Quote
Turner68

Quote
DandelionPowderman
People are obviously fans of the Stones for different reasons, and we have learned the last few weeks that Keith Richards's playing and singing not necessarily has anything to do with why others like the Stones. Quite on the contrary, a couple of years ago people were playing with the thought of replacing him!

For me that is baffling, but my reasons for loving the Stones are probably baffling to others as well

there is a lot of diversity. for me, the biggest surprise is the number of people who don't seem to be fans of the "classic stones" - i.e. the brian jones era. and also i'm surprised to learn that there are fans of their recent albums. part of what makes it fun to come here and chat about stuff. it would be boring if we all agreed.

The first thing is surprising indeed. That there are many fans of the latter-day Stones, not so much, imo. They are still active and blow most of their contemporaries out of the water

Quote
Maindefender

Quote
Stoneburst
Not really, no. More to the point, the famous recording of Let It Rock from the Leeds show is (as far as we know) authentic - no overdubs or edits, unlike say Ya-Ya's. We have no idea how many takes Blues In The Morning is a product of, but I would bet it's quite a few.

According to Steve Jordan BITM was cut in 15 minutes, one take I believe. Hopefully somebody can find the quote from the many publications, I will also keep looking.

His guitar-assistent (or whatever it's called), Pierre Beaumont (I'm not sure about the name either) says so in the "Under the Influence" documentary. Apparantly, it was just a jam that started with him (Pierre) digging up a long non-used old classic guitar and Keith having a go with it. It surprised me a lot that it's just one take (although I guess at least the vocals must have been overdubbed later, right?).

Quote
matxil

Quote
Maindefender

Quote
Stoneburst
Not really, no. More to the point, the famous recording of Let It Rock from the Leeds show is (as far as we know) authentic - no overdubs or edits, unlike say Ya-Ya's. We have no idea how many takes Blues In The Morning is a product of, but I would bet it's quite a few.

According to Steve Jordan BITM was cut in 15 minutes, one take I believe. Hopefully somebody can find the quote from the many publications, I will also keep looking.

His guitar-assistent (or whatever it's called), Pierre Beaumont (I'm not sure about the name either) says so in the "Under the Influence" documentary. Apparantly, it was just a jam that started with him (Pierre) digging up a long non-used old classic guitar and Keith having a go with it. It surprised me a lot that it's just one take (although I guess at least the vocals must have been overdubbed later, right?).

I think Pierre was referring to the backing track. They added solos, vocals and other stuff later, probably.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
matxil

Quote
Maindefender
According to Steve Jordan BITM was cut in 15 minutes, one take I believe.
Hopefully somebody can find the quote from the many publications, I will also keep looking.

His guitar-assistent (or whatever it's called), Pierre Beaumont (I'm not sure about the name either)
says so in the "Under the Influence" documentary. Apparantly, it was just a jam that started with him (Pierre)
digging up a long non-used old classic guitar and Keith having a go with it. It surprised me a lot
that it's just one take (although I guess at least the vocals must have been overdubbed later, right?).

I think Pierre was referring to the backing track. They added solos, vocals and other stuff later, probably.

On Blues in the Morning Keith is on guitar, bass, piano and vocals, so it wasn't one take.

Sorry to bellow, but when I said this on page one no one heard me. :E
It would be a bit strange (not unheard of) for the bass to be added afterwards,
but I guess that's what they did if Pierre (de Beauport is his name) is to be taken literally.
When I saw the credits on BitM I wondered if Pierre didn't mean some other track and just misspeak.

Quote
with sssoul

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
matxil

Quote
Maindefender
According to Steve Jordan BITM was cut in 15 minutes, one take I believe.
Hopefully somebody can find the quote from the many publications, I will also keep looking.

His guitar-assistent (or whatever it's called), Pierre Beaumont (I'm not sure about the name either)
says so in the "Under the Influence" documentary. Apparantly, it was just a jam that started with him (Pierre)
digging up a long non-used old classic guitar and Keith having a go with it. It surprised me a lot
that it's just one take (although I guess at least the vocals must have been overdubbed later, right?).

I think Pierre was referring to the backing track. They added solos, vocals and other stuff later, probably.

On Blues in the Morning Keith is on guitar, bass, piano and vocals, so it wasn't one take.

