For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
His MajestyQuote
TheflyingDutchman
Two guitars only I hear. Keiths intro guitar and onwards, the reverb or whatever effect is bouncing to the other channel. And the lead guitar. Don't get misled by the piano.
Yes and both quite scrappy when heard in isolation.
But do you really want to reduce music and musicians to a ranking? Indecent!Quote
keithsmanQuote
His MajestyQuote
TheflyingDutchman
Two guitars only I hear. Keiths intro guitar and onwards, the reverb or whatever effect is bouncing to the other channel. And the lead guitar. Don't get misled by the piano.
Yes and both quite scrappy when heard in isolation.
Hey it wouldn't be Keith if it wasn't scrappy
But that's just it, this music isn't about precision or anoraks or Keith wouldn't fall into the top 2 to 4 guitarists in the world year after year in RollingStone top 100 greatest guitarists.
We got Mick Taylor at number 37
Ronnie Wood doesn't even enter the top 100 as a little reality check.
Another reality check is Mick comes in at number 16 best singers.
Keith is the man when it gets away from train spotters on iorr.
[www.rollingstone.com]
Quote
keithsman
Hey it wouldn't be Keith if it wasn't scrappy
Quote
Kurt
The list posted above is from 2015...
and most of those 100 guitarists are dead.
Long Live Ronnie Wood!
Matt Pike is the man. Though I love Wood as well.Quote
Kurt
The list posted above is from 2015...
and most of those 100 guitarists are dead.
Long Live Ronnie Wood!
Quote
TestifyBut do you really want to reduce music and musicians to a ranking? Indecent!Quote
keithsmanQuote
His MajestyQuote
TheflyingDutchman
Two guitars only I hear. Keiths intro guitar and onwards, the reverb or whatever effect is bouncing to the other channel. And the lead guitar. Don't get misled by the piano.
Yes and both quite scrappy when heard in isolation.
Hey it wouldn't be Keith if it wasn't scrappy
But that's just it, this music isn't about precision or anoraks or Keith wouldn't fall into the top 2 to 4 guitarists in the world year after year in RollingStone top 100 greatest guitarists.
We got Mick Taylor at number 37
Ronnie Wood doesn't even enter the top 100 as a little reality check.
Another reality check is Mick comes in at number 16 best singers.
Keith is the man when it gets away from train spotters on iorr.
[www.rollingstone.com]
I can only tell you what I think, it is always stupid the comparison between guitarists, whether Wood, Clapton, Keith, Taylor and others ... each of them have arrived where they are because they are great guitarists. Then I can have a preference and you have another, but this does not change anything. The most stupid thing for me is the race to who is the best, music is art is not a sport, there is no winner in music.Quote
keithsmanQuote
TestifyBut do you really want to reduce music and musicians to a ranking? Indecent!Quote
keithsmanQuote
His MajestyQuote
TheflyingDutchman
Two guitars only I hear. Keiths intro guitar and onwards, the reverb or whatever effect is bouncing to the other channel. And the lead guitar. Don't get misled by the piano.
Yes and both quite scrappy when heard in isolation.
Hey it wouldn't be Keith if it wasn't scrappy
But that's just it, this music isn't about precision or anoraks or Keith wouldn't fall into the top 2 to 4 guitarists in the world year after year in RollingStone top 100 greatest guitarists.
We got Mick Taylor at number 37
Ronnie Wood doesn't even enter the top 100 as a little reality check.
Another reality check is Mick comes in at number 16 best singers.
Keith is the man when it gets away from train spotters on iorr.
[www.rollingstone.com]
Well i know that, it's all a bit immature of me, if you Love Ronnie good for you, personally i love him playing with Keith, weaving as they do, especially last year.
Ronnie has really improved recently, and that's an amazing accomplishment for a 70 year old man, but when people start saying that he is a better player than Taylor and is the savior of the band,i mean come on, that's immature too, the guy barely saved himself.
