Shit, I feel like making a discovery! This is my 'theory' why Ronnie's role has been so minimal, and with it, the 'ancient art of weaving' had been nothing but a nostalgic PR talk since 1989 without much substance. The basic idea is: I think Jagger doesn't really respect Wood's abilities as a guitarist because he is not able to deliver him the goods Mick needs. This also is equavalant in saying that Mick is not a friend of so called 'ancient art of weaving'. What Jagger experienced with Mick Taylor should not be under-estimated. It was something Jagger still pointed out and remembered very clearly in his 1995 ROLLING STONE interview. What Taylor provided helped him as a singer. Since know that during the 'modern era' Jagger tries always to sing 'correctly', stay in tune, follow the original melody lines - has taking singing lessons and all - this is a feature that is very important for Mick, or has been since early 80’s. That surely was not the leading theme during Wood’s peak days: 1975-1982.

(But let me point out that this is not a contribution in everlasting Wood/Taylor-debate - I just try to explain some important happenings from the view of Jagger as a singer).

My guess is that Jagger was fed up with the way The Stones sounded in 1981/82 - the thing we now herald as the 'golden age of weaving' - the guitarists making a scheme within which Jagger tried to cope with and do his best. In 1978 it was alright since the mood was to be mean, rough and punk. But by 1981 that idea was old news. Seemingly it was very hard for him to sing 'well' since the band couldn't offer him the needed support, the supportive scheme (and Mick is really not that good singer actually to sing without some kind of a musical guide - the singers know this problem). It didn't help either that the band was quite sloppy, not to mention out of tune sometimes. We might like the barking/shouting Jagger 'singing' style of the 1981/82 tour (I do very much!) but I think, for him, as a singer it was difficult and I don't think he really liked very much. But it was the reality with which he needed to cope with, and he did his best. I would suggest that the reason already during 1975/76 tour to ‘anti-sing’, and deliberately to 'fool with' the singing melodies, might have something to do that he didn't have the safe and sure melody guide line - Mick Taylor's guitar - anymore with him. He compensated it with his showmanship and by starting almost to make a caricature of himself and of his singing.

By the end of the 80's - and having had his solo career experiences (Dave Stewart kicked Mick's ass as singer, his 1988 touring band offered a new kind of backing band) - Jagger wanted to make sure that he will have a safe and sure scheme, provided by the band, that he can sing properly and by clear guidance. The Keith/Ronnie guitar duo - the old musical heart of the Stones - couldn't provide him that, so Jagger more or less kicked it off. I think that was the condition with which Keith needed to agree with if the Stones would ever hit the road again. Keith did (maybe it was not any problem - Keith had his own agenda perhaps there too). In this new arrangement of the band and its music, Keith was given a new frontline "star" guitarist role he had never had before: he was able to do almost whatever he pleases but he didn't any longer lead the band.

But Ronnie was the real victim of the 'new order'. He was the odd man out - he was treated almost like Brian Jones in his worst 1968/69 studio days - almost unplugged. There was nothing than to pose and fool around. Since Jagger - with Keith's agreement - had transformed the core of the musical leadership to their side musicians (lead by Leavell, at least from 1994 on) to give him the 'scheme' within which to sing, it wasn't so important who the 'second guitarist' actually was. Perhaps within this new order, Ronnie was still a ‘perfect ‘choice: he looked right, had name and history, enjoyed the clown role, and hadn't the musical ambition or ego to ask more.

Some questions to consider. Had the Stones have a more melodic-driven (musical) guitarist in 1989, might the 'modern era' Stones sound have been more guitar-oriented and driven? The fact that he was the right or suitable guy musically for some time (1975-78, to an extent 81/82), how near kicking Ronnie out in 1989 actually was (we know it was already near in 1981)? To even keep him in the band - was it again Keith's demand or condition? To me it me it sounds like it was asically a compromise to the effect: "okay, let's have him in, but let us make sure he has no any substantive role to fvck up things". (I have the impression that also Keith was so fascinated with his new front man role that he wasn't either too eager to save Ronnie's profilic ass.. To have such a loyal ‘small brother’, a gun holder, who would accept any shit, was better than having a guitarist with bigger ego (and skills).

Any thoughts? lots of speculation, for sure…

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-14 20:28 by Doxa.