Sorry to bellow, but when I said this on page one no one heard me. :E
It would be a bit strange (not unheard of) for the bass to be added afterwards,
but I guess that's what they did if Pierre (de Beauport is his name) is to be taken literally.
When I saw the credits on BitM I wondered if Pierre didn't mean some other track and just misspeak.

Oops, I stand corrected (twice) .
Yes, it surprised me too, but I guess it's as DandelionP says: maybe he only meant the basic track (drums plus guitar I suppose).

He meant drums and guitars indeed. It's not that unusual to add bass later, actually.

Ask Duke Richardson (the IORR Band's bass player) about that, he he

OK so everybody stands (or sits) corrected. In my circles it's considered a bit strange to add bass afterwards.
It's the base, after all!

Quote
with sssoul
OK so everybody stands (or sits) corrected. In my circles it's considered a bit strange to add bass afterwards.
It's the base, after all!

Apart from the ideal «recording live in the studio»-approach, people record in lots of different ways. Especially with today's technology




or they just use a sax instead, making it baseless

Well maybe but who the heck uses "today's technology"?!
In my circles it's done the right way, primarily because we can't afford anything else :E

Do you reckon Bobby (love & light!) was part of the original Blues in the Morning jam or added later?
And: I love Keith's singing on this! Really really loose inside :E

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
matxil

Quote
Maindefender

Quote
Stoneburst
Not really, no. More to the point, the famous recording of Let It Rock from the Leeds show is (as far as we know) authentic - no overdubs or edits, unlike say Ya-Ya's. We have no idea how many takes Blues In The Morning is a product of, but I would bet it's quite a few.

According to Steve Jordan BITM was cut in 15 minutes, one take I believe. Hopefully somebody can find the quote from the many publications, I will also keep looking.

His guitar-assistent (or whatever it's called), Pierre Beaumont (I'm not sure about the name either) says so in the "Under the Influence" documentary. Apparantly, it was just a jam that started with him (Pierre) digging up a long non-used old classic guitar and Keith having a go with it. It surprised me a lot that it's just one take (although I guess at least the vocals must have been overdubbed later, right?).

I think Pierre was referring to the backing track. They added solos, vocals and other stuff later, probably.

Yes, considering that Keith plays all the guitars on it...

Oh. Duh. I just read the posts underneath yours. HURRRRGH!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-11-10 16:18 by GasLightStreet.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
He meant drums and guitars indeed. It's not that unusual to add bass later, actually.

Ask Duke Richardson (the IORR Band's bass player) about that, he he

yes indeed

having excellent tracks to play to makes it a real pleasure.

Quote
with sssoul

Quote
Maindefender
According to Steve Jordan BITM was cut in 15 minutes, one take I believe.
Hopefully somebody can find the quote from the many publications,
I will also keep looking.

I adore Blues in the Morning, but it couldn't have been one take with Keith on bass, piano, guitar and vocals.
I reckon Steve meant the basic jam was done in 15 minutes, but which instrument was Keith playing for that?

If I'm not mistaken, it was Substantial Damage that was done in 15 minutes - one take.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
with sssoul
Well maybe but who the heck uses "today's technology"?!
In my circles it's done the right way, primarily because we can't afford anything else :E

Do you reckon Bobby (love & light!) was part of the original Blues in the Morning jam or added later?
And: I love Keith's singing on this! Really really loose inside :E

Considering the record was recorded on analog tape, not Keith apparently. lol But I'm sure the record had the modern walk through ProTools to edit everything nicely into the package we hear.

Anyway you are quite correct that recording with the bass on the original backing tracks is still the most common way things are done in professional studios with the great majority of artists and songs. Getting that great lock between the bass and the drums beneath whatever other rhythm instruments is key to getting a take most people want to move forward with. Certainly not impossible to do later but since it is generally considered a foundation instrument, it's usually recorded as the foundation for most tracks.

I get the feeling Keith might be less concerned about such a method probably for a couple reasons. He spoke of just him and Jordan throwing things at the wall to see what would stick so you get the feeling just guitar and drums were the foundational instruments for Crosseyed Heart. Not having an initial bass track also probably gave Keith a bit more freedom when it comes to the arrangements and allowed him to interpret the songs more on the fly, incorporating whatever he did into the song instead of mapping everything out precisely and having to comply (and work harder) to gel with the bass line. Compliance is probably not one of Keith's strong points.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Turner68

Quote
DandelionPowderman
People are obviously fans of the Stones for different reasons, and we have learned the last few weeks that Keith Richards's playing and singing not necessarily has anything to do with why others like the Stones. Quite on the contrary, a couple of years ago people were playing with the thought of replacing him!

