Tell Me :
Talk
You must love the Surrey Rehearsals bootleg then?
I'm a huge Taylor fan but to me he does just go over the top sometimes live, particularly on Brussels live album. I mean I love every lick but for me a lead guitar should not be playing over a vocal. It is only because Jagger is such a confident front man and singer that it is not in the way. I think a lead solo should either have it's own spot to shine or play between the vocals not through them. From interviews we know Richards was frustrated when Taylor did not weave or lock into the groove on certain tracks in the studio. This explains why a lot of Taylor solos were removed from songs to only leave Keith's parts such as Brown Sugar. Taylor could gel with Keith, such as on Shake Your Hips but sometimes he seems to have no understanding of what Keith wants from a song and just doodles away as if it is a different song he is hearing. Live I heard he started to play more to fill in for a drugged Keith but for me the peak was around the Sticky Fingers where there seemed a good balance in the studio and live between the solos and the songs. Exile was when it then went maybe too far into Keith's vision with not enough Taylor.
Having said all that it must have been frustrating to be one of the best lead players in rock and then have all your parts removed. I wonder how many time Taylor recorded a solo, felt he had done something great and then when he hears the released version he is missing! Considering Taylor was a player that most bands would give their eye teeth to have as lead guitarist it is a strange situation. It makes Taylor's relative inactivity on the rock stage even more of a shame. There were lots of big bands he probably could have worked with. I always thought he could have been in a jam band like the Allman Brothers.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-22 22:12 by FP.
You are not a huge Taylor fan, at least you don't understand anything of his playing. And of course he wasn't Keith's servant.
water or winter ones ?
No, I wouldn't.
If the classic BS riff wasn't there before Keith worked on it, it'll always be a Jagger/Richards tune.
Most people seem to like that safe concept of verse-chorus-verse - bridge-solo- verse etc concept, and a little fill here and there. It's an ok, and a very traditional way to play music. In '72-'73 Taylor trashed this concept on sevearal songs and I loved his approach:
He often noodled at the same time when Jagger was singing, and from a harmonical point of view they never clashed. This concept can be heard in late medieval music already. Sure Taylor didn't stick to the academic rules of Counterpoint and Polyphony, but he was a very intuitive player who to my taste was talented enough to get away with it: he gave the Stones that particular extra.
The only (negative) remark on Taylor's noodling coming from Keith that I read was: "Once he starts noodling you cannot stop him", and "you're not good in the studio". But Keith and Jagger certainly used Taylor's tracks that improved the songs in the studio meant for the masses..
Explain it to me then? What was he trying to achieve? The Stones music is not complicated in terms of chords or harmony. They are not a jazz band or a improvisatory band. At bottom they are a blues influenced rock band. Mick Taylor is not a jazz player and does not compare IMO to a jazz player as far as the sophistication of his playing. A quick listen to Wes Montgomery, Grant Green or Pat Martino will make the difference clear both as far as technique and the difficulty of the chords they play over. His role in the Stones was to provide support to the songs of Jagger and Richards both rhythmically and melodically. Whatever he contributed (and it was a lot) the Stones are Jagger and Richards and their songs. Richards had a clear vision for the Stones sound and what a song required to make it work. Sometimes it required a solo and sometimes it did not. Sometimes Taylor could not fit into Keith's concept for a song so his parts were removed. Of course Taylor is no ones servant but he is there to support the song as this is what people want to hear and this is what made the Stones The STONES. Popular music and specifically blues rock has a form that has stayed fairly consistent because that is how the form is defined and what people want from the form. There have been developments in various styles of course but the Stones make blues or folk music whatever you call it that has a form that has basically remained unchanged for many years because people like lyrics, melody, form and familiar structures. Add or remove Taylor and the Stones are still the Stones and the songs are still classic songs, maybe missing an element that he brought but still great songs. And I feel you can be a huge fan and yet have a critical view of their contributions.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-23 01:14 by FP.
I get the message, but If you insist to compare different styles of music and different types/ skilled players like that -apples and oranges- I would like to add that there's also a difference between John McLaughlin/ Mahavishnu Orchestra and Keith Richards, if you get my point.
Sorry, my mistake. This is what I had in mind: [www.iorr.org]
This may be blasphemy, but I feel like much the same could be said of the times they played CYHMK on this last tour. Those performances were wonderful spectacles for the hardcore fans very much invested in Taylor's return to the band. In that respect, they had an amazing energy. Musically, however, I felt like the tempos were usually a bit flat and most of Taylor's solos were quite directionless. I'm not sure how much the latter had to do with what the rest of the band were doing and how much of it was him wilting under the pressure to perform.
So yes, they never have really captured the same feeling as the studio version - with the sole exception, I think, of the Glastonbury performance, during which the band as a whole were fantastic and Taylor in particular just nailed it.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-23 04:18 by Stoneburst.
I take it that you mean the intro?
Mick already had the main Brown Sugar parts worked out in the Ike and Tina Turner video from late 1969.
The intro is really nothing but an add on to the song.
The intro isn't even a riff really as it's just a bit of a setup for the break part that follows.
The sax solo break part of the song is one of the main parts of the song and it occurs 3 times and it is way more important than the intro that only occurs once.
Leave out the intro and Brown Sugar would still be ok, but leave out the break and Brown Sugar would be very different.
Mick had the break and verse and chorus structure in the Ike and Tina video, and that's basically the song.
A little intro isn't much to add on.
Keith plays Mick's song the way Keith plays.
Brown Sugar Structure
intro, break, verse, chorus, break, verse, break (sax solo), chorus, verse, chorus, outro (chorus)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-23 08:54 by howled.
It wouldn't be a BS without the intro riff. Same with SMU.
Mick had a chord sequence worked out, as heard in that MSG video clip. Keith probably shaped it to the fantastic, distinct and the in-a-tenth-of-a-second recognisable BS we all know so well and love.
It's the same with other songs. Beast Of Burden wouldn't be as good without Mick shaping it to the gem it turned out to be.
PS: Mick had the chords for the break, but NOT the riffing guitar for the break, which does magic to that musical bridge - as well as the whole song, imo. Do you doubt that Keith made this change to BS, and if so, why?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-23 10:40 by DandelionPowderman.
surely that's two keith tracks with a dubbed taylor solo ?[/quote]
I actually think you're right. It's an overdubbed open G part by Keith, it's not a Taylor overdub. That high pitched first chord on the Eflat is that chord that I think is typical for Taylor. What a mess the recording of this track is!
Mathijs
It's not that black and white, I guess.
