Agreed. But it was his heyday in the studio. He would become much better live later on.[/quote]

Yes, of course, mainly because they started to play live regularily, they rehearsed more and more often and the (technical) skills tend to improve by doing it.

Quote
kristian
Agreed. But it was his heyday in the studio. He would become much better live later on.

Yes, of course, mainly because they started to play live regularily, they rehearsed more and more often and the (technical) skills tend to improve by doing it.[/quote]

Yep + he became a much better guitarist when he let the open G-tuning rest in the mid/late 70s.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
kristian
Agreed. But it was his heyday in the studio. He would become much better live later on.

Yes, of course, mainly because they started to play live regularily, they rehearsed more and more often and the (technical) skills tend to improve by doing it.

Yep + he became a much better guitarist when he let the open G-tuning rest in the mid/late 70s.[/quote]

So why they didn't sound so good any longer?

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
kristian
Agreed. But it was his heyday in the studio. He would become much better live later on.

Yes, of course, mainly because they started to play live regularily, they rehearsed more and more often and the (technical) skills tend to improve by doing it.

Yep + he became a much better guitarist when he let the open G-tuning rest in the mid/late 70s.

So why they didn't sound so good any longer?

- Doxa[/quote]

What do you mean? Some words are bouncing around there in your question Are you asking why they didn't sound so good on BAB, SG, ER, TY and Undercover?

Well, if we stick to Keith's guitar playing which was what we discussed, Down In The Hole, Little T+A and Tie You Up feature far superior guitar playing from Keith than on the late 60s/70s albums, imo.

What the rest of the band did really hasn't anything to do with Keith's abilities.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-16 15:19 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
kristian
Agreed. But it was his heyday in the studio. He would become much better live later on.

Yes, of course, mainly because they started to play live regularily, they rehearsed more and more often and the (technical) skills tend to improve by doing it.

Yep + he became a much better guitarist when he let the open G-tuning rest in the mid/late 70s.

So why they didn't sound so good any longer?

- Doxa

What do you mean? Some words are bouncing around there in your question Are you asking why they didn't sound so good on BAB, SG, ER, TY and Undercover?

Well, if we stick to Keith's guitar playing which was what we discussed, Down In The Hole, Little T+A and Tie You Up feature far superior guitar playing from Keith than on the late 60s/70s albums, imo.

What the rest of the band did really hasn't anything to do with Keith's abilities.[/quote]

i think the answer lies in the songwriting. his/their zenith as songwriters came in the late 60s, but for live performances the guitar on the 75, 78 and even 81 tours are very strong (unfortunately these tours are marred in other ways.)

Quote
DandelionPowderman

What do you mean? Some words are bouncing around there in your question Are you asking why they didn't sound so good on BAB, SG, ER, TY and Undercover?

Well, if we stick to Keith's guitar playing which was what we discussed, Down In The Hole, Little T+A and Tie You Up feature far superior guitar playing from Keith than on the late 60s/70s albums, imo.

What the rest of the band did really hasn't anything to do with Keith's abilities.

Because they did better records and played better before Keith "became a much more better guitarist". I do see your point but I still see there some kind of dilemma there. If it is true then Keith's guitar does not have such a big role in their over-all sound that is many times supposed, and this especially is odds with Keith's legendary principle of "I shine when the band shines".

Personally I think you over-rate the significance of turning back to standard tunings in the late-seventies. True that Keith seemed to have milked out about all he can do from open tunings, and especially GOATS HEAD SOUP and IT'S ONLY ROCK'N'ROLL seem to suffer from not so inspired main guitarist. Keith started to sound like being a victim of hisown signature sound. So he get rid of that and found new things, but if we compare his doing from, say, 1978 to 1983 to what he did in 1968-72 I really can't see any sense in saying that in the latter, there is a "much better" guitarist. To me that sounds like belittlening what he did and achieved during those years in late 60's/early 70's - the stuff he rightly still is so proud of, and spent countless pages in his LIFE to tell about that.

