Quote
CousinC
You always have to consider the times.

In late 60s/ early 70's Rock music it was all about lead guitar playing.
I remember critics from 1970 shows writing of "just uninspired, simple RocknRoll without any virtuoso performance".

A few years later with punk it all changed.
Woody coming in at the right time again.

So true. But the punk influence just lasted a couple of years. Had the Stones followed the idea of 'yeah, we need a guitar player to suit for the times' they should have replaced Ronnie with some Eddie Van Halen type of guitar player by the beginning of the 80's. Both unflashy, almost sloppy Keith and Ronnie were as guitar players so out of synch with the times during the 80's - actually they were like an anti-thesis to whatever happened during that decade within guitar department. Which was cool, at least for a kid like me back then... Jagger, however, tried at least to an extent to follow the times by picking up guitarists hot at the time (Beck, Satriani, etc)... To be true, Keith, to an extent, tried to discover a some kind of 80's style guitar hero out of him - and forgetting about everything he once was so proud of - when they made a come back in 1989, but that didn't last long.

That said, the 80's were fatal for the Stones to be any kind of competent contempary rock band any longer - like they still coped with backing in the 70's although not being any kind of 'leader' as they were back in the 60's. The genre just developed to the directions that simply were out of their reach any longer. They were what they were, like when they did their come back in 1989, the elder statemen of the rock, and that's it. They didn't need to be anything else, since no one wanted them be anything else nor to change any longer. Quite the contrary. This also meant that the Stones weren't any longer able to charm the younger - and about last big - rock fan generations who learned their basics during the 80's and early 90's.

But today thinking those times when they still were about the hottest band in the world, trying to evolve according to the criterion of the the times, and doing great and convincingly there, be it the hard blues rock with flying lead guitars of the golden days of 'classic rock' or trying to compete with the raunchy punks who were proud of not being to play their instruments properly... it is all nostalgia now. All of that is as quaint as it can be... The idea of anyone being cool by playing an electric guitar is pretty quaint now...

The Stones survived it all... But they really aren't anything else what they once learn and earned their reputation and achieved their musical competence. The end of the 60's and beginning of the 70's - the 'Taylor Era' - having a huge musical role there. It is like in the history of 'classic rock' it was just a question of few years, but so many important things happened just then... I personally think that their transformation from the experimental pop band and as a main rival of the Beatles (an incredible achievement an sich!) to the 'modern', convincing rock band of the 70's was their biggest artistic achievement ever. They suddenly were like a whole different band. BRUSSELS AFFAIR altogether is like a master thesis of all that development: it speaks in terms even non-Stones fans still today are amazed in hearing what an incredible rock band they truely were at their peak. No idiosyncratic or acquired taste nor any explanatory addition of 'ancient art of weaving' or anything is needed. The Stones speaks there in such universal terms that anyone digging rock music understands.

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2020-10-22 02:14 by Doxa.

Quote
straycatuk
I find it unlistenable due to Taylor's endless noodling.


sc uk

Ask Charlie Watts what he thinks about your comment.Taylor was incredible on stage at Brussels.He wasn’t noodling.His playing off Keith perfectly.And on songs like Rambler and Street Fighting Man he helps contribute to performances of incredible energy ,passionand rhythm.And it is not a knock on Wood .I think his playing with the Stones at times has been great also,just different



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2020-10-22 04:05 by Taylor1.

Quote
Taylor1

Quote
straycatuk
I find it unlistenable due to Taylor's endless noodling.


sc uk

Ask Charlie Watts what he thinks about your comment.Taylor was incredible on stage at Brussels.He wasn’t noodling.His playing off Keith perfectly.And on songs like Rambler and Street Fighting Man he helps contribute to performances of incredible energy ,passionand rhythm.And it is not a knock on Wood .I think his playing with the Stones at times has been great also,just different

On songs like Brown Sugar, JJF and Happy that is simply not true.

