For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
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...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
Quote
diego
Could Keith turn into the weak figure in the band?
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
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.
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.
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...
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!
Quote
His MajestyQuote
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
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.
Quote
DoxaQuote
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
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...
Quote
stones78Quote
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.
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.
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.
Quote
kleermaker
Jagger and Richards are sentenced to each other.