If the melody (and the riff) on SMU was different, and Keith came up with the DA-da-da riff, resulting in an overall change of melody on the track, I'd say yes. And you?
Hmm, I just want to know what Mathijs thinks due to the intro's he listed.
The Stones have managed rather well without playing the intro of "Jumpin'Jack Flash", perhaps even not 'essentially' losing anything...
Seriously, the intro of "Brown Sugar" is a bit different animal than the intros which are the riffs going through the song ("Satisfaction", "Start Me Up", "The Last Time", etc.). It is really an entity of its own, 'added' to the song (like, the intro of "Rocks Off" which, funnily, is like a skeleton or even a sloppy man's parody of "Brown Sugar" intro.)
So if Keef might have "scarf-problems" with the intro of "Brown Sugar" that's much harder to edit afterwards than with "Start Me Up" when you can 'borrow' the intro from latter parts of the song, if he manages to hit he chords right there somewhere...
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-23 12:36 by Doxa.
In JJF the intro and outro chords acts as the middle break as well.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-23 13:36 by His Majesty.
Interesting...
Usually everyone says that Mick had zero to do with it.
Mick himself said "we wrote the words..."
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Mick Taylor - Sticky Fingers guitar contributions
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: January 22, 2014 21:59
Quote
kleermaker
I love dodgy slides
You must love the Surrey Rehearsals bootleg then?
Re: Mick Taylor - Sticky Fingers guitar contributions
Posted by:
FP
()
Date: January 22, 2014 22:06
Quote
LuxuryStonesQuote
FPQuote
smokeyduskyQuote
MathijsQuote
FP
Any idea who plays what on Brown Sugar?
Live in 1972 and 1973 Taylor would play very close to his original rhythm track, which is a tremelo picked guitar.
Mathijs
Rather than the "I hear it"/"I hear it not" thing, you can see in both CS Blues and the Dick Cavett Show during the third verse, Taylor appears to be playing a "Berry-like rhythm" with his left hand and strumming (not tremolo picking) with his right.
By '73, was doing something different with the slide.
(In BS, I'd call what he used to do quavers, starting with the version at Altamont. I hear him tremolo picking in SV and during CYHMK in 2013.)
I am not sure what you mean by "tremelo"? Do you mean the guitar effect produced by a peddle, which I would say the right hand guitar on "I Got The Blues" has applied or do you mean "arpeggio" as in picking the notes of a chord rather than strumming he chord? From what I can see of the live performances Taylor plays some arpeggios of the chords and then basically doubles up Richards guitar chords with the same "Chuck Berry" groove but in standard tuning rather than open G. While on the alternate take below he does the same and adds a brief solo. It is interesting that the counter melody he developed over the chorus in live performance happened later than the recording, showing how working a song in live can bring up cool ideas. I prefer the live versions of many of their songs simply because the LP version is over familiar and Taylor (when not over playing) adds some nice extra melodies. I actually feel like something is missing when I hear the studio version of BS now when I listen to it!
Taylor never overplayed on stage, imo.
I'm a huge Taylor fan but to me he does just go over the top sometimes live, particularly on Brussels live album. I mean I love every lick but for me a lead guitar should not be playing over a vocal. It is only because Jagger is such a confident front man and singer that it is not in the way. I think a lead solo should either have it's own spot to shine or play between the vocals not through them. From interviews we know Richards was frustrated when Taylor did not weave or lock into the groove on certain tracks in the studio. This explains why a lot of Taylor solos were removed from songs to only leave Keith's parts such as Brown Sugar. Taylor could gel with Keith, such as on Shake Your Hips but sometimes he seems to have no understanding of what Keith wants from a song and just doodles away as if it is a different song he is hearing. Live I heard he started to play more to fill in for a drugged Keith but for me the peak was around the Sticky Fingers where there seemed a good balance in the studio and live between the solos and the songs. Exile was when it then went maybe too far into Keith's vision with not enough Taylor.
Having said all that it must have been frustrating to be one of the best lead players in rock and then have all your parts removed. I wonder how many time Taylor recorded a solo, felt he had done something great and then when he hears the released version he is missing! Considering Taylor was a player that most bands would give their eye teeth to have as lead guitarist it is a strange situation. It makes Taylor's relative inactivity on the rock stage even more of a shame. There were lots of big bands he probably could have worked with. I always thought he could have been in a jam band like the Allman Brothers.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-22 22:12 by FP.
Re: Mick Taylor - Sticky Fingers guitar contributions
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: January 22, 2014 22:16
Quote
FPQuote
LuxuryStonesQuote
FPQuote
smokeyduskyQuote
MathijsQuote
FP
Any idea who plays what on Brown Sugar?
Live in 1972 and 1973 Taylor would play very close to his original rhythm track, which is a tremelo picked guitar.
Mathijs
Rather than the "I hear it"/"I hear it not" thing, you can see in both CS Blues and the Dick Cavett Show during the third verse, Taylor appears to be playing a "Berry-like rhythm" with his left hand and strumming (not tremolo picking) with his right.
By '73, was doing something different with the slide.
(In BS, I'd call what he used to do quavers, starting with the version at Altamont. I hear him tremolo picking in SV and during CYHMK in 2013.)
I am not sure what you mean by "tremelo"? Do you mean the guitar effect produced by a peddle, which I would say the right hand guitar on "I Got The Blues" has applied or do you mean "arpeggio" as in picking the notes of a chord rather than strumming he chord? From what I can see of the live performances Taylor plays some arpeggios of the chords and then basically doubles up Richards guitar chords with the same "Chuck Berry" groove but in standard tuning rather than open G. While on the alternate take below he does the same and adds a brief solo. It is interesting that the counter melody he developed over the chorus in live performance happened later than the recording, showing how working a song in live can bring up cool ideas. I prefer the live versions of many of their songs simply because the LP version is over familiar and Taylor (when not over playing) adds some nice extra melodies. I actually feel like something is missing when I hear the studio version of BS now when I listen to it!
Taylor never overplayed on stage, imo.
I'm a huge Taylor fan but to me he does just go over the top sometimes live, particularly on Brussels live album. I mean I love every lick but for me a lead guitar should not be playing over a vocal. It is only because Jagger is such a confident front man and singer that it is not in the way. I think a lead solo should either have it's own spot to shine or play between the vocals not through them. From interviews we know Richards was frustrated when Taylor did not weave or lock into the groove on certain tracks in the studio. This explains why a lot of Taylor solos were removed from songs to only leave Keith's parts such as Brown Sugar. Taylor could gel with Keith, such as on Shake Your Hips but sometimes he seems to have no understanding of what Keith wants from a song and just doodles away as if it is a different song he is hearing. Live I heard he started to play more to fill in for a drugged Keith but for me the peak was around the Sticky Fingers where there seemed a good balance in the studio and live between the solos and the songs. Exile was when it then went maybe too far into Keith's vision with not enough Taylor.
