Tell Me :
Talk
It wasn't weaving that was new, it was (like you say) the way Keith and Ronnie did it.
They were (albeit very little) weaving in the Taylor era, too (I Got The Blues, Midnight Rambler) as well as in the Brian era (Confessing The Blues, The Spider And The Fly).
But the totally free-form thing they took all down the line in 1981/82 was something else.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-09 12:11 by DandelionPowderman.
I could not agree more
Yes and they seem to be doing it better than for a long time, on the Zip code tour
A very good post, and tehre is not anything substantial I disagree with, probably only some minor nuances.
I do get the point and agree with (of course) that Keith is no way a 'traditional rhythm guitarist" but that doesn't imply that he is not a rhythm guitarist at all or is a 'lead guitarist' instead - it is precisely the way he has approached rhythm guitar that has given it a role and significance that is pretty different than what has been traditionally thought (and still many do). I think it is the output during the golden period of 1968-72 he mastered his own idiosyncratic style to play the guitar and which emphasizes the rhythm element. Just think of all those riff-based things with which he leads the songs and the band. Sometimes it is a question of 'proper' chords, sometimes more just a few indicating notes, licks, runs, etc. And yeah, to describe him is not so easy with traditional terms (rhythm vs. lead). Is it like playing a rhythm guitar like a lead guitar or playing a lead guitar with a rhythm guitarist approach, I don't know. In either case, it is the rhythm elemennt that is very important, even crucial to him, me thinks. When I think of the stuff he does through, say, "Honky Tonk Women" it is kind of pure idiosyncratic Richards - not easy to put under the label of 'rhythm' or 'lead' (if we forget the solo).
So I'm not quite happy calling the Pathe Marconi era stuff just a game for lead guitars. That sounds too narrow or even thin to describe his and Ronnie's doings. You call them 'percussive' players, but I think that is not enough to do them justice. Even the idea of the Stones having replaced the old rhythm/lead split by two lead guitars sounds a bit odd to me. Because I don't hear that, even though there are many songs that doesn't have a 'straight' rhythm guitar part.
What goes for the uniqueness of Keith/Ron tandem - are there any other bands sounding like them? Of course, not. But not did any band sounded like them when they were having a firm rhythm/lead distinction either. Or when Keith hits the basic chords of "Street Fighting Man", I don't know any player sounding like him either. It is just the question what you do, but how you do it - that sets the difference no matter what you do.
If the idea of 'weaving' is 'trading licks', that is, by definition, two or more guitarists doing anything else but not playing a straight rhythm guitar, I think the question is not Keith and Ronnie doing something no one else does in principle, but more like them just doing it so well (to our taste) - them clicking so well (better in this sense, say, The Grateful Dead, Lynyrd Skynyrd, or even Iron Maiden, if you iike). Probably since they are so similar players, it is easy for them to sound like 'one'. For example, it would be more difficult with Taylor, since he has so distinct style and touch in compared to Keith's.
Anyway, if the point of weaving is that of two guys playing lead guitar with a free-form jazz approach, one could claim that wasn't that what Taylor did by himself during 1972/73 tours, the one his critics call as 'noodling'? So in 1978 there were instead of one, two of them now 'noodling'. So the question of ancient art of weaving vs. traditional rhythm/lead distinction is merely a question what kind of guitar solos we like. That of a guitar god playing 'extended' ones vs. two guys throwing their sweet and short solos here and there.
Is the question, in the end, really that of a battle over preferred guitar solos??????
Personally, I have never thought the Stones or the 'ancient art of weaving' essentially as a solo guitarist thing. That's why I am so confused by all this lead guitar talk.
- Doxa, a noble defender of rhythm guitar in rock and roll (guess from who I got that...)
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-09 15:33 by Doxa.
A play for the gallery? Nothing could be further from the truth here, what a cheap shot. What my motivation for this continued discussion is mainly to point out the combination of lead and rhythm that made up the weaving Keith and Ronnie did. I never had trouble admitting that their weaving included lead parts, just pointing out that rhythm guitar was also involved. Obviously it becomes somewhat of a semantics discussion for the most part and you seem to be getting it a bit more, but your statements from this thread like:
"Keith and Ronnie are indeed playing solo licks when they are weaving, they are not playing rhythm guitar."
"but to say that it isn't based on lead guitars complimenting each other would be false."
