For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
kleermakerQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
kleermakerQuote
DandelionPowderman
You, because his lead playing is riff-oriented. Remember that lead guitar and solo guitar isn't exactly the same.
You mix lead and riff up. And not rightly so.
If the riff dominates the song, it IS lead.
No, then it's a riff dominated song without lead guitar.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
kleermakerQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
kleermakerQuote
DandelionPowderman
You, because his lead playing is riff-oriented. Remember that lead guitar and solo guitar isn't exactly the same.
You mix lead and riff up. And not rightly so.
If the riff dominates the song, it IS lead.
No, then it's a riff dominated song without lead guitar.
Think again.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowderman
Then Bill stepped up and the wobble emerged
Yep, but then again, a thing like "Midnight Rambler" was already earlier a showcase or a school example or a paradigmatic case how the "wobble" happened, and how both Charlie and Bill needed to be in their toes in order to stay on the track, Keith calling the shots... And there is a discussion in another thread of its similarities to "Goin' Home"... in the latter Bill goes almost crazy! Probably the 'wobble' was there already from the beginning, based on how the players uniquely 'clicked' with each other. Something that probably one cannot learn from music textbooks...
- Doxa
Where is Bill's wobble in that one? It might be there, but I have never thought of MR as one of those songs. Might be because there are so many changes and a lot of stuff happening in it...
Quote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowderman
Then Bill stepped up and the wobble emerged
Yep, but then again, a thing like "Midnight Rambler" was already earlier a showcase or a school example or a paradigmatic case how the "wobble" happened, and how both Charlie and Bill needed to be in their toes in order to stay on the track, Keith calling the shots... And there is a discussion in another thread of its similarities to "Goin' Home"... in the latter Bill goes almost crazy! Probably the 'wobble' was there already from the beginning, based on how the players uniquely 'clicked' with each other. Something that probably one cannot learn from music textbooks...
- Doxa
Where is Bill's wobble in that one? It might be there, but I have never thought of MR as one of those songs. Might be because there are so many changes and a lot of stuff happening in it...
Bill doesn't play so many notes as he would later do - such as "When The Whip Comes Down" from HAMPTON, a school example from the weaving years - but it is his timing and clicking with Keith and Charlie that makes the 'wobble' effect. Anyway, it is all those changes, all lead by Keith, making "Rambler" such a showcase of what I take Wyman saying with that expression (the extraordinary interplay of Keith, Charlie & Bill).
- Doxa
Quote
kevinkamphuisQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
kleermakerQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
kleermakerQuote
DandelionPowderman
You, because his lead playing is riff-oriented. Remember that lead guitar and solo guitar isn't exactly the same.
You mix lead and riff up. And not rightly so.
If the riff dominates the song, it IS lead.
No, then it's a riff dominated song without lead guitar.
Think again.
Lead guitar is a guitar part which plays melody lines, instrumental fill passages, guitar solos, and occasionally, some riffs within a song structure.
Quote
DandelionPowderman
I've never thought of that. Will give some live versions a spin. Because the song is so guitar-heavy, I never noticed Bill's magic on this one
Quote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowderman
I've never thought of that. Will give some live versions a spin. Because the song is so guitar-heavy, I never noticed Bill's magic on this one
Do that. Listening "Midnight Rambler" for whatever reason is never time wasted...
Actually I never payed so much attention to Wyman's doings in Taylor years before they released the official BRUSSELS and his bass is presented so distinguishly there. If I recall right, Richards made the same observation...
- Doxa
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
DeluxtoneQuote
DandelionPowderman
Seemingly, symbolics are more important than the music to you, re his presence on stage. I was talking about his role AND what he played. It's obvious that he lead the band musically in 76 for me. His playing simply was more interesting and important in 76. In 72/73 it was Taylor's playing that was important for the band's overall sound, apart from the intros and a couple of places like in Heartbreaker.
Why don't you read what I have written?
I have been talking about his Role and what he played - repeatedly.
His 'presence' on stage isn't 'symbolics' - it is completely and inextricably linked to his role and to what he is playing. It is ofcourse linked to his heighest and heaviest Heroin usage - or to the period by which his use was controlling his life, lifestyle, sharpness, being 'with it/with us' ie he was 'out of it' - his presence was more detached - I think you understand ...
I'm not wanting you to think I'm being rude or personal but the phrase -
"It is obvious for me ..." well, it says it all about your approach.
It is obvious for you but not, I think, for anyone else here.
If it were generally obvious that Keith was the band-leader in '75-76 then everyone would agree with you.
I'm just tying to use some dialectic/logic here! Doxa would be far more adept at this, given that these areas are his forte and profession.
