After watching many of the recent videos posted here l have two words for Keith"s
sorry ass performances "Jerry Garcia".

"No dope smoking no beer sold after 12 o'clock"

listen to charlie
he fukks the song up not keith
thats why keith is freezin for a few secs
but I am sure there are people on this board callin that a stroke again

This is a little unfair. They don't do it even in the same key, so it should not really be compared. I can't hear much of the rhythm guitar in this '07 Youtube (mixed down on purpose?). But I didn't think the vocal performance, though in a lower key, was at all that bad.
What I don't like though and is painful to watch is the change in his face. He doesn't look "happy" at all anymore. Hope I'm wrong...

this particular clip is not especially worrying to me. i agree that keith is "listening" at the beginning to sync up with charlie, and that (for lack of a better term) reluctance or hesitation actually adds to the tension that is then so gloriously released, as in so many stones tracks. i think he puts in a very respectable performance here. but i have 2 bits of advice for you, keith:

1) stop playing 'wanna hold you' ... a bland song, IMO, best heard as a gentle respite within the maelstrom that is 'undercover'. so many better tracks you could choose, like 'thief in the night'.

2) lose the mustache. it just looks silly and makes you look older.

we love ya, man. you are, and you'll always be, the coolest, even if you @#$%& up occasionally.

drew

Bloody hell - you sound like my aunts!!!

"he used to be such a cute one - now he takes drugs"



sorry for the last posters, I couldn't stand to read trough all your posts.

Yes, Keith is 63, but most 63 year olds don't lose it the way Keith has recently. I would expect that of a man in his late 70s/80s.

Of course, he's an alcoholic and he's abused drugs to a degree that would've killed lesser men...he's put his body through the ringer and unfortunately it seems to be catching up with him...plus he also has to contend with the coconut incident and arthritis, which is a truly tragic development given his trade.

I usually laugh when people say he's had a hard life...he's had it EASY. He's a pampered, richer-than-God rockstar who's fawned over and worshipped around the globe, but he's got his demons and he's made his life hard in some ways, sadly.

We live our boring middle-class lives vicariously through this devil-may-care, seemingly immortal, booze-chugging badass rockstar-cum-pirate-cum-gunslinger, and we've loved the image for over 40 years, but he's a real person with a real life, a real family, and real human frailty.

Please understand that I'm not bashing Keith for the fun of it, and I take NO joy in pointing out how out of it he's been. No one would be happier than me if he pulls through this weird little spell he's had recently.

The only point the side by side comparison convinces me of is that he just can't take the booze and drugs as well as he did in 1972. That, however, is hardly a surprise. I am just 30 and in damn good health, but I would be totally useless (if not dead) if I ingested today the amounts of drugs and alcohol I used to consume 10 years ago.

deuce Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> glimmer twin 81 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > get a life deuce
>
> Aww, why...because I didn't wipe Keith's ass for
> him? As far as I'm concerned, this is a board to
> discuss the Stones..and I've done just that.

Man you are one sarcastic snot. You would think after years and years of making albums and touring the globe the guy could be given a little slack. How many other threads were already opened relating to Keith and his recent problems? You had to open another one just to get you name in the limelight?

How many shows has he truly been awful? All these melodramatic threads started when the Europopean tour started. If you don't like his performances then stop going to the shows.

The Stones will somehow find a way to carry on without you in the audience. Trust me they won't miss a fan like you one bit.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-06-20 05:32 by FrankM.

FrankM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> deuce Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > glimmer twin 81 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
> > -----
> > > get a life deuce
> >
> > Aww, why...because I didn't wipe Keith's ass for
> > him? As far as I'm concerned, this is a board to
> > discuss the Stones..and I've done just that.
>
> Man you are one sarcastic snot. You would think
> after years and years of making albums and touring
> the globe the guy could be given a little slack.
> How many other threads were already opened
> relating to Keith and his recent problems? You had
> to open another one just to get you name in the
> limelight?
>
> How many shows has he truly been awful? All these
> melodramatic threads started when the Europopean
> tour started. If you don't like his performances
> then stop going to the shows.
>
> The Stones will somehow find a way to carry on
> without you in the audience. Trust me they won't
> miss a fan like you one bit.

