I’m a simple guy, I love simple rock and roll! Oh, like Creedence? No no, it has to be rhythmically interesting! Oh ok, like Zeppelin? Ew no, it has to be looser, not too heavy! Oh, like the Band, maybe? Ugh, no, it has to be improvised, playing off each other spontaneously! Oh I see, like the Dead. No, I hate them too.
You are mentioning "drugs" in a video with Keith Richards? Keith probably did more drugs than the whole Grateful Dead band combined. As for sheer creativity, the Stones could not approach the Dead. The Stones were just doing the blues.
Someone should teach the AI bot about redundancy - how many times do we need it pointed out that Keef is opinionated. This is a 10 minute video that could have been two.
@@spidgeb3292Lesser known fact: When the Butterfield Band moved to California, the Grateful Dead were just a 'regular' band. Garcia'd been an acoustic player up until a minute before. When they heard Bloomfield on 'East West', a light went on: "We can do that!".
Keith looks every bit his 80 years. The fact that he toured the world at 80 supporting a new album is amazing, even if he had led a clean, quiet life of moderation.
@@MartinusBremerus Ah. I don't care either, not for people I don't really know. If a friend looked 10yrs older than they were, I'd try to help them get healthy. Anyway, care or not, I'm not blind, & neither are you.
I just think it’s a competition thing with Richards,who I didn’t think was a top five or a top ten performer.The Stones were a solid band with solid ,body moving songs. LZ,CCR,Dylan and the Band are just different in their approach to entertainment.You don’t have to jump all over the stage to impress your audience,they come to listen primarily.The Rolling Stones were a spectacle.Sorry Keith,you don’t have to show your ass to impress anyone….just play well.
For me, when I go to see a live band, I want to see how well they engage the crowd with interesting dynamics, surprises in the arrangement, highlighting different musicians and improvised solos that delight the crowd. That's why I go to a show. Live music can be a life-changing experience for the audience, winning new lifetime fans and thrilling the faithful, if the artists take advantage of it.
@@spidgeb3292 Some surprises are bad surprises. 1/I saw the band Argent, to hear organist Rod Argent's perfect playing. There's a magical organ fill on one of his songs that he didn't bother to play live. The best part of the song, gone. 2/Roy Buchanan ended an instrumental w/a simulated steel-guitar riff, by wrapping his little finger around his Telecaster's volume knob, while bending multiple strings. Live, he lit a cigarette instead, while the band ended the song without him. Again, the best part of the song, gone, for a joke. If I like the record, I wanna hear what made me like the record. What passes for 'improvisation', in many cases, just isn't very good.
@@lazur1 Very true. I've experienced the same thing, especially with traveling blues musicians, who will use organ, horns, etc. on their recordings, but travel as a 3-piece. That can be a letdown. I've left some of my favorite blues players' shows early because their sound was just flat and empty relative to the recordings. Plus, there are bad nights. Bob Dylan, e.g., had a LOT of bad nights, but I think he felt contempt for his audience and humanity in general.That said, the excitement from live music, seeing art created in real time, for me is unbeatable, especially when the band is actually striving to entertain vs. just getting it over with. I've seen many more of the former than of the latter I'm much more likely to enjoy the live show much more than the recordings. Mumford and Sons and Avett Brothers come to mind as bands I've seen that blew me away live, even though I wasn't a fan of their recordings.
If anyone has read his book then you can get an inkling of where he is coming from, which btw doesn’t make him right being that the Stones themselves have drifted off the rock and roll originality more than a few times, and in my opinion at least haven’t made a decent album since Tattoo you!
@ernestofranklin1891 @thefuzzboxx1018 I agree with both of you, and with him. I saw the Dead a couple of times back in '81 and '82. I had a lot of fun that was less about their musicianship than it was about getting very, very high, preferably on acid or mescaline and the like, with a few thousand like-minded people. About 10 years ago a radio station that I often listened to aired a syndicated Grateful Dead show every week. This particular show specialized in getting their hands on high-quality bootleg recordings of their live shows, which the band famously encouraged. When they were playing songs, they were fine. Not especially inspired or inspiring, but nothing wrong with them either. But every show included at least one of the Space Jams that they were also known for. So here I am, still and always a music lover, listening to them at my home on Sunday nights, no drugs in me, no party around me, and you know how people will sometimes say, "You had to be there!"? Well, "they" were right. You DID have to be there. At least, in order to appreciate anything about those jams. Which were not just the length of a song btw - they would last 20 or 25 minutes. Just a total waste. The people who were choosing to play that stuff on the radio? I would have to guess that they were massively stoned, and expecting their audience to be doing the same. I can't think of any other excuse, except one: It's entirely possible that these people were essentially brainwashing themselves into believing that there was something of great value in those jams, and if you didn't get it, that was your own fault for not being hip enough. Which is not something you'd want to admit to, right? So they kept airing this noise that was never actually meant to be aired in the first place. Which if I was hearing Keith correctly was the source of his main complaint about them.
I don't think he's envious. I don't think he'd have anything to be envious of, in the music of these other bands. I think that something which can sound a lot like envy, but isn't, is the perspective of someone who had been playing and recording music professionally for most of a decade before any of those bands came along (closer to 3 in the case of GnR) and is listening to people who are both his peers and his competitors. He didn't really put any of them down, exactly, except GnR, for copying his and other originals' style, which is fair enough. He kept saying things like "They just didn't do anything for me", which is also fair enough, considering that he could hardly be coming from anywhere other than that perspective.
Keith is a caricature of himself these days, a shy man trying to be a tough rock God and the bands he dislikes only proves he doesn't appreciate rock and roll.
He can like or not like who he wants to... Interestingly enough, I didn't like the Rolling Stones until I was in my late teens and then I met my best friend who loved them and I grew to appreciate them and love them. My surprise is his discontent with Led Zeppelin. Bands have a lead singer which ultimately can make or break a band, then they have great musicians as far as playing instruments and then they all write great songs together. The thing about Robert Plant, is that his voice was the ultimate and an incredible instrument all on it's own. Sorry, but anyone that doesn't acknowledge that, I question their opinion, hearing ability or maybe just outright jealousy???
