Tell Me :
Talk
Its the only thing left on my wish list
COME ON KEITH
Ok keith and Ronnie weaving with Keith taking some solos and Mick T adding to those solos and also doing some of his own solos and guitar work on SFM and Angie. Guitar heaven, start playing time waits for no one and winter live again
I would Keep Keith away from himself lol
Most people in the USA define lead guitar as a guitar playing a solo. I know that you believe any guitar that is prominent at any one time is the lead guitar, but I think you are quite in the minority here my friend. Two rhythm guitars can weave, two lead guitars can weave, a rhythm and lead guitar can weave, two saxophones can weave, the concept isn't limited to "lead" guitars, imo.
Most people in the WORLD understands what I'm talking about.
Keith and Ronnie are indeed playing solo licks when they are weaving, they are not playing rhythm guitar. Take the word rhythm and use a couple of minutes to think what it means. It doesn't mean playing solo licks, never did.
I'm describing the style that Keith and Ronnie developed during 1977-1982.
Of course we can call it what we want, but to say that it isn't based on lead guitars complimenting eachother would be false.
When two guitar players are playing very audible fast licks high up on the fretboard (like on Let Me Go on Still Life, for instance), going in and out of the centre of the soundscape, they are not holding the rhythm down.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-08 17:18 by DandelionPowderman.
I think the following periods would have been purer, not poorer ...
Isn't that exactly what they are doing now? Maybe not all, but still a lot.
The objection, however, was if they might have learnt something, that made them more qualified to create their music.
[Myself, purity is not what I seek in Rolling Stones music. Rather I am thrilled by their diversity.]
TAKE THE CYMBALS BACK OUT!
Koen has it right, weaving has been around as long as instruments have been around. Beethoven was familiar with the concept as were the jazz musicians of the early 20th century. Listen to some ragtime or New Orleans style jazz and you will hear weaving alive and well. Listen to early R&B, Motown, Funk and Soul...plenty of weaving, rhythm and lead parts.
Keith and Ronnie would be the first ones to tell you they didn't develop this style of playing in 1977. The would also say they their rhythm playing is what often weaves as they leave room for each other to dominate the mix at any given time. Sorry Dandie but your strong assertion that this is something reserved for lead instruments is a bit narrow and to use your words..false. If anything Keith and Ronnie took the concept into a more rhythm based guitar approach than anything, imo.
Sorry to call you out, but when you say the WORLD understands that weaving is just two lead guitars from both speakers I feel compelled to say it ain't that simple brother. I don't disagree that what you are calling weaving is indeed that, but there are plenty of examples of weaving which allow it a much broader definition. Plenty of rock acts who weaved rhythm guitar parts prior to 1977, including the Rolling Stones. Plenty of examples of two weaved guitar rhythms underneath a a lead guitar part which may or may not weave with the underlying rhythm.
question: is Keith "weaving" with himself on tracks like "Trouble" off of Crosseyed heart?
i would say yes, he is.
When he and Waddy play lead and trade licks are the best examples of weaving in that track, imo.
The other stuff is layers of riffing, and the effect is weaving there as well. But not when he is playing the damping rhythm guitar on the verses. That's plain rhythm guitar.
thanks, that's helpful.
are MT and Keith weaving on the live version of HTW on ya-ya's?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-08 21:43 by Turner68.
Dandie, with all due respect my friend, I do understand what you are saying (I get it) but I think your narrow, highly opinionated definition of weaving is just that. I suggest you watch Keith and Ronnie play at a modern Rolling Stones concert and then come back and tell me Keith and Ronnie aren't weaving rhythm parts. With both guitars so loud and up front this past tour it was obvious to me they were weaving rhythm parts and well as single note fills and other stuff that might be characterized as lead.
As I said, I accept your definition of weaving (it is weaving!) but think you need to open your mind a bit to understand that not everyone is going to accept your narrow definition. Better to define it more broadly so everyone is right, imo. I think that's pretty obvious from others comments on this thread, no? Keith and Ronnie's style is not that much different that thousands of other bands with 2 or 3 guitarists. Of course they have developed a style over years which compliments each other and gives each other room to be out front but they didn't invent the concept or limit it to "lead" playing.
