Tell Me :
Talk
as i have talked about in detail before, ronnie is not a soloist in the strict sense of the term. he plays figures and arranges them - sometimes it's interesting, sometimes not - but it never really tells a story the way a true soloist does - that's not slagging ron - he does what he does. mick taylor is a soloist in the jazz tradition...and a damned fine one.
That's a good point. Taylor told us the essence of the Stones' songs he played. He was able to move you and to touch the soul of the song involved. I daresay even more than Jagger and Keith. Ron Wood was never capable to do that. So which one of them was the true Rolling Stone?
I don't think I miss the point, that's a fact !
Rock and Roll is made of fun too
HMN
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-23 22:52 by Honestman.
"no passion ... nor any subtlety" That's the bottomline. Taylor had it all. Not only as for YCAGWYW but, imo, as for all Stonessongs. Music is about all kinds of feelings and emotions and that's the 'fun' of it, not fun in itself. For fun in itself you can go to a stand-up comedian or something like that.
HA HA. We got Massachusetts back!
Hey Negrita is ok. It works on one level. Sway works on about five. It is majestic and transcendent, lyrically moving, powerful and poignant at the same time. And I'll take "destroyed your notion of circular time" over "I need money my sweet ass" any day.
Well, I don't think he's fun. I think he's become a pathetic caricature, and it's certainly no "fun" to watch or listen to him. Music is more "fun" when it's played well.
That could be the final word, agreed of course, and one could like both
HMN
No that's too easy and too simple. We're talking about what good music needs. In the thread "The real problem with Ronnie Wood...[www.iorr.org] we talk about issues that go a bit further than which guitarist is better than the other (we know the answer to that question already). It's interesting why and what factor are decisive.
I can also say: what does a good song need, and in particular what does a good performance of a song need. That's what we're talking about.
Depends on what? That's the question, and I think it depends on the question if the performance is able to move you, to express and transfer feelings and emotions that are hidden in the song, supposed that the song contains them, of course.
As for the Stones I state that the best songs contain different feelings and emotions and I state also that Ron Wood isn't able to express and transfer them. Mick Taylor was. That's the difference between being only a guitar player and being a musician as well.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-24 03:34 by kleermaker.
I wish I could say it's just a matter of style and therefore the two are equal, but that just isn't true. Taylor with the Stones was a consummate musician, Ronnie is not. Furthermore, those who so passionately defend Ronnie seem to mostly do so on the basis of his "likability": "He was meant to be a Stone", "He looks like a Stone", etc. - rather than his playing. I agree he seems likable. The Stones, however, aren't a boy band, and I think musical considerations outweigh personality ones - or at least they should. We are also accused of "hating" Ronnie. Nothing could be further from the truth. His work with the Faces and on the Rod Stewart solo albums was top-notch. His first solo album was really good, I still listen to it. But the Stones came down a notch from the very moment he stepped on the stage with them, and he never grew into a role that made them a better band musically. No amount of likability can change that.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-24 04:12 by 71Tele.
Sorry to repeat you in brief Stones Tod,I didn't read you post before I wrote mine.I think we agree.I'am not slagging Ron either,just my musical opinion. I can
imagine people thinking: Taylor plays like a soloist in the jazz tradition? OK ,Ron Wood plays like a soloist in the classical tradition: they are playing figures and arrange them too.Both Taylor and Ron cannot play Jazz or classical.We got a problem here..
Agree. The only mistake Taylor made was to leave.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
KeefintheNight82
()
Date: January 23, 2010 20:56
Is Keith really playing in the newer clip of CYHMK? Or is there a sound synch problem on my computer?
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
MKjan
()
Date: January 23, 2010 21:05
I agree, focusing on Ronnie's antics lends itself to spectacle rather than music. We get enough spectacle from Keith and Mick already, along with their great music. MT would push KR to his abilities,whereas a strong case can be made the Ronnie factor has been detrimental to the rest of the band.Quote
71TeleQuote
HonestmanQuote
kleermaker
...It's so boring to hear him play...
