For me a bit, not much.What is yours?

Definitely.

Have a look at his fingers and you'll know why. Also he is too concerned with other things (being a grandpa etc) nowadays.

Nowadays, his playing is just average. The magic is gone forever.
For me, his last magic moments were with the Winos in 92/93.
This deterioration began in 1994/95. And it is getting worse years after years.

Of course.

The man is getting older and he has trouble with his fingers so it's not strange. But i still love listening to him!!!!

Cheers,
Wuudy

But in dangerous beauty he played wonderful guitar.

Yes. 94 was his peak year. Been downhill ever since.

Sadly yes.

Of course, and it's to be expected, I think. None of them are getting any younger.

I just don't think that "deteriorated" is the word. he plays as a top guitarrist in his sixties will play.His playing follows his path of a human being. IMO he is as on top of his game now as 30 years ago. It would be ludicrous to expect Keith to go into a studio today and come up with the sound and parts of eg "Stray Cat Blues from BB. That was the result of a 25 year old, doing dope in London at the end of the 60's. Flower power and 8-tracks. Now he has matured as a musician and a man. Amps and guitars and stompboxes have come and gone.
His playing is as human and true to his being as ever.

Dudes (and dudettes), as I said in another post, Keith's fretwork was positively scorching at the Miami show (Oct. 16)! That was the best I've ever seen him. But yeah, technically he did screw up a few times. He's got soul though, so you let it slide

I hear what you're saying about the arthritis and wot. Apparently quite a few older guitar players have that prob.

no body is perfect....kieth is still kieth and doing great..........stop you wineing!!

Keith's solos at MCI Center in DC this month were MUCH better than I've seen him play (solo-wise) going back to '89. He looked and sounded very inspired.

Sometime in the 80s Keith became less of a "rock" guitarist and more of a "blues" guitarist. Of course, he's always had the blues underpinning his playing, but for whatever reason (age, arthritis, etc) his style transformed. I notice much more in his rhythm playing than anywhere else. Listen to his playing on the 73 tour versus anything he's done since Dirty Work. He seems to rely more today on licks and colorations rather than filling in the song's rhythms. That's how I hear it anyway. And, I would add that his licks/colorations are very tastefully applied and really define the mood for some of his songs.

There's always a lot of debate here about the live 69-73 Stones versus the 75-onward live Stones. Usually this consists of Taylor-Wood comparisons. I think that an equally significant difference is 69-73 Keith versus 75-onward Keith. When I first heard boots from Australia 73, a couple of years ago, I was totally amazed at the Richards' guitar. Loud and rocking and never missing-in-action, as he sometimes has subsequently been.

I still love his playing today, but I think up-beat rock songs are just not his best mileiu anymore. I'm waiting for the Keith Richars' "Cry In Your Beer" album!

Karl

I think Keith's playing on this tour is fine all in all. Truth is Keith is carrying the guitar sound in the band these days.

I think a more apropos question would be what has happenned to Ronnie's playing?

Do you think keith has detoriated as guitarist?

At first, I would say: A lot!.

But KSIE's post made me think that he's right, Keith has changed his style over the years, from a pure rock guitarist to a more licks-filler guitarist. Tasteful and all that, but licks after all. He was a pure rhythm guitarist when Taylor was on board. I might add he got into a transition timeframe from 75 to 81 (the weaving era and all that). After that, he became the blues-based-guitar-licks-filler of the latter era, and today he tends to play as many silences as chords.

But the great guitarist, the one which many players consider as an essencial influence in rock history, is not the latter Keith. Of course he's not thirty years old anymore, but if you play Brown Sugar from Rotterdam'73 and any version from nowadays, well, you can hardly tell it's the same guitarist. And you'll know which Keith is the one who influenced generations of guitar players.

[There'll be no wedding today...]

Keith isn't a young guitarist anymore, of course, but he is now a very wise guitarist.. So Keith has "his own way". I don't think that his playing is getting worse years after years, since 1993 or 1994. To be honest, i don't think that everything about him or about the band is a matter of age: Keith nowadays plays better than, for example, at Knewborth 1976, when he was 33. His "peak moments" now are lower, of course, in comparison with the 70s or the early 80s, but his "nadir moments" are higher nowadays.

He is still keith. A great guitasist.

PS (1) My little sister had seen the Stones, first time in her life, in 1998. She had been flabbergasted listening to Keith! She said: "Keith plays much better than he did it during arena show of LSTNT video (1981 tour)". Exaggerated or not, just my sister's opinion. In 1998, not in 1989...

PS (2) Having a look at Keith's fingers is a method. Listening to the boots is a better one! Keith is OK...

I think Keith has changed for a lot of reasons. On should be quite obvious: he's grown as a musician and developed his style. I'm very happy that he doesn't play the same way he did in the 60/70s. Let Status Quo boys do that.

Also the band has changed. Lisa, Bernard, Chuck, Bobby and the rest of the horn section have been with the longer than Jones and Taylor together, which means they are a well functioning band with a lot more possibilities than they had in the 60/beginning of the 70s.

