Tell Me :
Talk
i do not. there are countless guitarists of a similar age who've showed no such decline.[/quote]
Well....I watched ZZ Top just the other day, and they play everything at half speed, and Gibbons is much slower than he used to be. Clapton's playing has detoriated much, he's slower and he does seem completely out of ideas, like the well has dried up. Taylor is not half of what he used to be as well. Slash used to be an exciting guitarist, melting various genres into his playing, but he has become a archetypal American hard rock guitarist with very bad taste. BB King's an icon, but not worth listening too since the early 80's.
I once saw Toots Thielemans play, one of the true greats of jazz. He was jamming with a young band over some chord progression. Toots closed his eyes, did some fantastic things, but then got completely lost in the progession. He didn't know where he was, where to go to and how to end it. I can't blame him, he's over 80, but I guess age does not do wonders for your musical abbilities.
And how many musicians have made landmark albums after they've turned 30?
Mathijs
Yeah, those jazz fusion guy where sure on the front of cultural revolution! None of those have made landmark albums outside their own little genre. They made defining albums for their genre, or even where on the basis of new genres, but none of these musicians have made truly landmark or revolutionary albums. No Revolver, Pet Sounds, Velvet Underground, Dark Side, Bollocks, Thriller, Nevermind or Appetite here.
And to add (but I am no expert...), Beck made his last inspirational (but unlistenable) album when he was 30, Al Di Meola made Friday Night in San Francisco, his only true legendary album, when he was 26, John McLaughlin was most influential with Miles Davis when he was 28 and with the Mahavishnu Orchestra when he was 30.
Dylan made Blood on the Tracks when he was 32. Considered by many his best work, but it is far from his '62 - '66 days in term of influence.
Mathijs
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-28 16:34 by Mathijs.
I - and I think quite many too - would put TIME OUT OF MIND (1997) to the level of BLOOD ON THE TRACKS as a landmark in Dylan's career, but like with BLOOD it is far from his actual influence that took place in the 60's.
But I agree with Mathijs' claim. I would put it that they way that if one once makes a huge impact or a difference - even a revolutionary impact - it is almost impossible to repeat it again. And when talking about such 60's cultural icons as The Beatles, the Stones and Dylan, it is clearly impossible. Their original impact was so incredible to the whole genre of rock that was just building up and shaping itself.
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-28 15:52 by Doxa.
Agreed you cannot compare them to sales like revolver,etc
Imo their genre is much more versatile then Dylan or the Stones, musically spoken.
Mc'Laughlin's Birds of fire, his Mahavishnu Landmark , released when he was 33,and was about 40 when he did Fr.n i San Fransisco, a revolution in the guitarworld.The concept was set up by Paco de Lucia and mc'Laughlin, as Larry Coryell was sacked due to drug problems.Dimeola was popular long before that indeed,Return to forever,and, Land of the midnight sun in particular.Kiss my axe another landmark.
He was about 38 by that time.
It wasn't untill the 8-tees before fast playing got very popular amongst guitarist,and those players put their stamp for good.A silly rat race btw.
Beck 32 when he made Wired,one of his first landmarks,and the beginning of his virtuoso career.This is a tricky one; we cannot compare Beck's playing in the 6-tees to his playing in the 7-tees till date..
.
Miles Davis(JM) and Chick Corea (Al) launched those players when they where younger, that's for sure.
Most important to me: despite their age they can still keep up the stamina.
Well....I watched ZZ Top just the other day, and they play everything at half speed, and Gibbons is much slower than he used to be. Clapton's playing has detoriated much, he's slower and he does seem completely out of ideas, like the well has dried up. Taylor is not half of what he used to be as well. Slash used to be an exciting guitarist, melting various genres into his playing, but he has become a archetypal American hard rock guitarist with very bad taste. BB King's an icon, but not worth listening too since the early 80's.
I once saw Toots Thielemans play, one of the true greats of jazz. He was jamming with a young band over some chord progression. Toots closed his eyes, did some fantastic things, but then got completely lost in the progession. He didn't know where he was, where to go to and how to end it. I can't blame him, he's over 80, but I guess age does not do wonders for your musical abbilities.
And how many musicians have made landmark albums after they've turned 30?
Mathijs[/quote]
i don't agree with you about clapton's deterioration. and you cite only but a few - how about ageless wonders like jeff beck?
the point being that age in and of itself does not necessitate a decline in playing ability - for guitarists, pianists nor any other instrumentalist.
Ageless wonder Jeff Beck?? Did he play anything listenable after '70? And did you see Clapton liv lately? Boring 12-bar blues, and a row of guest guitarists to spice things up.
Mathijs
Of course not Stonescrow. I still live and die for The Stones. The worst Stones concert is still one of the greatest thrills you will ever have! i'm 51 and have seen The Stones over 50 times since 1975. There is nothing that compares to it.
