Tell Me :
Talk
The Stones had a lot of additional musicans on stage in 1976 already ,to fill up the absence of a decent lead guitarist.
I didn,t work out ..there were a hundred of Mick Taylors that could have replaced Mick T,but Keith &Mick were a bit in panic.Ron Wood was the ideal replacement for Keith,if that should have been the case (I love Keith playing,and I like Ron with the Faces,,dont get me wrong),but Wood-to my opininon- was the right guy in the wrong place.With the faces he was ok,but as a replacement for Taylor I would say no. Apart from B&B and a handfull of songs after that..the decline had started by then. It's not Ron who's to blame,but Keith and Mick's wrong judgement in '75.
But I'am from a different Stones generation I suppose.
So for you thats the beginning and the end to all critical discussions about the Stones?
I also like your quote: "To me, the Stones were not as good, say 1964/65, as they were later. So to me, they started out with a decline, and got better."
A decline in 1964/65? A decline from what? From their absolute top in 1962/63?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-06 11:18 by alimente.
But that was a one off show,so he didn't have to worry about any short term damage to his voice that would effect the next gig.He could really go for it,and he did.The Live aid set is a similar example.
Listen to some of the early Bang shows,his voice has strength and energy but at his age,continual touring is going to have an effect.
I also dont think Shine a Light is fair example.He had a throat infection(or similar)He sounds much better in other shows of around that time
Absolutely. He was great London 2nd night 07 and that made the show outstanding. Mick and Charlie were great every night, (London 07 I mean), but if Keith's not on it that's not enough.
I don't think them having Billy Preston and Ollie on stage back then is anywhere near as bad as having a back up guitarist, three back up singers and about 4 people on horns like we have today..
The guitarists are in my eyes the only thing that has fallen in recent years, I had on a show from 1998 and its amazing how much better they were just 10 years ago. Mick and Charlie seem to be still on top of their game.
Yes,and they did a great job.But Jim & Bobby were no crutches to keep up the level,and they were needed as they were on the released records of that time.
From 1976 it was a different matter.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
magenta
()
Date: February 6, 2009 07:29
I will take how the Stones sound over 1978 Anaheim anyday. The problem with Stones now is that they are tight and sloppy at the same time. So what. As far as danger, it got dangerous enough at Altamont, they don't need it and neither do we.
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
baxlap
()
Date: February 6, 2009 07:54
The Human Riff just ain't playing the riffs very well anymore on account of his arthritis. Sticking to rhythm isn't an option; it'd be more taxing on his hands. We're left settling for his recent terrible leads.
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
jamesfdouglas
()
Date: February 6, 2009 08:05
Mick's singin', Keith's playing...
I blame the two of them together for their last 25 years of their songwriting decisions.
[thepowergoats.com]
I blame the two of them together for their last 25 years of their songwriting decisions.
[thepowergoats.com]
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
deardoctor
()
Date: February 6, 2009 08:56
in my opinion the stones are KIDNAPPED by Chuck Leavell.
There´s no need for the guitar players to bring it or ply chordes anymore. Chuck is good enough to fill the holes. Chuck´s got the big book with the keyes and how fast to play the songs. HE makes the set lists with Jagger...
There´s no need for the guitar players to bring it or ply chordes anymore. Chuck is good enough to fill the holes. Chuck´s got the big book with the keyes and how fast to play the songs. HE makes the set lists with Jagger...
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
DizzyDutch
()
Date: February 6, 2009 09:37
yeah, i agree... just get rid of that Chuck Leavell man!
when keith is on stage posing and not playing, the only ones i can hear are Blondie Chaplin filling in keith's guitar parts, and chuck leavell's country piano... it's a shame!
i hope they will dump these guys the nesxt tour, and be the rolling stones again!
DD
when keith is on stage posing and not playing, the only ones i can hear are Blondie Chaplin filling in keith's guitar parts, and chuck leavell's country piano... it's a shame!
i hope they will dump these guys the nesxt tour, and be the rolling stones again!
DD
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: February 6, 2009 10:10
Quote
deardoctor
in my opinion the stones are KIDNAPPED by Chuck Leavell.
There´s no need for the guitar players to bring it or ply chordes anymore. Chuck is good enough to fill the holes. Chuck´s got the big book with the keyes and how fast to play the songs. HE makes the set lists with Jagger...
The Stones had a lot of additional musicans on stage in 1976 already ,to fill up the absence of a decent lead guitarist.