Yeah, that's exactly why I made the post, to have my name in the "Limelight"....or not. Make the thread starter annonymous for all I care. I've gone on liking the Stones blindly for too long. They charge ticket prices so high, and still act like they've "got it"...and I'm sorry folks, but they don't. I know it may not seem this way, but I do want everyone to have a good time. If you still enjoy the shows and think Keith is playing great, then knock yourselves out.

It's just, being a guitar player, I can see that he truly isn't playing well. Of course, 90% of you are automatically going to say "Who the hell are you to judge Keith Richards, who has made so many classic albums, etc...". Well folks, I'm a guitar player and I consider myself a good one. Better than Keith? Maybe. The point is, when I see him "play", I know what I'm actually looking at. Oh, and don't tell me that I'm not allowed to compare myself to Keith. If it was 1962 (when he was still pretty much unknown) and Keith came up to you and said "I'm just as good as Chuck Berry", you probably wouldn't believe him. And in regards to the "he has put out classics" argument....when's the last time he did this and why does that make him so untouchable? I'm not talking about the '73 Keith, the '81 Keith, or hell, even the '97 Keith. I'm talking about the Keith now.

One thing that I have a hard time digesting is how much his rhythm playing has gone down. The guy used to be a monster. You'd hear riffage all over the songs. Now, he hardly even plays rhythm. It's all these leads these days that usually don't even fit the songs just sprinkled randomly. I just don't see how people can defend him so much when he clearly as deteriorated. If it's his age, then maybe he's too old to be doing it. Age doesn't matter if you can still do it, but he can't. I just want to know why some of you grip onto this thing so tight. The Stones have had a 40+ year run, full of some of the greatest moments in rock and roll history. Everything needs to come to and end at some point, and your witnessing the end of the Stones. I want them to prove me wrong, but I know they won't.

Whatever man. If you think you MAY be better than Keith Richards then your opinions I have to take with a grain of salt- unless you are just talking about Keith on his worst days.

Obviously he is getting older and is having some problems but it seems that at least half the people here said he was better the last two shows.

This is a relatively new thing imo. He has always made mistakes but I think most people would agree he wasn't this bad till the start of this leg. It's not like you have to go back to 97' to see a good perfomance from him.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-06-20 06:30 by FrankM.

Duece,

Gosh, I'm glad you have a guitar. Thanks for telling us what a good player you are, and teaching us why only you, of all of us, can truly understand the music.

Maybe we can get his autograph. This way when he becomes as famous as Keith we can sell it on Ebay lol.

deuce Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Well folks, I'm a guitar
> player and I consider myself a good one. Better
> than Keith? Maybe.

Getting off your medications was not a good idea deuce.

texas fan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Duece,
>
> Gosh, I'm glad you have a guitar. Thanks for
> telling us what a good player you are, and
> teaching us why only you, of all of us, can truly
> understand the music.


Clearly I'm not the only one who feels this way about Keith. Translation? Many people understand music.

well deuce or svendoborg or radio marv etc
the problem i see here is that you all consider and want to fight with the people that react like "get a life" or that refuses to consider anything wrong with the band
but, surprise, this place is full of people that are far from ass wipers but also are far from people that need to post or open threads with the same concept repeated again and again and again and that, like here, openly dont discuss with those who put questions, doubts etc
see posts of

with sssoul

or this

Posted by: vudicus (IP Logged)
Date: June 20, 2007 01:22


Where's the proof it's drink or drugs???
It's just speculation!!!

or my previous one.

