Quote
Turner68
are MT and Keith weaving on the live version of HTW on ya-ya's?

Mick Taylor was never a weaver, always a noodler.
Keith n Ronnie are the true masters of weaving.

1. Keith's arthritis - no more
2. Keith's voice - as it was
3. Keep Bill

Quote
Naturalust

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.

I never said they weren't weaving rhythm parts. Almost all bands do that.

What Ronnie and Keith did in the Pathe Marconi era was weaving LEAD parts. That's what made this era different from the Taylor era! That's what we have talked about here on IORR since the mid-90s, before you now are calling it some kind of emperor's new clothes.

Put simple: This thing is in reality to trade licks. Watch Imagination from Hampton 1981 and you will (eventually) get it.

How patronizing to call it my definition of weaving, btw. Sometimes, I wonder how long you have been a Stones fan?

Quote
HMS


Mick Taylor was never a weaver, always a noodler.
Keith n Ronnie are the true masters of weaving.

Your ears need replacing.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Naturalust

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.

I never said they weren't weaving rhythm parts. Almost all bands do that.

What Ronnie and Keith did in the Pathe Marconi era was weaving LEAD parts. That's what made this era different from the Taylor era! That's what we have talked about here on IORR since the mid-90s, before you now are calling it some kind of emperor's new clothes.

Put simple: This thing is in reality to trade licks. Watch Imagination from Hampton 1981 and you will (eventually) get it.

How patronizing to call it my definition of weaving, btw. Sometimes, I wonder how long you have been a Stones fan?

Dande, not to worry, we all know what you mean when you talk about Keith And Ronnie weaving, never mind all the bla bla bla NL comes up with, he likes the sound of his own voice, i'm beginning to think he just comes on here to prove to everyone how knowledgeable he is, its like he is teaching us all lol its like being at school again
In the words of Alice Cooper SCHOOLS OUT !!

Quote
DandelionPowderman


Put simple: This thing is in reality to trade licks. Watch Imagination from Hampton 1981 and you will (eventually) get it.

How patronizing to call it my definition of weaving, btw. Sometimes, I wonder how long you have been a Stones fan?

Musical tennis, grass or table depending on their mood.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
DandelionPowderman


Put simple: This thing is in reality to trade licks. Watch Imagination from Hampton 1981 and you will (eventually) get it.

How patronizing to call it my definition of weaving, btw. Sometimes, I wonder how long you have been a Stones fan?

Musical tennis, grass or table depending on their mood.

What about clay and hard court?

Quote
DandelionPowderman


What about clay and hard court?

Hmm, yah got me there!

i think we all "get" it, we are just trying to arrive at a common vocabulary to talk about things.

when i hear keith and MT alternating what i think of as "lead" licks i think that is weaving, where am i wrong?

Quote
Turner68
when i hear keith and MT alternating what i think of as "lead" licks i think that is weaving, where am i wrong?

You aren't wrong, it's just that it had been fine tuned by the very players who wax lyrical about the "ancient art of... " by the late 70's.

I just boil it down to--sounds good, sounds bad. "Weaving" might be some mystical thing for guitar players, or highly enlightened people, the other 99% of us don't care one way or the other.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Naturalust

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.

I never said they weren't weaving rhythm parts. Almost all bands do that.

What Ronnie and Keith did in the Pathe Marconi era was weaving LEAD parts. That's what made this era different from the Taylor era! That's what we have talked about here on IORR since the mid-90s, before you now are calling it some kind of emperor's new clothes.

Put simple: This thing is in reality to trade licks. Watch Imagination from Hampton 1981 and you will (eventually) get it.

How patronizing to call it my definition of weaving, btw. Sometimes, I wonder how long you have been a Stones fan?

