Quote
NEWMAN

Quote
kleermaker
Did I ever state that Mozart was a scientist instead of an artist? I don't think so.

Just remove the 'so', at the end of your sentence and we agree.

><

Quote
keefriffhards

Quote
Olly

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
Olly

Quote
Mathijs

There simply would not have been the famous post-1969 Stones without Charlie Watts. Keith Richards would have never been able to evolve to his peak in 1975 and 1978 without Charlie Watts.

And Wyman is much the same: basically a bassist with a lack of even the most basic technical skills, but able to always find that fantastic groove and swing, and always able to add a melodic layer in what is fairly simple music.

Mathijs

I'm amazed that only one other member has questioned this.

What on earth possessed you to conclude that these two dates represent Keith Richards' 'peak'?

A number of Stones fans take this view - the idea is basically that Keith's playing suffered from the clearer division between rhythm and lead guitar that emerged on the 1972/73 tours. When Taylor left and Wood joined, Keith was revitalised as a player, and this resulted (so the argument goes) in both his best ever live performances and a burst of creativity in the studio that, after GHS and IORR, had seemed unlikely.

I can understand the reference to 1978, although is the 'burst of creativity' comparable with the one that began a decade earlier?

How did Richards peak in 1975?

You make a thought-provoking point regarding live performances.

Olly. you raised the question.
i was courious as to when you thought Keith peaked as a guitarist..

For me, Keith as a guitarist relies as much on his aesthetic, enjoyment, and confidence, particularly in live performances, as much as technical ability.

He peaked 'as a guitarist' on the Voodoo Lounge and Bridges to Babylon Tours.

Look at / listen to the following, as examples:

[*] Honkey Tonk Women (Tokyo, 1995)
[*] Before They Make Me Run (Tokyo, 1995)
[*] Little Queenie (Buenos Aires, 1998)

This is a man at the peak of his powers; a musician who knows what he wants to do and is capable of executing it.

And a man with a smile on his face.

.....

Olly.

I have been drumming for 30 years and the Stones and Charlie were a huge influence on my desire to play rock n roll. Although I am just garage rocker I certainly have listened and analyzed his playing for years and years.

Drumming is more than fills/accents and just keeping time. It's the space between the hits that dictates the groove. 2 drummers could play the exact same 4/4 time signature at the same tempo with snare on beats 2 and 4 and kick on 1 and 3. You would think they would sound identical, they don't always. The space between the hits creates the swing feel so often noted in Charlie's style. It's organic and hard to explain but you can feel it. It's also how the drummer plays with the rhythm in the song. Some drummers lead the song, some follow and some just play perfect timing only. Shouldn't perfect timing sound awesome? It doesn't always, music is organic and the song is art, all musicians are painting the same picture, those that do it best know they are painting as a team.

For reference look at AC/DC, Simon Wright and Chris Slade are world's better than Phil Rudd techically but the Young brothers went back to Rudd becuase of how he played with them.

Another reference is Steve Adler from Guns N Roses, wow he was perfect for them. They got Matt Sorum, a great drummer but as Izzy Stradlin said, nothing worked or swung with Matt like it did with Adler.

So the answer is, for the Stones, Charlie really is that good and is the Stones sound.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-04 00:00 by Markdog.

Charlie's the Buster Keaton of rock ....



ROCKMAN

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Turner68

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
shortfatfanny

Quote
MartinB
I am with Mathijs, about both Charlie and Bill.

Mathijs put it perfectly.
To say he's not a special drummer and just average reflects a limited musically knowledge if there is some knowledge at all.

It's not a matter of knowledge, dear friend. Music isn't science you know, but art.

music should be *appreciated* as art by a listener, no question about it.

but when judging the abilities of a specific performer it is as much science as art, for we are talking about a discipline that requires significant technical skill to make the art.

But according to that criterion Charlie isn't a good drummer, because he's technically quite limited. Or do we have to define 'technical skill' first?

just because his technical skill may not have been learned in a music conservatory does not invalidate it as a technical skill. einstein worked in a patent office during his "golden era".



