Tell Me :
Talk
Well, that is debatable isn't it? Truth is that the Stones were loosing popularity in the 70's, Goat's Head Soup and It's Only Rock & Roll were considered as a downward spiral for the Stones. The general sense was that the Stones had run their mile. It is undesputable a truth that Ron Wood brought a fresh new lease of life to the Stones and had put them in the spotlight again. I honestly don't think anything fresh would have come out of a further cooporation between Keith and Taylor, and would therefor argue that the best thing for the Stones was that Taylor left.........AT THAT TIME.
However having said this, this time is a different scenario, and i would argue for a teaming up of Wood and Taylor instead of Keith
Then you must dislike Ya Ya's very much, because Taylor plays a lot of rhythm on that album. And he's doing it real good, like in Bitch. You may like Wood as a composer (I don't), but that's not the issue here. Did the Stones need just a third good singer? I guess not. On which Stonessongs can we enjoy that "great singing" of Wood? But again, we're talking here about playing guitar, not about composing or singing. So you say in fact that Taylor had a tremendous influence on the Stones when you say that the Stones would not have survived the punk explosion with Taylor. That's not even an argument. It's pure speculation. And then you say that they could have picked any good blues lead guitarist and that it wouldn't make any difference. Do you see the contradiction? Then Taylor's weight is brought in to convince that Wood is preferable to Taylor. And who's the alcoholic? At least Wood, 2 bottles of Wodka each day. But I won't use that fact as an argument in this discussion. To say that "Wood still looks like a true R&R outlaw" is not only irrelevant but also very juvenile. As if that matters. Wood is just a jetset kind of type who's lost his way after divorcing his wife and is getting around with young girls to calm down his uncertainty as an aging man. You must be a romantic kind of guy. "Ron Wood is a true Rolling Stone". It has been said before here, and it's just pathetic and poor. Please may the 'true Rolling Stone' stand up? Such sentences only make me laugh, I can't take them serious. I would say: "Ron Wood is a true Face". "So what", would you answer, or likely, "No, no, he's a true Rolling Stone ...eh ... no, he's a true Face and a true Rolling Stone, and that makes him special"
.
PS: Maybe you should read the last posts in this thread: [www.iorr.org]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-24 17:36 by kleermaker.
Well i don't think it's a fact at all. I think it just says something about your conception of a lead guitarist. Or maybe it's just that there is a conception of LEAD playing that I find musically uninteresting.
If you have a conception of a "lead" guitarist as someone who provides melodic work integrated to the work of the group, then Taylor is at times excellent, (as exemplified by Ya Ya where his work is amazing), but too often he drifts away on his own path and then I couldn't care less how many notes he strings together. On the other hand, Wood is sometimes (not always!) an amazing team player.
I could say that both Ronnie and Taylor have exceptional moments of interaction with keith, but Taylor sometimes drifts into an annoying isolation, and Ronnie often degenerates into complete nonsense. I would never deny that while Ronnie is often horrid, Taylor never was (although based on some videos posted here he can be nowadays): so there was a reliability that Taylor had and Ronnie doesn't. But that does not make me conclude that Taylor's peak moments are better than those of Ronnie, and as a matter of fact there are Ronnie moments that I prefer over anything Taylor ever did.
><
The whole thing is just that Taylor with the Stones is musically far more interesting than Ron Wood ever was with them. Taylor has something to say, he catches the essence of the songs, mostly by a few measures. He didn't get lost in too long soli or in dead ending streets. And he never fooled around like Ron, in musical sense I mean. I cannot stop advising to read also this thread: [www.iorr.org]. The discussion there seems to have stopped, but it was a better one on a higher level than we have here. Also more to the point. I'm sorry it has stopped there and goes on in this thread... on a lower level.
What a nonsense, that title comes from Sam Cutler who used it to introduce the Stones from Hyde Park onwards into the US 1969 tour. The Stones did not release Let it Bleed untill the end of the 69 tour, but instead released Through the Past Darkly to promote that tour with almost half the songs on that album from 1967 and some like Paint it Black even from 1966, that album emded higher in the US charts than Beggar did, and this is what the people knew and expected to hear (remember the girl on Ya-Ya asking for Paint it Black?), and that was the band introduced as the greatest rock & roll band!
The worst? Some Girls and Tattoo You THE TWO BEST SOLD STONES STUDIO ALBUM EVER.....the worst??????
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-24 20:55 by behroez.
I completely disagree on this..
Listen to GYYYO,Bitch, live boots, Jack Bruce etc,and you will notice that Taylor is a very refined and subtle rhythm player.
The misleading part is that Taylor in never very loud on most Stones tracks when playing rythm.. Richards is always louder when playing ryhtm guitar cause his way of playing bookmarks the Stones sound.But when it comes to objective comparison ,I think Taylor is the more intelligent and better ryhtm player.
A rare occasion where I vehemently disagree with Mathjis. Yes, Woody gave them a fresh start in 1978 with Some Girls, but it didn't last very long. As for singing, Taylor is certainly no worse than Woody. As for the band being better with Woody - I think this is just plain wrong, using my own eyes and ears as the judge. I have made this point before, but the guitar section got lazier with Woody. The tension of Taylor and Richards and their contrasting styles is what gave the Stones their highest musical peaks 1969-1973 (live) and on record 1969-1974. After Taylor left there was simply never another moment on stage as majestic as Love In Vain (1969) or YCAGWYW (1973). As for "funky". They were plenty funky in 1969 (especially the re-interpretation of Satisfaction). The funkiness in 1975 came from Billy Preston and Jagger's embrace of that style. Ronnie was secondary. As for rhythm guitar, how can you say Taylor was bad at it? Just listen to his playing on Let It Rock or Ya-Yas.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-24 20:37 by 71Tele.
I think Jagger and Richards realized it.. Keih was very angry when Taylor left while Jagger tried to persuade Taylor to stay...