Mick TAYLOR was the best guitarist ever they had, ok we all know that pôint, but what a boring guy!
Ronnie had fun and fit with Keith like a blood brother, he was made to be a Rolling STONE !!!
I would rather have brilliant music coming out of a "boring" guy (Bill Wyman, anyone?) than boring music coming out of a guy who runs around a lot, and lights cigarettes...People who think Mick Taylor was great but "boring" completely miss the point. And by your reasoning, Charlie and Bill were not "made to be Rolling Stones". I'll take musicianship over "personality" any day. The whole "blood brother" thing with Keith was detrimental to Keith, Ronnie and the band as a whole, IMO.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: January 23, 2010 21:36
Sorry guys,nothing against Ronnie, but to my ears he just plays a few standard tricks in a row, sounding reluctant. There is no interesting story involved, which is the most important ingredient in a guitarsolo,and a clinical sound
Rons tremolo is ok,technically spoken.
Keith does the guitarwork here!
I preferred Taylor,he tells a true story,straight from the heart,and in any way.
Rons tremolo is ok,technically spoken.
Keith does the guitarwork here!
I preferred Taylor,he tells a true story,straight from the heart,and in any way.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
nankerphlege
()
Date: January 23, 2010 21:55
Nothing against Taylor but there was a lack of zeal and some stuttering guitar wise in the cyhmk clip. The time waits for no one clip isn't fair to judge because ha was having some tuning issues.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
nankerphlege
()
Date: January 23, 2010 21:58
I think it's fair to day both have detoriated buy are still fine players. A little humility and asking for help ie guitar lessons can be good for any player no matter where they are in thier career.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: January 23, 2010 22:08
Quote
Amsterdamned
Sorry guys,nothing against Ronnie, but to my ears he just plays a few standard tricks in a row, sounding reluctant. There is no interesting story involved, which is the most important ingredient in a guitarsolo,and a clinical sound
Rons tremolo is ok,technically spoken.
Keith does the guitarwork here!
I preferred Taylor,he tells a true story,straight from the heart,and in any way.
as i have talked about in detail before, ronnie is not a soloist in the strict sense of the term. he plays figures and arranges them - sometimes it's interesting, sometimes not - but it never really tells a story the way a true soloist does - that's not slagging ron - he does what he does. mick taylor is a soloist in the jazz tradition...and a damned fine one.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: January 23, 2010 22:12
Quote
Amsterdamned
I preferred Taylor,he tells a true story,straight from the heart,and in any way.
That's a good point. Taylor told us the essence of the Stones' songs he played. He was able to move you and to touch the soul of the song involved. I daresay even more than Jagger and Keith. Ron Wood was never capable to do that. So which one of them was the true Rolling Stone?
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
crumbling_mice
()
Date: January 23, 2010 22:47
I think that we need to acknowledge that Ronnie and Taylor are/were two very different types of guitarists, employed to do different things. With Ronnie the Stones returned to the Ancient art of weaving, whereas when Taylor was with them it was very much a ryhthm and lead split with little weaving in comparison. Add to that the fact that Ronnie is a different style of guitarist to Taylor and you really can't compare the two. Ronnie is a song writer and therefore if you are to compare the two you should compare their abilities to write - Taylor, to my knowledge hasn't ever written anything of any note (other than the bits he claims he wrote with the stones) whereas Ron has written some fabulous songs and not just the stuff with the Faces - his solo albumns are full of fantastic songs. Anyway, my point is, you can't compare the two as they are so different in technique, style and what they were employed to do!
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
Honestman
()
Date: January 23, 2010 22:52
Quote
71Tele
I would rather have brilliant music coming out of a "boring" guy (Bill Wyman, anyone?) than boring music coming out of a guy who runs around a lot, and lights cigarettes...People who think Mick Taylor was great but "boring" completely miss the point. And by your reasoning, Charlie and Bill were not "made to be Rolling Stones". I'll take musicianship over "personality" any day. The whole "blood brother" thing with Keith was detrimental to Keith, Ronnie and the band as a whole, IMO.