Can't disagree with anything you have said here. Good sound advice and well stated, mate.
Just curious, how did you feel Keith played at the Beacon for 'Shine A Light'?
Nice to hear you haven't jumped ship! To me, a Stones concert is one of the most dramatic, exciting, and greatest shows on earth, right up there with the last ten laps of the Daytona 500, a last minute game winning drive in the Super Bowl, the Kentucky Derby, and the final heat of an unlimited hydroplane race. Since I can't tell when Keith is screwing up anyway..............
Can you still enjoy the overall show despite the fact that you feel he is not what he once was?
In other words they have lost the "Eye of the Tiger"?
Even if I wouldn't say that Devil's solo is a "memorable" solo, it is not THAT bad. Keith plays a couple of bum notes, but also some great music.
But Devil a part, I find that he played very very well for amost the entire set, with moments of pure excellence. Line is nothing less than fantastic from A to Z, She Was Hot idem, Shattered, Flash, Sugar, Start Me up ... Please tell me WHERE is he playing sub par?
That said, the Beacon wasn't even his best gig of the tour!
All this raving about Keith's abilities is just nonsense. Keith Richards is not a session player. Its not his job. There are millions of better guitarists. More than millions. So what? Keith Richards is a musician. His job is to play what he believes suits the song. And his intersts evolve.
Of course we, the public, have personal preferences, and our preferences are related to recordings that cover a production long almost half a century. Recordings, no matter how recent, are pictures of a past moment.
The problem is, assuming this is a problem, that the typical set list inlcudes numbers from the past, played in the way the band wants to play them now. These differences may be indifferent for some (my whife wouldn't know the difference between a 67 or a 2007 recording of statisfaction) essential for others (those who love the contributions of Brian and MT, for example).
The point of my rant is, the Stones' music is no rocket science. If Keith was interested in playing as he did in 72, he would. In fact he does things now that are very sophisticated. The sincopation in Hurricane is more complex than any fingerpicking he has played in the past. The piece of music he playes in the outtakes of Shine a Light reveals a depth and maturation that he did not have in the early 70s. Same can be said for his great productions of Wingelss Angels and the never enough parised Marsha Hansen work My Soul is a Witness.
C
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-30 19:22 by liddas.
Of course my question was serious, which takes us back to why I raised this question in the first place. I was dead serious when I said I really don't know good playing from bad playing. As far as I am concerned the Stones put on some fantastic performances at the Beacon at least based on what turned up in theaters and later on the DVD. I saw it on IMAX here in Seattle and the audience loved it. As far as Keith's individual playing goes on that specific song I will just have to take your word for it that it even though overall it sounded great to me his playing apparently was noticeably not good to those in the know. I guess if I have learned anything from this exercise it is that Keith's bad playing is not going to stop me from enjoying the overall show, at least for the moment.
Hmmm...do I still enjoy the show? yes - overall. Do I constantly notice how much Keith's playing and timing has deteriorated? Yes, I am afraid so. Not so bad at the Beacon, but at Qwest Field in Seattle on their last tour, pretty bad.
i don't agree with you about clapton's deterioration. and you cite only but a few - how about ageless wonders like jeff beck?
the point being that age in and of itself does not necessitate a decline in playing ability - for guitarists, pianists nor any other instrumentalist.[/quote] Outstanding posts today on this thread .i agree wholeheartedly with you about slowhand.he still get's it done better than most others (actually he is the best)
Is that why he plays solos in the wrong key? Listen to the Ain't To Proud To Beg solo from AC 2006. Or the countless leads from SFTD. he has no clue what notes to play. And before you make such a STUPID comment yourself. You should of read the follow up.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-01 03:43 by More Hot Rocks.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: To Guitar Players: Questions About Keith's Playing
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: November 28, 2010 14:27
Quote
StonesTod
Thanks for the input, fascinating responses. I just have one further question. Do you think his decline is pretty much normal for guitarists his age?
i do not. there are countless guitarists of a similar age who've showed no such decline.[/quote]
Well....I watched ZZ Top just the other day, and they play everything at half speed, and Gibbons is much slower than he used to be. Clapton's playing has detoriated much, he's slower and he does seem completely out of ideas, like the well has dried up. Taylor is not half of what he used to be as well. Slash used to be an exciting guitarist, melting various genres into his playing, but he has become a archetypal American hard rock guitarist with very bad taste. BB King's an icon, but not worth listening too since the early 80's.
I once saw Toots Thielemans play, one of the true greats of jazz. He was jamming with a young band over some chord progression. Toots closed his eyes, did some fantastic things, but then got completely lost in the progession. He didn't know where he was, where to go to and how to end it. I can't blame him, he's over 80, but I guess age does not do wonders for your musical abbilities.
And how many musicians have made landmark albums after they've turned 30?
