Niklas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Comparing it to sexual activities just shows how
> low the discussion can get.

What a sorry ass you must be calling sexual activities "low". Maybe you never knew it but rock'n'roll is all about sexual activities. Rock'n'roll meant the very act of @#$%&. Every music that won't recognize the fact doesn't deserve the title. Now tell me what to expect of the Rolling Stones who are a great @#$%& group and the greatest rock'n'roll band in the world too.

Besides your tagline stinks. Better ask Cousin Minnie how low she can REALLY get.

The biggest shame is that the Berry influence is gone.
Maybe he got it out of his system when he did the Hail Hail film,
as it's pretty much vanished since then and only pops up on occasions
when it's needed. His playing nowadays seem to sound like a T-Bone Walker outtake.
Mind you, there's not much Berry influence in Begger's Banquet, so I'm not expecting him to play like that all the time. His guitar tone hasn't changed much since
Talk Is Cheap which leads me to think he's been bereft of any new ideas
for quite some time, which is sad 'cause I was listening to Handsome Girls
earlier today and the guitar work between he and Ron Wood is extraordinary.

F.U.C. the Captain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Niklas Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Comparing it to sexual activities just shows
> how
> > low the discussion can get.
>
> What a sorry ass you must be calling sexual
> activities "low". Maybe you never knew it but
> rock'n'roll is all about sexual activities.
> Rock'n'roll meant the very act of @#$%&. Every
> music that won't recognize the fact doesn't
> deserve the title. Now tell me what to expect of
> the Rolling Stones who are a great @#$%& group and
> the greatest rock'n'roll band in the world too.
>
> Besides your tagline stinks. Better ask Cousin
> Minnie how low she can REALLY get.

Thank you for informing me of the meaning of Rock'n Roll...
And thank you for informing me of the qualities of my tagline... (Do you know where it comes from?)

It's sad to see that some people don't stick to the music in a discussion like this. In my original post on this thread I was writing my opinion about Keith's playing, with some examples to back it up. I don't how it's interesting to compare that with the ability of a 20 year old to get a stiff one... Maybe some people, like yourself, thinks of sex everytime they hear a rock song. I sure don't.

Regarding being a sorry ass - I'd rather be a sorry ass than a stupid one...




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-10-19 12:37 by Niklas.

Niklas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thank you for informing me of the meaning of
> Rock'n Roll...

You're welcome

> And thank you for informing me of the qualities of
> my tagline... (Do you know where it comes from?)

You better stay away from lyrics you don't understand

> It's sad to see that some people don't stick to
> the music in a discussion like this. In my
> original post on this thread I was writing my
> opinion about Keith's playing, with some examples
> to back it up. I don't how it's interesting to
> compare that with the ability of a 20 year old to
> get a stiff one...

Age means detoriation if you missed the punchline in this thread. Impotence isn't a sign of youth. Keith was hot as shit in his 20s and 30s.

> Maybe some people, like
> yourself, thinks of sex everytime they hear a rock
> song. I sure don't.

I knew that. I told you already you're a sorry ass.
There wouldn't be no rock'n'roll if not for the sake of sex.

There wouldn't be no minuet either...
It's ALL sex ("down there") and it's all "un-sex" ("up there") too...

deteriorated?....its amazing by itself that he's still alive & on stage

I read in a magazine that there was a time when everybody thought he won't cross 40 but noew Sir Keith is 62.Is it true?

sunnybandyo99 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I read in a magazine that there was a time when
> everybody thought he won't cross 40 but noew Sir
> Keith is 62.Is it true?


yes...he was #1 on the "next to die" list for a long time...but outlasted everybody...he's one tough mofo

> The weaving is completely gone, as Wood doesn't respond anymore

I love you, Mathijs ;-)

Leonard Keringer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> deteriorated?....its amazing by itself that he's
> still alive & on stage

Yes I thought about that too... maybe he quit to put so much energy into music to save his life which would be a good choice for him as I prefer to see him alive. But for whatever reasons, his music has still deteriorated. Or at least its his collaboration with Mick respectively his engagement in the Rolling Stones that has deteriorated. I don't even think he is playing the guitar too often anymore.

In fact Keith hasn't done anything reasonable (in the studio) for the Stones since 1997, except of "Rough justice". At least he did "Little girl" with the great Hubert Sumlin in 2000. And I also love the track with Toots and the Maytals. But three songs aren't too many in eight years... if you think back to the eight years between 1964 and 1972.

I thought keith was peaking as a guitarist in the 90's. It's 2005 and its been a strange tour-so who knows if, in fact he's "deteriorating" and im not saying he is, it could be due to the weird vibes around this tour, arthritis, or the feeling that "hey, ive already done it".

