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

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.

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 left.

Quote
The Greek

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
The Greek

which Mozart opera ,don giovani, cosi fan tutti, the marriage of figaro ?

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.

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.

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 ?

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."

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 man

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).

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.

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.