I know lots of folks think Nicky Hopkins was the man for the Stones but the more I listen to Stones stuff from the 70's the more I realize that Billy Preston really helped the band groove.

I pretty much love everything he contributed while recording with them and although I never saw him play live with the Stone's I get the feeling that they leaned on him heavily to keep the music groovin' and fresh. The fact that they haven't really been the same live without him (no cut to Chuck) seems to support that premise.

Just wondering what other opinions are out there from this group of educated Stones listeners. Thanks. peace

Billy Preston is criminally underrated. His solo material on Apple and A&M is worth checking out. Keith Richards even played bass on the That's The Way God Planned It Album.

Billy even kept Ray Charles' groove going on Here We Go Again, Let's Go Get Stoned, and I Don't Need No Doctor.

ROCKMAN

Billy was excellent. However, he took up a lot of space musically. Whereas Nicky elegantly could manoeuvre in and out of the soundscape, Billy had a tendency to push it further, imo.

I'm not saying that was inferior in any way. Two different ways of dealing with the music. Both great in their own way.

Billy Preston improved EVERY band he played with. I saw him with the Stones in Cleveland in 1975.

His "That's the Way God Planned It" performance at Concert for Bangaladesh was a show stopper.

He's sometimes called the Fifth Beatle, especially for his contributions to Let It Be album and was instrumental touring with Eric Clapton shortly before he died. RIP.

"Take all the pain...It's yours anyway"

I saw him in 75 as well and my 1st thought was he was way to up front.
Almost like Mick and Bill's Rolling Stones.

What made Nicky and Stu so great they played and didn't try to outstage the Stones.
They played so beautifully without making themselves the focus .

Bill added a lot. But as soon as Jagger didn't give him credit he craved he quit and then bad
Mouth the Stones.

This was just what I saw at the time. Sorry.

Brilliant that he was, he totally butchered Brown Sugar during the -75 tour.... Glasgow '73 is also a famous moment where Keith had had enough....

This was just what I saw at the time. Sorry

No need to be sorry hot stuff, I appreciate your observations and opinion! Anybody that saw them in 75 and can still remember is very nice to hear from. peace

No...haha.. 75 was my very 1st Stones concert. Having front row seats for 2 nights in Philly.

My main problem was Billy acted like he was a Rolling Stone.

I was also very bummed that Mick Taylor wasn't there.

Anyway I will Never forget my 1st Stones tour.

Billy acted like he was a Rolling Stone.


YEP!!! ... that's always a recipe for disaster



ROCKMAN

Quote
Rockman
Billy acted like he was a Rolling Stone.


YEP!!! ... that's always a recipe for disaster

LOL! Yeah just ask Marshall Chess, Jimmy Miller (RIP), Andy Johns (RIP), Spanish Tony (RIP), et al. peace

Chuck got lucky!

Quote
hot stuff
I saw him in 75 as well and my 1st thought was he was way to up front.
Almost like Mick and Bill's Rolling Stones.

What made Nicky and Stu so great they played and didn't try to outstage the Stones.
They played so beautifully without making themselves the focus .

Bill added a lot. But as soon as Jagger didn't give him credit he craved he quit and then bad Mouth the Stones.

This was just what I saw at the time. Sorry.

It's more like he was "uninvited" to the Paris 1977 sessions, no? And I didn't know he badmouthed the Stones?

--------------
IORR Links : Essential Studio Outtakes CDs : Audio - History of Rarest Outtakes : Audio

Billy was good for some songs, obviously the funky ones, but like Chuck, doesn't have the style or gravitas for the darker ones. He was perfect for the period of time he played with them, and I really dig his contributions to the Stones studio recordings. On the flip side we don't really know how Nicky Hopkins would have done live on something like Hot Stuff. (Just as we don't know now Mick Taylor would have been.)

But we all agree that Chuck should have been out of there a long, long time ago, and that we'll probably never hear the genius level of Billy, Nicky, or Stu with the Stones ever again.

I'll never forget getting the Get Back/Don't Let Me Down 45 when I was a kid and reading the label: "The Beatles With Billy Preston". That's how good he was...

He did help the Beatles during the Get Back sessions--in fact he saved those sessions and the resultant film from becoming a complete disaster. Before he showed up, the band was sluggish and groggy, generally just muddling through and getting on one another's nerves. Which is why George (Harrison) inviting him in, knowing that being the Englishmen that they were they would not air their dirty laundry around outsiders and would instead be on their best behavior while stepping up their game in the process.

As for his touring work with the Stones, well, I've only seen the photos, and frankly, I'm glad I don't have to look at him preening about in the Let's Spend The Night Together movie, as it would have grated. I like to see the two Ians just sitting there and doing their job unobtrusively.

A sideman should be a sideman, rather than a second frontman, because....

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Rockman
Billy acted like he was a Rolling Stone.


YEP!!! ... that's always a recipe for disaster

LOL! Yeah just ask Marshall Chess, Jimmy Miller (RIP), Andy Johns (RIP), Spanish Tony (RIP), et al. peace

Gram Parsons (RIP)... [as you say, 'et al.']

Quote
hot stuff
I saw him in 75 as well and my 1st thought was he was way to up front.
Almost like Mick and Bill's Rolling Stones.

What made Nicky and Stu so great they played and didn't try to outstage the Stones.
They played so beautifully without making themselves the focus .

Bill added a lot. But as soon as Jagger didn't give him credit he craved he quit and then bad
Mouth the Stones.

This was just what I saw at the time. Sorry.

I've never ever heard that. Sources?