Quote
MonkeyMan2000
Even as a massive Keith fan, I must say that a list in which a guy like Paco de Lucia isn't higher ranked than Keith hasn't got any credibility, when you look at it with a bit of distance. (Such lists don't make sense in art, in my opinion)
Ronnie is a special player. Like many other famous guitarists he is recognizable from the first few notes. He's got a very eclectic style, changing rhythm patterns all the time and many times he seems to be a 16th note behind or ahead. This can be best heard in his Reggae and Funk playing. He sort of reminds me of the guitar work on Funkadelic/Parliament records: Sloppy but with a ton of groove. Like in his paintings (like them or not) his unbelievable energy comes though in his guitar playing, so it never gets boring listening to him even when or maybe most of all when he's just playing rhythm guitar.
Of course Ronnie might never touch me emotionally in a solo like Taylor: He is a completely different kind of player. I'd probably wouldn't love Time Waits For No One that much if Ronnie played on it. But I wouldn't love the whole of Some Girls as much if Taylor was the guitarist. This debate over who is better just doesn't make any sense. Taylor was great as an antipope when he played with Keith but I find it just as interesting when Ronnie and Keith play together; two players in love with the groove ;-)
Quote
windmelodyQuote
MonkeyMan2000
Even as a massive Keith fan, I must say that a list in which a guy like Paco de Lucia isn't higher ranked than Keith hasn't got any credibility, when you look at it with a bit of distance. (Such lists don't make sense in art, in my opinion)
Ronnie is a special player. Like many other famous guitarists he is recognizable from the first few notes. He's got a very eclectic style, changing rhythm patterns all the time and many times he seems to be a 16th note behind or ahead. This can be best heard in his Reggae and Funk playing. He sort of reminds me of the guitar work on Funkadelic/Parliament records: Sloppy but with a ton of groove. Like in his paintings (like them or not) his unbelievable energy comes though in his guitar playing, so it never gets boring listening to him even when or maybe most of all when he's just playing rhythm guitar.
Of course Ronnie might never touch me emotionally in a solo like Taylor: He is a completely different kind of player. I'd probably wouldn't love Time Waits For No One that much if Ronnie played on it. But I wouldn't love the whole of Some Girls as much if Taylor was the guitarist. This debate over who is better just doesn't make any sense. Taylor was great as an antipope when he played with Keith but I find it just as interesting when Ronnie and Keith play together; two players in love with the groove ;-)
A great post.
Quote
keithsman
Definitely the worst album imho, the Stones are better than the blues with it's limitations and it shows. They sang blues covers in the beginning because they couldn't write their own, and then they did it again all those years later with BAL for the same reason.
I literately played the single a dozen times and played the album through a few times, found it too one dimensional, Keith didn't even get to sing a track on it, boring and lonesome indeed.
Quote
Doxa
Yeah, horrible to think that Mick and Keith already in 1962 had a terrible writer's block (probably Mick just trying to follow the trends, digging the latest hit single by Cliff Richard or somebody, while ignoring Keith's great ideas). Hitting the wall already then. It must have been the founder of the band, Ian Stewart, suggesting them to play some blues covers instead.
This is what the post-factual world looks like. Everything is based on subjective opinion, and we all have one of those, like arseholes.
- Doxa
In my opinion you misunderstood that way of speaking, Ronnie entered the Stones at a time when the Stones seemed finished. Mick Jagger said "when Wood came we began to see in color". This was possible thanks to Wood's hilarious character, he became a friend of both Jagger and Richards and it was the one who tempered them when there was tension. In this Wood has played a role! I am convinced that other guitarists would have lasted only a few years with the Stones, Brian had his problems, Taylor left the Stones for drug problems too. As you can see it's not easy to be a Stones, I'm not surprised that even Ronnie has had his hard times, the difference is that Wood has remained and others have remained close to him in those moments, this also means being in a band!Quote
keithsman
I look at it this way in regard towards people saying Ronnie saved the Stones, or is the reason they stayed together. It's come to light that the reason Mick didn't tour after 82' until 89' and also a possible reason he went solo was because Charlie and Ronnie were in no fit state to tour, Mick is down as saying the Stones would have trouble crossing the road let alone tour.
