Quote
buffalo7478

Quote
sonomastone
on the face of it, the evidence is clear. just prior to hiring taylor, the stones had recorded "beggar's banquet" and "let it bleed," two of their greatest albums. they were on a roll.

but by the time he left, they had just released "it's only rock-n-roll," one of their worst albums to date.

however, i'm inclined to give taylor some more credit than that. clearly heroin and distractions of being rich and comfortable took some of the edge of their creativity too.

what do you think, is mick taylor the reason the band completely tanked creatively in the mid-70s?

IORR is a decent album, better than any pre-Beggar's album. The 60's had some great singles by the Stones, but some not great albums...very uneven. I think they faded as the 70s turned to the 80s as they were past their prime, Keith's years of drug use, outside lives and all the things that draw friends, bands and other groups apart that happen.

Aftermath.

The Rolling Stones, Aftermath, Between The Buttons and Their Satanic Majesties Request are all better than IORR, imo.

Aftermath remains a classic. Not a bad track on it.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
stonehearted
Plunder My Soul--that's the two Micks working together, quite creatively and with impressive results.

Is Mick's vocals and Taylor's guitar impressive on PMS?

I meant the track as a whole. Mick J has said how he could write against the melodic quality of Mick T's playing, and Plundered is another example of that.

Is it? How?

Anyone with a musical ear can hear similarities in Jagger's melody lines and Taylor's melodic conception during critical moments, songs like "Moonlight Mile" and live versions of YCAGWYW, or Heartbreaker. Taylor and Jagger spent a lot of time together, they must have inspired each other musically. That's the "how". What else do you want to dispute, songwriting again?

I can't hear that on PMS.

Neither do I.

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
stonehearted
Plunder My Soul--that's the two Micks working together, quite creatively and with impressive results.

Is Mick's vocals and Taylor's guitar impressive on PMS?

I meant the track as a whole. Mick J has said how he could write against the melodic quality of Mick T's playing, and Plundered is another example of that.

Is it? How?

Anyone with a musical ear can hear similarities in Jagger's melody lines and Taylor's melodic conception during critical moments, songs like "Moonlight Mile" and live versions of YCAGWYW, or Heartbreaker. Taylor and Jagger spent a lot of time together, they must have inspired each other musically. That's the "how". What else do you want to dispute, songwriting again?

I can't hear that on PMS.

Neither do I.

Why did you make your previous post, then?

I don't disagree about other songs. Mick has even stated that himself, and it's rather evident on some songs (Winter comes to mind, if the melody the strings are playing wasn't there already. MM could have been written only with the acoustic guitar, imo, but MT improved it - that is another story, and doesn't necessarily have something to do with Mick writing off of MT's melody lines)

But when people are saying it's evident on PMS, I get really curious about how, because most likely it just isn't true.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-09-03 11:25 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
stonehearted
Plunder My Soul--that's the two Micks working together, quite creatively and with impressive results.

Is Mick's vocals and Taylor's guitar impressive on PMS?

I meant the track as a whole. Mick J has said how he could write against the melodic quality of Mick T's playing, and Plundered is another example of that.

Is it? How?

Anyone with a musical ear can hear similarities in Jagger's melody lines and Taylor's melodic conception during critical moments, songs like "Moonlight Mile" and live versions of YCAGWYW, or Heartbreaker. Taylor and Jagger spent a lot of time together, they must have inspired each other musically. That's the "how". What else do you want to dispute, songwriting again?

I can't hear that on PMS.

Neither do I.

Why did you make your previous post, then?

Cause I hear it on other songs, just like you, I presume. And to join your discussion with Stonehearted.

That discussion was about PMS. Yeah, I get it now - you didn't reply to that bit

Quote
funkydrummer
No Keith's overuse of open-G tuning was.

+100000000. You sir/madam have the answer. When Mick started to use Open G tuning on Brown Sugar - as a pretty lazy rhythm guitar or the Stop Breaking Down - as a rock n roll/shuffle guitar it made sense. It also made sense when Keith started to explore Open G as a rhythm tuning, on Exile, live in 1972 etc (after the copying of cooder - in both standard and open tunings).

But then he got lazy and Open G became a safe routine. JJF is an explosion in 1972 but also pure perfection. I think he returned to that perfection at the Mocambo, the minimalistic use of Open G.

