For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Imo, Keith reached his peak in 1989/90 as a lead guitarist.
Quote
Doxa
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
Quote
Rolling HansieQuote
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.
Quote
texas fan
Doxa, an interesting notion, but...I don't really recall Mick's comments, and I can't recall many numbers where Taylor provided melodic support througout significant portions of a song. I don't disagree that it happened, but I'd say I more often hear Mick using Keith's part as the foundation for the melody.
Can someone clarify, or give me some examples of Taylor influencing (or supporting in some unique way) the melody?
Quote
71TeleQuote
texas fan
Doxa, an interesting notion, but...I don't really recall Mick's comments, and I can't recall many numbers where Taylor provided melodic support througout significant portions of a song. I don't disagree that it happened, but I'd say I more often hear Mick using Keith's part as the foundation for the melody.
Can someone clarify, or give me some examples of Taylor influencing (or supporting in some unique way) the melody?
Time Waits For No One, Winter, Moonlight Mile and Sway come to mind...
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
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
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
kleermakerQuote
71TeleQuote
texas fan
Doxa, an interesting notion, but...I don't really recall Mick's comments, and I can't recall many numbers where Taylor provided melodic support througout significant portions of a song. I don't disagree that it happened, but I'd say I more often hear Mick using Keith's part as the foundation for the melody.
Can someone clarify, or give me some examples of Taylor influencing (or supporting in some unique way) the melody?
Time Waits For No One, Winter, Moonlight Mile and Sway come to mind...
I think it concerns especially live performances. Singing in the studio has never been a big problem for Jagger. But the circumstances of a live performance are totally different.
Quote
71TeleQuote
DandelionPowderman
Imo, Keith reached his peak in 1989/90 as a lead guitarist.
Really? I think it was 1969. He has not played lead guitar as fluidly since then.
Quote
Edward Twining
I think you are right, Doxa. It is pretty much all about the money. However, i sometimes believe you read too much into things. By the turn of the eighties, the Stones by and large still had their talent/ability intact, but their hunger to a large degree, was no longer there. Creativity was significantly lacking, and when the Stones were being ingenious in terms of trying something different, they were very much hanging onto the coat tails of a more contemporary genre, or a fad, that was a generation or two, younger than themselves. They were very much a group out of time from their original, and possibly, their most genuine primary influences. The eighties marked such an enormous shifting of musical, and also, corporate favourings, on such an enormous and fundamental musical scale, which to a point the Stones really felt they needed to adhere to, just be in with a shout of being able to continue being successful (live especially), in at least the terms set by their musical rivals. Creativity was pretty much stunted purely because after such a significant length of time, their hunger was no longer there in the same way. Somewhere along the line during the eighties, the Stones decided to adopt most fully the corporate aspects of contemporary musical commerciality, just as a way of feeling they were not being left behind. Conservatism became the Stones key element, in them managing to hold onto at least a not inconsiderable profile. The Stones do not live in a bubble. Those earlier Stones concerts, the rawness, the spontaneity, and the excitement, are elements that you will have difficulty finding within any musical styling these days, not just within the Stones more recent performances. They very much were of their time.
Quote
Rocky Dijon
A very complex situation. Some factors to consider is that Keith's ego and celebrity grew dramatically during the eighties. At the time of the reunion had Jagger floated bringing in a new lead guitarist, there's no way Keith would have gone for it. The precedent had been set earlier as Keith attempts unconventional (for him) lead guitar role on tracks like "Winning Ugly" and several songs on STEEL WHEELS (particularly "Can't Be Seen"). It doesn't suit him, but we've seen variations on it ever since (any live version of "Sympathy For the Devil" since 1989 or the dreadful solo on "Happy" during AT THE MAX).
For all of the focus on Satriani for Jagger's solo tour, one should note he wasn't playing Keith's part at all. Jimmy Rip is the guy who nailed down the rhythm onstage, worked out the musical arranagements during rehearsals (same ones the Stones have used ever since - compare the 1988 rehearsal of "Can't You Hear Me Knocking?" with Rip and Satriani to the one on the LICKS tour). Satriani was a concession to the Eddie Van Halen, Steve Vai 80's rock god movement. One could speculate it revealed Jagger longing for Taylor again, but I see it more as Jagger keeping current and the role he started pushing Keith into starting with "Winning Ugly." Contrary to popular belief, they did communicate during the Paris sessions for DIRTY WORK. The breakdown seemed to have happened in New York (post-Live Aid).