"weaving is just two lead guitars from both speakers"
And then you completely contradict yourself and say:
"I never said they weren't weaving rhythm parts"
"I never said one can't weave with rhythm guitars, it's just that that wasn't what they did."
So yes DP, these are your definitions of weaving, when you describe the process in terms of it being only a lead guitar thing, it becomes your definition. Some of us actually believe they weaved rhythm guitar parts too and combinations of rhythm and lead, not strictly lead guitar. Mathijs is obviously one of them. That quote was taken directly from his post, not taken out of context or clumsily worded.
I think you are coming around a bit when you say "Keith and Ronnie covered each other's backs with rhythm guitar while the other played licks and then switched rapidly". That's a pretty good description of some of their weaving style and it's good to see you are admitting that rhythm guitar was also involved.
Not my intention I assure you. I was just pointing out the bold comments which sparked this discussion. They seemed pretty clear and direct to me, the context doesn't change their meaning in any of the cases as far I can see. But I apologize if you actually meant something else.
They just have lol
I cant listen to anything now without weaves, its taking over, i just keep needing more weaving or its no good
Cant listen to Gilmore anymore now, NO weaving lol
Lol you just got to love gaslight though, talk about saying it as it is, or how he see's it, i take my hat off to gaslight a worthy opponent.
If he could just bring himself to listen to it one more time who knows, he might see the light lol but i fear he will go deranged in the process
LOLFL
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: If there were 3 things you could change about the Stones
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: October 9, 2015 11:41
But if the whole thing is about 'licks', then we could define 'ancient art of weaving'simply as 'trading licks' - which is something the musicians have always done without calling their stuff with that kind of fancy name...
Anyway, if I would try to define the 'weaving' I would definitively include the phenomenon of "Keith and Ronnie covered each other's backs with rhythm guitar while the oher played licks and then switched rapidly" there. I have always taken that as a crucial part in the dynamics of weaving, not that of simply 'trading licks' or that of it being an interaction between lead guitars.
I see Keith's words of "stepping out of rhythm" in regards to Berry not meaning that we abondon rhythm guitar (or its parts) altogether or belittle its importance - its there, and we need to take care of it, but we can also do something else as well, which, in ideal sense, leads going beyond the traditional rhythm/lead guitar distinction - not that of turning into lead guitarists solely (as I interpret if Keith has anything to to be critical is that of lead guitar: "You can't go into a shop and ask for a "lead guitar"").
Honestly, I am a bit surprised how little weight you Dandie as a huge Keith Richards fan seem to give to the role of rhythm guitar in the context of Rolling Stones, like it is some sort of secondary thing or lesser task the other is 'forced' to do while the other offers fancy licks or whatever.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-09 11:43 by Doxa.
Anyway, if I would try to define the 'weaving' I would definitively include the phenomenon of "Keith and Ronnie covered each other's backs with rhythm guitar while the oher played licks and then switched rapidly" there. I have always taken that as a crucial part in the dynamics of weaving, not that of simply 'trading licks' or that of it being an interaction between lead guitars.
I see Keith's words of "stepping out of rhythm" in regards to Berry not meaning that we abondon rhythm guitar (or its parts) altogether or belittle its importance - its there, and we need to take care of it, but we can also do something else as well, which, in ideal sense, leads going beyond the traditional rhythm/lead guitar distinction - not that of turning into lead guitarists solely (as I interpret if Keith has anything to to be critical is that of lead guitar: "You can't go into a shop and ask for a "lead guitar"").
Honestly, I am a bit surprised how little weight you Dandie as a huge Keith Richards fan seem to give to the role of rhythm guitar in the context of Rolling Stones, like it is some sort of secondary thing or lesser task the other is 'forced' to do while the other offers fancy licks or whatever.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-09 11:43 by Doxa.
Re: If there were 3 things you could change about the Stones
Posted by:
Turner68
()
Date: October 9, 2015 11:44
what most of us understand to be weaving is not new in music and in the stones is not new to keith and ronnie - it was done in the taylor and jones era.
dandelion is talking about a specific phenomenon in the late 70s/early 80s that developed between keith and ronnie, especially on songs where there was not a predominant rhythm guitar groove ala brown sugar/tumbling dice/HTW, etc.
call it "weaving on steroids"?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-09 11:44 by Turner68.
dandelion is talking about a specific phenomenon in the late 70s/early 80s that developed between keith and ronnie, especially on songs where there was not a predominant rhythm guitar groove ala brown sugar/tumbling dice/HTW, etc.
call it "weaving on steroids"?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-09 11:44 by Turner68.
