For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
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"?
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.
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!
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.
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.
Quote
DandelionPowderman
You take what I'm saying out of context. That's pretty cheap, NL.
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
Quote
HMS
You guys should write a book on that subject
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."
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.