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.

Quote
Olly

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.

Quote
keefriffhards

your almost identical to me with your summery there Olly. mine is on page 2. only difference i thought he peaked in 99' no security tour.

Quote
RockinJive

First of all what peak in 1975 and 1978?

Quote
DandelionPowderman


Keith can still sing pretty high-pitched, but it doesn´t sound as pure as it did back in the day, of course.

Listen to I Got The Blues ("In the arms...") from Fonda

Quote

Is Charlie as great as people claim

Quote
RipThisBone
"Is Charlie as great as people claim".
I claim Charlie is about 1 meter, 68 cm tall, that's about 5 feet or so, and HE PLAYS DRUMS IN THE GREATEST ROCK AND ROLL BAND IN HUMAN HISTORY.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Olly


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.

I'm not going to speculate with the dates but I think it had a lot to do with his drug intake, how it started gloriously and rather innocently and became more important than the music (as Keith himself points out). When music took the front seat again (relatively speaking) Keith was able to focus his considerable talents back on his creative endeavors.

Haven't heard much comment on how Charlie's dark period in the mid 80's affected his playing or the Stones music in general. I can hardly listen to Dirty Work but perhaps those who have can hear some difference in his style.

Quote
Olly

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Olly


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.

I'm not going to speculate with the dates but I think it had a lot to do with his drug intake, how it started gloriously and rather innocently and became more important than the music (as Keith himself points out). When music took the front seat again (relatively speaking) Keith was able to focus his considerable talents back on his creative endeavors.

Haven't heard much comment on how Charlie's dark period in the mid 80's affected his playing or the Stones music in general. I can hardly listen to Dirty Work but perhaps those who have can hear some difference in his style.

Naturalust,

It's perhaps telling that the two songs with the best percussion on Dirty Work feature Ronnie Wood behind the drum kit...

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Olly

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Olly


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.

I'm not going to speculate with the dates but I think it had a lot to do with his drug intake, how it started gloriously and rather innocently and became more important than the music (as Keith himself points out). When music took the front seat again (relatively speaking) Keith was able to focus his considerable talents back on his creative endeavors.

Haven't heard much comment on how Charlie's dark period in the mid 80's affected his playing or the Stones music in general. I can hardly listen to Dirty Work but perhaps those who have can hear some difference in his style.

Naturalust,

It's perhaps telling that the two songs with the best percussion on Dirty Work feature Ronnie Wood behind the drum kit...

Damn, learn something new every day here. Perhaps that's why someone saw Mick outside the studio crying during these sessions.

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.

It's more surprising that not all Stones fans acknowledge this, imo.

Keith's playing on GS in 73 and 75 is a good example of this. The playing on the latter tour is way more intricate and adventurous.

Quote
Mathijs

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.

It's more surprising that not all Stones fans acknowledge this, imo.

Keith's playing on GS in 73 and 75 is a good example of this. The playing on the latter tour is way more intricate and adventurous.

I couldn't agree more!

Perhaps he even peaked in 1981, with the Hampton gig. But, the 1981 tour was very uneven, with horrible shows and excellent shows.

Concerning the peak of the Stones -I think they really hit their peak as a band in late 1977 and early 1978. All individual members hit their peak both technically and melodically. All seemed more focussed by the renewed energy that Wood added, Jagger and Richards where on a creative burst in song writing, and Chris Kimsey really did wonders as a producer.

This has also been my main gripe with the Taylorites: sure he was fantastic. But I can thoroughly enjoy listening only to Charlie on say LA Friday 75, or listening to Bill hitting his peak on Hampton 81. I don't care then that Wood hits more bum notes than Taylor.

Mathijs

Quote
Niek
What a pity this thread goes over to MT and Keith. Disappointing.

---

Maybe so, although it's predictable and understandable that one band member's greatness will be judged in relation to their role played within the band as a whole.

It was Mathijs' provocative statement, posted below, that drew Richards into the discussion.


---


Re: Is Charlie as great as people claim.
Posted by: Mathijs ()
Date: July 3, 2015 13:51

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

-

.....

Olly.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-06 06:34 by Olly.

Quote
Turner68
No it wasn't Mathijs it was kleermaker who said that Charlie's loyalty to nick and Keith was one of his biggest strengths

In any case who cares this is a forum and this forum is for talking about our favorite band.

Quote
Olly

Quote
Turner68
No it wasn't Mathijs it was kleermaker who said that Charlie's loyalty to nick and Keith was one of his biggest strengths

In any case who cares this is a forum and this forum is for talking about our favorite band.

When have I suggested that this isn't or shouldn't be the case?

Yes, kleermaker mentioned loyalty, but it was Mathijs who brought into the discussion views on the very specific 'peaks' in Richards' career.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
Olly

Quote
Turner68
No it wasn't Mathijs it was kleermaker who said that Charlie's loyalty to nick and Keith was one of his biggest strengths

In any case who cares this is a forum and this forum is for talking about our favorite band.

When have I suggested that this isn't or shouldn't be the case?

Yes, kleermaker mentioned loyalty, but it was Mathijs who brought into the discussion views on the very specific 'peaks' in Richards' career.

I don't see anything wrong with Mathijs post it was a continuation of the topic and the response from Kleetmaker why try to point fingers?

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?

Quote
Brstonesfan
C'mon...Charlie is respected by his peers and universally recognized as a great drummer. All drummers who open for the Stones want to meet and watch Charlie. He is not in the mode of the guy from LZ,VH, Metallica, etc, but he fits just perfectly in his band.