I am not sure Ronnie was the only victim. I think Keith was as well. I am quite confinced Jagger blatantly told Keith when they met in Barbados in '89: 'look, it's my band, it's my game, I call the shots, you shut the fvck up and play your Keith Richards-the-rock-star bit. I hire 3 backupsingers and two keyboardists, and you turn down that godawful guitar of yours'. And Keith knew that if he would want the Stones back together, he would have to accept. It wasn#t unitl '97 Keith would gain back a bit of his old self.

Mathijs

Yeah Doxa, i think you made a point here. Don´t forget the fact that Ronnie´s musical ability in the late 80s notably declined because all of tha alcohol, etc that finally catch up with him.

I would love to see what would happen <NOW, with this "new" Ronnie, with his newfound impetus and drive.

Could Keith turn into the weak figure in the band?

Will Mick turn more to Ronnie nowadays?

this is a case of needing a strong rhythm / lead guitars and jagger has a problem coming in in the second verse because of the lack of that. keith should always play the berry stuff . he is so much better at it and it creates a stronger backing for the singer

Doxa - to take your strong comments further - jagger could of easily blew of taylor and not use him on Plundered My Soul and used whatever they had but he knew he had to write and sing and with Taylor on the song maybe that inspired him
somewhat - not sure if jagger added his vocals before or after MT's beautiful guitar lines.

Quote
Mathijs
I am not sure Ronnie was the only victim. I think Keith was as well. I am quite confinced Jagger blatantly told Keith when they met in Barbados in '89: 'look, it's my band, it's my game, I call the shots, you shut the fvck up and play your Keith Richards-the-rock-star bit. I hire 3 backupsingers and two keyboardists, and you turn down that godawful guitar of yours'. And Keith knew that if he would want the Stones back together, he would have to accept. It wasn#t unitl '97 Keith would gain back a bit of his old self.

Mathijs

Yeah, I uset to think exactly like you do here - and probably largely still do - but I have started to think that maybe Keith wasn't so unwilling to accept Mick's ultimatum. Considering what he has done ever since, and taking the fact that he hasn't ever made a critical comment of the nature of the 'Best Stones Yet', it sounds like he was quite willing to take the musical backseat and just concentrate in enjoying the fruits of his career and achievements in Jagger-lead show machine. He had also just had his experience of frontman status with the Winos, including the central attention and posing, etc. Probably Jagger made him such a tempting offer, with the figures Cohl had just promised, that it was not hard at all to agree with...

Yeah, that meeting in Barbados '89 was like a Jalta conference in which the future of the Stones, and the nature of it from then on, was sealed. I'd like to hear a recorded boootleg of that...

- Doxa

I think youre right on the money, as always.

While I like the analysis, basically you're saying Mick isn't that good a singer, and he needs help from the rest of the band to sound good.

If that is in fact the analysis, he's bloody lucky to even have a job as a singer!

Quote
diego

Could Keith turn into the weak figure in the band?

I think that happened some time ago...Keith's skill sets didn't join him or the band in the new millenium.

Jagger likes to stay contemporary, that is one thing that is always central to what either he (solo) or what the Stones (collectively) do. Taylor was an incredible presence within the band, of course, yet his time within the band was only relatively short (only five years). I think sometimes it is a mistake to concentrate on the Taylor years to the detriment of all that has gone on since, even though the Stones have never quite managed to scale those musical heights again. Partly, those live musical highlights of the early seventies, are pretty much enjoyed exclusively by those die hard fans of the Stones who love collecting bootlegs, and not by those fans of popular music with a more general interest, of which the Stones are only one of a number of musical favourites from that given era. I actually think the change in the Stones musical emphasis is pretty much down to where the Stones view themselves within the contemporary landscape within popular music, especially in terms of pop's eighties more musical conservatism. Technology pretty much took over between the start and the end of the eighties, and the raw elements, including Jagger's more undisciplined vocals, and musical virtuoso, just wasn't where popular music was at, at those later times. Keith and Ronnie's quitar skills had deteriorated too, yet even for 1981, the Stones early eighties American tour was largely musically old hat. There was a slight resurgence in a stripped down rock 'n' roll sound at the turn of the eighties, the Stray Cats being a prime example, yet overwhemingly synthetic music was taking the lead. The real musical impetus of the Stones faded around the turn of the eighties, and the Stones by the late eighties were pretty much trading on the nostalgia of their past, within the tidy package of their live shows. Those shows definitely reflect the contemporary sensibilities of the time, in terms of being clean and tidy, and immediately accessible, with much of the more extreme (and more inspiring) aspects of the Stones sound pretty much abandoned. The group's large backing band merely emphasise the Stones more conservative approach, and of course to a degree those extra musicians acted as a safety net, as the Stones were aging quite rapidly too. I don't think the consequence of this change is down to any one member's abilities, or lack of them, necessarily. It is about more general changes within the context of the times.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-15 04:57 by Edward Twining.