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-04 00:09 by Turner68.

Quote
Olly

Quote
keefriffhards

Quote
Olly

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
Olly

Quote
Mathijs

There simply would not have been the famous post-1969 Stones without Charlie Watts. Keith Richards would have never been able to evolve to his peak in 1975 and 1978 without Charlie Watts.

And Wyman is much the same: basically a bassist with a lack of even the most basic technical skills, but able to always find that fantastic groove and swing, and always able to add a melodic layer in what is fairly simple music.

Mathijs

I'm amazed that only one other member has questioned this.

What on earth possessed you to conclude that these two dates represent Keith Richards' 'peak'?

A number of Stones fans take this view - the idea is basically that Keith's playing suffered from the clearer division between rhythm and lead guitar that emerged on the 1972/73 tours. When Taylor left and Wood joined, Keith was revitalised as a player, and this resulted (so the argument goes) in both his best ever live performances and a burst of creativity in the studio that, after GHS and IORR, had seemed unlikely.

I can understand the reference to 1978, although is the 'burst of creativity' comparable with the one that began a decade earlier?

How did Richards peak in 1975?

You make a thought-provoking point regarding live performances.

Olly. you raised the question.
i was courious as to when you thought Keith peaked as a guitarist..

For me, Keith as a guitarist relies as much on his aesthetic, enjoyment, and confidence, particularly in live performances, as much as technical ability.

He peaked 'as a guitarist' on the Voodoo Lounge and Bridges to Babylon Tours.

Look at / listen to the following, as examples:

[*] Honkey Tonk Women (Tokyo, 1995)
[*] Before They Make Me Run (Tokyo, 1995)
[*] Little Queenie (Buenos Aires, 1998)

This is a man at the peak of his powers; a musician who knows what he wants to do and is capable of executing it.

And a man with a smile on his face.

There you go. For me, the decline started in 1994, was obvious in 1997 and influenced the band's performances in 2002.

In 1990 he was brilliant.

I suspect this decline had something to do with his fingers and arthritis.

It was in 1997 he started to rest on wrong notes (not the root notes) during his solos. That's like squeaking chalk sounds on a blackboard for me...

Quote
24FPS

Quote
keefriffhards

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Olly

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
Olly

Quote
Mathijs
I couldn't disagree more with Kleermaker than on his statement here. Charlie really IS the Rolling Stones. Charlie really is a very awkward drummer, with an unique drumming style that seems quite simple but is very, very difficult to replicate or copy. The thing is that with Charlie even the most simple drum pattern has that sense of push and pull, which makes the music much more dynamic and swing.

There simply would not have been the famous post-1969 Stones without Charlie Watts. Keith Richards would have never been able to evolve to his peak in 1975 and 1978 without Charlie Watts.

And Wyman is much the same: basically a bassist with a lack of even the most basic technical skills, but able to always find that fantastic groove and swing, and always able to add a melodic layer in what is fairly simple music.

Mathijs

I'm amazed that only one other member has questioned this.

What on earth possessed you to conclude that these two dates represent Keith Richards' 'peak'?

A number of Stones fans take this view - the idea is basically that Keith's playing suffered from the clearer division between rhythm and lead guitar that emerged on the 1972/73 tours. When Taylor left and Wood joined, Keith was revitalised as a player, and this resulted (so the argument goes) in both his best ever live performances and a burst of creativity in the studio that, after GHS and IORR, had seemed unlikely.

I can understand the reference to 1978, although is the 'burst of creativity' comparable with the one that began a decade earlier?

How did Richards peak in 1975?

You make a thought-provoking point regarding live performances.

He started playing way more standard tuning and wasn't constrained by strumming rhythm. The result was new phrasing, new motifs, better soloing and overall better playing. This development was imo crowned with blistering playing in 1977 at the El Mocambo club.

In 1978, with the legendary Mesa Boogie amp he developed this sound and took his role further by playing more lead guitar and only occasionally in open tuning.

well i'm not so sure keith stopped improving post 75' 78'. that's a hard one to except. sorry i dont agree with that one.. just saying..

