Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Could be a technical reason, though. That's hard to hear on the acetate-sounding film tracks.

There are a couple of musical clashes, but no reason to wipe it, imo, unless the close mic had recording flaws, imo.

Have you changed your mind? Is Taylor trustworthy now?

As a musical historian he hasn't proven to be especially trustworthy, no.

Why?

You said he wasn't trustworthy and one of the reasons, if not THE reason, was that he said he might have played a solo on one of their Chuck Berry covers.

Quote
Redhotcarpet
You said he wasn't trustworthy and one of the reasons, if not THE reason, was that he said he might have played a solo on one of their Chuck Berry covers.

Well, surprise, I knew that wasn't true. Nor is Angie, that he wrote most of the ballads, that TWFNO was the first Stones song with maj-chords and other stuff.

I don't blame him, but I wouldn't write a piece on music with him as the only source.

But what does this have to do with the reason for Keith to wipe a possible technical flawed RHYTHM track?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-06-30 01:33 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Turner68

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Could be a technical reason, though. That's hard to hear on the acetate-sounding film tracks.

There are a couple of musical clashes, but no reason to wipe it, imo, unless the close mic had recording flaws, imo.

In any case, if there was a good reason to wipe Taylor's part, Richards could have let Taylor play the overdub instead of playing with himself.

Ya-Ya's is widely regarded as one of the best, if not the best, live rock and roll albums ever. Second guessing the decisions made by the producers of the record and claiming that because one of us can't hear a difference between two parts there is none, is a fine sport especially on a fan site and there is nothing wrong with it.

But let's just be clear that this is kind of like critiquing how Mozart wrote the Jupiter symphony or Hamlet wrote the 3 witches in MacBeth. We are talking about something where the end result is already majestic.

Personally I think overdubbing live albums is unnecessary and I wish they hadn't done that... on on hand. On the other hand, I know how I and my friends felt when we heard Ya-Yas for the first time - that it was the ultimate and crowning achievement in "live" rock and roll - and I struggle to second guess anything that went into making it.

This!

all that needs to be said.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Could be a technical reason, though. That's hard to hear on the acetate-sounding film tracks.

There are a couple of musical clashes, but no reason to wipe it, imo, unless the close mic had recording flaws, imo.

In any case, if there was a good reason to wipe Taylor's part, Richards could have let Taylor play the overdub instead of playing with himself.

Ya-Ya's is widely regarded as one of the best, if not the best, live rock and roll albums ever. Second guessing the decisions made by the producers of the record and claiming that because one of us can't hear a difference between two parts there is none, is a fine sport especially on a fan site and there is nothing wrong with it.

But let's just be clear that this is kind of like critiquing how Mozart wrote the Jupiter symphony or Hamlet wrote the 3 witches in MacBeth. We are talking about something where the end result is already majestic.

Personally I think overdubbing live albums is unnecessary and I wish they hadn't done that... on on hand. On the other hand, I know how I and my friends felt when we heard Ya-Yas for the first time - that it was the ultimate and crowning achievement in "live" rock and roll - and I struggle to second guess anything that went into making it.

Now there's a thread about Ya-Yas overdubs: iorr.org And as you can see in the OP, little Mick got the snub on a lot of those... and by a lot I mean half the album.

Any thoughts?

Quote
HearMeKnockin
Now there's a thread about Ya-Yas overdubs: iorr.org And as you can see in the OP, little Mick got the snub on a lot of those... and by a lot I mean half the album.

Any thoughts?

Perhaps there were other justifiable reasons the parts were overdubbed but I tend to think some of it was just due to the fact that Keith thought he could play the parts better (whether he could or not) and knew he wouldn't get too much flack from the new guy who hadn't been a member for very long at that point. Keith was riding high on his riff-master, rhythm guitar king status at the time. And to be honest he was damn good at it in 1970.

Obviously he couldn't overdub Taylor's lead parts no matter how hard he tried.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
HearMeKnockin
Now there's a thread about Ya-Yas overdubs: iorr.org And as you can see in the OP, little Mick got the snub on a lot of those... and by a lot I mean half the album.

Any thoughts?