Re: If there were 3 things you could change about the Stones
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: October 9, 2015 12:02
One of the reasons why I love the Stones and Keith in particular is that he doesn't play a traditional rhythm guitar, like say Malcolm Young or others who always held down the rhythm and that's that.
In his most drugged-out years, Keith was going there – not quite, but he seemed to to take the easy way out. The result was imo that the Stones started sounding like the other (hard) rock bands out there – on stage, mainly.
There were good aspects with this, too, of course. And the songs they created in this era were fantastic – especially the variety of the music they recorded on albums. Many of those songs would never come alive in concert, unfortunately, so we wouldn't get enough of that dimension live, imo.
But this is a digression, what I'm concerned about, and have spent so many years discovering and exploring, is how Keith and Ronnie developed their own, unique style of trading licks and how they wove them into eachother. Like many have described before this is reminiscent of free-form jazz, where instinctively interesting stuff is happening off the cuff and it's up to the guitarists to take it down and make it gel.
It's very easy to define what is lead and what is rhythm guitar in general. Too easy, it seems. Keith and Ronnie's weaving surely challenged the concept people had of it.
Some people are saying: «there were many band trading licks or trading rhythm guitar stuff. Sure, of course there were. But show me a band that did it like the Stones did.
In a way it was sad learning that they had left the approach for their comeback in 1989, but it is understandable that it couldn't last – with all the professionalism / bigger arenas / promoters and fans demanding more streamlined shows etc.
But I will always treasure this era, an era were the Rolling Stones for the last time truly developed their own unique thing.
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-09 12:11 by DandelionPowderman.
In his most drugged-out years, Keith was going there – not quite, but he seemed to to take the easy way out. The result was imo that the Stones started sounding like the other (hard) rock bands out there – on stage, mainly.
There were good aspects with this, too, of course. And the songs they created in this era were fantastic – especially the variety of the music they recorded on albums. Many of those songs would never come alive in concert, unfortunately, so we wouldn't get enough of that dimension live, imo.
But this is a digression, what I'm concerned about, and have spent so many years discovering and exploring, is how Keith and Ronnie developed their own, unique style of trading licks and how they wove them into eachother. Like many have described before this is reminiscent of free-form jazz, where instinctively interesting stuff is happening off the cuff and it's up to the guitarists to take it down and make it gel.
It's very easy to define what is lead and what is rhythm guitar in general. Too easy, it seems. Keith and Ronnie's weaving surely challenged the concept people had of it.
Some people are saying: «there were many band trading licks or trading rhythm guitar stuff. Sure, of course there were. But show me a band that did it like the Stones did.
In a way it was sad learning that they had left the approach for their comeback in 1989, but it is understandable that it couldn't last – with all the professionalism / bigger arenas / promoters and fans demanding more streamlined shows etc.
But I will always treasure this era, an era were the Rolling Stones for the last time truly developed their own unique thing.
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-09 12:11 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: If there were 3 things you could change about the Stones
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: October 9, 2015 12:08
Quote
Turner68
what most of us understand to be weaving is not new in music and in the stones is not new to keith and ronnie - it was done in the taylor and jones era.
dandelion is talking about a specific phenomenon in the late 70s/early 80s that developed between keith and ronnie, especially on songs where there was not a predominant rhythm guitar groove ala brown sugar/tumbling dice/HTW, etc.
call it "weaving on steroids"?
It wasn't weaving that was new, it was (like you say) the way Keith and Ronnie did it.
They were (albeit very little) weaving in the Taylor era, too (I Got The Blues, Midnight Rambler) as well as in the Brian era (Confessing The Blues, The Spider And The Fly).
But the totally free-form thing they took all down the line in 1981/82 was something else.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-09 12:11 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: If there were 3 things you could change about the Stones
Posted by:
keefriffhards
()
Date: October 9, 2015 14:30
Quote
DandelionPowderman
One of the reasons why I love the Stones and Keith in particular is that he doesn't play a traditional rhythm guitar, like say Malcolm Young or others who always held down the rhythm and that's that.
