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."

The thing with Keith in concert is we can't have it both ways. Either Keith @#$%& up all the time on stage because he's busy posing /his arthritis has crippled him / his medication and over-indulgence has hampered his ability to play or else we're hearing Blondie Chaplin or Pierre de Beauport play Keith's parts for him. It can't be both answers (not Keith when it's good, Keith when it's crap), but that's generally what you find posted on messageboards.

It's a bit like when one dislikes their head of state and insists he's an evil genius out to destroy their nation one day and then insists he's a conjugal idiot unable to govern the next. It's one or the other, but both theories really don't mix.

Yeah, Jimmy Fallon really seemed to think Keith sucked and was useless at the recent Winos session he was privileged to see. Bet yer glad you weren't there.

During last ten years I've been in 6 gigs worldwide (40 licks and Bigger Bang tours).
It's very sad to say that during most of that gigs the Keith's role in the band was try to keep himself stand up.

[www.stonescovers.com]
@Stones_Covers
[www.facebook.com]

That's a harsh question. This reverts to the role of The Stones over the past decades. In France, we have a sentence which I would think apply to Keith : " service minimum" which is hazardous to translate.

live he plays some opening riffs and every now and then adds some chords or licks. but most of the time it looks (and sounds) as its kinda try and error and he smiles when he (for change) doesnt hit a bumm-note!
but when he starts soloing it gets really scary.
man i love him and to me he's still the greatest guitarplayer of all times. but it's as simple as that: he cant play anymore nowadays...

Thought his vox were terrible when he sang in 2005/06.

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."

He did Nearness Of You beautifully, imo - just as he did with This Place Is Empty live and in the studio.

Don´t listen to rumours. Make up your mind from what you actually hear yourself. If there is one guitar player out there who is NOT afraid of hitting bum notes or making mistakes it´s Keith Richards.

not much to be honest with you

In Cologne in 1999 it was raining heavily, but Keith played great, he was really on fire.1997-1999 was his last brilliant tour. I think that his playing got worse and worse through the years, and in 2007 it was disatrous.

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

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
melillo
not much to be honest with you

And considering Keith is the backbone of the band... it's a pretty chilling thought.

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.

They are too polite to talk about that, and respect his contribution to music too much to talk about that.

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.

Quote
Rik

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.

They are too polite to talk about that, and respect his contribution to music too much to talk about that.

I'm a guitarist, & I think that both Keith Richards & Chuck Berry are playing better than ever.

Keith basically sucked after the brain surgery. He was clearly still recovering - I wouldn't think he's still affected by it as he's presumably/hopefully all healed up, but since he hasn't played publicly since '07, people speculate...

I saw them 2.5 times on Bigger Bang (Julliard, Fenway, and MSG) and he was great each time... and on fire in NYC. Hell, the only time I was less than impressed with his playing was probably opening night of the Licks tour at the Fleet in Boston - the whole band was a little off that night... my guess is first-night jitters. Four months later I saw them at the MSG/HBO show and they were astounding.

As for backstage guitarists... I just can't see it. First off, when you're watching them, it's not like you're being blasted by a wall of guitars. You hear Keith, you hear Ronnie, and occasionally you hear Blondie (esp. when he plays acoustic). I don't think I've ever heard Mick, "Back Of My Hand" notwithstanding. Also, Keith's style is very choppy and irregular - you see him move his hand, you hear the chord. It's not like Pierre or whoever can anticipate that from the wings.

Lastly, if they did have hidden guitarists... you'd think the other guys would at least play well. It's not like Keith & Ronnie suddenly stopped hitting bum notes. Quite the opposite, really.

Obviously, they wanted to fatten up the sound with another guitarist. So they had Blondie play one on stage. They're not hiding anything.

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

That was a wonderful night indeed, I remember the umbrella as well.

Stoneage, in my opinion Keith was fantastic from 89-99, he got worse afterwards.

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".

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
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
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?

Fortunately for me I have never been a huge fan of guitar solos in the first place, almost as boring as drum solos. My brother used to play bass and did bass solos in all of his songs, used to put me to sleep. Just give me a great overall sound without all the individual bullshit and I am happy.

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!"

plays guitar, sings, writes songs, pr. did i miss anything?

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!"

Right On!

Quote
His Majesty

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".

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?

Players have peak years, people lose ability, commenting on it has nothing to do with wanting to be that player.

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?

Maybe he will, I hope he is!

Quote
stonescrow

Quote
His Majesty

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".

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?

Without seeing his medical records, how can anyone actually say this?

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.

Man, you are like an Angel sent from heaven! One Love, Gold Rings On Ya!