Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
weapon2010

Whats up with Keith Richards on LZ?

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Strider said:

 

Now, now, let's not get too psychoanalytic. I don't think it was about Keith feeling threatened by a better guitar player at all.

For one thing, despite what some people say, Keith could play guitar. Ok, he wasn't Jimi Hendrix or Ritchie Blackmore flamboyantly fast, but he created great riffs and he could solo well enough to suit the song. One listen to "Gimmie Shelter" and "Sympathy for the Devil" should be enough to prove that to any naysayers.

Keith's playing didn't show signs of slippage until the 1978 tour, which despite what Jann "stanlove" Wenner tries to tell you, was an unmitigated disaster. You think Led Zeppelin's 1977 tour had problems and that their playing wasn't up to snuff? The Stones 1978 tour made Led Zeppelin's 1977 tour sound like Europe 1973.

But Keith was a riff machine on the 1969-72 tours. And the Stones were rock royalty. I am sure he felt secure in his position as top dog along with Mick Jagger in the band. They were the songwriters...they were the Glimmer Twins!

When Mick Taylor left, it was during a time when many others around the band were also displaying signs of having difficulty handling the drugs and wildness around the band. Jimmy Miller, Bobby Keyes and Nicky Hopkins, for instance.

Mick Taylor also chafed at not getting proper writing credits, as Mick and Keith always took the writing credits. Bill Wyman and Charlie Watts got nothing from the songwriting royalties. Their money came from touring.

I think at that point in time, the Stones' first priority in a replacement for Mick Taylor was someone who personality-wise and constitution-wise could fit in and mesh with the band. Mick Taylor was a very young kid when he joined the Stones and never seemed to fit in. His playing was fantastic but he tended to just stand there and play and not show any personality or emotion.

Ron Wood was the complete opposite. He was one of the lads, had been around the block a few times with the Faces and even already knew how to deal with a preening peacock of a singer through his time with Rod Stewart. He even looked like a Rolling Stone...like Keith's long-lost brother.

I think the Stones saw Woody as a fellow drinking buddy, someone who could handle the partying, and would be happy just being in the band and not squawk about songwriting credits. As for his playing, it's easy to forget that Wood was actually a pretty good player in The Faces, for that kind of rowdy, raucous, drunk rock 'n' roll. He was an underrated bottleneck slide player at that time, too. 

Was he Mick Taylor level? No. But he was certainly the equal of Keith Richards, if not better at certain things like bottleneck/slide.

If your position is that Keith's ego felt threatened by Mick Taylor then his ego would have been threatened by Ron Wood, too.

Well, it took over 20 years before Mick and Keith even officially acknowledged that Ron Wood was a member of the Rolling Stones, so that probably plays a part in his attitude. Again though, it is exactly that whatever-devil-may-care attitude of Ron Wood that made him so appealing to Mick and Keith in the first place.

Also Ronnie was salaried up until at least the late nineties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Strider said:

 

Now, now, let's not get too psychoanalytic. I don't think it was about Keith feeling threatened by a better guitar player at all.

For one thing, despite what some people say, Keith could play guitar. Ok, he wasn't Jimi Hendrix or Ritchie Blackmore flamboyantly fast, but he created great riffs and he could solo well enough to suit the song. One listen to "Gimmie Shelter" and "Sympathy for the Devil" should be enough to prove that to any naysayers.

Keith's playing didn't show signs of slippage until the 1978 tour, which despite what Jann "stanlove" Wenner tries to tell you, was an unmitigated disaster. You think Led Zeppelin's 1977 tour had problems and that their playing wasn't up to snuff? The Stones 1978 tour made Led Zeppelin's 1977 tour sound like Europe 1973.

But Keith was a riff machine on the 1969-72 tours. And the Stones were rock royalty. I am sure he felt secure in his position as top dog along with Mick Jagger in the band. They were the songwriters...they were the Glimmer Twins!

When Mick Taylor left, it was during a time when many others around the band were also displaying signs of having difficulty handling the drugs and wildness around the band. Jimmy Miller, Bobby Keyes and Nicky Hopkins, for instance.