Generally it is agreed, recognized, understood that Keith's decline in 'state' from '74 onwards led Mick to take the reins. He had to. The more I think about it the more 'obvious it seems to me'(!) that most of IORR, Black and Blue AND Some Girls was Mick driven/guided and largely written. the whole approach, the whole Stones project had been largely taken out of Keith's hands.
Jagger got used to and liked the Control, which is why - when Keith was back and ready for action - Mick was not ready and willing to concede. Hence the rift - etc etc. It is kind-of welldocumented.
'75-76 live documents aurally and visually Keith in his 'declined' state. Mick too. Swinging on ropes, bouncing on giant inflatable phalli, sing-along-a-Jagger on YCAGWY.
'78 was a lot better - but good shows AND bad shows.
'72-'73 were shows of a consistently high calibre where I doubt that many could have come away complaining in general or specifically complaining that Keith was concentrating too much on Rhythm and Taylor too much on lead. (A Stones show then was an exhiliarating Tour de Force. You came away gasping with amazement - not analyzing guitar roles, styles or competence. Though I found myself, as many others did, first doing that in '76 and on listening to LYL. Not because I had anti Wood agenda btw.
I took the time to explain FULLY why I think this was the rhythm/lead 'roles' was a natural progression/development case in the musico-social context of '73.
Excuse me, but I am communicating with a moron?
(Sorry, couldn't resist that. It's only Rock'n'Roll).
I don't garee at all with Kleermaker that '73 were taylor shows. Here's an example of why .....
On the RW solo thread someone posted 2 YCAGWYWs. The Taylor one is fairly usual fare until somewhere they just take off as a band and transcend themselves. It's where Keith finds a rhythmic groove and flows with it and everyone follows. He gets 'lost' in the basic 2-chord sequence. This was a man exploring his rhythmic strength to the max. And that is his principal strength - so why not develop and explore it while you've got one of the best improvisational lead, melodic, lyrical-spiriual guitar players as your partner?
But it STEMMED from Keith. They took the time to explore their musical and that song's potential. It's almost free-form in a Grateful Dead kind of way.
I get that sense even on the studio Time Waits for No-one where Charlie suddenly hits the groove and the music begins to take on a life of its own swirling around him. Poetry.
The whole 'song' lasts about 9 minutes. The '75-76 one is about 16 minutes. I'll give it a shot.
Thanks. I don´t know why you wanna spend a lot of time on my posts, trying to convince a moron - when I have expressed my stance on this clearly.
One misconception has to be explained, though. There isn´t ANY bad Stones tours, imo, just different ones. I have tons of bootlegs from the 1972/73 tours, and I love them all dearly. I remember when I was picking up the stylus as a 19 year old on Rock Out Cock Out (Brussels), trying to learn what Mick Taylor played so beautifully. Eventually, I succeeded, like we all do when we put enough effort into it.
However, time has taught me that I was too easily impressed by those scale runs, but that´s another story. I still love those tours, and the 1972 tours in particular.
So why am I stressing Keith´s role in 1973? Simply because I am a musician myself, and I hear what happened. There is a decline in the importance of his sound within the band, and that does something for my perception of the Stones´s sound.
You can choose to disagree with that, say that it wasn´t the case or discuss in any other way. But the groove on two chords in YCAGWYW won´t change my opinion.
BTW, the Stones could have been a great band keeping that sound, just not my kind of Rolling Stones.
I have said it before, Keith is not a traditional rhythm guitarist. More like a lead guitarist, who put the emphasis on riffs and licks. That´s what he lost a bit round this time, imo.
Quote
DeluxtoneQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
DeluxtoneQuote
DandelionPowderman
Seemingly, symbolics are more important than the music to you, re his presence on stage. I was talking about his role AND what he played. It's obvious that he lead the band musically in 76 for me. His playing simply was more interesting and important in 76. In 72/73 it was Taylor's playing that was important for the band's overall sound, apart from the intros and a couple of places like in Heartbreaker.
Why don't you read what I have written?
I have been talking about his Role and what he played - repeatedly.
His 'presence' on stage isn't 'symbolics' - it is completely and inextricably linked to his role and to what he is playing. It is ofcourse linked to his heighest and heaviest Heroin usage - or to the period by which his use was controlling his life, lifestyle, sharpness, being 'with it/with us' ie he was 'out of it' - his presence was more detached - I think you understand ...
I'm not wanting you to think I'm being rude or personal but the phrase -
"It is obvious for me ..." well, it says it all about your approach.
It is obvious for you but not, I think, for anyone else here.
If it were generally obvious that Keith was the band-leader in '75-76 then everyone would agree with you.
