For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
mtaylorQuote
DandelionPowdermanGo to a consert with Buddy Guy - he doesn't play all the time. He plays here and there, has younger guys to play with him and do the big job. Of course, when he is on, he plays and sings very good - but he takes his breaks during the show. Other older blues players do the same. If Stones played smaller venues, that could be a solution - f.x. using Waddy Wachtel as carrying the music together with Ronnie. I dont mention Mick T, 'cause i don't think his health can take longer tours (based on the last few years).Quote
StonesTod
He rests, skips strokes and poses.
Still, he has his good moments. The rhythm playing on Shattered on SAL, a few bars on Imagination (SAL) and some of the Berry-licks on She Was Hot show that he still can pull it off.
I've seen Buddy many times, and as good as he is - I don't find him very interesting nowadays.
The difference between him and Keith, though - is that Keith takes his breaks while playing. It's another matter stopping playing (like BB King), and then torching the house again when you've got the energy back. Keith is resting on the notes (especially that one note that is always the wrong one) nowadays.
Take the SFTD-version in SAL. The notes he is ending on. That comes across as weird to me.
Quote
mtaylor
This is how 'Watching The River Flow' was done.
The Stones did get together in the studio to make the track however, with each laying down their parts in separate studios around the world.
A source explained: "Charlie and Ronnie were already playing on the album and then Keith recorded his parts in New York, including 'Watching The River Flow'.
"This was emailed back to Mick in France and he sent it back with a vocal and harmonica track. Bill also put the bassline on."
So much for Stones recording a new track "together".
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
mtaylor
This is how 'Watching The River Flow' was done.
The Stones did get together in the studio to make the track however, with each laying down their parts in separate studios around the world.
A source explained: "Charlie and Ronnie were already playing on the album and then Keith recorded his parts in New York, including 'Watching The River Flow'.
"This was emailed back to Mick in France and he sent it back with a vocal and harmonica track. Bill also put the bassline on."
So much for Stones recording a new track "together".
Just as "live" as they did it in the 80s...
Quote
mtaylorQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
mtaylor
This is how 'Watching The River Flow' was done.
The Stones did get together in the studio to make the track however, with each laying down their parts in separate studios around the world.
A source explained: "Charlie and Ronnie were already playing on the album and then Keith recorded his parts in New York, including 'Watching The River Flow'.
"This was emailed back to Mick in France and he sent it back with a vocal and harmonica track. Bill also put the bassline on."
So much for Stones recording a new track "together".
Just as "live" as they did it in the 80s...
ABB wasn't done by e-mail )
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
StonesTodQuote
71Tele
What is most troubling to me is that at times it seems like Keith cannot put together a coherent solo. This is beyond physical ability. He was never the fastest player (that's not why we liked him) but his sense of timing was always spot-on. To see that go and to see him meandering so much is painful to watch (or listen to).
truth be told, soloing was never a strength of his. the problem is that with his phyiscal limitations that preclude his use of power-chording, which was his forte, his noodling or soloing deficiencies are further exposed.
Soloing WAS one of his strenghts. For the reasons 71Tele mentioned. His sense of timing, the stuff he played that suited the songs so well, his nerve to paint simplistic soundscapes in the songs he wrote.
Quote
StonesTodQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
StonesTodQuote
71Tele
What is most troubling to me is that at times it seems like Keith cannot put together a coherent solo. This is beyond physical ability. He was never the fastest player (that's not why we liked him) but his sense of timing was always spot-on. To see that go and to see him meandering so much is painful to watch (or listen to).
truth be told, soloing was never a strength of his. the problem is that with his phyiscal limitations that preclude his use of power-chording, which was his forte, his noodling or soloing deficiencies are further exposed.
Soloing WAS one of his strenghts. For the reasons 71Tele mentioned. His sense of timing, the stuff he played that suited the songs so well, his nerve to paint simplistic soundscapes in the songs he wrote.
i realize it's a point of nuance to some - but i've never thought of keith (or ron, for that matter) as a soloist, in the classic sense. a soloist "tells a story" with his solo - ron and keith play both rhythm and lead, but neither is a soloist in that sense i describe. taylor was the only true guitar soloist the stones have ever had. that's what makes the comparisons with ron so ridiclous and pointless, because they come from very different schools of playing.
Quote
StonesTodQuote
mtaylorQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
mtaylor
This is how 'Watching The River Flow' was done.
The Stones did get together in the studio to make the track however, with each laying down their parts in separate studios around the world.
A source explained: "Charlie and Ronnie were already playing on the album and then Keith recorded his parts in New York, including 'Watching The River Flow'.