I didn,t work out ..there were a hundred of Mick Taylors that could have replaced Mick T,but Keith &Mick were a bit in panic.Ron Wood was the ideal replacement for Keith,if that should have been the case (I love Keith playing,and I like Ron with the Faces,,dont get me wrong),but Wood-to my opininon- was the right guy in the wrong place.With the faces he was ok,but as a replacement for Taylor I would say no. Apart from B&B and a handfull of songs after that..the decline had started by then. It's not Ron who's to blame,but Keith and Mick's wrong judgement in '75.
But I'am from a different Stones generation I suppose.
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
GNAT
()
Date: February 6, 2009 10:44
Silly thread. One guy thinks the Stones are in decline. This is opinion. A single opinion is not everyones reality. I cannot speak for everyone here, nor would I want to do so. I can speak all day about what I think, because that is all I know, and all I have the authority to do.
To me, the Stones were not as good, say 1964/65, as they were later. So to me, they started out with a decline, and got better. I also don't like the year 1967 releases. They are two of the worse albums, to me. You may love them, and thats fine.
1968 ushered in the Stones at their best, again, to me. Starting here and going all the way to Tattoo You was some truly great stuff.
Then Steel Wheels comes along. I like it, some don't. Voodoo Lounge, I like it too. Bridges To Babylon is good also. A Bigger Bang is, to me, better than B2B.
As far as live goes,I think Keith still does fine considering his ailments. Its not every 65 year old arthritic who is willing to play guitar for two hours. Mick Jagger is still Mick Jagger. He does a hell of a job, to me.
So, to answer the question, Mick's singin' or keith's playin', I say neither.
The true answer is: Fans bitchin' and whinin'.
To me, the Stones were not as good, say 1964/65, as they were later. So to me, they started out with a decline, and got better. I also don't like the year 1967 releases. They are two of the worse albums, to me. You may love them, and thats fine.
1968 ushered in the Stones at their best, again, to me. Starting here and going all the way to Tattoo You was some truly great stuff.
Then Steel Wheels comes along. I like it, some don't. Voodoo Lounge, I like it too. Bridges To Babylon is good also. A Bigger Bang is, to me, better than B2B.
As far as live goes,I think Keith still does fine considering his ailments. Its not every 65 year old arthritic who is willing to play guitar for two hours. Mick Jagger is still Mick Jagger. He does a hell of a job, to me.
So, to answer the question, Mick's singin' or keith's playin', I say neither.
The true answer is: Fans bitchin' and whinin'.
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
ablett
()
Date: February 6, 2009 10:45
Blimey this is all doom and gloom. Enjoy the last 40 odd years and be thankful the bands still around in what ever form! If you don't like anymore then don't listen!
Anyhow, I'm bunking half day of work and gonna go play in the snow with the kids.....
Anyhow, I'm bunking half day of work and gonna go play in the snow with the kids.....
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
alimente
()
Date: February 6, 2009 11:15
Quote
GNAT
The true answer is: Fans bitchin' and whinin'.
So for you thats the beginning and the end to all critical discussions about the Stones?
I also like your quote: "To me, the Stones were not as good, say 1964/65, as they were later. So to me, they started out with a decline, and got better."
A decline in 1964/65? A decline from what? From their absolute top in 1962/63?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-06 11:18 by alimente.
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
GNAT
()
Date: February 6, 2009 11:24
Uh, pretty much. No single person is allowed to dictate what my opinion should be. I have my own thoughts, but that doesn't give me a right to make asinine statements for other people. I can only speak for myself. What is true to you may be false to me. I love hamburgers. Others don't. The fact that others don't like hamburgers does not make them taste any worse to me, and statements like "Hamburgers are in a decline lately" makes no difference to me. I still like them.
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
GhostMonkeysInTheSkies
()
Date: February 6, 2009 11:27
I say if Jagger started aimin' at standin almost still
or at least dance on one single spot much would be gained.
Keef is as he is, maybe he ought to live by himself
in the Caribbean for three months before next tour?
or at least dance on one single spot much would be gained.
Keef is as he is, maybe he ought to live by himself
in the Caribbean for three months before next tour?
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
Filip020169
()
Date: February 6, 2009 11:32
I'm with all of you on:
(a) more backings by Keith & Ronnie (& Mick, when Keith is in 'lead'), though I want Lisa there too- period!!; and (b) the great loss we suffered (musically) when Bill Wyman left.