Quote
Mathijs
I am not sure Ronnie was the only victim. I think Keith was as well. I am quite confinced Jagger blatantly told Keith when they met in Barbados in '89: 'look, it's my band, it's my game, I call the shots, you shut the fvck up and play your Keith Richards-the-rock-star bit. I hire 3 backupsingers and two keyboardists, and you turn down that godawful guitar of yours'. And Keith knew that if he would want the Stones back together, he would have to accept. It wasn#t unitl '97 Keith would gain back a bit of his old self.

Mathijs

I don't think it went down quite like that, but there was clearly a division of labor as well as some ground rules that Jagger insisted on as a condition of putting the band back together. I am sure one was "no more going on three hours late because Keith is asleep or hasn't scored yet" and "no more out of control freebasing drunk Ronnie." Also, Keith never turned down that godawful guitar of his, but someone certainly turned Ronnie down for entire tours.

An interesting thread, and I think you might be on to something here Doxa. One thing about 'weaving', especially when guitarists are chemically fueled, is it tends to fill in all the 'holes' in the melody line, where the vocals go. Overly busy guitar playing is hard to sing over. (I've been guilty of overplaying a lot myself, so its something I've become aware of).

Mick Taylor's playing was very melodic, tasteful, and he made sure he didn't step on anyone's toes with his solos - he was very aware of the space between notes and phrases, and also between the different instruments. Wood's playing tends to be a bit more disjointed, and he doesn't lay out or lay back as much as Mick Taylor did. And of course Wood definitely weaves with Keith more.

In their live shows since 1989, it seems that Chuck Leavell is really the one that Jagger relies on to provide a strong melodic structure. IMO Chuck tends to overplay a bit, maybe due to his role as the musical 'glue' holding things together onstage.

Quote
Edward Twining
Jagger likes to stay contemporary, that is one thing that is always central to what either he (solo) or what the Stones (collectively) do. Taylor was an incredible presence within the band, of course, yet his time within the band was only relatively short (only five years). I think sometimes it is a mistake to concentrate on the Taylor years to the detriment of all that has gone on since, even though the Stones have never quite managed to scale those musical heights again. Partly, those live musical highlights of the early seventies, are pretty much enjoyed exclusively by those die hard fans of the Stones who love collecting bootlegs, and not by those fans of popular music with a more general interest, of which the Stones are only one of a number of musical favourites from that given era. I actually think the change in the Stones musical emphasis is pretty much down to where the Stones view themselves within the contemporary landscape within popular music, especially in terms of pop's eighties more musical conservatism. Technology pretty much took over between the start and the end of the eighties, and the raw elements, including Jagger's more undisciplined vocals, and musical virtuoso, just wasn't where popular music was at, at those later times. Keith and Ronnie's quitar skills had deteriorated too, yet even for 1981, the Stones early eighties American tour was largely musically old hat. There was a slight resurgence in a stripped down rock 'n' roll sound at the turn of the eighties, the Stray Cats being a prime example, yet overwhemingly synthetic music was taking the lead. The real musical impetus of the Stones faded around the turn of the eighties, and the Stones by the late eighties were pretty much trading on the nostalgia of their past, within the tidy package of their live shows. Those shows definitely reflect the contemporary sensibilities of the time, in terms of being clean and tidy, and immediately accessible, with much of the more extreme (and more inspiring) aspects of the Stones sound pretty much abandoned. The group's large backing band merely emphasise the Stones more conservative approach, and of course to a degree those extra musicians acted as a safety net, as the Stones were aging quite rapidly too. I don't think the consequence of this change is down to any one member's abilities, or lack of them, necessarily. It is about more general changes within the context of the times.