I don't think I miss the point, that's a fact !
Rock and Roll is made of fun too
HMN
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-23 22:52 by Honestman.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
Turd On The Run
()
Date: January 23, 2010 23:04
Urban Steel, "Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !"-- you are an incomparable completist and your uploading of Stones material has brought hours and hours of enjoyment to so many on this board...I am very grateful to you, but...no...Ronnie is not "damn good" on this clip...not by a long shot.
In fact his solo on the clip you provide is an embarrassment...what we witness is a perfect distillation of all of Woody's weaknesses as a soloist. There is no depth to his reading, no passion, no shades of melancholy nor any subtlety to his fret runs...his lazy habit of feverishly scratching his guitar pick and moving his left hand up and down the fretboard to create a wave of meaningless notes and calling that a 'solo' is almost unprofessional...he massacres this most emotional of all Stones songs with his lack of any tonal understanding of the piece. His playing is complete shite.
I remember seeing the Stones on this tour and the preceding TOTA and the ONE and ONLY point in every show where I really was brought down was Woody's YCAGWYW solo. As a soloist Taylor is a virtuoso...Woody is a mediocrity at best and quite often a hack. As has been mentioned...he can be competent but never transcendent. Taylor was transcendent on a nightly basis...
Comparing Woody's solos on YCAGWYW to Taylor's solos is like comparing a zipless fukc with a stranger to making passionate love to your beloved. You get your ya ya's out in both instances but that's where the comparison ends...
In fact his solo on the clip you provide is an embarrassment...what we witness is a perfect distillation of all of Woody's weaknesses as a soloist. There is no depth to his reading, no passion, no shades of melancholy nor any subtlety to his fret runs...his lazy habit of feverishly scratching his guitar pick and moving his left hand up and down the fretboard to create a wave of meaningless notes and calling that a 'solo' is almost unprofessional...he massacres this most emotional of all Stones songs with his lack of any tonal understanding of the piece. His playing is complete shite.
I remember seeing the Stones on this tour and the preceding TOTA and the ONE and ONLY point in every show where I really was brought down was Woody's YCAGWYW solo. As a soloist Taylor is a virtuoso...Woody is a mediocrity at best and quite often a hack. As has been mentioned...he can be competent but never transcendent. Taylor was transcendent on a nightly basis...
Comparing Woody's solos on YCAGWYW to Taylor's solos is like comparing a zipless fukc with a stranger to making passionate love to your beloved. You get your ya ya's out in both instances but that's where the comparison ends...
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
behroez
()
Date: January 23, 2010 23:13
You can give me a Hey Negrita anytime over a Sway! More funky Wood compositions please.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: January 23, 2010 23:18
Quote
Turd On The Run
In fact his solo on the clip you provide is an embarrassment...what we witness is a perfect distillation of all of Woody's weaknesses as a soloist. There is no depth to his reading, no passion, no shades of melancholy nor any subtlety ...he massacres this most emotional of all Stones songs with his lack of any tonal understanding of the piece.
Comparing Woody's solos on YCAGWYW to Taylor's solos is like comparing a zipless fukc with a stranger to making passionate love to your beloved. You get your ya ya's out in both instances but that's where the comparison ends...
"no passion ... nor any subtlety" That's the bottomline. Taylor had it all. Not only as for YCAGWYW but, imo, as for all Stonessongs. Music is about all kinds of feelings and emotions and that's the 'fun' of it, not fun in itself. For fun in itself you can go to a stand-up comedian or something like that.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
Ferret
()
Date: January 24, 2010 01:02
I actually think it's brilliant that they didn't try and replace Taylor, instead installing a completely different type of player. Ronnie suffers from the fact that the songs were written for two different guitar players. And for most of his time in the band, The Stones have been trying to closely emulate their records, rather than giving them space to breathe and letting them develop as live songs, like they always did before the Tattoo You tour, Ronnie's a looser player and I don't think he's suited to the businesslike vibe The Stones give off now. Listen to The Faces; they sound like some really good muscians having a good time.
