For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
NEWMANQuote
kleermaker
Did I ever state that Mozart was a scientist instead of an artist? I don't think so.
Just remove the 'so', at the end of your sentence and we agree.
Quote
keefriffhardsQuote
OllyQuote
StoneburstQuote
OllyQuote
Mathijs
There simply would not have been the famous post-1969 Stones without Charlie Watts. Keith Richards would have never been able to evolve to his peak in 1975 and 1978 without Charlie Watts.
And Wyman is much the same: basically a bassist with a lack of even the most basic technical skills, but able to always find that fantastic groove and swing, and always able to add a melodic layer in what is fairly simple music.
Mathijs
I'm amazed that only one other member has questioned this.
What on earth possessed you to conclude that these two dates represent Keith Richards' 'peak'?
A number of Stones fans take this view - the idea is basically that Keith's playing suffered from the clearer division between rhythm and lead guitar that emerged on the 1972/73 tours. When Taylor left and Wood joined, Keith was revitalised as a player, and this resulted (so the argument goes) in both his best ever live performances and a burst of creativity in the studio that, after GHS and IORR, had seemed unlikely.
I can understand the reference to 1978, although is the 'burst of creativity' comparable with the one that began a decade earlier?
How did Richards peak in 1975?
You make a thought-provoking point regarding live performances.
Olly. you raised the question.
i was courious as to when you thought Keith peaked as a guitarist..
Quote
kleermakerQuote
Turner68Quote
kleermakerQuote
shortfatfannyQuote
MartinB
I am with Mathijs, about both Charlie and Bill.
Mathijs put it perfectly.
To say he's not a special drummer and just average reflects a limited musically knowledge if there is some knowledge at all.
It's not a matter of knowledge, dear friend. Music isn't science you know, but art.
music should be *appreciated* as art by a listener, no question about it.
but when judging the abilities of a specific performer it is as much science as art, for we are talking about a discipline that requires significant technical skill to make the art.
But according to that criterion Charlie isn't a good drummer, because he's technically quite limited. Or do we have to define 'technical skill' first?
Quote
OllyQuote
keefriffhardsQuote
OllyQuote
StoneburstQuote
OllyQuote
Mathijs
There simply would not have been the famous post-1969 Stones without Charlie Watts. Keith Richards would have never been able to evolve to his peak in 1975 and 1978 without Charlie Watts.
And Wyman is much the same: basically a bassist with a lack of even the most basic technical skills, but able to always find that fantastic groove and swing, and always able to add a melodic layer in what is fairly simple music.
Mathijs
I'm amazed that only one other member has questioned this.
What on earth possessed you to conclude that these two dates represent Keith Richards' 'peak'?
A number of Stones fans take this view - the idea is basically that Keith's playing suffered from the clearer division between rhythm and lead guitar that emerged on the 1972/73 tours. When Taylor left and Wood joined, Keith was revitalised as a player, and this resulted (so the argument goes) in both his best ever live performances and a burst of creativity in the studio that, after GHS and IORR, had seemed unlikely.
I can understand the reference to 1978, although is the 'burst of creativity' comparable with the one that began a decade earlier?
How did Richards peak in 1975?
You make a thought-provoking point regarding live performances.
Olly. you raised the question.
i was courious as to when you thought Keith peaked as a guitarist..
For me, Keith as a guitarist relies as much on his aesthetic, enjoyment, and confidence, particularly in live performances, as much as technical ability.
He peaked 'as a guitarist' on the Voodoo Lounge and Bridges to Babylon Tours.
Look at / listen to the following, as examples:[*] Honkey Tonk Women (Tokyo, 1995)
[*] Before They Make Me Run (Tokyo, 1995)
[*] Little Queenie (Buenos Aires, 1998)
This is a man at the peak of his powers; a musician who knows what he wants to do and is capable of executing it.
And a man with a smile on his face.
Quote
24FPSQuote
keefriffhardsQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
OllyQuote
StoneburstQuote
OllyQuote
Mathijs
I couldn't disagree more with Kleermaker than on his statement here. Charlie really IS the Rolling Stones. Charlie really is a very awkward drummer, with an unique drumming style that seems quite simple but is very, very difficult to replicate or copy. The thing is that with Charlie even the most simple drum pattern has that sense of push and pull, which makes the music much more dynamic and swing.
