Jeff Beck ?...er NO !

If they were considering boosting the Keith department,they don't need a superstar guitar @#$%&. How about Rich Robinson or Waddy Watchel ? Both "get" Keith. It's not as if they'd become actual members at this stage.

I just hope Keith pulls it together and surprises us all !


sc uk



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-27 19:56 by straycatuk.

No.

Jeff is brilliant at what he does, i.e. the instrumental jazz fusion and instrumental rock. His albums, from Blow By Blow onwards, show a serious musician with a questing soul. I'd leave being a sideman alone, and concentrate on providing us with more challenging albums.

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
If it looks like a Rolling Stone, smells like a Rolling Stone.....then why not? What an awesome weapon to have in the arsenal. Maybe we re-name the band, The Super Stones! It's never too late to improve your product.

I have always thought Jeff Beck would have been a great edition to the Stones, especially today, with so much uncertainty surrounding Keith. Now, in no way am I saying he replace Keith, because there is no Rolling Stones without Keith Richards.

Would love to see Taylor, Wyman, Wood, Beck, and Richards all on the same stage working their magic. Is it too late?

I think Jeff beck's great. But with no disrespect to you, my thoughts are that the reason Beck does not belong in the Stones are simple. Jeff Beck is all about guitar hero pyrotechnics. The Stones are not. I fear his playing would step all over the sound that the Stones are loved for.

sorry, but is a ridiculous idea. A complete no sense.

Thank you, but no jeff beck or any other guitar player. Just Ronnie and Keith. They are the Stones guitarrists. You like or not.

I agree, but can they still do it with only Ron and Keith?
That's the big question no one of us knows the real answer for?

Beck is no teamplayer. Can he function within a band and being not the star of the band? He maybe looks like a Stone, but isn't it. You get endless guitarsolo's, endless fights about everything and he probably quit after two concerts.
Keith wouldn't do it for sure. It would be an insult to him -if Jagger hires Beck- and the end of the Stones.

Quote
GJV
I agree, but can they still do it with only Ron and Keith?
That's the big question no one of us knows the real answer for?

Beck is no teamplayer. Can he function within a band and being not the star of the band? He maybe looks like a Stone, but isn't it. You get endless guitarsolo's, endless fights about everything and he probably quit after two concerts.
Keith wouldn't do it for sure. It would be an insult to him -if Jagger hires Beck- and the end of the Stones.

Having seen some videos of Ron's recent gigs, both solo and with the reformed Faces, he's in great shape. Everyone's questioning about Keith but I wouldn't be surprised if he's working hard at getting his chops together (and he may be much simpler and never quite what he was in - say - '69 - '81) and he comes out and surprises the hell out of all the folks writing him off as a drooling vegetable. If the Stones do need to supplement Keith's ability level, bring back Mick Taylor. He was already a Stone. That's the only other guitar player worth thinking about. No non-Stones need apply.

No! He doesn't play in a Stones style at all.

It like asking Neil Pert to take Charlies' place.

Quote
More Hot Rocks
No! He doesn't play in a Stones style at all.

It like asking Neil Pert to take Charlies' place.

You've come up with the perfect comparison!! Or how about asking Josh Groban to replace Jagger? Or put Rick Wakeman on piano?

Jeff Beck is a fantastic guitar player but he is all wrong for the Stones in my opinion.

So the answer is NO to Jeff Beck. OK, Mick, the hardcore fans have spoken!

U're a classy guy MightyStones.

horrific idea

Better no Stones than polishing a turd. It's called expertise. Mick & Jeff know all about it.

Mighty, it has nothing to do with the ' hardcore' fans so much as all fans. There is simply no reason to make Jeff Beck a Stone. Satriani is a phenomenal player too but he simply isn't a Stone. Bringing Taylor back would be fun but the truth is being overlooked...

None of this would be discussed if we had a 100% operational Keith Richards.

Drake

Quote
mickscarey
horrific idea

Seems to be the general consensus.

Quote
flacnvinyl
Mighty, it has nothing to do with the ' hardcore' fans so much as all fans. There is simply no reason to make Jeff Beck a Stone. Satriani is a phenomenal player too but he simply isn't a Stone. Bringing Taylor back would be fun but the truth is being overlooked...

None of this would be discussed if we had a 100% operational Keith Richards.

Probably so, probably so.

please, no !