Keith's points are mostly good - his dig at GnR was perfect - poseurs. The Band and the Dead, on the other hand, had so much more to offer than KR sees - still, his crits are on the mark.
Why would any musician or band care about this relics stamp of approval . The stones were a bunch of Londoners living in a rainy island like Britain who sounded like they came from the deep south in America . Everything from Richards stolen American blues riffs to jagger nasal American accent was pure americana. While the Beatles were a blues band to a degree they didn't sing with stupid American accents and their music had a certain English sound at least on some of their records . Or to put it more accurately unlike the stones they sounded like they could have come from anywhere .
You must be a young punk. You know nothing. Lady Jane , As Tears Go By, Paint It Black among about 100 other songs I could name by the Stones are Americana? Do you hear an American accent on Lady Jane or Ruby Tuesday??? As far as guitar playing with 5 strings no less again you proudly show how absent facts are from your tiny world. Man you better just go away, you don't know JACK.
Keith Liked AC DC, and the Stones even had Malcom and Angus play with them on stage once. While there was respect there, Angus said that he didn't like a lot of the stones softer, RnB and and soulful and countryish music very much. Everyone has their preferences.
52 years after the burials of the stones, after the iconic release of 'Exile on Main St.,' the Rolling Stones' legacy showed signs of decadence, as the once-revolutionary rock band grappled with the pressures of sustaining their legendary status amidst evolving music trends and personal turmoils.
Wow. Respect for Keith Richards . He is so right. I know bands who are even worse, but the 5 bands mentioned are not worth spending time on. But of course it won't change anyone's opinion of the bands mentioned and it's OK 😊
He just sounds like a jealous egomaniac who can't take either criticism or competition. The Rolling Stones have been bland, corporate rock for forty years now.
So, The Band is too precise while The Grateful Dead were meandering? Basically, every band except the Stones were sub-par in Richards' opinion? Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I would put "The Weight" and "The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down" up against anything the Stones ever did.
All these bands are great, all of them. It’s such a relative subject, who’s best, better, all that is dumb and childish at least. They all are part of the history of Rock & Roll, no one better than another, no one worse or less talented or whatever. If you don’t like a musical band, don’t listen to them…too easy, except for the whiners who enjoy whining more than listening to music. Whine on whiners, but do your whining elsewhere and let us non-whiners enjoy all the great bands.
The difficulty in Keith taking digs at some of the people mentioned here is how, among those who are still with us, a few of them have egos to match his. It wouldn't surprise me at all if some of them have watched this video already and wanted to counter attack Keith for having picked them apart. I would not be surprised if Bob Weir, Robert Plant, Garth Hudson, Axl Rose or John Fogerty locked horns with teeth while we still have all of them. I don't see John Paul Jones doing that; he's too mild-mannered.
All too often, @billwalsh388 , those who need no defense are the targets for those who go on the offensive. Keith here could have thought before he turned JPJ into collateral damage.
There will always be a little bad blood between Stones and the Dead from Altamont. Everyone trying to blame others for the clusterf&#$. And their whole approach to music is opposite.
Keith could only maintain this RnR image because Mick took care of the dirty works .... Mick made sure the band and the song writers got their fair share in all those deals. I think Keith would be broke these days if it wasn't for Mick ....
@@markusaurelius777 You got me wrong .. of course they wrote great songs together, but Mick did more than writng only songs, he took care of marketing, negotiating and scoring astronomical deals with record companies, he made sure the doe would end on their accounts and not in phoney manager pockets
Keith is a legend. He doesn't have to like all great groups, but we don't have to believe his critical views on these groups either. There are a number of Stones songs that are not masterpieces. Can't you hear me knocking is a rip off of Mountain's Mississippi Queen that was released a year earlier. Angie has always been a mediocre song. I love the Stones, CCR, Zeppelin, Dead and the Band for what they added to the Rock playlist.
Loving the comment section! No love for Kieth; Mick Jagger is The Rolling Stones; Kieth Richards is the side show! Is he even considered in the top 20 top guitarist of all time? HELL NO not even close💪
@@briangulley6027Agree! His use of open G tuning was not necessarily new (slide players probably popularized it), but it was brilliantly applied and created his unique rhythm sound, which is so fat and rich. The Stones sound is largely due to Keith's rhythm playing, IMO.
Deep Purple was biggest touring band in world '71-'73 No hard rock band put out a better string of LPs than In Rock, Fireball, Machine Head and Made In Japan.
Wow, outsold the Stones for 4 years, impressive. What about the 50+ years? How many arenas did CCR/Fogerty sell out this year? I like CCR but most of their songs are pretty samey, stylistic diversity is not exactly their strong suit. FWIW I’d hardly call the writer of many of the most iconic riffs in rock music a “pretender” but each to his own.
@@englishjim6428 Fair enough Jim on the stadiums, but you make the mistake many do with CCR with the 'samey' thang. Anybody who can write, sing, play on, arrange, produce, git, piano, organ, sax, harmonica, yazoo even on songs as diverse as Born on the Bayou to Born to Move, Porterville, Penthouse Pauper to Proud Mary, It's just a thought to Commotion, Rockin all Over the World to Hideaway, Fortunate Son to Old Man Down the Road, Cross Tie Walker to Long as I can see the Light is anything but 'samey' (ya don't know half of those songs do ya Jim?). I think Fogerty is a far more rounded musician than Keef, and I got plenty of Stones in my collection.When in N'awins I go down to the same bar that Mick and Keef roll along to when in N'awlins, and there are plenty of musicians there who are way above Keef and Mick's abilities, but never 'made it'. Those open G riffs he made are pretty great, but so a is Fogerty playing in his D tuning for "that" CCR sound, both of them backed by great rhythm sections..Each to their own as you say, but Keef was moaning about CCR when they were at their peak, probably in a hazy drug induced, head sauced snozzle, not in 2024. Of course, he and Mick, later invited Fogerty to come along and play with them somewhere in Cali. Good TH-cam of it out there.
