Tell Me :
Talk
You think wrongly. No way Ronnie was a less skilled player than MT.
Two different styles. But two very very personal musicians. Hard to beat both.
C
Weaving schmeaving. Best guitar interplay was '69. The later mythical "weaving" with Keith and Ronnie was a description of two guitars producing a chaotic mishmash...Glyn Johns is a wise man.
Listen to '69 Satisfaction. The guitars are "weaving" all right, but each has a distinct purpose and each plays off the other but never steps over him. They are having a conversation.
Two different styles, yes.
I opine that it takes more skill to produce Taylor's tone and fluidity than Ronnie's jittery, jaunty patterns.
Mick Taylor has said it took him years of practice (starting from a young age) to achieve what he was aiming at. He aimed high too - he has said that he was aiming at a seemless flowing sound - like a Coltrane sax - in a Blues context.
I get the feeling with Wood (and from things I've read) that he wanted to get in a band and have some fun playing his guitar.
I like Ronnie's style - unique - but I don't think it required the same degree of dedication or the same amount of skill to produce his his 'twangy', 'bendy' sound. I think it's just the best way he could find of expressing himself. It' a bit 'hit and miss' a lot of the time and requires less discipline. Can be great fun though - and imo found its best, brilliant expression in a Faces' context.
I think I prefer Ron's appraoch to bass playing in a Stones' context though!
I give Ronnie points for that bass part on Emotional Rescue. Very creative.
Personally, I like your posts and ideas, Kleermaker. But regarding the forum policy, I´m just giving you advice what would happen it one stretch it too far here with the Taylor/Wood debate...
i think the best and earliest example (in stereo) of true weaving got to be I Got The Blues
Keith plays both of the weaving guitars on the album version, no?
Yes. Break The Spell, Winning Ugly .... loads of other examples.
Mick Taylor did the F File bass pattern - which is fantastic - but I prefer Ronnie's live interpretation of it on Love You Live.
Ofcourse, Ronnie gained a reputation as a bassist a (fair) few years before he gained one (in the Faces) as a guitarist.
wouldn't think so, classic sounds of both guitarists
Indeed Straycat, though I miss the true MT-bluesguitar on this one. Great song though. A better performance imo on the 71 Marquee boot, whereon Taylor twice plays a very short but very bluesy solo. Always been sorry that they never played it live (except Marquee 71) in the way they played Love in vain (not their own song) so often.
Why the need to especially warning me, Dandelion? I've read the rules and I think I haven't broken them. But if you think I did, please let me know concretely which post of mine broke which rule. Here are the rules (the only official ones that have to be followed): [www.iorr.org]. My posts are easy to find.
Do you really think I broke the rules while no one else did, since I begun to post here? I would like to know that, provided you base your opinion soundly. Thanks in advance.
personally i like to talk about ALL the stones members. can't see why we can't talk about MT AND mr Wood and compare them at the same time, they are both guitarists . no need to insult anyone or any one.
it is unbelievable though how much abuse a bonafide rolling stone like MT gets, what has he done wrong??
just agree to disagree.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-30 17:56 by straycatblues73.
I referred to Mozart's string quartets because I mentioned the counterpoint that K en MT produced, especially during the 73 tour. That's why MT fitted so well.
Let me try to explain it while using the words of 71Tele, a man who says it always much better than I can. He said this: (quote 71Tele):
"Weaving schmeaving. Best guitar interplay was '69. The later mythical "weaving" with Keith and Ronnie was a description of two guitars producing a chaotic mishmash...Glyn Johns is a wise man.
Listen to '69 Satisfaction. The guitars are "weaving" all right, but each has a distinct purpose and each plays off the other but never steps over him. They are having a conversation." End of quote
They are having a conversation, and that's exactly what you hear when you listen to those string quartets. MT and K had it imo always when they played together, sometimes more, sometimes less. In songs as Midnight rambler, Gimme shelter etc. you can hear that very clearly. "Having a conversation", telling a story, those are essential parts of music, wether it concerns Mozart or the Rolling Stones.
Btw Mozart rocks. Go to one of his great operas and you'll experience it.
"Wolfgang's vaults". No coincidence, the name of Wolfgang.
