Quote
71Tele
Keith's claim that Mick is only good at acoustic guitar is rubbish, of course...I think Mick the musician (not just guitarist) is fascinating, because while technically not a virtuoso, he is truly himself when he plays guitar, harp, piano, etc, almost an opposite persona than he is as a lead vocalist. He quietly does his thing, and its very affecting. He's a great natural musician, and while the term "underrated" is used too much, I definitely think he is under-appreciated and even unknown (by many people) for his purely musical abilities.

Well said Tele. I agree it's like a completely different side of Mick that contrasts and somewhat balances the frontman singer/dancer persona we all associate with him. Strap a guitar on him and he becomes something else, something less predictable, more interesting and definitely more musical. peace

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
71Tele
Keith's claim that Mick is only good at acoustic guitar is rubbish, of course...I think Mick the musician (not just guitarist) is fascinating, because while technically not a virtuoso, he is truly himself when he plays guitar, harp, piano, etc, almost an opposite persona than he is as a lead vocalist. He quietly does his thing, and its very affecting. He's a great natural musician, and while the term "underrated" is used too much, I definitely think he is under-appreciated and even unknown (by many people) for his purely musical abilities.

Well said Tele. I agree it's like a completely different side of Mick that contrasts and somewhat balances the frontman singer/dancer persona we all associate with him. Strap a guitar on him and he becomes something else, something less predictable, more interesting and definitely more musical. peace

Good way to put it.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
What did Keith say about Mick's playing on D & G?

In fairness, Keith has also complimented Mick's playing several times. Let's not forget that

Yes, but usually his harmonica playing, which is safe for him, as Keith doesn't play harmonica.

Quote
CousinC
Btw. How and when did Mick learn to play guitar? Who showed him first, etc?
I remember Ronnie talking about giving Mick some lessons.But that was only in late 70's.So who helped him in the beginning? Keith? Somehow I doubt that but dunno.

Interesting you brought that SOME GIRLS sessions on the table. Yeah, I remember also that it was during those sessions - or that time - Ronnie said he helped or teached Jagger to play guitar. But it also from those times when Keith started to make public claims that Jagger is horrible at electric guitar, and if it would be up to him, he would turn him down (or like he said in some other quotes, he actually did that).

To me that is somewhat odd period for Stones guitar - or personal (ego?) - dynamics (even though the mature 'ancient art of weaving' derives from those times as well). It seemingly was the first first time when Jagger started to play the guitar even if Keith was there - before that Jagger's guitar contributions, at least the ones that ended up on records, were done while Keith was absent. (Keith didn't seem to have problems in releasing stuff like "Sway", "Moonlight Mile", "Stop Breaking Down" and "Winter", even though it had not him, but this 'terrible' Jagger on rhythm guitar). The 'three guitar attack' was something unique in the Stones canon by then, and seemingly Keith was not too happy about it always. I don't recall him bashing Jagger's guitar work before that.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-02-09 21:01 by Doxa.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
DandelionPowderman
What did Keith say about Mick's playing on D & G?

In fairness, Keith has also complimented Mick's playing several times. Let's not forget that

Yes, but usually his harmonica playing, which is safe for him, as Keith doesn't play harmonica.

AND his guitar playing. Seemingly, many here have only read the same two rehashed interviews, and form opinions based on those. There are even more interviews where he praises Mick's guitar playing.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
There are even more interviews where he praises Mick's guitar playing.

Feel free to direct us to those..love to see them. peace

Quote
DandelionPowderman
What did Keith say about Mick's playing on D & G?

I don't have the quote now nor remember the exact words. All I remember about it is the sketch I gave above. Him sounding like being offended that the interviwer mentioned the fact that it was Jagger doing the main guitar in "Doom & Gloom". So he responded something to the effect that "I know, I know, but I taught Mick to play". A very odd response.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-02-09 21:24 by Doxa.

Don't have much time now, but here's one quote:

"Mick had this one already to go. This was one of the first times we allowed him to join in on guitar. He's a really good rhythm player, man; but then, he's had a good teacher".

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
DandelionPowderman
There are even more interviews where he praises Mick's guitar playing.

Feel free to direct us to those..love to see them. peace

Jagger can play guitar like Keith can front a band.

Both are great, but on the long run, Keith better stick to the guitar and Mick to the mic!

C

On later stuff:
Sad Sad Sad
Hold On To Your Hat
Highwire
I Go Wild
Brand New Car (fantastic rhythm)
Gunface
Don't Stop (left channel is all him)
Almost all the rhythm playing on ABB is him
Doom and Gloom

GUnface is a good song, really.

