Quote
Mathijs
I personally find Richards a far more interesting player in '75 than in '73. In '73 he basically was sticking to rhythm guitar except for the odd solo on Starfvcker and HTW, and in that rhythm guitar playing he was less adventurous. Indeed check GS -in '73 he was just churnin out the chords. Fantastic, sure, but in '75 he really is exploring the song again by changing the patterens every few seconds, playing around the beat, trying different chord structures, and including the odd lick here and there. This is helped by his, in my opinion, far better guitar sound. That Tele though Ampeg is just utterly fantastic, aggressive and strong, while in '73 it is darker, moodier and more grunge like.

Mathijs

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
stonesdan60

Quote
Rolling Hansie

Quote
stonesdan60
While I appreciate the keen ears and expertise of audiophiles, I'm so glad I'm not really one myself.

Thanks. Those were the words I was looking for

I just want to enjoy the music. The sound quality of the boots released is certainly of high enough quality to let me do that. I don't really care if compression changed the sound in certain ways. To me, the official boots sound way better than the illegal boots I used to have. Not complaining! It's only rock and roll...

Wow, you certainly must have very bad 1973 bootlegs! There's still a world to gain for you, as we say it here.

Quote
Mathijs
I personally find Richards a far more interesting player in '75 than in '73. In '73 he basically was sticking to rhythm guitar except for the odd solo on Starfvcker and HTW, and in that rhythm guitar playing he was less adventurous. Indeed check GS -in '73 he was just churnin out the chords. Fantastic, sure, but in '75 he really is exploring the song again by changing the patterens every few seconds, playing around the beat, trying different chord structures, and including the odd lick here and there. This is helped by his, in my opinion, far better guitar sound. That Tele though Ampeg is just utterly fantastic, aggressive and strong, while in '73 it is darker, moodier and more grunge like.

Mathijs

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Mathijs
I personally find Richards a far more interesting player in '75 than in '73. In '73 he basically was sticking to rhythm guitar except for the odd solo on Starfvcker and HTW, and in that rhythm guitar playing he was less adventurous. Indeed check GS -in '73 he was just churnin out the chords. Fantastic, sure, but in '75 he really is exploring the song again by changing the patterens every few seconds, playing around the beat, trying different chord structures, and including the odd lick here and there. This is helped by his, in my opinion, far better guitar sound. That Tele though Ampeg is just utterly fantastic, aggressive and strong, while in '73 it is darker, moodier and more grunge like.

Mathijs

I think this post explains my view on this perfectly.

@ kleermaker: It´s probably a guitar player thing (regarding Keith). What I love about the Stones is the band´s ability to have TWO guitar players that sound exciting and a bit unpredictable. Keith just doesn´t move me in 1973 when he mainly is just strumming out the chords. Any Joe Blow can do that.

@ tkl7: No, he isn´t. Use your ears.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Any Joe Blow can do that.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Mathijs
I personally find Richards a far more interesting player in '75 than in '73. In '73 he basically was sticking to rhythm guitar except for the odd solo on Starfvcker and HTW, and in that rhythm guitar playing he was less adventurous. Indeed check GS -in '73 he was just churnin out the chords. Fantastic, sure, but in '75 he really is exploring the song again by changing the patterens every few seconds, playing around the beat, trying different chord structures, and including the odd lick here and there. This is helped by his, in my opinion, far better guitar sound. That Tele though Ampeg is just utterly fantastic, aggressive and strong, while in '73 it is darker, moodier and more grunge like.

Mathijs

I think this post explains my view on this perfectly.

@ kleermaker: It´s probably a guitar player thing (regarding Keith). What I love about the Stones is the band´s ability to have TWO guitar players that sound exciting and a bit unpredictable. Keith just doesn´t move me in 1973 when he mainly is just strumming out the chords. Any Joe Blow can do that.

@ tkl7: No, he isn´t. Use your ears.

DP, I'm a guitar player too, and although I respect your preference for '75, Keith is hardly just "strumming out the chords" in 1973. He is driving the band with his rhythm playing. And I certainly don't think any Joe Blow could have done it.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Mathijs
I personally find Richards a far more interesting player in '75 than in '73. In '73 he basically was sticking to rhythm guitar except for the odd solo on Starfvcker and HTW, and in that rhythm guitar playing he was less adventurous. Indeed check GS -in '73 he was just churnin out the chords. Fantastic, sure, but in '75 he really is exploring the song again by changing the patterens every few seconds, playing around the beat, trying different chord structures, and including the odd lick here and there. This is helped by his, in my opinion, far better guitar sound. That Tele though Ampeg is just utterly fantastic, aggressive and strong, while in '73 it is darker, moodier and more grunge like.

