I wonder what he (Keith) does during rehearsals? He would have been kicked out of any other band than The Rolling Stones. His playing is below what is acceptable. Poor Ronnie, poor Mick.

It is very easy to criticize and take isolated instances of him playing bad. He had bad nights since he started playing, it is the nature of playing live.

That is true, but we could expect him to play at least one or two of the chords in the song...

----------------------------------------------------
[www.facebook.com]

Also Miles Davis got critics for his playing and I guess it takes some time to get his or Keiths reputation and the right to play beyound criticism...


I was driving home early Sunday morning through Bakersfield...

Quote
kammpberg
Keith and Charlie start off the next track, She Was Hot. With its metallic searing guitar lines, more powerful inter-weaving playing including Leavell’s keyboards mixing with Stu’s piano, and a wonderful melodic lead guitar solo break, this is a more powerful, full-bodied rock song than its sister She’s So Cold. Jagger’s lyrics and delivery (along with the great video) are red hot. .

Yeah, the sisterhood of "She Was Hot" and "She's So Cold" is lyrically well-founded, but I think that is as far as it goes. Musically "She's So Cold" is so typical exercise in their contemporary Pathe Marconi sound. The pointed out simplicity in form - simple riff with three chords based on incredible attitude and groove - refers more to punk influence than to Chuck Berry (or what is left of tha influence inspired in 1977/78). By contrast, "She Was Hot" goes musically straight to the 50's. I would say its 'sister' song actually is "Star Star". Both are guitar-lead exercises by the world biggest Chuck Berry fan who does his job with a honest dedication. But in both cases, the classical three-chord pattern of Berry songs is not enough but enrichened by more 'melodic' elements. In "She Was Hot" the chorus is surprisingly rich in its melodical structure, and the amount of chords used is truely expectional for a Stones tune. "Star Star" is more moderate in that sense but it also has a melodic ring in its chorus that it makes it different from the classical Berry songs.

If we look other Jagger/Richards songs from that has a clear Berry vibe in them, it is rather difficult to find actually. Most of their songs are some more like applications of some basic berrian ideas, but which sound way too original to call any longer them Berry-like, or directly inspired by him. But there are expections. I think "Rip This Joint" is basically a 50's Berry rocker, just performed with such energy and contemporary edge that it almost hides the source of inspiration. There also the lyrics are so Berry-like - dropping names of places, etc. Also "Had It With You" comes to mind.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-24 11:33 by Doxa.

Quote
whitem8
It is very easy to criticize and take isolated instances of him playing bad. He had bad nights since he started playing, it is the nature of playing live.

Bashing Keef is kinda like a trend here - on this website you can find million posts about how bad Keef has been on any given night, it has nothing to do with reality of him having bad nights like that 69 Hyde Park Brian Jones memorial gig, when his guitar was way out of tune, some fans need to hail Jagger and trash Keef more than ever, after Keiths funny book.

You can see that when Mick Jagger does solo performance like the recent White House gig with Jeff Beck, even Jaggers solo gigs turn into Keith bashing and he wasnt even there.

Quote
seitan

Quote
whitem8
It is very easy to criticize and take isolated instances of him playing bad. He had bad nights since he started playing, it is the nature of playing live.

Bashing Keef is kinda like a trend here - on this website you can find million posts about how bad Keef has been on any given night, it has nothing to do with reality of him having bad nights like that 69 Hyde Park Brian Jones memorial gig, when his guitar was way out of tune, some fans need to hail Jagger and trash Keef more than ever, after Keiths funny book.

You can see that when Mick Jagger does solo performance like the recent White House gig with Jeff Beck, even Jaggers solo gigs turn into Keith bashing and he wasnt even there.

But Richards playing at Hyde Park was fabulous, even though they where out of tune on several tracks. Stray Cat, HTW, Mercy, Down Home Girl, all truly fab playing and magnificant sound!

Mathijs

I remember SWH being played at the London O2 Arena in August 2007. I don't remember Keith playing badly, but be he seemed to need reminding it was time to play the solo - Ronnie swooped round and gave him nod, Keith then played a Berry-style solo. A video of this SWH performance was later uploaded to the Stones' offical youtube page. I listened to it a few times (anyone else see it?). It sounded ok, nice guitars.. I guess perhaps Keith new his stuff at this stage, which is a few months after the Beacon gig. There was no shot of Ronnie giving Keith the solo cue though ;-) Craftily edited out perhaps.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-24 11:53 by WeLoveYou.