Mathijs
Re: To Guitar Players: Questions About Keith's Playing
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: November 28, 2010 14:41
Quote
MathijsQuote
StonesTod
And how many musicians have made landmark albums after they've turned 30?
Mathijs
John mc'Laughlin, Al diMeola, Roben Ford, Jeff Beck, The Brecker Bros, to name a few.
But those are clean guys.
Re: To Guitar Players: Questions About Keith's Playing
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: November 28, 2010 15:10
Quote
Amsterdamned
And how many musicians have made landmark albums after they've turned 30?
Mathijs
John mc'Laughlin, Al diMeola, Roben Ford, Jeff Beck, The Brecker Bros, to name a few.
But those are clean guys.
Yeah, those jazz fusion guy where sure on the front of cultural revolution! None of those have made landmark albums outside their own little genre. They made defining albums for their genre, or even where on the basis of new genres, but none of these musicians have made truly landmark or revolutionary albums. No Revolver, Pet Sounds, Velvet Underground, Dark Side, Bollocks, Thriller, Nevermind or Appetite here.
And to add (but I am no expert...), Beck made his last inspirational (but unlistenable) album when he was 30, Al Di Meola made Friday Night in San Francisco, his only true legendary album, when he was 26, John McLaughlin was most influential with Miles Davis when he was 28 and with the Mahavishnu Orchestra when he was 30.
Dylan made Blood on the Tracks when he was 32. Considered by many his best work, but it is far from his '62 - '66 days in term of influence.
Mathijs
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-28 16:34 by Mathijs.
Re: To Guitar Players: Questions About Keith's Playing
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: November 28, 2010 15:45
Quote
Mathijs
Dylan made Blood on the Tracks when he was 32. Considered by many his best work, but it is far from his '62 - '66 days in term of influence.
Mathijs
I - and I think quite many too - would put TIME OUT OF MIND (1997) to the level of BLOOD ON THE TRACKS as a landmark in Dylan's career, but like with BLOOD it is far from his actual influence that took place in the 60's.
But I agree with Mathijs' claim. I would put it that they way that if one once makes a huge impact or a difference - even a revolutionary impact - it is almost impossible to repeat it again. And when talking about such 60's cultural icons as The Beatles, the Stones and Dylan, it is clearly impossible. Their original impact was so incredible to the whole genre of rock that was just building up and shaping itself.
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-28 15:52 by Doxa.
Re: To Guitar Players: Questions About Keith's Playing
Posted by:
Squiggle
()
Date: November 28, 2010 16:34
I don't think age plays a major factor. What's much more important is the length of time since the musician began. Those from the sixties tended to decline after 30 because so many of them were well on their way by their early twenties and very few people can keep up that pace for more than ten, maybe fifteen, years.
Re: To Guitar Players: Questions About Keith's Playing
Posted by:
Squiggle
()
Date: November 28, 2010 16:35
p.s. When I say that age doesn't play a major factor, I'm leaving aside specific problems like arthritis.
Re: To Guitar Players: Questions About Keith's Playing
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: November 29, 2010 01:52
Quote
MathijsQuote
Amsterdamned
And how many musicians have made landmark albums after they've turned 30?
Mathijs
John mc'Laughlin, Al diMeola, Roben Ford, Jeff Beck, The Brecker Bros, to name a few.
But those are clean guys.
Yeah, those jazz fusion guy where sure on the front of cultural revolution! None of those have made landmark albums outside their own little genre. They made defining albums for their genre, or even where on the basis of new genres, but none of these musicians have made truly landmark or revolutionary albums. No Revolver, Pet Sounds, Velvet Underground, Dark Side, Bollocks, Thriller, Nevermind or Appetite here.
And to add (but I am no expert...), Beck made his last inspirational (but unlistenable) album when he was 30, Al Di Meola made Friday Night in San Francisco, his only true legendary album, when he was 26, John McLaughlin was most influential with Miles Davis when he was 28 and with the Mahavishnu Orchestra when he was 30.
Dylan made Blood on the Tracks when he was 32. Considered by many his best work, but it is far from his '62 - '66 days in term of influence.
Mathijs
Agreed you cannot compare them to sales like revolver,etc
Imo their genre is much more versatile then Dylan or the Stones, musically spoken.
Mc'Laughlin's Birds of fire, his Mahavishnu Landmark , released when he was 33,and was about 40 when he did Fr.n i San Fransisco, a revolution in the guitarworld.The concept was set up by Paco de Lucia and mc'Laughlin, as Larry Coryell was sacked due to drug problems.Dimeola was popular long before that indeed,Return to forever,and, Land of the midnight sun in particular.Kiss my axe another landmark.
He was about 38 by that time.
It wasn't untill the 8-tees before fast playing got very popular amongst guitarist,and those players put their stamp for good.A silly rat race btw.
Beck 32 when he made Wired,one of his first landmarks,and the beginning of his virtuoso career.This is a tricky one; we cannot compare Beck's playing in the 6-tees to his playing in the 7-tees till date..
