Quote
Hairball

Quote
tumbled
This one deserves a grammy.

At least some sort of nomination.
As has been discussed/debated earlier, perhaps under the Americana category. Or even co-Producer with Steve Jordan.
More than likely a 'Living Legend' of 'Lifetime Achievment' award - if anyone deserves it at this point, it would be Keith imo.

The actual ceremony will be held on 15th February at which point Keith will be somewhere near Uruguay and Argentina.
So if he does win an award,who could pick it up on his behalf?
Ry Cooder, perhaps.

Quote
jlowe

Quote
matxil

Quote
andrea66
I am surprised that after all this talking and good reports , keith did no gigs to promote it. Very disappointing and weak choice

Exactly.
But Keith Richards always claims that his first band is and always will be The Rolling Stones. For some reason (sentimental, I guess), even though musically speaking his solo work clearly is superior to the Stones output of the last 3 decades, he's still loyal to the idea of the band he made big.
But it's a real pity.
I'd have loved seeing him tour in Europe, in mid-sized concert halls, playing songs from Talk Is Cheap, Main Offender, and Crosseyed Heart.

Take It So Hard, Rockawhile, You Don't Move Me, How I Wish, Make No Mistake, Wicked As It Seems, Hate It When You Leave, Will But You Won't, Eileen, Trouble, Amnesia, Heartbreaker, Illusion, Lover's Plea, Something For Nothing.

I don't think that's a bad setlist at all. And he can add Happy and Before They Make Me Run.

Yes, a great shame.
And given the apparant lack of any Stones activity, he could have managed a short series of gigs sometime in October and or November. This would not have interfered with his day job.
Methinks that Keith's quote that he will go on forever, like the old blues men won't happen.Even some sets on T V shows would have been a reasonable compromise. As well as boosting the sales figures of course.

Given the quality of the new record , it would have been more exciting to see Keith in a theater setting than another Stones show in a gigantic stadium imo.
Not even one live appearance (Fallon, SNL, or whatever) for even one song seems odd. Oh well, life goes on...

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
jlowe

Quote
matxil

Quote
andrea66
I am surprised that after all this talking and good reports , keith did no gigs to promote it. Very disappointing and weak choice

Exactly.
But Keith Richards always claims that his first band is and always will be The Rolling Stones. For some reason (sentimental, I guess), even though musically speaking his solo work clearly is superior to the Stones output of the last 3 decades, he's still loyal to the idea of the band he made big.
But it's a real pity.
I'd have loved seeing him tour in Europe, in mid-sized concert halls, playing songs from Talk Is Cheap, Main Offender, and Crosseyed Heart.

Take It So Hard, Rockawhile, You Don't Move Me, How I Wish, Make No Mistake, Wicked As It Seems, Hate It When You Leave, Will But You Won't, Eileen, Trouble, Amnesia, Heartbreaker, Illusion, Lover's Plea, Something For Nothing.

I don't think that's a bad setlist at all. And he can add Happy and Before They Make Me Run.

Yes, a great shame.
And given the apparant lack of any Stones activity, he could have managed a short series of gigs sometime in October and or November. This would not have interfered with his day job.
Methinks that Keith's quote that he will go on forever, like the old blues men won't happen.Even some sets on T V shows would have been a reasonable compromise. As well as boosting the sales figures of course.

Possibly a way for KR to show that his solo effort is not distracting from the Stones. He unilaterally dropped some planned production activities before the 2012 shows as a sign to Mick that he was fully committed. A tour or live appearances would be a significant step past the release of the album, which he stalled for a year as it is. The Winos performed live at the Merry Clayton tribute, it wouldn't have taken much for them to knock up a song or two of the new album to appear on Fallon with, but Keith obviously chose not to. I think he wants to make it clear that he wants to make an album with the Stones.

