Tell Me :
Talk
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.
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
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
Thank you, Kevin. And Keith is definitely in that "occasionally"-category, as there aren't many lead/riff-player like him around.
An example from the Brian-era: It would be silly to call Brian's guitar "rhythm guitar" on The Last Time, even though Keith plays the solo.
A riff is almost always a melody fragment.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-12 09:39 by DandelionPowderman.
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
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-12 09:58 by Doxa.
Yeah, I agree, although his bass on Love In Vain on Ya Yas is standing out in the soundscape. The bass on Brussels Affair was really high in the mix. An awakening for Keith, supposedly - although I suspect it was one of his little stunts again, building up for the anniversary, at that time hoping for Bill to join
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.
You see, there is a huge difference between the Keith input on Exile and what he contributed live. Why? Simply because he did several guitar overdubs (incl guitars in different tunings and solos), and the fact that Taylor had a totally different role on stage for that tour than on the album. He plays 5 solos tops on Exile, some of them obscured by Mick's singing in the mix.
It is Taylor that takes the lead on stage in 1972 and 1973, not Keith. Sometimes it's wonderful, but overall it goes in the wrong direction for me. I need more Mick/Keith in the Stones's soundscape.
This is not a bigger issue than me not being too happy about what Keith did with his five stringer in 73. His approach in 69 as well as in 75/76 and 78 was more active, mixing up rhythm, "lead" riffing and licks with it. That was kept to a minimum in 73. The chords on JJF, BS, SFM and HTW sound just fine - but he was merely sticking to the chords. Whether that had something to do with Taylor (over)playing or Keith being lazy is a "what came first, the hen or the egg"-story...
I don't agree about 1975/76. They had coke in 72 as well, btw. On their amps, too
How many 75/76 and 72/73 shows have you listened to/are you owning, btw? Your analysis of the 75/76 shows sounds like it isn't based on too many shows?
No Rs in neither the beginning or the end of my name. I have a fly fishing pole, but I have never used it
I've posted many videos, which YCAWGWYW and YGTM-videos did you have in mind?
The first Oslo show in 1990 was my first one. In 14 days I'll see them again. Ashamed? The UJ-show was excellent, a perfect start! Probably better than Vancouver 72
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-12 15:01 by DandelionPowderman.
Didn't quite grasp Keith's role? I was there I lived it. I have a recording of it!
I can re-live it.
So I fully graped his role. As I did in '73, which I experienced live and '76, ditto, and '82.
Yes, i know he played lead as well as rhythm in 1990.
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.
I have yet to get back to you on 75-76 YGTM AND YCAWGWYW.
And I'll listen to these new examples of yours - but to say that Keith is "strumming" (in 73) is a pretty damming insult and I'm not aware of Taylor leading any song in 73 (or 69,70,71 or 72) - so that will be an interesting listen.
EDIT - Oh My Goodness - I now see that you are referring to Keith as strumming in live SFM.
I expect that he is riffing his heart and soul out - but here goes - just to humour you .......
and 2nd Edit ...
Yes Atlantic City is marvellous - just song after song, with no let-up. Pace and power, sharp and tight.
That is whatt disitinguishes this 'comeback' tour from the too often looser and more casual affairs since '73.
It is that kind of 'take no prisoners' approach which links '89-90 it to the 72-73 approach. Even the party pieces - Miss You and H Shuffle were full-on.
Good to have Bitch and Live With Me back ..... but it's with those that those who could compare would recall the younger and more vital versions of '71-72.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-14 02:10 by Deluxtone.
This is footage that a friend of mine from Japan had given to me in the late 80s. i had included it on a DVD I made and shared called "Video Jukebox"
"Properly"?! It's the Stones, man, no bloody Toto....
- Doxa
I think it's great for you that you get that experience - I really do
Personally, I miss this, though (EDIT: Heck! There are three guitars in there - haven't heard that before???):
BTW, there is no musical reason whatsoever for Keith to be facing Charlie. It's purely bandmate-interaction.
LOL! Luckily, they aren't
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
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-14 12:36 by Doxa.
They did that with Ya Yas
leading a band for 25 years doesn't mean you know more than others.
Perhaps you play in a crap band, perhaps you are shit guitarist, perhaps you are a great guitarist...who cares?
I have been playing guitar for over 30 years and in different bands over the years, so I now know more than you about the guitar interplay and functions of the Stones?