I'm pretty sure that Keith deep down in his heart was very fond of Taylor and admired him. On the studio records he didn't get much room, as Amsterdamned has already stated, but live he was just soooo good. And remember, I've heard both, Taylor in 73 and Wood in 76 and 82 (twice!). Remember Taylor had much live experience when he joined the Stones and he used it mighty fine
To little bit develop this idea further the difference between Taylor and Wood is the one expressed by Charlie - a quote I take to express the essential:
"Taylor brought us professionalism".
I take that to mean not only that Taylor added something extraordinary in skillwise to their sound but that he brought the whole band - the others - to play stronger and better by his own example and impact. He was an important actor in making a rusty pop band - what they were in eraly 1969 - to a hard rocking relevant live act. I take that to be his biggest contribution he ever did to the Stones. Thereby the others 'listened him' in theoretical sense (in practice all of them needed to listen Keith who seemingly do not possess idionsyncratic skills to listen or follow others...). "The greatest rock and roll band in the world" would refer not solely to an amateur blues band, a swingin' sixties pop band, or an adventurous and ambitiuos studio band, but also to be that in the technical sense as a current live act, after the emergence of such live acts like Zeppelin or Hendrix, in the case someone actually would listen how they play. As they started to do from 1969 on.
Even tough behroez seems to love to shake some standard interpretations, the 1969 tour was based on the recent BEGGARS and LET IT BLEED material which they proudly played no matter what the audience hoped (shout "Paint It Black" but we play what we want and you will like it, babe!). That tour set a new era and the basic material and sound into which the following tours would be built on. Taylor's cool-faced professionalism was huge part of arranging the acoustic-based, studio tricky BEGGARS/BLEED material into loud electric guitar-driven live anthems. With that The Stones bought future (that wasn't so clear at all in 1969; their second popular member was gone, and yes, there was a lot of 'conservative' fans who might not be happy with this 'hard-rock' band, as behroez pointed out).
By contrast, when Ronnie joined, the band already had a certain sound and standard from which they would never (to 1982, that is) to really drift too far. And most of all, the band had cemented its status as 'the most legendary rock and roll band of the world', and they didn't need to showw their competence such hard any longer That was already done. In fact, they could take a bit more relaxed attitude now; they had earned it. I think wanderingspirit66 nailed the part to be played:
"The Stones needed a competent guitarist that looked that part, would not overshadow Keith and just play along."
In other words The Stones 'didn't listen him'; they didn't need him to change them greatly. (It was Ronnie who had listen them from the beginning; he was the first 'fan boy' who ever joined the band!. Remember, thd blues purist Taylor said to have liked The Beatles more...) In fact, like mentioned here (in some posts) what he contributed was just to strengthen certain features the Stones already possessed, and now, by choosing him, wanted to stress more. The birth of ancient art of weaving was to 'double' Keith in guitarwise (and imagewise). Neither didn't he have or he didn't expacted to have any extra new gear to offer, but it was his job to adopt the role as well as he can. And he did well. And they were lucky (or genious): in imagewise and soundwise his raunchy playing and Keith Richards clone out-look was the best thing they could have to answer to the 'punk challange', when a sort of street credibility, and simplicity in technicality was, the latest thing, as Mathijs - I think rightly - noted. They had two cool KEEFS there; an intrinsic, hippie-looking, a way too skillfull guitar hero was the last person needed in the late 1970's (What an old fart!)
Personally I really don't like comparing Taylor to Wood as Rolling Stones members nor neither of them to Brian Jones; all of these guys had a different function in the history of the band. All of them achieved fabullous results in their own role. I'm happy to have them all. I love all their 'eras' and it depends on the moment which I consider the 'best' - usually its the one I happen to listen in the given moment!
- Doxa
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-24 22:01 by Doxa.
Boring?? The Taylor-Wood discussions evoke the most passionate posts on iorr.org.
Agreed - I don't think it's boring, as long as it doesn't degenerate into name-calling and a virtual shouting match. personally, it has forced me to try to understand why so many here honestly prefer Mr. Wood. I can't say that I completely get that, but at least it makes me be thoughtful about my position and try to see the other side's argument. This is one of the key ideological divides of Rolling Stones fans. Like the Stalinist vs. Trotskyite arguments leftists had in the 1930s and 1940s.
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:
Mathijs
()
Date: January 24, 2010 13:36
Taylor was a fantastic lead guitarist and a pretty bad rhythm player, Wood was a good lead guitarist and a great rythm player. Taylor is not a composer, Wood wrote some great tracks, including the best post-Exile Stones album of the '70's with I've Got My Own Album to Do. With Wood the Stones became a much better band, with Charlie peaking in '75 and Bill in '81. With Taylor the Stones would not have survived the punk explosion. Taylor can't sing, Wood was a great singer. Taylor has become a fat drunk and Wood still looks like a true R&R outlaw.
When the Stones picked Taylor they could have pickid from a list of Great Blues Lead Guitarists. And all these guitarists would have played some great solo's on Sway and CYHMK, Exile would have been Exile, and the '72 tour would have been no different at all.
With Wood, they only could pick him as he is a true Rolling Stone. And that's what makes him special.
Mathijs
When the Stones picked Taylor they could have pickid from a list of Great Blues Lead Guitarists. And all these guitarists would have played some great solo's on Sway and CYHMK, Exile would have been Exile, and the '72 tour would have been no different at all.
With Wood, they only could pick him as he is a true Rolling Stone. And that's what makes him special.
Mathijs
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
behroez
()
Date: January 24, 2010 15:53
Quote
phd
The only mistake Taylor made was to leave.
Well, that is debatable isn't it? Truth is that the Stones were loosing popularity in the 70's, Goat's Head Soup and It's Only Rock & Roll were considered as a downward spiral for the Stones. The general sense was that the Stones had run their mile. It is undesputable a truth that Ron Wood brought a fresh new lease of life to the Stones and had put them in the spotlight again. I honestly don't think anything fresh would have come out of a further cooporation between Keith and Taylor, and would therefor argue that the best thing for the Stones was that Taylor left.........AT THAT TIME.