The way Keith used open G had nothing to do with how Ry used it - hence no copying, other than the tuning itself (which he first learned from Brian, according to Dick Taylor) minus one string

“KEITH’S OPEN G TUNING, WHATEVER ANYONE SAYS, I KNOW WHERE HE GOT IT FROM. OPEN G TUNING DEFINITELY CAME FROM BRIAN.”
- DICK TAYLOR.

Read this:

[trynka.net]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-09-03 11:59 by DandelionPowderman.

Looking at the thread title again, it looks rather bizarre.

However, it can be turned around, and still have a ring of truth to it: He left...

Quote
DandelionPowderman
That discussion was about PMS. Yeah, I get it now - you didn't reply to that bit

I think Taylor and Jagger did a great job. I like Taylor's intro a lot, almost sounds like a slide guitar, but Taylor plays different throughout the song than he would have done 40 years ago.

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
DandelionPowderman
That discussion was about PMS. Yeah, I get it now - you didn't reply to that bit

I think Taylor and Jagger did a great job. I like Taylor's intro a lot, almost sounds like a slide guitar, but Taylor plays different throughout the song than he would have done 40 years ago.

It's more staccato than he would normally play, imo. Not so fluid. Played without a pick?

Quote
DandelionPowderman




But what is relevance, then, if it hasn't got anything to do with popularity or album sales? When push comes to show, remaining among the top 3 acts in the world, surely would classify as relevant?

IMO, what you and I think are creative nadirs could be another man's treasure

I'm not sure how long an album stays in the charts would be the right measurement of relevance...

If it was, I would say they became irrelevant in 1997, when they had a go at the charts with Anybody Seen My Baby. After all, they broke world records with VL and the tour, and they all over MTV with that album. Same thing with the comeback album SW.

An interesting question, indeed, and a damn difficult to answer. "Relevance" is a vague term used rather commonly, but damn hard to define. I can't do that either, but I still try to say something of it...

I didn't claim that it has nothing to do with popularity, but more like relevance cannot be totally explained by popularity. For example, in 1977 The Sex Pistols or The Clash didn't sell that much albums, but I think it is pretty hard to claim that they were not among the most relevant acts back then. BEGGARS BANQUET wasn't such a big seller - and actually the only Stones studio album that never reached #1 anywhere in the world. But still it made a huge impact in the music world, and is rather widely considered one of the most important releases of the 'crazy year' 1968, and one of the peaks of The Stones reflecting the zeitgest. And like SATANIC MAJESTIES earlier, it was following a musical trend, this time post-psychedelic 'more back to traditional roots' movement (Dylan's Basement Tapes & JOHN WESLEY HARDING, The Beatles' White Album, etc.).

In this sense I would stick 'relevance' more to connection to 'trendy' than that of 'popularity'. 'Being relevant' in this sense is like being a part of movement that defines the day, leading or following a trend that usually offers something novel and typical to the day/times/era. And as far as pop music/rock goes, what is 'trendy' at the moment, is up the 'right' audience, and the latter generally tends to be the most critical voice available, that is, the big-mouthed, trend-following youth (and probably the reflective media)... For example, Elvis Presley sold helluva amounts of albums and had hits only next to the Beatles during the sixties, but can he said to have been 'relevant' in the way, say, The Doors, or Jimi Hendrix were during the last part of the decade? What would have the hippies said?

As far as the Stones go, I think that whatever they did all the way to EXILE, was relevant, but after that the trends changed so quickly, a new generation of rock musicians - and their fans - emerged, defining the criterion of relevance differently, into which The Stones couldn't - or wanted - any longer to answer. If we look the rock media of early 70's - just after EXILE, and especially in their homeland - this kind of discussion started to be rather typical- are The Stones 'too old', etc. and just a year or two earlier they were the spokesmen of their generation.

