God Keith was good tonight, did you see that. OMG even HTW was perfection.

Quote
stone4ever
God Keith was good tonight, did you see that. OMG even HTW was perfection.

well, except the mistake in intro

Quote
MartinB

Quote
stone4ever
God Keith was good tonight, did you see that. OMG even HTW was perfection.

well, except the mistake in intro

Didn't see or hear the mistake and i doubt it matters, the solo was a big improvement, credit where credit is due, Keith has obviously knuckled down hard and is applying himself as best as he possibly can.

-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-10-13 02:29 by yeababyyea.

Quote
stone4ever

Quote
MartinB

Quote
stone4ever
God Keith was good tonight, did you see that. OMG even HTW was perfection.

well, except the mistake in intro

Didn't see or hear the mistake and i doubt it matters, the solo was a big improvement, credit where credit is due, Keith has obviously knuckled down hard and is applying himself as best as he possibly can.

Hmm stone4ever...your use of the word "knuckled" kind of made me wince in light of Keith's gnarly arthritis...
But would probably agree with you on all of the above - even though I didn't follow todays show very closely, I take your word for it!

.
_____________________________________________________________
Nothing to do, nowhere to go...you're talkin' to people that you don't know....

HAIRBALL
''But would probably agree with you on all of the above - even though I didn't follow todays show very closely, I take your word for it! thumbs up''.


Now there's the funny thing, i have only to watch Keith play a few songs to judge how he played the rest of the gig. When he is on , he is on.

Quote
stone4ever
HAIRBALL
''But would probably agree with you on all of the above - even though I didn't follow todays show very closely, I take your word for it! thumbs up''.


Now there's the funny thing, i have only to watch Keith play a few songs to judge how he played the rest of the gig. When he is on , he is on.

But wasn't there talk of him getting "lazy and sloppy" towards the end of certain shows? Just like Mick's voice can sometimes become weaker towards the end of certain shows?
Like they've run out of steam, or have lost focus, or are bored, or just physically can't keep up the quality for an entire show?
Might be a good idea to watch the entire show from start to finish before you make a final judgement!

.
_____________________________________________________________
Nothing to do, nowhere to go...you're talkin' to people that you don't know....

Quote
Hairball

Quote
stone4ever
HAIRBALL
''But would probably agree with you on all of the above - even though I didn't follow todays show very closely, I take your word for it! thumbs up''.


Now there's the funny thing, i have only to watch Keith play a few songs to judge how he played the rest of the gig. When he is on , he is on.

But wasn't there talk of him getting "lazy and sloppy" towards the end of certain shows? Just like Mick's voice can sometimes become weaker towards the end of certain shows?
Like they've run out of steam, or have lost focus, or are bored, or just physically can't keep up the quality for an entire show?
Might be a good idea to watch the entire show from start to finish before you make a final judgement!

Ok hairball, i did as you said, and i am very pleased to say it was a strong performance from Keith right to the end.
I don't know how he has stepped up his energy level in the space of a few shows, but he has.

I have said this before many times on iorr, i know the man , i have studied him, i know what makes Keith tick and it sounds big headed i'm sure, but there you go, history repeats itself, Keith always comes back. Although sadly in 07' he didn't come back for reasons we all know now.

He did come back in 2007. Eerchter, nijmegen, lyon, frankfurt, madrid were the worst keith i have ever seen. Later on the tour in dusseldorf, dublin and london he was great

Paris 2007 too !

I have now seen 3 shows this tour (2 more to come) and it seems to me that Keith tends to be more comfortable in open tuning. Is it just my impression?

Quote
stone4ever

Quote
Hairball

Quote
stone4ever
HAIRBALL
''But would probably agree with you on all of the above - even though I didn't follow todays show very closely, I take your word for it! thumbs up''.


Now there's the funny thing, i have only to watch Keith play a few songs to judge how he played the rest of the gig. When he is on , he is on.

But wasn't there talk of him getting "lazy and sloppy" towards the end of certain shows? Just like Mick's voice can sometimes become weaker towards the end of certain shows?
Like they've run out of steam, or have lost focus, or are bored, or just physically can't keep up the quality for an entire show?
Might be a good idea to watch the entire show from start to finish before you make a final judgement!

