Tell Me :
Talk
Only Mick is irreplaceable really.
Dunno about that...we learn from the people we most respect, so when we see 70 year olds behaving like they do, I want the same for myself.
Do not go gentle into that good night!
It wouldn't sound like the Stones, so why even bother? I'd love to see MT and Ronnie rip it up, but not as the main guitarists of the Stones. I'm sure it would sound OK is the best I can say. I give you points for having the cajones to suggest it though!
At this stage, they pretty much all are. Even Ronnie. I believe that if something happened to any of them, they'd pretty much see that as the 'excuse' they need to pack it in.
Clearly Gazza doesn't realize we were in secondary school during the same years. Well, part of the time anyway. I'm still younger.
And seriously, the way forward for Keith is to keep working with the Stones. Never mind the legalities, the band can't exist without him and exists now in spite of him. Gratefully, if Keith got one thing right it is that the music is bigger than either him or Mick.
And the other way forward for Keith is to complete one new track for his long-gestating solo album every three years and create a buzz online from the select few who have heard it and then lock it back up in the vaults and snicker.
And speaking of long-gestating songs, how about this blast from the not too distant past from Mr. Dave Stewart.
"To illustrate this point, he asks his assistant Ned to play “Time Drags On,” which is essential Jagger – soulful, visceral and with a greatly tuneful chorus bolstered by a female choir. It sounds like the finished master of Mick’s next hit, yet here it’s just yet another secret treasure waiting for release."
Imagine how the warhorses would sound...
What it would take to make them pack it in is different thing to who is irreplaceable.
With Ronnie and/or Charlie gone once the dust settled the chance for further big bucks would possibly still entice Mick and Keith to perform under The Rolling Stones name.
Maube they would only play those private rich folks gigs or something.
Although Keith said tongue in cheek that it would be possible to carry on without Charlie, they have said many times that it would never happen.
Everything is possible, even without Mick. But it would be silly and ridiculous.
Keith says a lot of things.
£$
People would still pay to go and see Mick and Keith as The Rolling Stones without Ronnie or Charlie. They would, most likely not go and see Ronnie and Charlie as The Rolling Stones without Mick and Keith.
£$
Without Mick and Keith it would be ridiculous, but without Charlie and Ronnie not ridiculous as it's still the only actual original members left and they would be playing their own songs.
£$
Some people would still go and see Mick jagger as The Rolling Stones without Keith.
£$
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-03 11:14 by His Majesty.
Someone else might think in possibilities...it's almost 4 months between those dates.
That and the fact that there are a few 'opportunities' on the North American continent could lead to something.
People have a tendency to over-think the details. Remember that he's not doing those mistakes for two hours every night. Mostly, his playing and singing is great, like here.
That's not entirely correct, because it depends on which song they're playing.
On MR and songs that need direction and communication from a guitar player in charge, it's still Keith that calls the shot. But when his role is merely strumming, like on D&G, he'll withdraw a bit and take a break.
I think this video (albeit with crappy sound) from the Lisbon show shows Keith in good shape, playing a lot, with a great stage presence. Don't worry
And I can assure you that this tour is better than the shows I attended at the BB-tour.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-03 12:00 by DandelionPowderman.
That's exactly what i thought after seeing them at the o2. I only decided to go to Hyde Park at the last minute and i loved it, even though i was fully aware the guitar department is not what it was. 2007 was as bad as it could possibly get, if they play near you again, go for it.
Bill Wyman is vital, of first importance, as well as a necessary member - in the instant he'd decide to re-join. Let's make that clear
There would be some changing in the guitar handling, without any doubt. But don't forget that Ronnie and Mick T contribute essentially to the sound of the band. As I saw the Jimmy Reed gigs I thought that they sounded like the early Stones, but with better guitar competencies. And in respect of the present concerts and if you keep in mind how brilliant Ronnie and Mick T play MR (Keith role is rather dispensable here), I can't see that a more prominent role for RW and MT changes the sound beyond recognition (the more so as Keith is still on stage and in the studio if they plan to write a new album).