Suffice to say we disagree...
Again, this is not a musical argument and we are not reviewing a comedy troupe. But I understand (as I have said before) that Ronnie is preferred by many for reasons that have nothing to do with musicianship. I don't think Ronnie is funny, by the way, unless you consider borderline-pathetic "funny". His sidekick role with Keith in fact diminished him as a musician and a person. It is rather sad. But many people enyoy the Ronnie Wood Show, I certainly acknowledge that.
Not to be funny or anything, but the collection of merchandise and live music you are referring to is named for Wolodia Grajonca - to most people he is known as Bill Graham, the famous concert promoter.
In his early years Grajonca, who was growing up in an orphanage in Berlin, got the nickname Wolfgang. Wolodia's family were Jewish Russians who had emigrated to Germany and his mother placed him in the orphanage to escape from the nazis.
His father died 2 days after his birth. Grajonca had many siblings but only a few survived the holocaust. His mother was killed in Auschwitz.
Grajonca ended up living in a foster home in the Bronx, New York. He got bullied because of his German accent. He opened the phone book and checked which name would have come right next to his family name: Graham.
During his career in the music business, Bill Graham built up a vast collection of vintage concert posters, memorabilia, and audio recordings.
After he was killed in a helicopter crash in 1991 in California, Bill Graham's Archives were bought by Bill Sagan (an insurance company CEO) and formed the basis for "Wolfgang's vault", worth millions of dollars now.
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-30 21:38 by Lightnin'.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Mick Taylor
Posted by:
MARSBAR
()
Date: January 29, 2010 20:56
ye!thats a fair enough statement..well said.Quote
Edward Twining
I think the problem is when you reach such enormous highs and you are so very rightly regarded by many to be the 'greatest rock 'n' roll band in the world', it is a great deal further to fall, which is pretty much what has happened with the Stones, although realistically it has been a good thirty odd years since they truly deserved that title. Without meaning to sound too negative, slew, it has also been a good thirty odd years since Mick and Keith lost the consistency of their songwriting/arranging muse, not the last 5 or 6 years as you inferred. However, you are essentially right, the Stones have never really matured significantly in their subject matter - they have never really sang about more mature, intimate or political subjects, certainly not to any great degree, and the sex and drugs and rock 'n' roll subject matter does tend to seem a little insincere once the realisation comes that the Stones are now of pensionable age. Keith has to a point matured within the type of ballads he has been singing in more recent times, even if overall he still lacks the muse which was so evident in much of the music of his youth.
I think the gulf between the quality of the guitar playing of Mick Taylor and Ronnie Wood is immense, although i think it's fair to say Ronnie was far more impressive when he was in the Faces and didn't have to play a secondary role to Keith. In many ways he has forfeited his own musical journey in joining the Stones, and to a degree i feel for him. Those early tours with the Stones didn't show him off truly in the best light because he was pretty much filling in the Mick Taylor role, as the arrangements were still very much Mick Taylor era based. Taylor's forte isn't shared by Ronnie, although i thought he actually did an admirable job, despite the fact of Mick being a very hard act to follow. It was only really on the 78 and the succeeding 81-82 tours that he could be a little more himself and come into his own, and the Ronnie and Keith method of 'weaving' really came into its own, although i'm tempted to be a little suspectful to the true value of such terms.
I have never really believed Ronnie was the right man for the job of replacing Taylor in purely musical terms, but maybe his temperament had a soothing effect especially within the relationship of Mick and Keith. Musically, he's done very little of any real significance, unlike his predecessors Brian Jones and Mick Taylor, but really neither have the Stones been especially impressive. But as i've said previously, post 1989 i think it's unfair to use him as the scapegoat when the other members of the group have been equally lacking.
Re: Mick Taylor
Posted by:
liddas
()
Date: January 29, 2010 21:22
Quote
Edward Twining
I think the gulf between the quality of the guitar playing of Mick Taylor and Ronnie Wood is immense
You think wrongly. No way Ronnie was a less skilled player than MT.
Two different styles. But two very very personal musicians. Hard to beat both.