My God, lighten up guys. It IS your definition of weaving Dandie. You are very specific in your definition and have even had the gall to call other definitions false. It has nothing to do with Keith and Ronnie's definition, imo. Now you question how long I've been a Stones fan? Jeezus, what are we, back in Jr. High School, what does that have to do with anything. I see now that riffhards has chosen to join the discussion it will deteriorate into personal crap that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I assure you I'm not here to teach you anything dude. It's about interesting discussion for me and I see I've engaged a topic which is strangely so important it defies reasonable discussion.

I find it patronizing that you assume others don't "get it". I have said three times I understand what you are talking about with your definition of the concept, why would you assume I don't get it? Are you truly so stubborn and close minded to assume than your understanding of something like weaving is the only one and everybody else doesn't "get it", perhaps because they haven't been a Stones fan long enough? lol C'mon man we are talking about rock and roll music here, not atomic physics, diverse views and opinions were welcome and respected last time I checked. Or perhaps you prefer a forum where everyone who comments must conform to single way of thinking and be certified to be a fan for at least as long as you are to have any say.

One of the reasons you are hearing more trading licks starting with the Pathe Marconi era is because the sonic landscape has less side musicians in the mix and Keith and Ronnie are more audible and needing to fill the space up. They clearly entered a new phase of what the Stones should sound like with a less cluttered instrumentation and chose to call what they were doing 'weaving" about that time. It's nothing new, I assure you. Keith did plenty of weaving with himself on earlier records and even Mick Taylor was doing it.

Let's not get hung up or personal about it. I accept and understand what you are saying, hopefully that is enough to make you happy.

It's not my definition. Had you bothered to check out this era more thoroughly you would have known that. Hence it is relevant to ask how long you've been a fan, imo.

To me, it looks like you have strong opinions about something you know little about.

I find it baffling that you don't seem to get that I don't say that any definition is "wrong", but rather that it don't apply to what Keith and Ronnie did and developed in that era.

So, either you don't understand this - or you just choose to be difficult, the way I see it.

To make something that's been analysed and discussed by fans for decades seem like something I made up is just laughable.

No, I know you're a better man than that, my friend.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Naturalust

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.

I never said they weren't weaving rhythm parts. Almost all bands do that.

What Ronnie and Keith did in the Pathe Marconi era was weaving LEAD parts. That's what made this era different from the Taylor era! That's what we have talked about here on IORR since the mid-90s, before you now are calling it some kind of emperor's new clothes.

Put simple: This thing is in reality to trade licks. Watch Imagination from Hampton 1981 and you will (eventually) get it.

How patronizing to call it my definition of weaving, btw. Sometimes, I wonder how long you have been a Stones fan?

My God, lighten up guys. It IS your definition of weaving Dandie. You are very specific in your definition and have even had the gall to call other definitions false. It has nothing to do with Keith and Ronnie's definition, imo. Now you question how long I've been a Stones fan? Jeezus, what are we, back in Jr. High School, what does that have to do with anything. I see now that riffhards has chosen to join the discussion it will deteriorate into personal crap that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I assure you I'm not here to teach you anything dude. It's about interesting discussion for me and I see I've engaged a topic which is strangely so important it defies reasonable discussion.

I find it patronizing that you assume others don't "get it". I have said three times I understand what you are talking about with your definition of the concept, why would you assume I don't get it? Are you truly so stubborn and close minded to assume than your understanding of something like weaving is the only one and everybody else doesn't "get it", perhaps because they haven't been a Stones fan long enough? lol C'mon man we are talking about rock and roll music here, not atomic physics, diverse views and opinions were welcome and respected last time I checked. Or perhaps you prefer a forum where everyone who comments must conform to single way of thinking and be certified to be a fan for at least as long as you are to have any say.

One of the reasons you are hearing more trading licks starting with the Pathe Marconi era is because the sonic landscape has less side musicians in the mix and Keith and Ronnie are more audible and needing to fill the space up. They clearly entered a new phase of what the Stones should sound like with a less cluttered instrumentation and chose to call what they were doing 'weaving" about that time. It's nothing new, I assure you. Keith did plenty of weaving with himself on earlier records and even Mick Taylor was doing it.