I think you underestimate the learned people who post on this forum. You would find alot have strummed a guitar (if that give them more credibility) and know their stuff, and many understand the Stones music more than you obviously think (you dont need to play a guitar to know that).
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.
It's part of the charm and beauty of the 1973 SFM to hear the push and pull between them all.
Keith is laying down the main tempo, but it's interesting to hear Taylors guitar bluesing up the feel and pushing the tempo by partially stating and harmonising with the main vocal melody and then letting rip with some lead fills so strongly.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-14 17:04 by His Majesty.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: May 12, 2014 08:51
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.
Think again.
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
kevinkamphuis
()
Date: May 12, 2014 09:02
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.
Lead guitar is a guitar part which plays melody lines, instrumental fill passages, guitar solos, and occasionally, some riffs within a song structure.
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: May 12, 2014 09:35
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...
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
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: May 12, 2014 09:37
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
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
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: May 12, 2014 09:39
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.
Thank you, Kevin. And Keith is definitely in that "occasionally"-category, as there aren't many lead/riff-player like him around.
An example from the Brian-era: It would be silly to call Brian's guitar "rhythm guitar" on The Last Time, even though Keith plays the solo.
A riff is almost always a melody fragment.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-12 09:39 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: May 12, 2014 09:48
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
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
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-12 09:58 by Doxa.
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: May 12, 2014 10:00
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
Yeah, I agree, although his bass on Love In Vain on Ya Yas is standing out in the soundscape. The bass on Brussels Affair was really high in the mix. An awakening for Keith, supposedly - although I suspect it was one of his little stunts again, building up for the anniversary, at that time hoping for Bill to join
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
Deluxtone
()
Date: May 12, 2014 14:31
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.
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.
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: May 12, 2014 14:59
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.
You see, there is a huge difference between the Keith input on Exile and what he contributed live. Why? Simply because he did several guitar overdubs (incl guitars in different tunings and solos), and the fact that Taylor had a totally different role on stage for that tour than on the album. He plays 5 solos tops on Exile, some of them obscured by Mick's singing in the mix.
It is Taylor that takes the lead on stage in 1972 and 1973, not Keith. Sometimes it's wonderful, but overall it goes in the wrong direction for me. I need more Mick/Keith in the Stones's soundscape.
This is not a bigger issue than me not being too happy about what Keith did with his five stringer in 73. His approach in 69 as well as in 75/76 and 78 was more active, mixing up rhythm, "lead" riffing and licks with it. That was kept to a minimum in 73. The chords on JJF, BS, SFM and HTW sound just fine - but he was merely sticking to the chords. Whether that had something to do with Taylor (over)playing or Keith being lazy is a "what came first, the hen or the egg"-story...
I don't agree about 1975/76. They had coke in 72 as well, btw. On their amps, too
How many 75/76 and 72/73 shows have you listened to/are you owning, btw? Your analysis of the 75/76 shows sounds like it isn't based on too many shows?
No Rs in neither the beginning or the end of my name. I have a fly fishing pole, but I have never used it
I've posted many videos, which YCAWGWYW and YGTM-videos did you have in mind?
The first Oslo show in 1990 was my first one. In 14 days I'll see them again. Ashamed? The UJ-show was excellent, a perfect start! Probably better than Vancouver 72
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-12 15:01 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
Deluxtone
()
Date: May 13, 2014 02:33
Well we can agree on Urban Jungle (and Steel Wheels tour presumably).
I was fortunate to see two Wembley shows - the second one (and Bill's last full concert with them) had the SW set especially flown over.
I don't know about your gig but what strongly characterised the Wembley gigs was the amazing quality of the sound.
The other prominent factor was Keith back in full stage-present and leg-kicking form. His playing was quite astonishing - mostly rhythm! - but 'cracking' and spakling lead, eg on Sympathy. And 'even' Ronnie was fully focused on his guitar work for the full and very long sets.
To me that was the nearest thing to getting back to the '73 tight, focused and forceful unit. In addition to fresh album songs just surprise after surprise - Ruby Tuesday, Light Years, I Just Wanna make Love To You, ..... and less surprising but such a good live celebration was Harlem Shuffle.
Mexican waves too. Wembley became an intimate, joyous and friendly place - not an impersonal stadium gig - even the night England lost to Germany.
And hang on minute - it's another World Cup Year but 24 years on!
