but the finesse is evident when viewed as a whole.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Hairball
That Taylor part sounds almost like some modern classical piece...sprinkling his magic over the tune. Without him it would have still been a great chugger of a tune, but with him it's elevated to a holy level.
Like very fine and subtle brushstrokes in the hair of the Mona Lisa painted by Leonardo Da Vinci. Might not be the main attraction of the painting, but the finesse is evident when viewed as a whole.
Which part?
Quote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Hairball
That Taylor part sounds almost like some modern classical piece...sprinkling his magic over the tune. Without him it would have still been a great chugger of a tune, but with him it's elevated to a holy level.
Like very fine and subtle brushstrokes in the hair of the Mona Lisa painted by Leonardo Da Vinci. Might not be the main attraction of the painting, but the finesse is evident when viewed as a whole.
Which part?
This I assume :
[www.youtube.com]
Quote
Hairball
That Taylor part sounds almost like some modern classical piece...sprinkling his magic over the tune. Without him it would have still been a great chugger of a tune, but with him it's elevated to a holy level.
Like very fine and subtle brushstrokes in the hair of the Mona Lisa painted by Leonardo Da Vinci. Might not be the main attraction of the painting, but the finesse is evident when viewed as a whole.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Hairball
That Taylor part sounds almost like some modern classical piece...sprinkling his magic over the tune. Without him it would have still been a great chugger of a tune, but with him it's elevated to a holy level.
Like very fine and subtle brushstrokes in the hair of the Mona Lisa painted by Leonardo Da Vinci. Might not be the main attraction of the painting, but the finesse is evident when viewed as a whole.
Which part?
This I assume :
[www.youtube.com]
That intro is Keith
The 5 seconds outro is nice indeed, although I think Hairball exaggerates its significance for the song.
Taylor is audible a few other places in the song as well, although it took some years, the Hopkins-tapes and the Exhibitionism-tracks to highlight those parts..
Quote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Hairball
That Taylor part sounds almost like some modern classical piece...sprinkling his magic over the tune. Without him it would have still been a great chugger of a tune, but with him it's elevated to a holy level.
Like very fine and subtle brushstrokes in the hair of the Mona Lisa painted by Leonardo Da Vinci. Might not be the main attraction of the painting, but the finesse is evident when viewed as a whole.
Which part?
This I assume :
[www.youtube.com]
That intro is Keith
The 5 seconds outro is nice indeed, although I think Hairball exaggerates its significance for the song.
Taylor is audible a few other places in the song as well, although it took some years, the Hopkins-tapes and the Exhibitionism-tracks to highlight those parts..
I'm referring to the "Hammond" sounding guitar, Mathijs pointed at it a while ago.
And:
[clyp.it]
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Hairball
That Taylor part sounds almost like some modern classical piece...sprinkling his magic over the tune. Without him it would have still been a great chugger of a tune, but with him it's elevated to a holy level.
Like very fine and subtle brushstrokes in the hair of the Mona Lisa painted by Leonardo Da Vinci. Might not be the main attraction of the painting, but the finesse is evident when viewed as a whole.
Which part?
This I assume :
[www.youtube.com]
That intro is Keith
The 5 seconds outro is nice indeed, although I think Hairball exaggerates its significance for the song.
Taylor is audible a few other places in the song as well, although it took some years, the Hopkins-tapes and the Exhibitionism-tracks to highlight those parts..
I'm referring to the "Hammond" sounding guitar, Mathijs pointed at it a while ago.
And:
[clyp.it]
I know, but expected to hear the outro in your link.
I agree about Taylor's track making the song better, though (not the outro in particular). It sort of ties the other guitars together, imo.
Quote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Hairball
That Taylor part sounds almost like some modern classical piece...sprinkling his magic over the tune. Without him it would have still been a great chugger of a tune, but with him it's elevated to a holy level.
Like very fine and subtle brushstrokes in the hair of the Mona Lisa painted by Leonardo Da Vinci. Might not be the main attraction of the painting, but the finesse is evident when viewed as a whole.
Which part?
This I assume :
[www.youtube.com]
That intro is Keith
The 5 seconds outro is nice indeed, although I think Hairball exaggerates its significance for the song.
Taylor is audible a few other places in the song as well, although it took some years, the Hopkins-tapes and the Exhibitionism-tracks to highlight those parts..
I'm referring to the "Hammond" sounding guitar, Mathijs pointed at it a while ago.
And:
[clyp.it]
Quote
Hairball
Posted by mrpaulincanada in the Exhibition thread which is linked to above by peoplewitheyes in the first post of this thread- I was referring to this:
Rocks Off - Mick Taylor guitar
As I said "sounds almost like some modern classical piece...without him it would have still been a great chugger of a tune, but with him it's elevated to a holy level",
and as Redhotcarpet stated, "It's subtle but very important".
edit: I see TheflyingDutchman zeroed in on what I was referring to above.
Quote
Palace Revolution 2000Quote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Hairball
That Taylor part sounds almost like some modern classical piece...sprinkling his magic over the tune. Without him it would have still been a great chugger of a tune, but with him it's elevated to a holy level.
Like very fine and subtle brushstrokes in the hair of the Mona Lisa painted by Leonardo Da Vinci. Might not be the main attraction of the painting, but the finesse is evident when viewed as a whole.
Which part?
This I assume :
[www.youtube.com]
That intro is Keith
The 5 seconds outro is nice indeed, although I think Hairball exaggerates its significance for the song.
Taylor is audible a few other places in the song as well, although it took some years, the Hopkins-tapes and the Exhibitionism-tracks to highlight those parts..
I'm referring to the "Hammond" sounding guitar, Mathijs pointed at it a while ago.
And:
[clyp.it]
What do you mean by "Hammond" guitar Dutchman?
I almost wish I had never heard the solo-ed Taylor track, because it is ALL I can hear now on the official version LOL.
It is pretty amazing how the lead vocals make this song; pull it together, and give it so much of its identity and fire. This is one of my alltime favorite Stones tracks by far. But the instrumental track alone, could easily have come out of one of the Pathe Marconi outtake sessions. A solid swinging Stonesgroove, sure, but its the vocals that make it.
Quote
LieB
That Taylor track is interesting - so much there that you can't really hear in the master mix. But for example at 0:28 in the clip, there's definitely a familiar part that cuts through in the master.
I agree it has a calypso feel to it with a lot of major notes. As I wrote in the other thread (thinking it was this thread), I kinda wish Mick T's contribution to this track was bigger or more audible, but then again it's really well balanced as it is. I can imagine he was disappointed at times at how the mixes were done (at least on Exile - on Sticky, GHS and IORR his contributions were more obvious).
Quote
DandelionPowderman
I reckon he means the out of phase-sound Taylor had on this song. Sort of Leslie-sounding (aka Hammond).
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
LieB
That Taylor track is interesting - so much there that you can't really hear in the master mix. But for example at 0:28 in the clip, there's definitely a familiar part that cuts through in the master.
I agree it has a calypso feel to it with a lot of major notes. As I wrote in the other thread (thinking it was this thread), I kinda wish Mick T's contribution to this track was bigger or more audible, but then again it's really well balanced as it is. I can imagine he was disappointed at times at how the mixes were done (at least on Exile - on Sticky, GHS and IORR his contributions were more obvious).
Yeah, it's puzzling. But keep in mind that these tracks aren't complete. The things we actually hear on the master (after the intro + a few other places + the outro) is not included here, maybe with the exception of what's going on round 0:28.
And the sound of this track is very different to that of the outro solo guitar, for instance.
Makes me wonder if this was an earlier take from Taylor...