Quote
DandelionPowderman
Doxa, watch the T.A.M.I.-show. Keith was the man back then already; visually, musically (in particular) and of course he sang the harmony brilliantly with a distinct voice which blended nicely with Jagger's.

+ he played all the solos.

For me, it took two seconds to spot it when I first saw it.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Doxa, watch the T.A.M.I.-show. Keith was the man back then already; visually, musically (in particular) and of course he sang the harmony brilliantly with a distinct voice which blended nicely with Jagger's.

+ he played all the solos.

For me, it took two seconds to spot it when I first saw it.

Honestly, what I see there is three guys in front. Two of them are image-conscious, charismatic players, giving a rather cool, even threatening image of themselves, and then a third one just nervously jumping and moving around, as any other British Invasion pseudo-Beatle musician.

- Doxa

Quote
24FPS
Keith's stature was tempered by events in the music world. He has always played guitar, period. Brian was first overshadowed musically during the Satisfaction, Get Off My Cloud, 19th Nervous Breakdown period. It was a rock guitar period, mild by later standards, but not Brian's bag. And it was during this period that Brian began to recede. You can see him physically disappear in old film clips. It was the pop period of 66-67 that saw the resurgence of Brian and the sublimation of Keith. Brian carved out a new image with his multi-instrumentalism. Once lost in the background, Brian is suddenly out front, almost with a solo spotlight, playing marimbas, playing sitar, playing dulcimer. This was Brian's golden age. It reached its apex with Satanic Majesties where Keith almost seems desperate to get a riff in with that unneccessary duh-duh at the end of She's A Rainbow.

But the emergence of Cream, Hendrix, & Jimmy Page with the Yardbirds pushed forward the new ethos of technically proficient, rock guitar. And just as Jumping Jack Flash announced the return of the harder, guitar driven Stones, it also marked the beginning of the musical end of Brian Jones. He wasn't that good as a rock guitarist, or even interested in it. Beggar's Banquet, except for a droning sitar on Street Fighting Man, pushed away their recent musical past. The Stones were headed in a distinct new direction and Brian didn't want to go. And Mick Taylor's lucky arrival kicked the Stones into the rock stratosphere, enabling them to keep up and surpass the rest of the pack. Ironically it also signalled the end of Keith's dexterity as a lead player, as he became the funky riff master to Taylor's soaring style.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Doxa, watch the T.A.M.I.-show. Keith was the man back then already; visually, musically (in particular) and of course he sang the harmony brilliantly with a distinct voice which blended nicely with Jagger's.

+ he played all the solos.

For me, it took two seconds to spot it when I first saw it.

Honestly, what I see there is three guys in front. Two of them are image-conscious, charismatic players, giving a rather cool, even threatening image of themselves, and then a third one just nervously jumping and moving around, as any other British Invasion pseudo-Beatle musician.

- Doxa

yes, and the nervous goofy grin gives him away as well.

Quote
24FPS
Ironically it also signalled the end of Keith's dexterity as a lead player, as he became the funky riff master to Taylor's soaring style.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
SweetThing

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
SweetThing

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Doxa, I think you're putting to much into Brian's "front man-status". If he was, that would be only in the beginning of their career. By Satisfaction, the Jagger/Richard-team was well-established, musically, image-wise and visually on and off stage. By the early 70s, The Glimmer Twins could be seen as two frontmen in the media.

With Keith's drugbusts etc. he got the extra attention during the 70s, and when he kicked hard drugs, he became a favorite by the press, something that heightened his status to the public, imo.

I believe that image wise, the Richards side of the Jagger/Richards icon template, as opposed to the whole group as "bad boys", really launched for the wider audience, with the Jumping Jack Flash film. Cemented once and for all, in Ladies and Gentlemen. And it wen from there.

And, interestingly, it was very nearly challenged by Taylor's rising star on the his last European tour with the group. But that went by in the blink of an eye.

