Quote
DandelionPowderman
<"Ron Wood made a vital contribution to exactly ONE great Stones album">

Black and Blue (Hey Negrita)
Some Girls (Lies)
Emotional Rescue (Summer Romance)
Tattoo You (Black Limousine)
Undercover (Undercover Of The Night)
Dirty Work (Title track)

Of course, there are lots of other examples.Ronnie Wood made great contributions on all of those albums. Let´s all agree on that, without comparing who´s the better guitar player.

Well, the word I used was "great" Stones album. Sorry but I do not think Undercover, Dirty Work, Emotional Rescue or Black and Blue are "great", though some are good.

Quote
bassplayer617
The fact is that Ronnie has remained active and has displayed that HE is ready for a new Stones tour. The question how lies with the other three. I love the irony implicit in this scenario.

Is Ronnie ready? He has a rather severe drinking problem that makes him a potential liability for the the tour. And where exactly is the irony here, implicit or otherwise?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-27 18:59 by ChrisM.

Quote
ChrisM

Quote
bassplayer617
The fact is that Ronnie has remained active and has displayed that HE is ready for a new Stones tour. The question how lies with the other three. I love the irony implicit in this scenario.

Is Ronnie ready? He has a rather severe drinking problem that makes him a potential liability for the the tour. And where exactly is the irony here, implicit or otherwise?

The Ronnie cheerleaders don't care if he is "ready" or not, how well he plays, or whether he can even function, for that matter. Just prop him up there one more time. Go Ronnie go!

Ronnie cheeleaders.... love it!

Its all getting abit boring now though eh!

Quote
Mathijs
...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 picked 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

Mathijs you're line of reasoning is a real departure from the sense you usual make. At best what you write here is speculative. You have no way of knowing what course the band would have taken had they gone with another guitarist. Realistically, who was ready to join them aside from Taylor? Clapton? Maybe Gallagher? Hmmmm... The point is it is very possible the songs you mention may not have have been written at all or sounded as they do without the chemistry of all who were involved. This same line of reasoning applies to all the tours and albums Taylor was on as well. To further speculate. change one thing from what was and the whole dynamic changes, perhaps the the worse, perhaps not. We can only fully evaluate on what what we know, not what may have been.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-27 19:26 by ChrisM.

Quote
ChrisM

Quote
Mathijs
...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 picked 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

Mathijs you're line of reasoning is a real departure from the sense you usual make. At best what you write here is speculative. You have no way of knowing what course the band would have taken had they gone with another guitarist. Realistically, who was ready to join them aside from Taylor? Clapton? maybe? Gallagher? Hmmmm... The point is it is very possible the songs you mention may not have have been written at all or sounded as they do without the chemistry of all who were involved. This same line of reasoning applies to all the tours and albums Taylor was on as well. To further speculate. change one thing from what was and the whole dynamic changes, perhaps the the worse, perhaps not. We can only fully evaluate on what what we know, not what may have been.

Rory Gallagher!!YES!!!!A lovely man...but he would have lasted about 6 months in the Stones,he liked his booze,just like Keith Moon,Stones way of life would have killed him in no time.Another great guitarist who left us to early..RIP RORY

Not to get off topic (too much) but did you know Rory MARS? I saw him in San Francisco in 1978. Lovely guy indeed...

Probably worth a mention that Keiths first choice was Steve Marriott, not Ronnie Wood. Marriott and Richards sound like a lethal combination, literally.

Quote
ablett
Phew!! thank the lord for that, I can sleep tight now my friend......

You seem hard to satisfy. Do you get your answer replied, then it's not good yet.
Anyway, great to know you can SLEEP tight now.

Quote
wild_horse_pete
I think we all love Mick Taylor, we don`t like the posture from some of the Taylor fans.
It has nothing to do with the best or who`s better, it all had to do with feeling.
I really don`t get it that grown men are discussing about guitar players who are better.
Please get a live all

Who do you mean by "we" (second we)?

Seemingly you've missed the real issue of the discussion here and in the other Ronnie-thread.

Quote
ablett
"The minority usually is right, the majority (the big masses) is mostly wrong"

Go on then Einstein, give us half wits an example....

