For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
RocktiludropQuote
DoxaQuote
RocktiludropQuote
DoxaQuote
dennycranium
No more painfully slow versions of songs.
It's not a criticism of Charlie's playing,
Well, that's exactly what it is.
By the way, it is always Keith who wants the tempo to be slower, Mick the faster.
- Doxa
Just unbelievable, you are loosing the plot, so because Charlie was fantastic and unique we can't give credit to Steve and Keith for the incredible job they are doing to hold this thing together without you coming out with silly comments like Keith wants tempos slower, Mick is faster.
Well the reason the tempos are faster is down to Keith and Steve not Mick.
I don't know if you have noticed but Mick sings and Keith and the band takes care of the music, Mick moves and dances to Keith's guitar for best part of the show, and Micks looking great because Keith, Ronnie, Steve and the rest of the band are providing a solid up tempo musical backdrop.
Haha. That's funny. You don't know a shit about the Stones dynamics. For a a self-decralw Stones fan and expert, that kind of ignorance is, well, something..
- Doxa
You don't know the first thing about what this music means or represents to the listener, you dissect it then analyse the individual pieces and try to intellectualise about it in essay after essay, you really don't get it do you, you can't open them up to see what makes them tick. It's just about the feel of it in the moment, and no two songs or shows are ever the same, go watch The Eagles in your natural habitat.
Quote
Nikkei
I know the "Mick's Rock, I'm Roll" quote but I ask again when did Keith ever voice an intention to slow the songs down?
Quote
DoxaQuote
Nikkei
I know the "Mick's Rock, I'm Roll" quote but I ask again when did Keith ever voice an intention to slow the songs down?
Not many years ago he explicitly mentioned that his business is to slow things down, since Mick has the tendency to play songs too fast. I also recall Mick saying something similar (that there is always that little tension between him and Keith in regard the tempo). Sorry, too difficult to locate the exact sources at the moment.
- Doxa
Quote
DoxaQuote
Nikkei
I know the "Mick's Rock, I'm Roll" quote but I ask again when did Keith ever voice an intention to slow the songs down?
Not many years ago he explicitly mentioned that his business is to slow things down, since Mick has the tendency to play songs too fast. I also recall Mick saying something similar (that there is always that little tension between him and Keith in regard the tempo). Sorry, too difficult to locate the exact sources at the moment.
- Doxa
Quote
RocktiludropQuote
DoxaQuote
Nikkei
I know the "Mick's Rock, I'm Roll" quote but I ask again when did Keith ever voice an intention to slow the songs down?
Not many years ago he explicitly mentioned that his business is to slow things down, since Mick has the tendency to play songs too fast. I also recall Mick saying something similar (that there is always that little tension between him and Keith in regard the tempo). Sorry, too difficult to locate the exact sources at the moment.
- Doxa
Yes but i don't think Keith is referring to playing live songs like JFK slower, i think Keith means that the Stones are a Rock and Roll band as opposed to a Rock band, in more recent decades it would be fair to say Keith is responsible for perhaps writing the slower tunes over the years, that is evident, but does Keith want to play Stones songs at a slower pace live, no i see no evidence of that.
Did the Stones play live tracks a little slower in recent years to help Charlie ?? Yes it would appear that way given that the tempos are faster in 2021.
Quote
retired_dogQuote
RocktiludropQuote
DoxaQuote
Nikkei
I know the "Mick's Rock, I'm Roll" quote but I ask again when did Keith ever voice an intention to slow the songs down?
Not many years ago he explicitly mentioned that his business is to slow things down, since Mick has the tendency to play songs too fast. I also recall Mick saying something similar (that there is always that little tension between him and Keith in regard the tempo). Sorry, too difficult to locate the exact sources at the moment.
- Doxa
Yes but i don't think Keith is referring to playing live songs like JFK slower, i think Keith means that the Stones are a Rock and Roll band as opposed to a Rock band, in more recent decades it would be fair to say Keith is responsible for perhaps writing the slower tunes over the years, that is evident, but does Keith want to play Stones songs at a slower pace live, no i see no evidence of that.
Did the Stones play live tracks a little slower in recent years to help Charlie ?? Yes it would appear that way given that the tempos are faster in 2021.
Blasphemous rumours...
Quote
Stoneage
Perhaps, Björn. The real downhill started in 2006 I guess. Up until that he still kept it up pretty good. I still think the 1968 to 1972 era was his best though. As it was for the band itself.
Quote
RocktiludropQuote
Stoneage
Perhaps, Björn. The real downhill started in 2006 I guess. Up until that he still kept it up pretty good. I still think the 1968 to 1972 era was his best though. As it was for the band itself.
Totally agree, in 2003 he was still a force of nature, what happened between 2003 to 2005 is anyone's guess, we know the head injury was a major blow in 06' although there were nights like the Beacon Theatre and Austin Texas where he was pretty good.
Up to a few shows ago i actually thought Keith was back to 2003 form.
Quote
retired_dogQuote
RocktiludropQuote
Stoneage
Perhaps, Björn. The real downhill started in 2006 I guess. Up until that he still kept it up pretty good. I still think the 1968 to 1972 era was his best though. As it was for the band itself.