If this is a question of technical skills, then the worst it gets... I don't think the greatness and uniqueness of Keith Richards has much to do with that (like with any of the Stones). It is the passion, the idiosyncracy, the inspiration which sets him apart, makes him a distinctive player. It is like listening to the intro of "Gimme Shelter" and saying that "technically speaking that is rather weak stuff", which might be true, but really misses the point, right? To me it also sounds similar if one now offers "Down In The Hole", "Tie You Up" and says "look, how much better guitarist Keith Richards now is". (I need to admit that I don't own such Keith Richards-trained ears (or rosey glasses) like you Dandie do - in the songs you mentioned I hear rather nice guitar playing, but nothing really impressive. Probably in some Richarsology circles one can hear the difference, when comparing his playing there into his older doings, but still we are moving in a rather techically limited field).

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-16 17:43 by Doxa.

It should be sufficient to take a few hours to listen to the Pathe Marconi tapes again, Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Because they did better records and played better before Keith "became a much more better guitarist". I do see your point but I still see there some kind of dilemma there. If it is true then Keith's guitar does not have such a big role in their over-all sound that is many times supposed, and this especially is odds with Keith's legendary principle of "I shine when the band shines".

i don't see the paradox. the songwriting got much worse in the same time period. thus it doesn't matter that mick's singing (in the studio) was more mature/varied and keith a better guitar player - without the great songs they would never compete with LIB etc.

Quote
Doxa
Personally I think you over-rate the significance of turning back to standard tunings in the late-seventies. True that Keith seemed to have milked out about all he can do from open tunings, and especially GOATS HEAD SOUP and IT'S ONLY ROCK'N'ROLL seem to suffer from not so inspired main guitarist. Keith started to sound like being a victim of hisown signature sound.

interesting. when i think of the flaws of GHS and IORR "too much open tuning/signature sound" is not what comes to mind. what i think of is poorly written songs, poorly thought out arrangements, and a general loss of direction. come to think of it there are almost no tracks on GHS or IORR that feature the classic keith guitar chord figures. indeed, when Some Girls came back, he brought that back on BTMMR and BOB.

Quote
Doxa
So he get rid of that and found new things, but if we compare his doing from, say, 1978 to 1983 to what he did in 1968-72 I really can't see any sense in saying that in the latter, there is a "much better" guitarist. To me that sounds like belittlening what he did and achieved during those years in late 60's/early 70's - the stuff he rightly still is so proud of, and spent countless pages in his LIFE to tell about that.

If this is a question of technical skills, then the worst it gets... I don't think the greatness and uniqueness of Keith Richards has much to do with that (like with any of the Stones). It is the passion, the idiosyncracy, the inspiration which sets him apart, makes him a distinctive player. It is like listening to the intro of "Gimme Shelter" and saying that "technically speaking that is rather weak stuff", which might be true, but really misses the point, right? To me it also sounds similar if one now offers "Down In The Hole", "Tie You Up" and says "look, how much better guitarist Keith Richards now is". (I need to admit that I don't own such Keith Richards-trained ears (or rosey glasses) like you Dandie do - in the songs you mentioned I hear rather nice guitar playing, but nothing really impressive. Probably in some Richarsology circles one can hear the difference, when comparing his playing there into his older doings, but still we are moving in a rather techically limited field).

- Doxa

again, i think the explanation lies with the fact that being a great guitarist does not make a great songwriter, and keith's skills in those departments peaked at different times.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-16 18:03 by Turner68.

Quote
EasterMan
Midnight Rambler is relatively weak here.
Live With Me has an unrepeated groove.
Gimme Sheleter is not my cup of tea on this album.
YCAGWYW would be better without the choir.

I never listen to this album but I often listen to the songs recorded live.

Umm. what drugs are you on?

....they don't get any better than this....