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:
keefriffhards
()
Date: October 8, 2015 14:41
Quote
KRiffhardQuote
Turner68
All I would change would be for Keith to tour in support of Crosseyed Heart.
Its the only thing left on my wish list
COME ON KEITH
Re: If there were 3 things you could change about the Stones
Posted by:
keefriffhards
()
Date: October 8, 2015 14:46
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
keefriffhardsQuote
MisterAccapella
Stop releasing glossed-over overproduced music, and issue the rough mixes.
Have Mick sing in a lower register to eliminate the annoying nasal tone.
Keith and Ronnie on rhythm guitar weaving and Taylor on lead.
Wow great, i like your style, guitar heaven
Weaving is lead guitar attacks from both speakers. Noodling on top of that?
Ok keith and Ronnie weaving with Keith taking some solos and Mick T adding to those solos and also doing some of his own solos and guitar work on SFM and Angie. Guitar heaven, start playing time waits for no one and winter live again
Re: If there were 3 things you could change about the Stones
Posted by:
franzk
()
Date: October 8, 2015 15:18
I would keep Keith away from ladders, trees and drugs.
Re: If there were 3 things you could change about the Stones
Posted by:
keefriffhards
()
Date: October 8, 2015 15:21
Quote
franzk
I would keep Keith away from ladders, trees and drugs.
I would Keep Keith away from himself lol
Re: If there were 3 things you could change about the Stones
Posted by:
Maindefender
()
Date: October 8, 2015 15:58
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
MaindefenderQuote
latebloomerQuote
Maindefender
1. "Save Me" included on Goats Head Soup
2. Black and Blue was a double album
3.
Main, this does not show your best effort. You cannot get full credit until you complete the assignment. Plus, it bothers me.
3. They never played anything live from the Metamorphosis album and they should.
Here they are playing a track from Metamorhosis as late as in 2002
Damn, I was racking my brain before I posted and missed Heart Of Stone…haha Heart of Stone should be played more often!! Along with Walking Thru The Sleepy City…..
Re: If there were 3 things you could change about the Stones
Posted by:
Natlanta
()
Date: October 8, 2015 16:09
something about cowbells.
Re: If there were 3 things you could change about the Stones
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: October 8, 2015 16:15
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Weaving is lead guitar attacks from both speakers. Noodling on top of that?
Most people in the USA define lead guitar as a guitar playing a solo. I know that you believe any guitar that is prominent at any one time is the lead guitar, but I think you are quite in the minority here my friend. Two rhythm guitars can weave, two lead guitars can weave, a rhythm and lead guitar can weave, two saxophones can weave, the concept isn't limited to "lead" guitars, imo.
Re: If there were 3 things you could change about the Stones
Posted by:
HMS
()
Date: October 8, 2015 16:45
Aaaah... the ancient art of weaving, the most sublime and most delicate form of musical interplay, beautifully and poignant executed by Keith n Ronnie - there is absolutely no place for Mick Taylor except standing there and watching the masters of weaving with his mouth open, totally astonished.
Re: If there were 3 things you could change about the Stones
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: October 8, 2015 16:49
Quote
NaturalustQuote
DandelionPowderman
Weaving is lead guitar attacks from both speakers. Noodling on top of that?
Most people in the USA define lead guitar as a guitar playing a solo. I know that you believe any guitar that is prominent at any one time is the lead guitar, but I think you are quite in the minority here my friend. Two rhythm guitars can weave, two lead guitars can weave, a rhythm and lead guitar can weave, two saxophones can weave, the concept isn't limited to "lead" guitars, imo.
Most people in the WORLD understands what I'm talking about.
Keith and Ronnie are indeed playing solo licks when they are weaving, they are not playing rhythm guitar. Take the word rhythm and use a couple of minutes to think what it means. It doesn't mean playing solo licks, never did.