Thanks Edward for your contribution. I agree the general line of your thought that 'staying contemporary' is the leading idea of Jagger and the best way to interpret his decisions. The difference is that since 1989 staying contemporary didn't any longer had impact to their music or records but to the latest technology and concepts concerning touring and show spectacles (that was married with nostalgy).

I might have over-emphasizing the role of the guitarists in my original post. The idea I had in my mind was that even we generally talk a lot of the difference between Taylor vs. Wood era 'guitarism', and the lead/rhythm seperation over 'ancient art of weaving', we don't much connect it to Jagger's singing. But as we can hear during the golden age of ancient art of viewing (1978-82), and having Wood onboard (75-82), Jagger's vocals were most "undisciplined". I have tend to think that it was natural evolution and following the trends, but taking Jagger's own reflection of Taylor's importance to his singing, maybe the change in singing style had something also to do with what kind of guitarists he was working with.

But that was then when the Rolling Stones were a guitar-lead band. Since 1989 it is not. And Jagger sings on a key again. By creating the 'Vegas' concept The Stones were following the trends again, but can this explain everything, or what does it really mean? Was Jagger, for example, calculating that if he was going to sing in such a professional way - to sound actually good - as needed at the time (it was no late 70's any more), he needed a safe and sure scheme within to do that? And no way, the "weaving" background would provide that. It would be 1981/82 again with that. I don't think Keith or Ronnie were any worse players than they were in 1982 actually (since the late 90's they surely are - but funny though: it hasn't really affected to their over-all sound much). I think the problem was the whole concept how they played and how much that constituted the musical core of the Stones. It didn't suit to Jagger. That needed to be changed.

I don't think Jagger missed Taylor but I think he missed the safe belt and the melodic guide Taylor once provided him. It was Chuck Leavell - and the army of side musicians - who would provide that. But like I rhetorically asked in my original post, had The Stones had a guitarist of more melodic and more wide rank of sort - like Jagger had in his solo tour - or to say it frankly: a guitar ace like they once hired in 1969 because they needed one - could it have been that the Stones have reminded more guitar-friendly band? The guitarists and their central, outfront role within rock bands was not at all a passe thing in the late-80's - quite contrary! The biggest them all, Guns'n'Roses, had nothing Vegas in them.

Now I make another polemical claim: even though Mick would have replaced Ronnie with another, 'better' guitarist, it was Keith and his ego who would have standed in the way. Keith had been the rock super star of the 80's whose legend just got bigger and bigger. There was no way that the Stones could have hired a new hot guitarist - a true virtuoso like Taylor. No, from the 80's on, The Rolling Stones were a band that salutes only one guitarist who is Keith Richards. So the compromise solution - this is, naturally, my guess - both Mick and Keith made was that the concept of 'ancient art of weaving' will be buried forever and to exist only in a folklore and PR talk, while Keith gets a role where he is the only guitar hero - and a co-frontman - in the band. But the musical scheme and guidance would be transformed to the shoulders of the new entity they invented to fill the space left by the guitarists: a backing band, the army of side musicians, lead by maestro Leavell.

So I don't think saying that what the Stones did in 1989 was just 'following the trends'. Broadly saying thay did, but if we look more carefully the decisions they then made, there were a lot of options, and they picked up few. But I think the most important of them considered the role of the very idea of The Rolling Stones as a guitar-driven band. They made some really fundamantal decisions there, after which the band was - to some ears - even essentially not the same any longer. One can only speculate if they would have had then more 'stronger' guitarists - to apply both to the late-80's scene and to Mick's demands - the decisions might not have been so guitar-unfriendly.

I don't want to sound rude to Ronnie Wood here but I think the truth is that Ronnie was a perfect guitarist to the sound The Stones tried to achieve in 1978-82 but with his limited skills there was no use of him to the demands of Vegas Era professionalism. (Personally I would love to get the 1978-82 era again...)

- Doxa

P.S. If the Stones would continued the habit of picking up a 'right' guitarist in trying to cope with the trends and demands of the time - Brian was perfect for the 'Swingin' sixties' era, Taylor for the 'classic rock' era, Ronnie for 'punk era' - they instead of giving up the guitarist department, they should have picked up someone like Joe Satriani or Slash in 1989...



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-15 13:18 by Doxa.

Quote
OpenG
Doxa - to take your strong comments further - jagger could of easily blew of taylor and not use him on Plundered My Soul and used whatever they had but he knew he had to write and sing and with Taylor on the song maybe that inspired him
somewhat - not sure if jagger added his vocals before or after MT's beautiful guitar lines.

