Quote
TheflyingDutchman
Just a different league of musicians. Very refreshing. And yes, Jagger was a bastard.

I'd go along with Joe Satriani being in a different league to Ronnie, but the only way Jimmy Ripp is in a different league to Keith is in a league below, Keith the following year with the Stones was incredible, no guitarist could have done a better job of Keith's parts.

Quote
keefriffhards

Quote
TheflyingDutchman
Just a different league of musicians. Very refreshing. And yes, Jagger was a bastard.

I'd go along with Joe Satriani being in a different league to Ronnie, but the only way Jimmy Ripp is in a different league to Keith is in a league below, Keith the following year with the Stones was incredible, no guitarist could have done a better job of Keith's parts.

Let's say a different generation of players then. I can imagine that Jimmy Ripp respects Keith a lot and just did it his way. Richards and Ripp are completely different players anyway, no need to copy Keith's parts. Keith = Keith, a genius unpredictable drunken sailor, impossible to copy exactly by any guitarist, good or bad. I really like this Monty Python interpretation of the "Holy Rolling Stones".



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-05-16 23:35 by TheflyingDutchman.

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
keefriffhards

Quote
TheflyingDutchman
Just a different league of musicians. Very refreshing. And yes, Jagger was a bastard.

I'd go along with Joe Satriani being in a different league to Ronnie, but the only way Jimmy Ripp is in a different league to Keith is in a league below, Keith the following year with the Stones was incredible, no guitarist could have done a better job of Keith's parts.

Let's say a different generation of players then. I can imagine that Jimmy Ripp respects Keith a lot and just did it his way. Richards and Ripp are completely different players anyway, no need to copy Keith's parts. Keith = Keith, a genius unpredictable drunken sailor, impossible to copy exactly by any guitarist, good or bad. I really like this Monty Python interpretation of the "Holy Rolling Stones".

I enjoyed Jimmy doing his very good Keith impression, whatever generation he came from or to what interpretation he offered to anything in the 80's where is he now.

I thought Mick made a great choice though, Joe Satriani, Jimmy Ripp, the whole band were on fire, wasn't Micks first choice Jeff Beck but they fell out over wages that would have been really interesting, whatever Beck wanted Mick should have paid him.

Mick doesn't look or sound right here, and what a crazy risk to take.

Gimme Shelter Tokyo Dome 88'
This also proves Lisa copied Carol
[www.youtube.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-05-17 00:50 by keefriffhards.

Quote
keefriffhards

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
keefriffhards

Quote
TheflyingDutchman
Just a different league of musicians. Very refreshing. And yes, Jagger was a bastard.

I'd go along with Joe Satriani being in a different league to Ronnie, but the only way Jimmy Ripp is in a different league to Keith is in a league below, Keith the following year with the Stones was incredible, no guitarist could have done a better job of Keith's parts.

Let's say a different generation of players then. I can imagine that Jimmy Ripp respects Keith a lot and just did it his way. Richards and Ripp are completely different players anyway, no need to copy Keith's parts. Keith = Keith, a genius unpredictable drunken sailor, impossible to copy exactly by any guitarist, good or bad. I really like this Monty Python interpretation of the "Holy Rolling Stones".

I enjoyed Jimmy doing his very good Keith impression, whatever generation he came from or to what interpretation he offered to anything in the 80's where is he now.

I thought Mick made a great choice though, Joe Satriani, Jimmy Ripp, the whole band were on fire, wasn't Micks first choice Jeff Beck but they fell out over wages that would have been really interesting, whatever Beck wanted Mick should have paid him.

"Going Down" in 2012 (?) was enough.

yeah i agree, that was more than enough, pleased Mick saved his money

A whole different argument, but for me what lacks is the absence of a band. Keith solo shows his limitations, but you can't deny he wants to lock in with the band whether the Winos or Bootsy, Bernie, Maceo or Spaminato, Taylor, Johnnie Johnson. It may sound like a bootleg of unfinished songs, but if you love the Stones, you probably love it for the same fire and passion.

