For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
HairballQuote
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.
Quote
jloweQuote
matxilQuote
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.
Quote
jloweQuote
matxilQuote
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.
Quote
TeddyB1018Quote
jloweQuote
matxilQuote
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
TeddyB1018Quote
jloweQuote
matxilQuote
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
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.
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!
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.
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...
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...
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.
Keep hope alive.Quote
Librarian
Keith will do some solo shows again.
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.
Quote
NaturalustQuote
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
NaturalustQuote
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
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.
Quote
NaturalustQuote
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.
Quote
matxilQuote
NaturalustQuote
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
matxilQuote
NaturalustQuote
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
matxilQuote
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
StoneageQuote
matxilQuote
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.