What do you wanna hear when you hear Brown Sugar - «yeah, yeah, yeah, whooo», or a guitar that constantly does runs. Isolated, what he plays is great there, but he's not playing off Keith (or the band, for that matter)

Quote
DandelionPowderman

What do you wanna hear when you hear Brown Sugar - «yeah, yeah, yeah, whooo», or a guitar that constantly does runs. Isolated, what he plays is great there, but he's not playing off Keith (or the band, for that matter)

Well put; and I agree. Brown Sugar is all about the combined energy of the band. Taylor's a fabulous player and brought so much to a live-setting, but songs such as Brown Sugar and Tumbling Dice rely more on a groove.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Taylor1
I was just listening to Midnight Rambler from Brussels without the vocals to focus on the guitars and Taylor and particularly Keith are on fire.Anyone who says Keith wasn’t playing well on that tour should listen to Rambler .His playing including his solos are ferocious and perfectly rhythmic

I personally think that that particular performance of "Midnight Rambler" is Keith's biggest hour as a guitar player (not that he doesn't shine many other times in that number and others, but this Brussells one is an ultimate performance, THE peak moment, perfect by all means). His rhythm work is simply transcendental and touching levels no any guitar player ever has done. The band altogether is an incredible form, each doing about best they ever can, but to me Keith is the star of that performance. He makes everyone fly ('I shine when the band shines' - bloody hell Keith - you more than do that!)

- Doxa

Agreed. He really is in a zone, perhaps his ultimate zone. As is Mr. Taylor.


plexi

Quote
Big Al

Quote
DandelionPowderman

What do you wanna hear when you hear Brown Sugar - «yeah, yeah, yeah, whooo», or a guitar that constantly does runs. Isolated, what he plays is great there, but he's not playing off Keith (or the band, for that matter)

Well put; and I agree. Brown Sugar is all about the combined energy of the band. Taylor's a fabulous player and brought so much to a live-setting, but songs such as Brown Sugar and Tumbling Dice rely more on a groove.

I want to hear Taylor.That is not even true about his runs.His runs don’t slow down or speed up those songs.They perfectly help propel the music forward.By their counterpoint to Keith’s playing, they actually enhance Keith’s rhythmic playing and enhance the groove .If all you have is Keith’s chords on some of these songs the groove sounds unexciting..Try listening to All Down the Line or Street Fighting Man circa 1972 -1973 without Taylor’s guitar and tell me the “groove”is enhanced.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Taylor1

Quote
straycatuk
I find it unlistenable due to Taylor's endless noodling.


sc uk

Ask Charlie Watts what he thinks about your comment.Taylor was incredible on stage at Brussels.He wasn’t noodling.His playing off Keith perfectly.And on songs like Rambler and Street Fighting Man he helps contribute to performances of incredible energy ,passionand rhythm.And it is not a knock on Wood .I think his playing with the Stones at times has been great also,just different

On songs like Brown Sugar, JJF and Happy that is simply not true.

What do you wanna hear when you hear Brown Sugar - «yeah, yeah, yeah, whooo», or a guitar that constantly does runs. Isolated, what he plays is great there, but he's not playing off Keith (or the band, for that matter)

If the case is a band being in such a form as The Rolling Stones in 1973 I gladly hear the both.

Actually I listened all those three songs you mentioned in BRUSSELS AFFAIR and, honestly, I really can't see or hear what is the problem there. First of all, Keith plays in each track like a monster, and the band breathes his riffs 110 percent, making such a groove no one knows. Probably I have never heard Keith sounding better or stronger than that. Keith doesn't need any help there: he leads the band and the songs with his determinate and powerful riffing. Then, secondly, we have Taylor icing the cake, adding there an exciting dimension of lyricism - and what is arrangementwise thrilling especially in "Brown Sugar" is how he starts to play more and more runs as the song starts to reach the climax. Just perfect - a good drama, a good story. (Actually in "Flash" Taylor almost downplays if compared to the crazy but genius counter stuff to the riff he does in LADIES AND GENTLEMEN version a year earlier). Taylor is like Brian in the old days: adding a different voice to MIck and Keith show which makes the outcome - at least to my ears - musically richer and more exciting.