Having said all that it must have been frustrating to be one of the best lead players in rock and then have all your parts removed. I wonder how many time Taylor recorded a solo, felt he had done something great and then when he hears the released version he is missing! Considering Taylor was a player that most bands would give their eye teeth to have as lead guitarist it is a strange situation. It makes Taylor's relative inactivity on the rock stage even more of a shame. There were lots of big bands he probably could have worked with. I always thought he could have been in a jam band like the Allman Brothers.
You are not a huge Taylor fan, at least you don't understand anything of his playing. And of course he wasn't Keith's servant.
Re: Mick Taylor - Sticky Fingers guitar contributions
Posted by:
straycatblues73
()
Date: January 22, 2014 23:17
Quote
kleermaker
I love dodgy slides
water or winter ones ?
Re: Mick Taylor - Sticky Fingers guitar contributions
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 22, 2014 23:44
Sometimes, rhythm should be lead, and vice versa.
One of the reasons why the Stones are unique, imo.
Taylor never overplayed on stage, imo.[/quote]
I'm a huge Taylor fan but to me he does just go over the top sometimes live, particularly on Brussels live album. I mean I love every lick but for me a lead guitar should not be playing over a vocal. It is only because Jagger is such a confident front man and singer that it is not in the way. I think a lead solo should either have it's own spot to shine or play between the vocals not through them. From interviews we know Richards was frustrated when Taylor did not weave or lock into the groove on certain tracks in the studio. This explains why a lot of Taylor solos were removed from songs to only leave Keith's parts such as Brown Sugar. Taylor could gel with Keith, such as on Shake Your Hips but sometimes he seems to have no understanding of what Keith wants from a song and just doodles away as if it is a different song he is hearing. Live I heard he started to play more to fill in for a drugged Keith but for me the peak was around the Sticky Fingers where there seemed a good balance in the studio and live between the solos and the songs. Exile was when it then went maybe too far into Keith's vision with not enough Taylor.
Having said all that it must have been frustrating to be one of the best lead players in rock and then have all your parts removed. I wonder how many time Taylor recorded a solo, felt he had done something great and then when he hears the released version he is missing! Considering Taylor was a player that most bands would give their eye teeth to have as lead guitarist it is a strange situation. It makes Taylor's relative inactivity on the rock stage even more of a shame. There were lots of big bands he probably could have worked with. I always thought he could have been in a jam band like the Allma
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-22 23:49 by DandelionPowderman.
One of the reasons why the Stones are unique, imo.
Taylor never overplayed on stage, imo.[/quote]
I'm a huge Taylor fan but to me he does just go over the top sometimes live, particularly on Brussels live album. I mean I love every lick but for me a lead guitar should not be playing over a vocal. It is only because Jagger is such a confident front man and singer that it is not in the way. I think a lead solo should either have it's own spot to shine or play between the vocals not through them. From interviews we know Richards was frustrated when Taylor did not weave or lock into the groove on certain tracks in the studio. This explains why a lot of Taylor solos were removed from songs to only leave Keith's parts such as Brown Sugar. Taylor could gel with Keith, such as on Shake Your Hips but sometimes he seems to have no understanding of what Keith wants from a song and just doodles away as if it is a different song he is hearing. Live I heard he started to play more to fill in for a drugged Keith but for me the peak was around the Sticky Fingers where there seemed a good balance in the studio and live between the solos and the songs. Exile was when it then went maybe too far into Keith's vision with not enough Taylor.
Having said all that it must have been frustrating to be one of the best lead players in rock and then have all your parts removed. I wonder how many time Taylor recorded a solo, felt he had done something great and then when he hears the released version he is missing! Considering Taylor was a player that most bands would give their eye teeth to have as lead guitarist it is a strange situation. It makes Taylor's relative inactivity on the rock stage even more of a shame. There were lots of big bands he probably could have worked with. I always thought he could have been in a jam band like the Allma
Quote
FPQuote
LuxuryStonesQuote
FPQuote
smokeyduskyQuote
MathijsQuote
FP
Any idea who plays what on Brown Sugar?
Live in 1972 and 1973 Taylor would play very close to his original rhythm track, which is a tremelo picked guitar.
Mathijs
Rather than the "I hear it"/"I hear it not" thing, you can see in both CS Blues and the Dick Cavett Show during the third verse, Taylor appears to be playing a "Berry-like rhythm" with his left hand and strumming (not tremolo picking) with his right.
By '73, was doing something different with the slide.
(In BS, I'd call what he used to do quavers, starting with the version at Altamont. I hear him tremolo picking in SV and during CYHMK in 2013.)
I am not sure what you mean by "tremelo"? Do you mean the guitar effect produced by a peddle, which I would say the right hand guitar on "I Got The Blues" has applied or do you mean "arpeggio" as in picking the notes of a chord rather than strumming he chord? From what I can see of the live performances Taylor plays some arpeggios of the chords and then basically doubles up Richards guitar chords with the same "Chuck Berry" groove but in standard tuning rather than open G. While on the alternate take below he does the same and adds a brief solo. It is interesting that the counter melody he developed over the chorus in live performance happened later than the recording, showing how working a song in live can bring up cool ideas. I prefer the live versions of many of their songs simply because the LP version is over familiar and Taylor (when not over playing) adds some nice extra melodies. I actually feel like something is missing when I hear the studio version of BS now when I listen to it!
Taylor never overplayed on stage, imo.
I'm a huge Taylor fan but to me he does just go over the top sometimes live, particularly on Brussels live album. I mean I love every lick but for me a lead guitar should not be playing over a vocal. It is only because Jagger is such a confident front man and singer that it is not in the way. I think a lead solo should either have it's own spot to shine or play between the vocals not through them. From interviews we know Richards was frustrated when Taylor did not weave or lock into the groove on certain tracks in the studio. This explains why a lot of Taylor solos were removed from songs to only leave Keith's parts such as Brown Sugar. Taylor could gel with Keith, such as on Shake Your Hips but sometimes he seems to have no understanding of what Keith wants from a song and just doodles away as if it is a different song he is hearing. Live I heard he started to play more to fill in for a drugged Keith but for me the peak was around the Sticky Fingers where there seemed a good balance in the studio and live between the solos and the songs. Exile was when it then went maybe too far into Keith's vision with not enough Taylor.