In his most drugged-out years, Keith was going there – not quite, but he seemed to to take the easy way out. The result was imo that the Stones started sounding like the other (hard) rock bands out there – on stage, mainly.
There were good aspects with this, too, of course. And the songs they created in this era were fantastic – especially the variety of the music they recorded on albums. Many of those songs would never come alive in concert, unfortunately, so we wouldn't get enough of that dimension live, imo.
But this is a digression, what I'm concerned about, and have spent so many years discovering and exploring, is how Keith and Ronnie developed their own, unique style of trading licks and how they wove them into eachother. Like many have described before this is reminiscent of free-form jazz, where instinctively interesting stuff is happening off the cuff and it's up to the guitarists to take it down and make it gel.
It's very easy to define what is lead and what is rhythm guitar in general. Too easy, it seems. Keith and Ronnie's weaving surely challenged the concept people had of it.
Some people are saying: «there were many band trading licks or trading rhythm guitar stuff. Sure, of course there were. But show me a band that did it like the Stones did.
In a way it was sad learning that they had left the approach for their comeback in 1989, but it is understandable that it couldn't last – with all the professionalism / bigger arenas / promoters and fans demanding more streamlined shows etc.
But I will always treasure this era, an era were the Rolling Stones for the last time truly developed their own unique thing.
I could not agree more
Re: If there were 3 things you could change about the Stones
Posted by:
Koen
()
Date: October 9, 2015 14:54
I think the main message from that quote (at least for me) is the last part that there is no longer a distinction between rhythm and lead guitar. That's also what I was trying to point out earlier in this thread.
But hey, who cares what it is called - it sounds fvkking amazing!
But hey, who cares what it is called - it sounds fvkking amazing!
Re: If there were 3 things you could change about the Stones
Posted by:
keefriffhards
()
Date: October 9, 2015 14:56
Quote
Koen
I think the main message from that quote (at least for me) is the last part that there is no longer a distinction between rhythm and lead guitar. That's also what I was trying to point out earlier in this thread.
But hey, who cares what it is called - it sounds fvkking amazing!
Yes and they seem to be doing it better than for a long time, on the Zip code tour
Re: If there were 3 things you could change about the Stones
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: October 9, 2015 15:02
Quote
DandelionPowderman
One of the reasons why I love the Stones and Keith in particular is that he doesn't play a traditional rhythm guitar, like say Malcolm Young or others who always held down the rhythm and that's that.
In his most drugged-out years, Keith was going there – not quite, but he seemed to to take the easy way out. The result was imo that the Stones started sounding like the other (hard) rock bands out there – on stage, mainly.
There were good aspects with this, too, of course. And the songs they created in this era were fantastic – especially the variety of the music they recorded on albums. Many of those songs would never come alive in concert, unfortunately, so we wouldn't get enough of that dimension live, imo.
But this is a digression, what I'm concerned about, and have spent so many years discovering and exploring, is how Keith and Ronnie developed their own, unique style of trading licks and how they wove them into eachother. Like many have described before this is reminiscent of free-form jazz, where instinctively interesting stuff is happening off the cuff and it's up to the guitarists to take it down and make it gel.
It's very easy to define what is lead and what is rhythm guitar in general. Too easy, it seems. Keith and Ronnie's weaving surely challenged the concept people had of it.
Some people are saying: «there were many band trading licks or trading rhythm guitar stuff. Sure, of course there were. But show me a band that did it like the Stones did.
In a way it was sad learning that they had left the approach for their comeback in 1989, but it is understandable that it couldn't last – with all the professionalism / bigger arenas / promoters and fans demanding more streamlined shows etc.
But I will always treasure this era, an era were the Rolling Stones for the last time truly developed their own unique thing.
A very good post, and tehre is not anything substantial I disagree with, probably only some minor nuances.