I think the problem with Richards is that he has gotten away with sloppiness far too long. No one dares to tell him. It's his band he thinks. If you look at Jagger he doesn't seem to care what Keith plays anymore - he just does his bit. And Ronnie has no other choice than to play along. Bill Wyman used to bash Keith, but not in an obvious way. Now he is out of the band.

Quote
whitem8
It is very easy to criticize and take isolated instances of him playing bad. He had bad nights since he started playing, it is the nature of playing live.

I don't buy this relativist argument: since it has always been like that there had been good and bad nights, so nothing has really changed, and Keith is still as good as ever. I suggest a reality check.

Seitan there offers Hyde Park gig as a comparison of other "bad night". But what Keith does there is a musical universe apart from the nonsensical noodling he does in "She Was Hot". Being out of tune or not, he at least knows the damn songs he plays in Hyde Park. In Beacon he seems to have guitar in tune - thanks to tecnical assistants - but he doesn't seem to find any right note in it, or have any idea what to do with it.

Besides that piece of evidence is not just any "isolated instances of him playing bad". It is from a high profile movie that has circulated all over the world, and directed by some biggest names in business. As a Rolling Stones and Keith Richards fan I don't feel happy at all with having to witnness things like that. Mathijs said that is was "funny" to listen that from headphones, and I sense the tragic absurdity in his words - but I rather would like not to have that kind of fun....

- Doxa

There was sloppy playing at Hyde Park 1969, but there was some perfect playing: HTW and Midnight Rambler spring to mind.

There is a difference between sloppy playing and out of tune-guitars.

Keith's problem on the Hyde Park-gig was that he was playing the open tuning for the first time live, and that he probably didn't choose the right guitars for that, imo.

----------------------------------------------------
[www.facebook.com]

Quote
Stoneage
I think the problem with Richards is that he has gotten away with sloppiness far too long. No one dares to tell him. It's his band he thinks. If you look at Jagger he doesn't seem to care what Keith plays anymore - he just does his bit. And Ronnie has no other choice than to play along. Bill Wyman used to bash Keith, but not in an obvious way. Now he is out of the band.

I think you are spot on. It is also the mentality of some (many, or even most of) fans that seem to accept any act the master does. No matter what it is, just as he does something, and appears on stage. "It's Keef, hey...." I also enjoy the thrill of being in latter-day Stones concert in present, and I don't much care how awfully they play there. I just love the atmosphere, etc. but if I need to hear or see a document of that - I rather not do that - afterwards, out of that context, it is musically mostly terrible to wittness. I was really shocked when I saw SHINE A LIGHT in cinema, and now when seeing clips of it, it is just worse.

I think for that reason it was wonderful to wittness Jagger playing with real guitarist two nights ago. That was also a reality check of how bad the Stones guitarists are these days, especially the one that matters (well, LIVE IN TEXAS, and the archive shows, also made that point home quite clearly - to understand how great they once were). Like you said, Jagger has learned ignoring Keith's playing for ages now. So it was thrilling to see him communicating twin-like with Beck there. They were playing for each other - not against each other or ignoring other's presence. I didn't miss Keith Richards - or the ancient art of posing - one sec during that set. In eh end, it is the music and the quality of it that matters. (I am quite sick and tired giving free passes in that. It's been too long the nostalgia trip that seems to justify anything.)

But I really hope Keith is still able to something musically worthwhile, for example tonight. It would be horrible if that Scorcese movie is to be remained the last taste we will have of him. Hands up for him tonight!

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-24 12:22 by Doxa.

In the 90s we had the same complaints about Ronnie.

I think it's very unfair to say that Ronnie is not playing well today, judging by his activities the last few years.

----------------------------------------------------
[www.facebook.com]

Quote
Doxa
I don't buy this relativist argument: since it has always been like that there had been good and bad nights, so nothing has really changed, and Keith is still as good as ever. I suggest a reality check.

I watched Texas '78 again last night.

Keith was hot and his playing was tight - fantastically so.

That guy doesn't exist any more and he's certainly not on stage in SAL.