Having said all that it must have been frustrating to be one of the best lead players in rock and then have all your parts removed. I wonder how many time Taylor recorded a solo, felt he had done something great and then when he hears the released version he is missing! Considering Taylor was a player that most bands would give their eye teeth to have as lead guitarist it is a strange situation. It makes Taylor's relative inactivity on the rock stage even more of a shame. There were lots of big bands he probably could have worked with. I always thought he could have been in a jam band like the Allman Brothers.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-22 23:49 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: Mick Taylor - Sticky Fingers guitar contributions
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 22, 2014 23:56
Quote
elunsiQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
elunsiQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
DiscoVolante
I've always seen Sticky Fingers (and Goats Head Soup) as a Jagger/Taylor album; while Let it bleed and Exile being Keith's.
Brown Sugar
Wild Horses
CYHMK
YGM
Bitch
IGTB
SM
DF
Sway and MM are probably the only songs that somewhat fit your description.
Maybe not a Jagger/Taylor album, but a Jagger album. He has at least 5 songs written mainly by him.
Which brings me back to the discussion about what M.Taylor said, that MJ was the main song-writer and you said until 1972 it was Keith who wrote most of the songs. I think this album proofs that Mick was a full song (-music, meldoy) writer, not only the lyricwriter, much earlier than 1972.
How do you know Mick wrote 5 songs by himself for this album?
We don't even know how much Keith contributed on, say, Sway. Did Mick teach him all the harmony vocals he did on the Hopkins tape, did he shape this himself, did Taylor write more than we know?
We just don't know - it's speculation, songwriting-wise.
We know it because Taylor said that Mick wrote Sway. IF Keith added something, it is still a Jagger song. Like Brown Sugar, IF Keith added something or not, it is still a Jagger song.
We also don´t know if or what Mick added on the Keith songs but you would still call them Keiths songs.
No, I wouldn't.
If the classic BS riff wasn't there before Keith worked on it, it'll always be a Jagger/Richards tune.
Re: Mick Taylor - Sticky Fingers guitar contributions
Posted by:
LuxuryStones
()
Date: January 23, 2014 00:24
Quote
LuxuryStones
Taylor never overplayed on stage, imo.
Quote
FP
I'm a huge Taylor fan but to me he does just go over the top sometimes live, particularly on Brussels live album. I mean I love every lick but for me a lead guitar should not be playing over a vocal. It is only because Jagger is such a confident front man and singer that it is not in the way. I think a lead solo should either have it's own spot to shine or play between the vocals not through them. From interviews we know Richards was frustrated when Taylor did not weave or lock into the groove on certain tracks in the studio. This explains why a lot of Taylor solos were removed from songs to only leave Keith's parts such as Brown Sugar.
Most people seem to like that safe concept of verse-chorus-verse - bridge-solo- verse etc concept, and a little fill here and there. It's an ok, and a very traditional way to play music. In '72-'73 Taylor trashed this concept on sevearal songs and I loved his approach:
He often noodled at the same time when Jagger was singing, and from a harmonical point of view they never clashed. This concept can be heard in late medieval music already. Sure Taylor didn't stick to the academic rules of Counterpoint and Polyphony, but he was a very intuitive player who to my taste was talented enough to get away with it: he gave the Stones that particular extra.
The only (negative) remark on Taylor's noodling coming from Keith that I read was: "Once he starts noodling you cannot stop him", and "you're not good in the studio". But Keith and Jagger certainly used Taylor's tracks that improved the songs in the studio meant for the masses..
Re: Mick Taylor - Sticky Fingers guitar contributions
Posted by:
FP
()
Date: January 23, 2014 01:11
Quote
kleermakerQuote
FPQuote
LuxuryStonesQuote
FPQuote
smokeyduskyQuote
MathijsQuote
FP
Any idea who plays what on Brown Sugar?
Live in 1972 and 1973 Taylor would play very close to his original rhythm track, which is a tremelo picked guitar.
Mathijs
Rather than the "I hear it"/"I hear it not" thing, you can see in both CS Blues and the Dick Cavett Show during the third verse, Taylor appears to be playing a "Berry-like rhythm" with his left hand and strumming (not tremolo picking) with his right.
By '73, was doing something different with the slide.
(In BS, I'd call what he used to do quavers, starting with the version at Altamont. I hear him tremolo picking in SV and during CYHMK in 2013.)
I am not sure what you mean by "tremelo"? Do you mean the guitar effect produced by a peddle, which I would say the right hand guitar on "I Got The Blues" has applied or do you mean "arpeggio" as in picking the notes of a chord rather than strumming he chord? From what I can see of the live performances Taylor plays some arpeggios of the chords and then basically doubles up Richards guitar chords with the same "Chuck Berry" groove but in standard tuning rather than open G. While on the alternate take below he does the same and adds a brief solo. It is interesting that the counter melody he developed over the chorus in live performance happened later than the recording, showing how working a song in live can bring up cool ideas. I prefer the live versions of many of their songs simply because the LP version is over familiar and Taylor (when not over playing) adds some nice extra melodies. I actually feel like something is missing when I hear the studio version of BS now when I listen to it!
Taylor never overplayed on stage, imo.
I'm a huge Taylor fan but to me he does just go over the top sometimes live, particularly on Brussels live album. I mean I love every lick but for me a lead guitar should not be playing over a vocal. It is only because Jagger is such a confident front man and singer that it is not in the way. I think a lead solo should either have it's own spot to shine or play between the vocals not through them. From interviews we know Richards was frustrated when Taylor did not weave or lock into the groove on certain tracks in the studio. This explains why a lot of Taylor solos were removed from songs to only leave Keith's parts such as Brown Sugar. Taylor could gel with Keith, such as on Shake Your Hips but sometimes he seems to have no understanding of what Keith wants from a song and just doodles away as if it is a different song he is hearing. Live I heard he started to play more to fill in for a drugged Keith but for me the peak was around the Sticky Fingers where there seemed a good balance in the studio and live between the solos and the songs. Exile was when it then went maybe too far into Keith's vision with not enough Taylor.
Having said all that it must have been frustrating to be one of the best lead players in rock and then have all your parts removed. I wonder how many time Taylor recorded a solo, felt he had done something great and then when he hears the released version he is missing! Considering Taylor was a player that most bands would give their eye teeth to have as lead guitarist it is a strange situation. It makes Taylor's relative inactivity on the rock stage even more of a shame. There were lots of big bands he probably could have worked with. I always thought he could have been in a jam band like the Allman Brothers.