C
Re: Mick Taylor
Posted by:
roryfaninva
()
Date: January 29, 2010 21:23
Great post- agreed 100% I always thought the "weaving" concept was hype used to cover for the fact that musical focus was being lost to cringe worthy posing, noodling, and lots of smoke with very little fire. When you listen to gigs from 69-72- when keith takes the lead, Taylor keeps the rhythm going and the sound
stays full and fat. Not just random stabs in between drags off a cigarette, play a bit here, pose a bit there, bend a string and grimace like youre giving birth. Ironic when you consider what a great job Wood did holding it down on his own with the Faces. I do recall an interview where Glyn Johns opined that Wood joining the Stones was a tragic squandering of potential and a demotion to comic foil/second bannana.
stays full and fat. Not just random stabs in between drags off a cigarette, play a bit here, pose a bit there, bend a string and grimace like youre giving birth. Ironic when you consider what a great job Wood did holding it down on his own with the Faces. I do recall an interview where Glyn Johns opined that Wood joining the Stones was a tragic squandering of potential and a demotion to comic foil/second bannana.
Re: Mick Taylor
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: January 29, 2010 23:08
Quote
roryfaninva
Great post- agreed 100% I always thought the "weaving" concept was hype used to cover for the fact that musical focus was being lost to cringe worthy posing, noodling, and lots of smoke with very little fire. When you listen to gigs from 69-72- when keith takes the lead, Taylor keeps the rhythm going and the sound
stays full and fat. Not just random stabs in between drags off a cigarette, play a bit here, pose a bit there, bend a string and grimace like youre giving birth. Ironic when you consider what a great job Wood did holding it down on his own with the Faces. I do recall an interview where Glyn Johns opined that Wood joining the Stones was a tragic squandering of potential and a demotion to comic foil/second bannana.
Weaving schmeaving. Best guitar interplay was '69. The later mythical "weaving" with Keith and Ronnie was a description of two guitars producing a chaotic mishmash...Glyn Johns is a wise man.
Listen to '69 Satisfaction. The guitars are "weaving" all right, but each has a distinct purpose and each plays off the other but never steps over him. They are having a conversation.
Re: Mick Taylor
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: January 29, 2010 23:13
A conclusive argument that needs no addition, Edward. The story of the Stones is a glorious one with also tragic events, regardless of the death of Brian Jones short after his banning of course.
Re: Mick Taylor
Posted by:
Deluxtone
()
Date: January 30, 2010 02:06
Quote
liddasQuote
Edward Twining
I think the gulf between the quality of the guitar playing of Mick Taylor and Ronnie Wood is immense
You think wrongly. No way Ronnie was a less skilled player than MT.
Two different styles. But two very very personal musicians. Hard to beat both.
C
Two different styles, yes.
I opine that it takes more skill to produce Taylor's tone and fluidity than Ronnie's jittery, jaunty patterns.
Mick Taylor has said it took him years of practice (starting from a young age) to achieve what he was aiming at. He aimed high too - he has said that he was aiming at a seemless flowing sound - like a Coltrane sax - in a Blues context.
I get the feeling with Wood (and from things I've read) that he wanted to get in a band and have some fun playing his guitar.
I like Ronnie's style - unique - but I don't think it required the same degree of dedication or the same amount of skill to produce his his 'twangy', 'bendy' sound. I think it's just the best way he could find of expressing himself. It' a bit 'hit and miss' a lot of the time and requires less discipline. Can be great fun though - and imo found its best, brilliant expression in a Faces' context.
I think I prefer Ron's appraoch to bass playing in a Stones' context though!
Re: Mick Taylor
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: January 30, 2010 02:12
It is way more than a difference of styles. There is skill as well as taste involved. Good musicians know what to leave out, as well as leave in, and know not to waste notes. As a guitar player and musician, I feel Ronnie wastes a lot of notes, particularly live. There is little thought or meaning to them. Not always, but often. He was far more nimble with the Faces. The "Maggie May" solo is classic Wood, and there were others, but I feel that was his peak unfortunately.
Re: Mick Taylor
Posted by:
Edward Twining
()
Date: January 30, 2010 08:01
Deluxtone, you make an interesting point concerning Ronnie's bass playing. I believe it was he who played bass on Emotional Rescue (the song), which i have always thought was pretty unique.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-30 08:02 by Edward Twining.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-30 08:02 by Edward Twining.
