Tell Me :
Talk
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
How would Ron know?
I consider the Ronnie advocates as Stalinists and the Taylorists as Trotskyists! The former bringing in more shouting and 'violence' (like Mathijs did), the latter more sensitive and reasonable arguments. But no, that's just a joke with a grain of truth.
I think I begin to understand why the Woodyists react like they do, 71Tele, thanks to the contribution of Doxa. He said this: "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."
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. He sacrificed himself, he, the superfan whom the Stones only accepted as a ful member of the band after YEARS! Simply humiliating. Think of the fact that even Charlie has said that the band was at its best in the Taylor-period and that Bill and sir M confirmed that, the latter by 'hidden words'.
Ronnie, the loyal follower of Keith, Taylor the arrogant and selfconfident musician. Not so strange that hardcore Stonesfans, the Keef-guys, feel a great loyalty to Ron and distaste that Taylor-guy who not only overshadowed their beloved Keef (their example and idol) but also stood in the way of Keith-loyal Ronnie.
This whole discussion is not only interesting from a musical point of view but even more from a psychological point of view.
Did you read the Gimme Shelter-thread and the contributions of the persons blaming the hippies? Did you recently hear Jagger say that he had nothing with the so called hippie way of life? But who was running so fast to that hippie Maharishi guy, following the three top-Beatles? Indeed, sir Michael Philip Jagger himself. Interesting, isn't it? Do you see the relation between the hippie issue and this discussion concerning Taylor and Wood? (Don't conclude that Taylor was the hippie and Ron the realistic rocker, because that isn't true at all).
Exactly, he said arrogantly. The title of this thread by UrbanSteel, my much appreciated fellow countryman, already says enough. It's actually a defensive statement, though it sounds a bit aggressive (the exclamation mark).
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.
But now you´re judging his personality....I was referring to their work...
By the way....Ronnie´s usually not bashed because of his sometimes strange
behaviour,actions,whatever belongs to his private life but at least as much for his guitar playing during the last 30somewhat Stones years.
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!!!
10 years old? That's when I read lucky Luke.
Make that John mc Laughlin.
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 fanatics, 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 and leave the past where it belongs...in the past.
Yesterday don't matter if it's gone.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-25 14:07 by behroez.
I love John Mc Laughlin, but this clips was really horrible... Better put on my Miles-albums with Mc Laughlin again
Again, a good argument, behroez. I agree with you this time. But I'm afraid that it's too late now. They should have done that from the start or at least many, many years ago. That would also have been fair to Ron Wood. Actually they've produced some very nice songs during the last decades, not the great ones like there are on the old albums, especially BB, LIB, SF, EOMS and GHS, but enough to fill a setlist.
BTW, I'm not a Taylor freak (and I suppose there are in fact not so many), but like many others on IORR I prefer The Stones as they played with MT to the 'modern' Stones with Ron Wood. But again, it's not a question 'Taylor versus Wood', as we've said before. The responsibility for this problem lies at the side of the Glimmers in the first place. They've never resolved it and we've seen and heard the bad results of that failure. Now it's too late imo. They're reaching their 70th birthday, come on! They're almost history, yesterday's papers so to speak.
What we so called Taylorists have missed and still are missing are great live albums that represent that glorious live period 69-73 better than the bootlegs do. They've produced many live products after Taylor (LYL, Still live, DVD's etc. etc.. even too much stuff) but all we have from the greatest live period the Stones ever had is GYYYO (thanks to the bootleg makers and uploaders we've more, but nothing official), when they only just started to shine on stage. 1969 was just the beginning. It's a shame and hard to bear for us music and Stones lovers that there's not any official live album or DVD from the 69-73 period except Ya Ya's. And however good Ya Ya's may be, it's by far not enough. Everything is on the shelves. We want it to be taken off the shelves and to be put on fantastic live albums and DVD's. See the thread [www.iorr.org] and make a ranking. Not needed, it's obvious what the fans love most. But we never got it from the Glimmers. That's something I blame them for, heavily!
I think the most of us here would applause that idea! But buy that to Sir Mick...
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-25 14:31 by Doxa.
Get your point,not his most interesting work,
but this is one of the rare occasions where he only plays blues scales,and I like his
dirty sound and energie.