There simply would not have been the famous post-1969 Stones without Charlie Watts. Keith Richards would have never been able to evolve to his peak in 1975 and 1978 without Charlie Watts.
And Wyman is much the same: basically a bassist with a lack of even the most basic technical skills, but able to always find that fantastic groove and swing, and always able to add a melodic layer in what is fairly simple music.
Mathijs
I'm amazed that only one other member has questioned this.
What on earth possessed you to conclude that these two dates represent Keith Richards' 'peak'?
A number of Stones fans take this view - the idea is basically that Keith's playing suffered from the clearer division between rhythm and lead guitar that emerged on the 1972/73 tours. When Taylor left and Wood joined, Keith was revitalised as a player, and this resulted (so the argument goes) in both his best ever live performances and a burst of creativity in the studio that, after GHS and IORR, had seemed unlikely.
I can understand the reference to 1978, although is the 'burst of creativity' comparable with the one that began a decade earlier?
How did Richards peak in 1975?
You make a thought-provoking point regarding live performances.
He started playing way more standard tuning and wasn't constrained by strumming rhythm. The result was new phrasing, new motifs, better soloing and overall better playing. This development was imo crowned with blistering playing in 1977 at the El Mocambo club.
In 1978, with the legendary Mesa Boogie amp he developed this sound and took his role further by playing more lead guitar and only occasionally in open tuning.
well i'm not so sure keith stopped improving post 75' 78'. that's a hard one to except. sorry i dont agree with that one.. just saying..
It's hard to say about their studio output, since Tattoo You was such a mishmash, but I think Keith continued on an upward trajectory on stage and peaked in 1981/82.
Quote
TheBlockbusterQuote
RobertJohnson
With exception of Mick Taylor there is no genius in music in the band, but all of them contribute to this unique Stones sound you can't never find otherwise. And thus that holds for Charlie Watts, too. Insofar he is a unique and singular drummer.
I would not call Taylor a musical genius. He simply lacked the talent to know what not to play, which live in concert resulted in him spoiling some tunes by overplaying. If there's any member of the Stones who is not a musical genius, it's Mick Taylor.
Mick J. and Keith are both genius song writers, which in my opinion makes them musical geniuses.
Quote
DandelionPowderman
While I personally think that a bad Keith-show is a bad Stones-show, I definitely see your point of view, Stoneburst. That's fair, it's all about taste.
But I'm glad you agree about Keith's playing.
Quote
Mathijs
I couldn't disagree more with Kleermaker than on his statement here. Charlie really IS the Rolling Stones. Charlie really is a very awkward drummer, with an unique drumming style that seems quite simple but is very, very difficult to replicate or copy. The thing is that with Charlie even the most simple drum pattern has that sense of push and pull, which makes the music much more dynamic and swing.
There simply would not have been the famous post-1969 Stones without Charlie Watts. Keith Richards would have never been able to evolve to his peak in 1975 and 1978 without Charlie Watts.
And Wyman is much the same: basically a bassist with a lack of even the most basic technical skills, but able to always find that fantastic groove and swing, and always able to add a melodic layer in what is fairly simple music.
Mathijs
Quote
DandelionPowderman
It was in 1997 he started to rest on wrong notes (not the root notes) during his solos. That's like squeaking chalk sounds on a blackboard for me...
Quote
EasterManQuote
DandelionPowderman
It was in 1997 he started to rest on wrong notes (not the root notes) during his solos. That's like squeaking chalk sounds on a blackboard for me...
I strongly disagree. 1997 was the best tour for Keith since 1976. It's hard to find any examples of him ''resting on wrong notes'' in 1997. Maybe in Chicago with opening night nerves and all, but for the rest of the tour you're way off. In 2002-2003 Keith was also excellent and his performance did not drag down band the a single bit, except for some flubbed Brown Sugar intros, but that's forgivable.
Here's one of the best solo's Keith has ever done IMO at 3:41, from St. Louis 1997:
video: [www.youtube.com]
Quote
DandelionPowderman
You'll find examples in EVERY show, unfortunately.