It's hard to say about their studio output, since Tattoo You was such a mishmash, but I think Keith continued on an upward trajectory on stage and peaked in 1981/82.

True, but he became way more inconsistent and hit or miss than in 1978, imo.

Quote
TheBlockbuster

Quote
RobertJohnson
With exception of Mick Taylor there is no genius in music in the band, but all of them contribute to this unique Stones sound you can't never find otherwise. And thus that holds for Charlie Watts, too. Insofar he is a unique and singular drummer.

I would not call Taylor a musical genius. He simply lacked the talent to know what not to play, which live in concert resulted in him spoiling some tunes by overplaying. If there's any member of the Stones who is not a musical genius, it's Mick Taylor.
Mick J. and Keith are both genius song writers, which in my opinion makes them musical geniuses.

He's a genius because he could put on a damn good performance with out of tune instruments with the best damn rock band ever in front of 70k plus people. Oh, as a 19 year old. He had his priorities straight and never put on a horrible performance. He's a Bluesbreaker.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-04 00:15 by TravelinMan.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
While I personally think that a bad Keith-show is a bad Stones-show, I definitely see your point of view, Stoneburst. That's fair, it's all about taste.

But I'm glad you agree about Keith's playing.

Oh, hell yes. His tone was wonderful back then as well. When they get round to doing the reissue of Black and Blue, I hope they'll dig out the tapes for Paris and Knebworth and include them. Ronnie was great on those shows too - his solo on the Knebworth Hot Stuff is one of his best, I think.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-04 00:19 by Stoneburst.

Play music with 4 or 5 people and you soon realize how organic it is that only the right group of guys (or girls) can create that special sound that resonates in a big way.

The same reason you can take the best players and put them all together and even though it will sound good due to their skill it is always missing that certain something.

Art can't be defined only felt. It bridges the gap between logic and emotion.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-04 00:21 by Markdog.

Quote
Mathijs
I couldn't disagree more with Kleermaker than on his statement here. Charlie really IS the Rolling Stones. Charlie really is a very awkward drummer, with an unique drumming style that seems quite simple but is very, very difficult to replicate or copy. The thing is that with Charlie even the most simple drum pattern has that sense of push and pull, which makes the music much more dynamic and swing.

There simply would not have been the famous post-1969 Stones without Charlie Watts. Keith Richards would have never been able to evolve to his peak in 1975 and 1978 without Charlie Watts.

And Wyman is much the same: basically a bassist with a lack of even the most basic technical skills, but able to always find that fantastic groove and swing, and always able to add a melodic layer in what is fairly simple music.

Mathijs

And this is what the Stones makes so great ...........simplicity and the right swing and rhythm............

__________________________

Quote
DandelionPowderman
It was in 1997 he started to rest on wrong notes (not the root notes) during his solos. That's like squeaking chalk sounds on a blackboard for me...

I strongly disagree. 1997 was the best tour for Keith since 1976. It's hard to find any examples of him ''resting on wrong notes'' in 1997. Maybe in Chicago with opening night nerves and all, but for the rest of the tour you're way off. In 2002-2003 Keith was also excellent and his performance did not drag down band the a single bit, except for some flubbed Brown Sugar intros, but that's forgivable.

Here's one of the best solo's Keith has ever done IMO at 3:41, from St. Louis 1997:

video: [www.youtube.com]







Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-04 00:34 by EasterMan.

You'll find examples in EVERY show, unfortunately.

Quote
EasterMan

Quote
DandelionPowderman
It was in 1997 he started to rest on wrong notes (not the root notes) during his solos. That's like squeaking chalk sounds on a blackboard for me...

I strongly disagree. 1997 was the best tour for Keith since 1976. It's hard to find any examples of him ''resting on wrong notes'' in 1997. Maybe in Chicago with opening night nerves and all, but for the rest of the tour you're way off. In 2002-2003 Keith was also excellent and his performance did not drag down band the a single bit, except for some flubbed Brown Sugar intros, but that's forgivable.

