Quote
Taylor1

Quote
Topi

Quote
bakersfield
I though the Clapton version was recorded on Keith's birthday in 1970?
While I'm here I also thought Jahisnotdead's post was excellent.

Nico Zentgraf has the Clapton one in 1969. But the date was indeed December 18:

Quote

691209A 9th, 10th & 18th December: London, Olympic Sound Studios. Producer: Jimmy Miller.
Sound engineer: Glyn Johns.
- Brown Sugar III (MJ/KR) -STU on piano; partly to be heard in Gimme
Shelter-movie, released on Hot Rocks (by mistake on 1st pressings only!)
- Brown Sugar IV (MJ/KR) -STU on piano; Bobby Keys on sax, Al Kooper and
Eric Clapton on guitars (18th December); Sticky Fingers Deluxe-version

[www.nzentgraf.de]

The album version was recorded at Muscle Shoals before the Clapton one, and overdubs like the sax were done later

I have always thought the version of BS with Clapton was recorded on December 18, 1970, not 1969.

For instance, Marc Roberty’s book, Eric Clapton Day By Day The Early Years 1963-1982 puts it that way.

Quote
timmyj3

Quote
EddieByword
I think "All the rage" would have been pretty decent in BS's place..........

Also, I noticed that except for 2 renditions, they also dropped iorr from the setlist.........

I personally have never cared for live IORR after the 75 tour. I really loved the 1975 lurching chugging version. Never cared much for it from 76 on live, always seemed too fast and it changed the DNA of the song.

The studio version is fantastic with the slinky slow build up. Underrated in my opinion.

Co-incidentally, my fave version is Toronto 17.6.'75 - The love you Live version (Getting natty dreddy)..... and Mick's version with Foo Fighters.......



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-01-05 21:42 by EddieByword.

Haha, yeah Miss You could be next. And the list goes on and on. They're just too offensive. Think I'm going to censor myself just to be safe.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-01-05 22:53 by frankotero.

You shoulda hoyd 'em just around midnight

You know, it's funny. I feel like I remember this same board complaining about how many warhorses were played at shows from 2012-2019. Now they remove one warhorse and free up a space for a new song and people complain.

Personally, I'd love to have heard it again this tour but I get why it was left off the setlist.

Heard there's now mounting protests to
ban the Fab Fours - Piggies because of the word d--m



ROCKMAN

Yes, Beatles are very offensive. Can't believe the Queen fell for it and gave them MBE's. We need to turn the past upside down and reveal all it's evil. I mean all that peace and love, really

not trying to make any kinda point with this just found it on youtube and kinda liked it








Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-01-06 00:46 by ProfessorWolf.

Quote
Big Al
Doesn't the Fonda Theater rendition of Brown Sugar clock in at around eight minutes? I'm in agreement that it needs to be trimmed a little. If they were to ever open with it - which they wont! - I would imagine that it'd have to be a shorter rendition, like when they did so during some of the Licks tour stadium shows. When did these longwinded, drawn-out performances start, anyway? I don't recollect any pre-2012 performances having noticeably overly long outro's.

Really? Since Steel Wheels they've made the warhorses extra long.

Quote
Justin

Quote
Big Al
Doesn't the Fonda Theater rendition of Brown Sugar clock in at around eight minutes? I'm in agreement that it needs to be trimmed a little. If they were to ever open with it - which they wont! - I would imagine that it'd have to be a shorter rendition, like when they did so during some of the Licks tour stadium shows. When did these longwinded, drawn-out performances start, anyway? I don't recollect any pre-2012 performances having noticeably overly long outro's.

Really? Since Steel Wheels they've made the warhorses extra long.

Well, it just seems to be that Brown Sugar, in particular, has had it’s outro extended a fair bit in recent years. It was a far tighter, concise performance, pre-2012, if I recollect.