From THE ROLLING STONES CHRONICLE:

1987: August 22, "The Sun reports...a spokesman for Mick says, 'He had been rehearsing for the tour for a month. Jeff is well known for being difficult to work with and tempers finally snapped. But the tour has been postponed because Jeff is a brilliant guitarist and will be very hard to replace. It now looks like the tour will go ahead in the New Year.'"

November 4, "The Sun follows up with Jeff's side of the story, `I quit the tour because Mick only offered me peanuts to play with him. It was laughable, an insult. I wanted to teach him a lesson because I believe if you want the best you have to pay for it. The kind of money he offered is what you pay an ordinary session musician. Mick's problem is that he's a meanie. He is no more than a glorified accountant. He counts every single penny. For someone with his money, I can't believe how tight he is...I'd still love to go on tour with the old geezer. He's just got to make me a proper offer. To show there's no hard feelings, I went to Los Angeles with him to film the video for his next single THROWAWAY.'"

My favorite Jeff Beck moment, from the Yardbirds' Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction in 1993...

Quote
Title5Take1
From THE ROLLING STONES CHRONICLE:

1987: August 22, "The Sun reports...a spokesman for Mick says, 'He had been rehearsing for the tour for a month. Jeff is well known for being difficult to work with and tempers finally snapped. But the tour has been postponed because Jeff is a brilliant guitarist and will be very hard to replace. It now looks like the tour will go ahead in the New Year.'"

November 4, "The Sun follows up with Jeff's side of the story, `I quit the tour because Mick only offered me peanuts to play with him. It was laughable, an insult. I wanted to teach him a lesson because I believe if you want the best you have to pay for it. The kind of money he offered is what you pay an ordinary session musician. Mick's problem is that he's a meanie. He is no more than a glorified accountant. He counts every single penny. For someone with his money, I can't believe how tight he is...I'd still love to go on tour with the old geezer. He's just got to make me a proper offer. To show there's no hard feelings, I went to Los Angeles with him to film the video for his next single THROWAWAY.'"

The problem they had a quarter century ago was over money. Nothing else. If they want to do something together - and they didn't look having nothing against it if we look their performances together - I don't think that will be the issue now if there is a will. Maybe Jagger have had time to reconsider his 'offer', and Beck to rethink his 'price'... My point: whatever happened back in the 80's, does not matter any longer.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-28 19:33 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Title5Take1
From THE ROLLING STONES CHRONICLE:

1987: August 22, "The Sun reports...a spokesman for Mick says, 'He had been rehearsing for the tour for a month. Jeff is well known for being difficult to work with and tempers finally snapped. But the tour has been postponed because Jeff is a brilliant guitarist and will be very hard to replace. It now looks like the tour will go ahead in the New Year.'"

November 4, "The Sun follows up with Jeff's side of the story, `I quit the tour because Mick only offered me peanuts to play with him. It was laughable, an insult. I wanted to teach him a lesson because I believe if you want the best you have to pay for it. The kind of money he offered is what you pay an ordinary session musician. Mick's problem is that he's a meanie. He is no more than a glorified accountant. He counts every single penny. For someone with his money, I can't believe how tight he is...I'd still love to go on tour with the old geezer. He's just got to make me a proper offer. To show there's no hard feelings, I went to Los Angeles with him to film the video for his next single THROWAWAY.'"

The problem they had a quarter century ago was over money. Nothing else. If they want to do something together - and they didn't look having nothing against it if we look their performances together - I don't think that will be the issue now if there is a will. Maybe Jagger have had time to reconsider his 'offer', and Beck to rethink his 'price'... My point: whatever happened back in the 80's, does not matter any longer.

- Doxa

They seem to be rather chummy lately. For whatever that's worth.

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
JumpinJeppeFlash
Please seek help!

Exact same words I heard when I suggested that the Stones fire Brian Jones and hire Mick Taylor 43 years ago!

I find it difficult to believe that you knew who Mick Taylor was before he joined the Stones. That would have required a degree of musical knowledge that nothing you've ever posted suggests you posses.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-29 01:53 by tatters.

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
mickscarey
horrific idea

Seems to be the general consensus.

Yes it is the general consensus.

This would be very much my sentiment as well, for all the same musical reasons cited in the above posts, as well as Jeff Beck's temperament

- except for one thing.

