Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
Leonioid

Quote
Naturalust
That photo is actually disturbing to me.

Glad I'm not the only one. Hoping Bjornulf changes it soon. He's taken some excellent shots of the band in action, much prefer one of those.

Disturbing? Really?

Well, heck I didnt think a lot about it,
I just liked seeing them looking happy and ready to go.

But then again they say all pictures are viewed differently by the beholder and our view indicates something about ourself. You guys see disturbing KISS? Really? I wonder what that means? [www.rorschach.com]

What do you see in this picture?


How about this one?


And now this one?


and finally this one?



Your results may vary...

Sad bat, angry bat, horny bat, hung over bat. Run over bat.

Quote
vertigojoe
More of a mascot I'd say.
He certainly relinquished his musical director/dynamo role a long time ago.
He embodies the outlaw/drugs/bad boy side of the bands imagine that they still trade off.
He does 2 songs so Jagger can have a break. End of.

Quote
potus43

Quote
ROPENI
From his latest interviews,you may assume that his role as one of the leaders of The Stones has diminished a great deal, the songs to be played are decided by Mick and Chuck, so, basically Keith just shows up, plays what he is told and goes home....Your opinion....

one of the silliest posts...ever

Quote
Rockman
That photo is actually disturbing to me.

Awwww stop being girly breathes ... what friggin' disturbing about it???

Quote
shawnriffhard1

Quote
jazzbass

Quote
shawnriffhard1
It boggles the mind thinking of what could have been.

Tell me what could've been? Seriously?

Listen, I've been a fanatic since the spring of 81 as a 12 year old. I built many of my points of view on Keith's words and actions. To say I love the guy doesn't really begin to get it, but his playing and writing ability, and mindset have been tremendously affected by his self abuse as has Ronnie's Are you really disagreeing with me here? MJ has worked hard keeping himself in shape and it shows. Keith has not and it too shows. He has exhibited all the classic self delusions that any alcoholic/addict shows in terms of denial and bullshitting himself, talking about, "It's my iron constitution", and other such nonsense while people tell him how great he is. I know the arthritis is a major issue, but it's the only problem by a long shot.

Before the 50th anniversary tour started, Keith's ability to make a go of it was very much in question. If you recall, MJ talked about Keith's health being an impediment and he said, "There are no miracles in life." I don't think we need a crystal ball to understand what he was saying. I take no pleasure in pointing this out just as many, many folks here have (to say nothing of the casual tourists who are astounded how much his ability and awareness has dropped off).

And yes, Jazzbass, seriously, if he had the dedication to his art like MJ has shown, who knows how much more studio work could have transpired, how much more excellent the performances could have been, how much better MT and RW (playing wise and life wise in MT's case) could have been and how much better the MJ relationship could have been. Imagine being forced to be a babysitter for years while you're being responsible and dedicated and your partner is drunk and high all the time. I used to be very down on MJ as the calculating one while Keith was the "real Rolling Stone". I don't see it like that anymore. Keith has said that he still has a 15 y.o. inside that he protects, but I now see that as just an excuse.

Lastly, I think folks are kidding themselves about the stale setlists being down to Mick and Chuck being boring and unimaginative. They pick the tunes that they safely feel Keith can get through. The frustration must be so intense for MJ after playing with someone like Jeff Beck or Stevie Salas or Joe Satriani. I don't prefer any of those guys to Keith by a hundred miles, but they can at least play the tunes without huge, glaring mistakes or even worse, just flat out not playing and the posing and smoking routine. All of this leads me back to where's MT, but......

Quote
Redhotcarpet
Well i play them better than keith but i cant play as good as he did in 1976 1982 or 1981 or 1973.

Quote
Doxa
Jeez, what a thread. The issue in hand is relevant, even though a bit provocatively stated. Everyone who a bit has followed The Rolling Stones along the years, has seen that the role of Keith Richards has changed. He is not any longer the musical dynamo and leader of the band as he used to be. There are insightful posts here stating the obvious, even though the extent of Keith's 'decrease' musically and leadershipwise is a question not easily to be determined in precise terms (but open for a interesting, critical discussion). Then there is that army of justinbieberists, for whom facing the reality and coming to terms with it seems to an impossible task. Sometimes it sounds pretty ackward that even though most probably the majority of people here are rather grown up people, what one can see is like some group of teenager fan boy/girls just crying out their eternal love and loyalty and whatever for their idols. And of course, for them those who dare to discuss this factual, but seemingly taboo subject are "complainers" and "not real fans" or whatever. Jeez.

- Doxa

Quote
GetYerAngie

Quote
Doxa
Jeez, what a thread. The issue in hand is relevant, even though a bit provocatively stated. Everyone who a bit has followed The Rolling Stones along the years, has seen that the role of Keith Richards has changed. He is not any longer the musical dynamo and leader of the band as he used to be. There are insightful posts here stating the obvious, even though the extent of Keith's 'decrease' musically and leadershipwise is a question not easily to be determined in precise terms (but open for a interesting, critical discussion). Then there is that army of justinbieberists, for whom facing the reality and coming to terms with it seems to an impossible task. Sometimes it sounds pretty ackward that even though most probably the majority of people here are rather grown up people, what one can see is like some group of teenager fan boy/girls just crying out their eternal love and loyalty and whatever for their idols. And of course, for them those who dare to discuss this factual, but seemingly taboo subject are "complainers" and "not real fans" or whatever. Jeez.

