Tell Me :  Talk
Talk about your favorite band. 

Previous page Next page First page IORR home

For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.

Goto Page: Previous1234Next
Current Page: 2 of 4
Re: Looking for examples of Keith ripping it up onstage in the post-'89 landscape
Posted by: keefriff99 ()
Date: August 2, 2017 02:36

Quote
shadooby
Happy from Atlantic City 89 is purdee guud!

Happy 89
Goddamnit, he's such a cool bastard.

Re: Looking for examples of Keith ripping it up onstage in the post-'89 landscape
Posted by: Shade ()
Date: August 2, 2017 02:43

Quote
stone4ever
Now for Something Else
Live 93' Boston
Its Saturday night and we're here to rock.
[www.youtube.com]



I was there that night winking smiley



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-08-02 02:46 by Shade.

Re: Looking for examples of Keith ripping it up onstage in the post-'89 landscape
Posted by: StonedRambler ()
Date: August 2, 2017 02:56

There are some great JJF versions from the last year's when Keith was ripping it up.
Glastonbury, Duesseldorf and Buffalo come to my mind

Re: Looking for examples of Keith ripping it up onstage in the post-'89 landscape
Date: August 3, 2017 00:35

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Quote
stone4ever
Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
In the post 89 era. I have to say that BY FAR!! his best guitar work is with the Winos; both tours.
He became confident, assured, more relaxed as A bandleader and singer. The way "Time is on My Side" was arranged was beautiful. On guitar it just got better and better. His partnership with Waddy brought many excellent results. Closer to his Taylor partnership. But Waddy can also twang with the best of'em.
The arrangements lent themselves to very good guitar passages. I can't remember if it was the first or second Wino tour but I saw Keith do a "solo" on 'Struggle', which was every bit as good as his "bye Bye Johnny" or "Carol" from '72 and '69. I put "solo" in quotations because it isn't a solo in conventional sense but a rhythmic chopping of double stops and bends and slides. His performance was jaw dropping.

Absolutely agree with you, the decline happened shortly after the last Wino's tour in 93', he wasn't the same player in 94' 95' i'm convinced it was a combination of the drink catching up with him combined with those Heberden's nodes on his fingers. The second decline happened in 06' after the brain bleed and subsequent cranial surgery, after which he could no longer take cocaine to sharpen his playing while drinking. Basically it all caught up with him but he soldiers on like a real trouper. I still think he pulls it off for the best part of most shows these days, he appears sober most nights, he was in fine form at the second Desert gig and the last show they played in Vegas. He still has something to offer, he needs more shows though, 15 date tours just aren't long enough for him to get his chops together fluently. Come on Keith get the Wino's out for one last Hurrah , the old lion roars again smoking smiley

I think the decline happened before the second Winos-tour.

What?? That second Winos tour was superb.

Re: Looking for examples of Keith ripping it up onstage in the post-'89 landscape
Date: August 3, 2017 00:42

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Quote
stone4ever
Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
In the post 89 era. I have to say that BY FAR!! his best guitar work is with the Winos; both tours.
He became confident, assured, more relaxed as A bandleader and singer. The way "Time is on My Side" was arranged was beautiful. On guitar it just got better and better. His partnership with Waddy brought many excellent results. Closer to his Taylor partnership. But Waddy can also twang with the best of'em.
The arrangements lent themselves to very good guitar passages. I can't remember if it was the first or second Wino tour but I saw Keith do a "solo" on 'Struggle', which was every bit as good as his "bye Bye Johnny" or "Carol" from '72 and '69. I put "solo" in quotations because it isn't a solo in conventional sense but a rhythmic chopping of double stops and bends and slides. His performance was jaw dropping.

Absolutely agree with you, the decline happened shortly after the last Wino's tour in 93', he wasn't the same player in 94' 95' i'm convinced it was a combination of the drink catching up with him combined with those Heberden's nodes on his fingers. The second decline happened in 06' after the brain bleed and subsequent cranial surgery, after which he could no longer take cocaine to sharpen his playing while drinking. Basically it all caught up with him but he soldiers on like a real trouper. I still think he pulls it off for the best part of most shows these days, he appears sober most nights, he was in fine form at the second Desert gig and the last show they played in Vegas. He still has something to offer, he needs more shows though, 15 date tours just aren't long enough for him to get his chops together fluently. Come on Keith get the Wino's out for one last Hurrah , the old lion roars again smoking smiley

I think the decline happened before the second Winos-tour.

What?? That second Winos tour was superb.

I liked the first one better, and Keith's playing had obviously detoriated, imo.

He played less, he had more problems singing and playing at the same time and he took longer breaks - something he started to do with the Stones after that.

I have only seen three or four shows on DVDs, though, and I'm basing my impression on that.

Re: Looking for examples of Keith ripping it up onstage in the post-'89 landscape
Date: August 3, 2017 00:46

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Quote
stone4ever
Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
In the post 89 era. I have to say that BY FAR!! his best guitar work is with the Winos; both tours.
He became confident, assured, more relaxed as A bandleader and singer. The way "Time is on My Side" was arranged was beautiful. On guitar it just got better and better. His partnership with Waddy brought many excellent results. Closer to his Taylor partnership. But Waddy can also twang with the best of'em.
The arrangements lent themselves to very good guitar passages. I can't remember if it was the first or second Wino tour but I saw Keith do a "solo" on 'Struggle', which was every bit as good as his "bye Bye Johnny" or "Carol" from '72 and '69. I put "solo" in quotations because it isn't a solo in conventional sense but a rhythmic chopping of double stops and bends and slides. His performance was jaw dropping.

Absolutely agree with you, the decline happened shortly after the last Wino's tour in 93', he wasn't the same player in 94' 95' i'm convinced it was a combination of the drink catching up with him combined with those Heberden's nodes on his fingers. The second decline happened in 06' after the brain bleed and subsequent cranial surgery, after which he could no longer take cocaine to sharpen his playing while drinking. Basically it all caught up with him but he soldiers on like a real trouper. I still think he pulls it off for the best part of most shows these days, he appears sober most nights, he was in fine form at the second Desert gig and the last show they played in Vegas. He still has something to offer, he needs more shows though, 15 date tours just aren't long enough for him to get his chops together fluently. Come on Keith get the Wino's out for one last Hurrah , the old lion roars again smoking smiley

I think the decline happened before the second Winos-tour.