Made SOME GIRLS them 'relevant' again? Yes and no. I think they were as relevant as ever can be if we look at the biggest new trend of the day, disco music. "Miss You" without any doubt worked as a huge disco hit should do, a huge radio plays, shitloads of sold singles, and the people in discotheques were moving their asses according to it. I don't think any more is asked for being 'relevant' in that scene (I sometimes think that the success of "Miss You" gave a wrong signal to Mick, of which he hasn't probably ever since have recovered...). But outside "Miss You" their relevance was more like determined by their own terms. They were able to offer an updated fresh sound, and the climate - thanks to punk movement getting rid of 'egoistic' guitar gods, prog bands, etc - seemed to appriacate that sort of passionate, non-technical, energetic rock and roll (and, no matter of the punk criticism towards them and their contemporaries, weren't them a kind of original punk band, the original rebels, if we forget their fat, hedonistic 70's dinosaur days?). I think this kind of 'new relevance', without too strong nostalgia package yet, would gain them a lot of new fans during the next following years, charmed not just by HOT ROCKS, but by their recent albums from SOME GIRLS to UNDERCOVER. I think the 'world' was easier from them to cope with during those years than it was during the mid-seventies - their existence was more 'justified'. But of course, even then they would never be as relevant as they were in 1963-72 (not even close), but more like accepted, or even untouchtable, elder statemen of rock, a bit above all the changing trends.

What goes for their latter days, starting with their come-back in 1989, the most I think of their relavance is that being like the one Elvis had when starting his 'come-back' in 1968. Highly popular, and for many, many people the 'right' way how 'rock and roll' should be played. The nostalgia market for 60's - and 70's - music started to be so huge - the youth of those times where now mature and wealthy, and they couldn't care less of the trends of the day - that there was a natural market and need for them, if they were ble to respond into it rightly. Which they did.

But but... AND THIS IS IMPORTANT! I don't think we should pay too much attention to 'relevance' as some kind of defining criteria for musical greatness. It is natural for acts who once were defining the trends of day, sooner or later to lose the touch to zeitgeist or trends of the day, and more like starting to follow their own paths, by terms defined by them - be them now how 'old-fashionable' or whatever. This happened to Elvis, as it happened to Bobby Dylan, John Lennon, David Bowie, or, say, Johnny Rotten/Lydon.. Many times, especially when I think of Dylan, Lennon, and, yes, The Rolling Stones, that offers an interesting artistic evolution, guided by their own muse, and to be evaluated by its own. Personally I think that is more interesting than trying to guess how 'relevant' it is.

Hmmm... seemingly I am adopting my old bad habit of making OT-going waaayyyy tooooooo looooooooong posts... But you raised a damn good question, Dandie, and I tried to give some kind of sketchy answer to it. All the objections welcome!

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-09-03 14:50 by Doxa.

Brilliant post, Doxa!

Would using the term "of cultural relevance" perhaps be fitting?

"Egotistical guitar gods" - love it ><

PS: If that was sketchy, I wonder how your profound analysis would be?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-09-03 14:33 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
Doxa



Hmmm... seemingly I am adopting my old bad habit of making OT-going waaayyyy tooooooo looooooooong posts... But you raised a damn good question, Dandie, and I tried to give some kind of sketchy answer to it. All the objections welcome!

- Doxa

no objections, and the topic was specifically designed to encourage lots of great OT discussion :-)

BTW, I think relevance is an overrated quality for a Rock 'n' Roll band too!

Haha,
I love your analysises et cetera, but in the end all that counts in Rock 'n'Roll is if I like it.
Yes I do.

Just as long as the guitar plays, let it steal your heart away

Absolutely mother f'in not. Their so called "creative death" was due to outside distractions (drugs, police, wacky girlfriends, awful hangers on, etc.) In fact, Mick Taylor's influence actually took the Stones to the next level and probably saved them.

I guess the creative drive which made the stones "timeless" rather than "relaventt" was the Mick and Keith spark with or without MT. I wonder how often That sort of thing can be sustained for more than a decade?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-09-03 21:07 by EJM.

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
stonehearted
Plunder My Soul--that's the two Micks working together, quite creatively and with impressive results.

Is Mick's vocals and Taylor's guitar impressive on PMS?

I meant the track as a whole. Mick J has said how he could write against the melodic quality of Mick T's playing, and Plundered is another example of that.

just to set the record straight on this, Mick J didn't write anything against the melodic quality of Mick T's playing on plundered my soul. Here is Mick Taylor himself describing his contributions (from interview with Gibson):

With the re-release, you actually got to go back and take another shot at one of the tracks, “Plundered My Soul.” What was that session like?