Mathijs

I think this post explains my view on this perfectly.

@ kleermaker: It´s probably a guitar player thing (regarding Keith). What I love about the Stones is the band´s ability to have TWO guitar players that sound exciting and a bit unpredictable. Keith just doesn´t move me in 1973 when he mainly is just strumming out the chords. Any Joe Blow can do that.

@ tkl7: No, he isn´t. Use your ears.

DP, I'm a guitar player too, and although I respect your preference for '75, Keith is hardly just "strumming out the chords" in 1973. He is driving the band with his rhythm playing. And I certainly don't think any Joe Blow could have done it.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Mathijs
I personally find Richards a far more interesting player in '75 than in '73. In '73 he basically was sticking to rhythm guitar except for the odd solo on Starfvcker and HTW, and in that rhythm guitar playing he was less adventurous. Indeed check GS -in '73 he was just churnin out the chords. Fantastic, sure, but in '75 he really is exploring the song again by changing the patterens every few seconds, playing around the beat, trying different chord structures, and including the odd lick here and there. This is helped by his, in my opinion, far better guitar sound. That Tele though Ampeg is just utterly fantastic, aggressive and strong, while in '73 it is darker, moodier and more grunge like.

Mathijs

I think this post explains my view on this perfectly.

@ kleermaker: It´s probably a guitar player thing (regarding Keith). What I love about the Stones is the band´s ability to have TWO guitar players that sound exciting and a bit unpredictable. Keith just doesn´t move me in 1973 when he mainly is just strumming out the chords. Any Joe Blow can do that.

@ tkl7: No, he isn´t. Use your ears.

DP, I'm a guitar player too, and although I respect your preference for '75, Keith is hardly just "strumming out the chords" in 1973. He is driving the band with his rhythm playing. And I certainly don't think any Joe Blow could have done it.

Quote
liddas

Quote
71Tele

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Mathijs
I personally find Richards a far more interesting player in '75 than in '73. In '73 he basically was sticking to rhythm guitar except for the odd solo on Starfvcker and HTW, and in that rhythm guitar playing he was less adventurous. Indeed check GS -in '73 he was just churnin out the chords. Fantastic, sure, but in '75 he really is exploring the song again by changing the patterens every few seconds, playing around the beat, trying different chord structures, and including the odd lick here and there. This is helped by his, in my opinion, far better guitar sound. That Tele though Ampeg is just utterly fantastic, aggressive and strong, while in '73 it is darker, moodier and more grunge like.

Mathijs

I think this post explains my view on this perfectly.

@ kleermaker: It´s probably a guitar player thing (regarding Keith). What I love about the Stones is the band´s ability to have TWO guitar players that sound exciting and a bit unpredictable. Keith just doesn´t move me in 1973 when he mainly is just strumming out the chords. Any Joe Blow can do that.

@ tkl7: No, he isn´t. Use your ears.

DP, I'm a guitar player too, and although I respect your preference for '75, Keith is hardly just "strumming out the chords" in 1973. He is driving the band with his rhythm playing. And I certainly don't think any Joe Blow could have done it.

Got to agree with Tele here. Keith's work on Rambler 73 alone is enough to justify his reputation as one of the greatest.

On the other hand, I like the direction he took afterwards. But it is fair to say that the whole band improved, not only keith.

There is another thing that needs to be said. Keith has an incredible ability to reinvent himself as a guitarist. It's as if once he gets to the bare bones of a particular style or mood or whatever, he needs to format him self and move to completely different grounds.

And each and every time, with superb results.

In my personal experience of (amateur) guitar player every time I want to learn a new Keith part, I have the counter check of the above: if I dig in deep, say, Miss You this will not make me automatically play better an Exile take, and viceversa. To play a decent Miss You, you have to master that great style that characterized the stones sessions in the late 70s. If you want to play a decent intro to Tumblig Dice, well, you have to sit on a stool and repeat the bugger for not less than 1 million times ... At the end, what matters is THAT feel!

C

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
liddas

Quote
24FPS

Much as I think Ronnnie did a great job in '75, maybe the best he ever was with the Stones on stage. But no one has ever pretended that he was as good as Taylor.