What?? That second Winos tour was superb.

I liked the first one better, and Keith's playing had obviously detoriated, imo.

He played less, he had more problems singing and playing at the same time and he took longer breaks - something he started to do with the Stones after that.

I have only seen three or four shows on DVDs, though, and I'm basing my impression on that.
I saw a bunch of shows of that tour. I really liked his partnership with Waddy by then. They had both ( I think) discovered those Musicman guitars for 999 e.g. It's weird: Keith speaks abut his weaving with Ronnie all the time. And maybe in 78 and 79, but overall IMO he did it better with Brian, with Taylor, with Waddy.

Re: Looking for examples of Keith ripping it up onstage in the post-'89 landscape
Posted by: stone4ever ()
Date: August 3, 2017 12:14

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Quote
stone4ever
Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
In the post 89 era. I have to say that BY FAR!! his best guitar work is with the Winos; both tours.
He became confident, assured, more relaxed as A bandleader and singer. The way "Time is on My Side" was arranged was beautiful. On guitar it just got better and better. His partnership with Waddy brought many excellent results. Closer to his Taylor partnership. But Waddy can also twang with the best of'em.
The arrangements lent themselves to very good guitar passages. I can't remember if it was the first or second Wino tour but I saw Keith do a "solo" on 'Struggle', which was every bit as good as his "bye Bye Johnny" or "Carol" from '72 and '69. I put "solo" in quotations because it isn't a solo in conventional sense but a rhythmic chopping of double stops and bends and slides. His performance was jaw dropping.

Absolutely agree with you, the decline happened shortly after the last Wino's tour in 93', he wasn't the same player in 94' 95' i'm convinced it was a combination of the drink catching up with him combined with those Heberden's nodes on his fingers. The second decline happened in 06' after the brain bleed and subsequent cranial surgery, after which he could no longer take cocaine to sharpen his playing while drinking. Basically it all caught up with him but he soldiers on like a real trouper. I still think he pulls it off for the best part of most shows these days, he appears sober most nights, he was in fine form at the second Desert gig and the last show they played in Vegas. He still has something to offer, he needs more shows though, 15 date tours just aren't long enough for him to get his chops together fluently. Come on Keith get the Wino's out for one last Hurrah , the old lion roars again smoking smiley

I think the decline happened before the second Winos-tour.

What?? That second Winos tour was superb.

I liked the first one better, and Keith's playing had obviously detoriated, imo.

He played less, he had more problems singing and playing at the same time and he took longer breaks - something he started to do with the Stones after that.

I have only seen three or four shows on DVDs, though, and I'm basing my impression on that.
I saw a bunch of shows of that tour. I really liked his partnership with Waddy by then. They had both ( I think) discovered those Musicman guitars for 999 e.g. It's weird: Keith speaks abut his weaving with Ronnie all the time. And maybe in 78 and 79, but overall IMO he did it better with Brian, with Taylor, with Waddy.

Once again i completely agree with this Palace Revolution, Keith doesn't get pushed on by Ronnie because Ronnie is far to sympathetic as a player.
Keith and Waddy made a great combination that was sadly put on standby by Keith. Not sure what Dande means about keiths second Winos tour, i think keith improved considerably. I admit he did start forgetting the words at this point, i just put that down to lack of rehearsal, its been stated that the Winos didn't rehearse at all lol. Vocally Keith lost his voice on the bootlegs but other people who attended different shows said he sang brilliantly on other nights. At the Town And Country Club in London Keith was incredible, better than any bootleg iv'e seen, he just went into Jams with Waddy at the end of each song that blew me away, it was like a grove that lifted me four feet from my body. I will never forget that gig, it was better than any Stones show i have ever seen. He and Waddy weaved like crazy, it looked like they were in competition and Keith eat it up. Looking at Keith close up that night he was on something, it wasn't drink or coke, hard to explain but he seemed to transcend anything i'd seen from him before.

Gimme Shelter
[www.youtube.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-08-03 13:05 by stone4ever.

Re: Looking for examples of Keith ripping it up onstage in the post-'89 landscape
Date: August 3, 2017 13:09

I think he started feeling the arthritis by this point, Riffie, something that affected his playing. The shows were still great, of course.

Re: Looking for examples of Keith ripping it up onstage in the post-'89 landscape
Posted by: stone4ever ()
Date: August 3, 2017 13:15

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I think he started feeling the arthritis by this point, Riffie, something that affected his playing. The shows were still great, of course.

Yes you are right Dande, you nailed it actually, something happened to him between 90' and 92' he lost his timing a bit when singing and playing at the same time. Possibly the fingers, personally i think his lifestyle started to catch up with him.

Re: Looking for examples of Keith ripping it up onstage in the post-'89 landscape
Posted by: RoughJusticeOnYa ()
Date: August 3, 2017 14:11

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Quote
stone4ever
Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
In the post 89 era. I have to say that BY FAR!! his best guitar work is with the Winos; both tours.
He became confident, assured, more relaxed as A bandleader and singer. The way "Time is on My Side" was arranged was beautiful. On guitar it just got better and better. His partnership with Waddy brought many excellent results. Closer to his Taylor partnership. But Waddy can also twang with the best of'em.
The arrangements lent themselves to very good guitar passages. I can't remember if it was the first or second Wino tour but I saw Keith do a "solo" on 'Struggle', which was every bit as good as his "bye Bye Johnny" or "Carol" from '72 and '69. I put "solo" in quotations because it isn't a solo in conventional sense but a rhythmic chopping of double stops and bends and slides. His performance was jaw dropping.