And BTW, Mick Taylor, enormous respect, commented that he had to whip the Stones into shape musically and even Bill Wyman claims that Keef 'borrowed' some of his much vaunted killer riffs from him, that was probably what I was alluding to with the 'pretender' thing, along with his faux, 'look at how out there I am" drug behaviour, a bit way OTT, IMHO.
@ FWIW I saw them (second show) at the Albert Hall in 1970 (if I recall correctly). I actually went to see Booker T and the MGs who opened for them but stayed for most of their set. It was pretty good. I have all of their decent albums (4 or 5 maybe) not including a couple of live ones. They were a good band that was very popular for a few years. As a professional musician for over 50 years I’ve probably played most of their catalog at one time or another, not an especially challenging task btw. Thanks for being so patronizing, makes me feel young again.
This is an interesting video because Keith is highly qualified to to make comments about other famous rock bands. I'll include the Stones in this comment. I'm a 70 Y.O. American and have listened to all kinds of music, especially rock, since I was about 10 years old. I'd have to rate these bands in categories. With 5 stars the best and a 0 star the worst but I’ll keep it short on YT. Note that I like all the hits (5 Stars) by these bands except Guns and Roses that gets 0 stars. 1. How much do I want to listen to half of what the band played? The Stones - 5 The Band - 0 Dylan - 0 CCR - 0 The Dead - 0 Guns and Roses - 0 Led Zep - 5 2. How much do I want to listen to a 10th of what band played? The Stones - 5 The Band - 0 Dylan - 2 CCR - 1 The Dead - 0 Guns and Roses - 0 Led Zep - 5
Agree with both of your comments above.The Band and CCR are among my all-time favorites. The Stones, too. It's too bad they can't all get along, but I'll find a way to survive. I like the Stones for their music, not their opinion of other bands.
Appreciated; but that’s my point,when you consider to be in the top 5 discussion; good at one and mediocre at another,takes your criticism rights of others away✌️ The Man is out of bounds here imo.
Keith is so full of himself. I guess he learned nothing after being punched by Chuck Berry. Still love the Stones though. Ronnie Wood and the late Charlie Watts being my favorites.
Keith is the spirit of rock n roll - he's not arrogant he is loyal and respectful to the art form and his heros. Any real rocker will love and understand him.
I've always loved much of the music of the Stones, but Keith Richards has always been a bit of jealous douche of just about anyone unless they were and old blues player, ironically, one of his heroes, Chuck Berry, was pretty dismissive of Richards playing, Berry had the reputation of being difficult to get along with. I've seen The Band with Dylan, CCR, and LZ (3 times in the 70s) and all of them sounded great live. Having only watched live footage of Stones shows, I don't necessarily care for how they change and present their songs in their concerts.
I think that the problem Keith had with Creedance Clearwater Revival was that, to the person only listening to them on the radio or on vinyl, you were led to believe that the people in this band obviously are from the deep south. Of course they weren't, they were from sunny California ! And to some this could be considered cultural appropriation. Or to Keith, it was a false representation. Of course you could say that all rock music is cultural appropriation, because it is, however it's as if CCR took it too far. With most bands, they may play music in a style that mimics a region, but with CCR it kinda feels like you were sold a lie due to how closely they mimicked the sound of the south.
IMO, think Creedence paid homage to cajun music, and to roots rock, and to country, and to the blues. I think they're a great amalgamation of sounds that coalesce into something distinctive.
You got to realise that much of his jealousy is financial. The Stones were ripped off badly in their glory years. Zeppelin had good management and became wealthy after two albums with a great recording contract. The Stones toured endlessly because they made dimes on the recordings.
Love the Keefer man, but accusing GNR of being copycat poseurs is a bit rich. At Chuck Berry's Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame induction in '86 he admitted ripping off the elder statesman for years. There is a lot of posing in Stones videos too from him. He was wrong about The Band also. I love their live stuff more than their glorious studio albums. 'Rock of Ages' is sublime with those horntastic chart arrangements. Reminds me of Orson Welles being sniffy about Hitchcock. These geniuses can get a bit tetchy when they sense near rivals!
This is another one of these fake "hate" videos, that these guys put out. The Band were tighter than the Stones. Creedencde never tried to be musical virtuosos. All I need to say about Keith is since 1969 he has not even been the lead guitarist in his own band. The Stones also are not great improvisors, without Charlie Wattsthey would have gone off the rocks in the 70's. The Stones only pretended to be the devil, Zepp was the genuine article.
Kieth Richards and Mick Jagger have been recycling the same shtick decade after decade and have never really evolved. Meanwhile after a string of five great albums the members of Led Zeppelin moved on and evolved. Look at Robert Plant, now doing work with bluegrass artist Alison Krause. I do have to agree with him about Guns and Roses though.
Plant is a goof. He slagged off Page after he wanted to tour again and Planty-Poo said doing Zep music is "Dinosaur Music"...but Planty-Poo plays Zep live wit his solo band - He's a Hypocrite. Plant was always too "girly" anyways.
And The Mighty Who blew them both off the stage with their high energy, power and volume. Stones and Zep were not great live bands but were great studio bands.
@markusaurelius777 were those the shows that Plant wore small little girls blouses with ruffles while snapping his fingers with palms up? Twirling his hair with his index finger screaming oooh baaby oooobaaby baby, and stomping his feet like a little sissy girl throwing a tantrum? You mean those live shows? 🤣
I've always thought the Stones were one of the most overrated bands around. Sure they've had hits, but outside of the two or three decent songs on each of their earlier albums the rest were easily forgettable formulaic filler tracks. When you just mail it in on most of your songs it tends to water down your legacy. The last truly good album they released was Tattoo You in 1981 (43 years ago!!!!). These guys need to admit they're out of ideas and just call it quits. The only group on the list I agree with is the Grateful Dead. Awful, just awful.