Good good points! But in fairness to Ronnie I think the progression happened in his peak era - or in the era I would call 'Ronnie era': 1975-82 - they were actually heading for that direction: to rearrange the old songs with this new the 'master and his loyal gun holder' but still sort of equal terms -policy. Especially mastering the songs with this policy it was easy after Wood had contributed to creating the songs themselves (the Marconi-triumphiate: SOME GIRLS-EMOTIONAL RESCUE-TATTOO YOU)... True, that they didn't re-arrange certain songs that had so strong Taylor presence: "Love In Vain", "Gimme Shelter", "All Down The Line", "You Can' Always Get What You Want" to name a few. You can hear Ronnie struggling there. But almost anyone would if asked "okay: do the Taylor bit").
But by 1981, if not yet in 1978, I think the Wood-Richards axis had mastered themselves and they could 'weave' through any song, and by then they had let quite a big percantage of Taylor triumps aside: "Midnigt Ramler", "Gimme Shelter", "Sympathy For he Devil", "Street Fighting Man", "Bitch"...) that had Taylor's mark in all of them. Especially wonderful examples of the 'weave stategy' in use is the way they work through very old (Brian era) songs: "Under My Thumb", "Let's Spend The Night Togeher", "Satisfaction"... for example, the way they play "Under My Thumb" is totally different - but at least as great if even better - as the way they work out the song with Taylor in 1969. And what is wonderful in those 1978 and 1981/82 tours is that the bulk of the material comes from the recent albums. From the 'Taylor age', they only took the obvious highlights.
I think it is important to notice that it has been different since 1989 when they started to listen the originals and tried to imitate those in their arrangements. That was the end of the guitar love affair of Keith and Ronnie. Especially it hurts Ronnie, because I think his way of playing didn't suit at all to this strict discipline policy. For that reason I don't call that "Ronnie era" but with another name I refuse to use now... (I think Taylor might suit better to this new, unnamed era because he maybe has more discipline and studio musician attitude in his playing than Ronnie; he is techically more 'traditional player' as Ronnie is). So it is unfair to compare Ronnie's post-1989 contribution to the Taylor-era. All the relevant comparison should be rejected to the years between 1969 and 1982 as far as the contribution of these two guys is concerned.
- Doxa
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-25 15:21 by Doxa.
Great points, Doxa and I like your phrase "Taylor's cool-faced professionalism" a lot.
As others already pointed out, Taylor wasn't only a great lead guitar player (a part he sometimes overplayed during the '73 tour of Europe), but also a fine, rocking rhythm guitar player - more reliable and also more sophisticated and subtle than poor Ronnie. I guess Taylor's rhythm guitar parts would make for an interesting (and rewarding) topic in a thread of it's own. Instead, here we are, once again cought up in a debate about who was the stronger player of the two...
Surely they made a fresh start with Ronnie and Some Girls brought a whole new sound and feel (and enthusiasm), but musically, by the time of Undercover these contributions more or less had run their course. As even the Stones themselves have pointed out, the main reason why they chose Ronnie was "chemistry" and not "musicianship". Nothing wrong with that. And it worked. But to state that Ronnie Wood is as good a musician as Mick Taylor (or even a better one)... come on, that just seems ridiculous to me. He's not and doesn't need to be.
Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-25 16:08 by Greenblues.
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:
behroez
()
Date: January 24, 2010 22:48
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.
I hope not. If i remember well Trotsky ended up with an axe in his skull.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: January 24, 2010 22:58
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.
At least Ron wakes up with an axe in his skull every morning.Taylor..I don't know
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
Edward Twining
()
Date: January 24, 2010 23:13
I think Mick Taylor v Brian Jones would make a much more interesting debate as both of them put their own indelible stamp on the Rolling Stones in different ways.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: January 24, 2010 23:19
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
How would Ron know?
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: January 24, 2010 23:29
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.
I consider the Ronnie advocates as Stalinists and the Taylorists as Trotskyists! The former bringing in more shouting and 'violence' (like Mathijs did), the latter more sensitive and reasonable arguments. But no, that's just a joke with a grain of truth.
I think I begin to understand why the Woodyists react like they do, 71Tele, thanks to the contribution of Doxa. He said this: "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."
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. He sacrificed himself, he, the superfan whom the Stones only accepted as a ful member of the band after YEARS! Simply humiliating. Think of the fact that even Charlie has said that the band was at its best in the Taylor-period and that Bill and sir M confirmed that, the latter by 'hidden words'.