Re: Mick Taylor
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: January 30, 2010 08:17
Quote
Edward Twining
Deluxtone, you make an interesting point concerning Ronnie's bass playing. I believe it was he who played bass on Emotional Rescue (the song), which i have always thought was pretty unique.
I give Ronnie points for that bass part on Emotional Rescue. Very creative.
Re: Mick Taylor
Posted by:
KeefintheNight82
()
Date: January 30, 2010 09:15
No way one can respond to everything is this thread but...
I don't think they have ever topped the Taylor albums, however I think several of the Wood albums are very very good.
Someone asked what Wood contribution you really like....I like Stripped, I think he plays very well on that record. Also Bridges to babylon, he shines on several songs there too.
I'm gonna go one further than all of the guys who keep wanting Mick Taylor back...I really wish Wood had stayed with Rod Stewart! Woody and Rod were like Mick and Keith and both of them made a grave error in parting ways. They were possibly the best performing/writing duo next to Mick and Keith. In Rock and Roll.
All of their best work was with each other and I often wonder what a rich musical legacy they COULD have built if they both hadn't given up their goals to take an easier road. Probably too late for either of them now to recapture what they had.
I don't think they have ever topped the Taylor albums, however I think several of the Wood albums are very very good.
Someone asked what Wood contribution you really like....I like Stripped, I think he plays very well on that record. Also Bridges to babylon, he shines on several songs there too.
I'm gonna go one further than all of the guys who keep wanting Mick Taylor back...I really wish Wood had stayed with Rod Stewart! Woody and Rod were like Mick and Keith and both of them made a grave error in parting ways. They were possibly the best performing/writing duo next to Mick and Keith. In Rock and Roll.
All of their best work was with each other and I often wonder what a rich musical legacy they COULD have built if they both hadn't given up their goals to take an easier road. Probably too late for either of them now to recapture what they had.
Re: Mick Taylor
Posted by:
KeithNacho
()
Date: January 30, 2010 10:09
Excellent guitar players all 4: KR, BJ, MT and RW. Each one has it 's own style; i even like MJ's . That's what the RS are about
Re: Mick Taylor
Posted by:
Eleanor Rigby
()
Date: January 30, 2010 13:47
the thing is, during the time Mick Taylor was with the band I would get my hands on every live bootleg from 1969 - 1973 and never be disappointed. I would play the shows one after another (even though it was the same setlist) and wait to hear some amazing guitar work - I would never be disappointed or bored. I would play even the most boring songs - i.e. Love In Vain and be amazed !
Unfortunately when Ronnie took over I fast forward Love In Vain all the time, and never really get a kick out of the repetitive shows the bands played.
Unfortunately when Ronnie took over I fast forward Love In Vain all the time, and never really get a kick out of the repetitive shows the bands played.
Re: Mick Taylor
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 30, 2010 14:16
Quote
kleermaker
In fact I've never chopped Ron's head off, neither have I offended others. Okay, there was some quarreling with behroez, but only shortly and no big deal. We're great friend again, actually. Behroez, please confirm!!!
To get back to the topic: my questions were neutral. And they had little or nothing to do with Ron Wood or Mick Taylor.
Sometimes discussions are heated and sharp, but normally they also cool off spontaneously. But I guess I'll better be away for a while. I've written too many posts anyway, these last days.
So see ya!
Personally, I like your posts and ideas, Kleermaker. But regarding the forum policy, I´m just giving you advice what would happen it one stretch it too far here with the Taylor/Wood debate...