Here's one of the best solo's Keith has ever done IMO at 3:41, from St. Louis 1997:

video: [www.youtube.com]

Indeed.

As I suggested above, the Bridges to Babylon Tour shows a band at the top of their game.

.....

Olly.

I love the B2B tour, but Keith already had declined.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
You'll find examples in EVERY show, unfortunately.

Ok, give me some examples then, instead of just talking. I'm sure we can find bum notes from Keith in shows from 1995 also...

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Olly

Quote
keefriffhards

Quote
Olly

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
Olly

Quote
Mathijs

There simply would not have been the famous post-1969 Stones without Charlie Watts. Keith Richards would have never been able to evolve to his peak in 1975 and 1978 without Charlie Watts.

And Wyman is much the same: basically a bassist with a lack of even the most basic technical skills, but able to always find that fantastic groove and swing, and always able to add a melodic layer in what is fairly simple music.

Mathijs

I'm amazed that only one other member has questioned this.

What on earth possessed you to conclude that these two dates represent Keith Richards' 'peak'?

A number of Stones fans take this view - the idea is basically that Keith's playing suffered from the clearer division between rhythm and lead guitar that emerged on the 1972/73 tours. When Taylor left and Wood joined, Keith was revitalised as a player, and this resulted (so the argument goes) in both his best ever live performances and a burst of creativity in the studio that, after GHS and IORR, had seemed unlikely.

I can understand the reference to 1978, although is the 'burst of creativity' comparable with the one that began a decade earlier?

How did Richards peak in 1975?

You make a thought-provoking point regarding live performances.

Olly. you raised the question.
i was courious as to when you thought Keith peaked as a guitarist..

For me, Keith as a guitarist relies as much on his aesthetic, enjoyment, and confidence, particularly in live performances, as much as technical ability.

He peaked 'as a guitarist' on the Voodoo Lounge and Bridges to Babylon Tours.

Look at / listen to the following, as examples:

[*] Honkey Tonk Women (Tokyo, 1995)
[*] Before They Make Me Run (Tokyo, 1995)
[*] Little Queenie (Buenos Aires, 1998)

This is a man at the peak of his powers; a musician who knows what he wants to do and is capable of executing it.

And a man with a smile on his face.

There you go. For me, the decline started in 1994, was obvious in 1997 and influenced the band's performances in 2002.

In 1990 he was brilliant.

I suspect this decline had something to do with his fingers and arthritis.

It was in 1997 he started to rest on wrong notes (not the root notes) during his solos. That's like squeaking chalk sounds on a blackboard for me...

You are so right.

His lead playing was never better than on the '89-'90 tour. By '94, that nimble magic was simply gone, and it's only been downhill from there.

Understand I'm speaking of Keith strictly as a lead guitarist, which as we all know, has never been his forte. However, I think on Steel Wheels/Urban Jungle, his lead work was utterly brilliant.

Quote
EasterMan

Quote
DandelionPowderman
You'll find examples in EVERY show, unfortunately.

Ok, give me some examples then, instead of just talking. I'm sure we can find bum notes from Keith in shows from 1995 also...

It was a tendency that started on the VL tour, like I said.

keith was hot in 1989. i remember half the reviews of the steel wheels tours spent a paragraph just talking about the sympathy solo. i think this sort of became part of how he defined himself as a player and now he feels he needs to live up to it.

as a counter-example, ie. an area where he has adjusted to changes with his age, i would point to his singing which has changed quite a bit but he has adapted his style to his changing voice and it works great i think.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
EasterMan

Quote
DandelionPowderman
You'll find examples in EVERY show, unfortunately.

Ok, give me some examples then, instead of just talking. I'm sure we can find bum notes from Keith in shows from 1995 also...

It was a tendency that started on the VL tour, like I said.

Ok sorry, did not catch that.
In 1994 he started playing more bum notes, yes, but his rhythm guitar work was maybe better than ever before and he could still play some off the hook solos, so I find it very awkward to say he was already on his way down by 1994. I mean he played some incredibly sloppy solos on SFTD already in 1989. I don't think he dragged the band down until 2006.