Ronnie, the loyal follower of Keith, Taylor the arrogant and selfconfident musician. Not so strange that hardcore Stonesfans, the Keef-guys, feel a great loyalty to Ron and distaste that Taylor-guy who not only overshadowed their beloved Keef (their example and idol) but also stood in the way of Keith-loyal Ronnie.
This whole discussion is not only interesting from a musical point of view but even more from a psychological point of view.
Did you read the Gimme Shelter-thread and the contributions of the persons blaming the hippies? Did you recently hear Jagger say that he had nothing with the so called hippie way of life? But who was running so fast to that hippie Maharishi guy, following the three top-Beatles? Indeed, sir Michael Philip Jagger himself. Interesting, isn't it? Do you see the relation between the hippie issue and this discussion concerning Taylor and Wood? (Don't conclude that Taylor was the hippie and Ron the realistic rocker, because that isn't true at all).
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
Markdog
()
Date: January 24, 2010 23:30
Is so subjective. Comes down to what "moves" you when you hear it. Ronnie has always moved me and Taylor hasn't.
It's part of my make up and I did not decide it.
It isn't a question of who is better it is a discussion of who you like more and why.
It's part of my make up and I did not decide it.
It isn't a question of who is better it is a discussion of who you like more and why.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: January 24, 2010 23:36
<< 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. He sacrificed himself, he, the superfan whom the Stones only accepted as a ful member of the band after YEARS! Simply humiliating. Think of the fact that even Charlie has said that the band was at its best in the Taylor-period and that Bill and sir M confirmed that, the latter by 'hidden words'. >>
This is the heart of the matter for me (besides the musical qualitative issues). The Stones almost forced Ronnie into becoming a caricature of himself (caricature of Keith?). I think it's a tragedy, and indeed could be partially responsible for his drinking problem...I also agree with Kleermaker that the many of the Woodite posts are more defensive and emotional than the those of the Taylorites. 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 the heart of the matter for me (besides the musical qualitative issues). The Stones almost forced Ronnie into becoming a caricature of himself (caricature of Keith?). I think it's a tragedy, and indeed could be partially responsible for his drinking problem...I also agree with Kleermaker that the many of the Woodite posts are more defensive and emotional than the those of the Taylorites. 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.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: January 24, 2010 23:52
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.
Exactly, he said arrogantly. The title of this thread by UrbanSteel, my much appreciated fellow countryman, already says enough. It's actually a defensive statement, though it sounds a bit aggressive (the exclamation mark).
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
shortfatfanny
()
Date: January 25, 2010 00:40
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.
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.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: January 25, 2010 00:41
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.
I would respectfully counter that Ronnie has invited much of the bashing and fun-making by his own behavior.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
shortfatfanny
()
Date: January 25, 2010 00:59
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.
But now you´re judging his personality....I was referring to their work...
By the way....Ronnie´s usually not bashed because of his sometimes strange
behaviour,actions,whatever belongs to his private life but at least as much for his guitar playing during the last 30somewhat Stones years.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
straycatblues73
()
Date: January 25, 2010 01:12
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!
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!!!
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: January 25, 2010 01:15
Quote
Mathijs
Taylor has become a fat drunk and Wood still looks like a true R&R outlaw.
Mathijs
10 years old? That's when I read lucky Luke.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
slew
()
Date: January 25, 2010 01:18
Well - Ronnie was put into a tough position. He is not the guitar virtuoso that Taylor is I can certainly agree on that. Ronnie joined the band and went right out on the road he did what I think he was supposed on those first two tour try and fill Mick T's shoes.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: January 25, 2010 01:25
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
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: January 25, 2010 01:46
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!!!
Make that John mc Laughlin.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
1cdog
()
Date: January 25, 2010 02:13
"Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !"
At what?
If your talking playing guitar in 2010 - I don't know about that. Been awhile since I could agree with you.
In fact I've spent quite a lot of $$ on Stones concert tickets from 2005 - 2007 and for the shows I attended I would certainly have to disagree with you.
At what?
If your talking playing guitar in 2010 - I don't know about that. Been awhile since I could agree with you.
