Tell Me :
Talk
I never thought "Bitch" was played this high on the neck...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-02-22 23:41 by dcba.
That's the way every tab I've seen on the net shows how to play it, except for one that has it in Open G. Though some have you play the open A string as you're playing the 5th and 7th fret on the D string. Might not be how Taylor played it, but I like to play it that way because it sounds a little more full.
To be honest I always thought that part was Keith and the other guitar was Taylor. Guess I learn something new every day. I just didn't think the solo sounded like Keith. In the beginning I can see it being Keith, but later on when it gets a little more crazy I figured it was Taylor, when it gets a lot faster.
It is how he played it, meaning at 5 - 7th frets, but he also used open A string.
That's the only way that sounds good to me, that tab in the article doesn't have it though.
Yeah, they got it wrong.
I wonder what would happen if I took my copy back to Barnes & Noble and told them I wanted my money back because they transcribed "Bitch" wrong. "These bitches can't play Bitch, gimme my money".
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Guitar_Player_USA_2013_03
Posted by:
dcba
()
Date: February 22, 2013 22:00
I never thought "Bitch" was played this high on the neck...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-02-22 23:41 by dcba.
Re: Guitar_Player_USA_2013_03
Posted by:
Max'sKansasCity
()
Date: February 22, 2013 22:07
Thank you JJackFl, your time and efforts to share these with us are greatly appreciated 
Re: Guitar_Player_USA_2013_03
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: February 22, 2013 23:01
There isn't any slide on What A Shame, the solo is by Keith. 
Doesn't Bitch also have the open A string as part of the riff?
Doesn't Bitch also have the open A string as part of the riff?
Re: Guitar_Player_USA_2013_03
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: February 23, 2013 01:07
Mick may talk bass lines with Darryl, but the results show neither of them know what the hell they're talking about.
Re: Guitar_Player_USA_2013_03
Posted by:
NoCode0680
()
Date: February 23, 2013 14:19
Quote
dcba
I never thought "Bitch" was played this high on the neck...
That's the way every tab I've seen on the net shows how to play it, except for one that has it in Open G. Though some have you play the open A string as you're playing the 5th and 7th fret on the D string. Might not be how Taylor played it, but I like to play it that way because it sounds a little more full.
To be honest I always thought that part was Keith and the other guitar was Taylor. Guess I learn something new every day. I just didn't think the solo sounded like Keith. In the beginning I can see it being Keith, but later on when it gets a little more crazy I figured it was Taylor, when it gets a lot faster.
Re: Guitar_Player_USA_2013_03
Posted by:
Mimi73
()
Date: February 23, 2013 15:50
makes a lot of fun to read
thanks for your great efforts!
thanks for your great efforts!
Re: Guitar_Player_USA_2013_03
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: February 23, 2013 18:41
Quote
NoCode0680Though some have you play the open A string as you're playing the 5th and 7th fret on the D string. Might not be how Taylor played it, but I like to play it that way because it sounds a little more full.Quote
dcba
I never thought "Bitch" was played this high on the neck...
It is how he played it, meaning at 5 - 7th frets, but he also used open A string.
Re: Guitar_Player_USA_2013_03
Posted by:
JJackFl
()
Date: February 23, 2013 21:55
KEITH RICHARDS (interview)
COMES CLEAN ON DISTORTION AND THE MEANING OF MUSIC
by Jas Obrecht
Jesse and I were looking at the photo of vintage fuzztones in the October'92 Guitar Player when Keith sauntered into the room, a large tumbler in hand. He peeked over our shoulders and began the interview.
Oh, vintage fuzztones? Well, there's the first one (points to the Colorsound). But where's that @#$%& "Satisfaction" one? They bunged me. I mean, it was a miracle. Whatever it was, it was the first one Gibson made. I was screaming for more distortion: "This riff's really gotta hang hard and long," and we burnt the amps up and turned the shit up, and it still wasrft right. And then Ian Stewart went around the corner to Eli Wallach's Music City or something and came around with a distortion box. "Try this." It was as off-hand as that. It was just from nowhere. I never really got into the thing after that, either. It had a very limited use, but it was just the right time for that song. The riff was going to make that song or break it on the length that you could drag that [sings fuzz line]-unless you wanna get horns, which didn't work. We didn't have the time, and it wouldn't sound right. Yeah, it was one of those fortuitous things.
Distortion has become extremely popular again.
I suppose it's got something to do with the state of everybody's life. (Laughs uproariously.)
You've certainly been guilty of some pretty filthy guitar tones.
Yeah, man. Still lookin' for'em.
"999."
It's bad, huh? Yeah, I figured you might be talking about that. Believe it or not, that's through a Palmer simulator. A little box, no speakers. This is against all my principles, right? I plugged that mother in, and it's also through a Twin. But that sound basically comes out of the Palmer simulator. Waddy and I are purists about amp sounds, but we couldn't deny that thing. At the right setting, it was, "Whoa! Hey! We can get this now, but it's taken a long time to find it."
Traditionally, how would you go about getting a nice distortion?
Traditionally, I'd set up that Twin and maybe slave a little Champ. Put it through the both of 'em and then mix. if I'm looking for some kind of distortion, I usually use two amps rather than go for it out of one thing, because I've always found that a really good distortion needs to come from two different places. Obviously it's not true for "Satisfaction," where it's an obvious thing, but you want some distortion and some clarity at the same time where you need it, so I'd rather put it through two amps and overload one of them.
Small amps?
Yeah. Champ or a little Silvertone, a Kay thing. I've got these little relics lying around, all of those weirdo amps. Bump that one up, use the other one for clear, and then you can mix the two in where you want them. It's very rare on a track that you want the same sort of distortion all the way through. I like to be able to play with it, so I can bring one amp up. Put them on separate tracks, so you can juice the distortion where you want it. You have the opportunity to play around with it after you've played it, because when you're playing it, you're not going to hear exactly what's going down on the tape. You've got the cans on.
You have a Fender Twin that's serial number #AOOOO3. Is that the third one made?
Yeah. It's a bad amp, man' I wish I'd had it from day one! It takes a while to find those.
What was your passport in to those types of open tunings?
Ah, let me think. In the '60s, I knew these guys were using other tunings. Obviously. Up until about'68, we were just on the road so much, I had no time to experiment: "Oh, when I get some time off, I'm gonna figure this out." Up until then, the Stones were out like 315 nights a year. It doesn't give you a lot of room to maneuver and check out new things. Around 1967, 1 was just starting to hang out with Taj Mahal and Gram Parsons, who are all students too. I mean, Taj, as beautiful as he is, is a student who basically approaches the blues from a white man's angle. He's got it all together, and always did have. But at the same time, he came from that angle. He's very academic about it. He showed me a couple of things. And then Ry Cooder popped in, who had the tunings down. He had the open G. By then I was working on open E and open D tunings. I was trying to figure out Fred McDowell shit, Blind Willie McTell stuff. So in that year I started to get into that, and the Nashville tuning the country boys use - the high stringing - and all the other things you can do. When I was locked into regular, I thought, "The guitar is capable of more than this - or is it? Let's find out."
Open G must have struck the resonant chord within you.
It did, man, it did. It's just that vibe. And I realized that one of the best rhythm guitarists in the world ever is Don Everly, who always used open tuning. Don is the killer rhythm man. He was the one that turned me on to (windmill waves his right hand) - all of that. It's the weirdest thing, right, because it's country shit, basically. That was why the Everly Brothers stuff was so hard, because it was all on acoustic. So then I had to ask, "Can I translate this 5-string thing into electric, or will it just rumble and not make it?" By being electrified, you can overdo it. You've got to get a certain dryness of tone and distortion at the same time. So it's more working on the sound. Five strings, three notes, two fingers, and an @#$%&, and you've got it! You can play the goddamned thing. That's all it takes. What to do with it is another thing.
But, yeah, I felt very comfortable with that. After playing that concert tuning for years and years and years, it suddenly broke open the guitar again to me. It was like a new instrument almost, except I knew a few things so I could follow it through. It was like a rebirth, for me, of playing. Suddenly I got enthusiastic again, instead of thinking, "Oh, shit, I can't think of anything." Three of the strings were still the same (D,G,
, so you have the structure, so you say, "Well, what can you do? How do you make a minor? How can you do this and that? " So it was an exercise in a way, self-imposed. But it was fun to do, so I did it. The 5-string suggests new musical forms to you that you wouldn't do on 6-string. You'd say, "No way." I'm still finding things on that 5-string, like the little (pedal-steel-type) break in "Eileen" - you wouldn't even attempt it on ...