I still think he's a better guitarist than Keith, these days anyway. Listen to Shine A Light - Ronnie's solos are solid and he even gives us some great steel guitar. Keith's a shambling mess, playing awful three note solos when he should probably stick to rhythm.
I love Ronnie's playing. I love Mick's too but I'm not totally sore that he left. I can't believe people are still harping on about how they want him back. If there's anything at fault in Ronnie-era Stones it's the songwriting and the boring, tight arrangements. Not everyone's gonna be a virtuoso.
I still think he's a better guitarist than Keith, these days anyway. Listen to Shine A Light - Ronnie's solos are solid and he even gives us some great steel guitar. Keith's a shambling mess, playing awful three note solos when he should probably stick to rhythm.
I love Ronnie's playing. I love Mick's too but I'm not totally sore that he left. I can't believe people are still harping on about how they want him back. If there's anything at fault in Ronnie-era Stones it's the songwriting and the boring, tight arrangements. Not everyone's gonna be a virtuoso.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
mickscarey
()
Date: January 24, 2010 01:16
Quote
bassplayer617Quote
HEILOOBAAS
WAS good.
Gotta hand it to the conservatives -- your blind hatred is consistent.
HA HA. We got Massachusetts back!
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
ablett
()
Date: January 24, 2010 02:07
Boring boring boring, this stuff is killing a once great board. Over taken with a few obsessed with the past. Taylor left over 30 years ago, has never expressed a desire to return so move on and grow up.....
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: January 24, 2010 02:25
Quote
behroez
You can give me a Hey Negrita anytime over a Sway! More funky Wood compositions please.
Hey Negrita is ok. It works on one level. Sway works on about five. It is majestic and transcendent, lyrically moving, powerful and poignant at the same time. And I'll take "destroyed your notion of circular time" over "I need money my sweet ass" any day.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
slew
()
Date: January 24, 2010 02:27
kleermaker - Keith IS or WAS a GREAT guitar player. He is just not a viruoso soloist his sound does not get duplicated and his rythyms and riffs are so much better than some people give him credit for. Yes, he has had sloppy playing on occasion and his playing on the last tour has deteriorated but don't think for a moment that he was not a great guitar player and I agree Mick T and Keith brought out the best in both of them I just get the feeling sometimes that Ronnie gets no credit at all and that is not fair.
Behroez - I have to admit I was referring to Goat's Head Soup and It's Only Rock 'N' ROll not Exile, Sticky and Let It Bleed (of which Taylor harldy plays on) those are all superior than the Ronnie albums although Some Girls is in that league. Sorry to disappoint you.
Keith Richards is the Best guitar player the Rolling STones have ever had in fact there are not that many guitarists that I would rank ahead of him though there are a few.
Behroez - I have to admit I was referring to Goat's Head Soup and It's Only Rock 'N' ROll not Exile, Sticky and Let It Bleed (of which Taylor harldy plays on) those are all superior than the Ronnie albums although Some Girls is in that league. Sorry to disappoint you.
Keith Richards is the Best guitar player the Rolling STones have ever had in fact there are not that many guitarists that I would rank ahead of him though there are a few.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: January 24, 2010 02:27
Quote
HonestmanQuote
71Tele
I would rather have brilliant music coming out of a "boring" guy (Bill Wyman, anyone?) than boring music coming out of a guy who runs around a lot, and lights cigarettes...People who think Mick Taylor was great but "boring" completely miss the point. And by your reasoning, Charlie and Bill were not "made to be Rolling Stones". I'll take musicianship over "personality" any day. The whole "blood brother" thing with Keith was detrimental to Keith, Ronnie and the band as a whole, IMO.