Re: If there were 3 things you could change about the Stones
Posted by:
Koen
()
Date: October 8, 2015 16:54
Weaving means just two instruments who complement, feed, stimulate each other. Calling it 'lead' or 'rhythm' has nothing to do with it.
Re: If there were 3 things you could change about the Stones
Posted by:
HMS
()
Date: October 8, 2015 17:04
I cant get enough of Keith n Ronnie weaving so beautifully and effortlessly together, the guitars seemingly blending into one, what a sight to see and what a lovely treat to the ears. Noodling is ordinary and plump, weaving is fine art on a so much higher level.
Re: If there were 3 things you could change about the Stones
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: October 8, 2015 17:17
Quote
Koen
Weaving means just two instruments who complement, feed, stimulate each other. Calling it 'lead' or 'rhythm' has nothing to do with it.
I'm describing the style that Keith and Ronnie developed during 1977-1982.
Of course we can call it what we want, but to say that it isn't based on lead guitars complimenting eachother would be false.
When two guitar players are playing very audible fast licks high up on the fretboard (like on Let Me Go on Still Life, for instance), going in and out of the centre of the soundscape, they are not holding the rhythm down.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-08 17:18 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: If there were 3 things you could change about the Stones
Posted by:
RobertJohnson
()
Date: October 8, 2015 17:42
Quote
WitnessQuote
RobertJohnson
There was no Pop era 66-67.
MT never quitted the band.
BW never quitted the band.
You hate the progressive pop era so much that you will make the band be deprived of the experiences from what they experimentingly created during that period! Then the following period would certainly be different, too, most probably poorer than it became!
I think the following periods would have been purer, not poorer ...
Re: If there were 3 things you could change about the Stones
Posted by:
Christopher
()
Date: October 8, 2015 17:53
I just wish they would release all their catalogue of live concerts professionally as well as the songs they have "in the can".
My second wish is they keep touring! More show please!
My second wish is they keep touring! More show please!
Re: If there were 3 things you could change about the Stones
Posted by:
LeonidP
()
Date: October 8, 2015 18:04
Easy ...
1) vary the setlist ... not by 2 or 3 songs each night, but by leaving off tracks that we've all heard 8 billion times once in a while, and include oddities, perhaps Sad Day, or Winter ... you get the idea
2) do away w/ the casino show, less backup singers and less on the horn section ... we want to hear Keith or Ronnie on backup, and want to hear the guitars.
3) remove Dirty Work from the catalog
1) vary the setlist ... not by 2 or 3 songs each night, but by leaving off tracks that we've all heard 8 billion times once in a while, and include oddities, perhaps Sad Day, or Winter ... you get the idea
2) do away w/ the casino show, less backup singers and less on the horn section ... we want to hear Keith or Ronnie on backup, and want to hear the guitars.
3) remove Dirty Work from the catalog
Re: If there were 3 things you could change about the Stones
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: October 8, 2015 18:11
Quote
Christopher
I just wish they would release all their catalogue of live concerts professionally as well as the songs they have "in the can".
My second wish is they keep touring! More show please!
Isn't that exactly what they are doing now? Maybe not all, but still a lot.
Re: If there were 3 things you could change about the Stones
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: October 8, 2015 19:05
Quote
RobertJohnsonQuote
WitnessQuote
RobertJohnson
There was no Pop era 66-67.
MT never quitted the band.
BW never quitted the band.
You hate the progressive pop era so much that you will make the band be deprived of the experiences from what they experimentingly created during that period! Then the following period would certainly be different, too, most probably poorer than it became!
I think the following periods would have been purer, not poorer ...
The objection, however, was if they might have learnt something, that made them more qualified to create their music.
[Myself, purity is not what I seek in Rolling Stones music. Rather I am thrilled by their diversity.]
Re: If there were 3 things you could change about the Stones
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: October 8, 2015 19:17
Some more...
1. A 20 minute remix of just the break in Miss You that is featured on the 12" long version... of just that part, the keyboard and bass...
2. VOODOO, BRIDGES and BANG were shorter albums.
3. A remix of Neighbours with the cymbals in the front of the song as well.
1. A 20 minute remix of just the break in Miss You that is featured on the 12" long version... of just that part, the keyboard and bass...