Re: Mick Taylor
Posted by:
straycatblues73
()
Date: January 30, 2010 15:01
hilarious post and so true .Quote
roryfaninva
Great post- agreed 100% I always thought the "weaving" concept was hype used to cover for the fact that musical focus was being lost to cringe worthy posing, noodling, and lots of smoke with very little fire. When you listen to gigs from 69-72- when keith takes the lead, Taylor keeps the rhythm going and the sound
stays full and fat. Not just random stabs in between drags off a cigarette, play a bit here, pose a bit there, bend a string and grimace like youre giving birth. Ironic when you consider what a great job Wood did holding it down on his own with the Faces. I do recall an interview where Glyn Johns opined that Wood joining the Stones was a tragic squandering of potential and a demotion to comic foil/second bannana.
i think the best and earliest example (in stereo) of true weaving got to be I Got The Blues
Re: Mick Taylor
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 30, 2010 15:02
Quote
straycatblues73hilarious post and so true .Quote
roryfaninva
Great post- agreed 100% I always thought the "weaving" concept was hype used to cover for the fact that musical focus was being lost to cringe worthy posing, noodling, and lots of smoke with very little fire. When you listen to gigs from 69-72- when keith takes the lead, Taylor keeps the rhythm going and the sound
stays full and fat. Not just random stabs in between drags off a cigarette, play a bit here, pose a bit there, bend a string and grimace like youre giving birth. Ironic when you consider what a great job Wood did holding it down on his own with the Faces. I do recall an interview where Glyn Johns opined that Wood joining the Stones was a tragic squandering of potential and a demotion to comic foil/second bannana.
i think the best and earliest example (in stereo) of true weaving got to be I Got The Blues
Keith plays both of the weaving guitars on the album version, no?
Re: Mick Taylor
Posted by:
Deluxtone
()
Date: January 30, 2010 15:35
Quote
Edward Twining
Deluxtone, you make an interesting point concerning Ronnie's bass playing. I believe it was he who played bass on Emotional Rescue (the song), which i have always thought was pretty unique.
Yes. Break The Spell, Winning Ugly .... loads of other examples.
Mick Taylor did the F File bass pattern - which is fantastic - but I prefer Ronnie's live interpretation of it on Love You Live.
Ofcourse, Ronnie gained a reputation as a bassist a (fair) few years before he gained one (in the Faces) as a guitarist.
Re: Mick Taylor
Posted by:
straycatblues73
()
Date: January 30, 2010 15:46
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
straycatblues73hilarious post and so true .Quote
roryfaninva
Great post- agreed 100% I always thought the "weaving" concept was hype used to cover for the fact that musical focus was being lost to cringe worthy posing, noodling, and lots of smoke with very little fire. When you listen to gigs from 69-72- when keith takes the lead, Taylor keeps the rhythm going and the sound
stays full and fat. Not just random stabs in between drags off a cigarette, play a bit here, pose a bit there, bend a string and grimace like youre giving birth. Ironic when you consider what a great job Wood did holding it down on his own with the Faces. I do recall an interview where Glyn Johns opined that Wood joining the Stones was a tragic squandering of potential and a demotion to comic foil/second bannana.
i think the best and earliest example (in stereo) of true weaving got to be I Got The Blues
Keith plays both of the weaving guitars on the album version, no?
wouldn't think so, classic sounds of both guitarists
Re: Mick Taylor
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: January 30, 2010 15:56
Quote
straycatblues73Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
straycatblues73hilarious post and so true .Quote
roryfaninva
Great post- agreed 100% I always thought the "weaving" concept was hype used to cover for the fact that musical focus was being lost to cringe worthy posing, noodling, and lots of smoke with very little fire. When you listen to gigs from 69-72- when keith takes the lead, Taylor keeps the rhythm going and the sound
stays full and fat. Not just random stabs in between drags off a cigarette, play a bit here, pose a bit there, bend a string and grimace like youre giving birth. Ironic when you consider what a great job Wood did holding it down on his own with the Faces. I do recall an interview where Glyn Johns opined that Wood joining the Stones was a tragic squandering of potential and a demotion to comic foil/second bannana.
i think the best and earliest example (in stereo) of true weaving got to be I Got The Blues
Keith plays both of the weaving guitars on the album version, no?
wouldn't think so, classic sounds of both guitarists
Indeed Straycat, though I miss the true MT-bluesguitar on this one. Great song though. A better performance imo on the 71 Marquee boot, whereon Taylor twice plays a very short but very bluesy solo. Always been sorry that they never played it live (except Marquee 71) in the way they played Love in vain (not their own song) so often.