Quote
TeddyB1018

Quote
jlowe

Quote
matxil

Quote
andrea66
I am surprised that after all this talking and good reports , keith did no gigs to promote it. Very disappointing and weak choice

Exactly.
But Keith Richards always claims that his first band is and always will be The Rolling Stones. For some reason (sentimental, I guess), even though musically speaking his solo work clearly is superior to the Stones output of the last 3 decades, he's still loyal to the idea of the band he made big.
But it's a real pity.
I'd have loved seeing him tour in Europe, in mid-sized concert halls, playing songs from Talk Is Cheap, Main Offender, and Crosseyed Heart.

Take It So Hard, Rockawhile, You Don't Move Me, How I Wish, Make No Mistake, Wicked As It Seems, Hate It When You Leave, Will But You Won't, Eileen, Trouble, Amnesia, Heartbreaker, Illusion, Lover's Plea, Something For Nothing.

I don't think that's a bad setlist at all. And he can add Happy and Before They Make Me Run.

Yes, a great shame.
And given the apparant lack of any Stones activity, he could have managed a short series of gigs sometime in October and or November. This would not have interfered with his day job.
Methinks that Keith's quote that he will go on forever, like the old blues men won't happen.Even some sets on T V shows would have been a reasonable compromise. As well as boosting the sales figures of course.

Possibly a way for KR to show that his solo effort is not distracting from the Stones. He unilaterally dropped some planned production activities before the 2012 shows as a sign to Mick that he was fully committed. A tour or live appearances would be a significant step past the release of the album, which he stalled for a year as it is. The Winos performed live at the Merry Clayton tribute, it wouldn't have taken much for them to knock up a song or two of the new album to appear on Fallon with, but Keith obviously chose not to. I think he wants to make it clear that he wants to make an album with the Stones.

I think you guys are missing the most obvious reason this never happened. Keith would have a very difficult time fronting a band in 2015, he even admitted it, especially touring behind a record where he played so many of the parts. The amount of work it would require to get all the other players to cover his parts and to get his vocal chops up to sing a whole show just wasn't going to happen. And even if he did, it would likely lose some of the "all Keith" intimacy of the record probably detract from it instead of propel it forward in any sort of meaningful way. imo. The record was somewhat of an unexpected success, I don't think he wants to risk tarnishing it in any way. Besides it was made in the studio over a several year period,in some cases quite spontaneously, he probably would have to learn all his parts over from scratch.

I adore Keith, like his new record but am not so blind that I can't realize we will never get another Keith Richards solo show, sadly and unfortunately. His not performing even a single song from the record despite many opportunities to do so was a pretty clear sign he isn't going to go there anymore. I suspect after the Stones tour we will see him in some guest spots, perhaps even some which are longer than a couple of songs, but not as a band leader and not singing more than one or two numbers.

Quote
TeddyB1018

Quote
jlowe

Quote
matxil

Quote
andrea66
I am surprised that after all this talking and good reports , keith did no gigs to promote it. Very disappointing and weak choice

Exactly.
But Keith Richards always claims that his first band is and always will be The Rolling Stones. For some reason (sentimental, I guess), even though musically speaking his solo work clearly is superior to the Stones output of the last 3 decades, he's still loyal to the idea of the band he made big.
But it's a real pity.
I'd have loved seeing him tour in Europe, in mid-sized concert halls, playing songs from Talk Is Cheap, Main Offender, and Crosseyed Heart.

Take It So Hard, Rockawhile, You Don't Move Me, How I Wish, Make No Mistake, Wicked As It Seems, Hate It When You Leave, Will But You Won't, Eileen, Trouble, Amnesia, Heartbreaker, Illusion, Lover's Plea, Something For Nothing.

I don't think that's a bad setlist at all. And he can add Happy and Before They Make Me Run.

Yes, a great shame.
And given the apparant lack of any Stones activity, he could have managed a short series of gigs sometime in October and or November. This would not have interfered with his day job.
Methinks that Keith's quote that he will go on forever, like the old blues men won't happen.Even some sets on T V shows would have been a reasonable compromise. As well as boosting the sales figures of course.