Well Charlie and Keith got their act together for the 89' tour and throughout the 90's but Ronnie as we know. got worse and worse with his drinking, letting the band down especially with live performances.
As i say , the Stones stayed together in spite of him not because of him, although in recent years he is doing his best to pay them back with great performances i'm pleased to say.
Quote
MonkeyMan2000
Of course Ronnie might never touch me emotionally in a solo like Taylor: He is a completely different kind of player. I probably wouldn't love Time Waits For No One that much if Ronnie played on it. But I wouldn't love the whole of Some Girls as much if Taylor was the guitarist. This debate over who is better just doesn't make any sense. Taylor was great as an antipope when he played with Keith but I find it just as interesting when Ronnie and Keith play together; two players in love with the groove ;-)
Quote
DoxaQuote
keithsman
Definitely the worst album imho, the Stones are better than the blues with it's limitations and it shows. They sang blues covers in the beginning because they couldn't write their own, and then they did it again all those years later with BAL for the same reason.
I literately played the single a dozen times and played the album through a few times, found it too one dimensional, Keith didn't even get to sing a track on it, boring and lonesome indeed.
Yeah, horrible to think that Mick and Keith already in 1962 had a terrible writer's block (probably Mick just trying to follow the trends, digging the latest hit single by Cliff Richard or somebody, while ignoring Keith's great ideas). Hitting the wall already then. It must have been the founder of the band, Ian Stewart, suggesting them to play some blues covers instead.
This is what the post-factual world looks like. Everything is based on subjective opinion, and we all have one of those, like arseholes.
- Doxa
Quote
OpenG
[www.kshe95.com]
Keith as you know thought about the idea of bringing back MT - not sure if he was serious or trying to dodge the whole weaving thing again in the interview.
Quote
HairballQuote
OpenG
[www.kshe95.com]
Keith as you know thought about the idea of bringing back MT - not sure if he was serious or trying to dodge the whole weaving thing again in the interview.
Gotta give credit to Keith for at least hoping and trying!
"I wanted to see if it would blossom into something else, like a three-guitar band. I realized that was just a hope, an idea.
The Stones are a two-guitar band, and I know that, really. But ‘Midnight Rambler’ over the last year or so (with Taylor guesting) has been amazing.
He’s a lot looser than he was the first time around. He’s got a lot more mileage under the belt and a better sense of humor about it all.”
It would have been INCREDIBLE to see and hear how the band might have blossomed...imagine Taylor on Blue and Lonesome...it would have definitely taken it to a superior level IMO.
And there's the possibility the new album of originals would have been finished a long time ago. Mick and Charlie both have claimed the MT years as a peak and something special - a shame they decided not to revisit that.
Quote
keithsmanQuote
HairballQuote
OpenG
[www.kshe95.com]
Keith as you know thought about the idea of bringing back MT - not sure if he was serious or trying to dodge the whole weaving thing again in the interview.
Gotta give credit to Keith for at least hoping and trying!
"I wanted to see if it would blossom into something else, like a three-guitar band. I realized that was just a hope, an idea.
The Stones are a two-guitar band, and I know that, really. But ‘Midnight Rambler’ over the last year or so (with Taylor guesting) has been amazing.
He’s a lot looser than he was the first time around. He’s got a lot more mileage under the belt and a better sense of humor about it all.”
It would have been INCREDIBLE to see and hear how the band might have blossomed...imagine Taylor on Blue and Lonesome...it would have definitely taken it to a superior level IMO.
And there's the possibility the new album of originals would have been finished a long time ago. Mick and Charlie both have claimed the MT years as a peak and something special - a shame they decided not to revisit that.
The upsetting thing is it's not too late, Taylor is at home waiting for the call, just imagine the inspiration it would have given Jagger if Taylor was in the studio with the boys, and if they included him on this tour but on much more of the show it would be fantastic, it would have inspired all concerned.