Or perhaps it is just a case of things will never be the way they used to be. What an incredible burden it is for these guys to cary the expectations of their fans to be like they were thirty years ago... Another reason why it was perhaps wise The Beatles broke up, they could never have lived up to the expectation and legend in people's minds. It is interesting how much time, thought, and energy people put into tearing them apart.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
In the 90s we had the same complaints about Ronnie.

I think it's very unfair to say that Ronnie is not playing well today, judging by his activities the last few years.

That is true, but is partly Ronnie's own fault that he has accepted his role as secondary man in the guitar business of that band no matter how good he might play. He just can't carry that band in his shoulders. A second fiddle player is a second fifdle player. He saves some nights, and Keith's ass, but honestly, that is not really much...

- Doxa

Quote
whitem8
Or perhaps it is just a case of things will never be the way they used to be. What an incredible burden it is for these guys to cary the expectations of their fans to be like they were thirty years ago... Another reason why it was perhaps wise The Beatles broke up, they could never have lived up to the expectation and legend in people's minds. It is interesting how much time, thought, and energy people put into tearing them apart.

This is true but I think Keith's problem as a guitarist is totally in different level now. It has taken the point that is the question of competence of delivering the goods in some reasonable level at all. When they did mediocre albums, like DIRTY WORK, VOODOO LOUNGE - nothing to compare re to their great past albums - Keith was still a terrific guitarist. He might have problems with his muse but not in playing the guitar.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-24 12:34 by Doxa.

In addition to his obvious physical problems, Keith also probably had a hard time getting back to playing at all after his head injury, the surgery and the recovery.

Still, he should at least be able to limit himself on stage/play a little less, but the right stuff at the right time - a thing he used to be very good at - before he got arthritis/herberden's nodes and before the accident.

----------------------------------------------------
[www.facebook.com]

Quote
DandelionPowderman
In addition to his obvious physical problems, Keith also probably had a hard time getting back to playing at all after his head injury, the surgery and the recovery.

Still, he should at least be able to limit himself on stage/play a little less, but the right stuff at the right time - a thing he used to be very good at - before he got arthritis/herberden's nodes and before the accident.

Yes, and taken the fact that after the tour he gave up playing almost totally for two years or so in order to write the book and stand next to his old lady, he really might have a lot to do in catching up now. His comment last year (?) that he doesn't consider himself as a guitarist in the first place at all sounded a bit worrying, too. Like giving up.

But it could be very well that all these recent physical problems and a break might give him a place to reconsider his playing and doings. His intuitions as a musician are unique, and I don't think he has lost that if the spark is on. The thing is how to deliver the goods. It could be the direction you suggested - just concentrating to play less - yes, it is possible - but when to do that with more dedication and point (and less show and fooling around). I am sure Keith Richards is able to express some really signifying sounds if he really puts his mind in it. I think the really old role of his - a musical core of the band, the leader - is not anymore realistic in his recent condition but he could somehow rearrange or develop his role of recent tours, and maybe alter the sound of the whole band in the process. If the whole band could concentrate more just on just music and less on show - a bit like Jagger did with "Commit A Crime" and "Miss You" at the White House - we could have musically an interesting final tour fronting us.

Besides, I have somehow the intuition that the band also has realized that in A BIGGER BANG TOUR and in SHINE A LIGHT they had walked that route as far as they reasobaly can do (actually alraedy a bit too far). The next step with that concept would be a real disaster. Jagger's trouble with "Can't Turn You Loose" in the White House also indicates that not even him is probably capable of doing that kind of physical Jagger show any longer.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-24 13:26 by Doxa.

<Yes, and taken the fact that after the tour he gave up playing almost totally for two yaers or so in order to write the book and stand next to his old lady, he really might have a lot to do catch up now.>

I suspect he did that after 1999 as well. He wasn't exactly playing too well on the Licks Tour either.

----------------------------------------------------
[www.facebook.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-24 13:27 by DandelionPowderman.

I don't know what show you saw on the Licks tour, but the two I saw in Singapore were fantastic and he was in fine form.

Quote
whitem8
I don't know what show you saw on the Licks tour, but the two I saw in Singapore were fantastic and he was in fine form.

Fine form, maybe, but his playing detoriated remarkably from what he did in the 90s.

I believe, from the boots I have, that the Stockholm show I attended was an average Keith performance on the Licks tour.

