Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash

Quote
24FPS
Rolling Stone Magazine panned the Some Girls album and headlined a tour revue with THE LAST TIME? By the time the '81 Tour rolled around they were again lionizing the band. Journalists come and go. Let's Spend the Night Together is actually the weakest of the Hampton/LSTNT/Leeds DVDs. I like that period from '78 to '82 because Keith & Ronnie felt comfortable to improvise a bit because Charlie and especially Bill were always there to nail the melody. And unlike your average bass player, Bill could improvise a bit himself, playing unexpected notes, or not playing a line when expected, thereby increasing the tension for when the line returned. Great stuff.

Yep, just listen to the way they jammed on songs like Black Limousine, Imagination and Let It Bleed for example. Ron and Keith were soaring as was Ernie Watts. Bill Wyman was hopping all over the fretboard with his signature style, all anchored by Charlie Watts. And there was Ian Stewart boogieing away with his jangley chops in the background, a far cry from the staid plink-plonk of Chuck Leavell. Those were the glory days...at least of the Ron Wood era. Ron Wood was also great back in 1975 but Mick's vocal style damaged that era for me. In 1978 and 1981, they were a tight-but-loose jamming machine reading each other's unspoken signals with laser-sharp focus. Yes, it's been said to death here but 1982 was the end of that era. Mick knew they had to become formulaic to appeal to casual fans who wanted to hear the songs the way they were familiar with them..and because the same free spirit that led to such glorious playing could also lead to some trainwrecks. But I loved the Stones of that era, Trainwrecks and all. Still love the Stones and respect Chuck for doing his job well, but in my opinion, as a piano player Chuck can't shine Stu's shoes. And yes, I know Stu recommended Chuck....Don't now what he was thinking. Chuck has been great for the business, bad for the art.

It was his revenge for being kicked out of the band.><



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-09-13 01:15 by stevecardi.

Quote
alimente

Therefore I'd say: Gimme more of that "garage-band-standard", "@#$%&-up Keith intros", "messy solos by Ronnie and Keith", "plain bad playing" and constant "stumbling" ANY TIME!!!

I'm not interested in musicians mistakes, but their abilities. It's sad to read that the average stones fan is interested in the garage band sound and the rock and roll drugged out looking Keith and Wood. That's the height of infantile fandom, imo.

Quote
DonParker

Quote
alimente

Therefore I'd say: Gimme more of that "garage-band-standard", "@#$%&-up Keith intros", "messy solos by Ronnie and Keith", "plain bad playing" and constant "stumbling" ANY TIME!!!

I'm not interested in musicians mistakes, but their abilities. It's sad to read that the average stones fan is interested in the garage band sound and the rock and roll drugged out looking Keith and Wood. That's the height of infantile fandom, imo.

Sad to read that some fans prefer the slick, cookie cutter, carbon copy days to the times when the band was actually wild and exciting. If that's to be considered infantile than I'm proud to be in with a lot of like-minded company.

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
TheGreek

Quote
HMS
Let the Stones play a 300-seats-club and you´ll see that they are still the world´s greatest R n R-band.

Karl Denson has a great sound, a very big, masculine rough tone and he´s a better player than Bobby Keys ever was. Even better than Ernie Watts who was noodling too much. Bobby was a friend of the Stones that´s the main reason he played with them. Now sadly he has to be replaced and they replaced him with a giant.

you do realise that when you slam Bobby Keys that he invented the solo on Brown Sugar and so many other (such as the sax solo before Mick Taylors solo on cant you hear me knocking) ICONIC solos on Stones albums from the GOLDEN era ? What recorded contribution did Karl Denson make ? (by the way he blows some tasty horn no if ands or buts)

Add Live With Me, Sweet Virginia, Casino Boogie, Rip This Joint and other iconic solos

Not to mention "Coming Down Again," and "Dance." And I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but "Emotional Rescue" needs to be on this list: his killer sax is the only thing about that otherwise hilariously bad song that's actually great: it saves the song.