Richard’s favorite song to play alone was also mine or Malagueña so in my book he can do no wrong. And yes, I’ve noticed the flaws in these other bands as well. CCR in particular was entirely dominated by the leader the rest of the band being ciphers. When the other band members rebelled against Fogerty and started agitating to get their own material played by the entire band the band went to shit and collapsed under the resentment. Then also the Grateful Dead have always been grotesque at least to me. But the best live performance I ever attended bar none was the Stone’s 1975 Cleveland Municipal Stadium concert on the shores of Lake Erie. The Stones had total command over the entire audience of 80,000 spectators from beginning to end. I will never forget them playing my favorite Stones song or Monkey Man. And yes, the Stones were better than the Beatles. The Beatles were recording artists not a rock band.
Interesting from a group that does costume changes between every song 🤨 His dislike of bands that play too mechanical then rails against a band like GD that is the antithesis of mechanical is laughable Rolling Stones blues and "Southern" songs are cringe-worthy Lets not forget their foray into disco! What a HYPOCRITE!
@markusaurelius777 Page can't sing nor can he write meaningful hit songs all on his own like Townshend can. Page can't play every instrument like Pete. Nor is Page a showman like Pete. Now who can blow who out of the water?
Richards is a TERRIBLE guitar player, he's nothing but a below average rhythm guitarist. Apart from anything else, he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.
These English guys are the biggest egomaniacs ever! Townshend hated Zep, Richards hated Zep, give me a break! Zep stole your thunder, you fool nobody but yourselves!
@@markusaurelius777 Townshend & Richards were in complete denial about Zep, all ego and jealousy. Clapton didn't like them either. I think he said they played too loud, of all things! Cream was the loudest band on earth!
I’m a simple guy, I love simple rock and roll! Oh, like Creedence? No no, it has to be rhythmically interesting! Oh ok, like Zeppelin? Ew no, it has to be looser, not too heavy! Oh, like the Band, maybe? Ugh, no, it has to be improvised, playing off each other spontaneously! Oh I see, like the Dead. No, I hate them too.
Everyone who is picky about live performances should have had the good fortune of seeing the Allman Brothers in their prime.
So, only senior citizens.
Keith's the Goldilocks of rock: "The Band's too tight", "The Dead's too loose", "The Stones are juuust right".
What did the Deadhead say when he ran out of drugs? "Damn, this band is boring".
GD sucks.
You are mentioning "drugs" in a video with Keith Richards? Keith probably did more drugs than the whole Grateful Dead band combined. As for sheer creativity, the Stones could not approach the Dead. The Stones were just doing the blues.
Hilarious! You win!
Someone should teach the AI bot about redundancy - how many times do we need it pointed out that Keef is opinionated. This is a 10 minute video that could have been two.
"I'd rather hear a good copier than a bad original." (Mike Bloomfield)
Amen! What's funny is that Bloomfield inspired a lot of the greats in his life. And still does.
@@spidgeb3292Lesser known fact: When the Butterfield Band moved to California, the Grateful Dead were just a 'regular' band. Garcia'd been an acoustic player up until a minute before. When they heard Bloomfield on 'East West', a light went on: "We can do that!".
@@lazur1 Cool! I didn't know that! Thanks!
@@lazur1 Love that album.
Keith looks every bit his 80 years. The fact that he toured the world at 80 supporting a new album is amazing, even if he had led a clean, quiet life of moderation.
@@spidgeb3292 he looks 90
@@lazur1 No, he looks 79.
@@MartinusBremerus i'm sorry to hear that you know anyone who looked like this at 79. My dad looked better than Keith at age 95.
@@lazur1 I don't care how old looks someone - that was the reason for my message.
@@MartinusBremerus Ah. I don't care either, not for people I don't really know. If a friend looked 10yrs older than they were, I'd try to help them get healthy. Anyway, care or not, I'm not blind, & neither are you.
I just think it’s a competition thing with Richards,who I didn’t think was a top five or a top ten performer.The Stones were a solid band with solid ,body moving songs. LZ,CCR,Dylan and the Band are just different in their approach to entertainment.You don’t have to jump all over the stage to impress your audience,they come to listen primarily.The Rolling Stones were a spectacle.Sorry Keith,you don’t have to show your ass to impress anyone….just play well.
For me, when I go to see a live band, I want to see how well they engage the crowd with interesting dynamics, surprises in the arrangement, highlighting different musicians and improvised solos that delight the crowd. That's why I go to a show. Live music can be a life-changing experience for the audience, winning new lifetime fans and thrilling the faithful, if the artists take advantage of it.
@@spidgeb3292 Some surprises are bad surprises. 1/I saw the band Argent, to hear organist Rod Argent's perfect playing. There's a magical organ fill on one of his songs that he didn't bother to play live. The best part of the song, gone. 2/Roy Buchanan ended an instrumental w/a simulated steel-guitar riff, by wrapping his little finger around his Telecaster's volume knob, while bending multiple strings. Live, he lit a cigarette instead, while the band ended the song without him. Again, the best part of the song, gone, for a joke. If I like the record, I wanna hear what made me like the record. What passes for 'improvisation', in many cases, just isn't very good.
@@lazur1 Very true. I've experienced the same thing, especially with traveling blues musicians, who will use organ, horns, etc. on their recordings, but travel as a 3-piece. That can be a letdown. I've left some of my favorite blues players' shows early because their sound was just flat and empty relative to the recordings. Plus, there are bad nights. Bob Dylan, e.g., had a LOT of bad nights, but I think he felt contempt for his audience and humanity in general.That said, the excitement from live music, seeing art created in real time, for me is unbeatable, especially when the band is actually striving to entertain vs. just getting it over with. I've seen many more of the former than of the latter I'm much more likely to enjoy the live show much more than the recordings. Mumford and Sons and Avett Brothers come to mind as bands I've seen that blew me away live, even though I wasn't a fan of their recordings.