Possibly a way for KR to show that his solo effort is not distracting from the Stones. He unilaterally dropped some planned production activities before the 2012 shows as a sign to Mick that he was fully committed. A tour or live appearances would be a significant step past the release of the album, which he stalled for a year as it is. The Winos performed live at the Merry Clayton tribute, it wouldn't have taken much for them to knock up a song or two of the new album to appear on Fallon with, but Keith obviously chose not to. I think he wants to make it clear that he wants to make an album with the Stones.

Yeah, he seemed prepared enough at the Apollo gig which makes it seem odd that he didn't play even one song either on Fallon or somewhere else. Perhaps you're right about him sending the message that he's first and foremost a Rolling Stone and has his priorities in order . Lets hope the album he makes with the Stones (if it's even a whole album) was worth the sacrifice of not showcasing his solo talents.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-12-04 01:40 by Hairball.

To support Doxa a bit here I think there is a clear discrepancy between the reinforced acclamation Keith is getting here as opposed to the reception in the "real world". It recieved quite bland reviews in the press and it isn't exactly a chartbuster and on heavy rotation on the radio stations. And number 74 on Uncut's Top 75 list can not possibly be regarded as a success of any kind. Maybe for a newcomer but certainly not for an established artist.
The risk with hyperboles like this one is that they will only end up in frustration or disappointment.

Keith is obviously a much different man than he was in 1983...which is kinda my point. I hope I made it clear it was just my opinion in any case, we've all got one.

If he would have tried a song from his record at the Apollo performance I would have been less suspicious...instead we got Happy, a song he has played and sang so much over the past year it was hardly a challenge, more of a cop out. And I think he butchered GS pretty badly that night too...of course it was in the spirit of jazz improv as he joked himself. lol Besides 2 songs he has played dozens of times in the past year does not indicate much about his ability to front a band for a whole show.

No worries Hairball, time will tell. I would LOVE to see a Keith solo show, more so than a Stones show actually but I'm not holding my breath and I believe it has little to do with his dedication to the Stones or some need to show Mick he values the Stones above his solo work. He had plenty of time for a few weeks of shows, imo and it's hard to imagine Keith is worried about what Mick thinks his dedication to the Stones is. What's Mick expect, Keith to be sitting at home practicing the intro to Brown Sugar so he gets it right in SA? Ha!

This album did NOT get 'quite bland reviews in the press'
Hello? Check out this thread and the 'Under the Influence' thread
for all the many links.
Great reviews.
I believe that was a very ill informed blanket statement without actually doing the reading.
I did all the reading. Every one provided.

Okey, 35Love. You might be right. I'm foremost refering to the reviews it recieved here in Sweden. The two mayor Stockholm newspapers gave it 3 out of 5. Which isn't bad but not over the the top either.
Since then it has been very quiet about it in the media over here. Both ethermedia and the press.

Quote
35love
This album did NOT get 'quite bland reviews in the press'
Hello? Check out this thread and the 'Under the Influence' thread
for all the many links.
Great reviews.
I believe that was a very ill informed blanket statement without actually doing the reading.
I did all the reading. Every one provided.

"Bland reviews" or not, I don't think that those who posted their "aclamation" here give a fig for whether it got universal praise in the press. Very few if any albums by Keith's peers are in heavy rotation on the radio anymore, so don't see what that has to do with it either, but hey, that's some nice verbage there, stoneage. You did Doxa proud.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-12-04 02:55 by latebloomer.

It's pretty obvious that Keith can't handle a whole gig on his own, even a short one (45 minutes - 10 songs) when was the last time that he played more than 4-5 songs on his own? 1993? Almost 23 YEARS AGO.

He played very sloppy on Harlem, even songs done to death as Happy and GS, imagine a new song.

Quote
Naturalust
Keith is obviously a much different man than he was in 1983...which is kinda my point. I hope I made it clear it was just my opinion in any case, we've all got one.

If he would have tried a song from his record at the Apollo performance I would have been less suspicious...instead we got Happy, a song he has played and sang so much over the past year it was hardly a challenge, more of a cop out. And I think he butchered GS pretty badly that night too...of course it was in the spirit of jazz improv as he joked himself. lol Besides 2 songs he has played dozens of times in the past year does not indicate much about his ability to front a band for a whole show.