Absolutely agree with you, the decline happened shortly after the last Wino's tour in 93', he wasn't the same player in 94' 95' i'm convinced it was a combination of the drink catching up with him combined with those Heberden's nodes on his fingers. The second decline happened in 06' after the brain bleed and subsequent cranial surgery, after which he could no longer take cocaine to sharpen his playing while drinking. Basically it all caught up with him but he soldiers on like a real trouper. I still think he pulls it off for the best part of most shows these days, he appears sober most nights, he was in fine form at the second Desert gig and the last show they played in Vegas. He still has something to offer, he needs more shows though, 15 date tours just aren't long enough for him to get his chops together fluently. Come on Keith get the Wino's out for one last Hurrah , the old lion roars again smoking smiley

I think the decline happened before the second Winos-tour.

I really feel Keith was 100% on the ball, ripping like he was ripping his heart out, Voodoo Lounge World Tour included. After that, the ripping started to fade gradually imo; first microscopically, from 2006 onwards drastically. A far as contemporary ripping is concerned: those days are gone. Over! And never to return.

Mind you: that's doesn't keep him from playing a more than decent, sometimes even truely great gig...
But his ways of playing, musical role (& 'position') in the band, has completely changed ever since the "50"-concerts (2012 onwards). The Rolling Stones 'string section' is (had to be?!) completely re-shifted; re-balanced. Talk about an 'extreme makeover'!!

Anyway: just my point of view.

Re: Looking for examples of Keith ripping it up onstage in the post-'89 landscape
Posted by: stone4ever ()
Date: August 3, 2017 16:05

I often wonder if keith ever admits this to himself, that his musical role and position has shifted.
In 89' 90' even though we had Chuck and Matt, and the guitars were lower in the mix, keith was still such a force of nature that he still seemed to shine brighter than ever on stage.
Slowly but surely over the 94' 95' tour, and the tours that followed, it wasn't Keith's band to the same extent. Mick increasingly took over the reins live. This could have been down to Keith slowing down and showing his age naturally but i'm not so sure. Keith to some extent just seemed to settle for a quite life and left everything down to Mick, from song choice to arrangements. Even the way Mick involves the backing singers and phased Keith out away from the mic stand. (Just look at the anniversary tour with guest performers, looks like Mick chose them too.) Its hard to believe this happened when you think that Keith's trademark Riffs and intros kick off just about every Stones song live. He used to begin and end every song on his own terms. Its a pity that Keith lost his grip because the Stones as a live band don't surprise me on any level now.
Its just business as usual , its so rehearsed and repetitive that i can barely listen to live clips of the same songs over and over again. Keith seems to have got louder lately, perhaps to cover up for his technique, but it just seems to amplify his restrictive playing.
I cant knock Keith for the way he plays live at his age now, but i am utterly confused as to why he let Mick take the reins to the extent he has since 89'
It could be that this is the only way Mick will have it, it's my way or the highway sort of attitude. Keith would be devastated if Mick was up there playing Stones songs live with another band. Sometimes i wish keith had stayed solo. We would have ended up with keith touring with a replacement singer for Mick to help him out on Stones numbers, with the Wino's songs merged in with keith at the mic. On the other side we would have got Mick Jagger touring with a copy cat Keith guitarist counterfeiting the Stones experience. A part of me would have enjoyed these two scenarios over the repetitive Stones on going circus we have endured since 89'
Of course i love a lot of what has come from the 100's of shows has been excellent, like the No security tour and the Licks idea when they played club , arena and stadium alternately. Its not all bad, perhaps its just gone on a little too long without change.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-08-03 16:08 by stone4ever.

Re: Looking for examples of Keith ripping it up onstage in the post-'89 landscape
Posted by: keefriff99 ()
Date: August 3, 2017 16:28

Quote
stone4ever
I often wonder if keith ever admits this to himself, that his musical role and position has shifted.
In 89' 90' even though we had Chuck and Matt, and the guitars were lower in the mix, keith was still such a force of nature that he still seemed to shine brighter than ever on stage.
Slowly but surely over the 94' 95' tour, and the tours that followed, it wasn't Keith's band to the same extent. Mick increasingly took over the reins live. This could have been down to Keith slowing down and showing his age naturally but i'm not so sure. Keith to some extent just seemed to settle for a quite life and left everything down to Mick, from song choice to arrangements. Even the way Mick involves the backing singers and phased Keith out away from the mic stand. (Just look at the anniversary tour with guest performers, looks like Mick chose them too.) Its hard to believe this happened when you think that Keith's trademark Riffs and intros kick off just about every Stones song live. He used to begin and end every song on his own terms. Its a pity that Keith lost his grip because the Stones as a live band don't surprise me on any level now.
Its just business as usual , its so rehearsed and repetitive that i can barely listen to live clips of the same songs over and over again. Keith seems to have got louder lately, perhaps to cover up for his technique, but it just seems to amplify his restrictive playing.
I cant knock Keith for the way he plays live at his age now, but i am utterly confused as to why he let Mick take the reins to the extent he has since 89'
It could be that this is the only way Mick will have it, it's my way or the highway sort of attitude. Keith would be devastated if Mick was up there playing Stones songs live with another band. Sometimes i wish keith had stayed solo. We would have ended up with keith touring with a replacement singer for Mick to help him out on Stones numbers, with the Wino's songs merged in with keith at the mic. On the other side we would have got Mick Jagger touring with a copy cat Keith guitarist counterfeiting the Stones experience. A part of me would have enjoyed these two scenarios over the repetitive Stones on going circus we have endured since 89'
Of course i love a lot of what has come from the 100's of shows has been excellent, like the No security tour and the Licks idea when they played club , arena and stadium alternately. Its not all bad, perhaps its just gone on a little too long without change.
Would you hand the reins of a massive touring apparatus worth hundreds of millions of dollars over to a drunken, erratic coke head?

I love Keith, but he hasn't been fit to handle that role for quite some time. Mick obviously sees this, works with like-minded task masters, and lays down the law to the "party" side of the band (Keith and Ronnie).

I thought Keith was more stubborn and strong-willed, but he obviously enjoys making money just as much as Mick (even though he won't admit it), so he goes along with the corporatized touring structure, and Mick generally leaves him alone backstage to his vices.