It sounds like a B-bender.
Yeah, there is a Bender on there as well, but that's not the guitar that's playing. I'm always aware of the weight I put with my thumb on the neck. Half the time if I'm playing a Bender, the whole thing's gone out of tune because I've put some weight on there. So you have to learn to be pretty weightless on that thing to make it work. "Eileen" was my first attempt with it, but there's about eight guitars on there overall.
We kind of decided to do that before we started. I wanted to pick up on some of those experiments that I left off around "Street Fighting Man" time. I went into the heavy overlaying of guitars, all of them different open tunings, like "Jumping Jack Flash," "Street Fighting Man."
There's no lying when you're playing music.
Exactly. This is why the Iron Curtain went down. It was jeans and rock and roll that took that wall down in the long run. It wasn't all those atomic weapons and that facing down and big bullshit. What finally crumbled it was the @#$%&' music, man. You cannot stop it. It's the most subversive thing.
I was so surprised when we started getting busted. What have they got a hard-on against a rock and roll band for? And being perceived as some social threat to the world. Now I realize they were a little hipper than I was - where they got unhip was in their way of dealing with it - but they sussed it before I did: This shit could change the balance of the world. Meantime, I thought they were narrow-sighted. I mean, why hit on a rock and roll band? This is the British Empire! A 5-string @#$%& guitar and a couple of guys are gonna change that? And suddenly they're leaning on me?" And when all of this shit went down in Europe here the last few years (snaps fingers), that's when I realized it. No wonder they were a little uptight, because they saw more of the potential than I did at the time.
Ry Cooder says that when you play acoustic guitar, the truth of who you are is more evident.
Probably, because you've got nothing between you and the strings. Yeah, he's damn right. Every guitar player should play acoustic at home. No matter what else you do, if you don't keep up your acoustic work, you're never going to get the full potential out of an electric, because you lose that touch. You get sloppier. Electricity will give you some great effects and some great tone, but if you don't control it, it can easily take you over the edge into some supersonic nowhereland. If you're just on electric all the time, you don't keep the touch. I don't play electric guitars at home. I play acoustic.
What's your favorite acoustic?
Right now I've got that new replica of the L-1, the Gibson, which they gave to me and which I put a lot of on this record. I overlayed some of that. They've done a lovely job on that. It's a great-sounding guitar, and I don't like new guitars, generally speaking. I like ten or twenty years on'em. This L-1 is the same one Robert Johnson played. I have one that was made in 1934, but they do wear out. There's a possibility that in a couple of years it will sound just like the guitar that Johnson was playing, because it's new. His guitar was probably four or five years old when he played it. They're not sturdily built; they won't last forever. But within four or five years, these replicas, being as well made as they are, might have just the right amount of ring and bite on them.
You've been described as being able to judge a room's sound just by the snap of your fingers.
Yeah, from echo.
What do you listen for?
The return off of the surface of the room. Where it ends and where it doesn't. It depends what shape the room is. You can't tell just by doing that (snaps fingers), but you walk around and say, "Well, this is where the drums should go, because we're going to play together in here." You get a bit of information from that, and you look at the size of it and the height. You kind of size it up in some weird way. You get a feel. It's almost instinctive; it's not something that you can guide technically and say for sure that this is going to work. But you can get a feel within five minutes of walking around a room: Is that a big enough space? Is the ceiling high enough? You give a couple slaps to hear where the echo returns, where it returns from, and how quickly it returns. No room should defeat a band. You should be able to deal with any room, but some rooms are better than others. And it's always a fine call. The first sessions we did for this new album, we realized after five days we had the drums in the wrong place, and that was the only wrong thing. Once we shifted it, suddenly it all sounded fantastic. But we don't need to get into this other shit about the way they make records nowadays - call down to the typewriter: "Give me a little more bass on that." I don't know how to record like that, and it would never interest me to record by machinery.
Has your method for recording acoustic guitar changed significantly since "Satisfaction"?
No, not much. I started making records by saying, "Do I like it? Does this turn me on?" And I refuse to be budged from that criteria. Really. If I start to think about what do they want to hear, then I say I'm out of here. That's not the way I've ever done it. The only times people have liked my stuff is when I've done it because I like it. I'll reserve that for my criteria for anything I do. If I start trying to second-guess people, then I may as well be Liberace or Lawrence Welk. That means I want to be a star, instead of having to be forced to be one.
Why do you always play with another guitarist?
Because it's more fun. No one guitar player is that interesting. Not one - I don't care if it's Segovia, Hendrix, anybody. Robert Johnson is the most interesting idea of a solo guitar player to me, and as we've already said, he was looking to go for a band. Listening to myself play is one thing, but I'm interested in what I can do with somebody else - how we can interact and play things back and forth and pick up a dropped beat and fling things against the ceiling to see if they stick - and they don't and they fall on your head and you still pick it up. To me, that's the fun of it - playing with other people. And at the same time, you're learning because you're turning each other on. The solo guitar thing is a vacuum to me.
That's evident with Steve Jordan. He follows you to a T.
Yeah. I'll drop a beat, bell pick it up and let it fly. We're playing with time, on this album particularly. But this is like life, right? What is life but playing with time? So on a musical level, that's what I'm doing. There's structures possible in this music, and if you just free yourself out of it and you've got the right guys with you, you can let it flow. Like, "Let's get a little daring here without being clever." You want to push the edges, especially when you've got time down with a band like this. You're almost tempted to play with it, because strict time becomes less and less important, since you can always find the one. That obvious structure just gets boring, and it gets unnecessary. You say, hey, this music can float a little more. I'm gonna use things I learned from Doc Pomus, from Leiber-Stoller, all of that Latin stuff and floating over the lines and leaving out lines and smacking the chorus in your teeth and then pulling back. Just playing with it is more fun, and that will make it sound more interesting to other people. That's what I'm hoping to do. God knows what I'll do when I get back with the Stones and it's strict time now!
A lot of people claim you turn the beat around.
See, this is what you get from musicians. You're always in this dangerous stall, especially when you've been in the game as long as I have: "What are you trying to do? Turn on the other musicians and give them a little jerk around? Ooh, that's clever." But that's not the name of the game. it's alright jerking around with the time, as long as it all falls in place for Joe Blow. This might contradict what I was saying about making records for what I like, but I'm very conscious that a lot of musicians get in this cliquey little thing of turning each other on, and it's all little in-jokes, because you've got nothing better to do except get clever with each other. And that's not the name of the game. It's almost an admission of failure to get into that. And I'm very wary of trying to please other musicians.
Your music is not about precision.
No, it's not. It's about chaos. I suppose it reflects my life and probably everybody else's. Nothing hits you quite where you expect it to. But you've got to hold it together, right? It's very hard to explain, but I try to do the same thing with the lyrics that I do to the music - a juxtaposition that kind of slams you the wrong way here, and then suddenly it's in the right place. It's just like life. Nothing happens quite when you think it's supposed to or when you want it to, but when it does, you've got to roll with it. And you get over it and you learn and you get back up again and pick it up.
The music is bigger than all of us. What are we? We're just players, no matter how good. If you're a Mozart or @#$%& Beethoven or Bach, all you are is just one of the best. If you're an Irving Berlin or Gerswhin or Hoagy Carmichael - or if you're Herbie Hancock, God forbid - everybody's got their spot in this. I hate to see music being used as propaganda, which increasingly more it is. But then I think back and realize it always has been - national anthems and signaling [imitates trumpet flourish]. Music started out as a signaling process. When it comes down to it, music evolved out of necessity, not out of pleasure. Somebody got lucky, whipped the other tribe's ass, and then they could use music for fun for a little while because there's no competition.. So you get the rockinÕ down: (sings) "We won, we won." You know, so you start to get those songs coming in, apart from just the signaling. And after that, there's this progression. To me, music's meaning to people is one of the great mysteries. Forget economics, forget democracy or dictatorships or monarchies. To me, the most fascinating relationship is between people and music and how it can do what it does with no apparent sweat. Who knows what it can do? It's a beautifully subversive language because it can get through anything. I don't care if it's porous or bomb-proof or has a Star Wars shield over it - music will get through. That's my experience.
You've only got to look at the new Billboard - who's on the front? @#$%&' Beethoven and Mozart. You can't ask for better than that, boys. Imagine what they'd have done if they'd had a little DAT recorder, instead of all of that imagining it: "Well, that looks good; it might sound great." Those guys had to carry it all up there (taps forehead).