Let's not get hung up or personal about it. I accept and understand what you are saying, hopefully that is enough to make you happy.

If that's you not being personal god help us
you just have a patronising way about you, i feel like you look down on me because i'm not articulate and i don't understand all the technical developments in production etc
I go from thinking your cool to you reminding me of my music teacher lol
Lighten up man its only R & R dont take it all so seriously

On a brighter note i thought Keith and Ronnie were weaving better than ever these last 2 years
SA here they come, Rock it out boys



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-08 23:46 by keefriffhards.

Quote
keefriffhards

If that's you not being personal god help us
you just have a patronising way about you, i feel like you look down on me because i'm not articulate and i don't understand all the technical developments in production etc
I go from thinking your cool to you reminding me of my music teacher lol
Lighten up man its only R & R dont take it all so seriously

No worries riffhards, to tell you the truth I have never looked down on you and have no idea how much you know about technical stuff or production. Never thought you were articulating yourself poorly. I was just responding to you making some strange and rather negative judgments about my posting. I am generally a person that welcomes all comments, if I disagree I try to stay on topic and not take it to a personal level, sorry if I slipped a bit there.

Dandie, I was responding to your narrow definitions of the weaving concept, you saying it was purely a lead guitar thing, didn't involve any rhythm guitar, and that other definitions were "false", etc. It has little importance really, and has little to do with who has studied that era, I have already given up trying to open your mind to other definitions. I get it. I truly do. Perhaps someday you will realize that there are other ways of looking at things that aren't so black and white. Over and Out on this issue.

Quote
keefriffhards
On a brighter note i thought Keith and Ronnie were weaving better than ever these last 2 years
SA here they come, Rock it out boys

They have taken it up a level, no doubt about it. And MJ is even singing. When was the last time there was a Stones tour where the guitarists were on and the singer was actually singing???

I said that the weaving Keith and Ronnie developed was a lead guitar thing that made Bill shine even more. That's what started this. I never said one can't weave with rhythm guitars, it's just that that wasn't what they did.

And it's not my definition. Their style may be narrow to your ears, but not less true because you think so.

Three things I could change:

1. Play some of the gems from Aftermath, BTB and TSMR in concert
2. Always open the shows with We Love You as a homage to the fans
3. Release the 2001-sessions as a new album (not Oh Well and Extreme Western Grip!)

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
keefriffhards

If that's you not being personal god help us
you just have a patronising way about you, i feel like you look down on me because i'm not articulate and i don't understand all the technical developments in production etc
I go from thinking your cool to you reminding me of my music teacher lol
Lighten up man its only R & R dont take it all so seriously

No worries riffhards, to tell you the truth I have never looked down on you and have no idea how much you know about technical stuff or production. Never thought you were articulating yourself poorly. I was just responding to you making some strange and rather negative judgments about my posting. I am generally a person that welcomes all comments, if I disagree I try to stay on topic and not take it to a personal level, sorry if I slipped a bit there.

Dandie, I was responding to your narrow definitions of the weaving concept, you saying it was purely a lead guitar thing, didn't involve any rhythm guitar, and that other definitions were "false", etc. It has little importance really, and has little to do with who has studied that era, I have already given up trying to open your mind to other definitions. I get it. I truly do. Perhaps someday you will realize that there are other ways of looking at things that aren't so black and white. Over and Out on this issue.

Cheers NL and your right i do get too personal, as i have said before we learn a lot about ourselves on here,
just discovered i have an inferiority complex now to add to my list lol
I don't know what gets into me on iorr, i'm nice in real life, this place brings out the beast in me

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I said that the weaving Keith and Ronnie developed was a lead guitar thing that made Bill shine even more. That's what started this. I never said one can't weave with rhythm guitars, it's just that that wasn't what they did.

And it's not my definition. Their style may be narrow to your ears, but not less true because you think so.

