|
|
| VoodooTattoo |
Why does Mick always say this in interviews? I know Keith bashes him, but can't he stand up for himself? |
|
|
| gotdablouse |
I think he doesn't want to get caught commenting on Keith's ridiculous statements made to show that he's still a bad boy.
The Guitar Magazine interview was the worst he's been since 1986.
- Mick should stay away from electric guitars
- Sway has poor guitar playing
- Mick's latest LP should have been called "Dogshit In The Doorway"
- The knighthood is bullshit.
How can Mick respond calmly about thes outlandish Keith statements? |
|
|
| FotiniD |
From Guitar World:
GW: How do you rate Mick Jagger as a guitar player?
KR: On acoustic, he's a damned good rhythm player. I'd never let him play electric if I could help it... ... No sense of electric at all....
GW: "Sway" is Mick on electric.
KR: Yeah... Well, like I say, acoustically he's got a nice touch. It doesn't ranslate electrically. It's not his thing. It's not everybody's cup of tea.
I think he's being fair enough. I disagree on the Sway part - I like Mick's electric there, but Keith's got an opinion on Mick's playing and it's only fair to say he has a right to have it! He doesn't turn him down all together as a guitar player - just says that he's better off at playing acoustic.
And Keith's better of playing electric than singing at certain occasions  Much as I love everything he sings, Mick's obviously a better singer, if you look at it cold-blooded. It's his cup of tea. Everybody's good at different stuff, some are good at more than one, but you can't be perfect in everything.
I don't think Keith is being negative towards Mick, like in the eighties. I think it's their personal code of behaviors we're dealign with. Winding each other up. Maybe Mick is not airing his feelings in public, but I'm sure when they're together there's lots of that They've been together for all of their lives - I think they're entitled to say what they like and dislike about each other, without that being thought of as a deadly insult. |
|
|
| FotiniD |
Another thing - I don't think the knighthood thing matches the Stones as a band either. I mean, they're the band that cut "Street Fighting Man". Sir Mick and all that... I don't really like it, but it doesn't bother me too much either.
And, Goddess in the Doorway was far too hastily-done and commercial for me. When Keith uses descripions like "Dogshit" I think that while expressing his beliefs, he also shows a feeling of "come on Mick, stick to the Stones and do what you do best - far better than that!". He knows Mick's potential and I think it's his way of showing that to him. In a very concealed manner, but nevertheless effective |
|
|
| lucasd4 |
[quote]FotiniD wrote:
I think he's being fair enough. I disagree on the Sway part - I like Mick's electric there, but Keith's got an opinion on Mick's playing and it's only fair to say he has a right to have it! He doesn't turn him down all together as a guitar player - just says that he's better off at playing acoustic.
And Keith's better of playing electric than singing at certain occasions Much as I love everything he sings, Mick's obviously a better singer, if you look at it cold-blooded. It's his cup of tea. Everybody's good at different stuff, some are good at more than one, but you can't be perfect in everything.
Jagger could make the same kind of comments concerning Keith's singing--I really wish he would....Keith is a good background/harmony singer...he should stick to that...IF he has to do lead vocals, he should stick to one song per album...this two and three song stuff of the last several studio albums is too much of a not too good thing |
|
|
| J.J.Flash |
See Mick playing in the Backstage with Ike & Tina on the Gimme Shelter Documentary. Mick showed his Sense of "Bluesman" with guitar, the blues and Robert Johnson running in his veins!
|
|
|
| J.J.Flash |
I forgot to say: However, I love Keith, he's my favorite hero, "God save the Keith". Keith is the Rock'n'Roll heart in the band! HAIL, HAIL HELL-RAISED KEITH RICHARDS! It's just a joke, but, if Eric Clapton is God, Keith is the Devil! Try to imagine Richards in rhythm guitar and Clapton in solo guitar! |
|
|
| Stonesprofessor |
That scenerio always intrigued me..the Stones with Eric on lead and Keith on rhythm...mmmmmmmm...and he has always been real good friends with them also-look at the number of times he has 'guested'with them onstage..or the number of times he has done outside shows with various Stones-The Chuck Berry birthday show for Keith, The ARMS shows where Charlie and Bill played a set with him....or even the version of Brown Sugar he shows up on....It WOULD be almost TOO mucjh of a good thing though..wouldn't it? |
|
|
| Moonisup |
Well I think mick is a great musician! Piano, harp, guitar, bass, drumms, and keith does those things also, well Keith doesn't play harp as far as I know. Keith - guitar, Mick - harp. that would be a comparisson. Don't chose between mick ore keith as a guitar player!!
rik |
|
|
| stonesmik |
I like Ronnie being in the band instead of Eric. I don't know about Eric but he may well be another candidate for the knighthood - and two Sirs in the Stones would definitely be too much. Ronnie rocks! Eric does, too. But rarely.
