Tell Me :  Talk
Talk about your favorite band. 

Previous page Next page First page IORR home

For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.

Goto Page: Previous123Next
Current Page: 2 of 3
Re: The real problem with Ronnie Wood.....
Posted by: dcba ()
Date: January 24, 2010 01:24

OT but I find Madonna and her "I may be 50 but I still rub my crotch in the face of the ppl at the front row" poses ridiculous...

Re: The real problem with Ronnie Wood.....
Posted by: stones_serb ()
Date: January 24, 2010 03:26

Yeah Madonna is a joke.It just goes to show that people nowadays don't care as much about music as they care about the spectacle, the feeling that they have just witnessed something larger than life.That's the key to Madonna's enduring popularity.With all the spectacle and dazzle The Stones are still the real thing even if they stick to playing the same old songs for ages.I wish they would take more chances but I'd still rather see them in concert than 99.9 percent of other bands.They are unique and Ronnie Wood is a major part of what makes them great.After all, the reason why I fell in love with The Stones are Jagger's vocals and Keith's and Ronnie's interplay.Only later did I discover the wonders of Mick Taylor.As great and legendary as Taylor may be I still think that Ronnie also deserves a lot of credit for his playing in the band



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-24 03:28 by stones_serb.

Re: The real problem with Ronnie Wood.....
Posted by: kleermaker ()
Date: January 24, 2010 04:00

Quote
stones_serb
Yeah Madonna is a joke.It just goes to show that people nowadays don't care as much about music as they care about the spectacle, the feeling that they have just witnessed something larger than life.That's the key to Madonna's enduring popularity.With all the spectacle and dazzle The Stones are still the real thing even if they stick to playing the same old songs for ages.I wish they would take more chances but I'd still rather see them in concert than 99.9 percent of other bands.They are unique and Ronnie Wood is a major part of what makes them great.After all, the reason why I fell in love with The Stones are Jagger's vocals and Keith's and Ronnie's interplay.Only later did I discover the wonders of Mick Taylor.As great and legendary as Taylor may be I still think that Ronnie also deserves a lot of credit for his playing in the band

I agree a great deal with you. But let's not forget that Richards and Taylor also did a lot of interplay, what some of us call 'weaving'. But the combination T/R was much more exciting and thrilling than the duo W/R. Besides, Taylor didn't only play isolated soli, but he also soloed through whole songs, while Keith laid a solid basis or even counterpointed with T: each playing a different melody.

Re: The real problem with Ronnie Wood.....
Posted by: 71Tele ()
Date: January 24, 2010 04:25

Quote
kleermaker
Quote
stones_serb
Yeah Madonna is a joke.It just goes to show that people nowadays don't care as much about music as they care about the spectacle, the feeling that they have just witnessed something larger than life.That's the key to Madonna's enduring popularity.With all the spectacle and dazzle The Stones are still the real thing even if they stick to playing the same old songs for ages.I wish they would take more chances but I'd still rather see them in concert than 99.9 percent of other bands.They are unique and Ronnie Wood is a major part of what makes them great.After all, the reason why I fell in love with The Stones are Jagger's vocals and Keith's and Ronnie's interplay.Only later did I discover the wonders of Mick Taylor.As great and legendary as Taylor may be I still think that Ronnie also deserves a lot of credit for his playing in the band

I agree a great deal with you. But let's not forget that Richards and Taylor also did a lot of interplay, what some of us call 'weaving'. But the combination T/R was much more exciting and thrilling than the duo W/R. Besides, Taylor didn't only play isolated soli, but he also soloed through whole songs, while Keith laid a solid basis or even counterpointed with T: each playing a different melody.

Best weaving ever was NOT Keith and Ron. It was Keith and Taylor in 1969 (Satisfaction, I'm Free, the Berry tunes, SFTD, etc.) And the PRIMAL weaving song was the original Honky Tonk Women. Quite a debut for young Mr. Taylor! I spent countless hours in my youth listening to that wonderful guitar interplay and trying to pick up all the transitions. True, they later went to more of a rhythm/lead structure, but the "weaving" business with Keith and Ron was mostly a myth perpetuated by the two of them.