No worries Hairball, time will tell. I would LOVE to see a Keith solo show, more so than a Stones show actually but I'm not holding my breath and I believe it has little to do with his dedication to the Stones or some need to show Mick he values the Stones above his solo work. He had plenty of time for a few weeks of shows, imo and it's hard to imagine Keith is worried about what Mick thinks his dedication to the Stones is. What's Mick expect, Keith to be sitting at home practicing the intro to Brown Sugar so he gets it right in SA? Ha!

Yes Naturalust, you made it clear it was just your opinion, but when others don't hold the same opinion you decide to throw in a mocking little picture. No biggie.

I don't think anyone is holding their breath for a solo Keith show at this point, not to mention an entire tour.
And my thoughts were reflecting what TeddyB1018 had said - referring to a single performance of a single song...not a whole solo show or an entire tour. Perhaps your diatribe was directed to others who are disappointed for him not touring. It kind of makes sense that he's showing loyalty to his Stones brethren by not showcasing himself, at least I thought so. He's got bigger fish to fry, and hopefully the results will be worth it.

Quote
Stoneage
To support Doxa a bit here I think there is a clear discrepancy between the reinforced acclamation Keith is getting here as opposed to the reception in the "real world". It recieved quite bland reviews in the press and it isn't exactly a chartbuster and on heavy rotation on the radio stations. And number 74 on Uncut's Top 75 list can not possibly be regarded as a success of any kind. Maybe for a newcomer but certainly not for an established artist.
The risk with hyperboles like this one is that they will only end up in frustration or disappointment.

Number 17 on Rolling Stones top 50 - no denying the success. The fact that it made it on Uncut's list at all is worthy of some praise.
Mixed in with dozens of bands not many here have even heard of, and then there's Keith sitting pretty at 74.

Quite bland reviews? What have you been reading?

via wiki:
Crosseyed Heart was met with positive reviews from music critics. At Metacritic, which assigns a normalized rating out of 100 to reviews from mainstream critics, the album has received an average score of 76, based on 19 reviews, indicating "generally favourable reviews".

Review scores

The Guardian 4/5 stars
Mojo 4/5 stars
NME 4/5
Paste 9/10
Rolling Stone 3.5/5
Slant Magazine 3.5/5


Perhaps you just don't like the album and are frustrated and disappointed (to use your words), and if so just say it out loud rather than trying to rewrite history .

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-12-04 02:52 by Hairball.

Ok, I stand corrected on the reviews. Those reviews mentioned were really good. 4/5 is. It recieved 3/5 frow newspapers in Sweden. But Sweden isn't the whole world...

Quote
Stoneage
Ok, I stand corrected on the reviews. Those reviews mentioned were really good. 4/5 is. It recieved 3/5 frow newspapers in Sweden. But Sweden isn't the whole world...

It is to you stoneage, and that's alright....

Quote
Stoneage
Ok, I stand corrected on the reviews. Those reviews mentioned were really good. 4/5 is. It recieved 3/5 frow newspapers in Sweden. But Sweden isn't the whole world...

It even received (only) a 3.5 of 5 in Rolling Stone mag which doesn't look stellar on it's surface, but the written review itself was glowing with praise if memory serves.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Keith will do some solo shows again.

Found the old Rolling Stone 3.5 out of 5 review - my memory served well.
Don't understand their numbering system, as the review is 100% positive:

Folk, reggae and tons of guitar brilliance on his first LP in 23 years

Keith Richards' first solo album since 1992 opens like a fever dream, with the 71-year-old rock god croaking acoustic blues like Robert Johnson after burning down a half-ounce spliff. But it's a feint. "All right, that's all I got," he snaps just under two minutes in, before upshifting into his most eccentric and best-ever solo set. Crosseyed Heart is the sound of Richards following his pleasure wherever it leads, with a lean, simpatico team including longtime session pals Steve Jordan, Ivan Neville and Waddy Wachtel backing him up all the way.