(The R person, from Oslo i think, got to meet the band during their Bergen bash - I would have attended that show with him but it got delayed due to Keith's head injury - (another World Cup Year, come to think of it)).
I was fortunate to see two Wembley shows - the second one (and Bill's last full concert with them) had the SW set especially flown over.
I don't know about your gig but what strongly characterised the Wembley gigs was the amazing quality of the sound.
The other prominent factor was Keith back in full stage-present and leg-kicking form. His playing was quite astonishing - mostly rhythm! - but 'cracking' and spakling lead, eg on Sympathy. And 'even' Ronnie was fully focused on his guitar work for the full and very long sets.
To me that was the nearest thing to getting back to the '73 tight, focused and forceful unit. In addition to fresh album songs just surprise after surprise - Ruby Tuesday, Light Years, I Just Wanna make Love To You, ..... and less surprising but such a good live celebration was Harlem Shuffle.
Mexican waves too. Wembley became an intimate, joyous and friendly place - not an impersonal stadium gig - even the night England lost to Germany.
And hang on minute - it's another World Cup Year but 24 years on!
(The R person, from Oslo i think, got to meet the band during their Bergen bash - I would have attended that show with him but it got delayed due to Keith's head injury - (another World Cup Year, come to think of it)).
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: May 13, 2014 08:48
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?
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-13 11:07 by DandelionPowderman.
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?
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-13 11:07 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
Deluxtone
()
Date: May 14, 2014 01:40
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?
Didn't quite grasp Keith's role? I was there I lived it. I have a recording of it!
I can re-live it.
So I fully graped his role. As I did in '73, which I experienced live and '76, ditto, and '82.
Yes, i know he played lead as well as rhythm in 1990.
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.
I have yet to get back to you on 75-76 YGTM AND YCAWGWYW.
And I'll listen to these new examples of yours - but to say that Keith is "strumming" (in 73) is a pretty damming insult and I'm not aware of Taylor leading any song in 73 (or 69,70,71 or 72) - so that will be an interesting listen.
EDIT - Oh My Goodness - I now see that you are referring to Keith as strumming in live SFM.
I expect that he is riffing his heart and soul out - but here goes - just to humour you .......
and 2nd Edit ...
Yes Atlantic City is marvellous - just song after song, with no let-up. Pace and power, sharp and tight.
That is whatt disitinguishes this 'comeback' tour from the too often looser and more casual affairs since '73.
It is that kind of 'take no prisoners' approach which links '89-90 it to the 72-73 approach. Even the party pieces - Miss You and H Shuffle were full-on.
Good to have Bitch and Live With Me back ..... but it's with those that those who could compare would recall the younger and more vital versions of '71-72.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-14 02:10 by Deluxtone.
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
Deluxtone
()
Date: May 14, 2014 01:57
Ok - have listened to that SFM.
The band seem a bit dis-jointed as a whole and seem to be in a hurry to get it over. The worst Jagger and Taylor I've seen on a '73 version. But Keith, after his rather casual opening chords - does get going and towards the end is chopping it up and working with Charlie as best he can. End of tour - they all tired?
But Taylor doesn't lead it. That is still Keith - but in less convincing form than in the Wembley 73 footage which shows his peak powers which I don't hink he'd fully regained by 1990, commanding though he is.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-14 02:11 by Deluxtone.
The band seem a bit dis-jointed as a whole and seem to be in a hurry to get it over. The worst Jagger and Taylor I've seen on a '73 version. But Keith, after his rather casual opening chords - does get going and towards the end is chopping it up and working with Charlie as best he can. End of tour - they all tired?
But Taylor doesn't lead it. That is still Keith - but in less convincing form than in the Wembley 73 footage which shows his peak powers which I don't hink he'd fully regained by 1990, commanding though he is.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-14 02:11 by Deluxtone.
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
mcp
()
Date: May 14, 2014 04:17
Quote
Cristiano Radtke
This is something I've never saw before:
This is footage that a friend of mine from Japan had given to me in the late 80s. i had included it on a DVD I made and shared called "Video Jukebox"
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: May 14, 2014 08:33
Deluxe, to lead a band is not the same as starting a number, and then be buried in the mix for the rest of the track.
They didn't play LWM in 1989/90.
Keith lead the band after 1973, no matter how loose you find the new interaction style Keith and Ronnie developed to be.
They didn't play LWM in 1989/90.