Re: Mick Taylor
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: January 30, 2010 16:14
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
kleermaker
In fact I've never chopped Ron's head off, neither have I offended others. Okay, there was some quarreling with behroez, but only shortly and no big deal. We're great friend again, actually. Behroez, please confirm!!!
To get back to the topic: my questions were neutral. And they had little or nothing to do with Ron Wood or Mick Taylor.
Sometimes discussions are heated and sharp, but normally they also cool off spontaneously. But I guess I'll better be away for a while. I've written too many posts anyway, these last days.
So see ya!
Personally, I like your posts and ideas, Kleermaker. But regarding the forum policy, I´m just giving you advice what would happen it one stretch it too far here with the Taylor/Wood debate...
Why the need to especially warning me, Dandelion? I've read the rules and I think I haven't broken them. But if you think I did, please let me know concretely which post of mine broke which rule. Here are the rules (the only official ones that have to be followed): [www.iorr.org]. My posts are easy to find.
Do you really think I broke the rules while no one else did, since I begun to post here? I would like to know that, provided you base your opinion soundly. Thanks in advance.
Re: Mick Taylor
Posted by:
straycatblues73
()
Date: January 30, 2010 16:32
Quote
kleermakerQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
kleermaker
In fact I've never chopped Ron's head off, neither have I offended others. Okay, there was some quarreling with behroez, but only shortly and no big deal. We're great friend again, actually. Behroez, please confirm!!!
To get back to the topic: my questions were neutral. And they had little or nothing to do with Ron Wood or Mick Taylor.
Sometimes discussions are heated and sharp, but normally they also cool off spontaneously. But I guess I'll better be away for a while. I've written too many posts anyway, these last days.
So see ya!
Personally, I like your posts and ideas, Kleermaker. But regarding the forum policy, I´m just giving you advice what would happen it one stretch it too far here with the Taylor/Wood debate...
Why the need to especially warning me, Dandelion? I've read the rules and I think I haven't broken them. But if you think I did, please let me know concretely which post of mine broke which rule. Here are the rules (the only official ones that have to be followed): [www.iorr.org]. My posts are easy to find.
Do you really think I broke the rules while no one else did, since I begun to post here? I would like to know that, provided you base your opinion soundly. Thanks in advance.
personally i like to talk about ALL the stones members. can't see why we can't talk about MT AND mr Wood and compare them at the same time, they are both guitarists . no need to insult anyone or any one.
it is unbelievable though how much abuse a bonafide rolling stone like MT gets, what has he done wrong??
just agree to disagree.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-30 17:56 by straycatblues73.
Re: Mick Taylor
Posted by:
winjoe
()
Date: January 30, 2010 17:51
Taylor was great. But his playing towards the end of his tenure with the band started to bug me. Too many notes for my taste. And yes, I love the Brussels show too, but man!...seriously MT, every song doesn't have to be crammed to the gills. (if the songs were fish, that is.)
Knocking the interplay between Keith and Ronnie is just silly. There is definitely a chemistry to their playing that kicks serious ass. And, with Taylor's departure, Keith freed up his playing, forever blurring the line between rhythm and lead.
To each their own, but I prefer Keith's playing post-Taylor. And, Keith's guitar is the lifeblood of the Rolling Stones.
Knocking the interplay between Keith and Ronnie is just silly. There is definitely a chemistry to their playing that kicks serious ass. And, with Taylor's departure, Keith freed up his playing, forever blurring the line between rhythm and lead.
To each their own, but I prefer Keith's playing post-Taylor. And, Keith's guitar is the lifeblood of the Rolling Stones.
Re: Mick Taylor
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: January 30, 2010 18:19
"Knocking the interplay between Keith and Ronnie is just silly." Quote winjoe.
The interplay between K and R is not real interplay but is called 'weaving'. The interplay between K en MT is some sort of counterpoint (like in the string quartets of Mozart for instance), which is musically far more interesting. By "forever blurring the line between rhythm and lead" the band lost a great deal of the melodic and musical greatness it had, especially on stage.
The interplay between K and R is not real interplay but is called 'weaving'. The interplay between K en MT is some sort of counterpoint (like in the string quartets of Mozart for instance), which is musically far more interesting. By "forever blurring the line between rhythm and lead" the band lost a great deal of the melodic and musical greatness it had, especially on stage.