Imagine if Mozart and Beethoven had a @#$%& Walkman! You know what I mean? You wouldn't have had 26 overtures, you'd have fifty-bleeding-nine. (Laughs.) It just helps you through the work I mean, those guys would be green with envy, man. They would burn their wigs. "Off with it! Burn it! Give me that tape recorder!" (Laughs.) What they would have done! They'd have prostituted themselves for one of those things: "No problem! Yeah, give it to me up the ass! Just give me the tape recorder." Go to jail for that shit. And that's where we're lucky, and we can't abuse it.
Do you throw ideas on cassettes?
Oh, yeah. Hey, I started to blossom when cassettes got invented. "Street Fighting Man," "Jumping Jack Flash" - I cut those things on cassettes.
Do your songs typically begin when you find a riff?
Mm hmm. First I find a riff and a chord sequence. And if that's any good, then I start to play it with some other guys and pump it up. If that's great, then I check the attitude and the atmosphere of the track. What the hell is this putting out? There's no point in writing songs on a sheet of paper, going verse, chorus, verse, chorus, and regarding this as a song. No, it ain't. A song is music, and I'd rather start with the music and then get into the attitude of the track and put something on top of it. What are you going to put on top of it, because you could have spent months writing? I can't divorce lyrics from the music. Songwriting is a marrying of the both. To me, the easiest way is to get the track. I mean, the odd brilliant and rare occasions where a song actually presents itself to you in totality from the beginning to the end, with the bridge and the hook, is very rare.
Was "Gimme Shelter" one of those?
Yeah, "Satisfaction" was one of those, "Make No Mistake" was one of those. Those three - and that's about it - actually presented themselves in totality.
It must have been a stunning experience.
It is, but at the same time it's humbling, because you realize, "Hey, I didn't write this. I just happened to be around when it came by." People today run themselves into a corner thinking they actually created these things. I'd rather look upon myself as an antenna or some go-between. I'm just around. Songs are running around - they're all there, ready to grab. You play an instrument and pick it up. What I generally do is like, "Fingers are getting a bit soft right now. I'll go through the Buddy Holly songbook"- because I love Buddy's songs. Then I start playing 'em for half an hour. [Sings "Maybe Baby.'] "Let's try Eddie Cochrane or the Everly Brothers or a little Chuck." And after about an hour, I get fed up with other people's songs, and there's something that I'm playing of theirs that suggests something else to me, and I'll start to follow that. It'll either end up as a song or it'll end up as a disaster, and I'll get bored with it. It doesn't bother me. I never sit down and say, "Time to write a song. Now I'm going to write." To me, that would be fatal. I know other guys work in other ways. There's no one system to this. It's what's right for you. But me, I always like to sit down and play the guitar a couple of hours a day, and something will come. If something interests me, then I think, "Hey, there it is," and then I hang on to the end and follow the @#$%&. To me the important thing is recognizing something when it comes by.
The idea that you create it, again, is alien and can also @#$%& you up, because then it's all on your back, whether you've written something or not there. Treat it in a lighter way and say, "This is what I do." If you can write one song, you can write 900. They're there. Your method of going about that - you can either try and regiment it, make it a task, or you can make it part of your everyday life and just sit around and play and not think about writing. Play anything you want.
There's only one song in the world, and Adam and Eve wrote it. And the rest of them's variations. I'm the antenna. You just stick your finger in the air and you grab a bit of it and you go off. And that's the way to avoid writer's block, because that's what happens to people that think they actually create things. Nobody creates anything. It's there, and you just @#$%& grab a hold of it.
Everybody has a talent. But how many get to find what their talent is before they're sucked into the system? I mean, it usually ends up as their hobby, which is probably what they're really good at. I mean, why do people have hobbies? They're working their guts out doing something they don't really like to do, but they just happen to have caught a job and do it, and at night they go home and on the weekends they have a hobby. They are working to get those few hours to spend on their hobby, when that's the area they should really be working in. My one problem with people is that it's a miracle if you get to find out what your talent is before you're sucked into doing something you don't want to do, and that's the big fuckup. If people were doing things they really wanted to do, they'd do it ten times better.
Do you have a hobby that you could turn into a profession?
Yeah, I been doing it! (Laughs.) That was a hobby. Didn't expect it to become a living or to become a star. I mean, that's the other thing - fame. That can screw you. People come up and ask me about this and that, and I say, "You're talking to a madman." I mean, my view of the world is totally distorted. Since 18, I've had chicks throwing themselves at me, and I turned the little teenage dream into reality like that (snaps fingers) by a miracle, God knows how. And therefore my view is gonna be distorted, at the very least.
What's the most dangerous aspect of fame?
Believing it. Very, very dangerous. It's not very good for people around you, and even worse for yourself. That's my experience of it. It's one of the reasons I don't regret zooming into the dope thing for so long. It was an experiment that went on too long, but in a way that kept my feet on the street when I could have just become some brat-ass, rich rock and roll superstar bullshit, and done myself in in another way. In a way I almost see it as I almost forced myself into that in order to counterbalance this superstar shit that was going on around us. I said, "No, I want to put my foot in a deep puddle because I don't want to go up in that stratosphere and hang out up there with the Maharishi and Mick and Paul McCartney." It was almost a deliberate sort of attempt to get out of it. Like letting the broken tooth hang for five years - deliberate anti! I was doing an anti gig, but it still stuck. In retrospect, it shouldn't have worked, but that's what I had to do.
When I look at it now, that was one of my rationalizations for it. And the other is, hell, I was just sort of into De Quincey's Opium Eaters a century too late. (Laughs.) I just saw myself as a laboratory: "Well, let's see what this does."
Which substances worked best for producing music?
Well, a speedball doesn't go down too bad! (Laughs uproariously.) Those were the days. Oh, @#$%&. You've got the answer there. (In a loud voice) A clear mind, a cold shower, and a ten-mile walk after breakfast - those are the ingredients that make good records, not dope.
There's been a progression in your playing...
I'm growing up. Or trying.
A stripping down to the essentials.
I'm not only stripping down, I'm trying to find my own. Throughout the'60s, it all happened so fast. Suddenly you've got to make a new single every eight weeks, and each one has got to be better than the next, and you're on the road. There wasn't a lot of time to do much more than make the gig and come up with a hit song every two months, which is enough of a task. I mean, songwriting is something I got thrown into out of necessity. It would never have occurred to me to be a songwriter. I wanted to be a guitar player. And then suddenly you're successful with your first record, which is cover jobs, but luckily of great songs which nobody had ever heard or can't remember. Or we just picked great material. That was all we did: We covered other people's shit. There was no idea of going beyond that, except suddenly the first album is outselling the Beatles. And they're going, "Next!" And you're thinking, "How many other great songs are there out there?" And Andrew Oldham, in his beautiful, arrogant, naive way: "Well, you better start writing your own."
Describe your first songwriting experience.
"As Tears Go By," which we had a #1 hit with with Marianne Faithfull. So suddenly, "Oh, we're songwriters," with the most totally anti-Stones sort of song you could think of at the time, while we're trying to make a good version of (Muddy Waters') "Still A Fool." When you start writing, it doesn't matter where the first one comes from. You've got to start somewhere, right? So Andrew locked Mick and myself into a kitchen in this horrible little apartment we had. He said, "You ain't comin' out," and there was no way out. We were in the kitchen with some food and a couple of guitars, but we couldn't get to the john, so we had to come out with a song. In his own little way, that's where Andrew made his great contribution to the Stones. That was such a flatulent idea, a fart of an idea, that suddenly you're gonna lock two guys in a room, and they're going to become songwriters. Forget about it.
He picked the right two guys.
I guess so. And that's why I take my hat off to Andrew. He had no idea, but it was worth a try, and it worked. In that little kitchen Mick and I got hung up about writing songs, and it still took us another six months before we had another hit with Gene Pitney, "That Girl Belongs To Yesterday." We were writing these terrible pop songs that were becoming Top-10 hits. I thought, "What are we doing here playing the @#$%& blues, and writing these horrible pop songs and getting very successful?" They had nothing to do with us, except we wrote 'em. And it took us a while to come up with "The Last Time." That was the first one we came up with where Mick and I said, "This is one we can lay on the guys." At the time we were already borrowing songs from the Beatles - "I Wanna Be Your Man" - because we were really hard up for singles. So they gave us a hand. (Sings "I wanna be your man") "Very good, John. Very good, Paul. Like that, like that. We'll do it." (Laughs.) In retrospect, during the '60s the Stones and the Beatles were almost the same band, because we were the only ones in that position. And we would dodge: "When is your record coming out?" We would work with each other instead of against each other, which is very interesting, because for the most part people were either a Beatles or a Stones man, where ten years earlier you'd have been an Elvis or a Buddy man. That split.