The Stalinists back then. Many of them got killed because of their own support for Stalin, and they were in the majority, banned Trotsky out of the country.

In music: the majority that disregarded Mozart during the last period of his life and a certain period after his death. Afterwards he turned out to be at least one of the 3 greatest (if not the greatest) composer ever.

If you think that the majority is always right and that quantity surpasses quality I think you have to reconsider your opinions. You don't have to be an Einstein to be able to think properly. I wish you success.

Quote
MARSBAR

Quote
ChrisM

Quote
Mathijs
...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 picked 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

Mathijs you're line of reasoning is a real departure from the sense you usual make. At best what you write here is speculative. You have no way of knowing what course the band would have taken had they gone with another guitarist. Realistically, who was ready to join them aside from Taylor? Clapton? maybe? Gallagher? Hmmmm... The point is it is very possible the songs you mention may not have have been written at all or sounded as they do without the chemistry of all who were involved. This same line of reasoning applies to all the tours and albums Taylor was on as well. To further speculate. change one thing from what was and the whole dynamic changes, perhaps the the worse, perhaps not. We can only fully evaluate on what what we know, not what may have been.

Rory Gallagher!!YES!!!!A lovely man...but he would have lasted about 6 months in the Stones,he liked his booze,just like Keith Moon,Stones way of life would have killed him in no time.Another great guitarist who left us to early..RIP RORY

Rory...what a tragedy he went so early.Really a great guitarist,saw a show in ´81,brilliant.

Whether he would´ve fitted in any way to the Stones as a band member,I have my doubts.

Quote
71Tele
By that argument Britney Spears is better than the Stones because she has sold more records.

That was an expected response. We are not discussing the best of all but the best era of the STONES. Listen, there are different ways to define what is the best. One is what you like and get moved by, but that is personally biased and can be argued as being what YOU experience as being better and thus is SUBJECTIVE. So how do we get to an OBJECTIVE measurre of what is the best Stones era. One way to approach that quest is by sales, for that is beyond ones personal assesment and thus more OBJECTIVE. Look my subjective best is their 1967 European tour, but objectively their ABB tour is the best (it doesn't occur in my personal favorite list of tours, but here we are trying to get to an objective view of what is the best Stones era). Now the overwhelming evidence of their two best sold Stones studio albums belonging to the Wood era and their worldrecord breaking tours in both peoples attendance financial profit and favorable media reports, clearly makes a strong case in favor of the Wood era...OBJECTIVELY spoken that is.
Than we can say as Kleermaker does that the masses is wrong, but what our dear friend doesn't seem to realise is with this argument he is shooting in his own foot, because i can tell you right now that most people on THIS site consider the Taylor era the best and Exile their best album, so according to Kleermakers own instrument of meassuring, he himself belongs to the ignorant masses.
So what are we going to do now? Are we now going to say that what is technically most difficult to play is the best? Well, i can assure that there are componists of MODERN classical music (a contradiction in terms) whose composition's are so complicated and an absolute nightmare to play that whole orchestra's suddenly get striken with the flu and can't attend the performance. But does that make those composers of modern classical music better than, shall we say Mozart?
So in the absense of any better idea i would stick to the sales as a reasonable measurment for the best Stones era. Anyway from the Stones perspective themselves i'm sure (since it really is a business all else is fantasy) that they will agree that this has been their best era.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-27 20:35 by behroez.

Quote
behroez

Quote
71Tele
By that argument Britney Spears is better than the Stones because she has sold more records.