However having said this, this time is a different scenario, and i would argue for a teaming up of Wood and Taylor instead of Keith
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
otonneau
()
Date: January 24, 2010 15:58
Well put, Mathijs!!
I for one think that although obviously Taylor has excellent moments, he is hugely overrated. "Transcendent every night"? A lot oh the time he runs through scales, up, down, up, down, and even his fluidity becomes boring. In a way he is the epitome of the white blues player; too neat, not enough edges and groove. In my view the Jack Bruce group would have suited him much better had it lasted, because a virtuoso like Taylor needs complex chord progressions to have something to build upon.
I even think that the studio CYHMK solo is hugely overrated - same progression at different heights, again and again... that would be great if Taylor had more edge to his groove. So indeed I largely prefer Ronnie's HBO CYHMK solo over that of Taylor.
Ronnie is capable of the best & the worst; there are plenty of embarassingly bad live performances etc. BUT on tracks such as Beast of Burden (studio version) Miss you (Tokyo 90) he finds an originality, inventivity and sobriety that I never find in Taylor.
Ronnie is erratic and eclectic, and has moment of perfect taste with minimalistic fillings and off-beat phrases. Taylor, to me, is much more of a mainstream player, although he is very good in that way.
I for one think that although obviously Taylor has excellent moments, he is hugely overrated. "Transcendent every night"? A lot oh the time he runs through scales, up, down, up, down, and even his fluidity becomes boring. In a way he is the epitome of the white blues player; too neat, not enough edges and groove. In my view the Jack Bruce group would have suited him much better had it lasted, because a virtuoso like Taylor needs complex chord progressions to have something to build upon.
I even think that the studio CYHMK solo is hugely overrated - same progression at different heights, again and again... that would be great if Taylor had more edge to his groove. So indeed I largely prefer Ronnie's HBO CYHMK solo over that of Taylor.
Ronnie is capable of the best & the worst; there are plenty of embarassingly bad live performances etc. BUT on tracks such as Beast of Burden (studio version) Miss you (Tokyo 90) he finds an originality, inventivity and sobriety that I never find in Taylor.
Ronnie is erratic and eclectic, and has moment of perfect taste with minimalistic fillings and off-beat phrases. Taylor, to me, is much more of a mainstream player, although he is very good in that way.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
otonneau
()
Date: January 24, 2010 16:05
Another point: I cannot agree that Taylor is a soloist in the jazz tradition. To me, what defines a jazzman is primarily his ability to play with the bars (I don't really know how to say this in English); not to have every solo phrase start on the 1st time and finish on the 6th or 8th. That kind of rhythmic stiffness is why eventually I get bored with rock music and especially rock soloists in general. Well I find it very very rare for Taylor to take any freedom at all with rhythmic patterns. So he remains a blues/rock player and nothing else for me, no matter how long and "lyrical" his phrases may be. On the other hand, Wood is fantastically agile in the way he works around the rhythmic structure - and again, the jazziest moment of the Stones' history for me is the interplay between the guitars in beast of Burden.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
behroez
()
Date: January 24, 2010 16:22
Mathijs and Otonneau are so right in their comments. Most people when they speak about the "big" Taylor era they actually refer to the time from Beggars unto Exile. Totally forgetting that Taylor doesn't play on Beggar and hardly on Bleed (only on Country Honk and Live With Me, notably the two worst songs of Bleed, feature Taylor), all the guitar work (except No Expectations) and guitar solo's were done by Keith on those two albums. Sticky and Exile were a continuation of that style laid down by Keith, they just only needed a good solo guitarist to do those parts on stage, Taylor didn't have an impact on the Stones style at all for that was allready put down on Beggar and Bleed. Woody however had an impact on the Stones style as is very evident from Some Girls, an absolutely brilliant album that they could never ever have made with Taylor.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
windmelody
()
Date: January 24, 2010 16:28
Does anybody know what kind of sports Ronnie wood does? He must do something, because he his figure is really in shape.I do not want to become to shallow, but Wood's look fits into the Stones, as Charlie Watts recently pointed out.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
Turd On The Run
()
Date: January 24, 2010 16:57
My opinions to the post from Mathijs:
"Taylor was a fantastic lead guitarist and a pretty bad rhythm player, Wood was a good lead guitarist and a great rythm player."
-Taylor was a fantastic lead guitarist and a very fine rhythm player (listen to any live recording from 1969-1972...though I find his playing on the 1973 Tour somewhat out of control). Wood was never a good lead guitarist (I've seen him live countless times and he is often serviceable as a lead man, but far more often mediocre to plain horrific), though he is a fine rhythm player and can fit in nicely with Keith.
"Taylor is not a composer, Wood wrote some great tracks, including the best post-Exile Stones album of the '70's with I've Got My Own Album to Do."
-Excuse me? Speaking strictly about output within the Stones oeuvre, Taylor 'composed' several of the Stones best songs from his period with them. Far more memorable than anything Woody ever contributed. During his years with the Stones, Talyor made many songwriting contributions for which he never got credit - gems like Moonlight Mile, Time Waits for No One, 100 Years Ago, Can't You Hear Me Knocking, Sway...what do you find deeper and more compelling, Black Limousine or Sway? C'mon...Christ.
And as far as Woody making "the best post-Exile Stones album of the '70's with I've Got My Own Album to Do"? Better than Some Girls? Bullshit. I love I've Got My Own Album to Do (as well as 1978's Gimme Some Neck) but those albums don't belong in the same league as Goats Head Soup, Some Girls, or even Emotional Rescue and It's Only Rock and Roll. Not for me.
"With Wood the Stones became a much better band, with Charlie peaking in '75 and Bill in '81."