Mick with a band, and Jimmy Rip can be great (WANDERING SPIRIT is as much his triumph as it is Mick's), is best seen as the "work for the money" ad-lib before Jeff Beck's guitar solo on "Throwaway." You don't get Jagger-Beck, you get Beck playing like Neil Schon. It's the same difference between The Jeff Beck Group with Rod and Ronnie and Beck with Rod in the 1980s or Beck with Tina in the 1980s. Polished and professional, but not going for broke and performing as if their very lives depended upon it. Mick has one excellent solo album, but it would be even better if it was a third Stones album of the 1990s. Mick has several excellent tracks scattered on his other efforts, but nothing that wouldn't have served the Stones as well or better. For me, the solo albums are a chance to have more, not better. They're really just an excuse for the Glimmers to not have to put up with one another.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
A whole different argument, but for me what lacks is the absence of a band. Keith solo shows his limitations, but you can't deny he wants to lock in with the band whether the Winos or Bootsy, Bernie, Maceo or Spaminato, Taylor, Johnnie Johnson. It may sound like a bootleg of unfinished songs, but if you love the Stones, you probably love it for the same fire and passion.

Mick with a band, and Jimmy Rip can be great (WANDERING SPIRIT is as much his triumph as it is Mick's), is best seen as the "work for the money" ad-lib before Jeff Beck's guitar solo on "Throwaway." You don't get Jagger-Beck, you get Beck playing like Neil Schon. It's the same difference between The Jeff Beck Group with Rod and Ronnie and Beck with Rod in the 1980s or Beck with Tina in the 1980s. Polished and professional, but not going for broke and performing as if their very lives depended upon it. Mick has one excellent solo album, but it would be even better if it was a third Stones album of the 1990s. Mick has several excellent tracks scattered on his other efforts, but nothing that wouldn't have served the Stones as well or better. For me, the solo albums are a chance to have more, not better. They're really just an excuse for the Glimmers to not have to put up with one another.

Jagger and Richards were doomed to gain full recognition only if they work together in a band called "the Rolling Stones" I don't know if it was a happy marriage. They produced a lot of children though, with a little help of their musical friends.

I'm watching it now. It's true, it is very much a template for the Steel Wheels tour. I don't necessarily think that's such a bad thing.

Quote
jahisnotdead
I'm watching it now. It's true, it is very much a template for the Steel Wheels tour. I don't necessarily think that's such a bad thing.

Jagger is the Boss. A pity he went for the money with the Stones again.

When I think of Rolling Stones songs, the last thing I want to think of is Joe Satriani playing them.
He's a virtuoso no doubt, but like Steve Vai and many other shredders, he doesn't really belong anywhere near Stones material imo.
Shredability does not always equate to quality, and those live Mick solo performances of Stones tunes are evidence of that.

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

The first thing I want to think about is Jagger singing them. The rest of them -to me- is exchangeable.

The first thing I want to think about is Mick singing them and the Rolling Stones performing them - not Mick and his solo band, or Keith and his solo band.
Maybe some would be happy if Mick called himself "The Rolling Stones" with a hired cast of highly skilled guest musicians to fill in for the real members.
Can't imagine that myself and hope it never comes to that, but if they can get away with replacing Charlie this late in their career, I guess anything's possible.
Imagine hearing this some day, "Ladies and Gentlemen...Mick Jagger and his Rolling Stones..."!!!...............zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...................

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

Quote
Hairball
The first thing I want to think about is Mick singing them and the Rolling Stones performing them - not Mick and his solo band, or Keith and his solo band.
Maybe some would be happy if Mick called himself "The Rolling Stones" with a hired cast of highly skilled guest musicians to fill in for the real members.
Can't imagine that myself and hope it never comes to that, but if they can get away with replacing Charlie this late in their career, I guess anything's possible.
Imagine hearing this some day, "Ladies and Gentlemen...Mick Jagger and his Rolling Stones..."!!!...............zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...................