Mick Taylor also chafed at not getting proper writing credits, as Mick and Keith always took the writing credits. Bill Wyman and Charlie Watts got nothing from the songwriting royalties. Their money came from touring.

I think at that point in time, the Stones' first priority in a replacement for Mick Taylor was someone who personality-wise and constitution-wise could fit in and mesh with the band. Mick Taylor was a very young kid when he joined the Stones and never seemed to fit in. His playing was fantastic but he tended to just stand there and play and not show any personality or emotion.

Ron Wood was the complete opposite. He was one of the lads, had been around the block a few times with the Faces and even already knew how to deal with a preening peacock of a singer through his time with Rod Stewart. He even looked like a Rolling Stone...like Keith's long-lost brother.

I think the Stones saw Woody as a fellow drinking buddy, someone who could handle the partying, and would be happy just being in the band and not squawk about songwriting credits. As for his playing, it's easy to forget that Wood was actually a pretty good player in The Faces, for that kind of rowdy, raucous, drunk rock 'n' roll. He was an underrated bottleneck slide player at that time, too. 

Was he Mick Taylor level? No. But he was certainly the equal of Keith Richards, if not better at certain things like bottleneck/slide.

If your position is that Keith's ego felt threatened by Mick Taylor then his ego would have been threatened by Ron Wood, too.

Well, it took over 20 years before Mick and Keith even officially acknowledged that Ron Wood was a member of the Rolling Stones, so that probably plays a part in his attitude. Again though, it is exactly that whatever-devil-may-care attitude of Ron Wood that made him so appealing to Mick and Keith in the first place.

Good points. Reminds me of that quote from Lennon I believe, in regard to Pete Best vs. Ringo Starr: "...well, Pete was the better drummer, but Ringo was the better Beatle."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/2/2018 at 9:24 PM, stanlove said:

I think Zeppelin not selling singles helped their albums sales. The Stones sold a ton of singles which would hurt album sales.

:hysterical:

Seriously? That's the reason you are going with? Sometimes I really think you are Jann Wenner, for you sound just as desperate to defend the Stones as Wenner did in 1978 when he wrote a suck-up piece in his magazine to counter all the "Emperor has no clothes on" bad press the Stones '78 tour was receiving from the rock critics and fans...even in his own magazine.

Let's go to the numbers.

Led Zeppelin: 22 albums (studio, live, and compilations) 114.1 million sold in the U.S.

Rolling Stones: 78 albums 74.75 million albums sold in the U.S.

 That averages out to 5.2 million sold for each Led Zeppelin release and 958,333 for each Rolling Stones release.

Do you really think there were 40 million people who bought a Rolling Stones single but did not buy an album? I've got news for you...sure, the Stones sold a few singles but it wasn't close to 40 million. It wasn't even 10 million. They only had 4 singles reach 1,000,000 in sales in the U.S.

The singles reason is irrelevant anyway, as by the time Led Zeppelin arrived on the scene albums had become the dominant format in rock, passing singles in units sold in 1968. In the 1970s, singles were less and less important to bands, especially the established bands such as The Who, Kinks, Pink Floyd, Stones, and Led Zeppelin. You either had a fan base or you didn't and your album sales told the tale of how large your fan base was.

The most telling stat is the average sales per release. Over 5 million for Led Zeppelin compared to less than a million for the Stones. Led Zeppelin has FIVE Diamond studio albums...sales of 10 million or more. The Stones have none. The Stones biggest studio album seller is "Some Girls" with 6 million, which would rank it #7 on Led Zeppelin's list behind "In Through The Out Door". They have one greatest hits double-album compilation that sold 12,000,000...1971's "Hot Rocks".

Nearly every other Stones album sold somewhere between 500,000 and 1,000,000.

That disparity clearly shows that the people who went to Led Zeppelin concerts were true fans of the band, putting their money in both album sales and concert tickets. The disparity between the Stones high concert sales and low album sales shows that many people obviously weren't necessarily Stones fans, but drawn by curiosity and the publicity hype. They were looky-loos, coming to see what all the fuss was about and if the "greatest rock and roll band" hype was true. Obviously, many thought not, or it would have translated into more record sales.