Btw - there is an interview with Mick on the UK chart site at http://www.dotmusic.com/interviews//October2001/interviews22479.asp (from 2002) in which he is asked:
The interviewer says: "I could quite see you doing an R&B record in the original rhythm & blues sense, like Bob Dylan has just done. But I suppose Bill Wyman has done that..."
Mick Jagger replies: "I would love to do a blues record, and I think a blues record would be very good to do with the Rolling Stones. But I'd also like to do a blues record on my own. The songwriting limitations upon the blues are rather too much of a structure, you know, and that's a real forced-into-a-corner kind of style. - It's difficult to be forward-looking in that genre, and that's a really tough one. I like to be a little bit contemporary. I'm not a slave to it, but I like to be a little bit contemporary."
It seems Mick has been the bluesman in the Stones from the beginning (apart of Brian of course). Keith was more into country, rock'n'roll and later reggae, they couldn't use him in the Blues Incorporated. As far as I remember when the two met at the Dartford railway station it was Mick who had some blues records with him. Little Walter, Muddy Waters. Mick has also recorded an unreleased blues album with the Red Devils.
[Edited by stonesmik] |
|
|
| Moonisup |
I have the version of Eric with the stones on Brown sugar. I think the sax solo rocks more!!
Eric ain't a rolling stones
he has grown old gracefully!!
the stones not, well mick tries, but his libido is far to big to grow old gracefully!!!
Rik |
|
|
| Mr T |
- Mick should stay away from electric guitars
That's just Mick's fault for not listening. Obviously Keith doesn't do much about it, Mick still plays them a lot
- Sway has poor guitar playing
I doubt Mick would be very offended by that - like he even remembers that song? I'm sure Mick can deal with things being less than perfect that are 30 years old - he can't fix that, he jst has to try and improve on it now. But I would have to say that Sway would be one of their sloppier tracks.
- Mick's latest LP should have been called "Dogshit In The Doorway"
Mick had that one coming
- The knighthood is bullshit.
well isn't it? Keith is wrong for pointing the finger at Mick - it's the Royalty that are full of shit for doing it. In Keith's ideal world - yes, Mick would've refused the honor, shout, scream, kill the king, etc. But like that would ever happen. Expecting any more of Mick for that is just stupid, but the knighthood thing was utter bullshit to begin with
|
|
|
| full moon |
The Stones can get away with being sloppy.. Mick is fine with the guitar... |
|
|
| Mr T |
nah - the Stones whole musical abilit are based on Keith's kick ass rhythm guitar. Sure, I can forgive them for being a bit sloppy - but when I saw them at Giants - with Mick playing guitar on Don't Stop, I just had to think - what a spaz, there's really no reason why he should be playing that instrument. I totally saw what Keith meant. Not that I would go out of my way to make Mick ever play guitar again - I just don't think he should do it often |
|
|
| kc152 |
Mick diden't want to waste his time talking about Keith's B.S. Speaking of Keith's mouth, he also said Undercover(Micks song)woulden't be on 40 licks,but there it is. Meamwhile there's not one track from Dirty Work,which we all know is basically a Keith/Woody album. I guess talk is cheap. |
|
|
| stonesmik |
Well, basically "Dirty work" is the album that Mick has ruined because he decided he had to do his own solo album and in the end had only two songs left for the Stones ("Winning ugly" and "Back to zero") while Keith had to write up some songs with Ronnie and to suggest two cover tunes. There wasn't much Mick about this album. There wasn't much Jagger/Richards about this album either. Somehow it was Keith's first solo album with a guest singer. |
|
|
| padre |
What do you think Keef would do if Mick said these comments in an interview:
-I don't think Keith is much of a singer. I wish he'd leave that job to me. It's quite embarrashing, actually, er?
-I think I play better acoustic than Keith, he doesn't keep solid rhythm anymore. He can do all the posing he wants with the Tele, but I think I'm the one should do the acoustic guitars.
-Lately it really seems that Keith is losing his touch. But I'm glad he admits that, even writes a song about it! |
|
|
| lucasd4 |
quote:
padre wrote:
What do you think Keef would do if Mick said these comments in an interview:
-I don't think Keith is much of a singer. I wish he'd leave that job to me. It's quite embarrashing, actually, er?
-I think I play better acoustic than Keith, he doesn't keep solid rhythm anymore. He can do all the posing he wants with the Tele, but I think I'm the one should do the acoustic guitars.
-Lately it really seems that Keith is losing his touch. But I'm glad he admits that, even writes a song about it!