Like “Ladies and Gentleman, Charlie Watts and The Rolling Stones”??

It’s The Rolling Stones, not someone AND The Rolling Stones

Rod

Quote
jahisnotdead
I'm watching it now. It's true, it is very much a template for the Steel Wheels tour. I don't necessarily think that's such a bad thing.

Yes its exciting, the show is fine, its not a bad thing, what is a bad thing is that it became the show that the Stones stuck to for the next three decades and are still trying to delver today.
It never changed, it didn't evolve into anything else, again it's not a bad thing, just a little sad though.
If you looked at the Stones through the 60's 70's early 80's their tours were always different throughout those years, not always better but as musicians they experimented, tried to create a different experience, since 89' its been a steady decline trying to deliver that show.

Its still exciting, i still love it, but i'm sad they haven't tried different ways to play the warhorses, sad they haven't found new warhorses along the way.

For instance when they played UMT and LSTNT in 81' it was so different and unique, almost like a new song, or the old song delivered differently, better.
In the following years they made no attempt to play those songs as well or better, they just delivered the songs offering nothing new or fresh and its like that with so many tracks, they just stopped trying to make songs evolve i guess..



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-05-17 10:51 by keefriffhards.

Quote
Hairball
The first thing I want to think about is Mick singing them and the Rolling Stones performing them - not Mick and his solo band, or Keith and his solo band.
Maybe some would be happy if Mick called himself "The Rolling Stones" with a hired cast of highly skilled guest musicians to fill in for the real members.
Can't imagine that myself and hope it never comes to that, but if they can get away with replacing Charlie this late in their career, I guess anything's possible.
Imagine hearing this some day, "Ladies and Gentlemen...Mick Jagger and his Rolling Stones..."!!!...............zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...................

I think it was quite a unique experience to see both Mick and Keith with their solo bands. It gave us a musical insight on their individual taste. Jagger going for perfection and getting along with his time, typically slick 8-tees, like it or not. And Keith with his raw Winos, smoking hot genuine almost anarchistic rock approach.. The Stones as individuals making their point.

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
Hairball
The first thing I want to think about is Mick singing them and the Rolling Stones performing them - not Mick and his solo band, or Keith and his solo band.
Maybe some would be happy if Mick called himself "The Rolling Stones" with a hired cast of highly skilled guest musicians to fill in for the real members.
Can't imagine that myself and hope it never comes to that, but if they can get away with replacing Charlie this late in their career, I guess anything's possible.
Imagine hearing this some day, "Ladies and Gentlemen...Mick Jagger and his Rolling Stones..."!!!...............zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...................

I think it was quite a unique experience to see both Mick and Keith with their solo bands. It gave us a musical insight on their individual taste. Jagger going for perfection and getting along with his time, typically slick 8-tees, like it or not. And Keith with his raw Winos, smoking hot genuine almost anarchistic rock approach.. The Stones as individuals making their point.

It's hype to describe Keith as this wild unreliable player before they went solo, okay he might have been a bit un-rehearsed prior to the start of the 81' tour but can anyone show me a single instance of Keith's so called unreliability and bum notes etc before they went solo. Same with Ronnie, they performed brilliantly throughout the 70's and the 81' 82' tour without the need for rigid tight uninspired playing to keep in line with the many musicians involved since 89'

I would say Keith and Ronnie had problems since the Stones become a more polished tight regimented regime, Ronnie probably got bored and found it stifling, leading to drinking more onstage and getting sloppy and Keith maybe made mistakes when he couldn't wing it and be creative in his playing.
I dunno just a theory



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-05-17 21:01 by keefriffhards.

