Quote
stonerolling
Start Me Up Spielberg

Find this interesting. About 1:45min he plays the riff instead of going in to the next section, a few moments later he's pointing at his hands, then does the same a little later. Wondering if the colder European weather is impacting the arthritis...

Anyway, still looking forward to Barca!

Wasn't the song supposed to continue with the verse, and Mick started to sing the bridge instead? They saved it quickly anyway

Quote
laertisflash
To Dandelion Powderman:

Man, your example about SSC from the particular gig of 1982 was determinant and illuminating! Because, after this, the whole conversation does show - in a clearest way - that some folks here are fully idolazing the past and underating (dramatically I could say) what the band offers today. Of course, on this board we have different opinions, as for many issues. Nothing wrong, people love different parts of the Stones, after all. Everyone is entitled on his opinion, of course. But, I’m really astonished that some folks consider as good and charming the absolute trainwreck of SSC at the Leeds (1982) and, at the same time, they “crucify”, for example, the version of Gimme Shelter from Spielberg 2017… For me, it’s so crazy, that I can’t even argue on that…

I haven't heard Gimme Shelter from Spielberg (yet, but I'm a bit afraid to try now), but I did compare SSC with BS from Spielberg.
I don't think SSC 1982 (I think it's Wembley by the way) is "good", I don't think anybody would think so, but I do see a band where Keith has a strong presence. The huge misunderstanding between Keith and Charlie causes a trainwreck, but it's interesting to see because it illustrates what their game is and highlights the fact that normally they can pull this off: this back and forth switching of rhythms, what the Stones are all about.
In Spielberg BS, I don't hear that. For one, I don't see any interaction between Charlie and Keith, and, second, clearly, the real command lies with neither of them, but only with Chuck Leavell (and I am not knocking him, because I guess his role his vital). There are a couple of other differences too, but anyway, clearly everyone hears/sees a different thing. It probably depends on which clip you watch too, maybe from a different angle it doesn't sound the same.

Quote
wonderboy
After tours in '81 or '82, they stopped touring for seven years, and I would argue that incidents like that SSC train wreck played into Mick's decision. They were a different band when they returned.

That's absolutely true.

But again, I see that '82 incident in a completely different light than what happens nowadays.

Back in '82, they were a "younger" band and partying it up. Those were the mistakes of a band almost-collectively coked out of its gourd and playing super-fast tempos, and as a unit, they got it back on track. I know it's easy to romanticize it when it's almost 40 years ago, but that's what I see. Even if I'd been at that show, I could have laughed at it.

But today? I see feeble attempts at playing basic parts, which are already slowed down to the point where it barely feels like the same song. I see musicians who aren't in command of their own band struggling to hold every song together.

Quote
matxil

Quote
laertisflash
To Dandelion Powderman:

Man, your example about SSC from the particular gig of 1982 was determinant and illuminating! Because, after this, the whole conversation does show - in a clearest way - that some folks here are fully idolazing the past and underating (dramatically I could say) what the band offers today. Of course, on this board we have different opinions, as for many issues. Nothing wrong, people love different parts of the Stones, after all. Everyone is entitled on his opinion, of course. But, I’m really astonished that some folks consider as good and charming the absolute trainwreck of SSC at the Leeds (1982) and, at the same time, they “crucify”, for example, the version of Gimme Shelter from Spielberg 2017… For me, it’s so crazy, that I can’t even argue on that…

I haven't heard Gimme Shelter from Spielberg (yet, but I'm a bit afraid to try now), but I did compare SSC with BS from Spielberg.
I don't think SSC 1982 (I think it's Wembley by the way) is "good", I don't think anybody would think so, but I do see a band where Keith has a strong presence. The huge misunderstanding between Keith and Charlie causes a trainwreck, but it's interesting to see because it illustrates what their game is and highlights the fact that normally they can pull this off: this back and forth switching of rhythms, what the Stones are all about.
In Spielberg BS, I don't hear that. For one, I don't see any interaction between Charlie and Keith, and, second, clearly, the real command lies with neither of them, but only with Chuck Leavell (and I am not knocking him, because I guess his role his vital). There are a couple of other differences too, but anyway, clearly everyone hears/sees a different thing. It probably depends on which clip you watch too, maybe from a different angle it doesn't sound the same.