Re: Looking for examples of Keith ripping it up onstage in the post-'89 landscape
Posted by: stone4ever ()
Date: August 3, 2017 17:04

Quote
keefriff99
Quote
stone4ever
I often wonder if keith ever admits this to himself, that his musical role and position has shifted.
In 89' 90' even though we had Chuck and Matt, and the guitars were lower in the mix, keith was still such a force of nature that he still seemed to shine brighter than ever on stage.
Slowly but surely over the 94' 95' tour, and the tours that followed, it wasn't Keith's band to the same extent. Mick increasingly took over the reins live. This could have been down to Keith slowing down and showing his age naturally but i'm not so sure. Keith to some extent just seemed to settle for a quite life and left everything down to Mick, from song choice to arrangements. Even the way Mick involves the backing singers and phased Keith out away from the mic stand. (Just look at the anniversary tour with guest performers, looks like Mick chose them too.) Its hard to believe this happened when you think that Keith's trademark Riffs and intros kick off just about every Stones song live. He used to begin and end every song on his own terms. Its a pity that Keith lost his grip because the Stones as a live band don't surprise me on any level now.
Its just business as usual , its so rehearsed and repetitive that i can barely listen to live clips of the same songs over and over again. Keith seems to have got louder lately, perhaps to cover up for his technique, but it just seems to amplify his restrictive playing.
I cant knock Keith for the way he plays live at his age now, but i am utterly confused as to why he let Mick take the reins to the extent he has since 89'
It could be that this is the only way Mick will have it, it's my way or the highway sort of attitude. Keith would be devastated if Mick was up there playing Stones songs live with another band. Sometimes i wish keith had stayed solo. We would have ended up with keith touring with a replacement singer for Mick to help him out on Stones numbers, with the Wino's songs merged in with keith at the mic. On the other side we would have got Mick Jagger touring with a copy cat Keith guitarist counterfeiting the Stones experience. A part of me would have enjoyed these two scenarios over the repetitive Stones on going circus we have endured since 89'
Of course i love a lot of what has come from the 100's of shows has been excellent, like the No security tour and the Licks idea when they played club , arena and stadium alternately. Its not all bad, perhaps its just gone on a little too long without change.
Would you hand the reins of a massive touring apparatus worth hundreds of millions of dollars over to a drunken, erratic coke head?

I love Keith, but he hasn't been fit to handle that role for quite some time. Mick obviously sees this, works with like-minded task masters, and lays down the law to the "party" side of the band (Keith and Ronnie).

I thought Keith was more stubborn and strong-willed, but he obviously enjoys making money just as much as Mick (even though he won't admit it), so he goes along with the corporatized touring structure, and Mick generally leaves him alone backstage to his vices.

Yep true dat, kind of takes the fun away from the whole idea of Rock and Roll though.
Maybe Rock and Roll wasn't supposed to get corporate, money seems to have taken over the world, just wish they'd left Rock out of it.
But you are absolutely right of course, sure keith will take the money and run.
Drunken, erratic coke head?
Get one thing straight though, i know a lot rides on these corporate mega bucks tours, but that drunken coked up Keef always kept his end up, he always showed up and got through the gig.
A couple of cancelled shows for an infected finger from a guitar string, a few cancelled shows for falling of a ladder in his library while not on tour, and a few more for falling off a tree while not on tour. But no cancelled shows because he was too pissed or too stoned to go on that night.
Seem to remember Mick on many occasions having to cancel shows at late notice to people that had traveled thousands of miles and paid for accommodation because of a sore throat (or empty seats or something.)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-08-03 17:04 by stone4ever.

Re: Looking for examples of Keith ripping it up onstage in the post-'89 landscape
Posted by: keefriff99 ()
Date: August 3, 2017 17:16

Quote
stone4ever
Quote
keefriff99
Quote
stone4ever
I often wonder if keith ever admits this to himself, that his musical role and position has shifted.
In 89' 90' even though we had Chuck and Matt, and the guitars were lower in the mix, keith was still such a force of nature that he still seemed to shine brighter than ever on stage.
Slowly but surely over the 94' 95' tour, and the tours that followed, it wasn't Keith's band to the same extent. Mick increasingly took over the reins live. This could have been down to Keith slowing down and showing his age naturally but i'm not so sure. Keith to some extent just seemed to settle for a quite life and left everything down to Mick, from song choice to arrangements. Even the way Mick involves the backing singers and phased Keith out away from the mic stand. (Just look at the anniversary tour with guest performers, looks like Mick chose them too.) Its hard to believe this happened when you think that Keith's trademark Riffs and intros kick off just about every Stones song live. He used to begin and end every song on his own terms. Its a pity that Keith lost his grip because the Stones as a live band don't surprise me on any level now.
Its just business as usual , its so rehearsed and repetitive that i can barely listen to live clips of the same songs over and over again. Keith seems to have got louder lately, perhaps to cover up for his technique, but it just seems to amplify his restrictive playing.
I cant knock Keith for the way he plays live at his age now, but i am utterly confused as to why he let Mick take the reins to the extent he has since 89'
It could be that this is the only way Mick will have it, it's my way or the highway sort of attitude. Keith would be devastated if Mick was up there playing Stones songs live with another band. Sometimes i wish keith had stayed solo. We would have ended up with keith touring with a replacement singer for Mick to help him out on Stones numbers, with the Wino's songs merged in with keith at the mic. On the other side we would have got Mick Jagger touring with a copy cat Keith guitarist counterfeiting the Stones experience. A part of me would have enjoyed these two scenarios over the repetitive Stones on going circus we have endured since 89'
Of course i love a lot of what has come from the 100's of shows has been excellent, like the No security tour and the Licks idea when they played club , arena and stadium alternately. Its not all bad, perhaps its just gone on a little too long without change.
Would you hand the reins of a massive touring apparatus worth hundreds of millions of dollars over to a drunken, erratic coke head?

I love Keith, but he hasn't been fit to handle that role for quite some time. Mick obviously sees this, works with like-minded task masters, and lays down the law to the "party" side of the band (Keith and Ronnie).