Oh, that was very quick. I mean, because the track was already there for me to overdub on, and Mick had already done a rough vocal, so it didn’t actually sound too much like an outtake from Exile on Main St. Well, it did, except Mick had added vocals and back-up vocals and all it needed was some lead guitar, which I did… very quickly. I think it took about two hours for me to do about four or five different passes on the guitar.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
DandelionPowderman
That discussion was about PMS. Yeah, I get it now - you didn't reply to that bit

I think Taylor and Jagger did a great job. I like Taylor's intro a lot, almost sounds like a slide guitar, but Taylor plays different throughout the song than he would have done 40 years ago.

It's more staccato than he would normally play, imo. Not so fluid. Played without a pick?

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
DandelionPowderman
That discussion was about PMS. Yeah, I get it now - you didn't reply to that bit

I think Taylor and Jagger did a great job. I like Taylor's intro a lot, almost sounds like a slide guitar, but Taylor plays different throughout the song than he would have done 40 years ago.

It's more staccato than he would normally play, imo. Not so fluid. Played without a pick?

With the fingers I think. I listened to Kleermakers' "best version", forgot that one, and on second thought I do hear similarities in Jagger's and Taylor's melodic lines. Don't know who dubbed first, Jagger or Taylor. The staccato fits the song very well in this case, imo.

For once I would have preferred the softer sound of the vt22 on this one

Read Taylor's statement above about the overdubbing.

A rough vocal could imply that Jagger tried something already. To me it's ok as recorded, be it a VT22 or even a simulator.

Hey Funkydrummer,

I like your analogy to Santa Claus...that is true.

The music is so magical...and when you find out of you can play most of the stuff with a pick on the right and one or two fingers on the left it looses it's magic (as a guitar player)...but at the same time...as simple as it is...it sounds great and Keith unlocked the secret to packing stadiums with a balance of guys and gals.

On the contrary...Rush plays a million precise notes in a nano-second and guess how many chicks show up to their shows?...maybe on a Friday or Saturday night show...1%

Pecman

What a dumb thread. Most people don't give Taylor any or near enough credit, then some bozo says he's responsible for the creative death of the band? Wow, thanks internet.

Obviously, the Stones "made it", twice really if you consider all the money Klein finagled from them, and then they started over. If anything, money, drugs, success and apathy led to a creative death, which I don't agree with anyway. Times change, audiences change. Mick Jagger is still ultra-creative and has been pushing the boundaries of their music since the beginning.

I would love for them to dig back in all those Jimmy Miller-era unreleased songs and put out a full album. I would LOVE to hear Jagger do Separately and Leather Jacket. How cool!

I think Mick Taylor may also be responsible for global warming.

I overheard someone saying that the other day. What a bast*rd.

Quote
treaclefingers
I think Mick Taylor may also be responsible for global warming.

I overheard someone saying that the other day. What a bast*rd.

I'm sure there are those who think it may actually be Ron Wood's fault.

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
treaclefingers
I think Mick Taylor may also be responsible for global warming.

I overheard someone saying that the other day. What a bast*rd.

I'm sure there are those who think it may actually be Ron Wood's fault.

WE NEED TO STOP BURNING WOOD!!!

That and coal...that'll slow global warming.

....without Wood the Stones woulda splintered years ago ....



ROCKMAN

Quote
Rockman
....without Wood the Stones woulda splintered years ago ....

Wot Wood the Stones do without Ronnie?!

Quote
TravelinMan
What a dumb thread. Most people don't give Taylor any or near enough credit, then some bozo says he's responsible for the creative death of the band? Wow, thanks internet.

Obviously, the Stones "made it", twice really if you consider all the money Klein finagled from them, and then they started over. If anything, money, drugs, success and apathy led to a creative death, which I don't agree with anyway. Times change, audiences change. Mick Jagger is still ultra-creative and has been pushing the boundaries of their music since the beginning.

I would love for them to dig back in all those Jimmy Miller-era unreleased songs and put out a full album. I would LOVE to hear Jagger do Separately and Leather Jacket. How cool!

I totally agree

Yes, I do think Mick Taylor's DEPARTURE was responsible for the creative death of the Rolling Stones.