If anyone has read his book then you can get an inkling of where he is coming from, which btw doesn’t make him right being that the Stones themselves have drifted off the rock and roll originality more than a few times, and in my opinion at least haven’t made a decent album since Tattoo you!
Tatoo you were older songs in the can as they say. Rehashed them.
Agree 100%, especially Grateful Dead boring country bumpkin music and Led Zeppelin, great Band but never ever the Best.
Coming from someone who prefers the simplicity of open G tuning.
Having a go at CCR sounds to me like jealousy and well founded at that, heh
Jealous of CCR? LMAO. Richards' Legendary status far surpasses CCR.
IIRC Keith Richards is RnR rebel enough to refuse a Knighthood. Then go on to criticize Mick Jagger for accepting a Knighthood
Stones haven't been great since Mick Taylor left.imitation
Keith has copied Chuck Berry his whole life
Exactly-the Stones were always (basically) just an R&B cover band.
Agreed abut the dead..
The dead released some good studio albums but were alas, as Keef said....boring in concert.
@ernestofranklin1891
@thefuzzboxx1018
I agree with both of you, and with him. I saw the Dead a couple of times back in '81 and '82. I had a lot of fun that was less about their musicianship than it was about getting very, very high, preferably on acid or mescaline and the like, with a few thousand like-minded people.
About 10 years ago a radio station that I often listened to aired a syndicated Grateful Dead show every week. This particular show specialized in getting their hands on high-quality bootleg recordings of their live shows, which the band famously encouraged.
When they were playing songs, they were fine. Not especially inspired or inspiring, but nothing wrong with them either. But every show included at least one of the Space Jams that they were also known for.
So here I am, still and always a music lover, listening to them at my home on Sunday nights, no drugs in me, no party around me, and you know how people will sometimes say, "You had to be there!"? Well, "they" were right. You DID have to be there. At least, in order to appreciate anything about those jams. Which were not just the length of a song btw - they would last 20 or 25 minutes. Just a total waste.
The people who were choosing to play that stuff on the radio? I would have to guess that they were massively stoned, and expecting their audience to be doing the same. I can't think of any other excuse, except one: It's entirely possible that these people were essentially brainwashing themselves into believing that there was something of great value in those jams, and if you didn't get it, that was your own fault for not being hip enough.
Which is not something you'd want to admit to, right? So they kept airing this noise that was never actually meant to be aired in the first place. Which if I was hearing Keith correctly was the source of his main complaint about them.
Listened to this AI bollocks for 3 minutes and didn't find out any of the bands that Kieth supposedly hates. So I quit. What garbage.
Keith has plenty of the Green-eyed Monster in him....
I don't think he's envious. I don't think he'd have anything to be envious of, in the music of these other bands. I think that something which can sound a lot like envy, but isn't, is the perspective of someone who had been playing and recording music professionally for most of a decade before any of those bands came along (closer to 3 in the case of GnR) and is listening to people who are both his peers and his competitors.
He didn't really put any of them down, exactly, except GnR, for copying his and other originals' style, which is fair enough. He kept saying things like "They just didn't do anything for me", which is also fair enough, considering that he could hardly be coming from anywhere other than that perspective.
I love Keith Richards and his opinions, he likes the raw energy and heart of where Rock originated from
Keith is a caricature of himself these days, a shy man trying to be a tough rock God and the bands he dislikes only proves he doesn't appreciate rock and roll.
He was wrong about Zep - for sure.
13th cousin. We share a great grampa from about 500 years ago. Great guitarist.
He can like or not like who he wants to... Interestingly enough, I didn't like the Rolling Stones until I was in my late teens and then I met my best friend who loved them and I grew to appreciate them and love them. My surprise is his discontent with Led Zeppelin. Bands have a lead singer which ultimately can make or break a band, then they have great musicians as far as playing instruments and then they all write great songs together. The thing about Robert Plant, is that his voice was the ultimate and an incredible instrument all on it's own. Sorry, but anyone that doesn't acknowledge that, I question their opinion, hearing ability or maybe just outright jealousy???
Keith's points are mostly good - his dig at GnR was perfect - poseurs. The Band and the Dead, on the other hand, had so much more to offer than KR sees - still, his crits are on the mark.
This man looks like 10 miles of bad road.
Why would any musician or band care about this relics stamp of approval . The stones were a bunch of Londoners living in a rainy island like Britain who sounded like they came from the deep south in America . Everything from Richards stolen American blues riffs to jagger nasal American accent was pure americana.
While the Beatles were a blues band to a degree they didn't sing with stupid American accents and their music had a certain English sound at least on some of their records . Or to put it more accurately unlike the stones they sounded like they could have come from anywhere .
You must be a young punk. You know nothing. Lady Jane , As Tears Go By, Paint It Black among about 100 other songs I could name by the Stones are Americana? Do you hear an American accent on Lady Jane or Ruby Tuesday??? As far as guitar playing with 5 strings no less again you proudly show how absent facts are from your tiny world. Man you better just go away, you don't know JACK.
The reason Keith Richards is still able to tour at the age of eighty is he's always been a man of moderation.
Except when he was a ruthless heroin junkie hanging with the likes of junkie John Philips for years.
Keith Liked AC DC, and the Stones even had Malcom and Angus play with them on stage once. While there was respect there, Angus said that he didn't like a lot of the stones softer, RnB and and soulful and countryish music very much. Everyone has their preferences.
He looks as evil as anyone has ever looked. Its amazing he is sill alive.
Good evening, I am aware of the casualty-free war between English pop and the USA. I have a preference for English groups.
52 years after the burials of the stones, after the iconic release of 'Exile on Main St.,' the Rolling Stones' legacy showed signs of decadence, as the once-revolutionary rock band grappled with the pressures of sustaining their legendary status amidst evolving music trends and personal turmoils.
No, it's only your opinion. "Exile on Main St." wasn't the end.