Re: Mick Taylor
Posted by:
winjoe
()
Date: January 30, 2010 19:31
You made a reference to Mozart. Nothing says Rock and Roll like Mozart.
How the hell is what Taylor does throughout the '73 tour interesting? It sounds like he's bored; like he wishes he was playing in a different band....
If only there was proof of this. If only he made some decision in the mid-seventies that.....
Oh, yeah. That's right...he quit the greatest rock and roll band in the world because he was bored.
Taylor was great, but at the end, he didn't fit.
How the hell is what Taylor does throughout the '73 tour interesting? It sounds like he's bored; like he wishes he was playing in a different band....
If only there was proof of this. If only he made some decision in the mid-seventies that.....
Oh, yeah. That's right...he quit the greatest rock and roll band in the world because he was bored.
Taylor was great, but at the end, he didn't fit.
Re: Mick Taylor
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: January 30, 2010 20:00
Quote
winjoe
You made a reference to Mozart. Nothing says Rock and Roll like Mozart.
How the hell is what Taylor does throughout the '73 tour interesting? It sounds like he's bored; like he wishes he was playing in a different band....
If only there was proof of this. If only he made some decision in the mid-seventies that.....
Oh, yeah. That's right...he quit the greatest rock and roll band in the world because he was bored.
Taylor was great, but at the end, he didn't fit.
I referred to Mozart's string quartets because I mentioned the counterpoint that K en MT produced, especially during the 73 tour. That's why MT fitted so well.
Let me try to explain it while using the words of 71Tele, a man who says it always much better than I can. He said this: (quote 71Tele):
"Weaving schmeaving. Best guitar interplay was '69. The later mythical "weaving" with Keith and Ronnie was a description of two guitars producing a chaotic mishmash...Glyn Johns is a wise man.
Listen to '69 Satisfaction. The guitars are "weaving" all right, but each has a distinct purpose and each plays off the other but never steps over him. They are having a conversation." End of quote
They are having a conversation, and that's exactly what you hear when you listen to those string quartets. MT and K had it imo always when they played together, sometimes more, sometimes less. In songs as Midnight rambler, Gimme shelter etc. you can hear that very clearly. "Having a conversation", telling a story, those are essential parts of music, wether it concerns Mozart or the Rolling Stones.
Btw Mozart rocks. Go to one of his great operas and you'll experience it.
"Wolfgang's vaults". No coincidence, the name of Wolfgang.
Re: Mick Taylor
Posted by:
winjoe
()
Date: January 30, 2010 20:19
Suffice to say we disagree.
And, suffice to say that your request that I "listen" to Satisfaction from 1969 is laughably ignorant and, frankly, a bit @#$%&-ish.
And, this will apparently come as a shock to you, but people other than yourself have gone to these...what did you call them...Operas? Some of us have experienced quite a few of them.
What any of them have to do with Gimme Shelter remains to be heard.
Also, do you compare all music you like to Mozart, or is it the other way around?
And the "Wolfgang's Vaults" bit?..Pricelessly condescending!!
Maybe, just maybe, there are people out there who know every bit as much about music as you do, (some, even more!!) and maybe, just maybe, they have different opinions than you do!
And, suffice to say that your request that I "listen" to Satisfaction from 1969 is laughably ignorant and, frankly, a bit @#$%&-ish.
And, this will apparently come as a shock to you, but people other than yourself have gone to these...what did you call them...Operas? Some of us have experienced quite a few of them.
What any of them have to do with Gimme Shelter remains to be heard.
Also, do you compare all music you like to Mozart, or is it the other way around?
And the "Wolfgang's Vaults" bit?..Pricelessly condescending!!
Maybe, just maybe, there are people out there who know every bit as much about music as you do, (some, even more!!) and maybe, just maybe, they have different opinions than you do!
Re: Mick Taylor
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: January 30, 2010 20:28
Quote
winjoe
Suffice to say we disagree.
And, suffice to say that your request that I "listen" to Satisfaction from 1969 is laughably ignorant and, frankly, a bit @#$%&-ish.