even the title of this thread tells your story, that is "come "ass wipers" come i want you to gather here so we can fight over and over again on keith"

deuce Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FrankM Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > deuce Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > glimmer twin 81 Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > > -----
> > > > get a life deuce
> > >
> > > Aww, why...because I didn't wipe Keith's ass
> for
> > > him? As far as I'm concerned, this is a board
> to
> > > discuss the Stones..and I've done just that.
> >
> > Man you are one sarcastic snot. You would think
> > after years and years of making albums and
> touring
> > the globe the guy could be given a little
> slack.
> > How many other threads were already opened
> > relating to Keith and his recent problems? You
> had
> > to open another one just to get you name in the
> > limelight?
> >
> > How many shows has he truly been awful? All
> these
> > melodramatic threads started when the
> Europopean
> > tour started. If you don't like his
> performances
> > then stop going to the shows.
> >
> > The Stones will somehow find a way to carry on
> > without you in the audience. Trust me they
> won't
> > miss a fan like you one bit.
>
> Yeah, that's exactly why I made the post, to have
> my name in the "Limelight"....or not. Make the
> thread starter annonymous for all I care. I've
> gone on liking the Stones blindly for too long.
> They charge ticket prices so high, and still act
> like they've "got it"...and I'm sorry folks, but
> they don't. I know it may not seem this way, but I
> do want everyone to have a good time. If you still
> enjoy the shows and think Keith is playing great,
> then knock yourselves out.
>
> It's just, being a guitar player, I can see that
> he truly isn't playing well. Of course, 90% of you
> are automatically going to say "Who the hell are
> you to judge Keith Richards, who has made so many
> classic albums, etc...". Well folks, I'm a guitar
> player and I consider myself a good one. Better
> than Keith? Maybe. The point is, when I see him
> "play", I know what I'm actually looking at. Oh,
> and don't tell me that I'm not allowed to compare
> myself to Keith. If it was 1962 (when he was still
> pretty much unknown) and Keith came up to you and
> said "I'm just as good as Chuck Berry", you
> probably wouldn't believe him. And in regards to
> the "he has put out classics" argument....when's
> the last time he did this and why does that make
> him so untouchable? I'm not talking about the '73
> Keith, the '81 Keith, or hell, even the '97 Keith.
> I'm talking about the Keith now.
>
> One thing that I have a hard time digesting is how
> much his rhythm playing has gone down. The guy
> used to be a monster. You'd hear riffage all over
> the songs. Now, he hardly even plays rhythm. It's
> all these leads these days that usually don't even
> fit the songs just sprinkled randomly. I just
> don't see how people can defend him so much when
> he clearly as deteriorated. If it's his age, then
> maybe he's too old to be doing it. Age doesn't
> matter if you can still do it, but he can't. I
> just want to know why some of you grip onto this
> thing so tight. The Stones have had a 40+ year
> run, full of some of the greatest moments in rock
> and roll history. Everything needs to come to and
> end at some point, and your witnessing the end of
> the Stones. I want them to prove me wrong, but I
> know they won't.



Age has a lot to do with it. He can still do it, just not as well anymore. You're a guitar player...use your common sense. I'm a guitar player too and experienced enough to play any song that was given to me and to also notice Keith's issues as of late.

You know that time is a huge enemy on the fingers and its limberness...I dont care who you are...every person's abilities start to slip throughout age. How old are you, exactly? Are you 63? Do you know how that age feels? Do you know what guitar playing is like after 40 years? The boredom? Have you played the same songs for 40 years? How much fierceness can you really add when you've played them for thousands of times?

Every peformer who plays an instrument, sings, dances or does whatever...they all suffer the effects of aging. Clapton himself bluntly admits that he doesn't feel he plays as good as once did. Totally admits that the mechanics of it all..isn't what it used to be. The finger aren't there lately.

The end of the Stones? Well maybe in your book pal and to the rest of the posters who are preparing the band's tombstone. The people in this group have a standard and a bar that is set so high that the Stones of today...are dissapointing them. That's your own fault, not the Stones. The Stones are aging yet you demand them to sound like they're not 63 years old. The people who want the Stones to quit have a standard that is outdated and worn. The guys are getting older and the only way to enjoy them is to cut them some slack because of their age. Yet, there are people demanding things from men that cannot deliver it anymore.
There is a huge difference between realizing the issue and accepting it positively

Waiting for the Stones to prove you wrong? No shit they're going to prove you wrong. Thats like seeing clouds in the sky and telling people "its going to rain today...go ahead prove me wrong." You're not making any revelations here.

For fuk sakes it's more than obvious that Charlie fuked up the intro. Just listen to it, it's very clear. Try to play Keith's part along to the beat. He just took his time to get into the groove again. Jeesus, peolple are taking the stupidest little things and turning into something it's really not. He plays the rest of the song perfectly.