.
Miles Davis(JM) and Chick Corea (Al) launched those players when they where younger, that's for sure.
Most important to me: despite their age they can still keep up the stamina.
Re: To Guitar Players: Questions About Keith's Playing
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: November 29, 2010 02:02
Quote
MathijsQuote
StonesTod
Thanks for the input, fascinating responses. I just have one further question. Do you think his decline is pretty much normal for guitarists his age?
i do not. there are countless guitarists of a similar age who've showed no such decline.
Well....I watched ZZ Top just the other day, and they play everything at half speed, and Gibbons is much slower than he used to be. Clapton's playing has detoriated much, he's slower and he does seem completely out of ideas, like the well has dried up. Taylor is not half of what he used to be as well. Slash used to be an exciting guitarist, melting various genres into his playing, but he has become a archetypal American hard rock guitarist with very bad taste. BB King's an icon, but not worth listening too since the early 80's.
I once saw Toots Thielemans play, one of the true greats of jazz. He was jamming with a young band over some chord progression. Toots closed his eyes, did some fantastic things, but then got completely lost in the progession. He didn't know where he was, where to go to and how to end it. I can't blame him, he's over 80, but I guess age does not do wonders for your musical abbilities.
And how many musicians have made landmark albums after they've turned 30?
Mathijs[/quote]
i don't agree with you about clapton's deterioration. and you cite only but a few - how about ageless wonders like jeff beck?
the point being that age in and of itself does not necessitate a decline in playing ability - for guitarists, pianists nor any other instrumentalist.
Re: To Guitar Players: Questions About Keith's Playing
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: November 29, 2010 02:31
Success kills the actual need to grow. Once they make that money, they settle in to doing what they do, into being who they are. It's not really expression, it's just there. It's automatic. It's expected. They just have to show up.
Some still have some inspiration and can actually still do something. And sure it's never as good as something from a long time ago blah blah blah but it is whatever the now is then.
It's why Tattoo You is hailed as the last great Stones album - because it was. They've had some interesting moments with Voodoo and Bridges but nothing holds a candle to Tatoo You (or Some Girls).
So, like Dylan, when you have your own legacy to live up to, usually it fails. Unlike Dylan, the Stones have failed in regards to showing that they are actually still involved. All the established artists today just do it for the money because it's "what they do". I'm sure they have fun and enjoy playing still but there's no critical NEED for it.
Some still have some inspiration and can actually still do something. And sure it's never as good as something from a long time ago blah blah blah but it is whatever the now is then.
It's why Tattoo You is hailed as the last great Stones album - because it was. They've had some interesting moments with Voodoo and Bridges but nothing holds a candle to Tatoo You (or Some Girls).
So, like Dylan, when you have your own legacy to live up to, usually it fails. Unlike Dylan, the Stones have failed in regards to showing that they are actually still involved. All the established artists today just do it for the money because it's "what they do". I'm sure they have fun and enjoy playing still but there's no critical NEED for it.
Re: To Guitar Players: Questions About Keith's Playing
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: November 29, 2010 19:15
Quote
StonesTod
i don't agree with you about clapton's deterioration. and you cite only but a few - how about ageless wonders like jeff beck?
Ageless wonder Jeff Beck?? Did he play anything listenable after '70? And did you see Clapton liv lately? Boring 12-bar blues, and a row of guest guitarists to spice things up.
Mathijs
Re: To Guitar Players: Questions About Keith's Playing
Posted by:
Squiggle
()
Date: November 29, 2010 19:47
For many of these musicians the times might also have played their part. The eighties seemed to hit most established stars pretty hard - partly because of their age, perhaps (and partly because the times were caused by their age), but perhaps because of other factors as well. Working under other conditions, they might have produced fewer Tonights and Dirty Works.
By the way, Serge Gainsbourg only made his first recordings when he was 30 (or 29?). And no-one's better than Serge Gainsbourg.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-29 19:51 by Squiggle.
By the way, Serge Gainsbourg only made his first recordings when he was 30 (or 29?). And no-one's better than Serge Gainsbourg.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-29 19:51 by Squiggle.
Re: To Guitar Players: Questions About Keith's Playing
Posted by:
More Hot Rocks
()
Date: November 30, 2010 01:26
Quote
stonescrowQuote
More Hot RocksQuote
stonescrowQuote
More Hot Rocks
#3 It's not his hands it's his brain.
His memory? Not able to remember his guitar parts? Please explain.
How can anyone play an entire solo in the wrong key after playing the same songs for decades. It's like not remembering a family members name. Alcohol and drugs effect your body and also damage your brain. yeah i sound like an anti drug commercial but it's true. Keith should never play a lead again. let Ronnie play all of them. (or maybe Wady W...hint hint)
Does his decline absolutely kill it for you in regards to ever being able to enjoy the band anymore or is it just too much to overcome?
