Looking at some of the reviews from the European leg of the ABB tour, it is clear that Keith was having some major problems.

The last show I saw was in Austin 2006, and I had a blast, but I've got to admit, due to the party atmosphere, and the fact that it was within walking distance of my house, that I didn't pay as much attention to the musicianship as I had in the past (thankfully I've got the DVD to remember it by (overdubs aside?)).

Last time I really was blown away was in Houston '05, and they were really firing on all cylinders.

Keith is the Stones, for me, anyway, and if he is for some reason unable to play up to the standards that he was capable of as recently as 2005, I think they should probably call the whole damn thing off.

A new album would be nice, though...

Saw them Nov '05 and Nov '06. Keith was gangbusters. If anything I'm not sure the Wembley Whammer is as solid as ever.

His ability to focus is more acute minus the booze and meds for his bead injury. His arthritis is another story.I pray he can pull If off and I think he realizes that there is not alot left on the proverbial gas tank.
..

There are obvious reasons for his problems during the Eu-tour 07.. after the fiji accident he had to use alots of medications (sorry, dont remember source for this) but it makes sence..

It's one thing to be in the middle of a tour, then start having problems.

I doubt that any of the decision-makers for an upcoming tour would give a green light if it was thought that Keith, or anyone else, might not be able to perform at an acceptable level.

BTW, that Fiji thing happened in April '06, if I remember correctly, and I saw a pretty good performance in Boise in November '06.

i think he can,just stay off the boose and pills and accidents.He did play well on ABB tour,when he wanted to.But mostly it was horrible.

Quote
24FPS
Saw them Nov '05 and Nov '06. Keith was gangbusters. If anything I'm not sure the Wembley Whammer is as solid as ever.

he isn´t.

I hope so!

Keith, is past it in terms of his playing, I think the best we can hope for is his usual little noodles and a few power chords and an awful lot of posing....I hope I'm wrong but you have to be realistic. I get arthritis in my hands and they aret a fraction as bad as his, it would be impossible to play much night after night on any kind of major tour. Give the guy a break, he's paid his dues. When the Stones started out they spent years travelling up and down the Uk in a little van and then years of world tours - he's given us more than most musicians have even dreamt of. I don't mind if he turns up and basically goes through the motions - we are the lucky ones, we will be able to say we saw him. In decades time people will wish they could see the Stones, like many do now about the Beatles and Hendrix etc.

If he's enjoying himself, good for him, he can have my ticket money. Most of his heroin years are lost to him so he is just having a laugh, resting on his substantial laurels!

yes

the idea that somehow you'd get an improved version of keith or the stones at this point is pretty ludicrous....

Quote
Edith Grove
I doubt that any of the decision-makers for an upcoming tour would give a green light if it was thought that Keith, or anyone else, might not be able to perform at an acceptable level.

$ure $ure $ure



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-09-18 20:52 by StonesTod.

Quote
24FPS
Saw them Nov '05 and Nov '06. Keith was gangbusters. If anything I'm not sure the Wembley Whammer is as solid as ever.

Of all the Stones at Qwest Field (Seattle) in October of '06 I was most impressed with Charlie. He showed tremendous endurance for a man of his age, and didn't miss a beat, however, you raise a good point, the concert in Seattle will be nearly five years in the rear view mirror by the time the next tour finally gets rolling. Charlie will be 70 next June so his endurance is definitely going to be a major concern. As far as Keith goes? I have a bet with a friend who thinks Keith won't even make it to the next tour. He is one tough hombre, however, he was showing signs of decline in '07, or so we have been told. It may be a bitter pill to swallow but both Keith and Charlie may not even be up for another tour, only time will tell.

I don't know if you'd get an 'improved' version of the Stones, but you would get the Stones at whatever evolution they are at. They are the ones who have pushed this rock and roll thing far beyond any of their contemporaries. They have that blues ethic of do it 'till you die. I saw Muddy Waters open for Clapton in '78. At that point he was sitting on a chair, but he was electric as ever. And, I am forever grateful I got to see him. Same with John Lee Hooker, though he was at the very end, where he would only come out for the final number, sit there and growl while his backup band played boogie. The speedy, nimble fingered soloist from the early 60s is gone, but I still think Keith has a lot of soul.

