Quote
DandelionPowderman


As a Keith fan, not surpringly, I say: More Keith, please!

I guess I am more a Rolling Stones fan than a Keith Richards fan then...

But that said, I take that, once again, belittlening the art of rhythm guitar, like playing "just" the rhythm is not so much or something. To my ears Keith is not playing any less - in quantitywise - in 1973 than, say, 1969 or 1975, but more like concentrating more to certain things (qualitiwise he is in his top form). Besides, no matter what his claimed condition was, he sounds having a strong discipline in his playing, without which the band couldn't be so tight as it is. What you say "more Keith" is to me "more solos and licks, Keith, less rhythm guitar". Keith's presence is huge in 1973. And the band shines.

- Doxa

Quote
kleermaker

What do you think to be the best tour ever?

There is no such thing.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman


As a Keith fan, not surpringly, I say: More Keith, please!

I guess I am more a Rolling Stones fan...

- Doxa

Hmmm.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
kleermaker

What do you think to be the best tour ever?

There is no such thing.

This is somewhat beyond my grasp of things, posting as a non-instrumentalist. Some verdicts you can make, though, some others you obviously can't. This one, possibly:

Maybe there is some wisdom in a simple post as the quoted (there is substance behind, we know). One might think that the Rolling Stones were (added: they still more than exist) that rich and great as a band that indeed there is not a greatest or best tour. Because as a consequence of the richness of this band, evaluation of "greatest" is confronted with which concept of the Stones you operate with.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-11 01:41 by Witness.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Keith was never a traditional rhythm guitarist. In 1973 he almost became one, imo.

Well, I wouldn't call Keith as "traditional" as a guitarist in any sense... He has a created a tradition of its own, and makes his own rules... as a rhythmn guitarist as well... Like I've said, I see 1973 as a peak of Keith as a rhythm guitarist, and he made a world record in that department which still holds today. When I listen to his work there, a singular gig, a singular song, a singular riff, a singular chord, I don't miss anything, it is perfect in its own terms. Damn, he defines rhythm guitar playing there. A statement of its own.

I'm sorry if you - a fellow Keith Richards fan¨- can't hear that, or if you hear, can't appreciate that.

- Doxa

As a Keith fan, not surpringly, I say: More Keith, please!

That's exactly the reason why you like the Ronnie Wood Stones best: most Keith (but that's not the same as best Keith).

AND the Brian era, of course.

You repeatedly said you love the Wood Stones the most. Of course we all love the Brian Stones.

When did I say that?

I think you know the answer better than I do

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
kleermaker

What do you think to be the best tour ever?

There is no such thing.

Is there such thing as the worst tour ever?

Quote
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.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-11 02:05 by Deluxtone.

I guess I am with His Majesty and Witness here, since I can't say which is the "best tour". The brilliance of the Stones comes in so many forms, that's for me the "richness" Witness mentioned. What makes them brilliant, say, in 1965 is different than makes them brilliant, say, in 1973 or 1981. I can see that some people are 'better' in judging the tours, but I lack that over-all criterion. That's why I find myself agreeing with, say, my friend Kleermaker against people like my friend DandelionPowderman when talking about 1973, since I recognize there the same greatness as Kleerie does. But then again, if we would talk about 1975, 1978 or 1981 I most likely would join with Dandie to 'fight' against Kleerie...

A little drink to all of you now...

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-11 01:56 by Doxa.

It's saturday, folks! Let's drink to THE best tour of all time.

Phew - A welcome tonic!

Small Hall - must have a been a riot. Noticing Charlie getting carriying on after the song's end - he doesn't want to stop!

Nicky on Piano?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-11 02:16 by Deluxtone.

Quote
Doxa
I guess I am with His Majesty and Witness here, since I can't say which is the "best tour". The brilliance of the Stones comes in so many forms, that's for me the "richness" Witness mentioned. What makes them brilliant, say, in 1965 is different than makes them brilliant, say, in 1973 or 1981. I can see that some people are 'better' in judging the tours, but I lack that over-all criterion. That's why I find myself agreeing with, say, my friend Kleermaker against people like my friend DandelionPowderman when talking about 1973, since I recognize there the same greatness as Kleerie does. But then again, if we would talk about 1975, 1978 or 1981 I most likely would join with Dandie to 'fight' against Kleerie...