The Stones also were the beneficiaries of the Beatles breaking up. Many older fans who grew up with the British Invasion looked to get their fix with Stones concerts (and Who concerts) when the Beatles quit.

Speaking of the Beatles, your "singles hurt album sales" reason collapses with two words: The Beatles. They released singles that sold millions more than the Stones and still sold more albums than anyone...over 200 million at last count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great points w/r/t to Ron Wood. He's a fine player, but I could see the point about perhaps a bit of "style over substance" and there is something to be said for "fitting in" when you are 5 guys spending a GREAT deal of time together on the road. 

I saw Metallica over the summer and during Rob Trujillo's bass solo, they had a HUGE video of Cliff Burton projected behind him. I mean, I get that he wasn't a founding member and I get that Cliff Burton is a big part of what got Metallica going, but Rob's been their bassist for 15 years! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like the Stones have a new career.  

Bear with it until Joe Pesci’s entrance at 8m 30 secs. Absolute classic

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/6/2018 at 1:27 AM, Strider said:

:hysterical:

Seriously? That's the reason you are going with? Sometimes I really think you are Jann Wenner, for you sound just as desperate to defend the Stones as Wenner did in 1978 when he wrote a suck-up piece in his magazine to counter all the "Emperor has no clothes on" bad press the Stones '78 tour was receiving from the rock critics and fans...even in his own magazine.

Let's go to the numbers.

Led Zeppelin: 22 albums (studio, live, and compilations) 114.1 million sold in the U.S.

Rolling Stones: 78 albums 74.75 million albums sold in the U.S.

 That averages out to 5.2 million sold for each Led Zeppelin release and 958,333 for each Rolling Stones release.

Do you really think there were 40 million people who bought a Rolling Stones single but did not buy an album? I've got news for you...sure, the Stones sold a few singles but it wasn't close to 40 million. It wasn't even 10 million. They only had 4 singles reach 1,000,000 in sales in the U.S.

The singles reason is irrelevant anyway, as by the time Led Zeppelin arrived on the scene albums had become the dominant format in rock, passing singles in units sold in 1968. In the 1970s, singles were less and less important to bands, especially the established bands such as The Who, Kinks, Pink Floyd, Stones, and Led Zeppelin. You either had a fan base or you didn't and your album sales told the tale of how large your fan base was.

The most telling stat is the average sales per release. Over 5 million for Led Zeppelin compared to less than a million for the Stones. Led Zeppelin has FIVE Diamond studio albums...sales of 10 million or more. The Stones have none. The Stones biggest studio album seller is "Some Girls" with 6 million, which would rank it #7 on Led Zeppelin's list behind "In Through The Out Door". They have one greatest hits double-album compilation that sold 12,000,000...1971's "Hot Rocks".

Nearly every other Stones album sold somewhere between 500,000 and 1,000,000.

That disparity clearly shows that the people who went to Led Zeppelin concerts were true fans of the band, putting their money in both album sales and concert tickets. The disparity between the Stones high concert sales and low album sales shows that many people obviously weren't necessarily Stones fans, but drawn by curiosity and the publicity hype. They were looky-loos, coming to see what all the fuss was about and if the "greatest rock and roll band" hype was true. Obviously, many thought not, or it would have translated into more record sales.

The Stones also were the beneficiaries of the Beatles breaking up. Many older fans who grew up with the British Invasion looked to get their fix with Stones concerts (and Who concerts) when the Beatles quit.

Speaking of the Beatles, your "singles hurt album sales" reason collapses with two words: The Beatles. They released singles that sold millions more than the Stones and still sold more albums than anyone...over 200 million at last count.

Not sure what you are posting this to me. I never said the Stones sold as much as Zeppelin. I made a simple statement that selling singles hurts albums sales. There is no doubt about that. The fact that the Beatles sold alot of both doesn't change that.

 

I was responding to someone who said that Zeppelin sold all of those records without selling singles.  I was not saying the Stones sold as much as Zeppelin.