I'm just tying to use some dialectic/logic here! Doxa would be far more adept at this, given that these areas are his forte and profession.
Generally it is agreed, recognized, understood that Keith's decline in 'state' from '74 onwards led Mick to take the reins. He had to. The more I think about it the more 'obvious it seems to me'(!) that most of IORR, Black and Blue AND Some Girls was Mick driven/guided and largely written. the whole approach, the whole Stones project had been largely taken out of Keith's hands.
Jagger got used to and liked the Control, which is why - when Keith was back and ready for action - Mick was not ready and willing to concede. Hence the rift - etc etc. It is kind-of welldocumented.
'75-76 live documents aurally and visually Keith in his 'declined' state. Mick too. Swinging on ropes, bouncing on giant inflatable phalli, sing-along-a-Jagger on YCAGWY.
'78 was a lot better - but good shows AND bad shows.
'72-'73 were shows of a consistently high calibre where I doubt that many could have come away complaining in general or specifically complaining that Keith was concentrating too much on Rhythm and Taylor too much on lead. (A Stones show then was an exhiliarating Tour de Force. You came away gasping with amazement - not analyzing guitar roles, styles or competence. Though I found myself, as many others did, first doing that in '76 and on listening to LYL. Not because I had anti Wood agenda btw.
I took the time to explain FULLY why I think this was the rhythm/lead 'roles' was a natural progression/development case in the musico-social context of '73.
Excuse me, but I am communicating with a moron?
(Sorry, couldn't resist that. It's only Rock'n'Roll).
I don't garee at all with Kleermaker that '73 were taylor shows. Here's an example of why .....
On the RW solo thread someone posted 2 YCAGWYWs. The Taylor one is fairly usual fare until somewhere they just take off as a band and transcend themselves. It's where Keith finds a rhythmic groove and flows with it and everyone follows. He gets 'lost' in the basic 2-chord sequence. This was a man exploring his rhythmic strength to the max. And that is his principal strength - so why not develop and explore it while you've got one of the best improvisational lead, melodic, lyrical-spiriual guitar players as your partner?
But it STEMMED from Keith. They took the time to explore their musical and that song's potential. It's almost free-form in a Grateful Dead kind of way.
I get that sense even on the studio Time Waits for No-one where Charlie suddenly hits the groove and the music begins to take on a life of its own swirling around him. Poetry.
The whole 'song' lasts about 9 minutes. The '75-76 one is about 16 minutes. I'll give it a shot.
Thanks. I don´t know why you wanna spend a lot of time on my posts, trying to convince a moron - when I have expressed my stance on this clearly.
One misconception has to be explained, though. There isn´t ANY bad Stones tours, imo, just different ones. I have tons of bootlegs from the 1972/73 tours, and I love them all dearly. I remember when I was picking up the stylus as a 19 year old on Rock Out Cock Out (Brussels), trying to learn what Mick Taylor played so beautifully. Eventually, I succeeded, like we all do when we put enough effort into it.
However, time has taught me that I was too easily impressed by those scale runs, but that´s another story. I still love those tours, and the 1972 tours in particular.
So why am I stressing Keith´s role in 1973? Simply because I am a musician myself, and I hear what happened. There is a decline in the importance of his sound within the band, and that does something for my perception of the Stones´s sound.
You can choose to disagree with that, say that it wasn´t the case or discuss in any other way. But the groove on two chords in YCAGWYW won´t change my opinion.
BTW, the Stones could have been a great band keeping that sound, just not my kind of Rolling Stones.
I have said it before, Keith is not a traditional rhythm guitarist. More like a lead guitarist, who put the emphasis on riffs and licks. That´s what he lost a bit round this time, imo.
That's all well and better and understood. At least we have a dialogue.
If you consider Exile as Keith's peak in songwriting and guitar playing and you consider his playing on that album and its strength - well it's mainly his rhythm playing. So it is not unnatural that when going on tour in 72 and 73 he should choose to express this now highly developed open-tuned, 5-string style to the max and apply to it to songs where before might have played more lead. That left Taylor the main role of lead.
I have also argued and I think it's pretty clear from recordings that by '75-76 Keith was less consistently good at this open rhythm playing and although he is returning more to lead work his overall 'presence' and ability/commitment to guiding/leading a song from start to finish (whether it be 1969,1970, 1971, 1972 or 1973) had been severely compromised. Ron Wood didn't have the inclination or attention span to fulfil this 'role' nor was he adequate to fulfill Taylors.
I have just read a passage from Keith's book where he describes how lines of Merck cocaine were strategically placed behind speaker stacks.
I wonder, in the real world does your name begin and end in the letter 'R' and whether you are keen on fly fishing? or is/was that another Norwegian on this board?