Re: The real problem with Ronnie Wood.....
Posted by: stones_serb ()
Date: January 24, 2010 04:39

I agree with you guys.Mick's and Keith chemistry was amazing and Ronnie and Keith would never be able to recapture that magic but their interplay was great on its own merits.It's almost like apples and oranges.Mick T and Keith are different types of guitarists, almost the opposites of each other, while Ronnie and Keith are made of the same cloth.That's why The Stone's guitar sound became more homogeneous when Ronnie joined.They lacked the tension that Mick T's and Keith's guitars created due to their different styles of playing.However as I am getting acquainted with Ronnie's work outside the band the more I appreciate him as a musician.Mick Taylor could never record albums as great as I've got my own album to do and Now Look even if I'd take him over Ronnie as the lead guitarist any day.

Re: The real problem with Ronnie Wood.....
Posted by: 71Tele ()
Date: January 24, 2010 04:43

<< They lacked the tension that Mick T's and Keith's guitars created due to their different styles of playing. >>

That's a really good way of putting it. There was a tension there with Mick T. and Keith. With Ron, the tension relaxed into more of a party vibe. I liked the tension.

Re: The real problem with Ronnie Wood.....
Posted by: kleermaker ()
Date: January 24, 2010 04:43

Listen to Midnight rambler, London empire pool, 1973 Sept. 9, especially the slow part. Just an example of the perfect interplay between K en MT. So they did it still in 1973.

Re: The real problem with Ronnie Wood.....
Posted by: Anonymous User ()
Date: January 25, 2010 20:59

Quote
kleermaker
behroez, a very interesting argument, but not convincing to me. Let's go much more further back in the past. Do you know the name W.A. Mozart? I bet you do. He didn't have to re-invent himself to attract still today a mass public, even though classical music is such a class-bound and 'elitist' form of music (I mean the public of course, not the music itself). I have attended the great Mozart operas and the Requiem and believe me, it's still stunning music. It blows you emotionally of your feet. For example, my wife didn't know Mozart's music at all and she was not familiar with classical music either. Until we went to one of his great operas. She was totally shocked, in a positive way. She found it simply sensational. That music is more than 200 years old but is still as fresh as a new born baby. So the Stones need to do what they are good at. Not trying to be trendy like Madonna, to attract a younger public that will vanish in the air after a short period of time.

Believe me, after 200 years nobody will know the name or music of Madonna, but many people will still listen to The Rolling Stones from the early years on until ... Taylor leftspinning smiley sticking its tongue out.
which Mozart opera ,don giovani, cosi fan tutti, the marriage of figaro ?

Re: The real problem with Ronnie Wood.....
Posted by: kleermaker ()
Date: January 25, 2010 21:32

Quote
The Greek
which Mozart opera ,don giovani, cosi fan tutti, the marriage of figaro ?[/quote]

The first one with my wife: Cosi fan tutte (all women are doing so).Then Don Giovanni and February 3 this year Le nozze di Figaro (Figaro's marriage) in Amsterdam.

Re: The real problem with Ronnie Wood.....
Posted by: Anonymous User ()
Date: January 25, 2010 22:59

Quote
kleermaker
Quote
The Greek
which Mozart opera ,don giovani, cosi fan tutti, the marriage of figaro ?

The first one with my wife: Cosi fan tutte (all women are doing so).Then Don Giovanni and February 3 this year Le nozze di Figaro (Figaro's marriage) in Amsterdam.[/quote] very good .which co ?

Re: The real problem with Ronnie Wood.....
Posted by: Anonymous User ()
Date: January 25, 2010 23:36

He should have helped the Stones in'76 cause Taylor quit, then leave,and go for himself.

Re: The real problem with Ronnie Wood.....
Posted by: MARSBAR ()
Date: January 25, 2010 23:47

Quote
behroez
Quote
tomcat2006
The real problem with the Stones.... is Keith. (Sorry but true).