Quote
BeforeTheyMakeMeRun
You know, it's funny. I feel like I remember this same board complaining about how many warhorses were played at shows from 2012-2019. Now they remove one warhorse and free up a space for a new song and people complain.

Personally, I'd love to have heard it again this tour but I get why it was left off the setlist.

But... they didn't add a new song.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
BeforeTheyMakeMeRun
You know, it's funny. I feel like I remember this same board complaining about how many warhorses were played at shows from 2012-2019. Now they remove one warhorse and free up a space for a new song and people complain.

Personally, I'd love to have heard it again this tour but I get why it was left off the setlist.

But... they didn't add a new song.

GHOST TOWN was the new song they added.

Bjornulf

Quote
Big Al

Quote
Justin

Quote
Big Al
Doesn't the Fonda Theater rendition of Brown Sugar clock in at around eight minutes? I'm in agreement that it needs to be trimmed a little. If they were to ever open with it - which they wont! - I would imagine that it'd have to be a shorter rendition, like when they did so during some of the Licks tour stadium shows. When did these longwinded, drawn-out performances start, anyway? I don't recollect any pre-2012 performances having noticeably overly long outro's.

Really? Since Steel Wheels they've made the warhorses extra long.

Well, it just seems to be that Brown Sugar, in particular, has had it’s outro extended a fair bit in recent years. It was a far tighter, concise performance, pre-2012, if I recollect.

The best version I ever saw was on the Licks tour in Vegas (MGM). They played it on the little stage with just the basic band & Bobby Keyes. Very stripped down. I've seen them do that song at every show I've seen & this version was awesome. They got their groove on for sure!

Quote
crholmstrom

Quote
Big Al

Quote
Justin

Quote
Big Al
Doesn't the Fonda Theater rendition of Brown Sugar clock in at around eight minutes? I'm in agreement that it needs to be trimmed a little. If they were to ever open with it - which they wont! - I would imagine that it'd have to be a shorter rendition, like when they did so during some of the Licks tour stadium shows. When did these longwinded, drawn-out performances start, anyway? I don't recollect any pre-2012 performances having noticeably overly long outro's.

Really? Since Steel Wheels they've made the warhorses extra long.

Well, it just seems to be that Brown Sugar, in particular, has had it’s outro extended a fair bit in recent years. It was a far tighter, concise performance, pre-2012, if I recollect.

The best version I ever saw was on the Licks tour in Vegas (MGM). They played it on the little stage with just the basic band & Bobby Keyes. Very stripped down. I've seen them do that song at every show I've seen & this version was awesome. They got their groove on for sure!

One of my favourites is the rendition from their 2005 A Bigger Bang tour press conference: just the core group, minus Bobby Keys' saxophone. Great solo from Ronnie instead! A very loose performance all round. They performed Oh No, Not You Again terrifically, too. In fact, it was so good, I remember being rather disappointed when I later heard the album version. Great guitar-work from Keith.

"Brown Sugar" never really did work after 1976, IMO, allthough BigAl is right that it was a real welcome verson at 2005 press onference.
It has always striked me, that even on the poor poor LA 1975 video concert (July 12th); "Brown Sugar" is brilliant. Maybe the only great performance that day.

Quote
Erik_Snow
"Brown Sugar" never really did work after 1976, IMO, allthough BigAl is right that it was a real welcome verson at 2005 press onference.
It has always striked me, that even on the poor poor LA 1975 video concert (July 12th); "Brown Sugar" is brilliant. Maybe the only great performance that day.

...and I think Billy's is ruining that whole performance! Another man's tea is another man's..

Quote
Big Al

Quote
crholmstrom

Quote
Big Al

Quote
Justin

Quote
Big Al
Doesn't the Fonda Theater rendition of Brown Sugar clock in at around eight minutes? I'm in agreement that it needs to be trimmed a little. If they were to ever open with it - which they wont! - I would imagine that it'd have to be a shorter rendition, like when they did so during some of the Licks tour stadium shows. When did these longwinded, drawn-out performances start, anyway? I don't recollect any pre-2012 performances having noticeably overly long outro's.