Ok hairball, i did as you said, and i am very pleased to say it was a strong performance from Keith right to the end.
I don't know how he has stepped up his energy level in the space of a few shows, but he has.

I have said this before many times on iorr, i know the man , i have studied him, i know what makes Keith tick and it sounds big headed i'm sure, but there you go, history repeats itself, Keith always comes back. Although sadly in 07' he didn't come back for reasons we all know now.

I trust your judgment!

.
_____________________________________________________________
Nothing to do, nowhere to go...you're talkin' to people that you don't know....

Now that the Stones are a Heritage Band, with people going just to hear the same hoary hits, do you think Keith could be replaced, and his old licks played by a young gunslinger, like Paul McCartney does, or would audiences demand the real Keith?

Quote
24FPS
Now that the Stones are a Heritage Band, with people going just to hear the same hoary hits, do you think Keith could be replaced, and his old licks played by a young gunslinger, like Paul McCartney does, or would audiences demand the real Keith?

I think its more likely one of the other Stones gets replaced, Keith is the Stones.

In all seriousness, this late in the day, its ridiculous to talk of replacing anyone of the 4 main members.

Quote
24FPS
and his old licks played by a young gunslinger, like Paul McCartney does

Rusty Anderson is 58...but I guess that would be considered "young" compared to Keith or Paul.

Quote
stone4ever

Quote
24FPS
Now that the Stones are a Heritage Band, with people going just to hear the same hoary hits, do you think Keith could be replaced, and his old licks played by a young gunslinger, like Paul McCartney does, or would audiences demand the real Keith?

I think its more likely one of the other Stones gets replaced, Keith is the Stones.

In all seriousness, this late in the day, its ridiculous to talk of replacing anyone of the 4 main members.

But if the money was ridiculous.......?

Quote
24FPS

Quote
stone4ever

Quote
24FPS
Now that the Stones are a Heritage Band, with people going just to hear the same hoary hits, do you think Keith could be replaced, and his old licks played by a young gunslinger, like Paul McCartney does, or would audiences demand the real Keith?

I think its more likely one of the other Stones gets replaced, Keith is the Stones.

In all seriousness, this late in the day, its ridiculous to talk of replacing anyone of the 4 main members.

But if the money was ridiculous.......?

Its painfully obvious that the fans have only been interested in Mick with Keith.
So i believe audiences would demand the real Keith.

Do you think ridiculous money would be on the table without Keith ?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-10-14 09:48 by stone4ever.

No Keith no Stones.

Contemplating a band named the Rolling Stones WITHOUT Keith is absurd.

I think the majority of people who go to see the Stones go with the expectation of seeing Mick and Keith onstage. Charlie and Ronnie are secondary.

I'm talking CASUAL fans and people who go simply to see a big classic rock show, not us die-hards.

Quote
powerage78
No Keith no Stones.

Amen.

and no it's not over. They shouldnt quit. Of course not. I myself liked Dancing with Mr D and I agree with Expressen or was it Svd about how some of the numbers work well, others not at all. That said, Keith needs to focus and practice. and I would love to hear something different from them. Changed setlist (not possible if they tour like now, I get that) and new versions and please include old gems if you can play them.

I refuse to believe that Keith can't play the riffs and the rhythm. Old age, perhaps medical conditions and of course his fingers makes it impossible to play the solos and licks he used to. Fine.

But I heard him play the rhythm to Little Red rooster and I liked it. The Keith richards of 2017 isnt perhaps (always) suited for the big stage and the Rolling Stones neverending tour (although he can improve and still pull it off).

I would pay a months salary to see him and Mick, Charlie, Ronnie and please please please Bill and Taylor play some smaller venue gigs with totally new versions and setlists.

Open with dancing with mr D. Continue with Mercy Mercy. Then Sweet Virginia. Follow that with a new tighter shorter half acoustic version of Tumblin Dice (only this time bring in a similar back up choir like on the record and of course Taylor, let the song go from laid back acoustic to electric?). Dont run through it like some warhorse. create a new version or go back to the album version. Maybe 19th nervous breakdown. The She Smiled Sweetly. Throw in Hey Negrita.