Play the Four Flicks-DVD - then put on the St. Louis-DVD from 1997 to see the detoriation.

----------------------------------------------------
[www.facebook.com]

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
whitem8
I don't know what show you saw on the Licks tour, but the two I saw in Singapore were fantastic and he was in fine form.

Fine form, maybe, but his playing detoriated remarkably from what he did in the 90s.

I believe, from the boots I have, that the Stockholm show I attended was an average Keith performance on the Licks tour.

Play the Four Flicks-DVD - then put on the St. Louis-DVD from 1997 to see the detoriation.

Yeah, the detoriation is quite clear from BRIDGES/NO SECURITY -> LICKS TOUR -> A BIGGER BANG, each making a clear step in downhill. He was techically in top form still in the late 90's. During LICKS tour his limitations as guitar player delivering the goods really started to show up. That doesn't mean here weren't some terrific nights. Like still during A BIGGER BANG. But the scheme within he worked had seemingly detoriated. I don't think this is an opinion but a fact. Of course, we might have varied opinions how we rate the outcome.

But the dilemma is:

(a) Keith plays as well as he physically and mentally can. He is just as bad he sounds. He can't play better even if he wants to. It's the damn fingers, problems in brains/nerves, etc.

(b) Keith plays so bad because he can. He can, like Stoneage said, go away with it. He could play better but he don't bother. That namely would ask working harder, rehearsing more, etc, but he doesn't care. It's a kind of "artistic choice".

I don't know which alternative is a right one. And I don't know which one to prefer either. Both bad.

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-24 14:09 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
kammpberg
Keith and Charlie start off the next track, She Was Hot. With its metallic searing guitar lines, more powerful inter-weaving playing including Leavell’s keyboards mixing with Stu’s piano, and a wonderful melodic lead guitar solo break, this is a more powerful, full-bodied rock song than its sister She’s So Cold. Jagger’s lyrics and delivery (along with the great video) are red hot. .

Yeah, the sisterhood of "She Was Hot" and "She's So Cold" is lyrically well-founded, but I think that is as far as it goes. Musically "She's So Cold" is so typical exercise in their contemporary Pathe Marconi sound. The pointed out simplicity in form - simple riff with three chords based on incredible attitude and groove - refers more to punk influence than to Chuck Berry (or what is left of tha influence inspired in 1977/78). By contrast, "She Was Hot" goes musically straight to the 50's. I would say its 'sister' song actually is "Star Star". Both are guitar-lead exercises by the world biggest Chuck Berry fan who does his job with a honest dedication. But in both cases, the classical three-chord pattern of Berry songs is not enough but enrichened by more 'melodic' elements. In "She Was Hot" the chorus is surprisingly rich in its melodical structure, and the amount of chords used is truely expectional for a Stones tune. "Star Star" is more moderate in that sense but it also has a melodic ring in its chorus that it makes it different from the classical Berry songs.

If we look other Jagger/Richards songs from that has a clear Berry vibe in them, it is rather difficult to find actually. Most of their songs are some more like applications of some basic berrian ideas, but which sound way too original to call any longer them Berry-like, or directly inspired by him. But there are expections. I think "Rip This Joint" is basically a 50's Berry rocker, just performed with such energy and contemporary edge that it almost hides the source of inspiration. There also the lyrics are so Berry-like - dropping names of places, etc. Also "Had It With You" comes to mind.

- Doxa

Doxa, I could say the same thing about, say..

Brand New Car on Voodoo Lounge - that song is pure Chuck Berry - it could have been perfect on some Brian Jones era early sixties albums and so is Mean Disposition and Flip The Switch on Bridges...

- Another oldies 50´s style song on Undercover is I Wanna Hold You - it reminds me of Buddy Holly. It´s kinda 50 style pop song, maybe not a fast rocker but it has that Buddy Hollyish/Everly Brothersish 50's pop to it.

When people talk about the 50´s they always remember the Chuck Berry, Little Richard kinda of fast rockers and they forget the 50´s pop, the likes of Buddy Holly and Everly Brothers...there was plenty of 50´s pop on albums like Beetween The Buttons and Aftermath back in the sixties, - I would call that sixties pop era Stones - and those kind of poppy tunes can be found on later day albums too.