Hey Keith has lost a step. So what. Some nights they are ragged and right. But I Go Crazy from Lyon. Wow, Don't know who is doing all of the weaving but those boys are cooking. It ain't '72, it ain't '69, it's 2007 and dig it while you can because there will not be another like it. There will always be better sounding bands than the Stones, always have been but every now and then they can turn a stadium in bar and baby that is rock and roll. back in the 60's they weren't hitting the note every night either. Put on some Johnny Mathis if you want it nice and easy, I'll take the Stones for my rawhide and roses. i will take 2007 version of the Stones over the '78 version any day. Although Let It Rock from that time was a monster.

"accepting things positively" is a cool way to put it, Justin - thanks.
and isn't it interesting that some people seem to ignore Charlie coming in wrong -
is that partly a result of the climate of concern (and ... whatever) over Keith?
(by the way, as i said in a related thread, i do totally understand how the audience could miss that
during the show - so much is happening all at once! but it is pretty plain in the youtube clip.)

meanwhile, maybe some less emotional/interpretive questions would help this thread serve a more enlightening purpose.

would the guitarists here - the ones who play with a band, that is - feel like saying what they do
when the drummer they're working with comes in wrong? if pausing to accommodate the drummer
is so hair-raisingly terrible, what are the other options?

and: someone somewhere mentioned that Happy was played in A on the Licks tour as well - is that right?
and earlier on this tour he was playing it in B, as on the studio version?
anyone feel like talking about what might motivate those shifts, please and thank you?

and: i guess Keith did use a sunburst Tele for Happy at a show or two in 72 - is that right? (i'll doublecheck my photos.)
if memory serves, Mathijs mentioned that he also used an LP Goldtop on it at a couple of 72 shows.
Micawber (or one of the "Micawber-alikes") and the black custom Tele have been his usual preference, though, right?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-06-20 08:24 by with sssoul.

>> i guess Keith did use a sunburst Tele for Happy at a show or two in 72 - is that right? <<

yeah it is :E
not the same one he's got now though, is it?


- Winterland, june 6th or 8th 1972 (don't know who took it, sorry!)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-06-20 08:31 by with sssoul.

Nope...this wasn't Charlie's fault. It's Keith's. He played the intro incorrectly. He added a rhythm between the riffs which then caused Charlie to jump in and follow the rhythm Keith was starting. Keith, then got caught off guard and when the band went to "B" after the opening riffs...Keith was lost and waited for a good time to jump with the B..E..B...E progression. That was the frozen moment...him waiting to jump in and take the driver's seat again.

Charlie technically came in early but only because Keith sparked him. The intro is supposed to be played just by Keith...with the E-sus..then Charlie comes in on the B. Keith chugs along...and Charlie tries to save it by coming in.

I myself would have done the same thing (if I had made the first error)---I would freeze and wait. Someone has to take initiative and keep going. Charlie kept going...he didn't stop and wait for Keith to give him direction. If they both stopped...it wouldve been more noticeable and embarissing. It didnt look like Keith was ready to say "Like this, Charlie follow me.." he simply waited for Ronnie's licks/cues to guide him back into the song.

I will say that his vocals on the song are actually excellent. Very very strong.

> deuce Wrote:

> Age doesn't matter if you can still do it, but he can't.

Best point made so far.

thanks Justin - i didn't mean to imply that there was no reason for Charlie coming in wrong -
that's what i meant when (somewhere up there) i described it as "Keith and Charlie tripping over each other".
Keith pausing and (it looks to me) signalling to his bandmates that he's the one who's going to adjust
might or might not be a case of being "lost" (that's interpretation -
i understand where it's coming from, but it's interpretation.)

>> It didnt look like Keith was ready to say "Like this, Charlie follow me." <<

yeah, as i say it looks to me like his whole posture/manner is designed to let his bandmates know
that he's going to adjust. which is also interpretation, of course - but it seems like one of those moments
when it's definitely a good idea to communicate your intentions to your bandmates.

i asked before but: is the Wembley 82 She's So Cold on youtube somewhere?
similar sort of moment, isn't it? and it's so interesting watching them sort it out.