-The Stones were a "much better band" in 1975 and 1981 than in 1969 or 1970 or 1972 or 1973? Um...no. They were a much different band...funkier...yea...and absolutely great...but better? No. Not even close. Saw it with my own very eyes.
"With Taylor the Stones would not have survived the punk explosion."
-I completely agree, Mathijs. Woody brought the band a new lease on life and a looser, dirtier sound. He was critical to the band's sound between 1975 and 1981-82...
"Taylor can't sing, Wood was a great singer. Taylor has become a fat drunk and Wood still looks like a true R&R outlaw."
-Taylor can't sing. So fckuing what? That wasn't his job. The Stones had Mick and Keef for that. Woody, though no great singer, was cool to have on the Harmonies...but he can't play the guitar like Taylor can. And yea...Woody looks the part of the true R&R outlay...unfortunately that Schpiel long ago degenerated into shitty, clownish caricature with clunker live performances and sordid idiocy in the tabloids.
"When the Stones picked Taylor they could have pickid from a list of Great Blues Lead Guitarists. And all these guitarists would have played some great solo's on Sway and CYHMK, Exile would have been Exile, and the '72 tour would have been no different at all."
-I completely, and vehemently disagree. How you can devalue the individual and singular brilliance that Taylor brought to the songs and albums you mention in this dismissive manner is beyond my comprehension. There surely would have been brilliant performances from other blues guitarists, but to claim there "would have been no different at all" is rubbish and you know it. Taylor's contributions were transcendent and unique to his talent at the time.
Ron Wood was at one time a nice fit inside the Stones sound. Taylor (and Brian in his later years) were more like entities unto themselves, whereas Wood was the consummate group ensemble member. But Brian Jones and Mick Taylor took the Stones sound to places where the band could never have traveled without them. Woody never had the talent or personality to do that...never.
"Taylor was a fantastic lead guitarist and a pretty bad rhythm player, Wood was a good lead guitarist and a great rythm player."
-Taylor was a fantastic lead guitarist and a very fine rhythm player (listen to any live recording from 1969-1972...though I find his playing on the 1973 Tour somewhat out of control). Wood was never a good lead guitarist (I've seen him live countless times and he is often serviceable as a lead man, but far more often mediocre to plain horrific), though he is a fine rhythm player and can fit in nicely with Keith.
"Taylor is not a composer, Wood wrote some great tracks, including the best post-Exile Stones album of the '70's with I've Got My Own Album to Do."
-Excuse me? Speaking strictly about output within the Stones oeuvre, Taylor 'composed' several of the Stones best songs from his period with them. Far more memorable than anything Woody ever contributed. During his years with the Stones, Talyor made many songwriting contributions for which he never got credit - gems like Moonlight Mile, Time Waits for No One, 100 Years Ago, Can't You Hear Me Knocking, Sway...what do you find deeper and more compelling, Black Limousine or Sway? C'mon...Christ.
And as far as Woody making "the best post-Exile Stones album of the '70's with I've Got My Own Album to Do"? Better than Some Girls? Bullshit. I love I've Got My Own Album to Do (as well as 1978's Gimme Some Neck) but those albums don't belong in the same league as Goats Head Soup, Some Girls, or even Emotional Rescue and It's Only Rock and Roll. Not for me.
"With Wood the Stones became a much better band, with Charlie peaking in '75 and Bill in '81."
-The Stones were a "much better band" in 1975 and 1981 than in 1969 or 1970 or 1972 or 1973? Um...no. They were a much different band...funkier...yea...and absolutely great...but better? No. Not even close. Saw it with my own very eyes.
"With Taylor the Stones would not have survived the punk explosion."
-I completely agree, Mathijs. Woody brought the band a new lease on life and a looser, dirtier sound. He was critical to the band's sound between 1975 and 1981-82...
"Taylor can't sing, Wood was a great singer. Taylor has become a fat drunk and Wood still looks like a true R&R outlaw."
-Taylor can't sing. So fckuing what? That wasn't his job. The Stones had Mick and Keef for that. Woody, though no great singer, was cool to have on the Harmonies...but he can't play the guitar like Taylor can. And yea...Woody looks the part of the true R&R outlay...unfortunately that Schpiel long ago degenerated into shitty, clownish caricature with clunker live performances and sordid idiocy in the tabloids.
"When the Stones picked Taylor they could have pickid from a list of Great Blues Lead Guitarists. And all these guitarists would have played some great solo's on Sway and CYHMK, Exile would have been Exile, and the '72 tour would have been no different at all."
-I completely, and vehemently disagree. How you can devalue the individual and singular brilliance that Taylor brought to the songs and albums you mention in this dismissive manner is beyond my comprehension. There surely would have been brilliant performances from other blues guitarists, but to claim there "would have been no different at all" is rubbish and you know it. Taylor's contributions were transcendent and unique to his talent at the time.