At least one, yes: me!

Taylor and Wood are different musicians, but equally good. When I listen to Brussells, there is not a single moment when I think "could have been better with Ronnie" and there is nothing in LA 75 (or just any other post 75 recording) that makes me miss Taylor.

C

Agree, but I miss Keith sometimes on Brussels.

For you the band is Keith and Keith is the band. That explains all your posts and comments on the releases.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
stonesdan60

Quote
Rolling Hansie

Quote
stonesdan60
While I appreciate the keen ears and expertise of audiophiles, I'm so glad I'm not really one myself.

Thanks. Those were the words I was looking for

I just want to enjoy the music. The sound quality of the boots released is certainly of high enough quality to let me do that. I don't really care if compression changed the sound in certain ways. To me, the official boots sound way better than the illegal boots I used to have. Not complaining! It's only rock and roll...

Wow, you certainly must have very bad 1973 bootlegs! There's still a world to gain for you, as we say it here.

Please don´t pretend that the boots have higher sound quality, they don´t. The mix is another matter...

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
liddas

Quote
71Tele

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Mathijs
I personally find Richards a far more interesting player in '75 than in '73. In '73 he basically was sticking to rhythm guitar except for the odd solo on Starfvcker and HTW, and in that rhythm guitar playing he was less adventurous. Indeed check GS -in '73 he was just churnin out the chords. Fantastic, sure, but in '75 he really is exploring the song again by changing the patterens every few seconds, playing around the beat, trying different chord structures, and including the odd lick here and there. This is helped by his, in my opinion, far better guitar sound. That Tele though Ampeg is just utterly fantastic, aggressive and strong, while in '73 it is darker, moodier and more grunge like.

Mathijs

I think this post explains my view on this perfectly.

@ kleermaker: It´s probably a guitar player thing (regarding Keith). What I love about the Stones is the band´s ability to have TWO guitar players that sound exciting and a bit unpredictable. Keith just doesn´t move me in 1973 when he mainly is just strumming out the chords. Any Joe Blow can do that.

@ tkl7: No, he isn´t. Use your ears.

DP, I'm a guitar player too, and although I respect your preference for '75, Keith is hardly just "strumming out the chords" in 1973. He is driving the band with his rhythm playing. And I certainly don't think any Joe Blow could have done it.

Got to agree with Tele here. Keith's work on Rambler 73 alone is enough to justify his reputation as one of the greatest.

On the other hand, I like the direction he took afterwards. But it is fair to say that the whole band improved, not only keith.

There is another thing that needs to be said. Keith has an incredible ability to reinvent himself as a guitarist. It's as if once he gets to the bare bones of a particular style or mood or whatever, he needs to format him self and move to completely different grounds.

And each and every time, with superb results.

In my personal experience of (amateur) guitar player every time I want to learn a new Keith part, I have the counter check of the above: if I dig in deep, say, Miss You this will not make me automatically play better an Exile take, and viceversa. To play a decent Miss You, you have to master that great style that characterized the stones sessions in the late 70s. If you want to play a decent intro to Tumblig Dice, well, you have to sit on a stool and repeat the bugger for not less than 1 million times ... At the end, what matters is THAT feel!

C

No rules without exceptions

However, you won't find more than two or three moments like this one during a 1973-show. That's the problem, imo.

In 1969, and partially in 1972 and especially later on, there would be several new licks and riffs in almost every song from Keith. That's what I'm talking about.

Of course Rambler from Brussels is great, it's the best, but there should be more moments like this one - from BOTH guitar players, imo.

Quote
stonesdan60
In a sense, Keith IS the Stones and vice versa. (Don't Keith's solo albums sound more Stonesy than Mick's?) In their heyday, it was Keith's guitar that defined the sound of the band. You could put on the radio, hear a new song during a part where Mick wasn't singing and you knew it was the Stones just from the sound of Keith's guitar (coupled with Charlie's drumming)

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
stonesdan60
In a sense, Keith IS the Stones and vice versa. (Don't Keith's solo albums sound more Stonesy than Mick's?) In their heyday, it was Keith's guitar that defined the sound of the band. You could put on the radio, hear a new song during a part where Mick wasn't singing and you knew it was the Stones just from the sound of Keith's guitar (coupled with Charlie's drumming)

You wouldn't believe how many times I've heard; "if it wasn't for Mick, there'd be no Rolling Stones; HE is the guy who gets everybody's attention; everybody wants to shake their asses when he's singing". And I agree every time.