I do get the point and agree with (of course) that Keith is no way a 'traditional rhythm guitarist" but that doesn't imply that he is not a rhythm guitarist at all or is a 'lead guitarist' instead - it is precisely the way he has approached rhythm guitar that has given it a role and significance that is pretty different than what has been traditionally thought (and still many do). I think it is the output during the golden period of 1968-72 he mastered his own idiosyncratic style to play the guitar and which emphasizes the rhythm element. Just think of all those riff-based things with which he leads the songs and the band. Sometimes it is a question of 'proper' chords, sometimes more just a few indicating notes, licks, runs, etc. And yeah, to describe him is not so easy with traditional terms (rhythm vs. lead). Is it like playing a rhythm guitar like a lead guitar or playing a lead guitar with a rhythm guitarist approach, I don't know. In either case, it is the rhythm elemennt that is very important, even crucial to him, me thinks. When I think of the stuff he does through, say, "Honky Tonk Women" it is kind of pure idiosyncratic Richards - not easy to put under the label of 'rhythm' or 'lead' (if we forget the solo).
So I'm not quite happy calling the Pathe Marconi era stuff just a game for lead guitars. That sounds too narrow or even thin to describe his and Ronnie's doings. You call them 'percussive' players, but I think that is not enough to do them justice. Even the idea of the Stones having replaced the old rhythm/lead split by two lead guitars sounds a bit odd to me. Because I don't hear that, even though there are many songs that doesn't have a 'straight' rhythm guitar part.
What goes for the uniqueness of Keith/Ron tandem - are there any other bands sounding like them? Of course, not. But not did any band sounded like them when they were having a firm rhythm/lead distinction either. Or when Keith hits the basic chords of "Street Fighting Man", I don't know any player sounding like him either. It is just the question what you do, but how you do it - that sets the difference no matter what you do.
If the idea of 'weaving' is 'trading licks', that is, by definition, two or more guitarists doing anything else but not playing a straight rhythm guitar, I think the question is not Keith and Ronnie doing something no one else does in principle, but more like them just doing it so well (to our taste) - them clicking so well (better in this sense, say, The Grateful Dead, Lynyrd Skynyrd, or even Iron Maiden, if you iike). Probably since they are so similar players, it is easy for them to sound like 'one'. For example, it would be more difficult with Taylor, since he has so distinct style and touch in compared to Keith's.
Anyway, if the point of weaving is that of two guys playing lead guitar with a free-form jazz approach, one could claim that wasn't that what Taylor did by himself during 1972/73 tours, the one his critics call as 'noodling'? So in 1978 there were instead of one, two of them now 'noodling'. So the question of ancient art of weaving vs. traditional rhythm/lead distinction is merely a question what kind of guitar solos we like. That of a guitar god playing 'extended' ones vs. two guys throwing their sweet and short solos here and there.
Is the question, in the end, really that of a battle over preferred guitar solos??????
Personally, I have never thought the Stones or the 'ancient art of weaving' essentially as a solo guitarist thing. That's why I am so confused by all this lead guitar talk.
- Doxa, a noble defender of rhythm guitar in rock and roll (guess from who I got that...)
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-09 15:33 by Doxa.
Re: If there were 3 things you could change about the Stones
Posted by:
Koen
()
Date: October 9, 2015 15:18
When I played in a three piece band a couple of years ago, I was the only guitar player, and was constantly weaving with myself. Now that was something else!
Re: If there were 3 things you could change about the Stones
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: October 9, 2015 15:36
My point, Doxa, in which I've been stressing, is that «lead guitar» doesn't have to be «solo guitar». I know Naturalust diagrees with me here, but imo the function of the «leading guitar» is that it is presented on top of the soundscape. it can be very brief, but it's still a lead guitar. A guitar solo is really something else, since it demands more space, attention and structure.
To take the lead in the soundscape doesn't have to be connected with playing an extended guitar solo.
Koen: I got you, and like I said I also think that weaving wipes the distinction between rhythm and lead. I'm merely trying to explain how those two particular cats did what they did.
BUT (again): The way Keith and Ronnie did it had more to do with making their licks shine and blend. They went back and did the rhythm, yes indeed, but they were always on the lookout for piercing in new licks.
In 1972 Keith were blasting out open G-riffs beautifully, but not the licks he played in 1981 on When The Whip Comes Down, Imagination or Let Me Go. That's because his riffs in 1972 were more rhythm- than lead-oriented.
His (and Taylor's) fuller sound back then made the bass drown a bit in the soundscape. The whole sound was massive. Later on, there was more space to maneuver in for Bill. And it had nothing to do with whether there was one sax player instead of a sax player and a trumpetist - it was due to the guitarist's approach. It's evident on the live albums. It's the approach to music that had changed.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-09 15:38 by DandelionPowderman.
