I have read blogs from Stones fans who have criticized the guitar playing of Keith. I am proposing that his playing at concerts and in bootlegs is not representative of what he can do and has done in a music studio with the assistance of sound engineers. Here are some things to consider:

Keith is notorious for drinking too much liquor or for taking other substances at concerts, and this could have affected his performance.

His tendencies to pose and showboat on stage can impede his playing ability.

The acoustics in any arena, indoor or outdoor, is dreadful. I have attended concerts and have been able to hear only bass, drums, and Jagger.

The chaos and loud noise of a live sold out concert is not conducive to an ideal performance by Keith, or any musician for that matter.

I have listened to all the Stones studio work on CD's and, while I do not like all the tracks, I have always been impressed with his unique style. I thought the guitar work on A Bigger Bang was great as always. Under the Radar was awesome.

To truly appreciate Keith's musicianship, listen to the studio work only. If you want to have a blast, go to a Stones concert, but realize that Keith's playing may not be perfect.

if you say so

> The acoustics in any arena, indoor or outdoor, is dreadful. I have attended concerts and have been able to hear only bass, drums, and Jagger.
> The chaos and loud noise of a live sold out concert is not conducive to an ideal performance by Keith, or any musician for that matter.

I don't agree. Keith finds his way through this mess - he's the king of it - and I don't know what shows you've been to, I don't have such great and delicate ears and I love live shows.

judging by what Keith have done on 1978 tour for example... he was the driving force of the Rolling Stones LIVE. Jagger was JUST a frontman.

I can't say I agree. To leave out assessments of Keith's live performances is to not have a complete picture of his career. I'll take each performance, be it studio or live, as it comes. In the studio, he can correct his mistakes, live he can't but no matter what the medium he is a professional musician and as such needs to play at a level commiserate with that.

How much of "Under the Radar" was Keith's guitar? A great song.

thats why we're not posting on the trans-siberian orchestra web site.

different buildings have different acoustics.the MGM in vegas for example has great sound, some other arenas are horrible.

it always makes me laugh when fans say" [insert band member name]was horrible on that tour.serious,the whole tour?every night.you saw every night and it was all bad?

some nights are good,some are great,some are terrible.but live is always better,especially when you're talking about the stones.

I have seen some of the 1978 live performances on YouTube. They are not that good. The tempo is always too fast, and the sound is not nearly as great as the original as the studio version.

No musician can be judged by studio work only! Listen to Keith's playing live in 1969, 1973, 89/90, Stripped and his Gimme Shelter solo in Bremen 98, you will find his unique style. Suggesting to listen to the studiowork only sounds like kick in the b... from behind! I would like to add that I have never been uncritical towards the Stones.

fliflam,

I suspect you like studio Stones more than live Stones and that's ok. Personally, I agree that Keith's most recognizable work was created in the studio, but most of my favorite Keith playing is live.

When people criticize Keith's playing, they usually talk about the deterioration of his skills over time and (as you said) his posing. Hardly anyone criticizes his playing from 1969-1972, and most don't criticize his playing (as opposed to the songwriting or Vegas format) prior to the 2000s.

I agree that some of the live work was OK, and I don't think his playing on studio work has changed in quality one single bit. The style of music has changed considerably, but the man can still play the guitar better than anyone I have heard.

I guess my main point is this. A century from now, no one will care about a bootleg from 1978 or a 1969 grainy video of long haired boys playing rock music. The studio work will endure forever.

...your assessment of 1978 comes from youtube...really?....that's uhmm.....interesting....

Quote
flilflam
I have read blogs from Stones fans who have criticized the guitar playing of Keith. I am proposing that his playing at concerts and in bootlegs is not representative of what he can do and has done in a music studio with the assistance of sound engineers. Here are some things to consider:

Keith is notorious for drinking too much liquor or for taking other substances at concerts, and this could have affected his performance.

His tendencies to pose and showboat on stage can impede his playing ability.

The acoustics in any arena, indoor or outdoor, is dreadful. I have attended concerts and have been able to hear only bass, drums, and Jagger.

The chaos and loud noise of a live sold out concert is not conducive to an ideal performance by Keith, or any musician for that matter.

I have listened to all the Stones studio work on CD's and, while I do not like all the tracks, I have always been impressed with his unique style. I thought the guitar work on A Bigger Bang was great as always. Under the Radar was awesome.

To truly appreciate Keith's musicianship, listen to the studio work only. If you want to have a blast, go to a Stones concert, but realize that Keith's playing may not be perfect.

Sounds like you are making excuses...if "drinking too much liquor" effects his playing, that has to be taken into account in any legitimate critique. He's a pro, so should be held to professional standards, as well as the high standards he himself has set on stage earlier in his career.

Is this a blog or a thread? Is each thing written a blog or a post? Which blogs are you talking about? Where? Can you site them?

Sorry but I am with 71Tele's observation. "But he was drunk" is not a good excuse. Musicianship is not just about what you can do with your fingers - it's about your ATTITUDE, and a person who walks piss-drunk onstage in front of 50,000 people, many of whom paid hundreds of dollars to be there, does not have a good attitude. Same for the posing.