But do you see any interaction between Charlie and Keith in the Wembley-clip? All we see is Keith turning a bit around, not where he turns around

Quote
DandelionPowderman

But do you see any interaction between Charlie and Keith in the Wembley-clip? All we see is Keith turning a bit around, not where he turns around

No, not really see. But it's my impression that Charlie is trying to follow Keith's lead and Keith is trying to impress the rhythm to Charlie. Moreover, normally, at that time at least, Keith when he turned around, turned to Charlie.

It's kinda funny how we are analysing this 35 year old clip, but you did a good job bringing in this example because it so clearly divides people on how it's different/similar to Spielberg.

Quote
matxil

Quote
DandelionPowderman

But do you see any interaction between Charlie and Keith in the Wembley-clip? All we see is Keith turning a bit around, not where he turns around

No, not really see. But it's my impression that Charlie is trying to follow Keith's lead and Keith is trying to impress the rhythm to Charlie. Moreover, normally, at that time at least, Keith when he turned around, turned to Charlie.

It's kinda funny how we are analysing this 35 year old clip, but you did a good job bringing in this example because it so clearly divides people on how it's different/similar to Spielberg.

I knew this clip well, so it just popped up in my mind instantly, because it was so similar - what happened

What amazes me is how fast their decline has been.

2002-2003 they sounded tighter than ever and Keith was GREAT,

2005-2007 Keith started to fade and the shows were hit and miss

2012 the tempos were slowed down immensely, but Keith was more present on stage

2017 still a great band but mistakes happen left and right

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
stonerolling
Start Me Up Spielberg

Find this interesting. About 1:45min he plays the riff instead of going in to the next section, a few moments later he's pointing at his hands, then does the same a little later. Wondering if the colder European weather is impacting the arthritis...

Anyway, still looking forward to Barca!

Wasn't the song supposed to continue with the verse, and Mick started to sing the bridge instead? They saved it quickly anyway

That's my read of it. While we're busy giving Keith grief, it should be noted that Ronnie doesn't necessarily walk on water. His SMU solos are nearly unlistenable at times.

Quote
MelBelli

Quote
stone4ever

I think there is an element of truth to this Redhotcarpet, i get the impression keith thinks this is all a bit of a game, a walk through the park. He thinks yeah Mick's given me the call, i just show up for work and coast and enjoy the ride, say high to the band and the fans one more time, job done.

He has this romantic notion when it comes to his relationship with the fans, he loves them and they love him back, what's all this business about rehearsing, this is rock and roll, its not about practicing and taking the spontaneity out of it he thinks to himself, and subsequently he underplays his responsibility within the band and forgets the seriousness of his role in playing live...

This is not true at all. Keith knows it. Mick knows it. Everyone knows it. It's why they rehearsed in New Jersey in 2012 before they announced the 50th anniversary shows. And it's very likely why Keith considered retiring before Steve Jordan encouraged him out of it.

As you say i remember Keith had to prove himself for the fist time in his career so that we had the 50th anniversary shows. Going back he got the band together himself to rehearse in the studio, and after they had practiced he invited Mick to come and join them. I think they ( especially Keith ) had to show Mick they could still do it.
Well i don't think Keith is thinking he has to prove himself like that after 6 more years of touring , so Keith seems to have got a bit lazy again i suppose.

Look this isn't the end of the line for Keith, he can come back and come back as good as he has been in the last 5 years.

Keith is a different animal to the rest of the Stones, its a catch 22 where he is concerned, he only plays great when he is happy relaxed and enjoying his rock and roll. He can't or will not come out and do a cold show.
Its just not what inspires him. So he needs these five or 6 shows to get going and get confident enough to improve. Keith can't force it, he can't make it happen with determination, its all about feel and emotion.
To get in the grove he needs support from the band, i just don't see that he is getting it the way he needs it. I mean Mick and Keith barely looked at each other the first two shows, this is detrimental to the atmosphere keith needs.

Making Keith sound like a pre-schooler.
Keith needs emotional support from his class-mates to function properly in class.

Rubbish.

Look, I hear what you're saying. But rather than infantilizing or romanticizing Keith, I think my acknowledging his obvious decline pays him the compliment of recognizing how good he really was.