2. VOODOO, BRIDGES and BANG were shorter albums.
3. A remix of Neighbours with the cymbals in the front of the song as well.
Re: If there were 3 things you could change about the Stones
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: October 8, 2015 19:21
What would your neighbors say about 3.?
Re: If there were 3 things you could change about the Stones
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: October 8, 2015 19:34
Quote
DandelionPowderman
What would your neighbors say about 3.?
TAKE THE CYMBALS BACK OUT!
Re: If there were 3 things you could change about the Stones
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: October 8, 2015 20:08
Re: If there were 3 things you could change about the Stones
Posted by:
Christopher
()
Date: October 8, 2015 20:34
Yes in a way they are doing this but it is still not enough!
From what Bill says they have many songs not released.
Mick, Keith, Charlie, Ronnie we are all waiting.
More vault releases please.
From what Bill says they have many songs not released.
Mick, Keith, Charlie, Ronnie we are all waiting.
More vault releases please.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Christopher
I just wish they would release all their catalogue of live concerts professionally as well as the songs they have "in the can".
My second wish is they keep touring! More show please!
Isn't that exactly what they are doing now? Maybe not all, but still a lot.
Re: If there were 3 things you could change about the Stones
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: October 8, 2015 21:14
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Koen
Weaving means just two instruments who complement, feed, stimulate each other. Calling it 'lead' or 'rhythm' has nothing to do with it.
I'm describing the style that Keith and Ronnie developed during 1977-1982.
Of course we can call it what we want, but to say that it isn't based on lead guitars complimenting eachother would be false.
When two guitar players are playing very audible fast licks high up on the fretboard (like on Let Me Go on Still Life, for instance), going in and out of the centre of the soundscape, they are not holding the rhythm down.
Koen has it right, weaving has been around as long as instruments have been around. Beethoven was familiar with the concept as were the jazz musicians of the early 20th century. Listen to some ragtime or New Orleans style jazz and you will hear weaving alive and well. Listen to early R&B, Motown, Funk and Soul...plenty of weaving, rhythm and lead parts.
Keith and Ronnie would be the first ones to tell you they didn't develop this style of playing in 1977. The would also say they their rhythm playing is what often weaves as they leave room for each other to dominate the mix at any given time. Sorry Dandie but your strong assertion that this is something reserved for lead instruments is a bit narrow and to use your words..false. If anything Keith and Ronnie took the concept into a more rhythm based guitar approach than anything, imo.
Sorry to call you out, but when you say the WORLD understands that weaving is just two lead guitars from both speakers I feel compelled to say it ain't that simple brother. I don't disagree that what you are calling weaving is indeed that, but there are plenty of examples of weaving which allow it a much broader definition. Plenty of rock acts who weaved rhythm guitar parts prior to 1977, including the Rolling Stones. Plenty of examples of two weaved guitar rhythms underneath a a lead guitar part which may or may not weave with the underlying rhythm.
Re: If there were 3 things you could change about the Stones
Posted by:
Turner68
()
Date: October 8, 2015 21:23
I agree with this definition of weaving. I've never understood the definition where it mostly just applies to Keith and Ronnie. I think Brian and Keith and Keith and MT displayed weaving all the time and that musicians have been doing it certainly since the dawn of jazz if not earlier.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-08 21:28 by Turner68.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-08 21:28 by Turner68.
Re: If there were 3 things you could change about the Stones
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: October 8, 2015 21:29
You just don't get it, Naturalust. Their style is different and has little to do with rhythm guitar playing, no matter how beautifully one can weave strings, brass sections or rhythm guitars together, which is not the question here.
Your posts are dismissing a whole era for the Stones, which was defined- and characterised by that kind of guitar playing.
You need to listen more to the topic you're so opinionated about. That is obvious to me.
Start with the bootleg Place Pigalle.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-08 21:34 by DandelionPowderman.
Your posts are dismissing a whole era for the Stones, which was defined- and characterised by that kind of guitar playing.