Maybe bring in Wachtel on some numbers. Think rock opera without doin rock opera. Think outside the box. The ticket prices are already outside the box.

"I took Ry Cooder for everything I could get" - Keith Richards
"We took Keith Richards for everything we could get" - guitar players of IORR.

Quote
stone4ever

Quote
24FPS

Quote
stone4ever

Quote
24FPS
Now that the Stones are a Heritage Band, with people going just to hear the same hoary hits, do you think Keith could be replaced, and his old licks played by a young gunslinger, like Paul McCartney does, or would audiences demand the real Keith?

I think its more likely one of the other Stones gets replaced, Keith is the Stones.

In all seriousness, this late in the day, its ridiculous to talk of replacing anyone of the 4 main members.

But if the money was ridiculous.......?

Do you think ridiculous money would be on the table without Keith ?

Maybe. It's Mick the average fan recognizes. Hell, they survived half of the best rhythm section, ever, Wyman & Watts, breaking up. Do you think the average tourist paying those high prices these days even understands the inner workings and history of the band? Let's say Charlie retires, do you think Mick would really fold the Stones tent?

Quote
powerage78
No Keith no Stones.

Maybe they could get someone in a keith costume? Mask, clothes, poses and all (but no bum notes) ?
Be worth a shot...

Quote
24FPS

Quote
stone4ever

Quote
24FPS

Quote
stone4ever

Quote
24FPS
Now that the Stones are a Heritage Band, with people going just to hear the same hoary hits, do you think Keith could be replaced, and his old licks played by a young gunslinger, like Paul McCartney does, or would audiences demand the real Keith?

I think its more likely one of the other Stones gets replaced, Keith is the Stones.

In all seriousness, this late in the day, its ridiculous to talk of replacing anyone of the 4 main members.

But if the money was ridiculous.......?

Do you think ridiculous money would be on the table without Keith ?

Maybe. It's Mick the average fan recognizes. Hell, they survived half of the best rhythm section, ever, Wyman & Watts, breaking up. Do you think the average tourist paying those high prices these days even understands the inner workings and history of the band? Let's say Charlie retires, do you think Mick would really fold the Stones tent?

Yes, Mick Jagger is one of the most famous people on the planet. I daresay that even Keith's name recognition is FAR below Jagger's to the average person, but in terms of selling tickets, I don't think you get anywhere near the same interest without Mick and Keith both being onstage.

10-15 years ago, I do believe that Mick would have kept the Stones going without Charlie, and I bet he would have convinced Keith to go along with it no matter what he says about not playing with Charlie, but now? Not worth it at their ages.

They could never replace Keith Richards -- he is an original founding member, only one of two that remain.

They could, however, replace Charlie. He's been there almost since the beginning, but he wasn't an original founding member, just as Bill Wyman wasn't.

So long as Mick and Keith perform publicly together, it's still the Rolling Stones, and they could still call it that.

Saying Charlie isn't a founding member is a technicality. He's played on all the albums. He's an original member for all intents and purposes.

The reason they could continue without him because is because drummers aren't nearly as conspicuous to the general public as singers and guitarists, and because Charlie is such a retiring, shy person, it's even more true.

Hell, the Who managed to continue after losing perhaps THE most irreplaceable rhythm section in the history of rock'n'roll. I daresay that Neil Peart is the only drummer in any band where their fans wouldn't accept a replacement under any circumstances.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-10-15 05:29 by keefriff99.

Quote
keefriff99
I daresay that Neil Peart is the only drummer in any band where their fans wouldn't accept a replacement under any circumstances.

Phil Collins is the other.

Metallica too.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-10-15 13:08 by powerage78.

Quote
powerage78
No Keith no Stones.

No malcolm and phil and brian, no ACDC

Yes.
AS Cliff said "AC/DC is now another beast...".
But only Angus will choose...

[iorr.org]

Quote
deardoctor

Quote
powerage78
No Keith no Stones.

No malcolm and phil and brian, no ACDC

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-10-15 15:39 by powerage78.

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
keefriff99
I daresay that Neil Peart is the only drummer in any band where their fans wouldn't accept a replacement under any circumstances.

Phil Collins is the other.

That's exactly what i was thinking stonehearted.