For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
agorachief
I've a friend who is not prone toward rumors, works in music, who says that he's heard from a lot of folks who know about this sort of thing, that in recent years a lot of Keith's guitar parts are played by someone else in concerts.
And then when it comes to the actual songs, it seems as though the last three to four albums (at least...could even be more) have pretty much been Mick bringing in demos of songs, and that's what makes up the great majority of any album release. Keith's recent contributions have been ragged at best. Then in concert it's just downright weird watching him do an old Hoagy Carmichael song or something from that era. It's kind of like watching a drunk great uncle at the party with a lampshade on his head. I'm not so sure I like it.
Has anything ever leaked or been validated about the true nature of the Jagger/Richards collaboration? It wouldn't surprise me if it's not just flown on the mast of every song because it has a "magique" to it (ala Holland/Dozier/Holland or Lennon/McCartney). Really, "Saint of You" is a great song, but it could have been on any of Jagger's solo albums, and "God Gave Me Everything" could have been on a Stones album. So, does anyone know what Keith's role is on stage and in studio? Is it more active or passive?
That no one's all broken up into little bitty pieces about Brian Jones dying. Think about it, it kind of makes sense....
"Marie, we need more butter on the flapjacks, please."
Quote
melillo
not much to be honest with you
Quote
Stoneage
It would be interesting to hear what other guitarists (pro or not) has to say about Keith's guitar skills and abilities the last 10-20 years. They should know what they are talking about.
Quote
RikQuote
Stoneage
It would be interesting to hear what other guitarists (pro or not) has to say about Keith's guitar skills and abilities the last 10-20 years. They should know what they are talking about.
They are too polite to talk about that, and respect his contribution to music too much to talk about that.
Quote
Virgin Priest
Windmelody, I was in Cologne 1999. I´ll never forget Charlie, walking to the B-Stage with an umbrella. Perfect English gentleman.
They did an epic version of Midnight Rambler. Still can hear Keith´s thundering chords!
Priest
Quote
stonescrow
I think the beauty of the Rolling Stones (or maybe even Rock 'N' Roll in general) is they don't have to be technically perfect to be enjoyed. Steve Van Zandt recently said that the Stones are better technically than ever, so did he mean all the Stones are technically better with Keith being the one exception? Maybe if he listens in occasionally (Says the Stones are his life) maybe he could "weigh in" on Keith's current abilities and how much support he actually receives these days from the back up musicians. I would tend to believe someone like Steven Van Zandt over some "unknown".
Quote
Stoneage
As much as I think that Eric Clapton can be very boring (for more than a couple of songs), I must say that enjoy and admire his solos (listen to "Rooster" on Atlantic Ciy 89`). Keith's solos are rare and very inconsistent and, to me, not very enjoyable. You often think: Was that really a solo?
Quote
Title5Take1
I saw the very last Las Vegas show on the last tour, and the next day Chuck Leavell wrote on his website, "All the stars lined up last night." And he was right. The Stones were on fire, and that very much included Keith, who was fantastic.
And one of my favorite Stones songs is THIS PLACE IS EMPTY.
Incidentally, Clint Eastwood, Stephen King, and Johnny Rotten have each commented how tiresome the love/hate hostile side of fandom can get. Stephen King said he finally realized the subtext of the resentful fan was "Why can't I be you!"
Quote
His MajestyQuote
stonescrow
I think the beauty of the Rolling Stones (or maybe even Rock 'N' Roll in general) is they don't have to be technically perfect to be enjoyed. Steve Van Zandt recently said that the Stones are better technically than ever, so did he mean all the Stones are technically better with Keith being the one exception? Maybe if he listens in occasionally (Says the Stones are his life) maybe he could "weigh in" on Keith's current abilities and how much support he actually receives these days from the back up musicians. I would tend to believe someone like Steven Van Zandt over some "unknown".
No matter who he is, his statement that they are technically better than ever is silly and doesn't really have anything to back it up.
Technically, and ignoring quality of songs etc, as a guitar player Keith reached a peak of some kind in 80's, his playing during 90's was excellent too. Basically he was in control of the instrument, he had the ability and knowledge to play whatever he wanted to play.
He was mostly fine until he had his accident, the accident plus his finger issues have definitely affected his ability to play guitar.
Quote
stonescrow
Well, he has had plenty of time to heal up from his accident now and he says he can "play around" his arthritis so maybe he will be in better form for 2012?
Quote
stonescrowQuote
His MajestyQuote
stonescrow
I think the beauty of the Rolling Stones (or maybe even Rock 'N' Roll in general) is they don't have to be technically perfect to be enjoyed. Steve Van Zandt recently said that the Stones are better technically than ever, so did he mean all the Stones are technically better with Keith being the one exception? Maybe if he listens in occasionally (Says the Stones are his life) maybe he could "weigh in" on Keith's current abilities and how much support he actually receives these days from the back up musicians. I would tend to believe someone like Steven Van Zandt over some "unknown".
No matter who he is, his statement that they are technically better than ever is silly and doesn't really have anything to back it up.
Technically, and ignoring quality of songs etc, as a guitar player Keith reached a peak of some kind in 80's, his playing during 90's was excellent too. Basically he was in control of the instrument, he had the ability and knowledge to play whatever he wanted to play.
He was mostly fine until he had his accident, the accident plus his finger issues have definitely affected his ability to play guitar.
Well, he has had plenty of time to heal up from his accident now and he says he can "play around" his arthritis so maybe he will be in better form for 2012?
Quote
vermontoffender
Keith's playing post-brain surgery has worsened. I disagree completely with the concept of lumping his playing from Licks through the accident together with his performances after the fall.
This happens a lot on this board; using Keith's performances after he had a large, potentially fatal, blood clot removed from his brain to make it seem as if his playing had diminished mightily before the accident.
Keith's revolutionary, iconic, brilliant rhythm playing is what defines him as a guitarist. He was still pushing the Stones hard via that amazing ability until his fall.
Seems kind of douchey to rip on his playing in the later stages of the ABB tour. There really isn't any mystery as to why the decline occurred. Basically, people are criticizing a guy who suffered permanent damage to his brain, using ticket prices and their own bizarre sense of entitlement to excuse their pathetic musings.