But back to the Glimmers, once really established, on the non-visual side, part of that "cool" image rested Keith not opening up his mouth too much. To my interpretation, not terribly dissimilar from Doxa's or Bill Wyman's Stone Alone, Keith's image built throughout "the 70s", (even if we put that back to 68/59), and reached critical mass in the mid 80s. He was the celebrity that didn't die at that point. "The coolest man on the planet" etc. And, then, with the fallout with Jagger's solo career, we launch into a whole different Keith Richards that see to this day.

Brian Jones was a big deal, even post Satisfaction, to the many (majority?) of fans following to the point of his dismissal and death.

Think back to the album covers now, not the actual songwriting. It's not until Goats Head Soup we get this Mick/Keith cover thing going on, reprized again on Tattoo You.

I've never head that before. Do you have any links to articles on that, or was that fan buzz at the time? Unfortunately, I was to young back then...

Oh no DPM, definitely not. I'm in the same boat as you, too young for that (well not quite technically, but didn't really become a Stones fanatic until 1978).

I should have rephrased a bit perhaps - it was a tangent to begin with and I was mildly surprised to read of it myself, despite being a Taylor fan. The Taylor bit in 73 (Brussels right?) was gleaned from a few comments I believe I read here in the last year or so, or one of the other boards. I recall at least one link (I don't have it), but apparently he was causing a stir in some fan press and among some of the attendees.

It had caught my attention at the time because it suggested Taylor being a draw in the context of Taylor shining up there with Jagger. It wasn't a reference to Taylor in relation to Richards. Which in itself is sort of telling.

Even going back to Taylor's own quotes which i do recall pretty well, in responding to why he did NOT have more stage presence/act he suggested he should not take the spotlight off Jagger (no mention of Richards in Taylor's response there).

As it happens, I doubt Taylor would ever be different than we've ever seen him (with the Stones, Blues Breakers, Dylan, solo etc), but in his mind it was Jagger in the spotlight, and not Jagger/Richards, and ditto for whatever the source was for Taylor taking a cut of the spotlight on that European leg. But yeah, how long was that leg? Not too long. And, yes, we do see Richards front and center in L&G (earlier than Brussels).

I do also recall a Stones review back in the mid 70s, could've been Rolling Stone or Village Voice, but anyway, more or less "mainstream", wherein the reviewer cited "Can't you Hear me Knocking" as showing the way for the Stones to go in "the future" as a mature band. With the benefit of hindsight, probably nearly all of us are glad the Stones didn't get sucked into long extended musical noodlings or lead guitar hero stuff, or watered down jazz pretensions (can you imagine?), but the sentiment probably reflected the thoughts of others as well.

Getting back to the TAMI show, it is always interesting for me to watch. I agree with what you see there DPM concerning Richards already rising, at that early date, but it's also a bit of a Rorschach test to watch it. I've seen it referenced and posted by the Brian Jones faithful, to show him holding his own at that time.

Some great analysis in there, man. Thanks.

I agree with you on Taylor not wanting to steal the limelight from Jagger, but something tells me he wouldn't have done it anyway. Some people have that frontman-thing in them as soon as they enter a stage. Mick and Keith are people like that, even though Keith developed a more "visual" style as the years passed. On the TAMI-show it's the real deal - always a pleasure to watch.

If you listen carefully to Taylor's last live gig with the Stones in Berlin, 1973 Oct. 19 (maybe the very best show the Stones ever performed), then it's Taylor all the way, musically. Imagine if he also acted like he played.

No wonder Richards preferred the inferior Wood. But what a wasted opportunity to bring the Stones' music on an almost extraterrestrial level. We only have the relatively poor Brussels second show in a bad mixing, compared to the other 1973 October shows, especially those in Rotterdam and ... in Berlin!

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Doxa, watch the T.A.M.I.-show. Keith was the man back then already; visually, musically (in particular) and of course he sang the harmony brilliantly with a distinct voice which blended nicely with Jagger's.

+ he played all the solos.