You are not a huge Taylor fan, at least you don't understand anything of his playing. And of course he wasn't Keith's servant.
Explain it to me then? What was he trying to achieve? The Stones music is not complicated in terms of chords or harmony. They are not a jazz band or a improvisatory band. At bottom they are a blues influenced rock band. Mick Taylor is not a jazz player and does not compare IMO to a jazz player as far as the sophistication of his playing. A quick listen to Wes Montgomery, Grant Green or Pat Martino will make the difference clear both as far as technique and the difficulty of the chords they play over. His role in the Stones was to provide support to the songs of Jagger and Richards both rhythmically and melodically. Whatever he contributed (and it was a lot) the Stones are Jagger and Richards and their songs. Richards had a clear vision for the Stones sound and what a song required to make it work. Sometimes it required a solo and sometimes it did not. Sometimes Taylor could not fit into Keith's concept for a song so his parts were removed. Of course Taylor is no ones servant but he is there to support the song as this is what people want to hear and this is what made the Stones The STONES. Popular music and specifically blues rock has a form that has stayed fairly consistent because that is how the form is defined and what people want from the form. There have been developments in various styles of course but the Stones make blues or folk music whatever you call it that has a form that has basically remained unchanged for many years because people like lyrics, melody, form and familiar structures. Add or remove Taylor and the Stones are still the Stones and the songs are still classic songs, maybe missing an element that he brought but still great songs. And I feel you can be a huge fan and yet have a critical view of their contributions.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-23 01:14 by FP.
Re: Mick Taylor - Sticky Fingers guitar contributions
Posted by:
FP
()
Date: January 23, 2014 01:25
Quote
LuxuryStonesQuote
LuxuryStones
Taylor never overplayed on stage, imo.Quote
FP
I'm a huge Taylor fan but to me he does just go over the top sometimes live, particularly on Brussels live album. I mean I love every lick but for me a lead guitar should not be playing over a vocal. It is only because Jagger is such a confident front man and singer that it is not in the way. I think a lead solo should either have it's own spot to shine or play between the vocals not through them. From interviews we know Richards was frustrated when Taylor did not weave or lock into the groove on certain tracks in the studio. This explains why a lot of Taylor solos were removed from songs to only leave Keith's parts such as Brown Sugar.
Most people seem to like that safe concept of verse-chorus-verse - bridge-solo- verse etc concept, and a little fill here and there. It's an ok, and a very traditional way to play music. In '72-'73 Taylor trashed this concept on sevearal songs and I loved his approach:
He often noodled at the same time when Jagger was singing, and from a harmonical point of view they never clashed. This concept can be heard in late medieval music already. Sure Taylor didn't stick to the academic rules of Counterpoint and Polyphony, but he was a very intuitive player who to my taste was talented enough to get away with it: he gave the Stones that particular extra.
The only (negative) remark on Taylor's noodling coming from Keith that I read was: "Once he starts noodling you cannot stop him", and "you're not good in the studio". But Keith and Jagger certainly used Taylor's tracks that improved the songs in the studio meant for the masses..
I understand what you are saying, but how many hit records from the 60's and 70's have continuous guitar soloing all through the song and over the vocal? Yes there is a difference between live and recorded music and the approach you can have to a song in this context. And yes Taylor is a brilliant player and a very underrated player. But for me he sometimes played without much of a thought for anyone else in the band and sometimes he played without a sense of restraint or taste. Hell you can say that about Jimi Hendrix or Eric Clapton or any great player. What makes them great is the risks they take but sometimes it does not work. I love Hendrix but sometimes he solos and gets lost and does not have a point. This is something that differentiates the great rock players from jazz players, a sense of a beginning a middle and an end to a solo. Sometimes is just takes a few notes in the right place to say something powerful, it is not simply a matter of "following rules", Miles Davis on his revolutionary album Bitches Brew both pushed the boundaries of form and rhythm to braking point yet his playing is concise and powerful. He plays a handful of notes and everything changes and everyone listens. The same with his concert performances of the time. This is a master at work. There is a difference between Mick Taylor and Miles Davis, it's not a criticism just a fact, less is more
Re: Mick Taylor - Sticky Fingers guitar contributions
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: January 23, 2014 01:27
And we're off...
Re: Mick Taylor - Sticky Fingers guitar contributions
Posted by:
LuxuryStones
()
Date: January 23, 2014 01:38
Quote
FPQuote
LuxuryStonesQuote
LuxuryStones
Taylor never overplayed on stage, imo.Quote
FP
I'm a huge Taylor fan but to me he does just go over the top sometimes live, particularly on Brussels live album. I mean I love every lick but for me a lead guitar should not be playing over a vocal. It is only because Jagger is such a confident front man and singer that it is not in the way. I think a lead solo should either have it's own spot to shine or play between the vocals not through them. From interviews we know Richards was frustrated when Taylor did not weave or lock into the groove on certain tracks in the studio. This explains why a lot of Taylor solos were removed from songs to only leave Keith's parts such as Brown Sugar.
Most people seem to like that safe concept of verse-chorus-verse - bridge-solo- verse etc concept, and a little fill here and there. It's an ok, and a very traditional way to play music. In '72-'73 Taylor trashed this concept on sevearal songs and I loved his approach:
He often noodled at the same time when Jagger was singing, and from a harmonical point of view they never clashed. This concept can be heard in late medieval music already. Sure Taylor didn't stick to the academic rules of Counterpoint and Polyphony, but he was a very intuitive player who to my taste was talented enough to get away with it: he gave the Stones that particular extra.
The only (negative) remark on Taylor's noodling coming from Keith that I read was: "Once he starts noodling you cannot stop him", and "you're not good in the studio". But Keith and Jagger certainly used Taylor's tracks that improved the songs in the studio meant for the masses..