Did you learn to read music?
Written music has always intrigued me, and I once taught myself to do it, and realized that this is no path for me to travel. I immediately forgot it, and I deliberately - for better or for worse - decided I ain't gonna be able to work within these parameters.
Do any new guitars impress you?
Those new Music Mans I've been using - they impress the shit out of me. They made me a 5-string one and a 6-string bass. But just the basic guitar itself is the most impressive guitar since the Tele or the Strat. I really don't know what the model is I use, but you can change that configuration of pickups in a few minutes. I've got a couple of them set up. I mean, I'm not one to go very much beyond the Teles. I have the odd Guild, and Gibson and Gretsch shit that I use for extra color here and there, semi-acoustic shit. I love guitars. But the Music Mans impress me. As an all-around working unit, that thing surprised the shit out of me. Sometimes in the studio, I can make this thing sound like a Strat or a Gibson.
Do you like high action?
It depends what tuning and what I'm going for. I've got no set thing for anything. I've got three or four 5-strings there, one with high action, one with low, and one with medium. The combination of the guitar with the amp, to me, is more important than which guitar I play. No one guitar is going to sound great for everything, unless you're one of those guys that only has one sound (laughs), and if you don't deliver that, you're @#$%&. I just keep shopping around. I say, "Well, there, he sounded good through that. Let's try him through the Bassmaster. Or the Bandmaster." So the combination of amp and guitar is a far more important choice than just the guitar. I mean, you're talking electric guitar. What have you got? You got a guitar, you've got your own @#$%&, and you've got an amplifier. Somehow these three things have to come to be where you want 'em all to be at once. A Strat might sound good through that Bandmaster, but would the Telecaster sound better through that Champ? It depends on what sound you're going for. Basically I'm talking recording here, because that's what I've been into for the last year.
For live work, I put the Twin up, and give me Teles and the odd Strat here and there. It's a different criteria. But when you're recording, you can afford to say, "Well, maybe that Strat sounds better through that Kay than the Gibson through the Champ." You just keep trying. You never know quite what you're gonna get. The great thing about music is its unpredictability. It never ceases to amaze me. I can be bored stiff "Oh, man, I wish I had a night off" - and then a little problem like that'll come up, and suddenly I'm in. I say, "How fascinating! Why should that .... What's the difference between those sounds," and then you see faces light up in the control room. Suddenly you find the right combination, and you're on the track. You've got to carry everybody with you.
You can't fight against the tide when you're working with bands. There's no hiring and firing shit - I'm talking about guys you live with and work with and that are as dedicated as you are to this stuff. And that's hard to find. Forging a band is another thing. Playing guitar is one thing, playing the other guys is another. I realize that more and more as I go ahead. Hey, I've become a psychologist over the years. I spend more of my time explaining to Mick: "Well, what kind of mood is he in? Who's gonna be good for this... " I do it almost automatically. The first thing is to choose the right guys in the first place. Then you don't have a major problem. But the idea of making a record like, "Okay, who's the best bass player? Okay, you're fired. Next." It's like some @#$%& employment bureau. It sounds very boring to me, and I could never start off the idea of playing with people from that attitude, from that aspect. "Hired. You're fired. Hired. You're fired." The idea of making a record in that way would already put me off. I gotta know who I'm playing with before I even consider the idea of actually doing it.
Have you written any songs during your solo period that you've held back from recording because they seem better suited for the Rolling Stones?
That's a good question, because this leads me to my very point with Mick. In 1985 we started getting into solo shit, and it's a whole new can of worms. I told him I didn't want to be put into that position after all these years, because I knew it would be a conflict of interests. I was very aware of that, which is one of the reasons I fought him like a dog not to do that. I knew then that I'm gonna write songs and I'm gonna, "That's mine. Stones can't have that. Oh, the Stones can have this." What do I do? Give 'em the best I got? The second best? To put yourself in that position is what I feared. In retrospect now, I say I was right to fear that, but at the same time, Mick and I and the rest of the Stones had been in that pressure cooker too long. The fight, whatever it was about, was almost inconsequential. We'd just been in that thing too long. If you're working with the Stones (points to a world map dotted with dozens of locations of stones shows) - well, that's a year. And then it stops and then you do nothing. And that's what the Stones had to live with from the middle early'70s until the middle'80s: Constant work for a year and a half, and then nothing for two years.
And that stopping and starting was fraying. That was the underlying force of what all of that shit was about. It could have been about women or solo records or quitting smoking or any other thing, but it had to happen. The important thing to me was will we get back together again, and the Steel Wheels thing proved, yeah, we could make this thing work for us. So the big battle has to be fought on that front, and probably quite a necessary battle. It's never pleasant. It's like a family - it's Mick and me have a row, except it's on the front pages. It's like you have an argument with your old lady, and the next day you read about it. And then the press are winding you up - guys going, "Well, he said that," so you're like conducting this fight publicly, and it should be a private little matter. In any other circumstances it would be. It's just a family squabble, not soap opera shit. Forget about it. It's not really that important. It's bullshit, except that we have to do it in the full glare of publicity, which turns it into another thing. Because then you've got to take your stance because they've forced you into corners.
When it all came down to the point where Mick and I had to sit together in a room and write songs for Steel Wheels, we did it. And we made a Stones record in six months, which is pretty much against the odds in the record business. We'd never spent less than two-and-a-half years for the previous ten years, but that's what can be done. I'm now firmly on my other path as well, but I can see that it's better that I work, Mick works, Charlie and everybody, so that when we do get together, there's none of this taking the thing off the block and lube jobs and endless trying to get the band back together. We'd been too long in that vacuum, in that bubble. You can't live in there forever.
The Stones got too big, really, for what the Stones wanted to be. I mean, what the @#$%&'s the deal about? And what you want to do and that you would normally do every day, suddenly you can't do for two years. You can't just go, "Hey guys, let's go play down at the bar," which is how the band started and the whole idea. Suddenly you're too big to do that business and the whole thing. It's a strange thing. I wish the Beatles were still around in a way, because they could have kept on doing what they always did first for us, which was open the doors and take the brunt. (Laughs.) Playing football stadiums, man, is not where it's at. It takes what you want to do into another realm where you don't really want to be. But if that amount of people want to be there, who's gonna say no? So you're, like, stiffed. Give me a 3,000-4,000 seater any time - with a roof on it, no wind, no rain. A good sound system in a controlled environment. Hey, we're rock and roll. What's it need? A basement, a garage. Start from there. But football stadiums are a little bit way out there, but at the same time, that's where it's at.
Bill Wyman once claimed that the Rolling Stones are the only major rock band where everyone follows the rhythm guitarist.
Well, that's the best thing he's ever said about me! (Laughs.) He never told me that. Bill, bless your heart. I just hope he's there to follow me the next time around. Which leads us to that question, right? Whether or not he's in the band is up to him. As far as I'm concerned, there's no way I want to change that lineup, unless he's absolutely adamant. I have my spies out. I talk to his ex old ladies, who can see him. Some people tell me he means it, and then I speak to some of his older friends who know him better: "Yeah, he's saying that, but I have a feeling he'll be there." So I'm getting these two messages. And Bill is not the guy ... We don't talk on the phone, because he's too guarded and I'm too pointed. I have to see his eyes, in other words, to know. It was a spin on my head when I discovered he just doesn't like flying anymore. I realized that in the European tour he was driving to gigs in five, six hours, where you could get on a plane and be there in 45 minutes. I thought, "Geez, I'd never thought of that." Hell, you can't think of everything. There's all kinds of angles and possibilities on this thing with Bill, but I don't want to change this lineup unless I really got to. And he's the only one that can make me have to.
Many people have mimicked your image or their perception of your musical stance. What would you have musicians learn from you?
Forget about the clothes and the haircut and the moves, and then concentrate on the guitar playing. First, you've got to have that. I see a lot of guys out there - and it's like weird for me - and they've got it all down except the playing! (laughs.) I mean, hell, they look more like me than me! It's like fashion. It's all got to do with video and shit. Once you start to get the eyes involved with music, music will take the backseat, and that's what the video thing is. Why can't video find its own niche in life and get off music's back? This is not going to endear me to VH-1 or MTV, but they know how I feel about it. It's a conflict of the senses. You're gonna judge a record by a TV screen and some images with some shitty little sound coming out of those boxy little speakers? I mean, how many people really have them hooked up to stereos? The way they deliver a record is with some semi-nude chicks, which I have no problem with, but not to sell my music. The music becomes like elevator background music, relegated. And of course, then you've encouraged people to become posers and not composers. Andy Warhol's little dream's come true: Everybody's a star for 15 minutes.
