No,I'm not just putting him down now BUT, what happened to Keith the cool after 1989. I mean, in '88 he was OK after all. Look at him, and hear him do Take it so hard at the Hollywood. He's Keith playing a Keith song and not jumping around with adult ADHD like in the 90s. And then one year later he does Happy in Barcelona, moving around and waving his arms and all with the terrible clothes (OK, he wasnt alone but still). Seriously, is this part of some contract about how they should be onstage, is it Keith with braindamage or what?? If I were Mick I would be ashamed. Is this Keiths ego after heroin? This is a serious question from one of his biggest fan. And OK, his singing is bad and he know that hence the ballads and the best Stones song of the 90s: Thief in the night.

Giant video screens -> posing.

Keith's onstage singing has improved dramatically since he went on the road with his own band in 1988. Prior to that you were lucky if he actually sang into the mic properly.

Fronting a band also taught him more about being able to work a crowd. He's been less withdrawn as a performer since then. And certainly more verbose and animated towards an audience.

So, basically I dont agree. You could argue that his playing isnt what it used to be (I'll leave that judgement to others) although may be also due to aging.

However, when you're playing the vast stadiums the Stones do, you do need to have more than one band member able to project themselves and communicate with the audience. Thirty plus years ago, you only had Mick doing that. Now you have Mick, Woody and Keith. All good 'showmen' to some degree. A talent Brian had as well (although they didnt play such big venues then) but which Mick T didnt. Keith has IMO BECOME a good showman down the years.

Obviously that could open up another argument as to whether its more important to be able to play great or perform great. Personally I think for most people in a 60,000 seater stadium the latter is more important (and helped because Mick continues to be such a great front man and IMO has actually improved in that respect over the years)

I'd have to say Keith, in his own
way, often plays and sings better,
in that he is more technically
proficient, since 89 than he
ever was back in the day.
I think when he jumps around
he is making show -being
entertaining.

I agree on the "too much posing" due to giant screens. What I really miss is Keith's performances without posing: before '89 he was the king of cool, playing his axe without (almost) looking to the audience, staying on the stage somewhat distant to the cheering people and concentrating in his playing. He used to spread much more charisma (sp?) with that "distant rock-god" look. Nowadays he uses to wave his arms too much doing the "extremely hot guitar neck" thing about thirty times per song... And it's somewhat weird, since you got giant screens everybody can see him so ther's no need to all of that waving...

About his vocal abilities, well, Keith didn't has sung properly since 1973, so as far as he sings in front of the mic instead two meters away it's fine for me.

[There'll be no wedding today...]

No - it's ADHD - not a chance. BTW, I think Keith peaked as a guitarist somewhere between 1997-1999. I thought his playing was often red-hot during the NS tour. He had noticeably declined on many of his "rote" runs during the Licks tour.

Keith ain't Keef after 1989.
His posing and posturing are distractions.
Simply listen to the way he's 'playing' guitar since 1989, if you can hear it.
The guitars are not consistently mixed down, for nothing.
Not by coincidence.
Wanna go to see an RS "show", great.
Go and enjoy.
You won't see a band, nor will you see Keith Richards playing guitar.

Well one does wish Keith would
focus moreso on the guitars but I
can't help but feel he's paid his
dues. If he wants to jump around and
act looney in his old age, than so be it.

Yes, but the jumpins around with the arms and face expressions doesnt seem very real or even neccesary. I mean, why does he do that?? It's not a very good act and I'm sure he would find himself ridicolous had he seen this coming some 30 years ago.

I don't see much difference between 1981 and 1989, but after that Keith started to focus more and more on the movements than on the playing, which is a natural thing. If you devote 100% to your playing (like from 1969 until 1978), you then hardly concetrate on your playing. If your playing becomes less (technically and inpiration wise), than you'll have more concentration for the movements. And I don't think it doesn't help a lot if you're a guitarist and you're playing Jumping Jack Flash over and over and over, 30 years long, 4000 shows...

I agree btw that Keith had it's post-1989 peak on the NS tour, but still -compared to 1978 or 1981 it still is a mere shadow of what he used to be.

Mathijs

I agree with Gazza! Look at Keith trying to sing in 1972 or 1975?!? He couldn´t sometimes stand on his feet! I don´t see alot if difference beetween 1988 and 1989 or 1990. In my opinion Keith were at his top in 1990 as a guitarplayer.

LA FORUM wrote:

"I'm sure he would find himself ridicolous had he seen this coming some 30 years ago."

But Keith says he doesn't even remember 30 years ago, so how would he have seen "this" coming, as you say?

Frankly, I think everyone goes through some type of change, physical and mental about every 7 years, so Keith is just evolving as he gets older, as everyone else does.

I feel Keith sings better now, (he says he had some great instruction from an old Bluesman on the refinements of singing and the voice, etc.). But, I also like the way Keith's voice is in the early years of his singing career too. His ballads are mood setting.

He can pose if he wants, he says he likes to try new things, I for one won't mess with "The Keith." Like Anita said, "Whatever Keith wants, Keith gets, and you better be there when he wants it." (She was refering mostly to his Shepards Pie, but other things too. I don't know how the heck Keith has kept his figure all these years, eating Shepards Pie everyday

<Look at Keith trying to sing in 1972 or 1975?!? He couldn´t sometimes stand on his feet!>

The difference is that Keith in 1972 and 1975 at least tried to sing the melody. Keith in 1990 (look at At The Max f.i.) sings Happy and other songs without caring for how the songline really is, skipping lines and posing instead of singing. I think Keith has improved as a singer technically, but he is always best when he sings the straight melody line.

steini wrote:

"He couldn´t sometimes stand on his feet!"
------------------------------------------

Well, I'd rather go to a Stones gig with Keith hardly standing on his feet and playing like he used to do in '78 better than having him sober and posing a bit too much.

[There'll be no wedding today...]

Yes and his sinigin was better in 72 and also in 75-82 - he rocked!

I have always said it...........GIGANTIC VIDEO SCREENS. The band is prodded to give the camermen "something".

Giant video screens....you can finally see what they are doing. IMO, Keith's stage movements were pretty natural thru Voodoo.

Its was very obvious that Keith was REALLY exagerating things at times during LICKS.......maybe he goofing on purpose ? Maybe the exagerations piss off Mick or make Charlie laugh ? Who Knows.

Milo, NYC
It sure been a cold cold winter

"Were there songs that never came together live? I'm thinking of "Anybody Seen My Baby"

That could either be great or abysmal. That's the thing about tempo, and also attitude. Sometimes it felty really good, other times it felt a bit naff to me. At the same time, I kind of enjoyed it because I could play the soul guitar player bit! Just stand there and be cool, instead of leaping about."

From Iorr: no 35 1999

Yes Keith, just stand there and be cool!