Also, I've got to bring up "All About You." Bobby's surreal call-and-response to Keith's vocals are absolutely perfect.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-09-13 01:16 by stevecardi.

Quote
stevecardi

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
TheGreek

Quote
HMS
Let the Stones play a 300-seats-club and you´ll see that they are still the world´s greatest R n R-band.

Karl Denson has a great sound, a very big, masculine rough tone and he´s a better player than Bobby Keys ever was. Even better than Ernie Watts who was noodling too much. Bobby was a friend of the Stones that´s the main reason he played with them. Now sadly he has to be replaced and they replaced him with a giant.

you do realise that when you slam Bobby Keys that he invented the solo on Brown Sugar and so many other (such as the sax solo before Mick Taylors solo on cant you hear me knocking) ICONIC solos on Stones albums from the GOLDEN era ? What recorded contribution did Karl Denson make ? (by the way he blows some tasty horn no if ands or buts)

Add Live With Me, Sweet Virginia, Casino Boogie, Rip This Joint and other iconic solos

Not to mention "Coming Down Again," and "Dance."

I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but let's not forget "Emotional Rescue": his killer sax is the only thing about that otherwise hilariously bad song that's actually great: it saves the song.

Also, I've got to bring up "All About You." Bobby's surreal call-and-response to Keith's vocals are absolutely perfect.

Flamed? Very good examples of awesome playing. Jim Horn did one of the saxes on Coming Down, though.

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash

Quote
DonParker

Quote
alimente

Therefore I'd say: Gimme more of that "garage-band-standard", "@#$%&-up Keith intros", "messy solos by Ronnie and Keith", "plain bad playing" and constant "stumbling" ANY TIME!!!

I'm not interested in musicians mistakes, but their abilities. It's sad to read that the average stones fan is interested in the garage band sound and the rock and roll drugged out looking Keith and Wood. That's the height of infantile fandom, imo.

Sad to read that some fans prefer the slick, cookie cutter, carbon copy days to the times when the band was actually wild and exciting. If that's to be considered infantile than I'm proud to be in with a lot of like-minded company.

Taylor seldom or never @#$%& up on stage. He just played the guitar and gave many of the songs a little enema. I'm referring to the Taylor years when the band still sounded like a Leopard Tank, not the plink ploink kitten in a tree sound with wood and their latest efforts between 2012 and now.

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash

Quote
Stones50

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash

Quote
Stones50
chuck is GREAT

...at remembering the arrangements, what the chords are and counting songs in. After that...ehhh....

wrong. Chuck is great

We're all entitled to our opinions my friend. I'll grant that Chuck is a very good and talented professional musician. But I felt that Ian Stewart had soul whereas Chuck is just a slick pro without so much soul. I get no feeling from his playing, where I did with Stu.

His legacy is as strong as Mick Taylor's!

Quote
Stones50

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash

Quote
Stones50

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash

Quote
Stones50
chuck is GREAT

...at remembering the arrangements, what the chords are and counting songs in. After that...ehhh....

wrong. Chuck is great

We're all entitled to our opinions my friend. I'll grant that Chuck is a very good and talented professional musician. But I felt that Ian Stewart had soul whereas Chuck is just a slick pro without so much soul. I get no feeling from his playing, where I did with Stu.

His legacy is as strong as Mick Taylor's!

And Ronnie is the new Stone...

In fact I never noticed much of Chuck´s playing anyway.
That comes probably from being rather focused on guitars and vocals than sidemen.

They were wild and savage for the last time in 1981/82 but their playing was awful. In the early 70s/mid-70s they were also wild and savage and dangerous but combined with very good playing. That said, my favorite live album is L.A. Friday (followed by Shine A Light) but I still enjoy Still Life for nostalgic reasons despite the awful mistreatment of their instruments.

Nowadays they are better than in 1981/82 and hearing recent-years-versions of Gimme Shelter, HTW or Midnight Rambler or JJF "slick" is the last thing that comes to my mind. Imo, there´s nothing "slick" about it.