Perhaps there were other justifiable reasons the parts were overdubbed but I tend to think some of it was just due to the fact that Keith thought he could play the parts better (whether he could or not) and knew he wouldn't get too much flack from the new guy who hadn't been a member for very long at that point. Keith was riding high on his riff-master, rhythm guitar king status at the time. And to be honest he was damn good at it in 1970.

Obviously he couldn't overdub Taylor's lead parts no matter how hard he tried.

Keith also replaced some of his own rhythm parts and I believe he wanted to change the "tone" of the guitar not that the performance was subpar. He probably used a different guitar and amp etc. Berry chordal rhythm parts with the suspended major 6ths are not demanding at all and any time I heard Taylor play parts like that he was locked in and they sounded good.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-01 20:51 by TravelinMan.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Redhotcarpet
You said he wasn't trustworthy and one of the reasons, if not THE reason, was that he said he might have played a solo on one of their Chuck Berry covers.

Well, surprise, I knew that wasn't true. Nor is Angie, that he wrote most of the ballads, that TWFNO was the first Stones song with maj-chords and other stuff.

I don't blame him, but I wouldn't write a piece on music with him as the only source.

But what does this have to do with the reason for Keith to wipe a possible technical flawed RHYTHM track?

Not that I don't believe you, but which songs had major 7 chords? What part do you think Taylor plays on Angie?

Coming Down Again. Taylor's guitar on Angie is in the left channel.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
HearMeKnockin
Now there's a thread about Ya-Yas overdubs: iorr.org And as you can see in the OP, little Mick got the snub on a lot of those... and by a lot I mean half the album.

Any thoughts?

Perhaps there were other justifiable reasons the parts were overdubbed but I tend to think some of it was just due to the fact that Keith thought he could play the parts better (whether he could or not) and knew he wouldn't get too much flack from the new guy who hadn't been a member for very long at that point. Keith was riding high on his riff-master, rhythm guitar king status at the time. And to be honest he was damn good at it in 1970.

Obviously he couldn't overdub Taylor's lead parts no matter how hard he tried.

He wanted it to sound as good as it could, that's the simple reason. No big conspiracy. If it was for his ego, you'd expect him to have promoted the fact. Instead it's something that experts like Mathis have to uncover decades later.

Keith was a lead guitarist at that point, not a "rhythm guitar king". He was early in his exploration phase. He removed his E-string in 1969.

If Keith changed something, it was for making the song better - no other reason.

Mick and Keith were co-producers.

it's a good question as to when keith became famous specifically for his riffs. i believe it was around tattoo you, but i could be mistaken.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Keith was a lead guitarist at that point, not a "rhythm guitar king". He was early in his exploration phase. He removed his E-string in 1969.

If Keith changed something, it was for making the song better - no other reason.

Mick and Keith were co-producers.

We're talking about Ya Ya's right? MSG concerts with Mick Taylor? While Keith's Chuck Berry licks were pretty intact it seems about the time Keith started relegating most of the lead duties to Taylor, the hand off almost total by 1973.

In any case I trust he had his reasons for replacing the rhythm parts on Ya Ya's. Without hearing the original recordings vs. the overdubs it's hard to comment on the results except to say the release was great.

I take it Mathijs and others are comparing MSG live boots to Ya Ya's in order to determine what was overdubbed?

The relegation increased with the drug use.

SFTD is not a Berry solo. And 4 out of 10 songs is not relegating. + some of the songs were in open tuning.

So, yes, by 1969 Keith was still the lead guitarist. Add You Gotta Move, Under My Thumb and Prodigal Son and that just confirms what I'm saying.

What you are describing happened later.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
The relegation increased with the drug use.

SFTD is not a Berry solo. And 4 out of 10 songs is not relegating. + some of the songs were in open tuning.

So, yes, by 1969 Keith was still the lead guitarist. Add You Gotta Move, Under My Thumb and Prodigal Son and that just confirms what I'm saying.

What you are describing happened later.

yes things changed since 197! Tour

Quote
pepganzo

Quote
DandelionPowderman
The relegation increased with the drug use.