Wow. Respect for Keith Richards . He is so right. I know bands who are even worse, but the 5 bands mentioned are not worth spending time on. But of course it won't change anyone's opinion of the bands mentioned and it's OK 😊
I like all these bands except g&r but he’s got a point about most of them. There is no perfect band, no matter how much you love them.
💚❤️💛💜💙
He just sounds like a jealous egomaniac who can't take either criticism or competition. The Rolling Stones have been bland, corporate rock for forty years now.
Jealous hahaha !!!
So, The Band is too precise while The Grateful Dead were meandering? Basically, every band except the Stones were sub-par in Richards' opinion?
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I would put "The Weight" and "The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down" up against anything the Stones ever did.
All these bands are great, all of them. It’s such a relative subject, who’s best, better, all that is dumb and childish at least. They all are part of the history of Rock & Roll, no one better than another, no one worse or less talented or whatever. If you don’t like a musical band, don’t listen to them…too easy, except for the whiners who enjoy whining more than listening to music. Whine on whiners, but do your whining elsewhere and let us non-whiners enjoy all the great bands.
@@GeraldCummings-d3z But Keith gotta whine and his fabois gotta worship him.
lol, ok
I agree with everything Kieth said about these Bands more so CCR....Boring shit,
Grateful Dead, Dylan, Guns & Roses, Led Zep - shite. Creedence & the Stones - Cool. IMNSHO.
The difficulty in Keith taking digs at some of the people mentioned here is how, among those who are still with us, a few of them have egos to match his. It wouldn't surprise me at all if some of them have watched this video already and wanted to counter attack Keith for having picked them apart. I would not be surprised if Bob Weir, Robert Plant, Garth Hudson, Axl Rose or John Fogerty locked horns with teeth while we still have all of them. I don't see John Paul Jones doing that; he's too mild-mannered.
John Paul Jones needs no defense!
All too often, @billwalsh388 , those who need no defense are the targets for those who go on the offensive. Keith here could have thought before he turned JPJ into collateral damage.
There will always be a little bad blood between Stones and the Dead from Altamont. Everyone trying to blame others for the clusterf&#$. And their whole approach to music is opposite.
Wow, I'm imagining you love to hear yourself talk.
Keith could only maintain this RnR image because Mick took care of the dirty works .... Mick made sure the band and the song writers got their fair share in all those deals. I think Keith would be broke these days if it wasn't for Mick ....
Incorrect. They wrote as a team and their songs are legendary. The Stones would be nothing without Keith or Mick.
@@markusaurelius777 You got me wrong .. of course they wrote great songs together, but Mick did more than writng only songs, he took care of marketing, negotiating and scoring astronomical deals with record companies, he made sure the doe would end on their accounts and not in phoney manager pockets
Keith is a legend. He doesn't have to like all great groups, but we don't have to believe his critical views on these groups either. There are a number of Stones songs that are not masterpieces. Can't you hear me knocking is a rip off of Mountain's Mississippi Queen that was released a year earlier. Angie has always been a mediocre song. I love the Stones, CCR, Zeppelin, Dead and the Band for what they added to the Rock playlist.
I was gonna take shots at Mick's singing but it was too easy. The real Heart of Rock n Roll is still made of beef jerky hail hail Keith Richards.
Loving the comment section! No love for Kieth; Mick Jagger is The Rolling Stones; Kieth Richards is the side show! Is he even considered in the top 20 top guitarist of all time? HELL NO not even close💪
As a technical player I agree with you, many guys are better, but as a riff master Keith is the best.
@@briangulley6027Agree! His use of open G tuning was not necessarily new (slide players probably popularized it), but it was brilliantly applied and created his unique rhythm sound, which is so fat and rich. The Stones sound is largely due to Keith's rhythm playing, IMO.
what's yer view on Kieth Moon or Kieth Partrage?
Keith is an AMAZING song writer and his rhythm is crazy good. If you got no rhythm...you ain't got Jack shit.
@@briangulley6027 Agreed.
I was going to agree with Keith until he slagged Zeppelin...
Jealousy. All it is, Led Zep burst onto the scene & stole the spotlight and someone could never handle it.
He's bang on....overblown plagiarists! Just ripped off all those blues men , over n over again!
@@Robyn-by6qt 😂
@@Robyn-by6qt So did the Stones. So did Clapton. So did ever Blues musician who followed them.
Certainly agree about the band and the dead and lz.
He was wrong about Zep.
keith richards a second rate guitarist, very famous but a clown and extrovert, criticizing is an insult.
Keith: Page kicked your ass... Led Zep kicked Stoner ass 1968- 80...Period.
Deep Purple was biggest touring band in world '71-'73 No hard rock band put out a better string of LPs than In Rock, Fireball, Machine Head and Made In Japan.
@cuda426hemi D. P. was good... Led Zep.was great...
@@cuda426hemi I might add Burn to that list, although I don't know if it was part of the consecutive string.
@@richprokop5155 Mk II DP OWNED Zep -more money bigger tours from about '70 to '72. 👀
@@spidgeb3292 Burn was GREAT but we must call that DP Mk III band; the Mk II DP is the one that schooled Zep for first couple years 🎸
Ha. Keef is a pretender and was pissed off that Creedence outsold the Stones by a factor of 4 for 4 years. Fogerty eats him musically for breakfast
Wow, outsold the Stones for 4 years, impressive. What about the 50+ years? How many arenas did CCR/Fogerty sell out this year? I like CCR but most of their songs are pretty samey, stylistic diversity is not exactly their strong suit. FWIW I’d hardly call the writer of many of the most iconic riffs in rock music a “pretender” but each to his own.
