For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
DoxaQuote
Taylor1
I don’t hear anything special with his bass playing on that song.If it wasn’t McCartney I doubt you would even notice it
I would claim that it would be pretty hard to NOT notice that bass solo no matter who came up with it...
One of those WTF moments on a Stones recording..
- Doxa
Quote
bitusa2012Quote
DoxaQuote
Taylor1
I don’t hear anything special with his bass playing on that song.If it wasn’t McCartney I doubt you would even notice it
I would claim that it would be pretty hard to NOT notice that bass solo no matter who came up with it...
One of those WTF moments on a Stones recording..
- Doxa
I think the point is YES you (obviously) hear the solo, but if you weren’t told beforehand, would you know the soloist?
Quote
DandelionPowderman
It's not really a solo. He just plays the riff really loud
Quote
Taylor1
It is not great bass playing.Not a knock on the greatness of McCartney.It’s the lameness of the song
Quote
Spud
Wonder if anyone ever suggested to Bill that he take a bass solo ?
...I suspect his reaction may have been ...
Quote
Taylor1
Bill was the best whether low or high in the mix
Quote
DoxaQuote
Taylor1
It is not great bass playing.Not a knock on the greatness of McCartney.It’s the lameness of the song
Fair enough. It is a case of personal taste if one finds it great or not, fitting to a song or not or whatever. It is the opinions we share here. To me it s probably not something I would describe that great an sich, but it generally fits there plus I find the fuzz part funny - a sort of Monty Python moment there. And I am probably the least Paul McCartney fan here... It very well could be that his bigger fans actually had wished him to contribute more, you know, do something more Macca or Beatles-like. But I'm very pleased with the decision and the results.
- Doxa
Quote
dedospegajososQuote
DoxaQuote
Taylor1
It is not great bass playing.Not a knock on the greatness of McCartney.It’s the lameness of the song
Fair enough. It is a case of personal taste if one finds it great or not, fitting to a song or not or whatever. It is the opinions we share here. To me it s probably not something I would describe that great an sich, but it generally fits there plus I find the fuzz part funny - a sort of Monty Python moment there. And I am probably the least Paul McCartney fan here... It very well could be that his bigger fans actually had wished him to contribute more, you know, do something more Macca or Beatles-like. But I'm very pleased with the decision and the results.
- Doxa
The problem of this song for me is the sound. Its weird, feels very cheap, like an intro for a nickelodeon show or a commercial, the song is not bad but the production and somewhat the performance... btw do we have confirmation that Keith is here? I could bet it is just mick (doing keith) and ronnie...
He Keith and Charley were itQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Taylor1
Bill was the best whether low or high in the mix
Of course he was. However, I've never heard him play SFTD or Little T+A as good as Keith did.
Quote
DoxaQuote
Spud
Wonder if anyone ever suggested to Bill that he take a bass solo ?
...I suspect his reaction may have been ...
Well, "Miss You" sort of have one. But I recall him once complaining that when Keith plays the bass it is more upfront in the mix, but his stuff is always buried down there somewhere...
- Doxa
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
dedospegajososQuote
DoxaQuote
Taylor1
It is not great bass playing.Not a knock on the greatness of McCartney.It’s the lameness of the song
Fair enough. It is a case of personal taste if one finds it great or not, fitting to a song or not or whatever. It is the opinions we share here. To me it s probably not something I would describe that great an sich, but it generally fits there plus I find the fuzz part funny - a sort of Monty Python moment there. And I am probably the least Paul McCartney fan here... It very well could be that his bigger fans actually had wished him to contribute more, you know, do something more Macca or Beatles-like. But I'm very pleased with the decision and the results.
- Doxa
The problem of this song for me is the sound. Its weird, feels very cheap, like an intro for a nickelodeon show or a commercial, the song is not bad but the production and somewhat the performance... btw do we have confirmation that Keith is here? I could bet it is just mick (doing keith) and ronnie...
The very last licks (including the feedback) are Keith.