Can you point at ONE incident where Keith and Ronnie's playing was worse in 1981, compared with SAL?

HMS, HMS, where to begin with you?


"The Ians could never be the backbone of the band..."

With regards to Ian Stewart in your comment, I honestly don't know how I can respond to such an ignorant, disgusting comment. Ian Stewart was more than the backbone of this band: he was the glue that held them together. You're obviously too thick-headed to admit otherwise, so I'll offer you a little wager: go up to Mick, Keith, or Charlie, and say to their face "Ian Stewart could never be the backbone of your band," and watch what happens to you.


"Karl Denson...Even better than Ernie Watts who was noodling too much."

I have not heard enough from Karl Denson to say yea or nea, but I have heard plenty from Ernie Watts on the 1981 tour, and his playing is one of the reasons I keep coming back to that tour. And, I should point out, he more than fit in with the Stones, and he was in no-way "noodling" on that tour.


"Let the Stones play a 300-seats-club and you´ll see that they are still the world´s greatest R n R-band."

First of all, no one here is denying the Stones are still the greatest rock n roll band in the world.

And second of all, "let" the Stones play a 300-seat club? We've been hoping, asking--in fact begging--the Stones would do a tour of clubs, theatres, and small 8,000-to-12,000 seat arenas and amphitheaters for so long at this point, that if we had charged interest on the wait time, each one of us would have made a fortune by now.


"Nothing Bobby Keys ever did comes close to Karl Denson. In fact Denson reduces Keys to a tiny dwarf musically spoken."

You are now treading dangerously close to being a troll, and if that's the case, I suggest you leave this forum right now and never come back.


"Chuck ---> better musician than both Ians."
Daryl ---> technically way better than Wyman."

What does that prove? Eddie Van Halen is one of my all-time favorite players, one of my top inspirations for picking up a guitar, and a better player than Keith, Ronnie, Mick Taylor and Brian Jones put together-----that doesn't mean he can play "Satisfaction" with the same conviction, or as convincingly, as Keith Richards.


"They gonna release TWO albums."

And thank God for that: I'm a fan who would like to hear new Stones material every couple of years, rather than the ever-increasing delays (it's now been more than a decade since ABB---an album, I should point out that, along with Steel Wheels, I listen to more often than 80% of the Jones-era albums).


"Their live concerts are still great."

No argument there.


".....and they are still the Stones."

Which is why some of us want to hear more new material and for them to stop this live revue act routine.


"It´s very sad that the Stones won´t listen to those fans who knows everything best."

Before you post even sarcastically, you should make sure the facts won't come back to bite you: the 1978 tour, the No Security Tour, the Licks tour, the Mick Taylor reunion, and the opening of the concert archives are a direct result of the Stones listening to us. And don't think we're not grateful that they did.


"There´s one good reason to slow songs down: The Stones are more or less in their mid-seventies..."

Only the most selfish and self-centered of Stones fans would begrudge them for slowing down the tempos under those conditions, and they are few and far between to be of any significance.


"Chuck holds the band together, without him they would drift apart, he is the band´s backbone on stage. He became musical director not just for nothing."

Ian Stewart did that both on stage and off. And there's hardly anything unprecedented about the Stones using such a person onstage in this regard: Nicky Hopkins, Jim Price, Trevor Lawrence, Billy Preston, Ollie Brown, Ian McLagan, and Ernie Watts did that just fine. But I will give you this: I'd prefer Chuck over Matt Clifford any day of the week and twice on the Sabbath.


"Thank God for Chuck, he is a very talented and very appreciated musician (take a look at the impressive list of famous artists he´s been working with), an organizer, a mediator, a friendly man, a cool cat and last but not least he has a beautiful white beard and hair galore."