For me, it took two seconds to spot it when I first saw it.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
24FPS
Keith's stature was tempered by events in the music world. He has always played guitar, period. Brian was first overshadowed musically during the Satisfaction, Get Off My Cloud, 19th Nervous Breakdown period. It was a rock guitar period, mild by later standards, but not Brian's bag. And it was during this period that Brian began to recede. You can see him physically disappear in old film clips. It was the pop period of 66-67 that saw the resurgence of Brian and the sublimation of Keith. Brian carved out a new image with his multi-instrumentalism. Once lost in the background, Brian is suddenly out front, almost with a solo spotlight, playing marimbas, playing sitar, playing dulcimer. This was Brian's golden age. It reached its apex with Satanic Majesties where Keith almost seems desperate to get a riff in with that unneccessary duh-duh at the end of She's A Rainbow.

But the emergence of Cream, Hendrix, & Jimmy Page with the Yardbirds pushed forward the new ethos of technically proficient, rock guitar. And just as Jumping Jack Flash announced the return of the harder, guitar driven Stones, it also marked the beginning of the musical end of Brian Jones. He wasn't that good as a rock guitarist, or even interested in it. Beggar's Banquet, except for a droning sitar on Street Fighting Man, pushed away their recent musical past. The Stones were headed in a distinct new direction and Brian didn't want to go. And Mick Taylor's lucky arrival kicked the Stones into the rock stratosphere, enabling them to keep up and surpass the rest of the pack. Ironically it also signalled the end of Keith's dexterity as a lead player, as he became the funky riff master to Taylor's soaring style.

I agree. Well put. Very difficult to see where we exactly had a disagreement in the first place.

- Doxa

Quote
Natlanta

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Doxa, watch the T.A.M.I.-show. Keith was the man back then already; visually, musically (in particular) and of course he sang the harmony brilliantly with a distinct voice which blended nicely with Jagger's.

+ he played all the solos.

For me, it took two seconds to spot it when I first saw it.

is that Blondie Chaplin strummin in the back @ 35-40 sec?... wtf?

Quote
MCDDTLC
Speaking of Mick Taylor..... anyone hear anymore on Taylor being asked to join in on the 2013 tour? See where Bill Wyman's back "in" and he quit just like Taylor. What happened to Keith's statement: Taylor & Wyman can come along, it will
be one big party!! Back up your comment - KEITH!!!

MLC

Quote
roundnround
god i wish keith could play like he did in 1964

Quote
Doxa

Quote
24FPS
By the end of the 60's, Keith role as the second most important member of the group was esablished among fans, and to a degree in media, but it would take until the early 80's that he would gain such a status Brian used to have, actually challenging Jagger's place in the spotlight. - Doxa

I don't agree with this at all. Keith's status was firmly fixed by the early 70s as the dark bad boy of the group. Brian never had the status Keith had, at least not in the States. Brian was more of a European phenomena. At the time of his death it was confusing as to exactly who he was. Keith was always the one on stage playing the rocking leads. He's the one we saw play the fuzzbox guitar on Satisfaction. Remember that Brian's tour de force, Little Red Rooster, was not the hit in America that it was in the U.K. By the early 70s Keith was on the top of the list of Next Rock Star to Die. He was the epitome of wasted rock debauchery. While Brian was rarely mentioned as a rock casualty in the realm of Hendrix and the others of the early 70s. Keith may not have been interviewed much at that time, but that made him all the more decadent and mysterious. And his bust in '77 certainly reinforced the international image he'd already cultivated with the iconic 1972 photo A DRUG FREE AMERICA COMES FIRST.

I don't think Keith ever challenged Mick for the spotlight. Keith simply had a little more of his own spotlight. He proved to be a more interesting interview, no matter how dotty the info might be. Mick's individual musical stardom has only grown, especially with his high profile shots at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 25th Anniversary, the 2011 Grammys and recently at the White House Blues Tribute. Keith's musical profile has dissipated. He's now known as Jack Sparrow's gargoyle dad in Disney movies.

And now Keith finds himself in the odd position of being the Stone who now has to prove himself musically.

Yeah, you could be right in regards to US vs. Europe in seeing Brian's status. I wasn't in neither of the places at the time, so all I can see the past is based on second-hand material, and obviously I am more familiar with the European point of view.