Mick & Keith examining Robert Brownjohn’s cover art for the Rolling Stones' Let It Bleed while staying at Stephen Stills’ Los Angeles home (1969)

Imo, the almost only Stones-album with no fillers or stinkers. Most great Stones-albums have at least one or two stinkers (Moonlight Mile on SF, Dear Doctor on BB, Back To Zero on the great Dirty Work and so on).

The absence of stinkers doesnt mean LIB is all great. Some songs are really outstanding, some others rather average, but still enjoyable. I have to admit that I rarely listen to LIB, I´m kinda fed up with the songs because there are so many live-versions of almost every song, some of them better than the original studio recording (MR & YCAGWYW).

Outstanding:
Gimme Shelter
Love In Vain
Live With Me
Monkey Man

Not as great, but still very good:
Midnight Rambler
YCAGWYW
Country Honk

Average but enjoyable:
Let It Bleed
You Got The Silver

Imo, the album has NOT more outstanding tracks than most other albums, but is overall more enjoyable. Still I think Sticky Fingers is a better album (although I struggle with the terrible Moonlight Mile for more than 30 years...)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-16 22:09 by HMS.

Why does Mick start out the song LET IT BLEED sounding like Kermit the Frog before morphing into his regular nasal, scratchy Mick voice??

Quote
Title5Take1
Why does Mick start out the song LET IT BLEED sounding like Kermit the Frog before morphing into his regular nasal, scratchy Mick voice??

That's easy! Because he's a horrible, horrible singer.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
Doxa

Because they did better records and played better before Keith "became a much more better guitarist". I do see your point but I still see there some kind of dilemma there. If it is true then Keith's guitar does not have such a big role in their over-all sound that is many times supposed, and this especially is odds with Keith's legendary principle of "I shine when the band shines".

i don't see the paradox. the songwriting got much worse in the same time period. thus it doesn't matter that mick's singing (in the studio) was more mature/varied and keith a better guitar player - without the great songs they would never compete with LIB etc.

Quote
Doxa
Personally I think you over-rate the significance of turning back to standard tunings in the late-seventies. True that Keith seemed to have milked out about all he can do from open tunings, and especially GOATS HEAD SOUP and IT'S ONLY ROCK'N'ROLL seem to suffer from not so inspired main guitarist. Keith started to sound like being a victim of hisown signature sound.

[/b] interesting. when i think of the flaws of GHS and IORR "too much open tuning/signature sound" is not what comes to mind. what i think of is poorly written songs, poorly thought out arrangements, and a general loss of direction. come to think of it there are almost no tracks on GHS or IORR that feature the classic keith guitar chord figures. indeed, when Some Girls came back, he brought that back on BTMMR and BOB.

Quote
Doxa
So he get rid of that and found new things, but if we compare his doing from, say, 1978 to 1983 to what he did in 1968-72 I really can't see any sense in saying that in the latter, there is a "much better" guitarist. To me that sounds like belittlening what he did and achieved during those years in late 60's/early 70's - the stuff he rightly still is so proud of, and spent countless pages in his LIFE to tell about that.

If this is a question of technical skills, then the worst it gets... I don't think the greatness and uniqueness of Keith Richards has much to do with that (like with any of the Stones). It is the passion, the idiosyncracy, the inspiration which sets him apart, makes him a distinctive player. It is like listening to the intro of "Gimme Shelter" and saying that "technically speaking that is rather weak stuff", which might be true, but really misses the point, right? To me it also sounds similar if one now offers "Down In The Hole", "Tie You Up" and says "look, how much better guitarist Keith Richards now is". (I need to admit that I don't own such Keith Richards-trained ears (or rosey glasses) like you Dandie do - in the songs you mentioned I hear rather nice guitar playing, but nothing really impressive. Probably in some Richarsology circles one can hear the difference, when comparing his playing there into his older doings, but still we are moving in a rather techically limited field).

- Doxa

again, i think the explanation lies with the fact that being a great guitarist does not make a great songwriter, and keith's skills in those departments peaked at different times.

Good comments.