After his junky decline in the mid 70s, i thought he REALLY deteriorated. But then around B2B, something happened, and I have pointed this out to other stones fans. keith's playing, to me, was more brilliant than ever. He still had his chuck berry riffs, but the way he would play off ronnie-playing only the brilliant licks and leaving spaces for them to disseminate, i thought "wow, keith's playing like thelonious monk". plus he was on a VH1 commercial where he picked up an acoustic guitar and played some licks that sounded like segovia or something. so-is he deteriorating? I dont think so, but im not the most objective stones fan either. all i know is that he's got it in him when he wants to get it out. He did let it bleed, sticky fingers, exile on main street, and he's got an audience. deterioration is ultimately irrelevant.

No, he just plays different as Mathijs said.
Still no-one plays the electric like Keith

Also somewhere in there he has worked with Sly & Robbie....Babi Floyd...Scottie Moore...Timeless Hank Williams tribute...Willie Nelson...Jimmy Rogers...B.B King..Peter Wolf...Gram Sin City...Buddy Guy...Les Paul...Tim Ries and dealt with the passing of his father and arthritis.



ROCKMAN

and the George Jones duet on the "bradley barns sessions" thrown in the mix

no.

john scialfa

F.U.C. the Captain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Niklas Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Thank you for informing me of the meaning of
> > Rock'n Roll...
>
> You're welcome
>
> > And thank you for informing me of the
> qualities of
> > my tagline... (Do you know where it comes
> from?)
>
> You better stay away from lyrics you don't
> understand

I knew you didn't know! Ha ha ha....

>
> > It's sad to see that some people don't stick
> to
> > the music in a discussion like this. In my
> > original post on this thread I was writing
> my
> > opinion about Keith's playing, with some
> examples
> > to back it up. I don't how it's interesting
> to
> > compare that with the ability of a 20 year
> old to
> > get a stiff one...
>
> Age means detoriation if you missed the punchline
> in this thread. Impotence isn't a sign of youth.
> Keith was hot as shit in his 20s and 30s.
>
> > Maybe some people, like
> > yourself, thinks of sex everytime they hear a
> rock
> > song. I sure don't.
>
> I knew that. I told you already you're a sorry
> ass.
> There wouldn't be no rock'n'roll if not for the
> sake of sex.
>


As I said, better a sorry ass than a stupid one! You're just in for the quarrel, and I don't want to be a part of it. Write something useful instead of harassing people.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-10-20 10:22 by Niklas.

F.U.C. the Captain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Leonard Keringer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > deteriorated?....its amazing by itself that
> he's
> > still alive & on stage
>
> Yes I thought about that too... maybe he quit to
> put so much energy into music to save his life
> which would be a good choice for him as I prefer
> to see him alive. But for whatever reasons, his
> music has still deteriorated. Or at least its his
> collaboration with Mick respectively his
> engagement in the Rolling Stones that has
> deteriorated. I don't even think he is playing the
> guitar too often anymore.
>
> In fact Keith hasn't done anything reasonable (in
> the studio) for the Stones since 1997, except of
> "Rough justice". At least he did "Little girl"
> with the great Hubert Sumlin in 2000. And I also
> love the track with Toots and the Maytals. But
> three songs aren't too many in eight years... if
> you think back to the eight years between 1964 and
> 1972.
>

I don't see why you buy the records at all. Why don't you just stick to the 70s and be happy....



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2005-10-20 10:23 by Niklas.

Keith plays differently now. Not worse or better. The Arthritis might have slowed his solo's but not rythm. He is a much better soloist now than in the 60's and 70's. If he had his knowlege and taste now when he was younger he would be on another planet guitar wise. A lot of his stlye is limited by the open tunings. It is hard to play solos in open tuning. little fills here and there, but not easy.

uz2bstoned Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He is a much better soloist now than in
> the 60's and 70's.

Couldn't disagree more, my stonedfriend. IMO Keith reached his peak as soloist in 81-82 up to 89-90. The Licks Tour showed already he had lost much of his soloing abilities. And all this having in mind he never was a proper solo-guitarist.

About his rhythm work, I must admit I prefer when he filled and carried the whole song with his chops, rather than playing a chord here and there.




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

IMO Keith reached his peak as soloist in 81-82 up to 89-90.
--------------------------

Yeah you are right there, but he still was not as good soloist in the 60's and 70's as now. his hands must be sore but he always hits the right note. I too prefer the hard out rythm style compared to just the odd chord here and there. It is up to him. He can still play chords that way but chooses not too. He riffs hard on JJF for example, but just sits in the background on others.