For me that is baffling, but my reasons for loving the Stones are probably baffling to others as well

there is a lot of diversity. for me, the biggest surprise is the number of people who don't seem to be fans of the "classic stones" - i.e. the brian jones era. and also i'm surprised to learn that there are fans of their recent albums. part of what makes it fun to come here and chat about stuff. it would be boring if we all agreed.

The first thing is surprising indeed. That there are many fans of the latter-day Stones, not so much, imo. They are still active and blow most of their contemporaries out of the water

Genrally speaking, it could have something to do with an age gap. Being the age I am (born in '63), it was sort of absorbed and embedded in me during my formative years when my brain was still forming (which it still is lol), whereas say people in their '30's might not have had that same experience of living through it all and therefore don't have the same connection and/or appreciation.
That could also explain why some of the younger ones - say in their 20's - have a much better appreciation of latter day Stones.
Again generally speaking as I know there are some older fogies who like it as well. Just an assumption, but seems to make some sense.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
Hairball

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Turner68

Quote
DandelionPowderman
People are obviously fans of the Stones for different reasons, and we have learned the last few weeks that Keith Richards's playing and singing not necessarily has anything to do with why others like the Stones. Quite on the contrary, a couple of years ago people were playing with the thought of replacing him!

For me that is baffling, but my reasons for loving the Stones are probably baffling to others as well

there is a lot of diversity. for me, the biggest surprise is the number of people who don't seem to be fans of the "classic stones" - i.e. the brian jones era. and also i'm surprised to learn that there are fans of their recent albums. part of what makes it fun to come here and chat about stuff. it would be boring if we all agreed.

The first thing is surprising indeed. That there are many fans of the latter-day Stones, not so much, imo. They are still active and blow most of their contemporaries out of the water

Genrally speaking, it could have something to do with an age gap. Being the age I am (born in '63), it was sort of absorbed and embedded in me during my formative years when my brain was still forming (which it still is lol), whereas say people in their '30's might not have had that same experience of living through it all and therefore don't have the same connection and/or appreciation.
That could also explain why some of the younger ones - say in their 20's - have a much better appreciation of latter day Stones.
Again generally speaking as I know there are some older fogies who like it as well. Just an assumption, but seems to make some sense.

My experience is that a lot of Brian era fans like today's Stones

edit -double post.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-11-10 19:11 by Hairball.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Hairball

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Turner68

Quote
DandelionPowderman
People are obviously fans of the Stones for different reasons, and we have learned the last few weeks that Keith Richards's playing and singing not necessarily has anything to do with why others like the Stones. Quite on the contrary, a couple of years ago people were playing with the thought of replacing him!

For me that is baffling, but my reasons for loving the Stones are probably baffling to others as well

there is a lot of diversity. for me, the biggest surprise is the number of people who don't seem to be fans of the "classic stones" - i.e. the brian jones era. and also i'm surprised to learn that there are fans of their recent albums. part of what makes it fun to come here and chat about stuff. it would be boring if we all agreed.

The first thing is surprising indeed. That there are many fans of the latter-day Stones, not so much, imo. They are still active and blow most of their contemporaries out of the water

Genrally speaking, it could have something to do with an age gap. Being the age I am (born in '63), it was sort of absorbed and embedded in me during my formative years when my brain was still forming (which it still is lol), whereas say people in their '30's might not have had that same experience of living through it all and therefore don't have the same connection and/or appreciation.
That could also explain why some of the younger ones - say in their 20's - have a much better appreciation of latter day Stones.
Again generally speaking as I know there are some older fogies who like it as well. Just an assumption, but seems to make some sense.

My experience is that a lot of Brian era fans like today's Stones

Yes, yes, yes indeed... there is a small percentage that do.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
Hairball
Yes, yes, yes indeed... there is a small percentage that do.

That would be me!

No wonder, as most of the songs in the setlist are from that era

It might be GREAT if a majority of their setlist was made up of tunes from the last 30 years...or maybe not.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-11-10 19:22 by Hairball.

Quote
Hairball
If I'm not mistaken, it was Substantial Damage that was done in 15 minutes - one take.

You're right. Pierre just said Blues in the Morning was created spontaneously when he handed Keith the old National.