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
Hairball
The first thing I want to think about is Mick singing them and the Rolling Stones performing them - not Mick and his solo band, or Keith and his solo band.
Maybe some would be happy if Mick called himself "The Rolling Stones" with a hired cast of highly skilled guest musicians to fill in for the real members.
Can't imagine that myself and hope it never comes to that, but if they can get away with replacing Charlie this late in their career, I guess anything's possible.
Imagine hearing this some day, "Ladies and Gentlemen...Mick Jagger and his Rolling Stones..."!!!...............zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...................

I think it was quite a unique experience to see both Mick and Keith with their solo bands. It gave us a musical insight on their individual taste. Jagger going for perfection and getting along with his time, typically slick 8-tees, like it or not. And Keith with his raw Winos, smoking hot genuine almost anarchistic rock approach.. The Stones as individuals making their point.

Yes it was a unique experience to see/hear them both with their solo bands. And the conclusion for me was that Keith and the Winos were the next best thing to the Rolling Stones themselves.
But with all the time and effort spent on solo projects, they might have been able to cook up a couple more solid Stones albums instead. In the end, Mick and Keith belong together, and ultimately one is less without the other.
That said, seeing as they haven't been able to finish and release an album of original new music in nearly 17 years, hoping for another Keith solo album some day, and maybe even some live appearances with the Winos.

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-05-17 21:15 by Hairball.

Quote
Hairball

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
Hairball
The first thing I want to think about is Mick singing them and the Rolling Stones performing them - not Mick and his solo band, or Keith and his solo band.
Maybe some would be happy if Mick called himself "The Rolling Stones" with a hired cast of highly skilled guest musicians to fill in for the real members.
Can't imagine that myself and hope it never comes to that, but if they can get away with replacing Charlie this late in their career, I guess anything's possible.
Imagine hearing this some day, "Ladies and Gentlemen...Mick Jagger and his Rolling Stones..."!!!...............zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...................

I think it was quite a unique experience to see both Mick and Keith with their solo bands. It gave us a musical insight on their individual taste. Jagger going for perfection and getting along with his time, typically slick 8-tees, like it or not. And Keith with his raw Winos, smoking hot genuine almost anarchistic rock approach.. The Stones as individuals making their point.

Yes it was a unique experience to see/hear them both with their solo bands. And the conclusion for me was that Keith and the Winos were the next best thing to the Rolling Stones themselves.
But with all the time and effort spent on solo projects, they might have been able to cook up a couple more solid Stones albums instead. In the end, Mick and Keith belong together, and ultimately one is less without the other.
That said, seeing as they haven't been able to finish and release an album of original new music in nearly 17 years, hoping for another Keith solo album some day, and maybe even some live appearances with the Winos.

I doubt very much that they will come up with brand-new ideas /new record at their age. Maybe something from the vault or unfinished tracks like Plundererd my Soul at the time. No more expectations from my side.

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
Hairball

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
Hairball
The first thing I want to think about is Mick singing them and the Rolling Stones performing them - not Mick and his solo band, or Keith and his solo band.
Maybe some would be happy if Mick called himself "The Rolling Stones" with a hired cast of highly skilled guest musicians to fill in for the real members.
Can't imagine that myself and hope it never comes to that, but if they can get away with replacing Charlie this late in their career, I guess anything's possible.
Imagine hearing this some day, "Ladies and Gentlemen...Mick Jagger and his Rolling Stones..."!!!...............zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...................

I think it was quite a unique experience to see both Mick and Keith with their solo bands. It gave us a musical insight on their individual taste. Jagger going for perfection and getting along with his time, typically slick 8-tees, like it or not. And Keith with his raw Winos, smoking hot genuine almost anarchistic rock approach.. The Stones as individuals making their point.

Yes it was a unique experience to see/hear them both with their solo bands. And the conclusion for me was that Keith and the Winos were the next best thing to the Rolling Stones themselves.
But with all the time and effort spent on solo projects, they might have been able to cook up a couple more solid Stones albums instead. In the end, Mick and Keith belong together, and ultimately one is less without the other.
That said, seeing as they haven't been able to finish and release an album of original new music in nearly 17 years, hoping for another Keith solo album some day, and maybe even some live appearances with the Winos.