Great post....all points are valid and I'd love to hear Mick point them out...as for Keith's playing, he hasn't kept solid rhythm since the SOME GIRLS tour...and he's not keeping it now from all the boots I've heard of the LICKS tour....Woody sounds better than he has in 25 years, Mick is singing as good as he ever has live, and Charlie is good tonight and every night....the only thing Keith does great anymore is run his mouth....he sure doesn't let his playing do the talking...still the same old choppy, sporadic playing...a lick or two here and there....I just watched my LADIES AND GENTLEMEN video boot again last night to remind myself of how great he once was |
|
|
| stonesmik |
quote:
padre wrote:
What do you think Keef would do if Mick said these comments in an interview:
-I don't think Keith is much of a singer. I wish he'd leave that job to me. It's quite embarrashing, actually, er?
-I think I play better acoustic than Keith, he doesn't keep solid rhythm anymore. He can do all the posing he wants with the Tele, but I think I'm the one should do the acoustic guitars.
-Lately it really seems that Keith is losing his touch. But I'm glad he admits that, even writes a song about it!
I think Mick is quite happy for Keith doing his songs so he can go for a toilet break or some beer (some even say he's going under the oxygen tent, but I don't believe that. He ain't ooold, ain't he?). Besides it is always good to sing after a bad singer because people will really appreciate you.
Keith never played solid ryhthm, he was always more like some John Lee Hooker who plays 13 1/2 bars if he wants to, especially when he was stoned. The rhythm was always led by Charlie whatever the guys say. Keith knows without Charlie there is no Rolling Stones. Also Mick isn't really that bad on the acoustic guitar, and Keith admits that. He said: "Well, he's had a good teacher."
Keith may be losing his touch now. But he never recorded sicko ballads like "State of shock" or let himself being "knighted" by a Queen. Instead he played with Jerry Lee Lewis and Aretha Franklin. Well, Sicko Jackson wouldn't have wanted him to be his duet partner, the Queen wouldn't want Keith Richards to be her knight in shining armor. She'd have to give him some pirate ship to sail around in the Carribbean Sea. |
|
|
| lucasd4 |
quote:
stonesmik wrote:
I think Mick is quite happy for Keith doing his songs so he can go for a toilet break or some beer (some even say he's going under the oxygen tent, but I don't believe that. He ain't ooold, ain't he?). Besides it is always good to sing after a bad singer because people will really appreciate you.
Keith never played solid ryhthm, he was always more like some John Lee Hooker who plays 13 1/2 bars if he wants to, especially when he was stoned. The rhythm was always led by Charlie whatever the guys say. Keith knows without Charlie there is no Rolling Stones. Also Mick isn't really that bad on the acoustic guitar, and Keith admits that. He said: "Well, he's had a good teacher."
Keith may be losing his touch now. But he never recorded sicko ballads like "State of shock" or let himself being "knighted" by a Queen. Instead he played with Jerry Lee Lewis and Aretha Franklin. Well, Sicko Jackson wouldn't have wanted him to be his duet partner, the Queen wouldn't want Keith Richards to be her knight in shining armor. She'd have to give him some pirate ship to sail around in the Carribbean Sea.
You're dead wrong about Keith never playing solid rhythm...he was rock solid up until the SOME GIRLS tour--especially during the '69 tour and the '72-'73 tour....he was a rhythm monster...his playing was relentless....his rhythm guitar was always there....buzzing away like a chainsaw...no big pauses or gaps in the sound where nothing was playing...if you don't know that, then you don't know much about the guitar sound of the Stones...listen to the boots from that era...better yet, watch LADIES AND GENTLEMEN...Keith's right arm is in constant motion....constantly strumming those strings....propelling and driving the music....everyone followed Keith back then, not Charlie....Bill has said this....Charlie has said this...Mick Taylor has said this |
|
|
| Maxlugar |
1) One way to look at all this Knighthood shit is to just think that maybe they've won. The 60's generation has won. They've changed things to the point that the Royal family is now calling them "Sir". It is not a bad thing. And a man approaching 60 still acting like a rebel and going shirtless on the cover of Rolling Stone looking like a wrinkled peice of leather is kind of embarrassing.
2) I think Mick should not be playing electric on stage. He's out there stuming like a wild man and nothing is coming out. If he needs a rest he can just stand infront of the mic and groove like in '69. No one would complain that he's not running from side to side.
|
|
|
| stonesmik |
quote:
lucasd4 wrote:
You're dead wrong about Keith never playing solid rhythm...
Yes, I know that, I was just exaggerating. I just wanted to make a statement about the one and only Charlie, the true heartbeat of the Rolling Stones. But then again have you ever seen that German documentary "20 Jahre Rolling Stones" (1982) where they had caught Keith on the 76 tour and they mixed away all other instruments except of his guitar - it just sounded HORRIBLE, if there was rhythm in it then I agree as well Keith's doodling on the 1995 Johannesburg version of "Sympathy for the devil" was a beaiutifu�l solo! His sloppiness may have started a bit before 1978. But whatever, I won't hang the man because he's playing sloppy. I love that! he's no fuckin' human click-track, he IS just rhythm-ba-by-rhythm |
|
|
| lucasd4 |
quote:
Maxlugar wrote:
1) One way to look at all this Knighthood shit is to just think that maybe they've won. The 60's generation has won. They've changed things to the point that the Royal family is now calling them "Sir". It is not a bad thing. And a man approaching 60 still acting like a rebel and going shirtless on the cover of Rolling Stone looking like a wrinkled peice of leather is kind of embarrassing.