Their style is not defined by your narrow definition of it dandie, I certainly never suggested it was narrow, just your description of it. They do indeed weave rhythm guitars no matter how much you say they don't, and did so beautifully in the era you imply you have studied to the point of suggesting others do so in order to share your views. Fortunately we have many guitar players on this board who all may define rhythm, lead and weaving differently, I suggest you not limit yourself to your own opinions and try to ease up on being so critical of others who see things a bit differently. Listen to your own interpretation of the most classic weaving tune of all, Beast of Burden, and tell me you didn't create the tune with a pretty standard unwavering rhythm guitar track and then add a few more lead style licks to weave around it.

It's not my opinion. I'm stopping this now.

But by all means, bring on the people who claim that it was weaving of rhythm guitars Keith on Ronnie developed between 1977-1982.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
But by all means, bring on the people who claim that it was weaving of rhythm guitars Keith on Ronnie developed between 1977-1982.

Ok since you asked I will just support my assertion that it was lead and rhythm from others comments on the forum, your contention that is is all lead parts is indeed your opinion and not universally supported by other members of this forum. Your Stones knowledge is deep and I respect your comments but just wish you would admit that some of your descriptions like that weaving is purely a lead guitar phenom are very subjective and not universal facts, of course they are your educated opinion.

"the "ancient art of weaving" as Keith puts it such that the dichotomy between the lead and rhythm is blurred, that they go back and forth, one playing lead and one rhythm and then switching back and forth even within any given song

"that guitar style was predominant with lead and rhythm played simutaneously"

" I hear much the same thing in the Wood era I did during the Taylor era...Keith playing mostly rhythm and main riffs, taking the solo on certain songs (Bitch, for example)"

perhaps most directly from Mathijs:

"Wood and Richards had a unique interaction from '77 to '82, where they both would be playing rhythm guitar, and basically being so connected that they finished or started each others rhythm parts or riffs. This constant bouncing back and forth is quite unique in my opinion. Check out Burden from Hampton or Let's Spend movie, or Whip and Imagination from '78. They both play the main theme, but they fill it in freely. Of course, the presence of Bill Wyman was crucial here as he filled in all holes left by the guitars."

There are many more but I think you get the idea...weaving as done by Ronnie and Keith includes much rhythm playing too in more peoples opinion than my own.

Let's end this on something we can agree on...The weaving Keith and Ronnie do is pretty amazing and we both love it! peace brother.

Quote
HMS
Mick Taylor was never a weaver, always a noodler.

Amazing how any Stones fan can articulate such narrow-minded bullshit.

1. They would change their setlist approach.

2. There should have been atleast five more studio albums the last 20 years.

3. There should have been another giant tour 2009-2011 instead of that huge gap 2007-2012.

Brian and Keith used to weave a lot as well.

And to quote Keith:

Quote

What interested me about Chuck Berry was the way he could step out of the rhythm part with such ease, throwing in a nice, simple riff, and then drop straight into the feel of it again. We used to play a lot more rhythm stuff. We'd do away with the differences between lead and rhythm guitar. You can't go into a shop and ask for a "lead guitar". You're a guitar player, and you play a guitar.

They did indeed, but in a different way, as Brian played less licks.

That Chuck quote says it all: "Step out of the rhythm part". That's exactly when Keith and Ronnie's thing happened, especially between 1977-1982.

As less full chords and less I-IV stuff were involved with this playing style, Bill stood more out in the soundscape. Biting licks from left and right intertwined, while the more static rhythm stuff happened rarer.

Discussing this, and the need to explain it, is surreal, btw. It shouldn't be hard to hear how they played. The need to disqualify the guitar playing on, say, Down In The Hole (classic example) as lead guitar/weaving/a style Keith and Ronnie developed is baffling.

I'm out of this one now. Maybe I have been unclear, but the examples and explaining should be sufficient. Thanks for that quote, Koen.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
DandelionPowderman
But by all means, bring on the people who claim that it was weaving of rhythm guitars Keith on Ronnie developed between 1977-1982.