Quote
Naturalust
Moonlight Mile and Sway for sure! Seems he plays better when Keith isn't around. peace

I have listened to these two tunes hundreds of times and never computed Mick was on guitar. I do remember all of Sway was recorded at Stargroves without Keith.
Maybe I should read the liner notes like the good old days (pre IPod)! Both
tunes are excellent.

Quote
liddas


Strange that on Mick's solo records there is not one guitar part of his that comes close to his work with the stones.

C

I agree 100%. Also his solo efforts lack the same "soul" as the stones efforts.
Mick was trying to create something different than the stones sound - so I get
it.

Quote
liddas
Jagger can play guitar like Keith can front a band.

Both are great, but on the long run, Keith better stick to the guitar and Mick to the mic!

C

Maybe, but Mick's musical abilities give the band some extra textures. The songs have already been listed. Quite a few of them, actually.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Don't have much time now, but here's one quote:

"Mick had this one already to go. This was one of the first times we allowed him to join in on guitar. He's a really good rhythm player, man; but then, he's had a good teacher".

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
DandelionPowderman
There are even more interviews where he praises Mick's guitar playing.

Feel free to direct us to those..love to see them. peace

Well that's kind of guarded/two-faced praise...insinuates he can't play anything but rhythm and he takes the credit for it. Obviously Keith has some insecurities. Imo, Keith isn't much of a lead player either. Yes he has played some good leads but he hasn't really developed in that area since the early 70's. peace

Quote
71Tele

Quote
liddas
Jagger can play guitar like Keith can front a band.

Both are great, but on the long run, Keith better stick to the guitar and Mick to the mic!

C

Maybe, but Mick's musical abilities give the band some extra textures. The songs have already been listed. Quite a few of them, actually.

I am not too sure that I understood what you mean. In any case, sure mick gives extra textures to the band. And not only when he playes the guitar, also when he plays keyboards, harp, shakers - he has such a great timing that he just can't be wrong. But the same applies to keith, who usually has a different point of view of things than Jagger's, that add interning nuances to the stones vocal parts.

C

Quote
liddas

Quote
71Tele

Quote
liddas
Jagger can play guitar like Keith can front a band.

Both are great, but on the long run, Keith better stick to the guitar and Mick to the mic!

C

Maybe, but Mick's musical abilities give the band some extra textures. The songs have already been listed. Quite a few of them, actually.

I am not too sure that I understood what you mean. In any case, sure mick gives extra textures to the band. And not only when he playes the guitar, also when he plays keyboards, harp, shakers - he has such a great timing that he just can't be wrong. But the same applies to keith, who usually has a different point of view of things than Jagger's, that add interning nuances to the stones vocal parts.

C

Exactly what I meant!

Quote
Doxa
Silliness is the hypocracy of some Rolling Stones fans to rate anything associated with teh Rolling Stones in terms of technical ability. Every damn musician in this world - expect some diehard Rolling stones fan boy guitar nerds - knows that all of them (expect one guitar player a long time ago) are rather mediocre players, and their greatness has nothing to do with it.

Wrong. You're not a player or you'd not be saying that. I'll paraphrase dandymanpowerpuff on Ron Wood -'player's know'. Because there's something extrinsic at work with musicians outside of chops. I gaurandamntee, Miles Davis - by his own admission - didn't have a fraction of Dizzy Gillespie's chops. Since there's not as much difference between between a Keith Richards and Mick Taylor solo as you'd like to think; think Mick Taylor and Barney Kessel. The latter is analogous to Miles and Diz. Yet Miles was a player. Many say THE player. What made him so good? Style and composition.

And RnR as we all know is not about the technical anyway.

You say there wasn't a great musician save for one in the Rolling Stones? That's true, but you've picked the wrong one. God bless Mick Taylor, he played some pretty stuff but he was never as gifted as Keith; not the player Keith was. I'd bother to delve more but my give a damn just gave out.

-Keith Richards Fanboy



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-02-10 04:05 by TonyMo.

Quote
71Tele
Keith's claim that Mick is only good at acoustic guitar is rubbish, of course...I think Mick the musician (not just guitarist) is fascinating, because while technically not a virtuoso, he is truly himself when he plays guitar, harp, piano, etc, almost an opposite persona than he is as a lead vocalist. He quietly does his thing, and its very affecting. He's a great natural musician, and while the term "underrated" is used too much, I definitely think he is under-appreciated and even unknown (by many people) for his purely musical abilities.