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: The way forward for Keith?
Posted by:
geordiestone
()
Date: June 2, 2014 22:32
I really like StonedAsia's idea of a 3 guitar Stones but i just can't imagine Mick J having any of that. My personal view is that things are going pretty damn good for guys of their age and without anyone of Mick J, Keith or Charlie then that would sadly be the end. Those 3 are irreplaceable.
Re: The way forward for Keith?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: June 3, 2014 00:41
Quote
GazzaQuote
treaclefingersQuote
duke richardson
a bit unrelated to this topic, but here's hoping they decide to add US dates later this year.
after that I'm betting Charlie will say (privately) "we're done then, aren't we"..
I don't think he'd bother at this point.
The tours aren't really tours anymore. Short bursts of grouped concerts, lots of days in between, then lots of time off.
I'm not saying they're not working, they are over 70 and my parents couldn't do it, but I think they've found the sweet spot where they can do a few shows without too much pressure, then relax.
They WILL do this for a long time...plus, it keeps them young and in shape.
This.
Re: The way forward for Keith?
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: June 3, 2014 00:48
The tours aren't really tours anymore. Short bursts of grouped concerts, lots of days in between, then lots of time off.
That's about it for 'em these days...
But hey let's just wait see what we're all doin' when we hit the seven- zero mark ... Probably the rockin' chair boogie ...
ROCKMAN
That's about it for 'em these days...
But hey let's just wait see what we're all doin' when we hit the seven- zero mark ... Probably the rockin' chair boogie ...
ROCKMAN
Re: The way forward for Keith?
Posted by:
andrewt
()
Date: June 3, 2014 01:49
The way forward for Keith? One foot in front of the other usually works.
Re: The way forward for Keith?
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: June 3, 2014 02:15
Quote
geordiestone
I really like StonedAsia's idea of a 3 guitar Stones but i just can't imagine Mick J having any of that. My personal view is that things are going pretty damn good for guys of their age and without anyone of Mick J, Keith or Charlie then that would sadly be the end. Those 3 are irreplaceable.
Only Mick is irreplaceable really.
Re: The way forward for Keith?
Posted by:
rob51
()
Date: June 3, 2014 02:43
You can't be serious! Do you actually believe Keith would ever step down like that? Not in a million years and even if he should I know he never will.
Re: The way forward for Keith?
Posted by:
Thrylan
()
Date: June 3, 2014 02:46
I'm a Keith fan more than a Stones fan, and I see it......it stinks. Some of the arrogance about Keith around here is hilarious, and dilussional! He's pretty much bad on good nights. The videos don't lie........
FATHER TIME, UNDEFEATED.
FATHER TIME, UNDEFEATED.
Re: The way forward for Keith?
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: June 3, 2014 02:52
Quote
Rockman
The tours aren't really tours anymore. Short bursts of grouped concerts, lots of days in between, then lots of time off.
That's about it for 'em these days...
But hey let's just wait see what we're all doin' when we hit the seven- zero mark ... Probably the rockin' chair boogie ...
Dunno about that...we learn from the people we most respect, so when we see 70 year olds behaving like they do, I want the same for myself.
Do not go gentle into that good night!
Re: The way forward for Keith?
Posted by:
carlorossi
()
Date: June 3, 2014 04:37
Quote
crumbling_mice
So Ronnie and Taylor are the main guitarists with Keith coming on for selected songs and the encore. He wouldn;t necessarily have to even do all the shows, but it could be the way forward if the touring is too much for the guy.
It wouldn't sound like the Stones, so why even bother? I'd love to see MT and Ronnie rip it up, but not as the main guitarists of the Stones. I'm sure it would sound OK is the best I can say. I give you points for having the cajones to suggest it though!
Re: The way forward for Keith?
Posted by:
slew
()
Date: June 3, 2014 05:13
You have to have Keith. the thought of a Rolling Stones without Keith is abhorrent to me!!!
Re: The way forward for Keith?