I thought Keith was more stubborn and strong-willed, but he obviously enjoys making money just as much as Mick (even though he won't admit it), so he goes along with the corporatized touring structure, and Mick generally leaves him alone backstage to his vices.

Yep true dat, kind of takes the fun away from the whole idea of Rock and Roll though.
Maybe Rock and Roll wasn't supposed to get corporate, money seems to have taken over the world, just wish they'd left Rock out of it.
But you are absolutely right of course, sure keith will take the money and run.
Drunken, erratic coke head?
Get one thing straight though, i know a lot rides on these corporate mega bucks tours, but that drunken coked up Keef always kept his end up, he always showed up and got through the gig.
A couple of cancelled shows for an infected finger from a guitar string, a few cancelled shows for falling of a ladder in his library while not on tour, and a few more for falling off a tree while not on tour. But no cancelled shows because he was too pissed or too stoned to go on that night.
Seem to remember Mick on many occasions having to cancel shows at late notice to people that had traveled thousands of miles and paid for accommodation because of a sore throat (or empty seats or something.)
I know my wording was harsh, but it's basically accurate. Don't forget that time he drunkenly choked Ronnie out of nowhere on the B2B tour (the story is in RS).

For the most part, Keith was on point, but he had a few nights where he wasn't "on", and you could tell Mick was displeased.

I do agree though...until the head injury, there were hardly any train wrecks that Keith caused. Hell, Ronnie was practically out of commission for an entire tour (No Security).

But I think the checks and balances that Mick put in place mitigated the potential for onstage train wrecks...that's really the point.

I have definitely thought about how Mick has canceled at least one or two shows almost every tour since '89 due to head colds, while Keith seemingly never gets sick.

Re: Looking for examples of Keith ripping it up onstage in the post-'89 landscape
Posted by: stone4ever ()
Date: August 3, 2017 19:28

Quote
keefriff99
Quote
stone4ever
Quote
keefriff99
Quote
stone4ever
I often wonder if keith ever admits this to himself, that his musical role and position has shifted.
In 89' 90' even though we had Chuck and Matt, and the guitars were lower in the mix, keith was still such a force of nature that he still seemed to shine brighter than ever on stage.
Slowly but surely over the 94' 95' tour, and the tours that followed, it wasn't Keith's band to the same extent. Mick increasingly took over the reins live. This could have been down to Keith slowing down and showing his age naturally but i'm not so sure. Keith to some extent just seemed to settle for a quite life and left everything down to Mick, from song choice to arrangements. Even the way Mick involves the backing singers and phased Keith out away from the mic stand. (Just look at the anniversary tour with guest performers, looks like Mick chose them too.) Its hard to believe this happened when you think that Keith's trademark Riffs and intros kick off just about every Stones song live. He used to begin and end every song on his own terms. Its a pity that Keith lost his grip because the Stones as a live band don't surprise me on any level now.
Its just business as usual , its so rehearsed and repetitive that i can barely listen to live clips of the same songs over and over again. Keith seems to have got louder lately, perhaps to cover up for his technique, but it just seems to amplify his restrictive playing.
I cant knock Keith for the way he plays live at his age now, but i am utterly confused as to why he let Mick take the reins to the extent he has since 89'
It could be that this is the only way Mick will have it, it's my way or the highway sort of attitude. Keith would be devastated if Mick was up there playing Stones songs live with another band. Sometimes i wish keith had stayed solo. We would have ended up with keith touring with a replacement singer for Mick to help him out on Stones numbers, with the Wino's songs merged in with keith at the mic. On the other side we would have got Mick Jagger touring with a copy cat Keith guitarist counterfeiting the Stones experience. A part of me would have enjoyed these two scenarios over the repetitive Stones on going circus we have endured since 89'
Of course i love a lot of what has come from the 100's of shows has been excellent, like the No security tour and the Licks idea when they played club , arena and stadium alternately. Its not all bad, perhaps its just gone on a little too long without change.
Would you hand the reins of a massive touring apparatus worth hundreds of millions of dollars over to a drunken, erratic coke head?

I love Keith, but he hasn't been fit to handle that role for quite some time. Mick obviously sees this, works with like-minded task masters, and lays down the law to the "party" side of the band (Keith and Ronnie).

I thought Keith was more stubborn and strong-willed, but he obviously enjoys making money just as much as Mick (even though he won't admit it), so he goes along with the corporatized touring structure, and Mick generally leaves him alone backstage to his vices.

Yep true dat, kind of takes the fun away from the whole idea of Rock and Roll though.
Maybe Rock and Roll wasn't supposed to get corporate, money seems to have taken over the world, just wish they'd left Rock out of it.
But you are absolutely right of course, sure keith will take the money and run.
Drunken, erratic coke head?
Get one thing straight though, i know a lot rides on these corporate mega bucks tours, but that drunken coked up Keef always kept his end up, he always showed up and got through the gig.
A couple of cancelled shows for an infected finger from a guitar string, a few cancelled shows for falling off a ladder in his library while not on tour, and a few more for falling off a tree while not on tour. But no cancelled shows because he was too pissed or too stoned to go on that night.
Seem to remember Mick on many occasions having to cancel shows at late notice to people that had traveled thousands of miles and paid for accommodation because of a sore throat (or empty seats or something.)
I know my wording was harsh, but it's basically accurate. Don't forget that time he drunkenly choked Ronnie out of nowhere on the B2B tour (the story is in RS).

For the most part, Keith was on point, but he had a few nights where he wasn't "on", and you could tell Mick was displeased.

I do agree though...until the head injury, there were hardly any train wrecks that Keith caused. Hell, Ronnie was practically out of commission for an entire tour (No Security).

But I think the checks and balances that Mick put in place mitigated the potential for onstage train wrecks...that's really the point.

I have definitely thought about how Mick has canceled at least one or two shows almost every tour since '89 due to head colds, while Keith seemingly never gets sick.

I see what you mean, and point taken. I was just thinking about Ronnie, unbelievable that he was completely out of it throughout some tours but never caused a cancelled show. Haha what a reliable drunk, i guess Jo took great care of him.
I didn't know about the Keith choking Ronnie story, does anyone have a link.