I doubt very much that they will come up with brand-new ideas /new record at their age. Maybe something from the vault or unfinished tracks like Plundererd my Soul at the time. No more expectations from my side.

Well they've been talking about a new Rolling Stones album in practically every interview they've given in the last decade, but yeah...best to look beyond that fable.
Mick will probably continue to occasionally release a sporadic solo single while scraping the bottom of the Stones barrel ala Plundered, while Keith will hopefully release something on his own eventually.

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

I like the 'The Brothers Of Sodom' part from the 1988-10-19 Melbourne Richmond Corner Hotel gig.

Wish that the full concert will be published one day.

Quote
keefriffhards
Mick doesn't look or sound right here, and what a crazy risk to take.

Gimme Shelter Tokyo Dome 88'
This also proves Lisa copied Carol
[www.youtube.com]

You saw that flash of the look of his eyes at 5:43?

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
keefriffhards
Mick doesn't look or sound right here, and what a crazy risk to take.

Gimme Shelter Tokyo Dome 88'
This also proves Lisa copied Carol
[www.youtube.com]

You saw that flash of the look of his eyes at 5:43?

That look of phew i'm in one piece i cant believe it.

Gotta say that Australian rendition of GS put shivers down my spine, makes one realise Mick didn't actually need to go back to the Stones, like Keith he probably didn't enjoy going solo as much as being in the comfort blanket of the Stones organisation with all its obvious benefits, private jets, security etc.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2022-05-20 17:35 by keefriffhards.

Not sure what everyone is complaining about.
It is Mick Jagger performing...
Sure, there might be some Stones songs which sound like they are on steroids, but enjoyable enough.
That Aussie Tour...Mick is very open and refreshing..like he has a new lease of life and enjoying it

"...Stones songs which sound like they are on steroids..."


That's an accurate description.

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

Quote
keefriffhards
Mick doesn't look or sound right here, and what a crazy risk to take.

Gimme Shelter Tokyo Dome 88'
This also proves Lisa copied Carol
[www.youtube.com]

Exccuse me but this is LISA singing at the Tokyo Dome 88' gig, not Carol.

Quote
Hairball
"...Stones songs which sound like they are on steroids..."


That's an accurate description.

This is the reason why I like this solo tour.

Quote
ds1984

Quote
keefriffhards
Mick doesn't look or sound right here, and what a crazy risk to take.

Gimme Shelter Tokyo Dome 88'
This also proves Lisa copied Carol
[www.youtube.com]

Exccuse me but this is LISA singing at the Tokyo Dome 88' gig, not Carol.

I think you caught the tail end of a discussion i had with Rocky.

Lisa copied Carols performance in 89 with the Stones, the show that proves Lisa was inspired by Carols performance is in the Australian gig in 88'

When you see Lisa in Tokyo she's not putting in the duet performance that mirrors Carol in the Aussie gig later in the year. So what i'm saying is in 89' with the Stones she pulls out Carols moves. Its a compliment to Carol as far as i'm concerned, not a criticism of Lisa. Copying is flattery, Mick copied Tina, Keith copied Chuck and so on, (Copy is the wrong word, i should say influenced. )

Carol on GS [www.youtube.com]

Honestly,I had never seen a lot of this live solo stuff, is this the jerk-off band with the dancing girls “ as someone once described them?
Because It looks a lot like a sold out stadium show anywhere on the globe to me.

These gigs were supposed to be The Stones by the way,but somebody was busy with their solo career.ironic given the narrative at the time.

Mick said he’d like to take them to places they hadn’t been in awhile instead of “starting in off the deep end in Philadelphia”.
If memory serves that’s exactly where Steel Wheels began.these shows are not only the template for Steel Wheels they would’ve actually BEEN Steel Wheels.

Quote
winos
Silverton near Broken Hill NSW

winos The start of "Party Doll" was that filmed in Silverton as well?