It was Jeff Beck himself, who recently floated this idea of supporting the Stones. And he did so in the media which is why we know of it.

Now perhaps Jeff Beck has probably mellowed over the years - many people do.
Also, I don't imagine he is an idiot that isn't already aware of the incompatibility of his chosen style and that of the Stones. He cited it in retrospect, when discussing the possibility of hooking up with the Stones many years ago. So, when Jeff Beck floats the notion of helping support the Stones, he is very likely taking into account making an adjustment.

Would the audience still detect some perceived or real sonic incompatibility going on? Yes, I think so. But not nearly to the extent of what I believe people are afraid of hearing.

My real objection to Jeff Beck supporting the Stones would be the decision opting to bypass Mick Taylor. But I could live with Beck on stage with the Stones, if The Glimmers would give us a few new studio recordings with Taylor (and Wyman).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-29 02:19 by SweetThing.

Quote
tatters

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
JumpinJeppeFlash
Please seek help!

Exact same words I heard when I suggested that the Stones fire Brian Jones and hire Mick Taylor 43 years ago!

I find it difficult to believe that you knew who Mick Taylor was before he joined the Stones. That would have required a degree of musical knowledge that nothing you've ever posted suggests you posses.

Of course I was joking, but I did grow up in the fifties and sixties surrounded by musicians. My brother was a bass player and his band jammed in our basement. Never played an instrument myself but was into music from probably the late fifties forward. I was a big fan of the Stones from the moment they first appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show. I had other favorites in those days, like The Beach Boys, The Beatles, The Doors, The Sonics, The Kinks, The Dave Clark Five, Hendrix, Dylan, John Mayall, etc.. My brother has a better memory for the sixties than I do so I will ask him what we actually knew of Mick Taylor in those days. I am pretty sure we were aware of who Mick Taylor was before he signed up with the Stones.

Quote
SweetThing

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
mickscarey
horrific idea

Seems to be the general consensus.

Yes it is the general consensus.

This would be very much my sentiment as well, for all the same musical reasons cited in the above posts, as well as Jeff Beck's temperament

- except for one thing.

It was Jeff Beck himself, who recently floated this idea of supporting the Stones. And he did so in the media which is why we know of it.

Now perhaps Jeff Beck has probably mellowed over the years - many people do.
Also, I don't imagine he is an idiot that isn't already aware of the incompatibility of his chosen style and that of the Stones. He cited it in retrospect, when discussing the possibility of hooking up with the Stones many years ago. So, when Jeff Beck floats the notion of helping support the Stones, he is very likely taking into account making an adjustment.

Would the audience still detect some perceived or real sonic incompatibility going on? Yes, I think so. But not nearly to the extent of what I believe people are afraid of hearing.

My real objection to Jeff Beck supporting the Stones would be the decision opting to bypass Mick Taylor. But I could live with Beck on stage with the Stones, if The Glimmers would give us a few new studio recordings with Taylor (and Wyman).

Sounds reasonable to me.

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
tatters

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
JumpinJeppeFlash
Please seek help!

Exact same words I heard when I suggested that the Stones fire Brian Jones and hire Mick Taylor 43 years ago!

I find it difficult to believe that you knew who Mick Taylor was before he joined the Stones. That would have required a degree of musical knowledge that nothing you've ever posted suggests you posses.

Of course I was joking, but I did grow up in the fifties and sixties surrounded by musicians. My brother was a bass player and his band jammed in our basement. Never played an instrument myself but was into music from probably the late fifties forward. I was a big fan of the Stones from the moment they first appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show. I had other favorites in those days, like The Beach Boys, The Beatles, The Doors, The Sonics, The Kinks, The Dave Clark Five, Hendrix, Dylan, John Mayall, etc.. My brother has a better memory for the sixties than I do so I will ask him what we actually knew of Mick Taylor in those days. I am pretty sure we were aware of who Mick Taylor was before he signed up with the Stones.

And here I thought you were only interested in the drama of it all.

Quote
tatters

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
tatters

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
JumpinJeppeFlash
Please seek help!

Exact same words I heard when I suggested that the Stones fire Brian Jones and hire Mick Taylor 43 years ago!

I find it difficult to believe that you knew who Mick Taylor was before he joined the Stones. That would have required a degree of musical knowledge that nothing you've ever posted suggests you posses.