Keith lead the band after 1973, no matter how loose you find the new interaction style Keith and Ronnie developed to be.
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: May 14, 2014 09:32
<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.
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.
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
saltoftheearth
()
Date: May 14, 2014 09:45
SFM from 1973 might be the worst example musicwise because as the final number it was drowned in a wall of noise. Jagger doesn't sing here but he is virtually gasping though the song, and it is not really a pleasure to listen to. The only thing which saves it on the bootlegs from Brussels is the 'medley'Rip this Joint -Jumpin'jack flash and Street fighting man where the song is a breathtaking closing number. This is one of the few songs which I like much better in earlier versions, and the best one is on GYYA (although it seems to be a mix from two live recordings, as Chris M has it).
Another song which I like better from other tours is @#$%&. There, the rawer versions featuring Ron Wood outshine the 1973 versions.
But then, all the other songs are simply brilliant, and they never sounded better. They even did a great version of 'Dancing with Mr D'. Here Keith shines on rhythm guitar!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-14 09:45 by saltoftheearth.
Another song which I like better from other tours is @#$%&. There, the rawer versions featuring Ron Wood outshine the 1973 versions.
But then, all the other songs are simply brilliant, and they never sounded better. They even did a great version of 'Dancing with Mr D'. Here Keith shines on rhythm guitar!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-14 09:45 by saltoftheearth.
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: May 14, 2014 09:53
So let's find another one. How much left is it of the fantastic JJF-riff in this one? And is Keith really in charge here, musically?
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: May 14, 2014 10:55
As far as Keith's role is concerned in "Flash" and "Fighting Man" clips above, I totally agree with Deluxtone and totally disagree with Dandie here.
Keith is in both tracks in a total charge, as much a band leader ever can be. The whole tempo, the changes withing a song (though Jagger have a say on that as well), what Charlie and Bill follow, comes from his mind and hands. The same as with "Start Me Up" above. What Taylor or Wood do, couldn't less care Keith - or Charlie or Bill - it's him who drives the song. In "Fighting Man" Taylor is upfront there, but on the foundation and scheme laid by Keith's rhythm section, having fun with Jagger, and coloring the song as much as his he pleases (very much this time). In "Flash" he is playing circles around Keith's riff, but coloring all the same. But not in either numbers he has say any say in leading the band - he just does his thing into the noise he is surrounded with, and tries copes with there (and wonderfully me thinks). A thought experience: if you take Taylor out of there, the band would still deliver those songs all the same with no problem, even though Jagger's vocals might suffer a bit since losing the melodic cue with which to interact.
Honestly, I think you Dandie have some problem with flashy lead guitars, especially if they are delivered by Mick Taylor - like they took too much space in the soundscape, and thereby lesser the significance of riff/rhythm guitar (Keith, that is), by taking too much "role". But no matter how much Taylor plays, how loud he is mixed, it doesn't change the dynamics within the band, that the band is in the hands of one and only Keith Richards. Keith leads his corps from behind, but the command is his. Like Wyman says, it's "Keith's band". I think you are giving too much role and significance to Taylor since you are so annoyed by his playing (that it seemingly destroys your listening experience), but I don't think the band sees it that way. At least I surely don't!
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-14 11:01 by Doxa.
Keith is in both tracks in a total charge, as much a band leader ever can be. The whole tempo, the changes withing a song (though Jagger have a say on that as well), what Charlie and Bill follow, comes from his mind and hands. The same as with "Start Me Up" above. What Taylor or Wood do, couldn't less care Keith - or Charlie or Bill - it's him who drives the song. In "Fighting Man" Taylor is upfront there, but on the foundation and scheme laid by Keith's rhythm section, having fun with Jagger, and coloring the song as much as his he pleases (very much this time). In "Flash" he is playing circles around Keith's riff, but coloring all the same. But not in either numbers he has say any say in leading the band - he just does his thing into the noise he is surrounded with, and tries copes with there (and wonderfully me thinks). A thought experience: if you take Taylor out of there, the band would still deliver those songs all the same with no problem, even though Jagger's vocals might suffer a bit since losing the melodic cue with which to interact.
