<Ronnie's worst tour - NO SECURITY TOUR - co-incidented with Keith's most profilic performances in modern age.>

Imo, Keith did a good 1997 tour. When it came to 1999, he overplayed and ruined songs. Maybe because he felt he had to take over the lead guitar role, I dunno.

I find it painful to listen to Shepherd´s Bush and the american NS.shows. Keith simply seemed to forget his force, to leave space where needed - his timing.

Imo, Keith reached his peak in 1989/90 as a lead guitarist.

Quote
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
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

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
Rolling Hansie

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.

Certainly true. But I meant that they are sentenced to each other no matter what. That doesn't mean that it always delivers something magical. That actually has been a Long Long While.

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
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
71Tele

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?

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
treaclefingers

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.

Agreed, IF(!) by mid 70s, one means AFTER 1978, as 1978 was a true highlight vocally, for Mick. The stamina was still there. Live Aid 1985, proved he was still capable of being at his best, although only for 20 minutes, and certainly not for a whole tour of full sets. 1981/82 points in that direction.

That said and all, I agree with some of Doxa's points. I always had the impression Jagger thought 1981-82 was too messy a tour, musically. As the other members of the band's (musical) conditions didn't generally improve during the decade (say, Jagger not wanting to tour in the mid 80s), I was always under the impression Jagger wanted a much more reliable, professional (or if you want, un-Stonsey) outing if he would agree to tour again. (I guess money talks as well though..)
But, in my opinion, that was alright and even refreshing, for the Steel Wheels tour, as it was something they hadn't done before (and imo the better of all tours since, particularly vocalwise). Repeating it in lower standards ever since, however...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-16 02:15 by Anderson.

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
kleermaker

Quote
71Tele

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?

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.

Yeah, exactly - that is the way I have always interpreted Mick's words. The studio is totally different world - there one has the time and luxury to concentrate to one song solely at the time without performance demands, and possibility to try as many times as one needs to get the right take. But play 15 to 25 songs in sequence, while doing your best to make the audience excited by your frontmanship, well - that is another thing... If one listen Taylor's work during his era, I think it is not exactly giving an accurate melody line to support but some kind of glues to Jagger into which to reach or to do his thing. With his "all over place" way of playing - that is sometimes 'noodling' to some ears (especially by '73) - he gives right notes and sometimes a kind of 'note webs' (don't have a better word) or counter-melodies which are easy to follow by a singer.

When I was looking for an example from youtube, I find this - it wasn't exactly what I had in my mind but perhaps it is exactly what it is all about. The importance of Taylor's guitar is that there is another melodic instrument in the air like pushing the song melodically further - Jagger is not alone. It is fascinating how much Taylor communicates with both Keith and Mick with his guitar - and sometimes it feels that Keith is left alone with his rhythm work in keeping the track in track (with Bill and Charlie), while the two Micks are communicating - almost 'weaving' - together and doing whatever they feel like on the foundation provided by him (and Bill and Charlie):





- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-16 13:18 by Doxa.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
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.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-16 13:20 by Amsterdamned.

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.

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-16 13:26 by Doxa.

-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-16 14:11 by Doxa.

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.

A very complex situation indeed. Great you have also noted the very important factor that sometimes feels like being a blind spot for Rolling Stones fans: the rise of "Keith's ego and celebrity" during the 80's. We all see the 'trouble' with Mick during the 80's - we already saw that during the time, didn't we? - but 'cool' Keith has been a kind of untouchable in that sense. But the reality is that the Keith Richards that hit the 80's, and the one who came out of it, were surprisinly different characters. My interpretation at the moment is that the fame and recognition Keith got then, especially during the early 80's, went to his head. Keith's own unbearable and seemingly childish behavior 1979-82 period in trying to "take back" his share of the leadership, was I believe one of those things that caused Mick to feel unhappy within the Stones any longer. But ironically, by the end of the 80's, like ever since, it looked like that in the eyes of the big public (potential Stones fans), Keith is at least as leading figure (imagewise) of The Stones as Jagger is. This is a fact that I think gives Keith a great advantage in their 'business meetings', and a nasty piece of reality with which Jagger needs to cope with. To be THE Mick Jagger, the hailed superstar and to make fortunes, he is dependent on Keith.

