Tell Me :
Talk
Just as "live" as they did it in the 80s...
ABB wasn't done by e-mail
)
was it done by smoke signals?
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.
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...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-04-05 00:24 by DandelionPowderman.
No, by fax.
Does that imply that players and writers that use a lot of tones or words are not good?
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.
This pretty much sums it up.
Plenty of us noticed. I just tried to pass it off as him mugging for the cameras and being caught in an area of the stage where he couldn't hear the monitors and couldn't tell that he was in the wrong key because he wasn't looking at the fretboard.
Not necessarily, but in all forms of communication - the clearer you come across with your message - the better you communicate.
Especially in rock'n'roll, when it's really all about the song, the short biting leads may be more suitable and effective than the oposite approach, imo.
Always is
Check your email.
You raise a lot of valid points, rangerdave - good post.
The "posing" started years ago (around Voodoo Lounge) when there were enough extra musicians onstage for Keith and Ronnie to run around mugging and lighting cigarettes. This, sadly, pre-dates any physical problems Keith had. I think what you said about Jagger being tired of inconsistency is quite true, and it has given us more consistent (albeit sometimes more predictable) shows. I think the Stripped phase was a temporary detour that lasted just long enough for the Stones to ride on the MTV Unplugged wave rather than any kind of real "direction". I wish we would have seen more of the stripped-down Stones in later years.
One of my favorite Keith performance; and voicings. The A minor with that ringing hi G. Like right before "You know I can't let you" at 1:18; I love that.
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.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-04-06 00:46 by Gazza.
If they tour again...and it is a big if at this point, it WILL be the last time.
There is no way they would ever tour again if they don't do it now. An 'odd' one-off reunion possibly, but not an actual tour.
This will be the first time in their history, where every stones fan out there WILL KNOW from the get go it WILL BE the last time they see their band. They won't have to acknowledge it at the press conference tour announcement. We will all know.
From that perspective, and knowing every show will be historic in some sense, it would probably be massive, with massive ticket prices.
I don't even know why I'm writing this...just perhaps realizing that we're very near the end.
As for the actual topic, Keith and his guitar skills...time waits for no one. It's all over now for him as a relevant player, and as sad sad sad as that is, it wouldn't stop me from seeing the last time...IF we get that chance.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: The hate for keith and his current guitar skills
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: April 4, 2011 23:09
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.
Re: The hate for keith and his current guitar skills
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: April 4, 2011 23:10
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".
Just as "live" as they did it in the 80s...
Re: The hate for keith and his current guitar skills
Posted by:
mtaylor
()
Date: April 4, 2011 23:13
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...
ABB wasn't done by e-mail
)Re: The hate for keith and his current guitar skills
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: April 4, 2011 23:18
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
was it done by smoke signals?
Re: The hate for keith and his current guitar skills
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: April 4, 2011 23:22
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.
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.
Re: The hate for keith and his current guitar skills
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: April 5, 2011 00:23
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.
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...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-04-05 00:24 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: The hate for keith and his current guitar skills
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: April 5, 2011 00:24
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?
No, by fax.
Re: The hate for keith and his current guitar skills
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: April 5, 2011 00:30
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...
Does that imply that players and writers that use a lot of tones or words are not good?
Re: The hate for keith and his current guitar skills
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: April 5, 2011 04:13
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.
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.
Re: The hate for keith and his current guitar skills
Posted by:
MKjan
()
Date: April 5, 2011 04:29
I shall be there.
Y'all might want to tweak your tax returns just so, equal to the ticket you would want. Free Stones, and less money for Tomahawks.
Y'all might want to tweak your tax returns just so, equal to the ticket you would want. Free Stones, and less money for Tomahawks.
Re: The hate for keith and his current guitar skills
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: April 5, 2011 04:31
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.
This pretty much sums it up.