Quote
seitan

Quote
Doxa

Quote
kammpberg
Keith and Charlie start off the next track, She Was Hot. With its metallic searing guitar lines, more powerful inter-weaving playing including Leavell’s keyboards mixing with Stu’s piano, and a wonderful melodic lead guitar solo break, this is a more powerful, full-bodied rock song than its sister She’s So Cold. Jagger’s lyrics and delivery (along with the great video) are red hot. .

Yeah, the sisterhood of "She Was Hot" and "She's So Cold" is lyrically well-founded, but I think that is as far as it goes. Musically "She's So Cold" is so typical exercise in their contemporary Pathe Marconi sound. The pointed out simplicity in form - simple riff with three chords based on incredible attitude and groove - refers more to punk influence than to Chuck Berry (or what is left of tha influence inspired in 1977/78). By contrast, "She Was Hot" goes musically straight to the 50's. I would say its 'sister' song actually is "Star Star". Both are guitar-lead exercises by the world biggest Chuck Berry fan who does his job with a honest dedication. But in both cases, the classical three-chord pattern of Berry songs is not enough but enrichened by more 'melodic' elements. In "She Was Hot" the chorus is surprisingly rich in its melodical structure, and the amount of chords used is truely expectional for a Stones tune. "Star Star" is more moderate in that sense but it also has a melodic ring in its chorus that it makes it different from the classical Berry songs.

If we look other Jagger/Richards songs from that has a clear Berry vibe in them, it is rather difficult to find actually. Most of their songs are some more like applications of some basic berrian ideas, but which sound way too original to call any longer them Berry-like, or directly inspired by him. But there are expections. I think "Rip This Joint" is basically a 50's Berry rocker, just performed with such energy and contemporary edge that it almost hides the source of inspiration. There also the lyrics are so Berry-like - dropping names of places, etc. Also "Had It With You" comes to mind.

- Doxa

Doxa, I could say the same thing about, say..

Brand New Car on Voodoo Lounge - that song is pure Chuck Berry - it could have been perfect on some Brian Jones era early sixties albums and so is Mean Disposition and Flip The Switch on Bridges...

- Another oldies 50´s style song on Undercover is I Wanna Hold You - it reminds me of Buddy Holly. It´s kinda 50 style pop song, maybe not a fast rocker but it has that Buddy Hollyish/Everly Brothersish 50's pop to it.

When people talk about the 50´s they always remember the Chuck Berry, Little Richard kinda of fast rockers and they forget the 50´s pop, the likes of Buddy Holly and Everly Brothers...there was plenty of 50´s pop on albums like Beetween The Buttons and Aftermath back in the sixties, - I would call that sixties pop era Stones - and those kind of poppy tunes can be found on later day albums too.

Keith admires the Everly Brothers and Hoagy Carmichael very much. I like his poppy stuff, Wanna Hold You included.

----------------------------------------------------
[www.facebook.com]

Quote
WeLoveYou
There was sloppy playing at Hyde Park 1969, but there was some perfect playing: HTW and Midnight Rambler spring to mind.

There was sloppy playing at Beacon Theatre, but there was some perfect playing: Far Away Eyes, Some Girls, Champaigne And Reefer, and Ronnie is amazing on You Got The Silver, etc...

it´s funny that people complain about sloppy playing - this is old school rock n roll, - It´s kinda like when old farts started complaing about punk rock -ooh those guys cant play, ooh it´s too loud, ooh it´s too this and that - yeah, you guys sound like my grandmother complaing, - but that just shows that some people have grown old and forgotten times when rock n roll had rough edges, dirt, badd ass sleazy, dangerous attitude to it...nowaydays everything is so nice, non threatning and radio friendly that I kinda like it, when I hear some dirt in music.

Quote
seitan
Doxa, I could say the same thing about, say..

Brand New Car on Voodoo Lounge - that song is pure Chuck Berry - it could have been perfect on some Brian Jones era early sixties albums and so is Mean Disposition and Flip The Switch on Bridges...

- Another oldies 50´s style song on Undercover is I Wanna Hold You - it reminds me of Buddy Holly. It´s kinda 50 style pop song, maybe not a fast rocker but it has that Buddy Hollyish/Everly Brothersish 50's pop to it.