Very well put.
That sums it up for me as well. You can see the innate ability in the rythmn and touch. I assume you are a musician because non-musicians may not get what you're saying, but I've always believed Jagger was a natural musician for the reasons you mentioned. He has a great feel...and it's completely organic.
One of my favorites is his guitar on Blood Red Wine...its less polished than Keith, but its as pure.
Just listen to the opening guitar in Till the Next Goodbye, that little rythmic catch on the D and then when he goes back to D from the G...its a subtle little thing, but its a great feel.
Or Crazy Mama, or Miss You...

Quote
TonyMo

Quote
Doxa
Silliness is the hypocracy of some Rolling Stones fans to rate anything associated with teh Rolling Stones in terms of technical ability. Every damn musician in this world - expect some diehard Rolling stones fan boy guitar nerds - knows that all of them (expect one guitar player a long time ago) are rather mediocre players, and their greatness has nothing to do with it.

Wrong. You're not a player or you'd not be saying that. I'll paraphrase dandymanpowerpuff on Ron Wood -'player's know'. Because there's something extrinsic at work with musicians outside of chops. I gaurandamntee, Miles Davis - by his own admission - didn't have a fraction of Dizzy Gillespie's chops. Since there's not as much difference between between a Keith Richards and Mick Taylor solo as you'd like to think; think Mick Taylor and Barney Kessel. The latter is analogous to Miles and Diz. Yet Miles was a player. Many say THE player. What made him so good? Style and composition.

And RnR as we all know is not about the technical anyway.

You say there wasn't a great musician save for one in the Rolling Stones? That's true, but you've picked the wrong one. God bless Mick Taylor, he played some pretty stuff but he was never as gifted as Keith; not the player Keith was. I'd bother to delve more but my give a damn just gave out.

-Keith Richards Fanboy

Doxa is correct. You are not. We're talking about technical proficiency. Keith and Ronnie have a very rudimentary level of that. There is a huge difference in a Mick Taylor solo and a Keith solo. Huge, it doesn't really matter.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-02-10 04:14 by stupidguy2.

Quote
stupidguy2

Quote
TonyMo

Quote
Doxa
Silliness is the hypocracy of some Rolling Stones fans to rate anything associated with teh Rolling Stones in terms of technical ability. Every damn musician in this world - expect some diehard Rolling stones fan boy guitar nerds - knows that all of them (expect one guitar player a long time ago) are rather mediocre players, and their greatness has nothing to do with it.

Wrong. You're not a player or you'd not be saying that. I'll paraphrase dandymanpowerpuff on Ron Wood -'player's know'. Because there's something extrinsic at work with musicians outside of chops. I gaurandamntee, Miles Davis - by his own admission - didn't have a fraction of Dizzy Gillespie's chops. Since there's not as much difference between between a Keith Richards and Mick Taylor solo as you'd like to think; think Mick Taylor and Barney Kessel. The latter is analogous to Miles and Diz. Yet Miles was a player. Many say THE player. What made him so good? Style and composition.

And RnR as we all know is not about the technical anyway.

You say there wasn't a great musician save for one in the Rolling Stones? That's true, but you've picked the wrong one. God bless Mick Taylor, he played some pretty stuff but he was never as gifted as Keith; not the player Keith was. I'd bother to delve more but my give a damn just gave out.

-Keith Richards Fanboy

Doxa is correct. You are not. We're talking about technical proficiency. Keith and Ronnie have a very rudimentary level of that. There is a huge difference in a Mick Taylor solo and a Keith solo. Huge, it doesn't really matter.

Musicianship can be judged by technical proficiency in some cases but there is a lot more to it that than. Hearing and blending with other musicians, adding to the song in subtle ways instead of the most technically proficient way, recognizing and writing good songs, performing well night after night and knowing when to not play are all things that make a good musician but have little to do with technical ability on one's particular instrument.

It can be debated about the technical proficiency of the Stones, they certainly have their moments, but no one can argue they are great musicians. peace

Quote
stupidguy2

Quote
71Tele
Keith's claim that Mick is only good at acoustic guitar is rubbish, of course...I think Mick the musician (not just guitarist) is fascinating, because while technically not a virtuoso, he is truly himself when he plays guitar, harp, piano, etc, almost an opposite persona than he is as a lead vocalist. He quietly does his thing, and its very affecting. He's a great natural musician, and while the term "underrated" is used too much, I definitely think he is under-appreciated and even unknown (by many people) for his purely musical abilities.