He was never a guitarhead's kind of soloist (eg, Robben Ford, Larry Carlton, Mike Bloomfield, Scott Henderson, Andy Timmons). But at the peak of his powers, from '88-'93, he could flat-out jam as a single-line lead player:

[www.youtube.com] (IORR, 1990, Frankfurt)

[www.youtube.com] (SFTD, 1989, Atlantic City)

[www.youtube.com] (Whip It Up, 1993, Boston -- more or less the same solo as SFTD!)

Quote
MisterDDDD
Making Keith sound like a pre-schooler.
Keith needs emotional support from his class-mates to function properly in class.

Rubbish.

Well i am sorry but an old rusty Keith is in need of a bit of TLC.

Its obvious that he is a soulful man at heart, i think he enjoys playing much more when the band interact between each other in a nice way, that camaraderie is important to them all. Its called having fun up there, if they enjoy doing it it helps obviously.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
stonerolling
Start Me Up Spielberg

Find this interesting. About 1:45min he plays the riff instead of going in to the next section, a few moments later he's pointing at his hands, then does the same a little later. Wondering if the colder European weather is impacting the arthritis...

Anyway, still looking forward to Barca!

Wasn't the song supposed to continue with the verse, and Mick started to sing the bridge instead? They saved it quickly anyway

What annoys me is that Ronnie does a piss poor solo to SMU and no one mentions it !!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-09-20 11:49 by stone4ever.

Quote
stone4ever

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
stonerolling
Start Me Up Spielberg

Find this interesting. About 1:45min he plays the riff instead of going in to the next section, a few moments later he's pointing at his hands, then does the same a little later. Wondering if the colder European weather is impacting the arthritis...

Anyway, still looking forward to Barca!

Wasn't the song supposed to continue with the verse, and Mick started to sing the bridge instead? They saved it quickly anyway

What annoys me is that Ronnie does a piss poor solo to SMU and no one mentions it !! Mick is walking around like an old fart, Charlie is completely over the hill and all we get is a diet of how shit keith is.

Now you're inviting the Taylor lovers in on this ><

Quote
stonerolling

Quote
stone4ever

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
stonerolling
Start Me Up Spielberg

Find this interesting. About 1:45min he plays the riff instead of going in to the next section, a few moments later he's pointing at his hands, then does the same a little later. Wondering if the colder European weather is impacting the arthritis...

Anyway, still looking forward to Barca!

Wasn't the song supposed to continue with the verse, and Mick started to sing the bridge instead? They saved it quickly anyway

What annoys me is that Ronnie does a piss poor solo to SMU and no one mentions it !! Mick is walking around like an old fart, Charlie is completely over the hill and all we get is a diet of how shit keith is.

Now you're inviting the Taylor lovers in on this ><

I think the Taylor lovers left this forum many moons ago.

Its been said so many times, Keith has always taken many shows before he starts flowing, these tours are way to short for him to build the momentum he used to.
is it anyone fault the tours are short ?? Of course not , they are old.
So you have to make allowances, Keith just doesn't have enough shows to shine like he did. it is what it is.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-09-20 11:47 by stone4ever.

Geez there are a lot of Keith haters on here nowadays .To me that is part of the charm of the Rolling Stones because they never were perfect to begin with as in they make mistakes just like I do and the next person does .I do most certainly agree with DP when he said that you can't really judge from crappy I phone videos .To me which are inconclusive and not admissible . Anyone with any knowledge of the way the Rolling Stones work knows this .It's just all the trolls and haters that start there usual Keith bashing - Keith is old , Keith can't play the guitar anymore and so on .As far as the ticket prices go -did anyone hold a gun to anybody's head and demand they spend whatever amount of money on there tickets ? No they did not .To me it's very OFFENSIVE bashing on Keith and we should remember our host and moderator BV hard work in this most wonderful place for all things ROLLING STONES .