Music, to me, is the joy, right? I love my kids most of the time, and I love my wife most of the time. Music I love all the time. It's the only constant thing in my life. It's the one thing you can count on.
COMES CLEAN ON DISTORTION AND THE MEANING OF MUSIC
by Jas Obrecht
Jesse and I were looking at the photo of vintage fuzztones in the October'92 Guitar Player when Keith sauntered into the room, a large tumbler in hand. He peeked over our shoulders and began the interview.
Oh, vintage fuzztones? Well, there's the first one (points to the Colorsound). But where's that @#$%& "Satisfaction" one? They bunged me. I mean, it was a miracle. Whatever it was, it was the first one Gibson made. I was screaming for more distortion: "This riff's really gotta hang hard and long," and we burnt the amps up and turned the shit up, and it still wasrft right. And then Ian Stewart went around the corner to Eli Wallach's Music City or something and came around with a distortion box. "Try this." It was as off-hand as that. It was just from nowhere. I never really got into the thing after that, either. It had a very limited use, but it was just the right time for that song. The riff was going to make that song or break it on the length that you could drag that [sings fuzz line]-unless you wanna get horns, which didn't work. We didn't have the time, and it wouldn't sound right. Yeah, it was one of those fortuitous things.
Distortion has become extremely popular again.
I suppose it's got something to do with the state of everybody's life. (Laughs uproariously.)
You've certainly been guilty of some pretty filthy guitar tones.
Yeah, man. Still lookin' for'em.
"999."
It's bad, huh? Yeah, I figured you might be talking about that. Believe it or not, that's through a Palmer simulator. A little box, no speakers. This is against all my principles, right? I plugged that mother in, and it's also through a Twin. But that sound basically comes out of the Palmer simulator. Waddy and I are purists about amp sounds, but we couldn't deny that thing. At the right setting, it was, "Whoa! Hey! We can get this now, but it's taken a long time to find it."
Traditionally, how would you go about getting a nice distortion?
Traditionally, I'd set up that Twin and maybe slave a little Champ. Put it through the both of 'em and then mix. if I'm looking for some kind of distortion, I usually use two amps rather than go for it out of one thing, because I've always found that a really good distortion needs to come from two different places. Obviously it's not true for "Satisfaction," where it's an obvious thing, but you want some distortion and some clarity at the same time where you need it, so I'd rather put it through two amps and overload one of them.
Small amps?
Yeah. Champ or a little Silvertone, a Kay thing. I've got these little relics lying around, all of those weirdo amps. Bump that one up, use the other one for clear, and then you can mix the two in where you want them. It's very rare on a track that you want the same sort of distortion all the way through. I like to be able to play with it, so I can bring one amp up. Put them on separate tracks, so you can juice the distortion where you want it. You have the opportunity to play around with it after you've played it, because when you're playing it, you're not going to hear exactly what's going down on the tape. You've got the cans on.
You have a Fender Twin that's serial number #AOOOO3. Is that the third one made?
Yeah. It's a bad amp, man' I wish I'd had it from day one! It takes a while to find those.
What was your passport in to those types of open tunings?
Ah, let me think. In the '60s, I knew these guys were using other tunings. Obviously. Up until about'68, we were just on the road so much, I had no time to experiment: "Oh, when I get some time off, I'm gonna figure this out." Up until then, the Stones were out like 315 nights a year. It doesn't give you a lot of room to maneuver and check out new things. Around 1967, 1 was just starting to hang out with Taj Mahal and Gram Parsons, who are all students too. I mean, Taj, as beautiful as he is, is a student who basically approaches the blues from a white man's angle. He's got it all together, and always did have. But at the same time, he came from that angle. He's very academic about it. He showed me a couple of things. And then Ry Cooder popped in, who had the tunings down. He had the open G. By then I was working on open E and open D tunings. I was trying to figure out Fred McDowell shit, Blind Willie McTell stuff. So in that year I started to get into that, and the Nashville tuning the country boys use - the high stringing - and all the other things you can do. When I was locked into regular, I thought, "The guitar is capable of more than this - or is it? Let's find out."
Open G must have struck the resonant chord within you.
It did, man, it did. It's just that vibe. And I realized that one of the best rhythm guitarists in the world ever is Don Everly, who always used open tuning. Don is the killer rhythm man. He was the one that turned me on to (windmill waves his right hand) - all of that. It's the weirdest thing, right, because it's country shit, basically. That was why the Everly Brothers stuff was so hard, because it was all on acoustic. So then I had to ask, "Can I translate this 5-string thing into electric, or will it just rumble and not make it?" By being electrified, you can overdo it. You've got to get a certain dryness of tone and distortion at the same time. So it's more working on the sound. Five strings, three notes, two fingers, and an @#$%&, and you've got it! You can play the goddamned thing. That's all it takes. What to do with it is another thing.
But, yeah, I felt very comfortable with that. After playing that concert tuning for years and years and years, it suddenly broke open the guitar again to me. It was like a new instrument almost, except I knew a few things so I could follow it through. It was like a rebirth, for me, of playing. Suddenly I got enthusiastic again, instead of thinking, "Oh, shit, I can't think of anything." Three of the strings were still the same (D,G,
, so you have the structure, so you say, "Well, what can you do? How do you make a minor? How can you do this and that? " So it was an exercise in a way, self-imposed. But it was fun to do, so I did it. The 5-string suggests new musical forms to you that you wouldn't do on 6-string. You'd say, "No way." I'm still finding things on that 5-string, like the little (pedal-steel-type) break in "Eileen" - you wouldn't even attempt it on ...It sounds like a B-bender.
Yeah, there is a Bender on there as well, but that's not the guitar that's playing. I'm always aware of the weight I put with my thumb on the neck. Half the time if I'm playing a Bender, the whole thing's gone out of tune because I've put some weight on there. So you have to learn to be pretty weightless on that thing to make it work. "Eileen" was my first attempt with it, but there's about eight guitars on there overall.
We kind of decided to do that before we started. I wanted to pick up on some of those experiments that I left off around "Street Fighting Man" time. I went into the heavy overlaying of guitars, all of them different open tunings, like "Jumping Jack Flash," "Street Fighting Man."
There's no lying when you're playing music.
Exactly. This is why the Iron Curtain went down. It was jeans and rock and roll that took that wall down in the long run. It wasn't all those atomic weapons and that facing down and big bullshit. What finally crumbled it was the @#$%&' music, man. You cannot stop it. It's the most subversive thing.
I was so surprised when we started getting busted. What have they got a hard-on against a rock and roll band for? And being perceived as some social threat to the world. Now I realize they were a little hipper than I was - where they got unhip was in their way of dealing with it - but they sussed it before I did: This shit could change the balance of the world. Meantime, I thought they were narrow-sighted. I mean, why hit on a rock and roll band? This is the British Empire! A 5-string @#$%& guitar and a couple of guys are gonna change that? And suddenly they're leaning on me?" And when all of this shit went down in Europe here the last few years (snaps fingers), that's when I realized it. No wonder they were a little uptight, because they saw more of the potential than I did at the time.
Ry Cooder says that when you play acoustic guitar, the truth of who you are is more evident.
Probably, because you've got nothing between you and the strings. Yeah, he's damn right. Every guitar player should play acoustic at home. No matter what else you do, if you don't keep up your acoustic work, you're never going to get the full potential out of an electric, because you lose that touch. You get sloppier. Electricity will give you some great effects and some great tone, but if you don't control it, it can easily take you over the edge into some supersonic nowhereland. If you're just on electric all the time, you don't keep the touch. I don't play electric guitars at home. I play acoustic.
What's your favorite acoustic?
Right now I've got that new replica of the L-1, the Gibson, which they gave to me and which I put a lot of on this record. I overlayed some of that. They've done a lovely job on that. It's a great-sounding guitar, and I don't like new guitars, generally speaking. I like ten or twenty years on'em. This L-1 is the same one Robert Johnson played. I have one that was made in 1934, but they do wear out. There's a possibility that in a couple of years it will sound just like the guitar that Johnson was playing, because it's new. His guitar was probably four or five years old when he played it. They're not sturdily built; they won't last forever. But within four or five years, these replicas, being as well made as they are, might have just the right amount of ring and bite on them.