No argument here: unlike may other Stones die-hards, I have nothing personal against Chuck Leavell and I happen to think his work with the Allman Brothers is some of the best music I ever had the pleasure of hearing: I've spent hours trying to learn and transcribe his piano parts on "Ramblin' Man" for guitar: I actually enjoy playing them as much as I do Dickey Betts' guitar lines. In fact, I would wager that if Chuck played strictly piano with the Stones, rather than keyboards/song arranger, many here would have a different opinion of him.

I also want to point out, for personal reasons, that, as a proud American who supports conservation, hunting, sustainability, farming, and gun-ownership, I'm honored to have Chuck Leavell so passionately involved in these same issues.


"Today´s crowds would never accept that."

You're confusing Stones fans with people who listen to Justin Bieber, Katy Perry and Miley Cyrus.


"VL- and Licks-Tour were highlights in the Stones´ touring career."

You forgot SW/UJ, B2B and NS; and 1994 thru 1999 were highlights in the Stones' touring career because of the entire band--B2B in particular being one of Keith Richards' finest hours.

Furthermore, unlike many people on this board I LOVE the SW/UJ tours, and I think it was a great tour behind a great album, with great playing by the entire band, backed by a great set-list and stage. There is nothing inherently wrong with the SW/UJ formula; the problem is that the Stones have been milking that formula for the last 25 years. IT'S DRIED UP!


"Everybody knows that the Stones never played worse than in 1981/82, except for a very few occasions."

You obviously haven't heard much from the 1976 tour, or the 2007 tail end to ABB.


" It´s very well known that musically the 1981/82-tour was nearly a disaster. Keith and Ronnie fuked up almost every song, they were a messy amateur-garage-band playing in front of 50.000 people."

Absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever with the garage band approach; they certainly didn't sound like they were just going through the motions, like they did in 1976. And while the Stones weren't nearly as tight in 1981/1982 as they were in 1972/1973 or 1989/1990, it's hardly the train-wreck it seems upon first hearing: I used to despise the 1981/1982 tour, but then I realized those two tours are an acquired taste; but once you do, you'll never want to be without it.


"The videos of Hampton/Leeds/RocksOff-Let´s Spend The Night Together are funny to watch but their playing is garage-band-standard."

I don't know if you meant "funny" or "fun" to watch, but if it's funny, it's for all the wrong reasons; if you meant the latter, I've heard many things be said about the 1981/1982 tour, but in terms of visuals, "fun," ain't one of them. Mick's stage antics on this tour are so cringe-worthy--and that's saying something, given what he did onstage in 1975/1976--that reportedly, when the band was getting ready for the SW tour, Jagger looked back at some footage from 1981, and was so humiliated by what he saw himself doing that he said, "never again."


"Btw, most authors/journalists share that opinion in their publications. The reviews of the 1981/82-tour were mostly negative."

Not at the time of the tour, they weren't; on the contrary, the reviewers were nearly unanimous in their glowing praise for the band's performances. It wasn't until the 1980s droned on that the authors/journalists started crapping all over 1981/1982. But now, nearly 35+ years later, many rock journalists and historians are going back those two two tours with fondness.


"Mick knew that in the 80s and 90s they would no longer be filling stadiums by just playing crappy hardly recognizable versions of their hits."

Which is also one of the reasons Mick and Keith changed the sound of the band in the mid-1970s. Mick Taylor or no Mick Taylor, the fact is that, if they went out on tour in the late 1970s/early 1980s sounding the same way they did in 1972/1973, they would have been all-but laughed off the stage as boring old dinosaurs who never changed, or was willing to grow their sound, and just did the same thing over and over.


"Mick knew that they couldn´t go on like that and refused to tour for 7 years and then came up with the new "more professional" concept, that may sound a bit sterile to some ears but made sure that the Stones turned into a live-act worth seeing (and hearing) not only by die-hard-fans."