And they also changes the arrangements on the songs over the years. Tempos, who play the solos/rhythm parts, even keys some times.

All this is part of what makes The Stones an interesting band to follow. I think keith with out a doubt could play anything he did in the 60/70s, if he wanted to.

This is just like the never ending discussions which took place in these pages regarding Stones ability to play without the "background" musicians. I think we all can agree to that tehy CAN after attending the shows this last weeks. The five of them, with the piano, can rock the place to pieces. They do it now, and they always have been able to.

I really hope will continue to grow and develope as a musician and as a guitarist. That way I will never ever stop going to the shows!


PS: It's amazing that people never stop wanting to be in another time. It's pathetic.

Niklas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think keith with out a doubt could play anything
> he did in the 60/70s, if he wanted to.

Thanks for making me laugh, what a good moment! :-)

It's like saying a 62 year old guy could have a stiff like a 20 year old guy - if he only wanted to. Laugh, I nearly died!

The main difference to me is that Keith stopped being a rythm guitarist with an occaisional solo, and changed to a soloing guitarist who only plays rythm when the track has a open G guitar. Nowadays, instead of carrying a song, he fills the song with riffs and lead phrases. The weaving is completely gone, as Wood doesn't respond anymore.

Mathijs

I also think that much of what we are saying here ion all the posts can be attributed to the fact of the horn section, extra guitar cushion (Blondie) and keyboards, BU Vox. Keith has the luxury now of being able to play how and when he wants to, without greatly affecting the course of the song. Very often he is the gravy, the spice on top of the essence. He used to BE the essence.
Now of course the big question is then: What came first? Are the horns etc a want or a need?

Mathijs, I completely agree with you.

One of the best example is Bitch on FF.
He just plays licks here and there but no strong rythm guitar.
The songs sounds like it misses something.

Even in open G he does not play all the chords anymore.
Compare the the intro of any version of Brwown Sugar during the B2B tour and during the 89/90 tour and you will understand.

Those who are saying that the steel wheels/urban jubgle tour was not good from the guitar playing point of view are deaf.

No

That is a good point about SW/UJ tours. I was one of the people who always slammed those guitars. I listened to a bunch of those shows lately and they were p[retty hot.

Deteriorated??? Have a listen...the guy has more groove than ANYONE out there. On some of the war horses, he is playing better than ever....take a listen to ANY of the Jumpin' Jack Flash versions he has played this tour...

KEITH ROCKS. And in my opinion is better than ever.

JR

The guy's a 62-year old heroine, cocaine, pod and whatever addict, a chainsmoker, and has arthritis. I can't blame him for not playing as good as he used to. But it's still great anyway.

Mathijs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The main difference to me is that Keith stopped
> being a rythm guitarist with an occaisional solo,
> and changed to a soloing guitarist who only plays
> rythm when the track has a open G guitar.
> Nowadays, instead of carrying a song, he fills the
> song with riffs and lead phrases. The weaving is
> completely gone, as Wood doesn't respond anymore.
>
> Mathijs


well put...i think you also can see that mick is really the show on this tour without question mick is carrying the load ......

"One of the best example is Bitch on FF.
He just plays licks here and there but no strong rythm guitar.
The songs sounds like it misses something."

Keith never played any rythm on Bitch, always played the lead part.

maybe his playing has changed a little with age,but imagine if keith was sitting right in front of you with an ecoustic gitar in a good mood, you would be surprised what he is able to play. I dont think he has lost his magic at all.Keith is magic, really from the heart with passion...just look at him from another angle, dont expect a 20 year old boy, but a man who has become a piece of art himself!!!

F.U.C. the Captain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Niklas Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I think keith with out a doubt could play
> anything
> > he did in the 60/70s, if he wanted to.
>
> Thanks for making me laugh, what a good moment!
> :-)
>
> It's like saying a 62 year old guy could have a
> stiff like a 20 year old guy - if he only wanted
> to. Laugh, I nearly died!
>

You're welcome. Sorry you are missing the point though. If you think Keith can't play rhythm guitar like he used to because of his fingers you are dead wrong. Just listen to when he plays Rocks off, Rip this joint, parts of It's only rock'n roll, Little Queenie and stuff like that. Nothing wrong with the rhythm part there. He choses to play the way he does. It has got notting to do with his ability.

Comparing it to sexual activities just shows how low the discussion can get.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-10-19 12:09 by Niklas.

Mathijs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The main difference to me is that Keith stopped
> being a rythm guitarist with an occaisional solo,
> and changed to a soloing guitarist who only plays
> rythm when the track has a open G guitar.
> Nowadays, instead of carrying a song, he fills the
> song with riffs and lead phrases. The weaving is
> completely gone, as Wood doesn't respond anymore.
>
> Mathijs


Listen to Live Licks Rock's off version and tell me if the weaving is gone! Listen to Respectable on No Security and tell me.... Listen to Beast of burden and so on..... There must be something wrong with your ears or something:-)