Naturally, there's a dip into roots reggae: Gregory Isaacs' 1974 lovers' rock signature, "Love Overdue," complete with brass and Neville's sweet backing vocals. There's also a straight read of "Goodnight Irene," a folk standard that Richards likely heard as a kid when the Weavers' version charted in 1950. Two originals are as strong as any Stones songs of recent decades: "Robbed Blind," a "Dead Flowers"-scented outlaw-country ballad that echoes Merle Haggard's "Sing Me Back Home," and "Trouble," all hiccup-riff swagger with a slide-guitar mash note from Wachtel to ex-Stone Mick Taylor. There's a charmingly cheeky duet with Norah Jones ("Illusion" ), and some beautifully telling moments (see "Amnesia" ) where Keith's guitar is nearly everything — his sublime grooves sprouting melodic blooms and thorny leads. It's proof that, at core, dude's an army of one.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
Hairball

Yes Naturalust, you made it clear it was just your opinion, but when others don't hold the same opinion you decide to throw in a mocking little picture. No biggie.

I thought it was pretty funny actually, humor was my main intention, sorry if you were a bit offended. But I do sense pretty strongly that people are indeed a bit blind to the reality of Keith Richards in 2015. So many seem to hold him up as this invincible character who will be performing at the level he did even 10 years ago. I actually see this international treasure who is aging quickly and while still brilliant and capable of making a decent studio record (over several years) and playing 40 year old songs with the Stones, just isn't capable of the leading a band as the main guitarist and vocalist. It's so clear to me after watching him closely for the past 35 years I am a bit shocked other people don't see it so clearly. I don't love him any less and of course there is no shame in growing old but I must be honest about it all. And as georgelicks points out, it's been decades since Keith has tried more than a few songs on his own.

In any case I just hope he performs well during the SA tour, plays a few solo songs other that Happy and BTMMR and delights the audiences once again. Beyond that my expectations are nil.

No offense taken Naturalust, just though it was out of character of you to resort to that type of stuff.

"So many seem to hold him up as this invincible character who will be performing at the level he did even 10 years ago"

Well he did play better during the recent Grrr/50 and ZIP code tour than he did for a majority of ABB I thought (and I'm referring to before his head injury).
He's more focused with less posing...holding it down musically rather than awkward kicks and arms flailing about. Still a bit of that recently, but for the most part he kind of lurks in the background doing what he does best - play the guitar. No doubt that time is ticking away, and it takes it's toll on everybody in one way or another.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

I typed out a long paragraph about 'capability' verses 'tired of working, everyone get off my back'
when I realized it was me, lol.
And I'm not near Keith's age.

Quote
Librarian
Keith will do some solo shows again.

Keep hope alive.

Quote
Hairball
No offense taken Naturalust, just though it was out of character of you to resort to that type of stuff.

"So many seem to hold him up as this invincible character who will be performing at the level he did even 10 years ago"

Well he did play better during the recent Grrr/50 and ZIP code tour than he did for a majority of ABB I thought (and I'm referring to before his head injury).
He's more focused with less posing...holding it down musically rather than awkward kicks and arms flailing about. Still a bit of that recently, but for the most part he kind of lurks in the background doing what he does best - play the guitar. No doubt that time is ticking away, and it takes it's toll on everybody in one way or another.

I think it's Ronnie who's truly holding it down these days but like the master Keith is, he tends to do more with less. Seems to know just where to put his more limited energies into the guitar playing for maximum effect.

Do you actually believe we will see anymore Keith Richards solo shows?

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Hairball
No offense taken Naturalust, just though it was out of character of you to resort to that type of stuff.

"So many seem to hold him up as this invincible character who will be performing at the level he did even 10 years ago"

Well he did play better during the recent Grrr/50 and ZIP code tour than he did for a majority of ABB I thought (and I'm referring to before his head injury).
He's more focused with less posing...holding it down musically rather than awkward kicks and arms flailing about. Still a bit of that recently, but for the most part he kind of lurks in the background doing what he does best - play the guitar. No doubt that time is ticking away, and it takes it's toll on everybody in one way or another.