Of course not Stonescrow. I still live and die for The Stones. The worst Stones concert is still one of the greatest thrills you will ever have! i'm 51 and have seen The Stones over 50 times since 1975. There is nothing that compares to it.
Re: To Guitar Players: Questions About Keith's Playing
Posted by:
flilflam
()
Date: November 30, 2010 03:36
When I want sound advice about an important subject, I always ensure that the expert I am consulting has the proper credentials. For instance, if I want financial advice, I make sure that the planner is licensed to practice his profession. If I want advice and remedy concerning a medical issue, I make sure the professional is in fact an expert in medicine. I want a real doctor, not a licensed nurse. I generally steer clear of blogs where everyone can be a so called expert. In the blogosphere, everyone can be an expert on any subject. Anyone can be an expert in general relativity if he sounds like he knows what he is talking about, and anyone can dispense medical advice with a license as long as it is done anonymously on the internet. Do you know that I am an expert in organic chemistry? Do you believe me?
Does everyone understand the point I am making? Take everything any music expert says with a grain of salt, and trust no one including me.
Does everyone understand the point I am making? Take everything any music expert says with a grain of salt, and trust no one including me.
Re: To Guitar Players: Questions About Keith's Playing
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: November 30, 2010 04:10
We are clearly dealing with two separate issues here:
One is the art of rock 'n roll, particularly song-crafting. This is a young person's game. The fire that makes great rock songs seems to last until about age 30. Dylan said he had to learn to do consciously what he used to do unconsciously. That means the songs stopped flowing, man! There are stories of Dylan being in the back of a limo with sheets of paper, working on three songs at once. I am quite sure it was similar for young Lennon/McCartney, Townshend and Jagger/Richards. It is certainly possible to make compelling rock 'n roll after 30, but there invariably is more effort involved (see Blood On The Tracks, Some Girls, etc.)
A completely separate issue is physical playing ability. There is really no reason why age should make a great player's skills deteriorate. Dexterity lessens, but the better players substitute what they lose in dexterity with taste and inventiveness. In Keith's case I am afraid there is more going on. I think the drugs and alcohol have taken their toll. He was always more of a "feel" player than a flash player like Clapton or Beck (one thing I always liked about him). He has never relied on dexterity as much as the "classic" lead guitar players, but has had a razor-sharp sense of feel and timing. It seems to me that has suffered every bit as much as his manual dexterity. Much to my dismay.
One is the art of rock 'n roll, particularly song-crafting. This is a young person's game. The fire that makes great rock songs seems to last until about age 30. Dylan said he had to learn to do consciously what he used to do unconsciously. That means the songs stopped flowing, man! There are stories of Dylan being in the back of a limo with sheets of paper, working on three songs at once. I am quite sure it was similar for young Lennon/McCartney, Townshend and Jagger/Richards. It is certainly possible to make compelling rock 'n roll after 30, but there invariably is more effort involved (see Blood On The Tracks, Some Girls, etc.)
A completely separate issue is physical playing ability. There is really no reason why age should make a great player's skills deteriorate. Dexterity lessens, but the better players substitute what they lose in dexterity with taste and inventiveness. In Keith's case I am afraid there is more going on. I think the drugs and alcohol have taken their toll. He was always more of a "feel" player than a flash player like Clapton or Beck (one thing I always liked about him). He has never relied on dexterity as much as the "classic" lead guitar players, but has had a razor-sharp sense of feel and timing. It seems to me that has suffered every bit as much as his manual dexterity. Much to my dismay.
Re: To Guitar Players: Questions About Keith's Playing
Posted by:
stonescrow
()
Date: November 30, 2010 08:12
Quote
flilflam
When I want sound advice about an important subject, I always ensure that the expert I am consulting has the proper credentials. For instance, if I want financial advice, I make sure that the planner is licensed to practice his profession. If I want advice and remedy concerning a medical issue, I make sure the professional is in fact an expert in medicine. I want a real doctor, not a licensed nurse. I generally steer clear of blogs where everyone can be a so called expert. In the blogosphere, everyone can be an expert on any subject. Anyone can be an expert in general relativity if he sounds like he knows what he is talking about, and anyone can dispense medical advice with a license as long as it is done anonymously on the internet. Do you know that I am an expert in organic chemistry? Do you believe me?
Does everyone understand the point I am making? Take everything any music expert says with a grain of salt, and trust no one including me.
Can't disagree with anything you have said here. Good sound advice and well stated, mate.
Re: To Guitar Players: Questions About Keith's Playing
Posted by:
stonescrow
()
Date: November 30, 2010 08:15
Quote
skipstone
Dangerous Beauty is fine, there's nothing wrong with it. It's an average Stones song, yes, the kind they can just toss off. Keith's playing is what I would consider to be normal, as in, it's fine. There is no "bad" playing from Keith on A Bigger Bang. And it sticks with some theme he came up with that features big chunky riffs that started with One Hit and on to Wicked As It Seems, Love Is Strong and Low Down and It Won't Take Long - the key ingredient to those songs being that they are all in open G and based in the key of A basically.