Kid, there are so many reasons why the Stones didn't tour from 1982-1989 that for you to fixate on this one factor is laughable. There were terrible tensions in that band not only between Mick and Keith but between several members; Mick wanting to be a big solo star in his own right: as big or bigger than Michael Jackson; Charlie having tragically (after all that time) developed a drug addiction and in despair over his father's death; Bill having become not only the tabloids' biggest target thanks to his affair with Mandy Smith, but also having to deal with the possibility of a criminal arrest and prosecution for it; Ronnie tinkering on self-destruction thanks to crack and some bad business investments, as well as his getting back together part-time with some of his Faces bandmates; Stu's death; DW not being an album that was worthy of a Stones tour; etc. etc.

Also, I would urge you to listen to some of the live work the Stones did during this time with their own projects: Keith with the X-Pensive Winos, Charlie and his big-band jazz orchestra, Ronnie's work with Bo Diddley.
Nothing embarrassing about THAT.



Edited 18 time(s). Last edit at 2016-09-13 06:17 by stevecardi.

Quote
HMS
It is clearly one of the reasons for not touring. Mick knew around 1985/86 that the band was in even worse shape than in 1981/82. More than the others this time Charlie wasn´t able to deliver the way he used to. To tour with a non solid drummer and a bunch of addicts wringing their guitars would have been suicidal for the Stones, Mick of course knew that. Of course it´s very sad that they were so down at the time - after all with Undercover and DW they had two great records to introduce live. Sad story but Mick´s decision was absolutely right and the only possible one.

You're exactly right ,the Keithettes love the story that Mick came crawling back to the Stones after a failed solo career.Too bad it's a bunch of Jane Rose/Keith bullshit.

The truth is the Stones broke up-they were done.there's an interview with Jagger from about 87 and i think there's video of it where you can tell he's had enough and he says "who cares if the Rolling Stones break up or not."
i've never seen him look so annoyed and fed up.He was gonna go on playing and making records and whatever happened was gonna happen.

Michael Cohl brought the Stones back together by writing a very large check.They figured out a way to make nice for the cash and by using Chuck Leavell to mediate between the two leaders, who to this day can't stand each other.

I don't care for Chucks keyboard sound but he's a very nice guy by all accounts,a really cool person and perfect for the job-run the show and keep the twins from flipping out on each other and derailing the entire business.

It looks to me like Steel Wheels was a big one-off payday for not only Bill Wyman but everyone else.Everything went back to how it was in 88 after that,solo records and the band going their own way.
With huge money available they resurfaced four years later and did another cash grab.They've done several since then with no time spent together save for a few weeks hanging out and writing new music.
You can read Bill Germans book and see the actual time they split up with everyone going into different camps.three c-grade records in 27 years tells the story[bridges was 2 solo records combined].if you don't believe me find a picture of Mick and Keith together in a social/non-working situation from the last 30 years-you won't.

Quote
TravelinMan
It is evident HMS is biased based on his age and nothing will sway him (even a great Mick Taylor solo). See what I did there.

Anyway, if I rated the Stones based solely on my age and a time of my life where I first appreciated rock music and started playing it myself (12-20 years old) then Bridges to Babylon and A Bigger Bang would be my favorite records. Instead, I subjectively hold Exile on Main Street and Sticky Fingers as my favorites, with the 1972-73 tours as my favorites.

Although I must say, I appreciated the Stones way before I was 12, and it was mainly the Taylor era due to my parents respected ages!

Hey now, I was born in 1981: don't lump all of us youngsters in with that tool!

And yes, I see what you did there, but to be fair, your spoiler kind of "shined a light" on it.

Quote
stevecardi
HMS, HMS, where to begin with you?

"Nothing Bobby Keys ever did comes close to Karl Denson. In fact Denson reduces Keys to a tiny dwarf musically spoken."

You are now treading dangerously close to being a troll, and if that's the case, I suggest you leave this forum right now and never come back.

Treading dangerously close to being a troll!!!????


HA!

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
stevecardi
HMS, HMS, where to begin with you?

"Nothing Bobby Keys ever did comes close to Karl Denson. In fact Denson reduces Keys to a tiny dwarf musically spoken."

You are now treading dangerously close to being a troll, and if that's the case, I suggest you leave this forum right now and never come back.