@@englishjim6428 Fair enough Jim on the stadiums, but you make the mistake many do with CCR with the 'samey' thang. Anybody who can write, sing, play on, arrange, produce, git, piano, organ, sax, harmonica, yazoo even on songs as diverse as Born on the Bayou to Born to Move, Porterville, Penthouse Pauper to Proud Mary, It's just a thought to Commotion, Rockin all Over the World to Hideaway, Fortunate Son to Old Man Down the Road, Cross Tie Walker to Long as I can see the Light is anything but 'samey' (ya don't know half of those songs do ya Jim?). I think Fogerty is a far more rounded musician than Keef, and I got plenty of Stones in my collection.When in N'awins I go down to the same bar that Mick and Keef roll along to when in N'awlins, and there are plenty of musicians there who are way above Keef and Mick's abilities, but never 'made it'. Those open G riffs he made are pretty great, but so a is Fogerty playing in his D tuning for "that" CCR sound, both of them backed by great rhythm sections..Each to their own as you say, but Keef was moaning about CCR when they were at their peak, probably in a hazy drug induced, head sauced snozzle, not in 2024. Of course, he and Mick, later invited Fogerty to come along and play with them somewhere in Cali. Good TH-cam of it out there.
And BTW, Mick Taylor, enormous respect, commented that he had to whip the Stones into shape musically and even Bill Wyman claims that Keef 'borrowed' some of his much vaunted killer riffs from him, that was probably what I was alluding to with the 'pretender' thing, along with his faux, 'look at how out there I am" drug behaviour, a bit way OTT, IMHO.
@ FWIW I saw them (second show) at the Albert Hall in 1970 (if I recall correctly). I actually went to see Booker T and the MGs who opened for them but stayed for most of their set. It was pretty good. I have all of their decent albums (4 or 5 maybe) not including a couple of live ones. They were a good band that was very popular for a few years. As a professional musician for over 50 years I’ve probably played most of their catalog at one time or another, not an especially challenging task btw. Thanks for being so patronizing, makes me feel young again.
Keith is the rock goat
This is an interesting video because Keith is highly qualified to to make comments about other famous rock bands. I'll include the Stones in this comment.
I'm a 70 Y.O. American and have listened to all kinds of music, especially rock, since I was about 10 years old. I'd have to rate these bands in categories. With 5 stars the best and a 0 star the worst but I’ll keep it short on YT.
Note that I like all the hits (5 Stars) by these bands except Guns and Roses that gets 0 stars.
1. How much do I want to listen to half of what the band played?
The Stones - 5
The Band - 0
Dylan - 0
CCR - 0
The Dead - 0
Guns and Roses - 0
Led Zep - 5
2. How much do I want to listen to a 10th of what band played?
The Stones - 5
The Band - 0
Dylan - 2
CCR - 1
The Dead - 0
Guns and Roses - 0
Led Zep - 5
But I don't care about what a bloated ego hates.
The Band is great. Keith's a jerk.
Agree with both of your comments above.The Band and CCR are among my all-time favorites. The Stones, too. It's too bad they can't all get along, but I'll find a way to survive. I like the Stones for their music, not their opinion of other bands.
Keith's a great bloke. He's always been cool in interviews. insanely great writer and his playing style is his own - very original.
Appreciated; but that’s my point,when you consider to be in the top 5 discussion; good at one and mediocre at another,takes your criticism rights of others away✌️ The Man is out of bounds here imo.
Keith is so full of himself. I guess he learned nothing after being punched by Chuck Berry. Still love the Stones though. Ronnie Wood and the late Charlie Watts being my favorites.
Who cares what Old Keith hates they probably hated him LOL !!!
Keith is the spirit of rock n roll - he's not arrogant he is loyal and respectful to the art form and his heros. Any real rocker will love and understand him.
I've always loved much of the music of the Stones, but Keith Richards has always been a bit of jealous douche of just about anyone unless they were and old blues player, ironically, one of his heroes, Chuck Berry, was pretty dismissive of Richards playing, Berry had the reputation of being difficult to get along with.
I've seen The Band with Dylan, CCR, and LZ (3 times in the 70s) and all of them sounded great live. Having only watched live footage of Stones shows, I don't necessarily care for how they change and present their songs in their concerts.
I think that the problem Keith had with Creedance Clearwater Revival was that, to the person only listening to them on the radio or on vinyl, you were led to believe that the people in this band obviously are from the deep south. Of course they weren't, they were from sunny California ! And to some this could be considered cultural appropriation. Or to Keith, it was a false representation. Of course you could say that all rock music is cultural appropriation, because it is, however it's as if CCR took it too far. With most bands, they may play music in a style that mimics a region, but with CCR it kinda feels like you were sold a lie due to how closely they mimicked the sound of the south.
IMO, think Creedence paid homage to cajun music, and to roots rock, and to country, and to the blues. I think they're a great amalgamation of sounds that coalesce into something distinctive.
Then I guess Keith must hate the early Stones for copying Chicago blues.
pretty cool views, but, trying to take down Led is stupid! the stones are no match for the greatest R&R bank of all time!
Your Video is a waste of time.
You got to realise that much of his jealousy is financial. The Stones were ripped off badly in their glory years. Zeppelin had good management and became wealthy after two albums with a great recording contract. The Stones toured endlessly because they made dimes on the recordings.
I imagine the Stones grossed more over their careers than Zeppelin. Hell, they're still touring!
Net Worth: Keith Richards, 500 million. Jimmy Page,190 million. I'm sure Keith's ok with that.
Really shitty AI writing .
This video is a waste. Gave it 5 min and goodbye
Love the Keefer man, but accusing GNR of being copycat poseurs is a bit rich. At Chuck Berry's Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame induction in '86 he admitted ripping off the elder statesman for years. There is a lot of posing in Stones videos too from him. He was wrong about The Band also. I love their live stuff more than their glorious studio albums. 'Rock of Ages' is sublime with those horntastic chart arrangements. Reminds me of Orson Welles being sniffy about Hitchcock. These geniuses can get a bit tetchy when they sense near rivals!
AS FIRST SORRY I'm NOT Eng word but musicanword becuz Iplay DRM U I respect U ASrockmusic testament keeppush iton
This is another one of these fake "hate" videos, that these guys put out. The Band were tighter than the Stones. Creedencde never tried to be musical virtuosos. All I need to say about Keith is since 1969 he has not even been the lead guitarist in his own band. The Stones also are not great improvisors, without Charlie Wattsthey would have gone off the rocks in the 70's. The Stones only pretended to be the devil, Zepp was the genuine article.