Now what he did on So Divine is pretty bad - they should have used Ronnie (ha ha).
Just curious, how did you feel Keith played at the Beacon for 'Shine A Light'?
Re: To Guitar Players: Questions About Keith's Playing
Posted by:
stonescrow
()
Date: November 30, 2010 08:36
Quote
More Hot RocksQuote
stonescrowQuote
More Hot RocksQuote
stonescrowQuote
More Hot Rocks
#3 It's not his hands it's his brain.
His memory? Not able to remember his guitar parts? Please explain.
How can anyone play an entire solo in the wrong key after playing the same songs for decades. It's like not remembering a family members name. Alcohol and drugs effect your body and also damage your brain. yeah i sound like an anti drug commercial but it's true. Keith should never play a lead again. let Ronnie play all of them. (or maybe Wady W...hint hint)
Does his decline absolutely kill it for you in regards to ever being able to enjoy the band anymore or is it just too much to overcome?
Of course not Stonescrow. I still live and die for The Stones. The worst Stones concert is still one of the greatest thrills you will ever have! i'm 51 and have seen The Stones over 50 times since 1975. There is nothing that compares to it.
Nice to hear you haven't jumped ship! To me, a Stones concert is one of the most dramatic, exciting, and greatest shows on earth, right up there with the last ten laps of the Daytona 500, a last minute game winning drive in the Super Bowl, the Kentucky Derby, and the final heat of an unlimited hydroplane race. Since I can't tell when Keith is screwing up anyway..............
Re: To Guitar Players: Questions About Keith's Playing
Posted by:
stonescrow
()
Date: November 30, 2010 08:52
Quote
71Tele
We are clearly dealing with two separate issues here:
One is the art of rock 'n roll, particularly song-crafting. This is a young person's game. The fire that makes great rock songs seems to last until about age 30. Dylan said he had to learn to do consciously what he used to do unconsciously. That means the songs stopped flowing, man! There are stories of Dylan being in the back of a limo with sheets of paper, working on three songs at once. I am quite sure it was similar for young Lennon/McCartney, Townshend and Jagger/Richards. It is certainly possible to make compelling rock 'n roll after 30, but there invariably is more effort involved (see Blood On The Tracks, Some Girls, etc.)
A completely separate issue is physical playing ability. There is really no reason why age should make a great player's skills deteriorate. Dexterity lessens, but the better players substitute what they lose in dexterity with taste and inventiveness. In Keith's case I am afraid there is more going on. I think the drugs and alcohol have taken their toll. He was always more of a "feel" player than a flash player like Clapton or Beck (one thing I always liked about him). He has never relied on dexterity as much as the "classic" lead guitar players, but has had a razor-sharp sense of feel and timing. It seems to me that has suffered every bit as much as his manual dexterity. Much to my dismay.
Can you still enjoy the overall show despite the fact that you feel he is not what he once was?
Re: To Guitar Players: Questions About Keith's Playing
Posted by:
stonescrow
()
Date: November 30, 2010 08:55
Quote
skipstone
Success kills the actual need to grow. Once they make that money, they settle in to doing what they do, into being who they are. It's not really expression, it's just there. It's automatic. It's expected. They just have to show up.
Some still have some inspiration and can actually still do something. And sure it's never as good as something from a long time ago blah blah blah but it is whatever the now is then.
It's why Tattoo You is hailed as the last great Stones album - because it was. They've had some interesting moments with Voodoo and Bridges but nothing holds a candle to Tatoo You (or Some Girls).
So, like Dylan, when you have your own legacy to live up to, usually it fails. Unlike Dylan, the Stones have failed in regards to showing that they are actually still involved. All the established artists today just do it for the money because it's "what they do". I'm sure they have fun and enjoy playing still but there's no critical NEED for it.
In other words they have lost the "Eye of the Tiger"?
Re: To Guitar Players: Questions About Keith's Playing
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: November 30, 2010 11:41
There is no "bad" playing from Keith on A Bigger Bang.
Not much, but there is some. Listen carefully to Laugh, I Nearly Died. It's buried in the mix, but there are some awful stuff in there
Not much, but there is some. Listen carefully to Laugh, I Nearly Died. It's buried in the mix, but there are some awful stuff in there
Re: To Guitar Players: Questions About Keith's Playing
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: November 30, 2010 18:16
I've never heard bad or awful playing on Laugh...
How did I feel about Keith's playing at the Beacon? I'll just say it's not very good. Is that a serious question or are you being a smart ass? All one has to do is listen to SFTD from Shine A Light...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-30 18:22 by skipstone.