Your points about Satriani, Mick needing such a player, and Keith finding a new lead role within the Stones, go hand in hand with the observations of mine.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-16 14:12 by Doxa.

Thanks tele, kleermaker and doxa. I think I understandbthe point you're making better now.

Doxa wrote:

When I was looking for an example from youtube, I find this - it wasn't exactly what I had in my mind but perhaps it is exactly what it is all about. The importance of Taylor's guitar is that there is another melodic instrument in the air like pushing the song melodically further - Jagger is not alone. It is fascinating how much Taylor communicates with both Keith and Mick with his guitar - and sometimes it feels that Keith is left alone with his rhythm work in keeping the track in track (with Bill and Charlie), while the two Micks are communicating - almost 'weaving' - together and doing whatever they feel like on the foundation provided by him (and Bill and Charlie):




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.

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-16 16:20 by mickjagger1009.

You bring up a good point about Taylor's melodic role in the band. I believe they attempted to address that absence in 1981 and 1982 with Ernie Watts and Gene Barge. Their saxophone, which is such a standout of those tours, has a much greater role in song arrangements than what Bobby would play for instance.

The same could be said of Sonny Rollins' playing on "Watiing on a Friend." Unlike his work on "Neighbours" and "Slave" (which are more traditional sax breaks), "Waiting on a Friend" features Rollins in the melody role that would have been Taylor's guitar had the song been finished during the GOATS HEAD SOUP sessions.

Perhaps that was the same factor that led Jagger to invite him back for "Plundered My Soul." If so, it's a pity he treated him as a sideman rather than a (former) band member in the credits.

Likewise, I felt Keith misused Taylor on "I Could Have Stood You Up." When I first read previews of TALK IS CHEAP I expected the Berrylike "I Could Have Stood You Up" to feature the same great interplay as "Little Queenie" on YA-YA'S or "Bye-Bye, Johnny" on LADIES & GENTLEMEN. Instead, there was no reason the short break wasn't Waddy as there was no use of Taylor's skills whatsoever. Nice as it was that Taylor played on the album (and that Keith and Steve Jordan financed a demo session for Taylor with Virgin Records at the same time), the end result is a missed opportunity.

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.

Thanks for your contribution! I maybe expressed myself oddly but the point of my talk of "foundation" was exactly the one you said: that Keith with Bill and Charlie - that's the rhythm section of teh band - ""three instruments and one brain": exactly!

And your point about the significance of the structure over-all to Jagger is simply excellent. Keith concentration on providing the songs a solid rhythm foundation, and thereby keeping the songs in shape, assured Mick's job as well. That gives another very good reason why Jagger supposedly is not a big friend of the whole idea of 'ancient art of weaving' (which was as was the central claim of my original thread). One could even speculate if Jagger's decision to pick up the the guitar in 1978 had something to do with thinking like "someone needs to play some solid rhythm guitar here...

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-16 17:27 by Doxa.

Let's not forget that Keith also played melodic guitar parts during the Taylor years on stage when Taylor took the lead and/or solos, and even important parts (Gimme Shelter, YCAGWYW, LIV come to mind) that blended very well with Taylor. So Keith wasn't only important to the rhythm section but also to the melodic section so to speak and musically there was a very interesting trio to be heard: Keith and Taylor: the interplay and the contrast, Jagger and Taylor providing the main part of the melodic lines and the interaction between Mick and Keith. Both Keith and Taylor provided their part of the structure, very different parts indeed but they delivered musical tension without conflicting. There was a lot going on on stage in those years.