SPOT ON!!!!! And don't be sorry.
Look at Madonna (Madonna???, yes, Madonna), she's 50 or so now isn't she? Yet she is still cracking the charts and collecting fresh young fans to her league. What did the Stones do when they were 50? Yes they still top the charts with every studio album in some European countries, but they hardly attrack young fans. I mean look at this site! All old folks dreaming about their youth and how good the (Stones) music was......back than (there is a name for it). So what does Madonna do that the Stones didn't? Well, she is capable of RE-INVENTING herself. And if you think of it, everytime the Stones re-invented themselves they surprised everyone and made a classic (the R&B cover time, the Barock & roll Aftermath thing, the psychedelic thing, Beggars and the early 70's and than again with Some girls), but it sort of stopped after the beginning 80's, they still make fantastic albums but it's not surprising anymore and thus haven't become classics. And the problem in it is Keith, it really is, there is this beautifull clip of Rain come Down on the threat of the worst ever performance (ironically because it is bloody good), what is striking is to see the brilliant bass solo of Darryll and the funky guitar riff by Mick Jagger NOT Keith! It is Mick that is still open for re-inventing the Stones, as he had proofed with Harlem Shuffle (the last great Stones hit) and before that with Undercover, but it's Keith that wants to continue doing this riff thing. And ofcourse Keith was the riff master but how much riff can you do 40 yrs on without becoming predictable? Let alone Keith's arthritis. And don't you think that Ron Wood's Hey Negrita is one of the best Stones riffs anyway of the last 35 yrs? Why do the Stones listen to their crumpy old fans and try to re-enact the early 70's? (most songs from the ABB tour were from Taylor's time), those old folks will never be satisfied anyway even if you manage to transpport them back to Brusseles 1973, they will still find something to complain about. If Madonna would have listened to her fans she would still be doing a kind of Like a Vigin thing jumping around with that ridiculiuos early 80's hairstyle, and that brilliant Justify My Love which is so different to Like a Virgin would never had seen the light of day. So what did she do? She got herself new producers and new songwriters telling them to forget what she did before and come with something new and surprising, and she did. Why do the Stones not learn from their colleages? Do what she did re-invent yourself get new people into the composing, new producers and do what Pink Floyd did, drop your main man that can't function anymore and go on with a total new line-up. The only blocker is Keith! The rebel Jagger re-invented himself as sir Jagger the unstoppable health freak and master performer, entertainer, but Keith is still pretending to be mr D.....????? Come on. Don't you think there would more come out of Wood and Taylor working together than today's fossilised Keith and Taylor? Wood has really written some good songs for his solo albums didn't that petition for some fine Taylor bluesy solo's, Mick's voice and Darryl's funky bass more to the forground and a good producer to orchestrate it all into something less rock but more funky with Leavell's organ, Keys copper and Fowler's etcback-up vocals? I would think so.
Old folks dreaming about their youth and old Stones music is what this site is.hey!!thats me...but it sure as hell beats talking about Madonna...Pink Floyd dropped their main man???and was that?

Re: The real problem with Ronnie Wood.....
Posted by: jamesjagger ()
Date: January 26, 2010 00:03

Ronnie is embarassing and has always been but no one can top Madonna. Poor girl.

Re: The real problem with Ronnie Wood.....
Posted by: kleermaker ()
Date: January 26, 2010 00:32

Quote
The Greek
Quote
kleermaker
Quote
The Greek
which Mozart opera ,don giovani, cosi fan tutti, the marriage of figaro ?

The first one with my wife: Cosi fan tutte (all women are doing so).Then Don Giovanni and February 3 this year Le nozze di Figaro (Figaro's marriage) in Amsterdam.
very good .which co ?[/quote]

[www.hetmuziektheater.nl]

I'm sure the Taylorists also love Mozart's great operaswinking smiley

Greek, my wife loved especially the second act of Cosi fan tutte, maybe the most dramatic music ever written.

Re: The real problem with Ronnie Wood.....
Date: January 26, 2010 09:51

<Look at Madonna (Madonna???, yes, Madonna), she's 50 or so now isn't she? Yet she is still cracking the charts and collecting fresh young fans to her league.>

According to her live singing, she sounds like she's 70 winking smiley

Re: The real problem with Ronnie Wood.....
Posted by: Anonymous User ()
Date: January 26, 2010 15:35

Quote
kleermaker
Quote
The Greek
Quote
kleermaker
Quote
The Greek
which Mozart opera ,don giovani, cosi fan tutti, the marriage of figaro ?

