Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
i think keith has plenty of laurels of his own. i don't think its sour grapes.
you have to realize, keith has been doing this successfully far, far longer than the beatles did. period. i don't consider the beatles to be outstanding musicians either, nor do i consider the stones to be so. when the musical universe includes so many REAL players like bert jansch, charlie parker, charles mingus, even jerry garcia, the stakes are pretty high for pure musicianship. the beatles were good musicians, but what they really excelled in was songwriting. and when you consider that keith was influenced by and rubbed elbows with monsters like muddy waters, his standards are gonna be high.
the stones and the beatles had the feel, and they had talent. it was a whole package. in a way, that's harder to find. tho i will say, i do consider charlie watts to be one of the greatest drummers of all time. just saying. he swings.
You know, what it comes down to is that "musician" is not the same thing as "instrumentalist." Nobody has ever made the claim that any of the Beatles were among the upper echelon of instrumentalists on their respective instruments.
Nobody would ever ask Keith about instumentalism. It's not part of who he is or what he does. His entire being is the polar opposite of advanced instrumental technique. So, all this talk about whether or not the Beatles are excellent at playing their instruments (relative to Mingus, Ginger Baker, et al) is not relevant to what Keith was saying.
hahaha, he just cleans the guys' clock and then gets back to the business at hand. KEEEEEEEEEEEIIIIITH. if keith ever needed a spare lung or a kidney, i'd give him mine. screw the lot of those who don't get him. he's the human riff!!!!
You know, what it comes down to is that "musician" is not the same thing as "instrumentalist." Nobody has ever made the claim that any of the Beatles were among the upper echelon of instrumentalists on their respective instruments.
Nobody would ever ask Keith about instumentalism. It's not part of who he is or what he does. His entire being is the polar opposite of advanced instrumental technique. So, all this talk about whether or not the Beatles are excellent at playing their instruments (relative to Mingus, Ginger Baker, et al) is not relevant to what Keith was saying.
um, yeah it was, and that was what he meant. "instrumentalists?" having been a musician myself and hung out with some heavies, i have never, ever heard that word. having read other interviews with keith in which he goes on in the same vein regarding the beatles, its a safe assumption that that is what he meant. no musician i have ever read about has called themselves an instrumentalist. that sounds goofy. like something you would say in high school band. this is rock and roll.
um, yeah it was, and that was what he meant. "instrumentalists?" having been a musician myself and hung out with some heavies, i have never, ever heard that word. having read other interviews with keith in which he goes on in the same vein regarding the beatles, its a safe assumption that that is what he meant. no musician i have ever read about has called themselves an instrumentalist. that sounds goofy. like something you would say in high school band. this is rock and roll.
You missed my point by a wide margin.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.