That was an expected response. We are not discussing the best of all but the best era of the STONES. Listen, there are different ways to define what is the best. One is what you like and get moved by, but that is personally biased and can be argued as being what YOU experience as being better and thus is SUBJECTIVE. So how do we get to an OBJECTIVE measurre of what is the best Stones era. One way to approach that quest is by sales, for that is beyond ones personal assesment and thus more OBJECTIVE. Look my subjective best is their 1967 European tour, but objectively their ABB tour is the best (it doesn't occur in my personal favorite list of tours, but here we are trying to get to an objective view of what is the best Stones era). Now the overwhelming evidence of their two best sold Stones studio albums belonging to the Wood era and their worldrecord breaking tours in both peoples attendance financial profit and favorable media reports, clearly makes a strong case in favor of the Wood era...OBJECTIVELY spoken that is.
Than we can say as Kleermaker does that the masses is wrong, but what our dear friend doesn't seem to realise is with this argument he is shooting in his own foot, because i can tell you right now that most people on THIS site consider the Taylor era the best and Exile their best album, so according to Kleermakers own instrument of meassuring, he himself belongs to the ignorant masses.
So what are we going to do now? Are we now going to say that what is technically most difficult to play is the best? Well, i can assure that there are componists of MODERN classical music (a contradiction in terms) whose composition's are so complicated and an absolute nightmare to play that whole orchestra's suddenly get striken with the flu and can't attend the performance. But does that make those composers of modern classical music better than, shall we say Mozart?
So in the absense of any better idea i would stick to the sales as a reasonable measurment for the best Stones era. Anyway from the Stones perspective themselves i'm sure (since it really is a business all else is fantasy) that they will agree that this has been their best era.

As you are somehow got a fixation to "the Best" and "sales" I have an advice
for you for free...relax...enjoy the music.....feel the power...the energy...
the vibes...

As long as you´re thinking in the direction and terms you´ve manifested for the xth time
meanwhile you won´t be able to enjoy.

Finally you may come to the conclusion to give a shit about "sales" and "the best",believe me.

Just try it,let it go....and you won´t get caught in the WoodTaylor trap anymore.



Hey ablett,was that decent enough ?

Quote
shortfatfanny

Quote
MARSBAR

Quote
ChrisM

Quote
Mathijs
...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 picked 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

Mathijs you're line of reasoning is a real departure from the sense you usual make. At best what you write here is speculative. You have no way of knowing what course the band would have taken had they gone with another guitarist. Realistically, who was ready to join them aside from Taylor? Clapton? maybe? Gallagher? Hmmmm... The point is it is very possible the songs you mention may not have have been written at all or sounded as they do without the chemistry of all who were involved. This same line of reasoning applies to all the tours and albums Taylor was on as well. To further speculate. change one thing from what was and the whole dynamic changes, perhaps the the worse, perhaps not. We can only fully evaluate on what what we know, not what may have been.

Rory Gallagher!!YES!!!!A lovely man...but he would have lasted about 6 months in the Stones,he liked his booze,just like Keith Moon,Stones way of life would have killed him in no time.Another great guitarist who left us to early..RIP RORY

Rory...what a tragedy he went so early.Really a great guitarist,saw a show in ´81,brilliant.

Whether he would´ve fitted in any way to the Stones as a band member,I have my doubts.

what ? two open G players in one band?

could have replaced MT with his musical twin Eelco Gelling .then we wouldn't have this MT/RW thing.

Quote
shortfatfanny

As you are somehow got a fixation to "the Best" and "sales" I have an advice
for you for free...relax...enjoy the music.....feel the power...the energy...
the vibes...

As long as you´re thinking in the direction and terms you´ve manifested for the xth time
meanwhile you won´t be able to enjoy.

Finally you may come to the conclusion to give a shit about "sales" and "the best",believe me.

Just try it,let it go....and you won´t get caught in the WoodTaylor trap anymore.