Honestly, I think you Dandie have some problem with flashy lead guitars, especially if they are delivered by Mick Taylor - like they took too much space in the soundscape, and thereby lesser the significance of riff/rhythm guitar (Keith, that is), by taking too much "role". But no matter how much Taylor plays, how loud he is mixed, it doesn't change the dynamics within the band, that the band is in the hands of one and only Keith Richards. Keith leads his corps from behind, but the command is his. Like Wyman says, it's "Keith's band". I think you are giving too much role and significance to Taylor since you are so annoyed by his playing (that it seemingly destroys your listening experience), but I don't think the band sees it that way. At least I surely don't!
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-14 11:01 by Doxa.
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: May 14, 2014 11:04
I think you're confusing the visuals with the actual music, Doxa. This is an official video by the Rolling Stones where Keith is almost inaudible. You've heard me play, so you know I don't have a problem with lead guitars as such
I'm just merely pointing out that after the intros Keith's sound is washed away on these songs (and on several others in this era). For me, it's impossible to say that that can happen to a musician leading a band.
On JJF, Keith isn't even in the background of the soundscape. And the ending of JJF, where they fvck up also supports that, btw. He is interacting on stage, yes, but musically he is just a shadow of his former self. I think that is sad - especially on "his" numbers.
This is just my opinion, of course, and by all means feel free to claim the opposite. But I find it strange that you can't hear this.
I'm just merely pointing out that after the intros Keith's sound is washed away on these songs (and on several others in this era). For me, it's impossible to say that that can happen to a musician leading a band.
On JJF, Keith isn't even in the background of the soundscape. And the ending of JJF, where they fvck up also supports that, btw. He is interacting on stage, yes, but musically he is just a shadow of his former self. I think that is sad - especially on "his" numbers.
This is just my opinion, of course, and by all means feel free to claim the opposite. But I find it strange that you can't hear this.
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: May 14, 2014 11:25
I don't have any problems in hearing Keith's guitar and presence throughout the song. Yes, Taylor is rather upfront, but Keith's work is solid as rock, and he really keeps that rhythm down-down-down. I think a performance like this is exactly the thing he had in his mind when he said that 'he shines when the band shines'.
Of the visuals, do you think he turns his back on audience and faces Charlie from time to time, because he is a shy boy?
- Doxa
Of the visuals, do you think he turns his back on audience and faces Charlie from time to time, because he is a shy boy?
- Doxa
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: May 14, 2014 11:41
<he really keeps that rhythm down-down-down>
Yep, so much down in the mix that they actually can't finish the song properly
Yep, so much down in the mix that they actually can't finish the song properly
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: May 14, 2014 12:00
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
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-14 12:18 by Doxa.
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
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-14 12:18 by Doxa.
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: May 14, 2014 12:03
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
"Properly"?! It's the Stones, man, no bloody Toto....
- Doxa
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: May 14, 2014 12:26
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
I think it's great for you that you get that experience - I really do
Personally, I miss this, though (EDIT: Heck! There are three guitars in there - haven't heard that before???):
BTW, there is no musical reason whatsoever for Keith to be facing Charlie. It's purely bandmate-interaction.
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: May 14, 2014 12:27
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
LOL! Luckily, they aren't
Still, the sound of the band leader doesn't come across to the rhythm section like it should...
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: May 14, 2014 12:35
Quote
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
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-14 12:36 by Doxa.
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: May 14, 2014 12:38
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
They did that with Ya Yas
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
Eleanor Rigby
()
Date: May 14, 2014 13:58
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.
leading a band for 25 years doesn't mean you know more than others.
Perhaps you play in a crap band, perhaps you are shit guitarist, perhaps you are a great guitarist...who cares?
I have been playing guitar for over 30 years and in different bands over the years, so I now know more than you about the guitar interplay and functions of the Stones?
I think you underestimate the learned people who post on this forum. You would find alot have strummed a guitar (if that give them more credibility) and know their stuff, and many understand the Stones music more than you obviously think (you dont need to play a guitar to know that).
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.
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: May 14, 2014 16:56
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.
It's part of the charm and beauty of the 1973 SFM to hear the push and pull between them all.
Keith is laying down the main tempo, but it's interesting to hear Taylors guitar bluesing up the feel and pushing the tempo by partially stating and harmonising with the main vocal melody and then letting rip with some lead fills so strongly.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-14 17:04 by His Majesty.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
arpcap , Christiaan , DandelionPowderman , dnewton99 , Doxa , Irix , JDSAM1994 , JMoisica , maumau , NashvilleBlues , Potato , steffialicia , testamora , Testify , waterrats
Guests:
2169
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10