"This was emailed back to Mick in France and he sent it back with a vocal and harmonica track. Bill also put the bassline on."
So much for Stones recording a new track "together".
Just as "live" as they did it in the 80s...
ABB wasn't done by e-mail )
was it done by smoke signals?
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Of course I get your point, Tod. Keep in mind that good players, as good writers, tell their stories with a minimum amount of notes or words...
Quote
jamesfdouglas
For me it's like this. Yes they're getting older, and yes they're slowing down, skills are leaving them. That's fine, that's natural, of course.
What is not decreasing though are the ticket prices. Can you imagine what they're going to cost this time around? I will not pay my hard-earned money through the nose to wince at musical trianwrecks from heroes I've seen since they were babies only in their mid-forties.... just because they're The Rolling Stones. I have more respect for my own memories of them than that.
It'll be their first tour since the 2008 recession. Good luck.
Quote
skipstoneQuote
jamesfdouglas
For me it's like this. Yes they're getting older, and yes they're slowing down, skills are leaving them. That's fine, that's natural, of course.
What is not decreasing though are the ticket prices. Can you imagine what they're going to cost this time around? I will not pay my hard-earned money through the nose to wince at musical trianwrecks from heroes I've seen since they were babies only in their mid-forties.... just because they're The Rolling Stones. I have more respect for my own memories of them than that.
It'll be their first tour since the 2008 recession. Good luck.
Spot on. IF they tour, of course. Certainly not "a done deal" and so on, all that prattle that keeps repeating itself year after year incorrectly.
A big issue with Keith's decline is an incline in prices. With that come expectations. Rightfully so. After all, if one charges more money and the fans pay more money, shouldn't the quality increase as well? Seems like it should. And not with fireworks in 3D either. For the die hard fan, are there expectations? Only if they are a blind (deaf) die hard fan. I would tend to think that a serious die hard fan would be in a place to recognise that, overall, the Stones are not as good live as they used to be. Even on their best/great/hot nights. They might do a song or two really great but overall is the issue.
Beyond that being an obvious fact of getting older - and now quite older than when they were considered old, in 1981 - and with the various damage that has happened, it might be safe to say they would be better than they are now with the damage. But not enough possibly in a moving way.
So for people who love 'em no matter what and think it's all great - their reality is that they don't hear the horrible solos and the awful singing and whatever, because they are fantatically deaf to all of that. REALITY, on the other hand, is that there is something amiss. The Stones have gone over that line of quality equals price. In the ear of the listener? It's quite obvious something is wrong when someone hears something from Shine A Light and says "What the hell is THAT? That's awful" and they are not a die hard fan, they just happen to hear something that is quite horrendous. There is no denying that. Yet the Stones thought it was good enough to release. Very strange.
Probably the spine of contention with regard to the criticism of Keith Richards and his devolving guitar playing with his "current playing" is that price does not equal quality. And all we have to compare Keith to is the Keith of the past - and it's quite well preserved in various media. And just what problems do the Stones have with releasing great stuff from the past? That they'll look like the Beach Boys? They've already accomplished that.
Then you have the songs. If Sweet Neo Con or Streets Of Love or Rock And A Hard Place or Thru And Thru or Continental Drift or Sparks Will Fly and so on were on Let It Bleed or Exile people would still loathe those songs - they aren't good songs. They just happen to be at the end of the discography and not the part where it suddenly has gone steroidal.
And just what are Keith's current guitar skills? Last we heard was some pretty bad soloing on the Exile Rarities record he did for So Divine, which is pretty close to the SFTD solo he's been strangling for years. It's been less than two years now since that was done. So the only person who would know such a thing is Keith. Perhaps that's partially why nothing has happened. Maybe he's trying to heal. Maybe he's actually done, had enough. Maybe he simply can't play anymore.
Whatever it is, I'm not paying a ton of money to go hear it live - it wouldn't be worth the price of the ticket. That's not hate, that's reality. Based on observation. More listening than looking.
Quote
skipstone
Well, when the rib is made of Keith's SFTD solo it seems to go only go back to 1994 when he started really ffffucking off with it and doing the three note flamming he did yet alone bum notes. Note the Miami PPV show where he slips out of key and nobody noticed.
Quote
AmsterdamnedQuote
DandelionPowderman
Of course I get your point, Tod. Keep in mind that good players, as good writers, tell their stories with a minimum amount of notes or words...
Does that imply that players and writers that use a lot of tones or words are not good?
Quote
Amsterdamned
So in the end it's a matter of taste..
Is your own music floating on youtube or do you have a
link you can mail me ?
