For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
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.
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?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.
Quote
ChrisMIs 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?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.
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.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
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 RORYQuote
ChrisMMathijs 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.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
Quote
ablett
Phew!! thank the lord for that, I can sleep tight now my friend......
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
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....
Quote
MARSBARRory 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 RORYQuote
ChrisMMathijs 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.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
Quote
71Tele
By that argument Britney Spears is better than the Stones because she has sold more records.
Quote
behroezQuote
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.
Quote
shortfatfannyQuote
MARSBARRory 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 RORYQuote
ChrisMMathijs 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.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
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
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.
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.
thank you kindly for your sincere endorsement.which ole buddy you KNOW i value your opinion !!!!Quote
StonesTod
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.
Quote
behroezQuote
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.
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!
Quote
liddasQuote
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
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
behroezQuote
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.
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
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...
Quote
MARSBARIn 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
behroezQuote
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
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.