btw he looked like a prop of himself in that facebook promo, just awful IMO

Quote
Stoneage
Busy writing "Life II". This time around he won't leave out anything...

Yes, apparently Brenda has vericose veins. It's tragic.

Quote
proudmary
Checks resumes of applicants - Keith Richards charges £35,000 a week for his beach-front Caribbean house at Parrot Cay Resort in the Turks and Caicos Islands.

(Mick demands nearly four times less - just £9,500 a week for his villa on Mustique.)

[www.thesun.co.uk]

Too bad The Sun doesn't know that the Turks & Caicos aren't in the Caribbean...

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
proudmary
Checks resumes of applicants - Keith Richards charges £35,000 a week for his beach-front Caribbean house at Parrot Cay Resort in the Turks and Caicos Islands.

(Mick demands nearly four times less - just £9,500 a week for his villa on Mustique.)

[www.thesun.co.uk]

Too bad The Sun doesn't know that the Turks & Caicos aren't in the Caribbean...

Seems to me it is...are you saying that because it's behind Cuba?

Quote
melillo
btw he looked like a prop of himself in that facebook promo, just awful IMO

I agree. Very sad

Quote
KRiffhard

Quote
melillo
btw he looked like a prop of himself in that facebook promo, just awful IMO

I agree. Very sad

They both look just as good (or bad) as they always do to me.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Stoneage
Busy writing "Life II". This time around he won't leave out anything...

Yes, apparently Brenda has vericose veins. It's tragic.

Like this?

> btw he looked like a prop of himself in that facebook promo, just awful IMO

Really? He looks sober, together and real.....mo make-up or hair dye, I think he looks pretty good.

That said, given his arthritis (look at his hands) I seriously doubt he can play guitar anymore and thus (IMO) there will be no more Rolling Stones performamces......ever again.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-25 19:06 by Woz.

I think Keith looks wonderful in this photo! Healthy, sober, happy........what more can a person ask for in life?

As for his arthritic hands, it comes with age (if one is genetically prone to it) and really one must simply live with it. Unfortunately.

Sober but stoned. Keith is always stoned

if he can keep his ego in check and stick to just hammering those open tuned chords he'll be fine.it doesnt require as much manuel dexterity as playing a lead and i'm not sure when he decided to start playing lead guitar anyway,he was never very good at it.

he's not dumb,he'll adjust his playing style.

Of course Keith was good at it. Before any of this guitar hero malarkey, Jon Landau deemed Keith our best hard rock lead guitarist. That was in 1967. As a Keith fan, I quite enjoyed his taking the live solo through the "weaving" years. Maybe it is a different story now, though.

john landau said keith was our best lead guitar player in 1967? that had to have been in rolling stone magazine.

its laughable,unless he was one of the few people who hadnt listened to cream or the hendrix experience who were both playing that year.

keith is however the worlds greatest rhythm guitar player.

Depends on your opinion I guess. I always liked Keith's leads. Maybe Landau thought Cream and Hendrix to be excessive.

Personally I usually get bored with endless soloing.

Quote
lem motlow
john landau said keith was our best lead guitar player in 1967? that had to have been in rolling stone magazine.

its laughable,unless he was one of the few people who hadnt listened to cream or the hendrix experience who were both playing that year.

keith is however the worlds greatest rhythm guitar player.

He always was more than a rhythm player, and I think that´s what Landau was referring to.

The TOTAL outcome of what Keith did, even back in 1967, was always much more interesting than flashy leads, imo.

He is probably the only "rhythm guitarist" who comes across as a lead guitarist while playing riffs and rhythm-patterns, too (except for a few years during the Taylor years).

Quote
DandelionPowderman

The TOTAL outcome of what Keith did, even back in 1967, was always much more interesting than flashy leads, imo.

He is probably the only "rhythm guitarist" who comes across as a lead guitarist ).

I agree re "flashy leads" but I think Laudau was seriously out of time if he seriously claimed things like that. The whole genre of rock took huge steps professionally and instrumentilitywise those years - 66/67 - and old 'beat groups' like The Beatles and the Stones couldn't really answer to that development ,and they didn't even need to, since they had some different qualities (great song writing, etc). Clapton's album with John Mayall was probably a kind of trend setter of 'new professionalism' - it is probably still today the most influental guitar album ever done. A "super group" like Cream was a logical outcome of that, followed by Hendrix, Zeppelin, full of 'master' musicians. "Our" Mick Taylor belongs to the genre that seriously trained their shit out. The rock musicians developed marvelously within a few yaers from the early willing poppish amateurs, like the first genre of British 'rock' groups basically were. The Stones, without some rare moments of Brian Jones, were not any flashy professional players but more like fun having pop stars and amateurs whose image was a big part of the whole deal. (I think this distinction always maintained in Taylor's time within the group - his approach was different to others; it is also funny that when Keith gained his 'cult' status in the early 70's,as an inspiration of league of new generation of guitarists (think of Johnny Thunders, Andy McCoy, etc), and then on, you couldn't seperate the image of the man from his playing - they seem to go hand in hand, as they still do. Keith's rock star looks and habits are part of the deal - that's Andrew Loog Oldham-like, "poppish".. ).

I have never been a fan of that kind of Clapton-like 'seriousness' and I have always found 'flashy solos' very over-estimated genre of musicianship. But from a technical point of view, there is huge difference in 1966/67 Rolling Stones music in compared to this new 'seriousness' presented especially by Cream, and then exploded by Hendrix. From a guitarist point of view AFTERMATH, BETWEEN THE BUTTONS or THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES are interesting to listen to, including a lot of little intersting gems instrumentwise but honestly, that's children's/amateurs' stuff compared to Hendrix or Cream albums of the time. Even though I love them in their own terms, it is 'light pop' in compared to those guys' stuff. It is no wonder we many times call these years as a "pop era". Of course, the Stones were watching The Beatles, The Beach Boys, The Kinks, and bands like that as their rivals at the time, and not these new 'serious professionals'.

I think Keith, who really was so inventive, adaptive and creative at the time, understood this challenge, and really started to develop his guitar, and found by trial and error, and deep concentration, a new depth in his playing, which finally emerged as a signature sound. But I think he quite early (67?) understood that the 'new professionalism' is not his forte, and his genious lies elsewhere. And thank god for that.

Anyway, the progressive rock, fusion jazz, and whatever (crap) that flowered during he early/mid 70's was quite a natural progression of the 'new professionalism' - as, of course, the league of all those hard rock rock bands with flashing solo guitarists - with their terrible egos - that 'made' the sound of rock bands. The Stones, by contrast, were never very home in that category, even though they had a flashy solo guitarist for a while. And also thank god for that.

- Doxa



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-27 14:03 by Doxa.

He's recording with Winos the new album that from April/May 11 is 'starting to blossom'

Shooting water rats

After being sober for some time (firss time in 45 years) and practising to get his chops together - asked by Mick to make the following Stones activities - is watching his collection of hundreds of guitars and wondering... "hmmm... I thought a guitar has six strings but how in earth mines only have five plus they are tuned so strangely..."

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-28 00:28 by Doxa.