The first one with my wife: Cosi fan tutte (all women are doing so).Then Don Giovanni and February 3 this year Le nozze di Figaro (Figaro's marriage) in Amsterdam.
very good .which co ?

[www.hetmuziektheater.nl]

I'm sure the Taylorists also love Mozart's great operaswinking smiley

Greek, my wife loved especially the second act of Cosi fan tutte, maybe the most dramatic music ever written.[/quote] very cool ,good taste .

Re: The real problem with Ronnie Wood.....
Posted by: JumpingKentFlash ()
Date: January 26, 2010 15:59

Note: There's a difference between "interplay" and "weaving". The Richards/Taylor team did the first, while the Richards/Wood team did the latter. The original idea with the Stones was meshing guitars, and then you go with Woody. Not Taylor. He was not so much a team player, and that's why I never understood that Keith told Eric Clapton that he wasn't picked for the Stones, because of his inability to be a team player. They chose another one just like him. Always found that statement a tad strange, although out of Taylor and Eric, Taylor was probably the right way to go at the time.

JumpingKentFlash

Re: The real problem with Ronnie Wood.....
Date: January 26, 2010 16:13

<that's why I never understood that Keith told Eric Clapton that he wasn't picked for the Stones, because of his inability to be a team player. They chose another one just like him. Always found that statement a tad strange, although out of Taylor and Eric, Taylor was probably the right way to go at the time.>

Taylor was young and relatively unknown. Maybe they thought they could make him a team player, I dunno... Would have been impossible with Clapton, who can't play rhythm either.

Re: The real problem with Ronnie Wood.....
Posted by: kleermaker ()
Date: January 26, 2010 16:59

So you guys think that all Stones have to be teamplayers? Like Jagger, I guess? Weaving is a nice word for noise and chaos. Interplay is making music. That's what a great band is supposed to do and nothing else. Thanks to Taylor they could do that, before and after him they couldn't. Remember, in Jones' days the audience came to scream and make noise itself, not to listen to the Stones. But later on, when other live bands appeared on the scene, people began to listen to the music. With Taylor the Stones produced music, even great music. After Taylor it was Jagger showtime. A big penis (gosh, he's sooo sexy!), flying through the air (sensational!), running from one corner of the catwalk to the other (Lord, can he run, what an athlete our Mickie is, look at that body!), fireworks (oooh, aaaah!), big masses in enormous stadiums (isn't it cosy, we all love Mick, and Keef is so cool and Ronny is so funny!).

Taylor had more live experience than all Stones together when he joined. He had toured with John Mayall and the Bluesbreakers. Do you think he played with Mayall while not being a team player? But like in football you have the guys who have to do the dirty work and you have the guys who make football attractive. Like Pele, Cruyff, Platini, Maradonna, Zidane and only a handful others. But they were all great teamplayers as well, just like Taylor was. But they were very special teamplayers, key figures in their team, not supposed to 'weave' but to use their exceptional talent in the interest of the whole team.

Btw: in the first years Richards took the solo parts and you can still listen to them when you put on your old CD's. He did so from the very beginning, Jones sometimes playing slide. All that crap about that so called 'weaving'. Sounds nice, means nothing at all and is boring like hell.

And when UrbanSteel says: "Ronnie is good, damn good!" and he lets us hear a solo by Ronnie, what do you 'weave guys' then say? I guess something like: "Ronnie is damn good indeed, Urban, but not because of that bad solo which is also so against the teamspirit, but because he's the best man to weave with Keef, the best (rhythm)guitar player of the world. So we agree with you, Urban, but for other reasons."