I understand what you are saying, but how many hit records from the 60's and 70's have continuous guitar soloing all through the song and over the vocal? Yes there is a difference between live and recorded music and the approach you can have to a song in this context. And yes Taylor is a brilliant player and a very underrated player. But for me he sometimes played without much of a thought for anyone else in the band and sometimes he played without a sense of restraint or taste. Hell you can say that about Jimi Hendrix or Eric Clapton or any great player. What makes them great is the risks they take but sometimes it does not work. I love Hendrix but sometimes he solos and gets lost and does not have a point. This is something that differentiates the great rock players from jazz players, a sense of a beginning a middle and an end to a solo. Sometimes is just takes a few notes in the right place to say something powerful, it is not simply a matter of "following rules", Miles Davis on his revolutionary album Bitches Brew both pushed the boundaries of form and rhythm to braking point yet his playing is concise and powerful. He plays a handful of notes and everything changes and everyone listens. The same with his concert performances of the time. This is a master at work. There is a difference between Mick Taylor and Miles Davis, it's not a criticism just a fact, less is more
I get the message, but If you insist to compare different styles of music and different types/ skilled players like that -apples and oranges- I would like to add that there's also a difference between John McLaughlin/ Mahavishnu Orchestra and Keith Richards, if you get my point.
Re: Mick Taylor - Sticky Fingers guitar contributions
Posted by:
Stoneburst
()
Date: January 23, 2014 04:02
Quote
RobberBride
Haven´t heard the 40 takes on the CYHMK coda Stoneburst...It would be cool if these threads starts to include links directly to the in-work versions and demos of the songs or links to the HotStuff section where we can find these versions. I presume somebody have collected different versions/boots of work in preogress tracks over the years and categorized it as "albums" ?
Sorry, my mistake. This is what I had in mind: [www.iorr.org]
Quote
Doxa
But if it was spontaneuos, seemingly they couldn't get that spontaneous feeling again when they tried the song during British Tour '71, as it - according to Bobby Keyes - collapsed totally...
This may be blasphemy, but I feel like much the same could be said of the times they played CYHMK on this last tour. Those performances were wonderful spectacles for the hardcore fans very much invested in Taylor's return to the band. In that respect, they had an amazing energy. Musically, however, I felt like the tempos were usually a bit flat and most of Taylor's solos were quite directionless. I'm not sure how much the latter had to do with what the rest of the band were doing and how much of it was him wilting under the pressure to perform.
So yes, they never have really captured the same feeling as the studio version - with the sole exception, I think, of the Glastonbury performance, during which the band as a whole were fantastic and Taylor in particular just nailed it.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-23 04:18 by Stoneburst.
Re: Mick Taylor - Sticky Fingers guitar contributions
Posted by:
howled
()
Date: January 23, 2014 08:52
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
elunsiQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
elunsiQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
DiscoVolante
I've always seen Sticky Fingers (and Goats Head Soup) as a Jagger/Taylor album; while Let it bleed and Exile being Keith's.
Brown Sugar
Wild Horses
CYHMK
YGM
Bitch
IGTB
SM
DF
Sway and MM are probably the only songs that somewhat fit your description.
Maybe not a Jagger/Taylor album, but a Jagger album. He has at least 5 songs written mainly by him.
Which brings me back to the discussion about what M.Taylor said, that MJ was the main song-writer and you said until 1972 it was Keith who wrote most of the songs. I think this album proofs that Mick was a full song (-music, meldoy) writer, not only the lyricwriter, much earlier than 1972.
How do you know Mick wrote 5 songs by himself for this album?
We don't even know how much Keith contributed on, say, Sway. Did Mick teach him all the harmony vocals he did on the Hopkins tape, did he shape this himself, did Taylor write more than we know?
We just don't know - it's speculation, songwriting-wise.
We know it because Taylor said that Mick wrote Sway. IF Keith added something, it is still a Jagger song. Like Brown Sugar, IF Keith added something or not, it is still a Jagger song.
We also don´t know if or what Mick added on the Keith songs but you would still call them Keiths songs.
No, I wouldn't.
If the classic BS riff wasn't there before Keith worked on it, it'll always be a Jagger/Richards tune.
I take it that you mean the intro?
Mick already had the main Brown Sugar parts worked out in the Ike and Tina Turner video from late 1969.
The intro is really nothing but an add on to the song.
The intro isn't even a riff really as it's just a bit of a setup for the break part that follows.
The sax solo break part of the song is one of the main parts of the song and it occurs 3 times and it is way more important than the intro that only occurs once.
Leave out the intro and Brown Sugar would still be ok, but leave out the break and Brown Sugar would be very different.
Mick had the break and verse and chorus structure in the Ike and Tina video, and that's basically the song.
A little intro isn't much to add on.
Keith plays Mick's song the way Keith plays.
Brown Sugar Structure
intro, break, verse, chorus, break, verse, break (sax solo), chorus, verse, chorus, outro (chorus)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-23 08:54 by howled.
Re: Mick Taylor - Sticky Fingers guitar contributions
Posted by:
howled
()
Date: January 23, 2014 08:57
I don't think Keith needed much input from Mick Taylor on Brown Sugar.
Keith could do all the parts and the solo went to Bobby Keys and the sax which was a great move because it adds to the New Orleans thing which happens to be in the lyrics.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-23 08:58 by howled.
Keith could do all the parts and the solo went to Bobby Keys and the sax which was a great move because it adds to the New Orleans thing which happens to be in the lyrics.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-23 08:58 by howled.
Re: Mick Taylor - Sticky Fingers guitar contributions
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 23, 2014 10:38
Quote
howledQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
elunsiQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
elunsiQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
DiscoVolante
I've always seen Sticky Fingers (and Goats Head Soup) as a Jagger/Taylor album; while Let it bleed and Exile being Keith's.
Brown Sugar
Wild Horses
CYHMK
YGM
Bitch
IGTB
SM
DF
Sway and MM are probably the only songs that somewhat fit your description.
Maybe not a Jagger/Taylor album, but a Jagger album. He has at least 5 songs written mainly by him.
Which brings me back to the discussion about what M.Taylor said, that MJ was the main song-writer and you said until 1972 it was Keith who wrote most of the songs. I think this album proofs that Mick was a full song (-music, meldoy) writer, not only the lyricwriter, much earlier than 1972.
How do you know Mick wrote 5 songs by himself for this album?
We don't even know how much Keith contributed on, say, Sway. Did Mick teach him all the harmony vocals he did on the Hopkins tape, did he shape this himself, did Taylor write more than we know?
We just don't know - it's speculation, songwriting-wise.
We know it because Taylor said that Mick wrote Sway. IF Keith added something, it is still a Jagger song. Like Brown Sugar, IF Keith added something or not, it is still a Jagger song.
We also don´t know if or what Mick added on the Keith songs but you would still call them Keiths songs.
No, I wouldn't.
If the classic BS riff wasn't there before Keith worked on it, it'll always be a Jagger/Richards tune.
I take it that you mean the intro?
Mick already had the main Brown Sugar parts worked out in the Ike and Tina Turner video from late 1969.