I've watched the YCAWGWYW and YGTM 75-76 versions posted on Ronnie Solo thread.
Commments later.
And your first Stones show was .....? No shame need attach!
Nor does shame attaches to my decision not to revisit them this summer. (Hyde Park is still a drug-free high .....).
I hope they keep up that standard for you and others soon.
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Mostly rhythm in 1990, you gotta be joking?
Back in full stage presence? Like he wasn't in 75, 76, 78, 81 and 82...
In 1990 he played lead/solos on Sad, Sad, Sad, Bitch, Can't Be Seen, IORR, GS, AHYS, SFTD, PIB, Satisfaction, HTW and more.
7th Of July. Consider yourself lucky to have been there. Too bad you didn't quite grasp Keith's role in it, though.
This is Keith actually leading the band, while playing rhythm guitar in 1990:
This is the lead guitar-Keith, the role he had on that tour:
In comparison, this is Keith on the very same track in 1972:
This is Keith strumming in 1973, while Taylor leads the band. Can you notice the difference between this and Keith's role while playing Start Me Up in the video above?
Quote
Cristiano Radtke
This is something I've never saw before:
Quote
DandelionPowderman
<he really keeps that rhythm down-down-down>
Yep, so much down in the mix that they actually can't finish the song properly
Quote
Doxa
Another thing I very much agree with Deluxtone is the insight he made of Keith taking the EXILE playing policy on the road in 1972/73. EXILE, if anything was Keith final exams in mastering the Open G and especially the rhythm guitar application in that. Most, if all, EXILE rockers are based on Keith's riff/rhythm lead backing tracks. That's the skeleton of the songs, and everything else in constructed on that foundation. Think of "Rocks Off", "Rip This Joint", "Happy", "All Down The Line", "Soul Survivor" etc. Yes, there dozens of other guitar tracks, over-dubs, etc. but the essentials in each track derive from that source. It is Keith's no-bullshitting rhythm guitar and riffs that's the soul of EXILE, and which give it its unique, even extreme nature (compared to even their previous albums).
So I find it natural when he decides what to play on stage, he sticks to the very essentials he just had mastered on studio. That's his forte, of which he is proud with good reasons. He takes care of that, and Taylor all the rest, whatever the latter can up with his wild musical imagination.
As a guitar player with a certain no bullshitting attitude I think no any rock guitarist ever has been so cool as Keith Richards was in 1972/73. He really thought the songs - and over-all sound of the band - first and through without any kind of guitar hero mentality. He was actually a kind of anti-thesis to anything to that kind of "wanking". Actually being such an extremist, he skipped almost any 'bullshitting' of his playing. To an extent, his sticking more into rhythm/riff department, and not doing much else, surely was affected by having such a natural-born fluidy soloist in band, but that tendency had started before Taylor entering onboard, via Keith's song-writing (to go with his experiments with open tunings). It just developed into almost extreme form in EXILE and 1972/73 tour. But during this process he also developed his signature sound (and made him numero uno candidate in any 'best rhythm guitarists ever' list)
- Doxa
Quote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowderman
<he really keeps that rhythm down-down-down>
Yep, so much down in the mix that they actually can't finish the song properly
"Properly"?! It's the Stones, man, no bloody Toto....
- Doxa
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Still, the sound of the band leader doesn't come across to the rhythm section like it should...
Quote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowderman
Still, the sound of the band leader doesn't come across to the rhythm section like it should...
I hope they someday release a "DandelionPowderman-Friendly Mix", which 'corrects' the balance of the instruments (they briefly started that in official BRUSSELS by turning Taylor a bit down...), and all of us can be happy...><
- Doxa
Quote
DandelionPowderman
<So if someone doesn't agree with you then they "don't quite grasp" things.
You've got quite a lot of "non-graspers" to contend with.>
1. No.
2. A lot of them haven't lead bands for 25 years. And the romantic image of Keith is hard to alter.
3. You should quit the arrogance, and listen more to musical arguments. Keith isn't leading the band in any way on that SFM-clip, nor is he riffing.
I tried to show you the Start Me Up-clip from Atlantic City. My intention was not that you should like it, rather that you maybe had the ability to spot the difference regarding how to lead a band and Keith's role perception on that two examples.
I obviously didn't come through. It still seems like you haven't the faintest idea of what I'm talking about. That, or you've just made up your mind.
Like I said before, let's agree to disagree.
Quote
Eleanor Rigby
In regards to SFM, Keith is the one driving that song. In 1969 he would switch his guitar to full and simply power the song along...the rest follow.
In the 1973 version he controls the speed and power of the classic climax to a Stones show. The pattern is set by Keith.