Posted by:
stonehearted
()
Date: June 3, 2014 05:16
The way forward for Keith?
One shepherd's pie at a time.
One shepherd's pie at a time.
Re: The way forward for Keith?
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: June 3, 2014 05:19
Quote
His MajestyQuote
geordiestone
I really like StonedAsia's idea of a 3 guitar Stones but i just can't imagine Mick J having any of that. My personal view is that things are going pretty damn good for guys of their age and without anyone of Mick J, Keith or Charlie then that would sadly be the end. Those 3 are irreplaceable.
Only Mick is irreplaceable really.
At this stage, they pretty much all are. Even Ronnie. I believe that if something happened to any of them, they'd pretty much see that as the 'excuse' they need to pack it in.
Re: The way forward for Keith?
Posted by:
Rocky Dijon
()
Date: June 3, 2014 07:05
Quote
Gazza
You can bugger off back to the rock you crawled out from for that!
Clearly Gazza doesn't realize we were in secondary school during the same years. Well, part of the time anyway. I'm still younger.
And seriously, the way forward for Keith is to keep working with the Stones. Never mind the legalities, the band can't exist without him and exists now in spite of him. Gratefully, if Keith got one thing right it is that the music is bigger than either him or Mick.
And the other way forward for Keith is to complete one new track for his long-gestating solo album every three years and create a buzz online from the select few who have heard it and then lock it back up in the vaults and snicker.
And speaking of long-gestating songs, how about this blast from the not too distant past from Mr. Dave Stewart.
"To illustrate this point, he asks his assistant Ned to play “Time Drags On,” which is essential Jagger – soulful, visceral and with a greatly tuneful chorus bolstered by a female choir. It sounds like the finished master of Mick’s next hit, yet here it’s just yet another secret treasure waiting for release."
Re: The way forward for Keith?
Posted by:
winter
()
Date: June 3, 2014 07:09
I think the way forward for keith is playing open-tuned rhythm slide (You Gotta Move, Rooster, No Expectations, Jigsaw, ADTL, Happy, writing new ones), farming out some of the iconic songs' fingered open G intros (which his knuckles can't always shape) to RW or MT, highlighting single note riff songs (PIB, Satisfaction, Bitch, etc), giving up the HTW and SFTD solos while getting much more involved on every song with his old backup vocals' parts.
Re: The way forward for Keith?
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: June 3, 2014 08:38
Unless they come up with a miracle operation for Keith's nodes, there is no way forward. The poor guy has really bad arthritis. It's not going to get better or don't you think someone as rich and famous as Keith would have been contacted by a doctor who could help him? This is serious. I think we're in a race against time until he simply can't play at all.
Re: The way forward for Keith?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: June 3, 2014 08:56
Quote
carlorossiQuote
crumbling_mice
So Ronnie and Taylor are the main guitarists with Keith coming on for selected songs and the encore. He wouldn;t necessarily have to even do all the shows, but it could be the way forward if the touring is too much for the guy.
It wouldn't sound like the Stones, so why even bother? I'd love to see MT and Ronnie rip it up, but not as the main guitarists of the Stones. I'm sure it would sound OK is the best I can say. I give you points for having the cajones to suggest it though!
Imagine how the warhorses would sound...
Re: The way forward for Keith?
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: June 3, 2014 09:17
Quote
Gazza
At this stage, they pretty much all are. Even Ronnie. I believe that if something happened to any of them, they'd pretty much see that as the 'excuse' they need to pack it in.
What it would take to make them pack it in is different thing to who is irreplaceable.
With Ronnie and/or Charlie gone once the dust settled the chance for further big bucks would possibly still entice Mick and Keith to perform under The Rolling Stones name.
Maube they would only play those private rich folks gigs or something.
Re: The way forward for Keith?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: June 3, 2014 09:50
Quote
His MajestyQuote
Gazza
At this stage, they pretty much all are. Even Ronnie. I believe that if something happened to any of them, they'd pretty much see that as the 'excuse' they need to pack it in.