You've been described as being able to judge a room's sound just by the snap of your fingers.
Yeah, from echo.
What do you listen for?
The return off of the surface of the room. Where it ends and where it doesn't. It depends what shape the room is. You can't tell just by doing that (snaps fingers), but you walk around and say, "Well, this is where the drums should go, because we're going to play together in here." You get a bit of information from that, and you look at the size of it and the height. You kind of size it up in some weird way. You get a feel. It's almost instinctive; it's not something that you can guide technically and say for sure that this is going to work. But you can get a feel within five minutes of walking around a room: Is that a big enough space? Is the ceiling high enough? You give a couple slaps to hear where the echo returns, where it returns from, and how quickly it returns. No room should defeat a band. You should be able to deal with any room, but some rooms are better than others. And it's always a fine call. The first sessions we did for this new album, we realized after five days we had the drums in the wrong place, and that was the only wrong thing. Once we shifted it, suddenly it all sounded fantastic. But we don't need to get into this other shit about the way they make records nowadays - call down to the typewriter: "Give me a little more bass on that." I don't know how to record like that, and it would never interest me to record by machinery.
Has your method for recording acoustic guitar changed significantly since "Satisfaction"?
No, not much. I started making records by saying, "Do I like it? Does this turn me on?" And I refuse to be budged from that criteria. Really. If I start to think about what do they want to hear, then I say I'm out of here. That's not the way I've ever done it. The only times people have liked my stuff is when I've done it because I like it. I'll reserve that for my criteria for anything I do. If I start trying to second-guess people, then I may as well be Liberace or Lawrence Welk. That means I want to be a star, instead of having to be forced to be one.
Why do you always play with another guitarist?
Because it's more fun. No one guitar player is that interesting. Not one - I don't care if it's Segovia, Hendrix, anybody. Robert Johnson is the most interesting idea of a solo guitar player to me, and as we've already said, he was looking to go for a band. Listening to myself play is one thing, but I'm interested in what I can do with somebody else - how we can interact and play things back and forth and pick up a dropped beat and fling things against the ceiling to see if they stick - and they don't and they fall on your head and you still pick it up. To me, that's the fun of it - playing with other people. And at the same time, you're learning because you're turning each other on. The solo guitar thing is a vacuum to me.
That's evident with Steve Jordan. He follows you to a T.
Yeah. I'll drop a beat, bell pick it up and let it fly. We're playing with time, on this album particularly. But this is like life, right? What is life but playing with time? So on a musical level, that's what I'm doing. There's structures possible in this music, and if you just free yourself out of it and you've got the right guys with you, you can let it flow. Like, "Let's get a little daring here without being clever." You want to push the edges, especially when you've got time down with a band like this. You're almost tempted to play with it, because strict time becomes less and less important, since you can always find the one. That obvious structure just gets boring, and it gets unnecessary. You say, hey, this music can float a little more. I'm gonna use things I learned from Doc Pomus, from Leiber-Stoller, all of that Latin stuff and floating over the lines and leaving out lines and smacking the chorus in your teeth and then pulling back. Just playing with it is more fun, and that will make it sound more interesting to other people. That's what I'm hoping to do. God knows what I'll do when I get back with the Stones and it's strict time now!
A lot of people claim you turn the beat around.
See, this is what you get from musicians. You're always in this dangerous stall, especially when you've been in the game as long as I have: "What are you trying to do? Turn on the other musicians and give them a little jerk around? Ooh, that's clever." But that's not the name of the game. it's alright jerking around with the time, as long as it all falls in place for Joe Blow. This might contradict what I was saying about making records for what I like, but I'm very conscious that a lot of musicians get in this cliquey little thing of turning each other on, and it's all little in-jokes, because you've got nothing better to do except get clever with each other. And that's not the name of the game. It's almost an admission of failure to get into that. And I'm very wary of trying to please other musicians.
Your music is not about precision.
No, it's not. It's about chaos. I suppose it reflects my life and probably everybody else's. Nothing hits you quite where you expect it to. But you've got to hold it together, right? It's very hard to explain, but I try to do the same thing with the lyrics that I do to the music - a juxtaposition that kind of slams you the wrong way here, and then suddenly it's in the right place. It's just like life. Nothing happens quite when you think it's supposed to or when you want it to, but when it does, you've got to roll with it. And you get over it and you learn and you get back up again and pick it up.
The music is bigger than all of us. What are we? We're just players, no matter how good. If you're a Mozart or @#$%& Beethoven or Bach, all you are is just one of the best. If you're an Irving Berlin or Gerswhin or Hoagy Carmichael - or if you're Herbie Hancock, God forbid - everybody's got their spot in this. I hate to see music being used as propaganda, which increasingly more it is. But then I think back and realize it always has been - national anthems and signaling [imitates trumpet flourish]. Music started out as a signaling process. When it comes down to it, music evolved out of necessity, not out of pleasure. Somebody got lucky, whipped the other tribe's ass, and then they could use music for fun for a little while because there's no competition.. So you get the rockinÕ down: (sings) "We won, we won." You know, so you start to get those songs coming in, apart from just the signaling. And after that, there's this progression. To me, music's meaning to people is one of the great mysteries. Forget economics, forget democracy or dictatorships or monarchies. To me, the most fascinating relationship is between people and music and how it can do what it does with no apparent sweat. Who knows what it can do? It's a beautifully subversive language because it can get through anything. I don't care if it's porous or bomb-proof or has a Star Wars shield over it - music will get through. That's my experience.
You've only got to look at the new Billboard - who's on the front? @#$%&' Beethoven and Mozart. You can't ask for better than that, boys. Imagine what they'd have done if they'd had a little DAT recorder, instead of all of that imagining it: "Well, that looks good; it might sound great." Those guys had to carry it all up there (taps forehead).
Imagine if Mozart and Beethoven had a @#$%& Walkman! You know what I mean? You wouldn't have had 26 overtures, you'd have fifty-bleeding-nine. (Laughs.) It just helps you through the work I mean, those guys would be green with envy, man. They would burn their wigs. "Off with it! Burn it! Give me that tape recorder!" (Laughs.) What they would have done! They'd have prostituted themselves for one of those things: "No problem! Yeah, give it to me up the ass! Just give me the tape recorder." Go to jail for that shit. And that's where we're lucky, and we can't abuse it.
Do you throw ideas on cassettes?
Oh, yeah. Hey, I started to blossom when cassettes got invented. "Street Fighting Man," "Jumping Jack Flash" - I cut those things on cassettes.
Do your songs typically begin when you find a riff?
Mm hmm. First I find a riff and a chord sequence. And if that's any good, then I start to play it with some other guys and pump it up. If that's great, then I check the attitude and the atmosphere of the track. What the hell is this putting out? There's no point in writing songs on a sheet of paper, going verse, chorus, verse, chorus, and regarding this as a song. No, it ain't. A song is music, and I'd rather start with the music and then get into the attitude of the track and put something on top of it. What are you going to put on top of it, because you could have spent months writing? I can't divorce lyrics from the music. Songwriting is a marrying of the both. To me, the easiest way is to get the track. I mean, the odd brilliant and rare occasions where a song actually presents itself to you in totality from the beginning to the end, with the bridge and the hook, is very rare.
Was "Gimme Shelter" one of those?
Yeah, "Satisfaction" was one of those, "Make No Mistake" was one of those. Those three - and that's about it - actually presented themselves in totality.
It must have been a stunning experience.
It is, but at the same time it's humbling, because you realize, "Hey, I didn't write this. I just happened to be around when it came by." People today run themselves into a corner thinking they actually created these things. I'd rather look upon myself as an antenna or some go-between. I'm just around. Songs are running around - they're all there, ready to grab. You play an instrument and pick it up. What I generally do is like, "Fingers are getting a bit soft right now. I'll go through the Buddy Holly songbook"- because I love Buddy's songs. Then I start playing 'em for half an hour. [Sings "Maybe Baby.'] "Let's try Eddie Cochrane or the Everly Brothers or a little Chuck." And after about an hour, I get fed up with other people's songs, and there's something that I'm playing of theirs that suggests something else to me, and I'll start to follow that. It'll either end up as a song or it'll end up as a disaster, and I'll get bored with it. It doesn't bother me. I never sit down and say, "Time to write a song. Now I'm going to write." To me, that would be fatal. I know other guys work in other ways. There's no one system to this. It's what's right for you. But me, I always like to sit down and play the guitar a couple of hours a day, and something will come. If something interests me, then I think, "Hey, there it is," and then I hang on to the end and follow the @#$%&. To me the important thing is recognizing something when it comes by.