So my humble question is: What actually is the problem here? That of not able to listen two different guitars at the same time doing incredible stuff, although varying by role and style? One cannot listen great lead and rhythm guitar work simultanously?

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2020-10-22 14:07 by Doxa.

If folks don’t like Taylor’s guitar on Brussels you can remove his guitar with simple software before you listen to it.Sometimes if you play just one speaker on some automobile stereo systems you will get only Keith’s guitar on certain bootleg cds.Then you can hear the grooves the way you want to

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Taylor1

Quote
straycatuk
I find it unlistenable due to Taylor's endless noodling.


sc uk

Ask Charlie Watts what he thinks about your comment.Taylor was incredible on stage at Brussels.He wasn’t noodling.His playing off Keith perfectly.And on songs like Rambler and Street Fighting Man he helps contribute to performances of incredible energy ,passionand rhythm.And it is not a knock on Wood .I think his playing with the Stones at times has been great also,just different

On songs like Brown Sugar, JJF and Happy that is simply not true.

What do you wanna hear when you hear Brown Sugar - «yeah, yeah, yeah, whooo», or a guitar that constantly does runs. Isolated, what he plays is great there, but he's not playing off Keith (or the band, for that matter)

If the case is a band being in such a form as The Rolling Stones in 1973 I gladly hear the both.

Actually I listened all those three songs you mentioned in BRUSSELS AFFAIR and, honestly, I really can't see or hear what is the problem there. First of all, Keith plays in each track like a monster, and the band breathes his riffs 110 percent, making such a groove no one knows. Probably I have never heard Keith sounding better or stronger than that. Keith doesn't need any help there: he leads the band and the songs with his determinate and powerful riffing. Then, secondly, we have Taylor icing the cake, adding there an exciting dimension of lyricism - and what is arrangementwise thrilling especially in "Brown Sugar" is how he starts to play more and more runs as the song starts to reach the climax. Just perfect - a good drama, a good story. (Actually in "Flash" Taylor almost downplays if compared to the crazy but genius counter stuff to the riff he does in LADIES AND GENTLEMEN version a year earlier). Taylor is like Brian in the old days: adding a different voice to MIck and Keith show which makes the outcome - at least to my ears - musically richer and more exciting.

So my humble question is: What actually is the problem here? That of not able to listen two different guitars at the same time doing incredible stuff, although varying by role and style? One cannot listen great lead and rhythm guitar work simultanously?

- Doxa

This is a matter of taste, of course.

However, for me, it goes back to what I was trying to emphasise on MR: The brilliant interplay between Taylor and Keith – where they are complementing each other, and adding something based on what the other guy is doing. They're making music together.

On the other examples I gave, one guy is trailblazing through parts, where there is vocals and a whole band-sound that I would have preferred shone through.

But that's me

For those here who've heard more from this tour than I - I only know the Brussels show's -, what are some of the prime examples of Taylor's overplaying? Any particular individual performances, or shows as a whole?

I think the original Brussels boots, with the London versions of Happy, Heartbreaker, Gimme Shelter and SFM, is really the best ever music the Stones ever recorded. I find Taylor's and Richards work just to be utterly incredible.

That said, the second Brussels show as officially released is less enjoyable due to the mix, but I still think a very good show. Other good shows are Birmingham, the Rotterdam shows, the London shows, Berlin.

It was really the middle part, with Munich and Essen etc, that are quite sloppy and uninspired, with slow tempo's, and Taylor indeed sounding bored and often sounding more like he's doing scale exercises than really properly giving his best.

Mathijs

Quote
Mathijs
I think the original Brussels boots, with the London versions of Happy, Heartbreaker, Gimme Shelter and SFM, is really the best ever music the Stones ever recorded. I find Taylor's and Richards work just to be utterly incredible.

That said, the second Brussels show as officially released is less enjoyable due to the mix, but I still think a very good show. Other good shows are Birmingham, the Rotterdam shows, the London shows, Berlin.