Ron Wood was at one time a nice fit inside the Stones sound. Taylor (and Brian in his later years) were more like entities unto themselves, whereas Wood was the consummate group ensemble member. But Brian Jones and Mick Taylor took the Stones sound to places where the band could never have traveled without them. Woody never had the talent or personality to do that...never.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
MARSBAR
()
Date: January 24, 2010 17:09
Kerist!!I wouldnt want to be in a studio with you all night,plus a few other "Technical style playing" posts in this thread,I would put my boot into the amp after an hour and go and get drunk.Quote
otonneau
Another point: I cannot agree that Taylor is a soloist in the jazz tradition. To me, what defines a jazzman is primarily his ability to play with the bars (I don't really know how to say this in English); not to have every solo phrase start on the 1st time and finish on the 6th or 8th. That kind of rhythmic stiffness is why eventually I get bored with rock music and especially rock soloists in general. Well I find it very very rare for Taylor to take any freedom at all with rhythmic patterns. So he remains a blues/rock player and nothing else for me, no matter how long and "lyrical" his phrases may be. On the other hand, Wood is fantastically agile in the way he works around the rhythmic structure - and again, the jazziest moment of the Stones' history for me is the interplay between the guitars in beast of Burden.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
MARSBAR
()
Date: January 24, 2010 17:11
Ronnie is WAY under weight,he is not in shape,he looks painfully thin!!Jagger is what you call thin but in good shape.Quote
windmelody
Does anybody know what kind of sports Ronnie wood does? He must do something, because he his figure is really in shape.I do not want to become to shallow, but Wood's look fits into the Stones, as Charlie Watts recently pointed out.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
MARSBAR
()
Date: January 24, 2010 17:21
This is going nowhere!!Forget personalities,who fitted in,who is a real Rolling Stone type guitarist,who wrote songs,who can sing or not....IF it all comes down to who,out of Keith,Ronnie or Taylor who is by far....and I mean by far the tastier, more skilled,technically light years ahead player its Taylor.This is a fact and nothing to do with all of the above except the skill,and im positive,absolutly positive Ronnie and Keith would agree.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: January 24, 2010 17:21
Quote
Mathijs
Taylor was a fantastic lead guitarist and a pretty bad rhythm player, Wood was a good lead guitarist and a great rythm player. Taylor is not a composer, Wood wrote some great tracks, including the best post-Exile Stones album of the '70's with I've Got My Own Album to Do. With Wood the Stones became a much better band, with Charlie peaking in '75 and Bill in '81. With Taylor the Stones would not have survived the punk explosion. Taylor can't sing, Wood was a great singer. Taylor has become a fat drunk and Wood still looks like a true R&R outlaw.
When the Stones picked Taylor they could have pickid from a list of Great Blues Lead Guitarists. And all these guitarists would have played some great solo's on Sway and CYHMK, Exile would have been Exile, and the '72 tour would have been no different at all.
With Wood, they only could pick him as he is a true Rolling Stone. And that's what makes him special.
Mathijs
Then you must dislike Ya Ya's very much, because Taylor plays a lot of rhythm on that album. And he's doing it real good, like in Bitch. You may like Wood as a composer (I don't), but that's not the issue here. Did the Stones need just a third good singer? I guess not. On which Stonessongs can we enjoy that "great singing" of Wood? But again, we're talking here about playing guitar, not about composing or singing. So you say in fact that Taylor had a tremendous influence on the Stones when you say that the Stones would not have survived the punk explosion with Taylor. That's not even an argument. It's pure speculation. And then you say that they could have picked any good blues lead guitarist and that it wouldn't make any difference. Do you see the contradiction? Then Taylor's weight is brought in to convince that Wood is preferable to Taylor. And who's the alcoholic? At least Wood, 2 bottles of Wodka each day. But I won't use that fact as an argument in this discussion. To say that "Wood still looks like a true R&R outlaw" is not only irrelevant but also very juvenile. As if that matters. Wood is just a jetset kind of type who's lost his way after divorcing his wife and is getting around with young girls to calm down his uncertainty as an aging man. You must be a romantic kind of guy. "Ron Wood is a true Rolling Stone". It has been said before here, and it's just pathetic and poor. Please may the 'true Rolling Stone' stand up? Such sentences only make me laugh, I can't take them serious. I would say: "Ron Wood is a true Face". "So what", would you answer, or likely, "No, no, he's a true Rolling Stone ...eh ... no, he's a true Face and a true Rolling Stone, and that makes him special"
.PS: Maybe you should read the last posts in this thread: [www.iorr.org]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-24 17:36 by kleermaker.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
otonneau
()
Date: January 24, 2010 18:19
Quote
MARSBAR
This is going nowhere!!Forget personalities,who fitted in,who is a real Rolling Stone type guitarist,who wrote songs,who can sing or not....IF it all comes down to who,out of Keith,Ronnie or Taylor who is by far....and I mean by far the tastier, more skilled,technically light years ahead player its Taylor.This is a fact and nothing to do with all of the above except the skill,and im positive,absolutly positive Ronnie and Keith would agree.
Well i don't think it's a fact at all. I think it just says something about your conception of a lead guitarist. Or maybe it's just that there is a conception of LEAD playing that I find musically uninteresting.
If you have a conception of a "lead" guitarist as someone who provides melodic work integrated to the work of the group, then Taylor is at times excellent, (as exemplified by Ya Ya where his work is amazing), but too often he drifts away on his own path and then I couldn't care less how many notes he strings together. On the other hand, Wood is sometimes (not always!) an amazing team player.
I could say that both Ronnie and Taylor have exceptional moments of interaction with keith, but Taylor sometimes drifts into an annoying isolation, and Ronnie often degenerates into complete nonsense. I would never deny that while Ronnie is often horrid, Taylor never was (although based on some videos posted here he can be nowadays): so there was a reliability that Taylor had and Ronnie doesn't. But that does not make me conclude that Taylor's peak moments are better than those of Ronnie, and as a matter of fact there are Ronnie moments that I prefer over anything Taylor ever did.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
wanderingspirit66
()
Date: January 24, 2010 18:35
Quote
Mathijs
"Taylor was a fantastic lead guitarist and a pretty bad rhythm player, Wood was a good lead guitarist and a great rythm player. Taylor is not a composer, Wood wrote some great tracks, including the best post-Exile Stones album of the '70's with I've Got My Own Album to D0."
Taylor was and is a great lead guitarist and a very very good rhytym player. Wood at best is "competent" but one of the most uninteresting guitarists around. Taylor may not have composed much since leaving the Stones, but in the context of the Stones, he co-wrote an album's worth of great songs. That list (Winter, Moonlight Mile, Sway, Hide your Love, 100 years ago...) would iself make one of the great albums by the Rolling Stones.