Re: The hate for keith and his current guitar skills
Posted by:
Midnight Toker
()
Date: April 5, 2011 05:29
Keith's solo on SFD versus Mick Taylor's solo on SFTD. A BIG difference. I think I will go with Taylor on this one. Awesome.
Re: The hate for keith and his current guitar skills
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: April 5, 2011 07:26
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.
Re: The hate for keith and his current guitar skills
Posted by:
ab
()
Date: April 5, 2011 07:32
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.
Plenty of us noticed. I just tried to pass it off as him mugging for the cameras and being caught in an area of the stage where he couldn't hear the monitors and couldn't tell that he was in the wrong key because he wasn't looking at the fretboard.
Re: The hate for keith and his current guitar skills
Posted by:
Midnight Toker
()
Date: April 5, 2011 09:39
71 Tele- You are on the money. Honestly, and this sounds dopey,many of the guitar players on this forum could do a better job on SFTD than Keith. Hell, I can do MT's solo, and I and I am not in a band nor am I a Rolling Stone. The poor guy can't bend his fingers very well at all and it isn't his fault.I feel badly for him watching and listening to him struggle. No one has the balls to say anything to him. If they tour again, I pray for the resurrection of Mick Taylor.
Re: The hate for keith and his current guitar skills
Posted by:
Come On
()
Date: April 5, 2011 09:43
MT is not in shape to play these days, unfortunately ...Ronnie is, and he's all around the world doing it...
2 1 2 0
2 1 2 0
Re: The hate for keith and his current guitar skills
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: April 5, 2011 10:43
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?
Not necessarily, but in all forms of communication - the clearer you come across with your message - the better you communicate.
Especially in rock'n'roll, when it's really all about the song, the short biting leads may be more suitable and effective than the oposite approach, imo.
Re: The hate for keith and his current guitar skills
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: April 5, 2011 11:45
Do you consider Lou Reed's R&R animal, where I got the feeling it's about the songs and the -for that era- flashy guitars as a good record ?
Or Gary Moore: BBM?
Is still wonder what your defintion of rock & Roll is , guitar related in particular.
It's such a wide range..
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-04-05 12:14 by Amsterdamned.
Or Gary Moore: BBM?
Is still wonder what your defintion of rock & Roll is , guitar related in particular.
It's such a wide range..
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-04-05 12:14 by Amsterdamned.
Re: The hate for keith and his current guitar skills
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: April 5, 2011 12:06
I like Lou Reed, and I don't like Gary Moore (except for some moments with Lizzy).
I like flashy guitar playing as well (Santana III comes to mind), but then it should suit the song.
Taylor's solo on SFTD on Ya Ya's does suit the song brilliantly. His stuff on BS or JFF in 72 doesn't, imo.
It's always a fine line with guitar acrobatics. What you have is a song, and you want to make it sound as good as possible. One should keep that in mind when the guitar solo starts as well.
I like flashy guitar playing as well (Santana III comes to mind), but then it should suit the song.
Taylor's solo on SFTD on Ya Ya's does suit the song brilliantly. His stuff on BS or JFF in 72 doesn't, imo.
It's always a fine line with guitar acrobatics. What you have is a song, and you want to make it sound as good as possible. One should keep that in mind when the guitar solo starts as well.
Re: The hate for keith and his current guitar skills
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: April 5, 2011 12:18
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 ?
Is your own music floating on youtube or do you have a
link you can mail me ?
Re: The hate for keith and his current guitar skills
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: April 5, 2011 12:36
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 ?
Always is
Check your email.
Re: The hate for keith and his current guitar skills
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: April 5, 2011 13:41
Great atmosphere and skill.
You deserve recognition.
You deserve recognition.
Re: The hate for keith and his current guitar skills
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: April 5, 2011 16:26
Thanks, man! I appreciate that.
Re: The hate for keith and his current guitar skills
Posted by:
rangerdave
()
Date: April 5, 2011 22:36
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..
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..