I agree about the rhythm guitar, though. Could very well be Mick.
Quote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
dedospegajososQuote
DoxaQuote
Taylor1
It is not great bass playing.Not a knock on the greatness of McCartney.It’s the lameness of the song
Fair enough. It is a case of personal taste if one finds it great or not, fitting to a song or not or whatever. It is the opinions we share here. To me it s probably not something I would describe that great an sich, but it generally fits there plus I find the fuzz part funny - a sort of Monty Python moment there. And I am probably the least Paul McCartney fan here... It very well could be that his bigger fans actually had wished him to contribute more, you know, do something more Macca or Beatles-like. But I'm very pleased with the decision and the results.
- Doxa
The problem of this song for me is the sound. Its weird, feels very cheap, like an intro for a nickelodeon show or a commercial, the song is not bad but the production and somewhat the performance... btw do we have confirmation that Keith is here? I could bet it is just mick (doing keith) and ronnie...
The very last licks (including the feedback) are Keith.
I agree about the rhythm guitar, though. Could very well be Mick.
Yeah, to me it sounds like Mick (or Keith mimicking Mick). Pretty straight-forward, more on the beat, busy strumming style Mick adopted at the time of SOME GIRLS. It lacks Keith's idiosyncratic style with his touch and incredible sense of timing. Probably all of Mick's playing derive from the example of Keith, the open tunings and all, but he never been that good pupil I suppose, never achieving that unique feel and even sublimity of the master, but sounding slightly, but decidedly different (for example, "Sway", "Stop Breaking Down" - even the intro of "Sad, Sad, Sad" that is supposed to be pretty Stones-by-numbers). This is not to say that Mick's playing is 'bad', since he is no any keithrichards, or even a proper guitarist by definition (his technique is not something to write home about). No, it's not: he has a good sense of rhythm and his playing usually works pretty well in a context of a song.
But I think what we hear on "Bite My Head Off" derives from SOME GIRLS period: Mick seemingly listened a lot of punk and somehow mixed his 'poor man's Keith-style' with it (although I recall Mick giving a lot credit on Ron Wood in helping him there). But Keith was horrified, and seemingly hated Mick's loud electric guitar at the time... Anyway, that simple and raw way of playing was an important part of the Stones sound and feel at the time, one of the driving forces of SOME GIRLS meeting the challenge of punk rock. Probably it all also kicked the arse of Keith, and thereby the punk indirectly electrified him, too... I mean, someone needed to hold Mick's horses, and modify his new ideas to apply better for the Stones... (but still the rhythm section of Bill & Charlie needed to work their asses off to simplify their natural groove to meet the demands of the over-energetic brandnew beat) In the three-guitar-attack' Mick's rhythm guitar allowed room for the real guitarists to develop their ancient art of weaving, etc.
Since then, it sounds like when Mick feels like having a hard rocking or a punk mood, he adopts that style again. So I think what "Bite My Head Off", like "Easy Sleazy" a while ago, artistically aims at is something like "Lies", "When the Whip Comes Down", "Where The Boys Go" and "Hold On Your Hat", and not that much at things like "Rip This Joint", "All Down The Line", or "Flip The Switch" that stem from a different mind set. The latter have more 'roll' element and, I think we could say, more 'Keithish' by constitution.
- Doxa
Quote
dedospegajososQuote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
dedospegajososQuote
DoxaQuote
Taylor1
It is not great bass playing.Not a knock on the greatness of McCartney.It’s the lameness of the song
Fair enough. It is a case of personal taste if one finds it great or not, fitting to a song or not or whatever. It is the opinions we share here. To me it s probably not something I would describe that great an sich, but it generally fits there plus I find the fuzz part funny - a sort of Monty Python moment there. And I am probably the least Paul McCartney fan here... It very well could be that his bigger fans actually had wished him to contribute more, you know, do something more Macca or Beatles-like. But I'm very pleased with the decision and the results.
