For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
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 pĂ´int, 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.
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.
Quote
Amsterdamned
I preferred Taylor,he tells a true story,straight from the heart,and in any way.
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.
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...
Quote
bassplayer617Quote
HEILOOBAAS
WAS good.
Gotta hand it to the conservatives -- your blind hatred is consistent.
Quote
behroez
You can give me a Hey Negrita anytime over a Sway! More funky Wood compositions please.
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
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...!
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...!
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...!
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.
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.
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.
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...!