Honestly, this little few hour session is the most strangest phenomenon (related to Stones) that took place within the last few years. It is one more example that it is impossible to 'know' what really happens in Jagger's mind. Yeah, it could have been very easy to do the track without Taylor, or someone else making the lead... the Stones - or Mick - never been any friends of authenticity or accuracy in these kind of matters (who does and what) - it is only the result that matters, and then what says in the cover. or how it is marketed, is another thing. But for reason or other, Jagger wanted Taylor to do that - and what is even funnier - not letting even Keith to know that.

Was it:

(a) Jagger wanted to be authentic - what was missing from the EXILE era track was Taylor's - as Jagger's - contribution so he asked Taylor to accomplish that. But, really, is Jagger so authentic-driven? And this wasn't the case with all the rest of the tracks (or is Taylor already in all of them?)
(b) Jagger thought that to really have EXILE-era feeling he needed a factor that he personally connected to the era - that made him to "feel" it right. If this holds true, it is a sign how much Jagger respects Taylor's role during that era.
(c) Jagger suddenly had a sudden feeling of nostalgia, and he just wanted to work with Taylor again. "Plundered" offered a nice excuse for that.
(d) Jagger thought this will make a nice extra to sell few extra copies to die-hard nostalgy fans... (we are flattering ourselves with this explanation...)
(e) Something else...

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-15 13:49 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

P.S. If the Stones would continued the habit of picking up a 'right' guitarist in trying to cope with the trends and demands of the time - Brian was perfect for the 'Swingin' sixties' era, Taylor for the 'classic rock' era, Ronnie for 'punk era' - they instead of giving up the guitarist department, they should have picked up someone like Joe Satriani or Slash in 1989...

Brian was not picked up due to trends and demands of the time, he picked and/or accepted the others in to his idea of forming a band.

Quote
treaclefingers
While I like the analysis, basically you're saying Mick isn't that good a singer, and he needs help from the rest of the band to sound good.

If that is in fact the analysis, he's bloody lucky to even have a job as a singer!

Well, I think one of the 'secrets' of The Rolling Stones is that none of the original core of the band - Mick, Keith, Bill & Charlie - are any technically superior musicians in their posts but the way they work together makes them together unique and superior to anyone. For each of them it is the specific context, and their 'chemistry' with the others, that is more than important. Besides, despite their idionsycratic touch, all of them are quite limited with their musical scope. Both Mick and Keith are quite famous for not staying in tune, like the whole band of its out of synch, sloppiness, etc. It is part of their natural charm, I think. It is against this background I think we need to read Jagger's remark of how much Taylor - who was a pro musician in every sense of the word - helped him as a singer. (To an extent I also rate Brian Jones to different class of musicianship than the rest. Ronnie not, who - not perhaps a good thing - is a real Rolling Stone in that sense.)

It seems to me that since early 80's Jagger - at least partly - hates this particular (but fascinating feature I think) of them, and tries to get rid of it. It has to do with Mick's professionalism and perfectionism. But still today (88->), I find Mick struggling with his vocals. He technically might stay in tune but one can hear the tricks (for eaxmple, over-use of nasal and other mannerisms) and vocal trainings with which he is able to do that. But the cost is the loss of his natural expressive power he - in or out of tune - used to have. Not very impressive or touchy. Sometimes he just ends up miming singing, almost like doing cheap karaoke.

Mick has an unique wonderful sounding instrument - his voice - the color of his voice the best in the rock and roll business as far a as I am concerned - but simply as a singer he is technically rather limited. He would never win American Idol, if you know what I mean. Thanks god for that - but I am afraid Mick himself might think otherwise...

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-15 15:26 by Doxa.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
Doxa

P.S. If the Stones would continued the habit of picking up a 'right' guitarist in trying to cope with the trends and demands of the time - Brian was perfect for the 'Swingin' sixties' era, Taylor for the 'classic rock' era, Ronnie for 'punk era' - they instead of giving up the guitarist department, they should have picked up someone like Joe Satriani or Slash in 1989...

Brian was not picked up due to trends and demands of the time, he picked and/or accepted the others in to his idea of forming a band.