A little drink to all of you now...

- Doxa

Okay, proost!

It's all got to do with your age....and when you got involved in The Rolling Stones.........
I have same as kleermaker I remember the Stones concert live in '73 better then '76........

__________________________

Wow what a band!

Quote
kleermaker

Is there such thing as the worst tour ever?

Nah.

Quote
Deluxtone

Quote
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
DandelionPowderman


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.

Or a like a rhythm guitarist who plays rhythm like its a lead guitar... He is very idiosyncratic, any way you look at it.

Which brings a question that I think never have been discussed in this board, namely is Keith Richards actually such a great rhythm guitarist in a traditional way? If James Brown would hire him to play in his hottest funk band, would he be, not just fined for losing the beat, even sacked... Or would Keith handle a studio guitarist job being able to provide a steady rhythm track for anything needed from calypso to flamenco? For the latter, thankfully not, and we would hearing something Keith Richards-like...

We all know the famous and insightul description of Bill Wyman of the difference of the Stones compared to other rock bands. That of while the others band follow the drummer, the Stones follow a rhythm guitarist. The drummer tries to follow the guitarist by going a bit late, and the bass player tries to anticipiate what he does... The idiosyncratic groove of the band is based on that. The 'wooble'.

Usually this description is taken not just being a spot on, but also that of praisal of Keith (as a band leader. etc.). But what is not usually seen is that there is a brief criticism involved, like with mostly what Wyman says. If we think of it from a guitarist point of view, that's actually a damn privileged position. The beat, the rhythm is solely in his shoulders - if he screws up - like Wyman tells he often does - he doesn't need to worry, because it is up to others to catch him up. The 'normal' guitarists instead need to stick to the beat given by someone else.

The reality is probably not that simple and one-sided as Wyman tells us, but still I think it gives a good hint of the dynamics within the band from musician's point of view. Keith's strength is his natural musical leadership, his intuition and sense of timing, but the point is that it is very idiosyncratic, and not probably very incommensurable to traditional ways of playing music within a group of musicians. This is to say that by traditional criteria, Keith probably is not that good rhythm guitarist, sticking to the role that position usually asks for... So Keith's praisal of Charlie in many ways - "the only white drummer who swings" - and complaining how difficult is to find good drummers - and he he is happy to have found Charlie and Jordan - can also to be interpreted that playing with Keith Richards actually asks rather much from a drummer, and that the problem might not only be with the lack of drummer's skills....

Any thoughts?


- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-11 12:58 by Doxa.

Because of his playing style, it's hard for drummers to keep up, that's true.

But I would presume it was easier for Charlie to play with him in 1973 than, say, 1978

Long phrases and patience were never Keith's strongest sides, though.

Good point, good question!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-11 12:52 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
But I would presume it was easier for Charlie to play with him in 1973 than, say, 1978

Yeah, probably Keith's sticking so much into rhythm work in 1973, and being a rather unusually steady there, might explain to an extent why the whole band sounded so tight then. But in whereas in 1978 Keith took much more 'freedoms', and the rhythm section - Charlie and Bill - didn't have much other choice than let the beat live and breathe a bit more... But with wonderful results in both cases!

- Doxa

Then Bill stepped up and the wobble emerged

Quote
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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-11 15:36 by Doxa.

Quote
DandelionPowderman


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.

As a lead guitarist he is very limited. Listen to one of his best live solos, on SFTD on Ya Ya's or his Bitch solos. Compare them to Taylor's solos and they pale. He isn't a lead guitarist by nature.

You forgot to read the last part of my post, kleerie

He is a limited riff guitarist? Interesting...

Quote
Cristiano Radtke
It's saturday, folks! Let's drink to THE best tour of all time.

...starting very shortly now!

Quote
Doxa

Quote
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
DandelionPowderman


He is a limited riff guitarist? Interesting...

Says who?

You, because his lead playing is riff-oriented. Remember that lead guitar and solo guitar isn't exactly the same.

Quote
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.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
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.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
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
RoughJusticeOnYa

Quote
Cristiano Radtke
It's saturday, folks! Let's drink to THE best tour of all time.

...starting very shortly now!

Yes! It's only two weeks from now on.