"With Wood the Stones became a much better band,"
NO..absolutely NOT..this is quite absurd. I like a lot of the post 75 work but it is quite obvious to anyone that the only reason the Stones deserve the title of the Worlds greatest Rock n Roll band is becasue of their output from 68-73. Nothing else truly matters.
"With Taylor the Stones would not have survived the punk explosion."
Correct. The Stones survived becsause of Ron Wood; but they became a worse band for it. Keith became a lazier guitarist because of it. Taylor not only pushed Richards but he also motivated Jagger to write a different type of Stones song and extended Jagger's vocal range.
"Taylor can't sing, Wood was a great singer."
Great... seriously...and in the context of the Stones who gives a damn whether Wood or Taylor could sing?
"Taylor has become a fat drunk and Wood still looks like a true R&R outlaw."
You hit the nail on the head.. Wood "looks" like a R&R outlaw. Instead of a fat drunk, Ronnie is is a thin drunk joker.
"When the Stones picked Taylor they could have pickid from a list of Great Blues Lead Guitarists. And all these guitarists would have played some great solo's on Sway and CYHMK, Exile would have been Exile, and the '72 tour would have been no different at all."
Perhaps true -- but equally true of Ronnie Wood -- If the Stones had picked any other guitarist, then Black and Blue would be the same, as would Some Girls and ER and Tattoo you and Undercover and Dirty Work. Ronnie looked looked Keith's long lost twin...thats its.
"With Wood, they only could pick him as he is a true Rolling Stone. And that's what makes him special."
If clowing around the stage, posing for mug shots and blowing smoke rings in the air with Keith is what it takes to be a true Rolling Stone, then Ronnie is "the man".
There is nothing special in terms of Ronnie Wood. What is amazing is how "not special" his guitar playing and musicianship are. The only thing unique about Ronnie Wood is that he always did and continues to look the part.
The Stones needed a competent guitarist that looked that part, would not overshadow Keith and just play along. The got Ronnie. He saved the Stones. The Stones brought out the worst in Ronnie Wood and Wood brought out the worst of the Stones. The Stones image was always important; in picking Ronnie Wood, the Stones signaled that image mattered more than the music.
The Stones were good for Taylor. Taylor was good for the Stones. Sadly neither realized it at that time.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
MARSBAR
()
Date: January 24, 2010 18:46
Nothing to do with LEAD playing..just a more skilled player,nothing to do with YAsYas or any albums or whatever,forget analyzing everything Im talking in just plain skill as a guitarist,c'mon!!! They both have long experience playing..I bet any rock guitarist if asked the question who is the more skilled player would answer Taylor.Quote
otonneauQuote
MARSBAR
This is going nowhere!!Forget personalities,who fitted in,who is a real Rolling Stone type guitarist,who wrote songs,who can sing or not....IF it all comes down to who,out of Keith,Ronnie or Taylor who is by far....and I mean by far the tastier, more skilled,technically light years ahead player its Taylor.This is a fact and nothing to do with all of the above except the skill,and im positive,absolutly positive Ronnie and Keith would agree.
Well i don't think it's a fact at all. I think it just says something about your conception of a lead guitarist. Or maybe it's just that there is a conception of LEAD playing that I find musically uninteresting.
If you have a conception of a "lead" guitarist as someone who provides melodic work integrated to the work of the group, then Taylor is at times excellent, (as exemplified by Ya Ya where his work is amazing), but too often he drifts away on his own path and then I couldn't care less how many notes he strings together. On the other hand, Wood is sometimes (not always!) an amazing team player.
I could say that both Ronnie and Taylor have exceptional moments of interaction with keith, but Taylor sometimes drifts into an annoying isolation, and Ronnie often degenerates into complete nonsense. I would never deny that while Ronnie is often horrid, Taylor never was (although based on some videos posted here he can be nowadays): so there was a reliability that Taylor had and Ronnie doesn't. But that does not make me conclude that Taylor's peak moments are better than those of Ronnie, and as a matter of fact there are Ronnie moments that I prefer over anything Taylor ever did.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
otonneau
()
Date: January 24, 2010 18:58
But... only in such a narrow sense of 'skills' that it does not matter. For instance, if you think of jazz musicians, many many trumpet players are more skilled than Miles Davis (they can play faster, go higher and lower and have a more even tone, etc) but they are not as musically interesting as him. Taylor is more skilled than Wood, in the same sense that Sam Cooke is more skilled than Jagger or Philly Jo Jones than Watts, but that's far from essential, don't you think? Especially in rock.
Everybody would agree with you on the strictly technical level; but I bet I would not be alone in saying that musically, Wood's idiosyncracies, versatility and amazing capacity to listen to his partners make him a more interesting musician than Taylor, who ranks perhaps in the top 10 of the standard guitar hero classification. And it is all the more sad that Woody, because of other issues, has so rarely fully exploited his musical gifts.
Everybody would agree with you on the strictly technical level; but I bet I would not be alone in saying that musically, Wood's idiosyncracies, versatility and amazing capacity to listen to his partners make him a more interesting musician than Taylor, who ranks perhaps in the top 10 of the standard guitar hero classification. And it is all the more sad that Woody, because of other issues, has so rarely fully exploited his musical gifts.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
MARSBAR
()
Date: January 24, 2010 19:12
Taylor wouldnt have to listen to his partners,they would have to listen to him,I wouldnt say Woods or Taylor are musically interesting,but I bet if both players played with other top musicians in any music format you want Taylor would be perfectly comfortable and much more noticable than Ronnie on stage playing wise.(Except slide guitar of course)Quote
otonneau
But... only in such a narrow sense of 'skills' that it does not matter. For instance, if you think of jazz musicians, many many trumpet players are more skilled than Miles Davis (they can play faster, go higher and lower and have a more even tone, etc) but they are not as musically interesting as him. Taylor is more skilled than Wood, in the same sense that Sam Cooke is more skilled than Jagger or Philly Jo Jones than Watts, but that's far from essential, don't you think? Especially in rock.
