Quote
Mathijs

Quote
Bärs
Perhaps the lack of recent weaving can be explained in terms of a change in song selection? Maybe the songs with weaving were more prominent 1978-1982 than they are post 1989. It might be that the possibility to weave is limited to a fairly small amount of songs. At least have I never heard weaving in for example JJF, BS, HTW , TD , S, STM, where they seem to always have played according to fixed patterns. I don't know, it's a suggestion.

JJF and BS aren't particularly fit for weaving, as the main rhythm part is very well defined. As a second guitarist all you can do is spice it up a bit. Taylor was fabulous in adding lead lines, Wood is IMO better in chord work over the progressions.

As for the recent tours, I guess it has to do with age, drugs and alcohol, and simple boredom. If you play Brown Sugar a thousand times live, how interesting and exiting will it be. I guess they milked every lick out of these warhorses, and any inspriration to do something different to the night before is gone. It was striking during the last tour. The only song that was played with any inspiration was Streets of Love, you could see the band enjoying playing something new.

Mathijs

Surely it has to do something to do with the song material - that 1968 to 1974 material basically is structured to more disinguished guitar parts, whether it is only Keith, or him with Taylor (and Keith mentions in LIFE that he wrote certain songs Taylor in his mind - I guess he mentions he knew what kind of things Taylor was able to do, and gave him space for that.). When Ronnie joined they quite faithfully kept the old arrangements in pre-Wood era songs (but not always!). These days - from 1989 on - they tend to play more pre-Wood material than they did in 1978-1982 era.

Anyway - taking the reasons Mathijs pointed out - there is certain difference between the 'classical' versions and 'modern' - cheers Bärs! - versions of typical waeving songs. Take a look:









I think the difference is that in the first clip the idea of two guitars - plus Jagger's - do actually sound like one, that is, they work together, trade ideas, back up each other, and everything goes in accordance to a mutual idea or a purpose. But as far as the second goes, the guitars - all of them - seem to live in a separated sphere of their own, not really "touching" or "connecting" each other or working together. Ronnie and Keith sound like palying (Ron) or jamming (Keith) by their own, not really caring what the other does (at least Keith doesn't seem to care at all what Ronnie does). If compare the contributions of the three guitarists between these two clips, the biggest sign of decline is is clearly Keith's contribution. What used to be the glue that hold them together and lead them (like in the first clip: what a riff; what a sense of rhythm timing in all its variations!) sounds now a clueless noodling. One can really hear how significant Keith Richards actually is the greatness of the Rolling Stones sound - what it is to have Keith Richards really 'on' or not. (And what is to have Bill Wyman in a band or not!)

(And no way the second clip is the 'worst' possible example of today's weaving - I think it actaully belongs to the better half).

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-26 18:24 by Doxa.

Well, it's hard to compare those versions because the mix so different and the overall groove 2003 isn't there since Bill isn't there. If the guitars from 2003 would be transported to 1978, with all the necessary sound changes etc., I think that the differance would be smaller than at first sight.

Quote
Bärs
Well, it's hard to compare those versions because the mix so different and the overall groove 2003 isn't there since Bill isn't there. If the guitars from 2003 would be transported to 1978, with all the necessary sound changes etc., I think that the differance would be smaller than at first sight.

Fair points but I guess it is not so hard to hear the difference between the clips as far weaving goes - and to see the difference especially in Keith's contribution. But I agree that Bill's role is crucial as far the "groove" goes. Losing him was as terrible for The Stones as a hot rock and roll band as Keith losing his touch.

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Bärs
Well, it's hard to compare those versions because the mix so different and the overall groove 2003 isn't there since Bill isn't there. If the guitars from 2003 would be transported to 1978, with all the necessary sound changes etc., I think that the differance would be smaller than at first sight.

Fair points but I guess it is not so hard to hear the difference between the clips as far weaving goes - and to see the difference especially in Keith's contribution. But I agree that Bill's role is crucial as far the "groove" goes. Losing him was as terrible for The Stones as a hot rock and roll band as Keith losing his touch.

- Doxa

Thanks God Mick is better and better with every year

> But I agree that Bill's role is crucial as far the "groove" goes. Losing him was as terrible for The Stones as a hot rock and roll band as Keith losing his touch.

- Doxa <

Finally! The most important sentence I have read on this board!