What I always thought was that he got a little too big in the group and Keith put his foot down (at least that's Keith's version). I loved Billy as a sideman (brilliant on Sticky, Exile and GHS) but Melody was it for me. I didn't care for that at all. I know a lot of people like it, but Billy and the Stones probably got all they could from each other by "77. Some Girls never would have happened with him in the band.

Quote
71Tele
What I always thought was that he got a little too big in the group and Keith put his foot down (at least that's Keith's version). I loved Billy as a sideman (brilliant on Sticky, Exile and GHS) but Melody was it for me. I didn't care for that at all. I know a lot of people like it, but Billy and the Stones probably got all they could from each other by "77. Some Girls never would have happened with him in the band.

I agree (although I like Melody). However, seemingly Billy was instrumental in leading the Stones into making Miss You, so in a way he is part of SG, too

My first concert was Birmingham odean 73 and billy was the support act, he was that good that the crowd were wanting more after his last number.

I thought he was brilliant that night and also with the stones, i dont think he was too much in the picture those days, but can see the point in the years to come that he tried to take one of the lead parts.

I love Billy's contributions to the stones and did not realise he had bad mouthed them after leaving.

RIP Billy.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
hot stuff
I saw him in 75 as well and my 1st thought was he was way to up front.
Almost like Mick and Bill's Rolling Stones.

What made Nicky and Stu so great they played and didn't try to outstage the Stones.
They played so beautifully without making themselves the focus .

Bill added a lot. But as soon as Jagger didn't give him credit he craved he quit and then bad
Mouth the Stones.

This was just what I saw at the time. Sorry.

I've never ever heard that. Sources?

Billy was ousted after he had a fall out with Jagger about royalties for the Love You Live album, which even caused the release of the album to be delayed.

I love Billy Preston. I love what he did with the Stones, he really added gospel and groove to the music, together with Ollie Brown. I love his solo efforts as well, great songs, great grooves.

Mathijs

Quote
odean73
My first concert was Birmingham odean 73 and billy was the support act, he was that good that the crowd were wanting more after his last number.

I thought he was brilliant that night and also with the stones, i dont think he was too much in the picture those days, but can see the point in the years to come that he tried to take one of the lead parts.

I love Billy's contributions to the stones and did not realise he had bad mouthed them after leaving.

RIP Billy.

I don't think he did.

Quote
Naturalust
I know lots of folks think Nicky Hopkins was the man for the Stones but the more I listen to Stones stuff from the 70's the more I realize that Billy Preston really helped the band groove.

I pretty much love everything he contributed while recording with them and although I never saw him play live with the Stone's I get the feeling that they leaned on him heavily to keep the music groovin' and fresh. The fact that they haven't really been the same live without him (no cut to Chuck) seems to support that premise.

Just wondering what other opinions are out there from this group of educated Stones listeners. Thanks. peace

Youre 100% right of course. Billy and the forgotten Ollie (who saved many live songs in 1975/1976/1977) replaced Mick Taylor. No offense to Ronnie, but Billy and Ollie is Mach III (IV?).

I have to agree with you odean 73 - I was at both of those Birmingham concerts and quite a few more on the 73 European tour and I thought Billy was great - his support act was fantastic, full of energy and such enthusiasm, also his contribution to the Stones albums was excellent although I do not personally rate Melody at all.

"till the next time..."

Star

I get the feeling Billy was pretty close with Mick J. He added a nice friendly vibe onstage with them. Musically I believe he brought a new direction The Stones could incorporate into their own tunes. Maybe I'm one of the few that enjoyed his 2 song set live? It's a nice piece of Stones history imo.

....Billy loved ta wig-out



ROCKMAN

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
Naturalust
I know lots of folks think Nicky Hopkins was the man for the Stones but the more I listen to Stones stuff from the 70's the more I realize that Billy Preston really helped the band groove.

I pretty much love everything he contributed while recording with them and although I never saw him play live with the Stone's I get the feeling that they leaned on him heavily to keep the music groovin' and fresh. The fact that they haven't really been the same live without him (no cut to Chuck) seems to support that premise.

Just wondering what other opinions are out there from this group of educated Stones listeners. Thanks. peace

Youre 100% right of course. Billy and the forgotten Ollie (who saved many live songs in 1975/1976/1977) replaced Mick Taylor. No offense to Ronnie, but Billy and Ollie is Mach III (IV?).

Mark V

Quote
Starr
I have to agree with you odean 73 - I was at both of those Birmingham concerts and quite a few more on the 73 European tour and I thought Billy was great - his support act was fantastic, full of energy and such enthusiasm, also his contribution to the Stones albums was excellent although I do not personally rate Melody at all.

"till the next time..."

I think this is the first time i have seen somebody mention they went to the odean concert.

I went to the later show, did you have any preference in which show was best or was they both good.

Quote
gotdablouse

Quote
hot stuff
I saw him in 75 as well and my 1st thought was he was way to up front.
Almost like Mick and Bill's Rolling Stones.

What made Nicky and Stu so great they played and didn't try to outstage the Stones.
They played so beautifully without making themselves the focus .

Bill added a lot. But as soon as Jagger didn't give him credit he craved he quit and then bad Mouth the Stones.

This was just what I saw at the time. Sorry.

It's more like he was "uninvited" to the Paris 1977 sessions, no? And I didn't know he badmouthed the Stones?

Yeah it was Keef being fed up with him. He told one French rock mag in 79 sth like : "Preston was so far ahead of us musically that he'd turn one of my basic riffs into a finished song in no time, long before I could work on it myself properly and move the embryo of song in my direction. I got tired of this".

But obviously when Keef was a walking corpse in the studio (74-76) the amazing skills of Preston served him well...



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-10-09 15:44 by dcba.