Really? Since Steel Wheels they've made the warhorses extra long.

Well, it just seems to be that Brown Sugar, in particular, has had it’s outro extended a fair bit in recent years. It was a far tighter, concise performance, pre-2012, if I recollect.

The best version I ever saw was on the Licks tour in Vegas (MGM). They played it on the little stage with just the basic band & Bobby Keyes. Very stripped down. I've seen them do that song at every show I've seen & this version was awesome. They got their groove on for sure!

One of my favourites is the rendition from their 2005 A Bigger Bang tour press conference: just the core group, minus Bobby Keys' saxophone. Great solo from Ronnie instead! A very loose performance all round. They performed Oh No, Not You Again terrifically, too. In fact, it was so good, I remember being rather disappointed when I later heard the album version. Great guitar-work from Keith.

As the encore in 2007 it was real long as well, just like B2B. Agree about ONNYA, live it was (is) great, on ABB not so much.

Quote
Big Al
Doesn't the Fonda Theater rendition of Brown Sugar clock in at around eight minutes? I'm in agreement that it needs to be trimmed a little. If they were to ever open with it - which they wont! - I would imagine that it'd have to be a shorter rendition, like when they did so during some of the Licks tour stadium shows. When did these longwinded, drawn-out performances start, anyway? I don't recollect any pre-2012 performances having noticeably overly long outro's.

Sympathy - Hyde park '69?..............18 mins.............there's always one, I know.........

Quote
bv

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
BeforeTheyMakeMeRun
You know, it's funny. I feel like I remember this same board complaining about how many warhorses were played at shows from 2012-2019. Now they remove one warhorse and free up a space for a new song and people complain.

Personally, I'd love to have heard it again this tour but I get why it was left off the setlist.

But... they didn't add a new song.

GHOST TOWN was the new song they added.

And occasionally Trouble's A-Comin.

It's funny, now when I hear Brown Sugar on the radio, or in a restaurant/bar, or background music anywhere, I don't just think "man I love this tune" but think about the new 'controversy' first...then go back to loving the music.

Quote
MadMax

Quote
Erik_Snow
"Brown Sugar" never really did work after 1976, IMO, allthough BigAl is right that it was a real welcome verson at 2005 press onference.
It has always striked me, that even on the poor poor LA 1975 video concert (July 12th); "Brown Sugar" is brilliant. Maybe the only great performance that day.

...and I think Billy's is ruining that whole performance! Another man's tea is another man's..

I agree, but it only last for some seconds, and also: it depends on the mix how high Billy is up.

Thanks for 'theconversation' link above. That was a good read, and I pretty much agree with the conclusion of it:

So does the Stones’ decision to pull the song damage the band’s reputation? Is this an act of censorship, injuring artistic freedom?

I would argue the ethical musician should defer to the sensibilities of the marginalised group. The cost here is the Rolling Stones won’t play Brown Sugar live. This isn’t censorship; the song is readily available. It isn’t even iconoclasm - music history is not damaged and no idols have been smashed.

The Stones’ decision to pull the song isn’t a confession of racism. It is an ethical act and, in itself, an act of artistic freedom that preserves their social license and affirms their ongoing cultural significance.

Be the reason anything - just tired of playing it, avoiding hassle, outer pressure, ethical act - in the end that's just theirs and no elses. Mick sings what he wants or not, and that's it.

But if we look at what Mick and Keith have said about the issue, one can easily see how difficult the issue is for them, at least saying something substantive in public.

Keith acknowledged the song's controversial nature and indirectly admitted that being the reason to drop it. But he pretty clearly made sure that he personally didn't see any problem with the song itself, that it is misunderstood and is anti-racial by nature. And seemingly once this confusion is cleared out, they will play it proudly again. But however, leaving his optimism aside, he still acknowledges that the decision or verdict is not on his shoulders, but on the ones of marginalized target group, that is, the 'sisters' in Keith's vocabulary. Keith's reply was actually damn well-thought one: he at the same stand for his song, defended it, and admitted that what really matters is the opinion of the targeted group that might find offensive.