And, this will apparently come as a shock to you, but people other than yourself have gone to these...what did you call them...Operas? Some of us have experienced quite a few of them.
What any of them have to do with Gimme Shelter remains to be heard.
Also, do you compare all music you like to Mozart, or is it the other way around?
And the "Wolfgang's Vaults" bit?..Pricelessly condescending!!
Maybe, just maybe, there are people out there who know every bit as much about music as you do, (some, even more!!) and maybe, just maybe, they have different opinions than you do!
Suffice to say we disagree...
Re: Mick Taylor
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: January 30, 2010 20:40
<< Taylor was great, but at the end, he didn't fit. >>
And how, sir, does mugging and hacking away at your instrument with no rhyme or reason "fit"? I would respect the views of the Wood Apologists much more if the quality of the playing of their hero compared in the slightest with Taylor. In that case we would merely be preferring different styles. Such is not the case, however.
And how, sir, does mugging and hacking away at your instrument with no rhyme or reason "fit"? I would respect the views of the Wood Apologists much more if the quality of the playing of their hero compared in the slightest with Taylor. In that case we would merely be preferring different styles. Such is not the case, however.
Re: Mick Taylor
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: January 30, 2010 20:43
Well, I think the point is that Woody fits in with Keith. Keith's mugging and posing and his silliness. At least Ronnie is funny.
Re: Mick Taylor
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: January 30, 2010 20:46
Quote
skipstone
Well, I think the point is that Woody fits in with Keith. Keith's mugging and posing and his silliness. At least Ronnie is funny.
Again, this is not a musical argument and we are not reviewing a comedy troupe. But I understand (as I have said before) that Ronnie is preferred by many for reasons that have nothing to do with musicianship. I don't think Ronnie is funny, by the way, unless you consider borderline-pathetic "funny". His sidekick role with Keith in fact diminished him as a musician and a person. It is rather sad. But many people enyoy the Ronnie Wood Show, I certainly acknowledge that.
Re: Mick Taylor
Posted by:
Lightnin'
()
Date: January 30, 2010 21:26
Quote
kleermaker
Btw Mozart rocks. Go to one of his great operas and you'll experience it.
"Wolfgang's vaults". No coincidence, the name of Wolfgang.
Not to be funny or anything, but the collection of merchandise and live music you are referring to is named for Wolodia Grajonca - to most people he is known as Bill Graham, the famous concert promoter.
In his early years Grajonca, who was growing up in an orphanage in Berlin, got the nickname Wolfgang. Wolodia's family were Jewish Russians who had emigrated to Germany and his mother placed him in the orphanage to escape from the nazis.
His father died 2 days after his birth. Grajonca had many siblings but only a few survived the holocaust. His mother was killed in Auschwitz.
Grajonca ended up living in a foster home in the Bronx, New York. He got bullied because of his German accent. He opened the phone book and checked which name would have come right next to his family name: Graham.
During his career in the music business, Bill Graham built up a vast collection of vintage concert posters, memorabilia, and audio recordings.
After he was killed in a helicopter crash in 1991 in California, Bill Graham's Archives were bought by Bill Sagan (an insurance company CEO) and formed the basis for "Wolfgang's vault", worth millions of dollars now.
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-30 21:38 by Lightnin'.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
ARB , BeastyBurdeny , Dan , DEmerson , detroitken , DiegoGlimmerStones , djrambler , downagain , EddieByword , erad , erbissell , fedecarp , FeelslikeaGhost , FloresMuertas , FoolToCry , GAFF , GJB , goinhome , HotStuff92 , JordyLicks96 , keef62 , kkhoranstoned , leteyer , Martin90 , maumau , mgmiller , midimannz , mrpaulincanada , Olive , perkmo , portlandphil , Putty , Ram , randallsdad , rebelhipi , RnT , Rocknroll1969 , rogerriffin , Rokyfan , RollingFreak , roryg , shattered , Sir Mick , soundboard , Stonesfan13 , teleblaster , The Sicilian , tommycharles , TW2019 , UNCSTONE , vancouver , waterrats , werther2003 , witterings , Woz
Guests:
2659
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10