Quote
rangerdave
Hey guys, I never posted anything on this site before, and I can pretty much understand EVERYONE'S point of view. It's frustrating to listen to or watch 1972 footage of Keith so in command of the band AND his powers and then to fastforward to the Bigger Bang tour with all the fluffed notes etc..
From my point of view, I'm amazed and thankful that he lived long enough to get arthritis. I have also enjoyed how his songwriting and singing have ummm.. 'evolved' through the years. And i think there was a definite effort back in the 'Stripped' days to steer the band in a more rootsy semi-acoustic direction which ended abruptly when Mick started working with The Dust Brothers in his constant drive to keep the band contemporary.
But there's also a 'musician' thing, in that Keith has always been a player who reacts to what others are playing. If it's 1978, and it's just the five of them with a bit of keyboards here and there, Keith is going to play more than if there's a full horn section, backing vocalists, and other accoutrements filling up the 'canvas' he loves to talk about. Maybe the 'posing' is a result of the frustration of the lack of space in the slick 'Soul Revue'-style backing. Also, as a respectful musician, he allows the singer to dictate the tempos, to the point where 'Tumbling Dice' is played at twice the speed it was in '72. You can see Mick's point too; he must have been tired of the onstage inconsistency that resulted from Keith's (and others') over-indulgence. But as long as Keith can approximate those awesome riffs in some way, I'll be thankful and happy The Stones are still rolling..
Quote
mtaylor
Listen to this and be proud of being a Stones fan - having the best frontman and the rest of the band as well. And despite being older with less ability to play guitar - Keith has had his very good moments - listen to the whole acoustic Strppied part....
Quote
skipstoneQuote
jamesfdouglas
For me it's like this. Yes they're getting older, and yes they're slowing down, skills are leaving them. That's fine, that's natural, of course.
What is not decreasing though are the ticket prices. Can you imagine what they're going to cost this time around? I will not pay my hard-earned money through the nose to wince at musical trianwrecks from heroes I've seen since they were babies only in their mid-forties.... just because they're The Rolling Stones. I have more respect for my own memories of them than that.
It'll be their first tour since the 2008 recession. Good luck.
Spot on. IF they tour, of course. Certainly not "a done deal" and so on, all that prattle that keeps repeating itself year after year incorrectly.
A big issue with Keith's decline is an incline in prices. With that come expectations. Rightfully so. After all, if one charges more money and the fans pay more money, shouldn't the quality increase as well? Seems like it should. And not with fireworks in 3D either. For the die hard fan, are there expectations? Only if they are a blind (deaf) die hard fan. I would tend to think that a serious die hard fan would be in a place to recognise that, overall, the Stones are not as good live as they used to be. Even on their best/great/hot nights. They might do a song or two really great but overall is the issue.
Beyond that being an obvious fact of getting older - and now quite older than when they were considered old, in 1981 - and with the various damage that has happened, it might be safe to say they would be better than they are now with the damage. But not enough possibly in a moving way.
So for people who love 'em no matter what and think it's all great - their reality is that they don't hear the horrible solos and the awful singing and whatever, because they are fantatically deaf to all of that. REALITY, on the other hand, is that there is something amiss. The Stones have gone over that line of quality equals price. In the ear of the listener? It's quite obvious something is wrong when someone hears something from Shine A Light and says "What the hell is THAT? That's awful" and they are not a die hard fan, they just happen to hear something that is quite horrendous. There is no denying that. Yet the Stones thought it was good enough to release. Very strange.
Probably the spine of contention with regard to the criticism of Keith Richards and his devolving guitar playing with his "current playing" is that price does not equal quality. And all we have to compare Keith to is the Keith of the past - and it's quite well preserved in various media. And just what problems do the Stones have with releasing great stuff from the past? That they'll look like the Beach Boys? They've already accomplished that.
Then you have the songs. If Sweet Neo Con or Streets Of Love or Rock And A Hard Place or Thru And Thru or Continental Drift or Sparks Will Fly and so on were on Let It Bleed or Exile people would still loathe those songs - they aren't good songs. They just happen to be at the end of the discography and not the part where it suddenly has gone steroidal.
And just what are Keith's current guitar skills? Last we heard was some pretty bad soloing on the Exile Rarities record he did for So Divine, which is pretty close to the SFTD solo he's been strangling for years. It's been less than two years now since that was done. So the only person who would know such a thing is Keith. Perhaps that's partially why nothing has happened. Maybe he's trying to heal. Maybe he's actually done, had enough. Maybe he simply can't play anymore.
Whatever it is, I'm not paying a ton of money to go hear it live - it wouldn't be worth the price of the ticket. That's not hate, that's reality. Based on observation. More listening than looking.