I think it's Ronnie who's truly holding it down these days but like the master Keith is, he tends to do more with less. Seems to know just where to put his more limited energies into the guitar playing for maximum effect.

Do you actually believe we will see anymore Keith Richards solo shows?

it depends on how things go with the stones.
in general i think you're right that if he was really excited about taking crosseyed heart on the road, it would have happened by now.
if you're mick, you've got to be looking at keith thinking "i don't know how many more years and shows this guy has got to give, i want him giving them all to the stones".

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Hairball
No offense taken Naturalust, just though it was out of character of you to resort to that type of stuff.

"So many seem to hold him up as this invincible character who will be performing at the level he did even 10 years ago"

Well he did play better during the recent Grrr/50 and ZIP code tour than he did for a majority of ABB I thought (and I'm referring to before his head injury).
He's more focused with less posing...holding it down musically rather than awkward kicks and arms flailing about. Still a bit of that recently, but for the most part he kind of lurks in the background doing what he does best - play the guitar. No doubt that time is ticking away, and it takes it's toll on everybody in one way or another.

I think it's Ronnie who's truly holding it down these days but like the master Keith is, he tends to do more with less. Seems to know just where to put his more limited energies into the guitar playing for maximum effect.

Do you actually believe we will see anymore Keith Richards solo shows?

Haven't you been reading my posts?

From this page: "I don't think anyone is holding their breath for a solo Keith show at this point, not to mention an entire tour".

I also said it would be more exciting seeing him in a theater than seeing another Stones show in a gigantic stadium - not expressing a belief it will happen.
In several other recent posts I expressed mild frustration that he didn't even play one or two songs on Fallon or anywhere else.

Granted, I may have expressed a belief he would play some solo shows way back when Crosseyed Heart was released (September), but things have obviously changed since then. The longer time goes on, believing it will actually happen is somewhat unrealistic. That's not to say he couldn't do it if he wanted (he's got the skills), but as TeddyB1018 pointed out, it seems he's showing loyalty to the Stones as his #1 priority. With all that said, there's still a slim possibility and a tiny glimmer of hope (not a belief) that we will see some live Keith solo again - be it one song, a short set, a full show, or even a full blown tour! I wouldn't be so confident to say it will definitely happen, but I also wouldn't be so adamant that it never will.

As for Ronnie 'truly holding it down these days' haha, the only thing he's doing is what he should have been doing for years - play second fiddle to Keith - and he's finally doing an ok job of it thanks to his sobriety. Keith is the anchor of the band, while Ronnie is simply the floater. Again, Keith has played better these last few years then he did 10 years ago for a variety of reasons - mainly because he seems more focused on the job that needs to be done.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
Stoneage
To support Doxa a bit here I think there is a clear discrepancy between the reinforced acclamation Keith is getting here as opposed to the reception in the "real world". It recieved quite bland reviews in the press and it isn't exactly a chartbuster and on heavy rotation on the radio stations. And number 74 on Uncut's Top 75 list can not possibly be regarded as a success of any kind. Maybe for a newcomer but certainly not for an established artist.
The risk with hyperboles like this one is that they will only end up in frustration or disappointment.

I never quite understood what Doxa's point was, to be honest. I also don't understand yours.
Nobody claims Keith is as popular as Justin Bieber.
However, I think Crosseyed Heart got at least as good a reception as Talk Is Cheap, and he toured behind that one. And filled arena halls. And many people came, mainly Stones fans who like Keith's stuff of course, but isnt' that enough?
So I am afraid you're looking for hyperboles at the wrong place. I only want a guy to play his album. If only 20 people would show up, it still would be great, but I am betting there will be more.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Hairball

Yes Naturalust, you made it clear it was just your opinion, but when others don't hold the same opinion you decide to throw in a mocking little picture. No biggie.