To take the lead in the soundscape doesn't have to be connected with playing an extended guitar solo.
Koen: I got you, and like I said I also think that weaving wipes the distinction between rhythm and lead. I'm merely trying to explain how those two particular cats did what they did.
BUT (again): The way Keith and Ronnie did it had more to do with making their licks shine and blend. They went back and did the rhythm, yes indeed, but they were always on the lookout for piercing in new licks.
In 1972 Keith were blasting out open G-riffs beautifully, but not the licks he played in 1981 on When The Whip Comes Down, Imagination or Let Me Go. That's because his riffs in 1972 were more rhythm- than lead-oriented.
His (and Taylor's) fuller sound back then made the bass drown a bit in the soundscape. The whole sound was massive. Later on, there was more space to maneuver in for Bill. And it had nothing to do with whether there was one sax player instead of a sax player and a trumpetist - it was due to the guitarist's approach. It's evident on the live albums. It's the approach to music that had changed.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-09 15:38 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: If there were 3 things you could change about the Stones
Posted by:
HMS
()
Date: October 9, 2015 15:44
You guys should write a book on that subject
Re: If there were 3 things you could change about the Stones
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: October 9, 2015 16:09
Quote
DandelionPowderman
<But it is true that what Keith and Ronnie did mostly in those Pathe Marconi days (and even more importantly during 1978, 1981/82 tours) was a rather lead guitar oriented (but one could also say: rhythm based)>
Everything Keith and Ronnie did was rhythm-based - they are percussive players who aren't comfortable with long, extended solos in the first place.
My point was merely that the licks they traded while weaving weren't rhythm guitar playing. Try to strip off the rest of the instruments minus the vocals and see if they would carry the song alone
This discussion is really just a play for the gallery. Naturalust has trouble admitting that the licks Keith and Ronnie traded in this period (1977-1982) can be called lead guitar (regarding a discussion we had earlier).
Would you agree with me if I wrote «licks» instead of lead guitar, Doxa?
One thing is certain, Keith and Ronnie covered eachother's backs with rhythm guitar while the other played licks and then switched rapidly. It wasn't the rhythm guitar that was their trademark in this period, even though BTMMR and SMU were released.
A play for the gallery? Nothing could be further from the truth here, what a cheap shot. What my motivation for this continued discussion is mainly to point out the combination of lead and rhythm that made up the weaving Keith and Ronnie did. I never had trouble admitting that their weaving included lead parts, just pointing out that rhythm guitar was also involved. Obviously it becomes somewhat of a semantics discussion for the most part and you seem to be getting it a bit more, but your statements from this thread like:
"Keith and Ronnie are indeed playing solo licks when they are weaving, they are not playing rhythm guitar."
"but to say that it isn't based on lead guitars complimenting each other would be false."
"weaving is just two lead guitars from both speakers"
And then you completely contradict yourself and say:
"I never said they weren't weaving rhythm parts"
"I never said one can't weave with rhythm guitars, it's just that that wasn't what they did."
So yes DP, these are your definitions of weaving, when you describe the process in terms of it being only a lead guitar thing, it becomes your definition. Some of us actually believe they weaved rhythm guitar parts too and combinations of rhythm and lead, not strictly lead guitar. Mathijs is obviously one of them. That quote was taken directly from his post, not taken out of context or clumsily worded.
I think you are coming around a bit when you say "Keith and Ronnie covered each other's backs with rhythm guitar while the other played licks and then switched rapidly". That's a pretty good description of some of their weaving style and it's good to see you are admitting that rhythm guitar was also involved.
Re: If there were 3 things you could change about the Stones
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: October 9, 2015 16:17
I was talking about what was unique with their weaving and playing style, not that they never played rhythm guitar. That is what you are not getting.
Re: If there were 3 things you could change about the Stones
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: October 9, 2015 16:18
You take what I'm saying out of context. That's pretty cheap, NL.
If you wanna play difficult, good luck with that. I'm pretty sure I have made myself perfectly clear.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-09 16:20 by DandelionPowderman.
If you wanna play difficult, good luck with that. I'm pretty sure I have made myself perfectly clear.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-09 16:20 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: If there were 3 things you could change about the Stones
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: October 9, 2015 16:29
Yeah, this seems really to be a question of semantics, Dandie. And since I love that stuff, a few words about it.