Everybody would agree with you on the strictly technical level; but I bet I would not be alone in saying that musically, Wood's idiosyncracies, versatility and amazing capacity to listen to his partners make him a more interesting musician than Taylor, who ranks perhaps in the top 10 of the standard guitar hero classification. And it is all the more sad that Woody, because of other issues, has so rarely fully exploited his musical gifts.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
otonneau
()
Date: January 24, 2010 19:13
I think we understand each other well and value different things: you say that Taylor's partners would have to listen to him rather than the contrary - well exactly! That's a flaw in my book, although i can understand it's a strength in yours. To each his own!
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
MARSBAR
()
Date: January 24, 2010 19:20
Ill buy you a drink at the next concertQuote
otonneau
I think we understand each other well and value different things: you say that Taylor's partners would have to listen to him rather than the contrary - well exactly! That's a flaw in my book, although i can understand it's a strength in yours. To each his own!
><Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 24, 2010 19:21
<He was at his best when he played with Taylor>
Are you serious? IMO, Keith had his heydays between 1976-1989. Musically, technically and creatively.
Are you serious? IMO, Keith had his heydays between 1976-1989. Musically, technically and creatively.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
slew
()
Date: January 24, 2010 19:27
I just listened to Ronnie's solo in the clip again is he as fluid as Taylor no, but I do think he has a lot of feeling in it and its a good piece of work not great but good!
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: January 24, 2010 19:32
Quote
otonneau
But... only in such a narrow sense of 'skills' that it does not matter. For instance, if you think of jazz musicians, many many trumpet players are more skilled than Miles Davis (they can play faster, go higher and lower and have a more even tone, etc) but they are not as musically interesting as him. Taylor is more skilled than Wood, in the same sense that Sam Cooke is more skilled than Jagger or Philly Jo Jones than Watts, but that's far from essential, don't you think? Especially in rock.
Everybody would agree with you on the strictly technical level; but I bet I would not be alone in saying that musically, Wood's idiosyncracies, versatility and amazing capacity to listen to his partners make him a more interesting musician than Taylor, who ranks perhaps in the top 10 of the standard guitar hero classification. And it is all the more sad that Woody, because of other issues, has so rarely fully exploited his musical gifts.
The whole thing is just that Taylor with the Stones is musically far more interesting than Ron Wood ever was with them. Taylor has something to say, he catches the essence of the songs, mostly by a few measures. He didn't get lost in too long soli or in dead ending streets. And he never fooled around like Ron, in musical sense I mean. I cannot stop advising to read also this thread: [www.iorr.org]. The discussion there seems to have stopped, but it was a better one on a higher level than we have here. Also more to the point. I'm sorry it has stopped there and goes on in this thread... on a lower level.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
behroez
()
Date: January 24, 2010 19:36
Quote
wanderingspirit66
I like a lot of the post 75 work but it is quite obvious to anyone that the only reason the Stones deserve the title of the Worlds greatest Rock n Roll band is becasue of their output from 68-73. Nothing else truly matters.
What a nonsense, that title comes from Sam Cutler who used it to introduce the Stones from Hyde Park onwards into the US 1969 tour. The Stones did not release Let it Bleed untill the end of the 69 tour, but instead released Through the Past Darkly to promote that tour with almost half the songs on that album from 1967 and some like Paint it Black even from 1966, that album emded higher in the US charts than Beggar did, and this is what the people knew and expected to hear (remember the girl on Ya-Ya asking for Paint it Black?), and that was the band introduced as the greatest rock & roll band!
Quote
wanderingspirit66
The Stones brought out the worst in Ronnie Wood and Wood brought out the worst of the Stones.
The worst? Some Girls and Tattoo You THE TWO BEST SOLD STONES STUDIO ALBUM EVER.....the worst??????
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-24 20:55 by behroez.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: January 24, 2010 19:56
Quote
Mathijs
Taylor was a fantastic lead guitarist and a pretty bad rhythm player
Mathijs
I completely disagree on this..
Listen to GYYYO,Bitch, live boots, Jack Bruce etc,and you will notice that Taylor is a very refined and subtle rhythm player.
The misleading part is that Taylor in never very loud on most Stones tracks when playing rythm.. Richards is always louder when playing ryhtm guitar cause his way of playing bookmarks the Stones sound.But when it comes to objective comparison ,I think Taylor is the more intelligent and better ryhtm player.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: January 24, 2010 20:05
Quote
Mathijs
Taylor was a fantastic lead guitarist and a pretty bad rhythm player, Wood was a good lead guitarist and a great rythm player. Taylor is not a composer, Wood wrote some great tracks, including the best post-Exile Stones album of the '70's with I've Got My Own Album to Do. With Wood the Stones became a much better band, with Charlie peaking in '75 and Bill in '81. With Taylor the Stones would not have survived the punk explosion. Taylor can't sing, Wood was a great singer. Taylor has become a fat drunk and Wood still looks like a true R&R outlaw.
When the Stones picked Taylor they could have pickid from a list of Great Blues Lead Guitarists. And all these guitarists would have played some great solo's on Sway and CYHMK, Exile would have been Exile, and the '72 tour would have been no different at all.
With Wood, they only could pick him as he is a true Rolling Stone. And that's what makes him special.
Mathijs
A rare occasion where I vehemently disagree with Mathjis. Yes, Woody gave them a fresh start in 1978 with Some Girls, but it didn't last very long. As for singing, Taylor is certainly no worse than Woody. As for the band being better with Woody - I think this is just plain wrong, using my own eyes and ears as the judge. I have made this point before, but the guitar section got lazier with Woody. The tension of Taylor and Richards and their contrasting styles is what gave the Stones their highest musical peaks 1969-1973 (live) and on record 1969-1974. After Taylor left there was simply never another moment on stage as majestic as Love In Vain (1969) or YCAGWYW (1973). As for "funky". They were plenty funky in 1969 (especially the re-interpretation of Satisfaction). The funkiness in 1975 came from Billy Preston and Jagger's embrace of that style. Ronnie was secondary. As for rhythm guitar, how can you say Taylor was bad at it? Just listen to his playing on Let It Rock or Ya-Yas.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-24 20:37 by 71Tele.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: January 24, 2010 20:19
Quote
wanderingspirit66
The Stones were good for Taylor. Taylor was good for the Stones. Sadly neither realized it at that time.