Re: The hate for keith and his current guitar skills
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: April 5, 2011 23:52
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..
You raise a lot of valid points, rangerdave - good post.
The "posing" started years ago (around Voodoo Lounge) when there were enough extra musicians onstage for Keith and Ronnie to run around mugging and lighting cigarettes. This, sadly, pre-dates any physical problems Keith had. I think what you said about Jagger being tired of inconsistency is quite true, and it has given us more consistent (albeit sometimes more predictable) shows. I think the Stripped phase was a temporary detour that lasted just long enough for the Stones to ride on the MTV Unplugged wave rather than any kind of real "direction". I wish we would have seen more of the stripped-down Stones in later years.
Re: The hate for keith and his current guitar skills
Posted by:
Palace Revolution 2000
()
Date: April 6, 2011 00:08
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....
One of my favorite Keith performance; and voicings. The A minor with that ringing hi G. Like right before "You know I can't let you" at 1:18; I love that.
Re: The hate for keith and his current guitar skills
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: April 6, 2011 00:43
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.
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.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-04-06 00:46 by Gazza.
Re: The hate for keith and his current guitar skills
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: April 6, 2011 00:52
nice post gazza (and james and skippy)....but it's liberating to move on. i'm confident i'll stay home next time, if there is a next time. i enjoy well-played music - that's what hooked me with this band in the first place...and there are hundreds of other places where i can see and hear better-played music for much less...even for free here in austin....any night of the year. i love the lads, but at some point you realize that you're pretty much just paying homage or trying to rekindle memories of the great band you fell in love with....and the value prop at that just isn't there....
Re: The hate for keith and his current guitar skills
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: April 6, 2011 05:44
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.
If they tour again...and it is a big if at this point, it WILL be the last time.
There is no way they would ever tour again if they don't do it now. An 'odd' one-off reunion possibly, but not an actual tour.
This will be the first time in their history, where every stones fan out there WILL KNOW from the get go it WILL BE the last time they see their band. They won't have to acknowledge it at the press conference tour announcement. We will all know.
From that perspective, and knowing every show will be historic in some sense, it would probably be massive, with massive ticket prices.
I don't even know why I'm writing this...just perhaps realizing that we're very near the end.
As for the actual topic, Keith and his guitar skills...time waits for no one. It's all over now for him as a relevant player, and as sad sad sad as that is, it wouldn't stop me from seeing the last time...IF we get that chance.
Re: The hate for keith and his current guitar skills
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: April 6, 2011 10:23
Gazza, concerning the ticket pricing -the Stones have never -in Europe at least - been THAT expensive. Did you ever go to Disneyland Paris? 54 euro's for a one-day ticket. Ry Cooder or Tom Waits in Carre, Amsterdam? 110 and 150 euro per ticket. Black Crowes in Paradiso? 45 euro. Two days Camping Flight to Lowlands? 165 euro. Dylan in Heineken Music Hall, Amsterdam -65 euro.
Stones in Amsterdam Arena: 50 euro's for a field ticket. Stones in Ahoy: 40 euro's if I remember well. What did we pay for the club shows in 2003? 30 euro's per ticket?
Rediculous was the Golden Circle tickets in the US, for $600. But what was a ticket for an arena shows in 1999 in the US? $45 or so?
Mathijs
Stones in Amsterdam Arena: 50 euro's for a field ticket. Stones in Ahoy: 40 euro's if I remember well. What did we pay for the club shows in 2003? 30 euro's per ticket?
Rediculous was the Golden Circle tickets in the US, for $600. But what was a ticket for an arena shows in 1999 in the US? $45 or so?
Mathijs
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
blivet , EJM , hj3009 , hockenheim95 , joguema , micha063 , More Hot Rocks , no stone unturned , PalaisRoyale , retired_dog , RollstoDRSC , spidey39 , The Sicilian , tony , Topi , welshphil , wolundamo
Guests:
1086
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10