Mick, on the other hand, avoided the whole issue and didn't hint anything about the song's controversial nature. The latter is something he himself has admitted ages ago, and like pointed out by our Rocky Dijon he started to change the lyrics almost from the day one - and he has done to some other songs as well. Now he just talked about testing if the show goes well without it (from the reports from US Tour I am pretty sure it passed the test). Cold-hearted diplomacy or even cowardness? Maybe, but we might ask: what he could have said? Had he admitted that there are ethical problems with the song that would have doomed the song for good. Namely, if he admits the song hurting people today, that will hold true tomorrow as well: the 'issue' wouldn't just die out. 'Hey Mick, you said the song is offensive and that's why you stopped singing it - but now you do - so it isn't offensive any longer?'

That he even doesn't try to defend the song - unlike Keith - is interesting, and I think speaks volumes. He, as we know, is more than awere of the song's controversial nature, but my picture is that, based on his general attitude towards his own doings now and in the past, he sees it just one 'stupid' rock and roll song that has its function in a rock and roll show people having fun, and that shouldn't been taken that seriously. Honey, it is just a rock and roll show. And the less the issue is addressed, especially by him, the better. He had been singing the tune a half century without bigger problem or second-thoughts, so probably his wish is that more people, especially the ones in targeted marginalized group, might take that light-hearted attitude as well. That is something not in his control, and he cannot do anything about, but just hope for the best.

My picture is that while Keith sees nothing controversial in terms of racism at all in "Brown Sugar", just reporting the horrors of slavery, Mick admits its controversial nature, but sees it nothing but a lyrically silly rock and roll song that shouldn't be taken that seriously by anyone. It was controversial by intention when it was released, but those were the times, oh boy... and it hasn't aged that well, quite the contrary, but pardon us...

I guess these two stances are the ones we long-time fans of theirs have used to think alike. Were we ever shocked or not - or being just amused - by its slavery imaginary and dareness - if we could make any sense of the lyrics - we pretty much have ignored the whole issue, since it is such a hot rock and roll number (probably the hottest ever).

My personal opinion is that Keith's stance is a bit naive, and doomed to lose in the long run (one cannot clear the song out of its 'raw' nature), but Mick's is the one that is facing probably not just "Brown Sugar" or the Stones, but many features of the classical rock period: how we - or probably not us, but upcoming generations - view features that contradict with a changed moral compass. I just watched a recent documentary called LOOK AWAY, discussing the Hollywood-based minor-age groupie culture of the 70's and 80's, a kind of rock culture reflection of metoo-movement. I was a bit worried if there will be any Stones content, and before I realized, the whole damn thing just started with "Stray Cat Blues", like setting a mood and soundtrack for the whole thing... One of those moments that it wasn't such cool to be a Rolling Stones fan.

What a drag is getting old.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-02-01 15:39 by Doxa.

When Charlie Died (still feels wrong to write it)

I hoped that they will retire one warhorse in tribute to Charlie.
For two reasons.

1. It would be a Charlie Watts song, never to be heard with someone else on the drums.

2. To make room in the setlist for something more Fresh.

Honestly after 1100+ Live versions of BS. We can enjoy future concerts without one classic.

Quote
BeforeTheyMakeMeRun
You know, it's funny. I feel like I remember this same board complaining about how many warhorses were played at shows from 2012-2019. Now they remove one warhorse and free up a space for a new song and people complain.

Personally, I'd love to have heard it again this tour but I get why it was left off the setlist.

They didn’t remove a song. This wasn’t an artistic decision. They erased a part of their legacy and image under the ever-looming threat of the twitter mob.