The idea that you create it, again, is alien and can also @#$%& you up, because then it's all on your back, whether you've written something or not there. Treat it in a lighter way and say, "This is what I do." If you can write one song, you can write 900. They're there. Your method of going about that - you can either try and regiment it, make it a task, or you can make it part of your everyday life and just sit around and play and not think about writing. Play anything you want.
There's only one song in the world, and Adam and Eve wrote it. And the rest of them's variations. I'm the antenna. You just stick your finger in the air and you grab a bit of it and you go off. And that's the way to avoid writer's block, because that's what happens to people that think they actually create things. Nobody creates anything. It's there, and you just @#$%& grab a hold of it.
Everybody has a talent. But how many get to find what their talent is before they're sucked into the system? I mean, it usually ends up as their hobby, which is probably what they're really good at. I mean, why do people have hobbies? They're working their guts out doing something they don't really like to do, but they just happen to have caught a job and do it, and at night they go home and on the weekends they have a hobby. They are working to get those few hours to spend on their hobby, when that's the area they should really be working in. My one problem with people is that it's a miracle if you get to find out what your talent is before you're sucked into doing something you don't want to do, and that's the big fuckup. If people were doing things they really wanted to do, they'd do it ten times better.
Do you have a hobby that you could turn into a profession?
Yeah, I been doing it! (Laughs.) That was a hobby. Didn't expect it to become a living or to become a star. I mean, that's the other thing - fame. That can screw you. People come up and ask me about this and that, and I say, "You're talking to a madman." I mean, my view of the world is totally distorted. Since 18, I've had chicks throwing themselves at me, and I turned the little teenage dream into reality like that (snaps fingers) by a miracle, God knows how. And therefore my view is gonna be distorted, at the very least.
What's the most dangerous aspect of fame?
Believing it. Very, very dangerous. It's not very good for people around you, and even worse for yourself. That's my experience of it. It's one of the reasons I don't regret zooming into the dope thing for so long. It was an experiment that went on too long, but in a way that kept my feet on the street when I could have just become some brat-ass, rich rock and roll superstar bullshit, and done myself in in another way. In a way I almost see it as I almost forced myself into that in order to counterbalance this superstar shit that was going on around us. I said, "No, I want to put my foot in a deep puddle because I don't want to go up in that stratosphere and hang out up there with the Maharishi and Mick and Paul McCartney." It was almost a deliberate sort of attempt to get out of it. Like letting the broken tooth hang for five years - deliberate anti! I was doing an anti gig, but it still stuck. In retrospect, it shouldn't have worked, but that's what I had to do.
When I look at it now, that was one of my rationalizations for it. And the other is, hell, I was just sort of into De Quincey's Opium Eaters a century too late. (Laughs.) I just saw myself as a laboratory: "Well, let's see what this does."
Which substances worked best for producing music?
Well, a speedball doesn't go down too bad! (Laughs uproariously.) Those were the days. Oh, @#$%&. You've got the answer there. (In a loud voice) A clear mind, a cold shower, and a ten-mile walk after breakfast - those are the ingredients that make good records, not dope.
There's been a progression in your playing...
I'm growing up. Or trying.
A stripping down to the essentials.
I'm not only stripping down, I'm trying to find my own. Throughout the'60s, it all happened so fast. Suddenly you've got to make a new single every eight weeks, and each one has got to be better than the next, and you're on the road. There wasn't a lot of time to do much more than make the gig and come up with a hit song every two months, which is enough of a task. I mean, songwriting is something I got thrown into out of necessity. It would never have occurred to me to be a songwriter. I wanted to be a guitar player. And then suddenly you're successful with your first record, which is cover jobs, but luckily of great songs which nobody had ever heard or can't remember. Or we just picked great material. That was all we did: We covered other people's shit. There was no idea of going beyond that, except suddenly the first album is outselling the Beatles. And they're going, "Next!" And you're thinking, "How many other great songs are there out there?" And Andrew Oldham, in his beautiful, arrogant, naive way: "Well, you better start writing your own."
Describe your first songwriting experience.
"As Tears Go By," which we had a #1 hit with with Marianne Faithfull. So suddenly, "Oh, we're songwriters," with the most totally anti-Stones sort of song you could think of at the time, while we're trying to make a good version of (Muddy Waters') "Still A Fool." When you start writing, it doesn't matter where the first one comes from. You've got to start somewhere, right? So Andrew locked Mick and myself into a kitchen in this horrible little apartment we had. He said, "You ain't comin' out," and there was no way out. We were in the kitchen with some food and a couple of guitars, but we couldn't get to the john, so we had to come out with a song. In his own little way, that's where Andrew made his great contribution to the Stones. That was such a flatulent idea, a fart of an idea, that suddenly you're gonna lock two guys in a room, and they're going to become songwriters. Forget about it.
He picked the right two guys.
I guess so. And that's why I take my hat off to Andrew. He had no idea, but it was worth a try, and it worked. In that little kitchen Mick and I got hung up about writing songs, and it still took us another six months before we had another hit with Gene Pitney, "That Girl Belongs To Yesterday." We were writing these terrible pop songs that were becoming Top-10 hits. I thought, "What are we doing here playing the @#$%& blues, and writing these horrible pop songs and getting very successful?" They had nothing to do with us, except we wrote 'em. And it took us a while to come up with "The Last Time." That was the first one we came up with where Mick and I said, "This is one we can lay on the guys." At the time we were already borrowing songs from the Beatles - "I Wanna Be Your Man" - because we were really hard up for singles. So they gave us a hand. (Sings "I wanna be your man") "Very good, John. Very good, Paul. Like that, like that. We'll do it." (Laughs.) In retrospect, during the '60s the Stones and the Beatles were almost the same band, because we were the only ones in that position. And we would dodge: "When is your record coming out?" We would work with each other instead of against each other, which is very interesting, because for the most part people were either a Beatles or a Stones man, where ten years earlier you'd have been an Elvis or a Buddy man. That split.
Did you learn to read music?
Written music has always intrigued me, and I once taught myself to do it, and realized that this is no path for me to travel. I immediately forgot it, and I deliberately - for better or for worse - decided I ain't gonna be able to work within these parameters.
Do any new guitars impress you?
Those new Music Mans I've been using - they impress the shit out of me. They made me a 5-string one and a 6-string bass. But just the basic guitar itself is the most impressive guitar since the Tele or the Strat. I really don't know what the model is I use, but you can change that configuration of pickups in a few minutes. I've got a couple of them set up. I mean, I'm not one to go very much beyond the Teles. I have the odd Guild, and Gibson and Gretsch shit that I use for extra color here and there, semi-acoustic shit. I love guitars. But the Music Mans impress me. As an all-around working unit, that thing surprised the shit out of me. Sometimes in the studio, I can make this thing sound like a Strat or a Gibson.
Do you like high action?
It depends what tuning and what I'm going for. I've got no set thing for anything. I've got three or four 5-strings there, one with high action, one with low, and one with medium. The combination of the guitar with the amp, to me, is more important than which guitar I play. No one guitar is going to sound great for everything, unless you're one of those guys that only has one sound (laughs), and if you don't deliver that, you're @#$%&. I just keep shopping around. I say, "Well, there, he sounded good through that. Let's try him through the Bassmaster. Or the Bandmaster." So the combination of amp and guitar is a far more important choice than just the guitar. I mean, you're talking electric guitar. What have you got? You got a guitar, you've got your own @#$%&, and you've got an amplifier. Somehow these three things have to come to be where you want 'em all to be at once. A Strat might sound good through that Bandmaster, but would the Telecaster sound better through that Champ? It depends on what sound you're going for. Basically I'm talking recording here, because that's what I've been into for the last year.
For live work, I put the Twin up, and give me Teles and the odd Strat here and there. It's a different criteria. But when you're recording, you can afford to say, "Well, maybe that Strat sounds better through that Kay than the Gibson through the Champ." You just keep trying. You never know quite what you're gonna get. The great thing about music is its unpredictability. It never ceases to amaze me. I can be bored stiff "Oh, man, I wish I had a night off" - and then a little problem like that'll come up, and suddenly I'm in. I say, "How fascinating! Why should that .... What's the difference between those sounds," and then you see faces light up in the control room. Suddenly you find the right combination, and you're on the track. You've got to carry everybody with you.