You could say that I'm incorrect....just like I'm saying you are incorrect, but anyway; you are not correct with "Keith IS the Stones"

Keith was a driving force for their liveshows, soundwise as the guitarriffs are the main ingredient in Rolling Stones songs when performed live (and Rolling Stones always had Jagger low in the mix), so that's pretty obvious. They're not a "drum-band" or a "lyric/singing-band".

But when it comes to their stage PRESENCE and also when it comes to what jumps out of you when listening to a Rolling Stones RADIO hit; Jagger is the one who steals the show

Of course Richards and Jagger are just as important since they wrote the songs together; so they're obviously "equal", but any sentence about "Keith IS the Stones" is BS, IMO - especially when considering all the years (1970-1980) when Keith was out of it, and Jagger carried the band, especially OFFstage

Quote
kleermaker
Both sound quality and mix are better on them than on the official Brussels

Quote
Rolling Hansie

Quote
kleermaker
Both sound quality and mix are better on them than on the official Brussels

OK, I really need some help here then.
For Brussels 73 I have:
Brussels Affair 1973, Chamelion Records, and The Lost Brussels, VGP.
To my ears both sound great, and I have been totally happy with them for many years. But the official release made me happier.
Are there boots that really sound better than the official release, or is it just a matter of personal taste ?

Quote
stonesdan60
When I say Keith IS the Stones, I'm speaking purely about the musical sound of the band apart from the vocals.

Quote
Doxa
Wonderful conversation.

I'd like to comment, but I am a "bit" drunk now, so I better not...

Take care, friends.

- Doxa

Quote
kleermaker
I doubt if the boots you mention are the best one concerning 1973.
A good one is "Brussels Affair, Definite Edition", which also includes the London soundboard gigs

Quote
tomk
What was Jagger's old address on Central Park West? I tried to find it last time I was there but I think they were doing construction on it (if it was the right one). Around 1978, 1979.

Quote
stonesdan60

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
stonesdan60

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
stonesdan60
When I say Keith IS the Stones, I'm speaking purely about the musical sound of the band apart from the vocals.

Aha, OK.....I understand your point. But how could I have guessed?

And to put it more frankly; since you obviously don't understand: that was NOT your point, Dan - you are FAKING it. You'll be the next guest on Oprah show; just wait for the invite.
There; you can cry out and confess whatever you need to.

No. I understand and that WAS my point. What the hell crawled up your butt? Get off of my cloud.

So when I say "that was NOT your point", and you agree, and at the same time you are calling me names for calling you out; then I see there's no need in speaking to you anymore, Dan.

So nevermind me. I can see you are busy in "not making any sense" in debates.

I am really an "ex-member" of this board so people like you can "have it" the way that you want to. Idiot

(You're a good example of why I don't care about posting here anymore
Even when one is right; one is still crossified......sigh)

Let's clear this up politely as possible. I made a statement that you claimed was "not my point." I tried to clear up what my point was, and for doing so you accused me of "faking it," and then further denigrated me by implying that my mental health merited being made a spectacle of on the Oprah show. And you accuse ME of calling YOU names? I never called you names. Your statements offended me and I asked what crawled up your butt to make you attack and accuse me in such manner. And after falsely accusing me of calling you names, you call me an idiot. How mature of you. What psychic powers do you possess that you can crawl into my head and know what I meant when I wrote something? I know what I meant. I explained it further for clarification and I meant what I meant and there was no faking anything. Well, I won't waste anymore of my time on this. I just marvel at the way someone disagreeing with another person's post on a message board can compell them to attack and denigrate the person and somehow KNOW that the poster was faking what they wrote. All my responses to you were rather polite with the possible exception of asking what crawled up your butt. You were the first one to get nasty with false accusations and calling me an idiot. I actually feel sorry for people like you. Maybe you shouldn't participate in a message board if statements you don't agree with get you worked up to the point that you have to make false accusations and call people idiots. May the Good Lord shine a light on you.

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
stonesdan60

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
stonesdan60

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
stonesdan60
When I say Keith IS the Stones, I'm speaking purely about the musical sound of the band apart from the vocals.

Aha, OK.....I understand your point. But how could I have guessed?

And to put it more frankly; since you obviously don't understand: that was NOT your point, Dan - you are FAKING it. You'll be the next guest on Oprah show; just wait for the invite.
There; you can cry out and confess whatever you need to.