Re: Looking for examples of Keith ripping it up onstage in the post-'89 landscape
Posted by: keefriff99 ()
Date: August 3, 2017 19:40

Quote
stone4ever
Quote
keefriff99
Quote
stone4ever
Quote
keefriff99
Quote
stone4ever
I often wonder if keith ever admits this to himself, that his musical role and position has shifted.
In 89' 90' even though we had Chuck and Matt, and the guitars were lower in the mix, keith was still such a force of nature that he still seemed to shine brighter than ever on stage.
Slowly but surely over the 94' 95' tour, and the tours that followed, it wasn't Keith's band to the same extent. Mick increasingly took over the reins live. This could have been down to Keith slowing down and showing his age naturally but i'm not so sure. Keith to some extent just seemed to settle for a quite life and left everything down to Mick, from song choice to arrangements. Even the way Mick involves the backing singers and phased Keith out away from the mic stand. (Just look at the anniversary tour with guest performers, looks like Mick chose them too.) Its hard to believe this happened when you think that Keith's trademark Riffs and intros kick off just about every Stones song live. He used to begin and end every song on his own terms. Its a pity that Keith lost his grip because the Stones as a live band don't surprise me on any level now.
Its just business as usual , its so rehearsed and repetitive that i can barely listen to live clips of the same songs over and over again. Keith seems to have got louder lately, perhaps to cover up for his technique, but it just seems to amplify his restrictive playing.
I cant knock Keith for the way he plays live at his age now, but i am utterly confused as to why he let Mick take the reins to the extent he has since 89'
It could be that this is the only way Mick will have it, it's my way or the highway sort of attitude. Keith would be devastated if Mick was up there playing Stones songs live with another band. Sometimes i wish keith had stayed solo. We would have ended up with keith touring with a replacement singer for Mick to help him out on Stones numbers, with the Wino's songs merged in with keith at the mic. On the other side we would have got Mick Jagger touring with a copy cat Keith guitarist counterfeiting the Stones experience. A part of me would have enjoyed these two scenarios over the repetitive Stones on going circus we have endured since 89'
Of course i love a lot of what has come from the 100's of shows has been excellent, like the No security tour and the Licks idea when they played club , arena and stadium alternately. Its not all bad, perhaps its just gone on a little too long without change.
Would you hand the reins of a massive touring apparatus worth hundreds of millions of dollars over to a drunken, erratic coke head?

I love Keith, but he hasn't been fit to handle that role for quite some time. Mick obviously sees this, works with like-minded task masters, and lays down the law to the "party" side of the band (Keith and Ronnie).

I thought Keith was more stubborn and strong-willed, but he obviously enjoys making money just as much as Mick (even though he won't admit it), so he goes along with the corporatized touring structure, and Mick generally leaves him alone backstage to his vices.

Yep true dat, kind of takes the fun away from the whole idea of Rock and Roll though.
Maybe Rock and Roll wasn't supposed to get corporate, money seems to have taken over the world, just wish they'd left Rock out of it.
But you are absolutely right of course, sure keith will take the money and run.
Drunken, erratic coke head?
Get one thing straight though, i know a lot rides on these corporate mega bucks tours, but that drunken coked up Keef always kept his end up, he always showed up and got through the gig.
A couple of cancelled shows for an infected finger from a guitar string, a few cancelled shows for falling off a ladder in his library while not on tour, and a few more for falling off a tree while not on tour. But no cancelled shows because he was too pissed or too stoned to go on that night.
Seem to remember Mick on many occasions having to cancel shows at late notice to people that had traveled thousands of miles and paid for accommodation because of a sore throat (or empty seats or something.)
I know my wording was harsh, but it's basically accurate. Don't forget that time he drunkenly choked Ronnie out of nowhere on the B2B tour (the story is in RS).

For the most part, Keith was on point, but he had a few nights where he wasn't "on", and you could tell Mick was displeased.

I do agree though...until the head injury, there were hardly any train wrecks that Keith caused. Hell, Ronnie was practically out of commission for an entire tour (No Security).

But I think the checks and balances that Mick put in place mitigated the potential for onstage train wrecks...that's really the point.

I have definitely thought about how Mick has canceled at least one or two shows almost every tour since '89 due to head colds, while Keith seemingly never gets sick.

I see what you mean, and point taken. I was just thinking about Ronnie, unbelievable that he was completely out of it throughout some tours but never caused a cancelled show. Haha what a reliable drunk, i guess Jo took great care of him.
I didn't know about the Keith choking Ronnie story, does anyone have a link.
And, as it happens, there has been a third, more recent, altercation. Holed up in Toronto before the tour started, the band had decided, unusually, to rehearse on a Saturday. Ronnie had pointed out that he would want to stop to see the boxing: Oscar De La Hoya vs. Hector Camacho. He had a bet on it. "Everyone watched it as well," says Ronnie, "but I got the blame for dragging everyone away from the rehearsal. But, unknown to me, Keith was pacing during the whole fight, waiting for everyone."

After the fight, Ronnie went upstairs to the rehearsal room. "I was totally surprised. I walked back in and . . . hrrgggh-hhhh-eurgghhhhhhh!" explains Wood.

Richards leapt on Wood, his hands around Wood's throat. "Everyone was in shock," says Wood. "But it's something I have to be aware of with Keith, you know. I could say, 'OK, I can't live with this shit,' but he's my mate. He's my pal."

Were the others there?

"Yeah," he says. "Just . . . shocked."