Treading dangerously close to being a troll!!!????


HA!

You're right GasLightStreet, if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2016-09-13 01:48 by stevecardi.

I didn't know that Chuck was advocating gun ownership. Sources, please

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I didn't know that Chuck was advocating gun ownership. Sources, please

[gardenandgun.com]

[www.politico.com]

[www.chuckleavell.com]

[www.islandpacket.com]

[siouxcityjournal.com]




Chuck isn't as vocal or obnoxious about gun rights as Ted Nugent (but then again, who is); he's an old school Southern Democrat: he believes in climate change and environemntal protection and alternative energy, but he also believes in gun ownership for hunting and personal defense.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2016-09-13 02:10 by stevecardi.

Quote
DonParker

Quote
alimente

Therefore I'd say: Gimme more of that "garage-band-standard", "@#$%&-up Keith intros", "messy solos by Ronnie and Keith", "plain bad playing" and constant "stumbling" ANY TIME!!!

I'm not interested in musicians mistakes, but their abilities. It's sad to read that the average stones fan is interested in the garage band sound and the rock and roll drugged out looking Keith and Wood. That's the height of infantile fandom, imo.

DonParker, you don't notice irony even when it is rubbed into your face so obviously like in my comment, right?

To give you a clue: Do you detect any "garage-band-standard", "@#$%&-up Keith intros", "messy solos by Ronnie and Keith", "plain bad playing" and constant "stumbling" in the video Dandy posted - or in the Hampton 1981, Leeds 1982, Rocks Off 1981 and Still Life recordings and videos, for that matter?

Because that's basically what HMS claimed - that the 1978, 1981 and 1982 were a total mess.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2016-09-13 04:56 by alimente.

<Because that's basically what HMS claimed - that the 1978, 1981 and 1982 were a total mess.>

Taste is subjective. I'd rather relive my concerts from 1978 and 1981 rather than the ones I've seen in the modern era (except maybe 1989 just for the spectacle factor). It's the difference between rock and roll and caberet. Granted, modern Stones is a very pleasing caberet but the danger and adrenaline rush ain't quite there.

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

"The sum total of his collaborations in more than 50 years as an active musician includes names such as David Gilmour, Sea Level, Eric Clapton, George Harrison, John Mayer, The Black Crowes, Gov’t Mule, Miranda Lambert and Widespread Panic."
It´s so ridiculous that there are IORR members who critisize his playing.
The only excuse is that they are
1. deaf
2. ignorant
3. non musicians

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash
It's the difference between rock and roll and caberet. Granted, modern Stones is a very pleasing caberet but the danger and adrenaline rush ain't quite there.

No not really. Yes the stadium and arena shows they did 2012-2016 were caberet shows. But if we go back to any Stones concert 1994-2003 they were full of excitement and the kind of stellar playing and tightness that we never heard in the 70's or 80's. Take me back to a 2003 club gig anyday over a rushed 1981 stadium show.

Quote
TheBlockbuster

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash
It's the difference between rock and roll and caberet. Granted, modern Stones is a very pleasing caberet but the danger and adrenaline rush ain't quite there.

No not really. Yes the stadium and arena shows they did 2012-2016 were caberet shows. But if we go back to any Stones concert 1994-2003 they were full of excitement and the kind of stellar playing and tightness that we never heard in the 70's or 80's. Take me back to a 2003 club gig anyday over a rushed 1981 stadium show.

It's all a matter of personal taste. I agree that they did put on great shows in the era you mention. I just have a weakness for the days when they improvised more onstage. It was risky. On a bad night it could be a mess. But when it worked it soared to dizzying heights. Some nights solos could be longer or shorter; they never played anything exactly the same twice. From 1989 on the excitement of hearing different arrangements, etc. was gone. When musicians aren't given the chance to be creative onstage they're just playing by rote, which I find kind of boring. The most boring concert I ever saw was Rush. They were technically awesome but boring as hell as everything sounded exactly like the albums. Stellar playng but I could have stayed home and just spun the albums. From the early days up until 1981-82 the Stones were actually creating onstage. Sometimes a mess, sometimes glorious but worth the mess. I would still love to see the Stones again today but the anticipation is not so thrilling as I can pretty much predict how the songs are going to sound. In the old days I'd be thinking, "Wow - I wonder what a live version of 'x' might sound like?"