You can't fight against the tide when you're working with bands. There's no hiring and firing shit - I'm talking about guys you live with and work with and that are as dedicated as you are to this stuff. And that's hard to find. Forging a band is another thing. Playing guitar is one thing, playing the other guys is another. I realize that more and more as I go ahead. Hey, I've become a psychologist over the years. I spend more of my time explaining to Mick: "Well, what kind of mood is he in? Who's gonna be good for this... " I do it almost automatically. The first thing is to choose the right guys in the first place. Then you don't have a major problem. But the idea of making a record like, "Okay, who's the best bass player? Okay, you're fired. Next." It's like some @#$%& employment bureau. It sounds very boring to me, and I could never start off the idea of playing with people from that attitude, from that aspect. "Hired. You're fired. Hired. You're fired." The idea of making a record in that way would already put me off. I gotta know who I'm playing with before I even consider the idea of actually doing it.
Have you written any songs during your solo period that you've held back from recording because they seem better suited for the Rolling Stones?
That's a good question, because this leads me to my very point with Mick. In 1985 we started getting into solo shit, and it's a whole new can of worms. I told him I didn't want to be put into that position after all these years, because I knew it would be a conflict of interests. I was very aware of that, which is one of the reasons I fought him like a dog not to do that. I knew then that I'm gonna write songs and I'm gonna, "That's mine. Stones can't have that. Oh, the Stones can have this." What do I do? Give 'em the best I got? The second best? To put yourself in that position is what I feared. In retrospect now, I say I was right to fear that, but at the same time, Mick and I and the rest of the Stones had been in that pressure cooker too long. The fight, whatever it was about, was almost inconsequential. We'd just been in that thing too long. If you're working with the Stones (points to a world map dotted with dozens of locations of stones shows) - well, that's a year. And then it stops and then you do nothing. And that's what the Stones had to live with from the middle early'70s until the middle'80s: Constant work for a year and a half, and then nothing for two years.
And that stopping and starting was fraying. That was the underlying force of what all of that shit was about. It could have been about women or solo records or quitting smoking or any other thing, but it had to happen. The important thing to me was will we get back together again, and the Steel Wheels thing proved, yeah, we could make this thing work for us. So the big battle has to be fought on that front, and probably quite a necessary battle. It's never pleasant. It's like a family - it's Mick and me have a row, except it's on the front pages. It's like you have an argument with your old lady, and the next day you read about it. And then the press are winding you up - guys going, "Well, he said that," so you're like conducting this fight publicly, and it should be a private little matter. In any other circumstances it would be. It's just a family squabble, not soap opera shit. Forget about it. It's not really that important. It's bullshit, except that we have to do it in the full glare of publicity, which turns it into another thing. Because then you've got to take your stance because they've forced you into corners.
When it all came down to the point where Mick and I had to sit together in a room and write songs for Steel Wheels, we did it. And we made a Stones record in six months, which is pretty much against the odds in the record business. We'd never spent less than two-and-a-half years for the previous ten years, but that's what can be done. I'm now firmly on my other path as well, but I can see that it's better that I work, Mick works, Charlie and everybody, so that when we do get together, there's none of this taking the thing off the block and lube jobs and endless trying to get the band back together. We'd been too long in that vacuum, in that bubble. You can't live in there forever.
The Stones got too big, really, for what the Stones wanted to be. I mean, what the @#$%&'s the deal about? And what you want to do and that you would normally do every day, suddenly you can't do for two years. You can't just go, "Hey guys, let's go play down at the bar," which is how the band started and the whole idea. Suddenly you're too big to do that business and the whole thing. It's a strange thing. I wish the Beatles were still around in a way, because they could have kept on doing what they always did first for us, which was open the doors and take the brunt. (Laughs.) Playing football stadiums, man, is not where it's at. It takes what you want to do into another realm where you don't really want to be. But if that amount of people want to be there, who's gonna say no? So you're, like, stiffed. Give me a 3,000-4,000 seater any time - with a roof on it, no wind, no rain. A good sound system in a controlled environment. Hey, we're rock and roll. What's it need? A basement, a garage. Start from there. But football stadiums are a little bit way out there, but at the same time, that's where it's at.
Bill Wyman once claimed that the Rolling Stones are the only major rock band where everyone follows the rhythm guitarist.
Well, that's the best thing he's ever said about me! (Laughs.) He never told me that. Bill, bless your heart. I just hope he's there to follow me the next time around. Which leads us to that question, right? Whether or not he's in the band is up to him. As far as I'm concerned, there's no way I want to change that lineup, unless he's absolutely adamant. I have my spies out. I talk to his ex old ladies, who can see him. Some people tell me he means it, and then I speak to some of his older friends who know him better: "Yeah, he's saying that, but I have a feeling he'll be there." So I'm getting these two messages. And Bill is not the guy ... We don't talk on the phone, because he's too guarded and I'm too pointed. I have to see his eyes, in other words, to know. It was a spin on my head when I discovered he just doesn't like flying anymore. I realized that in the European tour he was driving to gigs in five, six hours, where you could get on a plane and be there in 45 minutes. I thought, "Geez, I'd never thought of that." Hell, you can't think of everything. There's all kinds of angles and possibilities on this thing with Bill, but I don't want to change this lineup unless I really got to. And he's the only one that can make me have to.
Many people have mimicked your image or their perception of your musical stance. What would you have musicians learn from you?
Forget about the clothes and the haircut and the moves, and then concentrate on the guitar playing. First, you've got to have that. I see a lot of guys out there - and it's like weird for me - and they've got it all down except the playing! (laughs.) I mean, hell, they look more like me than me! It's like fashion. It's all got to do with video and shit. Once you start to get the eyes involved with music, music will take the backseat, and that's what the video thing is. Why can't video find its own niche in life and get off music's back? This is not going to endear me to VH-1 or MTV, but they know how I feel about it. It's a conflict of the senses. You're gonna judge a record by a TV screen and some images with some shitty little sound coming out of those boxy little speakers? I mean, how many people really have them hooked up to stereos? The way they deliver a record is with some semi-nude chicks, which I have no problem with, but not to sell my music. The music becomes like elevator background music, relegated. And of course, then you've encouraged people to become posers and not composers. Andy Warhol's little dream's come true: Everybody's a star for 15 minutes.
Music, to me, is the joy, right? I love my kids most of the time, and I love my wife most of the time. Music I love all the time. It's the only constant thing in my life. It's the one thing you can count on.
Re: Guitar_Player_USA_2013_03
Posted by:
NoCode0680
()
Date: February 23, 2013 23:57
Quote
His MajestyQuote
NoCode0680Though some have you play the open A string as you're playing the 5th and 7th fret on the D string. Might not be how Taylor played it, but I like to play it that way because it sounds a little more full.Quote
dcba
I never thought "Bitch" was played this high on the neck...
It is how he played it, meaning at 5 - 7th frets, but he also used open A string.
That's the only way that sounds good to me, that tab in the article doesn't have it though.
Re: Guitar_Player_USA_2013_03
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: February 24, 2013 04:20
Quote
NoCode0680Quote
His MajestyQuote
NoCode0680Though some have you play the open A string as you're playing the 5th and 7th fret on the D string. Might not be how Taylor played it, but I like to play it that way because it sounds a little more full.Quote
dcba
I never thought "Bitch" was played this high on the neck...
It is how he played it, meaning at 5 - 7th frets, but he also used open A string.
That's the only way that sounds good to me, that tab in the article doesn't have it though.
Yeah, they got it wrong.
Re: Guitar_Player_USA_2013_03
Posted by:
NoCode0680
()
Date: February 24, 2013 04:43
Quote
His MajestyQuote
NoCode0680Quote
His MajestyQuote
NoCode0680Though some have you play the open A string as you're playing the 5th and 7th fret on the D string. Might not be how Taylor played it, but I like to play it that way because it sounds a little more full.Quote
dcba
I never thought "Bitch" was played this high on the neck...
It is how he played it, meaning at 5 - 7th frets, but he also used open A string.
That's the only way that sounds good to me, that tab in the article doesn't have it though.
Yeah, they got it wrong.
I wonder what would happen if I took my copy back to Barnes & Noble and told them I wanted my money back because they transcribed "Bitch" wrong. "These bitches can't play Bitch, gimme my money".
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
desertblues68 , detroitken , flottmann1 , GJB , Greg44 , hj3009 , jason8903 , Joce , keefriffhards , kkhoranstoned , Mabru , makemeburnthecandle , MrEcho , retired_dog , riccardo99 , rockdriguez67 , RollstoDRSC , samakira , spidey39 , stonesmuziekfan , strat72 , Topi , wupperstein
Guests:
1681
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10