- Doxa

Quote
Bsebastian

Quote
GetYerAngie

Quote
Doxa
Jeez, what a thread. The issue in hand is relevant, even though a bit provocatively stated. Everyone who a bit has followed The Rolling Stones along the years, has seen that the role of Keith Richards has changed. He is not any longer the musical dynamo and leader of the band as he used to be. There are insightful posts here stating the obvious, even though the extent of Keith's 'decrease' musically and leadershipwise is a question not easily to be determined in precise terms (but open for a interesting, critical discussion). Then there is that army of justinbieberists, for whom facing the reality and coming to terms with it seems to an impossible task. Sometimes it sounds pretty ackward that even though most probably the majority of people here are rather grown up people, what one can see is like some group of teenager fan boy/girls just crying out their eternal love and loyalty and whatever for their idols. And of course, for them those who dare to discuss this factual, but seemingly taboo subject are "complainers" and "not real fans" or whatever. Jeez.

- Doxa

I disagree. Asking if Keith has become a mere sideman is almost like asking if McCartney is a mere sideman when he tours, or if Elton John is a mere sideman, etc. There is no Rock without Roll; the fans are there to see Keith, no matter how diminished his playing is.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Bsebastian

Quote
GetYerAngie

I disagree. Asking if Keith has become a mere sideman is almost like asking if McCartney is a mere sideman when he tours, or if Elton John is a mere sideman, etc. There is no Rock without Roll; the fans are there to see Keith, no matter how diminished his playing is.

This is correct.

Another point is that Keith still leads the band on the very same songs some posters here were hailing him for back in the day (MR, Satisfaction, BS, TD, HTW, GS and others).

The difference is that the same posters now are tired of those songs

Before giving a thumbs up for Keith being a mere sideman, I suggest that people revisit Midnight Rambler, YGMR, JJF and IORR from recent tours. Who starts the songs? Who keeps the rhythm down? Who is band members looking at?

And before you jump the gun... Yes, you CAN lead a band and play a little bit poorer at the same time

Quote
Bsebastian

Quote
GetYerAngie

Quote
Doxa
Jeez, what a thread. The issue in hand is relevant, even though a bit provocatively stated. Everyone who a bit has followed The Rolling Stones along the years, has seen that the role of Keith Richards has changed. He is not any longer the musical dynamo and leader of the band as he used to be. There are insightful posts here stating the obvious, even though the extent of Keith's 'decrease' musically and leadershipwise is a question not easily to be determined in precise terms (but open for a interesting, critical discussion). Then there is that army of justinbieberists, for whom facing the reality and coming to terms with it seems to an impossible task. Sometimes it sounds pretty ackward that even though most probably the majority of people here are rather grown up people, what one can see is like some group of teenager fan boy/girls just crying out their eternal love and loyalty and whatever for their idols. And of course, for them those who dare to discuss this factual, but seemingly taboo subject are "complainers" and "not real fans" or whatever. Jeez.

- Doxa

I disagree. Asking if Keith has become a mere sideman is almost like asking if McCartney is a mere sideman when he tours, or if Elton John is a mere sideman, etc. There is no Rock without Roll; the fans are there to see Keith, no matter how diminished his playing is.

Quote
Leonioid

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Bsebastian

Quote
GetYerAngie

I disagree. Asking if Keith has become a mere sideman is almost like asking if McCartney is a mere sideman when he tours, or if Elton John is a mere sideman, etc. There is no Rock without Roll; the fans are there to see Keith, no matter how diminished his playing is.

This is correct.

Another point is that Keith still leads the band on the very same songs some posters here were hailing him for back in the day (MR, Satisfaction, BS, TD, HTW, GS and others).

The difference is that the same posters now are tired of those songs

Before giving a thumbs up for Keith being a mere sideman, I suggest that people revisit Midnight Rambler, YGMR, JJF and IORR from recent tours. Who starts the songs? Who keeps the rhythm down? Who is band members looking at?

And before you jump the gun... Yes, you CAN lead a band and play a little bit poorer at the same time

+1 for facts stated by DPM!!

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Not much pretending here:

Quote
marcovandereijk

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Not much pretending here:

Yeah, Keith is still Keith. Only video quality has changed over the last 35 years.

Quote
bobo

Quote
Redhotcarpet
Well i play them better than keith but i cant play as good as he did in 1976 1982 or 1981 or 1973.

Sure.....

Quote
RobertJohnson

Quote
Bsebastian

Quote
GetYerAngie

Quote
Doxa
Jeez, what a thread. The issue in hand is relevant, even though a bit provocatively stated. Everyone who a bit has followed The Rolling Stones along the years, has seen that the role of Keith Richards has changed. He is not any longer the musical dynamo and leader of the band as he used to be. There are insightful posts here stating the obvious, even though the extent of Keith's 'decrease' musically and leadershipwise is a question not easily to be determined in precise terms (but open for a interesting, critical discussion). Then there is that army of justinbieberists, for whom facing the reality and coming to terms with it seems to an impossible task. Sometimes it sounds pretty ackward that even though most probably the majority of people here are rather grown up people, what one can see is like some group of teenager fan boy/girls just crying out their eternal love and loyalty and whatever for their idols. And of course, for them those who dare to discuss this factual, but seemingly taboo subject are "complainers" and "not real fans" or whatever. Jeez.

- Doxa

I disagree. Asking if Keith has become a mere sideman is almost like asking if McCartney is a mere sideman when he tours, or if Elton John is a mere sideman, etc. There is no Rock without Roll; the fans are there to see Keith, no matter how diminished his playing is.

The fact is that no one aks if McCartney is a mere sideman or Elton John. At least McCartney has still an abundance in creating new music, his bass or guitar playing is now better than at Beatles times. Mac is just a true musician through and through while Keith pretends only to be a real Rock'n Roller ... It is a bit of sad Don Quixotism ...