Anyway, generally there is a quite big gap between the early/mid-60's and then the late 60's/70's fan generations - roughly, between Jones and Taylor eras, or pre and post BEGGRS BANQUET eras - and what I have wittnessed that quite many who were fans during the early days, lost the interest afterwards to follow the band. That historical phase - when the Stones actually had the biggest impact in the musical world - is unfortunately not very well covered in Rolling Stones discussion boards (we have even 'natural', Darwinian reasons for that). The Stones gather a new following later, and most of the harcore fans seem to derive from post-Jones days (which seem to lead to some sort of historical over-looking of the early days - remember, to correct that wicked picture was the motivation behind Wyman's STONE ALONE). I think what you said about people being confused what Brian actually was during the time of his death is pretty much reflecting the changing of the climate. Brian had pretty much disappaered from the public eye during his last two years in a band. The time were changing so rapidly then, and I think locating Brian already to the scene of 1969 started to sound difficult, and as the 70's go further, the idea of a rock star - and which instruments he plays, how he looks like, behaves like - pretty much was fixed. Today it is almost impossible to grasp Brian Jones in terms of rock and roll because he seem to escape all the typical, fixed rock musician categories, for example, he is not a Taylor-kind of 'nothing but a great guitar player' or Woodie-like Keith Richards-clone, but something rather different that I don't even have a good word for. But all in all he is so mid-60's phenomenon, a category of its own - he is acually earlier figure than, say other of the original 27 club - Hendrix, Morrison, or Joplin - that all are much easier to define.

But that doesn't change the fact that at his prime - 1962-67 - Brian Jones was with Mick clearly the face of The Rolling Stones to outside world. So much that Jagger needed to talk him over of not leaving the group in 1967 - that would have been a fatal image-loss for the band still then. But wheras Mick was the frontman, Brian was seen the best musician of them (whether it was true or not) - that seems to stick to the mind of anyone who knows something about 60's scene and is not much stunned by what the Stones have done ever since. Besides being the fashion leader in the world's most photographed band was not a small deal either. No matter how much we are stunned by "the world most elegantly wasted human being" - a picture pretty much born during the 70's - I would claim that it actually took quite many years for Keith's star to rise to the level Brian once had. All over the world. The guitarist about whom Muddy Waters said "the guitarist ain't bad either" was actually Brian Jones, and as he was the guy who seeing live made the pants of young Patti Smith wet. Brian Jones was the original Rolling Stone if anyone ever was.

- Doxa

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
Doxa
When I read LIFE I was certain that The Rolling Stones will never perform again.

And since you've been correct!

Quote
SweetThing

Quote
DandelionPowderman
With Keith's drugbusts etc. he got the extra attention during the 70s, and when he kicked hard drugs, he became a favorite by the press, something that heightened his status to the public, imo.

But back to the Glimmers, once really established, on the non-visual side, part of that "cool" image rested Keith not opening up his mouth too much. To my interpretation, not terribly dissimilar from Doxa's or Bill Wyman's Stone Alone, Keith's image built throughout "the 70s", (even if we put that back to 68/59), and reached critical mass in the mid 80s. He was the celebrity that didn't die at that point. "The coolest man on the planet" etc. And, then, with the fallout with Jagger's solo career, we launch into a whole different Keith Richards that see to this day.

Quote
Doxa
-

Quote
howled
I don't know Keith but I think he hasn't changed that much since the beginning.

I read all this increased media presence and later stage move posing stuff and do people realize that Pete Townshend got the windmill move off Keith in the 60s.

Keith was doing that stage move back then and Pete said to him "can I borrow it" and Keith said ok and Keith stopped doing it because Pete took it over.

Keith was always doing stage moves.

When Keith went out with the X-pensive Winos it wasn't anything like the Stones.

Bobby Keys talks about how different it was [www.iorr.org]

It was more of an equal muso thing.

This isn't really the sign of an egomaniac.

Keith does interviews because he probably has to, to promote the Stones.

The main Keith interviews I've read have all been in Guitar magazines for guitar players.

I've read Life and thought it was pretty good for what it was.