Just listen to way Keith drives the song forward here with extremely great timing, it's the kind of fabulous playing I had never before heard from Keith:

video: [www.youtube.com]






Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-04 01:21 by EasterMan.

Quote
Turner68
keith was hot in 1989. i remember half the reviews of the steel wheels tours spent a paragraph just talking about the sympathy solo. i think this sort of became part of how he defined himself as a player and now he feels he needs to live up to it.

as a counter-example, ie. an area where he has adjusted to changes with his age, i would point to his singing which has changed quite a bit but he has adapted his style to his changing voice and it works great i think.

once again turner i agree with you. he was magnificent.

[www.youtube.com]

Easterman:

i'm sorry it just makes me sad to listen to clips like that LSTNT, that is deep vegas era stuff. the cheesy keyboard intro, the backing vocals... it almost sounds like easy listening. LSTNT rocked hard in '81, but not here.

the decline started in the mid-70s IMO.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-04 01:23 by Turner68.

Quote
Turner68
as a counter-example, ie. an area where he has adjusted to changes with his age, i would point to his singing which has changed quite a bit but he has adapted his style to his changing voice and it works great i think.

Agreed, although ironically I think this is one of the reasons a solo tour would not work so well. His voice has developed a sort of crooning style that, as you say, is age-appropriate, and is fine for his backing vocals and the mini-set he does during Stones gigs, but might actually end up limiting the sort of stuff he could sing on one of his own gigs.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-04 01:27 by Stoneburst.

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
Turner68
as a counter-example, ie. an area where he has adjusted to changes with his age, i would point to his singing which has changed quite a bit but he has adapted his style to his changing voice and it works great i think.

Agreed, although ironically I think this is one of the reasons a solo tour would not work so well. His voice has developed a sort of crooning style that, as you say, is age-appropriate, and works for his backing vocals and the mini-set he does during Stones gigs, but probably wouldn't work so well over a whole set of his own.

Try telling Bob Dylan that.

.....

Olly.

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Olly

Quote
keefriffhards

Quote
Olly

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
Olly

Quote
Mathijs

There simply would not have been the famous post-1969 Stones without Charlie Watts. Keith Richards would have never been able to evolve to his peak in 1975 and 1978 without Charlie Watts.

And Wyman is much the same: basically a bassist with a lack of even the most basic technical skills, but able to always find that fantastic groove and swing, and always able to add a melodic layer in what is fairly simple music.

Mathijs

I'm amazed that only one other member has questioned this.

What on earth possessed you to conclude that these two dates represent Keith Richards' 'peak'?

A number of Stones fans take this view - the idea is basically that Keith's playing suffered from the clearer division between rhythm and lead guitar that emerged on the 1972/73 tours. When Taylor left and Wood joined, Keith was revitalised as a player, and this resulted (so the argument goes) in both his best ever live performances and a burst of creativity in the studio that, after GHS and IORR, had seemed unlikely.

I can understand the reference to 1978, although is the 'burst of creativity' comparable with the one that began a decade earlier?

How did Richards peak in 1975?

You make a thought-provoking point regarding live performances.

Olly. you raised the question.
i was courious as to when you thought Keith peaked as a guitarist..

For me, Keith as a guitarist relies as much on his aesthetic, enjoyment, and confidence, particularly in live performances, as much as technical ability.

He peaked 'as a guitarist' on the Voodoo Lounge and Bridges to Babylon Tours.

Look at / listen to the following, as examples:

[*] Honkey Tonk Women (Tokyo, 1995)
[*] Before They Make Me Run (Tokyo, 1995)
[*] Little Queenie (Buenos Aires, 1998)

This is a man at the peak of his powers; a musician who knows what he wants to do and is capable of executing it.

And a man with a smile on his face.

There you go. For me, the decline started in 1994, was obvious in 1997 and influenced the band's performances in 2002.

In 1990 he was brilliant.

I suspect this decline had something to do with his fingers and arthritis.

It was in 1997 he started to rest on wrong notes (not the root notes) during his solos. That's like squeaking chalk sounds on a blackboard for me...