In fact I've spent quite a lot of $$ on Stones concert tickets from 2005 - 2007 and for the shows I attended I would certainly have to disagree with you.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 25, 2010 10:53
<I believe the Ronnie defenders are more attracted to his personality and that the musical quality is secondary.>
Personality and musical quality should be closely connected to eachother, imo. After all, this is the rock'n'roll band we love. Or else, the Stones could have found a 20 years old virtuoso playing from behind the curtain...
Personality and musical quality should be closely connected to eachother, imo. After all, this is the rock'n'roll band we love. Or else, the Stones could have found a 20 years old virtuoso playing from behind the curtain...
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
otonneau
()
Date: January 25, 2010 11:23
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.[/quote]
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!
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-25 11:25 by otonneau.
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!
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-25 11:25 by otonneau.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
behroez
()
Date: January 25, 2010 12:09
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)
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-25 12:11 by behroez.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-25 12:11 by behroez.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
behroez
()
Date: January 25, 2010 13:08
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)
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 fanatics, 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 and leave the past where it belongs...in the past.
Yesterday don't matter if it's gone.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-25 14:07 by behroez.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 25, 2010 13:20
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.
I love John Mc Laughlin, but this clips was really horrible... Better put on my Miles-albums with Mc Laughlin again
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: January 25, 2010 14:22
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.
Again, a good argument, behroez. I agree with you this time. But I'm afraid that it's too late now. They should have done that from the start or at least many, many years ago. That would also have been fair to Ron Wood. Actually they've produced some very nice songs during the last decades, not the great ones like there are on the old albums, especially BB, LIB, SF, EOMS and GHS, but enough to fill a setlist.
BTW, I'm not a Taylor freak (and I suppose there are in fact not so many), but like many others on IORR I prefer The Stones as they played with MT to the 'modern' Stones with Ron Wood. But again, it's not a question 'Taylor versus Wood', as we've said before. The responsibility for this problem lies at the side of the Glimmers in the first place. They've never resolved it and we've seen and heard the bad results of that failure. Now it's too late imo. They're reaching their 70th birthday, come on! They're almost history, yesterday's papers so to speak.
What we so called Taylorists have missed and still are missing are great live albums that represent that glorious live period 69-73 better than the bootlegs do. They've produced many live products after Taylor (LYL, Still live, DVD's etc. etc.. even too much stuff) but all we have from the greatest live period the Stones ever had is GYYYO (thanks to the bootleg makers and uploaders we've more, but nothing official), when they only just started to shine on stage. 1969 was just the beginning. It's a shame and hard to bear for us music and Stones lovers that there's not any official live album or DVD from the 69-73 period except Ya Ya's. And however good Ya Ya's may be, it's by far not enough. Everything is on the shelves. We want it to be taken off the shelves and to be put on fantastic live albums and DVD's. See the thread [www.iorr.org] and make a ranking. Not needed, it's obvious what the fans love most. But we never got it from the Glimmers. That's something I blame them for, heavily!
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: January 25, 2010 14:24
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)
I think the most of us here would applause that idea! But buy that to Sir Mick...
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-25 14:31 by Doxa.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: January 25, 2010 14:35
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
Get your point,not his most interesting work,
but this is one of the rare occasions where he only plays blues scales,and I like his
dirty sound and energie.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: January 25, 2010 15:10
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!
Good good points! But in fairness to Ronnie I think the progression happened in his peak era - or in the era I would call 'Ronnie era': 1975-82 - they were actually heading for that direction: to rearrange the old songs with this new the 'master and his loyal gun holder' but still sort of equal terms -policy. Especially mastering the songs with this policy it was easy after Wood had contributed to creating the songs themselves (the Marconi-triumphiate: SOME GIRLS-EMOTIONAL RESCUE-TATTOO YOU)... True, that they didn't re-arrange certain songs that had so strong Taylor presence: "Love In Vain", "Gimme Shelter", "All Down The Line", "You Can' Always Get What You Want" to name a few. You can hear Ronnie struggling there. But almost anyone would if asked "okay: do the Taylor bit").
But by 1981, if not yet in 1978, I think the Wood-Richards axis had mastered themselves and they could 'weave' through any song, and by then they had let quite a big percantage of Taylor triumps aside: "Midnigt Ramler", "Gimme Shelter", "Sympathy For he Devil", "Street Fighting Man", "Bitch"...) that had Taylor's mark in all of them. Especially wonderful examples of the 'weave stategy' in use is the way they work through very old (Brian era) songs: "Under My Thumb", "Let's Spend The Night Togeher", "Satisfaction"... for example, the way they play "Under My Thumb" is totally different - but at least as great if even better - as the way they work out the song with Taylor in 1969. And what is wonderful in those 1978 and 1981/82 tours is that the bulk of the material comes from the recent albums. From the 'Taylor age', they only took the obvious highlights.