What it would take to make them pack it in is different thing to who is irreplaceable.
With Ronnie and/or Charlie gone once the dust settled the chance for further big bucks would possibly still entice Mick and Keith to perform under The Rolling Stones name.
Maube they would only play those private rich folks gigs or something.
Although Keith said tongue in cheek that it would be possible to carry on without Charlie, they have said many times that it would never happen.
Everything is possible, even without Mick. But it would be silly and ridiculous.
Re: The way forward for Keith?
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: June 3, 2014 10:29
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Although Keith said tongue in cheek that it would be possible to carry on without Charlie, they have said many times that it would never happen.
Everything is possible, even without Mick. But it would be silly and ridiculous.
Keith says a lot of things.
£$
People would still pay to go and see Mick and Keith as The Rolling Stones without Ronnie or Charlie. They would, most likely not go and see Ronnie and Charlie as The Rolling Stones without Mick and Keith.
£$
Without Mick and Keith it would be ridiculous, but without Charlie and Ronnie not ridiculous as it's still the only actual original members left and they would be playing their own songs.
£$
Some people would still go and see Mick jagger as The Rolling Stones without Keith.
£$
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-03 11:14 by His Majesty.
Re: The way forward for Keith?
Posted by:
Dreamer
()
Date: June 3, 2014 11:06
Quote
GazzaQuote
duke richardson
a bit unrelated to this topic, but here's hoping they decide to add US dates later this year.
after that I'm betting Charlie will say (privately) "we're done then, aren't we"..
Cant imagine it as they have 9 shows in Australia and New Zealand booked for the end of 2014......
I dont think there'll be any dates between Roskilde (July 3rd) and Australia.
Someone else might think in possibilities...it's almost 4 months between those dates.
That and the fact that there are a few 'opportunities' on the North American continent could lead to something.
Re: The way forward for Keith?
Posted by:
matxil
()
Date: June 3, 2014 11:11
Of course it will never happen, if only for reasons of image.
But musically speaking, the idea does make sense. Keith is not really playing any important role on stage anymore (neither musically, nor "visually" i.e., directing the band). Stupid recent mistakes as "Can't be Seen", the opening wrong bars of "Brown Sugar", the ridiculous mistakes in Start Me Up in London last year, all of those speak for themselves. Apart from those, he only plays the miminal, basic chords and open chord progressions. His soloos are embarrassing...
I am a big fan of Keith's approach to music, and I loved his rhythm guitar, his licks, his timing, and even his soloos (I love the counterplay on Get Yer Ya's Sympathy, with first Keith's solo and then Mick's, so completely different but both great). But currently, since his drop from the tree, it gets embarrassing. I have the feeling on acoustic guitar he's still able to do stuff, but the hard rock stuff, he just doesn't have the focus anymore. Or maybe it's his arthritis or tiredness, or whatever it is.
Anyway, of course, there will never be a Stones without Keith, that's impossible, but if they go on like this, they better stop. Maybe Ron, Mick, Mick and Charlie can start up a project in parallel, The Working Mojos or whatever.
But musically speaking, the idea does make sense. Keith is not really playing any important role on stage anymore (neither musically, nor "visually" i.e., directing the band). Stupid recent mistakes as "Can't be Seen", the opening wrong bars of "Brown Sugar", the ridiculous mistakes in Start Me Up in London last year, all of those speak for themselves. Apart from those, he only plays the miminal, basic chords and open chord progressions. His soloos are embarrassing...
I am a big fan of Keith's approach to music, and I loved his rhythm guitar, his licks, his timing, and even his soloos (I love the counterplay on Get Yer Ya's Sympathy, with first Keith's solo and then Mick's, so completely different but both great). But currently, since his drop from the tree, it gets embarrassing. I have the feeling on acoustic guitar he's still able to do stuff, but the hard rock stuff, he just doesn't have the focus anymore. Or maybe it's his arthritis or tiredness, or whatever it is.
Anyway, of course, there will never be a Stones without Keith, that's impossible, but if they go on like this, they better stop. Maybe Ron, Mick, Mick and Charlie can start up a project in parallel, The Working Mojos or whatever.