I know you that you know that I know that.... just made it rhyme with the idea, you know? Take 'picking up' metaphorically - perhaps the transcendental power of the devil himself did that in order to accomplish The Rolling Stones to conquer the world. Brian thought he was picking up members without knowing that he was already picked up to constitute one important feature of upcoming entity called The Rolling Stones that would suit to the trends and demands of the time...><

(Seriously: I have never thought that Mick and Keith - or Brian or The Stones over-all - were people who had their destiny in their hands and rationally calculated the right decisions under given circumstances. No, they had some nice instincts and ideas, and they surely were talented by their own rights but most of all: they were goddamn lucky. The history of The Rolling Stones is a Darwinian story actually where the contingency plays a huge role.)

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-15 15:16 by Doxa.

<This is my 'theory' why Ronnie's role has been so minimal>

Ronnie´s role has increased the last couple of tours along with Keith´s detoriation. When Ronnie was out of it (drink//drugs 89-99), he was turned way down in the mix. It´s as simple as that, imo.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
<This is my 'theory' why Ronnie's role has been so minimal>

Ronnie´s role has increased the last couple of tours along with Keith´s detoriation. When Ronnie was out of it (drink//drugs 89-99), he was turned way down in the mix. It´s as simple as that, imo.

I agree with the first sentence - Ronnie's role has increased along with Keith's detoriation - those two things surely are connected. This is because The Stones still need some kind of guitar work - this gives Ronnie a place to shine, to be more profilic, because Keith cannot do that himself any longer.

But as far as the second sentence goes, I am not sure if Ronnie's problems with drink/drugs had really been so connected to turning his guitar down or not. Sounds a bit like too "easy" explanation. They didn't turn him down in 1981/82 when he was on drugs. He seems to have had always a problem in respect to that - but I think for an old hack like him, being drunk or whatever and playing great rock and roll guitar are not things one cannot go hand in hand. I don't quite believe that he is not able to play in his own standard even under influence. Ronnie's worst tour - NO SECURITY TOUR - co-incidented with Keith's most profilic performances in modern age. Was Keith forced to "covering Ronnie's ass` because Ronnie was so out of it? Or was it that since Keith decided to take so huge role there was no role for Ronnie on the stage actually?

Funny that since the re-union, it sounds like there is no single tour, or even a single gig, when both guitarists were on fire, and not 'needing to cover other's back'. Rather than saying that 'funnily' it always happens that the other guitarist is in trouble somehow, it sounds more like that there is room only to one profilic guitarist at the time.. For me it looks like that since 1989 Ronnie Wood has needed to cope with the condition and ego of Keith Richards to 'know' his suitable role. Sometimes is smaller, sometimes bigger. Surely there have been substance problems but I think Keith's ego has been actully more efficient reason to turn Ronnie down. There is no room for 'ancient art of weaving' to lead the ship any longer and The 'Vegas' Stones concept allows only Keith Richards-type of profilic guitarist at the time.

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-15 16:31 by Doxa.

After reading the thread about similarities and the post about God gave me everything - Gimme shelter I watched that part in Being Mick. My thought is this: Mick left Keith after the 1982 tour. Maybe he gave it one last shot after the fights during ER-recordings, he had to be Mick Jagger of the Rolling Stones, then he tried to go solo and that failed. After 1989 I dont think Mick sees himself as a Rolling Stone at all and I'm sure he's just interested in Being Mick. What fans get today is a perfect product no more no less. He's not just a business man but he wants to see himself as one. He has nothing in common at all with the band he once cofounded. A bit harsh yes, but I believe that is his only way to handle Keith, the band, their history, the touring.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
treaclefingers
While I like the analysis, basically you're saying Mick isn't that good a singer, and he needs help from the rest of the band to sound good.

If that is in fact the analysis, he's bloody lucky to even have a job as a singer!

Well, I think one of the 'secrets' of The Rolling Stones is that none of the original core of the band - Mick, Keith, Bill & Charlie - are any technically superior musicians in their posts but the way they work together makes them together unique and superior to anyone. For each of them it is the specific context, and their 'chemistry' with the others, that is more than important. Besides, despite their idionsycratic touch, all of them are quite limited with their musical scope. Both Mick and Keith are quite famous for not staying in tune, like the whole band of its out of synch, sloppiness, etc. It is part of their natural charm, I think. It is against this background I think we need to read Jagger's remark of how much Taylor - who was a pro musician in every sense of the word - helped him as a singer. (To an extent I also rate Brian Jones to different class of musicianship than the rest. Ronnie not, who - not perhaps a good thing - is a real Rolling Stone in that sense.)