Very well put.
That sums it up for me as well. You can see the innate ability in the rythmn and touch. I assume you are a musician because non-musicians may not get what you're saying, but I've always believed Jagger was a natural musician for the reasons you mentioned. He has a great feel...and it's completely organic.
One of my favorites is his guitar on Blood Red Wine...its less polished than Keith, but its as pure.
Just listen to the opening guitar in Till the Next Goodbye, that little rythmic catch on the D and then when he goes back to D from the G...its a subtle little thing, but its a great feel.
Or Crazy Mama, or Miss You...

Yes, I'm a musician. And feel, as you said, is the key. It's all about the feel. I really don't care if Jeff Beck is a "better" guitarist than Keith Richards, for example. Jeff Beck never played a note that moved me, or wrote a great song. Mick is a natural musician, not just a natural performer. His approach may be even more rudimentary than Keith's, but he's got feel in spades.

Surprised that Jeff Beck never played a note that moved ya Tele. He can be very melodic and moving in concert. He's not all flash and I've heard him do some slow melodic stuff, solo, without a band where the tone and notes are pretty damn moving! When he plays with a band of hot musicians he tends to get a bit flashy with less feel, IMO.

Check out his work on the Muddy Waters tribute album with Paul Rogers. He gets some notes and tones there that are outrageous. peace

Quote
Naturalust
Surprised that Jeff Beck never played a note that moved ya Tele. He can be very melodic and moving in concert. He's not all flash and I've heard him do some slow melodic stuff, solo, without a band where the tone and notes are pretty damn moving! When he plays with a band of hot musicians he tends to get a bit flashy with less feel, IMO.

Check out his work on the Muddy Waters tribute album with Paul Rogers. He gets some notes and tones there that are outrageous. peace

Just an example, NL, not really intending to pick on Beck. I am just a "song" guy rather than a "guitar" guy. I like artists playing great songs and group interplay. Instrumentalists don't interest me much, and I consider jeff beck one of those.

Good one, Tony ><

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Naturalust
Surprised that Jeff Beck never played a note that moved ya Tele. He can be very melodic and moving in concert. He's not all flash and I've heard him do some slow melodic stuff, solo, without a band where the tone and notes are pretty damn moving! When he plays with a band of hot musicians he tends to get a bit flashy with less feel, IMO.

Check out his work on the Muddy Waters tribute album with Paul Rogers. He gets some notes and tones there that are outrageous. peace

Just an example, NL, not really intending to pick on Beck. I am just a "song" guy rather than a "guitar" guy. I like artists playing great songs and group interplay. Instrumentalists don't interest me much, and I consider jeff beck one of those.

Yep, but there can be exceptions such as Jimi Hendrix and Frank Zappa.

2 1 2 0

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
stupidguy2

Quote
TonyMo

Quote
Doxa
Silliness is the hypocracy of some Rolling Stones fans to rate anything associated with teh Rolling Stones in terms of technical ability. Every damn musician in this world - expect some diehard Rolling stones fan boy guitar nerds - knows that all of them (expect one guitar player a long time ago) are rather mediocre players, and their greatness has nothing to do with it.

Wrong. You're not a player or you'd not be saying that. I'll paraphrase dandymanpowerpuff on Ron Wood -'player's know'. Because there's something extrinsic at work with musicians outside of chops. I gaurandamntee, Miles Davis - by his own admission - didn't have a fraction of Dizzy Gillespie's chops. Since there's not as much difference between between a Keith Richards and Mick Taylor solo as you'd like to think; think Mick Taylor and Barney Kessel. The latter is analogous to Miles and Diz. Yet Miles was a player. Many say THE player. What made him so good? Style and composition.

And RnR as we all know is not about the technical anyway.

You say there wasn't a great musician save for one in the Rolling Stones? That's true, but you've picked the wrong one. God bless Mick Taylor, he played some pretty stuff but he was never as gifted as Keith; not the player Keith was. I'd bother to delve more but my give a damn just gave out.

-Keith Richards Fanboy

Doxa is correct. You are not. We're talking about technical proficiency. Keith and Ronnie have a very rudimentary level of that. There is a huge difference in a Mick Taylor solo and a Keith solo. Huge, it doesn't really matter.

Musicianship can be judged by technical proficiency in some cases but there is a lot more to it that than. Hearing and blending with other musicians, adding to the song in subtle ways instead of the most technically proficient way, recognizing and writing good songs, performing well night after night and knowing when to not play are all things that make a good musician but have little to do with technical ability on one's particular instrument.