I don't think I miss the point, that's a fact !
Rock and Roll is made of fun too
Well, I don't think he's fun. I think he's become a pathetic caricature, and it's certainly no "fun" to watch or listen to him. Music is more "fun" when it's played well.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
canadian.sway
()
Date: January 24, 2010 02:28
wait... let me get this straight. some people like ron and some people like mick taylor. i never thought of comparing the two...!
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: January 24, 2010 02:50
Quote
canadian.sway
wait... let me get this straight. some people like ron and some people like mick taylor. i never thought of comparing the two...!
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
Honestman
()
Date: January 24, 2010 03:15
Quote
canadian.sway
wait... let me get this straight. some people like ron and some people like mick taylor. i never thought of comparing the two...!
That could be the final word, agreed of course, and one could like bothHMN
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: January 24, 2010 03:18
Quote
71TeleQuote
canadian.sway
wait... let me get this straight. some people like ron and some people like mick taylor. i never thought of comparing the two...!
No that's too easy and too simple. We're talking about what good music needs. In the thread "The real problem with Ronnie Wood...[www.iorr.org] we talk about issues that go a bit further than which guitarist is better than the other (we know the answer to that question already). It's interesting why and what factor are decisive.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
canadian.sway
()
Date: January 24, 2010 03:22
there is no question that the two have different guitar styles and different approaches to song writing. taylor has a more virtouso flare and ronnie a more party groove style.
i fully agree the band took a different change in sound when wood joined, just as the band did when taylor joined.
having been in bands i know when a new member joins, the puzzle changes with the new pieces.
what does good music need? depends on the song.
i fully agree the band took a different change in sound when wood joined, just as the band did when taylor joined.
having been in bands i know when a new member joins, the puzzle changes with the new pieces.
what does good music need? depends on the song.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: January 24, 2010 03:33
Quote
canadian.sway
there is no question that the two have different guitar styles and different approaches to song writing. taylor has a more virtouso flare and ronnie a more party groove style.
i fully agree the band took a different change in sound when wood joined, just as the band did when taylor joined.
having been in bands i know when a new member joins, the puzzle changes with the new pieces.
what does good music need? depends on the song.
I can also say: what does a good song need, and in particular what does a good performance of a song need. That's what we're talking about.
Depends on what? That's the question, and I think it depends on the question if the performance is able to move you, to express and transfer feelings and emotions that are hidden in the song, supposed that the song contains them, of course.
As for the Stones I state that the best songs contain different feelings and emotions and I state also that Ron Wood isn't able to express and transfer them. Mick Taylor was. That's the difference between being only a guitar player and being a musician as well.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-24 03:34 by kleermaker.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: January 24, 2010 04:02
Quote
canadian.sway
there is no question that the two have different guitar styles and different approaches to song writing. taylor has a more virtouso flare and ronnie a more party groove style.
i fully agree the band took a different change in sound when wood joined, just as the band did when taylor joined.
having been in bands i know when a new member joins, the puzzle changes with the new pieces.
what does good music need? depends on the song.