Furthermore I don't really tthink they 'decline'; they 'transform' (as they always have), the suck/shine 50/50 (idem.); and they grow older- lucky for us: not OLD yet- not just yet.
And as far as "post-80's" period is concerned: they're 1994-1996 streak was absolutely awesome, imho; and there's as much opinions on the topic as there are fans on this board- and even beyond, I reckon.
The lattter really tells us something about the Stones, you know.
(a) more backings by Keith & Ronnie (& Mick, when Keith is in 'lead'), though I want Lisa there too- period!!; and (b) the great loss we suffered (musically) when Bill Wyman left.
Furthermore I don't really tthink they 'decline'; they 'transform' (as they always have), the suck/shine 50/50 (idem.); and they grow older- lucky for us: not OLD yet- not just yet.
And as far as "post-80's" period is concerned: they're 1994-1996 streak was absolutely awesome, imho; and there's as much opinions on the topic as there are fans on this board- and even beyond, I reckon.
The lattter really tells us something about the Stones, you know.
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
GNAT
()
Date: February 6, 2009 11:33
"A decline in 1964/65? A decline from what? From their absolute top in 1962/63?"
I don't like that period as well as later periods. I said that to show an example of differing opinions. The fact that I don't like that time frame as much as others presents my views; it has no effect on other peoples views. If someone doesn't like the more modern era of 1989-2005, thats them, and it has zero bearing on my enjoyment of the music from this time period, just as my dislike of the early period should have no effect on anyone else.
I don't like that period as well as later periods. I said that to show an example of differing opinions. The fact that I don't like that time frame as much as others presents my views; it has no effect on other peoples views. If someone doesn't like the more modern era of 1989-2005, thats them, and it has zero bearing on my enjoyment of the music from this time period, just as my dislike of the early period should have no effect on anyone else.
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
still ill
()
Date: February 6, 2009 13:30
Quote
starstar74Yes, the Webster show is a great example of vintage Mick signature style singing. Too bad he saved it for a solo show instead of a Stones show.Quote
jamesfdouglasQuote
starstar74
I'm not referring to the '75-'78 tours as examples. I'm talking about how he approaches certain songs. THSMLI from Licks and Rock me baby from the same tour is an example of Mick with LOTS of power in his voice. Same with OOC durung B2B. Balls out power growl singing. Now he's speaking the words with little power in the actually voice. In fact his voice sounds very frail and nasally. SWH and most songs from shine a light cd is laughable. However, PIB from the same cd is Mick putting effort into his vocals
I know exactly what you're talking about starstar74.
I've not seen any evidence of Mick really delievering that awesome, cool voice of his for a whole show since I saw the Webster Hall bootleg video from 1993.
The same voice that has made the band who they are. The Jagger voice.
Hell, the last tour where he used it regularily was 1978, judging by boot's I've heard (I didn't see that tour as a) it was U.S. only and b) I was only 4 years old).
But that was a one off show,so he didn't have to worry about any short term damage to his voice that would effect the next gig.He could really go for it,and he did.The Live aid set is a similar example.
Listen to some of the early Bang shows,his voice has strength and energy but at his age,continual touring is going to have an effect.
I also dont think Shine a Light is fair example.He had a throat infection(or similar)He sounds much better in other shows of around that time
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
Greenblues
()
Date: February 6, 2009 13:54
I think it's mostly a matter of age, simple as that. You change as you grow older and sooner or later this changes your way of expression. You can't do much about it, unless you carry on as some kind of first rate cover band, wearing your old sound like a wig, which is exactly what they do right now. As for the results, just listen to the Vegas-style version of Bitch. Sounds just like chewing gum.
I can imagine two ways to escape this trap: First is, changing your approach to the material, changing it naturally, just like the Stones did up to 1982 (and which is not as easy anymore with an armada of backing musicians, used to a much more "prepared" presentation). I'd nevertheless love them to use this approach again (as many others would, around here), even if they'd play Jumping Jack Flash half tempo then, or Satisfaction in Reaggae style.
The second way out would be changing the repertoire, reducing the high octane fast numbers substituting slower, "deeper" or bluesier material instead. I'd love them to explore this route also.