Of course I was joking, but I did grow up in the fifties and sixties surrounded by musicians. My brother was a bass player and his band jammed in our basement. Never played an instrument myself but was into music from probably the late fifties forward. I was a big fan of the Stones from the moment they first appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show. I had other favorites in those days, like The Beach Boys, The Beatles, The Doors, The Sonics, The Kinks, The Dave Clark Five, Hendrix, Dylan, John Mayall, etc.. My brother has a better memory for the sixties than I do so I will ask him what we actually knew of Mick Taylor in those days. I am pretty sure we were aware of who Mick Taylor was before he signed up with the Stones.

And here I thought you were only interested in the drama of it all.

I do like a good drama, no doubt about that. Never a dull moment with the Stones. When they are not delivering "kick ass" music they run a damn pretty good soap opera.

Quote
SweetThing

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
mickscarey
horrific idea

Seems to be the general consensus.

Yes it is the general consensus.

This would be very much my sentiment as well, for all the same musical reasons cited in the above posts, as well as Jeff Beck's temperament

- except for one thing.

It was Jeff Beck himself, who recently floated this idea of supporting the Stones. And he did so in the media which is why we know of it.

Now perhaps Jeff Beck has probably mellowed over the years - many people do.
Also, I don't imagine he is an idiot that isn't already aware of the incompatibility of his chosen style and that of the Stones. He cited it in retrospect, when discussing the possibility of hooking up with the Stones many years ago. So, when Jeff Beck floats the notion of helping support the Stones, he is very likely taking into account making an adjustment.

Would the audience still detect some perceived or real sonic incompatibility going on? Yes, I think so. But not nearly to the extent of what I believe people are afraid of hearing.

My real objection to Jeff Beck supporting the Stones would be the decision opting to bypass Mick Taylor. But I could live with Beck on stage with the Stones, if The Glimmers would give us a few new studio recordings with Taylor (and Wyman).

I agree with this. JB would make a good job of the solos that MT made famous. He may be able to do them better than MT. Probably any number of musicians could do a better job on RS material than current or former RS could do now (with the absolute exception of Mick, whose voice cannot be duplicated and certainly not bettered). But is this a reason to replace them?

My aging cats are not the gorgeous, active kittens they once were, but they are irreplaceable, because of who they are and all of our shared memories.

Quote
Bliss

Quote
SweetThing

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
mickscarey
horrific idea

Seems to be the general consensus.

Yes it is the general consensus.

This would be very much my sentiment as well, for all the same musical reasons cited in the above posts, as well as Jeff Beck's temperament

- except for one thing.

It was Jeff Beck himself, who recently floated this idea of supporting the Stones. And he did so in the media which is why we know of it.

Now perhaps Jeff Beck has probably mellowed over the years - many people do.
Also, I don't imagine he is an idiot that isn't already aware of the incompatibility of his chosen style and that of the Stones. He cited it in retrospect, when discussing the possibility of hooking up with the Stones many years ago. So, when Jeff Beck floats the notion of helping support the Stones, he is very likely taking into account making an adjustment.

Would the audience still detect some perceived or real sonic incompatibility going on? Yes, I think so. But not nearly to the extent of what I believe people are afraid of hearing.

My real objection to Jeff Beck supporting the Stones would be the decision opting to bypass Mick Taylor. But I could live with Beck on stage with the Stones, if The Glimmers would give us a few new studio recordings with Taylor (and Wyman).

I agree with this. JB would make a good job of the solos that MT made famous. He may be able to do them better than MT. Probably any number of musicians could do a better job on RS material than current or former RS could do now (with the absolute exception of Mick, whose voice cannot be duplicated and certainly not bettered). But is this a reason to replace them?

My aging cats are not the gorgeous, active kittens they once were, but they are irreplaceable, because of who they are and all of our shared memories.

Mick Taylor had been working on some demos in the late 80s, Jeff got to hear a couple of rough mixes because Max Middleton had a copy at home. The only thing JB had to say was: 'Wow, I wish I could play like that". Judging the Stones guitar department these days, I don't think we need Jeff to replace Taylor for a couple of gigs.

Quote
Jah Paul
My favorite Jeff Beck moment, from the Yardbirds' Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction in 1993...

A cool dude!

But I need to say that if Beck hasn't softened considerably, and has that kind of 'no forgiviness' memory, Jagger better not to even consider hiring him again...

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-29 12:47 by Doxa.