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2016-09-13 11:27 by HonkeyTonkFlash.

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash

Quote
Spud
I think it's fair in a sense to describe '82 as Garage Rock.

...but it was, all in all, sublimeGarage Rock .

That's what I loved about the Stones in 1978-1982. As one writer put it, they sounded like, "the world's greatest garage band playing in the world's biggest garages." It was glorious, exciting and full of surprises rather than the predictable carbon-copy arrangements we get these days. It's still great to see them because they're the Stones but it's not the adrenaline rush that it used to be.

Re Leavell - can't deny that he jst be good for the business side of a band; actually - the organization that it takes to get a big juggernaut like Stones plus BU musicians rehearsed, tight on stage etc.
He is probably a positive influence on Jagger re setlists; I say 'probably'.
If we could just get all that without him actually playing, it would be good.

HonkyTonkFlash summed it up: "CL been good for business, bad for art".

Quote
alimente

Quote
DonParker

Quote
alimente

Therefore I'd say: Gimme more of that "garage-band-standard", "@#$%&-up Keith intros", "messy solos by Ronnie and Keith", "plain bad playing" and constant "stumbling" ANY TIME!!!

I'm not interested in musicians mistakes, but their abilities. It's sad to read that the average stones fan is interested in the garage band sound and the rock and roll drugged out looking Keith and Wood. That's the height of infantile fandom, imo.

DonParker, you don't notice irony even when it is rubbed into your face so obviously like in my comment, right?

To give you a clue: Do you detect any "garage-band-standard", "@#$%&-up Keith intros", "messy solos by Ronnie and Keith", "plain bad playing" and constant "stumbling" in the video Dandy posted - or in the Hampton 1981, Leeds 1982, Rocks Off 1981 and Still Life recordings and videos, for that matter?

Because that's basically what HMS claimed - that the 1978, 1981 and 1982 were a total mess.

Dear Alimente, I'll keep it short .Maybe I'm more a Taylor fan than a Stones fan. If Taylor hadn't played with the Stones (they got the best out of him)) I would probably not be on this forum.

Quote
DonParker

Quote
alimente

Quote
DonParker

Quote
alimente

Therefore I'd say: Gimme more of that "garage-band-standard", "@#$%&-up Keith intros", "messy solos by Ronnie and Keith", "plain bad playing" and constant "stumbling" ANY TIME!!!

I'm not interested in musicians mistakes, but their abilities. It's sad to read that the average stones fan is interested in the garage band sound and the rock and roll drugged out looking Keith and Wood. That's the height of infantile fandom, imo.

DonParker, you don't notice irony even when it is rubbed into your face so obviously like in my comment, right?

To give you a clue: Do you detect any "garage-band-standard", "@#$%&-up Keith intros", "messy solos by Ronnie and Keith", "plain bad playing" and constant "stumbling" in the video Dandy posted - or in the Hampton 1981, Leeds 1982, Rocks Off 1981 and Still Life recordings and videos, for that matter?

Because that's basically what HMS claimed - that the 1978, 1981 and 1982 were a total mess.

Dear Alimente, I'll keep it short. Maybe I'm more a Taylor fan than a Stones fan. If Taylor hadn't played with the Stones (they got the best out of him)) I would probably not be on this forum.

So I'm guessing you're more a fan of guitar solos and lead guitarists than of bands themselves. Not that there's anything wrong with that! I appreciate good soloists as well, but to me they're they icing on the cake. I don't need the icing but it does make the cake somewhat more appealing. But it's the cake that I really appreciate; i.e: give me the Stones as an ensemble with or without a flashy guitar solo. It's the Stones as a BAND that excite me.