Re: The real problem with Ronnie Wood.....
Date: January 26, 2010 17:07

Quote
kleermaker
So you guys think that all Stones have to be teamplayers? Like Jagger, I guess? Weaving is a nice word for noise and chaos. Interplay is making music. That's what a great band is supposed to do and nothing else. Thanks to Taylor they could do that, before and after him they couldn't. Remember, in Jones' days the audience came to scream and make noise itself, not to listen to the Stones. But later on, when other live bands appeared on the scene, people began to listen to the music. With Taylor the Stones produced music, even great music. After Taylor it was Jagger showtime. A big penis (gosh, he's sooo sexy!), flying through the air (sensational!), running from one corner of the catwalk to the other (Lord, can he run, what an athlete our Mickie is, look at that body!), fireworks (oooh, aaaah!), big masses in enormous stadiums (isn't it cosy, we all love Mick, and Keef is so cool and Ronny is so funny!).

Taylor had more live experience than all Stones together when he joined. He had toured with John Mayall and the Bluesbreakers. Do you think he played with Mayall while not being a team player? But like in football you have the guys who have to do the dirty work and you have the guys who make football attractive. Like Pele, Cruyff, Platini, Maradonna, Zidane and only a handful others. But they were all great teamplayers as well, just like Taylor was. But they were very special teamplayers, key figures in their team, not supposed to 'weave' but to use their exceptional talent in the interest of the whole team.

Btw: in the first years Richards took the solo parts and you can still listen to them when you put on your old CD's. He did so from the very beginning, Jones sometimes playing slide. All that crap about that so called 'weaving'. Sounds nice, means nothing at all and is boring like hell.

And when UrbanSteel says: "Ronnie is good, damn good!" and he lets us hear a solo by Ronnie, what do you 'weave guys' then say? I guess something like: "Ronnie is damn good indeed, Urban, but not because of that bad solo which is also so against the teamspirit, but because he's the best man to weave with Keef, the best (rhythm)guitar player of the world. So we agree with you, Urban, but for other reasons."

This is a post of a fanatic, imo.

If you can't appreciate all the fantastic moments WITH brian, taylor and Wood, why bother being at this forum? No need to drag what other fans love down in the dirt.

Then the "facts": Taylor had more live experience than all Stones together? Bollocks.

If Keith thinks the band reaches its peak with weaving guitar playing, why question him? It's like questioning Bill Gates w "u could have made more money THAT way". The results speak for themselves.

<So you guys think that all Stones have to be teamplayers? Like Jagger, I guess?>

That was my point, exactly. They have big egos, and maybe they thought Taylor would do as he was told, compared to i.e. Clapton etc.

Re: The real problem with Ronnie Wood.....
Posted by: kleermaker ()
Date: January 26, 2010 17:19

I thought it was a nice piece of irony with a grain of sarcasm. But one feels that or not. Sorry if I did hurt your feelings. But there's also a saying: If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. Sometimes, when Taylor is critized I have to stand the heat too. Like a real manwinking smiley

PS: I didn't say that I can't appreciate all the fantastic moments with Brian. Don't know of fantastic moments with Wood. Never heard them. Must be my fault, because Keith is like the Pope: infallible. One doesn't question the roman catholic Pope nor the Pope of pop (sorry, of rock).

Re: The real problem with Ronnie Wood.....
Date: January 26, 2010 17:27

smileys with beer
Quote
kleermaker
I thought it was a nice piece of irony with a grain of sarcasm. But one feels that or not. Sorry if I did hurt your feelings. But there's also a saying: If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. Sometimes, when Taylor is critized I have to stand the heat too. Like a real manwinking smiley

PS: I didn't say that I can't appreciate all the fantastic moments with Brian. Don't know of fantastic moments with Wood. Never heard them. Must be my fault, because Keith is like the Pope: infallible. One doesn't question the roman catholic Pope nor the Pope of pop (sorry, of rock).

It's just that it's been so much Taylor vs. Wood here lately, and eventually I got sick of it smiling smiley

When re-reading your post I get it. Quite good, actually smileys with beer



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-26 17:27 by DandelionPowderman.

Re: The real problem with Ronnie Wood.....
Posted by: kleermaker ()
Date: January 26, 2010 17:40

In the other thread about Ron Wood (the UrbanSteel thread) a more interesting analysis evolved from the issue Taylor versus Wood, so that there could even raise some agreement between the Taylorists and the Woodyists.

Glad you got me right by re-reading. Cheers!

Re: The real problem with Ronnie Wood.....
Posted by: chelskeith ()
Date: January 26, 2010 18:00

Madonna?