SFTD is not a Berry solo. And 4 out of 10 songs is not relegating. + some of the songs were in open tuning.

So, yes, by 1969 Keith was still the lead guitarist. Add You Gotta Move, Under My Thumb and Prodigal Son and that just confirms what I'm saying.

What you are describing happened later.

yes things changed since 197! Tour

During the 69 tour Keith wasn't the only lead guitarist. Besides, as I said elsewhere, some performances changed during this tour. On Ya Ya's Taylor is playing lead on (also) Sympathy, Stray Cat, Love In Vain, I'm Free, Satisfaction and Street FM. During the 1970 tour Taylor's role as a lead guitarist grew bigger: Dead Flowers and Brown Sugar were added and his solos on MR increased too. The 1971 tour was not very different from the 1970 tour and from the 1972 tour on Taylor was the main lead guitarist without discussion.

Quote
Turner68
it's a good question as to when keith became famous specifically for his riffs. i believe it was around tattoo you, but i could be mistaken.

The early 7-tees, as far as I remember.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
The relegation increased with the drug use.

SFTD is not a Berry solo. And 4 out of 10 songs is not relegating. + some of the songs were in open tuning.

So, yes, by 1969 Keith was still the lead guitarist. Add You Gotta Move, Under My Thumb and Prodigal Son and that just confirms what I'm saying.

What you are describing happened later.

Now your just making up stuff as you go. Keith played leads and one could argue his rhythm was almost a lead guitar in 1969 but Taylor sure played lead guitar from the start.

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
DandelionPowderman
The relegation increased with the drug use.

SFTD is not a Berry solo. And 4 out of 10 songs is not relegating. + some of the songs were in open tuning.

So, yes, by 1969 Keith was still the lead guitarist. Add You Gotta Move, Under My Thumb and Prodigal Son and that just confirms what I'm saying.

What you are describing happened later.

Now your just making up stuff as you go. Keith played leads and one could argue his rhythm was almost a lead guitar in 1969 but Taylor sure played lead guitar from the start.

these definitions - who was lead, who was rhythm, etc. - outside of their specific musical meaning on a given song have meaning only to people not in the band, sitting back in their armchairs.

taylor was hired for his blues chops and soloing. in 1969 and 70 he fit in well. in 72 and 73 he got a little carried away - but i don't blame him it was the trend at the time - and noodled all over the solid rock and roll keith, charlie, and bill were laying down. it wasn't working. combine that with jagger/richards phoning it in in the songwriting department for GHS and IORR (and no one else in the band stepping up) and it's no wonder they parted aways.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-02 04:38 by Turner68.

Quote
Turner68
taylor was hired for his blues chops and soloing. in 1969 and 70 he fit in well. in 72 and 73 he got a little carried away - but i don't blame him it was the trend at the time - and noodled all over the solid rock and roll keith, charlie, and bill were laying down. it wasn't working. combine that with jagger/richards phoning it in in the songwriting department for GHS and IORR (and no one else in the band stepping up) and it's no wonder they parted aways.

I respect and understand your opinion on the Taylor stuff but must add that when he was getting "carried away" the results were often so compelling and wonderful that it did indeed work a lot of the time. Not just because it was the style of the time but because Taylor was so good at it. Still holds up, imo. I think the drugs were getting in the way of everyone (except Bill) by 1973.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-02 06:22 by Naturalust.

lol oops yep chuck was a typo.. ouch. i'm embarrassed.

and yes i agree that it's a matter of taste about 72/73 vs 69/71.

Like I said earlier: Keith as a producer replaced rhythm parts on YaYa's due to the timbre more so than the actual part's mechanics. Chuck Berry rhythm guitar doesn't need to be be played by an SG, and those songs are Keith's Holy Grail. It's definitely not a slap in the face as some people seem to think.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
HearMeKnockin
Now there's a thread about Ya-Yas overdubs: iorr.org And as you can see in the OP, little Mick got the snub on a lot of those... and by a lot I mean half the album.

Any thoughts?