The intro is really nothing but an add on to the song.
The intro isn't even a riff really as it's just a bit of a setup for the break part that follows.
The sax solo break part of the song is one of the main parts of the song and it occurs 3 times and it is way more important than the intro that only occurs once.
Leave out the intro and Brown Sugar would still be ok, but leave out the break and Brown Sugar would be very different.
Mick had the break and verse and chorus structure in the Ike and Tina video, and that's basically the song.
A little intro isn't much to add on.
Keith plays Mick's song the way Keith plays.
Brown Sugar Structure
intro, break, verse, chorus, break, verse, break (sax solo), chorus, verse, chorus, outro (chorus)
It wouldn't be a BS without the intro riff. Same with SMU.
Mick had a chord sequence worked out, as heard in that MSG video clip. Keith probably shaped it to the fantastic, distinct and the in-a-tenth-of-a-second recognisable BS we all know so well and love.
It's the same with other songs. Beast Of Burden wouldn't be as good without Mick shaping it to the gem it turned out to be.
PS: Mick had the chords for the break, but NOT the riffing guitar for the break, which does magic to that musical bridge - as well as the whole song, imo. Do you doubt that Keith made this change to BS, and if so, why?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-23 10:40 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: Mick Taylor - Sticky Fingers guitar contributions
Posted by:
howled
()
Date: January 23, 2014 11:41
As I said above, Keith does his thing with the chords but those chords were chords Mick came up with, the break, the verse and the chorus.
Once the chords are there then someone can arrange them and play them in their style, which is what Keith did.
The Brown Sugar intro is like other Keith intros, where it's just a intro setting up the song like JJF or whatever.
The Brown Sugar intro keeps the main break from appearing and revealing itself right at the start and when the main break does start it starts with the Stones full on swinging.
The intro is stop/start and the break is full motion and the Acoustic gives it more motion.
This is one of Keith's contrast tricks where Keith's stop/start intro suddenly becomes Micks break in full motion.
The intro to JJF is another Keith intro (that he rarely plays) where it is a repeating turnaround that builds up and then suddenly becomes the JJF in full motion.
The intros are great but they are not the main parts of the songs.
First time through the Brown Sugar intro it's just Keith.
Second time through Charlie and whoever joins in.
At 15 seconds the break starts with Mick's chords and Keith is adding his suspensions and style to the chords and the overdubbed Acoustic gives even more motion.
The whole point of the intro is for the listener to think "where is this going to go" and to set up the break which leads to the verse and the break is an integral part of the song that is used 3 times throughout the song.
The intro is "where is this going to go" for the listener because it just keeps repeating going around and around.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-23 11:52 by howled.
Once the chords are there then someone can arrange them and play them in their style, which is what Keith did.
The Brown Sugar intro is like other Keith intros, where it's just a intro setting up the song like JJF or whatever.
The Brown Sugar intro keeps the main break from appearing and revealing itself right at the start and when the main break does start it starts with the Stones full on swinging.
The intro is stop/start and the break is full motion and the Acoustic gives it more motion.
This is one of Keith's contrast tricks where Keith's stop/start intro suddenly becomes Micks break in full motion.
The intro to JJF is another Keith intro (that he rarely plays) where it is a repeating turnaround that builds up and then suddenly becomes the JJF in full motion.
The intros are great but they are not the main parts of the songs.
First time through the Brown Sugar intro it's just Keith.
Second time through Charlie and whoever joins in.
At 15 seconds the break starts with Mick's chords and Keith is adding his suspensions and style to the chords and the overdubbed Acoustic gives even more motion.
The whole point of the intro is for the listener to think "where is this going to go" and to set up the break which leads to the verse and the break is an integral part of the song that is used 3 times throughout the song.
The intro is "where is this going to go" for the listener because it just keeps repeating going around and around.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-23 11:52 by howled.
Re: Mick Taylor - Sticky Fingers guitar contributions
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: January 23, 2014 11:57
Quote
straycatblues73
Tremelo picked as in arpeggio indeed. PLaying the chord note by note instead of as one chord. Live taylor's part resembled the part he plays on this outtake, I guess it is the original take from Muscle Shoals, which in the end was dropped completely.
.
Mathijs
surely that's two keith tracks with a dubbed taylor solo ?[/quote]
I actually think you're right. It's an overdubbed open G part by Keith, it's not a Taylor overdub. That high pitched first chord on the Eflat is that chord that I think is typical for Taylor. What a mess the recording of this track is!
Mathijs
Re: Mick Taylor - Sticky Fingers guitar contributions
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 23, 2014 12:04
I think the intro-riffs of BS, SMU, HTW, JJF, SFM, 2000 LYFH, Satisfaction, Angie, Rocks Off, Ventilator Blues, Sweet Black Angel and others are essential for the songs.
You might not think they are important - fine!
You might not think they are important - fine!
Re: Mick Taylor - Sticky Fingers guitar contributions
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: January 23, 2014 12:06
Enough to get a song writing credit?
Re: Mick Taylor - Sticky Fingers guitar contributions
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 23, 2014 12:08
Quote
His Majesty
Enough to get a song writing credit?
It's not that black and white, I guess.
If the melody (and the riff) on SMU was different, and Keith came up with the DA-da-da riff, resulting in an overall change of melody on the track, I'd say yes. And you?
Re: Mick Taylor - Sticky Fingers guitar contributions
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: January 23, 2014 12:20
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
His Majesty
Enough to get a song writing credit?
It's not that black and white, I guess.
If the melody (and the riff) on SMU was different, and Keith came up with the DA-da-da riff, resulting in an overall change of melody on the track, I'd say yes. And you?
Hmm, I just want to know what Mathijs thinks due to the intro's he listed.
Re: Mick Taylor - Sticky Fingers guitar contributions
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: January 23, 2014 12:23
They simply acknowledge the fact that without the input of the other, albeit 5% or 50%, the end result is not Rolling Stones music.
Take Happy: the music is recorded at Nellcote, but the lyrics where written by Jagger and Richards in LA, and Jagger had a great deal of input in producing (vocals, backup vocals), mixing and mastering the track. And we don't know who wrote the riff, or the melody, or the breaks exactly. It could have been something Jagger was playing over and over out of boredom....
Mathijs
Take Happy: the music is recorded at Nellcote, but the lyrics where written by Jagger and Richards in LA, and Jagger had a great deal of input in producing (vocals, backup vocals), mixing and mastering the track. And we don't know who wrote the riff, or the melody, or the breaks exactly. It could have been something Jagger was playing over and over out of boredom....
