Re: Re: Re: New Keith vs. old Keith

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Message board ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Mr. Ventilator on May 30, 1999 at 19:34:20:

In Reply to: Re: Re: New Keith vs. old Keith posted by 2000 Man on May 29, 1999 at 08:23:10:

Responses to some of your points:

You say Keith has more freedom now because Ronnie Doesn't play lead as much as Mick T. did. I would say that Ronnie isn't playing much of anything now, so Keith is needed more than ever.

The guitars may well be more up in the mix on the NS tour. That would be more meaningful to listeners and fans if Keith actually played his ass off on all the songs instead of just three or four.

Your point about the setlist being more varied now is true. In that sense, the shows are more interesting now than they have ever been. When have they ever had more material from which to choose?

True, "Dance Little Sister" is nonstop riffing. So is "Luxury". I just like the riff on "Luxury" a whole lot better. "Dance" is just too simple, too monotonous. I think they did Luxury live in '75. Have they done it since? Just curious..

Finally, why do you find the new-Keith-old-Keith question silly? It goes to the heart of what this band is about, don't you think?

: I really find your "new Keith vs. old Keith" thing kind of silly, but since so much space seems to be dedicated to it over the last few days, I guess I'll jump in a little.

: As far as tours go - 78 had some of the worst performances ever. So did 75 - 76. They also had a couple of shows where the Stones were simply amazing, but you needed to be there the right night. 81 was more consistent, but I don't think the Stones hit their peak at any one show.

: 89 was a greatest hits paint by numbers tour. They had been gone a long time and it was just great to see them again. Voodoo Lounge was musically up to snuff, and a spectacle as well. B2B seemed to cut back on the effects somewhat, but the playing was even more consistent, and a couple of the shows were some of the best ever done by the Stones. No Security was even better, and several shows received incredible reviews, not just a couple of shows. With the last three tours there weren't many radio shows, and the Stones delivered the goods. It seemed like 78 and 81 only got top notch performances when the radio was there. I'd rather know I'm gonna see a great show, than hope I catch a good night.

: I listened to Brown Sugar from the 72 tour, the 73 tour and B2B. The constant riffing you're talking about is because Mick T. is so busy snaking leads through the song that someone had better keep up the rythm, or there's no way anyone would know what song they're playing. Mick T. was a great player, but his style limited Keith to what he could do. Keith has more freedom with Ronnie, and can play leads whenever he wants to now. Your criticisms would be valid if this were about the 89-90 tours, but not the last two. The guitars are up in the mix, and the setlist is much more varied than 69 - 76 tours.

: And I really found this odd (from one of your other posts)
: Luxury" - clearly the best song on the record. "Dance Little Sister" the worst.

: Dance Little Sister is just the kind of simple non stop riff you lament. What gives?

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup


Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: New Keith vs. old Keith


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Message board ] [ FAQ ]