Some people disagree, but I thought they sounded fantastic in the 2000s. All that time on the road kept them sharp. I do worry at this point if and how long it might take to knock the rust off.

muddy opened for clapton??? shame on clapton, what does this guy think who he is?

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Edith Grove
I doubt that any of the decision-makers for an upcoming tour would give a green light if it was thought that Keith, or anyone else, might not be able to perform at an acceptable level.

$ure $ure $ure

I hear 'ya, but don't you think that if they got really bad reviews early on a tour, that it would have a negative impact on sales down the road?

Quote
stoneswashed77
muddy opened for clapton??? shame on clapton, what does this guy think who he is?

I also saw Muddy open for Clapton in 1979. So you think Clapton should have opened for Muddy? You don't really believe that. If Clapton would have opened for Muddy, 9500 of the 10,000 would have left and the great Muddy Waters would have played in front of 500 die-hards. No one, including the Stones have been more respectful of their blues heroes than Clapton.

Quote
24FPS
I don't know if you'd get an 'improved' version of the Stones, but you would get the Stones at whatever evolution they are at. They are the ones who have pushed this rock and roll thing far beyond any of their contemporaries. They have that blues ethic of do it 'till you die. I saw Muddy Waters open for Clapton in '78. At that point he was sitting on a chair, but he was electric as ever. And, I am forever grateful I got to see him. Same with John Lee Hooker, though he was at the very end, where he would only come out for the final number, sit there and growl while his backup band played boogie. The speedy, nimble fingered soloist from the early 60s is gone, but I still think Keith has a lot of soul.

Some people disagree, but I thought they sounded fantastic in the 2000s. All that time on the road kept them sharp. I do worry at this point if and how long it might take to knock the rust off.

I agree, thought they reached their peak as a live band during the Licks tour. As much as I enjoyed Ladies and Gentlemen on the big screen the other night if I had to make a choice between it and the '03 HBO live at Madison Square Garden concert I would choose MSG. In my opinion the three concerts (theater, arena, and stadium) on the Four Flicks DVD are the Stones at their absolute peak as a live band, and that is not to say they were not good during other times or even during ABB with the exception maybe being during the last leg in Europe in '07.

Quote
Shawn20

Quote
stoneswashed77
muddy opened for clapton??? shame on clapton, what does this guy think who he is?

I also saw Muddy open for Clapton in 1979. So you think Clapton should have opened for Muddy? You don't really believe that. If Clapton would have opened for Muddy, 9500 of the 10,000 would have left and the great Muddy Waters would have played in front of 500 die-hards. No one, including the Stones have been more respectful of their blues heroes than Clapton.

and isn´t that a shame. i don´t want to live in a world where 95% prefer clapton over muddy.

or maybe i just have fun with the remaining 5 %.

If he decides to make it simple, he´ll be fine. More open G, less noodling. If I were Keith, I would use lighter strings and custom made guitars that are extremely light played as well.

Quote
Edith Grove

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Edith Grove
I doubt that any of the decision-makers for an upcoming tour would give a green light if it was thought that Keith, or anyone else, might not be able to perform at an acceptable level.

$ure $ure $ure

I hear 'ya, but don't you think that if they got really bad reviews early on a tour, that it would have a negative impact on sales down the road?

not in the least. folks don't flock to shows based on reviews....

Quote
DandelionPowderman
If he decides to make it simple, he´ll be fine. More open G, less noodling. If I were Keith, I would use lighter strings and custom made guitars that are extremely light played as well.

if you were keith, you'd be blinding us with your pearly whites and turquoise shoes....

LOL! I doubt that But with Keith´s hands, I´m surprised he hasn´t done anything with his main tool - his axe - to make it sound better.

No reason to tour. just release re-issues. Let Jagger go solo with a new band.

Keith needs to play his guitar to get rid of that @#$%& rust! We don't want a rusty Keith we want a rocking Keef and hopefully if he plays his guitar regularly (everyday) he will get back in shape. He has to focus on his playing like if it were 1969 again.
Rock and Roll,
Mops

The only ethic the Stones have at this point is money. If they don't get the guaranteed millions that Cohl has gotten them accustomed to, they don't leave the house. There is nothing wrong with earning money, and as much as you possibly can, but this idea that the Stones want to "do it until they die" because it's somehow in their DNA now or something, is fookin' ridiculous.