Rot.

Re: The real problem with Ronnie Wood.....
Posted by: Doxa ()
Date: January 26, 2010 18:45

Quote
behroez
Quote
tomcat2006
The real problem with the Stones.... is Keith. (Sorry but true).

SPOT ON!!!!! And don't be sorry.
Look at Madonna (Madonna???, yes, Madonna), she's 50 or so now isn't she? Yet she is still cracking the charts and collecting fresh young fans to her league. What did the Stones do when they were 50? Yes they still top the charts with every studio album in some European countries, but they hardly attrack young fans. I mean look at this site! All old folks dreaming about their youth and how good the (Stones) music was......back than (there is a name for it). So what does Madonna do that the Stones didn't? Well, she is capable of RE-INVENTING herself. And if you think of it, everytime the Stones re-invented themselves they surprised everyone and made a classic (the R&B cover time, the Barock & roll Aftermath thing, the psychedelic thing, Beggars and the early 70's and than again with Some girls), but it sort of stopped after the beginning 80's, they still make fantastic albums but it's not surprising anymore and thus haven't become classics. And the problem in it is Keith, it really is, there is this beautifull clip of Rain come Down on the threat of the worst ever performance (ironically because it is bloody good), what is striking is to see the brilliant bass solo of Darryll and the funky guitar riff by Mick Jagger NOT Keith! It is Mick that is still open for re-inventing the Stones, as he had proofed with Harlem Shuffle (the last great Stones hit) and before that with Undercover, but it's Keith that wants to continue doing this riff thing. And ofcourse Keith was the riff master but how much riff can you do 40 yrs on without becoming predictable? Let alone Keith's arthritis. And don't you think that Ron Wood's Hey Negrita is one of the best Stones riffs anyway of the last 35 yrs? Why do the Stones listen to their crumpy old fans and try to re-enact the early 70's? (most songs from the ABB tour were from Taylor's time), those old folks will never be satisfied anyway even if you manage to transpport them back to Brusseles 1973, they will still find something to complain about. If Madonna would have listened to her fans she would still be doing a kind of Like a Vigin thing jumping around with that ridiculiuos early 80's hairstyle, and that brilliant Justify My Love which is so different to Like a Virgin would never had seen the light of day. So what did she do? She got herself new producers and new songwriters telling them to forget what she did before and come with something new and surprising, and she did. Why do the Stones not learn from their colleages? Do what she did re-invent yourself get new people into the composing, new producers and do what Pink Floyd did, drop your main man that can't function anymore and go on with a total new line-up. The only blocker is Keith! The rebel Jagger re-invented himself as sir Jagger the unstoppable health freak and master performer, entertainer, but Keith is still pretending to be mr D.....????? Come on. Don't you think there would more come out of Wood and Taylor working together than today's fossilised Keith and Taylor? Wood has really written some good songs for his solo albums didn't that petition for some fine Taylor bluesy solo's, Mick's voice and Darryl's funky bass more to the forground and a good producer to orchestrate it all into something less rock but more funky with Leavell's organ, Keys copper and Fowler's etcback-up vocals? I would think so.

Interesting, a bit controversial claims here. Partly I agree, but I think the target is wrong. Keith has always been musically quite conservative - the whole history of the Stones have been the tension between Keith's drive for 'authenticity' and Mick's for being trendy. I think all we can blame Keith is that he has lost his muse, being not active enough, but that's all.

The truth that why The Stones turned out to be a static, nostalgy act is Mick Jagger. Mick totally lost his sense of being convincingly trendy in the 80's. For a long time I have claimed here that Jagger never survived the 80's, and I still hold that. The Madonna comparison is a good one. Jagger created a same kind of healthy aerobic image like Madonna back in the 80's - as when it was really trendy - but unlike Madonna Mick hasn't been able to re-invent himself ever since. He has been the same 'peter pan' figure, doing the same old song, the same forced 'aerobic' movemennts and stage manouvers ever since he got the Stones back on the road. One can even ask that does he have the same pair of trousers and hair cut (wig?) since 1994?