It was really the middle part, with Munich and Essen etc, that are quite sloppy and uninspired, with slow tempo's, and Taylor indeed sounding bored and often sounding more like he's doing scale exercises than really properly giving his best.

Mathijs

I know this is not related to this topic, Mathijs, but you seem to know more about music than meand most people here,, what is your opinion of Goddess in a Doorway. People hate it so much, but Ilike it and it seems Mick was trying to do something different

If THAT'S what un-listenable is, I'll take it!!!...

Quote
Mathijs
I think the original Brussels boots, with the London versions of Happy, Heartbreaker, Gimme Shelter and SFM, is really the best ever music the Stones ever recorded. I find Taylor's and Richards work just to be utterly incredible.

That said, the second Brussels show as officially released is less enjoyable due to the mix, but I still think a very good show. Other good shows are Birmingham, the Rotterdam shows, the London shows, Berlin.

It was really the middle part, with Munich and Essen etc, that are quite sloppy and uninspired, with slow tempo's, and Taylor indeed sounding bored and often sounding more like he's doing scale exercises than really properly giving his best.

Mathijs

Happy London 1973
video: [youtu.be]

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Taylor1

Quote
straycatuk
I find it unlistenable due to Taylor's endless noodling.


sc uk

Ask Charlie Watts what he thinks about your comment.Taylor was incredible on stage at Brussels.He wasn’t noodling.His playing off Keith perfectly.And on songs like Rambler and Street Fighting Man he helps contribute to performances of incredible energy ,passionand rhythm.And it is not a knock on Wood .I think his playing with the Stones at times has been great also,just different

On songs like Brown Sugar, JJF and Happy that is simply not true.

What do you wanna hear when you hear Brown Sugar - «yeah, yeah, yeah, whooo», or a guitar that constantly does runs. Isolated, what he plays is great there, but he's not playing off Keith (or the band, for that matter)

I think Taylor's best playing was with Dylan in 1984. With Dylan he used his guitar playing to show off the songs. When playing with the Rolling Stones in the 1970s he used the songs to show off his guitar playing. I love his playing on the 1969 tour, though.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Taylor1

Quote
straycatuk
I find it unlistenable due to Taylor's endless noodling.


sc uk

Ask Charlie Watts what he thinks about your comment.Taylor was incredible on stage at Brussels.He wasn’t noodling.His playing off Keith perfectly.And on songs like Rambler and Street Fighting Man he helps contribute to performances of incredible energy ,passionand rhythm.And it is not a knock on Wood .I think his playing with the Stones at times has been great also,just different

On songs like Brown Sugar, JJF and Happy that is simply not true.

What do you wanna hear when you hear Brown Sugar - «yeah, yeah, yeah, whooo», or a guitar that constantly does runs. Isolated, what he plays is great there, but he's not playing off Keith (or the band, for that matter)

If the case is a band being in such a form as The Rolling Stones in 1973 I gladly hear the both.

Actually I listened all those three songs you mentioned in BRUSSELS AFFAIR and, honestly, I really can't see or hear what is the problem there. First of all, Keith plays in each track like a monster, and the band breathes his riffs 110 percent, making such a groove no one knows. Probably I have never heard Keith sounding better or stronger than that. Keith doesn't need any help there: he leads the band and the songs with his determinate and powerful riffing. Then, secondly, we have Taylor icing the cake, adding there an exciting dimension of lyricism - and what is arrangementwise thrilling especially in "Brown Sugar" is how he starts to play more and more runs as the song starts to reach the climax. Just perfect - a good drama, a good story. (Actually in "Flash" Taylor almost downplays if compared to the crazy but genius counter stuff to the riff he does in LADIES AND GENTLEMEN version a year earlier). Taylor is like Brian in the old days: adding a different voice to MIck and Keith show which makes the outcome - at least to my ears - musically richer and more exciting.

So my humble question is: What actually is the problem here? That of not able to listen two different guitars at the same time doing incredible stuff, although varying by role and style? One cannot listen great lead and rhythm guitar work simultanously?

- Doxa

This is a matter of taste, of course.