I don't quite accept that Keith (and Mick) got better during late 70's. Yeah, they had more experience, more variance and probably some maturity as well, but that doesn't necessarily mean being 'better'. Probably they also lost a bit in the process. Something I would call 'focus', 'straight to the point' and 'discipline'. To really have some thing to say. Besides discovering one's own 'voice', as performers and song-writers is something one can not replicate - that's the heart of creativity and innovation - the thing Keith and Mick as over-all musicians experienced during their peak years.

As a guitarist Keith created during those 1968-72 the thing that is nowadays known as his 'signature sound'. It was not a co-incidence that during those same years he peaked as a song-writer as well. Those two things go hand in hand: his studies on open tunings was the inspiration behind many Stones classics. Sometimes I feel that some Keith Richards hardcore fans seem to take too granted this phase which gave him the 'riff-master' title and for the rock music, during the days when a flashy lead guitarists, the idea of rhythm guitar - "keeping that rhythm down-down-down" - as a cool thing as well. I guess for them this idea gives a too-limited picture of Keith's abilities - he is 'better' when he plays with a more larger scale. They want to hear him playing more solos and things like that - to be a more 'normal', all-around guitar player. Which is fine, but I think in where Keith really makes the difference, and really is a master, is in those riff and rhythm guitar things he focused on during those creative years, both in studio and live. (of course, he did other things as well, especially in studio albums - LET IT BLEED is a graet example of that - but it his large-scale riffage and rhythm stuff that sets the groove and backbone for the Stones music.). To an extent I salute Mick Taylor for 'forcing' or 'sparring' Keith to concentrate on rhythm - the stuff in which he was the best (besides, what's the point in playing creative solos if one has a gun like Taylor in the band?). The stuff Keith did especially in EXILE and during the tours of 1972 and 1973 is the greatest rhythm guitar stuff ever made in rock'n'roll. You really can't do stuff like that any better.

The thing is: do we appreciate more good 'over-all playing' or the stuff in which Keith simply is a champion. I go for the latter. But since I always admire evolution, I salute Keith for not sticking there, but go on changing his style. The looser, more all-around playing, taking more freedoms, he adopted after Ronnie joined in, was a fresh and needed thing at the time. But was he then "much better" guitar player? How he can be? Everytime I put EXILE ON MAIN STREET on, and let those wonderfully sloppy but passionate opening riff of "Rocks Off" free, or the striking chords of BRUSSELS' high-octane "Midnight Rambler" roll, man... I really can't grasp how anyone could play any better rock and roll guitar than that.

(In regards GHS and IORR: I was a bit sloppy. GHS offers a rather tired and low-profile sounding RIchards over-all; it is IORR with songs like "If You Cn't Rock Me" and "Dance Little Sister" I hear him running out of any fresh idead from his signature style.)

- Doxa

A more accomplished guitarist would be a better description.

BTMMR is the only song on SG where Keith plays in open tuning, and that riff is different with minor chords. Actually, BTMMR is a good example of Keith's progress.

Keith normal?

That one you got wrong, Doxa. Malcolm Young was "normal". Keith was a percussive lead guitar player.

And he got famous for his riffs way before BB.

It's the static rhythm/lead arrangement that made the Stones a "normal" rock band in that era, imo.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-17 12:04 by DandelionPowderman.

Three songs in open tuning on LIB. None of them done the classic way. Not too many on BB, GHS or IORR either.

Just to put things in perspective.

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
Title5Take1
Why does Mick start out the song LET IT BLEED sounding like Kermit the Frog before morphing into his regular nasal, scratchy Mick voice??

That's easy! Because he's a horrible, horrible singer.

So get him out by friday!

Quote
HMS

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
Title5Take1
Why does Mick start out the song LET IT BLEED sounding like Kermit the Frog before morphing into his regular nasal, scratchy Mick voice??

That's easy! Because he's a horrible, horrible singer.

So get him out by friday!

Why wait till then?