I think it is important to notice that it has been different since 1989 when they started to listen the originals and tried to imitate those in their arrangements. That was the end of the guitar love affair of Keith and Ronnie. Especially it hurts Ronnie, because I think his way of playing didn't suit at all to this strict discipline policy. For that reason I don't call that "Ronnie era" but with another name I refuse to use now... (I think Taylor might suit better to this new, unnamed era because he maybe has more discipline and studio musician attitude in his playing than Ronnie; he is techically more 'traditional player' as Ronnie is). So it is unfair to compare Ronnie's post-1989 contribution to the Taylor-era. All the relevant comparison should be rejected to the years between 1969 and 1982 as far as the contribution of these two guys is concerned.
- Doxa
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-25 15:21 by Doxa.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 25, 2010 15:23
IMO, Ronnie was the one who took the most damage of the long break in the 80s. And when the Stones decided to tour agan, they (read Mick) decided to make the songs sound as similar to the studio versions as possible.
That put Ronnie in a difficult position, imo. The free, loose jamming band he made his mark with between 1975-1982 virtually didn't exist anymore. He had to relearn bridges, breaks, guitar themes etc. with the result that he lost a lot of space, a space that suited his playing style better.
The bigger the band is, the less room you get to play in.
That put Ronnie in a difficult position, imo. The free, loose jamming band he made his mark with between 1975-1982 virtually didn't exist anymore. He had to relearn bridges, breaks, guitar themes etc. with the result that he lost a lot of space, a space that suited his playing style better.
The bigger the band is, the less room you get to play in.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
Greenblues
()
Date: January 25, 2010 15:45
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
Great points, Doxa and I like your phrase "Taylor's cool-faced professionalism" a lot.
As others already pointed out, Taylor wasn't only a great lead guitar player (a part he sometimes overplayed during the '73 tour of Europe), but also a fine, rocking rhythm guitar player - more reliable and also more sophisticated and subtle than poor Ronnie. I guess Taylor's rhythm guitar parts would make for an interesting (and rewarding) topic in a thread of it's own. Instead, here we are, once again cought up in a debate about who was the stronger player of the two...
Surely they made a fresh start with Ronnie and Some Girls brought a whole new sound and feel (and enthusiasm), but musically, by the time of Undercover these contributions more or less had run their course. As even the Stones themselves have pointed out, the main reason why they chose Ronnie was "chemistry" and not "musicianship". Nothing wrong with that. And it worked. But to state that Ronnie Wood is as good a musician as Mick Taylor (or even a better one)... come on, that just seems ridiculous to me. He's not and doesn't need to be.
Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-25 16:08 by Greenblues.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 25, 2010 16:05
<but also a fine, rocking rhythm guitar player - more reliable and also more sophisticated and subtle than poor Ronnie.>
More subtle?? Making lead guitar lines, chugging heavy one string-riffs or playing staccato boogie, when you are supposed to lay a rhythm down, is not subtle in my book.
A great guitar player, nevertheless. Too bad he wasn't a great songwriter, and I agree with lots of people (including the Stones themselves) that point out that his abilities as a rhythm guitar player isn't up to par.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-25 16:24 by DandelionPowderman.
More subtle?? Making lead guitar lines, chugging heavy one string-riffs or playing staccato boogie, when you are supposed to lay a rhythm down, is not subtle in my book.
A great guitar player, nevertheless. Too bad he wasn't a great songwriter, and I agree with lots of people (including the Stones themselves) that point out that his abilities as a rhythm guitar player isn't up to par.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-25 16:24 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: Ronnie is not that bad , in fact he is damn good !
Posted by:
Come On
()
Date: January 25, 2010 16:10
Ronnie is simply the best
better than all the rest
better than anyone
anyone I've ever met
better than all the rest
better than anyone
anyone I've ever met
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Bashlets , letitloose6 , MartinStone87 , Rickster , RollingFreak , StonedRambler , straycatuk , TumblinDice76
Guests:
2020
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10