Ok since you asked I will just support my assertion that it was lead and rhythm from others comments on the forum, your contention that is is all lead parts is indeed your opinion and not universally supported by other members of this forum. Your Stones knowledge is deep and I respect your comments but just wish you would admit that some of your descriptions like that weaving is purely a lead guitar phenom are very subjective and not universal facts, of course they are your educated opinion.

"the "ancient art of weaving" as Keith puts it such that the dichotomy between the lead and rhythm is blurred, that they go back and forth, one playing lead and one rhythm and then switching back and forth even within any given song

"that guitar style was predominant with lead and rhythm played simutaneously"

" I hear much the same thing in the Wood era I did during the Taylor era...Keith playing mostly rhythm and main riffs, taking the solo on certain songs (Bitch, for example)"

perhaps most directly from Mathijs:

"Wood and Richards had a unique interaction from '77 to '82, where they both would be playing rhythm guitar, and basically being so connected that they finished or started each others rhythm parts or riffs. This constant bouncing back and forth is quite unique in my opinion. Check out Burden from Hampton or Let's Spend movie, or Whip and Imagination from '78. They both play the main theme, but they fill it in freely. Of course, the presence of Bill Wyman was crucial here as he filled in all holes left by the guitars."

There are many more but I think you get the idea...weaving as done by Ronnie and Keith includes much rhythm playing too in more peoples opinion than my own.

Let's end this on something we can agree on...The weaving Keith and Ronnie do is pretty amazing and we both love it! peace brother.

LOL! I'm pretty sure Mathijs wouldn't call the classic weaving on his favourite, Imagination from Hampton, rhythm guitar weaving. This is probably taken out of context or just clumsily formulated.

Once again, the weaving that Keith and Ronnie made famous in those years happened WHEN THE GUITARISTS STEPPED OUT OF THE RHYTHM GUITAR PLAYING. That's the very core of it, and there is simply no way around it.

Of course they played lead and rhythm, too, but it wasn't those few seconds of rhythm guitar before the guitarist jumped back to play some complimenting licks to his partner's licks they called weaving.

There were a few examples of this with Taylor as well: It wasn't the arpeggios on I Got The Blues (the rhythm guitars) that was the weaving, it was the licks they complimented eachother with when they stepped out of the arpeggios. Listen to that intro.

It's not the E/A/B chords in Let Me Go from Hampton that is the weaving, it's the stuff they both play after eachother that is what we're talking about here.

And please stop saying it's my definition, I'm merely describing what they do. Listen for yourself:

[www.youtube.com]

Hmm.. interesting stuff here about 'weaving'. I need to say that I find Dandie's definition a bit surprising one. Never occurred to me to defined so strongly as a lead guitar thing, since I have always taken to to go beyond, or deconstruct the rhythm/lead guitar distinction (Mathijs' description above in Naturalust's post is a spot on me thinks). 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). But, frankly, I really just can't see 'ancient art of weaving' to be determined solely as a thing for lead guitars. I think that determination is based too much on the traditional rhythm/lead guitar distinction and thereby it violates the very philosophy of 'ancient art of weaving'. It might catch accuratively a rather much of what Keith and Ronnie actually did back then (1977-82), but terribly misses the main idea.

Dandie, looking the way you read Keith's Berry comments, to me it looks like you see a rhythm guitar an sich is something like an enemy one should get rid of (and I can remember your pejorative comments of Keith "just" strumming rhythm guitar in 1973, etc.). I find that a bit odd. But then again, I know that you have a very broad definition for 'lead guitar'. This starts to be a very semantical issue...

- Doxa

<to me it looks like you see a rhythm guitar an sich is something like an enemy one should get rid of>

No, I don't. I just find the PM era approach more interesting than a static lead/rhythm approach.

Practically, you're right about wiping away the distinction. But I'm merely describing what they did, not the effect of it that you rightly point out.

<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.

What happens a bit into this song?

[www.youtube.com]







Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-09 11:22 by DandelionPowderman.