Totally agree, in 2003 he was still a force of nature, what happened between 2003 to 2005 is anyone's guess, we know the head injury was a major blow in 06' although there were nights like the Beacon Theatre and Austin Texas where he was pretty good.
Up to a few shows ago i actually thought Keith was back to 2003 form.
Wait a minute... wasn't that the very show that needed guitar overdubs by Pierre de Beauport to turn it into releasable quality?
Quote
RocktiludropQuote
retired_dogQuote
RocktiludropQuote
Stoneage
Perhaps, Björn. The real downhill started in 2006 I guess. Up until that he still kept it up pretty good. I still think the 1968 to 1972 era was his best though. As it was for the band itself.
Totally agree, in 2003 he was still a force of nature, what happened between 2003 to 2005 is anyone's guess, we know the head injury was a major blow in 06' although there were nights like the Beacon Theatre and Austin Texas where he was pretty good.
Up to a few shows ago i actually thought Keith was back to 2003 form.
Wait a minute... wasn't that the very show that needed guitar overdubs by Pierre de Beauport to turn it into releasable quality?
Don't know about that but Micks vocals definitely sound like overdubed.
Quote
RocktiludropQuote
retired_dogQuote
RocktiludropQuote
Stoneage
Perhaps, Björn. The real downhill started in 2006 I guess. Up until that he still kept it up pretty good. I still think the 1968 to 1972 era was his best though. As it was for the band itself.
Totally agree, in 2003 he was still a force of nature, what happened between 2003 to 2005 is anyone's guess, we know the head injury was a major blow in 06' although there were nights like the Beacon Theatre and Austin Texas where he was pretty good.
Up to a few shows ago i actually thought Keith was back to 2003 form.
Wait a minute... wasn't that the very show that needed guitar overdubs by Pierre de Beauport to turn it into releasable quality?
Don't know about that but Micks vocals definitely sound overdubbed.
Quote
Stoneage
Please stop the nagging. It's a bad thing.
Quote
Rockman
Speaking of Additional Recordings
what ever happened to – Dave Rouze .... where did he go to ???
Quote
Rocktiludrop
Don't know about that but Micks vocals definitely sound overdubbed.
Quote
TheBlockbusterQuote
Rocktiludrop
Don't know about that but Micks vocals definitely sound overdubbed.
Yes, Mick's vocals was definitely overdubbed for some songs on the Austin 2006 concert. Just listen to Satisfaction: [youtu.be]
Quote
retired_dogQuote
RocktiludropQuote
retired_dogQuote
RocktiludropQuote
Stoneage
Perhaps, Björn. The real downhill started in 2006 I guess. Up until that he still kept it up pretty good. I still think the 1968 to 1972 era was his best though. As it was for the band itself.
Totally agree, in 2003 he was still a force of nature, what happened between 2003 to 2005 is anyone's guess, we know the head injury was a major blow in 06' although there were nights like the Beacon Theatre and Austin Texas where he was pretty good.
Up to a few shows ago i actually thought Keith was back to 2003 form.
Wait a minute... wasn't that the very show that needed guitar overdubs by Pierre de Beauport to turn it into releasable quality?
Don't know about that but Micks vocals definitely sound overdubbed.
But as a "Stones expert" you should know your stuff; in this case, just look at the liner notes of the Biggest Bang DVD release, which, by the way, mention no overdubs by Mick, just:
"Additional Recordings – Dave Rouze, Pierre De Beauport"
Quote
RisingStone
On Keith.
Another factor I consider plays some role in this debate along with the ‘vividness effect’ I mentioned upthread (on p. 5) — ‘wishful thinking’. People don’t wanna see their hero decline. He does. Slowly or not, but surely. He is human. Like us. Like everybody else. Time waits for no one.
Quote
RocktiludropQuote
RisingStone
On Keith.
Another factor I consider plays some role in this debate along with the ‘vividness effect’ I mentioned upthread (on p. 5) — ‘wishful thinking’. People don’t wanna see their hero decline. He does. Slowly or not, but surely. He is human. Like us. Like everybody else. Time waits for no one.
Yes true but what was revealing this tour was that it wasn't Keith's age responsible for his decline, it must have been something else because up until a few shows ago he played better and with more energy and focus than he had since 2006.
Quote
bamQuote
RocktiludropQuote
RisingStone
On Keith.
Another factor I consider plays some role in this debate along with the ‘vividness effect’ I mentioned upthread (on p. 5) — ‘wishful thinking’. People don’t wanna see their hero decline. He does. Slowly or not, but surely. He is human. Like us. Like everybody else. Time waits for no one.
Yes true but what was revealing this tour was that it wasn't Keith's age responsible for his decline, it must have been something else because up until a few shows ago he played better and with more energy and focus than he had since 2006.
I don’t think the decline is as steady as you depict it. There have been better or worse shows each tour. Keith played very well at some of the 2013 shows, for example, and was up and down over the past few years.
He played with more consistent focus at the beginning of this tour, but the energy level wasn’t as high as many of the earlier tours the past decade.