I think Jagger and Richards realized it.. Keih was very angry when Taylor left while Jagger tried to persuade Taylor to stay...
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: January 24, 2010 21:04
Quote
AmsterdamnedQuote
wanderingspirit66
The Stones were good for Taylor. Taylor was good for the Stones. Sadly neither realized it at that time.
I think Jagger and Richards realized it.. Keih was very angry when Taylor left while Jagger tried to persuade Taylor to stay...
I'm pretty sure that Keith deep down in his heart was very fond of Taylor and admired him. On the studio records he didn't get much room, as Amsterdamned has already stated, but live he was just soooo good. And remember, I've heard both, Taylor in 73 and Wood in 76 and 82 (twice!). Remember Taylor had much live experience when he joined the Stones and he used it mighty fine
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: January 24, 2010 21:39
Quote
otonneau
I think we understand each other well and value different things: you say that Taylor's partners would have to listen to him rather than the contrary - well exactly! That's a flaw in my book, although i can understand it's a strength in yours. To each his own!
To little bit develop this idea further the difference between Taylor and Wood is the one expressed by Charlie - a quote I take to express the essential:
"Taylor brought us professionalism".
I take that to mean not only that Taylor added something extraordinary in skillwise to their sound but that he brought the whole band - the others - to play stronger and better by his own example and impact. He was an important actor in making a rusty pop band - what they were in eraly 1969 - to a hard rocking relevant live act. I take that to be his biggest contribution he ever did to the Stones. Thereby the others 'listened him' in theoretical sense (in practice all of them needed to listen Keith who seemingly do not possess idionsyncratic skills to listen or follow others...). "The greatest rock and roll band in the world" would refer not solely to an amateur blues band, a swingin' sixties pop band, or an adventurous and ambitiuos studio band, but also to be that in the technical sense as a current live act, after the emergence of such live acts like Zeppelin or Hendrix, in the case someone actually would listen how they play. As they started to do from 1969 on.
Even tough behroez seems to love to shake some standard interpretations, the 1969 tour was based on the recent BEGGARS and LET IT BLEED material which they proudly played no matter what the audience hoped (shout "Paint It Black" but we play what we want and you will like it, babe!). That tour set a new era and the basic material and sound into which the following tours would be built on. Taylor's cool-faced professionalism was huge part of arranging the acoustic-based, studio tricky BEGGARS/BLEED material into loud electric guitar-driven live anthems. With that The Stones bought future (that wasn't so clear at all in 1969; their second popular member was gone, and yes, there was a lot of 'conservative' fans who might not be happy with this 'hard-rock' band, as behroez pointed out).
By contrast, when Ronnie joined, the band already had a certain sound and standard from which they would never (to 1982, that is) to really drift too far. And most of all, the band had cemented its status as 'the most legendary rock and roll band of the world', and they didn't need to showw their competence such hard any longer That was already done. In fact, they could take a bit more relaxed attitude now; they had earned it. I think wanderingspirit66 nailed the part to be played:
"The Stones needed a competent guitarist that looked that part, would not overshadow Keith and just play along."
In other words The Stones 'didn't listen him'; they didn't need him to change them greatly. (It was Ronnie who had listen them from the beginning; he was the first 'fan boy' who ever joined the band!. Remember, thd blues purist Taylor said to have liked The Beatles more...) In fact, like mentioned here (in some posts) what he contributed was just to strengthen certain features the Stones already possessed, and now, by choosing him, wanted to stress more. The birth of ancient art of weaving was to 'double' Keith in guitarwise (and imagewise). Neither didn't he have or he didn't expacted to have any extra new gear to offer, but it was his job to adopt the role as well as he can. And he did well. And they were lucky (or genious): in imagewise and soundwise his raunchy playing and Keith Richards clone out-look was the best thing they could have to answer to the 'punk challange', when a sort of street credibility, and simplicity in technicality was, the latest thing, as Mathijs - I think rightly - noted. They had two cool KEEFS there; an intrinsic, hippie-looking, a way too skillfull guitar hero was the last person needed in the late 1970's (What an old fart!)
Personally I really don't like comparing Taylor to Wood as Rolling Stones members nor neither of them to Brian Jones; all of these guys had a different function in the history of the band. All of them achieved fabullous results in their own role. I'm happy to have them all. I love all their 'eras' and it depends on the moment which I consider the 'best' - usually its the one I happen to listen in the given moment!
- Doxa
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-24 22:01 by Doxa.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: January 24, 2010 22:11
Quote
ablett
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.....
Boring?? The Taylor-Wood discussions evoke the most passionate posts on iorr.org.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
Lorenz
()
Date: January 24, 2010 22:21
words of wisdom from mathijs and otonneau - at least you guys still weigh in when it really matters.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: January 24, 2010 22:24
Quote
AmsterdamnedQuote
ablett
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.....
Boring?? The Taylor-Wood discussions evoke the most passionate posts on iorr.org.
Agreed - I don't think it's boring, as long as it doesn't degenerate into name-calling and a virtual shouting match. personally, it has forced me to try to understand why so many here honestly prefer Mr. Wood. I can't say that I completely get that, but at least it makes me be thoughtful about my position and try to see the other side's argument. This is one of the key ideological divides of Rolling Stones fans. Like the Stalinist vs. Trotskyite arguments leftists had in the 1930s and 1940s.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.