For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
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.
Quote
NaturalustQuote
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
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
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.
Quote
71TeleQuote
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
DandelionPowderman
There are even more interviews where he praises Mick's guitar playing.
Quote
DandelionPowderman
What did Keith say about Mick's playing on D & G?
Quote
NaturalustQuote
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
Naturalust
Moonlight Mile and Sway for sure! Seems he plays better when Keith isn't around. peace
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
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
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
NaturalustQuote
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
71TeleQuote
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
liddasQuote
71TeleQuote
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
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.
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.
Quote
TonyMoQuote
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
Quote
stupidguy2Quote
TonyMoQuote
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.
Quote
stupidguy2Quote
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
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
Quote
71TeleQuote
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.
Quote
NaturalustQuote
stupidguy2Quote
TonyMoQuote
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
NaturalustQuote
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
NaturalustQuote
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
DoxaQuote
NaturalustQuote
stupidguy2Quote
TonyMoQuote
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