Re: The way forward for Keith?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: June 3, 2014 11:18
Quote
matxil
Of course it will never happen, if only for reasons of image.
But musically speaking, the idea does make sense. Keith is not really playing any important role on stage anymore (neither musically, nor "visually" i.e., directing the band). Stupid recent mistakes as "Can't be Seen", the opening wrong bars of "Brown Sugar", the ridiculous mistakes in Start Me Up in London last year, all of those speak for themselves. Apart from those, he only plays the miminal, basic chords and open chord progressions. His soloos are embarrassing...
I am a big fan of Keith's approach to music, and I loved his rhythm guitar, his licks, his timing, and even his soloos (I love the counterplay on Get Yer Ya's Sympathy, with first Keith's solo and then Mick's, so completely different but both great). But currently, since his drop from the tree, it gets embarrassing. I have the feeling on acoustic guitar he's still able to do stuff, but the hard rock stuff, he just doesn't have the focus anymore. Or maybe it's his arthritis or tiredness, or whatever it is.
Anyway, of course, there will never be a Stones without Keith, that's impossible, but if they go on like this, they better stop. Maybe Ron, Mick, Mick and Charlie can start up a project in parallel, The Working Mojos or whatever.
People have a tendency to over-think the details. Remember that he's not doing those mistakes for two hours every night. Mostly, his playing and singing is great, like here.
Re: The way forward for Keith?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: June 3, 2014 11:23
Would someone really want another guitarist to start off this song?
Re: The way forward for Keith?
Posted by:
matxil
()
Date: June 3, 2014 11:32
His singing has improved a lot, I agree. And he still plays well the basic chords. And if he wouldn't be able to play Satisfaction, well, that really would be the end, wouldn't it? (I'd prefer them not to play that song at all, but okay).
It's just that it's clear that he doesn't have that presence on stage that he used to have. It's Ron Wood or Mick Taylor who mark the changes, the rhythm, the groove. And I am very much afraid that, unfortunately, without that piano player we all love so much, many songs just wouldn't survive on stage.
But I fully admit that my judgement is only based on YouTube. I haven't seen them live since 2007 which was so disappointing that I decided: never again.
It's just that it's clear that he doesn't have that presence on stage that he used to have. It's Ron Wood or Mick Taylor who mark the changes, the rhythm, the groove. And I am very much afraid that, unfortunately, without that piano player we all love so much, many songs just wouldn't survive on stage.
But I fully admit that my judgement is only based on YouTube. I haven't seen them live since 2007 which was so disappointing that I decided: never again.
Re: The way forward for Keith?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: June 3, 2014 11:59
Quote
matxil
His singing has improved a lot, I agree. And he still plays well the basic chords. And if he wouldn't be able to play Satisfaction, well, that really would be the end, wouldn't it? (I'd prefer them not to play that song at all, but okay).
It's just that it's clear that he doesn't have that presence on stage that he used to have. It's Ron Wood or Mick Taylor who mark the changes, the rhythm, the groove. And I am very much afraid that, unfortunately, without that piano player we all love so much, many songs just wouldn't survive on stage.
But I fully admit that my judgement is only based on YouTube. I haven't seen them live since 2007 which was so disappointing that I decided: never again.
That's not entirely correct, because it depends on which song they're playing.
On MR and songs that need direction and communication from a guitar player in charge, it's still Keith that calls the shot. But when his role is merely strumming, like on D&G, he'll withdraw a bit and take a break.
I think this video (albeit with crappy sound) from the Lisbon show shows Keith in good shape, playing a lot, with a great stage presence. Don't worry
And I can assure you that this tour is better than the shows I attended at the BB-tour.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-03 12:00 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: The way forward for Keith?