Firstly, I do get that you don't see a playing a lead and playing a solo as synonyms (not do I either), but with respect, Dandie, but the way I see you using /applying it can be defined by negative terms: anything a guitarist do but not playing straight traditional rhythm.
Secondly, you seem to take the word 'lead' very literally - that of really leading a song or something like that, like you say, "presented on top of the soundscape". I see nothing wrong with that, quite the opposite. But in this 'literal' sense its opposite is actually a 'background guitar': not having such a role in the whole. It looks like that you (unfortunately) see the latter as a synonym for 'rhythm guitar'. And since Keith cannot be any second fiddle player ever, he must be a 'lead guitarist'. But for me Keith has taking the realm of rhythm guitar to "the top of the soundscape".
With respect I think you have lumped these two distinctions - lead/background vs. rhythm/solo - together. Probably since 'lead' guitar has been seen traditionally as a job of solos (since they are so distinctive), the notions 'lead' and 'solo' has been seen as interchangable. You have challenged the lead/solo synonymia, but I think you should, if you follow your own logic, do the same for background/rhythm synonymia as well.
I really well do understand why Keith Richards wants to get rid of all these distinctions!
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-09 16:36 by Doxa.
Firstly, I do get that you don't see a playing a lead and playing a solo as synonyms (not do I either), but with respect, Dandie, but the way I see you using /applying it can be defined by negative terms: anything a guitarist do but not playing straight traditional rhythm.
Secondly, you seem to take the word 'lead' very literally - that of really leading a song or something like that, like you say, "presented on top of the soundscape". I see nothing wrong with that, quite the opposite. But in this 'literal' sense its opposite is actually a 'background guitar': not having such a role in the whole. It looks like that you (unfortunately) see the latter as a synonym for 'rhythm guitar'. And since Keith cannot be any second fiddle player ever, he must be a 'lead guitarist'. But for me Keith has taking the realm of rhythm guitar to "the top of the soundscape".
With respect I think you have lumped these two distinctions - lead/background vs. rhythm/solo - together. Probably since 'lead' guitar has been seen traditionally as a job of solos (since they are so distinctive), the notions 'lead' and 'solo' has been seen as interchangable. You have challenged the lead/solo synonymia, but I think you should, if you follow your own logic, do the same for background/rhythm synonymia as well.
I really well do understand why Keith Richards wants to get rid of all these distinctions!
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-09 16:36 by Doxa.
Re: If there were 3 things you could change about the Stones
Posted by:
Koen
()
Date: October 9, 2015 16:31
Question: is the double guitar solo in Hotel California an example of weaving?
Re: If there were 3 things you could change about the Stones
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: October 9, 2015 16:37
<but I think you should do the same for background/rhythm synonymia as well>
But I have, Doxa – with rhythm/riffing. But let's save that for another discussion
But I have, Doxa – with rhythm/riffing. But let's save that for another discussion
Re: If there were 3 things you could change about the Stones
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: October 9, 2015 16:38
Quote
DandelionPowderman
You take what I'm saying out of context. That's pretty cheap, NL.
Not my intention I assure you. I was just pointing out the bold comments which sparked this discussion. They seemed pretty clear and direct to me, the context doesn't change their meaning in any of the cases as far I can see. But I apologize if you actually meant something else.
Re: If there were 3 things you could change about the Stones
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: October 9, 2015 16:43
The context is (for the umpteenth time) that what was different about their weaving didn't belong to the rhythm guitar department. When they fell back to rhythm, after doing a lick, nothing new happened. It was when they stepped out of that zone it happened.
That's why all your quotes give no meaning within this context.
Capiche?
That's why all your quotes give no meaning within this context.
Capiche?
Re: If there were 3 things you could change about the Stones
Posted by:
Turner68
()
Date: October 9, 2015 18:07
Quote
keefriffhardsQuote
Koen
I think the main message from that quote (at least for me) is the last part that there is no longer a distinction between rhythm and lead guitar. That's also what I was trying to point out earlier in this thread.
But hey, who cares what it is called - it sounds fvkking amazing!