Kieth Richards and Mick Jagger have been recycling the same shtick decade after decade and have never really evolved. Meanwhile after a string of five great albums the members of Led Zeppelin moved on and evolved. Look at Robert Plant, now doing work with bluegrass artist Alison Krause. I do have to agree with him about Guns and Roses though.
Plant is a goof. He slagged off Page after he wanted to tour again and Planty-Poo said doing Zep music is "Dinosaur Music"...but Planty-Poo plays Zep live wit his solo band - He's a Hypocrite. Plant was always too "girly" anyways.
Keith, as usual, is 100% correct
HE IS A PURE GOD................. NOT JUST A ROCK GOD................................... HE IS A HUMAN GOD.................. . . ❤❤❤. 💙💙💙. 🤎🤎🤎.
Keith liked Richard Marx,though....
CCR's great. Keith's a jerk.
CCR is crap...boring.
Baretss in his hair? When was the last time he came out with a album.🤔
This year. Had a world tour, too.
The guy has toured for 60+ yrs....LMAO....ppl are clueless.
I love the Stones... love Keef, but Zeppelin blew the Stones completely out of the water.
And The Mighty Who blew them both off the stage with their high energy, power and volume. Stones and Zep were not great live bands but were great studio bands.
@@trajan6927 Zep live MSG 1973 - One of the greatest live shows ever recorded. Nice try.
@markusaurelius777 Zep was never a great live band. Half the time you never even knew what songs they were performing 🤣 .
@markusaurelius777 were those the shows that Plant wore small little girls blouses with ruffles while snapping his fingers with palms up? Twirling his hair with his index finger screaming oooh baaby oooobaaby baby, and stomping his feet like a little sissy girl throwing a tantrum? You mean those live shows? 🤣
@@markusaurelius777 so you like looking at a grown ass man acting like a little girl? You are under suspicion 🤣 .
I've always thought the Stones were one of the most overrated bands around. Sure they've had hits, but outside of the two or three decent songs on each of their earlier albums the rest were easily forgettable formulaic filler tracks. When you just mail it in on most of your songs it tends to water down your legacy. The last truly good album they released was Tattoo You in 1981 (43 years ago!!!!). These guys need to admit they're out of ideas and just call it quits. The only group on the list I agree with is the Grateful Dead. Awful, just awful.
Yet Keith backed Mick Jagger his entire life. If that isn't hypocritical, what is?
Found this amusing... who gives a fck what Richards thinks?
You cared enough to cry about him ...LMAO !!! boohoo.
@@markusaurelius777 - he's a goof
The Stones are vastly overrated and always have been.
They dont even make this list and nobody woul d mention Richard
Who cares mate honestly, average musician at best
Richard’s favorite song to play alone was also mine or Malagueña so in my book he can do no wrong. And yes, I’ve noticed the flaws in these other bands as well. CCR in particular was entirely dominated by the leader the rest of the band being ciphers. When the other band members rebelled against Fogerty and started agitating to get their own material played by the entire band the band went to shit and collapsed under the resentment. Then also the Grateful Dead have always been grotesque at least to me. But the best live performance I ever attended bar none was the Stone’s 1975 Cleveland Municipal Stadium concert on the shores of Lake Erie. The Stones had total command over the entire audience of 80,000 spectators from beginning to end. I will never forget them playing my favorite Stones song or Monkey Man. And yes, the Stones were better than the Beatles. The Beatles were recording artists not a rock band.
Keith has always been a non-pc kinda guy. How refreshing!
Professional jealousy from a second rate guitarist
AI narration, over and over. 👎
Well, he isn't as good of a guitar player as he thinks he is. His ego is huge, and is certainly not justified. What a tool!
Amazing song writer and a great rhythm guitarist. You're clueless.
At 30 Richards already sounded and looked like the “get off my lawn guy”.
Keith has no right to be above tbese musicians who are more talented than him, they can writw sings, can sing, play instruments unlike u
So you totally ignore the music Keith composed in those early years? I would compare his work to any except Bob Dylan.....
Interesting from a group that does costume changes between every song 🤨
His dislike of bands that play too mechanical then rails against a band like GD that is the antithesis of mechanical is laughable
Rolling Stones blues and "Southern" songs are cringe-worthy
Lets not forget their foray into disco!
What a HYPOCRITE!
Gratefuk Dead sucks. Boring 20 minute jams. *Yawn*
@@markusaurelius777 miss your meds?
Your opinion means less than Zero!
I would rather watch The Mighty Who perform on stage than The Stones or Zep.
Zep was great...The Who wishes they were as good. Page blows Townsend out of the water.
@markusaurelius777 Page can't sing nor can he write meaningful hit songs all on his own like Townshend can. Page can't play every instrument like Pete. Nor is Page a showman like Pete. Now who can blow who out of the water?
@markusaurelius777 Live At Leeds from 1970, nuff said.
Richards is a TERRIBLE guitar player, he's nothing but a below average rhythm guitarist. Apart from anything else, he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.
Amazing writer and a great rhythm player. YOU have no clue what you are talking about.
These English guys are the biggest egomaniacs ever! Townshend hated Zep, Richards hated Zep, give me a break! Zep stole your thunder, you fool nobody but yourselves!
Richards was wrong about Zep. Zep is amazing.
@@markusaurelius777 Townshend & Richards were in complete denial about Zep, all ego and jealousy. Clapton didn't like them either. I think he said they played too loud, of all things! Cream was the loudest band on earth!
Who cares what Keith thinks.
I find some Stones songs annoying.
keith is a contradiction of his own criticism, the Stones are BORING AS BASEBALL
The rolling stones very successful but their music is rubbish and most of the bands this grug addict hates are much better than his.
You're not too bright are you?