Keith doesn't look too happy when I bring this up. As it turns out, there is another side to this story. "I had to go to a funeral the next day, and I made a mistake," he says quietly. "I was pissed off at being there, and I was left alone. When Ronnie came back . . . I'd asked him to stay with me, because I should have been with my old lady, whose sister had died, and I felt very bad about that. The next day I had to fly to New York and carry a coffin, so I wasn't really compos mentis. But in a band, anyone got a problem, it's best to flash it out straightaway . . . "

[www.rollingstone.com]

Re: Looking for examples of Keith ripping it up onstage in the post-'89 landscape
Posted by: stone4ever ()
Date: August 3, 2017 19:53

Thanks for the link Keefriff99

Yeah that's the one i remember when Keith said he wasn't compos mentis because of a death in the family. Vaguely remember something about Keith punching Ronnie in the face in 81' or 82' because he wasn't playing his leads or something, but can't remember anything else. I suppose its understandable Keith was crazy under the circumstances though.
Fairly recently didn't Keith kick Ronnie so hard up the bum that Ronnie needed a series of injections for the pain.
Keith has a bad temper, he is a bit of a nutter at times, i don't think its down to drink or drugs though, when he was much younger he frequently took to hitting people with his guitar on various occasions, or so legend has it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-08-03 20:00 by stone4ever.

Re: Looking for examples of Keith ripping it up onstage in the post-'89 landscape
Posted by: wonderboy ()
Date: August 3, 2017 20:24

Great stuff on this thread.
I think musically it would have been more interesting if Keith had left the Stones, stayed with Waddy and Jordan, maybe even found a young guy to do some singing.
But I also think Keith desperately needed the structure of the Rolling Stones, which Mick largely provided. Along with the money for all those guitar techs and fixers and other people.
There was a story Waddy told once about how they used to have these long, drunken jams and he (Waddy) finally decided to cut down the drinking so that somebody would be straight enough to remember what songs they were playing.
The story about Keith punching out Ronnie because he was left alone is a bit sad -- it illustrates either a man in great pain or a man who needed a minder. Both are very human qualities, though, and make you feel for the man.
Somewhere along the line I do think Mick grabbed control of the band, so much so that Keith today in some ways is just used to provide some color to the tunes and the stage act. He plays notes to suggest the song, not to drive it.
Probably it happened about the time Bill left. Because Bill used to play off Keith. I don't think Daryl does that and the rhythm section isn't the same. Mick's guys direct the songs.
But I do wish Keith had summoned the power to break free on his own after DW.

Re: Looking for examples of Keith ripping it up onstage in the post-'89 landscape
Posted by: stone4ever ()
Date: August 3, 2017 20:35

Quote
wonderboy
Great stuff on this thread.
I think musically it would have been more interesting if Keith had left the Stones, stayed with Waddy and Jordan, maybe even found a young guy to do some singing.
But I also think Keith desperately needed the structure of the Rolling Stones, which Mick largely provided. Along with the money for all those guitar techs and fixers and other people.
There was a story Waddy told once about how they used to have these long, drunken jams and he (Waddy) finally decided to cut down the drinking so that somebody would be straight enough to remember what songs they were playing.
The story about Keith punching out Ronnie because he was left alone is a bit sad -- it illustrates either a man in great pain or a man who needed a minder. Both are very human qualities, though, and make you feel for the man.
Somewhere along the line I do think Mick grabbed control of the band, so much so that Keith today in some ways is just used to provide some color to the tunes and the stage act. He plays notes to suggest the song, not to drive it.
Probably it happened about the time Bill left. Because Bill used to play off Keith. I don't think Daryl does that and the rhythm section isn't the same. Mick's guys direct the songs.

But I do wish Keith had summoned the power to break free on his own after DW.

My God wonderboy i never thought of that, the absence of Bill could be precisely the reason we saw a change in the dynamic. It was never the same after he left. Also i agree Micks guys direct the songs, just recently when i looked at the lineup of personnel working on the New album, its all Micks guys.
Keith doesn't get a look in with the hiring and firing of band members. Weird.
Keith is certainly not this domineering control freak some people make him out to be. We get this attitude from him that Micks the singer so we can't play songs he doesn't want to sing. I thought this band was supposed to be democratic ? not since Bill left.
Keith could put his foot down if he wants to, he signs the song sheet every night before they go on, he could insist that certain songs be dropped or added but he leaves to Mick and chuck. I honestly don't know whats going on here.

According to Waddy the Wino's didn't really even rehearse for the tours lol.
I think the first few shows were rehearsals. Just goes to show what a natural band the Wino's were. I still enjoy the footage that's available but get bemused as to why keith hasn't done a few shows with them since 93'
Was there a falling out or did Keith not really enjoy the experience so much as we assume.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-08-03 20:53 by stone4ever.

Re: Looking for examples of Keith ripping it up onstage in the post-'89 landscape
Posted by: wonderboy ()
Date: August 3, 2017 20:42

Quote
stone4ever


My God wonderboy i never thought of that, the absence of Bill could be precisely the reason we saw a change in the dynamic. It was never the same after he left.

According to Waddy the Wino's didn't really even rehearse for the tours lol.
I think the first few shows were rehearsals. Just goes to show what a natural band the Wino's were. I still enjoy the footage that's available but get bemused as to why keith hasn't done a few shows with them since 93'
Was there a falling out or did Keith not really enjoy the experience so much as we assume.

Hopkins got me to start thinking more about Bill's role, so any credit for the observation goes there.
I think Keith has a very strong survival instinct. I think at some level he decided that making the compromises to stay with the Stones was good for his survival.

Re: Looking for examples of Keith ripping it up onstage in the post-'89 landscape
Posted by: stone4ever ()
Date: August 3, 2017 21:04

Quote
wonderboy
Quote
stone4ever


My God wonderboy i never thought of that, the absence of Bill could be precisely the reason we saw a change in the dynamic. It was never the same after he left.

According to Waddy the Wino's didn't really even rehearse for the tours lol.
I think the first few shows were rehearsals. Just goes to show what a natural band the Wino's were. I still enjoy the footage that's available but get bemused as to why keith hasn't done a few shows with them since 93'
Was there a falling out or did Keith not really enjoy the experience so much as we assume.

Hopkins got me to start thinking more about Bill's role, so any credit for the observation goes there.
I think Keith has a very strong survival instinct. I think at some level he decided that making the compromises to stay with the Stones was good for his survival.

BTW hopkins is a genius, one of the best original thinkers on iorr without a doubt.