Perhaps there were other justifiable reasons the parts were overdubbed but I tend to think some of it was just due to the fact that Keith thought he could play the parts better (whether he could or not) and knew he wouldn't get too much flack from the new guy who hadn't been a member for very long at that point. Keith was riding high on his riff-master, rhythm guitar king status at the time. And to be honest he was damn good at it in 1970.

Obviously he couldn't overdub Taylor's lead parts no matter how hard he tried.

He wanted it to sound as good as it could, that's the simple reason. No big conspiracy. If it was for his ego, you'd expect him to have promoted the fact. Instead it's something that experts like Mathis have to uncover decades later.

Yes and that i get. Keith was on fire and wanted it to sound as good as possible and cmon it's his line of music so... And he did it great. He had a fantastic rhythm, that could be defined as lead. Or just guitar. He was right to overdub if that improved the track.

I am so glad Taylor got carried away in the studio as he and jagger collaborated on sway,mm,winter,twfno,till the next goodbye,hide your love, and I guess he got over carried away on his solo on cyhmk as the tape get rolling on. Oh and yes we are left with his over indulegence on 69, 71,72-73 live recordings. No Taylor was a great musician during that period and everyone knew that at the time and contributed so much to the continued success of the stones.

Quote
OpenG
I am so glad Taylor got carried away in the studio as he and jagger collaborated on sway,mm,winter,twfno,till the next goodbye,hide your love, and I guess he got over carried away on his solo on cyhmk as the tape get rolling on. Oh and yes we are left with his over indulegence on 69, 71,72-73 live recordings. No Taylor was a great musician during that period and everyone knew that at the time and contributed so much to the continued success of the stones.

+1. What's extraordinary is both how many people on this board claim otherwise, and the sheer effort they put into denying MT's contributions and talent (the Bill Wyman/JFF thread is also a great example of this). It's quite sad that a number of posters here seem to think one can't acknowledge others' fine musicianship and extensive contributions to the band's golden era without somehow diminishing Mick and Keith's accomplishments. It's tedious and tendentious.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-02 14:50 by Stoneburst.

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
OpenG
I am so glad Taylor got carried away in the studio as he and jagger collaborated on sway,mm,winter,twfno,till the next goodbye,hide your love, and I guess he got over carried away on his solo on cyhmk as the tape get rolling on. Oh and yes we are left with his over indulegence on 69, 71,72-73 live recordings. No Taylor was a great musician during that period and everyone knew that at the time and contributed so much to the continued success of the stones.

+1. What's extraordinary is both how many people on this board claim otherwise, and the sheer effort they put into denying MT's contributions and talent (the Bill Wyman/JFF thread is also a great example of this). It's quite sad that a number of posters here seem to think one can't acknowledge others' fine musicianship and extensive contributions to the band's golden era without somehow diminishing Mick and Keith's accomplishments. It's tedious and tendentious.

Well, yeah. The impression I've got along the years is that in almost any discussion considering "who contributed and what and to what extent, etc." the division between Stones fans seem to go between those saying that it is basically just Mick and Keith (and within those two, Keith's role usually emphasized), and then those who think that besides those two there are also some other people that have an essential role to the creative output, legacy and story of the Stones once in a while. Be the case that of Brian Jones, Mick Taylor, Bill Wyman, song-writing (and credition) business, etc. For the first-mentioned it seems to be a hard task to give a credit to the 'underdog' section of the band, while the latter ones might sometimes try a bit too hard to give them that.

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
OpenG
I am so glad Taylor got carried away in the studio as he and jagger collaborated on sway,mm,winter,twfno,till the next goodbye,hide your love, and I guess he got over carried away on his solo on cyhmk as the tape get rolling on. Oh and yes we are left with his over indulegence on 69, 71,72-73 live recordings. No Taylor was a great musician during that period and everyone knew that at the time and contributed so much to the continued success of the stones.

+1. What's extraordinary is both how many people on this board claim otherwise, and the sheer effort they put into denying MT's contributions and talent (the Bill Wyman/JFF thread is also a great example of this). It's quite sad that a number of posters here seem to think one can't acknowledge others' fine musicianship and extensive contributions to the band's golden era without somehow diminishing Mick and Keith's accomplishments. It's tedious and tendentious.