Thanks man you saved my life

this is a no brainer to begin with .the stones most creative and fertile period was the taylor years .you can not compare output from the taylor era to the wood era. let it bleed, sticky fingers ,exile ,goats head soup, it's only rock and roll vs black and blue ,some girls ,emotional rescue,tattoo you and undercover.that's it .that's when the well ran dry and the creative process ended .remember the major row that keef had with mick jagger during the mixing for undercover when he got up and left ? then we had dirty work ,which had a couple songs on it that were nice (harlem shuffle, one hit).then came not my term but it does seem to fit "the vegas years" with a stage full of backing musicans which as i write this now i think of it as the rolling stones orchestra under the direction of maestro jagger/cohl.i am not gonna lie ,i liked the spectale of it all ,but playing note for note recreations of the songs off the albums is not very organic at all .fine music is like a bottle of very good french wine .that needs to breathe ,and just like fine six string guitars which have some variation,and are not all the same .some guitars have a better tone while others do not (i am talking the same maker and model ,like a bunch of new fender strats and new gibson les pauls )i can hear my old boss saying to me the tree in the forest that does not bend will snap when a strong wind comes along .the stones vegas tours have been so rigid in the note for note recreation of the songs off the albums .i remember during steel wheels tour ycagwyw, which i did not care for at the time because of the let it bleed version complete with the french horn intro vs the love you live version with the extended ronnie wood solo ,which i love very much (i love loud and proud rocking guitar )there is no spontaniety any more no hidden surprises ,when you could say did you see how the stones interpeted such and such a song last night .thats when sometimes you get lucky and catch lightning in a bottle and try to hang on to it .i love rocking ronnie wood and he can play his arse off when he is allowd to ,and thats the rub in this argument it's the glimmers that have constrained him pretty much have handcuffed his playing .where would the stones have been without ronnie's guitar during the second leg of the us bang tour (fall 2006 ,after keef accident )with blondie and pierre hiding in the wings plugged in a laying cover for the heart and soul of the stones ?for jagger/cohl to have perpetrated such a fraud is the highest crime to me against the hardpaying ticketbuying stones fans ever .also dont forget pierre overdubs on live licks cmon if thats not a kick in the face well you get my drift .personally i think it's keef that has pulled the proverbial plug on all of this (due to his arthrits).after all i think keef has pride and it's not all about the money to him as opposed to jagger/cohl whose primary objective is to bleed us to death .i admit that i am the first one guilty of paying these high ticket prices because the stones are my favorite band in the universe.

I would LOVE to hear Taylor play the SG songs, especially live. That album is a classic only relatively speaking. It's trashy and mindless, but it's fun. I have said before: Taylor could have made that album something it isn't ... musically interesting.

the greek has spoken...and although it's a big of a run-on paragraph, it rings true....

Quote
pmk251
I would LOVE to hear Taylor play the SG songs, especially live. That album is a classic only relatively speaking. It's trashy and mindless, but it's fun. I have said before: Taylor could have made that album something it isn't ... musically interesting.

I fully agree.

Quote
StonesTod
the greek has spoken...and although it's a big of a run-on paragraph, it rings true....

thank you kindly for your sincere endorsement.which ole buddy you KNOW i value your opinion !!!!

Quote
pmk251
I would LOVE to hear Taylor play the SG songs, especially live.

Yes i've said it before, why not replace Keith by Taylor? (at least for a final tour) It would be a very interresting surprise if we would get Wood and Taylor instead of an arthritis striken Keith, on stage and especially if they would only play stuff from the last 35 yrs, would be interresting for Taylor to play these songs with Ronnie and for the audience to hear.

Quote
behroez

Quote
71Tele
By that argument Britney Spears is better than the Stones because she has sold more records.

That was an expected response. We are not discussing the best of all but the best era of the STONES. Listen, there are different ways to define what is the best. One is what you like and get moved by, but that is personally biased and can be argued as being what YOU experience as being better and thus is SUBJECTIVE. So how do we get to an OBJECTIVE measurre of what is the best Stones era. One way to approach that quest is by sales, for that is beyond ones personal assesment and thus more OBJECTIVE. Look my subjective best is their 1967 European tour, but objectively their ABB tour is the best (it doesn't occur in my personal favorite list of tours, but here we are trying to get to an objective view of what is the best Stones era). Now the overwhelming evidence of their two best sold Stones studio albums belonging to the Wood era and their worldrecord breaking tours in both peoples attendance financial profit and favorable media reports, clearly makes a strong case in favor of the Wood era...OBJECTIVELY spoken that is.
Than we can say as Kleermaker does that the masses is wrong, but what our dear friend doesn't seem to realise is with this argument he is shooting in his own foot, because i can tell you right now that most people on THIS site consider the Taylor era the best and Exile their best album, so according to Kleermakers own instrument of meassuring, he himself belongs to the ignorant masses.
So what are we going to do now? Are we now going to say that what is technically most difficult to play is the best? Well, i can assure that there are componists of MODERN classical music (a contradiction in terms) whose composition's are so complicated and an absolute nightmare to play that whole orchestra's suddenly get striken with the flu and can't attend the performance. But does that make those composers of modern classical music better than, shall we say Mozart?
So in the absense of any better idea i would stick to the sales as a reasonable measurment for the best Stones era. Anyway from the Stones perspective themselves i'm sure (since it really is a business all else is fantasy) that they will agree that this has been their best era.