How did I feel about Keith's playing at the Beacon? I'll just say it's not very good. Is that a serious question or are you being a smart ass? All one has to do is listen to SFTD from Shine A Light...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-30 18:22 by skipstone.
Re: To Guitar Players: Questions About Keith's Playing
Posted by:
liddas
()
Date: November 30, 2010 19:20
Quote
skipstone
I've never heard bad or awful playing on Laugh...
How did I feel about Keith's playing at the Beacon? I'll just say it's not very good. Is that a serious question or are you being a smart ass? All one has to do is listen to SFTD from Shine A Light...
Even if I wouldn't say that Devil's solo is a "memorable" solo, it is not THAT bad. Keith plays a couple of bum notes, but also some great music.
But Devil a part, I find that he played very very well for amost the entire set, with moments of pure excellence. Line is nothing less than fantastic from A to Z, She Was Hot idem, Shattered, Flash, Sugar, Start Me up ... Please tell me WHERE is he playing sub par?
That said, the Beacon wasn't even his best gig of the tour!
All this raving about Keith's abilities is just nonsense. Keith Richards is not a session player. Its not his job. There are millions of better guitarists. More than millions. So what? Keith Richards is a musician. His job is to play what he believes suits the song. And his intersts evolve.
Of course we, the public, have personal preferences, and our preferences are related to recordings that cover a production long almost half a century. Recordings, no matter how recent, are pictures of a past moment.
The problem is, assuming this is a problem, that the typical set list inlcudes numbers from the past, played in the way the band wants to play them now. These differences may be indifferent for some (my whife wouldn't know the difference between a 67 or a 2007 recording of statisfaction) essential for others (those who love the contributions of Brian and MT, for example).
The point of my rant is, the Stones' music is no rocket science. If Keith was interested in playing as he did in 72, he would. In fact he does things now that are very sophisticated. The sincopation in Hurricane is more complex than any fingerpicking he has played in the past. The piece of music he playes in the outtakes of Shine a Light reveals a depth and maturation that he did not have in the early 70s. Same can be said for his great productions of Wingelss Angels and the never enough parised Marsha Hansen work My Soul is a Witness.
C
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-30 19:22 by liddas.
Re: To Guitar Players: Questions About Keith's Playing
Posted by:
stonescrow
()
Date: November 30, 2010 19:32
Quote
skipstone
I've never heard bad or awful playing on Laugh...
How did I feel about Keith's playing at the Beacon? I'll just say it's not very good. Is that a serious question or are you being a smart ass? All one has to do is listen to SFTD from Shine A Light...
Of course my question was serious, which takes us back to why I raised this question in the first place. I was dead serious when I said I really don't know good playing from bad playing. As far as I am concerned the Stones put on some fantastic performances at the Beacon at least based on what turned up in theaters and later on the DVD. I saw it on IMAX here in Seattle and the audience loved it. As far as Keith's individual playing goes on that specific song I will just have to take your word for it that it even though overall it sounded great to me his playing apparently was noticeably not good to those in the know. I guess if I have learned anything from this exercise it is that Keith's bad playing is not going to stop me from enjoying the overall show, at least for the moment.
Re: To Guitar Players: Questions About Keith's Playing
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: November 30, 2010 20:38
HAVE YOU EVER SEEN HIS ARTRITIC FINGERS?(AS STUPID AS A COMMENT I HAVE EVER HEARD IN THESE PARTS!!!!!!)Quote
More Hot Rocks
#3 It's not his hands it's his brain.
Re: To Guitar Players: Questions About Keith's Playing
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: November 30, 2010 20:49
Quote
stonescrowQuote
71Tele
We are clearly dealing with two separate issues here:
One is the art of rock 'n roll, particularly song-crafting. This is a young person's game. The fire that makes great rock songs seems to last until about age 30. Dylan said he had to learn to do consciously what he used to do unconsciously. That means the songs stopped flowing, man! There are stories of Dylan being in the back of a limo with sheets of paper, working on three songs at once. I am quite sure it was similar for young Lennon/McCartney, Townshend and Jagger/Richards. It is certainly possible to make compelling rock 'n roll after 30, but there invariably is more effort involved (see Blood On The Tracks, Some Girls, etc.)
A completely separate issue is physical playing ability. There is really no reason why age should make a great player's skills deteriorate. Dexterity lessens, but the better players substitute what they lose in dexterity with taste and inventiveness. In Keith's case I am afraid there is more going on. I think the drugs and alcohol have taken their toll. He was always more of a "feel" player than a flash player like Clapton or Beck (one thing I always liked about him). He has never relied on dexterity as much as the "classic" lead guitar players, but has had a razor-sharp sense of feel and timing. It seems to me that has suffered every bit as much as his manual dexterity. Much to my dismay.
Can you still enjoy the overall show despite the fact that you feel he is not what he once was?