Well, yeah. The impression I've got along the years is that in almost any discussion considering "who contributed and what and to what extent, etc." the division between Stones fans seem to go between those saying that it is basically just Mick and Keith (and within those two, Keith's role usually emphasized), and then those who think that besides those two there are also some other people that have an essential role to the creative output, legacy and story of the Stones once in a while. Be the case that of Brian Jones, Mick Taylor, Bill Wyman, song-writing (and credition) business, etc. For the first-mentioned it seems to be a hard task to give a credit to the 'underdog' section of the band, while the latter ones might sometimes try a bit too hard to give them that.

- Doxa

No one will deny the crucial roles of Jagger and Richards in the Stones, but there are quite some people here, like Dandelion Powderman, Matthijs and their epigones, who systematically try to belittle the important and also crucial contributions by especially Jones and Taylor.

When Wyman makes a claim for songwriting credit on JJF he's ridiculed in all thinkable ways: "What the hell does Wyman think he is? It's Keith's song all the way of course!" As for Taylor: "Any lead guitar player could have played like Taylor, it was just the time ghost: all bands had big lead guitar players, he's sometimes only the icing of the cake, but most of the time he's just noodling and not serving the song!" Brian Jones? "What the hell did he do? Founding the Stones? Come on, no one can do that on his own and besides it was Stu. Within no time he was marginalized, a drugged junky that they had to dump. Well, he's playing nicely on No Expectations, but for the rest it's just colouring the genius stuff Jagger and Richards wrote in the kitchen, working hard while Brian was banging another girl." "Charlie is of course all right, because he's doing exactly what Jagger and Richards ask him to do, always following them. Bill was okay as for his bass playing at best, but hey, they took him because of his amplifier, didn't they?" "The Rolling Stones, my dear friends, that's only Mick and Keef. They wrote everything, they were the leaders, they made the sound exactly as it was and still is." "Ronnie? Great player! The most apt partner for his older brother and supervisor Keith. And didn't he save the band when Mick and Keith were fighting with each other? He was the glue man, without him the Stones wouldn't have survive!"

But I'm done with all this one dimensional talk. I'll just listen to my favourite music: the live Rolling Stones, with Taylor playing as much as possible. And sometimes I listen to the young Stones, when Brian was still there and made the music sound magically. Yes, though many don't like Mick's voice, I like it when he sung back in the day. And Keith could play a mean guitar as well. Limited as is was, it was very effective. I never heard a better guitar combo than him and Taylor.

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
DandelionPowderman
The relegation increased with the drug use.

SFTD is not a Berry solo. And 4 out of 10 songs is not relegating. + some of the songs were in open tuning.

So, yes, by 1969 Keith was still the lead guitarist. Add You Gotta Move, Under My Thumb and Prodigal Son and that just confirms what I'm saying.

What you are describing happened later.

Now your just making up stuff as you go. Keith played leads and one could argue his rhythm was almost a lead guitar in 1969 but Taylor sure played lead guitar from the start.

They both played lead and rhythm, apart from the two songs in the set where Taylor was MIA. Jump forward to 1973 and you'll find that their roles had changed.

These are facts, not something I cooked up.

Carol
Little Queenie
Under My Thumb
SFTD
HTW
And even Brown Sugar

all featured Keith on lead guitar. So Keith being famous for being the riffmaster at that point is not quite correct. He was a lead guitarist, but in the exploration phase of becoming a riffmaster.

Quote
kleermaker
I never heard a better guitar combo than him and Taylor.

Indeed a sweet pairing. There were others than had undeniable magic too...Duane Allman and Dickey Betts, Lowell George and Paul Barrere.....

Duane was remarkable, and all the more so when paired with Dickey and with Clapton. But, for me, those guitar duos are fundamentally different from what Keith and MT had going on. Not better, just hard to compare: they're both much more about lead guitar, and with the latter of the two we only have the studio cuts plus one badly sourced live bootleg with which to judge the guitarists' interaction. Really no other guitar pairing in history has done what Richards and Taylor did quite so well, and those that consciously tried - Aerosmith, G'n'R, and the Crowes - have all fallen short of the mark (and that's not a criticism).