You need to listen more to the topic you're so opinionated about. That is obvious to me.
Start with the bootleg Place Pigalle.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-08 21:34 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: If there were 3 things you could change about the Stones
Posted by:
Turner68
()
Date: October 8, 2015 21:33
Quote
DandelionPowderman
You just don't get it, Naturalust. Their style is different and has little to do with rhythm guitar playing, no matter how beautifully one can weave strings, brass sections or rhythm guitars together, which is not the question here.
You need to listen more to the topic you're so opinionated about. That is obvious.
Start with the bootleg Place Pigalle.
question: is Keith "weaving" with himself on tracks like "Trouble" off of Crosseyed heart?
i would say yes, he is.
Re: If there were 3 things you could change about the Stones
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: October 8, 2015 21:39
Quote
Turner68Quote
DandelionPowderman
You just don't get it, Naturalust. Their style is different and has little to do with rhythm guitar playing, no matter how beautifully one can weave strings, brass sections or rhythm guitars together, which is not the question here.
You need to listen more to the topic you're so opinionated about. That is obvious.
Start with the bootleg Place Pigalle.
question: is Keith "weaving" with himself on tracks like "Trouble" off of Crosseyed heart?
i would say yes, he is.
When he and Waddy play lead and trade licks are the best examples of weaving in that track, imo.
The other stuff is layers of riffing, and the effect is weaving there as well. But not when he is playing the damping rhythm guitar on the verses. That's plain rhythm guitar.
Re: If there were 3 things you could change about the Stones
Posted by:
Turner68
()
Date: October 8, 2015 21:41
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Turner68Quote
DandelionPowderman
You just don't get it, Naturalust. Their style is different and has little to do with rhythm guitar playing, no matter how beautifully one can weave strings, brass sections or rhythm guitars together, which is not the question here.
You need to listen more to the topic you're so opinionated about. That is obvious.
Start with the bootleg Place Pigalle.
question: is Keith "weaving" with himself on tracks like "Trouble" off of Crosseyed heart?
i would say yes, he is.
When he and Waddy play lead and trade licks are the best examples of weaving in that track, imo.
The other stuff is layers of riffing, and the effect is weaving there as well. But not when he is playing the damping rhythm guitar on the verses. That's plain rhythm guitar.
thanks, that's helpful.
are MT and Keith weaving on the live version of HTW on ya-ya's?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-08 21:43 by Turner68.
Re: If there were 3 things you could change about the Stones
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: October 8, 2015 21:47
Quote
DandelionPowderman
You just don't get it, Naturalust. Their style is different and has little to do with rhythm guitar playing, no matter how beautifully one can weave strings, brass sections or rhythm guitars together, which is not the question here.
You need to listen more to the topic you're so opinionated about. That is obvious.
Start with the bootleg Place Pigalle.
Dandie, with all due respect my friend, I do understand what you are saying (I get it) but I think your narrow, highly opinionated definition of weaving is just that. I suggest you watch Keith and Ronnie play at a modern Rolling Stones concert and then come back and tell me Keith and Ronnie aren't weaving rhythm parts. With both guitars so loud and up front this past tour it was obvious to me they were weaving rhythm parts and well as single note fills and other stuff that might be characterized as lead.
As I said, I accept your definition of weaving (it is weaving!) but think you need to open your mind a bit to understand that not everyone is going to accept your narrow definition. Better to define it more broadly so everyone is right, imo. I think that's pretty obvious from others comments on this thread, no? Keith and Ronnie's style is not that much different that thousands of other bands with 2 or 3 guitarists. Of course they have developed a style over years which compliments each other and gives each other room to be out front but they didn't invent the concept or limit it to "lead" playing.
Re: If there were 3 things you could change about the Stones
Posted by:
The Joker
()
Date: October 8, 2015 21:55
An American Express Centurion card on my name debited on Keith's bank account
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
a bigger nut , AntoineParis , Barkerboy2 , bauk77 , blivet , franzk , kovach , Mabru , njbjae , perkmo , pooroldgrandad , TooTight
Guests:
1625
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10