I love the Brian Jones era Stones. It's just that it's so condensed and also the biggest issue being that although they sounded as they did being what they were they blew it away once Jimmy Miller got a hold of 'em.

So it's just not as interesting. But it's still fantastic. AFTERMATH and OUT OF OUR HEADS are easily amongst their best albums.

Jimmy also produced two Brian era albums.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Jimmy also produced two Brian era albums.

Yeah but Jones was essentially not on those...

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Jimmy also produced two Brian era albums.

Yeah but Jones was essentially not on those...

That's a stretch for BB, isn't it? He also plays on LIB (MR and YGTS).

Keith dominated the guitar department, though.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Jimmy also produced two Brian era albums.

Yeah but Jones was essentially not on those...

That's a stretch for BB, isn't it? He also plays on LIB (MR and YGTS).

Keith dominated the guitar department, though.

Hmmmm. Maybe. You're right, he's on a good bit of BB. He played guitar on No Expectations, from what I can see the only song he played guitar on. Mellotron on a few tunes. He's credited with backing vocals on SFTD... harmonica on a few songs. Sitar and tamboura on SFM.

Ha ha - I guess I forgot he did all that on BB!

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Jimmy also produced two Brian era albums.

Yeah but Jones was essentially not on those...

That's a stretch for BB, isn't it? He also plays on LIB (MR and YGTS).

Keith dominated the guitar department, though.

Hmmmm. Maybe. You're right, he's on a good bit of BB. He played guitar on No Expectations, from what I can see the only song he played guitar on. Mellotron on a few tunes. He's credited with backing vocals on SFTD... harmonica on a few songs. Sitar and tamboura on SFM.

Ha ha - I guess I forgot he did all that on BB!

People often do. Sometimes people even think that it was Taylor coming on board that was responsible for the greatness of the big 4, when that is clearly not the case since he wasn't on BB and just did a couple overdubs on LIB! I think you're right in that Jimmy Miller is big part of the answer.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-11-11 16:31 by Turner68.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Jimmy also produced two Brian era albums.

Seems wonky to define LIB as Brian era album, but considering the majority of the music was recorded before Brian officially left the band I guess it kind of is.

Beggars Banquet feels more like a natural conclusion of the Brian era for me due to the sheer lack of sonic and emotional affect or influence Brian had on LIB.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Jimmy also produced two Brian era albums.

Seems wonky to define LIB as Brian era album, but considering the majority of the music was recorded before Brian officially left the band I guess it kind of is.

Beggars Banquet feels more like a natural conclusion of the Brian era for me due to the sheer lack of sonic and emotional affect or influence Brian had on LIB.

That was a better wording of what I meant to say

Quote
Turner68

People often do. Sometimes people even think that it was Taylor coming on board that was responsible for the greatness of the big 4, when that is clearly not the case since he wasn't on BB and just did a couple overdubs on LIB! I think you're right in that Jimmy Miller is big part of the answer.

Reasons why the Big Four Albums were so good:
1) Keith made a huge jump in how to play the guitar, which must have been very exciting. "Re-discovering the guitar" I think he called it somewhere.
2) That same jump gave Mick Jagger the chance to make a huge jump in how to express himself (think of the opportunities of songs like Gimme Shelter and Jumping Jack Flash, not only the words, but the grooviness, the aggression, the swagger)
3) Jagger and Richards were riding still high on a shared wave of exploration, discovery and a shared interest in "groove music" (blues, soul, etc...)
4) There were a lot of inspiring bands around at that time.
5) Jimmy Miller

Reasons why the next albums were not so good:
1) Drugs
2) Nothing lasts forever, the feeling there was less to discover anymore
3) Mick and Keith started to have different tastes
4) Most bands in the mid-70s were either boring or bombastic or ridiculous (yes, I include Bowie and Led Zeppelin here)
5) Jimmy Miller got lost

Reasons why they had a short revival of exciting albums (Some Girls, Emotional Rescue - to a certain extent -, Tattoo You):
1) Ron Wood
2) Punk, Disco, Reggae
3) Keith and Mick found some common ground (noticeable especially on Some Girls)

Reasons why ever since their albums disappoint:
1) Both Mick and Keith don't share much and have had major fights
2) They fare better on their solo-albums. Whether you like them or not: at least they do what they really want to do
3) Name me one really good groovy, interesting, wild, hot rock n roll band since the 80's.
4) Thank God they never tried hip-hop or electric music. Whatever you think about that music, it would be a disaster for the Stones.