For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
71Tele
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.
Quote
behroezQuote
71Tele
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.
I hope not. If i remember well Trotsky ended up with an axe in his skull.
Quote
AmsterdamnedQuote
behroezQuote
71Tele
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.
I hope not. If i remember well Trotsky ended up with an axe in his skull.
At least Ron wakes up with an axe in his skull every morning.Taylor..I don't know
Quote
71TeleQuote
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.
Quote
71Tele
I had pointed out earlier that I believe the Ronnie defenders are more attracted to his personality and that the musical quality is secondary. I know that's a generalization that is not true for each individual (hi Mathjis), but it's what I take from the debate.
Quote
71Tele
I had pointed out earlier that I believe the Ronnie defenders are more attracted to his personality and that the musical quality is secondary. I know that's a generalization that is not true for each individual (hi Mathjis), but it's what I take from the debate.
Quote
shortfatfannyQuote
71Tele
I had pointed out earlier that I believe the Ronnie defenders are more attracted to his personality and that the musical quality is secondary. I know that's a generalization that is not true for each individual (hi Mathjis), but it's what I take from the debate.
This is just polemic...one can easily prefer Mick Taylor´s work towards Ronnie´s
without making taste - and respectless fun of and bashing him.
Quote
71TeleQuote
shortfatfannyQuote
71Tele
I had pointed out earlier that I believe the Ronnie defenders are more attracted to his personality and that the musical quality is secondary. I know that's a generalization that is not true for each individual (hi Mathjis), but it's what I take from the debate.
This is just polemic...one can easily prefer Mick Taylor´s work towards Ronnie´s
without making taste - and respectless fun of and bashing him.
I would respectfully counter that Ronnie has invited much of the bashing and fun-making by his own behavior.
Quote
slew
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!
Quote
Mathijs
Taylor has become a fat drunk and Wood still looks like a true R&R outlaw.
Mathijs
So it's better that Ronnie has become a skinny drunk? Not sure I see your point here.Quote
Mathijs
Taylor has become a fat drunk and Wood still looks like a true R&R outlaw.
Mathijs
Quote
straycatblues73Quote
slew
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!
but it is a rehashed taylor solo ,he didnt come up with it
as for composing being important? that means that james blunt is the greatest guitarist in the world!!!
Quote
behroez
Okay, so than what about the Stones playing live on stage only the stuff from the last 35 yrs? And leave the Jones and Taylor era where it belongs...in the past (as in the words of Keith; "yesterday don't matter if it's gone)
Quote
AmsterdamnedQuote
straycatblues73Quote
slew
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!
but it is a rehashed taylor solo ,he didnt come up with it
as for composing being important? that means that james blunt is the greatest guitarist in the world!!!
Make that John mc Laughlin.
Quote
behroezQuote
behroez
Okay, so than what about the Stones playing live on stage only the stuff from the last 35 yrs? And leave the Jones and Taylor era where it belongs...in the past (as in the words of Keith; "yesterday don't matter if it's gone)
I think the Stones keep playing Jumping Jack Flash and Honky Tonk over and over again because they fear that if they don't play something the bigger masses of the concert visiters can recognise they would get disapointed. But that fear could be quenched easily with hits from the last 35 yrs that really everybody knows, like; Just Like a Rolling Stone (good song for the encore), Start Me Up, Harlem Shuffle, Love is Strong, Undercover of the Night, Anybody Seen My Baby, Miss You, Waiting on a Friend (yes i know, but it is released in the wood era and Taylor only plays the bass on it, so no Taylor solo here to be imitated), Beast of Burdon (made into a big hit by Bette Midler), Going to a Go Go etc. Enough well known tunes from the last 35 yrs to fill in "the necessary hits that everybody knows" section (the Stones weren't that concerned about the recognisable hits for the masses during their 69 tour though, and nobody complained, some of that boldness they can defenitely use today). So apart from those well known tunes for the masses, they can open with Hot Stuff for the nostalgia bit and the remaining songs can be from their last few albums, songs like Rain Fall Down (with Darryl's bass solo) and Out Of Control and some good rockers ofcourse like One Hit to the Body, she's Hot, Sad Sad Sad etc but defenitely some more from the last albums. I think that would be great, no need to try to recatch past glory of people that arent there anymore, Wood can play what he is good at. And hell, doesn't it sound right to be so bold to do that? I for one thing would really love it. And yes i love the Brian Jones era, but that one is gone (i've got the albums) and for all the Taylor freaks, you've got a lot of bootlegs and records from those Stones to listen to, and you can always join the Mick Taylor fanclub, no need to compare Wood to Taylor no more. I would really love to see the Stones just play on stage with the whole gang the good stuff they've made for the last 35 yrs.
Quote
behroez
Okay, so than what about the Stones playing live on stage only the stuff from the last 35 yrs? And leave the Jones and Taylor era where it belongs...in the past (as in the words of Keith; "yesterday don't matter if it's gone)
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
AmsterdamnedQuote
straycatblues73Quote
slew
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!
but it is a rehashed taylor solo ,he didnt come up with it
as for composing being important? that means that james blunt is the greatest guitarist in the world!!!
Make that John mc Laughlin.
h
I love John Mc Laughlin, but this clips was really horrible... Better put on my Miles-albums with Mc Laughlin again
Quote
otonneau
That's the essence of the tragedy of Ron Wood: musically he was never a necessary element, he couldn't be himself. He had 'his own album to do' to survive. He had a role to play. He couldn't be authentic. That makes the whole Keith-imitation of Ronnie so sad and ridiculous at the same time. Maybe it's even a factor that plays a role in his heavy drinking for years. One could say that Ron Wood has been severely misused by the Glimmers, though he willingly let it happen. A big mistake.
So true and very well put. For the first time since a long time I listened to Handsome Girls yesterday, and while Ronnie I think is excellent on the Some Girls tracks, he simply has to fit in somehow on All Down The Line, for instance; his playing seems pointless because there is no space made for it. Since everything about Ronnie and Keith is about tight interaction, these tracks should have been re-rehearsed and not played with a clear-cut "rhythm-lead" separation; a different player needed different arrangements, but it seems nobody cared. It is indeed pointless to have Ronnie replace Taylor post for post (as they say in football! If you swap Drogba for Anelka, you have to adapt the team's overall strategy).
Ronnie could have achieved so much more.
Edited because the quoting system is driving me nuts!
Quote
Doxa
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