- Doxa
The problem of this song for me is the sound. Its weird, feels very cheap, like an intro for a nickelodeon show or a commercial, the song is not bad but the production and somewhat the performance... btw do we have confirmation that Keith is here? I could bet it is just mick (doing keith) and ronnie...
The very last licks (including the feedback) are Keith.
I agree about the rhythm guitar, though. Could very well be Mick.
Yeah, to me it sounds like Mick (or Keith mimicking Mick). Pretty straight-forward, more on the beat, busy strumming style Mick adopted at the time of SOME GIRLS. It lacks Keith's idiosyncratic style with his touch and incredible sense of timing. Probably all of Mick's playing derive from the example of Keith, the open tunings and all, but he never been that good pupil I suppose, never achieving that unique feel and even sublimity of the master, but sounding slightly, but decidedly different (for example, "Sway", "Stop Breaking Down" - even the intro of "Sad, Sad, Sad" that is supposed to be pretty Stones-by-numbers). This is not to say that Mick's playing is 'bad', since he is no any keithrichards, or even a proper guitarist by definition (his technique is not something to write home about). No, it's not: he has a good sense of rhythm and his playing usually works pretty well in a context of a song.
But I think what we hear on "Bite My Head Off" derives from SOME GIRLS period: Mick seemingly listened a lot of punk and somehow mixed his 'poor man's Keith-style' with it (although I recall Mick giving a lot credit on Ron Wood in helping him there). But Keith was horrified, and seemingly hated Mick's loud electric guitar at the time... Anyway, that simple and raw way of playing was an important part of the Stones sound and feel at the time, one of the driving forces of SOME GIRLS meeting the challenge of punk rock. Probably it all also kicked the arse of Keith, and thereby the punk indirectly electrified him, too... I mean, someone needed to hold Mick's horses, and modify his new ideas to apply better for the Stones... (but still the rhythm section of Bill & Charlie needed to work their asses off to simplify their natural groove to meet the demands of the over-energetic brandnew beat) In the three-guitar-attack' Mick's rhythm guitar allowed room for the real guitarists to develop their ancient art of weaving, etc.
Since then, it sounds like when Mick feels like having a hard rocking or a punk mood, he adopts that style again. So I think what "Bite My Head Off", like "Easy Sleazy" a while ago, artistically aims at is something like "Lies", "When the Whip Comes Down", "Where The Boys Go" and "Hold On Your Hat", and not that much at things like "Rip This Joint", "All Down The Line", or "Flip The Switch" that stem from a different mind set. The latter have more 'roll' element and, I think we could say, more 'Keithish' by constitution.
- Doxa
That´s spot on Doxa...great analysis
And another thing, Keith played BMHO COMPLETELY different in the Racket show to what we hear on the studio version, which makes the whole thing more suspicious...and then they wiped him out for the live release, maybe they wiped him out on the album version too..
Quote
DandelionPowderman
When we're discussing the live album, it's kinda relevant if they use tracks from the studio album to touch it up, no?
Quote
dedospegajosos
Overdubbing with a new performance is one thing, copying and pasting from the studio version is a new level of mediocrity ...and also stupidity
Quote
matxilQuote
dedospegajosos
Overdubbing with a new performance is one thing, copying and pasting from the studio version is a new level of mediocrity ...and also stupidity
It certainly is not very "punk". If that word has any meaning at all, it must be the opposite of something like overdubbing a studio version onto a live recording.
Quote
dedospegajosos
Overdubbing with a new performance is one thing, copying and pasting from the studio version is a new level of mediocrity ...and also stupidity
Quote
DoxaQuote
dedospegajosos
Overdubbing with a new performance is one thing, copying and pasting from the studio version is a new level of mediocrity ...and also stupidity
Hmm..I get your point and feel your sentiment, but what does it really matter from where the over-dub derives from? That of Jagger hammering the part one to one again, or using the already recorded 'original'? A studio over-dub and 'non-authentic' all the same.
More that of stupidity I would call it more like laziness... Or pragmatic reasoning.
- Doxa