2) I think Mick should not be playing electric on stage. He's out there stuming like a wild man and nothing is coming out. If he needs a rest he can just stand infront of the mic and groove like in '69. No one would complain that he's not running from side to side.
Right on, as usual....the shirtless Keith stuff is embarrassing and it's getting old too....he did it for the RS cover shot a few years back on the B2B tour....maybe he has an exhibitionist streak in him.... |
|
|
| stonesmik |
quote:
Maxlugar wrote:
1) One way to look at all this Knighthood shit is to just think that maybe they've won. The 60's generation has won. They've changed things to the point that the Royal family is now calling them "Sir". It is not a bad thing. And a man approaching 60 still acting like a rebel and going shirtless on the cover of Rolling Stone looking like a wrinkled peice of leather is kind of embarrassing.
Another way to look at it is that the older generation is just drying off. Also it isn't the 60s generation which has won - it is the style of Paul McCartney, Elton John or Mick Jagger. And of course their money grabbing attitude, beause without money for the Queen there's no knighthood. There is no Sir Keith Richards. He said he'd tell them where to stuff their knighthood.
Personally I prefer having Keith on the Rolling Stone than Mick having dinner with the Queen. Otherwise it will be just 20 years to go and we'll have to admit that the 80's generation has won. Sir Boy George or whoever will bring the money in. |
|
|
| lucasd4 |
quote:
stonesmik wrote:
Another way to look at it is that the older generation is just drying off. Also it isn't the 60s generation which has won - it is the style of Paul McCartney, Elton John or Mick Jagger. And of course their money grabbing attitude, beause without money for the Queen there's no knighthood. There is no Sir Keith Richards. He said he'd tell them where to stuff their knighthood.
Personally I prefer having Keith on the Rolling Stone than Mick having dinner with the Queen. Otherwise it will be just 20 years to go and we'll have to admit that the 80's generation has won. Sir Boy George or whoever will bring the money in.
Keith is just jealous that Mick was knighted and he wasn't....he can say all that crap about telling them to stuff it because he knows it'll never happen anyway....if he had been offered knighthood before or at the same time as Jagger, he would've accepted it...he's just a big talker....just like when he said he'd slit Mick's throat if he toured without the Stones....that was right before Mick hit the road on his solo tour in the 80's.... |
|
|
| stonesmik |
You got no proof for that. But if you look at it, it would have been VERY unlikely that they'd give the knighthood to him first. Not even Tony Blair would do that, and he's atough guy, hehe. Yes, Keith is a talker but I like it. Just imagine him "going completely bananas" when he heard about Mick's knighthood! What a sight!
"Don't mess with my Keithfucius." |
|
|
| Maxlugar |
Sir Dirty Work.
|
|
|
| Nasty Habits |
padre and lucas4d - I salute you! Keith makes more noise in interviews these days than he does on stage.
I watched Ladies and Gentlemen this weekend, too, and was nearly moved to tears while they played "Dead Flowers". Sharing a mic, obviously having a blast singing that great song and having it sound so hot and good, on stage w/yr. best buds being the best there is what could be better. Broke my heart to think about their total lack of chemistry and collaboration onstage or in the studio anymore. 30 years of too much money too much ego and too much blood has turned that great friendship into what comes across in the music as nothing more than a great business partnership.
I still can't help but think Mick made a terrible business decision when he chose to accept the knighthood. He might see more of the angles than I do - natch he does - but you would think that the CEO of a great company like the Rolling Stones Inc. would take a look at the pros and cons of such a move, realize that within the organization and to the stockholders like you and me it would be far better politically to take a public pass on the knighthood, which would have been good for internal and external morale. Mick HAD to know the knighthood would piss Keith off royally. Maybe that's why he did it.
They're so great (and professional) that what they make is still amazingly good, but how much better would it be if they actually seemed to give a shit about each other's well being on and off stage?
|
|
|
| Maxlugar |
Hey Nasty,
What does "Natch" mean? Like when you said "Natch, he does."?
I've seen it tons of times and I've often wanted to throw it in a post or two but I'm a little unsure of its true meaning.
Does it mean "duh", so to speak. Like, "Duh, he does."
Natch! I love it!
Bunny K. Max-ay - Slave to Reggae Music. [sic] |
|
|
| jb |
Keith is king....long live the King!!! |
|
CHAT ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]