For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
RobertJohnson
Another great Ronnie/Keith joint venture ... One of my favorites:
Quote
DandelionPowderman
THAT is a great Ronnie-solo, Ming!
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Getting sober helped, way before Taylor joined.
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Getting sober helped, way before Taylor joined.
Quote
71TeleQuote
DandelionPowderman
Getting sober helped, way before Taylor joined.
Perhaps the biggest factor.
Quote
Chris FountainQuote
71TeleQuote
DandelionPowderman
Getting sober helped, way before Taylor joined.
Perhaps the biggest factor.
It's a matter of consistency versus creativity. If drinking is involved anything can happen. When I saw the Faces in Offenhehiemer, Germany circa 1972, concert was magical. Of course, he was drinking along Rod.
The issue of dealing with folks that drink or do drugs is directly related to the unexpected I'm not saying it is good or bad, it's simply an unpredictable factor.
Playing sober or soberer is a great obstacle to overcome. When you "point of reference" is changed so dramatically it's easy to become overly self aware on stage. When driving regulations in New York tightened up I began to play without drinking at all and the voices in my head got loud. I can see it in all 3 guitarists in different ways and I think Ron is a step ahead of Taylor and Keith. For Richards I would not bet against some more great playing in the future. Although his fingers are clumsy he will get sharper. I can see his disappointment when he doesn't follow through on a solo like IORR at Glaston, he's got the heart to play better much better, he just needs two good fingers after all!Quote
71TeleQuote
Chris FountainQuote
71TeleQuote
DandelionPowderman
Getting sober helped, way before Taylor joined.
Perhaps the biggest factor.
It's a matter of consistency versus creativity. If drinking is involved anything can happen. When I saw the Faces in Offenhehiemer, Germany circa 1972, concert was magical. Of course, he was drinking along Rod.
The issue of dealing with folks that drink or do drugs is directly related to the unexpected I'm not saying it is good or bad, it's simply an unpredictable factor.
Well, I'm saying bad, in Wood's case. For years. But I am pleased he sorted it out and his playing is much better and more consistent than it has been in a very long time. Good for him.
Quote
DoomandGloomPlaying sober or soberer is a great obstacle to overcome. When you "point of reference" is changed so dramatically it's easy to become overly self aware on stage. When driving regulations in New York tightened up I began to play without drinking at all and the voices in my head got loud. I can see it in all 3 guitarists in different ways and I think Ron is a step ahead of Taylor and Keith. For Richards I would not bet against some more great playing in the future. Although his fingers are clumsy he will get sharper. I can see his disappointment when he doesn't follow through on a solo like IORR at Glaston, he's got the heart to play better much better, he just needs two good fingers after all!Quote
71TeleQuote
Chris FountainQuote
71TeleQuote
DandelionPowderman
Getting sober helped, way before Taylor joined.
Perhaps the biggest factor.
It's a matter of consistency versus creativity. If drinking is involved anything can happen. When I saw the Faces in Offenhehiemer, Germany circa 1972, concert was magical. Of course, he was drinking along Rod.
The issue of dealing with folks that drink or do drugs is directly related to the unexpected I'm not saying it is good or bad, it's simply an unpredictable factor.
Well, I'm saying bad, in Wood's case. For years. But I am pleased he sorted it out and his playing is much better and more consistent than it has been in a very long time. Good for him.
Quote
FanOfGRARBITW
Of course the Stones at an average age of 70 can not match the youthful wildness of the late sixties and early seventies, even 81-82, the question is How good are they now without comparing them to their past? I was just listening to Hyde Park Live this morning and thinking about a few points. It's hard to listen to it without visualizing things like how grey and wrinkled Keith looks etc. Visualizations can prejudice our opinions about what we hear. Granted, Keith is not what he used to be but I think it's overkill to say things like he's a shell of his former self, etc. He's still pretty damn good, but in a more subtle way. My point is this - and I know I'm off the Woody topic here - Grab a good set of headphones and imagine you have no idea how old the Stones are or what they look like now, and just listen to the music. It's damn good, I think. And that guitarist in the right channel is pretty cool even if most of his licks are simple. And to get back on topic, that guitar in the left channel is pretty good and overall the music sounds real good. And I would say this band - who I have no idea of their age or looks are better than an awful lot of what passes for rock and roll these day. The Stones are pretty damn good.
Quote
BastionQuote
FanOfGRARBITW
Of course the Stones at an average age of 70 can not match the youthful wildness of the late sixties and early seventies, even 81-82, the question is How good are they now without comparing them to their past? I was just listening to Hyde Park Live this morning and thinking about a few points. It's hard to listen to it without visualizing things like how grey and wrinkled Keith looks etc. Visualizations can prejudice our opinions about what we hear. Granted, Keith is not what he used to be but I think it's overkill to say things like he's a shell of his former self, etc. He's still pretty damn good, but in a more subtle way. My point is this - and I know I'm off the Woody topic here - Grab a good set of headphones and imagine you have no idea how old the Stones are or what they look like now, and just listen to the music. It's damn good, I think. And that guitarist in the right channel is pretty cool even if most of his licks are simple. And to get back on topic, that guitar in the left channel is pretty good and overall the music sounds real good. And I would say this band - who I have no idea of their age or looks are better than an awful lot of what passes for rock and roll these day. The Stones are pretty damn good.
Just like you, this is completely off-topic. You do make a really good point and the example I'm gonna post goes totally against what you say (sorry!), but I think this approach to this song could only have been pulled off by the 70-year old Keith:
I don't care what anyone else thinks, but to me, this is how blues should be played and sung, and it's something only Keith could do at this age. His voice and careful approach to playing just suits it perfectly.
Quote
FanOfGRARBITW
Of course the Stones at an average age of 70 can not match the youthful wildness of the late sixties and early seventies, even 81-82, the question is How good are they now without comparing them to their past?
Quote
Powerage
Quote
Redhotcarpet
Ronnie was never as good as Taylor, sober or not. Taylor is just a so much better guitarist, he was a straight shooter from the start.