2 1 2 0

Quote
proudmary

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Bärs
Well, it's hard to compare those versions because the mix so different and the overall groove 2003 isn't there since Bill isn't there. If the guitars from 2003 would be transported to 1978, with all the necessary sound changes etc., I think that the differance would be smaller than at first sight.

Fair points but I guess it is not so hard to hear the difference between the clips as far weaving goes - and to see the difference especially in Keith's contribution. But I agree that Bill's role is crucial as far the "groove" goes. Losing him was as terrible for The Stones as a hot rock and roll band as Keith losing his touch.

- Doxa

Thanks God Mick is better and better with every year

This must be fan talk! It's absolutely not true imo. His singing on PMS is, however much I love the song, simply not good, to put it mildly. The same applies to Following The River. With all due respect for your idol of course. Listen to the 2010 interview on the L&G DVD. His voice doesn't sound agreeable anymore.

78 and 81 were awful. Mick is better now than he ever was.

Kleermaker, I am interest to know if you find any difference in quality between those two "Whip" clips I put. Because I know you don't like the "weaving" concept at all, I am curious to hear your perception - or is is just the "same crap" for you?

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa
Kleermaker, I am interest to know if you find any difference in quality between those two "Whip" clips I put. Because I know you don't like the "weaving" concept at all, I am curious to hear your perception - or is is just the "same crap" for you?

- Doxa

You're asking much of me, Doxa, but because it's you it's okay.

I would say the first clip is the better one. During the second one the band comes across as disintegrated to me, audibly as well as visually.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Doxa
Kleermaker, I am interest to know if you find any difference in quality between those two "Whip" clips I put. Because I know you don't like the "weaving" concept at all, I am curious to hear your perception - or is is just the "same crap" for you?

- Doxa

You're asking much of me, Doxa, but because it's you it's okay.

I would say the first clip is the better one. During the second one the band comes across as disintegrated to me, audibly as well as visually.

I knew that was much to asked but I wanted to force you to listen them ... and probably you would have seen the light ><

Well you didn't, but I'll "accept" your review.

- Doxa

Those two of Whip - the difference is in 1978 they were a vital band playing new material that had ATTITUDE. In 2003 they were just imitating themselves with no attitude. Big difference. And it sounds like it.

Quote
skipstone
Those two of Whip - the difference is in 1978 they were a vital band playing new material that had ATTITUDE. In 2003 they were just imitating themselves with no attitude. Big difference. And it sounds like it.

That's it! You nailed it. Plus they had Bill in 1978. Big difference to the whole groove. Somehow Darryl playing this song is just...wrong.

Quote
Doxa


I think the difference is that in the first clip the idea of two guitars - plus Jagger's - do actually sound like one, that is, they work together, trade ideas, back up each other, and everything goes in accordance to a mutual idea or a purpose. But as far as the second goes, the guitars - all of them - seem to live in a separated sphere of their own, not really "touching" or "connecting" each other or working together. Ronnie and Keith sound like palying (Ron) or jamming (Keith) by their own, not really caring what the other does (at least Keith doesn't seem to care at all what Ronnie does). If compare the contributions of the three guitarists between these two clips, the biggest sign of decline is is clearly Keith's contribution. What used to be the glue that hold them together and lead them (like in the first clip: what a riff; what a sense of rhythm timing in all its variations!) sounds now a clueless noodling. One can really hear how significant Keith Richards actually is the greatness of the Rolling Stones sound - what it is to have Keith Richards really 'on' or not. (And what is to have Bill Wyman in a band or not!)

(And no way the second clip is the 'worst' possible example of today's weaving - I think it actaully belongs to the better half).

- Doxa

I think you're spot on, Doxa. The sound the Stones get just isn't cohesive any more, and you are so right, Keith is just noodling away at times playing a few of his Chuck Berry licks. The thing also worth remembering about 'When The Whip Comes Down', is it's actually a song that they can still pull off better than most, partly because it is pretty unmelodic. There perhaps isn't reason for Jagger to have to sing in a way that's particuarly sensitive. The actual character of the song pretty much fits the mood in which Jagger approaches singing anyway these days, so this song suits him better than most.

The ancient art of weaving isn't always as effective as two distinctively different guitar players playing their own parts, in my opinion, but 'When The Whip Comes Down' is a song that demonstates it can work very effectively, of course, when the Stones are on form, like in the first clip.