I thought it was pretty funny actually, humor was my main intention, sorry if you were a bit offended. But I do sense pretty strongly that people are indeed a bit blind to the reality of Keith Richards in 2015. So many seem to hold him up as this invincible character who will be performing at the level he did even 10 years ago. I actually see this international treasure who is aging quickly and while still brilliant and capable of making a decent studio record (over several years) and playing 40 year old songs with the Stones, just isn't capable of the leading a band as the main guitarist and vocalist. It's so clear to me after watching him closely for the past 35 years I am a bit shocked other people don't see it so clearly. I don't love him any less and of course there is no shame in growing old but I must be honest about it all. And as georgelicks points out, it's been decades since Keith has tried more than a few songs on his own.

In any case I just hope he performs well during the SA tour, plays a few solo songs other that Happy and BTMMR and delights the audiences once again. Beyond that my expectations are nil.

You might have a point about not beig able to be the leader of a band during an entire gig. Then again, I would think it wouldn't be much more tiring than being Keith Richards during a Stones gig. And here they are, touring in South America next year again. Stones gigs normally last at least 2 hours. Okay, he's not the "leader of the band", but in any case, with Keith's solo music, the concert would be more intimate, I think, more of a group-effort, and certainly noone would expect him to run around like Mick is still remarkably capable of doing.
But okay, it's true it would probably take some time getting the songs ready to play on stage, and he might not want to let it interfere with preparations for next year's Stones tour.

Quote
matxil

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Hairball

Yes Naturalust, you made it clear it was just your opinion, but when others don't hold the same opinion you decide to throw in a mocking little picture. No biggie.

I thought it was pretty funny actually, humor was my main intention, sorry if you were a bit offended. But I do sense pretty strongly that people are indeed a bit blind to the reality of Keith Richards in 2015. So many seem to hold him up as this invincible character who will be performing at the level he did even 10 years ago. I actually see this international treasure who is aging quickly and while still brilliant and capable of making a decent studio record (over several years) and playing 40 year old songs with the Stones, just isn't capable of the leading a band as the main guitarist and vocalist. It's so clear to me after watching him closely for the past 35 years I am a bit shocked other people don't see it so clearly. I don't love him any less and of course there is no shame in growing old but I must be honest about it all. And as georgelicks points out, it's been decades since Keith has tried more than a few songs on his own.

In any case I just hope he performs well during the SA tour, plays a few solo songs other that Happy and BTMMR and delights the audiences once again. Beyond that my expectations are nil.

You might have a point about not beig able to be the leader of a band during an entire gig. Then again, I would think it wouldn't be much more tiring than being Keith Richards during a Stones gig. And here they are, touring in South America next year again. Stones gigs normally last at least 2 hours. Okay, he's not the "leader of the band", but in any case, with Keith's solo music, the concert would be more intimate, I think, more of a group-effort, and certainly noone would expect him to run around like Mick is still remarkably capable of doing.
But okay, it's true it would probably take some time getting the songs ready to play on stage, and he might not want to let it interfere with preparations for next year's Stones tour.

he should do "lovers plea" during his set on the SA tour.

Quote
matxil

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Hairball

Yes Naturalust, you made it clear it was just your opinion, but when others don't hold the same opinion you decide to throw in a mocking little picture. No biggie.

I thought it was pretty funny actually, humor was my main intention, sorry if you were a bit offended. But I do sense pretty strongly that people are indeed a bit blind to the reality of Keith Richards in 2015. So many seem to hold him up as this invincible character who will be performing at the level he did even 10 years ago. I actually see this international treasure who is aging quickly and while still brilliant and capable of making a decent studio record (over several years) and playing 40 year old songs with the Stones, just isn't capable of the leading a band as the main guitarist and vocalist. It's so clear to me after watching him closely for the past 35 years I am a bit shocked other people don't see it so clearly. I don't love him any less and of course there is no shame in growing old but I must be honest about it all. And as georgelicks points out, it's been decades since Keith has tried more than a few songs on his own.

In any case I just hope he performs well during the SA tour, plays a few solo songs other that Happy and BTMMR and delights the audiences once again. Beyond that my expectations are nil.