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
BeforeTheyMakeMeRun
You know, it's funny. I feel like I remember this same board complaining about how many warhorses were played at shows from 2012-2019. Now they remove one warhorse and free up a space for a new song and people complain.

Personally, I'd love to have heard it again this tour but I get why it was left off the setlist.

They didn’t remove a song. This wasn’t an artistic decision. They erased a part of their legacy and image under the ever-looming threat of the twitter mob.

That remains to be seen, though. If they play BS in Europe or later, that argument is merely an opinion.

Good to see you back, btw - it's been a long time

Quote
Redhotcarpet

They didn’t remove a song. This wasn’t an artistic decision. They erased a part of their legacy and image under the ever-looming threat of the twitter mob.

Did you get this info from Mick or Keith, or did you just make it up? Where is the link to the interview?

Fact is people keep this case about not playing BS as an excuse to post political loaded opinions, like the one above.

Bjornulf

I thought we were through with that discussion. They dropped that song for some reason or for no reason at all. We don't know, They dropped other songs in the past and most likely they'll drop other songs in the future. So what?

Personally I'd wish they drop more of those songs from the setlist they played thousand times before (I really could live without 'Satisfaction', 'Start Me Up' etc.)

Quote
slewan
I thought we were through with that discussion. They dropped that song for some reason or for no reason at all. We don't know, They dropped other songs in the past and most likely they'll drop other songs in the future. So what?

Personally I'd wish they drop more of those songs from the setlist they played thousand times before (I really could live without 'Satisfaction', 'Start Me Up' etc.)

I hear you and echo your sentiment, but they didn't drop it out just for being tired of playing it. Keith told the reason indirectly. Mick not, but we don't need to be any Sherlocks to guess that he was behind the desicion. He had overtly supported BLM, etc.

- Doxs



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-02-01 17:00 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
slewan
I thought we were through with that discussion. They dropped that song for some reason or for no reason at all. We don't know, They dropped other songs in the past and most likely they'll drop other songs in the future. So what?

Personally I'd wish they drop more of those songs from the setlist they played thousand times before (I really could live without 'Satisfaction', 'Start Me Up' etc.)

I hear you and echo your sentiment, but they didn't drop it out just for being tired of playing it. Keith told the reason indirectly. Mick not, but we don't need to be any Sherlocks to guess that he was behind the desicion. He had overtly supported BLM, etc.

- Doxs

If that is in fact the reason, which is probably true, I'm pleased to be supporting a band that can still be progressive, even as they enter their 7th decade together.

I get a vibe that whether you know it or not a lot of people disagree with the speculated reason of exclusion more than their desire to actually hear the song. With Bobby gone, I can do without the song. Ghost town is a great stadium song and adds some harmonica. I think that Mick doesn’t like to exceed 2 harmonics songs which may be why we didn’t get out of control

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Doxa

Quote
slewan
I thought we were through with that discussion. They dropped that song for some reason or for no reason at all. We don't know, They dropped other songs in the past and most likely they'll drop other songs in the future. So what?

Personally I'd wish they drop more of those songs from the setlist they played thousand times before (I really could live without 'Satisfaction', 'Start Me Up' etc.)

I hear you and echo your sentiment, but they didn't drop it out just for being tired of playing it. Keith told the reason indirectly. Mick not, but we don't need to be any Sherlocks to guess that he was behind the desicion. He had overtly supported BLM, etc.

- Doxs

If that is in fact the reason, which is probably true, I'm pleased to be supporting a band that can still be progressive, even as they enter their 7th decade together.

Well, me too. During these odd times when one has been forced to see some of the old guard (some so much once admired) to have totally behaved irresponsibly and egoistic idiot-like, it is to great to see that my biggest heroes still have a heart in the right place and brains still functioning and well. Honestly, I don't know how to react if Mick or Keith would show the mental idiocy of some Eric Clapton or Van Morrison.

Whatever the Stones ever been, going crazy and everything, they always seem to be pretty smart dudes.

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2022-02-01 17:30 by Doxa.