Posted by:
exhpart
()
Date: June 3, 2014 12:18
Wow what an amazing idea. Err... Mick and Keith are 71 this year and Charlie is 73. Plus they've had a successful formula (business wise) for a long time now. No-one's replacing anyone and I hope they stop when they're not enjoying it anymore. Ronnie seems in a good place again with his new wife and I believe new apartment in Barcelona and Charlie and Keith just keep on keeping on. Mick has had a traumatic couple of months but if anyone can get through something like that it's surely him.
And Mick Taylor left nearly 40 years ago and is now on stage maximum 3 songs
And Mick Taylor left nearly 40 years ago and is now on stage maximum 3 songs
Re: The way forward for Keith?
Posted by:
still ill
()
Date: June 3, 2014 12:29
Quote
matxil
His singing has improved a lot, I agree. And he still plays well the basic chords. And if he wouldn't be able to play Satisfaction, well, that really would be the end, wouldn't it? (I'd prefer them not to play that song at all, but okay).
It's just that it's clear that he doesn't have that presence on stage that he used to have. It's Ron Wood or Mick Taylor who mark the changes, the rhythm, the groove. And I am very much afraid that, unfortunately, without that piano player we all love so much, many songs just wouldn't survive on stage.
But I fully admit that my judgement is only based on YouTube. I haven't seen them live since 2007 which was so disappointing that I decided: never again.
That's exactly what i thought after seeing them at the o2. I only decided to go to Hyde Park at the last minute and i loved it, even though i was fully aware the guitar department is not what it was. 2007 was as bad as it could possibly get, if they play near you again, go for it.
Re: The way forward for Keith?
Posted by:
MarkSchneider
()
Date: June 3, 2014 12:36
Rolling Stones = Keith Richards + Mick Jagger (vital, necessary and sufficient conditions)
Of first importance = Charlie Watts, Ron Woods and Mick Taylor
Highly recommended = Bill Wyman
Without Keith, no Rolling Stones IMO
But Mick Taylor's rallying should be seriously considered for all sorts of reasons.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-03 12:44 by MarkSchneider.
Of first importance = Charlie Watts, Ron Woods and Mick Taylor
Highly recommended = Bill Wyman
Without Keith, no Rolling Stones IMO
But Mick Taylor's rallying should be seriously considered for all sorts of reasons.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-03 12:44 by MarkSchneider.
Re: The way forward for Keith?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: June 3, 2014 12:59
Quote
MarkSchneider
Rolling Stones = Keith Richards + Mick Jagger (vital, necessary and sufficient conditions)
Of first importance = Charlie Watts, Ron Woods and Mick Taylor
Highly recommended = Bill Wyman
Without Keith, no Rolling Stones IMO
But Mick Taylor's rallying should be seriously considered for all sorts of reasons.
Bill Wyman is vital, of first importance, as well as a necessary member - in the instant he'd decide to re-join. Let's make that clear
Re: The way forward for Keith?
Posted by:
RobertJohnson
()
Date: June 3, 2014 13:17
Quote
RokyfanQuote
RobertJohnson
Mick Taylor and Ronnie Wood - a great joint venture to pay tribute to Jimmy Reed. Why not a greater role in their home band for both if Keith isn't in good shape ... Is it a sacrilege to think of that? Although I have great respect for Keith and his central role in the history of the band, his guitar playing sometimes is nothing more than awkward, e.g. his out of tune solos on SFTD and his minimalistic solos on other songs. On the other hand much to my surprise the guitar playing of Ronnie is getting better and better again, and Mick Taylor's playing is above any doubt.
A band driven by Woody and Taylor, who I think would work together fabulously, could be great, but it's not the Stones.
There would be some changing in the guitar handling, without any doubt. But don't forget that Ronnie and Mick T contribute essentially to the sound of the band. As I saw the Jimmy Reed gigs I thought that they sounded like the early Stones, but with better guitar competencies. And in respect of the present concerts and if you keep in mind how brilliant Ronnie and Mick T play MR (Keith role is rather dispensable here), I can't see that a more prominent role for RW and MT changes the sound beyond recognition (the more so as Keith is still on stage and in the studio if they plan to write a new album).
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Guests:
2050
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10