Hmmm...do I still enjoy the show? yes - overall. Do I constantly notice how much Keith's playing and timing has deteriorated? Yes, I am afraid so. Not so bad at the Beacon, but at Qwest Field in Seattle on their last tour, pretty bad.
Re: To Guitar Players: Questions About Keith's Playing
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: November 30, 2010 20:56
Quote
StonesTodQuote
MathijsQuote
StonesTod
Thanks for the input, fascinating responses. I just have one further question. Do you think his decline is pretty much normal for guitarists his age?
i do not. there are countless guitarists of a similar age who've showed no such decline.
Well....I watched ZZ Top just the other day, and they play everything at half speed, and Gibbons is much slower than he used to be. Clapton's playing has detoriated much, he's slower and he does seem completely out of ideas, like the well has dried up. Taylor is not half of what he used to be as well. Slash used to be an exciting guitarist, melting various genres into his playing, but he has become a archetypal American hard rock guitarist with very bad taste. BB King's an icon, but not worth listening too since the early 80's.
I once saw Toots Thielemans play, one of the true greats of jazz. He was jamming with a young band over some chord progression. Toots closed his eyes, did some fantastic things, but then got completely lost in the progession. He didn't know where he was, where to go to and how to end it. I can't blame him, he's over 80, but I guess age does not do wonders for your musical abbilities.
And how many musicians have made landmark albums after they've turned 30?
Mathijs
i don't agree with you about clapton's deterioration. and you cite only but a few - how about ageless wonders like jeff beck?
the point being that age in and of itself does not necessitate a decline in playing ability - for guitarists, pianists nor any other instrumentalist.[/quote] Outstanding posts today on this thread .i agree wholeheartedly with you about slowhand.he still get's it done better than most others (actually he is the best)
Re: To Guitar Players: Questions About Keith's Playing
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: November 30, 2010 21:00
boring 12-bar blues.cmon Mathijs you can do better than that,in fact as a fellow guitarist i expect better from you esp. with all your knowledge of all matters of the GUITAR!Quote
MathijsQuote
StonesTod
i don't agree with you about clapton's deterioration. and you cite only but a few - how about ageless wonders like jeff beck?
Ageless wonder Jeff Beck?? Did he play anything listenable after '70? And did you see Clapton liv lately? Boring 12-bar blues, and a row of guest guitarists to spice things up.
Mathijs
Re: To Guitar Players: Questions About Keith's Playing
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: November 30, 2010 23:05
Seeing that this has turned into more about Shine A Light than anything else, it's pretty much Stones by the numbers. But there are some moments on it, yes, that are more or less in tune with the rest of the tour. Little T&A is a good example, as is Sympathy, along with other songs with their moments.
But As Tears Go By is astoundingly fantastic, even with Mick's noising. Faraway Eyes has some brilliant playing in it - and some brilliant screw ups as well.
I know Keith is not the Keith of 1972 or 1989 or 1997 even. It is a decline in the ability to play, undoubtedly helped by the arthritis and the head injury, with a huge catalogue of performances to hold it up to. Which is inevitable. Especially with the price for a ticket these days...
But As Tears Go By is astoundingly fantastic, even with Mick's noising. Faraway Eyes has some brilliant playing in it - and some brilliant screw ups as well.
I know Keith is not the Keith of 1972 or 1989 or 1997 even. It is a decline in the ability to play, undoubtedly helped by the arthritis and the head injury, with a huge catalogue of performances to hold it up to. Which is inevitable. Especially with the price for a ticket these days...
Re: To Guitar Players: Questions About Keith's Playing
Posted by:
flilflam
()
Date: December 1, 2010 01:19
Skipstone now thinks he is a medical doctor, a neurologist, AND a very fine musician. See the earlier post on this page.
Sincerely
flilflam
Sincerely
flilflam
Re: To Guitar Players: Questions About Keith's Playing
Posted by:
More Hot Rocks
()
Date: December 1, 2010 03:36
Quote
The GreekHAVE YOU EVER SEEN HIS ARTRITIC FINGERS?(AS STUPID AS A COMMENT I HAVE EVER HEARD IN THESE PARTS!!!!!!)Quote
More Hot Rocks
#3 It's not his hands it's his brain.
Is that why he plays solos in the wrong key? Listen to the Ain't To Proud To Beg solo from AC 2006. Or the countless leads from SFTD. he has no clue what notes to play. And before you make such a STUPID comment yourself. You should of read the follow up.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-01 03:43 by More Hot Rocks.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
detroitken , drwatts , falo01 , flottmann1 , GJB , godzi68 , Greg44 , hj3009 , jason8903 , Joce , keefriffhards , kkhoranstoned , legin , Mabru , makemeburnthecandle , riccardo99 , rockdriguez67 , samakira , spidey39 , steffialicia , stonesmuziekfan , strat72 , wupperstein
Guests:
1553
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10