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
Title5Take1
Why does Mick start out the song LET IT BLEED sounding like Kermit the Frog before morphing into his regular nasal, scratchy Mick voice??

That's easy! Because he's a horrible, horrible singer.

GodDAMN I almost spewed my beer out at that one!

Ahhhh. See? It's different, right? And back then, he was still, let's say, exploring his vocal range and identities. And on this one he sounds like a ragged out geezer, which is absolutely perfect for this tune that manages to rhythmically, like Tumbling Dice and even Plundered My Soul, not drown in its funkiness of almost stopping in its tracks.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Best Love In Vain ever. They never created that soar, mournful mood again.

But they did do it in a strange key. It's capoed something fierce.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
Title5Take1
Why does Mick start out the song LET IT BLEED sounding like Kermit the Frog before morphing into his regular nasal, scratchy Mick voice??

That's easy! Because he's a horrible, horrible singer.

GodDAMN I almost spewed my beer out at that one!

Ahhhh. See? It's different, right? And back then, he was still, let's say, exploring his vocal range and identities. And on this one he sounds like a ragged out geezer, which is absolutely perfect for this tune that manages to rhythmically, like Tumbling Dice and even Plundered My Soul, not drown in its funkiness of almost stopping in its tracks.

Ringo said Paul is doing Elvis on Lady Madonna. I think Mick maybe mimicking some mystery—to me—person at the start of LET IT BLEED.

I think the question, ultimately, is whether LET IT BLEED is as good as CROSSEYED HEART. We all know LIB is a wonderful record but, c'mon, can it really stand up to Keith solo?

Different bands. Why compare, even though it's done ironically with some weird kind of resignation...

Quote
Title5Take1

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
Title5Take1
Why does Mick start out the song LET IT BLEED sounding like Kermit the Frog before morphing into his regular nasal, scratchy Mick voice??

That's easy! Because he's a horrible, horrible singer.

GodDAMN I almost spewed my beer out at that one!

Ahhhh. See? It's different, right? And back then, he was still, let's say, exploring his vocal range and identities. And on this one he sounds like a ragged out geezer, which is absolutely perfect for this tune that manages to rhythmically, like Tumbling Dice and even Plundered My Soul, not drown in its funkiness of almost stopping in its tracks.

Ringo said Paul is doing Elvis on Lady Madonna. I think Mick maybe mimicking some mystery—to me—person at the start of LET IT BLEED.

I thought for a long time that it was Ringo that was singing on Lady Madonna...Paul is doing Elvis...

2 1 2 0

There's only one «doing Elvis»: Mick and Keith in the Charlie Is My Darling-film

gimme shelter is their best song, and the best song in the universe. period. still, the whole album never had the same inpact on me like sticky or EOMS. dont know why....i really dont like the title-song.

Not a clunker in the lot.

Gimmie Shelter 10/10
Love in Vain 8/10 (live on ya yas is 10/10)
Country Honk 10/10
Live with Me 10/10
Let It Bleed 9/10
Midnight Rambler 9/10 (also 10/10 live on Ya Yas)
You Got the Silver 9/10
Monkey Man 10/10
You Can't Always Get What You Want 10/10

Gimmie Shelter 10/10 (On The Brussels Affair 8/10, on No Security 7/10)
Love in Vain 10/10 (live on ya yas is 9/10, on Roundhouse 10/10)
Country Honk 7/10
Live with Me 9/10 (On Ya Yas 9/10, on Roundhouse 10/10)
Let It Bleed 9/10 (On 4 Flicks 7/10, on Hampton 10/10)
Midnight Rambler 10/10 (also 10/10 live on Ya Yas, but for different reasons, on The Brussels Affair 11/10))
You Got the Silver 9/10 (On SAL 7/10, on Sweet Summer Sun 8/10)
Monkey Man 10/10 (On 4 Flicks: 9/10)
You Can't Always Get What You Want 10/10 (On The Brussels Affair 10/10)



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2015-12-23 12:17 by DandelionPowderman.