You might have a point about not beig able to be the leader of a band during an entire gig. Then again, I would think it wouldn't be much more tiring than being Keith Richards during a Stones gig. And here they are, touring in South America next year again. Stones gigs normally last at least 2 hours. Okay, he's not the "leader of the band", but in any case, with Keith's solo music, the concert would be more intimate, I think, more of a group-effort, and certainly noone would expect him to run around like Mick is still remarkably capable of doing.
But okay, it's true it would probably take some time getting the songs ready to play on stage, and he might not want to let it interfere with preparations for next year's Stones tour.

I think it might be just as much to do with creating live arrangements for songs that were mostly put together in the studio over a long period, some time ago, with Keith often playing multiple instrumental parts as well as singing, and then getting together a band that can do them justice on stage. The argument that "any professional musicians could learn the parts in a couple of days" may well be true, but Keith probably doesn't want to work with just "any" musicians - are the people he'd feel comfortable with available at the moment? If there isn't time right now to do it well, he might prefer not to do it at all.

Quote
matxil

Quote
Stoneage
To support Doxa a bit here I think there is a clear discrepancy between the reinforced acclamation Keith is getting here as opposed to the reception in the "real world". It recieved quite bland reviews in the press and it isn't exactly a chartbuster and on heavy rotation on the radio stations. And number 74 on Uncut's Top 75 list can not possibly be regarded as a success of any kind. Maybe for a newcomer but certainly not for an established artist.
The risk with hyperboles like this one is that they will only end up in frustration or disappointment.

I never quite understood what Doxa's point was, to be honest. I also don't understand yours.
Nobody claims Keith is as popular as Justin Bieber.
However, I think Crosseyed Heart got at least as good a reception as Talk Is Cheap, and he toured behind that one. And filled arena halls. And many people came, mainly Stones fans who like Keith's stuff of course, but isnt' that enough?
So I am afraid you're looking for hyperboles at the wrong place. I only want a guy to play his album. If only 20 people would show up, it still would be great, but I am betting there will be more.

I guess I didn't expect anyone here understanding this critisim since this thread is pretty much a Keith fan-thread. So whatever I say I will be in a clear minority here. When I mentioned hyperboles I was thinking about the comparison with EOMS and other classic Stones albums a few pages ago. But I think that has calmed down a bit now. Now you are comparing it with Talk Is Cheap which I think is a more reasonable comparison.

Quote
Stoneage

Quote
matxil

Quote
Stoneage
To support Doxa a bit here I think there is a clear discrepancy between the reinforced acclamation Keith is getting here as opposed to the reception in the "real world". It recieved quite bland reviews in the press and it isn't exactly a chartbuster and on heavy rotation on the radio stations. And number 74 on Uncut's Top 75 list can not possibly be regarded as a success of any kind. Maybe for a newcomer but certainly not for an established artist.
The risk with hyperboles like this one is that they will only end up in frustration or disappointment.

I never quite understood what Doxa's point was, to be honest. I also don't understand yours.
Nobody claims Keith is as popular as Justin Bieber.
However, I think Crosseyed Heart got at least as good a reception as Talk Is Cheap, and he toured behind that one. And filled arena halls. And many people came, mainly Stones fans who like Keith's stuff of course, but isnt' that enough?
So I am afraid you're looking for hyperboles at the wrong place. I only want a guy to play his album. If only 20 people would show up, it still would be great, but I am betting there will be more.

I guess I didn't expect anyone here understanding this critisim since this thread is pretty much a Keith fan-thread. So whatever I say I will be in a clear minority here. When I mentioned hyperboles I was thinking about the comparison with EOMS and other classic Stones albums a few pages ago. But I think that has calmed down a bit now. Now you are comparing it with Talk Is Cheap which I think is a more reasonable comparison.

Fair enough, although I don't think EOMS is as popular as Justin Bieber either. At least, it's got *that* in common with Crosseyed Heart.
I thought the entire forum was a Stones-fan site (and hence, for a considerable part also a Keith-fan site)?