Quote
TheGreek
Geez there are a lot of Keith haters on here nowadays .To me that is part of the charm of the Rolling Stones because they never were perfect to begin with as in they make mistakes just like I do and the next person does .I do most certainly agree with DP when he said that you can't really judge from crappy I phone videos .To me which are inconclusive and not admissible . Anyone with any knowledge of the way the Rolling Stones work knows this .It's just all the trolls and haters that start there usual Keith bashing - Keith is old , Keith can't play the guitar anymore and so on .As far as the ticket prices go -did anyone hold a gun to anybody's head and demand they spend whatever amount of money on there tickets ? No they did not .To me it's very OFFENSIVE bashing on Keith and we should remember our host and moderator BV hard work in this most wonderful place for all things ROLLING STONES .

Thank You for this The Greek.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-09-19 19:03 by stone4ever.

Yeah, sure...hell, let's give Keith the whole @#$%& tour to warm up. In the meantime, he can botch 15 shows before maybe nailing the final one.

I'm sure the 500,000 people who pay through the nose for Keith's fingers to warm up won't mind being used as practice crowds.

Some of you people really do talk about him like he's a delicate infant.

Life is all about choices , think about that for a second ?

Great comments in here. Agree with the poster who said any criticism of Keith now just speaks to how good he was at the peak of his powers. Most of the 'criticism' is mostly factual, anyway.
One of the interesting things about the band is how it changes over the years. It's a different band every decade.
The iconism of Keith is so powerful and attractive. But it's good to chip that away and look at him realistically. You can do that and still enjoy the shows today.

I'm just happy we have something to discuss now with the Stones touring and giving us new shows to analyze. What would we be talking about otherwise, whether Dirty Work is underrated or not?

The days of following this band are limited and soon over. If you don't enjoy them anymore you can criticize them and point out mistakes, but don't be so harsh on them and act like they didn't deserve to be on a stage anymore.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-09-19 19:27 by RaiseTheKnife.

Quote
wonderboy
Great comments in here. Agree with the poster who said any criticism of Keith now just speaks to how good he was at the peak of his powers. Most of the 'criticism' is mostly factual, anyway.
One of the interesting things about the band is how it changes over the years. It's a different band every decade.
The iconism of Keith is so powerful and attractive. But it's good to chip that away and look at him realistically. You can do that and still enjoy the shows today.

Everybody here loves Keith and wants him to be happy, healthy and playing well onstage.

I just can't understand this silly infantilizing of the guy, that he needs to be coaxed and nurtured into playing well. This guy is one of the most famous @#$%& people on the planet and worth hundreds of millions of dollars. He knows the score, he knows what's expected of him. He's not some romantic, ne'er-do-well pirate...he's a hard-nosed businessman, certainly not as much as Mick, but he enjoys being successful like any rich and powerful celebrity.

I haven't been to any of the shows on this tour, had to rely on the YouTube clips, which never give a good account sound wise, but it's tragic seeing Keith playing the solos on Sympathy, as much as he has deteriorated, it wouldn't be too onerous to vary the three or four notes and at least try something a bit different....

Keith was always one of my favourite guitarists, he wasn't ever technically gifted, but the notes he played were bang on the money, these days it just seems that he's gone beyond caring about the playing and is more into the posing and posturing. Sad really as I still think he could offer something musically. The whole Stones machine is looking tired, formulaic and like something from a bygone age. It needn't be that way and Blue and Lonesome showed they still have creativity in their playing, but on the war horses, it's gone, they are slowly killing these songs with every tour. Time to quit or shake it up a bit more.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Maindefender

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Maindefender

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
stone4ever
I would just like to thank DEAN GOODMAN for his honest reviews.

Its so refreshing to know we can get the truth from someone when we are not at the show..

Thank you very much, and keep it real.

Do dishonest reviews exist?

Maybe slanted or biased. I like Dean's reviews because he is present thru most tours and you get a nice flow from show to show. And yes he some seems genuine without being controversial IMO.

I like them, too, always have.

But they're not more «honest» than yours or mine

He's a good writer. Plus he doesn't engage on "Tell Me" very often which I respect. I don't think I've seen a review like his from you in the tour section but I'm sure I would enjoy it also....

LOL, I'm not on Dean's level when it comes to write ups like these. Not even remotely near that level, hehe.

But I do write reviews. Here's one from the tour opener in Oslo in 2014 (By Bård Andersson): [iorr.org]

A sloppy mess but you still loved it, NICE!!