Keith could have easily made the book less raw and less controversial but to his credit he included a lot of things that might have offended some.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
SweetThing

Quote
DandelionPowderman
With Keith's drugbusts etc. he got the extra attention during the 70s, and when he kicked hard drugs, he became a favorite by the press, something that heightened his status to the public, imo.

But back to the Glimmers, once really established, on the non-visual side, part of that "cool" image rested Keith not opening up his mouth too much. To my interpretation, not terribly dissimilar from Doxa's or Bill Wyman's Stone Alone, Keith's image built throughout "the 70s", (even if we put that back to 68/59), and reached critical mass in the mid 80s. He was the celebrity that didn't die at that point. "The coolest man on the planet" etc. And, then, with the fallout with Jagger's solo career, we launch into a whole different Keith Richards that see to this day.

I'll second to both of these quotes. Spot on.

Just to make sure, I hope no one sees me trying to belittle Keith here. Not at all. I think Keith has always been the soul of the band. Especially at the time when his status was not so recognized, and the name associeted to such a caricature behavior and image so clearly yet. Like I said earlier I tend to see Keith's story as a heroic story - like if one tries enough, and is totally devoted to one's task, the prize will follow some day. Not ego play. Not trying to push one front. Not trying desperately to take the spotlight... The loyalty to the band, the motto of “I shine when the band shines”, is something I have always admired in Richards. A real team player.

Like someone said back in the 70’s Keith was the hero of music press, who had a kind of cult following, while Jagger was the super star of larger attention. The people who know about music, knew Richards' significance. Like DandelionPowderman pointed out, the rock and roll 'outlaw' life and the drug busts gave him quite a lot, not initially so good publicity, but in the end, in a long run, that worked greatly for him in creating the image, the myth of rock and roll survivor. During the 80’s, after cleaning up the hard drugs, he really became a darling of the press, and pretty much by the expanse of Jagger. And Keith learned how to make headlines. He became - especially after Jagger's solo 'disaster', as SweetThing mentioned - a Jagger-like celebrity enjoying the media attention. The tension between him and Jagger was not any longer one living as a superstar in the world of paparazzes, and one in the heroic realm of music scenes, now it was the both of them living in the first mentioned realm, and confronting each other there.

Anyway, to my fan’s eyes, I haven’t really liked the post 80's development. The Keith Ricahrds of last decade(s) is so lost to his own myth and fame, that I think is pretty hard to recognize the 'cool' features this man once had. The latter devolopment seem to unfortunately to go with losing his musical touch.I think Keith Richards enjoys too much for just being Keith Richards, the legend, a celebrity in his own terms. One can only think how much Johnny Depp imitation, and finally the great attention LIFE gathered, to not forget the sales, had for Keith's ego. And the content of LIFE documented pretty clearly that he doesn't care for The Rolling Stones any longer. It's only the legend of KEEF left.

Sorry Naturalust for the long paragraphs... I try to change my bad habits..

- Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
As a person, I don't think he has changed a lot. The problem is probably that others grew up

Quote
I sometimes view Keith like as a Michael Jackson of rock and roll. Living in his own bubble, making his own rules, having a life style and time of his own

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
As a person, I don't think he has changed a lot. The problem is probably that others grew up

That was a good one.

I sometimes view Keith like as a Michael Jackson of rock and roll. Living in his own bubble, making his own rules, having a life style and time of his own... but the point in that all is that it is possible since having so much money and babysitters around him to save his ass; so he has always have lived very secured, priveleged life, even when he was a junkie. One does need to grow up in the premises like that if one chooses not to. One feature in LIFE I dislike is the a sort of teenanager boy angst in thinking like "I can say anything I want, man, and I can go away with it. Because I am Keith Richards. Hahhahha" Surely he can. It's still the attitude of "we piss anywhere, man". But pretty immature and stupid for a man in his sixties. What puzzles me is that is it real 'honest' Keith Richards speaking there - and actually being so stupid - or is it just keeping up appearances - which is also stupid. No win situation.

The ridiculous, embarrassing 't-gate' is an exact consequence of that attitude.

- Doxa