I wish I could say it's just a matter of style and therefore the two are equal, but that just isn't true. Taylor with the Stones was a consummate musician, Ronnie is not. Furthermore, those who so passionately defend Ronnie seem to mostly do so on the basis of his "likability": "He was meant to be a Stone", "He looks like a Stone", etc. - rather than his playing. I agree he seems likable. The Stones, however, aren't a boy band, and I think musical considerations outweigh personality ones - or at least they should. We are also accused of "hating" Ronnie. Nothing could be further from the truth. His work with the Faces and on the Rod Stewart solo albums was top-notch. His first solo album was really good, I still listen to it. But the Stones came down a notch from the very moment he stepped on the stage with them, and he never grew into a role that made them a better band musically. No amount of likability can change that.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-24 04:12 by 71Tele.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: January 24, 2010 04:16
I fully agree with you, 71Tele. It's also not a question af nostalgia, because I discovered the great difference between the MT-Stones and the RW-Stones years after RW had got the place of MT. It was by listening that I came to the conclusion that the Stones couldn't move me anymore. So I went to Mozart. And there I found the same things as in the music of the Stones with Taylor (and also, but less, in the period before Taylor). It has nothing to do with preference as for MT or RW nor with nostalgia but everything with musicality, feelings and emotions. And music is essentially about feelings and emotions. Like all other forms of art are.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
Sohoe
()
Date: January 24, 2010 05:23
<<He was able to move you and to touch the soul of the song involved>>
I don't find the Stones music to be particularly moving. Brian's slide on No Expectations might in fact be the only time I've been truly moved by Stones guitar part
To me they are basically all about the groove - live especially - which I think Ronnie had a natural feel for, so I'm not sorry that he got the gig in '75
I find the two first American tours Ronnie embarked on with the Stones to be, along with 69/70 and the few glimpses from the Brian days, the most fascinating
...love those ragged and funky Barbarians shows as well
<<Taylor was transcendent on a nightly basis...>>
While Europe '73 isn't really my cup of tea - I must say his efforts on YCAGWYW on that tour were fantastic. The one constant highlight
And he certainly could be transcendent as a soloist - with the Akron '72 rendition of the aforementioned song as a personal favourite
Also I'd say some of those little things - like JJF from Gimme Shelter - he did were ultra cool
I don't find the Stones music to be particularly moving. Brian's slide on No Expectations might in fact be the only time I've been truly moved by Stones guitar part
To me they are basically all about the groove - live especially - which I think Ronnie had a natural feel for, so I'm not sorry that he got the gig in '75
I find the two first American tours Ronnie embarked on with the Stones to be, along with 69/70 and the few glimpses from the Brian days, the most fascinating
...love those ragged and funky Barbarians shows as well
<<Taylor was transcendent on a nightly basis...>>
While Europe '73 isn't really my cup of tea - I must say his efforts on YCAGWYW on that tour were fantastic. The one constant highlight
And he certainly could be transcendent as a soloist - with the Akron '72 rendition of the aforementioned song as a personal favourite
Also I'd say some of those little things - like JJF from Gimme Shelter - he did were ultra cool
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
liddas
()
Date: January 24, 2010 12:36
FACT: Ron Wood was and still is one of the greatest rock and roll musicians of all times.
Full stop.
C
Full stop.
C
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: January 24, 2010 13:09
Quote
StonesTodQuote
Amsterdamned
Sorry guys,nothing against Ronnie, but to my ears he just plays a few standard tricks in a row, sounding reluctant. There is no interesting story involved, which is the most important ingredient in a guitarsolo,and a clinical sound
Rons tremolo is ok,technically spoken.
Keith does the guitarwork here!
I preferred Taylor,he tells a true story,straight from the heart,and in any way.
as i have talked about in detail before, ronnie is not a soloist in the strict sense of the term. he plays figures and arranges them - sometimes it's interesting, sometimes not - but it never really tells a story the way a true soloist does - that's not slagging ron - he does what he does. mick taylor is a soloist in the jazz tradition...and a damned fine one.
Sorry to repeat you in brief Stones Tod,I didn't read you post before I wrote mine.I think we agree.I'am not slagging Ron either,just my musical opinion. I can
imagine people thinking: Taylor plays like a soloist in the jazz tradition? OK ,Ron Wood plays like a soloist in the classical tradition: they are playing figures and arrange them too.Both Taylor and Ron cannot play Jazz or classical.We got a problem here..
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
phd
()
Date: January 24, 2010 13:14
Quote
71TeleQuote
canadian.sway
wait... let me get this straight. some people like ron and some people like mick taylor. i never thought of comparing the two...!
Agree. The only mistake Taylor made was to leave.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Guests:
2155
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10