But since both ways would mean leaving the big stage somehow, playing clubs or arenas rather than stadiums, they might never happen. Not that I didn't enjoy the ABB-shows to a certain degree. But just compare them to the powerhouse-shows of '95! So if they continue wearing these "wigs", the decline will become more visible in the future
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-06 17:50 by Greenblues.
I can imagine two ways to escape this trap: First is, changing your approach to the material, changing it naturally, just like the Stones did up to 1982 (and which is not as easy anymore with an armada of backing musicians, used to a much more "prepared" presentation). I'd nevertheless love them to use this approach again (as many others would, around here), even if they'd play Jumping Jack Flash half tempo then, or Satisfaction in Reaggae style.
The second way out would be changing the repertoire, reducing the high octane fast numbers substituting slower, "deeper" or bluesier material instead. I'd love them to explore this route also.
But since both ways would mean leaving the big stage somehow, playing clubs or arenas rather than stadiums, they might never happen. Not that I didn't enjoy the ABB-shows to a certain degree. But just compare them to the powerhouse-shows of '95! So if they continue wearing these "wigs", the decline will become more visible in the future
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-06 17:50 by Greenblues.
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
Bjorn
()
Date: February 6, 2009 14:19
GNAT: Thera are OPINIONS and FACTS! Are hamburgers tasty? Opinion. Is the meat...cow, chicken, fresh, old? Facts. Do we like the Stones today? Opinion. Do they play well (wrong chords, singing without power and so on)? Facts.
They don´t play like gods 2007 just because you like what you hear.Opinion.
They don´t play like gods 2007 just because you like what you hear.Opinion.
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
Loudei
()
Date: February 6, 2009 14:23
And you all thought they could ve played on forever? Jack Niclkaus is 68 and he hasn't played to his level of greatness for 25 years. The only guy I know that is getting better every year with age is Clint Eastwood, gosh he is good. Believe it or not people, playing those gigantic tours are no easy affair, specially if you are waiting for the sun to come out everynight and treating your body like a lab. THey are the best band of senior citizens, sure. Lets find out how U2 plays at 65.
This is the issue why I want them to quit, and Keith to become a record producer and just make music with his tastes... He is not the leader of the band anymore, the rhythm section is no more without Bill and Keith's awesome grooves. There not cool anymore. Their playing sucks. if Keith is a such a man and tough cat he would set up a press conference and admit that his fingers are all screwed up and he can't play anymore or just produce music. Maybe that way we will get some "magic" back from Mr Rock n Roll. Other than that , we are trapped in a Vegas Nostalgia Act with keefy the clown and his cash cows.
This is the issue why I want them to quit, and Keith to become a record producer and just make music with his tastes... He is not the leader of the band anymore, the rhythm section is no more without Bill and Keith's awesome grooves. There not cool anymore. Their playing sucks. if Keith is a such a man and tough cat he would set up a press conference and admit that his fingers are all screwed up and he can't play anymore or just produce music. Maybe that way we will get some "magic" back from Mr Rock n Roll. Other than that , we are trapped in a Vegas Nostalgia Act with keefy the clown and his cash cows.
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
Slim Harpo
()
Date: February 6, 2009 14:30
It's Brian Jones fault: he should've learnt to swim. I mean, really ...
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
russr
()
Date: February 6, 2009 14:33
I think Mick is as good or better than he's ever been as a live singer -- he holds the show together.
He's definitely much better now than in the 70's with that horrible growl.
But's, sadly, he's all show now...no sex. I like his phrasing better when he was younger.
He's definitely much better now than in the 70's with that horrible growl.
But's, sadly, he's all show now...no sex. I like his phrasing better when he was younger.
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
rebelrebel
()
Date: February 6, 2009 15:16
Quote
buffalo7478
Mick's vocals were not great in 1975-76 either, but Keith was rocking. Until he returns to playing with fire and passion they will be a show band, not a true rock band. I really think Keith is the key.
Absolutely. He was great London 2nd night 07 and that made the show outstanding. Mick and Charlie were great every night, (London 07 I mean), but if Keith's not on it that's not enough.
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
dcba
()
Date: February 6, 2009 15:38
"2002-2007...you have to really be looking for the reason for the Stones to be around!"
This sums up pretty well the problem... unfortunately!
This sums up pretty well the problem... unfortunately!
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
dcba
()
Date: February 6, 2009 15:42
"I just watched CYHMK from MSG 2003 01 16 and I was shocked by its mediocrity"
What's really annoying is that they let this thing go on an OFFICIAL dvd... My idea is they've lost their artistic compass and rely on sycophants (Was, Leavell) to tell them they're still great.