Yes and they seem to be doing it better than for a long time, on the Zip code tour
Re: If there were 3 things you could change about the Stones
Posted by:
keefriffhards
()
Date: October 9, 2015 18:32
Quote
HMS
You guys should write a book on that subject
They just have lol
I cant listen to anything now without weaves, its taking over, i just keep needing more weaving or its no good
Cant listen to Gilmore anymore now, NO weaving lol
Re: If there were 3 things you could change about the Stones
Posted by:
keefriffhards
()
Date: October 9, 2015 21:11
while on the subject of weaving (and believe me i am not trying to be ignorant) there is some damn fine weaving on the title track on Dirty Work. Fully charged and manned up angry vocals from Mick. Keith and Ronnie beefed up with blistering guitars sounding and rocking as they should with this thick chunky sound that hits you straight between the legs. I cant understand what's not to enjoy ( although i do have a mental age of 16 ) Over to gaslight, err is it shit by any chance lol
Re: If there were 3 things you could change about the Stones
Posted by:
HMS
()
Date: October 9, 2015 21:29
Keefriffhard, we gotta stop this, dont you see we are killing GasLightStreet with our love for Dirty Work
Dirty Work is of course a brilliant and fresh sounding weaving-song and not to like it seems strange to me. This time nobody can moan about 80s production or bad singing. And I cant see whats so awful with lyrics like "Let somebody to the dirty work find some loser find some jerk doin it for free.." especially with so many rather dull lyrics around post-Dirty Work.
Well, GasLightStreet will consider it "a steaming pile of shit that never should have been lifted up from the cutting room floor. Almost the worst track on the worst album ever recorded by any band."
Dirty Work is of course a brilliant and fresh sounding weaving-song and not to like it seems strange to me. This time nobody can moan about 80s production or bad singing. And I cant see whats so awful with lyrics like "Let somebody to the dirty work find some loser find some jerk doin it for free.." especially with so many rather dull lyrics around post-Dirty Work.
Well, GasLightStreet will consider it "a steaming pile of shit that never should have been lifted up from the cutting room floor. Almost the worst track on the worst album ever recorded by any band."
Re: If there were 3 things you could change about the Stones
Posted by:
keefriffhards
()
Date: October 9, 2015 21:41
Quote
HMS
Keefriffhard, we gotta stop this, dont you see we are killing GasLightStreet with our love for Dirty Work
Dirty Work is of course a brilliant and fresh sounding weaving-song and not to like it seems strange to me. This time nobody can moan about 80s production or bad singing. And I cant see whats so awful with lyrics like "Let somebody to the dirty work find some loser find some jerk doin it for free.." especially with so many rather dull lyrics around post-Dirty Work.
Well, GasLightStreet will consider it "a steaming pile of shit that never should have been lifted up from the cutting room floor. Almost the worst track on the worst album ever recorded by any band."
Lol you just got to love gaslight though, talk about saying it as it is, or how he see's it, i take my hat off to gaslight a worthy opponent.
If he could just bring himself to listen to it one more time who knows, he might see the light lol but i fear he will go deranged in the process
Re: If there were 3 things you could change about the Stones
Posted by:
Turner68
()
Date: October 9, 2015 21:53
I listened to Dirty Work in the cold dark winter of 2003. All the plants in my yard wilted, the Christmas tree turned brown and lost all its needles, and a cloud passed over the sun and didn't leave for 86 days. My friends took me to the doctor and at first he said it looked like I had the bubonic plague. Finally he over heard me humming "too rude" and diagnosed me with "dirty work" exposure. I was bed ridden for 6 weeks and every night at half past 3 the ghost of Ian Stewart would visit me to commiserate.
I'm not listening to it again.
I'm not listening to it again.
Re: If there were 3 things you could change about the Stones
Posted by:
keefriffhards
()
Date: October 9, 2015 22:17
Quote
Turner68
I listened to Dirty Work in the cold dark winter of 2003. All the plants in my yard wilted, the Christmas tree turned brown and lost all its needles, and a cloud passed over the sun and didn't leave for 86 days. My friends took me to the doctor and at first he said it looked like I had the bubonic plague. Finally he over heard me humming "too rude" and diagnosed me with "dirty work" exposure. I was bed ridden for 6 weeks and every night at half past 3 the ghost of Ian Stewart would visit me to commiserate.
I'm not listening to it again.
LOLFL
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
daspyknows , FloresMuertas , GAFF , georgelicks , llsbsk , Martin90 , mmarloe , More Hot Rocks , straycatuk
Guests:
1620
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10