It's not that bad, he missed a few notes because his hands are too damaged to play certain things.so what..huge crowds show up and have a great time, the band pulls down a few mil and moves on to the next town.id like to see someone explain to mick why he should pull the plug.sort of hard to make the point to a guy who still has the roar of 80,000 people ringing in his ears.

Quote
TheGreek
Life is all about choices , think about that for a second ?

They could have chose art over commerce; played smaller venues, did more things like play Sticky Fingers in concert, spent more time in the studio, etc.
Would have been more interesting, but it's their decision, not mine.

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
wonderboy
After tours in '81 or '82, they stopped touring for seven years, and I would argue that incidents like that SSC train wreck played into Mick's decision. They were a different band when they returned.

That's absolutely true.

But again, I see that '82 incident in a completely different light than what happens nowadays.

Back in '82, they were a "younger" band and partying it up. Those were the mistakes of a band almost-collectively coked out of its gourd and playing super-fast tempos, and as a unit, they got it back on track. I know it's easy to romanticize it when it's almost 40 years ago, but that's what I see. Even if I'd been at that show, I could have laughed at it.

But today? I see feeble attempts at playing basic parts, which are already slowed down to the point where it barely feels like the same song. I see musicians who aren't in command of their own band struggling to hold every song together.

Absolutetly, and I touched on that earlier.

"As for that She's So Cold video from 1982, yes it starts as a trainwreck (they've always made mistakes, right?), but when they do get it together it's like a freight train roaring down the tracks at 200 mph. Comparing it to mistakes made today - while they might be able to get the train back on the tracks, they never quite reach the same zenith. With the way all of the tempos have been slowed down, if they were to play She's So Cold today, it might come across as a slow to mid-tempo blues number rather than the raggedy punk infested sound of '82".


Not directed at anyone specifically, but not sure why some (not everyone) can't or won't acknowledge the fact that they're simply not the same band anymore? Or are hell bent on saying it's the same kind of mistake then vs. now? Technically it might be the same type of screw up, but the reasons for it are definitely not. The obvious difference is due to the declining musicianship and old age - 35 years can make a huge difference and the decline has been in effect for quite awhile (they're now over 70 years old!). Why is that a surprise, and why is this so controversial amongst the devout faithful as it's just pointing out the simple facts? There seems to be a lot of denial about the situation, but I suppose that's understandable as it's a difficult pill to swallow watching them in this condition. A lot of the criticism I read is not bashing the band - it's just pointing out the differences between now and then - the reality of the situation. Yesterday ouroux58 made a very good analogy regarding the decline of skills of an aging person: "If you like the dentist you use always go to, and now he is 70 with a trembling hand, what will you do"?. Some might be loyal to the old dentist at the risk of being jabbed numerous times, while others may hesitate and wonder if the risk is worth the expensive price being charged. The dentist no longer has ths skills that he used to, and while he has a lifetime of knowledge, his body just can't properly do what the brain tells it to do. As for me, if the dentist provided a massive discount that reflected his deteriorating skills I might give it a shot, but somehow he's decided to charge more than ever while giving less than before. Sure there's still something charming about him as a person, and he still has my respect for all of his previous accomplishments, but now he's a shadow of the dentist I used to rely on. He might be able to polish someone's teeth adequately, but he certainly can't perform a root canal the way he used to.

Quote
TheBlockbuster
What amazes me is how fast their decline has been.

2002-2003 they sounded tighter than ever and Keith was GREAT,

2005-2007 Keith started to fade and the shows were hit and miss

2012 the tempos were slowed down immensely, but Keith was more present on stage

2017 still a great band but mistakes happen left and right

True.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-09-19 21:00 by Hairball.

I think telling Keith: you have to practice, adjust or just not play certain songs at all or accept a new arr. is like telling your 75 year old father it's time he let somebody else change the old window putty. You will hurt his feelings. With the giant ego of Keith Richards you just don't tell him anything.

<The obvious difference is due to the declining musicianship and old age>

Not in the examples provided. Both starts with a classic syncopated off beat from Keith, causing a slight delay. And Charlie can't manage to pick it up.

Should be obvious, really.

There are many other examples of Keith's decline because of arthritis and old age. Brown Sugar is not one of them.