However, for me, it goes back to what I was trying to emphasise on MR: The brilliant interplay between Taylor and Keith – where they are complementing each other, and adding something based on what the other guy is doing. They're making music together.

On the other examples I gave, one guy is trailblazing through parts, where there is vocals and a whole band-sound that I would have preferred shone through.

But that's me

As usual Dandy is spot on! However I think Happy was always a treat with Taylor as well, especially London sounds so good. For me the worst 2 live versions EVER with noodling and destroying a song is

1. Dead Flowers in 1970/71, poor Taylor is bored to death here, the song just CRAVES a b-bender or a lap steel.

2. Brown Sugar in 1975. Preston just kills it with the weird sounds. Wasn't Keith clear enough when he flicked the knife in '73?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-10-23 14:06 by MadMax.

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
Taylor1
I was just listening to Midnight Rambler from Brussels without the vocals to focus on the guitars and Taylor and particularly Keith are on fire.Anyone who says Keith wasn’t playing well on that tour should listen to Rambler .His playing including his solos are ferocious and perfectly rhythmic

Of course he's perfect at Brussels, but the thing is that there times that he was so wasted that it spoiled everything, especially in Switzerland. I always feel so bad for Mick when listening to the 2 first Swiss shows.

The shows in Berne, Switzerland, september '73, were the greatest ever, Eric, 'cause it was the first time I saw and heard the band live, beeing 19, and it was wham bangm in your face ....

Resotele

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
Big Al

Quote
Captain Teague

Quote
straycatuk
I find it unlistenable due to Taylor's endless noodling.


sc uk

No one seems to have 'bitten' on this comment!

Yet, i 'get' the point. Taylor really did overplay at times. Many, here, evidently really enjoy the noodling, but it detracts from the raucousness of Keith's rhythm-work a little. I suppose there is an occasional sense of overkill on Taylor's part. I, personally, prefer his performances from what I've heard of the '69 U.S.A. tour; Ya-Ya's and Louder Than You'll Ever Be.

To each own, but I love Taylor's "noodling", he's the brilliant guitarplayer I know, after Hendrix and Clapton. But I see that can go over the line like in Frankfurt 1973, for some.

To each own indeed, but I neither ever have had problems with so called "noodling" by Taylor. I think what he does fits perfectly to the over-all sound of the Stones at the time. The whole European tour 1973 was such a guitar fiesta the Stones ever have had, both Taylor and Keith just doing what they do best: Keith mastering the riff and rhythm section the way only he can do, while Taylor taking care of the laed guitar duties, and playing like a star pupil of that British 'guitar god' class he is, mostly whole gas on, with no use for brakes. Surely there were some off nights (especially in the case of Keith), but I over-all think that the way those two guys interact, that's the outcome of the experience having played some years together, both sticking to what they know best, and trusting 100% each other.

To me the idea of Taylor with his supposed 'over-playing' somehow prevents Keith's guitar to distinguish enough or something like that, sounds odd. I never have thought the Stones should emphasize somehow some singular instrument by the cost of the others. Or that all these Joneses, Taylors and Woods should be downplay in order to the the art of Keith's guitar to shine clear and distinct. No, I think the Stones, if anything, are a band of team-play, all the contributors making such a funny noise together, in which the sum is more than its parts. I think the balance between the guitarists was perfect in 1973 - Keith and Taylor are supporting each other - and more important: the over-all sound of the band. Especially when I listen to the magnificiant Brussels version of "Midnight Rambler" - the peak of anything - I find it just thrilling, even mind-blowing to 'follow' what the hell happens in the guitar section. Both having a crucial role in making the over-all impression. The interplay between the two powerful guitarists is just so breath-taking.

- Doxa

Right on Doxa. I tend to agree with most of your postings . . . I have no issue with Taylor's so-called noodling; in fact I feel it carries the song/band along. It also provides depth and layers to their sound. I just get a warm fuzzy feeling with him at lead guitar. For example the beginning of Honky Tonk Roundhouse 1971, his little "noodling" is so playful, brings a smile to my face everytime.