You are so right.

His lead playing was never better than on the '89-'90 tour. By '94, that nimble magic was simply gone, and it's only been downhill from there.

Understand I'm speaking of Keith strictly as a lead guitarist, which as we all know, has never been his forte. However, I think on Steel Wheels/Urban Jungle, his lead work was utterly brilliant.

i agree with you about his deline here. i think his lifestyle choices caught up with him after this period. but i believe slowly but surely he is coming back. don't write him off just yet.. after listening to sticky fingers live he still has the potential to get better. he needs just a bit more confidence..

Quote
Rockman
Charlie's the Buster Keaton of rock ....

Lurv Buster! From The Railrodder

Quote
Olly

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
Turner68
as a counter-example, ie. an area where he has adjusted to changes with his age, i would point to his singing which has changed quite a bit but he has adapted his style to his changing voice and it works great i think.

Agreed, although ironically I think this is one of the reasons a solo tour would not work so well. His voice has developed a sort of crooning style that, as you say, is age-appropriate, and works for his backing vocals and the mini-set he does during Stones gigs, but probably wouldn't work so well over a whole set of his own.

Try telling Bob Dylan that.

Dylan's set is very different from the one Keith would likely be doing. In any case, Dylan hasn't modified his voice over the years in the way Keith has - the inflections that characterise him as a singer are all still there and he is instantly recognisable. Keith sounds very different these days.

Quote
EasterMan

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
EasterMan

Quote
DandelionPowderman
You'll find examples in EVERY show, unfortunately.

Ok, give me some examples then, instead of just talking. I'm sure we can find bum notes from Keith in shows from 1995 also...

It was a tendency that started on the VL tour, like I said.

Ok sorry, did not catch that.
In 1994 he started playing more bum notes, yes, but his rhythm guitar work was maybe better than ever before and he could still play some off the hook solos, so I find it very awkward to say he was already on his way down by 1994. I mean he played some incredibly sloppy solos on SFTD already in 1989. I don't think he dragged the band down until 2006.

Just listen to way Keith drives the song forward here with extremely great timing, it's the kind of fabulous playing I had never before heard from Keith:

video: [www.youtube.com]

Keith as ALWAYS played a lot of bum notes. What I am talking about is more like losing the sense of what the notes he played did and how it affected the listener. When he is stopping and dwelling with bum notes, something had happened.

That said, he did brilliant shows in 1994/95, 1997/98 and 1999. But the thing I´m talking about escalated. On Licks he was hit and miss. On ABB his rhythm playing was obviously affected as well.

That´s why I´m so impressed with Keith today. He played well on the first show in 2012. HP1 was, well, good at times, bad at times.

In Roskilde he was very good, and what I´m hearing on the Zip Code tour makes me happy.

Unfortunately, I can´t find examples for you where I am right now.

This is my observation, I respect different takes on this.

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
Olly

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
Turner68
as a counter-example, ie. an area where he has adjusted to changes with his age, i would point to his singing which has changed quite a bit but he has adapted his style to his changing voice and it works great i think.

Agreed, although ironically I think this is one of the reasons a solo tour would not work so well. His voice has developed a sort of crooning style that, as you say, is age-appropriate, and works for his backing vocals and the mini-set he does during Stones gigs, but probably wouldn't work so well over a whole set of his own.

Try telling Bob Dylan that.

Dylan's set is very different from the one Keith would likely be doing. In any case, Dylan hasn't modified his voice over the years in the way Keith has - the inflections that characterise him as a singer are all still there and he is instantly recognisable. Keith sounds very different these days.

I disagree.

Apart from an obvious and normal evolution dictated by ageing, I think Keith's singing voice and style has remained fairly consistent since the 1980s.

It's the high-pitched voice from the early years that has long gone.

Keith's voice is, relatively, as strong as Mick's at this stage.

Besides, Keith's vocals on ballad numbers have long been celebrated - perhaps a solo set would comprise more of these numbers, or faster songs could be reimagined if required.

.....

Olly.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-04 01:53 by Olly.