>> I myself would have done the same thing (if I had made the first error)---I would freeze and wait. <<

thanks. and what do you think of rest of the number, once they get over that glitch?
to me it sounds like they pulled its socks right up and played it well.

>> I will say that his vocals on the song are actually excellent. Very very strong. <<

that's how it sounds to me too.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-06-20 09:47 by with sssoul.

Well wouldn't it be better to stop this discussion?
There's no way a large group of people will admit, that there's something wrong with the sound of the band these days.
Deuce is trying to explain it from what a guitar player knows and then everyone falls all over him and make jokes of him...that's not a way to discuss.
I don't know a bloody thing about guitar playing, but I can hear on those clips from Youtube, that it's sounds terrible and I am really sorry if this great old band can't play the game anymore. I don't say that they can't, but I say this, if the clips from the next few shows show the same, I really fear this could be the case.
On the other hand: I heard them last September and I still think it was one of the greatest show I've ever witnessed.
My point is just this and I've said it before. Yes we CAN discuss the quality of the Stones shows, YES we can write if we feel something is wrong and we ought to be able to do that, without being bashed by people you don't believe anything will change with this band ever. Off course it will, but that will not change the fact, that they've been the greatest band for so many years.
I would rather see them stop touring now and continue far beyond the time, where it's becoming really bad.

I do not want to open the discussion again but the most intelligent way to cover their shortcomings these days would have been to invite Mick Taylor as additional guitarist for the rest of the tour. He's the only one who shares the Rolling Stones legend and who is supposed to be able still to play great. So they would have had the choice between four guitarists, and if Keith is no longer able to play all the songs because of his arthritis it would not really have mattered because another original Stone (either Ron or Mick) could have taken over. I cannot imagine that Mick Taylor would have turned down such an offer. Even if he is overweight he would not look too bad compared to the others, except Jagger.

After 30+ years the conflicts should be settled, and it would have been a great opportunity to finish a tour in a great way which certainly is one of their last ones .

Anyway, I hate the ugly brown towel which Keith wears nowadays on stage.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-06-20 15:22 by saltoftheearth.

>> I don't know a bloody thing about guitar playing, but I can hear on those clips from Youtube, that it's sounds terrible <<

what sounds terrible to you about this Nijmegen Happy, besides the glitch at the start?
i'm not attacking you - i'm just curious about how people are reacting to this particular number.

also not attacking, just observing: it's not very consistent to say that people should be able to post whatever they want
and also that a discussion should stop because not everyone agrees, or because a sarcastic start-off post
elicited some sarcastic/cutting responses, or because people who can form their own opinions
aren't rushing to buy someone else's opinion wholesale, whether he/she plays guitar or not.

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> what sounds terrible to you about this Nijmegen
> Happy, besides the glitch at the start?
> i'm not attacking you - i'm just curious about how
> people are reacting to this particular number.

apart from his playing he wasn't able to remember the words of 3 (short) verses

To me how something is said is just as important as what is said. I can relate to people who have a genuine concern for Keith and his health etc. but it seems that this thread was started in a very sarcastic manner- almost as if to knock Keith.

I'm not saying that was the intention of the author but it comes across that way. And then when you claim you may be a better guitar player than Keith, you are just asking for a verbal walloping. Someone that exaggerates their playing ablility like that may be exaggerating about other things too- i.e. how bad Keith is.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-06-20 10:25 by FrankM.

I think all this can be explained with one thing: The mustache!;-) Once he gets rid of it, we will see the old Keith back. That's my theory, and I'm sticking to it untill I see him live later on the tour!:-)

Justin, thanks for some perspective.
People, we are all only @#$%&' human beings.
Getting older every @#$%&' minute.
Keith, Mick, Ronnie, Charlie, Bill... they are just going to keep playing, like good musicians do. pushing the limits as best they can.

Some nights they slay the dragon, some nights - she gets away.
But they'll show up again the next night to practice their craft,
spin their web & go out with a bang.

It's a job, it's a life.
What the hell?
It's good to see Keith put on a few pounds though.
Rock it.