Mathijs
Re: Mick Taylor - Sticky Fingers guitar contributions
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: January 23, 2014 12:35
Quote
DandelionPowderman
I think the intro-riffs of BS, SMU, HTW, JJF, SFM, 2000 LYFH, Satisfaction, Angie, Rocks Off, Ventilator Blues, Sweet Black Angel and others are essential for the songs.
You might not think they are important - fine!
The Stones have managed rather well without playing the intro of "Jumpin'Jack Flash", perhaps even not 'essentially' losing anything...
Seriously, the intro of "Brown Sugar" is a bit different animal than the intros which are the riffs going through the song ("Satisfaction", "Start Me Up", "The Last Time", etc.). It is really an entity of its own, 'added' to the song (like, the intro of "Rocks Off" which, funnily, is like a skeleton or even a sloppy man's parody of "Brown Sugar" intro.)
So if Keef might have "scarf-problems" with the intro of "Brown Sugar" that's much harder to edit afterwards than with "Start Me Up" when you can 'borrow' the intro from latter parts of the song, if he manages to hit he chords right there somewhere...
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-23 12:36 by Doxa.
Re: Mick Taylor - Sticky Fingers guitar contributions
Posted by:
howled
()
Date: January 23, 2014 13:16
I think Keith's intros are great and I wish Keith or even Ronnie would play the JJF intro for once.
The intros I'm talking about occur only once at the start of the song and introduce the song and they never appear again.
A continually occurring riff like in Satisfaction or The Last Time are not really intros.
JJF and BS have an intro and an outro.
The way Mick and Keith worked was to have a Jagger/Richard credit even if they had hardly anything to do with writing the song.
Probably because if one song came from Keith then the next one might come from Mick and then the next one might come from Mick and Keith etc etc, much like Lennon and McCartney.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-23 13:24 by howled.
The intros I'm talking about occur only once at the start of the song and introduce the song and they never appear again.
A continually occurring riff like in Satisfaction or The Last Time are not really intros.
JJF and BS have an intro and an outro.
The way Mick and Keith worked was to have a Jagger/Richard credit even if they had hardly anything to do with writing the song.
Probably because if one song came from Keith then the next one might come from Mick and then the next one might come from Mick and Keith etc etc, much like Lennon and McCartney.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-23 13:24 by howled.
Re: Mick Taylor - Sticky Fingers guitar contributions
Posted by:
howled
()
Date: January 23, 2014 13:21
Those arpeggios on the break just don't fit in.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-23 13:24 by howled.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-23 13:24 by howled.
Re: Mick Taylor - Sticky Fingers guitar contributions
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: January 23, 2014 13:25
Quote
howled
JJF and BS have an intro and an outro.
In JJF the intro and outro chords acts as the middle break as well.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-23 13:36 by His Majesty.
Re: Mick Taylor - Sticky Fingers guitar contributions
Posted by:
howled
()
Date: January 23, 2014 13:29
If Mick was a total Ahole, he could push Keith off the Brown Sugar credits, as Keith's intro is neither part of the melody or lyrics.
But that wasn't likely to happen because Mick and Keith are the driving forces of the Stones and so they share credits on just about everything either one does with the Stones.
If Keith suggested one word to Mick and Mick used it, then Keith should be on the credits but a thing like the intro riff doesn't automatically put someone on the credits.
Brian doesn't get a credit for "The Last Time" riff for these reasons.
The Paint It Black riff is also the verse melody and it's Keith's melody with Mick's lyrics, so Brian doesn't automatically get a credit.
Taylor is often in a similar situation where he might do some sort of intro or riff and not be entitled to be on the credits.
Copyright rules and all that.
But there are gray areas and sometimes bands will do collective credits and give credits for riffs etc.
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-23 13:40 by howled.
But that wasn't likely to happen because Mick and Keith are the driving forces of the Stones and so they share credits on just about everything either one does with the Stones.
If Keith suggested one word to Mick and Mick used it, then Keith should be on the credits but a thing like the intro riff doesn't automatically put someone on the credits.
Brian doesn't get a credit for "The Last Time" riff for these reasons.
The Paint It Black riff is also the verse melody and it's Keith's melody with Mick's lyrics, so Brian doesn't automatically get a credit.
Taylor is often in a similar situation where he might do some sort of intro or riff and not be entitled to be on the credits.
Copyright rules and all that.
But there are gray areas and sometimes bands will do collective credits and give credits for riffs etc.
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-23 13:40 by howled.
Re: Mick Taylor - Sticky Fingers guitar contributions
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 23, 2014 13:41
<I wish Keith or even Ronnie would play the JJF intro for once>
He did - once - on the club gig in the 90s
I wish Mick would sing the choruses on JJF again as well. He hasn't done it since the first chorus on Rock'n'Roll Circus!
He did - once - on the club gig in the 90s
I wish Mick would sing the choruses on JJF again as well. He hasn't done it since the first chorus on Rock'n'Roll Circus!
Re: Mick Taylor - Sticky Fingers guitar contributions
Posted by:
elunsi
()
Date: January 23, 2014 13:43
Quote
Mathijs
They simply acknowledge the fact that without the input of the other, albeit 5% or 50%, the end result is not Rolling Stones music.
Take Happy: the music is recorded at Nellcote, but the lyrics where written by Jagger and Richards in LA, and Jagger had a great deal of input in producing (vocals, backup vocals), mixing and mastering the track. And we don't know who wrote the riff, or the melody, or the breaks exactly. It could have been something Jagger was playing over and over out of boredom....
Mathijs
Interesting...
Usually everyone says that Mick had zero to do with it.
Re: Mick Taylor - Sticky Fingers guitar contributions
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 23, 2014 13:51
Quote
elunsiQuote
Mathijs
They simply acknowledge the fact that without the input of the other, albeit 5% or 50%, the end result is not Rolling Stones music.
Take Happy: the music is recorded at Nellcote, but the lyrics where written by Jagger and Richards in LA, and Jagger had a great deal of input in producing (vocals, backup vocals), mixing and mastering the track. And we don't know who wrote the riff, or the melody, or the breaks exactly. It could have been something Jagger was playing over and over out of boredom....
Mathijs
Interesting...
Usually everyone says that Mick had zero to do with it.
Mick himself said "we wrote the words..."
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
bv , ChrisMahavishnu , FloresMuertas , Justjon , llsbsk , rastakeith , TeddyB1018 , TooTight , TumblinDice76
Guests:
1744
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10