So you say the people on the IORR-site are comparable to "the masses"? Funny. I thought the people here are rather the experts as for Stonesmusic, in contrast to the masses outside IORR. So your argument falls in the water, as we in Holland use to say.

I strongly agree with you (well, well, the impossible actually is possible) that technical skills are not a decisive criterion at all as for great music. The capacity to move is. You'll call that subjective, and in a certain degree you're right, but not absolutely. The fact that you more and more got moved by SG instead of the Taylor-era music tells us something about your emotional development. It seems as if you are in your second youth. If that's not nostalgia I don't what is. Boy, it's even enviable!

Is there proof that Pierre overdubbed on Live Licks? Just curious. I find all this Keith can't play anymore and has other people covering for him damn depressing....

Quote
kleermaker
The fact that you more and more got moved by SG instead of the Taylor-era music tells us something about your emotional development. It seems as if you are in your second youth. If that's not nostalgia I don't what is. Boy, it's even enviable!

I learn something new about my self every day! I too generally prefer SG to most of the Taylor era music (with the exception of Exile). Am I in my second youth? Am I nostalgic?

C

Quote
liddas

Quote
kleermaker
The fact that you more and more got moved by SG instead of the Taylor-era music tells us something about your emotional development. It seems as if you are in your second youth. If that's not nostalgia I don't what is. Boy, it's even enviable!

I learn something new about my self every day! I too generally prefer SG to most of the Taylor era music (with the exception of Exile). Am I in my second youth? Am I nostalgic?

C

A severe midlife crisis I suppose. Take care!

Quote
behroez

Quote
pmk251
I would LOVE to hear Taylor play the SG songs, especially live.

Yes i've said it before, why not replace Keith by Taylor? (at least for a final tour) It would be a very interresting surprise if we would get Wood and Taylor instead of an arthritis striken Keith, on stage and especially if they would only play stuff from the last 35 yrs, would be interresting for Taylor to play these songs with Ronnie and for the audience to hear.

In all honesty thats quite a cruel mean thought,Keith cant help having Arthritis,and it would break his heart no matter how tough he thinks he is...I love Taylors playing but i wouldnt dream of such a thing.

Quote
ChrisM
Not to get off topic (too much) but did you know Rory MARS? I saw him in San Francisco in 1978. Lovely guy indeed...

No I didnt,but he was what we thought of as a bloody hard working class kinda guy and was very popular especially at university gigs(Which were good gigs in the early days),I have a compilation Lp and he is on it with one track "BLISTERS ON THE MOON" I always liked him a lot..a TASTY player.

Quote
MARSBAR

Quote
behroez

Quote
pmk251
I would LOVE to hear Taylor play the SG songs, especially live.

Yes i've said it before, why not replace Keith by Taylor? (at least for a final tour) It would be a very interresting surprise if we would get Wood and Taylor instead of an arthritis striken Keith, on stage and especially if they would only play stuff from the last 35 yrs, would be interresting for Taylor to play these songs with Ronnie and for the audience to hear.

In all honesty thats quite a cruel mean thought,Keith cant help having Arthritis,and it would break his heart no matter how tough he thinks he is...I love Taylors playing but i wouldnt dream of such a thing.

You guys should know by now that behroez is not serious, he just wants you to think he is.

Quote
MARSBAR
In all honesty thats quite a cruel mean thought,Keith cant help having Arthritis,and it would break his heart no matter how tough he thinks he is...I love Taylors playing but i wouldnt dream of such a thing.

Me thinks it to be more cruel to replace Woody with Taylor afterall Wood has been loyal to the Stones for 35 yrs now (unlike Taylor who just walked out before a tour). And really Keith wasn't so concerned about cruel when he ditched Brian when Brian couldn't function anymore, It is actually more cruel of Keith to hang on to and drag down the thing he claims to love if he can't live up to it anymore.