You are so right.Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
OllyQuote
keefriffhardsQuote
OllyQuote
StoneburstQuote
OllyQuote
Mathijs
There simply would not have been the famous post-1969 Stones without Charlie Watts. Keith Richards would have never been able to evolve to his peak in 1975 and 1978 without Charlie Watts.
And Wyman is much the same: basically a bassist with a lack of even the most basic technical skills, but able to always find that fantastic groove and swing, and always able to add a melodic layer in what is fairly simple music.
Mathijs
I'm amazed that only one other member has questioned this.
What on earth possessed you to conclude that these two dates represent Keith Richards' 'peak'?
A number of Stones fans take this view - the idea is basically that Keith's playing suffered from the clearer division between rhythm and lead guitar that emerged on the 1972/73 tours. When Taylor left and Wood joined, Keith was revitalised as a player, and this resulted (so the argument goes) in both his best ever live performances and a burst of creativity in the studio that, after GHS and IORR, had seemed unlikely.
I can understand the reference to 1978, although is the 'burst of creativity' comparable with the one that began a decade earlier?
How did Richards peak in 1975?
You make a thought-provoking point regarding live performances.
Olly. you raised the question.
i was courious as to when you thought Keith peaked as a guitarist..
For me, Keith as a guitarist relies as much on his aesthetic, enjoyment, and confidence, particularly in live performances, as much as technical ability.
He peaked 'as a guitarist' on the Voodoo Lounge and Bridges to Babylon Tours.
Look at / listen to the following, as examples:[*] Honkey Tonk Women (Tokyo, 1995)
[*] Before They Make Me Run (Tokyo, 1995)
[*] Little Queenie (Buenos Aires, 1998)
This is a man at the peak of his powers; a musician who knows what he wants to do and is capable of executing it.
And a man with a smile on his face.
There you go. For me, the decline started in 1994, was obvious in 1997 and influenced the band's performances in 2002.
In 1990 he was brilliant.
I suspect this decline had something to do with his fingers and arthritis.
It was in 1997 he started to rest on wrong notes (not the root notes) during his solos. That's like squeaking chalk sounds on a blackboard for me...
Quote
EasterManQuote
DandelionPowderman
You'll find examples in EVERY show, unfortunately.
Ok, give me some examples then, instead of just talking. I'm sure we can find bum notes from Keith in shows from 1995 also...
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
EasterManQuote
DandelionPowderman
You'll find examples in EVERY show, unfortunately.
Ok, give me some examples then, instead of just talking. I'm sure we can find bum notes from Keith in shows from 1995 also...
It was a tendency that started on the VL tour, like I said.
Quote
Turner68
keith was hot in 1989. i remember half the reviews of the steel wheels tours spent a paragraph just talking about the sympathy solo. i think this sort of became part of how he defined himself as a player and now he feels he needs to live up to it.
as a counter-example, ie. an area where he has adjusted to changes with his age, i would point to his singing which has changed quite a bit but he has adapted his style to his changing voice and it works great i think.
Quote
Turner68
as a counter-example, ie. an area where he has adjusted to changes with his age, i would point to his singing which has changed quite a bit but he has adapted his style to his changing voice and it works great i think.
Quote
StoneburstQuote
Turner68
as a counter-example, ie. an area where he has adjusted to changes with his age, i would point to his singing which has changed quite a bit but he has adapted his style to his changing voice and it works great i think.
Agreed, although ironically I think this is one of the reasons a solo tour would not work so well. His voice has developed a sort of crooning style that, as you say, is age-appropriate, and works for his backing vocals and the mini-set he does during Stones gigs, but probably wouldn't work so well over a whole set of his own.
Quote
keefriff99You are so right.Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
OllyQuote
keefriffhardsQuote
OllyQuote
StoneburstQuote
OllyQuote
Mathijs
There simply would not have been the famous post-1969 Stones without Charlie Watts. Keith Richards would have never been able to evolve to his peak in 1975 and 1978 without Charlie Watts.
And Wyman is much the same: basically a bassist with a lack of even the most basic technical skills, but able to always find that fantastic groove and swing, and always able to add a melodic layer in what is fairly simple music.