What's really annoying is that they let this thing go on an OFFICIAL dvd... My idea is they've lost their artistic compass and rely on sycophants (Was, Leavell) to tell them they're still great.
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: February 6, 2009 16:03
Quote
Slim Harpo
It's Brian Jones fault: he should've learnt to swim. I mean, really ...
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
J-J-Flash
()
Date: February 6, 2009 16:11
Quote
AmsterdamnedQuote
deardoctor
in my opinion the stones are KIDNAPPED by Chuck Leavell.
There´s no need for the guitar players to bring it or ply chordes anymore. Chuck is good enough to fill the holes. Chuck´s got the big book with the keyes and how fast to play the songs. HE makes the set lists with Jagger...
The Stones had a lot of additional musicans on stage in 1976 already ,to fill up the absence of a decent lead guitarist.
I didn,t work out ...
I don't think them having Billy Preston and Ollie on stage back then is anywhere near as bad as having a back up guitarist, three back up singers and about 4 people on horns like we have today..
The guitarists are in my eyes the only thing that has fallen in recent years, I had on a show from 1998 and its amazing how much better they were just 10 years ago. Mick and Charlie seem to be still on top of their game.
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: February 6, 2009 16:22
I join Slim Harpo: Bill shouldn't have brought his Amps in 1963:He is to blame.
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
wetland10
()
Date: February 6, 2009 16:22
I really don't think you can fairly compare a band that was at their "peak" in the 70s to 2009. The guys are in their mid 60s! They have aged, they can't perform like they did in the 70s. Yes, they are more of a "show" band than they used to be, but they are still out there doing it, entertaining, and for the most part playing well. What other bands with members in their 60s are doing this well? The Who? Please. Anyone listen to Roger Daltry lately? He once had arguably the best voice in rock n roll and now it is GONE.
Clapton will tell you in an interview that he can no longer play like he did 30 years ago.
I just don't get the over anlayzation of this time and time again. Shouldn't we just enjoy the fact that they still play, tour, write new material, and do it all at a pretty high level?
Wayne
Clapton will tell you in an interview that he can no longer play like he did 30 years ago.
I just don't get the over anlayzation of this time and time again. Shouldn't we just enjoy the fact that they still play, tour, write new material, and do it all at a pretty high level?
Wayne
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
Sohoe
()
Date: February 6, 2009 16:24
<<The Stones had a lot of additional musicans on stage in 1976 already ,to fill up the absence of a decent lead guitarist>>
I don't get this argument.
The line-up included Bobby Keys and Jim Price already in 1970 on the European Tour. Adding Stu and/or Nicky, they must have had at least as many additional musicians with them on stage in 70-73 as in 76.
I don't get this argument.
The line-up included Bobby Keys and Jim Price already in 1970 on the European Tour. Adding Stu and/or Nicky, they must have had at least as many additional musicians with them on stage in 70-73 as in 76.
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: February 6, 2009 16:27
Come on,Andres Segovia played Bach when he was 88 years old.
John mc Laughlin still plays with the young dogs, as brillant as in his Mahavishu period;even better.
It's a matter of ambition.
John mc Laughlin still plays with the young dogs, as brillant as in his Mahavishu period;even better.
It's a matter of ambition.
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
liddas
()
Date: February 6, 2009 16:35
I don't think that there is nothing wrong at all with Mick's singing and Keith's guitar playing. I don't see any decline. Evolution, yes. Decline, no way. They still deliver!
Only thing I miss is more records, but then again, who cares!
C
Only thing I miss is more records, but then again, who cares!
C
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: February 6, 2009 16:41
Quote
Sohoe
<<The Stones had a lot of additional musicans on stage in 1976 already ,to fill up the absence of a decent lead guitarist>>
I don't get this argument.
The line-up included Bobby Keys and Jim Price already in 1970 on the European Tour. Adding Stu and/or Nicky, they must have had at least as many additional musicians with them on stage in 70-73 as in 76.
Yes,and they did a great job.But Jim & Bobby were no crutches to keep up the level,and they were needed as they were on the released records of that time.
From 1976 it was a different matter.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Big Al , CaptainAcid , Joce , keefmick , letitloose6 , Martin90 , monkeymantoo , syrel , wachterc , waterrats
Guests:
1927
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10