No. I understand and that WAS my point. What the hell crawled up your butt? Get off of my cloud.

So when I say "that was NOT your point", and you agree, and at the same time you are calling me names for calling you out; then I see there's no need in speaking to you anymore, Dan.

So nevermind me. I can see you are busy in "not making any sense" in debates.

I am really an "ex-member" of this board so people like you can "have it" the way that you want to. Idiot

(You're a good example of why I don't care about posting here anymore
Even when one is right; one is still crossified......sigh)

Let's clear this up politely as possible. I made a statement that you claimed was "not my point." I tried to clear up what my point was, and for doing so you accused me of "faking it," and then further denigrated me by implying that my mental health merited being made a spectacle of on the Oprah show. And you accuse ME of calling YOU names? I never called you names. Your statements offended me and I asked what crawled up your butt to make you attack and accuse me in such manner. And after falsely accusing me of calling you names, you call me an idiot. How mature of you. What psychic powers do you possess that you can crawl into my head and know what I meant when I wrote something? I know what I meant. I explained it further for clarification and I meant what I meant and there was no faking anything. Well, I won't waste anymore of my time on this. I just marvel at the way someone disagreeing with another person's post on a message board can compell them to attack and denigrate the person and somehow KNOW that the poster was faking what they wrote. All my responses to you were rather polite with the possible exception of asking what crawled up your butt. You were the first one to get nasty with false accusations and calling me an idiot. I actually feel sorry for people like you. Maybe you shouldn't participate in a message board if statements you don't agree with get you worked up to the point that you have to make false accusations and call people idiots. May the Good Lord shine a light on you.

Can I just say f*** off, here, and we'll call it even ?

Quote
stonesdan60

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
stonesdan60

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
stonesdan60

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
stonesdan60
When I say Keith IS the Stones, I'm speaking purely about the musical sound of the band apart from the vocals.

Aha, OK.....I understand your point. But how could I have guessed?

And to put it more frankly; since you obviously don't understand: that was NOT your point, Dan - you are FAKING it. You'll be the next guest on Oprah show; just wait for the invite.
There; you can cry out and confess whatever you need to.

No. I understand and that WAS my point. What the hell crawled up your butt? Get off of my cloud.

So when I say "that was NOT your point", and you agree, and at the same time you are calling me names for calling you out; then I see there's no need in speaking to you anymore, Dan.

So nevermind me. I can see you are busy in "not making any sense" in debates.

I am really an "ex-member" of this board so people like you can "have it" the way that you want to. Idiot

(You're a good example of why I don't care about posting here anymore
Even when one is right; one is still crossified......sigh)

Let's clear this up politely as possible. I made a statement that you claimed was "not my point." I tried to clear up what my point was, and for doing so you accused me of "faking it," and then further denigrated me by implying that my mental health merited being made a spectacle of on the Oprah show. And you accuse ME of calling YOU names? I never called you names. Your statements offended me and I asked what crawled up your butt to make you attack and accuse me in such manner. And after falsely accusing me of calling you names, you call me an idiot. How mature of you. What psychic powers do you possess that you can crawl into my head and know what I meant when I wrote something? I know what I meant. I explained it further for clarification and I meant what I meant and there was no faking anything. Well, I won't waste anymore of my time on this. I just marvel at the way someone disagreeing with another person's post on a message board can compell them to attack and denigrate the person and somehow KNOW that the poster was faking what they wrote. All my responses to you were rather polite with the possible exception of asking what crawled up your butt. You were the first one to get nasty with false accusations and calling me an idiot. I actually feel sorry for people like you. Maybe you shouldn't participate in a message board if statements you don't agree with get you worked up to the point that you have to make false accusations and call people idiots. May the Good Lord shine a light on you.

Can I just say f*** off, here, and we'll call it even ?

Thank you for confirming your character and maturity. Please be assured I will graciously ignore any further posts from you and refrain from replying. I still can't fathom why our disagreement should provoke you to the point of cursing me out here. You shouldn't take it so hard. It's only rock and roll, but I've had it with you. Seems you like to fight but you can't always get what you want. Get out of my life...Don't come back. I'm sooo sick and tired / of hanging around with jerks like you...
Credits to Mick and Keith for using their lines. Bye Bye Bye...
BTW, I'm taking the high road and refraining from my initial inclination to report you for verbal harrassment. Coming to a message board for fun and encountering the likes of you is sad, sad, sad.