Musically he hasn't brought anything to the musical vocabulary of the Stones. His last creative output - when a sort of muse was still motivating him - was PRIMITIVE COOL. But because it turned out to be such a fiasco in Jaggerian terms, the guy seemingly lost all the balls and been a total chicken ever since as far as any musical risky taking or re-iventing oneself goes. He changed the Stones a total safe and sure nostalgy act aimed for a wealthy big boomers, cemented its legacy, and just keeps tryng to milk any cent he can out of it. Even his next solo album WANDERING SPIRIT was a safe and sure retro album - to please The Stones fans. His next and the last so far, GODDESS - where he dared to sound as by his own, by his own terms without desperately trying to conquer the charts and teenage hearts - showed that Mick's totally out of time in stylewise, creatively his intuition and taste seems to remain in the 80's; GODDESS was nothing but PRIMITIVE COOL take two.

At the same time, the only sign of extending the musical range of the Stones comes from his twin-brother. Keith's ballads has been the only sign of a new kind of Stones, of different approach and style, you know, like re-inventing themselves, from the 90's on. Unfortunately Keith seemed to be so out of creative juice for a decade or something that there is not much to tell in this section either. But it is better than nothing.

Don't blame Keith, blame the guy who supposed to kick the band ahead. That guy has run out of gas for some 20 years now. He's the boss.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-26 18:59 by Doxa.

Re: The real problem with Ronnie Wood.....
Posted by: ablett ()
Date: January 26, 2010 19:14

"This is a post of a fanatic, imo.

If you can't appreciate all the fantastic moments WITH brian, taylor and Wood, why bother being at this forum? No need to drag what other fans love down in the dirt.

Then the "facts": Taylor had more live experience than all Stones together? Bollocks.

If Keith thinks the band reaches its peak with weaving guitar playing, why question him? It's like questioning Bill Gates w "u could have made more money THAT way". The results speak for themselves.

<So you guys think that all Stones have to be teamplayers? Like Jagger, I guess?>

That was my point, exactly. They have big egos, and maybe they thought Taylor would do as he was told, compared to i.e. Clapton etc."



Great post! Says it all.....

Re: The real problem with Ronnie Wood.....
Posted by: kleermaker ()
Date: January 26, 2010 20:04

Doxa, well said! I even would say: that guy has run out of gas since the beginning of the seventies, when he desperately began to imitate David Bowie and Lou Reed, by using too much make up, by that androgynous outfit and behaviour: "Pleased to meet you, hope you guess my name". In other words: please acknowledge me, I'm still THE Mick Jagger. During the 69 tour he accented his singing, afterwards the accent went more and more to dancing and it ended up by jumping around like he had invented some new kind of gymnastics. All at the detriment of his singing, which one hardly could call singing anymore: just uttering words in between the panting. We know that Mick always wanted to be an actor and he became one, even on stage with the Stones. He began to overact, already during the 1973 tour. The music went steadily down to the second place. It wouldn't surprise me if that fact was one of the reasons Taylor quit: he wanted to make music. He found himself caught between the conservative, Berryist Keith and the overtrendy Mick. He felt the musical creativity fade away at that time.

The whole paradoxal thing is that in the end Mick has turned out te be the conservative (always almost the same old setlist, back to performances like on the albums, so called stripped music) while Keith still could produce some ballad music that had some originality in it. In the meanwhile it was not Taylor but Wood who found himself caught between the struggling giants. He had to please his 'mate' Keith and to keep the favours of Jagger at the same time, who also tried to (mis)use Wood when it was opportune to him. Some have interpreted that situation as if Wood used his 'great social skills' to save the relationship between Keith and Mick. But that was not the case. They both used him and I doubt if Wood himself has ever understood in which position he was. A fatal one, and many have said here that his playing with the Faces was so much better. I guess there's a link.

I've said it before, but in a somewhat other context, that it's not Ron Wood who is to blame, but the famous Glimmers. They've always tried to control the band and therefore they couldn't afford to fight too hard. So they needed someone as some kind of lightning rod. That's not a very enviable rol to play. So I understand those who say that Ron saved the band. But what he actually and unconsciously did was 'helping' to endure the stalemate. In a well functioning band you see a dialectic process: thesis, antithesis and finally a fruitful synthesis. That's what the Stones had in their best years, especially with Taylor in the band. But unfortunately the Glimmers weren't able to continue that dialectic process. Instead stagnation ruled and that is what I see as the heart of the matter concerning the history of the Stones since 1974, rather than the need to re-invent. I don't believe in re-inventing, but in development and dialectic evolution. Take a look at the great composers and you recognize that phenomenon.