It can be debated about the technical proficiency of the Stones, they certainly have their moments, but no one can argue they are great musicians. peace

Yeah, with a purpose I didn't use a term "musician" above, since, like you, I think it contains much more than the technical side of the things. That's why I used a term "player", which is more a skin and bones kind of expression (probably "technical player" could have been even more accurate). The Stones are wonderful musicians, and I don't think that is largely disputed (I guess you missed one 'not' in your last sentence). Keith Richards alone is is one of the greatest rock musicians ever lived. He is what a rock musicianship is all sbout. Jagger also, like pointed out greatly in this thread, has that natural musicianhip in himself - almost any istrument he takes, he is able to deliver something, which makes the difference. Some people just has that 'touch'. Jagger's frontman role and 'controversial' public persona - even among rock circles - hides that easily...

I think one crucial step in realizing the unique greatness of the Rolling Stones is that of accepting how little 'pure' technical ability has to do with it. Personally it took me years to come to terms with it...

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-02-10 11:11 by Doxa.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Don't have much time now, but here's one quote:

"Mick had this one already to go. This was one of the first times we allowed him to join in on guitar. He's a really good rhythm player, man; but then, he's had a good teacher".

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
DandelionPowderman
There are even more interviews where he praises Mick's guitar playing.

Feel free to direct us to those..love to see them. peace

Well that's kind of guarded/two-faced praise...insinuates he can't play anything but rhythm and he takes the credit for it. Obviously Keith has some insecurities. Imo, Keith isn't much of a lead player either. Yes he has played some good leads but he hasn't really developed in that area since the early 70's. peace

When Keith Richards says that you're a really good rhythm player, it's a compliment, period, imo

We don't know whether the reporter (for the umpteenth time) said "but you taught him, right?"

And Mick isn't a lead player, so all we have left is the compliment.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
stupidguy2

Quote
TonyMo

Quote
Doxa
Silliness is the hypocracy of some Rolling Stones fans to rate anything associated with teh Rolling Stones in terms of technical ability. Every damn musician in this world - expect some diehard Rolling stones fan boy guitar nerds - knows that all of them (expect one guitar player a long time ago) are rather mediocre players, and their greatness has nothing to do with it.

Wrong. You're not a player or you'd not be saying that. I'll paraphrase dandymanpowerpuff on Ron Wood -'player's know'. Because there's something extrinsic at work with musicians outside of chops. I gaurandamntee, Miles Davis - by his own admission - didn't have a fraction of Dizzy Gillespie's chops. Since there's not as much difference between between a Keith Richards and Mick Taylor solo as you'd like to think; think Mick Taylor and Barney Kessel. The latter is analogous to Miles and Diz. Yet Miles was a player. Many say THE player. What made him so good? Style and composition.

And RnR as we all know is not about the technical anyway.

You say there wasn't a great musician save for one in the Rolling Stones? That's true, but you've picked the wrong one. God bless Mick Taylor, he played some pretty stuff but he was never as gifted as Keith; not the player Keith was. I'd bother to delve more but my give a damn just gave out.

-Keith Richards Fanboy

Doxa is correct. You are not. We're talking about technical proficiency. Keith and Ronnie have a very rudimentary level of that. There is a huge difference in a Mick Taylor solo and a Keith solo. Huge, it doesn't really matter.

Musicianship can be judged by technical proficiency in some cases but there is a lot more to it that than. Hearing and blending with other musicians, adding to the song in subtle ways instead of the most technically proficient way, recognizing and writing good songs, performing well night after night and knowing when to not play are all things that make a good musician but have little to do with technical ability on one's particular instrument.

It can be debated about the technical proficiency of the Stones, they certainly have their moments, but no one can argue they are great musicians. peace

Yeah, with a purpose I didn't use a term "musician" above, since, like you, I think it contains much more than the technical side of the things. That's why I used a term "player", which is more a skin and bones kind of expression (probably "technical player" could have been even more accurate). The Stones are wonderful musicians, and I don't think that is largely debuted (I guess you missed one 'not' in your last sentence). Keith Richards alone is is one of the greatest rock musicians ever lived. He is what a rock musicianship is all sbout. Jagger also, like pointed out greatly in this thread, has that natural musicianhip in himself - almost any istrument he takes, he is able to deliver something, which makes the difference. Some people just has that 'touch'. Jagger's frontman role and 'controversial' public persona - even among rock circles - hides that easily...

I think one crucial step in realizing the unique greatness of the Rolling Stones is that of accepting how little 'pure' technical ability has to do with it. Personally it took me years to come to terms with it...

- Doxa

TommyMo is just playing with you, me and all the others here - when he sees a possibility of some Taylor/Wood/Keith-fights.

I admit that he sets it up brilliantly, though, but he's not serious

Hahah... Yeah, Dandie, I know - and I also think it was a brilliant reply!

- Doxa