I came to think about this the other night, inspired by all the debates about which Stone is doing the best job at what time and place, especially following the last tour with Keith getting a lot of critique.

And here is my opinion:

BETTER IN THE STUDIO than LIVE
Keith Richards. Of course, Keith's natural habitat is on tour, on stage. Going to one concert, seeing one dvd from pretty much any era confirms it. Five strings, three fingers, one @#$%&...yada yada yada. But really, Keith's true artistic moments at the top of the game -- where he outshone himself -- is in the studio. People still wonder if the guitar solo on Sympathy is really him. His slide on Let It Bleed, the funky groove on Monkey Man, the twin guitars on Rocks Off, the early open tunings on Street Fighting Man or Happy...on stage they sounded cool but always technically weaker and often plain sloppy. I know many of you will deny it, saying the technique isn't important, etc., but I think Keith's true abilities as a rhythm or semi-lead guitar player really came forward the most in the studio.

Charlie Watts. Just like Keef, Charlie performed his best when Jimmy Miller kicked his arse. He was awesome on the '72 and '78 tours -- maybe the most "Charlie" he ever sounded, but as the years went by his funky tom tom fills turned more and more into repetitive snare rolls. Just listen to Honky Tonk Women, Monkey Man, Rocks Off, Jig Saw Puzzle, Stray Cat Blues ... he never recreated that live.

Brian Jones. The Stones founder and first guitarist was a true pioneer when it came to putting blues on television and grabbing the girls attention. But his most innovative, touching and interesting musical moments where in the studio. The marimba on Under My Thumb, the sitar on Paint It Black, the mellotron on 2000 Light Years, the recorder on Ruby Tuesday, the slide on No Expectations...the list goes on. Though it might partly have been Mick and Keith's fault, Brian did nothing on guitar towards the end, even when he tried.

BETTER LIVE than in the STUDIO
Bill Wyman. Never the one to step forward in the mix, Bill was a helluva rockabilly bass player. Reliable like few, standing like a statue, barely moving his hands, he always delivered. But on record, many of the most distinctive bass parts were played by Keith or Mick Taylor: Sympathy, Tumbling Dice, Happy, Silver Train... true, he played on Miss You, but that was supposedly a Billy Preston thing. On stage, though, that's when his walking bass lines really made the Stones swing. Just listen to Midnight Rambler, All Down the Line or When The Whip Comes Down.

Ronnie Wood. Since his style is close to Keith's, he meshes well with the Stones sound and doesn't stick out as much as Mick Taylor. His slide and pedal steels and the odd funky riff (like Hey Negrita) stand out on record, but for much of the time, you don't really notice the man. I think his high points are on stage. Listen to the solos on YCAGWYW in '75, Wild Horses at Knebworth and Beast Of Burden in '78. Or the leads on All Down the Line or Happy. Often sloppy, sometimes drunk, Ronnie's always best when he has his spontaneous moments of brilliance on stage. Especially when his guitar partner is even more drunk and sloppy.

Mick Taylor. This is a tough one. I put him here partly to make my pretentious rant symmetric. But Mick Taylor always played well, and his famous studio moments, like Can't You Hear Me Knocking, Sway, Winter, are essentially single takes of live Taylor in the studio. His sound wasn't as varied live, but his solos were. He makes 20 recordings of the same song from the same tour worth hearing. He took older songs to new heights (Gimme Shelter, Sympathy, Street Fighting Man, Love In Vain), and I haven't even started babbling about his vibrato.

EQUALLY GOOD LIVE and in THE STUDIO:
Mick Jagger. 1962, 1966, 1969, 1972, 1973, 1978, 1981, 2007. Enough said. His howlin on Stray Cat Blues in Europe '70 sums it up. Or his humble telltale of Sympathy for the Devil in the studio... I give up. And he seemed to carry the whole band in 2007.

End of rant. Hell, my post feels like a Mojo article...



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-09-17 00:52 by LieB.

Great post...

One of the better Mojo articles!

Playing in the studio and playing live, especially in a stadium are two different things.

Numerous rock drummers can't cut it in the studio. But Charlie certainly can, and I thought re ABB that his drumming at Hollywood Bowl, Los Angeles 2005 was superb. The bowl holds 18,000. I also was impressed how he handled the Paris gig at the Stade de France for 60,000ish audience.