Mathijs
I'm amazed that only one other member has questioned this.
What on earth possessed you to conclude that these two dates represent Keith Richards' 'peak'?
A number of Stones fans take this view - the idea is basically that Keith's playing suffered from the clearer division between rhythm and lead guitar that emerged on the 1972/73 tours. When Taylor left and Wood joined, Keith was revitalised as a player, and this resulted (so the argument goes) in both his best ever live performances and a burst of creativity in the studio that, after GHS and IORR, had seemed unlikely.
I can understand the reference to 1978, although is the 'burst of creativity' comparable with the one that began a decade earlier?
How did Richards peak in 1975?
You make a thought-provoking point regarding live performances.
Olly. you raised the question.
i was courious as to when you thought Keith peaked as a guitarist..
For me, Keith as a guitarist relies as much on his aesthetic, enjoyment, and confidence, particularly in live performances, as much as technical ability.
He peaked 'as a guitarist' on the Voodoo Lounge and Bridges to Babylon Tours.
Look at / listen to the following, as examples:[*] Honkey Tonk Women (Tokyo, 1995)
[*] Before They Make Me Run (Tokyo, 1995)
[*] Little Queenie (Buenos Aires, 1998)
This is a man at the peak of his powers; a musician who knows what he wants to do and is capable of executing it.
And a man with a smile on his face.
There you go. For me, the decline started in 1994, was obvious in 1997 and influenced the band's performances in 2002.
In 1990 he was brilliant.
I suspect this decline had something to do with his fingers and arthritis.
It was in 1997 he started to rest on wrong notes (not the root notes) during his solos. That's like squeaking chalk sounds on a blackboard for me...
His lead playing was never better than on the '89-'90 tour. By '94, that nimble magic was simply gone, and it's only been downhill from there.
Understand I'm speaking of Keith strictly as a lead guitarist, which as we all know, has never been his forte. However, I think on Steel Wheels/Urban Jungle, his lead work was utterly brilliant.
Quote
Rockman
Charlie's the Buster Keaton of rock ....
Quote
OllyQuote
StoneburstQuote
Turner68
as a counter-example, ie. an area where he has adjusted to changes with his age, i would point to his singing which has changed quite a bit but he has adapted his style to his changing voice and it works great i think.
Agreed, although ironically I think this is one of the reasons a solo tour would not work so well. His voice has developed a sort of crooning style that, as you say, is age-appropriate, and works for his backing vocals and the mini-set he does during Stones gigs, but probably wouldn't work so well over a whole set of his own.
Try telling Bob Dylan that.
Quote
EasterManQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
EasterManQuote
DandelionPowderman
You'll find examples in EVERY show, unfortunately.
Ok, give me some examples then, instead of just talking. I'm sure we can find bum notes from Keith in shows from 1995 also...
It was a tendency that started on the VL tour, like I said.
Ok sorry, did not catch that.
In 1994 he started playing more bum notes, yes, but his rhythm guitar work was maybe better than ever before and he could still play some off the hook solos, so I find it very awkward to say he was already on his way down by 1994. I mean he played some incredibly sloppy solos on SFTD already in 1989. I don't think he dragged the band down until 2006.
Just listen to way Keith drives the song forward here with extremely great timing, it's the kind of fabulous playing I had never before heard from Keith:
video: [www.youtube.com]
Quote
StoneburstQuote
OllyQuote
StoneburstQuote
Turner68
as a counter-example, ie. an area where he has adjusted to changes with his age, i would point to his singing which has changed quite a bit but he has adapted his style to his changing voice and it works great i think.
Agreed, although ironically I think this is one of the reasons a solo tour would not work so well. His voice has developed a sort of crooning style that, as you say, is age-appropriate, and works for his backing vocals and the mini-set he does during Stones gigs, but probably wouldn't work so well over a whole set of his own.
Try telling Bob Dylan that.
Dylan's set is very different from the one Keith would likely be doing. In any case, Dylan hasn't modified his voice over the years in the way Keith has - the inflections that characterise him as a singer are all still there and he is instantly recognisable. Keith sounds very different these days.