As for Taylor's inclusion in laying lead guitar down on "Plundered My Soul" a year ago, as much as one would like to believe Jagger missed him and wants him back, bear in mind that his name appeared last in the song credits even after people like Nicky Hopkins. He was hardly afforded respect as a band member. Jagger did the same thing to Wyman in the seventies and eighties listing him after Charlie and Ronnie repeatedly in credits. While I loved Taylor's playing on "Plundered My Soul" and Jagger may have wanted to recapture the sound and been dissatisfied with what he or Keith had done, he certainly wasn't testing the waters for a reunion. It was a session gig and Keith's ignorance of it is hardly surprising as only Matt Clifford or Don Was seem in the loop to what Jagger gets up to in these Pro Tools days. Keith, Charlie, and certainly Ronnie are on a Need-To-Know basis only. Do I think there were words between the Glimmers over that incident? Definitely, but I doubt Mick cares that Keith was pissed. Pissing one another off is really what they do best.
Quote
mickjagger1009
The foundation that Taylor gave Jagger was two-fold. Yes, obviously there was Taylor's guitar playing. But it did very much change how Keith played. Much of the time Taylor was there, Keith would just be locked into hammering out his rhythm. Even further, he would be locked into playing with Charlie and Bill. You just mentioned the foundation provided by Bill and Charlie. I'd say its the foundation laid by Keith, Bill, and Charlie. Its like three intruments and one brain. Its amazing what those three could do together (and that stands out to me again on Plundered My Soul). Those THREE provided a foundation for both Taylor and Jagger.
So going back to the original idea of the post here, it might have been easier for Jagger to perform with Taylor. But maybe having Taylor, and his influence on everyone's roles and the structure of the band, made it easier for Jagger to perform with Keith! It wasn't just Taylor's playing alone that helped Jagger. Its was also how he created more structure in the entire band that helped Jagger.
Quote
Doxa
Spot on. Every word. I don't know which way I "read too much into things" because I don't find anything in this great post that contradicts anything I have said - it just richens the horizont to the phenomenon we have discussed.
- Doxa
Quote
71TeleQuote
DandelionPowderman
Imo, Keith reached his peak in 1989/90 as a lead guitarist.
Really? I think it was 1969. He has not played lead guitar as fluidly since then.
Quote
AmsterdamnedQuote
71TeleQuote
DandelionPowderman
Imo, Keith reached his peak in 1989/90 as a lead guitarist.
Really? I think it was 1969. He has not played lead guitar as fluidly since then.
Agreed, '69. And that includes his Ampeg sound (which imo was the best amp for Stones purposes (on stage),certainly Keith and Bill.
It's difficult to judge when a self made man is at his best though. Keith overplaying? (DP) That can only imply trying to re-invent himself.
Quote
lem motlow
1. mick would never tell keith and ronnie how they should play,he's smart enough to know how good they are and lets them handle things.
2.its extremely presumptuous to think you know what motivates a person you've never met .people are complicated,jagger may love doing a live gig one day because it reminds him of his youth,another because of the money,another because he loves performing.some days he probably hates being a stone,other days he probably thinks "man,i'm in the best rock band ever"i'm sure its the same for the other guys.
3.the horns and singers were needed to fill out the sound for the big rooms,simple as that.i noticed it on the 81 tour.the rolling stones didnt have that big,heavy in your face thing like the who or zep that worked in a stadium. next time out they took an approach more like the floyd,many musicians onstage and alot of props.
4.the modern stones had to be more of a machine.even those of us,myself included,who pine away for the fast and loose times would have a fit nowdays if we caught the band on an off night doing one of those "seat of your pants" tours.i remember those days,believe me-picture the worst bunch of drunks,high out of their minds playing stones songs-but it actually is the stones.they nailed it 90% of the time but if you caught the off night....
5.internet cliche # 1002- he [fill in the blank] was terrible on THAT TOUR.please stop-nobody is bad,good,great or mediocre for an entire tour.its lazy thinking.i saw 2 shows on the no security tour and ron wood KILLED at both of them.each show is different,the crowd,how the band is feeling,the acoustics in the venue.can we get a little deeper than repeating these same lines over and over?