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-09-13 13:54 by HonkeyTonkFlash.

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash

Quote
DonParker

Quote
alimente

Quote
DonParker

Quote
alimente

Therefore I'd say: Gimme more of that "garage-band-standard", "@#$%&-up Keith intros", "messy solos by Ronnie and Keith", "plain bad playing" and constant "stumbling" ANY TIME!!!

I'm not interested in musicians mistakes, but their abilities. It's sad to read that the average stones fan is interested in the garage band sound and the rock and roll drugged out looking Keith and Wood. That's the height of infantile fandom, imo.

DonParker, you don't notice irony even when it is rubbed into your face so obviously like in my comment, right?

To give you a clue: Do you detect any "garage-band-standard", "@#$%&-up Keith intros", "messy solos by Ronnie and Keith", "plain bad playing" and constant "stumbling" in the video Dandy posted - or in the Hampton 1981, Leeds 1982, Rocks Off 1981 and Still Life recordings and videos, for that matter?

Because that's basically what HMS claimed - that the 1978, 1981 and 1982 were a total mess.

Dear Alimente, I'll keep it short. Maybe I'm more a Taylor fan than a Stones fan. If Taylor hadn't played with the Stones (they got the best out of him)) I would probably not be on this forum.

So I'm guessing you're more a fan of guitar solos and lead guitarists than of bands themselves. Not that there's anything wrong with that!

That't correct, HTF.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-09-13 14:50 by DonParker.

Quote
DonParker

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash

Quote
DonParker

Quote
alimente

Quote
DonParker

Quote
alimente

Therefore I'd say: Gimme more of that "garage-band-standard", "@#$%&-up Keith intros", "messy solos by Ronnie and Keith", "plain bad playing" and constant "stumbling" ANY TIME!!!

I'm not interested in musicians mistakes, but their abilities. It's sad to read that the average stones fan is interested in the garage band sound and the rock and roll drugged out looking Keith and Wood. That's the height of infantile fandom, imo.

DonParker, you don't notice irony even when it is rubbed into your face so obviously like in my comment, right?

To give you a clue: Do you detect any "garage-band-standard", "@#$%&-up Keith intros", "messy solos by Ronnie and Keith", "plain bad playing" and constant "stumbling" in the video Dandy posted - or in the Hampton 1981, Leeds 1982, Rocks Off 1981 and Still Life recordings and videos, for that matter?

Because that's basically what HMS claimed - that the 1978, 1981 and 1982 were a total mess.

Dear Alimente, I'll keep it short. Maybe I'm more a Taylor fan than a Stones fan. If Taylor hadn't played with the Stones (they got the best out of him)) I would probably not be on this forum.

So I'm guessing you're more a fan of guitar solos and lead guitarists than of bands themselves. Not that there's anything wrong with that!

That't correct, HTF.

Cool enough....

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

Quote
RockingLonestar
"The sum total of his collaborations in more than 50 years as an active musician includes names such as David Gilmour, Sea Level, Eric Clapton, George Harrison, John Mayer, The Black Crowes, Gov’t Mule, Miranda Lambert and Widespread Panic."
It´s so ridiculous that there are IORR members who critisize his playing.
The only excuse is that they are
1. deaf
2. ignorant
3. non musicians

It's really more about the plink-plink and happy shiny sunny day piano in songs like, oh, Midnight Rambler...

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
RockingLonestar
"The sum total of his collaborations in more than 50 years as an active musician includes names such as David Gilmour, Sea Level, Eric Clapton, George Harrison, John Mayer, The Black Crowes, Gov’t Mule, Miranda Lambert and Widespread Panic."
It´s so ridiculous that there are IORR members who critisize his playing.
The only excuse is that they are
1. deaf
2. ignorant
3. non musicians

It's really more about the plink-plink and happy shiny sunny day piano in songs like, oh, Midnight Rambler...

You mean Honky Tonk Rambler?