When people talk about the 50´s they always remember the Chuck Berry, Little Richard kinda of fast rockers and they forget the 50´s pop, the likes of Buddy Holly and Everly Brothers...there was plenty of 50´s pop on albums like Beetween The Buttons and Aftermath back in the sixties, - I would call that sixties pop era Stones - and those kind of poppy tunes can be found on later day albums too.

Yeah, "Brand New Car" could easily to be an early Jagger/Richard composition where their mimic teh style of their American heroes, especially Berry here. I could place it easy to 1964-66 repertuare of theirs. Chuck Berry over all is an interesting figure musically since he stands somehow in the middle of the 'black' and 'white' music. From the left side of him you find Bo Diddley, Muddy Waters, and all those Chess blues masters, but on the right side people like Bill Haley, Eddic Cochran, Elvis, Buddy Holly, and yeah, even the melodic "pop" like Everly Brothers. True that The Stones mostly admired the left side, whereas the Beatles the right side - but this, of course, was not catgorical but more like a tendency. I never thought the thing you said about "Wanna Hold You" but yeah, why not! I thought it was Beatle-inspired but then - that 50's stuff is basically was the insiration of Lennon and McCartney when they crafted stuff like "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" with catchy melodies.

Taking the distinction I made of two Berry-sides, I think both "Slip The Swich", and "Brand New Car" belong to the right side. They sound more 'white' rock'n'roll of the 50's. But still Berry. I can't say anything of "Mean Disposition" - that song has always passed my mind without leaving any impact.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-24 14:33 by Doxa.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
seitan

Quote
Doxa

Quote
kammpberg
Keith and Charlie start off the next track, She Was Hot. With its metallic searing guitar lines, more powerful inter-weaving playing including Leavell’s keyboards mixing with Stu’s piano, and a wonderful melodic lead guitar solo break, this is a more powerful, full-bodied rock song than its sister She’s So Cold. Jagger’s lyrics and delivery (along with the great video) are red hot. .

Yeah, the sisterhood of "She Was Hot" and "She's So Cold" is lyrically well-founded, but I think that is as far as it goes. Musically "She's So Cold" is so typical exercise in their contemporary Pathe Marconi sound. The pointed out simplicity in form - simple riff with three chords based on incredible attitude and groove - refers more to punk influence than to Chuck Berry (or what is left of tha influence inspired in 1977/78). By contrast, "She Was Hot" goes musically straight to the 50's. I would say its 'sister' song actually is "Star Star". Both are guitar-lead exercises by the world biggest Chuck Berry fan who does his job with a honest dedication. But in both cases, the classical three-chord pattern of Berry songs is not enough but enrichened by more 'melodic' elements. In "She Was Hot" the chorus is surprisingly rich in its melodical structure, and the amount of chords used is truely expectional for a Stones tune. "Star Star" is more moderate in that sense but it also has a melodic ring in its chorus that it makes it different from the classical Berry songs.

If we look other Jagger/Richards songs from that has a clear Berry vibe in them, it is rather difficult to find actually. Most of their songs are some more like applications of some basic berrian ideas, but which sound way too original to call any longer them Berry-like, or directly inspired by him. But there are expections. I think "Rip This Joint" is basically a 50's Berry rocker, just performed with such energy and contemporary edge that it almost hides the source of inspiration. There also the lyrics are so Berry-like - dropping names of places, etc. Also "Had It With You" comes to mind.

- Doxa

Doxa, I could say the same thing about, say..

Brand New Car on Voodoo Lounge - that song is pure Chuck Berry - it could have been perfect on some Brian Jones era early sixties albums and so is Mean Disposition and Flip The Switch on Bridges...

- Another oldies 50´s style song on Undercover is I Wanna Hold You - it reminds me of Buddy Holly. It´s kinda 50 style pop song, maybe not a fast rocker but it has that Buddy Hollyish/Everly Brothersish 50's pop to it.

When people talk about the 50´s they always remember the Chuck Berry, Little Richard kinda of fast rockers and they forget the 50´s pop, the likes of Buddy Holly and Everly Brothers...there was plenty of 50´s pop on albums like Beetween The Buttons and Aftermath back in the sixties, - I would call that sixties pop era Stones - and those kind of poppy tunes can be found on later day albums too.

Keith admires the Everly Brothers and Hoagy Carmichael very much. I like his poppy stuff, Wanna Hold You included.

You can feel the love and admiration here; this is simply a stunning version:





- Doxa