 

So the Stones have filled stadiums for the last 40 years selling really high priced tickets just because tons and tons of people want to see what the fuss is about. OKay?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, stanlove said:

So the Stones have filled stadiums for the last 40 years selling really high priced tickets just because tons and tons of people want to see what the fuss is about. OKay?

Put it this way...the Rolling Stones are the last of the classic dinosaur rock bands that still tour regularly.

The Beatles are dead. Led Zeppelin are dead. The Doors are dead. Pink Floyd, Jimi Hendrix, The Kinks...dead, dead, dead. Nearly every band that started from 1962-1969 is no longer. Save the Rolling Stones and the Half-a-Who.

So, if you are a fan of classic rock, the Rolling Stones are just about the only option a fan has of getting his fix in concert. The Rolling Stones are a family attraction now. Grandparents and parents bring the kids and grandkids to show them the famous Rolling Stones, complete with fireworks.

When I was standing in line all night and day for Wiltern Theatre tickets back in 2002, I was the only one in the vicinity that had seen the Stones in the 1970s. The majority of the first 100 people in line before me and after me had not seen the Stones until 1989's Steel Wheels tour or 1994's Voodoo Lounge tour...and quite a few had never seen them.

When I talk to some of these kids, I find that many of them are fans of "classic rock radio". They may even prefer Led Zeppelin and Jimi Hendrix to the Stones. But they are never going to be able to see Hendrix or Zeppelin in concert (Robert Plant solo doesn't cut it), so the Stones are the next best thing.

And yes, I bet a significant part of the audience at a Stones gig is made up of these people. The ones who only know "Start Me Up", "Satisfaction", "Honky Tonk Women" and none of the deep cuts or much from the Brian Jones era. They are there to say they finally saw the last of the legendary '60s bands left standing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Stones were great at catering to the mainstream. The mainstream came to Zep. Zep played blues rock with integrity and passion and the people who respected that integrity showed up to the shows. Meanwhile, the Stones were trying to convince teenage girls they were bad boys by singing songs from the "devils" point of view.

Is this a Stones bashing thread, because it seems like it lol. Honestly though, who in their right mind would compare the two? I love the Stones and think Sticky Fingers is a top five must have classic rock album, but let's be real, they're a bunch of preschoolers in the shadow of Zep University. Albeit very marketable preschoolers in the 60s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Strider said:

Put it this way...the Rolling Stones are the last of the classic dinosaur rock bands that still tour regularly.

The Beatles are dead. Led Zeppelin are dead. The Doors are dead. Pink Floyd, Jimi Hendrix, The Kinks...dead, dead, dead. Nearly every band that started from 1962-1969 is no longer. Save the Rolling Stones and the Half-a-Who.

So, if you are a fan of classic rock, the Rolling Stones are just about the only option a fan has of getting his fix in concert. The Rolling Stones are a family attraction now. Grandparents and parents bring the kids and grandkids to show them the famous Rolling Stones, complete with fireworks.

When I was standing in line all night and day for Wiltern Theatre tickets back in 2002, I was the only one in the vicinity that had seen the Stones in the 1970s. The majority of the first 100 people in line before me and after me had not seen the Stones until 1989's Steel Wheels tour or 1994's Voodoo Lounge tour...and quite a few had never seen them.

When I talk to some of these kids, I find that many of them are fans of "classic rock radio". They may even prefer Led Zeppelin and Jimi Hendrix to the Stones. But they are never going to be able to see Hendrix or Zeppelin in concert (Robert Plant solo doesn't cut it), so the Stones are the next best thing.

And yes, I bet a significant part of the audience at a Stones gig is made up of these people. The ones who only know "Start Me Up", "Satisfaction", "Honky Tonk Women" and none of the deep cuts or much from the Brian Jones era. They are there to say they finally saw the last of the legendary '60s bands left standing.

 

The Rolling Stones have not been the Rolling Stones since Bill Wyman left the band.  

When the Stones tour after 50 years, there at least 12 or more people onstage.  I do not consider that the Rolling Stones from the 1960's or tbe 1970's. 