Quote
GazzaQuote
skipstoneQuote
jamesfdouglas
For me it's like this. Yes they're getting older, and yes they're slowing down, skills are leaving them. That's fine, that's natural, of course.
What is not decreasing though are the ticket prices. Can you imagine what they're going to cost this time around? I will not pay my hard-earned money through the nose to wince at musical trianwrecks from heroes I've seen since they were babies only in their mid-forties.... just because they're The Rolling Stones. I have more respect for my own memories of them than that.
It'll be their first tour since the 2008 recession. Good luck.
Spot on. IF they tour, of course. Certainly not "a done deal" and so on, all that prattle that keeps repeating itself year after year incorrectly.
A big issue with Keith's decline is an incline in prices. With that come expectations. Rightfully so. After all, if one charges more money and the fans pay more money, shouldn't the quality increase as well? Seems like it should. And not with fireworks in 3D either. For the die hard fan, are there expectations? Only if they are a blind (deaf) die hard fan. I would tend to think that a serious die hard fan would be in a place to recognise that, overall, the Stones are not as good live as they used to be. Even on their best/great/hot nights. They might do a song or two really great but overall is the issue.
Beyond that being an obvious fact of getting older - and now quite older than when they were considered old, in 1981 - and with the various damage that has happened, it might be safe to say they would be better than they are now with the damage. But not enough possibly in a moving way.
So for people who love 'em no matter what and think it's all great - their reality is that they don't hear the horrible solos and the awful singing and whatever, because they are fantatically deaf to all of that. REALITY, on the other hand, is that there is something amiss. The Stones have gone over that line of quality equals price. In the ear of the listener? It's quite obvious something is wrong when someone hears something from Shine A Light and says "What the hell is THAT? That's awful" and they are not a die hard fan, they just happen to hear something that is quite horrendous. There is no denying that. Yet the Stones thought it was good enough to release. Very strange.
Probably the spine of contention with regard to the criticism of Keith Richards and his devolving guitar playing with his "current playing" is that price does not equal quality. And all we have to compare Keith to is the Keith of the past - and it's quite well preserved in various media. And just what problems do the Stones have with releasing great stuff from the past? That they'll look like the Beach Boys? They've already accomplished that.
Then you have the songs. If Sweet Neo Con or Streets Of Love or Rock And A Hard Place or Thru And Thru or Continental Drift or Sparks Will Fly and so on were on Let It Bleed or Exile people would still loathe those songs - they aren't good songs. They just happen to be at the end of the discography and not the part where it suddenly has gone steroidal.
And just what are Keith's current guitar skills? Last we heard was some pretty bad soloing on the Exile Rarities record he did for So Divine, which is pretty close to the SFTD solo he's been strangling for years. It's been less than two years now since that was done. So the only person who would know such a thing is Keith. Perhaps that's partially why nothing has happened. Maybe he's trying to heal. Maybe he's actually done, had enough. Maybe he simply can't play anymore.
Whatever it is, I'm not paying a ton of money to go hear it live - it wouldn't be worth the price of the ticket. That's not hate, that's reality. Based on observation. More listening than looking.
Tha above two posts make painful reading in some ways, and its quite obvious that neither of the two posters are making those comments with any sense of 'hate', but instead with regret.
Its an old bugbear of mine, but the ugly issue of ticket prices really is a huge factor. If any artist is going to be arrogant/greedy enough to charge astronomical prices for a ticket, based primarily on WHO they are, then the expectations of the audience SHOULD automatically be higher as a result. They cant have it both ways. And that means that the Stones absolutely HAVE to deliver a brilliant performance every time - ie worthy of comparison to a band in their prime - with no allowances made for shortcomings based on age or physical infirmity. If you're asking people to make large financial sacrifices to see you perform, then you're making a statement that it's going to be worth the money on every level. Every time - because for many people its their only show and they cant be regarded as live rehearsal fodder until the point in the tour when the band finally get the performances up to an acceptable level. Either that or you're simply and deliberately shortchanging them.
There's absolutely no way - except maybe in the ears of the tone deaf cheerleader - that this is the case. And, more importantly, a long period of inactivity at this stage in their lives isn't going to improve the chances of them being able to buck that trend.
Will I even go at all next time? Yes - of course. Despite everything I still enjoy a Stones show very much and still consider them 'my band' as there's always going to be that emotional attachment. Gonna be very choosy and patient about how much I'm willing to pay or how many shows I'm going to see though.
For that to change, something is going to have to give though in terms of the ratio of performance ability vs ticket prices.