Great post!
My 2 cents- the main groove and the main rythm is driven by Keith so overall sloppyness is the result of Keith`s lacks of precision not Charlie`s in my opinion.When Stones are "on fire" it means for me - every band member plays precisely.There were moments when keiths riffs sounded like razor`s edge Atlantic City 1989 is good example....Whole bands performance was technically at highest level.
Jagger is the main offender nowadays but surprisingly for me his interpretations of older songs are the weakest ! Totally lack of real emotions and disregard for his own melodies .

good post.. and agree.. but not on monkey man.. lister to four flicks, the msg monkey man.. awsome riff..

smile: way better than a lot of mojo articles!
but maybe i don't get what you mean by "better",
and/or don't feel real sure about that "always".
anyway it's not as clearcut to me as you have it, but ... okay :E



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-09-16 23:00 by with sssoul.

Keith's sense of producing/arrangement (especially in the guitar field, but not only) and sense of songwriting is very underrated imho. He doesn't overdo it the way Jimmy Page did it on the first Zeps. But it just stands there and sounds so natural.

But his guitar playing live, the way his whole body plays the guitar, has probably influenced more people than Taylor's delicious playing.

Si I have very mixed feelings about this live/studio thing...

Nice observations LieB.

Can it be they are better in the studio, not having to worry about all the choreographed stage antics? It appears that way sometimes.

Thanks for the feedback. I'd say, as a whole I think the Stones are fundamentally a live band. But they are very uneven on stage. Sometimes it's heaven, sometimes it sounds like what some people would call a trainwreck. On every tour ever since the old days, they've had good nights and bad nights and usually take many gigs before they start firing on all cylinders (at least from a live recording point of view -- the excitement of being in the audience is another story). That's their style, and it's part of the excitement, though I -- as a musician myself -- sometimes wonder "what the hell are they doing", or whine about some members' laziness or apparent lack of focus.

Anyway, that's why they always record a whole tour and choose only the best takes for a live album and then spruce 'em up with overdubs. And that's why they take it to perfection in the studio, when they have every possibility to capture just the right moments of brilliance. And what I love so much especially about the Stones in the "golden era" is that they sounded so different live compared to the studio. Tunes like Sympathy for the Devil, Street Fighting Man and Gimme Shelter are like wholly different songs on the live and studio albums.

I know its a war horse, but I love Keith and Bill on the studio version of Start Me Up.

"You'll be studying history and you'll be down the gym. And I'll be down the pub, probably playing pool and drinking."

benon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Great post!
> My 2 cents- the main groove and the main rythm is
> driven by Keith so overall sloppyness is the
> result of Keith`s lacks of precision not
> Charlie`s in my opinion.When Stones are "on fire"
> it means for me - every band member plays
> precisely.There were moments when keiths riffs
> sounded like razor`s edge Atlantic City 1989 is
> good example....Whole bands performance was
> technically at highest level.
> Jagger is the main offender nowadays but
> surprisingly for me his interpretations of older
> songs are the weakest ! Totally lack of real
> emotions and disregard for his own melodies .


i think the Stones played at their best that night too, in Atlantic city 89.
"Midnight Rambler" from that show is my favourite performance ever, with "Sympathy..." from "Get yer ya yas out" and "Just my Imagination" from "Still Life" (despite i want to hear the original Hampton 1981/12/19 version, wich surely was remixed as they always did).

Great post LieB!!!

I've skipped this thread until now because the title made me expect something along the lines of: Keith and Charlie have never been able to reproduce the quality of the record - negative blabla I did not feel like reading.

But no, it's a very very well thought through analysis that makes one think for oneself about this... Nice... :-)

I don't feel able to react to this now but I certainly will listen more careful for example to the bass live.

Jelle

I love it when people tell me something is "better" or the "best". There is not one single person, anywhere, that can tell ME what I should consider "better". Don't let anyone think for you. You decide whats the better performance. If you like Charlie and Keith live, thats great.

Better in the studio than live? I wouldn't say that. The road is where these sounds are expanded and taken to the highest level Keith and Charlie can take them.

For all the criticism and discussion of his "decline"...I still marvel at Keith's inventiveness and ability to put a new twist on live renditions of material old or new.
It's the way he'll emphasise or accent a different beat...drop a chopped chord in a different place or let something ring over a bit longer. Fascinates me. He and Charlie on stage still bring spontaneous smiles to my face.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-04 15:50 by Spud.

IMO, Keith has always (up until 1989) been at his best on stage. That doesn't mean that his effectiveness has suited the stones' studio work better sometimes. IMO, a good example of Keith's greatness on stage is Midnight Rambler. Another one is Under My Thumb.

Good post. Though I do not abide by it for the most. Just listen to bootlegs : that's the real Keith.

Although mostly I agree, listen to Keith playing in Brussels or London, 1973, doo doo doo and midnight ramler. They are great, better than the studio versions. Also happy is great, and others...