Taylor Swift sounds good on record too. Too bad it's basically a robot you're hearing thanks to studio magic. ANYbody can sound good in the studio.

I am not dismissing Keith's status as a (once) great guitar player, but talent or lack thereof does not need to be excused if it can stand on its own.

Quote
flilflam
but the man can still play the guitar better than anyone I have heard.

Still? With respect. Keith's recent offerings live or in the studio do not near this statement out.

Quote
flilflam
I guess my main point is this. A century from now, no one will care about a bootleg from 1978 or a 1969 grainy video of long haired boys playing rock music. The studio work will endure forever.

On the contrary. These very things document a period in time that will be a window back for those who weren't there to experience it first hand. I for one love looking at old footage and listening to shows I was either too young to attend or occurred before my birth. Without these bootlegs and grainy videos, which future technology will certainly be able to,enhance, our descendants will have little idea of what a great rock and roll band looked and sounded like before a live audience.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-13 07:28 by ChrisM.

Quote
flilflam
I have read blogs from Stones fans who have criticized the guitar playing of Keith. I am proposing that his playing at concerts and in bootlegs is not representative of what he can do and has done in a music studio with the assistance of sound engineers. Here are some things to consider:

Keith is notorious for drinking too much liquor or for taking other substances at concerts, and this could have affected his performance.

His tendencies to pose and showboat on stage can impede his playing ability.

The acoustics in any arena, indoor or outdoor, is dreadful. I have attended concerts and have been able to hear only bass, drums, and Jagger.

The chaos and loud noise of a live sold out concert is not conducive to an ideal performance by Keith, or any musician for that matter.

I have listened to all the Stones studio work on CD's and, while I do not like all the tracks, I have always been impressed with his unique style. I thought the guitar work on A Bigger Bang was great as always. Under the Radar was awesome.

To truly appreciate Keith's musicianship, listen to the studio work only. If you want to have a blast, go to a Stones concert, but realize that Keith's playing may not be perfect.

Balls. If I'm paying several days wages to see my favourite band and go to the hassle of booking flights and hotels, the LEAST I expect in return is an acceptable degree of musical competency. And the more expensive the shows are, the higher expectations I'm entitled to have.

If someone wants to make excuses for imperfection, then lower the prices to reflect it.

Is someone suggesting that another guitarist is playing for Keith on Under the Radar? Those are extremely serious allegations. If you do not have proof of this, it might be wise to say nothing at all.

Quote
flilflam
Is someone suggesting that another guitarist is playing for Keith on Under the Radar? Those are extremely serious allegations. If you do not have proof of this, it might be wise to say nothing at all.

Mick was playing guitar all over the Bigger Bang suggestions. It's not a far-fetched suggestion at all to say his was the prominent guitar there.

Quote
flilflam
Is someone suggesting that another guitarist is playing for Keith on Under the Radar? Those are extremely serious allegations. If you do not have proof of this, it might be wise to say nothing at all.

serious allegations? WTF are you talking about? lighten up, man....

Nonsense. In the studio, you've only got to get it right once. You play and play and play until THAT TAKE comes along. And then you get to toss all the demos, outtakes, etc. Lots of people who can't play live eventually get things right in the studio.

Playing live is another game entirely: you've got one chance for that audience, and you've got to prove it all night, every night. The people who can put themselves across live are the ones who are generally the most beloved (The Beatles being the notable exception).

While Keef has brought it all night on most nights for decades, he hasn't lately.

> I guess my main point is this. A century from now, no one will care about a bootleg from 1978 or a 1969 grainy video of long haired boys playing rock music. The studio work will endure forever.

we have no idea, but I'll never get rid of my collection of 69-73 and 78 boots. in case of fire in the house I'm getting 'em and running away

and we have ya-ya's. you should judge a band for its live shows I guess... I do that. especially now (computers etc etc) I'm even less interested in what a band has to offer me on its studio albums: they have to prove it live.

and the stones are the greatest r&r band in the world EVER x)

Flimflam is obviously full of flotsomandjetsam.

i always only judged him and others from studiowork. that´s where the art and magic happens or not.

concerts are just there to make money.

Quote
stoneswashed77
i always only judged him and others from studiowork. that´s where the art and magic happens or not.

concerts are just there to make money.

so, i guess before studios and recording there was no art nor magic in music...what a pity....

i am talking about the writing proces without audience.

to play the same 50 year old songs that aready exist for the 100003884726340139481098414th time is not art it is craft and making money.

Quote
stoneswashed77
i am talking about the writing proces without audience.

to play the same 50 year old songs that aready exist for the 100003884726340139481098414th time is not art it is craft and making money.

the subject was guitar playing...not writing music....

no not guitar playing but judging by studio work was the question which is a lot more than guitar playing.

stoneswashed77 you happen to be so negative about everything x)
most magical things have happened on stage for the Stones, not in studio, and you tend to say it's all just for money. and you don't like this and that... oh well.

the stones magic happened in the studio mostly. there are only 2 songs live that i like better than the studio versions.

yes i think touring is for the money. do you think mick and keith would be touring all of their lives if they would have gotten all the money from record sales?

i don´t think this is negative because we can see them live.

but i am sure they hated it often not only charlie and bill.