Re: The real problem with Ronnie Wood.....
Posted by: 71Tele ()
Date: January 26, 2010 23:49

<< If Keith thinks the band reaches its peak with weaving guitar playing, why question him? It's like questioning Bill Gates w "u could have made more money THAT way". The results speak for themselves. >>

Because Keith has all sorts of agendas as to why he would say that. Fans, musicians and the public are qualified to judge to varying degrees. I certainly would agree with you about the results speaking for themselves, though not in the way you mean.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-26 23:50 by 71Tele.

Re: The real problem with Ronnie Wood.....
Posted by: MARSBAR ()
Date: January 27, 2010 00:46

Quote
kleermaker
Doxa, well said! I even would say: that guy has run out of gas since the beginning of the seventies, when he desperately began to imitate David Bowie and Lou Reed, by using too much make up, by that androgynous outfit and behaviour: "Pleased to meet you, hope you guess my name". In other words: please acknowledge me, I'm still THE Mick Jagger. During the 69 tour he accented his singing, afterwards the accent went more and more to dancing and it ended up by jumping around like he had invented some new kind of gymnastics. All at the detriment of his singing, which one hardly could call singing anymore: just uttering words in between the panting. We know that Mick always wanted to be an actor and he became one, even on stage with the Stones. He began to overact, already during the 1973 tour. The music went steadily down to the second place. It wouldn't surprise me if that fact was one of the reasons Taylor quit: he wanted to make music. He found himself caught between the conservative, Berryist Keith and the overtrendy Mick. He felt the musical creativity fade away at that time.

The whole paradoxal thing is that in the end Mick has turned out te be the conservative (always almost the same old setlist, back to performances like on the albums, so called stripped music) while Keith still could produce some ballad music that had some originality in it. In the meanwhile it was not Taylor but Wood who found himself caught between the struggling giants. He had to please his 'mate' Keith and to keep the favours of Jagger at the same time, who also tried to (mis)use Wood when it was opportune to him. Some have interpreted that situation as if Wood used his 'great social skills' to save the relationship between Keith and Mick. But that was not the case. They both used him and I doubt if Wood himself has ever understood in which position he was. A fatal one, and many have said here that his playing with the Faces was so much better. I guess there's a link.

I've said it before, but in a somewhat other context, that it's not Ron Wood who is to blame, but the famous Glimmers. They've always tried to control the band and therefore they couldn't afford to fight too hard. So they needed someone as some kind of lightning rod. That's not a very enviable rol to play. So I understand those who say that Ron saved the band. But what he actually and unconsciously did was 'helping' to endure the stalemate. In a well functioning band you see a dialectic process: thesis, antithesis and finally a fruitful synthesis. That's what the Stones had in their best years, especially with Taylor in the band. But unfortunately the Glimmers weren't able to continue that dialectic process. Instead stagnation ruled and that is what I see as the heart of the matter concerning the history of the Stones since 1974, rather than the need to re-invent. I don't believe in re-inventing, but in development and dialectic evolution. Take a look at the great composers and you recognize that phenomenon.
Jeezus!!!!!!!!!YOU really just dont get it do you!!!!!!!!What a load of verbal bloody analytical crap,you wouldnt understand Rock & roll if it ran you over.Why dont you people just listen to music and Musicians and STOP dissecting(sp) it.

Re: The real problem with Ronnie Wood.....
Posted by: behroez ()
Date: January 27, 2010 00:58

There is nothing wrong with Ronnie, he's just great (and so is Jagger), enjoy this and see for yourself.







Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-27 01:03 by behroez.

Goto Page: Previous123Next
Current Page: 2 of 3


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 511
Record Number of Users: 206 on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests: 6295 on November 30, 2021 14:09

Previous page Next page First page IORR home