It seems to me that since early 80's Jagger - at least partly - hates this particular (but fascinating feature I think) of them, and tries to get rid of it. It has to do with Mick's professionalism and perfectionism. But still today (88->), I find Mick struggling with his vocals. He technically might stay in tune but one can hear the tricks (for eaxmple, over-use of nasal and other mannerisms) and vocal trainings with which he is able to do that. But the cost is the loss of his natural expressive power he - in or out of tune - used to have. Not very impressive or touchy. Sometimes he just ends up miming singing, almost like doing cheap karaoke.

Mick has an unique wonderful sounding instrument - his voice - the color of his voice the best in the rock and roll business as far a as I am concerned - but simply as a singer he is technically rather limited. He would never win American Idol, if you know what I mean. Thanks god for that - but I am afraid Mick himself might think otherwise...

- Doxa

I mostly agree, especially your assertion that the chemistry is far more important than the individual performances. Individually, as musicians they are probably more 'average' than their contemporaries.
Most singers, especially rock singers start losing the voice as they age.

Mick may be 'trying' to be perfect, but I think as well, that after about the mid-70s Mick's voice just started deterioriating, and he is trying hard to compensate for that. There is a difference in the voice now, much different, from the lows of the 1981-82 tour. Mostly, I think he does a good job, but it often shows through the nasally/mannered sound.

Quote
Doxa
P.S. If the Stones would continued the habit of picking up a 'right' guitarist in trying to cope with the trends and demands of the time - Brian was perfect for the 'Swingin' sixties' era, Taylor for the 'classic rock' era, Ronnie for 'punk era' - they instead of giving up the guitarist department, they should have picked up someone like Joe Satriani or Slash in 1989...

I shudder to think what a soulless shredder like Satriani would have done to the Stones' sound.

This is a very interesting theory. I just don't completely agree that Keith COMPLETELY gave up control of the band's sound. I do think he got much more support around him though. And I don't COMPLETELY agree that Ronnie Wood has musically been a bum since 1982. I think opinions are a bit biased by what the Stones have sounded like during the last decade. Over the last decade I do think Keith has given up control of the band's sound and I do think Ronnie's playing has gone way down hill.

But I want to stress how different the band was in the 1990's, compared to the past decade. I can put on a Voodoo Lounge show and enjoy it as much as just about any Stones era. I watch and enjoy all of the Stones tours from the 70's through the 90's, but I was recently watching on bootleg DVD Voodoo Haloween and the Stripped DVD. I kept saying to myself two things about the guitars:

1. Man, this is still Keith's show and its awsome that way. Keith still has it. (I don't think either of those things when I see "recent" Stones shows.)

2. Ronnie is playing soooo much better than now. He's a real asset.

Yes there was more supporting musicians, but the guitars were way better than now and still up front. Some other thoughts were that Charlie pyhsically looked like a real horse in 1994- strong, really enjoying himself and into it, much younger... I loved it. I also liked that Mick's moves looked much more natural and from the heart and less premeditated. Mick seemed so much younger and looked like he was having fun.

But the main point here is the about guitars. I can agree about Mick wanting things being a little less ragged to support his singing. But when I watch the Stones in the 1990's, especially VL, I still see it being Keith's show musically (yes with more around him) and I still see Ronnie as a very good guitarist (with their chemistry taking them to the great level).

"You'll be studying history and you'll be down the gym. And I'll be down the pub, probably playing pool and drinking."

I'm really not sure about Mick being able lay down conditions to Keith. Although its true he could try to manipulate Keiths strong desire to play and tour, it seems Keith would have easily countered that with Jaggers desire to be a mega-star and failure to do that without Keith.

Jagger and Richards are sentenced to each other.

Quote
stones78

Quote
Doxa
P.S. If the Stones would continued the habit of picking up a 'right' guitarist in trying to cope with the trends and demands of the time - Brian was perfect for the 'Swingin' sixties' era, Taylor for the 'classic rock' era, Ronnie for 'punk era' - they instead of giving up the guitarist department, they should have picked up someone like Joe Satriani or Slash in 1989...