Keith is such a contradiction on so many levels, i just think he wants to enjoy the live shows and bank the money for his family's future.
He doesn't decide ticket prices or what merchandise will sell for, or what shows will be played where and how many etc. He is a Rock And Roller, Mick is a businessman and credit to him for keeping this band so huge and successful, yes i understand that, but i don't think Keith should have let Mick take over the musical direction and arrangement's to such an extent.
keith just wants a quiet life, yes, but at what cost. He looks like a lost broken man on that stage some nights.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-08-03 21:06 by stone4ever.

Re: Looking for examples of Keith ripping it up onstage in the post-'89 landscape
Posted by: Koen ()
Date: August 4, 2017 02:19

I hope he doesn't bust a button on his trousers when he rips one onstage.

Re: Looking for examples of Keith ripping it up onstage in the post-'89 landscape
Posted by: stone4ever ()
Date: August 4, 2017 02:47

Keith ripping it up with friends. Dead Flowers.
[www.youtube.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-08-04 02:47 by stone4ever.

Re: Looking for examples of Keith ripping it up onstage in the post-'89 landscape
Date: August 4, 2017 11:59

Quote
RoughJusticeOnYa
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Quote
stone4ever
Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
In the post 89 era. I have to say that BY FAR!! his best guitar work is with the Winos; both tours.
He became confident, assured, more relaxed as A bandleader and singer. The way "Time is on My Side" was arranged was beautiful. On guitar it just got better and better. His partnership with Waddy brought many excellent results. Closer to his Taylor partnership. But Waddy can also twang with the best of'em.
The arrangements lent themselves to very good guitar passages. I can't remember if it was the first or second Wino tour but I saw Keith do a "solo" on 'Struggle', which was every bit as good as his "bye Bye Johnny" or "Carol" from '72 and '69. I put "solo" in quotations because it isn't a solo in conventional sense but a rhythmic chopping of double stops and bends and slides. His performance was jaw dropping.

Absolutely agree with you, the decline happened shortly after the last Wino's tour in 93', he wasn't the same player in 94' 95' i'm convinced it was a combination of the drink catching up with him combined with those Heberden's nodes on his fingers. The second decline happened in 06' after the brain bleed and subsequent cranial surgery, after which he could no longer take cocaine to sharpen his playing while drinking. Basically it all caught up with him but he soldiers on like a real trouper. I still think he pulls it off for the best part of most shows these days, he appears sober most nights, he was in fine form at the second Desert gig and the last show they played in Vegas. He still has something to offer, he needs more shows though, 15 date tours just aren't long enough for him to get his chops together fluently. Come on Keith get the Wino's out for one last Hurrah , the old lion roars again smoking smiley

I think the decline happened before the second Winos-tour.

I really feel Keith was 100% on the ball, ripping like he was ripping his heart out, Voodoo Lounge World Tour included. After that, the ripping started to fade gradually imo; first microscopically, from 2006 onwards drastically. A far as contemporary ripping is concerned: those days are gone. Over! And never to return.

Mind you: that's doesn't keep him from playing a more than decent, sometimes even truely great gig...
But his ways of playing, musical role (& 'position') in the band, has completely changed ever since the "50"-concerts (2012 onwards). The Rolling Stones 'string section' is (had to be?!) completely re-shifted; re-balanced. Talk about an 'extreme makeover'!!

Anyway: just my point of view.

Let me make it clear that I'm talking about small nuances here: Signs of stepping back a little, in places where he would have attacked earlier – stuff like that.

IMO, this is how he played when he peaked:





[www.youtube.com]

And here's a very good version of 999, where I think it shows that he is leaning more on double string-licks and plays less in places where he would have done it differently a few years back.





[www.youtube.com]

I may have mentioned «obvious decline» earlier. Maybe «showing signs of decline» is more accurate.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-08-04 15:31 by DandelionPowderman.

Re: Looking for examples of Keith ripping it up onstage in the post-'89 landscape
Posted by: stone4ever ()
Date: August 4, 2017 15:26

Another peak, 1990, Happy, he rips it to shreds at the end.

[www.youtube.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-08-04 15:27 by stone4ever.

Re: Looking for examples of Keith ripping it up onstage in the post-'89 landscape
Date: August 4, 2017 15:32

Quote
stone4ever
Another peak, 1990, Happy, he rips it to shreds at the end.

[www.youtube.com]

thumbs up

I forgot to include the 999-clip in my post. It's included now smiling smiley



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-08-04 15:32 by DandelionPowderman.

Re: Looking for examples of Keith ripping it up onstage in the post-'89 landscape
Date: August 4, 2017 16:53

Round 4:25 and on, Keith is letting it loose. Cool!





[www.youtube.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-08-04 16:53 by DandelionPowderman.

Re: Looking for examples of Keith ripping it up onstage in the post-'89 landscape
Date: August 4, 2017 17:07

A great latter-day performance





[www.youtube.com]

Re: Looking for examples of Keith ripping it up onstage in the post-'89 landscape
Posted by: keefriff99 ()
Date: August 4, 2017 19:10

Man, that AC '89 version of Bitch is out of sight! That is definitely peak Keith.

Re: Looking for examples of Keith ripping it up onstage in the post-'89 landscape
Date: August 4, 2017 19:51

Quote
keefriff99
Man, that AC '89 version of Bitch is out of sight! That is definitely peak Keith.

Does Jagger keep the same note through the entire song? LOL
Yes, there is Keith with that white Musicman guitar. I forgot that he and Ron played those in 89 too. For some reason that guitar brought out the best in him.

I like the point that Stones4ever raises, if Keith admits the reality of affairs to himself. That he has become less and less integral on stage.
Besides the obvious sibling rivalry with Jagger there is another brother he spars with: Ronnie. Seems like Ronnie doesn't dish it back. Yet, Ronnie grows stronger and stronger. His playing came back with a vengeance, he stopped drinking. He has a very successful life outside of the Stones; art shows and sales, radio show, new wife and twins.

Goto Page: Previous1234Next
Current Page: 2 of 4


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 472
Record Number of Users: 161 on September 12, 2017 22:55
Record Number of Guests: 3948 on December 7, 2015 15:07

Previous page Next page First page IORR home