Some nice, spontaneous interaction between Keith and Taylor (sorry Doxa, a bit off topic):

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

Doxa, what i really mean to say, and i pretty much agree with everything you say too, is that the Stones primary 'raw' rock 'n' roll sound is pretty much best demonstrated by a group that is in the prime of their youth. Much more than many of the Stones musical contempories, the Stones raunchiness, and the swagger and brilliance inherent within the sexy and raw funkiness of their rock 'n' roll vitality owes an awful lot to being young and virile. Groups like the Beatles and the Kinks come at their musical foundations from a completely different angle fundamentally, where song construction is pretty much the key, and the musical elements to the songs are used to best compliment the songs original vision. The Stones, though, tend to work more on a mood, a spontaneous feel, or just plain intuition, which in their prime had a great deal to do with the natural exuberance of their youth. Somehow those early concerts worked so well simply because the Stones could coast pretty much on the raw energy associated with being young. Listening to an album such as 'Got Live If You Want it!', the songs in a live setting works so incredibly well, not necessarily because of meticulous arrangements within the various songs live constructions, but through an adrenaline rush, a raw energy, so to speak, which is best associated with that of being youthful. Take the raw energy, and fire out of the equation, and you're pretty much left with where the Stones stand today. They daren't be spontaneous like they could afford to be in the early days, because they just don't possess the youthful energy to see it through. But of course that was always chiefly the Stones selling point in their prime, and it was also what separated them from many of their contempories. Post 1981, they have morphed into something very different. The 78 tour was the last time they could truly do it convincingly.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-16 21:53 by Edward Twining.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
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.

That amazes me, since Keith spent a lot of time in the 70s developing his lead chops. He did some good solos in 69, but lots of solos were very shaky.

By 1981 he was a confident lead guitarist, playing lots of different styles (single string-things, spanish licks + the Berry stuff). Always with his own expression of course.

Compare the solo on Let Me Go on Still Life to the (though brilliant, but not fluent) solo on SFTD on Ya Yas, and you get my view on it.

In 1989 (live), he played faster, meaner and more fluent than ever. It seemed like the Music Man suited him perfectly. After that he lost his sense of timing, imo. By 1999 he was overplaying - placing his licks at the wrong places, imo.

Quote
Amsterdamned

Quote
71Tele

Quote
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.

You are a funny guy!

I would like to see you try making a trustworthy musical argument on the re-inventing Keith's solos in 1999, Amsterdamned Listen to Some Girls from Shepherd's Bush and give me your analysis.

Then listen to Let Me Go from Still Life. After that you may put on his fluent 1969 solos.

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?

<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?>

I agree with that. Yet, you get a feel for a tour, attending shows and by listening to numerous boots.

There is no doubt in my mind Ronnie Wood's trouble increased during the 90s and early 2000s. He did actually confirm that 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?

Good to have critical points. I juts make few comments.

1. I'm more with you than with Rocky Dijon with this one. I can't see Mick really saying for Ronnie or Keith to how to play - he knows how they are like - but he can control what kind of role the guitars have in 'his' band. I think Mick and Keith made together the deal of how the 'orchestration' over-all goes, including the heavy role of side musicians, and I think Keith was very active in taking the 'guitar hero' role he took in 1989, They just turned Ron's role and guitar down, and I don't think Ronnie had any say to that. When Keith decided to take the main and lead guitar job, all Ronnie was to do was to cope with the idea.

2. True. But I would also say that the persons themselves are not always so awere of their own motivations or of the 'reasons' or 'causes' to their actions. I think a lot of Stones activities are done by instinct and "see what happens" mentality. I can't really say what I did 20 years ago that I was 100% awere of my own motivations and agendas then. It could be that some of them were a kind of blind spots for me. But now in retrospect I can describe and explain some some of my actions because now I am not so subjective any longer. Now, some of my then irrational sounding actions might have even have a sense, since I know now more than I did then, and I can explain my actions better. Sometimes even some other person can explain my actions better - see through me - than I do or did. This idea can be applied to other other persons as well.

I continue later...

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-17 13:15 by Doxa.