I guarantee you if a guy like Cohl approached them with a guarantee of half of what they got for the last tour, which is still more money than 100 of MOST of us could ever hope to see, they would say no dice, and Mick would go back to whichever of his twenty houses or islands he owns, Keith would go back to Connecticut, Charlie would go back to his horses, and Ronnie would have to go back to worrying about his next paycheck. Sure, they like playing music, but at this point in their lives, they do what they do together for money and that's it.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

As far as Muddy goes, he toured until shortly before his death for the same reason, the only difference is, he NEEDED the money. Muddy did not die a wealthy man, I'd be cautious to say to say he was anymore than fairly comfortable when he died. I don't think he was broke, but he wasn't rich either, and there's no pension plan in music. I don't doubt that he loved playing live, but that's far from the only reason why he kept at it until his death.

Regardless, Muddy was lazy way back in the 50's, and toured because that was his only way to make a living. He sat in a chair back then too (and I'm not saying he didn't need to as he got older), and would often sit out half the set while his band played, so he could drink and talk to the ladies.

Not that there's anything wrong with that either.

Get this book if you want to really know about Muddy Waters. It's not a hatchet job or anything like that, but you'll learn as he got older, he got tired, and would liked to have stayed home more, but couldn't always afford to:

[www.amazon.com]

I'm not saying there isn't some truth to it, but this cliche that the old blues guys were all purists that played until they died purely, or mostly, for the love of it is a bunch of revisionist crap.

Quote
stoneswashed77

Quote
Shawn20

Quote
stoneswashed77
muddy opened for clapton??? shame on clapton, what does this guy think who he is?

I also saw Muddy open for Clapton in 1979. So you think Clapton should have opened for Muddy? You don't really believe that. If Clapton would have opened for Muddy, 9500 of the 10,000 would have left and the great Muddy Waters would have played in front of 500 die-hards. No one, including the Stones have been more respectful of their blues heroes than Clapton.

and isn´t that a shame. i don´t want to live in a world where 95% prefer clapton over muddy.

or maybe i just have fun with the remaining 5 %.

you're putting too much effort into sounding hardcore.i saw muddy and eric at different times during that era.muddy souded good,a living legend sitting in a chair running through his list of great songs in a club.but remember,this is clapton more that 30 years ago.the master was not in the students league at that point.

i think the bottom line is that they just can't do it anymore. It isn't a knock but Keith even said on Jimmy Fallon pushing the exile release 'Don't even ask me to play because you are looking at a very rusty Keith Richards'
I for one won't pay to see a band that can't play and I sure as hell don't want to see a lot of people on stage trying to do fillers for them. I mean god bless him but he just can't play anymore and Ronnie has always been a waste of time.
I am not trying to start a Mick Taylor Vs. Ron Wood deal but i think Ron Wood is a clown and always loved hearing the band with Mick T better. When I have a choise between listening to a version of a song with Mick or Ron , Mick winds everytime.

With reference to the original question...

In short I believe he can.

...but he needs to be motivated to do so.

Whilst acknowledging the various perceived and much discussed issues, I still think that "slopiness" and showmanship at the expense of musicianship are the things he should address.

But, for anything to change, Keith needs to think so too !



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-09-20 18:57 by Spud.

For the spanish shows that I saw in 2007, Keith was clearly ill. I was close enough to the man to see him moving in slow motion, swollen, blurry eyed and disoriented. He wasn't looking too good and sure he wasn't feeling very well. This was not the random off-night or the ordinary good gig with occasional flaws. This was something more serious.

Whatever reasons he was in that state for, and what's coming next we can only speculate. His arthritis problem comes a long way now and since he's suffering it it's clear he lost some of his chops, but still gave memorable gigs because he still had the taste, the groove and the sound within him, with less notes of course.

Maybe 2007 was his annus horribilis, given the head injury issue, the heavy medication, the controversy and criticism about his daddy's ashes, the passing of his mum, the reported return to heavy drinking, maybe the first signs of Patty's illness, who knows...

For sure his arthritis is not going to improve, BUT if his health regains some strength, the personal issues are left behind and Keith goes on the road as a happy man once more, MAYBE we can have some of the Ol' Keef back. Maybe! But as I said before, this is mere speculation and I guess time will tell...

As for me, I can only hope the best for him and if the Stones are gone for good, then let me praise them for 45 years of magic!