I shudder to think what a soulless shredder like Satriani would have done to the Stones' sound.

Well, me too! - but then, if the other option is Clifford/Leavell-attack, I don't know...

Seriously, I don't think they really consider changing the personnal because the time to really "join in" was already passed by then, and the part of the nostalgy thing is try somehow keep the old package together. The Wyman/D. Jones case showed that it is not possible imagewise to fit to the band any longer. Theoretically, they could have done in 1989 like 20 years earlier when they made their first come back with a new guitar ace. But unlike in 1969, in 1989 The Stones were not a forward-looking band trying to evolve and follow the trends but an act trying to sell a compact easy-listenable package based on people's memory and ideas what the Stones used to be. Maybe Jagger calculated something to effect: "well, I'm stick to these guys, since the people want The Rolling Stones, not only Mick Jagger. Okay, be so, but let us make sure that I don't need to rely any longer musically to these guys".

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-15 21:10 by Doxa.

Quote
doubledoor
I'm really not sure about Mick being able lay down conditions to Keith. Although its true he could try to manipulate Keiths strong desire to play and tour, it seems Keith would have easily countered that with Jaggers desire to be a mega-star and failure to do that without Keith.

I'm wih you. Like I wrote in my reply to Mathijs, I used to think that the case was like Mick giving the ultimatum and telling the conditions, and Keith in order to "be still in the band", or to "save the Rolling Stones" agreed and almost tears in his eyes gave up all his demands and command to the band. Now I tend to think - LIFE very much confirming - that the Vegas Stones is more or less their mutual brainchild. They both were in 1988 - for different reasons - ready to make such a "cold war" deal that satisfied their both needs and ego. I think Keith has lost his muse and drive by then, and him quite willingly took the bite and the money to just enjoy 'being Keith Richards' and freeride with the Jagger/Leavell-lead band. Keith got his spot and all that, plus incredible sum of money, and that was it. It could be even the case that Keith actually likes the nature of the post-89 band that is not relying so much on his shoulders (it also can be that once the responsibilities are taken off, one gets lazy quite easily, unless one has a vision and conviction what to do and how - like I think Keith had from 1965 to 1988 or so.) The post-89 smiling, posing Keith seems to be enjoying very much being the 'star' or 'front man'.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-15 21:39 by Doxa.

Quote
Redhotcarpet
After reading the thread about similarities and the post about God gave me everything - Gimme shelter I watched that part in Being Mick. My thought is this: Mick left Keith after the 1982 tour. Maybe he gave it one last shot after the fights during ER-recordings, he had to be Mick Jagger of the Rolling Stones, then he tried to go solo and that failed. After 1989 I dont think Mick sees himself as a Rolling Stone at all and I'm sure he's just interested in Being Mick. What fans get today is a perfect product no more no less. He's not just a business man but he wants to see himself as one. He has nothing in common at all with the band he once cofounded. A bit harsh yes, but I believe that is his only way to handle Keith, the band, their history, the touring.

I read your message two times to really get it, and now I can say that you are spot on. Since the early 80's I don't think Mick really sees himself as "band member" or a "Rolling Stone". That's past for him. Since that - precisely 1989 - The Rolling Stones has been a safe and sure product he is able to sell to millions when he feels like to. He then asks the other share holders together - the guys that used to be his band members and who we fans romantically like to think as a some kind musical unit, a "band" that still "exists" - and says what kind of plans he has. If the others say 'yes', there will be another tour, probably record (because that is sometimes a part of "perfect product") or something like that. Take two or three years, and all the share holders will be millions of dollars richer.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-15 22:09 by Doxa.

Quote
kleermaker
Jagger and Richards are sentenced to each other.

Absolutely true. They are both capable of doing some good stuff individually. But only when they are together is when the magic starts.

-------------------
Keep On Rolling

<They didn't turn him down in 1981/82 when he was on drugs.>

On that tour he played brilliantly. There was simply no need to turn him down. Although some of the 10 first shows were average at best, it never was Ronnie´s fault.

In the 90s, he was way more unstable, and Jagger never knew what kind of stunts he´d pull. You´ll find out pretty quick during a tour if you can trust a fellow band member or not.

Btw, one of the "highlights" I witnessed myself was in Stockholm in 2003, when Ronnie took the mike and started ranting about traffic and appeared very drunk. His guitar playing was almost inaudible for most of the show.