I Love the Rolling Stones but they are not anywhere near the band that that was once considered the "Bad Boys"  to the "Innocent" Beatles. 

As for songs that the Rolling Stones would not play now when people want to hear the "hits" are:

Monkey Man/Undercover of the Night/Fool to Cry/ Rocks Off/Venitlalor Blues/ Torn and Frayed/Dancing with Mr.D/Little T&A/Happy/Tumbling Dice/Thru and Thru/One Hit to the Body.... and dozens more.  

Edited by kingzoso

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/11/2018 at 6:08 PM, Strider said:

Put it this way...the Rolling Stones are the last of the classic dinosaur rock bands that still tour regularly.

The Beatles are dead. Led Zeppelin are dead. The Doors are dead. Pink Floyd, Jimi Hendrix, The Kinks...dead, dead, dead. Nearly every band that started from 1962-1969 is no longer. Save the Rolling Stones and the Half-a-Who.

So, if you are a fan of classic rock, the Rolling Stones are just about the only option a fan has of getting his fix in concert. The Rolling Stones are a family attraction now. Grandparents and parents bring the kids and grandkids to show them the famous Rolling Stones, complete with fireworks.

When I was standing in line all night and day for Wiltern Theatre tickets back in 2002, I was the only one in the vicinity that had seen the Stones in the 1970s. The majority of the first 100 people in line before me and after me had not seen the Stones until 1989's Steel Wheels tour or 1994's Voodoo Lounge tour...and quite a few had never seen them.

When I talk to some of these kids, I find that many of them are fans of "classic rock radio". They may even prefer Led Zeppelin and Jimi Hendrix to the Stones. But they are never going to be able to see Hendrix or Zeppelin in concert (Robert Plant solo doesn't cut it), so the Stones are the next best thing.

And yes, I bet a significant part of the audience at a Stones gig is made up of these people. The ones who only know "Start Me Up", "Satisfaction", "Honky Tonk Women" and none of the deep cuts or much from the Brian Jones era. They are there to say they finally saw the last of the legendary '60s bands left standing.

 

Interesting/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, kingzoso said:

The Rolling Stones have not been the Rolling Stones since Bill Wyman left the band.  

When the Stones tour after 50 years, there at least 12 or more people onstage.  I do not consider that the Rolling Stones from the 1960's or tbe 1970's. 

I Love the Rolling Stones but they are not anywhere near the band that that was once considered the "Bad Boys"  to the "Innocent" Beatles. 

As for songs that the Rolling Stones would not play now when people want to hear the "hits" are:

Monkey Man/Undercover of the Night/Fool to Cry/ Rocks Off/Venitlalor Blues/ Torn and Frayed/Dancing with Mr.D/Little T&A/Happy/Tumbling Dice/Thru and Thru/One Hit to the Body.... and dozens more.  

Agree. They do drive me crazy with the warhorses.  I won't see them anymore and have not for years. If they went on a rarities tour I would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/22/2017 at 1:08 AM, weapon2010 said:

This is a quote from Rolling Stone, Keith Richards bad mouthing Led Zepplin:

I was never a big Zeppelin guy.(from the reporter)
"Me neither. I love Jimmy Page, but as a band, no, with John Bonham thundering down the highway in an uncontrolled 18-wheeler. He had cornered the market there. Jimmy is a brilliant player. But I always felt there was something a little hollow about it, you know?"

I don't get why they are bad mouthed by some of the top musicians of all time such as Keith Richards and Pete Townshend?To not like LZ  musically is one thing(which I cant even comprehend that, most great bands love and praise them), but to take shots by calling them "hollow" sounds like sour grapes.There is also a video

of Keith Richards saying "that musically they never really took off for me ".Seriously are these guys for real or is it pure jealously?

What's up with this, we ask?  Keith is just being honest.

I myself was never a "big Led Zeppelin guy"...  until I became one.

It's okay to not like certain music, certain sounds, and certain styles.  Our taste in music is complex.  Its related to many things, environment, brain, innate sensitivities, and more.

There are many great artists/bands/albums where you'd be aghast to hear me say that they just do nothing for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×